Almost before the controversy created by last month's presidential recall motion has died down, the next wave of calls for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down is gathering force. The difference now is that it is no longer the pan-blue camp calling for his resignation, but rather a group of academics and former political prisoners. The media coverage is, as always, creating a stir, and this is worth a closer look.
Taiwan has seen a proliferation of political ideas since the nation turned its back on authoritarianism and stepped into the era of democracy and free speech. Trying to press the president to step down, whether for political or moral reasons, is a right we all have. Asking the head of state to step down is, however, an action of some significance, and without legitimacy, such demands will ring false and may lead to social turmoil.
The pan-blue camp's move to recall the president lacked that legitimacy, both from a legal and a political perspective, and it was clear as day that it was a politically motivated attack. The attempt failed at a high cost to the financial sector.
Democratic Taiwan has moved on from the party-state era, a time when the public was kept uninformed. People now know that opinions should not be discarded or given particular credibility on the basis of who espouses them. The crucial test these days is whether or not the argument is persuasive, particularly so when the issue at hand deals with a presidential resignation.
From this perspective, the view that the president should step down is unconvincing and, taking a more comprehensive view, also unrealistic. According to the media, Chen is being asked to resign because "he has lost his moral prestige and the public's trust." This is a subjective assessment containing no convincing arguments based on fact.
What's worse, one of the people behind the signature drive said on a call-in TV-show that the Presidential Office has become a center of lies and fraud and that the president "is but a dog with legal training." Such defamatory language has nothing to do with convincing arguments.
Those now demanding Chen's resignation claim that political leaders have replaced soul-searching with instigation of ethnic conflict, and that the public and academics have helped suppress the quest for democratic ideals by sympathizing with that position. This is yet another example of empty accusations without any foundation in reality.
Although people close to Chen were accused of swindling and corruption and then brought to court, mainstream public opinion opposed the presidential recall mainly because of the lack of clear evidence that Chen himself knew what was going on and tried to provide cover for those involved. This is an enlightened attitude that fundamentally conforms with the rule of law, and it does in no way go against the quest for democratic ideals.
Instead, many people are tired of the current goings-on because politicians and media outlets continue their wanton exposure and reporting of scandals for purely political reasons, claiming that their aim is to expose corruption while ignoring their responsibility to provide evidence.
Those demanding that the president step down are bringing serious accusations against the government, and are using the ethnic card to drum up support, without offering any evidence to support their charges, thus manifesting the same cursory and irresponsible attitude as other professional commentators exposing "scandals."
And it gets worse. Those wanting Chen to step down repeatedly call for democratic values to enrich the Taiwanese identity and demand that citizens constantly review and renew themselves. This is a laudable-sounding statement, but if the reviews being called for are unilateral, and if subjective moral judgements are passed on the president and the Democratic Progressive Party while nothing is said about the chaotic behavior of opposition politicians and media in recent years, it will only remain a matter of double standards, and that is no way to convince people.
What's more, double standards should not be stressed in a sound democratic society. Small wonder that people immediately criticized this latest discourse, saying that it lacked the fairness and justice required to find the truth.
In addition, a call aimed at the general public and based on comprehensive views, rationality and responsibility shouldn't ignore the unavoidable negative effect the president's resignation would have on the political situation. But this doesn't seem to be a major concern of the people behind this campaign.
The latest call for the president to step down is a political discourse promoted by egghead intellectuals; it is not a rational argument capable of convincing people. Despite that, the hype created by politicians and media outlets created a furor even before the statement was made public.
The traces of political manipulation are everywhere to be seen. First, an academic at the Academia Sinica and one of the drafters of the statement who is definitely not a pan-green supporter was described as standing close to the pan-green camp, because both the media and the supporters of the party-state complex like to see pan-green supporters lashing out at their own camp.
Second, it is clear that there are victims of the White Terror era among the originators of the statement, but it is still being said that it is a group of academics who want Chen to step down. This is both because talk of academia carries some weight and because the pan-blue camp is afraid of mentioning anything that would remind people of the political prisoners of the past.
Third, the media have fabricated a news story that the Taipei Society, which has a good reputation in academic circles, is echoing the call for Chen to step down -- ample evidence that the media are doing all they can to promote the illusion that people from every sector of society want Chen to resign. Needless to say, those calling for Chen's resignation are given epithets such as "incorrupt," "idealists" and "pillars of society."
In democratic Taiwan, it is not a crime to call for the president to step down. It is, however, a matter of major significance, so those who intend to use that right must do so out of consideration for society at large, rather than putting on the elevated and righteous airs of someone punishing a tyrant to save the people or trying to promote their own position by posing as crusaders for a clean society.
Lu Shih-hsiang is CEO of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence and an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS