When Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) was invited to Soochow University to give a talk to students, what should have been a prime opportunity for a free and open discussion soured.
In an incident that quickly became something of a public relations disaster, she dismissed several questions from teachers and students, calling them “brainless” or saying they were “clearly followers of ‘San-min-zi’ media” — a nickname for Sanlih E-Television, Formosa TV and the Chinese-language Liberty Times (sister paper of the Taipei Times). University campuses are meant to be spaces for rational dialogue, but Cheng’s choice to resort to snide remarks begs the question: Has the KMT lost even basic respect for the right to free public debate?
After Cheng’s talk, Chen Fang-yu (陳方隅), a political science associate professor at the university, who had given a robust rebuttal during Cheng’s talk, published a lengthy response that meticulously evaluated the content of her talk, and added historical background and factual reference material, true to form for an academic engaging in questions of public policy. From his contributions, the issue is clear.
Students and teachers presented clear and specific questions, so why could Cheng not engage meaningfully and directly?
Questions that should have led to discussions on issues such as political party assets, national defense, or the democratic process were instead dismissed with unfounded assumptions about the speakers’ political alignment or media preferences.
When one chooses to engage in a public discussion in this way, it leaves no room for an open dialogue and can only exacerbate the political polarization that is making rational debate in this country so problematic.
From a political science perspective, this incident represents the fracturing of deliberative democracy, which posits that public decisionmaking should be a product not only of voting outcomes, but of an open and rational debate. This practice appeals to reason and responds to concerns, allowing the public to understand the logic behind different positions.
Campus lectures and question-and-answer sessions are prime examples of such settings: Teachers and students raise questions and politicians explain policy choices to bridge any gaps in understanding. Instead of explaining her position, Cheng chose to question her audience’s motives and intelligence. She sought not to persuade, but to suppress.
Political science research has long been clear that this labeling-and-derailing approach may be able to bring together like-minded groups in the short term, but undermines democratic legitimacy in the long term. It results in people ceasing to understand the substance of a matter or why something is done through debate, instead only focusing on which side someone is on.
So, how should politicians face questioning from the younger generation? University students have traditionally been the most uncontrollable and the most willing to challenge authority — the lifeblood of a democratic society. Politicians who are unable to take pointed questions and resort to humiliation or labeling in response compromise their entire party’s credibility in the arena of public discourse.
Eason Chen is an engineer.
Translated by Gilda Knox Streader
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the new year dawns, Taiwan faces a range of external uncertainties that could impact the safety and prosperity of its people and reverberate in its politics. Here are a few key questions that could spill over into Taiwan in the year ahead. WILL THE AI BUBBLE POP? The global AI boom supported Taiwan’s significant economic expansion in 2025. Taiwan’s economy grew over 7 percent and set records for exports, imports, and trade surplus. There is a brewing debate among investors about whether the AI boom will carry forward into 2026. Skeptics warn that AI-led global equity markets are overvalued and overleveraged
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi on Monday announced that she would dissolve parliament on Friday. Although the snap election on Feb. 8 might appear to be a domestic affair, it would have real implications for Taiwan and regional security. Whether the Takaichi-led coalition can advance a stronger security policy lies in not just gaining enough seats in parliament to pass legislation, but also in a public mandate to push forward reforms to upgrade the Japanese military. As one of Taiwan’s closest neighbors, a boost in Japan’s defense capabilities would serve as a strong deterrent to China in acting unilaterally in the
Taiwan last week finally reached a trade agreement with the US, reducing tariffs on Taiwanese goods to 15 percent, without stacking them on existing levies, from the 20 percent rate announced by US President Donald Trump’s administration in August last year. Taiwan also became the first country to secure most-favored-nation treatment for semiconductor and related suppliers under Section 232 of the US Trade Expansion Act. In return, Taiwanese chipmakers, electronics manufacturing service providers and other technology companies would invest US$250 billion in the US, while the government would provide credit guarantees of up to US$250 billion to support Taiwanese firms
RSS