The controversial cross-strait service trade agreement has yet to clear the legislature, but it already appears to be having a chilling effect on the publishing and retail industry, generating self-censorship that is detrimental to Taiwanese democracy.
Earlier this week, Eslite Bookstore, one of the nation’s biggest and most popular bookstore chains, allegedly refused to put the book Death of a Buddha — The Truth behind the Death of the 10th Panchen Lama (殺佛–十世班禪大師蒙難真相) on its shelves. Co-written by exiled Chinese writer Yuan Hongbing (袁紅冰) and Tibetan author Namloyak Dhungser, the book details findings from the authors’ private interviews with Chinese and Tibetan officials that the 10th Panchen Lama, Choekyi Gyaltsen, was killed by poison in January 1989, rather than dying of a heart attack as the Chinese Communist Party claims.
The bookstore chain currently only accepts pre-orders for the book and has so far failed to respond to the more sensitive issues raised by those criticizing it for keeping the book off its shelves.
Amid the incident, some may recall the ruckus back in 1989, when British author Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses made him a target for assassination by Islamic extremists. The Islamist groups said the book defamed the Prophet Mohammed and then-Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, and called on Muslims to kill Rushdie and the book’s publishers. The threats prompted some of the largest book chains in the US, such as Waldenbooks and Barnes & Noble, to remove it from their shelves.
A number of writers subsequently came forward to condemn the death threats and criticize the bookstore chains for refusing to sell the book.
“To see bookstores caving in like that to demagoguery is horrifying. They exist in honor of freedom of the press. For them to be so cowardly is despicable,” US author Laura Shapiro said at the time.
Renowned US novelist and essayist Susan Sontag said that the incident suggested how easy it was to make people afraid, “but if we show fear in the face of this intimidation, all of our institutions that support a free, literate society are hijacked.”
Indeed.
Eslite, which strives to project an image as a promoter of art, culture and literature, has been touted by the Taipei City Government as a major cultural attraction for locals and tourists alike, but how is the bookstore to be championed as a cultural icon when it appears to compromise the value of freedom of expression?
If this is how Eslite is pandering to Beijing, the question is what will happen when it actually starts operating in China as part of its overseas expansion plan. And if censorship is being exercised now by Taiwan’s publishing and retail industry before the cross-strait service trade agreement is even approved by the legislature, one shudders to imagine the level of censorship there may be once the agreement takes effect.
Locus Publishing Co chairman and former national policy adviser Rex How (郝明義), for one, has strongly criticized the government for “overlooking the sensitivity in cross-strait issues” and “ignorance and stupidity about China” by signing the trade pact.
As China is notorious for its stringent censorship of the cultural industry, can the public still be guaranteed an independent reading and book-consumption environment free of political interference?
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his government need to address that and allay public concern, rather than pushing the legislature to approve the agreement without examining the potentially damaging impact it may have on the nation.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had