Some Thoughts on News Surrounding 228

There is a lot to say about the commemoration of this year's 228 Massacre - as can be expected given that it's the 70th anniversary of the tragedy - that I feel ought to be more broadly disseminated. So, while it's rare for me to do this, I've put together a summary of various 228-related news and thoughts.

My friends and I had planned to spend the morning at the Nylon Deng Liberty Museum near MRT Zhongshan Junior High School. I had wanted to go on April 7th, which will be the 28th anniversary of Nylon's self-immolation, but others were not available. 228 is also a suitable day, as much of Nylon's work revolved around appropriately recognizing and commemorating the 228 Massacre. Deng is almost a mythical figure and hero among activists and the socially and politically engaged, but remains somewhat unknown in mainstream society - I have many students who have never heard of him, and I had been in Taiwan for several years before I learned of his work and sacrifice.

It's a quieter sort of reflection, away from the speeches, music and even protests. I strongly recommend going - it's a small museum but a very emotional experience - I'll post a few photos later. The office where he set the fire, preserved in its charred state, is hard to look at straight on, to be honest. I also recommend watching the longer, 50-minute film (English subtitles available on request, and you can buy a DVD of the film for a reasonable price). Be warned: you will cry, especially if you care about Taiwan, but even if you are not so attached to this country.

Downtown, participants in the Gongsheng music festival (a 228 commemorative event) and members of one of the most conservative - and geriatric - factions of the KMT clashed before the two sides were separated by the police. A full piece will be out later on this (here it is!), but I'll go out on a limb and say the old folks started it.

I may be wrong, but it seems like these sort of scuffles are more common this year than in the past (perhaps in the past I didn't notice as much, but it really feels like an escalation). Skirmishes not only took place between the pro-KMT folks out waving their ROC flags - a few days ago pro-unificationists attacked a 228-related book signing.

If my impression is correct, all I can say is this: when a privileged minority with outdated views starts losing their privileged position in a society and with it their ability to dominate the cultural narrative of that society, they tend to react angrily. Finding that your views are not only no longer mainstream but that people are not letting you manipulate what your collective society stands for tends to cause people to lash out. Nobody likes having their power taken away, and nobody likes being faced with the cognitive dissonance of realizing society now believes that the party or ideology they've supported is not only outmoded but in fact morally wrong, or even requiring justice to rectify wrongs that you never thought were actually wrong. We've seen it recently in other countries - I mean, look at where I'm from - so it's no surprise that the Huang Fu-xing (a far-right chapter of the KMT consisting mostly of Nationalist veterans of advanced age) would be acting this way.

As we continue to strip them of their privilege and cultural power both in general society and through specific acts of transitional justice, expect them to lash out more. Be vigilant, as well: we know they are in the minority, and we know they are behind the times and reacting out of anger that they are no longer in control. However, if recent events in the country of my birth prove anything, it's that you can never be sure that they won't strike back hard enough to actually win even as it seems that their beliefs are (literally) dying out.

On the other side of the ideological divide, Chiang Kai-shek Dead Dictator Memorial Hall was closed for the day, which is the first year I remember that happening. The reason given by the Ministry of Culture was that it was out of respect and to 'memorialize the dead'. What many socially aware people are saying, however, is that it was closed to preemptively stop vandalism of the hall or the statue within it. Other statues have apparently been vandalized, and there has been renewed call to remove the statue altogether and repurpose the hall into something other than, well, a memorial to a brutal dictator and murderer.

Regardless of the reason, I would say that closing the hall even for a day is the right thing to do. It is an insult to the dead to have a large memorial complex celebrating the man who is ultimately responsible for their deaths. However, it doesn't go far enough. That statue ought to have been removed years ago (as I once said in a TV interview back when it was renamed Freedom Square, only to have my words purposely mistranslated into "everyone has their opinion, I think we should all be able to hold different views", which I never said). The entire place ought to be repurposed (I find it visually appealing enough, but really can't stand that it memorializes a deeply evil man). The memorial hall has said that they will stop selling CKS-related merchandise and other things that show him in a positive light, but until it is truly Freedom Square - or perhaps the new building for the Legislative Yuan - it still doesn't go far enough.

Honestly speaking, beyond 228 - for which Chiang was, in fact, responsible - when I look at Taiwanese history post-1945, at every turn (every fucking turn!) the person most responsible, almost singlehandedly responsible, for fucking over Taiwan. He completely fucked the whole country (fuck!), and yet there's a creepy-ass personality cult monument to him taking up prime real estate downtown. Fuck him - it's time for that to change.

Of course, not everyone understands the role that Chiang did play in 228.

Along those lines, a "revelation" (it wasn't really) of great interest was also made public this month: some scholars have long suspected that Chiang Kai-shek was ultimately responsible for the 228 Massacre, despite one of the accepted narratives being that he was in China at the time and could not have been responsible for the actions of Chen Yi. Now, we have proof that he was, in fact, responsible. Correspondence between Chen and Chiang in which the former asks for troops (which were granted) has been found and published, giving clear proof that Chiang was aware of the situation in Taiwan and authorized troops to be sent. It isn't hard, if you understand how the wheels of history work, to figure out that he must have known how those troops were going to be used.

In any case, an excellent run-down of the document and its significance (and a strong case for why it shows that Chiang is ultimately responsible for the massacre) can be found here. I won't repeat what has already been said so well.

Moving on from that into shallower waters, apparently there's some dumb kerfuffle over Pizza Hut offering promotions over the long weekend, because other countries commemorate tragedies in an appropriately solemn atmosphere. The example given is September 11 in the United States.

First, I do need to say that what Pizza Hut did was insensitive and stupid. My issue is not that the ad was fine; it wasn't. (I did not realize at first that they changed it from "Killer Deals!" to something less horrifying. "Killer deals!" is never okay.) I just think focusing on this takes up time and discourse over things of greater importance.

That said, regarding September 11, I can't speak for every public holiday surrounding a tragedy worldwide, but September 11 in the US is not a public holiday, whereas 228 in Taiwan is. The only closely analogous holidays that are actually days off (well, for some people) in the US are perhaps Veteran's Day and Memorial Day. And, let's be honest, in terms of how those are actually celebrated, we may as well rename them Mattress Discounters Day or Raymour & Flanagan Super Blowout Sale Day or whatever. Come on. Are people taking trips or visiting relatives rather than attending commemorative events? Some are, but given how little free time and how few holidays Taiwanese get, can you really blame them? I have no patience for this line of criticism.

Let me be clear - I do not think it is appropriate for Pizza Hut to offer promotions on 228, especially if they reference the massacre in particular. I just want to point out that plenty of public holidays are commodified or commercialized around the world, even the ostensibly solemn ones. This isn't some isolated incident of corporate apathy (Big Business is always apathetic, this is nothing new. That's why I don't get my moral code from Pizza Hut. Or my pizza...)

Finally, being the 70th anniversary of the massacre, and also a politically charged year as the "opposition" (they're not anymore) has control of both the legislature and the presidency for the first time in Taiwan's history, it is understandable that there are more media offerings on the legacy of the tragedy of 228. The Duty of 228 is a touching video, which feels more like flipping through an interactive scrapbook than a traditional 'video' and is worth a watch. The New York Times has a pretty solid article on the massacre, although I take exception to the assertion that, when the Nationalists arrived in Taiwan, that Taiwanese as a whole were overjoyed or particularly welcomed them.

That is, of course, the prevailing narrative and it is true that the streets were lined with "supporters" as the soldiers arrived. However, I question the degree to which they were really happy to be "liberated" from Japanese colonial rule (Japanese rule itself being a complex topic that I will not tackle here). Everything I've read on the topic - which admittedly isn't much - points out that many Taiwanese were disappointed to see how small and ragged these 'liberators' really were. One credible acquaintance points out that many of the "supporters" on the street were children who were told by their teachers to be there - if you're told to go outside and cheer, you don't count as a "supporter". I have also read that the crowd of "supporters" (scare quotes included) when Chiang and his wife appeared in the Presidential Office was, well, there - but it wasn't clear how much they really "supported" the KMT's taking over.

What's more, as much as anti-Taiwan, pro-China voices claim otherwise, there was in fact a Taiwanese autonomy/independence movement in existence at that time, and George Kerr even makes reference to Taiwanese who want autonomy. (I also have trouble believing that the ideologies and thought processes behind the formation of the Formosa League for Re-Emancipation, which was founded in 1948, were birthed in their entirety by the events of 228. I find it very hard to believe that there were no smaller groups around before that talking about Taiwanese independence. Furthermore, he and others were quite clear that plenty of political elites in China worried about how the ROC was going to approach the governance of an island full of people so different from the rest of China - in great part because most of them grew up under the Japanese. It is inconceivable to me that Taiwanese did not, to some extent, share similar worries.

In any case, the article is pretty good, the video is lovely, and although I haven't read it yet, I am sure Tsai's speech will be of interest (almost the least interesting thing to have happened surrounding 228 this year, although I would also like to hear what the first DPP president since Chen Shui-bian has to say).

Let's acknowledge what is already true

So, last week I wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal replying to an Op-Ed and follow-up letter on US foreign policy on Taiwan. I had to cut it down from the original 1000-or-so words to 300 or so, and was led to believe it would likely be published this week. It hasn't appeared yet, and may never: between then and now the Michael Flynn scandal exploded, and perhaps it got canned in favor of giving that issue more coverage.

I did not include some of my thoughts, such as the fact that Metzger appears to be a typical Dr. Some White Guy Who Is An Expert On China, pontificating on Taiwan despite not knowing enough about it - or rather, having what he knows about it filtered through the lens of being a "China expert", not a "Taiwan expert" - to be commenting credibly. In this sense I do not feel bad about telling a Stanford professor that he is dead wrong.

Nor did I include my thoughts on misconceptions in the media on Taiwan, I plan to do a mythbusting post soon so I can just direct people to that rather than repeating the same tired points.

However, I do want people to hear what I have to say, so I've copied the original longer letter here. I'll let you know if the shorter, edited version ever makes it into the paper. In the meantime, enjoy.

* * *

I read with great interest the recent opinions of John Bolton and Thomas Metzger  (both behind a paywall) on the best direction for the US’s future Taiwan policy. It is quite clear that there are some basic truths about Taiwan that Mr. Metzger is ignoring, which ought to be clarified.

First of all, the current framework between Beijing and Taipei is far from “peaceful”. Beijing has a large number of missiles aimed at Taiwan: some estimates put it at over 1,000. Beijing has been quite clear that it is gearing up for an eventual invasion of Taiwan, and has made it clear that the only possible peaceful solution is capitulation. This is not peace: it is a threat.

A situation that fragile, where one side has everything to lose and the other comparatively little, cannot be called a successful framework.

This is especially true given that most Taiwanese citizens do not identify primarily as Chinese. Unification of any kind is not acceptable to the majority of citizens, and likely never will be. What their government claims on paper – a claim made by the former dictatorship, nothing the Taiwanese people ever agreed to democratically – is immaterial. It does not affect their views.

It is true that the Republic of China, which is the current government of Taiwan, claims to be the sole government of all of China. Again, this claim does not reflect the views of the Taiwanese people. The claim cannot be formally retracted, nor the name of the country changed: from Beijing’s perspective, any of these actions would constitute a declaration of formal independence, which would precipitate an immediate war. To insist that as long as the Republic of China exists that Taiwan is a part of China, and yet to scold Taiwan for provoking China in any way, admonishing them instead to pursue peaceful relations, is to essentially trap Taiwan in a Catch-22.  To do so at best makes one a 'useful idiot' of China.

This change has been brewing since full democratization in the 1990s, and has only grown since the upheavals in Taiwanese civil society in 2014. Metzger fails again, then, to understand the reception that former President Ma’s meeting with Chinese President Xi received in Taiwan: when it did not elicit eyerolls, it was ignored more or less completely in civil society despite a great deal of media coverage. The Ma-Xi meeting was a footnote to a failed presidency, the last gasp of an administration whose views were no longer in sync with the electorate: few in Taiwan would say that Ma’s China strategy was successful, and few would agree that it is the best framework for the future.

In short, the Ma-Xi meeting was not “momentous” as Metzger claims; it was a desperate grasp for historical relevance by a leader on his way out. By all measures, it failed. One need only look at the outcome of the 2016 elections in Taiwan, as well as the continued relevance of the 2014 student movements there, to see it.

A final, crucial misunderstanding taken as fact by Mr. Metzger is his characterizing Taiwan-China relations as “respecting both the autonomy of the Taipei regime and its existence as one part of China.” First of all, the connotation of “regime” is that of an authoritarian government. That describes China, not Taiwan, which is a vibrant and thriving democracy. Secondly, few in Taiwan agree that Taiwan is “one part of China” is deeply disrespectful to the Taiwanese people. It is not possible to respect Taiwan if you, in the same breath, label it as a part of another country rather than a sovereign state in its own right.

International law supports the possibility of Taiwanese independence: under different interpretations of international law, Taiwan is either an independent nation, or its status is undetermined. There is no accurate interpretation that determines Taiwan to be a Chinese territory.

Even US policy on Taiwan follows this convention – the US does not, and has never, agreed that Taiwan is a part of China. Bolton is entirely correct that it merely acknowledges Beijing’s claim to Taiwan, nothing more. This, at least, is clear in a confusing array of papers, positions, assurances and communiqués that were created to be deliberately vague. 

The US’s Taiwan policy, at its heart, calls for a peaceful resolution of the issue, and allows for any given resolution agreed on by both sides. This leaves room not only for the US to communicate with Taiwanese leaders, but also for American support of eventual Taiwanese independence (though not as the government of China) or the normalization of relations with Taiwan. It does not in any way shackle the US to China’s forceful demands.

There does not need, then, to be a change in US policy on Taiwan. All we need to do is acknowledge what is already true. 

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil

Two articles at rather distinct odds came out over the past day or so. One is very much worth reading. Let's start with that one, from the Washington Post, written by several young Taiwanese including my friend Brian Hioe.

I have complained before that the Western media ignores Taiwanese voices and, when they do seek them out, they use them to suit the message they've already decided they want to convey. As a result, public opinion in Taiwan, if it is considered at all, is made out to be more divided, muddled or discordant than it really is - or that it agrees with Western or Chinese narratives more than it actually does.

I stand by that, and am so thrilled to see strong Taiwanese voices taking the initiative and getting their own work published in major Western media outlets. They were never going to come to Taiwan, so it is good that many Taiwanese have gone to them.

Of course, this is also the nature of privilege. If you are Dr. Some White Guy Who Is An Expert on China, you don't have to seek out media and try to get work published: they seek you out. You don't have to push, or take the initiative - they contact you. If you are a qualified Taiwanese voice, however, chances are you are going to have to make the extra effort.

Generally, I love this article. There was a kerfuffle over the title (when I first read it, it was entitled "Taiwan wants One China: but which one does it want?" or something like that, which made no sense and was at odds with what was actually in the piece. In fact, if Taiwanese wanted One China that would imply they either wanted:

a.) One China (the PRC) and One Taiwan (which happens to be my position)
b.) One China, the ROC (okaaaaaay, but not gonna happen, dreamface)
c.) One China, the PRC, with Taiwan as a part of it (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA)

Nowhere in that title is there room for "we'll take an independent Taiwan as the ROC separate from the PRC" (that is, two Chinas), which, although it is not my position, is the most popular one at the moment. I do think this will change in a generation or so, however.

But good on the writers, who asked the Washington Post to change the title. The paper obliged, and now it reads "Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese, not Chinese". Good. Nice.

One small quibble:

In the U.S.-China Normalization Communiqué of 1978, the backbone of the policy, the United States “acknowledges” that there is one China and that Taiwan is part of China.

As far as I am aware this is not the case - the United States acknowledges that China's position is that Taiwan is a part of China, not that Taiwan is a part of China necessarily. If I am wrong, please correct me, but that is my understanding. I also appreciate that it mentions 1992 but not the fictitious 1992 consensus. It's good not to bring up things that don't exist in one's newspaper article.

Anyway, those are small things.

I don't have much else to say beyond what the excellent article already says, so enjoy some quotes. They are like a cold, refreshing mint lemonade on a warm day.

1. Taiwan is de facto independent. The Taiwanese see themselves as Taiwanese, not as Chinese.

The official stance of Taiwan was that Taiwan is part of China. Butthe China that this stance refers to is the Republic of China (based in Taipei) instead of the communist People’s Republic of China (based in Beijing). (One interesting fact is that the special institution National Unification Council, which defined the official stance in 1992, was “ceased” in 2006 along with the Guidelines for National Unification.)

Since the 1970s, PRC became diplomatically acknowledged as China by most nation-states, including the United States. That is, ROC no longer asks to be seen as representing all of mainland China. Its constitution, which claims sovereignty over the whole mainland, does differentiate between the “free area,” or the island of Taiwan, and the “mainland area,” after a series of amendmentsthat have been added since the 1990s.

But the ROC has never been part of the PRC in its history.

Good, nice, very good.

What’s more, ROC residents increasingly identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese. That identity has changed significantly since the island became a democracy in the 1990s. In 1991, ROC and PRCrepresentatives met with one another for the first time since the 1949 civil war. At that point, about one-fourth of Taiwan’s residents identified themselves exclusively as “Chinese”; 17.6 percent as exclusively “Taiwanese”; and nearly half said both Chinese and Taiwanese.

But by 2014, only 3 percent still identified exclusively as Chinese — and more than 60 percent Taiwanese, hovering around there ever since. Today, only one-third of Taiwan’s residents think of themselves as both Chinese and Taiwanese. Among those who are 29 or younger, born after martial law ended in 1987, 78 percent hold an exclusively Taiwanese identity — as do nearly 70 percent ofpeople younger than 40. If this trend continues, a solely Taiwanese identity will prevail as residents’ consensus.

Yes, yes, yes. Clap clap clap. I like this very much. American friends - this is all true and really something you ought to know.

For Taiwanese younger than 40, pro-independence support reaches 84 percent. Perhaps most startling, 43 percent of the under-40 generation would support independence even if it meant China would attack Taiwan under the risk of war.

On the flip side, unification with China has become unpopular. Even under the most favorable scenario — in which there would be little political, economic or social disparities between mainland China and Taiwan — only one-third of Taiwanese citizens say they support unification. That’s a significant drop from the 60 percent who supported unification in 2003.

Yes - and this is something many Americans are unaware of - and many leaders as well. There seems, outside of Taiwan, to be this assumption that peaceful unification is possible and best for all involved.  It is not possible, and not best for Taiwan, however.

Threats from China that Taiwanese independence will result in war are taken seriously. Taiwanese admonishments that attempts at unification will result in conflict are ignored. It's as though the world still believes that the Taiwanese buy the ROC myth and that they fully believe their constitution's claim to China - that the ROC and PRC are rivals for China because a government they never elected, which in fact invaded from China, said they were, and now the government in China threatens them with violence if they even think about changing it to reflect the public will.

It is time that the West realizes that the historical claims of the ROC are not an accurate representation of what the Taiwanese actually want.

Unification is not possible. It will never be possible. Many "experts", even some who work for reputable outfits, make the current status quo sound as though it exists because China has simply not put forward a suitable proposal for unification.

This is false. Bush is wrong here. There will never be a suitable proposal for unification. Not because China won't try, but because there is no possible proposal that China could put forward that would tempt the Taiwanese, because they are not Chinese and do not see themselves as Chinese, and that is not going to change, nor can a change be forced. The only possible peaceful path is one of an independent Taiwan.

So, anyway, that's the good article. Really, it's excellent. Go read it.

After that cool drink of mint lemonade, you can read this one (or rather, in fact, don't, just don't unless you like hate reading) which is like squatting in the dirt gnawing on roots and twigs.

This? This is a steaming bowl of stanky used douche - I mean not only like it was used so now it's kinda gross, but like some of it also ran up your buttcrack like it was a Roman aqueduct and so now it's kind of butt-stanky too with maybe some poo or hair in it, and also you were on the rag so it's...

Ahem. 

Also there is a pube floating in it.

Aherrm. Sorry. Anyway.

This fuckstick slammed his fists on an unfortunate keyboard like an angry macaque and a few words inexplicably came out, and what we got was this.

My eyes want to file assault charges after this thing accosted them in an alley. The only good thing I can say is that I had actually never heard of this bum-bungler nor the "Neo-Whatever Eastern Whatever" or what the fuck ever this site is, because I read real news by real journalists and experts and hang around smart people pretending I am smart as well. What bothers me is that somehow he has a name for himself and even a Wikipedia page? Like, really?

Why? Off the tip of my dick I can think of like twenty writers who deserve Wikipedia pages before this ball-dangler does.

I won't bother to take down the article's central points. They sort of speak for themselves. The only thing I'll mention is that that stupid survey that pegged Taiwan as the "third most ignorant country" was also a steaming turd-pile, not to be taken seriously. I won't go into the questions asked and sample sizes - but the samples were too small and the questions stupid and pointless - suffice it to say that it is not an accurate reflection of Taiwan.

Instead, I will provide you with a running translation of some of this douchecracker's major "points", such as they are.

Shockingly, almost all the people I approached in December 2016 in Taipei either refused to discuss the topic, or appeared thoroughly ignorant about it. Some did not seem to even understand the concept of the ‘West provoking China’.

Translation: "Shockingly, when I approached random strangers in December 2016 and was a total asshole, shouting at them if they gave me answers I didn't like, I was surprised to find nobody wanted to talk to me!"

“Our enemies?” Did the Defense Minister say “our enemies”? Taiwan is a renegade province of China, whose ‘independence’ is recognized by only 21 countries (down from 30, two decades ago).

http://journal-neo.org/2016/12/31/taiwan-ignorance-danger-of-war-and-a-high-school-nazi-parade/

Translation: "I am a blithering idiot who not only has no knowledge whatsoever of the current state of Taiwan-China ties, but also struggles with basic life skills like forming words into sentences that make sense and reflect the true state of the world. Also, with this attitude I am quite surprised that nobody in Taipei was interested in telling me how they felt."

I will give him credit here: he's right about checkbook diplomacy. I'm not a fan of it either.

I asked him about the present tensions between Taiwan and Mainland China, about the West playing an increasingly aggressive role in the region.

He had no opinion.

I asked about the fascist anti-Communist and pro-Western legacy of Chiang-Kai-shek. He began to look nervous:

“I just work here for 8 hours a day. I don’t know anything about this place, really…”

“But you work here, in the middle of this enormous propaganda center!” I insisted. “Haven’t you heard about the millions massacred on Mainland China by his troops? Haven’t you heard about the tens of thousands killed here, in Taiwan?”

“No. I know nothing,” he laughed. “At school we learned nothing about this… I’m just a volunteer…”

In one of the halls, high-school students were taking selfies. “Do you like Chiang?” I shout at them. They all laughed, happily, showing me “V” sign with two fingers.

Translation: I do not understand the simple idea that when I approach people and ask them rapid-fire questions using high-level vocabulary in English*, which involve sharing the pain and struggle of their nation's history, they don't want to answer me because, again, I come off like a total fucking asshole and who would want to talk to someone like that? Furthermore I am incapable of parsing the non-answer, appeal to ignorance or half-baked reply as a common way in Asia of saying "I don't want to share my thoughts with you because you seem like a big fucking jerk". Instead I just dismiss them as stupid.

*I do not for one second believe that this twatmangler speaks fluent Mandarin or Taiwanese. 

At the “228 Memorial Museum” dedicated to the government-orchestrated massacre of Taiwanese civilians, I spoke to an 86-year old Mr. Chang, a survivor of the atrocities.

On the official museum site it reads:

“It commemorates the victims of the 228 Massacre which took place on 28 February 1947. The 228 Massacre was a rebellion by the Taiwanese people against the recently arrived Republic of China (ROC) troops. The ROC government responded with a brutal crackdown that ended with tens of thousands of Taiwanese people killed.” 

“Was Chiang Kai-shek really ‘democratic’?” I asked sarcastically.

Translation: I DON'T KNOW WHY THE FUCK I ASKED THAT "SARCASTICALLY" TO A PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED UNTOLD HORROR BUT PERHAPS IT IS BECAUSE I AM INCAPABLE OF A FULL RANGE OF HUMAN EXPRESSION AS I NEVER FULLY INTERNALIZED A THEORY OF MIND!

Bizarre Chiang’s cult, Nazi high school parades and thorough political and historical ignorance! Continuous efforts to corrupt tiny poor countries in all corners of the world… Playing into the hands of the West, provoking China. What a place Taiwan has become!

I give him credit for being right about Chiang - but not  his inability to see that most Taiwanese also understand this but just don't want to share that with a total fucking asshole. Nor the contradiction inherent in rightly slamming Chiang but slavishly insisting that Taiwan is, in fact, a part of China, which in Taiwan is something only Chiang's party believes. What does he expect Taiwanese to do, hate Chiang (which they do, mostly) but still vote for the KMT? Understand the atrocities of the invading ROC, and yet agree with their party line? This isn't just him being Craptasticus McCunterson (though he is), it's plain stupid. Pretty much everyone who agrees with him about Chiang - which is most people - are pro-independence. The two are irreconcilable.

Nevertheless, here is my translation: 

bhjirwhpu9afos'c890[aerw klmXZGIUOXGEGRGRGogjgjlhgrj;eainphgopuy80748

OYUAGIYjiopgrijpmihjeqhiofeqhipadvhijpHIJPHOUGGIYHIPGEHIK;GRJO[RNK

erajp]9iavdnoji

rghjip

rnip

rghql;olo[kko[hrwinpghrwjo[hrwjo[gko[]gqekp]feqihpefqhgopufqwebvouyegqmino[brw['pjnlo

No but seriously, "Nobody wants to talk to someone who comes off like a massive douchesmuggler" shouldn't be, like, a hard fucking concept. It's not even unique to Taiwan, or Asia. In the West perhaps we'd say outright "you seem like an asshole and I don't want to talk to you", or just "hey buddy get outta my face" (my preferred New York reply), but the non-answer or fake ignorance is Taiwan's (and Asia's) way of expressing the same.

Get a clue, or get the fuck out of Taiwan.

That said, apparently this "philosopher" has worked on "every continent". That's good news! I look forward to his working from Antarctica! 

http://journal-neo.org/2016/12/31/taiwan-ignorance-danger-of-war-and-a-high-school-nazi-parade/

Public celebrates Sun Yat-sen's founding of Taiwan

CHINESE TAIPEI, REPUBLIC OF TAIWAN (CHINA):

Citizens across the country celebrated Sun Yat-sen's founding of Taiwan 105 years ago today. Known as "Double Ten", the holiday celebrates Taiwan's founding just over a century ago on October 10 from volcanic eruptions creating an island where there had previously been open sea.

"On October 10, 1911, Dr. Sun raised his arms, sang the incantation, and Taiwan rose from the ocean. This is why the Portuguese named it Ilha Formosa, for the island's great natural beauty, when they came to the region in 1544," explained former president Ma Ying-jiu, who was on leave from his new post-presidential post as an exhibit in Madame Tussaud's.

"Before 1911, there was no Taiwan," explained Taipei resident Chang An-lo. "Now, there is Chin- I mean Taiwa- I mean the Republic of China. Happy birthday!"

In 1911, what was then known as the Chinese Sea (property of China) was a popular open-water fishing spot, where fishermen from China had been recorded plying their trade since ancient times. Then, visonary thinker and revolutionary Dr. Sun determined that an island should exist in that spot. He opened the Ancient Book of I-Ching, found the chapter on inciting volcanic activity, waved his arms in the precise circumlocutions proscribed by his ancestors, and caused modern Taiwan to erupt from the sea floor.

Despite a few visits to his creation by Dr. Sun, his successors appeared unaware that the island brought into being by their mentor was birthed with a full population that spoke Japanese, Taiwanese and several aboriginal languages, many of whom had neither ever visited China nor spoke any language familiar to the majority of Chinese.

"I remember my grandmother's stories about how Dr. Sun caused her to come into being," noted an Atayal village elder known as A-mue. "It all sounded very exciting."

China and Taiwan separated in 1949 after a brutal civil war forced the KMT to flee from China to the Republic of China. Before that time, China and Taiwan had been united without any division since antiquity.

Taiwan before it existed c. 1910

"Happy birthday, Taiwan!" said Auntie Ho, while turning down the volume of the TVBS show she was watching.

"But, in 1911 Taiwan was a Japanese colony," countered neighbor Pubic Wang. "Double Ten has nothing to do with Taiwan really."

"Ssssshhhhhhh," Auntie Ho replied. "Stop complaining so much. Nobody likes a complainer who doesn't understand history and our 5,000 years of culture since 1911. Taiwan is a democracy now so we can all give our opinions, so please stop giving your opinion after I give my opinion. I love my flag, which is the flag of Taiwan."

Taiwan before it was created by Dr. Sun Yat-sen in 1911

Taiwan after 1911

Stated Wang, "The flag of the Republic of China - which was not conceived in Taiwan, still depicts the KMT sun, which shows that Taiwan still has a long way to go if it is to carve out a distinct identity and future from its authoritarian pa--"

"I said shh! We should celebrate all of the wonderful things the Republic of China has given Taiwan, like 228 Peace Park, the Jingmei Human Rights Museum and a national holiday!" snapped Ho. "Without Sun Yat-sen, you wouldn't even exist!"

Let's send the KMT to a nice farm upstate

from here

So, lots of articles since the election on the resounding defeat of the KMT, not only in elected office but as the clear loser in the current cultural zeitgeist. The KMT doesn't understand Taiwan, hasn't sufficiently 'Taiwanized', is trying and failing to imitate the Sunflower movement, is looking to rebrand itself to the youth...but what's to become of it? Why is it holding onto an anti-Taiwanese culture rhetoric that isn't working and is deeply out of touch with Taiwanese civil society? Can it reform itself? Is it or isn't it a 'monolith'?

(It isn't - no political party is, with very few exceptions. But I don't see how it matters if its various non-monolithic elements are still mostly either crappy or ridiculous).

At the heart of some, but not all, of these narratives is a worry that the KMT is doomed, that they will not successfully navigate the changed political and cultural landscape of Taiwan, in which their fusty old 'we are all Chinese / Three Principles of the People / we are the ones qualified to run Taiwan, not you provincials' values no longer have traction. Many - again, not all - of these articles seem to take it as a given that it would be a fundamentally good thing for the KMT to reform, to "Taiwanize", to finally divest itself of its authoritarian past.

I would like to make the argument, however, that it might not necessarily be a good thing - or at least, that it wouldn't be a bad thing - if the KMT really did sputter and die, and that perhaps Taiwan would be better off with an erstwhile, rather than active, Chinese Nationalist party.

Here's the thing - I do understand that it would be a political mess for most countries to rid themselves of every political party with an unsavory past. The US would have to shut down the Democratic and  Republican parties. (Though again I'm not so sure it would be a bad idea to do so in the long run. An America free of these two entrenched establishment powerhouse parties might end up in a better place). I do understand the impulse to hope for the KMT to atone for its past crimes, as for the time being it's not going anywhere. Better an atoned party in the system than one that can't quite move on from its dictatorial past, I guess.

But wouldn't it be better yet if a party that was the core leadership of a mass-murdering dictatorship in living memory, that people don't call genocidal on what I would say is a semantic technicality (though let's not get into that argument again), did cease to exist? Why is the best case scenario for a reformed KMT, rather than a non-existent KMT?

I do take a very hard line view on this, because my family survived the Armenian genocide in Turkey. I view such crimes - the mass murder of the KMT among them - to be unforgivable. People ask "what does the KMT need to do to be treated as a legitimate party in today's political system? When will people stop bringing up the past and look at who they are today? What do they need to do to prove they are not the same party that they once were?"

(Not kidding, I've seen several people ask this in more or less these words).

I would say - there is nothing they can do. There is no forgiveness. There is no way to absolve yourself of mass murder. There is no way to absolve yourself of dictatorship. If a party engaged in these crimes, why should they be forgiven? Why should they be given another chance in a democratic nation? What have they done to deserve it? The government recognizes the crimes committed against the people and even has a holiday and two museums to commemorate it (though they are trying to shut one down), but the KMT as a party has never adequately apologized for its actions - nor am I sure the KMT ever could adequately apologize. They have not adequately released records from that era, they have not adequately made reparations to families, they have not adequately owned up to what they've done. Transitional justice in this regard has not been done. They still have the same old attitude of "well that was in the past, you'd best forget it and by the way, don't forget to vote for us, also please don't take away all of the assets we stole from you".

There simply is no forgiveness for something like the White Terror, so I don't see any reason why one should heed the "the past is the past, the KMT is different now" calls for tolerance. I am not tolerant of Armenian genocide apologists or deniers, so I see no reason to be tolerant of the party that in living memory committed mass murder among other crimes against the people in Taiwan. There is quite literally nothing they can do to remove that stain, nor should there be. As far as I'm concerned, if you perpetrate a crime against society on that scale, there is no going back, you do not deserve to exist or be any sort of political or ruling force.

What's more, why should we hope that they reform themselves from being the party of stolen assets which they fight against returning?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of compulsory party education and attempted brainwashing?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party that had the chance to keep Taiwan in the UN as a non-security council participant, and screwed the country by not doing so?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of trying to wipe out Taiwanese language and culture and replace it, in great cultural imperialist fashion, with Chinese nationalism and Mandarin?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of unapologetic and continued revisionist history?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of destroying and then ignoring Taiwan's economy until they couldn't anymore, rebuilding what they wrecked and then claiming credit for the "Taiwan miracle"?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of the 'we are the only true qualified rulers of Taiwan' attitude and all the condescension it implies?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of the rich, pro-China, powerful and nepotistic?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party of eventual unification?

Why should we hope they reform themselves from being the party that blocks transitional justice at every turn?

Why does it matter if they "reform themselves" successfully? They are a stained party with a stained past. Why would it be such a bad thing if they simply ceased to exist? Why does one need to even consider forgiveness? Why do we need to let them 'move on' from their 'authoritarian past'? They are their authoritarian past, there is no divorcing the two.

In short, fuck the KMT.

I don't hope they reform themselves. I hope they die (as a party, obviously I don't want individual people to die). I was not affected by the White Terror, but as an Armenian I can feel quite clearly how insulting it is to imply that those who were terrorized or who had loved ones terrorized by the KMT should now accept the 'new', 'improved' party. There is no reason why they should have to do so. There is no reason why they should be told by others that they are no longer allowed to have their views colored by the past. In the words of a friend, it is deeply offensive to tell a victim when they must stop being a victim, if they feel atonement has not been made, or can never be made.

Obviously, an outright ban on the KMT wouldn't go over well. People do, for some reason, vote for them. There are some good people in their ranks (I suppose). While I wouldn't be opposed to banning a party that literally committed mass murder, I'm not sure it's a politically viable solution. They do have a (shrinking) support base, still.

Instead, let's just stop wringing our hands over "what's to be done about the KMT? Can they bounce back from this"? They probably will, someday, anyway, despite the wishful thinking I'm about to unleash below. Let's forget about making the KMT viable and see if maybe that support base continues to shrink, and if the KMT disappears because it just can't keep up with the rapid cultural and political changes in modern Taiwan.

Maybe the KMT won't have to be banned - maybe it will fracture and dissolve and eventually off itself.

Why on earth would we need to be upset about that? If people stop voting for a party and the party therefore ceases to exist, why is that necessarily a bad thing?

I don't mean to imply, by the way, that the DPP should be left as the sole major party in Taiwan. That would also be a terrible way forward. I don't even like the DPP very much! Instead, why not let a new party step in - not People First (James Soong has also done unforgivable things) but something like it - and fill the needs of broadly 'conservative' voters. I may not be a conservative but I recognize some people are, and they need people to represent them, after all. A party without a murderous, brutally dictatorial past, perhaps?

Hell, why not let Taiwan evolve into a KMT-less multi-party democracy? Would that really be so bad?

In short, who cares what's best for the KMT? We should be asking what's best for Taiwan, and would it not potentially be best for Taiwan not to have a KMT at all, and to evolve into a non-binary democracy where the political views of all voters can potentially, broadly, be met in a variety of candidates?

tl;dr - I just don't care if the KMT crashes and burns. I don't mean that I want a one-party DPP-run state, just that I want more non-KMT party options to fill that void. So let's stop worrying, 'k?

It's time to send the nationalists to a nice farm upstate. Don't do it with bans. Do it with votes.

The protest that wasn't, the narrative that isn't

So you know how Taiwan independence demonstrators are so often found in Ximending on the corner near Red House? Well, today a bunch of pro-China supporters got permission to use that space - they had tents and a police presence and everything - to set up a bunch of Chinese flags and a loudspeaker blasting pro-China songs and rants about how if Taiwan insists on Taiwan independence, then "there will be war, missiles will reach Taiwan in just 7 minutes, Tsai Ying-wen had better take heed and recognize 'one country two systems'" followed by more bellicose patriotic songs.

Video is from Taiwanreporter - I took some videos too and will put them online soon, for now this one is fine. In fact he got a lot of the same people on camera as I did, including the person saying "Taiwan Number One". Watch through and note the reactions of bystanders. Who does it look like they support?


This guy is my hero!
Photo by my friend Ellery Hamann

My first thought was that these were protesters from China, which should absolutely not be allowed. But, no, with police protection and all the trappings of a legit protest, they were almost certainly Taiwanese citizens who just happen to have douchey opinions.

In fact, as Taiwanreporter pointed out, they are (almost certainly) the same folks who until recently protested and try to create trouble around Taipei 101, until Mayor Ko put a stop to it.

That's not a reason to deny anyone freedom of speech, of course, and they have the right to do this in public as much as, say, any of us have the right to demonstrate for Taiwanese sovereignty. I'm also not going to join the calls to 'deport them back to China' because, well, they are citizens too. I'd love to deport Ted Cruz to Canada but he is as much an American as I am. Every country has its jerks. But, I can't help but wonder if they'd be happier in China, and if they love it so much, why don't they just move there of their own accord? Why do they have to cramp our style, insisting on a political solution that will never be acceptable to Taiwan, when the majority is just not with them and never will be?

So my second thought is that they were paid. And they almost certainly were - I highly doubt this is just a spontaneous display of love for China. That's just not in the national. attitude right now and honestly, hasn't been...well, ever. Even  the "we will force you to. Be Chinese, we are better than you because we come from China so we'll murder everyone who disagrees with us and stamp out your cultural touchstones" KMT fucklords weren't pro-PRC. until recently, and even now they wouldn't dare be so open about it. Almost no doubt about it - these guys were paid by China to stir up trouble in the run-up to Tsai Ying-wen's inauguration and provide a colorful backdrop that China can refer to when trying to make the dubious claim that some Taiwanese support "reunification" (heh).

It happens a lot in Hong Kong - on important days or on days when there are pro-Hong Kong demonstrations, pro-China counter-protesters show up too, and they are almost always paid. Whether or not they are sincere is almost beside the point - if the government has to pay them to protest, then they are not acting in good faith vis-a-vis public discourse. This is also in part for photo ops that Beijing can shop around to show that some Hong Kongers 'want to be a part of the PRC'.

Not to get too conspiracy theorist but seeing as it was in part an anti-Tsai protest, I have to wonder how much they were encouraged or 'allowed' by the KMT. Remember, as much as we'd all like to forget, Ma Ying-jiu is still the president.

So why am I writing about them? Why am I giving them air time? They may have the right to protest but they don't have the right to be paid attention to, yes?

Yes! But.

I wanted to point out two things. The first is that there are almost no actual protesters there! Take a close look at the photos once they are posted. There is one guy in a vest, a woman with a sign and an old guy waving a big flag (who looks suspiciously similar to the driver of the Musical China Douchemobile - and probably is. It's like the same four people at every protest, because China couldn't even get more than that with money). There may be a few others in the tents hiding from public view. All that sound and fury is coming from a LOUDSPEAKER! They're no better than some stupid recording blaring about discounts on Panadol outside of a Watson's or Cosmed. There are a few flags, a loudspeaker and a couple of people.


Look! There's nobody actually there!

Perhaps it was because the Chinese government perhaps could not find enough people who would even do this for money in Taiwan who could do so legally. Wouldn't surprise me if that were the case. There are maybe three or four people in all of Taiwan who support unifying with the PRC, and the same three or four people show up at every paid protest with flags and loudspeakers to create some sound and fury, to seem bigger and more important than they are.

What amuses me is that unless these photos are strongly photoshopped, with people added in, or cropped creatively, they actually make China look worse - you can't even get a person to sing that dumb Chinese song? You have to use a loudspeaker? You can't get more than less than half a dozen people? What does that prove? How does that make China's case? It doesn't - it shows the opposite.


But there sure are a lot of people counter-protesting.

Perhaps it was because the protesters knew that they would not get a lot of support from passers-by, or any support really. They knew that if they showed their faces they'd get booed or laughed at, so they didn't show their faces for the most part. That is, of course, if more of them exist than were present earlier today.

This part really gets me - if you have a douchey opinion, fine, as long as it more or less lines up with facts you have the right to it (you do not have the right to be right about it, though). But if you're going to set up a street protest to express it, at least have the balls to show up in person. What kind of dickless wonders take Chinese money, then hang up a few flags, set up a loudspeaker and won't even show their coward faces? Absolutely no sympathy, no respect for that. I've got bigger balls than these guys. I may be a foreigner, but at least I'm willing to say, from my own mouth and in person, what I think (yes, foreigner residents to have the right of assembly in Taiwan - we can protest legally as long as we are legal residents and not undocumented or tourists). Christ. Grow a pair.


And protest I did, though I look tired and haggard today which is why I partially hid my face
If they can protest, so can I!

Also worth noting is that not only were bystanders not supportive at all - lots of middle fingers, lots of shouting back, lots of making fun of these guys, I quite literally did not even see one person walk by and actually support this in any demonstrable way - but that the counter-protest (remember, the pro-independence guys usually have this corner) was exponentially larger than the laughable shell of a pro-China protest (it's not hard to have more people than a protest of three). The counter-protesters had at least several dozen people, seemingly more walking around (they'd sit, march around etc.)
All this goes to show that not only have things changed in Taiwan, but that China can't even drum up enough people for a real demonstration nor will they ever garner enough support from the Taiwanese public. Taiwanese civil society is just not on the same page as the Chinese government or even the KMT, and while the latter may change (pendulums do swing), the former never will. China has lost this one.

They have nothing. They have no soft power in Taiwan - the Taiwanese hate their government and don't want to be a part of their country. They have no supporters. They have no path to "peaceful unification". They have nothing but empty photo-ops - a few flags and a loudspeaker. They are nothing. Their words mean nothing. They never even had a grip on Taiwan to lose. Like this protest, their words on Taiwan are are hollow. Meaningless, because they have zero - zero - support in a country where support matters.

I can't help but also notice that, while these guys were once aggressive outside Taipei 101, punching those who disagreed and counter-protesters and trying to start fights, that they now seem almost cowed. One woman quietly holds a sign. The old guy waves a flag. Someone in a vest stays well behind the police line. They know they don't have the  high ground, local support or even political support to start fights anymore. They bluster and bloviate and wave their flags, but look a little closer under all that sound, they are cowed.

They may talk of "peaceful unification", but that will never happen. That battle is already lost (and China is the loser). China doesn't want war - I still think they don't, anyway - but it is simply not going to get Taiwan any other way but by looking like the bratty little fascists they are to the rest of the world and forcibly annexing a developed, democratic country. All that talk of "peaceful unification" is, like this "protest", an empty shell. Meaningless. Sound and fury, signifying nothing. A few loud people who do not speak for the vast majority of Taiwanese. It can't be peaceful if the Taiwanese don't agree to it, and they never, ever will. Won't happen, can't happen. Fuck you, China. You lose. Taiwan doesn't want you, they never have and they never, ever will. Eat me.

A Taiwanese State of Mind: Of Localism and Identity

I may not have Taiwanese kiddies, but I do have Taiwanese kitties.

There are two things that are complicated to approach as a liberal foreigner who watches Taiwanese politics (especially through a non-expert lens, such as myself): which party to support, if any - certainly many Taiwanese have yet to find a party that appeals to them - and how to essentially support localist, to an extent "populist", movements.

Until the inception of the New Power Party, feeling a bit uncomfortable about the centrist rhetoric and general corruption (though not nearly as bad as the corruption of the KMT), not to mention the seeming incompetence at pushing their own platforms and ideas rather than simply reacting to KMT initiatives, I tenuously, uncomfortably, supported the TSU (Taiwan Solidarity Union). I liked their straightforward clarity of thought in the idea that Taiwan is not a part of China and this is just a logical conclusion based not only on history but on the reality of Taiwan's current situation and general public will. Their very rational pointing out of the fact that Mandarin was never the native language of Taiwan - it was forced on the Taiwanese by the KMT, who, when they came here were more of a colonizing force flanked by quite a few political refugees, but then took over the place and acted as though they had the right to rule despite nobody in Taiwan having much desire to be ruled by them. What is an unwelcome occupying force? A colonial one. Duh. Their noting that transitional justice simply has not been adequate, and many Taiwanese families still do not know what happened to their ancestors in the White Terror and martial law era.

All very clear, all very obvious.

But I never quite felt comfortable with my own support, because while at various protests and events the TSU had always been welcoming to me, there was a distinct underlying impression that many of their supporters did secretly believe in the idea of Hoklo nativism and tended, with their "Taiwan for the Taiwanese" (implication: Taiwanese = Hoklo) rhetoric, to drive away other groups in Taiwan , like Hakka and the various aboriginal groups, who might have otherwise tended to agree with their pro-independence platforms. I'm sure some of this is KMT propaganda, but that aside, reading their own literature, from the TSU as a source, also carried this impression.

I guess I always wondered if their "Taiwan for the Taiwanese, let's all speak Hoklo" rhetoric, despite their friendliness to me, would eventually morph into anti-foreigner sentiment in general. I'm a foreigner. How can I possibly feel totally comfortable with that?

So when the NPP (New Power Party) came along, it was like a breath of fresh air. Finally, an unashamedly pro-independence party that is socially liberal as I am, has made worker's rights a central tenet of their party platform (though I feel $26K in their 'fight for 26K' is actually too low), an anti-death penalty, strongly pro-LGBT party I could really get behind, with the added benefit of being founded by student activists and other Third Force powers that I have supported in the past. Plus, they are nationalists in that they believe, without reservation, in de jure Taiwanese independence, but they are not isolationists in the sense that so many nationalist parties are (from their platform: The New Power Party advocates that Taiwan actively participate in international society, that it should uphold conscience and defend human rights and justice more, and that it should carry out its international responsibilities.)

Finally, a party I can fully support, right?

Well, I'm still not so sure.




















It has gone largely unnoticed, but the New Power Party is one of the groups resisting changes to the laws regulating foreign workers in Taiwan:

On top of that, loosening the requirements will play into the hands of employers who wish to maintain the current low salary structures. So far, several of the newly elected legislators, including the New Power Party (NPP) caucus, have publicly spoken out against the modified draft.

This is a bit of a blow - in that it blows quite a bit.

A few thoughts about the proposed changes to laws regulating, well, people like me. Foreigners. First of all, this sort of sentiment bothers me in similar ways to my not-unconditional support of Bernie Sanders. Sanders too, and many left-wing populists like him, seems to think that easing immigration restrictions drives down salaries, despite little evidence that this is actually the case and some evidence that it is, in fact, untrue. From the Washington Post article:

Today, he likes to talk about his opposition to it in humanitarian terms, calling guest-worker programs semi-slavery. But at the time, Sanders's public comments reflected on the economics of the program — specifically, his concern that bringing in guest workers would drive down wages for low-income Americans.

So, with my discomfort at Sanders touting - or having touted - an economic anti-immigrant platform that I don't support, obviously it would bother me the the New Power Party in Taiwan has taken up similar rhetoric.

Truly, we are not the ones driving down wages in Taiwan. We are right there with you, tryin' to earn a crust of bread through labor. To take an old cliche - why is the NPP pointing at foreign labor as a cause of stagnant wages? We are going after the same crumbs, yes, but look at your bosses, who took the whole damn cookie.

Honestly, the proposal to eliminate the minimum salary requirement and the onerous hiring requirements is a no-brainer, because Western white collar workers won't take less than what the law regulates anyway unless they have a reason not to, and even non-Western white collar professionals from, say, the Philippines or India, do expect international-level salaries. I doubt anyone in that segment of society, even from considerably less wealthy countries, went through a long education to become a professional only to take low pay in Taiwan. The folks who want to see restrictions eased don't want to accept stagnant pay any more than Taiwanese citizens do!

The few that would take such pay cuts or who would need to get a job without having the requisite Master's degree or two years' documented experience in the field are not that great in number and are not much different from local Taiwanese. They are not going to undercut locals - they're just not. They don't want to. They aren't quite me - I am an English teacher and corporate trainer by profession and with an APRC the rules don't quite apply to me. But, they are people like, say, a twentysomething who wants to live here but not teach English, and yet struggles to find a non-teaching job because the law keeps many firms from hiring people like her. Who isn't trying to take what Taiwanese have but rather just wants to build a good life for herself, and loves living in Taiwan.

It feels unnecessarily draconian towards an economic end that hasn't been shown to actually be a problem, and oddly self-destructive for the New Power Party for two reasons:

The first is that they themselves support greater international participation for Taiwan. Allowing more foreigners to come here and work without having to teach English (or wait until they are established enough in their fields that the low salaries on offer in Taiwan do not appeal to them) is a great way to do that. It would certainly help alleviate the feeling that Taiwan is a professional backwater.

The second is that, hey, young liberal twentysomethings - which is who most of these new workers would be - are natural allies to the New Power Party! The majority of them are the sort of workers-rights-loving, LGBT-friendly, anti-death-penalty, environmentalist, Taiwan-loving progressives that the New Power Party would be wise to court, if not for their votes (we can't vote) then for their international presence and ability to use soft power to share the cause of Taiwan with the world.

How better to raise the profile of Taiwan in the international sphere than to make it easier for this demographic of young folks to come, work here, fall in love with Taiwan and then go home raving about what a great country it is? How it is not China and deserves more from the world?

In short, we are natural political allies, NPP. Please don't do this to us. Don't throw us under the bus when we're not the ones who are taking the Taiwanese workers' cookie.

Set your sights instead on the bosses, business owners and powers-that-be who are taking your cookie.

Another reason this is problematic is that it diminishes hope for wannabe-permanent immigrants like us who are not sure we can stay forever simply because there is no viable path to citizenship for us (which is again done purposely, and is again extremely racist as the government allows its own citizens to have dual citizenship), and a lack of citizenship causes problems in our daily lives that may cause many to decide to leave. As I've written, we may be among that cohort someday.

Why should this matter?

Well, both the Taiwanese independence movement and the Third Force/student activist/New Power Party have been accused of being 'populist' - that they channel not only grassroots anti-elitist - in this case anti-KMT - sentiments (an essential component of populism) but, as an inevitable outcome of that, nativist anti-foreigner - in this case anti-China - sentiments. That they are extremely localist to the point of wanting 'Taiwanese independence'  along the same lines as UKIP's "Britain for the British" or Trumpian "Build That Wall!" rhetoric.

First, some thoughts about populism. It's definitely got a bad reputation these days - think THEY TOOK OUR JOBS-style anti-globalization, pro-isolationist right-wing anger. But the original term "populism" comes from the idea of "from the people", and doesn't necessarily have to mean everyday people and Joe the Plumber types being anti-foreigner. That's right-wing populism, but the term itself has several possible definitions, including left-wing populism which only really shares a strain of anti-elitism with other versions but otherwise tends to appeal to a socialist sense of community and shared resources.

Yet, if you perhaps think that being a part of the UK isn't the best thing for Scotland but are not necessarily an isolationist/splittist/anti-foreigner type, or you think maybe the EU isn't quite working for you as a country but are otherwise more or less a socialist, or think that Taiwan ought to be de jure independent from China but don't see that nationalism as being anti-China but rather pro-Taiwan, you tend to get lumped into the right-wing populist camp by critics, whether you belong there or not.

And I don't think Taiwan belongs there. I really don't.

It also bothers me that left-wing and right-wing populists share not only an anti-elite establishment bent, but also an anti-immigrant bent. The latter based on ethnocentric zealotry of which only one component is "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS", the former based only on an economic argument that has no real basis of proof.

It is possible to be in favor of creating your own nation - in favor of self-determination in fact - but not an ethnic zealot nor an anti-foreigner isolationist. To recognize that perhaps free trade isn't always the best idea economically, that labor needs a fair shake, but to recognize that immigrants are decidedly not the problem. This is where I feel Taiwan's future is.

There aren't many countries or territories in Asia that have managed to build nations without an ethnic foundation - I can only think of Singapore and Hong Kong off the top of my head as being truly internationally diverse (others, such as Indonesia, Burma and India, are multi-ethnic but all ethnicities are local). You don't have to be Malay or Hokkien to be Singaporean, and you don't have to be Cantonese to be Hong Konger (although the Chinese government has something to say about that, wanting only people of Chinese ethnicity to be Chinese citizens and creating a problem of statelessness in Hong Kong).

I know I can never 'be Chinese', nor would I want to be. That's an ethnicity, and I am not ethnically Chinese. But there are countries - mostly Western ones - where you can 'be' that nationality without having to be a certain ethnicity. I do wonder, however, if I or someone like me could ever 'become Taiwanese' the same way one can 'become American', not only in official name (it is possible, just often insurmountably difficult, to get ROC citizenship) but also in the public consciousness. If Taiwanese doesn't have to mean Hoklo or "Han Chinese", if it can include aborigines and Hakka (whom I realize are technically Han, yes) and the children of Taiwanese with foreign spouses, can Taiwanese also mean, say, someone like me? Or, even more fittingly, a 'foreigner' who was born here? Could I actually live the 'Taiwanese dream', or is that closed to me because of my ethnicity?

I like to think that it could, and for every "you're a foreigner and you'll always be one even if you were born here", I feel like I meet someone for whom the "multiethnic diverse nation of Taiwan" idea is not only not crazy, but actually inviting. Who is happy to admit that Taiwan has had such a tumultuous history and is home to enough different kinds of people that being Taiwanese is a state of mind, not an ethnicity you are born with.

I like to think, anyway, that Taiwan might be something of a thought leader in Asia in this area. Certainly despite some setbacks it is a progressive nation by Asian standards.

This feels, to me, like a natural platform to support for the pro-international-engagement New Power Party, so again, it's disappointing that they're adopting the same problematic 'immigrants are a problem' rhetoric that a lot of lefty 'populists' really need to get out of their system. It certainly isn't going to come from the KMT (are they not the architects of the original anti-foreigner citizenship and worker laws?), the DPP doesn't seem particularly interested, the TSU, as above, is a bit too nativist, but I am actually surprised it's not on the NPP docket. If they're trying to differentiate themselves from the Taiwan = Hoklo reputation of the TSU, this is a great way to do it.

But getting over this "don't make it easier for foreigners, they're lowering our wages' hump seems like it's going to be a problem. If we can't even change the laws regarding who can work here as a foreign professional, how are we going to create a path to 'being Taiwanese' - to making it realistically possible to get citizenship and live here as regular adults and not eternal guests?

I want to wholeheartedly embrace the NPP...but again, as a foreigner who just wants a better life and isn't looking to take anything from Taiwanese, who is most definitively not holding the cookie that's been kept from local low-wage workers, I'm not sure I can. They don't seem to want to let me live the 'Taiwanese dream' any more than any other party, and it's a damn shame.

Do better.

Identity, DIsmissiveness, and the Status Quo (with update)

Update: Michael Turton has a reaction to my reaction of his reaction to Cole's post, but I think there's been a misunderstanding of what I mean:

I'm not saying Cole and Goren are saying SQSs don't exist. I'm saying that SQSs are something of a cohesive group, even if they are not organized and as of yet have no 'name' or label. And that they are, in fact, a force for Beijing to contend with (as Cole suggests) because China has this idea that they will roll over and accept unification when, in fact, that is (mostly) not the case. They're, if anything, a bigger difficulty for China as their numbers are far greater than straight-up independence supporters.

I also disagree, but didn't say it clearly before, that I don't see a discussion or labeling of them an attempt by some Nationalist svengali to 'divide' the independence movement. This identifying as an SQS, even without a name, and differentiating oneself from independence supporters is coming from the people themselves, not by some shadowy external force. There are differences, and while deep down they generally want the same thing - Taiwanese independence - they themselves are the ones who purposely do not identify with the pro-independence groups (mostly as a reaction to the overly-nativist talk of yore, which I am happy to see both the DPP and NPP disavowing). I was quite interested to read these past few days two competing accounts of the notion of "huadu" - one from J. Michael Cole positing that it's a strong secondary force in Taiwanese politics that Beijing will have to contend with, and another by Michael Turton and Ben Goren that it's not a thing - that it's a somewhat dismissive label concocted by more strongly pro-independence sources to describe a "weak-willed" sort of person who believes in maintaining the status quo as the only form of independence feasible for Taiwan right now.

Being a non-scholar, I'm sure nobody is particularly interested in what I have to say, but I'll say it anyway: seems to me they're both right.

Where Turton and Goren are correct is in noting that "huadu" is not an organized force. It is not a self-created label by a group of people who are organized in any way. It is not a form of self-identification, but rather has recently been used to describe a diverse range of beliefs that can be a way of "being Taiwanese" but is not a predictor of how a person will vote, necessarily. They're also right in that "huadu" supporters don't necessarily tend to side with the KMT or PFP - or if they do there's no data to support it at present as polls asking about identification don't provide enough to offer such insights. I also agree that using "huadu" as a label to describe pro-status-quo supporters isn't quite appropriate, aside from the label's derisive history, many don't identify as Chinese and quite a few would be happy to live in a hypothetical Republic of Taiwan, not necessarily an independent Republic of China, were such an opportunity to become feasible.

Where, however, it seems to me - again in my totally non-scientific observation - that they are wrong is in dismissing it as existing at all simply because it is not an organized or semi-organized political force or a self-identifying label. They may not be as cohesive as the staunchly pro-independence or Chinese nationalist types, but there is an element of cohesion to them. And just because "huadu" doesn't describe them well, or isn't an appropriate term to use for them, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This group DOES exist. It's not that organized because it encompasses a very wide range of people with diverse beliefs, but it's real and it's powerful. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that a strong majority of Taiwanese fall into this group. Furthermore, while I generally identify with the more strongly pro-democracy Third Force - the Sunflowers, the New Power Party, the TSU if they'd jettison all the nativist talk etc. - one thing that turns me off to some rhetoric from that faction is the dismissiveness with which many of them treat pro-status-quo supporters. I may be strongly pro-independence, but I can't deny the pragmatism of the status-quo supporters, which I'll call SQSs simply because they don't have a name and I don't want to have to type as much.

The reason I say SQSs are real is that I hear very similar refrains so often among my friends (well, some of my friends - most tend to be more ardently pro-independence), acquaintances and students that follow this line of thinking. "Independence isn't realistic right now. Of course I'd like an independent Taiwan, but if it means war, where we are now is acceptable. Taiwan is already independent! We're not Chinese and we won't become Chinese, so we've already won! Of course I don't want to be annexed by China but I'll do anything to avoid war."

I don't see how one can deny that such a belief exists when it is just so common. And when the refrains are so similar, I don't see how I could agree that there isn't some element of cohesion, some similar thought process, binding SQSs together. Perhaps they all watch the same news broadcasts and read the same articles and thinkpieces, but even if that's where they get their talking points (and don't judge - we all do to a degree), that also constitutes a form of cohesion.

While I agree that SQSs are not necessarily KMT supporters - or at least we have no good way of knowing whether they are or not - I have to say the majority I've met (and again they are also a majority of the people I've met) do tend to have voted for the KMT until very recently. They, in my observation, tend to be light blue, identify with the local Taiwan KMT, and often are 'native Taiwanese' (I find this term problematic, but...) who vote blue because they're Hakka or aboriginal, not Hoklo, or they are Hoklo but their parents were teachers, police officers or other types of civil servant and therefore feel the KMT has treated them well and earned their support. They're aware that the KMT hasn't treated everyone well, but don't dwell on it (even if perhaps they should). Or, they just know the local KMT representative personally and therefore vote for him or her. They are often light blue because they're the children and grandchildren of the KMT diaspora, believe the DPP has been to nativist and anti-them in its rhetoric (and perhaps in the past this was true), but don't identify as Chinese no matter what Grandpa says.

The vast majority seem to have voted for Ma, perhaps even twice, but either didn't vote or switched to Tsai in the latest election. Quite a few voted for Ke Wen-zhe in Taipei, or didn't vote. They would have supported a candidate like Ding Shou-zhong in the Taipei mayoral election, but were never given the chance. A small number aren't anti-KMT per se, but voted for Chen hoping for the impossible, were disappointed, and have since switched back to the KMT. Many identify as 'non-political' or 'non-partisan' and simply choose who they feel is the best candidate.

What they do have in common, regardless of who they support, seems to be - again in my observation - that they identify as Taiwanese. Turton and Goren are right about that. Many fell away from their light-blue KMT support because of the Ma administration's attempts to Sinicize and ROC-ify (that's some smooth writin') Taiwan.

Though that is not always true - I've met exactly three who say they identify as Chinese, but can't accept unification right now, and are waiting for the Chinese government to reform. Interestingly, the international media and quite a few 'China scholars' hold the entirely false belief that this group makes up the majority of Taiwanese SQSs. They don't. They exist, but they're not terribly common anymore. One of these three thinks Taiwan and China should eventually unify and doesn't understand Taiwanese identity at all. Oddly, he's young - this is not a common opinion among Taiwanese youth. One believes in the ROC and is accepting of unification if it's good for business. One says she 'doesn't want to give up' her right to the cultural history of China. She sees herself as the cultural product of Confucius and Lao Tzu, the Chinese classics, Chinese arts and imperial history. She feels that identifying as Taiwanese means giving up what she sees as her cultural heritage. While I don't entirely agree, I can understand her sentiment and anyway, as someone who isn't Taiwanese, my opinion on that doesn't matter much.

These folks may exist - and I hope my three real-life examples reveal an undercurrent of identity in Taiwan rather than simply being three anecdotes - but for the vast majority of SQSs, scratching the surface just a bit will reveal a pro-independence supporter (Cole is right about this). And Turton and Goren are not wrong that being an SQS can be a way of being Taiwanese. It can even be a way of rationalizing voting for the KMT while identifying as Taiwanese!

They haven't organized yet, and they don't self-identify necessarily, but that doesn't mean they won't or they couldn't. I could absolutely envision a political force, called something like the Status Quo Party - or as that's not particularly inspiring, perhaps the Cross-Strait Peace Party - starting up and capturing a surprising number of votes from those who are currently disgusted with the KMT, can't quite forgive the DPP for its former Hoklo nativism, and think the student activists (New Power and the Sunflowers) go a bit too far or push a bit too hard for their tastes. It would probably include a number of Taiwanese-identifying non-Hoklo people (I could see such a party having a great deal of Hakka support), light-blue-Taiwan-KMT voters who can't bring themselves to vote for the KMT any longer, a few children-and-grandchildren-of-waishengren/KMT diaspora who perhaps started out identifying as Chinese but as new generations are born are shifting their views, a few  we voted for Chen Shui-bian because we thought he could deliver the impossible but he was a disappointment" non-partisans, quite a few businesspeople who are horrified by the KMT but think the status quo is good for business. Perhaps a few of the weaker New Power Party supporters who will show up for street protests but thought occupations of government buildings went a bit too far, too, although that group tends to be ideologically cohesive enough that I'm not confident of this.

And with this belief so prevalent and common among so many groups who otherwise identify differently - whether they're Hakka, aborigine, Chinese nationalists disgusted with the KMT, Hoklo Taiwan-KMT light blues who are even more disgusted with the KMT, A-bian "we wanted change but all we got was corruption" burnouts, nativist-rhetoric-hating grandchildren of the diaspora, businesspeople who just want the best deal, or Taiwanese-identifying pragmatists - I'd go so far as to say it's dangerous to pretend they are "not a thing". If anything, they are the thing, it's the one glue that holds together a very large majority of Taiwanese, and the group that consistently wins elections. I think it's been proven you can't win a presidential election on pro-unification or pro-independence-ASAP rhetoric alone. You have to follow the SQS crowd, at least for now (I still hold out for one-day President Freddy Lim or President Lin Fei-fan). SQSs are the kingmakers. Tsai Ying-wen grasped this, and she won. It would be wise not to ignore them.