Since the articles of former Government Information Office official Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) surfaced, no one — neither in the pan-blue or pan-green camp — has voiced approval of Kuo’s statements. However, some individuals have defended him, saying his articles are protected by freedom of speech. As they were published on blogs under a pseudonym, they say Kuo should not be punished.
Some of his defenders are highly placed intellectuals, such as Shih Chih-yu (石之瑜), a National Taiwan University professor of political science, and Hsieh Ta-ning (謝大寧), a former convener of the Democracy Advancement Alliance.
Kuo himself is of the same opinion, and he argues with force that: “Publishing anonymously or under a pseudonym is a basic principle of freedom of expression. … If everything must be in the open, then there is no freedom of expression to talk of … You must not trace the writer. That was done by the [now abolished] Taiwan Garrison Command during the Martial Law era, but you cannot do this in the democratic era, as it violates basic principles of democracy and freedom of expression.”
Such anonymous protest goes against common sense. By having the right to speak, you are also responsible for what you say. You must be responsible for the irritation you cause others and you must also be accountable for any possible charges of insult, defamation or plagiarism. The most basic requirement for taking such responsibility is to let people know that you have said something. In particular, when you criticize the political situation or the conduct of others, you have to provide a chance for people to examine whether you are qualified to offer such criticism. If you don’t, you’re merely defaming people.
Once you’ve said something, your statement is an objective social fact. Those insulted will be insulted even if they don’t know who the person insulting them is; and those who are defamed will be defamed just the same. If being anonymous absolves one of responsibility, then police would not have to catch fraudsters, who never use their real names when committing a crime, nor would they have to trace individuals who seduce teenagers online, since they never reveal their true identities.
Many writers choose to write under a pseudonym. But throughout history, there were probably few who have been afraid to admit their real name or claim that their freedom of expression can only be protected by anonymity. So Chinese writer Lu Xun (魯迅) did hide his real name — Zhou Shuren (周樹人). Even if the whole world opposed his surgically precise critique of Chinese culture, he faced criticism from all sides calmly.
Similarly, writer Lao She (老舍) did not deny that his name was Shu Qingchun (舒慶春), nor did Bo Yang (柏楊) deny that he was Teng Ting-sheng (鄧定生). Rising online writer Jiu Ba Dao (九把刀) does not deny that he is Giddens Ko (柯景騰). Not even famous commentators on TV would dare reject their names in court.
Many people like to stab others in the back, acting like bullies who attack people with bricks in dark alleys. With the rise of the Internet and blogs, such behavior is almost everywhere. Many young people think that “anonymous democracy” is genuine democracy, and that “anonymous slander” is freedom of expression.
Those who enjoy freedom of expression must take responsibility for their statements. This principle will never change. Publishing a blog is not about writing a diary or communicating with specific friends. Rather, it is a matter of voicing one’s personal opinions for anyone to see. Once your statements involve insults or defamation, you have to bear the consequences of being identified by others.
Kuo is about 60 years old. Naturally, he is not as naive as the youngsters of the cyber generation who mistakenly believe they are not responsible for their statements if they remain anonymous.
Perhaps he chose to remain anonymous simply because he knew that what he had to say was inappropriate, while worrying about losing his fat salary and pension. On the surface, he pretends to be a lofty intellectual, but he is in fact a civil servant who does not want to end up out of pocket.
Kuo may be able to mislead the cyber generation, but it is surprising to see professors claim that you don’t have to take responsibility simply by staying anonymous. I’m afraid something has gone very wrong with Taiwan.
Liang Wen-chieh is deputy director of the New Society for Taiwan.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS