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
As Taiwan’s domestic political crisis deepens, the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have proposed gutting the country’s national spending, with steep cuts to the critical foreign and defense ministries. While the blue-white coalition alleges that it is merely responding to voters’ concerns about corruption and mismanagement, of which there certainly has been plenty under Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and KMT-led governments, the rationales for their proposed spending cuts lay bare the incoherent foreign policy of the KMT-led coalition. Introduced on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the KMT’s proposed budget is a terrible opening
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS