“Suggestions” in the sense of questions or opinions directed toward the government — including all government agencies up to the president — can be publicly promoted in letters submitted to media as editorials or political commentaries, but they can also be made in private communications.
Are such suggestions useful? It can be concluded with great confidence that the absolute majority never receive an official response.
Even those who make the suggestions often do not believe that their suggestions will be adopted. Knowing that, why do people still bother to put them forward? Just like demands for freedom of expression, this is one of the mysterious aspects of human nature.
Some suggestions sound reasonable, but it is still unlikely that they will be adopted. The reason is complicated. The formal justification is that there is “no budget” or that there are “legal difficulties.”
There is also the bureaucratic culture of “the less trouble the better” — the way we do things has always worked well, so why change?
It is one more task and people are too lazy to do it.
In addition, adopting the suggestions of strangers seems to imply that we are incompetent; we would lose face and our self-esteem does not allow that to happen.
Some governments, for instance in the US, seem less likely to respond to public suggestions, but treat responding to private letters as a matter of public relations.
The US Department of State has staff dedicated to replying to such letters. Countless letters from all over the world — unless they are abusive, obscene or unreasonable, or ask for money, — receive a polite and vague response.
If a Taiwanese person writes a suggestion in all earnestness to the US president, they are likely to receive a polite and ambiguous reply. If the person shows off the letter to boast of having directly communicated with the US president, that would be farcical.
Does this really mean that it is useless to make suggestions? Not necessarily.
Suggestions create an awareness of an issue; reading suggestions can create a more in-depth understanding of a problem and increase knowledge, which can enlighten the public. To enrich civic knowledge is to improve the knowledge of society as a whole.
This is why I was so candid about Taiwan’s first direct presidential election in 1996.
Despite knowing that I would not be elected, I still decided to run for president because I knew that the general public had been brainwashed for many years, so they could not see that there was an alternative path.
I took the opportunity to break this long-standing idea, and I hope that my actions left some trace that remain today.
All public suggestions help broaden the public’s view and fill a social function.
I appeal to the public to not let itself be discouraged and to keep making their suggestions. God bless everyone.
Peng Ming-min was an adviser to former president Chen Shui-bian.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS