President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently wrote to his sister Ma Yi-nan (馬以南) in an e-mail that he had not won praise despite being a “good person” and visiting victims of Typhoon Morakot. His sister then mentioned this in public, saying her brother was having a tough time. These comments caused a public outcry and tell us that the president is dissatisfied with the treatment he receives from the public, casting doubt on the sincerity of the deep bows Ma offered to disaster victims.
Concerning misunderstandings about “good people” and “good government,” public policy scholar Anthony Downs wrote more than 60 years ago that the quality of a politician or political party has nothing to do with inherent nature or motives; what is important is the pressure on political parties — applied by electoral competition — to formulate good policies. In other words, a government made of “good people” will not necessarily formulate good policies or have the ability to implement good policies once they are formulated. What voters should pay attention to is whether the system for democratic competition is complete and whether it allows ambitious politicians to compete to improve policies during their quest to win votes.
Sadly, Taiwan’s political culture is full of debate about good and bad people, while reflection on good and bad policies is nonexistent.
Politicians and academics also deliberately mislead the public to think that someone presented as “good” by the media must abhor evil and that such a person will care for the public and lead the nation.
Since taking office more than a year ago, the “good person’s government,” as Ma likes to refer to his administration, has illustrated the difference between good people and good governance. Ma may well be a good person that likes to “follow the law,” but he is not a “good president” capable of coming up with forward-looking policies and implementing them. Perhaps this is the price Taiwan must pay for its democracy to mature.
The administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) seemed to suggest that the quest for personal gain and loving Taiwan go hand in hand, and that the rule of law is necessary to guard against the abuse of power.
Ma, on the other hand, has reminded us that a president afraid of exercising his power because he fears retaliation could well stand by and watch people suffering, remaining silent and failing to act out of fear of upsetting those more powerful than himself. Chen and Ma have shown us that there is a huge difference between a good person and a good president.
If we compare what Downs wrote in An Economic Theory of Democracy on the relationship between the desire of politicians and good policy with Ma’s belief that he has been wronged by disaster victims, it is clear that Taiwan’s democracy is still in the process of differentiating between good people and competent governance.
Perhaps we must learn a tough lesson before we can come to the conclusion that a democracy is not about electing good people — it is about offering incentives such as power, money and fame to people with certain abilities so they compete and maintain checks on each other.
This is the only way to elect a president with the ability to implement good policies and this is what being a good president should entail.
Otherwise, we will be stuck with presidents and premiers who call themselves “good people” and complain that the public is ignorant and treats them unfairly.
Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.
TRANSLATED BY DREW CAMERON
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing