Aristotle stated in Politics, “the basis for a democratic state is liberty.” Liberty is one of the most important attributes of a consolidated democracy, because the more opportunities citizens have to express, associate, discuss and represent a variety of political ideologies, the easier it is for the state to ascertain public preferences and correctly represent them in its policies. If the leadership of a government attempts to limit such freedom, that offers a chilling indication as to the government’s unwillingness to determine and adhere to the will of the people. The consequences of such an approach can be disastrous for the vitality of any democracy.
Public outrage ensued after a notice from the Ministry of Education surfaced requesting that National Taiwan University “reflect and improve the content of its PTT Gossip board.”
Minister of Education Wu Ching-ji (吳清基) vehemently denied that the ministry was attempting to interfere with freedom of speech on the Internet. However, Wu’s refusal to retract the notice in question, after the massive public outcry, reflects the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration’s position on stifling the most basic and universally recognized human rights — freedom for individuals to think, believe, speak, publish, inquire, associate and be informed.
The notice to the university and the legal threats an Internet user faced after making a spoof of a campaign video by KMT Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強), who is seeking the top job in the to-be-formed Greater Taichung special municipality, only added to the series of civil rights violations under President Ma Ying-Jeou’s (馬英九) administration.
There has been a clear erosion of the essential components that ultimately sustain a healthy democracy; components such as an individual’s freedom of expression and speech, academic freedom, institutional checks on the power of elected officials, an independent judiciary that is consistent and neutrally applies the rule of law to protect individual and group rights, and a vibrant civil society independent from the state.
A democratic culture is that of accommodation, cooperation and moderation. In a democratic system, conflicts between competing ideologies, ambition for political power and interests will always emerge. Controversies and conflicts in a democracy; however, are resolved in lawful and peaceful manners.
Wu tried to say that the notice was only routine and should not be considered a big deal. However, the language employed in the ministry notice demonstrated otherwise. It contained phrases like “to provide users with a ‘cleaner environment’ and “to investigate and act accordingly.”
If one takes these phrases at face value, they might not bear any special meanings. However, if scrutinized in the context of Taiwan’s authoritarian past, then the meaning is far more worrying. It is well documented that, during the White Terror, the Taiwan Garrison Command and other agencies of the state security apparatus routinely issued warnings with the aforementioned phrases and demanded investigations by other government and civilian agencies into those under suspicion of anti-government activities.
Threats of lawsuit, investigation, warnings and even arrests run completely contradictory to what Ma has promised to uphold — the rights guaranteed by the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
If the KMT administration continues to fail in safeguarding what is crucial to the maintenance of democracy in Taiwan, then the Taiwanese need to select another group of leaders who will, or see their hard-earned democracy suffer an inevitable decline.
Ketty Chen is a professor of political science at Collin College in Plano, Texas.
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
The narrative surrounding Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s attendance at last week’s Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit — where he held hands with Russian President Vladimir Putin and chatted amiably with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) — was widely framed as a signal of Modi distancing himself from the US and edging closer to regional autocrats. It was depicted as Modi reacting to the levying of high US tariffs, burying the hatchet over border disputes with China, and heralding less engagement with the Quadrilateral Security dialogue (Quad) composed of the US, India, Japan and Australia. With Modi in China for the
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has postponed its chairperson candidate registration for two weeks, and so far, nine people have announced their intention to run for chairperson, the most on record, with more expected to announce their campaign in the final days. On the evening of Aug. 23, shortly after seven KMT lawmakers survived recall votes, KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) announced he would step down and urged Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) to step in and lead the party back to power. Lu immediately ruled herself out the following day, leaving the subject in question. In the days that followed, several
The Jamestown Foundation last week published an article exposing Beijing’s oil rigs and other potential dual-use platforms in waters near Pratas Island (Dongsha Island, 東沙島). China’s activities there resembled what they did in the East China Sea, inside the exclusive economic zones of Japan and South Korea, as well as with other South China Sea claimants. However, the most surprising element of the report was that the authors’ government contacts and Jamestown’s own evinced little awareness of China’s activities. That Beijing’s testing of Taiwanese (and its allies) situational awareness seemingly went unnoticed strongly suggests the need for more intelligence. Taiwan’s naval
RSS