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
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Taiwan stands at the epicenter of a seismic shift that will determine the Indo-Pacific’s future security architecture. Whether deterrence prevails or collapses will reverberate far beyond the Taiwan Strait, fundamentally reshaping global power dynamics. The stakes could not be higher. Today, Taipei confronts an unprecedented convergence of threats from an increasingly muscular China that has intensified its multidimensional pressure campaign. Beijing’s strategy is comprehensive: military intimidation, diplomatic isolation, economic coercion, and sophisticated influence operations designed to fracture Taiwan’s democratic society from within. This challenge is magnified by Taiwan’s internal political divisions, which extend to fundamental questions about the island’s identity and future
Media said that several pan-blue figures — among them former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) chairwoman Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱), former KMT legislator Lee De-wei (李德維), former KMT Central Committee member Vincent Hsu (徐正文), New Party Chairman Wu Cheng-tien (吳成典), former New Party legislator Chou chuan (周荃) and New Party Deputy Secretary-General You Chih-pin (游智彬) — yesterday attended the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) military parade commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II. China’s Xinhua news agency reported that foreign leaders were present alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, North Korean leader Kim
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌) is expected to be summoned by the Taipei City Police Department after a rally in Taipei on Saturday last week resulted in injuries to eight police officers. The Ministry of the Interior on Sunday said that police had collected evidence of obstruction of public officials and coercion by an estimated 1,000 “disorderly” demonstrators. The rally — led by Huang to mark one year since a raid by Taipei prosecutors on then-TPP chairman and former Taipei mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) — might have contravened the Assembly and Parade Act (集會遊行法), as the organizers had
RSS