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
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS