"As is above, so is below." The ancient idea from alchemy that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm is a lesson that Taiwan's non-governmental organization (NGO) community should bear in mind.
I recently spoke at a seminar on the development of NGOs in Taiwan sponsored by the National Youth Commission, at which the future of Taiwan's NGOs was discussed.
What is clear is that NGO development in Taiwan is full of both promise and pitfalls. Both need to be addressed if the NGO community is simply not going to become a reflection of the problems affecting both politics in Taiwan and the wider society.
Before beginning a discussion of some of the pitfalls that need to be avoided, let me first mention a few points to counter any impression that I may give of being anti-NGO.
First, in the seven years I have worked with NGOs in Taiwan, I have had the pleasure and honor of working with a number of fine, dedicated people. These were people who were seriously committed to improving this nation, people who were well informed about the issues and clear about the solutions thereto, people who were willing to lay their personal interests aside and work for the betterment of Taiwan.
Second, in my analysis, much of Taiwan's progress is due to the work of its NGO community and the individuals who make up that community.
Third, I need to state clearly that my comments may or may not be true for the entire spectrum of NGOs in Taiwan. My comments are based on my first-hand experience and are limited to the human rights/criminal justice NGOs that I know. Taiwan's NGOs can be subject to the same problems that affect the worlds of politics and culture in Taiwan; it is a case of the microcosm reflecting the macrocosm.
A major example of this unfortunate parallel is the bane of petty politics and dirty infighting that is often present in NGOs in Taiwan. A significant amount of the time and effort of NGOs is wasted in petty bickering and palace intrigue. The same of course can be said for politics in Taiwan.
The costs of these kinds of things are twofold. First it inflicts costs on the NGO community itself, as many skilled, knowledgeable and dedicated people get fed up with the petty politics and leave forever. The second cost is the obvious loss of effectiveness. If most of an NGO's efforts go into backstabbing among its members and its board then that leaves little time or energy to devote to the ostensible goals of the NGO.
The solution to this is simply to keep the focus of the NGO on the goals and purposes of the organization as opposed to keeping the focus on "who is in and who is out and who is friends with whom." Here in Taiwan, that is easier said than done. It seems to be a sad truth that sleaze, corruption and petty personal politics are an ingrained part of Taiwan's culture. The key is to realize that these cultural aspects can manifest themselves in NGOs, and not to assume that all "NGO people" are good people.
Keeping the focus on the goals connects with a second pitfall -- vague or nonexistent mandates. A mandate, in the NGO context, is the formal outline of what the organization's goals or purposes are. The more specific the mandate, the more successful the group will be; the more vague, the less successful.
A specific clear goal or mandate does two major things for an NGO. First it keeps the group from drifting about from one issue or one project to another. Second, to a limited extent, it reduces the internal politics that can disable an NGO. Simply put, the more things that are set out in black and white, the fewer things there are to argue about; the fewer things there are to argue about, the less likely the organization is to fall into petty bickering.
For an NGO to survive and function effectively, there must be some specific goal or purpose to which it strives. If the organization is in reality not much more than a social club or a fan club devoted to a single person, then it will either disband or fail to fulfill any purpose. Well, I should amend that to say, "fail to fulfill any purpose" other than being a tax dodge.
The topic of tax dodges brings up another major pitfall -- the misuse of an organization's name and prestige for private business or political gain. A slightly different version of this problem is someone forming an NGO that is nothing but a cover for some other business. I knew one person who formed a refugee assistance NGO which in reality was simply a cover for her "mail order bride" business.
Another situation was that of a board member of the local branch of an international NGO, using his status as a board member to solicit clients for his business which was, for a large fee, "assisting" victims of the White Terror in their compensation applications. The bottom line being is that Taiwan's NGO
community can easily become a breeding ground for corruption.
The final pitfall I should mention is relations with the government. There has been much talk recently about the place of NGOs in Taiwan and how the NGO community can help raise Tai-wan's international profile. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has made much of "NGO diplomacy." At the seminar I participated in recently, Lin Fang-mei (林芳玫, chairwoman of the National Youth Commission) spoke quite clearly on this issue. Her position was that Taiwan's NGOs should focus on their development as NGOs, not as instruments for the foreign ministry. I very much agree. Tai-wan's NGOs should keep their focus on their mandates.
If the ministry wants to assist the NGO community there is something very concrete it can do. It can ensure that visitors invited to Taiwan on NGO business are not delayed or denied entry due to any blacklist or being from "an enemy state." It is an interesting irony that the ministry harps on about "what the foreign ministry can do to enhance Taiwan's international image" but in fact it does not do the few things within its power towards that end. One only needs to remember the denial of an entry visa to Nobel Peace Prize winner Jose Ramos Horta a couple of years ago to see that the ministry fails to do the things that it can to raise Taiwan's international image.
There have been many positive developments in the NGO community over the past few years. President Chen Shui-bian's (
Brian Kennedy is an attorney who writes and teaches on criminal justice and human rights issues.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
RSS