The Social Ethics Association of Taiwan recently published its annual Social Trust Survey. The survey shows that 60.3 percent of respondents said they trust strangers, but only 36.1 percent said they trust President Chen Shui-bian (
The president of a nation is traditionally viewed as society's patriarch -- a person that is trusted and brings harmony. That is no longer the case here. Aside from the fact that only 36.1 percent of respondents said they trusted Chen, a whopping 46.9 percent said they did not trust him.
While this state of affairs is disturbing, it's not a cause for opposition politicians to gloat, because public trust in both government officials and lawmakers falls behind public trust in Chen.
Has the public always been more willing to put their trust in strangers rather than the president?
This was not always the case.
In 2001, one year after Chen was sworn into his first term of office, public trust in him was a high 60.6 percent -- much higher than the 39 percent that voted for him in the 2000 presidential election. Apparently, even those who did not vote for him were willing to regard him as the nation's patriarch.
In 2002, his trustworthiness plunged to 41 percent, close to the percentage of votes he won in the 2000 presidential election, indicating a drop in the number of centrist voters who were willing to put their trust in him.
In 2004, Chen's successful re-election bid boosted public trust in him to 53.2 percent -- a higher figure than the vote he garnered in the presidential election. This meant that people once again were willing to trust him.
Last year, however, public trust in Chen fell to 36.1 percent, a figure which was even lower than the percentage of votes he collected in the 2000 presidential election. This is evidence that even some pan-green supporters no longer trust Chen. Further analysis implies that at least 20 percent of pan-green die-hards no longer trust him.
Since a majority of those who trust Chen come from the pan-green camp and a majority of those who distrust him are pan-blue followers, some political commentators believe that Taiwan is becoming an increasingly polarized and belligerent M-shaped society.
This argument, however, does not explain why 60 percent of the public trust strangers. Mutual trust is a very valuable social asset.
Unlike in the past, we now live in a modern society where there is a clear division of labor and life-styles differ, and people interact with strangers on a daily basis. Without mutual trust, society is unlikely to function normally.
Despite the survey's indication that 60.3 percent of the public are willing to trust strangers, the same survey conducted in 2004 indicated that only 50.6 percent were willing to trust strangers. In 2002, the figure stood at 38.1 percent, and in 2001, at 34.1 percent.
This means that although Taiwan politically is moving toward an M-shaped, more belligerent society, society at large is moving toward integration.
These results do not contradict each other, but rather point to a mutual causal relationship. Taiwanese politicians take confrontation for granted and tend to demonize their opponents. The foundation for this intolerant, confrontational approach was laid during the repressive martial law era.
Taiwan is now a democracy and no matter what methods are used, they do not approach the brutality witnessed during the martial law era. The language, however, is becoming harsher.
To wage a battle, it is necessary to mobilize the public. As such, political confrontations have led to social polarization, where one half of society believes that the other half is vicious.
Strangely enough, despite the fall in public trust in politicians and the increasing belief among the public that the "other half of society" is suspect, social trust in strangers is increasing. This is an indication of a maturing civil society that leaves fewer and fewer politicians behind as public leaders.
Most regrettably, media outlets and reporters, who have a responsibility to report the facts and uphold public trust, have fallen behind politicians in terms of public credibility. If the media continue to fuel political opposition, they would be hard pressed to improve their credibility. And that would be big loss for society.
Lin Cho-shui is a former Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng and Perry Svensson
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS