The Ministry of Economic Affairs has invited Non-Partisan Solidarity Union Legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標) to be its latest spokesman for the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) that the government is eager to sign with Beijing.
Arguing that Yen is someone who “uses ordinary language to communicate with ordinary people,” Minister of Economic Affairs Shih Yen-shiang (施顏祥) said Yen was suitable for the task as the ministry had been criticized in the past for using “complicated” language to promote the planned pact. Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) also lauded Yen as “having a local air (本土味),” suggesting TV appearances and other settings designed to promote the pact will speak volumes and have traction with the government’s target audience.
Entertainers Chu Ko Liang (豬哥亮) and Pai Ping-ping (白冰冰) — both also known for their celebrity appeal — are reportedly also being lined up to promote the ECFA.
Yen, a convicted criminal with a large grassroots support base, is known for his affability, and there’s no doubt he would speak the language of the “ordinary person” while chewing betel nut and mingling with the public.
Underneath the praise heaped on him by government officials, however, is a disturbing message: If you support an ECFA, you will graduate from “local” to “high-class.”
It appears the government has continued with the illusion that people opposed to an ECFA are those with little education or low social status.
This disturbing attitude brings back the unpleasant memory of two comic strip characters that the ministry created last year that were both offensive and derogatory.
This government just never learns. Or could it be that it is so arrogant that it is unaware its actions fuel perceptions of social superiority?
Many will recall the furor over the comic strip introduced in July to promote an ECFA. The cartoon featured two stereotypical characters, Yi-ge (一哥), a middle-aged ethnic Taiwanese man who speaks “Taiwanese Mandarin” and opposes the ECFA, and Fa-sao (發嫂), a sharp-minded Hakka career woman with a dashing educational background who supports the deal.
Yen resembles the profile of the notorious Yi-ge, even down to his ruddy appearance. It may be just a coincidence, or it could be that Yen is just a repackaged Yi-ge; either way, the government has again demonstrated that it is missing the point: What, after all, is the substance of an ECFA?
A good product will sell itself. Likewise, a product that lacks substance won’t secure support and endorsement, no matter who vouches for it.
The problem lies not in the lack of a spokesperson to promote the ECFA, but in the fact that no one knows what it contains.
If the government pays lip service to this problem and remains secretive on the pact’s contents, refusing to inform anyone on what it contains before it is signed, then public unease will only increase.
“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
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
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