The political drama surrounding the corruption investigation into former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) involvement in the Core Pacific City redevelopment project has escalated into a phase in which keyboard warriors have become directors and the Internet has become an execution ground.
To help the former Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) chairman escape justice, people even posted photographs of the case’s 11 prosecutors, adding blood-like streaks with captions such as: “Remember their names and faces” and “A life for a life.”
Meanwhile, the public — having been misled by political leaders, with many only possessing a vague or no understanding of the law — are enraged, channeling that anger to create an online execution ground.
The nature of the situation is simple. The TPP’s young “little grass” supporters, self-proclaimed warriors of justice lacking legal literacy, are acting as online attack dogs.
After being detained for alleged online threats, software developer Tai Jui-ning (戴瑞甯), from New Taipei City’s Sijhih District (汐止), told authorities that he created the image, but confidently claimed that he had no intent to intimidate or threaten the prosecutors in it.
Maybe he did not write “you must die,” but he did urge the public to “remember their names and faces” — what is that if not intimidation? A birthday wish?
Authorities suspect that Tai had accomplices, as his post featured photos of two judges presiding over the case in their formal court robes during a hearing, indicating that whoever took the photograph did so illegally.
The incident is like something out of a Black Mirror script.
A couple from Taichung reposted Tai’s image and added the phrase “a life for a life.” The woman, Lin Hui-chu (林惠珠), told authorities that she wrote the phrase herself. Lin’s boyfriend, surnamed Chou (周), was released without bail.
When did modern romance turn into couples threatening judicial officers?
The incidents reveal a disturbing truth — some people believe that if prosecutors go after someone they support, then the prosecutors, and even judges, deserve to be punished. The Internet has deteriorated into a lynching ground. Perhaps these notions were not so intense at the outset, but with the provocative words of some political leaders, a small spark has been fanned into a wildfire.
This kind of defense strategy combined with populist manipulation blatantly tramples on the Criminal Code and the Personal Data Protection Act (個人資料保護法), and has shaken the very foundation of the nation. Ko said it best himself: “Everyone has suffered for my sake.”
Whether the online vigilantism involves coordination by individuals or organizations is still being investigated, but the public should not be so naive as to assume that they were spontaneous acts. As the mystery is unraveled and the financial trails traced, more might well be discovered beneath the surface.
This is not a romantic tale of grassroots resistance, but a risible case of legally illiterate “little grass” supporters posting memes and mistaking themselves for revolutionary heroes. Freedom is not a mace to wield against the judicial system and democracy is not a mask to wear to threaten the state apparatus.
The actions of the suspects not only endangered the entire judiciary, but set a dangerous precedent for political violence: “If you mess with my idol, I’ll kill you.” How does that kind of mindset differ from the Chinese Communist Party drafting lists of people who advocate Taiwanese independence?
Democracy does not mean you can needlessly attack prosecutors when the feeling arises, and the Internet is not a tool to facilitate revenge.
Chang Yi-ying is self-employed.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS