◎ Zaimi
Su Yifeng, a thoracic surgeon, recently criticized that no matter what the DPP does wrong, the "Blue Bird" will use fallacies to twist it into saying it is the KMT's fault. (File photo)
Su Yifeng, a thoracic surgeon, recently criticized that no matter what the Democratic Progressive Party does wrong, the "blue birds" will use fallacies to twist it into saying it is the KMT's fault, and even pointed out that "it is these blue birds that have dragged down the entire Taiwan." He asked others to face the facts, but his own statements were constantly exaggerated, confused and jumped to inferences.
Su Yifeng said that DPP officials "never apologize and never take political responsibility." However, after the Taroko accident in 2021, the then Minister of Transportation Lin Jialong publicly stated that he would take responsibility, and subsequently resigned and was approved. Whether Lin Jialong has fully shouldered his responsibility is another matter; as long as there is a clear counterexample, "never" is no longer tenable. Comments can be sharp, but facts cannot be lost for the sake of sharpness.
Please read on...
He also used the personnel arrangements of Gu Lixiong and Lin Jialong to declare that "the civil service has collapsed." However, ministers are originally government positions, not permanent civil servants who are promoted based on seniority. Before Gu Lixiong became the Minister of Defense, he served as the Secretary-General of the National Security Council. The Ministry of National Defense also clearly stated that the Minister is the highest-ranking civilian special official; before Lin Jialong became the Minister of Foreign Affairs, he served as an advisory member of the National Security Council, the Ambassador-at-Large of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and the Secretary-General of the Presidential Office.
Su Yifeng claimed that the DPP had "civilian collapse" based on the personnel arrangements of Gu Lixiong as Minister of Defense and Lin Jialong as Minister of Foreign Affairs. (File photo, synthesized by this newspaper)
You can question whether the two are competent, but you cannot erase all these experiences and replace the argument with "inexplicable". Taking the appointment of political officers as proof that the permanent civil service system is broken is confusing the two systems.
The same goes for the abolition of death issue. A 2024 Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation poll showed that 10% of the respondents supported the abolition of the death penalty, while about 85% opposed it; the attitude of the majority of society is very clear. But the majority of public opinion is one thing, and what policies the government adopts is another. In 2025, the Ministry of Justice implemented the death penalty in accordance with the law, and as of 2026, the current criminal law still retains the death penalty. To ignore these facts and directly say, "The DPP is so useless and has made society what it is now" is just to turn judicial decisions, legal systems and administrative execution into a political slogan.
A 2024 Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation poll showed that 10% of respondents were in favor of abolition of the death penalty, and about 85% were opposed. (Extracted from Taiwan Public Opinion Foundation)
What needs to be proven most is the starting point of Su Yifeng's entire paragraph: because the "blue bird" is irrational, the DPP has learned not to admit its mistakes. You can criticize what a few netizens said, but this is not enough to prove the common character of a whole group of people, let alone the cause and effect of the government's failure to apologize. Whether the government apologizes and takes political responsibility is the decision of the officials in power themselves. Attributing the cause and effect of a decision to a specific proponent requires additional evidence.
The most important thing Su Yifeng said was to accuse others of using distorted theories to distort the facts. This ruler should also be measured on oneself. Summarizing an entire group of people in a few online speeches, declaring the collapse of the civil service with the appointment of political officers, erasing the resignations that have already occurred with "never apologizing", and then blaming multiple institutional controversies on "Blue Bird", how different is it from the distortion he criticized?
(The author is a retired person)
