Since Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) took office, public discontent and political instability have been aroused over the increase in oil prices, the green card controversy, increased school tuition fees and the plan to stimulate the economy. Public criticism of the Cabinet centers on its members being elitist doctoral degree holders who ignore the wishes of ordinary people and lack sincerity and the ability to communicate their agenda.
However, Liu is no elitist. He is a clever man with political integrity. Former president of National Tsing Hua University Frank Hsu (徐遐生), a world renowned astronomer and physicist, once said Liu was the smartest Taiwanese he had ever met. Many familiar with Taiwanese politics believe the outcome of the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004 might have been different if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had adopted Liu’s reform suggestions.
The fact that this Cabinet of technocrats, despite being led by the politically experienced Liu, has encountered a series of hardships reflects a deeper crisis of governance. The key here is the branch of study Liu helped initiate after returning to the university to teach eight years ago — science, technology and society.
The political education that Liu and many of his technocrat Cabinet members received was based on a kind of “expertocracy” that developed from a foundation of science and technology that goes as far back as the Enlightenment.
In an expertocracy, “science” and “politics” are separate branches of knowledge that should not distort each other for the sake of policy.
When the elected political elite promotes major public infrastructure projects, the expertise of scientists serves as an important basis for making decisions and also provides the legitimacy politicians need to achieve their goals. Furthermore, the general public is basically considered by politicians to be ignorant, irrational and uneducated. This is also why opponents of a political approach stress the importance of going beyond populism and respecting technical expertise in an attempt to seek rational policies in a society filled with conflicts of interest.
National Taiwan University president Lee Si-chen (李嗣涔) insisted recently on raising tuition fees despite pressure not to do so. His action reflects the mindset that the authority of experts must be safeguarded and that the truth must override politics.
Advanced countries have gradually abandoned a scientifc approach to resolving disputes, turning to the concept of “scientific governance.” The reason is simple.
With the emergence of new technologies, the endless challenges posed by globalization and the power of democracy seeping into every aspect of life, disputes over nuclear power plants, the Suhua Freeway, the Lo-sheng sanatorium, reservoirs and steelworks and other public projects have become controversial.
Safeguarding environmental and social justice, respecting the wishes of local residents and encouraging public participation while pursuing economic and technological development poses a great challenges in public policy and social development.
Liu’s fellow technocrats may be unaware that technology has been embedded in an environment teeming with political uncertainty, heated public debate, a variety of opinions and complex social decisions. The most important issue that science, technology and society should discuss is what this new “science governance” should contain and its consequences.
This new way of thinking eliminates the blind spots of traditional expertocracy and technical policy and clearly recognizes that governing a country is not just the business of experts or the government, but must involve technological and business institutions, social organizations, pressure groups and the general public.
More importantly, honesty, ability and public discourse are only elements of democratic politics. A democratic government can no longer independently lead society toward a single goal. Instead it plays a vital role in a decentralized network where power is constantly changing.
In scientific governance, technological elites understand that technology itself is a source of risk and uncertainty. The core values of an expertocracy — including rationality, efficiency, universality and centralized power — must deal with diversity, localization, aesthetics and ambiguity — all values affirmed by the new pluralistic politics — and other challenges posed by modern lifestyles and creativity.
Above all, in addition to a deep understanding of the complex relation between technology and politics, or between experts and society, scientific governance must employ political imagination and establish a creative “boundary organization” to maintain the professional autonomy of the academic community and the bureaucracy and to integrate the values and concerns of a diverse society to achieve a win-win situation.
Liu’s problems, non-partisan in kind, are testing the wisdom and determination of Taiwan as it moves toward becoming a more mature and advanced country.
Wu Chyuan-yuan is the director of the Center for Science, Technology and Society at National Tsing-Hua University.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
In a Taipei Times editorial published almost three years ago (“Macron goes off-piste,” April 13, 2023, page 8), French President Emmanuel Macron was criticized for comments he made immediately after meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing. Macron had spoken of the need for his country to find a path on Chinese foreign policy no longer aligned with that of the US, saying that continuing to follow the US agenda would sacrifice the EU’s strategic autonomy. At the time, Macron was criticized for gifting Xi a PR coup, and the editorial said that he had been “persuaded to run
The wrap-up press event on Feb. 1 for the new local period suspense film Murder of the Century (世紀血案), adapted from the true story of the Lin family murders (林家血案) in 1980, has sparked waves of condemnation in the past week, as well as a boycott. The film is based on the shocking, unsolved murders that occurred at then-imprisoned provincial councilor and democracy advocate Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) residence on Feb. 28, 1980, while Lin was detained for his participation in the Formosa Incident, in which police and protesters clashed during a pro-democracy rally in Kaohsiung organized by Formosa Magazine on Dec.
RSS