Taiwan's campaign document scandal? It's no biggie, says the China Post:
As a matter of fact, DPP city councilors of Taipei made a similar on-the-spot check on the Ma campaign headquarters on March 4.
There was no confrontation, however.
The March 5th Taipei Times and China Post's archives have no mention of this (at least, after a cursory check), but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Still, I have a few questions about this supposed inspection. Answers to the following might help us decide how similar the two cases really are:
- Did the DPP city councilors on the 4th enter Ma's KMT campaign headquarters alone, or as part of a bi-partisan group composed of KMT city councilors as well? The March 12th "investigators" belonged to one party only (the KMT).
- Did the DPP city councilors on March 4th visit Ma's campaign offices as part of an expected, pre-scheduled inspection, or was it a snap inspection? Alex Fei and his merry band showed up completely unannounced on March 12th.
- Did the DPP city councilors pretend to be fire safety inspectors on their March 4th inspection, as the KMT legislators did during their "inspection" on the 12th?
- Were the DPP city councilors asked to leave by security guards, and did they comply? When asked to vacate the premises, the KMT legislators on the 12th elected not to do so.
- Did the DPP city councilors on March 4th try to enter Ma Ying-jeou's office unattended, which would have allowed them to rifle through campaign documents and troll through his computer systems? Depending on the version of March 12th's events, the KMT legislators tried to (or actually DID) exactly that.
I find it amusing that the China Post attempts to spin the attempted theft of independence party documents as nothing more than a run-of-the-mill inspection. If the inspection was so routine, why does the China Post contradict itself by saying it was 'inane'? Because if the check was as completely proper and ordinary as the China Post insinuates, then the KMT legislators cannot be accused of 'inanity' - they were simply doing their jobs. Ma Ying-jeou should never have apologized then, for blame would belong solely to the rioters: rioters who interfered with a lawful, proper, everyday inspection.
But if there's something not-quite-kosher about the KMT's March 12th "inspection" - as the Post concedes by calling it 'inane' - then bringing up cases of inspections that WERE lawful, proper and ordinary serves only to muddy the waters around the issue.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: Of course, muddying the waters is one of the China Post's specialties. Perhaps the most blatant example of this is when columnist and editorial writer Joe Hung tries to persuade foreign readers that the 2004 shooting of President Chen Shui-bian was staged. How is it possible, he asks, that President Chen was shot when not a SINGLE spectator at the campaign parade heard the the gunshot?
Now, any foreign reader has got to see that and think, "Wow, that certainly DOES sound mysterious." But what the average foreign reader DOESN'T know (and any damn fool living in Taiwan IS aware of) is that the shooting took place at a campaign parade where there were HUNDREDS of big, noisy-ass FIRECRACKERS blowing up. Blowing up left, right and center. Pretty hard to hear one or two gunshots in that environment, as Hung is well aware.
To be blunt then: Joe Hung has a major credibility problem. So that's why I'm from Missouri when he tells us the March 4th and the March 12th inspections were somehow similar.