On July 19, Chou Chia-cheng (周佳正), a renowned breast surgeon from Taoyuan General Hospital, was fatally struck by a bus while crossing a road in Taipei. On Sunday last week, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) said that he was “deeply pained” by the incident and immediately directed the Taipei Transportation Bureau and Police Department to investigate and ensure accountability.
However, the mayor’s swift response — calling for crosswalk safety reviews, an investigation and accountability — was driven more by the victim’s high-profile status than by a commitment to sound governance. Among the key constituents of sound governance, fairness — particularly equal treatment — is noticeably lacking in the government’s response to pedestrian fatalities. Do high-ranking government officials in Taiwan typically comment on routine pedestrian fatalities involving ordinary citizens? The answer is no.
In response to the incident, the chairman of the bus company involved held a news conference, during which he bowed four times in apology and announced his resignation. Over the past five years, Taiwan has averaged about 420 pedestrian fatalities annually, with the majority caused by vehicle collisions rather than incidents like trips or falls.
Given the statistics, the bus company chairman’s unprecedented display of respect toward the deceased surgeon stands in stark contrast to the numerous pedestrian fatalities that occur annually.
The unusually deferential responses from the mayor and the chairman — reactions rarely seen in cases involving ordinary citizens — raise concerns that some lives might be valued more than others in Taiwan.
One might say that this case is different because the deceased person was a physician. Indeed, physicians — particularly surgeons — are often held in higher regard in Taiwan than in Western countries. This elevated status stems not only from their high incomes, but also from historical factors, such as the Japanese colonial period (1895-1945), when modern Western medical training and practices were introduced. During this time, physicians became symbols of modernization and progress, securing a high social standing in Taiwanese society.
However, when the historically inherited prestige of physicians begins to undermine democratic ideals by reinforcing social hierarchies or fostering unequal treatment, it becomes essential to reassess this heritage and redefine its role in a more equitable, modern society.
One example of this is ensuring that designated physicians — at approved conscription hospitals, whether military or civilian — provide accurate and impartial medical evaluations during the conscription process.
This type of fairness — spanning professions and civic duties — is crucial to maintaining democratic legitimacy. While democracy is founded on formal equality, real-world democracies often fall short of full egalitarianism due to economic disparities and occupational hierarchies. Despite these limitations, egalitarianism drives democracy forward by demanding not only formal rights, but also fair outcomes and equal access for all.
Egalitarianism and democracy can enhance military morale. Rand Corp studies of coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan found that troops’ morale was higher when they perceived equal treatment across ranks. Sociologist Morris Janowitz has said that soldiers in democracies often see themselves as defenders of freedom and national self-determination, giving their mission a deeper moral significance and fostering higher morale.
History provides a cautionary lesson about the dangers of weak egalitarianism, particularly within the military context. A historical example can be found in South Vietnam (1955-1975). While it held elections, the fragility of its democracy and deep social inequalities undermined military cohesion.
Low military morale played a significant role in South Vietnam’s defeat, partly driven by a corrupt draft system that allowed wealthy people to evade service, leaving primarily poor men to fight. Does this historical example resonate with Taiwan’s current situation? Recurring draft evasion scandals — such as the one featured in the CNN headline “A celebrity draft-dodging scandal lays bare problems with Taiwan’s crucial reservist force” on June 21 — raise questions about whether equality in Taiwan’s conscription system is consistently upheld.
Selective government responses based on a victim’s status raise serious concerns about the democratic integrity of a country. While elections might establish a formal democracy, genuine democratic substance requires equal protection and justice for all citizens. When justice is applied selectively to elites, democracy risks becoming hollow in substance, although full in form, sustaining morale built on appearances and slogans rather than genuine conviction in people’s hearts.
In an effort to mobilize national consensus amid internal divisions and China’s expanding threats, President William Lai (賴清德) recently launched campaigns such as “Unite Taiwan” and “Ten Talks on the Nation.” His unreserved, hands-on participation in the 41st Han Kuang exercises — the longest and most realistic ever conducted — went beyond ceremonial roles. Lai and his staff donned camouflage uniforms, bulletproof vests and helmets as part of a deliberate strategy to build morale.
However, the morale of contracted service members, conscripts and reservists cannot be built quickly or solely from the top down. Egalitarian, democratic governance remains the fundamental, underlying means to achieve this end.
Regan Chong is a Hong Konger advocating for Hong Kong’s independence from China and a contact person for the Hong Konger Front.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic