Following an appeal for President Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) resignation by a group of pro-green academics on July 15, most political debate has focused on two issues: Morality and the rule of law. Maybe the general public feels that academics talking about morality see themselves as superior, while politicians using the rule of law as their defense may make it seem as the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is demanding too little of itself. I think that maybe we can approach the issue by examining values.
From the dangwai era to today's DPP, the party has pursued three major objectives: Resisting a foreign regime from a pro-localization perspective; promoting liberalism and democracy; and opposing corruption and safeguarding social justice. The DPP's legitimacy is not based on either its moral values or the rule of law. Rather, it comes from its belief in the value of progress. From the 1979 Kaohsiung Incident to the establishment of the DPP government, the party has relied heavily on these major objectives. Without them, the party would not be able to garner student support, nor would it be able represent the will of the Taiwanese people.
"Values" is not a technical term in the study of ethics, but rather, it represents the bloody battle of ideology and politics. By the 1980s and 1990s, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had already managed to feed and clothe Taiwan, so why did we still want the old thieves to step down and dissolve the National Assembly? Because they were immoral or illegal? No, the reason was rather that we held to more progressive values and wanted to build a better society.
Why did we want self-rule for schools and the departure of military instructors? Was it because they were morally inferior, failed to make campus contributions or were illegal? No. Rather, their presence contradicted the idea of a free and open educational environment. After the 1992 legislative elections, the KMT continued to enjoy a legislative majority and in the 1996 presidential elections, the KMT chairman was still elected president. Nothing had changed, the KMT was still in power, yet this was what we wanted. Why? Democratic values.
This being the case, let us look at the DPP based on how it has implemented the three fundamental values just mentioned, rather than by the moral standards by which we judge saints.
First, have they helped strengthen the localized regime? No, because once we had direct elections there was no longer any foreign regime. So where did we get the idea that a localized regime needed consolidating? We have to look at the DPP's party charter: Have there been any diplomatic breakthroughs? Have Taiwan-US relations been improved? Is Taiwan a step closer to joining the UN? Have cross-strait relations been relaxed?
These issues are all part of the DPP's party platform, published on its Web site. None of these objectives have been achieved in the DPP's six years of government. The KMT should of course share responsibility for this, as should the pro-unification media. However, the fact remains: None of these objectives have been realized.
Second is liberalism and democracy. During its 14 years in opposition, the DPP practically completed the first phase of democratic reform, including lifting the government ban on political parties and newspapers, as well as holding full legislative and direct presidential elections. The climax of these reforms was the transition of power in 2000.
Since then, the DPP has held a minority in the legislature. The president is not answerable to the legislature, while the premier is, although the holder of that post has been frequently replaced by the president. During six years of constitutional deadlock, the president has appointed one premier from the opposition party and considered appointing others, but there have been no party-to-party negotiations. He has also appointed several premiers, but never given them the power to assemble the Cabinet.
The constitutional system inherited by the DPP was incomplete, with imbalances between rights and responsibilities. The president is not responsible for many of the different situations resulting in a stalemate -- the legislature and the opposition parties are also responsible for not having solved the constitutional problems. The current situation has, however, opened the door to power concentration. The president has in effect maximized his power and he is happy as long as things are running smoothly. He cannot, however, start blaming the Constitution as soon as he encounters problems. This is not how you win the public's trust.
Third is opposing corruption and safeguarding social justice. Legally speaking, it can be maintained that the corruption of former Presidential Office deputy secretary-general Chen Che-nan (陳哲男) had nothing to do with the president, that the first family was unaware of the alleged insider-trading of the president's son-in-law Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘), that Chen did not fail to report first lady Wu Shu-jen's (吳淑珍) jewelry in his financial disclosure because it was borrowed, that Sogo Department Store gift vouchers were never sent "directly" to the first family and that the reporting of special state affairs expenses followed precedents set by previous administrations. But are these excuses sufficient?
If our political demands are restricted by the law alone, then why don't we scrap political ethics and responsibilities from our school textbooks?
The best example of the first family's close ties to big business in the midst of the second wave of financial reform was the embrace between the president's son and Jeffrey Koo (辜仲諒) at Chen's son's wedding. Was it illegal? No. Was it immoral? Not necessarily. But at the very least, the general public takes notice of such behavior. In the future, the DPP could just as well give up its talk about protecting the disadvantaged and pursuing social justice, and instead let the general public know what its new set of values are.
Values. It is all about values and what values the DPP's leaders want to show the people of Taiwan.
I do not mean to diminish the DPP administration's outstanding achievements over the past six years. Regardless of whether Chen steps down or completes his second term in office, it will only affect the political situation over the next two years. The point is that intellectuals, the man in the street and students are watching the DPP to see what methods and explanations it will use to "consolidate the localized regime."
Over the past decade, I have spent my youth with the DPP, and many others have done the same. I do not mind taking another electoral drubbing with the party or facing another two decades in opposition. But please use values to convince me that it is worth it!
Denzel Ku is a former deputy chief of the Democratic Progressive Party and a legislative assistant.
Translated by Lin Ya-ti
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
An elderly mother and her daughter were found dead in Kaohsiung after having not been seen for several days, discovered only when a foul odor began to spread and drew neighbors’ attention. There have been many similar cases, but it is particularly troubling that some of the victims were excluded from the social welfare safety net because they did not meet eligibility criteria. According to media reports, the middle-aged daughter had sought help from the local borough warden. Although the warden did step in, many services were unavailable without out-of-pocket payments due to issues with eligibility, leaving the warden’s hands
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
Taiwan last week finally reached a trade agreement with the US, reducing tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, without stacking them on existing levies, from the 20 percent rate announced by US President Donald Trump’s administration in August last year. Taiwan also became the first country to secure most-favored-nation treatment for semiconductor and related suppliers under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act. In return, Taiwanese chipmakers, electronics manufacturing service providers and other technology companies would invest US$250 billion in the US, while the government would provide credit guarantees of up to US$250 billion to support Taiwanese firms
RSS