One benefit to be gained from the recent allegations against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) is a growing public awareness on how to judge a political leader's character.
A comprehensive judgment of a political leader must take into account whether he or she can uphold national interests, set achievable goals and remain determined and consistent in executing ideas. He or she must have strong discipline, high moral standards and behave consistently.
If Chen failed to live up to high moral standards of leadership, at least he has set an example for other politicians by avoiding double standards and judging himself as well as others.
What Taiwan needs now is a stronger, unbiased, independent watchdog mechanism to monitor all politicians, especially those who might take power in 2008.
Among them, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's (
Also, when former Taitung County commissioner Wu Chun-li (吳俊立) was charged with bribery and his wife represented him in the election, Ma emphasized that Wu's wife "should not suffer for the crimes of her husband." But when first lady Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍) was accused of receiving vouchers from the SOGO Department Store and her son-in-law was charged with insider trading, Ma insisted Chen take the blame.
When Chen's recall was first suggested by hawkish pan-blue figures, Ma remained cautious about such a move. As People First Party Chairman James Soong (
However, amid criticism that Ma has been controlled by Soong and the anti-Chen movement, he decided not to dance to Soong's tune and initiate a vote of no-confidence in the Cabinet right after Tuesday's recall vote.
Ma's political fence-sitting reminds us that he tried to manipulate the unification-independence issue earlier this year. After Chen announced he would consider abolishing the National Unification Council and guidelines in January, Ma adjusted his political stance by switching from unification as the eventual goal for Taiwan to embracing the idea of independence as an option.
With the aim of building a moderate image of himself, Ma used recent overseas trips to outline his cross-strait policy. However, most of his ideas either rehash other theories or existing policies adopted by the DPP government.
If Ma has problems with inconsistency and indecisiveness on key issues, what makes him different from Chen or Soong? Over-complacency and political opportunism have illustrated Ma's leadership weaknesses.
After the KMT's landslide victory in last December's three-in-one local elections, the morale of the pan-green camp was low and they were divided. Ma's over-complacent use of the national identity issue, however, resulted in a backlash from both the DPP and his own pan-blue alliance.
When Ma's camp tried to take advantage of his overrated popularity to score political points, he overlooked the deeply-rooted idea that the people of Taiwan have the right to a say in their own future.
When Ma attempted to assimilate light-green supporters by making independence one of the alternatives for Taiwan's future with China, he received a slap in the face from hard-core unification proponents.
A mirror has two faces. When Ma accuses Chen of not telling the truth and urges him to step down, he needs to remind himself that he is walking down the same path that Chen has trod.
Liu Kuan-teh is a Taipei-based political commentator.
Elbridge Colby, America’s Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, is the most influential voice on defense strategy in the Second Trump Administration. For insight into his thinking, one could do no better than read his thoughts on the defense of Taiwan which he gathered in a book he wrote in 2021. The Strategy of Denial, is his contemplation of China’s rising hegemony in Asia and on how to deter China from invading Taiwan. Allowing China to absorb Taiwan, he wrote, would open the entire Indo-Pacific region to Chinese preeminence and result in a power transition that would place America’s prosperity
When Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) first suggested a mass recall of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, the Taipei Times called the idea “not only absurd, but also deeply undemocratic” (“Lai’s speech and legislative chaos,” Jan. 6, page 8). In a subsequent editorial (“Recall chaos plays into KMT hands,” Jan. 9, page 8), the paper wrote that his suggestion was not a solution, and that if it failed, it would exacerbate the enmity between the parties and lead to a cascade of revenge recalls. The danger came from having the DPP orchestrate a mass recall. As it transpired,
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
All 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers and suspended Hsinchu Mayor Ann Kao (高虹安), formerly of the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), survived recall elections against them on Saturday, in a massive loss to the unprecedented mass recall movement, as well as to the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) that backed it. The outcome has surprised many, as most analysts expected that at least a few legislators would be ousted. Over the past few months, dedicated and passionate civic groups gathered more than 1 million signatures to recall KMT lawmakers, an extraordinary achievement that many believed would be enough to remove at
RSS