On Sept. 2, Newtalk Internet News reporter Lin Chao-i (林朝億) reported on meetings of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑) and media representatives with members of the National Communications Commission (NCC) to discuss speeding up the process of approving the Want Want China Times media conglomerate takeover of China Network Systems, Taiwan’s second-largest cable television provider.
The headline of Lin’s article called this an attempt to pressure the NCC.
Hsieh claimed to be unhappy with the word “pressure” (施壓) and on Oct. 14 filed a lawsuit against Lin alleging “criminal defamation,” and naming Newtalk chairman Su Tzen-ping (蘇正平) as co-defendant.
Hsieh also requested that the court immediately impose a “provisional seizure” of Lin and Su’s assets to go toward his demand of NT$2.5 million (US$83,000) in damages.
The Taipei District Court granted this request.
It should be noted that Hsieh is a senior KMT legislator representing Keelung. He is also the KMT legislative whip and chair of the Judiciary and Organic Laws and Statutes Committee. It is not clear how any of these important functions relate to his meeting with the NCC on this matter.
Lin is president of the Association of Taiwanese Journalists. Su was director-general of the Government Information Office during the previous DPP administration.
We note that Hsieh waited well over a month before launching this lawsuit.
As of the date of this statement, it was reported that in response to a public outcry, Hsieh stated that he would withdraw the demand for the provisional seizure of assets, but plans to continue with the lawsuit.
The Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada (THRAC) is deeply concerned about this case and makes the following statement:
One, for an experienced reporter to conclude that Hsieh’s actions look like “pressure” is an unremarkable deduction, which can stand the test of public opinion. In the normal course of political reporting, even in Canada, this hardly constitutes “defamation.”
Two, we urge Hsieh to withdraw this lawsuit against Su and Lin.
Three, for a legislator to demand, even before the court has passed sentence, that a journalist’s livelihood should be put into difficulty by freezing his bank account and withholding part of his salary is a shocking abuse of power that threatens all public media and puts a chill on freedom of the press.
Four, the THRAC expresses its dismay at the court’s decision to impose a provisional seizure of assets.
We urge the minister of justice to undertake legal revisions to strictly limit the use of defamation laws.
This is especially urgent in light of this case and a new UN Human Rights Committee statement urging limits on the use of defamation cases by state parties to limit freedom of expression.
Five, we request that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who is also the KMT chairman, make a clear statement disassociating his party from Hsieh’s actions and issue instructions to all KMT political figures to refrain from any use of defamation laws against the press, except in the most egregious instances.
We urge the president to give his party’s support to a revision of defamation laws consistent with the recent comments of the UN Human Rights Committee.
Taiwanese Human Rights Association of Canada president Michael Stainton and the association’s executive committee.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
RSS