Wu Nai-teh (
I agree that politicians -- especially the president -- should aspire to higher moral and legal standards than the average person. Many of my friends and I myself are not at all satisfied with Chen's leadership style and political reforms to date.
However, I do not feel that Chen should step down as president following his in-laws' indictment. Has this stained the first family's reputation? Yes. Is Chen guilty of not surrounding himself with clean, capable advisers, and has this tarnished his political reputation? Yes. Do these alleged crimes justify ousting him? No.
Although I personally look forward to the day when Chen vacates the office, I hope that day will be when his presidential term expires. This would conform with the rule of law as established in the Constitution, not to mention with the ways of democracy, which the pan-green academics hold in such high esteem.
I'm more worried about what would happen if Chen were forced out of office. The elite would probably be well equipped to deal with the ensuing instability, but what about the rest of society?
Have these people ever considered what forcing the president out of office would do to pan-green supporters, emotionally and psychologically? And what would the political state of affairs be after Chen is ousted? What measures are needed to deal with the aftermath and is the country prepared to do so? And who can guarantee that the pan-blues won't launch a second or even a third campaign to continue to reap the benefits of such instability?
Perhaps these academics would say that pain must be endured to achieve better democratic governance. This includes requesting a president one supports to step down on the basis of holding him to a higher moral standard.
But while somebody like me can adjust to such a change and live with the aftermath, somebody like my mother, who lives in the countryside, cannot. She would ask me, "Chen didn't break any law. Why does he have to step down?" Must we really force Chen out of office because that's what pan-blue politicians and the pro-unification media want?
A Taiwanese is president -- do we really have to let him get stepped on like this? The pan-blues have been stepping on us, Taiwanese, for 40, 50 years. Isn't that long enough?
Yes, this is ethnic awareness, firmly planted in the minds of every person. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) doesn't need to mobilize its supporters; the Taiwanese identity already exists in the people's hearts and minds. Throughout our history, if the Taiwanese were bullied to the point where it became unbearable, they have risen up in revolt.
The call to a southern Taiwan radio show by a woman talking about "raising our hoes in revolt," which unexpectedly sparked a movement to resist efforts to recall the president, is a prime example, as was the 228 Incident. In the case of the anti-recall movement, the DPP was merely a hesitating, wavering "reserve force" -- slower to act than its supporters.
In other words, the DPP did not play the ethnic card -- rather, ethnic groups mobilized the DPP: The will to fight grew stronger among enraged pan-green supporters, who in the end intervened in the mudfight between the blue and green camps.
The problem of national identity has always existed in Taiwanese society, but the majority of the pan-green supporters whom I've come into contact with are good, tolerant people. Every time they have taken to the streets to protest, it was because they were stirred to anger by pan-blue forces. Thus, I feel that the pan-blue politicians and media are the main stumbling blocks to resolving issues of ethnicity and identity in Taiwan -- the DPP and its supporters are not the problem.
I would also like to pose the following questions to Wu and his friends: Why isn't the pan-blues' mobilization of supporters to protest near the Presidential Office considered "ethnic mobilization?" On the other hand, if pan-green supporters rally en masse, the DPP is immediately accused of "ethnic mobilization." Is this double standard a part of your notion of "high morality?"
Why do you consistently appropriate language used by the pan-blue media, such as "the DPP manipulates ethnic mobilization" to describe the events of the recall movement? If you choose only to read the China Times, or only to submit your writings to the China Times, won't your political and social objectivity be compromised? Can't you see that many of the China Times' reports are biased and are an attempt to manipulate politics?
Of course, intellectuals should closely scrutinize their political leaders -- such monitoring prevents the corruption that inevitably follows when leaders become too powerful. I too am demoralized by the DPP's lack of direction and clarity, but in the past six years, I have never seen you write articles criticizing the inappropriate and destabilizing behavior of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party. Why?
On the road to healthy democratic development, the ruling party has an absolute responsibility to the people; but shouldn't opposition parties also have a responsibility to the people?
My reason for writing this piece is not to incite conflict between the academics and myself. I am sincerely seeking an answer to what is happening because I believe that all the parties in this affair love this country. The only real difference lies in our expression of that love -- in our methods and political judgment.
Michelle Wang is the vice executive secretary of the Northern Taiwan Society.
Translated by Max Hirsch
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS