It was refreshing to read the Washington Post interview yesterday that President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) gave senior associate editor Lally Weymouth on Monday, although nothing earth-shattering was revealed and there were no “scoops.”
It was also frustrating.
In the interview, her first with an international media organization since taking office, Tsai reiterated that Taiwan did not accept the Permanent Court of Arbitration’s ruling last week on the South China Sea, rejected the idea that Beijing has set a deadline for her government to accept the so-called “1992 consensus” and discussed the economy.
Nothing Tsai said would come as a surprise to Taiwanese.
However, it was a refreshing interview in the sense that Weymouth, a member of the Graham family that owned the paper for 81 years and who worked as a diplomatic correspondent, first for Newsweek magazine and then for the Post, has a long track record of interviewing heads of state and asking relevant, if not always hard-hitting, questions that others might not ask — and because the interview gives the broader world a glimpse of Tsai that wire agency reports usually do not have space for, even those written during Tsai’s campaign for president.
It was also refreshing to see the Post, in its introduction to the interview, use the phrase “so-called” before “1992 consensus,” instead of taking it as a given, as wire agencies have done in the years since former Mainland Affairs Council chairman Su Chi (蘇起) coined the term in 2000.
The intervening years of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, especially the eight years under former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), have made it very difficult to erase the rest of the sentence that usually follows “1992 consensus”: “in which Taipei and Beijing agreed that they are part of ‘one China,’ but with different interpretations.”
Perhaps if journalists began to substitute “then-KMT government” for “Taipei” in this phrase, it might make it easier for the rest of the world, if not Beijing, to understand that when there is a change of government, political positions and goals also shift.
If one accepts that the position of a Tory government in the UK might be very different from that of its Labor predecessor — say in regards to agreements made about being part of the EU — then one should accept that a Democratic Progressive Party administration will differ from a KMT administration.
The KMT ran Taiwan for decades, but it no longer speaks for this nation or most of its people.
Yet the interview was frustrating because there was an implicit bias in the questions — as is so often true in international coverage, and sometimes domestic as well — that it is Taipei that must make all the effort, all the concessions, in cross-strait relations.
Weymouth asked Tsai if she felt she was closing the gap between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China and how she planned to handle day-to-day relations with Beijing.
Yet it is not Tsai or the Taiwanese that do not want to communicate, it is Beijing that has slammed the telephone down.
It is Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) government, like those of his predecessors, that only wants to hear its viewpoint regurgitated back at it. It is Beijing that cannot accept that negotiations and discussions do not require capitulation by one of the parties.
Tsai showed she has a far better grasp of reality than Xi in her answers to questions about the economy and trade ties with China. She recognizes that times have changed and new models and solutions must be found or developed.
One only wishes that her counterparts in Beijing could do the same.
The Comedy Club on Fuxing N Road in Taipei was vandalized with paint bombs mixed with feces on May 29, allegedly because one of its performers had satirized Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The incident has triggered concerns about the growing threat from China’s cross-border repression within Taiwan. On the day of the attack, a comedian surnamed Huang (黃), who is known for mocking Xi, was the headline performer. The Comedy Club founder said the assault was obviously politically motivated. China, which Freedom House said “conducts the most sophisticated, extensive and far-reaching campaign of transnational repression in the world,” has
China’s Taiwan Affairs Office spokesperson Zhu Fenglian (朱鳳蓮) at a press conference last week repeated the same, tired line, claiming that Taiwan’s future should be “decided jointly by the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including Taiwan compatriots.” The statement is absurd. Virtually every word is incorrect, with some parts mistaken to an astonishing degree. First, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never included Taiwan. When the Republic of China’s (ROC) original five-colored flag was established in 1912, Taiwan was still under Japanese rule. When the PRC was founded in 1949, Taiwan was under the control of president Chiang
In the aftermath of China’s expulsion of the New York Times correspondent Vivian Wang (王月眉), Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman Lin Jian (林劍) has publicly and explicitly articulated Beijing’s core thinking on the Taiwan issue. Chinese authorities accused the newspaper of promoting what they called “Taiwan independence fallacies,” and said that its description of Taiwan as a country amounts to a challenge to the “one China” principle. The significance of the incident goes beyond the reporting dispute and has given the international community a window into the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) attitude toward Taiwan. Lin, in a statement, said
Every semester, universities ask students to evaluate their professors. Feedback is an important component of academic quality and accountability. Still, the growing emphasis on student evaluations reflects a broader shift within higher education: the increasing tendency to judge educational success through the lens of student satisfaction. However, is the primary purpose of a university to satisfy students, or to educate them? It seems that higher education has become increasingly focused on making learning more enjoyable, engaging, and accessible. Students frequently report that classes are too early, too late, too long, too demanding or insufficiently engaging. They ask for fewer lectures
RSS