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.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS