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
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