Amid commemorations of democracy advocate Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕), who self-immolated 26 years ago today in defense of the free expression of a desire for Taiwanese independence, it is important to reflect upon how free speech has been preserved in Taiwan since democratization.
The general perception remains strong that Taiwan protects the freedom of expression, but attention must be paid to disturbing developments that might translate into significant restrictions of the freedom.
The attempt by President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration to censor the Internet — stipulated under a proposed amendment to the National Security Act (國家安全法) that extends national security to include the Internet as a potential threat — to encourage citizens to report on any content considered threatening to national security or seen as external influence provides a prominent example.
Critics have said that the proposed amendment — which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative caucus has placed high on its agenda for this legislative session — would reincarnate the Martial Law era, when legal sanctions and social disapprobation were often used to curtail free speech.
The proposed amendment echoes the former Article 100 of the Criminal Code, which was used to charge Deng with sedition after the publication of Freedom Era Weekly (自由時代週刊) issue No. 254, which included A Draft Republic of Taiwan Constitution, written by Koh Se-kai (許世楷) on World Human Rights Day in December 1988.
It was not until Article 100 of the Criminal Code — which criminalized even certain ideas as insurrection — was amended in May 1992, three years after Deng’s death, that advocacy for Taiwanese independence became legal.
However, although championing Taiwanese independence is no longer illegal, advocates face challenges. They often encounter “thought police,” with activists described as “irrational,” “irresponsible” or “ignorant of international realities.”
Despite the increasing public support for Taiwanese independence indicated in multiple surveys, the “thought police” have suggested politicians avoid expressions that might offend China and the US.
The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1999 adopted its “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future,” saying that “the future of the nation is to be determined solely by its 23 million people.” The “independence clause” is still in existence for the sake of votes, but not as an objective the party would actively pursue.
Speculation has recently re-emerged that the DPP might have a new version of the resolution that is more palatable to China and the US, as DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) apparently labored to remain politically correct by avoiding directly quoting the resolution when asked about the US’ concerns over her ability to handle cross-strait issues. Instead, Tsai employed ambiguity to avoid sensitivities.
“We understand the importance of maintaining peace and stability, but we must also maintain Taiwan’s best interests and give the current generation and beyond the most options,” she said.
Meanwhile, amid questions over how his opinion of the so-called “1992 consensus” would affect exchanges between Taipei and Shanghai, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) proposed another perspective: No one in the world believes there are “two Chinas,” and therefore “one China” is not a problem.
The world is in a state of flux, which demands policy adjustments. However, the right to express a desire for independence, or for unification or other appeals, must be protected as 100 percent freedom of expression. This is what Deng fought for and how he is remembered.
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition
RSS