From todays Taipei Times taipeitimes.com/News/editori … 2003358173
[quote]Playing the `ethnic division’ card
By David Min 敏洪奎
Wednesday, Apr 25, 2007, Page 8
Advertising Public debate in Taiwan has taken on a strange tone in recent years. Some topics that clearly have nothing to do with ethnicity and are only related to certain individuals or parties are repeatedly described as “creating ethnic divisions.”
Examples of this include the debate over who was responsible for the 228 Incident, the question of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) stolen assets and the recent effort to do away with certain reminders of dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) rule.
In addition, pan-blue politicians and academics closed ranks recently to criticize Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) for questioning whether a small Mainlander elite should rule Taiwan. This highlighted how ridiculous the ethnic tensions claims have become.
Wang’s questions concerning whether it is appropriate for a small elite from an ethnic minority to govern over an ethnic majority were clearly directed at a small elite group of no more than a few dozen people.
He was definitely not talking about any entire ethnic group, yet he was still disparaged for his comments and accused of creating ethnic tensions.
Following this argument, criticizing any person or clique from any ethnic group could be said to create ethnic tensions.
Say that you don’t like the voice of some Aboriginal singer. Suddenly you’re creating ethnic divisions and “agitating ethnic conflict.”
Those responsible for the 228 Incident were a group of high-ranking, military and political leaders.
Even if some of the ordinary soldiers who carried out the massacre are still alive, there is little interest in tracking them down and taking them to court.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and pan-green groups do not argue that ordinary Mainlanders, either at the time of the incident or now, should bear responsibility for the incident.
How can politicians possibly claim the debate over what happened in the 228 Incident incites ethnic conflict?
Ironically, those who accuse others of creating ethnic divisions by discussing the 228 Incident seem to be implying that today’s Mainlanders are accomplices in the massacre.
Why else would they get so bent out of shape every time someone so much as bring up the question of who ordered the massacre?
As for the KMT’s stolen assets, they are all under the control of the party’s central leadership.
Average Mainlanders, even those who are KMT members, do not own any of those assets, not even a small share.
The Mainlanders who own small shops and noodle stands, the ones who are minor public officials or police, receive not the slightest benefit from those assets.
Even if the DPP government gets every last cent back, it will not affect the vast majority of Mainlanders. It is ridiculous to claim that a debate over retrieving stolen KMT assets will create ethnic rifts.
Even for Chiang’s descendants it must be difficult to deny that he had a dark side or that he never abused his power.
The vast majority of Taiwanese, regardless of ethnicity, have a realistic view of Chiang. Chiang is not an idol worshiped by all Mainlanders, so saying that removing Chiang statues incites ethnic conflict is an obvious distortion of the truth.
Mainlanders remember how inept governance by Chiang and his family ruined China, how he turned China into a military state and how his actions eventually forced millions of soldiers into fleeing to Taiwan and becoming a rootless generation.
The older generation of Mainlanders have passed down this knowledge to the younger Mainlanders. The movement to bring Chiang down off his pedestal may stir up strong emotions in the average Mainlander, but it does not stir up feelings of ethnic tensions.
Only two motives can explain why reasonable people would take issues that are clearly unrelated to ethnicity and say it is dangerous to debate them because they will stir up ethnic conflict.
First, amid the constant finger-pointing and arguing between political parties, politicians are perhaps inclined to blindly throw out any argument to defend themselves. Politicians may therefore be using ethnicity as a shield.
“Continue your attack against me,” they seem to threaten, “and you will be creating ethnic divisions and agitating ethnic conflict.”
Second, politicians may seek to stir up a sense of crisis and truly cause tension between different ethnic groups in order to secure fierce loyalty toward a single party or person.
In this case, their claims of ethnic tensions about to erupt constitute a scare tactic: “Can you really afford not to choose a certain president?”
If these are the true motives of politicians and academics who so eagerly accuse others of creating ethnic rifts, then this plan of theirs to kill two birds with one stone is neither enlightened nor moral. They are the ones who are trying to create ethnic rifts.
Recently, Taiwan’s “good fortune” has been a popular phrase for certain politicians.
If everyone could approach important issues honestly and stop using people’s emotions as a tool by stirring up a sense of crisis, that would indeed be Taiwan’s good fortune.
David Min is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Translated by Marc Langer
[/quote]
For such a non topic that some posters have implied this subject to be it is covered almost daily in the newspapers. I wonder for those commenting on this subject to what extent you agree with David Min’s analysis. Totally, partially or not at all?