Bring back Peng-Lee show
Peng Wen-cheng (彭文正), a professor at National Taiwan University’s (NTU) School of Journalism, and his wife, Amanda Lee (李晶玉), resigned from hosting Next TV’s political talk show Jeng Chin Talk (正晶限時批) on Monday (“Media activists urge NCC to probe Next TV, Tzu Chi,” March 19, page 1).
This political talk show, which was hosted by Peng and Lee, jumped from ground level to the No. 1 talk show during its short life of 225 days.
The show’s name originates from the couple’s given names, and means “a straight and crystal clear express mail.” Their show was fair and objective. Several leading political commentators — mingzui (名嘴) or “famous mouths” — were invited to each show.
Peng is Hakka Taiwanese, and Lee is a descendant of a former Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government official. Peng supports independence or unification, whichever most Taiwanese prefer.
When former premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) wished to go back to NTU as a professor, Peng — in view of Jiang’s brutality in dealing with participants in the Sunflower movement — declared that he would quit his job at the school if Jiang were rehired.
Peng is very sharp and humorous, and occasionally used pertinent catch phrases in the show; while Lee is an intelligent and beautiful cohost.
Next TV should kindly invite Peng and Lee back to host the popular talk show which was named after them.
The Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu Chi Foundation, called “the light of Taiwan” (台灣之光) for its relief efforts in Taiwan and many parts of the world, should continue to shine brightly, but also allow a light to be shone on its own organization.
All organizations, including governments, political parties, corporations and religious and relief groups, as well as public figures, should be open-minded and welcome any evaluations and comments about their performance. They should never sue or exert pressure on commentators.
A free and democratic nation cannot survive without free speech and freedom of the press.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS