Houdini the Fei Fei - doomed by official incompetence

(中文在下方)

Sadly for Houdini the Fei Fei, Taiwan’s famous escape artist and fugitive, his days on the run came to an abrupt end last week in a maelstrom of official misunderstanding and incompetence.

Alec Issigonis, designer of the Mini car in 1959, famously said, “A camel is a horse designed by committee.” The Mini became one of the most successful cars of all time.

So he knew a thing or two about design and outcomes. 

Sadly, the simple task of a capture of an escaped Baboon was organised by a committee of local officials. 

The miserable demise of Houdini who was shot to death in a rural homestead by an overzealous hunter acting on behalf of the local council, has been mourned across the country. It is a timely reminder that we are effectively governed on many levels by incompetents. 

There will, of course, be an inquiry, but it is obvious that the myriad people involved in the hunt were not communicating properly with each other. There was no clear chain of command, instructions as to the required outcome were not passed down and confusion reigned for days before the tragic outcome.  

Compounding all this was the unseemly rush to claim credit for Houdini’s capture to the extent of congratulatory selfies being taken over his dead body as he lay sadly curled up in a net, presumably bleeding out.

These were soon replaced by pictures of officials bowing in apology over Houdini’s flower-draped ‘coffin’. What an unedifying display of official self-aggrandisement one minute, quickly replaced with an admission of utter uselessness on the other. 

Poor Houdini never really stood a chance against these buffoons who were apparently more interested in their own image than they were in a positive outcome in terms of both public safety and the interests of a member of a non-native animal far from its natural home. 

Unfortunately there is a deficiency of analytical thinking skills across all levels of officialdom which never ceases to depress us all. It does, of course, also exist in the commercial world but at least there incompetent people tend to be weeded out more quickly as the level of accountability tends to be much higher. Companies just can’t survive if staff are ineffective.

I was a director of a small company which was an offshoot of the multinational company I worked for and believe me, the Director’s Responsibility Manual is huge. It contains legal requirements on behaviour and you can end up in court if you are negligent or slipshod in the role.    

 

Sadly for us taxpayers, a lot of officials, particularly at lower levels of the administration are more able to more easily hide in the herd of those around them, much like Wildebeest and shoal fish seek safety in numbers to confuse and baffle predators. 

Ministers and Heads of Departments resign and take ultimate responsibility when something goes wrong on their particular patch. Take the Puyuma train crash in 2018 when Minister of Communications Wu Hongmou resigned two months after the incident. From what I have read about the disaster many of Wu’s underlings were held accountable for the incident but he rightly resigned because he was in charge when it happened, although he was not directly involved in it’s cause. 

That said, the trend of stepping up, taking responsibility, being accountable and acting ethically is ebbing away and I hope this does not happen in Taiwan, although I fear it will given the more unscrupulous actions of some politicians in the recent past. As I have written before some are taking their lead from the likes of Donald Trump and Boris Johnson who brazenly dish out blame for failure to anyone but themselves. 

A phrase far more prevalent in the UK media recently has been “Mr A pushes Mr B under a  bus”. Which is generally applied to a politician who has dumped blame on an underling for a mistake they were ultimately accountable for.

After Prime Minister Liz Truss made a huge mistake in pushing for massive tax cuts the country could not afford crashed financial markets and was forced into an embarrassing U-turn, she simply blamed Finance Minister Kwasi Kwarteng, and refused to take responsibility. 

“Truss throws Kwasi Kwarteng under a bus” shouted the Evening Standard newspaper front page the same day. Truss resigned soon after, but nevertheless she tried to shift the blame to Kwerteng in an attempt to survive.

Does former president Trump throw people under a bus to avoid being accountable? Just ask his former lawyer, Rudy Giuliani who is facing a $2.7 billion lawsuit for defending Trump’s conspiracy theories over vote rigging during the 2020 election. Or his former fixer and lawyer, Michael Cohen who is currently giving evidence to the grand jury investigating the former president after doing three years in prison for Trump related crimes.   

It’s all part of the post-truth and lack of accountability era we live in and I would hate to see that infection gaining a larger foothold on these shores.

Errors of judgement have always happened and will continue to happen. There are names for it. In Britain and America it is commonly known as Murphy’s Law which holds that anything that can go wrong, will go wrong. (It is really an aphorism but is attributed to many different people).

In military slang S.N.A.F.U (Situation Normal - All F**ked Up, or more politely Situation Normal - All Fouled Up) is defined in the dictionary as meaning a situation marked by errors or confusion.

In the commercial world I inhabited for most of my career, goals were clearly set and thought given to how to achieve that goal and various ‘owners’ assigned for the various stages involved who were accountable for their part and also the end result. The overall project would have a single ‘owner’ who would be accountable for the outcome, be it positive or negative.   

You have to wonder, when you look at the apparent chaotic way some politicians and officials approach problems, whether they are lazy, do not care, or more interested in covering their tracks in case there is a S.N.A.F.U.

政治社會

狒狒胡迪尼的啟示：官方無能造成的悲劇

Phil Smith 2023 年 3 月 31 日 597 人閱讀

胡迪尼（Harry Houdini, 1874-1926）是一位匈牙利裔美國魔術師和特技演員，以逃脫表演而流傳後世，我們姑且把最近不幸在台灣辭世的狒狒取名為胡迪尼。

逃脫藝術家狒狒胡迪尼最近佔據了台灣網路和媒體的版面，給人們在無趣的日常中帶來許多歡樂。但在官方誤解與無能的漩渦中，最後胡迪尼跑進桃園一間民宅，被自述為受僱於一個地方政府的獵人槍殺。

胡迪尼戲劇性的離世在台灣引起廣泛的震驚和哀悼，在我看來，這是一個及時的提醒：在許多層面上，我們都只是被無能者治理，而且他們爭相推諉責任。

群體決策可能的盲點

1959年Mini的設計師依斯哥尼斯（Alec Issigonis）有句名言：駱駝是委員會設計的馬（A camel is a horse designed by a committee）。意思是委員會常常將太多相互衝突或缺乏經驗的意見，納入單項計劃之中，精準批評了群體決策以及抽象或無關的管理主義。Mini是有史以來最成功的汽車之一。

胡迪尼死亡事件當然會有個調查，也會有個結論到底這是如何發生的，但很明顯參與尋找胡迪尼的無數人，彼此之間應該沒有好好的溝通，沒有明確的指揮鏈與指引，或是關於預計結果所需的指示，從來沒有清楚下達。可以想見悲劇發生之前的幾天裡，混亂一直存在。

讓這一切雪上加霜的是，胡迪尼被尋穫後，官員急於聲稱那是自己的功勞，以至於當胡迪尼可憐地蜷縮在一張網中時，可能正在大量流血的他竟然成為自拍的目標。

而這些炫耀的自拍，很快就被官員們向胡迪尼棺材獻花行禮的照片取代了；前一分鐘得意洋洋自我膨脹，下一分鐘灰頭土臉完全無用。

可憐的胡迪尼從未真正有機會與這些小丑對抗，這些小丑顯然對自己的形象更感興趣，他們不在乎公共安全，或是那些遠離自然家園的非本土動物。

各級官場都缺乏分析的思維能力，真是令人感到沮喪。當然這也存在於商業世界，但至少在商業世界，不稱職的人往往會很快被淘汰，因為這些公司對責任的要求往往比較高，因為如果員工效率低下，公司將無法生存。

我曾經是一家小公司的董事，那是路透社的一家當地分支機構，相信我，董事的責任手冊非常厚，包含對所有行為的法律要求。如果你在這個角色中疏忽或馬虎，最終可能會上法庭。

低階官員極易躲藏在人群中

對我們納稅人來說可悲的是，許多官員，尤其是級別較低的政府官員，更容易隱藏在他們周圍的人群中，就像牛羚和淺灘魚為了避免捕食者，就躲藏在大數量的同類中來尋求庇護。

出現問題時，通常部長和部門負責人辭職並承擔最終責任。我搜尋到的資料顯示在 2018 年，台灣交通部長吳宏謀在普悠瑪火車事故發生兩個月後辭職。 2021年太魯閣號出軌事件後，交通部長林佳龍一樣辭職。這些辭職是正確的，因為他們在事故發生時負責，儘管他沒有直接參與事故的起因。

正如我之前多次所寫，目前我們看見的是挺身而出、承擔責任、問責和道德行事的趨勢，正在世界各地漸漸消退。例如美國前總統川普（Donald Trump）和英國前首相強生（Boris Johnson），他們總是厚顏無恥地將失敗的責任推給除了他們自己以外的任何人。我希望這不會在台灣發生，但是鑑於最近一些政客肆無忌憚的行為，我想台灣也躲不過。

最近在英國媒體很流行的一句話是：A先生將B先生推到公共汽車輪下。這適用於將責任歸咎於下屬的政客，而需要要為錯誤負責的其實是他們。

政客常將其他人扔到公共汽車輪下

例如英國前首相特拉斯（Liz Truss）在推動大規模減稅方面犯下巨大錯誤，導致金融市場無法承受幾近崩潰，接著被迫陷入尷尬的政策大轉彎，然而她指責財政部長克瓦騰（Kwasi Kwarteng），拒絕承擔責任。

晚報頭條是：特拉斯將克瓦騰扔到一輛公共汽車輪下！之後特拉斯很快就辭職了，但她仍然試圖將責任推給克瓦騰，以求在日後在政壇繼續生存。

美國前總統川普會把人扔到公共汽車下以避免被追究責任嗎？ 問問他的前律師朱利安尼（Rudy Giuliani） 就知道了。他因為川普在 2020 年大選期間操縱選票的陰謀論辯護，現在正面臨 27 億美元的訴訟。或者他的前經紀人和律師科恩（Michael Cohen），他因與川普有關的罪行被判入獄三年後，目前正在向調查川普的大陪審團提供證據。

這都是我們生活的後真相和缺乏問責制時代的一部分，我不願意看到這種感染在台灣獲得更大的立足點。

然而判斷錯誤一直都在發生，而且還會繼續發生。在英國和美國被稱為墨菲定律（Murphy’s Law），這個定律認為任何可能出錯的事情，都會出錯。

在我職業生涯的大部分時間裡，我都生活在商業世界中，工作上明確設定了目標，必須考慮如何實現該目標，並為所涉及的各個階段分配了各種負責任的人，他們必須對自己的職責和最終結果負責，無論是正面或是負面的結果。

在軍事俚語中，S.N.A.F.U（Situation Normal – All F**ked Up，或比較禮貌的 Situation Normal – All Fouled Up）字面上的翻譯是一切正常，但其實全都搞砸了，意思是天翻地覆的混亂狀況。

你不得不懷疑，當你看到一些政客和官員處理問題的明顯混亂方式時，他們是否懶惰不關心，或者其實他們只是想要掩蓋他們的留下的踪跡不要被察覺，以防萬一出現 S.N.A.F.U.

立法院

我加入路透社當菜鳥時剛剛解嚴不久，立法院開始大打出手，記憶猶新那是外國同事用來捉弄說笑的好武器，最好的回覆就是順著說笑皆大歡喜：對啊，這次打得不好，我要去抗議！你別惹我，我跟台灣國會議員一樣厲害！別的國會都學我們開打，不過我們還是比較猛！ 但玩笑之餘，我也不忘急急說明反對黨如何得不到剛剛解嚴時的媒體的版面，如此下下之策可以理解，他們都是讀了很多書(咦是韓導嗎)，很有理想的人等等。 過了解嚴之初的困境，媒體漸漸開放百家齊鳴，其實不太需要激烈肢體動作引起注意了，再有立法院打架事件總讓我覺得非常羞愧，此時反而是在台北的英國美國同事玩笑之餘反過來安慰，新興民主總是如此，台灣沒有經過流血革命政變走到這一步，在亞洲堪稱異數。 台灣什麼樣的亂象都還是會有，看看英國幾百年的民主，國會開議還跟演舞台劇一樣的傳統，每次看到都很羨慕人家那麼彬彬有禮跟BBC影集一樣，而如今英國的民主社會是何等荒謬！改天有空再來寫一篇。 在民主道路上台灣執政黨(不論是哪一黨)一定還是會跌跌撞撞，自然有許多不盡人意的地方，但是能夠因為民進黨以前大鬧國會，就一股腦說國民黨只是依樣畫葫蘆嗎？國民黨有228，民進黨執政了也可以來一個嗎？要不要規定學校不說台語就罰錢？如果願意去了解國民黨在台灣的所作所為，都不可能把任何一個政黨與其類比。檳榔黨雖然可惡，因為歷史環境，目前還沒有機會做到國民黨的罪孽深重。 國民黨執政的年代，年輕不懂事的我說支持民進黨是因為我要支持反對黨，有朝一日國民黨變成反對黨，我還是支持反對黨！漸漸我知道不管國民黨在什麼位置，都無法同情。歷史包袱放在一邊，這幾天國民黨的作為，已經超越了正常人可以接受的程度，從陳雪生到陳玉珍到咬人的那個誰，這樣杯葛議事，讓台灣在世界上蒙羞。 然而支持民進黨，就被認定為1450或是執政黨的內外宣，說穿了只是不喜歡對民進黨的支持罷了。也有可能說一樣爛，只是要掩飾對國民黨的不捨，失望或是尷尬而已。

學歷

講古又來了，我發這種文都是故意的。 當年我還在新加坡工作，已經準備搬去澳洲，不過我這輩子沒考過托福GRE什麼的，管它的，申請就是了。 結果學校來信說需要托福成績，當年是這樣現在不知道。我想了一下覺得很麻煩，因為我就是重考生啊，北一女畢業也考不上公立學校，考試成績可以想像。於是直接打電話去新南威爾斯大學國際關係研究所，轉了幾個人，終於轉到似乎是可以做主的人。 我解釋了我沒有托福成績，也不想浪費時間去考，聊了幾句，對方很爽快地說，妳的英文沒問題，不必附托福成績。 就這樣我就去讀研究所了，我去讀研究所純粹因為不知道離開路透社之後要幹嘛，就先讀個書再想想。為什麼申請新南威爾斯？只因為我會住在雪梨市中心。很高興這麼多年後學歷可以拿出來支持我的論點如下。 對我而言，學歷完全無用，不知道為什麼有人會炫耀自己是北一女台大榜首第一名斐陶斐，還要秀手機殼 🙄🙄🙄 喔忘了那個最重要我台大醫科的，我住過美國一年。。。TMD 全都滾啦，一群不知道哪裡來的夜郎 🙄🙄🙄🙄

Jimmy Carter - a peanut farmer's legacy

Deng Xiaoping meets Carter in 1979

Submariner, peanut farmer, civil rights champion and Nobel prize winner Jimmy Carter was the 39th President of the United States and a key player in the dramatic 1978 geopolitical switch in Sino-American relations, which left Taiwan on the outside. 

The lifelong democrat and humanitarian is now 98 and in hospice care, his race almost run.

Carter’s legacy and his deal to officially recognise China after the communists took control, plus his subsequent role in building the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979 is a legacy all of us on this small Pacific island live with to this day.   

Known as the ‘Charlie Brown of American politics’ because of his connection to peanuts, Carter inherited Sino-American rapprochement from the Ping-pong diplomacy of the early 1970s which lead to 37th President Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972 and eventually the establishment of diplomatic relations between the US and China under Carter. 

Hitherto, the US had considered China as an aggressor after its support of North Korea during the 1950-1953 Korean War, and, more importantly, was supporting democracy over communism. Likewise, in 1955 the US waded into Vietnam to prevent the spread of communism, although it is notable that the Vietnam War ended in 1975, pretty much at the same time as America was seeking to normalise their relationship with communist China. 

I have often wondered whether the rapprochement in Sino-American relations seen during the 1970s was based on a feeling by the US that the embarrassment of losing the Vietnam War persuaded them that diplomacy was better than war and that diplomatic containment of China was the better option. 

Small comfort to the fact the Korean and Vietnam Wars killed around two million people each if you include all military and civilian deaths. Let’s not forget thousands of wounded, scared and displaced.  

On China’s side there was perhaps the same feeling, in as much as losing 180,000 Chinese infantrymen to US artillery and support of the North Korean regime was of little or no  benefit to China. Maybe it was better to embrace the world and its markets to build wealth and improve the lives of its population, rather than fighting wars on the basis of a belief in a political regime. 

It would appear that over the course of two proxy wars based mainly on ideology, both China and the US came to terms with the futility of it, and decided diplomacy was a better option.  

Remembering, of course, that the Cold War with Russia after World War II, and the subject of nearly all spy and James Bond movies at the time, was about a clash of ideologies, ergo, communism vs democracy and not about territorial/economic gain.

Carter’s China visit on January 29, 1979, coincided with Deng Xiaoping’s rise to power and his huge and strategic market-economy reforms which led to him being known as "Architect of Modern China". During my time in Beijing as Reuters Editor for North Asia, I often commented to my friends  abroad that it didn’t seem like I was living in a totalitarian communist dictatorship, but in a capitalist society. 

Deng managed to create this and subsequently the fear of the spread of communism from China bleed away and the west relaxed enough to establish diplomatic relations, leaving Taiwan to one side as there were bigger geopolitical, and more important at the time, economic issues to worry about. 

Which is why Taiwan finds itself in its current ridiculous diplomatic impasse. China insisted that as part of the deal, the US cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and both sides were more interested in what the deal could bring in terms of money and economic advantage. Taiwan’s standing in the world became a “Ah well, I’m sure we can sort that out later.”   

Perhaps with a closer eye on ideology than economics, Republicans at the time were angry with the deal and in April 1979, US lawmakers passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which gave Taiwan nearly the same status as any other nation recognized by the United States. It also ensured that arms sales to Taiwan continued. 

In place of the U.S. Embassy in Taiwan, an “unofficial” representative, called the American Institute in Taiwan, would continue to serve U.S. interests there. Over forty years later, little has changed and the architect of the situation is currently close to the end of his life.

While this historical background seems not to have changed too much over the decades, the one thing, to my mind, that has changed, is the Chinese administration. While I was working as a journalist in Beijing I was regularly taken to task by the Foreign Ministry about stories we had written and there was aggression towards foreign correspondents. 

I left China as Xi Jinping took over and it is clear his regime is less tolerant of foreign journalists and the administration is more belligerent in the wider field of diplomacy than previous executives.

Therein lies Taiwan’s problem. On the one hand there is a powerful ally, the United States, bound by law to help and that has not changed. On the other hand there is a more aggressive and more nationalistic administration on the mainland. 

Indeed, America has recently added to its original 1979 Taiwan act to include other issues. You can view this at this US government website Taiwan Policy Act 2022 but you need to scroll down to find the additions made in 2022.

As a “Major Non-NATO Ally” Taiwan can likely rely on being treated muchlike Ukraine, should they be invaded by a neighboring power. I have purposely avoided the use of ‘superpower’ as Russia has proved it is not, given its failures in Ukraine. The perception that China is a ‘superpower’ is likely also incorrect considering likely reality vs perception.

Which leaves those of us living in Taiwan and enjoying the sunny days presaging a balmy spring and summer wondering what to expect. For those of us who can vote the decision is clear. 

The forthcoming presidential election is a single issue election given what has happened in Ukraine and NATO’s reaction to it. Taiwan has leapt to the top of the global news agenda in countries where hitherto the bulk of the population had never really heard of Taiwan, muchless thought about its position in the world. 

Since the invasion of Ukraine, the world has become much more aware of Taiwan’s plight and from what I read in the world’s free press the broad consensus is on Taiwan’s side. This has empowered the west to show more overt support of Taiwan, evidenced by high profile visits from the likes of the 52nd speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi last year. 

Taiwan is high up in the global mindset, the world is more Taiwan aware, and diplomats see being on Taiwan’s side as backing democracy vs communism and perhaps heading off desperately sad situations such as that which is fast developing in Hong Kong. 

Looking at the diplomatic turbulent history, and the sad and lonely battle Taiwan has endured from China’s bullying in the past years as fighter jets invade our airspace and ‘military war games’ threaten our very borders, I worry about how the electorate will vote in the 2024 election. 

The next election has but a single issue - relations with China.

A KMT administration would undoubtedly be more favourable towards closer ties with China, that is a given and something all voters need to understand. 

If this democracy votes KMT and therefore for closer ties with China I can see diplomats around the world, including those of Taiwan’s greatest allies thinking. “Ah well, they have democratically voted for closer ties with China so let’s not bother so much and spend money and effort to help protect the. It would seem they are OK with China taking them over.”

There are, of course, other factors like Taiwan’s strategic position militarily in the US Pacific defense lines put in place after World War II, but if the population ostensibly votes for closer ties with China in a fully democratic election, the diplomats pushing for Taiwan to even hold its own in the world may well reduce their efforts and give it up as a lost cause. 

After all, they may say, they have democratically voted for it….so be it. 

Tinkerty tonk...

Terry Kuo - Taiwan's Joke politician

中文在最下方

If you don’t find Terry Kuo funny, you have no sense of humour.

This strutting buffoon plays his role as one of Taiwan’s leading joke politicians so well that part of me hopes he sticks around a while longer. If he wasn’t so politically dim as to be potentially dangerous for Taiwan if he gets any real power, that is.

His latest drivel had me chuckling, as it again reminded me of the kind of pompous and arrogant Chinese rhetoric we have heard over the years. It is also akin to the kind of gaslighting China is a past-master at, like the “When did patient zero begin in the US?” from Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian in a now-infamous tweet. “It might be the U.S. army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan.” 

Absurd, yes, but that is Terry Kuo all over. His latest piece of colossal overstatement and rather sad gaslighting attempt being “The self-righteous goodwill of the DPP government is leading the people to a dark hell where it is multi difficult to even eat an egg.”

I mean, it’s not even good gaslighting. His minders should really have a word with him to raise his game.  

Aside from not being true, as there are eggs to be had without too much difficulty, no one is in a “Dark Hell” because they didn’t get their breakfast egg. It’s clownish in its absurdity because the overstatement is akin to the big red nose, huge yellow curly wig, massive shoes and baggy striped trousers that Coco usually wears to make the children laugh.  

Take a look at the UK where bird flu has also created a bit of a shortage of eggs and supermarket racks are devoid of certain vegetables. The shortages - which are affecting Ireland too - are largely the result of extreme weather in Spain and north Africa, where floods, snow and hail have affected harvests. Yep, really nothing to do with the government and politicians and the media are saying that. 

Contrast that with news that Taiwan's foreign minister Joseph Wu and the country’s top security people are in Washington for a meeting with US officials. The local press lead with Kuo’s eggs nonsense and not the more vital issues that keep us all safe from oppression.

To directly quote the Foxconn Wikipedia page. “While headquartered in Taiwan, the company earns the majority of its revenue from assets in mainland China. 

  

Speaking of vegetables, pea-brain Terry wants to pitch again for the presidential nomination. Having thrown a toddler-like tantrum the last time the KMT decided not to go with him, when he threw his toys out of his pram and stalked away to sulk for a few years, he seems to think he’s in for another shot.

If the KMT are smart (no guarantees there I guess) they will ignore this political has-been. 

Kuo revealed he had once been instructed by the sea goddess Mazu in a dream to run as a candidate in the 2020 presidential election…So she would approve if he just retired to somewhere nice on the coast and went fishing all day. (Hey, Terry…the thin bit of the rod points towards the sea…you hold the thick end.) 

Tinkerty Tonk…

如果你不覺得郭台銘有趣，那你就沒有幽默感。

這個大搖大擺的小丑，把台灣主要政治笑話的角色之一演得很好，我希望他能多待一陣子，前提是如果他在政治上不至於獲得任何實權，然後對台灣構成潛在危險的話。

他最近的胡說八道讓我咯咯地笑了起來，因為這再次讓我想起了多年來聽到的那種華而不實、傲慢自大的中國言論。類似於中國過去擅長的那種煤氣燈效應，比如「美國什麼時候開始出現零號病人？」這句話來自中國外交部發言人趙立堅的推文。「可能是美軍把疫情帶到了武漢。」

荒謬嗎？的確，但那就是目前看到的郭台銘。他最新誇張且相當可悲的煤氣燈效應煽動手段是：「民進黨政府自以為是的善意，何嘗不是把老百姓帶往連吃一顆蛋都困難重重的黑暗地獄當中？」

我想說的是，這甚至不是很好的煤氣燈效應！他的幕僚們真的應該把他拉到一邊提醒他一下，以提高他參賽的水準。

除了雞蛋不是困難重重才能吃到，根本不會有人會因為早餐沒吃到雞蛋就陷入「黑暗地獄」。這種荒謬可笑，就像是小丑戴著大紅鼻子、黃色捲曲假髮、笨重的鞋子和寬鬆條紋褲，他們通常穿戴這些來逗孩子們笑。

看看英國，那裡的禽流感也造成了雞蛋短缺，超市貨架上連蔬菜也沒有。 短缺也影響到愛爾蘭，主要原因還有西班牙和北非的極端天氣，洪水、雪和冰雹影響了收成。是的，真的與政府無關，英國的政治人物和媒體一致同意。

在台灣與雞蛋新聞形成鮮明對比的是，台灣外交部長吳釗燮和高層國安人員正在華盛頓與美國官員會面。然而台灣媒體卻是大篇幅報導郭的雞蛋胡說八道，關心的程度遠超過這個對我們所有人更重要的台美議題。

我查了一下富士康的維基百科頁面：雖然總部位於台灣，該公司的大部分收入來自中國的資產。 嗯，我一直很喜歡 FoxConn 這個名字的諷刺意味，因為 con 在英文裡的意思。

言歸正傳說到蔬菜，我就想到一個英文的形容詞 pea-brain，是用來形容很笨的人。這個豌豆腦上次因為國民黨決定不提名他，他就像蹣跚學步的孩子一樣大發脾氣，把玩具從嬰兒車裡扔出來，然後大步走開。悶氣生了幾年後，他好像認為他的機會又來了。

如果國民黨很聰明（我猜這無法保證），他們應該忽略這種政治上的過去式。我們等著瞧吧。

郭台銘說過，他曾在夢中得到媽祖的指點，要他參選2020總統大選。我想如果他退休後到海邊的某個好地方整天去釣魚，媽祖應該會同意，不過媽祖可能會指點他：嘿，Terry，釣竿比較細的一端要指向大海，你應該握住比較粗的那一端。

掰掰。

Political Belligerence

 The Post-Truth era, in which we all now exist, it seems we have to also get used to a heightened level of political aggression and game-playing. Politicians are apparently happy to take greater risks with outright lies, half-truths, misdirection and gaslighting. 

In my four decades of writing about politics in many different countries, I can’t remember a time when shameless dishonesty was so rife. Sadly, many seem to be getting away with it and like a child with a new toy are delighting in it as it appears to make little, or no, difference to their political standing. 

It seems like a revelation to them, and they are revelling in it. It has emboldened some to behave as they like and take even greater political risks with their lies. 

"All is fair in love, war and politics", is a much used proverb when discussing the machinations which go on in the political world. While deeply cynical, it is nonetheless at least partly true. 

Look at former US president Donald Trump. His litany of years of lies and bad behaviour - not least the Big-Lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him - has gradually descended into unbalanced ravings. His call for the US Constitution to be torn up so he can be simply reinstalled into the White House, is as outrageous as it is mindblowing.

Happily his antics look like they are finally backfiring on him and President Biden now leads Trump in a head-to-head matchup, 47 percent to 40 percent. Plus, Two-thirds of Republican and Republican leaning voters want Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to run for President in 2024. (Personally I’m not sure which one is worse, but that’s another matter.)

But such behaviour has emboldened the likes of Republican Kari Lake to flatly refuse to accept she lost the 2022 Arizona governor race to Democrat Katie Hobbs, a move which led one US publican to describe her as the “saddest dead-ender” and someone who has “doubled down on a losing bet: election denial.” 

There are others like gun-toting Republican Colorado representative Lauren Boebert, notorious for fueling anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry, support for the Big-Lie and being an insurrectionist sympathiser. Likewise Georgia Republican representative the crazy Marjorie Taylor Greene with her Space Lasers, Political Murders, and Muslims Taking Over America. All truly bizarre stuff if you can be bothered to check into what exactly she said. 

Take the brutish Boris Johnson in the UK. His bravado and disdain for the public led to him telling lie after lie, a strategy which eventually caught up with him and he was deposed as leader of the ruling Conservatives. He is still under investigation by a Commons committee over whether he misled the UK Parliament.

Again, this has bred contempt for the truth with Secretary of State Michael Gove claiming the UK had secured GBP800 billion in “new free trade deals'' since leaving the European Union.

Which is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts because the bulk of this figure is not “new” trade and he has since been reprimanded by The UK Statistics Authority (UKSA) which has warned the ruling Conservatives that they should provide sources for such figures in the future.     

These are just recent examples of shameless dishonesty in politics which have ‘come home to roost’ but it is nevertheless a worrying trend that such outrageous behaviour is on the rise and lying is becoming ‘part of the political game’.

It’s easy to identify such trends here in Taiwan with some politicians feeling it is OK to ape some of the more outrageous behaviour we are witnessing abroad. That’s not to say it is anything new, but it does seem such practices are on the rise.

For example Terry Guo who has said Taiwanese people have no choice of which Covid vaccine they have, which is a clear lie. He also said the Government didn’t care whether people lived or died during the pandemic which I would class as not only a lie but also the dirtiest of political game playing. Of course the government cares whether people live or die.   

While the atrocious behaviour of the likes of Trump and Johnson did catch up with them in the end, it nevertheless propelled them to power in the first place and for a while afterwards they made political capital out of it.  

Politics is a dirty business, and, like boxing, is aggressive, confrontational and sometimes nasty but should be played to a set of rules. Outright lies, misdirection and gaslighting should play no part in a civilised society.    

Which brings us to the opposite situation. What happens when politicians act in a decent way, are broadly honest and try to behave in a respectful way towards voters? The answer is they  tend to lose out to those who think they can behave badly and break the unwritten rules and maybe even appear to be weak. 

There really needs to be an element of fighting fire with fire, with lies quickly called out just as aggressively as they were told in the first place. That is not something I see happening often in Taiwan. The government response to recent outrageous comments have been left unanswered for hours, sometimes days by which time the lie, or comment, is planted firmly in people’s minds and it is too late. 

Winston Churchill once said “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” 

At least responding to that lie quickly lessens its impact and maybe stops it in its tracks. Waiting hours to come back with a rebuttal is simply not good politics.

It’s also noticeable that the current administration appears not to think too hard about the way they deliver their messages. An excellent example of this is their latest budget announcement on Facebook.

It led with TWD111 billion to pay back government debt and towards the end it announced TWD577.3 billion more local government spending and more cash for education, infrastructure, defence and environment. 

This was a golden opportunity to lead with the good news of more spending on all the things people care about and push the budget payback to the bottom, or even not have it as part of the highlights at all. It would have been the smart way to handle it politically. 

But it backfired hugely as people latched on to the relatively small 111 billion figure and likely didn’t even read down far enough to find the much bigger 577.3 billion figure before they waded in with criticism. It even broke the first rule of journalism which is to lead with the bigger more important figure. 

That’s just one example but it’s fairly typical of the DPP and its somewhat passive approach to politics. Plus, the opposition parties are far more aggressive and emboldened in the Post-Truth era by the behaviour they see tolerated elsewhere in the world. 

With a presidential election just over a year away the current administration should perhaps think harder about their apparently relaxed and passive stance on the political battlefield and take a close, hard look at the way they make better political capital out of their successes.

Tinkerty Tonk... 

A familiar pang

(中文在下方)

Sadly, I felt the all too familiar pang of disappointment yesterday at the DPP’s poor showing at the local elections, although I felt more sorry for the cat who was curled up on the sofa and unusually quiet as the results rolled in.

I am no stranger to such disappointment, coming as I do from an innately conservative country where the ‘establishment’ has been building on itself for hundreds of years. 

In the UK it is the establishment of the rich and titled, public school educated so called elite. In Taiwan it is the KMT and those used to wielding power during the troubled times of Martial Law and in the years after as that rich and privileged strata of society retained power by dint of influence and money. 

So there tends to be a strong demographic at work as the older generation generally display a deference to the establishment, for whatever reason, which is something I have never understood but is nevertheless true. One essential in Taiwan is to lower the voting age to eighteen, but, of course, the establishment will resist this. 

The cat and I went to the polling place early yesterday and judging by the number of older people voting and several wheelchairs, my first comment was that it did not look good for the DPP. 

The turnout was low which is no surprise as these local votes, like the local elections in the UK or the midterms in the US, do not spark as much enthusiasm as they should, but that is a fact of life and something you need to accept.

That said, voter apathy among young people is an ongoing issue with many disillusioned with older generation politics and a sense of helplessness, or just a lack of interest, leads to them just not bothering to vote. This is a global problem and Taiwan is no different to many other democracies. I’m personally in favour of mandatory voting although even those countries which have it seldom enforce it vigorously. Australia being perhaps the most famous of these.  

I’ve had my fair share of disappointment with the stupidity of Brexit and the Brits voting a classic establishment figure like Boris Johnson into office with a huge majority. Both of which I found profoundly depressing.  

Whether voting for the establishment is caused by dogma, habit, or peer pressure the only thing to do is keep interested, get out and vote and don’t allow setbacks reduce your enthusiasm to keep the establishment orthodoxy on the backfoot.

Tinkerty Tonk...

其實想想是蠻令人悲傷的，我對民進黨在地方選舉中的糟糕表現，幾乎感到一種非常熟悉的失望之痛。不過我家那頭蜷縮在沙發上看電視，並且在開票結果不斷更新時異常安靜的貓，應該感到更加難過。

我對這種失望並不陌生，因為我來自一個天生保守的國家，那裡的“建制派”已經建立了數百年。在英國，它是富人、有頭銜、受過公立學校教育的所謂菁英體系。在台灣，那是國民黨和那些習慣於在戒嚴的困難時期，以及之後的歲月中掌握權力的人，他們因為財富和特權，靠著影響力和金錢保留了權力。

因此無論出於何種原因，從年齡層來看，老一代通常都表現出對所謂“建制派”的尊重，這是我從未理解但仍然是事實的現實。這次投票，台灣的一項重要改變是將投票年齡降至 18 歲，但當然，建制派會抵制這一做法。

我們投票當天一大早就去了投票站，從投票所外的老年人和幾個輪椅來看，我的第一評論是，這對民進黨來說不太好。

投票率低並不奇怪，因為地方性的選舉，如英國的地方選舉或美國的期中選舉，並不會激發選民應有的熱情，這是事實，也是你需要接受的。

這也就是說，年輕人對投票冷漠是一個持續存在的問題，許多人對老一輩的政治感到失望，無助感或缺乏興趣，導致他們根本懶得去投票。 這是一個全球性問題，台灣與許多其他民主國家沒有什麼不同。 我個人贊成強制投票，不過即使有強制投票的國家也很少大力執行，澳洲可能是其中最著名的。

我對英國脫歐的愚蠢行為，還有英國選民以絕大多數票，將像強生這樣的經典建制人物推上權力高峰感到失望，這兩件事都讓我感到非常沮喪。

無論投票給建制派是因為長久以來的信條、習慣還是同輩壓力造成的，你唯一必須做的就是保持興趣，去投票，不要讓挫折降低你的熱情，這樣才能讓建制派的傳統處於落後地位。