Please stop implying the name "Chinese Taipei" is Taiwan's choice

Borrowed (ok, yanked) from Chen Yen-han's Twitter feed

So much has been said about the name "Chinese Taipei" that I hadn't been intending to blog about it at all, especially as I Do Not Watch The Olympics (in capital letters). But there's a particular strain of thought that's been bugging me this time around, and perhaps it's worth addressing. 

That is, the idea that "Chinese Taipei" exists because of a decision -- just about any decision on Taiwan's name or laws -- made and currently affirmed by the government of Taiwan, so Taiwan itself is to blame for it. Even worse, this carries the implication that the geographically nonsensical name was somehow Taiwan's choice. 

I'm choosing to leave aside all the other arguments here: that "Chinese Taipei" exists because Taiwan is part of China, which is so wrong it doesn't deserve anyone's attention, or that it's the unfortunate result of international political give-and take -- which is basically true, but dispiriting. There's also the argument that Taiwan not being independent is a matter of 'international law', which is simply not true. Under any international laws that apply (and not many, if any, do), Taiwan's status is either undetermined, or it's a country. The UN and various diplomatic recognition questions don't change that. 

Besides, if it were a matter of "international law", Hong Kong and Palestine would not be fielding teams, as Palestine also lacks a seat at the UN and is denied autonomy by Israel, with US backing. Hong Kong is a recognized part of China, unfortunately. If only countries could field teams, the refugee team wouldn't exist. Countries, territories, states battling for recognition and groups of people who aren't even from one country can all participate in the Olympics, and name changes simply aren't a matter of international law. 

That's not the point, though. The big problem here, the one that my brain won't release, are the implications that the name "Chinese Taipei" was somehow Taiwan's decision or Taiwan's fault. It is neither.

Let's be clear: if the people of Taiwan had any say at all in what their Olympic team was called, it would be Taiwan, period. Nobody in Taiwan says "Chinese Taipei", they refer to their teams as 'Taiwan'. In 18 years, I have seen exactly one (1) person wearing a piece of Chinese Taipei merchandise, and frankly, he was getting a lot of stink-eye for it. I've never seen a piece of Chinese Taipei merch on sale in Taiwan. Some do watch, and when Taiwan wins, they talk about how Taiwan won, not Chinese Taipei. 

"But the official name of the country is the Republic of China! If they want to be Team Taiwan, they should change the country's name!"

Sure, I want to see a Republic of Taiwan too. The sooner the better, and it would be preferable if it didn't involve a war. But this argument is disingenuous: the name of the country isn't "Chinese Taipei". What Taiwan is called at the Olympics is simply not related to the official name of Taiwan. If it were, they'd be "Team Republic of China". That sounds silly to me, but I suppose it would be accurate at some official level. It might be locally be accepted, with a few groans. 

What's scarier about this is the Catch-22 such commentators intentionally create for Taiwan. They insist that in order to be called Taiwan, the country's name has to change, but will be the first to blame Taiwan if war breaks out because the country changed its name. There's no way for Taiwan to 'win' in the scenario they set up, and I refuse to believe everyone who makes such comments is so brain-addled that they don't see this.

No country, no people, should have to risk a devastating war just to have their sovereignty affirmed, especially if they are already self-governing. Frankly, even if they aren't -- but that's a different, rather irrelevant debate for Taiwan.

Regardless, Taiwan doesn't have to change anything internally to ask the IOC to reconsider now that Taiwan has democratized and seen drastic changes in beliefs, desires and identity. (How drastic, we'll never know -- it's not like anyone was polling what Taiwanese people thought in 1970). Plenty of nations, groups and territories request changes. The IOC is free to grant them. There's nothing stopping them except China. 


"But Taiwan itself claims to be China, so they themselves don't want to just be Taiwan!" 

No, it doesn't. If the constitution could ever have been said to claim all of China, that was put to rest in the 1990s. I could talk at length about what the ROC constitution itself does and does not say, and what the amendments do and do not mean, but I've already done that here. 

All you really need to know is that the constitutional court declined to rule on constitutionally-specified borders of the Republic of China. In other words, they wouldn't take it up as a constitutional question because they consider it a fundamentally political one, with the constitution not clarifying either way. 

Thus, the constitution makes no specific claims about ROC borders, which means it fundamentally cannot be used to claim PRC territory. 

That's leaving aside the amendment specifying that the ROC only claims to govern 'the free area' -- which is Taiwan and its outlying islands. Not the PRC. 

There really is no law that specifies borders, at least not one that I can find. As for comments, almost every elected administration of Taiwan has upheld that Taiwan is Taiwan, and its name is the Republic of China. Several elected presidents, with really only one exception, have stated that the PRC and ROC are two different entities, and neither is subordinate to the other -- or that relations between them are at the state-to-state level. 

At the highest level of office, Taiwan simply does not claim to be all of China.


"But Taiwan had the chance to be Team Taiwan and turned it down!" 

This is technically true. Taiwan was offered the opportunity to compete as Team Taiwan at one point, and has competed under other names. I'm going to quote at length from Focus Taiwan here, as they tend to make their articles unavailable to the public after a time, and I think that's silly:

The PRC stayed away from the Olympics throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, enabling the ROC to compete under the names of "Formosa" in 1960, "Taiwan" in 1964 and 1968, and "Republic of China" in 1972.

During that era, the Kuomintang (KMT) leaders of the ROC wanted the national Olympic team to compete under the "Republic of China" name to get international backing for the ROC's legitimacy, according to the documentary. For the KMT, this was especially important after the United Nations recognized the PRC and expelled the ROC in 1971.

In 1976, when the ROC delegation was asked to join the Olympic Games under the name "Taiwan" instead of "Republic of China," it refused to change its name and withdrew from the games in Canada, which broke diplomatic relations with the ROC and established ties with the PRC in 1970. [Emphasis mine]

The IOC executive committee then passed the "Nagoya Resolution" in 1979, which both the PRC and the ROC governments ultimately agreed to follow.

The resolution recognized the PRC's Olympic Committee as the "Chinese Olympic Committee" and the ROC's Olympic Committee as the "Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee."

After missing again from the Moscow Olympics in 1980, Taiwan was allowed to compete starting from the 1984 Olympic Games under an agreement with the IOC in Lausanne, Switzerland, in 1981.

The "Lausanne agreement" -- viewed by some as a compromise by Taiwan -- required Taiwan's team to compete under the name "Chinese Taipei," use a non-political flag, and not play the ROC national anthem.

CNN puts it more succinctly, pointing out that this agreement wasn't exactly embraced by Taiwan, but was rather a negotiation mostly between the PRC, IOC and host nations that Taiwan signed: 

In 1976 and 1980 Taiwan boycotted the Olympic Games, after the host nations refused to allow its team to compete under the ROC moniker.

When Taiwan returned to the 1984 Olympics it was under the name “Chinese Taipei” following the 1979 agreement between the IOC and China that allowed the island to compete, but not use its own name, flag or anthem.

 

That doesn't sound like agency to me, but rather defeated acceptance. Of course the KMT dictatorship wouldn't have accepted "Taiwan" in 1981, but "Chinese Taipei" wasn't exactly Taiwan's idea either. The KMT wanted "Republic of China", which is quite a different thing. The name was never popular in Taiwan, not the leaders and not the people. 

First of all, this happened under the old Chiang dictatorship. Chiang Kai-shek made these decisions, not Taiwan. He not only did not listen to the will of the Taiwanese people, one might argue he would have been actively opposed to it, if he'd cared what the will of the people was. (He didn't.) What "Taiwan" wanted was never a consideration then.  Chiang screwed this up for Taiwan, not Taiwan. He screwed a lot of things up for Taiwan, and most of the "development" of the nation attributed to him and his son was the KMT fixing their earlier muck-ups of Taiwan's infrastructure, economy and industry.

What this tells me isn't that "Taiwan" chose Chinese Taipei, because it didn't. It tells me that at one point, the IOC was open to Taiwan being called Taiwan, or Formosa, or Republic of China. That changed, and the only reason for the change was political pressure from China. It had nothing to do with Taiwan's actions. 

Because if Taiwan were in the same position today, you could wager real money on Taiwan choosing 'Taiwan'. 

"But they held a referendum and rejected the name Taiwan for the Olympics!" 

There was a referendum, true, and it did fail. However, that referendum was subject to massive disinformation attacks, leading many to believe that choosing to ask the IOC to change the name "Chinese Taipei" would result in Taiwan being 'forced to forfeit' the Olympics, which would be bad for Taiwan's hardworking athletes. To be fair, according to the link above (which I'm not sure I entirely trust), the IOC itself implied this. 

In truth, only a minority of voters actually cast a vote in that referendum. Had it passed, the Taiwanese government certainly would not have wanted the bad press of forfeiting Taiwan's participation in the Olympics under any name. The likely outcome wouldn't have been Taiwan insisting on "Taiwan or nothing", but rather asking once again to participate as Taiwan...and being rejected. In CNN's words: 

A referendum is unlikely to unravel that binding commitment, known as the Nagoya Resolution, which Taiwan signed in 1981.

In a statement to CNN on Thursday, the IOC said that the 1979 agreement “remains unchanged and fully applicable.”

You can call the referendum performative, you can call it meaningless. Perhaps it was. But it most likely wasn't a threat to Taiwan's participation.

We can also be quite sure that the results of the referendum aren't actually what Taiwanese want, if they could choose without threat of war or forfeiture of Olympic participation. There's a poll showing it: 

"The poll showed that 80.5 percent of respondents agreed that the nation should participate as “Taiwan” at events organized by world bodies, while 12 percent disagreed...

When asked what name the nation should use at global events, 51.2 percent of respondents said “Taiwan,” while 33 percent said the “Republic of China,” 9.7 percent said “Chinese Taipei” (中華台北), 0.6 percent said “Zhongguo Taibei” (中國台北), and 2 percent said “Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu,” while 0.1 percent said other names, 2.9 percent said they did not know or had no opinion, and 0.5 percent refused to answer."

That's a solid majority. I think we know where Taiwan actually stands.

* * * 

None of this has made me change my mind on watching the Olympics. I Did Not Watch It, I Do Not Watch It, I Will Not Watch It. However, whether you want to support Taiwan (as Chinese Taipei) and accept the vagaries of international politics and Chinese threats, or just call it Taiwan, please don't blame Taiwan for the existence of the name. It's not fair, and it's not true. 

The Black Cat Shoe Drop

Zhao Cai (招財) in the back and Tiberius (台幣) in the front

Content note: this post deals with the suffering of animals. If that’s not something you can or want to engage with right now, then this post may not be for you, and that’s OK.

This is also going to be a weird start to what will eventually turn into a trauma dump. Stick with me if you want, don't if you don't. 

If you need 24-hour emergency veterinary care in Taipei, I recommend Eden Veterinary (伊甸動物醫院) in Dazhi.

* * * 

A wise friend of mine once defined belonging to a ‘culture’ as not just ‘how we make sense of the world’ (a very typical definition) but something more: how many of your core life experience takes place within that culture. He'd married in this culture, bought a home in this culture, worked a job in this culture, hit all sorts of life milestones here in Taiwan, not where he came from. 

While this might not make one a member of a culture exactly, it does create frames of reference within that culture that one might not have in the culture they were born into.  

I can say with honesty that the only place I’ve lived in long enough to call it my own adult home has been Taiwan -- 13 years in the same apartment. Most of my adult friendships formed during my time in Taiwan. Although our wedding took place in the United States, we planned it from Taiwan. I had two health scares not in the US, but Taiwan. I've had two friends die and attended my first and only non-family funeral here. I got sued by a truly heinous person in Taiwan (the usual “slander” nonsense — the case was dismissed). My husband fell off a mountain and survived in Taiwan. 

I grew up with pets, but have only ever had my own pets in Taiwan. In fact, nothing makes me feel more like a Taipeier than wheeling our two chunguses in their somewhat ridiculous double cat pram to see the vet down the road. The only reason we don’t take them to the night market or Carrefour is that they don’t like going out. Does anyone in the US take their cats out in a cat pram? 

This doesn’t make me Taiwanese. But it does mean that nearly my entire frame of reference for being an adult is situated in a Taiwanese context, and that’s not nothing. 

So here’s where we get dark and weepy: one of my cats — Tiberius, or 台幣 — had a sudden heart attack early on a Thursday morning. I’ll spare you the heart-wrenching details of what that looks like. We sped off in our pajamas, Ubering to the only 24-hour vet we know. We truly believed we were going to lose him, and the vet believed it too. I’ve lost family pets before, but never been solely responsible for making hard decisions for pets anywhere but Taiwan. I’ve only ever had to sign a DNR for my cat in Taiwan. I've only sat on a low stool outside an animal oxygen chamber watching a beloved pet -- not a child, but the closest I have to one -- fight for survival in Taiwan. I heard them say he was going hypoxic in Taiwan. He turned a corner and survived in Taiwan.

Tiberius ultimately spent two nights in an oxygen chamber. He's since come home, but was diagnosed with stage C congestive heart failure and has a prognosis of months, not years. 

Perhaps this more or less how it would play out in the US, but when I recall those family pets who passed, the light falling within those mental images is simply…different. More than once, we’ve been told that a pet’s condition was terminal, and my parents decided to let them go sooner rather than later. 

As a pre-teen, I had a sweet ginger cat named Mango. When he fell suddenly ill with what appeared to be extremely acute liver failure. The vet recommended giving him a comfortable, quick exit, and that's what happened.

I don't know if such a quick recommendation came as a result of this specific vet's worldview, or because in the US vets routinely suggest such things. Perhaps it was a money thing — while not poor, I know life was not always financially smooth for us, and expensive treatments that would only extend a terminal diagnosis were out of the question. 

All I can say is that as I watched my beloved dumdum struggling to breathe in that chamber, in far worse condition than Mango had appeared to be all those hazy years ago, nobody in Taiwan suggested the same thing. I'm glad they didn't, as I might have okayed it, prioritizing ending his suffering over his possible survival. 

Again, perhaps it was simply the policy of this particular vet not to broach the topic of euthanasia until the owner does. It felt, however, as though despite their commendable efforts to keep Lord Tibblesworth comfortable, the default was a natural, and possibly uncomfortable, death. 

I quipped to a friend some time later that His Majesty the Hamburglar and his older brother, Whiny McScreamer (officially known as Zhao Cai 招財), seemed to get better overall medical care than I did when young. He sees the vet more frequently than I saw the doctor. If either of them seem slightly ill, off we go. Young Lao Ren Cha, however, was given some NyQuil and told to sleep it off. I once had an undiagnosed kidney infection for weeks because Mom and Grandma were convinced it was just menstrual cramps and all I needed was a hot pad and some peppermint tea.

Perhaps, again, this is more personal -- and again, really about money. Bluntly, I have some. Not enough, but some. I can afford to pamper Prince Dainty Fellow and Monseigneur Tibs with the best medical care Taipei has to offer. Sending your kid to an American doctor, even with insurance, was an expensive proposition even back in the late 20th century. 

In other words, I strongly suspect that if my mother had been in our position on Thursday morning in an American veterinary office, with her beloved cat suffering from a massive edema, that she would have been advised to make -- and made -- a different choice. Maybe it would have been culture, maybe her specific worldview, maybe money. 

In fact, it felt slightly wrong to sit on the other side of that chamber talking nonstop to Tiberius (it seemed he could hear us) but unable to provide any other comfort. We had no way of knowing he’d make it; the vet had even said he probably wouldn’t. 

In terms of what it cost to save his life, I'll give the number just in case you're worried about the price tag if it happens to you: NT$45,000 for his emergency care and three days/two nights in the ICU. HIs first outpatient checkup cost over NT$10,000. He will need more checkups as long as he's with us.

To be blunt, in the best possible scenario, Tiberius’s health deteriorates to the point that we can decide to let him go in a comfortable way, and we can be there with him. The next best scenario is that it’s very sudden. However, it is likely he will be in great pain again. There are many worse things than can happen, which I will not describe. 

It feels wrong to know this, and simply let it play out, although every day I have with Tibs the Fat Moron is a stolen blessing. When I originally wrote this post, he was still clearly in recovery. He held his head funny for days and briefly forgot where his food bowl was. Now, he's more or less back to normal, although the prognosis is the same. It no longer feels cruel, though; it feels like a few more months of enjoying a good life. 

Our regular vet keeps trying to reassure us -- less than a year is just a statistic! A few cats in his condition live longer! Sometimes all symptoms go away and they can top taking blood thinners! You never know!

Sure, but I'm not sure if they go so hard on the optimism in the US. I'm struggling with this liminal state; the unpredictability of when and how it will happen haunts me. "But it could be alright!" doesn't really help. Whether that's common among Taiwanese veterinarians or specific to Tiberius's vet is unclear. 

It also may not matter in my specific situation. To be frank -- and skip this part if you want -- what I watched him go through that early Thursday morning looked too similar to my own mother's final moments. While I thank gods I don't believe in that I was able to be there with her, all the optimism of her short-lived remissions, followed by the blood clot that formed and went to her heart, were too many blows to my  psyche, delivered entirely too fast.

I slept a lot in those months. It's my stress response. I slept a lot in the wake of Daft Batman's emergency, too. Of course, a cat is not a mother, and I wouldn't go so far as to call it PTSD -- more like a garden-variety trauma response -- but there were flashbacks. Optimism hurts a little now. I'd rather hear it straight: be there for your cat, because this is what will most likely happen. 

I haven't been myself since. Even when I'm not recovering from a traumatic experience, I struggle to avoid distraction on the best of days. My impostor syndrome creates writer's block even when I'm not going through anything in particular. Travel gets me out of my own head, but we can't travel together as long as His Grace requires two pills a day, which only we can administer. Things are, in a word, weird. I don't know when I'll come out of it. 

But I can at least say that I've had nothing but supportive responses from employers, who've given me a lot of grace as I go through whatever it is I need to go through -- because there's no way this is just about Tiberius. It can't not also be about my mom. 

It’s like this: a few months ago I was at IKEA with friends. One bought two of their rocks glasses, remarking “maybe I’ll find someone to have a drink with”. She called it the pessimism glass (if you buy only one) and the optimism glass (if you buy two). At the register, one of the glasses dropped and shattered. 

“This is why I can’t have an optimism glass, you guys,” she said. “Because my optimism glass has shattered too many times!” 

What I have is this: on those nights when I can't sleep at two, three, four o'clock in the morning, I can still plop down on my couch with my computer and Sir Tibberts, Earl of Tibberton will curl up next to me and respond to my pets with his little prrts, for now. So my pessimism glass is at least half full. 

Chinese extraterritorial laws prove there can be no peace under "one China"

Beijing has adopted a new set of 'guidelines' that allow the Chinese government to try and convict Taiwan independence advocates in absentia, according to Xinhua. 

I advise you to read the entire thing -- the English translation is entirely comprehensible, and I relied on it as I do not read Simplified characters -- but it's even more insane than it seems on the surface. And frankly, that's saying a lot. 

Commentary so far has zeroed in on the inclusion of the death penalty for some "separatists", although the part about "deprivation of political rights" gave me a chuckle, because it's not like the People's Republic allows its citizens to access any true political rights: 

Those who cause particularly serious harm to the state and the people and whose circumstances are particularly heinous may be sentenced to death. Active participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than ten years. Other participants shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than three years, criminal detention, controlled release, or deprivation of political rights.

 

The range of "crimes" that can incur anything from a prison sentence to death are extremely vague: 

The guidelines also detailed what is considered crimes worthy of punishment, including promoting Taiwan’s de jure independence, advocating the nation’s entry into international organizations whose memberships are limited to sovereign states, engaging in official exchanges and military contacts abroad, and conspiring to create “two Chinas,” or “one China, one Taiwan,” in the international community.

They also include taking advantage of one’s authority in education, culture, history and the media to “distort or falsify facts about Taiwan’s historical links to China,” and “suppressing” parties, groups or individuals that promote peaceful cross-strait relations and “reunification” with China, as well as “other acts that seek to separate Taiwan from China.”

 

This is obviously off the rails, so much so that I barely even need to write about it. But what makes it even crazier, at least to me, is the assumption that if tried in absentia, defendants would actually believe it possible enough to get a fair trial in China that they'd send a defense team or appeal the verdict: 

In cases where the People's Court tries in absentia the crimes of "Taiwan independence" diehards who split the country or incited secession, the defendant has the right to entrust or have a close relative entrust one or two defense lawyers on his behalf. If the entrustment is made abroad, the authorization shall be notarized and authenticated in accordance with relevant regulations...

When the people's court tries in absentia a case of a "Taiwan independence" diehard splitting the country or inciting secession, it shall deliver the verdict to the defendant, his or her immediate family members, and the defense counsel. If the defendant or his or her immediate family members are dissatisfied with the verdict, they have the right to appeal to the people's court at the next higher level. The defense counsel may appeal with the consent of the defendant or his or her immediate family members.

 

I didn't know that the CCP was considering a career in stand-up comedy, but anyway, what does this actually mean? 

First, it attempts to silence Taiwan activists or those who'd be inclined to agree with them, mostly in Taiwan, but perhaps beyond it as well. It's meant to scare two types of people: pro-independence Taiwanese, and public figures anywhere in the world who might have reason to go to China in the future. For those in Taiwan, the PRC is essentially saying "we know we can't do anything to you now, but annexation is inevitable, and once that happens you're toast -- even if your activism ceases the moment we take control." 

In fact, it could be taken further than that: they're not just enacting Hong Kong-style repression in advance. They're making it easier to draw up a list of names now, so that if (when?) they do invade, they'll be able to snatch them that much more quickly. It's easier to keep people from escaping if you know who you want to punish in advance. 

Just as a little side note, there's a history of this in my own family. My great-grandfather was an Armenian fedayi, a fighter in the Turkish-Armenian war of 1920. Apparently he was quite the sniper. He moved to Athens and married soon after, but left on the eve of WWII. It wasn't just a general sense of danger: apparently the Nazis looked into things like, oh, say, whether you had a history of armed resistance. My great-grandfather did. The whole family fled.

That's the point I want to really drive home: every once in awhile some wrongo dongo gets it in their head that there can be peace if we just give China what it wants. It's better than a war, right?

But this is not possible. China's "peace" means hunting down and murdering activists, including friends of mine. For supporters who perhaps don't take an active role, it can mean worry for the rest of your life that something you said in erstwhile democratic Taiwan might come back to haunt you, costing you your job, your freedom or your life. 

I've heard people say it's not such a big deal to lose basic freedoms, that it's better than perishing under bombs and guns. Now imagine you surrender those freedoms to escape the guns, only to find your friend shot because he said something five years ago that your new masters don't like. Imagine they start asking you questions, and under duress you admit you attended a few protests, maybe voted for the DPP. Maybe you get shot too. 

Let's say you want to leave, but you can't, because you're associated with people whose names were on a list before the first PLA soldier's boots touched Taiwanese soil. They can take everything from you, including your life. 

That's how it will be, and it's not peace. There can never be peace under "one China". I can say right now that if China takes Taiwan, I have friends who will be murdered under this law. That is simply not peace. 

I could have said all of this a year ago, two years ago -- it's always been true. It's just that now they've made it more official. 

In theory, this could include me. I don't think I'm important enough to be noticed, but the danger is not zero. 

This also effectively bars anyone who's spoken for Taiwan from ever going to China, even if they don't intend to engage in any pro-Taiwan speech while there. You'd think it'd be easy to avoid going to China, and certainly the most prominent activists are banned. But Taiwanese companies do send employees to China on business. Now it's not safe to go, even if your work requires it, if you've made so much as a passing comment online, from Taiwan or anywhere else where access to freedom of speech is protected. 

This isn't a new notion for China, which convicted and imprisoned Lee Ming-che for five years, over his actions in Taiwan, where everything he wrote was fully legal.

In fact, the least scary thing about this is that the Chinese government has been detaining and kidnapping people, putting them through kangaroo courts if they're lucky, without a set of regulations to make it official. This is just paperwork; it's always been the case in practice. Beijing has likely already been keeping a list of people who'll be up against the wall if their annexation bid succeeds; this would just make more efficient. Killing sprees run so much more smoothly if the victims have already been convicted in absentia! 

As these regulations apply to anyone, not only Chinese nationals and Taiwanese whom Beijing insists are Chinese, they potentially affect any journalist, writer, academic, artist or public figure from anywhere in the world. As the Taipei Times source noted: 

Noting that US President Joe Biden has said he does not rule out using military force to defend Taiwan if China unilaterally tries to change the “status quo” across the Strait, they asked: “Does the CCP dare punish him?”

 

We could get more ridiculous with this: could Katy Perry be put on trial in absentia? Enes Kanter? Jensen Huang? John Oliver? Any foreign journalist who has simply reported that Taiwan is self-governed and polls show it wishes to stay that way? Researchers at Acasdemia Sinica who consistently publish polls showing Taiwanese don't consider themselves Chinese? 

How many pro-Taiwan people will look at their business travel needs and decide it's better to stay silent? Perhaps not all, but possibly some. How many of those fence-sitters who say they do believe that Taiwan isn't China but "want peace" or think China taking over is "inevitable" are going to decide it's better to just be quiet? If it's so "inevitable", they're toast, right?

Finally and perhaps most obviously, it silences anyone in China who thinks Taiwan deserves recognition of its current sovereignty, or at least attempts to. The regulations don't differentiate by citizenship, so this could be anyone -- Chinese citizens who were perhaps willing to say that Taiwan doesn't necessarily need to be "reunified", Taiwanese living or working in China, and even foreign residents in China who use VPNs to access the real Internet. I doubt they'd bother going after most such people, though they might pick off one or two Taiwanese in China to set an example. 

If we're really going to dive into what this could mean, trial in absentia does imply a warrant, and will generally result in a verdict. Although it's unlikely, at least theoretically this could embolden China to start issuing warrants or hounding Taiwan activists just as they do Hong Kong exiles. It's not just the National Security Law "in advance", it could well be attempting to promulgate the most chilling provisions immediately.

Outside of both China and Taiwan, attempts to arrest Tawian activists based on such a conviction in absentia would most likely but not necessarily be rebuffed, rendering a whole host of countries friendly to China now dangerous for anyone who's ever advocated for recognition of Taiwan's sovereignty. Although I haven't had much time to consider it, off the top of my head, I'd be worried about parts of Southeast Asia -- say, Cambodia, which has warm ties with the PRC, or Thailand, where Hong Kong activist Joshua Wong was detained and publisher Gui Minhai kidnapped.

If I were being super thirsty, I could ask you guys which countries you think Taiwan activists might get detained or kidnapped from. Where are you afraid to go now? Leave your top choice in the comments below, and don't forget to smash that subscribe button!

(Do I even have a subscribe button? Doubt it.)

The Roach King is now in charge of handling roach infestations

The hilariously unconstitutional expansion of legislative powers has now passed its third reading under the guidance of a hypocrite, an idiot, and a guy who went to jail for corruption. Seriously, this new legislation is the worst game of fuck marry kill one could ever play. 

Honestly, the best thing I can say about caucus Whip Fu Kun-chi is that despite being a sex pest, it's not even the thing he's most famous for. 

So now Fu, a guy so corrupt his name is actually shorthand for corruption -- is now announcing a task force to root out corruption. And there are still KMT and TPP supporters out there who don't see the problem with that. You can be sure, however, that his new "anti-corruption task force" will only target corruption in the DPP. It certainly can't go after corruption in the KMT or TPP, because the guy leading the task force is also one of the most corrupt people in government. We just put King Roach in charge of roach extermination.

Someone asked me today why the KMT would put someone like Fu in a position of power, if he's so awful. My response was "that's an excellent question, you really should consider why the KMT would do that." 

You could say the same for Han Kuo-yu, the presidential nominee who failed so spectacularly that he couldn't even keep his day job as Kaohsiung mayor afterward, who beat up Chen Shui-bian over a misunderstanding and actually killed a guy.

Indeed, why would the KMT elevate men like this? Why would it encourage them to pass sweeping bills extending the legislature's power? There are many possible answers, and none of them look good for the party.


               

And this is why one should be immediately suspicious of legislation meant to "root out corruption": not because taking measures to stop it are inherently bad or useless, but because such initiatives are so often covers for one political group or party to target another. If it reminds you of Xi Jinping's "anti-corruption campaign", which is barely even a cover for destroying anyone who might challenge his reign...it should. The two share very similar goals, and Fu's announcement only cements that. 

The comparison to China is perhaps apt: the DPP have been accusing the KMT and TPP of passing this legislation as a result of collusion with the CCP. I can't prove that the KMT and TPP have been taking direct orders from China on this specific legislation, but dissidents have said that Chinese agents do attempt to undermine Taiwan's democracy, and one even states that China did in fact plan this, or something like it. 

                   


What's more, KMT lawmakers meet with Chinese officials openly and TPP leaders now lean strongly pro-China, no secrecy involved. Fu's recent trip isn't even close to the first one, and senior KMT leaders such as Ma Ying-jeou pretty openly work with the CCP and against Taiwan's interests. 

Frankly, the only reason I wouldn't call that collusion is because that term carries a strong connotation of secrecy or deception. Is it even collusion if they're not trying to hide it? I think the more appropriate term might actually be "treason", but you can be sure that King Roach's new task force isn't going to do anything about that. 

Some might say that the DPP accusing the KMT of collusion with China is baseless; I strongly disagree. I can't say the extent to which such an accusation would hold up in court, but in terms of saying it out loud, there seems to be plenty of evidence. In fact, I'll say it here: although the specific order to pass this specific bill may not have been directly given, the KMT are indeed colluding with the CCP to undermine Taiwan's democracy, and both the DPP and the protesters are smart to see it for what it is. 

Now that I've let out some of my anger about these developments, and I've finally got some free time after the protests, I wanted to look at some of the accusations flying against the DPP. The first is that they proposed the same legislation in the past, so they have no reason to oppose it now. 

                

As with much disinformation, there is a kernel of truth here (the best fake news is often at least partly correct, complete fabrications are less convincing). The DPP did propose legislative reform in the past, and some of their ideas look similar, at least superficially, to what the KMT just passed. 

Here's where critical thinking comes in, to indicate that there might be some disinformation here: if the proposals were exactly the same, then the KMT passing them now implies that they agreed with the core ideas. So why didn't the KMT accept them when the DPP proposed them in 2012? If the DPP wanted this, why didn't they pass it in the eight years they were in power? And if they still want it, why didn't they support the KMT and TPP in passing it now? 

None of that adds up, therefore, there are most likely differences between the 2012 proposals and the current legislation. 

For one, proposals and actual passed legislation are very different things. Proposals are almost by nature imperfect. They undergo discussion and revision and rarely, if ever, make it to law without major changes. Comparing a proposal to a passed law is at its core disingenuous. It's like comparing a clunky rough draft to a published novel. Higher standards must necessarily apply to the latter. 

You can read some of the pertinent documents in a tweet here. Although I can read Mandarin, my government-ese isn't quite sufficient, so I asked a translator friend to double-check (as I don't want to rely on AI tools for this). They do propose formalizing the legislature's investigative power, and do propose punishments for witnesses who lie or fail to appear. However, they do not appear to me to be exactly the same as what has just passed.

An infographic from the DPP outlines the differences between their proposals and the new legislation:

While it would be better to have this from an unbiased source, this is not bad. And this one I can actually read. It compares the DPP's 2012 proposal with the KMT's new slate of laws. 

The DPP proposal: 
- did not mention 'contempt of the Legislature'

- did not mention 'abusive counter-questioning' (these are both called 'vague' legal concepts)

- does not allow for 'continuous penalty'

The KMT-TPP bill: 
- allows the legislature to decide what constitutes 'contempt' or 'counter-questioning'

- allows the legislature to impose multiple penalties (this means they can penalize a witness with fines or jail time for more than one offense during questioning)

- allows the legislature to decide what is and is not punishable

So far, this is true. Nothing I can find from any of the DPP proposals mentions not allowing counter-questioning (although I've struggled to access the legislature's website recently, forbidding counter-questioning has been a major topic of discussion during these protests). 




In fact, I'd go so far as to say this first section is worse than it sounds. If the legislature gets to decide itself what is and isn't "abusive counter-questioning" and "contempt of the Legislature", and can impose consecutive fines or penalties for these, then does each penalized act count as its own case? If you wish to appeal, does each penalty become its own court case that you then have to fight? 

Because that sure seems like an excellent way to  big down people you simply don't like, even if you lose every case. It also sounds like a fantastic reason to fight this bill, and a major deviation from previous proposals. 

The DPP proposal also: 
- limits the existing 'document access rights' to previous judicial interpretations of the scope of the legislature's power (the constitutional court does outline the limits of the legislature's investigative powers, you can read it for yourself)

The KMT law: 
- expands the legislature's ability to subpoena "government agencies, military units, legal persons, groups, relevant persons in society"

- such power constitutionally belongs to the Control Yuan

This too checks out: the new bill does, from my non-lawyer perspective (again, not a lawyer, don't come at me), violate constitutional interpretation #585 above. It does overlap with the Control Yuan's power, and it's no surprise that now the KMT, which pretends to care ever so much about Sun Yat-sen's vision for the ROC government, is now discussing abolishing the Control Yuan.

The Control Yuan has also issued a statement. From Focus Taiwan: 

In response to the passage of the amendments, the Control Yuan issued a statement stressing that investigative powers are exclusively exercised by the Control Yuan under the Constitution and the expansion of the Legislature's powers violates the separation of powers.

The Control Yuan therefore cannot accept the decision, it said, urging the public to take the issue seriously.

You can read the statement in Mandarin via this tweet.

The KMT has tried to quell rumors that this new law can be used to subpoena just about anyone it wants and then punish them based on, well, vibes. However, that's not what the law actually says -- "relevant persons", "legal persons" -- these basically mean anyone. If you think they mean only government officials, you've gravely misunderstood what has just passed.

                   

The KMT has also tried to insist this is an issue of "balance of power", but it's not really: I haven't heard many people say that the legislative reform is entirely unnecessary. As we can see from the DPP"s 2012 proposal, they're not against it either. The KMT would sorely like you to believe that the DPP simply abhors reform, and wants to continue with its corrupt, violent and dissolute ways, and so doesn't want the legislature to have any real power. But if that were so, why did they previously propose reforms? It's simply not true. 

And as for being corrupt and violent, if you want to compare parties here, I suggest you look at the entire history of the White Terror and tell me which party has inflicted more corruption and violence on Taiwan. Because the party that created a bunch of nationalized industries, appointed their nepo babies and crony mafia buddies to ineptly run them as thinly-disguised money funnels, and then committed decades of mass murder when the people protested it is perhaps the more corrupt and violent party, no?

In fact, the legislator who suffered the worst injuries was Puma Shen of the DPP, and at the protests outside all I see is peaceful demonstrators and highly-organized volunteers and civil society groups. What violence, exactly? 

Does this look violent to you?

According to interpretation #585 above, the legislature does have investigative powers as they relate to its functioning, and which do not overlap with those of the Control Yuan. I personally don't have a fundamental problem with formalizing those powers, as long as they are within the scope of current law and the constitution. 

This is...not that. 

In fact, until recently, I didn't really have an opinion on whether the Control Yuan should continue to exist, but now, the alternative seems far worse. This isn't a balance of powers thing, this simply gives a lot more power to one branch of government. 

Parts of it are, as Frozen Garlic points out, almost certainly unconstitutional. The legislature doesn't have the power to compel the executive branch, so they certainly cannot force the president in for a 'state of the union' followed by questioning. In fact, if they do so, can they then decide that the president is not answering those questions well enough and thus can be held 'in contempt'? Is this an attempt at an end-run around the difficulty in impeaching a president under the ROC system?





I don't entirely agree with Frozen Garlic's assessment -- the existence of the Control Yuan and the exceedingly broad writing of the legislation, especially allowing the legislature to decide what is and is not "contempt" or "counter-questioning" make me extremely wary of the whole thing. But he is right about the balance of power issue, and he's right that if substantive discussion had actually taken place, these issues could have been ironed out. 

He is right, however, that there are a lot of unconstitutional elements of this new legislation. It will surely be challenged on those grounds and much of it will, at least in my estimation, be struck down.

As we can see, the DPP is open to legislative reform. They once proposed it! If their proposals had been given any time at all in these 'discussions', if the bill had been examined more deeply in committee, and if the final version being voted on were more available to legislators and the public alike, perhaps all of thise could have been avoided. 

To be honest, if the DPP had tried to pass a law like this, including the broadly-written clauses that give the legislature essentially White Terror-like powers to go after their political opponents, I would have protested it then, too. Even if I had to do it shoulder-to-shoulder with KMT voters.

So the final question remains: clearly the KMT and TPP wanted this to be a public fight. But why? They must have known that this would arouse such massive discontent, that the outcry would be Sunflower-level huge. They know that while their milkshakes don't bring the protesters to the yard, the DPP can and does.

So why bring that on themselves?

Again, this is an excellent question.

Why are Taiwan's emergency rooms overflowing?

 

The photo isn't really related to the post; I took it in Japan last year. But I like the visual concept

A friend’s husband was recently in a serious accident.

"Well, fortunately we're in Taiwan," you might think, "so he'll get a stay in the hospital and effective treatment, and it won't cost much."  After all, Taiwan’s accessible, affordable healthcare is consistently well-ranked. The Taiwanese public seems to agree: in general, satisfaction with the system reaches heights that most Western nations could only dream of, reaching almost 90% in 2019. All of this is possible through far less government expenditure than in most other nations, including the US – just 6.6% of GDP. Despite this, you'd only be partially right.

My friend’s husband will indeed get affordable treatment. However, he ended up spending two days and two nights in the emergency room, in critical condition, before he was allocated a hospital bed. And his condition was -- is -- so serious that he'd been put at the front of the queue to get that bed at all! My friend had some very complicated feelings about this, noting that others had been in the ER for even longer. Some would be waiting for a bed for up to a week. 

It's not news that Taiwan has a hospital bed shortage. News outlets have been reporting on it for at least a year. A physician who spoke to United Daily News earlier this year estimated that 10-20% of hospital wards have closed. In 2023, CommonWealth reported that emergency room stays lasting more than a night had tripled, and the wait for hospital beds had doubled. Around the same time, TaiwanPlus pointed to Taipei’s Mackay Memorial Hospital closing 200 beds.

How does a system that was founded on the idea of streamlined access, and informed by research on the benefits and drawbacks of systems in other countries, end up with such a massive bed shortage, and emergency room visits that, in some cases, are as long as typical hospital stays?

The surface-level cause is clear: insufficient nursing staff to attend to the patients who would usually occupy those rooms. Nurses are quitting in droves, they say, resulting in crisis-level turnover. Taiwan regulates the nurse-to-patient ratio at approximately 1:9, with higher patient loads during the day and lower ones at night. A shortage of nurses, therefore, translates directly into insufficient beds.  

The reasons for this mass exodus are as predictable as they are insidious: as with female-dominated professions in general, nurses in Taiwan are overworked and underpaid. Taiwanese nurses are frequently asked to do overtime and have trouble taking time off, but even experienced ones earn on average just $46,000-$55,000NT per month. Although Taiwan graduates more nurses than it needs, so many quit the profession out of frustration, exhaustion or both that new graduates aren’t stemming the shortage. Despite a surfeit of students studying nursing, Taiwan is almost always several thousand nurses short of what it needs for its hospitals to function at capacity. Taiwan has approximately 310,000 registered nurses, but only about 60% are currently working.

The good thing about obvious problems, one would think, is that they tend to come with obvious solutions. Offer better working conditions with less overtime for more pay, and all of those nursing students will remain nurses. Despite this blindingly obvious fix to a problem that should have never existed in the first place, the media, the government and hospital leadership all seem to be giving themselves enemas with their own heads. 

Initially, the government threw money at the problem without taking concrete steps to ensure nurses were paid well to work reasonable hours. Billions were given to hospitals through the 2010s to address the shortage; slightly less than half of those hospitals hired more nurses or increased pay. Many did nothing, or decreased their nursing staff.   Last year, the government also announced plans to ease the examination requirements for new nurses. While allowing nurses who would have otherwise failed the exam to practice seems likely to lower-quality care, the bigger issue is that it doesn't solve the core problem: bringing in more nurses won't stop the hemorrhaging on the other end. If nurses are not paid well to work reasonable hours, even potentially less-skilled ones will eventually quit.

More recently, the government has introduced new rules that increase the nurse-to-patient ratio and overall offer night shift bonuses. Of course, higher patient loads only increase stress on nurses, and bonuses to keep nurses working to their physical breaking points do nothing to address the overwork causing them to quit in the first place. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Different levels of hospitals can offer different bonuses to nurses; unsurprisingly, district hospitals, where nurses have the highest patient load, would offer the lowest bonuses.

As one might predict, nurses aren’t keen on the scheme. Nearly 57% “reject” it, saying it won’t alleviate the shortage, isn’t fair to day nurses, and will make scheduling shifts even more difficult. 

Apparently “pay nurses fair wages to work reasonable hours” is simply too difficult for those in power to comprehend.

Taiwanese media isn’t helping much to report on the issue. UDN mentions overwork, but doesn’t discuss improved pay and promotion schemes. Instead, it examines the enrollment quota for nursing students and recommends improving safety measures, neither of which are in the same galaxy as the real problem. In the Liberty Times, the head of the Yunlin branch of National Taiwan University Hospital suggests streamlining nurses’ work to make it more efficient and less repetitive. While this isn’t a bad idea, it’s also, still, not the problem. 

Chi Shu-ching of the Taiwan Union of Nurses Association said recently that there is "no one policy that will replenish the ranks [of nurses] straightaway", but that's not entirely true. Though it will also take some time, the obvious solution of paying nurses more to work reasonable hours will be the fastest possible way to convince nursing students not to quit their programs, and registered nurses to stay or return to the field. The government keeps setting aside funds for other initiatives and incentives, so clearly it's willing to throw money at the problem. How about throwing some of that money at nurse remuneration, and not just in exchange for more work? In other words, everyone seems to know "why" Taiwan has a nursing shortage that seems more entrenched and unsolvable each year, but few really seem to understand why.

Or perhaps they do, but they can’t bring themselves to pay women a fair wage for reasonable hours of professional work. Until this changes, Taiwan may well not live up to its global reputation for accessible, prompt healthcare.