Pot calling the kettle black
There are times when one reads a piece by J. Michael Cole, such as his recent column about democracy in Taiwan (“Democracy is no mere commodity,” June 8, page 8) that one feels one is watching a Hong Kong movie where one of the characters goes overboard in trying to explain away, apologize and make excuses for himself or others.
Once again, it seems here that Cole has decided it is time to pull out his soapbox, pick a straw man that can be interpreted in numerous ways and because of that preach a feel-good tolerance message. The straw man this time is “commentators from the pan-green camp” who apparently were angered at President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) calling Taiwan a Chinese democracy.
While Cole grants that a “case can be made” for Ma’s detractors, Cole then takes readers down a labyrinthine path of various conundrums in which the vagary of Ma’s language allows multiple interpretations, and qualifications — ie, Ma’s words are not “disingenuous provided that we extend the definition of Chinese to the ‘supranational.’” As usual, Cole relies on numerous provisos to qualify things and justify his soapbox.
Has anyone actually said that democracy is a commodity? Cole wants to feel that they may have and that this justifies his writing. Is this not Cole’s typical reading into what other people have said and (seeing a chance for a possible straw man) implying that perhaps they may be thinking such? In all of this, Cole grants himself the freedom to suggest this possibility and therefore this justifies his pulling out of his soapbox.
If Cole really wants to play with word games — ie, questioning the technicality of saying that democracy in Taiwan should not be called “Taiwan’s democracy” because of potential “existential dangers” — why does he not go back to question what Ma really means? Of if he wants to justify Ma’s emphasis on Taiwan’s Chineseness, why does he not examine Singapore?
Singapore’s ethnic composition is approximately 75 percent Chinese, so where does this leave Ma’s argument?
That Cole questions how others justifiably interpret Ma and yet freely takes the same liberty (and it is not the first time he has done so) raises again questions of journalistic credibility and perhaps an abuse of his position as deputy news editor at Taipei Times that the paper should consider addressing.
As deputy news editor, does Cole contribute to the editorial on page 8? If so, are readers to take opinion pieces by Cole as his speaking for himself or for the paper? If speaking solely for himself, does Cole abuse his position to gain leverage to get his private articles into the paper? Too often Cole leaves his readers with these repeated questions.
Jerome Keating
Taipei
Nationality and ‘soft power’
I am a bit disappointed to learn that the public is paying such attention to the nationality of a successful athlete like Jeremy Lin (林書豪) and that even an official answer was required (“Jeremy Lin is legally an ROC national: official,” June 7, page 1).
There are innumerable cases of celebrities with nationality controversies, so is the Ministry of the Interior going to make a statement about each one? Surely this would be a hot issue because it concerns how an individual’s exposure in the media may affect Taiwan’s international reputation.
Yet, can we be sure that this athlete identifies with our own arbitrary interpretation, while he himself might have a nuanced interpretation of nationality? It would be unjust to criticize an individual in defense of public expectation.
Speaking in support of Taiwan is definitely necessary and laudable, but, compared with the display of Taiwan’s economic, cultural or personal “soft power” (individuals who explicitly self-identify as Taiwanese, such as Lu Yen-hsun [盧彥勳] and Yani Tseng [曾雅妮]), this domestic media bombardment seems to create nothing but an inner din.
What would be effective in practice? Back to what I mean by “soft power” — which has strong potential in academic and athletic circles — this should be nurtured through funding and subsidies, and also by official encouragement.
Who is responsible for administering such resources? Is it government agencies, the legislature, civil society groups or each individual living in this country?
Joy Hu
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with