Opinion Piece: Zero Tolerance for Drunk Driving? Or Zero Loss of Votes?

Every drunk driving accident has the potential to destroy a family; every declaration of "zero tolerance for drunk driving" represents a political promise to society. Yet, the true test of political integrity is never the statements made behind a microphone, but whether the same standards are upheld when dealing with one's own.

This Saturday, civic groups will take to Ketagalan Boulevard to launch a major "Say No to Drunk and Drugged Driving" march. The demand is simple: no more innocent lives lost to alcohol- or drug-impaired driving, and no more systemic leniency toward offenders.

Yet, just before the march, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has left behind the most awkward and ironic question. After a legislator surnamed Chen in Miaoli County was caught driving under the influence, the local party branch deemed him a repeat offender and decided on a three-year suspension, sending the case to the party's Central Evaluation and Disciplinary Committee (CEDC) for final action. However, to this day, the CEDC has yet to issue a final ruling, and the legislator has even completed registration to run for re-election, sparking public suspicion that the central party leadership is "read but ignored."

More intriguingly, the chair of the DPP's CEDC is Lai Jui-long, a candidate for Kaohsiung mayor. Meanwhile, when a legislator surnamed Huang in Kaohsiung was caught driving drunk, Lai immediately declared "zero tolerance for drunk driving," emphasizing that political figures must be held to the highest standards and demonstrating a firm stance.

Same offense—drunk driving. Same party. One case met with loud condemnation, the other left languishing in a CEDC drawer. The public is left asking: Is the DPP's standard for drunk driving based on party discipline, or on electoral strategy?

If zero tolerance is genuine, there should be no "local action, central silence." If party discipline applies equally to all, there should be no "swift action when elections demand it, quiet inaction when it's our own."

The irony deepens as the public prepares to gather on Ketagalan Boulevard to protest drugged and drunk driving, while the ruling party fails to clearly address a drunk driving case within its own ranks. Without accountability, even the loudest anti-drunk driving slogans risk becoming large-scale political propaganda.

Drunk driving is hated not only because it is illegal, but because it reflects a disregard for others' lives. Politicians, entrusted with greater public responsibility, must be held to higher moral standards. If party discipline can be suspended and procedures delayed due to factional interests, electoral calculations, or local political arrangements, then what the public sees is not "zero tolerance," but "zero consistency."

The most valuable asset of a mature political party is not slogans, but consistent standards. If standards vary by person, fairness will bend to power. If party discipline bends for elections, the public will naturally question whether reform is merely campaign advertising.

Opposing drunk driving is no longer a blue-versus-green issue—it is a public safety issue. A hundred thousand people gathering on Ketagalan Boulevard cannot match the impact of the central party leadership showing resolve in a single disciplinary letter. True zero tolerance is not about shouting the loudest on stage, but about wielding the same measuring stick—even when it comes to one's own.

Otherwise, what the public will remember is not the slogans on Ketagalan, but the most stinging political irony: "Zero tolerance for others' drunk driving, read but ignored for our own."

*Author is a political observer.