I was riding the MRT the other day to National Taiwan University to interview some disgruntled history postgraduates when I came across a most peculiar scene. Four Cantonese speakers boarded the carriage, and after a few minutes of peering at the MRT map, they started talking rather loudly about (I assume) whether they caught the right train.
Then, a nice lady stood up and walked over to them, speaking Mandarin and asking if they needed help. But they didn't understand a word of the "national language," and after half a minute of increasing frustration, the lady launched into passable English on the assumption that they might know a few basic phrases (they seemed to be from Hong Kong, after all).
Well, they didn't, and in the end the lady had to usher them off the train in the hope that standing on a platform might increase their chances of finding the right route.
Taiwan: A place where people use English to bring the Children of the Dragon together -- for tourism purposes, at least.
But first things first. What's the point of building bridges using foreign languages when you can't communicate in your own?
Take President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and Vice President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), who share two tongues but can't make head or tail of each other.
Over the years that this pair has occupied the Presidential Office, there has been a communication failure of such seriousness that Lu has effectively been running her own show.
During their first term, Lu moaned about how women never had enough power, especially vice presidents, and that she was capable of so much more. Now that she has a bit more power -- picture Lady Macbeth cast by John Waters -- she thinks that lecturing and undermining the president is part of the job description.
So we turn to the week's developments, which have been dominated by "green-camp friendly" academics suggesting Chen resign and Lu take his place. Oh, A-bian, you know you're in trouble when you've alienated the most sanctimonious and self-pitying group of people in the country. Forget meddling monks; enter the scheming scholars.
Last Saturday, a group of these unheralded saviors of the nation called a press conference to ask Chen to quit. They were propelled by Academia Sinica political scientist Chien Yung-hsiang's (錢永祥) call (published in the same day's China Times) for Premier Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌), former premier Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) and former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) to push for Chen's removal.
This strange crew included sociologists Fan Yun (范雲), Wu Nai-teh (吳乃德), Wu Chieh-min (吳介民) and Chen Ming-chi (陳明祺); Taiwan historian Wu Rwei-ren (吳叡人); Kaohsiung Incident veterans and one-time political prisoners Chang Fu-chung (張富忠) and Chi Wan-sheng (紀萬生); and political scientists Huang Chang-ling (黃長玲) and Tao Yi-fen (陶儀芬).
They said that if Chen stepped down, a tremendous contribution will have been made to the development of Taiwan's democracy because it would clean the slate and allow someone else to do a better job.
Stop right there. Amazing, is it not, that this group can be so erudite and have such impressive democratic credentials, yet not have the ability to open a dictionary and look up the meaning of "democracy"? If they have it their way, it'll be trial-by-polling-firm under the supervision of an academic Star Chamber all the way until the next premature election, and the next premature election after that.
You can also give the boffins among this group some brownie points for tenacity. Years of evidence of the unreliability of Internet polling didn't stop them from seeking support from anonymous Netizens in their all-talk, no-action campaign.
No wonder, then, that their online petition asking Chen to fall on his sword received support from Chen himself, as well as first lady Wu Shu-jen (
Hey guys, I know it's summer and getting pretty hot out there, but couldn't you have shed the egghead stereotype and hauled your lazy asses from your air-conditioned offices and out onto the street to collect signatures and addresses from real people?
But there's another thing that academics should do when making authoritative statements, (especially sociologists, who are prone to conflating science with activism): Declare your interests.
"Pan-green academics attack Chen" was the generic headline after these guys stood up to be discounted, but what they didn't disclose was several strong links to Lin I-hsiung, the latest addition in a line of former DPP luminaries to place ego above party and country. Lin has been sniping at the president ever since the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant debacle, which Lin in part triggered through his quixotic opposition to the project.
So, for once, I say thank you to the United Daily News and reporter Huang Ya-shih (
Lin himself, like all good spiritual leaders of would-be factions, has stayed aloof, saying he doesn't want to get involved in any campaign -- but for good measure he gave his full support to this gang in the cause of removing Chen from office. Thanks for that, old chap. The KMT check's in the mail. You may now shave your head and make a pilgrimage to Yushan (
Clearly, being a sociologist or a political scientist makes you no less vulnerable to being a moron in public. But in case you need it spelled out for you, O Wise Ones of Academe, this crisis is not about factionalism, Chen's competence or his personal fate. It's about the credibility of the political system and due process being followed when the system shows up faults.
Presidents, even ineffectual ones, are under no obligation to resign. They can be impeached by the Control Yuan or recalled by the legislature, but if neither happens, then the president has the mandate of the Constitution and the imprimatur of the people to stay in office.
If someone can find a place in the Republic of China Constitution where it says: "A prevaricating putz shall resign from the office of president within two weeks of refusing to account for the poor marital choices or venality of family members," then e-mail me at the address below. I'll be waiting.
And take the good dope from Johnny: In an ideal world, my dear scholars, your careers would be on the line -- not because of your naive politics, but because of your professional stupidity. Internet petition?
Then there's irresponsibility. Wu Nai-teh seems to be the point man for the Annette Lu Ineptitude Appreciation Society when he says that Taiwan should give the veep a chance as prez. This, despite nearly six-and-a-half years of upstaging her boss with ideas and asides of abject idiocy (granted, it has been very easy to upstage Chen, who has turned out to be, like his latest accusers, far more talk than action).
I'll admit that when it comes to me and Annette Lu, it's personal. It's not easy when something you dearly believe in -- a Taiwanese state -- is derailed in part by an individual who makes a mockery of the cause through unchecked vanity and bombast.
And that's what she's done as an also ran; imagine what she could do as the big cheese.
Let's take a little trip down vice presidential memory lane, shall we?
Remember when Annette Lu:
* Wanted entire Aboriginal villages moved to Central America in order to stop mountain erosion?
* Said that extinct "black pygmies" were the first (and therefore real) Aborigines, anyway?
* Said AIDS was a form of divine punishment and supported rounding up the nation's sufferers of HIV/AIDS and dumping them in their own quarantined village?
* Claimed she was the main target of the assassination attempt on the eve of the presidential election?
* Used the Presidential Office's now-defunct human rights advisory panel to pressure police over the confiscation of a DVD lampooning pan-blue camp figures?
* Was alleged to have claimed DPP Legislator Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) was getting her leg over the president? Lu did not make the allegation if you believe the court that punished the magazine for printing it. But it is not disputed that Lu gossiped with The Journalist magazine's reporter, which wasn't very smart.
* Praised the Moonies for promoting world peace and "ideal families"?
* Blamed men for all of the world's evils?
Ahh, takes you back, doesn't it?
Lu should be out there campaigning hard against demands for Chen to resign over the alleged sins of his family.
Instead, at the one moment in her post-martial law career when opening her mouth might be beneficial to the nation, she sits back, in all likelihood delighted at Chen's predicament and salivating at the very thought of it -- her last shot at being a big shot.
A Taipei Times editorial from a few years back said that a "mixture of inanity and winsomeness [is] a Lu trademark."
I can't put it any better than that, but I will add that Lu has spent her career turning up her nose at the achievements of others while downplaying her dependence on good Samaritans for career advancement.
So, let me wrap this up in language that even a monolingual Cantonese tourist might understand. Anyone who thinks a president should resign when he has committed no crime and is fulfilling whatever tasks are left after a hostile legislature has had its way is a sworn political enemy, a dunce, or both.
And whatever Chen's faults, anyone who thinks Annette Lu is competent to take his place is certifiable. No, more than that: an enemy of the state.
Finally, dear reader, remember this: the Great Jogger Ma Ying-jeou himself has welcomed the idea of an interim Lu presidency.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
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.
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS