On Nov. 28, Rong San Lin (林榮三), the man who single-handedly founded the Liberty Times group, set out the group’s philosophy and remained steadfast in his beliefs throughout, passed away.
In the days after, we arranged a simple space in the group’s office building in which we could go and pay our respects and offer our condolences to the family of our company’s founder. To this space, too, came people from the wider community, from all walks of life, irrespective of party affiliation or generation, regardless of whether they knew the man well or had never met him. All of these people came to offer their condolences and to pay their respects in person, and for this we are sincerely grateful.
Over the past three weeks, we have received a number of questions from readers of the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) concerned about the direction the paper is to take in the wake of its founder’s passing. This level of belief in what our founder was determined to do is quite moving.
Beyond the gratitude we feel for this, we are also well aware of the gravity of the responsibility with which we are charged and feel that there is a need to address this point here, for our readers and for society as a whole.
The guiding principle of the Liberty Times is “Taiwan Foremost, Liberty First” (台灣優先 自由第一). The newspaper’s localization message, with its staunchly Taiwan-centric perspective, places the protection of the freedom of expression at the core of its mission. Its goals are embedded in the democratization process of Taiwan’s recent past, being both a product of, and witness to, this history.
The newspaper was founded after the lifting of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime’s ban on the establishment of new newspapers and as a result of a commitment to localization. Through its persistent challenge to the establishment, it has grown stronger.
It has been three decades since our newspaper, founded by a Taiwanese to give ordinary Taiwanese a voice, was launched. The public was initially a bit suspicious, preferring to keep a distance, but gradually the message struck a chord. The newspaper began to stand out from the others in what was a fiercely competitive market, over time growing into the role, and there was a sense that it had found its vocation.
This showed how a section of the news media and the Taiwanese public were on the same page, so to speak, and anticipated the Liberty Times’ development strategy for the new millennium: Liberty for Taiwan is only possible through persistent efforts to put “Taiwan foremost.”
This principle, forged from the newspaper’s experience of its own growing pains, is to continue to guide it. It is something that both benefits others and is a rational choice that is also good for us.
Placing the emphasis on Taiwan and localization is so much more than a narrow concept of independence or regionalism. It is the fusion of the universal values of freedom and democracy, intertwined by two major threads: Taiwan’s future should be decided by the 23 million Taiwanese living here and they must be provided with an absolute guarantee that they have the right to choose their own way of life; and when these two principles are met, Taiwan should seek to promote peace with its neighbors and fulfill its international responsibilities.
The autonomy of a nation is nothing without a foundation of economic autonomy. However, unlike most other entrepreneurs, Lin cared not just about Taiwan’s economic problems, but also believed that the ultimate goal of economic development was the expansion of the number of jobs available for people.
As a result, running contrary to the prevailing wisdom of GDP as a measure of economic success, the Liberty Times has long called on the government to use policy instruments that can sustain traditional industries and small and medium enterprises, as they are capable of creating the greatest number of jobs.
It is because we believe that it is possible to achieve a better life for Taiwanese through hard work, and therefore achieve their dreams, that we object to industry preferring to move overseas wholesale — rather than modernizing and upgrading — simply for the sake of reducing costs, and in the process robbing Taiwan of jobs and tax revenue.
Due to factor price equalization, we have been opposed to the formation of a free-trade economic entity with China, proclaiming the China-leaning policy to be misconceived, and in fact, the main culprit behind sluggish growth in salaries in Taiwan over the past few years. It also accounts for the difficulty we have had competing with China, given the sheer volume of the cheap goods it produces.
There are serious problems with Taiwan’s economy, and not everyone is benefiting from economic development. This creates problems with the allocation of public resources and with inter-generational fairness, consigning us to a vicious cycle.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that it creates the conditions in which the younger generation can reap the benefits of their hard work, and to provide a platform where initiative and opportunity meet.
The current generation — those who grew up in Taiwan’s most prosperous years — should learn from the previous generation, who worked their fingers to the bone to create the world that they did and pass on the fruits of their labor. They should emulate this attitude in working for a better future for their own children.
Our founder was not prone to espousing profound philosophies, but he would often ask: “Do you think we could be content sitting here, enjoying life, while others have nothing to eat and struggle to get by?”
The words are simple, but reflect a wish to make the world a better place. The logic behind them coincides with the aforementioned economic perspective.
In the administration of the newspaper, Lin insisted that the media existed to perform a function for society, and constantly reiterated his belief that the media were absolutely not there merely to satisfy one’s personal ambitions.
For this reason, whenever the newspaper has addressed a major issue, it has been imperative that the information be accurate and the analysis professional. The newspaper has concentrated on the issues and stayed away from ad hominem attacks. This has been the yardstick by which its work has been measured.
Even when the issue at hand involved his personal interests, Lin refrained from using the newspaper’s clout or using it as a club with which to bludgeon or intimidate rivals.
On the contrary, for a long time it has been the newspaper, based on the media’s duty to provide oversight and expose wrongdoing, that has constantly had to deal with cajolery and intimidation from powerful outside forces, and yet we have clung to our editorial line and conscience, and have resisted change and refused to compromise.
There is a red line and we have not crossed it. We have not, and will not.
In this, our founder led through example, emphasizing the idea that “there are standards to be kept when running a newspaper.” The example that he set, the road ahead that he laid down, has given us ample room for discussion on the policies that are to take us forward, although they must always be measured against the yardstick of “Taiwan Foremost, Liberty First.”
We have enumerated the things that our founder has left us. All of these things, from his love of Taiwan, his passion for the place where he was born and his commitment to doing what is right, have long been part of our DNA. And, just as he passed them on to us, we will surely hand them down to future generations.
Translated by Paul Cooper
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
Former Taipei mayor and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) founding chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) was sentenced to 17 years in prison on Thursday, making headlines across major media. However, another case linked to the TPP — the indictment of Chinese immigrant Xu Chunying (徐春鶯) for alleged violations of the Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法) on Tuesday — has also stirred up heated discussions. Born in Shanghai, Xu became a resident of Taiwan through marriage in 1993. Currently the director of the Taiwan New Immigrant Development Association, she was elected to serve as legislator-at-large for the TPP in 2023, but was later charged with involvement
RSS