In an entry on the micro-blogging service Plurk on Monday, Plurk founder Alvin Woon said the social networking site had recently received letters from the police and prosecutors seeking personal information on, and the IP addresses of, Plurkers.
In his entry, Woon wondered about due process and privacy laws in Taiwan.
After the news broke, some people quickly came to the government’s defense, saying the incident had nothing to do with the erosion of democracy that some of the government’s detractors claim has occurred since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) came into office.
The group criticized those who took the report seriously, saying they were blowing the incident out of proportion in a naked attempt to turn an otherwise non-political matter into a political one.
Indeed, the matter should not be seen in terms of “blue” or “green,” but rather as “white,” which suggests intimidation. Both pan-blue and pan-green supporters would be intimidated if Netizens’ right to privacy is not respected.
Failure to treat the incident with the seriousness that it deserves could blind people to the fact that it may be a precursor of the shape of things to come — a new “white terror” in which freedom of speech comes under assault.
The case of Chinese journalist Shih Tao (師濤) is a vivid reminder of the need for vigilance in these times of uncertainty. Shih was sentenced to 10 years in prison after Beijing asked Yahoo to provide personal information on dissidents.
To be fair, combating online crime could be a valid reason for police and prosecutors to make inquiries with Internet service providers. However, with police refusing to provide any information on the case or justification as to why IP addresses were needed, one can speculate that the government, shaken by recent instances of Netizens using aggressive language to vent their dissatisfaction with the political situation in Taiwan, may have decided to act — even if this entails intruding on Web users’ privacy.
This has echoes of an incident in April last year, in which the Taipei City Government’s police department dispatched officers to a private gathering organized by the Taiwan Blogger Association. The officers asked the participants to show their IDs and provide cellphone numbers, and inquired as to what they were doing and who else was taking part in the gathering.
That incident sparked much public criticism, forcing the director of the department to apologize and assure that “any personnel found guilty of misconduct would be disciplined accordingly.”
Undermining Netizens’ privacy is a serious offense in a democracy. Until police and prosecutors provide a sound explanation as to why they needed personal information about Plurk users, it will be the responsibility of each and every one of us to make as much noise as possible to show that we will not allow our freedoms and liberties to be undermined illegally.
In too many instances the world over, people looked the other way while their freedoms were being gradually eroded by governments that thought they could get away with it. Isolated incidents may be just that, but when they are repeated one begins to see a pattern emerging. When that happens, alarms should go off, because such patterns often indicate intent.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS