I wonder what would happen if a Japanese official were to talk about “high-class Japanese.” Imagine how offended people in other Asian countries would be.
What if a US government official were exposed by members of Congress as having, over months and years, used a pseudonym to post on the Internet articles full of racial prejudice? Think what an uproar that would cause.
Of course communities that felt insulted would react angrily. It would be quite reasonable for them to call on the government to condemn such prejudice. That is the point. Freedom of speech has its limits. Public indignation and government denunciation of inflammatory language should not be equated with “state repression” or “McCarthyism.”
All people are born equal and should respect one another — these are fundamental values that no culture, political power or ideology today can deny. However, where there are differences, there will be prejudice. French jokes about Germans could fill volumes. New Yorkers look down on people from New Jersey. Shanghainese are disliked by people from all other parts of China.
The faster a society is changing and the more complex and plural it is, the more likely prejudice is to appear. People use prejudice to console themselves when they have trouble adapting to change. Prejudice is the voice of those who feel helpless in the face of overwhelming social forces.
It is no surprise, then, that Taiwan — a society of migrants — should be replete with all kinds of prejudice dividing people along the lines of “us and them.” Terms like “savages,” “Taiwan slackers,” “mainlander pigs” and “Chinese chicks” are witness to the narrow-minded attitudes among us. That those who are targeted by such taunts are able to redefine them with new cultural connotations is, on the other hand, an expression of Taiwanese society’s tolerance and sense of humor.
Why, then, are people making such a fuss about the nasty things diplomat Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英), or the pseudonymous Fan Lan-chin (范蘭欽), has written over the years in blog posts about Taiwan and those who advocate independence?
If the author were just any man or woman on the street, there would be little cause for complaint. More prejudiced and more hate-filled postings than these abound, be they from those in favor of or opposed to independence for Taiwan. It is a necessary evil in a democratic and pluralistic society that allows freedom of expression, since it allows people holding all kinds of opinions to see the blind spots in their arguments. No matter which party is in power, the government need not and should not interfere in such activities.
Kuo, however, is a high-ranking civil servant. His case raises two questions on which the government of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) must take a solemn stand. First, civil servants must be loyal to their country, and they must treat all their compatriots equally and without discrimination. If they fail to do so, then one must ask whether they are fit to serve. That is why the Government Information Office transferred Kuo to another post, told him to make a public apology and handed the case over to the Commission on the Disciplinary Sanctions of Functionaries (公懲會) for further investigation.
Second, in a civilized society, a political force that has or may gain control over state organs must uphold the basic values of equality and mutual respect between different social groups. That is why those groups that feel insulted are calling on the Ma government to clearly dissociate itself from prejudice and the politics of hate. If the government fails to take such a stand, it will be unable to allay suspicions that it is willing to tolerate the likes of Fan Lan-chin.
During the eight years in which the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) occupied the presidency, society called on the DPP’s leaders to firmly distance itself from pro-DPP politicians and officials like Lin Chung-mo (林重謨) and Tsai Chi-fang (蔡啟芳) when they used offensive language, and from grass-roots DPP supporters who held placards reading “Chinese pigs” at street demonstrations.
When Chuang Kuo-jung (莊國榮), secretary-general of the Ministry of Education under the DPP administration, used misogynist language and publicly insulted Ma Ying-jeou’s father while speaking off duty at an election meeting, no one in the DPP sought to cover up his shortcomings. The DPP denounced Chuang in no uncertain terms and he resigned from his post that very evening.
Still, the DPP paid a heavy price for Chuang’s irresponsible pronouncements in last year’s presidential election, because a civilized society is wary of letting prejudice and hate creep into the state apparatus.
A democratic society must protect citizens’ freedom of expression — even the freedom to express their prejudices. At the same time, however, it must prevent prejudice from seeping into the machinery of government. That is why since World War II, democratic countries — regardless of whether a liberal or conservative party is in power — do not tolerate officials using hate speech. If any official should do so, the government will be expected to denounce the official concerned and remove him or her from office.
Today in Taiwan the public has the same expectations of the ruling Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), just as it had of the DPP when it was in power. Intolerance for prejudice in the corridors of power is not a mark of totalitarianism — on the contrary, it is a rejection of it.
Tao Yi-feng is an associate professor of political science at National Taiwan University.
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
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
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
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
RSS