"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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS