Social media have for the past two weeks been on fire with topics such as sexual harassment, the alleged drugging of children at a New Taipei City preschool and Taiwanese traffic being a “living hell” for pedestrians.
These issues all concern individual rights and welfare, and affect Taiwanese regardless of their political affiliation, as they are structural issues that can befall anyone. Since the issues are mostly associated with long-term gender inequality, labor, economy and culture, politicians tend to give them a wide berth as they cannot be solved in the short term.
As these are long-term structural issues, examples could rear their ugly heads during any politician’s tenure, regardless of political affiliation. Therefore, when such incidents happen, the public should use the opportunity to put incumbent politicians to the test, to see whether they can propose solutions to rectify the situation and address underlying problems.
However, what we see more often is that politicians tend to say these issues are “historical” in nature as an excuse to avoid reform, or to resort to “what aboutism” and point similar blunders by the opposition party as an excuse, or even worse, divert the public’s attention with other issues.
As each person is part of society, there are things that they have to take into their hands to address long-term issues and prevent their rights being ignored.
One way is to keep themselves updated and follow up on issues, so that elected officials know the needs and requirements of voters.
To prevent people from being led by the nose by media framing, they could look at the trending issues on social media platforms in the following ways:
For issues that are regarded as “historical,” people should bear in mind that every incumbent politician, whether a civil representative or official, has the responsibility to bring about reform, instead of pointing fingers at others or arguing how the issue came to be.
If a politician says that only cities under the governance of a certain party would have such issues, or accuses the party in charge of another city or county as doing an even worse job, they are evading responsibility and are waiting for the next issue to come along and divert the public’s attention.
Next, as the saying goes, “actions speak louder than words.” People should monitor what actions politicians take to address issues, and not take their word for it. They need to see whether they have led constructive debate on the matter or promoted actions that facilitate change. If they only came up with a slogan, but did not flesh it out with substantive proposals, people would know that they are only wheedling the electorate.
Further, people should avoid falling into ideological traps. Some would frame issues as an ideological conflict between supporters of different parties, for example by contending that supporting women’s rights means oppressing men and traditional values, so only those with leftist and anti-capitalist sentiments would say yes to childcare, or that fighting for pedestrians’ rights is bullying drivers and storeowners.
Such discussions that incite division and hinder reform also help politicians get away with not fulfilling their duties and responsibilities. Unfortunately, it usually takes certain people’s sacrifice or major accidents before such issues get properly addressed.
However, if people can prevent getting distracted and keep on pressing issues that need to be tackled, then the victims’ tears and blood would not have been shed in vain.
Chang Yueh-han is an adjunct assistant professor in Shih Hsin University’s Department of Journalism.
Translated by Rita Wang
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS