Reasons don’t/do matter
Dear Johnny,
You challenged: “Explain why the BBC would be ‘dishonest’” (Johnny Neihu’s Mailbag, Oct. 17, page 8). Are you asking me to explain their motivations, or do you want me to draw a Venn diagram comparing the BBC’s reports, China’s claims and the facts for uninformed readers?
If it’s the former, I don’t know that the reasons matter so much as getting readers to take notice of such behavior, since it’s highly improbable (by which I mean “an utter impossibility”) that they’ll stop doing it. As I point out in the Taiwan Matters blog, the BBC’s “diligent ‘laziness’” ensures that well-crafted memes get repeated endlessly — and rarely (ie, only on days when TVBS isn’t attacking Chen Shui-bian) in Taiwan’s favor.
If it’s the latter, the arguments are presented step-by-step (with links) in the blog post I linked to in my earlier letter and in the 11 previous installations of the series.
TIM MADDOG
Johnny replies: I’m not really convinced. Stubborn, incompetent, plodding, lazy ... all might explain the BBC’s casual treatment of Taiwan. “Dishonest” suggests a hidden agenda, so the reasons do matter.
A big-nose perspective
Dear Johnny,
To quote you: “In the meantime, what are you, as a person most locals would regard as a foreigner, willing and able to do, other than write letters to me?” (Johnny Neihu’s Mailbag, Oct. 17, page 8).
Well, I read some BBC Web pages and wrote them a letter. I do hope they print it. I know I’ll get a polite reply that they have received my comment, and that they thank me for my contribution. However, they’ll say, we can’t assure you that it will get printed and yada yada yada.
I can’t do anything else except write to you and hope to educate the electorate. Which is a tacit way of saying that you should translate foreigners’ letters for your sister paper.
I would hope that some Taiwanese could see the perspective of us dabizi (大鼻子)!
We foreigners have seen things here and back home, as well as in China and all over the Earth. Any civilized and rational person would not be in the KMT’s favor. Most of my friends agree that the only reason the KMT clings to power is because so many of its voters are direct beneficiaries: teachers, soldiers, civil servants. How can the DPP get more votes with only 40 percent of the vote belonging to “farmers”?
The only way I can help, Johnny, is by reminding voters to punish the KMT in the year-end elections.
I believe that on one of those BBC pages I saw a stat I thought was wrong. Correct me if I’m wrong, but did the DPP ever have control of the Legislative Yuan? Let me know, Johnny, and in time we’ll see if the BBC will hire me.
HARRY ADAMOPOULOS
Johnny replies: The DPP has never controlled the legislature. And if the BBC hires you, don’t tell Tim Maddog.
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
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS