Taiwan, China, and other things. Recovered from the defunct TypePad platform.
Alonso Quixano…or the Knight of the Rueful Figure?
Joshua A. Norton…or His Imperial Majesty, Emperor Norton I of the United States?
Balthazar Napoleon de Bourbon III…or the Duke of France?
And, dare I say it:
Taiwan, the country…or the One, True China?
It must have seemed tempting. The Chinese Nationalist Party’s presumptive presidential nominee speaks fluent English, while most Taiwanese nationalist candidates for the job don’t. So…why not just write an English requirement for the presidency into law, thereby ELIMINATING most Taiwanese nationalists from the political competition?
(Given the smaller pool of eligible candidates, the over-all quality of the final Taiwanese nationalist candidate would likely suffer as well. From the KMT’s point of view, a win-win proposal all around.)
A few days later though, the Chinese nationalists dropped the idea. It’s a pity the English papers didn’t give us too many of their comments as to why, however. Now, perhaps they abandoned it because it was undemocratic and limited the Taiwanese public’s right to choose. (I will not exclude that possibility.) Or perhaps there was another reason – one more rooted in long-term self-interest. Because surely someone at the Chinese Nationalist Party must have considered that one language requirement might someday beget another. And by that, I mean one for Taiwanese.
A Taiwanese requirement for the R.O.C. presidency would make at LEAST as much sense as an English requirement – 60% of Taiwanese speak it to one degree or another, for crying out loud. Enacting one would do to the Chinese Nationalists exactly what they so transparently tried to do to Taiwanese nationalists: Put them at a severe electoral disadvantage. Well, a Taiwanese requirement wouldn’t hurt all KMT members – just the dominant Mainlander faction that only speaks Mandarin. Still, it’s hard to imagine those fellas maintaining dominance over the party once the highest office of the land becomes closed to them, all nice and legal-like.
A language requirement for the presidency? If I were a Mainlander belonging to the KMT, that’s definitely one sleeping dog I’d prefer to let lie.
UPDATE (Apr 24/07): The View from Taiwan points out that that soon afterwards, Taiwanese nationalists tried to cater a law aimed specifically at Ma Ying-jeou, the probable KMT presidential candidate for 2008. Joe Hung at the China Post discusses this case as well.
(Cartoon from the Apr 2/07 ed of the Taipei Times.)
Pitiful, really. From last Saturday’s pro-Chiang march:
The main opposition Kuomintang (KMT) staged a march in Taipei near the Presidential Office yesterday afternoon to protest a government campaign attacking the legacy of late President Chiang Kai-shek, 32 years after he died in 1975.
[…]
During the rally, former KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou, who is considered the frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race, conceded Chiang had made errors, but told the protesters that historical figures must not be unfairly judged.
"No historical figures were perfect, and we could reassess Chiang’s legacy but must not deny all of his accomplishments," Ma said.
"He wasn’t a saint, he was like you and me and [could] make mistakes, which we will review," he said. "But don’t write him off completely because of them," Ma continued.
Now, I done some bad things in my time. Never sentenced men that I knew were innocent to political prisons or death, though. So in that sense, Chiang wasn’t EXACTLY like me. And in all likelihood, he wasn’t like any of you, either.
A Taiwanese independence group held a less flattering protest at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial a day later, performing mock funeral rituals:
Traditionally, sealing the coffin — when family members hammer nails into the lid to seal it — is the last part of a funeral before burial.
Wang presented a sharp metal stake with a sign that read "Site for future Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall" and asked all participants to hammer it into the ground. [Taiwan’s president is trying to rededicate the Chiang memorial as a Democracy hall – The Foreigner]
As he hammered, a member of the crowd shouted: "Let’s seal it so the evil spirit of Chiang Kai-shek will never be able to get out again!"
Undeterred, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) held yet another pro-Chiang rally a few days later, on the anniversary of the former dictator’s death. "Destroy Taiwan independence" was one of their slogans. (Given the party’s obstruction of the special arms bill, I’d say they’re doing a bang-up job at that.)
After the initial rally, the Taiwan News had some food for thought about one of Chiang’s reputed accomplishments:
The common myth that the [KMT] takeover saved the Taiwan people from "the Chinese Communist bandit regime" [after World War 2] is merely a historical "what if" that excludes numerous other possibilities, such as United Nations trusteeship or the granting of independence to a government formed by the Taiwan people.
Precisely. Though there is another, more depressing, possibility. Had the KMT not come to Taiwan, the Taiwanese might have foolishly welcomed re-unification, even with the communists. They did, after all, cheer during the early days of post-war re-unification, prior to the KMT’s depredations. What really would have happened is unknowable, by both Chiang defenders and detractors.
The Taiwan News also described the KMT’s unhealthy nostalgia:
…the event’s real aim was to "review the good fortune and prosperity brought to Taiwan in the era of the two Chiangs [Chiang Kai-shek and his son, Chiang Ching-guo – The Foreigner]," according to KMT Acting Chairman Chiang Pin-kin. Another KMT spokesman openly expressed the hope of restoring the "golden age" allegedly experienced by Taiwan in the 1950s and 1960s thanks to the "two Chiangs."
Chiang surely did SOME good for Taiwan, but in the final analysis, it doesn’t matter. No democratic country ought to glorify former tyrants, build statues in their name, or speak of "golden ages" of dictatorship. That’s bad – no, DANGEROUS – for that country’s democratic soul. When certain parties in Taiwan make a fetish out of the "oneness of purpose" that existed prior to democracy, they shouldn’t be surprised when the youth of Taiwan subsequently begin forming Hitler fan clubs out of admiration for the even greater unity that existed in Nazi Germany. For it is their example which leads the way.
i-1
"Chiang Kai-shek would definitely have these people executed if he were alive."
-DPP legislator
From Friday’s Taipei Times:
Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers yesterday accused a number of
retired generals of having relocated to China or purchased real estate there
while accepting life-time monthly paychecks from the Ministry of National
Defense (MND).
The legislators named names – names of citizens who’ve presumably retired from public life – so they’d better have the goods, or there’s going to be a set of monster libel suits. As well there should be. A lot of irresponsible accusations get made here, and they’re not always confined to one side of the aisle.
That said though, the charges do have a ring of truth about them. I’ve no doubt that some former Taiwanese officers (not necessarily the ones in question) WOULD voluntarily move to the glorious Fatherland they’d always dreamt of retaking.
Since I don’t understand Mandarin, I cannot intelligently comment upon Taiwan’s TVBS news station, and it’s supposed bias against Taiwanese nationalist parties.
(If anyone knows of a good blog post or newspaper column on the subject, I’ll happily link to it.)
From what I understand, TVBS has been highly critical of the current Taiwanese president. And that, of course, is the media’s job. The fly in the ointment is that the majority of TVBS shares are held by Hong Kong concerns, so some fear that TVBS is being used as a propaganda arm of the Communist Party of China.
Taiwan’s China Post is rather dismissive of that possibility:
While it is true that the TVBS network is majority owned
by persons and entities from Hong
Kong,
we simply do not accept the proposition that such ownership is somehow
seditious.While TVBS’ owners have worked through a legal loophole
to retain ownership of the network, the fact remains that the loophole is
perfectly legal.
Just because it’s legal doesn’t mean it’s right. It may be apropos to recall here that during World War II, Axis Powers were not permitted to own media within the U.S. Perhaps there was a time, when a loophole in the law might have allowed Vichy France or Franco’s Spain to own American newspapers or radio.
But if such a loophole DID exist, I imagine it was closed quite quickly.
The story of Keith Richards snorting his dad’s ashes with coke made the papers here, and just in time for Tomb-Sweeping Day. Lordy-be. I can only imagine what Taiwanese make of us Westerners after THAT little show of filial piety.
For those who don’t live in Taiwan, Tomb-Sweeping Day is a holiday set aside to pay obeisance at the tombs of one’s ancestors. People typically trim away vegetation that has grown over family graves over the course of the year; in subtropical Taiwan this can entail quite a bit of work, particularly for children from urban centers who may’ve never handled a pruner or hedge-trimmer in their entire lives. A good piece on Tomb-Sweeping Day holiday can be found here.
Joe Hung also wrote an interesting column on modern observances of this holiday. I was unaware that the holiday used to be unfixed (the 15th Day of the Spring Equinox, so it fell on either Apr 5th or 6th). It was fixed on Apr 5th by late Taiwanese dictator Chiang Ching-guo in order to honor his father, Chiang Kai-shek, who died on that day. As part of a recent de-Chiangification campaign, it has been suggested that the holiday become unfixed again.
I don’t know if Tomb-Sweeping Day will be returned to its TRUE Chinese roots and become unfixed again, but I beg to differ with Dr. Hung on one point. De-Chiangification is NOT de-Sinicization – unless one starts with the proposition that dictatorship is an inherent and essential part of Chinese-ness.
UPDATE: The Taiwan News reports that Richards was joking about his dad’s ashes.
UPDATE (Apr 7/07): Good pic of the day’s observances from Friday’s Taipei Times:
Frankly, I’m a little surprised to see this picture at all. Last time I showed some Taiwanese friends a couple pictures I’d taken of local tombs (mixed in with other photos – I’m not THAT morbid), they were horrified. Said the ghosts were going to follow me now.
i-1
Ma Ying-jeou, the likely Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) nominee for the Taiwanese presidency in 2008, began his embezzlement trial on Monday with a great campaign slogan:
"We all know that, in terms of the Criminal Procedure Law, a defendant is innocent until ruled guilty after three trials. [One trial, followed by 2 appellate court trials – The Foreigner] So I am still innocent and there should be no problem for me to run for the presidency."
The legislative whip of a minor Taiwanese nationalist party cynically noted that winning the presidency might be Ma’s best legal strategy, since Taiwanese presidents cannot be prosecuted while in office. Which is fine for Ma, but members of his party must be out of their minds to nominate a man whose only defense against the charge of embezzlement of public funds is that everybody else did it.
The KMT has one year – ONE YEAR – to find a clean candidate before the election. Rather than do that though, they’d rather while away the time making excuses for the current front-runner.
UPDATE: A good background editorial from the Taiwan News.
A new Taiwanese constitution was tabled for consideration recently, and Taiwan’s China Post has trouble with the preamble:
…the professors wrote into their draft constitution Taiwan and
China are two different countries and the people in the former have the final
say in their country’s future. Any change to the political relationship between
the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China must be decided by
negotiations between the two sides and subject to approval of the people of
Taiwan, they added.Do they have to state in the constitution the universally acknowledged
inalienable right of the people to determine the future of their country?
How can a paper call something a "universally acknowledged right" if it doesn’t recognize that right itself? The China Post has specifically rejected calls for referendums should a future Taiwanese president sign a sovereignty-related treaty with Communist China. In one of his columns not long ago, Dr. Joe Hung derided as "naive" those who would call for a referendum in such a case, quoting the current constitution, which says that that power belongs ONLY to Taiwan’s political class, and NOT the people.
What the paper really objects to then, is taking the power of surrender away from a future KMT capitulationist.
I like Taiwan, but confess I’ve never heard it compared to ‘paradise’ before:
"What we want [in Hong Kong] is one person, one vote. But [current Chief Executive Donald Tsang] criticized us, saying that is a dream that can only be found in paradise. According to his logic, the people of Taiwan are all in the paradise," [said Emily Lau, the chairwoman of a Hong Kong pro-democracy party.] "Hong Kong cannot compare with Taiwan in this regard."
UPDATE (Apr 6/07): A good column on the Hong Kong "election" can be found here.
Back in 2004, Chinese Nationalist Party legislator Chiu Yi decided to contest a narrow presidential election in Taiwan by standing atop a truck with a bullhorn, and ordering it to crash through a police barricade around a courthouse in the southern Taiwanese city of Kaohsiung.
Oddly enough though, Taiwan’s China Post neglects to mention that, saying only that Chiu tried to "break into" the building with a mob. The Post then mentions the aftermath:
Eight police guards were injured in a melee that followed.
No, not exactly. At least ONE policeman was injured when the truck smashed into the barricade, not from any melee that happened afterwards. He was led away in agony with a sprained (or broken?) arm – I saw the tape.
That’s assault with a motor vehicle, in my book.
