Recent media coverage of a series of political events has clearly, crudely and sadly illustrated the double standards that are applied to pan-green and pan-blue politicians.
The pro-China media in Taiwan enjoys a disproportionate presence in the local news market -- this much everyone knows. But their biased and selective reporting in such a brazen manner has become almost sickening.
Take the coverage of pan-blue legislators' sensational allegations against first lady Wu Shu-jen (
With the pro-China media so eager to dance to the pan-blue camp's tune, it seemed as if Wu was Taiwan's version of Imelda Marcos.
Sure, Wu has drawn much criticism for her investment activities. And given her position as first lady, she should have known better than to engage in commercial activities or meet with the executives of state-owned enterprises. Such conduct was, at the very least, stupid.
However, the critical -- some would say libelous -- coverage of Wu was out of all proportion to her alleged misdeeds, especially when compared with coverage of the KMT. The KMT's stalled deal last December to sell the party's three media outlets to the China Times Group has recently been clouded in controversy. Originally the China Times Group wanted to buy all three outlets from the KMT; now it seems they don't have the money to do so.
The whole thing smells like a sweetheart deal for one of the KMT's pro-China media pals. Naturally enough, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (
And then there was the news earlier this week that a number of Ma's Taipei City Government staff took more than 30 days of official leave to prepare for a Dragon Boat race. Had this happened while President Chen Shui-bian (
But Ma, the media darling, was able to work his way out of the controversy with the response: "The city government is keen to promote the concept of a health-conscious city."
"Clean" and "transparent" were the catchwords of Ma's campaign for the KMT chairmanship last June. How much "cleanliness" and "transparency" has he really implemented since then? And how much attention has the nation's media been paying to this matter? The short answer to both questions is: not very much.
The KMT recently announced that its vice chairwoman Lin Cheng-chih (林澄枝) would be stepping down, with the vacancy to be filled by Legislator Chang Jen-chian (章仁香). Many members of the KMT's Central Standing Committee -- supposedly the highest decision-making body of the party -- weren't even aware that the appointment had been made. So much for Ma's transparency.
The media have a responsibility to keep the powerful in check. If the pro-China media really want Ma to win the 2008 presidential election, what they ought to do, for the sake of the country's welfare, is keep him to his word.
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) continues to bully Taiwan by conducting military drills extremely close to Taiwan in late May 2024 and announcing a legal opinion in June on how they would treat “Taiwan Independence diehards” according to the PRC’s Criminal Code. This article will describe how China’s Anaconda Strategy of psychological and legal asphyxiation is employed. The CCP’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and Chinese Coast Guard (CCG) conducted a “punishment military exercise” against Taiwan called “Joint Sword 2024A” from 23-24 May 2024, just three days after President William Lai (賴清德) of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) was sworn in and
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)