By Paul Lin 林保華, translated by Anna Stiggelbout
RECENT TV COMMERCIALS by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) make me worry about Taiwan's future. How can it be OK for the KMT to use its party assets to distort facts? It professes to love Taiwan while making it look bad. Its ideology is pro-China and anti-Taiwan.
Look at their claim that the economy is so bad people can't make ends meet. China sees tens of thousands of mass uprisings a year; Taiwan does not. Using a scorched earth tactic, the pan-blue legislative majority blocks the budgets that would develop Taiwan's economy and national security, and then blames the government for being ineffective.
Then they say that Taiwan must therefore unify with China.
Should Taiwan really become a part of China, an empire of lies?
Unfair aspects of the election system were abolished after the authoritarian era ended, such as electoral district divisions and the KMT using its party assets to secure votes. The strong influence the party still has over the judiciary makes the elections extremely difficult for the pro-localization democratic pan-green camp. No matter how hard it tries, it cannot win a legislative majority. It would be a catastrophe for Taiwan if the KMT, which works closely with Beijing, won a two-thirds legislative majority.
The cooperation between the pro-China New Party and the forces in the KMT supporting former chairman Lien Chan's (連戰) call to cooperate with China to prevent Taiwanese independence are signs of China's influence. The huge funds China uses to win over Taiwan's diplomatic allies is clearly aimed at helping the KMT create an image of the government as diplomatically incapable.
Taiwan is the only democratic country in the world that has a presidential candidate like the KMT's Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), who calls on voters to give up their democratic rights to vote in a referendum.
Is he a fit candidate for a democratic country?
Facing such a grim outlook, the pan-green politicians must consider their options.
To win votes, candidates need to mobilize the public and appeal to moderate voters. But pan-green voters also face the problem of whom to vote for, as pan-green politicians are competing against each other. It's not easy to accumulate enough votes to win a legislative seat, but with candidates attacking each other, tens of thousands of votes are lost to the green camp if one of them loses, and then the legislative seat is lost.
Two years ago, the Democratic Progressive Party won the Kaohsiung mayoral elections by a razor-thin margin, resulting in a year of lawsuits. What if the party had lost those few thousands ballots?
Pan-green politicians competing against each other -- regardless of what party they represent or how well they are doing in polls -- must take the initiative to step back and give their votes and their support to the opposing pan-green candidate. At first this might seem to mean throwing away one's political future, but it will benefit the pan-green camp and all of Taiwan. In any case, it is far more preferable to letting a pro-Chinese party win these seats.
Doing so would create more room for Taiwan and take a candidate out of a difficult situation while showing him or her as open-minded, sensible and democratic, thus creating new possibilities for future elections.
Politicians need to move the public. Whoever steps back to make way for another pan-green candidate will move both his or her own voters and those in other districts, showing them that pan-green politicians truly fight for Taiwan's future and not for themselves or for partisan benefits. Taiwanese will remember a candidate stepping back for the greater good.
Paul Lin is a political commentator based in Taiwan.
2008年1月10日 星期四
"Media Slaves" Bow to Their Masters
By Lu Shih-hsiang 盧世祥, translated by Anna Stiggelbout
DURING THE AUTHORITARIAN era, the news media in Taiwan had to fawn on the party-state authorities. Together with educational institutions, the media had to do the dirty work of brainwashing the public to its political ends. To this day many Taiwanese still haven't realized this.
After media censorship was abolished 20 years ago, some were unable to function under normal ethical journalistic standards. They were unable to deal with the true state of affairs and, lost in the democratic era, they continued to mislead the public.
Some politicians allow their public personas to be led by the media and consequently they lose touch with reality. As a result, they are dismissed by the public. These victims of the abnormal media climate could be described as "media slaves."
This kind of behavior is frequently apparent in the latest election race.
In normal democracies, the media report the truth, explain the news, determine which issues are important and reflect public opinion. Politicians in such an environment cannot easily ignore the media.
In Taiwan, however, apart from a few exceptions, the media often publish untrue reports, run subjective commentary and distort public opinion with skewed opinion polls. For example, if media opinion polls were to be believed, the winner of the Kaohsiung mayoral election in December 2006 would have been Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Huang Chun-ying (黃俊英), not Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Chu (陳菊). The only exception was the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper).
In the current media environment, politicians looking to the media for guidance on how to govern the country will suffer the political consequences. If they believe everything they see in the media, the damage will be even greater.
It is worth noting that political intervention by Taiwan's media has been increasing in recent years. In addition to the politicization of all news, all criticism is based on political position and ideology. The result is a polarization of media outlets that protect those they favor and working against those they don't. Thus, the Taiwanese media have created a number of media darlings and an even greater number of "media slaves." However, because media standards are seriously slanted, those who are made to look good by the media have no reason to congratulate themselves, and those attacked by them could feel persecuted. Unfortunately, few people are able to see through these media tricks.
Fame and glory are often hard to resist. Even political leaders who have held high office, prominent individuals in the private sector and academics who consider themselves above political wrangling can't avoid falling into this self-delusional trap.
Because Taiwanese media remain under the control of proponents of "one China," many media darlings are pan-blue politicians.
If they suit the media's tastes, pro-localization politicians can also win their favor. But for them, it is still as Mencius (孟子) said: Those whom Zhao Meng (趙孟) promote, he can also demote. If the media do not profit from favoring a certain politician, their halo can be removed overnight, leaving a media slave with nothing.
There are many of these media slaves in the pan-green camp. The weakness they have in common is a tendency to make sensational statements. In their competition for media attention, they often end up targeting their own camp to gain a reputation as reformers while labeling those of other opinions reactionaries or corrupt. Examples in recent years include former DPP chairmen Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) and Shih Ming-teh (施明德), former DPP legislator Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) and some of the members of the party's New Tide faction. All were influenced by the blue-leaning media.
These people were often given a lot of exposure and were made to look good by certain media outlets, but their political possibilities kept decreasing.
Some pro-green academics who sympathized with the red-clad anti-corruption protesters that shook up Taiwan in 2006 also belonged to this group. Some fell into the trap of mistaking the lies of certain media for the truth and empty reputation for reality.
These media, however, have left fact and public opinion behind.
Those who are manipulated by the media or try to use them don't have a grip on what the public wants and will continue to sink ever lower, together with the media.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
DURING THE AUTHORITARIAN era, the news media in Taiwan had to fawn on the party-state authorities. Together with educational institutions, the media had to do the dirty work of brainwashing the public to its political ends. To this day many Taiwanese still haven't realized this.
After media censorship was abolished 20 years ago, some were unable to function under normal ethical journalistic standards. They were unable to deal with the true state of affairs and, lost in the democratic era, they continued to mislead the public.
Some politicians allow their public personas to be led by the media and consequently they lose touch with reality. As a result, they are dismissed by the public. These victims of the abnormal media climate could be described as "media slaves."
This kind of behavior is frequently apparent in the latest election race.
In normal democracies, the media report the truth, explain the news, determine which issues are important and reflect public opinion. Politicians in such an environment cannot easily ignore the media.
In Taiwan, however, apart from a few exceptions, the media often publish untrue reports, run subjective commentary and distort public opinion with skewed opinion polls. For example, if media opinion polls were to be believed, the winner of the Kaohsiung mayoral election in December 2006 would have been Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate Huang Chun-ying (黃俊英), not Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) candidate Chen Chu (陳菊). The only exception was the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times' sister paper).
In the current media environment, politicians looking to the media for guidance on how to govern the country will suffer the political consequences. If they believe everything they see in the media, the damage will be even greater.
It is worth noting that political intervention by Taiwan's media has been increasing in recent years. In addition to the politicization of all news, all criticism is based on political position and ideology. The result is a polarization of media outlets that protect those they favor and working against those they don't. Thus, the Taiwanese media have created a number of media darlings and an even greater number of "media slaves." However, because media standards are seriously slanted, those who are made to look good by the media have no reason to congratulate themselves, and those attacked by them could feel persecuted. Unfortunately, few people are able to see through these media tricks.
Fame and glory are often hard to resist. Even political leaders who have held high office, prominent individuals in the private sector and academics who consider themselves above political wrangling can't avoid falling into this self-delusional trap.
Because Taiwanese media remain under the control of proponents of "one China," many media darlings are pan-blue politicians.
If they suit the media's tastes, pro-localization politicians can also win their favor. But for them, it is still as Mencius (孟子) said: Those whom Zhao Meng (趙孟) promote, he can also demote. If the media do not profit from favoring a certain politician, their halo can be removed overnight, leaving a media slave with nothing.
There are many of these media slaves in the pan-green camp. The weakness they have in common is a tendency to make sensational statements. In their competition for media attention, they often end up targeting their own camp to gain a reputation as reformers while labeling those of other opinions reactionaries or corrupt. Examples in recent years include former DPP chairmen Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良) and Shih Ming-teh (施明德), former DPP legislator Shen Fu-hsiung (沈富雄) and some of the members of the party's New Tide faction. All were influenced by the blue-leaning media.
These people were often given a lot of exposure and were made to look good by certain media outlets, but their political possibilities kept decreasing.
Some pro-green academics who sympathized with the red-clad anti-corruption protesters that shook up Taiwan in 2006 also belonged to this group. Some fell into the trap of mistaking the lies of certain media for the truth and empty reputation for reality.
These media, however, have left fact and public opinion behind.
Those who are manipulated by the media or try to use them don't have a grip on what the public wants and will continue to sink ever lower, together with the media.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
Rejecting the Tools of Democracy
After undertaking months' campaign to collect 1 million signatures endorsing its proposed referendum, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) had a sudden change of heart two weeks prior to election day and asked voters to boycott tomorrow's referendums -- including its own.
Making the decision during the KMT Central Standing Committee, the party justified its position by arguing that the "referendums have been twisted and kidnapped by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] to be used as a tool to provoke conflict."
KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) added that the party had not ruled out boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title, "Republic of China" -- that are scheduled to be held on March 22 in tandem with the presidential election.
It is dumbfounding how easy it is for the KMT, in today's democratic Taiwan, to disregard the voices of millions in such a casual way: The opinions of a few Central Standing Committee members have effortlessly overruled the collective opinion of more than 1 million petitioners.
Taiwan has come a long way from the days of authoritarian rule. No direct presidential election was allowed and freedom of speech and the press was a pipe dream. Today, people can freely exercise their rights without fear that they could be dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and disappear.
Some trumpet participation in referendums as the "people's right." But a closer look shows it would be more precise to say that it is the "people's privilege," because not every country practices direct democracy. With this is mind, anyone who is a proud Taiwanese should not easily abandon that special privilege by forsaking their referendum ballots.
It is not that surprising to hear calls from the KMT to boycott the referendums. After all, it was the pan-blue camp's actions that resulted in the "bird cage" version of the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which resorts to technicalities to restrict the use of referendums, depriving Taiwanese of greater democratic power.
But anyone who respects the country's democratic pioneers and feels a sense of responsibility in defending the country's hard-won democracy should not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the KMT's anti-democratic rhetoric.
Two referendums will be held tomorrow -- one initiated by the DPP on recovering assets stolen by the KMT, and the other proposed by the KMT to empower the legislature to investigate misconduct of senior government officials and their families.
Whether individuals agree or disagree with the questions addressed in the two referendums, they should cast their referendum ballots tomorrow and make their voices heard.
Taking part in a referendum is a privilege but also an obligation from which each citizen of a democracy should draw pride.
The boycott proposal is not only an insult to voters, but also harmful to the nation's effort to consolidate democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 11, 2008.
Making the decision during the KMT Central Standing Committee, the party justified its position by arguing that the "referendums have been twisted and kidnapped by the Democratic Progressive Party [DPP] to be used as a tool to provoke conflict."
KMT Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) added that the party had not ruled out boycotting the two UN-membership referendums -- one by the DPP to join the UN using the name "Taiwan" and the other by the KMT to "return" to the UN using the nation's official title, "Republic of China" -- that are scheduled to be held on March 22 in tandem with the presidential election.
It is dumbfounding how easy it is for the KMT, in today's democratic Taiwan, to disregard the voices of millions in such a casual way: The opinions of a few Central Standing Committee members have effortlessly overruled the collective opinion of more than 1 million petitioners.
Taiwan has come a long way from the days of authoritarian rule. No direct presidential election was allowed and freedom of speech and the press was a pipe dream. Today, people can freely exercise their rights without fear that they could be dragged out of their beds in the middle of the night and disappear.
Some trumpet participation in referendums as the "people's right." But a closer look shows it would be more precise to say that it is the "people's privilege," because not every country practices direct democracy. With this is mind, anyone who is a proud Taiwanese should not easily abandon that special privilege by forsaking their referendum ballots.
It is not that surprising to hear calls from the KMT to boycott the referendums. After all, it was the pan-blue camp's actions that resulted in the "bird cage" version of the Referendum Law (公民投票法), which resorts to technicalities to restrict the use of referendums, depriving Taiwanese of greater democratic power.
But anyone who respects the country's democratic pioneers and feels a sense of responsibility in defending the country's hard-won democracy should not allow themselves to be intoxicated by the KMT's anti-democratic rhetoric.
Two referendums will be held tomorrow -- one initiated by the DPP on recovering assets stolen by the KMT, and the other proposed by the KMT to empower the legislature to investigate misconduct of senior government officials and their families.
Whether individuals agree or disagree with the questions addressed in the two referendums, they should cast their referendum ballots tomorrow and make their voices heard.
Taking part in a referendum is a privilege but also an obligation from which each citizen of a democracy should draw pride.
The boycott proposal is not only an insult to voters, but also harmful to the nation's effort to consolidate democracy.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 11, 2008.
2008年1月9日 星期三
Taiwan Needs a Green Legislature
By Jerome Keating
WHEN TAIWAN WAS a one-party state dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the power of the country was in its president.
The Legislative Yuan was a rubber stamp body in which each legislator who had been elected back in 1947 was guaranteed his position for life. The only thing legislators had to do was approve what dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and later what his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), directed.
This all began to change under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) when the "iron rice bowl" legislators who had not yet died had to step down. After 1992 legislators had to run for office and compete with members of other newly allowed parties.
In 1996, another major change happened in Taiwan. The president, like members of the Legislative Yuan, had to be elected by the public. At this point the balance of power in Taiwan began to shift from the presidency to the Legislative Yuan.
This is the way it is today. The legislature creates laws, controls budgets and confirms emergency orders. It can tell the Executive Yuan to change its policies, it can amend the Constitution and it can settle disputes in matters of self-governance of special municipalities, counties, cities and other administrative units. It can also paralyze the country.
The KMT and its pan-blue alliance have always controlled the Legislative Yuan -- from the rubber stamp days of the Chiangs through today. They use it to promote their own agenda and not that of the public. Whatever smoke and mirrors the pan-blue media fabricates to make it seem like today's problems are the result of the presidency, the reality is that the majority of the problems lay at the door of the pan-blue legislature.
One serious problem is the injustice of not having a level playing field for all political parties in Taiwan. The residue of the past one-party state rule is that the KMT still owns the majority of the state assets left over from the Japanese colonial era.
By its own declaration, the KMT admits to resources in excess of US$750 million. This declaration does not include those state assets that have already been siphoned off to the KMT leadership.
All other parties in Taiwan, blue or green, do not have a combined total of US$1 million in assets.
The KMT uses the assets for its own self-aggrandizement and ends: It can out-advertise, out-spend and out-promote any and all of the other parties. This injustice can never be righted as long as the KMT controls the majority in the Legislative Yuan.
The KMT has repeatedly blocked the people of Taiwan from regaining what belongs to them. In the upcoming elections, the KMT is telling its members to boycott a referendum on its ill-gotten assets. The pan-blue dominated legislature must go before Taiwan can be truly democratic.
In addition to a need for justice, the KMT-led pan-blue Legislative Yuan has sabotaged the country, forcing it into paralysis as it strives to regain its lost privilege.
The KMT would rather see Taiwan flounder than lose its legislative privilege and thus its assets and benefits. Even the crass, bottom-line motivation behind the KMT's goal of unification is more because of personal profit than a warped ideology. If the KMT is voted out in Taiwan, ultimately its leaders would gamble they could ingratiate themselves with the controlling cabal of China.
Their hope would be that by offering Taiwan as a sacrificial lamb they would be feted as heroes and allowed to maintain their privilege as governors of the island. Better to be a Puyi governor appointed by China than to continually risk being a loser in a free election in a democratic state. Note the sniveling way that Lien Chan (連戰) and James Soong (宋楚瑜) -- two-time losers and once long-time enemies of the PRC -- went back to China to be feted after they lost in the last presidential election.
Need other examples of the KMT's sabotage? Examine how the do-nothing legislature blocked the country's arms budget for three years and only finally passed it just before last year's session ended.
Rather than see anything positive happen under President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), they prefer to weaken the country, blocking budgets and appointments to the Control Yuan. In this way, the anti-corruption watchdog of the country would be ineffectual.
Look at the legislative elections. The KMT caused an uproar to protest the Central Election Committee (CEC) ruling for a one-step voting procedure. Many suspect the KMT wanted a two-step procedure so that they could measure how effective bribes were concerning the referendum ballots.
If the KMT paid a voter to oppose the referendum for recovering state assets, the best way to know if the person followed through would be to see if he or she picked up the ballot. If people accept a ballot after getting a bribe, the KMT could wonder why they did so. With a ballot in hand, a person could still secretly vote in favor of the referendum.
Facing a confrontation with the CEC and legal action, the KMT finally accepted a compromise, but almost immediately afterwards, the KMT did an about-face and told its constituents to boycott the referendums.
This exposed the KMT's true intent. Their original referendum on rooting out corruption was a smokescreen to match the green referendum on state assets and the KMT abandoned it without compunction.
The ruckus they raised over the voting procedure was a farce. What they were really after was to stop the state assets referendum.
I do not mean to say that green legislators and officials are free of corruption. Many dogs have learned from the wolves and are driven by the same greed and a system of favors that masks corruption. They too must be weeded out.
But first the playing field must be leveled; the state assets must be properly in the hands of the state and not one political party. Taiwan must get rid of politicians who serve their party to the detriment of the nation.
Level the playing field and progress will follow.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
WHEN TAIWAN WAS a one-party state dictatorship under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), the power of the country was in its president.
The Legislative Yuan was a rubber stamp body in which each legislator who had been elected back in 1947 was guaranteed his position for life. The only thing legislators had to do was approve what dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and later what his son, former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國), directed.
This all began to change under former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) when the "iron rice bowl" legislators who had not yet died had to step down. After 1992 legislators had to run for office and compete with members of other newly allowed parties.
In 1996, another major change happened in Taiwan. The president, like members of the Legislative Yuan, had to be elected by the public. At this point the balance of power in Taiwan began to shift from the presidency to the Legislative Yuan.
This is the way it is today. The legislature creates laws, controls budgets and confirms emergency orders. It can tell the Executive Yuan to change its policies, it can amend the Constitution and it can settle disputes in matters of self-governance of special municipalities, counties, cities and other administrative units. It can also paralyze the country.
The KMT and its pan-blue alliance have always controlled the Legislative Yuan -- from the rubber stamp days of the Chiangs through today. They use it to promote their own agenda and not that of the public. Whatever smoke and mirrors the pan-blue media fabricates to make it seem like today's problems are the result of the presidency, the reality is that the majority of the problems lay at the door of the pan-blue legislature.
One serious problem is the injustice of not having a level playing field for all political parties in Taiwan. The residue of the past one-party state rule is that the KMT still owns the majority of the state assets left over from the Japanese colonial era.
By its own declaration, the KMT admits to resources in excess of US$750 million. This declaration does not include those state assets that have already been siphoned off to the KMT leadership.
All other parties in Taiwan, blue or green, do not have a combined total of US$1 million in assets.
The KMT uses the assets for its own self-aggrandizement and ends: It can out-advertise, out-spend and out-promote any and all of the other parties. This injustice can never be righted as long as the KMT controls the majority in the Legislative Yuan.
The KMT has repeatedly blocked the people of Taiwan from regaining what belongs to them. In the upcoming elections, the KMT is telling its members to boycott a referendum on its ill-gotten assets. The pan-blue dominated legislature must go before Taiwan can be truly democratic.
In addition to a need for justice, the KMT-led pan-blue Legislative Yuan has sabotaged the country, forcing it into paralysis as it strives to regain its lost privilege.
The KMT would rather see Taiwan flounder than lose its legislative privilege and thus its assets and benefits. Even the crass, bottom-line motivation behind the KMT's goal of unification is more because of personal profit than a warped ideology. If the KMT is voted out in Taiwan, ultimately its leaders would gamble they could ingratiate themselves with the controlling cabal of China.
Their hope would be that by offering Taiwan as a sacrificial lamb they would be feted as heroes and allowed to maintain their privilege as governors of the island. Better to be a Puyi governor appointed by China than to continually risk being a loser in a free election in a democratic state. Note the sniveling way that Lien Chan (連戰) and James Soong (宋楚瑜) -- two-time losers and once long-time enemies of the PRC -- went back to China to be feted after they lost in the last presidential election.
Need other examples of the KMT's sabotage? Examine how the do-nothing legislature blocked the country's arms budget for three years and only finally passed it just before last year's session ended.
Rather than see anything positive happen under President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), they prefer to weaken the country, blocking budgets and appointments to the Control Yuan. In this way, the anti-corruption watchdog of the country would be ineffectual.
Look at the legislative elections. The KMT caused an uproar to protest the Central Election Committee (CEC) ruling for a one-step voting procedure. Many suspect the KMT wanted a two-step procedure so that they could measure how effective bribes were concerning the referendum ballots.
If the KMT paid a voter to oppose the referendum for recovering state assets, the best way to know if the person followed through would be to see if he or she picked up the ballot. If people accept a ballot after getting a bribe, the KMT could wonder why they did so. With a ballot in hand, a person could still secretly vote in favor of the referendum.
Facing a confrontation with the CEC and legal action, the KMT finally accepted a compromise, but almost immediately afterwards, the KMT did an about-face and told its constituents to boycott the referendums.
This exposed the KMT's true intent. Their original referendum on rooting out corruption was a smokescreen to match the green referendum on state assets and the KMT abandoned it without compunction.
The ruckus they raised over the voting procedure was a farce. What they were really after was to stop the state assets referendum.
I do not mean to say that green legislators and officials are free of corruption. Many dogs have learned from the wolves and are driven by the same greed and a system of favors that masks corruption. They too must be weeded out.
But first the playing field must be leveled; the state assets must be properly in the hands of the state and not one political party. Taiwan must get rid of politicians who serve their party to the detriment of the nation.
Level the playing field and progress will follow.
Jerome Keating is a Taiwan-based writer.
Just What the KMT Mean by "Scared"?
By Lien Chan 林洽
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
THE CHINESE NATIONALIST Party (KMT) has accused the Democratic Progressive Party of hijacking what it calls "the sacred referendums" to mess up the elections, and is therefore urging voters not to vote in the referendums so as not to "destroy" the elections.
The KMT's statement is based on a strange logic.
If a loved one is kidnapped or hurt, we should try to save and protect them, not abandon them. If a sacred and precious belief is being hijacked, we should try to realize it and implement it, not discard it.
Holding referendums concurrently with elections is common in many countries.
In theory, this is considered favorable to maintaining ballot secrecy.
Not only that, but from a more academic perspective, cost sharing can create "spillover" effects, or, to put it more plainly, the elections and referendums can benefit each other by being held on the same day.
To voters, the cost of voting is the time spent. This is an obstacle inherent to democracy.
The cost of the referendum is not just the few hundred million NT dollars spent on administering the elections. The real cost of the elections should be calculated with Taiwan's GDP in mind.
The daily production value created by the public is NT$48.8 billion, or about NT$6 billion per hour.
From this perspective, the cost of voters taking time out to vote is astronomical.
To have time for the polls, people have to sacrifice their work or their leisure time. Helping them save time will increase their willingness to vote.
Thus combining elections, saving time and promoting democracy are three compatible concepts.
Combining the referendums and the legislative elections is good for both the ballots.
If the KMT really believes that the referendum institution is sacred, it should approve of attempts to save voters' time and protect ballot secrecy.
Only political parties that are opposed to the full and free expression of public opinion would worry about "one election hijacking another," only a party relying on money to mobilize voters for the legislative elections would tell supporters to forgo voting in the referendums and only a party with nominees whose interests stand in stark contrast to the referendums would accuse another party of using them to hijack elections.
When the KMT says that the referendums are sacred but refuses to vote in them, it is in fact revealing the true face of its presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九).
If the KMT has nothing to hide when it comes to its party assets, or if they support Taiwan's democracy, the party should stand up and convince the public to vote "no" to recovering the party's inappropriately obtained assets.
Instead, the party rejects the referendums altogether, rather than defending itself and justifying its party assets, thus compounding a bad deed by also denying what they claim to hold sacred.
By rejecting the referendums, the KMT is also sacrificing its own anti-corruption referendum. In its attempt to protect its ill-gotten party assets, the KMT has demonstrated to the public the insincerity with which it called for the referendum.
Paraphrasing what has by now become a well-known statement by Ma, I would like to tell the members of the KMT that I see you as human beings, as Taiwanese and I will educate you: The sacred referendums should be carried out and unjustly obtained party assets should be returned.
Lin Chia is a political commentator in Taipei.
China Makes Another Miscalculation
Minister of Foreign Affairs James Huang (黃志芳) returned to Taiwan on Tuesday following his unsuccessful last-ditch mission to save diplomatic ties with Malawi.
Malawi's refusal to receive Huang means a switch of recognition to China now looks inevitable and it will mark the latest strike in Beijing's war of attrition to win the allegiance of the nation's allies.
But one could argue that -- when it is made official -- neither China nor Malawi will prosper, as neither China's geopolitical ambitions nor the plight of the citizens of Malawi will be advanced from the establishment of relations.
Apart from the opportunity to further decrease Taiwan's international space and reduce its number of allies, China's other reason for courting African countries is to secure access to the globe's diminishing natural resources, vital if it is to keep its burgeoning economy ticking over and its massive population pacified. In this respect Malawi, with its unexploited deposits of uranium and bauxite, is a useful acquisition.
Beijing reportedly offered the government of Malawi a financial package totaling US$6 billion in return for breaking ties with Taipei and it is understandable that a poverty-stricken nation like Malawi would be tempted by such a generous offer, given that its annual GDP stands at around US$7 billion. It is unlikely, however, that any of this cash will trickle down to the Malawian population and past experience has shown they will not receive the same medical, agricultural and technical help from Beijing as they have from Taipei's missions.
Many other African countries, such as Angola, Mozambique and Sudan, have given China's unfettered access to their natural resources in return for cash, construction projects and economic development, but more often than not the results fail to live up to the promises.
Human rights activists and foreign aid workers in these countries have voiced concerns that, like European nations before them, China's involvement in Africa often only serves to enrich the continent's already corrupt leaders. BBC reports have also detailed how Chinese construction firms bring in Chinese workers because they are unwilling to train the locals and impart vital skills to the Africans. Peasant Chinese farmers are even being sent to work the African land in an attempt to relieve pressure on land in China. In some cases, locals allege that prisoners are being imported to do hard labor.
This has led African activists to question China's motives and has generated accusations of a new era of imperialism.
Ministry officials expect Malawi to announce its decision to recognize China within the next few days, just in time for Saturday's legislative election -- chosen by Beijing to cause maximum embarrassment to the government.
But China should have learned from its previous ham-fisted attempts -- both direct and indirect -- to meddle in Taiwan's elections, that intervention has the opposite effect, producing a galvanizing effect on large sections of the Taiwanese population. The more China attacks, the more people come to detest its belligerent bullying.
In contrast to viewing the latest loss of an ally as an indication of Taiwan's weakness and another step on the road to international obscurity, people will view it as China's latest insult to Taiwan's sovereignty.
Losing one more ally to China does not really do that much harm to Taiwan's interests, but it makes Beijing's job of achieving its dream of "eventual unification" that much harder.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 10, 2008.
Malawi's refusal to receive Huang means a switch of recognition to China now looks inevitable and it will mark the latest strike in Beijing's war of attrition to win the allegiance of the nation's allies.
But one could argue that -- when it is made official -- neither China nor Malawi will prosper, as neither China's geopolitical ambitions nor the plight of the citizens of Malawi will be advanced from the establishment of relations.
Apart from the opportunity to further decrease Taiwan's international space and reduce its number of allies, China's other reason for courting African countries is to secure access to the globe's diminishing natural resources, vital if it is to keep its burgeoning economy ticking over and its massive population pacified. In this respect Malawi, with its unexploited deposits of uranium and bauxite, is a useful acquisition.
Beijing reportedly offered the government of Malawi a financial package totaling US$6 billion in return for breaking ties with Taipei and it is understandable that a poverty-stricken nation like Malawi would be tempted by such a generous offer, given that its annual GDP stands at around US$7 billion. It is unlikely, however, that any of this cash will trickle down to the Malawian population and past experience has shown they will not receive the same medical, agricultural and technical help from Beijing as they have from Taipei's missions.
Many other African countries, such as Angola, Mozambique and Sudan, have given China's unfettered access to their natural resources in return for cash, construction projects and economic development, but more often than not the results fail to live up to the promises.
Human rights activists and foreign aid workers in these countries have voiced concerns that, like European nations before them, China's involvement in Africa often only serves to enrich the continent's already corrupt leaders. BBC reports have also detailed how Chinese construction firms bring in Chinese workers because they are unwilling to train the locals and impart vital skills to the Africans. Peasant Chinese farmers are even being sent to work the African land in an attempt to relieve pressure on land in China. In some cases, locals allege that prisoners are being imported to do hard labor.
This has led African activists to question China's motives and has generated accusations of a new era of imperialism.
Ministry officials expect Malawi to announce its decision to recognize China within the next few days, just in time for Saturday's legislative election -- chosen by Beijing to cause maximum embarrassment to the government.
But China should have learned from its previous ham-fisted attempts -- both direct and indirect -- to meddle in Taiwan's elections, that intervention has the opposite effect, producing a galvanizing effect on large sections of the Taiwanese population. The more China attacks, the more people come to detest its belligerent bullying.
In contrast to viewing the latest loss of an ally as an indication of Taiwan's weakness and another step on the road to international obscurity, people will view it as China's latest insult to Taiwan's sovereignty.
Losing one more ally to China does not really do that much harm to Taiwan's interests, but it makes Beijing's job of achieving its dream of "eventual unification" that much harder.
Taipei Times Editorial, January 10, 2008.
2008年1月7日 星期一
Economy, Geopolitics Guide Oil Price
Why are oil prices rising when the situation in Iraq seems to be improving, tensions with Iran appear to be easing and a mild late winter is expected in the US?
Now that the price of crude oil has crossed the psychologically important US$100-a-barrel threshold, and then retreated, what direction will it take next?
Many experts say it will go up, then down, and then maybe up again. That, anyway, has been the pattern of the last several years of volatile prices.
The arguments for even higher oil prices are well known. The economies of China and India are booming and hungry for energy. Oil fields in Mexico and the US are drying up, tightening world supplies. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is using oil as a political weapon. Rebels in Nigeria are creating havoc in some of Africa's most productive oil fields.
The war in Iraq rages on. The dollar is weakening, causing hedge funds and traders to flee to oil and other commodities as a safe haven.
But all those factors were in play last summer when the price fell to about US$60 a barrel, before it rallied at the end of the year. The price touched US$100 on Wednesday and surpassed that briefly on Thursday before retreating after the US government reported higher-than-expected heating oil and gasoline supplies. The price settled at US$99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents.
"Predicting oil prices continually demonstrates the perils of prophecy, because oil prices are the derivative of what happens in the global economy and global geopolitics," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said he could foresee oil prices surging as high as US$150 in the next few years or falling as low as US$40.
John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corp, an international oil and gas company based in Oklahoma City, said US$150 a barrel was possible, but so was US$55.
"We have to make investments based on our outlook over a long period of time," he said. "It is tough."
Central to the question of where oil prices will go is the effect of high prices on the consumption and development of alternative fuels.
Large amounts of public and private investment are going into solar, wind and biofuel development, but so far they are making only a slight contribution to energy supplies. Scientific and engineering leaps, like developing the atomic bomb or sending a man to the moon, can be made relatively quickly, but they are still measured in years.
Until now, most economists have been surprised that the steady rise in oil prices -- from as low as US$11 less than a decade ago -- has not had a greater effect on US consumers. But with oil prices rising at an increasingly rapid rate over the last few months in conjunction with the housing market slump and credit squeeze, many economists wonder whether oil prices could tip the economy into a recession.
A recession, of course, would curb oil demand. That would push oil prices right back down again, or so the theory goes, as fewer consumers drive to the mall, companies produce and ship less and world trade slows.
"If we are slowing down, we will not be buying as much goods from China and services from India," said Addison Armstrong, director for market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds.
"My forecast for 2008 is that crude prices will average US$75 a barrel, and that is based on a scenario of a slowing economy in the United States," he said.
But Armstrong and other experts cautioned that a protracted insurgency in Nigeria, a punishing hurricane season or other unpredictable events could take oil prices up.
So why are oil prices going up now? The military situation in Iraq is arguably improving, and Iraqi oil exports are beginning to flow again. Tensions with Iran have eased a bit. There are forecasts for a mild late winter in the US, which should help bolster oil and gasoline inventories going into the spring and summer driving season.
Many experts say the answer lies in the investment decisions of traders and hedge funds. With the markets in equities, housing, credit and currency shaky in the US, traders are betting on oil and other commodities as a perceived safe haven.
Phil Flynn, a vice president and market analyst with the Alaron Trading Corp in Chicago, said the recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve had underscored for traders the depths of the country's economic risks and led them to buy oil futures.
Flynn said he thought that oil prices were more likely to fall than rise, "because I think the factors that drove us to today are unlikely to repeat in 2008."
He added that he thinks the dollar will find a bottom this year and that the problems in housing are already priced into the markets.
But most experts say that if oil prices do go down, they will probably not go down very far or for very long.
Richels of Devon Energy said that consumers in Europe and Japan were not feeling the same pressure as Americans because their currencies have been strengthening and not weakening.
"There is still a lot of demand that is outside of the United States," Richels said. "There is increasing oil consumption, particularly in the developing nations, and oil is getting more difficult to find."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, NEW YORK
Now that the price of crude oil has crossed the psychologically important US$100-a-barrel threshold, and then retreated, what direction will it take next?
Many experts say it will go up, then down, and then maybe up again. That, anyway, has been the pattern of the last several years of volatile prices.
The arguments for even higher oil prices are well known. The economies of China and India are booming and hungry for energy. Oil fields in Mexico and the US are drying up, tightening world supplies. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is using oil as a political weapon. Rebels in Nigeria are creating havoc in some of Africa's most productive oil fields.
The war in Iraq rages on. The dollar is weakening, causing hedge funds and traders to flee to oil and other commodities as a safe haven.
But all those factors were in play last summer when the price fell to about US$60 a barrel, before it rallied at the end of the year. The price touched US$100 on Wednesday and surpassed that briefly on Thursday before retreating after the US government reported higher-than-expected heating oil and gasoline supplies. The price settled at US$99.18 a barrel, down 44 cents.
"Predicting oil prices continually demonstrates the perils of prophecy, because oil prices are the derivative of what happens in the global economy and global geopolitics," said Daniel Yergin, chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates. Yergin said he could foresee oil prices surging as high as US$150 in the next few years or falling as low as US$40.
John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corp, an international oil and gas company based in Oklahoma City, said US$150 a barrel was possible, but so was US$55.
"We have to make investments based on our outlook over a long period of time," he said. "It is tough."
Central to the question of where oil prices will go is the effect of high prices on the consumption and development of alternative fuels.
Large amounts of public and private investment are going into solar, wind and biofuel development, but so far they are making only a slight contribution to energy supplies. Scientific and engineering leaps, like developing the atomic bomb or sending a man to the moon, can be made relatively quickly, but they are still measured in years.
Until now, most economists have been surprised that the steady rise in oil prices -- from as low as US$11 less than a decade ago -- has not had a greater effect on US consumers. But with oil prices rising at an increasingly rapid rate over the last few months in conjunction with the housing market slump and credit squeeze, many economists wonder whether oil prices could tip the economy into a recession.
A recession, of course, would curb oil demand. That would push oil prices right back down again, or so the theory goes, as fewer consumers drive to the mall, companies produce and ship less and world trade slows.
"If we are slowing down, we will not be buying as much goods from China and services from India," said Addison Armstrong, director for market research at Tradition Energy, an energy broker that deals with banks and hedge funds.
"My forecast for 2008 is that crude prices will average US$75 a barrel, and that is based on a scenario of a slowing economy in the United States," he said.
But Armstrong and other experts cautioned that a protracted insurgency in Nigeria, a punishing hurricane season or other unpredictable events could take oil prices up.
So why are oil prices going up now? The military situation in Iraq is arguably improving, and Iraqi oil exports are beginning to flow again. Tensions with Iran have eased a bit. There are forecasts for a mild late winter in the US, which should help bolster oil and gasoline inventories going into the spring and summer driving season.
Many experts say the answer lies in the investment decisions of traders and hedge funds. With the markets in equities, housing, credit and currency shaky in the US, traders are betting on oil and other commodities as a perceived safe haven.
Phil Flynn, a vice president and market analyst with the Alaron Trading Corp in Chicago, said the recent interest rate cuts by the Federal Reserve had underscored for traders the depths of the country's economic risks and led them to buy oil futures.
Flynn said he thought that oil prices were more likely to fall than rise, "because I think the factors that drove us to today are unlikely to repeat in 2008."
He added that he thinks the dollar will find a bottom this year and that the problems in housing are already priced into the markets.
But most experts say that if oil prices do go down, they will probably not go down very far or for very long.
Richels of Devon Energy said that consumers in Europe and Japan were not feeling the same pressure as Americans because their currencies have been strengthening and not weakening.
"There is still a lot of demand that is outside of the United States," Richels said. "There is increasing oil consumption, particularly in the developing nations, and oil is getting more difficult to find."
NY TIMES NEWS SERVICE, NEW YORK
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)
