On Nov. 1, poet Tu Shi-san (杜十三) called the Premier Frank Hsieh's (謝長廷) office in the name of the Taiwan Liberation Alliance and threatened to kill Hsieh and his entire family. The case was handled quickly, and social uproar ensued. However, some media groups have chosen to portray the poet as a hero or glorious warrior. This kind of behavior can often lead to confusion among the public over what kind of behavior is right and wrong.
After Tu was arrested on Nov. 7, Hsieh made it known that he would not press charges, while the poet apologized and then expressed his regret. However, threatening others is an indictable offense and he should be punished according to the law for what he did. That would be the correct way to proceed in a healthy, law-abiding society. Surprisingly, for reasons entirely their own, some media groups have chosen to glorify Tu's crimes in their news reports and editorials.
A few so-called academics and literati have even argued that his threats were the result of righteous indignation, a poet's anger, part of a piece of performance art, an intellectual's conscience and a release of fury. They have tried to justify his crime. Not only have they not condemned the violence, but they have criticized the government for not accounting for itself. Such people mislead the public into thinking that the crime of intimidation is a suitable revolutionary action against unsatisfactory political situations. They have placed a halo above the head of the criminal, in the same manner as in the case of the "rice bomber." It should be a matter of considerable concern when values become so confused.
Hsieh complained that those who support Tu do not "place any value on the lives of other people's children," and regretted that the situation in Taiwan is now comparable to China's Cultural Revolution. During the decade-long Cultural Revolution that broke out around 1965, the late Chinese leader Mao Zedong (毛澤東) mobilized the innocent but passionate youth, laborers, and the general public of China, using the banner "revolutions are guiltless, rebellions are justified" in order to bring down his political rivals within the Chinese Communist Party. The chaos and destruction of the Cultural Revolution lay in the lawlessness of society and rule by mob trial. What is the difference between this and the sections of the media that ignore the law and praise violence?
In Tu's case, it can be attributed to a perversion in the Taiwanese media. This can be traced back to the beginning of Taiwan's push for democratization and localization. These media groups cherished the "Greater China" vision and therefore enjoyed the patronage of the authoritarian government. However, after Taiwan's democratization and localization began, they lost their vested interests and failed to adapt to the new environment, new systems and new atmosphere. They also resisted the tide of time with their radical ethnic and pro-unification ideologies.
From news reports and editorials to television talk shows, they are full of hateful anti-Taiwan sentiment that disrupts ethnic harmony and foments social confrontation, constantly attacking the government and President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) on the behalf of the pan-blue camp. Some of the pro-China media also play the role of Beijing's mouthpiece by denying Taiwan's self-awareness as a result of their adherence to a pro-unification agenda.
These media groups have spared no effort in smearing Taiwan and arousing conflicts and confrontations over the past 10 years or so. Taiwan appears to be good for nothing in their reports and editorials. The native regime is incompetent, its morality is suspect, social order is non-existent and the government is in conflict with the business sector. Taiwan is apparently a living hell in their eyes. Brainwashed by these media groups day and night, some members of the public have therefore developed unbalanced impressions. As their discontent mounts, their anger finally gets out of control, leading to irrational behavior.
Tu's deplorable death threats to Hsieh and his family were a result of the poisonous propaganda distributed by the pro-China media. But even after he was arrested, these groups decided to ignore the law and lavish him with praise. This shows that they are not only the cause of this incident but also the defenders of evil and glorifiers of violence. In other words, this case has once again highlighted the fact that the pro-China media prefer to promote instability.
---Translated by Eddy Chang
The conflict in the Middle East has been disrupting financial markets, raising concerns about rising inflationary pressures and global economic growth. One market that some investors are particularly worried about has not been heavily covered in the news: the private credit market. Even before the joint US-Israeli attacks on Iran on Feb. 28, global capital markets had faced growing structural pressure — the deteriorating funding conditions in the private credit market. The private credit market is where companies borrow funds directly from nonbank financial institutions such as asset management companies, insurance companies and private lending platforms. Its popularity has risen since
The Donald Trump administration’s approach to China broadly, and to cross-Strait relations in particular, remains a conundrum. The 2025 US National Security Strategy prioritized the defense of Taiwan in a way that surprised some observers of the Trump administration: “Deterring a conflict over Taiwan, ideally by preserving military overmatch, is a priority.” Two months later, Taiwan went entirely unmentioned in the US National Defense Strategy, as did military overmatch vis-a-vis China, giving renewed cause for concern. How to interpret these varying statements remains an open question. In both documents, the Indo-Pacific is listed as a second priority behind homeland defense and
Every analyst watching Iran’s succession crisis is asking who would replace supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Yet, the real question is whether China has learned enough from the Persian Gulf to survive a war over Taiwan. Beijing purchases roughly 90 percent of Iran’s exported crude — some 1.61 million barrels per day last year — and holds a US$400 billion, 25-year cooperation agreement binding it to Tehran’s stability. However, this is not simply the story of a patron protecting an investment. China has spent years engineering a sanctions-evasion architecture that was never really about Iran — it was about Taiwan. The
In an op-ed published in Foreign Affairs on Tuesday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) said that Taiwan should not have to choose between aligning with Beijing or Washington, and advocated for cooperation with Beijing under the so-called “1992 consensus” as a form of “strategic ambiguity.” However, Cheng has either misunderstood the geopolitical reality and chosen appeasement, or is trying to fool an international audience with her doublespeak; nonetheless, it risks sending the wrong message to Taiwan’s democratic allies and partners. Cheng stressed that “Taiwan does not have to choose,” as while Beijing and Washington compete, Taiwan is strongest when
RSS