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
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Eating at a breakfast shop the other day, I turned to an old man sitting at the table next to mine. “Hey, did you hear that the Legislative Yuan passed a bill to give everyone NT$10,000 [US$340]?” I said, pointing to a newspaper headline. The old man cursed, then said: “Yeah, the Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] canceled the NT$100 billion subsidy for Taiwan Power Co and announced they would give everyone NT$10,000 instead. “Nice. Now they are saying that if electricity prices go up, we can just use that cash to pay for it,” he said. “I have no time for drivel like
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
RSS