Was former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) kicked in the hip, “rear,” rear end, buttocks, back or ass?
That’s the mystery I’m trying to solve, and media reports aren’t very helpful (warning: a succession of juvenile butt jokes follows).
I’m referring of course, to the latest face-losing event to beset our muddled island. On Monday the former president went to court to defend himself in a defamation case brought against him. On the way in, a kook from a fringe pro-unification group ran up to him — eluding Chen’s security detail — and managed to plant a foot on Chen’s ... on Chen’s ...
Well, we’re not sure, but it was somewhere in the vicinity of his tuckus.
Come on, guys. If we can’t even establish whether A-bian was kicked in the ass during a televised incident with several dozen witnesses present, then how are we supposed to give your reports any credibility?
According to The Associated Press (AP): “Taiwan’s former president testified Monday that he was blameless in a libel case brought against him, but first had to pass angry opponents shouting at him outside the courthouse and a man who reportedly kicked him in the rear end.”
The China Daily used the AP’s lead, while of course adding the obligatory Chinese sneer quotes around the word “president” (but not around “rear end”). The Shanghai Daily used the same lead too, without crediting the AP. So much for China’s supposed progress on intellectual property rights.
Agence France-Presse buried the buttock-shocker in its sixth paragraph, which was lame. I mean, who really cares about the defamation charge, aside from the fact that the ex-president got his posterior punted?
The wire wrote: “One man, later identified as a member of a radical pro-unification group, was arrested after allegedly kicking Chen in the rear end as he entered the courthouse, local television showed.”
Deutsche Presse-Agentur buried it too, but located the blow a bit higher: “Before the court hearing, dozens of angry opponents shouted at Chen and one managed to kick him in the back.”
Reuters apparently felt the whole keister-kicking incident was beneath them — a fatal error in news judgment, in my book.
The China Post had an interesting twist: “Former President Chen Shui-bian was unexpectedly kicked in the rear by a political extremist before entering a court as a defendant in a defamation lawsuit, and the attacker was soon arrested by the police on charges of violating statutes governing social order.”
You mean, as opposed to being kicked in the butt when he expected it?
Hmm — maybe the China Post knows something we don’t about Chen’s private life. Hold that thought.
Our very own Taipei Times skirted the butt-referencing dilemma as follows: “Lee Chin-tien (李金田), director of the Taipei City Police Department’s Zhongzheng First Precinct, said that as Chen entered the district court with security guards at 9:45am, a 65-year-old man named Su An-sheng (蘇安生) managed to get close enough to kick Chen in the hip.”
Meanwhile, the Chicom hacks over at Xinhua — recently allowed back into the country after banishment in 2005 for extreme bias — totally dropped the ball.
Their report failed to mention the gluteus maximus attack, saying only: “The scene became chaotic when Chen changed his planned route and encountered some protestors.”
Come on, Xinhua. What’s the point of letting you guys back in the country if you can’t even relish a physical assault on one of Beijing’s most reviled politicians? I expected more from you. Something along the lines of:
“Taiwan’s former ‘leader’ Chen Shui-bian was kicked in his splittist ‘ass’ today while stirring up social chaos and further damaging ties between ‘Taiwan’ and motherland compatriots, ties which can never be broken because they is [sic] thicker than ‘blood’ and represent the never-ending unity of the great and glorious Chinese race, which shall never be rent asunder despite however so many wicked, not even mentioning vile, secessionist ‘acts’ by his ‘ilk.’”
After all those euphemisms, anatomically challenged descriptions or outright omissions, the front page of the “blue and proud” United Evening News was a breath of fresh air.
They just came out and said in big characters that Chen was kicked in the pigu (屁股, “butt”), and added to the headline a gleeful graphic of a kicking foot to boot (as it were).
Now, some might say the attack on Chen is no laughing matter. In fact, the hospital said the kick fractured his tailbone — which, if true, would seem to clear up the mystery of where exactly the foot landed.
But following the WWGCS principle (What Would George Carlin — the darkly cynical US comedian now sitting on that great barstool in the sky — Say), if you can’t laugh at A-bian getting a dingle-rocking blow to the behind, what can you laugh at?
Chen reportedly plans to sue the wingnut who assaulted him. Frankly, I’m all for that — we can’t have lunatics running around using former presidents’ derrieres for field-goal kicking practice, no matter how unpopular they may be.
After all, when Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon lost the 1962 California governor’s race and famously said: “You won’t have Nixon to kick around anymore,” everyone knew he didn’t mean it literally.
In Taiwan, that’s obviously not so clear.
Got something to tell Johnny? Go on, get it off your chest. Write to dearjohnny@taipeitimes.com, but be sure to put “Dear Johnny” in the subject line or he’ll mark your bouquets and brickbats as spam.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US