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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
Historically, in Taiwan, and in present-day China, many people advocate the idea of a “great Chinese nation.” It is not worth arguing with extremists to say that the so-called “great Chinese nation” is a fabricated political myth rather than an academic term. Rather, they should read the following excerpt from Chinese writer Lin Yutang’s (林語堂) book My Country and My People: “It is also inevitable that I should offend many writers about China, especially my own countrymen and great patriots. These great patriots — I have nothing to do with them, for their god is not my god, and their patriotism is
RSS