Has the KMT actually gone insane? (Unfortunately not -- they're just the same old evil)

國破山河在

I have a hankering to learn the oud. 

I don't know if it has to be an oud exactly. I'd be perfectly happy with a saz or a kanun. I might even be persuaded in the general direction of a kamancha.

This desire flickers persistently, blinking in and out of my sightline -- rather like my ability to write anything at all, or an unsatisfying situationship where one person repeatedly fails to commit, but also won't stop texting "u up" at the most inconvenient times. It is resistant to any attempt at reasoning: you're in Taiwan, who the fuck is going to teach you the oud, you dumb idiot? Why don't you learn the erhu, guzhang or pipa? 

No, it has to be the oud. Or perhaps the kanun.

When I eventually get my heart's (current) wish, which is to spend three months working remotely from Yerevan in the mornings and practicing Armenian every afternoon, I will budget sufficient funds to buy one of these instruments and take lessons. I doubt I'll ever be any good, but I'll have taken a step. 

All this to say, I've had trouble paying attention to life in general, and to current affairs in particular. I'm still writing -- for pay, these days -- but otherwise I now require anxiety medication almost daily just to function. We're talking basic things: eating, sleeping, showering, deciding to do a thing and then successfully doing that thing. I'm not depressed, I'm just deeply anxious about, y'know, the usual. World War III, China annexing Taiwan, some of my friends having their existence outlawed in the country of my birth, a return to misogyny and fascism. 

Maybe if I can get my act together and save up enough money to do this Armenia thing, I'll feel perhaps an iota better. I'd like to do this before Armenia becomes yet another war zone as Russia ceases to pull the reins on Azerbaijan.

But it's important, I think, to one-foot-in-front-of-the-other it through the occasional blog post, even if it's in my own voice and a bit rambly. I can't or won't write like a journalist; that's on account of who I am as a person.

So let's talk about another thing making me anxious, the KMFT (the 國民-fucking-黨). 

If you're reading this, you probably don't need to be reminded about the KMFT's fuckshittery since winning a plurality in the legislature. But let's take a quick review, so we may gasp at the full horror of who they always were.

If you already know the story, you can skip the recap. If you don't, allow me to make the case that the KMFT isn't insane -- their actions over the past few years are too deliberate and line up with too much of their post-democratization history. They're not even off-kilter. They're actually just evil. 

Before the protests even kicked off, they were meeting with Chinese officials and sending classified information to the Chinese government.

Then, they tried to enact a garbage barge of legislation -- essentially giving themselves the authority of not just the legislature, but the judiciary and Control Yuan as well. I do mean judiciary: their attempt to make it possible to call anyone in for questioning, official, military or civilian, and then punish them with fines for "lying", not giving full information or refusing to answer is a kind of judicial power. After all, who decides what's a lie? 

This was so blatantly unconstitutional that the constitutional court very quickly overturned most of it. 

There's more to what they passed than this, but the whole "we can question anyone and punish them if we, not a judge, decide they are lying" thing will come up again. 

It wasn't hard to predict that their next target would be the constitutional court itself. Around Christmas, they rejected all of President Lai's judicial nominees, assuring that the constitutional court would not have a full complement of judges. This was a direct rebuttal to the court -- which, again, upholds the constitution -- telling the legislature that they had been a bunch of very naughty children.

Sex pest and convicted criminal Fu Kun-chi (傅崐萁), who is somehow also a KMFT legislator, said the court "castrated" the legislature. Yes, that's what should happen when you try to give yourself more or less unchecked power not granted in your own country's constitution. I only wish this phrasing described a more literal outcome for Fu. 

Protests started up again when the legislature later passed another dookie of questionable legislation, the scariest among these being a change to the proceedings of the constitutional court (the one that had just told them they weren't allowed to give themselves the largest share of power in the government), rendering said court non-functional.

To quote Kharis Templeman: 

The second [of these pieces of legislation] required the Constitutional Court to have a 2/3 quorum to hear constitutional cases and imposed a supermajority threshold to invalidate a law....

Four days later, the same opposition majority in the legislature voted down all seven of President Lai’s nominees to the Constitutional Court, leaving it with only eight justices and unable to meet the new quorum requirement for hearing a case. It is now effectively paralyzed [emphasis mine]. The DPP government has nevertheless requested that the court meet and rule anyway on whether the amendments to the Constitutional Court Act are themselves unconstitutional. This increasingly destructive partisan political conflict has put Taiwan on the brink of a constitutional crisis with no obvious way to resolve it. 

Templeman says this is the "brink" of a constitutional crisis. I would say that if the court is unable to rule on a law that paralyzes it, then we're already in one. 

Since then, the KMFT and their buddies, the TPP (led by a duo consisting of an alleged criminal narcissist and a boring workaday narcissist) have slashed budgets, including proposals that would all but obliterate defense spending and funding for government bodies that deal with the one country that necessitates Taiwan having a large defense budget in the first place.

One of these freezes includes half of the budget for building and maintaining Taiwan's defensive submarine program. You know, the same submarine program that KMFT legislator and overt traitor Ma Wen-chun (馬文君) undermined by selling its secrets to China. 

We can deduce from this not only that the KMFT wants to cripple Taiwan's ability to defend itself, but also that the indigenous submarine program is critical -- and China knows it. In fact, I wonder who exactly is telling the KMFT to target Taiwan's indigenous submarine development budget?

Oh wait no nevermind, I don't wonder. It's China. 

The KMFT calls all this "eliminating waste" or stopping "fat cats", or worse -- claiming the DPP is using the budget to fund "cyberwarriors" and "political manipulation".

But not only is the Taiwanese government actually rather efficient with its budget (much of the time anyway), but the biggest cuts seem to be to defense -- the exact thing Taiwan needs more of. I suppose one could point out specific inefficiencies in Taiwan's defense spending: are we really buying the weapons we need? Are we developing the right capabilities? Slashing critical defense funding, however, is not the way to fix this.

Besides, if we look at a timeline of when public opinion began to change compared to when the DPP has historically taken power, we find the shifts precede their successes. The DPP mostly didn't win those first elections in 1996, but public opinion shifted. Lee Teng-hui turned out not to be the politician the KMFT thought he was, but Chen Shui-bian didn't have access to government budgets to "manipulate" his election win in 2000. The country turned toward the Sunflowers and against Ma while the DPP were out of power, unable to use government budgets to manipulate anything. 

You know who did once use government budgets for political propaganda, back when it had absolute power? The KMFT. 

As all this was going on, one of my least favorite legislators, who unfortunately represents my district, announced the KMFT would propose an "honesty" act. 

The fuck is an "honesty act"? Sounds kinda fascist? 

Glad you asked. From the Taipei Times: 

“The opposition parties strive to safeguard people’s wallets. How can we paralyze the government with just a 3 percent budget cut?” he [Lo Chih-chiang / 羅智強] said, adding that the government was spreading rumors and that officials were lying, because they would not be penalized.

 

It's not a 3% budget cut, and even if it were, you're crippling the country's defenses. That's a big deal. It's part of freedom of expression, a basic human right, to analyze a series of events or set of data and come to different conclusions. To say that only the KMFT's version of events is 'true' and the DPP should be penalized essentially for disagreeing is -- well, it sounds like something Trump or Musk would say, and it's also the sort of thing fascist governments do.

The KMFT is aware of this, seeing as they used to run a fascist dictatorship. They're DARVO kings and have a bevy of experience! 

“Although Constitutional justices protect the right of governmental officials to lie at the legislature, they do not ensure their right to lie about political affairs. We are exploring the possibility of proposing the legislation of the honest government act and lying offenses for officials in the next legislative session. Let the public decide whether the officials are spreading rumors and lying,” Lo said.

The constitutional court did not say the officials have the "right to lie at the legislature". That itself could be considered a lie, although I doubt Lo would agree with me. They said that the legislature doesn't have the right to determine what is or isn't a lie, because they are not judges. If an official's potential or alleged lie, or any other illegal action, is worthy of an investigation by the judiciary or Control Yuan, they can do so.

As for "they do not ensure their right to lie about political affairs", what the everloving hell does that mean? I can't even really parse this statement, because there's no interpretation I can come up with that isn't utter nonsense. Either one lies in a provable way, which may or may not be criminal, or one doesn't, and it's for the courts to decide where appropriate. How does anything being "about political affairs" have any semantic value? 

"Lying offenses for officials" is just another way of re-introducing the exact same legislation the constitutional court already said was unconstitutional. There is no meaningful difference between this and what the KMFT and their lil puppets wanted to force through before they were hit with the spray bottle and told "no". 

"Let the public decide whether the officials are spreading rumors and lying" -- Lo, my dude, do you truly not understand what a "court" is? Courts do this, not "the public". This seems like something a populist would say, or rather, an elite shitbag trying to sound like a populist, which is just a lot of words to describe a fascist. That may sound like a leap, but fascists often use populist rhetoric to further their ultimate goals.

You're not original, Lo Chih-chiang, and you're not smart (I mean it -- your resume is impressive if one admires the sort of work you do, but you are really, really not smart). If you were, you'd hide it better. Or perhaps you should be punished for "lying", as you're lying about the DPP's use of the budget for "political manipulation". 

Maybe you think, Mr. Lo, that you don't have to hide it: a large number of Taiwanese voters appear to support crippling the constitutional court. The public seems less divided on cutting the defense budget -- they generally oppose it -- but it's not clear-cut.

I don't know if they quite understand that this creates the literal definition of a constitutional crisis, or they don't realize that ensuring the court can't meet quorum was intentional. Perhaps it seems 'truthy' that a minority of judges shouldn't be able to render rulings.

During last year's protests, someone I know asked sincerely what was wrong with the legislation that sparked all the anger. They wanted to know why the legislature shouldn't be allowed to question anyone it wanted and punish liars -- it seemed reasonable to them, and on its face, government questioning and punishments for providing false information sound like good things. We had a long talk about issues of legislative overreach and who, exactly, determines what is or isn't a lie. 

This highly-intelligent and otherwise thoughtful person had gotten all of their news from blue-leaning sources and discussions with blue-leaning family. All that intentionality, all those questions of checks and balances or ontological questions regarding the existence objective truth and whether humans are able to perceive it? Never considered. 

This sort of short-circuited thinking is exactly what the KMFT are banking on. Divide and confuse the people, then claim they're on your side and you're on theirs. Pretend the system is not as it is -- with a judiciary and a set of procedures for determining facts and accountability -- but as you'd like it to be. Then, with everyone flustered and exhausted, do whatever the fuck you want, or rather, whatever your CCP overlords order. Act utterly insane, claiming to love a country you are so obviously trying to undermine for selfish, stupid reasons, while convincing a large portion of the electorate that the crises you are creating are in fact saving the country. 

Sound familiar, or familiar-ish? Yeah, thought so. 

As a friend once observed, someone (or several someones) in the KMFT regularly study Republican tactics to figure out how to win elections when their fundamental party principles aren't all that popular among voters, and neither are many of their specific policy objectives. 

You might still be asking why -- why do this to Taiwan? The KMFT has never cared about Taiwan qua Taiwan; they don't tend to hide their belief that they believe the warmth of their white sun shines from China. But aren't the ROC and its constitution supposed to be things they do love -- and which exist only in Taiwan? Even if we accept that many KMFT officials are essentially CCP agents if not outright spies (hi Ma Wen-jun) because they believe it will benefit them personally, wouldn't they at least try to bring about closer relations while upholding the internal workings of the constitution? 

I mean, if they really believed that their ideals -- well, their one ideal, that Taiwan is ultimately a part of China -- were superior to the DPP's, or that the public could be persuaded of this, they would campaign on those ideals. If they really believed that government funds were being used for DPP "political manipulation", they wouldn't be cutting the submarine budget. 

So, okay, that does seem pretty insane. But it's not. 

The KMFT probably does still ultimately believe in a Chinese identity, for themselves (fine, whatever) and for Taiwan, regardless of what the people think (bite me). Somewhere deep down, they would prefer to keep the ROC around. They'd love their dream of re-taking the motherland to be made reality. 

But they're neither stupid nor crazy -- well, some of them are, but not all. They also know that's just not going to happen, so they'll do the other thing the KMFT has always coveted: grab as much power and money for themselves as they possibly can, and screw everyone else. China knows this, and is feeding them general guidelines, and in some cases perhaps specific instructions, on how to implode Taiwanese rule of law and defense capability with the promise of some sort of payday. 

That payday will never come, of course, but they're not smart enough to realize it. Best case, they'll get Real Seymour Skinnered, which in China probably means a trashy villa in some podunk town in, I dunno, Qinghai, with no real power and 'friendly visits' for tea every few years. 

KMT: "But we're heroes! We gave you Taiwan!"

CCP: "And we salute you for it. Now don't come back!"

To be effective CCP minions, they need to cut the constitutional court off at the knees, all while claiming to uphold the constitution. Then they can pass whatever horseshit they want. If this sounds a bit like Republicans blocking Obama's nominees so they could pack the court with sympathizers and then push through whatever they want, well -- again, studying Republican tactics seems to be someone's full-time job down at the KMFT.

I don't think they want a war, either. Not because they care about Taiwan or Taiwanese people, but because it would both adversely affect whatever money and power they hope to squeeze out of the whole situation, and be against the CCP's wishes. China doesn't want a war -- they want Taiwan to be so demoralized, so certain they can't win, that they just give up. 

No, it's worse than that. They don't want Taiwan to simply believe it can't win -- they want it to actually be true, to ensure Taiwan won't try. Annexation without "bloodshed" (at least at first) -- it won't be peace, but they'll call it that.

I told a friend recently that my worry has grown dark and weedy of late, more foreboding than my usual garden-variety dislike of the KMFT. With recalls harder than ever, a bunch of CCP agents and their DUI-hire goons running the legislature, elections years away and the US so unstable that international support is far from guaranteed, China's move to take Taiwan doesn't feel like it could happen in the next four years -- I truly feel that it will. 

And then I, along with all my friends here, will either be refugees, or dead. 

This friend has a habit of knowing things, and almost always being right about Taiwanese politics. If anything, they're overly conservative: they gave the TPP two years to implode before the Dueling Narcissists wrecked the party's momentum through either rampant corruption or vicious infighting. It took...what, ten months? 

When I said I wasn't just worried in the usual way but genuinely, bone-crushingly scared, all they could say in response was, and I quote: "Same."

You want dark? I've recently been thinking about how my core friends in Taiwan, foreigners and locals alike, will survive as a tribe among the less-radioactive ruins. We have a leader-type (that's me), a permaculture guy, a textile expert, an inter-tribal negotiator fluent in Mandarin, Taiwanese and English who makes restaurant aunties bend to her wishes, a defense fellow, a woman who knows about cars and a man who knows about gadgets. We might survive for a bit.

I'd rather continue to live a nice life in Da'an with my husband, cats and whiskey collection under Legislator Miao Po-ya, but that feels like a dream too far, thanks in no small part to my actual stump-brained legislator.

Maybe that's why I yearn for the oud. Sure, I'm reasonably good at music (except singing, don't ever ask me to sing). I enjoy the arts. I could learn some amazing Armenian folk songs and improve my language ability at the same time. 

But really, as I just want to be anywhere, mentally, but here. 

Throw Eggs At SCOTUS

I was writing this whole other thing, but you know what? Fuck it. I'm infuriated. Enraged. Engorged with burning hatred. 

And as an American woman living in Taiwan, I feel both uniquely lucky and uniquely helpless. 

When the Supreme Court Republicans of the United States (SCROTUS) decided that I, as an American citizen with a uterus, do not have a constitutional right to basic humanity and bodily autonomy by eviscerating Roe v. Wade, my first thought was that my greatest desire on earth is to visit the United States, buy a dozen eggs, leave them out in the hot sun for a day or two, and then chuck them at the people who think it's okay for me to be treated like an incubator rather than a fucking human being.

I am not sure those herpes sores on the taint of America understand that they deserve to get hit with eggs, but I assure you they do. 

I'm generally not a fan of the sort of violence that grievously harms people (though some people, I won't cry for). But protest violence -- non-lethal projectiles such as eggs? -- that's fair game. Apparently doing this can result in a charge of vandalism, which I don't have a problem with. I'm not the sort to aim for the face, and anyhow, rotten egg seems like it'd be a tough smell to get out of judge's robes. The only bigger stench is the foetid pit where their souls should be. It's hard to top that, but rotten eggs are a good start. 

To put it another way, I'm not going to put a lightbulb on a chair where Clarence Thomas is about to sit. I'm not about that. But if, say, he happened to sit on a lightbulb and get glass shards in his asshole, I wouldn't exactly feel bad about it. 

Both fortunately and unfortunately, however, I'm not in the United States. As an American, I do care about the fact that the country of my birth is going straight down the shitter, however. I care about all of the American women who might, depending on what state they live in and how much money they have, be treated as more chattel than human. I remember being young and broke in America; it's not easy to travel to another state for a medical procedure if you don't have any money. I never felt that particular hardship, but I could barely afford to see a doctor locally. The pain of being broke with an unwanted pregnancy, far from a facility to get the care you need, is surely horrific. 

I've done the math, however, and having just come back from the USA, I don't really have the resources to fly back immediately to go protest. This adds a good pour of gasoline to what is already an inferno of incandescent rage. There is so little I can do besides donate to appropriate organizations. Will there be a protest in Taipei? Probably. If there isn't, maybe I'll organize one. (Frankly the only reason I'm not doing so right now is that I'm not sure what good it would do. It'd get in the local news and maybe I'd earn a few pats on the back, but that's not very meaningful.) 

It just feels so...helpless. And hopeless. 

And yet, I keep wondering if I have a right to such despondency. I live in Taiwan where abortion access isn't perfect, but at least it exists. Though proposed changes to the law don't seem to be going anywhere, the trend is toward making it more accessible, not less.

I don't live in any state where I might lose my basic rights, because I don't live in any state at all. I care about the women in the US who are facing a terrifying future, but the fact is, I'm not one of them. I'm not there. Do I have the right to feel helpless and hopeless when ultimately I still have the privilege of abortion access, which so many other American women suddenly lost yesterday?

The whole issue has now pushed me to confront the ways I'm still tied to the United States -- my  family, my passport, my home culture (as much as it might disgust me) -- and the fact that I can't really choose not to be. I've spent time in the US for family reasons before, and as long as I have close blood ties there, I might have to again. Even if I were about to renounce my citizenship, which I'm not, I can't just not be from the place I am from. 

But I can promise you I have thought about it. 

If there were any chance of my moving back there, ever, that has now evaporated. I already wasn't planning to, but now I actively refuse to consider it. Perhaps it's where I'm from, and perhaps I'm a citizen. But Taiwan is my home. If I ever have to leave Taiwan -- say, if China successfully invades and kicks me out -- I certainly won't return to the USA. 

But I will probably visit, and I still think we should throw some fucking eggs at fucking SCOTUS.

I’m also not interested in any talk about bipartisanship on Taiwan right now. It’s not that I don’t think it matters; rather, now is not the fucking time. If you were unaware that advocating for Taiwan as an American is disproportionately hard on Americans with specific anatomy, I hope now you are. I don’t care if Republicans also support Taiwan. I want nothing to do with them. I don’t care if you (the reader) and I agree on Taiwan issues, if you are anti-abortion. As of now, if you are anti-abortion, we are enemies. Period. 

Oh yeah, and if you voted for the guy who packed the court with these fuckhags, not only do I advise you not to read Lao Ren Cha -- it's not for you, and I don't want it to be for you -- but if I know you in person we are no longer on speaking terms. Even if I don't know you, we are enemies. I don't want to hear about "unity or "not judging others" or "finding common ground". I quite literally do not care. You didn't respect my humanity enough to not vote for that shitstained hemorrhoid, so I owe you nothing. Not kindness, not civility, not a single fucking word.

Why did China kick out Western journalists? Some whiskey-soaked theories

東方紅
肺炎升
中國出了個維尼熊

Yo I know I said a few years ago maybe that I was going to try to make this a classier publication, generally by keeping all my same ideas but expressing them less with less filthy language and less drinking overall.

But now THE PLAGUE TIMES are upon us, and I cannot be held to promises I made in the Before Times.

Let us not speak of the Before Times. 

So, anyway, the dudes in Zhongnanhai decided to just sort of randomly tell a bunch of Western journalists that they were being immediately expelled from China AND Hong Kong. I gather that the dudes didn't really consider if the Taiwan Provincial Authorities would allow them to set up bureaus there, as, oh wait, the Taiwan Provincial Authorities don't exist. Or they do exist, but the actual leaders don't, or they do, but they don't recognize that they are provincial authorities or...something.

Whatever.

Anyway, what I'm interested in is why. That's bad, because I have no idea.

So here are some random thoughts on what might be going on:


1.) That Zhongnanhai Limp Dick Energy

I mean, definitely those guys are too withered to have any real fun, so they sometimes have to pretend it's possible to feel excited again by concentrating their energy into being total dicks in the bad way, because they can't do anything in the good way. So they just wanted to flex (but not their dicks, as I said, those don't do much anymore) and chose...this. It could really be nothing more than that.


2.) The Xi Jinping Virus is still way worse in China and they don't want the world to know

Still got a crisis on your hands and don't want the world to know? People still dropping dead from a virus, the blame for which can be laid exactly at the feet of Xi Jinping and the CCP? Want to look like that's not happening, and you are recovering while the rest of the world is trapped in a pandemic of seemingly Biblical proportions? Well, if you control the media, that's great because you can just...do that. But you don't control the Western media (entirely) so you have to get those pesky real journalists out so that your fake PR agents who pose as journalists can publish the stories you want.

Bonus: you can then pretend to be the good guy by "donating" (selling) supplies and "sending experts" (who haven't helped your own country recover) and spin that as the world needing to be grateful to China for quite literally starting a pandemic.

Oh yeah, I think COVID19 is too purposefully euphemistic - not in terms of not offending "China", but in terms of not offending the CCP. But, I don't want to use terms that seem discriminatory towards Chinese people. But Xi Jinping? Fuck that guy. I think "CCP Virus" is also acceptable. Fuck them too.


3.) They're planning an invasion of Taiwan and don't want you to know

I mean, assuming the army isn't too sick, this would be the perfect time. Taiwan is focused on the Xi Jinping Virus. The world is too - the US is Taiwan's biggest ally (I mean real ally, not checkbook ally) and they are in no position at all to back up Taiwan when the second wave of troops comes.

But, be wary, ye traveler from the Before Times. Here be dragons. Have they recently decided that now would be the perfect time because they are recovering and the rest of the world is writhing in pandemic agony? Or are we really gonna tinfoil-hat this motherfucker and say they made that plan awhile ago, when it was clear the virus was going to get out of control?

I refuse to add crazy antenna to my tinfoil hat, and will not continue on this conspiracy theory train ride, although I admit it is scenic.


4.) Revenge

I mean...I guess. So, they expelled some Wall Street Journal reporters for no goddamn reason. Then the US started treating the Chinese PR agents (they are not really journalists) like...exactly what they are, and this is tit-for-tat for that? Seems pretty stupid, but okay.

I think this is the official reason - it's the lede in The Guardian piece - but the "official reason" is almost never the actual reason when dealing with the CCP.


5.) Some other bullshit

Have they realized that, allowed to spread unchecked, the Xi Jinping Virus is wiping out Uighurs in detention camps? Are they ensuring that that happens? Are they trying to get Europe on their side by having various nations "thank" them (for allowing the virus to get out of control?), but not the US which doesn't seem quite so willing to kiss the ring, causing a US/Europe/NATO rift that they can exploit? Forcible full takeover of Hong Kong coming soon?

Or what?

There's just so much bullshit to choose from.


6.) Really maybe just Limp Dick Energy

Or maybe I've had too much to drink and they're just sad, deflated old cumsacks who have wanted to do this for awhile because they hate people who try to report the actual truth because that means they can't fabricate it. They saw their chance to do something they've been desiring for awhile, and took it. It probably made them feel like Big Fancy Men.

Whatever.

I mean, that's probably it, but whatever.

I hope they all - all those CCP officials squashing their tiny little dusty sad nuts with their undercarriages on ugly old chairs in Zhongnanhai - get the Xi Jinping Virus.

Fuck them. 

Wan-wan: "That's creepy and you're not my mom!"

AAAAHHHH

Most people teach their kids about "stranger danger" - not to go off with people you don't know, or in a more modern sense, "here's how to spot situations that don't feel right".

It seems Taiwan, through its blossoming from a nascent sense of individual identity into a fully mature and independent nation, has learned this lesson well.






So when Haixia, a helmet-haired Chinese anchorwoman and Stern Aunt Who Is Spanking You For Your Own Good, spoke about China's candy "26 measures" using phrasing like "mother is calling you home", pretty much every Taiwanese who watched the video looked into her cold, dead eyes, got goosebumps (with that exact turn of phrase from at least one online commenter) and ran in the other direction. Like you would if you were a kid walking down the street and a guy in a windowless van slowed down to offer you a lollipop.

The creepiest moment was when she said "Wan-wan, come home" (灣灣回家吧), using a made-up and frankly condescending diminutive for Taiwan, in exactly the same tone of voice an abuser uses to try to manipulate their target when they think they can leverage whatever sentimentality exists in the relationship to pull them back into that void. 

I'm not the only one making memes of it - art by A Ray

Speaking of voids, the pan-blue media didn't seem to report on Haixia's Abuser Masquerading As Loving Mother act at all, as far as I can find. TVBS talked about the candy that is definitely spiked with roofies "26 Measures" with some utter bollocks about how "people disagree on what freedom and democracy mean", even referencing the so-called "Green Terror", but not the creepy "Mother" thing. That was about as long as I could stand to watch blue media because there's only so much waterboarding masquerading as "news" that I can take, so I'm not sorry that I didn't look any deeper into that inter-dimensional vortex.

On that side, only somewhat more reputable United Daily News (pan-blue) covered the story, and even they went with a straight report that independent legislator Hung Tzu-yung (洪慈庸) reacted by saying "Taiwan is already home."

In fact, the Taiwanese reaction in general was...not pleased (here's a summary in English). And why shouldn't they feel that way about essentially being nicknamed wayward children?

Given that this reaction was inevitable, who is the CCP trying to reach with Haixia's Creepy Mother spiel? Probably their own people, giving Chinese social media users a chance to watch, share and marvel at how benevolent their government is. It's not like many (or any) people in Taiwan seriously watch CCTV anyway. They don't really care about Taiwan's reaction. It wasn't really intended for Taiwan.

Art by nagee

But other moments caught my attention too: when she talked about how "Taiwan compatriots will be treated the same as Mainland compatriots", my first thought was utter terror and I gather plenty of Taiwanese had the same reaction. Being treated like a citizen by the Chinese government sounds absolutely horrifying. Who would want that? Do they really think they treat their own 'compatriots' well enough that Taiwanese would think "hey that looks great, sign me up for social credit and getting shot in the face for protesting!"?

This prompted Liberty Times to write about Haixia's soapbox whinge by running a picture of an Uighur detention camp and asking, "if you want Taiwan to 'come home', why don't you let [Xinjiang concentration camp detainees] go home first?" 

Of course, Taiwanese wouldn't have to worry about being sent to a Xinjiang detention camp - I'm sure they'll set up plenty of them in Taiwan once we 'come home'. After all, they'd treat Taiwanese 'just like' their own citizens, right?

Haixia went on to say that "we are sincere because we all have Chinese hearts" and "Taiwan's destiny is with the motherland", adding that "some people are not pragmatic and have been spreading strange rumors and slander - if they don't have a Chinese heart, how can they understand our sincerity?"

This part horrified and interested me in equal measure, but also clarified their true beliefs: that identity - Chinese identity in particular - is something that can be assigned and enforced, rather than something that is cultivated naturally through cultural and historical evolution. What it means can also be decided by them. If you are 'Chinese', you must agree. If you don't, either you are a traitor, or you were never Chinese and cannot understand why all Chinese do agree.

It won't work, of course. For it to be true, Taiwanese would have to agree that they are indeed Chinese, and buy into the notion of what it means to have a "Chinese heart". Clearly, they don't. Telling someone what their identity is never works in the long run anyway. Just look at...well, history.

It's also interesting that they're still trying to implicitly push this narrative that the people who "don't have a Chinese heart" are a minority of splittist troublemakers. If you read between the lines, what Haixia is saying only makes sense if the vast majority of Taiwanese agree that they are Chinese, in the sense that the CCP expects. Otherwise the majority of Taiwanese could be said to not have "Chinese hearts", which means of course they "can't understand" China, and if that's true, shouldn't China just give up on them as "not Chinese"?

It's kind of telling that they can't, or won't, give up on that line of reasoning. Not just because do admit the truth is to make it impossible for them to reasonably pursue their annexationist goals, but because it lays bare what's really going on: the CCP has never cared what the Taiwanese actually think in the first place, so it doesn't matter if it's decided for them. You know, kind of like they do with Chinese citizens. Equal treatment!

Finally, in the English media, Reuters noted that the CCP also promised to respect Taiwan's "way of life":

China will “fully respect” Taiwan’s way of life and social system once it has been “peacefully reunified”, as long as national security is protected, the ruling Communist Party said on Tuesday, in another overture to the self-ruled island.... 

“Under the premise of ensuring national sovereignty, security, and development interests, after peaceful reunification, the social system and way of life of Taiwan compatriots will be fully respected,” it said. 

“Private property, religious beliefs, and legitimate rights and interests of Taiwan compatriots will be fully protected.”

Note that among the things to be "respected", democracy is not listed, but property is. The CCP apparently would get to decide what aspects of Taiwan's way of life are "legitimate" - just as they get to decide both who is Chinese and what it means to be Chinese - and you can surely expect that any sort of non-approved belief or attempt at continued democracy or even basic freedom of speech would be construed a threat to "national security" and therefore "not legitimate". "Rights and interests" is too general a phrase both in Chinese and English to mean anything, other than what the CCP wants it to mean when it says those words.

Apparently, the CCP doesn't think that Taiwanese follow the news. If China respected the "way of life" of various groups of citizens, Hong Kong wouldn't be foggy with tear gas (but of course, they can't accept that Hong Kongers don't, by and large, support the CCP or their version of "Chineseness"). If they respected "religious beliefs", Xinjiang wouldn't be death camp central.

But then, do the Taiwanese they are trying to reach actually follow the news? They might, but the sources they read don't report the full extent of what's going on in Hong Kong or Xinjiang. Instead, it's a never-ending stream of Big Uncle Dirk interspersed with calling anyone who isn't KMT complicit in the "Green Terror". And China is aware of that.

By the way, if you ever get tired of the real lefties banging on about how capitalism is evil, remember this. Free markets may not be inherently evil, but if capital and power weren't intertwined, what reason would these political figures and media outlets have to keep their audiences mostly in the dark about the way China treats its own people? Is it because they have "Chinese hearts" or because they personally stand to profit? Hmm.

So, while the whole "Wan-wan, come home" thing was not actually meant to convince Taiwanese people that China is sincere and trustworthy, the "26 measures" do aim at Taiwanese who watch blue-leaning news, which is to say, fake news. The candy might actually look tempting if you've been conditioned not to fear the dude in the van. 

It has nothing to do with "Chinese hearts" and everything to do with candy.

Or, as Reuters put it:

China has not explained how Taiwan’s democracy may be allowed to continue if it takes control of the island.

Yeah, because it won't.

It won't be deemed "legitimate".

China's just hoping we don't notice that they never said otherwise. 

It's not the name, it's the helplessness

Not entirely accurate, but funny

Another day, another instance of the Chinese government being assparrots.

First, the Gap sells a really cool t-shirt that shows a map of China that doesn't include Taiwan (the picture above is a photoshopped joke version by a friend - the real one didn't include a Taiwan running away or the year 1949), and then apologizing for printing a map of China with "incorrect borders".

The borders are entirely correct (even in areas where I don't think they should be, such as Tibet and Xinjiang).

But, of course, selling t-shirts in China is more important than having a spine, and I can't even really bother to argue against that because it's about as useful as farting in a stiff breeze. T-shirts are going to matter more than values, principles or ethics for as long as I'm alive, most likely, and when I am consumed by rats or worms, they will continue to matter more than what is right.

Then, Air Canada - wobbly jellyfish to the last - changes Taiwan on their destination list to "Taipei, CN". Of course that destination does not exist. It's like trying to book a flight to Heaven, or Hell, or Oz, or wherever the Care Bears and Smurfs live. A wonderland of CCP revisionism. An imaginarium of a less just world.

"Travel everywhere with us," one of their Facebook posts says. Everywhere, it seems, except Taipei, Taiwan.

"Get your friends to travel together," another one says (on their Chinese-language Facebook page). Sure, let's travel to China (since apparently Taiwan doesn't exist), to get on our knees and pleasure Xi Jin-ping because watching him make his O-Face matters more than correct geographical labeling.

People have started petitions. Great. I went and trolled Gap on Facebook because I have nothing better to do with my time, the universe is cold and uncaring and not only are we all going to die, it won't even matter that we lived in the first place - tiny germs on a speck of dust hanging in a vast, rock-and-gas filled amoral vacuum that will also cease to exist one day. But, trolling Gap is fun so there's that.

This follows a string of "Orwellian nonsense" that's been going on for years as China acts like a massive baby - the tenderest snowflake there is - at the mere mention that a democratic nation called Taiwan exists. It's nothing new.

Of course, it hurts not that China does this - China's gonna China - but that the rest of the world caves in. That they are such cowards and hypocrites. They give in to fantasy land. Their actual moral compasses are about as sturdy as a cheap shit Gap t-shirt made in China.

And it hurts even more that there's so little we can do about it. We sign petitions as the rats get ready to gnaw our bones. We make snarky Facebook posts. Perhaps we contact our elected representative, who also cares more about t-shirts than principles. We gnash our teeth and feel upset, and it happens again and again as the vast coldness of space whirls around us, unaware.

From dust we came and to dust we shall return, but in the meantime, you really should sign the petition. I guess.

(Updated) Stephen Yates said a stupid thing

Update: please read this post. The article this is based on was a gross mistranslation, and did not accurately reflect what Yates said. I hadn't realized a video was available: now that I do know that, the content below is not relevant.

I'll let this post stand as a monument to remind myself and others not to believe things too quickly, and also because - the comments that precipitated the post notwithstanding, I actually would like to make the dual points that 1.) every person who continues to live their life and build their country with Chinese missiles pointed at them is, in fact, risking their life and we'd best not forget that, and 2.) Taiwan is already independent, so discussions on whether it "should be" that way are irrelevant.

These things are true regardless of what Yates or anyone else says, but you deserve to know the truth about the interview. 
I can't say I'm particularly shocked. Not because I think he's a moron, and although I appreciate his support of Taiwan, he is a conservative and he did give a deeply unimpressive speech once that started out as one long nyah-nyah our guy won, when "their guy" is one of the worst people in the world. While it is, or at least once was, possible to vote Republican and still be a reasonable person, I genuinely do think typical American conservative arguments tend to be deficient in both morality and reason. I would say this is a new phenomenon, but it's been going on since Goldwater, so perhaps not.

You may wonder why I care enough about some random thing he said while being quickly interviewed, which is not likely to make it past the Taipei Times. In part it's because this is a sadly common belief, especially in the West (where it is really easy to say because we're done with all the dying and are not the ones risking our lives unless we choose to enter mostly unnecessary wars). I want to puncture it right now. It's also because if this is the garbled muck coming out of the mouth of a friend of Taiwan, we have a problem - a big one. It must be addressed.

Anyway, let's look at the stupid thing he said. (I'm assuming Tom Lee wouldn't just make this up whole-cloth).

"When I asked why the US would not support Taiwanese independence to keep it from being annexed by China, Yates said Taiwan is not ready for independence like the US’ founders, who vowed to defend the US Declaration of Independence with their lives, their assets and their sacred honor.

If Taiwanese were willing to trade their lives, assets and sacred honor for Taiwanese independence, they would win the support of the international community, but the nation is not ready for that."

Yo...no.

First of all, what makes him think the Taiwanese are not willing to trade their lives, should it come to it. This is a country about which it was once said "every three years a rebellion, every five years ar revolt" (or something like that). Do you really think Taiwan has no fighting spirit? They've been fighting a long cold war for over a generation. As a "friend", he should know this.

I would like him to understand as well that the Taiwanese are risking their lives. Simply by existing, building their country, electing a president China doesn't like, and refusing to give up despite being so obviously outgunned, with over a thousand missiles pointed straight at them, every single Taiwanese person who does not flee the shores of their country is showing, on some level, a willingness to risk everything for the freedom of their country.

Please, Mr. Yates, do not underestimate that. It is one of the things I love most about Taiwan.

Secondly, Taiwan is already independent and Stephen Yates of all non-Taiwanese people should know that. What it lacks is recognition of that independence. 

Why would the Taiwanese "trade their lives" for something they already have? 

It's one thing to fight for freedom and be willing to die when you don't have it, and want it. It's another to do that when you already have freedom, and all you are asking for is recognition of same. Nobody should have to trade their life to get other countries to recognize what is already true about their own.
Frankly, it would be a dumb move to do so. This is where I think his conservatism is showing: everything is a battle, and you have to be willing to die for your cause - or at least, it's OK for people who won't suffer to tell those who will that they should. No thought given to the complexities of why that's a bad idea.

There seems to be an assumption here that, were the Taiwanese to plunge headlong into a war simply to be recognized for what it already is, the rest of the world would rally behind them because they are standing up ~*~For Freedom!!!~*~ This is another attitude I would link to conservatism - lots of rah-rah patriotism and 'standing up for your country and the world will stand with you' talk, and it's simply wrong. "Coalition of the Willing" wrong. The only way Taiwan is going to rack up friends is by doing literally the exact opposite of that.

The US has said time and time again that their "position" is a peaceful resolution. A situation in which the Taiwanese would have to "trade their lives" is by definition not a peaceful one.

If what he means instead is that Taiwan should be willing to show that its people are willing to die for their cause, well, that would cause the international media, who already think that problems with China either appear from thin air (they don't - they appear from China) or that they are caused by Taiwan (they aren't - they are caused by China), to pitch a fit about how Taiwan is causing "tensions". It would cause clucks of disapproval from around the world, and you know that. 

He contradicts himself, and then says as much, later on in the same article:

“In my opinion, whether Taiwan becomes independent will not depend on a referendum or an official declaration announcing the founding of a Republic of Taiwan.

“Taiwan is independent because the Taiwanese are their own masters. Taiwanese should not be too pessimistic about their diplomatic situation, because, in addition to diplomatic space, there is also political space, economic space and other kinds of space where it can put its advantages to good use.”

Giving him the benefit of the doubt that he just garbled his words a bit, it's still dumb to say "Taiwan is not ready for independence" when Taiwan is already independent. Of course Taiwan is "ready" for independence, because - repeating myself because it cannot be emphasized enough - it already has it and the country is run, if not perfectly, at least well enough to keep itself going as a first world nation, especially considering its circumstances. 

One can be ready to risk one's life for something without being stupid enough to run into near-certain death. Right now, a war against China is not winnable for Taiwan. If you enter that war, especially as a fighter, you will most likely die or suffer a worse fate. That's not "being ready" because you "are willing to trade your life", that's just stupid.

To put it in television terms, Taiwan is not Robb Stark. It is Sansa Stark, and that's exactly what it needs to be if it has any hope of eventually coming out on top. 

Taiwan, fortunately, is much smarter than that and is playing a longer game in which millions of its citizens don't die in a costly and devastating war, for the best possible chance at a good outcome for an independent Taiwan. Whether or not they will succeed is for the future to answer, but honestly, while I can think of improvements to their strategy, I can't think of a better overall strategy for the country. 

Does he really think that the saber-rattling he seems to be calling for, which would be more likely to lead to a war that Taiwan would lose, is a better idea? Isn't he a diplomat?

Thirdly, he puts the "founders" (the founding fathers - slaveowners and at least one rapist, none of whom thought women deserved a voice in politics) up on a pedestal that most people well-read in history know they don't entirely deserve. A very bright young Armenian woman I met in Alaverdi who asked me what I thought of Thomas Jefferson ("He's a complicated figure. He did some important things but I do not worship him, or anyone") knew that. Yates should too.

Does he also think that, "founding fathers" aside, that all Americans would be willing to risk their lives for their country? Does he think we'd do so even if the war were unwinnable? Are we supposed to go all Les Miserables and die on barricades we have no real hope of defending, were it to come to that? Does he really have such an inflated sense of how "great" America is, or was, compared to the rest of the world? Is he so secure in his own comfortably independent nation that he feels fine telling people halfway around the world whose country faces an overwhelming international threat that he, a person from a country that does not face any such international threat, is OK but they should be willing to die?

Most people wouldn't do that, and I can't blame them. But all people deserve freedom. Yes, all people. Even the ones who play a long game rather than get into unwinnable fights.

So, yes, I am deeply disappointed in this pile of nonsense from a "friend of Taiwan."

Do better, Stephen Yates. I don't like your ideology very much (I mean, I'm a liberal), I could never vote for your party (I guess I'm crazy to like affordable access to health care, including reproductive health care - your party's platforms are a part of why I left the US in the first place and they actively harm my friends). I do not think that your ideology, nor that of any other pro-Taiwan Republican, is compatible with the mostly - but not entirely - liberal and progressive outlook of the new face of pro-Taiwan local activism, and I do think this is going to cause problems. I suspect the lot of you support Taiwan without really understanding what Taiwan is about. Your former boss is quite literally a war criminal and one of the worst people in the world and you seem weirdly okay with that, and your current president is a magnificent douchelord and you seem OK-enough with that too - and I am not OK with your being OK with either of those - but you are, for better or worse, one of the best friends Taiwan has.

I expect better than this from someone Taiwan should be able to call a "friend".

My real beef with the new labor laws

I've been thinking a lot these days about what it is I don't like about the new labor regulations in Taiwan. I'm not sure why - they don't actually impact me as I don't have a single full-time job: I've been freelance since I got my APRC. Being generally interested in labor issues, however, might be a part of it. As is the fact that the new laws do impact many of my friends.

The most common complaints I hear from sources I care about are that work they want is being taken away from them, and that flexibility they want is being taken away (companies whining that now they have to compensate their employees more generously for the extremely long work hours expected of them do not draw my sympathy, I quite literally DGAF. You've been paying your people too little for crazy hours for awhile now, Taiwanese employers. Suck it.)

I'm not sure at all that these are the root problems that are causing me to view the new law with so much cynicism, though. That said, they're worth exploring.

I have a friend who poured a lot of passion and effort into a particular class, notably in developing a syllabus for that class within a larger curriculum. She had it taken away, because it was (apparently) the only way for her employer to ensure she did not work overtime that she'd have to be paid extra for (because goodness gracious, they couldn't just pay a valuable teacher more, could they? Oh no!). She genuinely wanted that work, and it was snatched from her. I have another friend who didn't necessarily want to work 6 days a week, but appreciated the financial boost she got from the longer hours. That was taken away, because the thought of just paying her more was apparently unconscionable? Or something? I have students who have subordinates who used to arrange their work schedules to work 6-day weeks for much of the month, but then take at least one extended weekend in that month so the hours worked out over a longer period, and they got a longer rest. That is no longer permissible under the new law. I'm not sure why not, but my students assure me it is not. I am not an expert.

I'm sympathetic to all of these complaints - especially the last one - but it seems increasingly obvious to me that they're symptoms of deeper problems the new labor law ignores rather than the root problems themselves.

What's being ignored here, and what the new law does nothing to fix, is the power imbalance between employer and employee. The "Boss Class" doesn't like the new law for obvious reasons: it's not so easy to squeeze their peons for more work for as little compensation as they can get away with giving. Good. But why don't labor activists like it? Because it does nothing to improve employee bargaining power or choice. It does nothing to address the basic truth of modern capitalism: the employee always, always - even in a labor-scarce market - has less power than a company. I could go into why I feel this is, but suffice it to say that labor does not gain sufficient power vis-a-vis employers in a world where shortages do not appear to be creating better remuneration and working conditions for teachers, or one in which jobs are not so interchangeable, and there might not be a similarly good job to jump to if the one you have (or the other one on offer) doesn't offer enough incentives to get you in the door, not because there is a job scarcity but because what you'd be doing would be somewhat unique. I mean, I'm a teacher, just ask me how teacher shortages in the US haven't led to better working conditions for American teachers. Even when the market favored labor in the years before the 2008 crash, lots of job openings didn't mean lots of offers in a world where one job opening would attract hundreds of applicants simply because the Internet made it easier to advertise jobs on massive websites and for applicants to send out heaps of resumes. A person can't necessarily live without a job, but a company can live with a position unfilled, and can get by with less-than-ideal employees until they find the right person, because the company will almost by definition have more resources than an individual.

As a result, I can't even think of a time in my adult life when the market has truly helped working conditions and pay improve. I'm not young anymore, that's actually quite a long time to see - in my observation at least, I don't claim to be an economist - essentially no progress.

In a better system, employer and employee would be on more even footing to negotiate not only pay and benefits, but preferred working hours and conditions. The employer could lay out their needs, and the employee could lay out what they hope to achieve, or get, out of the job. Employees who want to work longer hours and make more money could choose to do so, and those who wanted to work less, or be more flexible, but also potentially earn less, could choose that, too. Solutions might not be perfect, but they'd be workable for all involved because everyone was on a somewhat level playing field (and of course this is most obviously true in positions with hourly pay or clear paid overtime) when negotiating the terms of work. Of course, that's not how it works: your employer tells you if you're going to be working more or less, and how much money you want vis-a-vis free time is not considered. Often, keeping the laws relaxed so working hours can be quite variable don't necessarily lead to the employee getting more say - for every person who chooses longer hours, there are a few who are forced to work them. For every employee who chooses fewer, there are a few who are put on reduced schedules (but still told to be available for hours they will never work, so they can't even seek other employment) because that benefits the company.

So what you have are new laws that still allow the employer, without your input, to decide how much you work - those who want to work more can't if the company doesn't want to pay them the new overtime amounts, and those who want to work less might still be called in when they'd rather be off, or not get to choose when they are off. My friend who had a class she wanted taken from her was not given a choice to keep that class and lose another one. My friend who appreciates the money but not necessarily the exhaustion of a 6-day week wasn't given a choice as to whether she worked one or not - not before when she had to work 6 days, and not after when that was reduced to 5. In both cases her preference mattered little, and with any new job it would be the same. My students' subordinates were not given the choice to have a flexible schedule (it's mere circumstance that my particular students happen to be flexible and generous with their employees; not all employers are.)

It also does little to change the problem of every job essentially being a terrible deal - low pay, long hours, little in the way of additional benefits - in a world where you can't just not choose any job, you likely need to pick one. I have a student with this issue: she doesn't like her job, nor does she like any of the jobs on offer. But she has to take one, she can't just be unemployed. It's not possible to insist you deserve more than $22,000NT per month  (which I think everyone does - you can't live independently on $22k. It does not cover basic cost of living and therefore is inadequate) when there are no jobs offering more. English teachers can't insist on a job where they get paid Lunar New Year (which we ought to get under the law, but don't) if no job offers paid Lunar New Year (you might get compensation after you leave, if you complain, but that means little if what you actually want is a paid holiday without having to quit and threaten to call the government to eventually get that money). You can't change much where you actually work if speaking up means you could get "laid off", and the next job won't be any better.

The new laws really don't do anything to address that basic problem. I'm not sure what could, frankly, in a world where the company will always be bigger, and have more money and resources, than an employee or job seeker, no matter how "good" the market supposedly is.

Pass the sausage: a crazy theory about why there aren't many female Taiwan experts

First, let's take a moment to acknowledge Freedom of Speech day in Taiwan, although it is not an official holiday (but should be). Today was the day 28 years ago when activist and writer Nylon Deng self-immolated before his imminent arrest by police after a period of barricading himself in his office.  Nylon s best remembered by the activist community in Taiwan for insisting on "100% freedom of speech", and for openly supporting Taiwan independence when it was not quite safe to do so. Today also happens to be the day that Reporters Without Borders announced that they'd open their Asia bureau in Taipei rather than Hong Kong, and I am choosing to believe that this is not a coincidence, even though it probably is.

As it is around the world, activism and feminism tend to go hand-in-hand, although through history many liberals have been supportive of liberal causes yet dismissive of feminist ones, or of women's equality. I remember, when watching the tear-jerking documentary on Nylon in the museum dedicated to him on the site of his self-immolation, an offhand comment that he was "cruel" to his wife and daughter. The moment went by quickly and I haven't re-watched the film, though I will soon as I do own it, but it caused me to reflect on that point.

But that was the 1980s and this is 2017, a time when being a liberal, progressive or activist but not being feminist will cause one serious problems. I do think, then, it is worthwhile to reflect on the presence of women in Taiwan Studies and advocacy around the world, as tenuous as that link may be.

This generally excellent piece came out recently on the Trump-Xi meeting (which I am not commenting on much because I don't have much to say), and it was pointed out that nine Taiwan experts were included, and not one of them was female. "Yup, bit of a sausage fest", it was acknowledged (and I do appreciate the acknowledgement). Of course, that's not to say there aren't any Taiwan experts. Some of my favorite books on Taiwan were written by women (reading this now and loving it), and of course there's the well-known Shelley Rigger (though I have to say I'm not a huge fan of her work for the reasons Michael Turton outlined here). Edit: a few more names I have in fact come across have been pointed out: Bonnie Glaser and Gwyneth Wang, to name a few. In any case, pickings sure do seem to remain slim. 

But if you could ask me to name other prominent female Taiwan experts or advocates, I don't think I could. I know the community, so I'm not shooting in the dark here, yet, it really does seem to be something of a sausage fest.

Why is that?

Of course I have a theory.

Keep in mind it's just a theory, concocted within the confines of my own weird brain, as far as I know really only explains the dearth of notable female Taiwan supporters in the US, and is quite open to constructive feedback. It's not meant to be a definitive statement on the matter.

Yet, as far as the US is concerned, I can't help but notice that most Taiwan experts also happen to be Taiwan advocates. It's quite common, even the norm, to be both an expert and a part of the Taiwan independence movement. In the US, who are the 'friends of Taiwan' in the government that Taiwan independence supporters tend to turn to, or at least receive the greatest support from?

Republicans. And in some cases, some of the worst Republicans in office. In every other sense, beyond their support of Taiwan (which usually seems to stem from a hatred of China rather than a genuine caring for Taiwan), just really terrible people. People like Marco Rubio, who supports both Hong Kong's localist movement and Taiwan, but who is a total shitlord when it comes to women's issues. People like Tom Cotton, who also supports both Taiwan and Hong Kong, who is also a total douchestick on women's issues. Even Bob Dole, that ol' 90s throwback who honestly was more moderate than these other losers on women's issues for his day (emphasis: for his day), isn't great.

No, I'm not going to be nicer about that because they're friends of Taiwan. They're also turdburglars and they deserve the criticism.

And to be fair, not every friend of Taiwan is like this. I don't have any particular criticisms of unelected supporters of Taiwan in government (think Bolton, Yates), but they tend to be Republicans, and Republicans are at this moment in history actively working against women's rights.

I'm not even going to talk about Trump because he doesn't have a clear Taiwan policy (the one thing that is clear is that he cares about nobody but himself, his family and sweet sweet money, and possibly power as well, and he'll sacrifice anything and everything for those things). But Taiwan's association with Trump, I can tell you honestly, has hurt Taiwan's standing among liberal voters, if they cared about Taiwan to begin with, which most don't. I'll stop there, because "liberal voters" are not the same as "Taiwan experts" or "Taiwan advocates", and I'm talking about the latter. The former is a different issue that I may or may not tackle at a later time.

It is also important to differentiate between advocates for Taiwan, and the people they lobby and talk to. Advocates for Taiwan outside of government tend to be very good people. I am friends with many of them (and yes, they are almost entirely male). The people they talk to are the problem. There are also some powerful female voices for Taiwan in other areas, such as Linda Arrigo and Shawna Yang Ryan, but I'm trying to be specific in terms of Taiwan experts who also advocate (and in many cases actively lobby) for Taiwan in Washington.

Of the women who are a part of this community, it is notable that of the 9 (9? Someone mentioned 9, I counted 8) people asked to comment for the article above, not one of them was female. How is it that they found 9 experts, all male, and ignored all of the women who do good work or are strong voices in this field? Is there perhaps a connection between being asked to comment on a piece like this and how often one is seen around government folks? Is there a connection between not doing that, and being female? If so, could that connection be in part because most of the people you would be talking to not only are not known generally for having much respect for women, but are actively working against women's rights?

I happen to think so, yes.

Or, perhaps they are overlooked because women simply tend to be overlooked in many fields.

I mean, to be a Taiwan expert - at least an American one - means making peace with the fact that the country you are most interested in and are likely to advocate for finds its greatest support among some of the worst people in Washington. On some level this is praiseworthy: it means setting aside differences to work on a common goal. I can see the value in that. I can see the value in not always giving in to identity politics, as well.

However, this is really easy to do if the people you are talking to and working with aren't actively trying to take away your rights, or subjugate your gender. It's much easier to "set differences aside" when the other side's differences aren't actual, literal and active attempts to make your life worse. It's easy when it's not aimed at you.

It is far more difficult to do when you can't even fathom being in the same room with some of them. I cannot imagine I would do anything to Marco Rubio other than spit in his stupid asshat face if I had to look at him, let alone talk to him. Perhaps I am more tempestuous, temperamental or I just care more about these things than others, but I know I'm not the only woman who would rather punch some of these Republican twatwads in the mouth than talk to them.

So how could someone like me - a woman, a lover of Taiwan, a supporter of Taiwan, someone who makes it her business and passion to keep up with Taiwan affairs despite not officially being any sort of expert - actually be an expert? When expertise tends to overlap so much with advocacy, and advocacy overlaps so much with talking to people I cannot bear to dignify with even basic manners, because they cannot bear to dignify my gender with basic rights, how is this even a possibility?

In fact, this is one of the direct causes behind why I went into education as a professional rather than Taiwan Studies. Perhaps 5 years ago - I don't remember exactly - I was in Hong Kong, sitting on the upstairs deck at the Fringe Club talking to friends there. We were discussing my next move, and I said I had three key interests: TEFL, the Chinese language and Taiwan Studies. I didn't know which I'd pursue, I said, but it would be one of those three, I would be going back to school at some point, and soon enough it would be come clear which I'd choose.

I chose education, because I actually kind of hated Chinese class though I love learning Chinese, and because Taiwan Studies to me is inextricably bound up in Taiwan advocacy, and that would mean lobbying or talking to all sorts of odious socially conservative Republican types, the sort who are actively trying to roll back my basic human rights. Even then, I knew I couldn't do it.

This is, as a side note, why I am eager to jump on any alternative at all. It sucks to love Taiwan but hate the friends of Taiwan in the US government. It sucks to know you might be able to go to school for Taiwan Studies, but you wouldn't be able to advocate with a straight face, nor would you be able to work with Taiwan supporters in the US government, because when their rollback of basic rights and dignity is aimed at your gender, it is impossible to "set differences aside" or look the other way. If someone presents even the most unlikely alternative model for advocating for Taiwan, it's like a flame for my inner moth.

I know I can't do it, and I don't think it's fair to ask any woman to do it. That's absolutely not to say that I think the men who do do it - who bite their lips and talk to assholes for Taiwan's sake - don't care about women's issues. I'm sure it's not easy talking to someone you disagree with on nearly every other thing (and most of the ones I know are good people, solid liberals, and women's rights supporters). Yet they do it - they do what I can't, and I won't pretend that gender is not one of the reasons why. It's simply easier when it's not your basic human rights on the chopping block, even if you have the best of intentions.

So that's my crazy theory. At least as far as Americans are concerned, there are not many female Taiwan experts because, while they might have common cause with some of the worst people in government over Taiwan, these same people are enemies of their gender. That's just too much to ask - and frankly, shouldn't have to be asked. It is 100% stone cold not okay, especially as Taiwan independence is, fundamentally, a liberal cause. 

There are surely other reasons - Taiwan is a harder place to live long-term for foreign women being one of them and many foreign experts on Taiwan have spent significant time here. (As a side note, this is why most foreign commentators on Taiwan skew male - there are simply more male expats, and I do explore the reasons for that in the link above. Another reason might be that a lot of currently known Taiwan experts got into the field decades ago, when this sort of field was male dominated. When I was in school my International Affairs cohort was not particularly male, but several decades before that it likely would have been. Yet another may be "because the women are choosing China where the action is". Perhaps. I may explore these other possibilities in future posts.

I do hope for change going forward, and it would be interesting to see what the younger, perhaps less recognized cohort of Taiwan experts looks like gender-wise. However, I can say that when I was younger and looking at that path, the sorts of horrible people I'd have to talk to were a clear reason why I steered away from it, and made Taiwan affairs a hobby rather than a profession. I cannot imagine I am the only woman to have been put off. It does cause women to turn away, and I know that because it turned me away.

Constructive feedback is welcome. Hateful or misogynist comments will be deleted without being fully read.

A list of comestibles that I recommend for Chiu Tai-San

Here are some decorations for the things Chiu Tai-san can eat

1.) A dick

2.) A bag of dicks

3.) A big ol' burlap sack of dicks

4.) Tesco value-size bags of dicks (from a reader)

5.) Costco pallets of dicks

6.) Shipping containers of dicks imported from distant lands

7.) I hope he saved room for dessert because he's got more dicks coming (also from a reader)

8.) A dick sundae (like a banana split except with a dick - plus two big scoops of ice cream, extra whipped cream and dick sprinkles)

9.) The Pacific Trash Vortex Except It's All Dicks

10.) THIS MANY DICKS

Greetings from a low-level, non-outstanding foreigner!

Many in the foreign community are celebrating new regulations allowing certain "high-level" foreigners to retain their original citizenship when applying for Taiwanese nationality - basically, doing away with the requirement, for them, to give up their original nationality in order to become a Taiwanese citizen. This comes after months of advocating for change, including a period of public comment on the regulations in question.

I guess you could see this as a tiny step forward. Many people do. It's something, that's for sure - but I'm not celebrating.

What this does is allow the government to rest on its laurels, thinking they've 'done something' about the problem of very long-term foreigners, foreigners who are barely 'foreign' anymore, who see Taiwan as their home (in many cases, who were born and raised here). It gives them an out to, honestly, not do anything more for quite some time. In the meantime, the rest of us are left out in the cold. As far as I can tell, this includes Taiwanese with non-Taiwanese parents, that is, anyone who was born and raised in Taiwan and is for all intents and purposes Taiwanese, but are treated as 'foreigners' simply because they have the wrong kind of face.

It also creates more divisions in the expat community where there needn't be any. There are already unfair and unnecessary divisions between laborers, mainly from Southeast Asia, and "professionals", mainly from Western nations. If you think that has nothing to do with racism, you're kidding yourself.

In any case, what differentiates a 'high-level' foreigner from a scrub, in that gray area where people like me reside?

I can't help but take it a little bit personally. Certainly, people might read this and think "she's just mad because she didn't meet the requirements!" but, in fact, I'd be mad even if I did, because the requirements are fundamentally unfair.

Seriously, though, it does make me feel as though my many years of busting my ass to actually be a professional in a field that is not always looked upon as professional means nothing, and that I do not even deserve what every Taiwanese - and some special foreigners - is able to obtain. That ten years of further busting my already busted ass to gain credentials and experience including, but not limited to, pieces of paper, and to be an active force for raising the standard of English language education in Taiwan across the board (I am a part of a group of people trying to bring better teacher training programs to Taiwan, for example) is still insufficient: that I am still trash, as far as Taiwan is concerned, not worthy of consideration, having made no contribution to the country at all.

And, because they passed this fistful of garbage, it is likely to be some time, if ever, before that changes.

Or I could get my PhD (I was thinking about it anyway), take a job at some third-rate university teaching college students in "conversational English" classes of 65+ who don't want to be there, pressured to pass them all anyway, and obtain dual nationality because that is somehow better than what I'm doing now, working with small groups of adults and achieving real results with real-life ramifications, for some fucking reason.

So yeah, needless to say I am not exactly overjoyed that the Taiwanese government decided to tell foreigners that some of you are kind of OK, but the rest of you? Don't let the door hit you on the way out, we don't need or want you enough to give you equal rights (but then complaining that, say, standards of English proficiency in Taiwan are too low). I'm not jumping for joy that a system of divisions and double-and-triple standards is being implemented where no such divisions need to exist. I'm not excited about being labeled a scrub because my pieces of paper are not as good as some other pieces of paper. I'm not happy that the government has decided that my ten years of being devoted to Taiwan and attempting to contribute positively to Taiwan are worthless.

I am also not exactly happy that, up until recently, the government has snubbed people who were actually born and raised here in favor of bestowing a unicorn-like waiver allowing dual nationality to some missionary (as a friend-of-a-friend pointed out, always a white Christian missionary). While I do not deny that missionaries do some good work, the side dish of evangelizing that comes with it is not good for Taiwan. The institutional advantage they enjoy because they have a big religious organization funding their work (which they use to preach their religion, which often comes with preaching the intolerance and bigotry that Christianity is unfortunately known for), which the rest of us can't possibly compete with because we can't afford to work for free, earns little sympathy from me. I await your hate mail for this opinion, but there it is.

In short, I am not dancing in the street over this. It is simply not good enough.

Anyway, enjoy your dual nationality, Some Foreigners.

I'll be over here grumbling in my trash can, where the Taiwanese government apparently thinks I originated and where I belong.