“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out ... Then they came for the Jews, but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
These are the famous words of German pastor Martin Niemoeller during World War II about not stepping forward sooner and speaking out against the Nazis.
Considering the various controversial social and judicial incidents that have arisen in the past three years, many cannot help but be reminded of Niemoeller’s statement as concern brews over what further absurdity could happen next if a majority of the public continues to stay silent on what happens to other people.
Such apprehensions were renewed as the public was treated to news that three protesters who appealed to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) last year over the issue of land expropriation for the construction of an elevated railway in Taoyuan had been indicted, with prosecutors recommending a seven-year sentence for each one of them.
While prosecutors charged the protesters with obstruction of public affairs and violating the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), accusing them of inciting a scuffle with police, the defendants told a press conference on Tuesday that they had been tricked by the police, who apparently changed the protest venue at the last minute and started pushing the crowd before turning around to pin the blame on the protesters.
As the case awaits a final ruling from the judges who convened a hearing yesterday, indictments with such heavy sentences for people airing their grievances are nonetheless dumbfounding. The indictments are even more absurd when one considers another report yesterday in which a Taiwanese software engineer convicted of gathering classified information on Taiwan’s Patriot missile defense system on Beijing’s behalf was sentenced to a mere one-and-a-half years in jail.
So, a convicted spy receives only a slap on the wrist, whereas civil protesters face hefty sentences? What has become of the nation’s social justice?
When individuals waving national flags had them boorishly snatched away by police when Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) visited Taipei in November 2008, many among the public chose to remain silent, thinking such incidents only happen to political activists. When farmlands in different parts of the country were razed by bulldozers because of the government’s controversial expropriation projects, many also kept quiet. They thought themselves lucky they were not farmers, and hence, need not get involved. And now with the plight facing the residents of Taoyuan, some may still think it is none of their business and thank God they are not among the affected residents.
For people harboring such social apathy, it may only be a matter of time before it hits home and they find themselves at the center of controversy and under the hot glare of the media spotlight.
Timely outspokenness and persistent pressure are needed to deal with any arrogant and unjust display of power before more people suffer social injustice and the nation’s standing as a free and democratic country deteriorates further.
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
US Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng (何立峰) are expected to meet this month in Paris to prepare for a meeting between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). According to media reports, the two sides would discuss issues such as the potential purchase of Boeing aircraft by China, increasing imports of US soybeans and the latest impacts of Trump’s reciprocal tariffs. However, recent US military action against Iran has added uncertainty to the Trump-Xi summit. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) called the joint US-Israeli airstrikes and the
RSS