An inordinate amount of recent incidents have put the public in direct conflict with the government. People’s irrepressible anger has spread out onto the streets, with people demonstrating against government ministers. Meanwhile, the government, unwilling to talk to the public and fearful of the protests, has mobilized the police to cordon off places where senior government officials go, taking a heavy-handed approach to the protesters, which only exacerbates the situation. Tensions are mounting, and some people are concerned the specter of the Martial Law era is once more among us.
None of the controversies over the recent forced demolitions — in Miaoli County’s Dapu Borough (大埔), Taipei’s Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project and Huaguang Community (華光) — needed to have the outcomes they did. The main reason for the stalemate was the public street protests, and the government’s arrogance and lack of willingness to communicate, but there were other factors involved, too, not least the media’s failure to fulfill its role as a proper forum for public debate.
This last issue contributed to a paralysis, making the resolution of these issues impossible.
Over the past few years the media has given the impression of being vital and vigorous, but it has also displayed a peculiar failure in the field of public affairs. The dozens of Taiwanese newspapers out there, about 100 TV channels and hundreds of magazines, all provide prodigious amounts of information, yet the information is so fragmented that the media is failing to fulfill its remit of keeping tabs on the government and corporate groups.
The mass media does focus attention on important issues. The needless death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) would never have got the attention it has without sustained media coverage, and it is doubtful that without this coverage the Ministry of National Defense nor the president would have apologized. However, when the media storm subsides, another story will come along, and the media will just forget and move on. Also, the public receives only a fragmentary, mosaic-like picture of an issue: it is not given the whole picture, and for this reason it is difficult for people to truly engage in an issue, or to usefully debate it.
The media seems incapable of presenting expert or systematic analysis, and reports are becoming increasingly disparate and unconnected. Thus, Staff Sergeant Fan Tso-hsien (范佐憲), questioned as part of Hung’s case, is painted as the devil incarnate, who dabbles in fast motorcycles, owns an expensive car and earns huge amounts of cash — and is there a mistress? Meanwhile, Staff Sergeant Chen Yi-hsun (陳毅勳) is cast as the blue-eyed boy from next door. Neither of these character caricatures have anything to do with the actual case, and yet they are splashed over front pages and TV screens. TV anchors are continuously talking about the case, but it is cobbled-together, illogical conjecture that only serves to confuse the audience and divert attention from human rights reform.
News comes in waves, one story after the other, and we rely on the media to provide us information. What the media chooses to focus upon at any given time informs our understanding of that issue. However, when it chooses to regard an issue as having run its course, we no longer see it on our screens, while in real life the story continues to unfold and affect society, albeit drowned out by the noise of the next story breaking. Therefore, even after the Dapu demolitions, non governmental organizations have remained involved, to make sure the injustice of the act is not easily forgotten.
The media’s failure to maintain focus on these issues is a dereliction of duty. With ineffectual media oversight, society becomes indifferent to what is going on and unjust forces can continue to work in the background, unchallenged.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
RSS