"It's all in your head, Taiwan"

This says: 國民黨永遠與你在一起 or "The KMT will be with you forever" (or perhaps "The KMT - forever together with you.")


What do you mean, you don't think we're right for each other? Haven't I always treated you well? What do you mean I haven't? Ugh, Taiwan, you know I care about you but I just can't deal with your craziness sometimes, you know? 

Ask anyone - ask my ex, China - yes, I know she's your cousin, but she's also my ex - even she'll tell you you're being crazy. She always says "KMT, you're right - I don't know why you stay with that crazy bitch."

What? Yes, we still talk. What's wrong with that? Are you jealous that I have friends now, too? What? You think she wants to get back together with me? Again - more craziness. Jealous and crazy. It's a wonder I even put up with you.

All the things I've had to do to make sure this relationship works, and not only are you not even grateful, you still get mad at me as though I'm the problem.

Remember the time when you went totally psycho for no reason and I had to break up this huge fight you started and even bring in soldiers to calm you down until you could be reasonable? Yeah, it took awhile but you finally realized how awful you were being. And then you demanded "more freedom" - god, you were really a bitch about that, you know? I even gave it to you, but somehow that wasn't enough.  I gave you everything and you just wanted more, more, more. No more Martial Law. Free democracy. Human rights. It was never enough. You're so high-maintenance, and you don't even know it.

I mean, ugh, I only went through your mail and took reading material out of the house that I didn't want you reading for your own good and safety, because you were being so illogical and hysterical and it wasn't good for you to be reading that stuff. 

I'm the one who got you back on your feet after World War II. You wouldn't be anywhere without me. You seem to think you did that - that your citizens built an economy from small and medium size businesses which was actually hindered by my Leninist attempts at creating a command economy that served to line my own pockets. Do you know how crazy that sounds?  It's so clear that it's just more of your histrionic fantasies - what, you think you could have gotten to where we are on your own? You? You had nothing, and I saved you.

I mean, it's not just me. Everyone thinks you're the problem. They know you've got issues - you know China thinks so. 

But it's not just China. The rest of the world, too. Why do you think they barely talk to you? Most of them pretend they don't even know you. Even the ones you work with. Don't pretend you haven't noticed. Do you think they're doing that because of me? No, it's because of you.

Leave China out of this. If you want everyone to start talking to you again, you know you have to stop being such a bitch to China. You insist she started this stupid argument, but she's been nothing but patient with you, too. You're the one causing all these tensions and everyone knows it.

What do you mean I beat you? You really are insane, you know that? I was defending myself - you were attacking me. And then you go around saying "The KMT treats me so bad", trying to ruin my reputation, but I'm the innocent one here. I mean, I know a few months ago you tried to steal money from me. I have to hide everything from you. You're unhinged. You think I took it from you? More crazy talk. I earned that money. You're still trying to get your claws on my pension but it's not going to work.

Let me tell you something, Taiwan. Nobody will love you like I do. Nobody will be patient with your insane fits like I will. You were meant to be with me. We'll be together forever.

Now calm down, Taiwan. You're being hysterical again.

民進黨不行，國民黨再贏: on dragons and not riding them

Look, I know I said I was going to take a break, but I'm taking a break from taking a break so here you go.

Still working on my personal junk, you'll hear about it when I'm ready to talk about it. Still working on grad school, just needed a break from that. Don't worry, I'm plugging right along.

Anyway.

I'm not particularly surprised that the DPP has turned around and betrayed Taiwanese labor with their new bullshit changes to labor regulations. (Quick note: the seven public holidays mentioned in this article only snapped back into existence for a year - otherwise, we haven't had them for the entirety of the decade I've lived in Taiwan. They're also not great holidays, to be honest. It's not as though we lost something we'd grown used to over many years.)

They might have a better origin story - I mean, they didn't commit mass murder and pillage and steal from Taiwan for decades after flying and sailing over from another country and settling in like they owned the place - but their ascendancy to the main opposition party of the (even worse) KMT hasn't left them as pure of heart as they might have started out. Sure, they began more idealistically but I don't think anyone can realistically say that they've maintained their dangwai-era vision. They'll line their own pockets, set up their own patronage networks and kowtow to special interests just as much as the KMT will. We've known that for awhile.

I think we've all known for awhile that the DPP is a corruption-filled pustule - perhaps we just told ourselves until recently that all the pus was because they were fighting the KMT infection. But come on, we knew.

Oh but they're not willing to sell us out to China, and they didn't perpetrate a murderous half-century or so of political and social oppression, so they only really look better by comparison. They were always going to bend over and take it from big business. The major difference is that they're pro-independence buttmonkeys who didn't kill people.

Likewise, I'm not even really shocked that they've gone so limp on marriage equality. I'm angry, but I think deep down I always knew that this was in their nature. They were always going to bend over and take it from conservative and Christian groups. Again, the only real difference is that they're pro-independence buttmonkeys who didn't kill people.

They have a better origin story, that's really all at this point. At one point they surely meant what they said with all of that idealism about a better Taiwan. I don't know when things changed, but the spirit of the dangwai who fought for a better Taiwan seems to be dead. Now, they're in it for the power just like the KMT it seems.

I guess deep down, as I can't be surprised, I'm mostly just sad.

Perhaps we always knew that neither of Taiwan's two major parties ever really had the people's backs, but until recently at least we could pretend. We could tell ourselves that if we could just hand the DPP a presidency along with a legislative majority, we could actually get something done. We could transform the country, or at least start down that path.

Now we know that's not true. Now we know there's no major party that really will do the right thing, that will govern as representatives of the people, that will really have our backs rather than letting those with more power than Taiwanese labor (or marriage equality activists and the LGBT community) get up on their backs.

Now we know - there's no one to vote for. Not among the major parties.

I mean, if anything, activism is in the same old rut it always was. We all though things would get better when Tsai's inaugural parade featured that huge sunflower-bedecked float touting the strides Taiwan has made in social movements. And yet we still have a few hundred people turning out for protests until something huge blows up, we still have the same old muddy turmoil, the same old pro-China zealots beating people up and the same old police not responding. The same old turned back from the government. Did the DPP really think that activists would back off because the less-bad party won? That fighting back was something we only did to the KMT because they sucked so hard? That sucking only slightly less hard would be good enough?

So what now? Punishing the DPP - which they roundly deserve - will only hand the KMT a victory. The KMT deserves to be punished more harshly than anyone and it seems they never quite get what's coming to them. We criticize the DPP, calling Lai Ching-te "God Lai" and making fun of him, but the KMT is full of princelings who fancy themselves as gods come across the water from China. This is not a solution.

A buildup of smaller parties? Great. I would love to see the Third Force come together, I'd love to see the two big parties fracture and split and a true multiparty democracy flower. But let's be honest, that's probably not going to happen. I'd love to see the NPP gain support and really challenge the DPP without splitting the liberal vote and handing victories to the KMT - but I'm not sure about either.

At the local and legislative level we can vote for these Third Force parties, but who do we vote for at the presidential level when the DPP has gone down the tubes, and the KMT is already in the gutter?

What I fear is going to happen is this. Tsai will win a second term because presidents here generally do. Ma wasn't punished for being a terrible president. Tsai won't be punished for being a weak one who seems to have betrayed the people she campaigned to win. She'll muddle along just like she is doing in this term, things won't get better, the DPP will continue to suck, and the KMT will start seeming "not that bad" in comparison.

Of course, they are so much worse. But that's not how I think the electorate, sick of 8 years of DPP bullshit, will see it. They'll see it as a "change", and will be willing to give the Chinese princelings another go-'round.

This doesn't mean that Taiwan will suddenly swing pro-China. I don't see that happening again. The conditions for Taiwanese identity to remain strong and even grow are still there. I just see a lot of light blue and green people who aren't as politically attached to "Taiwanese identity" decide that they can preserve their support for it while still voting blue. You know, just like they did when they voted for Ma. You know, deciding that their love for Taiwan can exist under a KMT leader, or that civil society will keep that leader in check. They may forget what happened the last time they thought that.

And in 2024, blammo. We'll be back to the same old bullshit from the KMT.

We thought it couldn't happen in the US, that the Republicans were dead, and yet look what happened. It can happen here too, even if the KMT's core ideology is dead (one major difference: the Republicans' core ideology only seemed dead).

Yay.

The DPP can do better and needs to do better, but I think it's clear that they won't. What's worse, for now they're impossible to punish. Nobody has our backs, and there's no way right now to force them to. This is what happens in two-party systems: no matter their origins, both sides slowly morph into a giant douche fighting a turd sandwich for your votes. 

The NPP also needs to do better - this could be their moment, and they have captured it to some extent - Hsu Yong-ming is my new hero - but they need to really grab this dragon and ride it. Get those labor votes and get them now. Do it while the KMT is still in shambles. Don't let those apolitical votes turn light blue again. They need to hold it together and get those votes right now so that some of their younger leaders can gain experience to assume the mantle before the party's momentum withers and their base goes with it.

But - Hsu's filibustering aside - if that were happening we'd see bigger turnouts for these protests, and we're not. We're not seeing enough public calls to action from the NPP - we're seeing Freddy Lim talking about how "useless" the old Tibetan and Mongolian Affairs Committee was (which may be true, but I don't know that he's asked Tibetan refugees, perhaps, what they think of it?). We've got Huang Kuo-chang worried that he's going to be unseated in a few days. We've got former Sunflowers trying to encourage people to turn out, but no big names in youth activism really leading the charge （to be fair, some can't right now). We've got the DPP shouting "your Sunflower movement has collapsed!" and the Third Force not responding in a way that's proving them wrong.

Hsu Yong-ming can't do it alone, but I just don't see the sort of rallying that we need. We need another 400,000 people to go downtown, sit their asses down at Jingfu Gate and tell the DPP what's fucking what, and it's not happening.

Seriously, it feels like 2013 up in here.

I know these things need to evolve naturally, and maybe it'll be a slow burn until the big blowout, but hey, I'm waiting. In any case, what's waiting for us at the other end of that blowout? In 2014 there was a clear path forward: kick out the KMT. Hell, we chanted it in the streets: 國民黨不倒，台灣不會好. What now? 民進黨不行，國民黨再贏?

The dragon seems to be passing the NPP and Third Force right by.

Come on, guys.

Marriage equality is coming - so why are people still upset?

This isn't a rhetorical question, nor is it meant to imply that those who are unhappy at the seemingly slow pace of the Tsai administration on making marriage equality a reality should not be. It's a sincere question, and worth diving into.

First, a backgrounder: on May 24th, Taiwan's judiciary ruled that, as the Constitution of the Republic of China guaranteed equality for all citizens, that this must include marriage for all citizens, and therefore marriage equality must be allowed in Taiwan. However, instead of this ruling taking immediate effect, the court gave the government 2 years to enact a law addressing this, or amend the civil code. If they do not, after the two years are up (so, May 24 2019) the civil code will simply be interpreted to include both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.

The ruling was handed down six months ago, and so far the government has not taken action. A marriage equality bill was not included in legislation deemed a 'priority' by the Legislative Yuan in their current session, although newly-appointed Premier Watermelon William Lai has said that the a marriage equality bill will be filed by the end of the year and has vowed to "realize" same-sex marriage in Taiwan.

None of this should matter, in theory. The court has spoken and the legislators and Tsai could sit around with their thumbs up their butts and the result would be the same - if they don't act we get marriage equality anyway. In 18 months no less - not that long in the grand scheme of politics.

In fact, Frozen Garlic made the argument - and I largely agree - that the DPP is actually on our side when it comes to marriage equality (scroll down to find the relevant information in that link). They know that passing a civil code amendment is politically infeasible given that a large portion of their support are older southern pro-independence social conservative sore losers who know they've lost but don't want the civil code changed nonetheless. They also know that passing a law papering over the civil code won't please pro-equality activists who want to see a more fundamental change.

In fact, it's notable that the DPP legislators who are openly pro-marriage equality are almost entirely party list. Elected ones? Not so much.

So what is the DPP to do, considering these opposing forces and desire to stay in power? Nothing at all, perhaps, allowing the interpretation of the civil code to change while neither having to anger activists by passing an imperfect law, nor pissing off their more conservative supporters by proactively amending the code.

Thinking this way, you might even think they're on our side, and they might well be.

And yet, tensions are still running high and people are still unhappy with the government's lack of movement on the issue. Why? In less than 2 years they get what they want regardless.

There are a few reasons.

The first is that 18 months is a long time if the lack of equality affects you directly. People get sick and die in that time, and being married or not matters in terms of visitation, medical decisions and inheritances. or have life changes for which marriage matters to consider (for example, being offered a job abroad and wanting to bring their same-sex partner, but only being allowed to bring a spouse). I have one friend residing in Taiwan who recently married in the US, and is hoping to get his husband a marriage visa and residence permit. That is not possible until marriage equality is realized. That's quite a few visa runs at a not-insignificant expense. I have quite a bit of empathy for those whose lives are on hold despite the court ruling that Taiwan is a country that promises equality, because the government is not acting to implement the ruling. It sucks to be told "you have to wait for your basic human rights", even for just 18 months, and not even be sure at the end of that time what rights you will gain.

It stings even more to think that the reason why is because, if you are gay, some of your fellow countrymen do not fully support your equality, and the DPP is pandering to that. Their votes matter more than your humanity. It's politically pragmatic and therefore explicable - Tsai is their representative too, after all - and yet not necessarily forgivable if your life is directly affected by such political calculus. This is an idealistic take, and yet I have empathy. It's simply not persuasive to point out that this is what's happened: that's what loses progressive votes; it doesn't win them.

Another reason is simple worry over how "same-sex marriage" will shake out in reality. Note that I specifically did not say "marriage equality" here: if the government passes a law, LGBT Taiwanese are justifiably worried that the law will legalize same-sex marriage, but not necessarily grant equality. Same-sex marriage might well not be considered to include some of the benefits associated with opposite-sex marriage: the right to adopt and to fertility treatments/artificial insemination (currently not allowed for 'unmarried women', which same-sex female couples still technically are) are chief among these potential issues, but there are others.

However, similar questions will be raised if nothing is done by the 2-year deadline. If the civil code is simply interpreted to include same-sex marriage, how is that then interpreted in all specific details, including adoption, medical emergencies, inheritance, fertility treatment and other spousal rights?

This is understandably causing a lot of stress in the LGBT community, who can't be sure which option is better, as neither is ideal. Neither is an absolute guarantee not just of "same-sex marriage", but of full equality. There is worry that if social momentum pushing for marriage equality does not build again, that opponents will gain ground and full equality won't be realizable. These opponents are already going after legislators who support marriage equality as well as focusing on bogus, bigoted and frankly sexist "gender education" efforts in schools.

There is no clear solution here - if conservative blowback ensures that a proactive civil code amendment is not forthcoming, then there is nothing to do but stress out over which outcome might be worse.

There is also the sense that Tsai is, to put it bluntly, a coward or "people pleaser".

I don't necessarily agree with this, or rather, if she is a coward, this isn't the reason why (the nonsense regarding labor protections, however, is a different story).

I also don't see her as a people pleaser, given how many people she has actively displeased with her non-committal stance on marriage equality. She must be aware how many young progressives and LGBT Taiwanese are angry with her over what looks like more waffles than an Eggo factory. She and her party have likely concluded that it doesn't matter - it will happen anyway, the young progressives have no better alternative, and it's more important not to anger the southern conservatives.

However, I see the reasoning behind such vitriol.

If she is a coward on marriage equality, it's because the court ruling allowed her to be. She doesn't have to take a stand, because marriage equality will happen even if she takes none. This has given so many LGBT Taiwanese and other pro-equality activists a deeper sense of discomfort that she was given an escape hatch, a way out of having to make a tough decision, and so they doubt her.

If it really came to it, would she fight for us? If she had to? Or would she choose her more conservative voters over us, and over what's right?

We don't know, but given her muted response to LGBT activists between her inauguration and the May 24th ruling, I can't say with confidence that she would. Of course that makes those whose lives are affected by the wait for marriage equality nervous about her administration.

In fact, the lack of meaningful affirmative support for marriage equality - despite its being all but assured by the courts - is a part of the problem. Tsai (and the DPP) are not going to win the LGBT vote this way: "sure we sort of backed down on issues that affect you, but vote for us because the KMT is worse!" is simply not a winning message. Whether or not this is fair almost doesn't matter: it doesn't win votes. It's a stinker of a message, thoroughly unpersuasive.

Although the conservatives the DPP has to play to are perhaps more problematic than the moderates the Democrats tried to woo in 2016, they are making the same mistake: they're hoping a "sorry we didn't stand up for you more strongly but hey, the other guy is worse" message will win progressives in 2020. It didn't in the US in 2016 and it won't in Taiwan in 2020. Nor should it - the choice to play to your more conservative supporters may be politically calculated, but it does (and should) come with consequences.

Finally, I can imagine that many who threw their support behind her feel manipulated. Remember that during the campaign she came out as personally in favor of marriage equality, but never actually made that an official platform of the DPP or her campaign. That gave her the ability, technically, to then not push forward with it after her inauguration. After all, she never actually promised to.

However, she gave the strong impression that she not only wanted to, but would do so. To be let down on a technicality feels like manipulation to win young progressive votes, and to some extent it is. She must have known that we had faith in her and believed she would fight for us despite never making any concrete promises. Therefore, neither she nor any political observers can be surprised when we express disappointment at, if not "backtracking", her lack of responsiveness since taking office.

I do think Tsai is the best choice for 2020 (well, if she can quit throwing labor under the bus that is), and she is certainly better than another KMT princeling. If I could vote, I would vote for her. However, if I were gay, I am not so sure I could say that. I would feel too betrayed, too manipulated, too disappointed. If I were a gay Taiwanese voter, I am not sure there is a major party I could support at all.

In the end, I don't know what the way forward is. I want marriage equality to be realized in Taiwan before mid-2019. We can and should do better by those whose lives are directly affected by the current lack of rights. I want true equality, not simply same-sex marriage. I don't know how to best realize that, and perhaps the DPP's likely calculation is correct: allowing the civil code to simply be interpreted to allow same-sex couples to wed is the best way forward for all. Perhaps it will be easier to fight battles for full, true equality if we don't have to fight to amend an imperfect law, but rather for the civil code interpretation to include that equality.

Or perhaps it really would be too much of a mess to wait until 2019 and an imperfect law now is better than none at all. I don't know.

Perhaps we need better communication from the DPP - some assurance that they are, in fact, on our side and have decided that this is the best way to help us get what we want. I can understand how nervous LGBT people in Taiwan must be absent a strong affirmation of support from the ruling party.

This is not impossible: if they really do believe that waiting for the civil code interpretation to change is to the advantage of LGBT people in Taiwan, there is a good argument to be made there that could potentially help them retain the support of young progressives. Why aren't they making it? I want them to win in 2020, so I want them to communicate better.

They need a better message, a more persuasive one. I want them to create this message and it is frustrating that they are not doing so.

All I ask is that we continue to remember that, as we debate this issue from the safety of our relative privilege, that there are people whose real lives are affected by this, right now, across Taiwan.

We may not agree with their reasons for being upset, and we may not feel that way ourselves, but we need to remember that they are upset, and there is some justification for this. It may be hard to imagine that this is a stressful time for Taiwan's LGBT citizens and residents, given our recent victories. Yet it is. Remember that, despite marriage equality (or at least "same sex marriage") coming no matter what thanks to the courts, that LGBT people are waiting to see exactly how much "equality" the government will decide they get. Tempers are running high, but that's understandable. I'd be upset too.

...but he's right about the watermelon

I like...black...suits and I cannot lie

Cue the amusingly cheeky - although not terribly important - comments from Lin Fei-fan about how "the DPP could win the mayoral election [in Tainan] even if it runs a watermelon as its candidate."

And cue the horrified screams and gasps from the pan-green camp, who called these comments "contemptuous and humiliating".

Cue "netizens", whoever they are (aren't they just people on the Internet, that is to say, almost all Taiwanese people?) who then called Lin a "cucumber" (delicate and fragile).

Look, yo, whatever. This isn't important. After Brendan commented on Lin Chuan stepping down and Lai Ching-de apparently taking his place that "the real story here is the desperate search through Tainan's fruit markets trying to find a suitable watermelon to replace Lai", he also said "honestly, of all the things that were said even at that event alone the watermelon comment was maybe 47th down on the list of importance" and he's right.

But, for the record, Lin is right too.

Don't get me wrong: the comment was probably a bad idea. It's a jab at the establishment - always fun, I enjoy that myself on a regular basis but I'm not a public figure - which, while not wrong, offered very little pay-off for a lot of ire. It would have been better in terms of political 'face' not to have made it, or to have said it a different way. One doesn't always agitate for change by taking shots at the people in charge (although sometimes this is necessary). You also have to have your own message.

And, honestly, this is not a comment that will do him any favors politically.

But he's right.

While not equating the DPP with the KMT, entrenched political legacies where one party is consistently the "lesser of two evils" (or at least, the lesser of two evils that has a chance of being elected) or can always, without fail, count on the support of a given constituency is a legacy that is probably not doing as well as it could by the people.

When politicians are too comfortable, it's easy to grow conservative and 'safe'. It's easy not to agitate for change that has the potential to temporarily upset the gameboard, or even upend it. It's easy to start making comments that one "feels an affinity for China" (while supporting Taiwanese independence) because one, I dunno, hopes to be president someday, not out of any real sincerity (and I highly doubt those comments were sincere. He wants to be president, period.) It's easy to continue to reward patronage networks. It's harder to advocate for things Taiwan really needs, like a truer version of multiparty democracy and a stronger stance on marriage equality. It's easy to start talking about nonsense like "boss rights" and offer shitty meaningless little increases in a too-low minimum wage rather than fight for real changes that could improve working conditions in Taiwan, and to stall on matters of human rights like marriage equality until your problem is effectively solved for you when you aren't afraid that voters will hold you accountable for your doughiness.

It's easy to grow soft, complacent, conservative and oriented towards protecting one's fiefdom rather than fighting for what's right. It's easy to always take the safest route when inspiring voters isn't necessary, because they'll vote for you anyway. They don't even have to like you very much, so you don't have to work hard beyond protecting what's yours

I do fear that's exactly what the DPP is becoming.

This isn't to spit on their history. I have said and do maintain that, while I don't care for the DPP much these days, that at least they were on the right side of history. There may be a lot to criticize about them now, but they are the ones who fought for the democracy we now enjoy. In many cases, they are the very people who were beaten, tortured and went to jail. On the other side you have a party of the former dictatorship, who, while not exactly proud of having once been fascists, aren't too apologetic about it either and who unfairly take credit for benevolently bestowing democracy upon a populace they seem to (unfairly) disdain as simpletons. Of course, in that framework, one party comes out better than the other.

It would have been smarter, however, to acknowledge that whatever doughballs they are now, that the activists of today stand on their shoulders, and they in turn stand on the shoulders of everyone who fought and died between 1947 and 1996 (picking that somewhat arbitrarily as the date of full democratization). They too stand on the shoulders of fighters from earlier eras. I have no doubt that Lin understands this, and that voters are not stupid so much as choosing the less bad of two problematic options, but perhaps it doesn't come across in a throwaway quip about watermelons.

That they started out as firebrands doesn't mean, however, that they are forever immune to becoming an entrenched network of status quo pushers themselves.

It is entirely right, if they become this - and I fear they have - to criticize them for it.

It's not "contemptuous" to point out the real truth that Taiwanese voters tend to be conservative - not in the American sense, but in the "safe and non-threatening" sense, even if it means stalling real, needed, important change. It's just...true. I'm not even sure one could call it "contemptuous" to speak one's truth about one's own voting district. Lin is from Tainan - if he thinks the DPP is too entrenched and voters there too conservative, that's his right. He's not an outsider mockingly poking Tainan voters with a stick - he is a Tainan voter.

I mean, I absolutely loathe my congressman, John "face you just wanna punch" Faso. He even looks like a fake person, like a stock photo of generic white men plus a jar of mayonnaise in front of a cliched yearbook background of an American flag. I am not convinced he's not a bot. Trust me, his "politics" (by "politics" I mean "being the biggest ball of dripping mucus this side of the Hudson") are no better. If you voted for him, that doesn't mean you're a bad person but it does mean your vote was bad and you should feel bad.

I am a constituent, unfortunately, in this bum-bungler's district. The only good news is that I get to have whatever opinion of him I want, because he represents me.

Lin is less profane than I am, and probably is a little happier with the DPP than I am with the sack of crap invented by a third-rate AI spewing conservative dogwhistle garbage that pretends to be a real human person "representing" me in Congress, but the point is the same: you have every right to think whatever you want about the people who represent you and the electorate who put them there. If he's being "contemptuous", then he's also contemptuous of himself. If I think John Faso is the actual literal embodiment of The Machine, and therefore having elected it means we've voted for being subsumed by said Machine, that's my right. If I am contemptuous, it's also of myself.

This is where I'd also support Lin's remarks: how does it make one "fragile" to make such comments? He had to know that saying something like this would draw this kind of ire, and yet he did it anyway. Not for political benefit - if anything, to his political detriment - but simply because he believed his words. The fragile "cucumber" thing to do is to always say the safest things, to keep quiet when there is less benefit than drawback no matter how right you are, to never rock the boat, to allow "not quite right" to be good enough because it'd bring too much trouble down on your head to point out that something's not quite right.

That's the cucumber approach. Speaking out is what shows mettle.

I'm not saying that every politician should live in constant fear of losing their job. There's something to be said for having the full faith of the electorate to execute your vision without being terrified that any bold moves will see you kicked out of power.

But a little fear - for accountability's sake, so they can remember who gave them those jobs to begin with and who is really the boss when it comes to democracy - is maybe not such a bad thing. Ma Ying-jiu forgot who put him in office - he forgot whose employee he was (ours) - and he paid the price in popularity, legacy and the performance of his party in the next election. It's not such a bad thing to occasionally be reminded that if you don't serve the people who really run the country, from whom your power flows, that that could be you.

If you could quite literally run a watermelon and win (just as I am pretty sure John Faso is a composite photo that people voted for and not a real person, and yet he won), where's the accountability? Where's the reminder that you are the appointed steward, and not the CEO who can do whatever he likes because his job is assured?

And now I've spent entirely too much time on this completely unimportant thing, and I am going to go to bed.

1992 Whiplash

image from here

I should start by saying that literally nothing qualifies me to comment on this other than the fact that I majored in International Affairs in college, which is about as relevant as someone who studied psychology in undergrad and then became a Starbucks barista trying to diagnose your clinical depression.

But, it was very interesting to read all the different takes on Tsai's deliberately vague and careful language surrounding the "1992 Consensus" (scare quotes intentional because it's not a real thing).

The English translation of what she said was this:

We will also work to maintain the existing mechanisms for dialogue and communication across the Taiwan Strait. In 1992, the two institutions representing each side across the Strait (SEF & ARATS), through communication and negotiations, arrived at various joint acknowledgements and understandings.

So she explicitly acknowledges that a meeting took place, which is fine because it did. She acknowledges that there was a spirit of communication and attempts to find common ground, which I suppose there was. She said there were some "joint acknowledgements and understandings" but declines to define what those were. At no point did she say there was a "1992 consensus" that, according to contemporary rhetoric, involves both sides agreeing that there is "one China" with "different interpretations" of what that means.

To hear New Bloom talk of it you'd think she'd acknowledged the 1992 consensus (which, in my view, she didn't) - they frame it as her acknowledging it "in all but name", and that her vague words "can be understood to mean acceptance of the 1992 consensus or would allow her some wiggle room".

I can't say I agree with this - to acknowledge it in all but name would mean to say - far more clearly than she did - what those "various joint acknowledgements and understandings" were, and to tack that on to what people say the 1992 Consensus was. She didn't do that.

On the other side, South China Morning Post talks about how she has pissed off Beijing by "failing to acknowledge" the 1992 Consensus. This makes sense, New Bloom is on the far left, and SCMP, while not a mouthpiece of Beijing, sometimes acts like one and is, shall we say, not that far too the left. Not by my standards anyway. Of course they'd report their interpretation of the same words differently.

You could say it makes no difference - "stopping short of acknowledging the 1992 consensus" and "acknowledging the 1992 consensus in all but name" sure do sound the same. In the real world I suppose they are - or at least they are so close to the same thing that you could swap one for the other.

But statecraft is not the real world - it's a world where entire oceans of meaning are found between sentences, in single words or words not said. Tsai was absolutely right to be as careful as she was, and showing her diplomatic and negotiating chops in good form.

So, in my totally non-expert opinion, she did not acknowledge the 1992 Consensus, but she did accomplish something far more deft.

By mentioning that the two sides met in the spirit of finding common ground is a way of coming close to what Beijing wants to hear without actually caving in to them, making it harder to criticize her (her words were intentionally vague), allowing her to say she called for peace and acknowledged history in her speech even as Beijing was denied the exact thing they were pressuring her for.

To which, if Beijing complains, Tsai can say "well I did acknowledge that 'various agreements were reached' in 1992!", and if Beijing says "but you didn't SAY 1992 Consensus" makes Beijing, not her, look bad. Like big warmongering babies for being angry that she - a democratically elected leader not technically under their control - did not stick to the exact script they laid out for her.

At the same time it allows her to say "hey, I didn't cave - I didn't give them the exact words they wanted" to her base, and even Taiwanese not in her base who still have pride in Taiwan and don't want their elected leaders to parrot words Beijing throws at them.

What I don't get - because again I am not an expert, I just majored in it - is why no major news outlet is reading it this way, talking about it or showing any sort of understanding that this is what she did, this is why she did it, this is the brilliant trick she managed with the crappy hand she was dealt, and it was very intentional, and very smart. Either they say she acknowledged it or they say she didn't, often defaulting to their own biases.

This is statecraft. I don't always agree with it (I'm a burning radical at heart) but this really is how it works. It does make a difference. As much as the crazy lefties like me - whose heart would rather follow Chen Shui-bian-style China-taunting even as her mind knows that's a bad idea, who would rather occupy the legislature (hi Sunflowers!) than work within it* - and the other activists and progressives and strong independence supporters would like it to be otherwise, this is how the game is played and if you play it well, you just might win.

Tsai plays it very, very well. I may not agree with all of her choices, and I may be generally suspicious of the 'establishment' as a whole, but I'll give her a chance.

*now you see why, despite preparing for a career in the foreign service, I did not go down that path. Would have been a terrible idea for me.

Blue Screen

Before I get started with this post: I'm in the US again, this time for my dad. In the months since I spent the winter and part of the spring in my hometown following the passing of my mother, my dad was found to have several blockages around his heart and recently underwent a quintuple (yes, you read that right - quintuple) bypass. So, I'm here taking care of him for some time. I might blog more as I won't be inundated with work, or I might blog less if he needs more intensive care. I also lost my grandmother last month, but knowing I'd have to come back for this surgery, was not able to return.

So...life's not great. 2015 is shaping up to be one of those "it'll be over soon" years.

Anyway. So that's what's up with me. Moving on...

With the many news stories circulating noting that Taiwan is set to elect its first female president, seeing as one of the things I try to cover with this blog is women's issues in Taiwan, I keep thinking that I should write something about it. It's a pretty big deal, right?

But I keep avoiding it. Not wanting to. I didn't know why, but after thinking about it, now I think I do.

Taiwan is set to elect its first female president, but that's because Tsai Ying-wen will probably win and she is female. Not because the two presidential candidates are female and one of them will win...

...because, to me, just listening to opponent Hung Hsiu-chu's ideas and speeches, while I suppose she is a biologically female human, I really just see her as a poorly programmed malfunctioning China-Bot. I don't take her seriously as a woman because I don't take her seriously as a human.

I know that sounds terrible and I shouldn't characterize political figures I disagree with so cruelly, I feel like she kind of deserves it. This isn't mild "well I disagree with her position but respect her as a policymaker / diplomat / leader". This is like George W. Bush level disgust (I also consider Bush to be more of a simplistic child's toy with buggy parts than an actual human male). Maybe worse, because at least Hung is intelligent enough to realize how off-kilter she sounds.

So...just as in 2000 the US didn't nominate two men but rather one man and one Cabbage Patch doll (or perhaps weird animal-brained humanoid on par with Bebop or Rocksteady from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles), can I say that "Taiwan has nominated two female candidates"? No...Taiwan has nominated one female candidate and one outdated, blue-screening computer full of Chinese malware. Ask Hung questions of any great length or detail and she would quite possibly fail the Turing test.

I guess I should be happy that prominent women in politics are coming in more flavors now in Taiwan - it's not just the DPP woman against the Establishment KMT Man as usual - but I like my bad guys to be intelligent enough to be worth counterpointing or disagreeing with, and I have a hard time disagreeing intelligently with the mechanical product of Chinese hackers.

"We might actually lose, let's finally do a few good things"

Just a quickie here as I'm pretty busy this week.

Anyone ever notice that when the KMT has the presidency or is reasonably confident of keeping it, that they basically sit around with their thumbs up their butts, not doing jack squat for the country for years - or when they do do something, it's for their own benefit and tends to hurt, rather than be good for, Taiwan? (ECFA, I'm looking at you).

I mean, every party does this to some extent - if you think you're going to lose, you rush to pass politically popular or at least progressive legislation in the hopes that that will turn the tide somewhat before you lose your chance to take credit for it. Before that point, it's far more likely you'll milk the system to your benefit rather than do much good. It just feels more pronounced with the KMT.

In the very late '90s, there was a rush to pass a lot of women's rights legislation - if my memory serves, laws regarding abortion, divorce (though those were only changed to a degree), gender discrimination etc. were passed by the Lee administration...

...just before the KMT lost to Chen Shui-bian.

And now, we have the Ministry of the Interior starting programs to help the children of the children of Southeast Asian immigrants learn their native tongues, and to cap the work week at 40 hours. Both politically popular, or at least progressive (though as I've said, the work week cap lacks teeth and has some problematic language vis-a-vis gender roles), changes that don't remind people how disastrous the KMT has been in dealing with economic stagnation and Taiwan's relationship with China. All things designed to make the KMT look good. I'm sure they'll be trotted out in some sort of bluesplaining speech about how the KMT is the only choice for Taiwan because they know how to rule, or something.

It's not that these things aren't good, just as the women's rights legislation of the late 1990s was good. Helping children of immigrants know and understand their culture is a positive thing and can help Taiwan become a bit less insular vis-a-vis the foreign labor it needs.

It's just...it feels so politically stage-managed to all happen just as we start hearing the first twinges of election season. And I know, it seems like I can't just let the KMT have a good thing, or do a good thing.

And you're right. I can't. If they'd been passing good legislation like this - even better if it had teeth - throughout their reign as Supreme Lords of Cross-Strait Relations (because to hell what the people of Taiwan think once you're elected, apparently), and really worked to do something about, or even showed that they cared about, domestic issues such as treatment of immigrant labor, the over-examining of students, wage stagnation, marriage equality and women's issues, I might be kinder in my assessment.

But I'm not willing to wait 8 years a pop for changes to be made (or 16 years in this case). Do it throughout your presidency, or your gestures are worthless, GTFO, buh-bye.

Dear China: Taiwan's just not that into you.

LOL.

Yes, it was a rejection of Beijing, shown in the only way voters were able at this point. Because people are finally waking up to see how hard the Chinese government blows.

Dear China: Taiwan doesn't want to join you. They just don't. Some people do, but they're in the minority. Most...don't. Ever. Not. Ever. Evvveerrrr. They aren't going to give up on independence. THEY'RE JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU. They want to trade with you as long as you respect them, but they will never agree to be a part of your country.

If they ever did - and they didn't, really, not most of them, not in their hearts - when they saw how you shat on Hong Kong, they backed that right up. 

Also, your governance is bad and you should feel bad.

You suck, Chinese government.

At the same time, what's up with the media always inserting China where it doesn't belong in stories about Taiwan? In the case of the most recent election, voter rejection of China is worthy of a side note in a story, but I'm not down with every story that should ostensibly be about Taiwan...being made about China. And it's the news media's fault: they're just not interested in stories about Taiwan that are actually about Taiwan. They are also bad and they should feel bad.

Here are a few reasons why they suck, culled from my Facebook feed because I see no reason to re-write what I've already written:

1.) My main complaint is that too many articles and posts make China the *center* of the story. It's perfectly possible to report the REAL story (i.e. what's happening in Taiwan, not China's reaction to it), with the China thing as asideshow or sidebar to that. You could even mention it in the title ("Taiwan Kicks Out Ruling Party in Regional Elections, China Not Happy") without making it the whole story ("China Reacts As Pro-China Party Decimated In Elections") (and I'm using decimate in the modern sense so shhh). That way media outlets get the clicks, but articles don't denigrate Taiwan, forcing it to be a sideshow to its own damn story.

2.) Other smaller countries don't get this treatment. I don't see why Taiwan always has to pass through the China needle when countries of similar size/population (S. Korea, Australia) or smaller population (New Zealand) don't. China has put Taiwan in a unique situation but that doesn't mean it alone should get singled out for the "you can't even have your own stories about yourself" treatment. 

3.) You know that what the media reports does shape worldviews. If the media always/only reports on Taiwan in relation to China, the world will believe that China's claim on Taiwan might actually be legitimate. It's misleading in a quiet, unprovable, but still critical way. If you report on Taiwan as Taiwan, then people get the (more accurate) impression that China's claim on it is not accurate and it is a sovereign state. This is why I complained so hard about the "China and Taiwan split in 1949" nonsense, because it leads casual readers to believe that Taiwan and China were united at all times prior to 1949 and that's just not true. Well, reporting on Taiwan with China as the central story makes China's reactions seem more important than they are. The whole point of this election's results is that the Taiwanese are showing they don't give a damn what China thinks, so it's kind of a slap in the face to then only report on what China thinks. 

4.) Since when is "good reporting" the same as "getting more clicks"? I want good reporting. I don't give a shit about how many clicks a story gets. I'm not a reporter, I know, but I'm not going to give up my desire for good reporting because "clicks". Fuck that noise. If an outlet doesn't give me good reporting, I won't read it and I won't respect it. Isn't aim #1 to provide good journalism? And if it's not, what's the point? 

Running for office wearing a "fuck the government" t-shirt? I'll vote for you.

It's a little hard to see in this photo, but I got these free tissues the other day advertising the candidacy of Ouyang Ruilian (歐陽瑞蓮) for city council, and she's totally wearing a black Sunflower-protest inspired "FUCK THE GOVERNMENT" t-shirt (if I remember correctly the Chinese on the t-shirts was not as in-your face as the English). Anyone who has the balls to run for a seat in the government while wearing a "fuck the government" t-shirt basically has my vote. I like a little cynicism in my candidates.

Or at least, would have my vote if I could vote. Probably. If I actually could vote I might first make sure she stood for the initiatives and policies I support. They're right there on the back of the tissues. She's against ECFA, she's against using school curricula to "brainwash" (her words) students (if you haven't heard about the uproar over changing the national educational curriculum to imply that Taiwan has more historic links to China and fewer to Japan than it actually does, you should look into it). She's broadly aligned with "the youth". So far I like her.

Either way I'd like to see pretty much any party that is not pan-blue aligned get more representation in Taipei and Taiwan generally, so I'd probably vote for her anyway.

Not that she's going to get that many votes. City councilmembers don't need many and  more than one can be elected per region, so who knows? She may be in.

The front of the ad is just as good:



Two things I love about this:

1.) She's going for a very specific demographic - the Sunflower-supporting kids and grandkids of old dark-blue 'waishengren' (Nationalists who came to Taiwan from China in '49). You can tell by the t-shirt on the other side coupled with the photo of her at a protest, along with the "我是外省二代／支持台灣獨立": "I'm second-generation waishengren/I support Taiwan independence". There's no way any of the older folks in Da'an and Wenshan would vote for her - they regularly tug the lever for the KMT, who seem to consider it a failure if one of their candidates in this part of the city gets less than 60% of the vote. But their kids...hmm. Their kids just might, especially given events earlier this year. She's aiming to be the voice of the children of the old KMT guard who think their parents' and grandparents' politics are crusty and outdated. (Sort of like how one of my grandmas likes to say 'we are a CONSERVATIVE FAMILY' and yet you will never catch me voting for a modern-day Republican).

2.) I love that she's dressed this way too. It shows how different Taiwanese and American political discourse is. When Tsai Ying-wen was on the campaign trail we got this (scroll down), where she's backed by a pink billboard and hearts. Not to mention two candidates in that post who posed with adorable animals, including a fluffy dog in a baby stroller. The Taiwan equivalent of kissing babies?

Anyway, I couldn't imagine a female candidate, especially a younger one, wearing this in an ad or on the trail. She'd be laughed at as 'not serious' or have all sorts of sexist jokes ("Candidate Barbie!") lobbed at her. Both parties get it in the USA - Sarah Palin deserved to get made fun of for being a total freakin' idiot, but instead we all analyzed her clothes for some reason. And with Hillary it just won't stop. If she dresses too manly, she's 'not a real woman' and if she dresses too womanly, she's 'not serious'. Nevermind the problems inherent in assuming that 'womanly' = 'not serious' and that the default is 'manly' for anything anyone takes seriously or, ahem, pays a fair salary for.

In Taiwan, you can wear a pink jacket and frilly blouse, and while you may not get a lot of votes because you're a TSU candidate in two districts that are a perennial lock-up for the KMT, you won't lose those votes because you dared to wear pink, or ruffles.

In that way, I fear more for the future of the USA vis-a-vis women's rights than Taiwan. In Taiwan you can wear frilly pink clothes and win an election (it doesn't hurt to have a bobblehead cartoon of yourself giving a peace sign while you hold an adorable kitten, either). In the USA, I'm not convinced you could.

That said, in other news, this:



Jesus Christ.

I have nothing more to say about it.

And just when I was feeling pretty good about the gender gap in Taiwan...dammit.

"First Female President of Taiwan"

I know I should have written about this earlier but it kind of got caught in the undertow of the Chinese New Year wave:

Tsai's "First Female President of Taiwan" Theme Fails to Win Support

I could interpret this in two ways.

The pessimistic view: people care so little for women's rights in Taiwan these days that having a female president (or even strong contender) isn't something that really matters to them; they're happy with the status quo of "boring guy in a suit" (and Ma fits that  perfectly - talk about a plastic model of a boring guy in a suit) and the patriarchy as it is now; sexism is still very much alive in Taiwan (which is true, but it's still better than most Asian countries).

The optimistic view: people take it for granted in Taiwan, unlike in the US, that a woman could be president; her gender is not an issue because they'd be willing to vote for a man or a woman regardless; as such they found the theme uninteresting because, well, "duh"; in this way Taiwan is more progressive on gender issues than not only the rest of Asia but also the USA, where sexism against female political candidates runs rampant (I didn't really see that much in Taiwan).

For my own sanity I'm taking the optimistic view, but the pessimistic one warrants strong consideration.

Reasonability

Another positive thing I'd like to say about the elections is how reasonable it all was. I don't just mean the subdued campaigns - nary a screaming siren political truck drove my by house and posters and flags were sedate and much fewer in number than in previous elections - but Taiwan as a whole.

Here is my dark secret: I have friends who are blue (shhh, don't tell anyone)*. I disagree quite strongly with them.  With most, we just don't talk about it. I have my strong beliefs, they have theirs, and I'll express mine but stop short of insisting that others must agree (even if I think they should, because of course I believe I'm right - I wouldn't have a belief if I didn't think it was the right one, but they could say the same).

With some - one especially - well, we do talk about it. We disagree strongly. Well, in some ways not so strongly: the main difference is that she's focused on what the election means for the economy and stock market, and while I agree that's important, my ideological beliefs about Taiwan as a nation and my feelings of under the surface rage at any political group that has not  apologized for mass murders it engaged in trump that (plus, I don't really think the KMT is all that great for the economy, but that's a different debate). As an Armenian whose ancestors survived a genocide that the Turkish government still has not apologized for, that's not something I can forgive or ignore in any group. You could say it's in my blood.

What matters, though, is not that we disagree. It's that we disagree, and we can talk about it - even heatedly, but never insultingly - and we can still be friends.

I can't do that back home. I'm actually not against "conservatives" in the classic small-government, fiscally conservative sense, although I'm not convinced of their economic arguments. The position itself does not offend me and I am happy to discuss it. Although I disagree with libertarian economic platforms, again the idea doesn't offend me.

What I can't condone is what a vote for the Republicans also stands for: a vote for homophobia, to some extent for racism (although that's an issue that is hidden deep inside Republican economic platforms and is too intangible to prove fundamentally without wading into a political correctness landmine), and for restriction of women's rights. A vote for basing American laws on "Christian"** morals that not every American shares. I certainly don't. I feel this way to such an extent that I really can't have a civil discussion about these issues with a non-moderate Republican. I can't respect someone who endorses homophobia or says "America is a Christian nation" when it isn't, or who uses perfectly good words such as "liberal", "socialist" and "feminist" as insults. I just can't. Those views are abhorrent to me. Even if a person votes Republican based on economic principles, they're still casting a vote for the party that holds all the disgusting views above.***

To the same extent, I can't condone what a vote for the KMT stands for ("it's OK to commit crimes against humanity and not apologize for them!"). The difference is that in Taiwan, I can talk about it. People can talk about it...mostly. I see more green-blue dialogue than Republican-Democrat. I see more green-blue friendships and relationships (I couldn't possibly date a Republican back home, but I know plenty of green-leaning Taiwanese who have blue-leaning partners). I see people mostly getting along. The flashpoints are the exceptions, and society as a whole can mostly deal with them.

And I can talk about this. As someone who is fairly deep green, to someone who is fairly deep blue. We know not to insult each other: I may dislike the KMT, but I don't dislike her. I may not respect Ma Ying-jiu, but I do respect her. It can't, and shouldn't, ever be personal (although the White Terror thing really hits a nerve with me due to aforementioned family history).

The difference, I believe, is the fact that the US has increasingly veered towards social issues in its civil discourse, even though polls show that people care about the economy and vote on that rather than social issues. I do vote based on social issues, but I do so as a reasonably successful and very lucky, privileged American who had most of the right breaks. I don't know if I'd feel the same way if I'd grown up at the ass end of the system. Deep down we Democrats and those Republicans hate each other because it's all about worldviews and morals - gay rights, women's rights, religion, what makes a real family, when does life begin and how is it that all men are created equal but don't have an equal shot at life?

There is some of that in KMT-DPP political discourse but it doesn't cut quite so deeply. A Taiwanese feminist activist could vote for either party and feel she did the right thing (although I personally feel that the DPP is a better bet for women). A proponent of gay rights could do the same. Religion doesn't even come into it, as I believe is right. The debates aren't about these issues. The one social issue that gets play is national identity, and even that seems to have reached a "let's agree to disagree" sort of detente.

A very intelligent friend of mine said that Taiwan is much better now: "four years ago you would hear something like 外省豬回中國 or 無知南部人****. It's better this time indeed." And I agree - it is better. Things are improving. The two sides ran a reasonably civilized campaign - as much as can be expected from politics - and the overall outcome was one of a mature society, not two angry sides growling at each other. I admire that.

These days, if you throw out either of the above insults you'll get shushed, not cheered on. You can state your views but few will encourage you to just hurl invective with no underlying message. Which is as it should be.

Of course, there are always outliers. There are always a few shouters rather than talkers, in any society. The difference is that in America they seem to have taken over our discourse, whereas in Taiwan they're being told to shoosh so people can get on with the business of electing a leader. They can say what they want, but few will them seriously. Even within the campaign - attacks against Tsai Ying-wen didn't seem to stick ("she's not really Hakka" got shouted down, so did "she's a lesbian!") and while people joke about Ma Ying-jiu, generally the underlying message is that he's weak and ineffective.

So I look at my home country and I see "elitist", "liberal", "lamestream media", "feminist", "socialist", "terrorist" all used as though they carry the same register. Since when is a "liberal" the same as a "terrorist"? Since a bunch of angry people decided it was. I hear personal insults, attacks, people who believe things like 'if you don't see it my way, then you're just an idiot'.  This is not shushed. This is not put in its proper place at the extreme ends. This is what makes it on TV or gets talked about online. And this is sad.

Back to Taiwan, and sure, people disagree strongly. Someone might think another person's opinion is wrong, but the insults don't come. It would be rare to actually believe that because someone disagrees with you, that they're an idiot. I disagree strongly with my dark blue friend, but she is certainly not an idiot.

I don't feel we Americans grant each other the same respect.

I admire that in Taiwan, people seem to be able to see the difference between a belief and a whole person.

I wish I saw more of that back home. Then again, I also wish the beliefs we were debating weren't ones that are tied so strongly to social values. I wish we could all agree that gay people are people too and deserve equal rights, or that women are, indeed, able to make decisions about their bodies, and get on with the business of debating the economy and foreign policy.

In this way, I could say that America has a lot to learn from Taiwan.



*I am joking, but you knew that

**As someone who is not Christian but was raised Protestant, I don't actually think that a lot of what these guys say is "Christian" really is at all. I don't think Jesus would have condoned banning gay marriage or contraception, or possibly even abortion, and definitely not tax breaks on the wealthy while the poor went without. But, that's what they say. A different debate, again.

***I know, I know, I should respect all views but I just can't do that when someone makes up a bunch of lies about the "sacred bond of marriage" to disguise homophobia or thinks he knows better than I do what I should do with my own body. NO.

**** translation: "Foreign-born (Chinese) pigs go back to China" and "Ignorant southerners".

My Admiration for Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文)

Even though I'm still bitterly disappointed in the election results, I do have a few positive things to say.

First, I can't say enough how much I appreciate the fact that Tsai Ying-wen was a viable female candidate, especially in Asia. Different countries in Asia have had female leaders before: Indira Gandhi, Megawati Sukarnoputri, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Corazon Aquino, Benazir Bhutto...Golda Meir for those count Israel as Asia (and it technically is - east of the Bosphorus and all - but by that definition I'm part Asian. Haha. Hahaha. Ha. But really, both Armenia and Hatay are east of the Bosphorus, too. Does that really mean I have Asian ancestry? I don't feel it does). I could scour the complete Interwebz for the complete list but I think I've made my point.                    

Of that list, very few female Presidents/Prime Ministers made it to that position on their own accomplishments alone. Would Benazir Bhutto have become Prime Minister if her father hadn't been Zulfikar Bhutto? How about Indira Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru? There's Cory Aquino - who rose higher than her assassinated husband but was lifted there in part by his martyrdom and Megawati, the daughter of Sukarno. Macapagal-Arroyo is the daughter of a former President of the Philippines. That leaves Meir, with debatable geography.

What this means is that Tsai Ying-wen is, more or less, the first female politician in Asia who had a viable shot at a nation's highest office and got their without any family connections, history or prior family name recognition.

And that is HUGE. I don't think many people realize how huge it really is. Even in the USA I can't come up with one woman who ever really had a shot at the presidency and had no husband or father-based name recognition that got her there (basically, Hillary Clinton is the only one who had the shot, and she had the Clinton Brand Name going. Palin and Bachmann never had a chance). In all of modern Asian history, she's the one who got there on her own merits, skill and accomplishments.      

I admire that very deeply, and it's one of the reasons why I not only supported the DPP in this election, but specifically supported her. 

I don't mean to imply that Gandhi, Bhutto, Macapagal-Arroyo, Sukarnoputri etc. were not also accomplished and strong women (although I  have never been a big fan of Indira Gandhi). Even coming from a family of great political pedigree, these were smart, accomplished women of mettle who contributed their own strength to their political careers. Tsai is special because she is a smart, accomplished woman of mettle who didn't have the benefit of that political pedigree. And we almost elected her anyway. On a continent (and in a world) rife with sexism. 

Step by step, I guess.  I do believe in my lifetime that we'll see an Asian female leader elected just because of what she's done and not because of who she's related or married to.

I also admire Taiwan for this: sure, she didn't win, but she had a real shot. She almost did win. The Taiwanese people, by and large, voted based on merits and personal preferences and the fact that Tsai is female didn't seem to factor into it much. The one time it became a national issue and she was accused of being a lesbian simply because she has never married (thanks, Shih Ming-de), the entire "issue" was shouted down by the vast majority of Taiwanese as "ridiculous", "who cares", "not our business", "that's not an issue". Compare that to the American Democratic primaries of 2008 when Hillary had sexist epithets slung at her left and right, with a media happy to join the morass. She got called a "bitch" for things she did that every male politician does - the difference being that the men get away with it. If she showed emotion she was just a "too soft" woman, if she had iron balls she "too masculine/threatening".

That didn't happen with Tsai. Although there is a lot of room to improve on women's equality in Taiwan, this really speaks volumes.

I admire that she could choose pink for a campaign color and not be mocked for it. I admire that her campaign posters often said "台灣第1女總統", rather than playing down her gender as I feared she might do - which many prominent female politicians engage in because they think they must. I admire that when her gender was brought up, it was in a positive light (see: Lee Teng-hui's endorsement).

I am sure there are still some misogynists out there who didn't vote for her simply because she is female, and some who have convinced themselves that they don't like her for other reasons, but their dislike of her is subconsciously rooted in sexism, but I am proud to say that my observation is that these people, in Taiwan, are in the great minority. I don't think I can say that about my own country, the "leader of the free world".  People may not have voted for Tsai because they didn't like / trust her or her party, but I do feel - as far as I've noticed - that very few didn't vote for her based solely on her gender (although I do wonder about that surprisingly low 55% pro-DPP cote count in Pingdong). It just didn't seem to be an issue. 

For that, I *heart* Taiwan. It makes me feel that this country truly is a good progressive model for Asia. There is still a long way to go - it has not quite yet achieved true gender egalitarianism - but it seems to be one step ahead of the rest of Asia when it comes to women's issues. You would not have seen this in Japan, Korea or China.  I'm not sure if a woman not from a famous political family could make this happen in India or SE Asia, either. Asia...listen up. Taiwan is where you need to be looking. You can learn a lot from this election just in terms of women's issues. 

And next time, we'll win. Not just the DPP, but we'll get a female president. Someday. It will happen. It has to. We're roughly half the population, after all.

I went to a KMT rally, and it made me feel dirty inside

So I "attended", if you can call it that, a KMT rally tonight. I don't have pictures - my apologies, but I still don't have a working camera, even an iPod or phone camera. Mine traveled up to the great Canon In The Sky to meet its maker last week, and my good one was stolen in Turkey.

I didn't do it because I like the KMT - you all know how much I hope they lose the upcoming election and how strongly I dislike them in general - but because it was quite literally right outside my apartment. Two days before an election if you look outside and see people joining an ever bigger cheering crowd backed by blasting music, if you're interested in politics you follow them. So I did.  

Despite having no pictures I thought I'd recap here.

First, I couldn't help but giggle at the following things:

- Ma Ying-jiu, again trying and failing to speak Taiwanese. I may not be a speaker of Taiwanese but I've been exposed to it enough that know bad Taiwanese when I hear it.

- The giant bouncy castle - I don't know what else to call it -  with "馬到成功" across the top. I have to admit that was quite clever - it means "instant success", and it's President Ma, and the rally was where we live in our apartment complex and I'm not sure I could have resisted that one either. But a bouncy castle? For serious? You're the president of a nation with a population that rivals Australia and you gave a speech under a freakin' bouncy castle? Pull that  **** in the US and you might get elected hall monitor of your nursery school but that's about it.

- The sound kept cutting out. I hope it was the evil eye I was sending his way, mwahahahaha!

- Ma Ying-jiu being introduced and escorted offstage by the music from Star Wars. Wow. Just...wow. Dear President Ma: you didn't destroy the Death Star. You haven't even managed to get China off Taiwan's back. You are not a Jedi. The Taiwanese know that these are, in fact, the droids they are looking for. I sincerely hope the Force is not with you. You don't get to walk onstage to the music from Star Wars. 

- I kept giving him and his KMT cronies dirty looks and sending bad "lose lose lose" vibes their way. Just as I started doing that, the sound started cutting out. Maybe the Force is with me! Maybe I just changed history with the power of my mind!* :) 

- They did that rally call and response thing. It went something like this:

KMT Cronies: 馬英九

Crowd: 當選！**

Me, quietly:（下台）

KMT Cronies: 國民黨

Crowd: 加油!

Me, quietly: (幹你娘)

KMT Cronies: 馬總統

Crowd: 加油!

Me, quietly: (去死)

KMT Cronies: 馬到

Crowd: 成功!

Me, quietly: 口甲賽 (read that in Taiwanese)

KMT Cronies: 投給

Crowd: 二號

Me, quietly: (一號)

I couldn't really be loud about it, seeing as I live in the deepest of the deep blue parts of one of the deepest blue districts in Taipei.  Those old veterans might've killed me. I'm not even sure if I'm using hyperbole.

*I am joking, but if you didn't realize that, the problem's with you, not me.

** I think this is what they said but it wasn't clear - the Star Wars music hadn't ended yet

2012 Election Posters, Such As They Are

This is one of my favorites - a bus wrap encouraging people to buy their train tickets to go home and vote.

This year's election...well, it's hard to tell there's an election on, not to mention a presidential election. Where are the trucks blaring music? The posters? The fliers? The campaign ads? The candidates shaking hands and giving you tchotchkes? In the last election - which wasn't even a presidential election, I got keychains, pens, notepads, a magnet and so many tissues that, well, I'm still blowing my nose on 張慶忠.

Generally speaking I've seen more campaigning from the DPP than the KMT, which surprises me - not that the DPP seems to be doing more (at least that's my impression - I can't back it up with stats) but that Ma's hold on the presidency is so tenuous that it almost seems lackadaisical, even arrogant, of the KMT not to be stepping it up. I thought it was because I live in Da'an, where a KMT majority is assured, but no, I've left Da'an and not seen much different.      

I'm not lamenting the trucks - they were annoying - but I kind of liked the long lines of drummers pulled on a towing apparatus going down the street and the free stuff. I used to draw devil's horns on the Ma Ying-jiu notepads.

In the past two days there has been a ramping up of campaigning, but still not nearly at the level I'd expect. Tsai has a fighting chance; why not fight harder for it? Ma's incumbency is precarious;  why not fight to preserve it?

My favorite ad so far has been Tsai's bus campaign to encourage people to buy tickets home to go vote. I've discussed before the fact that the lack of absentee balloting seems to hurt the DPP more, as more of them are registered to vote in southern Taiwan but work in Taipei/northern Taiwan than the other way around. Without absentee balloting, fewer people who need to travel to vote will do so.

I can't seem to catch the "Taiwan Geographic" bus ads I've seen - I'd love to feature one here if I could get a shot fast enough. My camera's dead so I have to borrow Brendan's iPod whenever I want to take photos.

I also regret not taking a photo of the election posters in Burmese when I had the chance a few weeks ago. It doesn't look like I'll get another chance to go to Nanshijiao and do that.

Finally, on Hengyang Road near Cha For Tea/Bo'ai Road Intersection/Shanghai Dispensary is a GINORMOUS poster of good ol' Mr. Soong. I mean this thing is huge. It covers a third of a building. If you're eating in Cha For Tea and looking out the window - which is how I noticed it -  you're basically staring at him. His pores are each as big as your face, or at least they would be if he weren't airbrused.

Other than that, here are a few posters and other things I've come across, with a bit of commentary for some.

This is one of the first references in campaign materials I've seen to Tsai being the first female president (if you look at the sticker, it says "Taiwan's First Female President".

Smiling George makes me smile. 

I can't imagine a politician getting away with posters that say "Smiling ________" on them back home. Smiling Mitt? Only if his circuitry misfired. Smiling Barack? Sounds dumb. Smiling Newt Gingrich? Eeeeeeewww.

I hope Smiling George wins. I like him just for this.

A book for sale at "The Taiwan Store"

 A book in Chinese full of political cartoons sympathetic to Tsai and the DPP. I think there's a pun or idiomatic joke in there somewhere regarding Ma's "horse foot"...I mean other than the obvious surname joke. My Chinese isn't good enough to figure out if I'm right, though.

This is one of the few pedestrian bridges in Taipei covered in election posters. I suspect in the next few days we'll see more. So far so good, except...

Really? Does he not realize that this is a little too close to "Heil Hitler"? I mean it's not, but it's just...too...close.

Wait, are these guys Marxists? If my memory is correct, Communist parties are now legal in Taiwan (please, please correct me if I'm wrong. I'll edit this in that case), although that was not always the case in the democracy's infancy. I know 主義 as meaning either "doctrine" (which is far too vague) or "Marxist". Either way their sign is not very exciting.

Let's all go buy more khakis together!

 Seriously, Ma Ying-jiu wearing his mother's pants.

Please vote for me, please please please! Pretty please? Vote for me? Please?

This is some graffiti - possibly far too old to be a reaction to the election, on a mountain in Zhonghe near Yuantong temple. It says "The KMT and the Communists Get Together to Conquer Taiwan". The person who wrote it is probably against that, but according to Joseph the writing is not entirely clear.

Up close, this one says "Taiwan Next, Zhonghe Best" with a view of urban Taipei County...err, Xinbei City.

This kind of Star Wars-esque poster saying "Go Taiwan" (台灣加油, once used almost exclusively by DPP candidates) is on many buses.

Mr. Happy Face wears a Taiwan Next sweatshirt at the Qingshan Wang birthday celebration.