On Nov. 1, poet Tu Shi-san (杜十三) called the Premier Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) office in the name of the Taiwan Liberation Alliance and threatened to kill Hsieh and his entire family. The case was handled quickly, and social uproar ensued. However, some media groups have chosen to portray the poet as a hero or glorious warrior. This kind of behavior can often lead to confusion among the public over what kind of behavior is right and wrong.
After Tu was arrested on Nov. 7, Hsieh made it known that he would not press charges, while the poet apologized and then expressed his regret. However, threatening others is an indictable offense and he should be punished according to the law for what he did. That would be the correct way to proceed in a healthy, law-abiding society. Surprisingly, for reasons entirely their own, some media groups have chosen to glorify Tu's crimes in their news reports and editorials.
A few so-called academics and literati have even argued that his threats were the result of righteous indignation, a poet's anger, part of a piece of performance art, an intellectual's conscience and a release of fury. They have tried to justify his crime. Not only have they not condemned the violence, but they have criticized the government for not accounting for itself. Such people mislead the public into thinking that the crime of intimidation is a suitable revolutionary action against unsatisfactory political situations. They have placed a halo above the head of the criminal, in the same manner as in the case of the "rice bomber." It should be a matter of considerable concern when values become so confused.
Hsieh complained that those who support Tu do not "place any value on the lives of other people's children," and regretted that the situation in Taiwan is now comparable to China's Cultural Revolution. During the decade-long Cultural Revolution that broke out around 1965, the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) mobilized the innocent but passionate youth, laborers, and the general public of China, using the banner "revolutions are guiltless, rebellions are justified" in order to bring down his political rivals within the Chinese Communist Party. The chaos and destruction of the Cultural Revolution lay in the lawlessness of society and rule by mob trial. What is the difference between this and the sections of the media that ignore the law and praise violence?
In Tu's case, it can be attributed to a perversion in the Taiwanese media. This can be traced back to the beginning of Taiwan's push for democratization and localization. These media groups cherished the "Greater China" vision and therefore enjoyed the patronage of the authoritarian government. However, after Taiwan's democratization and localization began, they lost their vested interests and failed to adapt to the new environment, new systems and new atmosphere. They also resisted the tide of time with their radical ethnic and pro-unification ideologies.
From news reports and editorials to television talk shows, they are full of hateful anti-Taiwan sentiment that disrupts ethnic harmony and foments social confrontation, constantly attacking the government and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on the behalf of the pan-blue camp. Some of the pro-China media also play the role of Beijing's mouthpiece by denying Taiwan's self-awareness as a result of their adherence to a pro-unification agenda.
These media groups have spared no effort in smearing Taiwan and arousing conflicts and confrontations over the past 10 years or so. Taiwan appears to be good for nothing in their reports and editorials. The native regime is incompetent, its morality is suspect, social order is non-existent and the government is in conflict with the business sector. Taiwan is apparently a living hell in their eyes. Brainwashed by these media groups day and night, some members of the public have therefore developed unbalanced impressions. As their discontent mounts, their anger finally gets out of control, leading to irrational behavior.
Tu's deplorable death threats to Hsieh and his family were a result of the poisonous propaganda distributed by the pro-China media. But even after he was arrested, these groups decided to ignore the law and lavish him with praise. This shows that they are not only the cause of this incident but also the defenders of evil and glorifiers of violence. In other words, this case has once again highlighted the fact that the pro-China media prefer to promote instability.
---Translated by Eddy Chang
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS