Taiwanese Politics | The Foreigner in Formosa

Taiwan’s Grand Hotel Removes ROC Flags For Communist Bigwig

Most of the caption of the photo in the link above can't be read from the China Post's website, but the relevant part of it says:

The hotel, where [visiting Chinese Communist Party negotiator Chen Yunlin] is to stay during his visit starting Monday, has removed from its perimeter all the [Taiwanese] national flags to avoid embarrassing the envoy . . .

Hey, mission accomplished. The Taiwanese at the Grand Hotel avoided embarrassing the envoy — by instead embarrassing themselves.

And their country.

In this however, they're only following the lead of Taiwan's president, Ma Ying-jeou, who has previously stated that he wouldn't mind being addressed as "Mr. Ma" (instead of "President Ma") by visiting Communist Party officials.

Query: When foreigners hear of Taiwanese denigration OF THEIR OWN FLAG ON THEIR OWN SOIL, why should they feel ANY SYMPATHY WHATSOEVER the next time China suppresses the ROC flag abroad?

All this reminds me of a story that appeared on The Drudge Report a few weeks back:

Any football match in France before which the country's national anthem is booed will now be "immediately stopped", French Sports Minister Roslyne Bachelot said Wednesday after meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy.

[…]

"When whistling of our antional anthem happens, all friendly games with the country concerned will be suspended for a period yet to be determined by the federation president."

Now granted, "What would the French do?" is not a question that frequently keeps me up at night. But I wonder if the French would be QUITE SO ACCOMODATING towards a thug from a foreign government that wanted to annex their country.

Perhaps while under Nazi occupation, they might. Which alone speaks volumes about Marshal Pétain Mister Ma and the grandees of the Grand Hotel.

UPDATE: A short backgrounder on the Grand Hotel here.

UPDATE (Nov 10/08): A postcard of the Grand Hotel site during the Japanese era can be found at the US Taiwan Defense Command blog.

Oct 25th Protest

From Sunday's Taipei Times:

Floods of demonstrators took to the streets in Taipei City yesterday, venting their anger at the [KMT] administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and its policies, which they said threaten Taiwan’s sovereignty.

Protesters young and old marched under banners reading “Oppose toxic products, defend sovereignty,” “Defend Taiwan,” “I am Taiwanese, not Chinese” and “Taiwan is not part of China,” demanding that Beijing apologize to Taiwan for selling milk and other products tainted with the industrial chemical melamine.

[…]

Event organizers estimated that more than 600,000 people took part in the rally, while Taipei police said they would not provide an estimate.

Of course, rally organizers DO have a vested interest in inflating participation figures. Though it is telling when local police (who are notorious for low-balling anti-KMT protest numbers) uncharacteristically REFUSE to provide their own estimates…

At any rate, I was one of the five or six hundred thousand people there. Arrived at Bo Ai Road (the camera shop street) about 7 pm. I must say, the commercial area was pretty dead for a Saturday night. Had dinner, and walked over to Ketagalan Avenue. Miscalculated where I was going in the dark, and wound up behind the stage, facing the Presidential Building. Saw a small group of people engaged in a sit-down protest behind the barricades. And I also saw streaks of green laser light in the night air, aimed at the Presidential Building.

At the time, I had no way of knowing that the lasers were being used to trace the Chinese characters for "Incompetent" on President Ma Ying-jeou's offices. Looking at the picture I took now, you can see the neon green characters at the main entrance under the central tower. It's partially obscured by the steel girder of the barricade, however.

Anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest on the evening of Oct 25, 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan. The Taiwanese Presidential Office is in the background.

This is the best zoom of the above picture I could manage with a photo editor program:

The Chinese characters for Incompetent are projected onto the Presidential office gate with lasers in the evening of the Oct 25, 2008 protest against Ma Ying-jeou in Taipei, Taiwan.

(According to Babelfish.com, the Traditional Chinese characters for "incompetent" are 無能.)

After that, I made a wide detour along a side street so I could take a gander at the stage. Here 'tis:

Anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest on the evening of Oct 25, 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan.

Unfortunately, the photo compresses the distances involved, making it appear as though there's only a few hundred there. I figured a few thousand — ten thousand, tops. Frankly, I was a little depressed at what I thought was a low turnout. But hey, I got there near the tail-end of the rally. Sunday's Taipei Times featured a shot from earlier Saturday:

Anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest during the day of Oct 25, 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan.

(Image from the Taipei Times)

That's certainly more like it. Anyways, here's one more of my own pics, when folks became animated over something the speaker said:

Animated crowd at the anti-Ma Ying-jeou protest on the evening of Oct 25, 2008 in Taipei, Taiwan.

A software zoom of those three placards at the top-left:

Placards held in the evening at the Oct 25, 2008 protest against Ma Ying-jeou. The one on the left reads, Keep Taiwan Free. The one in the middle says, China Sucks. And the one on the right says, Taiwan Is NOT For Sale.

A short video of one of the tunes that was sung:

Suffering from a killer headache and allergy-induced exhaustion, I left after about an hour. But not before snapping this giant "Chinese Baby Milk" balloon:

Giant baby bottle balloon from the evening of the anti Ma Ying-jeou protest of Oct 25, 2008. The bottle says Made In China, and refers to melamine-tainted baby's milk that was imported from the Sanlu Group in Communist China.

And not before getting a couple shots of this banner:

A dog with the number 9 on its side (representing Ma Ying-jeou) delivers Taiwan to an enthroned Hu Jintao. From the evening of the Oct 25, 2008 anti-Ma rally in Taipei, Taiwan.

A closeup of a dog with the number 9 on its side (representing Ma Ying-jeou) delivering Taiwan to an enthroned Hu Jintao. From the evening of the Oct 25, 2008 anti-Ma rally in Taipei, Taiwan.

I assume the "running dog" is Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou, delivering his country into the hands of Chinese President Hu Jintao. No idea what the #9 is supposed to signify, however. [UPDATE: See comments section for the answer.]

UPDATE #1: On Monday, the Chinese Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) issued an apology for the ill effects the melamine milk adulteration scandal has had on the Taiwanese economy.

So let's review. ARATS has had a MONTH to apologize — and they only do it ONE WEEK before their delegation arrives in Taiwan. Or, make that TWO DAYS after HALF-A-MILLION are hacked off enough to take to the streets in an anti-unification march.

Life's just full of coincidences like that, I guess . . .

UPDATE #2: It should be noted that ARATS is an unofficial Chinese organization, so any apology they happen to issue is also, perforce, unofficial. But even were Hu Jintao himself to apologize tomorrow, the fact would remain that sorries don't butter no parsnips. Taiwanese bakeries are still going to go bankrupt no matter how effusive Chinese statements of regret are. (Or rather, AREN'T.)

Incidentally, that story from Monday's Taipei Times featured this howler:

. . . [Taiwanese negotiators were assured that ARATS] would make every effort to mete out severe punishment to those held responsible . . .

Errr, the Communist Party of China KNEW about the melamine milk problem at least as far back as August, but kept silent in order not to tarnish the glory of the Genocide Games.

So we will anxiously await the day when the Elliot Nesses of ARATS "mete out severe punishment" to all those nasty communist party chiefs . . . the same chiefs, by the way, who appointed our incorruptible investigators to their cushy ARATS jobs in the first place!

i-9/10

Keeping Those Governing Skills Sharp

[Wrote this one a few weeks ago, but must not have hit the "Publish Now" button. Yeesh.]

But I cannot vote for a proposal I do not wish to see realized. It would be highly… irreligious.
– Marcus Tullius Cicero, Rome

Marcus Tullius Cicero in front of a sepia painting of the Roman Senate. From HBO's Rome.

(Image from HBO.com)

Looked over my last post, and was struck by these few lines:

While it's true that the KMT lost control over the executive for the last 8 years, it DID have effective working control over the legislative branch over the same time frame. So how did it spend its time? Did the KMT spend the last 8 years KEEPING ITS GOVERNING SKILLS SHARP by actually passing into law legislative proposals that would benefit Taiwan?

Then I recalled last year, when Taiwan's KMT proposed putting a referendum question to the Taiwanese electorate about their opinion regarding Taiwan's entry into the U.N. under the name "Republic of China" (or some other "practical name").

Which I didn't have much of a problem with. Until the party reversed itself, and in a remarkable feat of cynicism, called upon voters to boycott THEIR OWN REFERENDUM QUESTION.

Our own referendum question sucks donkeys so bad, the KMT said, you shouldn't even bother voting "Yea" or "Nay".

Irreligious? Oh, I have a few OTHER choice words to describe it. But be that as it may, that should have been a tip-off as to how the KMT would govern if they were restored to power.

i-1

Lee Teng-hui On Taiwan’s Current Government

From Monday's Taipei Times:

Former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) yesterday accused President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) of incompetency, lashing out at his administration for failing to offer concrete measures to curb public apprehension over events such as the recent melamine contamination and the poor performance of the TAIEX.

Now, I've seen a few possible explanations for the governments' poor performance:

1) President Ma Ying-jeou is attempting to create a precedent for a "Queen of England" presidency for Taiwan. Unfortunately for him, he has no Taiwanese model for him to draw upon.

2) The KMT has been out of power for 8 years, and its governing skills are out of practice.

Without disagreeing with point #1, I'd like to elaborate a little upon point #2. While it's true that the KMT lost control over the executive for the last 8 years, it DID have effective working control over the legislative branch over the same time frame. So how did it spend its time? Did the KMT spend the last 8 years KEEPING ITS GOVERNING SKILLS SHARP by actually passing into law legislative proposals that would benefit Taiwan?

Or did it DULL THAT EDGE by spending those 8 years engaged only in pointless, petty obstructionism? *

I've seen the China Post sneer at former President Chen Shui-bian's record, asking what it was that Chen accomplished over the last 8 years. I can think of a few things**, but let me turn the question around. What did the KMT-dominated LEGISLATURE accomplish in the last 8 years? They had a majority, after all. Their votes were law — Taiwanese presidents have no veto power.

Once more, what legislative successes can KMT lawmakers boast about on THEIR resumes? Hmm? Anyone? Anyone? I'm waiting . . .

A former marathon winner comes out of a long retirement for a big race. He thinks he's got a good chance to win again. But does he?

Not if he's spent the last 8 years scarfing down doughnuts and grousing about how easy kids today have got it. If he hasn't spent enough time in training, maintaining his skills, our runner's fans are in for a major disappointment.

* Speaking of pointless, petty obstructionism, here's a case in point:

The Presidential Office is thankful that the US government sent an official notification on Friday to Congress on the sale of five major packages of weaponry to Taiwan, officials said yesterday, adding that the move signaled a new era of mutual trust between Taiwan and the US.

“The notification of the US government put an end to the turbulence of the past eight years and rebuilds mutual trust between the US and Taiwan,” Presidential Office Spokesman Wang Yu-chih (王郁琦) said yesterday.

Uh-uh — you don't get off that easy, Mr. Wang. Your boss, President Ma Ying-jeou, spent TWO YEARS boycotting those arms packages when he was in opposition. As KMT chairman, Ma blocked 'em 60 times in the legislature. Nyet, nyet, nyet, nyet . . . Sixty times. You can't pawn THAT off on the former president, buddy.

In the end, Ma relented on the special arms bill. By that time however, America viewed him and the KMT as fundamentally untrustworthy. And the U.S. put the weapons sale on hold.

And so it was that the KMT was reduced to begging — BEGGING! — for that which it had so casually boycotted and dismissed as unnecessary just a few months earlier:

The United States could see its credibility among Taiwanese at stake if it fails to approve a pending Taiwan arms procurement package . . . [Taiwanese] Defense Minister Chen Chao-min said Monday.

Please, please, please, sell us these weapons. 'Cause if you don't, uh . . . you'll, you'll . . . look really bad. Really, REALLY bad . . . The passive-aggressive approach — yeah, that's the ticket!

As for the credibility of the Ma Ying-jeou administration, we'll escape unscathed. Why, we're a lean, mean, governin' machine.

With the 24% approval rating to prove it.

** At the top of my head, Chen's accomplishments as president include the de-politicization of Taiwan's military, increased democritization (via a new referendum law) and his partially-successful attempts to de-normalize Taiwanese worship of former dictators Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo.

Set against that record are troubling charges of corruption and money-laundering. Which if proven true, make his presidency a very mixed bag.

From The Land Of Melamine And Honey

Just finished tossing out a Moon cake leftover from the Midautumn Festival, as well as some old powdered milk and soda crackers. Figure that's about a $150 NT loss, but ya do what ya gotta do if you want to avoid ingesting the chemical precursor for whiteboard resin.

Got me to thinking, though. Suppose everybody in Taiwan is doing as I am. And let's be conservative: they each toss out $25 NT worth of bread or cookies or what have you. Times 23 million people — that's $575 million NT, or about $20 million U.S. dollars. Add to that losses local businesses are taking due to stock they've had to pull from the shelves. And the losses they're taking because people are too afraid to buy ANY milk-based products, because they can't be certain of the provenance.

I STILL haven't seen estimates of the latter two yet, and I'm reluctant to hazard a guess. Must be mucho dinero, though.

Say, does anybody remember the Senkaku Island incident earlier this year? Back in June, a Taiwanese recreational fishing boat strayed (either unintentionally or deliberately) into Japanese waters and was rammed by a Japanese coast guard vessel. In short order, Taiwan's ambassador was recalled, threats of war darkly uttered, demands for apologies and compensation issued.

After a brief standoff, the Japanese government made an apology and paid reparations.

My point is, that all that fuss was made over ONE fishing boat. One. One boat that was worth a heckuva lot less than what Taiwan's economy has recently lost due to dairy products imported from China. So where are the recalls of Taiwan's negotiators? The threats of war? The demands for apologies and reparations? *

* Rhetorical questions, some of these. (I don't seriously think war should be threatened over this.)

Now, Taiwan's opposition DID ask China's government for apologies and compensation late last month, and the Taiwanese premier seconded the motion a day later.

However, Taiwan's chief negotiator was a little less enthusiastic about the whole thing:

Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) Chairman Chiang Pin-kung (江丙坤) said yesterday that the foundation would definitely “communicate” with Beijing if the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) asked the foundation to seek an apology from China over the tainted milk scandal.

When asked whether he would ask his Chinese counterpart — Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) Chairman Chen Yunlin (陳雲林) — to apologize or bring up the issue of compensation when he visits Taiwan later this month or early next month, Chiang said he would “exchange views with Chen on issues placed on the agenda.” [emphasis added]

The name's Chiang. " Firebreathin' " Chiang.

“Taiwan Region” Does Not Compute

From Thursday's Taipei Times:

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) did not denigrate the country’s sovereignty or move toward de-Taiwanization by describing Taiwan as a region, Presidential Office spokesman Wang Yu-chi (王郁琦) said on Monday.

[…]

Wang said Ma did not create the term “Taiwan region” to blur the country’s sovereignty, saying that Ma’s new characterization of the cross-strait relationship as one between the “Taiwan region” and the “mainland region” was in accordance with the Republic of China (Taiwan) Constitution.

Based on the constitutional framework, both regions are part of the Republic of China’s (ROC) territory, but only the “Taiwan region” is under the rule of the ROC, Wang said.

Ah yes, the old constitution dodge. But if it's constitutionally kosher to describe Taiwan as being a part of the Republic of China, then why does the Taiwanese government under the KMT get so indignant when Taiwan is referred to as being part of China?

Doesn't the government believe in its own "1992 Consensus" rhetoric? After all, by the KMT's own interpretation of the supposed consensus, "China" and "Republic of China" are INTERCHANGEABLE terms!

Or, to put it in somewhat more mathematically:

Taiwan, Republic of China* —– constitutionally OK
Republic of China = China ——- constitutionally OK; in line with the "1992 Consensus"

Substituting "China" for "Republic of China" then gives us:

Taiwan, China ———————- Unacceptable! says Taiwan's government

Captain Kirk induced many a computer to self-destruction with illogic such as this. The R.O.C. constitution is an ass.

* To be more rigorous, I could have used subset notation instead:

1) Taiwan is a subset, or part of, the Republic of China (Taiwan ⊂ Republic of China)
2) The Republic of China and China are interchangeable terms, or equivalent sets (Republic of China ~ China)

Ergo:

3) Taiwan is also a subset of China (Taiwan ⊂ China)

The KMT government of Taiwan insists both #1 and #2 are true, but inescapable consequence, #3, is not.

Ka-boom.

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:

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 )
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 )
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 )
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%.

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.