I would like to take issue with the AP news dispatch published in your newspaper "China-based Taiwanese split over identity," Oct 27, page 2).
The article contains the following statement: "Conversations with Taiwanese in China suggest that 56 years of separation have taken a toll on whatever once existed of a common identity."
I wonder where the AP journalist got that 56 years (of separation) from and what historical facts did he or she use to claim that before 1949 there "once existed a common identity"?
Before 1895, Taiwan was a "savage land" where "birds don't bother singing, flowers wear no fragrance, women have no sense of emotion and men have no sense of responsibility," in the words of a Chinese mandarin. Taiwan was a territory of Japan between 1895 and 1945. In 1947, the Taiwanese were randomly massacred by the Chinese government. Where was the so-called "common identity?"
It appears that nowadays any Joe or Jane can claim expertise on Taiwanese history based on Chinese propaganda, without checking with the Taiwanese.
The above-quoted statement or similar brainless interjections such as "Taiwan, which was separated from China in 1949," seem to be a pre-programmed automatic insertion whenever AP and other news agencies dispatch a line mentioning Taiwan.
Can these news agencies please make their software more intelligent, and try to provide readers with knowledge and facts -- not false and useless recitations based on hearsay or propaganda?
Sing Young
Taoyuan
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
RSS