Sitting in their homes typing on their keyboards and posting on Facebook things like, “Taiwan has already lost its democracy,” “The Democratic Progressive Party is a party of green communists,” or “President William Lai [賴清德] is a dictator,” then turning around and heading to the convenience store to buy a tea egg and an iced Americano, casually chatting in a Line group about which news broadcast was more biased this morning — are such people truly clear about the kind of society in which they are living?
This is not meant to be sarcasm or criticism, but an exhausted honesty. We are witnessing an increasingly common phenomenon — a misunderstanding of freedom, a misuse of free speech and a complete misunderstanding of democracy’s fragility. Even more terrifying is that this ignorance is being cloaked in the guise of “rational skepticism,” but beneath that cloak contains a mockery of the system, a neglect of history and a sad, twisted delusion of having been persecuted.
Allow us to start from an often overlooked reality. Taiwan scored 94 points in the latest edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report, while China scored a nine. You read that right — China earned a single-digit score. These rankings are not based on some abstract criteria, but are a detailed examination of several issues: Can citizens speak freely, practice their desired religion, or choose not to believe in a specific religion or ideology? Are students free from political indoctrination in schools? Is there any chance of getting a fair, unbiased trial in court? Can citizens participate in elections to alter the nation’s power structure?
China scored zero on most of these indicators.
What about Taiwan? We have political clashes in the legislature, protests in the streets, shouting matches on TV programs and political talk shows full of long-winded criticisms. Our freedom is not perfect, but it truly exists — and it was not earned easily.
When someone casually throws around the term “green communist,” do they truly comprehend the historical weight behind the word? Do they understand that in China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can arbitrarily detain human rights lawyers, install surveillance cameras in places of worship, limit minors from entering churches and remove academic freedom clauses from university charters, thereby reducing all thoughts and ideas to a single voice — party loyalty? Do they fully grasp that in China, criticizing the CCP does not just run the risk of unemployment or silencing — but of disappearance?
If you do not understand how distant that reality is from the one we live in today, you have no one else to blame.
Taiwanese media outlets each have their own political leanings, but we can choose which ones to consume, criticize them as we please or even create our own independent outlets. The Chinese media have only one leaning. All media in China are aligned with the CCP, serve the CCP and follow its lead.
You can be dissatisfied with the Taiwanese government, but to equate a democratically elected administration with an authoritarian regime is just out of touch with reality. It is reckless, historically ignorant and most importantly, outright cruel toward those in societies who have been denied their freedom.
There are also grounds for emotional comparison. China’s economy is developing rapidly, its cities are modern and daily life is full of conveniences — so, why then, can we not we say it is free? This is one of the weakest and most harmful arguments today — reducing freedom to mere consumption and turning society into nothing but a shell for providing convenient shelter and food, all while neglecting to consider whether those living within that shell can speak the truth, question right from wrong, or participate in shaping the system. This is confusing survival for living — such freedom is not true freedom, but the price of obedience.
Taiwan’s democracy is not without issues, but it is those very issues that prove our democracy is still breathing. We can discuss, argue, oppose and be disappointed — yet we never lack the space to speak out.
This is the true face of freedom — not perfection, but the tolerance of imperfection.
Liu Che-ting is a writer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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