Many people think they have a right to know how the government forms a public policy that is going to have an impact on their daily lives. If they think the government agrees, they’d better think again.
Following recent policy flip-flops on plans to impose a capital gains tax on stock investment and a new energy tax, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said on Thursday that, under the direction of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), government officials should be cautious in releasing details of policies still in the making to avoid causing unnecessary public concern.
Academics commissioned by government agencies to conduct studies on public policies were also advised by the premier not to talk to the press about their research about policies that are still under discussion.
Whether government officials will abide by such “administrative procedures” remains to be seen, but academics should be allowed the freedom to express their views. It’s clear that views expressed by academics are their own views and not those of the government. The government has no right to intimidate academics this way.
Of course, as part of Taiwan’s media, this newspaper has a fundamental concern about press freedom. We believe this policy is a government-imposed gag order — a term Executive Yuan spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) rejected instantly when asked by reporters on Thursday — because the government wants to limit the public’s chances to scrutinize its policymaking.
In a democracy like Taiwan, the right to information is crucial. Reporters have the responsibility to gather information for the public. Journalists here must often turn to sources when seeking information about public policies, and usually these sources are from the government. The government should eliminate practices that smack of censorship and provide information to the press in a more transparent, constructive and direct way.
A more serious concern to us, however, is that the government is trying to shut out civil participation in the public policy decision-making process.
The government’s rationale seems to be that it will only make public a policy that has been thoroughly discussed by the “experts” and is already complete. The assumption appears to be that this will minimize the possible negative impact on people. What it seems to miss is that public policies are supposed to be discussed and debated by people from all walks of life; they should not just be a mental exercise between government officials and elites in academia. If a public policy has no input from the public, it is not a “public” policy at all but an authoritative order.
Another concern is that the government has shown weakness in its ability to defend its policies, as evidenced by its recent flip-flops. When the government senses growing public resentment against proposed measures, it uses academics as a scapegoat. This tactic demonstrates the government’s inability to address the issues and invite deeper discussion from the public, which could lead to better policies.
If the government is not strong enough to stand public discussion or scrutiny of its policies and does not even have the wherewithal to defend them, it is doomed to face more challenges as it seeks to formulate an economic cooperative framework agreement (ECFA) with China and other cross-strait policies
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS