Lin Kuo-ming's (
While claiming that morality should be a concrete concept that pervades daily political life, Lin says: "However, in trying to ascertain how responsible Chen is for the scandals, we've become stuck in the quagmire of partisan politics." In essence, Lin argues that Chen should step down whether he is guilty or not.
Convicting people by rumor and social pressure is not ethics as it is generally practiced in democratic countries. In democratic countries, when the family of the chief executive runs afoul of the law, he doesn't resign. Neil Bush's numerous escapades have not made his brother US President George W. Bush the target of calls to resign, nor did Billy Carter's influence-peddling lead to calls for brother Jimmy to resign.
In developed democracies people are assumed to be responsible for their own actions; family members are not held accountable as that point of view is considered backward and unfair. We who think Chen should remain in office also have an ethical standard, one that refrains from crucifying people for the crimes of others. It's weird, but there it is.
Lin never addresses the underlying absurdity of "resigning to take responsibility." Taking responsibility means cleaning up the mess you made, not leaving the stink behind for others to swim in. Lin also fails to note that useless resignations are the bane of the Taiwanese government. It is routine for officials to resign to "take responsibility" and disappear from public view for a while -- meanwhile the practices go on and no meaningful change occurs.
Do Lin or any of his cohorts imagine that if Chen resigns, things will actually change for the better in Taiwan? The system of influence peddling and incestuous government-business relations will, if anything, worsen and only confirm that the least palatable components of the political order are capable of bringing down the president.
Lin calls for dialogue, but does not seem to realize that if Chen steps down it will demonstrate that partisan rhetoric, not dialogue, is effective in achieving the goals of political parties in Taiwan. He asks that institutions be reformed, but thinks that damaging the presidency and a party committed to institutional and constitutional reform is a good way to do that.
It should also be noted that getting rid of Chen has been a pan-blue goal from the first day of his presidency -- it seems Lin has forgotten that when Chen killed the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant back in the early days of his administration, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators threatened to impeach him. The assaults on Chen are part of a larger and long-term pan-blue strategy to destabilize the government and denigrate self-rule. The movement did not suddenly spring into being overnight when the Chen Che-nan (陳哲男) scandal broke.
Going back further, the pan-blue assault on the president dates to the struggles between conservative mainlander Hau Pei-tsun (
By promulgating this ill-advised statement, the pan-green academics have naively lent their support to the anti-democratic forces in Taiwanese society, and harmed the progress of democracy. I hope they will reconsider their position, and instead move toward one that actually advocates the dialogue and institutional strengthening they claim to support.
Michael Turton
Tanzi, Taichung County
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS