The Foreigner in Formosa

Why I Can't Speak Mandarin

Finally an answer I can live with, from Scientific American.  It's GENETIC, baby:

During a study of linguistic and genetic data from 49 distinct populations [two linguists have] discovered a striking correlation between two genes involved in brain development and language tonality.  Populations that speak nontonal languages (where the pitch of a spoken word does not affect its meaning) have newer versions of the genes, with mutations that began to appear roughly 37 thousand years ago.

[...]

In English, the pitch at which a word is spoken conveys emotion but usually does not affect its meaning.  But in many sub-Saharan African, Southeast Asian and Latin American languages[,] tone changes the meaning of words...

The new research, published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA ties this difference to two genes, ASPM and Microcephalin.    The exact functions of both genes are still open to debate, but they are known to affect brain size during embryonic development.  "They presumably have something to do with brain structure, because there are deleterious mutations of the genes that lead to microencephaly (a condition in which a person's brain is much smaller than the average size for his or her age), says senior study author Robert Ladd, a professor of linguistics at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

Ladd and colleague Dan Dediu...focused on one particular variation of each of the new genes.  "They're versions of these genes that are not only newer, but also show signatures of strong natural selection in modern humans," Ladd says.  In their report, the authors note that previous studies indicate these popular new mutations do not appear to affect intelligence, brain size or social ability.  But based on their strong correlation with language tone, they surmise that they may contribute to slight differences in the cerebral cortex, the outermost layer of the brain, which, among many other functions, plays a role in our ability to understand language.

Ladd and Dediu compared 24 linguistic features...with 981 versions of the two genes found in the 49 populations studied.  Most of the language contrasts could be explained by geographic or historical differences.  But tone seemed to be inextricably tied to the variations of ASPM and Microcephalin observed by the authors.  The mutations were absent in populations that speak tonal languages, but abundant in nontonal speakers.  [emphasis added throughout]

(The piece doesn't mention the flip side of the coin, which is that the ABSENCE of the new mutations in tonal language-speaking populations suggests that these mutations provide a comparative DISADVANTAGE in that particular milieu.)

John Derbyshire at The Corner writes:

This sort of thing is the most fascinating stuff going on in science now:  the slow uncovering of human nature in all its meaty & molecular actuality—the territory formerly squabbled over by philosophy, literature, and folklore yielding to cold biological fact.  It'll be a long time happening, and it will turn up things we—liberals and conservatives both—won't like, but it's starting.

Wild stuff, if it's true.

Miramar Shopping Complex

Went to Miramar Shopping Complex to see Spiderman III a while back, and was a bit sad to see that the Welcome grocery store in the basement has closed down.  That wasn't a bad little store (in its variety of  foreigner food).  But with a Carrefour across the road in one direction and a Geant across the road in another, I guess it was pretty tough for them to turn a profit.

After the movie, I took a ride on the Miramar Ferris wheel for the first time.  These pictures I took of Taipei are a bit grainy, but what do you expect at ISO 3200?

That tall building is Taipei 101 off in the distance:

With the wall of buildings in the foreground, this looks a bit like the planet Krypton:

A close-up of Taipei 101:

And another:

These streaks aren't reflections off the windows, I tell you!  They're meteorites, containing creepy viscous alien life-forms!

Spiderman

Picked up the old Spiderman animated series on DVD a couple years ago after seeing Spiderman II.  Remembered loving the series as a kid, and thought I'd check it out again.

Big mistake.  Those paper-thin plots may have been easily comprehensible to children, but they sure don't hold much interest for adults.  Just to give you an idea, episode in, episode out, the villain of the week cackles that soon - very soon - he'll "rule the world".

Sorry, Rhino.  Bone-head like you ain't never gonna rule the world.

Still, there were a couple of bright spots.  That jazzy late '60s superhero music is cooler than ever. And J. Jonah Jameson - boy, is HE a hoot.  Each week, no matter what Spiderman does, no matter how he saves the city, ol' Jonah can be counted on to twist the facts in his efforts to portray Spidey as Public Enemy #1.

You just gotta admire the man's consistency.

I only managed to get through one of the discs, but while watching it occurred to me that kids viewing the show everyday after school were actually being taught an important message from J.J..  Namely:  Don't believe everything you read in the papers.  The people in charge of the mass media sometimes have their own agenda.  Be skeptical.

Not a bad lesson for young folks, I'd say.

I mention all this because I recently saw Spiderman III a second time on IMAX at Miramar Village.  Good fun, though I don't think I walked away with anything deeper from it.  It kind of is what it is. 

Well, I did walk away with ONE thing.  The thing that really struck me was the continuing presence of Uncle Ben.  Usually with movies like this, the death of an important character serves as little more than a plot device; it's there simply to provide motivation for the hero to become the HERO.

Consider Luke Skywalker.  Did he give much thought afterwards to Uncle Owen, Aunt Beru or Biggs Starlighter?  Maybe he did, but he sure looked happy at the end of A New Hope, considering that within the last few days he'd lost (1) his kindly mentor, (2) his foster parents, and (3) his best friend in the entire world.

Dunno about you, but I think I'd be a mess after all that.  Even if I WAS getting a medal for blowing up the Death Star and saving half the galaxy!

The Parkers' reaction to the death of Uncle Ben is quite different.  Uncle Ben may have died three  movies ago, but we STILL see him in flashbacks.  Aunt May still talks about him.  We get the sense that his tragic death has cut the heart out of this family.  This character was important to them - he was loved.  Uncle Ben's gone, but not forgotten.

I expect some amount of silliness in a superhero movie, and Spiderman III did serve up its share of that.  In its treatment of death however, I think there's a certain maturity there that isn't always to be found in movies of this genre.

Renaming Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall

My initial reaction to the way it was handled was to label it a Trainwreck, though I'm actually of several minds on the subject.  Part of me is still disappointed that the Chen administration didn't take bolder action.  But another sympathizes, and even approves, of the road taken.  I previously wrote that Chen should have based his actions on whether he thought they would pass legal muster; elsewhere, Michael Turton pointed out that this is something that may have been unknowable:

In addition to the ongoing struggle between the two competing nationalisms, one Taiwanese, the other Chinese, the issue also shines a light on another problem: the ambiguous lines of authority in the government here.  [emphasis added]  There is a general complaint that democracy has made everything messier, and it is quite true: democracy has forced the government to figure out what the rules are, and in most cases they are vastly unclear, with multiple and conflicting lines of authority. Foreigners constantly complain that different government agencies tell them different stories about what is needed to accomplish this or that, but actually that is the experience of everyone on the island, at almost every level. In the past, Taiwan was governed by men, not laws, and so to get something done, you had to find out who was in charge of that thing. But now, no matter what the issue is, lines of authority are extremely unclear.

Given uncertainty over the legality, the right approach may have been the cautious approach.  Imagine first if President Chen HAD decided to make people like me happy, and ordered the "Chiang Kai-Shek" engraving jackhammered off the memorial's facade.  Then, imagine his choices if a court subsequently decided AGAINST him.

Far as I can see, he'd only have two options:  backtrack by ordering the "Chiang Kai-Shek" inscription re-engraved (MAJOR loss of face!), or defy the court (thereby becoming the lawless dictator Chinese nationalists always claimed he was).

Suddenly the virtue of the banners and scaffolding, which I previously derided as half-measures, becomes clear.  Chen knows the chance he may be forced to retreat on this isn't negligible, so he's committing as little as possible.  A probing action, if you will.  If he loses, he doesn't lose much - just some temporary scaffolding and a few banners.  Much preferable to the TV news endlessly repeating clips of cold, hard stone being re-engraved and lovingly polished by Chiang loyalists.

One other thought - one that isn't original, but worth repeating just the same.  If Chen's goal here was to rename CKS Memorial Hall, then so far, he has failed.  (He may yet still win, but for now, the dedication to Chiang is still etched in stone, for all to see.)  If however, his goal was to bait Chinese nationalists into defending (even embracing!) Taiwan's former dictator, then he succeeded quite spectacularly.  To wit,  I offer this encomium, delivered as a response by Taiwan's China Post:

History attests that Chiang, the man and his career, stood for Freedom, Democracy and Science...*

Plenty of freedom and democracy during 4 DECADES of martial law under Chiang and son.  One of the maxims of La Rochefoucauld comes to mind:  "Courtiers who flatter princes with virtues they do not have, insult them with impunity..."

As a second illustration, I point to the behavior of Chiang supporters during a recent religious ceremony on site for victims of the 228 Massacre:

The ritual was performed mainly in peace, despite a few instances where opponents to the hall's name change shouted verbal insults at the families.  [emphasis added]

NIIICE.  Dunno if there's any footage of that, but it just might be useful.  Come election time, I mean.

(Cartoon from the Apr 1/07 edition of the Taipei Times.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* Digressing from the subject of this post, I thought I'd mention this curious sentence from the the China Post's May 21st editorial:

...Taiwan's independence-seeking DPP government under [President] Chen, defying cautions by its mentor and protector the U.S., has resorted to pushing anti-China and anti-Chiang campaigns to advance its separatist agenda through undemocratic and illegal means.

To placate China, the U.S. has indeed voiced opposition to name changes of Taiwanese state firms. To my knowledge, however, it has been notably silent on the Taiwanese de-Chiangification campaign.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (Jun 2/07):  An overview of the issue for general readers can be found here.

Old Wive's Tale?

People have told me of a Taiwanese superstition that says it's bad luck if things in a pregnant woman's home are moved around.  The saying goes that if they are, the result will be that the woman will give birth to a deformed baby.

Which is all prologue to this brief story about a German study in the May 22nd edition of the China Post.  (Sorry, no link available).

Women advised not to renovate during pregnancy

Bonn, dpa

Women should not have their homes renovated while they are pregnant or in the first two years of a newborn's life because the baby's immune system is not resistant enough to deal with the dust, and fumes from construction materials and paint.

[...]

It's also advisable [for such families] to allow new furniture and construction materials to air out outside the home for two to four weeks before using them in the apartment.

Interesting that there might be a rational basis behind this particular superstition.  (Though the article doesn't actually mention anything about deformities, per se.)

Train-Wreck

My initial reactions to the rocky attempt to rename Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall in Taipei.  But first, a little background:

Earlier this year, Taiwanese president Chen Shui-bian decided to rename the Chiang memorial, on the grounds that it was inappropriate for the capital of a democracy to host giant monuments to former dictators.  Because the legislature is dominated by Chinese nationalists who revere Chiang, Chen undertook the re-dedication via an administrative procedure.

After denouncing Chen for his ingenuity, Chinese nationalists in the legislature insisted that the change could only be made by an act of THEIR branch of government.  Since the opposition possesses a legislative majority, they essentially believed they had a veto over the plan.

Not to be outdone, the Taipei local government (again, a body dominated by Chinese nationalists) got into the act.  Invoking an administrative procedure of his own, Taipei mayor Hau Lung-bin, son of one of Chiang's generals, designated the hall as a temporary historical site.  In doing so, he put the local government on a collision course with the national executive branch, because such sites cannot be legally altered.*

(Why?  Well, it's kinda hard to rename a structure if you can't take down the old nameplate.  Or screw the new nameplate anywhere onto the walls!)

Faced with this fly-in-the-ointment, the Chen administration decided to square the circle, by covering up the old "Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall" nameplate with scaffolding.  Large canvas banners proclaiming "Democracy Memorial Hall" were hung from the outside walls.  Finally, a new nameplate was unveiled in the gardens, in such a way that the structure was unmolested.

What a coincidence that Sunday's Taipei Times featured a picture of an elderly protester who busied himself shouting that the president had no, uh, gonads.  Because my reaction was that maybe that old coot had a point there.

I mean, if President Chen didn't think the name change would pass legal muster, he shouldn't have bothered with the whole endeavor.  The law's the law, even if you're president and you don't happen to like it.  On the other hand, if Chen DID think the courts would rule in his favor, he should have insisted the old nameplate be removed.  None of these phony-baloney half measures, with banners and scaffolding.  To HECK with the local government.  Tear down the old stone engraving, and put up the new plaque.

Yes, yes, City Hall said that anyone doing that would be arrested.  But if you TRULY believe the courts will vindicate your actions, then you also have to believe that the workmen will ultimately be released.  And that somebody in City Hall will in turn have to answer charges of false imprisonment of the workmen.  Workmen who were, after all, only doing their job.

As it was, Chen's wishy-washiness mollified no one.  Those banners?  City Hall said the NAILS used to hang 'em up damaged the "historical site".  The scaffolding?  Changed the site's appearance.  Grievous breaches of the law, meriting fines, said the city of Taipei. 

(Not content with that, local authorities had the banners and scaffolding torn down a few days later, anyways.)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks Chen comes out looking weak here - a bit like a certain duke from an old nursery rhyme:

The Grand Old Duke of York
He had 10,000 men
He marched them up the hill
And he marched them down again...

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Actually, I'm sure they CAN be altered, but only with permission from the local government.  Permission which Taipei City Hall would be loath to grant.

Under The Sea

Friday's Taipei Times featured a front-page story about new salt-water species discovered near Taiwan.  For better viewing, click on the thumbnails. 

(Thankfully, one of the following has NOT been discovered.  Yet.)

Slanderous Remarks

I don't know Robin Winkler.  Oh, I know that he's a bit unusual (not many foreigners work for Taiwan's EPA, nor any other part of Taiwan's government, for that matter).  But besides that, I wouldn't know him from Adam.

I also don't know if what he said recently was true, that the EPA here is too cozy with business, and that the EPA regards members of his committee as "enemies".

But I do know that the EPA is over-reacting to what he said:

The administration said that Winkler's comment was untrue and damaged its reputation. It vowed to seek legal action if Winkler did not clarify [ie: apologize for] his statement.

This is a relatively inconsequential story, 'bout a guy belonging to a government bureaucracy, criticizing that bureaucracy.  Could be he's right on the money; could be he's full of beans.  The response however - threats of libel or slander suits - is a perfect illustration of one of the greatest internal threats to democracy facing Taiwan.  There can be no progress without criticism of the way things currently are, and there can be no criticism without people who are willing to step forward and do the criticizin'.  Toss around a few multi-million NT dollar libel suits, and most people will learn to keep just as silent as if they'd been tossed into a political prison on Green Island.

Heck, in a face-based society like Taiwan, even the prospect of a one-NT-dollar-fine-and-print-an-apology-in-ten-major-newspapers type-punishment could have a major chilling effect on free speech because of the humiliation involved.  Add to this the possibility of future partisan control over the judiciary, and political parties here might one day find themselves locked out of debate as they currently are in Singapore.

To paraphrase Ludwig von Mises, if the Taiwanese want to hold onto their democracy, they must resist the temptation to call the police every time they hear something they find objectionable.

I Did Not Know That

From Tuesday's editorial in Taiwan's China Post:

Chiang Kai-Shek fought for democracy.

Ah.  Just for the record, Chiang was re-elected president of the Republic of China (Taiwan) by the National Assembly in 1954, 1960, 1966 and 1972.

So...exactly who were his opponents in these elections?  What independent political parties did they belong to?  Were the people of Taiwan ever consulted on these votes?  And what was the fate of unfriendly media figures during these election cycles?

If there are serious answers to those questions, then I'll admit Chiang fought for democracy.  Otherwise, I'll keep in mind the example of Julius Caesar, who claimed to be savior of the republic, yet quickly accepted the post of dictator-for-life.

Here's something else I didn't know:

Chiang was supreme commander of the victorious Allied forces during WWII.

Critics and supporters alike can all agree that Chiang's conception and execution of Operation Overlord was masterful.  Simply masterful.

What An Excellent Day For An Exorcism

From last Friday's China Post:

Four clergymen were ordered yesterday by the Taoyuan District Court to face a detention of 30 to 40 days for injuring a woman during an attempted "spiritual healing" of her.

The priests allegedly used bed linens to bind the woman when trying to exorcise evil spirits from her, following the same practices as seen in the movie "The Exorcist."

[...]

Taoyuan District Court ruled to have the priests detained...on the grounds that exorcising evil spirits does not require such violent practices.

Uhhh, am I correct in understanding that the Taiwanese court just claimed to have expertise in the field of demonic possession?

Your honor, we find the defendant's soul is legally the property of Marge Simpson, and not of, the devil.

Turns out the woman was suspected of being taken over not because her head was spinning 'round, nor because she was speaking in tongues while spewing pea soup all over, but because she was a square peg:

The four clergymen were invited to expel evil from the woman by her younger sister, who thought something must be wrong with the woman, as she liked to stay home alone.  [emphasis added]

My handy copy of mad Arab Abdul Alhazred's Necronomicon (as always, the final authority on such matters) says absolutely nothing about introversion being a sign of possession by malevolent spiritual beings. 

Putting mayonnaise on perfectly-good LOBSTER, on the other hand...

Kadhafi

Today's Taiwan News had a few paragraphs about him:

The veteran leader appeared before journalists and television cameras late on Monday, taking aim at "Arab intelligence agencies" for spreading the rumors [about him being in a coma from a cerebral blood clot] and threatening to sue a news agency which carried the report.

Blaming Arab intelligence agencies.  Hmmm.  Regarding that, I recently ran into this from p 221-222 of Georgie Anne Geyer's Buying the Night Flight:

I would like to say that I found Qaddafi interesting, but in truth I did not.  I would like to say I found him handsome, but in truth I did not.  His pictures flatter him...His eyes were the eyes of the Baptist preachers of my youth who did not believe in going to the movies or to dances...They were tight, fanatic eyes.

He had just nationalized some oil firms and we got the exclusive story that he was going to nationalize more.  But the only interesting thing came, again, when I could think of no more questions and asked him another "nothing" question.  "How do you see Libya's place in the world?"

His tight eyes tightened still more, until they were virtually cold slits.  "We are in a jungle surrounded by howling wolves," he whispered heavily.

"Howling wolves?"  I repeated, startled.  "Do you mean the European countries?"

"No," he said.  "I mean the Arab countries."

David Frum On Taiwan & Other Links

Apparently David Frum of the American Enterprise Institute was in Taiwan recently, and he wrote a few pieces about La Isla Formosa.  Haven't had much time to follow the 'net over the past few weeks (belated congratulations on blog post #2000, Michael!), so apologies to anyone who has already posted these links.

Frum gives a good summary of China's behavior towards Taiwan here.

Even better is his second piece (though it's a bit deceptively-titled).  He certainly grasps that left-right labels aren't really applicable to Taiwanese politics:

The "left-wing" DPP has proposed to purchase American warships, surveillance craft and interceptor missiles. It presses the U.S. to engage in joint training exercises with Taiwanese forces, to allow U.S. naval vessels to call at Taiwan ports and to change current policy so as to allow serving generals and admirals to visit Taiwan.

The "right-wing" KMT prefers detente. It has used its majority in Taiwan's parliament to stall the DPP's arms purchases. It advocates closer contacts with China even if China refuses to recognize Taiwan. Some of its members voice rising doubts about the relevance of the U.S.-Taiwan alliance. Leading KMT members have travelled to Beijing to hold party-to-part talks with leading Chinese Communists.

(My favorite moment a few years back was when "left-wing" Vice-President Annette Lu channeled Ronald Reagan, calling China "an empire of evil".  A statement which the "right-wing" KMT hastened to denounce as "China-bashing".)

He closes this one with a concern many of us here have had for a long time:

One hears persistent rumors in Taiwan that the Chinese Communists pressure Taiwan businessmen with interests on the mainland to make campaign donations to their ancient enemies in the KMT. China ranks among the most corrupt countries on Earth. Young democracies are vulnerable to external corruption.

I travelled to Taiwan worried that the Chinese might try to invade the island. I returned worrying that China will try to buy it.

Over at his blog with the National Review, he gives a book review of Minxin Pei's China's Trapped Transition:  The Limits of Developmental Autocracy.  One highlight:

* The Chinese Communist party's grip on power is tightening, not loosening. While 60% of entrepreneurs who launched businesses in the 1980s were workers, peasants, or other ordinary people, by 2002, two-thirds of China's business owners were former government officials, party cadres, or executives of state-owned enterprises. This is not a case of successful businessmen opportunistically joining the ruling party. Rather, it seems that the ruling party is opportunistically seizing successful businesses.

[...]

Pei argues that these disturbing trends represent something more than growing pains. He argues that they inhere in the path the Chinese Communist Party chose for the country it rules.

The great problem facing any state is how to control the actions of its agents. In a democracy, we rely on a free press to alert us to abuses by the government and competitive elections to correct them. Mao Tse-Tung's version of communism relied on capricious and all-enveloping terror. But when the Chinese reformers semi-opened their economy, while sedulously denying political freedom, they loosened their control of their agents - while creating lucrative new incentives for their agents to siphon wealth away for themselves.

A vicious cycle has been unleashed. The richer China grows, the more reluctant the ruling elite becomes to surrender power, because power has become so much more valuable. But the refusal to loosen the grip on power undermines China's wealth, by creating unchecked incentives to the state's agents to prey upon wealth creation.  [emphasis added]

Elsewhere, George Will points out that James Mann has something similar to say in The China Fantasy:  How Our Leaders Explain Away Chinese Repression:

[Mann's] most disturbing thesis is that "the newly enriched, Starbucks-sipping, apartment-buying, car-driving denizens" of the large cities that American visitors to China see will be not the vanguard of democracy but the opposition to it. There may be 300 million such denizens, but there are 1 billion mostly rural and very poor Chinese. Will the minority prospering economically under a Leninist regime think majority rule is in their interest?

Maybe this is piling on, but Guy Sorman says much the same:

Still, hasn’t [economic] growth [in China] created an independent middle class that will push for, and eventually obtain, greater political freedom? Many in the West think so, looking to the South Korean example, but [dissident economist] Mao Yushi isn’t convinced. What exists in China, he argues, is a class of “parvenus,” newcomers whose purchasing power depends on their proximity to the Party rather than their education or entrepreneurial achievements. Except for a handful of genuine businessmen, the parvenus work in the military, public administration, or state enterprises, or for firms ostensibly private but, in fact, owned by the Party. The Party picks up the tab for almost all their imported luxury cars, two-thirds of their mobile phones, and three-quarters of their restaurant bills, as well as their call girls, their “study” trips abroad, and their lavish spending at Las Vegas casinos. And it can withdraw these advantages at any time.

In March, the Chinese government announced, to much fanfare in the Western press, that it would begin to introduce individual property rights. We should understand that this “reform” will benefit only the parvenus, not the peasants, whose tilled land will still belong to the state. But the parvenus will now be able to transmit to their children what they have acquired thanks to their Party connections—one more reason that they will be unlikely to push for the democratization of the regime that secures their status.

Speaking of democratization, Sorman gives us an idea of just how much democracy Taiwan can expect to retain should the KMT's dream of reunification ever be implemented:

...like everybody else, the Chinese love to watch TV, despite pervasive censorship and the propaganda broadcast on it in China. One of their favorite shows is a local version of the U.S. hit American Idol called Super Girl, broadcast by a Hunan satellite channel and produced by a private firm. In 2005, the winner of this amateur singing contest was Miss Li, a lanky 20-year-old with a punk hairdo, sporting jeans and a black T-shirt—a fashion inspired by South Korean pop bands. Miss Li won democratically with nearly 4 million votes, text-messaged by viewers using their cell phones from home. Over 400 million Chinese viewers—more than the combined populations of the United States and England—watched the finale.

An unexceptional story—except that it happened in China, and the Communist Party, taken by surprise, condemned Miss Li for not singing in Chinese but in English and Spanish and for wearing clothes that didn’t conform to the anodyne official dress code laid down by the national television station. A columnist in China Daily, the Party’s mouthpiece, interpreted her victory as a popular uprising against the established order, concluding that “Miss Li has been elected but the people have made a bad choice. This is what happens when people are unprepared for democracy.”  [emphasis added]

IC Chips For ARCs

If you're a foreigner in Taiwan, you probably have a Alien Residence Certificate (ARC).  This card allows foreigners to live here, and is about the size of a driver's license (complete with photo and personal information).  Anyways, Friday's China Post revealed that new ARCs will be embedded with integrated circuit (IC) chips as an anti-terrorism measure.

I, for one, am just hoping that these ICs aren't as flaky as the ones currently embedded in Taiwanese bank cards.  Because I have had four (count 'em: 4) ATM cards crap out on me here within the last four months.  Three in December '06, and one in April '07.  PIN numbers reset from 7-digit phone numbers WELL-KNOWN TO ME, to Lord-knows-what.

Given that record of dependability, I suspect it's only a matter of time before I'm apprehended by immigration officials at Taiwan-Taoyuan International Airport.  As Mohammed Abu-Foreini of Khandahar.

Taiwanese Premier's Resignation

Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou's reaction:

"[When the new premier takes the position] there will have been six premiers in seven years. This is not only harmful to our political stability, but also harms policy continuity," he said.

Yeah, six premiers in seven years DOESN'T sound very stable.  But I'm sure I'm not the only one who recalls that the KMT spent much of 2006 threatening to call votes in the legislature in order to topple premier after premier in 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Following through would have left Taiwan with a whole lot more than SIX ex-premiers.  So it's a bit gratifying then, to hear the former KMT chairman implicitly admit that his party plays a destabilizing role in Taiwanese politics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE (May 15/07):  So concerned with Taiwan's political stability and continuity is Ma that a day later he expressed his willingness to look at proposals to hold a non-confidence vote in the legislature to oust the current Cabinet:

"The overthrow of [the] Cabinet isn't a thing that shouldn't be discussed," declared Ma, while on a bicycling campaign tour of south Taiwan.

Won't Get Fooled Again

Taiwan's China Post came out a few weeks ago against a referendum on Taiwan attempting to join the U.N. under the name, "Taiwan," saying the question is superfluous:

...everyone [in Taiwan] wants Taiwan to rejoin the United Nations, from which the representative of Chiang Kai-shek was ousted in 1971.  As far as the United Nations is concerned, the question of Chinese representation has long been settled.  In fact, the world body formally acknowledges Taiwan as a province of the People's Republic of China.  As a result, if we want to accede to the United Nations, we have no alternative but to apply as Taiwan, which should be accepted by the world organization as an independent, sovereign state rather than a province of China. The people should not be asked to vote on an issue of whether their country should or shouldn't try to acquire U.N. membership as 'Taiwan.' The answer is there before the question is asked.  [Emphasis added]

When the China Post says "everyone" here wants to join the U.N. as "Taiwan", the casual reader is liable to think that they include themselves in that number.  But if that were true, how can one explain their near-apoplectic response to the Chen administration's efforts to add "Taiwan" to the names of state-owned enterprises?

In other words, how can the paper tell us with a straight face that they want to enter the U.N. under the name 'Taiwan', when only one or two months ago it was bitterly opposed to the creation of a Taiwan Postal Service?

The truth of the matter is that the China Post doesn't want Taiwan to ever join the U.N. as 'Taiwan'.  That would smack too much of independence for their Greater China sensibilities.  But rather than be men about that and admit it, they'd rather disingenuously claim that the result would be a foregone conclusion, and then call for a boycott of the referendum.  That way, if enough of the electorate fails to vote, the initiative will go down in flames.  Which is what they wanted all along.

Just remember that foregone conclusion the China Post talks about now.  Because if the referendum fails,  the paper will do a pirouette and claim without embarrassment that it failed not because of the boycott they themselves called for, but because the "people" never wanted to join the U.N. as 'Taiwan' in the first place.

That's the little game the China Post and Taiwan's Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) played during the 2004 referendum.  It worked once, so why SHOULDN'T they try again?