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
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
RSS