With all of the coverage of the former first family’s legal woes and the economic crisis, the basic news cycle of bio-panic and ham-fisted showboating by second-tier politicians has been severely disrupted of late.
But this week, routine made a comeback. To wit, we saw a foot-and-mouth disease scare among hogs in Yunlin and Changhua counties. So out came the hoses, masks and disinfectant.
Meanwhile, Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) set about mugging for the camera in his own mask while painting over graffiti that a couple of foreigners thought might beautify some dreary shopfront shutters on Roosevelt Road, Sec 4. Those pseudo-artistes are now NT$6,000 poorer thanks to an aging taxi driver who remembered his Martial Law-era civics slogans: It is patriotic to inform on Communists, Taiwanese separatists, Soviet sympathizers and dickhead Canadian spraypainters.
Still, after eyeing Hau’s limp brush action, you can pretty much assume he hasn’t painted a roof or a bedroom wall in his pampered life. Memo Mayor Hau: The city needs cleaning elsewhere ... even in places the Canucks haven’t spoiled.
Dinghao square, one of the most trash-strewn parts of upmarket Taipei City, especially late at night, is one of them. You know you’re getting near it even before you see the Golden Arches: It’s close to one of the scabbiest night markets in our good metropolis (Da-an Rd, Sec 1).
I don’t expect the mayor to do any sweeping, mind you, but at least he could ensure that someone pops along every few months to tidy things up.
A militant feminist lesbian friend of mine was complaining the other evening about this very kind of selective civic duty. We were at Taipei’s lone Hooters establishment, where she often dines. I usually avoid the place, but she likes it there because she can ogle babe waitresses like Apple, Bunny and Rhea while threatening the male customers who ogle the babe waitresses.
My friend was pissed about President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) backtracking on his enthusiasm for the gay community. One minute he was Taipei mayor and you couldn’t get him off the Mardi Gras float. Next minute he’s president — and his rainbow is missing in action.
“Johnny,” she said, pupils dilating as a top-heavy waitress brought us racks of ribs, “never place your trust in someone who won’t get down and go all the way.”
After reading two US-sourced articles in the Chinese-language press this week, my friend’s demand for “full disclosure” turns out to be very wise.
Let’s recap for a moment.
About two months ago I discussed the departure of pro-Taiwan researcher John Tkacik from The Heritage Foundation, arguably the US’ pre-eminent conservative think tank (“A Heritage of non-denial denial,” Dec. 27, page 8). Sources said that something suspicious was afoot, though the only printable responses were denials or silence from the parties involved. The column led to more insiders getting in touch, but none could go on the record or supply anything amounting to proof.
So old Johnny swallowed his pride and kept chipping away.
But last week there was a new twist. Norman Fu (傅建中), that stalwart pro-unification Washington correspondent for the China Times, wrote an article on Feb. 13 that covered similar ground and contained new allegations. He said that Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) forces thought Tkacik had been a backstabber for supporting the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) government, and invited Heritage president Edwin Feulner to the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office (TECRO), where he was pressured to dump Tkacik.
This was agreed to, Fu opines, to save face for both parties.
Crucially, Fu does not name the person or persons who allegedly applied the pressure. A shame, really. This is a key piece of the puzzle, but Fu doesn’t even seem to think it was worth raising.
Unfortunately for poor old TECRO, this leaves the question hanging as to which staff were involved in this seedy scenario. Now, with this story dragging on, I am beginning to wonder if the folks at TECRO haven’t been given a raw deal by Fu’s inability or refusal to deliver the goods.
Certainly, Walter Lohman thinks so. Lohman, a most civilized gentleman, is Tkacik’s former boss at Heritage’s Asian Studies Center. His take on the Fu article?
“Our good friends at Tecro had nothing at all to do with John Tkacik’s departure from The Heritage Foundation,” he told me on Monday in an e-mail.
The other thing to consider here is that Jason Yuan (袁健生), Taiwan’s envoy to the US, is by all accounts a good pal of Norman Fu. Why on Earth, then, would someone as partisan as Fu write a story that puts Yuan in the shit, not only by stating that Yuan purged ideological foes among his staff by having them transferred to Europe, but also leaving the question open about his role in the Tkacik affair?
In a Neihu News Network (NNN) article on Feb. 16, Chinese dissident and Taiwan advocate Cao Changqing (曹長青) cited Fu’s allegations. This was also quite curious, as Cao has previously (NNN, Sept. 22, 2008) excoriated Fu for having a contemptuous “Chinese nobility in Taiwan” mindset and, rather more seriously, for fabricating news reports.
Why did Cao suddenly, and without explanation, give Fu’s reportage his unqualified support? Gracious me, surely it’s not because Fu’s latest article happens to make the KMT government look sleazy?
But Cao didn’t finish without a flourish, adding a hitherto unpublished allegation that the Taiwanese government partially funds The Heritage Foundation on the sly. He also speculated that the Ma government could have used even more “national assets” to ensure that Tkacik “retired.” Ouch.
My regular readers might recall that I asked Heritage whether it received Taiwanese government funding, directly or otherwise. Sources had told me things that made asking this question essential. A spokesman’s response? Absolutely not true.
Had I gone on to allege that Heritage had taken cash from the Taiwanese authorities through an intermediary, it would have been paramount to name names. But because there was no proof, there was no allegation. There’s still a place in journalistic endeavor for hard evidence, you see.
Cao seems to think otherwise. Like old Norman, he has “sources.” For most Taiwanese journalists, that’s enough license to go on the attack.
But it’s not enough. It would have been most helpful if we knew how much money was involved, where it came from and who delivered it, receipts, budget notes, memos from Taipei, cellphone photos of gratis blow jobs behind the shredder ... all that smoking gun stuff.
But something tells me we won’t be getting this information anytime soon from our Dragon correspondents, which leads me to consider that until this happens, The Heritage Foundation is entitled to declare it has been misrepresented.
There’s just one problem.
After the Fu and Cao articles came out, I e-mailed Dr Feulner, the man accused of trembling before the might of the KMT’s US insurgency. With the accusations out there, this was his chance to set the record straight. Could he state for the record that he was never blackmailed, in effect, to dump Tkacik by a person or persons during a meeting in TECRO’s offices? Could he state that Tkacik left Heritage for reasons completely unconnected to KMT skulduggery?
Unlike the courteous Mr Lohman, Feulner never replied.
America is a free country, and people are free to ignore irritating e-mails from ratbag columnists. But it seems to me that things are getting a little out of hand, and a categorical statement from the Heritage president refuting all accusations and stoutly defending the integrity of his underlings would have been warmly welcomed.
This would especially be the case for a think tank that has previously been accused of taking money sourced from the South Korean government back when it was run by people just like ... well ... the KMT.
But no. Zip.
There’s one last jarring little element to conclude today’s musings. One of the questions I put to Feulner was whether Tkacik had been required to sign some sort of silence clause as part of the terms of his departure, because Tkacik won’t talk — not to me, an admirer of his work, nor to others he knows well. Why would it be necessary for Tkacik to sign up to silence if Heritage had done nothing untoward?
But if Tkacik hadn’t been required to keep his silence, and now that media coverage of his removal is casting doubt on the propriety of his former colleagues, why the hell hasn’t he spoken up, out of sheer decency, to clear the air and put this bullshit to bed?
This saga isn’t over. And as time goes on, everyone is getting a little grubbier. Not quite enough to warrant a hosing down with disinfectant, but a coat of paint might do wonders.
In the meantime, my inbox is always open, Dr Feulner.
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.
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.
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
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