"Highest moral standard" has become a popular catch-phrase in recent days, heard among politicians from across party lines -- especially so in the wake of the string of corruption scandals allegedly involving President Chen Shui-bian's (
Political observers talk about it, opposition lawmakers lecture about it and even Chen has preached about it on various occasions, stating that he would engage in introspection and hold himself to the "highest moral standard."
But what exactly is the "highest moral standard"? Whose yardstick should we use to determine what is the "highest moral standard"?
Perhaps recent events, such as Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators' incessant criticism of Chen and the first family, and KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
After initially asking her to stay on, Ma bowed to public pressure and accepted KMT spokeswoman Cheng Li-wen's (
Does the fact that Ma asked Cheng to stay on indicate he believes that Cheng's decision to accept a businessman's patronage was OK?
If Ma finds this acceptable, how can the public be assured that Chou wouldn't turn around and ask for favors should Ma become president and Cheng a member of the Cabinet?
What about the case involving former Taitung County commissioner Wu Chun-li (
Ma said that Wu and Kuang were not connected in any way. In that case, why has Ma insisted that Chen take responsibility for the alleged actions of first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍), who is accused of receiving vouchers from the SOGO Department Store, and for his son-in-law Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), who has been charged with insider trading?
Should Wu Shu-jen and Chao be found guilty, they should of course be brought to book. But what is at question here is the difference between the moral standard the opposition uses to attack Chen and officials in the Democratic Progressive Party administration and the standard they hold themselves to.
The term "highest moral standard," after all, is arbitrary. No one is a saint, let alone politicians, who are known for their policy vacillations and broken promises.
While it might be too much to ask the nation's politicians to adhere to the "highest moral standard," at the least, the same moral standard ought to be applied to all politicians when one is pointing a finger at someone in another political camp.
If KMT lawmakers have no problem with Ma's attitude toward the controversies surrounding Cheng and Wu Chun-li, to name only two, how will Ma be able to convince the public that the country will be run better or that officials will be cleaner should he win the presidency in 2008?
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