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.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS