Taiwan Matters!

Ma Ying-jeou government under fire again

2011-08-03T03:21:00.000+08:00

As time moves forward, Ma's administration moves backward

A group of 39 observers of Taiwanese politics from around the world -- many of whom were part of an earlier series of open letters on the erosion of justice in Taiwan under the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government -- is in the news yet again. This time, they're focusing on the indictment against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝).

Here's some of the main content [highlights mine]:

Dear President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九),

We the undersigned, international academics, analysts and writers from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia, have for many years been keen observers of political developments in Taiwan. We were delighted when Taiwan made its transition to democracy in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and we continue to care deeply for the country and its future as a free and democratic nation-state.

However, during the past three years, many of us have felt it necessary to address publicly our concerns to you about the erosion of justice and democracy in Taiwan, most recently in April this year regarding the charges of the "36,000 missing documents" against a number of prominent former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) officials. We raised these issues as international supporters of Taiwan's democracy.

At this time we express our deep concern about the charges against former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝), often referred to as "the father of Taiwan's democracy," who was indicted on June 30 on charges of allegedly channeling US$7.8 million from secret diplomatic funds into the Taiwan Research Institute. These charges and their timing raise a number of questions that are related both to the case itself and the integrity of the judicial system in Taiwan.

After detailing the specific questions (which you can read at the link above) -- the first of which mentions that the charges stem from events which took place about 15 years ago -- the letter continues [highlights mine]:

Mr President, as head of state you bear overall responsibility for the state of affairs in Taiwan. In democratic systems, proper checks and balances between the executive, legislative and judiciary branches are of the utmost importance. The executive and the legislative branches have a responsibility to exercise oversight and to balance activism in the judiciary, just as the judiciary serves a similar role with regard to the executive and legislative branches. Stating that your government abides by "judicial independence" is therefore not enough. It is essential that all participants in the judicial process — prosecutors, judges and lawyers — are fully imbued with the basic principle that the judiciary is scrupulously impartial and not given to any partisan preferences.

We, as members of the international academic community, are left with the impression that the indictments and practices of the judiciary in Taiwan over the past three years reflect a judicial system that is increasingly influenced by political considerations. There has been a regression in the accomplishments of Taiwan's momentous democratization of the 1990s and 2000s. As good friends of Taiwan, we are deeply unsettled by this. It undermines Taiwan's international image as a free and democratic nation.

Mr President, we therefore urge you and your government to ensure that the judicial system is held to the highest standards of objectivity and fairness. Taiwan has many challenges ahead of it and it cannot afford the political divisions created by the use of the judicial system for political purposes.

Respectfully yours,
[the undersigned]

You can say that again (and they probably will)!

Some of the prequels
Don't forget the earlier parts of this long-running series, listed here in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter -- as an online petition -- was signed by more than 2,000 people. (The petition is now closed.)

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:
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.

* November 9, 2009: Then there were 31. The Taiwan News publishes an "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" which 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." (Here's a version with 31 names on the web site of one of the signatories, Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D.)

* December 13, 2009: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) submits the "GIO response to Nov. [9] open letter" to the Taipei Times.

* December 25, 2009: Richard Kagan, professor emeritus at Hamline University in St Paul, Minnesota and one of the signatories of the November 2009 letter, replies to Su Jun-pin's silliness in "GIO's response misses the point"

* January 8, 2010: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) churns out A GIO response to Richard Kagan (one of the signatories of the November 9, 2009 "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars") in which Su compares apples and oranges by imagining that other people don't know that China wants to annex Taiwan while the Taiwanese people don't want to be part of China, ignores what has happened to Hong Kong in the past 12 and a half years, talks about the "double-taxation" issue as if China won't still get those taxes from Taiwanese businesses, pretends to forget that Taiwan's 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) referred to himself as a "rubber stamp," complains that his government has no control over anything, ignores the KMT's continued attempts to take over Taiwan's Public TV (PTS, 公共電視), confuses gains in local elections with a balanced legislature and a president who listens to majority opinion without oppressing minorities or stupidly saying out loud that he "sees them as humans," and completely omits the fact that the talks regarding an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) -- which Chinese officials say "will certainly bring about complete unification of the motherland [sic] -- have been anything but transparent and have not been subject to legislative oversight. These things, Mr. Su, are clear signs of an erosion of both justice and democracy.

* February 9, 2010: Michael Danielsen, one of the signatories of the Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou last November, rebuts Su Jun-pin's response to Richard Kagan last month by pointing out that Democratic liberty is fundamental, "look[ing] forward to actual steps [by Su and the Ma government] that go beyond mere words."

* April 11, 2011: Another open letter criticizes the government's charges that 17 former DPP officials are responsible for "'failing to return' about 36,000 documents during the DPP administration" which ended almost three years earlier.

* April 14, 2011: In what is hard not to perceive as intimidation, the Foreign Ministry says it's going to probe this latest open letter, with Ma officials implying along the way that some of the writers were not of sound mind.

* April 17, 2011: The Chinese-language Liberty Times (自由時報) notices the intimidation factor: "The Liberty Times Editorial: KMT uses law as a political weapon."

* April 22, 2011: The Taipei Times draws a similar conclusion: "EDITORIAL: Government starts to sound like PRC."

I can already imagine how the Ma government will respond the latest letter.

How long can this continue? As long as Taiwanese allow the Chinese KMT to hold political power, it will just keep going and going and going.

Unsealing utensils: Taiwan, 台灣, open letter, 公開信, erosion of justice, 侵蝕司法, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Chinese Nationalist Party, 中國國民黨, Kuomintang, KMT, 國民黨, Lee Teng-hui, 李登輝

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

What's wrong with Taiwan’s current electoral system

2011-04-14T01:45:00.001+08:00

A lesson for Taiwan's swing voters about the importance of legislative elections

Many people in Taiwan believe that as long as they have right to vote, then they live in a democratic society. Few people would further examine whether they are actually able to go to the polls under fair rules. Fair rules give election results that protect democracy while unfair rules put it in jeopardy.

This post refers to a published academic paper and to the current ROC Constitution in order to demonstrate to readers some problems with the current electoral system in Taiwan, one which actually gives permanent advantages to the pan-blue coalition in elections for the Legislative Yuan (LY). Unless corrective measures are taken, Taiwan's political institution is heading towards an unhealthy direction, i.e. it either selects a KMT president with a "rubber-stamp" Legislative Yuan -- which allows unchecked KMT executive power -- or ensures a DPP lame duck president who cannot carry out policies s/he wishes to implement.

For Taiwan's Legislative Election results see the links here.

For info on how the 2008 Legislative Yuan electoral districts were determined, read "Central Election Commission reclassifies electoral districts."

Many western countries conduct national census on population every 5 or 10 years (such as the census short form of the US or Canada) and through census it forms the basis for electoral district divisions. However, electoral district divisions in Taiwan are not based on a census, leaving room for problems such as votes of unequal value (over representation and under representation), and gerrymandering.

For how the new LY seat distribution rule was changed in 2008, see Note 1 under the "References" section below.

For data on voter turnout rates, see this link.

After the most recent legislative election in January 2008 in which the KMT won seats by a landslide majority (following the first implementation of the 2005 reforms, see Note 1), no one studied the most important reason behind the DPP's disappointing outcome in details better than a scholar named Daniel C. O'Neill. He presented a paper at the 2009 Midwest Political Science Association Conference in which he carefully observed the effect of electoral rules on the Democratic Progressive Party's performance in the 2004 and 2008 Legislative Elections in Taiwan.

In brief, the description about the DPP's poor performance in the 2008 LY election can be read starting from p.14 of the paper with illustration of table 4 and 5 on the percentages of vote share and seat share by the DPP and the pan-green coalition respectively. A slight drop of approximately 3 to 4 percentage points in vote share (from 43.5% in 2004 to 39.1% in 2008) for the pan-green coalition translates into a huge drop of 21 percentage-point share of legislative seats (from 44.9% in 2004 to 23.9% in 2008.)

On p.19 of the paper, O'Neill observed that in the 2004 LY election held under an SNTV (single non-transferable vote) electoral system, the DPP won 42% of the district seats with 36% of the vote (note: the figures used here are slightly different from the tables mentioned in the immediately preceding paragraph because it excludes the aboriginal districts from calculation per his note 8). In contrast, in 2008 under the MMM (mixed member majoritarian) system , the DPP's district vote share of over 38.7% earned the party fewer than 24% of the legislative seats. In other words, the DPP had a slightly larger vote share in 2008 than in 2004, but it resulted in an approximately 17 percentage-point drop in its share of legislative seats.

The KMT has a strong organizational base dating to the days of its authoritarian one-party rule of the island. Under the new MMM system, this organizational advantage has helped the party to achieve the plurality needed to win district elections. There are other "advantages" -- such as the KMT's asset-rich vote buying tactics and its connection to local criminal factions -- that facilitate KMT dominance in local elections.

For a study of vote buying in Taiwan's elections, see "Weighing a Shadow: Toward a Technique for Estimating the Effects of Vote-buying in Taiwan."

Seat determination in the LY is most troubled by the problem that each vote does not carry the same weight, meaning some districts are over-represented while other districts are under-represented. This is shown in table 6 on p. 22 of O'Neill's paper for the one-seat districts.

For population in each county see this link.

At the over representation extreme, Lienchiang County -- with a population of only 9,786 -- elects one legislator. Kinmen County and Penghu County, with populations of 79,884 and 91,942 respectively, also have one seat each. These low-density population districts -- i.e. offshore islands and east coast of Taiwan's mainland (Taitung County) -- traditionally KMT strongholds -- can elect legislators into the LY. On the other hand, the four one-seat districts with the greatest populations in Taiwan -- Hsinchu County, Yilan County, Hsinchu City, and Keelung City (475,928; 445,811; 395,239 and, 382,109 respectively) -- are examples of underrepresentation. There are also districts with the smallest population among the cities and counties with multiple seat representation, an example is Nantou County District 1 with 240,511 people, just 50.5% of the Hsinchu County district's population but with equal representation.

Historically, in early 19th century England and Wales, we saw the representation problem of the "rotten boroughs" after the industrial revolution moved the cluster of residents into the booming industrial towns, but the Reform Act of 1832 with later Reform Acts and Representation of the People Acts corrected some of the problems.

The six points of the People's Charter from a handbill handed out in the streets of Britain in 1838. Pay special attention to point five.
(From Think History!: Modern Times 1750-1990, by Caroline Beechener, Clive Griffiths, Amanda Jacob, ©2004, Pearson Education)
Now in the 21st century, Taiwan's democracy faces a similar issue of unequal representation. Isn't it time for a national census to determine the electoral districts? Drawing the electoral district borders should not be left until the last moment when strategic party planning for winning votes are hidden agenda for drawing the borders. Isn't it time for an effective delimitation to take place, one that is suitable for Taiwan's democracy to strive, before we even think about any elections and potential candidates and their policies?

The ROC Constitution on presidential recall and impeachment affecting election outcome

The DPP's presidential candidate in 2008, Frank Hsieh, did not even stand a chance against the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou because of the KMT's overwhelming majority in the LY election outcome two months earlier and the ROC Constitution for the impeachment of president practically eliminated Hsieh's chances. If Frank Hsieh had won the presidential election, he would have faced a hostile KMT majority in the LY that could initiate an impeachment shortly after his inauguration.

For details on presidential recall and impeachment read the excerpt in the "References" section below.

This important ROC Constitution governing presidential impeachment factor that had indeed affected the outcome of the 2008 presidential election was not mentioned by any of the foreign press at all. The mainstream media easily attributed Ma's win to Taiwanese welcoming his conciliatory China policy and to his promise to improve the economy. The media failed to observe that, on the contrary, Ma actually won the presidential campaign with the help of the LY election outcome earlier plus Ma's pre-election tactics of pretending to be a "true Taiwanese" -- growing up eating Taiwanese rice and speaking some Taiwanese to voters -- ready to defend Taiwan's interests and promising "no unification" during his term if elected. I believe the low turnout rate in the presidential election in 2008 can be attributed to this factor -- many pan green supporters simply didn't bother to vote because they thought if Hsieh could be impeached by the LY after winning, why should they bother to vote?

Without the backing of a majority in the legislature, a DPP (or pan-green) president will face a hostile LY that blocks any policies that he wishes to execute. (Remember which party's fault it was for not passing the arms purchase bill and for consequently weakening Taiwan's defense capabilities?) And worse, s/he would be facing the constant threat of impeachment by the LY, not to mention how an elected president could carry out his day-to-day duties. He would be spending all his time dealing with a hostile legislature that could initiate countless impeachment proceedings anytime it sees an opportunity (since the 2005 reform package did not set a limit on how many times such proceedings can take place).

The rules for impeachment of the ROC president say that it can only be initiated by the LY -- not by the people through a referendum. So even if half of the electorate in Taiwan wanted Ma to leave office after police mishandled protesters during Chen Yunlin's first visit to Taiwan and for his refusal of immediate foreign assistance during typhoon Morakot, as long as his party members occupied two-thirds of the LY seats, he'd be there to stay.

Do you think it is fair for the KMT party to receive about 56% of the popular votes but gain about 75% of the legislative seats? Do you think it is fair for a president that receives about 58% of the votes to have a 75% rubber-stamping legislative army to back his unchecked policies?

Isn't it time for the electoral system to undergo scrutiny so the supposedly democratic elections will one day become truly democratic?

I would like to offer a tentative electoral system that may be improved further with an objective of achieving a ratio of vote share to seat share to be as near as possible to 1:1. I believe that the indigenous people should be autonomous, and there should be no non-resident foreign representation in the LY.

1. Counties and cities are not to be divided into very small districts; the LY seats should be determined by proration according to the county or the city's population over the total population of Taiwan. And let the total number of legislators be 115 (just to be used for calculations in the following examples)

2. Very dense areas are to be subdivided while very low density areas should be combined as one district.

3. Multiple member first-past-the-post ballot should be implemented, the first number of candidates, in order of highest vote, corresponding to the number of positions to be filled are elected. If there are six vacancies in a district then the first six candidates with the highest vote are elected. A multiple selection ballot where more than one candidate can be voted for in which voters are allowed to cast a vote for as many candidates as there are vacant positions; the candidate(s) with the highest number of votes is elected.

4. Here are a few examples to illustrate the points above.

Example1:

Changhua county electoral district

1,312,491 / 23,164,457 x 115 = 6.51 rounding off to 7

So the county of Changhua will elect 7 legislators.

Voters in the Changhua county will have a multiple selection ballot where they can select any candidates they wish to represent Changhu in the LY up a maximum of 7.

The first 7 candidates receiving the highest ballots will be elected.

Example 2:

Penghu, Kinmen, Lienchiang combined into 1 electoral district.

200,549 / 23,164,457 x 115 = 0.996 rounding off to 1 (since the population is 96,387 + 94,205 + 10,002 = 200,549)

So these 3 areas combined will elect 1 legislator.

Voters in these 3 areas will have a ballot where they can select only 1 candidate they wish to represent them in the LY.

The candidate receiving the highest ballot will be elected.

Example 3:

New Taipei City will elect 3,876,070 / 23,164,457 x 115 = 19.243 rounding off to 19 legislators.

New Taipei City can be subdivided into three electoral districts. Two of the districts can elect six legislators per district, and the other district can elect seven legislators as long as the division of the district is such that the ratio of the population to the number of legislators in each district is kept nearly the same.

The division of districts in high density areas gives us the incentive that a simple-questionnaire population census every 10 years is crucial to the success of district divisions, and Taiwan should do it for itself, not "China tries to do it for us."

Two factors comprise the main obstacles to our attempt to correct our problematic electoral system. One is the KMT's deliberate ignorance for revamping the electoral system after the 2008 election -- wanting to stay as permanent majority in the LY-- and second is the erroneous belief by politicians around the globe that a new constitution in Taiwan (for the sake of Taiwan's democracy, Taiwan does need a new constitution) is a challenge to the "status quo," thus indirectly restricting the people in Taiwan to voting under a flawed ROC system.

If I have an old car that needs frequent maintenance and change of parts, I may as well dump the old car and buy a new one that works. This is the way I feel about what's wrong with our system after so many attempts to reform the ROC constitution that were initially imposed upon the Taiwanese people and continuously needs reviews and reforms but will never be amended well enough by the non-representative parliament. A parliament in which the KMT always held a majority cannot correctly amend the constitution -- they just go in circles! Our referendum law is but one example.

Voter turnout for LY election must improve

Unless the pan-green wins a majority in the legislative election next year, any talk about a DPP candidate winning the presidential election is futile if the KMT retains its majority in the LY to control the passing of bad laws and delaying the passage of good laws. Voters must realize the importance of exercising their voting rights in the LY election and show a big turnout contrary to past trends. In the past, voter turnout for LY elections has been low -- under 60% -- while voter turnout for the presidential election has been much higher -- no lower than 75%, and peaking at 82.69% in the 2000 presidential election.

Since the KMT-dominated LY will not initiate a review of the rules relating to elections, a review of our referendum rights is at task.

No wonder Taiwan's former president, Lee Teng-hui has the wisdom to call upon scrapping the ROC Constitution. "Lee calls for ROC Constitution to be scrapped"

So, wake up Taiwan! Let's talk about fair rules before we even talk about going into the polls. Without fair rules, how can we uphold democracy?

And, wake up politicians of the world! How can Taiwan's representation be subject to Beijing's approval for international presence (membership) when China's leaders (and therefore its representation) have not even been elected by its own people?

Only democracy can protect Taiwan, and only democracy (not economic engagement) can change China for the better!

References:

1. Note1: Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China (2005 Reform), Article 4 governs the rules on how LY seats are determined

2. My own observations just after the 2008 LY Election

3. Rules on recall and impeachment of ROC president -- the excerpt here is from a source in this link:

Recall of the State President or the State Vice President shall be initiated upon the proposal of the Legislative Yuan and shall be passed by more than one half of the valid ballots in a vote in which more than one half of the electorate in the free area of the Republic of China participate. The Legislative Yuan shall initiate the recall upon the proposal of no less than one-fourth of all members of the Legislative Yuan, and present the proposal with a clearly stated reason for such a recall to the Procedure Committee to have it included in the agenda to be sent to the YuanSitting. The Yuan Sitting shall, with no discussion required, refer the proposal to the Committee of the Entire Yuan for the latter to finish deliberation within 15 days. Prior to the deliberation by the Committee of the Entire Yuan, the Legislative Yuan shall notify the recalled subject to submit a written defense within seven days before the deliberation. When the Legislative Yuan receives the written defense, it shall distribute the report to each member. Should the recalled subject fail to submit the written defense, the Committee of the Entire Yuan may still continue the deliberation. After the deliberation, the Committee of the Entire Yuan shall submit the proposal to the Yuan Sitting for registered voting. Such a recall of the State President or the State Vice President is passed with no less than two-thirds of all the Legislative Yuan members concurring in the registered voting. The Committee of the Entire Yuan shall promulgate and inform the recalled subject of the voting result.

For the impeachment of the State President or the State Vice President, the Legislative Yuan must initiate it upon the proposal of more than half of the entire Yuan members; a written proposal with detailed reasons for such an impeachment must be referred to the Procedure Committee later to have it included in the agenda to be sent to the Yuan Sitting. No discussion is required, the Yuan Sitting shall refer the proposal to the Committee of the Entire Yuan for examination, during which the impeached subject may explain on the floor at the invitation of the Legislative Yuan. What follows the examination is an anonymous vote in the Yuan Sitting; should no less than two-thirds of all the Legislative Yuan members concur in the voting, an impeachment case then by resolution shall be submitted to the Grand Justices. Once the case is sustained at the Constitutional Court, the impeached subject shall forthwith resign.

4. Taiwan's current population statistics are based on this link.

5. Another interesting observation about Taiwan's elections by Jerome Keating: "The hidden face of Taiwan politics"

6. Understanding combined elections

7. Announcement of investigation by the Control Yuan of some "missing documents" by former DPP officials including Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) just one day before he declared his candidacy in the DPP presidential primary, but 1,036 days after Ma took the presidential office. What is Ma's intention?

(Some editing by Tim Maddog)

Crossroads

2011-03-02T21:21:00.005+08:00

The DPP is currently at a crossroads. Ahead are critical intra-party primaries for the party's candidates for the 2012 Presidential Election. How each candidate addresses the issue of the party's position on relations to China will likely heavily impact their appeal to the public. The leading candidates in this race are Chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌). Former Vice-President Annette Lu and Hsieh Chang-ting (謝長廷) have also announced their interest in, or intentions to, run. Today, two articles in the Taipei Times examined each of the candidates positions and came to two different conclusions:

Editorial: The Meaning of Tsai's Formula
Chen Wen-hsien (陳文賢)(Professor at National Chengchi University’s Graduate Institute of History): DPP must make its sovereignty stance clear

The editorial nicely summarises the positions of the leading contenders on China:

Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文)

She used the Chinese phrases he er butong (和而不同) and he er qiu tong (和而求同). Tsai’s phrasing is inspired by the Confucian Analects. To be precise, Book 13, verse 23, in which Confucius says: “The true gentleman seeks harmony, but reserves the right to disagree (he er butong, 和而不同); the base person agrees without necessarily seeking harmony (tong er buhe, 同而不和).” When Tsai talks about seeking harmony, she is referring to the status quo, arguing that the discussion should start with recognizing Taiwan and its values, and from there seek to maintain and nurture relations with China. In this, she does not diverge from the DPP’s consistent position. The second phrase, he er qiu tong, means “seeking agreement in a spirit of conciliation,” which is basically an extension of the first idea. It is a recognition that Taiwan and China have shared responsibilities and interests and should be seeking peaceful and stable relations and fostering development, not focusing on unification or independence. Not only is this consistent with the DPP’s 1999 Resolution on Taiwan’s Future, it also leaves room for cross-strait relations to develop.

Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌)

Former premier Su Tseng-chang’s (蘇貞昌) “Taiwan consensus” (台灣共識) holds that, after four direct presidential elections, Taiwan should be considered a sovereign, independent country, does not belong to the People’s Republic of China, and, according to the Constitution, is currently called the Republic of China. Any change to that would require the consent of the entire country, although such a change already enjoys a majority consensus. Su’s formulation benefits from its clarity and is in line with the “status quo” and the spirit of the DPP platform. The phrase is clear, compared with the opacity of Tsai’s concepts, but it won’t find many advocates in Beijing.

Former Vice-President Annette Lu

Lu’s “1996 consensus” says Taiwan became a sovereign nation when it held its first direct presidential election in 1996. Uncompromising in its stance, it appeals to the pro-independence faction, but has little chance of building a consensus outside the DPP.

Hsieh Chang-ting (謝長廷)

Former premier Frank Hsieh’s (謝長廷) “constitutional consensus” (憲法共識) emphasizes the differences that exist between the respective political and legal systems. The pan-green camp has its issues with this idea, however, as the Constitution still seeks unification.

Chen's article more broadly covers what he thinks the DPP should do in the next few months if it wishes to appeal to a public he claims are ready for a broadly pro-Taiwan or 'proud of Taiwan' message:

The DPP should clearly state its support for Lee’s formula as representing Taiwan’s core interests. In so doing, it would be upholding the direction mapped out for Taiwan by these past Taiwan-oriented national leaders.

It is only to be expected that China would react with threats and saber rattling. However, in this age of globalization, countries and economies are interdependent. If China resorted to force just because the DPP said Taiwan is a country, it would only harm its own interests and its belligerence would find no international support.

So the key question is not what the DPP says about Taiwan’s national status; what matters is that the DPP should show greater wisdom and patience in communicating with countries that support Taiwan and in engaging with Beijing.

The right way for the DPP to respond to these developments would be to stress its willingness to cooperate with Chinese people and government, on the basis of equality, to maintain peace and prosperity and to support China’s development into a democratic state.
If the DPP keeps avoiding the issue of Taiwan’s national status, it will neither gain the support of the international community nor the support of local voters.

Apart from demanding that all DPP members and government officials should work and perform even better, the party needs to stick to its position that Taiwan is a democratic and just country that deserves to be respected by the international community. Such steadfastness would surely win the hearts of the public, so it can be voted back into office and ensure Taiwan’s survival.

Lu's 1996 Consensus could potentially chime with the public as it places an emphasis on Presidential elections as evidence of an practiced independent statehood that everyone actively shares. The only problem is the person advocating it and her unpopularity both with the swing voters and light blues necessary for the DPP to win. It is more concrete than Su's Taiwan Consensus and is far more accessible as an idea to the public than Hsieh's Constitutional Consensus. However, Tsai's new approach, whilst vague, cautiously (and sensibly?) seeks a moderate ground for moderate voters - Tsai has chosen to play it safe and not bang the drum too loud. This is perhaps because she fears that if her campaign alienates too many big power players along the way to an election victory then she might also find herself, like President Chen, effectively unable to implement her policies, especially if voters return a strongly KMT controlled Legislative Yuan.

Chen's article illustrates desire amongst some in the pan-green camp for maximising on the belittlement of Taiwan by the PRC and tapping into the latent Taiwan national identity balking at President Ma's fawning over China and his ideological fixation with all things Chinese. It does not however come over as practical strategic advice for the party at this stage. Reiterating that Taiwan is a democratic and just country is not a meme that would hurt Ma's campaign as he too has run on that platform before each of his elections. Ma can also claim to wish for democracy in China and "willingness to cooperate with Chinese people and government, on the basis of equality, to maintain peace and prosperity". That's exactly the smokescreen Ma and the KMT have used to mask their willingness to be subservient to the Chinese people and government, on the basis of the fictional '1992 Consensus' and equalities of political parties in negotiations to maintain peace (between parties) and prosperity (for the parties and sycophants that follow them).

This leaves me with the conclusion that for now, I still find Tsai's approach and leadership to be trustworthy and intelligent. It's not perfect, may not even be excellent but it is the best the DPP have. The DPP above all need to have a clean and fair contest in the primaries and then complete party solidarity behind the winner, whoever that may be.

My thoughts on February 28, 2011

2011-02-28T23:18:00.002+08:00

Lest we forget the 228 Massacre (二二八大屠殺) of 1947

What am I thinking about on this 64th anniversary of one of the most horrific events in Taiwan's history?

I'm remembering with dismay that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is still in power -- even after behaving as colonizers for over six decades -- because they still use illicit methods to get elected. Here are some examples:

* Vote buying is rampant even within their own party's Central Standing Committee, but they keep putting the guilty ones right back in.

* In the January 2010 legislative by-elections, "Two of the three seats up for grabs […] in Taoyuan, Taichung and Taitung counties were left vacant by former KMT legislators found guilty of vote-buying," reminding us of their "tradition of buying votes."

* Lee Min-yung (李敏勇) reminds readers: "The roots of vote-buying can be found in the Chinese Nationalist Party's (KMT) long hold on power and its system for distributing the spoils of government."

* Laurence Eyton enlightens in a 2004 piece in the Asia Times Online: "[The Chinese KMT] has traditionally used its wealth to engage in what it calls 'traditional electoral practices', ie vote buying […]"

I'm reminded that the Chinese KMT still uses thuggery to maintain their power. Here are some examples:

* When disgraced former Toronto-based Government Information Office (GIO) official Kuo Kuan-ying (郭冠英) returned to Taiwan, he was picked up at airport and "assisted" by thugs in black shirts assigned by Bamboo Union (竹聯幫) gang leader Chang An-le (張安樂).

* People wearing black T-shirts and vests bearing the name of the Matsu Temple (大天后宮) physically remove college students from a protest against the Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government's policies regarding students from China.

* Despite denials by police, experience should tell you who the guys in the black shirts helping to defend Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) are.

* Read my post about the movie "Formosa Betrayed," which dramatizes real incidents involving the Chinese KMT, including their use of gangsters to carry out the assassination of a political dissident on American soil.

I'm reminded that the Chinese KMT is still distorting history. Here are some examples:

* A Taipei Times editorial reminds readers about Ma's empty promises: "So much for saying that the memorial hall [renaming] issue was 'not a pressing matter.'"

* Here's a photo of a display from the renovated 228 Memorial Museum which paints former dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) as "recovering … order" instead of as being the perpetrator of the massacre.

* Exhibits at the newly-renovated museum paint peaceful protesters as "mobs."

* President Ma pretends that the Chinese KMT has "dealt with its past" to the same extent the government of Germany has done since World War II.

* On the blog of Taipei City councilor Chien Yu-yen (簡余晏) you can read some of the details (Hanzi) and see photos (containing Hanzi text and a little bit of English) and video (Taiwanese and Mandarin audio, Hanzi text and a little bit of English) detailing some of the changes to the museum.

And I'm reminded that while Chinese KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou -- elected as Taiwan's president in 2008 on a promise of "no unification, no independence and no use of force" (不統、不獨、不武) -- has long claimed to support democracy, he still doesn't. Here are some examples:

* Remember the days when Ma was publicly against direct presidential elections.

* Remember when the Chinese KMT boycotted their own referendum about Taiwan's participation in the United Nations.

* The Executive Yuan's (行政院) Referendum Review Committee (公投審議委員會) turned down proposed referendums on the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China three times, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that it had more than enough signatures and support in polls!

* In mid-2009, the Ma government reverted the Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall (臺灣民主紀念館) to its former name: the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall (蔣中正紀念堂).

And I wouldn't be able to forget, no matter how hard I tried, that while Ma is in office as president of Taiwan, he primarily serves China. Here are some very recent examples:

* Ma wants people to stop calling China "China" and to call it "the mainland" or "the other side."

* A short time later, Beijing "praises" Ma for this.

* The Philippine government deports 14 Taiwanese suspects to China, basing the decision on a "one China" policy, yet Ma places zero blame on China.

People of Taiwan, when are you going to stop this from ever happening again?

If you have additional relevant examples to include in the topics above, please submit them in the comments below (use the HTML above the comment submission box for links) or via e-mail.

Further reading:
* Names and faces of some of the victims of the 228 Massacre (Hanzi)

* Wednesday, February 28, 2007 on Taiwan Matters!: Remembering two 228 Incidents (written before someone pointed out the obvious: that it should be referred to as the "228 Massacre" instead)

* Monday, March 1, 2004 on It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!: Hand-in-hand for peace (about my participation in the "228 Hand-in-Hand Rally" at 2:28 PM on Saturday, February 28, 2004)

* Monday, February 21, 2011 on Strait Talk: It's Taiwan, not China... Tales from Formosa, The Beautiful Island: "Formosa Displayed, Formosa Betrayed: Taiwan's 228 Museum Rewriting History?"

Dates with disaster: Taiwan, 台灣, 228 Massacre, 二二八大屠殺, 228 Incident, 二二八事件, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Chinese Nationalist Party, 中國國民黨, Kuomintang, KMT, 國民黨

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

The 2013 Cross-Strait Crisis: Day 18 - Speech by President Ma

2011-02-11T20:31:00.004+08:00

On Sunday the 17th of March 2013, President Ma Ying-jeou went on national television at 8pm in the evening to address the public and the approximately 7.5m protestors occupying the centers of Taipei, Taichung, Kaohsiung, Tainan, Hsinchu and over 20 other towns.

The protests had first begun over three core issues: widening wealth gap and uneven distribution of ECFA benefits, rising costs for energy, food and land, and the China friendly cross-strait policies of President Ma who had been reelected in 2012 on a platform of defending Taiwan's sovereignty and dignity and 'going to the world through the Mainland'. The slight improvement in economic conditions in 2011 combined with a poor Presidential ticket from the largest opposition party, the pro-Taiwan DPP, had convinced enough Taiwanese to give Ma a second term despite their misgivings over the nature of the closer relations between the ROC and PRC, which were led to a large part by the KMT.

The influx of Chinese people and goods into the country and the impact on the economy (exacerbated by the administration's unwillingness to define a clear difference between Taiwanese and Chinese citizens and their rights) had left a sour taste in the mouths of many formerly independent, swing and light blue voters. On February 26th, Lin Chiu-wen was detained by Taipei police for waving an ROC flag at a visiting Chinese delegation. That night, he died in custody. Police refused to release the body or allow an independent autopsy. The following day, the homes of several prominent Taiwanese bloggers covering the case were raided by police and the blog authors put into indefinite detention. TV's experienced blackouts for extended periods whenever news stations tried to report on events.

On February 28th, the Vice-President took visiting ARATS Chairman Chen Yunlin to pay homage at the shrine of the Chiang's in Taoyuan county, the resulting pictures of a smiling Chen angering a large swathe of the population. On March 3rd 2012, the President met with Chen Yunlin and 40 senior KMT and CCP officials to negotiate a peace treaty in which the ROC would on October 10th 2015 be transformed into the Republic of Greater China (SAR), officially designated as a state of a federated PRC, and the 2016 Presidential elections would be renamed Chief Executive Elections. Upon hearing the news, Taiwanese rallied en masse in the centers of their cities, demanding that the peace treaty be scrapped, that the President resign immediately, that a new constitution be written for Taiwan and Taiwanese and that the crack down on civil liberties cease immediately.

When that happened, the PRC ordered Ma to stamp out the protests or risk facing Chinese military action. Within days of the first strikes and occupations, the PRC began an economic embargo of Taiwan followed a week later by threats to enforce order itself. By day 18 of the siege, President Ma finally addressed the nation. Here is the text of his speech:

I am addressing the citizens of Republic of China today in Freedom Square and across the country. I am addressing you all from the heart, a father's dialogue with his sons and daughters.

I am proud of you as the new Republic of China generation calling for a change to the better, dreaming and making the future.

First and foremost, I am telling you that the blood of your martyrs and injured will not go in vain. I assure you that I will not relent in harshly punishing those responsible. I will hold those who persecuted our citizens accountable with the maximum deterrent sentences.

I tell the families of those innocent victims that I suffered plenty for them, as much as they did. My heart was in pain because of what happened to them, as much as it pained their hearts.

I am telling you that heeding to your voice, your message and demands is an irretraceable commitment.

I am determined to live up to my promises with all firmness and honesty and I am totally determined to implement (them), without hesitation or reconsideration.

This commitment springs from a strong conviction that your intentions are honest and pure and your action. Your demands are just and legitimate demands.

The mistakes can be made in any political system and in any state. But, the most important is to recognise them and correct them as soon as possible and bring to account those who have committed them.

I am telling you that as a president I find no shame in listening to my country's citizens and interacting with them.

The big shame and embarrassment, which I have not done and never will do, would be listening to foreign dictations whatever may be the source or pretext.
'Defined vision'

My sons, the citizens of Republic of China, brother citizens, I have unequivocally declared that I will not run for president in the next elections, satisfied with what I've offered my country in over 60 years during war and peace.

I declared my commitment to that, as well as my equal commitment to carrying out my responsibility in protecting the constitution and the people's interests until power and responsibility are handed over to whoever is elected in next September, following free and candid elections with guarantees of freedom and candour.

This is the oath I took before the Father of the Nation and my country and one which I will keep until we take the Republic of China and its people to a safe harbour.

I have set a defined vision to come out of this crisis and to carry out what the citizens and the citizens have called for in a way which would respect the constitutional legitimacy and not undermine it.

It will be carried out in a way that would bring stability to our society and achieve the demands of its citizens, and, at the same time, propose an agreed-upon framework for a peaceful transfer of power through responsible dialogue with all factions of society and with utmost sincerity and transparency.

I presented this vision, committed to my responsibility in getting the nation out of these difficult times and continuing to achieve it first, hour by hour, anticipating the support and assistance of all those who are concerned about Republic of China and its people, so that we succeed in transforming it (the vision) into to a tangible reality, according to a broad and national agreement with a large base, with the courageous military forces guaranteeing its implementation.

We have started indeed building a constructive national dialogue, including the Republic of China citizenss who led the calls for change, and all political forces. This dialogue has resulted in a tentative agreement of opinions and positions, putting our feet at the start of the right track to get out of the crisis and must continue to take it from the broad lines on what has been agreed upon to a clear road map and with a fixed agenda.

From now to next September, day after day, we'll see the peaceful transition of power.

Constitutional reforms
This national dialogue has focused on the setting up of a constitutional committee that will look into the required amendments of the constitution and the needed legislative reforms.

It (the dialogue) also met about the setting up of a follow-up committee expected to follow up the sincere implementation of the promises that I have made before the people.

I have made sure that the composition of the two committees is made of Republic of China figures that are known for their independence and experience, experts in constitutional law and judges.

In addition to that, the loss of the martyrs of the sons of Republic of China in sad and tragic events has hurt our hearts and shaken the homeland's conscience.

I immediately issued my instructions to complete the investigation about last week's events (the clashes between pro- and anti-Ma Ying-jeou demonstrators) and submit its results immediately to the general prosecutor for him to take the necessary legal deterrent measures.

Yesterday, I got the first report on the top priority constitutional amendments proposed by the committee of justice system and law experts and that I have set up to look into the required constitutional and legislative amendments.

In response to the proposals in the committee's report, and in compliance with the prerogatives of the president of the republic, in conformity with Article 189 of the constitution, I have submitted a request today asking for the amendment of six constitutional clauses: 76, 77, 88, 93 and 189, in addition to the annulment of clause 179.

Moreover, I am asserting my readiness to submit, at a later time, an (additional) request to change any other clauses referred to me by the constitutional committee, according to the needs and justifications it sees fit.

These top-priority amendments aim to ease the conditions for presidential nominations, and the fixing of limited terms of presidency to ensure the rotation of power, and the strengthening of the regulations of elections oversight to guarantee their freedom and fairness.

It is in the judiciary's prerogative to decide about the validity and membership of MPs and amend the conditions and measures on the amendment of the constitution.

The proposal to delete Article 179 from the constitution aims to achieve the required balance between the protection of the nation from the dangers of terrorism and safeguarding the civil rights and freedoms of the citizens which opens the door to the lifting of the emergency law following the return of calm and stability and the presence of suitable conditions to lift the state of emergency.

'In one trench'
Brother citizens, the priority now is to bring back trust between Republic of China citizens, trust in our economy and our international reputation, and trust in protecting the change and movement that we have started from turning back or retreating.

The Republic of China is going through difficult times which it is not right for us to allow continuing, as it will continue to cause us and our economy harm and losses, day after day, which will end in circumstances which those citizens who called for change and reform will become the first to be harmed by.

The current moment is not to do with myself, it is not to do with Ma Ying-jeou, but is to do with Republic of China, its present and the future of its children.

All Republic of China citizens are in one trench now, and it is on us to continue the national dialogue which we have started, with a team spirit, not one of division, and far from disagreement and infighting so that we can get Republic of China past its current crisis, and to restore trust in our economy, and tranquillity and peace to our citizens, and return the Republic of China’s streets to normal everyday life.

I was as young as Republic of China's citizens today, when I learned the Republic of China military honour, allegiance and sacrifice for my country.

I have spent a lifetime defending its soil and sovereignty. I witnessed its wars, with its defeats and victories.

I lived the days of defeat and occupation, I also lived the days of the (retrocession) crossing, victory and liberation.

It was the happiest day of my life when I raised the flag of Republic of China over Taipei.

I faced death many times as a student, in America, and numerous other times. I never succumbed to foreign pressure or dictations.

I kept the peace. I worked towards the stability and security of Republic of China. I worked hard for its revival and for its people.

I never sought power or fake popularity. I trust that the overwhelming majority of the people know who Ma Ying-jeou is. It pains me to see how some of my countrymen are treating me today.

'Immortal identity'
In any case, I am completely aware of the seriousness of the current hard turn of events as I am convinced that the Republic of China is crossing a landmark point in its history which imposes on all of all to weigh in the higher interests of our country and to put the Republic of China first above any and all considerations.

I saw fit to delegate presidential jurisdictions to the vice-president as defined by the constitution. I am certain that Republic of China will overcome its crisis.

The will of its people will not break. It will be back on its feet with the honesty and loyalty of its people, all its people.

It will return the machinations and glee of those who were gleeful and machinated against it. We, citizens of the Republic of China, will prove our ability to achieve the demands of the people with civilised and mature dialogue.

We will prove that we are no-one's servants, that we do not take instructions from anyone, and that only the demands of the citizens and the pulse of the street take our decisions.

We will prove all this with the spirit and tenacity of the great Chinese race, through the unity and cohesion of the descendants of the Yellow Emperor, and through our commitment to Republic of China's dignity as well as its unique and immortal identity, for it is the essence and the base of our presence for more than 7,000 years.

This spirit will continue to live within us for as long as Republic of China and its people are present. It will live in every one of our peasants, workers and intellectuals. It will remain in the hearts of our old men, our citizens and our children, Han and Aboriginal. It will remain in the minds and conscience of all those Chinese yet unborn.

I say again that I lived for the sake of this country, preserving its responsibility and trust. The Republic of China will remain above all and above everyone.

It will remain so until I hand over this trust and pole. This is the goal, the objective, the responsibility and the duty. It is the beginning of life, its journey, and its end.

It will remain a country dear to my heart. It will not part with me and I will not part with it until my passing.

The Republic of China will remain immortal with its dignified people with their heads held high.

May the Father of the Nation preserve the safety of Republic of China and watch over its people.

May peace be upon you.

* The speech above is actually the one given by Hosni Mubarak to the Egyptian people and the protestors demanding his resignation on Thursday February 10th 2011. I have only carried out a limited 'find and replace' of some high frequency words such as names of the country etc with a little cosmetic tidying and grammar correction. The bulk of the speech (95%) is from the English translation from the BBC Website. Eerie eh?

Lunar New Year in Taiwan: 2011

2011-02-02T22:07:00.002+08:00

In Taiwan, you can even call it "Taiwanese New Year"!
I'm back from a long break in blogging with a slight variation of the "traditional" New Year post. To kick things off this time around, here's a musical video wishing you a Happy Taiwanese New Year (brought to my attention on Twitter by cyrixhero):

3:58 YouTube video: "快樂台灣年 Happy Taiwanese new year "
Thursday, February 3, 2011 (That's tomorrow!) is New Year's Day as celebrated by the citizens of several Asian countries as well as by many other people around the world. Too many English-speaking people use the term "Chinese New Year" to describe the holiday, despite the fact that the direct back-translation "中國新年" is rarely used by Mandarin speakers. Chinese people usually call the holiday "Lunar New Year" (農曆新年) or "Spring Festival" (春節).

Furthermore, the holiday doesn't belong solely to the Chinese.

Start with the person in the mirror
Why should you change the way you speak? Here's an example for your consideration.

Have you ever heard of the 228 Massacre? Like many others, I used to refer to it as the "228 Incident," but when someone reminded me about how that diminishes the fact that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) killed countless Taiwanese in that "incident," I immediately made the change in my speech and writing. What I don't get is how some people who I am certain are pro-Taiwan somehow cling to the phrase "Chinese New Year."

Are you that kind of person? If so, I hope you can ask yourself why you do that and if you can change.

Simplicity
Here's a clear and simple list of reasons to help you decide to make that change:

1. Lunar New Year is not exclusively Chinese.

2. Even Chinese people call the holiday "Lunar New Year," so you won't be hurting the feelings of 1.3 billion Chinese by using that name.

3. Since you're reading this blog, there's a good chance that you are in Taiwan or that you are Taiwanese. (Maybe neither of those things applies to you -- you might just be interested in doing something to help Taiwan.)

4. Way too many people already do things which confuse others into believing that Taiwan's culture is a subset of China's.

5. You don't have to do things just because others do them or because they're habits.

Language is a virus (from outer space)
For some more background (you'll have to follow the links and do some more reading), here's a recap (with some spelling changes) of a couple of my earlier posts related to why many people prefer to call this holiday "Lunar New Year" (Taiwanese: Lông-li̍k sin-nî; Hanzi: 農曆新年; Hanyu pinyin: Nónglì xīnnián):

It doesn't just belong to the Chinese

Nor is it just "politically correct." Read about it in English and/or Chinese.

Happy Lunar New Year! 萬事如意! [bān-sū jû-ì! / wànshì rúyì!]

UPDATE:
Being in a bit of a rush to begin my vacation, I missed these links (all are presented in both English and Mandarin):* How the people of Vietnam celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of South Korea celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of Singapore celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of Malaysia celebrate Lunar New Year

And here's an update on the Taiwanese Romanization which I derived by using a dictionary on the web site of Taiwan's Ministry of Education (MOE):

Lông-li̍k sin-nî khuài-lo̍k! (農曆新年快樂！) Bān-sū jû-ì! (萬事如意！)

If you're Taiwanese, stop inadvertently diluting your own culture. Remember (Ē -kì-tit/Ōe-kì-tit [要記得]): Every time you say "Lunar New Year," you're saying "No!" to those who want to promote China while diminishing Taiwan.

Related reading:
* Check out the Twitter search results for "Lunar New Year." I'm seeing Tweets there by people from Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, Taiwan, and other countries around the globe!

* See what Taiwan's Government Information Office (GIO) says about Lunar New Year.

Distinguishables: Taiwan, 台灣, China, 中國, Lunar New Year, 農曆新年

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Frank Hsieh’s campaign genius, starting with the 2010 Taichung mayoral election campaign

2010-12-31T22:00:00.001+08:00

After the Mayoral and city council election on 27th November, many have noticed and commented on the impressive performance by Su Jia-chyuan (e.g. Michael Turton and Nathan Batto) in the Taichung race, battling from polling 30% behind incumbent Jason Hu to losing by 3% of the votes. This was the closest the DPP ever got in mayoral election in Taichung. What has not been mentioned much was who turned Su's campaign around. The answer is Frank Hsieh (謝長廷).

Before Hsieh put his weight behind Su's campaign, Su had managed to close the gap between himself and Hu to about 13% by making frequent visits to all the boroughs and villages. However, he was struggling to get much further. In late September, Hsieh, as DPP Chairperson of the Campaign Committee for the election, moved to Taichung and formally took over the campaign strategies. (There should have been prior meetings before this point to kick-start the process). From then on, Su's campaign became much more creative and certainly more visible to the press and to the public. Because Hu had been in office for nine years, Hsieh emphasised the need for Taichung to 'change' and started a series of press conferences/events called the 'Discovery' series (探索台中) to publicly question Hu's actions (or lack thereof) in office over the past nine years. This series contains 16 'episodes', examining what Hu campaign promises had broken and when Hu had been vague or untruthful. There was an illustration of how Hu usually responded to difficult questions by saying 'I don't know', 'I will not respond to this', 'Ask my campaign office' or 'It's very strange that anyone would ask the mayor about this'. This cast doubt in a lot of people's minds as to how involved and hardworking he really was as the mayor. Apart from those press conferences, Hsieh also held approximately 45 public events for Su, leaving Su a free hand to continue meeting with the local residents in Taichung.

This was not the only campaign Hsieh successfully ran, and every win he achieved or helped others achieve has been an important political milestone for Taiwan and for the DPP.

The 1994 Taipei City mayoral election

Hsieh immediately started serving as Chen Shui-bian's campaign chief for the Taipei mayoral election after losing narrowly in the first stage of the primary (i.e. party member votes). The main reason for this was the New Tide faction shifted their support to Chen the last minute. This hardly seemed fair to Hsieh because he had done more ground work (e.g. visiting places and meeting residents to see what they need and what the city needs) than Chen. Chen's strategies were more to do with getting media attention and gunning for faction support within the party. Hsieh might not have lost in the second stage (i.e. polling) but decided not to continue to save the party time and resources so that the DPP would have a better chance of winning. As soon as he started, he put all the support behind Chen and incorporated his people into the team. He did not hold back or secretly sabotage Chen's campaign. This is remembered by many as 'the Chang-Bian collaboration'. Many remember Hsieh as being really decent and sporting and see him as someone who embodies such spirit. Whenever someone in the DPP takes their defeat badly, supporters often urge them to 'be Frank Hsieh'.

As Nathan Batto commented on his blog:

'The 1994 Taipei City mayoral campaign is important not just because it brought about a change in political power and gave the DPP its first real chance to control resources, it also defined the New Party and brought about a realignment in the voting patterns of the capital city that persisted through the 1995 LY and 1996 NA elections.'

There were also other significant points. That was the first major DPP campaign that placed emphasis on hope for the future rather than the traditional victim perspective. The campaign slogan was 'Happiness, Hope, Chen Shui-bian' and the highlight was Hsieh's 'Daily Question' (每日一問) to Jaw Shaw-kong, the New Party candidate. As it was a three way race (i.e. DPP, KMT and the New Party) and Jaw seemed the strongest of the three to begin with, Hsieh's sharp and highly publicised questioning to Jaw quickly put Jaw in the defensive. This left Chen more time and energy to focus on the KMT candidate and sitting mayor, Huang Ta-chou (AKA Thomas Huang).

Some believe that even though Hsieh worked hard and was sincere, the campaign was actually dominated by Chen's most trusted aides rather than Hsieh. However, even if that was the case, years later, most Taiwanese may have now forgotten about other aspects of the campaign but still talk about Hsieh's 'Daily Question'. It's a bit like that most tennis fans remember McEnroe winning that classic tiebreak in the Wimbledon final but don't necessarily remember that Borg actually won that final.

The 1998 Kaohsiung City mayoral election

Hsieh has been one of the very few politicians willing to run in the most difficult (if not impossible) areas even when there is no apparent political upside. The 1998 Kaohsiung mayoral election was a classic example. Most people now remember Hsiao Bi-khim running for the Hualien chief recently. The difference is that Hsiao stepped up after the party started the search and no one else came forward whereas Hsieh, without prompting or much encouragement, took the initiative and ran with it.

At the time Hsieh announced his decision in 1996, he had encountered two major setbacks; one being the Taipei City mayoral election primary and the other being the 1996 presidential election as the vice-presidential candidate. Not many people in the DPP thought this was a good idea because Kaohsiung was dominated by the KMT and Hsieh had to take on a sitting KMT Mayor (Wu Den-yih). Because he resigned as a legislator to show his resolve for the 1996 presidential election, he was practically out of the political stage when losing the election. Most of his aides had taken other positions as a result. But he still went to Kaohsiung with a couple of assistants and started from scratch. At the time, the number of people he knew in Kaohsiung was less than 50.

A fatal blow came later that year when Taipei City Councillor, Chu Mei-feng, accused Sung Chi-li (the leader of a local religious group who claimed to have supernatural powers) of fraud in a press conference. As Hsieh was a legal consultant to the group, Chu implied that Hsieh was responsible in some way. Hsieh was later alleged to have received improper donations from this religious group for the 1996 campaign and his wife was also accused of fraud. The blue-friendly media went to town with this case and ridiculed Hsieh and his wife for being superstitious and dishonest. Years later, Sung has been found not guilty and those witnesses who implicated Hsieh and his wife have been convicted of perjury after it was found that the whole thing was orchestrated to destroy Hsieh. Hsieh also sued Chu for defamation and won. However, Hsieh's reputation was tarnished and life was upside down when it first happened. During a TV interview, his wife, in tears, said that she was willing to end their marriage to save his career. He immediately replied that he would rather give up his political career than leave her. In fact, he represented his wife in the court as her legal counsel for the charge brought against her.

Most people were convinced that this was the end of his political career. The press did not show much interest in him and very few people in the DPP showed any support. In fact, most people were trying to stay as far away from Hsieh as possible. He still worked hard for his campaign and took a rather hands-on approach. A young student blogged about some anecdotes. She was a high school student when she got to know Hsieh's assistants after they borrowed a venue in her school for a public event. She would often drop by their office for a chat afterwards. She commented that Hsieh not only listened to what the local residents had to say like a new neighbour but took them seriously. She said that she was amazed when she heard that Hsieh actually spent a couple of days going on buses in Kaohsiung himself (no entourage, no press following) just to see how bad the public transport was after she complained about it to him.

His career was only turned around by chance after he responded to the demand to see him in person from the serial killer holding a South African military attaché's family hostage in Taipei in 1997. Even though the killer was known to be volatile (not the calm and calculating type) and was clearly agitated at the time, Hsieh went in without a bulletproof vest to earn his trust and diffused this highly dangerous situation. As the killer had been on the run for a long time, breaking and entering, raping, and killing at the same time, Hsieh persuaded him to release the hostages and surrender without doing more harm, bringing an end to the terror for everyone who worried every night about when the killer might pop up. (See 'Hostage in Taipei: A True Story of Forgiveness and Hope' written by McGill Alexander, the military attaché.) After this, many saw Hsieh as being brave and reassessed their views about him. The public was gradually won over and he defeated Wu in that election.

As he proved himself to be a good mayor for Kaohsiung, he got re-elected in 2002. His vision for Kaohsiung was to play up its strength by highlighting it as a city of the ocean and he actively applied the idea of urban aesthetics when renovating the city.

The 2000 and the 2004 presidential elections

Hsien's impossible win in 1998 saved the DPP from being set back years as Chen Shui-bian lost in seeking his second term as the Taipei mayor. His good work in Kaohsiung paid off in many respects. Speaking of elections only, when Chen was running for President in 2000 and 2004, Hsieh successfully coordinated campaign efforts and resources in southern cities and counties so that the votes won in the south were enough to balance out those lost in the north and helped Chen get elected.

He was probably under more pressure from within the party than the outside, especially during the 2004 presidential election. As it was a head-to-head election and the DPP had more support in the south, his strategy was to stay low-key to the mainstream media but actively hold a lot of talks and forums locally so that the opponent could not easily see/work out what they were up to while the local residents were engaged. He was concerned that if it got 'overheated', the voters would be polarised and middle voters would be driven away from the DPP. However, many people in the DPP did not understand his concern and strategy and started accusing him of holding back. Someone went as far as predicting that Chen would lose by 30,000 votes in Kaohsiung city. Hsieh remained calm and simply told them to trust him. It was not until 20th March 2004, the election day, that those who doubted or accused him were convinced. Under his direction, Chen won by over 700,000 votes in the south. In Kaohsiung city alone, Chen won by over 100,000 votes. This was the first time in history that the green camp won by over 500,000 votes in the south.

The 2001 parliamentary election

Hsieh was the DPP chairperson between 2000 and 2002. He managed to bring all the factions together and worked with the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) rather than competing with them. At the time, Hsieh moved the DPP towards the middle and the TSU went for the 'dark green'. He was careful and wise in the nomination process and with Chen being the president and giving support, it was the first time the DPP had more seats (n=87) than other parties in history. If the TSU seats were also considered (n=13), the pan-green coalition reached its peak then.

The 2006 Taipei and Kaohsiung City mayoral elections

After Chen had been panned a lot in the media and his family were implicated in corruption cases, it was a very difficult time for the DPP in 2006. No one popular enough in the DPP wanted to run for Taipei mayor because the DPP had no chance. After Hsieh was pushed out as the premier in 2005, it was clear that his successor, Su Tseng-chang had Chen's support for the 2008 presidential race. All of sudden, someone in the DPP came up with the 'bright idea' of asking Hsieh to run for Taipei mayor. It was practically persuading him to commit political suicide, as the loss would take him out of quite possibly any future race and a win would lock him in Taipei for 4 years at least, leaving him no chance for the 2008 presidential election. Hsieh was initially reluctant because he had been Kaohsiung mayor for two terms but then agreed after supporters expressed their worry about the DPP's future if no heavyweight came forward. So while the other heavyweights were ducking for cover, Hsieh stepped up. For many, it made little sense when those who had never been a mayor for a major city could have had a go.

Due to the polarisation of the society, he emphasised the need for everyone to 'reconcile and coexist' (和解共生) in 2005, which he later elaborated as 'mutualism'. Before the 2006 campaign, the Red Shirt Army protested for weeks, demanding former President Chen to step down. The country was almost torn apart and there was a clear blue/green divide. There was a high level of mistrust. He therefore highlighted 'Love and Trust' as the theme as he felt that those needed to be rebuilt in order to stabilise the society.

His own campaign in Taipei got more attention than expected and he was also helping all the DPP city councillor candidates. He had a vision for the city – bidding for the 2020 Olympics and came up with a detailed plan to reinvent the city. The KMT had a lot of resources tied up in Taipei as a result of Hsieh's good campaign. He successfully prevented the KMT from pouring everything into Kaohsiung City, and at the same time, he campaigned for Chen Chu and mobilised his people to in the south to put all the support behind her. He was in effect carrying both campaigns. The result was that Chen Chu won; he lost but managed to win 41% of the votes, which was surprisingly good under the circumstances. The DPP only got 36% in the 2002 election. In addition, all the candidates he campaigned for got elected as councillors and against expectation, the number of DPP seats actually went up. These results saved the DPP from falling apart then. The respect he gained for those good results and the appreciation of his sacrifice (i.e. taking one for the party when no one else would) turned into real support for him in the primary for the 2008 presidential election. Against the odds and against Chen's wishes, Hsieh won the primary and got nominated.

What makes him great?

Hsieh's campaign abilities rested on several personal characteristics and factors. One was his creativity. His strategies often surprise people and are refreshing. The opponent usually doesn't know what to expect from him one minute to the next. This may also have something to do with his abilities to naturally interact with young people and learn from them. He seems the least 'set in his ways' compared to other politicians.

He has this rare confidence and willingness to challenge the most difficult, if not impossible, tasks. It seems that a part of him is adventurous or courageous while the other part being measured and realistic. Another quality was his 'nonzero' mindset, demonstrated in the way he chose to work with rather than antagonise the TSU. This approach maximised the influence of the pan-green coalition. He is also one of the few who would put their full support behind someone who seems rather unlikely to win. He was the most proactive in lending support to the 2010 Taichung mayoral candidate and those who did not receive a lot of party support in the 2009 3-in-1 election.

The more fundamental element in his success is always thinking the long term and beyond election success. If one compares what he has done in Kaohsiung to what Chen Shui-bian/Su Tseng-chang left for Taipei City/County, one can see that Hsieh left a lasting effect on the culture and turned Kaohsiung from a definite 'blue' area in 1998 to the most solid 'green' base now whereas Chen and Su, while creating a lot of visible changes, did not manage to penetrate the existing culture among the residents and cause significant changes in their political views/values. Such a difference, again, I believe is derived from Hsieh's more profound philosophy, which I hope to post about in the near future.

Now, some of you may want to ask why he didn't do so well in the 2008 presidential election. Well, I'll talk about this in the future. I am aware that I promised the same a year ago but haven't delivered. I haven't forgotten but I haven't really had the time to deal with the complexity of this question nor have I found the right time. Let's leave it for the moment. I'll come back with a short bio of Hsieh and his philosophy first.

Further references

'A Youngster from the Blacksmith Street: The Story of Frank Hsieh (打鐵街少年: 謝長廷的故事)'written by Kuo Chiung Li, published in 2005.

'Seeking Success in Adversity (逆中求勝)' written by Kuo Chiung Li, published in 2007.

(Many thanks to Jay who shared his views and observations)

(Also cross posted on In Claudia Jean's Eyes)

(Some editing by Tim Maddog.)

Not Fooling Anyone

2010-12-30T13:57:00.003+08:00

This quote from today's TT seems to indicate that not everyone across the Pacific is taking the current Taiwan administration at its word and there are serious reservations about the direction President Ma is taking the country:

“But there isn’t going to be a war anyway because President Ma [Ying-jeou (馬英九)] is getting sucked back into the mainland. That’s the game changer,”

Defense analyst John Pike, founder of the Washington-based think tank Global Security.

A Statement Of Support for Taiwan

2010-12-29T15:51:00.004+08:00

I produced this video to show my support for Taiwan. I hope others can make their own using the same text and post to their blogs / Facebook etc, in English, Mandarin, Hoklo, Hakka and Austronesian languages.

Text Here:

My name is ______________ and I love this country, Taiwan. I recognise that Taiwan is a sovereign and independent democratic country. I do not recognise the existence of the 1992 Consensus and I do not accept any interpretation of the 'One China Principle' that includes Taiwan. I will not be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China. I support any party that wishes Taiwanese to solely determine their own future free of any form of coercion.

我的名字是 ______________，我愛這個國家，台灣。我承認台灣是一個主權獨立的民主國家。我不承認九二共識的存在，我不接受任何包含台灣在內的'一個中國原則'解釋。我不會慶祝中華民國的第一百週年。我支持任何政黨--其同意台灣人民在不受任何形式的脅迫下獨立決定自己的未來。

Taiwanderful's Best Taiwan Blog Awards 2010

2010-12-04T23:30:00.007+08:00

Another "election," but without the noise trucks

It's time for the third annual Best Taiwan Blog Awards, put on by David and Fili of Taiwanderful. One of the purposes of these awards is "community building and linking" among Taiwan bloggers.

Click the image above to go to the page where you can directly vote for Taiwan Matters!
Once there, click the plus (+) sign to vote.
拜託！拜託！
You can vote for your favorite Taiwan blogs (Anyone can vote for as many blogs as they'd like -- no registration required!) by clicking the plus sign (+) below the number in the box just below the name of any blogs you like. Follow the link at the beginning of this paragraph to see a list of Taiwan blogs, background info, and links.

Follow this link for more info about the awards. Get to know more Taiwan blogs, and let's all help each other show Taiwan's unique aspects to each other and to the rest of the world!

Badges: Taiwan, 台灣

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwan's 2010 municipal election results

2010-11-28T21:20:00.002+08:00

TVBS vs. reality (again)

Another election in Taiwan appears to have left the country with the same old political landscape. The winners were:

Taipei City (台北市): Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌, Chinese KMT, incumbent)
New Taipei (新北市): Eric Chu (朱立倫, Chinese KMT, same party as incumbent)
Taichung (大台中): Jason Hu (胡志強, Chinese KMT, incumbent)
Tainan (大台南): William Lai (賴清德, DPP, same party as incumbent)
Kaohsiung (大高雄): Chen Chu (陳菊, DPP, incumbent)

But it's not exactly the "status quo" which even the Taipei Times calls it in a headline on news of the election results.

While the number of DPP vs. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) mayors remains the same (2:3) as it was before yesterday's election, the vote totals tell a different story.

Who got the most votes?
Adding the ballots for all five municipalities, the DPP got a total of 3,772,373 votes (49.87% -- very nearly an absolute majority) compared to the Chinese KMT's 3,369,052 (44.54%). The combined total of all other candidates' votes was a mere 422,692 (5.59%). While this analysis doesn't change the outcome of the election one bit, it does indicate that the DPP have "gained more than 340,000 votes in the five municipalities" (compared with votes for their candidate in the 2008 presidential election). At the other end of the political spectrum, the Chinese KMT -- in contrast with what the international media wants you to believe -- is failing in policy, governance, and strategy, and has lost more than a million votes in these municipalities.

But what I really want to focus on in this post is certain pre-election surveys and how they are regularly wrong.

Oops! They did it again!
Let's compare the pro-blue (pro-unification/pro-China/pro-Chinese KMT) TVBS' final pre-election surveys for all five electoral areas with the actual results of these elections. If most of their surveys were at least close to the margin of error, they might be trustworthy. But they are not.

In particular, I want to focus on the survey numbers for DPP candidates compared to the actual results.

Municipality/ candidate	*TVBS* survey results	Actual election results
Kaohsiung Chen Chu (陳菊)	41%	52.8% (+11.8%)
Tainan William Lai (賴清德)	47%	60.41% (+13.41%)
Taichung Su Jia-chyuan (蘇嘉全)	43%	48.88% (+5.88%)
New Taipei Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文)	49%	47.39% (-1.61%)
Taipei City Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌)	39%	43.81% (+4.81%)

Only one out of the five surveys above was within its margin of error (3.1 percentage points). And you know something? One out of five equals two out of ten, and two out of ten is good enough for TVBS host Lee Tao (李濤).

Could such inaccuracy be on purpose -- done to fill certain voters with hope, others with despair?

Further reading:
* English version of the Central Election Commission web site

* Hanzi version of the Central Election Commission web site

* Although they only hold a majority of city council seats in Tainan, the DPP made some gains at that level, too: "2010 ELECTIONS: KMT, DPP each claim 130 city councilor seats"

* The China Post says that "Pollsters wrong-footed by unexpected shooting."

* Singapore's Straits Times paints the election results as a sunny day for the Chinese KMT.

* The New York Times fluffs the Chinese KMT by saying that the elections "reaffirm[ed] national support for a party that has made improved relations with the Chinese mainland the center of its political agenda."

* BBC absurdly says that the Chinese KMT were "boosted in mayor elections" and that "Correspondents say the results are seen as an endorsement of the KMT's push for warmer relations with China." Could those "correspondents" be anyone like Cindy Sui and her husband Ralph Jennings?

Victims of the outcome: Taiwan, 台灣, 2010 municipal elections, 五都選舉, TVBS, BS-TV, Lee Tao, 李濤

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Freedom of speech in Taiwan being oppressed again

2010-11-04T02:21:00.001+08:00

Chinese KMT gov't to the people: "It's our party, and you'd better not mock it!"

The latest example of Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government infringing on free speech (see earlier examples at the bottom of this post) involves a video parodying a campaign ad by incumbent Taichung mayor Jason Hu (胡志強). After mocking a candidate from the ruling party, the creator of the video -- Kuso Cat (AKA 廖小貓) -- was threatened with a lawsuit by Mayor Hu and is being watched by all sorts of government eyes, and the media has been reporting it incessantly as a top story.

Here's the kuso version of the video:

4:00 YouTube video: "台中胡錢豹九週年慶_唬屎狗_廖小貓出品"
Translation: "Taichung Hu Qian-bao's [a play on the name of the 金錢豹 nightclub] 9th Anniversary - Hǔ Shǐ Gǒu [Bluff Shit Dog] - by Kuso Cat"
I don't completely agree with the Taipei Times' characterization that the video "portrayed the young women as working as hostesses at a nightclub in Taichung." An important bit of context that's missing from the related coverage is this this October 29, 2010 news story about police alerting the girls at a Taichung night club of an impending raid. The video of the girls sneaking around fits perfectly. In both the original video and the parody, Jason Hu calls these girls "Everybody's girls!" Although the vehicle for the parody is the video and the girls seen within, its real target is the public figure they're promoting: Jason Hu.

David Reid has a detailed intro to this incident and several related links in a blog post titled "KUSO and freedom of speech in Taiwan."

The sort of attention the government is giving this video (despite prosecutors' denial that there will be an indictment, the kinds of threats implied in the Ministry of Education's letter asking National Taiwan University to "carefully monitor" the political discussions on PTT's "Gossiping" forum) provides yet another example of how things that are critical of Chinese KMT politicians draw swift attention from the law while attacks against politicians from the pro-Taiwan/pro-democracy DPP are ignored. Because Taiwan suffered for decades under the Chinese KMT's martial law and White Terror (which ended not so long ago), and since so many setbacks to Taiwan's democracy have occurred so rapidly since Ma's inauguration in May 2008, it's easy to get the impression that we're very quickly returning to that kind of rule.

Questions to counter the media memes
* Who "portrayed the young women as working as hostesses at a nightclub in Taichung" first? Or should I say Hu "portrayed the young women as working as hostesses at a nightclub in Taichung" first?! (Hu: "Everybody's girls!")

* How could these girls -- who claim to have made this video just "with friends" -- get the chance to sit down with Mayor Hu and record him saying the things he says while their video camera is rolling?

* When businesses like the Golden Jaguar (金錢豹) are still flourishing -- despite promises by Hu that he would clean Taichung up -- doesn't this kind of parody practically write itself?

* Isn't the period of time just before an election the most likely time someone would mock a campaign ad? What kind of person would think there's anything at all "unusual" about the timing of the kuso video's appearance?

* On November 27, 2010, who will the citizens of Taichung elect to be their mayor for the next four years?

Remain alert!

Compare this!
Here's the source video for comparison. Note the multiple double entendres in the original title, including the play on Hu's Mandarin name:

3:14 YouTube video: "Hu's Girl MV-胡志強招募青年志工 "
Translation: "Jason Hu recruits young volunteers"
David Reid's post (linked above) also contains a video of Taiwanese bloggers in support of Kuso Cat.

A small sample of related incidents:
* December 9, 2008: The Chinese KMT "blatantly launched a drive to control the news reporting and programming of Taiwan's Public Television Service Foundation (PTSF), which manages the Taiwan Public Television Service (TPS) on behalf of our nation's citizens." TPS includes Taiwan Public Television, Hakka Television and Indigenous Television, and the China Television Service.

* December 10, 2008: Chinese KMT legislator John Chiang (蔣孝嚴) -- bastard son of Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) -- speaks at Tainan's Chengkung University (成功大學), ROC flags are removed because Chinese students are present, a Taiwanese student protests, Chiang tells the student to "be open-minded" and LIES, saying that there wasn't a flag to begin with. But the removal of at least one flag was already captured on video. A woman on the stage asks the student to "be respectful" -- but what happened to respecting the students of the university who are citizens of Taiwan?

* December 11, 2008: Just four hours after Human Rights Day has ended, 200 or so police round up the Tibetans sitting in Liberty Square (自由廣場) and take them -- some who can't speak Mandarin -- off to the hills of Neihu and Guandu. The police also evict the students from the Wild StrawBerries movement (a group of students protesting the outdated Assembly and Parade Act [集會遊行法]) from the square. Check out some of the police violence that was caught on camera.

* December 17, 2008: The home of Chen Tsung-yi (陳宗逸) -- manager of the recently-demised New Taiwan Weekly (新台灣週刊) -- is searched by agents from the Taipei City branch of the Criminal Investigation Bureau. Chen claims that the agents attempted to intimidate him, and were deceptive about what they were looking for.

* December 19, 2008: The Wild StrawBerries' live broadcast disappears from the Justin.tv web site. A notice says that it was "for violating the Terms of Service." An inquiry I sent to Justin.tv gets me only a form letter reply.

* January 16, 2009: The large teapot-shaped object in Taipei which just over a year ago was renamed the "National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" (國立台灣民主紀念堂) is retrogressing to its original name of "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall" (蔣介石紀念堂) to honor the late dictator and mass murderer that the Chinese KMT still worships. Here's a related editorial cartoon ("Out with the new, in with the old. More authoritarianism, less democracy.").

* March 6, 2009: An 18-year-old senior high school student in Chiayi shouts at President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), telling him to "step down" (下台). He is taken in and fingerprinted by police. Taiwan Echo has another post on the subject.

* March 29, 2009: Police with video cameras intrude upon a private meeting of bloggers demanding personal information from attendees. The police were unable to explain their presence, and superiors denied having ordered the intrusion. Despite police "apologies" two days later, incidents which indicate a return to the days of White Terror continue to occur all-too-frequently.

These were just a few examples I already had conveniently available. Please submit your own "favorite" examples of the erosion of freedom of speech under the Chinese KMT administration of Ma Ying-jeou in the comments section below. Include links, please.

The natural conclusion
Unless you pay close attention to these kinds of incidents, they will continue to happen, and your freedom of speech will continue to rapidly erode.

Pixel chillers: Taiwan, 台灣, Kuso Cat, 廖小貓, Jason Hu, 胡志強, Hu's Girl, 唬屎狗, White Terror, 白色恐怖, martial law, 戒嚴

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

5 Steps To Annexation

2010-09-07T19:57:00.002+08:00

Economic integration becomes economic dependency

Cultural and Linguistic integration blurs boundaries of identity and reinvigorates the 'great Chinese nation race'

Legal integration cedes authority over Taiwanese citizens to both CCP and KMT hegemonic governments

Political integration blurs issues of sovereignty and renders self-governance of Taiwan impotent as a symbol of independence on the global stage

Military integration and joint border controls prevent other nations from driving a wedge between Taiwan and China

Stages 1-2 are well under way. If Ma or a KMT President gets elected in 2012 expect rapid (though ambiguously worded) advancement of stages 3-5.

Above all, this is not quantum mechanics but simple politics of nationalism, fear & insecurity, economic dominance and naval / military superiority. The writing is very clearly on the wall. Those who choose to ignore it out of 'pragmatism', defending the (shifting) 'status-quo', seeking win-win or refusing to believe it is happening will have a lot of explaining to do in the near future. What will the middle generation tell their kids I wonder? - "Sorry son, we gave up on Taiwan because we didn't have the courage of our fathers and mothers to fight for something we didn't know the value of" ....

Formosa Betrayed, a powerful story

2010-08-08T23:20:00.001+08:00

This can't possibly be the same film Ian Bartholemew reviewed Friday

The film Formosa Betrayed, whose screenplay amalgamates the tales of the 1980s murders of Carnegie Mellon University professor Chen Wen-chen (陳文成) and writer Henry Liu (劉宜良, AKA Chiang Nan [江南]), has been discussed publicly for almost four years, and it finally made it to general release at cinemas in Taiwan on Friday, August 6, 2010.

Yet Taipei Times movie critic Ian Bartholemew seems to think it was based upon the George Kerr book of the same name (it was not), that it was about the events surrounding the 228 Massacre (二二八大屠殺) of 1947 (even though that event -- which happened 36 years prior to our story -- is mentioned within, it's not part of the plot of this movie), and that "Retrocession" [sic] is the proper term for the occupation of Taiwan by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) (it is not).

Formosa Betrayed movie poster
outside of Taichung's Tiger City
Photo by Tim Maddog
(Click to enlarge)
I had awaited this film's arrival in Taiwan for such a long time, and having seen so many previews, reviews, and interviews, I was a little bit worried that there wouldn't be very much left for me to experience anew when I saw it in a movie theater. Fortunately, I was wrong.

Before I get to anything involving spoilers, let me tell you a few things about the movie in general.

It is what it is
So, what is Formosa Betrayed? The story centers around FBI Agent Jake Kelly (played by James van der Beek) and his search for the two gangsters who murder Taiwanese-American professor Henry Wen. The evidence brings Jake to Taiwan, where he meets waiter/independence activist Ming (明, played by Will Tiao [刁毓能], who also co-wrote and produced the movie) and uncovers more truth than his superiors ever wanted him to. The events take place in 1983, during the White Terror period and four years before the lifting of the Chinese KMT's 38-year-long imposition of martial law on Taiwan.

This is thriller
Beyond the film's historical implications (being the first American film to deal with Taiwan-US relations"), we are propelled through the story by our concern for the protagonists, Jake and Ming, by their struggles against bureaucracies, gangsters, police agencies, and even military officials, and by the hope that they will succeed and survive. It shouldn't matter if you are American, Taiwanese, or neither -- unless you hate one or both of those countries, you'll probably care for both characters, and you will feel their pain as you watch horrific events unfold.

The antagonists are everywhere. Watch the movie and see how almost every time Jake tries to do the right thing, someone delays him, finds his "target" before he does, or tries to bring him great harm. You might not even realize whether some characters are the good guys or the bad guys until near the end of the flick.

Production values
The film -- directed by Adam Kane (Heroes) and photographed by Irek Hartowicz -- has a gritty, desaturated look throughout much of it, creating an atmosphere appropriate to both the period and the content. The first image we see -- Jake's blood-splattered face in very shallow depth of field -- sets the tone for what's to follow.

The score didn't draw much attention to itself, remaining mostly way in the background except in some especially tense scenes. Two or three times during the film, I got quite a jolt from the audio-visual-story combo -- an excellent reason to see the film in a theater.

Other reviewers' complaints about the film being shot in Thailand instead of Taiwan drive me nuts. The reasons for it happening have been explained again and again, and even more detail has come out quite recently about the Chinese KMT's involvement. My wife -- Have I mentioned that she's Taiwanese? -- didn't have any complaints about the locations not looking enough like Taiwan in the eighties, so I have a hard time accepting that particular gripe.

Some of these complainers may merely wish to discredit Formosa Betrayed. Others may have unthinkingly been influenced by such thoughts and are repeating them. Whatever their reasons, it's as if everyone suddenly forgot how to suspend their disbelief for this particular motion picture. (Pssssst! You're actually sitting in a chair in an air-conditioned theater in the year 2010 in a city which may or may not be Taipei!) With the budget limitations, I would guess that telling the story took priority over adding a CGI recreation of Taipei.

So, while it may not be a state-of-the-art spectacle, it does a great job of doing what people go to the movies for: it tells a powerful story.

It ain't what it's not
Formosa Betrayed is not an allegory. It's basically a straight-up dramatization of events related to Taiwan's history -- a story which has needed to be told for a very long time. And Will Tiao, Adam Kane, and the rest of the cast and crew have done a formidable job of it.

What will I learn?
* The Chinese KMT is not protecting Taiwan from Commie bandits, and they never have.
* The United States' cooperation with the Chinese KMT ignores/involves lots and lots of evil.
* Good people standing up for basic human rights get called "gangsters" and "terrorists" by those responsible for mass murder of innocent civilians.
* Taiwan is not China, and despite frequent claims about the matter, Taiwanese are not treated like "brothers" by the Chinese.
* Others' admonitions which are supposedly "for your own good" are often ways for them to hold onto power while keeping you down.

Who should see this film?
Every single Taiwanese should see this film, whether they already know about this history or not. Anyone who has ever supported the Chinese KMT should see this film and open their eyes widely. Americans should see this film to understand what their government has done (and continues to do) to Taiwan.

If you enjoy thrillers, you should see Formosa Betrayed because it's an exciting story which, as Roger Ebert says, is "actually about something."

If you don't like mainstream Hollywood flicks, see it for its independent style.

If you don't fall into any of those categories, make like a Nike ad, and just see it!

Where to see it
I saw it at Tiger City in Taichung. Here's the page where you can find showtimes for all Vieshow Cinemas (威秀影城) in Taiwan. See it soon, as it probably won't be here for long.

Fiction vs. reality (SPOILERS)
Some people have said that the people and events portrayed in Formosa Betrayed are entirely imaginary. Those people are either lying or they're ignorant -- perhaps both. Here is a short list of some people/things in the film and the people/things they correspond to (or not) in real life:

* Wen Ming-hua (溫明華, AKA Henry Wen, the murder victim) = Chen Wen-chen + Henry Liu.
* Guy with camera at student protest = Student spies funded by the Chinese KMT.
* David Wu Da-wei + James Lee Shin-shen (the killers) = Chen Chi-li (陳啟禮) and others.
* Ming's sister, Maysing (美星): "Don't use your phone. They're listening." = Government phone tapping of political opponents/dissidents/competitors -- something which still happens quite frequently.
* The protest in Kaohsiung = The Kaohsiung Incident of 1979. (Note: Just a few months after Formosa Betrayed had completed filming, similar things happened during the protests against visiting Chinese envoy, Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait Chairman Chen Yunlin [陳雲林]. including the brutal beating of an FTV [民視] reporter. Also watch Red Caution to see what happened to Taiwan in the first few months Ma Ying-jeou [馬英九] was in office as president.)
* The murder of Ming's wife and daughter in their home = The murder of Lin I-hsiung's (Lîm Gī-hiông, 林義雄) family while their home was under 24-hour police surveillance.
* The way Ming's father was killed = The way many people were killed in the 228 Massacre: shot in the head and/or dumped in a river. (Others were buried alive.)
* Professor Wen and Ming being called "gangsters" and "terrorists" = A common tactic used by the gangster-affiliated Chinese KMT.
* 健康 (Health[y] brand cigarettes = The ironically-named Long Life (長壽) brand of cigarettes.
* The movie ≠ The book by George Kerr. Although it's got the same title, and it's about the same country and the same party-state, it's a different story.

Other interesting tidbits (minor SPOILERS)
* Jake is assigned Room 228 (a reference to the 228 Massacre of 1947) in his Taipei hotel.
* When Jake is at the airport leaving Taiwan, a voice is heard on the airport intercom announcing in English "China Airline[s] flight 1947 from Taipei to New York is now boarding…"

Just one thing…
As Michael Turton pointed out previously, that onscreen title at the end… it's wrong, and it should be fixed because it undermines the message the rest of the film tries so hard to get across. It says [highlight mine]:

Currently there are 23 countries that recognize Taiwan as an independent nation.

The United States is not one of them.

The problem is that the countries which have official relations with "Taiwan" recognize Taiwan as the "Republic of China" and its associated claim to represent -- y'know -- China. Because of the "one-China" policies of both the PRC and the ROC, not a single one of those countries recognize Taiwan's independence the way they should -- and that right there is the problem!

A whole spectrum of other reviews
* David Reid's review: "Formosa Betrayed: a quest for truth and justice."
* Jerome F. Keaton's review: "The Film 'Formosa Betrayed' Though Different from 'Cape No. 7' is Important for Taiwan Youth."
* Michael Turton's review: "The Gospel According to Will: Formosa Betrayed."
* Sheri Linden wrote a fair-even-if-not-entirely-postive review in The Hollywood Reporter.
* Despite the number of stars he gave it, Roger Ebert seems to have liked it.
* Ian Bartholemew wrote what could be the most uninformed movie review I've ever read.
* Does Vancouver's Katherine Monk think that watching Formosa Betrayed is as bad as being colonized and placed under nearly four decades of martial law? Her excessively negative review is titled: "Viewers are ones who are betrayed."

MacGuffins: Taiwan, 台灣, Formosa Betrayed, 被出賣的台灣, movie, 電影, Will Tiao, 刁毓能, White Terror, 白色恐怖, martial law, 戒嚴

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwan round-up, July 2010; plus Ma Ying-jeou's nonsense

2010-07-31T23:51:00.004+08:00

First, a bit of catching up is necessary

A lot has been going on in July -- and I'm not just talking about the extra work that I get during this time of the year. Here are just a few of the more prominent news items I should have been writing about in more detail over the past month:

* Despite not being in possession of the land titles, the Chinese Nationalist Party-led (KMT) Miaoli County government destroyed the rice paddies of several farmers in the Jhunan Township (竹南) borough of Dapu (大埔) and carted off the rich soil, replacing it with junk-filled dirt. Despite knowing that the current Land Expropriation Act (土地徵收條例) is unfair, the Ministry of the Interior vowed to continue destroying these farmers' lives and property with their right hand until their left hand is good and ready to change the law. As I've said many times, the Chinese KMT doesn't follow the law -- the law follows the Chinese KMT.

* Michael Turton blogged on the protests in Taipei on July 17, 2010 which were related to the above land grabs: "Miaoli County Land Seizure Sparks Farmer Protests"

* In Yunlin County, a fire (explosion?) on July 25, 2010 at Formosa Petrochemical Group's (FPG, 台塑石化) naphtha cracker No. 6 is followed by the appearance of dead ducks, fish, and clams in the vicinity. (Yo, EPA! Is there an alternate explanation for what could have killed all these animals at this particular time?! If so, we'd all like to hear it!) An earlier blaze had occurred at FPG's naphtha cracker No. 1 on July 7, 2010. It took six days after the second conflagration within a month -- plus large protests by Mailiao residents -- before Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) paid a visit to the site and said they would temporarily suspend operations at the plant. (How long do you think it'll be before that promise gets broken?) Oh, and there's the horrific tale of a dead runaway foreign laborer (who had been poisoned by unsafe working conditions) whose body was left outside the plant's perimeter after a much earlier incident in an apparent attempt to… make the original situation even worse? (See this last item discussed on the July 30, 2010 edition of Talking Show [大話新聞].)

* Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) tries to do his own verbal "detour" after saying that already-endangered Taiwanese pink dolphins would "make a detour" (轉彎) to avoid the planned Kuokuang Petrochemical plant scheduled to be built on coastal wetlands near the mouth of the Jhuoshuei River (濁水溪) in Dacheng Township (大城), Changhua County.

* Remember that the most important thing about the following story has to do with the people making the accusation: Chen Chih-chung (陳致中), the son of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) who is currently running for a city council seat in Kaohsiung, is accused by Next Weekly (壹週刊) of soliciting a prostitute, despite the lack of any hard evidence. While his car was photographed at the scene of the alleged crime, Chen Chih-chung himself was not. Politically motivated, y'think?

* Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) was placed among "the world's top [10] urban leaders" by Monocle Magazine. Although some people say the title of the piece makes the "honor" facetious, the content -- which appears 100% serious as well as positive -- tells me otherwise.

* You may notice that the four links at the top of the blogroll in the Taiwan Matters sidebar -- the links to Talking Show (大話新聞) videos -- have been crossed out. That's because YouTube suspended all four of those accounts. Fortunately, someone new has dutifully taken over uploading the shows. Take a look at the uploads on user 555victory555's channel.

* After all that stuff ~~President~~ ~~Regional Administrator~~ (cough, cough) Mr. Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) told us about the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed with China being purely economic and having nothing to do with unification, the legislature's Organic Laws and Statutes Bureau tells us -- in a report whose release people had complained since at least June 23, 2010 (nearly a week before the ECFA was signed) was being delayed (for over a month now) because it might give a negative impression of the ECFA -- that what Ma said was, uh, not true.

* On July 24, 2010, the U.S. Navy posted a photo taken during Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 captioned [highlight mine]: "The Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan leads a formation of ships from Korea, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, France, Canada, Australia and the U.S." A week later, that photo isn't showing up, but another photo with the same caption can still be viewed.

* Formosa Betrayed (the movie) will be showing in Taiwan in less than one week. With the domestic premier taking place Friday, August 6, 2010, producer/actor Will Tiao (刁毓能) is in town, and he reveals in an interview with the Taipei Times how the Chinese KMT interfered with the filming process. Jerome F. Keating, PhD also has a piece about the film: "Still Not Free of KMT Bias, Taiwan Prepares for the Film, 'Formosa Betrayed.'" In that post, he also links to an image of the famous comic strip by Bo Yang (柏楊) which got the artist nine years in prison.

* … and like I said, much more than I've been able to keep up with in great detail. I've probably missed a few important ones, but those are pretty much off the top of my head. Follow me on Twitter to see what I'm writing about in real time.

No-brainer
Since Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) so frequently spouts nonsense which should get him laughed off the world's stage, I made a little video showing how audiences should react to such things:

2:05 Xtranormal video: "The audience sees through Ma Ying-jeou's nonsense"

Here's the text spoken by Superzero Ma in the video:

Hi, I'm Ma Ying-jeou, president of the Republic of China, here in Taiwan Province. As you can see, no one is pulling my strings. That's because Foxconn made a special long distance remote control for Hu Jintao to use on me! But since I am the president of the Republic of China, I am actually Hu Jintao's leader. And as president of the ROC, I am, therefore, also the president of Mongolia! Let me explain. Back in March 2008, after I made a campaign promise to the people of Taiwan saying "no unification," 7.6 million people there voted for me, making me the democratically-elected leader of the "unified" Republic of China's 1.3 billion people, right? Does that not make perfect sense to you? Okay, how about this? Without using your brain too much, see if you can repeat after me: "We are all part of the non-barbarian Zhonghua minzu family, blah blah blah." "The other side of the Taiwan Strait is our mainland region, blah blah blah." Or how about this? "I love Taiwan!" That one works best in the months before important elections. Do you have a question? I'm sorry. I can't hear you. Thank you for your comment. I must be going.

Precipitates: Taiwan, 台灣, Dapu, 大埔, Formosa Petrochemical Co., 台塑石化, Wu Den-yih, 吳敦義, Chen Chih-chung, 陳致中, Jason Hu, 胡志強

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

DPP Adverts warn of ECFA dangers to Taiwanese

2010-06-30T01:19:00.000+08:00

The DPP have produced these two videos below as criticism of the ECFA trade agreement and what they argue are its likely effects on Taiwanese. In the first we see a new well qualified graduate lose a job to a competitor from China and in the second we overhear a conversation by two businessmen celebrating ECFA's benefits for them. Interestingly, given recent discussion on the Taiwan blogsphere about the use of 'Dalu' or mainland by Taiwanese (indicating their internalisation of China as a bigger part of their own country), both videos below use the phrase repeatedly. I feel it might more benefit the DPP if they were more careful to use the word Chung-guo rather than Dalu where possible in future.

有ECFA真好?- ECFA哪裡好三部曲之二

早收清單---ECFA哪裡好?

6/26 protest to demand referendum on ECFA

2010-06-25T03:53:00.000+08:00

Be there if you can!

The Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government is planning to sign an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議) with Taiwan's untrustworthy authoritarian neighbor China on June 29. That's next Tuesday, despite the fact that even polls by media which favors Ma and his party show that a majority of Taiwanese oppose the agreement and that people of all political stripes support holding a referendum on the issue.

Ten or twenty years from now, when you reflect back on tomorrow's rally to show the Ma government -- and especially the rest of the world -- what the people of Taiwan really think of this deal, will you be able to say "I was there!" or will you say "I was too busy/tired/apathetic, so I didn't go"? Think hard before you choose the latter.

Citizens demand a referendum [on ECFA] and oppose the "one-China" market
June 26 [2010], gather at 3 PM @ Wanhua Station and Dinghao Plaza
(Click to slightly enlarge)
Wednesday's Taipei Times has the important details about the 626 protest in English:

The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) said yesterday that 100,000 people are expected to take to the streets of Taipei on Saturday to demand that the government put its proposed plan to sign an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) with China to a referendum.

[...]

The party said demonstrators would be split into two groups — an "anti-'one China' market" group and a "referendum on an ECFA" group.

The "anti-'one China' market" route will start at Dinghao Plaza and travel along Zhongxiao E Road, Linsen S Road and Renai Road Sec 1.

The "referendum on an ECFA" march, meanwhile, will begin at Wanhua Station and proceed along Monga Boulevard, Heping W Road Sec 2, Fuzhou Street, Roosevelt Road Sec 1 and Zhongshan S Road.

Both marches will start at 4pm and converge on Ketagalan Boulevard in front of the Presidential Office at 5pm, where a number of DPP officials are expected to make speeches.

The protest is scheduled to finish at 7pm, the party said.

How 'bout we make it 200,000?

Remember to take pictures, record videos, and post them online so that when the media underreports the numbers or claims that the crowds were violent, people will be able to find out for themselves what really happened.

Lest ye forget!
And I want to remind readers once again what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said about ECFA being one step toward "complete unification of the motherland [sic]":

0:35 YouTube video: "DPP ECFA referendum ad - with English titles"

Posters: Taiwan, 台灣, protest, 抗議, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, referendum, 公投

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

"Mainland"? Which "mainland"?

2010-06-20T22:37:00.003+08:00

An obvious symptom of brainwashing in Taiwan (and elsewhere)

Because of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), for most of the past six decades, Taiwan's educational system has indoctrinated students with the concept that "my country" (我國/本國) includes Taiwan, the territory now controlled by the People's Republic of China (PRC), and Mongolia. As a result, certain words used by Taiwanese reveal how deeply this indoctrination has penetrated.

An old Geography textbook used in Taiwan
Tim Maddog photo
(Click to enlarge)
While most elementary school students these days will state "Taiwan" (台灣) as the name of their country, and only an incredibly small minority will say they are from the "ROC" (中華民國), there's still a lot of deep-set confusion. As Professor Lee Hsiao-feng (李筱峰, AKA Jim Lee, of National Taipei University's Graduate School of Taiwanese Culture) explains in the piece I will translate below, the words we are exposed to on a daily basis affect our ability to see clearly and even to clearly form our own identity.

Here it is, 「大陸」「大陸」，哪個大陸？ ("'Mainland,' 'mainland,' which mainland?") [translations, text coloration mine]:

俗話說「什麼人玩什麼鳥」，同樣的，「什麼人說什麼話」。在當前國家認同錯雜混亂的台灣，從每個人使用的不同用詞，就可以判斷他的國家認同和政治立場的差異。

People say, "This kind of person plays with this kind of bird" and "This kind of person uses these kinds of words" [both meaning: "A person is defined by the words they use"]. In the past, Taiwan's national identity has been a jumbled mess. From the different words that people use, you can spot the differences in people's sense of national identity and political affiliation.

記得蔡英文與馬英九進行電視辯論的時候，凡是對「中華人民共和國」的稱呼，馬英九一律把它改稱「大陸」，但是蔡英文則清清楚楚叫它為「中國」。全世界都知道，「中國」指的就是那個全名叫做「中華人民共和國」的國家。但是「大陸」呢？全世界沒有一個國家叫做「大陸」，倒是在地理上，有歐亞大陸、非洲大陸、美洲大陸。「大陸」，指的是哪一個大陸？馬英九不稱中國為「中國」，而稱「大陸」，為什麼？因為他所認同的國家就是中國，而且台灣是中國的一部分，如果他將對岸稱為「中國」，等於是將台灣置於中國之外，這是他無法容忍的。稱中國為「大陸」，表示兩邊都屬中國，而有「大陸地區」和「台灣地區」之分。所以將中國稱為「大陸」，其實是對台灣的矮化，是對台灣的貶損！

Think back to the televised debate between Tsai Ing-wen and Ma Ying-jeou. Each time the PRC came up, Ma consistently referred to it as the "mainland" while Tsai referred to it more clearly as "China." The whole world knows that "China" refers to the country whose full name is the "People's Republic of China." But what about "mainland"? There is no country on Earth called "Mainland" [Maddog note: Though I've capitalized it here (as if it were the name of a country), it shouldn't actually be capitalized unless it's the first word in a sentence.] -- it's merely a geographic term which could variously refer to the Eurasian continent, the African continent, or the North and South American continents. So why say "mainland"? Because Ma identifies with China and considers Taiwan to be part of China. If he were to call the other side "China," it would mean that Taiwan is something separate -- something Ma could never admit. By calling China the "mainland," he means that the two sides belong to China and that the "mainland area" and "Taiwan area" are both part of that China. This actually belittles and disparages Taiwan.

中國人馬英九稱中國為「大陸」，一點都不奇怪。奇怪的是，竟然也有自以為是獨派的人士，也習而不察，跟著人家把中國稱為「大陸」，這就自我矛盾了。

For Ma-the-Chinese to call China the "mainland" isn't strange at all. What is strange is when supporters of Taiwan's independence use the word out of sheer habit, following others' use of "mainland" when they mean "China" -- this is a contradiction of their own principles.

最近台灣出現了一個名詞叫做「陸生」，其實也有一樣的意涵。所謂「陸生」，就是「大陸學生」的簡稱。把中國來台的留學生稱為「陸生」，和稱中國為「大陸」一樣是對台灣的矮化。中國來的留學生，當然簡稱「中生」，怎麼變成「陸生」？

The word "lùshēng" has recently entered Taiwan's vocabulary. This contains a similar meaning. "Lùshēng" is merely a short form of ""dàlùxuéshēng" ("mainland students"). To call Chinese students "lùshēng" is just as belittling and disparaging of Taiwan as using the word "mainland" instead of "China." A more natural short form would be "Zhōngshēng." How did that become "lùshēng"?

再者，近年來出現了一個不三不四的名詞叫做「阿六仔」。許多人把中國人稱為「阿六仔」，所謂「六」，當然是大「陸」的轉音。「阿六仔」這個名詞，本身帶有輕蔑的語氣，殊不知用這種輕蔑的名詞形容對方，其實是矮化了台灣，貶損了自己而不自知。

Another strange word which has appeared in recent years is "a-la̍k-á" [Maddog note: The pronunciation of that term is invariably Taiwanese, not Mandarin]. Many people call Chinese (people) "a-la̍k-á" with the middle word "la̍k" ["six"] having the same pronunciation in Taiwanese as the "lù" in "dàlù." "A-la̍k-á" itself bears a pejorative tone, but actually one may not realize that using this kind of tone to describe others can also belittle Taiwan, disparage the user, and show self-unawareness.

這種矮化台灣、貶低台灣的用詞還有很多，例如，將孫文（孫逸仙）先生稱為「國父」就是。所謂「國父」是哪一「國」的「國父」？當然是指「中華民國」的國父。不要說連孫文本人都不知道他被國民黨稱為中華民國「國父」，孫文如果知道台灣人竟然也稱他為「國父」，一定詫異萬分。因為孫文在過世前一年曾經呼籲日本應該讓「朝鮮和台灣兩民族」獨立自治，而台灣人竟然還在叫他「國父」，真是蠢蛋！

There are many more words used to belittle and disparage Taiwan. For example, calling Sun Yat-sen the "nation's founding father." Which "nation" is he the "founding father" of? Of course that would be the "Republic of China [ROC]." Don't say that even Sun himself didn't know he was called "the nation's founding father" by the Chinese KMT, but if he could know that some Taiwanese still call him the "nation's founding father," he'd be completely amazed because a year before he died, Sun appealed to Japan to allow Korea and Taiwan to become independent. For Taiwanese to call him the "nation's founding father," they must really be morons!

至於那些遊走對岸淘金的藝人，也跟著中國人將中華人民共和國稱為「內地」，那就不只是「蠢蛋」兩字所能形容了！日本殖民統治時代，台灣人稱日本本土為「內地」，清帝國時代則稱中國本土為「內地」，現在台灣不屬中華人民共和國，卻也稱呼人家「內地」。台灣人，你要自我作踐到幾時？

As for entertainers who wander off to China in search of money and who refer to the PRC as the "heartland," not even the word "moron" can describe what they are! When Taiwan was a Japanese colony, Taiwanese referred to Japan as the "heartland." However, during the Qing Dynasty, [what we now call] China was the "heartland." Present-day Taiwan doesn't belong to the PRC, yet people still use the term "heartland." People of Taiwan: How long will you humiliate yourselves like this?

One "mainland" which Professor Lee left out was Australia's. People in Tasmania will refer to the non-Tasmanian part of Australia as the "mainland" while people in New Zealand never do so -- because it's a whole other country. It's a good example to use with people who don't seem to "get it."

Related:
* A guy I met later on Facebook called in to New Taiwan Go Go Go (新台灣加油) to complain about so-called pro-Taiwan TV stations using the word "mainland." I posted the video on YouTube:

1:23 YouTube video: "Mr. Chuang wants green media to stop saying "mainland""
* Hena (Taiwanese for erhu, 二胡) player Kenny Wen is one of those who sold his soul to Beijing and was "forced" to call China the "heartland" (內地):

9:00 YouTube video: "Kenny Wen Teaches: How to sell your soul to the demons in Beijing"
* A Taiwan Matters post with links to videos of the entire debate referred to in Lee's piece: "Ralph Jennings pushes anti-Taiwan, pro-Ma propaganda"

* If you need help with the videos linked in the post at the link above, the Taipei Times translated the entire debate between Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) into English:
- Part One: Ma, Tsai lock horns in ECFA debate
- Part Two: Tsai questions Ma on job losses from signing ECFA

Words which mean things: Taiwan, 台灣, propaganda, 宣傳, brainwashing, 洗腦, Lee Hsiao-feng, 李筱峰

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

UPDATED: KMT Miaoli County Magistrate Liu Cheng-hung Destroys Crops to Requisition Land Without Permission

2010-06-16T19:06:00.001+08:00

UPDATE: Click on THIS LINK to get another report on this destructive land grab by Terry Gou

On June 9th 2010, caterpillar excavators moved into a track of land owned by local Miaoli farmers to destroy their crops against their wishes. These crops were two months away from harvest. They did this on the orders of KMT Miaoli County Magistrate 劉政鴻（Liu, Cheng-Hung) whilst negotiations were underway between the County Government and local residents over a fair price for the Government requisition of land. This was despite the fact that the Miaoli County Council passed a resolution stating that the Government could buy the land but only at a fair price agreed to by the owners of the land. Not only were negotiations unfinished but residents were prevented from stopping the caterpillar excavators from continuing their work by hundreds of police who were called in to the scene. These police also prevented the local KMT Legislator 康世儒 from entering the site (5:21 on the video below). Here is the location:

The County Magistrate responsible, 劉政鴻（Liu, Cheng-Hung), is this man here: (From Wikipedia)

Here is a video of the incident in question with feedback from local residents:

This story came from the Peopo site - media by citizen journalists. WE WOULD VERY MUCH APPRECIATE ANY HELP YOU CAN PROVIDE IN FINDING OUT THE REASONS WHY THE MIAOLI COUNTY GOVERNMENT ARE SO IN NEED OF THIS LAND. Please leave your informed ideas in the comments section.

Here is a report of events in Mandarin:

2010.6.9，相信對苗栗竹南大埔的居民絕對是個永難忘懷的日子。

6.8下午，縣府運來水泥拒馬阻斷大埔地區通外道路，並施行交通管制，當地居民發覺後，緊急連絡立委、議員前來協調，縣府態度強硬不予理會，直到傍晚才開放一條通道供民眾出入。

6.9凌晨三點多，警備車載來二百多名員警，同時到來的是二十多輛怪手、鏟土車，還有救護車，帶頭者按圖索驥，四處佈置警力與怪手，時間一到同時出動，令不及防備的居民手足無措，無法相互支援，接到訊息的媒體在外圍即被擋下不得進入。

怪手直接開進休耕或再一個多月就可收割的稻田，或開挖或推土，甚至只是在稻田裡繞幾圈就開走，部份居民隱忍不敢阻止，按耐不住的居民責罵員警和工程人員，招致而來的是稻禾被鏟除得更徹底，及與員警在稻田旁追逐後，立即被優勢警力制服受傷，一位憤怒的農民提言要放火燒怪手，換來的是稻田被鏟成平地，幾乎看不到還站立著的稻禾。

一位婦人孤身站在怪手旁不肯離開，遭十幾位男、女員警包圍，僵持一陣後即被拉走，旁邊一台攝影機持續記錄整個過程，搜證員警好奇地問：「她是你的誰？」，只聽到一句男孩子微弱的聲音：「我母親！」

Ralph Jennings misreports on Taiwan again

2010-06-07T00:39:00.000+08:00

Completely unacceptable

On my Facebook wall, Alex Raymond alerted me to a Ralph Jennings piece from Saturday titled "Taiwanese show guarded acceptance of China pact."

Do Taiwanese "accept" this so-called Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) at all?

Take a look this particular paragraph of Jennings' article [emphasis mine]:

Political analysts said the size of the protest, a month after a sit-in in Taipei attracted only a few hundred, was an indication that Taiwan's public accepted the deal, wanted to know more details or believed the government was deaf to protests.

The first problem there is that Jennings quotes unnamed "political analysts." Would it make a difference if these "analysts" were close to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and the party he chairs, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)? Yes, it would. (See an earlier example of Jennings' use of similar tactics.)

The next problem is the simple lack of deductive logic. The first paragraph of the article claims that the size of Saturday's protest was "10,000" (and Jennings has greatly underestimated the number of attendees at previous protests by pro-Taiwan groups) and then tells readers of a sit-in that happened "a month" ago (which, in reality, was a 3-day protest which ended just 15 days ago) and which "attracted only a few hundred." Gee, according to my math, "10,000" is a much larger number, and 15 days is only half a month.

While it may be correct to say that Taiwanese "believed the government was deaf to protests," note how it's not the single possibility which was placed in the headline. Despite the addition of the word "guarded," the one which does appear there (and in the article minus the qualifier) is the one which is the easiest to disprove.

Just what do Taiwanese think about this ECFA?
Let's look at a poll from the pro-Chinese KMT TVBS which was released just this past Monday (May 31, 2010) [104 kb PDF file] for some indications [translations, emphasis mine]:

公投題目「是否同意政府與中國簽ECFA？」：同意42% v.s.不同意44%

Voting on a referendum which asks: "Should the government sign an ECFA with China?" 42% say "Yes" while 44% say "No."

[...] 15%未表示意見。

[...] 15% expressed no opinion.

[...]

辦 ECFA公投？民眾贊成的比例上升至55%，不贊成則下滑到 30%

Hold a referendum on ECFA? Public support increases to 55%, opposition slips to 30%

[...]

若辦公投，六成（59%）民眾說會去投票 [...]

If there is a referendum, 59% of the public says they will vote [...]

Bias!
I don't trust TVBS, but remember that if there's any bias in their poll, it will be in favor of those pushing this ECFA with China. So, I must wonder: Does Ralph Jennings hate Taiwan and the truth, or will he write just anything -- as long as he keeps getting paid to do so?

Don't just accept what you read, especially not when it's written by "pros" who repeatedly provide you with information that is as easily disputed as the stuff Jennings keeps shoveling.

Bonus
Check out how Reuters dissembles even more by using an image (with a caption that only appears as a pop-up) of cheering Taiwanese atop this version of the article.

Counterpoints: Taiwan, 台灣, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, media, 媒體

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwan under Ma Ying-jeou is a mess

2010-06-05T23:32:00.003+08:00

Gangsters and police hand-in-hand -- and so much more!

Sun Moon Biotech -- the scene of the
May 28, 2010 shooting that took place
in broad daylight in Taichung City, Taiwan
in the presence of four police officers
Photo by Tim Maddog
(click to enlarge)

On Friday, May 28, 2010, the shooting murder of gang leader Weng Chi-nan (翁奇楠) which took place in broad daylight in the presence of (at least) four police officers in Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)-led Taichung City pulled back the curtain on so much of what is wrong in Taiwan today.

The two senior officers on the scene were Taichung City Police Traffic Chief Lin Chi-you (林啟右) and Criminal Investigation Corps' Third Division head Lin Wen-wu (林文武). The two lower-ranking officers there were Shih Chang-hsing (石長興) and Sergeant Tai Chih-hung (戴志宏).

Surveillance video from the interior of the crime scene exists, but over a week later, not only has this video footage not been shown to the public to help identify and capture the shooter -- it is said to have already been partially erased. UPDATE: That page has ironically disappeared, but I fortunately saved an image of the web page. [/update]

Could somebody be hiding something, y'think? Can you say "accessories to the crime"?

Were the police officers there simply "drinking tea," as has been reported, were they "playing mahjong," or is such speculation just a distraction from what was really going on? So far, we can only rely on the testimony of seemingly untrustworthy sources. Right away all four officers on the scene claimed that they "didn't know" Wang.

But just days later, the story changes slightly. Also at the scene was retired officer Chen Wen-hsiung (陳文雄, the one you may have seen on TV yelling about people making "groundless accusations"), who now admits that he knew Wang, though he claims he "didn't know him well," and he says he invited the other four to the location. Tsk, tsk!

How long will it be before the story changes again?

Taichung Police Commissioner Hu Mu-yuan (胡木源) has already resigned as a result of this scandal. However, the re-election campaign of Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) -- a Chinese KMT politician who has already held office since 2002 (thus having had plenty of time to do something about public order) -- is sure to suffer as a result of the constant attention being given to this matter.

Mayor Hu has repeatedly "declared war" on gangs, yet according to the National Police Agency (警政署), Taichung's crime rate has been the highest in the nation during the past six years.

This sure doesn't look anything like the "clean" Chinese KMT promised by Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in his 2008 presidential election campaign.

The undemocratic Referendum ~~Review~~ Rejection Committee
In news about Taiwan's disappearing democracy, to no one's surprise, the Referendum Review Committee rejected the second proposal for a referendum on the current government's plan to sign an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) with China. Even a poll by the deep-blue TVBS tells us that support for such a referendum increased from 48% to 55% [104 kb PDF file] since March 2009.

So why can't Taiwanese have a say in this matter? Referendum ~~Review~~ Rejection Committee chairman Chao Yung-mau (趙永茂) is claiming that "The TSU's proposal does not meet the qualification of 'approving a government policy' as stated in the Referendum Act."

This is just another of the Chinese KMT's word games which treat the Taiwanese as idiots.

The Ma government claims that the public supports ECFA, yet hundreds of thousands of signatures had been collected in support of this proposal. Could that number be the very reason the committee voted 12:4 to reject public opinion on something that could affect not only the economy but also Taiwan's sovereignty?

Radical (and mendacious) anti-Taiwan media
In a report on the latest rejected referendum, the frequently-mendacious news agency Agence France Presse (AFP) refers to the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU) -- whose "spiritual leader" is former president (then-Chinese KMT) Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) -- as "a radical pro-independence party." More word games.

While I have previously complained about the TSU being infiltrated by Shih Ming-teh's (施明德) redshirts, there are only two groups which would consider the party itself to be "radical," and those groups would be the Chinese KMT and the CCP.

Why isn't anyone in the media referring to those two parties as "radical"?

China proves Ma to be a liar (How will he explain this away?)
After Ma's repeated claims that signing an ECFA with China would open the door for Taiwan to sign free trade agreements (FTAs) with other countries, Chinese officials are ironically the ones who have been more forthcoming:

On the China trade issue, Taiwan protested on Wednesday after a mainland foreign ministry spokesman said Beijing "resolutely opposed" official contact between its diplomatic allies and Taiwan.

Does it matter what Chinese officials say about this? Will that stop other countries from signing FTAs with Taiwan? Read what Franck Varga says about that below.

US Congress listens to Ma's critics, not to Ma
(and Ma listens to no one but China)
A recent report by Congressional Research Services (CRS) titled "Democratic Reforms in Taiwan" has expressed "concern" over "the prolonged detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) as a result of complaints by writers and scholars whose open letters (see link below) have been previously covered on this blog.

An article in the June 4, 2010 edition of the Taipei Times also has this to say about the report [highlights mine]:

"A number of professors, writers, activists and ex-officials primarily in the United States have signed open letters on what they called the 'erosion of justice' in Taiwan," the report says.

[...]

The US Congress has also helped, the report says, "by pressing the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party] regime to end authoritarian abuses of power in favor of freedoms for all the people in Taiwan, including the majority Taiwanese."

The report says that a sustainable democracy helps Taiwan to guard against "undue" Chinese influence as cross-strait engagement has intensified under Ma.

Whenever people criticize things about the Ma government that anyone can see with their own eyes, the Ma government will have a response that treats you like you're imagining things (or perhaps that you're "not Chinese, so you couldn't possibly understand"), but their logic doesn't hold up to the facts. That doesn't seem to bother them in the least.

But remember this: When the Chinese KMT says "up," you should think "down" -- way down -- and check things out for yourself.

Related reading:
* David Reid of David on Formosa blogs: "Rejection of referendum is a denial of democratic rights"

* Ben Goren blogs on Letters from Taiwan: "Pants on Fire"

* Franck Varga blogs about gangsters, Chinese KMT hypocrisy, and more. As Franck points out, "They [the Ma government] want to let the Taiwanese believe that other countries will not be afraid of the Chinese reaction…"

* Michael Turton blogs on The View from Taiwan about Beijing slapping Ma in the face, noting Bonnie Glaser's Nineteen Eighty-Four-like "logic."

* Look back at what Jason Hu told the Taipei Times back in 2001 when he was running for mayor.

* Taiwan Echo writes about the return to days of dictatorship -- and beyond: Ma to Send More Military Instructors to Campus -- Elementary Schools Included

* Part 13 of my series of posts on "the erosion of justice in Taiwan" contains links to all the open letters, the responses, and my earlier comments.

Facially-tattooed tears: Taiwan, 台灣, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Taichung City, 台中市, Jason Hu, 胡志強, gangs, 黑道, police, 警察, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, referendum, 公投

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwanese demand a referendum on ECFA

2010-05-20T21:47:00.001+08:00

Be there, or watch it live

Approximately 60% of Taiwanese of all political stripes support a referendum on the so-called "cross-Strait" [sic -- it should be between two countries] Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議) which President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) insists will be signed in June.

If you can't be there either today (Thursday, May 20, 2010), tomorrow, or Saturday, you can watch the protest live via Ustream:
Online video chat by Ustream
For more info visit the ECFA Referendum Alliance (ECFA 公投行動聯盟) site directly.

And never forget what Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said about ECFA being one step toward "complete unification of the motherland [sic]":

0:35 YouTube video: "DPP ECFA referendum ad - with English titles"

Ballots: Taiwan, 台灣, Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, 經濟合作架構協議, ECFA, referendum, 公投, protest, 抗議

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Clarifying distortions about Taiwan's relations with China

2010-05-15T02:17:00.002+08:00

Nat Bellocchi puts things in focus

Voice of America image of
Nat Bellocchi via NTDTV

Former American Institute in Taiwan (AIT) Chairman Nat Bellocchi had an editorial piece titled "The myth about reducing tension" in Friday's Taipei Times. In the eye-opening piece, Bellocchi deconstructs the illusion of the "reduction of tension" between Taiwan and China.

It deserves to be read in full, so here's the whole piece [highlights mine]:

In a world filled with political tension, cutthroat economic competition and even open warfare, many people long for a reduction of tension, leading to more peace and stability among nations. As such, it was no surprise that when the newly elected Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government started its policy of rapprochement with China in the spring of 2008, the US welcomed the "reduction of tension" across the Taiwan Strait.

The question is whether there really has been a long-term "reduction of tension" and whether that means long-running disagreements might be resolved.

It is a fact that for the past two years the People's Republic of China (PRC) has been less bellicose than it was during the eight years of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) administration. However, that is only true because China sees "Taiwan" as moving in its direction, increasing the likelihood that in due time it will be able to force Taiwan — through economic and political means — into some kind of political unification. [Maddog note: While the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is moving in China's direction, the people of Taiwan are not.]

The present "reduction of tension" is thus artificial in nature as it is predicated on Taiwan capitulating under duress to China in the long run. That is tantamount to saying that law-abiding people giving in to mafia threats reduces tension, when in reality the underlying tension is caused by the aggressor. Now, what will happen if the Taiwanese decide — for whatever reasons — to not re-elect President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in 2012 and a DPP government returns to power? Such a government would want to maintain peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, but at the same time retain Taiwan's hard-won freedom, democracy and independence.

It is easy to predict that such a new policy would be labeled as "increasing tension" by the defeated KMT as well as by the PRC itself. It is thus an ironic contradiction that attempts to consolidate Taiwan's democracy and its acceptance by the international community may be seen in some quarters as "increasing tension."

For those who study Taiwan and observe it closely, there are other seeming contradictions: Shirley Kan of the Congressional Research Service in Washington mentioned three of them during a recent seminar at George Washington University: one, if you want consensus, don't call it a consensus (referring to the so-called "1992 consensus" which has been a divisive issue in Taiwan); two, if you want independence, don't say so; and three, if the US wants to reduce the threat of conflict in the Taiwan Strait, it has to sell arms to Taiwan.

Against this background, what should the US say or do? For one, it should be more careful in referring to the present trend as "reducing tension."

There can only be a true reduction of tension if China moves in the direction of accepting Taiwan for what it is — a lively democracy that wants to chart its own course and determine its own future without undue pressure from the Chinese side.

There is no evidence that China accepts or will ever accept this point. It continues its military buildup, has hardly moved on giving Taiwan international space and continues its attempts to lock Taiwan into a position of dependence through economic means.

The US thus needs to be more insistent on reducing the Chinese military threat against Taiwan and on the issue of increasing international space for Taiwan.

A good start would be for the US to fully support Taiwan's membership in international organizations as stipulated in the Taiwan Relations Act and to refrain from anachronistic statements that it only support membership in organizations "that do not require statehood."

The US also needs to do better at creating an atmosphere wherein efforts by Taiwan's government to consolidate democracy and increase its international presence are seen as enhancing long-term peace and stability in the Strait — in spite of possible objections from a still quite repressive government in Beijing.

The basic idea is that — instead of Taiwan moving in the direction of Beijing — the PRC should move in the direction of freedom and democracy. Only then can there be any substantive "reduction of tension."

Further reading:
* Full text of the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA)

* September 3, 2007: Ma Ying-jeou seriously misrepresents Taiwan Relations Act

* April 12, 2009: Taiwan Relations Act at 30 (Michael Turton points out a common misconception about the US' "obligations" related to the TRA.)

Wiseguys: Taiwan, 台灣, Nat Bellocchi, 白樂崎, memes, 大腦模仿病毒, China, 中國, People's Republic of China, 中華人民共和國, PRC

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

How the ISO helps China change Taiwan's status quo

2010-05-01T04:48:00.000+08:00

A harmful meme which replicates itself with ease
Many organizations, corporations, governments claim that they are "apolitical" and that they simply use the "standard" International Organization for Standardization (ISO) country codes as a guide to determine how they list Taiwan.

The problem with this is that in the ISO country names and code elements list, Taiwan's "short form" is given as "Taiwan, Province of China." This name is neither short nor does it reflect Taiwan's de facto independent status.

However, it does function as a "meme" or "verbal virus."

Furthermore, the ISO has also listed Taiwan as China's Region 7, basically ignoring Taiwan's de facto status and annexing the smaller country to the larger one.

This is outrageous!

No, it's not enough for the 50 Cent Army to dominate the Internet with pro-CCP/China/anti-Taiwan propaganda -- now the ISO is helping China to annex Taiwan by spreading the standardized-coding "virus" around the globe.

This "virus" created by the UN Statistical Division (which is under the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs [UNDESA] has been headed by Chinese official Sha Zukang since July 1, 2007) was designed to annex Taiwan by using the convenient excuse of ISO "standardization" codes, which are used by many businesses. On many university advertisements for recruiting international students on the Internet, Taiwan has been erroneously listed as a "province of China" most likely due to this ISO country code "virus."

Background
Readers who are unfamiliar with the following subjects might want to take a look at the links below before continuing:
* ISO 3166 FAQs
* ISO 3166-1 (scroll down to "Criteria for inclusion")
* ISO 3166-3
* UN Report of the Working Group on Country Names

Since Taiwan's application to enter the United Nations was rejected by UN in July 2007, not being a UN member, Taiwan is not listed in the United Nations Bulletin Country Names.

The UN Terminology Section is the current authority on country names in all of the official languages of the UN, and it does not have Taiwan listed.

The list of names in Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use of the UN Statistics Division is based on the Bulletin Country Names and other UN sources, the name "Taiwan, Province of China" has obviously come from "other UN sources."

What are these so-called "other UN sources"?

The UN always cites UN Resolution 2758 as "proof" that Taiwanese people should not have their own seat at the UN because it interprets this resolution as meaning that "Taiwan is a province of China" and that Taiwanese people should therefore be represented by the Chinese government -- a government that has never governed Taiwan and has not even been chosen by its own people to represent China through democratic elections.

UN Resolution 2758 actually resolves the question of who should represent China, but it mentions nothing about who should represent the 23 million people of Taiwan.

On the contrary, the Standard country or area codes and geographical regions for statistical use has included this:

The designations employed and the presentation of material at this site do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

Read that again: The designations do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever concerning the legal status or delineation of frontiers or boundaries of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities. The UN terribly contradicts itself by doing those very things when it wrongly interprets Taiwan's status as being part of China (citing UN Resolution 2758 as the authoritative source), but the UN Secretariat also declares that it has no opinion on the legal status of any country.

How ridiculous!

The freedom to speak the truth
But Taiwan is a country, says a geographic expert who does not work for any UN organizations and who can therefore speak the truth. There is no doubt whatsoever that Taiwan fulfills all the criteria for a country. The only reason Taiwan isn't a member in the UN is the political pressure from China, a country which frequently reminds the world that it doesn't rule out the use of force in order to annex Taiwan as one of its provinces.

Logical breakdown
Many countries existed long before the creation of the UN. If a country decides not to join the UN as a member, it does not mean this country doesn't exist. (See also: this comment by Andrew Kerslake.) In other words, it's not up to the UN to determine whether a territory is indeed a country. It can only decide whether it wishes to accept the application of a country which decides to join and either welcome them or not.

Many countries represented in the UN are led by authoritarian governments which have not gained their rule via any democratic elections at home. Consequently, the UN has many problems, and its original mission of promoting world peace has not been fulfilled.

The UN has no rights (see reference number 2 below, regarding MOU) to sign any memo against a non-member state (such as the WHO's secret MOU with China which says that communications between the WHO and Taiwan be routed through China), nor to arbitrarily change a country's name because of pressure from another bullying state.

The Taiwanese people had a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) administration imposed upon them. They've experienced the KMT's 228 Massacre, and they've suffered under the suppression of White Terror and the longest period of martial law in modern history. Taiwan's gradual transition to democracy requires further support from strong democratic nations.

Taiwan's people want a new Taiwan constitution to replace the flawed ROC constitution (promulgated 63 years ago in a foreign country) so that the occupying administrator's rules of law can be declared obsolete, and its legislature can function normally through fair elections. Otherwise, committees such as the Legislative Yuan's Procedural Committee (because of this pan-blue dominated committee's arbitrary prioritization of proposed bills, certain important bills are purposely delayed or blocked completely from being included in the agenda for discussion), the Executive Yuan's Referendum Review Committee, the unconstitutional National Communications Commission (NCC), and others will continue to hinder Taiwan's full democratic reform.

The controversies of a rising undemocratic China and the business opportunities there have put Taiwan's democracy in jeopardy. Once Taiwan is ~~taken into the sphere~~ sucked into the black hole of an authoritarian China, the rest of the neighboring region will be in danger.

The UN's geographic "experts" have simply ignored Taiwan's de facto status and have helped their Chinese chief of UNDESA to achieve his country's agenda by spreading the ISO country code "virus" around the global business community, using this so called "standard" code to shift the status quo towards China's favor. This calls their professional ethics and expertise into question.

If the UN is serious about the promotion of human rights and human dignity, its geographic "experts" should be investigated for giving in to "pressure" from above, and the UNDESA head, Sha Zukang, should be probed for "incompetence" and for his role in helping the spread of the Taiwan ISO country code "virus" around the globe.

Suggested actions
Since the ROC has never been recognized as having taken over Formosa's sovereignty, any Taiwanese organization(s) with sufficient financial resources should sue the ISO. If the ISO is as innocent as it claims to be and merely updates their records by "default" (i.e., transferring UN "expert advise"), then there is no need for the ISO to exist at all. Since the ISO's mission is to standardize things, they shouldn't just follow orders from other "experts" without judging or adding its own input; otherwise, they are no experts themselves.

Since freedom of expression should be encouraged in universities, Taiwanese studying abroad or planning to do so can also help out when discovering errors about how Taiwan is listed. Write (politely) to school officials letting them know that such errors are offensive, and ask them to label your home country in a way which reflects Taiwan's de facto status.

USCIS: preserving the truth, setting the right "standard"
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is not ambiguous about Taiwan's status. It is a US executive branch that honors Taiwanese people's right to call their country "Taiwan." In an official memorandum dated December 1, 2008 [62 KB PDF], it states that for purposes of the United States immigration law, Taiwan is to be considered a separate independent country despite the Department of State's "one-China" policy.

Consequently, a United States passport may not be issued showing its owner's place of birth as "Taiwan, China," "Taiwan, Republic of China," or "Taiwan ROC." For post-WWII immigrants to Taiwan who were born in China, it should show "People's Republic of China" as their country of birth; however, their country of nationality (on application form N-400) should still be listed as "Taiwan" as explained below.

Here's an excerpt from the memo:

The adjudicator must not require an applicant to list "Taiwan, PRC," "Taiwan, China," "Taiwan, Republic of China," "Taiwan, ROC," or "People's Republic of China" as the country of birth or nationality on Form N-400 if the applicant has indicated "Taiwan" and the documentary evidence submitted supports their claim.

[...]

Note that some applicants may have been born in the PRC but currently hold a
Taiwan passport because they moved from the mainland (PRC) to Taiwan long ago.
For those applicants, the country of birth should be listed as "People's Republic of
China" and the country of nationality should be listed as "Taiwan" on their
Form N-400.

Reference:
1. The US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - an agency affiliated with the US Department of Commerce, after consulting with the American Institute in Taiwan, has stopped referring to Taiwan as "Chinese Taipei" and refers to Taiwan simply by its proper name: Taiwan.

2. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should involve the mutual benefits of the signing parties only. It should contain nothing about a third party -- that is, it shouldn't involve anyone outside of the negotiation process.

3. When it comes to Taiwan, National Geographic is "NG".

(Tim Maddog edited this post)

Ralph Jennings pushes anti-Taiwan, pro-Ma propaganda

2010-04-26T01:54:00.005+08:00

Inexcusable biases

A problematic Reuters piece titled "Taiwan president, opposition clash over China deal" appeared online less than an hour after the close of a debate Sunday afternoon between Taiwan's president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The topic of the debate was the controversial Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA), which Ma has been touting as "urgent" without providing any concrete details regarding the content to the public or to opposition parties.

19:35 YouTube video: "ECFA 第一階段申論"
Translation: ECFA [Debate] Part 1: Introductory Remarks
A reader e-mailed me about Jennings' "false statement[s]" within [that's a direct quote]:

The debate, a new step in Taiwan's democracy, is expected to sway public opinion towards an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA) set to be signed with China in June.

You've got to be kidding me! Jennings -- who has previously labeled me as a "sniper" for calling out his lies -- has some nerve. He would have to be hiding under a rock to actually be unaware of previous debates between political adversaries in Taiwan. (Does he mean something else? Whether this so-called "professional" writer and/or his editors are trying to deceive us on purpose is uncertain.)

But when Jennings -- working for a wire service whose reports get carried far and wide -- claims that this particular debate is "expected" to do just what Ma wants it to, this functions as the "carpet bombing" variety of propaganda. (My e-mail correspondent notes that the article is already being carried in the Malaysia Star and the Straits Times.)

Who is "expect[ing]" this kind of result from the debate? You might think Jennings would provide at least one example of who it is that thinks in a way which precisely benefits Ma. But he doesn't.

The article also drops this unbecoming description of Ma's opponent in the very next paragraph:

"If we don't do this deal, what else can we do? The rest of Asia is forming alliances," Ma said, his voice rising, as he stood beside anti-China opposition Democratic Progressive Party chairwoman Tsai Ing-wen.

Why does Ralph Jennings hate neutral reporting? He could have noted how Tsai's party opened trade to China (which Jennings knows is targeting Taiwan with over 1,500 missiles) -- just without sacrificing Taiwan's sovereignty in the process.

Jennings also "generously" (from Ma's perspective) provided this generalization near the bottom of the article:

Television pundits were split on who fared better, giving the island's colourful media talk shows and staunchly divided public plenty to talk about.

Which "television pundits"? Jennings doesn't/won't specify, but if you want to read about some numbers I saw during and after the debate about "who fared better," just follow that link. Unlike Jennings, I even say where I found those numbers.

UPDATE: Here's an online poll by Yahoo asking who did a better job in the debate. The current results are:
* Tsai Ing-wen: 3,682 (59.1%)
* Ma Ying-jeou: 2,333 (37.4%)
* Neither: 216 (3.5%)
[/update]

The craptastic conclusion?
That's anti-Taiwan Ralph Jennings for ya! Go see what other unappetizing things (e.g., positive descriptions of Ma and/or China, unchallenged counterfactual claims, etc.) you can find in his "reporting."

Further reference:
Taiwan's Public Television Service (PTS, 公共電視) uploaded videos of the entire debate to YouTube. The first segment of the series is at the top of this post. Here are the remaining segments:
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（1） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (1)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（2） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (2)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（3） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (3)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（4） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (4)
* ECFA 第二階段交互詰問（5） Translation: Segment 2, Q & A (5)
* ECFA 第三階段結論 Translation: Segment 3, Closing Remarks (5)

* Perhaps this is the sort of place Ralph Jennings finds such "expectations." After the Sunday debate, the deep-blue TVBS did a survey of 906 Taiwanese over the age of 20. With a margin of error of 3.2 percent, it said that "support for ECFA increased by 3 percentage points" [163 kb PDF file] since a survey four days earlier.

Ghouls and strangulations: Taiwan, 台灣, Reuters, 路透社, Ralph Jennings, 唐甯思, propaganda, 宣傳, ECFA, 經濟合作架構協議, debate, 辯論, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九 Tsai Ing-wen, 蔡英文

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Indicative Comments - Updated

2010-04-23T22:35:00.004+08:00

News recently that the Presidential Office has been seeking to downplay the importance of Sunday's ECFA debate between the two 'Yings'. A PO spokesperson had the following to say:

The Presidential Office yesterday tried to downplay the importance of Sunday’s debate between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) on the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), saying it [the debate] was merely part of the government’s efforts to explain its cross-strait policies.

“What we care about is explaining the government policies clearly and to allow the public to have a better understanding of the trade pact,” Lo said. “We didn’t begin preparations to explain the pact simply because of the debate and we certainly will not stop after it is over.”

Lo said Ma would do his best to use language that “people in the south” understand, so they would see the necessity of the planned pact.

“The DPP fully understands the importance of this trade pact, but they strongly oppose it because of their political ideology,” he said. [subtext: opposition is partisan not rational]

Lo yesterday said Ma might “not be good at debating skills or packaging himself,” but that he would exercise his “sincerity and consistency” and “cite facts” to convince the public that the ECFA was urgent and necessary.

Lo said the purpose of the debate was not to win, because Ma is more concerned about how Taiwan’s interests can be protected and how to formulate a strategic policy for the country’s economic development to connect with the world. [subtext: losing the debate is not losing the argument so Ma and the KMT can't lose]

“It is not a matter of whether we should sign the ECFA, but how we should sign it,” he said. [Neatly framing the debate as how not if ECFA should be signed - clearly it has been decided that it will be signed ... again, so much for Premier Wu's 60% of public support]

Any individual with “economic rationality” knew the trade deal was important for Taiwan, he said. [Subtext: if you are a business person with a 'real' handle of the 'real world' (read economic world) you will support ECFA but if you oppose it is because you are exercising 'political rationality'? - is economic rationality the only authoritative viewpoint of complex human societies?]

Lo urged the public to examine whether the DPP’s opposition to the ECFA ran counter to Taiwan’s best interests.

It was the government’s duty to prevent the DPP from securing political gain at the expense of the nation’s interests, he said.

No, it is the KMT's goal to prevent the DPP from securing political gain. Here Lo is confusing the KMT for the Government - must have got confused when the Party-State resumed after 2008. On the other hand .. it is the DPP's duty to prevent the KMT from using the State to secure permanent hegemony and annexing Taiwan to China - which one is more in the nation's long-term interests: sovereignty and security or short term economic gain for some at the expense of the majority?

UPDATE: More comments from Presidential Office Spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) that are very revealing:

1. President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) had too little time to prepare for today’s debate.

2. Lo said that because of Ma’s fatigue and the DPP’s expertise in packaging, many people predicted that Tsai would perform better than Ma during the debate.

3. As long as Ma said what he believed and remained consistent in his argument, he would prove that Tsai was being “two faced,”acting like an academic but actually being a politician, Lo said.

Clearly Lo is prepping the public for a Ma defeat in the debate. Lo's comments are the whining of someone who is trying to spin an anticipated defeat into a victory before the first word of the debate has been uttered. What does he mean by the 'DPP's expertise in packaging?' and how is someone 'two faced' simply because they can argue with intelligence and fact?

Again, Ma has stated that he will sign ECFA regardless of public opinion - "In his weekly video address yesterday, Ma vowed to forge ahead with the Taiwan-China trade pact, saying the administration “will definitely” sign the proposed accord because it is conducive to Taiwan and its people."

Clearly Ma is ignoring Premier Wu's promise of 60% public support required for ECFA to be signed, as we all knew it would be.

If there is one thing you can trust the KMT to do it is to go back on their word, accuse opponents of what they are criticised for (divertisement - or making a strength out of a weakness) and rush implementation of policies through on the side and quietly to build up a fait accompli - a trap door from which no return is possible. They are the antithesis of democratic and always have been - local clients and patrons are what drive the party and what the party operates to feed.

Wu Den-yih and his medicine show

2010-04-06T06:04:00.002+08:00

Is he, too, "selling snake oil"?

The Central News Agency (中央社) reported about a week and a half ago (Thursday, March 25, 2010) that Taiwan's Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) (Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT]) will start cracking down on fake medicines [translation mine]:

查緝偽劣藥政院取締小組動起來

Executive Yuan prohibition group initiates crackdown on fake medicines

（中央社記者謝佳珍台北25日電）為打擊不法藥物，行政院長吳敦義今天指示成立聯合取締小組，加強稽查地下電台、夜市、攤販、情趣商店等偽劣假藥販售通路，並請衛生署在3個月內修法加重販售偽劣假藥罰責。

(CNA reporter Hsieh Chia-chen [ph], [reporting from] Taipei, [March] 25) In order to combat fake medicines, Premier Wu Den-yih established a task force to investigate pirate ["underground"] radio stations, night markets, street vendors, adult novelty stores, and other fake medicine outlets. He also asked the Department of Health to make stricter laws regarding fake medicines along with harsher punishments for violations.

Here's the same story as covered in the Friday, March 26, 2006 edition of the Taipei Times:

A cross-agency task force will be established to combat counterfeit drugs and medical products sold via underground radio stations, the Internet and night markets, the Executive Yuan and the Department of Health announced yesterday.

Sounds like a pretty good idea, right? The problem is that "underground radio stations" is dog-whistle politics to Chinese KMT supporters:

Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a term for a type of political campaigning or speechmaking which employs coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience

To these folks, "underground radio" is equivalent to "southern Taiwan," "pro-Taiwan," ""pro-DPP," and/or "anti-China," and words like those (and "fake medicines" -- which are often associated with the sponsorship of such stations) get them salivating. While a lot of discussion is already focusing on the upcoming (November 27, 2010) special municipality elections, this is an obvious attempt by the Chinese KMT to stir up their base with irrational hatred.

This is all a sham, as the following info will reveal.

The kicker
What do you think "legal" pro-Chinese KMT TV and radio stations do for whole days at a time? If you said, "Sell medicine," you'd be onto something.

Take a gander at the following screenshots from some of those blue-affiliated TV stations (and see if you can spot a familiar face in the crowd):

I'm no pirate! I've got a lab coat and a toupee! (Does it make me a Dr?) (Click to enlarge)	If you wouldn't eat cat poop or poison ivy, you should think twice about taking this, too. (Click to enlarge)	If I move a walker away and stand up, will you believe I used to need it? (Click to enlarge)
Somebody gave me FK23, so I took it. LOL Could've been FM2! (Click to enlarge)	Saying it's got no other chemicals doesn't mean it has none at all. (Click to enlarge)	Ma Ying-jeou endorses the guy selling drugs. (Click to enlarge)
Didn't trust Adimmune's H1N1 vaccine? Would you trust this? (Click to enlarge)	This claims to help high BP, diabetes, kidney problems, enuresis, impotence, and more! (Click to enlarge)	Whatever you've got, take our pills. You might not get better, but we'll profit! (Click to enlarge)

Wait! Is that KMT chairman/President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) I see? By George! It most certainly is!

And no, these aren't just commercials. Whole shows use questionable methods to sell these questionable products. (All of the screenshots above were captured between 2:53 and 3:51 PM on Saturday, March 27, 2010.) Do you think Wu's "crackdown" will affect these "above-ground" TV stations at all? Will President Ma be caught in their dragnet?

Keep your eyes on this story, but don't bet anything of value on it.

Further reading:
For earlier examples of the use of this specific tactic, search for the word "radio" in these older posts, or at least hover on the links below for a preview (original posts have links to further information):

* December 15, 2006: "10 or so sources of KMT brainwashing"

* June 2, 2007: "Behind the China Post's curtain ... lies a big conflict of interest"

* September 24, 2008: "Ma Ying-jeou's survey dips to a new low"

* The Liberty Times (自由時報) thinks Wu's "crackdown" is an attempt to shut out voices opposed to ECFA. (Hat tip to A-gu)

Industry standards: Taiwan, 台灣, Chinese KMT, 中國國民黨, Wu Den-yih, 吳敦義, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, propaganda, 宣傳, underground radio, 地下電台

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

China's offensive cyber hacking and more

2010-04-03T02:06:00.001+08:00

How can they call their actions "self defense"?

In a BBC interview of China's then-ambassador to the United Nations (UN) Sha Zukang (沙祖康) which was broadcast on August 18, 2006, Sha talked about China's position on Taiwan's independence and about China's military spending. He told other countries (especially the USA) to "shut up" and claimed that China's military expansion was solely for the purpose of self-defense, protecting China's territorial integrity, and preventing other countries from harming China.

7:08 YouTube video: " FW: China at war over Taiwan (inteview w/ Mr. Sha)"
The interview lets us see Sha as a state spokesman (or from the POV of the Taiwanese, a state-sponsored terrorist -- see 1:04 - 1:20 in the video above) vowing to wage war against any country that dares to recognize Taiwan's de facto independence.

The ripples from last December's cyber attack on Google have still not settled, and the even-more-recent wave of attacks on Yahoo leaves us wondering whether China justifies its cyberspace intrusions into others' properties -- as well as its military expansion -- as merely constituting China's "self-defense."

If an uninvited person enters private property (or even if the person is invited by an earlier intruder), it's considered an act of trespassing. Cyber hacking is an act of trespassing into privately-owned (or other countries') cyber properties and is a criminal offense. If the UN is serious about world peace, it should bring this topic up for discussion in a special conference.

China's twisted geopolitical logic
Getting back to Sha's interview, if China could claim Taiwan as "an inseparable part of its territory" [sic], so too could the Netherlands, Spain, or any other country that had set a foot on Formosa in the past claim Taiwan (or part of it) as theirs. As I discussed in a May 2009 post on Talk Taiwan, if China could claim Taiwan as "an inseparable part of the motherland" [sic], today's Mongolia could equally claim any part of the historical Mongol Empire, including China, countries in central Asia and some countries in Europe; and Turkey could claim what used to be the Ottoman Empire, including some countries in southeastern Europe, northeastern Africa, and elsewhere.

Modern China (The "Republic of China" [ROC] founded in 1911 by Sun Yat-sen) did not claim Taiwan as part of its territory in the 1925 draft of its constitution, nor did they do so in 1947 when the ROC constitution was promulgated. It couldn't because the predecessor of the ROC-China, the Qing Dynasty, had given Taiwan away "in perpetuity and full sovereignty" to Japan in 1895. When the ROC overthrew the Qing dynasty in 1911, Taiwan was under the jurisdiction of Japan. How could the PRC-China (The "People's Republic of China," founded under Mao Zedong), which evicted and replaced the ROC in China in 1949 (and which was eventually recognized as representing China by other countries since 1971) claim Taiwan, a territory that it has never governed?

Besides, how could the ROC, a Chinese government-in-exile, claim sovereignty and representation over Formosa, a land where it took refuge while in exile? If the exiled Tibet government could claim sovereignty over its place of refuge as part of its territory, India would be in trouble!

Clearly, Taiwan's sovereignty must be placed in the hands of its resident citizens in a plebiscite to decide its eventual status.

Neither an exiled Chinese government (the ROC) nor one recognized by most countries as representing China (the PRC) should be able to claim sovereignty over Taiwan. Taiwan's future status should not be determined via negotiations between these two governments, nor should either of them represent Taiwan's interests in any international organizations.

Sha Zukang is a Chinese diplomat who is currently head of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA). He was previously the Chinese ambassador to the United Nations Office at Geneva. The UN General Assembly or the Secretary General must have forgotten UN's founding mission of promoting world peace, and instead has promoted a Chinese state-sponsored terrorist (threatening Taiwan's de facto independence with the possible use of force in his interview) to the position of UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs on July 1, 2007 to a 4-year term.

2:53 YouTube video: "Mr. Sha Zukang, Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs"
The UNDESA contains several important divisions. These include the Development Policy Division, the Financing for Development Office, the Division for Sustainable Development, the Division for Social Development, the Division for Public Administration, the Statistics Division, and the Population Division. It is also in charge of the follow-up to the major United Nations Summits and Conferences.

Since Sha holds such an important UN post, he should use his influence to encourage his government colleagues and his fellow countrymen to respect intellectual property rights, commercial patents, human rights, and individual privacy rights. He should also put an end to China's cyber crime. If Sha can't use his UN post to convince his countrymen to be law-abiding citizens of the global village, he should be removed from the position.

But can we really expect anything like that from someone who said during the SARS crisis, "Who cares about you (Taiwanese)?"

0:31 YouTube video: "攜手護台灣　加入聯合國"
Translation: Hand-in-hand to protect Taiwan, join the United Nations
Further reference:
* PLA modernization and the implications for Taiwan

True, the village bully could use his brand new baseball bat to play baseball, but given his tendencies, can we entirely ignore the possibility that he could use that same item to beat neighboring weaklings with it?

* Liberty Times (自由時報): 斥「外交部」竊台說帖 by 沈建德 (Translation: Rebutting the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Memorandum on the [ROC's] Theft of Taiwan['s sovereignty])
Comment: I wonder if our MOFA office was pressured by the PRC government to write this memo to pave a "smoother" way for Taiwan's handover.

* Michael Turton on The View from Taiwan writes: China Hacks Media and Activist Yahoo Emails

Not only were journalists in both China and Taiwan hacked, including people I personally know, but as the report notes, many others working on democracy and freedom issues in Taiwan and China-related areas were hacked. Also hacked were individuals of pro-Taiwan sympathies but who are not necessarily high profile about it. Certain listmembers of the China discussion list ChinaPol were hacked [...]

* DIGITAL AGE - How Ready Are We For A Cyber-War? Adam Segal

26:49 YouTube video: "DIGITAL AGE - How Ready Are We For A Cyber-War? Adam Segal. Feb. 28, [2]010"
* Cyber Warfare: Media confusion is yet another good reason why Taiwan should drop the name of Republic of China, a name used and liked only by the Chinese Nationalist Party (aka the KMT)! See the text on the screen through much of the video which says "Rep. of China's Communist Party" instead of the "People's Rep. of China's (or PRC's) Communist Party."

4:36 YouTube video: "Cyber war across the Pacific - RT 100125"
(Tim Maddog edited this post)

Proof Positive

2010-03-24T13:10:00.002+08:00

President Ma Ying-jeou confirmed yesterday what many Taiwanese suspect. That he is not a 'Taiwanese' President but rather a 'Chinese' one. So much for democratisation and sovereignty:

When asked about his thoughts on Wen’s description of Taiwan as “China’s brother,” Ma said people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait have the same roots, so the description “was not wrong.”

“But in Taiwan, the relationship between the government and the mainland operates under the constitution of the Republic of China,” he said. “Like I always say, the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait belong to the Chinese nation.”

To say that Taiwanese belong to the Chinese nation and are 'little brothers' of Chinese is not only insulting to Taiwan's democracy and sovereignty but utterly obtuse to the majority of public opinion that regards the Taiwanese as belonging to the Taiwanese nation. Ultimately, I argue that the people belong to their environment and themselves. If they did in practice, perhaps we wouldn't have so many contrived power conflicts over borders and national identity.

U.S. Census 2010: write in "Taiwanese"

2010-03-08T21:26:00.002+08:00

Now's your chance: You be you!

A group of Taiwanese-Americans produced this great video below as part of a campaign to address the problem of their group's underrepresentation and to fix it -- or to at least get the ball rolling -- in the United States Census 2010.

In previous censuses, many Taiwanese -- including ones who wrote in "Taiwanese" -- were counted as being "Chinese." With your help, perhaps things can change this time around. Please spread the word, and encourage people affected by this situation to participate in the movement.

2:38 YouTube video: "Write in "Taiwanese" - US Census 2010 [PSA Full Version]"
Further reading:
* United States Census 2010. Taiv✓anese! Be counted. Be recognized.

* Behind the Scenes of Census 2010: Write in "Taiwanese" | Passion Project

Choose one or more: Taiwan, 台灣, Taiwanese, 台灣人, Taiwanese-Americans, 台美人, census, 人口普查

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Taiwan's humpback pink dolphins

2010-03-03T15:08:00.002+08:00

Redirect

In case you've arrived here via an RSS reader or a link created by a service such as Twitterfeed, the post about Taiwan's humpback pink dolphins is actually located on Ben Goren's personal blog, Letters from Taiwan. Just follow the link above.

Sorry for any inconvenience.

Taiwan's DPP wins big in latest legislative by-elections

2010-02-27T22:30:00.000+08:00

Three out of four ain't bad

Today in Taoyuan, Hsinchu, Chiayi, and Hualien, Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won three of the four elections which were held to replace legislators elected to other positions in last December's 3-in-1 election.

Huang Jen-chu (黃仁杼) beat Apollo Chen (陳學聖) and two "independent" candidates in Taoyuan, Peng Shao-chin (彭紹瑾) beat Cheng Yung-tang (鄭永堂) in Hsinchu, and Chen Ming-wen (陳明文) summarily kicked Lin Te-jui's (林德瑞) ass and handed it to him on a plate (57,451 to 27,138) in Chiayi.

In Hualien, which is known as a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) stronghold, DPP candidate Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) came in second place, but she got an impressiive 40.8% of the votes running against the winner, KMT candidate Wang Ting-sheng (王廷升), and "independent" Shih Sheng-lang (施勝郎).

Here are unofficial numbers given by various TV stations after either victories had been declared or losses conceded in all districts.

5:35 PM results via ETTV (Click to enlarge)	5:37 PM results via CTiTV (Click to enlarge)
5:37 PM results via FTV (Click to enlarge)
5:37 PM results via TVBS (Click to enlarge)	5:39 PM results via SETN (Click to enlarge)

So far, there have been no reports of losing KMT candidates trying to shoot anybody.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to the next elections in December 2010 so Taiwan's voters can clean things up some more.

Further reading:
* Here are the vote counts for all candidates via the Liberty Times.

* Download MS Excel spreadsheets (Hanzi) of official results from the Central Election Commission (CEC) web site.

Front row seats: Taiwan, 台灣, election, 選舉

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Open Letter from the producer of Formosa Betrayed

2010-02-27T04:37:00.000+08:00

Putting Taiwan in the spotlight

Will Tiao, the producer of the film "Formosa Betrayed" (被出賣的台灣), which is being released across the United States today, sent this around [emphasis mine]:

Dear Friends,

This weekend, February 26-28, a new movie about Taiwan will be coming to theaters. Formosa Betrayed is the first American film to ever deal with US-Taiwan relations and explore the issues of democracy, identity, and justice during the White Terror period in Taiwan. The movie was largely funded by Taiwanese all over the United States and Canada, who invested over $6 million into the film. This makes Formosa Betrayed one of the largest pro-Taiwan projects ever funded by the overseas Taiwanese community. Most of these investors are not wealthy -- they are hard working individuals who came to America to provide a better life for their children.

I am one of those children.

My parents are from Kaohsiung, Taiwan. While growing up, they taught me to call myself "Taiwanese," not "Chinese." This caused them much hardship, which included being put on a blacklist. Some of their friends had worse things happen to them. In some cases, people were killed.

The Taiwanese people have suffered at the hands of many over the last century, but these stories have rarely been told or heard. As a second generation Taiwanese American, I feel it is my duty to educate my generation, as well as the world, about the struggles and suffering of the Taiwanese. We cannot allow Taiwan's history and its people's hardships to be forgotten. Once that happens, it only becomes a matter of time before these atrocities are repeated. This is precisely why I dedicated the last five years of my life to bringing the story of Formosa Betrayed to the world.

As the turbulent reaction to President Obama's recent arms sale to Taiwan shows, US-China-Taiwan relations is still a touchy subject that is greeted by fleeting interest, faint support, or --perhaps worst of all-- indifference by the American media. I am hoping the release of Formosa Betrayed will help spur greater awareness and wider discussion about these important matters in the United States and abroad. This is why I am urging you to see Formosa Betrayed this weekend with your friends and family -- to enlighten them about Taiwan's embattled legacy and its struggle for democracy.

Thank you for your time and interest.

All the best,

Will Tiao
President, Formosa Films
Producer, Formosa Betrayed

Remember that this film is based upon important real events in Taiwan's history, and do everything within your power to see it.

Daily rushes: Taiwan, 台灣, open letter, 公開信, Formosa Betrayed, 被出賣的台灣, White Terror, 白色恐怖, Chinese Nationalist Party, 中國國民黨, Kuomintang, KMT, 國民黨

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Innocent Mistake, Freudian Slip or Expose of a Manchurian Candidate?

2010-02-25T00:54:00.003+08:00

Yesterday, Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou inadvertently referred to the ROC Government as the 'Chinese (adjective) Government'. Here's how the Taipei Times reported it:

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) yesterday morning thanked the outgoing Solomon Islands ambassador at the Presidential Office, but referred to his administration as the “Chunghua government” (中華政府) or “Chinese government.” Expressing his gratitude for the Solomon Islands’ assistance following the devastation wrought by Typhoon Morakot in August, Ma said the “Chunghua government” and its people thanked the Pacific ally’s parliament for passing a resolution expressing concern over the destruction.

Solomon Islands Ambassador Beraki Jino has been posted in Taiwan for six years and will move on to Australia to serve as high commissioner.

Realizing his mistake, Ma immediately corrected himself and said he meant the “government of the Republic of China.”

For those not sure of why this should be an issue some clarification is required. The term Chungguo means China whilst the term Chunghua means, broadly, 'of Chinese culture' or 'of the Chinese diaspora'. The full title of the ROC is Chunghua Mingguo which means 'the Chinese Republic' which is usually translated as the Republic of China. So, to refer to the ROC Government as the Chunghua Government essentially absents the term 'republic'. For the President to make an error of speech is only human but in Taiwan's political climate such a mistake can carry very serious implications, especially when the President has been busy downgrading Taiwan as a region of China (ROC) and claiming that the PRC is still under the umbrella of sovereignty of the ROC. One is therefore left with the following interpretations:

1) An innocent mistake
2) A Freudian slip - Ma has Chunghua on his mind and has been attempting to reify the idea that Taiwan is Chinese through stressing that Taiwanese are Chinese culturally and part of the Chinese diaspora - hence his accidental confusing of terms.
3) An insight into Ma's real conception of his Government and the status of Taiwan - that it is only Chunghua (after all there cannot be two Chinas): a convenient articulation that eases the political process of downgrading the ROC in preparation for integration into the PRC.

You choose. No doubt many Taiwanese will not be impressed by his 'slip of the tongue', if that was what it was.

Lunar New Year in Taiwan: 2010

2010-02-13T05:12:00.000+08:00

A twofer holiday!

In addition to being Valentine's Day, February 14, 2010 (Sunday) is New Year's Day as celebrated in several Asian countries. Many people use the term "Chinese New Year" to describe the holiday, despite the fact that the direct back-translation "中國新年" is rarely used; furthermore, it doesn't just belong to the Chinese.

Here's something from a couple of earlier posts related to why many people prefer to call this holiday "Lunar New Year" (Taiwanese: Lông li̍k sin nî; Hanzi: 農曆新年; Hanyu pinyin: Nónglìxīnnián):

It doesn't just belong to the Chinese

Nor is it just "politically correct." Read about it in English and/or Chinese.

Happy Lunar New Year! 萬事如意! [=van.su_ru.yi! / wàn shì rú yì!]

UPDATE:Being in a bit of a rush to begin my vacation, I missed these links (all are presented in both English and Mandarin):* How the people of Vietnam celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of South Korea celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of Singapore celebrate Lunar New Year* How the people of Malaysia celebrate Lunar New Year

And here's an update on the Taiwanese romanization which I derived by using an online dictionary on the Ministry of Education (MOE) web site:

袂記得 [bē-kì-tit/buē-kì-tit]: Every time you say "Lunar New Year," a Chinese KMT'er cries. Lông li̍k sin nî khuài lo̍k (農曆新年快樂！) Bān sū jû ì! (萬事如意！)

And as some people also say, Happy Taiwanese New Year!

Codecs: Taiwan, 台灣, China, 中國, Lunar New Year, 農曆新年

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Debate on erosion of justice in Taiwan continues

2010-02-09T04:55:00.005+08:00

Part XIII

Michael Danielsen, chairman of Denmark's Taiwan Corner and one of the signatories of the Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou last November, rebuts Government Information Office Minister Su Jun-pin's (蘇俊賓) response to Richard Kagan last month with a piece in today's Taipei Times titled "Democratic liberty is fundamental."

Here are some excerpts from Danielsen's piece:

[Su] states that the government will give "due attention to possible flaws in our judicial system" and continued by stating that it will "keep pushing forward on these fronts."

I look forward to actual steps that go beyond mere words. [...]

[...]

In its report, Freedom House refers to violations of the rights of defendants in criminal cases and other new restrictions on freedom of expression and news freedom. In addition, Jerome Cohen [Maddog note: Ma Ying-jeou's (馬英九) Harvard professor] and Chen Yu-jie (陳玉潔) stated in the South China Morning Post on Jan. 20 that now "it [the government] is trying to introduce legislation to punish 'obstructions of justice' that will inevitably restrict defense lawyers' activities." [Maddog note: Cohen and Chen's unedited original letter; The edited version which appeared in the SCMP (PDF); Hanzi version which appeared in the Taiwan-based China Times (中國時報)]

Thus, using history over the last two decades to showcase Taiwan's democratic development is deceptive.

Su seems to have a different understanding of democratic involvement than others. Based on his words, cross-strait relations are only important to the legislature if they are related to law, and the public should only have involvement between elections via the media. However, the agreements involving China and Taiwan deal with the key issue of Taiwan's future and its existence as a free and democratic nation, and for that reason the agreements are always important to the legislature and the public because of tensions with China and that country's obvious threats to Taiwan.

Notice how Su doesn't admit to any "actual" flaws -- only "possible" ones -- and that his use of the phrase "keep pushing forward" implies that his government is already making improvements on the judicial system in Taiwan. Anyone who has paid any amount of attention to this administration will know that it is not so. Danielsen implies as much by saying that he'd like to see "actual steps" as opposed to "mere words." As usual, the retorts make much more sense than the responses from the Ma government have. Look at the reality, test the logic, and you'll see.

UPDATE: Taipei Times editor J. Michael Cole writes on his blog how the Presidential Office snubbed the foreign media on ECFA briefings -- not a good indication of anything "improving" under Ma Ying-jeou:

The Taiwan Foreign Correspondent's Club (TFCC) yesterday lodged a protest with the Presidential Office after being informed that foreign reporters would not be allowed to attend Ma's briefing. The directive is expected to apply to all subsequent monthly briefings. The TFCC was told that foreign correspondents would be able to watch in real time from the Presidential Office press room.

[...]

I communicated this with Reporters Without Borders Asia, which responded by calling it a "disturbing development."

How "transparent" is that? [/update]

The prequels
Here are the 12 previous episodes of this long-running series, listed below in chronological order:

* November 6, 2008: Scholars and writers from around the world publish an "Open letter on erosion of justice in Taiwan." The same letter -- as an online petition -- has been signed by more than 2,000 people.

* November 25, 2008: Minister of Justice Wang Ching-feng (王清峰) calls the open letter "inaccurate."

* December 2, 2008: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 2" counters Wang Ching-feng's claims.

* January 8, 2009: Over a month later, Wang Ching-feng comes up with "clarif[ications]" regarding the open-letter writers' so-called "misunderstandings."

* January 21, 2009: "Eroding justice: Open letter No. 3" is addressed to President Ma Ying-jeou.

* January 24, 2009: Two more "US-based Taiwan experts add [their] names to open letter [No. 3]."

* January 25, 2009: President Ma claims the public had gained confidence in the judiciary in 2008 -- the exact opposite of what this Taiwan News article tells us they actually felt:
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.

* November 9, 2009: Then there were 31. The Taiwan News publishes an "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars" which 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." (Here's a version with 31 names on the web site of one of the signatories, Jerome F. Keating, Ph.D.)

* December 13, 2009: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) submits the "GIO response to Nov. [9] open letter" to the Taipei Times.

* December 25, 2009: Richard Kagan, professor emeritus at Hamline University in St Paul, Minnesota and one of the signatories of the November 2009 letter, replies to Su Jun-pin's silliness in "GIO's response misses the point"

* January 8, 2009: Government Information Office (GIO) Minister Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) churns out A GIO response to Richard Kagan (one of the signatories of the November 9, 2009 "Open letter to President Ma Ying-jeou by 30 international scholars") in which Su compares apples and oranges by imagining that other people don't know that China wants to annex Taiwan while the Taiwanese people don't want to be part of China, ignores what has happened to Hong Kong in the past 12 and a half years, talks about the "double-taxation" issue as if China won't still get those taxes from Taiwanese businesses, pretends to forget that Taiwan's 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) referred to himself as a "rubber stamp," complains that his government has no control over anything, ignores the KMT's continued attempts to take over Taiwan's Public TV (PTS, 公共電視), confuses gains in local elections with a balanced legislature and a president who listens to majority opinion without oppressing minorities or stupidly saying out loud that he "sees them as humans," and completely omits the fact that the talks regarding an Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) -- which Chinese officials say "will certainly bring about complete unification of the motherland [sic] -- have been anything but transparent and have not been subject to legislative oversight. These things, Mr. Su, are clear signs of an erosion of both justice and democracy.

How long will this go on? Until the people of Taiwan kick the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) out for good -- that's how long!

Cast of characters: Taiwan, 台灣, erosion of justice, 侵蝕司法, Su Jun-pin, 蘇俊賓, Michael Danielsen, 麥可丹尼爾森

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

Irony

2010-02-08T21:05:00.003+08:00

One often overlooked part of the R.O.C polity's State structure is the The Mongolian and Tibetan Affairs Commission (MTAC) created in 1928. This body hitherto has had the responsibility for "enhancing Taiwan’s relations with Mongolia and the Tibetan government-in-exile". News has now come in that the commission may have undertaken a significant shift in its policy towards "promoting cross-strait exchanges". I'll leave you the kind reader to follow up on the details but a quote at the bottom of the piece struck me as hugely ironic:

Asked by the Taipei Times why MTAC would not accept the verification of authenticity of Green Books issued by the Tibetan government-in-exile for people who claim to be Tibetan refugees, MTAC chairman Kao Su-po (高思博) said the verification must come from “a proper government authority” and that the verification from “an exiled Tibetan organization” is not enough.

In 1949, the KMT lost control of China to Mao's Communist party and was effectively expelled from the country pretty much on pain of death. Then leader General Chiang Kai-shek fled to Taiwan with his entire troop force and millions of refugees, bringing with them the apparatus and law of the R.O.C. Despite the fact that the R.O.C constitution was not implemented on Taiwan until 1949 and then immediately frozen to allow Martial Law, Chiang nevertheless set about recreating the R.O.C on Taiwan, with the exception of the rights enshrined in its constitution. Chiang's R.O.C was a Government in exile and only survived owing to US protection and funding (and in spite of later US attempts to overthrow Chiang). This was the origin of the two Chinas problem. Had the US actually refused straight away to recognise Chiang's R.O.C as a 'proper government authority' , history, and Taiwan's current status, would have been dramatically different. Had the US regarded Chiang's R.O.C as an 'exiled Chinese organisation', and contrived an excuse to deny verification of R.O.C passports or assistance to Taiwanese and exiled Chinese it is highly unlikely that today Taiwanese would be able to enjoy the ability to travel the world and conduct business with the US as it does today.

Whereas under the DPP the MTAC would confirm the identity of a Tibetan refugee if the Tibetan government-in-exile could verify the person’s Tibetan refugee status", it seems now that since the MTAC will be subsumed within the Mainland Affairs Council from 2012 and has reoriented its operating rationale to "supporting agency in cross-strait exchanges".

It could therefore be argued that the MTAC's change in policy toward Tibetan exiles is ironic in the extreme and with no sense of historical reflection or wisdom. Can this R.O.C loyalist Government in exile not see that but for the grace of American indulgence, they could have been the victims of the same political convenience that currently seems to inform their blind rush to please the Chinese? (not that it is working). It also potentially marks the beginning of another tragic chapter in the history of Tibetan peoples.

On the level

2010-02-02T01:54:00.001+08:00

Last night, Taiwan's MAC Deputy Minister Liu Te-shun (劉德勳) argued that China would not be able to tolerate an ECFA with Taiwan when any pro-Taiwan independence party was in power. In Liu's own words, "The ECFA is a political and economic asset that the KMT has fought to give the Taiwan people. How could we let a pro-Taiwanese Independence party plunder or ruin it?"

The DPP has long complained that the ECFA agreement is meant to bind Taiwan to "One China" both politically and economically. The CCP, likewise, made it obvious that political unification was the ultimate objective.

But only recently a KMT official acknowledge the "logic" of the CCP argument and demonstrate how the ECFA exacts a political cost designed to keep the DPP either out of power or in line with CCP unification demands.

Expect "clarifications" and denials of political pre-requisites for the ECFA agreement.

ECFA is being signed under a one-China framework

2010-01-26T05:28:00.000+08:00

In case you still had any doubts...

It should be obvious to anyone not in a persistent vegetative state (and even that might not be enough of an obstacle to miss this) that the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) being "negotiated" between the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Taiwan and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is annexing Taiwan to China.

Today's Taipei Times contains the money quotes:

MAC [Maddog note: the so-called "Mainland" Affairs Council] Deputy Minister Liu Te-shun (劉德勳) said that under the Act Governing Relations between the Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area (台灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例), the relationship between the two sides of the Taiwan Strait is "region to region."

"The legislature passed the law in 1992 and since then such a legal status has never been changed no matter who is in power, including former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) or [President] Ma Ying-jeou," Liu said.

"Such a theory is not something new invented by President Ma and that is why the trade pact is called a cross-strait economic framework agreement," he said.

Liu made the remarks after being asked by the Taipei Times at a press conference yesterday morning to clarify Ma's comments describing cross-strait ties as being "between two regions."

Liu also said the administration did not want to specify a timeframe for the signing of a free-trade agreement (FTA) with China within an ECFA.

He did not say why, only emphasizing that cross-strait ties were "special."

One thing stands out here: The Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) government is not treating China like the foreign (enemy) country that it is.

And in case you've forgotten how that foreign (enemy) country on the other side of the Taiwan Strait sees the ECFA, listen to their premier, Wen Jiabao (溫家寶):

0:35 YouTube video: "DPP ECFA referendum ad - with English titles"
Further reading:
* Wikisource: Act Governing Relations between Peoples of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area

* GlobalSecurity.org: Remembering when (then-premier, now-VP) Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) and (then-MAC Chairman, now-National Security Council Secretary-General) Su Chi (蘇起) agreed with (then-president) Lee Teng-hui's (李登輝) "state-to-state" theory of relations between Taiwan and China.

More red flags: Taiwan, 台灣, Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, 經濟合作架構協議, ECFA, Mainland [sic] Affairs Council, 大陸委員會, MAC, Liu Te-shun, 劉德勳, Ma Ying-jeou, 馬英九, Wen Jiabao, 溫家寶, annexation, 併吞

Cross-posted at It's Not Democracy, It's A Conspiracy!

GIO goes after PTS again

2010-01-22T19:45:00.002+08:00

Taiwan News is reporting that the GIO is piling the pressure on the PTS Chairman

Cheng Tung-liao who filed a lawsuit against the Government for illegally planting 8 new board members, most of whom were chosen for their support for the Government or President:

The GIO accused Cheng of illegally using NT$2 million in foundation money to finance the case against the eight new board members. The use of the funds hampered the normal functioning of the foundation and harmed public interest, the GIO said.
The government department said it was considering demanding Cheng’s removal as board chairman and board member based on allegations of breach of trust, abuse of power and the misuse of foundation money.
The war of words between the Kuomintang government and Cheng escalated on January 11, when he took legal action which in effect suspended eight new members of the 21-seat board. The new members were seen as government supporters who were likely to support the early abrogation of Cheng’s three-year contract.
Three foundation supervisors and the Control Yuan, the nation’s top government watchdog, ruled that the appointments of the eight board members did not proceed according to the rules.
Media reform groups and the opposition Democratic Progressive Party see the tussle over the public television board as part of a wider attempt by the government to strengthen its role in the media.

The GIO is stepping into dangerous waters here. Watchers of Taiwanese politics might be forgiven for seeing a pattern emerging of the Government or KMT using legal and financial pressure to eliminate possible opponents to their aim of tighter control / influence on the media and judiciary - a la Chen Shui-bian's case, the Control Yuan impeachment of the State's Prosecutor General and relaxing Government, party and military ownership of media shares. The danger is that in this democratic and information age the more it tries to control, ensure compliance and embed support (e.g. local government act that extends District Head's terms by 5 years without a vote), the more the public's support will slip through their fingers.

Letter to the World Bank

2010-01-10T18:04:00.000+08:00

Mike Turton recently featured a letter sent by Kristalina I. Georgieva Vice President and Corporate Secretary of The World Bank Group which all but annexed Taiwan to China. Here is my email to Ms Georgieva, which I forwarded to FTV and Liberty Times:

Dear Kristalina,

In reference to your circular email in the World Bank of the above issue, I am keen to know on what legal grounds, or change to geopolitical reality, prompted you refer to Taiwan as 'Taiwan,China'?

Are you not aware that Taiwan is a country with 23 full diplomatic allies that has its own currency, post office, health, education, police and military systems and features its own democratic elected government and, finally, exercises sole and sovereign control over its own territory?

It may not be a member of the United Nations but it is equally NOT a 'geographic region'. It is a de facto independent country with the formal title of Republic of China (Taiwan).

Your unilateral annexation of Taiwan under 'China', alongside Macau and Hong Kong (which are, unlike Taiwan, administered by the PRC), without referencing the Government or people of Taiwan suggests on your part either a lack of awareness of world geography and politics or the fact that Chinese lobbying efforts within the World Bank to marginalise Taiwan are succeeding.

As Vice President and Corporate Secretary of the The World Bank Group, your internal memo risks hurting the feelings of the Taiwanese people and creating further mistrust across the Taiwan Strait, particularly as Taiwanese come to realise, via your unwarranted actions, the growing disparity between Chinese communication to Taiwanese and PRC actions on the world stage to gradually strip Taiwan of its international presence.

Yours sincerely,