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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS