|
The context for Ma’s death threats
By J. Michael Cole 寇謐將
Wednesday, Mar 31, 2010, Page 8
There is not an ounce of doubt that in any respectable society, freedom of
expression ends at the shore of hate speech or incitement of violence. While
freedom of expression is a precious resource that, even to this day, is still
denied to far too many people around the world, the liberties that it confers
upon people should not be exploited in a manner that undermines the very
foundations of freedom.
In this light, recent comments posted by netizens calling for the assassination
of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his daughters, as well as Chinese President
Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶), deserve full condemnation
and should be investigated in full. Decades ago, Taiwan shed its violent past —
true, one in which the state visited violence upon its people — and it would be
most unfortunate if such practices became the norm once again.
That said, attempts on Monday by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator
Chang Hsien-yao (張顯耀) to portray the assassination threats as the result of
“perennial ethnic tensions” incited by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)
completely miss the mark and negate the context in which the threats were made.
With the possible exception of the mentally ill — and we have no reason to
believe that this applies to Plurker “super fans” and a person surnamed “Chen” —
rational human beings usually do not espouse such extremes. Furthermore, if
those threats were indeed the result of “ethnic hatred” fueled by a “racist” DPP,
history (eg, Rwanda, Cambodia and the Balkans) shows us that such a message
usually translates into action when the group making the threat is in power. In
other words, the “ethnic” group that is the object of alleged hatred would have
faced persecution from 2000 to 2008, when the DPP was in power. This, obviously,
did not happen, which tells us that “ethnic tensions” provide a poor rationale
for last week’s threats.
If not “ethnic” hatred, then what was it that pushed those individuals to make
those comments?
One possibility is that the perpetrators had cause to believe, rightly or
wrongly, that they had no other choice left. Where political science’s rational
actor model fails to explain human behavior is when circumstances push otherwise
sane individuals to calculate cost and benefits in a way that departs from the
norm of maximizing one’s benefits and minimizing the cost.
Having one’s back against the wall, a heightened sense of powerlessness and
isolation, and a belief that the “status quo” is either insupportable or is
shifting inexorably in an untenable direction, are all sentiments that can
prompt individuals to recalibrate how they weigh cost versus benefit. Some have
used this model to explain suicide bombings by Palestinians or the erratic
behavior of the leadership in Pyongyang and Tehran.
In Taiwan’s case, a sense of powerlessness has installed itself since Ma came
into office and it has grown in recent months as a result of an administration
that has paid little, if any, attention to the fears of a polity that feels
excluded and whose future is becoming increasingly uncertain.
The reasons for this are manifold: The institutionalized means by which
government can be kept in check — opposition parties, the legislature — have
failed to force the government to reassess its policies; an initiative to hold a
referendum on the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA)
between Taiwan and China has been turned down, with no valid reason, by the
government, and a new one, initiated by the Taiwan Solidarity Union, will likely
suffer a similar fate; the interests of large business and financial
institutions appear to be driving policy; and cross-strait negotiations have
been conducted far from public scrutiny and by individuals who may have
conflicting interests.
There should be no doubt that the death threats against Ma and his daughters
occurred when they did because of the imminent signature of an ECFA, which will
happen even if the government has not managed to obtain the 60 percent public
support it said it needed to make this happen.
The Ma administration has made an ECFA an inevitability; not only has it failed
to fully explain what it would imply, it has altogether ignored its detractors
while snubbing the many people who question its impact on the nation’s
sovereignty — even after Chinese officials like Wen have publicly stated, on
more than one occasion, that they see an ECFA as a means to achieve unification.
Context is everything: The observer is bound to reassess how he judges an
individual’s seemingly erratic behavior if, by taking a step back, he sees a
locomotive charging full speed ahead toward the subject, with no means of escape
in sight.
Chang’s explanation for the assassination threats was invidious and unhelpful,
in line with attempts by the KMT to portray its opponents as “extremists” and
“irrational” (a view that, sadly, often gains traction with the media). What he
self-servingly failed to mention is the context in which they were made, the
growing sense of helplessness and fear among many Taiwanese, and the lack of
outlets through which individuals can vent their anger or influence policy.
If we had a government that was willing to listen to the public and to take
their apprehensions into consideration, if we had a legislature that could do
its job of monitoring the government, if we had an accountable government that
conducted negotiations in an open and honest fashion, and if we had an
administration that was prepared to meet the challenge of striking an economic
deal that clearly has political ramifications for Taiwan’s sovereignty, then
those threats could be deemed irrational, the mere rumbling of lunatics.
But we have no such government and the threats were a scream of despair.
Questioned by police, suspect Chen did not mention “ethnic” hatred for Ma or
“Han Chinese.” Instead, he said he was dissatisfied with the state of affairs in
Taiwan.
Unless the Ma administration takes an honest look at the sense of fear and
powerlessness its conduct is giving rise to and acts to remedy that, we can
expect more “irrational” behavior by Taiwanese. Maybe that’s not such a bad
thing.
J. Michael Cole is an editor at the Taipei Times.
|
