Once again this week, Taiwanese demonstrated they will not remain silent in the face of injustice or when the values they hold dear, and for which their forebears fought with blood and sweat, are threatened.
Only a week after hundreds of young Taiwanese demonstrated in the streets of London following the removal, at Beijing’s request, of the Republic of China flag on Regent Street, a handful of reporters and editors at the Chinese-language China Times risked sacrificing their careers in journalism to protest against the unethical practices of their employer.
At the heart of the issue is the bid by the Want Want China Times Group, the parent company of the China Times, to acquire 11 cable TV services operated by China Network Systems (CNS). After months of deliberation, the National Communications Commission (NCC) announced its approval of the deal last month, albeit under strict conditions.
In the lead-up to the decision, a number of organizations and media experts raised issues with the merger, saying it would not only create a “media giant,” but one whose owner, Tsai Eng-meng (蔡衍明), has often put on moral blinders to protect his corporate interests in China. Critics have said that since 2008, when Tsai acquired the China Times Group, the newspaper has repeatedly engaged in self-censorship to ensure its reporting did not “offend” Beijing — a deplorable tradition that has several precedents in Hong Kong since retrocession in 1997.
In addition to remaining silent about China’s poor human rights conditions, Tsai has shown no compunction about using his media outlets to launch personal attacks on his critics, from academics, students and NCC commissioners who opposed the CNS deal, to a Hong Kong-based Pulitzer Prize-wining reporter who interviewed him earlier this year — the infamous interview in which Tsai denied the events on June 4, 1989, in Tiananmen Square, constituted a massacre.
After the China Times’ dalliance with “embedded” government advertising led Dennis Huang (黃哲斌), one of its senior reporters, to resign in 2010, the newspaper more recently launched what can only be described as vitriolic attacks against Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), an academic and outspoken critic of the CNS bid.
It has since emerged that some reporters whose bylines accompanied the articles attacking the academic had little say over the content of their articles and that the published stories bore little resemblance to the copy they had submitted. Outraged by such practices, a number of reporters and editors — one with less than two years’ experience, others with more than two decades — resigned or requested retirement in protest, choosing principle over personal comfort at a time when employment opportunities in the newspaper business are few and far between.
Of course, such acts of selflessness cannot in and of themselves prevent media giants from pursuing their agendas, and the resignations are unlikely to convince Tsai, Taiwan’s wealthiest individual, to clean up his act. However, just like the flag controversy in London, those individual protests do not go unnoticed and serve to highlight the predicament in which Taiwan finds itself as its government strives for ever-closer relations with authoritarian China. Not only did Dennis Huang’s resignation make headlines, it became one of the cases used by Freedom House to justify Taiwan’s lower ranking in its press freedom report the following year. Similarly, Tsai’s use of his media outlets as a personal tool for his vindictiveness, along with the resignations that followed, will also not go unnoticed.
In the name of freedom of the press and the values that Taiwanese stand for, the Taipei Times salutes the China Times editors and journalists who made personal sacrifices to expose injustice and chose to leave rather than be complicit in journalism of the worst kind.
In September 2013, the armed wing of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) quietly released an internal document entitled, “Coursebook on the Military Geography of the Taiwan Strait.” This sensitive, “military-use-only” coursebook explains why it is strategically vital that China “reunify” (annex) Taiwan. It then methodically analyzes various locations of interest to People’s Liberation Army (PLA) war planners. The coursebook highlights one future battlefield in particular: Fulong Beach, in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District, which it describes as “3,000 meters long, flat, and straight,” and located at “the head of Taiwan.” A black and white picture of Fulong’s sandy coastline occupies the
US President Joe Biden’s first news conference last month offered reassuring and concerning insights regarding his administration’s approach to China. Biden did not mention the contentious meeting in Alaska where US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan confronted China’s top two foreign policy officials. The Americans implicitly affirmed the administration of former US president Donald Trump’s direct pushback against communist China’s repressive domestic governance and aggressive international behavior. Chinese Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi (王毅) and Chinese Central Foreign Affairs Commission Director Yang Jiechi (楊潔篪) had explicitly demanded a return to the policies of
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies