Toward a culture of trust
Regarding the post-election turmoil, a lot has been said about what the leaders of each camp should do, but relatively little thought is spent on the role of the people. I think it is crucial for us to recognize that it takes a mature civil society to nurture democratic development, and that the growth of civil society depends much less on government action than it does on the contribution of the people.
If the people in Taiwan don't ask what we can do as a public at a time like this, but only focus on placing demands on political leaders, we will never become full-fledged citizens. There is more to democracy than choosing who we want to be ruled by. We think too little of ourselves by ignoring that fact.
What is placed on the shoulders of the Taiwanese people at this time is the great responsibility to generate and protect a heavy stock of civility for our society.
Civility, in turn, is a culture of critical thinking and social trust. Without the former, citizens are turned into blind, order-following drones; without the latter, political and social dialogue breaks down through endless second-guessing.
The unique situation of Taiwan is such that we have developed from an authoritarian system to a democratic one fairly quickly, and people who have inherited the legacy of being critical toward the government are now being rushed to learn the new culture of accumulating social trust. The great challenge we all face, regardless of our political preference, is to properly discern when to use our critical thinking and when to protect our social trust.
Only when we as a people learn to balance these two modes of thinking can we remain one society, above and beyond the manipulation of politicians. Candidates come and go, but as the people of Taiwan we collectively stand at a historical juncture.
We as [ordinary people] are being put to the test as to whether we are wise enough to be called citizens.
We need to speak up when we see questionable issues; we need to trust in the answer we get when it seems reasonable, even if it's not the answer we like.
If there is a question about President Chen Shui-bian's (
But to second-guess every answer that has been offered, to reject every piece of evidence in the name of a great conspiracy whose grounds have yet to be specified, to imagine that all the police, all the staff at all precincts, all the doctors and nurses at Chi Mei Medical Center, were bought off to cover up a lie -- this is to blindly accuse our neighbors, teachers, friends, cousins, of being corrupted, untrustworthy and easily manipulated.
The question, really, is not what we think about Chen and Lu and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chen (
The question is, in a nutshell, do we care more about what is being said or about who is saying it?
Until we have learned to recognize a reasonable answer as such, even when it is offered by someone we don't like, we cannot claim to be a democratic society.
Taiwan does not need more great-man or great-woman politics; Taiwan desperately needs a great citizenry.
Lo Ming-cheng
Davis, California
Taiwan found wanting
The election campaign may have aroused emotions and divided families, but the real travesty is the feckless television media and the erosion of Taiwan's nascent democratic institutions by intense partisanship. An observer can only wonder: Is this the will of the Taiwanese people?
It is clear from watching the coverage of the campaign and the issues that the media in Taiwan have little interest in providing critical political coverage. The television media [outlets] in particular seem to believe that reporting consists of showing the latest pictures and covering, verbatim, the mouthings of politicians and officials without comment.
While this may enable the television media to present a politically neutral facade, there is little value in this approach as it eliminates the media's role as an independent voice and critic.
Moreover, this position has enabled, perhaps encouraged, a number of lawmakers and renegade fraudsters to make many potentially damaging comments without providing proof.
This has particularly been the case in this election, where the KMT and known sympathizers regularly slandered the incumbent [president]. Bizarrely, instead of the local media requesting proof of misdeeds, they hounded the accused, forcing them to provide proof of innocence.
In a mature democracy, the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence, not the accused.
Even after the election, the media never challenged the decisions of Lien and Soong to march to the Presidential Office and make their claims of illegality and electoral tampering. Instead of the rationale for this loutish behavior being challenged by the media, they provided a pulpit. Seen on air as unchallenged statements, their claims were legitimized in the public eye, and they spread and incited violence in Taichung and Taipei.
Another example of the media's lack of neutrality was Lien's claim that he was powerless to make his supporters cease protesting. The media assented.
There were no questions about the money the KMT and the PFP were spending on feeding the protesters outside the Presidential Office, and on providing tents and sleeping bags.
Nor was anything mentioned about the organized transportation of many more protesters to Taipei. In this instance, the KMT and PFP have gotten away with casting their partisan rabble-rousing as a spontaneous grassroots expression of disgust with the Democratic Progressive Party's win.
However, Taiwan's media did not create the recent instability; instead, they only exacerbated it.
Full responsibility rests with a small number of self-aggrandizing people and the people's willingness to follow them blindly without thinking.
The ability to think critically and to carefully weigh evidence must not be delegated to the media or to political leaders. Especially when the former abstains from doing their duty] and the latter abuse [their power.
As a result, the question of whether Lien and Soong are democrats or not is now moot; for they are destroying the democratic process in this country by attempting to induce a state of fear, instability and mob rule.
Are they so obsessed with regaining the levers of power that they are prepared to destroy the mechanism itself?
So far, Taiwan has not demonstrated a desire to be democratic.
The media, powerful individuals and society itself have been found wanting over the last few days. It is time for Taiwan to ask itself: Does it actually want democracy or would it prefer to return to a regime of prosecution, totalitarianism and fear?
Benjamin Adams
New Zealand
Posters are a new low
The KMT [hit] a new low in politics by issuing a poster comparing Chen to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. To my greater disbelief, the Taichung City KMT campaign headquarters actually endorsed the illustration.
And to think Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (
The KMT may be an old and wealthy political party, but it's certainly acting like a child in this case.
Eugene Liu
Atlanta, Georgia
Sunshine state
To my many Taiwanese friends: Please do not believe that in a mature democracy, such as the US, that losers do not pout, start demonstrations and vilify the declared winner.
Look only to the troubles in Florida in our last presidential election to see the similarities with your current election and [upcoming] recount. Fundamentally, we had the same problems as you currently have. Unfortunately for us, we had two sets of courts ruling on the election and that exacerbated the situation.
As we did, you will work your way out of this morass. Half the people will be happy with whatever outcome you get, the other half will be bitter and spiteful. That is the nature of close elections in a democracy.
The famous American author Mark Twain once wrote, "If we would learn what the human race really is at bottom, we need only observe it in election times."
Lyle Morton
Longmont, Colorado
Lien: two-time loser
I wrote a congratulatory letter for the second term of Chen and Lu [after they] won the election. I am wishing for them to lead Taiwan to a much better position internationally for the freedom, prosperity and happiness of Taiwan as a sovereign independent country.
Since then, I read two of your editorials ("Election reaction is playing with fire," March 21, page 22 and "The referendum decided the election," March 22, page 8).
I am fully in agreement with your comments and would also hope that you might like to suggest to all of Taiwan's people that Lien badly requires psychiatric treatment. It seems he did not realize his own personal problem since he is a two-time loser and the people of Taiwan strongly feel that he is not qualified to lead Taiwan to more freedom, prosperity and happiness.
As you stated, the KMT controlled Taiwan for many decades. If it comes back, then the loser would be the people of Taiwan, unfortunately.
One thing that worries me is that the "internal enemy" seems to be much stronger than the "external enemy."
Nobody can save Taiwan's future except Taiwan's people themselves.
The failure of the referendum was a great shame for the people of Taiwan. It may imply the people of Taiwan could not speak in one voice to the international community. Many foreigners are confused about what Taiwan's people are searching for.
I pray things will be settled as soon as possible from this nonsense created by Lien. I hope he will withdraw and make a concession speech and let Taiwan's people move forward in peace for the country's survival.
Yoshiko Tio
Houston, Texas
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS