Johnny winds up ...
Dear Johnny,
After reading your column entitled "Forget 228? You mythed something" (March 3, page 8), I admit it, Johnny -- you are right. I really do think I "missed something." Namely, who are the "Researcher," the "Mayor" and the "Journeyman" in this story? What or where is this "community under scrutiny"? Is this supposed to be a true story? Is it a "myth" you've created to illustrate some elusive point?
I realize this is just your "opinion." But something seems off to me here. With the complete lack of names or any other details whatsoever, it seems like total unabashed fabrication. You criticize these mythical people for plagiarism, demonization and what you insinuate to be propaganda, while the very story you've concocted is a kind of propaganda tool for you. At least the plagiarism you describe was based on research. Your opinion piece seems to be based on nothing but myths.
Maybe the title for this story should have been: "Forget Lu Xun! Johnny Neihu mythed something." Or maybe I've missed something?
Justin Robinette
Johnny replies: Propaganda distorts the historical record; at the very least it uses exaggerated language to unbalance that record. But if you look at the history of the 228 Incident, you will see nothing extraordinary in what I described. If I were a propagandist, why would I not take one of the grisly stories on the record and milk it dry instead of one where names of people and places are struck out? Think, man.
There are reasons why I did not name the parties involved. Here's two: A source asked me not to until legal action ends, and I'm more interested in processes of autocracy rather than outing a bit player in a complex history of injustice. But I'll say this: Any competent person with a bit of history under his belt and access to the Internet has a good chance of piecing it all together given the information in the article. Perhaps you're not that person.
But, of course, this is not the real reason you wrote to me. Oh, and I'm thrilled that you think plagiarism has some value as long as it's based on research. Silly me: I always thought it was theft, pure and simple.
... and lets one go
Dear Johnny,
You write: "The political culture of shamelessness and misanthropy that the KMT brought did not die, dear reader. It exerts itself in subtle ways, even now."
Well, yes. You have a point there. I would argue that your insistence on hiding behind a pseudonym like "Johnny Neihu" is part of that continuing unfortunate political culture of shamelessness and misanthropy. I don't have a problem with the fact that you have some opinions and want to express them. To express them under a pseudonym though is actually a defeat for democracy. I would urge you to write under your real name, or not write at all.
NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST
Johnny replies: "A defeat for democracy"? I never realized I was so powerful! And of course there isn't a more fundamental democratic safeguard than writers like you telling others to stop writing, right?
Editorials are written in the newspaper's name. Every paper does it, and some papers publish authors with known pen names, sometimes others who are anonymous or who use a mysterious nom de plume. Weird, isn't it, how all of these people escape your censure?
Breathe easy, because whether or not Johnny Neihu is a pseudonym, I'm responsible for what I write -- to my readers, to my publisher and to the law of the land. This isn't the damn Internet.
I see you have been writing in Taiwan for many years -- for the Central News Agency, travel magazines, the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei publication Taiwan Business TOPICS and even the Taipei Times. But you think I should be denied a voice simply because you object to the content of my articles. Thanks, cuz.
Together, you and "Justin Robinette" think that using a pseudonym and deliberately withholding identifying information are necessarily marks of a charlatan propagandist who should be silenced. Breathtaking logic, gentlemen. Proceed to the dispensary.
Ever watch CNN, old chap? It has a station promo where some pundit says: "Journalists instinctively go for freedom of expression." Why don't you give him a call and break his heart?
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.