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
Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) has prioritized modernizing the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to rival the US military, with many experts believing he would not act on Taiwan until the PLA is fully prepared to confront US forces. At the Chinese Communist Party’s 20th Party Congress in 2022, Xi emphasized accelerating this modernization, setting 2027 — the PLA’s centennial — as the new target, replacing the previous 2035 goal. US intelligence agencies said that Xi has directed the PLA to be ready for a potential invasion of Taiwan by 2027, although no decision on launching an attack had been made. Whether
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS