"Taiwan is not a province of China. The PRC flag has never flown over Taiwan."
Stick that in your clipboards and paste it, you so-called "lazy journalists"!
Monday, November 16, 2009
DPP Chairwoman Tsai more popular than President Ma?
Taiwan News is first out of the gate with this news:
A summary:
Satisfied with Tsai's performance - 35% Satisfied with Ma's performance - 33% Dissatisfied with Tsai's performance - 34% Dissatisfied with Ma's performance - 31%
By Region:
Kaohsiung and Pingtung - 18% Satisfied with Ma and 44% dissatisfied
Central and Eastern Taiwan - Ma more popular (no figures given)
North - Tsai and Ma running equal (no figures given)
Yunlin, Chiayi and Tainan - 40% Satisfied with Tsai
(The opposition leader rated ahead of Ma with independent voters, and received even a positive rating from 29 percent of Kuomintang supporters.)
Support by party:
Positive rating for KMT - 37%
Positive rating for DPP - 22%
-----------------------------------------------------
The poll successfully interviewed 717 respondents by phone on November 10 and had a margin of error of 3.7 percent, the China Times said. -----------------------------------------------------
These mixed results from a blue-leaning media outlet seem generally positive for Tsai though tempered with caution since it appears that the DPP as a party has not raised its game in the public's eye as much as its leader. Now if only the DPP could be as professional as Tsai and show some internal discipline ... (and pigs may fly?)
Business consultant Chien Yao-tang (簡耀堂) said the government may have overestimated the importance of the Chinese market.
“If you remember, in 2000 when Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp [SMIC] was founded in China, many people despaired, saying if the government didn’t lift the ban on wafer manufacturers moving to China, Taiwanese manufacturers would not be able to get a share of the Chinese market and would be left behind in the global market,”
“Ten years have passed, the Chinese IC market has been growing, but SMIC has not made a profit, except for one year, even with all the support it receives from the Chinese government.”
Worth remembering the SMIC was founded with significant help and investment from Taiwanese business people. Another thing highlighted recently in the media is that the 'golden age' of TW and foreign investment in China may have been the mid to late 1990's. India now holds more potential for growth in the next ten years and investors will be aware that their investment in India is less likely to be controlled by the Indian State or used so clearly to bolster the political and economic power of India at the expense of neighbouring countries sovereignty.
Fifth open letter on the erosion of justice in Taiwan
The list of signatories grows by almost 20%
Writer Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D. and thirty other scholars and writers from the US, Canada, Asia, Europe and Australia have penned a fifth open letter about the serious problems occurring under the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou.
The letter reminds us that "a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but [...] that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy" and that "Taiwan should be more fully accepted by the international community as a full and equal partner." Read the full letter at the link above, but here is a large excerpt [emphasis mine]:
During the past two decades, Taiwan has made major progress in each of these areas [freedom, democracy, justice and human rights]. It thus has been a disappointment for us to see an erosion of justice, a weakening of checks and balances in the democratic system and a decline in press freedom in Taiwan. These trends are reflected in the significantly downward ratings Taiwan received in the annual reports of international organizations such as Freedom House and Reporters without Borders.
They are also reflected in the expressions of concern by international scholars and friends of Taiwan related to the flaws in the judicial proceedings against former President Chen Shui-bian and the apparent lack of neutrality in the continuing "investigations" and indictments of other prominent members of the DPP government. We thus appeal to you again to ensure that measures are taken to ensure the impartiality and fairness of the judiciary.
Good governance, accountability and transparency based on the fundamental principles of freedom, democracy, justice and human rights are all the more essential now that your government is moving Taiwan on a path of closer economic ties with China. We believe that a decrease of tension across the Taiwan Strait would indeed be welcome, but emphasize that this should not be done at the expense of the hard-won democracy and the establishment of human rights in Taiwan itself.
Thus, the process of improving relations with the large neighbor across the Strait needs to be an open, deliberative and democratic process, in full consultation with both the Legislative Yuan and the democratic opposition, and fully transparent to the general public. We are thus pleased to hear that officials of your government have stated that any agreement with China would need to have both a domestic consensus, including approval by the Legislative Yuan, and acceptance by the international community. We trust this process will be open and consultative in ways that respect the democratic traditions begun so promisingly two decades ago.
The prequels Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:
According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]
* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.
The NCC has a proposal to relax restrictions on the government, political parties and the military from holding shares in media companies. The rationale? :
The NCC said that while it was important for the three to stay out of the media, the rules had generated problems in some of the NCC’s rulings because some media corporations are publicly traded, meaning the government can purchase shares on the stock market.
KMT black sheep and family outcast Legislator Lo Shu-lei (羅淑蕾) pointed out the obvious negative ramifications of this change for Taiwan's democracy but another KMT legislator Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) called the NCC’s proposal practical.
So the NCC wants to relax restrictions because they make the NCC's job more difficult and because the Government can't control itself and deign from buying shares in media (which for the KMT is like breathing or eating - a taken for granted necessity).
The NCC's job is to ensure media independence and quality but since its controversial inception it has done little to convince observers that it is anything but a tool of the Government. So what difference then from the GIO many of whose powers it assumed?.
There is also a disturbing tendency of assuming that now Taiwan is a democracy, the old vestiges of the party-state are no longer a factor much in the way that because the CCP and the KMT are collaborating this is supposed to equal 'peace in our time' and an end to hostilities. The danger is that in substance little has changed but policy is being changed to match the 'new conditions' which are really more just rhetorical flourishes rather than actual elemental changes in culture and practice. This is in effect a 'gateway' for old party-state elements to resume their influence under the guise of democratic freedom.
Remembering the events that brought about the fall of the Berlin Wall
On November 9, 2009, Germans will celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Twenty years ago on October 7, 1989, the 40th anniversary of the German Democratic Republic (AKA East Germany), the communist leadership wanted adulation, but the people offered defiance. The East Germans were supposed to be celebrating the "accomplishments" of socialism, but instead they staged three days of protests in Plauen, Dresden, and Leipzig. Read the Beginning of the end of East Germany, and take note of how the police responded to the demonstrators in Dresden and in Leipzig.
There is a lesson to be learned here for East Asians: At a crucial moment, police discipline -- namely their submission to authority -- should not compel an officer to act against his own citizens (i.e. to kill or harm unarmed civilians against his conscience merely because he is following orders), and of course this must be accompanied by wise decisions by the authorities (usually the top leadership of a nation). Demonstrators against a nation's leadership can be non-violent concerned citizens whose request is simple, freedom. It is how the police react to unarmed crowds that determines the course of such events. Confrontation and violence are the inevitable result when crowds are mishandled and provoked by the police. Unnecessary casualties follow unwise decisions; therefore, people in authority are always responsible for the outcomes.
Back to 1989 Berlin… Several weeks of civil unrest -- actually starting as early as the summer of 1989 (known as the Peaceful revolution) -- took place in several cities. This finally led the East German government to announce on November 9, 1989 that all its citizens could visit West Germany and West Berlin. Shortly thereafter, crowds of East Germans climbed onto and crossed the wall, joined by West Germans on the other side in an atmosphere of celebration. The fall of the Berlin Wall did not come easily -- it only happened due to East Germans' defiance against their rulers.
Twenty years later, in East Asia, the picture looks grim. Democracy is under the threat of communism. Taiwan is on the verge of being converted from a young democracy to communism. Are people in East Asia more tolerant towards repressive rulers? How can this be happening?
The Berlin Wall stood for 28 years; that was long enough. But in Taiwan, from 1945 to 2009 -- 64 long years -- Taiwanese have not had a formally recognized nation to call their own after the General Order No.1 which initially brought the Chinese Nationalist Party government and their Republic of China (KMT-ROC) to the island to act as an administrator for the Allied Forces. This was then complicated by the defeat of the KMT by the Chinese Communists in 1949 which extended the KMT-ROC's temporary stay rather permanent as a Chinese government-in-exile on Taiwan waiting to retake China. The Taiwanese lived under a dictatorship -- led by the KMT's Chiang Kai-shek and his son -- for nearly five decades after WWII.
Although Taiwan did democratize to some extent, it did not normalize. Taiwan had a short period of some attempts to normalize their country when the DPP came into power (8 years from 2000 to 2008), but it ended with no success -- only rebukes from western leaders who believe that a Taiwanese referendum on UN membership was unnecessary troublemaking. When western politicians see economic opportunities with China, the rights of Taiwanese to build a nation of their own is not important anymore.
However, since the KMT regained power in 2008, this brief period of further strengthening of democracy is gradually being replaced by the seemly democratic election of a president (Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九],) who won on empty promises about "improving the economy" and "no unification" during his term; but his hidden agenda -- which should be apparent to nearly everyone by now -- was to bring Taiwan under Chinese Communist control through the illusion of cross-strait détente.
Similarly, the period from 1949 to 2009 has been six long decades for Chinese dissidents who were living either abroad or in "black jails" while their rulers celebrated and marched on a chemically-induced sunny October 1 this year with a show of force. Chinese citizens take advantage of every opportunity to stay abroad once they have completed their education because they admire the freedom that their own country cannot offer. Minorities within Chinese-controlled territories receive worse treatment from China's Han Chinese citizens. People belonging to minority groups are being continuously executed by the Chinese authorities without fair trials.
This explains why most of the post-World War II Chinese immigrants to Taiwan (the so-called "mainlanders" -- those who don't identify Taiwan as their "motherland" yet have no qualms about exploiting it), who have been able to visit China since long ago (contrary to the situation in Berlin-Wall-era Germany), are somewhat hesitant to embrace their original motherland. These mainlanders obviously have doubts, because no one would like to go back to authoritarian rule after they have enjoyed a period of freedom fought and gained by their Taiwanese counterparts, those who have always identify themselves as Taiwanese, against Chiang Kai-shek's dictatorship. But the young democracy in Taiwan may not stay for long, it is like a bubble: it may stay and shine for a little while, then it will burst up in the air.
I have a dream, a sweet dream in which a democratic China lives side by side with Taiwan, Tibet, and East Turkestan, all free and democratic. [My note: Initially taken from here, I added the word "sweet."]
But, I also have a recurring nightmare -- a nightmare in which a "greater China" under the existing one-party rule continues to interfere with all kinds of cultural activities globally (book fairs, film screenings, sports competitions, etc.) and causes all businesses to self-censor to meet the standards approved by the Chinese leadership; all computer makers pre-install firewalls demanded by the Chinese leaders; and all the Taiwanese aboriginal and non-aboriginal languages and traditions become extinct while the cultures of Tibet and East Turkestan are placed onto shelves visible only in museums.
Civil disobedience does not always need to be carried out on the streets; it can also come in the form of economic measures such as defying the remittance of taxes. If the KMT-dominated Legislative Yuan could purposely delay the passing of the Executive Yuan's annual budget back when the DPP was in power, why can't Taiwanese withhold paying taxes to the central government until the KMT returns its stolen assets to the people? And should local governments collect taxes since there have been problems of unfair distribution among different regions of the nation (similar to the two-level tax system of a federal and a state or provincial tax)? These are just some suggestions that should be explored further.
Any successful civil disobedience movement would require massive participation because the KMT government has a finite number of prosecutors and jails. They won't be able to throw everyone in jail.
The fall of the Berlin Wall showed us the power of the people, when almost the whole nation came out to demonstrate against their communist rulers -- they were simply unstoppable!
Taiwan needs a wise leader amid the changing status quo. A recent opinion poll on Ma Ying-jeou's performance revealed by a pan-blue media outlet gave him a 58.6% disapproval rating. Imagine if the poll had been done by a neutral organization. The result would have looked even worse for Ma.
While most western politicians continue to appease the Chinese communist officials and applaud Ma's cross-strait policy, let's remind them that the new focus for our world of the future -- as human beings -- is not which country will dominate world politics with its military or economic power, but rather how humans can survive by overcoming the immediate problems of climate change, energy shortage, and hunger.
Hence, a country's success is measured not by how it can dominate outer space or by the number of nuclear warheads it has, but rather by how its citizens would like to live in their own country, free of hunger and feeling content economically and politically. The people of Taiwan are among the most peace-loving and innovative citizens of the world, so give the Taiwanese the dignity they deserve.
Regardless of who claims sovereignty over Taiwan, whether it's the ROC (the current administrator) or the PRC (the ones who have never administered the island yet who make false claims and threaten Taiwan with the use of force), all those who have stood in the way should now step back and allow the Taiwanese to hold a national referendum on the status of Taiwan -- a long-overdue expression of democracy. This small island nation may just turn out to be the lighthouse which will transform the remaining communist countries in East and Southeast Asia into ones which respect their citizens' freedom.
Taiwan's legal status has its place inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 15
Preface Translation is a difficult job, and the purpose of this post is by no means to criticize either the translator or the newspaper's editor, but rather to raise concerns over the Taiwan's prosecutors' active pursuit of Roger C.S. Lin and former President Chen Shui-bian with charges of treason following the KMT's misinterpretation of the recent outcome of the US Supreme Court's dismissal of Lin v. USA and to stress the rights of Taiwanese to choose their own nationality.
Main content The editorial page of the Friday, October 23, 2009 Taipei Times has a translation of a piece by Taiwan Association of University Professors (TAUP) chairman Chen Yi-shen (陳儀深) titled "Taiwan's history has no place in US courts" which discusses the results of the case of Roger C. S. Lin (林志昇) et al v. United States of America. After reading it through, I wasn't quite sure whether the author's message had been translated completely or correctly.
Fortunately, I was able to find the original Chinese-language piece to compare with the original as well as another related piece. I don't know if the changes were due to a lack of space in the newspaper or for other reasons, but I just don't know if it was such a good idea to cut off some of the author's words in a translated piece.
The following is the comparison of a paragraph from the original alongside the Taipei Times' translation. Note that the text I've colored red in the original is missing from the translation:
[Taipei Times' translation:] While the US recognized and supported the ROC government in exile on Taiwan, US officials reiterated at major times such as 1954, 1971, 2004 and 2007 that the status of Taiwan and the Pescadores (Penghu) was yet to be determined. [My note: The reference to the status being "undetermined" means that neither Taiwan nor Penghu belonged to China from the outset. The author was trying to say that if it belonged to China, Taiwan's status would not have been said to be "undetermined." This crucial phrase from the original piece was either not translated to begin with or was omitted by the editor.]
Why would they have made these comments if Taiwan really was an unincorporated territory under USMG? [My note: This whole sentence didn't exist in the original text, but was added to explain the meaning of "undetermined," and I think the omission of the above phrase and the addition of that "explanatory" sentence was not very fair to the author.]
Also, why has the US not dared to refer to our government as the ROC "government" and simply addressing it as the ROC ever since the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) took effect in 1979? [My note: If the phrase "the ROC government has not been recognized since 1979" was translated out instead of simply quoting the word "government," the author's idea would have been conveyed more clearly here. See also the "Editor's note" at the bottom of this post.]
We have to understand the issue of Taiwan's status in light of the abovementioned background. The Resolution on Taiwan's Future ratified by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1999 posed new directions for Taiwan's future and this was closely linked with democratization and localization actions taken by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s. However, President Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) current line is in complete contradiction with Lee-era policies and there really is now a definite need for things to be clearly reviewed and new "resolutions" to be made.
Below, I will share my thoughts derived from reading this piece.
Analysis All we can see from the case of Lin et al v. US is that the US court does not want to give a ruling involving US foreign policy as it has no jurisdiction over a matter that is to be determined by the US executive branch. But the fact remains that neither the US nor any other country in the world (except the KMT-ROC) has ever recognized the transfer of Formosa's sovereignty from Japan to the ROC. Even then-ROC foreign minister Yeh Kung-chao admitted that the delicate international situation makes it that Taiwan and Penghu do not belong to China. They have the intention of settling the status of Formosa pending on the outcome of the Chinese Civil War. But in the meantime, as Taiwanese opposed the KMT's dictatorial rule and Taiwanese nationalism evolved, local residents' rights as guaranteed by Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) will have to be respected.
Unfortunately, this simple rejection of US Supreme Court to review the previous court ruling of lack of jurisdiction is being taken by the KMT-ROC as meaning that the US recognizes the ROC's sovereignty over Formosa, and therefore in active pursuit of charging Lin and former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) with treason. That is just too much!
The US must react to this latest judicial nonsense. Otherwise, people in Taiwan doing research on Taiwan's legal status could all-too-easily be charged with treason by the biased KMT-ROC kangaroo court for simply not recognizing the ROC's sovereignty over Taiwan. The KMT-ROC is scared only of the US. I wonder why. (A hidden boss?) It is OK for US officials to say the ROC is not a country or that the ROC has no sovereignty over Taiwan. But it is not OK for the Japanese representative to say so. KMT legislators want the Ma administration to evict the current Japanese representative. Worse still, Taiwanese residents are definitely not allowed to speak the truth in this matter. They might be charged with treason when, ironically, the people whom public opinion says would deserve this the most would only be people like Ma Ying-jeou, Lien Chan, etc.
After the war, the Allies did send the KMT-ROC to administer Formosa, but as early as 1947, Formosan residents showed signs of discontent (which, actually, was building-up long before February 28, 1947) due to the KMT administration's corruption and its discrimination against local residents. But the problem was not addressed immediately. The US supported Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and ignored the discontent simply because he was an ally who fought communism.
It's too late to reverse history, and too late to comfort those families whose loved ones were executed by dictator Chiang during Taiwan's White Terror. But it is never too late to speak one's conscience now and to support the rights of Taiwanese as guaranteed by the UDHR. Taiwanese have the right to a nationality of their choice, and since there is no longer a Chinese Civil War, mainlanders who prefer to go back to embrace their original motherland are free to go, and any mainlanders who wish to become Taiwanese citizens are free to stay. But forcing all Taiwanese to become Chinese citizens -- whether it be citizens of the no-longer-recognized ROC or the currently-recognized PRC -- is totally unacceptable.
Contrary to its founding principles (especially noting the one that says that governments "deriv[e] their just powers from the consent of the governed,"), the US government has ignored human rights of others while giving priority to its own national and international interests. As democracy and human rights developed in Taiwan and have been in conflict with the US foreign interests, the human rights of Taiwanese have been ignored again and again. There is a consistent trail of betrayal of these principles.
It is inevitable that a referendum must be held by Taiwan's residents to resolve the future status of Taiwan. Then the people be guaranteed their rights to move freely according to their choice of nationality. It is not like the US says, that as long as it is resolved peacefully between the people on two sides of the Strait (adding one condition: that the US's China policy does not support Taiwan independence to give a tilted favor obviously towards the evil human rights abuser, CCP-PRC), anything goes.
I simply hope that countries -- especially the European ones listed in the UN's "Human Development Report" (15 of the top 20 are in Europe) -- can soon realize that if the CCP-PRC government can threaten Taiwan with missiles now and can even extend its influence onto Australian and German soil now, the CCP-PRC will continue to be increasingly encouraged to increase its bullying around the world.
So, Europeans, speak up, and support Taiwanese rights to a nationality of their choice through a referendum. No one should be denied the rights guaranteed to them by the UDHR. No country's status should remain undetermined for more than half a century just because it suits some other country's strategic plan.
Though the constitution promulgated in 1946 did not define the territory of the Republic of China, while the draft of the constitution of 1925 individually listed the provinces of the Republic of China and Taiwan was not among them, since Taiwan was part of Japan as the result of the Treaty of Shimonoseki of 1895.
The same language was used in Article 2 of the Treaty of Peace between China and Japan [My note: AKA the Sino-Japanese Peace Treaty or the Treaty of Taipei] signed on April 28, 1952. In neither treaty did Japan cede this area to any particular entity. As Taiwan and Pescadores are not covered by any existing international disposition, sovereignty over the area is an unsettled question subject to future international resolution.
Editor's note on problematic translation Once again, from the Taipei Times version:
Also, why has the US not dared to refer to our government as the ROC "government" and simply addressing it as the ROC ever since the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) took effect in 1979?
This sentence makes it sound like the US refers to Taiwan as the "ROC" even today. The fact is that in the TRA (whose "T" stands for "Taiwan"), the "ROC" is basically consigned to the dustbin of history from the US perspective. Each and every reference to the ROC in that document talk about "the governing authorities on Taiwan recognized by the United States as the Republic of China prior to January 1, 1979."
Taiwanese should petition for a referendum on the 2003 Referendum law, a vote on which coinciding with the 2012 Presidential election because only then will turnout be sufficient to come close to meeting the current 50% of all voters threshold.
The referendum could be worded as follows (my idea here) "Do you agree that the threshold for the Referendum Law should be lowered to 50% of all participating voters and that review of referendum petitions must be made by a body independent of the Executive Yuan and Legislative Yuan?"
Following the success of the Penghu referendum, more localities should be encouraged to raise petitions and hold referendums on critical local issues.
The proposed Erlin Science Park chemical waste controversy in Changhua is a good example of an issue that could go to a referendum.
Referendums are therefore critical direct democracy tools which can first be used to curb the impact of the industrial-political complex and protect the environment.
Support for Taiwan's immediate independence increases by more than 25%
... in just five months!
UPDATE 2a: The title and subheadline of this post [originally: "Support for Taiwan's immediate independence nearly triples ...in just six months!" -- based on a comparison with the MAC survey quoted below] has been changed to reflect a better comparison with a survey done by the same pollster the month after the MAC poll. Details from that poll and a link to the original are included below in "Update 2b." [/update 2a]
[Tim Maddog translation:] The survey says that 19.0% support independence as soon as possible. 10.3% want to preserve the status quo for now but declare independence later. (Supporters of immediate independence and delayed independence amount to 29.3%.) 40.7% want to preserve the status quo and decide later, while 11% want to preserve the status quo indefinitely (totaling 51.7% in favor of preserving the status quo [sic]). 4.3% want to preserve the status quo but unify with the mainland [sic] later. 4.0% of Taiwanese want to unify with the mainland [sic] as soon as possible. (Those in favor of unification add up to 8.3%.) After President Ma took office, there has been no change in support for unification.
[Tim Maddog translation:] [...] 15% support immediate independence [...]
The current figure of 19% support for immediate independence would therefore amount to an increase of 26.66% (a four percentage point increase from the earlier 15%). The total support for unification in the May 2009 poll amounted to 8.3% -- precisely the same as the most recent poll. [/update 2b]
China's Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) -- chairman of the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait -- is coming to Taiwan for talks (and possibly to sign agreements) with Straits [sic] Exchange Foundation (海峽交流基金會) chairman and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) vice-chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) this December. Will you be out there protesting?
Trampling the UN Declaration of Human Rights for 60 years
Chinese officials celebrate -- regular Chinese citizens, not so much
The United Nations (UN) will soon be celebrating the 61st anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (ratified December 10, 1948), a declaration which says that "the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." The People's Republic of China (PRC), on the other hand, just proudly celebrated 60 years (and still counting) of trampling over the UDHR.
PRC missiles on display during their National Day Screenshot from SETN (三立新聞) (Click to enlarge)
The Empire State Building was at the center of a controversy for cheerleading Chinese Communism by lighting up the building's spire in red and yellow on China's national day. Such offensive behavior demonstrates that people with corporate minds but without business ethics do exist in capitalist America. The good side of this is that America is a country where there is enough freedom for others (Americans and foreigners alike) who don't agree with economic terrorism and cultural genocide to express their support for the oppressed people of Tibet.
Here's a YouTube video of a protester discussing the lighting ceremony of the Empire State Building in honor of the 60th anniversary of China's revolution and another one showing protesters outside the building Saying NO to China's Empire! Bravo to the Tibetans who stood up for themselves and fought back by projecting pro-Tibet messages from the base of the Empire State building onto other buildings in the vicinity!
On the same day, the blog of the conservative Heritage Foundation suggested that the Empire State Building should be lit up in blue and red to "honor the 'free' Chinese," but two wrongs don't make a right. Such a display would be the second half -- within 10 days! -- of a double insult to the people of Taiwan who suffered the 228 Massacre (二二八大屠殺) at the hands of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), a party which is now preparing to surrender to China -- taking the majority Taiwanese population along as hostages.
The people of Taiwan do not need the Empire State Building to be lit up in any color for them. We simply need our rights to build a normal nation to be respected.
Meanwhile, the Internet was shut off in Xinjiang (新疆, AKA Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, 新疆維吾爾自治區, East Turkestan, شەرقىي تۈركىستان, 東突厥斯坦) in early July and has still not been turned back on nearly three months later.
Chinese authorities simply don't want to give their citizens any freedom of expression. China's domestic Internet companies like Tencent currently has to share their records with the Chinese authorities as requested.
[See more, very interesting, and link-filled related information from Rebecca MacKinnon and Radio Free Asia on how Chinese authorities launched the latest cyber wars against their own citizens -- and more -- in the "References" section below.]
In addition to China's declaration of cyberwarfare against its own citizens, hackers known to the PRC government also attacked cultural events sites like those of the international film festivals in Melbourne, Australia and Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Some Chinese citizens do dare to stage demonstrations against their authorities, but they only do so because Hong Kong has received more tolerant treatment from the rest of China. Watch a video of Hong Kong's police standing by observing demonstrators demanding more freedom and respect for human rights without harassing them (noticeable at the 0:38 and 0:57 marks in the video). The protest against the nearby Chinese National Day celebration (中國國慶 香港議員示威抗議) was organized by some Hong Kong councilors.
In contrast, under the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) administration, Taiwan's police force has treated citizens with double standards, allowing some people to celebrate and parade the PRC's five-star flag while interrupting and then arresting a patriotic demonstrator as he burned the PRC flag. (video: KMT-ROC police suppress a patriot in favor of their enemy). Shame on Taiwan's police!
However, the same day that China was parading a fake "Taiwan float" in its National Day celebration, across the Strait thousands of real Taiwanese were attending screenings of Kadeer's "The 10 Conditions of Love" in 5 major cities across Taiwan. (The "Kaohsiung" link 3 paragraphs above has a preview of "The 10 Conditions of Love.") Many others viewed their beautiful island via a link posted on Michael Turton's blog, The View from Taiwan. Check out the superb quality of Taiwan's High Definition video -- the clearest video I've ever seen on YouTube.
China, already armed with nuclear weapons and continuing to increase its military spending, is also known for its cyber spying all over the globe and its disrespect for intellectual property rights. The potential merger of the world's two richest parties -- the KMT and the CCP -- is the biggest threat to world peace economically as well as militarily since the Chinese government's daily operations need not be subject to the approval of a parliament, and without transparency, they can do anything they want to undermine global security.
Remember also how Beijing blocked WHO assistance to Taiwan for two months during the SARS crisis of 2003? Remember how China spread the avian flu by smuggling chicken? These are the kinds of examples from which the world should have learned a lesson, but it seems that too few people have.
[...] maybe China owns the Empire State building now, lol. ???
If the Chinese haven't bought it yet, they might just do so in the not-so-distant future. This is what we call economic terrorism!
But, if the world's politicians wake up and support China's true ambassadors -- the human rights activists perishing in Chinese jails -- then maybe soon Chinese and foreigners can together celebrate a responsible Chinese government that poses no threat to world peace.
Stop appeasing to CCP's bullying around the globe, and help Chinese citizens build their dream nation, one that respects the UDHR!
[Tim Maddog translation:] Taiwanese or Chinese? Given only these 2 choices, over 7/10 (72%) of respondents identify selves as Taiwanese, an increase of 4 percentage points since last year's cross-strait talks
See the Rebiya Kadeer documentary "10 Conditions of Love"
Nationwide showings Thursday, October 1, 2009
Think of it as a big middle finger to our belligerent neighbor across the Strait on their birthday, and get your asses out to see the documentary "The 10 Conditions of Love" (愛的十個條件), about the life of World Uyghur Congress leader Rebiya Kadeer (رابىيه قادىر, 熱比婭).
From an e-mail I received, here's the info about the showings with Google map links and my translations added.
熱比婭紀錄片「愛的十個條件」： 十月一日北中南19:00同步播放：
Rebiya Kadeer documentary "10 Conditions of Love": October 1, playing simultaneously at 7:00 PM in northern, central, and southern Taiwan
It's official. The DPP has gained back one of the two Yunlin County Legislative Yuan seats, increasing their share of seats in the national LY by 1 to a total of 28, or just one seat short of 25% of all seats. The DPP's share of the vote, incidentally, was the same as Ma Ying-jeou's Presidential win in 2008 - 58%
But hold onto your horses. Although this represents to a certain degree a vote of no confidence in the KMT and/or President Ma we should remember that Yunlin is traditionally a DPP stronghold so the significance of the swing vote should not be overestimated. Additionally, as in past elections, the DPP have won, to a certain extent, owing to a split in the KMT ticket. However, those who would argue this point more strongly and against the result indicating a significant public expression of discontent with the ruling party should look at those figures combined: DPP74,272Combined Pan Blue52,025 - that's a margin of 22,247, roughly equal to the total votes of the third placed candidate.
Could it be that the local elections in December turn out more surprising results? If anything, for the sake of diversity of power and opinion in Taiwan's democracy, let's hope so.
and the bad news ....
As EVA and I were chatting tonight about the denial of a visa to Rebiya Kadeer, leader of the World Uighur Congress, some contradictions in the Government's arguments against issuing a visa became apparent:
If Kadeer 'has ties to a terrorist organisation to some degree' *, why is that organisation not listed by the ROC as such and why did none of the 28 countries she has previously visited refuse her entry? (Tip to Mike Turton for also previously suggesting this)
If Kadeer 'has ties to a terrorist organisation to some degree' *, has the ROC just declared that the US harbours terrorists? (Not that I would dispute this claim given the number of 'graduates' of the School of Americas who terrorised Central and South America from the 1950's to the 1990's that still reside in the US to avoid punishment - e.g. Bolivia's former President Goni)
This from the Taipei Times: At a separate setting at a Washington symposium on Taiwan on Friday, New York University law professor Jerome Cohen — who taught Ma at Harvard University — asked: “Why shouldn’t they be free to invite any visitor they want so long as that visitor is not a terrorist? Rebiya Kadeer lives in Washington … She doesn’t seem to affect the security of the city. This is nonsense. Anyone who disagrees with them [Beijing] is [branded] a terrorist,” he said.
Why did Japan feel it ok to issue Kadeer with a visa but not the ROC? Actually the answer pretty much screams itself at you the minute you take a few moments to learn the basics about Taiwanese politics - China.
According to the Premier, “Xinjiang independence is not permitted by the [Republic of China] Constitution,”. Also not permitted by the ROC constitution is the political control of its territory by any other political force, e.g. the PRC. Will the ROC now come out and state that also? No, because that part of the constitution has been effectively frozen for since at least 1991 and the Government is careful to assert this formal claim only when it wishes to claim a spurious continuing sovereignty for the ROC. It claims instead that mutual non-recognition of the ROC(KMT) and PRC(CCP) is a basis for its modus vivendi policy that has delivered nothing for Taiwanese 'goodwill' in return from China except perhaps pandas and dependency on Chinese tourist dollars.
Has the blacklist returned, this time penned by Beijing?
Is freedom of speech and democracy only to be enjoyed by Taiwanese people in Taiwan?. Can foreigners not also enjoy these rights?
The Premier again: "Asked if he believed that Kadeer, a nominee for the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize, would launch terrorist attacks, Wu said: “Neither you nor I can fully understand all the details, but the MOI, the National Immigration Agency and other [government] units understand what the situation is in the international community.” Oh really? In one short statement, the Premier just effectively patronised every Taiwanese citizen as being incapable of comprehending the complex factors that Government agencies must take into account when making decisions - Government agencies that are staffed by ordinary Taiwanese. We are supposed to sit back and say, "Oh well, the MOI, NIA and other Government units had lots of good reasons for making this technical and complex decision so I'll trust in their better judgment." The Premier even tells us this is what he will do because it is too complex for him! What you just witnessed was the formally most powerful political person in Taiwan telling everyone to not concern themselves with things they can't comprehend and that the visa decision is therefore un-debatable. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.
The injustice of the verdict against Chen Shui-bian
It's no surprise Ma Ying-jeou never passed the bar exam
On September 11th, 2009, Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. This development will certainly divert people's attention from the poor performance of current president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) during the Typhoon Morakot rescue effort -- a performance which brought his approval rating down to a record low of 16 percent.
But Chen's case stinks not only because Taiwan does not have a set of healthy tax regulations but also because the testimony of criminal suspect Jeffrey Koo, Jr. (辜仲諒) was used to convict Chen in exchange for dropping charges against Koo.
The fact that Ma was able to ignore the overwhelming stench of this case while his Harvard Law School mentor felt sad about it leads me to conclude that it's not surprising to learn that Ma never passed the bar exam!
Ma's former mentor Jerome Cohen is certainly not proud of his former student. This is how Cohen reacted instead:
"It is a very sad day, it is also a very important day."
And how could Cohen not be sad? He had earlier given Ma a hint about Chen's human rights, but Ma didn't pay any attention.
Now the kangaroo court is going to lay more charges on Chen, and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-dominated Legislative Yuan is proposing yet another unfair law "decriminalizing" the use of the fund by government chiefs. This change will victimize only Chen while letting suspects in many previous corruption cases go free and will make things easier for future government officials to misuse their special allowances. If the new amendment is passed, pending corruption cases against KMT party members will be conveniently dismissed.
However, an English version of Chen's defense is available on a non-profit educational organization's site. and links are provided under "References" below.
I hope my analysis below will provide guidance to the people of Taiwan who may know very little about how political donations are dealt with elsewhere in the world and were blindly influenced by the pan-blue media in Taiwan into believing that Chen Shui-bian is guilty as charged. After all, a person is presumed innocent until proved guilty, and Chen should be treated with no exception.
Chen's unspent donations left over from previous election campaigns First, I would like to introduce some forms which are readily available from the Internet, and which are common knowledge to tax practitioner in North America: "information returns" and "trust returns" like the ones below.
This is the information return (T2092) which is filed annually by a registered party or a registered association to show the total contributions received, and all the slips detailing each contributor's amount of contribution and his name and address must be kept for 2 years for possible selective inspection by a government auditor.
But this type of information return does not exist in Taiwan because the KMT does not want to disclose their secret financial dealings and its total donations received.
The information provided at the link above gives clear guidance to the subject discussed. Pay special attention to points 25, 26, 27, 28 (maximum deduction of $650 from tax payable so no one will benefit from a huge donation and consequently avoiding bribery), and 32 (no carry over of unused deductions to the following tax year).
In the US tax system In the US, a political party can file an Income Tax Return for Certain Political Organizations [PDF file] (Form 1120-POL), and the rules are clear about what's exempt and what's not (investment income derived from political contributions are not exempt) see here.
But in Taiwan, the KMT does not want to pay taxes to the government on its investment income or business income or capital gains on sales of properties, nor do they want to return the assets to their rightful owners -- the people of Taiwan and to the now-defunct UNRRA -- so none of the aforementioned tax forms exist in Taiwan.
In other words, the KMT is like a criminal organization running some business enterprises while avoiding taxes along the way. And the transactions between the party and some key members of the party cannot be verified to be dealing at arm's length whereas the transactions between the party and the state were known to be indistinguishable during its terms in power.
In this respect, I find that the regulations in Taiwan needed serious overhaul.
In Chen's case, since no such filing requirements exist for political parties in Taiwan, it follows that the DPP wouldn't be able to file any returns similar to the ones mentioned above, nor would Chen be able to locate every last one of his supporters who donated to his election campaign and return the money to them (Which donors would get how much money back?) and ask them to donate again in future to other DPP candidates. So what could be done with the money left from Chen's election donations?
Chen couldn't report it under his personal income tax return -- nor should he have. Because the fund is for the purposes of his election or for other DPP functions, he knew that whenever there was a DPP event or whenever DPP candidates needed money for elections, he would be able to draw from these funds. In the meantime, moving the leftover donations abroad for investment was wise, and there was nothing wrong with that, otherwise he would have been subject to personal income taxes on this fund. That would have been an incorrect classification because this fund was not for his personal enjoyment. Moving money abroad did not constitute money laundering unless the prosecutors could establish that the money was obtained not from the donation leftovers but from a criminal act, e.g., money which belonged to the country.
There might have been disagreements between Chen and his wife as to how the money in this fund would be used, and perhaps his wife would have even liked to keep some (if not all) for their own family. While that would amount to selfishness, it wouldn't be a crime.
Additionally, people may have donated to Chen while not donating to other DPP candidates simply because people admired Chen so much for being a good Taiwanese role model who grew from a poor boy who almost had to drop out of school in order to work to help feed his family into a Taipei mayor with good record and, eventually, a national leader seeking reelection.
So, with the lack of Taiwan's tax regulations regarding political parties' information returns and/or tax returns, Chen couldn't be guilty on account of how the leftover donations were handled. While the KMT had all kinds of investment income and capital gains, they had never paid a cent of tax to the country -- this is tax avoidance.
The state affairs fund is similar in nature to the special allowances fund provided for administrative heads of government. The regulations governing both are loose and resemble guidelines more than strict laws. The application and reimbursement procedures of the state affairs fund have always been conducted in accordance with established practices. No one, from former President Chen and his aides to accountants in the Accounting Department of the Office of the President, has had any intention to commit crimes or corruption or to take money for their own pockets. They simply had inherited imperfect application and reimbursement procedures, which were the established practice left by the previous governments. This imperfect procedure can and should be reformed, but no one should be selectively charged with corruption simply because he or she had followed the previous governments' practice.
President Chen had, on his own initiative, cut his monthly salary by half, which means that his annual income was reduced by NT$5 million per year resulting in an NT$40 million reduction of his salary over his eight-year presidency. He had also, on his own discretion, terminated the Fongtian project and the Dangyang project, two secret National Security Bureau funds totaling NT$3.6 billion that used to be called "the President's private money." Moreover, he had donated all of his presidential election subsidies of more than NT$340 million. How then could such a president have any motive for embezzling a paltry NT$104 million from the state affairs fund? Further, in that fund, Chen has listed all fund expenses to prove that the total amount of expenditures from that fund had far exceeded the original amount allotted to it. For that reason, the accusation in the bill of indictment that "[Chen] had raised funds from other sources to pay for the expenses he listed, but he still put the state affairs fund into his private pocket" is more than absurd!
In addition to the above points, the unreliable testimony by Jeffrey Koo, Jr. -- who was cleared of any criminal charges by implicating Chen as being involved in a land deal -- also played a crucial role. However, throughout the indictment, the prosecutors assumed that Chen directed his wife (who didn't hold any public post) to act on behalf of him (who held a public post). We should all know that a person without an official post couldn't commit the crime of corruption; therefore, in order to convict Chen, the court had to assume -- without proof -- that Chen was the mastermind and that he directed his wife to commit the act of corruption.
It is widely believed that while Chen was so occupied with national affairs that he actually let his wife handle the family's financial affairs. If there's anything for Chen to regret, it would have been that he should have paid much more attention to what his wife was doing instead of being such a damn good Taiwanese nationalist leader, for it angered both China and the United States, causing him to be labeled as a troublemaker.
Chen's priority was always how to make Taiwan a normal nation, as he describes here in Block C of this interview on CNN's TalkAsia:
[Q. by Anjali Rao:] President you're now in the last term of your presidency what are your priorities now?
A: As the leader of this nation, I want to make Taiwan into a normal country. Even though Taiwan is an independent, sovereign country, it is not yet a normal and complete country. Why do I say that Taiwan is not yet a normal country? Because if it were, it would be a member of the UN family and also be the member of the World Health Organization. Why do I say that Taiwan is not yet a complete country? Because our current Constitution has never been approved by our people. The 23 million people of Taiwan really need a new Taiwan constitution that is timely, relevant, and viable.
I want to put the emphasis on striking a good balance between prosperity and social justice and equity. Therefore, our main policy goals include increasing investment in Taiwan, continuing to create more job opportunities, bridging the gap between urban and rural areas, as well as decreasing the gap between the rich and poor. These are our major policy goals.
Holding Chen incommunicado without being charged, conducting a "trial by press" by leaking detrimental information to the media, and videotaping Chen's meetings with his lawyers (a practice which was declared unconstitutional by the Council of Grand Justices) had all violated Chen's right to build an effective defense. Topping it off was the unconstitutional switch of the presiding judge to Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) to take over Chen's case all pointed to the weakness of a fair trial.
The opinion from Chen's original lawyer about the unconstitutional change of the presiding judge to Tsai stated that the case should have been reverted back to the judge who was handling the case from the beginning, i.e. judge Chou Chan-chun (周占春) [Taiwan Matters translation]:
Chen Shui-bian's original lawyer Cheng Wen-lung said that since Chou Chan-chun was replaced with Tsai Shou-hsun by the procedural committee, this violates judicial principles, and he believed that this rendered the entire case unconstitutional and invalid.
Cheng said, "We are confident that the Council of Grand Justices will declare this case unconstitutional. Since this is an unconstitutional ruling, it surely is an invalid ruling. The best way to deal with this in an appeals court (AKA "court of second instance") would be to dismiss and return the case to the first court proceeding ("court of first instance") for the original judge, Chou Chan-chun. Because of the order in which this trial has proceeded, we believe that the case is still under judge Chou's jurisdiction."
Asked whether it was appropriate for the judge to have been changed half-way through Chen's trial, Cohen said it would have been reasonable if judge Tsai Shou-hsun (蔡守訓) had taken up and presided over the Taipei District Court's collegiate panel right from the start.
Because the judges were changed after the case had started, it was natural that there was public doubt over the matter, he said.
The chaos resulting from the recent erosion of justice in Taiwan reveals two key personnel who -- like cancer cells -- should have been removed immediately from the government's posts. A brief background check for them revealed some interesting details.
The first of these is Minister of JusticeWang Ching-feng (王清峰), who was the chairperson of the unconstitutional, pan-blue-dominated "319 Truth Commission" (319 槍擊事件真相調查特別委員會) (MORE: 1, 2, 3), a committee that tried to overturn Chen's 2004 presidential election victory by claiming that Chen staged the March 19, 2004 assassination attempt on himself in order to win sympathy votes.
The case [which voided the criminal corruption conviction of former US senator Ted Stevens-R] also illustrates the importance of having a justice department chief courageous enough to repudiate his staff's misconduct, replace the offending prosecutors, initiate an investigation and drop the charges.
The second one is judge Tsai Shou-hsun, who just happens to be the judge who acquitted Ma Ying-Jeou for his involvement in his special allowance corruption case and jailed Ma's secretary, Yu Wen, instead.
Cohen's "Lesson in Integrity for All" also contains another hidden message for Tsai:
Several times during the trial, Judge Emmet Sullivan, prompted by dynamic defence counsel, reprimanded prosecutors for withholding evidence, and sought to remedy any damage to the defence.
Chen's case has caused outrage among the people in the English blogosphere. One example can be read here:
If you look at the evidence, it's actually fairly weak. One of the charges was to do with a land transaction for a science park. I don't believe testimony actually showed Chen's connection to it, just that of his wife. But, with almost all the charges, the prosecutor said "how could Chen not know". I'm not sure how why husbands are responsible for the crimes of their wives.
What Chen was guilty of was taking advantage of a big hole in Taiwanese law that allows politicians to deal with surplus campaign funds as they see fit. There were proposals to close this during Chen's presidencies, but the KMT-controlled legislature strangely cut them all down. So I'm not sure how that's a crime either, least of all money-laundering. To launder money it has to be obtained illegally, from criminal proceeds, etc. If the law doesn't say Chen wasn't entitled to keep it, moving it around can't possibly be money-laundering.
People say that Ma is keeping Chen in prison because Ma cannot continue to deceive the people of Taiwan without Chen being around to divert attention; in case you haven't noticed, the Mandarin word for "cheat" or "deceive" is piàn (騙), which is formed by combining two characters. Ironically, the left half is Ma's surname, which means "horse" (馬), and the right half is the latter half of the former president's given name: Bian (扁). Ma wishes to keep A-bian behind bars so A-bian's case can help Ma to continue deceiving the nation by drawing away attention from his poor performance.
Taiwanese people who divide themselves among pro-Chen or anti-Chen camps should view the whole situation from a broader scope. Since the Ma administration came into power in 2008, justice and rule of law in Taiwan are swiftly being eroded. Something has to be done quickly to stop this.
The KMT is not just a simple political party -- it is a criminal organization engaged in tax avoidance economic activities, and has never paid a cent of tax to the country on its investment and other business or capital gains income. They have illegally sold properties and assets misappropriated from the Taiwanese people and of international aid to private owners.
If the heavy fines imposed on the accused in Chen's case are paid, they will eventually wind up in the combined KMT government's coffers to assist the party in its subsequent criminal activities, e.g. tax avoidance economic activities and vote-buying schemes, resulting in a vicious cycle.
As Chen Shui-bian pointed out in the TalkAsia interview, the people of Taiwan have never approved the ROC constitution which has been used to govern Formosa since the arrival of the KMT per General Order no. 1. They never had a chance to conduct a fair election independent from the ROC constitution and were consequently deprived of the chance to have a normal functional legislative body to pass fair laws.
Taiwanese abroad should hold a demonstration in front of the UN, and the people of Taiwan should protest in front of the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) to demand the confiscation of all the assets of the KMT criminal organization and evict that party from Taiwan. It is a Chinese party which should not participate in Taiwanese elections. Since there is no longer any hostility between the two Chinese parties (the KMT, and the CCP), the KMT's ROC government should terminate its exile status and return to its origins -- namely, any territory in China -- and let the de facto independent Taiwan become a normal nation.
The erosion of justice in Taiwan: This has been a long-running series. Here, in chronological order, is a list of some recent letters on the subject and news about related events:
According to recent surveys conducted by Academia Sinica and the Web site Yahoo! Kimo, over 50 percent of the people do not believe in Taiwan's judicial system and over 75 percent have no confidence that the Judicial Yuan will undertake judicial reform [...]
* May 22, 2009: An estimable group of scholars and writers -- 26 in all, and each one with a deep understanding of Taiwan and the surrounding facts -- has composed an open letter addressed directly to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九). The letter addresses the ever-increasing problems with judicial fairness, press freedom, the lack of transparency in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) rapprochement with China, the loss of Taiwan's sovereignty, and the loss of human rights. The argument the letter makes is rock solid. It is based on demonstrable facts.
In my limited experience, the key to being reflexive to feedback is to evaluate oneself critically and to demonstrate, in word and deed, that you can see both the mistakes and successes on your record, subsequently using that assessment to improve your performance. This is especially important for political leaders. In the UK, hubris would not be considered an attractive or confidence building personality. Typhoon Morakot showed that Taiwanese also have limited tolerance for arrogance. Despite this, it is strange that Taiwan's President would make the following comments: (and these on cross-strait policy)
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday told guests at the Presidential Office that there was much room for improvement in terms of solidifying the rule of law in Taiwan,but congratulated himself for what he said was his careful exercise of power.
Ma said that those in power had to guard against corruption and abusing their authority.
Citing the example of calls for him to declare a state of emergency amid the crisis left behind by Typhoon Morakot, Ma said he would have risked abusing his power had he given in to public pressure.
“I’d like to leave a legacy of building a country based on the rule of law,” he said. “That is the main reason why I am willing to find time to see you today.” (Seemingly, Cohen's previous criticisms have stung Ma - this is hardly a warm welcome)
If a leader congratulates him or herself I tend to be immediately suspicious. It seems a very transparent and slightly desperate attempt write the historical record in their own favour, rather than let public opinion be the judge. It is the next claim however, that Ma would risk abusing his own power if he had declared a state of emergency, that is at the very least strange if not outright illogical.
Does Ma mean that declaring a state of emergency would would have put him in conflict with the constitutional limits of the power of his position or does he mean that if he had declared a state of emergency, he would then have had such increased powers that he would be unable to stop himself abusing them?
Perhaps there's something lost in the translation, but on the face of it Ma's comments indicate that the President lacks skills in reasoning and rational debate which would allow him to make a much better case to support his decisions. One contrast between Ma and Chen is apt here. Chen fought his way through local and then national politics to become first Taipei Mayor and then President. Along the way, he had to win a war of words with many a tough opponent, both in the DPP and the KMT. As a trained lawyer, Chen was able to clearly articulate his vision, inspire and maintain confidence in his leadership. That was until about 2006. In the early 1990's Ma and Chen went head to head in a public debate. I forget the details but in the video I saw, it was Chen who won the crowd with fast and pithy responses. A younger looking Ma was left fumbling for his words. Fast forward to the present day and Ma as President seemingly continues to lack the skill of oration or clear elucidation of argument. This may in part be attributable to the way Ma rose up to become President. In contrast to Chen, Ma was a loyal secretary to Chiang Jing-guo and his father was a mid-ranked party member who was actively shaping his son for a role that Ma perhaps did not readily choose for himself. Ma's experience was not of engaging with the democratic process, and having the experience shape and deepen his character, but rather be selected, outside of merit, on the basis of who he was rather than what he was. This may be one of the reasons why as soon as a real disaster befell his nation, Ma turned out to be less the competent executive than the media had built him up to be. In a way, if in his election campaign, Ma and pro-KMT media had painted him is terms less rosy then the high expectations and subsequent disappointment could have been avoided.
Ma’s approval dropped to a record low of 29 percent after the typhoon claimed so many lives, according to an Aug. 18 survey of 919 adults conducted by the United Daily News. The poll had a margin of error of 3.29 percentage points. About 46 percent of respondents didn’t have confidence in his administration’s relief and rebuilding efforts in the aftermath of the storm.
Bloomberg's number increases Ma's actual rating by almost 45 percent (13 percentage points). As I wrote on August 20 [highlighting added this time around]:
When TVBS says their own guy is doing this bad, he's doing much worse.(Click to enlarge)
I sent an e-mail with the above information to both Culpan and Ong last night just to be sure that these Taiwan-based reporters hadn't somehow overlooked the huge news about Ma's 16 percent approval rating. Yet approximately 24 hours later, there hasn't been any sort of reply, so I think that it's safe to say at this point that they either published this "error" on purpose or simply don't care about the facts.
As of 9:50 PM September 9, a figure which was off by almost 45% (and which was already pointed out to the authors) remained in this Bloomberg article. (Click to enlarge)
Taiwan won't attempt to seek UN membership this year, officials said Friday, in a move one observer said was aimed at patching up ties with Beijing after the Dalai Lama's visit.
"Instead of asking our allies to submit a proposal to join the United Nations, we will seek other kinds of meaningful participation," said a foreign ministry official.
"It is a change of method but we will not give up the Taiwan people's right to join the UN."
[...]
Last year, Taipei made an attempt to join the World Meteorological Organization and other specialised UN agencies rather than seeking full UN membership.
Here are some of my observations derived from the controversial statements made by the unnamed official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
First, the official stated that "we will not give up the rights of the people of Taiwan to join the UN"; however, when the Ma government suddenly lets go of the chance to apply for UN membership after Taiwan made 16 consecutive annual attempts previously, how does this government expect anyone to believe them when they say they are "not giv[ing] up the Taiwan people's right to join the UN"?
Second, UN Resolution 2758 -- which stated that Chiang Kai-shek's (蔣介石) representative would be expelled from the UN's China seat and be replaced by a representative of the PRC government in Beijing -- did not mention anything about the Taiwanese people's right to join the UN or Taiwan's seat. (See Tim Maddog's earlier post: "Taiwan isn't China's.") Furthermore, it was the United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration (UNRRA -- eventually replaced by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR] in 1952) that assigned the ROC to administer post-WWII Formosa, if there were any arguments about representation between China and Taiwan, it should be resolved at the source of problem, namely the UN, which is responsible for the creation of this problem. The representation of China (ROC or PRC) was already addressed by UN resolution 2758. The residents of Taiwan have been fighting for their rights internally against the ROC administration and externally against the PRC government's unlawful claim to represent them.
Third, the Ma administration stated that they had made attempts to join the World Meteorological Organization, but a simple check of region II of the map on their website (I even checked the region V, just to be sure) shows that neither Taiwan nor Chinese Taipei (to use Ma's favorite term to describe Taiwan) is a member. If Taiwan were a member, the information received from the WMO would probably have helped Taiwan's Central Weather Bureau to forecast typhoons more accurately. So, the report card shows a grade of "Zero" for last year's so-called "attempts" by the Ma government.
Fourth, in 2007, former president Chen Shui-bian had applied for Taiwan's UN bid as early as July, Ma's statement in September showed that no matter what excuses he provides, he does everything too slowly, ranging from the Typhoon Morakot rescue to the UN membership bid to possibly even Swine Flu (A[H1N1]) prevention, this continual inaction leads us to wonder what we elect a president for. Who is Ma working for: the Taiwanese or our neighbor across the Strait who have at least 1,500 missiles targeting us?
Fifth, the so-called change of method regarding meaningful participation was demonstrated to Taiwanese residents this past spring by way of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan's temporary attendance at the World Health Assembly (WHA), which was subject to annual approval by China in exchange for selling out Taiwan's sovereignty, not to mention the lack of any progress in securing an independent membership at the World Health Organization (WHO) as desired by the people of Taiwan. Therefore, it is a dangerous move by the Ma administration to continue using the WHA model to gain access to international organizations by being an associate member under Beijing's seat, or under Beijing's permission via a secret Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the CCP and the KMT parties.
On behalf of all residents of Taiwan, the bloggers of Taiwan Matters would like to ask all residents and friends of Taiwan who value the universality of the UN and the rights of Taiwanese people to join the UN to continue signing this existing petition on www.GoPetition.com to counter Ma's inaction on this issue and the PRC's false representation. (Only sign once. If you've already done so, please encourage others to do so as well.) While you're at it, there's another petition on that site that could use your signature, too: "Remove Missiles Pointed At Taiwan 移除所有的導彈對準台灣." What are you waiting for? Go sign now!
RSS Feed
