So often we hear complaints by politicians that their rivals stir up ethnic tension by appealing to base instincts and Taiwan's history of ethnic discrimination. Occasionally, the "ethnic card" is played among the smaller minorities -- Hakka, Aborigines and marital immigrants -- for less spectacular results. But in election season, as legislators and party activists spit out language both offensive and florid, the chance presents itself to gain greater attention and exploit social inequalities.
KMT Legislator Kung Wen-chi (
Last week Kung attacked President Chen Shui-bian (
Over Chen's two terms, Aboriginal affairs have seen a mixture of genuine concern and indifference. Part of the responsibility for this must lie with the legislature, which -- hardly surprisingly -- has expressed a bipartisan lack of enthusiasm in advancing reform on Aboriginal autonomy and land rights.
But responsibility also lies with Chen's team in the Presidential Office. Top among these is Vice President Annette Lu (
So Kung's criticism can be expected. When he suggested, however, that Chen take after Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and issue a broad apology to Taiwan's Aboriginal peoples, he went over the line. In doing so, Kung not only insulted Chen by misrepresenting his record on Aboriginal issues, he also exploited the misery of Australian Aborigines to advance his career.
Rudd's apology was made in the context of hundreds of years of racist, if not genocidal, Aboriginal policy, and was partly energized by a report detailing the widespread, forcible removal of Aboriginal children from their parents for ideological reasons. It was also made in an environment of widespread opposition to any apology, including from former prime minister John Howard, a number of conservative legislators and media commentators, as well as a large minority of ordinary Australians.
Comparing Chen's eight-year stretch of government to Australia's centuries-old history of mistreatment of Aborigines is ludicrous. If Kung were simply another ignorant and uncouth legislator mouthing off on a touchy subject, then this would not be so noteworthy. But he holds a doctorate from a British university and his thesis was on indigenous people and the media. He cannot be unaware of the horrible experiences of Australian Aborigines -- at the hands of their government, ordinary White Australians and their own miscreant elements -- and of the currency that can be gained through media manipulation.
There are perfectly good reasons why Kung stooped to such demeaning language. The most likely is that if Ma wins the presidential election, Kung will be on the inside track to head the executive-level Council for Indigenous Peoples, the top Aboriginal bureaucracy. Every little attack on the enemy, no matter how cynical, helps this agenda.
And if Kung obtains the most powerful position in the nation that is open to the Aboriginal elite -- in practical terms, anyway -- we can expect that he will continue to do what he has done through most of his career as a Ma acolyte: Take instructions, follow them to the letter and keep his people ignorant of their real history of persecution.
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
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
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
RSS