Month: April 2006

Exploding Whales

"Yeah, it’s dark, dreary, and spattered with whale meat."

– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Back in 1970, the body of a 45 foot long sperm whale weighing 8 tons washed up on an Oregon shore.  It was pretty heavy for them to carry away, and no one was too keen on being responsible for cutting it up and carting away the pieces.  So in the end, officials decided that detonating it with a half-ton of dynamite would be the best way of disposing of the carcass. 

Which sounded like a good idea – until hundred pound chunks of decaying whale meat started raining down on the terrified onlookers…

Read all about it at TheExplodingWhale.com.

The site’s got the Taiwan angle covered, too.  Because a couple years ago in the southern city of Tainan, gases due to decomposition built up and exploded within a dead whale’s belly as it was being transported on a flat-bed truck.  Blood, blubber and whale guts wound up splattered all over the road. 

Sure glad I wasn’t riding a scooter alongside when it happened.

Exploded whale on urban road next to scooter in Taiwan, Taiwan.

Man hosing down exploded whale parts on urban road next to scooter in Taiwan, Taiwan.

(Images via TheExplodingWhale.com.)

i-2

Seditious Acts

Saturday’s Taiwan News reported on a ceremony marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Deng Nan-jung, a Taiwanese democracy advocate.  Deng was apparently the editor of a weekly magazine, "Era of Liberty", when it published a hypothetical constitution for a Taiwanese republic.  For this, the KMT shut the magazine down, and issued a subpoena for him to answer charges of sedition.  Rather than comply, Deng committed suicide by lighting a few barrels of gasoline in his office.

Sedition charges.  For PROPOSING a new constitution.  And only 17 years ago.  It’s easy for the world (and me!) to forget how recently stuff like that was happening here.

Speaking of sedition, the March 22nd edition of the Taipei Times had a letter to the editor with a couple of intriguing paragraphs in it:

…in his interview with [Taiwanese TV network] TVBS on Feb. 28, [KMT leader] Ma said that he suggested the EU consider lifting the arms embargo on China during his recent visits to London and Brussels.  (Emphasis added)

[…]

We…demand that Ma explain why he initiated the discussion of lifting the arms embargo on China in Europe, while in Taiwan his party has repeatedly blocked weapons purchases from the US.

First of all, can anyone confirm that this is true?  I have no interest in spreading falsehoods about Ma Ying-jeou, and if I find out this is BS, then I’ll HAPPILY correct it in a new post.  Because the man either said on national television that he lobbied the EU to arm Taiwan’s enemy, or he didn’t.

If it IS true, then decide for yourself which of the two cases outlined here truly represents an act of sedition.

UPDATE (Apr 10/06):  Thanks to Tim Maddog for finding the link to the letter to the Taipei Times.  It’s now included in the post.

He was also able to find a transcript of the TVBS interview, and included an excerpt in his comments.  His English translation can be found here.

UPDATE #2 (Apr 10/06):  It seems as though Ma didn’t "lobby" the EU to remove the arms embargo on China, but he did provide them with conditions for the embargo’s removal (ie: improved human rights conditions in China and "peaceful development" of cross-strait relations).

The tone of the speaker is EVERYTHING in this case.  When asked about whether the embargo should be lifted, did Ma say, "No"…or "HELL NO"?

That makes a big difference.

(I’d be willing to guess that Ma’s response to the question was exceptionally mild.  To date, his  harshest criticism of China’s Anti-Secession Law has been to say that it was "unnecessary" and "unwise".  Really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?)

Secondly, I would like to know whether Ma helpfully offered the Europeans those conditions on his own initiative, or whether he gave those answers while being pressed.  If it was the former, then he probably earned a few brownie points in Beijing for giving them an out.  If the latter, then perhaps his answer was foolish, but not malicious.

The reason why I say it was foolish is that proposed conditions for removing the embargo ought to be specific and difficult to meet.  Ma’s criteria however, are vague, and therefore too easily obtainable.  Think about the human rights condition:  If China frees a couple of Falun Gong members, won’t European merchants of death be tempted to point to that as evidence that human rights are improving?  As for "peaceful development of cross-strait relations", would Taipei accepting a couple of pandas qualify?  Ma set the bar far too low, and didn’t even suggest that China should become more democratic.  His little performance may not have been seditious, but it wasn’t exactly a vigorous defense of Taiwan’s interests, either.

Statues For Me, Not For Thee

When it was proposed a few weeks ago that statues of Chiang Kai-Shek be removed from Taiwanese military bases, the KMT’s biggest objection was that doing so would do violence to history and remembrance.  Sure, Chiang may have been a dictator, but he was a big part of Taiwan’s past, so his role shouldn’t be minimized or forgotten.

Now, it would seem to me that someone making this argument would quite naturally be in favor of memorials to other controversial individuals or groups in Taiwan’s history – the Taiwanese aboriginal units that fought on the side of the Japanese during World War II being perhaps, a prime example.

Silly me.  When Taiwanese aborigines suggested that a monument be built to honor their war dead, the KMT’s intellectual consistency flew out the window.  It was perfectly reasonable that Taiwanese military bases house hundreds of statues of OUR guy – the guy behind the White Terror – the KMT said.  But somebody in Taiwan wants one – ONE! – memorial to people who fought for Japan?

Why now, that’s just completely beyond the pale!

Thus does the KMT’s carefully-constructed "Stonewall Jackson" argument collapse.  The KMT put forward the notion that America tolerates statues to people who fought for the Confederacy on its soil, therefore, Taiwan ought to similarly continue to honor the Chiangs.  But surely, aborigines who fought for the Japanese fall into the same category as America’s Confederates.  They too, fought and died for a wrong cause. 

The entire affair illustrates the kind of tolerance that the KMT demands for itself, but is still unwilling to grant unto others.

(The Taipei Times has a picture of the Taiwanese aborigines defending their honor from the epithets hurled by the pro-KMT press here.)

Rearguard Actions Part III

Imagine for a moment that you’re in the market for a new house, and you’re locked in a heated negotiation with the seller.  You make a number of lowball offers, but he doesn’t budge from his initial position.  At last, you agree to his price, partly because it’s within your budget, and partly because you REALLY have your heart set on that house.

But then, a funny thing happens.  Two weeks after your bargaining session, he calls you with an unexpected offer.  He’s gonna give you a break – you cab have the house for a price near your initial offer.  Needless to say, you’re left scratching your head.

A very similar thing recently happened regarding statues of former dictator Chiang Kai-Shek in Taiwan.  The military proposed removing Chiang statues from bases and military schools.  "Never!" cried the KMT.  What if we just got rid of old or damaged statues, the military then proposed.  "Not a single one goes," answered the KMT.  And soon, the KMT got its way.  The Taiwanese military agreed to the KMT’s price, and the statues remained in place.

Then, just like in my parable, a funny thing happened.  Two and a half weeks after winning the battle over the Chiang statues, a curious editorial appeared in the China Post.  Not surprisingly, they defended Chiang’s record as president and general.  There was, however, this bit of added criticism:

While in Taiwan, the Gimo had a personality cult started. His defeated army that came with him and the people of Taiwan were taught to worship him as the "savior of China." The Military Academy in Fengshan claims its roots in Whampoa, of which he was the founding commandant. His statues were erected there and in practically every other military installation to perpetuate that leader worship.

We are glad that none of Chiang’s successors have tried to develop a personality cult.

I had something similar to say regarding Chiang’s deification in an earlier post.  So what was the China Post‘s proposed solution?

Military installations should remove his statues to put a formal end to his personality cult, but the Military Academy must be allowed to keep its founder’s statue to remember his contribution to the education of the cadre for the Army of the Republic of China.

Now, the reader is suddenly in much the same position as the buyer of my story.  Let’s be honest: it isn’t very often that a seller will table his bottom line demands AFTER winning for himself a better deal.  Here’s a couple of theories for you to take your pick from:

1)  The KMT and the China Post were always willing to be reasonable about removing Chiang statues, but the proposal seemed so radical and arbitrary that it would have been a major loss of face for them to show any signs of initially accepting any part of it.  This theory implies that the Chiang supporters would have been more comfortable with a quieter, more slowly-implemented policy.  It also implies that the pro-independence parties either badly bungled the handling of the issue by moving too quickly and publicly, or that they deliberately tabled a motion that they knew would get shot down in flames, simply to gin up support from Chiang detractors.*

2)  The China Post recognizes that the KMT has won the battle, not the long-term ARGUMENT.  Perhaps they realize that the statues of the Chiangs are numbered (see my reasoning here) and are beginning the long process of retreat on the issue.**  It was not for nothing that I titled these posts, Rearguard Actions; the entire point of a rearguard action is to fall back to a more defensible position.

* Another possibility should be mentioned, too.  The independence parties may have merely wanted to stimulate DEBATE regarding the place of a dictator’s statues in a democratic society, not to actually remove them.  Conducting an under-the-radar removal policy would have left the independence parties open to charges of being undemocratic sneaks, and would not have served the purpose of provoking debate on the statues so that some kind of societal consensus on them could be reached.

(It’s times like this that I think it unfortunate that I can’t read Chinese.  While expat bloggers have debated the issue at length, I have absolutely no idea of what the quality of the debate has been like in the Taiwanese press.)

** I confess preferring Theory 2 to Theory 1, but admit to being puzzled by the abruptness and scale of the China Post‘s retreat on the issue.  If this editorial is to believed, then "the long process of retreat" seems like it may not be quite so long after all.  I AM surprised that the China Post arrived at their current, fairly reasonable position without proposing some sort of more incremental, intermediate step.

Albanian Statue Controversy

Finally got around to reading Saturday’s edition of the Taipei Times, and my jaw hit the floor when I saw a one paragraph piece on Albania.  WTF?  Muslim groups in Albania are opposing plans to erect a statue in honor of their country’s most famous daughter: Mother Teresa.

You heard me.  Mother-freakin’-Teresa.

Mother Teresa photo

(Image via Nobelprize.org.)

At this point, I’m thinkin’ it’s one of those April Fool’s Day stories.  Gotta be.  But no, Reuters reported it as well:

…Muslim groups in [the Albanian city of] Shkoder rejected the local council plan for a Teresa statue, saying it "would offend the feelings of Muslims."

[…]

"We do not want this statue to be erected in a public place because we see her as a religious figure," said Bashkim Bajraktari, Shkoder’s mufti or Muslim religious leader.

…men in one Shkoder bar said they would prefer a monument to an Albanian fighter who blew himself up in order to avoid being captured by enemy Serbs…

So, Muslim clerics are opposed, as are the faithful.  At least, the pub-crawling beer-drinkers among them, anyways.

Now, what’s wrong with this picture?  Democratic Taiwanese can’t TAKE DOWN down statues of dictators, while Muslim Albanians can’t PUT UP statues of saints?*

This one’s filed under ‘Islamofascism’, although I realize that’s a bit of an exaggeration.  What I SHOULD do is create a new category called, "Muslim Lack of Graciousness Towards Other Religions," and put the post there.

But I’m much too lazy to do all that.  Sue me.

* My first post on the failed efforts to remove Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Gwoh statues from Taiwanese military bases can be found here.  The second is here.

UPDATE:  ABC News places a more positive spin on the story, stating that the city’s largest Muslim group has given the proposed bust of the Roman Catholic nun their blessing, despite the objections of three smaller organizations.  Still, the other groups ARE busy doing their best impression of communist China, warning everyone that social peace could be shattered by green-lighting the "provocative" memorial.

i-1

Wine Country

Taiwan Tiger took a little trip to the local liquor store, and wound up with rather a unique vintage.

Recently I experimented with the local Taiwanese wines in the shop on the
corner.   My reward?  I found the WORST WINE IN THE WORLD.  I have tasted many
many red wines, and this was absolutely undrinkable.  It probably was
the…believe or not…maple syrup that was added.

Sweet.

Rearguard Actions Part II

During the debate a couple of weeks ago over whether statues of Chiang Kai-Shek and Chiang Ching-Gwoh should be removed from Taiwanese military bases, a couple of arguments were made that merit a bit of scrutiny.  The KMT tried to make the case that because Americans honor Dwight D. Eisenhower and Stonewall Jackson in their military academies, the Taiwanese military should continue to similarly honor the dictatorial Chiangs.  Let’s take a look at their arguments:

1.  Dwight D. Eisenhower

A statue of this general and American president apparently stands in West Point Military Academy.  This, the KMT says, is proof that it’s not a violation of military neutrality to have monuments to a political leader in a military school.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

(Dwight D. Eisenhower photo from Wikipedia.)

It  should be pointed out that as far as political leaders go, Eisenhower is pretty uncontroversial.  You know all those "I Like Ike" buttons?  Believe it or not, people wore them because they actually, well, LIKED Ike.  They never had to worry that if they didn’t wear them they might be sent to Green Island.* 

Sure, intellectuals of the time may have been "Madly for Adlai", but Eisenhower’s domestic policy was to leave the Democrats’ New Deal in place, while promising to administer it more efficiently.  If he’d been a Reaganesque figure, his statue in the military academy might’ve (might’ve!) garnered a little more political opposition.

The second point – and how do I put this delicately? – is that Eisenhower was a general who actually won a war.  In contrast, Chiang Kai-Shek, by virtue of his military genius, managed to lose VIRTUALLY ALL OF CHINA to the communists.  I leave it to the reader to decide which of those two achievements is more deserving of being immortalized in bronze.

2.  Stonewall Jackson

A statue of the Confederate general still stands on the grounds of Virginia Military Institute.  The KMT believes this demonstrates that monuments to important figures shouldn’t be cast aside just because they happen to be subject to disputes over the rightness or wrongness of their causes.

Stonewall Jackson

(Stonewall Jackson photo from Wikipedia.)

Stonewall Jackson DID fight for the Confederacy, and as such, it must be admitted that he’s a bit more controversial than Ike.  The Civil War may have been about Northern tariffs on imported manufactured goods and about the constitutional right to secession, but no one can deny that it was also about slavery.  And ultimately, Jackson fought on the wrong side of the latter issue.  Bearing this in mind, I’ll make the best case that I can in favor of retaining Jackson’s VMI statue.

The first thing that should be noted is that it’s not Chiang’s cause that most people object to – it’s his actions vis-a-vis his democratic opposition.  In our time, we can look at someone like Stonewall Jackson and shake our heads sadly that he died unconsciously serving an unjust cause, despite his own personal goodness and decency.  But with Chiang, the situation is reversed:  fighting communism was a just cause, but his methods of political repression towards the Taiwanese were thoroughly lacking in decency.

Secondly, Stonewall Jackson is worthy of commemoration because he was one of America’s greatest generals EVER.  Even his Northern enemies never gainsaid this.  I wonder how many Chiang loyalists, let alone his communist enemies, seriously believe that Chiang Kai-Shek was one of China’s greatest?  In addition, Jackson’s military writings have stood the test of time, and are still part of the curriculum at VMI.  150 years after Chiang’s death, will his written works on military matters still be studied by Taiwanese cadets?  I’m not an expert, but I’m willing to guess not.

Finally, it should be remembered that Virginia Military Institute is a STATE, not a NATIONAL military academy like West Point (or the Taiwanese military schools).  Stonewall Jackson taught at VMI, was one its most illustrious graduates, and is buried nearby.  It seems entirely appropriate to acknowledge the historic importance of such a man at the local, not the national, level.

This comes back to the part of my previous post where I wrote a bit about giving a decent nod to history.  People don’t usually complain too much if a statue of Ike or Stonewall pops up here or there.  Even a "controversial" figure like Reagan can have aircraft carriers named after him without a fight from folks on the other side of the aisle. 

The reason for that kind of tolerance is that admiration of great men in democratic countries is usually carried out in moderation.  No Ike follower demands a bust of his hero in every barracks, no Stonewall fan expects a photo of his idol to be prominently displayed in every school, and no Reaganite insists that the main drag in every town be renamed the "Ronald Reagan Parkway".  If any of them did, their plans would soon encounter significant opposition from people with different values, different outlooks, different heroes.

In a pluralistic society this is a good thing, because if society over-celebrates a handful of men, then other worthy men will end up being overlooked or crowded out.  Like it or not, town squares have only a finite amount of space upon which to construct memorials.**

Of course, a very few "heroes by consensus" like George Washington can avoid this fate, but the Chiangs will never be counted among their number.  In Taiwan, the Chiangs are controversial figures – controversial being an understatement.  At this stage, all the perfumes in Arabia will not sweeten their hands now.

I take it as a given that many leaders are interested in being celebrated by future generations, and if that desire motivates them to leave behind a positive legacy, then it serves a beneficial social function.  But democracies have a vital interest too: Democracies need to communicate to their would-be leaders that if they wish to obtain enduring fame and honor, they mustn’t kill or imprison their democratic opponents.

One way of conveying that message is to remove statues exalting those who have.

* Taiwan’s Green Island was used as political prison up until the late 1980s.

** Society not only has a limited amount of resources with which to celebrate great men, but a limited interest in doing so as well.  Life goes on, and there are other priorities in life besides paying obeisance to those whose time has passed.

i-2