Taiwanese Politics | The Foreigner in Formosa

More Taiwanese Police Misconduct

More than 100 [Tibetan refugees] have been staging a sit-in at Liberty Square in Taipei since Tuesday, demanding that the government grant them legal resident status or at least a work permit.

They were forcibly removed from the demonstration site and dropped off in the outskirts of the city, including Guandu (關渡), Nangang (南港) and in the mountains in Neihu (內湖) at around 3am yesterday.

Now, the Tibetans in question WERE breaking Taiwan's assembly law by demonstrating without permits. The police response was however, also unbounded by law. Doubtless, judges are granted a measure of discretion when adjudicating these types of cases. But I'm pretty sure there's not a single statute on the books that authorizes law enforcement to pick up suspects and just abandon them SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE OF FRICKIN' NOWHERE.

The most sinister interpretation of this is that the police were trying to send a signal. Engage in forbidden dissent, and we can make you "disappear". Temporarily — though that could change in the future . . .

And the kindest interpretation? OK, Taiwanese authorities wanted to remove Tibetan protesters from Liberty Square (or Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall, or whatever it's being called these days). Possibly on the basis of "numerous complaints" from Communist Party tourists from China. But Taiwan's higher-ups didn't want the Tibetans jailed because that might turn them into an international cause celebre. So instead the cops were instructed to remove the ralliers and make their lives difficult, on the theory that that might help dissuade them from illegally protesting again in the future.

According to this explanation, the police acted out of cowardice, not deliberate malice. No real harm done then, and problem solved. Gin and tonics all around.

No harm done — except when one of these poor bastards gets dropped off by police and meets with an unfortunate accident. Because it's 3 am, remember? Pretty easy time to get mugged, or run over, or what-have-you. And when that happens, who's morally (if not legally) responsible?

The police department that put him there at three in the morning, that's who.

UPDATE: Today's Taipei Times comes to some of the same conclusions, but also pointed out the fact that the Tibetans didn't speak Mandarin — which made it difficult for them to return back to Taipei after the police drove them from the city.

Also of concern is the behavior of police in apprehending Tibetan protesters at the same location and, in some cases, taking them to the hills of Neihu District (內湖) — in Taipei City terms, the middle of nowhere — and dumping them there. In some cases the hapless Tibetans did not even have the language skills to ask for directions.

It is not clear what this technique might be called in the National Police Agency officers’ manual, but from a legal standpoint it borders on abduction.

Dumping protesters in remote locations is a practice that must cease forthwith. If not, the police will once again invite scrutiny from international rights observers — not something that they would relish given the thoroughgoing incompetence of senior police in dealing with foreign observers.

I ran to the supermarket a few times in the wee hours of that morning, and it was a bit nippy. I was only outside for 5 or 10 minutes, though, and it was probably colder in the mountains around Taipei, too. Wonder if any of the Tibetans were dressed for it?

Breaking The Golden Thread

"Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner's guilt . . ."

— Viscount Sankey LLC in Woolmington v. DPP [Just how ironic is THAT case name? — The Foreigner]

From today's Taipei Times:

[A spokesman] later said [Taiwan's] Presidential Office was in favor of [changes to a Taiwanese law] if "a balance could be reached between presumption of innocence and public impression of the suspect." [emphasis added]

Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou must have learned some VERY cutting-edge legal theories when he earned that PhD in law from Harvard University. So cutting-edge in fact, that Ma's standard of justice shares less in common with Lord Sankey's than with China's Cultural Revolution.

Might make for a good reality TV program, though. Let's call it, "The People's Republic Court". All Taiwan needs to do is find some KMT Judge Wapner wannabe — he can be in charge of the "presumption of innocence" part of the verdict. Meanwhile, a special 1-800 number at the bottom of the screen could allow viewers to vote, in order to give weight to the "public's impression of the subject."

At the trial's conclusion, a television producer of unusual probity and wisdom would be on hand to split the difference. To reach the delicate equilibrium of justice. Ma's balance point, if you will.

All of Taiwan owes Ma Ying-jeou a debt of gratitude. It was high time SOMEBODY finally put the "Show" back into the Show Trial!

Postscript: Now we know how sincere the KMT was when they decried populism in Taiwanese politics. Over there at Harvard, Ma's former law professors ought to hang their heads in shame.

UPDATE: Despite his many critics and political enemies, President Richard Nixon NEVER had his secret service protection stripped from him by the American Congress, as Taiwan's KMT now proposes to do to former President Chen Shui-bian.

(Nixon did however, voluntarily waive his secret service protection roughly ten years after he resigned from office.)

Sounds Like Somebody’s Hankerin’ To Harvest A Few Organs

Guess there's not enough Falun Gong members in Taiwan to fit the bill. From Friday's China Post:

The Presbyterian Church has been meddling in China's domestic politics for nearly a century. It has driven a wedge between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan by instilling hatred for mainland Chinese in the hearts and minds of Chinese on Taiwan.

Hard to figure out exactly what the author means by "China" here. First of all, if he means the Republic of China (Taiwan), then he's surely in error, because Taiwan was a colony of Japan a hundred years ago. Any "meddling" that might have taken place a hundred years ago would therefore have been in Japanese imperial affairs, not in China's domestic politics.

On the other hand, if by "China" the author is referring to the People's Republic of China, then again he's wrong, because Mao expelled all Western churches back in '49.

I'll assume then, that by "China" the writer means "Taiwan", and by "nearly a century", he means 60 years. That would suggest that the editorialist bears a grudge regarding the Presbyterians' opposition to human rights abuses by Taiwan's former dictators.

Such complaints by KMT apologists are a bit rich, however:

In 1975, after the KMT confiscated romanized Bibles and prohibited the printing of romanized texts, the [Presbyterian Church of Taiwan] issued "Our Appeal — Concerning the Bible, the Church and the Nation" which asked that the government respect religious freedom and carry out political reform.

Talk about meddling! In the 1970s the KMT dictatorship in Taiwan OUTLAWED Bibles written in the Taiwanese vernacular. In doing so, it violated two fundamental principles held by all modern democratic states: that of religious freedom and that of separation of Church and State. (Which should come as no surprise, because Taiwan in the '70s was no democracy.)

As for any "wedge" that has been driven between the Taiwanese and the Chinese, the writer conveniently forgets to mention any possible role that decades of Chinese belligerence and threats of war might have played in fostering anti-Chinese sentiment — or that KMT anti-communist propaganda might have played a role as well.

UPDATE: Noticed a few similarities between this 2004 Bevin Chu blog post from a few years back and the piece in Friday's China Post.

Technically, it's not plagiarism, since I believe Mr. Chu wrote the Post's editorial as well. But it's still quite a long passage to simply CUT-AND-PASTE, however:

As part of his election campaign, Chen Shui-bian ordered Chen Yu-hao, former chairman of the Tuntex Group and a fugitive exiled to the US, placed on Taiwan's "Ten Most Wanted" list. Chen Shui-bian was desperate to cast himself as a squeaky clean political reformer at Chen Yu-hao's expense.

A furious Chen Yu-hao responded by appearing on television and revealing the ugly truth. Chen Shui-bian had eagerly pocketed a fortune in political contributions from Chen Yu-hao over the past decade.

When Chen Shui-bian tried to deny the charges, Chen Yu-hao revealed that ROC legislator Shen Fu-hsiung, a DPP "elder" with a reputation for honesty within DPP circles was an eyewitness who saw Chen Yu-hao hand First Lady Wu Shu-chen a bag full of cash.

Considering Shen was also Chen Shui-bian's campaign manager, Chen Yu-hao's revelation put Shen in a somewhat awkward position. Rather than lie, Shen went into hiding for the following week.

What happened next was like a scene out of a black comedy by Stanley Kubrick.

A delegation of ministers from the Presbyterian Church of Taiwan, a long time abettor of Taiwan independence, paid an emergency visit to Shen. What textual truth did these supposedly devout Christians share with him? They solemnly assured Shen that it was not a sin to lie as long as it was in a good cause. In other words, "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, unless of course it advances Taiwan independence."

Be that as it may, I cannot find any corroboration for Chu's story about Taiwan's Presbyterian Church. I can only speculate that Church leaders may have said something about "forgiveness" at the time (as Christians often do), and that Chu has misinterpreted — or, to be less kind, twisted — their statements to suggest the Church advocates the telling of deliberate falsehoods.

UPDATE (Dec 13/08): Mr. Chu's account of the Chen Yu-hao story appears a bit one-sided. From AsiaTimes Online:

In early February [of 2004] Chen Yu-hao faxed three letters to opposition legislators claiming that he had made donations to the election campaign of President Chen Shui-bian. At first he tried to claim that Chen Shui-bian had simply pocketed the money, a claim that was refuted by officials from Chen Shui-bian's own DPP, who produced photocopies of the receipts.

[…]

The DPP also pointed out that Chen Yu-hao had given donations 10 times as large to both the other rival candidates for the 2000 presidential election; Lien Chan of the Kuomintang (KMT) and James Soong, then running as an independent candidate got NT$100 million each.

On top of this Chen Yu-hao had given another NT$100 million to the KMT in the early 1990s, which somehow never made its way into party coffers but ended up in the private bank accounts of Soong's family members.

[…]

There is no doubt that Soong transferred NT$248 million of KMT funds into the bank accounts of his family members in the Chung Hsing Bills Finance Corp, of which NT$100 million came from Chen Yu-hao and another NT$80 million from construction company boss Liang Po-hsun. Liang is also a fugitive from Taiwanese justice, accused of embezzling money from the Overseas Chinese Bank. And while Soong claims the money was to be used for party purposes, there is no evidence that it was so used, and Soong never attempted to return the money – neither when he left the KMT secretary-general's post nor when he left the party itself in late 1999.

Profiles In Courage

"You're a good looking boy, you have big broad shoulders, but he is a man. It takes more than big broad shoulders to make a man, Harvey, and you have a long way to go. You know something? I don't think you will ever make it."

— Helen Ramirez, High Noon

From the China Post's Nov 19th editorial, Chinese Reunification: The Moral High Ground

To defend eventual [Taiwan's] eventual reunification [with China] is not "surrendering to tyranny." It is an act of moral courage. It is seizing the moral high ground.

Exhibit A: A Taiwanese president orders the Taiwanese police to confiscate the Taiwanese flag from Taiwanese citizens in order not to give offense to a visiting Chinese Communist Party representative.

Courageous enough for ya?

And Exhibit B?

Dalai Lama not welcome to visit: Ma

"We generally welcome religious leaders from all over the world to visit Taiwan, but I think at the current moment the timing isn't appropriate."

That would be Taiwan's lion-hearted president, Ma Ying-jeou. Who BOLDLY and STEADFASTLY defended that moral high ground — by blacklisting a Nobel Peace Prize winner. (A Peace Prize winner who, if you'll recall, China routinely refers to as, "A wolf in monks robes, a devil with a human face but the heart of a beast.")

But don't you doubt for a minute Ma's indomitable spirit:

[Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi] also stressed that Beijing has not contacted the Taiwan government on the Dalai Lama issue.

And there you have it. The Butchers of Beijing didn't even need to pick up a phone for Ma Ying-jeou to RESOLUTELY anticipate their wishes. After which, he FIRMLY — and DARINGLY — and INTREPIDLY . . . uh, complied with them.

All kidding aside, I think we can put a new twist on an old J.C. Watts quote here. Character is doing the right thing — even WHEN China is looking.

Postscript: A hat tip to Notes from a Former Native Speaker for reminding me of the China Post editorial.)

UPDATE: Despite what Bevin Chu from the China Post may think, NO political party in Taiwan has a lock on the moral high ground.

[KMT] Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday urged the president to reconsider his decision.

“From a religious perspective, it is a positive thing for the Dalai Lama to visit Taiwan … His visit to Taiwan would mean something in the world,” Wang said, urging the government to reconsider the matter and make arrangements for a visit.

[…]

DPP spokesman Cheng Wen-tsang (鄭文燦) expressed regret and condemned Ma for rejecting a potential visit by the Dalai Lama.

Noting that former presidents Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) and Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) had both received the Dalai Lama, Cheng said leaders from democratic countries such as the US, France and Germany have also met with the Dalai Lama as a way to exert pressure on China.

UPDATE #2: Michael J. Cole wrote a good column about this. Especially liked the conclusion:

Ma has often talked about creating “win-win” situations. Inauspicuously for him, he’s about to get a taste of the “lose-lose” by having to choose his poison.

Last year, Prime Minister John Howard of Australia initially refused to meet the Dalai Lama under pressure from China — then reversed himself when public pressure mounted. Since Ma's approval ratings are pretty low, there might be some leverage there.

Strawberry Jam

I've been remiss in not blogging about Taiwan's Wild Strawberries * student movement — though not through any lack of sympathy. These students began their protests roughly a month ago, in response to the ill-treatment meted out by Taiwanese police to citizens protesting the visit of an envoy from China.

Their chief demands were then, and still remain:

1) That Taiwan's president and premier apologize for law enforcement's excessive use of force.

2) That the security chiefs responsible should resign.

3) That Taiwan's restrictive assembly laws be liberalized.

Now, the interesting thing is that the Wild Strawberries are small in number — a few hundred on bad days, perhaps a thousand on good. However, Michael Turton points out that Taiwan's Confucian culture confers a great deal of respect to students. Because of this sticky situation, the China Post's Joe Hung has written a couple of clumsy columns deriding the 'Berries. From the latest of these, Mass Rallies, Wild Strawberries:

One thing these young students do not know, but their behind-the-scenes organizers know full well, is police brutality is universal and historical. Do students really believe an apology of a president or his chief executive can end police police brutality? Anybody who replaces [Taiwan's chief of police] will condone police brutality either for what he believes may contribute to the maintenance of peace and order or just to keep his job.

Police brutality in Taiwan? Ho-hum. God has willed it thus. And there's nothing to be done . . .

Universal, police brutality may be, but Doc Hung forgets that the RATES are not. I'm sure there are isolated cases of police crossing the line in Denmark — but which in country would Hung rather be arrested, Denmark or Zimbabwe? Switzerland or North Korea? In which of these countries do the authorities think they can get away with a heavy hand? And why is that so?

The reason is that in modern democratic states the police do not operate as the private praetorian guards of the party in power. They are ACCOUNTABLE to the public. Their job isn't merely to maintain peace and order and Hung supposes, but to SERVE AND PROTECT the rights of the citizenry.

Now, as a practical matter, I don't envision Taiwan's president or premier apologizing, nor do I think the police chiefs will resign. I can however, imagine the authorities apologizing for individual excesses. In fact, they've already gone and done so in at least one case.

More of that needs to happen. In those cases where law enforcement exceeded its authority, the chiefs SHOULD apologize. On the other hand, in cases where reasonable force was used, no apology is necessary. Because everyone understands that the cops are going to use force when Molotov cocktails start flying. What they don't understand however, is why the police saw fit to dislocate a woman's finger when she was doing nothing more offensive than holding a Tibetan flag.

If the Taiwanese National Police Agency General Wang Cho-chiun and National Security Bureau Director Tsai Chao-ming can't apologize for THAT, then they really are little better than hired thugs in the service of the Communist Party of China.

Hung proceeds to attempt to excuse the confiscation of Republic of China (Taiwanese) flags by the ROC police:

. . . do the idealistic students truly think those who "proudly" displayed national flags of the Republic of China shortly before and right after the arrival in Taipei of Chen Yunlin, China's top negotiator on Taiwan affairs, were doing their "patriotic" duty?

Irrelevant. It's absolutely irrelevant what anybody's "patriotic duty" was. Waving your own country's flag may or may not be a patriotic duty (depending on whom you talk to), but it certainly is a free speech right. A right guaranteed by Article 11 of the ROC constitution, I might add.

One might more reasonably ask the world-weary Joe Hung whether he truly thinks those ROC citizens who proudly displayed their county's flags were committing a seditious or traitorous act. If not, what crime were they committing, Dr. Hung?

Searching For Churchill In All The Wrong Places

Heh. From Monday's China Post:

All [Taiwan's President Ma Ying-jeou] has to do now is to assert his leadership. He has to tell the people they are going to face harsher economic realities and ask them to have faith in his leadership to steer the country out of danger. He has to make the people follow the leader. Sir Winston Churchill courageously asserted an inspired leadership to help the United Kingdom survive the Second World War. The people of Taiwan would wish their president can be like Sir Winston.

The people of Taiwan would be well-advised to keep looking. Because I'm reasonably certain Sir Winston never had British police confiscate Union Jacks from U.K. citizens the day Rudolph Hess flew into town.

Would I Lie To You?

On Monday, Taiwan's KMT mouthpiece newspaper, The China Post, came out and admitted that Taiwan's KMT president Ma Ying-jeou is a liar. But that's OK, Ma's boosters at the paper said — because no one should ever have believed a word the guy said to begin with!

Boy, with friends like these . . .

President Ma Ying-jeou offered an open apology to the people on Thursday. In a TV interview, the president said he was sorry he has let the people down by failing to keep is campaign promise to make the Taiwan economy grow by six percent a year.

[…]

The apology is unnecessary. It is uncalled-for. Everybody knows not just the Taiwan economy, but the whole world economy is facing a depression touched off by the U.S. financial meltdown. The campaign promise? Only incorrigibly optimistic fools believe every presidential campaign promise can be kept.

[…]

[Ma Ying-jeou] knows, and all clear-thinking people know, his campaign promise could never be kept, because it is impossible for anybody to whip the economy into line. [emphasis added throughout]

Gee, thanks for telling us this now, 9 months AFTER the election. Kinda makes you wonder though, what ELSE Hizoner was lying about. Because Ma sure made lots of promises . . .

Number one: Ma's promise to defend Taiwan's democratic form of government, judicial independence and freedom of speech. Was he lying about those things, China Post? Or when he promised he and his party wouldn't abuse the near absolute power given them by the electorate — did he lie about that? Ma also professed to love Taiwan, too. Was there a whiff of dishonesty surrounding that statement, as well?

(We already know that Ma lied when he said wouldn't cover or remove Taiwanese national flags during cross-strait exchange events with China, so these are not idle questions.)

I'm all at sea. Because after all, only "incorrigibly optimistic fools believe EVERY presidential campaign promise that Ma Ying-jeou made". All "clear-thinking people" know the guy's gonna break at least SOME of those promises, right?

Am I being unfair? Maybe, but not very. Alan Greenspan and Larry Summers and some other very smart people were warning as far back as two or three years ago that a reckoning was coming in the U.S. mortgage industry. Perhaps Ma and his gang of seasoned economic advisers forgot to keep their ears to the ground. Or crack open a copy of a Wall Street Journal every now and then.

Somehow also, they neglected to notice the direction of oil prices, too. Fifty dollars a barrel, a hundred dollars a barrel, a hundred fifty dollars a barrel — how high did Ma's wunderkins think the price could possibly go before it triggered a nasty recession?

Yes, the American financial crisis came a shock to many people, but a global recession because of skyrocketing oil prices was in the cards no matter WHAT happened in the States. Yet despite all those ill-portents, Ma's economic advisers continued to allow him to ludicrously promise Taiwanese voters that "everything will get better (economically) once Ma is elected."

To be blunt: Ma and his economic advisers are either incompetent . . . or they're liars. If they had no premonitions of an impending downturn then they're incompetent — and not worthy of anybody's trust.

On the other hand, if they DID have an inkling of what was going to happen and still lied about happy days being here again, then they're liars. And again, not worthy of anybody's trust.

Speaking of trust, the China Post spilt much ink making exactly the same grandiose economic promises that Ma Ying-jeou did. Now the Post unashamedly comes forward and tells us that they, like then-candidate Ma Ying-jeou, were lying. Unlike Ma however, the China Post doesn't apologize for lying to its readership — no, the Post actually adds insult to injury, and calls everyone who BELIEVES what the paper writes "incorribly optimistic fools"!

On that point at least, we can all agree.

Postscript: Heh. Apropos of nothing, I came across this list of newspaper slogans. Particularly liked this one for the Nasha Canada news: "The newspaper for those who can read."

Somebody report those discriminatory elitists to a Canadian Human Rights Council, or something!

Oh, and then there was this one for the home-delivery department of the Detroit News: "We know where you live."

That's a line, I hear, the KMT may rip off for the next election.

President Ma Ying-jeou Meets Members Of The Alliance Of Liberals And Democrats For Europe

The subject they talked about was apparently Taiwan's attempt to join the World Health Assembly (WHA) over China's objections. However, the story leaves unsaid whether members of the alliance broached the topic of Ma's illiberal and undemocratic practices of the past few months.

If they're not aware of these, they maybe ought to get themselves a clue:

The International Federation of Journalists has condemned the government’s “apparent interference in state-owned media” after both the Central News Agency and Radio Taiwan International complained of pressure from the authorities. The International Federation for Human Rights is concerned that police action during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) curbed the freedom of speech of protesters. Reporters without Borders also expressed concern over the detention of a journalist covering the visit.

UPDATE: Nothing at all about this at the ALDE's website.

UPDATE (Nov 28/08): Had a headache when I wrote this, and the tone is a little grouchier than I intended. My apologies for that.

Thursday's Taipei Times had a bit more on the ALDE visit:

At a separate setting on Tuesday, Graham Watson, leader of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European Parliament, told the Taiwanese media that [former Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian] should not have been handcuffed when he was taken to court two weeks ago for a detention hearing.

Although the principle of rule of law should be respected, “there should also be a rule of civility,” he said, adding that as Chen was unlikely to escape, handcuffing the former president had been unnecessary.

Ehh. Don't know about the whole "rule of civility" thing. Let's just get back to the rule of law for a moment:

November 11/08 – Chen is arrested without charge, handcuffed and thrown into the clink, incommunicado. (Draconian, but all perfectly legal under a martial-law era statute.)

November 16/08 – Chen is sent to hospital in the middle of a hunger strike. Unhandcuffed.

So what's the legal "rule" here? Do Taiwanese police rules force them to handcuff suspects, or don't they? Or do they just make it up as they go along, handcuffing the former president in order to throw red meat to Chen-haters, and leaving him unhandcuffed when they don't want the public to sympathize with his plight too much?

Not to be too hard on Mr. Watson. I googled him, and he sounds like a good friend of Taiwan. His Asian trip apparently ends later this week, and I definitely want to check out his blog to see if he has any further observations on the current state of the Beautiful Isle.

KMT Threatens To Silence Critics Of Taiwanese Kangaroo Courts

Then I would forbid all examination of my claims. I would go still farther, and, as reason would be my most dangerous enemy, I would interdict the use of reason — at least as applied to this dangerous subject. I would taboo, as the savages say, this question, and all those connected with it. To question them, discuss them, or even think of them, should be an unpardonable crime.

– 19th Century French liberal Frederic Bastiat, on how to set up a (religious) autocracy (Economic Sophisms, p 315)

You're a lawyer who relays to the public a message from your client. He says he thinks his prosecution is politically motivated.

Whoa, just hold on there, hoss! Taiwan's KMT now has a name for your tabooed thoughtcrime: Defamation of the judiciary:

The Ministry of Justice has asked the Taipei District Court and Taipei Bar Association to investigate whether former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) lawyer has violated the lawyer code of ethics by conveying his client’s messages to the outside world during Chen’s detention.

Claiming Cheng Wen-long’s (鄭文龍) statements have been political in nature and defamatory to the judiciary, the Ministry of Justice said on Monday night that it had sent a letter to the Taipei District Court and the Taipei Bar Association, asking if Cheng had violated the lawyer code of ethics. [emphasis added]

[…]

Cheng also issued a 10-point statement on behalf of Chen denouncing "the death of the judiciary."

Interestingly enough, the KMT had a much more relaxed opinion about this unpardonable crime when IT was the party out of power. For the last 8 years, the KMT used to ALSO accuse the judiciary of partisan partiality when their party members sometimes received unfavorable rulings.

The response to these accusations, was entirely different however. The Ministry of Justice under the former administration NEVER initiated legal proceedings against KMT men who complained of political intereference with the courts. Because the former administration had a sense of political liberality that is entirely lacking among the authoritarians of Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party.

Here though, the KMT is not entirely to blame. Candidate Ma Ying-jeou quite clearly spoke of his admiration for the illiberal Singaporean model of "democracy" prior to the presidential elections — and the Taiwanese public, willingly and of their own volition, elected him president anyway.

Welcome to the land of lawlessness, then. A curious land where a crime is a crime . . . or it may not be one at all. It all depends upon the political affiliation of the perpetrator.

Postscript: Here's an example of the only kind of free speech Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party REALLY wants to see. From the Onion News Network:

"When you go to the court, you see a lot of guilty people on trial. Some are guilty of small crimes like parking tickets. Some are guilty of big crimes like questioning the authority of our magnanimous leaders.

Some of the guilty people say they aren't guilty.

Ridiculous!

If they were not guilty, why would our infallible government have said they were? It makes no sense!"

(They really get the Andy Rooney "voice" down. While I'm tempted to show this to some of my Taiwanese friends, they probably don't know who Andy Rooney is, so they might not get the humor.)

Taiwan Loses 5 Places On This Year’s Corruption Perceptions Index

Noticed last night that Transparency International just put out their 2008 report, and compared Taiwan's position (#39) to that of last year's (#34).

I'm inclined to give Ma Ying-jeou a pass for this poor showing — there was a lot of unhappiness in Taiwan over allegations of corruption by former President Chen Shui-bian even BEFORE evidence of his possible money-laundering popped up.

But as I said in the last post, the real trick will be to see where Taiwan stands on this index one or two years from now.