Embarrassing discourse
A recent experience proved the spirit of Taiwan’s democracy is still alive and strong; unfortunately, polarization followed closely behind seeking to thwart its achievements.
Earlier this month, leading Taiwanese and foreign academics attended a symposium in Taipei to discuss Taiwan’s international status. I was lucky enough to be invited. From the opening remarks and personal introductions, both sides’ enthusiasm to learn from the other filled the room, creating an atmosphere of scholarship and goodwill.
The circle of professors, research fellows and political advisors from around the world conversed as a diverse yet collaborative intellectual body about Taiwan’s political climate, policies and agenda for the future. Ideas were presented, assessed and enhanced from different perspectives. This scene demonstrated the vibrancy and vitality of Taiwan’s democracy.
However, when the symposium moved toward discussion of Taiwan’s domestic politics — specifically, the friction between its two main political parties as the primary impediment in the advancement of its national agendas — the positive dialogue abruptly degenerated into baseless accusations and irrelevant misrepresentations.
The furor was incited by the following question, posed by a foreign academic: “How can the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] and the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] move toward reconciliation?” Instead of continuing their collaboration, the Taiwanese panel began arguing among themselves over a response.
The foreigners watched, uncomfortable, perplexed and ultimately ignored as panel members presented their own critiques of parties and politicians. It was clear to me that the panel members were not listening to their guests or to each other.
I saw a room full of whiny schoolchildren desperately trying to redirect blame from themselves onto others. My appreciation quickly turned to embarrassment and most of all, frustration.
Had one foreign academic not boldly interrupted the dispute and requested a return to order, the Taiwanese likely would have continued their debate, wasting the opportunity to learn from their guests and embarrassing themselves further. While order was eventually restored, the outburst changed the tone of the symposium. It turned the foreign academics into disciplinarians rather than colleagues.
If Taiwan wishes to be taken seriously on the international stage, its leaders and opinion makers must go all-out to ensure the chaotic scene I witnessed is not repeated. They must not allow personal sentiments and party allegiances to consume progress or tarnish Taiwan’s international reputation.
Especially now, with its international status facing rising challenges, Taiwan’s leaders must learn collaboration and unity from within before they can expect to achieve the same abroad.
TERESA TARN
Taipei
Ideology as bad tricks?
When the plaque of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (中正紀念堂) was put back by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government, the debates about Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) totalitarianism and democracy rose again. Just two years ago, the decision by former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) administration to rename the hall as the “National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall” provoked a fierce protest. This time the Ma government kept a low profile in changing the plaque. While such action might be interpreted as low-key, it does not stop the ideological debate over how Chiang and his era should be evaluated.
The “Talking about headlines” section on tw.yahoo.com invites browsers to express their opinion about this event. What’s interesting is that these comments show either zealous ideology or indifference to both sides. While some commenters strongly defend Chiang’s contribution to Taiwan, claiming that if not for him, Taiwan would have been occupied by the People’s Republic of China decades ago, others compare him to Adolf Hitler, suggesting he is a symbol of totalitarianism. These comments do not show new ideas, but reflect the typical pan-blue and pan-green discourse.
What concerns me is not the pan-blue or the pan-green ideologies, but the third wave of reaction — indifference. More Taiwanese are growing tired of the vicious competition between the KMT and DPP, seeing through the political and ideological manipulation of both. It is a pity that what follows their acknowledgement of the discursive operation is not the ability to mediate or transcend the discourse, but skepticism and nihilism.
After decades of enthusiasm about politics and elections, many Taiwanese have cooled down, claiming that these arguments are nothing but political tricks. At a certain level, such an interpretation is right. Politics in Taiwan, more often than not, looks like a bad drama. But a question I would like to pose is: What country is immune to ideologies?
“Ideology” can be interpreted as a post-modern term of “belief,” a key concept to give directions to a nation. Each country is built upon the communal beliefs of its people, as the US was established on the wonderful dream that everyone living in that country enjoys the same rights and opportunities.
While the ideologies and discourses deployed by the KMT and DPP might be black tricks for many, we still need to build an ideology for all Taiwanese. Ideology is the vital foundation of an independent nation. It is a pity that Ma, insisting on a certain ideology, does not seize the chance to communicate with Taiwanese and has to rely on the police to prevent protests.
Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊), on the other hand, has proven her flexibility and willingness to accept different ideologies and to create a new mode of ideology for Taiwanese. The World Games in Kaohsiung won great acclaim and provided a new ideology and a new vision for Taiwanese. Politics can be more than bad tricks, and Chen Chu and her Kaohsiung Organizing Committee for the Games proved this. Ideology can be enthusiastic, passionate and non-confrontational.
PHYLLIS HUANG
Carlton, Australia
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
Within Taiwan’s education system exists a long-standing and deep-rooted culture of falsification. In the past month, a large number of “ghost signatures” — signatures using the names of deceased people — appeared on recall petitions submitted by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) against Democratic Progressive Party legislators Rosalia Wu (吳思瑤) and Wu Pei-yi (吳沛憶). An investigation revealed a high degree of overlap between the deceased signatories and the KMT’s membership roster. It also showed that documents had been forged. However, that culture of cheating and fabrication did not just appear out of thin air — it is linked to the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS