The Foreigner in Formosa

Diane Lee's Dual Citizenship Woes

I'll confess the Diane Lee dual citizenship issue didn't really interest me much when I first read about it.  Must have scanned it too quickly, I guess:

The [Taiwanese] legislature yesterday approved two proposals to probe the nationality of all lawmakers and government officials, following recent queries by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) over Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Diane Lee's (李慶安) US citizenship status.

[. . .]

The two initiatives were proposed in March after the Chinese-language Next Magazine accused Lee of having US citizenship, a claim that she denied.

Article 20 of the Nationality Act (國籍法) prohibits anyone with foreign citizenship from holding a government position [in Taiwan].

Any lawmaker or government official found to have dual citizenship would be relieved of his or her job and forced to return his or her salary.

Lee has said she obtained permanent residency in the US in 1985 and citizenship in 1991, but gave up her US citizenship after becoming a public official.

She has also cited Section 349(A)(4) of the US Immigration and Nationality Act, saying that she had lost her citizenship when she began to serve as a public official and took an oath of allegiance in relation to the job.

If Lee were found to be a US citizen, she would be required to give back all the salary she received as a Taipei City councilor between 1994 and 1998 and as a legislator since 1998, an amount estimated to be NT$100 million (US$3.29 million).

She'd have to give back $3.29 million?  Whew, now THAT'S a chunka change.  Since Lee cites Section 349(A)(4) in her defense, it might shed some light to head to the U.S. State Department website (with pertinent sections underlined by myself):

POTENTIALLY EXPATRIATING ACTS

Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);
2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);
3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);
4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);
5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);
6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);
7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

Lee was indeed subject to a loss of American citizenship because she was a Taiwanese national who accepted government employment in Taiwan, not to mention that she had to take an oath of allegiance for her position.  However, none of that was sufficient: she also had to display an intention to relinquish her U.S. citizenship.  The State Department site goes on to discuss this (again, relevant lines underlined by me):

DISPOSITION OF CASES WHEN ADMINISTRATIVE PREMISE IS INAPPLICABLE

The premise that a person intends to retain U.S. citizenship is not applicable when the individual:

1. formally renounces U.S. citizenship before a consular officer;
2. serves in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities with the United States;
3. takes a policy level position in a foreign state;
4. is convicted of treason; or
5. performs an act made potentially expatriating by statute accompanied by conduct which is so inconsistent with retention of U.S. citizenship that it compels a conclusion that the individual intended to relinquish U.S. citizenship. (Such cases are very rare.)

Cases in categories 2, 3, 4 and 5 will be developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship.

Ye gods!  First of all, what exactly is a "policy level position"?  Non-lawyer types like us can argue about what that means until the cows come home, but in the final analysis, it means whatever the courts have decided it means.  Diane Lee apparently served as a Taipei city councillor from 1994 and 1998 -- would the courts assume THAT constituted a "policy level position"?

A dual citizen's case should also be "developed carefully by U.S. consular officers to ascertain the individual's intent toward U.S. citizenship."  Developed carefully?  What does that actually mean, in practice?  I had to go to a website belonging to a legal firm specializing in immigration law to find out:

Working for the government of a foreign country

Generally, acceptance of only high political posts in a foreign government, along with a purposeful renunciation of US citizenship, will result in the loss of US citizenship as a result of employment in a foreign country.  Also, if the oath involved is simply that the person will obey the laws of a foreign country, that is not sufficient as evidence of renunciation.  [emphasis added]

High political post?  National legislator -- maybe; Taipei city councillor -- iffy.  Furthermore, I couldn't find a copy of the oath Lee was required to take, but if all it asked was for her to promise to obey the laws of Taiwan, then that wouldn't be adequate proof of her intent to relinquish her American citizenship.  At any rate, purposeful renunciation on the part of Lee was glaringly missing.  Lady could have spared herself a whole HEAP of trouble if she had bothered to show up at the American Institute in Taiwan one day to sign a questionaire renouncing her citizenship.  That would have been iron-clad proof of her intent.

As things stand now, well, with her job and over three million dollars at stake, it's kind of a no-brainer for her to insist her citizenship intentions were pure -- fourteen years ago.

Dr. Willliam Fang defended Lee in his Thursday column in the China Post:

The KMT lawmaker maintains that since she has been sworn to be loyal to the Republic of China (ROC) as its legislator, she has automatically, according to her knowledge, lost her U.S. citizenship.

Besides, she stresses that she has for a long time been using a non-immigrant visa [using her Taiwanese passport] for entry into the United States, a fact indicating that she no longer has a desire to become a U.S. citizen.

Uh, it maybe wasn't a good idea to mention that.  I don't want to beat up on the woman here, but a Q&A from the visa section of the U.S. State Department website had this to say:

I have dual citizenship.  Which passport should I use to travel to the United States?

All U.S. citizens, even dual citizens/nationals, must enter and depart the United States using his/her U.S. passport.

If Diane Lee entered the U.S. using her Taiwanese passport while still a dual American citizen, she was in violation of U.S. immigration law.  From what I gather (though I could be wrong), the penalty for that is a small fine.

Fang argues that U.S. immigration law is complicated and sometimes traps innocent people.  No argument from me there.  But on the other hand, it only took me a couple hours to get myself up to speed on the subject of dual citizenship -- and it's not MY neck on the line.  Shouldn't someone who DOES have dual citizenship take the initiative to do some of this legwork themselves?  Please don't tell me Lee didn't receive information packets on this stuff.  This U.S. publication for people contemplating duel citizenship explicitly includes information on "How to give up your U.S. citizenship."  The info isn't exactly hidden legal arcana.

(BTW, the Taiwanese Legislative Yuan website seems to have deleted the educational information regarding the current legislators.  So -- does anyone know if Diane Lee received legal schooling?  'Cause it'd be pretty unforgivable if someone trained as a lawyer didn't bother to look into all of this beforehand.)

Fang then tries to shift the blame for Lee's problems onto the U.S. government:

As common sense dictates, the U.S. government, upon learning that Diane Lee has been sworn in as a member of the ROC Parliament, should have taken the initiative in canceling her citizenship as a suitable penalty to her illicit relationship with another country . . .

Maybe, but then the law and common sense don't always meet eye-to-eye -- and sometimes, what seems to be common sense to a Taiwanese may not be so obvious to an American.  For example, I was surprised to learn from the Wikipedia entry on Dual Citizenship that Arnold Schwartzenegger holds Austrian/American citizenship while performing his duties as governor of California.  Yet the Austrians haven't cancelled HIS citizenship.  Nor did the Czech government cancel Madelaine Albright's citizenship when she served under the Clinton administration.

Certainly, if we were talking about hostile countries, the discussion would be different.  But Taiwan is on good terms with America.  So why should the U.S. treat Diane Lee any worse than European countries treated Albright or Arnie?

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

Postscript:  Here's an interesting piece on the history of dual citizenship, and the practical problems it posed to nation-states in the 19th Century.  Don't think I'm as strong an advocate of dual citizenship as the author is, but the background's good.

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

UPDATE (Jun 3/08):  More thoughts here.

UPDATE #2:  The related case of Milan Panic, the American who became prime-minister of Yugoslavia in 1992.

That's MISTER Ma, To The Likes Of You!

Wednesday's China Post relates the goal KMT chairman Wu Poh-Hsiung has in mind during his visit to Nanjing, China:

In particular, Wu wishes to persuade his Chinese Communist Party counterpart to get direct charter flights started between Taiwan and China [on] weekends [by] July 4.

But the Post's story leaves out the fact that Wu was so desperate to clinch the deal he couldn't bring himself to refer to his own country's newly-elected president as President Ma Ying-jeou.  Doing so would upset his hosts, who harbor territorial designs on Taiwan.

So "Mister Ma" it was, then!

“KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) addressed President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) as ‘Mr. Ma’ during a banquet with Chinese Communist Party [CCP] officials on Monday night. This kind of behavior has me worried that he may have forgotten about Taiwan and its 23 million people,” Legislative Whip William Lai (賴清德) told a press conference.

One of the petulant displays of disrespect the KMT used to pay to Chen Shui-bian was to refer to him as "Mr." rather than "President" Chen.  It was, of course, their way of delegitimizing him - of pointedly insisting that they didn't accept Chen as the REAL president of Taiwan.

Fascinating then that the KMT now pays a president belonging to their OWN party the same discourtesy - and quite possibly with "Mr. Ma's" explicit blessing!

Question for the KMT:  If YOU no longer feel any particular need to call Ma Ying-jeou, "President," why should any of his political opponents back home feel obligated to do so?

Wednesday's Taipei Times continues:

. . . Deputy KMT caucus Secretary-General Wu Yu-sheng (吳育昇) downplayed the implication of Wu Poh-hsiung referring to Ma as “Mr” on Monday night.

Wu Yu-sheng said the KMT chairman’s comments reflected his intention to “put aside controversies and ensure mutual respect” for both sides of the Taiwan Strait.

Controversial?  What's controversial?  Ma Ying-jeou was elected president with 60% of the popular vote.  No one in Taiwan disputes the fact that he won (reasonably) fair and square.  Some folks may not like it, but that's a separate issue.

Speaking of mutual respect, while in China, will Taiwan's Wu Poh-hsiung similarly refer to Hu Jintao as "Mr. Hu"?  That would be a sign of mutual respect.  Or mutual disrespect.  Or whatever.

(Because if anyone deserves to be called "Mr." instead of "President", it's Hu Jintao.  Recall that Hu has never been elected village dogcatcher, much much less president of HIS country.)

But hey, at least Taiwan can take comfort in the fact that the KMT chairman wasn't in FULL kowtow mode.  For that, he'd have to take a page from Taiwan's servile press, which regularly refers to Ma's wife by her English chosen name.

Though with the KMT's self-imposed July 4th deadline for cross-strait flights rapidly approaching, how long will it be before party luminaries visiting China truckle to Beijing by addressing Taiwan's president with the diminutive "Mark"?

(Say hello to my leetle friend - Mark Ma between the legs of former dictator Chiang Kai-shek.  Image from the Taipei Times)

My Nominee For This Year's Coveted "Asian Order Of The Brown Nose" Award

It's a tight race, but my current fave is Taiwan's David Ting, for his China Post column, Temblor's unsung heroes show the love of the people:

For all the losses, sufferings and agonies, Beijing can take some comfort from the fact that the earthquake has rallied the country behind the government, which has been constantly criticized by Western countries for human right abuses. Suddenly, such criticisms disappeared, thanks to the earthquake that prompted Premier Wen Jiabao and President Hu Jintao to respond instantly and effectively -- an evidence of their care and concern for human rights.  [emphasis added]

Evidence of their care and concern for human rights.  Priceless!

(Image from Not The South China Morning Post)

Had some Taiwanese friends over this week who've never seen the previous Indiana Jones movies, and I was a bit surprised when one of them brought the subject of the quake up.  Now, this guy and I almost never talk politics -- I don't know his politics -- don't CARE to know his politics. Be that as it may, he asked me, "So Foreigner, what do you think of the earthquake in China?"

Now, I was starting to think this was some kind of trick question.  50,000 people dead... what am I SUPPOSED to think?

Me:  "Uh, yeah . . . it's pretty bad.  What do YOU think?"

Him:  "I don't know.  We offered to send rescue teams over there.  But they refused."

Did I detect a sadness in that last word?  Or bitterness?  I'm no Betazoid, so I couldn't tell.  But no guff from HIM about the glorious, compassionate Communist Party leadership.  Just the implied criticism:  "They had tens of thousands of people trapped under rubble, and the stupid bastards REFUSED our rescue teams.  Nice that they're letting them in NOW, but it's kinda late, isn't it?"

The Weekly Standard featured a piece on the earthquake this week, minus Ting's obsequious cheerleading:

In the city of Dujiangyan, which is closest to the quake's epicenter, the UK's Guardian newspaper reports residents there furious over the shoddy workmanship and substandard materials used in many of the buildings that collapsed around their families. Many of them blame local officials for selling off the high quality materials that should have been used in these buildings and putting the money in their pockets. The same government functionaries then signed off on certifications that these structures were built according to local codes and ordnances, even thought that they knew them to be incapable of surviving even small tremors.

[...]

City residents were particularly angered by the collapse of the Juyuan High School, pointing out that this much newer building folded like a house of cards while considerably older structures--most conspicuously local PLA offices and other government buildings--were left standing.

"About 450 [students] were inside, in nine classes and it collapsed completely from the top to the ground. It didn't fall over; it was almost like an explosion . . . why isn't there money to build a good school for our kids?" shouted several at the site. "Chinese officials are too corrupt and bad. These buildings outside have been here for 20 years and didn't collapse--the school was only 10 years old. They took the money from investment, so they took the lives of hundreds of kids. They have money for prostitutes and second wives but they don't have money for our children. This is not a natural disaster--this is done by humans."

Something's seriously amiss when Chinese citizens are more critical of their government than members of the supposedly "free" press stationed in Taiwan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT:  The good news is, Typepad has updated its WYSIWYG editor, giving bloggers like me several new functions to play with.  The bad news is it's as buggy as hell right now.  Hence the unposted photo.

Perhaps if the technical support staff at Typepad resolved to be a little more like the "unsung heroes of the Peoples' Liberation Army, working around the clock  under difficult conditions, demonstrating the kind of tenacity that shows they fear neither hardship nor death," the problems would be resolved, and I'd be able to post the image.

(Kidding! . . . Kidding, Typepad.  I kid, because I love.)

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

UPDATE (May 25/08):  Blogging software seems to be back to normal now.  Thanks fellas.

Send That Lad Off To The Happy Death Camp Of Tolerance

15 year-old in Britain issued court summons . . . for calling Scientology a "dangerous cult"

UPDATE:  Authorities drop the case.  Thoughts from Counting Cats.

Welcome To California

Or as I call it -- Nazi Germany.

Next stop:  Manchester, England.  Where the girls on page three may be topless, but least the mummies in the museum are all decently covered-up.

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

UPDATE (May 29/08):  A post on the legality of the proposed California porn-tax.  (Hat tip to Instapundit)

Dancing On Suicide Victims' Graves

David Ting at Taiwan's China Post couldn't resist a parting shot at outgoing President Chen Shui-bian in his Tuesday column, Goodbye and good riddance to former president Chen:

[Chen's] misplaced priority in governance was not without a price to pay.  Besides diplomatic isolation, Taiwan's suicide rate soared due to the slumping economy and rising unemployment.  "Suicide by burning charcoal" has become a widely-used, and painless, way of ending one's life by inhaling carbon monoxide from charcoal of incomplete combustion.

Translation:  President Chen was the one responsible when Taiwanese carbon monoxide victims took their own lives.  Such was the quality of political debate in Taiwan over the past two years -- though the KMT and its media allies may come to regret having turned these numbers into a political issue.  There's talk of a looming global recession of late, and if that happens, Taiwan's self-inflicted death numbers probably won't decrease.  In fact, they might very well increase.  And I don't imagine the opposition will feel too restrained now in turning the tables and pinning all those suicides on KMT President Ma Ying-jeou.

Will that be unfair?  You bet.  But Ma will have little right to complain - after all, we didn't hear HIM trying to cool such talk when it was HIS team pointing fingers.

Interestingly enough, the Taiwan News featured this short story a day after Ting's column:

Hsu Chao-jung, the founder of the Taiwan Association of Veterans and Veteran's Families self-immolated in his car yesterday evening at the planned "War and Peace Memorial Park" in Cijing, Kaohsiung City. Hsu's daughter confirmed with the police that the burning body was the remains of her father.

Hsu had actively fought for the welfare of Taiwanese veterans and also expended lots of effort on preserving their history. Hsu's friends said Hsu had recently complained about the disappointment he felt toward society, as it had overlooked the veteran's contribution and well-being. Hsu also expressed his deep disappointment with the Kuomintang regaining power. 

The coast guard outpost next to the park first discovered a burning car and reported it to Chungchow Precinct. The police found a burning body in the car, and suspected the incident was a case of self-immolation.  [emphasis added]

There was a similar case a couple months ago, after Ma won the election.  Which means Ma Ying-jeou has already claimed TWO victims - and he hasn't even been president A WEEK yet!

THOSE are the ugly politics the KMT have cultivated . . . and those are the politics the KMT richly deserves.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript:  Taiwan's national suicide rate is 18.8 out of every 100,000.  High, far too high.  But what of China?  You know, the place the Post assures its readers is the way of the future, the land of milk and honey, Taiwan's inevitable motherland?  How many people kill themselves THERE?

Answer:  23 out of every 100,000 people.  That's four more than Taiwan under the hated Chen Shui-bian.   How odd it is then, that the boys in Beijing seem to have COMPLETELY escaped the KMT's (and the China Post's) opprobrium.

Martin Luther King Jr. Statue Outsourced

To a Chinese sculptor, using Chinese granite.  More examples of jobs Americans won't do, perhaps?

An investigation into possible behind-the-scenes guanshi.  (Hat tip to Instapundit)

Mixed Messages On Water Quality

From the Department of Huh?

Saying that the administration inspects all water purification plants around the country for a total of more than 10,000 inspections a year, Yuan assured the public that 99 percent of the plants in Taiwan pass [Taiwanese] EPA standards for drinking water safety.

Well, that's a relief.  But then the story concludes by making the reader wonder just how rigorous those standards really are:

Saying that water in Taiwan can be consumed safely; Yuan . . . warned that tap water should be boiled before drinking.  [emphasis added]

Disaster Aid: A Comparison

Although I wasn't living in Taiwan during the September 21st earthquake that struck here in 1999, the China Post's recollection on Wednesday seemed at odds with what I had read about events following the disaster:

We also remember that in 1999, mainland China generously donated about US$3 million through its Red Cross organization to our own Red Cross.

$3 whole million?  Gee, divided by 1.3 BILLION people living in the People's Republic of China, and that works out to . . . $0.002 per person.  Whoa, were the big spenders in Beijing able to fork it all out at once, or did they have to pay on an installment plan?

Fortunately, the Taipei Times recapped the REAL story on Thursday:

For many Taiwanese, the [1999 Taiwan] earthquake — with its more than 2,400 fatalities and tens of thousands of people left homeless — is still a vivid nightmare and one that is sure to be brought to the surface as images of the devastation in China begin to reach us via newspapers, TV and the Internet.

As humanitarian aid and rescue teams started arriving in Taiwan, Beijing exploited the disaster to score a few political points, requiring that all international relief including donations, food and rescue teams be channeled through China.

As the result of Beijing’s interference, timely rescue efforts were delayed, such as when a Russian rescue team could not land and refuel in China and had to take a longer route through Japan.

Not only did Beijing’s actions belie a lack of compassion for Taiwanese, it also created a number of logistical and quite unnecessary problems during the critical rescue window following the catastrophe.

The Times also gave us a glimpse at what generosity really looks like:

The government announced yesterday a cash donation of NT$700 million (US$22.6 million) and NT$100 million in rice, adding it would seek to collect NT$1.2 billion in donations from the private sector.

In other words, the Taiwanese government contribution alone totals about $1.00 U.S. PER PERSON living in this country.  (Which is 500 times what the Chinese government "generously" donated 9 years ago.)  An editorial cartoon from the Taipei Times sums up the situation rather well, I think.

This Is How We Used To Do Things, Son

. . . back in the days before we had any of your fancy "cell" phones.

Sure, they were bulky.  But nobody ever left one of THESE behind on a bus seat somewhere.

(Image from Britannica.com)

Big Whoop

Monday's Taiwan News and China Post both featured this story:  Despite new law, [Taiwanese] children are still being given father's surname

Taiwan's civil statutes were changed in May 2007 to allow children to adopt their mother's surname, heralded at the time as a breakthrough in this patriarchal society.

But the results of a poll released yesterday show that legal reform has failed to budge entrenched cultural attitudes, at least for the time being.

The poll found that only 4.3 percent of parents of newborn children took advantage of the new law over the past year and registered their children with the mother's surname, said the Awakening Foundation, the women's rights group responsible for conducting the poll.

"To promote equal rights between the two sexes on the issue of which of the parents' family names is used in naming children, Taiwan's society still needs to overcome both legal obstacles and cultural restraints," said foundation Chairwoman Fan Yun, in response to the results.  [emphasis added]

There are perfectly valid reasons why parents might want to give their child the mother's surname, so having a law like this on the books isn't a bad thing.  But I honestly don't see how Fan Yun thinks devoting her group's scarce resources to changing "cultural restraints" regarding this issue is going to change Taiwanese society one iota. 

(Well actually, I suppose it WOULD give newlyweds one MORE thing to argue about...) 

All right, let's suppose a law was passed here tomorrow, forcing children to take on the names of BOTH parents (as is the Spanish custom).  Just how would that make Taiwanese society any less patriarchal?  Anyone want to make the case for me that Spanish culture isn't patriarchal simply because of the convention they use for naming their offspring?

Really now.  I would think Taiwanese feminist groups had bigger fish to fry.

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

Postscript:  Interesting trivia note -- Chinese families were apparently matrilineal up to around 1600 B.C.

South Korean Olympic Torch Roundup

First, let's cut to the video.  (Sound levels may vary from clip to clip, so you may want to lower your volume before clicking on each link.)

Chinese mob assaults Korean-Americans in a hotel lobby for holding a Tibetan flag.  (According to a written account at Chosun.com, 400 angry Chinese chased them into the building, although only 100 of those managed to follow them inside.)

The two Korean-Americans who were attacked speak.  Class acts, them both.

An American or Canadian woman protesting the treatment of North Korean refugees in China gets more than she bargained for when the Chinese mob swarms forward.

A South Korean TV news account.  A third party added some English captions -- which don't pretend to be evenhanded, but do provide some context.

Another Korean TV news account, sans subtitles.  Incredibly, Chinese diplomat Ning Fukui BRAGS about his handiwork in this one for a few seconds in English.

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

Speaking of Ning Fukui, here's how the South Korean cops got taken to the cleaners by the good ambassador:

Korean police acknowledged they had not anticipated such big, wild crowds for Sunday's event, according to Eo Choeng-soo, commissioner general of the National Police Agency.

"We were told by the Chinese ambassador that the Chinese crowd would be about 1,000 to 1,200," Eo said in a press conference yesterday.

[...]

The police estimated about 6,500 Chinese students attended the event.

 

(Would I lie to you?  China's ambassador to South Korea, Ning Fukui.  Image from The Seoul Times)

OK, being misled is one thing, but are Korean cops just COMPLETELY stupid?  From The Marmot's Hole:

Police did, in fact, deploy only 9,300 personnel along the route, much less than the 14,000 cops they deployed during last month's protests against rising university tuitions. A police official said -- sit down for this -- that they thought the Chinese embassy would be able to control the Chinese demonstrators, but it didn't turn out that way. The official added that legal action would be taken against the Chinese they arrested following investigations.

UPDATE: Sorry, I just can't get over that police official.  We thought the Chinese embassy would be able to control the Chinese demonstrators.

Ever wonder what happens when 6,500 foreign students start a political riot at the behest of their government in the capital of another nation?  Visa restrictions, baby.

Call me sympathetic, but diplomatic immunity kind of precludes this one:  South Korean groups vow to sue Chinese ambassador.

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

And from the blogs:

A series of photos from the protests in Seoul.

Some background on the new South Korean proposals to tighten the requirements for Chinese student visas following this little display.

So, will the Chinese government issue any apologies for "hurting the feelings of the KOREAN people?"

As I suspected, China's censorship-by-thug on the streets of Seoul is not proving popular among Koreans.  The Chinese government seems to be coming to grips with the P.R. disaster it has made for itself.  Its diplomats, though not quite in a full kowtow position, are offering either an apology or whatever it is that Asian diplomats offer when national pride prevents one . . .

[...]

President Lee, it should be remembered, has made an issue of restoring the public order that Roh had allowed to erode.  If he lets these goon squads escape real punishment, the Korean street will be furious, and rightfully so.  If the South Korean authorities prosecute, the Chinese street will be furious, and it will probably be lost on many of them that doing the same thing in China would likely earn them a stretch in the laogai or a fatal beating in a local police station.  For a day, Seoul became for politically repressed Chinese youth what Tijuana is for sexually repressed American youth.

Finally, a brief summary of the average Chinese perspective of what transpired:

. . .the Chinese Street's version:  "It didn't happen!," and its inbred cousin, "It didn't happen, and you should thank us for not killing you."  The "all we wanted was to throw you a party!" defense is so unintelligent as to evoke more pity than rage (I had no idea censorship was so costly to critical thinking skills).  Those who can at least perceive the futility of denial turn to argumentum ad hominem:  "you're agents provocateurs," and inevitably enough, "running dogs" and  "fetid Jews."

Lowering Expectations

A few weeks ago, Taiwan's China Post began to fret:  How could the country's incoming KMT president bring voters back down to earth after he promised them the moon and stars from a speedy economic opening to China?

This week, we got our answer.  This week, President-elect Ma Ying-jeou decided to appoint a SACRIFICIAL LAMB in charge of the process -- and a willing scapegoat from another party, to boot.  Now, when Ma's overly-ambitious deadlines are not met, the stink of failure will cling to some OTHER political party, not Ma's own.  And when that inevitable failure DOES come, Ma will appoint a KMT man to the position, then conveniently announce that he's granting the new guy a more reasonable deadline.  (Because naturally, the new appointee needs more time to "fix the damage" after the previous office-holder "botched the job so horribly" during her brief tenure.)

In the immediate term however, Ma has to suffer some abuse from his own side.  (Although as Michael Turton points out, Ma will actually get brownie points for political "inclusiveness" in other quarters.)  KMT members are demanding to know why government jobs are going to fringe independence party members, and not themselves.  As if on cue, they now talk down the chances of a quick opening to China, saying Ma's choice is unacceptable to Beijing -- the equivalent of eating pork in front of a Muslim.

There's no avoiding that.  Ma either takes a hit now for a single "poor personnel decision" or he takes a hit later for his unrealistic plans -- and I think he prefers the former for face-saving reasons.  But for the while, Ma (and the rest of us) will just have to endure criticism in the form of purple prose such as this:

Ma should bear in mind that there were thousands of overseas Chinese from all four corners of the world who flew back to Taiwan on their own to vote for him, to pin their dreams on him for the return of the spring of hope after eight years of winter of despair. Their hearts are now bleeding, torn asunder by the sudden death of their dreams.  [emphasis added]

Oh dear GOD, make it stop! . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POSTSCRIPT:  I'm struck by the Post's characterization of Ms. Lai Shin-yuan, the new Mainland Affairs Commission chairman, as "a firebrand legislator".

Um, is it asking too much that if you call a virtual unknown like Lai a firebrand, that you at least BACK IT UP with some quotes or examples or something?

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

UPDATE (May 10/08):  Deadline?  What deadline?

President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) never made any announcements on the date cross-strait weekend charter flights would commence, nor did he promise to implement cross-strait weekend charter flights by July 4, Ma spokesman Lo Chih-chiang (羅智強) said yesterday.

Speaking of back-pedaling, the editors at Taiwan's China Post must have received the memo from KMT Central Command:  Using Lai as our fall-guy (er, fall-gal) is something we'll do when the July 4th TBA deadline is missed.  Back off - NOW.

And so, after spending 3 or 4 days blasting the woman last week (and lambasting Ma for nominating her), the Post made a dizzying about-face on Monday.  Why won't everybody just Leave Lai Shing-yuan alone?, its editors asked.

Incredible.  First the the Post calls Lai a firebrand responsible for destroying "the spring of hope after eight years of winter of despair."  Then it called her nomination a betrayal:

But people with an average IQ fail to see any beauty from any angle. Ma defended his appointment by arguing that because there were 5.44 million people who did not vote for him, he has to "broaden the base of consensus." How strange is this argument? Is this the basis for betraying the 7.65 million who voted for him?

And after all that the folks at the China Post have the face to piously tell everyone ELSE to stop the witch hunt?

UPDATE: A Redshirt Proves That Whole 'Goon And Thug' Charge Wrong

After the earlier post, it's only fair to mention this as well:

. . . several readers quickly pointed out that the photo appeared to be misleading. Click here to see a photo of the “kicked” guy [in Seoul] holding up a bicycle over his head. . . It appears to be a threatening gesture.  Was he threatening to toss the bicycle at Chinese counter-protesters?  I don’t know.  Some Chinese websites suggest he brought on the violence himself.

I suppose there's a couple possibilities here.  Either one lone guy (who was eager for a beating) blithely walked into the middle of a group of hostile Chinese with his bicycle in order to threaten them with it . . . or, THEY surrounded HIM, and he got scared somewhere along the way.

(Might help to use Occam's Razor on this one.)