The following is a guest post from frequent contributor Dr. Jerome Keating.
——————————————————————

Democracy, Paradigms, Bought Loyalties and Obfuscations

What price would one put on democracy? What would one trade democracy for? What would it take to sell out someone else’s right to self-determination?

A pair of pandas? Better trade relations? A chance to make more money? Or even the alleged glory of being the mythical white horse prince who could stake a claim that he/she brought Taiwan and China together?

Democracy is the real issue in the Taiwan/China debate and the questions on democracy are the real questions. The rest is all smokescreen and, pardon the word, obfuscation.

In a global age where national boundaries begin to blur and the world for better or worse begins heading more towards corporate identification and influence, the rights of the individual granted by democracy and rule of law remain and cry out for recognition. These are the same rights the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in its paradigm of control avoids discussing like the plague, be it SARS, bird flu or anything else.

In the same vein, as Lien Chan, James Soong, and so many other pan-blue leaders fawningly run to Beijing, they appear embarrassed to even bring up the ‘D’ word. If it is brought up, it is done in almost apologetic terms.

The distinct role that democracy must play in negotiations on Taiwan and China’s future is crucial. Behind democracy are the paradigms and priorities that people hold for themselves and these two countries. On one side is Taiwan’s experience of a long, hard struggle over a one-party state that has still not come clean on its past murders and thefts. On the other side is another one-party clique also steeped in suppression that justifies its control with the claim to be defender of the myth of one, indivisible China.

As a result, the Taiwan/China debate unfortunately continues to be smoked over by words and/or phrases like “independence, inalienable, inseparable, internal problem” and even “a shared common culture.”

Independence! In this debate, China has made no bones about its demand to forbid this word in discussions of the future. There can be no talk of Taiwan independence. Such a demand by the PRC is tantamount to saying both sides must agree to come to the PRC’s conclusion and control before they begin to debate, still statements of non-negotiables are a part of bargaining. Taiwan’s pan-green leadership has stated its own non-negotiable by saying that both sides must come to the table as equals and have the freedom of choice of equals.

What is most surprising, however, is the complete lack of non-negotiables or sine qua non’s from the pan-blue leadership.

In the old controversial days of Chiang Ching-kuo, the Kuomintang (KMT) at least had fire in its belly in dealing with the PRC. At that time they were bold enough to state their own three no’s, “no contacts, no negotiations, no compromise.” Now in sharp contrast, KMT leaders trip and fall over each other as they run to bow and scrape to accommodate the PRC. Such kow-towing makes any rational person ask why.

Where has the fire in the belly gone? What has changed? The answer lies in seeing the KMT’s true past paradigms and priorities and how these were affected by democracy.

The KMT that was brave enough to issue its three no’s was one which gave lip service to democracy. It did this because it operated from the paradigm of the secure power and privilege of a one-party state similar to that of the PRC. Hidden behind its three no’s was its own basic sine qua non that saw unification only in terms of the KMT maintaining power over all.

Democracy ruined that for the KMT; it broke their paradigm of privilege and destroyed their sense of entitlement to power. Democracy is the antithesis of any one-party state paradigm. Choice and absolute control cannot co-exist. Democracy allows the people to vote a government out; understanding this, the KMT knows full well why it is anathema to bring the word up with the PRC and so it bows in submission.

One cannot say the pan-blue have totally avoided mentioning democracy. To his credit, James Soong hinted at it by once saying that perhaps it might be best to put off any discussion of unification for another thirty to fifty years and just expand trade links etc. Ma Ying-jeou in his usual pussy-footing way of trying to keep his feet in two boats also hinted at the issue. In an interview he stated that he suspected that the PRC is still a ways from democracy. Nowhere however, and I say nowhere, has there been anything close to making democracy a non-negotiable part of or a sine qua non for discussions.

Why not? Why are there no non-negotiable on discussions from the pan-blue side? The scenario is strangely reminiscent of seventeenth century China when the Qing was defeating the Ming. In this process the loyalty of several Ming generals and leaders was bought off by the Qing. By 1679, the Qing had even created the Xiu Lai compound where opposing generals and leaders could surrender and retire in comfort. This was certainly part of the enticement they offered to followers of Zheng Zhi-long, the father of Zheng Cheng-gong (Koxinga). Zhi-long had been bought off but of course he then faced reciprocal obligations.

When Zheng Zhi-long came home to the Qing, he was expected to bring with him his son Zheng Cheng-gong and all of his troops. When they didn’t come, Zhi-long’s wife Tagawa committed suicide and Zhi-long didn’t get a chance to enjoy his retirement. Bought loyalty, particularly between past enemies, must still deliver.

Zhi-long had promised to deliver his son; have the pan-blues promised to deliver Taiwan? Is this the real reason why they continually block bills to procure defensive weapons in the legislature?

As the PRC wines and dines the pan-blue leaders and legislators it would seem the same machinations are at work. The pan-blue leadership remains surprisingly quiet on any mention of democracy as a non-negotiable/sine qua non for discussions on future relations between Taiwan and China. Instead they talk of harmonious interests; how close the talk seems to Xiu Lai (cordial relations).

At stake here are conflicting paradigms on Taiwan. Where are each party’s priorities and how does democracy fit in? Operating from a paradigm of hard won democracy the pan-green camp maintains its right to self-determination. Since democracy by its nature allows many points of view and free choice, it has to be open to voting on unification or not. The flip side is that it also is open to vote on rejecting it. The pan-blue camp refuses to cross that bridge.

The pan-blue camp is still mired in its one-party state paradigm, the same paradigm as held by the PRC. The priority of this paradigm is that the one-party state must first control all. The unification of Taiwan and China must always take precedence over democracy. Lip service can be given democracy but control must dominate over free choice as in Hong Kong. Thus the KMT would rather see a Taiwan that is stripped of its democracy and a part of China than one with choice. Are the benefits and future privileges of such a metaphorical Xiu Lai really worth that?

Democracy denies privilege to any one party and places it in the hands of the people. The people can bestow the privilege of leadership on those whom they feel worthy; they can also take it away in the next election

The issue of independence is a smokescreen. For over a half a century, Taiwan is and has been independent whether as a one-party state under the KMT or a democracy since 1996.

The real issue is the role of democracy in Taiwan’s future as it relates to China. Since 1996 when the people first directly elected their president, Taiwan has utilized that freedom of choice twice. In the elections of 2000 a peaceful transfer of power took place. In 2004 it was confirmed. Taiwan’s democracy won at the cost of blood, sweat and suffering should not be sacrificed for “cordial relations.”

The KMT fought the PRC only as long as they were masters in Taiwan. Once the people exercised the democratic right to vote and voted them out of office, the blue camp lost interest in democracy. More like lost dogs seeking to lick the hand of the bully that drove them off the mainland, they return. Better to be someone else’s live dog than a dead lion may be an appropriate proverb. Perhaps they will get a bone.

This paradigm also reveals the true feelings of those waishengren that have never found a home in Taiwan. Comfortable in Taiwan only if they could be superior colonial masters, they seek other advantage once that privilege is lost.

Slogans once expressed the pseudo KMT dedication. Who cannot recall, “Gentlemen will not stand with thieves” which expressed the KMT distaste of co-existing in the UN with the PRC. As Lien Chan and others wine and dine with Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leaders and vow that as brothers they will fight Taiwan’s independence (translate democratic choice) one wonders what the new slogan will be?

Carved on Kinmen’s highest mountain are the words “Remember our days at Chu.” And elsewhere is found another demand. “Give me back my land.” How times have changed. It now appears that the pan-blue slogan could be “Forget Chu and go for the money.” Westerners had a saying, “Better dead than Red.” Current pan-blue feelings reflect “Better Red than lose power and privilege.”

As China and Taiwan approach discussions, Taiwan voters have a right to know what paradigms and priorities each party holds. There has never been transparent accountability on the state assets taken by the KMT, nor has there been true accountability on all involved with the suppression and deaths during the White Terror period. Will the KMT’s position on democracy be added to this list?

__________________________

Jerome F. Keating Ph.D. has lived and worked in Taiwan for the past sixteen years and is co-author of “Island in the Stream, a Quick Case Study of Taiwan’s Complex History” and other works. Other writings can be found at http://zen.sandiego.edu:8080/Jerome

The behaviour of some Chinese sports fans was again brought under the spotlight during the Champions Golf Tournament in Shanghai last week. As the Chinese government has noticed before, with a particular eye on the 2008 Olympics, Chinese sports fans, and in the case of golf, even the TV cameramen, are fairly new to the etiquette involved when watching sport. As golf is more phychological than physical, it doesn’t, therefore, lend itself too well to China’s ubiquitous ‘anything-goes’ mobile phone culture. Tiger Woods is particularly unforgiving when it comes to noise and other distractions on the golf course:

“A lot of people had mobile phones and were taking pictures, you just had to deal with it” the No. 1-ranked golfer said, where he repeatedly pulled away from playing shots because of noise. “There were a lot of distractions out there.”

“It was a bit more chaotic than I thought it would be” Englishman Howell said afterwards. “There were more phones and lots of cameras. It was fairly bad and took me by surprise.”

It was unfortunate that the constant chattering and clicking of the crowd even made it into all the news bulletins I watched on TV. Each report I saw, started by mentioning the noise and the complaints of the players. However, It wasn’t as if the organisers ignored the danger, but in true Mainland-style, the signs and even instruction booklets were thoroughly ignored:

Signs at the entrances to the Sheshan International Golf Club were optimistic: “Strictly no mobile phones and cameras.” Spectators, many walking past the signs with phone planted to ear, even got written instructions on how to behave from organizers. The “Guide to Viewing Golf” – a card given to fans in both Chinese and English – included instructions such as “do not applaud or cheer a mistake” and “remain quiet when the players are about to hit the ball.”

However, taking pictures and chattering on the phone weren’t the only
peccadillos on offer. In one case, a woman spectator picked up a golf ball that was still in play on the fairway on the 4th hole. Also, ‘at the Volkswagen Masters in Beijing in September, Michael Campbell went to find his ball only for a cameraman to hand it to the U.S. Open champion.’ Other amusing incidents on the Asian tour include stewards having to remove children from making sandcastles in bunkers and sprinting down down the fairways at certain events.

Chinese journalists have, quite rightly, pointed out that China has had a maximum of five years experience of professional golf and that golf course stewards have been negligent in carrying out their proper duties. True enough. I suppose that after the fiasco at the Ryder Cup in 1999 which saw the wives of many U.S. players mincing around the 17th green in their high heels before the match had even finished, the Chinese are not the only ones who could learn a thing or two about golf etiquette.

More good news from China. Despite strong opposition from party insiders, Hu Jintao is going to start rehabilitating the reputation of Hu Yaobang, the man whose death ignited the 1989 demonstrations that came to a head on June 4 when, as you’ll learn in the Chinese media, absolutely nothing happened. Hu will be memoriaized at an event on November 20.

While restoring the stature of the late Mr. Hu is unlikely to lead to a broad political opening soon – the party leadership has, after all, steadily tightened its grip over civil society and the media – it does provide a glimpse of the complex politicking that takes place among the ruling elite.

It also shows the enduring sensitivity surrounding the people and events connected with the 1989 protests. Political observers say the June 4 killings will haunt the party until it acknowledges having bloodily suppressed the mainly peaceful pro-democracy protests and can pay respect to the hundreds of people killed, injured or purged in the crackdown.

President Hu persisted with marking the anniversary of his predecessor even though four of the nine members of the Politburo Standing Committee, the top ruling body, expressed concern that the move could threaten stability, people told about the debate said.

The four – one of whom was Wen Jiabao, the prime minister – were said to have different reasons for opposing the commemoration. But all argued that the move potentially risked giving people the idea that the circumstances surrounding the 1989 demonstrations, which the party has condemned as a massive antigovernment plot, could be perceived as open for discussion, these people said…

Since taking over the party leadership in 2002, Mr. Hu has rejected ideas for political change and pursued a sustained crackdown on the press, nongovernment organizations, the legal profession and religious groups he views as threatening the party’s hold on power.

Whether it’s an act of political expediency or not — and the article makes it pretty clear it is — Hu’s certainly doing the right thing. Maybe a step in the direction of opening up a bit about that day when nothing happened…?

Update: I found this interesting:

A former top Chinese Communist Party aide has called on the regime to face up to its mistakes ahead of a memorial event for ousted late leader Hu Yaobang.

“I am in favor of commemorating Hu Yaobang. But it should be done with the right intent,” Bao Tong, who has lived under virtual house arrest in Beijing since his fall from grace after the 1989 student-led protests, wrote in a commentary aired Tuesday on RFA’s Mandarin service.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) should learn a painful lesson from its treatment of Hu Yaobang, and through its commemoration of him, should learn once more the art of self-criticism,” Bao said.

“The spirit of Hu Yaobang should be allowed to permeate China’s political and cultural life, to sweep away the suffocating air of tyranny, corruption, and hypocrisy, and create another few million Hu Yaobangs.”

I strongly recommend he not hold his breath.

It’s only in the Age of Bush that we got the privilege of seeing politicians refused communion for not rejecting womens’ right to choose; of seeing Fundamentalist pseudo-science introduced into public school curricula; and of seeing major chain stores claim it’s their employees’ right to refuse service to customers based on their religious beliefs.

As you may recall, Target is letting its pharmacists refuse to fill your order for emergency contracptive pills (Plan B, as it’s called) simply because they find your prescription immoral. Target is now saying that they’ll fill your prescription in a “timely manner” at another pharmacy, or at their pharmacy at a later time (presumably when their holier-than-thou employee is on break).

I don’t know about you, but when I go to the pharmacist, I don’t want him sending me to another Target 40 miles away simply because he has religious issues with my prescription. It’s none of his business what prescription I’m getting filled, and short of there being a glaring mistake in my prescription a la “It’s a Wonderful Life” – i.e., instead of allergy pills someone gave me cyanide – it’s none of his damn business passing religious judgment on my prescriptions, my illnesses, my prefered form of treatment, or me.

I already have a priest, and he doesn’t work at Target, thank you.

But Target feels otherwise. In fact, Target is now claiming – quite incredibly – that its employees’ religious fanaticism is covered the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Yes, apparently Target employees are allowed to not sell you things based on THEIR religion. That’s an absurd, and rather dangerous, legal statement from Target.

So let’s ask Target if they also support the following Target employees:

– Check out clerks who verify how fat you are before selling you that package of potato chips?
– Pharmacists who don’t want to fill prescriptions for Jewish customers who killed Christ.
– Pharmacists who don’t want to help customers who worship a “Satanic counterfeit” (read: “The Pope,” in fundie-speak).
– Pharmacists who only dispense HIV medicine to “innocent victims” of AIDS.
– Pharmacists who want proof that women seeking emergency contraception were really raped, and that they didn’t “deserve it.”
– Pharmacists (or cashiers) who are Christian Scientists – can they refuse to sell any medicine, even aspirin, to anyone?
– Pharmacists who won’t sell birth control pills to unmarried women, condoms to unmarried men, or any birth control at all because God doesn’t want people spilling their seed.
– Can fundamentalist Christian employees refuse to interact with gay people in any way, shape or form since gays are sinners, abominations, biological errors, and very likely pedophiles?

Some of those are mighty far-fetched, but I appreciate John’s point. In the past, such issues would never have arisen. It was a fact of life that we kept our religious sentiments to ourselves, far from our workplace. The fundies are actively seeking to collapse traditional barriers, and big business has to realize we won’t let them. You can get your shampoo and your t-shirts and your prescriptions at other places. For now, boycott Target.

Targeting Women (photo via TBogg)

Report is here. This is beginning to sound like (pardon the expression) a Chinese fire drill.

One of my favorite sites has launched a newsletter that you can download here (.pdf file). Its most wrenching story deals with child labor in China, which seems to be on the rise.

In March of this year we saw the tragic case of five adolescent girls who appeared to have been poisoned by carbon monoxide smoke from a coal brazier lit in the confines of their cramped factory sleeping quarters. Upon discovering them unconscious, the factory manager did not call for medical assistance, but took them to a crematorium to quickly dispose of their remains. An employee of the crematorium noticed that the bodies of the girls were still warm and their limbs soft, and that no medical certificate accompanied their bodies, so he refused to accept the bodies. In an attempt to hide culpability for the girl’s deaths, the panicked factory manager ordered that the bodies be disposed of immediately.

Sources say that when the girls’ families heard of the matter, they insisted on viewing their daughters’ corpses, but were refused. The factory also insisted that the families make no further inquiries into the girls’ deaths as a condition of paying each family 15,000 Yuan (less than US$2000) in compensation. However, the families still insisted on viewing the corpses, and four days later the factory finally acceded to their request. Upon viewing the corpses, the families were horrified to discover that at least two of the girls, 14-year-old Wang Yajuan and 17-year-old Wang Shimian, appeared to have been alive when they were placed in the coffins. Their faces were caked with vomit and tears, their noses had bled and their necks were swollen. Wang Shimian was found to have kicked through the cardboard lining of her coffin, and her body was twisted in apparent struggle.

Well, at least they had jobs.

The positive side to this story is that the Chinese media are covering it in China, which gives me some cause for optimism. Some.

What makes this story special, and the reason I love CSR, is that the writers explore why child labor in China is flourishing (the educational system plays a big role) and why the government, despite stingent regulations, is mostly unable to stem the problem. So if you don’t mind opening a .pdf file, read it all.

Lately we’ve seen encouraging news about China reporting new cases of bird flu in humans, and the government is seemingly stepping up to the plate and taking action. But the sad fact is that China’s openness and transparency in regard to bird flu is intended mainly for foreign eyes. In other words, the truth about bird flu cases is being reported by foreign reporters, not the local Chinese media.

So why are Chinese journalists steering clear of this topic? Jeremy offers some insights.

The answer to that question is sadly very clear: the government fears an open media, and the media in China is meek and timid.

This writer and other foreigners can complain until the birds drop from the sky about the state of media in China and nothing will change. It is only when a greater number of Chinese media workers themselves stand up for the integrity of their profession that there will be any progress.

Of course, we all know what happens when reporters stand up to the government in China.

Skippy hits a new low of immaturity and pettiness as he urges us to Google Bomb journalist-seer Bill O’Reilly. I love Bill O’Reilly and urge none of you to participate in this childish prank. Ignore Skippy’s advice. Pass this post on to everyone you know and tell them to ignore it, too.

here’s an excellent idea…in light of bill o’reilly’s latest comments on how al qaeda should blow up san francisco…why not google bomb him as a terrorist sympathizer?

after all, his words make him a terrorist sympathizer. anyone who encourages a terrorist act is a terrorist sympathizer. and we don’t condone any terrorist sympathizer making statements like that on american airwaves. no terrorist sympathizer for us!

damn that terrorist sympathizer!

Now, just because a scholarly journalist implies he’d be happy to see San Francisco bombed by Al Qaeda that hardly makes him a terrorist sympathizer, does it?

(Oh, and for those of you unfamiliar with the art of the google bomb and the havoc it can wreak, my favorite example is what those godless leftists did to gay-hater Rick Santorum. Just type “Santorum” into google and hit “I Feel Lucky.” It’s even funnier than its predecessor, “miserable failure.”)

But then, you’d have to be pretty gullible to believe that this craftily marketed pen could do the things it promises to.

THE local consumer commission has received 19 complaints over the past week about a pen that is supposed to read English textbooks and translate them into Chinese.

Consumers felt cheated after they bought the pen, only to find that they have to paste bar codes into the textbook in order for the pen to recognize the English words — a procedure they said wasn’t mentioned in TV ads for the device.

Officials from the company that sells the device admit it can only read the bar codes, no English words, but insist the proper procedure is shown in TV commercials for the product.

The device is called yibitong in Chinese, which means a pen that does everything. It is actually a pen-shaped bar code reader and speaker, with a mini scanner on its top and memory chips, a microphone and speaker inside.

Cui Wei, a 45-year-old father, bought one of the pens in early October from Shanghai Hongjianke Commodity Trade Co after seeing the advertisement on TV. He gave it to his son, who is in primary school.

“The only impression I got from the ads is that when you run the pen across the text, it will speak in English or Chinese,” said Cui.

Cui said he didn’t notice any mention of the bar code, or any instructions about bar code usage in the ads.

After paying 999 yuan (US$123) for the device, he looked at the instruction and found it was much more trouble to use than simply looking up words in the dictionary.

The pen came with two large bags of bar codes, which match sentences in English textbooks used in the city. Several bar codes must be attached to each page according to instructions on the company’s Website. When you run the pen over a bar code, the corresponding section of text will be pronounced in English or Chinese.

How do you say “scam” in Chinese?