A survey of parents' and teachers' views on the character of politicians was recently conducted by Commonwealth magazine. The results show that, except for Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
In contrast, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) and former premier Sun Yun-suan (
But the results might be better seen as the public's yearning for past authoritarian rule. Dictators of the authoritarian regime (such as Chiang), their capable bureaucrats (such as Sun) and the successors they carefully trained (such as Ma) are viewed by intellectuals as politicians with character and integrity.
But political figures like Chen and Lu, who sacrificed themselves for the democracy movement and who confronted the totalitarian rulers, are considered to be of lower morality than their oppressors and are ranked far lower than them.
This comparison aroused my interest in the essence of character. Is it not true that upright behavior is often suppressed under an authoritarian rule that imposes limits on freedom? This is best manifested in the great number of political prisoners.
As the survey shows, those whose views were suppressed on account of their political activities are deemed to have flawed characters, while those who inflicted oppression or acted as hatchet men are seen as having noble personalities. These results highlight the biggest problem in Taiwan's character education.
When integrity means obedient behavior and noble, pleasant-to-hear words, when honesty is defined as abiding by the law, and when there is a lack of conflicting values, choices and actions, then people's perceptions of integrity and honesty are conditioned in a certain way. Those with power and abundant resources naturally look noble and moral. With such conditioning, integrity is no more than an act of public relations.
Integrity means the willingness to sacrifice oneself for one's ideas or principles and to give up short-term interests to safeguard certain values. It is difficult enough to make these choices under ordinary circumstances, and more difficult yet when such choices involve sacrificing one's family and one's own life to pursue an idea. This is the true definition of integrity.
Integrity education should focus on teaching people how to make a choice between interests and values and not just go with the flow. An emphasis should be placed on values and principles, while honesty, deportment and abidance by the law should be seen merely as the product of judgements based on these values or interests. What is required for integrity is not abiding by the law, but being willing to abandon one's own interests in favor of principles.
Such integrity is not conditioned, and has become more difficult to achieve as the environment has become democratized and diversified. This is because, when sources of suppression disappear and temptations increase, integrity runs into the value conflicts that come with power. This is why rebels are faced with more severe challenges when they get power.
Without comprehension of these issues, one might find it difficult to understand why some people, including some who faced suppression in the past, yearn for authoritarian power.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy, Academia Sinica.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath