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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS