Many people think they have a right to know how the government forms a public policy that is going to have an impact on their daily lives. If they think the government agrees, they’d better think again.
Following recent policy flip-flops on plans to impose a capital gains tax on stock investment and a new energy tax, Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) said on Thursday that, under the direction of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), government officials should be cautious in releasing details of policies still in the making to avoid causing unnecessary public concern.
Academics commissioned by government agencies to conduct studies on public policies were also advised by the premier not to talk to the press about their research about policies that are still under discussion.
Whether government officials will abide by such “administrative procedures” remains to be seen, but academics should be allowed the freedom to express their views. It’s clear that views expressed by academics are their own views and not those of the government. The government has no right to intimidate academics this way.
Of course, as part of Taiwan’s media, this newspaper has a fundamental concern about press freedom. We believe this policy is a government-imposed gag order — a term Executive Yuan spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) rejected instantly when asked by reporters on Thursday — because the government wants to limit the public’s chances to scrutinize its policymaking.
In a democracy like Taiwan, the right to information is crucial. Reporters have the responsibility to gather information for the public. Journalists here must often turn to sources when seeking information about public policies, and usually these sources are from the government. The government should eliminate practices that smack of censorship and provide information to the press in a more transparent, constructive and direct way.
A more serious concern to us, however, is that the government is trying to shut out civil participation in the public policy decision-making process.
The government’s rationale seems to be that it will only make public a policy that has been thoroughly discussed by the “experts” and is already complete. The assumption appears to be that this will minimize the possible negative impact on people. What it seems to miss is that public policies are supposed to be discussed and debated by people from all walks of life; they should not just be a mental exercise between government officials and elites in academia. If a public policy has no input from the public, it is not a “public” policy at all but an authoritative order.
Another concern is that the government has shown weakness in its ability to defend its policies, as evidenced by its recent flip-flops. When the government senses growing public resentment against proposed measures, it uses academics as a scapegoat. This tactic demonstrates the government’s inability to address the issues and invite deeper discussion from the public, which could lead to better policies.
If the government is not strong enough to stand public discussion or scrutiny of its policies and does not even have the wherewithal to defend them, it is doomed to face more challenges as it seeks to formulate an economic cooperative framework agreement (ECFA) with China and other cross-strait policies
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS