The administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) recently relaxed regulations on Chinese reporters stationed in Taiwan. Chinese journalists will now be free to move around and interview people without informing the authorities beforehand. The government now encourages local as well as national Chinese media to station correspondents in Taiwan, and Chinese media workers will be able to save money by renting apartments rather than being confined to staying at certain hotels.
Ma and his ministers are always trying to please China, and these latest relaxed rules for Chinese journalists are another expression of their loyalty to what they see as their motherland. Chinese journalists have reacted to the gesture with an unexpected lack of appreciation, writing a lot of nonsense in the Chinese media to the effect that, although the new measures will allow them to save some money, they may expose them to attacks by extremists such as Taiwanese independence supporters or Tibetan independence activists residing in Taiwan.
Speaking off the record, a government official objected to these reports, saying that Taiwan is a country under the rule of law, and the suggestions made in the Chinese media were quite unwarranted in the light of the Taiwanese side’s goodwill.
Chinese reporters stationed in Taiwan have expressed these views not because they are really worried about possible attacks, but to discredit Taiwan’s democracy and give a false impression about the mainstream of public opinion in Taiwan. First, they want people in China to think Taiwan is a violent place where people’s lives and property are always under threat. Second, they want to portray Taiwanese independence advocates as a minority, and a violent one at that.
This kind of distortion of facts about Taiwan by Chinese reporters posted here is not an isolated case — it is part of a long-term strategy. Even since Taiwan first allowed Chinese media to post reporters in Taiwan, their reports have invariably taken a greater-China standpoint, painting a distorted picture of the country and completely disregarding Taiwan’s greatest achievements in realizing the core values of democracy, freedom and human rights. The suggestion that Chinese reporters might be attacked if they rented their own apartments and offices is clearly just another attempt to vilify Taiwan.
Why do we say that Chinese reporters posted here denigrate Taiwan’s democracy? The answer is plain and simple: Since these Chinese journalists are based in Taiwan, they must be perfectly aware that it is a free country with a pluralistic society in which each and every person is at liberty to express his or her political beliefs. The Constitution protects people’s personal security from repression by those in power or attacks by people holding different political opinions. The expression of differing views is well established as the norm in Taiwan. Just as politicians have their own beliefs and ideas, so do different media outlets have different political leanings. Appearing on radio and television chat shows, politicians and commentators cross swords over the airwaves. It really is a case of letting “a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend.”
Even though debate may be fierce and comments incisive, it is rare for anyone to be attacked physically just because of their opinions or ideology. Taiwanese people are traditionally kind and tolerant and do not normally resort to violence against those who have a different point of view. Living and working as they do in this land of freedom, Chinese journalists must be well aware of how strikingly this situation contrasts with China’s dictatorship. What justification can they possibly have, then, for the spurious suggestion that they fear attacks by supporters of Taiwanese or Tibetan independence?
Actually, our main purpose in drawing readers’ attention to this issue is not to highlight the distorted image of Taiwan given by Chinese reporters stationed here, but to question the wisdom of the Ma administration’s moves to open up cross-strait exchanges in news reporting. There is no need at all for such exchanges.
First, Chinese journalists reporting from Taiwan all serve the predetermined purposes of promoting the notion of “one China” and ultimately annexing Taiwan. That being the case, they cannot be expected to do much in the way of fair and truthful reporting. Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country, and the mainstream of opinion is in favor of Taiwan’s own cultural and political identity.
However, Taiwan’s sovereignty is nowhere to be seen in the writings of Chinese reporters. They would rather portray the tiny minority who support unification as the mainstream. They would have their readers and viewers believe that everyone in Taiwan is “yearning for the motherland.” This kind of distorted reporting does nothing to promote understanding between the two sides. What is the point in having cross-strait exchanges in news reporting if this is the outcome?
Second, China is a dictatorship with no freedom of reporting to speak of. Just recently, Reporters without Borders (RSF) ranked China eighth from the bottom in its annual Press Freedom Index, above only a handful of notoriously repressive countries such as Laos, Cuba, Burma, Iran and North Korea. The RSF report accuses Chinese authorities of enforcing strict controls on news reporting by filtering the Internet and arresting journalists, bloggers, dissidents and human rights activists.
While the Ma government has gradually relaxed regulations about where Chinese reporters can live and work, China still uses various administrative means to severely restrict the activities of Taiwanese reporters, preventing them from gathering news freely and investigating the true face of Chinese society.
Since China does not reciprocate Taiwan’s treatment of its reporters, why should Taiwan one-sidedly relax its regulations? Besides, while Taiwan places no restrictions on the content of reports made by Chinese journalists, Taiwanese reporters in China have to be very careful, otherwise they may find themselves framed and thrown in jail, accused of infringing China’s national security.
All in all, the Ma government’s relaxation of restrictions on Chinese media will not help people in China to get a better understanding of Taiwan’s freedom and democracy. On the contrary, deliberately distorted reports will give ordinary Chinese an even more twisted impression of Taiwan. Besides, freedom of reporting is nonexistent under China’s dictatorship. Taiwanese reporters in China cannot gather news freely, and in attempting to tell the truth they are walking through a minefield in which their safety and liberty are always under threat.
Above all, China makes no secret of its intention to annex Taiwan, and Chinese media are a fifth column that serves precisely that purpose. In such circumstances, the media exchanges the Ma government wants to have with China provide the other side with a means of undermining Taiwan. Since the conditions for news reporting on each side of the Taiwan Strait are so unequal, what is the point of going on with such a policy?
TRANSLATED BY JULIAN CLEGG
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past