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.
Maybe it’s just my faulty memory, but I don’t recall Tsai Huang-liang (蔡煌瑯), a perennial talkshow favorite, getting up on the legislative floor at the time and defending the publication for publishing an informed analysis of a local political party’s electoral prospects (a rare breed of article, this).
The reason I raise Tsai’s name is because he was the first guy on the legislative floor to defend the honor of RTI’s management.
Those of my readers who would start filling their spittle reservoirs at the thought of old Johnny putting the KMT in a more favorable light shouldn’t get too carried away.
It goes without saying that parts of the KMT would like to see every available vehicle, including state-funded media outlets, used to praise and advance the cause of unification, demean opposition parties and shut down debate on any given issue. I’ve said before, and I’ll say again, that these snakes can’t be trusted.
These self-appointed media watchdogs would be better off, however, concentrating on the trustworthiness, and not political line, of state-funded media services, such as the Central News Agency, whose English-language service of late has taken to plagiarizing Wikipedia.
We might also do well to distinguish more carefully between the cynical politics that marks a healthy democracy and the cynical politics that paves the way for a Chicom takeover.
And consider this. Every media outlet has its office politics and conflict over the precise political line it will push. And a lot of these outlets have committed acts of bias. But it is also a fact that all of these outlets are staffed by people of wildly different political sensibilities who are, first and foremost, trying to earn a living.
For some of them, that means being — and seeming to be — professional. These targets of attempted manipulation, in my humble experience, don’t enjoy being lectured by big-noting bullies, regardless of their politics. And the consequences of a big-noting bully alienating his nominal political ally … well, I’ll leave that one to you to contemplate, but the evidence of this after eight years of DPP rule is everywhere.
Now it’s the KMT’s turn to do the same.
Make no mistake, dear reader: Knuckle-dragging politicians that cajole media outlets into ideological cheerleading or into going against their professional judgement in any capacity should be outed and relentlessly mocked.
In the meantime, the KMT’s old boys and Jiang Qing (江青) brigade should chill out. We have a pile of evidence that suggests they don’t need to worry about monopolizing vehicles for debate and the spread of information: The media, in balance, are still on your side, so don’t panic.
Take TVBS. This week a luckless news anchor by the name of Liao Ying-ting (廖盈婷), who thought she was off the air, was caught abusing the former president with language (“Psycho” Chen should “eat shit”) that wouldn’t be out of place in my column.
She was “demoted” for her troubles, and the station’s management is being probed by the National Miscommunications Commission, which, I’m sure you will agree, is a fate worse than death — or at least worse than working for TVBS.
My only disappointment was watching TVBS tuck into some feces in turn by apologizing on air to the president after the scatological slip-up was aired.
Apologize for an accidentally aired insult? After all the spurious chunder they’ve projected at Chen over the years?
These Hongkie proxies must be getting soft in their old age. Probably because they’ve been in Taiwan too long.
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.
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Heavy rains over the past week have overwhelmed southern and central Taiwan, with flooding, landslides, road closures, damage to property and the evacuations of thousands of people. Schools and offices were closed in some areas due to the deluge throughout the week. The heavy downpours brought by the southwest monsoon are a second blow to a region still recovering from last month’s Typhoon Danas. Strong winds and significant rain from the storm inflicted more than NT$2.6 billion (US$86.6 million) in agricultural losses, and damaged more than 23,000 roofs and a record high of nearly 2,500 utility poles, causing power outages. As
It is difficult to think of an issue that has monopolized political commentary as intensely as the recall movement and the autopsy of the July 26 failures. These commentaries have come from diverse sources within Taiwan and abroad, from local Taiwanese members of the public and academics, foreign academics resident in Taiwan, and overseas Taiwanese working in US universities. There is a lack of consensus that Taiwan’s democracy is either dying in ashes or has become a phoenix rising from the ashes, nurtured into existence by civic groups and rational voters. There are narratives of extreme polarization and an alarming
RSS