Legislative Speaker Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全) led a delegation of legislators to Japan earlier this month, making a welcome contribution to foreign relations. However, the activities of certain legislators on the visit have drawn accusations that they blurred the line between public and private spheres.
Such transgressions are commonplace in Taiwan and are even perfectly normal in many people’s eyes. If the criticisms lead people to reflect on this phenomenon and seek improvements, that would be a good thing.
Human progress aims to pursue and protect individual rights and freedoms, but individuals are members of society and must follow the basic social rule of not infringing on the rights and freedoms of others. However, in real life Taiwanese often fail to separate public and private affairs, even allowing their private interests to detract from the public good.
It is so common for politicians to misuse government money or use public projects for private profit that people might think nothing of it. It is hardly newsworthy if somebody calls an ambulance when they could make their own way to hospital, or if people trekking in the mountains use rescue helicopters as a quick way to get back down.
Pedestrian crossings seem to be just for decoration, while people ride scooters and bicycles in the wrong direction or along the sidewalk. Drivers do not like giving way when they turn left — they would rather speed up to get through first. When drivers park illegally at the side of the road or at bus stops, they blame a lack of parking spaces.
People who live on the top floor of older apartment blocks occupy the roof space for themselves, while those on the ground floor treat the basement as their own. In newer blocks, it is common for residents to build balcony extensions.
Being rowdy or having loud telephone conversations on public transport, polluting the air by burning ghost money and filling the neighborhood with cooking smells are other common selfish acts.
Taiwanese have not always been so unruly. The generation who grew up under Japanese rule received an education that stressed moral cultivation. They learned not to spit and urinate in random places and to maintain good hygiene and a smart appearance. They got into the habit of being quiet and polite instead of rowdy, and of being considerate instead of causing trouble.
This kind of education fostered self-discipline and personal cultivation, and it shows itself in the social civility that is characteristic of that generation.
Unfortunately, the Chinese culture that took over in the post-World War II years paid scant heed to this basic training. Learning for life gave way to the pursuit of qualifications and further education. Later on, the generations who did not receive adequate education for life have themselves become parents and teachers, so their attitudes of putting oneself first and ignoring the needs of others have become ever more widespread. As a result, Taiwanese still lag behind more advanced societies in terms of civility.
Some encouraging developments have been seen in recent years, such as not eating or drinking in mass rapid transit systems, standing to one side on escalators and not grabbing priority seats. These courtesies are at least a good beginning.
If Taiwan is to become a truly civilized society, people must learn to exercise self-discipline and draw a clear line between public and private affairs. Some Japanese-educated people are still with us as role models. However, as that generation fades into history, people will have to think for themselves about how to make things better.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Julian Clegg
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
On May 13, the Legislative Yuan passed an amendment to Article 6 of the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法) that would extend the life of nuclear reactors from 40 to 60 years, thereby providing a legal basis for the extension or reactivation of nuclear power plants. On May 20, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) legislators used their numerical advantage to pass the TPP caucus’ proposal for a public referendum that would determine whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should resume operations, provided it is deemed safe by the authorities. The Central Election Commission (CEC) has
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS