DPP suit, and Ma Ying-jeou's green card

The DPP is going through with its calls for a constitutional interpretation on the fairness of the new system, a move that I believe will not only fail but will be seen as a "sore loser" move.

The other topic that's been in the news the last couple of days has to do with Ma Ying-jeou and a green card (a permanent resident card for the US). I haven't posted on it because it seems like a dumb topic, but it may make some impact on the election.

A story from Wed.'s Taipei Times:

On Monday, Hsieh said he had documents proving that Ma still has a green
card. Yesterday he said Ma's wife Chou Mei-ching (周美青) was also a green card
holder.

"Two out of Ma's four family members are green card holders and [Ma's
eldest daughter] is a US citizen. They can emigrate to the US any time. If a
nation's leader and his family get themselves life jackets, how can he say he is
closely bound to the fate of Taiwan?" Hsieh said.

Ma called an emergency press conference on Monday night to respond to
questions Hsieh raised on Sunday. He said he had obtained a green card while he
was living in the US, sometime around 1977.

But Ma said both his and his wife's green cards became invalid in the 1980s
when they applied for visas at the American Institute in Taiwan to travel to the
US.

One reason this green card topic became an issue was that Ma's spokesperson originally said he did not have a green card; Ma later corrected the statement, saying he once had a green card, but no longer does; Dennis reminds us: This is a misrepresentation of fact. Ma confirmed the spokesperson's "no green card" statement before retracting (United Daily Evening News 28 Jan., p. A2). Blaming the spokesperson just won't do.

Ma specifically defended himself by saying he wasn't lying because these statements are not contradictory, and he wasn't trying to hide anything.

Kuomintang presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou yesterday maintained that he had not violated any law by possessing a U.S. green card and that he never intended to hide the fact he was once a permanent U.S. resident.

He maintained that when he returned to Taiwan and became then President Chiang Ching-kuo's English secretary, his U.S. residency was not against any government regulation of the time.

OK, so Hsieh is supposed to "release his evidence" showing Ma is still a green card holder by the end of the week. He also reminded people that Ma's daughter, the one with the US passport, wasn't a US citizen automatically upon birth in the US; rather, the parents have to apply for the citizenship. Hsieh reasoned that Ma should not chalk up his foreign citizenship to her place of birth alone, and instead should explain why he decided to apply for her citizenship. Edit: Check the comments, I've been corrected on this point.

Frankly, I would be quite surprised if Ma still has a green card. We'll see.

The DPP is using this as a wedge on the loyalty/identity issue, but I'm not sure how much impact it will have. It does make sense in a way though; loyalty is one of Ma's perceived weak points, so the DPP is hitting it hard. And Ma didn't help himself with his initial denial of the card, which he should have just explained right away, as this ETToday analysis affirms.

Still, if Ma's green card turns out to be a bunch of hot air, I think this topic could backfire for the DPP, who would again be focusing on thirty year old issues instead of the future.

DPP plans suit against election system

The DPP is planning to ask for a constitutional review of the fairness of the new election system, saying the fact that the DPP is so fundamentally underrepresented that the system is by nature unfair.

Considering that the DPP initiated the changes, and that the unfairness has to do more with temporal political realities rather than fundamental structural issues, I don't see how the court could ever rule that the system is unconstitutional. The system might indeed be unfair, but sometimes you have to be careful what you wish for.

KMT Parliament speaker Wang Jin-pying [in my view, rightly] called the DPP move "hilarious."

It looks like a desperate, sore-loser strategy to me. And I sympathize with the DPP!

Election analysis bandwagon!

I thought since most everyone is giving their final thoughts on the legislative election results, I would add my voice to the chorus.


First: I agree the main factor for the loss was the new election system, and I too fear a very dirty "permanent majority" for the KMT in the legislature as well as machine politics. Maintaining this permanent majority will become a major goal of the KMT legislature, since they can pretty much count on alternating presidential election results in the long-run. If you think about it, the KMT has always been in charge of the legislature since its inception anyway, and the new results give us little hope that this will ever change. The terrible image of the legislature has in no way resulted in any punishment from the voters.


Second: I cannot endorse using the word gerrymandering for how the districts were drawn. The vast majority of district shapes were drawn out by the CEC and agreed upon by the DPP and KMT. Among the districts that the parties wanted drawn differently, the parties drew straws to decide which plan to use. This resulted in a net benefit to the KMT, but I believe to prove "gerrymandering," you'd have to re-run the election results while pretending the DPP got every contended district drawn exactly as it would have most liked to see. I ran numbers like this to try and predict the result before the election, so I'm not exactly eager to do it again (nor am I sure where one can find the DPP's proposed districts).


Third: I think some people in the blogosphere are talking past each other. If the DPP had run a different campaign message, it would not have changed the results much. At the same time this doesn't mean the DPP ran a good campaign or had a good message. And they will very much need one to win the presidency in 2008.

Fourth: we all know the presidential election will be closer, but what are Frankie's real chances at this time? It depends on his campaign, which I'd say is going well so far. Most people don't have a detailed grasp of the issues, but there does seem to be a general idea that Hsieh is "for good relations with China," but has a less unconditional approach than Ma. And voters will disagree on whether that is a good thing or not.

But a debate with Ma Ying-jeou is absolutely key. It would be the best chance for the public to compare and contrast the two candidate's positions in the relative absence of media spin. I think everyone knows that Frank Hsieh would come out on top in such a debate. Which is exactly why Ma has so far refused to hold one.

Well, that's it for now. If someone's willing to run the numbers to demonstrate gerrymandering, I'd be interested in looking at them! :)

Foreign Affairs

The Jan/Feb edition of Foreign Affairs is China-centric. Lots of interesting articles. Check them out.

How the KMT's pro-localization faction fared

I made a post last year on who is supposedly part of the KMT's underground "pro-localization" and "pro-Wang". I did a quick search on the map results to see which of them made it through the election.

I'm not sure the faction is all its cracked up to be, if it even exists as such. It might have mor eto do with personal loyalty and attachment to Wang than anything else.

Surviving Pro-localization legislators (本土派) (4 out of an original 11)
Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) Hsu Shu-po (許舒博) Tseng Tsai Mei-tso (曾蔡美佐) Lin Yi-shih (林益世) Lo Shih-hsiung (羅世雄) Lin Nan-sheng (林南生) Wu Den-yih (吳敦義) Shyu Jong-shyoung (徐中雄) Chen Hung-chang (陳宏昌) Apollo Chen (陳學聖) Chang Chang-tsai (張昌財)

Pro-localization KMT Central Standing Committee Members who aren't legislators (2)
Hung Yu-chin (洪玉欽) Chu Feng-chi (朱風芝)

Other legislators called pro-Wang (5)

Huang Chao-shun (黃昭順)¹ Ho Tsai-feng (侯彩鳳) Caucus Kuo Su-chun (郭素春) Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) Chang Sho-wen (張碩文)

¹ Huang doesn't like the label

Sources:
Taipei Times article
This pdf document, which seems damaged but who's content could be seen in part on google search results

Referendum maneuvers

In response to Bruce Jacob's open letter to Hsieh and Ma, Frank Hsieh today said that if the KMT really was interested in returning to the UN, then Hsieh could "consider" supporting the KMT referendum. He's just floating the idea without committing, but note that he didn't require the KMT to actually support the DPP's own initiative as a condition for the DPP to support the KMT's.

Ma, on the other hand, said that he will still support the KMT-initiated referendum to re-enter the UN but will not support the DPP's referendum bid.

Latest opinion poll: 43% "undecided"

Let's take a quick look at the latest opinion poll from Apple Daily.

Ma 40.8%
Hsieh 16.2%
Undecided 43%

Now as we all know, green voters seem to have a tendency to either lie to or hang up on pollsters, and report themselves as undecided more often than blue voters. But in any case, thats' a pretty huge chunk of undecided voters, and it means the reality is that this election is going to be very hard to predict.

Hsieh is now starting to kick his presidential campaign into high gear now that all the focus is on him. Ma has alrady outlined the bulk of his policies over the last year or so. Hsieh, on the other hand, has been waiting for the right time. And he's built an impressive list over the last few days. Here's a quick look at some of Hsieh's proposed policy highlights.

+ Appointing a CEO as Premier who the KMT dominated legislature could work with. This may even happen at the end of January, when the cabinet will be resigning en masse. President Chen has expressed a willingness to give Hsieh's plan free reign even as his own term comes to an end. This is very positive news because it means we'll get a chance to see the plan in action before the election.

+ A promise and willingness to work with the reality of a KMT dominated legislature by making sure they like the premier (Hsieh said he'd even be willing to consider Ma Ying-jeou for the post) and not to push for further constitutional change without a consensus.

+ A plan to lower the inheritance tax to 10 percent.

+ A campaign slogan: "Protecting Taiwan, saving [people's livelyhood] democracy, two-party rule and Taiwan's progress."

+ A general plan to loosen investment restrictions on Taiwanese capital in China and to initiate direct links.

We'll have to see how all this plays with the electorate.

AIT expected DPP to get 40 seats; points to election system

I was a bit surprised at this particular revelation from the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), which said in a discussion with President Chen that they had expected the DPP to win 40 seats instead of 27. They said the difference was a result of the new election system. President Chen responded by saying that this election indicates the maturity of Taiwanese democracy: a win or a loss lasts only a moment, bu democratic development marches on.

Heritage Foundation on elections

You can hear their post-election analysis here.

CCP and KMT's positions: identical except in degree of fanaticism.

Let's take a look at an article published just yesterday in the Communist party mouthpiece, the People's Daily (《人民日报》). We'll focus on two paragraphs in particular, though they're both quite a mouthful:

党的十七大报告指出：“坚持一个中国原则，是两岸关系和平发展的政治基础。尽管两岸尚未统一，但大陆和台湾同属一个中国的事实从未改变。中国是两岸同胞的共同家园，两岸同胞理应携手维护好、建设好我们的共同家园。台湾任何政党，只要承认两岸同属一个中国，我们都愿意同他们交流对话、协商谈判，什么问题都可以谈。我们郑重呼吁，在一个中国原则的基础上，协商正式结束两岸敌对状态，达成和平协议，构建两岸关系和平发展框架，开创两岸关系和平发展新局面。”这些重要论断客观描述了两岸关系的现状，明确了两岸关系和平发展的原则基础，表达了中国共产党推动两岸关系朝着和平发展方向前进的真诚意愿，指明了两岸实现互利共赢的正确方向。‧‧‧

The report on the 17th People's Congress pointed out: "Firmly holding to One China principal is the political basis for cross-strait peace and development. Although the two sides of the strait are not yet unified, the mainland and Taiwan are both part of one China and this reality has never changed. China is the home of compatriots on both sides of the strait, and they ought to help protect and develop the interests of our common home. We are willing to exchange dialogue, negotiate with, and discuss any issue with any political party in Taiwan, as long as it will admit that both sides of the strait are part of one China. We earnestly call for negotiations to formally end the state of hostility between the two sides of the strait and for a peace agreement on the basis of the one China principal. We solemnly call for construction of a cross strait peaceful development framework and a fresh start for the peaceful development of our relations."

These important points objectively describe the cross strait status quo, make clear the foundation for peaceful cross-strait development, express the Chinese Communist party's sincere willingness to push forward peaceful cross-strait development and clearly define a practical path to a "win-win" relationship in cross strait relations....

坚持一个中国原则事关中华民族根本利益。中华民族历来把分裂国家视为最大的罪恶。在国家统一这样的大是大非问题上，不可能有任何妥协的空间；只要坚持一个中国原则，其他任何事情都好商量。两岸关系要迈上和平发展的正确轨道，必须坚持一个中国原则；两岸要实现和平统一，也只有坚持一个中国原则。妄图通过所谓“两个中国”、“一中一台”、“两国论”、“一边一国论”、“去中国化”等各种论调和手段，蓄意扭曲一个中国的现状，蓄意破坏一个中国原则，都是在挑战民族大义和国家核心利益，都是在与浩浩荡荡的历史潮流相对抗，不仅无助于两岸关系和平发展，而且最终必然成为历史的罪人，落得失败的下场。

To firmly uphold the One China principal is a fundamental interest of the Chinese people. In the history of the Chinese people, splitting up the country has been the greatest sin. On a question as critical as the unification of our country, we cannot allow any room for compromise. As long as the one China principal is upheld, then any other issue can be negotiated. A long term peaceful development of cross strait relations is the correct path, but it requires the upholding of the One China principal; for the two sides of the strait to realize peaceful unification, all that's needed is firmly upholding the One China principal.

Efforts to promote "two Chinas," "one China, one Taiwan," "state-to-state relations," "one side, one country," and De-sinofication are all vain. They are an intentional distortion of the One China status quo, and intentional destruction of the One China principal, and they all provoke our people and country's most core interests. These efforts are also fighting against the flow of history. They not only do nothing to contribute to peaceful development of cross strait relations, but those who push them will ultimately be considered criminals of history, and they will fail.

Phew. That took a while. And as far as I know, it's the most direct overture to sign a peace agreement from teh CCP. Now for China, the "One China principal" is identical to the "92 consensus;" for the KMT, the "92 consensus" is defined as "One China, two interpretations." Since that sounds suspiciously like "two Chinas," the CCP will never accept the KMT definition.

But there's no need. If a phrase that can maintain some ambiguity like "92 consensus" is used, there is room for negotiations. And we all know Ma accepts the One China principal. Ma just insists that somehow "One China" is the ROC, and has never been able to explain if he believes the PRC exists (though interestingly, he can say the words PRC without actually saying they exist).

So the real point of this post is: there is room for a peace agreement and the establishment of a framework for continued peaceful cross strait relations, and both the KMT and CCP are very interested in moving on that quickly. You should quite rightly read that as plans to "Hong Kong-ize" Taiwan and sacrifice the de facto sovereignty that Taiwan now enjoys, while cutting off any possibility of future de jure sovereignty. And all this will be done in the name of peace and prosperity.

I still think the anti-unification forces must prevail. The alternative is unimaginable.

Some fascinating maps

From Richter. I've linked you to the second page of the the guy's maps (there's more on the first page, including older maps), because the second page has more maps related to this most recent election. They are really good, showing how different parties did in different areas and performance of the DPP over time. Check it out!

Next referendum

There are some different comments coming out about the referendum. DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) believes the DPP and KMT should coordinate on their two referendums, because he thinks at least one must pass to avoid the international community thinking Taiwan considers itself part of the PRC.

Meanwhile, KMT legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) is calling for the referendum to be held apart from the presidential election, since the referendum is "holy" and should not be used by any party as a political tool.

As you may recall, while the KMT made this argument for the legislative election + referendum, their main argument was that holding the two elections in conjunction would result in a "disaster" and confusion, and give the DPP an excuse to declare martial law. Well, that later point is now quite clearly untrue.

Before last election, the KMT said it would "wait and see" what a mess the DPP would actually make during the the legislative election before deciding if it would boycott the UN related referendums held with the presidential election. Logically, given their prior reasoning, they should agree that holding the ballots together will not be a disaster, and push at least their own referendum.

But I think we can safely assume the real purpose of "wait and see" was just to see if the referendum would pass. Since it didn't, I predict they'll call for another boycott. If it had, they would have rallied around their referendum with such enthusiasm you might actually have believed they cared.

Dueling redrawing plans

DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh and KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou have both raised plans to redraw Taiwan's map of counties and cities. Currently, there are 25 cities and counties.

Ma's plan calls for three cities and 15 counties and a reduction in the number of villages and townships from the current count of 319 within the next eight years. Ma also supports retaining village and township elections.

Hsieh's plan would divide Taiwan into six super counties of approx. equal population (about the size of Singapore's). Resources would be distributed in such a way as to enhance the industrial focus of each region, and the government would encourage participation from outside investment and know how. While I don't believe Hsieh said anything about village and townshipe elections himself, the Executive Yuan is talking about making these officials appointed.

==============

In other news, Hsieh made the practical statement that any future Premier would have to be approved by the legislature if he wanted to have a chance to govern stably.

Holo Taiwanese not very important

A recent survey on attitudes toward Holo Taiwanese that I pulled from the FAPA-YP mailing list, and originally from Talking Taiwanese. I find the data to be rather sobering -- it demonstrates that despite the relative current strength of Holo Taiwanese, it really is in rather immediate danger, and very little public will exists to save it in a comprehensive way.

1. Native language

Mother:
Taiwanese 61%
Mandarin 21%
Hakka 8%
no answer & other 10%

Father:
Taiwanese 63%
Mandarin 21%
Hakka 6%
no answer & other 10%

2. Language use of parents among themselves
Taiwanese 55%
Mandarin 35%
Hakka 3%

3. Language use of parents with their children
Taiwanese 46%
Mandarin 54%
Hakka 0.7%

4. Compared to Mandarin, Taiwanese is …:
more useful in Taiwan 5%
richer in culture 56%
my preferred language to express my emotions 44%
my preferred language to learn 29%
my preferred language to speak to my friends 23%

5. Compared to Mandarin, English is … :
more useful in Taiwan 59%
richer in culture 67% a
my preferred language to express my emotions 4%
my preferred language to learn 19%b
my preferred language to speak to my friends 9%


6. Self-indicated proficiency in the following languages:
Respondents answered this questions on a 4-point scale. Results can be read as "41% of respondents indicated that their proficiency in Taiwanese was very good."
Taiwanese 41%
Mandarin 76%
English 7%

7. The language I want my children to speak is:
Taiwanese: 56%
Mandarin 79%
English 67%

8. Mandarin language education is the responsibility of:
The government 69%
The parents 31%

9. Taiwanese language education is the responsibility of:
The government 17%
The parents 83%

10. Primary schools in Taiwan should offer the following languages:
Taiwanese 18% (of respondents say so)
Mandarin 61%
English 12%
No opinion 9%

11. The "best language" for Taiwan is…:
Taiwanese 12.8%
Mandarin 83.1%
English 4.1% a

Vincient Siew praises Singapore model

Responding to questions about the fear of a single dominant party running the country, KMT VP candidate Vincient Siew praised the Singapore model as a good example of having one party in charge (the soft-authoritarian People's Action Party) and said the government can really get things done with this model.

I imagined that the KMT would seek to make a place for itself in Taiwan that equated to the PAP in Singapore or the LDP's traditional position in Japan as a "permanent majority" in a democratic framework (though I suppose it doesn't take too much imagining to expect a party to do so). Political offices lower than city councils are dominated solidly by the KMT; most city and county commissioners are also KMT members; and the new legislature will assure solid control by the KMT for the foreseeable future. The only really competitive election will be the presidential election.

Update: Siew later clarified his comment, saying the KMT is not suggesting Taiwan copy Singapore's soft authoritarianism.

And yet I note KMT lawsuits against the lawyers who prosecuted him, against the DPP for saying Ma was a student spy, and against a blogger for satarizing a politician. These are the sorts of things that can silence and bankrupt critics from all walks of life.