Beijing barred reporters from three Taiwanese media organizations — the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times), Up Media and Mirror Media, a newly launched Taiwanese weekly — from covering Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu’s (洪秀柱) meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in China due to “technical difficulties.”
Authorities said that since space in the meeting room was limited, even reporters from some Chinese media outlets had to be barred from entering the room.
Judging from China’s experience hosting many summits, Beijing’s claim that it was unable to find a room big enough for the three Taiwanese media outlets does not make much sense.
The only reasonable explanation is that the host selected these outlets for special treatment.
The freedoms of expression and the media are basic rights that are regarded in democratic nations as fundamental. It is the responsibility of media outlets to monitor authorities and hold them up to public scrutiny.
By banning these three outlets from covering the meeting due to so-called “technical difficulties,” Beijing deprived the reporters of their right to gather news. Not only did it fail to live up to its duties as a host, it also limited freedom of the press.
Since China claims to be a major power, its acts beg the question of why it would act in such a narrow-minded manner.
The Hung-Xi meeting differed from former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) meeting with Xi last year. Hung’s meeting with Xi represented a new model for cross-strait interactions in that it was a meeting between Chinese government officials and a Taiwanese opposition party, which the KMT has again become.
It was an important milestone for the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party as it was an expression of their concern for the development of ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait, and there was no reason to ban either local or foreign journalists from gaining an understanding of this situation and reporting on it.
China’s barring of Taiwanese media outlets raises suspicions that it is pointedly excluding those who are thought to have ties to President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) administration.
At this turning point, where the two sides should seek communication, cooperation and mutual respect, barring these outlets could trigger criticism and thus set up more unnecessary obstacles between the two sides.
Would it not be a pity if such obstacles were to hurt the good intentions behind the meeting?
As for the topics discussed at the meeting, Xi inevitably unveiled his expectations and vision about the future of cross-strait development. Journalists went to Beijing to report firsthand on the atmosphere of the meeting.
However, other media outlets covering the event would certainly report on China’s exclusion of Taiwanese reporters, which would divert the focus on the key points of Xi’s statement. This implies that Beijing missed the main point by focusing on smaller issues.
Finally, the media environment in Taiwan is very competitive and probably quite different from the situation in China, but basic newsgathering rights and press freedom are not negotiable.
If China had avoided its inappropriate exclusion of these media outlets and instead allowed them to cover it, Beijing would surely have received much more praise than criticism.
Kung Ling-shin is chair of the Department of Journalism at Ming Chuan University.
Translated by Eddy Chang
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs