Taiwanese comedian and YouTube talk show host Brian Tseng (曾博恩) is under the spotlight once again after it was revealed that guests were being charged different amounts to appear on his show.
Online opinion is widely divided as to the nature of Tseng’s political leanings, but I would suggest that he values one thing above all else: the pursuit of profit.
Anyone who can increase income and viewing figures will be given a place next to Tseng on his The Night Night Show guest sofa. At the same time, Tseng’s fans tune in for the concomitants of profitmaking: pleasure and entertainment.
Regardless of how Tseng is perceived, most of the online talking heads and Facebook groups criticizing him are not even close to having his influence. People should not be too hasty to judge given that the majority, if they are honest, pursue profit and pleasure ahead of lofty political ideals.
This is an undeniable trait of human nature, so why not let ideals overlap with people’s natural desire for profit and pleasure?
Consider the issue of Taiwanese independence — or perhaps it should be called resistance to unification.
Taiwanese do not want to be ruled by a government that conceals the outbreak of a deadly new virus, causing the epidemic to wreak havoc among its population, and that builds defective dams that are the cause of flooded homes. Is this not a form of self-interest?
The American Revolutionary War was triggered by the inhabitants of 13 North American colonies who were no longer willing to pay taxes to the British government without North American representatives in its parliament. After independence, the US’ founding fathers used a constitution to protect citizens’ rights.
By comparison, political movements that hold high the banner of “justice” and condemn the pursuit of self-interest generally result in failure and misery, for example the Boxers, the Soviets, the Taliban and so on.
Perhaps some readers support Taiwanese independence. They should reflect on why Tseng’s guests are often from the opposite side of the political debate. If identifying as “Taiwanese” is seen as basic common sense, why is it that pro-independence groups and activities are shunned by the vast majority of middle-class voters?
Why is it that, despite having had a Democratic Progressive Party government and legislative majority for more than four years, independence is rarely discussed within official forums? Is it because Taiwanese have not developed their own wisdom and remain brainwashed by the party-state?
Taiwan’s pro-independence political faction always paints its members as “warriors of justice” fighting against the tyranny of the party-state. History suggests that this is not the most effective method, otherwise the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) would have had to completely relinquish power in 1996.
One explanation is that Taiwanese independence and transitional justice are not necessarily mutually inclusive. Many of the people persecuted under the KMT dictatorship were not supporters of independence; quite a few of them supported unification with China.
Another reason is that people tend to be motivated by self-interest and their own pleasure.
Therefore, rather than warn of annexation by Red China, it would be better to emphasize independent nation-building as the path to a safer, more prosperous and beautiful future for Taiwan. Such a movement would gain far more supporters than Tseng could ever dream of.
Jimway Chang holds a master’s degree from National Tsing Hua University’s Institute of History.
Translated by Edward Jones
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) earlier this month said it is necessary for her to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and it would be a “huge boost” to the party’s local election results in November, but many KMT members have expressed different opinions, indicating a struggle between different groups in the party. Since Cheng was elected as party chairwoman in October last year, she has repeatedly expressed support for increased exchanges with China, saying that it would bring peace and prosperity to Taiwan, and that a meeting with Xi in Beijing takes priority over meeting
Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs spokesman for maritime affairs Rogelio Villanueva on Monday said that Manila’s claims in the South China Sea are backed by international law. Villanueva was responding to a social media post by the Chinese embassy alleging that a former Philippine ambassador in 1990 had written a letter to a German radio operator stating that the Scarborough Shoal (Huangyan Island, 黃岩島) did not fall within Manila’s territory. “Sovereignty is not merely claimed, it is exercised,” Villanueva said. The Philippines won a landmark case at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 2016 that found China’s sweeping claim of sovereignty in
RSS