Scuffles between demonstrators from opposing camps are regrettable, yet they occur all over the world. It is even more regrettable to see demonstrators attacking the media, although this too is not unknown elsewhere.
The media has the freedom to say what it wants, and therefore has the right to criticize a crowd of demonstrators. Any crowd of demonstrators has a duty to behave itself. It should not attack any opposing demonstration, nor should it assault the media. When civic conflict occurs, the media is charged with the responsibility to report it. Based on this foundation, the media should enjoy special protection.
However, in the stand-off between supporters of President Chen Shui-bian (
Prior to last Saturday, I urged both camps to calm down and stressed that the allegations of corruption against the first family fully legitimized the appeals of the anti-Chen campaign. However, the insult to the "Republic of Taiwan" perpetrated on one of the first days of the sit-in and the refusal to bring Taipei Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (
It is very unfortunate that these two legitimate causes have clashed head-on. I therefore urge the DPP and Shih to stop mobilizing their supporters.
At noon last Friday, I was surprised to see a TV news broadcast which reported I had said the anti-Chen demonstrators have a legitimate cause, while a newspaper article reported that I had said the DPP should refrain from mobilizing supporters.
Both reports were highly selective and taken completely out of context. The TV report seemed to imply that I had given my unreserved support to the anti-Chen campaign, while the newspaper report implied that I had rejected the legitimacy of those opposing Shih. This was completely contrary to my original intentions.
Not only do some media outlets lie by omission, they blatantly fabricate facts. They are no longer media outlets, but have become cheerleaders and protest participants of the worst kind.
The physical attack on the media that occurred last Saturday was in essence a fight between two opposing crowds. One side fabricating fact, the other side resorting to violence. It was a clash between the anti and pro-Chen forces, and not a matter of one side or the other beating up on the media.
However, I do not mean to say that the reporters who were beaten were fabricating facts; most reporters do attempt to do their job diligently. The fabrications are generally made by editorial departments and media managers. Their abominable behavior has turned their staff into scapegoats.
Following the media reports on my call for both sides to calm down, the staff in my office received both supportive and abusive phone calls, but whether supportive or abusive, each call was based on a misunderstanding. Being verbally abused by the people in one's own political camp is very distressing, but this has happened constantly since I became a politician.
In 1991, I promoted Taiwanese independence when less than 5 percent of the public supported the cause. In 2000, I was critical of Chen's "four noes and one without" policy for dealing with cross-strait affairs, and Chen's and Vice President Annette Lu's (
My office was inundated with phone calls from angry supporters. I have gotten used to being lonely and misunderstood, but I have always been understood in the end. What I am facing this time, however, is misconception rather than misunderstanding.
Divided societies need reconciliation, which can be achieved through a three-step process -- awareness, understanding and reconciliation. The media play an indispensable role as a middle man in this process. Today, the media are deliberately misleading their audiences, and in the process they undermine their basic civic function.
If the media cannot exercise self-restraint, then there is no way we can resolve the confrontation in Taiwanese society, and it may fall apart as a result.
I urge the media to look back and cherish their sacred mission. They must not turn into a vicious mob.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Daniel Cheng
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with