Obama postpones meeting the Dalai Lama, report says

DPA AND AFP , WASHINGTON
Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 1

The White House postponed a meeting between the Dalai Lama and US President Barack Obama until after Obama’s meeting with Chinese leader Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) next month, the Washington Post reported yesterday.

The Post said it would be the first time since 1991 that the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington and not meet the US president. He has visited Washington 10 times over that time span.

Citing unnamed government officials, diplomats and other sources, the report said the move appeared to be aimed at improving ties with China and softening criticism of its human rights abuses and financial policies.

Before visiting China in February, US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said advocacy for human rights could not “interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis.”

Human rights advocates criticized her for the statement.

PUBLIC MEETING

During the Dalai Lama’s last visit in 2007, former US president George W. Bush met him publicly at the Capitol to award him the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress’ highest civilian award.

Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, an inveterate traveler at age 74, was set to arrive in the US capital after two weeks of touring around North America that featured spiritual teachings and an appearance with fellow Nobel laureates.

China has been ramping up pressure on other nations not to receive the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who prefers to describe himself as a simple Buddhist monk.

Explaining the reluctance to meet the Dalai Lama now, US officials told Tibetan representatives that they wanted to work with China on critical issues, including nuclear weapons proliferation in North Korea and Iran, the Post reported.

Activists said they expected a meeting to take place by the end of the year and expressed hopes Obama would raise the question of Tibet in China.

MESSAGE

Some Tibet supporters are nevertheless fuming.

“What would a Buddhist monk or Buddhist nun in Drapchi prison think when he heard that President Obama, the president of the United States, is not going to meet with the Dalai Lama?” asked Frank Wolf, a Republican congressman and outspoken critic of China’s human rights record. “It’s against the law to even have a picture of the Dalai Lama. I can almost hear the words of the Chinese guards saying to them that nobody cares about you in the United States.”

Tibetan prime minister-in-exile Samdhong Rinpoche accused the US and other Western nations of “appeasement” toward China as its economic weight grows.

Obama, who met with the Dalai Lama when he was a US senator, has been seeking a broader relationship with China, which is the biggest holder of the ballooning US debt.

In Washington, the Dalai Lama will see congressional leaders including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a longstanding supporter of the Tibetan cause.

He also plans to present an award to a group of Chinese who have tried to build bridges with Tibetans. Organizers declined to identify the honorees beforehand, fearing it could put them at personal risk.

DPP legislator calls for probe into NTDTV blackouts
　

By Jenny W. Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 3

The National Communications Commission (NCC) must look into a series of blackouts experienced by New Tang Dynasty Asia Pacific Television (NTDTV) to make sure they were not an attempt by Beijing to restrict media freedom in Taiwan, Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator William Lai (賴清德) said yesterday.

The Falun Gong-affiliated station, which is known for speaking out against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), said its Taipei-based station began experiencing intermittent interruptions on Sept. 17, two weeks before China's National Day last Thursday.

The station reported a total blackout on Thursday, when the Chinese government put on an elaborate military parade in Beijing to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic of China.

Chunghwa Telecom was immediately notified of the problem but has been unable to determine the cause of the interruption, except to say that all equipment appeared to be functioning normally, said Chang Ching-chung (張欽宗), a section head at Chunghwa Telecom, who said it would be difficult to determine whether China was behind the blackouts.

In a statement, NTDTV said: “This apparent jamming is an unprecedented encroachment of commercial broadcast in Taiwan. During this period ... NTD calls on the international community to take heed of this development. If it proves to be true [that China caused the blackouts], China's communist regime would have violated media freedom in a territory beyond its borders. This would be an affront not only to the democratic society of Taiwan, but to democracies everywhere.”

Lai told a press conference yesterday that if NTDTV went off air because of sabotage, it would be no small matter and would constitute attempts by Beijing to restrict media freedom in Taiwan. The government must determine what happened to ensure that media freedom is protected, he said.

Lin Ching-chih (林清池), head of the NCC's information management division, said the NCC had launched a probe into the incident and asked Chunghwa Telecom to locate the cause of the blackouts as soon as possible.

Beijing may demand payback: experts
　

POWER PLAY: Academics said that Ma Ying-jeou had returned the favor with his 'three noes' policy, but also that hardliners in Beijing might think it's not enough
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER
Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 3

Beijing believes it has made many concessions since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came to power and is likely to ask Taiwan for something in return, an expert attending a cross-strait forum said yesterday.

Liu Bih-rong (劉必榮), a political science professor at Soochow University, said that Beijing has made several concessions over the past year, including not opposing former vice president Lien Chan's (連戰) attendance at the APEC as Ma's envoy, Taiwan's participation in the World Health Assembly as an observer and Ma attending the Kaohsiung World Games in his capacity as the head of state, as well as refraining from luring Taiwan's diplomatic allies in Southern and Central America.

“But Taiwan has also made some concessions too, including not seeking UN membership this year,” he said.

“With Beijing making so many concessions, some people are worried that it may ask Taiwan for something in return,” he said.

Liu said that it could concern arms procurement, or an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) the administration seeks to sign with Beijing, adding that anything economic, political or military could be a bargaining chip.

That is why some hope to see the administration take a slower path to improving cross-strait relations, he said.

Liu made the remarks during an international forum on cross-strait relations in Muzha yesterday. The two-day event, entitled “International Conference on China: Six Decades and After,” was organized by National Chengchi University's Center for China Studies and Institute of Development Studies in conjunction with the Mainland Affairs Council.

You Ji (由驥), a professor at the School of Social Sciences and International Studies at the University of New South Wales, said Ma had made the payback when he announced his “three noes” policy.

The “three noes” refer to no discussion of unification with Beijing during his presidency, no pursuit or support of de jure Taiwanese independence and no use of military force to resolve cross-strait tensions.

Liu said it would be a good thing if Beijing shared the same thinking, but he was worried that it did not.

“I'm sure there must be some people among the hardliners calculating what concessions Beijing has made for Taipei and how much Taipei has paid back,” he said.

Liu said it would pose great uncertainty for cross-strait ties if Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping (習近平), a front-runner to succeed President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) as party leader in 2012 and president in 2013, wishes to pursue Hu's path of peaceful development in the Taiwan Strait but cannot make hardliners agree.

You said Beijing's Taiwan policy has changed over time, from using military force to resolve the issue to using the military campaign as a threat to maintain the “status quo.”

“In fact there are other better and more cost-effective means available for Beijing to promote ultimate reunification,” You said. “Economic and cultural integration. This is the core content of Hu's Taiwan strategy defined by 'peaceful development,' which reflects Hu's confidence that time is on Beijing's side.”

With Taipei and Beijing becoming economically inseparable, You said the initiative will be firmly in Beijing's hands.

“Therefore, as long as the Taiwan Strait remains stable, CCP [Chinese Communist Party] leaders would be less concerned about ultimate reunification than about effective management of complicated domestic and international affairs,” he said.

Film director fights for freedom of expression
　

Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 3
　

Liberty Times (LT): How have you dealt with the controversy over the past few weeks over the screening of the documentary The 10 Conditions of Love?

Cheng Wen-tang (鄭文堂): The question of whether we will be able to show the film at the festival has worried me and made me want to stage a protest. I kept asking myself how I, as a creative artist, should deal with this interference in the freedom of expression. I kept seeing Jean-Luc Godard before my eyes.

LT: Are you referring to 1968? [In 1968, French police suppressed student protests and Godard condemned filmmakers for not being united and for not showing the treatment of workers and students in their work. Godard and Francois Truffaut then launched a protest, demanding that French films and filmmakers withdraw from the Cannes Film Festival.]

Cheng: That’s right. That kind of sad anger is very similar. Godard stormed up on stage and tore down the film posters and declared that the Cannes Film Festival was over. That is the active mindset of a revolutionary, and it has always been something I respect and admire. Although the Kaohsiung Film Festival is a small event that cannot be compared to Cannes, the emotion is similar. If 10 Conditions was really dropped from the festival, all our efforts to democratize Taiwan over the past 20 years will be undone, and I could no longer be a filmmaker following my own conscience in telling the truth.

LT: What would you do if the film couldn’t be shown at the festival?

Cheng: I’d have walked away.

LT: Would you resign as president?

Cheng: Yes. The whole thing was preposterous. If we were to remove the film because of political interference, we would not only hurt the film, but everyone would be affected. Even a short film, once it’s completed and has been invited [to a festival], should be treated fairly and with respect, everywhere. This may seem politically naive, but from a cultural perspective, this is the attitude we must adopt. I can understand the massive pressure on the [Kaohsiung] city government, but it cannot abandon such fundamental values and beliefs under pressure.

LT: Could you describe these beliefs in more detail?

Cheng: Simply put, it would mean that we will lose our right to creative freedom. The 10 Conditions of Love is simply a biopic about a controversial individual that a documentary filmmaker has spent seven years documenting. On the surface, it would only be a decision to remove it from the festival as a result of political interference, but the practical effect would be that no one will dare challenge taboos. Artists who are worried that they they will not be supported by certain political groups would begin to limit themselves and would not dare to touch topics that they wanted to or should work on. Who would dare follow a more dangerous path? It would be like it was during the censorship era. Who dared make a film about the Kaohsiung Incident or Lei Chen (雷震)? Reality is cruel, and once reality forces artists to become “pragmatic” and they start compromising because they are afraid of or unwilling to do what they should do, what will we be left with?

LT: How was it initially decided to screen The 10 Conditions of Love?

Cheng: I’ve been president of the Kaohsiung Film Festival for five years, and all I want to do is make more people watch movies, create some more movie fans. The premise for a successful festival is that we have good and unique movies and with our limited budget, try to come up with films that would be shown in Kaohsiung for the first time, or a world premiere.

When those who pick the movies decided on 10 Conditions, they only knew that Rebiya Kadeer was a Uighur who the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) didn’t like, and that the film documents her development from an ordinary person to a very wealthy woman who ended up supporting the Uighurs’ opposition to the CCP. The content of the film matches one of the festival’s themes, People Power. We sent out the invitation and both producer and director were happy to approve its showing, which originally would only have been in Kaohsiung, here in Taiwan.

This was before what happened in Melbourne [when China demanded the film be pulled from the Melbourne International Film Festival], so there were no political concerns at all.

LT: So it wasn’t that you wanted to launch a political challenge, but rather that politics found its way to you?

Cheng: Although I have made several documentaries dealing with social issues in the past, I have concentrated on creative works in recent years and haven’t paid much attention to political changes and don’t even watch news on TV. All I can say is that I have moved very far away from politics. Not even after the Melbourne incident did I consider the political repercussions of showing 10 Conditions at the Kaohsiung Film Festival. The city government has complained that I’m not sensitive enough, but 10 Conditions is not about sex, nor does it encourage violence or tell people how to make bombs. It’s simply a documentary. The Kaohsiung Film Festival has been independently run for many years, and my responsibility is only to make sure that the films meet certain standards and are a good watch.

The fact is 10 Conditions is not one of the focal points among the 79 films at this year’s festival. The director isn’t well known. Burma VJ — Reporting From a Closed Country from Myanmar and the biopic about Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara are both stronger and more exciting.

LT: How do you view the concerns of the Kaohsiung tourism industry and the attitude of the Kaohsiung City Government over the controversy?

Cheng: All along I have done what I can to retain the film [in the festival], while also showing my concern for the position of the city government. I hope that everyone will get to hear what the filmmaker wants to say, but the tourism industry must also be heard, and they all deserve both a reaction and respect. The best thing would be if we could achieve both these things, and that’s why I suggested that the film first be given one public showing to let everyone see what kind of film it is and quench their curiosity and put an end to all the wrangling. After the pressure and the media frenzy have died down, we would still have three showings left so the film could be quietly and successfully shown at the festival.

But then the city government decided to move the screening forward and to remove it from the festival. That left us with a strong feeling of defeat, mainly because we would be in a difficult situation if we were unable to protect culture. It wasn’t a matter of the festival losing face, but rather a fear that the value of cultural creativity would be distorted. In the future, no one else would protest, no one would dare oppose those in power or other mighty forces, and they would just choose the path that best meets the interests of those in power. That is a frightening prospect.

LT: What did you do behind the scenes? How did you persuade the city government?

Cheng: From the very beginning, I insisted on approaching the issue from the artist’s perspective. I refused to engage in any protests, and even if every single reporter was trying to get hold of me, I refused to choose the option to put everything on the table. If I also started to run around holding placards or hanging banners, I would at most get a two-page spread in the newspapers, but I would also get caught up in the old Taiwanese political protest culture, and that would not help things.

I chose to ask my friends for help, because the whole issue involved freedom of speech and freedom of creativity. Once a work has been published, others cannot do anything with it, just as you can’t take a piece of art that an artist has painted red and paint it another color, or delete an article published by someone else. This is the universal human right to creativity.

LT: Was the persistence of the Australians of any help to you?

Cheng: The team that made 10 Conditions is very friendly and understand the pressure we’re under. They kept reassuring us and saying we should not let this hurt us, but their ideals were very clear. They didn’t oppose a political party wanting to intervene and show the film across all Taiwan, but they insisted that it must be shown at the film festival, because the invitation from the Kaohsiung Film Festival is the main reason 10 Conditions can be seen in Taiwan at all. The number of screenings can be expanded and it can be shown anywhere on the premise that it is shown at the film festival. If it is, everything else is negotiable. Their insistence is interesting and helpful. If they give up, there’s nothing I can do.

LT: Has this incident aroused your creative desires?

Cheng: I have already started on a documentary about the film festival. I want to explore the question of how the cultural and movie circles approached this issue over the past 10 days. Was there something they thought they should have done? I want to know why Chen Li-kuei (陳麗貴), director of The Burning Mission: Rescue of Political Prisoners in Taiwan (火線任務 — 台灣政治犯救援錄), and Chen Yu-ching (陳育青), director of My Human Rights Journey (我的人權之旅), were the only two directors to withdraw their films from the festival to express their anger over political interference with the festival’s independence.

I don’t want to criticize, I just want to explore why this happened, and what everyone is thinking.

Obama blinks, freedom suffers


Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 8

A long time ago, it was customary for representatives of states to pay tribute to the Chinese emperor, who “ruled all under heaven.” The tributary system, as it was known, “acknowledged” China’s place at the center of everything. From a Chinese perspective, everything outside China was lower in the hierarchy.

For a number of reasons, including politics and geography, China lost steam around the time that Europe, led by Britain, embarked on the Industrial Revolution. Warlordism and colonialism ensured that for the next 200 years or so, China would stay behind while the West, and then Japan, modernized.

This period turned into an existential wound for the Chinese, and in it lie the seeds of its behavior as it rises anew. Nationalism is not enough to explain the sense of exceptionalism that characterizes the Chinese leadership’s view of itself. Something more, something fundamental, perhaps stemming from its thousands of years as a civilization, is behind this.

Whenever Beijing claims that the actions of others are “hurting the feelings of the Chinese people,” it taps into that feeling of Chinese greatness.

The modern age, however, cannot easily accommodate the tributary system of old that Beijing seems keen on resuscitating. For one, the world has transformed and, in theory, if not application, the global system is no longer regulated by a hierarchy based on biology or theology — in other words, no “race” is paramount and no head of state is godlike.

This raises questions about the willingness of many heads of state to countenance Chinese exceptionalism, which is giving rise to a neo-tributary system on a global scale. Rather than treat China as an equal, states bend over backwards to avoid “angering” it, and in so doing encourage more childishness.

For obvious reasons, China should be embraced as a major developing nation and given a place at the table that is commensurate with its importance. It is in no one’s interest, however, to inflate Beijing’s sense of importance. What China needs as it continues its rise is a degree of humility, but this will only develop if other nations maintain their dignity.

When US President Barack Obama gives Tibetan leader the Dalai Lama the cold shoulder (the first time since 1991 that a US president will not meet the spiritual leader while he is in Washington) lest meeting him anger Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) ahead of the Obama-Hu meeting next month, it sends the wrong signal. If there is one place where the president of the most powerful country in the world should do as he chooses, it is on US soil.

The same could be said of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who snubbed the Dalai Lama during his trip to Taiwan last month, or of Taiwan’s — and now perhaps New Zealand’s — refusal to allow Uighur rights activist Rebiya Kadeer to visit.

China’s rise is extraordinary, if not unprecedented. But there is nothing supernatural about it, nor is it a symbol of superiority — Han Chinese chauvinism notwithstanding. China’s rise also comes at great cost: grave human rights violations, environmental degradation and support for repressive regimes.

The more accommodating the world is to Beijing’s sense of superiority, and the more it tries not to anger China, the greater China’s tendency will be to regard itself as above criticism.

There is no reason why Obama should not meet the Dalai Lama. Unless he, too, is willing to kowtow before the Chinese emperor.

Why no parade on Oct. 10?
　

Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 8

A national parade — especially a military one — is supposed to boost morale and assert national will and sovereignty. There is a long tradition of such parades in both Eastern and Western cultures. Although reviewing troops now has negative connotations, parades are still an effective way to express the will of the people participating in it.

After Typhoon Morakot, the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said there would be no national festivities to mark this year’s Double Ten National Day. Although the government may have meant well, will this really send the right signal to the public?

A celebratory parade with marching troops, bands, concerts and ticker tape costs a lot of money, but at the same time, that money is supporting the economy. Taxpayers’ money would in this way be returned to the public.

The relatively small funds for this would not harm the reconstruction efforts following Morakot.

After the devastating Sept. 11 attacks in the US, the US government held memorials, but also celebrated the country’s independence to show that the nation was not afraid and stood united. So why aren’t we doing the same?

Seeing the People’s Republic of China celebrate the 60th anniversary of its founding with a military parade last Thursday, I was in awe.

China has suffered an economic downturn and a devastating earthquake, but it still puts time and money into this. I was motivated by the troops shouting: “Serve the people!” That’s the true power of a parade.

Regardless of what you think of China’s intentions and need to show off its weapons, you have to ask yourself: “Why aren’t we showing off our pride?”

Why aren’t we telling the world that we are the people of Taiwan? We are the citizens of the Republic of China and we are proud of it. Why isn’t our government telling us that we are strong and that the best is yet to come?

If I met our esteemed president, I would ask him why we aren’t celebrating at the places hardest hit by Morakot. It would symbolize persistence in the face of adversity.

Instead, the signal being sent is: “Don’t incur the wrath of our big brother.”

JEN-CHIEH WU
Hsinchu

Blocking Kadeer violates liberalism
　

By Shei Ser-Min 謝世民
Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 8

‘Undeniably, cross-strait relations are an important part of our national security and interests, so our government believes that not allowing [Rebiya] Kadeer to visit is a legitimate decision with a sound legal basis.’

Every responsible government has to consider issues such as national security and national interests when making policy decisions.

What sort of decisions are harmful to national security and national interests? There is no clear-cut answer to this question, but what is certain is that the government does not have an absolute say on policies in cases where the government or the majority want to restrict personal freedoms in the name of national security and national interests.

While the government does not have an absolute say on such issues, neither does anyone else — for example, opposition parties or academics. In the end, it is the government that makes the decision.

There is one principle by which a government that espouses liberalism must stand, and this is that the government’s definition of “national security” or “the national interest” cannot cite values that may reasonably be disputed — whether it be establishing the Kingdom of God, reviving Confucianism or achieving the world’s highest GDP per capita. In addition, the government should only restrict personal freedoms when they pose a clear and immediate threat to national security and the national interest.

Although the principles of liberalism do not restrict a government from pursuing goals that may reasonably be disputed, the question is whether basic personal freedoms are restricted. A government has a rather wide scope of power, even to meet goals such as distributive justice, without having to restrict basic personal freedoms.

As soon as a government betrays the principle of liberalism by restricting personal freedoms, even if it claims that it is doing so for national security or interests, its decisions will lack legitimacy.

China seeks to hinder exiled Uighur activist Rebiya Kadeer’s activities around the world, so most people would agree that it would have a negative affect on cross-strait relations if the government let Kadeer visit.

Undeniably, cross-strait relations are an important part of our national security and interests, so our government believes that not allowing Kadeer to visit is a legitimate decision with a sound legal basis.

It would be wrong if we focused our debate over this question on whether Kadeer has links to terrorist groups, because this is not the real reason for the government’s decision. Rather, it should be asked whether the government’s decision stands up to the test of the principle of liberalism if the reason for rejecting Kadeer is to avoid hurting cross-strait relations.

If letting Kadeer visit would have the same result as declaring de jure independence likely would — namely, China launching a military invasion — then this would constitute an immediate and clear threat to national security. The government would be justified in blocking her visit.

But that is not the case. Much more likely is that China would take retaliatory measures involving economic losses for Taiwan and less room for Taiwan to maneuver internationally.

How serious the effects of this would be can be discussed, but it definitely would not be as devastating as war.

In defining Taiwan’s national security and interests in terms of cross-strait peace, the government is probably not citing values that may reasonably be disputed. However, in order to comply with the principles of liberalism, the government may only restrict personal freedoms that pose a clear and immediate threat to cross-strait peace.

Allowing Kadeer to visit would not pose an immediate threat to cross-strait peace, and the government’s ban on her is therefore unjustified. Yes, allowing Kadeer to visit would produce clear and immediate negative effects, but those effects would be losses to the economy and Taiwan’s room to maneuver in international affairs.

So if the government were to define national security and interests in terms of the economy and international room to maneuver, and then restrict individual freedoms in the name of national security and national interest, could it say it is not citing values that may reasonably be disputed?

This claim would be unconvincing. A government that truly espouses liberalism should develop cross-strait relations in a way that is beneficial to Taiwan on the condition that basic individual freedoms are respected and guaranteed.

Shei Ser-min is a professor of philosophy at National Chung Cheng University.

Learning our lesson about good governance
　

By Hsu Yung-Ming 徐永明
Tuesday, Oct 06, 2009, Page 8

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently wrote to his sister Ma Yi-nan (馬以南) in an e-mail that he had not won praise despite being a “good person” and visiting victims of Typhoon Morakot. His sister then mentioned this in public, saying her brother was having a tough time. These comments caused a public outcry and tell us that the president is dissatisfied with the treatment he receives from the public, casting doubt on the sincerity of the deep bows Ma offered to disaster victims.

Concerning misunderstandings about “good people” and “good government,” public policy scholar Anthony Downs wrote more than 60 years ago that the quality of a politician or political party has nothing to do with inherent nature or motives; what is important is the pressure on political parties — applied by electoral competition — to formulate good policies. In other words, a government made of “good people” will not necessarily formulate good policies or have the ability to implement good policies once they are formulated. What voters should pay attention to is whether the system for democratic competition is complete and whether it allows ambitious politicians to compete to improve policies during their quest to win votes.

Sadly, Taiwan’s political culture is full of debate about good and bad people, while reflection on good and bad policies is nonexistent.

Politicians and academics also deliberately mislead the public to think that someone presented as “good” by the media must abhor evil and that such a person will care for the public and lead the nation.

Since taking office more than a year ago, the “good person’s government,” as Ma likes to refer to his administration, has illustrated the difference between good people and good governance. Ma may well be a good person that likes to “follow the law,” but he is not a “good president” capable of coming up with forward-looking policies and implementing them. Perhaps this is the price Taiwan must pay for its democracy to mature.

The administration of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) seemed to suggest that the quest for personal gain and loving Taiwan go hand in hand, and that the rule of law is necessary to guard against the abuse of power.

Ma, on the other hand, has reminded us that a president afraid of exercising his power because he fears retaliation could well stand by and watch people suffering, remaining silent and failing to act out of fear of upsetting those more powerful than himself. Chen and Ma have shown us that there is a huge difference between a good person and a good president.

If we compare what Downs wrote in An Economic Theory of Democracy on the relationship between the desire of politicians and good policy with Ma’s belief that he has been wronged by disaster victims, it is clear that Taiwan’s democracy is still in the process of differentiating between good people and competent governance.

Perhaps we must learn a tough lesson before we can come to the conclusion that a democracy is not about electing good people — it is about offering incentives such as power, money and fame to people with certain abilities so they compete and maintain checks on each other.

This is the only way to elect a president with the ability to implement good policies and this is what being a good president should entail.

Otherwise, we will be stuck with presidents and premiers who call themselves “good people” and complain that the public is ignorant and treats them unfairly.

Hsu Yung-ming is an assistant research fellow at the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Social Sciences and Philosophy at Academia Sinica.