Ma not a libel victim
Apparently, Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
For starters, libel is defined as "published material meeting three conditions: the material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; the defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, the material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party."
In defining libel, we then need to look at the elements of defamation, which are defined as "(1) a publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of the plaintiff."
What Ma apparently has failed to see is that elements (2) and (4) are missing, and element (3) is tangential at best. Ma's big concern is that the VCD places his image next to that of a pan-blue supporter who is shouting "Long live [Chinese President] Hu Jintao"(
It's hard to see a "false statement of fact."
Additionally, can Ma really prove that his reputation was harmed in any way? Surely, in the open democracy that Ma likes to consider himself a part of, holding a different opinion is not a harm to one's reputation. Even if Ma is a staunch supporter of Hu Jintao or the PRC, where is the harm to his reputation? It's not as if the VCD was calling Ma a child pornographer or something.
Finally, does the statement in the VCD concern the plaintiff (Ma)? Ma happened to be in the VCD because it captured a public ceremony, but was the VCD really about him?
Additionally, public figures give up a certain right of privacy due to the public nature of their chosen profession. It's a sort of implied consent. A public figure, for example, can't simply sue because the news channels feature his image in a broadcast.
What's disturbing about this whole ordeal is that Ma is a former professor of law but he's clearly failed to understand the legal issues. That could be partly because Ma never really practiced law, nor did he have much legal experience. I don't think he's ever passed a bar exam in his life, and any bar membership he may have acquired was through alternative means, and not examination methods. He's a fine illustration of the saying that "those who can do, do, while those who can't teach." Better yet, they become politicians without ever spending much time in the real world.
Ryan Shih
California
VCDs are free speech
Were America not a mature democracy, American TV talk show hosts Jay Leno and David Letterman would have been persecuted when they ridiculed former president Bill Clinton every night in their shows about his womanizing scandals during his impeachment trial.
Their counterparts in Taiwan -- the group of young people who produced a satirical VCD to ridicule some of the Taiwanese politicians who are generally considered the source of Taiwan's chaos -- are not as lucky.
If these people can be sued for defamation because of their satirical VCD, then all the producers of political cartoons can be sued as well.
It is a pity that Taiwanese courts summoned those actors and producers for questioning. This is obviously a political event. The people who made the VCDs are entitled to freedom of expression, just like columnists and cartoonists. This is just common sense.
Now the pan-blue media, with the help of the courts and its political allies, are ganging up to destroy freedom of expression and persecute these young people. All people in Taiwan have a duty to speak out to deter the lunacy committed by those in the pan-blue camp.
One would question Taiwan's reputation as a vibrant democracy if the pan-blue camp and its media continue to censor Special Report and to persecute its producers and actors.
Should Taiwanese remain silent on this issue, there will be no justice for Taiwan's society. The ghost of martial law is lurking, waiting for a chance to come back.
Yang Ji-charng
Columbus, Ohio
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
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
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath