How a government handles controversies — especially ones that touch upon issues as delicate as ethnic equality — not only demonstrates its sincerity in resolving problems but also its core values. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government’s handling of the uproar surrounding former Government Information Office (GIO) official Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) is therefore regrettable.
More than two weeks have elapsed since allegations first made headlines that the acting director of the information division at the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto had written a series of articles demeaning Taiwan and Taiwanese under the pseudonym Fan Lan-chin (范蘭欽).
After repeated denials that he was Fan, Kuo on Monday owned up to writing the articles. With hateful and derogatory language, Kuo denied the scale of the 228 Incident and advocated ethnic cleansing.
Article 1, Clause 1 of the the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, passed by the UN in 1965, says: “The term ‘racial discrimination’ shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.”
In view of the fact that these inflammatory articles so clearly constitute discrimination against one or more ethnic groups and attempt to distort history, it is painful that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) took so long to condemn them.
It is even more appalling, however, that no word of apology has been offered by a high-ranking member of the government over the fascist opinions espoused by a GIO official.
Article 7 of the Constitution says that “all people of the Republic of China are equal before the law regardless of gender, religion, race, social status or political affiliation.” Article 114 of the Criminal Code says that any government official who violates duties related to foreign affairs with the result of “incurring harm to the Republic of China” shall be sentenced to at least seven years in prison.
Kuo was given two demerits by the GIO on Monday and relieved of his civil servant status not because of what he had written, but because his “inconsistent” explanations to the GIO on whether he was the author and a series of remarks he made to the media constituted “defiance of the government.”
Although Ma and Liu have since condemned Kuo’s writings as “unquestionably extreme and discriminatory,” the lack of a formal apology from the government could fuel suspicion that it is not particularly upset by the revelation that this hate speech was penned by a GIO official.
Ma and his administration can help Taiwan overcome the anger surrounding the Kuo-Fan incident by demonstrating their dedication to ethnic equality and harmony. Rather than stopping at condemning Kuo’s articles, they should drive the message home with an apology on behalf of the government.
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS