Mon, Mar 26, 2012 page8

• Self-censorship and ROC’s legacy

  • By Philippe McKay
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  “Consciously or unconsciously, people censor themselves — they don’t need to be called into line.”

  This Pierre Bourdieu quote seems to be quite fitting in describing behavior that can only be seen as normative in regards to the internal workings of Taiwanese politics and government. Although much of his work is focused within a French context, it will not escape observers of Taiwanese society that Taiwan has decision-makers who regularly disassociate themselves from the actions of their subordinates. Naturally, Taiwanese leaders communicate well-patented public messages of ignorance with the full knowledge that their subordinates take their cues from superiors.

  During this year’s election, Minister of Finance Christina Liu (劉憶如) and her TaiMed campaign was explained away by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his running mate, vice president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), as not being under the influence of those who are responsible for her patronage. Now, another arm of the government, the Council of Agriculture (COA), has been exposed as not fulfilling its own responsibilities in favor of political considerations. It is possibly an unfortunate circumstance for Taiwanese society that the media limits itself only to the COA because undoubtedly the very same behavior is practiced in every part of the Taiwanese governmental system. Yet, even the opposition does not seem to be looking at this as a -comprehensive issue that goes to the roots of how the bureaucracy and the executive of government are structured within the Republic of China (ROC), which ensures specific behavioral patterns. Rather, their messages seem to take on the appearance of playing for political points.

  The current series of missteps involving food safety seem to have occurred during the recent electoral campaign. Interestingly, the media does not frame it as a clear example of undue influence from ambitious entities.

  That said, one should not be able to ignore that it looks very much like the Ma administration allowed the resources of the bureaucracy to be used to help secure Ma’s re-election by having the bureaucracy put out messages attempting to damage the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and sweeping under the carpet issues that could negatively affect Ma’s administration. Thankfully, the election campaign is over, because if it was not, these safety issues would likely still be shelved.

  Self-censorship is part and parcel of politics. The current scandal in food safety is not simply an event, but a process of failures derived not just from patterns of self-censorship, but also from the legacy of how the ROC was conceived as a system and how its relationship with society in general was perceived. Government offices that continue to operate in isolation from each other are regularly exposed to political forces bound by patronage. This ensures that each department of the Taiwanese bureaucracy will only be able to present a facade of fulfilling their duties. One could never expect them to be able fulfill the spirit of those responsibilities because autonomy is clearly absent.

  The Chinese milk scandal that began before the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and was only revealed afterward might also have implications for Taiwanese food safety. If one remembers, Taiwanese officials said milk products were safe in Taiwan and that the melamine issue was exclusively a “Chinese” problem.

  A few years later, Taiwanese officials were caught with their pants down when plasticizers were found in Taiwanese processed foods. Obviously, their investigation was completely inadequate in real terms, although official actions quelled questions, allowing energy to be directed toward other political goals. Interestingly, ractopamine presents a new cycle of the same issue in which it is framed as a foreign problem.

  However, it has become increasingly clear as the issue heats up that additives in meat is a Taiwanese problem as well, thus exposing the government to criticism once again. This is clearly a systemic regulatory problem that can only be because of the way the ROC is structured. The bureaucracy does not see citizens as it -primary responsibility. Rather, the bureaucracy solely focuses on its political superiors and those seeking to do business.

  That said, the current meat controversy reflects what the presence of a relatively independent media can do in Taiwan. Government blunders are being highlighted and it is forcing politicians to be responsive to the needs of Taiwanese.

  However, there is a long way to go. One should not think that things will change any time soon because government movement on food safety is occurring under the umbrella of one specific goal: To secure enough legitimacy to facilitate a political environment in which the Ma administration can secure a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the US.

  An FTA with the US is likely in Taiwan’s best interest. However, it is glaringly obvious that Ma sees food safety as secondary to the overall economy as he has subordinates censor themselves in an effort to dilute any message against ractopamine.

  The DPP is not helping, either. It is clear that the government’s intention is to give the American Institute in Taiwan what it is pushing for, so that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can recycle its “new” version of economic benefits for Taiwanese for the next election as the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement did for this year’s presidential race.

  Philippe McKay is a graduate student at National Sun Yat-sen University.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwan places military on high alert

  • 2

    China warships near Taiwan nearly doubles

  • 3

    Flights arranged for Taiwanese stranded in Okinawa

  • 4

    Taiwan in Time: The Collector of historic buildings

  • 5

    Intel needs a core business strategy: Morris Chang