In the two years since President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) took office, democracy has suffered, as evidenced by drops in the benchmarks measuring economic and human rights. Ma’s handling of economic issues has been lackluster, results have been below par and he has failed to deliver on election promises.
Despite that, Ma refuses to review his performance and offers no apologies. Instead, he shirks responsibility, blames problems on the international situation, the previous administration and a defamatory media. In essence, Ma blames all his mistakes on someone else and never admits he might have erred.
Amazingly, the government has not only tried to shift blame for its multiple failures, but also mobilized state resources to suppress dissenting voices and mainstream public opinion through placement marketing and by striking down hard on pro-localization media outlets. The government does this to ensure everything goes its way, even if it means selling out Taiwan in the process.
Since Ma became president, Taiwan has dropped substantially in the evaluations of international human rights organizations. As for press freedom, the government’s penchant for rewarding those who play along and punishing those who disagree means that most media outlets have already been seduced by government largesse in the form of marketing and unfettered access. By willingly playing the role of pro-government cheerleader, the media has largely abdicated its responsibility to monitor the government and reflect public opinion, choosing instead to applaud policies that go against mainstream opinion and the best interests of Taiwan.
In this situation, only a very small minority of media outlets have dared to speak up, tell the truth and defend Taiwan’s identity and democratic system.
As the government continues with its attempts to create an atmosphere in which dissent is not tolerated, media outlets that persist in presenting evidence to support their criticism of a wide variety of policies have been subjected to a form of state violence. This is perhaps best illustrated by the way in which the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and state have formed a united propaganda front to discredit their opponents.
Although the government utilizes state resources to suppress dissenting media outlets, Ma still prefers to play the role of the innocent, telling pro-Ma media outlets that he will “fight back vigorously against untrue defamation.”
Ma has also said that in the past, he “felt that we, as the president and the ruling party, maybe should be a bit more polite, but having realized that this politeness has only attracted even more defamatory remarks, I feel it is time to step forward and forcefully clarify [these defamatory claims] and strike back. I think this is only right.”
“I have now realized that some people show no signs at all of changing, so there is no longer any need for us to beat around the bush and be tolerant. We should also say what needs to be said,” Ma said.
We find it inappropriate on so many levels that the head of a democratic country could make such patently totalitarian statements.
Since freedom of expression is protected by the Constitution and the media are expected to fill the role of the fourth estate — and thus have not only the right but the duty to express different opinions — we want to ask Ma, this Harvard-educated doctor of juridical science, whether he believes it is right that the right to express differences of opinion in Taiwan today is dependent on government whim.
The exercise of individual rights should not be dependent on the attitude of the government of the day or placed at the mercy of politics, but guaranteed by law. In contrast, Ma’s presidential power is based on the political promises on which he was elected and when he is no longer capable or willing to deliver on those, his democratic legitimacy is called into question. If Ma then wants to continue to exercise power, it is he who will have to rely on the forbearance of the public.
Based on some of the statements he has made, Ma clearly has a topsy-turvy view of the relationship between the rights and duties of voters and the government.
Furthermore, Ma’s idea of “striking back” is clearly directed at the small number of media outlets that have strongly questioned the signing of the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA). Although the government ignored public opinion and forced through the ECFA, that agreement offers only the chimera of a cure-all. The facade has already started peeling away under the onslaught of data compiled and presented by the opposition media, and it is this that has led to the threat of strong counterattacks on the part of the government.
It would be a mark of good governance if the government decided to respond to public doubts by explaining its policies through debate, but Ma has not chosen this route. Instead, he has combined the authority and resources of different ministries and agencies with those of the KMT to launch daily attacks against what it says are untrue statements and by placing lots of ads in the media, thus wasting taxpayers’ money in pursut of the selfish interests of a political party.
That party owns astronomical sums in the form of ill-gotten assets which should be returned to the state or the individuals from whom they were stolen. Ma has said on numerous occasions that he would deal with this issue, but he has instead chosen to sell off the assets and fill the KMT’s coffers.
If he is defending party policy, then why not use party assets instead of the taxpayers’ hard earned money?
Imagine the political scandal that would ensue if the US government used taxpayers’ money to buy ad space to criticize the New York Times or the Washington Post, or if it resorted to placement marketing to buy off the media.
In Taiwan, the government not only uses methods that run counter to the spirit of democracy, it doesn’t even have the common sense to try and hide it, talking openly about how it tolerates other media and plans to strike back. This is an odd situation for any democratic country to find itself in.
It is worrying to see the president ignoring mainstream public opinion and leaning unreservedly toward China. For the people of Taiwan, this state of affairs is nothing short of a disaster.
Translated by Drew Cameron and Perry Svensson
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