fish of the day

Want Daily's front cover:

not my blog

unlike those of most Mondays over the last year, today's China Post editorial: "The ECFA makes rapprochement irreversible" is not connected to this blog

(as might be clear from its content; or indeed verb use)-->

Cross-strait relations entered a new era last week with the signing of an economic cooperation pact that would liberalize trade and investment between the two erstwhile adversaries and would make the ongoing cross-strait rapprochement an irreversible process...

... Though controversial, the agreement is seen by many pundits at home and abroad as a plus for Taiwan, given the island's urgent need to break its economic isolation that has made it a regional pariah, like North Korea, which has been excluded from any free trade arrangements in the region...

... As if by a quirk of history, the signing of the historic document took place in Chongqing, ... the place where Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek of the Nationalist Party (KMT) and Chairman Mao Zedong of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) held a historic meeting right after the war ended in 1945...

... The agreement was one of President Ma Ying-jeou's biggest achievements since he assumed office two years ago...

(and so forth)

fish of the day

article in China Post:

Temple operator chooses industry over 'Matsu's fish'

TAIPEI, Taiwan -- Despite calls to save Chinese white dolphins living in the water off Taiwan's west coast, several lawmakers from the region asked environmental protection activists yesterday not to interfere with economic development.

“Although environmental protection is crucial, it is more important to carry out a policy that helps local development,” Non-Partisan Solidarity Union Legislator Yen Ching-piao said.

Yen — who doubles as president of Dajia Jenn Lann Temple in Taichung County, one of the most important Matsu temples in Taiwan — voiced support for the construction of the Kuo Kuang Petrochemical Park on the mouth of the Jhuoshuei River in Changhua County, central Taiwan. Ignoring activists who say the over NT$400-billion (US$12.4-billion) project will destroy the habitat of the white dolphins — locally called “Matsu's fish,” Yen criticized an Environmental Protection Administration (EPA) plan to build a marine “ecological corridor” for the endangered species.

Rather than spending NT$20 billion to NT$30 billion on the corridor, Yen said the money should be used to help underprivileged people, he said.

The dolphins, also known as Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins, were listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as “critically endangered” in 2008 after their number was estimated to have fallen below 100 off Taiwan's western coast. Local fishermen call them “Matsu's fish” because they are seen most frequently between March and April, when the birthday of Matsu — the widely worshipped goddess of the sea — is celebrated.

In addition to Yen, legislators from Changhua County, including Cheng Ru-fen, Hsiao Ching-tien and Lin Tsang min, have also said that local economic development should be the priority.

Knowing the project could create 20,000 to 30,000 jobs, 98 percent of residents in coastal Dacheng Township support the construction of the industrial park, Cheng said.

UK Green Party MP elected

China Post editorial:

Small parties — important, irrelevant or dangerous?

As The China Post went to press last night, the United Kingdom was still without a new government, despite polls closing last Thursday evening. Normally the new prime minister would visit the queen the following morning to get her assent, and then begin his new term of office, which can last for up to five years.

For the first time in almost half a century, however, Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system, which tends to give exaggerated power to the two main parties, has produced a hung parliament. With the third-largest party, the Liberal Democrats, holding the balance of power and demanding electoral reform so that its habitual 20-25 percent of the vote is never again translated into less than 10 percent of legislators, negotiations are still taking place.

One result that is clear, however, is that after decades of trying, the Green Party has its first member of the national parliament, Caroline Lucas, who was elected in Brighton. Without having improved its share of support, which remained consistent at about 1 percent, the party has perhaps come of age through its adoption of some of the strategies of its more established competitors. For example, it focused a disproportionate amount of party resources on its two most winnable seats, Brighton and Norwich. Furthermore, having eschewed the concept of party leader for ideological reasons throughout most of its history, it recently adopted such a figurehead, with Lucas being elected to the post.

Perhaps it was the growing specter of climate change that provided the final nudge to persuade voters of the Green Party's relevance.

But although the Green Party might sound nice, middle-class and cuddly, behind its voter-friendly name it has a radical agenda by no means limited to environmental protection, preventing climate change, or even opposing nuclear power stations.

The party's mission statement begins: “Life on Earth is under immense pressure. It is human activity, more than anything else, which is threatening the well-being of the environment on which we depend. Conventional politics has failed us because its values are fundamentally flawed.”

From this plausible beginning, the Green Party of England and Wales is led down an increasingly left-wing path. Encouraging more sustainable transportation not only means advocacy of buses and trains, but is also translated into re-nationalization of the train network and punitive taxes on fuel.

Without using the word socialism, the Greens also campaign for increased levels of income tax on richer people, increased corporation tax on big businesses, and “eco taxes” on polluters. They seek to reduce drug companies' influence on Britain's health service, and community self-reliance to treat and prevent a growing mental health crisis they claim is caused by the market-driven culture.

Greens see economic growth and mass consumption of the capitalist lifestyle as incompatible with the planet's finite resources, and so promote a sustainable economy.

The only sense in which the Green Party is “republican” is in seeking an end to the constitutional role of the British monarchy.

Given these left-wing standpoints of the UK and other green parties, it is ironic that their most influential moment was probably in helping George W. Bush into office in 2000. U.S. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 2.74 percent of the popular vote, almost 3 million in total, making the party third-largest nationwide. But it was in Florida, where Bush defeated Al Gore by just 537 votes, that the almost 100,000 votes cast for Nader led many supporters to accuse the Green Party of spoiling the election for the Democratic Party. A decade on, there is still much bad blood between the two sides.

But what, if anything, has all of this to do with Taiwan? Not much perhaps. Taiwan's Green Party is minute, even by comparison with the UK's, and musters only handfuls of supporters to its events.

More importantly, Taiwanese political parties have surely learned the danger of third-party politics. The KMT learned the hardest way, with incumbent Huang Ta-chou losing the 1994 Taipei City mayoral election to the Democratic Progressive Party's Chen Shui-bian, when what is now called the pan-Blue vote was split by Chao Shao-kong of the New Party. This was followed in the 2000 presidential election with James Soong, who left the KMT to stand as an independent, spoiling the election for the KMT's Lien Chan, once again allowing Chen to slip in the back door with less than 40 percent of the total vote.

Now it is the opposition DPP that is in danger of learning this lesson through defeat, as it tries to maintain discipline in its own ranks in advance of the yearend elections.

So while neither the UK nor Taiwan Green Party has anything like enough influence to cause an electoral upset, the issues of democracy, hung parliaments and third-party politics should not be ignored by our political combatants.

yawn yawn

China Post editorial:

Perhaps Tsai, DPP will think twice about more public debates

Taiwan's groundbreaking first public debate between the president and the leader of the main opposition party concerning government policy went ahead yesterday afternoon as planned. Early indications are that it gained a significant international audience online, in addition to domestic viewers and listeners.

Those expecting high drama will have been disappointed, however, as the two participants, President Ma Ying-jeou and Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen, managed to remain polite and adhere to the rules of debate. This was in stark contrast to their foot soldiers, partisan experts and media supporters, who over recent weeks have engaged in increasingly vitriolic disputes over the rights and wrongs, benefits and weaknesses, and economic and/or political dimensions to the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement that Ma's administration plans to sign with China, perhaps as early as June.

Unfortunately, those expecting incisive intellectual jousting would similarly have been disappointed. The two party leaders spent almost every minute of the 150-minute televised debate playing to the camera and wider audience, and merely restating the positions with which anyone interested in this issue would already have been well aware of.

Thus Ma stressed the urgency faced by his government, claiming that eight years of waiting, worrying and time-wasting by the previous DPP administration meant that time was now short for Taiwan to catch up with regional and world economic developments, particularly the latest advances between ASEAN nations and China.

The three prongs of an ECFA signed with the mainland—reducing tariffs, increasing exports and protecting intellectual property rights—would lead to the creation of more than a quarter million jobs. Moreover, Taiwanese businesses that had moved to China would return, and the increased exports to China would attract foreign investment that would naturally lead to further job increases.

Signing the ECFA would open Taiwan's doors to FTAs with other countries, Ma said, and responding to accusations of helping big business at the expense of small and medium-sized firms, the president said that the economies of all such companies were intertwined and helping some would help the others. The ECFA was not for anyone's personal benefit but for the national good. Regarding those industries that would suffer through their inability to compete with Chinese goods, Ma repeated that NT$95 billion would be set aside over 10 years for assistance to domestic industries that experienced any negative impact.

The key difference between the two sides was his administration's open and international approach compared with the closed attitude of the DPP. This latter would lead to Taiwan's marginalization on the world stage.

Regarding fears of a threat to Taiwan's sovereignty, which the ruling Kuomintang had accused the DPP of whipping up, Ma stressed that after signing the ECFA it would be submitted to the Legislative Yuan for scrutiny, and he reaffirmed his commitment to no unification, no independence and no war.”

The DPP's Tsai Ing-wen was similarly unoriginal, merely restating her party's accusations that ECFA negotiations were being undertaken with unnecessary haste and undue secrecy, were not under Taiwan's control, would affect the regional strategic balance, and were of great concern to many laborers, farmers and white-collar workers.

She said Ma only talked about benefits and not about negative impacts, and claimed that within just 10 years 90 percent of domestic agricultural products would be open to tariff-free imports.

If the legislature did not pass the ECFA after it had been signed, would the government resort to stating it was too late to make changes, as it had with the U.S.-beef-import issue, Tsai asked.

In short, she said, it was not her party's incitement but the government's lack of transparency that was causing the public anxiety, she said, repeating her call for a referendum on the ECFA issue.

So, was the debate a disappointing anticlimax and a waste of a pleasant Sunday afternoon after the recent poor weather?

No. The fact that the audience included many from outside the “chattering classes” who may not be so familiar with the ECFA issue, gave President Ma an opportunity to fill the void of understanding that he has often blamed for causing the opposition from much of the public to the agreement.

For the KMT, it showed that the party has moved on from the days when Taiwan's government made decisions behind closed doors, which it then informed the people afterwards. And on a personal level, it showed that Ma is more than capable of holding his own in one-on-one political sparring with the best the opposition can produce.

It also gave him a stage, with the nation watching, to make one final surprise announcement. With the nation's television cameras whirring and in almost his last paragraph before the microphone went dead, President Ma announced that the status of the cross-Strait ECFA discussions was being upgraded, and that he would personally be leading the negotiating team from now on.

Perhaps Tsai and the DPP will not push so hard for televised public debates in the future.

come on, Obama

China Post editorial:

It was a majestic performance, if your head is buried in sand

Members of Sweden's Nobel Peace Prize committee will have slept well in their beds this weekend following signing of last week's agreement to make significant cuts to the global stockpile of nuclear weapons by U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. If the treaty is ratified by both countries' legislatures and implemented, this will see the Cold War adversaries' arsenals reduced to the lowest levels since the arms race of the 1960s.

In any case, the fanfare that accompanied the signing ceremony held in Prague's baroque castle will have been music to Swedish ears. Last year, in what was widely criticized as a partisan political gesture, it awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama just a few months after he entered the White House simply for promising to work for the elimination of nuclear weapons.

So maybe the committee got it right, and maybe the world will be a safer place in the future thanks to Obama and Medvedev's actions. But there was something bizarre about the whole event, or rather, something was missing.

It was not that nuclear weapons have not claimed a single life in over six decades, or that the greatest threat to citizens of the United States and Russia comes from terrorists with rucksacks, vests and even shoes loaded with bombs (though in Russia's case, insurgents might be a fairer word).

Nor was it that the United States and Russia are essentially now on the same side after spending most of the 20th century with daggers drawn, and both countries' chief concern with regard to nuclear weapons are the so-called rogue states (now to be known as “outliers,” apparently) of North Korea and Iran. The cost to people in the former country is lives of unimaginable poverty, while those in the latter are about to get clobbered by serious sanctions if Obama, Medvedev and the leaders of around four dozen countries can focus their animosity (whereas Israel joined the “nuclear club” and introduced nuclear weapons into the unstable environment of the Middle East almost without censure).

No, the most bizarre aspect of last week's baroque love fest was its anachronism. It was like watching two dinosaurs arm wrestle on television then kiss and make up. Nice spectacle, but hardly relevant to today's more evolved world. Russia may possess thousands of nuclear warheads — which once upon a time gave some backing to its claim of superpower status — but its empire fell apart two decades ago. Moreover, the world very quickly learned that the bombs were little more than the emperor's new clothes, and that the cost to the Soviet Union of possessing them was far beyond the means of what, in reality, was not a superpower at all.

So the pantomime went ahead, and the world applauded, and the pundits discussed the Obama-Medvedev contribution to world peace, and almost no one mentioned China, which, as a growing global power, should merit more attention.

Whether China already is a superpower, will become one sooner or later, or will never exceed its role as regional heavyweight are questions that normally generate many column inches. There can be little doubt that this is China's aim, however, and if any existed, it was surely dispelled by the recent book by PLA colonel and academic Liu Mingfu, in which he made no bones about China's goal of replacing the United States as world leader. Perhaps being modest, Liu said this would take 90 years: 30 to match its GDP, 30 to equal its military and cultural strength, and 30 to surpass its per capita GDP.

Or perhaps he was trying to reduce anxiety. Liu did make it clear, however, that this goal required not just building its economy into the world's largest, but also creating armed forces of equal stature. But he said armed conflict was not inevitable, and described the forthcoming competition as neither world war nor cold war, but more like a track-and-field event or a protracted marathon.

Perhaps the greatest doubt about China's ability to transform into a world force comes not from outside but from within as it undergoes the growing pains necessary for this maturation. All its economic and military clout will count for nothing if it cannot overcome numerous and varied challenges. These include people's demands for rule of law and freedom of expression; government corruption and organized crime; intergenerational conflict as the old elite clings to power and socio-economic imbalances between geographic regions of the vast country; horrendous pollution and growing health problems, as well as a population time bomb that could explode at any time.

But the United States and rest of the world cannot just bury their heads in the sands of the past as the Prague performance suggests they would like. Obama and his colleagues must do more to deal with today's reality, and if he really is worthy of the Nobel prize, China's nuclear weapons should be on his agenda, too.

mea culpa

Today's China Post editorial:

Men's attitudes must change for birth rates to improve

Various media around the world reported last week's offer by Taiwan's Ministry of the Interior (MOI) of NT$1 million for a slogan most likely to make people want to have babies.

Perhaps not realizing that NT$1 million is worth somewhat less than the U.S. version, Internet users have been particularly humorous and creative, with some making reference to the recent brouhaha over Taipei 101's “Taiwan UP” catchphrase, and others substituting bodily organs in the Tourism Bureau's “Taiwan Touch Your Heart” slogan.

But Taiwan's falling birth rate — which last year stood at 8.29 births per 1,000 people and compared to the global average of over 20 — is a serious issue as it could lead to challenging economic and social problems. Reversing it, finding other means to increase the work force, or developing strategies to deal with a graying population are, therefore, policies with which the MOI is right to be concerned. But governments around the world — with the exception of certain authoritarian regimes — have long found their influence over citizens' reproduction very limited at best.

The R.O.C. is no newcomer to this game. As Taiwan's birth rate rose during the 1950s post-war boom and its death rate declined due to medical improvements, the first calls sounded for birth control despite traditional Han Chinese thinking that “more sons and more grandsons” was life's greatest blessing, and that “of the three un-filial acts, leaving no descendant was the worst.” Nevertheless, the first birth-control policy went into practice in 1968 under the slogan of the “Five Threes” (bearing the first child three years after marriage; leaving a gap of three years before the second; having no more than three children; and completing one's family before the age of 33). This was succeeded by “Less Children; More Happiness”; then by “3-3-2-1” (in which two children were just right and it was equally good to have girls as boys); and then by “3-2-1” (with two children just right, but one not too few).

The government then turned to financial incentives, which included tax cuts, government subsidies, public day-care centers for working women and preferential health care for children.

To judge from the MOI's latest announcement, these measures are having little effect, and over the last few days, in contrast to their more mischievous Internet colleagues, Taiwan's traditional media has undertaken a sober study of the underlying reasons and potential solutions.

Their interviews with officials, academics and people in the street identified a range of problems, some of which might be amenable to policy influence and others of a more intractable nature.

Of the former, potential parents complained that thresholds for financial support are set too high, costs of childcare are still prohibitive, and although legislation supports the right to take parental leave from work, in reality — particular for women in private companies — this could be detrimental to career promotion or even lead to unemployment.

As for the latter, there is only so much the government can do to improve the current economic climate — which was cited by many of the married women seeking abortions in one report over the weekend — and even less regarding citizens' falling confidence in their future prosperity.

Women's most common grievance, however, was that too many males still cling to antiquated attitudes of “prioritizing men and undervaluing women” and that “men are masters of the world while women rule the home.” Why, women ask, should they have children if it means increased household duties of cooking meals, helping with homework and cleaning up after children, while their husbands put their feet up? What value are their increased educational and occupational opportunities of the last few decades if men's attitudes have failed to keep up?

Seemingly in agreement, many media commentators lamented that, while young men of college age might be making some progress in this respect, those who should be fathering the nation's next generation are particularly entrenched in their traditional thinking. Perhaps these men's attitudes could be the focus of the MOI's slogan campaign.

critical(ly un)mass

... and don't forget, Critical Mass (Taipei) is this Sunday, the fourth NOT last Sunday of each month

I'll post details tomorrow (if i can find them)

three 'Asian' former presidents

china post editorial:


Three “Asian” former presidents have appeared in the news recently.

First, Taiwan's own Chen Shui-bian, already sentenced to life imprisonment for graft, bribery and money laundering, spent Christmas contemplating the new corruption charges laid against him, this time relating to monies changing hands following reforms of Taiwan's financial-holding companies during his first term in office.

Similarly in Peru, the Supreme Court upheld the 25-year prison sentence handed down to former President Alberto Fujimori. The first president of East Asian descent in the Americas — he was nicknamed El Chino, “The Chinaman,” by enemies and supporters alike — Fujimori's 1990 election success was greeted with pride not just in Japan, but throughout the continent of his parents' births.

Fujimori rode to power on the wave of public dissatisfaction with the outgoing regime of Alan Garcia, and though the “Fujishock” reform policies he implemented bore little resemblance to his election manifesto, he quickly gained further popularity by battling the leftist terrorist groups that controlled large parts of the country. And by restoring economic stability, he brought Peru back into the global economic system.

But his methods were characterized by authoritarianism and corruption and his popularity waned. In 2000, Fujimori holed up in Tokyo, from where he suffered the indignity of attempting to resign his presidency by fax, and where the Japanese authorities refused demands for his extradition. Eventually extradited from Chile in 2007, he was prosecuted for “crimes against humanity” and convicted of murder, bodily harm and kidnapping.

Fujimori was additionally found guilty of embezzlement, and the huge sums involved and the systematic nature of his administration's cynical corruption — which pocketed upward of US$600 million — make Chen look like a schoolboy caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

The third and most significant item of news was the passing of former Indonesian president Abdurrahman Wahid. Many official New Year's celebrations were canceled out of respect to the moderate Muslim politician who died on Dec. 30 at age 69 after prolonged illnesses.

More illuminating, perhaps, were the responses of ordinary Indonesians, many thousands of whom took to the streets to mark the passing of the man who led the country from 1999 to 2001 when the world's most populous Muslim-majority nation emerged from three decades of dictatorship. Admirers held vigils at mosques, churches, temples, schools and national landmarks.

These cross-community actions testify to the social cohesion sought by Wahid in the aftermath of the repression and inter-ethnic violence that characterized the Sukarno and Suharto regimes. Born into a family with moderate religious and political leanings — one grandfather had founded the Nahdlatul Ulama (NU) Islamic group, the other originated education for Indonesian women; and his father, after involvement in the nationalist movement became the independent nation's first minister of religious affairs — Wahid abandoned his academic career to work first as a teacher, then as a journalist and social commentator.

He was increasingly drawn into conflict and compromise with the Suharto regime, however, and having taken up leadership of the NU, he sought to revitalize it into a brand of Islam that was open, fair and tolerant. His liberal ideas and advocacy of interfaith dialogue — he accepted an invitation to visit Israel in 1994 — meant he sometimes struggled to promote this agenda even within his own organization.

Nevertheless, the strength of his ideals prevailed, and after Suharto was forced to step down in 1998, Wahid's National Awakening Party (PKB) held the balance of power. In the election for Indonesia's fourth post-independence president the following year, he defeated rival Megawati Sukarnoputri, who through her father's legacy had made a major contribution of putting pressure on Suharto, and whose Indonesian Democratic Party-Struggle (PDI-P) had won the largest share in the legislative elections.

Continuing his spirit of pluralism, Wahid invited Megawati to be his vice president, and selected a “national unity Cabinet” that included many non-aligned politicians, members of rival parties and even of Suharto's Golkar party.

Wahid continued to push a post-dictatorship agenda, abolishing the propangandistic Ministry of Information and highly corrupt Ministry of Welfare. It was his challenges to the military and the powerful ministers of industry and trade and of state-owned enterprises, as well as accusations of corruption leveled against himself and his own regime, that sowed the seeds of his fall from power in less than two years.

By that time Indonesia was firmly on the way to democratic governance, however, and although not freed from inter-ethnic conflict and violence, their scale was greatly diminished from the frequent excesses of the dictatorial decades.

Wahid's major achievement and his greatest legacy are perhaps not merely within Indonesia's Muslim community, but within the global Muslim community and the world at large.
Throughout his life, as teacher, journalist and social commentator, then as cleric and religious activist, and finally as politician, Wahid consistently sought tolerance and inclusion rather than extremism and exclusion, and wherever he traveled he preached his mantra that “upholding democracy is one of the principles of Islam.”

on your bike

Presumably, Sunday being the 4th Sunday of the month, there will be a Critical Mass bike rally in Taipei.

3pm outside Taipei Arena at Nanjing and Dunhua

see you there

?

come on, DPP (part III)

Calling someone homosexual is not an insult
but clearly some people think it is, and think that pandering to the prejudices of some sections of the population will give them an electoral advantage
shame the DPP is not immune from this:

Yahoo news reports:
民進黨立委李俊毅：「立委補選、五都決戰，即使通通都慘敗，錯也不會是在金溥聰，因為金溥聰跟馬英九的那種交情，已經『超乎友誼』，『超乎友誼』的交情。」
[which roughly translated means]
DPP legislator Li Jun-yi: "In the legislative by-elections and five special-municipality mayoral elections, even if [the KMT] loses all of them, it won't be King Pu-tsung's fault, because the kind of relationship that King Pu-tsung has with Ma Ying-jeou, is one that has transcended friendship, a relationship that has transcended friendship."

and that, everyone knows, is a just-inside-the-boundary-of-getting-your-ass-sued insinuation of homosexuality, something that Li seems to think is shameful, despite being a member of a so-called liberal party

come on, DPP, there is no need for this

come on, DPP (part II)

Taipei Times letter:

Why Aborigines support KMTMany outsiders coming to Taiwan find Aboriginal support for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) hard to understand. Given the suppression of their cultures, languages and even their names during the five decades of one-party rule, one might imagine their disenchantment with the organ of that rule would be as great or greater than that of the Hoklo Taiwanese, and that Aborigines would be staunch supporters, and even leaders, of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP).

Reading the smug post-­election “victory” analysis by Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑) of the DPP-allied New Society for Taiwan (“Has Ma done anything right yet?,” Dec.13, page 8), helps to explain why Aborigines do not trust the opposition:

“In Taitung County, the DPP closed the gap from 20,000 votes in 2005 to around 5,000 this time. If we subtract the votes of the county’s Aborigines, who are mostly loyal Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) voters, the DPP would have won in Taitung. This result shows how angry people in Taitung are about the performance of outgoing county commissioner Kuang Li-chen (鄺麗貞), who used to enjoy Ma’s strong support.”

Why not go the whole hog and argue that Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) election as president should not stand because of all the women who voted for his “good looks”? But no; thanks to the influence of former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮), Kaohsiung Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊), DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and others, sexism is taboo in the party, at least in explicit terms. Clearly not racism, however.

Ridding itself of such attitudes would help transform the DPP into a truly liberal party and, as a pleasant side effect, increase its chances of electoral success.

come on, DPP, you can do better than this

Here is something I don't remember seeing before, at least not by a supposedly democratic political party.

In an opinion piece in today's Taipei Times (Has Ma done anything right yet?), Liang Wen-chieh (梁文傑), deputy director of the DPP-allied think tank New Society for Taiwan (台灣新社會智庫), brags about the party's so-called victory in last week's city and county elections. He then discusses Taitung, where the DPP lost narrowly:

"... In Taitung County, the DPP closed the gap from 20,000 votes in 2005 to around 5,000 this time. If we subtract the votes of the county’s Aborigines, who are mostly loyal Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) voters, the DPP would have won in Taitung. This result shows how angry people in Taitung are about the performance of outgoing county commissioner Kuang Li-chen (鄺麗貞), who used to enjoy Ma’s strong support."

Not try to garner Aboriginal votes by drawing up policies they might agree with (which can be a cynical practice itself sometimes), but SUBTRACT THE VOTES. Presumably his "people of Taitung" does not include them either.

fish of the day

WEDNESDAY, 02 DECEMBER 2009

China Post editorial: Taiwan should at least pay attention to Greenpeace

Pacific marine resources are over-exploited, and if current practices are continued, the commercial fish harvest of not just the region, but the entire planet may be wiped out by as early as the middle of this century. Naturally, this presents a grave threat to humankind. Or so claimed Greenpeace at a press conference held last week in Taiwan.

The environmental NGO called on individual people to exercise selectivity when purchasing seafood — tuna in particular — so as to ensure it came from sustainable supplies; called on Taiwan's fishing fleet to abandon indiscriminate fishing techniques, such as longliners and fishing aggregation devices; and called on the ROC government to push for closure of four high seas pockets as marine reserves at the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) when it convenes in Tahiti in early December.

Director-General of the ROC's Fisheries Agency (FA), James Sha, responded that Taiwan's fishing fleet, like all ships sailing in international waters, remained under the jurisdiction of their flag of state, and that Greenpeace, as an NGO, had no such jurisdiction.

The global fish market is currently 2.5 times a level that would be sustainable, Greenpeace maintains. In particular, the world's appetite for tuna and the advancements in technology used to catch it have grown to such an extent that three of the five commercial species are listed as endangered, and two — bigeye and yellowfin tuna — are expected to be critically over-fished within three years. Moreover, illegal shipping accounts for as much as 35 percent of the Pacific fish catch.

Taiwan's fleet plays a significant role in this industry and makes a significant contribution to the nation's economy. Employing around 350,000 workers and catching some 1.3 million tons of seafood, the industry garners around NT$90 billion, of which NT$40 billion comes from exports, almost half from tuna. It supports another 20,000 in auxiliary industries such as boat-building and marine supply. If fish stocks are on the verge of collapse, then this source of revenues and employment is under threat, and measures must be pursued to protect it.

Yet it is the industry's practices which provide the greatest threat, and ultimately it is the number, size and technology of the vessels that requires governance. With around 2,200 distant water fishing vessels flying the ROC flag, and around 500 more Taiwanese boats flying flags of convenience (FOC), Taiwan has the largest tuna-fishing fleet in the world.

Greenpeace claims to have presented evidence of Taiwanese-flagged vessels engaged in illegal fishing or illegal transshipments to the FA. But even if the government is willing and able to police this insatiable armada, the growing number of FOC vessels undermines these efforts.

Greenpeace's solution is the creation of marine reserves, the high seas pockets which would be closed to absolutely all forms of fishing.

Greenpeace grew out of the antinuclear movements of the 1950s and 1960s, and first came to prominence taking direct action against nuclear bomb testing, particularly by the United States beneath the Alaskan Aleutian Island and by France at Moruroa in French Polynesia. It then expended its activities to environmental concerns such as campaigning against whaling and the slaughter of baby seals for the fur trade.

Greenpeace's current priorities include tackling climate change, preserving the world's oceans and forests, eliminating toxic chemicals from waste, as well as an ongoing commitment to nuclear disarmament.

However, its immense size — an annual income of around US$200 million and 3 million supporters — confrontational direct action, orchestration of publicity-seeking events, economic naivety, and alarmist radical stance have moved it outside the mainstream, with some of its original founders defecting to more mainstream organizations. It has been accused of valuing non-human causes over human ones, and most notably, the Japanese government has described its so-called eco-warrior position as more akin to eco-terrorism or piracy.

Yet on many issues Greenpeace has been proven correct. Most major states have now signed and ratified the U.N.-backed Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, and only a tiny minority of states engage in whaling.

So while FA Director-General Sha is right about Greenpeace, as an NGO, not having jurisdiction over Taiwan's fishing fleet, his agency should at the very least examine the evidence the organization has presented to it, since it is very much the role of NGOs to provide information governments may have overlooked and assist them in the service of their citizens.

If Greenpeace's reports of illegal activities turn out to be true, the FA should revoke the licenses of the vessels involved. If its reports of widespread overfishing by Taiwanese vessels are substantiated, the ROC government should devise and implement an appropriate strategy. If its prediction of imminent demise of the world's commercial fish stocks are even halfway accurate, the government should use its influence to promote no-fishing marine reserves at next month's WCPFC. And all of us should make sure the tuna we eat is from sustainably-caught skipjack and albacore species, and not the higher value, but far more endangered bigeye, yellowfin and bluefin varieties.

fish of the day

THURSDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2009

i feel so guilty
i eat tuna about once every two months (well twice, if sushi is included)
and yesterday was that day (see here), with leftovers in my 蛋餅 for breakfast today

and this evening I went to the "Formosa & Tuna -- Netting up the Pacific" Greenpeace exhibition at Dunnan Eslite
oh, the guilt (well at least i didn't go by scooter)

go check it out (it's on till Sunday)
and start eating sustainably-harvested fish

how?
how the H do I know, but i'll try to find out

Critical Mass Taipei (if 9 is a "mass")

Critical Mass
cycling pro-activity
tomorrow (Sunday) 3pm
gather outside the Taipei Arena (Nanjing E. Rd. and Dunhua N. Rd.)

come fight for your rights to cycle safely
see you all there (or probably not, if last time's is anything to go by)

on women as meritocratic demographic

China Post editorial:


More women participating in the work force

Last week the Council for Economic Planning and Development (CEPD) released figures showing a rise in Taiwan's women's labor force participation rate — a measure of the percentage of women of working age who are employed or looking for work — to 49.7 percent in 2008, up from around 46 percent in 2002. The CEPD anticipate that this indicator will break through the psychologically important 50-percent barrier sometime in 2010.

The CEPD also noted that since the total number of jobs had not increased significantly, this growth in women entering the labor market has been at the expense of the men's labor force participation rate, which fell from 68.2 percent to 67.0 percent over the same period.

While women lag behind men in terms of paid employment around the world, Taiwan's women also still lag behind their sisters in most other advanced economies. In many European and North American countries, for example, more than 70 percent of women participate in the workforce, and even in Japan and South Korea, which are typically characterized as having large gender gaps, the figures are 67 percent and 59 percent, respectively.

This is not simply an equal-opportunities issue of concern to feminists and liberal-minded organizations. It concerns Taiwan's competitiveness on the global stage. Having spent decades improving young women's access to educational resources, it is Taiwan's loss if the country does not make the most of their resulting talents.

Indeed, the current situation can be seen within an historical context stretching back thousands of years to China's golden age of philosophy, now known as the Contention of a Hundred Schools of Thought. While this is generally understood as the period in which philosophers such as Confucius, Zhuangzi and Hanfeizi brought forth new ideas that later became codified as Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism and so forth, the real consequences were social and political rather than philosophical. Particularly important was the ideal of a meritocracy promoted by Confucius and Mozi, who argued that people should be employed according to their talents rather than according to their status at birth. Of course, the 'people' in this meritocracy meant 'men,' and it wasn't until the 20th century that women in Taiwan and China were given any significant role outside traditional areas of home and field.

That a meritocratic system was adopted had nothing to do with concepts of fairness, egalitarianism or human rights, but was simply a result of pragmatic requirements, a kind of Darwinian survival of the fittest applied to systems of government. By Confucius' birth some 26 centuries ago, China had split into a number of small states, which battled with each other for survival and supremacy, and for the right to reunite and rule “all under heaven.” In their pursuit of this goal, some states were willing to consider new political and military strategies, including the employment of talented members of the lower social orders. These were the states which prospered.

And just as the Confucian revolution was a product of its time, so are many of today's social and political changes. It was not mere coincidence, for example, that women's participation in the workforces of European and North American countries increased significantly during and after the Second World War when there was a shortage of male workers.

So what are the factors encouraging or driving Taiwan's women into paid employment in the first decade of the 21st century?

Since marriage and childcare are two of the key factors depressing women's participation in the workforce — with equal numbers of women and men working before marriage — the gradual increase in the age at which women wed has long been seen as a contributing factor. What is new is the 3-percent rise in participation by married women over the last seven years. This, the CEPD report suggested, might be due to the generally deteriorating economic environment in which a husband's salary alone is less able to support a family.

Another factor might be the gradual cracking of the “glass ceiling” said to prevent women from rising to high positions in business, government and non-governmental organizations, which make remaining in a professional career less attractive to women who have accumulated similar academic laurels or work experience as their male colleagues. For decades this has resulted in a drain of talent from Taiwan's public and private organizations, as many women embarked on careers in religious organizations, non-governmental agencies or simply returned to housework, a loss that was only masked by other advantages that helped Taiwan move up the league table of world competitiveness.

As a World Bank report concluded a few years ago, countries that protect women's rights and increase access to resources, education and employment are the ones with narrower gender gaps, have less corruption and achieve faster economic growth than those that do not. This economic growth then helps to further narrow the gender gap, creating a positive feedback loop, the kind of loop that Taiwan could use to its advantage.

fish of the day

Taipei Times cartoon

Peng still silent on escape ...

Taipei Times: Peng Ming-min launches new book, castigates Ma

Former presidential advisor [and Taiwan's first opposition presidential candidate] Peng Ming-min speaks at an event launching his book about how he escaped Taiwan almost 40 years ago.
On Sept. 20, 1964, Peng Ming-min (彭明敏) was arrested for treason for advocating democracy in Taiwan. He was sentenced to eight years in prison in 1965 and put under house arrest later the same year after receiving a special pardon.
On Jan. 2, 1970, Peng left his family and began a 22-year exile. At a book launch in Taipei yesterday, the 86-year-old shared his successful escape from the then-­Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) regime 39 years ago, which he describes in his book titled "A Perfect Escape."

... With help from various individuals — Peng said he had to be careful with details in the book to protect the privacy of individuals and respect the wish of those who helped him but wanted to remain anonymous — his escape took him through Hong Kong, Bangkok, the Soviet Union and Denmark before he arrived in Stockholm, where he was granted political asylum.

In other words, he still doesn't spill the beans on how he escaped and who helped him do so.
When i interviewed him a few years back, that was ALL people wanted to know about him. Seems he will take it to the grave.

anyway, it gives me a chance to post my previous article:

What Happened Next?
Updates on the TJ Retrospective
TAIWAN Journal
March 25 - 31, 2006

By Mark Caltonhill and Hung Mao-feng
Ten years ago last week, Peng Ming-min and Frank Hsieh ran in Taiwan's first direct election for the president and vice president, receiving in-depth coverage by the Free China Journal, the forerunner of this paper. Representing the Democratic Progressive Party, the Peng-Hsieh ticket got 21 percent of the vote, placing them in second place behind incumbent KMT candidates Lee Teng-hui and Lien Chan, who garnered 54 percent.
Peng Ming-min was born in Taiwan Aug. 15, 1923 and educated in Japan. Returning to Taiwan in 1946, he studied law at National Taiwan University and was drawn toward the ruling clique, even joining the ROC delegation to the U.N. General Assembly in New York.
Arrested in 1964 for preparing a Declaration of Formosan Self-Salvation, which challenged the world to recognize one China and one Formosa, Peng was sentenced to eight years in prison but was put under house arrest after one. He escaped to the West in 1970, only returning to Taiwan in 1992 following a general amnesty for political offenders.
To find out what he has been up to since 1996, the Taiwan Journal met up with Peng on Feb. 27 this year at his office in Taipei. The following interview has been edited for length and style.

Taiwan Journal: What is your overriding memory of March 23, 1996?
Peng Ming-min: As the first time people could elect the president by popular vote, it was, from any point of view, epoch-making. Especially after a half-century of dictatorship. The excitement, shared by all people regardless of their political position. There was a certain idealism, that this was our first step to the process of democracy. People were not so cynical as today.

Q: Did you imagine then, with only 21 percent of the vote, that the DPP could take power as early as 2000?
A: Firstly, you say only 21 percent of the vote. With all due respect and humility, this was a remarkable achievement. It followed 50 years of totalitarianism, of educational, cultural and political brainwashing. Also, personally, I was demonized, and had been under arrest warrant for 23 years. People didn't know me, or had only heard lies. Our idea of Taiwan independence had also been demonized.
I remember, when I was first in the United States, people whispered it. 1996 gave us a chance to present this idea [independence] openly. Many people had never heard of this idea. For 50 years, all civic organizations were all controlled by the KMT. I never had the opportunity to appear on TV. Our 21 percent should be compared to North Korea, Iran or Syria, where the ruling parties get more than 100 percent. I didn't even get good support from the DPP: Some so-called supporters actually tried to pull me down.

Q: So even within the DPP the idea of independence wasn't predominant?
A: The DPP is not a very well-disciplined political party, even now. I always kid them: "Which position can you put forward and say this is our position?" So their people just think and do whatever they like.

Q: What do you feel about your main opponent in 1996, Lee Teng-hui, who is now an outspoken advocate of Taiwan's independence?
A: Actually, people like to say that my 21 percent plus President Lee's 54 percent was really a 75-percent vote for Taiwan independence. I always kid him that he never knew whether he was chairman of the KMT or a citizen of Taiwan. Now he is with the Taiwan Solidarity Union. After the 1996 election, some people urged me to form a new party, but there is no room for a new party.

Q: Do you mean that Taiwan's democracy is best served by two parties?
A: No, I don't say that. I mean that supporters of the DPP and TSU are basically the same people, so they have to fight each other to share the same slice of pie.

Q: You fell out with the DPP, which culminated in your not renewing your party membership in 1998. What has been your role since the 1996 election?
A: Actually, I took the initiative to withdraw. Many of my supporters were angry, I felt frustrated.

Q: But you stayed close to the party?
A: Of course, many are personal friends.

Q: Because he was your running mate in 1996, many people still associate you with Frank Hsieh. Have you followed his political career with special interest?
A: I only knew him just before I came back to Taiwan. He was studying in Japan and came to a speech that I gave. After four years, when I decided to run and was looking for a running mate, there were not so many suitable candidates, for various reasons. He worked very hard at that time. He is the one that proposed that for the main theme of our campaign, that the KMT was an "alien regime." I was really surprised that he would propose it; I thought it was too strong a word for that time. But, to be frank, since he became Kaohsiung mayor and then premier, some of his statements, I cannot agree. I am not really in support of his "reconciliation and co-existence," as well as the idea of the "one China constitution." Everyone likes peace, everyone talks about reconciliation, but it takes two to reconcile. I met him after he resigned, we are good friends, but politically we are not close.

Q: You have devoted much of the last ten years to the Peng Foundation for Culture and Education. What is its role on Taiwan's political landscape?
A: This was set up in 1994 before I ran in the election. This is not political but educational. We have conferences, seminars and summer schools to invite schoolteachers to teach them Taiwan history, strengthen understanding. We sense a lack of understanding of identification with Taiwan.
Given people's lack of understanding about their own country, these changes are not nearly enough. It is natural that people should first understand their own history and culture, then those of others. For us, learning about China? This is really unnatural. People have a natural, biological identification with the place were they are born, where they live. People used to say, "I am Chinese," now the majority will say, "I am Taiwanese." So-called Taiwanese identification is not necessary ideologically, it is a natural thing.

Q: What about the use of the Mandarin language rather than Taiwanese?
A: So many people are easier using Mandarin, so I am not opposed to that. Having more "national languages" doesn't mean we will unite more, but people should talk their own language.

Q: What about aboriginal languages falling into disuse?
A: This is inevitable. Unfortunately, they became a minority. Languages die, disappear. I have read articles about many languages around the world disappearing, I think it is natural: don't force anything, don't forbid anything, just let things develop.

Q: You became Senior Advisor to the President following the 2000 election. What has that position entailed?
A: You know, senior advisor is just a job description: to advise the president about anything from his hairstyle to the purchase of submarines, but basically I don't know much about these other things, such as economics. Mainly I talk about foreign relations, education; those things.

Q: Is there any achievement of President Chen's first six years in office of which you are especially proud?
A: He is in extremely difficult position with the opposition majority in parliament. They have no idea about so-called loyal opposition. Your enemy automatically adopts an opposite position, and harasses you, humiliates you, insults you and makes it impossible for you to operate. That is the reality of the presidency. In the States, for example, defense matters are above party matters. People accuse President Chen of switching positions back and forth. But, compared with other countries, Chen is no worse. So-called peaceful reform is more difficult sometimes than military revolution. In the French revolution, Russian revolution, Chinese revolution, they just killed off the ancient regime and wrote up new laws and a new constitution. But with democratic peaceful reform you have to follow due process of law. Those laws were given by the former regime, and how can you change laws? Otherwise you are violating the rule of law. This kind of problem is everywhere, especially after a 50-year dictatorship.

Q: So is there one achievement of which you are particularly proud?
A: It is hard. Because of the opposition's majority, no legislation could be passed, and reforms of the nation's laws have not been passed. In that sense, I cannot really say what.
Well, at least this government is more transparent, more open; that can't be denied. So the recent charge of corruption, I am not saying there is no corruption, but even New Zealand and Australia have corruption. This government is more open and more transparent, so in that sense, in the long run, it has advanced democracy.

Q: Do you think those changes and the openness of government cannot be turned back now?
A: Oh yes, I don't think it can be turned back now. Democracy is not the ideal system; the problem is that humankind has not thought up a better one. Churchill said that democracy is a terrible system but other systems are worse. With that I agree.

Q: How do you envisage the democratic process continuing?
A: So in spite of our disappointment, in parliament, there is no rush. I always emphasize: How long did it take to get democracy [in Europe], 400 years? In the States, 200 years? And still so many problems are not solved. And I think in the beginning of Western democracies even worse things happened.
If we are left alone, I am not so pessimistic. This is the issue: "if we are left alone." My position is the same as in 1996; we have our own constitution, our own territory. We don't need to declare from today on we are independent. We just quietly are de facto independent. The status quo means independence.
Changing the name of the country is not the top priority. The Republic of China is all right, at least in this transitional period. But we must declare to the world that our territory, our sovereignty is limited to Taiwan, that we are not interested to control mainland China. We have no intention to provoke anyone; we just want to be left alone.

selling out?

China Post: Lawmakers postpone reviewing of Chinese ads rules

Officials at the Taipei City Government estimated that the advertising outlay for Chinese products and services could reach at least NT$160 billion each year, four times the NT$40 billion ad expenditures of the domestic market.

Ok, VftH is in the culture business, not the business business, so this might be a little naïve,
but our understanding is that companies advertise to make money.
for each dollar they spend on advertising, they hope to get two, three or more dollars back in sales.
and if they don’t, they will stop spending money on advertising.
so if PRC companies spend NT$160 billion in Taiwan on advertising, they hope to take hundreds of billions more out of Taiwan in profits.
so we can see how allowing advertising is good for Taiwan’s advertising industry,
but how is it good for Taiwan?