Freedom of the press and of expression are important checks on the government in a democracy, and the government should always strive to protect such rights — unfortunately, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its government seem to not understand such a fundamental principle and often file lawsuits against the media or political commentators over remarks that the party does not like.
This week, KMT Deputy Secretary-General Lin Te-jui (林德瑞) filed a defamation lawsuit against political commentator and radio political commentary show host Clara Chou (周玉蔻), after Chou repeatedly accused the KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of taking large political donations from Ting Hsin International Group (頂新國際集團), saying this left the KMT and the government rather reluctant to take strong action against the group — as they once vowed to — when dealing with the aftermath of the adulterated cooking oil scandal in which the company became embroiled.
Following Lin’s legal action, Ma also said that he has been thinking about filing a similar lawsuit against Chou himself.
Earlier in the month, National Security Council Secretary-General King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) threatened to sue TV channel SET-TV news anchor and news department manager Chen Ya-lin (陳雅琳) for reporting that King had asked Lin to call KMT Taipei mayoral candidate Sean Lien (連勝文) during the mayoral election to urge him not to be too harsh on Ting Hsin.
Such lawsuits are completely unnecessary and should be considered a threat to freedom of the press and of expression — and to Taiwan’s hard-earned democracy.
First of all, these allegations are not necessarily groundless.
Chou repeatedly said that she had evidence and witnesses to support her allegations, and when the Special Investigation Division of the Supreme Prosecutors’ Office opened an investigation into the case, Chou did not hesitate to testify to the prosecutor, carrying with her two tote bags full of documents.
In Chen’s case, she did not just make up the allegation when doing her job. With KMT legislators Alex Tsai (蔡正元) and Hsieh Kuo-liang (謝國樑) both having made such allegations during media interviews or on political commentary shows, what did Chen do wrong by simply quoting allegations from lawmakers belonging to the president’s own party?
Interestingly enough, instead of suing Tsai or Hsieh, who made the allegations, King chose to file a lawsuit against a news anchor.
When officials react to allegations in a democracy, should they not try to clarify the issues to the public in a formal press conference while awaiting the result of a judicial investigation to show respect for both freedom of the press and of expression, as well as for the judiciary?
Suing the media for making a report based on someone’s remarks and a political commentator for commenting on an issue that the public should know about, which is under investigation, shows that the KMT does not even have a basic understanding of the fundamentals of democracy and civil rights.
Coincidentally, Minister of Justice Luo Ying-shay (羅瑩雪) recently said that the ministry is considering revising a law on communications to keep remarks made on the Internet under control, while complaining that political commentators are only spreading false information on TV.
It is worrisome that the lawsuits might be just the first step by the KMT to further restrict freedom of expression.
Taiwan’s higher education system is facing an existential crisis. As the demographic drop-off continues to empty classrooms, universities across the island are locked in a desperate battle for survival, international student recruitment and crucial Ministry of Education funding. To win this battle, institutions have turned to what seems like an objective measure of quality: global university rankings. Unfortunately, this chase is a costly illusion, and taxpayers are footing the bill. In the past few years, the goalposts have shifted from pure research output to “sustainability” and “societal impact,” largely driven by commercial metrics such as the UK-based Times Higher Education (THE) Impact
History might remember 2026, not 2022, as the year artificial intelligence (AI) truly changed everything. ChatGPT’s launch was a product moment. What is happening now is an anthropological moment: AI is no longer merely answering questions. It is now taking initiative and learning from others to get things done, behaving less like software and more like a colleague. The economic consequence is the rise of the one-person company — a structure anticipated in the 2024 book The Choices Amid Great Changes, which I coauthored. The real target of AI is not labor. It is hierarchy. When AI sharply reduces the cost
The inter-Korean relationship, long defined by national division, offers the clearest mirror within East Asia for cross-strait relations. Yet even there, reunification language is breaking down. The South Korean government disclosed on Wednesday last week that North Korea’s constitutional revision in March had deleted references to reunification and added a territorial clause defining its border with South Korea. South Korea is also seriously debating whether national reunification with North Korea is still necessary. On April 27, South Korean President Lee Jae-myung marked the eighth anniversary of the Panmunjom Declaration, the 2018 inter-Korean agreement in which the two Koreas pledged to
I wrote this before US President Donald Trump embarked on his uneventful state visit to China on Thursday. So, I shall confine my observations to the joint US-Philippine military exercise of April 20 through May 8, known collectively as “Balikatan 2026.” This year’s Balikatan was notable for its “firsts.” First, it was conducted primarily with Taiwan in mind, not the Philippines or even the South China Sea. It also showed that in the Pacific, America’s alliance network is still robust. Allies are enthusiastic about America’s renewed leadership in the region. Nine decades ago, in 1936, America had neither military strength
RSS