Godfather of Taiwan independence warms up to China

Godfather of Taiwan independence warms up to China
Bevin Chu
January 31, 2007


Caption: Change of course? Clarification? Lee Teng-hui: I never advocated Taiwan independence

Godfather of Taiwan independence Lee Teng-hui has just sent shock waves through the Taiwan independence movement. In an interview with Taiwan’s Next magazine, Lee apparently recanted his position on Taiwan independence, leaving Taiwan independence True Believers in shocked disbelief.

Lee’s apparent recantation raises two questions.

The first question is: “Is Lee for real? Does he actually mean what he says? Or is he pulling a fast one on everybody?”

The first question is hard to answer. Fortunately it’s the less important of the two questions. Whether Lee actually means what he says is of greater concern to Taiwan independence True Believers, who are still picking their jaws off the floor.

The second question is: “What will be the impact of Lee’s recantation, real or pretended? Will Lee’s recantation help or hinder Taiwan independence, regardless of what his intentions might be?”

The second question is actually the more important of the two questions, and fortunately it is easier to answer.

It is difficult to see how Lee’s recantation could possibly benefit the Taiwan independence movement, regardless of what Lee might have in mind.

Lee’s recantation on January 31, 2007 is effectively a sequel to Deep Green industrial magnate Hsu Wen-long’s recantation on March 25, 2005, and constitutes the second blow of its kind to the Taiwan independence movement in two years.


Lee Teng-hui, Hsu Wen-long

Lee is reported to have met secretly with Hsu Wen-long recently. Lee may well have been discussing his imminent recantation with Hsu during their meetings.

Is Lee attempting to use the imminent dissolution of the DPP, with its 18% or less public approval rating, to create a more viable “Third Force” that could achieve Taiwan independence later on? Very possibly.

Is Lee attempting to spare himself eventual prosecution and imprisonment for massive corruption by ingratiating himself with KMT Chairman and 2008 presidential front runner Ma Ying-jeou? Very possibly.


Lee Teng-hui, Ma Ying-jeou

Is the 84 year old Lee merely attempting to provide himself with a legacy besides “Godfather of the Taiwan independence movement” — the abortive, stillborn, failed, Taiwan independence movement.? Very possibly.

But even assuming Lee has a hidden agenda, patriotic Chinese on both Taiwan and the Chinese mainland can get a lot of mileage out of Lee’s apparent recantation. They can make plenty of hay out of what Lee said, using it to promote eventual peaceful reunification.

In short, it’s not necessary to believe that Lee is sincere. It’s enough that he has paid lip service to forsaking Taiwan independence.

We certainly live in interesting times.

Godfather of Taiwan independence warms up to China
Taipei, Jan 31, 2007
(DPA)

Former president Lee Teng-hui, the so-called godfather of [the] Taiwan independence movement, said he no longer hates [mainland] China and even wants to visit [mainland] China.

In an interview with NEXT weekly magazine Wednesday, Lee, 84, said he has received many invitations and would like to visit [mainland] China.

‘If I can make the trip, I would like to visit all the places which were visited by Confucius,’ Lee said.

He downplayed his role as the main figure of Taiwan independence aspirations, saying: ‘Taiwan is already a sovereign state, so there is no need to seek Taiwan’s independence.’

[Correction: the Republic of China is already a sovereign state. There is no need to seek Taiwan independence because Taiwan is a province of the Republic of China, or “China” for short, and has no rational need to change its legal status.]

Lee was Taiwan’s president [correction: the Republic of China’s president] from 1988 to 2000. He was the first Taiwanese to become the president of Taiwan [correction: the Republic of China], which was ruled mainly by Chiang Kai-shek and his son Chiang Ching-kuo – who fled to [the Chinese island of] Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war in 1949.

Lee abandoned the Chiang government’s goal of recovering the mainland and advocated Taiwan independence, triggering sharp reaction from China. Beijing blasted him for attempting to split Taiwan from China and fired missiles in Taiwan waters in late 1995 and early 1996 to warn Lee.

[Mainland] China reacted cautiously to the statements from its erstwhile antagonist.

‘We have noticed the news report. We will cautiously monitor (Lee’s words and action),’ said Yang Yi, spokesman for [mainland] China’s State Council’s Taiwan Affairs Office.


Caption: Lee Teng-hui forsakes Taiwan independence, hopes to visit mainland! Praises Ma, denounces Chen! Do you approve? A left of center TSU? What’s he up to? Any votes to be had?


Caption: Drawing a line between himself and Taiwan independence? Have Lee’s demands for a new constitution and official name change vanished?

Deep Green panelists on the Deep Green oriented talk show “Da Hua Xin Wen” were not amused by Godfather of Taiwan independence Lee Teng-hui’s latest bombshell, suggesting that he had turned his back on The Cause.

Just look at the pained expressions on their faces!

John Tkacik on Taiwan: The US stake in Asian democracy

John Tkacik on Taiwan: The US stake in Asian democracy
Bevin Chu
January 30, 2007


John Tkacik at a Taiwan “independence” rally — Note the US Flag mounted above the “independent Taiwan” flag?

John Tkacik is a “senior research fellow” at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. He is also one of the most vicious “Yellow Peril” China Threat theorists in the US.

When Tkacik holds forth on “America’s Stake in Taiwan” he is speaking in code. What Tkacik really means is that US hegemonists must make full use of the rhetoric of democratic universalism, and take full advantage of the complicity of Taiwan’s Quisling nomenklatura, to prevent the rise of an increasingly wealthy post-Communist, free market capitalist China.

Is this just? Of course not.

Is this moral? Of course not.

Is this ethical? Of course not.

But John Tkacik is not concerned about what is just, what is moral, or what is ethical.

John Tkacik is concerned only about perpetuating US global hegemony, about indefinitely prolonging what fellow China demonizer Charles Krauthammer referred to as “The Unipolar Moment.”

Never mind that the unjust, immoral, and unethical means by which Tkacik and his ilk seek to perpetuate US global hegemony will inevitably lead to the very downfall they seek to prevent.

As you read what Tkacik has to say, don’t make the mistake of using your intellect alone to read Tkacik’s text. His text is a tedious collection of rationalizations which have been refuted elsewhere time and again.

Instead, use your intuition to decipher Tkacik’s subtext, which contains his hidden agenda. The subtext contains the real meaning of Tkacik’s pronouncements.

Tkacik’s subtext is actually quite transparent, once one knows what to look for. Tkacik’s hidden agenda is nothing more than the classic “Divide and Rule” strategy practiced by colonialist and imperialist powers throughout the ages.

As Wikipedia explains, the phrase comes from the Latin “divide et impera,” which translates into “divide and rule.”

Wikipedia: Divide and rule, also known as “divide and conquer,” is a strategy for acquiring and maintaining political and military dominance by dividing rival powers into separate parts, each less powerful than the one implementing the strategy. In practice it often means preventing weaker rivals from uniting or reuniting.

[The Taiwan region and mainland region of China are deliberately and maliciously prevented from reunifying]

Wikipedia: Typically this technique involves

— encouraging or not preventing petty feuds among weaker powers. Such feuds drain resources and prevent alliances that could challenge the overlord

— aiding and abetting those willing to collaborate with the overlords

— breeding distrust and enmity between local rulers

Divide and Rule requires an understanding of political science, history and psychology.

[The Stockholm Syndrome is the psychologically dysfunctional emotional engine that drives the Taiwan independence movement. A ben tu (nativized) version of the Stockholm Syndrome is what compels Taiwan independence leaders to artificially fabricate an ersatz “Taiwanese, not Chinese” ethnic and political identity]

Wikipedia: “Divide and Rule” works only if the subjects are willing to go along with it — because it is to their personal advantage, or because they are short-sighted and foolish.

[Taiwan’s Quisling nomenklatura is only too willing to go along with it, because it is to their personal advantage. The US government allowed Lee Teng-hui to keep the 50 odd suitcases filled with embezzled cash his wife attempted to smuggle into the US. The US government rubber stamped Chen Shui-bian’s stolen election to keep a pro independence puppet in office for a second term.]

Wikipedia: It works best in societies where competition between nobles, clans, or classes was fierce even before the overlord took over.

[The lingering, divisive after effects of the once fierce Chinese Civil War between Chinese Nationalists and Chinese Communists]

Wikipedia: The strategy has been used to great effect by administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who would play one tribe against another to maintain control over their empires with minimal manpower. The strategy of ‘Divide and Rule’ gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but it was also the strategy used by the Romans to conquer Britain, and by the Anglo-Normans to conquer Ireland. The British used the strategy to gain control of India, by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, and caste. The British acquired control over Indian principalities piecemeal.

One might well add that “Divide and Rule” is being used to great effect by the administrators of the vast US empire, who are playing Chinese on Taiwan against Chinese on the Chinese mainland in order to maintain control of Imperium Americanus.

John Tkacik, as readers aware of his hidden agenda can see, has only one aim — US hegemony, in perpetuity.

John Tkacik, as readers aware of his hidden agenda can see, has only one strategy — Divide and Rule.

John Tkacik is determined to Divide and Rule an increasingly prosperous, post Communist, free market China, by perpetuating the imperial master/colonial puppet relationship between the US government and Taiwan’s Quisling nomenklatura.

Everything else is window dressing.

John Tkacik on Taiwan: The US stake in Asian democracy
By John Tkacik
Published on Taipei Times
Thursday, Jan 18, 2007

As the US started this year with a Congress controlled by the Democrats, I wrote an opinion piece for the Heritage Foundation on “America’s Stake in Taiwan” to help new congressmen and senators put Taiwan into a global perspective. Now that the Legislative Yuan in Taipei is contemplating this year’s defense budget, I thought I would share my observations on the relationship between the US and Taiwan.

In a nutshell, I want our new representatives in Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike, to focus on one fact: Taiwan is one of the most important nations in democratic Asia. After all, its population is bigger than Australia’s, its GDP larger than Indonesia’s and its technology base second only to Japan’s.

Taiwan is the US’ eighth-largest trading partner — with two-way trade at US$60 billion last year — and its sixth-largest agricultural customer. For more than half a century, the nation has been one of the US’ important defense and intelligence partners, first as a bulwark against the former alliance between the Soviet Union and China, later in support of forces resisting communism in Southeast Asia and now as a partner monitoring China’s expanding strategic presence in the Pacific.

But it is a partnership in peril as Washington is distracted by Iraq and the Middle East and as Taiwanese politicians and voters sense — rightly or wrongly — that US commitment to their democracy is wavering.

In a vicious circle, an uncertain US commitment undermines Taiwan’s consensus on its own defense, which, in turn, annoys US leaders and policymakers. Complicating matters further is the vast expanse of business networks that have intertwined the US, Taiwan and China.

This has widened the gulf between national security interests and business interests in the US and Taiwan about China.

Conventional wisdom in Washington — and perhaps Taipei as well — holds that economic freedoms are inextricably tied to political reforms and hence China will become democratic because its economy is liberalizing.

While there was evidence for this in the 1980s as China’s political and economic freedoms blossomed together, the exact opposite has been the case since the Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989. China’s political and human rights are far more repressed now than they were in 1990, while the economy is far more open.

Yet, China’s economy cannot be called “free.” It remains a mercantilist structure with sole authority vested in the state — and ultimately the Communist Party.

Taiwan’s export economy is now caught within China’s orbit.

Taiwanese politicians must also consider a future in which responsibility for Taiwan’s defense, like Hong Kong’s, rests in Beijing’s hands.

This would become inevitable if Taiwan declines to keep its own defenses strong.

And Taipei could save a lot of money if it would let Beijing assume the responsibility for defending it from any other power in the region. Some in Taiwan may find it perfectly benign to rely on Beijing for security but most, I suspect, do not.

In 2005, People First Party Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) issued a joint communique with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) declaring that “military conflicts shall be effectively avoided so long as there is no possibility that Taiwan moves toward Taiwan independence.”

Soong later indicated that Hu’s pledge meant that Taiwan needs no defenses from China.

Today, some Taiwan politicians call for a peace agreement with China whereby Taiwan would agree that it is part of an undefined “one China.”

With Taiwan’s defenses growing obsolete while China’s military modernization accelerates, Taiwan’s military can no longer rely on its technological edge to defeat a Chinese attack.

Taiwan’s defense budget for this year faces major program cuts in the opposition-dominated legislature. Nonetheless, the nation’s politicians certainly must see that a defense accommodation with China would supplant any security relationship with the US or other Asian democracies.

As uncertainty over Taipei’s defense budget continues, I fear that Washington must now calculate what its position in Asia would look like should Taiwan drift into China’s sphere.

Does it matter if Washington acquiesces to Taiwan’s absorption by China? It should.

Former US secretary of state Colin Powell observed that “whether China chooses peace or coercion to resolve its differences with Taiwan will tell us a great deal about the kind of relationship China seeks not only with its neighbors, but with us.”

It would be a shame to let war threats from the world’s most powerful dictatorship damage one of the world’s most dynamic democracies.

Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger warned that an international system which makes peace the highest priority is at the mercy of its most ruthless member, and there is an overwhelming incentive to appease its demands regardless of how unreasonable they are. Given China’s myriad territorial claims on India, Japan, South Korea, etc, one must ask if China’s war threats would end with Taiwan.

Moreover, given China’s reliance on international manufacturing supply chains, war is clearly no more in China’s interests than the US’. In this sense, Taiwan is a touchstone of the US commitment to democracy in Asia.

Until Asia’s democracies can rest assured, as the magnitude of China’s military might catches up with its economic power, that Beijing does not seek military preeminence in the region, US strategists should resurrect their historic rule of thumb for Asia: Keep “island Asia” out of the hands of “mainland Asia.”

The US’ strategic position in Asia is approaching a tipping point vis-a-vis China. Some believe the US’ only interest in Taiwan is to ensure that the “Taiwan issue” is resolved peacefully, a policy in which “process” trumps “outcome.”

In 1945, US president Harry Truman declared that a “strong, united and democratic China” was in “the most vital interests of the United States.”

Two out of three is not good enough. Until China is democratic, the most vital US interest must be to maintain its strategic posture in the western Pacific, and Taiwan is essential to achieving that end.

To [sic] Much Fuss over Party Favors

To [sic] Much Fuss over Party Favors
Bevin Chu
January 30, 2007


Taipei Times Editorial: “To [sic] much fuss over party favors”


“To [sic] much fuss over party favors” not a Typo

Taipei Times:
A lot has been said in the media over the last week about the son of Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng (杜正勝), Tu Ming-yi (杜明夷), after it was reported that he held a birthday party at a hostess bar while completing his military service.

One could be forgiven for thinking that the senior Tu was the real target of the pan-blue attacks because of his responsibility for the government’s efforts to desinify the nation’s education system.

Comment: Of course Tu senior is the real target of Pan Blue criticism of Tu junior. Why wouldn’t he be? The Pan Blue voices who spoke out recently about Tu junior’s nocturnal whoring never pretended he wasn’t.

Tu senior is Minister of Education. According to defenders of democracy, pompous bureaucrats such as Tu are responsible for educating the citizens of the nation. Why wouldn’t Pan Blue voices criticize Tu senior for failing to properly educate his own son?

Not to mention the editors of the Taipei Times, who don’t even know the difference between the adverb “too” and the preposition “to.”

See the screenshot of the Taipei Times editorial above.

The Taiwan independence nomenklatura devotes so much time and energy to indoctrinating the Chinese people on Taiwan with a “Taiwanese, not Chinese” ethnic consciousness, it has left many of them ignorant not only of Chinese history, but even the spelling of the simplest of English words.

The Taipei Times editorial struggles mightily to justify Minister of Education Tu’s Goebbelsian program of ben tu hua, which is nominally harmless “localization” but is in fact de-Sinicization.

Ironically it succeeds in doing just the opposite. It winds up being yet another illustration of what’s wrong with the Taiwan independence movement’s value system and policy priorities.

Or am I making “to” much fuss over rampant illiteracy under Pan Green misrule, which cares only about transforming Chinese people on Taiwan into “Stepford citizens?”

Taipei Times: The storm does bring to light a few interesting issues.

Comment: It certainly does, in a way the Taipei Times never intended.

In case you thought ignorance of Chinese history and the English language was confined to Taiwan independence True Believers, for whom English is often a second language, think again.

Here’s a screenshot of the website of a Taiwan independence fellow traveler, whose “writings” I have occasionally come across.


Anti-Hypocricy? [sic] What about Anti-illiteracy?

Perhaps this meddlesome bearer of the “White Man’s burden” ought to devote more effort to fighting his own illiteracy than to fighting other peoples’ alleged “hypocricy.”

Should the KMT change Its Name?

Should the KMT change Its Name?
Bevin Chu
January 29, 2007


The Chinese Nationalist Party’s Official Website

Comment: The following editorial in the Pale Blue China Post arrives at a surprising conclusion — a surprisingly correct conclusion. Their conclusion is that the Chinese Nationalist Party should not change its name. It should not change the word “Chinese” in front of “Nationalist Party” to “Taiwanese.” It should not drop the “Chinese” in front of “Chinese Nationalist Party” in order to make it read “Nationalist Party.”

I say “surprising” because as a Deep Blue political commentator, China Post editorials consistently strike me as half-hearted in their defense of Pan Blue values and positions.

Needless to say, I am only too happy to be surprised. As the editorial states in its surprisingly astute concluding paragraph:

“Dropping the word Zhongguo from the party’s denomination may win for the party the support of a sprinkling of politically independent people. It would, however, disappoint and alienate a huge number of the party’s supporters because the move would make the party little different from the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party.”

The China Post is exactly right.

Management consultants know that one of the most important factors in business success is product differentiation. This is as true for political parties as it is for industrial firms.

As Wikipedia explains, product differentiation makes a product attractive to its target market by differentiating it from its rivals. The object of product differentiation is to position one’s product so that customers will see it as unique. Successful product differentiation moves one’s product from competing primarily on price to competing on non-price factors such as product characteristics. Differentiation positively impacts business performance, both theoretically and empirically.

If the KMT attempts to sell itself as a ben tu political party, it will be committing a strategic error, and committing political suicide.

It will be forsaking its own long-established brand in a panicky, ill-advised, and myopic attempt to market an unappealing knock-off of its competitor.

It will find itself competing on unfavorable terms against its competitor’s brand, peddling a harmful product that it knows shouldn’t even be on the market.

It will not only be “Doing the Wrong Thing,” it will go bankrupt doing it.

No one is going to want to buy anything from a KMT that has hastily slapped a Pale Blue label on the same defective product marketed by Pan Green snake oil salesmen.

If Pan Blue customers wanted Pan Green snake oil, they would have found their way to Pan Green snake oil peddlers. They wouldn’t have found their way to the Pan Blue store entrance, demanding something different.

Product differentiation means that in order for the KMT led Pan Blue camp to succeed in the political marketplace, it must offer a product different from what the Pan Green camp is offering, not the same product, and certainly not a watered down version of the product.

Should the KMT change its name from the “Chinese Nationalist Party” to the self-demeaning, localized “Taiwanese Nationalist Party,” or even to the cowardly and evasive “Nationalist Party,” in deference to ben tu mob sentiment?

Hell no!

If anything, it should underscore its proud, century old heritage as the political party that founded the first modern republic in Asia, the Republic of China. It should spell out the word “Chinese” in capital letters, maybe even a larger font size.

Should KMT change its name?
2007/1/26
The China Post

At a meeting he had on Sunday with Kuomintang (KMT) members at the grassroots level, Ma Ying-jeou, chairman of the party, reportedly agreed with a party member who said the party should modify its name, a development that aroused a great deal of controversy.

According to reports, the KMT member who offered the suggestion remarked that a name change that makes the party sound more native would serve to make it more popular.

The next day, Ma declared that it is inappropriate to make such a change at the moment. Tsai Chin-lung, the KMT’s whip in the Legislative Yuan, revealed that Ma did say a change to the name of the party could be considered. However, Tsai also said that such a revision is improper at this time. Tsai pointed out that since the name of Chiang Kai-shek International Airport was changed to Taoyuan International Airport, the amount of shipping at the airport has decreased rather than increase, which goes to prove that a name change would not meet the people’s expectations.

The party, Tsai concluded, cannot win more support from the public by altering its denomination. To remove doubts, Ma also said on Monday that the KMT does not need to change its change.

“We are proud of the name of our party,” he observed. “The KMT has a reform issue, but not a name change problem.”

“Party members can of course talk about whether the name of the party should be changed, but I personally disapprove of such a change,” Ma added.

Referred to in English as the Kuomintang or Nationalist Party, the party that ruled Taiwan for more than 50 years after the island was retrocession from Japanese occupation is formally named the “Chinese People’s Party,” (Zhongguo Guomin Dang).

In recent years, calls for dropping the word Zhongguo (“China” or “Chinese”) from the name of the party have come frequently from within the party. There are two motives behind the appeal.

One is theory that the word Zhongguo makes the party unable to win the support of those who are averse to China. The other is the belief that the KMT should indigenize and that the presence of the word Zhongguo in the party’s name is an indication it is unwilling to embrace Taiwan.

There are people, including those who are sympathetic toward or friendly with the KMT, who contend that the party lost power in 2000 because it had failed to Taiwanize.

Wang Jin-pyng, speaker of the Legislature and a KMT heavyweight, said in the wake of Monday’s controversy that he is also against a change to the KMT’s name.

“This (a name change) can only be decided at a meeting of party delegates,” Wang said. “I declared I did not support any change to the name of the Chinese Nationalist Party when I was running for party chairman.” That position is fitting and proper because altering the name of the Kuomintang would do more harm than good.

The KMT will gain more support if its leaders work aggressively to make the party more dynamic, united and corruption-free.

Dropping the word Zhongguo from the party’s denomination may win for the party the support of a sprinkling of politically independent people. It would, however, disappoint and alienate a huge number of the party’s supporters because the move would make the party little different from the independence-leaning Democratic Progressive Party.

KMT against independence: Ma

KMT against independence: Ma
Bevin Chu
January 28, 2007

KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou has explicitly declared that the Republic of China’s direction must not be based on opinion polls, and that Taiwan independence is not an option for the Chinese Nationalist Party.

That Ma Ying-jeou would make such a clearcut declaration at such a moment, while under heavy fire from the enforcers of Taiwan independence Political Correctness, is highly encouraging. It suggests that Ma Ying-jeou is finally firming up his ideological stance, and doing so in precisely the right direction.

Had Ma Ying-jeou leaned in the other direction, the wrong direction, by kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to “ben tu” (nativist) mob sentiment, he not only would have made the wrong choice morally, he would have made the wrong choice politically as well. He would have all but doomed his chances of being elected President of the Republic of China in 2008.

Why?

Because kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to ben tu mob sentiment might appear politically astute to some Pan Blue leaders, but it most assuredly isn’t. It amounts to political suicide.

Kowtowing to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and pandering to ben tu mob sentiment will never win over enough Pale Green voters to justify the sacrifice of one’s principles, but it will utterly alienate the Deep Blue / Red Shirt Army voters who constitute the hard core of Ma Ying-jeou’s political support.

These voters, who constitute the nucleus of an absolute majority on Taiwan, don’t want ruling DPP kleptocracy, glossed over by means of appeals to “Taiwanese, not Chinese” ethnic solidarity.

These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling — flagrant corruption plus bigoted nativism, they would have voted for the DPP instead of the KMT.

These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling, they wouldn’t have handed the Pan Blue alliance consecutive landslide victories during the 2004 Legislative Election and the 2005 County and Municipal Elections.

These voters have made it abundantly clear that if they wanted what the DPP has been peddling, they wouldn’t have taken to the streets over and over again during the past three years, wearing traditional “Chinese Red” shirts and waving Republic of China flags, demanding that a corrupt “ben tu” kleptocracy be swept out of office.

Any KMT Pan Blue campaign manager who doesn’t understand where these loyal supporters of the KMT led Pan Blue political alliance are coming from, is politically blind and politically tone-deaf.

Any Pan Blue political candidate who who offers these stalwart supporters of the KMT led Pan Blue political alliance the same Pan Green snake oil, only in a Pan Blue bottle, will bitterly alienate them, possibly forever.

If anyone is still wondering why the KMT candidate lost the Kaohsiung Mayoral Election in December 2006, he can stop wondering. This is the reason.

In fact of course the KMT candidate won the Kaohsiung Mayoral Election. But as anyone familiar with Taiwan’s “lively / thriving / vibrant” democracy knows, “Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything.”

In order for a Pan Blue candidate to win a key election on today’s Taiwan, he must win it by margin so large that the Pan Green candidate is unable to make up the difference by means of election fraud.

Any Pan Blue candidate who wins an election by a margin narrow enough to make up by means of election fraud has not won, but lost. His “victory” will be washed away by a tidal wave of Pan Green ballots cast by civic-minded voters who “vote once, vote twice” for the candidate of their choice, by “phantom voters” who died stillborn or who are already “Six Feet Under,” or by voters whose votes were bought and paid for, fair and square.

The KMT candidate in Kaohsiung “lost” because he caved in to Taiwan independence Political Correctness and tried to sell Kaohsiung voters Pan Green snake oil in Pan Blue bottles.

Had he stood his ground, and boldly offered Kaohsiung voters a clear alternative, he would not have “lost,” he would have won. He would have won by a margin large enough to ensure his victory in spite of massive 11th hour DPP vote buying and ballot fraud.

In case Pan Blue advocates of “ben tu hua” (desinicization) still don’t get it, allow me to repeat myself.

During Lien Chan’s Journey of Peace to the Chinese mainland, Pan Green demagogues accused the KMT led Pan Blue camp of “ganging up with Chinese Communists against the Taiwanese people.”

A decidedly non ben tu hua (non-desinicized) KMT led Pan Blue camp, basking in the afterglow of Lien Chan’s decidedly non ben tu, nay, anti ben tu scored consecutive landslide victories in the 2004 Legislative Election and the 2005 County and Municipal Elections.

In short, sporting a non ben tu or even anti ben tu political image has proven to be a winning election strategy.

It’s a wonder that Pan Blue advocates of ben tu hua can’t seem to grasp this obvious and politically advantageous fact.

KMT against independence: Ma
Published on Taipei Times
Sunday, Jan 28, 2007

BIG NO NO: The KMT chairman said the country’s future direction should not be based on opinion polls, and that relations with the US, Japan and [mainland] China should also be considered

Taiwanese independence is not an option for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said yesterday, almost a year after running an ad in a local newspaper saying that he recognized independence as an option for the people of Taiwan.

Although Ma has said that the KMT’s policy has not changed — that is, seeking to maintain the status quo — confusion over Ma’s inconsistent stance prompted some KMT grassroots members to ask questions during Ma’s visit to Taichung yesterday on the party’s policy toward China.

“The KMT will not advocate Taiwan’s independence; it will only bring disturbance and agitation to the country if we declare independence,” Ma said in response to the questions, adding that the nation has to take into account US and Japanese concerns involving these issues.

Ma’s lack of a clear discourse on cross-strait issues had given rise to confusion among some KMT members over party policy.

During an interview with Newsweek International in December 2005, Ma said that unification with China was the party’s ultimate goal. The KMT then ran an advertisement last February in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister paper) which said that Ma recognized that “independence is an option for the Taiwanese people.”

That rhetoric caused widespread criticism from within the party at the time, including former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰), who complained that Ma had not consulted him before making the statement.

Ma later tried to clarify his statement by arguing that the KMT policy of maintaining the status quo had not changed and presenting “five dos” to highlight the KMT’s approach to cross-strait relations.

The five dos are: To resume negotiations based on the so-called “1992 consensus;” to agree upon a peace accord; to facilitate economic exchanges with the aim of establishing a common market; to work with China to boost Taiwan’s presence in international bodies; and to expand educational and cultural exchanges.

Arguing that the KMT would never seek independence, Ma said yesterday that the country’s future should not be decided based solely on opinion polls.

Taiwan Legislature Dissolves Into Chaos, Part II

Taiwan Legislature Dissolves Into Chao, Part II
Bevin Chu
January 22, 2007

If you thought the conduct of the “Democratic Progressive Party” was undemocratic and regressive before, wait til you read the following.

The international media covered only the assault and battery that pro Taiwan independence ruling regime legislators committed against pro reunification opposition legislators.

The international media failed to cover a second DPP offense even more outrageous. After assaulting opposition legislators with their fists and their shoes, DPP legislators padlocked the doors to the legislature with a motorcycle lock, preventing the speaker from reentering the room and calling for a vote on an opposition sponsored election reform bill.

You read that right. Your eyes were not deceiving you.

As you read the Taipei Times’ coverage of the DPP’s outrageous behavior below, note how the Taipei Times struggles mightily to avoid reporting the unflattering facts by referring to them obliquely instead of directly.

DPP Legislator offers Wang an apology
Published on Taipei Times
Monday, Jan 22, 2007

Comment: Even the title of the Taipei Times article reflects its determined effort to avoid exposing the ugly behavior of the Taiwan independence movement.

Why wasn’t the title of the article “DPP Legislator locks Speaker Wang out of Legislature,” instead of “DPP Legislator offers Wang an apology.”

In fact, if you scan the title of every Taipei Times article on the DPP attacks on opposition legislators, you will discover that they consistently refrain from describing what actually happened.

Besides, as you will discover below, Tsai Chi-fang, the DPP legislator who allegedly offered Wang an apology, never really apologized. His “apology” consisted of patently absurd rationalizations for his behavior.

Taipei Times: At around 11pm, the main doors to the legislative floor were locked with a motorcycle lock to prevent Wang from taking the legislative floor and conducting a vote on the Organic Law of the Central Election Commission (中央選舉委員會組織法).

Comment: Note the deliberate use of the passive voice, and even worse, the passive voice with no subject?

The Taipei Times wrote:

“the main doors to the legislative floor were locked with a motorcycle lock.”

“were locked”?

By whom? Elves?

Shouldn’t the Taipei Times have written:

“At around 11pm, DPP legislators locked the main doors to the legislative floor with a motorcycle lock to prevent Wang from taking the legislative floor and conducting a vote on the Organic Law of the Central Election Commission (中央選舉委員會組織法).”

Why didn’t it?

Why to avoid having to clearly identify the offender, of course.


Using a motorcycle lock, DPP legislators lock Speaker Wang Jin-ping out of the hall, preventing the legislature from voting on an election reform bill


After locking the speaker out of the hall, DPP legislators conceal the lock with curtains


DPP legislator Wang Hsing-nan, the David Duke of Taiwan

Taipei Times: Earlier in the day, Wang was almost hit by shoes thrown by DPP Legislator Wang Shu-hui (王淑慧) when he was surrounded at the podium by legislators.

Comment: Ditto.

Wang “was almost hit?”

Why didn’t the Taipei Times write:

“Earlier in the day, DPP Legislator Wang Shu-hui (王淑慧) flung her shoes at KMT Speaker Wang and almost succeeding in hitting Wang in the face while he stood on the podium surrounded by legislators.”

Again, it was no accident. The Taipei Times wanted to diminish the negative impact of the DPP’s outrageous conduct, which it would have preferred not to report at all, but which it realized it couldn’t get away with not reporting.

Taipei Times: Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators later cut open the lock.


KMT legislators later cut the DPP lock using bolt cutters


KMT legislator Hung Hsiu-chu shows reporters the lock the DPP used to lock KMT speaker Wang out of the hall

Tsai told a press conference yesterday that he and his colleagues bought the locks and locked the doors “in a bid to protect Wang from being hurt during conflicts between legislators of different camps.”


DPP legislator Tsai Chi-fang, the George Wallace of Taiwan

Tsai said “this was everyone’s idea” and locking the doors was “a necessary move.”

“What we had in mind at the time was that we could not let the speaker in [to the legislature],” he said.

Wang condemned the chaos after the session ended fruitlessly.

Comment: The behavior of the Taiwan independence leadership is so mind-boggling it leaves one almost speechless.

To get a sense of how outrageous their behavior is, imagine the same event unfolding in Washington, DC, if you can.

The White House is currently occupied by Texas Republican George W. Bush.

Congress is currently controlled by a Democratic majority, led by California Democrat Nancy Pelosi.

Imagine Republican congressmen locking Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi out of the halls of congress by looping a motorcycle lock through the door handles!

This is the “lively / thriving / vibrant democracy” that Benevolent Global Hegemonists on the Neoconservative right and Humanitarian Interventionists on the liberal left demand that Americans shed their blood preserving.

Democracies, as James Madison astutely noted, are spectacles of turbulence and contention incompatible with personal security or the rights of property, as short in their lives as violent in their death.

Is Taiwan’s grotesque spectacle of turbulence and contention worth the loss of even one American life?

Democracy Gone Wild

Democracy Gone Wild
Bevin Chu
January 22, 2007


Washington Post: Democracy Gone Wild

OFF/beat
by Emil Steiner
Real, Strange News

Top 5 Political Brawls
Democracy Gone Wild

Political Shoes Drop in Taiwan. (AP)

On Friday, the Taiwanese Parliament dissolved into chaos after lawmaker Wang Shu-huei threw a shoe at Speaker Wang Jin-pyng. The shoe missed its intended target, instead striking the face of a lawmaker next to Jin-pyng, and soon enough Taipei’s Legislature had degenerated into a Jerry Springer episode. Of course, “the boot-brawl” is only the latest in a long history of governmental throw-downs …

Comment: The Taiwan independence movement has long been obsessed with “raising Taiwan’s international profile.”

Congratulations. They’ve raised Taiwan’s international profile.

Not only did they make Time Magazine’s TOP TEN list of Biggest Scandals of 2006, they’ve kicked off the New Year by making the Washington Post’s list of Top 5 Political Brawls.

Modern champions of democracy assume that democracy is the best political system ever tried. Actually, that understates their attachment to democracy. For them, as for True Believers of all stripes, no alternative is possible. For them, democracy is not merely the best political system ever tried, it is the only political system worth trying. Democracy is the one true faith. Any other system is unthinkable.
Any other system is heresy. Any other system is the Work of the Devil.

America’s Founding Fathers knew better. They knew that democracy is the worst political system ever tried. They knew that due to its inherent defects, democracy would invariably degenerate into chaos, and when the chaos became intolerable, into dictatorship.

Don’t believe me? Consider the following quotes:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”
— John Adams, 2nd President of the United States

“The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society.”
— Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States, author of the Bill of Rights

“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.
— James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution

“The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.”
— John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States

“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.”
— John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, 1801-1835

What we are witnessing on Taiwan today is a democracy rapidly wasting, exhausting, and murdering itself.

What we are witnessing on Taiwan today is a democracy revealing its true face as nothing more than mob rule.

What we are witnessing on Taiwan today is a spectacle of turbulence and contention incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; as short in its life as violent in its death.

What we are witnessing on Taiwan today is the predictable fate of the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived of all human governments.

What we are learning on Taiwan today, the hard way, from first hand experience, is the difference between a balanced republic and a democracy, i.e., the difference between order and chaos.

America’s Founding Fathers knew that any nation so obtuse and myopic as to adopt democracy would end up like Taiwan today. They knew this two hundred years ago, and warned America and the world about it.

Why are we surprised?

Isn’t it time we wised up?

Isn’t it time we replaced our unwarranted faith in democracy with a justified confidence in the marketplace?

Isn’t it time we replaced our outdated faith in artificially imposed political order, with an enlightened understanding of spontaneously generated social and economic order?

Isn’t it time we stopped surrendering our rights and liberty to “national leaders,” hereditary, elective, and otherwise, and started owning our own power as emotionally mature and politically sovereign individuals?