A fight broke out at the Taipei City Council on April 13, when some Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors' discontent over and boycott of Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou's (
The hanging of a presidential portrait undoubtedly holds an implication of power. In an authoritarian regime, leaders' portraits are a tool to win over or awe their friends, and to tame and monitor their enemies. However, in a democratic society, the hanging of a presidential portrait symbolizes the legal rule authorized by a democratic mechanism.
It actually symbolizes, and gives a human face to, authority. For both systems, leaders' portraits have two social regulatory functions: Glorification and oppression. This is the so-called "portrait politics," under which a presidential portrait is in fact a re-creation of honor, status and position, hinting that the president's social and moral role and authority is supreme.
The key to Lee's case is not the portrait. Rather, it's the compulsory hanging of a presidential portrait at all government agencies as prescribed by law. This is also where the core of portrait politics lies. Through their portraits, leaders' character, spirit, appearance and authority can be directly branded on the minds of both their subordinates and their people, transforming that into loyalty to the leaders. That's why leaders at all times and in all countries are always so obsessed with printing, circulating and hanging their own portraits.
The power of a national leader in a democratic system comes through the authorization of a majority of his or her people. Logically, the legitimacy of hanging his or her portrait is greater than that of a dictator. His or her portrait also represents a country and its government in an abstract way and is a symbol of political power.
Therefore, the tearing up of the portrait of a directly elected president and that of a dictator have very different meanings. The former is a denial of a majority decision and people's power. The latter is a challenge to dictatorship and even a symbol of democratic revolution. The two should not be mentioned in the same breath.
The blue-camp supporters' refusal to accept the results of the presidential election is understandable. They are not giving up democracy now and believe that Chen used tricks that abused democracy in order to win the election, and therefore refuse to admit his presidential status.
This shows that they agree with democracy and do not intend to destroy it.
Nevertheless, until a judicial recount and the official investigation prove that Chen was truly elected through dirty tricks, we must accept the fact that he was legally elected. This is not only a rational attitude but also the manner of a civilized person. In other words, since the judicial system has not yet come up with its conclusion, Chen is still the president of Taiwan -- no matter how much you hate him.
On the premise of this democratic issue, hanging Chen's portraits is legal and legitimate. Lee's removal of the portrait was indeed tedious and ignorant, and was also an example of negative, anti-democratic behavior.
Pu Ta-chung is the chief editorial writer of the Apple Daily.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with