Is Taiwan Independence an Option? Part II
No, Individual Independence should be an Option
Bevin Chu
March 6, 2006
The Democratic Progressive Party's Demagogic Populist Propaganda
H.L. Mencken defined a demagogue as "one who preaches doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots."
Tsai Huang-liang is the director of the Democratic Progressive Party's Culture and Information Department. In other words, he is their chief demagogue.
On February 27, 2006, Tsai Huang-liang posted an article at the Taipei Times, posing the rhetorical question, "Would Ma allow vote on nation's future?" In posting the article and posing the question, Tsai was fulfilling his duty as chief demagogue. He was preaching Taiwan independence doctrines he knew to be untrue to Taiwan independence fundamentalists he knew to be idiots.
Rhetorical Traps
Tsai's smarmy, self-righteous question for KMT Chairman and 2008 presidential hopeful Ma Ying-jeou was a rhetorical trap intended to achieve one of two results.
One, Tsai was trying to pressure Ma Ying-jeou into conceding "Of course I would allow a vote on the nation's future, after all there are many possible options for Taiwan's future. The 23 million people on Taiwan should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence, or maintaining the status quo."
If Ma were to yield to such pressure and make such a public declaration, the Taiwan independence nomenklatura would have extorted a strategic concession from the undisputed leader of the Pan Blue alliance, for which there would be hell to pay down the road. Ma would either have to repudiate his initial concession, in which case he would come across as weak and indecisive, or he would have to make endless future concessions consistent with his initial concession, in which case the both the Kuomintang and the Republic of China would be forever lost.
Two, if Ma Ying-jeou remained sufficiently alert to steer clear of Tsai's rhetorical trap, Tsai would attempt to make Ma's refusal to take the bait appear guiltily evasive.
If this sounds like a case of "you can't win for losing," you're right. Finding oneself trapped in such a no-win situation is the predictable result of ideological confusion. Ideological confusion leads to ideological self-doubt. Ideological self-doubt leads to ideological evasion. Ideological evasion leads to ideological passivity, to a cringing, defensive political posture in which one waits to be hit and is too cowed by "unearned guilt" to even complain.
The only escape from such a dilemma is to stop defending and start attacking. In politics as in sports, the best defense is a good offense.
To stop defending and start attacking however, one must first clarify ones' own ideological position and confirm that one holds the moral as well as practical high ground. Only then can one seize the initiative and go on the offensive.
Let's see how Tsai is guilt-tripping Ma Ying-jeou with Taiwan independence Political Correctness, and how Ma Ying-jeou can turn things around.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang notes that 'During Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Ma Ying-jeou's tour of Europe, the KMT placed an advertisement in the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper), stating that, "The Chinese Nationalist Party firmly believes that, in keeping with the spirit of democracy, there are many options for Taiwan's future, be it reunification, independence or the status quo. It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."'
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Let's not mince words. Tsai may be wrong about everything else, but he's right about the ill-conceived KMT ad. The KMT ad in the Liberty Times was a fiasco. It "gave away the store." KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou had to repudiate it, and having repudiated it, must not second-guess himself.
"In keeping with the spirit of democracy?"
What democracy? The Republic of China is not a democracy. It is a republic, a constitutional republic.
Under a democracy, there are indeed "many options for the nation's future," because under a democracy anything goes. A democracy, as Thomas Jefferson warned his fellow Americans, "is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." History has since proved Jefferson and his fellow Founding Fathers right, many times over. Perhaps the most sobering proof that democracy is nothing more than mob rule surfaced in 1935, when an economically prosperous, culturally advanced Western European democracy enacted the infamous Nuremberg Laws, stripping away the rights of a defenseless minority.
Under a republic, on the other hand, there are very few "options for the nation's future," because under a republic, not everything goes. Under a republic "options for the nation's future" are severely limited by the nation's constitution. Under a constitutional republic, explicit constitutional constraints protect minorities and individuals from capricious mob passions.
For the record, the Constitution of the Republic of China, like the constitution of most nations, does not include the option of independence.
For the record, America's Articles of Confederation do not include provisions for political independence either, for the simple reason that the several states were already sovereign and independent. Article II stipulates instead that "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled."
Modern Americans have forgotten that each of the states is technically a nation unto itself. We are reminded of this fact when state officials ritualistically refer to their state as the "sovereign state of Maryland" or the "sovereign state of Virginia."
What modern Americans refer to as "America" or "the USA" is technically a confederation of independent states. Retaining pre-existing sovereignty and independence within a confederation such as these United States of America, is an entirely different matter from acquiring independence from a pre-existing unitary state such as China.
Tsai Huang-liang insists that "It is necessary that the choice be made by the people."
Does Tsai Huang-liang not know that the choice was made by the people? The choice was made by the people in 1912, when the Constitution of the Republic of China was enacted, just as the choice was made by the American people in 1789, when the Constitution of the United States of America was enacted.
Unless the alternative under consideration is market anarchism, in which we are talking about a whole other ballgame, then the Constitution of the United States is a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is over 200 years old isn't a problem. It merely needs to be honored instead of ignored. It isn't a "living, breathing document" with "penumbras and emanations" that need to be "interpreted." It's written in English, not Chinese.
Sun Yat-sen is the George Washington of modern China. Sun modeled the Constitution of the Republic of China on the Constitution of the United States of America. The Constitution of the Republic of China is also a perfectly serviceable constitution. The fact that it is nearly 100 years old isn't a problem either. It too merely needs to be honored instead of "amended" irresponsibily on an annual basis. The Constitution of the Republic of China is a One China Constitution. There is no Two Chinas Constitution. There is no One China, One Taiwan Constitution. It doesn't need to be "interpreted." It's written in Chinese, not English.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There are] fundamental differences between the KMT's and the DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: God, I hope so. I certainly hope there are "fundamental differences between the KMT's and DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan and their definitions of democracy." God forbid that the KMT's approach to Taiwan's future and to "democracy" bear any resemblance whatsoever to the DPP's.
The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan is embodied in the Constitution of the Republic of China, which was authored by KMT party founder Sun Yat-sen. The Republic of China, or ROC, has democratic features, but it is not a democracy. It is, as its name implies, a republic. A republic is governed by its constitution.
According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, or ROC, Taiwan is a province of China. According to the Constitution of the People's Republic of China, or PRC, Taiwan is also a province of China. Both the ROC and PRC consider Taiwan a province of China.
Every one of the 25 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the ROC government in Taipei considers Taiwan a province of China. Every one of the 165 nations that maintains diplomatic relations with the PRC government in Beijing considers Taiwan a province of China. The United Nations considers Taiwan a province of China. The whole world considers Taiwan a province of China. The KMT's approach to the future of Taiwan respects both this undeniable political reality and the ROC Constitution.
The DPP's approach to the future of Taiwan on the other hand, is reflected in its 1999 Resolution on Taiwan's Future. The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future asserts that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country. Its current name is the Republic of China. It is neither a province nor a special administrative region of China."
The DPP's Resolution on Taiwan's Future is what Chinese refer to as "zi qi, qi ren" or "self-deception, and deception of others." It is a futile attempt by the DPP to convince themselves and the outside world that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
Unfortunately, try as they might, DPP officials have never been able to convince even themselves that "The Republic of China is Taiwan, and Taiwan is the Republic of China." They know "it just ain't so," and the knowledge sticks in their craw. That's why they keep returning to previous, more extreme demands for a "Taiwanese Constitution" in 2006, and a formal declaration of Taiwan independence in 2008.
See:
He Who tells a Lie
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang insists that "[There is] an issue even more crucial ... namely, how to implement a democratic mechanism that respects the public's decision. Ma has not clearly said whether the people he talks about are the 23 million people of Taiwan, or if he includes the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. The latter violates the first principle of democracy [ ! ] ... The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means of] a referendum on sovereignty ... Ma ... has no clear stance on this issue ... [He] should declare ... whether he thinks that the people of Taiwan should be allowed to decide their own future in a referendum."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they insist that "including the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait violates the first principle of democracy?" What kind of arrant nonsense is this? According to the constitutions of both the ROC government in Taipei and the PRC government in Beijing, the territory and populace on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are part of the same nation. By what right does a Quisling nomenklatura on one side of the Strait deny hundreds of millions of fellow citizens on the other side of the Strait the right to determine the future of their own nation?
What do Tsai and the DPP mean when they make the ringing declaration: "The DPP's longstanding position has been to let the people decide the future of Taiwan [by means] of a referendum on sovereignty?" Who are "the people" they refer to? Are they all of the people, or just some of the people?
Do they mean the DPP has, unbeknownst to libertarians the world over, suddenly joined the ranks of principled and consistent champions of the Right to Self-Determination? Does the DPP now champion the right of everyone, not just themselves, to secede from whatever political entity they currently live under?
Do they mean the Quisling DPP regime's "democratic" and "progressive" referendum on sovereignty will guarantee the right of others to secede from the DPP's newly founded "Nation of Taiwan?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Aborigines to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own "Kaosha Republic?"
Do they mean the DPP now champions the right of Taiwan's Hakka minority to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own Hakka republic?
The Chinese province of Taiwan is divided into 23 counties. The KMT, NP, and PFP control 17 counties. The DPP controls only six counties. The northern and eastern two-thirds of Taiwan's land area is under Pan Blue control. Taitung County, in gray, is controlled by independents who are part of the Pan Blue alliance. The outer islands, in orange, blue, and yellow are controlled by the People First Party, the Kuomintang, and the New Party respectively.
The December 2005 Municipal Elections: Pan Blue Triumph, Pan Green Debacle
Do Tsai and the DPP mean the DPP now champions the right of "Greater China" patriots to secede from any future "Republic of Taiwan" and to establish their own loyalist Chinese republic comprising the 17 Pan Blue controlled counties?
Not on your life.
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will continue misusing Republic of China citizens' hard-earned taxes for the next two years, indoctrinating Republic of China citizens into thinking of themselves as "Taiwanese, not Chinese." At the end of that period, in 2008, they will provoke a military crisis, declare a "state of national emergency," then stampede the public into rubberstamping formal independence in the name of an ersatz "Taiwanese patriotism."
What they mean is that the Quisling DPP regime will magnanimously "permit" Republic of China citizens to participate in an elaborate charade to found a "Nation of Taiwan," period. Loyal Republic of China citizens unhappy about suddenly and involuntarily transformed into "citizens of the Republic of Taiwan" will just have to lump it.
In short, the DPP's Potemkin Referendum will ensure "independence for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "secession for me, but not for thee." It will ensure "self-determination for me, but not for thee." This, the DPP apparently feels, does not "violate the first principle of democracy." This, the DPP apparently feels, qualifies as "allowing the people of Taiwan to decide their own future in a referendum."
See:
Independence for Me but not for Thee
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang maintains that "Prior to the public's making a decision, all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions. In other words, there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment. Ma, however, still opposes their abolition in clear violation of his own declaration that the public's decision will be respected. Finally, all groups must accept the results of a democratic and public decision ... any decision made by the people of Taiwan in accordance with their own free will in a referendum will be accepted by the party. The question is whether the KMT would accept a public decision in favor of Taiwan's independence or give in to China's missile threat."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai and the DPP insist that "all options should be open and there should be no biases or conditions."
If only they meant it. Unfortunately, they don't.
What do Tsai and the DPP actually mean? They mean that all options that enable them to get what they want should be open, and there should be no biases or conditions that prevent them from getting what they want. Taiwan independence Quislings are not champions of the Right to Self-Determination. Taiwan independence Quislings are champions of the Right to Self-Determination for Taiwan independence Quislings.
Tsai and the DPP assert that "there is no legitimate basis for the existence of the National Unification Council and the National Unification Guidelines, and this is also one of the main reasons why the DPP advocates their abolishment."
Excuse me, but unless Tsai and the DPP are willing to forgo enacting an "Anti-Secession Law" of their own, unless they are willing to guarantee the right of others to secede from their "Nation of Taiwan," at others' discretion, not the DPP's, unless they are willing to forgo national unity and territorial integrity for their newly founded "Nation of Taiwan," unless they are willing to see their own "Nation of Taiwan" disintegrate before their very eyes, then they had best shut their traps, cease their yammering about "no biases or conditions," and stop pretending that they occupy the moral high ground on the issue of the Right to Self-Determination.
Pan Green PC: Tsai Huang-liang concludes by saying that "The question of how to let the people of Taiwan decide the nation's future in an unbiased manner and through a referendum may be more important than accepting Taiwanese independence as an option, and it may also be the question in more urgent need of a response from Ma."
Pan Blue Rebuttal: Tsai's statement is of course, far too myopic and narrow-minded.
The real question is how to let sovereign and independent individuals decide their own futures in an unbiased manner, whether through referenda or other means. This is far more important than accepting any collective's demands for nation-building. And if truth be told, it is a question in far more urgent need of a response from Tsai Huang-liang than from Ma Ying-jeou.
Should Taiwan independence be an option?
No. Not if one has one iota of respect for Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law.
If the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland cannot be faulted for insisting that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world are serious about phasing out constitutional republicanism, then let it be for the sake of something truly worthy, for market anarchism, and not for the Taiwan independence movement's atavistic, race-based, petty tribalist "nation-building."
Is Taiwan Independence an Option?
Bevin Chu
February 24, 2006
Political independence for the island of Taiwan has been a long-smoldering controversy. Recently "President" Chen Shui-bian deliberately fanned the issue, causing it to burst into flames. Halfway into his illegal and illegitimate "second term," Chen's approval ratings had fallen to an a mere 10% according to most public opinion polls, and as low as 5% according to one poll. Chen desperately needed to divert public attention from his administration's rampant corruption and to consolidate support for himself among Taiwan independence hardliners. Therefore on January 29, 2006, Chinese New Year, Chen deliberately and maliciously dropped a political bombshell, by announcing that he was contemplating abolishing the National Unfiication Council and the National Unification Guidelines.
Chen's ploy worked, like a charm. With the notable exception of the popular TV talk show "21:00, The People Speak," whose panelists refused to be diverted from their ongoing investigation into ruling DPP malfeasance, most of the media began talking about Taiwan independence vs. Chinese reunification. Few in the media talked about the Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit (KMRT) scandal and other outrageous ruling DPP regime scandals.
Taiwan Independence, Not an Option
Is Taiwan independence an option?
The short answer is no, absolutely not.
Taiwan independence, as even Chen Shui-bian himself conceded in a moment of rare honesty, is "self-delusion [and] a myth." Taiwan independence is not a real world option by any criterion one cares to contemplate. Taiwan independence is neither constitutionally permissible, nor politically practicable, nor culturally justifiable, nor economically profitable. Taiwan independence is a non-starter, any way one looks at it.
Pan Blue Apologism
Given this harsh reality, one would think that Pan Blue political leaders would have an easy time rebutting the ridiculous claims of Pan Green demagogues. One would think that demolishing Pan Green arguments for Taiwan independence would be like shooting fish in a barrel.
Alas, this has not been the case. Pan Blue political leaders have seldom succeeded in hitting any Pan Green fish as they swam mindlessly in rhetorical circles. More often than not they have succeeded only in shooting themselves in the foot, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Long-suffering Pan Blue supporters have a expression for this phenomenon -- "you li shuo bu qin," which roughly translated means, "To be in the right, but unable to make one's case."
A February 15, 2006 China Post article entitled "KMT tries to clarify ad with independence as possibility" reports on the latest outbreak of this chronic Pan Blue ailment:
Kuomintang (KMT) leader Ma Ying-jeou and other officials yesterday scrambled to clarify an advertisement published by the party suggesting the KMT viewed independence for Taiwan as a possible option. In a front page advertisement in the independence-leaning Liberty Times the KMT's central headquarters published an ad touting democracy as a means of determining the island's future and listing independence as an option.
"The Chinese KMT firmly believes in the spirit of democracy that there are many possible options for Taiwan's future. The people should decide on these options, regardless of whether it is unification, independence or maintaining the status quo," the advertisement said.
Listing independence as an option for the island's future would run counter to the KMT's official charter and platform, which advocates eventual unification with the mainland. The advertisement was dubbed by local media yesterday as an enormous policy turnaround for Taiwan's largest opposition party.
Despite hasty damage control clarifying the "independence is an option" issue as a misunderstanding, KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou has already suffered political damage that he, the Pan Blue parties, and the Republic of China can ill afford. A February 16, 2006 ERA TV opinion poll revealed that 36.6% of the public believes that Ma's current position on reunification and independence is either "very different" or "slightly different" from what it was before the advertisement ran. Considering that Ma's approval rating stood at 80% following the December 2005 County and Municipal Elections, the perception that Ma's position now is either "very different" or "slightly different" can hardly be considered a positive development.
Lien Chan's retirement from the political stage leaves Ma Ying-jeou as the sole remaining Pan Blue leader in a position to rescue the island from Taiwan independence Quisling misrule. A Pan Blue loss in 2008 is not an option. Four more years of Pan Green "wen hua tai du" (culturally-oriented Taiwan independence) indoctrination is a prospect too appalling to contemplate. That is why public relations disasters such as the "independence is an option" fiasco must never happen again.
Unearned Guilt
"The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt."
-- Ayn Rand
How did this "independence is an option" fiasco happen? More importantly, why did it happen? Most importantly, how can it be prevented from happening ever again?
This and other similar fiascoes happened because too many Pan Blue leaders feel morally disarmed in the face of Pan Green Political Correctness. They feel morally disarmed, despite the fact that they are in the right and their Pan Green adversaries are in the wrong, because they lack confidence in their own "zhong ji tong yi" (Eventual Reunification) political ideal. As a result, Pan Green assertions of the "Right of Self-Determination" appear as sacred cows to which they must meekly yield the right of way.
Pan Blue leaders must take the time to understand the merits and demerits of Pan Blue and Pan Green ideology, inside out, backwards and forwards. Only then will Pan Blue leaders be able to look Pan Green adversaries straight in the eye, confident in the knowledge that they, not their adversaries, occupy the moral as well as legal high ground.
Pan Blue leaders must satisfy themselves that Eventual Reunification within the framework of Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law, soundly trumps petty ethnic Hoklo Fascist "nation-building" in accordance with the Rule of the Mob. Only then will Pan Blue leaders realize that they need not, nay, must not, make timid concessions to Pan Green Political Correctness.
As Ayn Rand aptly noted, "The worst guilt is to accept an unearned guilt."
Pan Blue leaders, who after all, are Chinese patriots, must recall the wisdom of the great Chinese military strategist, Sun Zi, who wrote: "Know yourself, know your enemy. A hundred battles, a hundred victories."
Self-Determination for All
Does the "Right of Self-Determination" confer legal, and more importantly, moral legitimacy on the secessionist demands of Taiwan independence Quislings? Does the "Right of Self-Determination" leave Pan Blue leaders who insist on Eventual Reunification in accordance with Constitutionalism and the Rule of Law with no leg to stand on?
Hardly. The "Right of Self-Determination" is a double-edged sword, an extremely sharp sword that cuts both ways.
As famed Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises noted in his book "Liberalism":
"The right of self-determination ... is ... the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done."
If Taiwan independence Quislings expect others to honor their demands for political secession from China, then they are obligated to honor others' demands for political secession from any "Nation of Taiwan" they might succeed in founding. If Taiwan independence Quislings refuse to honor others' demands for political secession from any "Nation of Taiwan" they might succeed in founding, then others are not obligated to honor their demands for political secession from China.
The Republic of Singapore is a sovereign and independent nation, and a member of the United Nations. With a population of just over 4 million, three-fourths of whom are ethnic Chinese, Singapore is a mere fifth the size of the Taiwan region of China, with a population just under 23 million. Using Singapore as a hypothetical standard, one could form five independent nations from the population of Taiwan.
The Republic of Nauru, a tiny island in the remote South Pacific, is also a sovereign and independent nation, also a member of the United Nations. With a population of 13,000 and a land area of 21 square kilometers, Nauru is the smallest nation on earth, in both population and land area. Using Nauru as a hypothetical standard, one could form nearly 1,800 [ ! ] independent republics from the population of Taiwan.
Principled and consistent application of the "Right of Self-Determination" would legitimize the secession of ever smaller political entities from whatever larger political entity they currently belong to, stopping only at the level of the individual. Principled and consistent application of the "Right of Self-Determination" would authorize every property owner on earth to hold a referendum, with himself as the sole voter, declare his own private plot of land a sovereign republic, and refuse to pay taxes to the nation, the state or province, the city or county in which he (formerly) resided.
During the bitter post election protests in 2004, many Pan Blue protestors suggested that rather than suffer passively as Pan Green Quislings engaged in creeping secession from China, the Pan Blue democratic majority on Taiwan ought to seize the initiative and declare an independent loyalist Chinese republic in the northern half of the island, confirm Lien Chan as Pan Blue president, pay taxes to Pan Blue officials, and leave Taiwan independence Quislings in the south to starve themselves to death with their economically suicidal protectionist policies.
As a champion of "market anarchism" aka "anarcho-capitalism," I am willing to accept the natural outcome of principled and consistent application of the "Right of Self-Determination." In fact, I welcome it.
Self-Determination for Me
Are Taiwan independence Quislings principled and consistent champions of the "Right of Self-Determination?"
Are they willing to honor demands for political independence from any would be "Republic of Taiwan" they might succeed in establishing?
Is anyone obligated to honor their self-righteous, unilateral demands for political independence from China?
The answer to all these questions is "No, no, and no."
Taiwan independence Quislings are self-centered narcissists who demand independence for themselves, but refuse to allow independence for others. I made this point in my column seven years ago, in 1999. At the time I was merely making a logical inference. Now I am citing an established fact.
To wit, a June 16, 2004 Singapore's Straits Times news article entitled "Taipei forcibly evicts hundreds who settled on leased government land as their 'country within a country.'"
TAIPEI - President Chen Shui-bian, widely believed to want independence for Taiwan, has, ironically, denied the same to a group who are the original Taiwanese - the aborigines. His government, on learning that hundreds of them have formed their own "Kaosha Republic," ordered a crackdown, sending in 500 armed police to disperse them from a site they have claimed as the seat of their republic. The police raided the 6ha site in southern Kaohsiung county early yesterday, ordering the inhabitants to evacuate before four bulldozers tore down the more than 270 illegal structures. The residents claimed they had been tricked by Chen aides, who had told them that if they supported his re-election, their "republic" would be legalised ... "A-Bian told us he would establish 'country within country' relations with the aborigines if we voted for him," said Mr Tang Chao-cheng, a self-proclaimed "Speaker" of the "Taiwan People Parliament." [The] Kaosha Republic... had its own flag and anthem, and a temporary government and parliament.
One of the most frequently heard complaints from Taiwan independence Quislings is that authorities on the Chinese mainland refuse to refrain from using force to forstall Taiwan independence.
This is perfectly true. But so what?
Ruling DPP regime behavior while suppressing Kaosha Republic independence demonstrated that Taiwan independence Quislings had no qualms whatsoever about using force to prevent Taiwan's Aborigines from seceding from their Hoklo Chauvinist "Republic of Taiwan." Not a single Pan Green champion of independence for Taiwan raised his voice in protest when their Fuhrer Chen Shui-bian ordered stormtroopers and bulldozers to forestall independence from Taiwan. Not one.
Nor did a single Pan Green champion of "Taiwan's Right of Self-Determination" raise his voice in protest when their Vice-fuhrer Annette Lu scapegoated Taiwan's Aborigines, blaming them for overdevelopment, deforestation, soil erosion, and flooding in Taiwan's central mountain range. Aboriginal victims of Tropical Storm Mindulle, Lu declared, deserved no sympathy. They should be relocated en masse to Central and South America for damaging Taiwan's ecology. The island should be left in the hands of those whom Taiwan independence fascists designate as "real Taiwanese," i.e., themselves.
BBC News Report: Aborigines protest Racial Bigotry in Taipei, demand Apology from Vice President Lu over Proposal to Ethnically Cleanse Taiwan of Aborigines
See:
原住民台北反歧視集會促呂秀蓮道歉 Aborigines protest Racial Bigotry in Taipei, demand Apology from Vice President Lu [traditional Chinese]
What right do they have to complain when Pan Blue leaders insist on defending the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of China, the first and oldest republic in Asia, one that has been in continuous existence since 1912, and whose constitution was modeled on the Constitution of the United States of America?
For that matter, what right to they have to complain when mainland Chinese authorities pass an "Anti-Secession Law" defending the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of China against undisguised Japanese Neocolonialism?
See:
Independence for Me but not for Thee
One Standard for All
"Moral judgments must be "universalizable." This notion owed something to the ancient Golden Rule... anyone who uses such terms as right and ought is logically committed to universalizability. To say that a moral judgment must be universalizable means... if I judge a particular action... to be wrong, I must also judge any relevantly similar action to be wrong. The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases... the same prescription has to be made in all hypothetically, as well as actually, similar cases."
-- Britannica.com, Ethics/20th-century Western ethics/Metaethics/Universal prescriptivism
If the nations of the world wish to adopt revolutionary new rules authorizing the "Right of Self-determination," then they are obligated to honor everyones' "Right of Self-Determination," not just some peoples' "Right of Self-Determination."
As the Britannica.com entry made abundantly clear, moral judgments must be universalizable. The same judgment must be made in all conceivable cases. The same prescription has to be made in all hypothetically as well as actually similar cases.
If, on the other hand, the nations of the world wish to abide by traditional rules governing national sovereignty and territorial integrity, then patriotic Chinese on Taiwan and the Chinese mainland are fully within their rights to insist that Taiwan independence is not an option, that Taiwan independence Quislings have no right to demand secession from China, and that the nations of the world must respect China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Pan Blue leaders can and ought to look Pan Green adversaries straight in the eye, confident in the knowledge that they, not their Pan Green adversaries, occupy the moral as well as legal high ground. Eventual Reunification within the Rule of Law framework of a long-established constitutional republic soundly trumps race-based Hoklo Fascist "nation-building" on the basis of "democratic" Mob Rule. Not only do Pan Blue leaders have no obligation to make pusillanimous concessions to Pan Green Political Correctness, they have a solemn obligation to seize the initiative and thoroughly discredit Pan Green ethnic bigotry.
The Beginning of the End, Part VIII
Live by Betrayal, Die by Betrayal
Bevin Chu
February 4, 2006
Today, as the Cold War has ended, it is time for the two sides to cast aside the hostility left from the old era. We do not need to wait further because there is a new opportunity now for the two sides to create an era of reconciliation together. The people on the two sides of the Taiwan Strait share the same ancestral, cultural, and historical background ... the leaders on both sides possess enough wisdom and creativity to jointly deal with the question of a future "one China." I fully understand that, as the popularly elected 10th-term president of the Republic of China, I must abide by the Constitution ... Therefore ... I pledge that during my term in office, I will not declare independence, I will not change the national title, I will not push forth the inclusion of the so-called "state-to-state" description in the Constitution, and I will not promote a referendum to change the status quo in regard to the question of independence or unification. Furthermore, there is no question of abolishing the Guidelines for National Unification and the National Unification Council.
-- Chen Shui-bian, May 20, 2000 Inauguration Speech
It is my belief that both sides must demonstrate a dedicated commitment to national development, and through consultation, establish a dynamic "peace and stability framework" for interactions; that we must work together to guarantee there will be no unilateral change to the status quo in the Taiwan Strait; and, additionally, we must further promote cultural, economic and trade exchanges--including the three links--for only in so doing can we ensure the welfare of our peoples while fulfilling the expectations of the international community. As the President of the Republic of China, I have been mandated by the people ... to safeguard peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait, to seek consensus and garner the collective support of all the people, and to carefully manage future relations across the Strait. Today I would like to reaffirm the promises and principles set forth in my inaugural speech in 2000. Those commitments have been honored--they have not changed over the past four years, nor will they change in the next four years.
-- Chen Shui-bian, May 20, 2004 Inauguration Speech
There are people urging that the National Unification Council and its guidelines be abolished. I think now is the appropriate time, we must seriously consider it, take a good look at it ... This kind of council and its representatives seek a unified China, and under the guidelines, even accepts the One China Principle. These are all problems ... What Chinese unification are we after? In addition to considering whether to abrogate the National Unification Council and National Unification Guidelines, I'd like to see the nation [sic] join the United Nations with the name of Taiwan. In addition, I'd like to see the draft of a new constitution completed by the end of the year so it can be put to a popular vote next year.
-- Chen Shui-bian, January 29, 2006 Luncheon Address at Matou Junior High School, Tainan County
In a previous article I asked rhetorically, "How can one tell when Chen Shui-bian is lying?"
I answered rhetorically, "His lips are moving."
As you can see, Chen Shui-bian's January 26, 2006 Tainan address betrays his May 20, 2000 Five Noes Pledge, as well as his May 20, 2004 reaffirmation of his Five Noes Pledge.
One could end this op ed piece here, except that proving that Chen Shui-bian is a chronic and habitual liar whose solemn oaths mean nothing is hardly worth the effort. Hardly anybody on Taiwan, Pan Blue or Pan Green, believes anything Chen says any more.
Scientific polls reveal public approval for the Chen Shui-bian administration at 10%. Among the business community approval is even lower -- 5%. So low it's approaching the margin of error for scientific polls, which is normally 3%.
During Chen Shui-bian's first term, Pan Green voters winked at Chen's perfidy, his deliberate breach of faith, his calculated violation of trust, his treachery. They listened to the Five Noes Pledge in Chen's inauguration speech and chuckled at each other. "A-Bian is pulling a fast one on the Pan Blues. He'll tell them one thing, then do another thing. He's lying to them for our sake."
During the 2004 Presidential Election, Pan Green voters again winked at Chen's deceit. They pretended to believe that the 319 Shooting Incident was a genuine assassination attempt, executed by the KMT and PFP with covert CCP assistance. They pretended to believe that Chen Shui-bian was "re-elected by a razor-thin margin of 20,000 odd sympathy votes," rather than resoundingly defeated by approximately one million votes.
They told themselves that as long as "their man" A-Bian was lying to the Pan Blues, their hated enemy, shameless deceit was fine with them.
Pan Green voters were pathetically naive, even more naive than those Pan Blue voters who assumed the 2004 Presidential Election would be "free and fair." Pan Green voters, no less than Pan Blue voters, should have realized that within democracy's "free and fair" electoral process, "nothing matters more than winning, not even what you believe in." Pan Green voters should have realized that if unprincipled opportunists such as Chen Shui-bian would stoop to deceiving trusting Republic of China citizens for "a higher cause," they could stoop to deceiving Taiwan independence True Believers for an even higher cause, themselves.
Now, six years later, two years into Chen's illegal, illegitimate "second term," Pan Green voters who abetted Chen's subversion of the Rule of Law are getting their comeuppance.
As a February 1, 2006 Reuters article entitled "Chen China-baiting aims to boost Taiwan popularity" reports:
Chen Shui-bian's warning he may scrap a key policy body on Chinese reunification seems aimed at stirring anti-Beijing feeling to boost his low ratings and stay relevant ahead of [the] 2008 elections. The latest comments came as the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), crushed in December local polls, looks towards the 2008 presidential race and as Chen, barred from seeking a third term, battles criticism that he is now politically irrelevant. "He is trying to use this to show he's not a lame duck, he still has the influence to decide who will be the next candidate in 2008," said Philip Yang, professor of political science at National Taiwan University. "The logic behind this series of pro-independence comments is to try to position himself back amongst DPP supporters as a pro-independence leader," Yang said.
Others agree that Chen's motives lie in positioning himself ahead of the election and in thoughts of his legacy. While he is unlikely to pursue formal independence, they say, his provocation of [mainland] China could backfire on his beleaguered party. "Of course ideally he would like to seek so-called 'creeping independence'. but everybody understands that is not possible as the U.S. would give him pressure and [mainland] China would strongly react," said George Tsai, international relations fellow at Cheng Chi University. Tsai said that if a prospective DPP presidential candidate, such as newly appointed premier Su Tseng-chang, was to have a chance, he must seek to win over "middle-of-the-road" voters, who generally have far more moderate views on Taiwan independence. "Maybe this is good for (Chen), but not good for the party, not good for Taiwan's immediate or mid-term future. Nobody is going to get any benefit except Chen himself," Tsai said.
Yang and Tsai are correct.
For nearly two decades, loyal citizens of the Republic of China have watched in frustration as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian obfuscated the crucial distinction between the Republic of China and an ersatz "Nation of Taiwan," between a republic and a democracy, between the Rule of Law and the Rule of the Mob. ROC citizens' political naivete concerning these critical distinctions has cost the Chinese people on Taiwan their lives, liberty, and happiness.
Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian, as I have reiterated, are Taiwan independence Quislings. If Taiwan independence were possible, Lee and Chen would have jumped at the chance to declare Taiwan independence, to fulfill their followers' dreams of a "Republic of Taiwan," and last but hardly least, turn themselves into "national heroes" for good measure.
But Taiwan independence is not possible. As Chen himself conceded in a moment of rare honesty, "The situation does not permit us to change the name of the country at the moment, or even during the rest of my term... Lee Teng-hui couldn't do it during his 12 year term, and I can't do it in mine. Taiwan independence is self-delusion. Taiwan independence is a myth."
As a result, Chen Shui-bian, like his predecessor Lee Teng-hui, has channeled his energies into siphoning the nation's wealth into his numbered bank account in Zurich, a task that is far more doable, not to mention far more personally rewarding.
Taiwan independence hardliners bemoan the fact that unprincipled, opportunistic Taiwan independence leaders have, one after the other, strung them along and betrayed their cause. Taiwan independence hardliners bemoan the fact that leaders such as Lee Teng-hui and Chen Shui-bian will be the death of the Taiwan independence movement.
Taiwan independence hardliners' frustration may be genuine, but is it justified?
Hardly.
The Taiwan independence movement has found itself repeatedly betrayed by treacherous opportunists because the Taiwan independence movement itself is rooted in betrayal. Taiwan "independence" is about opportunistic Chinese Quislings without a sense of honor betraying the Chinese nation for their private ambition. To expect a movement rooted in betrayal to attract leaders of integrity whose loyalty is not for sale is a psychological and ethical non-compute.
When the epitaph for Taiwan independence is written, it's going to read:
Taiwan Independence, RIP
It Lived by Betrayal. It Died by Betrayal
The Beginning of the End, Part VII
Another One Bites the Dust
Bevin Chu
January 26, 2006
Executive Summary: My previous article, "The Beginning of the End, Part VI, The DPP commits Political Suicide," described how the DPP party hierarchy has defaulted on its responsibility to redeem the party, and has instead meekly abetted Chen Shui-bian's betrayal of the DPP's once-exalted ideals. The day after I posted it, yet another former DPP chairman resigned from the party. Almost as if on cue, Lin Yi-hsiung, DPP party icon, quit the DPP in disgust. Lin is the third of seven living DPP party chairmen to resign from the party for essentially the same reason. Lin, like former DPP chairmen Shi Ming-teh and Hsu Hsing-liang before him, resigned because the DPP has sold its soul to the devil.
As a January 25, 2006 China Post article entitled "Former chairman of DPP quits party" put it:
A highly respected former chairman of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) yesterday announced his withdrawal from the ruling party ... Lin Yi-hsiung said it is pointless for him to stay in the DPP as he has no intention of being involved in any party affairs or of running for government posts under the party banner ... "With each election, ethnic groups have become more split, and class conflicts more serious. After the elections, they continue hating and fighting against each other, plunging the nation and society into disorder."
What Taiwan independence apologists in the US deceitfully characterize as "Taiwan's (lively/thriving/vibrant) democracy" is in fact vicious ethnic division and class conflict. Even Lin Yi-hsiung, a Deep Green ideologue who has never recanted his commitment to "Taiwanese" nation-building, acknowledges this grim reality. What Lin does not acknowledge is his own culpability in nurturing the very "ethnic splits and class conflicts, hating and fighting" he so righteously denounces.
Pan Blue and Pan Green intellectuals alike know that the vicious ethnic strife and class warfare plaguing Taiwan is rooted in the Taiwan independence nomenklatura's identity politics, which continually invents specious distinctions between "Chinese" (i.e., mainland Chinese) and "Taiwanese" (i.e., Chinese on Taiwan) for the sake of "Taiwanese" nation-building.
What distinguishes Pan Blue and Pan Green intellectuals is that Pan Blue intellectuals reject hate-mongering "Taiwanese" identity politics as morally despicable, while Pan Green intellectuals embrace it as "breaking a few eggs to make an omlet."
He said no one should be a permanent member of any party, whose supporters should all be temporary ones; otherwise the people would be too deeply involved in partisan politics to maintain their impartiality. He said he now has chosen to stand aloof from partisan politics to be a "master" of the country -- a position he said all ordinary people should adopt.
In other words, too many blind partisans, too many True Believers, too many "Yellow Dog" DPP supporters. Not enough independent-minded voters who think for themselves, regardless of party affiliation.
For those unfamiliar with the American expression "Yellow Dog," Wikipedia explains: In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Yellow Dog Democrats were voters in the U.S. Southern states who consistently voted for Democratic candidates — simply because of lingering resentment against Republicans during the Civil War and Reconstruction periods. The term arose from an apocryphal remark that a Southerner would vote for a yellow dog before he'd vote for a Republican.
Lin continues to be a politically influential figure. His latest attempt at exercising such influence came a few weeks ago when the DPP was arranging for a by-election of its chairman. He openly laid down conditions that would have disqualified the possible candidacies of President Chen and all former and incumbent premiers, including Yu Shyi-kun, who subsequently won the party's top post
In other words, Lin regrets having helped the opportunistic, corrupt Chen Shui-bian seize power in 2000. Lin now considers Chen and virtually all of the DPP's major players unfit to assume the role of DPP chairman and to lead the party out of its crisis.
DPP legislative whip Chen Chin-jun said that the party is very surprised by Lin's decision. Describing Lin as a "spiritual guide of democracy in Taiwan and a pillar of the DPP," Chen said that the impact on the DPP of Lin's withdrawal is more serious than the party's defeat in the December 3 local elections. Chen urged the DPP to do everything that it can to try to persuade Lin to stay. He also called for the party to conduct a serious evaluation of its operations, saying the fact that a few former DPP chairmen, including Shi Ming-teh and Hsu Hsin-liang, chose to leave reflects that there is something wrong in the party.
DPP legislative whip Chen Chin-jun is among the pitiful few DPP officials willing to say out loud what DPP leaders and followers all know. Lin's unceremonious departure is a damning indictment of the DPP, and seriously undermines public support for the party. Chen Chin-jun however, being a DPP official, was compelled to pull his punches. Cheng Li-wen was under no such compulsion.
Kuomintang (KMT) spokeswoman Cheng Li-wen said Lin's leaving the DPP means the party is "at a loss, in despair and in mourning" after losing its idealism. Cheng said Lin's decision carried such "great political significance" that the DPP could no longer hide from critical issues such as rampant corruption inside the party and the loss of passion in pursuit of its ideals. She said Lin was the third former chairman to quit the party, after Shih and Hsu. All of them are from the party's older generation that championed Taiwan's democratic movement, she pointed out. If the older generation stands for the DPP's soul and founding spirit, Lin's withdrawal from the party signifies that the party has lost its soul as well as its idealistic character, Cheng said. She said Lin's decision to leave at a time when a new Cabinet and a new DPP chairman were about to be sworn in is heaping much pressure on the party. "This is also a time for the DPP to stop being an ostrich and face reform issues squarely," she said.
KMT spokeswoman Cheng Li-wen, as usual, is right on target. Cheng ought to know. Cheng was formerly a DPP National Assemblywoman. Cheng was among the DPP's elite corps of forward-thinking Young Turks. Like Sisy Chen, Cheng was drummed out of the party for being too idealistic, too principled, too consistent. Like Sisy Chen, she called the DPP to account when it failed to live up to its loudly-trumpeted ideals. No longer a DPP official, Cheng Li-wen had no need to pull her punches.
The DPP has experienced a "loss of passion in pursuit of its ideals" because DPP leaders and followers realize their central ideal, Taiwan independence, is an impossible pipe dream, and don't know where to go from here.
As Chen Shui-bian, in a moment of rare honesty conceded, "I will not change the country's national title during my term in office... the situation does not permit us to change the name of the country at the moment, or even during the rest of my term... Lee Teng-hui couldn't do it during his 12 year term, and I can't do it in mine. Taiwan independence is self-delusion. Taiwan independence is a myth."
The DPP is a vehicle stuck in the mud. Its wheels spin madly, but the vehicle goes nowhere. An even better metaphor might be that the DPP is a ship without a rudder. The oarsmen row frantically, but the ship only travels in circles.
KMT legislative whip Pan Wei-kang suggested that the DPP undergo self-examination to determine whether its direction meets the expectations of all its members and the people of the country. She said Lin has shown his disappointment with the DPP, and that the people do not have faith in the government. KMT Legislator Wu Yu-sheng said he believes Lin wanted to leave the DPP because of his frustration with the performance of President Chen as well as of the party. Lin Huei-kuan, a legislative whip of the People First Party, echoed Wu's comments, saying he believes Lin must be very dissatisfied with President Chen's intervention in the formation of the new Cabinet headed by his designated premier, Su Tseng-chang.
Pan Wei-kang, Wu Yu-sheng, and Lin Huei-kuan have put their fingers on a key point.
A number of DPP officials have attempted to spin the DPP's string of setbacks at the polls as dissatisfaction with Chen Shui-bian individually, but not with the DPP collectively. This is nonsense. The Chinese people on Taiwan are dissatisfied not merely with Chen Shui-bian's flagrant corruption, but also with the DPP's Taiwan independence agenda.
Lin Yi-hsiung resigned from the DPP not merely because he was disgusted with Chen's performance as president, but because he was thoroughly disillusioned with the DPP as a political force. Su Tseng-chang's bogus "new" cabinet, populated by spineless Chen Shui-bian lackeys, reflecting zero commitment to genuine reform, was merely the last straw.
Even the DPP's ally, the Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), described Lin's departure as a warning for the DPP. TSU whip Ho Min-hao said Lin was probably frustrated by the fact that President Chen has failed to listen to his advice and has continued sticking to his authoritarian style. "This (Lin's departure) is a serious warning for the DPP," said Ho, suggesting that the DPP government listen more to the voice of the people. "
Taiwan independence fellow travelers committed to their simplistic dichotomy of an "authoritarian [mainland] Chinese Goliath vs. a democratic Taiwanese David" may find it easy to rationalize away the flak from the Pan Blue camp, but how are they going to explain away the even heavier flak from the Deep Green camp?
The DPP's political death by suicide at its own hand continues apace.
The Beginning of the End, Part VI
The DPP commits Political Suicide
Bevin Chu
January 24, 2006
"I will not change the country's national title during my term in office... the situation does not permit us to change the name of the country at the moment, or even during the rest of my term... Lee Teng-hui couldn't do it during his 12 year term, and I can't do it in mine. Taiwan independence is self-delusion. Taiwan independence is a myth."
-- "President" Chen Shui-bian, February 2005
The December 3, 2005 three-in-one County and Municipal Elections were a Pan Green debacle. Even Pan Green spin-controllers don't deny it. More than a debacle, they were a wake-up call. They were a warning to the Taiwan independence leadership to open their eyes and smell the coffee. They were a last chance for "President" Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party to see the light before voters give up on them forever. If Chen and the DPP refuse to reflect on their mistakes, and continue on their economically suicidal march toward Taiwan independence, the DPP will be finished as a political force.
See:
KMT crushes DPP in landslide victory
Leaders of the DPP's New Tide Faction have traditionally been the leading edge theoreticians, the "deep thinkers" of the party. Several New Tide Faction leaders have warned their comrades that unless the DPP radically reinvents itself in short order, support for the party will plummet to historic lows in upcoming elections. The DPP will then be done for, the way most eastern European Communist parties were done for during the final years of the Cold War.
So how have Chen and the DPP reacted to the December debacle?
Chen Shui-bian, in an effort to avoid blame for the catastrophic defeat, went into hiding for nine straight days, during which he was neither seen nor heard. On the tenth day, he showed his face at an ROC naval base, but pointedly avoided mentioning the election. In fact, Chen remained tight-lipped for the rest of December.
During Chen's silence, pundits speculated about what was going on in Chen's mind.
Political naifs assured the public that Chen was engaged in "bi men si guo" (contemplation of mistakes behind closed doors) and "xu xin jian tao" (humble self-reflection). They assured the public that Chen had internalized the painful lesson of the election, and would soon order an about face to his administration's suicidal march toward Taiwan independence.
Political veterans begged to differ. They reminded the public that Chen's concern has never been the future of 23 million Chinese on Taiwan, or even the future of Chen's own Democratic Progressive Party. Chen's sole concern has always been the Care and Feeding of Number One Himself. Chen, political veterans insisted, was busy devising schemes to prevent himself from becoming a "po ya" (lame duck) during his illegitimate second term, and to retain power even after the expiration of the constitutionally mandated eight-year, two-term limit in 2008. Since Chen was a scoundrel whose first and last refuge was ersatz "Taiwanese" patriotism, Chen would consolidate support for his corrupt, discredited regime by pandering to the minority of hard core Taiwan independence fundamentalists within the Pan Green camp.
Sure enough, on New Years Day, 2006, Chen Shui-bian broke his month-long silence and proved the political veterans right.
According to a January 2, 2006 Taipei Times article entitled, "Chen to tighten cross-strait policies" NEW YEAR MESSAGE:
The president focused on the military threat posed by [mainland] China ... as he announced changes to cross-strait policy. In his New Year's address yesterday, President Chen Shui-bian said that he would not bow to pressure from the opposition parties and [mainland] China to relax his cross-strait policies, in a surprisingly strong speech that defied the expectations of pundits. Chen reminded the public of [mainland] China's strong ambition to annex [sic] Taiwan, and said that his administration's new mindset and course of action for future cross-strait economic and trade policies would adopt "active management, effective opening," rather than the "active opening, effective management" that has been in place since 2001 ... Chen's clear signal that he would tighten cross-strait policies was at the heart of his message ... Chen said that no matter how cross-strait relations develop, Taiwan will adhere to [its] sovereignty ... With regard to Taiwan's future, no leeway will be given for ... choices that [preclude] ... or in any way [contravene this principle].
Financial and political analysts from more enlightened parts of the world were flabbergasted. They expected Chen to respect the clearly expressed desire of the people on Taiwan for reconciliation in the short term, and reunification in the long term. They expected Chen to loosen, not tighten cross Straits policies. They were bewildered by Chen's authoritarian behavior, so utterly at odds with the behavior of any enlightened leader in any modern nation.
They shouldn't have been.
Had they had stared unflinchingly into the dark heart of Taiwan's "lively/thriving/vibrant democracy," instead of viewing it through the Taiwan Lobby's rose-colored glasses, they would have seen that Taiwan is a not a "democracy," but a racist, cronyist dictatorship lorded over by a Ferdinand Marcos/Mohammed Suharto-style Asian strongman. They would have realized that Chen Shui-bian is actually less responsive to the will of the people on Taiwan than PRC General Secretary Hu Jintao is to the will of the people on the Chinese mainland. They would have known that on December 1, 2005, two days before the election, Chen Shui-bian openly threatened ROC voters, warning them that if they failed to deliver his party a victory at the polls, he would punish them by tightening, not relaxing cross Straits policies.
Am I making this up? How could I? Millions of television viewers on Taiwan who saw and heard Chen's speech on television can confirm the veracity of what I said. Skeptics need only consult archival video footage of Chen's exclusive interview with Taiwan's ETTV cable channel network.
Chen cares nothing about the Republic of China, the nation he ostensibly leads, but whose citizens' hard-earned wealth he has diverted into his own pockets and the pockets of his cronies. Chen cares little more about the DPP, the party he ostensibly leads, but whose long-term political fortune he has sacrificed for his short-term political survival. Chen cares for nothing and nobody, except his immediate family and a handful of cronies. And as fellow Kaohsiung Mass Rapid Transit graft scandal co-conspirator Chen Che-nan recently discovered, even Chen Shui-bian's cronies had better watch their backs.
Six years ago, in 2000, Taiwan independence fundamentalists supported Chen unconditionally. They idolized him. He was their beloved Man of the People. He was their affectionately-named "A-Bian."
Six years later, in 2006, opinion polls show public approval for Chen at a low of 5%. [ ! ] You read that right. Approval ratings in the single-digits. Contrast this with Richard Nixon, whose approval rating in August 1974, on the eve of his resignation due to the Watergate scandal, bottomed out at 24%.
For public approval of a sitting Pan Green "president" to fall below double-digits into the single-digit range requires not just Pan Blue opposition, but total Pan Green disillusionment. Don't take my word for it. Come visit Taipei. At Chiang Kai-shek Airport grab a taxicab, any taxicab, even one belonging to the All People's Taxi Company, whose drivers were once uncritical A-Bian boosters. Ask the cabbie if he still believes that his former political idol gives a damn about working stiffs such as himself, then brace yourself for the stream of invective to follow.
In order to save their political party, the DPP party hierarchy must demonstrate "the vision thing." They must jettison the corrupt, opportunistic Chen, who has run the party's image into the ground. They must forksake Chen's discredited Taiwan independence agenda, which has bankrupted the island's economy. They must embrace former DPP chairman Hsu Hsing-liang's "Da Dan Xi Jing" (Bold Advance Westward), the "West" in this case meaning the Chinese mainland.
As the quote from Chen Shui-bian at the beginning of this article suggests, the DPP party hierarchy knows what it must do, not only to save their political party, but also to save Taiwan.
What has the DPP party hierarchy done?
Nothing.
The overwhelming majority of the DPP's party hierarchy defaulted on the solemn responsibility of challenging Chen's defiant, drunk with power "Yuan Dan Wen Gao" (New Years Address). Lacking the courage to "Speak Truth to Power," they have chosen their own short-term political survival over their party's long-term political fortune. In doing so, they have all but sealed the fate of both the DPP and the Taiwan independence movement. The DPP has committed political suicide.
The First Atrocity
Freedom House's Crimes against the Truth
Bevin Chu
December 23, 2005
"The U.S. major media and much of the minor media are not free and independent, as they claim. They are not the watchdog of democracy but the lapdog of the national security state. They help reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. The first atrocity, the first war crime committed in any war of aggression by the aggressors is against the truth."
-- Michael Parenti, political scientist, from his essay "The Media and their Atrocities"
I have quoted Michael Parenti many times before, and make no apology for quoting him yet again.
Am I afraid of sounding like a broken record?
Not at all. Parenti's scathing observation is as relevant today as when he originally made it. It will remain relevant as long as interventionist-oriented media, thinktanks, and pundits in the US insist on reversing the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers.
Let's examine one of Freedom House's crimes against the truth. On December 21, 2005, a Taipei Times article entitled "Taiwan makes progress on liberties, GAINING GROUND," reported that:
The US-based Freedom House gave the nation [sic] the highest mark on both political rights and civil liberties, while [mainland] China was again dubbed ``not free.'' Taiwan has made progress on rights and liberties in the past year, according to the latest report by the US-based organization Freedom House. Beginning in 1978, the Freedom House has released its annual Freedom in the World report in mid-December every year. Countries are ranked from one to seven in two categories -- political rights and civil liberties -- with one the top score. In this year's report, Taiwan won the top score in both categories and was one of 88 countries listed as "free" out of 129 total nations. Fifty-eight countries were listed as "partially free" and 45 countries -- including [mainland] China -- were judged "not free." "Freedom House has affirmed that Taiwan is a highly-developed democratic country [sic]. The glory belongs to all Taiwanese [sic] people," Government Information Office Minister Pasuya Yao said yesterday. "It is also a recognition of the government's hard work and efforts to protect and promote human rights, as well as advance democracy," Yao said. Yao pointed out [mainland] China's poor performance again in this year's report. Yao said that the [mainland] Chinese government's efforts and achievements on the economy were recognized and remarkable. However, Freedom House identified [mainland] China as "not a free country," a clear sign that there is still much room for the [mainland] Chinese government to improve when it comes to democracy and human rights, he said. Freedom House said it will release another index sometime next spring. In that index, there will more specific categories, including "the process of elections," "political diversity," "freedom of religion," "freedom of establishing companies," and "justice."
As usual, I have corrected the Taipei Times' intentionally misleading references to Taiwan as a "nation," and to mainland China as "China." This devious practice on the part of Taiwan independence activists and Taiwan independence fellow travelers attempts to convey the impression that "Taiwan" is the name of a nation rather than a province, that "China" refers only to the mainland portion of China, and that Taiwan is not an integral part of China.
The Taipei Times, as readers of this column know full well, is the English language mouthpiece for the Taiwan independence movement. The Taipei Times is not so much a newspaper, as the quasi-official propaganda organ for the Taiwan independence movement.
The Taipei Times, however, is not the target of my criticism. The target of my criticism at the moment is the Orwellian-named Freedom House, a lapdog of the national security state in watchdog of democracy clothing. Freedom House is apparently determined to play the role of heartless, soulless, conscienceless mouthpiece for America's global interventionist ruling elite. I have commented on this in the past, but Freedom House is a repeat offender, therefore my remarks bear repeating as well.
In fact, Freedom House is not merely a repeat offender, it is an escalating offender. Freedom House, despite being confronted with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, has become increasingly indifferent to the truth. Consider for example Freedom House's annual "Freedom in the World" report, which classified Taiwan's cronyist dictatorship as "Free" in the face of conclusive and damning evidence to the contrary, for at least two years in a row.
Freedom House divides freedom into two categories, PR for Political Rights, and CL for Civil Liberties. A rating of 1 represents the most free and a rating of 7 the least free. An up or down arrow ▲ ▼ next to each of the categories indicates a change in Political Rights or Civil Liberties since the previous survey, for better or worse. A star * next to the country or territory rated indicates a so-called "electoral democracy."
In Freedom House's just released annual report, Taiwan received a "Taiwan* / PR 1▲ / CL 1 / Free" rating. Taiwan received a star "*" next to its name, indicating an electoral democracy; a rating of "1▲" for Political Rights, indicating an improvement [sic!] in political rights since the last survey; and a rating of "1" for Civil Liberties, indicating no deterioration [sic!] in civil liberties since the last survey.
As Freedom House put it, "In addition to the countries that registered a status improvement in 2005, 19 countries showed gains in freedom that, while significant, did not produce a change in their overall freedom designation: Brazil, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Ghana, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Israel, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Namibia, Romania, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, and Vietnam.
Whether the other 18 countries or territories on Freedom House's list in fact experienced gains in freedom is not my immediate concern. My immediate concern is Freedom House's appallingly high rating for Taiwan. For Freedom House to give Chen Shui-bian's cronyist dictatorship a "Taiwan* / PR 1▲ / CL 1 / Free" rating is a slap in the face of 23 million Republic of China citizens on Taiwan, not to mention an insult to their intelligence.
Republic of China citizens on Taiwan have endured six years of Chen Shui-bian regime misrule, right on the heels of 12 years of Lee Teng-hui regime misrule. They have made their own evaluation of Taiwan's 18 year long Green Terror abundantly clear by the way they have responded to public opinion polls, by the way they have taken to the streets in protest, and perhaps most dramatically, by the way over one million of them have picked themselves up bodily and moved to mainland China, which Freedom House stubbornly persists in classifying as Unfree instead of Partly Free.
Chen Shui-bian's approval ratings have fallen from a high of just under 80% immediately following his Y2K "New Centrist Path" Inaugural Speech, to 10% [ ! ] immediately following the island-wide 2005 Three in One County and Municipal Elections.
See:
TVBS Poll Center Approval Ratings for Nine Major Political Figures following the Three in One Elections [traditional Chinese]
Contrast this with Freedom House's patently absurd raised rating for Taiwan, as well as Freedom House's lowered rating for Russia: "Russia / PR 6 / CL 5 / Not Free."
As Freedom House put it: "In Russia -- whose freedom status Freedom House lowered from Partly Free to Not Free one year ago -- the Putin leadership's anti-democratic tendencies appeared, if anything, more pronounced in 2005" and has "adopted policies that will make it more difficult for the development of a genuine civil society and will impede the development of a democratic political opposition."
Assuming Russia in fact deserved to be downgraded from Partly Free to Unfree, why didn't Taiwan deserve to be downgraded from Free to Partly Free? Especially when officials of Chen Shui-bian's own party are openly demanding revocation of Chen's party membership, and once his membership has been revoked, his impeachment. Especially when Chen Shui-bian's own vice-presidential running mate, Annette Lu, has all but admitted that the Chen regime's anti-democratic tendencies were if anything more pronounced in 2005, and has adopted policies that will make it more difficult for the preservation of a genuine civil society, and will impede the development of a democratic political opposition.
Why didn't Freedom House lower Taiwan from Free to Partly Free? It wouldn't be because Chen is only too willing to play the part of US pawn in the Western Pacific in opposition to mainland China's peaceful renaissance, would it?
Why did Freedom House lower Russia from Partly Free to Not Free? It wouldn't be because Putin has formed a strategic alliance with mainland China, France, and Germany, in open opposition to US Benevolent Global Hegemony, would it?
The Far Eastern Economic Review can hardly be dismissed as an apologist for Beijing. Yet even the Far Eastern Economic Review, in a post-mortem of the December 3, 2005 Three in One Elections entitled "A Referendum On President Chen," correctly observed that:
The pangreen bloc had long portrayed itself as the main force behind democratization and claimed the KMT sought to return the country to authoritarian rule. In the past this tactic worked; Taiwan needed a viable opposition party to have competitive elections and thus a working democracy. After Mr. Chen’s victory in 2000, he claimed that Taiwan’s democracy had been consolidated and most found his words credible.
But gradually there was as much or more heard about “green terror” (meaning Mr. Chen’s authoritarian tendencies) as about “white terror” (past KMT oppression). Going into this election, the Chen administration’s searching of newspaper offices, confiscation of magazines, shutting down of unfriendly television stations, and banning of news representatives from [mainland] China were all on voters’ minds. Reflecting that this was more than just panblue rhetoric, the Paris-based Reporters Without Borders declared there has been a marked decline in press freedom in Taiwan under Mr. Chen.
On ... corruption, President Chen and the DPP were clearly no longer seen by the electorate as the “guys in white hats.” The DPP had long scored points with voters on KMT corruption and vote-buying. During the 2000 elections and since, it has spoken loudly and often of Taiwan being ruined by “black gold” (the connection between politicians and criminals creating “money politics”), and linked corruption, especially vote buying, to the KMT’s vast property and money holdings. Many voters were persuaded this was a blight on the country and voted pangreen.
Since 2000, however, the Chen administration has been linked frequently to money scandals and use of government money to its partisan advantage. This includes using publicly funded television to run programs that advance pangreen causes and laud President Chen. And the DPP has not been short of cash as it was in earlier elections.
The ugly reality of a 18-year long reign of Taiwan independence Green Terror is hardly classified information. Twenty-three million Republic of China citizens on Taiwan are aware of it. The anti-censorship watchdog organization Reporters Without Borders is aware of it. The Far Eastern Economic Review is aware of it.
Is Freedom House truly unware of it?
If Freedom House is genuinely unaware of Taiwan's Green Terror, then Freedom House is so pathetically clueless it is unqualified to pass judgment on whether Taiwan is or is not free.
If, on the other hand, Freedom House is aware of Taiwan's Green Terror, yet has chosen to withold this information from an uninformed public, then Freedom House is so morally bankrupt it has disqualified itself from passing judgment on whether any political entity is or is not free.
Freedom House's homepage includes a long-winded, self-congratulatory mission statement:
Freedom House is an independent non-governmental organization that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom is possible only in democratic political systems in which the governments are accountable to their own people; the rule of law prevails; and freedoms of expression, association, belief and respect for the rights of minorities and women are guaranteed. Freedom ultimately depends on the actions of committed and courageous men and women. We support nonviolent civic initatives in societies where freedom is denied or under threat and we stand in opposition to ideas and forces that challenge the right of all people to be free. Freedom House functions as a catalyst for freedom, democracy, and the rule of law through its analysis, advocacy, and action. Freedom House is a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world ... Freedom House has been a vigorous proponent of democratic values and a steadfast opponent of dictatorships of the far left and the far right. Since its founding, Freedom House has vigorously opposed tyranny including dictatorships in Latin America, apartheid in South Africa, and Soviet Communism and domination of Eastern and Central Europe, and religiously-based totalitarian regimes including Sudan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Freedom House is a leading advocate of the world's young democracies that are coping with the debilitating legacies of tyranny, dictatorship, and political repression. We conduct an array of advocacy, education, and training initiatives that promote human rights, democracy, free market economics, the rule of law, independent media, and US engagement in international affairs. Freedom House's annual standard-setting publications draw attention to global trends in democracy and cast a public light upon dictatorships and abuse. Freedom in the World, Freedom of the Press, Nations in Transit, and Countries at the Crossroads are regularly used as references by international journalists, press freedom advocates, policy-makers, non-governmental organizations, the US government, and the global business community.
Freedom House's mission statement is a hodge-podge of lies, half-truths, and unintentionally ironic truisms. Ultimately however, Freedom House's mission statement is nothing more than hypocritical posturing.
Freedom House betrays its actual mission in a final, revealing remark:
Our diverse Board of Trustees is united in the view that American leadership in international affairs is essential to the cause of human rights and freedom.
Translation: Imperium Americanus uber alles. Or should I say, Amerikanisches Reich uber alles? The American Empire above all. Long live the World Policeman. Long live the Unipolar Moment. Anyone who obediently falls in line behind this Benevolent Global Hegemonist/Humanitarian Interventionist strategic premise will be duly anointed as "Free." Anyone who insists on marching to a different drummer will be summarily branded as "Unfree."
As Michael Parenti noted:
Media bias usually does not occur in random fashion; rather it moves in more or less consistent directions, favoring ... U.S. dominance of the Third World ... Some critics complain that the press is sensationalistic and invasive. In fact, it is more often muted and evasive ... Sometimes the suppression includes not just vital details but the entire story itself, even ones of major import.
To wit: Chen Shui-bian's patently phony March 19, 2004 Wag the Dog "assassination attempt" and brazenly undisguised March 20, 2004 election fraud.
Reports that might reflect poorly upon the national security state are least likely to see the light of day. Thus we hear about political repression perpetrated by officially designated "rogue" governments, but information about ... U.S.-sponsored surrogate forces in the Third World and other crimes committed by the U.S. national security state are denied public airing, being suppressed with a consistency that would be called "totalitarian" were it to occur in some other countries.
To wit: the Bush II regime's rubberstamping of Chen Shui-bian's illegal and illegitimate second term that has inflicted an additional four years of pain and suffering upon the Chinese people on Taiwan.
Freedom House has not conducted itself as an independent NGO that supports the expansion of freedom in the world. Freedom House has not supported nonviolent civic initatives on Taiwan in the wake of the fraudulent 2004 Presidential Election, when freedom was denied and under threat. Freedom House has not stood in opposition to rightwing Taiwan independence fascism. Freedom House has not functioned as a catalyst for freedom and the rule of law on Taiwan, through either its analysis, advocacy, or actions. Freedom House has not been a voice for freedom on Taiwan. Freedom House has not been an opponent of Taiwan's Pan Green dictatorship. Freedom House has not been an advocate of a beleaguered Republic of China, struggling to cope with the debilitating legacies of Japanese colonialism and US neocolonialism.
In short, Freedom House is not a watchdog of democracy, but a lapdog of the national security state. Freedom House helps reverse the roles of victims and victimizers, warmongers and peacekeepers, reactionaries and reformers. Freedom House's first atrocity, its first crime, is against the truth.
The Beginning of the End, Part V
Ma Ying-jeou's Triumph
Bevin Chu
December 6, 2005
During the 2004 Republic of China Presidential Election, incumbent Chen Shui-bian staged a phony Wag the Dog "assassination attempt," then rigged the poll results, cheating challenger Lien Chan out of a victory he won fair and square, and the 53% majority of ROC citizens who voted for him out of the leader of their choice.
One year later, Lien Chan completed a history-making "Journey of Peace" to the Chinese mainland, during which he eclipsed Chen Shui-bian and performed an end run around the Taiwan independence movement. Lien Chan had triumphed over illegal usurper Chen Shui-bian.
Two years later, on December 3, 2005, the Pan Blue camp, under the leadership of Ma Ying-jeou, swept the "three in one" County Magistrate, Mayoral, County and City Councilor Elections. Pan Blue candidates won 17 out of the 23 County Magistrate seats. The KMT accounted for 14, up from its previous nine. The New Party and People First Party accounted for another two. An independent accounted for one more.
The DPP on the other hand, lost three of its previous nine seats, hanging on to only six in its traditional stronghold in the Southwest, and several of those by the skin of their teeth. Lee Teng-hui's Deep Green TSU failed to win a single seat.
Ma Ying-jeou, Lien's successor, had scored a second, deeply satisfying triumph over Chen Shui-bian, the DPP, and the Taiwan independence movement.
The December 2005 Municipal Elections: Pan Blue Triumph, Pan Green Debacle
As readers of this column know, I have long maintained that the US major media invariably gets Taiwan politics wrong. Not just slightly off, but dead wrong, the diametric opposite of the truth.
This time, I'm happy to say, they have gotten it right. According to a December 3, 2005 Associated Press news article entitled "Taiwan opposition wins local elections":
TAIPEI, Taiwan - Taiwan's opposition Nationalist Party won an overwhelming victory in island-wide municipal elections Saturday, putting it in position to push its agenda of reunification with [mainland] China during the 2008 presidential campaign.
With more than 97 percent of the votes counted, Nationalist candidates or Nationalist allies won 17 of the 23 constituencies, while candidates of President Chen Shui-bian's ruling Democratic Progressive Party were assured of victory in six, according to results from the Central Election Commission. The results constituted a huge vote of confidence in Nationalist Party Chairman Ma Ying-jeou, who was elected to office five months ago. He likely will lead the party's ticket in the 2008 presidential poll.
The Nationalists' policy is eventual reunification with rival [mainland] China. Beijing has refused to talk with Chen because it sees him as a strong supporter of Taiwanese independence, unalterably opposed to the Nationalist platform of reunification.
On Thursday, Ma dramatically raised the stakes in the municipal elections, saying he would step down as Nationalist chief if the Nationalists failed to win more than half of the 21 major races.
Ma strongly supported former Nationalist chairman Lien Chan's groundbreaking visit to the mainland earlier this year and expressed hope that he would be the leader to break the long-standing enmity between Taipei and Beijing. In contrast to the Nationalists, Chen and the DPP support strengthening the island's status as a self-governing entity. In the final days of the campaign, Chen repeatedly referred to the Nationalists' China policies in an effort to energize independence-leaning voters. "The result of these local elections will decide the future of cross-straits relations," he said.
The 2005 three in one elections should, in principle, have remained nothing more than routine local elections. But Chen Shui-bian insisted on turning them into something more, and Ma Ying-jeou obliged him. As a result, the 2005 three in one elections were upgraded to a defacto referendum on Taiwan independence.
The outcome of that referendum speaks for itself. The Chinese people on Taiwan voted, for the umpteenth time, in favor of Chinese reunification and against Taiwan independence.
So why did Chen Shui-bian do it? Didn't he know the December 2005 three in one elections would probably be a repeat of the March 2004 Presidential Election, before Chen regime flunkies in the Central Election Commission reverse-engineered the results? Didn't he know the elections would probably be a repeat of the December 2004 Legislative Election, which confirmed that Chen lost the Presidential Election? Didn't he know that the elections would probably be a Pan Blue victory and a Pan Green defeat?
Of course he did. Annette Lu, during the week before election day, freely conceded that her own party would be defeated at the polls.
Chen upped the ante anyway because he knew the elections were not going to be routine. Six straight years of brazen, in-your-face Chen regime looting of the public coffers had turned run of the mill local elections into a vote of non-confidence in Chen individually, in the DPP and TSU as political parties, and in Taiwan independence as a political goal.
Rather than bear personal responsibility for a catastrophic defeat for the DPP politically, and the Taiwan independence movement ideologically, Chen attempted to spread the responsibility around by playing the always reliable "Us vs. Them" card.
Self-hating Sinophobic and Japanophilic appeals to an artificially fabricated "Taiwanese, not Chinese" national identity have always been able to consolidate support for Pan Green political candidates in the past. Chen assumed that such appeals would work again this time, successfully shifting voter attention away from his own malfeasance.
Chen figured wrong. Twelve years of Pan Green misrule under "Father of Taiwan" Lee Teng-hui began the hollowing out of Taiwan's economy. Six years of Pan Green misrule under "Son of Taiwan" Chen Shui-bian completed the process, leaving Taiwan the poorest of the Four Asian Tigers, with unemployment at record highs and one person on Taiwan committing suicide every two hours.
Damning evidence revealed that "President" Chen, "Premier" Frank Hsieh, and Chen campaign benefactor and Kaohsiung Rapid Transit Corporation (KRTC) Vice Chairman Chen Min-hsien were embezzling astronomical sums from the KRTC project and Taiwan High-Speed Rail Corporation (THSRC) project.
Damning evidence revealed that First Lady Wu Shu-chen, Deputy Secretary General of the Presidential Office Chen Che-nan, and Deputy Chief of Staff Ma Yung-chen were engaged in insider trading, right inside the Presidential Palace, and even misusing Presidential Office clerical staff for the purpose.
Damning evidence revealed that the "Two Chens," Chen Che-nan and Chen Min-hsien, were engaged in laundering their ill-gotten gains at gambling casinos on Cheju Island, Korea and Macau.
In the face of such damning evidence, even DPP party faithful were no longer buying the Politically Correct Pan Green "We Taiwanese have to stick together against those Chinese" line.
On December 3, 2005, the Chinese people on Taiwan did what Chinese people throughout China's 5,000 year history have always done when corrupt, decadent regimes indifferent to their survival brought them to the brink of ruin. They rebelled. To paraphrase the famous line from Paddy Chayevsky's wicked satire "Network," they decided they were "mad as hell, and not going to take it any more."
The result was a repudiation of Chen Shui-bian as a political leader, of the DPP as a political party, and of Taiwan independence as a political ideal.
The result was a ringing affirmation of KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou and New Party Chairman Yok Mu-ming's calls for Pan Blue unity, an unmistakable rejection of PFP Chairman James Soong's partisan selfishness, and a resounding reaffirmation of Chinese reunification as an overarching, long term political objective.
As if to underscore the significance of the election results, the Taiwan Stock Exchange index shot up 119 points, amost 2 percent, on the very first trading day following the elections, to close at a 16 week high.
According to a Tuesday, Dec 06, 2005, BLOOMBERG news report "TAIEX closes at 16-week high":
OPTIMISM: Investors responded favorably to the KMT's gains in Saturday's elections, sending the TAIEX up almost 2 percent, with fund inflows also boosting the NT dollar. The TAIEX index climbed to a 16-week high after gains by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) in Saturday's local government elections boosted hopes of better relations with [mainland] China ... "The setback for the pro-independence ruling party should reduce worries over independence and ease political risks," said Victor Shih, who helps manage the equivalent of US$2.4 billion at HSBC Asset Management Taiwan in Taipei. "The government may also adopt a more open policy toward [mainland] China." he said. The TAIEX rose 119.36, or 1.9 percent, to 6,348.31 at the 1:30pm close in Taipei, the highest since Aug. 12 ... About eight stocks gained for each that fell. Futures due this month climbed 2.3 percent to 6,363. The outcome of the election, in which the KMT won a majority of local government seats, was a setback for President Chen Shui-bian and is seen as a barometer for the 2008 presidential campaign ... Recent polls predicted a poor performance for the governing Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). The election "is a strong message to the government that people are not satisfied with its performance," said Andrew Yang, secretary-general of the Council for Advanced Policy Studies. "President Chen should try to be more conciliatory with the opposition to deliver more effective, better linkages with [mainland] China," he said. Boosted by the election result, the New Taiwan dollar also rose yesterday, adding to its two-week gain on optimism a new government will end the troubled relationship with [mainland] China and deal with allegations of corruption. "The election result is what overseas investors were hoping for and the fund inflows will help the Taiwan dollar," said Gary Huang, a currency trader at Union Bank of Taiwan in Taipei. "The result may also lead to more conciliatory policies toward [mainland] China."
