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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS