Weekend Recall and Budget Not-So-Shorts

We're at a threshold of sorts in Taiwanese politics, so here's a picture of a cool door from Xianse Temple (先嗇宮) in New Taipei. 

There are a variety of issues I want to talk about, all of which deserve a short post. All of them, however, are immediately important in my opinion. So, let's go with one big post. The end goes a little off the rails but there are trash bags and fake Chinese poetry there for you to enjoy.

The KMT is trying to bribe you

The KMT-led legislature, along with their TPP lapdogs, have just passed an NT$10,000 tax rebate for every citizen. It's unclear of foreign spouses and permanent residents will be included -- this is often decided later and, despite being taxpayers, we sometimes are (as with the COVID vouchers and NT$6,000 surplus cash back) and sometimes aren't (as with the 2008 rebate). 

This comes after debate over the proposed national resilience budget and Taipower grant (more on that later). The KMTPP -- Huang Kuo-chang in particular -- have expended a lot of energy screaming about "high taxes" under the DPP (taxes aren't high) and that the DPP budget proposals were bloated (with the legislature initiating deep cuts while calling it "returning money to the people").

The KMTPP's budget cuts were a major catalyst of the recalls that are creating a mini-election season in Taiwan, so of course now they want to add goodies into the budget that bloat it right back up, right after blaming the DPP for over-spending and over-taxation. 

Basically, the KMTPP doesn't know what it wants, except to not be recalled. There is no clear direction or agenda: either the DPP's budget sucks and needs to be cut, or oh no, please don't recall us, here's NT$230 billion extra in the budget so you can all have some money. It's not vote-buying, it's a tax rebate because the DPP is bad, see? We're spending money because they spent too much money, or something!

From Taiwan News: 

The DPP also accused the Kuomintang of using the promise of a tax rebate to try and fend off recall votes targeting 26 of its lawmakers. The opposition defended its addition of the tax rebate to the bill by pointing at the tax surplus of NT$1.87 trillion accumulated over the past four years. 

Cool, so -- um, quick question. More of a comment than a question really. If we have that big a surplus, then why were you so adamant before that the DPP budget needed to be cut?

They give reasons for the rebate, but none of them make much sense. I can't find a linkable source, but apparently one idea was to take it from the national resilience budget. As a friend remarked, "great, that'll pay for two months of jiu-jitsu classes which will be super helpful if I have to fight the PLA in hand-to-hand combat."

Another reason given are the Trump tariffs, saying that these rebates are needed for economic relief. Maybe, but Trump's rhetoric is notoriously unreliable. Shouldn't we have a clearer picture of how tariffs may impact Taiwan before we add NT$230 billion to the budget?

Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), whom I can't believe we all once thought was a great orator (what?) said this (translation mine): 

If we follow the DPP’s logic, then weren’t Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and Su Chen-chang (蘇貞昌) also wrong when they said they wanted to issue cash rebates in 2008? The DPP’s current standard is that taxpayers’ money is [their] money. It can only be given out of the DPP says so. If the DPP says it should not be distributed, then it can't be. If this is not dictatorship, then what is?

Excuse me, but...what? First, weren't the 2008 rebates a Ma Ying-jeou thing? Am I missing something here? Since when were they Tsai and Su's idea? How does that equate to tax rebates only being given out when the DPP supports them?

The DPP did give out stimulus vouchers and tax rebates when they were the ruling party because, well, they were the ruling party. Of course they could pass something like that. How is that dictatorship? 

Regardless, those were given out in the midst of a global financial crisis. Does Huang want to remind Taiwanese voters that they get money when the economy sucks, right after the KMT were the ones to insist on deep budget cuts? Does he really think the DPP only opposes the rebate because it wasn't a DPP idea? It's NT$230 billion, when we're not quite in an economic crisis (yet). 

As for what is and isn't a dictatorship, here's a primer: a dictatorship is when the people in power stay in power, and there are no elections to choose or change leadership. If there is a change in leadership, it's done by those already in power, or it's a coup, not an election. Generally speaking there are limits on freedom of speech and other human rights.

Taiwan is about to have a round of voting. Some legislators up for recall will likely survive it, others will have to step down. Then the respective districts who chose to recall their representatives will vote on new ones. Some will likely vote in another KMT candidate, not a DPPer. The legislature might tip green, or it might not. Either way, the people choose.

In 2028, there will be another election. There's a reasonable chance the KMT will win it. 

Through all of this, the KMT and TPP are free to say just about anything they want in speeches, rallies and anti-recall campaign signs. They control the legislature, for now. 

So no, the DPP is not a "dictatorship". I would have thought Huang would have understood the definition of that term as he was once a professor, but it seems not.

Is Huang Kuo-chang even okay? Perhaps he should see a doctor? 


There's enough money for tax rebates, but not for Taipower?

Taipower is perpetually low on funds, and there are questions over how their budget is used. I doubt they run a highly-efficient organization; both they and Taiwan Railway are somewhat notorious for doing quite the opposite. They spend a lot of money as infrastructure ages despite long lists of people on the payroll. 

The KMTPP, however, is adamant on rejecting an NT$100 billion grant for Taipower in the budget. There was some talk of approving it, but as of today, it seems the provision did not make it through. 

I suppose we'll need to get ready for summer blackouts and the KMT, who rejected the funding, blaming the DPP for them.

I'm not sure, however, that denying them funding is going to fix either that, or Taiwan's power grid issues. Utilities in general, including electricity, are quite low-cost for consumers. Perhaps they're too cheap, and higher rates would force more circumspect consumption. There is, however, a floor of how little power one might consume, especially in increasingly hotter weather, and with inflation creeping up and pay not keeping pace, I would imagine many people simply don't feel they can afford to pay more for utilities. 

Because of this, and the fact that Taipower is a government concern, whether or not utility prices should rise is a perpetual political issue. Voters obviously don't want to pay more, so politicians don't want to approve price increases. Nobody thinks it's well-run, but it's difficult to restructure. But then it never quite has enough money, and the party in power gets blamed for strain on or failure of the grid. 

I have no idea how to fix this, and I don't think full privatization would make it much better. Look at the US grid, which is mostly (entirely?) privately-owned. It's falling apart; it's absolute chaos, and there will almost certainly be a tragic large-scale failure at some point. Electricity prices sure are high though!


The KMT's take on the recalls is...a take

The KMT held a press event the other day to discuss their position on the recalls. You'll be shocked to hear that, as their own recall push failed so spectacularly that someone put their own dead mom on the petition, they are unhappy. 

Here are some choice quotes from Thompson Chau's piece in Nikkei: 

At the same briefing, KMT official Tony Lin called the no-confidence votes a "threat" to Taiwan's democratic system. "We're against Lai Ching-te's dictatorship," he said.

So, when you do recalls it's acceptable -- and you've tried twice now -- but when the DPP does it, it's "a dictatorship"?

Oh Tony, do we need to review the definition of "dictatorship" is, like we did with Professor Huang? It usually doesn't include people voting, nor does it include you being free to call the current leader a dictator and openly speak of opposing them. 

You know what can be defined as a dictatorship? The thing your party did from 1945 to 1996 in Taiwan, if we define "elections" as including a presidential election.

Get in touch, Tony. I'll gift you a dictionary. It's on me, seeing as the KMT is such a walking disaster that it probably can't afford its own. I'll even buy two: one for you, and one for Huang Kuo-chang.

KMT Chairman Eric Chu also branded the no-confidence votes "a disgrace to Taiwan's democracy," and accused the president of acting like Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler, remarks that drew backlash from foreign diplomats in Taipei in May.

Oh shit I guess I gotta buy three dictionaries. I'd say you can share but I don't associate the KMT with sharing much of anything.

Again, though, was it not a "disgrace to democracy" when the KMT and their allies did them? The current recall initiative is mostly through civic groups, though of course the DPP is encouraging them and if anything, surprised by the strength of the public's positive reception. Furthermore, the KMT and allies have tried more than once to use the current, perhaps overly lax, recall regulations to take down pan-green legislators. In the latest instance, they broke the law several times trying to go after the DPP. And not just civic groups allied with the KMT -- senior KMT officials themselves have been indicted. 

I guess the KMT thinks it's fine to break the law to get what they want because they spent so many decades as dictators, even though the apparently don't know what the word means.

It gets worse: 

When asked by reporters whether the KMT would reconsider its China policy in light of the recall campaign, Vice Chairman Andrew Hsia said the party would stand by its core position that Taiwan is part of a broader Chinese polity.

"We will be following the constitution -- which is a 'One China' constitution -- and we will be following the 1992 consensus," Hsia said in a briefing, referring to the understanding reached under former President Lee Teng-hui that acknowledged each side's existence.

Okay, so, you hate the recalls, and you hate that the public doesn't seem to like you very much, and you hate that you lost the last presidential election and didn't quite win the legislative one, but you are completely unwilling to re-think the main party platform that has caused you such difficulty with voters? The main reason why they dislike you in roles of national governance? And the main reason why, every time they give you a chance, you fuck it up?

It's almost as though forcing Chinese identity on all Taiwanese is the core reason for the KMT's existence, and if they give it up in favor of a pro-Taiwan approach, they'll lose the only thing that differentiates them from the DPP. Huh.

Chau's a great reporter though. He rebuts the idea that the ROC constitution is "one China": 

The notion that the constitution endorses the "One China" concept is a subject of considerable debate in Taiwan. Professor Hsu Tzong-li, formerly Taiwan's chief justice, has argued that a 1991 constitutional amendment redefined the two sides of the Taiwan Strait as "two Chinas" engaged in "state-to-state relations."

On Wednesday, Hsia reiterated that both sides believe in the "One China" notion. "To Beijing, it's the People's Republic; to Taipei, it's the Republic of China," he said. 

He could have also pointed out that the 1992 Consensus wasn't a consensus at all, but this is still fantastic. His boilerplate is also acceptable: 

China claims Taiwan as part of its territory. 

Succinct and true, and the context of the rest of the article clarifies that Taiwan is sovereign.

It's worth mentioning that regardless of what Hsia insists, every elected president of Taiwan except for one has called Taiwan a "country", and neither president since Ma Ying-jeou has endorsed the notion that the "Republic of China" has a claim on any territories beyond it currently governs.

Hsia is terrible at making a good point: 

Hsia, who served as a senior diplomat and later as minister for China affairs under KMT President Ma Ying-jeou, defended the legacy of his former boss.

For eight years under Ma, Taipei and Beijing had "a stable, peaceful, prosperous cross-strait relationship," Hsia said. He pointed to Taiwan's attendance at international meetings at the time and the signing of trade deals with Singapore and New Zealand as proof of Ma's diplomatic credibility.

Yeah, because Ma was a unificationist and the CCP liked that, so they talked to him. He was actively and intentionally readying Taiwan for unification with China. It wasn't "peaceful" dialogue between two sides, it was capitulation. Besides, the DPP had been perfectly able to hold peaceful dialogue with China, until the KMT collaborated with the CCP to actively undermine them.

And now for some fun recall bits

This building on Minquan East Road is a battleground both for and against the recall of Wang Hung-wei (王鴻薇), who is a word nobody should call a woman, but she is one nonetheless. The top billboards support her recall, while the blue and yellow ones oppose it:

You might disagree with what the cartoonish larger billboard has to say about Wang, though I'm not sure why you would. It's basically calling her a CCP collaborator, which is what she is. It's not even the only thing that makes her a terrible person!

At least that billboard makes a case for recalling her. The smaller ones from her supporters don't say anything at all except "come vote against the recall", "don't agree" and "support Wang Hung-wei" -- which isn't an argument. Can they not otherwise defend her?

In other news, New Taipei legislator Chang Chi-lun (張智倫) apparently handed out trash bags as free gifts to voters. Chang's district is traditionally deep blue, but he's facing recall. 

This is objectively hilarious. Also, Chang doesn't look much like his photo, which is common in Taiwanese politics.

It's such a dumb choice of gift -- practical, but the pink color given that he's an accused CCP collaborator and the fact that it's a trash bag both send the wrong message -- that I actually checked to make sure it was real. 

In honor of Chang's choice putting a smile on my face, I wrote some fake classical Chinese proverbs for you (and had the first one checked by a friend). Let's start with Li Bai: 

全世界最奇怪的

就是垃圾自備垃圾袋

-- 李白

We can't forget Sun Tzu: 

如果你的想法不好，

不管你的樣子看起來什麼樣，

把自己像垃圾袋一樣呈現給世界，

光滑的塑膠面

隱藏裡面的東西。

-- 孫子

Finally, we have Du Fu, although this one hasn't been checked by a native speaker:

時代落日

山河綠

古代皇帝就像

他們帝國的殘骸

黃昏粉紅色光芒

-- 杜甫

Anyway.

Wang and Chang are both in blue districts. I think Chang's is deeper blue, as the DPP regularly runs strong candidates in Wang's, which means they think they can flip it, but it's also never gone green since its inception. Fun fact: one of its former legislators was Taipei mayor Chiang Wan-an's (蔣萬安)'s father, John Chang/Chiang, who is legally considered to be the son of former dictator Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國). 

Anyway, there's a reasonable chance that if they are recalled, another KMTer will be elected in their stead. I think Wang is more likely to be voted out than Chang, because her district seems like more of a battleground, and she's far more public of a shambling mess. I don't know much about Chang, though. 

My main concern with these blue districts is not that a KMTer will take the place of whomever might be recalled. In fact, perhaps it will scare the KMT into better behavior, at least for awhile. 

Instead, I worry that they'll elect someone who seems better-behaved on the surface, more humble, doesn't exude drama and mess, isn't obviously a CCP collaborator...but who totally is, because the KMT has decided to throw its lot in with the CCP, and the CCP is happy to help get collaborators elected. 

It'll be harder to spot, though, because they'll have learned to keep it down. Then we have to fight that, and be called delusional for thinking these new collaborators are doing anything wrong, and around and around it goes.

A neighborhood perspective on the recall campaigns

There's even a bus decked out with an ad in favor of recalling Lo Chi-chiang (from Da'an Reboot)

The recall votes are less than a month away, and I've been keeping an eye on the campaigning both for and against the removal of my own district's legislator, Lo Chi-chiang (羅智強). I cannot possibly write this without bias so let me be clear: I can't stand Lo, and even though I can't vote, I hope he is recalled.

Small updates (July 9th): I saw the recall bus, and Da'an Reboot put out a schedule for pro-recall rallies. The one on Sunday at 7pm at Tonghua Night Market will feature guest speaker and DPP legislator Huang Jie: 



                   

Frozen Garlic recently wrote an interesting piece on his classification of the different types of districts (or in some cases legislators) facing recall. My district is in his third group: legislators who have been so controversial that anger against their antics has underpinned the overall recall drive. It also happens to be a deep blue district; the KMT has never lost Taipei 6 since it became a single-member district in 2008. Even if Lo is recalled, his replacement will almost certainly be KMT. The best we can hope for is that they'll be a better-behaved, humbler KMT legislator. 

Frozen Garlic noted that the KMT has generally chosen to fight the recalls. In my district that's certainly the case. While it may not always make sense -- low turnout might benefit the sitting legislator in some districts -- it does here. The question isn't whether the KMT has a strong base here, it's whether those furious with Lo can garner a higher turnout than the "vote blue no matter how delulu" crowd.

I'm not an elections expert, but I thought I might add some color to this observation. What does it actually look like to see Lo Chi-chiang fighting for his career in a place where his seat should be so easy to keep that it's essentially a lifetime commission, and yet he's still managing to screw it up?

A little backstory to Lo's election: I get the impression it was the most competitive in this district...well, ever. Miao Poya (苗博雅)  ran a surprisingly strong race against him. She's accused Lo of being something of a drop-in candidate, having resigned his seat on the Taipei City council to run for mayor of Taoyuan against the KMT's wishes, and returning to Da'an/Wenshan in order to run for the legislature in an election which was delayed long enough to allow him to run. There was also a question of when he (re?)obtained residency in the district vis-à-vis the primary.

Regardless, Lo won, because that's what Taipei District 6 does: it elects the KMT. 

Lo sued Miao over these comments during the election, saying she was trying to "prevent him from being elected". That strikes me as a bit odd -- isn't that the whole point of running against someone in an election? To me, Miao's talking points seemed fairly typical campaign talk. The courts agreed, and the lawsuit was dismissed. Keep this in mind for now.

My first inkling that Lo was fighting the recall (or perhaps scared that he might lose) was the deeply unprofessional "newsletter" he handed out in March. The disinformation-laden article at the top of an otherwise boring political flyer pointed toward an effectively-defunct newspaper that seems to be owned by pro-unification actors, through which a fair amount of donations to Taiwanese political campaigns flowed in one direction, and government contracts (?) flowed in another. The Hong Kong-based parent company of this "newspaper" was disbanded in 2022, so the sources of its funding and political donations are, shall we say, unclear.

I can't say for sure to whom those campaign donations went, but considering which legislator handed me that "newsletter" topped with a year-old article from that "newspaper", I can guess. 

Recently, I've noticed more of Lo's anti-recall efforts in the real world, whereas more pro-recall talk online. This is more a reflection of my subjectivity than reality. Of course I'd see more anti-recall action here in Iron Ballot Land (Lo's 鐵票區), and more pro-recall talk on social media, where I preserve my sanity by following the recall effort, but not Lo himself. 

My neighborhood has been inundated with the most useless of all campaign workers: Sign Holder-Uppers. They don't really interact with passerby as far as I've seen -- no conversations, no handing out flyers, not even really smiling or waving. Not at me, nor at any other pedestrians or cyclists I've seen. They're only slightly more obvious than billboards, but a lot more labor-intensive. I imagine they give this job to the most-disliked volunteers.

                     


The recall activists have also been scouring the district, often in the form of scooter crews with pro-recall flags, though I haven't actually seen one. I did come across these flyers, which aren't specific to Lo Chi-chiang. It was handed to me on the street, not stuffed in my mailbox. According to friends who've received it, has been distributed more widely than Lo's district.

The text is comprised of fairly standard pro-recall points. The black and red one with the pro-recall ballot on the other side states the the Legislative Yuan cannot be held hostage by (deputy speaker) Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁) and pro-communist forces. This makes sense from a campaign perspective: Fu is widely hated across Taiwan; even people I know who don't follow politics are quick to say they can't stand him or "he's got to go". This includes people who find legislative minority leader Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) irritating -- to quote one person I know, "Ker is annoying but Fu...oh my god!"

The four headings say of the legislators up for recall: "Destroy the Constitution and Trash the Government"; Pro-China, Pro-Communist"; "Weaken National Security" and "Hollow Out Taiwan". 

The white flyer with Fu Kun-chi looking terrible on the opposite side lists six reasons to support the recall: 

1.) The Red Media (that is, pro-China media outlets) are strong and spread conspiracies every day

(This strikes me as absolutely true; the CCP has got its tentacles into quite a large chunk of Taiwan's media, including formerly pan-blue media that has gone completely pro-China. I frequently hear their pro-China nonsense regurgitated by my mostly pan-blue neighbors)

2.) A number of imported Chinese products have hidden origins

(I hadn't heard about this happening specifically but it wouldn't surprise me.) 

3.) Chinese immigrants obtain legal status and 'wash' the population

(This means that the number of pro-China voters is increasing as the KMT seeks to make it easier for Chinese citizens, usually spouses, to immigrate to Taiwan. I'm generally against making it any easier for a foreigner from China to become Taiwanese than a foreigner from anywhere else; on the other hand I worry about rising xenophobia. I'd be more concerned about deliberate CCP influencer plants in Taiwan than spouses.)

4.) Declaring a 'state of civil war' between Taiwan and China

(This discusses the proposed Cross-Strait People's Relations Ordinance" amendments. It's interesting, as many people assume that the ROC and PRC are still technically in a state of civil war. I'm not a legal scholar, but I would assume that despite there being no official treaty ending that war, the constitutional amendments of the 1990s effectively ended it for the ROC side. The government seems to imply this, as well, by positioning the civil war as in the past and highlighting where the ROC government claims jurisdiction.)

5.) National Security Weakened

(Yes, that is exactly what the KMT/TPP alliance is doing through budget cuts and proposals to amend various national defense acts.)

6.) The President's National Security Decision-Making Is Hollowed Out

(This notes that the KMT/TPP proposals regarding the National Security Strategy Act take power away from the president and give it to the Legislative Yuan, which is a violation of the constitution. Having read the constitution several times, I believe this would indeed be unconstitutional. Good thing for the legislature that they hobbled the constitutional court!) 

I particularly like the six-point flyer, because it offers specifics on exactly what these legislators are doing to merit their recall. Sure, it includes an unflattering picture of Fu Kun-chi, but really, the point is that these people are using the legislature to make it easier for China to harass and even invade Taiwan, while proposing clearly unconstitutional laws that it will be harder to roll back with a crippled constitutional court. And these are the people who claim to be the great defenders of the ROC and its sacred constitution!

The hypocrisy of it all makes me sick.

The set-up for Lo's rally

Lo held a morning rally not far from my home in order to get his base fired up about supporting him on July 26th. I didn't go because I have self-respect, but from what I could hear, it started out sounding like a church service (?), then some shouting, and then a rousing playlist of ROC patriotic schlock. 

As I left home to go do more interesting things, I passed some neighbors coming home with what looked like free food and beverages. Although the legal limit on campaign gifts is NT$30 per item, which is why tissues, masks and little notepads are so popular, basic free food items at rallies are allowed. I didn't get a good look at what my neighbors had, but it seemed to be dumplings and drinks. Perhaps not enough, however, to go very obviously against bribery laws.

Online, Da'an Reboot (大安強強滾, which means both "strong roll" and uses a character from Lo's name) is pretty much the only thing I follow on Threads. They have a podcast, too, but I haven't listened to it yet. 

There are several pro-recall songs, too. One of these sounds like a standard pro-Taiwan rock ballad in Taiwanese. Another is a weird AI creation of a Bollywood-style song, which I'm a lot less fond of. The AI Bollywood recall song, however, is still catchier than any of the crap played at Lo's rally. I suspect my neighbors might disagree, though. These songs don't target Lo specifically, though the groups trying to remove him have been posting them to social media.

Lo, for his part, has acted somewhat less insane these days, unsure question mark? He seems to be aware that his seat is in real jeopardy and is, at least online, acting with what seems to be a bit more dignity. I assume it does not come naturally to him. 

That said, remember the part where he sued Miao Poya for saying this election was handed to him through dodgy means? Well, he's also suing the recall campaign for saying he prank-called Ker Chien-ming. He insists he didn't prank Ker, and frankly I don't really care if he did or not. It's his selling Taiwan out to China that matters. 

I do think it's funny that he's suing over it. Prank-calling is childish; maybe he did it, maybe not. But suing someone for saying you did is even more childish. It also shows he takes them seriously enough to try to hobble them with a lawsuit, which is obviously a stupid move.

I haven't heard anything about this since June, so I can only assume Lo realized he made a tactical error that caused him to look like a blubbery tantrum baby and has chosen to no longer emphasize the whiny poopy diaper aspects of his personality. Grow up, dude. 

Frankly, I support the recall because I simply do not think Taiwan should be sold to China, and these legislators are out of line.

This goes beyond Lo spouting deranged nonsense and having dodgy ties to questionable media, beyond Fu being an accused sex pest and convicted felon, beyond the fact that Han Kuo-yu (not up for recall this time, but seriously, fuck that guy) was convicted of negligent manslaughter and Wang Hong-wei equivocates on what is and is not sexual harassment.

They're just plain old filthy hypocrites who are selling out the very "Republic of China" they claim to defend. They're allegedly taking money from the CCP while calling the DPP "communist bandits" -- every last one of them should go.

And not even to tip the legislature back to the DPP, though I wouldn't be mad if that happened. Just to scare the KMT into behaving themselves for awhile, if they're able.

Even though districts like mine will probably just elect another KMTer, I want that legislator scared of losing the job they've just won. I want them to be well aware that one of the bluest districts in Taiwan just kicked out the KMTer they elected, and to act accordingly.

And I want Lo to get his just deserts.

Let's get some better Taiwan/China boilerplate

Years ago, reading Taiwan-focused journalism in most international news outlets was a kind of torture. Most were sludge, positioning China's take on Taiwan issues first, if a Taiwanese perspective was included at all. They interviewed China experts on issues affecting Taiwan, or Beijing-based sources. The writers themselves were often China-based or, at best, had been parachuted in. It was a dark time. 

Some pieces and writers were better than others, and stood out all the more for being well-researched and written, among a blasted heath of bad journalism. I won't name names; I probably don't have to. 

Even in those better articles, though, there was often some boilerplate, sometimes cooked up by the writer, sometimes inserted by an editor. It usually read along the lines of "Tensions remain high between Mainland China and the island, after the two sides separated in 1949. China now claims the territory as a renegade province to be reunited by any means necessary".

Everything was wrong with this, from the ‘tensions' which seemed to arise from nowhere, to aggressively refusing to even consider the sovereignty "the island" or "the territory", to centering China's claims and legitimizing them through a lack of interrogation. The "1949" nonsense led readers who had been unaware of Taiwan's pre-war status to think that it had always been a part of the Republic of China, and making the 'split' seem like a deeper crack in historical continuity for Taiwan than it really was. 

Things have, thankfully, improved. More journalists actually reside in Taiwan; in general they try harder to do a better job, or maybe they're just fundamentally more competent. Some stinkers still slip through, but they're more rare and they too stand out all the more when surrounded by better reporting.

The boilerplate has evolved as well. Tensions are still occasionally left unassigned to an aggressive agent (that is, China), and Taiwan is still regularly referred to as an "island" rather than a "country". The "split in 1949" trope is clearly declining in popularity.

Some articles, even those that are specifically about cross-strait issues, avoid the boilerplate altogether, which I take as a positive sign: it means these journalists and news outlets now trust their readers to have some background knowledge regarding it. Here's one example from NPR and another from The Guardian (at least, nothing in this strikes me as boilerplate).

That said, although this weird little paragraph has evolved or in some cases disappeared, it hasn't always improved. I wanted to take a look at some examples of today's good and bad Taiwan boilerplate to see where we are: in what ways has it improved, and what problems remain. 

I'm only looking at news that's free to read, because I haven't found a paywalled news source worth subscribing to. I've lost interest in the Bezos Post, and the TERF York Times has some of the worst columns out there, for example. I'm happy to pay for one subscription, but I can't figure out who deserves my money.

I do suspect today's background paragraphs are either journalist-written, or looked at by a greater variety of editors. In the past it all read kind of samey-samey, but as you'll see below, there are clear differences in the style and 'voice' of this language, indicating more agency on the part of journalists in crafting them rather than an editor non-consensually inserting them. 

Anyway, let's start with some of the better writing. Then we'll slide slowly down the grode pole to the mediocre and cowardly examples, all the way to the dregs. After that, I'll offer some thoughts on what differentiates good from bad boilerplate, and how news outlets might create better background paragraphs on Taiwan.


The Good (Relatively Speaking)

From Reuters: 

China views separately governed Taiwan as its own territory and has ramped up its military and political pressure in recent years. Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy.

This starts out weak by centering China's position on Taiwan. Then, however, it notes Taiwan as "separately governed", documents Chinese aggression succinctly yet precisely, and ends with the Taiwanese position, with a reference to self-determination. It's a lot better than what we used to get. At least readers will have a clear idea of who the aggressor is and who just wants to govern themselves in peace. Bonus: it avoids calling Taiwan 'an island'! 

From CNN: 

At the center of that box of exercises is Taiwan, the democratically ruled island which China’s Communist Party claims, despite never having controlled it.

Chinese leader Xi Jinping has vowed to “achieve reunification” with the island, using force if necessary.

This starts out better, with Taiwan in the forefront (in an article mostly focused on the Chinese navy, no less), and references to Taiwan's democracy and real history, namely, that the PRC has never governed Taiwan. "Reunification" is properly contextualized in quotes, and the aggressor is clearly marked as China. The only real problem here is the use of "island". Taiwan is a country. If news agencies want to specify that it's a country with the name Republic of China, fine, but it is a country.

Also from CNN: 

Taiwan’s democratically-elected government rejects China’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

Not bad and centers Taiwan. Though again, Taiwan is more than an island. 

Another one from CNN:

Taiwan is a vibrant democracy of 24 million people that Beijing’s ruling Communist Party claims as its territory – despite never having controlled it. But it is not recognized as an independent country by most governments in the world and has lost a string of diplomatic allies to Beijing in recent years.

"Vibrant democracy" has become a bit of a trope, but it starts off centering Taiwan, so I'll take it. "...despite never having controlled it" is solid. The second half of the paragraph is a lot more questionable: factually true, but implies that China's claim might have some legitimacy. Still, it's not wrong, so it goes in the "good" pile. 

This is a solid example of how to center Taiwan in boilerplate inserted into articles about Taiwan -- it's easy. The first sentence should be about Taiwan, not China.

I'm on the fence about this example from Newsweek:

China claims democratically governed Taiwan as its own, although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled there. Taipei is a key U.S. security partner in the center of the so-called first island chain in the Western Pacific.

It centers China, and I'm not a fan of "so-called first island chain". Is that not an actual phrase, albeit debatably outdated, that has been used to describe Taiwan's geostrategic position? Why the scare quotes? However, it correctly notes that the CCP has never governed Taiwan. It is true that Taiwan is a "key U.S. security partner", so overall I'd say this is more good than bad. 

This paragraph from AP also centers China, but is otherwise above-average: 

China considers Taiwan its own territory and uses such deployments to advertise its threat to encircle and possibly invade the self-governing island. China also hopes to intimidate Taiwan’s population of 23 million and wear down its equipment and the morale of its armed forces.

At least it clarifies that China is the aggressor and intimidator, whereas Taiwan is self-governed.

This example from The Guardian centers China, but is otherwise not as bad as some of the examples below:

China’s ruling Communist party (CCP) claims Taiwan is a province of China and has vowed to annex it under what it terms “reunification”, by force if necessary. Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

While it properly contextualizes "unification" and uses appropriate verbs such as "annex" and "coerce", I think it gives China a little too much credit for attempting non-military means of annexation. They're willing to start a war, let's be clear about that.

I approve of the verb choices, though, so we'll call it strong.

The Not-As-Bad-As-It-Could-Be

Let's look next at the "mediocre" boilerplate. Not the worst, but not the best. 

This example from DW includes a reference to the desires of Taiwanese people, rendering it less terrible than it would otherwise be: 

Beijing views Taiwan as a breakaway territory, and has not ruled out using force to take control of it. A majority of Taiwanese are opposed to unification with the mainland, according to Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

I would not, however, go so far as to call it "good". Readers might see Beijing's centered perspective and think that China might have a point, or that such force might be justified. 

Let's all agree to call China "China", and not "the mainland" -- stop implying a territorial relationship that does not necessarily exist.

I'm not sure what to make of this paragraph from Reuters, or if it even counts as boilerplate: 

Beijing had angrily rebuked some of Lai's recent remarks as the two capitals clashed over their competing interpretations of history in an escalating war of words over what Beijing views as provocations from Taiwan's government.

On its own, it's terrible. "Competing interpretations of history"? You can take that both-sidesism and shove it up...eh. But it's in an article filled with quotes from Taiwan about the Chinese threat and Taiwan's determination. The context makes it more palatable. Ridiculous as it may be, China's perspective can be included somewhere, I guess.

This is an example of cowardly meh-ism from Al Jazeera:

China insists that democratic, self-ruled Taiwan is part of its territory and has threatened to use force to bring the island under its control. Taiwan has allied itself with the United States, angering Beijing.

Centers China? Check. Island rather than country? Check. "Angering Beijing"? That's a new one -- technically true, but thumbs-down in a background paragraph. If China's claim on Taiwan is illegitimate, which it is, its anger at Taiwan's actions, which are not an act of war, is irrelevant. It saves itself only with "democratic, self-ruled" and noting that [China] "has threatened to use force". 

I'd like to go on record, however, that I don't care much for "the threat of force" as a language choice. Let's not tiptoe around what that means: an invasion. A war. Massive casualties. Violence, death, upheaval. "Using force" can mean anything, from an aggressive arrest to riot police. These are bad, but they're not the same as a war.

The Economist is hard to parse on Taiwan. Sometimes it publishes absolute trash, sometimes it's better than I expect. I don't subscribe, but I use the free article allowance to read some of their Taiwan coverage. This isn't boilerplate exactly, but contains some of the same background:

For years, the island has had to live with a degree of doubt. When President Donald Trump declines to say whether he would risk war with China to save Taiwan, he is following the precedent set by most modern presidents, who used “strategic ambiguity” to deter rash moves by either side to change the status quo. Under the terms of that uneasy stand-off, China calls Taiwan a province that must one day return to the motherland. The island’s leaders deny being part of the People’s Republic of China, but stop short of declaring Taiwan a separate country. [Emphasis mine]. American ambiguity leaves China’s supreme leader, Xi Jinping, wrestling with uncertainties. If Mr Xi wants to avoid conflict with America, he needs to be sure of a quick victory, or must stay his hand. As for leading Taiwanese opposition politicians, they have long seized on that same ambiguity to portray America as an unreliable friend, and counselled accommodation of China to buy peace.

This is fairly nuanced, with quite a bit of interesting detail, and more than one Taiwanese perspective. That inclusion sufficiently interrogates China's claims, and it fits nicely within the article, which is better than average for The Economist on Taiwan. They're not wrong that Taiwan needs to reconsider its defense strategy as the US grows increasingly unreliable and erratic in its rhetoric.

The line in bold sinks it, though. Taiwan's leaders have stopped short of calling it a country? What?

Here's Lai Ching-te calling Taiwan "of course a country". Oh look, here he is doing it again. And again. Those are just the quick-google results; there are more examples. Did The Economist not fact-check this?

This split-paragraph example from Reuters should be terrible, but it comes at the end of a long article on President Lai calling Taiwan a country, so we'll call it a draw:

China says democratically-governed Taiwan is "sacred" Chinese territory that has belonged to the country since ancient times, and that the island is one of its provinces with no right to be called a state.

Lai and his government strongly reject that view, and have offered talks with China multiple times but have been rejected. China calls Lai a "separatist".... 

The defeated Republic of China government fled to Taiwan in 1949 after losing a civil war with Mao Zedong's communists, and that remains the island's formal name.

As with the old "split in 1949" paragraphs, this gives just enough factual information to help readers draw the wrong conclusion about what Taiwan was before 1949, if they didn't already know. It quite possibly hints that the reader shouldn't take Lai Ching-te too seriously. If Taiwan is a self-governed democracy, why does it matter what China says it has the right to do, or not?

It does reference Taiwanese democracy, puts Chinese rhetoric in scare quotes, and notes Taiwanese overtures for dialogue, so I can't dismiss it entirely, though.


The Downright Ugly

Now let's look at the scrapings at the bottom of an expired jar of cheap peanut butter, the musty and outdated, the deplorables.

I'm not sure whether to label this one from The Guardian as mediocre or hot trash juice:

Beijing intends to annex Taiwan under a claim that it is a Chinese province currently run by separatists, and vociferously objects to other governments acting in any way which lends legitimacy to Taiwan’s democratically elected government.

This isn't the worst compared to what used to somehow make it to publication, but neither is it good. It centers China -- what Beijing intends (which is a bit of an assumption of an event that hasn't yet happened, but isn't exactly wrong), China's objections, China's denial of legitimacy. The only thing good about it is the very end, where it notes that Taiwan's government is democratically elected. It must be inferred by the reader that this renders Taiwan sovereign. 

I'll give it one point, actually: "annex" is the correct word for what China intends to do. Not "unify" or "reunify", but "annex". That, if nothing else, saves it from the garbage heap.

I generally like NPR, but I'd say this is even worse: 

Beijing considers the self-governed island a part of China, and hopes to "reunify" it with the mainland eventually....

With Lai's win, tensions seem poised to rise. But analysts don't think Beijing wants to provoke a war at this point, and will carefully process early signals from the newly elected Lai.

Whoever wrote this split-paragraph nonsense should be ashamed of themselves. I appreciate that "reunify" is in scare quotes where it belongs, but "the mainland" and "island" imply a territorial relationship between Taiwan and China that doesn't necessarily exist, it centers Beijing's claims, and mentions "tensions" with no agent.

In the paragraph between these two statements, Lai's stance is described as fairly moderate, but book-ending it with Chinese viewpoints hints that the tensions might just be Taiwan's fault, or Lai's (they're not). 

The use of "eventually" downplays the seriousness of China's threats, and the analysts' take that China doesn't want to "provoke a war" again makes Beijing seem more moderate than it is. The implication here is that any war would therefore be "provoked" by those "signals" from Lai. 

Terrible. Shame. Shame! 

This short paragraph from DW is like the tiny lil' turd your eco-friendly toilet just won't flush:

Beijing sees Taiwan, a self-ruled island, as a breakaway province, and is actively discouraging diplomatic and trade ties between Taipei and other nations.

Points for "self-ruled" I suppose, but readers who don't know the background might see this and think that Beijing's claim is legitimate. I suppose the writer is more focused on the drone market than geopolitics, but still.

This one from Al Jazeera is so close to some of the others that I've considered in a more positive light, but sinks itself with the unqualified "reunification": 

China considers Taiwan, a separately governed island, to be a part of its territory and has vowed reunification by force if necessary. Taiwan’s government rejects Beijing’s sovereignty claims, saying only the island’s people can decide their future.

I appreciate the nod to the Taiwanese perspective at the end, but "reunification" of the "island" with no contextualization whatsoever? As though it's the bare truth? Come on.

We'll finish off with two steaming turds from the BBC:

Cross-strait tensions between China and Taiwan have heightened over the past year since Taiwanese President Lai Ching-te, who champions a firm anti-Beijing stance, took office.

He has characterised Beijing as a "foreign hostile force" and introduced policies targeting Chinese influence operations in Taiwan.

Meanwhile, China continues to conduct frequent military exercises in the Taiwan Strait, including a live-fire exercise in April that it claimed simulated strikes on key ports and energy facilities.

Nice job blaming Lai for China's aggression by timing the heightening of ill-defined tensions with the start of his administration. I suppose the BBC still thinks tensions magically arise out of nowhere. Readers who don't know better might easily come away with the notion that Taiwan is the more hostile actor.

I didn't think one could do worse than this, but somehow the BBC persevered and won its place as some of the worst journalism on Taiwan:

Tensions have ratcheted between Taiwan and China over the past year. Taiwanese President William Lai has adopted a tough stance against Beijing, calling it a "foreign hostile force". Meanwhile, China has held regular drills around Taiwan to simulate a blockade of the island.

Tensions have an agent. Someone ratchets them. They do not ratchet themselves. There is no need for passive voice, BBC. The creator of those tensions is China, but by not saying that, the BBC once again implies that President Lai and his "tough stance" are more to blame than the actual aggressor. 


What can we learn from this?

There is no clear winner or loser among these examples. Like public transit in US cities, no one paragraph is quite good enough to win a gold medal, and the bad don't deserve to be ranked. However, among the better-crafted writing, there are some clear trends: 

1.) They lead with Taiwan

Taiwan is a vibrant democracy of 24 million people... 

At the center of that box of exercises is Taiwan, the democratically ruled island... 

Taiwan’s democratically-elected government rejects China’s sovereignty claims...

 I'll even give one to The Economist: 

For years, the island has had to live with a degree of doubt.

These are good. My writing advice is to do this. See how easy that was? 

2.)  They don't call Taiwan 'an island'

I understand that it's hard to make a pivot from "island" to "country". I don't exactly understand why it's so hard, but I comprehend that it is. Instead, try not doing that:

China views separately governed Taiwan as its own territory and has ramped up its military and political pressure in recent years. Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy.

China’s ruling Communist party (CCP) claims Taiwan is a province of China and has vowed to annex it under what it terms “reunification”, by force if necessary. Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

Some of the worst examples do manage this, proving that even if you aren't allowed to call it a "country" because someone above you in the hierarchy got dropped on the head as a child, you don't have to call it an island. So don't.

If for whatever reason you are forced to call Taiwan "an island", at least start your paragraph with a nod to its sovereignty and democracy. You can even use a "vibrant democracy" cliché. It's fine.

3.) They assign an agent to 'tensions' or interrogate Chinese claims in some way

Lai and his government strongly reject that view, and have offered talks with China multiple times but have been rejected. China calls Lai a "separatist".... 

A majority of Taiwanese are opposed to unification with the mainland, according to Taiwan's National Chengchi University.

...although the Chinese Communist Party has never ruled there. 

...despite never having controlled it.

Taiwan says only its people can decide their future and vows to defend its freedom and democracy. 

Social media is a key battleground in China’s information warfare, as it seeks to convince or coerce Taiwan into accepting annexation without military conflict.

China also hopes to intimidate Taiwan’s population of 23 million and wear down its equipment and the morale of its armed forces.

If you want your reporting on Taiwan affairs to be good, interrogate claims and be clear about what China is doing, exactly. None of this "tensions have ratcheted since Lai took office" nonsense. You can do better, so do better. 

 4.) They avoid or properly contextualize terms such as "reunification", "the motherland" and "province"

I don't think more examples are needed; you've seen enough. If you're going to use these words -- but really, try not to -- scare quotes and context are your friend. These are things China claims. They are not objectively true. Don't present them as such. Even "mainland" should be avoided if necessary, as a 'mainland' is the greater land-bound part of a single territory, implying that Taiwan has a mainland. It doesn't. Ever since the constitutional amendments of the 1990s and early 2000s, neither does the Republic of China. In fact, it arguably hasn't since 1949 because it never did stipulate exact borders, if you care about how the constitutional court interprets the constitution. Which, um, you should.

5.) They don't give half-baked information

Good boilerplate doesn't provide just enough background to hint at the wrong conclusion. That was the problem with the old "1949" language, and we've thankfully seen only one example of it in the paragraphs above. If you want to talk about the civil war and the ROC, of course you can, but be careful. If your readers won't necessarily know what the status of Taiwan was before 1945, or will assume that the ROC still claims all of China, you're potentially citing too little historical fact.

If you can't add more, e.g. that Taiwan had been a Japanese colony until 1945, not part of the ROC, or that the constitution was found to never have been an authority on ROC borders regardless of what the old dictatorship said, consider making a different choice.

As for what not to do, well, ignore all my advice and write about how "Tensions have ratcheted between the island and the mainland since Taiwan's new Beijing-hostile president took office, angering China with his rhetoric as well as allyship with the United States. China views the island as sacred territory and a province to be reunited with the motherland." 

Do that, and I'll fart in your general direction.

Book Review: Social Forces in the Re-making of Cross-Strait Relations (or, the KMT is worse than you ever thought possible)

 

This is a bit long, but I've fiddled with it for such a long time that I'm just going to publish it as-is.

Here's an excerpt from a conversation I had with Brendan recently:

Me: So I just finished this Routledge book, Social Forces in the Re-making of Cross-Strait Relations. 

Brendan: Gonna write a review?

Me: Obviously. This one was interesting because it took the evolution of social movements, mostly under Ma Ying-jeou, and analyzed them in a Gramscian framework. 

Brendan: Huh.

Me: Y'know, Gramsci, the guy American right-wingers think taught nursery school kids about critical race theory in the basement of a pizzeria, and that's why now there are transgender people.

Brendan: It was probably pretty hard for him to do that from a jail cell in Fascist Italy a hundred years ago. 

That's what happened while I was reading Social Forces in the Re-making of Cross-Strait Relations. As you might imagine, it starts out very academic: if you need a primer or refresher on Gramsci to better understand the theoretical framework, author André Beckershoff has you covered. If you don't, feel free to jump ahead to the Taiwanese history and analysis.

The SparkNotes paraphrase of Gramsci is that he's most famous for his dissection of cultural hegemony: the process by which a ruling (capitalist) class dominates the culture of a society, including diverse societies, to establish or maintain control of that society's norms, perceptions and expectations in order to legitimize their place at the top. It's not exactly Marxism in the traditional sense, but it is absolutely rooted in Marxist thought. Gramsci's hegemons are the same Boss Class that rule every capitalist society, who then disseminate pro-capital opinions until they become foundational to that society's ethos, thus supporting the continued existence of the Boss Class.

That is, accumulation is always good, we're at the top because we deserve to be there, what we want is what's best for society and therefore should also be what everyone else wants, and what's best for society is oh-so-conveniently exactly what keeps us in power.

Let me also lay out my personal stuff, so that you'll know where I'm coming from in this review.

This may be shocking for some, but I'm not a communist. At best, I'm quasi-anarcho-socialist, to the left of parties like the Democrats and the DPP, but able and willing to find common ground and compromise with many. When it comes to Taiwan, I believe in a pragmatic approach which sometimes necessitates dealing with the worst people on Earth, although I refuse to be a part of it.

I do not believe in a Leninist praxis in which a 'vanguard party' leads a revolution, because I don't like to be told what to do. Not by a billionaire pig, and not by some asshole who insists his dictatorship is 'of the proletariat' when it obviously isn't. In short: yes to mutual aid and community-building, no to sending people to the wall for thought crimes, and no to 'political tutelage', which is just another name for manufacturing consent. An opinion which, of course, would get me sent to the wall for thought crimes.

So I'm the sort of lefty that right-wingers think is turning everyone gay (that'd be awesome, yet is unfortunately untrue), but I'm not-quite-leftist enough such that the purists think I'm just another capitalist. I may not be a communist, but I'm mostly okay with Gramsci.


Gramsci in a Taiwan Context

As such, the theoretical framework of Beckershoff's book makes intuitive sense to me. In the context of Taiwanese history, the process by which the KMT came to Taiwan, set up systems that redirected capital accumulation toward themselves, and used education, "the rule of law" and the media among other tools to consolidate their wealth and power.

The KMT's hegemonic strategy differs, however, in that they didn't just use non-violent 'cultural' means. They also used violent ones: 228, Martial Law, the White Terror. No one serious denies these events happened, but it's telling that the excuse-mongers' only tactic to legitimize them is typically along the lines of "the ROC needed to cement their rule over Taiwan". 

But of course, that begs the question: it assumes the permanent KMT/ROC governance of Taiwan is fundamentally legitimate, and therefore that end justified both violent and non-violent means. That legitimacy is usually tied back to non-binding declarations made by the leaders of other countries, not any sort of political will or choice of the Taiwanese people. Thus, I'd argue, there is no inherent legitimacy to the ROC on Taiwan, so excuses for its actions not meaningful arguments, they're thought-terminating cliches.

That's a slight digression, but these sorts of thought processes are fundamental to the book. It spends some time discussing KMT strategy during the Chen Shui-bian administration, but the greatest focus is on the interplay between the Ma administration that succeeded Chen's, and the social movements that sought to cripple his agenda and mostly (though not entirely) failed, until they succeeded. The Wild Strawberries, Anti-Media Monopoly Movement, various anti-land-expropriation movements and, of course, the Sunflower Movement. The end of the book is where this interplay (I suppose you could call it a dialectic?) comes out most strongly, although the activists of the 2010s were not the first to oppose both pro-China and pro-capital cultural hegemony. 

One excellent reason to read Social Forces in the Remaking of Cross-Strait Relations, therefore, is to consider an analysis of Taiwanese identity and its evolution through a fundamentally leftist lens. It's refreshing to read, as a counterpoint to all the conservative slugs who support (and claim to care about) Taiwan only because it stands in opposition to CCP-ruled China. It's not a simplistic nationalist or anti-communist argument: it looks at the struggle of social movements to define themselves and their country despite unrelenting attempts to undermine the existence of a Taiwanese identity by those with the most money and power.

The intended through-line, made clear right from the introduction, is that the driving force behind the narrative of capitalism being fundamental to Taiwan's identity and that Taiwan and China are (therefore) inextricably linked, is an invention of the bourgeoisie for their own benefit.

This may sound odd, as China claims to be communist, not capitalist, but the point is what benefits capital (that is, what's good for the wealthy) has been sold to Taiwanese society as something natural, inevitable, and decided by society despite having been created instead by the wealthy. The narrative that benefits the wealthy is the pro-trade, pro-China one. It doesn't really matter that the government on the other side claims to adhere to the principles of socialism. It matters that the people who push the narrative make money.


Capital and Politics, or, the KMT sucks

The party most complicit in this is KMT, both under Ma Ying-jeou specifically and in history more generally, positioning unification and Taiwan as culturally and historically Chinese as inevitable, a given. They do this through capital, that is, economic control. Early on, the KMT took control of just about all means of capital accumulation. Of course they did: they wanted all the money as well as all the power.

The importance of capital accumulation was placed alongside this positioning of Chinese cultural and political identity as foundational to the existence of Taiwan -- well, the ROC. Under Ma Ying-jeou, this strategy expanded to include CCP cooperation in manufacturing this narrative and public consent for it.

While they've pretty clearly lost the battle for identity, with most Taiwanese no longer buying into the Chinese nationalist worldview, the same can't be said for the capitalist ethos that's still seen as fundamental to Taiwan's (well, again, the ROC's) identity, if it's questioned at all. This manifests in the admiration society tends to have for wealthy businesspeople and the ineffectual pushback against long hours and low wages (or even defending mistreatment of workers as necessary for the country's economic success). There's also nostalgia for the 'Taiwan Miracle' era despite its political challenges, and most concerning of all, the belief that only increased cooperation with China will ensure Taiwan's economic future. 

This latter narrative has faced some society-wide interrogation in recent years, especially as it's become apparent how strongly Taiwan's business elite, along with the KMT and CCP in tandem, have pushed it as necessary, while condemning opposition to economic integration as foolish or short-sighted.

Beckershoff dives into all of this history in detail, which led me to a conclusion that I'm not entirely sure was intended: however bad readers of Taiwanese history might think the KMT is, the more you learn, the more you realize it's actually worse than whatever you'd previously thought. History never offers the KMT image rehabilitation -- it only makes it look more awful than it already did. 

Upon fleeing to Taiwan, the KMT first sought to consolidate economic control. They did this by stacking state-run enterprises with their own, and giving preferential treatment to large private enterprises, which tended to be run by KMT loyalists. Smaller enterprises, which were more likely to be headed by potentially disloyal local Taiwanese, were forced into the export sector. 

Land reform did increase the average income of farming households and limited land as a means of social mobility, but many farmers were unhappy with the government deals through which they acquired land to farm. The KMT then set up Farmers Associations which, under a Gramscian analysis, were used as tools to manufacture passive consent for reforms, and as a means of government control of the agricultural sector. They did this with mandatory membership in many such trade associations -- not so professionals in a trade could protect their own interests, but as a means of maintaining loyalty to the KMT.

Despite some benefits from land reform, that's all pretty bad. However, most of us knew these things already. If you didn't, welcome to the KMT Hater Train. I'll be your conductor -- Chugga Chugga Choo Choo, motherfuckers. 

But wait! There's more! Did you know that during this time, the KMT siphoned off about 50% of all rice production through the use of rice-as-payment for all manner of things, including strategically overpriced fertilizer? I hadn't, but now I do!

Did you know that compensation for expropriated land in the form of stocks and bonds was intentionally spread widely enough to ensure none became major shareholders, thus mitigating the economic power of potential dissenters? Again, I hadn't. But now I do. 

Oh, and did you know that most of that sweet, sweet US aid money (pre-1965) was granted by the KMT dictatorship to KMT loyalists, so that 'waishengren' mostly benefited, all while retaining the right to ban the formation of new companies to protect the interests of existing (waishengren-owned) ones? I could have guessed this, but I hadn't been aware of the details. 

However bad you thought the KMT was, it's actually worse.

I only have one small quibble with this section of the book: while most references to concepts such as "re-taking the Mainland" are properly contextualized in the book, on page 45 there's an unqualified reference to "retrocession". But, of course, this too is a manufactured concept. What is retrocession, exactly, when the ROC hadn't existed when Japan took Taiwan? The primary government on Taiwan between the Qing and the Japanese was the short-lived and beleaguered Republic of Taiwan, and the Qing had, for the most part, treated Taiwan as a colony, Until the last dozen years or so, they didn't bother to map, let alone govern, more than a third of the island. 

So what is 'retrocession'?

It's nonsense, that's what. 

There's more, and Beckershoff goes into detail about the role of capital in Taiwan's eventual transformation from the KMT's vision of a 'model Chinese province' from which to 're-take the Mainland' (barf) to a more liberal economic policy, but I want to jump ahead. 


The KMT is worse than you thought -- but the DPP kinda sucks too

By the mid-2000s, the KMT was already in full traitor mode, although not many people realized it at the time. I wrote about this a few posts ago, quoted below: 

Beckershoff lays out a devastating case for China's intentional smearing of DPP presidents as "the problem", making it seem as though they aren't open to or capable of initiating or engaging in any discussions, let alone peace talks or mutually agreeable rapprochement. 

In fact, the CCP was able to sidestep DPP presidents, making them seem like bigger 'troublemakers' than they have been, by engaging instead with the KMT directly, as though they were the ruling party even when they weren't. Beckershoff says of the Chen years: 

The DPP's limited success, however, was not for lack of initiative: after first overtures beginning with Chen's election in 2000, the government proposed negotiations on a variety of technical issues from 2004 onwards, but as the party-to-party platform between the KMT and CCP emerged in the same time frame, the Chinese government could afford to stall, decline or even ignore the overtures of the Taiwanese government. 

One specific example of this was undermining the Chen administration vis-à-vis tourism: 

The TSTA [Taiwan's Taiwan Strait Tourism Association] and the CTEA [China's Cross-Strait Tourism Exchange Foundation] held a third and fourth round of tourism talks in January 2007, and a fifth round in March. With both organizations having "reached consensus in many aspects", [Joseph] Wu was adamant that negotiations were "entering the final stages", a statement reaffirmed by his successor Chen Ming-tong on 27 April. 

The next day, however, the 3rd KMT-CCP Forum opened in Beijing to discuss the topics of direct flights and cross-Strait tourism. The composition of the delegation reflected the issues on the agenda: in addition to the usual party and business representatives, it comprised delegates from four Taiwanese airlines, several hotel groups as well as a number of associations from the tourism and travel sectors. Three of the forum's six recommendations dealt with issues of cross-Strait links....while the fifth recommendation endorsed the swift realization of a cross-Strait tourism agreement. The unilateral measures announced at the forum facilitated travel for Taiwanese citizens by allowing further cities to issue landing visas, and Taiwanese airlines were permitted to set up offices in China while also benefiting from measures designed to promote cooperation with Chinese airlines...

So, essentially, undercutting the work the elected government had already been doing by taking it up through a backchannel -- something that, if Wu and Chen were to be believed, was wholly unnecessary.

At the closing ceremony, Shao Qiwei, director of China's National Tourism Administration, contrasted the pragmatic and productive negotiations with the Taiwanese opposition parties through the KMT-CCP channel with the disruptive attitude of the Taiwanese government. He stated that the five rounds of negotiations between the TSTA and CTEA had reached a consensus on a large number of tourism related issues, and blamed the stalling of negotiations on the Taiwanese government's unwillingness to recognize cross-Strait tourism as domestic travel.

What 'disruptive attitude'? Not referring to Taiwan as part of the PRC? They patiently engaged in multiple rounds of communications and reached several agreements. How is a statement of fact "disruptive"? "Disruptive" is what you call someone when you know they're right, but you want to discredit them anyway.

The KMT was happy to sell Taiwan out in this regard, however, allowing the CCP to simply ignore the Taiwanese government, even when negotiations were going reasonably well. 

Then, of course, they turned around and campaigned in 2008 on the idea that only the KMT can talk to China, whereas the DPP is hostile or simply inept. But the DPP only failed to negotiate agreements on flights and tourism because the KMT cooperated with the CCP to undermine them.

I had not known these details, though I could have inferred much of it. Learning exactly how it all went down, especially as I was here to watch Ma Ying-jeou campaign on his ability to handle this specific issue, just makes me hate the KMT more. 

Again, however bad you thought the KMT were, they're worse. 

Certainly the KMT could not have done all this without the buy-in of big business -- that's one of the main points of the book, and Beckershoff catalogues in detail the ways that large corporations, or business associations comprised of their heads, worked hand-in-hand with both parties to promote the narrative in society that increased cooperation with China was not only good for Taiwan's economy, it was necessary. Yes, even the DPP, even during the Chen administration, although the KMT continues to successfully convince large sections of the electorate that this isn't the case. 

Neither party has interrogated the assumption that increased trade and other forms of cooperation with China benefits all of Taiwanese society, even when the push for such cooperation comes at the behest of the wealthy, for their own benefit. As a result, much of society hasn't questioned it either.

Do those benefits trickle down? I'm not sure, but they didn't seem to under Ma Ying-jeou. Mostly, it meant that Taiwanese had to look to China for well-paid jobs, while Taiwan itself began hollowing out for all but the ultra-wealthy. 

Following this, negotiations with China were described as economic in nature only, not political. Both parties underwrote this to some extent. The DPP was not innocent in it:

Chen, now under considerable pressure from Taiwan's bourgeoisie, convened the Economic Development Advisory Council (EDAC). This body was established to formulate a national consensus on Taiwan's economic development, with a particular emphasis on the issue of cross-Strait relations. The composition of EDAC suggests that it was not so much an open debate, but rather a vehicle to universalize the interests of Taiwan's bourgeoisie by giving hte appearance of general consensus.

There's a fair amount of detail about this in the book, focused mostly on the construction and packaging of the pro-capitalist narrative, but I'll save something for you to read.

Of course, the KMT were lying about cooperation being economic and technocratic only:

[Vincent] Siew developed the abstract framework of "economics first, politics later" into a set of concrete initiatives....the mutual trust engendered by this process wouuld also entail the potential for positive integration, a "step by step integration of politics", and thus pave the way for a "sharing of sovereignty" in the long term.

Siew said this in 2001, almost a decade before the KMT was elected on the artificially-constructed belief that they'd do a better job negotiating with China while safeguarding Taiwan's sovereignty, and people still voted for them. I don't really blame the voters for choosing Ma: Frank Hsieh was not a strong candidate, and Chen Shui-bian's corruption scandals had damaged the DPP a great deal. It's not a surprise that the KMT won in 2008.

Regardless, the DPP were not innocent in this, underscoring the ultimate big bad in Beckershoff's analysis isn't the parties per se: 

After assuming office, Chen demonstrated his willingness to reach out to China, not only suggesting that cross-Strait negotiations should take place in the pragmatic '1992 spirit' that had characterized the first meeting between the SEF [Straits Exchange Foundation] and ARATS [Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait], but even stating that unification would not be excluded as a potential outcome of these negotiations if the Taiwanese people supported it...

Me: "!!!"

It's not that the DPP has changed their rhetoric much since then. It's that I never expected Chen Shui-bian of all people to have said such a thing, which demonstrates just how deep the pre-packaged "KMT Say Right Things To China, DPP Bad At China" is buried in our understanding of Taiwan.

The KMT-CCP Forums were not just a vehicle for undermining the DPP's negotiations with China, they were also part of a concerted effort to promote Chinese culture as a binding agent between Taiwan and China, with associated exchanges, festivals, beneficial business regulations and more. This turn toward promoting a 'shared culture' continued well into the Ma administration:

During this latent phase, the site of struggle shifted towards the realm of culture. A first pebble that would signal the oncoming avalanche was loosened in September 2010 when the acting governor of Shaanxi province led a business delegation consisting of 500 members to Taiwan....First, we can observe a new emphasis on the cultural dimension of cross-Strait relations. In addition to meeting with Taiwan's political and capitalist elites, the delegation also visited universities and schools and attended cultural events that addressed the historical links between Shaanxi and Taiwan.

Me: What historical links?

Second, the visit was accompanied by extensive and favorable coverage in several of Taiwan's major daily newspapers, including a three-page special report n the China Times. As it would later turn out, official Chinese agencies had paid for these reports, which were disguised as news coverage rather than being marked as advertisements. 

Me: That's still a problem.

The rest of the book goes into detail on the social movements that began to contest this pro-China, pro-capitalist narrative under Ma Ying-jeou, covering much of the same ground as an earlier aptly-titled Routledge title, Taiwan's Social Movements Under Ma Ying-jeou, which I read before I began reviewing books. 


And now, the social movements

This is where the first Ma-era bubbles of true contestation of the pro-capitalist, pro-China narrative begin to surface, although Taiwan has of course always had leftists who were not necessarily communists or pro-CCP.

What would soon come to be known as the Wild Strawberry Movement provided a first challenge to the KMT's attempt to portray the negotiations across the Taiwan Strait as a mere technocratic project, the aim for which was to normalize trade relations without jeopardizing Taiwan's political status as a de facto independent country.

I do have an issue with this section of the book, in that it portrays the Wild Strawberries, the Anti-Media Monopoly Movement and the Sunflowers as three different sets of activists, with three different outcomes, the Wild Strawberries appearing the least successful and the Sunflowers the most.

This is not quite true. Many of the college and grad students who would go on to become Sunflowers who helped change Taiwan's political trajectory, had been Wild Strawberries first, and Anti-Media Monopoly activists after that. While some came and went (either joining the movement or getting tired of it, for whatever reason), for the most part a similar cross-pollinated cohort members of civic, political and student associations kept losing until they won. 

Not all of these groups were ideologically on the left, but many were. This leads to an interesting discussion in the book about what the activists themselves wanted their movement to accomplish:

Participating in the struggle against urban renewal in cases such as Wenlin Yuan, Huaguang, Shida and Shaoxing contributed to the conviction that activists were facing a deeper structural problem, exposing the need for more systematic analysis centred around the common denominator of neoliberal developmentalism. 

These movements went through a series of internal discussions, if not outright conflicts, over their long-term goals. Should they lean more toward nationalism (support for Taiwan independence) or radicalism (anti-capitalism)? 

Some activists argued that radicalism and nationalism go hand-in-hand. I tend to agree with this. Both are arguably anti-cultural hegemony, when that cultural hegemony is one of enforced Chinese identity. That said, one is indeed more radical and rooted in systemic change than the other. Arguably, Taiwan would be able to exist as a de jure country as it is now: the name would change, with the worship of wealth accumulation remaining the same. 

And I say that, again, as someone who isn't a communist; my leftist ethos tend more toward anarchy. 

Just so we're clear, however, the KMT is still the big suck here. Remember Huaguang? It was a major site of activism in those years. I thought it was bad enough that the government wanted to tear it down to free up land for the construction-developmentalist state, especially as the people living on that land were not offered compensation. 

It was actually worse than that, though: 

As the occupants of the area had constructed their houses on land owned by the Ministry of Justice, they were categorized as "illegal occupants" in 2006. This meant that the mostly elderly residents wer not entitled to rehousing or compensation and usually were asked to demolish their own houses and pay compensation for having conducted "illegal" business. 

Yeah, systemic indeed. Even if you think neoliberalism is great, free trade is the best thing ever, and negotiating with China can only ever be good, you have to admit this was a pretty filthy move on the part of the Ma administration. Most if not all of the Huaguang residents built their homes on that land because the government couldn't house all the KMT veterans and other refugees. The government tolerated these ramshackle developments, until they didn't feel like it anymore. 

That's gross, and it should make you feel gross. 

Here's another one: 

An insightful example is the case of workers who were laid off when factories, mostly in the textile sector, were relocated to China or Southeast Asia throughout the 1990s and 2000s. In many cases, the employers left owing severance and pension payments ot their former employees. These payments were first covered by the Taiwanese government, whcih lader changed its position and sued the workers for "unpaid loans".

This happened in 2012, so it was an anti-labor action by the Ma administration. Who even does this? It reads like a Reddit AITA about someone's parents sitting them down on their 16th birthday to insist they pay back all the money their parents "loaned" them in having raised them. 

However bad you think the KMT is, it's actually worse. 


Conclusion

I doubt the intended conclusion of Social Forces in the Re-making of Cross-Strait Relations was that the KMT is worse than most people think it is, even the ones who already know it's terrible. To be fair, the book makes a fair case that the bigger bad here is capital: wealthy elites deciding what narratives they want society to buy, and then disseminating them through political systems designed to keep them on top. In that way, every other party, including the DPP, is just as much a tool (or minion) of big business. 

However, I simply couldn't avoid that conclusion, even if I hadn't already been predisposed to it. The system set up to ensure the flow of capital to the already-wealthy? That was the KMT, though they were in many ways copying the Japanese colonial government before them. The patron-client networks that both parties engage in, through which these narratives of Taiwan-as-China and bourgeoisie-are-good are instilled in society? Set up by the KMT. The trade and business associations that push the government into pro-capital, and therefore pro-China. This makes them pro-Chinese identity and pro-moving toward unification, not because many people actually want these things, but because China insists on them as the cost of doing business, and the elite are more interested in making money than defending Taiwan's sovereignty.

That's the real point of Beckershoff's book, but I truly must reiterate just one more time: however bad you thought the KMT was, it's actually worse than that.