As Article 11 of the Constitution says that “the people shall have freedom of speech, teaching, writing and publication,” it is indisputable that the government must protect these basic human and constitutional rights. However, the absence of any restrictions on speech might pose a threat to a democratic society.
One view is that advocating for China’s annexation of Taiwan by military force or intimidation should be protected by freedom of speech in Taiwan; if freedom of speech is to be guaranteed, the government cannot pass legislation that constrains the spread of this idea. This is wrong.
Taiwan already has laws excluding defamation and sexual harassment from freedom of speech, so it has never been a question about whether freedom of speech should be restricted, but rather where the boundaries of such restrictions should be drawn.
Given that some Taiwanese media outlets and political parties are increasingly vocal about their support for Chinese annexation of the nation by military force, it is necessary to consider whether such remarks should be protected.
In traditional jurisprudence, the general view is that freedom of speech should be protected to make the truth clearer through debate (John Stuart Mill); to promote the realization of other rights (John Rawls); ensure the “reinforcement of democracy, the advancement of knowledge, and the promotion of cultural, moral and economic development” (Council of Grand Justices’ Constitutional Interpretation No. 364); “for the purposes of ensuring the free flow of opinions and giving the people the opportunities to acquire sufficient information and to attain self-fulfillment” (interpretations Nos. 414 and 623); guarantee the supervision of all political and social activities (Nos. 509 and 613); to “safeguard the spiritual activities of the people” (No. 567); or all of the above (Nos. 644 and 678).
Based on these views, it seems reasonable to allow speech supporting annexation of Taiwan by military force. After all, no one can say whether such speech hinders the development of people or society, destroys their spiritual pursuits or is disadvantageous to the supervision of political and social activities.
However, this conservative view has made it increasingly difficult to cope with an anti-democratic wave. Some people with ulterior motives are making greater use of theoretical loopholes in the democratic system and the free world as they try to plant anti-democratic and anti-freedom seeds in democratic societies.
The government must fill these loopholes to better respond to these challenges.
Jimmy Hsu (許家馨), a deputy researcher at Academia Sinica’s Institutum Iurisprudentiae, says that freedom of speech should come with more corresponding democratic functions or social responsibilities to maintain the quality of a free democratic system.
Advocating for Taiwan’s annexation by force is in and of itself anti-democratic, as it supports replacing a democratic society with an authoritarian one. What would happen to freedom if a democratic society is not protected?
A democratic society is the foundation of all freedoms, including freedom of speech. Without a democratic society, there are no grounds to talk about guarantees for freedom. Allowing a statement that denies the continuation of a democratic society would ultimately undermine that society and, in turn, destroy freedom itself.
Just as no teenager should sit by and watch others harm their parents, people should not sit by as freedom of speech is used to brutalize their democracy. Taiwan must outlaw speech promoting military annexation of the nation. This is rational and necessary, and if Taiwan does not, it will eventually pay the price.
Chiu Chen-ya is a board director of a US-based non-governmental organization.
Translated by Lin Lee-kai
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.