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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS