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.”
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS