Wed, Jul 05, 2006 page8

• Editorial: Who owes whom an apology?

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has issued many apologies during his presidency, and especially over the past few months. However, his apology to Academia Sinica President Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) on Thursday was noteworthy. Who can forget Lee's last-minute videotape endorsement of Chen on the eve of the historic presidential election in 2000 with the famous line that the election of Chen would help Taiwan "rise up?"

  Many observers say Lee's decision to go public at that moment helped Chen gain the votes to win by a narrow margin in the three-way presidential race against James Soong (宋楚瑜) and Lien Chan (連戰).

  Chen certainly owes Lee an apology for letting him down (though the political value of a public apology remains dubious). Lee took risks to support Chen. As head of the Academia Sinica and the first native Taiwanese to win a Nobel Prize, Lee commands enormous respect and exerts considerable influence in this country. Moreover, he had little to gain personally from taking his stance. Nor did he have much to gain if Chen did well. Perhaps, as an academic, he still had a strong sense of idealism that prompted him to express his support. However, because of Chen's less-than-satisfactory performance, Lee has been criticized for supporting him. In addition to becoming a scapegoat for the pan-blue camp, Lee's image as an impartial academic who rose above petty politics and self-interest was tarnished.

  Chen owes even more of an apology to those people who have voted for him in the last two presidential elections -- including those who were influenced by Lee's support. Those swayed by Lee were mostly those who identify with Lee's neutral and impartial image -- the so-called moderate voters.

  After Chen apologized, some pro-blue-camp commentators were calling for Lee to apologize to the general public for Chen's performance. But does Lee really owe the public an apology?

  The answer would depend on whether those who voted for Chen would have voted for him knowing what the next six years would bring. Can anyone say with confidence that Taiwan would be a much happier and less corrupt place if Lien or Soong had been elected in 2000?

  Were Lien elected, Taiwan would have continued under the rule of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), a party that had never had the experience of being out of power in Taiwan, and it would not have been taught a lesson in democracy. Perhaps the KMT might have fumbled less in terms of handling domestic affairs, but there would have been little incentive for the party to do something about the black gold politics that the party cultivated over decades of murky links between the state, the party, the private sector and local gangsters.

  As for Soong, his departure from the KMT came about simply because he wanted to be president. There is little reason to suspect that he would have behaved any differently from the KMT if he had been elected.

  A change in power for the country was essential. Some may argue that Taiwan was not ready for this in 2000. But growing up early is better than growing up late. Just because Chen and the Democratic Progressive Party did not perform well does not mean that voting the KMT out was a mistake.

  Chen and the DPP do owe its supporters an apology -- and now that it has been made, it's time to move on and work harder. Either way, Lee need apologize to no one.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Taiwan’s GDP per capita lead fuels South Korean unease

  • 2

    McDonald’s to raise prices on select items from May 27

  • 3

    Wildlife cam sex scene drawing copycats, visitors

  • 4

    TSMC’s Kumamoto fab swings to profit in Q1

  • 5

    Taiwan eyes 100,000 drones a month