Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous

Provincial Origin is a Non-Issue, Legislation is Superfluous
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
March 25, 2009

Two days ago the Government Information Office fired Kuo Kuan-ying for making inappropriate remarks. President Ma Ying-jeou and Premier Liu Chao-hsuan rushed to quench any fires. President Ma's remarks were basically feeling oriented. He said "We are all one people. We should accommodate and care for each other." He made a low-keyed appeal for ethnic harmony. Premier Liu, on the other hand, proposed the passage of an "Ethnic Equality Act." He wanted a law promoting ethnic equality. [Translator's Note: On today's Taiwan "ethnic" and "ethnicity" are misleading terms that actually refer to provincial origin.]

Five years ago a number of legislators proposed ethnic equality draft laws. Four or five different versions were put forth. The laws would punish speech the incitement of ethnic hatred or ethnic discrimination. Five years later, none of them have become law. Yesterday, the head of the Executive Yuan again proposed the passage of legislation promoting ethnic equality. We contend that we must be concerned about ethnic issues, but that we must do not rush to pass laws. Before speaking, the Premier should also be careful and do some homework.

First of all, if we want to discuss ethnic harmony, we must first understand a few concepts from cultural anthropology. And if we want to promote ethnic equality, we must first appreciate the relevance of political philosophy. Human civilization is dynamic, and is undergoing evolution. Although each nation's development varies, humanism has been ascendant ever since the Middle Ages. Human society has steadily moved away from the Law of the Jungle, in which the strong bully the weak, and to the victor belong the spoils. It has steadily moved towards civilization, toward mutual respect, mutual concern, and mutual tolerance. The United States liberated black slaves. South Africa abolished Apartheid. Many nations elevated women's status. The international community imposed sanctions against race wars. These trends were inevitable. In other words, given humanist concepts of mutual respect and mutual concern, social evolution was already tending toward ethnic equality.

We now have a clearer understanding of when a nation should use political or legal means to intervene in social evolution. Unless a nation's culture makes it naturally resistant to equality, unless the move toward equality is so sluggish that disadvantaged groups are unlikely to receive equal treatment in the foreseeable future, the government should refrain from intervention. It should refrain from forcibly imposing an "Ethnic Equality Act" on the public. The United States' affirmative action laws and South Africa's racial equality laws or domestic gender equality laws are examples. Legislators should first take note of a nation's speed of evolution. Only then are they justified in using political force to provide an extra push. Philosophers in the United States who favored equal rights laws pushed for an equal rights law only because long-oppressed black people found it difficult to improve their social status in the short term. They promoted equal rights laws only to prevent the adverse socio-economic environment of earlier generations handicapping the development of later generations.

But let's return to Taiwan. We see no need for such legislation. Taiwan's so-called "native" and "mainlander" groups are hardly comparable to blacks and whites in the US, with their highly visible genetic differences. One can hardly distinguish who's who with the naked eye. Marriages between "natives" and "mainlanders" is widespread. Decades later, unless one digs out the family tree, one has no way to determine one's ethnic background. Not only is provincial origin difficult to determine, it is even increasingly difficult to distinguish between Han Chinese and Aborigines. Moreover, Taiwan's educational standards are high. The public is cultured. People seldom encounter ethnic antagonism or discrimination in their daily exchanges. Kuo Kuan-ying is a rare case, and constitutes only a minute part of Taiwan's cultural evolution. He has no affect on the overall trend toward social harmony and equality. To pass a law with great fanfare in response to something that has no impact on the overall situation is unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. It may create ethnic stereotypes where none existed.

The real lesson to be learned from Kuo Kuan-ying's inappropriate remarks, is to seek improvement. The crux of the problem is politicians, not laws. These problems arise within the halls of parliament and at political rallies, rather than amidst civil society. These problems are incited by extremist talking heads, not by ordinary people in daily life. In short, almost all ethnic frictions are incited by a tiny minority of extremists with political axes to grind. Over the past decade, such terms as "Chinese Pigs," and remarks as "We reserve the right to rape Chinese women" have emerged, along with Kuo Kuan-ying's "tai ba zi" and "dai wan." Behind all of these are reunification vs. independence political agendas. A tiny minority have falsely equated ethnicity with advocacy of reunification or independence. The source of ethnic frictions on Taiwan today is the result of narrowly defining ethnicity in order to attack another's ' political stance.

Given the rapid integration of ethnic groups on Taiwan, and the social harmony that prevails within civil society, any troubles have been stirred up by a tiny minority of politicians. Why pass laws to constrain speech relating to ethnicity? If one really wishes to constrain such speech, the Legislative Yuan Disciplinary Committee should constrain demagogues in parliament. If these disgusting individuals cease their demagoguery, ethnic equality will naturally prevail. Do we really expect these demagogues to enact an "Anti-Ethnic Demagoguery Law?" Spare us.

中國時報 　2009.03.26
社論－族群本無事 立法惹塵埃
本報訊


針對郭冠英的不當言論，行政院新聞局在兩天前做出免職的處分，而馬總統與行政院劉院長也在日前跳上火線，做進一步的消毒。馬總統的發言基本上是感性面的，以「大家都是一家人，彼此本應包容關愛」的基調，去柔性訴求族群和諧。而劉院長則提出催生「族群平等法」的看法，希望以法律的規範去進一步促成族群平等。

族群平等法草案在五年前已有立委提出，先後累積了四至五個不同的版本，其立法目的都是要對仇恨或歧視族群的言論予以處罰，但是五年來皆未完成立法。昨天，由最高行政首長再提族群平等立法之議，我們認為值得對此表達嚴肅的看法。我們的論點是：族群問題可以關心，但千萬不要倉卒立法規範。行政首長在發言之前，也該謹慎地做些功課。

首先，要談族群融合，就必須要具備些文化人類學的基本概念，而要促成族群平等，也要先理解相關的政治哲學理念。人類文明本來就是一動態演進的歷程，雖然各國各地發展的軌跡不一，但中世紀以來隨著人本理念的擴展，人類社會總是逐漸從弱肉強食、凌弱暴寡的生物競逐，慢慢往禮樂教化、尊重關懷、多元包容的方向發展。在這樣的文化演進大潮流之下，美國黑奴的解放、南非種族隔離的廢除、各地女性地位的提升、國際社會對種族戰事的制裁，都是必然的趨勢。換言之，在尊重與關注的人本理念下，族群之間原本就有「趨向平等」的文化演進趨勢。

有了這樣的了解，我們就能清楚掌握國家是否應該以政治或法律手段介入社會演進，去強行推動「族群平等法」。大體而言，除非社會文化自然趨向族群平等的速度極為緩慢，使得社會上的弱勢族群難以在可見未來得到平等的待遇，否則國家都不該以立法手段介入。以美國的平權法案(affirmative action)、南非的種族平等法案或國內有關兩性平權的法案為例，立法者一定要先看到平等文化演變的滯慢，才有理由以政治力強推一把。事實上，美國諸多贊成平權法案的哲學家更明白指出，正因為在短期內黑人久經壓抑的社會地位難以改變，為免前一代不利的社經環境繼續影響下一代的發展，才會去推動平權法案。

但是回過頭來看看台灣的情況，我們委實看不出有強制立法的必要性。台灣的所謂「本省」與「外省」族群並沒有如黑人、白人間的基因外顯特質，因此根本難以用肉眼區辨誰是哪一族群之人。此外，台灣不同省籍之間通婚普遍，數十年下來除非強翻族譜，否則也無從判斷族群背景，不但省籍難辨，連漢人與原住民之間都漸難區分。再者，台灣的教育水準高、民風淳厚，民間交往也鮮聞族群對立或歧視。因此，像郭冠英這樣的特例，頂多只是台灣文化演進的極少數，完全不影響社會整體的和諧平等走向。若要以不影響大局的特例去大張旗鼓制定一個法，我們認為實在沒有必要，反而可能把原本模糊的族群標記刻板化。

如果真要從郭冠英的不當言論中得到教訓、尋求改進，恐怕癥結在於政治人物、而非法律條文；在國會殿堂與競選活動、而非民間社會；在那些唯恐天下不亂的偏頗媒體名嘴、而非台灣人民之間的日常對話。簡言之，幾乎所有的族群摩擦都來自少數人的政治症候群。過去十年間，台灣社會出現「中國豬」、「保留強姦中國婦女的權利」的謬言，也出現此次郭冠英的「台巴子」、「歹丸」荒腔，其背後都有或統或獨的政治牽連。少數人主觀上將族群背景與統獨立場結合，就以族群偏狹的字句攻擊政治立場之異己；這正是今日台灣族群摩擦的源頭。

既然台灣族群之間融合迅速、民間社會和諧，只有極少數政治人物性喜興風作浪，那麼哪有必要治絲益棼，對族群言論另行立法呢？如果真要約束言論，那麼最該做約束的就是立法院紀律委員會。只要那些討厭的政治人物少造些口業，台灣社會的族群就自然平等。若要由這些造口業的政治人物制定一部「族群口業禁制法」，省省吧！