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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS