|
Self-censorship and
ROC’s legacy
By Philippe McKay
“Consciously or unconsciously, people censor themselves — they don’t need to be
called into line.”
This Pierre Bourdieu quote seems to be quite fitting in describing behavior that
can only be seen as normative in regards to the internal workings of Taiwanese
politics and government. Although much of his work is focused within a French
context, it will not escape observers of Taiwanese society that Taiwan has
decision-makers who regularly disassociate themselves from the actions of their
subordinates. Naturally, Taiwanese leaders communicate well-patented public
messages of ignorance with the full knowledge that their subordinates take their
cues from superiors.
During this year’s election, Minister of Finance Christina Liu (劉憶如) and her
TaiMed campaign was explained away by President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his
running mate, vice president-elect Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), as not being under the
influence of those who are responsible for her patronage. Now, another arm of
the government, the Council of Agriculture (COA), has been exposed as not
fulfilling its own responsibilities in favor of political considerations. It is
possibly an unfortunate circumstance for Taiwanese society that the media limits
itself only to the COA because undoubtedly the very same behavior is practiced
in every part of the Taiwanese governmental system. Yet, even the opposition
does not seem to be looking at this as a -comprehensive issue that goes to the
roots of how the bureaucracy and the executive of government are structured
within the Republic of China (ROC), which ensures specific behavioral patterns.
Rather, their messages seem to take on the appearance of playing for political
points.
The current series of missteps involving food safety seem to have occurred
during the recent electoral campaign. Interestingly, the media does not frame it
as a clear example of undue influence from ambitious entities.
That said, one should not be able to ignore that it looks very much like the Ma
administration allowed the resources of the bureaucracy to be used to help
secure Ma’s re-election by having the bureaucracy put out messages attempting to
damage the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and sweeping under the carpet
issues that could negatively affect Ma’s administration. Thankfully, the
election campaign is over, because if it was not, these safety issues would
likely still be shelved.
Self-censorship is part and parcel of politics. The current scandal in food
safety is not simply an event, but a process of failures derived not just from
patterns of self-censorship, but also from the legacy of how the ROC was
conceived as a system and how its relationship with society in general was
perceived. Government offices that continue to operate in isolation from each
other are regularly exposed to political forces bound by patronage. This ensures
that each department of the Taiwanese bureaucracy will only be able to present a
facade of fulfilling their duties. One could never expect them to be able
fulfill the spirit of those responsibilities because autonomy is clearly absent.
The Chinese milk scandal that began before the Beijing Olympics in 2008 and was
only revealed afterward might also have implications for Taiwanese food safety.
If one remembers, Taiwanese officials said milk products were safe in Taiwan and
that the melamine issue was exclusively a “Chinese” problem.
A few years later, Taiwanese officials were caught with their pants down when
plasticizers were found in Taiwanese processed foods. Obviously, their
investigation was completely inadequate in real terms, although official actions
quelled questions, allowing energy to be directed toward other political goals.
Interestingly, ractopamine presents a new cycle of the same issue in which it is
framed as a foreign problem.
However, it has become increasingly clear as the issue heats up that additives
in meat is a Taiwanese problem as well, thus exposing the government to
criticism once again. This is clearly a systemic regulatory problem that can
only be because of the way the ROC is structured. The bureaucracy does not see
citizens as it -primary responsibility. Rather, the bureaucracy solely focuses
on its political superiors and those seeking to do business.
That said, the current meat controversy reflects what the presence of a
relatively independent media can do in Taiwan. Government blunders are being
highlighted and it is forcing politicians to be responsive to the needs of
Taiwanese.
However, there is a long way to go. One should not think that things will change
any time soon because government movement on food safety is occurring under the
umbrella of one specific goal: To secure enough legitimacy to facilitate a
political environment in which the Ma administration can secure a free-trade
agreement (FTA) with the US.
An FTA with the US is likely in Taiwan’s best interest. However, it is glaringly
obvious that Ma sees food safety as secondary to the overall economy as he has
subordinates censor themselves in an effort to dilute any message against
ractopamine.
The DPP is not helping, either. It is clear that the government’s intention is
to give the American Institute in Taiwan what it is pushing for, so that the
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) can recycle its “new” version of economic
benefits for Taiwanese for the next election as the Economic Cooperation
Framework Agreement did for this year’s presidential race.
Philippe McKay is a graduate student at National Sun Yat-sen University.
|
