"Taiwan has plenty of rumors, but no evidence" is the impression of many people at present. Ever since the nation's first transfer of power took place in 2000 many people and institutions -- from party leaders and legislators to the media and academics -- have repeatedly abused their freedom of speech. Irresponsible attacks have been made in words and in writing, without any evidence to back up the accusations. As a result, the honesty, credibility and morality of Taiwan's politicians have been repeatedly questioned, while the dignity of our judicial system has also been knocked to the ground.
After the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lost the 2000 election, former New Party legislator Hsieh
Chi-ta (
More recent examples include: Independent Legislator Sisy Chen (
But it is not always the president who is the target of such nonsense. For example, independent Legislator Su Ying-kuei (
One thing that all these accusations have in common is that no evidence has been produced to substantiate any of the claims. Some of the people involved have already changed their stories in the face of media questions. But even when the accusers are shown to have been confused about their information, they have stoutly refused to admit to any error or to apologize to their victims.
Such accusations should not be made without a thorough investigation beforehand. It is hard to believe that politicians and academics have so little regard for the public that they expect to be able to bamboozle them for political rewards. The history of Taiwan's elections shows that voters see perfectly clearly, and that politicians and political parties that cannot be trusted will eventually be rejected by the people.
It is time to hold people accountable for what they say. When irresponsible claims are made, reporters and voters alike should be quick to demand accountability. People and institutions should not be able to hide their lies behind the protection afforded by the right of free speech. If such accountability is not forthcoming, the people should use their votes to throw out these irresponsible politicians and the candidates supported by grandstanding academics who appear to have lost any sense of moral compass.
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
As technological change sweeps across the world, the focus of education has undergone an inevitable shift toward artificial intelligence (AI) and digital learning. However, the HundrED Global Collection 2026 report has a message that Taiwanese society and education policymakers would do well to reflect on. In the age of AI, the scarcest resource in education is not advanced computing power, but people; and the most urgent global educational crisis is not technological backwardness, but teacher well-being and retention. Covering 52 countries, the report from HundrED, a Finnish nonprofit that reviews and compiles innovative solutions in education from around the world, highlights a
A recent piece of international news has drawn surprisingly little attention, yet it deserves far closer scrutiny. German industrial heavyweight Siemens Mobility has reportedly outmaneuvered long-entrenched Chinese competitors in Southeast Asian infrastructure to secure a strategic partnership with Vietnam’s largest private conglomerate, Vingroup. The agreement positions Siemens to participate in the construction of a high-speed rail link between Hanoi and Ha Long Bay. German media were blunt in their assessment: This was not merely a commercial win, but has symbolic significance in “reshaping geopolitical influence.” At first glance, this might look like a routine outcome of corporate bidding. However, placed in
RSS