The second round of protests against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on Ketagalan Boulevard has left me depressed. None of the rationales behind the so-called "anti-corruption" campaign convinces me that it is anything other than an aftershock of the last presidential election.
Taiwan's next election will make it clear whether this administration has won any political achievements and if voters believe that it has been involved in corruption. If Chen's aides and relatives -- including his son-in-law, Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘) -- have violated the law, they will be judged by the law and by history.
Unless Chen is guilty of rebellion, treason or politically subverting Taiwan's sovereignty, there is no other reason to disrupt the normal course of democracy and make him step down before his term is over.
If it is proven that the president indeed has violated corruption laws, I would agree that it would be best for him to step down. This is not because clean government is more important than democracy, but because corruption would make Chen unable to represent Taiwan's democracy.
However, guilt should not be decided on TV, in polls or based on the writings of academics.
The prudent and perceptive wait until legal investigations are complete before hurling charges, but former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (
John Wei (
Next, Jerry Fan (
While Fan's mantra may sound good, it fails to accommodate divergent views. If a country is to be strictly ruled by morality, then very people would pass the test of propriety, justice, honesty and honor. Poets and artists would face adversity, creative industries would be unable to develop and Taiwan's diverse array of opinions would be stifled.
Moreover, the principle of presumed innocence would be discarded and anything not deemed to fit the code of "propriety, justice, honesty and honor" would be criminal. Democratic progress would be turned back and Taiwan would revert back into a totalitarian country.
Replacing the rule of law with "moral" standards runs counter to historical trends. This is the second danger of the anti-Chen campaign: the abandonment of democratic values.
With the anti-Chen movement making toppling the president its first priority, violence may come in many forms. Cheng Tsun-chi (鄭村棋), a social activist and former Taipei City labor affairs bureau chief, has said that if Chen refuses to step down, he would launch a bloody revolution.
Yang Tu (楊渡), an editorial writer for the Chinese-language newspaper China Times, has a three-step plan to force Chen out.
The first step is inciting a popular movement to plunge Taiwan into chaos so that the people will storm the Presidential Office. Next, the Presidential Office would be forced to dispatch troops to put down the protest. Finally, with Taiwan on the brink of collapse, the US would miraculously be convinced to step in to force Chen out.
Yang says rebellion is the only way to success. Unable to convince his critics, he turns to anger and urges Taiwan onto an anti-democratic and violent path. This is the third danger of the movement: conspiring to use violence.
Some people say that overthrowing Chen is a revolutionary goal that supersedes democracy and the rule of law. The problem with that theory is that most revolutions throughout history have fought to move countries away from totalitarianism and toward democracy.
Going in the opposite direction would in fact be anti-revolutionary. By disregarding democracy and the rule of law, the anti-Chen campaign is by definition a counter-revolutionary movement.
I have visited the sit-in on Ketagalan Boulevard several times, where the more the emotional speakers talked about toppling Chen, the more they felt they were right. The more they spoke, the more frenzied their words became.
I urge these people to take a deep breath and consider a few questions. Regardless of whether Chen is guilty of corruption or not, shouldn't we wait for an answer from the courts before taking action? Isn't violating the principle of presumed innocence a regression from democracy?
And if the president is overthrown, could it be that authoritarianism would return, utterly negating 30 years of democratic achievements?
The ability of the anti-Chen camp to ignore these questions baffled me until I read an essay on the McGurk Effect, in which the brain tries to make sense of contradictory things.
Shouldn't those who want to depose Chen be more humble and question whether their views are biased? Are they hearing one thing, seeing another and thinking a third?
As renowned US science fiction author Robert Heinlein once said: "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."
Jason Liu is a professor in the department of chemical engineering at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Translated by Marc Langer
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