WHY SHOULD ANYONE act so surprised?
In any democratic state worth mentioning, a change of power brings a change of cronies — by stealth or otherwise — to government agencies or other organizations for which the executive vets “independent” boards.
So it is with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government, though these guys deserve special mention because they rarely bother with the “stealth” part.
Take the kerfuffle at Radio Taiwan International (RTI) this week. Chairman Cheng Yu (鄭優), director-general Shao Li-chung (邵立中) and a bunch of board members not disposed to sucking up to Chicoms submitted their resignations over what they said were government objections to RTI’s operations, particularly the station’s candid criticism of China.
Now I say that some of these people should not have resigned, especially those who did so simply because they objected to the KMT’s ideology per se. Whatever happened to an honest fistfight and holding your ground? Or going down with the ship? Or flying the flag under enemy fire? Or subverting the system from within when no one is looking?
Here’s another way of phrasing this question: Is there a single person left in Taiwan willing to duke it out with this namby-pamby, economically illiterate bunch of pandaphile collaborators?
Don’t all answer at once.
Still, let’s put things into perspective. KMT legislators serve as sophomoric exemplars of the “tyranny of the majority” when they claim that party men should dominate every organ because it controls the executive and the legislature.
But when you consider the actions and processes of governments in more established democracies, you can admire just how partial “impartiality” can be.
Take a look at the appointment rituals for the US Supreme Court. There, see? The KMT doesn’t look so bad, after all.
Here’s another thing that makes the KMT look a little better.
As unreliable as my aging memory can be, I do recall a time only a few years ago when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) hot shots were slamming government publications for — yep, you guessed it — making the government look less than perfect.
Take former DPP legislator and current party aide Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴). Way back on April 2, 2003, about a year before former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) re-election, the Great Green Hope for the Youth Vote stood up in a legislative committee meeting and attacked the then-monikered Taipei Review (originally Free China Review, now Taiwan Review).
This august journal had the audacity to publish an article by US professor and Taiwan specialist Shelley Rigger that said — gasp! — the DPP would struggle to get re-elected in the presidential election.
The following day, our very own Taipei Times captured the moment in all of its excruciating detail.
“[Hsiao] said Rigger’s article gave readers a negative impression of the DPP and should not have had appeared in a government-sponsored journal.
Hsiao [said] a government-sponsored publication should not be predicting that it will be difficult for the ruling party to continue to hold onto power after next year’s presidential election.
She said such an analysis should not have appeared in a government-sponsored publication in the first place, adding the article might damage the government’s image.”
Let’s not quibble over Hsiao’s inability to distinguish between the government of the day and her party (The irony! The irony!). I would prefer to point out that no DPP tentpegs of the day publicly stood up for the Taipei Review.
RSS