Politically correct pork
Dear Johnny,
Is saying "Happy Lunar New Year" politically correct nowadays in Taiwan or will a group of irate "trade unionists" attack me if I say it?
Also, if the coming year is the Year of the Pig, will it be possible to buy decent bacon instead of the crap streaky bacon sold here?
Pete Jones
Taipei
Johnny replies: I've never been one to advocate political correctness. But I've never been one to advocate political incorrectness either. The actual content of both are vulnerable to whoever has the power to induce guilt or outrage at any time.
But I can tell you that "Chinese New Year" is a politically incorrect expression at this newspaper, not just because Taiwan isn't part of China, but also because China is not the only state or national "culture" that marks the lunar calendar.
So if some demented "trade unionists" (politically polite code for pro-blue-camp labor bosses) take you to task for daring to name a calendar event after the moon, refer them to me and I will find out why it is exactly that the Republic of China is averse to politically correct pork.
Zero sum blame
Dear Johnny,
I saw an article on the front page of the Sept. 29 edition of the China Post that stated Taiwan (under the name "Republic of China") was "ousted" from the UN in 1971. From what I have read, this is not exactly true.
There was a proposal for both Taiwan and China to join the UN in 1971, but Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek (
The casual reader would get the impression that Taiwan was simply kicked out of the UN. Is there some reason this article glosses over the facts? Your clarification would be most appreciated.
Jeff Frazier
Taipei
Johnny replies: Sorry about the delay in replying, Jeff. The China Post is loath to cast Chiang and his kleptomaniacal clique in a bad light -- if it did, it would be dumping all over the Chinese Nationalist claim to Taiwan and it would have to rename itself the Taiwan Post. And yes, there is a debate about whether Chiang forfeited continued UN representation by playing a zero sum game instead of looking to the future. Then again, Chiang was never known for his insights into the currents of geopolitical thought.
But these things don't matter any more. As I've said before, Jeff, who cares about the UN? It can't save Darfur, Iraq or the bulk of their tormented residents, and it can't save Taiwan from future Chinese molestation.
Chiang got kicked out and richly deserved it. But he took the rest of us with him into purgatory, and if the UN can't atone for that, then to hell with it, as well as its gutless agencies like the WHO, and the rest of the drivel that passes for debate in the General Assembly.
And believe me, when UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon gets into the swing of things, we will be privileged witnesses to not only faux Inscrutable Oriental posturing, but also some of the most repulsive scenes of Sinofellatio yet seen at UN headquarters.
You'll be wishing Kofi Annan were still around as you dash off to buy a raincoat.
The Johnny Neihu Manual for the Identification of Dissembling UN Secretaries-GeneralTM can spot a China shill oceans away. And I tell you, the diagnostic results for this South Korean do not look very good at all.
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
RSS