As a college student with the right to vote, I should feel empowered by my political agency. Voting is not just a civic duty — it is a symbol of self-expression, of being part of a democratic society that values diverse voices. However, the freedom to vote has not translated into the freedom to speak. Increasingly, I find myself reluctant to express even moderate opinions about political parties or public policies. Not because I lack opinions, but because I fear being reduced to a label — categorized, dismissed or targeted.
Terms like “Bluebird” (青鳥) and “Little Grass” (小草) were initially coined as expressions of collective identity within political movements. Today, these terms have evolved into tools of social division. Instead of reflecting shared ideals, they are used to stereotype individuals and shut down meaningful dialogue. A comment that slightly deviates from the dominant view can provoke mockery, insinuation or outright hostility, especially online.
Taiwan’s young generation is more politically engaged than ever. Social media platforms like Dcard, Threads and Instagram are filled with political commentary from youth who care deeply about their future. However, the algorithms that power these platforms tend to amplify outrage and oversimplification. Likes, shares and comments create the illusion of consensus. When a certain political stance gains momentum online, those who disagree can find themselves overwhelmed by a flood of opposition. Rational discussion is replaced by emotional reactions and knee-jerk judgements.
This is where self-censorship begins to take root. Even in a free society, when speaking up leads to social alienation, ridicule or public backlash, silence can feel safer. Young people begin to calculate the risks: Will expressing this opinion cost me friends? Will I be “exposed” online? Will my words be screenshot and taken out of context? These questions push many into silence, not because they lack political awareness, but because they no longer feel safe participating in public discourse.
The long-term implications are serious. When people choose silence over engagement, democracy suffers. Public discourse becomes dominated by the loudest, not the most thoughtful. Nuanced opinions disappear, and with them, the possibility of constructive compromise. Political participation becomes performative — a show of loyalty, rather than a space for deliberation.
Moreover, the labeling of individuals reinforces an “us vs them” mentality that corrodes social trust. If we can no longer separate a person from their political affiliation, we risk losing the ability to cooperate across differences. This undermines one of democracy’s core strengths: the capacity to hold competing ideas in tension, while still moving forward as a society.
To address this, we need to rebuild a culture of respectful disagreement. It starts with how we respond to views we do not share. Do we listen, or do we label? Do we ask questions, or do we accuse? Schools should teach civic discussion and debate — not as combative exercises, but as opportunities to understand complexity. Media outlets and digital platforms should resist the urge to frame politics as tribal conflict, and instead spotlight stories that reflect nuance, dialogue and bridge-building.
As young voters, we must also reflect on our own role. It is easy to judge or dismiss others, but much harder to engage with empathy. Speaking up should not be a test of allegiance, but an act of courage and responsibility. If we want a healthier democratic culture, it is not enough to vote. We must create space for every voice, including the hesitant, the questioning and the different. Democracy thrives not in uniformity, but in the diversity of thought. Let us ensure that every young person not only feels heard at the ballot box, but also respected in conversation.
Eva Huang is a student in the Department of International Affairs at Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS