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
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS