Since the 2004 presidential election and the election-eve assassination attempt on the head of state, the phrase "two bullets" has sparked furious and partisan debate, and for those in the pan-blue camp, it has become synonymous with fabrication and deception.
Unwilling to accept the results of the presidential election, the pan-blues have since refused to place their trust in President Chen Shui-bian (
Is there any evidence to indicate that Chen orchestrated the assassination bid himself? As yet, there is not.
However, this has not prevented politicians and the media from forming their own theories about the incident and airing them repeatedly in public in an attempt to give credence to them.
As a result, this issue can no longer be dealt with in a reasonable manner.
The most damaging argument against Chen's version of events is that if the "two bullets" had never existed, the pan-blue camp would most likely have been returned to power.
However, this reasoning alone does not constitute hard evidence.
The sensation surrounding the "two bullets" incident has resulted in our national leader, government officials, legislators as well as most of the media jumping aboard the "scandal" bandwagon.
They have found it is easier to strike a chord with the public by accusing whoever they like of whatever they like, without providing any substantial corroborating evidence.
Recently, Kaohsiung County Commissioner Yang Chiu-hsing (楊秋興) accused Deputy Minister of Education Fan Sun-lu (范巽綠) of improperly intervening in the construction of a building at Kaohsiung's Fengshan Junior High School.
Afterward, the media continued to pursue the issue by providing irrelevant "evidence" and insinuating that Fan was actually the one "calling the shots" in the ministry.
The incident in which independent Legislator Chiu Yi (
What's more, Chiu's "evidence" could not even establish that Ma was involved in wrongdoing in the first place, let alone that any insider trading had occurred.
As a lawmaker, Chiu could have asked government officials to put the assets in question into trust or called for a public declaration whenever a transaction was made. Either move would surely have won public support.
Clearly, Chiu was not interested in dealing with the facts of the matter or establishing what actually happened -- he was only interested in encouraging the public to imagine the worst.
Having been a participant in the instability that followed the "two bullets" scandal, Chiu knows that the more equivocal the accusation, the more likely the public will believe that it is well-founded.
While there is no smoke without fire, those being accused are not necessarily in the wrong.
And sometimes, we need to take a closer look at the accusers themselves.
The recent flood of accusations has muddled right and wrong and made it impossible to disentangle reasoned debate from sensationalism.
The slander ruling on the "soft coup" case is not enough to turn back this tide. It is more than likely that there will be further such "scandals" in future.
Ku Er-teh is a freelance writer.
TRANSLATED BY DANIEL CHENG
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS