MEDIA: Watch how BBC Sexes up tensions in its pro-China reporting

Alas, my Canon body died last year and I haven't bought a new one. So no chance to shoot bugs in ages.

First, the excellent news that Reporters without Borders has decided to open its Asia Bureau in Taipei rather than Hong Kong, testimony to the shifting fortunes of the two cities.

“The choice of Taiwan was made not only with regards to its central geographic location and ease of operating logistics, but also considering its status of being the freest place in Asia in our annual Press Freedom Index ranking," said Deloire.

Longtime commentator J Michael Cole and other local media figures played a small role in getting them to locate here, good work, Michael.

Meanwhile, there's @BBCHua. 

Note the headline first:

Taiwan announces submarine building ahead of Trump-Xi summit

The headline suggests to the reader, falsely, that there is some connection between the Xi-Trump summit and Taiwan's submarine program. The text then reinforces that.

Taiwan has announced plans for eight new submarines, a senior Taiwanese navy official confirmed on Wednesday.

The new vessels will be Taiwanese-made, unlike its current fleet of four, which were bought from overseas decades ago.

The announcement comes the day before Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump meet in Florida.

The text then omits all the relevant information the reader needs to make a decision about what this might mean. Let's check the Straits Times out of Singapore, a paper no one could accuse of being pro-Taiwan:

Taiwan plans to build eight submarines to bolster its current fleet of four ageing vessels, its navy chief said yesterday.

Navy chief Lee Tsung-hsiao yesterday confirmed that Taiwan aimed to build eight of such vessels, after President Tsai Ing-wen announced two weeks ago that it will develop its own submarines.

Note the language in the BBC piece: it wrote "confirmed" as well for the announcement. The writer appears to have known perfectly well that the announcement of submarines did not occur the day before the Xi-Trump Summit, but had occurred weeks before and that the Navy Chief was reiterating old news. The writer even refers to President Tsai's wish for undersea capability, without mentioning any prior announcement of the program (!). Nevertheless, the writer connected it to the Xi-Trump summit and omitted the fact that the program had been public for months.

Sexing up the news to create tension and links where none exist is a vile, shameless ethical violation, but we all know who BBC roots for. Really, I have no idea why BBC bothers to spend money on reporting news out here when it could simply buy news directly from Xinhua, offer the same information, and save a ton of money.

How long has this been known? Again, the Straits Times:

A total of NT$2.9 billion (S$133.7 million) will be set aside from last December to December 2020 for the design of the submarines. The eight locally made submarines will replace Taiwan's four foreign-built underwater vessels. Two of these were built in the United States during World War II, while the other two are Dutch-built submarines, commissioned in the late 1980s.

That's right. The money was publicly budgeted 5 months ago. There have been media reports since then, like this one from March 22 in the Taipei Times ("Homegrown Submarine Plan Launched"). A week earlier this piece on the Quadrennial Defense Review mentioned the indigenous sub program. A week before that the subs were discussed. Oh, and here's one from January. In fact you can go back to the fall: in November the program went out to tender. In October a new commission on shipbuilding to oversee the submarine and other efforts is discussed.

There is no way a thinking ethical human can create a link to the Xi-Trump Summit. The submarine news is not related to it, but has been in the news for months. Either the writer of the BBC piece was an idiot who doesn't know how to use Google, or simply lied to make a more interesting story. Note, for example, that the Straits Times piece did not connect the announcement to the Xi-Trump summit.

Sexing up things to create tensions where there aren't any isn't even the worst thing this piece did. Check out this completely slanted comment:

Taiwan's defence minister has accused China of having more than 1,000 missiles pointed at the island.

BBC presents the well-known fact of missiles aimed at Taiwan as if it were a mere accusation of the Defence Minister rather than a fact in the world. But why stop there, BBC? Do it right:

Taiwan's defence minister has accused China of having armed forces.

The piece ends with the by-now standard erroneous claim that the TRA obligates the US to defend Taiwan (the TRA obligates the US to nothing, it is specifically written that way).

The US is obligated under its own laws (the Taiwan Relations Act) to help Taiwan defend itself.

I specifically discussed this error with a BBC rep before in relation to this post in which BBC adopted a few corrections to its once insanely pro-China China-Taiwan backgrounder. We'll see this error in the future, sadly.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

BBC: Ok to whack dissidents if they are commies? + forwarding the propaganda under the guise of "balance" *sigh*

Study carefully all the things in this picture. Then: don't.

BBC writes on the White Terror -- no kidding, BBC feels it needs to publish "the other side" of a government program of mass murder, torture, intimidation, censorship, and colonial control of food, energy, education, the economy, and finance. Sick:

While victims' families label Chiang "the murderer", others, especially those whose families fled with him from communist China, credit him with liberating Taiwan from Japanese colonial rule.

They argue he had to consolidate control over the island and keep it from descending into chaos and falling under communist rule.

But most agree his methods were excessive.

Some of those arrested did support communism but only because they were repulsed by Chiang's harsh suppression of dissent.

"liberating Taiwan from colonial rule". That was the US, BBC, that liberated Taiwan, by defeating Japan. It's irrelevant what Chiang's supporters think because what they think is bullshit on every level, and shouldn't be reported as if it were balancing" information. Instead, BBC should have identified it as propaganda. BBC even identifies Chiang Kai-shek as "who [the victims' families] see as the biggest culprit" as if it were possible for someone else to be the culprit, thus softening his role.

The chaos and colonialism were the direction result of Chiang's murderous, loot-driven, income-reducing rule. Chiang could have "consolidated control" in any number of non-murderous ways, for example, by erecting something like a functioning democracy, as the US more or less did in Japan. BBC gives no hint of the actual history, nor does it provide any disclaimer warning that such claims are nonsense.

Never has there been a better illustration of the way false "balance" functions as a way to forward anti-democracy, anti-Taiwan, pro-China propaganda. Shame on you, BBC.

As I have often noted, in the western media, eastern European states resisting Russian expansion are portrayed as plucky little democracies and the history is correctly represented, while Taiwanese resisting Chinese expansionism and colonialism are treated as provocative children who get what they deserve. Articles illustrating this double standard are not difficult to find. Consider this BBC report of a statue being pulled down in Estonia:

Russia, and many ethnic Russians in Estonia, consider the monument commemorates those who died to liberate Estonia from the Nazis.

However, the Soviet Union had occupied Estonia before the Second World War, and annexed it again in 1945, and so many Estonians regard the statue as a symbol of the country's occupation.

Note that the first paragraph gives the Russian propaganda line. But, BBC then correctly and ethically signals that this is propaganda by giving the actual history. Taiwan never gets this kind of service. Imagine if BBC had written of Estonia:

While Estonian families label Russians "the murderers", ethnic Russians, especially those whose families came in with the Russian occupation, credit Russia with liberating Estonia from German colonial rule.

They argue the Russians had to consolidate control over the Baltic state and keep it from descending into chaos and falling under Fascist rule.

But most agree Russian methods were excessive.

Everyone would say "those weren't excesses, they were deliberate policy." Ditto for Taiwan.

But if those two vile paragraphs weren't enough, BBC then contends that "some who were arrested did support Communism" as if that made it ok to arrest and kill them. Hey, it's excusable to tie them up with wires, drag them down to the race course, put a bullet through their heads, and toss them in the river, because, well, some really were Communists. The "but only" excuses the Communists from believing in Communism, while the fact that they "did support Communism" appears to excuse the KMT from killing them. What if BBC had written:

The KMT murdered thousands of people, many by falsely accusing them of supporting Communism. Others were arrested and executed for the "crime" of being without ID cards, or because someone wanted revenge, or coveted their property.

That would be history. BBC gets within shouting distance by noting that some were killed for wanting a more democratic society, or for being in the wrong place at the wrong time (what does that mean? "Oops, sorry we made a mistake"). But then, BBC only does concrete history if you're a plucky Baltic democracy resisting Russian expansion. If you're a Taiwanese being executed by the Chiangs, some of you probably deserved it somehow.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

=UPDATED= BBC's Error-ridden, pro-China backgrounder on the Taiwan-China issue

Needed a Lanyu pic to stay calm for this blogpost.

Wow. Talk about failure. BBC produces a comprehensive failure of the kind rarely seen, at once totally incompetent and completely unethical. Those of you who wonder why I always say BBC is institutionally pro-China, need look no further. I thought we might expect this kind of thing when the UK became a Chinese State-Owned Enterprise... So brace for an all-points fisk, dear reader. Gonna be a long one...

Let's start with the slanted title: What's behind the China-Taiwan divide?

There is no "divide" between China and Taiwan. The divide is between the CCP and KMT. BBC is neutral; it roots for both parties against the people of Taiwan. The real divide is between the two Leninist, authoritarian Chinese expansionist parties that want to annex Taiwan to China, and the people of Taiwan, the vast majority of whom want independence. Wouldn't What's behind the China-Taiwan Issue? have been a more balanced and less assumptive title?

Note one notable improvement in the last couple of years (discussed in a post below) in the photo caption:

China sees Taiwan as a break-away province that will eventually be part of the country again, but many Taiwanese want a separate nation.

...not quite up to the real situation in which the majority of Taiwanese want an independent nation, but much better than a decade ago when the Taiwanese weren't even mentioned. Possibly in another decade the media will start saying most Taiwanese want an independent state. Except for BBC, of course.

The next set of commentary is hilariously obvious and desperate in its attempt to link Taiwan to China. If so much weren't at stake, this obsequious service to Beijing would be comical...

The first known settlers in Taiwan are thought to have come from modern day southern China.

The island first appears in Chinese records in AD239, when China sent an expeditionary force to explore - a fact Beijing uses to back its territorial claim.

After a brief spell as a Dutch colony (1642-1661) Taiwan was unquestionably administered by China's Qing dynasty from 1683 to 1895.

Note first what's not here -- "aborigines". Taiwan's indigenous people are simply gone from this discussion. A huge omission, for an obvious reason: the aborigines have a claim that predates Han settlement. Observe that BBC refers to "the first known settlers" not people or humans, as if to deliberately mislead the reader into thinking they were Han settlers like those of a later era. Note also that no time is given -- had the BBC specifically mentioned the date, the reader would immediately realize that the "settlers" could not have been Chinese.

The reality is that they were Austronesian people, not Han, and archaeology is demonstrating more and more that they came up from the south (see chapter 1 of Bill Hayton's The South China Sea for a review). The argument that they diffused out of what is now southern China is deliberately cultivated by pro-China types to help Beijing's expansionism in East and Southeast Asia. As Hayton notes, the ancient rice grains found in Taiwan are actually strains from India and Java. They were supplanted by strains from China much later. The first people in Taiwan most likely came up from the south, not from China.

"First appears in Chinese records in "239" (recall that by then Taiwan had hosted complex aboriginal societies for thousands of years). Far from being a fact, it is only a guess that references to Yizhou (夷洲) in the third century and Liuqiu in the ancient literature may refer to Taiwan, there's no evidence to suggest it. There's an excellent post on Forumosa that explains, with proper references, how stupid this claim is.

And why should anyone care when the island first appears in Chinese records? Unless you want to create the idea that Taiwan exists only in a Chinese context...

ERROR: Anyone could find from Wiki that the Dutch period in Taiwan began in 1624. Idiots.

I especially love the "unquestionably" in that third paragraph above. It's like a flare warning that this piece was written from a pro-China perspective. Who else but a Chinese expansionist would insist on "unquestionably"? Is that balanced commentary?  Followed, of course, by the totally pro-Beijing "China's Qing Dynasty" to describe the non-Chinese Manchu empire. "China's" used possessively that way is another flare signaling the political tilt of this document.

All my readers know the reality: "Taiwan" was never administered by the Manchu Qing, who were not even Chinese. The Manchus never controlled the whole island, and for most of the period controlled only the western plains, and of them, only part. Our thinking of "what the Qing controlled" is shaped by the late 19th century maps with neat lines showing the Qing boundary swelling up to the foot of the central mountain range. The truth is that for most of the Manchu period most of Taiwan was not under Manchu control. The first government to have effective control of the island was Japanese.

BBC natters on:

Starting at the beginning of the 17th Century, significant numbers of migrants started arriving from China, often fleeing turmoil or hardship. Most were Hoklo Chinese from Fujian (Fukien) province or were Hakka Chinese, largely from Guangdong. The descendants of these two migrations now make up by far the largest population group.

BBC banished the aborigines completely, but look at the level of detail it puts into explaining the Chinese migrants and who they were: Hoklos (aside from experienced Taiwan people, who would know what that means?) and Hakkas. BBC even tells us their descendants are the largest population group.

Clearly BBC is worried that there are other population groups whose claims might impinge on the Chinese claim, and hastens to reassure us on that score. But who would these mysterious population groups be? We'll never know, reading BBC.

What's omitted? Oh yeah, the Dutch controlled Taiwan during this period of Han immigration and brought the Han in to form a colonial population. That's safely moved to the paragraph above so the connection is weakened. No mention of Dutch effect on Taiwan, either, because for BBC Taiwan = Chinese!

Thus far, every paragraph has related Taiwan to China in establishing its origins. Neat, eh? The bias is obvious.

After explaining that the Qing ceded Taiwan to Japan, BBC says:

But Japan's defeat in World War Two led to the US and Britain agreeing that Taiwan should be handed over to their ally, Chiang Kai-shek's Republic of China government, which was then in control of most of China.

This is a muddled reference to the Cairo Declaration, of course. Cairo is an important text in the scripture of the Chinese claim to Taiwan. But interestingly, Cairo is not named. Readers thus can't look up this reference and learn that Cairo means nothing to either the UK or the US, and the current status of Taiwan under international law is undetermined.

ERROR: Note the (probably deliberate) historical error via time conflation: Cairo took place in 1943, before "Japan's defeat in World War II". AFTER WWII the UK and US agreed NOT to give Taiwan to China.

But BBC isn't going to mention the San Francisco Peace Treaty.

Also omitted: any mention of Japan's effect on Taiwan, or its role in shaping the Taiwanese identity. Japan is of course anathema to Chinese expansionists.

Then comes 1949 and one of the most sadly funny comments in the article:

Chiang and the remnants of his Kuomintang (KMT) government fled to Taiwan in 1949. This group, referred to as Mainland Chinese and then making up 1.5m people, dominated Taiwan's politics for many years, even though they only account for 14% of the population.

Having inherited an effective dictatorship, Chiang's son, Chiang Ching-kuo, began a process of democratisation, which eventually led to the 2000 election of the island's first non-KMT president, Chen Shui-bian.

"dominated Taiwan's politics for many years." As a friend remarked on Facebook,

"I guess "Rounded up, tortured and executed all political opponents while stealing all of the country's assets" was a bit too close to reality."

...of course, KMT rule begins in 1949 for the BBC, instead of 1945. Thus, the most important event in Taiwan's immediate postwar history, the 2-28 massacre of thousands of Taiwanese by the KMT, is omitted.

But "Chiang Ching-kuo, began a process of democratization". Seriously? Omitted is the tangwai era, the formation of Taiwan independence activism, martial law, and of course, the father of Taiwan's modern democracy, Lee Teng-hui. Instead, BBC assigns democracy to Chiang Ching-kuo, a dictator whose government, immediately upon lifting martial law in 1987, passed a new security law that was martial law in all but name.

Writing that CCK began a process of democratization in Taiwan is like writing: "In 1776, King George of England began a process of giving independence to the colonists in America".

BBC then in the next three paragraphs again relates Taiwan to China. There's no mention of the deep connection between Taiwan's China stance and the democratization that Taiwan was undergoing. It even mentions that the ROC said the war with China was over in 1991, without mentioning who was President, so deep is its antipathy to Lee Teng-hui.

Then, at last, Chen Shui-bian. Poor China!

Beijing became alarmed in 2000, when Taiwan elected as president Chen Shui-bian, who had openly backed independence.

We're told what Beijing thought. It is "alarmed" (ZOMG! Poor put-upon Bejing!). But -- not what Taiwan thinks. Then we hear that Chen's re-election "prompted" China to pass the Anti-Secession Law, a clear case of blaming the victim.

BBC has altered its language on the ASL, by the way. It now says

stating China's right to use "non peaceful means" against Taiwan if it tried to secede from China.

BBC used to say.... (link)

"Passed three years ago, it legalises the use of force against Taiwan if the island formally declares independence."

So much to unpack in the current text -- China has no "right" to murder Taiwanese and take their land (China's has signed international treaties specifically foreclosing that option). Thus, the "law" states China's intent, not its rights. The law does not define a "right" and BBC should not reify that nonsense. Note that secede is not in quotes, though it should be. Recall that the UK's position is that Taiwan's status is undetermined. BBC should reflect international law and UK practice by adopting that position. I have remarked on the uses of the term "law" many times...

One disturbing tendency I've seen in the international press is this idea that since China has passed the Anti-Secession Law, it has a "legal right" to declare war on Taiwan. Calling this declaration of intent to murder Taiwanese a "law" was a huge propaganda coup for China, since westerners think of "law" as something that is ethically normative. The oddity of the western press' position on the Anti-Secession Law is that none of them would ever write: "China has passed internal security laws giving it the right to murder dissidents" but they have no trouble saying exactly that about the Anti-Secession Law, directed at Taiwan, Island of Dissidents (here).

Finally, after a hurried nod to Ma Ying-jeou, we get the slanted discussion of Taiwan's status.

China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province which it has vowed to retake, by force if necessary. But Taiwan's leaders say it is clearly much more than a province, arguing that it is a sovereign state.

Who are Taiwan's leaders? Obviously, at this point, they would be the KMT and DPP leadership. But BBC avoids mentioning the term "Republic of China". What sovereign state could Taiwan be?

There's some improvement in the next paragraphs....

While political progress has been slow, links between the two peoples and economies have grown sharply. Taiwanese companies have invested about $60bn (£40bn) in China, and up to one million Taiwanese now live there, many running Taiwanese factories.

Some Taiwanese worry their economy is now dependent on China. Others point out that closer business ties makes Chinese military action less likely, because of the cost to China's own economy.

A controversial trade agreement sparked the "Sunflower Movement" in 2014 where students and activists occupied Taiwan's parliament protesting against what they call China's growing influence over Taiwan.

Kudos to BBC for saying "the two peoples" and not "the two sides". BBC also reproduces a common trope in the international media: "political progress" -- the media commonly refer to some process like that, without ever naming its end state.

Mysterious progress that is, always moving forward, never getting anywhere. It's existential, guys.

"Others point out that closer business ties..." Not only is this treated as a bare fact, but the discussion of this fact omits China's longstanding strategy of using business ties to disintegrate Taiwan's economy in order to integrate the island politically. It can only be a fact in that context.

Of course, while saying that businessmen point out "facts", the Sunflowers' entirely correct perception of "China's growing influence" which no one, pro- or anti-annexation would deny, is relegated to the status of an opinion: "what they call..."   BBC even repeats that in a photo caption. No bias there!

At last, the discussion of identity. Having delivered this pro-China sermon, how will BBC handle reality?

Officially, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) still favours eventual independence for Taiwan, while the KMT favours eventual re-unification. Opinion polls show only a small minority of Taiwanese support one or the other, with most preferring to stick with the current middle ground.

Yet more and more people say they feel Taiwanese rather than Chinese, and there is growing support for the DPP in the upcoming election, partly because of dissatisfaction with the ruling party KMT's handling of economic matters, from the wealth gap to high housing prices, and partly because of worries that the current administration is making Taiwan too dependent on Beijing.

The first paragraph ends in a clever bit of twisting. The context is again omitted: the status quo is favored because it is a weak form of independence, and a solid majority (usually 60-70% minimum) favor independence. Reality forms cute little origami shapes in BBC's hands.

"More and more people say they feel Taiwanese..." Again, BBC omits saying that the vast majority see themselves as Taiwanese. Instead, BBC opposes "Chinese" -- as if there is still some substantial majority of people in Taiwan calling themselves "Chinese" and the current trend portends that on some distant day, Taiwanese may think of themselves as "Taiwanese." LOL.

BBC closes with a review of the relationship with the US.

The US is by far Taiwan's most important friend, and its only ally.

Virtual experiment: try crafting a definition of US as an "ally" that doesn't include Japan. More quietly than the US, Japan is also an ally of Taiwan.

Then come two very common errors:

The US Congress, responding to the move, passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which promises to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons, and stressed that any attack by China would be considered of "grave concern" to the US.

The TRA nowhere promises to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons. That's a plain error. If you read Section 3.1 it reads like a promise. But you have to read 3.2, which leaves the decision to sell up to the President and Congress. Nothing brings Taiwan into the process, and nothing stops POTUS and Wall Street's representatives from deciding to sell nothing to Taiwan. Hence, no promise.

The pivotal role of the US was most clearly shown in 1996, when China conducted provocative missile tests to try and influence Taiwan's first direct presidential election. In response, US President Bill Clinton ordered the biggest display of US military power in Asia since the Vietnam War, sending ships to the Taiwan Strait, and a clear message to Beijing.

No ships were sent to the Taiwan Strait (see Michal Thim and Kitsch Liao). They stayed well to the south and east.

BBC, you suck.

UPDATED: I was re-checking the BBC article to see whether they altered it, when I realized the image of Chen Shui-bian they chose is one in which he has a giant zit on the end of his nose. I'm sure it's just a coincidence, and not a subtle dig. Ma Ying-jeou is given a smiling portrait, of course. The image of the Sunflowers is even more telling -- the image shows the protesters in the Legislative Yuan. The only face clearly shown is the portrait of Sun Yat-sen, with the ROC flag behind. The protesters themselves are distant, faceless, and oriented away from the camera. Nice.

REF: BBC Complaint line is here. Please complain.

UPDATED: BBC's hilarious response to a friend:

"Thanks for contacting us regarding the BBC News website.

I understand you believe the article at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34729538 was poor quality and one sided.

Thanks for raising these concerns. The report aimed to offer a look at the background of the divide between China and Taiwan and there was a lot of information shared. That said, it wasn’t intended to seem one sided. The first part was looking at a snippet of history however there is of course more information available than can be included into a single article.

You highlight missiles as a case in point however the article reports:

“Mr Chen was re-elected in 2004, prompting China to pass a so-called anti-secession law in 2005, stating China's right to use "non peaceful means" against Taiwan if it tried to secede from China ...

China regards Taiwan as a breakaway province which it has vowed to retake, by force if necessary. But Taiwan's leaders say it is clearly much more than a province, arguing that it is a sovereign state.”

There is of course a lot of disputes and we’re reporting across these rather than attempting to take any particular position or stance on the matter. I can only assure you that the BBC is completely impartial and free from influence of any such matter, whether it is based on international territory disputes or agreements between the British government and other nations.

We can of course offer a wide range of information and balance across a reason period that isn’t possible in a single article and where it reflects audience interest, we will continue to provide impartial reports on stories such as this.
_______________
Daily Links:

• BBC "blog" on the incident of "racism" on the metro against the larger background of pervasive Taiwanese racism
• Can a tattooed rock star transform Taiwan's politics? Nope, but it's fun to see. Here's Chthonic's latest video.
• Brain drain a serious problem for Taiwan. Clearly, they are not draining to the BBC...
• China trying to warn Taiwan voters.

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Hong Kong's Effect on Taiwan is major media moment

A hiking trail

Cindy Sui of the BBC sent around a piece today on the effect of the Hong Kong protests on Taiwan's desire to annex itself to China. It's mostly good, and its the first major media piece I've seen that refers to the ghostly deadlines of 2021 and 2049 for annexation of Taiwan that some in the Chinese media have talked about.

As several of us have been remarking recently, one ironic effect of the Hong Kong protests is that everyone is now noticing Taiwan. Yay! Normally the international media hedges when it talks about Taiwan's rejection of annexation speaking of "some people" dislike that, or referring to "skepticism" or "wariness". But perhaps we're going to see more forthright acknowledgement in the major media that Taiwan doesn't want to become part of China. One can only hope.

Ben Goren has a long discussion of the BBC piece here, with many criticisms, which I won't repeat. Ben observes:

Then there’s this beauty:

Thousands of Chinese tourists flood into Taiwan daily, boosting the island’s economy.

I don’t have a problem with the object of this sentence, only the entire predicate. Perhaps Cindy Sui can point to some hard statistical evidence that Chinese tourists are actually boosting Taiwan’s economy and if so, which sectors / areas in particular. If she can’t then really all she’s doing here is repeating Government propaganda.

The problem is an interesting one because there are many ways to think about how to measure the economic effect of Chinese tourists and it would not be easy for anyone to produce a definitive account. This paper argues for a net US dollar gain of nearly $50 million a month from Chinese tourism after allowing for the "crowding out" effect of reducing US and Japanese tourist arrivals, partly because it appears to increase tourism from Hong Kong, but the data are too old and limited to be useful (2009 data). I'd be curious to see a more recent in-depth model. I suppose nearly $600 million annually is technically "boosting" the economy. This 2014 paper views Chinese tourism from another POV -- its economic effect on the environment:

When forecasting the estimated growth of Chinese visitors in Taiwan to 2016, an additional 0.8% increase in economic output is expected at the expense of a 2.7% increase in CO2 emissions and a 3.0% increase in water use.

Another paper from 2013...

It is concluded that by 2011, the economic spillover effects for the retail sector and accommodations services sector were US$773.49 million and US$438.43 million, respectively. The total spillover effects of US$7617 million accounted for 0.183% of Taiwan's GDP

I don't think there is any question we're getting a "boost" from Chinese tourism, if only because the word "boost" has no real meaning, though none of the models attempt to measure the costs, except the one that looks at the environment. I also don't think there's any question that it is not a boost we want: Chinese tourism produces nothing that raises long-term living standards in Taiwan. This pointless flow of revenues (profits go largely to a few Hong Kong tourism firms) might even be tolerable, if it were not part of a strategy to annex Taiwan to China.

Sui writes, referring to the Sunflower Protesters (her reporting on them was excellent, example) and their demand for a bill to provide oversight of cross-strait agreements:

They might just succeed. The activists enjoyed nearly 50% public support for their demands for greater scrutiny of government deals with China, according to a government survey, partly because - unlike Hong Kong - they did not disrupt traffic.

Actually, "nearly 50% support" seems wrong. Rather, it was strong majority support. For example, Ben writes on a pro-KMT TVBS poll that has 65% supporting passage of a bill to oversee agreements with China, including a plurality against the trade pact. Another TVBS poll showed over 60% wanted the services pact withdrawn, numbers similar to those in this Businessweek poll. That the government has not attempted to ram the bill through again clearly indicates its deep unpopularity, both with the public at large and within the KMT. The students had broad public support because the service pact was a crapshit agreement that was bad for Taiwan and rejected by the public. If only someone in the media would clearly say that....

PS: if you're interested in the meaty contents of the oversight bill, the always-excellent Frozen Garlic has a great post on it.
PPS: In fairness, a government poll found the public supported the services pact, by 1%, 41-40. Those results surely required real artistry to achieve.
PPPS: What's the boost from the services pact? I looked at it here. You'll need a microscope to see it.
________________
Daily Links:

• New ROC stamps honor endangered species. Test your ROC understanding: which stamp has higher value, Formosan Black Bear or Giant Black and White Annexation Lardbombs? Go here, select MINT STAMP and 2014 in the drop down menus.
• Taiwan Review on the new national park in the Penghu
• Ma tells K-town residents they should take the MRT and other tales from Ben at Letters from Taiwan. There have been lifelong authoritarian rulers who were less tone-deaf than Ma Ying-jeou. 
• Huffington Post notes Sunflower influence on Hong Kong protests. This is amazing.... even though they get a UDN guy.
• Chinese espionage now rampant in Taiwan
• Ma vows to clean up food industry in Taiwan. Yawn. Let's revisit the past. Government vows to improve tracking after plasticizer scare (2011). I'm not going to bother searching for more.
• WHOA: I was wondering when something suggestive like this would appear. The oil scandal for Ting Hsin/WeiChuan has caused the Ministry of Finance to put the brakes on Ting Hsin conglomerate's takeover of the management of Taipei 101. And there is the purchase of the cable news station. One wonders what toes Ting Hsin was going to step on. Lucky for those being stepped on the oil scandal broke, eh?

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

Comedy from the Media: "It could only happen at a Hong Kong protest"

Crowds in the Kaohsiung HSR station.

Taiwan, ignored as always by the international media. Lots of Taiwan watchers laughing at the international media this week....

BBC, clearly in some deep black hole of editorial and institutional amnesia, makes a list of all things you'd only see in a Hong Kong protest.

Doing your homework

Perhaps it isn't actually anarchic but it is definitely one of the biggest protests in Hong Kong for years. And yet students - some of whom were at the vanguard of this movement - find time to sit down and do their homework. Richard Frost for Bloomberg News tweeted this picture of children doing just that.

Of course, list includes everything the Sunflowers did in the March/April protests in Taiwan. Another piece says Hong Kong's protesters are doing what no other protesters have done, listing things our Sunflowers did. *sigh* Are these the world's most polite protesters? another piece asks. Hell no. Is there no Google in those offices? In Asia protesters are often like this: polite Korea, 1998 or Tiananmen. Of course you could go back to the People Power protests in 1986 in the Philippines, where millions flooded the streets against Marcos, in a peaceful, festive, and polite manner. Hong Kong is not some outlier -- it's part of a tradition.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

CW is in! Soong to Benefit Tsai, says foreign press

Longtime Taiwan independence activist and politician Parris Chang interview on Oz Radio. A taste:

CHANG: Yes, he is going to adversely affect the Ma Ying-jeou vote and despite China's pressure on James Soong, I think he is determined to run and so this is going to make Taiwan's presidential election much more lively and interesting. Because between two major candidates, the DPP and the Kuomintang, there are many people who feel that they want a third choice, so he's going to receive lots of votes and earlier I think Kuomintang made a terrible mistake by well belittling Soong's election and so make very defiant and much more determined to run and he is going to have a considerable number of votes and most of them will come from the Kuomintang's so-called 'pan Blues camp'.

LAM: And, of course, James Soong was once a rising KMT star himself and both James Soong and Ma Ying-jeou are seen as China-friendly candidates. So in real terms though, is there a point of difference between the PFP and the ruling KMT in terms of policy?

CHANG: Well, not so much the policy differences area, but rather I think a lot of personal fight, if you will, between James Soong and Ma and I think over the years, Ma didn't give him too much credit and so now he has a chance to avenge.

LAM: So you think it's personal politics at this point?

CHANG: Very much so, but it is no longer a personal politics, because Soong has publicly and very forcefully criticised Ma's ineptness, no ability to lead the country. In many ways I think Ma is in deep troubled, because his lack of leadership has been clearly shown by James Soong's criticism.

Conventional wisdom is that Soong will benefit the DPP's Tsai by poaching votes from the KMT. There is a similar take in Bloomberg and in AFP. Both of those media orgs used the China Times poll. Neither cited the prediction market. AFP neatly described Tsai's approach to China as "not rushing to reapproachment" rather than the usual bleakly wrong "anti-China" the media so often reaches for. The foreign media also found locals to quote who pointed out the animosity between Ma and Soong. By far the worst report is the BBC's. A quick look:

That decision split the votes of supporters of the so-called pan-blue camp, which favours improving ties with China and not Taiwanese independence.[MT: the pan-Green camp also favours improving ties with China. They just don't favor selling out Taiwan's interests to do so.]

As a result Chen Shui-bian, the candidate from the opposition party DPP, which favours Taiwan's independence, was elected with the largest percentage of votes.

Eight years of tensions with Beijing followed. The same outcome is feared for this upcoming race.[MT: Eight years of tensions followed! No human agency involved! Immaculate Tension! Wouldn't it be great if the media assigned "tensions" to their actual source, Beijing? And noted that eight years of increasing trade and investment by Taiwan in China, as well as other links, also followed? Nah. BBC's reading is both one-sidedly negative AND omits facts that puts a bad light on Beijing. Just awful.]

Opinion polls show Mr Ma only has slightly more support from voters than opposition candidate Tsai Ing-wen.[MT: Some polls have Tsai ahead of Ma. Mustn't mention that, though.]

Ms Tsai is believed to favour Taiwan independence at heart, although since declaring her candidacy she has said she is open to negotiating with China and would not cancel the free-trade agreement signed under Mr Ma.[MT: Is ECFA a free-trade agreement or a managed trade agreement? Another critical omission that makes the DPP look as if it is obdurate -- "Tsai is open in negotiating with China" as if others were not or have not been in the past. The DPP has always been open to negotiating with China -- and Tsai was once one of the negotiators under the previous president. D'oh. Another subtle hack on the DPP.]

Still, there are fears that a victory by Ms Tsai could bring tensions with China and instability to the region.[MT: here the issue of who causes tensions is even more one-sided -- it is a Tsai victory!! Not Beijing, which doesn't even exist except as a passive recipient of Taiwan's actions, almost a victim. Could have said "Still, there are fears that Beijing will increase tensions and regional instability if Tsai wins." Saved a few words, and told the truth.

Note also that in a news report where space is at a premium, it was so crucially important to get in this hack on Tsai that BBC said it TWICE! If you go back and look at each sentence, you'll find that more reportage is devoted to presenting negatives about Tsai than telling the reader anything about James Soong, except that the dastardly Soong has opened the way for the horror of a Tsai Ing-wen victory.]

I could go on. As I wrote last week:

Leon Pannetta praised China for its more restrained response to the F-16 upgrade sale to Taiwan, and said that the Adminstration had notified Beijing of what was going to take place. It is hard to think of a clearer illustration that tensions are (1) caused by Beijing and (2) totally under Beijing's control and (3) a calculated policy response and not some putative visceral reaction, aimed at US support for Taiwan and US analysts and observers. I suppose, though, it is too much to hope that the media will cease writing as if tensions occur without agents causing them, or that Taiwan is the cause of tensions between Beijing and Washington.

Yea, verily, I am a prophet.

ADDED: Cindy Sui's response to Ben's letter to her on this piece.
_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

BBC and AFP: No bias here on Chen

I'm sure everyone has heard by now that Chen was acquitted on charges of pillaging the State Funds for personal use. Consider BBC's unbiased report on this.  First the headline:

Taiwan ex-president Chen Shui-bian gets extra jail term

The KMT's English cheerleader in Taiwan, the China Post, headlined Court Cuts Chen's Term to Ten Months. Taiwan News said: Court overturns former leader's conviction. The pro-Beijing WantChinaTimes headlined Ex-president found not guilty of embezzling special state fund. Taiwan's government media organ Central News Agency said: Ex-president found not guilty of embezzling special state fund. AP titled Taiwan court overturns former leader's conviction.

Of course, AFP, whose political sympathies will be well known to readers of my blog, ran Taiwan ex-leader gets additional jail sentence. And BBC ran much the same headline. Hint, hint. Note that the pro-KMT China Times was so disgusted with this verdict that it complained it was unfair and the judiciary had a problem. Everyone else focused on, and reacted to, the fact that he was found innocent of the embezzlement charges. Not BBC and AFP. They appeared to choose the most anti-Chen spin possible: he got an extra jail term.

BBC wrote in its opening paragraph:

Taiwan's ex-President Chen Shui-bian - who is already in jail for corruption - has been given an additional sentence for money-laundering and forgery.

I especially like the caption for the photo that accompanied the story. "Chen angered Beijing during his eight years in office by pushing for Taiwan's independence".  BBC always reports that Chen angered Beijing -- it also says so in the article, repetition that is sheer waste. Why not a neutral caption like "Chen waves to supporters" which simply describes what is going on?

AFP was even worse. Here are the four sentences it uses to describe the court's action:

Taiwan's former president Chen Shiu-bian, already jailed for bribery, was sentenced Friday to an additional two years and 10 months on separate charges of embezzlement and money laundering.

Chen, who headed the island's government between 2000 and 2008, is serving a jail term of 17 years and six months on two bribery convictions in a sprawling corruption case that saw his wife Wu Shu-chen get the same sentence.

The high court on Friday sentenced the couple to an extra two years for money laundering, and ordered them to return $6.8 million and Tw$100 million they had pocketed in domestic and overseas deals.

It also handed down a 10-month sentence for forgery in a case related to embezzlement of state funds.

Even the BBC piece admits further down that he was found innocent of the embezzlement charge. But the AFP report simply omits the key fact that almost everyone else placed at the center of their story: Chen was acquitted of embezzlement of the special state funds on retrial.

No bias there!

The "documents forgery" of the BBC and "forgery" of the AFP report refer to the conviction for "forged" receipts. Originally the regulations did not require that the President submit receipts for use of the state funds. After Chen became President, the rules were changed. Naturally, since the slush fund was used for all sorts of secret stuff, the receipts were not kosher. Do spies and diplomats give receipts?

None of the international media reports I've seen on the Chen case, when they refer to the bribery charge, have reported that the Koo family testified in May in court that prosecutors had coerced the testimony on the bribery case. Have I misunderstood that? Did this event not occur? (report).

At present, as I recall, Chen is in prison on the charge of accepting bribes from Diana Chen to make her chief administrator of Taipei 101, for money laundering, for receipt forgery, and for the land corruption case involving the Koos. Anything else? I mean besides being pro-Taiwan.
___________________
Daily Links:

• Police harass farmers protesting land seizures. 
• Huge news in Taiwan at the moment: HIV-infected organs from suicide implanted in five donors.
• CNA become little more than pro-KMT blog?

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums! Delenda est, baby.

BBC Blows an Opportunity

BBC had one of its annual articles on the Mazu pilgrimage, that ginned up religious procession created in the 1980s out of local pilgrimages as a vehicle to advance the interests of powerful politicians in Dajia out in the hinterlands of Taichung county.

The article starts out ok and even identifies China's politicization of the festival:

But for China, sending its temple representatives here to join in the celebrations is not without its political motivations.

The Chinese government has placed great emphasis on reviving Mazu in China – seeing it as an important way to underscore its insistence that Taiwanese people and culture came from China – and that Taiwan is a part of China.

Beijing hopes to reunify with the island one day and has not renounced the use of force to do so.

"They’re doing this to show both sides believe in Mazu and have a similar heritage," said Tsai Ming-hsien, a volunteer Mazu celebrations organiser who has had many dealings with Chinese temple officials.

Celebrants from mainland China have been instructed to not give interviews, according to their Taiwanese tour guides.

Several things could be mentioned here, but most importantly, BBC completely failed to put the political context in Taiwan front and center. A huge opportunity to describe what is going on in Taiwan was blown.

First, the article completely failed to mention that the procession is overseen by the powerful local politician Yen Ching-piao, once elected out of jail for various nefarious (organized) crimes, who has old, deep connections to the KMT and was recently appointed spokesman to the locals for Ma's ECFA program. That's one religion-organized crime-politics-annexation nexus ignored. But BBC ignores an even more important one, citing his right-hand man Cheng Ming-kun without giving the full context of his remarks. Let's see what the lad has to say:

Nevertheless, officials from both sides said the fact that both sides were stepping up cultural exchanges was a sign of improving relations.

"It’s about religion, not politics. What’s most important is doing things that are good for the economy of both sides’ people," said the Dajia Jenn Lann Temple’s vice chairman, Cheng Ming-kun.

He said that the increased number of Chinese visitors to Dajia had helped the town and nearby scenic areas.

"Mazu brings together the two sides of the Taiwan Strait and brings peoples’ feelings closer," Mr Cheng said.

"It's about religion, not politics." What a hero! Who is Cheng Ming-kun? I've asked this question before when AFP failed spectacularly with the same person in the same way:

Cheng holds a couple of key positions in the Matzu Associations, such as the Deputy Chairman of the Jenlan Temple in Dajia. Ring any bells? That's the name of the island's most important Matzu temple, the subject of one of the world's largest pilgrimages. That's right -- the procession run by the former KMT politician, now "non-partisan", Yen Ching-piao, elected out of jail by his loyal constituents a few years back. That procession is a prime example of how politics exploits religion in Taiwan (anyone know where the zillions in donations go?). Cheng, who was kidnapped for 10 days in 2005 in what was widely rumored to be a shady business deal gone bad, was indicted for forgery and breach of trust in connection with the temple association. Naturally Cheng is close to Yen -- I believe the proper expression is "thick as thieves."

What are Cheng's political affiliations? Well, Cheng was in Beijing in July promoting cross-strait ties through better Matzu connections. Cheng also met with Chen Yun-lin, last seen here in November of 2008 negotiating on Beijing's behalf. Is leveraging Taiwan's most important goddess to annex Taiwan to China apolitical?

Instant replay: our non-political Cheng was in Beijing last year negotiating with CCP officials on how to use Mazu to bring Taiwan into China's orbit.

In May of 2009 a boat carrying Cheng Ming-kun and a load of Mazu pilgrims was the first passenger ferry to cross the strait. It was seen off by the Mazu Temple Chairman Yen Ching-piao. The Taipei Times noted:

Jenn Lann Temple chairman and Independent Legislator Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), who was paroled on Thursday after having been in prison since August for illegal possession of firearms, saw off the pilgrims in Taichung.

In fact, the two sides, the Taiwan Mazu Temple Association people and the Beijing Mazu exploiters, are cooperating on the same goal: annexation. But the BBC completely fails to mention any of this agenda when it mentions the Taiwan side.

Here was an opportunity to at least sketch for readers the outline of the emerging cross-strait organized crime-religion-business-annexation nexus, which is sort of a local Taiwan temple community association blown up to galactic scale. This emerging nexus is appearing in all sorts of contexts. There's the very high-level, dodgy group bidding for the Nanshan unit of AIG, which included PRC "princelings" (children of CCP elites), Chinese state banks, rogue stock speculators, poorly-capitalized and staffed front firms set up for the bid, and cooperation of individuals in Hong Kong, China, and Taiwan. There's the low level prominent gangster in Taichung who runs KTVs and other entertainment facilities in China but trains his people in Taiwan. There's the garlic smuggling and the human trafficking -- both sex slaves and blue and white collar workers quietly entering Taiwan legally and illegally -- and the exploitation of religion. They are all part of the same whole, pixels that will resolve into a complex and fascinating image if brought into focus in the media.

*sigh*

_______________________
[Taiwan] Don't miss the comments below! And check out my blog and its sidebars for events, links to previous posts and picture posts, and scores of links to other Taiwan blogs and forums!

The Flow of Crap: Day 3: BBC's Alternate Universe (UPDATE 1)

I've decided to have one post like this each day, where we put the latest media fun, updated as the day goes on.

Today maddog alerted me to this report from BBC's alternate universe. That's the universe where, two years later, you can still read on their Taiwan timeline that Chen Shui-bian devolved his powers onto the premier, even though that isn't constitutionally possible -- it was just political theatre, forgotten the next day (and the premier has been changed, to boot!). I'll be updating my old deconstruction of that wildly pro-PRC and completely out of touch timeline later.

But back to today's fun! BBC piously avers:

Taiwan's finance minister has resigned after a mass brawl between rival MPs, nine days before the island's hotly disputed presidential election.

Ho Chih-chin had accompanied members of the opposition KMT party to the campaign headquarters of the ruling DPP to investigate corruption claims.

The KMT alleged the DPP paid no rent on the Taipei building - which they deny.

A fight broke out between the rival groups as they tried to leave, and MPs from both sides were arrested.

The DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) is trailing behind the KMT (Kuomintang) in opinion polls ahead of the 22 March elections.

Note the description: "a mass brawl between rival MPs" in which legislators from both sides were arrested. There was no mass brawl between rival MPs. Four KMT legislators entered the Hsieh campaign HQ making the usual unsubstantiated accusations, and a scuffle between them and DPP supporters erupted, later expanded to include the police. The Finance Minister did resign, but the Taipei Times story on the resignation contains no mention of any arrests. Nor does the article on the apology from the KMT for the behavior of the four legislators. Nor does the report of the incident from the previous day. One could reasonably expect the China Post would be all over reports of DPP legislators being arrested, but their accounts here and here also contain no mention of mass brawls between legislators or arrests of anyone, much less legislators from both sides.

Bottom line: this is one completely erroneous article. Once again: no mass brawl between rival MPs, no arrests of MPs. What really pisses me off is that this horseshit is going to appear all over the world as another example of those immature Taiwanese MPs -- a little people, a silly people, greedy, barbarous, and cruel. Shit.

BBC owes the people of Taiwan an apology. Please contact BBC and let them know (contact form).

UPDATE: The Foreigner has a kickass review of the actual invasion of DPP HQ.

+++++++++++++++

Eric passed me this slanted piece from Mark O Neill in Asia Sentinel. You can sense how bad it is going to be from the opening paragraph:

Although Kuomintang candidate Ma Ying-jeou is cruising toward a comfortable victory in the March 22 Taiwan presidential election that would give his party control of both the executive and Parliament, his supporters fear that the ruling Democratic Progressive Party will stage a last-minute stunt to swing public opinion and steal a victory, as it did in 2004 after an assassination attempt that many believe was staged.

So far the only manufactured incident we've had was the invasion of Hsieh HQ by 4 KMT legislators. The belief that Chen arranged the March 19 incident is laughable, and a good journalist would at least have indicated that no evidence supports this belief, and that it is an article of faith only among KMT followers. The reality is, as comments below the piece point out, that Chen had already pulled even with Lien, and ahead in some credible polls, ten days prior to the election.

The piece also regurgitates KMT claims on the economy, mentions the Chen Corruption bogey without giving any clue that Ma is encumbered by similar baggage, quotes words from a KMT politician and Hu Jin-tao without any balancing information from the DPP, and generally tracks the KMT talking point tape loop. No need to check it out; it is merely ordinarily bad, not a milestone like the Wong piece in the NY Times the other day. I'm only loading it up here for completeness.

[Taiwan]

Beeb on Torch and China-Taiwan Forum

The BBC reports on the Torch Relay Row and the recent China-"Taiwan" Forum...offering a peek at how the news is constructed. The Beeb opens with the following two sentences:

Chinese President Hu Jintao has called for closer economic and cultural exchanges between China and Taiwan.

Mr Hu was speaking at a China-Taiwan forum in Beijing, aimed at improving ties between the two rival neighbours.

Is the forum really aimed at improving ties between the two nations? It would have been great if the Beeb had qualified that statement with a "China claimed" or "Beijing said" so that it was reporting, and not constructing, facts. If China was serious about building ties with Taiwan, then there are many steps it could take....

In both this article and the previous one on the torch, the Beeb faithfully reported China's claim:

The executive vice-president of the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (BOCOG), Jiang Xiaoyu said he was "surprised by [Taiwan's] attitude and comments".

BOCOG believes the current attitude of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee and its authorities... breached the principle of separating sport from politics as enshrined in the Olympic charter," Mr Jiang said.

Amazingly, the Beeb's reporters failed to note that the torch route was politicized by China and that Taiwan's rejection was a response to that politicization. Methinks we're going to see a lot of reports like this in the international media, in which articles present the Chinese response, unchallenged by either Taipei or reality. The first torch article quotes from the Taiwan side, but the second article is entirely China-centric. A quote from Taipei would have added balance -- there was plenty of space, since the article managed to find room twice to describe that China sees Taiwan as part of its territory. Just in case readers had forgotten by the end of the article what had been said at the beginning, I suppose.

The article also observes that China expressed its surprise at Taipei's decision to reject the torch route.

But Taipei said the plan was unacceptable and compromised the island's sovereignty.

In response, China expressed its surprise over Taipei's rejection of the plan.

What if the BBC had qualified that by pointing out that Taiwan had long threatened to reject the route if it placed Taiwan in a position subordinate to China? It's an old complaint, but of all the news reports I read, the BBC's consistently offer the least context. I guess they had to save room to tell us twice that China sees Taiwan as part of its territory....

The Beeb has a pithier formation of the island's history than some:

Taiwan and China have been ruled by separate governments since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949.

...which isn't too bad, all things considered.

Trivia: The article notes that 30 MPs (that's British English for legislator) from the KMT stopped by to kowtow to Hu. Isn't it time the Beeb stopped calling them MPs? I think readers of BBC are well enough educated to know that a legislator is a person in the legislature and that both those refer to members and representative bodies. Isn't it a bit silly to refer to Taiwan's legislators as MPs? Does the Beeb refer to the US Senate as the House of Lords?

[Taiwan] [Olympics] [China] [BBC]

It's BBC on Ma: so where's the context?

It's BBC reporting on the trial Ma Ying-jeou, once mayor of Taipei, once Chairman of the KMT, now an accused embezzler, which opened today. So we need not belabor the point that everything important to the context will be left out. The BBC reports:

Taiwan opposition leader and presidential hopeful Ma Ying-jeou has gone on trial in a corruption case which could hit his 2008 hopes.

He is accused of misappropriating T$11.2 million ($339,000) of funds while mayor of the capital, Taipei.

Mr Ma resigned from his position as head of the Kuomintang party shortly after the charges were announced, but said he would clear his name. He has denied graft charges, and is a frontrunner in the presidential race.

So far, so good. Just a short summary. So what does the report go on to say?

Mr Ma, a US-educated lawyer who is expected to defend himself, was in confident mood as he arrived at court.

Ma is not a lawyer. He has never passed the bar either in Taiwan or the US. Where did this claim come from? Everyone says it, for example, AP.

"I am confident of my innocence and I trust in the justice of the court," he said, as a crowd of Kuomintang (KMT) supporters cheered.

Mr Ma was charged with improper use of government funds in February - and resigned as KMT chairman, protested his innocence and pledged to stand for president all at once.

He is facing four rivals from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) who are seeking nomination from their party.

The candidates are Vice President Annette Lu, Premier Su Tseng-chang, former premier Frank Hsieh, and former party chairman Yu Hsyi-kun.

More summary.

The investigation into his finances began in mid-November after allegations that he had shifted money from a special fund into a personal account during his time as mayor, from 1998 to 2006.

Note how the article does not inform the reader that the money is definitely in the account -- Both Ma and his lawyer have admitted it. Their defense is that Ma never had any intention to steal the money even though he downloaded into his personal accounts and kept it. Vitally important context omitted, and the omission favors Ma. Can you imagine if the BBC report had mentioned what anyone can find on Wiki?

In addition to those incidents that give rise to public doubt on his competency, Ma has also been criticized for his involvement in several alleged scandals. His filings for the compulsory financial disclosure shows that his household net worth increased by more than NT$43 million (US$1.3 million)between 1993 and 2004, at a rate irreconcilable with his living standards, his two daughters in Ivy League schools and his identified income sources. Ma dismissed the criticism with a quotable line: “I spend less than US$10 a day and I only have an old patched suit.”

The BBC then goes on to say:

If convicted, he would face at least seven years in prison. However, prosecutors have already asked for leniency because of his co-operation with the investigation.

Here's what I said the last time that the BBC used this exact set of sentences to describe Ma's indictment. "Context is often impaired in the international media due to the exigencies of time and space, but the BBC's accounts make a special habit of eliminating key context (here's why!)." That applies here too. To understand why the prosecutor might ask for leniency, in addition to Ma's cooperation, the reader would also have to know that the prosecutor who conducted the investigation had Ma for a witness at his wedding, that the prosecutor's offices in Taiwan are largely pro-Blue, and that Ma has publicly threatened the bureaucrats who don't come up with answers he wants. Not one iota of this context appears here -- because it would spoil the nice clean narrative that the BBC wants to project. Sadly, this very human urge to create narrative rather than report reality in all its messiness too often favors the KMT.

UPDATE: Runsun points out below that the article has now been changed. Previously, as I quoted above, it said:

Mr Ma, a US-educated lawyer who is expected to defend himself, was in confident mood as he arrived at court.

I pointed out that Ma has never passed the Bar and is not a lawyer. The article now reads, as of April 4, 10:20 am here in Taiwan:

Mr Ma, who studied law in Taiwan and the US, is expected to defend himself. He was in confident mood as he arrived at court.

Yesterday I fired off a letter to one of the local BBC reporters commenting on this. Is there a connection? Impossible to know, but it is sure nice to see that someone in the international media has stopped spreading this error. As Darwin once pointed out, false theories are easy to shoot down, but false facts are almost impossible to get rid of. Thanks, Beeb.

[Taiwan] [media] [corruption] [Ma Ying-jeou] [BBC]

Beeb Reports on Butterfly Highway

A BBC report on closing a Taiwan highway to protect migrating butterflies is getting play on blogs all over the world:

The purple milkweed butterfly, which winters in the south of the island, passes over some 600m of motorway to reach its breeding ground in the north.

Many of the 11,500 butterflies that attempt the journey each hour do not reach safety, experts say.

Protective nets and ultra-violet lights will also be used to aid the insects.

Taiwanese officials conceded that the decision to close one lane of the road would cause some traffic congestion, but said it was a price worth paying.

"Human beings need to coexist with the other species, even if they are tiny butterflies," Lee Thay-ming, of the National Freeway Bureau, told the AFP news agency.

Each year thousands of butterflies die when turbulence generated by fast-moving cars drags them into the traffic or under the wheels of oncoming vehicles.

Ecologists hope the triple-action effort of lane closure, protective nets and ultra-violet lighting will dramatically increase the milkweed's chances of reaching the breeding ground.

Good work, Taiwan.

[Taiwan] [BBC] [butterflies]

Ma Resignation Rejected, KMT changes the Rules, BBC Reports

The BBC also has an article on Ma Ying-jeou's fall from grace:

"Ma Ying-jeou is suspected of misappropriating ... special funds, which do not require documentation for reimbursement," the high court prosecutor's office said in a statement.

The investigation into his finances began in mid-November after allegations that he had shifted money from a special fund into a personal account during his time as mayor, from 1998 to 2006.

A spokesman added that Mr Ma's explanations for the movement of funds had been contradictory.

If convicted, he would face at least seven years in prison. However, prosecutors have already asked for leniency because of his co-operation with the investigation.

Observe that this article merely repeats what Ma and the prosecutors say and offers no attempt to dig deeper. It does not put the prosecutor's request for leniency in the context of the fact that the Ma was a witness at the prosecutor's wedding. Context is often impaired in the international media due to the exigencies of time and space, but the BBC's accounts make a special habit of eliminating key context (here's why!).

Yesterday's news reported that Ma had resigned as Chairman, but today the Taiwan News is reporting that the KMT Central Standing Committee rejected his resignation. They have also amended the party rules, which prohibited indicted individuals to run for president, to permit Ma to run as the KMT candidate. Ma's lawyer has conceded that Ma misappropriated funds, but claims that it was done from ignorance:

At yesterday's press conference, Ma's attorney Song Yao-ming said his client is innocent of the embezzlement charges because he did not have any intent to commit the crime. Song contended that the prosecutor's indictment of Ma was based on "subjective interpretation" of the evidence, rather than on the evidence itself.

"The prosecutors said that by filing the special allowance as his personal income, Ma had indeed taken the public funds as his own. However, I argue that the very same act only proves that Ma was not aware that the allowance was designated only for official use and that's why he treated the sum as part of his salary. Ma's actions clearly demonstrate he did not have any intent to commit the crime," Song said.

The KMT's anti-graft task force yesterday revealed the results of its independent probe into the case and concluded that there was no direct evidence linking Ma to the corruption charges.

The task force said Ma could not have illegally used the fund for personal purposes because his monetary donations to various charities throughout the years far exceeded the total sum of his allowance.

What's really great is that the KMT's claim that Ma's donations exceed his theft is exactly the same claim as Chen Shui-bian's claim that his voluntary salary reductions far exceed the amount of money he is alleged to have embezzled. The key difference between the two cases, however, is that prosecutors have no evidence that money in the Chen case found its way into private accounts. Whereas in the Ma case, it is obvious.

DPP Chairman Yu hacked on Ma and the KMT:

In response to media questions while attending a party function at the Chientan Youth Activity Center, Democratic Progressive Party Chairman Yu Shyi-kun (游錫<方方土>) said Ma's announcement that he intends to run for president in 2008 is "obviously a bid to get attention and shows that he does not respect or believe in the justice system."

The DPP chairman said that the KMT chairman's actions "are diametrically opposed to those of former Taipei mayor Ma Ying-jeou and the Ma Ying-jeou who, as minister of justice, continually demanded that everyone respect the judicial system."

Yu also stated that the motion in the KMT Central Standing Committee to revise an "anti-corruption" clause in the party's charter so that Ma can be nominated by the former ruling party as its presidential candidate "shows that the claims of Ma and the KMT that they are reforming are false."

...while KMT legislators blasted the indictments.

[Taiwan] [Chen Shui-bian] [media] [corruption] [Ma Ying-jeou] [BBC]