|
|
文章數：19 |
 Fancy Phrases, Hidden Messages |
| 時事評論｜社會萬象 2016/07/22 11:13:00 |
Ms. Tsai Ing-Wen recently accepted an interview by Ms. Weymouth of the Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2016/07/21/44b0a1a4-4e25-11e6-a422-83ab49ed5e6a_story.html In the past, political figures in Taiwan often used interviews with the western media to send messages to China. It is no exception this time. Ms. Tsai's office soon released this interview to the media. Here's some thoughts on Ms. Tsai's responses to some of the questions. Q: Some academics say Xi has a certain deadline by which he wants you to agree to the ’92 consensus. Is that right? A: It isn’t likely that the government of Taiwan will accept a deadline for conditions that are against the will of the people. The question is about a dealine regarding the '92 consensus. Her answer is unlikely to accept a deadline "for conditions that are against the will of the people." In other words, she is saying the '92 consensus is the conditions against the will of the people. However, there is an obvious split of opinion in Taiwan with respect to the '92 consensus. So using the term "will of the people" in her statement indicates that she only speaks for those who are against the '92 consensus. It further suggests that she is using the term "people" to mask her rejection of the '92 consensus. This is certainly not something China wants to hear. As the Chinese leaders have been very wary about her political agenda since her inauguration, this statement only confirms the Chinese leaders' suspicion. It should not be a surprise if China undertakes more aggressive and adverse action (economically and diplomatically) against Taiwan in the near future. Q: Do you feel you are closing the gap between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China? A: Over this past period we have handled relations with China very carefully. We do not take provocative measures, we make sure that there are no surprises, and we hope that through channels of communication, we can gradually build up trust. This is a yes or no question. The answer should be either: yes I feel I am closing the gap, or no I don't feel am closing the gap. She evaded the question. Moreover, her previous answer (impliedly rejecting the '92 consensus), which is provocative, gap-widening, and trust-destroying in the view of China, directly contradicts her non-responsive answer. Q: China could bring more pressure on Taiwan if it chose to. They could frighten away your diplomatic allies by threatening to weaken your bonds with them. Are you worried about that? A: If they do take economic measures to apply pressure to Taiwan, they will have to think about the price that they are going to pay. Because the surrounding countries will be looking very carefully at what measures China will take against Taiwan. Certainly both sides will pay a price, but that's not really the issue here. The issue is who can afford to pay the price. China certainly has much higher affordability than Taiwan. So if someone is able and willing to spend a lot of money to kill you. It does not seem like telling the person how much money he/she will spend will be enough to persuade him/her because he/she is already willing to spend the money. International politics is not about being nice and justice. Ms. Tsai's response is naive and non-responsive. Q: I understand that the focus of your program is domestic — that you want to raise wages, to give people more time off. But with a growth rate under 1 percent, how can you spur the economywhile delivering increased social services? A: There is no panacea for this. I think Taiwan’s economy needs an overall structural readjustment. Our new model focuses on innovation and research. This is different from our growth model in the past, which was centered on the manufacturing industry. Her response to this question is funny. The question is how do you deal with raising wages, more time off, and increase social services--all of these cost money, in other words, they are cost centers rather than profit centers. So the question really is: where are your profits centers to deal with all the costs centers you created. Her answer is "focuses on innovation and research instead of growth." Does she understand innovation and research are cost centers as well, not profit centers? As always, a low percentage of innovation and research will eventually turn into profit centers, and even when they do, it will take several years just to break even. But all those money spenders (raising wages, etc.) will take away money right now. So her answer essentially is: we are going to focus on creating more cost centers to deal with the cost centers we just created? But where is your money NOW? What if your innovation and research do not pan out? Then you will be even deeper in debt, isn't it? Isn't that the issue? It is disappointing to see that Ms. Weymouth did not follow up on this. Her statements overall are filled with fancy phrases, such as democracy and people, yet without much substance. This is a C- interview. |
| 最新創作 |
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
