Freedom of speech is a hard-won right in Taiwan and a fairly recent one at that. Which makes it all the more disappointing, if not downright scary, to have a democratically elected lawmaker start threatening people whose speech he takes exception to, with warnings that he could hurt their livelihoods.
Such threats, even histrionic ones, should not be tolerated.
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Alex Tsai (蔡正元) threatened a week ago to cut Academia Sinica’s Institutum Jurisprudentiae’s budget because several of its researchers have spoken out against Want Want China Times Group’s plan to purchase China Network Systems’ cable services network. Tsai said at a meeting of the legislature’s Education and Culture Committee that he would propose cutting the budget for the institute, since the academics were politically motivated and should not be involved in what he called a “purely commercial merger.”
Academics from Academia Sinica, or any other institution, have as much right as the average person, or Tsai, to say what they think about a particular subject. Whether that speech falls into the blue, green or any other color of the spectrum camp should not matter; they have the right to freedom of expression.
It is ironic that when the government — whether the current KMT administration, the former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) or former KMT administrations — wants to be seen as respectful of public opinion it asks Academia researchers, university professors and other experts for their opinions on a host of different topics, from financial reform to nuclear energy to agricultural development to environmental issues. Many of those issues are “commercial” in nature. Of course, such invitations are often politically colored because the government tries to stack the deck with experts in its favor. It is a deplorable trait, but it is a fact of life that everything in Taiwan is seen through a blue-green prism.
Justifiably, academics recently hit back at Tsai, and not just from the threatened Institutum Jurisprudentiae. Researchers at the Academia’s Institute of Sociology and Institute of Atomic and Molecular Sciences also protested that they have a right to speak on public issues. That is why they are called public issues.
One might think that Tsai would be feeling sensitive these days about criticizing someone’s speech or actions. The same week he was attacking academics, he was under attack by the Anti-Poverty Alliance and the Youth Wants To Be Rich group as one of six KMT lawmakers that were seen, through their votes and actions, to be too “pro-corporate.” Hopefully, it is not just lawmakers that he feels are the only ones who are free to express themselves.
Or maybe he just doesn’t like academics, especially prominent ones. After all, in December last year Tsai called world-renowned AIDS researcher David Ho (何大一) the equivalent of “a pimp” while criticizing Ho’s involvement with Yu Chang Biologics Co when the KMT was trying to smirch then-DPP presidential candidate Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) for her involvement with the firm. The Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese) term he used was san qi zai (三七仔), referring to a method of splitting money 30-70 with a prostitute, though he also said Ho was a terrible hustler at that.
Whether Alex Tsai, or any other lawmaker, has a phobia about academics is not the problem. It is the blatant attempt to threaten them into silence that is. It is disappointing that no one in the administration or in the KMT, not even the man who heads both organizations, has felt the need to speak out to correct Alex Tsai and tell him such threats will not be tolerated.
Taiwan is a young democracy and its democratic values must be defended at every juncture. Alex Tsai has a right to say what he thinks. He does not have the right to try and silence those he disagrees with or who disagree with him.
US aerospace company Boeing Co has in recent years been involved in numerous safety incidents, including crashes of its 737 Max airliners, which have caused widespread concern about the company’s safety record. It has recently come to light that titanium jet engine parts used by Boeing and its European competitor Airbus SE were sold with falsified documentation. The source of the titanium used in these parts has been traced back to an unknown Chinese company. It is clear that China is trying to sneak questionable titanium materials into the supply chain and use any ensuing problems as an opportunity to
It’s not every month that the US Department of State sends two deputy assistant secretary-level officials to Taiwan, together. Its rarer still that such senior State Department policy officers, once on the ground in Taipei, make a point of huddling with fellow diplomats from “like-minded” NATO, ANZUS and Japanese governments to coordinate their multilateral Taiwan policies. The State Department issued a press release on June 22 admitting that the two American “representatives” had “hosted consultations in Taipei” with their counterparts from the “Taiwan Ministry of Foreign Affairs.” The consultations were blandly dubbed the “US-Taiwan Working Group on International Organizations.” The State
The Chinese Supreme People’s Court and other government agencies released new legal guidelines criminalizing “Taiwan independence diehard separatists.” While mostly symbolic — the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never had jurisdiction over Taiwan — Tamkang University Graduate Institute of China Studies associate professor Chang Wu-ueh (張五岳), an expert on cross-strait relations, said: “They aim to explain domestically how they are countering ‘Taiwan independence,’ they aim to declare internationally their claimed jurisdiction over Taiwan and they aim to deter Taiwanese.” Analysts do not know for sure why Beijing is propagating these guidelines now. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), deciphering the
Delegation-level visits between the two countries have become an integral part of transformed relations between India and the US. Therefore, the visit by a bipartisan group of seven US lawmakers, led by US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Michael McCaul to India from June 16 to Thursday last week would have largely gone unnoticed in India and abroad. However, the US delegation’s four-day visit to India assumed huge importance this time, because of the meeting between the US lawmakers and the Dalai Lama. This in turn brings us to the focal question: How and to what extent