The “New York Times” is a paper that prides itself on being careful and authoritative. On page two of the paper each day there is a column devoted to errata, in which it diligently corrects any mistakes that may have been made in terms of photos, names, data, times, places and quotes.
Correcting mistakes as soon as they are discovered is a normal thing to do. Nobody is likely to be so incensed about a mistake that they decide to lay siege to the New York Times offices or demand that the paper’s director apologize or resign.
A campaign advertisement published by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) recently used the term “astringent persimmon” when referring to the price of persimmons being NT$2 per jin (600g). However, the picture used was of the non-astringent variety, which sells for a much higher price. The price of persimmons is something that can easily be verified and there is no way that the people working on the DPP’s campaign materials would have been so stupid as to intentionally use an incorrect picture to mislead voters.
As soon as the error was discovered, the DPP immediately explained that the picture of non-astringent persimmons had been used incorrectly.
In contrast, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) could not care less about the livelihood of our farmers and knows only how to conduct political battles. He also cannot be bothered to find out the truth about things, preferring instead to use his status as president to conduct smear campaigns.
Ma scolded the DPP for its persimmon mix-up in an attempt to take the attention away from his own shortcomings. The Ministry of National Defense even ordered soldiers to eat as many persimmons as possible so as to absorb some of the surplus and save face for Ma. Unfortunately they got things wrong, and the soldiers ended up eating the more expensive kind of persimmon, not the astringent kind that are selling for pennies because of the glut.
It is instructive to compare how the DPP handled the persimmon issue with the way Ma dealt with rice wine prices some time ago. They responded to these incidents very differently, and those differences highlight the contrasting characters of the two parties’ leaders and reveal much about their approach to leadership.
The DPP got the price of persimmons right, but used the wrong photo. After the incident, the party not only corrected the error, but also apologized. The mistake was an honest one.
Ma, in contrast, was disingenuous. He boasted about his supposed political achievement in reducing the price of “rice wine” when in fact only rice wine used for cooking became more affordable, not the kind that people drink. Ma knows full well that the prices of these two types of rice wine are different, but he still talks about them as if they were the same thing. This is not an honest mistake; it is deliberate deception.
After being in power for more than three years, Ma’s team has come up with misdirected policies that have done little if anything to address the root causes of a series problems. All they have done is lie and engage in smear campaigns. They will not apologize for their misleading behavior because in their view any lie is acceptable as long as it helps them get votes.
Persimmons and rice wine may not be earth-shaking issues. However, the attitudes with which the two sides have handled these issues do point to a larger truth. Where Tsai has been honest, serious and responsible, Ma has been mischievous, hypocritical and deceitful.
James Wang is a media commentator.
Translated by Drew Cameron
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers