Category: Taiwanese Politics

KMT Set Taiwan On The Road To Zimbabwe

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown.  It may be frail, its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter – but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

– Pitt the elder

"Look around.  Turn the dump upside down if you want to.  I won’t squawk – IF you’ve got a search warrant."

– Sam Spade, from The Maltese Falcon

KMT lawbreakers gain illegal access to the campaign headquarters of Frank Hsieh, the Taiwanese independence party’s presidential candidate.  In broad daylight.  From the Taiwan News‘ Thursday editorial:

At approximately 4:30 p.m., KMT lawmakers Fei Hung-tai, Chen Chieh, Lo Ming-tsai and Lo Shu-lei of the Legislature’s financial affairs committee, literally dragged Finance Minister Ho Chih-chih and the president of the First Financial Holding Company to the DPP candidate’s "Taiwan Renewal" campaign headquarters and, heedless of the protests of security guards, rushed into the building and attempted to enter the personal office of the DPP [presidential] candidate.

The legislators apparently tried to bluster their way past the guards by alternately claiming they were "inspecting a public place"* or were carrying out a "fire safety inspection."  Inspecting a public place?  That’d be lie #1.  Once somebody rents a property, it’s no longer public by any stretch of the imagination.  Period.  As for the whole fire safety inspection line, I took the liberty of googling "fire safety inspection certification" on the web.  In Florida at least, certification entails 200 hours of training plus the passing of a written exam.  Yes, Florida is Florida, and Taiwan is Taiwan, so the requirements may be somewhat different.  Still, I’d be most surprised to learn that these illustrious legislators had the certification to conduct fire safety inspections, to say nothing of local fire department authorization to conduct an inspection on that particular day, in that particular locale.

The China Post provides a vivid image of what happened next:

When the group took an elevator to the 13th floor…the DPP staff cut off the power supply, trapping them inside.

(Threepio!  Shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level!  Shut down all the garbage mashers on the detention level!)

The Taiwan News adds that the novice fire inspectors were stuck in the elevator for almost 40 minutes, and its account continues:

All four were eventually escorted out of the building by police called by Hsieh office staff and, surrounded by Hsieh supporters, the three were pushed into a police car, while Lo, the son of noted gangster and former legislator Lo Fu-chu, fled the scene.

The incident sparked a two-and-a-half hour confrontation as Hsieh’s staff, volunteers and supporters blocked police from allowing the police cars from leaving with "suspects caught in the act of committing a crime" until a Taipei District Court prosecutor arrived to take a disposition and accept charges from the Hsieh camp.

In their statement to police, the group justified their actions by claiming to be investigating allegations that the First Commercial Bank had rented office space to Hsieh’s campaign at below-market rates.  Of course, had the merry band’s "investigation" succeeded, they would have been privy to confidential campaign information belonging to their political opponent, so some might be tempted to take their alibi with a grain of salt.  At any rate, the Taiwan News correctly points out that allegations of this nature merit a letter of complaint to the appropriate prosecutor’s office, not vigilante action:

The KMT lawmakers said their action was based on "information" that the Hsieh headquarters was "illegally" using a floor of the 13-floor building, but we believe that there can be no justification whatsoever for the KMT legislators to take the law into their own hands and attempt literally to break into the headquarters office of a presidential candidate of a rival party.

In the history of elections in Taiwan, yesterday’s incident marked the first time that staff from one party had attempted to openly enter without permission the offices of another presidential candidate.

I know it’s a cliche, but I still can’t resist saying it:  What did KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou know, and when did he know it?

* Inexplicably, a link to the China Post‘s article on the subject, titled, "First melee erupts in run-up to polls," is nowhere to be found on its website.  Now c’mon, that was a front page, above-the-fold story!

UPDATE:  I’m being a bit mean asking the old Watergate question of Ma, because after all, he DID apologize, in a manner of speaking.  It was one of those everybody’s-in-the-wrong-so-no-one’s-really-to-blame deals:

Speaking in Chiayi yesterday, Ma expressed "regret" over the incident and censored the Hsieh camp [!] for "violence".

That’s something to look forward to, isn’t it?  If Ma Ying-jeou wins, I mean.  Four years of Milk-Toast Ma doing nothing but apologizing, over and over again, for the extremism of power-drunk KMT parliamentarians.

UPDATE #2:  Many thanks to Tim Maddog for finding the link to the China Post story.  The link’s been added to the post.

KMT Insists On Wasting Taiwanese Tax Dollars

Anyone remember the KMT’s whining and moaning when the Chiang Kai-shek airport was renamed Taipei-Taoyuan International?  Just think of the staggering expense, they kvetched.  Signs have to be replaced.  New letterhead needs to be re-ordered.  Staff will have to throw out all those preprinted envelopes.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Well, lo and behold, the same KMT that claims the economy’s in the dumper is now demanding the referendums on joining the U.N. be held independently of the presidential election.  And they’re threatening to old their breath until they turn blue call on their voters to boycott the referendums if they don’t get their way.

Would it be unfair to point out that holding the referendum on a separate day would cost mucho dinero?  Whatever could have happened to all those virtuous KMT penny-pinchers?  After all, under their party’s proposal, voting halls would have to be rented – a second time.  Election workers would have to volunteer their time – again.  And economic production would fall, because voters would have to take time off work – yet again.

It’d be most instructive to see estimates as to how much Taiwan’s 81 Tyrants plan to squander in this cynical ploy to see the referendums fail for lack of sufficient turnout.*

* By law, a 50% voter turnout is required for the U.N. referendums to be valid.  A party that was genuinely interested in seeing the referendums pass would be happy to have them held on the same day as the presidential election, since voter turnout during Taiwanese presidential elections tends to be higher than for other kinds of election.

Taiwanese VP Candidate Advocates “One China” Common Market

Rather comical to watch KMT candidates bend over backwards for China…and then hop up and down angrily while denouncing political rivals for "making them wear the red hat".

Here’s a little tip fellas:  Those crimson chapeaus – you donned ’em all by yourselves.  So you look pretty ridiculous turning around now and complaining that independence supporters are the ones who somehow forced you to put ’em on.

A good example of what I’m talking about is KMT vice-presidential candidate Vincent Siew’s indignation that his "cross-strait" common market proposal is being mis-characterized as a "One China" common market.

You’re making me wear the red hat, protested Siew.  I never, ever, EVER said I wanted a "One China" common market!  What I want is a "cross-strait" common market.  Those are two COMPLETELY different animals.  And anyways, how DARE you question my patriotism?

All the semantic hair-splitting came to an end a few days later, when Siew was forced to sheepishly admit that yes, he had indeed called for the establishment of a "Greater China" market during a speech in 2005.  Sticking to his guns though, Siew continued to defend the general idea:

"China is the reason behind Taiwan’s marginalization in the international economic market. The cross-strait common market would maximize opportunities and minimize the threat," [Siew] said.  [emphasis added]

Jaws should drop when people hear that, because Siew casually acknowledges here that China is currently engaged in low-intensity economic warfare against Taiwan.  And that Taiwan should REWARD Beijing for doing so!

(For those unaware of the situation, Taiwan has been attempting to sign free-trade deals with other countries for a few years now.  Behind the scenes however, Beijing wrenches arms out of their sockets to prevent those negotiations from ever going anywhere.)

Just what is Vincent Siew’s response to this decidedly unfriendly behavior?  Does he breathe a single word of condemnation about it?  Or, better still, as a candidate for the vice-presidency, does he offer any practical suggestions as to how Taiwan can break through the economic isolation brought on by China’s unrelenting hostility?

Nope.  Siew’s panacea is, if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.  When China walks all over Taiwan, the proper response isn’t complaint or resistance.  No, no – China must instead be EMBRACED for its acts of malice.  Battered wife syndrome isn’t a vice or some kind of pitiful disease – it’s actually a species of virtue.  Siew reasons that if Taiwan goes to Beijing on its knees and begs for a small place in the Greater China Co-Prosperity Sphere, the Communist Party of China will finally know once and for all just how much the Taiwanese truly love them.  And Beijing shall henceforth be moved towards charitable benevolence.

Such child-like faith in the universality of human kindness.  Perhaps instead of complaining about that red hat of his, Siew should consider pulling it from over his eyes.

Postscript:  A terrific editorial on the subject from Wednesday’s Taiwan News.  One particular paragraph deals with the point I attempted to make:

Ma’s claims that his future government would ban PRC produce and workers also fly in the face of the reciprocal nature of trade and economic pacts and rest entirely on Beijing’s "goodwill" to allow Taiwan to erect barriers against PRC dumping of "black heart" defective and dangerous foods and products.

Difficult to see how Taiwan could count on China’s goodwill in such an arrangement, given that Beijing’s ILL-WILL is the explicitly-stated reason this proposal was mooted in the first place!

Unclear On The Concept Of Checks And Balances

Taiwan’s China Post argues the country should have a KMT president, in addition to the KMT-dominated legislature that was recently elected.  Relaaax, legislatures don’t need checks and balances.  Those inconveniences are just meant to tie PRESIDENTS down:

The belief that there should be checks and balances in a government is based on the idea that various branches of a government, especially the executive, legislative and judiciary branches, should have enough power to control each other.

In actual use, however, the term generally refers to the limits that the legislature and the judiciary put on the executive branch to prevent dictatorship. It is seldom used to describe a situation in which a powerful president is needed to control the legislature.  [emphasis added]

Unsurprisingly, this is hogwash.  James Madison wrote about EXACTLY this situation in Federalist Paper #47.  And in Federalist #48, he quotes another Virginian on the same issue:

The concentrating [of legislative, executive and executive powers] in the same [legislative] hands, is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation, that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. One hundred and seventy-three despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it, turn their eyes on the republic of Venice. As little will it avail us, that they are chosen by ourselves. An ELECTIVE DESPOTISM was not the government we fought for…  [emphasis added]

(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, from Federalist Paper #48)

In Taiwan’s case, that might now be revised to read "81 despots".  Despots who, within days of being elected, were already being counselled by the party faithful to concentrate executive power into their own hands…

Ma Facing Harsh Challenge? Pshaw!

Dr. Hung in Monday’s China Post:

The new [Taiwanese] legislature will be so dominated by the opposition that it can pass or reject any bill it likes or dislikes.

That doesn’t bode very well for Ma’s bid for the nation’s highest public office.

[…]

A new [Chinese Nationalist Party] premier has to live up to the expectations of the dissatisfied electorate in less than two months before the presidential race takes place.

It’s a mission impossible.

If the [Chinese Nationalist Party] head of government fails, the disgruntled eligible voters will turn against the opposition party.

Honeymoon, doc.  The KMT, like any other party, will be granted a honeymoon.  All they have to do is play it safe for two months, and they’re home free.

Play it safe.  That means no presidential recalls that engender sympathy for the other party.  No matter how good they feel.  Oh, and while you’re at it, you might want to keep champion driver Chui Yi from running down any MORE policemen with his truck, hmmm?

But in all honesty, they don’t really have to be all that conservative.  Doc, your man’s golden.  A shoo-in, as you like to say.  As I wrote in a previous post:

…should the Taiwanese elect a legislature on January 12th composed of a KMT supermajority, they will have instantly rendered their March 20th presidential election an exercise in futility.  Vote for a KMT president, get a KMT president.  Vote for a DPP president – and you AGAIN get a KMT president.  Because the KMT both can and WILL recall that DPP president (and his vice-president) within a very short time after being elected.  Leaving the legislative speaker – a KMT man, of course – to assume the post of president.

Taiwanese opposed to Ma might just as well sit March 20th out, playing mahjong or singing karaoke or stupifying themselves with hard liquor.  ‘Cause after the January 12th fiasco, their vote isn’t worth a damn anymore.  Not a damn.  They could give Ma’s opponent a landslide victory, and it wouldn’t mean a thing.  The wrong guy wins – you recall him.  Or impeach him.  Or failing that, gut the powers of his office, all nice and legal-like. 

(Don’t know if you’ve considered this, but the KMT might even find it useful to have an impotent Hsieh in the presidency.  They’d still have all the power that really counts, while at the same time have the benefit of someone to rail against in the next election!)

Well, That’s A Relief

From Monday’s Taipei Times:

At a separate setting yesterday, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) urged party members not to be too excited about the party’s victory in the elections and pledged that the party would not abuse its power as the dominant party in the legislature.

"`Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ The KMT should remember this saying. If we are too arrogant with victory, we will lose the presidential election," Ma said yesterday while visiting the mausoleum of former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) in Taoyuan County.

Oh, he does talk the talk, don’t he?  In the immortal words of Ma Ying-jeou – or was it the Amazing Spiderman? – with great power comes great responsibility. And yet, it was barely a day after the KMT’s lop-sided legislative victory that members of the party faithful began contemplating a grab for ever more power:

[Chiang Min-chin, a pro-KMT scholar suggested that the Chinese Nationalist Party] should amend the constitution to impose a proper system of checks and balances on [Taiwanese] presidential powers…

Not too surprising that a party with a two-thirds majority in the legislature would want to castrate the presidency.  But what of the legislature?  Any plans to impose a proper system of checks and balances on THEMSELVES?

Nah, we won’t be doin’ that.

You Created This Monster, Taiwan. Now Deal With It.

If you can’t appreciate what you’ve got, you’d better get what you can appreciate.

–Henry Higgins in Pygmalion, Act V

On the heels of the KMT’s massive electoral victory, a bit of not-so-ancient history from Taiwan’s China Post, with a rather startling admission:

With over a two-thirds majority in the new parliament, the [Chinese Nationalist Party] may try to recall President Chen again.  It failed to do so three times in 2006, because it could not muster a two-thirds majority vote.  Chen survived the three recall motions thanks to the solid support of more than one-third of lawmakers in the Legislative Yuan who are DPP lawmakers.

The [Chinese Nationalist Party] has to come up with a better excuse to oust the president, however.  [emphasis added]

Is the China Post now publicly admitting that the KMT resorted to using flimsy excuses in their previous attempts to recall Chen?  Are they really saying that all that huffing and puffing about recalling Chen over the National Unification Council was nothing more than hysterics intended to gin up outrage among KMT true-believers?   That demands for Chen’s recall over his attempted cancellation of a nuclear power plant in 2000 was nothing more than political theater?

Well, those days are over, fellas.  Sure is easy to make irresponsible calls for someone’s head when you know there’s absolutely NO chance of the axe ever falling.  But the KMT’s just been handed a two-thirds legislative majority.  A couple seats shy of three-quarters.  And if Chen’s golden retriever so much as poops on the sidewalk, the KMT can recall him.  So it really is put up or shut up time.

If the KMT truly believes Chen should have been recalled in 2006 (but was only spared because of overzealous partisanship), they should recall him now.  Better that way.  Why do they need NEW excuses?  Aren’t the OLD ones good enough?

Frankly, I’m looking forward to a Chen recall.  Let the Taiwanese understand once and for all the enormity of their decision to grant absolute power to a party that’s so blase’ about overturning the results of past (and by implication, future) elections.  Let ’em know that their decision yesterday has stripped Taiwan of political checks and balances.  Let ’em know that the price of democracy is responsibility for the men you elect.  And let ’em ruefully reflect on this old piece of cynical wisdom:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

-H.L. Mencken

I imagine Taiwanese will be getting it soon.  Good and hard.

UPDATE (Jan 15/08):  Looks like there’s no recall in the works.  Political theater it was:

"We have no plans to depose the president," [KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou] added, as he noted that it would be counterproductive.

Referendum Query

Anyone know the result of the Kaohsiung referendum on limiting classroom sizes? 

Sure, it’s understandable that the English papers in Taiwan would discuss how the two national referendums initiated by the major political parties here went down in flames, but it would also be nice to know how a genuine grassroots initiative at the local level fared.

(Mind you, I’m mostly interested in whether it received enough votes to be valid…or whether it was yet another casualty of the KMT’s reprehensible "Boycott all referendums – including our own" campaign.)

Dusting Off Lord Acton’s Dictum

“And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

-Lord Acton

It may merely be a case of KMT bosses hyping their electoral chances, but there’s been some talk lately that Taiwan’s Chinese Nationalist Party might pick up a two-thirds majority in the upcoming legislative elections.  From today’s Taiwan News:

[Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian] related that some rumors had claimed that the DPP would only win between 29 and 38 seats and observed that KMT leaders were "brimming with confidence" and expected to win a two-thirds majority, or at least 76 of the 113 seats in the new Legislative Yuan.

Chen elaborated a little on the consequences for Taiwan of the KMT winning so decisively:

…the DPP chairman warned that the "worst case" of the regaining by the KMT of absolute control over the Legislature "would not only be a grave setback for the DPP but will be a total defeat for Taiwan, democracy and justice."

The president said that the capture of a two-thirds Legislative majority by the KMT would cause Taiwan’s national status to retreat from the DPP’s position that "Taiwan and China constitute two countries, one on each side of the Taiwan Strait" to the KMT era of "one China and ultimate unification" as maintained by the KMT’s "National Unification Guidelines."

"Taiwan’s national survival and direction of development will face a 180-degree turn" and "’unification’ will no longer be impossible or a ridiculous ideological advocation but will become the accelerated policy goal of the Chinese Nationalist Party government," predicted Chen.

It’s a little surprising that Chen didn’t mention some of the more immediate effects of a two-thirds win by the KMT.  Dr. Joe Hung of Taiwan’s China Post has been good enough to reveal some of what could lie in store:

Should the KMT win a two-thirds majority or more, President Chen Shui-bian…might be recalled before he steps down on May 20.

Poor, naive soul I am.  Here I was, thinking the KMT had given up trying to recall Chen.  After all, the guy only has a few more months left in office.  But why let good old-fashioned practicality get in the way of political vendetta?

Now, it must be admitted that Chen leaving office a month or two early isn’t likely to make much difference in the grand scheme of things.  But what Hung fails to do is take the implications of this legislative power a step further: if the KMT can so easily dispose of President Chen with their hypothetical two-thirds majority, then they can just as easily do away with some OTHER successor president who has the misfortune of belonging to the "wrong" political party.

In other words, should the Taiwanese elect a legislature on January 12th composed of a KMT supermajority, they will have instantly rendered their March 20th presidential election an exercise in futility.  Vote for a KMT president, get a KMT president.  Vote for a DPP president – and you AGAIN get a KMT president.  Because the KMT both can and WILL recall that DPP president (and his vice-president) within a very short time after being elected.  Leaving the legislative speaker – a KMT man, of course – to assume the post of president.

(This might sound a bit crazy and conspiratorial to anyone unfamiliar with Taiwanese politics.  To those I would say, ’twasn’t me who wanted Chen recalled for abolishing a defunct unification committee that hadn’t met in seven years.  No, KMT members were the ones busy setting the bar that low.  Past being prologue, we can assume future KMT recall efforts will also be based on similarly flimsy grounds.)

Taiwanese polls are notoriously unreliable, and we’ll know in a few days just how well the Chinese Nationalist Party fares.  But give the KMT the power of automatic presidential recall via a two-thirds majority?  I wouldn’t even trust MYSELF to wield that kind of power responsibly over my political opponents – much less a party that had recently presided over 40 years of martial law.

The Writing On The Wall

[Warning:  This is a serious post.  If you’ve already seen the Jan 2 entry, you might want to take a cold shower or something before giving this a read.]

Taiwan’s vice-president feels the need to ask the electorate to forgive her party’s recent missteps.  Which would seem to augur poorly for her party’s chances, given that the legislative elections are only 12 days from now…

Vice-President Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) yesterday blasted the Ministry of Education over its "manhandling" of the re-emplacement of the inscription at National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall, saying she was sorry the project had been handled without consideration of public sentiment.

At an election rally in Jhonghe, Lu, the first Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) heavyweight to criticize Minister of Education Tu Cheng-sheng’s (杜正勝) decisions regarding the hall, said the minister should be blamed for DPP’s recent waning popularity. 

"From my observations, the ministry’s mishandling of the former CKS Hall issue was a major blow to the party’s support over the past few months. Tu must apologize to the public for not handling the matter in a more genteel and agreeable manner," she said.  [emphasis added]

Time to play pin the tail on the scapegoat.  Yes, Tu engaged in some regrettable and counter-productive name-calling, but there are plenty of other people responsible for the independence party’s fall in fortunes – not the least of whom would be Lu’s boss, President Chen Shui-bian.  (Bit hard for her to blame the big guy in public, though.)

Anyways, let’s not forget the circumstances here.  Recall that the Taiwanese Central Government:

  • paid for 240,000 meters of prime real-estate in central Taipei *
  • paid for the construction of a monument to Chiang Kai-shek
  • paid yearly for the maintenance and upkeep of said monument

Then one day, after making this sizable investment, the national government decided it wanted out of the dictator-glorification business.  So it tried to rename the hall.  At which point, the Taipei City government said, not so fast.  We love CKS, and we WANT him glorified.  But instead of making the national government a fair market-value offer on the property so that the monument could continue to send this message, the city government decided to take the cheap and confiscatory route instead:

We hereby proclaim Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to be a temporary historical site, they said.  The national government may still "own" it in some kind of legalistic sense, but from now on, we in City Hall, WE will control it.  Don’t even think of damaging or desecrating this ancient (27 year-old) artifact – not a SINGLE nail may be used to hang a new sign, nor a single old name-plate be removed.  And just to show you we mean business, we’ll call out the police and set up road blocks to prevent anybody from doing so.

(My, political speech sure is grand.  And cheap too, when it’s on someone else’s nickel!)

At this point the central government said, playtime’s over, and sent the national police to protect the folks sent in to change the name on the door.

In a nutshell, THOSE were the circumstances under which Tu said what he said.  He may not have been "genteel and agreeable," but it’s not always easy being "genteel and agreeable" when you’re in the middle of a good, old-fashioned showdown.

POSTSCRIPT: During the standoff, I often thought that both sides should have asked a court to decide who has jurisdiction over the monument.  (Based on purely libertarian principles, I think the national government had the stronger case.)  Surely that should have been the FIRST step, instead of the face-saving FINAL one, taken by City Hall only after it had already backed down.

(On the other hand, you might argue it was wise the courts weren’t involved.  Because no matter WHAT the judge’s ruling, someone was bound to be disappointed, and the court’s political impartiality would have been subsequently questioned by one side or the other.)

Leaving that aside, I wonder whether this affair hasn’t filled Taiwanese businessmen with a certain sense of unease.  After all, they just witnessed City Hall arbitrarily declare the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall a temporary historical site.  They know Taipei was busy spending big bucks finding a panel of "experts" to testify in favor of that ruling.  And if those businessmen happened to be CKS fans, no doubt they were busy applauding.

But here’s the thing:  if City Hall can do that to a 27 year-old monument belonging to the national government, why can’t it do the same to a 27 year-old FACTORY belonging to YOU as well?

Just think of the shakedown possibilities here:  "Hello Mr. Businessman, we’d like an especially LARGE campaign contribution from you this year.  And if we don’t get it, maybe we’ll announce your shop is a temporary historical site.  (We’ve done it before, you may have noticed.)  Now, don’t let the process worry you – we’ll just spend THE NEXT YEAR assembling a group of "experts" who’ll decide whether or not to make that status permanent.  In the meantime, please don’t forget you’re forbidden by law from making ANY changes to the building’s interior or exterior."

"Terribly sorry if that puts a crimp in your operations, old bean, but this is our precious historical heritage we’re talking about!"

As I see it, the only defense a businessman would ever have in that scenario would be public opinion.  And were I in his shoes, I’d be very uncomfortable having my investments protected by anything so fickle.

* Or stole.  Stole it fair and square, the KMT will have you know!