For any democratically elected administration, it is perhaps neither a smart nor a justified move to be the enemy of young people, who are supposed to be the future of the nation, and the media, the eyes and ears of the people. President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration has been able to achieve both.
During the four-day visit by China’s Taiwan Affairs Office Minister Zhang Zhijun (張志軍), the administration used what appeared to be disproportionate state violence against young people who protested the Chinese official’s visit.
In Taoyuan County, staff at the Novotel Hotel — likely under pressure from the national security authorities — raided the room of a group of young protesters and demanded that they leave, citing security concerns at first, but later changing the reason to “providing care to guests.” In New Taipei City’s Wulai District (烏來) and in Greater Kaohsiung’s Zuoying District (左營), the police appeared to use excessive force when they tried to evict young protesters. Eight students were arrested in New Taipei City.
For the second time in the past four months, the Ma administration decided to remove young protesters at all cost so that their voices would not be heard — even bloodshed was apparently acceptable.
On March 24, during the Sunflower movement, in which tens of thousands of young activists protested against the service trade agreement with China, the administration sent riot police and water cannons to evict a large number of activists at the Executive Yuan compound, leaving more than 100 people injured.
While excessive force should be condemned, eviction of protesters is standard practice. The key point was that Ma’s administration and the KMT willingly risked losing the trust of an entire generation.
The implications could be phenomenal.
There are also an increasing number of cases in which the Ma administration has resorted to violence against the media. Despite the administration always playing it down, describing it as minor friction and lack of communication from the police, its infringement on the freedom of the press has risen to an alarming level.
During Mainland Affairs Council Minister Wang Yu-chi’s (王郁琦) visit to Nanjing, China, in February this year, the council did not react to Beijing’s denial of entry to a pair of Taiwanese reporters — from Taiwan’s Apple Daily and Radio Free Asia — until the news made headlines.
Before and during the so-called “March 24 Executive Yuan incident” the police dispersed reporters before evicting protesters and also physically assaulted several reporters. In Wulai District on Thursday, the police threatened to arrest a reporter who was covering protesters’ attempt to block Zhang’s motorcade, despite the reporter showing his credentials — issued by the Mainland Affairs Council — and identifying himself.
“So what is the big deal with the credentials?” a police officer said.
On Friday, a Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times) reporter was allegedly assaulted by a Railway Police Bureau officer while covering Zhang’s arrival at Zuoying High Speed Rail Station.
Throughout the entire Zhang trip, the media have reported that access to most activities was limited and that the Ma administration did not respect the right to report. It would be very difficult for the Ma administration to interpret these events as a sequence of isolated cases. It would also be difficult for the government to say that it did not succumb to Chinese pressure when dealing with these episodes, because all of the incidents were related to China.
So why is the government willing to disconnect itself from the future leaders of Taiwanese society and to blatantly take away the freedom of the press?
Regardless of the answers, the Ma administration is advised to tone down its infringement of civil rights and press freedom because otherwise, Taiwanese will claim their rights — by any means.
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing