Imagine that the Taiwanese government for some reason forcibly sent back a few hundred Japanese or US passengers -- all who held legal visas to come here -- as they prepared to land at Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport. It would be a major human rights violation against foreigners in Taiwan. Imagine the lengthy media reports of these passengers' anger, the level of criticism that would be leveled against government officials at every level and the charges of dereliction of duty.
But that's a different story. Instead, a group of Taiwanese on their way to the Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China, were going to arrive close to the same time that the Chinese leader Hu Jintao (
The ceremonies praised the success of the "one country, two systems" model. Only a few Taiwanese media reported on these Taiwanese being turned back ? the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper), Formosa TV, Chinese Television System, TVBS and the China Times.
These exceptions aside, the vast majority of media outlets were either blind to the event or gave only the briefest sketch of what happened. This begs the question: How much of our media is controlled by the Chinese Communist Party? And why are they only reporting on the celebrations and Hong Kong's glorious scenery?
It is true that the majority of the victims were Falun Gong students. But if Falun Gong students' legal and human rights can be violated, who knows what other Taiwanese person can be persecuted?
We all know that Falun Gong practioners are not the only ones to be oppressed by the Chinese Communist Party over the years. A short list would include Taiwanese businessmen, religious figures, democracy activists, people who belong to "objectionable" associations, the Uygur people, journalists and the countless Chinese cheated by corrupt public figures. One by one, each of these groups has suffered at the hands of the CCP.
Their goals are justice and a government that respects liberties and the rule of law. They want an end to collusion with and control over the media that prevents expositions on the injustice occurring throughout China. They only hope to see everyone respected and an end to cruel behavior.
However, the Chinese media can do nothing under the control of the system. Only a few respected journalists are still struggling to end censorship and expose corruption and privilege. Unfortunately, these people, just like other human rights activists, are often forced to resign, held in detention, and see their organizations closed down. For most of the media, they can merely play the role of a mouthpiece willingly or unwillingly under various regulations, in order to present the false appearance of peace and prosperity.
Isn't Taiwan a free society? Shouldn't its free media uncover all faults so as to protect people's rights?
Many friends in the media told me that their supervisors ordered them not to report anything about Falun Gong and its logo should never appear on TV because Chinese leaders do not like it. As a result, many Taiwanese media no longer report about it.
Behind the self-censorship, I believe that no journalist likes his or her freedoms curtailed. So what causes it? Lures or threats?
Various business and private exchanges between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait are close.
The Taiwanese media certainly has the responsibility to protect people's right to know, as well as to supervise cross-strait human rights conditions. Hence, the amount of reporting local media do on cross-strait human right issues is a key index of freedom.
Flora Chang is a professor at National Taiwan University's Graduate Institute of Journalism.
TRANSLATED BY JASON COX AND EDDY CHANG
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
The restructuring of supply chains, particularly in the semiconductor industry, was an essential part of discussions last week between Taiwan and a US delegation led by US Undersecretary of State for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment Keith Krach. It took precedent over the highly anticipated subject of bilateral trade partnerships, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) founder Morris Chang’s (張忠謀) appearance on Friday at a dinner hosted by President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for Krach was a subtle indicator of this. Chang was in photographs posted by Tsai on Facebook after the dinner, but no details about their discussions were disclosed. With
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his