There is a political joke in which a Soviet tourist stands in front of the White House and says to an American: “Look how free we are in the Soviet Union, we can cuss your leaders as much as we want.” The American says: “I don’t need to go to Moscow to do that, I can just stand right here and cuss our president.”
Thanks to the struggles and sacrifices of previous generations, Taiwan has become a fully fledged democracy and has achieved freedom of speech, just like the US.
However, Taiwan has also evolved to the point where the president can be told off in the same way as one would tell off a neighbor’s child, and even be called out over the authenticity of their doctoral degree. A president was accused of corruption while in office, and was detained and prosecuted after stepping down, eventually experiencing a nervous breakdown while serving his sentence.
It is worrying that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文), because of the seriousness of a COVID-19 outbreak and a shortage of vaccines, is being scolded daily and accused of using her influence on behalf of vaccine manufacturers. One cannot help but think that freedom of speech in Taiwan has reached the level of lawlessness.
As the COVID-19 pandemic was peaking in the US last year, then-president Donald Trump said that the coronavirus was not a problem and it was just like the flu, but in the end the situation was so bad that tens of millions of people were infected and hundreds of thousands died, and the US government invested billions of dollars in pharmaceutical companies to develop a vaccine.
In Taiwan, Trump would have been prosecuted, and sentenced for corruption and influence peddling, but not in the US. Although the pandemic was peaking and public debate was filled with unpleasant commentary and criticism, the US successfully pulled off a presidential election. This is the difference in how democracy and freedom are expressed in the US and Taiwan, and it is an area that Taiwanese experts and academics in social, judicial, political and media circles should continue to study and learn from.
The criticism and commentary that has appeared during the pandemic could be described as “assorted bad-mouthing of Taiwan.” It all issues from opposition parties, disillusioned politicians, unrestrained talking heads and pretentious experts. Opposition parties, for example, are incapable of coming up with meaningful and constructive criticism, and as a result they have lost their ability to influence the political agenda.
The unrestricted abusive language of disillusioned politicians or the specious studies they put forward are easy to see through, while the unrestrained and reckless comments and actions of talking heads have been swept into the trash can. As for pretentious experts, a certain academician leaked the contents of a blind vaccine trial in their capacity as a member of the Food and Drug Administration’s vaccine review committee before the results were revealed, and even attacked the president. It really is unbelievable.
One wishes to believe that their criticisms are based on a Taiwanese awareness and that they are voicing their criticism for the good of the nation. Still, Taiwanese would surely appreciate it if the criticisms were more constructive, valuable and practical. If not, those people should remain quiet.
Chen Chiao-chicy is a psychiatrist at Mackay Memorial Hospital and Mackay Medical College.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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.
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
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS