1992 concensus in the debate

Question/Anwer session between Ma and Hsieh

Hsieh: China has never acknowledged the so-called "`one China,' with each side having its own interpretation" concept. In fact, the Chinese Central Committee's Taiwan Affairs Office openly expressed its opposition to the idea on Aug. 4, 1999. I would like to ask Mr Ma to give an example of the endorsement of this principle by any high-ranking official or government agency in China. This is a question about facts because China condemned Taiwan for distorting the "`one China,' with each side having its own interpretation" principle.

I think he was doing well until he asked Ma to provide an example of the Chinese government endorsing the idea. Instead, he should have left it at the fact that the CCP does NOT endorse one China, two interpretations and asked Ma to just drop the "one China" idea given the obvious existence of both the PRC and the ROC.

Ma: The DPP can oppose the content of the 1992 consensus, but it cannot deny its existence.

A "consensus" involves coming to an agreement. These guys clearly didn't. You can't unilaterally declare a consensus. It doesn't work like that.

I supervised the case in 1992 as former vice chairman of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC). Our negotiations with China in Hong Kong did encounter some difficulties, but they did accept the "one China" principle after the negotiations. It can be found in documents, but the DPP has refused to acknowledge that fact.

That part's clearly true, but back here in reality there's clearly NOT one China of which Taiwan is a part of. And Hsieh is talking about this self-invented "two interpretations" part.

President Chen expressed his willingness to accept the "1992 consensus" during a June 27, 2000, visit by a group from the US, but former MAC chairman Tsai Ying-wen (蔡英文) denied the matter in a press conference less than 24 hours later.
The DPP knew about the existence of the 1992 consensus, but refused to touch on the issue of "one China." The Chinese Nationalist Party [KMT] was not afraid to discuss the issue because we know that "one China" meant "the Republic of China.

Coocoo!

Mr Hsieh, you would have to say that "one China" means the Republic of China if you are elected president.

No he wouldn't.

What are you afraid of regarding the issue of "one China"?

Who's afraid? It's just clearly fictional.

Why do you feel ashamed? China expressed its willingness to seek coexistence with Taiwan while accepting each side's differences and to negotiate on equal terms in 2005.
We can improve cross-strait relations step by step. We will send [representatives from the] Straits Exchange Foundation [SEF] to negotiate the issue with China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait [ARATS] and express our position.
The issue of sovereignty is difficult to address and we may not come up with the solution in our lifetime. However, we can still handle the issue by leaving it aside temporarily and focus our efforts on solving more pressing issues.

Accepting a precondition which essentially dictates eventual unification is not leaving aside the soverignty issue.

Yingge Township is the peekhole to the future?

A scholar has discovered that Yingge Township (鶯歌鎮) in Taipei County has voted for the winning candidate in all eight national elections since 1994. Hence, he suggests politicians and media should look at how Yingge votes to understand national trends.

Interesting, but silly.

Referendum compromise stalled... for now?

As part of the possible work toward the compromise on lowering the referendum threshold in conjunction with altering the referendum date, the DPP presented a bill that would have been a pretty comprehensive reform of the original referendum bill and very much mold it as the DPP originally had hoped.

The bill would abolish the referendum review committee; make constitutional amendments and territory issues viable ground-up referendum topics; give both the executive and the legislature control over those two controversial topics, instead of just the legislature; lower the signature threshold for initiating a referendum review from about 80,000 to about 5,000; lower the final required signature count from about 800,000 to about 240,000; lower required voter turnout from the current 50% of eligible voters to 25%; keep the 50% voter turnout requirement for constitutional amendments and territory issues; and finally, remove the requirement that issues rejected in a referendum may not be reintroduced for three years.

KMT legislator John Wu Chih-yang (吳志揚) argued against the DPP's new voter turnout threshold, saying a 25% turnout threshold would make a boycott virtually impossible (any one big party could easily mobilize its supporters alone to vote on the issue and pass any referendum), creating what he described as a "dangerous and unstable social environment."

He has apparently never heard of the idea of just casting a "no" ballot.

The premier notes that this issue must be resolved this week if the referendum and election are to be separated, or else the CEC won't have time to stop the ballot distribution and change related plans.

Expose yourself

KMT legislator Chiang Lien-fu (江連福), currently under investigation because he was caught on tape taking money for vote buying, is "exposing" (爆料) that A-bian plans to run away from Taiwan on 5-20, as soon as he's no longer president, to avoid prosecution.

You have to have evidence to expose something. Making baseless accusations doesn't count. I wish the media would stop using the phrase to describe "making crap up."

Second debate finishes; slight bounce in "polls"

Following the second presidential debate over the weekend, there's been a slight move in the less than reliable opinion polls. Most polls agree on the direction -- slight improvement for Hsieh, slight drop for Ma.

A TVBS poll shows 50% support for Ma and 31% for Hsieh, while China Times shows 49% for Ma and 22% for Hsieh. And Apple daily is publishing a "projection" of the election outcome being conducted by National Sun Yatsen University, based on its own opinion polls between the 5th and 7th of this month. That poll found 41.3% support Ma, 19.8% supporting Hsieh, and 38.9% undecided; based on this, they project a final result on March 22nd of 56.4% of the vote for Ma, 29.9% for Hsieh, and 13.7% being "unpredictable." Apple turns that into a headline of Ma 56%, Hsieh 43%. And Swarchy sees no reason to doubt a Ma victory yet.

Now actually, this might sound rather unbelievable, but yesterday I was contemplating what my prediction should be, and here's what I came up with: 56.5% for Ma, 43.5% Hsieh. There, I'm on the record. So NSYSU and I have very similar ideas of how this will turn out.

It will be interesting to see turn out on election day; will KMT supports be complacent enough about victory to stay home? Will DPP voters be demoralized and stay home? Will everyone be relatively tired of politics and stay home? Or will turnout be higher than last presidential election? Higher turnout would buck the trend.

What a Taiwan News editorial said yesterday:

Democratic Progressive Party presidential candidate and former premier Frank Hsieh and Kuomintang rival and ex-Taipei City mayor Ma Ying-jeou will face each other today in the second of three Central Election Commission-sponsored election forums.

We believe that Hsieh should seize this chance to elaborate on his long-term positive vision for Taiwan's economy and spend less time simply criticizing the proposals issued by Ma and his vice presidential running mate former premier Vincent Siew.

What the Taipei Times reports today under the headline, Ma, Hsieh tout policy platform, but not a single sentence in the article shows anybody touting anything. Instead, it's all attacks. Seems like a badly written and far too short article to me.

I didn't get to watch the debate myself.

Kaohsiung MRT redline

New official opening date? Sunday.

I'll be riding down from Metropolitan Park Station into town. Anyone else riding on Sunday?

UN resolution

Today, the disgustingly anti-reform KMT-dominated legislature was planning to bring up a bill that will call for Taiwan to (re)enter the UN under some "suitable name." It is meant as a "replacement" for the referendums, but as far as I know the CEC has no authority to cancel the referendums, but could reschedule them. Now that the idea of a compromise is in the air, this bill is on hold to give the parties time to negotiate. Apparently, there's home a joint resolution can be passed next week. I still don't see the political advantage for the KMT in this though, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

Should some compromise be worked out about holding the referendum and election seperately, for which the DPP wants a lower threshold in exchange, the CEC has indicated seven days before the election would be adequate time to make the necessary procedural changes.

Another bill going to the soon would create a mechanism for Taiwanese citizens to cast ballots while abroad, I think through polling stations in foreign countries but perhaps through mail. The green camp promises to keep China out of any such deal, for fear of wide-spread and CCP backed voter fraud.

Update: No compromise today. The green camp insisted any legislative resolution on entering the UN should include support for both the DPP and KMT backed referendums, a condition the blue camp would not accept.

Referendum developments

After meeting with the TSU chairman yesterday, President Chen Shui-bian suggested that if the KMT was willing to amend the referendum law to lower "the threshold" (of signatures and voter turnout), he would be willing to find a way to hold the referendum and general election separately.

Wang has been somewhat receptive to the idea, but time is running out. Other KMT officials have been less kind, saying that the DPP should separate the elections first and that the threshold can be discussed later.

In practice, should this work, it would involve amending the referendum law to both lower the threshold and forbid holding the elections together. Both parties would then support the measure.

I honestly believe this would be a really good compromise, but the KMT gets no political advantage from it. If the elections are held separately, they can't claim the DPP is kidnapping the election; if the threshold is lowered, referendums are more likely to pass, something they don't like in principal; and it would make it obvious the DPP really does care more about the referendum in principal and having Taiwan's voice heard than it cares about "mobilizing voters."

What did Hu Jintao really mean?

Depends on who you ask, apparently. Let's take a look at a couple of contrasting reports:

Xinhua: Hu Jintao: "Taiwan independence" activities doomed to fail

"The 'Taiwan independence' activities have run counter to the Chinese nation's strong will to safeguard national unity. Such activities will get nowhere and are doomed to fail," Hu told political advisors attending the first annual full session of the 11th National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference in Beijing....
"We are ready to have exchange, dialogue, consultation and negotiation with any political parties in Taiwan, as long as they recognize that both sides of the Taiwan Straits belong to one China," Hu stated.
"The negotiation will be conducted on an equal footing with completely open topics -- there is nothing we can't talk about," he added.

So, no budging on One China, and no softening up on the anti-Taiwanese independence rhetoric. Basically, a repeat of regular policy statements.

But Reuters gives a more friendly headline: China offers talks with Taiwan on equal footing

Chinese President Hu Jintao offered broad peace talks with self-ruled Taiwan under its "one China" policy on Tuesday, weeks before the island elects a new president, but Taiwan rejected Beijing's conditions.

Hu also reached out to pro-independence politicians, saying China would welcome them if they shifted their stance.

It's interesting that Reuters seems to think this is some kind of new or generous offer. Both candidates responded, with Hsieh making the first statement, saying:

"I believe [anything that promotes] peace is good. But from our position there should be no preconditions. We should be able to discuss any issue. I think in cross-strait relations each side should be able to say their piece, and then put controversy to one side. We should not disrupt and delay the things that we can do because of the things we cannot do."

That's just restating the DPP's official position for the last eight years.

Ma responded, cleverly avoiding any reference to the One China issue at all, and instead tried to be seen as defending Taiwan:

"President Hu says he is willing to speak with those who have advocated independence, and that is no bad thing. But we should point out that it is China's suppression of Taiwan on the international stage that has caused many people to lean towards Taiwanese independence. Many people have only chosen this path because of what they feel is a lack of dignity accorded to them. So I think this cause and effect is something the Chinese authorities should be very clear about," said Ma.

Good spin, of course, and certainly people in Taiwan react badly to China's suppression of Taiwan, but the fundamental issue is that Taiwanese want to have the right to control their own destiny and do not want to be subject to Chinese rule. Taiwanese control over Taiwan's destiny is something the CCP openly opposes, that the KMT clandestinely opposes, and only the greens openly defend. However, since the greens spend so much time whipping up nationalist sentiment with vague references to sovereignty before the election instead of focusing on the fundamental issue -- who's right it is to decide Taiwan's future -- they can't get much political leverage off of it.

RUH ROH

Over the weekend, Northern Taiwan Society vice president Chin Heng-wei (金恆煒) recently accused Ma Ying-jeou's wife, Chow Mei-ching (周美青), of stealing Chinese-language newspapers out of the Harvard library while she was a student there.

Chin Heng-wei said that after the theft had been reported to the police, the director of the library's Chinese department, Wu Wen-jin (吳文津), wrote a letter to Chow asking her to return the papers.

However, Wu Wen-jin himself appeared in an interview on SET-TV on Sunday night to deny having ever written such a letter. Chow is threatening to sue Chin over it.

This appears to have been a rather sloppy smear attempt at this point, even if it was not coordinated fully by the Hsieh campaign.

One of my all-time favorite Ma quotations

「台灣形狀就像蕃薯，屏東就是台灣的根」。

"Taiwan has the shape of a yam, and Pingtung is the root."

Wu Po-hsiung: KMT will fight dirty tricks, cancelled election

The KMT, increasingly living in a fantasy world of its own design, has announced through Chairman Wu Po-hsiung that the KMT will make every effort to preempt or prevent DPP "dirty tricks" (such as an attempt to kill Ma Ying-jeou, he implied) or a cancelled election.

Right, like the DPP is going to cancel the election.

Sunshine laws

As Jerome Keating recently pointed out, way back in 2006, which is ancient history in the electorate's memory, then-KMT chairman Ma Ying-jeou made a number of promises about what he would do to reform the KMT and help prepare for a 2008 victory. From December 2006:

[Ma] pledged to resolve the party assets problem by next June and said the party
would not operate any businesses once the asset problem was removed.

That didn't happen. Instead he sold three large pieces of property and kept the money, which hardly resolves the party assets problem. He also promised to move forward on the arms purchase bill, which sorta happened (only part of the budget was passed):

"The Republic of China is a sovereign country ... The right of the Legislative Yuan to review the bill should be respected," Ma said in a meeting with the press. "[The KMT] will support the bill if it's necessary. National defense concerns everybody, and our stance should not be influenced by an AIT representative."

And earlier than that, even, in July 2006, Ma promised to pass the sunshine bills, which is the real subject of todays' post:

On Wednesday, Ma vowed during a KMT Central Standing Committee meeting that his party would push the "sunshine bills" and pass related bills in September when
the new legislative session opens....

"Ma may not understand that KMT lawmakers have been blocking the `sunshine bills' for the past few years, and we are glad to see that Ma is finally willing to deal with the laws that could do something about the KMT's stolen assets," [DPP whip] Ker [Chien-ming] said.

Some background on these so-called "sunshine laws" which are designed to increase government transparency and help stem corruption:

The "sunshine bills" refer to a series of proposed anti-corruption laws, namely, draft laws on the disposition of assets improperly obtained by political parties, a lobbying bill, a bill covering political parties, a statute governing the Ministry of Justice's anti-corruption bureau, amendments to the Act on Property Declaration by Public Servants (公職人員財產申報法), the Legislators' Conduct Act (立法委員行為法) and the Public Officials Election and Recall Law (公職人員選舉罷免法). ...

The DPP's nine sunshine laws cover more ground than the KMT's four sunshine laws. The DPP's proposals regulate not only public servant exercise of power but also conflicts of interests after retirement or in subsequent employment, the acceptance of political donations and lobbying in the legislature. They are stricter and more sophisticated, and extend to party assets and political donations as well as campaign spending.

OK, well the KMT didn't pass such legislation during Ma's term as chairman, and that is perhaps the single most important set of bills that could be passed in the eight years of the DPP's administration.

But oh wait! Your KMT dominated legislature, despite its total stranglehold on the agenda, not only failed to pass the sunshine bills in 2006, and 2007, and early 2008... but just last week! Apparently, the KMT is in no hurry to pass these measures, and has struck down a proposal to move them out of committee and to a second reading:

[KMT caucus whip Alex Fai (費鴻泰)] said the caucus made the decision because there is no urgent need to put the amendments directly to a second reading.
Fai said legislative committees should be allowed to exercise their authority to review amendments, adding that the caucus would also propose its own versions of amendments to the sunshine bills.

Quiz time: do you think KMT amendments would be stricter, or less strict? (answer: less strict). And how can Fai say these bills still need time to be reviewed with a straight face?

KMT polling data

KMT chairman Wu Po-hsiung yesterday took the unusual step of announcing some details of a KMT poll about the presidential election. Wu says that KMT polls show Hsieh within 10% of Ma, and asked KMT supporters to avoid feeling victory was certain and to go out and vote.

Wu also said the KMT would announce it's policy regarding the upcoming referendum 10 days before the election.