- Taiwan’s vision for survival～Lee Teng-hui “民之所欲，長在我心Always in my heart” x Audrey Tang “IT democracy”
What kind of vision would Lee Teng-hui present for the future of Taiwan if he were alive? Based on a lecture given at Cornell University in 1995, “By becoming an honor student in both politics and economy in the international world, Taiwan will show its existence value at home and abroad and maintain a living space.” I think it is. Applying this to the modern times, we think that the first thing to do is to mature democracy and differentiate it from China, which has developed economically. Specifically, it is closer to the ideal that public opinion is formed by the deliberative deliberation of citizens and reflected in policy making. I think that an effective candidate as a tool to achieve this goal is Audrey Tang’s “IT democracy” practiced through the response to the corona crisis. Through two-way communication between the government and citizens，
1）Public opinion formation based on risk communication (≒ deliberative democracy) and policy making
2）Realization of participation in TPP
If both are done, Taiwan can reach the goal of maintaining a living space in international space.
The current path for Taiwan is to raise two political and economic signs: the two-way interactive democracy that Mr. Tang is showing, and the honor student in the free trade system by joining the TPP.I think this fits Lee Teng-hui’s vision. Measures to gain public understanding of the five prefectures’ food import bans that are currently facing should be divided into long-term, medium-term, and short-term measures with the above vision in mind.
- Reliable values of this proposal～Returning to the principle of popular sovereignty, the government should focus on building a platform for public participation in politics.
The safety of food in the five prefectures can be fully explained scientifically. The core of the problem is that it becomes a political issue as “denial of public opinion.” Ultimately, the grounds for the Kuomintang’s counter argument are: “The government is downplaying the irreplaceable public will and the health of the people.” The Kuomintang counterargument touches on the core of democracy and should never be denied head-on. Rather, on the premise of “emphasis on people’s will” and “respect for different values”
- “Participation in the political debate of the people”
- “Freedom of choice for food as a consumer”
Should be shown to be as welcoming and supportive as possible. The Democratic Party must not take a scientific “mission” attitude from above to the people who oppose the lifting of the food ban in the five prefectures. Being seen as an “elite mission from above” itself is considered a national contempt and can lead to political runs.We should abandon the attitude of confrontation and persuasion toward the Kuomintang, emphasize that the point of “emphasis on the people’s will” is in the same position as the Kuomintang, and put out an attitude of encouraging dialogue to the people.
To sum up the Kuomintang’s counterargument and the Japanese Government’s allegations, the role of government, both realistically and ideologically, is
1 While respecting the diverse valuesof the people
2 To encourage people to participate in discussions on political issues
3 Open and adjust the information.
3 has two sides.
1) A platform that connects information from authorities (governments, international organisations, research institutes) to the people. It should be noted that the transparency of information and the convenience of access to information are enhanced.
2) A platform (flat platform) where each and every one of the people can participate in the discussion. The role of the government is to carry out the following three things in an integrated manner.
1 Risk assessment and publication based on the cooperation of scientific institutions
2 Implement policies to manage risks (quarantine at ports, requesting the Japanese government to issue certificates, grasping the distribution process in the food market, etc.).
3 Encouraging and implementing risk communication for the public
We believe that it is the role of the government to develop the platform of 3 on the basis of 1and 2 (reference figure is shown below).
We believe that trust and legitimacy in the government can be guaranteed only by directing such a political process. This proposal is summarized based on the above basic principles.
- Recommendations
3-1 Overview of measures to give the public a sense of security and conviction
The strategy to win the majority is to target half and half of the people in the dialogue, and emphasize that the people who are consolidating in opposition are fully guaranteed the freedom to choose and buy food.
The short-term, medium-term, and long-term measures are listed below.
-short-term strategy
(1) Make efforts to disseminate the government to suppress hoaxes related to food on the Internet.
(2) For foods imported from the five prefectures, clearly indicate the place of origin and radiation, and completely guarantee “freedom not to eat”.
-medium-term strategy
(1) Highly transparent and prompt information transmission via the Internet
(2)Creation of a platform for two-way communication
-long-term strategy
To create a place for risk communication and foster trust in the government and habits of dialogue between the people. By combining these, it is possible to suppress the sources of riots in the short term and attract those who are sensitive to political participation in the medium term. Risk communication is the most time-consuming and important factor in achieving the goal of maturation of democracy. The target of risk communication is the people whose approval and disapproval are not clear, and we welcome changes in opinions during the discussion. It is important as a means of gaining long-term trust from the people. By applying the idea of risk communication to IT democracy, we can expect more rapid results.
3-2 About the philosophy of risk communication
First, the failure in risk communication will be explained by diagram(see the figure below). If the government unilaterally sends “scientific” information and explanations to the people from above and reveals the intention to “convince” a large number of people, it is unable to be”convinced” by various people. When the politicians stick to this style of communication, they are rational and “good people” (= pro-government) who understand scientific explanations, and ignorant and “bad people” (= anti-government) who do not try to understand scientific explanations. It gets stuck in a misunderstanding that divides the government. For those who are classified as “bad people,” the former may be perceived as those who have embraced “brainwashing” by the government.
Next, the conditions for successful risk communication will be explained (see the figure below). As a first condition, it is necessary to create a “place” where men and women of all ages can express their anxieties and ask questions (whether on SNS or face-to-face). Any statement (whether childish, emotional or unscientific) needs to be “accepted” once in that “place.” In other words, it provides a “place” for communication that guarantees “psychological safety.”Anyway, people who dislike “nuclear food”, people who are uncertain but uneasy about polluted food, criticize from the side even if they make statements like emotional runaway or ask questions like children. It is a “place” that does not give a one-sided explanation from above.
As a second condition, it is necessary to share the starting point that neither absolute “safety” nor “danger” exists in this world, and there is a “risk” in between. Regarding “risk”, it is necessary for each citizen to receive appropriate information from the government, discuss it with people close to them, and make decisions based on their own values. If you don’t go through this process, you won’t be convinced. People can trust information and change their perceptions only through dialogue between people who can be trusted more than what is sent from the government.
As a third condition, it is necessary to have a facilitator to operate the “place” of the first condition. Facilitators need to maintain fairness and character of third party and gain the trust of all participants, so it is better to seek people from outside the government (NPOs, universities, etc.). Create opportunities for frank remarks for as many participants as possible, maintain an attitude of listening to any opinions, organize and share the flow of discussions, and obtain professionalism from universities as necessary. It is a role to provide a good knowledge.
4.Conclusion
As an indicator of the maturity of democracy, the government informs the people, the people deliberate on political issues and form public opinion, and the government follows it. This proposal is written with the ideal of getting closer to the above appearance. Bureaucrats have a responsibility to think about scenarios and prepare policies ahead of the public. However, in risk communication, it is necessary to keep an eye on the public debate, away from the “persuasive intention” from the perspective of the politician. Although there is no immediate drug for risk communication, we believe that there is a possibility of more efficient and widespread operation by using online channels.
Reference
唐鳳の語る、“ Radical Transparency and Participation”（徹底的な透明性と参加の原理）がこの問題の核心を突いている。
Research of National Taiwan University
As a result of a food sample test conducted by a research team of Taiwan University in Fukushima in 2017, it was found that all the samples conformed to the CODEX STAN 193-1995 (FY108 ” Japanese Food Research”).
風險評估及實地考察 – 日本食品管理工作專區 – 日本食品管理工作專區 – 衛生福利部食品藥物管理署 (fda.gov.tw)
Published data by the Government of Japan
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of Japan publishes the survey results of radioactive substances in foods distributed in Japan on a monthly basis. As a result since 2013, “the radiation dose is 1 millisievert / year or less, which is the upper limit of the current regulation” continues every month.
The basis for the standard value (1 mSv / year) is based on the following CODEX document P41.
Based on Kuomintang official news website
As a result of the referendum of “Prohibit the open of Food from Fukushima’s five prefectures” held on November 24, 2018, the referendum of 779 and 223 was the opposite.