The competition during the election campaign was the fiercest in Taiwan's election history. The chaos during the campaign was also unprecedented.
Specious statements were disseminated both domestically and internationally in attempts to influence the election, and politicians used freedom of speech as an excuse to have the media spread information aimed at slandering their opponents. The mass media's unrestricted dissemination of politicians' undisciplined behavior led to immeasurable social damage, affected public order and halted the development of social fairness and justness.
Democratic societies are particular about the freedom of speech, and encouraging everyone to express their different ideas is a phenomenon particular to diversified societies. Democratic societies, however, are not societies where one can do whatever irresponsible thing one pleases -- we all have to take responsibility for our actions.
In other words, without verifying facts, politicians may not arbitrarily challenge the integrity and morals of others and use the ubiquitous media apparatus to slander opponents and destroy their reputation, claiming that they are doing so to reveal a malpractice. Evidence in support of the truth may then begin to appear, proving that the target has been the victim of slander. But even though the truth then is clear for all to see, the damage has already been done because the untruths have been so widely disseminated.
Advanced societies should possess mature soul-searching capabilities and be restricted by legal and moral standards.
We have all seen the chaos following in the wake of the presidential election. Politicians doing their utmost to slander and humiliate their opponents obviously provide negative examples for social education in Taiwan. If we are incapable of standing up against their disorderly behavior, then Taiwan will see the disappearance of justice and the further spread of social confusion and unease.
Chen Lung-chu is the chairman of the Taiwan New Century Foundation.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing