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.
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