Gallup vs Gallup Taiwan
Dear Johnny,
I just read your piece from last Saturday titled "You love farce? Send in the clowns." Toward the end you commented on Gallup and polling results from the recent election.
Gallup did not do this work. We are the only owner of the Gallup trademark in Taiwan and in 100 other countries around the world. We had a licensee in Taiwan who used the name up until 2002 when we revoked the rights. The poll that has used our name is a counterfeit. The individual [Dr. Timothy Ting Ting-yu,
Chris Stewart
Global Brand Manager
The Gallup Organization
Washington
Johnny replies: Interesting. And there was silly me blindly assuming that Gallup Taiwan was in all good faith a branch of The Gallup Organization. After looking at samples of the wisdom of Dr Tim, I notice that this pollster spends a lot of time barracking for political positions and telling Taiwanese what they should think about politics instead of measuring what Taiwanese think about politics. I've said before that sociologists are vulnerable to conflating cheerleading with science, but this former National Taiwan University faculty member takes the cake.
Defined into oblivion
Dear Johnny,
Bloomberg and China Watch/Asia Intelligence -- a proprietary service -- had an interesting report concluding that the mayoral election results demonstrate that views of "the mainland" still define Taiwan politics.
It is a good article until the last paragraph that contains this argument.
To be sure, the pan-blues are lacking in leaders whose families antedate 1945. But surely politics in Taiwan are about more than China?
Arthur Waldron
Johnny replies: That's precisely the problem. There's no more effective way of essentializing Taiwanese than portraying them as one-issue voters. To see the picture more clearly requires a level of understanding and detailed elucidation of local politics that is of absolutely no interest to your average foreign affairs editor at a newspaper or wire agency.
This red-herring opposition (pro-China/anti-China) does not account for strong differences of opinion in the KMT and the DPP, nor does it have a hope of capturing the complexity of local factional politics, let alone defections.
The international coverage reminds me of the days when Taiwan was Free China -- the supposed microcosm of the China that was and should be. I'm sure, Arthur, you have read literature from the 1960s and 1970s in which academics and journalists came here on the KMT dime and talked about the "Republic of China" with a straight face. They warned of the threat of Red China and rejoiced in surviving "Chinese" culture in the countryside while ignoring or misrepresenting local opposition to KMT thuggery. Of course, it was hard for anyone to object to these confections, considering the reward for dissent was harassment of you and your family and often much, much worse.
It may come as a kick in the teeth to some, but politics in Taiwan is about Taiwan. The China element is relevant but overrated, though of course in presidential elections it looms largest.
As for the pan-blues lacking local leadership, this is slowly changing, though grassroots supporters abandoned local boy Wang Jin-pyng (
Yet from China's point of view, the KMT is more or less a Taiwanese organization. There's something rather interesting about a party that is largely nativized but which is regarded as disloyal by its local rival and as regional by its former enemy.
What is it, I wonder? Someone once wrote about addiction and alienation in a way that comes awfully close to capturing the pathology of a refugee ideology that is rooted in denial and cynicism, yet lays down new roots:
You could have it all
My empire of dirt
I will let you down
I will make you hurt
I wear my crown of shit
On my liar's chair
Full of broken thoughts
I cannot repair
Beneath the stain of time
The feeling disappears
You are someone else
I am still right here.
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That