The second round of protests against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on Ketagalan Boulevard has left me depressed. None of the rationales behind the so-called "anti-corruption" campaign convinces me that it is anything other than an aftershock of the last presidential election.
Taiwan's next election will make it clear whether this administration has won any political achievements and if voters believe that it has been involved in corruption. If Chen's aides and relatives -- including his son-in-law, Chao Chien-ming (趙建銘) -- have violated the law, they will be judged by the law and by history.
Unless Chen is guilty of rebellion, treason or politically subverting Taiwan's sovereignty, there is no other reason to disrupt the normal course of democracy and make him step down before his term is over.
If it is proven that the president indeed has violated corruption laws, I would agree that it would be best for him to step down. This is not because clean government is more important than democracy, but because corruption would make Chen unable to represent Taiwan's democracy.
However, guilt should not be decided on TV, in polls or based on the writings of academics.
The prudent and perceptive wait until legal investigations are complete before hurling charges, but former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Shih Ming-teh (
John Wei (
Next, Jerry Fan (
While Fan's mantra may sound good, it fails to accommodate divergent views. If a country is to be strictly ruled by morality, then very people would pass the test of propriety, justice, honesty and honor. Poets and artists would face adversity, creative industries would be unable to develop and Taiwan's diverse array of opinions would be stifled.
Moreover, the principle of presumed innocence would be discarded and anything not deemed to fit the code of "propriety, justice, honesty and honor" would be criminal. Democratic progress would be turned back and Taiwan would revert back into a totalitarian country.
Replacing the rule of law with "moral" standards runs counter to historical trends. This is the second danger of the anti-Chen campaign: the abandonment of democratic values.
With the anti-Chen movement making toppling the president its first priority, violence may come in many forms. Cheng Tsun-chi (鄭村棋), a social activist and former Taipei City labor affairs bureau chief, has said that if Chen refuses to step down, he would launch a bloody revolution.
Yang Tu (楊渡), an editorial writer for the Chinese-language newspaper China Times, has a three-step plan to force Chen out.
The first step is inciting a popular movement to plunge Taiwan into chaos so that the people will storm the Presidential Office. Next, the Presidential Office would be forced to dispatch troops to put down the protest. Finally, with Taiwan on the brink of collapse, the US would miraculously be convinced to step in to force Chen out.
Yang says rebellion is the only way to success. Unable to convince his critics, he turns to anger and urges Taiwan onto an anti-democratic and violent path. This is the third danger of the movement: conspiring to use violence.
Some people say that overthrowing Chen is a revolutionary goal that supersedes democracy and the rule of law. The problem with that theory is that most revolutions throughout history have fought to move countries away from totalitarianism and toward democracy.
Going in the opposite direction would in fact be anti-revolutionary. By disregarding democracy and the rule of law, the anti-Chen campaign is by definition a counter-revolutionary movement.
I have visited the sit-in on Ketagalan Boulevard several times, where the more the emotional speakers talked about toppling Chen, the more they felt they were right. The more they spoke, the more frenzied their words became.
I urge these people to take a deep breath and consider a few questions. Regardless of whether Chen is guilty of corruption or not, shouldn't we wait for an answer from the courts before taking action? Isn't violating the principle of presumed innocence a regression from democracy?
And if the president is overthrown, could it be that authoritarianism would return, utterly negating 30 years of democratic achievements?
The ability of the anti-Chen camp to ignore these questions baffled me until I read an essay on the McGurk Effect, in which the brain tries to make sense of contradictory things.
Shouldn't those who want to depose Chen be more humble and question whether their views are biased? Are they hearing one thing, seeing another and thinking a third?
As renowned US science fiction author Robert Heinlein once said: "Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal."
Jason Liu is a professor in the department of chemical engineering at National Taiwan University of Science and Technology. Translated by Marc Langer
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Most Hong Kongers ignored the elections for its Legislative Council (LegCo) in 2021 and did so once again on Sunday. Unlike in 2021, moderate democrats who pledged their allegiance to Beijing were absent from the ballots this year. The electoral system overhaul is apparent revenge by Beijing for the democracy movement. On Sunday, the Hong Kong “patriots-only” election of the LegCo had a record-low turnout in the five geographical constituencies, with only 1.3 million people casting their ballots on the only seats that most Hong Kongers are eligible to vote for. Blank and invalid votes were up 50 percent from the previous
More than a week after Hondurans voted, the country still does not know who will be its next president. The Honduran National Electoral Council has not declared a winner, and the transmission of results has experienced repeated malfunctions that interrupted updates for almost 24 hours at times. The delay has become the second-longest post-electoral silence since the election of former Honduran president Juan Orlando Hernandez of the National Party in 2017, which was tainted by accusations of fraud. Once again, this has raised concerns among observers, civil society groups and the international community. The preliminary results remain close, but both
Beijing’s diplomatic tightening with Jakarta is not an isolated episode; it is a piece of a long-term strategy that realigns the prices of choices across the Indo-Pacific. The principle is simple. There is no need to impose an alliance if one can make a given trajectory convenient and the alternative costly. By tying Indonesia’s modernization to capital, technology and logistics corridors, and by obtaining in public the reaffirmation of the “one China” principle, Beijing builds a constraint that can be activated tomorrow on sensitive issues. The most sensitive is Taiwan. If we look at systemic constraints, the question is not whether
RSS