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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers