原住民族基層組織推動地方文化政策之制度研究：桃園與新加坡的制度經驗分析

Abstract

本研究旨在探討公私協力機制下，都會區原住民族基層組織在推動地方文化政策時的制度角色與動態互動模式 。研究以臺灣桃園市為實證場域，聚焦於「聯合豐年祭」與「歲時祭儀」兩大核心文化活動，並引入新加坡人民協會及其社區治理經驗作為跨國參照個案 。在理論建構上，本研究結合公私協力、基層組織理論與資源互賴理論，分析公部門、私部門與私部門之承辦廠商三方，在文化意涵再現、行政資源與法規限制上的權力互動與資源交換關係 。 至於研究方法，本研究採質性研究，綜合次級資料分析、參與觀察法，並針對桃園市原民局相關人員、區公所原住民族服務員、原住民族協進會主席、族群領袖及各族群協會代表進行深度訪談。研究發現，即便同屬於都市原住民族文化政策，聯合豐年祭與歲時祭儀在政策產出與影響上仍呈現明顯不同的制度運作特徵：區級聯合豐年祭受制於「層級節制型」架構，區公所依《政府採購法》將硬體與企劃發包予廠商，使協進會與頭目或呈現配合行政績效的作用，導致活動流於形式化的都會嘉年華 。相對地，歲時祭儀則展現「低資源依賴與高度自主性」之制度運作模式，落實「硬體行政歸官僚、文化流程歸協會」的權責分離 。在此架構下，原民局主要扮演行政與資源平臺提供者，社團法人協會得以掌握實質文化主導權，並以「文化正確性」為非正式籌碼，與公部門進行動態協商，有助於強化族群認同與文化傳承。此外，研究亦凸顯第一線原服員在行政合法性與文化自主性夾縫中所面臨的角色衝突與行政耗損 。 本文另以新加坡馬來族社區治理經驗作為比較參照。惟新加坡馬來族與臺灣原住民族並非性質完全相同的群體，兩者在歷史形成、法律地位及文化治理脈絡上均有所差異，故本文並非將兩者直接等同，而是著重比較政府如何透過基層組織與制度平臺支持族群文化活動。新加坡主要由人民協會統籌基層社區治理與政策方向，並透過社區俱樂部及相關基層組織，提供活動落實所需的常態性組織平臺、公共空間與社區網絡。以馬來族重要節慶之一的開齋節為例，除人民協會與社區俱樂部外，馬來族活動執行委員會亦參與活動規劃、社群動員與文化推廣，使開齋節相關活動獲得較為穩定的組織、空間與社區資源，並兼具文化認同、社群維繫、跨族群交流及社會整合等功能。 基於實證結果與新加坡馬來族個案之啟發，本研究建構並提出「平臺化文化共治」模式 。政府應逐步退居為「平臺提供者」，相對地，原住民族基層組織，則應作為「內容主導者」，各司其職，以因應都市原住民族次世代的認同危機，落實文化傳承 的內在需求。

This study examines the institutional roles and dynamic patterns of interaction through which Indigenous grassroots organizations in urban areas promote local cultural policies under public–private partnership arrangements. Taking Taoyuan City, Taiwan, as its primary empirical setting, the study focuses on two major cultural programs: the District-level Joint Harvest Festivals and Seasonal Rituals. It also introduces the People’s Association and community governance practices in Singapore as a cross-national comparative reference. The analytical framework integrates theories of public–private partnership, grassroots organizations, and resource dependence to examine the power relations and resource exchanges among public agencies, Indigenous grassroots organizations, and contracted private vendors with regard to the representation of cultural meanings, the allocation of administrative resources, and regulatory constraints. In terms of research methods, this study adopts a qualitative approach, combining secondary data analysis, participant observation, and in-depth interviews with officials from the Taoyuan City Department of Indigenous Affairs, Indigenous Service Officers from district offices, chairpersons of district-level Indigenous associations, ethnic leaders, and representatives of ethnic-based Indigenous associations. The findings show that, despite both falling under urban Indigenous cultural policy, the District-level Joint Harvest Festivals and Seasonal Rituals exhibit distinct patterns of institutional operation. The District-level Joint Harvest Festivals operate within a hierarchically controlled structure, under which district offices outsource both physical facilities and event planning to contractors pursuant to the Government Procurement Act. Consequently, Indigenous associations and ethnic leaders are often required to accommodate administrative procedures and performance requirements, causing the festivals to become increasingly formalized and resemble urban cultural carnivals. By contrast, Seasonal Rituals exhibit a mode of institutional operation characterized by low resource dependence and a high degree of autonomy. This model establishes a division of responsibilities whereby bureaucratic agencies manage administrative and logistical matters, while incorporated Indigenous associations retain authority over cultural processes. Under this arrangement, the Department of Indigenous Affairs primarily serves as a platform provider, while incorporated Indigenous associations are able to retain substantive leadership over cultural content. By drawing on “cultural correctness” as an informal bargaining resource, these associations engage in ongoing negotiations with public agencies, thereby helping to strengthen ethnic identity and cultural transmission. The findings further highlight the role conflict and administrative strain experienced by frontline Indigenous Service Officers, who must navigate the tensions between administrative legality and cultural autonomy. The study also draws on the community governance experience of Singapore’s Malay community as a comparative reference. However, Singapore Malays and Indigenous peoples in Taiwan are not groups of an entirely equivalent nature. They differ in their historical formation, legal status, collective rights, and cultural governance contexts. Accordingly, this study does not directly equate the two groups, but instead compares how governments support ethnic cultural activities through grassroots organizations and institutional platforms. In Singapore, the People’s Association coordinates the overall direction of grassroots community governance and works through community clubs and related grassroots organizations to provide stable organizational platforms, public spaces, and community networks for local activities. In the case of Hari Raya celebrations, one of the major festivals of the Malay community, the Malay Activity Executive Committees also participate in event planning, community mobilization, and cultural promotion alongside the People’s Association and community clubs. These institutional arrangements provide Hari Raya activities with relatively stable organizational, spatial, and community resources, enabling them to serve multiple functions, including cultural identification, community cohesion, interethnic interaction, and social integration. Based on the empirical findings and insights derived from the Singapore Malay case, this study proposes a “Platform-Based Cultural Co-Governance Model.” Under this model, the government should gradually shift from directly controlling cultural activities to serving as a platform provider, while Indigenous grassroots organizations should assume the role of content leaders. Through a clearer division of responsibilities, the government would provide institutional platforms, financial resources, public spaces, and cross-departmental coordination, whereas Indigenous grassroots organizations would take the lead in determining cultural content, ritual norms, community mobilization, and the direction of cultural transmission. Such an arrangement may help address the identity challenges faced by younger generations of urban Indigenous peoples and respond to their intrinsic need for sustained cultural transmission.