The latest controversy to hit the government was sparked by comments Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Deputy Director-General Shih Wen-yi (施文儀) posted on his Facebook page concerning the US’ visa-waiver policy and a decision to extend the National Health Insurance program to Chinese students. The Executive Yuan is to investigate whether Shih violated the Civil Servants Work Act (公務員服務法). The government is being rather selective in what it decides to investigate: Is it thinking of hoisting Shih’s head on a spike outside the city gates as a warning to others? This raises questions over freedom of expression.
Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) has said Shih’s comments may constitute a violation of the Civil Servants Work Act, adding that he believes it to be “a legal matter.” However, the comments do not really constitute a violation of the law, as they do not contravene Article 4 of the Act, which states that civil servants should not, without the prior permission of a senior official, divulge any information related to their work in either a private capacity or in the name of an institution.
Shih’s Facebook posts concern freedom of expression, a basic right of every individual, guaranteed by the Constitution.
His comments were made in a private capacity and had nothing to do with his official duties. Neither the visa-waiver program nor the national health program are related to his position at the CDC. Had he criticized the insurance provision policy before it had been decided, it might have been a different story, and Article 4 of the Act might then have been invoked.
Since the Facebook posts ran counter to the government’s positions, the government was none to happy, and one Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator even insinuated Shih was a sleeper working for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). This smacks of paranoia.
Chen clearly wants to make an example of Shih to dissuade other civil servants from posting comments on social networking sites and embarrassing the government.
Shih is not the only member of Chen’s Cabinet who likes to express his or her views on the Internet. Former Cabinet spokesman Hu Yu-wei (胡幼偉) recently resigned after revealing on Facebook he had been having an affair with a former student, not long after posting a picture of an iPhone 5 on the site and likening the subsequent attacks against him to the White Terror Era. Council for Economic Planning and Development Minister Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘) is also known for avidly blogging and engaging in online fisticuffs, and could be seen as an accident waiting to happen for the government.
Of course, civil servants should be subject to more stringent regulations compared with ordinary people about what they say and do.
However, what they do in their private lives, should be left to their own discretion and the dictates of the Constitution. If what they say is misleading or incorrect they will be held responsible. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently identified points that Shih had failed to fully appreciate about the visa-waiver program.
Government officials expressing their opinions on Facebook or personal blogs need not be a bad thing. Former health minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) was applauded for talking about US beef import and health insurance policies, showing the public there are some officials who dare to speak their minds.
Even if officials give their opinions on matters not directly related to their own duties, one could see this as part of their right to freedom of speech, or a catalyst for new ideas and for exploring different aspects of problems. This is what it means to have a free society that guarantees freedom of speech.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS