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.
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
On Monday, the day before Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) departed on her visit to China, the party released a promotional video titled “Only with peace can we ‘lie flat’” to highlight its desire to have peace across the Taiwan Strait. However, its use of the expression “lie flat” (tang ping, 躺平) drew sarcastic comments, with critics saying it sounded as if the party was “bowing down” to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Amid the controversy over the opposition parties blocking proposed defense budgets, Cheng departed for China after receiving an invitation from the CCP, with a meeting with
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is leading a delegation to China through Sunday. She is expected to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing tomorrow. That date coincides with the anniversary of the signing of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), which marked a cornerstone of Taiwan-US relations. Staging their meeting on this date makes it clear that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) intends to challenge the US and demonstrate its “authority” over Taiwan. Since the US severed official diplomatic relations with Taiwan in 1979, it has relied on the TRA as a legal basis for all
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
RSS