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
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS