Why Do People on Taiwan Hate Each Other?

Why Do People on Taiwan Hate Each Other?
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
September 21, 2011

Summary: Tsai Ing-wen recently spoke at Harvard University. When asked about DPP violence, she glibly answered that speaking a little louder is normal in a democratic society. One wants to be sure one is heard. But when asked "Why do people on Taiwan hate each other?" she was suddenly flustered and at a loss for words. It was all she could do mumble the question back to the questioner. Tsai Ing-wen was unable to answer that question. But that is a question everyone on Taiwan should ask themselves. When exactly did people on Taiwan begin to hate each other?



Full Text below:

Tsai Ing-wen recently spoke at Harvard University. When asked about DPP violence, she glibly answered that speaking a little louder is normal in a democratic society. One wants to be sure one is heard. But when asked "Why do people on Taiwan hate each other?" she was suddenly flustered and at a loss for words. It was all she could do mumble the question back to the questioner.

The first question was posed by a student from the Chinese mainland. The student was referring specifically to Chen Yunlin, who was surrounded by a mob during his his visit to Taiwan. Tsai Ing-wen countered by invoking a "democratic society" and "freedom of speech," She adroitly deflected her opponent's question and won the audience's approval. The second question was posed by the host of the lecture, Steven M. Goldstein, head of the Taiwan Studies Workshop at the Fairbank Center for Chinese Studies. Professor Goldstein asked the question on behalf of an audience member. Now that she faced American professors, Tsai Ing-wen could no longer thump the tub for democracy, She could no longer indulge in cheap rhetoric. She could no longer parry the thrust. She found herself at a total loss for words.

Tsai Ing-wen's reaction to these two questions was a realistic reflection of Taiwan's democracy, of its internal contradictions and its loss of balance. When confronted with compatriots from the Chinese mainland, we wear our democracy like a halo, We know it is the Chinese mainland's Achilles Heel. But when confronted with scholars from the United States, we realize boasting about our democratic achievements would only make our listeners cringe. We realize we lack the cultivation demanded of citizens in a mature democracy. But the second question, "Why do people on Taiwan hate each other?" is even more telling. It targets Taiwan's own Achilles Heel, its "illiberal democracy." Can a political system rooted in the incitement of hatred establish a genuinely democratic society?

Has Blue vs. Green confrontation on Taiwan descended the level of mutual hatred that Professor Goldstein suggested? That is debatable. But compared to ten years ago, divisions within Taiwan society have deepened. Divisions over reunification vs. independence, over provincial origin, and over northern and southern Taiwan, have all become part of Blue vs. Green polarization. Taiwan is well down the path of no return. After two ruling party changes, the number of swing voters has risen and fallen. But both the Blue camp and the Green camp have solidified their positions. Comlpromise is no longer possible. Political talk shows have become fixed in their format. Restaurants and corporations have all been labeled Blue or Green. Ideological differences prevent experts and scholars from appearing on the same TV shows and talking to each other, The divisions in Taiwan society are no exaggeration.

The reason is not hard to imagine. Partisan politics on Taiwan has long been suffused with the language of hatred and self-righteousness. During the era of single party rule, the opposition DPP resorted to violent protests. Their reaction then was understandable. But the DPP behaved exactly the same way even after it assumed power. If anything, its behavior was worse. Over time, how can people not be influenced by such intense hostility? Political violence on Taiwan can be found everywhere. It can be found in the legislature and on the streets, Political violence had some degree of justification in the beginning. But the Democratic Progressive Party changed. Before, it was calling for democracy. Now it is calling for a nation-building Jihad. Democratic elections have become life or death struggles between the Republic of China and the "Nation of Taiwan." As a result, each successive election has instilled a sense of crisis among voters adhering to different ideologies. Each successive election has increased the emotional intensity of confrontations between these same voters .

Democracy was supposed to promote equality and justice, through diversity and universal participation. But on today's Taiwan, democracy generates more extreme polarization. Should this be trumpeted as an achievement of democracy? Other disturbing signs have appeared on Taiwan. Too many care only about ideology. They are indifferent about right and wrong. Too many care only about partisan gain. They are indifferent to the national interest. Each side preaches to the choir. Neither side talks to the other. One sees little evidence of the civilized behavior commensurate with citizens in a mature democracy. Consider an obvious example. When the student from the Chinese mainland challenged Tsai Ing-wen, the audience immediately attempted to boo him into silence. But whenever Tsai Ing-wen responded, the audience roared with uncritical approval. This manner of treating "others" is hardly evidence of a democratic temperament.

Tsai Ing-wen would have us believe that citizens in democratic societies "merely speak a little louder." What a glibly dishonest response. Tsai Ing-wen clearly came prepared. She also conveyed a false impression of politics on Taiwan. In reality, only a certain party is in the habit of "speaking loudly." Only a certain party never listens to others. Only a certain party habitually physically assaults political opponents with fists. Only a certain party habitually abuses the system. How can mutual respect and tolerance prevail under this sort of democracy?

Why do people hate each other on Taiwan? Because they are too fearful, Both Blue and Green camps feel compelled to resort to methods of their own choosing to defend their beloved homeland. Certain politicians constantly incite such feelings of anxiety. They incite divisions among members of the public, over matters of identity, They intensify peoples' sense of polarization. Tsai Ing-wen flatly refuses to recognize the 1992 consensus, but then pontificates about a "Taiwan consensus." She probably never imagined she would enjoy this luxury. The hardest part of eitehr the 1992 consensus or Tsai's so-called "Taiwan consensus," is "consensus." Twenty years of political polarization has left its mark. What consensus if any still survives? What consensus, if any, can heal the wounds inflicted upon the public?

Tsai Ing-wen was unable to answer that question. But that is a question everyone on Taiwan should ask themselves. When exactly did people on Taiwan begin to hate each other?

為什麼台灣人彼此仇視？
【聯合報╱社論】 2011.09.21

蔡英文在哈佛大學演講，被問到民進黨的暴力表現時，她輕鬆答稱：在民主社會講話比較大聲是正常的，目的只是希望對方聽見。但隨後被問到「台灣人為什麼互相仇恨」時，她彷彿瞬間失去了辯才，只是把問題喃喃重覆了一次。

前一個問題，是一名大陸學生所問，具體針對陳雲林來台遭遇而發；蔡英文拋出「民主社會」、「言論自由」的大帽子對付，四兩撥千斤應付對手，贏得滿場掌聲。後一個問題，是演講會主持人費正清中心台灣研究小組教授戈迪溫借觀眾的發言提問；面對美國教授，蔡英文無法再即席販賣民主、自由那套便宜說詞，一時竟無力招架，為之語塞。

蔡英文對這兩個問題的反應，其實相當寫實地反映了台灣民主的困境和內外失調。面對大陸人民，我們可以理所當然地拿民主來自我炫耀，知道那是中國的罩門；但一轉頭面對美國，我們立刻知道自己誇耀的民主成就其實相當虛浮，也缺乏根本的品質。更重要的是第二個問題：台灣人為什麼彼此仇恨？這個問題直指台灣民主的要害，一個建立在仇恨煽動上的政治，可能建立真正的民主社會嗎？

台灣的藍綠對峙，是否已達到戈迪溫教授所說的「互相仇恨」的地步，也許有待進一步考察；但比起十幾年前，台灣社會的切割，從統獨、省籍、南北的歸類，到變成藍綠的兩極對立，已一步步走上無法回頭的道路。歷經兩次政黨輪替，中間選民或有若干起伏，但藍綠兩邊的基本盤卻只是愈發鞏固，愈不相容。從政論節目言論分殊的定型化，從餐廳、企業被貼上藍綠標籤，從專家學者因立場歧異而無法再同台交流，台灣社會的「決裂現象」絕對不是危言聳聽。

此中原因，其實不難想像。台灣的政黨政治中，長期充滿仇恨語言，也充滿偽正義腔調的暴力。在一黨獨大時期，在野黨採取激烈手段杯葛，或許難以苛責；但民進黨在執政後依然故我，甚至變本加厲，長期以往，人民如何不感染那股敵意？台灣的政治暴力，從國會殿堂一直打到街頭，一開始也確具有某種程度的正當性；但當民進黨搖身把政治變成了所謂建立新國家的「聖戰」，民主選舉遂變成了中華民國與台灣國的生死存亡鬥爭。也因此，一次次的選戰，不僅激盪著不同信仰的選民的危機感，也升高了他們的對峙情緒。

民主政治原是要透過多元、普遍的參與，達到更公平、正義的目的；今天台灣的政治，卻是透過鬥爭使人民一步步走向更深的分歧，這配稱為民主成就嗎？台灣政治的另一惡兆，是只問「立場」、而不問「是非」，只問黨派得失、而不計全民利益，一味各說各話、而拒絕溝通協商，看不出多少民主素養。最明顯的例子，在蔡英文那場哈佛演說會上，大陸學生一提問，立刻遭到全場噓聲；蔡英文每次答畢，則獲得熱烈掌聲。這種對待異己的方式，又表現了什麼民主氣質？

民主社會只是「講話比較大聲」而已，真是漂亮的回答！這充分顯示了蔡英文的有備而來，卻一點也無法反映台灣政治的真實。在現實中，永遠只是某個黨講話大聲、卻從不傾聽別人，總是它率先動手推打、總是它企圖凌虐體制，那麼台灣如何在相互尊重與容忍的基礎上建立起有厚度的民主？

台灣人民為何彼此仇視？因為他們有太多不安，藍綠皆認為必須用自己的方法來捍衛他們鍾愛的土地。而一些政治人物不斷殘酷地撩撥他們的焦慮，分化他們的認同和感情，加深他們的對立。當蔡英文一口否定「九二共識」、卻夸夸大談「台灣共識」時，她大概沒想到自己有多奢侈。事實上，困難的不是「九二」或「台灣」，困難的是後面那兩個字──共識；經過廿年的政治分化，還有什麼共識能當作台灣人民感情的黏合劑呢？

那個蔡英文答不出來的問題，也是所有台灣人應該思考的問題。台灣人什麼時候開始彼此仇視的？