Facts and razzamatazz
The owners of a newspaper are free to voice their opinions in the form of an editorial framing their interpretation of the events of the day.
Readers may agree or disagree with this editorial line, but what all readers would expect from a newspaper is an unswerving adherence to the facts, that is, finding out the truth of a particular matter, while refusing column inches to any statements that contradict facts.
It is therefore regrettable that you continued to give column inches last week to Lu I-ming’s (呂一銘) dubious claim that “The [World] Games ... made Taiwan a focus of worldwide attention” and that as there was “substantial coverage by international media ... the Games brought international recognition for Taiwan” (“Kaohsiung showed the nation’s true face,” July 28, page 8).
As I stated earlier (Letters, July 27, page 8), where are the facts to support this claim? Where are the figures for worldwide TV audiences? TV contracts? Countries in which the Games were televised?
What about newspapers? In the US, there was a minor article on Kaohsiung’s new stadium in the Architecture Review section of the New York Times on July 15. The word “Taiwan” rather than “ROC” or “Chinese Taipei” was used — once. In the UK, there was no mention of the Games in either the Telegraph or the Times (the two most popular broadsheets). In Germany, Der Spiegel contained not one mention of the Games, while in France, Le Monde had nothing to say whatsoever.
So, are Democratic Progressive Party supporters willing to lie both to themselves and to the people of Taiwan? (Because, let’s face it, the World Games was nothing more than a bit of razzamatazz for the Taiwanese nationalist movement.)
Apparently they are. Consider the response to my letter by one Charles Hong: “But Fagan should accept the fact that the World Games raised Taiwan’s international profile” (Letters, July 30, page 8).
To which I can only reply: Where are the facts that support this contention? Are they to be found in my dog-eared copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four, perhaps?
It is high time that the people of Taiwan recognize the fact that their country is known as “Taiwan” throughout the world — regardless of Beijing’s newspeak efforts — because of Taiwan’s history of trade.
If members of Taiwan’s political class and their supporters are willing to tell such barefaced lies to the public — and lies that are easily shown to be such — then what else are they capable of?
The only thing that can “raise Taiwan’s international profile” is continuing and expanding international trade. It is of vital importance to civilized life on this island that Taiwanese fight to free international trade to and from Taiwan from both the manipulation of political forces in Beijing and Taipei.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS