20100713 Lament for Taiwan democracy

Lament for Taiwan democracy

Tuesday, Jul 13, 2010, Page 8

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.