The game of semantic Scrabble being played out over the National Unification Council has provided a lot of fodder for the cannons of news critics.
So it is with a fairly light heart that I begin the inaugural edition of "NewsWatch," a weekly column in which I hope to seriously irritate the powerful and influential, as well as to royally piss off the bevy of panda-hugging corporate hacks that pass themselves off as reporters and editors these days.
That's a pretty high bar to set for myself, but that's OK: one of the comforts of having lofty ideals is that they are so often unattainable, one never really has to live up to them.
So now to the fun part: Mocking the shoddy work of others.
I have to begin this week with a perennial pet-peeve, the insistence of the international wire services to use the phrase "China and Taiwan split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 ..." or some rendition thereof. Reuters, the Associated Press, Agence France Presse (AFP) and Deutsche Presse Agentur have all picked up this supremely sloppy saw, and now throw it in every story that even briefly mentions Taiwan.
For example, from AFP on March 2, in a story slugged "China-Taiwan-UN-Annan," we learn:
"China and Taiwan split in 1949 after the nationalists lost a civil war to the communists and fled to the island. China has since viewed Taiwan as part of its territory to be reunified, by force if necessary."
From Reuters, also on March 2, in a story titled "Interview - Taiwan urges China to talk politics" we have this variation:
"China has considered Taiwan a breakaway province since their split at the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949. It has threatened to use force if the island formally declares independence."
Now, I know that every idiot from Flapjack-upon-Tyne or Podunk, USA can't be expected to have a working knowledge of recent East Asian history, and that what's needed is a short, pithy way of boiling down the source of the conflict between China and Taiwan.
But this phrasing simply isn't objective. It leaves readers with the impression that Taiwan was ruled by China without exception since time immemorial. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), which was formed after Taiwan was ceded to Japan in 1895, took control of the island in 1945, and then fled because it had nowhere else to retreat to four years later.
Why not simply leave it at, "China claims Taiwan as part of its territory?" That's accurate, and it sidesteps all the bickering about who was joined with what or who will couple with who at what time in what position.
But enough of that tripe. I'm starting to sound like a letter writer from Ohio. What I really want to talk about is a large mammal with ferocious claws and teeth: the panda bear.
Big Red's kleptocrat-run news agency, Xinhua, tells us on Feb. 27 in an article dubbed "Giant panda couple free gifts for Taiwan" that:
"Presenting a pair of giant pandas to Taiwan compatriots reflected the profound friendship the mainland compatriots have shown to Taiwan compatriots, [Zhuo Rongsheng (卓榕生), some Chinese forestry official] said. We hope that Taiwan authorities concerned would fully consider the earnest hope of Taiwan compatriots and take a cooperative attitude on the issue of the giant panda couple," and so on and so forth in the stilted, nonsensical cant we always get out of China.
Well, this Taiwan compatriot doesn't see anything particularly exciting about stinking pandas. He certainly doesn't see why we should lock the poor things up in a zoo in Taichung, unless we get to lock Mayor Jason Hu (
Why don't we send China a couple of Formosan black bears? They're "solitary animals" that will "usually not attack unless they are threatened," as the Government Information Office's Web site on Taiwan's fauna explains.
I think Beijing has a lesson or two to learn from Taiwan's bears. I say the only way we should let furry-faced Tuan Tuan (
Luckily, we here in Taiwan can count on our fearless leaders to eschew moldy old propaganda-speak and give us plain, unvarnished platitudes. Now-you-see-him, now-you-don't former premier Frank Hsieh (
"My theory is that whatever has happened, is going to happen, or cannot be stopped, is good."
Gee, that's pretty deep Frankie. I wonder if you came up with that as you were floating above the Earth with cult leader charlatan Soong Chi-li (
Heard or read something particularly objectionable about Taiwan? Johnny wants to know: dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com is the place to reach me, with "Dear Johnny" in the subject line.
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