Taiwan’s importation of eggs to address a nationwide shortage earlier this year has stirred a lot of controversy, with the Ministry of Agriculture and the opposition parties all having their own versions of the truth.
Based on my years of experience observing the political situation in Taiwan, each party usually only makes one-sided arguments beneficial to itself. Only by considering the arguments of all parties can we see the whole picture.
However, it is now clear that if former minister of agriculture Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) had not stepped down, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would surely have been seriously damaged by the affair. The matter is not about the truth of the imported egg turmoil, it is about “ministerial integrity.”
Taiwanese have always had a low opinion of political figures, and this is why there are few politicians widely respected by the public, while there are plenty of those pilloried by the public.
When Chen served as minister of the Council of Agriculture (COA), there were already controversies surrounding him. When the COA was upgraded to a ministry, it was good timing to introduce a new minister. Yet Chen stayed on and became the head of the new ministry, which surprised many people. This time, when handling the imported eggs conundrum, many controversies have occurred, which further damaged his image.
Chen’s failure to resign earlier cost him the dignified demeanor that a minister should have. When he did, his immediate boss originally refused to accept his resignation over the egg issue. This, together with the plagiarism dispute over former Hsinchu mayor Lin Chih-chien’s (林智堅) master’s thesis, has become a major breach for the ruling party.
The presidential race is now in full swing. The DPP’s candidate is leading the field so far, but a large percentage of the public are looking for a change in ruling party. Had Chen refused to step down, it would have made the argument for the desirability of a transfer of power even more convincing.
It is up to voters to make an objective evaluation of a candidate’s qualifications as to who is more suitable to serve as the next president. Who is elected in the end depends on public opinion. If the election results are distorted by non-candidate factors, it is random, rather than the spirit of democracy.
Historical developments might never meet the expectations of any single individual, but the inappropriate words, deeds and choices of staying or leaving by a few in high positions often become the proverbial final straw.
I have no personal relation or connection with Chen — he is neither a friend nor a foe, nor do I have any prejudice against any particular political party. My objective is to point out that whatever important government officials do is always under scrutiny, and what the people want to see is the courage of officials to shoulder responsibility rather than double-talk, and to step down when they should, instead of shamelessly clinging to positions. Even if the person concerned has suitable academic expertise, if they are found to be unqualified because of moral integrity issues, they would lose legitimacy for a renewal of office.
In other words, you can be rhetorical or shameless, but on election day, citizens can punish you, and you might wonder whether your tenacity and sophistry had been worth it.
Frank Wu is a director of the T.H. Wu Foundation.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
On the eve of the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe (VE) Day, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) made a statement that provoked unprecedented repudiations among the European diplomats in Taipei. Chu said during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that what President William Lai (賴清德) has been doing to the opposition is equivalent to what Adolf Hitler did in Nazi Germany, referencing ongoing investigations into the KMT’s alleged forgery of signatures used in recall petitions against Democratic Progressive Party legislators. In response, the German Institute Taipei posted a statement to express its “deep disappointment and concern”
RSS