Taiwanese Invent New Mass Spectrometer

The Taiwan News today had an incredible story that Taiwanese scientists have developed a mass spectrometer that can identify the weight of unicellular organisms.*  Up until now, mass spectrometers could only be used to analyze compounds containing about fifty carbon atoms at most – making them useless for identifying proteins, let alone viruses or eukaryotic cells.  The story describes how the researchers did it:

…the team at Academia Sinica refined their mass spectrometer by targeting the laser on a silicon wafer to cause acoustic waves, which can "push" the cell or virus out of the sample without destroying it.

Then, a quadruple ion trap is applied to catch the subject of interest for mass determination.

The story concludes by suggesting practical applications:

…if there is an epidemic, doctors can now isolate the suspected pathogen and weigh it, then compare the weight to the entries in the database to identify what it is.

"Since the database will also show the normal weight of a particular cell, the doctor can also identify if there is cancer metastasis by noticing that the weight of certain cells are changing," [head researcher Chang Huan-Cheng] added.

What the story neglects to tell the reader is how fast the process is liable to be.  Got a sore throat?  Forget having it swabbed and then letting the lab techs spend a day or two growing up a culture in an incubator to find out what it is.  With the new mass spec, they’d merely have apply the sample to the silicon wafer and flip on the laser.  Within minutes (maybe less!), they’d know what ails you.  I’m going to guess that the time-limiting step of the procedure will end up being sample preparation.

If this isn’t some kind of hoax, then it’s literally Star Trek-level technology.

* A mass spectrometer works by ionizing a particle, and then running the ionized fragments through a magnetic device.  The weight of the fragments are then determined by the speed by which they travel through the acceleration chamber – small fragments of a given charge reach the ion detector at a faster rate than larger fragments containing the same charge.

UPDATE (Apr 26/06):  A Taiwanese government publication describes the technique (and goes a bit above my head in doing so).  The relevant material is on page 4 of the pdf file.

Left Out

What’s this?  The FE’21 Department Store in Banciao had a "Sexy Women Party" and I wasn’t invited?

Sexy women party at FE21 department store in Banciao, Taiwan

(Image from the Taipei Times.)

Now I know how Ma Ying-jeou feels.  The other day, Ma, the rookie KMT chairman, couldn’t even manage to get an invite to a meeting held by lawmakers belonging to his own political party.

That’s COLD, baby.

The April 10th meeting consisted of 20 to 30 legislators from southern districts who are unhappy with the party’s current obstructionist policies.  There, attendees discussed changing the KMT’s platform, as well as methods for directing the party towards greater moderation on the issue of legislative gridlock.  A few days afterwards, the snubbed chairman was reduced to announcing he was "happy to see legislators have opinions on the party’s affairs."

Yeah, right.  And I’m happy that all those beautiful lingerie models had a really fun time at the Sexy Women Party.

You know – the one I wasn’t invited to.

UPDATE (Apr 18/06):  Ma’s weak position as KMT chairman is discussed in further detail in a post over at One Whole Jujuflop Situation.

It is intriguing to speculate that the 20 or 30 dissatisfied KMT party backbenchers might someday be tempted to go off and form their own breakaway party.  Such a possibility should not be dismissed out of hand, because such splits have happened to the KMT before.  And not so very long ago, either.

Suffice it to say that a true status quo party in Taiwan that could cooperate with independence parties on national-security issues and oppose them on certain independence-related issues would be a positive democratic development here.  Local politicians would then be provided with an example of how positive compromise and principled opposition can occur without parties resorting to the my-way-or-the-highway political tactics that remain a legacy of the martial law era.

UPDATE (Apr 26/06):  David over at One Whole Jujuflop Situation argues persuasively that the notion of a "non-obstructionist KMT faction" is entirely chimerical.  Instead, he suggests that the 30 KMT legislators met without Ma due to self-interest; they backed another man for KMT chairman during the leadership race, and now fear that the party may now change candidacy rules for THEIR SEATS in retaliation.

It looks then, that there may not be much ground for my speculations in my April 18th update.

i-1

War Drill

Page 3 of Tuesday’s Taipei Times had a story informing us that a surprise war drill in Taiwan will be held later this month.  The purpose of the drill is not to see how fast the jets can be scrambled or the defense systems can be brought on-line; the goal is to evacuate Taiwan’s political leadership from downtown Taipei, and rehearse the strategic / political response to a Chinese attack:

According to a report in the Chinese-language newspaper the China Times, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) and high-level Cabinet members will suddenly be informed later this month without warning that Chinese missiles will reach Taipei within minutes. They will be required to meet at an emergency room at the Hengshan [Mountain] (衡山) strategic command in Taipei’s northern suburb of Dazhi (大直) within 10 minutes.

I can’t find Dazhi on my map of Taipei, so I’m going to guess that it’s somewhere near the Yangmingshan area.  The President is supposed to be spirited there by chopper, but the defense minister will have to get there by car.

In ten minutes.  From the middle of downtown Taipei.

He doesn’t need a car.  What he needs is transporter technology or a pair of ruby slippers.  The roads in Northern Taiwan are pretty congested, and they’d be even more difficult to navigate after the inevitable sabotage.*  Maybe traffic control could give him green lights all the way, but you’d have to expect electronic warfare on that front as well.

I just hope that one of his deputies is posted in Hengshan at all times.  Because the minister of defense just might be awhile.

The story goes on to say what will happen in Hengshan:

"Chen will immediately conduct a 90-minute national security meeting, followed by a 60-minute military meeting. The president will then decide whether the country would declare war against China after the meetings," the report said.

The report said that the war games will simulate two scenarios: Taiwan coming under a large-scale missile attack from China and China launching a decapitation-style attack on Taipei.

The report said various political, military, diplomatic and economic issues would be dealt with in the war-games, including outlining how to ask for foreign help, ways to communicate with the nation’s most important allies, the US and Japan, as well as methods to reassure the public and stabilize consumer prices, and rescue the injured.

What can I say about any of this?  I’m just glad that I don’t have Chen’s job.

* Sabotage will of course, be facilitated when large numbers of Chinese are permitted into the country as "tourists".  Perhaps as a sign of hospitality, each should be given a rifle and grenade at customs, so as to save them the long commute to their pre-positioned weapons drop points.

Taiwanese Warren Commission?

When you stop to think about it, there are a number of ways in which America and Taiwan are alike:

  • America likes baseball. Taiwan likes baseball.
  • America’s got 7-11s.  So does Taiwan.  In spades. 
  • America watches NBA. Taiwan loves the Lakers, too.

But that’s not all:  You know America’s JFK assassination conspiracy theorists?  Well, Taiwan has something similar, only its brand attempts to prove that President Chen Shway-Bian was somehow behind the March 19th, 2004 attempt on his own life in order to obtain sympathy votes. *

(That’s right, President Chen had himself shot so that he could steal the election.  How come Karl Rove never thought of that?)

There’s another important difference, too.  In America, if someone "proves" his theory surrounding the death of JFK, there is no practical consequence.  His suspect is probably dead, or least, too old to still be involved in politics.  In Taiwan though, if someone could actually prove that Chen faked his own shooting for selfish political motives, then they’d instantly have grounds for removing Chen from the presidency.

What that means is that here, wild-eyed discussions aren’t confined to kooks who obsessively replay assassination-related videos in darkened living rooms.  There’s a very real political incentive for rational politicians to spout these outlandish theories with a straight face, because doing so might someday help them topple their political foe.  But even if the President’s enemies fail at that, they can still weaken his legitimacy and divert the national conversation from other, more pressing issues.

Front page news in Wednesday’s papers was the formation of a new government commission by the KMT and its allies to discover the "truth" about the assassination.  The China Post says this commission is to be similar to an American special counsel, but that isn’t quite accurate because of the questionable legality of the Taiwanese variant.  According to Taiwan’s constitution, there is a branch of government (the Control Yuan) whose sole purpose is to investigate wrongdoing by the other branches.  It seems to me that with the creation of this commission, the legislature has fully usurped the responsibilities of an entire branch of government.

At this point, you might be asking yourself what the Control Yuan has to say about having its powers stolen like that.  The answer is: Not much.  The Control Yuan has been vacant for over a year now, because the legislature has steadfastly rejected all of President Chen’s nominees for that body.

Which makes all of this a pretty naked power grab.  The KMT-dominated legislature refused to hire Taiwan a watchman, and then unilaterally decided to take that job for itself.

As I’ve illustrated, there are real constitutional grounds for striking this commission down, which is what happened to its previous incarnation.  If that fails, Chen’s political enemies will use their majority on the commission to float their absurd theories, and then decide which narrative that they like best.  Chen’s supporters will be permitted to write a dissent, but the official finding is already pre-ordained.  The President had himself shot to win the election ‘coz the KMT says he did.  What better proof could there be than that?

Once the commission’s foregone conclusion is delivered, I wonder about the next step, though.  The KMT doesn’t have the numbers in the legislature for impeachment, and members of the President’s party will undoubtably recognize the commission’s findings for what they are and refuse to cross the aisle.  With the "truth" in their hands, could the KMT approach the Supreme Court and demand Chen’s removal?  I don’t pretend to know the answer.  But I DO get the sense that the KMT would love to use the "truth" as an excuse for street thuggery, with an eye on overthrowing the government.  Last week, a columnist for the China Post wrote:

[The Chen administration will] either bring Taiwan further down the road of no return during the next two years, or it will precipitate large-scale violent and even bloody anti-government demonstrations to demand a change of course. **

In short, do as the KMT says, or there’ll be…trouble.

* Click here for my brief summary of the attempted assassination.  And here’s a Taipei Times editorial that makes the rather obvious observation that there are easier ways of rigging an election than having yourself shot in the abdomen.

** From "Chen will still pursue his own course" by Dr. William Fang from the Apr 7th edition of the China Post.  Sorry, I can’t find the link.

Exploding Whales

"Yeah, it’s dark, dreary, and spattered with whale meat."

– Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

Back in 1970, the body of a 45 foot long sperm whale weighing 8 tons washed up on an Oregon shore.  It was pretty heavy for them to carry away, and no one was too keen on being responsible for cutting it up and carting away the pieces.  So in the end, officials decided that detonating it with a half-ton of dynamite would be the best way of disposing of the carcass. 

Which sounded like a good idea – until hundred pound chunks of decaying whale meat started raining down on the terrified onlookers…

Read all about it at TheExplodingWhale.com.

The site’s got the Taiwan angle covered, too.  Because a couple years ago in the southern city of Tainan, gases due to decomposition built up and exploded within a dead whale’s belly as it was being transported on a flat-bed truck.  Blood, blubber and whale guts wound up splattered all over the road. 

Sure glad I wasn’t riding a scooter alongside when it happened.

Exploded whale on urban road next to scooter in Taiwan, Taiwan.

Man hosing down exploded whale parts on urban road next to scooter in Taiwan, Taiwan.

(Images via TheExplodingWhale.com.)

i-2

Seditious Acts

Saturday’s Taiwan News reported on a ceremony marking the 17th anniversary of the death of Deng Nan-jung, a Taiwanese democracy advocate.  Deng was apparently the editor of a weekly magazine, "Era of Liberty", when it published a hypothetical constitution for a Taiwanese republic.  For this, the KMT shut the magazine down, and issued a subpoena for him to answer charges of sedition.  Rather than comply, Deng committed suicide by lighting a few barrels of gasoline in his office.

Sedition charges.  For PROPOSING a new constitution.  And only 17 years ago.  It’s easy for the world (and me!) to forget how recently stuff like that was happening here.

Speaking of sedition, the March 22nd edition of the Taipei Times had a letter to the editor with a couple of intriguing paragraphs in it:

…in his interview with [Taiwanese TV network] TVBS on Feb. 28, [KMT leader] Ma said that he suggested the EU consider lifting the arms embargo on China during his recent visits to London and Brussels.  (Emphasis added)

[…]

We…demand that Ma explain why he initiated the discussion of lifting the arms embargo on China in Europe, while in Taiwan his party has repeatedly blocked weapons purchases from the US.

First of all, can anyone confirm that this is true?  I have no interest in spreading falsehoods about Ma Ying-jeou, and if I find out this is BS, then I’ll HAPPILY correct it in a new post.  Because the man either said on national television that he lobbied the EU to arm Taiwan’s enemy, or he didn’t.

If it IS true, then decide for yourself which of the two cases outlined here truly represents an act of sedition.

UPDATE (Apr 10/06):  Thanks to Tim Maddog for finding the link to the letter to the Taipei Times.  It’s now included in the post.

He was also able to find a transcript of the TVBS interview, and included an excerpt in his comments.  His English translation can be found here.

UPDATE #2 (Apr 10/06):  It seems as though Ma didn’t "lobby" the EU to remove the arms embargo on China, but he did provide them with conditions for the embargo’s removal (ie: improved human rights conditions in China and "peaceful development" of cross-strait relations).

The tone of the speaker is EVERYTHING in this case.  When asked about whether the embargo should be lifted, did Ma say, "No"…or "HELL NO"?

That makes a big difference.

(I’d be willing to guess that Ma’s response to the question was exceptionally mild.  To date, his  harshest criticism of China’s Anti-Secession Law has been to say that it was "unnecessary" and "unwise".  Really, does he kiss his mother with that mouth?)

Secondly, I would like to know whether Ma helpfully offered the Europeans those conditions on his own initiative, or whether he gave those answers while being pressed.  If it was the former, then he probably earned a few brownie points in Beijing for giving them an out.  If the latter, then perhaps his answer was foolish, but not malicious.

The reason why I say it was foolish is that proposed conditions for removing the embargo ought to be specific and difficult to meet.  Ma’s criteria however, are vague, and therefore too easily obtainable.  Think about the human rights condition:  If China frees a couple of Falun Gong members, won’t European merchants of death be tempted to point to that as evidence that human rights are improving?  As for "peaceful development of cross-strait relations", would Taipei accepting a couple of pandas qualify?  Ma set the bar far too low, and didn’t even suggest that China should become more democratic.  His little performance may not have been seditious, but it wasn’t exactly a vigorous defense of Taiwan’s interests, either.

Statues For Me, Not For Thee

When it was proposed a few weeks ago that statues of Chiang Kai-Shek be removed from Taiwanese military bases, the KMT’s biggest objection was that doing so would do violence to history and remembrance.  Sure, Chiang may have been a dictator, but he was a big part of Taiwan’s past, so his role shouldn’t be minimized or forgotten.

Now, it would seem to me that someone making this argument would quite naturally be in favor of memorials to other controversial individuals or groups in Taiwan’s history – the Taiwanese aboriginal units that fought on the side of the Japanese during World War II being perhaps, a prime example.

Silly me.  When Taiwanese aborigines suggested that a monument be built to honor their war dead, the KMT’s intellectual consistency flew out the window.  It was perfectly reasonable that Taiwanese military bases house hundreds of statues of OUR guy – the guy behind the White Terror – the KMT said.  But somebody in Taiwan wants one – ONE! – memorial to people who fought for Japan?

Why now, that’s just completely beyond the pale!

Thus does the KMT’s carefully-constructed "Stonewall Jackson" argument collapse.  The KMT put forward the notion that America tolerates statues to people who fought for the Confederacy on its soil, therefore, Taiwan ought to similarly continue to honor the Chiangs.  But surely, aborigines who fought for the Japanese fall into the same category as America’s Confederates.  They too, fought and died for a wrong cause. 

The entire affair illustrates the kind of tolerance that the KMT demands for itself, but is still unwilling to grant unto others.

(The Taipei Times has a picture of the Taiwanese aborigines defending their honor from the epithets hurled by the pro-KMT press here.)

Rearguard Actions Part III

Imagine for a moment that you’re in the market for a new house, and you’re locked in a heated negotiation with the seller.  You make a number of lowball offers, but he doesn’t budge from his initial position.  At last, you agree to his price, partly because it’s within your budget, and partly because you REALLY have your heart set on that house.

But then, a funny thing happens.  Two weeks after your bargaining session, he calls you with an unexpected offer.  He’s gonna give you a break – you cab have the house for a price near your initial offer.  Needless to say, you’re left scratching your head.

A very similar thing recently happened regarding statues of former dictator Chiang Kai-Shek in Taiwan.  The military proposed removing Chiang statues from bases and military schools.  "Never!" cried the KMT.  What if we just got rid of old or damaged statues, the military then proposed.  "Not a single one goes," answered the KMT.  And soon, the KMT got its way.  The Taiwanese military agreed to the KMT’s price, and the statues remained in place.

Then, just like in my parable, a funny thing happened.  Two and a half weeks after winning the battle over the Chiang statues, a curious editorial appeared in the China Post.  Not surprisingly, they defended Chiang’s record as president and general.  There was, however, this bit of added criticism:

While in Taiwan, the Gimo had a personality cult started. His defeated army that came with him and the people of Taiwan were taught to worship him as the "savior of China." The Military Academy in Fengshan claims its roots in Whampoa, of which he was the founding commandant. His statues were erected there and in practically every other military installation to perpetuate that leader worship.

We are glad that none of Chiang’s successors have tried to develop a personality cult.

I had something similar to say regarding Chiang’s deification in an earlier post.  So what was the China Post‘s proposed solution?

Military installations should remove his statues to put a formal end to his personality cult, but the Military Academy must be allowed to keep its founder’s statue to remember his contribution to the education of the cadre for the Army of the Republic of China.

Now, the reader is suddenly in much the same position as the buyer of my story.  Let’s be honest: it isn’t very often that a seller will table his bottom line demands AFTER winning for himself a better deal.  Here’s a couple of theories for you to take your pick from:

1)  The KMT and the China Post were always willing to be reasonable about removing Chiang statues, but the proposal seemed so radical and arbitrary that it would have been a major loss of face for them to show any signs of initially accepting any part of it.  This theory implies that the Chiang supporters would have been more comfortable with a quieter, more slowly-implemented policy.  It also implies that the pro-independence parties either badly bungled the handling of the issue by moving too quickly and publicly, or that they deliberately tabled a motion that they knew would get shot down in flames, simply to gin up support from Chiang detractors.*

2)  The China Post recognizes that the KMT has won the battle, not the long-term ARGUMENT.  Perhaps they realize that the statues of the Chiangs are numbered (see my reasoning here) and are beginning the long process of retreat on the issue.**  It was not for nothing that I titled these posts, Rearguard Actions; the entire point of a rearguard action is to fall back to a more defensible position.

* Another possibility should be mentioned, too.  The independence parties may have merely wanted to stimulate DEBATE regarding the place of a dictator’s statues in a democratic society, not to actually remove them.  Conducting an under-the-radar removal policy would have left the independence parties open to charges of being undemocratic sneaks, and would not have served the purpose of provoking debate on the statues so that some kind of societal consensus on them could be reached.

(It’s times like this that I think it unfortunate that I can’t read Chinese.  While expat bloggers have debated the issue at length, I have absolutely no idea of what the quality of the debate has been like in the Taiwanese press.)

** I confess preferring Theory 2 to Theory 1, but admit to being puzzled by the abruptness and scale of the China Post‘s retreat on the issue.  If this editorial is to believed, then "the long process of retreat" seems like it may not be quite so long after all.  I AM surprised that the China Post arrived at their current, fairly reasonable position without proposing some sort of more incremental, intermediate step.