This week, it seemed that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was on the verge of bringing substance and hard numbers to the debate on the economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China. The Presidential Office announced that Ma would hold monthly press conferences on the matter — a welcome development for all those who still don’t have a clue as to what any of it means, what they stand to gain and what they risk losing.
Then it was announced that foreign media organizations would be banned from attending, let alone asking questions. In a laughable concession, however, they would be allowed to sit in another room and watch the exchange on television.
“Deeply outraged” at the thought of this development becoming the norm, the Taiwan Foreign Correspondents Club (TFCC) protested against the decision in a letter to the Presidential Office spokesperson. It argued that the “ECFA is a matter of interest to those beyond Taiwan. What [the] government decides to sign with the People’s Republic of China will have repercussions for those living beyond this island and they have as much a right to know about what is happening as those primarily served by the local media.”
Perhaps stung by the TFCC letter, as well as a stern reaction from individual foreign correspondents, the Presidential Office suggested that the president might arrange a meeting with the TFCC in April. But it would not consider joint press conferences because these were a private matter between the local journalist’s association and the Presidential Office.
It may be the case that Ma is still smarting from the grilling he received over his response to Typhoon Morakot; some of the most confronting questions over that government debacle were fired at him during a press conference for foreign correspondents.
Indeed, the occasional forced segregation of local and foreign media outlets is nothing new. What is disturbing about the latest development is that this practice may become institutionalized in regard to a specific subject, which in turn raises questions about what the government is trying to achieve.
The Presidential Office sets up monthly meetings with the local journalists’ association. It is worth noting the way the association operates. We can expect, as is often the case, that few hard questions will be asked, embarrassment will be avoided, many cups of tea will be shared and the requisite number of nods and winks will apply.
To be fair, Ma continues to hold lengthy, often combative interviews with media outlets whose editorial line does not concur with his own. No one can accuse him of aspiring to the level of cynicism and hubris of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, for example, when it comes to handling, and manipulating, the media. If anything, Ma’s attempts to make use of new media technology come across as quaint and faltering; he is hardly a model for the next generation of media-savvy politicians.
Even so, as much now as at any time before, the president has a responsibility to maintain the flow of information on matters of public interest. He should communicate directly and regularly with all accredited journalists, local and foreign, without restriction.
“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
On Monday last week, American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Director Raymond Greene met with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers to discuss Taiwan-US defense cooperation, on the heels of a separate meeting the previous week with Minister of National Defense Minister Wellington Koo (顧立雄). Departing from the usual convention of not advertising interactions with senior national security officials, the AIT posted photos of both meetings on Facebook, seemingly putting the ruling and opposition parties on public notice to obtain bipartisan support for Taiwan’s defense budget and other initiatives. Over the past year, increasing Taiwan’s defense budget has been a sore spot
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