Online commentator Lin Yu-hong (林裕紘) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday when he posted an apology for saying that he had received threats for criticizing a government program to import eggs, bringing a twist to a “crisis” that had almost fizzled out.
Lin, who runs a Facebook page called “Lin Bay Hao You” (“Lin Bay 好油”), said during a livestream hosted by former New Power Party (NPP) legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) late last month that he had received death threats due to his criticism of the import scheme. Lin’s accusation and “tearful” act garnered sympathy, and sparked fury among Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) supporters and officials.
Many KMT legislators accused the DPP of bearing some responsibility for the threats and failing to take action to address them. Former National Taiwan University (NTU) president Kuan Chun-ming (管中閔) said that the situation was due to the acquiescence of “thugs.” The TPP on social media lambasted the DPP, saying that it had initiated a “green terror,” while former TPP legislator Tsai Pi-ru (蔡壁如) said that “democracy is dead” and no one should be threatened for exposing a government scandal.
Amid the controversy, Minister of Agriculture Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) stepped down.
In the post on Tuesday, Lin said that while some of the threats were real, including pictures of guns and knives, he had asked Hsu Che-pin (許哲賓), a friend who works for the KMT, to send him others.
Lin attached a photograph of his DPP membership card, saying he is not worthy to be a member and would resign.
There are lessons to learn from the situation. While opposition parties have every right to monitor the governing party to prevent corruption, it is neither reasonable nor fair to launch groundless accusations based on misinformation and hearsay without evidence. Many politicians were quick to jump on the anti-DPP bandwagon and mobilize hatred among their supporters, yet were slow or shy to apologize when the truth emerged — most who posted remarks in support of Lin deleted the posts without comment.
Taiwan has become a hyper-heated political environment where any remark or report can circulate widely and feed antagonism.
As Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said: “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”
In the era of new media, in which the fourth estate has given way to social media and self-media, malevolent parties have an opportunity to hype their ideologies, spread false information and shape public discourse. As the power of discourse is no longer monopolized, it has triggered a decline in critical thinking and a rise in herd mentality.
In a democratic society, critical thinking has always been how the government and politicians are kept in check. Similarly, critical remarks by intellectuals, experts and pundits should ensure that criticisms hurled at the government are valid, even in a society rampant with false information.
However, if Kuan could throw out such an incendiary remark that was no different from an anonymous online comment, it is a truly worrisome for Taiwan’s democracy.
It is time that Taiwanese learn to spot the difference between critical thinking and mindless criticism. The former focuses on analysis and questioning, while the latter emerges from personal sentiment and emotions. People should exercise their media literacy and take the remarks of politicians and media reports with a grain of salt.
If it were not for Lin’s IP address, the egg crisis would have ended in ignominy and unwarranted charges left hanging over the governing party.
Competent politicians and leaders should be kept in office, so it should be ensured that Chen is the final victim of irrational criticism.
Donald Trump’s return to the White House has offered Taiwan a paradoxical mix of reassurance and risk. Trump’s visceral hostility toward China could reinforce deterrence in the Taiwan Strait. Yet his disdain for alliances and penchant for transactional bargaining threaten to erode what Taiwan needs most: a reliable US commitment. Taiwan’s security depends less on US power than on US reliability, but Trump is undermining the latter. Deterrence without credibility is a hollow shield. Trump’s China policy in his second term has oscillated wildly between confrontation and conciliation. One day, he threatens Beijing with “massive” tariffs and calls China America’s “greatest geopolitical
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS