Invasion of privacy

Since Weichen has again already done such a bang up job writing on this topic, I'll translate his post instead of rewriting it. I don't draw the same final conclusion as Weichen does -- I believe the invasions of privacy would be used for much more private retribution -- but the law is ultimately as dangerous as he suggests.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is by nature an authoritarian party, and so now that they have returned to power, they are doing everything they can to again make Taiwan an authoritarian state. Now, the Ministry of Justice and KMT legislators are in cahoots to pass a new "Personal Information Protection Law" which would allow public representatives [like legislators] to look up people's personally information without any cause. Every person's personal and private information would be laid bare to the KMT.

All netizens should note, actually the target of this law is pan-green netizens. Why have the KMT's netizens secretly established their base at the Legislative Yuan's Cingdao House? Is it just a coincidence that the office of the legislator who raised this bill is also in the Cingdao House?

In the future, the KMT's website will not just be used to disseminate propaganda, but will be used to bring to Taiwan that Chinese habit of [human flesh searches.] If the law is amended, legislative authority can also be consolidated and the personal information of pan-green supporters can be used to purge opponents, or perhaps given to the Chinese PLA. Any supporters of Taiwanese independence, of the DPP, or any anti-Chinese person can be listed in preparation for a massacre or crucification.

The significance of this law cannot be underestimated.

ICRT rounds some stuff up

And the result is a pretty interesting mix of news:

Senior officials here are hinting it's possible, but not likely ... that an
Economic Comprehensive Framework Agreement ... or ECFA ... will be discussed
at the next round of cross strait talks.

Straits Exchange Foundation chairman P.K. Chiang said the scope of the
agreement is as yet uncertain ... and that relevant agencies here are still
researching the matter.

He added that the Mainland Affairs Council has yet to authorize discussions
on the matter at the upcoming round of talks ... saying its inclusion on the
agenda will depend on future developments.

In other words, we'll do all the secret negotiations first and then just rubber stamp it when the time comes. Make sure to read Michael Turton's post on this subject today. It really makes the case of how the agreement really is more political than the KMT would like you to believe.

The Ministry of National Defense says starting 2011, the armed forces will
increase the percentage of voluntary enlistment by 10 percent every year
until they reach the goal of 100 percent of voluntary military service by the
end of 2014.

Chen Zhao-min says then in 2015, except for those volunteering to join the
army, all young men of the right age will receive four-months military
training and become a reserve force.

Meanwhile Chen says his ministry is working on an overhaul of the defense
system to fit with this dramatic change and will present a complete report to
the Legislature in June.

In principal I dislike compulsory service, but I worry about how this will affect combat readiness -- I suspect in a very negative way.

The Ministry of Finance is trying to allay fears that the government will
increase the number of tax audits it performs to make up for shortfalls in
tax revenues.

With the poor economic climate, lawmakers are calling on a one-year
moratorium on computerized audits.

However, Finance Minister Li Shu-de says there's no need, making the point
that each year there are only 20,000 randomly-chosen tax accounts examined.

Now that is comical! Don't do audits since more people will likely evade taxes! But that's ok, don't worry, we don't do many audits anyway!

Confirmed...

I have confirmed that this information is in fact on the prosecutors' tapes:

Yesterday Chen's office released the testimony of Koo from November 4th... Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮) said to Koo: "How about we first chat about some details of the case, I want to understand first and then I will tell you what other [witnesses] have said, and then we can [compare and decide] whether or not the testimony is correct."

Chen's office said this shows the special prosecutor was obviously attempting to lead the witness, and that later, Chu also said: "The amount of 400million is something you ought to say. You think about it, because it has already been a long time [since this happened]. At least we are sure that this is what you said to [Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman] Leslie Koo (辜成允), this is [the amount] you mentioned to Leslie Koo."

Most damning of all?

Prosecutor Wu Wenchung (吳文忠): [responding to a question from Koo] "Yes, otherwise it will be exhausting later. If we can, we'd like to finish [your testimony] today."
Prosecutor Chu: "Take your time thinking about it."
Jefferey Koo: "I understand what you mean. I need to at least help, I must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help."
Chu: "You must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help, [otherwise] [the case] will be wrecked."

The prosecutors argue that immediately after that dozy of a line, Chu said "But of course you should tell the truth." But I think the implications are obvious.

Again: Chen & his wife are clearly guilty of tax evasion, and very likely took some very large "political donations" and returned favors, which pretty much constitutes the definition of a bribe even though it may be hard to prove legally.

But that in no way makes the highly personal, politically-tinted prosecution of Chen any more comforting.

Links

China ready to talk peace: Wen

Talks require ‘1992 consensus,’ goodwill: Taiwan

China says ready to talk, end hostilities

Economic pact with China would prevent Taiwan's marginalization: KMT

Economists slam plan to sign an ECFA, Protesters demand referendum on proposed ECFA

Chen & Koo

There is an article in the Taipei Times today about Former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) questioning the reliability of Chinatrust Financial Holding Co vice chairman Jeffrey Koo Jr's (辜仲諒) testimony.

First, Koo flew back to Taiwan to give this testimony with no fear of arrest, apparently in some sort of deal with the prosecutors though everyone denies it. Second, Koo seems to have been willing to fabricate testimony.

The article lays out Koo's statements and involvement in the case:

Koo said he introduced Tsai Ming-chieh to Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman Leslie Koo (辜成允). Prosecutors allege Chen received kickbacks from the sale of a plot of Leslie Koo-owned land in Longtan (龍潭), Taoyuan County, to the Hsinchu Science Park Administration.

After the deal was completed, [First Lady] Wu allegedly told Jeffrey Koo: “You owe me NT$400 million [US$11.4 million]...."

He said that ever since Chen became mayor of Taipei, Chen would tell him the “big picture,” while the former first lady would tell him the actual amount of money to be paid.

“The president would never tell you how much money he wants,” he said.

Prosecutors allege that the Koo's Group had secured billions of NT dollars in kickbacks from selling land to the government for the development of an industrial park after giving NT$400 million to Chen and his wife.

Wu has admitted taking NT$200 million and insisted it was a political donation.

OK, now for Chen's strongest objections:

Chen said Jeffrey Koo should not be a witness, but a suspect, because he is heavily involved in the case. He also questioned the validity of Koo's testimony and suspected that prosecutors asked leading questions to produce the answers they wanted. He added that prosecutors violated protocol by revealing the testimony of others to Jeffrey Koo.

You may be wondering, "what testimony was revealed?" And while I can't tell you the specifics of that, there was some very revealing information on this very topic not that long ago. While watching FTV, I saw something and a Google search turned up the article I was looking for:

Yesterday Chen's office released the testimony of Koo from November 4th... Prosecutor Chu Chao-liang (朱朝亮) said to Koo: "How about we first chat about some details of the case, I want to understand first and then I will tell you what other [witnesses] have said, and then we can [compare and decide] whether or not the testimony is correct."

Chen's office said this shows the special prosecutor was obviously attempting to lead the witness, and that later, Chu also said: "The amount of 400million is something you ought to say. You think about it, because it has already been a long time [since this happened]. At least we are sure that this is what you said to [Taiwan Cement Group (台泥) chairman] Leslie Koo (辜成允), this is [the amount] you mentioned to Leslie Koo."

Most damning of all?

Prosecutor Wu Wenchung (吳文忠): [responding to a question from Koo] "Yes, otherwise it will be exhausting later. If we can, we'd like to finish [your testimony] today."
Prosecutor Chu: "Take your time thinking about it."
Jefferey Koo: "I understand what you mean. I need to at least help, I must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help."
Chu: "You must avoid being more of a hindrance than a help, [otherwise] [the case] will be wrecked."

Now I haven't heard the tape of that, and I'm having trouble verifying if what Chen's office released was in the official evidence (that would seem insane), so can I get some help on confirming the validity of this? Because if so, I think you really do have to throw out Koo's testimony all together.

Some good news for a change

Premier says he disagrees with Hoklo cash cut (Taipei Times)

Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) said yesterday that he disagreed with Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators’ rejection of the budget request for Hoklo accreditation examinations.

Liu told Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators Chiu Yi-ying (邱議瑩) and Chen Ting-fei (陳亭妃) during a legislative session that he would do his best to remedy the lack of funding for the examinations this year....
Hung’s move prompted a demonstration outside the Legislative Yuan last Friday.

The premier yesterday rebutted DPP legislator speculation that Hung initiated the motion at the Cabinet’s request.

He said the Cabinet would request a budget to hold the examinations next year.

Chen Hsueh-yu (陳雪玉), executive secretary and a senior inspector at the ministry’s National Languages Committee, said on Friday that the ministry would not be able to hold the exams this year as a result of the budget cuts.

She said the ministry would consider ways of improving the proficiency of Hoklo teachers.

Let's wait and see what actually happens.

People's Daily = KNN

Michael Turton recently wrote on the reporting priorities of the Kuomintang News Network (KNN).

You will find a shocking coincidence if you look at three websites: the Taiwan section of the People's Daily, the organ of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party; KNN, the English propaganda site aimed at foreigners; and the Central Daily News, the KMT's Chinese-language propaganda organ.

All three are devoting their coverage almost exclusively to the Chen case (though the CDN is trying to cell the upcoming economic agreement as well).

KNN:People's Daily:

CDN:

another round up

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) once again dominated the elections for legislative committee heads yesterday after the caucus resolved not to yield any convener seats to the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

The KMT took 15 of the 16 seats for committee heads, while the DPP won just one seat.

This comes after previous KMT hints of letting the DPP have 4 seats. Last cycle, the DPP boycotted the committee head votes, not even trying for any seats. That crippled their ability to affect legislation, so they cried uncle; the KMT offered them just 3 seats, which the DPP then again rejected. Wonderful.

Also of great note in world news today:

Obama releases secret Bush anti-terror memos

AP Newsbreak: CIA destroyed 92 interrogation tapes

And so far unconfirmed, but I hope it's true:

Washington has told Moscow that Russian help in resolving Iran's nuclear program would make its missile shield plans for Europe unnecessary, a Russian daily said on Monday, citing White House sources.

round up

Two or three big stories over the weekend that mostly went under the radar.

First, Taiwan Echo covers the unconstitutional National Communication Commission's politically motivated fining of radio stations. In my view, there are likely several aspects to the political motivation -- punishing the stations for being friendly with the opposition, discouraging the stations from helping organize protests in the future (a move which will surely please China whether or not it works), and a dash of pure old-fashioned sadism.

Second, Taipei Detention House’s decided to preemptively announce a plan to limit former President Chen Shui-bian exercise time and the number of visitors allowed to see him if he goes hunger strike again (brief mention in final paragraph here). The decision is shocking in my mind because it is clearly a retributive punishment; Chen's hunger strikes draw sympathy and media attention, so the Detention House decides to limit visitors in order to discourage him. No considerations of Chen's health could have possibly entered the decision making process here. It is a decision targeted at one man, and almost certainly politically motivated.

More embarrassing for the Detention House was their incompetence demonstrated by allowing a Financial Times reporter to interview Chen in the presence of a guard. This naturally infuriated local media, who have been denied such access, and angered KMT legislators, who would prefer to dominate international coverage and framing of the case.

Then there's the KMT's shockingly shameless alteration to it's own 'black exclusion' clause, passed only last November as an election ploy to convince the public the party was changing and would not stand for corruption, by George.

The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) recently relaxed its “black exclusion” clause, allowing party members who were involved in trials before Nov. 22 last year but not convicted in the first trial to run in the party’s primary for year-end city and county chief elections.

The party headquarters informed its local chapters of the regulation yesterday — one day before the first-stage primary registration closes — in a last-minute letter.

Michael Turton also blogs on couple of cold war era pro-Taiwanese independence articles which I browsed through. There were two points I found to be more salient today than they would have been in the past. They are:

Thus, by deliberately choosing the policy of non-commitment and ambiguity the United States has forced itself into an untenable position, and has supplied the Communists with a great leverage in the propaganda war. For they can readily persuade Asian neutrals that the United States is occupying China’s own territory.

and:

Both Chinese Governments have vehemently denounced the idea of Two China as un-Chinese. The Communist leaders have staked their prestige to the very hilt by repeated promises to “liberate Taiwan.” They seem confident that the Chinese on Formosa will not settle down permanently as exiles but will eventually come to terms with the mainland Chinese as repentant sinners. As for the Nationalist Government, to acquiesce in the Two Chinas concept means political suicide. It would be a grave mistake to regard the “Restoration of the Mainland” as a mere slogan for stirring up the flagging morale of the Nationalist armed forces and for attracting the loyalty of the overseas Chinese. A strong case can be made that conquest of the Chinese mainland is indispensable to the survival of the Nationalist Government. In order that the Nationalist regime may continue its claim to be the sole, legitimate government of China, it must keep insisting that conquest of the mainland is still possible and in preparation.

Even though the Nationalists are no longer calling for a re-conquering of China, we should remember that their adherence to the One China policy is not a new-found pragmatism designed to improve Taiwan's economic and security situation vis-a-vis China given modern realities.

One China is still the ideological core of the KMT, a claim masked as policy which the KMT has been making since they arrived in Taiwan; this claim is as absurd now as it was then. It is designed to justify the Nationalist view of history, their control over Taiwan and their determination to crush all possibility of Taiwanese independence, and to secure their party's place in China's future, not just its past.

Holo Taiwanese proficiency issue

Li Khin-huann (李勤岸) writes on the targeted attacks on mother tongue education in Taiwan, specifically on (unnecessary) efforts to stem the strength of Holo Taiwanese.

The 2001 UNESCO report on mother languages around the world noted that languages in Taiwan, except for Mandarin, are dying. Although these languages, including Hoklo (commonly known as Taiwanese), Hakka and the many indigenous languages, continue to be widely spoken in some cases, they are all in need of preservation efforts...

We all thought that Taiwan had become a democratic state full of cultural diversity and multilingualism. The savage neglect of language and oppression of mother tongues should have passed into history.

Who would have thought that several days before Lunar New Year, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) would propose scrapping the entire budget of NT$40 million (US$1.2 million) allotted to the Ministry of Education’s National Languages Committee for developing a Hoklo language proficiency certification system.

Did the NT$40 million make up a substantial part of the national budget of NT$1.8 trillion or the budget of NT$60 billion allocated to the ministry?

The committee asked the legislature not to cancel its budget or at least not entirely because the proficiency test has been in preparation for a year, and said the government should leave some money for completing the project.

But in the end, the entire budget was cut....

Taiwan has a proficiency certification system for every language, including Mandarin, Hakka and indigenous languages, but not Hoklo. What message does this send? That Taiwan has a barbarous government that is trying to eliminate Hoklo.

Hong Hsiu-chu, who happens to be my least favorite female KMT legislator, and who has in the past made completely ignorant statements regarding both Mandarin and Holo education (especially in regards to the standardization of the Holo spelling system), sent an editorial to the Apple Daily on the 21st to respond to the fury of the Holo language protection advocates. Below is a rushed translation of most of that editorial, titled "Of course I want to save the people money." It is full of factual errors and distortions I will point out when I get the time in a follow up post.

Language is an important tool of transmitting culture, and knowledge of every native language is worth preserving. For many years people have been encouraging people to speak their "mother tongue," to speak "the language their mother spoke," and this is something I encourage and have never opposed. But what language does mother speak? For example right now there are already more than 100 thousand children of mainland Chinese and foreign brides in our middle schools (mainland Chinese, Vietnamese and Indonesians are the largest groups). If Taiwan's new immigrants wanted to insist that "the mother language is a human right," than please tell me if the Ministry of Education would be able to implement [necessary protection measures]? The mother tongue is not the same as native tongues, and for this reason I have never opposed promoting our native tongues, if not mother tongues, in our school education system.

In the final analysis, 70% or more of people in Taiwan can use Southern Min [Holo Taiwanese], and Southern Min is a strong language in Taiwanese Society [A-gu: not for long]. Being able to speak and understand Southern Min makes life more convenient in many ways and allows for creation of more social relationships, and learning any language is always a good thing. But we cannot force people to learn native languages, and we certainly cannot increase the burdon on our children, and this is a view I am sure most parents and teachers share with me.

Sadly, since native language education started in on our schools in 2001, it has suffered from a lack of qualified teachers, poor and varied textbooks, and lack of a unified writing and spelling system. This made learning the languages difficult. And when former Education Minister Du decided to unify Southern Min's writing and spelling system, he forced through a mixed character & romanization system. He also wanted first grade to learn the Southern Min spelling system and fifth grade children to use Southern Min in composition. These sorts of policies drove children crazy, and invited a lot of criticism [A-gu: how is it that she finds the idea of writing in a language you've been studying for five years to be preposterous?]. Further, there were too many textbooks, a few newly created "Taiwanese characters," the use of characters and romanization together and other bizarre orthography. Most people not only couldn't understand but couldn't even guess the meaning [of the written Taiwanese], and some students at Taipei Municipal Jianguo High School joked that the writing system "was more difficult than Martian." These policies were long ago labeled by experts to be an unnecessary burden on the students.

Former Minister Du in 2008 started to research holding a Southern Min proficiency test. The budget for that year was NT$8million, and was slated to be NT$50million in 2009 (NT$40 million of which the ministry said it would create the proficiency test for teachers ). After flipping through the Education Ministry's budget, the Department of Elementary Education and Department of Social Education already had a large budget for language related fees (the Department of Elementary Education was slated to have NT$90 million). This seemed suspiciously redundant, and that is why I proposed to cut the Southern Min proficiency budget while at the same time asking the Ministry to please present a more complete, well organized budget. But the more important reason this: holding a Southern Min proficiency test would cost NT$40 million. Doesn't that leave one speechless? And half of that money was going to be spent before anyone had signed up for the test or a test had been held. Why was so much being alloted before there was even a test? Isn't the planning for this test too careless?

Further, at this time native language education uses four writing systems -- bopomofo, torroba (?), Tongyong Pinyin and Church Romanization [aka Peh-oe-ji]. I asked the ministry which system would be used on the test? The official could not respond. After this I got to thinking, last year the ministry held a practice test for research purposes, which revealed problems. In other words, the whole testing plan is still not mature. If the budget were allowed to pass now, it would be a most wasteful, lazy and irresponsible act.

T-SPAN update

As always, Maddog is on the case, spotting the Taipei Times article here. Looks like T-SPAN isn't as transparent as anyone expected:

BEHIND THE SCENE: While people can now see online what is going on inside the legislature, grittier action, from shouting matches to melees, is being censored

[...]

The system allows people to watch legislative meetings live online or to access videoclips permanently stored in the system on-demand.

However, it soon came under fire: The system is designed to avoid broadcasting scenes whenever meetings degenerate into a melee.

FULL PICTURE

Some fear, however, that selective broadcasts could limit people’s understanding of what is going on.

For example, when Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) lawmakers criticized Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) on the legislative floor on Friday and demanded that he apologize for the economic situation, the VOD system showed a wall of the chamber and the sound was muted.
- - -

CECA FTA CEPA ... but no WTO or ASEAN

The proposed Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA) between Taiwan and China has been a main focus of the news over the last few days. Read today's Taipei Times article on the subject here. Note that since no formal negotiations on this topic have begun, there is no substance or specifics that can be debated at this time. One favorite quote from the Washington Post article on the subject:

In an interview with the Taipei Times published Friday, Ma seemed to imply that the agreement is a certainty, but he hesitated to respond directly to questions about whether signing it would be tantamount to acknowledging that Taiwan belongs to China.

"As to how the international community perceives the issue, it depends on the stances of different countries," Ma said. "Some countries agree with us, and our allies won't think Taiwan becomes part of communist China when it signs an agreement."

Now to translate some information from blogger Weichen, who takes an ideological tone but has some good information:

Is the CECA an FTA?

The group around Ma Ying-jeou who are selling out Taiwan, who intend to hasten the unification of the countries of China and Taiwan, are strongly insisting on signing a CECA, an important step in the march to unification. This news [link mine] was reported by the Washington Post and created a political firestorm. Ma Ying Jeou of Sell Out Corp. and the Chinese Annexation Group are both working on damage control, and on the front lines of that effort is Li Fei (李非), [deputy director of the Taiwan Studies Center at Xiamen University who the Washington Post quotes as saying the CECA is "a start toward full cross-strait economic integration and a necessary condition for marching forward toward final unification."] Li Fei has now clarified his statement and said the Washington Post misquoted him.

[Note: I just reviewed Li Fei's clarification and it appears the Washington Post quoted him fairly; the main problem seems to have been Taiwanese media rewriting and distorting headlines.]

Our Ministor of Jokes [Economic Minister] even said that the CECA is just an FTA. But this really is funny, since in the book previously written by [MAC chair] Lai Shin-yuan (賴幸媛), she stated a CECA is a completely open FTA, which is to say that CECA would keep Taiwan's economy at a slightly greater distance from China's economy than an FTA would [I don't really follow the logic here]. Ma Ying-jeou, the brains behind Sell Out Corp., has said that a CECA is a "third method" that is somewhere between an FTA and a CEPA, which is to say that a CECA would bring Taiwan's economy closer to China than an FTA would. Three people all have three entirely different explainations, so which one actually describes a CECA?

Now Sell Out Corp realizes they've been busted, but they are in denial, so they're planning on just changing the name from CECA and treating the public like idiots. First they wanted to sign a CEPA, then only after being criticized did they say they wanted a CECA instead. Whatever name they use now, it's still the same thing.

Weichen finishes the post by showing an editorial in the super-blue United Daily News that blames the DPP for confusing the CECA with an FTA -- which is especially hilarious now that the Finance Minister has said they are the same thing.

My own thoughts on the CECA: it does appear that many Taiwanese businesses, with our without investment in China, are convinced that in order to remain competitive on exports to China or imports into Taiwan, CECA is absolutely critical. Of course they'd love to get the deal with all ASEAN countries and sign an FTA with Japan, the US, and Korea as well. But they see that as much more difficult -- in large part due to China's pressure.

So I think there are very legitimate reasons to be concerned about increasing over dependence on China, but I also sympathize with business concerns and hopes for elimination of tariffs. As long as labor doesn't factor in, and safety measures are taken on food products especially, I think the CECA would probably be a good thing on balance and in the long run.

228 madness

Ma pledges to seek consensus on major ethnic issues

The [228 Memorial] foundation was critical of the Ma administration after the legislature, dominated by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), froze its budget last year and then refused to grant a budget for this year.

Ma, who has been seeking support from 228 Incident victims since serving as Taipei mayor, said the government would make up for the previous budget cuts by providing an annual budget starting next year and vowed to continue funding the foundation until the government had paid the NT$1.5 billion the foundation had been promised by the previous administration.

Wang said the president also asked the Executive Yuan to apply to the legislature to unfreeze the 2007 budget for the foundation.

Wow, taking the tough line in this issue I see.

Dissecting the Ma interview

Taipei Times leads today with an exclusive interview of Ma Ying-jeou. Everyone has different interests, and I prefer to let someone else cover the economic aspects of the interview, but I'm going to focus on some of the sovereignty issues:

Taipei Times: Do you think Taiwan is a normal country?

President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九): The Taiwanese people elect their own president and legislature and govern themselves. Do you think that is normal or not normal?

Frankly, I have to agree with his answer; I'm one of those that believes Taiwan is a free and sovereign country, independent from the People's Republic of China, despite the lack of international recognition. Though that is not exactly Ma's position.

But here is where Ma's clear willingness to divorce policy from reality become more clear:

TT: Then, Mr President, do you mean you will accept the “one China” framework?

Ma: The Republic of China [ROC] Constitution was enacted in 1946 and implemented in 1947. The [PRC] was not yet established. It was not established until 1949.

There was only one China when the ROC Constitution was enacted. So the ROC Constitution was not for “two Chinas.” [emphasis mine]

So, assuming the translation is clear and that Ma did not misspeak, our president accepts that there are in fact two Chinas, the ROC and PRC, though there was only one when the constitution was written. Yet Ma insists on a One China policy that clearly contradicts the reality he just outlined.

And I think this is exactly the line the follow up question should have taken. Does the PRC exist? Is the PRC just an illegitimate bandit government illegally controlling ROC territory? What boundaries does the president think the ROC has? If the constitution of the ROC is so clearly in conflict with reality, why shouldn't it be revised? Etc. These are the questions that Ma will have only ridiculous answers to.

Instead, the interviewer directs to what I consider relatively irrelevant questions.

TT: But do you think Hu’s “one China” refers to the “ROC” or the “People’s Republic of China”?

Ma: No matter what he thinks, we think “one China” refers to the ROC. This is what we insisted in 1992 and we have never changed that position since.

I mean, come on. What do you think Hu's one China refers to? Weak.

TT: But does the explanation that “one China” refers to the ROC conform to the international reality?

Ma: If we do not interpret it this way, do you think we should say “one China” refers to the “PRC”?

Do you remember when former [US] president George W. Bush talked to Chinese President Hu Jintao on March 26 last year, Hu said over the telephone that both sides of the Taiwan Strait accept the “one China” principle but have different interpretations of “one China.” That is what we call “one China, with each side having its own interpretation.” That is the only interpretation according to our Constitution.

I say again, I don't care if we get formal recognition from other countries, so long as Taiwan is not controlled by Beijing and so long as we can have practical relations with others; but Ma's constitution-focused answers should prompt the question, "Isn't the constitution in clear contradiction with both reality and the will of the people, since neither mainland Chinese nor Taiwanese want the ROC to rule the mainland? Shouldn't the constitution be amended?"

TT: But apart from Taiwan’s allies, all countries think Beijing is the only representative of China.

Ma: If we agree with those countries, there is no room for Taiwan to survive.

I think this answer is fascinating because, assuming Ma is well intentioned and doesn't want to sell out Taiwan or see unification, this answer reveals half of what Ma thinks -- that this "One China = ROC" policy is in fact the only realistic policy Taiwan can adopt.

TT: Some say that we are too naive on the “one China” issue. It’s not a matter of confidence, but a matter of international reality.

Ma: If we refuse to sign agreements, our products will be taxed with higher tariffs in mainland and local industries will not survive. Is this less naive?

I consider the question unfocused and the answer evasive. In my mind, the questions reveals the biggest problem with the green's attacks on Ma's 'One China' policy. We can't win the argument by saying "Hu says A, but we say B, and most people believe A." Because most people in Taiwan will just say, "who cares?"

We have to say "This whole argument is absurd" and expose the true ridonkulous nature of the KMT's position instead of allowing the PRC position to enter the picture. If anyone's talking about the PRC position, it should not be about their explanation of "One China," but rather their unwavering determination to force subordination on Taiwan, like it or not.

And here is Ma's best and most convincing answer, I think. Emphasis mine:

TT: Will there be any supplementary measures to protect Taiwan’s sovereignty and national interests if the CECA is signed?

Ma: Take the agreement on cross-strait direct flights, for example: What did we lose by signing the agreement? We opened eight airports [to the flights], while mainland opened 11 airports and later upped it to 21 airports for cross-strait direct flights.

What did we lose? Did we consider it a domestic route? Or is it a special air route? Did we say that Taiwan became part of the PRC after signing the agreement? No, we never made such claims.

We should have confidence in ourselves. Communist China has its own assertions and we have ours. We cannot force it to accept our assertions at this stage and it cannot force Taiwan to accept its ideas either. As to how the international community perceives the [“one China”] issue, it depends on the stances of different countries. Some countries agree with us, and our allies won’t think Taiwan becomes part of communist China when it signs an agreement.

Those who are familiar with international relations know that major countries recognize the CCP as the only legitimate government of China when establishing diplomatic ties with communist China, but when it comes to the relations between communist China and Taiwan, those countries do not consider Taiwan a part of the PRC. There are several models adopted by different countries in this matter....

Does the US need communist China’s agreement to send someone to Taiwan? No, they don’t. So you need to understand that although these countries do not recognize us officially, they do not deny us, either. If they denied us as a country, why would they send people here and develop relations with us? The US sold weapons to Taiwan. Does the US think it is selling weapons to a ghost country?

So, again assuming Ma is anti-unification, he thinks One China is not only a necessary policy, but adopting a One China policy incurs no practical damage at all and gives Beijing no additional control at all.

Whatever the merits of Ma's argument, and whatever his secret thoughts on unification, I think we should treat this as his position -- that the One China policy is both necessary and beneficial with no negative side effects. That way we can both argue the merits of these claims and point out the absurdity of the whole "One China" formulation.

Now for the most comic answer:

TT: Does Taiwan depend on China too much economically?

Ma: It has been so since the former DPP government and our economic growth rate increased rapidly during that period of time....

So far we have not seen any attempts by communist China to force Taiwan to do things we cannot accept and we wouldn’t have to accept it if they did so.

Ha! In other words, "Yes, but what are you gonna do and what's the harm to sovereignty so far?"

News Rumble alive and well

What a great site they are. And you're welcome to check out three of their newest contrasts:

✕補貼只是政府無能的遮羞布 ♡消費券帶來一股暖流

✕嗆扁學生有勇氣 ♡嗆馬學弟不給面子

✕失業自殘不斷 ♡看毛毛蟲生信心