Taiwan’s importation of eggs to address a nationwide shortage earlier this year has stirred a lot of controversy, with the Ministry of Agriculture and the opposition parties all having their own versions of the truth.
Based on my years of experience observing the political situation in Taiwan, each party usually only makes one-sided arguments beneficial to itself. Only by considering the arguments of all parties can we see the whole picture.
However, it is now clear that if former minister of agriculture Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) had not stepped down, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would surely have been seriously damaged by the affair. The matter is not about the truth of the imported egg turmoil, it is about “ministerial integrity.”
Taiwanese have always had a low opinion of political figures, and this is why there are few politicians widely respected by the public, while there are plenty of those pilloried by the public.
When Chen served as minister of the Council of Agriculture (COA), there were already controversies surrounding him. When the COA was upgraded to a ministry, it was good timing to introduce a new minister. Yet Chen stayed on and became the head of the new ministry, which surprised many people. This time, when handling the imported eggs conundrum, many controversies have occurred, which further damaged his image.
Chen’s failure to resign earlier cost him the dignified demeanor that a minister should have. When he did, his immediate boss originally refused to accept his resignation over the egg issue. This, together with the plagiarism dispute over former Hsinchu mayor Lin Chih-chien’s (林智堅) master’s thesis, has become a major breach for the ruling party.
The presidential race is now in full swing. The DPP’s candidate is leading the field so far, but a large percentage of the public are looking for a change in ruling party. Had Chen refused to step down, it would have made the argument for the desirability of a transfer of power even more convincing.
It is up to voters to make an objective evaluation of a candidate’s qualifications as to who is more suitable to serve as the next president. Who is elected in the end depends on public opinion. If the election results are distorted by non-candidate factors, it is random, rather than the spirit of democracy.
Historical developments might never meet the expectations of any single individual, but the inappropriate words, deeds and choices of staying or leaving by a few in high positions often become the proverbial final straw.
I have no personal relation or connection with Chen — he is neither a friend nor a foe, nor do I have any prejudice against any particular political party. My objective is to point out that whatever important government officials do is always under scrutiny, and what the people want to see is the courage of officials to shoulder responsibility rather than double-talk, and to step down when they should, instead of shamelessly clinging to positions. Even if the person concerned has suitable academic expertise, if they are found to be unqualified because of moral integrity issues, they would lose legitimacy for a renewal of office.
In other words, you can be rhetorical or shameless, but on election day, citizens can punish you, and you might wonder whether your tenacity and sophistry had been worth it.
Frank Wu is a director of the T.H. Wu Foundation.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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,
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
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS