Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators have been working to promote a presidential ticket with President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and former premier William Lai (賴清德) by talking about “political ethics.”
Reading between the lines, “political ethics” means that the incumbent, Tsai, should represent the party in the election.
This explanation is problematic. Who should be on the presidential ticket is a matter of preference and freedom of expression.
In other words, citing “political ethics” in pairing Lai with Tsai — by a sitting legislator no less — runs counter to political ethics for three main reasons:
First, political morality has a definite meaning: it is the true meaning of Western political ethics.
It represents a politician’s commitment and responsibility toward public affairs, as well as the public’s trust in politics and politicians, and serves as a warning to politicians that they should not conduct themselves in a manner that is purely in the interests of politics if that conduct runs counter to — or breaches — the interests of the state or country, or to maintaining the values of democratic politics.
Just as it is incumbent upon leaders in any given field to act in accordance with professional ethics, so should politicians act in line with the dictates of political ethics.
This is especially important in the case of the powerful or those in power, or those susceptible to abuses of power. These people must give powerless and vulnerable members of society the opportunity to have their voices heard.
Second, Tsai and Lai do not have equal access to power. Of the two parties on a potential Tsai-Lai ticket, one is the president, who controls the resources of the executive. The president — especially within the nation’s current system — wields considerable political power.
Lai was formerly a premier, but currently holds no executive position and therefore lacks the resources such a position would bring. Any power that he has is nonofficial, stemming from his popularity and influence.
If legislators or party workers promote a Tsai-Lai ticket, they would be doing so from a position of access to power, which would run counter to political ethics.
The third issue is a linguistic one. The English word “ethics,” as understood in Western democracies, is closer to the idea of “morality.”
In Chinese, the word for “ethics” — lunli (倫理) — is more reminiscent of the traditional Confucian hierarchical concept of loyalty to one’s ruler, father or husband. In the Confucian sense, a government official’s loyalty lies first and foremost with the ruler they serve.
Times have changed and Lai is not Tsai’s official in the Confucian sense. If the logic of the Confucian system still applied, any news story, media outlet or opposition party that is critical of the president would be running counter to “political ethics,” and that is clearly untenable in a democracy.
In other words, promoting the legitimacy of a Tsai-Lai ticket within that interpretation of “political ethics” has the opposite of the intended effect.
Put simply, those in power who use — or even abuse — the power they wield will contravene political ethics in the Western sense.
This also gives rise to concerns that, if no limits are placed on this behavior, they might even contravene democratic values or political ethics (morality).
If a Tsai-Lai ticket is to be put forward, it should not be proposed by someone in power, and especially not by someone in an official position.
Yang Yung-nane is director of National Cheng Kung University’s Center of Science and Technology Governance.
Translated by Perry Svensson and Paul Cooper
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.