Share this

Jun 20, 2009

Round up

First, I have a post on Taiwan Matters about Ma's rather out of the blue proposal for cross-strait cooperation on publishing a dictionary. See it here.


Second, Reuters' Ralph Jennings mistook me for Tim Maddog, apparently due to overlooking the byline on this post about my Liberty Times editorial. I personally disliked two lines in Ralph's blog post:
China claims sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan. Ma, Taiwan’s president, likes China. The opposition and the blogger don’t like either.
Why not also highlight that Ma not only likes but claims China? The opposition's, and Maddog's, main objection to both the KMT and the CCP policy is the false assertion that they are the single legitimate government of a single country. That is the root cause for the troubled waters in the Taiwan Strait.

Ralph also implies I'm somehow on the DPP pay roll as and advisor, which would be sweet, but it's not true.
The editorial text identifies Cox as an American-born, one-time student of Mandarin Chinese who gives advice to Taiwan’s main opposition party.
I'm flattered that Mr. Jennings keeps both myself and Tim Maddog on his mind.

Finally, after having read others' comments on this blog and at Taiwan Matters, I have decided the DPP referendum on holding a referendum for the ECFA really is stupid after all, if only because a successful referendum boycott could be billed as an ECFA endorsement. The referendum should have been worded so that if it failed to pass, the result would look like a rejection of the ECFA.

11 comments:

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
The DPP should be launching a campaign to have a referendum on ECFA itself.

It should be a well-articulated campaign explaining why it it, indeed, involves Taiwan's sovereignty.

The DPP should be hitting hard, not pussy-footing around with a referendum on a referendum. That's just stupid in concept. Period.
.
.
.

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
Oh, and as I said at Taiwan Matters, the referendum on a referendum plays directly into the hands of the KMT. PandaMa has already stated that having a referendum on everything will slow government to a halt. Believe me, the KMT will win this round (and a crucial round for Taiwan) if the DPP continue with this ill-conceived idea.
.
.
.

Taiwan Echo said...

RE: Ralph Jennings' post

-------

Surprised to see such a post aiming at personal identity but not the debate on words been said.

It looks as though the meaning of words in a blog post depends on the true identity of a blogger.

When I went through this sort of identity digging against me before, the only thing I can think of at the time was that the digger is unable to fight my words, so he/she has to attack my identity.

The witch-hunt in the end "Paid to give reporters a grilling? Nice work if you can get it!" gets the post even lower.

Not to mention that the author gets the person he is digging totally mixed up with someone else.

Shouldn't a professional reporter always do homework (Taiwan Matters' new blog team) before they post ?

Άλισον said...

Perhaps R. Jennnings now realized that he made a big mix-up on the identity, that’s why he is not publishing my comments. Because he fits into what I classify as the “lazy journalists” that need to research just a little bit more before they write-up a report. 自打嘴巴

Because A-gu’s post on the Taiwanmatters has the title: editorial, so R. Jennings assumes that the “editorial” must have been written up by the blog owner Maddog (failing to check that it is a group blog with Maddog being the administrator) instead of you A-gu, the contributor of that post.

And I didn’t like this line either:

China claims sovereignty over self-ruled Taiwan.

I refer him and all the lazy journalists to review Dr. Keating’s The civil war that was never ours.

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2009/06/08/2003445596

Tim Maddog said...

STOP_Ma, I agree with your basic premise. But the largest problem we are facing regarding any referendum at this point in time is probably this:

. the current referendum law
+ the 3/4 legislative majority held by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)
+ the loudness of their media machinery
+ henchmen at the polls watching who participates in a referendum
= almost any referendum being doomed to failure.

And if the KMT paints the failure of a referendum on an ECFA as amounting to "support for an ECFA," that amounts to doom.

Thus, we have a serious conundrum.

But I did see and record a DPP TV spot yesterday which shows Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) saying:
- - -
推動簽訂兩岸綜合性經濟合作協議(ECFA)
就一定能夠實現 祖國的完全統一

My translation:
Promoting the signing a cross-Strait ECFA will certainly bring about complete unification of the motherland.
- - -

That's rather direct.

I hope everybody sees that ad. I'm going to post it ASAP.

Tim Maddog

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
Tim,

I agree with you. Absolutely. There definitely needs to be reform with the referendum law.

Separating the ballot boxes during the last 2 referendums was a basic violation of the democratic process (due to loss of anonymity) -- WHICH WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DPP!!! This helped nullify both referendums.

Ideally, The Taiwanese should do the right thing and vote the KMT out of power. But this 'aint going to happen either.

The best hope that the DPP has now, though, is to push for a referendum on the ECFA agreement and make sure that the process preserves anonymity. In other words -- do it right.

If they deliver a proper campaign against ECFA, the DPP cannot lose the referendum -- even if the cards are stacked against them with the referendum laws the way they are. They need to educate the Taiwanese populace, though. Quickly. However, a referendum on a referendum is a tremendous waste of time and a step backwards towards that endeavour.
.
.
.

Robert R. said...

Regarding a direct ECFA referendum, it they tried to go for it now, the KMT will come back on how you can have a ref. when the details haven't been set yet. Even if the DPP knew what they were doing, that'd be a huge up-hill climb.

STOP Ma said...

.
.
.
Robert R,

Why does it matter if the details haven't been seen yet? This is a major economic agreement that will affect the Taiwanese long-term. That much is known. We're not dealing with a country like Japan. We're dealing with a country that openly states that they would like to annex you.

This issue is a no-brainer for a referendum. The DPP should start acting like it IS a no-brainer.
.
.
.

Robert R. said...

OK, I misread your original post. I had thought a referendum drive should be made now to get the question on the next ballot, before we learn more of the ECFA.

For the DPP, this ref on a ref (ref^2 or meta-referendum) is that attempt, for better or for worse. If they can get it to pass, then it'll be tough(er) for the government to ignore.

OTOH, if they get a swell of public opinion on their side, but nothing down "on paper", Ma has already shown his trust of the public.

Άλισον said...

I soften my tone in a newer comment, and R. Jennings approved it.

It looks like we have to win them over to our side by softer techniques, by making friends with them and by educating them slowly and patiently.

We can’t win their hearts if we confront and criticize them all the time.

Tim Maddog said...

I've uploaded the DPP's ECFA ad to YouTube:

* Original version

* With English titles added

Tim Maddog