Our presidents used to be elected by the National Assembly based on an earlier version of the Constitution of the Republic of China.
At that time, people didn't need to worry about assessing the qualifications of national leaders if they weren't in the assembly.
And that body was a rubber stamp anyway.
This was because rulers during authoritarian times did not entrust people other than themselves or their sons with the presidency.
Now the people of Taiwan are going to exercise their right to elect a president for the third time.
We should cherish this wonderful opportunity and the responsibility of being masters of the country.
We should also think carefully about the qualities that our national leader should have.
We can draw some answers to this question from what former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has said over the past two years in reference to a leader's qualities.
He said that a leader should be firm in his convictions, be willing to sacrifice personal interests for the public good, be fearless in the face of a challenge, be rich in charisma, be high in prestige and be capable of getting things done.
He has also used these criteria to variously criticize the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) for put-ting its own interests above those of the country and Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his administration's incompetence in flood prevention.
I do not think it is possible for us to set criteria for a perfect leader if we do not consider the nation's political reality and needs.
In other words, people need to have a basic idea about social justice and the direction the country is heading in before deciding which pair of candidates is more suitable for the highest office.
Choosing a leader is about choosing one's direction and values.
It is not about choosing an all-powerful deity to worship to solve all of one's problems.
Taiwan has been ruled by different foreign powers, and events of the past 50 years have not been clearly investigated due to the White Terror and martial law.
The confusion over who this period's victims and oppressors were is detrimental to forming a common identity.
But the democratization and localization that started here in the 1990s are irreversible. Only the one who can continue along this path would be a suitable president.
In recent years, Taiwan has suffered from the crisis of being a country but not acting like one.
This has deepened with the endless incentives and threats offered by China as well as the collaboration with China of local political parties and media outlets.
Beijing has distorted President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) anti-missile referendum in an attempt to convince some that it is a referendum on Taiwan's independence.
Its attempts to make Taiwan cancel the referendum process, together with pressure from the US and Japan, indicate a crisis still looms before us.
If a president is not willing or able to resist such unreasonable, ridiculous pressure, then he does not have the requisite will power to serve the country.
We need a president who can continue democratic reforms and localization.
He needs to be sufficiently strong-willed to resist such pressure and ensure the nation's best interests are protected and dignity preserved.
Chen Yi-shen is an associate research fellow at the Institute of Modern History at the Academia Sinica.
Translated by Jennie Shih
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
Birth, aging, illness and death are inevitable parts of the human experience. Yet, living well does not necessarily mean dying well. For those who have a chronic illness or cancer, or are bedridden due to significant injuries or disabilities, the remainder of life can be a torment for themselves and a hardship for their caregivers. Even if they wish to end their life with dignity, they are not allowed to do so. Bih Liu-ing (畢柳鶯), former superintendent of Chung Shan Medical University Hospital, introduced the practice of Voluntary Stopping of Eating and Drinking as an alternative to assisted dying, which remains
RSS