"Mutual non-denial," eh?

China Times Headline: Taiwan Affairs Office: We oppose Taiwan signing agreements that have imply sovereignty (國台辦：反對台簽主權意涵協議)

Because the Republic of China doesn't exist in any capacity or form whatsoever.  

Wang Yi's title

Wang Yi is the head of China's Taiwan Affairs Office of the State Council (国务院台湾事务办公室), aka the Taiwan Affairs Office (国台办). Taiwanese media has for a good long while now been mostly out of the practice of altering, or abolishing, or "quote marking" the titles of Chinese officials.

Now Wang Yi seems to hold a second title that you probably haven't heard of even though it's no secret -- he's the head of the Communist Party of China Central Committee Taiwan Task Office (中国共产党中央委员会台湾工作办公室), and a recent NOWNews article mentions only this CCP-centric title when talking about how Wang met with some insignificant KMT youth group.

Google searches demonstrate that it was mostly Chinese media that prefer this title, and that for the most part, .tw domains using this phrase are either KMT or government sites, not mass media. Searches on the UDN or China Times domains do pick up hits, but a cursory glance seems to show that the China Times normally lists both titles if they use the party title.

UDN most often calls Wang Yi the "Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Chair" or the "Chinese Communist [Party's] Taiwan Affairs Office Chair." China Times seems to prefer the "Mainland Taiwan Affairs Office Chair." Liberty Times prefers "China's Taiwan Affairs Office" and the Apple Daily is all over the place. 

1363?

This is my 1363rd post, which I find rather remarkable.

As everyone's noticed, I've cut way down on blogging politics since moving back to the US. The blog will never be officially suspended or anything, but expect the recent sort of posting frequency to continue.

I just want to thank all the people who have commented on and read the blog for making this whole enterprise such a fulfilling and important part of my life. Thank you!

Pingtan: What's the Deal?

One of the more interesting stories developing over the last few weeks has been China's efforts to push the Pingtan Experimental Development Zone. First, what is it? Focus Taiwan gave an overview when China first unveiled the proposal in late February:

China has devised a new plan under which certain areas on Pingtan Island off the coast of Fujian Province will be consigned to local Taiwanese governments or private groups to develop, or be put up for joint development by the two sides of the Taiwan Strait.

According to China's plan, those specific areas will be managed by Taiwanese experts, and up to 1,000 Taiwanese professional managers and researchers will be recruited to work in the areas.

What makes this development proposal different than other major Taiwanese investments in cities like Shenzhen or Xiamen?

Pingtan has been chosen for this trailblazing initiative mainly because it is the China-held area closest to Taiwan. Although the small islet is still in a very early stage of development, China has decided to invest heavily in the region.
It will pour 60 billion Chinese yuan (US$9.66 billion) into its infrastructure in 2012 alone, and an additional 250 billion yuan will be pumped into the area under China's 12th five-year development plan....

To attract top-notch Taiwan talent to work in Pingtan, China may even offer tax incentives and allow simultaneous circulation of Taiwanese and Chinese currencies there.

China is already painting the proposal as a success, and pointing to the "joint management"aspect of the project. See, they don't just want to bring in these top-notch Taiwanese talent for the sake of filling up the payroll, but they also want them to help run the development zone.

Taiwan professionals are responding to the Pingtan economic development zone's recruitment plan, said Pingtan official Gong Qinggai, a deputy to the National People's Congress, on Monday.

This year, Pingtan plans to offer more than 400 jobs to talented individuals from other countries and regions. Of those jobs, some positions, including an opening for deputy director of the Pingtan management committee, the governing body of Pingtan, and four deputy heads of departments under the committee, are targeted for professionals from Taiwan.

Taiwan professionals who go to work in Pingtan will enjoy a package of benefits in such areas as taxation, housing, and children's education.

You might think that this development zone sounds like it's attempting to move into the political sphere without stepping on too many toes. If that's what you thought, you wouldn't be alone. The MAC believes the same thing:

China should refrain from political overtones when promoting cross-strait cooperation on Pingtan Island because more than 80 percent of Taiwanese reject China’s “one country, two systems” formula, the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said yesterday....

Stopping short of saying that the government discourages investment in the Pingtan Comprehensive Experimental Zone, located on Pingtan Island in China’s Fujian Province, the council reminded Taiwanese that it is not a “co-pilot” project sponsored by the Taiwanese government.

Taiwan's Council for Economic Planning and Development had the same impression and notes how the plan could easily hurt Taiwaense industry:

The key factor in avoiding a brain drain to China is to strengthen Taiwan’s investment environment and entice more industries to maintain their operational base here, Yiin said.

“Having more industries to stay in Taiwan will help create more jobs and further raise employees’ salaries,” he said during the question-and-answer session.

Pingtan does not offer a lot to investors, which is why Fujian has to make an effort to recruit professionals and offer favorable terms to potential investors, he said.

Fujian Governor Su Shulin (蘇樹林) announced last month that the province would offer management positions to Taiwanese professionals at annual salaries of between 200,000 yuan (US$31,600) and 2 million yuan, along with three to five years of free housing.

And regardless of the fact that there is some clearly political content to this arrangement -- it is, after all, a different model than other development zones -- both sides are going to try and paint it as an economic arrangement, at least for now. Taiwan's premier said so:

Premier Sean Chen said Friday that Taiwan and China should use the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) to discuss a "joint management" economic development project proposed by China to avoid any political ramifications.

And Taiwan is also going to try to kill the "joint management" aspect, at least for now and at least before negotiations are complete:

Taiwanese nationals are not allowed to work for the Chinese government, Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) Minister Lai Shin-yuan said Wednesday in a reminder to local citizens who have reportedly applied for jobs in a Chinese economic development zone.

Perhaps feeling a bit rebuffed by Taiwan authorities,China responded and claimed no political motive:

Meanwhile, China's Taiwan Affairs Office Director Wang Yi denied speculation that China sees Pingtan as a test zone for using its "one country, two systems" formula with Taiwan in pushing for unification between the two sides.

The formula is used by Beijing to rule Hong Kong and Macau, but it has always been rejected by Taipei.

"We've never entertained such thoughts," Wang said.

Although he said Pingtan is supposed to serve as a "joint homeland for people on both sides of the strait," Wang insisted there are no political motivations involved.

He said that Pingtan is geographically very close to Taiwan and the Chinese government hopes to establish a more comfortable environment, more convenient transportation and looser business policies for Taiwanese people through the experimental zone.

But does anyone believe this is not political? Jens Kastner writing in the Asia Times Online certainly doesn't, and Jens also outlines some of the more juicy incentives China is rolling out:

Those Taiwanese willing to move will find a long list of preferential treatments and US$40 billion-worth of brand-new infrastructure that includes several ports of over 200,000 tonne capacity and 18 square kilometers that will also accommodate a cross-strait financial service center for banks, insurers and securities.

Tax benefits are to be offered and bank loans generously granted, while Taiwanese professional qualification certificates will be accepted. Taiwanese lawyers and doctors will be allowed to operate freely. Exclusively for Taiwanese investors in Pingtan, the mainland's strict restrictions on imports of certain products, such as steel, are to be eased, which will give them an edge over their foreign competitors in the mainland.

To make the bait even more irresistible, both the mainland currency, the yuan, and the New Taiwan Dollar will circulate next to each other in the zone.

New roll-on, roll-off passenger ferries have been awaiting the starter's gun at Pingtan, ready to make the trip to the central Taiwanese city of Taichung in two-and-a-half hours - about the same time it takes a car drive from Taichung to the Taiwanese capital of Taipei on a good day.

Eventually, the Pingtan Comprehensive Experimental Zone, together with Taichung, is envisaged as a cross-strait free-trade zone. Once established, Taiwanese people, ships and cargo could enter Pingtan freely and from there the huge mainland market. The status of Taichung - Taiwan's third-largest city - would be lifted significantly, which is undoubtedly an important factor in the Chinese strategy as the area is generally assessed as being amongst Taiwan's key electoral battlegrounds.

This reminds us: why should China bother to attack Taiwan if it can achieve unification by buying it?

Revisiting single member districts

Much to my surprise, there seems to be some rather thorough dissatisfaction in the legislature with the current single member district system. Not only has Speaker Wang Jin-pyng restated his long held belief the single member district is "not good for democracy," but the DPP is likely to introduce a constitutional amendment next legislative session, and also will ask the Constitutional Court to rule on the constitutionality of the current system.

One of the issues the media has raised is that the single member districts have turned "blue" areas bluer and green areas greener, further polarizing the country along north-south lines.

Since larger parties benefit from a single member district system, it's interesting to see them regretting a policy that has increased their own clout. We'll see what changes are actually proposed. Right now, the legislature seems just to be in the complaining phase. 

What next?

So the DPP loss is not unexpected, though I find it disappointing. But the big question now is how the KMT and CCP will conduct their relations over the next four years. No doubt, the closeness of this election and the uncertainty of a future KMT candidate's popularity -- combined with the fact that most non-political topics have already been discussed between the two sides -- will result in CCP intentions to "ratchet down" the '92 consensus through a written agreement and a possible peace agreement.

From Beijing's perspective, the best course of action is to lock Taiwan in to some sort of political framework before anyone else can win or lose. From the KMT's perspective, this is also beneficial, as it gives them the option of painting any non-'92 policy the DPP may advocate as "dangerous," as they've just done, but perhaps with a stronger effect. Indeed, both the KMT and CCP hope that they can ultimately force the DPP to adopt the '92 consensus and eventually the "inevitability" of political integration.

It seems nearly certain that the CCP and KMT will reach some sort of compromise on this front over the next term, leaving the DPP completely out of the discussions.

The question is, how effective will Beijing's pressure be, and how much are they willing to compromise? Similarly, to what extent can the KMT hold out from various pressures, and how much can they convince China it must accept a more Taiwanese-conscious oriented solution? 

As you may know, I've long speculated on what form any peace accord could take, and mostly drew blanks, but I'm starting to believe we may see something quite modest in terms of substance but full of the same pomp you'd expect from a full blown "peace agreement." It might yet be labeled a peace agreement, but I wouldn't be surprised if it avoided such language in favor of merely declaring the basis of cross-strait discussion to be the '92 consensus, and finding a way to define that term. 

Voting result breakdown by county

Legislative breakdown: Apple Daily is reporting the KMT wins 64 seats, a majority; the DPP 40 seats, the PFP and TSU 3 seats each, and nonpartisans or NPSU candidates winning 3 seats. This is a relative loss of 17 seats for the KMT and an increase of 13 for the DPP. 

On the presidential side, note the relative balance of areas where a party wins more than say, 55% of the vote.  The DPP is not really all that dominant even in most places it wins. 


2012 Presidential Elections percentages and votes

	Ma / Wu ticket	Ing / Chia ticket	Soong / Lin ticket
Taipei City	57.87%、928717 votes	39.54%、634565	2.58%，41448
Taipei County	53.72%、1245673	43.45%、1007551	2.81%、65269
Taichung City	52.15%、792334	44.68%、678736	3.16%、48030
Tainan City	39.80%、435274	57.72%、631232	2.47%、27066
Kaohsiung City	44.18%、730461	53.42%、883158	2.38%、39469
Yilan County	44.88%、115496	52.52%、135156	2.58%、6652
Taoyuan County	57.20%、639151	39.85%、445308	2.94%、32927
Hsinchu County	65.76%、190797	30.93%、89741	3.30%、9599
Hsinchu City	57.43%、134728	39.48%、92632	3.07%、7216
Miaoli County	63.84%、206200	33.18%、107164	2.97%、9597
Zhanghua County	50.58%、369968	46.49%、340069	2.92%、21403
Nanto County	54.62%、158703	42.36%、123077	3.00%、8726
Yunlin County	41.67%、159891	55.81%、214141	2.51%、9662
Chiayi County	39.04%、120946	58.57%、181463	2.37%、7364
Pingtung County	42.92%、211571	55.13%、271722	1.94%、9562
Taitung County	66.47%、72823	30.50%、33417	3.02%、3313
Hualian County	70.29%、118815	25.94%、43845	3.76%、6359
Penghu County	49.75%、22579	45.65%、20717	4.58%、2082
Keelung City	59.28%、128294	36.76%、79562	3.94%、8533
Chiayi City	46.26%、69535	51.04%、76711	2.68%、4042
Jinmen County	89.23%、34676	8.21%、3193	2.54%、990
Lianjiang County	86.60%、4507	8.03%、418	5.36%、279
Total votes	51.60%、6891139	45.63%、6093578	2.76%、369588

Re: Taishang

After reading articles like this, I wonder: doesn't anyone consider whether Taishang in China will lie about their voting intentions while in China? Or even after they get back to Taiwan? After all, it's a secret ballot. Why take any risk? 

watch election results LIVE

Watch Taiwan election results tonight live using this link.

Just sayin'

The Tsai campaign has been making some noise about a "post partisan era" that they intend to usher in. This is all well and good if you have some expectation that the KMT will cooperate, and I think the DPP is clearly aware that they wouldn't.

So why say these things as the election nears? First, and most obviously, this stance attracts middle voters who do not subscribe to the traditional blue-green divide and who yearn for cooperation and consensus, values highly treasured in Taiwan society if not in its political culture. But secondly, maybe this position is an early outreach to Soong Chu-yi and the PFP.

In some crazy world where the PFP actually manages to win enough legislative seats that it could form a coalition government with the DPP, Tsai's call to post-partisanship might be a stealth signal to the PFP. And if Soong wishes to remain relevant, he might just give legs to a "Taiwan consensus" policy by allowing the DPP to negotiate with the most viable "pro-unification" party, resulting in some sort of "One China Constitution" position that the KMT will have a great deal of trouble refuting directly.

If this scenario miraculously plays out, the question will be: does Soong love the spotlight more than his strict adherence to pro-unification principles? I suspect he loves the spotlight more. 

Pressure on Tsai to name non-'92 consensus policy

The Taiwan blue media (plus Apple Daily), as well as a pro-China outlet, are stepping up the pressure on Tsai Ing-wen tot explain what sort of policy she can adopt to replace the "proven" '92 consensus and prevent relations from "deteriorating." Naturally, this analysis ignores that China intentionally deteriorates relations anytime they don't get what they want, which in this case is an admission that Taiwan is part of the same country as the PRC.

Apple Daily publishes a piece by Professor Chu Yan-gui (朱言貴), who not only intentionally misidentifies the US Taiwan policy as adhering to the "One China Principle" but also mislabels "One China, two interpretations" as a policy China has adopted. But the author raises another point: just as the DPP can't give up the principle of Taiwan's "independence" [even while the real policy is self-determination], China can't give up "One China," so obviously... only the KMT can work around this problem and maintain peace and stability. This analysis  ignores that China alone causes tensions, and that there was plenty of peace under Chen Shui-bian's administration. Calls to war are one-sided. The editorial fails to lay blame where it lies and also fails to admit that there can be plenty of peaceful progress without the One China principal, as there was under Chen. This progress need not sacrifice Taiwan's sovereignty.

The United Daily News asks similar questions in a signed editorial, but I found this passage most pointed:

The one character difference between "Chinese Taipei" with a national reference, as China uses and "Chinese Taipei" with a cultural reference as Taiwan uses has tortured cross-strait relations for 20 or 30 years, and that is a topic that our government disputes as it ought to.  The '92 consensus of "One China, two interpretations," involved retreating one step but advancing ten; only with this could the two sides implement the three links or sign the ECFA, and this is an example of retreating when appropriate. Stating that both sides of the strait belong to One China, or that the two sides belong to the same Zhonghua Minzu is also retreating one step to advance ten. Chinese Culture is a cultural and historical concept, not a political label.  

中國台北、中華台北一字之差就折騰了兩岸二、三十年，那是當爭則爭。九二共識、一中各表，退一步、進十步，兩岸才能大三通，才能簽定ＥＣＦＡ，那是當退則退。同岸同屬一個中國，抑或兩岸同屬一個中華民族，也是退一步，進十步。中華是文化和歷史概念，不是政治符號。

How does this paragraph at once acknowledge the Ma government's acceptance of Taiwan and China being the same country, and down play this threat down in favor of an entirely different "cultural and historical" model? I posit they aim to confuse the distinction, bolstering support for a political "same country" policy by trying to graft feelings people have about culture onto that "same country" model.

China Review News goes further, suggesting that the DPP hopes to identify "peace" with "unification" in order to frighten people onto the road of "independence." Their obvious conclusion, of course, is that Taiwanese Independence obviously means (to the DPP!) a lack of peace and a state of war. This nonsense needs no further elaboration on my part.

A fair question all these articles raise -- has Tsai answered these questions to the satisfaction of the electorate? Do people care enough about cross-strait policy, and if they do, will the medium voter be swayed to Tsai's side or be scared off?

We'll see. 

Tsai supports TSU

Just saw this! Tsai Ing-wen is openly inviting DPP-sympathetic voters to give their at large votes the the TSU. I guess Tsai imagines that the party hardcore will stick with the DPP while "independents" might be attracted to Lee Teng-hui's part. More substantially, maybe she's hoping that if any one party breaks the 5% threshold, it better be the TSU.

 與民進黨守護台灣 小英︰盼台聯過5％

Not sure how politically astute this suggestion is in the long run, but perhaps she's just throwing a dog a bone without any expectation that voters will change their minds and DPP strength will remain as strong as it could get anyway.

I'm a bit surprised and am not sure of the political implications, but quite pleased (emotionally) with this move. 

CNA is So Not All That

I checked Weibo for hits related to the Taiwan election debate, and found some interest but few overwhelmingly positive reviews. Most people felt the debates were dry or politically correct  Others said it was basically interesting, and most expressing any preference said they liked Soong's performance.

But Taiwan's Central News Agency, already plagued with image problems due to KMT interference in their operations, put out a propaganda piece instead about how the "mainland" people wish they could have exactly this sort of debate!

Frankly, it looks like CNA knew the article they wanted for their preconceived headline, and sought out posts that would fit their thesis.  I don't think that's good journalism.

The sloppiness doesn't start there, of course; check out CNA's recent headline "Scholarly World Supports Ma," which is really about a pro-Ma group of scholars forming their pro-Ma organization.

One of my favorite websites is NewsRumble, which contrasts news (mostly editorials) from the same paper before and after Ma's election. Mostly it's to show how these papers act as attack dogs and shields for the KMT.  NewsRumble doesn't update too frequently, and they've more or less run the gamut on most issues by now (you know, who's fault the bad economy is and so on). But I still check in every now and then for the giggles. 

I'll believe it when I see it

I was surprised by Su Jia-chyuan's comment about the DPP's plans to classify Hakka, Holo Taiwanese and aboriginal languages into 'national languages' if elected.

I was always thrilled about how much the DPP did much to advance the treatment of these previously repressed languages (a policy which, by the way, the KMT did continue by developing input methods for both Holo Taiwanese and Hakka). And the DPP not only established the Hakka television station but also made Holo Taiwanese respectable in public settings in a way the KMT never did.

Still,  I can't see how the DPP's latest gesture is much more than lip service.

I've often contended you can't revive Hakka and Holo Taiwanese by making them an elective class kids take twice a week. You can't even do it by making it a mandatory class  for every year of students'  education. The only way to make people competently fluent again is to force them to use it in a wide array of situations. The best way to do this would be to teach one or two core subjects in a non-Mandarin language every year -- and rotate that so that kids are exposed to all core subjects in multiple languages over the course of their education. I don't see how else you solve the problem of these languages disappearing.  And this argument of mine, rather well founded in the experiences of other multilingual countries, is universally rejected in Taiwan. So either I'm completely wrong or everyone else is blind.

Some people don't even realize these languages are disappearing, and for no language is this more true than Holo Taiwanese . Native Holo Taiwanese speakers in their thirties will laugh at the idea of Holo Taiwanese disappearing, because they still speak it all the time -- all while their own children forget how to speak after their first weeks in kindergarten. And to make matters worse, they're largely indifferent to the loss of their mother tongue. "Eh, it won't help you make money," seems to be the most common sentiment. Is money the point of life, of education, of culture? Golden calf, anyone?

In any case, we'll see just how much more the DPP is willing to strengthen Hakka, Holo and aboriginal languages. We already have the television networks for Hakka and aboriginal languages; how much farther will they go? My guess is they won't manage to make more than the most shallow, symbolic gesture. And that pains me greatly. 

Ma's muddling of identity

Forget that Ma Ying-jeou is trying to have it both ways, calling Taiwan a "country" for the first time to gain political points, while at the same time maintaining an official policy that relegates Taiwan to one of many provinces of China.

The President himself made one mistake and one telling claim when explaining how using "Taiwan" as a moniker for the ROC mirrors international practices.

Ma noted that the Netherlands is often known as Holland abroad. It's true that English speakers use the Netherlands and Holland interchangeably; not so much the Dutch themselves. The provinces of North and South Holland account for two of that country's twelve provinces, so this is a case of pars pro toto, whereby foreigners who don't know much better take the two terms to mean the same thing. Actually, this is a very apt analogy, as Ma is trying to get people to think he's equating Taiwan with the ROC when he's really claiming Taiwan is but a small part of the ROC (which for him, includes Hong Kong, China, and parts of neighboring countries).

Ma then incorrectly formulates that England = Great Britain = United Kingdom, when in fact these are each distinct political entities. I'm sure you can look that one up yourself if you're not clear on the distinctions.

Actually for me I guess the biggest surprise was just seeing the Want Daily's news articles linked on Taiwan's Yahoo! News. That's a new development for me. As far as I know, they are not printing but just web posting (their print paper is the China Times). Their slogan of "Taiwan First, Best [paper] on Either Side of the Strait" says all you need to know about their focus.