Freedom - Not Democracy

Sir,

The recent screening of the film "10 Conditions Of Love" was attended by some controversy over its' rescheduling at the Kaohsiung Film Festival.

It is understandable that Festival organizers and others would be irritated by mayor Chu Chen's decision to reschedule the showing of the film for the sake of the potential tourism benefits from mainland China.

Moreover, there are many who would highlight the decision as illustrating the nature of Beijing's tactics of political suppression - direct in Xianjiang, where it can more easily prevail by overt force, yet indirect in Taiwan, where "softer" means of coercion are more likely to succeed.

What has been consistently missing from your pages is penetration beyond this facile level of analysis.

The fact of the matter is that the hive ideology thriving in Beijing is being unwittingly aided and abetted by its' very opponents here in Taiwan - especially in the south.

The Democratic Progressive Party represents, if it can be said to represent anything at all, the use of government power to shape society in reference to various political standards e.g. "democratic", "environmental", "progressive", "nationalist" etc...

The Communists in Beijing, similarly represent government power to shape society in reference to other political standards - but with a numerically much greater degree of power at their disposal.

All three political parties - Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party, Chinese Nationalist Party and China's Central Communist Party - operate according to the same basic principles of thought and action although they of course aim at different strategic ends.

The tone deaf chiming of the oxymoronic terms "democracy" and "freedom" in these pages and elsewhere muffles these other harmonics within which the term "freedom" has no place whatsoever.

It is high time you got somebody on your reporting or editorial staff who can integrate the concepts "democratic" and "communist" with regard to their essential difference from the concept "freedom".

Yours sincerely,

Michael Fagan

(Sent: Friday 21st August. Published in the Taipei Times....? August 20 something?)

State-Oughtism

Sirs,

It is deeply regrettable that many of the proposed solutions for recovery following Typhoon Morakot do not break the long established and thoroughly unimaginative mold of State oughtism.

Rescue and relief efforts in Pingtung, Kaohsiung, Tainan and Chiayi were largely State oughtistic due to State control over the requisite resources.

The subsequent blame-game also largely followed a pattern of State oughtism, with people accusing the KMT administration of allowing their family members to die because the KMT did not care about South Taiwan (despite the fact that many of the people most badly hit by the typhoon had voted for the KMT).

The current planning discussions over river management structure reform also follow a model of State oughtism, with calls for the imposition of one unified State management agency for the entire length of any single river.

State oughtism is obvious also in discussions over the viability of mountain villages, with calls for State regulation over which areas mountain people can be allowed to live in and which areas they cannot.

There are oughtistic calls for greater State control over the siting of particular agricultural crops – such as the disallowal of shallow-rooted betel nut plants in mountainous areas because they can contribute to soil erosion in the event of flooding.

Apparantly the fish-farming industry should also become dependent upon oughtistic State management and regulation in order that local water tables not be mismanaged in the future thus increasing the liklihood of flooding.

Reconstruction and/or redesign of important bridges is now, naturally of course, falling under the oughtistic purview of State administration – just as they had done previously many years before they were destroyed by Morakot.

Sir, is there anyone on this entire island besides myself who is not trapped within this premise of State-Oughtism, in which the State alone ought to do this, ought to do that and ought to do the other?

If not, then it would seem the fight to remain free from the control of a monstrous State on the mainland is entirely without the necessary mental and ethical foundations.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Fagan

(Sent: September 7th, 2009. Unpublished by the Taipei Times)