It is only natural that a large percentage of the news stories read and seen each day now are related to the Internet, with almost ubiquitous Web access meaning people can always be online through laptops, desktop computers and mobile devices.
People live their lives online and, if Internet access were taken away, could lose a large part of those lives. However, the convenience has produced arguable results in Taiwan when it comes to social justice.
The power of the Internet multiplies the speed of communication: Information travels and disseminates in a way beyond the imagination of the pre-Internet generation.
The power helps people spread anything they see that is unfair, unjust, strange or simply funny, allowing the public to make the people involved overnight celebrities, for good or bad.
The changes in the infrastructure, the ways people socialize and how information is spread have spawned a phenomenon dubbed “Internet mass hunting,” a practice for modern-day Taiwanese to uphold social justice and collaborate to facilitate changes.
Unorthodox behaviors posted online, for example, the ostentatious display of wealth — in a recent case by displaying tons of cash in a video — or the torture of animals, hit-and-runs or the refusal to yield seats to senior citizens on a bus are subject to being “hunted” down by netizens.
In a matter of hours, such personal information as names, locations, occupations and even telephone numbers of the “bad guys” can be revealed, to be scrutinized by netizens and television news channels for days until the perpetrators apologize to their victims.
To be fair, those who practice good deeds and help others may also receive their five minutes of fame, although the number of good Samaritan cases is a lot fewer.
The “justice of villagers” is a new phrase to describe this poetic justice, since Taiwanese netizens have called themselves “villagers.”
Judging from the results, the villagers, with their mass hunting expertise, have almost never disappointed in holding those “bad guys” accountable.
Several academics have observed the phenomenon and predict it is part of a new social cyberspace movement, which if necessary, can facilitate “real” social movement campaigns. A protest organized by netizen group Citizen 1985 over the death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) last year was a perfect example, forcing the reform of the military judicial system.
Strangely, the sense of justice among Taiwanese did not spill out to the fields of broader perspective and historical context.
Netizens did not bother to make their voices heard in incidents such as the opaque signing of the cross-strait service trade agreement, the attempt by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to de-Taiwanize the country’s history in high-school textbooks, Ma’s distortion of the Constitution, his pro-unification policy and the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) ill-gotten assets, which have been haunting Taiwan’s democracy in the background for decades.
Perhaps the historical events occurred too long ago for most netizens to know they happened. Perhaps they have no interest in them whatsoever. Or perhaps they simply had trouble identifying the villains, which is not hard to do in most “mass-hunting” cases.
This should raise deep concerns, because real unfairness, injustice and “bad deeds” have been buried in historical events, documents and legislation.
It is a shame that most netizens say they do not have time to comb through what should be nothing more than a click of the mouse, a “like” on a Facebook page or a simple Internet mass hunting exercise.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with