In 1948, the UN announced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, setting a common standard for humanity following World War II.
In modern times the rights to freedom and equality have become the foundation of human rights.
After World War II, countries could be classified into those that advocated liberalism and those that advocated socialism. Liberal countries were based on the right to freedom, while socialist countries prioritized social rights, clashing ideologies that gave rise to the Cold War.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, freedom once again became the foundation of human rights in the form of so-called basic human rights.
The right to freedom also became the foundation on which social rights were built. Without the right to freedom, social rights are hollow.
To communist countries, which trample on the right to freedom, championing social rights is often an excuse to give the state the power to distribute resources or repress liberty.
As liberalism redefines itself in the modern era, some people have divided the concept of freedom into external and internal freedom.
External freedom means that one's values and dignity aren't dominated or infringed upon by others -- and certainly not by state power or agencies. External freedom is therefore freedom unhampered by fear.
Internal freedom concerns the freedom of thought. It means that each person has undeniable rights to self-realization and personal development. The state also has a duty to help people in these efforts.
In other respects, each person has the right to participate in society to stimulate self-growth.
Every person has the right to information, especially correct information.
On this point, neither government nor society should provide false or distorted information. This is a fundamental principle of the right to knowledge and is also the foundation of press freedom.
Fifty or 60 years ago Taiwan's authoritarian government was much like a fascist or communist administration. If the state wasn't using violence to violate the right of individuals to freedom, it was controlling the media to provide false information to strengthen state power.
Even though the regime has changed, the history of infringed human rights has not been thoroughly explored.
Although the government no longer uses state violence to encroach on human rights, when it comes to freedom of the press, the cultural vestiges of the party-state's influence on the media has led to continued misreporting and sensationalization of news that violates the public's right to informed knowledge.
The result is a stain on the spirit of all who consume this material.
Lee Yung-chih is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Taiwan History at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Marc Langer
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS