Credit Card Donation Form
January 18, 2002
"A lie gets halfway around the world before truth can even get its boots on."
~ Sir Winston Churchill
The tragic aftermath of our US-led war against the Serbian people revealed one thing – our intrepid Fourth Estate got the story of Kosovo exactly backwards. Now the establishment media has reprised its sorry performance in the Balkans. It has gotten Taiwan's 2001 legislative, county and municipal elections exactly backwards as well. You would never know it from the deluge of "expert commentary" by Taiwan independence fellow travelers, but Taiwan's election does not represent a "mandate for Taiwan independence." It merely confirms what genuine China experts have known all along – enthusiasm for political independence on the island continues to wane with each passing year.
"There is no truth in Pravda ("The Truth"), there is no news in Isvestia ("The News").
~ Cold War era Russian joke
The Taipei Times ["Has Beijing Got the Message Yet?," December 4] has alleged that the 87 seats won by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), plus the 13 seats won by Lee Teng-hui's Taiwan Solidarity Union (TSU), out of a total of 225 in the Republic of China legislature, amount to a clear and unequivocal mandate for Taiwan independence.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
The
Taipei Times is the English language mouthpiece for the Taiwan independence
movement. It is to the DPP and TSU what Pravda and Isvestia were
to the Russian Communist Party. Just as there was no news in Isvestia,
and no truth in Pravda, so there is little news and less truth in the
Taipei Times. What the Taipei Times offers in abundance is "dezinformatsiya,"
the KGB's term for deliberate and systematic deception as an instrument of official
policy.
Needless to say, the Taipei Times' mendacious post-election spin control
is being parroted by all the usual suspects, notably "Yellow Peril"
China-baiter William Kristol ["Embrace
Taiwan," Washington Post, December 4]. What a surprise.
For a good laugh, courtesy the Taiwan independence amen corner, see "Has
China Seen the Light?" [the Christian Science Monitor, December
6]. This slapdash bit of "expert commentary" amounts to an open admission
of complete and utter ignorance concerning its purported subject matter.
Those who read Chinese and want to know the true significance of Taiwan's 2001 legislative, county and municipal elections owe it to themselves to read an eye-opening article entitled "Who Won?," by Sisy Chen, former Public Relations Chief for the DPP, now one of the Taiwan independence movement's most feared critics. Chen is especially formidable in bare knuckles television debates with her former comrades, because, as the DPP's former "Minister of Propaganda," she "knows where the bodies are buried."
Those who can't read Chinese, relax. Chen's insights have been incorporated into this article.
Sisy Chen, along with former DPP party chairmen and "White Terror" political prisoners Shih Ming-teh and Hsu Hsing-liang were the DPP's political superstars. Shih, who was imprisoned for three decades, is Taiwan's Nelson Mandela. Because they were far brighter than the typical Taiwan independence True Believer, all three saw the light and repudiated not only the DPP, but Taiwan independence per se.
They
repudiated the the Democratic Progressive Party because it had betrayed its
founding ideals: democracy and progressive government. They repudiated Taiwan
independence because they realized, however belatedly, that Taiwan independence
was not in the best interest of ordinary men and women on Taiwan. Together with
former New Party Chairman Jaw Shau-kang, former New Party legislator Chu Hui-liang,
they have founded a forward-looking pro-reunification thinktank known as "Shan
Meng" or "Mountain Alliance."
Sisy Chen has mentioned on her nightly TV program that she is one fourth Japanese.
Legendary Ming dynasty Chinese hero Cheng Cheng-kung, aka "Koxinga,"
was half Japanese. Let no one accuse this columnist of anti-Japanese bigotry.
This columnist's outrage has always been animated by moral/ethical considerations,
never ethnicity, and has never been directed at fellow human beings of Japanese
origin, only at Japanese militarists and colonialists who victimized China.
As Chen notes, the actual vote totals reveal something seriously amiss with
Taiwan independence spin control. For starters, votes cast in favor of pro-reunification
Pan Blue candidates clearly outnumber votes cast in favor of pro-independence
Pan Green candidates.
Voter Turnout, Legislative Elections – 66%
Pan Blue – 50%
KMT – 29%
PFP – 19%
NP – 3%
Pan Green – 41%
DPP – 33%
TSU – 8%
I have purposely rounded the percentages off to the nearest whole number, making
them easy to remember and track, even though doing so introduces a slight rounding-off
error.
As you can see, the DPP performed worse this year than it did two years ago.
DPP legislative candidates received 33% of the vote, 6% fewer than DPP presidential
candidate Chen Shui-bian received during the March 2000 presidential election,
when he squeaked into the president's office with an underwhelming 39% plurality.
At the grassroots county and municipal levels Taiwan independence suffered an
even worse setback. Sure, the Pan Green parties captured 45% of the county and
municipal level vote, up from 43% in 1997. But the Pan Blue parties captured
47% of the county and municipal level vote, up from 42% in 1997! Northern and
central Taiwan are now in Pan Blue hands. Only southern Taiwan remains in Pan
Green hands.
So
how did the Pan Green parties wind up with so many seats in the ROC legislature?
Specifically, how the hell did the DPP, which received a mere 33% of the total
vote, wind up with 39% of the 225 seats in the legislature? Thirty-three percent
of 225 equals 74, right? How did the DPP wind up with 87 seats, 13 more than
their vote totals warranted?
Simple. Taiwan boasts, if that is the right word, a peculiar voting system,
assumed to be the only one of its kind in the world. In the US two or three
candidates compete for a single seat in an electoral district. On Taiwan dozens
of candidates compete for a half dozen or so seats in an electoral district.
On Taiwan elections resemble an "every man for himself, the devil take
the hindmost," free-for-all. This system is not without merit, but also
has drawbacks.
On the one hand it permits constituencies which might be totally shut out to
achieve at least minimal representation. On the other hand it pits candidates
from the same party and candidates from different parties but similar political
platforms against one another. These candidates can wind up bumping each other
off, leaving their constituents without representation. A candidate with a smaller
constituency and dramatically different political agenda can then waltz into
office over his opponents' corpses. A larger constituency can go unrepresented,
even as a smaller constituency winds up overrepresented.
This is exactly what happened on December 1, 2001.
The pro-reunification Pan Blue parties, each struggling to maintain or expand
their existing power base, nominated far too many candidates. The pro-independence
Pan Green parties, on the other hand, nominated an optimum number of candidates
and successfully apportioned their votes among them. This apportioning of votes
is referred to as "pei piao."
The result was Pan Blue candidates averaged down each others' vote totals. KMT,
PFP and NP candidates got elbowed aside by DPP and TSU candidates in district
after district, even though Pan Blue votes island wide outnumbered Pan Green
votes. The sole exception was the PFP, which grew from 19 seats to 46 seats,
primarily at the expense of the NP.
The squeaky-clean, ethical-to-a-fault New Party was virtually wiped out, a grotesquely
undeserved victim of a combined "xi gua xiao ying" ("Watermelon
Effect") and "qi bao xiao ying" ("Dump/Save Effect.) Voters
were shocked and dismayed when NP and KMT lawmakers rated among the top five
in the ROC legislature lost their bids for re-election. Among them were Lai
Shi-bao (NP), Hsieh Chi-tah (NP), and Ting Shou-chung (KMT).
Too many Pan Blue candidates plus faulty Pan Blue vote apportioning added up
to Pan Blue disaster. The media even coined a name for the phenomenon –
the "Lai Shi-bao Effect," after the universally admired New Party
legislator. By then of course it was too late. Farsighted and courageous NP
lawmakers Fung Hu-hsiang and Fu Kuen-chen also fell victim. Overall the Pan
Blue "alliance," and I use the term loosely, decimated its own ranks
with "friendly fire."
Somebody
did. The New Party tried vainly to drag their larger Pan Blue allies to the
negotiating table. New Party elder Wang Chien-hsuan vigorously championed a
coordinated Pan Blue candidate nomination protocol to ensure that pro-reunification
votes were not split among two, three or even more Pan Blue candidates. New
Party elder Yu Mu-ming went even further, and boldly organized and led a Pan
Blue march calling for "San he yi, zhu zheng dang," or, "Three
into One, Form One Party."
Little came of it, except the potential imminent demise of the idealistic New
Party. Neither ambitious PFP party chairman James Soong nor selfish KMT local
party bosses were willing to negotiate in good faith. New Party willingness
to compromise for the sake of a Pan Blue victory was misperceived as lack of
political will. Many Pan Blue voters voted PFP. Others stayed home.
The outcome, widely predicted by everyone from political reporters to taxi drivers,
was referred to as "Yu ong de li," meaning "The fisherman benefits."
"Yu ong de li" refers to the Chinese fable about a stork and a clam.
Each has the other in a death grip. Neither is willing or able to let go. A
fisherman scoops them both up, the serendipitous beneficiary of their lose/lose
struggle.
Taiwan's election was no "mandate for Taiwan independence," it was
merely one more dismal repeat of "Yu ong de li." It was the 1994 Taipei
mayoral election, which saddled Taipei with A-Bian for four dreary years. It
was the 1996 presidential election, which saddled the ROC with "Mr. Democracy"
Lee Teng-hui for four more years. It was deja vu all over again.
The central challenge for the Pan Blue leadership is to reorganize the KMT,
PFP and what's left of the NP into a unified political force, either a trans-party
alliance, or a single political entity. If they can pull this off, key political
offices such the presidency or the Mayorship of Taipei, a stepping stone to
the presidency, will never again be occupied by Japanophile quislings plotting
treason against the Constitution of the Republic of China. If Pan Blue leaders
can't find some way to work together, Taiwan independence opportunists will
continue to exploit Pan Blue disunity.
Now
you know the real story. The December 1, 2001 election was not a "victory
for Taiwan independence." The vast majority of Chinese on Taiwan –
Aborigine, Minan, Hakka, "mainlander" – have never opposed reunification,
providing the mainland was no longer communist, no longer totalitarian. They
never rejected China, they never considered themselves anything other than Chinese,
they merely rejected communism and totalitarianism.
None of what Sisy Chen and I have written is news to Chinese people on Taiwan.
You will never read about it, however, in the Taipei Times, which is
not a newspaper, but a propaganda organ. Its raison d'etre is not to report
the news, but to peddle a political agenda – Taiwan independence. Its primary
weapon is Americans' lack of facility with the Chinese language, who by default
rely on the Taipei Times because it is written in English.
Support for cross-Straits reunification has been climbing steadily since Chen
Shui-bian was elected two years ago, and is currently at unprecedented highs.
Independent polls conducted periodically since March 2000 reveal, to the dismay
of Taiwan's quisling elite, that the Chinese people on Taiwan now want reunification,
sooner rather than later.
Poll Results in Favor of "One Country, Two Systems,"
in Chronological Order
United Daily News – 33%
China Times – 29%
TVBS Cable Channel – 31%
Fung Hu-hsiang (New Party) commissioned poll – 48%
CTN, China Television Network – 52%
The trend is hard to miss, wouldn't you say?
Not long ago Chen Shui-bian's own Mainland Affairs Council polled the Taiwan
public regarding "One Country, Two Systems." To ensure that they got
the low numbers they desperately wanted for propaganda purposes, the MAC's "pollsters"
prefaced their questionnaire with a long-winded description of what constituted
"One Country, Two Systems." The only problem was the system the MAC
was describing was not "One Country, Two Systems," but "One Country,
One System." Their deception backfired when 16% of the Taiwan public in
effect endorsed "One Country, One System." Not exactly the result
they were hoping for. The moral of this fable? Don't ask questions unless you're
willing to hear the answers.
I haven't even mentioned the estimated one million "Tai Shang" or
"Taiwan merchants" and their families currently living on the mainland
on an essentially permanent basis. They voted too – with their feet. That's
close to 5% of Taiwan's entire population. Twenty years from they'll no longer
be "Taiwan Chinese," they'll be "mainland Chinese," and
they'll have been joined by millions more. Taiwan has no provision for absentee
voting. Imagine how they would vote if it did?
The
only segment of Taiwan society which categorically rejects reunification with
the mainland is an invisible but influential Japanophile elite, comprised of
ethnic Japanese members of Taiwan's colonial era ruling class and their ethnic
Chinese collaborators. This seedy "elite" is enamored of everything
Japanese and contemptuous of anything Chinese. It never reconciled itself to
Taiwan's restoration to China, never came to terms with Japan's surrender in
1945, and is obsessed with prying Taiwan away from China for a second time and
reannexing it to Japan.
This Quisling elite would have Americans believe that the majority of Chinese
on Taiwan yearn for a "Republic of Taiwan" separate from and hostile
to the Chinese mainland. Sad to say, they have been largely successful. Their
Big Lie has been swallowed hook, line and sinker by much of the American public.
Just remember, the next time you come across Taipei Times "dezinformatsiya"
posted on the internet, you are reading lies which have gotten halfway around
the world before truth could even get its boots on.
Remember
how incredulous, how disoriented we were in 1989 when the Berlin Wall came tumbling
down? Who could have imagined that the "Evil Empire" had been on the
verge of imploding and the Cold War approaching its oddly anticlimactic conclusion?
Lee Teng-hui, Chen Shui-bian and Annette Lu may be greeted by cheering self-styled
"Taiwanese, not Chinese" waving green and white "Republic of
Taiwan" flags in Texas and New York. But back on Taiwan, political independence
is an idea whose time has come, and gone.
In "Taiwan Independence,
RIP" I wrote,
"A-Bian has arrived at a fork in the road. Both roads lead to One China.
Take one and arrive before dusk, warm, dry and refreshed. Take the other and
arrive at the same destination after midnight, cold, wet and exhausted. The
route is optional; the destination is not."
Two years into his first and hopefully only term, A-Bian has chosen to take
the long way around. Too bad. As I said, "The route is optional; the destination
is not." China will be reunified. Maybe sooner than anyone in 2002 can
imagine.
A contribution of $50 or more will get you a copy of Ronald Radosh's out-of-print classic study of the Old Right conservatives, Prophets on the Right: Profiles of Conservative Critics of American Globalism. Send contributions to
Antiwar.com
520 S. Murphy Avenue, #202
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
or
Contribute Via our Secure Server
Credit Card Donation Form
or
Have an e-gold account?
Contribute to Antiwar.com via e-gold.
Our account number is 130325