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.”
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers