In the past few weeks, I have been following the controversy surrounding Holger Chen (陳之漢) — commonly known as Kuan Chang (館長) — the fitness influencer and YouTuber who, during a live stream, suggested the beheading of President William Lai (賴清德). The Taipei Times covered the story closely, detailing the legal response and the public debate it provoked. Reading those reports made me pause. Language, whether spoken in anger, jest, or political fervor, can slip easily from expression into incitement. Speech is never just communication; it shapes how people think, react and relate to one another.
Chen has insisted he never meant to threaten anyone, claiming his words were misinterpreted. Some viewers might accept that, seeing his statement as part of the exaggerated style that fuels many online personalities. Yet intention is only one part of meaning. Even if he did not mean any harm, his words had consequences — such as fear, anger and discussion — that were out of his control. Words carry weight. Once spoken, they often take on meanings beyond the speaker’s intent.
In linguistics, we talk about implicature and perlocutionary effect — how a statement generates meaning and responses beyond its literal sense. Chen’s comments were not harmless talk. They had social and political effects. They drew attention from prosecutors, dominated media coverage and contributed to unease about political hostility in Taiwan. I am not suggesting that every rash comment online deserves punishment. Still, when speech turns violent imagery, it shifts from opinion into something that could influence public behavior and sentiment.
The Taipei Times editorial “Threats and freedom of speech” (Oct. 10, page 8) reminded readers that freedom of speech in Taiwan is not without limits. Free expression exists so citizens can question power, share ideas and hold leaders accountable.
Yet it also relies on a shared understanding that speech should not intimidate or threaten others. As contributor Lin Han (林志翰) observed (“Beheading comments problematic,” Oct. 11, page 8), threats toward public officials can erode trust in the institutions that sustain democracy. I agree; language that undermines that trust weakens the foundation on which civic dialogue depends.
Should freedom of speech have boundaries? I believe it should. Not to silence dissent, but to balance liberty with responsibility. Freedom is not a blank check; it works best when paired with awareness of its effects on others. Practicing that awareness means recognizing that words, like actions, shape the public sphere.
This controversy is also a moment to reflect on the civic culture. It is not enough to defend the right to speak; people must consider how speech shapes others and the spaces they inhabit. Healthy debate depends on more than laws and institutions; it depends on citizens who understand that liberty carries obligation. Chen’s case shows that democracy relies on thoughtful expression as much as legal rights.
Freedom is not the absence of consequences. In a society that values open discussion and participation, thinking before we speak helps keep freedom meaningful. Chen’s livestream might have been a performance or provocation, but its effects are real. We cannot unhear it, and we cannot ignore what it might inspire. Democracy, like language, is alive; it responds to what people say and do. That is why words always matter and why we must reckon with them honestly.
Aiden Yeh is a professor in the English Department at Wenzao Ursuline University of Languages.
When 17,000 troops from the US, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Canada, France and New Zealand spread across the Philippine archipelago for the Balikatan military exercise, running from tomorrow through May 8, the official language would be about interoperability, readiness and regional peace. However, the strategic subtext is becoming harder to ignore: The exercises are increasingly about the military geography around Taiwan. Balikatan has always carried political weight. This year, however, the exercise looks different in ways that matter not only to Manila and Washington, but also to Taipei. What began in 2023 as a shift toward a more serious deterrence posture
Reports about Elon Musk planning his own semiconductor fab have sparked anxiety, with some warning that Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) could lose key customers to vertical integration. A closer reading suggests a more measured conclusion: Musk is advancing a strategic vision of in-house chip manufacturing, but remains far from replacing the existing foundry ecosystem. For TSMC, the short-term impact is limited; the medium-term challenge lies in supply diversification and pricing pressure, only in the long term could it evolve into a structural threat. The clearest signal is Musk’s announcement that Tesla and SpaceX plan to develop a fab project dubbed “Terafab”
China’s AI ecosystem has one defining difference from Silicon Valley: It is embrace of open source. While the US’ biggest companies race to build ever more powerful systems and insist only they can control them, Chinese labs have been giving the technology away for free. Open source — making a model available for anyone to use, download and build on — once seemed a niche, nerdy topic that no one besides developers cared about. However, when a new technology is driving trillions of dollars of investments and leading to immense concentrations of power, it offered an antidote. That is part of
In late January, Taiwan’s first indigenous submarine, the Hai Kun (海鯤, or Narwhal), completed its first submerged dive, reaching a depth of roughly 50m during trials in the waters off Kaohsiung. By March, it had managed a fifth dive, still well short of the deep-water and endurance tests required before the navy could accept the vessel. The original delivery deadline of November last year passed months ago. CSBC Corp, Taiwan, the lead contractor, now targets June and the Ministry of National Defense is levying daily penalties for every day the submarine remains unfinished. The Hai Kun was supposed to be
RSS