In the period following the flood damage caused by Tropical Storm Mindulle early last month, Vice President Annette Lu (
This issue will not be a matter that goes away after a lively one-time protest. At the very least, the protesting Aboriginal peoples have already announced that Lu will not be welcome in any of their traditional areas. The media are waiting with anticipation, eager to see where Lu will go on her next inspection tour. More important, however, is the matter of social education: Have we learned anything from this incident?
Perhaps this question could be approached from the point of view of Lu's two different positions: her role as a politician, and her role as head of the President's Advisory Group on Human Rights.
As a politician, her persistence in refusing to acknowledge having made a mistake and offer an apology has already reached a point where political common sense has gone out the window.
Take, for example, her comments on land over-exploitation and emigration. It is in fact true that she did not single out Aborigines, but doesn't it amount to the same thing if you talk about "southerners" behaving in this or that manner in a situation with many people from Tainan present, and then insist that one wasn't talking about people from Tainan?
Consider her well-known statement about the relationship between "being a human being" and "being a woman." In 1971 she said that one should "be a human being first, then be (a man or) a woman." Perhaps she should also make an argument for the relationship between "being a human being" and "being a vice president."
This is first and foremost a problem of facts. It is inconceivable that Aborigines wouldn't have taken part in the over-exploitation of land and excessive logging.
However, harvesting fruit and vegetables from the mountainous areas, and constructing villas, are big businesses requiring much capital and equipment, as well as an excellent relationship between business and political circles.
Although Aborigines in the mountainous areas suffer from landslides, it is also inconceivable that they would be the main culprits behind the destruction of the environment. (Maybe, at this moment, the real culprits are sitting in their luxurious apartments on the plains making telephone calls "to show their concern" regarding the disaster.) But leave that aside.
Leave aside as well the fact that Lu didn't express herself clearly. Following the protests, she can rely on metaphysics or legal arguments to justify continuing to refuse discussing and apologizing for her comments.
Courts will prove that she never once used the words "Aboriginal peoples." But even without pondering who is right and who is wrong, we cannot help wondering what the difference is between Lu and Feng Ting-kuo (
Apart from being a poor reflection on her political wisdom, Lu's comments about "black pygmies" being the first inhabitants of Taiwan are also relevant to her position as head of the President's Advisory Group on Human Rights.
Here, we have to start out from President Chen Shui-bian's (
They should not simply be one of many ethnic groups, nor should all Aboriginal peoples be lumped together and reduced to one of the five ethnic groups under Lu's Sun Yat-sen (
The killings, plundering, cheating and exploitation suffered by indigenous peoples over more than 500 years -- counting from Christopher Columbus' "discovery" of the "new" world -- constitute a problem of morality and justice that remains unsolved by the world community.
Until we face up to and resolve this problem, any just and strong declaration by any civilization, people or country will inevitably sound hollow and hypocritical.
Every one of us, excepting the 300 million Aboriginal peoples around the world, is an accomplice. Precisely because of this, and because too many interests are affected, no country, nor the UN, has faced up to this problem in earnest, despite the fact that we are living in the "era of human rights."
But what could be more savage and more tragic than plundering Aboriginal peoples of almost everything they had?
Still, the post-war universalization of human rights has still paved the way: In the early 1990s, we finally saw progress.
The document most representative of this change is 1994's UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Although the declaration has yet to be adopted, it has already led to a significant change in the world community's thinking about Aborigines, and has impacted related policies. Chen's promise of a "semi-state-to-state" partnership with Aborigines is just one example.
The draft UN declaration doesn't just recognize the fact that the human rights and the sovereignty of Aboriginal peoples have been abused for at least the past several hundred years -- in particular, by the seizing of land and resources necessary for both human rights and sovereignty.
The draft also proposes principles on how to resolve the question of maintaining and respecting the rights to culture, welfare, land, development and political participation of the surviving Aborigines.
Article 27 of the 1966 UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights already includes protection of minorities. The reason that the draft declaration on Aboriginal peoples' rights is still required is that it highlights the unique situation of Aboriginal peoples compared to other minorities or disadvantaged groups.
The ideal of self-administration for Aboriginal peoples, part of Chen's "semi-state-to-state" promise to Aborigines, is therefore both visionary and international in its character.
It is very different from the implementation of a Sun Yat-sen style republic of five nationalities, and it proposes a new direction in which progress can be made toward solving the problems left over by the previous government.
Consider the following questions: Why don't the Aboriginal peoples enjoy even the status of the racial groups of the frontier regions in the Constitution, and how are "frontier regions" and the corresponding center defined?
Why is it that the Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission is a participant in Cabinet meetings, but the Council of Indigenous Peoples is not?
What Sinicized prejudices are embodied in the division between lowland Aboriginal peoples and highland Aboriginal peoples? And what divisive effect do the related electoral districts have?
Why don't Aboriginal peoples have the right to define themselves, instead of being divided into administrative regions forced upon them by an alien regime?
These are all old questions, predating the new issues recognized in the UN draft declaration on indigenous peoples' rights.
It's not that Lu has no understanding of these issues. But her "black pygmies" statement makes one feel that even if she does have some understanding, it seems to go no further than political rhetoric.
The article she published in lieu of an apology, "Respect the heavens, care for the land, love the people" merely served to reveal a further weakness: although she is the president's main adviser on human rights issues, she doesn't compare with the president himself.
After reflecting on her misfortunes, she proposed compassionate political programs, which were limited to the right to welfare in the UN draft declaration, or her use of Sun Yat-sen's republic of five nationalities.
These proposals only proved that Lu, who prides herself on her understanding of the international situation, has no grasp of global trends.
But most surprising, although she mentions in her article a third generation of human rights advocacy, she doesn't want the words "Aboriginal peoples" to pass her lips.
She should realize that this term is used in international human rights documents. What's more, the additional article in the Constitution dealing with Aboriginal peoples also says that the state shall, in accordance with the wishes of the peoples, guarantee the status and political participation of Aboriginal peoples.
The members of the nation's 12 Aboriginal peoples who protested around the island on July 24 also define themselves in the same way. Does this mean that there is fundamental problem with dignity?
In terms of the standard of this nation's political culture, the above are of course but "flaws." Unfortunately, from her comments on over-exploitation of land and emigration to the "black pygmies," reference, or the reference to Aborigines "singing and dancing during their protest" in her article, Lu has not showed sufficient sensitivity to the indigenous peoples.
The incidents have accumulated and each has aggravated the situation further. This hurts ethnic harmony, which was developing in a positive direction.
A saying by an ancient Greek philosopher, Heraclitus -- "A man's character is his destiny" -- is sometimes used to describe Lu. I disagree.
Regardless, her status as a politician holding the position of vice president, and her status as head of the President's Advisory Group on Human Rights both represent a certain moral and political loftiness.
The trouble that the media and politicians can stir up can also be predicted to a certain extent.
Lu is a very clever person. We still hope that, after some soul-searching, she will be able to both display empathy and improve herself.
Peter Ng is a national policy adviser to the president and a consultant at the Taiwan Association for Human Rights.
Translated by Perry Svensson
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS