In 2000, the transfer of power from the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) offered hope to many Taiwanese. It was the greatest opportunity to date to shake off the culture of corruption that had been plaguing the country for decades and build a new system. This was the DPP's promise to the nation.
But the DPP administration was immediately faced with four years of criticism for being incompetent and then two-and-a- half years of even greater controversy over accusations of arrogance and corruption. The first accusation is easily dealt with by policy and political explanations, while the second deals with individuals and is more difficult to respond to. As time passes, Taiwan is sinking and while we are wrapped up in mudslinging, global strategic positioning is taking shape.
When I was in charge of reconstruction following the 921 Earthquake, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) visited the disaster area at least once a month. He was empathetic to the victims of the earthquake and thought of nothing but to restore the affected area to its previous state as soon as possible. He was a humanitarian and efficient president.
When I took up the position as minister of education, our education system was full of problems, and Chen kept thinking about how to turn the crisis in educational reform in a positive direction to bring out the best in the new generation. During my four-year stint as the head of the ministry, I often expressed opinions differing from Chen based on expertise and the regular operations of the system. Even when Chen frowned on my suggestions, he hardly ever overruled my advice. In fact, I was not the only Cabinet member who would give Chen forthright but friendly admonitions.
When the DPP came to power in 2000, most Cabinet members were former KMT members, followed by independents and finally DPP members.
Although this would seem unfair to the governing DPP, it underlined how open-minded the DPP was in its selection people following the transfer of power.
During the early years, the DPP government was thus awash with talent, even surpassing the previous KMT governments. I am proud to have worked together with so many talented people for four years. Although it is not a bad idea for the DPP to appoint more of its own party members, some of them only last half a year, showing that there is a clear imbalance in professional ability.
Under these circumstances, some heads of government agencies have obviously failed to provide Chen with timely advice. As Chen is now struggling with his scandal-ridden presidency, these people should also engage in some serious soul searching.
When former minister of justice Chen Ding-nan (陳定南) attended Cabinet meetings or addressed the legislature, I always sat right next to him. Occasionally, I also ran into him at musical or art performances at the National Theater or Concert Hall. I saw a DPP member cautious and attentive to detail in his work and always trying to improve. When he had finished reading official documents during the intervals between legislative sessions he would pick up an English text book, making notes and often asking advice from others.
I don't know if DPP politicians today are as diligent as Chen was, but I do know that they are less capable of presenting their arguments, which was one of the main reasons why, in the past, they managed to win public support and take power. The present-day DPP is not much like the party I used to know, and some DPP politicians are not like the idealistic students I knew in college.
Society has now turned its attention to the recent series of scandals -- the Presidential Office's former deputy secretary-general Chen Che-nan (
The people are focused on democratic leadership rather than rule of law, and what should be rather than what actually is. The question of whether this is right or good is of course worth discussing further, but it is already too late to amend the situation. This is Taiwan's current political climate and its destiny.
Before a dispute intensifies, everyone is willing to let the rule of law determine its outcome. However, once a dispute has intensified, staunch demands for democracy and ethical principles override the rule of law. The statement made by former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (
In the run-up to the 2000 presidential election, some people urged Lee to take a neutral stance, but he chose to side with Chen Shui-bian without the slightest hesitation. Now, however, when some people want Lee to choose sides, he has decided to criticize Chen.
I believe what Lee has been trying to say all along is that when the country is going in the right direction, he will choose that side. On both these occasions, Lee's decision has caused great embarrassment to the government, but this country needs people like this -- people of stature who speak up at crucial moments. This is not a simple matter of right and wrong, but a point of view, of seeing in what direction the nation is moving.
We cannot always stick to old ideas of what is right or wrong. This is a mode of thinking and this is how society keeps developing. I believe what Lee was driving at was not so much asking the president to to think about stepping down after carefully considering what he has done right or wrong, but rather doing so based on whether or not he thinks the country is moving in the right direction.
Since the public put their trust in government, they can certainly demand that those who hold high office quickly learn how to be tolerant and act with wisdom, practice self-restraint and learn how to live with unification and independence demands.
The president and his administration should be clean and hard working. This is a basic requirement. They must also look to fulfill the responsibilities they have been entrusted with by the public. Chen should engage in self-reflection based on the constitutional system and constitutional precedent before making the best possible decision and assuming his political and ethical responsibilities. This is where we find the moral high ground that a national leader should aspire to occupy.
What I am more concerned about is that the government and the legislature are separated from each other and that the resulting lack of vision and inability to actively lay down clear economic strategies will lead to deteriorating national competitiveness. Amid all this ongoing conflict, senior citizens are beginning to worry about their future, the middle-aged lack confidence in it, and the young generation doesn't even know what there is to look forward to.
The nation's only hope lies in the future. If Chen Shui-bian really has to step down to secure this, then so be it. After all, it is only a matter of one individual. Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟), former Presidential Office secretary-general, recently said that there are more important battles to fight before the presidential election in 2008. A serious imbalance between the blue and green camps is bad for Taiwan.
Maybe the suggestion that President Chen resign temporarily at the beginning of next year and then resume his duties if he is found innocent is a useful constitutional precedent. But what then?
I wonder where the next team with vision will be found. In his speech to the court following his death sentence Socrates said: "The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways -- I to die and you to live. Which is the better, only God knows."
May God bless Taiwan, for we must shoulder this responsibility.
Huang Jong-tsun, a former minister of education, is president of China Medical University.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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