Stock market analyst Allen Chu (朱成志) recently wrote an article titled “A lesson in credit transactions for a stupid president.” The Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) said Chu used incorrect terms and figures and ordered him to stop writing articles, giving lectures or participating in TV talk shows for one month.
Anybody familiar with the way the media works knows that if an article contains false information, the first step is to demand a correction and an apology. Only if the author refuses, or if it can be proven that the article was intentionally malicious, should civil action be taken. It is even more unusual for a government agency to take an active part in such cases. It was clear that Chu was not being punished for using inaccurate data, but rather for the words “stupid president” in the article’s headline.
Taiwan has freedom of expression, the president is a public figure and credit transactions are a part of public policy. Both public policy and public figures can be discussed openly. Was it really a serious offense to say that the president is “not smart enough?” Moreover, it was clear that Chu’s criticism was aimed at President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) lack of knowledge about the stock market, rather than an attack on Ma’s person.
The commission will, of course, never admit it penalized Chu for his choice of words. Taking even a cursory glance at other articles on investment or securities, one can find similar mistakes. So why did the commission pick on Chu? It is hard to believe that it was not politically motivated. Chu’s punishment has frightened market analysts because it was clear that the FSC was trying to suppress free speech.
If Ma feels he has been humiliated by Chu, he is well within his rights to take the case to court. The FSC’s intervention appears to be nothing more than sycophancy. But will its actions really please Ma? It seems the commission’s bureaucrats are even more “stupid” than Ma himself.
Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) has repeatedly complained about unreasonable media criticism, but he never put pressure on media outlets. This is democratic tolerance. Many in the media have long labeled former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) corrupt. Although he strongly disagrees with this accusation, he never allowed the authorities to impose sanctions against media outlets because he believed in freedom of the press. Thanks to Lee and Chen’s tolerance and protection of the press, Taiwan tied with Japan as Asia’s freest media environment and ranked 35th in the world in the latest Freedom House report.
Not yet six months back in power, there have been many indications that the KMT’s authoritarian past is being resurrected. During Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin’s (陳雲林) visit to Taipei, police were ordered to restrict the public’s freedom of movement and expression, causing clashes and great public dissatisfaction. Many media outlets saw the phenomenon as a return to a police state and a severe threat to Taiwan’s democracy and freedom.
Maybe Ma has not authorized the restrictions on freedom of expression and movement that his officials appear so eager to impose, but if he fails to speak out to defend these rights, officials will continue to whittle away at them.
The KMT may enjoy being back in power, but it should remember that it lost power eight years ago not because of economic woes but because the public was so fed up with restrictions on democracy, freedom and human rights. The KMT is ignoring that lesson at its own risk.
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Saturday is the day of the first batch of recall votes primarily targeting lawmakers of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). The scale of the recall drive far outstrips the expectations from when the idea was mooted in January by Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘). The mass recall effort is reminiscent of the Sunflower movement protests against the then-KMT government’s non-transparent attempts to push through a controversial cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014. That movement, initiated by students, civic groups and non-governmental organizations, included student-led protesters occupying the main legislative chamber for three weeks. The two movements are linked
RSS