Well, the recall farce is over, and not a moment too soon. The sight of all the usual suspects -- James "I'm all for marathon sit-ins, as long as there's some AC" Soong (宋楚瑜), May "Opportunist? Me?" Chin (高金素梅) and Li "Media Tart" Ao (李敖) -- lining up to speechify against President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) outside the legislature was enough to make me blow my morning soy milk out my nose and all over my youtiao.
Sure, A-bian is about as popular around these parts as a World Cup referee on the streets of Sydney. But the spectacle of the pan-blues getting worked up and pointing fingers over alleged corruption is beyond ironic. "The pot calling the kettle black" doesn't quite capture it -- "the void calling the kettle black" is more like it.
But perhaps even worse than the spectacle of a pan-blue witch hunt is the excuse the whole charade gave to Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) to open her mouth. First it was her harebrained proposal for "Blue Ocean Coffee" to bring together all of the nation's top politicos to sip latte together and solve the nation's problems. Not only was it a bizarre and misapplied rip-off of a popular business book, it was a proposal of such startling naivete that one could only hope Lu had some obscure Machiavellian card up her sleeve.
The idea went down like a lead balloon, but that didn't deter the Vice Hair-do. Perhaps after the authors of the Blue Ocean Strategy book contacted her and told her they wanted no truck with her or Taiwanese politics, she moved on to another catchphrase. She said she wanted to hold, and this is no joke, a "blue sky, green ground, good Taiwan tea party" for national reconciliation.
Matsu help us. What next? The "Blue-green yoga party for a better tomorrow," in which Lu leads the nation's unitard-clad bigwigs in deep-breathing exercises? An "Alice in Wonderland, you're OK, I'm OK, let's all drink green and blue Electric Kool-Aid and get nekkid love-in" with the nation's top politicians? The mind reels.
A reliable source, who cannot be named because he might lose his janitorial position at Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) headquarters, gave NewsWatch the following scoop: The party's central committee was so sick of Lu putting in her NT$2 that they were considering a resolution ordering her to shut up.
In fact, this is clearly the right direction if the DPP wants to retain any shred of electoral viability.
For the next two years, Chen Shui-bian should not be allowed to do anything, and Annette Lu should not be allowed to say anything. She's too far gone through the looking glass.
In other travesties, this week saw a particularly egregious trotting out of the "in a move likely to anger China" saw.
You've seen it before: it's the stock phrase the wires insert to build anticipation on cross-strait tensions, which more often than not fail to materialize, and instead only serves to coddle the hypernationalist sensitivities of the bullying Chicoms across the Strait.
Here's Deutsche Presse-Agentur (DPA) this week: "Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, in a move that might anger China, said on Friday that one ethnic group can form several countries."
Huh? Let me get this straight: the Apologizer-in-Chief didn't actually do anything besides making an observation of almost stunning banality -- and DPA calls it a "move that might anger China"? They might as well have written: "Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian, in a move that might anger China, said on Friday that the Earth was round and contained seven continents upon which different people had formed different countries."
Why the need to guess when China's knickers will get all twisted up, anyway? You can safely assume that just about anything a freely elected leader of Taiwan does irritates China, since every "move" underlines the fact that, despite all the "one China" gobbledygook, Taiwan is as sovereign a country as they come. How's this one? "In a move likely to anger China, 23 million people got up this morning and ate breakfast in a free and independent Taiwan."
But at least one thing was put right in the world last week. The mayor and city council of Irvine, California, had to eat humble doufu and apologize to the mayor of Irvine's sister city, Taoyuan. Why? According to the Orange County Register, an Irvine city official signed a pact with the Chicoms in which the city "pledged to not send officials to Taiwan's `National Day' celebrations and never to refer to `two Chinas' or `one China, one Taiwan.'"
Talk about a move likely to anger Irvine's 2,800 Taiwanese -- not to mention all of Taoyuan.
The problem started when Irvine decided to sign a sister-city agreement with Xuhui District in Shanghai. Apparently, the petty-minded sisters of Xuhui slipped the offending terms -- which, according to The Associated Press, would also have barred Irvine from flying the Taiwanese flag or playing the Taiwanese national anthem -- into a memo on the agreement.
To their credit, the Irvine council has passed a resolution saying it will not take a position on the "one China" question, and will honor its sister city arrangement with Taoyuan. Moreover, Irvine Mayor Beth Krom effectively said that if Xuhui doesn't like the new terms it can stick the sister-city agreement where the sun don't shine.
Now that's the way to handle the Chicoms -- take off the kid gloves, give 'em some tough love, and the consequences be damned.
Anyway, if the three-way sister city arrangement does deteriorate into a cross-cultural bitchfest, surely all they'll need to do to patch things up is hold an "Orange County, Green Island, Red Chicom" summit, right?
They'll just need to decide whether to serve coffee or tea.
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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS