‘Woo tzoo’ gripping Taiwan
The China Post
“Woo tzoo” is a most frequently used expression by the people of Taiwan these days. The closest English translation of the phrase is miserable, awful, depressed, angry, helpless, and much more. Only Taiwanese can have a full grasp of the feeling. Taiwan’s people feel “woo tzoo” because, regardless of their political stripe, they are haunted by the past, the present and even the future.
The economy has stagnated for six years, for the first time it is trailing behind Korea’s; while the value of property, stocks and currency appear to be picking up, the poor are getting poorer; an increasing number of low-income people are unemployed and suicide rates are rising. Cutthroat partisan struggles are polarizing society. Relations with the mainland have worsened due to the president’s repeated independence provocations.
Comment: Whoever penned the November 29 China Post editorial, ‘Woo tzoo’ gripping Taiwan, put his or her finger on the plight of the Chinese people, not just on Taiwan, but on the Chinese mainland. Not just for the past decade, but for the past century.
The term “woo tzoo” 鬱卒 is a Hoklo neologism not found in Mandarin. Written as “yu zu” in Hanyu Pinying or as “yu tsu” in Wade-Giles, the term is more or less synonymous with “yu lu” 憂鬱 , and refers to anxiety, depression, frustration, and melancholy.
I take powerful exception to the editor’s assertion that “Only Taiwanese can have a full grasp of the feeling [of impotent frustration].”
Taiwan independence narcissism, which insists that “Nobody knows what it’s like to be victimized like we Taiwanese,” has become a masochistic badge of honor on today’s Pan Green ruled Taiwan. For Pan Green propagandists to trot out this sort of 悲情訴求 (appeal to pathos) is to be expected.
Pan Blue intellectuals however, ought to know better. That even an editor for the Pan Blue oriented China Post would make such a remark is the unfortunate consequence of relentless Taiwan independence indoctrination.
In fact, mainland Chinese are far more familiar with the underlying meaning of yu zu than their fellow Chinese on Taiwan. If anyone has has earned the bragging rights to “woo tzoo,” it is mainland Chinese. Not that they ever aspired to such a dubious honor.
Skeptics need only visit their local video store and rent Huozhe (1994, directed by Zhang Yimou, written by Wei Lu and Hua Yu).
After they’ve viewed Huozhe, then we can talk about who knows more about “woo tzoo.”
Huozhe, also known as To Live, is Zhang’s quietly understated masterpiece about how ordinary Chinese have endured political madness that refuses to leave them alone to live their lives.
Roger Ebert, the dean of American movie reviewers writes:
[To Live] is a big, strong, energetic film, made by a filmmaker … who … sees that ordinary people everywhere basically want what his heroine cries out for, a quiet life.
What mainland Chinese had to endure during the “Three Antis, Five Antis” campaigns, the “Great Leap Forward,” and the “Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution,” is not something most Chinese on Taiwan alive today can even begin to comprehend, let alone westerners who have lived in comparative comfort and security since the Industrial Revolution.
Fortunately, Deng Xiaoping’s radical depoliticization of the Chinese mainland following Mao’s death means that 1.3 billion Chinese are now finding it far easier than “To Live” than they did under Mao’s fundamentalist Red Terror.
Unfortunately, Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian’s radical politicization of Taiwan following Chiang Ching-kuo’s death means that 23 million Chinese are finding it far more difficult “To Live” under today’s Taiwan independence Green Terror than they did under the Two Chiangs’ authoritarian capitalism.
Today, the Chinese people on Taiwan are experiencing a “localized” or “ben tu hua” version of mainland China’s “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.”
Today, the Chinese people on Taiwan are getting a taste of what their mainland compatriots endured for three decades under fundamentalist Communism.
Is there any difference between what mainland Chinese experienced under Mao Zedong, and what Taiwan Chinese experienced under Lee Teng-hui and are now experiencing under Chen Shui-bian?
Yes there is. Back then the flags were red. Now they are green.
Is there any similarity between what mainland Chinese experienced under Mao Zedong, and what Taiwan Chinese are experiencing under Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian?
Yes there is. Back then irrational ideological zeal trumped rational economic calculation. Now irrational ideological zeal trumps rational economic calculation.
Back then the Politically Correct slogan was 先紅後專 (red before expert). Now it’s 先綠後專 (green before expert).
Back then the result was economic disaster, public suffering. Now the result is economic disaster, public suffering.
On today’s mainland the rule is: “White cats or black cats, as long as they can catch mice, are good cats.”
On today’s Taiwan, on the other hand, the rule is: “As long as they are green cats, who cares if they can catch mice?”
The economic consequences are damning enough. But if we leave matters only at the practical level, we’re letting the Taiwan independence movement off far too lightly, because ideologically speaking, the Taiwan independence movement’s “Ethnic Correctness” is far more repugnant than Marxist-Leninism’s Economic Correctness.
For all its faults, Marxism-Leninism was an idealistic, globalist political movement that evaluated people not on the basis of their race or national origin, but on their moral conduct.
Marxist-Leninists persecuted capitalists not for their race or nationality, but for their economic behavior, because “Capitalists exploit labor.” Or so they believed. Marxist-Leninists’ understanding of economics may have been hopelessly defective, but at least they were motivated by a sense of justice.
Not so Taiwan independence. Taiwan independence is a virulently racist ideology predicated on a narrowly defined “ben tu” (nativist) tribal identity that doesn’t give a damn about right or wrong, only about us and them.
Taiwan independence has less in common with Maoist Communism than it does with Nazi racism.
Just as Nazis wanted only to know whether you were “a true Aryan, and not a dirty Jew who would betray the Fatherland,” so Taiwan independence zealots only want to know whether you are “an authentic Taiwanese (zheng gang de tai wan ren) who was “born and raised on Taiwan” (tu sheng tu zhang), who grew up “eating Taiwan rice, and drinking Taiwan water” (chi tai wan mi, he tai wan shui), who “identifies with the land” (ren tong zhe kuai tu di), and not a Chinese pig who will sell out Taiwan (mai tai).” .
Under the leadership of the KMT, the Chinese people on Taiwan achieved their justly famous economic miracle, an achievement that ranks among the miracles of the modern age, right alongside West Germany’s postwar economic recovery and Singapore’s meteoric rise from Third World poverty in a single generation.
Today, this historic achievement has been totally wiped out by two “democratically elected leaders.”
How ironic. How many “China experts” could have predicted three decades ago that the roles of Taiwan and the Chinese mainland would be reversed? That “Red China” would be practicing laissez-faire capitalism, and “Free China” would be imposing mercantilist economic controls?
China Post: The president has refused to step down even after his wife was indicted on charges of embezzlement and forgery; he himself would have been indicted in the same case if not for presidential immunity. And there is simply no way to force him out of office and restore political stability before his tenure ends in May 2008.
Comment: What is it going to take for kneejerk democratic universalists such as Wang Dan, Martin Lee, and Long Ying-tai to wake up? Under their vaunted system of democracy “The People” are not the masters, and elected officials are not “public servants?”
What is it going to take for kneejerk democratic universalists to see what is obvious to anyone with half a brain? That once “The People” cast their ballots, they have shot their wad, they have exercised all the power they will ever have under democracy. That once “The People” cast their ballots, they have, whether they know it or not, installed a dictator. An elective dictator to be sure, but a dictator nonetheless. A dictator who can and probably will do whatever he feels like doing for the next four years, possibly eight. A dictator who can and probably will ignore all demands that he step down.
China Post: They are also feeling “woo tzoo” now that the charismatic, good-mannered, well-educated and supposedly squeaky-clean leader of the opposition has also been accused of using other people’s receipts to embezzle state funds, the exact same “crimes” as the president. And tens of thousands of current and retired chiefs at all levels of government may have the same legal problems.
Confident of his innocence, the opposition leader has pledged to quit his party post if the prosecution indicts him. The public dreads the possibility of losing him. The future looks clouded and uncertain.
Comment: Under electoral democracy’s transparent hoax of “free and fair elections,” people are denied the leaders of their choice. Only those people whose candidate “won,” i.e., whose mob was larger than the rival candidate’s mob, are granted the leader of their choice.
Will sanctimonious democratic apologists such as Frances Fukuyama please explain to me how democracy’s “free and fair elections” can possibly be construed as respecting the rights and honoring the wishes of sovereign individuals?
Under Market Anarchism by contrast, everyone gets the leader of his choice, not just those whose candidate received the most votes. No one is denied the leader he wants just because more people wanted somebody else. Under Market Anarchism, everyone is represented by precisely the leader he wants, because under Market Anarchism, people “select, not elect” the leaders of their choice.
Under Market Anarchism, an honest, hard-working administrative technician such as Ma Ying-jeou would make the ideal head of a Market Anarchist Private Defense Agency or “PDA.”
Under Market Anarchism, whether Ma Ying-jeou got a chance to serve Pan Blue citizens/consumers would not depend upon a willingness to con the public.
Under Market Anarchism, honest, hard-working administrative technicians such as Lien Chan and Ma Ying-jeou would not be required, as they are under electoral democracy, to debase themselves engaging in the unprincipled electioneering and populist demagoguery at which they are so inept and which con artists such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian are so capable.
Discriminating Pan Blue citizens/consumers would “select, not elect” leaders such as Ma Ying-jeou based on “the content of their character, not the province of their birth.” These citizens/consumers would then pay their taxes, correction, monthly service charges, to a Pan Blue PDA.
The Pan Blue PDA would provide high quality security and arbitration services to these Pan Blue citizens/consumers, rewarding them for their sound judgment.
Under Market Anarchism, undiscriminating citizens/consumers would of course also retain the right to “select, not elect” the leaders of their choice. Undiscriminating citizen/consumers ruled by bigotry and prejudice, would choose a Pan Green PDA based on their leaders’ “Ethnic Correctness” instead of the “content of their character.” These citizens/consumers would then pay their monthly service charges to a Pan Green PDA.
A Pan Green PDA, headed by unprincipled con men such as Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian, Annette Lu, Yu Hsi-kuen, Su Cheng-chang, or Frank Hsieh, would then rake in Pan Green supporters’ money while providing them with no useful services. In short, Pan Green mobs would get what they deserved.
Of course, bigoted Pan Green mobs are getting what they deserve currently, under democracy.
The problem is that discerning Pan Blue voters, who voted for Lien Chan, and who would have spared the Chinese people on Taiwan three years of unnecessary suffering, are getting what they don’t deserve.
The problem as I have said, is democracy, and the solution is Market Anarchism.
China Post: Taiwan’s people began to lose their peace of mind after March 19, 2004, the day before the presidential elections, when out of the blue, the island’s president and vice president, while campaigning for re-election in the president’s hometown, were shot at in an open jeep in broad daylight and in the midst of hundreds of well-wishers and security guards. But nobody heard the shots or saw the shootings.
Comment: Believe it or not, one farsighted individual, Professor Steve Hsieh of the National Policy Foundation 國家政策研究基金會, a respected Pan Blue think tank, actually predicted that in the week leading up to the March 20, 2004 Presidential Election, Chen Shui-bian’s inner circle would likely stage a phony assassination attempt, specifically a shooting, in order to garner sympathy for his reelection bid.
The China Desk will be interviewing Professor Hsieh and posting the transcript of the interview at ooBlue and The China Desk Weblog.
China Post: Fortunately, the two leaders suffered only minor injuries and the next day, they won a second four-year term with a margin of 0.22 percent of the total 13 million votes, thanks apparently to the successful vote-swaying assassination attempt.
Comment: “Fortunately” nothing. There was nothing fortunate about Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu’s “wounds.” The “assassination attempt” was artificially staged, and the “wounds” were artificially inflicted by Chen’s reelection committee. Fortune had nothing to do with it.
China Post: Opposition candidates and their supporters refused to accept the election results as the will of god and not cheating by man. They hit the streets, staged massive demonstrations for several weeks, filed lawsuits, demanded recounts and launched investigations. All to no avail. Because there was no exact crime scene, no suspect, no motive, and no gun. The only hard evidence consisted of two bullet casings, their heads and the wounds on the two leaders; but their relevance was never established. There were no serious efforts to find the truth. Dr. Henry Lee, the world’s most renowned forensic expert, examined the “scene” and the evidence 10 days later, ruling out political assassination but offering no other possibilities.
Comment: Following the 319 Shooting Incident and the 320 Election Fraud scandals, the DPP and TSU taunted the KMT, PFP, and New Party, accusing them of “輸不起” (sore losers / can’t stand to lose).
The most frustrating aspect of political debate on today’s Taiwan, is that even though one may be in the right, it is well nigh impossible to communicate that fact to a public afflicted with Attention Deficit Disorder. If one attempts to offer an earnest, long-winded explanation, one merely comes across as a mealy-mouthed apologist who lacks confidence in his own case.
The most succinct, hence most effective rebuttal to this Pan Green accusation I have ever heard, was an off the cuff remark by a fellow New Party campaign volunteer.
He said “他們輸不起，所以才作票 ” (They couldn’t stand to lose, that’s why they resorted to cheating.)
The Chen regime, like every polling organization, every political party, every think tank, every newspaper, every television network, every radio station, every registered voter on the island, knew a month in advance that the DPP was going to lose big in any free and fair election. That’s why they cheated.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
China Post: Most astonishing, the premier resorted to claiming the “right of administrative resistance against legislative action” to boycott probes of the legislature’s “Truth Commission”. A year later, the police, using circumstantial evidence and testimony of a dead man’s family to conclude that he was the gunman and closed the case. And Dr. Lee, the forensic expert, endorsed the closure. The gunman’s family members later charged they were misled into making untruthful statements.
Comment: Most astonishing, indeed. Or rather, most astonishingly, indeed. Since when have government officials ever possessed any absurd, fictitious, non-existent “right of administrative resistance” against investigation and prosecution?
Anyone with the faintest understanding of Classical Liberal Natural Rights theory knows that according to Anglo-American Common Law tradition it is powerless citizens and not powerful officials, who have the “right of resistance” to government investigators and prosecutors.
To assert that powerful officials, rather than powerless citizens, are the ones who possess a “right of resistance” to government investigation and prosecution, is a total inversion of the fundamental premises of Classical Liberal Natural Rights theory and Anglo-American Common Law tradition.
Do the Chen regime, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence nomenklatura, for whom the UK and the US are nominally political models, really have no understanding of Natural Rights theory or Anglo-American Common Law tradition whatsoever?
Or are they merely attempting to deceive politically ignorant voters? Frankly, I’m not sure which it is, and I’m not sure which is worse.
China Post: On December 9, elections of Taipei and Kaohsiung mayors and members of the city councils will be held. “Woo tzoo” voters of Taiwan’s two largest cities, accounting for about a quarter of the island’s total population, will exercise their right to punish the wrongdoers.
Comment: Nineteenth century British Prime Minister William Gladstone once said “Justice delayed is justice denied.”
On December 9, 2006, this coming Saturday, Republic of China citizens who are residents of Taipei and Kaohsiung will surely punish Chen Shui-bian, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement.
But the justice administered will have been long delayed, and the justice delivered will have been long denied.
Why do the Chinese people on Taiwan feel a sense of “woo tzoo?” Why has the economy has stagnated for six years? Why is it trailing behind Korea’s? Why are the poor getting poorer? Why are an increasing number of low-income people unemployed and committing suicide? Why are cutthroat partisan struggles polarizing society? Why have relations with the mainland worsened?
The answer is: “It’s the democracy, stupid!”
The Chinese people on Taiwan feel an overwhelming sense of impotent frustration, of “woo tzoo” because they are living under democracy, the worst political system ever tried.
As James Madison, 4th President of the United States and Father of the Constitution put it, “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”
Democracy, due to its built-in incentive structure, guarantees that any society that adopts it will suffer the same consequences, sooner if not later.
So what’s the solution?
The short term solution is for all political parties on Taiwan to realize and acknowledge that the abandonment of Sun Yat-sen’s constitutional republicanism and the rule of law in favor of populist democracy, was a monumental error.
The short term solution is to restore the Republic of China Constitution to its rightful status as the basic law on the Chinese island of Taiwan.
The short term solution is to to change the Republic of China back into the republic that it was, from the democracy that it is.
The long term solution is to awaken to the fact that all prevailing political systems are structurally defective, therefore will never be able to protect the rights and freedom of the individual from creeping tyranny.
The long term solution is to demand true freedom by adopting Market Anarchism.