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 stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS