Once again, the government's propaganda agency, the Government Information Office (GIO), has been attempting to make an unreasoned defense of the indefensible.
On Wednesday, GIO Minister Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) blasted the organization Reporters sans Frontieres (RSF) for a brief blurb about Taiwan in its 2006 Annual Report, which describes the state of press freedom worldwide.
The section about Taiwan -- a mere 133 words -- took issue with the government's actions against the cable station TVBS and the cancelation last year of broadcasting licenses for several other cable stations, including ETTV.
"Increasingly buffeted by the opposition, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) tried to intimidate some critical media, but Taiwan, a zone of freedom in East Asia, is blessed with a pluralist press," RSF wrote in its report.
The overall tone of the RSF report -- calling Taiwan "a zone of freedom in East Asia" -- is hardly one of condemnation. Nevertheless, the GIO, as the administration's media hit man, felt it necessary to criticize the report, painting it as unfair.
Cheng repeated the government's implausibly naive assertion that its unsuccessful effort to shut down TVBS was a mere question of the company's capital structure and other legal requirements.
Cheng has forgotten, apparently, that TVBS had its license approved after a government review, only to be threatened a few months later with legal action after it broadcast evidence pointing to corruption by one of President Chen Shui-bian's most senior aides, Chen Che-nan (陳哲男).
But even on this issue, RSF was neutral: "In November, the government fined another pro-opposition channel TVBS after trying to get it shut down on the grounds that it was majority owned by foreigners."
This is a barebones retelling of the facts of the case, but still the GIO was miffed, and felt the need to defend the Chen administration's behavior. Cheng ended his remarks about the RSF report by saying that the GIO would rather maintain a "partnership" with the media, rather than "supervise" it.
And there is the problem with the GIO and the government's attitude toward the media. Media organizations do not need to "partner" with the government, anymore than the hens in the henhouse need to partner with the fox. And "supervision" by the government invariably means "control" by the government.
Former GIO minister Pasuya Yao (姚文智) liked to repeat the phrase that he intended to be "the last GIO minister." Obviously, he lied through his teeth, in the same way that any political party that comes to power will lie through its teeth and say that it does not want to control the media.
This is not a partisan issue; it is a question of good governance. Of course the powers that be want to control the media. Even the best-intentioned officials want to be free to do what they think is right without censure and without constraint. This is why there should not be any loopholes that allow the government to muzzle the press, and why Taiwan does not need an organization like the GIO.
The downside of a free press is having to look at graphic pictures of car-accident victims in tabloids and having to listen to a plague of offensive and spurious accusations made by out-of-control politicians. But the downside of letting the government control the media is having roads that are deathtraps because of bureaucratic malfeasance, and unscrupulous politicians bilking the taxpayers out of millions of dollars through graft and embezzlement.
The choice about how to strike a balance between these extremes must be left up to the individual. It may not be a perfect arrangement, but at least a free press provides choice for the incompetent many, rather than suppression by the corrupt few.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS