Democratic politics is noisy and quarrelsome. It is therefore not very strange that everyone claims to be right and claims that everyone else is wrong. Nor is it very strange that some people will risk a lawsuit in order to insult or slander someone else.
However, in the midst of all this noise and quarreling, a certain level of social order must be maintained. Laws have to be followed, or we are no longer dealing with democracy, but with mob rule.
The Special Report VCDs have brought disorder to Taiwan. Many friends who have been involved in the media for decades have reprimanded me for remaining silent on this issue. It is, in fact, my right to keep my silence. But now that I am going to speak up, I wonder how many people will want to listen to what I have to say.
Judging from the progress of human civilization, freedom of speech is an exalted value. Once a society manages to progress to the point that it implements freedom of speech, it is only natural that it will do its utmost to protect that freedom. Today, no one in Taiwanese society dares refute the value of the freedom of speech, and this is a very positive phenomenon. We must therefore make sure that every citizen has the right to enjoy their freedom of speech through a variety of channels. This is the first layer of the Special Report issue.
The second layer consists of restrictions to the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not include the freedom to replace right with wrong, or to insult or slander other people. This is not only the case from a legal point of view, but it is also the case from a moral standpoint. Even though legislators enjoy constitutionally guaranteed parliamentary immunity, that immunity is only guaranteed in the context of public discourse. It does not include immunity in cases of slander, insult or malicious fabrication outside of the public discourse.
That is why the producers of the Special Report VCDs do not enjoy immunity against legal action or moral condemnation if the VCDs are suspected to contain slander or fabrications.
The third layer is the relationship between freedom of speech and social responsibility. If freedom of speech is a matter of lofty, beautiful words spoken in private, then there is no problem at all. But if it is a matter of making public statements, then we have the corresponding issue of social responsibility. The precondition for making a public statement should be to first state one's full name, regardless of who the person making the statement is. Whether or not that statement actually has substance is of secondary importance.
I have observed the reactions in Taiwanese society to the Special Report VCDs. It seems that those who like the VCDs like them very much, and that those who don't like them have an extreme dislike for them. This sort of division is the most worrisome problem in Taiwanese society.
I have long publicly opposed the government's efforts to encourage people to report those who don't abide by the law, as well as its efforts to encourage its enemies to give up. I believe that such government behavior is diametrically opposed to the attempt to build an open and fair society in Taiwan. As for the Special Report VCDs, there are three things to be said.
First, the production of VCDs to express an opinion is a matter of freedom of speech. Second, freedom of speech does not include unrestrained transgression against limitations, or harming other people. Third, anyone who wants to make a public statement should fulfill their social responsibilities by clearly stating who they are.
Frank Wu is chairman of the Public Television Service 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
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