Although 20 years have passed, people should still remember the institutions that restricted press freedom back in the Martial Law era: The Taiwan Garrison Command, the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) Cultural Affairs Department, the Government Information Office and the entire authoritarian regime that those institutions represented.
Taiwan has seen a major leap forward in freedom of speech and freedom of the press in the past 20 years. Several institutions from the authoritarian era are gone and regulations restricting freedom of expression have been amended. The Publishing Act (出版法) has been abolished, new television and radio stations have opened and Taiwan has been listed as the leading country in East Asia for freedom of the press by US-based Freedom House and Paris-based Reporters Without Borders. However, this does not mean that the nation’s press freedom is unassailable. On the contrary, new threats have surfaced.
When talking about freedom of expression, we must also examine freedom of the press, because free speech can only assert its influence through the media. If the media is monopolized by a single voice while all other information is restricted, legal protection of freedom of expression would be pointless. In such a scenario, freedom of expression means muttering to yourself in your home or complaining to friends and relatives — it is not conducive at all to building a public consensus.
The threat facing freedom of expression today is different from the past threat of externally imposed controls. Today, those controls come from within the media, when it fabricates, distorts, exaggerates or gags certain news and opinions for political, economic and other reasons that have nothing to do with professionalism. This kind of internal problem with freedom of expression is the same regardless of whether the media outlet is pro-unification or pro-independence.
Another growing threat to the nation’s freedom of expression is clearly related to the issue of Taiwanese independence or unification with China. This is because our neighbor has gradually grown stronger and because the KMT has advocated the “one China” policy and leaned toward Beijing since its return to power.
It is today more difficult than before for media outlets with a clear pro-localization position to receive resources or assistance from within the industry. In addition, massive Chinese economic interest groups have in recent years invested in the nation’s domestic media industry and the affected media outlets now overtly express a pro-China stance.
A few days ago, the Chinese government even publicly encouraged their media outlets to open branches in Taiwan. The reasons behind this are very clear.
In addition, the fact that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trusted follower and former Taipei deputy mayor King Pu-tsung (金溥聰) heads Next Media’s (壹傳媒集團) new TV station, as well as the public stir caused by the Ma administration placing many of its people in publicly owned media outlets, have prompted concern that domestic media may be seriously imbalanced.
Taiwan’s highly praised freedom of expression did not come easily and only at the expense of great sacrifice. The threats against freedom of expression posed by this serious media imbalance are real and dangerous. We must take the matter seriously and not ignore it.
Su Tzen-ping is a former chairman of the Central News Agency.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Acting Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) has formally announced his intention to stand for permanent party chairman. He has decided that he is the right person to steer the fledgling third force in Taiwan’s politics through the challenges it would certainly face in the post-Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) era, rather than serve in a caretaker role while the party finds a more suitable candidate. Huang is sure to secure the position. He is almost certainly not the right man for the job. Ko not only founded the party, he forged it into a one-man political force, with himself
RSS