Whether CtiTV fulfills its allotted role is a matter of government oversight and market forces, but to say that not renewing the station’s license is tantamount to the government slamming a lid on freedom of expression is overly self-important and an insult to the judgement of the mainstream public.
Freedom of expression in democratic political systems is de rigueur in free societies, as well as a basic right guaranteed by constitutions.
As the British writer Evelyn Beatrice Hall wrote in The Friends of Voltaire, describing Voltaire’s position on freedom of speech: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
This has been quoted countless times as a rationale for fighting to uphold freedom irrespective of the personal cost. Democracy advocate Deng Nan-jung (鄭南榕) was the embodiment of this spirit in the fight for democracy and freedom in Taiwan.
How ironic it was for a certain Chinese-language newspaper to run an opinion piece equating CtiTV’s license renewal bid with Deng’s struggle for democracy. The editorial certainly raised a few eyebrows.
During the Martial Law era, when figures of the dangwai (黨外, “outside the party”) movement founded the Democratic Progressive Party, which side of the fight to end martial law and bring democracy to Taiwan was this newspaper on? Was it not on the side of protecting the vested interests of the governing Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)?
Whose side did this newspaper take in the aftermath of Deng’s self-immolation? Responses to the incident are a matter of public record and Taiwanese can arrive at their own conclusions based on the facts.
The value of the media resides in their role as the fourth estate within a democratic system of government — that is, they can provide independent oversight to balance the powers within the system, above and beyond the executive, legislative and judicial branches.
In all things — whether corruption and abuse of the law within government, collusion between politics and industry or social injustice — an independent media can speak up as society’s conscience.
Of course, the flip side is that an independent media can also be the bane of whoever is in power, but in a democratic society, public opinion is one of the market’s most effective oversight mechanisms.
CtiTV — along with other Taiwanese media firms, including the aforementioned newspaper — attended a cross-strait media summit organized by the Beijing Newspaper Group in Beijing on May 10 to 12 last year, which was tacit acknowledgement and reverence for the dictates of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). By attending, they lost all semblance of being part of an independent media. In Beijing, they lived large in Chinese Communist Party leadership circles, while turning a blind eye toward its suppression of human rights in the Xinjiang region, Tibet and China itself. They returned to Taiwan singing the same song as the CCP.
It is difficult to imagine how someone could keep a straight face while comparing Deng’s struggle for Taiwanese independence and democratic freedoms to CtiTV’s situation.
While the US, the EU and other major democracies have come to regard the CCP as a strategic adversary, and are pushing back on national security and strategic grounds — even placing restrictions on technology exports — how can Taiwan not practice due caution, even as it tries to keep its free, democratic system of government intact?
Paul Lei is a veteran media worker.
Translated by Paul Cooper
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Recently, Taipei’s streets have been plagued by the bizarre sight of rats running rampant and the city government’s countermeasures have devolved into an anti-intellectual farce. The Taipei Parks and Street Lights Office has attempted to eradicate rats by filling their burrows with polyurethane foam, seeming to believe that rats could not simply dig another path out. Meanwhile, as the nation’s capital slowly deteriorates into a rat hive, the Taipei Department of Environmental Protection has proudly pointed to the increase in the number of poisoned rats reported in February and March as a sign of success. When confronted with public concerns over young
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
RSS