Reuters
reports:
I've never heard that, the idea that people didn't vote for the DPP because they start fights. I'm not saying it's untrue. I've just never heard anyone say, "I don't like the DPP because they plan fights in the Legislative Yuan to get media coverage." Oddly enough, I have gotten lots of emails that go something like this:But the Democratic Progressive Party, blamed for starting many of the fights when the opposition Nationalist Party (KMT) majority would not budge on an issue, is calling a ceasefire for its legislative contingent, the party whip said this week.
"The brawls are worse and worse for Taiwan's image," Ker Chien-ming told Reuters ahead of a legislative session that opens next week. "We will avoid conflicts."
A ceasefire would end a 20-year Taiwan tradition.
The DPP's white flag comes just a month after it suffered a legislative election defeat so bad Taiwan President Chen Shui-bian publicly apologised and resigned as party chairman.
Some voters said they rejected the independence-leaning DPP, outlawed for much of its history until Taiwan became more democratic in the 1980s, because of its fighting ways.
I really like your website. For a long time, the only thing I ever new about Taiwan was that their politicians fight all of the time.Yep. It's not Taipei 101, technological innovation, or being one of the freest countries in Asia that puts Taiwan on the map for many people. Rather, it's the fact that idiot politicians occasionally beat the snot out of each other to catch the wandering eye of the media.
In any case, it's an asinine strategy, and it's, I think, in the DPP's best interest not to be responsible for sullying the image of Taiwan's democratic practices. I'm glad that they've decided to take the high road on this iss....
Or not. Maybe it's just a matter of numbers. After all, they're just Taiwanese politicians, not Spartans. As Ker Chien-Ming is quoted as saying, "It's impossible to fight now because our numbers in parliament are so small."
If you're going to stop fighting, at least do it with some dignity, right? Even if it is your piddly numbers, how 'bout saying you had a change of conscience. Say you realized that fisticuffs weren't the best, most civilized way to highlight the KMT's boycotting ways.
9 comments:
With that mention of a "white flag" both in the headline and in the body of the article you linked, I wonder if the same guy who wrote the "My script says to kick his ass" piece linked in your earlier post is the author.
It's also very strange of Ker to say what he was quoted as saying. Could there have been a loaded question involved, y'think? Perhaps that's why there's no byline.
Tim Maddog
UPDATE: As I suspected, it was Ralph Jennings. Here's the same story published in the Scotsman -- this time with a byline.
I wonder even more now why Reuters didn't put their own guy's name on it.
Tim Maddog
I'm certainly aware of Jennings' reputation. However, is all this to say that the end of the fighting isn't a welcomed announcement? Whether or not he twisted Ker's words, was it not an idiotic tool that deserves to be retired?
The point of my earlier comments was about the difference between the distorted portrayal and what actually happened, so instead of assisting Jennings in doing what he has already overdone, I prefer to focus my criticism on the one who's still doing things that I find offensive.
Tim Maddog
For the sake of clarification, I should mention that when I say "reputation," I was just acknowledging that I am cognizant of certain other bloggers feelings towards Jennings. This was not a statement of my feelings towards him as a journalist or a person, rather a reference to the fact that I had heard his name tossed around, unfavorably, by other bloggers, though I do not espouse the same beliefs.
Tim, you know I respect your opinion, but I'm much more interested in pressuring the DPP to act respectably than to try to discredit the reporter. Just as I have no actual proof that the US shot down the satellite a couple of days ago (I didn't see it with my own eyes), I also don't have proof that Ker did/didn't say what he did.
I have to go with the information I have.
In that case, let me remind you of a few things (annotated in some of my old and not-so-old posts) that Jennings' articles might lead one to forget:
* December 18, 2004: A laundry list of pan-blue violence
* November 9, 2005: Topsy-turvy Taiwan (Be sure to read about what happened when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) pols published the phone numbers of Frank Hsieh and Pasuya Yao.)
* June 4, 2006: KMT still fantasizing about murdering Chen Shui-bian (Be sure to read the part about "more context.")
* October 28, 2007: Taiwan's opposition kidnaps political discourse
Of course, that's leaving out all kinds of "old stuff" like the 228 Massacre and the White Terror period, but now you have something more to go with.
Don't let Jennings distract you from the real source of the violence. The DPP can't touch the KMT in this respect.
Tim Maddog
Tim,
You, of all people, know that I am a relative neophyte on the Taiwan scene. I am always cognizant of that in my writing and try to maintain a sense of humility in expressing my views on current events in Taiwan.
However, I find it almost insulting that you would post all of the above, as if I was unaware of any of it, as a means of proving that Jennings has a slant.
None of the articles you linked to, correct me if I'm wrong, reference Jennings' previous articles, and none of them have anything to say about the DPP's decision to stop planning fights in the LY. They're irrelevant.
Writing an article critical of a DPP practice (as I did) is not an advocation of the KMT or an endorsement of their practices, just as (your) presentation of the ills of the KMT do not vindicate the past absurdities of the DPP.
You wrote:
- - -
I find it almost insulting that you would post all of the above, as if I was unaware of any of it...
- - -
You shouldn't find it insulting. What I had written was:
- - -
... let me remind you of a few things [...] that Jennings' articles might lead one to forget
- - -
... because you said:
- - -
I have to go with the information I have.
- - -
... which loops this comment back to the beginning, as I assumed you did know those things but had merely been distracted by Jennings' writing.
I don't recall any of those posts I linked mentioning Jennings, but they do demonstrate that his articles have distorted reality. I hope that I've communicated my point more clearly this time.
Tim Maddog
That's the point, Tim. Saying I have to go with the information I have doesn't mean I'm forgetful or short of attention.
It's possible to genuinely criticize the DPP without being misinformed or forgetful. Yet, your immediate reaction is to educate me, assuming that this could be the only reason I could have said what I said.
The KMT has done some horrible stuff, Tim, but that doesn't excuse the DPP from the idiocy of some of its members. My saying the latter does not require any sort of re-education regarding the former.