The game of semantic Scrabble being played out over the National Unification Council has provided a lot of fodder for the cannons of news critics.
So it is with a fairly light heart that I begin the inaugural edition of "NewsWatch," a weekly column in which I hope to seriously irritate the powerful and influential, as well as to royally piss off the bevy of panda-hugging corporate hacks that pass themselves off as reporters and editors these days.
That's a pretty high bar to set for myself, but that's OK: one of the comforts of having lofty ideals is that they are so often unattainable, one never really has to live up to them.
So now to the fun part: Mocking the shoddy work of others.
I have to begin this week with a perennial pet-peeve, the insistence of the international wire services to use the phrase "China and Taiwan split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 ..." or some rendition thereof. Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France Presse (AFP) and Deutsche Presse Agentur have all picked up this supremely sloppy saw, and now throw it in every story that even briefly mentions Taiwan.
For example, from AFP on March 2, in a story slugged "China-Taiwan-UN-Annan," we learn:
"China and Taiwan split in 1949 after the nationalists lost a civil war to the communists and fled to the island. China has since viewed Taiwan as part of its territory to be reunified, by force if necessary."
From Reuters, also on March 2, in a story titled "Interview - Taiwan urges China to talk politics" we have this variation:
"China has considered Taiwan a breakaway province since their split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. It has threatened to use force if the island formally declares independence."
Now, I know that every idiot from Flapjack-upon-Tyne or Podunk, USA can't be expected to have a working knowledge of recent East Asian history, and that what's needed is a short, pithy way of boiling down the source of the conflict between China and Taiwan.
But this phrasing simply isn't objective. It leaves readers with the impression that Taiwan was ruled by China without exception since time immemorial. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which was formed after Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, took control of the island in 1945, and then fled because it had nowhere else to retreat to four years later.
Why not simply leave it at, "China claims Taiwan as part of its territory?" That's accurate, and it sidesteps all the bickering about who was joined with what or who will couple with who at what time in what position.
But enough of that tripe. I'm starting to sound like a letter writer from Ohio. What I really want to talk about is a large mammal with ferocious claws and teeth: the panda bear.
Big Red's kleptocrat-run news agency, Xinhua, tells us on Feb. 27 in an article dubbed "Giant panda couple free gifts for Taiwan" that:
"Presenting a pair of giant pandas to Taiwan compatriots reflected the profound friendship the mainland compatriots have shown to Taiwan compatriots, [Zhuo Rongsheng (卓榕生), some Chinese forestry official] said. We hope that Taiwan authorities concerned would fully consider the earnest hope of Taiwan compatriots and take a cooperative attitude on the issue of the giant panda couple," and so on and so forth in the stilted, nonsensical cant we always get out of China.
Well, this Taiwan compatriot doesn't see anything particularly exciting about stinking pandas. He certainly doesn't see why we should lock the poor things up in a zoo in Taichung, unless we get to lock Mayor Jason Hu (
Why don't we send China a couple of Formosan black bears? They're "solitary animals" that will "usually not attack unless they are threatened," as the Government Information Office's Web site on Taiwan's fauna explains.
I think Beijing has a lesson or two to learn from Taiwan's bears. I say the only way we should let furry-faced Tuan Tuan (
Luckily, we here in Taiwan can count on our fearless leaders to eschew moldy old propaganda-speak and give us plain, unvarnished platitudes. Now-you-see-him, now-you-don't former premier Frank Hsieh (
"My theory is that whatever has happened, is going to happen, or cannot be stopped, is good."
Gee, that's pretty deep Frankie. I wonder if you came up with that as you were floating above the Earth with cult leader charlatan Soong Chi-li (
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS