The latest controversy to hit the government was sparked by comments Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Deputy Director-General Shih Wen-yi (施文儀) posted on his Facebook page concerning the US’ visa-waiver policy and a decision to extend the National Health Insurance program to Chinese students. The Executive Yuan is to investigate whether Shih violated the Civil Servants Work Act (公務員服務法). The government is being rather selective in what it decides to investigate: Is it thinking of hoisting Shih’s head on a spike outside the city gates as a warning to others? This raises questions over freedom of expression.
Premier Sean Chen (陳冲) has said Shih’s comments may constitute a violation of the Civil Servants Work Act, adding that he believes it to be “a legal matter.” However, the comments do not really constitute a violation of the law, as they do not contravene Article 4 of the Act, which states that civil servants should not, without the prior permission of a senior official, divulge any information related to their work in either a private capacity or in the name of an institution.
Shih’s Facebook posts concern freedom of expression, a basic right of every individual, guaranteed by the Constitution.
His comments were made in a private capacity and had nothing to do with his official duties. Neither the visa-waiver program nor the national health program are related to his position at the CDC. Had he criticized the insurance provision policy before it had been decided, it might have been a different story, and Article 4 of the Act might then have been invoked.
Since the Facebook posts ran counter to the government’s positions, the government was none to happy, and one Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislator even insinuated Shih was a sleeper working for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). This smacks of paranoia.
Chen clearly wants to make an example of Shih to dissuade other civil servants from posting comments on social networking sites and embarrassing the government.
Shih is not the only member of Chen’s Cabinet who likes to express his or her views on the Internet. Former Cabinet spokesman Hu Yu-wei (胡幼偉) recently resigned after revealing on Facebook he had been having an affair with a former student, not long after posting a picture of an iPhone 5 on the site and likening the subsequent attacks against him to the White Terror Era. Council for Economic Planning and Development Minister Yiin Chii-ming (尹啟銘) is also known for avidly blogging and engaging in online fisticuffs, and could be seen as an accident waiting to happen for the government.
Of course, civil servants should be subject to more stringent regulations compared with ordinary people about what they say and do.
However, what they do in their private lives, should be left to their own discretion and the dictates of the Constitution. If what they say is misleading or incorrect they will be held responsible. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs recently identified points that Shih had failed to fully appreciate about the visa-waiver program.
Government officials expressing their opinions on Facebook or personal blogs need not be a bad thing. Former health minister Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) was applauded for talking about US beef import and health insurance policies, showing the public there are some officials who dare to speak their minds.
Even if officials give their opinions on matters not directly related to their own duties, one could see this as part of their right to freedom of speech, or a catalyst for new ideas and for exploring different aspects of problems. This is what it means to have a free society that guarantees freedom of speech.
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