Most teenagers are probably ignorant of political issues, such as China's "Anti-Secession" Law and the arms procurement budget, and hedge on these issues. They detest politics because they think it is a filthy game manipulated by the rich and the powerful. Many also assume that politicians are unscrupulous and tend to make radical, biased comments.
Some people think that young people's political apathy stems from their disdain for politicians. But is the lack of interest really due to their negative impression of politicians? Many teenagers criticize gossip, but still relish it.
Some people also think that teenagers' political apathy comes from the perception that their opinions do not matter and will not affect government policymaking. They contend that teenagers steer clear of political discussions because of a feeling of powerlessness. But while students do not have power to change school policy, they can be very vocal in criticizing the policy if it threatens their rights.
I believe many youngsters eschew political discussions because they are insensible to and have little knowledge of political issues. They are incapable of judging political issues or contributing ideas because they do not have a perspective on these issues. Not knowing how to form an opinion or judge a political issue, they choose to escape politics altogether.
Many youngsters say they don't have any political beliefs, claiming that it will influence their judgment on political issues and people will consider them biased. In Taiwan, people who voice their political beliefs openly, are quickly categorized as belonging to the pan-green or pan-blue camp.
When a person criticizes a party, people seldom really think about the comment itself but are eager to know which side the person stands for. Some teachers and parents teach their children not to give voice to their political inclination lest they be called biased. They believe that people who do not have a strong political stand are more accepting of public opinion and can judge political issues more objectively based on facts. But does taking a stand really make a person subjective and biased? Holding an opinion allows a person to develop a personal stand on issues. It forces people to think and to develop insight.
The public tends to put their trust in people who are said to be objective. But what constitutes objectivity? Many think that a person who does not clearly favor any party is objective and thus makes comments based on facts and is not swayed by personal beliefs and feelings. However, there is the risk that a public commentator might be expressing an opinion that caters more to public taste rather than the truth. Pandering to the public is risky, as public opinion can be easily manipulated by the mass media or certain influential organizations.
Chang Jung-sheng
Tainan
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
There is nothing the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) could do to stop the tsunami-like mass recall campaign. KMT Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) reportedly said the party does not exclude the option of conditionally proposing a no-confidence vote against the premier, which the party later denied. Did an “actuary” like Chu finally come around to thinking it should get tough with the ruling party? The KMT says the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) is leading a minority government with only a 40 percent share of the vote. It has said that the DPP is out of touch with the electorate, has proposed a bloated
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
A media report has suggested that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) was considering initiating a vote of no confidence in Premier Cho Jung-tai (卓榮泰) in a bid to “bring down the Cabinet.” The KMT has denied that this topic was ever discussed. Why might such a move have even be considered? It would have been absurd if it had seen the light of day — potentially leading to a mass loss of legislative seats for the KMT even without the recall petitions already under way. Today the second phase of the recall movement is to begin — which has
RSS