A group of pan-green academics including Wu Nai-teh (吳乃德), an Academia Sinica research fellow, recently released a statement entitled "Democracy and the Moral Crisis of Taiwanese Identity -- Our Appeal to the President, the Ruling Party and Taiwanese Citizens," urging President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to step down to protect Taiwan's democracy and the moral legitimacy of the nation's identity. We respect their statement. In addition to being a system for arranging political power, democracy also provides citizens with an ethical community. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has been growing stronger amid a growing awareness of a Taiwanese identity because the party has been able to find support in that ethical community ever since the dangwai days.
However, democracy will not mature simply by relying on the formulation of an ethical community. It must also build a stable democratic order and the systematic participation of democratic forces. The goals of arranging political power and enhancing the ethical community are not in absolute opposition to each other. The key point is how, amid conflict between these goals, to let democratic forces participate in a more orderly and responsible fashion, implement reform and raise the general public's democratic awareness.
Formulating an ethical community is the ultimate hope that we place in democracy, but day-to-day democracy is not always that simple. Whether from a legal or a responsible political perspective, how can we legally ask the president to step down when he has not personally been implicated in corruption or the covering-up of corruption, has not been impeached or recalled, and is not guilty of rebellion or treason?
If we require that the president step down for moral reasons only, the decision on what moral standard to follow would be subjective. The academics believe that a presidential refusal to resign will lead to a moral crisis. We believe it could trigger several different political crises and put an end to the president's decision to delegate power just as it is gradually being implemented.
The first crisis would be to alienate pan-green diehards from the current system. Chen's resignation would not be a moral example to them; they would think that he was being forced out by a long period of unreasonable pressure from the pan-blue camp and media. The pan-blue camp's longstanding policy of opposing Chen for the sake of opposing him, and their ill-intended and seriously distorted exaggerations have left a deep impression. If the president is forced down, these supporters will be greatly disappointed and feel that they have been treated unfairly. They will become alienated and maybe even decide to challenge the system, which would be extremely unfortunate for Taiwan's democracy.
The second crisis would be to bring Taiwan's political situation to the brink of chaos. After all, Taiwan is not like the US, where various regulations have been established in the operation of democracy, and the "rule of law" is far stronger than the "rule of men," enabling it to bear the impact of a presidential resignation. By comparison, there is no trust between the governing and opposition parties in Taiwan. It would also take time to resolve conflict among the DPP's factions. If Chen resigns suddenly, it would inevitably trigger greater conflict among the party's factions, leading to the decline of Taiwan's democracy.
More importantly, Chen has already responded to the DPP's call for power sharing and made adjustments to his staff, giving Premier Su Tseng-chang (
In the future, how will the Taiwanese people evaluate the DPP's performance? How will history judge the party that came to power on the back of its Taiwanese identity? All this depends on what the DPP government can do for the public during its remaining time in power. We believe that the cooperation between Chen and Su, which is stabilizing into an earnestly working administrative team, is what people want. Only by maintaining this system can the party regain the public's support and continue Taiwan's democratic reform.
There are many reasons to increase the public's understanding of democracy. Ethics is a guiding light, showing us the direction. Simply recognizing it cannot consolidate our democracy, and looking straight into it might blind us. This does not mean that we are giving up, but that we continue to move closer at a stable pace more appropriate to Taiwan's political situation.
Lee Wen-chung and Julian Kuo are Democratic Progressive Party legislators; Tuan Yi-kang is a former convener of the party's New Tide faction.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Eddy Chang
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US