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.
Taiwan’s semiconductor industry gives it a strategic advantage, but that advantage would be threatened as the US seeks to end Taiwan’s monopoly in the industry and as China grows more assertive, analysts said at a security dialogue last week. While the semiconductor industry is Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” its dominance has been seen by some in the US as “a monopoly,” South Korea’s Sungkyunkwan University academic Kwon Seok-joon said at an event held by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. In addition, Taiwan lacks sufficient energy sources and is vulnerable to natural disasters and geopolitical threats from China, he said.
After reading the article by Hideki Nagayama [English version on same page] published in the Liberty Times (sister newspaper of the Taipei Times) on Wednesday, I decided to write this article in hopes of ever so slightly easing my depression. In August, I visited the National Museum of Ethnology in Osaka, Japan, to attend a seminar. While there, I had the chance to look at the museum’s collections. I felt extreme annoyance at seeing that the museum had classified Taiwanese indigenous peoples as part of China’s ethnic minorities. I kept thinking about how I could make this known, but after returning
What value does the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hold in Taiwan? One might say that it is to defend — or at the very least, maintain — truly “blue” qualities. To be truly “blue” — without impurities, rejecting any “red” influence — is to uphold the ideology consistent with that on which the Republic of China (ROC) was established. The KMT would likely not object to this notion. However, if the current generation of KMT political elites do not understand what it means to be “blue” — or even light blue — their knowledge and bravery are far too lacking
Taipei’s population is estimated to drop below 2.5 million by the end of this month — the only city among the nation’s six special municipalities that has more people moving out than moving in this year. A city that is classified as a special municipality can have three deputy mayors if it has a population of more than 2.5 million people, Article 55 of the Local Government Act (地方制度法) states. To counter the capital’s shrinking population, Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an (蔣萬安) held a cross-departmental population policy committee meeting on Wednesday last week to discuss possible solutions. According to Taipei City Government data, Taipei’s