The Taipei Times had the full run-down today on the saga of Chen Shui-bian's Swiss bank accounts and alleged money laundering:The statement was issued one day after Chen called a news conference in which he admitted that Wu had wired overseas an unspecified amount of money that Chen had received for his two Taipei mayoral and two presidential election campaigns between 1993 and 2004.A few points:
In a televised news conference on Thursday, Chen apologized to the public for not clearly accounting for his campaign contributions, admitting that failing to report the funds was “something that is not permitted by the law.”
Under campaign laws, candidates are required to report all campaign spending, but they were not required to report all political donations until the passage of the Political Contributions Act in 2004.
The former president said he was unaware that his wife had wired the surplus funds from his campaigns abroad until early this year.
Prior to Chen’s press conference on Thursday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Hung Hsiu-chu (洪秀柱) earlier the same day said Swiss prosecutors had asked Taiwanese authorities to verify the origin of funds in Swiss bank accounts under the name of Chen’s daughter-in-law, Huang Jui-ching (黃睿靚).
The Ministry of Justice later confirmed that it had received the request through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA).
Chen rejected Hung’s allegation that the funds wired overseas could be connected to his “state affairs fund” or a recent scandal involving a botched attempt to win diplomatic recognition from Papua New Guinea (PNG).
The Chinese-language Next Magazine reported on Wednesday that the Egmont Group, an international anti-money laundering network, had alerted the Taiwanese government that the former first lady had transferred large sums to several foreign bank accounts.
...little birdies pointed out that the timing is interesting because (1) the French just closed the Lafayette case -- the one where the French government allegedly gave $100 million to China and $400 million to the KMT in kickbacks on the purchase of frigates -- and (2) the Swiss are apparently peeved at Chen over his pursuit of the Lafayette case.
Chen was already rich when he first ran for office. It would have been so easy to be clean. To do it right. To report the money, take the tax hit, and find a way to forward it to the DPP or to a charity. To leave a positive legacy for the next generation of Green politicians.
How great a man Chen could have been, and how small a man he has become.
[Taiwan]
I bet there's plenty of DPP flag wavers who feel pretty stupid for constantly whining about KMT corruption when their own golden boy was busy behind the scenes lining his own pocket.
ReplyDeleteBTW, How much do residency visas in Paraguay or Micronesia cost thesedays for those trying to evade their dues?
I wouldn't exactly say they should or do feel stupid, but instead feel duped and cheated.
ReplyDeleteJust because Chen turned out to be this sort of man does not negate the corruption of the KMT. The KMT has been, and will continue to be, a powerful, but corrupt party bent on, yes, bent on, reunification with the "Motherland".
I don't feel stupid for believing in Chen, because he put on a good show...it isn't my fault that he turned out this way, so I don't believe any of us should feel stupid.
I just feel...sad...that is all. But, I'll keep fighting the good fight, Anonymous, don't worry. ;)
I still suspect a little bit of manipulation on the timing here. Note that all of this was happening just as the eyes of the world were focusing on the "China-Taiwan" baseball match. Of course this was all released by the blue-media before the match, but the effect would have been the same no matter which side won.
ReplyDeleteCan you imagine the headlines had Taiwan won,"Taiwan defeats China, former president suspected of bribes" which is precisely the type of game the Chinese always play to belittle us and playdown our victories. That China won was just icing on the cake.
If CSB did hide the money (not proven yet, there are no laws against opening foreign accounts), then that is a separate matter. It will be difficult for CSB to avoid being found guilty for *something* with the KMT back in the judiciary, it may be that his hands weren't at 10 and 2 on the steering wheel while he was driving and they'll throw him into prison. There has always been the worry in the KMT that if the constituation ever gets revised, CSB will be eligible to run again for president because technically you are only prevented from running two terms for a given constitution. This is China's worst nightmare to have CSB back for another 8 years!
Not that it matters now, the KMT-controlled legistlature can just change the finance laws to be retroactive and then lock CSB away for 20 years. But what about Ma Ying Jeao? Where is the public accounting of his funds, or how about Lien and Soong? Let's spread it around and they can all sit in jail together.
I think if CSB is found guilty, there will be a mass uprising and Ma will be facing a "green-sea" of angry people. Ma had better tread carefully. Sorry about the rambling.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
This automatically gives a certain credibility to all the other lingering accusations of shadiness against Chen, including the assassination attempt.
Not sure I agree with you here, Michael. The facts surrounding the assassination attempt are still the facts. They have not changed. And these facts still do not support the absurd fantasy that he was not shot by an assassin.
Anonymous,
Chen's misdeeds do not absolve the KMT's legendary corruption to this day. What's more, on the issue of protecting Taiwan's interests -- I would suggest the the DPP are infinitely more responsible in this regard -- regardless of Chen.
.
.
.
Mr. M.T still has hope for DPP, but they have dig such a deep grave for themselves. 民進黨沒救了.
ReplyDelete蔡英文，妳敢反扁嗎？(2008/08/16 02:23)
黃創夏
理論上，「真相」應該是對錯是非的最後裁判；現實上，在台灣政治的這個領域中，當民進黨碰到陳水扁，這種「理論」，卻往往都是不太正確。
八年以來，最離譜的就是，一個身分叫做「總統」的人，每次，當他的謊言被揭穿後，他從不覺得羞愧，也不真誠乞求人民的諒解，反而大言不慚地夸夸而談，一會兒說自己大可不必要「貪」小錢，又怪罪是國家制度不對，還不忘指控對方問題比他更大等等，就連這次的「海外帳戶」，也要講東講西，是吳淑珍「瞞」了他，李登輝、宋楚瑜、連戰和馬英九，也一定要牽拖進來。
更狠的是，陳水扁都不忘要把民進黨「拖」下水，他說，八年來，他在選舉支援了很多人，意思就是「警告」民進黨的公職，不要「切割」，他的那些「神秘」資金中，如果有問題的話，許許多多民進黨公職恐怕都用過這些問題錢，掀開來看，陳水扁不好看﹝反正已經在谷底，無所謂﹞，民進黨的許多公職，恐怕顏面也不會太有光。
回看陳水扁的記者會，比較一下台開案爆發以來的各種相關談話，陳水扁每次連篇累牘的辯解，就祇有一個重點：喊冤，「不是我想要犯法，是制度不好，才害我犯法」，這種反應，不僅讓人哭笑不得，簡直可以讓人氣得一口鮮血都差點噴出。
那又怎麼樣！這些年以來，民進黨早被陳水扁吃到夠夠，更吃到死死。
擁抱深綠，護扁保皇，最後終將陪葬！改革自清，重新建構民進黨的核心價值，希望無窮，這本是最最簡單的政治算數。
但過去這一段日子以來，泛綠陣營中，沒有人敢面對這個最簡單的公式，護扁、挺扁，政局一片低迷，民進黨人的政治前途，個個昏天暗地。
好幾次，眼看快要沒頂了，李遠哲、李登輝、陳師孟、高志明、林濁水、李文忠紛紛站出來了，他們的動作或許不同，相同的都是，他們知道，棄扁，才能求生。但是，民進黨還是無法和扁切割，一次又一次的蹉跎，新潮流、蘇貞昌、謝長廷……一個又一個成了陳水扁亂政的「陪葬品」。
這一次，又到了民進黨的十字路口了，蔡英文將會如何面對呢？
是高高舉起，輕輕放下，只會說「尊重司法調查」？還是雷厲風行、主動調查，以迅雷不及掩耳之勢，立刻將陳水扁一干人，停權、調查、黨紀處分、甚至主動開除黨籍，並將所有調查資料公諸社會，主動送交司法單位？
蔡英文會不會也成了「扁皇帝」的「兵馬俑」？就看蔡英文自己的決斷了……
I also don't see the connection with the assassination attempt. But yes, it does give more weight to the KMT's accusations of Chen's money scandals.
ReplyDeleteWhilst accusations linger against Chen it makes the DPP unelectable. So Ma and the KMT can stuff up the economy, national identity affair, the weather, anything, and it won't make much difference to their standing. Chen has proved what a public relations disaster he now is for the DPP, but irrespective of him disassociating himself with the party they cant disassociate themselves with him, and the KMT will hammer this home all the way until the next national election.
ReplyDeleteMiss Yeh was Chan's staunchest supporter and irrationally attacked and labled anyone who dared to question Chen and tried to distance Chen from DPP as "traitors to Taiwan (she assumed chen=Taiwan)" during the corruption probe in 2006. I would say she was one of those who "enabled” Chen to grab obsolete power in DPP, which has eventually destroyed DPP.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately for DPP, her withdraw of support for Chen came too late and her apology to DPP is too token for DPP and its die-hard supporters.
「津」超尷尬 哽咽向鄉親道歉 (2008/08/17 11:38)
http://www.nownews.com/videosite/index.php?avId=970171&avType=real#play
Turton,
ReplyDeleteYou were Chen's number one cheerleader for so long (even defending him after the election and in previous scandals), it's hard for you to continue to have credability in my eyes. A lot of us had such high hopes for the DPP in the early stages. However, from personal interaction with his post-2004 appointments, I quickly saw the corruption, racism, and lack of professionalism in international development coming from his Presidential Office appointments (his Japanese interpreter etc.). I was saying this in 2005 and was lambasted on Forumosa by so many posters today who are very critical of Chen (Omni, Mucha Man etc.)
I am hugely entertained by this. I may be a foulmouthed prick, but I'm a good judge of people.
Anyways, let's hope a fellow alumni of mine (Tsai Ing Wen) can clean things up for the party. I'm a huge fan of hers. Do I think she will get electoral success? No. I'm afraid I'm too pessimistic about the inherent chauvinistic traits so ingrained in so much of Chinese and Taiwanese culture.
"This automatically gives a certain credibility to all the other lingering accusations of shadiness against Chen"
ReplyDeleteI would say that it barely matters anymore whether he staged the assasination attempt or not. If people believe that he did, then his reputation will be further affected. It is the same thing as with the subject of the economy during the campaign. Ma and the KMT said the house was falling down, and most Taiwanese believed them.
YONGDING, Fujian Province, Aug. 15 (Xinhua) -- Wu Poh-hsiung, chairman of Kuomintang (KMT) Party, paid homage on Thursday to his ancestors at his ancestral home in southeast China's Fujian Province.
ReplyDeleteVillagers in Sixian Village of Longyan City, home of Wu's ancestors, performed dragon and lion dances to welcome Wu and his wife.
Accompanied by the villagers of his clan, Wu and his wife entered the ancestral hall, where they burnt incense, offered sacrifices and bowed in salute to their ancestors.
Wu said he felt at home after seeing banners, reading, "The same ancestry links our hearts, mountains and oceans can never keep us apart."
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-08/15/content_9340437.htm
when will he be deported to his home in China back? seriously, when?
The Hakka, a subgroup of the Han people, live predominantly in the provinces of Guangdong, Jiangxi and Fujian. Their ancestors are thought to have arrived centuries ago from what is today's central China.--
ReplyDeletetranslation of chinese nazi thinking; Hakka were independent ethnic group wich was included into Han-ethnic by chinese goverment because they writed chinese language.
You were Chen's number one cheerleader for so long (even defending him after the election and in previous scandals), it's hard for you to continue to have credability in my eyes.
ReplyDeleteChewycorns: I'm not like most people. I need to see evidence. Bit strange, that, I know. And the one thing you and everyone never had was evidence. Now we have it. And before you continue on in this vein, your personal prejudices never counted as evidence.
Frankly, it's not important whether I have credibility in your eyes; opposition from you is like a vote of confidence from anyone else. But I'm glad you stopped by to do what you do best -- drop a meaningless, vituperative turd on the conversation.
Michael
Chen has proved what a public relations disaster he now is for the DPP, but irrespective of him disassociating himself with the party they cant disassociate themselves with him, and the KMT will hammer this home all the way until the next national election.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it really matters at this point. Chen or no chen, the DPP isn't going to get control of the legislature back no matter what Tsai does, and with the media, the election commission, the election bureaucracy, and the legislature controlled by the KMT, I'd be shocked if Ma blew it in 2012. Chen is merely the final delicious nail in the DPP coffin for the KMT. What a fuckin' idiot he is.
Michael
Richard, you don't see the connection, but that's because you use logic in your analyses. Use it just a little more and it will become glaringly apparent that facts, evidence and logic mean nothing to those who have swallowed without skepticism traditional Han-style education -- those who have come to depend on hierarchical perspectives for their sense of self-worth. I mean look at Arty: in the midst of argument on an issue, he suddenly, in paroxysms of total irrelevance, introduces tangents about the evils of populism or about why university degrees in the humanities are worthless. Don't you think this kind of mindset and the strange "logic" manifested by Arty, and now by this anonymous guy are intrinsically related?
ReplyDeleteActually, Arty is subtle and discriminating in his thinking compared to the anonymous thought-malformer who's been showing up on these threads lately. No, logic poses scant obstacle to Han traditionalists who feel an emotion-driven need to see the world in hierarchical terms; they'll diss logic anytime they feel a need to succor their emotion-driven petty narcissism. Look on other recent threads to see how this anonymous guy actually believes he is being reasonable in comparing the situation of the US 7th Fleet in the strait with US actions in Vietnam! The logical defects of this and most of his other "arguments" are hilarious! So bet your backside that these people will devise "logic" that proves that the evidence here of Chen's corruption is also evidence that he staged the assassination attempt. These are seventeenth-century, pre-Enlightenment minds, many of whom actually still care about the Opium War and the supposed shame it brought on China, and contriving crazy arguments is precisely what these minds specialize in.
The real shame, of course, is that the British only demanded concessions after winning the Opium War – that they didn't actually administer China as they did Hong Kong and India. The quality of "educated" Chinese thinking would be much higher today if they had.
I'm not actually trying to pick an argument with you, Richard. I'm just using your comment to point out a key fundamental understanding. I appreciate and learn from your many fine comments in these threads.
Chewycorns, your first sentence to Michael is ridiculous. Few in the world more quickly change their minds on the basis of fresh evidence than Michael does. And there is no surer hallmark of credibility than that.
But Michael, I do disagree with your statement that chewycorns' subjective impressions gleaned from frequent-enough personal encounters qualify as nothing more than personal prejudice. The value of such impressions depends on how open-minded and experienced the person is, and though I haven't read his Forumosa stuff (maybe my impression of him would be different if I had), he does not appear in his comment here to have a tenuous hold on reality. From Jung to quantum to Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink," there is much evidence to support the "truth"-quotient of subjective impressions.
Vin --
ReplyDeleteWhen pressed, Chewycorns would refuse to provide details. He'd simply retreat behind his wall of "I was hurt by the DPP!" as his were the only case. The problem with his "evidence" was that only Chewycorns had access to it.
I posted ages ago on the corruption in the Chen Administration. No one seriously thought he was clean. And you will note that of all the many accusations leveled at Chen, not one seriously mentioned secret Swiss accounts and millions in campaign funds salted away. The real problem was never spotted by those who claimed to have a special knowledge of the issues.
In any case, the real difference between me and Chewycorns is not our respective grips on reality, but that if our positions were reversed, I would not have stopped to leave a turd on his blog.
Michael
Michael Turton said "opposition from you is like a vote of confidence from anyone else."
ReplyDeleteAnd look at how wrong most foreigners were in their judgements of Chen and company back in 2005. I still support the good people in the part (e.g. Tsai), but shouldn't the apologists and hangers-on in the foreign community have been just a little more critical of Chen. I was calling Chen and the Predidential Office staffers corrupt and unprofessional back in 2005.You, on the other hand, have supported Chen and the worst elements of the DPP with the moral fervour of a Maoist during the Cultural Revolution. Your election comments (stating you know the DPP were going to lose, but you didn't want to depress your family by stating this)made me think of you as a foreign apologist for the party rather than as an objective commentator.
My posts may have been full of venom, but surely you of all people can understand the intensely personal nature of politics. Surely, after facing a similar uncertain situations in regards to employment (and supporting two kids as I do), ummm you can understand how unfair and unprofessional Taiwanese people can be in a politically-charged atmosphere and how foreigners often come out of this process with very little human rights.
In any case, it is satisfying to see Chen fall from grace yet again and resign from the party. Let's hope Tsai's internationalism and good character will allow the party to win back some of the public.
Peace,
Chewy
Vin, after reading...trying to read that lengthy attempt to impress yourself with your own words, you end up viewing the world with the same hierarchical prejudice. Because as we all know, the rightful place of the Chinese is some obnoxious, uneducated little corner of the 17th century. And as we all know, the Opium War was no act of aggression, just routine national defense that the Chinese can't stop squabbling about. You yourself are thinking in the uncivilized 17th century if you think military conquest and colonialism is the best way to administer one of the world's largest civilizations.
ReplyDeleteWhat you are interpreting as carefully calculated but inherently illogical is simply a differing viewpoint and not a crazed product of cryptic, scheming masterminds.
The hypocrisy continues when you accuse others of making poor relations between different events. Your whole rant isn't even related to Chen Shui-bian, Taiwan or even Arty...you just had to find an excuse to let out all the raging grudges you had against an "burgeoning but inherently second-rate" civilization trying to assert itself. Unable to accept the gradual erosion of the Monopole of Western Civilization, and unable to accept that other cultures can wave flags and express certain pride and perspective, despite great shortcomings and challenges in their society and government. You needn't be so wordy; "Xenophobia" describes it perfectly.
I'm rarely this personal on MT's blog and I don't always agree with his views...but when a mouth becomes this foul, someone needs to bring a bar of soap.
Chewycorns: I'm not like most people. I need to see evidence.
ReplyDeleteLOL (I am responding in classic Michael style one liner).
Okay, Michael you only want to see evidence when it contradicts to your believes. Keep defending Chen while blaming KMT (it gets old really fast), and please keep doing it.
The real shame, of course, is that the British only demanded concessions after winning the Opium War – that they didn't actually administer China as they did Hong Kong and India. The quality of "educated" Chinese thinking would be much higher today if they had.
Vin, go read up India history and how British conquered India before you speak out like that. So India's is more "educated" than China today? Pleas go live in India (don't kid yourself). How about Philippine which was ruled by us (the US). Imperialist is not more "educated" or "civilized." Imperialist just have a bigger gun than the ones whom conquered. Human civilizations have repeated that for centuries even before the rise of Western culture. I only finished junior high school in Taiwan. My higher education is all done here in the states. Am I more "educated"? Let's see my colleagues are from Harvard, Caltech, Paris 6 etc... Europeans and Americans (me included) sometime think way too high of ourselves considering we are only dominating the recent 2 centuries out of the total how many centuries of human civilization. As far as my concern, my thinking is way too difficult for average people to understand.
I posted ages ago on the corruption in the Chen Administration.
Note to reader: Key words here are "Chen Administration" not Chen himself. :P I did tell you not to speak too soon several weeks ago right.
Note to reader: Key words here are "Chen Administration" not Chen himself.
ReplyDeleteJesus, but you are a prime idiot. I've been talking about Chen's links to illegal land development during his Taipei mayoral tenure here for three years.
As I said, I only keep you around here so everyone can see what idiots KMT supporters are.
Michael
BTW Arty, when you cite people, be sure not to yank shit out of context. What I said in full was:
ReplyDelete"I posted ages ago on the corruption in the Chen Administration. No one seriously thought he was clean."
Wait... who could "he" be?
Michael
Keep defending Chen while blaming KMT (it gets old really fast), and please keep doing it.
ReplyDeleteNo one is defending Chen here, least of all me.
And if it gets old, then go read another blog. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Michael
I was calling Chen and the Predidential Office staffers corrupt and unprofessional back in 2005.You, on the other hand, have supported Chen and the worst elements of the DPP with the moral fervour of a Maoist during the Cultural Revolution.
ReplyDeleteWhat a crock of shit. Yes, you were name-calling at that time. Never did you offer the slightest shred of evidence. Lots of people alleged lots of things. None of them backed them up. You were just another loser with a chip on his shoulder, a lot of empty talk, and nothing in his holster.
Your election comments (stating you know the DPP were going to lose, but you didn't want to depress your family by stating this)made me think of you as a foreign apologist for the party rather than as an objective commentator.
You mean, after reading my blog for three years, you suddenly discovered I am a partisan pro-Taiwan blogger? The reason I never mentioned my own feelings is because I didn't think they were right (it's self-doubt and second guessing, not desire to deceive, Chewy). But whenever possible I presented evidence, such as the election market or media accounts from non-party sources, that would have enabled people to come to independent conclusions.
Michael
well well, the lemmings have stopped running off the DPP presipace and are standing around think - Hey wait a minute? maybe we are wrong following this path!
ReplyDeleteLong live the CLEAN KMT!
anon, 黃創夏 is a blindly pro-Blue idiot that leaves him with no credibility for anything that he says now. he kept telling moving stories about ma and hsiao and liu and how they all just felt "duty" and they were going to do everything right--and now?
ReplyDeletethis accusation was a new accusation against chen, not something that everyone knew about, but just never believed.
we have to be cold and rational here, and yes, chen lied about the funds, and what else could he have lied about?
but the assassination attempt--we still have the fundamental fact that a very independent-minded annette lu was also hit by the bullet in the knee.
the smart decisions and the idiotic decisions by the chen administration were smart or idiotic on the merit of the decisions themselves. overall, taiwan over the past eight years has become a much more open place with quite a few improvements in basic infrastructure (high speed rail, snow mountain tunnel). meanwhile, the industry here has transitioned from largely from no-name contract manufacturers to quite a few worldwide brands, including acer, asus, giant, and many others.
corey has it right--the kmt is still very corrupt, and ma is working very hard on re-sinifying taiwan.
but we have to remember, the values many of us believe in--a democratic and free taiwan, a taiwan that takes care of all segments of its society, an environmentally responsible taiwan--these values still ring true, and we despise the hiding of those funds by chen/chen's wife all the more because they are contrary to the values of a clean and democratic government.
Trace, you're just lucky the term 'KMT' contains no vowels or you'd never be able to spell it properly.
ReplyDeleteMichael
Trace, honestly, how can you be so naive and blind? You say that we [DPP and/or Chen supporters] were blind to believe in Chen, but then you turn around, completely bias, and say CLEAN KMT...ignorance. How can you take one look at the KMT and believe them to be uncorrupted? Michael may be blatantly pro-DPP/Pan-Green/whatever, as am I, but how can you ignore factual information as you so eloquently and fervently do?
ReplyDeleteI cannot see how you have such faith in a party that is so willing to sell its people for their own gain...even Chen, who is admittedly corrupt, at least cared about the Taiwanese people to some degree.
If you like the Chinese Nationalists so much...you should just go all the way and find your way to Beijing.
民進黨募款不順 恐爆退黨潮
ReplyDelete前第一家庭疑似洗錢的海外帳戶曝光，掀起綠營風暴，這幾天正值民進黨在各縣市舉辦募款餐會，人氣直直落！部分縣、市黨部主委坦承人數減了二、三成以上，餐會座位零零落落，席間談的不是「嗆馬」，而是「嗆扁」。
省吃儉用捐款 卻被扁匯到國外南部泛綠支持者，也是一片罵聲，尤其看到今天媒體報導吳淑珍說匯出去的都是「陳家的錢」，更是憤慨，痛批陳水扁家族「為什麼貪成這樣」；一名綠營支持者說，陳水扁當總統，民進黨的支持者，日子沒有更好過，大家真的是「肚子扁扁，也要投阿扁」，寧可少吃一點，也要捐款，沒想到選舉的捐贈，現在被匯往海外。還有一名支持者表示，他只是一名大樓管理員，月薪2萬5000元，一天值班8小時，都是靠親綠電視台政論節目，或是聽地下電台支持他打起精神工作，還不定時捐幾千元給民進黨，看到陳水扁把民進黨搞成這個樣子，他實在太難過了，這三天根本沒心情上班。
陳水扁家族在瑞士的銀行目前已知至少存有七億元，部分縣市黨部主委說，「現在募款這兩個字，實在開不了口」。一名黨務高層搖頭說，此時辦募款餐會，一定會有人嗆聲「扁不是有好幾億，幹嘛向我們募款？」有人無心參加 有人退掉餐券由於餐會募款在洗錢案爆發前就接受訂桌，其中很多縣市日前已經募足款項，但餐會時很多桌都留下三個以上的空位，顯示很多支持者無心參加，還有一些人把餐券退掉，或乾脆轉送朋友。餐會中，話題原本要討論830的嗆馬，在昨晚的募款餐會中，有支持者卻說：「嗆馬前，先請阿扁切腹！」不僅募款餐會受影響，地方也醞釀退黨潮，因阿扁對洗錢的疑雲，始終沒有說清楚，到底是單純的選舉經費，還是貪污所得，支持者也要求黨中央主動查個一清二楚，向社會公布。揚言退黨聲音，目前包括台中市、雲林縣民進黨議會黨團、澎湖縣黨部等，而支持者的要求，則包括黨中央與扁切割還不夠、不是阿扁主動退黨，而是要開除阿扁黨籍，同時要求阿扁叫陳致中趕快回來，否則長期滯留海外，迴避偵查，畏罪潛逃，形同凌遲民進黨。
As I said, I only keep you around here so everyone can see what idiots KMT supporters are.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who looks stupid these days. :)
A guy who is wrong and try to back tracking or me...okay maybe I am. I know nothing. You didn't keep me around because of free speech? I am shocked.
.
ReplyDelete.
.
Long live the CLEAN KMT!
ROTFLMAO!!!!
Tracy, I nominate you as the "Stephen Colbert" of Taiwan. You are...umm...being snarky, right?
.
.
.
(Sorry about the length here, Michael. I fully understand if you choose not to post this.)
ReplyDeleteArty, let’s make transparent just how illegitimate your logic is. I wrote:
The real shame, of course, is that the British only demanded concessions after winning the Opium War – that they didn't actually administer China as they did Hong Kong and India. The quality of "educated" Chinese thinking would be much higher today if they had.
You wrote:
“Vin, go read up India history and how British conquered India before you speak out like that. So India's is more "educated" than China today?”
-- You have twisted my words here; you have misread me, and willfully, I suspect. Your distortion is highly ambiguous, so I don’t know precisely what it means, but it seems you have me speaking of country comparisons with regard to literacy levels or something. But I made no such statement; I made, rather, a comparison of the educated in three places. So you’re trying to pull one of the mainstay tricks beloved of logic degenerates: the straw-man fallacy. And for heaven’s sake yes, in terms of logic – which is what I am on about again and again when I comment on this blog – the average Indian higher-degree holder blows his Chinese counterpart out of the water. And Hong Kongers and especially Singaporeans clearly surpass PRC nationals and Taiwanese in terms of logic. Now don’t go twisting my words again here if you reply; I have quite clearly said “on average.” Of course, there still remain higher-degree-holding PRC nationals or Taiwanese who display excellent logical thinking. My point is that Indian, Singaporean, or Hong Kong counterparts do not and would not, EN MASSE, intellectually disgrace themselves like this:
http://web.mit.edu/history/Open%20Letter%20to%20Chinese%20Students%20at%20MIT.pdf
“Pleas go live in India (don't kid yourself).”
Kid myself about a point I never made? And why should I have to pay for your crime against logic?
“How about Philippine which was ruled by us (the US).”
Educated Filipinos, too, from the ones I’ve met, display more logical capacity than most highly educated Chinese do. But uneducated Chinese seem very much equal to their Filipino counterparts. Chinese education seems to strip many people of the capacity for clear logic in argument. This does not mean Han traditionalists have lower innate intelligence capacity, and it does not mean they are illogical in dealing with science. But in logical debate? Some kind of education-system-instilled emotional deficiency seems to make logic too threatening to Han traditionalist. Uneducated farmers really do as well or better with basic logic. (Usually better.)
Imperialist is not more "educated" or "civilized."
-- No one said it is. You’re directly putting words in my mouth here. I only said that the British bringing Enlightenment thinking to Hong Kong and India later gave the well-educated in those places (on average) a huge advantage in terms of capacity for logic over their Han-traditionalist counterparts. And again, I should not have neglected to add Singapore (another beneficiary) in the comparison.
Imperialist just have a bigger gun than the ones whom conquered.
-- Bigger guns produced by more logical brains in cultures and education systems that accord logical thinking more respect. But no, Arty, they don’t “just” have bigger guns. They also have a common ground – fair and honest debate – for aiming for greater justice and fairness. How are people of different cultures ever going to reach accommodations based on justice and fairness, not merely brute force, if there is no common ground for discussion? You and other Han traditionalists keep throwing logic out the window. Then what common ground would YOU propose? “Harmony” and “respect,” meaning fetishism for authority, backed whenever possible by the threat of brute force? Maybe that’s not the answer you would give, but you know it’s the answer most Han traditionalists propose, and until you suggest a different common ground, that is the one you are in effect supporting with your eagerness to jettison logic.
“Human civilizations have repeated that for centuries even before the rise of Western culture.”
-- True enough. China herself was ahead for so long before the Bacon/Descartes/Newton/Berkely/Hume revolution in thinking. But 300 years on, Han traditionalists still don’t avail themselves of this biggest possible advantage; they still think a sprint to a big economy and big military (with Olympic spectacle as the cherry on top) will, by themselves, be enough to draw and keep them abreast.
“I only finished junior high school in Taiwan. My higher education is all done here in the states. Am I more "educated"?
-- You proudly display some of the poorest logic I’ve ever seen, Arty. I’ve known plenty of tenth-graders, both Western and Taiwanese, who are more logical than you are. And current geographic location does not equal mentality. Your formative years were in Taiwan and your parents are Taiwanese. You’re basically a Han traditionalist.
“Let's see my colleagues are from Harvard, Caltech, Paris 6 etc.”
Thank you; here you give more smoking-gun evidence for my point about your logic being terrible. (And display classic traditionalist-Han hierarchical thinking.) This Harvard/Cal Tech “argument” is standard “fallacy of division” stuff. To clarify: One can be very intelligent in some respects and thus gain admission to these fine schools – and do well at them, too – and still be highly deficient in the ability to muster and present a logical argument. But you ignore this and pretend that schools’ great reputations prove their alumni are all good at logical argument. You really ought to spend some time looking at one of the many well-set-up web sites on logical fallacies. Until you really absorb some of this stuff, you’re just going to keep looking like a dumbass when you make your points and arguments. You could get started right here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_division
“Europeans and Americans (me included) sometime think way too high of ourselves considering we are only dominating the recent 2 centuries out of the total how many centuries of human civilization. As far as my concern, my thinking is way too difficult for average people to understand.”
-- Yikes! Here it is again in your closing sentence: a sudden, non-sequitur lurch into shameless hierarchical-thinking ego-puffery. It’s buffoonish, Arty. It's debased. And narcissistic personality disorder and its foul expression are not hard at all for average people to understand, once they’ve read a one-or-two page description on the subject. You severely underestimate people, exactly as narcissists often do.
I don’t doubt that you have the mental wherewithal to learn to make logical arguments if you wanted to, Arty. But I am sure now that you are a typically-self-dishonest Han traditionalist who doesn’t want to, because on some level you know that limiting yourself to logic and honest argument would make it impossible to sustain the hierarchical thinking your ego depends on. I just wanted to make sure here that you know that as long as you persist with your hierarchical-thinking, you’ll keep producing inane logic and thereby will make it dead easy for me and plenty of your other inferiors to persuasively paint you as a dumbass buffoon.
Anon, can we have links to the newspaper articles you post here?
ReplyDeleteYes, it looks like we are going to get a wave of people leaving the DPP.
Michael
Channing,
ReplyDeleteI ask you to read more carefully, because even if my stuff is difficult to read (not sure I buy that), there is not a single foul-mouthed word in my first comment. Is it possible that emotion-driven perception led you to mistake my stridency for being foul-mouthed?
And no, you don’t get to rule that something is “simply a differing viewpoint” and therefore not inherently illogical. Logic is logic, and illogic is illogic, and viewpoints have nothing to do with determining which of these two rubrics an argument falls under. And that’s why what I posted IS germane. Anytime people start acting like it’s OK to toss logic out the window in discussion, the chance that discussion can persuade anyone is vanquished, so discussion becomes inherently pointless for anything except blowing off steam. I’ll state categorically that you, Han traditionalists, closed-minded Americans, my own sister, or whomever are childish, presumptuous special-privileges seekers if you think you’re entitled to respect when you don’t make strong and sincere efforts to keep your arguments logical. Otherwise, “discussion” rots into this guy’s appeals to pity versus the other guy’s, one persons list of grievances or damnable offenses against another’s, blah, blah, blah… And then we’re at the level of political talk shows on Taiwanese TV.
I don’t think Han traditionalists are mostly cryptically scheming folks. I do assert that they’re often way out of touch with reality:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/08/06/AR2008080602512.html
And I assert that “well-educated” Han traditionalists can, en masse, suddenly turn into laughable, purely-emotion-driven intellectual degenerates:
http://web.mit.edu/history/Open%20Letter%20to%20Chinese%20Students%20at%20MIT.pdf
I assert that until they acquire the ballast of logic to discipline and stabilize themselves, this will always be true of them. They will ever be prone to suddenly morphing into laughable, second-rate phenotypes that do injustice to what could and should be a fine genotype.
No, I’m not a fan of military conquest and colonialism. The Bushies imperialist attack on Iraq was barbarism. China’s repression, colonization and cultural caricaturization policies in Tibet are the same. PRC nationals’ ideas about owning Taiwan are absurd – are 17th century. And the last thing in the world I want is for Chinese minds to remain mired in the 17th century. But that’s exactly where Chinese minds will stay if Chinese keep focusing on the Opium War and on the whole sorry notion that a nation’s greatness depends foremost on its military and economic might.
Most Han traditionalists, especially including “well-educated” Han traditionalists, still use associative logic on the matters discussed here on this blog. For example, many “highly-educated” PRC nationals, will, in all seriousness draw an analogy between the North’s actions in the US Civil War and Chinese actions in Tibet. They ignore that 150 years have passed and that what was acceptable back then is no longer acceptable in the Western world. More important, they intentionally pass over the more apt analogy in US history: the US government’s treatment of native peoples in the nineteenth and earlier centuries. Talking with these PRC nationals is pointless; you shoot down one ridiculous argument, and they come up with another that’s twice as silly. It’s like talking to mulish kindergartners who believe anything they can think of constitutes an argument – by mere virtue of the fact that it popped into their head!
What hope is there for peace and good will amongst men and women of different cultures, Channing, so long as people continue making a habit of reinforcing their own blindness and the illogic that justifies to themselves their win-lose thinking with others?
Is it possible that I’ve become so aggressive with you and Arty because I actually want to see Chinese and Taiwanese walk tall and have self-respect in the world? I do, you know. And flag-waving and a bigger military isn’t going to get them self-respect. The thinking you and Arty (you’re much more reasonable than he is, actually, and I’m holding out faint hope that what I write here might make a difference with you) promote is what’s holding Chinese back, I believe. No reason why Chinese can’t decide to throw out the parts of the culture that are based on patent illogic (Mencius’ thinking on human nature, for instance); no reason why Taiwanese can’t forge a new Chinese culture that can handle basic logic and an education system that teaches and values it.
The only reason anyone forfeits logic is to “protect” himself – to serve ego rather than truth. Do you really want a Chinese or a Taiwanese culture that is grounded in such self-dishonesty – that is grounded ultimately in fear and self-contempt?
Chen was never a great man to begin with, if he has been pocketing election funds since 1994.
ReplyDeleteVin,
ReplyDeleteIn the first part of your long response, you talk about "education." You are the one using the quotation, so I though you mean general public and their social orders not actual "education." If you are really talking about education, I generally see Chinese to be better at my work place than Indian at least (I don't know where did you base your observation). I believe there are also more tenured Chinese decent professors in the US. Two at Harvard under age of 35 I know of and 1 in Caltech that I know of. Care to name one Indian under age of 35 is a full tenure professor under age of 35? There is also one of the billionaires under ago of 40 who is Chinese (nvidia CEO and founder). Care to name an Indian? Now to the later part, all the sudden you don't care about the so call "education," i.e. schools, by stating how there are idiots from Harvard and Caltech etc. However, I can guarantee you, idiots don't win Nobel prize, I am talking about the place I worked.
I know I know, you keep saying you are talking about general public. Do I need to remind you that illiteracy rate in India is way higher than any Chinese areas.
I just wanted to make sure here that you know that as long as you persist with your hierarchical-thinking, you’ll keep producing inane logic and thereby will make it dead easy for me and plenty of your other inferiors to persuasively paint you as a dumbass buffoon.
Yea, a inferior and a dumbass buffoon has probably ten times the amount of your wealth, and several houses fully paid... :) I love to be a dumbass buffon in the early 30s. I also love to be a dumbass buffon whose backed the candidate who won the election and didn't hide 30 million dollars in a bank somewhere. Don't know where you are working (teaching English in Taiwan?), while I work in one of the top...in the US. I did take Classic a long time ago. I know how logic is composed. Of course, probably not as well as a classic major who can't really find a job after graduation.
Vin are you should you are not one of the anons? You sounded just like one of them who is a racist white trash from the US. Btw, if Western culture is so great and so enlighten (NOT), and if you are in Taiwan, why not coming back.
Here's the link to the article about 民進黨募款不順 恐爆退黨潮
ReplyDeletehttp://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/080817/2/149ia.html
(Mr. M.T. – sorry, this is going to be a long post. You don’t have to show it if it’s too long.)
I am not going to be too hard on Mr. M. T. for his very very belated objective assessment of Chen and finally see Chen for who he really is. I, a Taiwanese and former DPP supporter, didn’t see Chen’s and DPP’s hypocrisy and true color until October of 2006. When Mr. 施明德 came out with the anti corruption move, he made it very clear that it was against Chen's corruption, not DPP. His advice to DPP politicians was twisted and his name was drag through the mud by DPP. Saying that 施明德 was working with KMT to take down DPP was the most shocking and absurd accusation that I just couldn’t stomach and understand. 施明德 was one of the founding members of DPP. In 1980 he was sentenced to life for his role in 美麗島事件, then only later pardoned by 李登輝 in 1990. He is an idealist and had a sincere vision for Taiwan.
Then I started to listen more carefully to DPP politicians’ language and watch their actions with a more objective and critical eyes. I wonder 99% of the people who read Mr. M.T,’s blog even understand or speak the Taiwanese dialect. When I listen to DPP politician’s language without the Green v.s. Blue filter, I realized how vulgar, sexist and intolerant they are; they have a very narrow definition of who "Taiwanese" are. DPP today is really for 福佬沙文主義. I realized that the DPP I thought I knew was DEAD and is hijacked by DPP politicians who only cared about their own interests, not Taiwanese interests.
The hypocrisy of Chen and his supporters was that they always wave the "anti-corruption" flag against KMT at the same time Chen was busy hiding money from DPP and its supporters. They always play the 228-victim card, but never care enough to "find" and give Taiwanese the truth about 228. 228 became an awesome political and election tool to DPP to hit KMT with over and over again. Let's remember Chen was in office for 8 years and did nothing to give us truth, right? Another reason why Chen didn't use his power to investigate 228: he was way too busy to use the government to A 錢 and cover up his money trail (sacasm..here).
Without the Green filter, I then began to think what was so bad about KMT? Taiwan didn’t become another North Korea or Myanmar or the Philippines under KMT’s rule. Out of ALL of this blog’s readers, my background probably is most similar to Chen’s and I had the first-hand experience of what life was like back then. It was not as “dark” as the DPP politicians would like us to remember when I take off that Green filter. I grew up dirt poor in 員林 in a farmhouse without indoor plumbing. I didn’t learn Mandarin until I went to elementary school. I was the first person in my family to have an education above elementary school and am still the only child who went to college. Thanks to KMT’s education system, I was able to attend college, then studied overseas and got a very good job. I personally don’t know any ordinary citizens who were “victims” of the supposedly totalitarian KMT government. I saw most ordinary people’s life improved under KMT rule, new houses built, people start owning cars….etc..all of the trappings that came with economic development. I saw freeways and factories being built in the 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. I see that the kids today can eat apples anytime they- oh.. you are going to laugh..what is the big deal of eating apples anytime one wants today? When I was growing up, we practically had to be on deathbed to eat an apple. We were that POOR.
If 蔣經國 and KMT didn’t rule Taiwan well and set it on the right path, Taiwan might still be like North Korea, or Myamar, (or the Philippines) today. Isn’t it sad to see so many Filipinos, even teachers and professional, to come to Taiwan to work as maids because they can make more money working as maids than being teachers in the Philippines. Looking back, Philippines in late 1960s and early 1970s saw economic development that was second in Asia, next to Japan.
I can’t personally name any “supposedly” oppression incident suffered by anyone I know. The oppressions and incidents that DPP tell us are always the same group of people, same events (228, 美麗島事件) in the election rallies. But those events and suffering didn’t matter to DPP really, because DPP tossed out those people who suffered greatly for democratic change, such as 施明德, like a piece of trash when they gained power. DPP politicians didn’t even hesitate to smear 施明德, or林濁水 when they warned DPP to distance themselves from Chen for the good of the party. I no longer like DPP's use of the 228 vicitim's family only during the political rallies. It's so cruel. Only use them when needed, but don't care about them enough to give them the truth that DPP has promised over and over again.
If 蔣經國 were not a great leader with Taiwan’s future in mind, he would have passed the rein to his sons, his half brother or another 外省人. 李登輝 didn’t get where he was without 蔣經國’s 栽培. The more I thought about it, the more I realized how ungrateful DPP politicians are. I am glad that Haitien also agreed that credits should be given when credit is due. Most of you didn’t like it when I on purposely did NOT give Americans ANY credit for helping Taiwan out, right? That is exactly what DPP does in each and every election and in their propaganda. KMT is evil and KMT deserves ZERO credit in any of Taiwan’s economic miracle. According to DPP, it’s all because of Japan’s 50-year colonial rule, or American aid. DPP politicians never admit that Taiwan would already be part of China today, because KMT (with America’s help) did defend Taiwan.
Interestingly, KMT’s most corrupted politicians after they arrived at Taiwan all happened to be “Taiwanese” like 李登輝, 王金平.. That actually says more about Taiwanese than KMT. I hope DPP can realize what they have done wrong and change for the good of Taiwan. I hope DPP politicians become more "measured" and moderate with their use of language- just show some class. I hope KMT and Ma can expel people like王金平 from KMT, otherwise I don’t see hope for Taiwan. 李登輝 and DPP in the past 20 years have really squandered the economic base by not have a direct with China when the other countries all opned up to China. Taiwan is well on track to become anther Philippines, a democratic, yet very corrupt and very poor country. I don’t want to see the day when my kids have to become台傭 in another country in order to make a living.
I no longer like DPP's use of 悲情牌、恐共牌、族群牌 over and over again. It finally got too old for me and I wanted to hear really policy discussion from them which I didn't get during these past two elections. I am willing to give Ma a chance to pursue a different strategy and relationship with China. 政黨輪替 after all is a good thing for true democracy. Ma and KMT should be voted out if they can’t deliver their policy. It doesn't make sense that there have been no direct flights between Taiwan and China in the past 8 years. It was absurd that it took 8 hours from Taipei to Shanghai and it only took 14 hours from LA to Shanghai. Americans and the other foreigners reading this blog can watch out for their countries’ own interests, so I take their criticism of KMT and China with a grain of salt. When I start thinking about it: territorial and politcal dispute between China and Taiwan is really our own businesses. Just like if CA or TX want to be part of Mexico again, I don't think the American government will just sit back and do nothing. And stop giving b.s. about how that is different analogy and blah blah..blah. For I know CA, TX all have their own state flags, and in 30 years the majority of CA and TX residents will speak Spanish and Mexican descendants. It’s not smart for Taiwan to anger China and risk war by declaring independence right now, especially if America is not willing to sell nuclear weapons to Taiwan. Seriously, the weapon Taiwan is buying is not going to defend Taiwan for more than a week. China already has nukes, so I don’t think Americans are sincere about defending Taiwan if they still won’t sell some nukes to Taiwan.
Vin- I am proably the anon that you have been ranting against. I know you are going to say that my English writing is so bad and that I make no sense, but let’s see some of YOUR Chinese writing and see how much sense you make in Chinese. I have more respect for Mr. M.T. 這種外國人, because at least Mr. M.T. can read Chinese. 我寫這麼多是要跟其它也懂中、英文的台灣人或真的的關心台灣的外國人交流意見啦. 跟Vin這種外國人講話就跟對牛彈琴一樣啦.浪費我的時間.
台灣加油!!! 我愛台灣!!
The KMT spent 8 years crying wolf about Chen, so it shouldn't be surprising that the DPP and its supporters would have cast a dubious eye at their corruption allegations.
ReplyDeleteLet's remember, the KMT wanted Chen recalled over a policy difference regarding a nuclear power plant. And over the abolition of the National Unification Council. Not to mention their insane conspiracy theories regarding the 2004 assassination attempt.
So yes, the DPP is primarily responsible for not keeping closer financial tabs on Chen's campaign fund dealings. But that doesn't let the KMT off the hook. Through its prior recall efforts, the KMT trivialized the process and made it more likely that that the DPP and its supporters would circle the wagons.
(Of course, you could argue that that strategy paid off for the KMT, big-time. But the country as a whole was very ill-served.)
As for the future, Michael's right. People are going to leave the DPP. But in the long run, if you're a Taiwanese who believes in Taiwanese sovereignty, where are you going to go? To the "clean" KMT? The party that says Taiwanese have a home advantage when they compete in China?
No, in the long run, the DPP is your natural home. Possibly, the TSU. Or maybe some new independence party that hasn't even been founded yet.
However, Taiwan's misfortune may be that the KMT sells it down the river before that cheery long-term scenario can materialize.
D. Corey Sanderson - I dont listen nor subscribe to the opinions of others that are based on fantasy like yours.
ReplyDeleteThe KMT in my view is Clean, I dont see any evidence they have been dirty since they have returned to power and It has been a good 8 years that they have been out of power and have reformed themselves even then Lee Tung Weenie was not true KMT but a traitor so any corruption he commited is "Taiwanese" corruption not anything to do with the Chinese Nationalists!
Therefore in my book and what I truely behold with my eyes - The KMT is clean - I doubt anyone here can prove otherwise that since the KMT has returned to power they are not clean??????
Not Green or Blue:
ReplyDeleteI think the sad part of your post is that it simply comes back with a lot of familiar propaganda long since proven to be false. For example:
Saying that 施明德 was working with KMT to take down DPP was the most shocking and absurd accusation that I just couldn’t stomach and understand. 施明德 was one of the founding members of DPP. In 1980 he was sentenced to life for his role in 美麗島事件, then only later pardoned by 李登輝 in 1990. He is an idealist and had a sincere vision for Taiwan.
I'm sorry you can't stomach it, but there's no getting around the simple fact that Shih left the DPP and joined an anti-DPP group along with two other equally self-centered turncoats, Hsu Hsin-liang and Sisy Chen. The purpose of the Red ant protests, conducted almost entirely by Blues, was to attack the DPP and smear it as more corrupt than the KMT. Chen was merely the lever by which that was accomplished. I can't understand why you have no trouble understanding Chen to be corrupt, but balk at including Shih in that. Shih sold out to the other side, period. That sort of betrayal is quite common nowadays....
As for the rest of your claims they are standard misreadings of history. The complex role of US aid in developing Taiwan in the '50s and 60s is well-documented. Look it up, I can refer you to the texts. The KMT did not save Taiwan from Communism; quite the opposite -- by illegally claiming Taiwan had been annexed to China, the KMT foreclosed any other possibilities for Taiwan, including independence or a colonial status like that of Namibia. In fact, it is because of the KMT's illegal claim, Communism -- in the form of Beijing -- appears likely to end up annexing Taiwan. In other words, the KMT has delivered, not saved, Taiwan into communist hands.
I think the claim that the KMT became corrupt due to contact with taiwanese is especially funny. The KMT brought its corruption with it (See _Formosa Betrayed_) and the major mainlander politicians are almost all totally corrupt. Do you think that the $400 million payment from France for the Lafayette was distributed only to lower ranking Taiwanese goons?
One of the saddest aspects of modern Taiwan is the poor grip the Taiwanese have on their own history.
That said, I fully agree with your analysis of the way the Taiwan identity has been deployed in recent elections, and have written on that frequently. However, you have left out that the KMT does the exact same thing. The underlying class issues in the KMT vs. DPP conflict are intertwined with the identity issues and not wholly separable. The KMT's constant attacks on the DPP for being low-class is the mirror of the DPP's attacks on the KMT for not loving Taiwan.
I have also wondered about Chiang Ching-kuo. He must have known Lee was a fraud as a KMTer. So what, really, did he kill all the thousands of people in Taiwan for? Why did those people have to die to save Taiwan from democracy and independence, when in the end he delivered Taiwan into the hands of Lee and gave him the opportunity to achieve both? Everyone the Chiangs killed died for nothing.... sucks.
Michael
My friend just texts me:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that we can cast Chen aside and move forward (that we have to!) and yet the KMT does not have to do that to its thugs and thieves?
Michael
The KMT is clean - I doubt anyone here can prove otherwise that since the KMT has returned to power they are not clean??????
ReplyDeleteROFL. So you mean they...
...got rid of all their corrupt officials in the irrigation, fishing, and farm banking systems.
...handed over for prosecution the murderers from the 1950s-80s, including the high officials who signed off from the killings, and especially the people who murdered Lin Yi-hsiung's family.
...revealed the foreign accounts held by high-ranking KMT members, as well as their citizenships and residency cards in other nations
...removed all markers and institutions of the KMT party-state from the normal life of the nation, and restored the integrity of the governance to where the government belongs to the nation and not the party.
...etc.
Wonder how I missed all that.
Trace, does that mean you won't be RSSing my blog? Within are wondrous and whimsical tales filled with mirth and merriment...I'm sure that we could be friends and share some laughs! :D
ReplyDeleteSo, just to be clear, we are talking about the KMT under the current, newly elected president of Taiwan, erm, excuse me, Republic of China? Sorry, I guess I missed the part where you specified that we were talking about them and not the Kuomintang of the past, nor the Kuomintang who have been a large and ever so present part of the Legislative Yuan during Chen's administration.
Maybe instead of the corruption of the KMT we can discuss the hypocritical nature and horrible management skills of the KMT. I'm sure that your poster boy isn't squeaky clean either [Even Edwards has fallen, and he was the squeakiest, cleanest of them all!]...because if our golden boy [Chen], who actually showed carrying for his people (by and to some degrees), can go corrupt, the not-so-good-track-record boys within Ma's [mainlander] Cabinet will surely follow suit, if not Ma himself.
Don't worry, as a Chinese Nationalist I'm sure you understand that once this Chen thing is over, somehow some minute DPP story or Taiwanese [not ROC] scandal (true or otherwise) will surely crop up to overshadow any corruption or problems going on within the KMT government.
Finally, these last two things are not meant to be rude, I seriously need to make one inquiry and one statement in utter seriousness:
1) Do all people within the industry of architecture where tiny glasses [citing your sunglasses]? It just seems as though I always see architects and the like wearing tiny glasses.
2) It is "truly" without the "e"....[sorry...pet peeve].
Anon, Trace, Arty and Chewycorns, you are all criticising Michael for supporting Chen when no evidence existed that he broke the law, retroactively using your past hunches as "evidence" that you were correct and that Michael should have listened to you all along.
ReplyDeleteBut why should anyone support your guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality just because the accused has been proven guilty? Your support for such a mentality shows the degree to which you yourselves are morally corrupt or desperate to have your views be accepted by others.
Had you provided evidence before (which would be odd since nobody had that evidence until last week), then you would have ample room to criticise. Right now, the best you could really say is: I told you so! My hunch was correct!
Actually, the impression I get from your posts is that you are so annoyed that someone could have a view of Taiwan or Chen that differs from yours, and you are so often rebuffed by those who do differ in opinion, that you are childishly dancing with glee over the fact that one of your pet suspicions has been substantiated. This is made all the more childish by the fact that you yourselves could not have known the truth before. Grow up people! There's a reason why defense lawyers are necessary for society: people like you.
Vin, you are accusing people of the very things you are committing--trying to stuff beliefs, morals and even state of mind down the throats of others. Just as I'm not in a position to dictate what emotions flow through your keyboard or what supernatural deity you secretly believe in, you can't simply pass off an honestly presented dissenting argument as "inane logic" from "dumbass buffoons" with "hierarchical mindsets."
ReplyDeleteConcrete accusations require evidence, but attempting to pursue moral judgment with name-calling cannot even qualify as a valid allegation.
Especially considering Taiwan's highly partisan political spectrum, I do take care to be more objective and fact-based. It's not really my style to go into heated arguments about what's "right" or "wrong," as it varies a lot with our diverse group in here.
Why is it that we can cast Chen aside and move forward (that we have to!) and yet the KMT does not have to do that to its thugs and thieves?
ReplyDeleteMay I as you who are you talking about? If it is Ma, last time I checked he went through the court, due process without crying political prosecution, and it is not guilty.
Btw, any corrupted KMTs please feel free to send them to jail.
"I'm sorry you can't stomach it, but there's no getting around the simple fact that Shih left the DPP and joined an anti-DPP group along with two other equally self-centered turncoats, Hsu Hsin-liang and Sisy Chen. The purpose of the Red ant protests, conducted almost entirely by Blues, was to attack the DPP and smear it as more corrupt than the KMT. Chen was merely the lever by which that was accomplished. I can't understand why you have no trouble understanding Chen to be corrupt, but balk at including Shih in that. Shih sold out to the other side, period. That sort of betrayal is quite common nowadays...."
ReplyDeleteShih did way more for DPP and Taiwan's democratic move and actually went to jail for his belief, so I won't even dignify an attack on him by some American who I am 100% sure did NOT personally contribute anything for Taiwan's democratic movement. You are regurgitating the same shxxt that DPP spew about Shih. As far as you describing voting for a different party as "betrayal" is ok by me. Since when should one continue to vote for the same political partyt forever? Isn't that idea like Communist? :) I voted Blue this time, and I might vote Green next time if they offer a good vision and policies again.
I think you should read this opinion piece from 自由時報. I feel free, because I am not held hostage by one party 民進黨 and one leader 陳水扁.
我≠民進黨≠陳水扁
http://www.libertytimes.com.tw/2008/new/aug/17/today-o1.htm
"One of the saddest aspects of modern Taiwan is the poor grip the Taiwanese have on their own history. "
I know history is often written by the victors. "History" could be faked and twisted by KMT, by DPP and by Americans. For example, the American government and your history books still don't acknowledge your killing of American Indians as a genocide, right? I am not going to believe everyone you, an American, tell me in English about what Taiwanese history was and is. I admit I am not that smart, so I will rely on my own memory of MY Taiwan experience. You, as an American, who did NOT grow up in Taiwan, who can read some but probably not as much Chinese as I do, think you have a better grip on Taiwan history than I do? hahaha- OK.. more power to you.
"As for the rest of your claims they are standard misreadings of history. The complex role of US aid in developing Taiwan in the '50s and 60s is well-documented. Look it up, I can refer you to the texts. "
Like I said Americans did help KMT, but KMT was smart to take advantage of the help and develop Taiwan's economic. However, I think Americans love to take dispropotion amount of credit for everything. Like, Americans think that "they" totally revedeloped Japan and Germany. Ronold Regan single handedly brought down the Russian evil empire. You also sound like the typical DPP politicians who are unable to give those KMT nationalist some credit. At this point, I am willing to give them some credit and acknowledge their contribution to Taiwan. Perhaps it was also a miracle that Taiwan didn't end up like the S. Vietnamese with America's help.
"The KMT did not save Taiwan from Communism; quite the opposite -- by illegally claiming Taiwan had been annexed to China, the KMT foreclosed any other possibilities for Taiwan, including independence or a colonial status like that of Namibia. In fact, it is because of the KMT's illegal claim, Communism -- in the form of Beijing -- appears likely to end up annexing Taiwan. In other words, the KMT has delivered, not saved, Taiwan into communist hands." This is an interesting "interpretation" of history for the past 400 years. At what point did you suppose Taiwan was and could legally become independent after Ching Dynasty took it over from the "Cheng" Family? Was it during the Ching Dynasty? Was it during the Japanese colonial occupation? Or was it after Japan lost WWII when Japan was "ordered" by Americans to "return" Taiwan back to "R.O.C."? The best chance I saw for independence was actually when DPP and Chen was in power. He had full control of the Taiwanese army- He named his own 國防部長 and all of the rank and file was kissing up to Chen and DPP. I still remember that an army leader made our 草莓兵 solute to Chen by chanting 「你是我的大帥哥、你是我的巧克力」 . Chen could have declared Independence which he didn't do. Taiwan is a de-facto country and we will wait and see. Chen and DPP only talks a good talk about independence. Status quo could be the only option until America sells Taiwan some nukes. Are you writing to YOUR American government begging on Taiwan's behalf for some Nukes?
More than 7 million Taiwanese voted for Ma this time, so I don't think I am the minority of Taiwanese who want a different path for Taiwan from where DPP was leading us to. Self-determination means people with votes voice our opinion for now. China could always attack and take Taiwan back, hopefully YOUR American government would have sold Taiwan some nukes by then. Of course, it's ok for you to continue to 唱衰 the new government.
Can you vote in Taiwan?
Anon, Trace, Arty and Chewycorns, you are all criticising Michael for supporting Chen when no evidence existed that he broke the law,
ReplyDeleteYou could be right. However, I would like you to look up on how many case did Switzerland lost in prosecuting money laundry. It is the same thing here in the states, Fed almost never lost a RICO case.
Not Blue Not Green:
ReplyDeleteso I won't even dignify an attack on him by some American who I am 100% sure did NOT personally contribute anything for Taiwan's democratic movement.
No arguments involving facts. Of course, you actually don't know who or what I used to work for.
I know history is often written by the victors. "History" could be faked and twisted by KMT, by DPP and by Americans.
Again, no concrete arguments, just "I think."
Also a confession that you don't know anything about your own history.
Your whole response consists of "I think..." not backed up by anything. I'm glad you think Americans like to take responsibility for everything, but your personal feelings are not an argument for anything.
Next time around, why not try cracking open a history book and reading.
Sorry, don't have time to waste. I can't help those who don't know, but I can't help those who don't care that they don't know.
Michael
"No arguments involving facts. Of course, you actually don't know who or what I used to work for."
ReplyDeleteI see.. so please tell me exactly what you have persoanlly contributed to Taiwan's demoractic movement in your "job"? Were you sentenced to life in prison? Did you spend 10 years in prison for DPP's cause? Or did you start DPP??"
Again, 都是老美的功勞啦..老美是我們台灣民族的救星啦..施明德被國民黨關十年只能被當個屁啦. 沒有老美Mr. M.T.、沒有「陳阿騙」、「民禁黨」,台灣早就去了了,都是老美的功勞啦...哈哈哈
Most of you didn’t like it when I on purposely did NOT give Americans ANY credit for helping Taiwan out, right?
ReplyDeleteWith all due respect, you made repeated assertions to the effect that you considered the KMT solely responsible for the security, economic development, and democratization of Taiwan. I won't speculate on whether you actually making a point as you're now claiming, or simply trying to backtrack on your prior statements, but I would like you to know that either way, it's not behavior that I consider to be good faith discussion. I would appreciate it if you refrain from doing that in the future. Likewise, perhaps you should consider debating the actual points being raised rather than simply attacking the person raising them.
If 蔣經國 were not a great leader with Taiwan’s future in mind, he would have passed the rein to his sons, his half brother or another 外省人.
I prefer not to think of people as "Great Leaders". Smacks too much of personality cults, a.la. North Korea. I simply think of them as human beings with all the strengths and flaws that entails.
Many prominent figures who have contributed much to Taiwan have also done many wrong things as well. This includes Chiang Ching-kuo who has the blood of countless dissidents on his hands, while at the same time, presided over the economic growth of the late 70s and early 80s, and in his final years, finally ended martial law. And it also includes Chen Shui-bian who defended dissidents (including Shih Ming-teh) back when it was unhealthy to do so, and contributed much to making Taipei a truly international city in the late 90s, and presided over many important developments as President including the growth of Taiwan's OEM companies into their own brands, military and governmental reform, and a growing awareness of Taiwan itself amongst all citizens (compare the prominence of Taiwan in KMT rhetoric today compared to a decade or two ago). At the same time, he was not averse to employing controversial identity politics, and siphoned off election campaign money into offshore accounts, despite knowing it to be illegal.
If you can understand why Chiang Ching-kuo and the KMT are still remembered fondly for their contributions despite their many misdeeds, then perhaps you can understand why many people have also been hesitant about completely condemning Chen and the DPP.
This does not excuse what Chen did, which has done more damage to the fight for many important ideals that I believe in than anything the KMT could ever do. It is simply to illustrate that there is more to this story than just "DPP supporters are sheep, Chen is evil."
台灣加油!!! 我愛台灣!!
Indeed.
Channing wrote:
ReplyDelete“Concrete accusations require evidence, but attempting to pursue moral judgment with name-calling cannot even qualify as a valid allegation.”
You’ve gotta be kidding, Channing. I supplied strong evidence for each thing I said, with Arty’s logic-proof statements as exhibit A for many of those things. I’ll come back later and pick apart his … I’m sorry, but “intelligence-bereft” reply to me. For now, just take a look at this for further evidence of the truth of what I wrote with regard to Arty.
Thomas: Anon, Trace, Arty and Chewycorns, you are all criticising Michael for supporting Chen when no evidence existed that he broke the law,
Arty: “You could be right. However, I would like you to look up on how many case did Switzerland lost in prosecuting money laundry. It is the same thing here in the states, Fed almost never lost a RICO case.”
Kudos to Arty for actually admitting someone who disagrees with him could be right, but note again the way his mind immediately jumps to irrelevancy in the second sentence. What do Swiss prosecutions and RICO cases have to do with anything in the many posts and arguments here? What can explain this nursery-school-level associative logic but a narcissistic personality’s need to impress (“Look what I know!”)? Is Arty merely trolling? If he is, he’s doing a pretty strange job of it, because this really does make him look like a fool who can’t think much at all in linear fashion. Why do I therefore keep addressing what he says? Because his logical disconnects are easy-to-highlight extreme examples of the excessive logical disconnects that all Han traditionalists (whom I've encountered), including you, Channing, display to one degree or another. Clearly, Arty does not understand; if he did, he would be so ashamed. And he’ll maybe reply to the sentence I just wrote and supply even MORE evidence that he can’t think straight in argument. That’s my hope, because despite your logical disconnects, Channing, you seem like a person whose heart is in the right place. Maybe someday you will agree that Arty’s folly is a grotesque magnification of the phenomenon of traditionalist Han illogic. Maybe someday you will, though the power of your own example, help traditionalist Hans feel the self-respect that is always available to be felt once minds are even partly free from a fetish for hierarchical thinking.
Wow, some excellent comments by vin, thomas, d.corey, the foreigner, stopma and MT. Not much more to say except to highlight what the foreigner alluded to: "Taiwan's misfortune may be that the KMT sells it down the river...
ReplyDeleteI think this is the key that most blue supporters don't understand. They think the 2012 prez election is a given. I believe there is a good chance it will never happen. Vin, I remember you made a good comment back in Mar08: .....what you yourself don't work to get will be neither highly valued nor understood enough in its essence so that you know when it's being taken away from you.
fwiw, KMT supporters can enjoy gloating over CSB's downfall, but in reality, his failure is just one more nail in the coffin for all people who live in Taiwan and want to keep this place free from China's control. Yes, NBNG this includes foreigners, many of whom have deep roots, family, property and businesses here. Don't be such an ignorant, racist, kmt dipshit. We have a lot at stake here too and as taxpaying, permanent residents of Taiwan, have an right to an opinion.
MT, no need to keep Arty around, we get it.
OK so a very short intro... my grandparents begged my parents to immigrate to America... you might be able to assume what my views are, but for the record I root for sound policy and factual basis.
ReplyDeleteI've read most of the comments in this posting, and my general impression is that most of you are dwelling on the problem (or other i/relevent infos) and not thinking of the solution. CSB that, KMT this, DDP this, yada yada.
But I have a few questions for all of you... and I apologize for writing Chinese in pinyin - it is very difficult to write Chinese without the keyboard and software!
I have been paying attention to the Taiwan media firestorm over people related to Chen Shui-Bian. Yes I am in Taiwan [studying], but I also read Western news outlets just to see what "most" people might be exposed to from this region.
Why is there no mention of the campaign finance fraud investigation in Western media outlets (CNN, BBC...)?
And since some of the problems arise from campaign finance laws/clause ambiguities - should Taiwan also reform campaign finance? Retroactive? What kind of reforms should we have?
Sometimes we blame presidents on economic downturns and give credit to ones with economic upturns. (Here in america, alot of people gave credit to Bill Clinton for the prosperity we enjoyed and smashed Bush over it) There's also sometimes exaggeration about downturns/upturns but that also depends on what industry you are apart of.
Do you think the people in the island do that? Also, do you think that there is some sort of catharsis some of you enjoy when making rather hostile (or WAAAY out there) comments?
Do we not alter the truth to suit our interests?
No arguments involving facts. Of course, you actually don't know who or what I used to work for.
ReplyDeleteWho? CIA or FAPA? Even if you work for the CIA, you don't get to read some of the classify informations. If you used to work for FAPA, progressive lobbyist groups aren't doing so hot these days in Washington after what the Republican has done. Also let me miss quote you again...the key word here is "used" to work for. Btw, how's FAPA these days, the funding should be drying up...soon?
the way his mind immediately jumps to irrelevancy in the second sentence. What do Swiss prosecutions and RICO cases have to do with anything in the many posts and arguments here?
As an cheerleader for the "western" culture, you clearly don't understand that Switzerland is also going to prosecute Chen, right? Example: Google "Benazir Bhutto," and you will find out why. It is absolutely relevant because Swiss clearly has enough evidences to prosecute Chen alone without further evidence. Actually Switzerland did this a few times. Because someone is saying there is no evidence that Chen did anything in this thread...so I simply pointing to how the Switzerland's prosecution works.
I think this is the key that most blue supporters don't understand. They think the 2012 prez election is a given.
Well, I don't think 2012 is in the bag. However, if DPP keeps at it, it might as well.
I have no opinion on Arty. I don't agree with every one of his points, but I will contribute that he is on the more rational side and at least has the maturity to stay away from personal attacks.
ReplyDeleteAnd as long as people don't stray from rationality, you can't dismiss an honest opinion as "logical disconnect." You don't have a monopoly over what is fair in history--other people have opinions on what was fair and unfair.
I'm finished with this topic, for it looks like there's no way for some of us to accept certain opinions. Han traditionalist...me? I've lived my life in the most un-Han of Han-inhabited places...
Shih Ming-teh will be back now, with the credibility that only vindication can give him.
ReplyDeletethe world is really inside out where bad is good and good is bad.
Michael, i suggest that you change your blog to another topic - one not so disappointing - such as geocaching. you can dig up a geocache and be assured you won't get any shit on your hands in the process.
Thank you, reeb, but actually I don’t share your, Michael’s, and others’ skepticism about Taiwan’s future. I still have hope for Taiwan and for Taiwanese. Possibly my hope is not logical – is not well-thought-out; maybe I retain it simply in order to feel good. Anyway…
ReplyDeleteTo the “anonymous” I criticized earlier: I am almost one hundred percent with Michael’s replies to you – both his endorsements of what you wrote and his criticisms. For your chauvinistic, ultimately racist, assertion that foreigners can’t understand, and your illogical imputation that being able to read Chinese extremely well has anything to do with the quality of one’s understandings, I of course, strongly condemn you. And it seems you have overlooked that as he launched his protests, Shih rhetorically asked “Politics is about morality, so how can law be higher than politics?” -- a shockingly anti-democratic, circa-Zhou Dynasty piece of “thinking.” But your descriptions of your perceptions while growing up and of some of the failings of the DPP accord well with universalist principles, and therefore (if you ask me) have merit.
Of course, though, I stand by my contention that your analogies, including the last one you gave (on Taiwan/California -- Texas), are poor indeed, and you are way off the mark if you think that lots of American school kids today are not taught that white settlers and the US army frequently murdered Indians and stole their land – and broke every treaty they ever signed. Still, clearly, you have a better handle on logic than Arty does, and I admit I was overzealous in my criticism of your logic. And please don’t think I would ever laugh at someone’s limitations in expressing himself in a second language as long as the person were making an effort to be honest in his expression. Your ability to structure thought is good; it’s better than many native-speaker university undergrads in the US. You would gradually greatly improve the quality of your thought itself, though, if you dropped the blindness-inducing traditionalist chauvinism (more anti-foreigner, it seems, than rabid pro-Han-traditionalist), if you read up on logical fallacies, and if you then started looking at the texts Michael recommended to you (if it’s this stuff you want to argue about). Because even if the texts don’t persuade you, you still gotta know what’s in them to stand even a chance of mustering effective arguments against them.
"My friend just texts me:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that we can cast Chen aside and move forward (that we have to!) and yet the KMT does not have to do that to its thugs and thieves?"
Awesome!! 拍拍手,太棒了,說得好!! 大家來比爛!! 台灣國未來的貪官污吏「錢」途無量哦~~ Just adoopt阿扁的playbook,反正只要多喊「清廉、愛台灣」,然後愛A多少錢就A多少錢,反正事情「ㄅㄧㄚˋ ㄎㄤ」後還是有人挺的,因為國民黨也這麼爛啊!! 大家來比爛!! Yeah!!
可是話說回來,人家他們國民黨並沒有假惺惺地在和民進黨比清廉耶. All I can say is 「阿扁 live by the sword, die by the sword.」夜路走多碰到鬼了.
Channing, have you gone silent because Arty’s last reply to me has finally made you agree that he’s wholly given over to mangling logic in his endless, narcissism-driven quest to stroke himself and to put others down?
ReplyDeleteLet me address something you wrote in your last post:
“Vin, you are accusing people of the very things you are committing--trying to stuff beliefs, morals and even state of mind down the throats of others.”
Hold on here. Of course I am speaking from a belief-system, the same as everyone else here and everywhere is. But how does taking a belief-system stance while condemning another belief-system stance automatically entail hypocrisy? It’s the NATURE of the Han-traditionalist belief system that I’m condemning, not the fact that Han traditionalists HAVE a belief system.
Hypocrisy means having double standards, and there’s no double standard involved in insisting on logical and evidentiary accountability for one and all. Such a belief system is universalist; it does not contain the logical fallacy of “special pleading” (Asian values, Chinese exceptionalism; foreigners can’t understand Chinese/Taiwanese things; Chinese are not suited to democracy [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading]) that the Han-traditionalist perspective does. It has room for anyone and everyone -- of all races and creeds -- who is willing to submit to the universalist rule of logic-based evidence being applied equally to all arguments and hypotheses.
Said another way: my system contains no a priori claims such as about people or territory; its a priori claims are instead strongly related to the a priori foundations of scientific method.
So you can question whether my system is the only or the best universalist system available – or even if universalist systems should be used at all; but what you can’t logically do is call it hypocritical, because it has no double standard.
But what if you say to my previous sentence, "Wait, you just demonstrated non-hypocrisy through the use of your own belief-system’s foundation -- logic –- so your argument is actually circular?" Well, say this if you really want to. But with this argument, you would be negating the validity of scientific method, too. Are you sure you would want to do that? I don't think you would.
And no, Channing, I am not a crusader for ideas of Western superiority. “Dumbass” flourishes in every culture, very much including in my own American culture with the locked, dynamite-proof minds that fifty percent of Americans show in refusing to consider the overwhelming evidence for evolution. Indeed, “culture” is probably itself the biggest source and generator everywhere of "dumbass" in people and in their lives; the more “culture” matters, the greater the dumbass, it seems. A perfect example: highly insular, highly (culturally)chauvinistic Korean “culture.” A Taiwanese-businessman friend of mine who visited South Korea last month was first told by his hosts that Koreans invented tofu. Then he was informed that they had invented soy sauce. Finally he was told they invented chopsticks. “Bullshit,” he finally rejoined. “Chinese invented those three things.” And they got really angry him. “I could see they wanted to hit me," he said, "but they didn’t because I was bigger than any of them.” Another Taiwanese friend also visited South Korea last month. She was told there that Seoul residents would never want a building like Taipei 101. She asked why not. “There would be too many traffic problems around a big building like that.” “We have an MRT, so there are no traffic problems,” she replied. “No,” the guy said. “There are too many traffic problems.”
Really, what is the difference between this kind of ego/emotion-driven default on fact-seeking and reason and emotion-driven impatience that leads to smacking a kid? There's a difference for the kid, of course, but is the degree or kind of default in the adult much different? American flag-wavers, if you ask me, are not much better; it's all over-investment in what someone else should accept, should be, or should agree is glorious, and it all serves the same rum purpose: displacement of self-responsibility.
No, Channing, I am only a crusader for one aspect of Western culture – an aspect that many Westerners in fact fail to honor: Open-mindedness subject to the discipline of logic and evidence. And at this point in my life, it’s pretty much incidental to me that this value happens to have formally originated in the West. Were the value originally Eastern and thus originally foreign to me, I’m pretty sure that by now I would have all the same gravitated toward it if I had been exposed to it.
I see everywhere that such open-mindedness helps self-empower and bring self-respect to persons of every culture, of every religion, and of both sexes and all sexual orientations -- and that it breeds in people a heightened interest in justice – surely to your mind a good thing, no, Channing? Among the most noble examples in the world of this open-minded type are PRC nationals who fight and suffer for legal redress in that nation’s system of kleptocracy – people like lawyers Li Heping (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/03/world/asia/03china.html) and Chen Guangcheng (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17393). These people, folks with far more courage than I and most other people possess, are the ones who, in my belief system, garner respect for the Chinese people. Not the hierarchy-fetish, face-mongering, traditionalist-Hans. Not the victim-mentality, culture-mongering Opium War redressers. Not egregiously illogical, narcissistic-personality-disordered Arty bleating about owning several houses and making ten-times-as-much money.
Don’t you, too, Channing, think that Li and Chen number among Han cultures’ most outstanding members, while the latter types don't at all? And do you really disagree that there is no reason why a Westerner – or a fellow Han – should be blamed for not respecting the concerns of the hierarchy-fetishist, traditionalist types of Hans? I want so much to get an answer here from you on these two questions.
No blame to you, Channing, for at first thinking I’m a bigot and a cultural chauvinist, because I didn’t explain my provocative stance at first and didn’t at first (as you said) supply evidence for my assertions. But I knew I didn’t need to supply evidence at first: I knew if I merely got him going, Arty would provide reams of evidence. But I’m so disappointed that you joined him in supplying me with Han-traditionalist illogic that I could use as grist. Maybe you only or mostly did that because I sneered at you in a thread a couple weeks back. I hope that’s why, because you’re clearly no dumbass. And you seem to have at least a conditional respect for logic. So I do doubt that you are fully, and forever will be, the traditionalist kind of Han. It is still my hope that you will one day decide to quit the special-pleading, hierarchy-fetishist, Han-traditionalist faction and join the ever-growing number of open-minded Hans whom anyone anywhere would be privileged to know. Each person does make a difference; each person’s choice does matter. And with your intelligence, you could make a considerable difference.
I sincerely hope you will answer the two questions I asked two paragraphs above. I respectfully ask for your answers.
Arty
ReplyDeleteI never worked for FAPA. NotBlue/NOt Green has no clue about my past, but nevertheless he is making claims about it.
Why is there no mention of the campaign finance fraud investigation in Western media outlets (CNN, BBC...)?
Actually, it's all over those outlets. In Google Reader I saw dozens of articles, including pieces at Xinhua, Al Jazeera, Forbes, Bloomberg, AFP, LA Times, etc.
As for your remarks about reform of the laws, forget it. Yet another terrible piece of fallout from this is that the Blues can claim "it is all Chen Shui-bian"! and no system issue is involved.
Michael
"My friend just texts me:
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that we can cast Chen aside and move forward (that we have to!) and yet the KMT does not have to do that to its thugs and thieves?"
With the KMT, they drag them out as symbols of "The Good Old Days" to rally their base. They have never accounted for the grave crimes and misdeeds committed by their leadership and built a defensive phalanx of mythology around them. Those that view these demigods otherwise are labelled blasphemers and heretics.
Channing, you wrote:
ReplyDelete“I have no opinion on Arty. I don't agree with every one of his points, but I will contribute that he is on the more rational side and at least has the maturity to stay away from personal attacks.”
But, Channing, here is part of Arty’s last paragraph to me:
“Vin are you should you are not one of the anons? You sounded just like one of them who is a racist white trash from the US.”
Channing, the one thing I did not do with Arty (yes, I did a lot) is come down on him for being Han. For being a traditionalist Han, you bet, and for displaying what appears to be narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-IV) even more strongly, yes. But for being Han per se, absolutely not. But Arty takes the race angle, calling me “white trash” and saying I’m the racist here.
But it’s not important. If you read my last long post, I think you’ll see that you have seriously misunderstood me. I hope so. And you say you’re not a Han traditionalist; if that is really true, then I have misunderstood you, too. And I am relieved to hear it and delighted to find I was right to have some faith in you. So please don’t go away now when there’s a chance we might actually find common ground.
Unfortunately, though, you did write this:
“And as long as people don't stray from rationality, you can't dismiss an honest opinion as "logical disconnect."
People did stray from logic, and I explained in what fashion and gave supporting wiki links that further explained. Those were not subjective arguments I presented, so it’s very disheartening to see you saying this here. Sure, if they don’t stray, but you did stray some, and Arty did a lot.
But still, I am interested in your answer to my two questions near the end of my previous long post. I guess that nearly everyone who is still looking at this thread wonders if common ground is ever possible; I think those two questions will help a lot for resolving whether it is or is not. I hope it is. You know I’m not talking about political blue/green shit here, right? Or East vs. West culture shit. Do we share a mutual respect first for justice and a mutual admiration first for those who fight most for it? Is justice far more important to you, as it is far more important to me, than “culture” and nationalism? If it is, then we can sort the logic stuff out later -- or even let it go. Do we share an overriding interest in justice? I keenly await your response to my two questions in my previous post.
And in case we do get somewhere with this, or even if we don't, can I ask that you belatedly acknowledge that I was nowhere foul-mouthed in my first post here.
We can at least agree that insulting and foul-mouthed are two different things, can't we?
Vin:
ReplyDeletePersonally, I've become a bit cautious with regard to human rights history in China. Lawyers selflessly defending abuse victims are definitely to be lauded, but by the time the related news reaches my Californian ears it has gone through:
1) The ever-reliable Chinese legal system
2) The ever-unbiased state media
3) Translation
4) Western media
Each of these 4 steps has room for error, bias and ulterior motives, especially the first two. I receive a decent amount of personal accounts of horror stories in Chinese society...it's taught me that even the most noble of advertised causes can leave room for ugly or very gray truth.
Would it be ironic that someone been accused of being a Han traditionalist who is an American, graduated from American schools, dating/marrying American women, and LIVING and working in the US. While the one accusing him of being a Han traditionalist, work in Taiwan, living in Taiwan, and probably only dated Asian women or married one.
ReplyDeleteAlso, apparently anyone disagreeing with the great logical westerner are "people did stray from logic." You wiki link is a well know paradox in Classic (i.e. logic); but the definition of usage of any of related term was never define in any particular situation, and they wounder why they can't find a job after graduation. Like I said, you are not the only one who took Classic in college (of course, for someone like to use Classic definition in their arguments: you have either be a classic major or some wacky liberal art majors). Do you think you are Spock? Oh, it is also funny that someone rarely calling people names is labeled as trolling etc. on this blog. It is very entertaining for me personally of course.
P.S. Most of your links don't work because it is cut off by the frame, vin (space at the broader, hyper-linked it, or use tiny urls).
I agree with all you wrote in your last post, Channing; every story should, individually, be treated with some skepticism. Here is an interesting one from Stateside that may have some gray area in it:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/17/us/17student.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=tibet%20protest%20university%20of%20washington&st=cse&oref=slogin
But the sheer volume of these stories would not be remotely possible unless (a) Western media were running a coordinated campaign to discredit China through such stories (wouldn’t any such campaign simply have to be coordinated, because wouldn’t other media sources otherwise sooner or later get wind of any reportage conspiracies and try to score points by reporting them?), or (b) large numbers of Chinese were arranging to get beat up for the sake of career advancement or else just to become famous. (I think we can agree that some might be doing this, but that Chinese would not, in large numbers resort to this kind of weird behavior.) So we can both agree that a lot of human rights defenders in China are getting beat up, right?
And whatever the actual number of educated Chinese at Duke who vilified Ms. Wang (story linked to above), and whatever degree of personal grandstanding Ms. Wang may have engaged in, her effort at compromise was something any civilized person would basically endorse, and that more than one or two “educated” Chinese students at Duke did instantly descend into barbarism in response to her civilized behavior? (And there’s no doubt whatsoever that many “educated” PRC nationals at MIT descended into barbarous intellectual intolerance over the Japanese-army photo exhibit, right?)
I’m still hoping for a direct response to my questions two posts ago. Whichever the real human rights defenders in China are, it is they who earn respect for Chinese peoples and Chinese cultures everywhere, and for the PRC, right? And the barbarous students referred to above, along with Opium War redressers, and straight old hierarchy-fetishist Han traditionalists reflect very poorly on Chinese peoples, cultures, and nations – the same as American “Love it or leave it” types did during the US-Vietnam War? Are we agreed on that? I think, though it might not feel so good to do so, that you in fact do, reluctantly, agree. Am I correct in my guess there?
If yes, I hope you can understand that I sincerely see reason to be greatly concerned that so many “educated” Chinese are displaying such belligerent closed-mindedness and such hostility to dialogue. During the war years in the US, you can bet a lot of educated war supporters wanted to join blue-collar types in shouting “America: Love it or leave it.” But they generally used other, more sophisticated, more self-controlled, and ultimately far more effective, ways to argue their opinion. Don’t you hope, like I do, that Chinese “educated” nationalists can display the same degree of sophistication and self-control – and thus persuasiveness -- as their American counterparts did and do?
I do sincerely feel there is something particularly dangerous for all countries in the world, including China herself, in this willingness of even educated Chinese to give themselves over to orgiastic nationalism. You may disagree, but it seems Neanderthal-level to me.
You are civil in your disagreements. And I am perfectly capable of being the same. So why aren’t we on the same side in this stuff? We both want the best for China, Taiwan, and for Chinese peoples everywhere, don’t we?
(But no, I don’t agree to be nice to Arty, because I’m sure his constant class-based better-worse comparisons reflect narcissistic personality disorder. I hope we can agree to disagree there.)
Can I get a direct answer from you to my questions two posts ago and to any of these questions here that you wish to address?
And can I get an acknowledgement from you that I in fact never used any foul-mouthed language in my first post? Because if by “foul-mouthed” you meant the standard meaning, “obscene,” the closest I came in that post was “bet your backside” – hardly close at all. For the sake of mutual respect here, it is important to me that that charge against me be withdrawn – or else that it be explained to me that you actually meant something else by “when a mouth becomes this foul.”
“…dating/marrying American women…”
ReplyDeleteHow many wives do you have, Arty?! You’re even more of a Han traditionalist than I thought!
Seriously, Arty, you have one of the most infantile minds I have ever encountered: one that runs on classist (and sometimes racist) impulses, builds on wacky assumptions, and that displays the most inane, medieval-type associative logic I’ve ever seen in an adult American.
Actually, I might be making more money than you are. And you know nothing about my job. But who cares? I have very little hope for you, Arty. Narcissistic personality disorder is a challenge for even the best therapists to treat, and you’re not even admitting to the problem.
So no sympathy from here beyond a basic "Good luck!"
How many wives do you have, Arty?! You’re even more of a Han traditionalist than I thought!
ReplyDeleteNot married if you read my old posts, but I sure date a lot :). As on how much money that you made, sure you can make more money than I am, but I have some family money so I don't really care how much I made. My job currently just my hobbit. There is a professor (a Taiwanese, too) in USC who is hell rich but he just want the title that's why he is working as a professor (he is in his late 30s getting pay only around 80k-100k; however, he live in a multi-million dollar house, and having a lot of toys i.e. cars, motorcycle, etc).
Oh I just thought of a recent data on Chinese "education" I read. Here is a link for you.
http://tinyurl.com/5zdxg2
I don't see any Indian institution. The original article in in Science, but you need to be a subscriber to read it.
You are civil in your disagreements. And I am perfectly capable of being the same. So why aren’t we on the same side in this stuff? We both want the best for China, Taiwan, and for Chinese peoples everywhere, don’t we?
You are civil? Who started name calling :). Lol. Also, if you wish the best for China, Taiwan, Chinese people, and AMERICANS, you won't call Chinese inferiors or think that way like a white trash. Also, it is kind of funny that you keep asking Channing to answer your question, and yet you have answer none of mine. :)
wow, 不藍不綠...you wrote a lot of stuff. Every time someone writes something, you respond with 294 paragraphs of text.
ReplyDeleteNot sure whether I agree with you or not, or what your point is, because I can't be bothered going through your response. Maybe you should be more concise with your point, so I don't have to use the mouse wheel so much to scroll past your responses.
Civil fighters for all noble causes that contribute to the advancement and well-being of their societies all deserve to be lauded, and of course advancing human rights is one of them.
ReplyDeleteA mouth needn't be literally vulgar to be foul, and the initial message I received, assuming an intent that you claim was misinterpreted, was far from clean.
The Farm Association Reform bills were blocked by the KMT, not Chen SHui-bian. I blogged on that last year. Very sad, and of crucial importance. The whole system needs to be terminated and then rebuilt.
ReplyDeleteArty - for someone that consistently brags about his .edu achievements, your comprehension skills are not even at the kindergarten level.
ReplyDeleteif you wish the best for China, Taiwan, Chinese people, and AMERICANS, you won't call Chinese inferiors or think that way like a white trash.
Arty, how on earth can you honestly construe this interpretation of what vin wrote? Go back and re-read his/her comments. Likewise, please at least take a look at the wiki page on Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Frankly, after reading your comments here over the months, I too believe this is exactly what you are suffering from.
Sorry if the truth hurts. Maybe with this insight you can see a Psychologist and find some mental balance in your life.
Thank you, Channing, for explaining somewhat your view on "foul-mouth."
ReplyDeleteYou still didn't very much answer my question(s) from before, but that's OK. You did answer in part. And I think the key difference between our views is now clear. (You think strong nationalist views and great pride in culture is basically a good thing; I think these are nearly always bad things. Hope you agree that accurately and without judgement summarizes.)
I do still think you and I could find a lot of common ground in the areas those questions I asked before touch on. But we did, in the end, at least find a little common ground here. I think sincerely searching first and repeatedly for that is the key, and then... well, arguments won't end, but surely they will decrease in number and intensity; people will stop talking past each other and actually benefit from from association with each other -- even in the course of disagreeing.
I regret sneering at you in some posts a couple weeks back and say sorry to you about that and wish you the best. You know I would still always strongly stress logic, but I'm always happy to look for the common ground in any discussion with you.
Sorry if the truth hurts. Maybe with this insight you can see a Psychologist and find some mental balance in your life.
ReplyDeleteWell, if I have Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What do you guys have? I didn't accuse of you guys been illogical or have some kinds of personal disorders. I am just saying you guys' opinions are wrong and why I think that they are wrong? And all the sudden you guys began saying that you must be "stupid," an "idiot," an "illogical baffooo," and suffer from "mental illness," which I believe only people who are really suffering from them will accuse of people exactly what they are/have.
P.S. I know the definition of the disorder really well because I "think" majority of American women are suffering from a mild form of it :P. Btw, my old neighbor is a psychiatrist (not wimpy psychologist). She said I am absolutely normal clinically and behavior wise. Of course, you don't have to believe me :).