All right, I'm going to confess my ignorance (as if admission is necessary when something is so blatantly obvious). I don't know what a "moral center" is, at least insofar as how it is referred to by Academia Sinica sociologist (tell me really, who can trust a sociologist?) Wu Nai-teh. In an article in today's Taiwan News, scholar Wu is quoted as saying that the DPP leadership has for the past eight years suffered from a "confusion of power." This he defines as President Chen Shui-bian's failure to figure out the challenges he was facing and his resulting inability to meet people's expectations.
I'm not going to get into my old argument again, which is that no matter what the president could have done or tried to do, he was stymied every step of the way by a vicious self-interested opposition party (the evil blues) that controlled the legislature and the press. The evil blues would either kill a piece of legislation outright, or pervert it so much that it became harmful to the economy rather than beneficial. But hey, I said I wouldn't go there. So...
Academia Sinica's Wu further said in the Taiwan News piece that the DPP lacked a "moral center," without which it is difficult to undertake the challenge of reform. "How can the DPP reform others but not allow others to reform it?" he asks. He suggests that this "moral center" is equivalent to the leadership, and the current party leadership is therefore either lacking in morality.
Again, my faith in gray prevents me from making odd noises in Wu's general vicinity, because in part I agree with him. I have long advocated that Taiwan will experience better government when an entire two generations of politicians has retired completely (I by that I mean total removal, not the kind of political retirement we're seeing from "formers" Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, or Cigar-totin' Billy Clinton). The current generation of legislators in all parties--men and cranky women in their fifties or older, ahem, talkin' 'bout my generation--grew from the corrupt political environment of the dictator and his teddy bear son. They're grease-covered, so we won't be able to see truly clean government until they have turned the podium over to younger politicians--and I don't mean their "Long Been Bu Hau" spoiled brat kin.
Back to Wu, however, I wonder if he is really suggesting that Chen and Hsieh and Su and the rest of the party leadership are immoral. Charge them with being bad administrators, but please: it was Chen who stopped DPP city councilors from taking dirty money eight years ago, while KMT councilors were caught, um, blue handed. It was not Frank Hsieh whose accountant got him indicted for pocketing public funds by depositing them in his wife's account and later donating public monies to charity.
So, I end this post as I began, with a confession of ignorance. I am not sure if I am understanding Wu's concept of "moral center" correctly--him being a respected scholar-sociologist at the most esteemed Academia Sinica (funded totally by your tax dollars, dear friend), while I am but a lowly foreigner, a "big nose" teacher of English (a language that the new president, despite his blathering use of the tongue, has declared war against the teaching of--more on that in later postings). Scholar Wu, I seek enlightenment.
I'm not going to get into my old argument again, which is that no matter what the president could have done or tried to do, he was stymied every step of the way by a vicious self-interested opposition party (the evil blues) that controlled the legislature and the press. The evil blues would either kill a piece of legislation outright, or pervert it so much that it became harmful to the economy rather than beneficial. But hey, I said I wouldn't go there. So...
Academia Sinica's Wu further said in the Taiwan News piece that the DPP lacked a "moral center," without which it is difficult to undertake the challenge of reform. "How can the DPP reform others but not allow others to reform it?" he asks. He suggests that this "moral center" is equivalent to the leadership, and the current party leadership is therefore either lacking in morality.
Again, my faith in gray prevents me from making odd noises in Wu's general vicinity, because in part I agree with him. I have long advocated that Taiwan will experience better government when an entire two generations of politicians has retired completely (I by that I mean total removal, not the kind of political retirement we're seeing from "formers" Lee Teng-hui, Lien Chan, or Cigar-totin' Billy Clinton). The current generation of legislators in all parties--men and cranky women in their fifties or older, ahem, talkin' 'bout my generation--grew from the corrupt political environment of the dictator and his teddy bear son. They're grease-covered, so we won't be able to see truly clean government until they have turned the podium over to younger politicians--and I don't mean their "Long Been Bu Hau" spoiled brat kin.
Back to Wu, however, I wonder if he is really suggesting that Chen and Hsieh and Su and the rest of the party leadership are immoral. Charge them with being bad administrators, but please: it was Chen who stopped DPP city councilors from taking dirty money eight years ago, while KMT councilors were caught, um, blue handed. It was not Frank Hsieh whose accountant got him indicted for pocketing public funds by depositing them in his wife's account and later donating public monies to charity.
So, I end this post as I began, with a confession of ignorance. I am not sure if I am understanding Wu's concept of "moral center" correctly--him being a respected scholar-sociologist at the most esteemed Academia Sinica (funded totally by your tax dollars, dear friend), while I am but a lowly foreigner, a "big nose" teacher of English (a language that the new president, despite his blathering use of the tongue, has declared war against the teaching of--more on that in later postings). Scholar Wu, I seek enlightenment.
Comments