Tsai interviewed in WaPo

A little community lake in Miaoli

It's nice that the Washington Post interviewed President Tsai. Unfortunately -- as is all too common -- the Post interview went to someone who obviously knew nothing about Taiwan and apparently had hurriedly boned up on it. This was regrettable, all the more so because the Post employs Emily Rauhala who has already interviewed Tsai.

The introduction of the interview observed:

...Although China and Taiwan have been able to paper over their differences to date, tensions have been mounting since Tsai’s inauguration, when she did not restate the so-called ’92 consensus, in which Taipei and Beijing agreed that they are part of “one China” — but with different interpretations.

Um, nope. Beijing does not accept the "different interpretations" codocil. There is no excuse for regurgitating this piece of KMT propaganda -- explanations are all over the internet. Please stop, journalists. The two authoritarian, unelected governments in Taipei and Beijing did not agree on anything in 1992. At least, as the Taipei Times pointed out in an editorial, the interviewer used "so-called". My man maddog called attention to the KMT's response: the party said it was disappointed that Tsai had chosen to go with the will of the people on the 1992C (which has only minority support in Taiwan).

Someone needs to prepare Tsai for this nonsense so she can instantly point out Beijing never accepted that codocil.

A keen observer of local affairs pointed out in a couple of discussion groups that WaPo "paraphrased" Tsai's responses into laconic oblivion, and that of the interview's 1300 or so words, over 500 were the interviewer's questions. Reading Tsai's responses from the Presidential office transcript was thus a bit like reading the English subtitles of the 4 PM Godzilla movie when I was a kid:

CHARACTER SPEAKING JAPANESE: asajhaksd qwqiuey ;pteprofkepokf kaak alkje aaoijde alijl aiosudh! oasjudj llaije jliajdelij lalajd owoirjgw! aliaedj!

ENGLISH SUBTITLE: No.

Keen Observer pointed to the WaPo question about which presidential candidate would be better for Taiwan (just think of all the questions the interviewer could have asked, but instead chose this pointless, disrespectful, and impolite question).

作為一個其他國家政府的領導人，我們不方便對美國總統選舉做過多的評論。不過我們也希望，無論哪一位當選美國總統，我們都能夠持續現在的關係，而且在現在的關係上，發展下一階段更緊密且互惠的關係。

WAPO: "As the leader of a different country, it is not very wise for us to comment on the presidential election in the U.S."

The second half of the response, in which she expresses the hope that whoever is elected, current relations would continue, is simply removed, making Tsai sound almost truculent. Similarly, compare the length of WaPo's "question" (actually a pro-Beijing accusation) to Tsai's answer.

Q: It doesn’t seem that way. I think it was China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, part of the State Council, which said that your speech was “an incomplete exam.” There is no public indication that they appreciated your position. Are you, the president, in touch with your counterparts in the Chinese government?

A: Different levels of the government have different ways of communicating with their counterparts in China. At this stage, I cannot go into too much detail.

總統：就像我講的，現在所暫停的是兩會的管道、陸委會與國臺辦的管道，這在官方的意義或許是存在的，但問題是長久以來，雙方之間管道確實是很多元的，現在看到的兩會，也就是海基會與海協會兩會的溝通體制，只是整個多元管道中間的一部分。當我講到多元，其實它是有多層次的面向，不僅是政府在交流的過程中，很多政府機關跟他們在中國大陸的對口，也都有一定程度相互通訊息與交換意見的機制。I’m saying different levels of the government have different ways of communicating with their counterparts in China.（我政府各層級都有和中國大陸對口機構聯繫的管道）我不能在這個階段進入太多細節。

Sshe emphasizes that there are many communication channels between China and Taiwan, not only government bodies, but quasi-governmental bodies, and that many governmental bodies have their own communications channels with their Chinese counterparts. The second sentence about detail makes her seem abrupt.

Note that most of the questions have a China focus or a pro-Beijing slant:

• Q: What is your impression of Chinese President Xi Jinping? (who cares? What answer could Tsai give as the leader of the Taiwan government? "I think Xi is a mass murdering authoritarian and dangerous to peace in Asia." That was a wasted question.)
• Q: Some academics say Xi has a certain deadline by which he wants you to agree to the ’92 consensus. Is that right? (asks Tsai to respond to alleged China demand).
• Q: Since your inauguration in late May, the Chinese have cut off the official channel that was used to communicate between Taiwan and the mainland. How do you plan to handle day-to-day relations with Beijing? (China focused and then repeated below...)
• Q: It doesn’t seem that way. I think it was China’s Taiwan Affairs Office, part of the State Council, which said that your speech was “an incomplete exam.” There is no public indication that they appreciated your position. Are you, the president, in touch with your counterparts in the Chinese government? (...same question as previous, this time half accusation. Also the comment "no public indication" is assumptive -- some observers regarded China's "incomplete test paper" response as indicating flexibility and some dim appreciation of Tsai's position.)
• Q: Do you feel you are closing the gap between Taiwan and the People’s Republic of China?(Assumes "gap" -- whatever that means -- needs closed, and a lot like the last two questions. A completely unnecessary question. Was there nothing concrete to ask about?)
• Q: Is it fair that Washington has considered Taiwan an entity, not a country, since 1979, when the United States changed sides and recognized the People’s Republic of China (with its capital in Beijing) — in lieu of the Republic of China in Taiwan (with its capital in Taipei) — as China? (this question is also stupid. What could Tsai answer? "No, you people are rotten bastards for switching recognition." Sometimes I wish she would. Think of all the other things that could have been discussed even if the interviewer wanted a more American focus: the pork and beef situation, the TPP, US investment, technology exports, the Taiwan Caucus in Congress, Taiwan's position on Capital Hill, the large Taiwanese population in the US...)
• Q: So isn’t it unfair that Taiwan is not recognized in the world? (variant of previous question)
• Q: American readers would find it hard to understand that you, as a Taiwanese president, are only allowed to come to the United States for 48 hours, and then only if it is a transit stop. (not a question, a teachable moment wasted. Three questions on this topic. LOL.)
• Q: There has reportedly been a drop-off in tourists from the mainland. Will that hurt your tourist industry? (possibly a good topic, but phrased so simply)
• Q: China could bring more pressure on Taiwan if it chose to. They could frighten away your diplomatic allies by threatening to weaken your bonds with them. Are you worried about that? (Seriously? "No, I'm not worried at all. Now where is my Prozac." China won't chase off all the ROC's friends for reasons that are obvious. Except to this interviewer. Tsai correctly shifts the issue to economic attacks.)
• Q: So you think as far as your alliances go, they will stay as they are today? (asked and answered)
• Q: Your predecessor, President Ma Ying-jeou, wanted to buy 66 F-16s from the United States. Even though 47 senators wrote in support of his request, nothing happened. Do you intend to repeat that request? (uninformed -- that was Chen Shui-bian who requested the F-16s. Ma did not want F-16s and dilly-dallied. Will Tsai repeat this request? F-16s have been DOA since requested...)
• Q: I think Ma also asked for diesel submarines and got nowhere. Will you repeat that request? (Let's ask a question about a topic that's been DOA for a decade now. I mean, why ask about beef, or students, or the TPP, or the WHO, or the UN...)
• Q: I understand that the focus of your program is domestic — that you want to raise wages, to give people more time off. But with a growth rate under 1 percent, how can you spur the economy while delivering increased social services? (Be still my beating heart. A question about domestic policy. [FAINTS])
• Q: Isn’t China your No. 1 trading partner? (aaannnnddd back to China. That didn't last long).
• Q: So China has become a competitor of Taiwan? (oh, China again. Couldn't use this space to ask about ASEAN? Japan? The EU? Defense cooperation with Japan and US? Chinese ADIZ over SCS? etc etc etc).
• Q: I saw that you expressed disappointment over the ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague on the South China Sea. It held that Taiping Island, which you claim as part of Taiwan, is a rock, not an island, and thus cannot enjoy an exclusive economic zone. Will you abide by the ruling? (this question is so well informed it seems like a question the Tsai team might have suggested. Which is very scary).
• Q: It must have been difficult to be a woman leader in such a male-dominated society.(asked and answered in previous question, and ignorant too. Taiwanese are far more accepting of females in power roles than the US is -- it is a merely a US cultural prejudice that people in the US believe otherwise. Interestingly, while Tsai was allotted little space to answer in many of the previous important questions, WaPo let her speak fully on this minor issue -- which exoticizes Tsai as coming from an inferior country which is male-dominated, assumed to be unlike the US -- which has had precisely zero female presidents or vice presidents in 200 years. Taiwan has had one of each.)

_________________
Daily Links:

• CCP's Tom Sawyer Ploy nearing an end
• Brian Hoie on the Apologize to China campaign
• White Fungus, a Taichung mag
• Greece nabs 120 Taiwanese suspected of phone scams. 120 people!
• Make SCS green peace

_______________________
[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!

WaPo *sigh*

This week offered a twofer of my pet peeves. The first was a Washington Post report which, as a veteran journalist here remarked to me, nearly every paragraph contained something to take issue with. Naturally, it is written by the Post's NY bureau chief, Keith Richburg, and John Pomfret, the former Beijing reporter for the Post. Though both have visited our fair island from time to time, they write as if they had difficulty finding it on a map. Comedy Gold: I had to read it twice before I realized that it makes no reference to the political side of the pact: one never learns that the leadership in Beijing has repeatedly said the pact is intended to be the opening step in the annexation of Taiwan to China. From beginning to end the WaPo piece is only about economics. A striking omission, especially since nearly every other media report has mentioned that, and of course, it is a staple of discussion in the local papers.

The free-trade deal is also significant to the United States, which under U.S. law is obligated to provide for Taiwan's defense. U.S. officials have said they view the deal as a sign of improving relations between Beijing and Taipei, and another sign that China appears less likely to use force in an attempt to unite with the island.

This paragraph contains the common erroneous reference to the TRA, claiming that the US is obligated by law to sell weapons to Taiwan. It isn't. That agreement has been known since 1979. Can we stop writing that crap? Further down, after sourcing information from Xinhua -- is there no other news agency they can obtain news from? -- they note:

Analysis by Taiwan's semi-official Chung-Hua Institution for Economic Research said the agreement could create 260,000 jobs and add 1.7 percent to Taiwan's economic growth. Other analysts, such as Daniel Rosen and Wang Zhi, writing for the Peterson Institute for International Economics, have estimated that the deal would be even bigger for Taiwan -- adding 5.3 percent to its economy within the decade.

Actually, Rosen and Wang said the deal would add only 4.5% for a net gain of 5.3% if you believe that the economy would have shrunk .08% as they claim. On to FTAs:

Taiwan needed this trade deal far more than China. The mainland has signed similar free-trade agreements with the 10 member-nations of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, and Beijing is in talks for similar deals with South Korea and Japan. None of those countries would negotiate similar arrangements with Taiwan -- which is diplomatically isolated in the region -- unless it had first reached its own deal with China.

Here Richburg completely ignores the intense discussion on FTAs, the fact that China has not promised it will permit FTAs, and so on. Other media have managed to note Ma's plummeting popularity, but not this piece. Also missing from the article is any mention of the fact that the President and his party have struggled desperately to keep the ECFA agreement away from democratic oversight, swatting down referendum moves by the opposition. Today, as the Taipei Times reported, President Ma defined ECFA as a treaty and demanded that the Legislature not give it a line-by-line reading and confirmation, in the hope that it would pass a simple up or down vote. Imagine if Chen Shui-bian had announced he'd signed a "treaty" with China!

Moving along, Richburg & Co. veer from mere error and omission into a full blown alternate universe:

Also, Taiwan has been badly battered by the global economic crisis that began in 2008. It was unable to jump-start its export-oriented economy without full and free access to China's massive market.

This paragraph is a complete mess. First, after saying (correctly) above that ECFA protects many sectors of the economy, it then describes the agreement as "full and free access". But worse than that, writing from RichburgPlanet, WaPo says that our economy couldn't be "jump-started" without that "full and free access". Meanwhile, here on planet Earth, exports started rising at the end of 2009. It's been six months of rising exports and falling unemployment -- with GDP reaching record growth it hasn't seen since the 1970s recently, and exports nearly as good as in the late stages of the Chen years (for example). In fact the rising economy has been a potent talking point for the opposition, which has asked, since the economy booms without ECFA, why does Taiwan need it? Do they not have Google there in the WaPo offices? Or what? With so many world class freelancers here in Taiwan, why does WaPo continue to source its Taiwan reporting from out-of-country Beijing correspondents and Xinhua?

The next two paragraphs are classics of their kind. Read them closely:

Still, the pact has generated intense resistance in Taiwan, particularly from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party, which favors more independence from the mainland and fears that opening Taiwan's markets will lead to the island being economically swamped by China.
Xu Shiquan, former director of Taiwan Studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, said the pact represented a "milestone" in relations. He said the pact was good for both sides and was not a matter of China seeking to subsume Taiwan economically.

That's right -- Richburg managed to present the DPP position without mentioning its central thrust -- that ECFA is the first step in annexation and then, in the next paragraph, manages to present Beijing's viewpoint, still without mentioning the political aspects of the issue. Surely that is a record! Instead only economic absorption is mentioned. It's as if Richburg had written a review of Titanic without ever mentioning the ship. For contrast, consider this superb piece from The Diplomat on the same topic. Its final paragraph:

China has been upfront about the fact that it sees the trade deal as a step toward greater political integration. If Ma believes that this is the best path for Taiwan, he should have the courage of his convictions and take a deal that clearly has political implications to the people. In the meantime, though, he should remember that he was elected president of Taiwan, not governor of China’s 23rd province.

Yea verily, rather than give the opposition a chance to speak, or cite any point of view at all from Taiwan, or at least cite an ostensibly nuetral third-party point of view, Richburg et al close with two propaganda quotes from a Chinese "expert" (read political warfare specialist) on Taiwan-China relations. By all means, let's give space in the papers of record of a major democracy to propagandists from China. Next time, why not save the phone call and just crib directly from Mao's little red book?

It's a tribute to the overall excellence of the coverage of ECFA out of Taiwan this time around that I haven't had the opportunity to rip a robustly feckless, mediocre presentation of the topic. Thanks WaPo!

A truly priceless aspect of the alternate-universe feel of Richburg's story is in that very same edition of WaPo, as a very wise observer pointed out to me, resides this piece by Steve Perlstein on the very issues that Richburg et al should have been reporting on. Perlstein writes:

The essential problem is that China was allowed to gain full membership in the global market system without having in place the fundamentals of a market economy. Its business sector continues to be dominated by state-owned companies financed by state-controlled banks within the context of what remains a largely state-planned economy. Its government strictly controls the flow of capital in and out of the country, while its currency is manipulated to maximize export-driven growth and development. And while exports are subsidized, directly and indirectly, there exists a web of formal regulations and informal prejudices that make it difficult, if not impossible, for many foreign companies to sell profitably into its domestic markets. Those outsiders who manage to break through invariably find that they have few protections from a system that is larded with corruption and largely unconstrained by the rule of law.

That's who Taiwan signed ECFA with, folks.

Also on tap, pet-peevewise, is another mediocrity from Robert Scheer, an example of my other pet peeve of my fellow progressives not caring about, or understanding, Taiwan. Scheer is still using outdated Cold War lenses to view the China-Taiwan-US relationship. He may be right as far as he goes about the military-industrial complex, but he hasn't a clue about what's really going on here. It's sad that it is tripping merrily along the progressive wires, with few calling it out for its vast ignorance.

Finally, don't miss SCMP tomorrow, where a person actually located in Taipei has some interesting things to say about Ma's political capital.
_______________________
[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!

And so..the flow of crap continues Day 2

A-gu just emailed me to inform me that my dream had come true: Jane Rickards has another slanted piece in the Washington Post. The reason he said that is because last night I had emailed several people saying I couldn't wait for the inevitable piece from Rickards, and sure enough, it's out today, right on cue.

The piece is basically a hit piece on the UN referendum:

Taiwan's main opposition group, the Nationalist Party, called on its supporters Wednesday to boycott a government-sponsored referendum asking whether the island should apply for U.N. membership under the name Taiwan.

The appeal reduced chances that the referendum measure would succeed, news likely to be greeted with relief in Beijing and Washington. China and the United States have denounced the referendum as a needlessly provocative maneuver, designed by President Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party to emphasize the self-ruled island's claim to formal independence from China.

As A-gu has noted, it is simply a regurgitation of the KMT position. It never uses the term "KMT" referring instead to the "Nationalists," and contains no citations from the DPP or pro-democracy side. Every word in it is from someone who represents the KMT.

The interesting items in this short piece are two. She writes:

Philip Yang, a political scientist at National Taiwan University, said the Nationalist Party's boycott call means Chen's referendum measure faces an uphill battle. More than half of registered voters must support a referendum measure for it to pass, he noted, and polls show that Nationalist supporters outnumber Chen's.

Rickards must surely know that Yang is an advisor to the Ma campaign -- identified as such in the otherwise awful piece from Ed Wong in the NYTimes I blogged on yesterday -- and cannot be cited as an independent source.

She then writes of the KMT referendum:

Wu said the Nationalist Party would continue to support the holding of a separate referendum on U.N. membership. That measure, also on the March 22 ballot, will ask whether Taiwan should seek admission to the United Nations under its official name, the Republic of China, or any other name deemed suitable.

.........

The Nationalists' proposal is equally unlikely to pass, but it is considered less inflammatory since it sticks with the island's official name and thus is not considered an indirect attempt to move toward independence.

Rickards must know that the KMT referendum asks whether to enter the UN under the name Republic of China, Taiwan, or any other name deemed suitable (complete text of both in Alan Romberg's study of the UN Referendum issue). Yet twice she mentions the referendum without mentioning that fact.

Off to write yet another letter....

[Taiwan]

Chen Shui-bian letter on WHO in WaPo

President Chen of Taiwan discusses the WHO entry issue in a letter in the Washington Post today:

It is improper and unprecedented for an international humanitarian organization to enter into a secret pact with one of its member states, especially an authoritarian one. More important, the memorandum has been used to obstruct Taiwan's participation in WHO activities. Our representatives were unable to attend the majority of conferences they sought admission to last year. The WHO secretariat has effectively jeopardized the health of people in Taiwan and other countries.

For a decade, we have striven relentlessly to participate in the WHO, to no avail. Even our humble pursuit of "meaningful participation" has yielded little success. With 95 percent of the Taiwanese people supporting full WHO membership, I must act upon the will of my people as a democratically elected president.

On April 11, I sent a letter to the WHO formally requesting our nation's application for membership under the name "Taiwan." The secretariat responded on April 25, claiming that Taiwan is not a sovereign state and therefore is not eligible for WHO membership. This is legally and morally deplorable.

Article 3 of the Constitution of the World Health Organization stipulates: "Membership in the Organization shall be open to all States," while Article 6 provides that states such as Taiwan that are not members of the United Nations "may apply to become Members and shall be admitted as Members when their application has been approved by a simple majority vote of the Health Assembly." Rule 115 of the WHA Rules of Procedure stipulates that "Applications made by a State for admission to membership . . . shall . . . be addressed to the Director-General and shall be transmitted immediately" to WHO members.

Clearly, the authority to determine whether Taiwan is eligible for admission to the WHO belongs to its members, many of which have diplomatic relations with Taiwan and cannot be co-opted by any individual or administrative office.

[Taiwan] [WHO] [China] [Chen Shui-bian]

Hsieh Win: Media Round-Up

WaPo hosts an article by Annie Huang of the AP:

A former Taiwanese premier who has pushed for better relations with rival China will head the ruling Democratic Progressive Party's ticket in 2008 elections, the party's presidential candidates said Monday.

.....

When Taiwan held its first direct presidential election in 1996, he ran as the vice presidential candidate on the DPP ticket, which got trounced. He was mayor of Kaoshiung, the island's second-biggest city, from 1998-2005.

Many believe Hsieh might be more flexible and pragmatic with China than President Chen Shui-bian, who has been unable to forge a breakthrough in relations with Beijing during his eight years in office.

China is one of the most important campaign issues because the mainland is one of Taiwan's largest trading partners but also the island's biggest security threat. Beijing insists that Taiwan is part of China, but the self-ruled island has been resisting Communist rule for more than five decades.

The take on Hsieh is that he is "flexible and pragmatic." Note how "flexible and pragmatic" are defined in relation to Hsieh's China stance, not in terms of his success in Kaohsiung. I wonder what the media will do when Hsieh wins, and China refuses to talk to him. Will the foreign media label Hsieh "inflexible?" I'm taking bets now......

I also love that construction in the last sentence: "...the self-ruled island has been resisting Communist rule for more than five decades." It makes a neat common cause between the democratic and authoritaritarian governments, one that is plainly false. The current government is resisting rule by China, not rule by Communism. Although it does make a nice slogan: Taiwan: Resisting Communist Oppression for 50 years.

Another interesting thing is that the Washington Post drastically shortened this article. On Sunday night it had a longer version (still online here, another long version at IHT) that noted that Hsieh was witty and sharp-tongued, and that he had tried to build bridges to China, and also discussed some of the exchanges in the primary. By Monday morning my time that article had been cut down to the current bare bones version.

The China Post, the pro-KMT English newspaper, report that foreign investors welcomed a Hsieh win:

Foreign investors welcome Frank Hsieh's Democratic Progressive Party primary win.

Hsieh, a former premier, yesterday all but clinched the right to bear the ruling party's standard next March. His win, however, will be formally made public after an in-house poll May 9-11.

He is more proactive in handling relations between Taiwan and China, a foreign investment analyst said. "If elected president," he pointed out, "he will further relax restrictions on trade and investment across the Taiwan Strait."

A relaxation of restrictions will benefit foreign investors in Taiwan.

"That's why his victory in the primaries is welcomed," the investment analyst said.

Premier Su Tseng-chang, who lost the primaries, is inclined to adhere to President Chen Shui-bian's policy of rigid control over trade and economic exchanges between Taiwan and China.

Does Chen have a rigid control over trade and economic exchanges? With a million Taiwanese businessmen doing business in China, its rigidity is arguable. Perhaps a less ideological word might have been found....

Taiwan News reported on the withdrawal of the other candidates:

Well before the final results were announced, both of Hsieh's leading rivals announced their acceptance of the results.

In a news conference called at his Taipei City headquarters at 6:40 p.m., Yu stated that "the results of the party member vote were not as expected" and announced that "I accept this result."

Yu also stated that the primary constituted "a victory for the DPP" and contrasted the fact that the DPP had chosen its candidate through a democratic process with the opposition Kuomintang, whose nominee former KMT Chairman Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) was chosen without opposition by his party's Central Standing Committee.

The DPP chairman also related that the primary process also allowed open discussion and debate on critical issues such as policies on Taiwan's future national definition, education, culture, economics and transitional justice that will be beneficial for Taiwan's national development and social justice.

Speaking in a news conference held at his Taipei City headquarters at 7:00 p.m., Su stated that the result "manifested the will of the party membership and we acknowledge and respect this result." He added that "for the sake of party unity and the party's future victory and so that Taiwan can definitely win, I have decided to withdraw from this primary and will fully support the candidate that won the primary election and hope that everyone from the top to the bottom in the party will also fully support the winning candidate," Su declared.

However, DPP Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) told reporters that he had held a telephone discussion with Vice President Lu who affirmed that she "will resolutely complete the primary process."

Well, not Annette Lu. She'll stick it out because she narrowly failed by a mere 30% of the vote. Go Annette! Meanwhile Taiwan Echo, in comments on the previous post on this issue, noted that Su has strong support and that he may attempt to contest this result somehow. So although it seems pretty much over, it might not be.

Hsieh has a few skeletons in the closet. A Next Magazine report claimed it had a leaked a prosecutor's document....

On Wednesday the magazine published a copy of what it said was an official document signed by Kaohsiung Prosecutor Lo Chien-hsun (羅建勛) that had been sent from the Kaohsiung bureau to the Ministry of Justice's Investigation Bureau on April 3.

The magazine said that Lo thought Hsieh should be indicted on corruption charges on suspicion of accepting illegal donations from a Kaohsiung Rapid Transit Corp board member and others during his term as mayor of Kaohsiung.

A more detailed Taipei Times report is available here. This is pretty much par for the course -- we can expect a steady stream of "corruption" claims -- a similar campaign was conducted against Chen Shui-bian by the tycoon Chen Yu-hao, now in hiding in China, and a close associate of Shih Ming-teh, currently leading the anti-Chen protests in Taipei. Does anyone pay attention to corruption here? Well, it certainly makes a nice thing to bash one's opponents with, but voters do not seem particularly moved by it.

Before we get too excited, though, the faltering economy might well prove problematic for the DPP in the upcoming election cycle. As the Taipei Times notes, the wholesale price index is rising faster than the Consumer Price Index, indicating that producers are absorbing price increases due to the fiercely competitive market. However, sooner or later those price increases will be passed on to consumers here in Taiwan, further impacting stagnant consumption levels and real incomes. With the Taiwan dollar actually slipping against the US dollar -- which has no bottom -- and interest rates at lows in Taiwan, the DPP is facing limited and not very powerful policy choices. If the economy tanks as 2007 goes on, it could severely affect the DPP at the polls.

Viewed in this light, the KMT's strategy of blocking the budget now becomes clearer. Taiwan's budget is quite weird, the Taipei Times explained the other day (thanks, Frank).

However, the hype surrounding the stalled budget obscures the fact that, unlike many countries where a stalled budget would mean a government shutdown, the law allows the government to continue operating normally even if its budget isn't passed. Only funding for new construction projects cannot be released.

Therefore, of the NT$1.6 trillion requested by the government, 99.96 percent of the funds -- all but NT$70 billion for new construction -- can be spent, even without legislative approval.

The government just keeps going on, whether or not it has legislative approval. However, the sole exception to that principle is billions of $$ in new public construction, which the government still needs legislative approval to execute. All over Taiwan, local level businesses and local governments are awaiting that funding. As long as the KMT and its legislative allies block that funding, the DPP doesn't get that economic stimulus to get the economy moving and reward local level links. Since the KMT has more resources and a better presence at the local level, it can probably outlast the DPP with this strategy. In other words, it may be that the KMT is bashing the local economy to bring down the party in power. Or it may be that they are just intransigent shits. You make the call.

[Taiwan] [Democracy] [DPP] [KMT] [Annette Lu] [Washington Post] [Frank Hsieh]

Taiwan Cold Shoulders Own Imprisoned Spy

From Edward Cody at the Washington Post comes the tragic story of a man who spied for the Taiwan government, was imprisoned for 13 years, lost his family, and now wants what's due to him -- and isn't getting it:

Jiang, once an asset but no longer useful in the spy war, spent most of March in Taipei dunning the Taiwan Military Intelligence Bureau for what he believes he is due. After 26 days and several tense meetings, he said, the Taiwanese espionage agency said it concluded that Jiang has no claim on such financial support and no right to a residence visa. Jiang said a senior bureau official told him as much Wednesday and ordered him not to speak publicly about his work for the service, warning that under Taiwanese law he could be jailed again if he did.

"I told them, 'I was your man then, and I should be your man now,' " Jiang said, heedless of the warning. "What kind of a government is that? I was very disappointed."

The Taiwanese spy agency, responding to an inquiry, said it had decided Jiang was ineligible for benefits because he had never been a full-time Taiwanese Defense Ministry employee and that the government had fulfilled its obligations with payments that Jiang said totaled $36,000 to help meet medical expenses after his release from prison in 2001.

Can't even give the guy a residence visa, never mind the compensation that is his just due. How will cases like this affect the willingness of others to spy for the island? Penny wise, pound foolish.

[Taiwan] [China] [spies]

Crazed Ad in the Washington Post

Some guy paid $30K to have this baby put in the Washington Post. I especially like the crack that "Taiwanese" sounds like "Taiwan Ni Sui" = "Taiwan You Die". Glad somebody is making money off this stuff.

Click on it to see the full size version on my Flickr account (click on ALL SIZES).

[Taiwan] [US] [China]