Taiwanese Politics | The Foreigner in Formosa

Shouldn’t This Be The Emblem Painted On Jingfu Gate?

Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party takes a historical monument — a gate built during the Qing Dynasty — and paints their own party symbol on it. Surprise, surprise.

Really though, if the KMT wasn't so single-mindedly obsessed with their own self-aggrandizement, they'd take the Qing-era site, and paint a Qing Dynasty flag on it.

That would be the rational thing to do. If The Party was even remotely concerned with the preservation of history.

(Image from Photoalbum.Davison.ca)

Of course, this would create the intriguing problem of what to do about historic Japanese-era buildings. Oh, what to do, what to do?

UPDATE: Letters from Taiwan has a post on the subject. Sounds like the KMT culturally vandalized the historic site back in 1966. (Hat tip to The View)

UPDATE #2: More at Arthur Dent's site.

i-1

Self-Determination

High-class mainlander Comsymps over at Taiwan's China Post, working like stakhanovites to convince Taiwanese to surrender to the Communist Chinese.

Now suppose a dissenting voter objects to the outcome of [a hypothetical independence referendum]. Suppose she says, "I am a proud citizen of the Republic of China. I want my country to include the Chinese mainland. I refuse to be reclassified as a citizen of Taiwan! You are trampling over my right to determine my political status!" How will champions of Taiwan independence respond?

Actually, if that's the tack you want to take, then the right to determine one's political status is being trampled right now — by the ROC constitution. And in the complete ABSENCE of any independence referendums! Because it takes all kinds to make a country — Taiwan independence advocates, elderly Japanophiles . . . youthful America lovers:

I am a proud citizen of Taiwan / Japan / America. I want my country to include Taiwan / Japan / America. I refuse to be classified as a citizen of the Republic of China! The R.O.C. constitution is trampling over my right to determine my political status!

A reply to all of them might go something like this:

The classical liberals of the nineteenth century believed that individuals should be free to determine their own lives. It is why they advocated private property, voluntary exchange, and constitutionally limited government. They also believed that people should be free to reside in any country they wish. In general, therefore, they advocated freedom of movement. Governments should not compel people to stay within their political boundaries, nor should any government prohibit them from entering its territory for peaceful purposes.

An extension of this principle was that individuals should be free to determine through plebiscite what state they would belong to. This is distinctly different from the collectivists’ notion of “national self-determination,” the alleged necessity for all members of an ethnic, racial, linguistic, or cultural group to be incorporated within a single political entity, regardless of their wishes. Thus, for instance, the Nazis demanded that all members of the “Aryan race” be forcefully united within a Greater Germany under National Socialist leadership.

[Similar demands made by Chinese nationalists, be they KMT or CCP — The Foreigner]

Classical liberalism is closer to “individual self-determination.” Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises argued in Liberalism (1927) that the liberal ideal allows individuals within towns, districts, and regions to vote on which state they would belong to; they could remain part of the existing state, join another state, or form a new one.

Mises stated that in principle this choice should be left to each individual, not majorities, since a minority (including a minority of one) might find itself within the jurisdiction of a government not of its own choosing. But because it was difficult to imagine how competing police and judicial systems could function on the same street corner, Mises viewed the majoritarian solution to be a workable second best. [emphasis added]

Communist Party fellow-traveller (and faux-individualist) Bevin Chu is a big fan of the the majoritarian solution — not for the honorable intention of empowering self-determination but for crushing it. The Post usually endorses this scheme of Chu's, but on this one occasion feigns mild disapproval:

Suppose Beijing were to argue that "The political status of China must be determined by the 1.3 billion people of China. The political status of the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau must be collectively determined by the 1.3 billion people of the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau by popular referendum."

Polls have revealed that 95% of the public [in the Communist People's Republic of China] opposes Taiwan independence. Does anyone doubt what the outcome of a referendum on Taiwan independence would be?

Good one, Bev. And while we're at it, let's keep those rebellious Danes in the Reich by means of a referendum among all true-blooded Germanic Aryans!

POSTSCRIPT: Quite frankly, it's surreal to be talking about independence referendums in Taiwan when the Chinese Nationalist Party controls both the presidency and 75% of the legislature.

Independence referendum in Taiwan? Not gonna happen.

For a long, long time.

A is Not A, Claim Unobjective “Objectivists”

Always a hoot when the Confucian collectivists at Taiwan's China Post invoke individualism (!) to rationalize Taiwan's annexation by the Chinese Empire. On Wednesday, the paper even tried to get away with the dishonest suggestion that Ayn Rand would have been cool with that.

From the editorial, A thought experiment on 'right to self-determination':

The "right to self-determination" is routinely defined as the collective right of the people of a given geographical region to determine their own political status.

[…]

But this conventional definition, considered utterly non-controversial by mainstream political scientists, is in fact conceptually defective at its very core, and gets us into all sorts of trouble. One might say that the politically-correct "national right to self-determination" is one of those things that we know for sure that "just ain't so".

Really? Try telling that to the freed peoples of the Austro-Hungarian, British, Turkish and Soviet Empires. "Hey — ya'll have no national right to self-determination. Howdya like them apples?"

Human beings do indeed have the inalienable right to determine their own political status. But only individual human beings have this right, not "the people of a given geographical region." As novelist-philosopher Ayn Rand explained, the term "individual rights" is a redundancy. There is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them.

OK, now that Rand has been injected into the whole Taiwan independence debate, let's see what her actual thoughts on secession were:

Some people ask whether local groups or provinces have the right to secede from the country of which they are a part. The answer is: on [purely] ethnic grounds, no. Ethnicity is not a valid consideration, morally or politically, and does not endow anyone with any special rights. As to other than ethnic grounds, remember that rights belong only to individuals and that there is no such thing as “group rights.”

Sounds like the lady was dead-set against it. But there's a catch . . .

If a province wants to secede from a dictatorship [We're looking at you, China !], or even from a mixed economy, in order to establish a free country—it has the right to do so. [emphasis added]

Now, that part about the "mixed economy" is actually a huge caveat. After all, even the most capitalist countries in the world possess at least SOME elements of socialism. . .

But if a local gang, ethnic or otherwise, wants to secede in order to establish its own government controls, it does not have that right. No group has the right to violate the rights of the individuals who happen to live in the same locality. A wish—individual or collective—is not a right.

We can clearly see that Rand whole-heartedly approved of the right to national self-determination — for free peoples.

UPDATE: Consistent with that secession quote, I just found some pretty strong support for Taiwanese independence over at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights.

Eat your heart out, Bevin Chu. A is still A. Eh?

UPDATE #2: More from Rand herself —

[A free nation] has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.

KMT Girly-Man Threatens To Sue Those Awful, Awful Hecklers

Taiwan's Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan proves that you're never too old . . . to be an honorary member of the Strawberry Generation:

Yeh was confronted on Sunday evening by two Taiwanese students as he arrived at a dinner for Taiwan’s diplomatic allies. The women asked him what title he was using at the WHO meeting and accused him of “selling out Taiwan.”

[…]

“I really don’t know what these people want,” a tearful Yeh said later at a press conference.

Now, don't you take that kind of abuse from those pretty young coeds, Weepy. Stand up for your rights !

When asked about his confrontation on Sunday night with two Taiwanese students and his threat to file lawsuits against them when he returns home, Yeh said he did not want to discuss the incident.

“Everybody has the right to speak out. I endorse the rights of the two students to speak out. But, when you do [protest], you need to make sure what you do is legal and show proper respect to others,” Yeh said.

Oh, yeah. The country's in really good hands when its ministers TURN ON THE WATERWORKS when confronted by the disaffected knee-sock and pony-tail set.

Communist party thugs in the World Health Assembly, beware. There's a new sheriff in town.

Name's Yeh. "Strawberry Shortcake" Yeh.

(But can Taiwan's new "tuff" guy defend the country's interests against that ornery, mean and miserable sneak, The Peculiar Purple Pieman of Porcupine Peak?)

Taiwanese KMT Department of Health Minister Yeh Ching-chuan

("Quickdraw" Strawberry Shortcake Yeh — sans his blazing stack of subpoenas. Image from Taiwanreview.nat.gov.tw)

Strawberry Shortcake on her tricycle.

BLAST FROM THE PAST: Remember the days when former Taiwanese President Chen was mocked — not for threatening his hecklers with lawsuits, but for merely answering back?

Leave it to Yeh Ching-chuan to make Chen Shui-bian — Chen Shui-bian! — look like He-Man in comparison.

UPDATE: Yeh cattily "forgives" the hecklers.

Minister of Health Yeh Chin-chuan forgave co-eds from Taiwan yesterday for insulting him at a Geneva hotel dinner party on Saturday.

Yeh told reporters in Taipei by telephone the students are "ignoramuses" for disrupting the party he hosted in honor of health ministers from Taiwan's diplomatic allies.

"They are unlettered, rude compatriots," said Yeh, who is attending this year's World Health Assembly meeting as minister of the Department of Health, Chinese Taipei.

"But I forgive them," he said. [emphasis added throughout]

Seeking to bury the hatchet, the college girls generously followed suit:

"Yeh Ching-chuan is a thin-skinned, litigious, communist butt-kisser . . . but regarding his tyrannical threats to sue us, we forgive him. We're big enough to do that . . . After all, it's not HIS fault that he gets cranky as hell during that certain time of the month."

i-2

Taiwan Deathrace 2009 (or, How Taipei’s Not-So-Finest Ran Over Two Senior Citizens At A Scheduled Protest Rally)

This isn't going to be the post I originally planned because one of the victims of the Taipei P.D. (a 68 year old) has had part of his leg amputated, and may wind up with brain damage.

Pretty. Fucking. Incompetent.

At least, that was my first reaction. Maybe for an encore the cops could run over a couple of kids in a playground zone.

Second reaction: This is what happens when the Taipei's law enforcement routinely undercounts the number of participants at these protests. The men in the squad cars hear the low-ball figures, and discount the need to drive safely in the area.

Only 50,000 people? Why, that's not so many. We can afford to drive like maniacs only a few blocks away . . .

(Or, to use the playground analogy, which playground would you be more careful driving next to — the one which catered to a school of 50 kids, or another catering 600?)

With further information, it appears that reaction one was off the mark:

Taipei prosecutors said yesterday that based on [the driver Taipei Police Officer Lin Chien-chih's] cellphone record, he was on the phone at 7:34pm, around the time of the accident.

Lin denies being on the phone.

Prosecutors said Lin told them he was driving between 30kph and 40kph, but the broken windshield indicated the car was traveling much faster. Witnesses told reporters at the site that the driver was going at least 80kph.

Prosecutors said Lin did not apply the brakes before hitting the two men.

That's not incompetence — that's flat-out vehicular assault. Moreover, I believe I was too quick to dismiss the initial assessment of demonstrators at the scene, who insisted that the police DELIBERATELY ran down the two elderly men.

Now that we know the police DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER TO HIT THE BRAKES, we ought to at least entertain the possibility that this crime was intentional.

Taipei City Police reacted as they usually do to such incidents. By lying to the public:

Fang Yang-ning, head of the Taipei city Police Department's traffic police corps, said it was purely an accident.

[…]

Fang denied accusations by some other demonstrators that the police officers had purposely hit the two men.

In the absence of an official investigation, Fang was instantly and without error able to ascertain that the tragic event was PURELY AN ACCIDENT. How fortunate for Taipei that it employs the dedicated Fang Yang-ning, who is not only an exemplary officer, but a clairvoyant one as well !

In contrast to the Move along, show's over attitude of the police, the prosecutors seem to be handling the case about right. We'll see how long that lasts, though. Taipei's prosecutors have demonstrated they can be a pretty crooked lot themselves, once they receive orders from the presidential office to bury a case.

UPDATE (Jun 10/09): Surprise, surprise. The case against police officers in the cruiser gets buried. The winners of Taiwan's Deathrace 2009 are given the draconian punishment of a single demerit on their work record.

That'll learn 'em !

Twenty Percent, Right Off The Top

Taiwan's China Post, denouncing the country's main independence party's efforts to prevent recognition of Chinese diplomas in Taiwan:

. . . [sovereignty-minded] legislators would deny Republic of China students the right to determine their own futures. They would deny them the right to attend mainland universities. They would deny them the right to obtain a higher education because they could not afford the tuition on Taiwan.

Let's leave aside the irony of the China Post now posing a champion of the individual (the paper which obsequiously applauded Taiwan's martial law-era rulers as it mercilessly crushed the rights of individuals for 40 years).

No, let's instead look at the security implications of the policy. Mr. Peabody, if you'll do the honors and set the Way-Back machine back to the 1970s:

Western liberals, politicians and academics alike saw higher-education exchange programs [with East Germany] as a chance to foster mutual understanding between the superpowers. But for Communist spymasters such as Markus Wolf, the wily head of East Germany's foreign-espionage service, the Hauptverwaltung Aufklarung or HVA, foreign-intelligence wing of the Stasi, the programs had one use only: They served as a rich source for recruiting American and British students as long-term penetration agents who could be groomed to work their way into government jobs in their own countries — or into other influential spots in journalism, business, higher education (including scientific and technical studies) or the military.

[…]

Based on a huge cache of hitherto secret East German intelligence documents, including complete Stasi mole files of two British academics code-named "Armin" and "Diana," Insight/BBC has established the Stasi had a high recruitment success rate among American and British exchange students. "Regardless of whether these were students from Britain or other countries, as a general rule one out of 10 attempts to recruit someone for the secret service were successful," says Pieter Richter, a former HVA analyst. [emphasis added]

There you have it. A full TEN PERCENT of American & British students who studied in East Germany returned home as communist spies.

What would the number be for Taiwanese students studying in China, I wonder? Fewer language barriers. Fewer cultural differences to work against their recruiters' effectiveness. A "Greater China" mentality already inculcated into many of them by a Chinese nationalist educational establishment . . .

So I'll say 20%. Yes, twenty percent. Give or take some change.

Postscript: I seem to recall blogging on this subject a couple years back, and that 10% figure seems to ring a bell. Worth repeating now, now that the policy isn't just a hypothetical anymore.

A Quick Look At The Olympic Charter

Nothing there about freedom per se, though the second fundamental principal of Olympism does hint at it (see page 12 of the pdf link):

The goal of Olympism is to place sport at the service of the harmonious development of man, with a view to promoting a peaceful society concerned with the preservation of human dignity. [emphasis added]

Therefore (in theory at least), the goal of Olympism IS freedom — for without it, men have the dignity of serfs or slaves. Which is why the pro-slavery views of Jackie Chan make him unsuitable for the job of spokesman for Taiwan's Deaflympics:

"I’m gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we’re not being controlled, we’ll just do what we want."
– Jackie Chan

Tuesday's China Post attempted to defend Chan's job as Taiwan's Deaflympics spokesman, on the basis of . . . free speech.

Which is a straw man, because Chan's free speech isn't the issue. As a free man, it's Jackie Chan's right to express his odious wish that he and all other Chinese should be servile. For speaking his mind, I do not advocate that he be jailed, fined, or hauled in front of a human rights tribunal by any government. Nor do I hear anyone demanding that the State retaliate against his economic interests, banning his movies or otherwise damaging his livelihood.

The Post asks:

After all, aren't democracy champions also the champions of freedom and equal rights for every individual?

Indeed they are — but that doesn't mean that democracy champions are obligated to accept anti-democrats as their SPOKESMEN!

It's a similar issue to the whole Durban II "Anti-racism" Conference. The UN holds an international meeting on anti-racism . . . then invites MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD as a keynote speaker?

Whatsa matter? David Duke and "high-class" Chinese nationalist Kuo Kuan-ying weren't available?

Here's a clue for UN Secretary Dim-Bulb Ban Ki-moon: If you want your little anti-racism shindig to have any credibility, it's MAYBE not a good idea to give the limelight to hallucinatory psychotics who're jonesing for genocide.

And here's another clue for Ban's counterparts at the China Post: If Taiwan wants a spokesman for freedom and human dignity, it's contradictory to hire Jackie Chan. He's already got a job, moonlighting as a spokesman for governmental repression.

UPDATE: One other thing. Companies and organizations hire spokesmen in order to create GOODWILL for their products or events. If a celebrity (for whatever reason) isn't creating that goodwill, then shouldn't someone ELSE be given their job instead?

Apropos of this, CNN has a long list of commercial pitchmen who were fired for offenses ranging from raunchy speech (Madonna) to partisan speech (Whoopi Goldberg) to bitter divorces (Burt Reynolds).

That's life. All of these celebrities have the right of free speech. What they do not have is the right to keep their lucrative endorsement jobs after they send product sales down the toilet.

Falun Gong At The Lake Of The Sun And The Moon

Chinese tourists to Sun Moon Lake in Taiwan are being treated to disturbing evidence of their government's persecution of Falun Gong. And there are objections aplenty:

Following complaints from several tourists, the director of the Sun Moon Lake National Scenic Area Administration said yesterday it did not know how to deal with the Falun Gong protesters at the nation’s premier scenic spot.

Tseng Kuo-chi (曾國基), director of administration, told the Taipei Times in a telephone interview that the protests by Falun Gong members were directed at Chinese tourists, who normally visit Sun Moon Lake, Alishan, the National Palace Museum and other popular tourist attractions.

Chinese tourists may have been the targets, but a Canadian visitor to the lake was found to be unhappy as well:

The Taipei Times contacted Tseng after it ran a letter on Monday from Canadian Paul Gallien, a high school teacher who visited Sun Moon Lake last week and was disturbed by a Falun Gong display he saw at one of the shoreline temples.

“Part of the display included very graphic images of dead bodies, including a pregnant woman with parts of her skin and flesh removed revealing an unborn child within the womb,” Gallien wrote.

[…]

Traveling with his two-year-old daughter and her five-year-old cousin, Gallien said he doubted the two youngsters “have necessary faculties to avoid being traumatized by such photographs.”

Even though I don't have children, I know where he's coming from. On the other hand, the Canadian government requires cigarette makers to print gruesome images on cigarette packs, in an effort to discourage people from smoking. 51 billion cigarettes sold yearly in Canada works out to . . . oh, I don't know HOW many packs. But it's a good bet Mr. Gallien's kids will come across at least some of these at grandpa's house or the neighbor's living room or even as litter on the side of the road.

Canadian cigarette pack warnings, showing teeth rotted out at the roots.

(You oughtta see the anti-smoking warnings the Aussie government requires. Hope you're not eating when you take a gander at the gangrened foot.)

If governments mandate the printing of nasty photos to educate people on societal ills, they have absolutely no room to object when private individuals or organizations do likewise.

POSTSCRIPT: Personally, I'm of the notion that "The Lake of the Sun and the Moon" is whole lot more poetic than the Chinglishy "Sun Moon Lake."

A bluish-cast photo of Sun Moon Lake, with mountains in the background.

UPDATE: Now, I guess I can't object if the Taiwanese government tries to REASON with the Falun Gong group about this. Certainly, if I was a member of that religion, I would have concerns that distasteful images might turn some observers against my cause. But if Falun Gong wants to run that risk, then that's their business.

UPDATE #2: Falun Gong displays grisly photos outside a provincial legislature in Mr. Gallien's home country. A few kids may have walked by, I dunno.

UPDATE #3: Falun Gong displays similar pictures on a shanty outside a Chinese consulate in Vancouver, B.C. for 7 or 8 years. On a public sidewalk.

(The mayor, under pressure from China, eventually got his way and had the hut dismantled. While the fate of the structure is being appealed, Falun Gong adherents are nonetheless still at liberty to protest AND DISPLAY THEIR PICTURES outside the consulate, minus their makeshift hut.)

All this is not to pick on Mr. Gallien, whom I sympathize with. I simply point out that Falun Gong is free to use graphic images in public places within Gallien's home country to protest China's ill treatment of their co-religionists.

So why should they not have that very same right in Taiwan as well?

UPDATE #4: Now that Taiwan's opened the door to the Chinese, we can probably expect opponents of the regime to be attacked by hired goons or mobsters, as was done in this case.

UPDATE (Apr 23/09): Wednesday's Taipei Times' editorial on the issue.

i-2

Would The KMT Have Won Last Year’s Elections In Such A Big Way

. . . if they'd openly campaigned on a platform of turning Taiwan into Beijing's offshore brothel?

Somehow, I kinda doubt it. But as I was reading over the China Post's latest editorial supporting the-policy-Chinese-Nationalists-dared-not-speak-of-until-they-won-power, it struck me. Why, didn't the Post used to go on and on about how MORALLY-DEPRAVED Taiwan had become once the KMT had lost the presidency?

Yes, they did. So it's pretty entertaining to watch these self-appointed watchdogs of societal morality now cheerleading plans to legalize PROSTITUTION.

SEF Head Unrepentant Over Son’s PRC Ties

The chairman of the Taiwanese organization tasked with negotiating with China . . . has a family member who was doing business with China.

These aren't the droids you're looking for . . .

[Straits Exchange Foundation Chairman Chiang Pin-kung said that although] his son’s company won a contract to represent China’s state-owned steel company, it did not need a special permit because any private company can sell the products. Besides, Chiang said, the contract expired in January and was not renewed, he said. [emphasis added]

Well, that makes it alright then . . .

The office in Shanghai is closed and he had asked his family to decrease business ties with China since he took office, he said.

Chiang said he knew very little about his son’s business and rarely asked about it. He also said that he had not used his position to secure any business deals for his son. [emphasis added]

If you say so, Chiang . . .

The [SEF] statement said [Chiang's son] had resigned from a joint venture and a foundation to avoid any conflict of interest.

Ah. So at least ONE person realized there was a potential conflict of interest here . . .

He said he hoped the media would be more supportive of him and the cross-strait negotiation team.

Farmer Bao: Is that a thief I hear in my hen house?

Answer: There ain't nobody here but us chickens!

Speaking of which, Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party was quick to defend that strangely-out-of-place voice emerging from the hen house:

[Mainland Affairs Council Chairwoman Lai Shin-yuan said] that Chiang was not a “policymaker” or “negotiator” in cross-strait affairs, but rather the “executor” of the council’s policy and that the Chiang issue was therefore “irrelevant.

I . . . see. Chiang is the CHAIRMAN of Taiwan's Straits Exchange Foundation — but he has absolutely NOTHING to do with the organization's policies or negotiations.

(No doubt the poor guy just comes in 3 times a week to mop up and clean the windows. So lay off him, already !)

Support from another quarter:

[KMT caucus whip Lin Yi-shih] said the [sovereignty-minded opposition party's] criticism was unreasonable as “by DPP logic, family members of a company chairman should all be barred from working for a company and depend on [the chairman] for a living.”

It may come as a surprise to nepotism-lovin' Lin, but some large corporations categorically forbid the hiring of family members. From the (American) National Conference of State Legislatures:

Nepotism in business, as in public service, brings both costs and benefits. The positive aspects of nepotism include: lower recruiting costs; less employee turnover; higher levels of loyalty, trust and satisfaction; and a sense of "ownership," according to the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Those businesses that discourage nepotism do so because it may cause problems with favoritism, discipline, fraud, confidentiality and liability. [emphasis added]

Makes sense to me. Lots of small mom-and-pop operations hire family members because the benefits of doing so outweigh the disadvantages. For larger operations, the situation may be reversed, and it's rational for corporations to adopt anti-nepotism policies.

Flash quiz: Which organization does the country of Taiwan more closely resemble? A mom-and-pop convenience store on the corner? Or a large corporation?

* Despite Lin Yi-shih's retrograde views on nepotism and conflict-of-interest, I must extend grudging admiration to the KMT for choosing a former dentist to be their party whip. No, really. I simply cannot imagine a better man for the job.

(Cue Steve Martin, from Little Shop of Horrors.)

POSTSCRIPT: The title of this post is shamelessly paraphrased from the Taipei Times' original, "SEF head regretful over son's PRC ties." Paraphrased, because it turns out that the SEF chairman is decidedly NOT regretful over his son's PRC ties. As Shaw-Chang Maa of the SEF puts it:

Chairman Chiang and his family never abused his position to secure any business for themselves, so in his mind what he feels regretful is particular media reports based on fake information which could potentially do disadvantages to future cross-strait talks.

I earlier quoted someone from the Mainland Affairs Council who swore up and down that Chiang WASN'T a "policymaker" or "negotiator". That this conflict-of-interest was "irrelevant".

Yet now, Shaw-Chang Maa comes forward and says that media silence about Chiang's conflicts-of-interest is CRUCIAL to Taiwan's economic well-being.

Maybe some folks ought to sit down and get their talking-points straight.