WHY SHOULD ANYONE act so surprised?
In any democratic state worth mentioning, a change of power brings a change of cronies — by stealth or otherwise — to government agencies or other organizations for which the executive vets “independent” boards.
So it is with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, though these guys deserve special mention because they rarely bother with the “stealth” part.
Take the kerfuffle at Radio Taiwan International (RTI) this week. Chairman Cheng Yu (鄭優), director-general Shao Li-chung (邵立中) and a bunch of board members not disposed to sucking up to Chicoms submitted their resignations over what they said were government objections to RTI’s operations, particularly the station’s candid criticism of China.
Now I say that some of these people should not have resigned, especially those who did so simply because they objected to the KMT’s ideology per se. Whatever happened to an honest fistfight and holding your ground? Or going down with the ship? Or flying the flag under enemy fire? Or subverting the system from within when no one is looking?
Here’s another way of phrasing this question: Is there a single person left in Taiwan willing to duke it out with this namby-pamby, economically illiterate bunch of pandaphile collaborators?
Don’t all answer at once.
Still, let’s put things into perspective. KMT legislators serve as sophomoric exemplars of the “tyranny of the majority” when they claim that party men should dominate every organ because it controls the executive and the legislature.
But when you consider the actions and processes of governments in more established democracies, you can admire just how partial “impartiality” can be.
Take a look at the appointment rituals for the US Supreme Court. There, see? The KMT doesn’t look so bad, after all.
Here’s another thing that makes the KMT look a little better.
As unreliable as my aging memory can be, I do recall a time only a few years ago when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) hot shots were slamming government publications for — yep, you guessed it — making the government look less than perfect.
Take former DPP legislator and current party aide Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴). Way back on April 2, 2003, about a year before former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) re-election, the Great Green Hope for the Youth Vote stood up in a legislative committee meeting and attacked the then-monikered Taipei Review (originally Free China Review, now Taiwan Review).
This august journal had the audacity to publish an article by US professor and Taiwan specialist Shelley Rigger that said — gasp! — the DPP would struggle to get re-elected in the presidential election.
The following day, our very own Taipei Times captured the moment in all of its excruciating detail.
“[Hsiao] said Rigger’s article gave readers a negative impression of the DPP and should not have had appeared in a government-sponsored journal.
Hsiao [said] a government-sponsored publication should not be predicting that it will be difficult for the ruling party to continue to hold onto power after next year’s presidential election.
She said such an analysis should not have appeared in a government-sponsored publication in the first place, adding the article might damage the government’s image.”
Let’s not quibble over Hsiao’s inability to distinguish between the government of the day and her party (The irony! The irony!). I would prefer to point out that no DPP tentpegs of the day publicly stood up for the Taipei Review.
Maybe it’s just my faulty memory, but I don’t recall Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯), a perennial talkshow favorite, getting up on the legislative floor at the time and defending the publication for publishing an informed analysis of a local political party’s electoral prospects (a rare breed of article, this).
The reason I raise Tsai’s name is because he was the first guy on the legislative floor to defend the honor of RTI’s management.
Those of my readers who would start filling their spittle reservoirs at the thought of old Johnny putting the KMT in a more favorable light shouldn’t get too carried away.
It goes without saying that parts of the KMT would like to see every available vehicle, including state-funded media outlets, used to praise and advance the cause of unification, demean opposition parties and shut down debate on any given issue. I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, that these snakes can’t be trusted.
These self-appointed media watchdogs would be better off, however, concentrating on the trustworthiness, and not political line, of state-funded media services, such as the Central News Agency, whose English-language service of late has taken to plagiarizing Wikipedia.
We might also do well to distinguish more carefully between the cynical politics that marks a healthy democracy and the cynical politics that paves the way for a Chicom takeover.
And consider this. Every media outlet has its office politics and conflict over the precise political line it will push. And a lot of these outlets have committed acts of bias. But it is also a fact that all of these outlets are staffed by people of wildly different political sensibilities who are, first and foremost, trying to earn a living.
For some of them, that means being — and seeming to be — professional. These targets of attempted manipulation, in my humble experience, don’t enjoy being lectured by big-noting bullies, regardless of their politics. And the consequences of a big-noting bully alienating his nominal political ally … well, I’ll leave that one to you to contemplate, but the evidence of this after eight years of DPP rule is everywhere.
Now it’s the KMT’s turn to do the same.
Make no mistake, dear reader: Knuckle-dragging politicians that cajole media outlets into ideological cheerleading or into going against their professional judgement in any capacity should be outed and relentlessly mocked.
In the meantime, the KMT’s old boys and Jiang Qing (江青) brigade should chill out. We have a pile of evidence that suggests they don’t need to worry about monopolizing vehicles for debate and the spread of information: The media, in balance, are still on your side, so don’t panic.
Take TVBS. This week a luckless news anchor by the name of Liao Ying-ting (廖盈婷), who thought she was off the air, was caught abusing the former president with language (“Psycho” Chen should “eat shit”) that wouldn’t be out of place in my column.
She was “demoted” for her troubles, and the station’s management is being probed by the National Miscommunications Commission, which, I’m sure you will agree, is a fate worse than death — or at least worse than working for TVBS.
My only disappointment was watching TVBS tuck into some feces in turn by apologizing on air to the president after the scatological slip-up was aired.
Apologize for an accidentally aired insult? After all the spurious chunder they’ve projected at Chen over the years?
These Hongkie proxies must be getting soft in their old age. Probably because they’ve been in Taiwan too long.
Got something to tell Johnny? Go on, get it off your chest. Write to dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com, but be sure to put “Dear Johnny” in the subject line or he’ll mark your bouquets and brickbats as spam.
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS