Online commentator Lin Yu-hong (林裕紘) dropped a bombshell on Tuesday when he posted an apology for saying that he had received threats for criticizing a government program to import eggs, bringing a twist to a “crisis” that had almost fizzled out.
Lin, who runs a Facebook page called “Lin Bay Hao You” (“Lin Bay 好油”), said during a livestream hosted by former New Power Party (NPP) legislator Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) late last month that he had received death threats due to his criticism of the import scheme. Lin’s accusation and “tearful” act garnered sympathy, and sparked fury among Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) supporters and officials.
Many KMT legislators accused the DPP of bearing some responsibility for the threats and failing to take action to address them. Former National Taiwan University (NTU) president Kuan Chun-ming (管中閔) said that the situation was due to the acquiescence of “thugs.” The TPP on social media lambasted the DPP, saying that it had initiated a “green terror,” while former TPP legislator Tsai Pi-ru (蔡壁如) said that “democracy is dead” and no one should be threatened for exposing a government scandal.
Amid the controversy, Minister of Agriculture Chen Chi-chung (陳吉仲) stepped down.
In the post on Tuesday, Lin said that while some of the threats were real, including pictures of guns and knives, he had asked Hsu Che-pin (許哲賓), a friend who works for the KMT, to send him others.
Lin attached a photograph of his DPP membership card, saying he is not worthy to be a member and would resign.
There are lessons to learn from the situation. While opposition parties have every right to monitor the governing party to prevent corruption, it is neither reasonable nor fair to launch groundless accusations based on misinformation and hearsay without evidence. Many politicians were quick to jump on the anti-DPP bandwagon and mobilize hatred among their supporters, yet were slow or shy to apologize when the truth emerged — most who posted remarks in support of Lin deleted the posts without comment.
Taiwan has become a hyper-heated political environment where any remark or report can circulate widely and feed antagonism.
As Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels said: “A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.”
In the era of new media, in which the fourth estate has given way to social media and self-media, malevolent parties have an opportunity to hype their ideologies, spread false information and shape public discourse. As the power of discourse is no longer monopolized, it has triggered a decline in critical thinking and a rise in herd mentality.
In a democratic society, critical thinking has always been how the government and politicians are kept in check. Similarly, critical remarks by intellectuals, experts and pundits should ensure that criticisms hurled at the government are valid, even in a society rampant with false information.
However, if Kuan could throw out such an incendiary remark that was no different from an anonymous online comment, it is a truly worrisome for Taiwan’s democracy.
It is time that Taiwanese learn to spot the difference between critical thinking and mindless criticism. The former focuses on analysis and questioning, while the latter emerges from personal sentiment and emotions. People should exercise their media literacy and take the remarks of politicians and media reports with a grain of salt.
If it were not for Lin’s IP address, the egg crisis would have ended in ignominy and unwarranted charges left hanging over the governing party.
Competent politicians and leaders should be kept in office, so it should be ensured that Chen is the final victim of irrational criticism.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS