Deputy Legislative Speaker Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) is representing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in January’s presidential election. However, it is shocking that, having served as a lawmaker for a quarter-century, the fundamental principles of democracy still seem to sound Greek to her.
Hung posted an article late on Friday night lamenting the loss of trust in Taiwanese society, adding that she is especially worried about the public’s distrust of the media, president, officials, lawmakers and judges. Citing the example of the late Li Kwoh-ting (李國鼎), who had served in various Cabinet positions from 1965 to 1988 — mostly during the Martial Law period — Hung said that the distrust between ordinary people and politicians today is the exact opposite of the situation during Li’s time.
Well, if Hung knows the fundamental ideas of democracy — as she should, having served as a lawmaker in a democracy for 25 years, ascending to the position of deputy speaker — she should understand that, in a democracy, it is believed that power brings corruption, and absolute power brings absolute corruption. Therefore it is nothing to be shocked about that the public do not trust the government, and, in fact, it would be worrisome if the public put too much trust in politicians in a democracy.
Actually, it is not just between the public and the government; the idea behind having different branches in a government, instead of putting all the power in one office, is to have them check and balance each other to prevent expansion and abuse of power.
Former Miaoli County commissioner Liu Cheng-hung (劉政鴻), for instance, was a very trusted politician in the county. He enjoyed a high approval rating and was re-elected in 2009 with a record-breaking 63.7 percent of the votes. Whenever he was criticized for controversial policies, Miaoli County residents would not hesitate to come to his defense.
When Liu left office at the end of last year, he left Miaoli with one of the most serious debts in the nation, with several corruption allegations involving himself or his family.
Liu’s story may just be an example of what would happen if the public trust the government too much.
Let us go back to Li.
It is not that surprising that Li — as well as government officials of his time — enjoyed higher support rates among the public, since during the Marital Law era from 1949 to 1987, the media were under strict censorship, and most newspapers, radio stations and TV stations were more or less under government influence in one way or another.
If government officials today can commit wrongdoings in spite of so much media coverage, if Li had been involved in any corruption or abuse of power, the public would have known nothing of it.
Earlier, Hung sparked controversy during a meeting with business leaders by saying that if the legislature could not be reformed, then she would shut it down, after a businessman complained about inefficiency in the legislature.
It is really hard to imagine that the deputy speaker of the legislature in a democracy would say something like that — perhaps political leaders in an authoritarian regime would not dare to openly say so either.
Various remarks Hung made after she announced her candidacy are shocking and reveal her lack of true understanding of democracy. It is sad to see that such a person is running for president, representing a political party that created the “Republic of China.”
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