The exercise of individual rights should not be dependent on the attitude of the government of the day or placed at the mercy of politics, but guaranteed by law. In contrast, Ma’s presidential power is based on the political promises on which he was elected and when he is no longer capable or willing to deliver on those, his democratic legitimacy is called into question. If Ma then wants to continue to exercise power, it is he who will have to rely on the forbearance of the public.
Based on some of the statements he has made, Ma clearly has a topsy-turvy view of the relationship between the rights and duties of voters and the government.
Furthermore, Ma’s idea of “striking back” is clearly directed at the small number of media outlets that have strongly questioned the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Although the government ignored public opinion and forced through the ECFA, that agreement offers only the chimera of a cure-all. The facade has already started peeling away under the onslaught of data compiled and presented by the opposition media, and it is this that has led to the threat of strong counterattacks on the part of the government.
It would be a mark of good governance if the government decided to respond to public doubts by explaining its policies through debate, but Ma has not chosen this route. Instead, he has combined the authority and resources of different ministries and agencies with those of the KMT to launch daily attacks against what it says are untrue statements and by placing lots of ads in the media, thus wasting taxpayers’ money in pursut of the selfish interests of a political party.
That party owns astronomical sums in the form of ill-gotten assets which should be returned to the state or the individuals from whom they were stolen. Ma has said on numerous occasions that he would deal with this issue, but he has instead chosen to sell off the assets and fill the KMT’s coffers.
If he is defending party policy, then why not use party assets instead of the taxpayers’ hard earned money?
Imagine the political scandal that would ensue if the US government used taxpayers’ money to buy ad space to criticize the New York Times or the Washington Post, or if it resorted to placement marketing to buy off the media.
In Taiwan, the government not only uses methods that run counter to the spirit of democracy, it doesn’t even have the common sense to try and hide it, talking openly about how it tolerates other media and plans to strike back. This is an odd situation for any democratic country to find itself in.
It is worrying to see the president ignoring mainstream public opinion and leaning unreservedly toward China. For the people of Taiwan, this state of affairs is nothing short of a disaster.
Translated by Drew Cameron and Perry Svensson
RSS