Backtalk! The Big Lie of Taiwan’s Election

Backtalk! The Big Lie of Taiwan’s Election
January 28, 2002

From Phil, regarding The Strait Scoop
January 28, 2002

Phil: I happened to read one of [Bevin Chu’s]… articles, “The Big Lie Of Taiwan’s Elections,” at the Pravda website. It was such a good article that I went into the Antiwar.com site to find out more about you. I was very pleased to learn that you had written many previous articles! Wow, I must say every one of them are excellent! I’m very impressed and sent the link to my friends recommending that they must check it out.

Bevin Chu: Thank you very much. Please do recommend the Strait Scoop to your friends. Those of us who oppose military confrontation and advocate peaceful commerce between the US and China need to get the word out. We cannot allow the warmongers to monopolize the public debate.

Phil: Yes the Singapore Straits Times is a very fine newspaper indeed. I read it every day and their coverage of China/Taiwan affairs are right on the mark. The irony is that a tiny nation-state that is constantly lambasted by the western nations for not having a free press can report more accurately about China/Taiwan than CNN, NY Times, Newsweek and other western media organizations. There is probably no statesman that knows China and Taiwan more than Lee Kuan Yew. I don’t think it’s exaggerating to say that he is a precious asset to all ethnic Chinese people in the world.

Bevin Chu: Not only ethnic Chinese, but to non-Chinese as well, as LKY’s political wisdom is a contribution to the world at large, including Europe and North America, not merely Singapore, mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan.

Phil: Your writings about the Taiwan independence gang is most eye-opening. I’m so surprised that a Chinese person originating from Taiwan would actually speak up for mainland China in so many issues.

Bevin Chu: Strictly speaking, I’m not “speaking up for mainland China” per se. I’m helping Americans to understand that being from Taiwan does not mean one automatically favors Taiwan independence, that only a small minority of extremists on Taiwan actually insists on Taiwan independence. The vast majority are either pro-reunification or else indifferent. Not quite the same thing as “speaking up for mainland China.” That is only part of the larger picture.

Phil: You also recognize this ridiculous demonizing China campaign launched by the anti-China gang in the USA is nothing more than an attempt to contain China and keep her down. My thoughts on those issues are almost identical to yours so it was encouraging to read your excellently articulated arguments.

Bevin Chu: The China bashers don’t realize that not only is it not necessary for China to lose for America to win, it may well be necessary for China to win for America to win. Chinese markets may well be essential to America’s continued future prosperity.

Phil: I’ve also noticed the dates of your articles, they appear approximately once every 4 months. So that means I will have to wait 4 months for your next installment? That’s a long wait!

Bevin Chu: As I mentioned in “Taiwan Independence, RIP” I have come to realize that that due to global economic factors Taiwan independence is basically kaput. I now feel considerably less pressured to combat it now that I am quite confident it will not succeed. Hence my reduced output. However I may dash off shorter articles more frequently in the near future.

From Anonymous, regarding “pro reunification”
January 24, 2002

Your point is well taken that the western press has blindly followed an erroneous conclusion. If a sitting president’s party in any western democracy got only 33.4% of the vote, it would be a major defeat. The DPP and its TSU ally will hold 44.4 percent of the seats in the new legislature, having gained only 41.2 percent of the vote. Still a major defeat any way you look at it. [To allege] That the election was a victory for the DPP is absurd, and almost gives the appearance of another agenda (I dare not use the word “conspiracy”) among the western press.

Yes, the Taipei Times has become a propaganda sheet for the Taiwan independence crowd. The Taipei Times even cast Mayor Ma’s “crackdown” (so to speak) on prostitution in terms of unification-independence. The Taiwan News is moving in that same direction very quickly. (James Wei would be spinning in his grave, if he knew the current content of the newspaper he founded.) The China Post on the other hand is much more balanced in its content, so there still is a rational source of news in English in Taipei.

However, Bevin, you must realize that most people are neither for independence (knowing it would be short lived) nor unification. They want things to stay the way they are, hoping that, in time, maybe 50 years, China will become more democratic and free from corruption. I believe that implying the pan-blue group is “pro-unification” is an incorrect characterization. Most of these people are pro-status quo.

Bevin Chu replies:

Actually, I have corresponded with this writer before, who needs to remain anonymous for political reasons. He would be subject to Taiwan independence fundamentalist “Green Terror” treatment if he were found out. He is very well informed about Taiwan.

In fact we do not disagree about the issue of “pro-reunification.” The issue is purely semantic. I have been using the term “pro-reunification” the way almost everyone else on Taiwan uses it, to mean “in favor of eventual reunification” and “to be committed to reunification as the final goal.” I have been using the term “pro-independence” the way almost everyone else on Taiwan uses it as well, to mean “in favor of eventual independence” and “to be committed to independence as the final goal.”

In this straightforward, non-misleading, “non-Clintonian” sense, the KMT under Lien Chan, the PFP and NP are clearly and unequivocally “pro-reunification.” They are committed to reunification as the ultimate goal, and “pro-status quo” merely as an interim condition.

Taiwan independence spinmeisters such as DPP legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, play an underhanded, deceptive numbers game. They inflate their own numbers by lumping those who favor eventual reunification together with those who favor eventual independence. They do this by characterizing “pro interim status quo” members of the public as “opposed to reunification,” when in fact they are merely opposed to immediate reunification. They do this by characterizing “pro interim status quo” members of the public as “favoring de facto independence,” when in fact they favor eventual de jure reunification.

I refuse to play such dishonest games, and don’t need to, because truth favors the reunificationists. I leave shameless, barefaced, lying through one’s teeth to the Taipei Times.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s