Ko’s reliability problem
On Tuesday last week, in a post on Facebook group “Love Agro Girl,” a mother of a high-school student described how her child purchased one of the Taiwan People’s Party’s (TPP) “Little Grass” cards and participated in an event to support TPP Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲).
“Love Agro Girl” criticized the TPP for cultivating “cult-like religious zealots” in the name of organizing “club activity.”
TPP Deputy Secretary-General Osmar Hsu (許甫) said that the party membership card is different from the Little Grass card.
Ko wrote on Facebook that the TPP has never promoted the Little Grass card among students, suggesting that the “Love Agro Girl” post was false.
Whether the TPP promoted the Little Grass card is not necessarily the problem. What worries parents more is that the line between participation in democracy and cult-like worship is somewhat blurred. Such a concerns are legitimate:
First, Ko has shown no integrity throughout his political career. During campaigning ahead of the presidential election, he initially agreed to collaborate with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), but soon regretted it and declined to honor the deal. For swing voters, he was by no means trustworthy.
People with enough social experience know that a person’s credibility takes years to establish and is their most valuable asset. As the leader of a political party, Ko has lost all credibility. How can such a person lead a country? He should not change his statements and should be emotionally stable, rather than suddenly crying as if he were an actor.
Ko remains the TPP’s chairman despite the election results, so the party has a lot to do to improve its trustworthiness.
Ko should be asked how he would deal with pressure from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). As a politician lacking any integrity and honesty, he should not be trusted.
Would he contribute to Taiwan’s democracy while rejecting authoritarianism and China’s aggression?
Being president would require Ko to be able to figure out how to collaborate with multiple countries. Would he be able to do that?
Parents, regardless of their political affiliation and stance, consider Ko to be an insincere and dishonest politician. The mother who wrote the “Love Agro Girl” post is not the only one. Ko must reflect upon his behavior and address his issues.
Second, Ko’s stance toward the CCP goes against mainstream public opinion in Taiwan. Only a few weeks ago, Ko wanted to include Chinese spouse Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) on the TPP’s list of legislator-at-large nominees, causing an uproar. The other parties asked whether he was pledging allegiance to China.
While he was Taipei mayor, Ko said that “two sides of the Strait are one family,” but when he was running for president, he said that he would follow President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) agenda.
Ko tends to adjust what he says as he sees fit, but the real problem is that he has never clarified his stance toward the CCP.
Today, polls show that Taiwanese generally identify themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese. It is only natural that parents feel uneasy about Ko’s popularity and whether their children would be influenced by him. To reassure such parents, the TPP should comprehensively review its China stance.
In some way, the news about the Little Grass card shows that our younger generations are interested in political affairs and democratic participation. High-school students might not be able to consider the whole picture based on critical analysis, but their willingness to participate in politics should be encouraged and applauded.
In this sense, the TPP should be responsible for its supporters and Taiwan’s democracy. It must transform itself into a more trustworthy political party.
Hsin Na
Taoyuan City
RSS