Almost before the controversy created by last month's presidential recall motion has died down, the next wave of calls for President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down is gathering force. The difference now is that it is no longer the pan-blue camp calling for his resignation, but rather a group of academics and former political prisoners. The media coverage is, as always, creating a stir, and this is worth a closer look.
Taiwan has seen a proliferation of political ideas since the nation turned its back on authoritarianism and stepped into the era of democracy and free speech. Trying to press the president to step down, whether for political or moral reasons, is a right we all have. Asking the head of state to step down is, however, an action of some significance, and without legitimacy, such demands will ring false and may lead to social turmoil.
The pan-blue camp's move to recall the president lacked that legitimacy, both from a legal and a political perspective, and it was clear as day that it was a politically motivated attack. The attempt failed at a high cost to the financial sector.
Democratic Taiwan has moved on from the party-state era, a time when the public was kept uninformed. People now know that opinions should not be discarded or given particular credibility on the basis of who espouses them. The crucial test these days is whether or not the argument is persuasive, particularly so when the issue at hand deals with a presidential resignation.
From this perspective, the view that the president should step down is unconvincing and, taking a more comprehensive view, also unrealistic. According to the media, Chen is being asked to resign because "he has lost his moral prestige and the public's trust." This is a subjective assessment containing no convincing arguments based on fact.
What's worse, one of the people behind the signature drive said on a call-in TV-show that the Presidential Office has become a center of lies and fraud and that the president "is but a dog with legal training." Such defamatory language has nothing to do with convincing arguments.
Those now demanding Chen's resignation claim that political leaders have replaced soul-searching with instigation of ethnic conflict, and that the public and academics have helped suppress the quest for democratic ideals by sympathizing with that position. This is yet another example of empty accusations without any foundation in reality.
Although people close to Chen were accused of swindling and corruption and then brought to court, mainstream public opinion opposed the presidential recall mainly because of the lack of clear evidence that Chen himself knew what was going on and tried to provide cover for those involved. This is an enlightened attitude that fundamentally conforms with the rule of law, and it does in no way go against the quest for democratic ideals.
Instead, many people are tired of the current goings-on because politicians and media outlets continue their wanton exposure and reporting of scandals for purely political reasons, claiming that their aim is to expose corruption while ignoring their responsibility to provide evidence.
Those demanding that the president step down are bringing serious accusations against the government, and are using the ethnic card to drum up support, without offering any evidence to support their charges, thus manifesting the same cursory and irresponsible attitude as other professional commentators exposing "scandals."
And it gets worse. Those wanting Chen to step down repeatedly call for democratic values to enrich the Taiwanese identity and demand that citizens constantly review and renew themselves. This is a laudable-sounding statement, but if the reviews being called for are unilateral, and if subjective moral judgements are passed on the president and the Democratic Progressive Party while nothing is said about the chaotic behavior of opposition politicians and media in recent years, it will only remain a matter of double standards, and that is no way to convince people.
What's more, double standards should not be stressed in a sound democratic society. Small wonder that people immediately criticized this latest discourse, saying that it lacked the fairness and justice required to find the truth.
In addition, a call aimed at the general public and based on comprehensive views, rationality and responsibility shouldn't ignore the unavoidable negative effect the president's resignation would have on the political situation. But this doesn't seem to be a major concern of the people behind this campaign.
The latest call for the president to step down is a political discourse promoted by egghead intellectuals; it is not a rational argument capable of convincing people. Despite that, the hype created by politicians and media outlets created a furor even before the statement was made public.
The traces of political manipulation are everywhere to be seen. First, an academic at the Academia Sinica and one of the drafters of the statement who is definitely not a pan-green supporter was described as standing close to the pan-green camp, because both the media and the supporters of the party-state complex like to see pan-green supporters lashing out at their own camp.
Second, it is clear that there are victims of the White Terror era among the originators of the statement, but it is still being said that it is a group of academics who want Chen to step down. This is both because talk of academia carries some weight and because the pan-blue camp is afraid of mentioning anything that would remind people of the political prisoners of the past.
Third, the media have fabricated a news story that the Taipei Society, which has a good reputation in academic circles, is echoing the call for Chen to step down -- ample evidence that the media are doing all they can to promote the illusion that people from every sector of society want Chen to resign. Needless to say, those calling for Chen's resignation are given epithets such as "incorrupt," "idealists" and "pillars of society."
In democratic Taiwan, it is not a crime to call for the president to step down. It is, however, a matter of major significance, so those who intend to use that right must do so out of consideration for society at large, rather than putting on the elevated and righteous airs of someone punishing a tyrant to save the people or trying to promote their own position by posing as crusaders for a clean society.
Lu Shih-hsiang is CEO of the Foundation for the Advancement of Media Excellence and an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
There is an old saying that if there is blood in the water, the sharks will come. In Taiwan’s case, that shark is China, circling, waiting for any sign of weakness to strike. Many thought the failed recall effort was that blood in the water, a signal for Beijing to press harder, but Taiwan’s democracy has just proven that China is mistaken. The recent recall campaign against 24 Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators, many with openly pro-Beijing leanings, failed at the ballot box. While the challenge targeted opposition lawmakers rather than President William Lai (賴清德) himself, it became an indirect
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS