In Western European democracies, and Anglo-Saxon societies in particular, parents have for generations encouraged their children to participate in athletic activities and competitions. They believe this not only strengthens body and mind, but also that the competitive process promotes discipline and respect for laws, and develops a spirit of solidarity and cooperation. Healthy competition in youth is believed to provide habits helpful in social and professional life, and helps mold children into mature, law-abiding and responsible citizens.
Young people's participation in such competition has become one of the cornerstones of democracy and rule of law in Western societies. What are the lifelong habits youths learn as they participate in athletic competitions?
First, they must follow the rules, be fair and not cheat. They cannot go to any length just to reach their goal.
Second, competition necessarily means winning or losing. The winner must not be arrogant and boastful, and the loser must not feel inferior and resort to abuse: the pre-competition salutes or handshakes are a display of friendship.
Third, there are referees in a competition. Referees are not perfect people, and unavoidably some of their assessments will be inaccurate, but even if one is dissatisfied with their decisions (as with court decisions), one has to accept them and abide by them.
There is a story about a boy returning home after losing a soccer game. After he vents his anger to his father, complaining that "the referee was unfair," the father uses this philosophy of life to both console and educate his son by asking "Who said that life is always fair?" If we believe that the referee has committed a grave mistake, we can file an appeal according to the rules, and patiently await a review of the verdict.
These ethics are called "sportsmanship." They are of deep social significance, and could also be called the ethics of competition. They are given great importance in Western societies, and are passed on from generation to generation. These ethics have become a basic standard for individual behavior both in public and in private, and they are the reason why democracy and the rule by law can be maintained. Thanks to universal acceptance of these unwritten ethics, their violators are spurned by the public.
These sportsmanship ethics become obvious when democratic countries hold elections. In these countries elections are seen as a competition between the policies of the different candidates, where voters are the referees and the winner is decided through popular vote. Candidates do their utmost to publicize and explain their policies to voters to let them assess which policy is more beneficial to society and the public.
For example, there are a lot of candidates when US parties first hold their preliminary elections for presidential candidates. But during the election process those receiving fewer votes, who thus have little chance of winning the nomination, drop out of the race one by one, usually proclaiming their support for another candidate whose candidacy looks stronger.
No one shouts slogans such as "fight to the end" or "scorched-earth tactics," and no one resorts to a life-and-death battle fuelled by rage and other individual emotions that completely destroy intra-party solidarity.
The same logic applies to the presidential election. If any of the parties believes that the law is being violated or that some unfairness has been committed, the ethics of competition dictate that they must air their dissent in public and call for correction in a court of law or through public debate. The campaign may be both intense and fierce, but there is no crying, kneeling or prostration. Everyone maintains their dignity and reason.
These ethics also dictate that once the election's outcome is revealed, everyone accepts it. Even if there are flaws in the process, candidates are willing to accept these flaws in the interest of social peace, and they are unwilling to disturb society with endless exaggerations and by venting their personal enmities.
During the 1960 presidential race between Richard Nixon and John Kennedy, for example, there was proof of vote-rigging in favor of Kennedy in Chicago, and some people suggested that Nixon file a lawsuit. Nixon, however, felt that since the outcome had already been made public, a lawsuit would create chaos, and he therefore accepted the results for the sake of the overall situation.
In the US presidential election in 2000, then-vice president Al Gore lost the election, but there were 1,784 questionable ballots in Florida that could have determined the winner. Gore therefore sought a recount first in the district court, then appealed to a higher court and finally the US Supreme Court, where he finally lost the appeal. Although this Supreme Court ruling is still controversial in legal circles, Gore conceded defeat, holding back his tears. He later attended George Bush's inauguration ceremony, showing his generosity and dignity.
During these weeks of uncertainty, there was no hurling of invective and there were no physical attacks. No one whipped up crowds to hold demonstrations, and no one claimed that they would lead a mob in a charge on the White House.
I don't know how we could even begin to compare Gore's magnanimity to the behavior of the loser in Taiwan's 2000 presidential election, who quietly ran abroad because he didn't want to participate in the presidential inauguration.
The more recent post-election turmoil has astounded Taiwanese and foreigners alike. Yet there are both immediate and long-term explanations for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and People First Party (PFP) being sore losers in the two consecutive elections.
One of the long-term causes for this eruption of rage is that these losers have been steeped in Chinese culture (they pride themselves in being "pure Chinese"). The aforementioned ethics of competition do not exist in traditional Chinese political culture, whose logic is that the victor becomes king and the loser becomes a bandit. To expect them to follow the ethics of sportsmanship would be futile.
Moreover, the pan-blue candidates have always held themselves to be superior to President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). In every respect -- from family background to education, experience, command of English and ethnicity -- they deem themselves several ranks higher than Chen and thoroughly despise him. For them, their electoral defeat by Chen amounts to the disgrace of a lifetime. The passion of their revenge has not cooled down; instead, it has been set ablaze.
The opposition's behavior over the past four years reflects this hatred. Shortly after Chen's first inauguration, they launched a bid for his recall. They opposed any and all government policies initiated by Chen's administration for the sake of opposing them, taking pleasure in embarrassing the new president and his government.
During the 2000 presidential election campaign, KMT Chairman Lien Chan (
As far as immediate causes are concerned, Soong and Lien know very well that their political lives will be over as soon as they admit to losing the election. At that time, they will not be able to suppress calls from within their parties requesting them to resign and pass their leadership positions to the next generation. Their only way out of this predicament was therefore to claim that the election was "unfair," to demand that it be annulled, and then to demand a re-election, even though they had no evidence at all to back up such demands. By blurring the focus, blaming other people and denying their responsibility for the election loss, they thus managed to linger on with the last breath of their political lives.
The second immediate reason for their post-election behavior is that the opposition parties were overly confident, believing they could not lose the election. Their supporters congregating in front of the campaign headquarters believed victory was theirs, as they were misled by TV reports that falsified the numbers of votes won by each side. The crowds were shocked by the true results, as these were totally different from what they expected. As vote-rigging had been a trick routinely employed by the KMT during its decades of rule, the opposition supporters' immediate reaction was to presume the unexpected outcome was due to a vote-rigging effort by the DPP. The crowd's anger and indignation thus erupted as if ignited by lightning.
Third, Chen was shot on the eve of the presidential election, and the nation was in an uproar. It is doubtful whether the incident had any major impact on the election since voters had largely made up their minds by then, yet it became the best excuse for the losers to spread sensational rumors and incite their supporters. Some people even said it was unacceptable to allow one bullet to influence hundreds of thousands of votes.
In fact, even if the shooting had an impact on the election, it was a sudden incident, as unexpected as a natural disaster. It was not a reason to claim that the election was unfair; to do so is much like a student stricken by an illness on exam day claiming that the exam itself is unfair. Unexpected events are an inevitable reality of life. How can one carry on living if one cannot even accept that?
The opposition parties are inciting crowds and students to riot. As KMT Secretary-General Lin Fong-cheng (
The losing parties have incessantly created turmoil with their slogans, which are limited to "the election was unfair," demands for a recount and new election, and claims that "the election is mired in doubt" and "the truth has not been told." Most of these claims are unsupported by any evidence, and some are a mere childish venting of spite.
Claims that "the election is mired in doubt" and that "the truth has not been told" probably refer to the shooting of the president and the large number of invalid votes. The situation surrounding the shooting is in fact very clear: Someone shot the president in an attempt to assassinate our head of state. There is no doubt about this; it's just a matter of the culprit not having been arrested yet. There are quite a number of unsolved murder cases in Taiwan. Using the fact that the culprit is on the loose to exaggerate things, and even accusing the victim of planning and orchestrating the shooting, is an attempt to confuse matters and stain the election. As this claim also assassinates the character of the shooting victims, it is childish and ridiculous in the extreme, and it underestimates the common sense of the citizens.
In any country, if the head of state is shot at -- regardless of whether he or she is injured, or how serious his or her wounds -- it's necessary to initiate the national security mechanism and mobilize military and police, placing the nation on alert. Don't forget that China, watching from the other side of the Taiwan Strait, would love to eliminate Chen.
If some people are unable to vote, it is only because they are performing their public duty. This is no different from the situation of other public servants, who sometimes are unable to vote due to the demands of their duties; for example, diplomats working abroad or emergency personnel staying on duty during elections. This normal situation does not an "unfair election" make. Besides, no one can be sure which side would benefit if these people had been able to vote.
Regarding the invalid votes, reportedly hundreds of thousands, let's not forget that during the campaign, the Alliance of Casting One Million Invalid Ballots (
The opposition camp has incited the public and students to create disorder. Apart from showing their unwillingness to accept defeat, perhaps they themselves do not even know what they want. They contradict themselves, are incoherent and do not know what they are talking about.
They go from claiming that "the election was unfair" to suddenly demanding that the election be annulled, before calling for a recount, and then a re-election. They call for the president to step down, then suddenly announce the election of Lien and Soong, then demand that Chen receive them before a specified deadline. They demand that Chen issue an emergency order to recount votes, then call for an "administrative recount" -- and then a "judicial recount" -- and then an "administrative and judicial recount." They demand the establishment of an investigation committee, they call for political reform, and they demand a meeting on matters of national interest. These ever-changing appeals are dizzying.
Some students willing to be used by these politicians joined the disturbance. Perhaps they thought of the past "Wild Lily Students' Movement" (
But the motives, timing, methods and demands of their campaign will not win the people's respect. Whether democracy and the rule of law can take root in Taiwan will depend on whether the ethics of competition can take root here.
Peng Ming-min (
Translated by Jennie Shih,
Wang Hsiao-wen, Eddie Chang and Perry Svensson
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS