Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairman Yu Shyi-kun's announcement that party officials will cut off communication with the Chinese-language newspaper China Times is self-defeating.
Yu's complaint stems from a piece of shoddy China Times journalism that erroneously attributed an ethnic slur to the DPP chairman in attacking people attending an anti-President Chen Shui-bian (
Yu is certainly entitled to legal action against the China Times, which is no stranger to inflammatory editorializing and publishing fiction disguised as reporting. The real question is whether he is entitled to cut off contact between the newspaper's reporters and the DPP.
Strategically speaking, Yu's actions are laughable. The ban on contact is simply unenforceable in a democratic society, and whatever contact takes place -- there are now hundreds of new tantalizing sources for China Times reporters -- from this point on can be painted as "leaks" or as "DPP sources speaking on the condition of anonymity." Neither portrays the party in a credible light, and distracts the public -- including that paper's readers -- from more important issues at hand.
The withholding of DPP press releases from the China Times is equally risible: They are readily available elsewhere and mostly hardly worth reporting anyway.
Yu has said that editor-in-chief Wang Chien-chuang (
There is no doubt that the China Times has been up to mischief -- and it is not the first time by a long stretch -- but it is hardly the only media organization to stoop to misreporting. And if the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) did something similar and banned contact with a green-leaning newspaper, the DPP would be outraged and rightfully accuse the KMT of behavior unfit for a democracy.
This silly spat does nothing to salvage Yu's disappointing term as DPP chairman. What could have been a sensible legal response has become a pointlessly political game that makes the DPP look undemocratic. To its credit, there was dissent in the ranks yesterday, including from DPP caucus whip Ker Chien-ming (
As the man responsible for such poor strategy and intra-party communication, Yu's time as chairman of the DPP is surely under threat now, and not just because of the China Times affair.
If Yu is to survive in the post and contribute anything to the recovery of DPP morale before the legislative and presidential elections, he will need to place more trust in the wisdom of his colleagues -- and the general public -- rather than lend semi-martyr status to a media organization whose reputation doesn't need his commentary.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase