Month: September 2008

Drawing The Wrong Lessons From Georgia

Monday's Taiwan News featured an editorial (Taiwan is not Georgia) in which it discussed two articles, Georgia's Lessons for Taiwan (from the Far Eastern Economic Review) and From Georgia to Taiwan (from The Wall Street Journal Asia).  The Taiwan News sums up the themes of the two opinion pieces:

According to these two heavyweight articles, the commonality is that ambiguous messages of support sent by the Bush administration led [Georgian President Mikhail] Saakashvili and Taiwan's former president Chen Shui-bian to take U.S. protection for granted and to perceive Bush's support as equal to U.S. backing for their "pursuit" of independence regardless of possible confrontations between the U.S. and Russia or between the U.S. and the PRC in the case of Taiwan.

Or, to put it more bluntly, Taiwan over the past 8 years was provoking China just as Georgia provoked Russia; and so in the interests of preventing a similar Sino-Taiwanese conflict, the reduction of American support for Taiwan was wise and just and proper.

With this the Taiwan News took issue.  Admitting that Saakashvili unnecessarily provoked Russia, the editors forcefully denied that Taiwan had done the same to China:

What these pundits see as "provocative" were the moves made by Chen and the DPP government to deepen Taiwan's democracy for the sake of improving domestic governance, to foster a stronger sense of Taiwan national identity and citizenship, and to promote the participation of "Democratic Taiwan" in the world community.

In contrast to Saakashvili's invasion, Chen's actions were not aimed to "pursue" independence but to defend Taiwan's actually existing independence and democracy from the threat posed by an authoritarian power. Instead, it has been the PRC which has posed a clear and present military threat against both Taiwan and regional peace by engaging in a massive build-up of over 1,000 ballistic missiles and other offensive forces during the past 15 years and by relentless pushing to isolate Taiwan internationally and achieve annexation through intimidation combined with economic integration.

The only fly in the ointment is that everyone here is proceeding from false assumptions.  Jeffrey Bader and Douglas Paal from the Far Eastern Economic Review.  Richard Bush and Kenneth Lieberthal from the Wall Street Journal Asia.  And last but not least, the Taiwan News.

They're all mistaken because they completely misunderstand how the War of 8/8/08 began. And if someone misunderstands the origins of that war, then any "lessons" they draw and attempt to apply to Taiwan immediately become suspect.

From independent journalist Michael J. Totten:

Virtually everyone believes Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili foolishly provoked a Russian invasion on August 7, 2008, when he sent troops into the breakaway district of South Ossetia. “The warfare began Aug. 7 when Georgia launched a barrage targeting South Ossetia,” the Associated Press reported [several weekends ago] in typical fashion.

Virtually everyone is wrong. Georgia didn't start it on August 7, nor on any other date. The South Ossetian militia started it on August 6 when its fighters fired on Georgian peacekeepers and Georgian villages with weapons banned by the agreement hammered out between the two sides in 1994. At the same time, the Russian military sent its invasion force bearing down on Georgia from the north side of the Caucasus Mountains on the Russian side of the border through the Roki tunnel and into Georgia. This happened before Saakashvili sent additional troops to South Ossetia and allegedly started the war.  [emphasis added]

[…]

“[On the] 3rd of August, [South Ossetian president Eduard] Kokoity announces women and children should leave [as a prelude to hostilities]. As it later turned out, he made all the civilians leave who were not fighting or did not have fighting capabilities. On the same day, irregulars – Ingush, Chechen, Ossetians, and Cossacks – start coming in and spreading out into the countryside but don't do anything. They just sit and wait. On the 6th of August the shelling intensifies from Ossetian positions. And for the first time since the war finished in 1992, they are using 120mm guns.”

"That was the formal start of the war . . .  Because of the peace treaty they had, nobody was allowed to have guns bigger than 80 mm."  [emphasis added]

[…]

"On the evening of the 7th, the Ossetians launch an all-out barrage focused on Georgian villages, not on Georgian positions . . . That evening, the [Georgian] president gets information that a large Russian column is on the move.  Later that evening, somebody sees those vehicles emerging from the Roki tunnel (into Georgia from Russia) . . . "

"The first thing [the Georgians] did . . . they tried to get through (South Ossetian capital) Tskhinvali, and that's when everybody says Saakashvili started the war.  [Except] it wasn't about taking Ossetia back, it was about fighting their way through the town to get onto that road to slow the Russian advance."

Maybe the only lesson here is that Taiwan can't afford to lose the propaganda war as Georgia did.  Russia's Ossetian catspaws started the war with Georgia, but Georgia was the one saddled with the blame.    It was too psychologically challenging for the world to consider the alternative:  that the Russian empire was again on the march in the near abroad, and the West now had to strengthen its security arrangements.

So instead, Olympic viewers contented themselves with platitudes about not tugging on Superman's cape.  Then went back to watching lip-synching 6 year-olds and lots of pretty, fake, fireworks.

Postscript:  To be fair, Michael J. Totten does quote someone as saying Georgia "provoked" Russia by trying to join NATO.  Of course, other former Eastern-bloc countries are equally guilty of similar "provocations", including Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and the Baltic states.

What Russia characterizes as provocations, I see as legitimate attempts by former satellite nations to break orbit from a tyrannical neighbor.

UPDATE (Dec 3/08):  Saakashvili makes his case at the Wall Street Journal.

Beijing To Tibet: “The Floggings Will Continue Until Morale Improves”

From Saturday's Taipei Times (scroll one page down):

Chinese police in the restive mountainous region of Tibet beat up around 50 monks who had tried to complain about the beating of one of their colleagues, a rights group said.

Just another part of the cultural revival that began when Tibet was benevolently absorbed into the Chinese race-nation:

Beijing laid out its case in a “white paper” issued on Thursday, amassing statistics about literacy, education and religion to argue that Tibet had enjoyed a cultural revival since the Chinese Communist Party took control in 1950.

The Road To Singapore Is Paved With Good Intentions

(And perhaps a few bad ones as well . . .)

Ran across Dr. William Fang's column on Wednesday, the one titled, Two shining examples of the judiciary: HK, Singapore.  Fang has a reason for praising Singapore in particular — prior to the Taiwanese presidential elections, then-KMT-candidate Ma Ying-jeou suggested undemocratic Singapore was a model worthy of Taiwanese emulation.  Fang gives away the game near the end of his column:

It is well-known that quite a few political activists tend to overemphasize the universal value of the kind of "freedom of speech" cherished by them . . .

In other words, wouldn't it be terrific if "political activists" who disagree with the policies of the KMT government were slapped with defamation suits and muzzled — just like they'd be in Singapore.  Which (didn't you know?) has one of the BEST judicial systems in Asia?

(See pages 39-45 of this document for a short list of "political activists" who have been silenced by the Singaporean oligarchy.  They include such bomb-throwing radicals as the Far Eastern Economic Review, the International Herald Tribune, the Economist and the Asian Wall Street Journal.)

A bit of googling turned up a report of the survey Fang discussed, from Yahoo! Singapore:

Regional financial centres Hong Kong and Singapore have the best judicial systems in Asia, with Indonesia and Vietnam the worst, a survey of expatriate business executives showed.

[. . .]

The Hong Kong—based [Political and Economic Risk Consultancy] said 1,537 corporate executives working in Asia were asked to rate the judicial systems in the countries where they reside, using such variables as the protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) and corruption.

Transparency, enforcement of laws, freedom from political interference and the experience and educational standards of lawyers and judges were also considered.

"Year after year our perception surveys show a close correlation between how expatriates rate judicial systems and how they rate the openness of a particular economy," PERC said.

"Better judicial systems are associated with better IPR protection, lower corruption and wealthier economies."

[…]

PERC noted the survey involved expatriate business executives, not political activists, so criteria like contracts and IPR protection were given more weightage.

It appears that the survey itself lies behind a paywall, but the consultancy was upfront enough to point out what should be obvious:  foreign businessmen are not likely to have first-hand experiences with another country's family law, criminal law, or free speech law, for that matter.  But it IS highly probable that they form impressions of another country's commercial law — if for no other reason than that cases like that get talked about over drinks at the local executive watering hole.

And so, on the narrow issue of which countries in Asia best treat commercial law, I'll grant that Singapore deserves the crown alongside Hong Kong.  But in order to say Singapore has one of the "best" judiciaries in Asia, it also has to to demonstrate its superiority in the other areas of law which I've just mentioned.  On those scores, how does it stack up?

I'll leave it to others to describe Singapore's family and criminal law — although I'd question the wisdom of any legal system which places a higher priority on regulating chewing gum than prostitution.

With regards to free speech however, Singapore has adopted a system of soft Stalinism.  Stalinism with Skyscrapers, if you will.  Of course, no one in the City-State actually winds up in a gulag for unapproved speech — no, no, the ruling Oligarchs merely bankrupt them with defamation suits instead.  Which makes for a very civilized and admirable system, indeed.

Fang has this to say about the independence of Singapore's courts:

. . . it's hard to imagine that the Singaporean government intends to deliberately bend the judiciary to its wish and succeed in doing so . . .

A few correctives for folks suffering Fang's failure of imagination:

  1. No member of the Oligarchy has EVER lost a defamation suit against an opposition member.  Ever.  100% conviction rate.  The results of a conviction can be fines, bankruptcy, imprisonment and the loss of one's seat in parliament.  Hey, why bother winning elections, when you can crush your opposition with the brute power of the Law instead?  (see p 7 )
  2. Many Singaporean judges do not have tenure and can be shuffled into insignificant positions by the Legal Service Commission if their rulings do not satisfy the Oligarchy.  Since the Legal Service Commission is under the control of the executive branch, these judges cannot be considered to be independent of the politicians in power.  (see p 52 and 55 )
  3. Singapore's Chief Justice, Attorney General and Supreme Court judges DO have tenure, and can serve to the age of 65.  Beyond that age however, the President has the power to extend their contracts at his discretion.  In plainer English:  Play ball on important cases, and the Oligarchy lets you keep your job past retirement.  Go your own way, and you're screwed.  (see p 55 )
  4. Members of the Oligarchy who have sued Opposition members for defamation have been awarded 30 TIMES more in damages than ordinary citizens in non-political defamation suits.  If nothing else, this suggests the Singapore judiciary routinely violates the principle of equality before the law.  (see p 60-61 )

Because of two race riots in the '50s and '60s, the Singaporean government passed a set of anti-assembly laws (see p 62).  In practice, these now serve not to prevent race riots, but as instruments of repression against opposition rallies (see p 63). 

Following the race riots, the government also instituted hate-speech laws, which forbid speech promoting "racial or religious disharmony".  But again, the Oligarchy wields these as a weapon against the opposition.  Dare to criticize government racial or religious policies (such as the ruling party's ban against Muslim headscarves in schools) and one of those supposedly "independent" judges will hand you a pretty hefty fine.  (Conveniently enough, members of the ruling clique never seem to run afoul of these laws — which can only be because EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Oligarchy's policies magically ends up promoting racial and religious harmony!)

Fang concludes with this:

In view of the [economic] successes Singapore has achieved so far, both its government and its judicial branch should feel proud of themselves despite certain criticisms.

All this talk reminds me of a Singaporean I knew way back when in my university days.  May have been the only Singaporean I've ever known.  I vaguely remember his name, but for our purposes, I'll call him "Lee".

Now "Lee" was a good guy, but kind of on the glum side.  And as graduation approached he became even more morose than usual.  Seems he was PRETTY UNHAPPY with the prospect of going back to his home country.  I thought it'd be prying to ask him why.

Men like Dr. Fang must be mystified by guys like "Lee".  I mean, Singapore's clean.  Harmonious.  Got a high economic growth rate.  A per capita income that's the envy of the world (about $50,000 / person, though it was less back then).

You probably see where I'm going with this.  "Lee" didn't like certain aspects of his country, but he didn't have the democratic power to vote the bums out.  Instead, he was going to vote the only way that was left to him.  With his feet.

Before you object, I'll admit the existence of one "Lee" from Singapore is an anecdote. 

Thousands of Lees however, are A Problem . . .

. . . one survey [of emigration] has placed Singapore’s outflow at 26.11 migrants per 1,000 citizens – the second highest in the world. Only [East Timor] (51.07) fares worse.  [emphasis added]

[…]

More educated Singaporeans – many taking their children with them – are leaving or are planning to leave their country . . .

A recent indication of the scope of the dilemma was the rising number of Singaporeans who asked for a document needed to apply for permanent residency overseas.

It has exceeded 1,000 a month to reach 12,707 last year from 4,996 in 1998, or a rise of 170% over 10 years, said Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng.

[…]

It is estimated that half the Singaporeans who annually apply for foreign PRs – 6,000 to 7,000 – eventually settle down overseas.

The brain drain is serious.

Even if 0.5% of its brightest minds were to leave, it would hit Singapore hard, said Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong.

“These are bright young people, children of very well-educated Singaporeans. They study overseas now, and the very good ones are right away green harvested by companies,” Goh said.  [emphasis added throughout]

Rolling-in-the-dough Singapore has the world's second highest emigration rate, surpassed only by Timor Leste (East Timor) — a recent war-zone with a per capita income of only $400 / person.  Just how messed-up is that?

With the best of intentions, Singapore's Oligarchs lifted their country from poverty.  But somewhere along the way, they also managed to turn it into a prison.  A nice, clean, well-regulated prison.

Did they really think the inmates wouldn't someday try to escape?

Postscript:  Instead of democratizing, Singapore has responded to its high level of emigration by allowing in more immigrants.  Unfortunately, many of these immigrants don't intend to stay, seeing Singaporean residency as an intermediate stepping-stone on the path to citizenship in democratic Western countries.

This demographic time-bomb is liable to be further exacerbated in the coming years by the city-state's exceptionally low birth rate (8.2 births per 1000 people),  and high suicide rate (18.9 suicides per 100,000 people).

All of which bodes ill for Singapore's armed forces.  Fewer citizens =  fewer recruitable troops.

It's an equation the Spartans discovered at the Battle of Leuctra in 371 BC.  And discovered to their eternal cost.

UPDATE:  A satire concerning the Singaporean Oligarchy's propensity for regulation and control.  Heh.

UPDATE (Oct 3/08):  One of the pioneers of Singapore's opposition is dead.  More here.

Gaga For Gag Orders

More calls from Taiwan's China Post to restrict former president Chen Shui-bian's freedom of speech prior to his corruption trial:

At a time when Chen, his family members and other key witnesses are being constantly called in for questioning by prosecutors, the former president is making regular visits to strongholds of support in southern Taiwan.

… Chen has made a victory tour of his hometown, Kuantien in Tainan County, where he received a hero's welcome amid throngs of staunch supporters.

[…]

As we have said before, the former president is merely attempting to move his current dilemma out of the realm of law and into the realm of politics. By mobilizing supporters and waging a counter-attack against purported enemies determined to undermine Taiwan, Chen believes he can take the initiative away from prosecutors and intimidate judges into handing him a light sentence or even an acquittal. While other disgraced politicians of all political stripes have attempted to claim persecution in order to influence the outcome of their trials before, the antics of former President Chen are unprecedented in this country.

If Chen continues persuading more people in southern Taiwan that he is somehow the victim of a campaign of political repression, then he may very well intimidate judges, who might fear domestic turmoil if a long prison sentence is handed down against Chen and his family. At this stage, prosecutors should seek a court order barring the former president from speaking in public about the investigations going on against him.  [emphasis added throughout]

This is rather an elastic definition of the word, "intimidate".  Note that Chen isn't threatening judges, prosecutors, or their families — he's telling his side of the story (or, giving his spin on the story, if you like) to his supporters.  No, the intimidation part comes in because Chen's supporters MIGHT behave violently if he's found guilty.

If that's the sort of intimidation that merits a gag order, then the Post should have advocated similar legal restraints against KMT heavyweights Lien Chan and Ma Ying-jeou.  Readers may remember that in the aftermath of the 2004 Taiwanese presidential election, Lien and his vice-presidential running mate tried to get the courts to annul the election results, while at the same time encouraging angry mobs to apply political pressure in the streets.  A few years later, Ma behaved more responsibly than Lien (he didn't appear before crowds that had used violence, for example) — yet he too was not above telling his supporters his opinions regarding HIS corruption trials in 2007.

At no time during either of these two cases do I recall ANYONE proposing that Lien's or Ma's right of free speech be restricted pending the result of their court cases.  There was condemnation of Lien, yes.  And in Ma's case, I don't recall anyone even did that regarding his "intimidation" of the judiciary — because it seemed perfectly natural that a politician facing a corruption trial should have the right to explain himself before the public.  But again, there were no demands that anyone be forcibly silenced.

What I suspect here is that the pro-KMT press in Taiwan wants to convict Chen on the pages of their newspapers, while simultaneously denying Chen any voice whatsoever in the court of public opinion.  What I'm not certain about however, is the wisdom of this tactic.

At a first glance, a restraining order against Chen would seem to be incredibly counter-productive.  Let's say a judge muzzles Chen tomorrow.  Result?  Instant sympathy for Chen.  Supporters will ask themselves, "Is it not the natural right of any man to proclaim his innocence?"  They'll view the order as an injustice in itself.

But beyond that, I think there's a good chance that Chen would violate the order.  So he goes on a radio talk show.  Says the KMT party-state is persecuting him.  NOW what's the judge gonna do?  Throw him into an oubliette on Green Island until the trial starts?

Oh yeah, THAT'S gonna calm people down, alright.

However, it could be that I'm not Machavellian enough in my thinking on this.  Perhaps the Post is fully aware that a restraining order against Chen would create sympathy for him, and just doesn't care.  So a few hundred die-hards kick up a ruckess over a prejudicial ruling against Chen.  What does that matter?  Chen will be convicted, regardless.  Violence on his behalf will only serve to turn public opinion against him, as it did in the Lien case.  And what could be better than a few broken windows to distract the electorate from the KMT's list of broken economic promises or their gradual surrender of Taiwanese sovereignty? 

A-bian’s Comeback Strategy?

From Sunday's China Post:

[Former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian] clearly hopes to build up a swell of public support for his cause among people in southern Taiwan, pressuring prosecutors and judges to be lenient in their treatment of his case. It is even possible that Chen might take refuge in his newly purchased flat in Kaohsiung, where crowds of supporters could be marshalled to prevent police from taking him to prison.

The Post also predicted Chen would declare martial law before this year's legislative elections.  And that he'd stage phony (or even real !) assassination attempts on his own party members to win sympathy votes.

Sorry fellas, but with a record like that, I've got more faith in the auguries of Bernice Bede Osol.  You know — your paper's astrologer.

The Post has some recommendations for the administration of justice:

While Chen must be presumed innocent until found guilty by a court of law, the former president should not be permitted to hold news conferences and ad hoc rallies of his supporters while his trial is proceeding.

The equivalent of an Anglo-American "gag order" should be issued against Chen to prevent him from turning our legal system upside down for the sake of evading punishment.  [emphasis added]

If I'm not mistaken, gag orders are usually issued against the media or the prosecution so the defendant can receive a fair trial.  Now, the prosecution has been leaking information to the press, so maybe THEY should be penalized in that manner.  But are gag orders often issued against people who merely shout their innocence from the rooftops?

I dunno.  What I do know is that Taiwan's current president, Ma Ying-jeou, was also the target of one or two corruption trials last year.  Like Chen, Ma also issued public explanations, and led rallies of supporters. 

And yet no gag orders were issued against HIM.  So why the double-standard? *

*  Just for the record, I think Chen, or at least one member of his family, is guilty (and will be found guilty) of money-laundering.  On the charges of corruption involving the state affairs fund though, I hope he's innocent. 

But $20 million funneled through a series of 3 overseas accounts into a Swiss bank account?  That sounds an awful lot like layering. 

Using family members as figureheads for those bank transfers?  In English, believe it or not, that's called smurfing.  

And last, for a charge of money laundering to stick, it doesn't matter whether the money is "dirty" or not.  Chen's best case scenario is that the $20 million only consists of leftover campaign funds which he or his wife tried to hide for tax purposes.  (For some bizarre reason, it's perfectly legal in Taiwan for politicians to pocket leftover campaign funds, but they're still required to declare that income to the government.)

Well gotcha, because bank transactions for the purposes of tax evasion also fall under the category of money laundering. 

All this said, I also happen to agree with the 47% of the Taiwanese public that believe Chen and his family are on their way to a KMT kangaroo court.  And hysterical demands to limit the rights of the accused do nothing to lessen that suspicion.

UPDATE (Sep 17/08):  Actually, the number of Taiwanese who believe the judiciary isn't handling Chen's case impartially is 46%, not 47%.

Out With The Old, In With The New

Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou declares 'State to State' theory of Taiwan-Chinese relations is dead.  Replaces it with the 'Vassal to Master State' theory instead. 

And Taiwan's China Post is positively BRIMMING with helpful tips for implementation.  First up, get thee to a nunnery:

If Ma is truly pragmatic as he claims to be, he shouldn't have made a grand state visit to Latin America while Beijing was hosting the Olympic Games. There's no reason why he should attend the inaugural ceremony of a president in person, while the diplomatic tour is regarded in China as an unnecessary assertion of Taiwan's sovereignty and a serious challenge to Beijing's assertion that the island is a province or integral part of the People's Republic. It isn't conducive to the detente needed for dialogue across the Taiwan Strait that will put an end [to] the losing diplomatic war.

And second, humbly petition Taiwan's overlord for an act of benevolence:

As a matter of fact, Taipei
should talk with Beijing, not with Washington, to find out what it can
do to join or participate in the United Nations. With a nod from
Beijing, that world organization will gladly admit Taiwan right away.

Like the dame once said:

The folks atop the ladder
Are the ones the world adores
So boost me up my ladder, Kid
And I'll boost you . . . up yours

UPDATE (Sep 8/08):  Former Taiwanese President Lee Teng-hui also objects to the new "Vassal to Master State" theory.:

“The people have elected Ma as their leader.  But it does not authorize him to surrender Taiwan’s sovereignty."

Desinification: KMT-Style

From the Aug 26th edition of the China Post:

Although the annual Mid-Autumn Festival is still some 20 days away, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu called on city residents Monday not to have traditional outdoor barbecues that day, as part of the city's efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

[. . .]

"Barbecuing is absolutely not good for the health and goes against global eco-friendly efforts," he said. "The city government will do its best to stop the public having barbecues in parks, streets or green areas during the Mid Autumn Festival."

Last year, the city government banned barbecues in parks on the holiday, and only a few public venues were opened to members of the public wishing to have barbecues, he explained.

I don't live in Taichung, but I think it's pretty sad that the city government is trying to abolish one of the nicest little holidays in the Chinese Lunar Calendar.  I've been to a few Moon Festival barbecues and a good time is usually had by all.  And really, what are the alternatives?  People have to eat — if they don't barbecue their food, they're still going to produce CO2 when they stay indoors and cook their dinner on GAS STOVES.  Or does Hizonner have a plan for turning Taichung into a city of salad-eaters?  Hey, good luck with that.  And good luck when folks start hopping in their cars and NEEDLESSLY BURN GASOLINE so they can light their grills outside city limits.

Charcoal barbecues make lots of nasty smoke — got it.  So, why not try to encourage people to switch to cleaner electric or gas grills instead?

Hank Hill barbecuing with a Please Consider Propane banner. He is surrounded by protesters: one of whom has a Heil Charcoal sign, while another has a placard reading, No Blood For Charcoal.

Naw, that's not as much fun as harassing the local citizenry with badly-needed crime enforcement personnel who've been turned into jack-booted Barbecue Cops for the evening.

(King of the Hill image from TVGuide.com)

UPDATE (Sep 8/08):  More on this here.  Has some numbers as well:

The association [against charcoal barbecues] cited customs statistics as indicating that Taiwan imported 34 million kilograms of charcoal a year, with 95 percent coming from Indonesia, Malaysia and mainland China. It requires 6 to 10 kilograms of timber to produce one kilogram of charcoal, and one hectare of forestry plantation area can produce 150,000 kilograms of timber, which, in turn, can be used to turn out 15,000 kilograms of charcoal.

Accordingly, to meet Taiwan's annual demand for 34 million kilograms of charcoal, as many as 2,260 hectares of forest need be felled, equivalent to the area of as many as 79 Daan Forest Parks in Taipei, the association spokesman said.

Therefore, without the barbecue activity on the Moon Festival, not only will many trees not be chopped, but carbon dioxide emissions can also be cut significantly, the spokesman continued.

Maybe so, but then a lot of those trees may not get planted at all if there's no market for them in charcoal production:

Farmers using swidden farming (shifting cultivation) methods in Indonesia are increasingly unable to provide sufficient food and cash income to satisfy basic family and community needs. Part of their difficulty is the cost and effort of controlling the invasive grass Imperata cylindrica. Attempts to establish plantations in the grasslands are frequently thwarted by wildfires. [One option is to] reclaim unproductive land infested with imperata grass in Indonesia by assisting cash-poor swidden farmers to establish plantations of trees, especially Vitex pubescens, a native species suitable for charcoal (for which there is a ready cash market).

None of this however answers my question:  If charcoal barbecues are banned in Taiwan, how much CO2 will be produced when people cook dinner on gas stoves instead?

i-1

Why Taiwan’s Four Bronzes Are Nothing To Be Ashamed Of

Maybe I'll have time later to respond to David "One party dominance will be a boon for Taiwan" Ting's latest see-no-evil column about the 2008 Genocide Games.  But for now, I'll content myself with addressing just one point he made:

[China] won 51 gold medals* – more than any country has ever won at any Olympics since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

It's painful to mention Taiwan's medal count:  four bronzes.

Gosh, and it's also painful to have to point out that China has 1.3 billion people, and Taiwan, only 23 million.  So instead of comparing China's total medal count of 100 to Taiwan's 4, one really ought to compare the per capita medal count. 

Let's crunch the numbers, shall we?

China:  1,325,563,000 people / 100 medals = 13,255,630 people / medal

Taiwan:  23,036,087 people / 4 medals = 5,759,022 people / medal

The numbers plainly show . . . Taiwan kicked China's ass.  That is to say, the country of Taiwan produced more than twice as many Olympic champions on a per capita basis than China did.**

Sorry David, but you're completely wrong if you think Taiwanese should go to China in search of the secrets of Olympic success.  No, for that they should head to tiny, tiny Jamaica, which won an astonishing 54 times more medals than China, after correcting for the difference in population.

Now, Jamaica may not be the central axis of the world like China is, I know.  But the akee, rice, salted fish are nice, and the rum is fine any time of the year.

As the Jamaicans say — there's no substitute for victory, mon.

*  Curiously, Ting's figure does not include golds won by the two Chinese septegenarians in the thrilling 365-day Hard Labor competition.

**  This isn't ENTIRELY true.  After all, some Olympic events are team endeavors.  It's more accurate to say that Taiwan won more than twice as many EVENTS population-wise than China.

Lame Excuse Of The Week

So you're a spokesman in Taiwan's Ministry of National Defense, and the county's president issues a directive that no reporters will be allowed to cover this month's live-fire military drills.  It's your job to go in front of the media and give a reason.

Now, I suppose you COULD tell the truth:  The KMT government is deathly afraid that coverage will ruin the feel-good China vibe they've worked so hard to cultivate in Taiwan, and might furthermore make a few communist party Mandarins in Beijing scowl at 'em at the next KMT-CCP inter-party cooperation conference.  (No telling WHAT might happen then.)

Obviously, telling the truth makes your boss, Mr. Ma, look all spineless and cowardly.  So it's off the table.

Which leaves you with another option:  Why not plead that the necessity of military secrecy makes coverage impossible?  (Heck, some of us might even be disposed to view that one sympathetically.)

But no, that's out, too.  The scheduled exercises we're talking about have been covered every year for a few years now.  Exactly what's changed between this year and the last?

Well, well.  If you can't tell the truth, and you can't tell a lie, you might as well get hep to the jive and deliver a rationalization that's fully in keeping with the spirit of the times:

The Ministry of National Defense has said it would not televise any part of the drill as Ma’s predecessors did. Nor would the ministry invite reporters or other guests to observe the drill, which the ministry said was to save energy in line with government policy.  [emphasis added]

Reporters will be banned — because the government wants to SAVE THE PLANET.