An inordinate amount of recent incidents have put the public in direct conflict with the government. People’s irrepressible anger has spread out onto the streets, with people demonstrating against government ministers. Meanwhile, the government, unwilling to talk to the public and fearful of the protests, has mobilized the police to cordon off places where senior government officials go, taking a heavy-handed approach to the protesters, which only exacerbates the situation. Tensions are mounting, and some people are concerned the specter of the Martial Law era is once more among us.
None of the controversies over the recent forced demolitions — in Miaoli County’s Dapu Borough (大埔), Taipei’s Wenlin Yuan (文林苑) urban renewal project and Huaguang Community (華光) — needed to have the outcomes they did. The main reason for the stalemate was the public street protests, and the government’s arrogance and lack of willingness to communicate, but there were other factors involved, too, not least the media’s failure to fulfill its role as a proper forum for public debate.
This last issue contributed to a paralysis, making the resolution of these issues impossible.
Over the past few years the media has given the impression of being vital and vigorous, but it has also displayed a peculiar failure in the field of public affairs. The dozens of Taiwanese newspapers out there, about 100 TV channels and hundreds of magazines, all provide prodigious amounts of information, yet the information is so fragmented that the media is failing to fulfill its remit of keeping tabs on the government and corporate groups.
The mass media does focus attention on important issues. The needless death of army corporal Hung Chung-chiu (洪仲丘) would never have got the attention it has without sustained media coverage, and it is doubtful that without this coverage the Ministry of National Defense nor the president would have apologized. However, when the media storm subsides, another story will come along, and the media will just forget and move on. Also, the public receives only a fragmentary, mosaic-like picture of an issue: it is not given the whole picture, and for this reason it is difficult for people to truly engage in an issue, or to usefully debate it.
The media seems incapable of presenting expert or systematic analysis, and reports are becoming increasingly disparate and unconnected. Thus, Staff Sergeant Fan Tso-hsien (范佐憲), questioned as part of Hung’s case, is painted as the devil incarnate, who dabbles in fast motorcycles, owns an expensive car and earns huge amounts of cash — and is there a mistress? Meanwhile, Staff Sergeant Chen Yi-hsun (陳毅勳) is cast as the blue-eyed boy from next door. Neither of these character caricatures have anything to do with the actual case, and yet they are splashed over front pages and TV screens. TV anchors are continuously talking about the case, but it is cobbled-together, illogical conjecture that only serves to confuse the audience and divert attention from human rights reform.
News comes in waves, one story after the other, and we rely on the media to provide us information. What the media chooses to focus upon at any given time informs our understanding of that issue. However, when it chooses to regard an issue as having run its course, we no longer see it on our screens, while in real life the story continues to unfold and affect society, albeit drowned out by the noise of the next story breaking. Therefore, even after the Dapu demolitions, non governmental organizations have remained involved, to make sure the injustice of the act is not easily forgotten.
The media’s failure to maintain focus on these issues is a dereliction of duty. With ineffectual media oversight, society becomes indifferent to what is going on and unjust forces can continue to work in the background, unchallenged.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS