|
Taiwan¡¦s human rights
in jeopardy
By Herbert Hanreich
Tomorrow the UN, together with many countries around the world, will celebrate
Human Rights Day, commemorating the anniversary of the adoption of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights on Dec. 10, 1948.
Each year, this day is dedicated to one specific issue related to one or several
of the thirty articles in this declaration, which include, among others, the
right to life (Article 3) and the right to equal treatment by state authorities
regardless of one¡¦s gender, race, religion, political affiliation, etc (Article
2). They also include civic rights such as the right to freedom of opinion and
expression (Article 19) or the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and
association (Article 20).
This year¡¦s Human Rights Day focuses on the rights of all people ¡§to make their
voices heard in public life and be included in political decisionmaking.¡¨
The UN¡¦s official Human Rights Day 2012 Web site especially mentions political
movements in which people, on the basis of rights expressed in articles 19 and
20 of the declaration, stood up against governments which inflicted political
and social injustices on them by oppressing dissenting opinions.
One may or may not agree with the specific goals of public protesters. However,
as a democrat, one cannot disagree that those people have the right to express
their political opinion in public and to organize peaceful rallies where
like-minded people may join them to express their social and political demands.
Such rights have become an important feature of modern democracies; they
stipulate the rights of the individual vis-a-vis the various institutions of
political power. Modern minds consider the state guaranteeing and protecting
public protests against itself the most mature form of democratic practice. The
German constitution of 1949 is such a paradigmatic example.
Taiwan, a democratic country in its political structure, still struggles with
the undemocratic mindsets of some influential people. It seems that essential
ingredients of democratic thought have not arrived yet in the minds of some of
the country¡¦s top political executives.
What we have been witnessing in Taiwan in the past few days is the unfolding of,
well, not really a tragedy, but rather a political farce, written by incompetent
politicians with undemocratic mindsets who mistake the function of their job
with the imposition of their personal preferences and values on people under
their influence.
A few days ago the Ministry of Education sent an e-mail to 37 university
administrations asking them to investigate students who were involved in
protests against the government¡¦s political move to legalize the gradual
monopolization of Taiwanese media.
In this e-mail, the ministry asked universities to show ¡§concern¡¨ for the
students¡¦ health, since the demonstrations took place in cold and rainy weather.
One might think it a very touching story of caring politicians, but that is hard
to believe.
Given that Minister of Education Chiang Wei-ling (½±°¶¹ç) apologized for the e-mail
(though not really ¡§heartfeltly¡¨), promised to ponder ¡§with empathy toward the
students¡¨ over different ways of expressing concern in the future and initiated
a review of university regulations that ¡X I am not making this up ¡X still make
it a punishable demeanor for students to participate in protest rallies, it is
clearly indicated that other ¡§concerns¡¨ were in place, despite, as he later
commented the e-mail in question, his ¡§good¡¨ and ¡§heartfelt¡¨ intentions.
When reading this, one cannot help but sympathize (or should we say, empathize?)
with a student leader¡¦s remarks about the minister accusing him of being
incompetent, hypocritical and making statements ¡§full of lies,¡¨ because it is
outrageous for a top official to instigate institutions under his supervision to
investigate students involved in perfectly legal, but politically unwelcome
public actions on behalf of his personal ¡§concerns.¡¨
However, there is more than personal incompetence at stake: There is also a
local cultural component present which poisons interactions among people,
disfavoring those who are on the ¡§wrong¡¨ side of the communication.
The logic behind the patronizing attitude demonstrated by Chiang is still
prevailing in Taiwan: People in the upper ranks of hierarchies are not only in
charge of the functions that come with their positions, but also of the private
lives of individuals under their guidance.
The illegal imposition of long and unpaid working hours on employees is just
another case in this aspect.
Human rights favor values which are different: They promote subjective rights of
individuals to live their lives along their own personal and moral choices and
opinions and, at the same time, insist on national legislation to legally
guarantee equal rights and fair opportunities for all to do so.
They are grounded in the historical experience that the imposition of forms of
life of the powerful on those subjected to their power fails humanity.
A human rights inspired politician must therefore seek to promote moral norms
based on individual freedom by providing the legal space necessary for
individuals to develop.
Human rights define this legal space as a public one, whereas national laws
specify it by restricting individual freedom in order to enable equal individual
freedom for all.
National politics must seek to protect individual freedom from politically,
culturally or socially motivated impositions of standardized lifestyles that
often apply soft (and sometimes not so soft) power on them under the
hypocritical cover of peace and harmony, especially as imagined by the
privileged who pursue their own agenda.
Modern life clashes with old-fashioned traditions that have difficulties
accepting such a separation of the legal sphere and individual life.
The Confucian tradition is one such old-fashioned culture which, despite some
undeniably positive social elements, cements hierarchies, discourages
individuality, and finally undermines democracy and human rights. There is a
reason why China promotes Confucian values.
The ministry¡¦s hypocritical health concern is very Confucian, acting as if the
imposition of certain (ridiculous) ideals of life (¡§Don¡¦t protest in cold
weather¡¨) at the cost of civic rights are morally acceptable in Taiwan.
This is yet another example of how numb forms of regional cultural practices
contradict modern ideas of universal human rights.
There is still a long way to go to complement ¡X and sometimes correct ¡X certain
cultural practices with ideas that ensure the rights of free individuals.
The student¡¦s action of openly stating his opinions directly in the face of the
minister is an encouraging sign that the country is on the right way to fully
implementing the ideas of human rights not only in legal texts, but also in the
minds of the people.
If the self-proclaimed champion of human rights in Taiwan, President Ma Ying-jeou
(°¨^¤E), is serious about his mission, then one would expect him to sack his
minister of education, whose administration pursues an educational policy that
sooner or later will kill the brain of the last remaining person with a mind of
their own in Taiwan.
Herbert Hanreich is an assistant professor at I-Shou University in Greater
Kaohsiung.
|
