You should never vote KMT/CCP unless

• You and your children don't mind being second-class citizens under Chinese communist and Chinese nationalist rule. You don't mind losing freedom, human dignity and lives, like Tibetans.
  
• You don't mind KMT spending taxpayers' (your) money but refusing to tell you how, how much and where the money is spent. KMT people give themselves raises when citizens are suffering and they give Chinese special privileges.
  
• You enjoy living in a world in which 指鹿為馬 is a way of life.
  
  
  
  • 
    
  
  
  • 王剩人說, 諾貝爾和平獎該不該頒給馬英九？ (see 這是個指鹿為馬的世界)
  • 國民黨立委邱毅認為，爆料一定要有所本，如果李文忠要爆料卻沒證據，這下臉丟大了
• You accept a President Ma Ying-Jeou whose daughters are American citizens and who himself is an American permanent resident. After you elected him president, he started refusing to recognize your country Taiwan.

Is it possible for a KMT member to be ethical?

KMT is evil. I have repeatedly said that an ethical KMT, just as ethical evil, is an oxymoron. If anyone wishes to prove me wrong, all I ask is a list of three KMT members who are considered ethical.

The purpose of this blog entry is to request your suggestion of moral KMT persons, if you know any.

The first suggestion came from Tim Bradberry:

The Father of Taiwan Democracy Lee Teng-hui was a member of the KMT before his expulsion for starting the TSU. He seems to be clean and ethical, even back during his KMT days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Teng-hui

I will give an example of Lee Teng-hui's unethical conduct which was his sabotaging the enter UN and return KMT's ill-gotten assets referendums in 2008. He refused to cast referendum votes, using the excuse that he had forgotten to bring the notification paper, not needed at all to vote.

Tim's contribution inspired me to put a constraint on only current KMT members.

To suggest an ethical KMT person, please leave a comment. All are welcome to comment on any suggested ethical KMT person.

曹長青: 蔡英文要把民進黨帶到哪裡？A critique

曹長青's conclusion is serious:

綠營的五百萬基本盤，尤其民進黨的幾十萬黨員，難道就眼睜睜地看著這個局面，而不發出「改變」的呼聲嗎？

This calls for overthrowing 蔡英文. I will show that his arguments do not support the conclusion. I will comment in place.

蔡英文要把民進黨帶到哪裡？

自去年總統大選慘敗之後，綠營就一直處於群龍無首、士氣低落、軟弱無力的狀態。造成這種狀況的因素很多，但其中一個明顯原因，是現任黨主席蔡英文沒有領導能力。這雖然和蔡本人缺乏領袖魅力的個人氣質有關，但更由於她對民進黨的前途、綠營的方向不清楚。最近蔡英文發表在《中國時報》上的「以新本土觀捍衛台灣 」一文中的表現，則是雪上加霜，無法不令人對民進黨的前景更加擔憂。

首先，該文說「民進黨跟國民黨的區隔就在理想性」。如此不靠譜（離譜、不沾邊、極端外行）的話，出自民進黨主席，實令人震驚。首先，蔡主席居然不知道（或者故意迴避）民進黨和國民黨的根本區隔在國家認同上，這是不可原諒的。其次，哪個政黨沒有理想性？共產黨是人類有史以來最有「美好理想」的政黨，一個高舉共產主義天堂的偉大理想，把人們推進地獄的政黨。理想性是一個空洞到天邊的、毫無意義的詞。

KMT and CCP are evil. They have no ethics and ideals. They freely use double standards. I suppose it is difficult for 蔡英文 to bluntly say that KMT is evil. But it is correct to say that KMT has no ideals and DPP has ideals.

民進黨找不到方向了？

在台灣，國民黨的理想是中國，民進黨的理想是台灣，這難道還有爭議嗎？馬政府上台後，毫不掩飾地快速邁向「統一」大業的目標。反觀民進黨，不僅連「台灣中國，一邊一國」都不敢再提，現在連黨主席都不知道和對手黨的區別在哪裡了。這到底是說明國民黨的理想性遠超過民進黨，還是說明民進黨已經找不到方向了？

• Hopefully a DPP's ideal is not Taiwan, but a democratic Taiwan.
• Don't say 統一, say annexation.
• 國民黨 has NO 理想. Thus it is impossible for 國民黨的理想性遠超過民進黨.

其次，蔡英文反省民進黨的八年執政，認為主要錯誤是「我們用政治對抗的方式來凝聚支持的力量」。這恰恰與事實相反。在綠營首次執政後，不僅沒有跟國民黨政治對抗，反而對藍營做出太多的讓步和妥協，理念上讓步到「四不一沒有」，行政上妥協到國防、外交、司法等許多重要官位仍留給了國民黨人。更嚴重的是，陳水扁政府對國民黨的獨裁體制沒有進行理直氣壯、大刀闊斧的政治改革和民主轉型。沒有立法院多數固然艱難，但行政可發揮的餘地並沒有被充分利用。其結果不僅使千瘡百孔的舊體制繼續存活，陳總統本人也成為該體制的犧牲品。

之所以發生這種情形，其根本原因是在某些民進黨高層，對國民黨的本性認識不清：這個黨根本不是一個正常的民主政黨，而是一個曾長期獨裁統治、患有嚴重專制後遺症、時刻準備復辟，並要聯共制台，剝奪台灣人民選擇權的舊勢力。其次是陳水扁先生本人，曾對國民黨抱有太多幻想。正如達賴喇嘛對中共曾有過多善良的願望，其結果是，西藏遭到更殘酷的鎮壓，達賴喇嘛被更惡毒地痛斥和醜化；陳水扁則被他曾真誠地稱為「英九兄」和國民黨玩於股掌的「私刑」進行政治凌遲。

民進黨要「包容」統一嗎？

今天，在國民黨明火執仗地要國共合作，完成「高級外省人」統一大業、台灣處於風雨飄搖的危機之際，蔡英文似乎對國民黨的本質仍毫無觀點。

This is the same as saying 蔡英文 is an idiot.

這就是為什麼她在上述文章中提出一個更荒唐的概念：「民進黨最核心的本土價值，也必須重新詮釋」。詮釋成什麼呢？ 「詮釋為一個包容性的觀念」。包容什麼呢？「要統要獨，必須是我們自己的選擇。重點不在選什麼，重點在，選擇權是我們自己的。」

This is called self-determination. What is wrong with it?

在這段文字中，蔡英文的三點荒唐必須指出：其一，把包容作為一個政黨的核心價值，簡直是政壇奇觀。

Inclusiveness is good. That is how Obama, a black, can become US president. DPP will not exclude 曹長青 because of his birth place or his political belief.

在全世界誰能找到第二個政黨，把「包容」作為黨的理念和目標？尊重民主選舉結果，絕不等於包容政敵理念。正如美國共和黨接受民主選舉的歐巴瑪政府執政，但絕不接受民主黨的理念，更反對其滑向社會主義的大政府政策，明確地要和歐巴瑪政府對抗。

其二，台灣人民接受民選的馬英九政府執政，但對其邁向統一的政策不可接受、不可包容。因為今天的中國是獨裁中國，接受和中國統一，不是尊重民主價值，而是和獨裁統一，接受專制統治。如果民進黨連「統一」也可以包容、接受（蔡英文明說，要統要獨，重點不在選什麼），那民進黨和國民黨還有什麼本質區別？

• Stop saying 統一.
• 民進黨和國民黨還有什麼本質區別? KMT is evil. DPP is not evil. There is no moral KMT member, because there is no moral evil. But there are many ethical DPP members. KMT denies Taiwanese self-determination; DPP pursuits it for Taiwanese.
  

其三，在中國人自己都沒有選擇權的情況下，今天「統」過去，明天選擇權就不在你手中了！

今天的台灣和西方正常民主國家的選擇是有根本性不同的。它不是正常民主體制下的左和右的選擇，而是民主和獨裁的選擇，是走向文明和墮落到野蠻的選擇！

綠營需要「改變」的呼聲

該文另一個既本末倒置、更與事實不符的觀點是：「選票來自政黨的包容性」。這等於說，選票來自降低自己的理念、來自寬容並接受對方的理念；也就是說，蔡英文不是為實現理念而爭選票，卻是為贏選票而彈性操作理念。且不說這是錯誤的，在操作上也是行不通的：民進黨中那些妥協理念、熱中走中間路線的，統統都在選舉中慘敗。例子數不勝數，從段宜康選立委，到羅文嘉選台北縣長，到謝長廷選總統。蔡英文還需要民進黨再輸多少次才汲取教訓？

在台灣局勢如此嚴重的情況下，綠營的一號領導人居然沒有最基本的政治常識。自蔡英文上台之後，民進黨簡直沒有理念可循了。綠營的五百萬基本盤，尤其民進黨的幾十萬黨員，難道就眼睜睜地看著這個局面，而不發出「改變」的呼聲嗎？

What is most crucial is for people to wise up and vote and support Taiwan. No Taiwanese should ever vote KMT which has enslaved Taiwanese for the past 60 years. People not casting votes are indirectly supporting KMT.

[台灣人心聲]這不是台灣地區MV完整版-This is not Taiwan Area MV

這不是台灣地區MV完整版-This is not Taiwan Area MV

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVu5qaYbImc

Ma vs Obama

This discussion started in the Google Group [I Love Taiwan] at http://groups.google.com/group/i_love_taiwan. It is now moved out of the group not only to allow more people to participate, but also because the [I Love Taiwan] group is not intended to be a forum. I invite you to join the discussion by leaving a comment. First, I provide the context of the discussion, which started with Ketty Chen's editorial in the Taipei Times.

Ketty Chen: A ridiculous comparison

Taipei Times - ‎2009年3月22日‎

President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) supporters love to compare him to US President Barack Obama. During last year’s presidential campaign, one of Ma’s most famous — now infamous — commercials featured galloping horses with the words “The Power of Change” plastered across the TV screen.

Pan-blue-camp supporters portrayed Ma as having characteristics similar to Obama: charismatic, athletic, youthful — not to mention Harvard-educated. Voters from both countries have high expectations for the presidents to dig their countries out of the economic slump.

But one can only take this comparison at face value, because when one probes deeper, comparing Ma and Obama is like comparing a bitter melon to a honeydew.

Since Ma took office on May 20 last year, he has gone back on almost all of his campaign promises. Even the economic policies that Ma has claimed credit for, such as opening direct flights and negotiating a trade agreement between Taiwan and China, have come at the expense of Taiwan’s sovereignty.

As crime and suicide rates rise, so does the cost of gas, electricity, groceries and everything else.

In addition, Taiwan’s democracy is again under siege, with riot police brutally cracking down on protesters during the visit of China’s envoy to Taiwan.

Despite warnings and criticisms from international human rights organizations such as Freedom House and Amnesty International, a high school student was arrested for simply chanting “Ma Ying-jeou, step down” just last week.

The most recent and appalling episode happened when the information chief of Taiwan’s representative office in Toronto was alleged to be the author of numerous articles, editorials and blog entries depicting Taiwanese as low-class, uneducated, unsophisticated idiots who deserve to be governed by a dictatorship, while advocating a military takeover of Taiwan by China.

When Ma was asked by reporters for comment on the matter, he chose to keep silent — as he has done countless times before when faced with a difficult situation.

Recently, Ma’s cohorts again compared him to Obama by mocking the gray hair that appeared on Obama’s temple since he took office. This was meant to flatter Ma for still having beautiful, jet-black locks 10 months into office.

What Ma’s adulators fail to depict in such comparisons is events such as this: When Obama addressed a group of concerned citizens this week at a town hall meeting in Costa Mesa, California, he said: “I know Washington is all in a tizzy, and everybody is pointing fingers at each other and saying it’s their fault, the Democrats’ fault, the Republicans’ fault. Listen, I’ll take responsibility; I’m the president.”

He went on: “So for everybody in Washington who’s busy scrambling, trying to figure out how to blame somebody else, just go ahead and talk to me, because it’s my job to make sure that we fix these messes, even if I don’t make them.”

Until Ma stops blaming the previous administration and the world environment for his stance that kowtows to China, his inability to manage crises and inability to assume the responsibilities that a president should, the act of comparing Ma to Obama will remain not only erroneous, but also ridiculous.

KETTY CHEN

Norman, Oklahoma

--

Jeff H:

well said, Ketty. Another comparison would be this -- Obama made a straight apology for his remark about the special Olympics on the Tonight Show. Ma said he would apologize for his remark about the indigenous tribe (to "treat them as human") at 溪州 ONLY IF it offended them...

But more importantly, Obama has an progressive agenda on energy, education, health care, etc. What are Ma's agenda besides the ill-conceived China policy?

--
Tim B:

I commend Ketty for getting her Editorial published in the Taipei Times. Ketty and I have already exchanged emails on this and Luby Liao asked me, via a direct Twitter message, if I was going to respond to her, after I had already responded directly to her. In the mean time Ketty’s editorial was also shared on the FAPA-Forum and I responded with what I am saying here.

On the issue of Obama, I have been publicly silent (at least in front of the Taiwanese) for too long.

Obama is an abomination to this Republic, bent on changing it in ways that we will all regret and the Founding Fathers did not intend. He is damaging America just as much as Ma is damaging Taiwan. He is a socialist and a Marxist. For Ma to be compared to him does not elevate Ma. In fact, it is an appropriate comparison. They are cut from the same cloth. Obama leans toward Marxism while Ma leans more towards Fascism. But they both will be remembered as tyrants, unless we can stop them.

Before I read Ketty’s editorial, I was Twittering (Tweeting on Twitter) that Ma and Obama must have been separated at [ideological] birth. I even posted links to pictures of each of them on Twitter ( http://twitter.com/dadofping ) for comparison. They are both practicing their own versions of “Necessary State Socialism,” just like Kerr reports the KMT doing before 228 (see Formosa Betrayed, Chapter VI, Chen Yi's "Necessary State Socialism"). What was the result of Chen Yi's "Necessary State Socialism"? The destruction of the Formosan economy, followed by 228. That was the result.

What will be the result of Obama’s “Necessary State Socialism”, which was unfortunately initiated by the Bush Administration? Well, I’ll let you fill in that blank.

The good news is that in both Taiwan and the United States, being democracies (actually US is a Republic), the people can change the direction of each country by throwing the bums out (i.e. the ones in Congress and Legislative Yuan first, and then the Presidents). It is time to rally the people and not trust in failed leaders.

May Freedom and Liberty Ring and Rule,

--
Ed T:

I am not sure if your charges about Mr. Obama is acurate desription of the person he is. Such charges were circulated vigorously by Conservatives from top to the bottom during the 2008 Presidential election campaign. I have received lots of those negative campaign information through e-mails. My sense is that at this point in time, a criticism such as yours which inevitably is regarded very partisan when all Americans must be united across parylines to support what Mr. Obama has been doing to fix the economic mess he did not create with all his effort to combat economic hurricane which is a key to save the world from even greater catastrophic self-destruction. By the way I voted for Bush and for McCain even though I voted for Obama as independent during the primary election. I chose to be non-partisan from the time I became an American citizen. I am niethier Republican nor Democrat. I am just a loyal Taiwanese American. I wanted to have the voices of ethnic minorities in this country and in the whole world heard, and heard loudly, so that there may be one day the true justice and our comon belief, "Man is created equal" may become a reality. With best wishes to you all.

--
Green Sleeves:

One stark difference between Obama and Ma is that Obama started with a humble upbringing while Ma belongs to the privileged class KMT crafted using Taiwnaeses' tax dollars.


--
Taiwan_Echo:

Dear Tim,

My opinion about your message:

1) How can a society survive without at least some sort of socialism ? USA has
social security benefit, isn't that some sort of socialism ? Taiwan has one of the
best health care system, isn't that some sort of socialism?

If you agree with this but still argue that Obama is bringing USA toward a
socialism, then probably the definition of socialism needs to be clarified.

2) There's a fundamental differences between Obama's policies vs Ma YJ and
Chen Yi's.

Obama intends to redistribute wealth to benefit the people under HIS administration.
But Ma and Chen redistribute wealth to benefit people IN OTHER COUNTRY that is
not under their control.

The comparison between Ma and Chen Yi is a good catch, because they are
doing the exact same thing to EXPORT Taiwan's resources to China. IMO, that's
why their actions brought or is bringing destruction to the society of Taiwan. It
seems to me that it's not what Obama intends to do.

In that sense, I don't think it's a good argument to say that Obama and Ma
are the same in this direction.
--

台灣的顏色

在台灣最為人熟知的顏色莫如「藍」與「綠」。真正細想，到底「藍」代表什麼？與「紅」的集權共黨中國區隔在何處？真的很想聽自居泛藍的人說清楚，講明白。

而「綠」又代表什麼？我認為「綠」不代表民進黨，不代表台聯，不代表陳水扁，不代表李登輝，「綠」代表「台灣」，代表「本土」，上述的人或政黨只是都「過去曾經」作為「台灣」「本土政權」的檯面上的角色，也因此被認為是「綠」的；可是隨著他們本質的改變，這些人與政黨就不能與台灣劃上等號。

近日有「泛藍」人士(范蘭欽)發表很瞧不起台灣的言論，自稱「高級外省人」，百分之百認同中國。 在醫院帶住院醫師時，我常戲謔式的將們分等級：聰明又認真的是第一等 ，笨又懶的是最後一等的，聰明但懶惰及有點笨但認真則居中，何者排第二或第三視情況而定。同樣的思維可以用到在台灣的「外省人」(在台中國人)與「台灣人」上。可以體會也尊重一九四九年移民來台的人仍心繫中國；相對的土生土長的「台灣人」，愛台灣本應是理所當然的。當然有一小部分的外省人是認同台灣的，如陳師孟、謝志偉、金恒煒、廖中山等等，相對的也有如蕭萬長、江丙坤、吳伯雄、蘇俊賓之流，土生土長的台灣人不認同台灣。長久以來，就在想一個問題:不認同台灣的外省第二代，和不認同台灣的土生土長台灣人何者比較可惡？

同時，一九四九距今已六十年，為什麼在一地生活六十年，仍無法產生感情並認同也是令人費解的。很明顯的是許多所謂「外省第二代」(現在都有第三代了！)生於台灣、長於台灣、吃台灣米、喝台灣水，卻依然不願稱自己為「台灣人」，自稱「四川、湖南、山東」？明明在台灣有家有室，心目中的家鄉依然是要不可及(或只去過幾次)的中國某省某縣？！如果台灣當真那麼不好，為什麼你們要擔任台灣的政府官員，領台灣納稅人的血汗錢？現今中國沒有鐵幕了，你們大可以回去魂縈夢繫的「泱泱大國」，你們可以不用認同台灣，可是你們無權糟蹋、傷害台灣。最實際的事是：退休後，請回去跟你們的祖國領18%；生病時，請回去你們的祖國看病，讓你們的祖國好好照顧你們。

當然你可以說「認同」是抽象的，如同「愛台灣」屬於一種「意識型態」，可是「認同」依舊可以用幾個較具體的標竿來衡量 : (1)你希不希望台灣如香港般成為中國的特區？(2) 你希不希望台灣能繼續民選民意代表及總統？(3) 你希望現在就掏空台灣，將一切拱手送給中國並進一步被中國拖垮；還是希望待這波全球經濟海嘯過去，台灣的經濟可以復甦？(4)如果你有孩子，你覺得他們的未來在哪裡？在中國還是要移民？如果都不是，難道你不希望台灣永續經營，長治久安？(5) Last but not least，你覺得你是台灣人還是中國人？


當綠色是代表台灣的顏色時，在台灣的每一個人不管是所謂外省人、台灣人、客家人或原住民，應該都是綠色的~台灣是我們共同的故鄉~當然，如果你認定自己的故鄉是中國，或是把女兒送到美國，希望後代子孫都變成外國人，那就另當別論。但是，如果你的子子孫孫還要在台灣生存，你不想為他們創造更美好的未來嗎？

Everybody should go green in Taiwan!!!!!!

Worse than myopic, we are blind, deaf and brain-dead

The New York Times columnist David Brooks expressed his worry about the Perverse Cosmic Myopia regarding the collapsing world financial system. David should know that, thanks to brainwashing and media manipulation, Taiwan does not have financial crisis at all. Interested reader can verify this by reading my daily snapshots of Google Taiwan news at Google Taiwan Daily News and Comments. The result of brainwashing and media manipulation is a people who are worse than myopic. They are blind, deaf and brain-dead.

Perverse Cosmic Myopia

By DAVID BROOKS

Published: March 19, 2009

You’d think if some tiger were lunging at your neck, your attention would be riveted on the tiger. But that’s apparently not how it works in the age of global A.D.D. As a tiger sinks its teeth into the world’s neck, we focus on the dust bunnies under the bed and the floorboards that need replacing on the deck. We live in the world of Perverse Cosmic Myopia, an inability to focus attention on the most perilous matter at hand.

David Brooks

The tiger, of course, is the collapsing world financial system. Americans actually have a falsely mild view of this crisis because the economy is worse abroad. The U.N.’s International Labor Organization projects between 30 million and 50 million job losses worldwide. Central European countries are teetering; Japan’s economy is horrifying; and the Chinese job creation machine is losing the race against its demographic pressures.

There have been riots in Greece and China as well as huge protest rallies in Dublin, Paris, London and beyond. So far, the protesters express anger without an agenda, but if the global economy continues to slide through 2010, they’ll discover one. A predictable result is a series of beggar-thy-neighbor exchange-rate policies, followed by rising trade barriers and the degradation of the entire global system.

In times like these, you’d expect prudent leaders to prepare for the worst. After all, the pessimists have recently been vindicated by events. But that’s apparently too painful to think about. In normal times, leaders like to focus on the short term at the expense of the long term. But now the short term is really confusing, so leaders take refuge in projects that are years or decades away.

The president of the United States has decided to address this crisis while simultaneously tackling the four most complicated problems facing the nation: health care, energy, immigration and education. Why he has not also decided to spend his evenings mastering quantum mechanics and discovering the origins of consciousness is beyond me.

The results of this overload are evident on Capitol Hill. The banking plan is incomplete, and there is zero political will to pay for it. The president’s budget is being nibbled to death. The revenue ideas are dying one by one, while the spending ideas expand. By the latest estimate, the health care approach will cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years and the national debt will at least double, while the Chinese publicly complain about picking up the tab.

The Obama administration is at least distracted by important things. The Washington political class has spent the past week going into made-for-TV hysterics over $165 million in A.I.G. bonuses. We’re in the middle of a multitrillion-dollar crisis, and our political masters — always willing to throw themselves into any issue that is understandable on cable television — have decided to risk destroying the entire bank-rescue plan because of bonuses that account for 0.001 percent of the annual G.D.P.

Even this is not the most idiotic of the distractions. For that, you have to look abroad.

This is a global crisis, and a core lesson of the Great Depression is that a global crisis calls for a global response. As such, Tim Geithner and Larry Summers are preparing for the upcoming G-20 summit with an agenda that has the merit of actually addressing the problem at hand: coordinate global stimulus, strengthen the International Monetary Fund, preserve open trade.

But the G-20 process is heading toward global impotence because the Europeans are dismissing this approach. Instead, they want to spend this moment of peril working on a long-term architecture to regulate global finance. The world is in flames and they want directorates and multilateral symposia and vague plans for a powerless “college of supervisors.” This is what Marie Antoinette would be for if she were an annual Davos attendee.

Why are they taking this position? First, many European leaders think the answer to every problem is more global architecture. They’ve got Jean Monnet on the brain. Second, they prefer to free-ride on the stimulus packages that the Americans and Chinese are already paying for. Third, the fiscally responsible European countries can’t commit to a policy that their debt-ridden partners can’t live up to. Fourth, some reject the idea of using fiscal policy to end recessions.

Some of these reasons have merit, especially the last one. But one thing is for sure: The American agenda might work to ease the immediate crisis, but efforts to build a long-range global architecture certainly will not. After all the pious talk about post-Bush international cooperation, the current approach will lead to a big multilateral zero.

Many people used to wonder how the world’s leaders could be so myopic at various points in history — like during the Versailles Treaty or the turmoil of the 1930s. We don’t have to wonder any more. We get to watch the cosmic myopia replay itself in our own times.

Thoughts for March-22-Continued

Echoing Prof Keating's comments, our ancestors endured much more difficult situations. If Taiwanese could survive 2-28 and many more dark ages, we could not only survive but also thrive!

A majority of Taiwanese have been apathic (hence being silent, and maybe due to the feeling of powerlessness) for too long; OUTRAGE is an important step to demanding action. In my opinion, the incident of Kuo and many more ruthless accounts serve as an opportunity to rekindle the pro-Taiwan sentiment. We have to be persistent since things tend to disappear from our radar screen given our busy daily life. Small efforts such as talk to a coworker, support the protests, spread the news etc will all help.

More to follow.

thoughts on March 22, 2009: move forward, strive toward our goal

March 22 marks the one-year anniversary of the tragic defeat of pro-Taiwan camp. We should remember this day, NOT to lament , but to think what we could do better to move forward.

In the face of the dire situation in Taiwan, people feel powerlessness and wonder what is it that we can do?

The book "Surplus Powerlessness" by Michael Lerner talks about how we we often “make ourselves out to be more powerless than we need to be” and he uses the interesting phrase “Powerlessness corrupts.” “powerlessness…changes, transforms, and distorts us. It makes us different from how we would otherwise want to be. We look at our world and our own behavior, and we tell ourselves…that there is nothing we can do about it. We are powerless” This happens for many reasons and Lerner examines the psychological, historical, and societal factors contributing to a feeling of “surplus powerlessness.” But even in spite of these forces, he comes to the conclusion that it doesn’t have to be this way. We can build a society and a life that we envision and part of it involves compassion and part of it involves claiming the power that has been there all along. Alice Walker once wrote, “`The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don't have any.’”

This is not a pep talk, I am convinced that we all can do our part, however small it is, to work toward the cause of Taiwan.

To be continued

Use mobile phone to broadcast live show about Taiwan Rescue Action Alliances

Dear Friends,
This Sunday(19:00) in Taiwan, you can go to see live show about Taiwan Rescue Action Alliances(搶救台灣行動聯盟) on http://traaworld.blogspot.com . I will use mobile phone to broadcast special party on this web site. Remember to tell your friends and come to this web site to watch this live show.

Debunking Debby Wu's AP report on Taiwan

In reference to AP's report re Kuo's incident, the report was totally removed from the truth in describing Ma as "President Ma Ying-jeou's efforts to build a diverse communal coalition"and Ma, who has worked hard to unite Taiwan's fractious communal groups to support ..."

For starters, Ma's actions speak louder than words-his campaign promise ; all he did was tilting toward China and a complete disregard of Taiwanese voice/wish. Plus, he has been doing things secretively without any transparency. In his insistence in signing up CECA (now EFCA), he denounced the idea of a referendum, quoting it takes 3 billions NT dollars to hold one; yet he spent 20 billions to install surveillance videos everywhere!

It can not be farther from the truth to describe him as "build a diverse communal coalition"!

Plus, the landslide victory Ma enjoyed during the election was due to the fantasy of a prosperous economy he painted for the Taiwanese. With the down spiral of economy, his approval rating was less than 30 since September 2008.

Last but not least, 80% of the Taiwanese identify themselves as Taiwanese and do not vouch for Ma's stance toward China.

美國能，台灣也能！

美國能，台灣也能！

最近幾週DC最引人注目的新聞莫如Tom Daschle 退出Obama 的衛生部長提名。不知台灣媒體報導多少？這個事件有許多引人深省之處，最重要的是可作為台灣的借鏡。

Daschle 是前民主黨參議院多數黨領袖 (Senate Majority Leader)，他以擅長於折衝、協調著稱，與民主、共合兩黨合作都沒問題，人脈深廣，經驗豐富。原本在2006年間他表示有意角逐民主黨總統候選人，但之後放棄，且是少數很早就表明支持Obama 出線的人。不知道是否因為如此，他始終被視為是Obama的親信。

美國的醫療保險制度積弊已久，沈痾已深，各黨派總統候選人在競選時都把「改善醫療保險制度」作為重要議題，承諾若是當選一定要改革，讓美國人生得起病(看得起病)。Obama提名Daschle出任衛生部長及「醫療改革總指揮」(Health Czar)時，各方的反應多半是正面的。這兩個位子都不好坐：改革牽涉到的層面廣泛，千頭萬緒。而儘管事情不容易做，卻又偏偏是「當務之急」──經濟不景氣，使更多人失業，沒有醫療保險；而巨額的醫療保險費也是令企業主頭痛的問題，增加成本，甚甚至無法負擔，也是部份產業外移的原因，環環相扣，牽連甚廣。輿論咸認為以Daschle的經驗、能力加上善於協調的特性，就這個職位再適合不過了。因此對Daschle而言，他既是「眾望所歸」，這個職位就幾乎如同「煮熟的鴨子」，跑都跑不掉！

然而在一月29日，要舉行確認聽證會前，美國廣播電台(ABC)取得參議院財政委員會的報告，指出Daschle曾使用企業提供的轎車及司機服務，且並未針對這項「免費服務」報稅 (免費服務被視同收入)。其後更有消息指出，某些被Daschle歸為「捐獻」而得以減稅的項目可疑，總而言之，Daschle 欠繳巨額稅款：十四萬六千美元！

Daschle被「電」的滿頭包，報上形容聽證會結束後Daschle“面色灰白如土”且不斷道歉。而紐約時報及「國家」週刊 (The Nation) 都發表社論，催促Daschle退出提名。紐約時報的重點在「欠稅」，「國家」的重點在Daschle不應該接受私人企業提供的免費服務(而且是頂級的豪華服務)。這些與Obama選舉時求「變」的訴求都不符合！因此他們認為若任命Daschle ，顯然違背Obama競選承諾。

但同時有不少媒體人、政論家認為醫療改革茲事體大，衡量輕重緩急之際，國會還是會放行，讓Daschle就任。沒想到隔天Daschle 倉卒
發表聲明，表示將退出提名。而Obama 更是公開道歉，表示「我搞砸了！」(I screwed up！)

事情有這種轉折，完全令「專家」跌破眼鏡！自然也引起了各種討論，揣測，例如：Daschle是否有更見不得人的事？他自己求退是否在「棄車保帥」？為什麼Daschle要退出提名而Geithner 不用辭職？(財政部長Geithner也同樣有欠稅問題，但卻沒有辭職)，Obama是否識人不明等等。可以追究討論的事情很多，但是，讓我們對照台灣的情況，來看看什麼事我們可以學，改進的？

第一，顯然國會財政委員會的報告是正確詳實的，並沒有「暗坎」(台語)敷衍了事。相較之下，台灣的立法院將美國國務院對李慶安國籍的回函，私下列為「密件」，意圖遮掩，真是天壤之別。台灣的立委諸公們，你們領的是台灣台灣人民的納稅錢，台灣人民才是你們的頭家，這樣做對得起頭家嗎？民主黨在美國國會是多數黨，但顯然他們財務委員會的報告沒有護短，或對「同黨」的放水，這才是正確的、對得起「頭家」的做法啊。

第二，如果ABC沒有取得資料並報導，今天社會大眾可能還被蒙在鼓裡。台灣的媒體先生小姐們口口聲聲「民眾有知的權利」，但有多少重要的議題你們真的去追究探掘？攸關「台灣主權」及「人民生活福祉」的大事都是重要的議題。例如：熊貓花了納稅人多少錢、馬英九任市長期間欠健保費的追蹤報導等等。而台灣被屈辱降格，以「台北聯繫員」的身分被納入國際衛生條例，你們就只會當「胸大無腦」的啦啦隊員，跟著叫好嗎？為什麼不深入探究，把損及國格的真相呈現在民眾眼前？而背後有什麼暗盤有人去查訪嗎？既然台灣媒體都喜歡報八卦、爆料，號稱滿足民眾「知的權利」，為什麼不爆一下馬總統的特別費分存在哪幾家國內外銀行？順便告訴我們，馬唯中、馬元中每月用度多少、在哪裡吃飯、去哪裡購物、有無出入同性戀酒吧？

第三，Daschle發表退出談話的時間點，就在紐約時報催促他下台之後，為此也引起一些討論~華盛頓郵報超級「吃味」！雖然紐約時報對促成Daschle下台的影響力有多大不得而知，但以媒體所扮演，對執政者「監督」的角色而言，紐約時報絕對是相當稱職的。台灣的媒體在民進黨執政時期照三餐罵，當然也可算是「監督」，但現在國民黨上台，變成凡事只會歌功頌德，大小事一律避重就輕，不加追究。究竟台灣媒體對自身職業標準設在何處？而民眾就傻傻的收聽、收看，照單全收？你最少可以拒看吧？~不要買亂報的報紙，關掉亂七八糟的新聞台。

第四，Obama 以「變」為競選主軸，而當選後的作為不太符合競選諾言，就馬上被指正，而他也虛心道歉。反觀台灣，馬英九的競選支票有哪一樣兌現？幾乎都是背道而馳，他道過歉嗎？更不要提「虛心」！只會怪經濟大環境不好；信誓旦旦說自己是「新台灣人」，卻凡事只會向中國靠攏；很多事都遮遮掩掩，不知道背後有什麼陰謀！台灣人難道不覺的自己值得多一點尊重嗎？到底台灣人在縱容什麼，等什麼？

第五，政治人物的道德操守比起能力孰輕孰重？Daschle 的「能力」是眾望所歸，但有道德上的瑕疵，因而黯然引退。馬英九任市長期間，其大姐任職生計公司，違反公職人員利益衝突迴避法；劉兆玄的弟弟也有健保斷卡事件。這些都比道德上的瑕疵嚴重很多，有人下台嗎？今天就算馬劉能力再好，難道他們不該負責？~~~~更何況他們的施政能力簡直是慘不忍睹。

最最最重要的是，不管是民進黨或台灣民眾，不要再雙手一攤說，「沒辦法」，理由不外乎「反正國民黨一黨獨大，完全執政」；美國其實也是「民主黨一黨獨大，完全執政」──從行政體系到國會！為什麼美國執政黨的漏洞一樣可以被抓出來，被檢討？而「衛生部長」且兼改革健保重責大任的職位，可以因為「欠稅」事件而整個翻盤，美國人是怎麼做到的？

對，你可以說美國的民主已經成熟，台灣的媒體很糟，馬政權根本不甩你………我們可以找一千、一萬個理由，可是就算媒體不為我們發聲，我們也一樣可以起身去做一點事。媒體不公，自己想辦法了解事實，再教育其他人，更可以拒看、拒聽；「持續發聲」更是不容忽略的力量：若沒有來自民間的壓力，你以為李慶安會解職嗎？如果沒有「大話新聞」的一再監督、深究‧你以為三聚氰氨標準會被訂在0.05嗎？

是的，美國是成熟的民主國家，台灣不是，或許有些事不能完全相提並論。但是如果我們不努力，去監督，去發聲，麼台灣的民主永遠都不會成熟，就從你我開始，大家開始做點事吧！

About Taiwan Rescue Action Alliances(搶救台灣行動聯盟)

Dear all,
I build this web site http://traaworld.blogspot.com/ for Taiwan Rescue Action Alliances(搶救台灣行動聯盟). This network platform can across and connect many kinds of microblog, blog and social network to provide much information into internet world or other country. In th future, I will use the same mode to build English and Japanese version to use and broadcast, if you have free time, visit it and tell your friends coming to this web site... In this difficult time, Taiwan media is bad day by day, we just use powerful internet to fight with this government by ourself!

If you have idea about this, please let me know and tell me your feeling about this web site. You also can provide a useful blog link for information source, I can connect them with this web site to broadcast much news about Taiwan.

Dalai Lama: China Has TurnedTibet Into a Hell on Earth

I will continue to ask

Why do some Taiwanese want to turn Taiwan into another Tibet, so that their friends and family can experience genocide first-hand?

Dalai Lama Says China Has Turned Tibet Into a ‘Hell on Earth’

Elizabeth Dalziel/Associated Press

A worshiper prayed Tuesday at the Lama Temple in Beijing, a Tibetan Buddhist monastery. More Photos >

By EDWARD WONG

New York Times, March 10, 2009

BEIJING — The Dalai Lama delivered one of his harshest attacks on the Chinese government in recent times on Tuesday, saying that the Chinese Communist Party had transformed Tibet into a “hell on earth” and that the Chinese authorities regarded Tibetans as “criminals deserving to be put to death.”

“Today, the religion, culture, language and identity, which successive generations of Tibetans have considered more precious than their lives, are nearing extinction,” said the Dalai Lama, 73, the spiritual leader of Tibetans.

He spoke in Dharamsala, India, the Himalayan town that is the seat of the Tibetan government in exile. Tibetans outside of China and their supporters held rallies around the world on Tuesday to mark the 50th anniversary of a failed Tibetan uprising against Chinese rule. China crushed the rebellion, forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India.

The furious tone of the speech may have been in reaction to a new clampdown by China on the Tibetan regions. The Dalai Lama may also have adopted an angry approach to placate younger Tibetans who have accused him of being too conciliatory toward China. He advocates genuine autonomy for Tibet and not secession, while more radical Tibetans are urging him to support outright independence.

In the rugged Tibetan regions of China, where there is widespread resentment at Chinese rule, no reports emerged Tuesday of any large-scale protests. The Chinese government, fearing civil unrest among six million Tibetans, has locked down the vast areas, which make up a quarter of Chinese territory, by sending in thousands of troops in the past few weeks and cutting off cellphone and Internet services in some locations. An unofficial state of martial law now exists, with soldiers and police officers operating checkpoints, marching through streets and checking people for identification cards.

President Hu Jintao called this week for the building of a “Great Wall” of stability in Tibet.

“We must reinforce the solid Great Wall for combating separatism and safeguarding national unity, so that Tibet, now basically stable, will enjoy lasting peace and stability,” Mr. Hu said while meeting with Tibetan officials in Beijing on Monday, according to Xinhua, the state news agency.

Across Tibet, monks at large monasteries have been ordered to stay indoors.

In the town of Tongren, in Qinghai Province, monks at the Rongwo Monastery, where protests erupted last year, were told that they could not leave the compound from March 6 to March 16, said two monks reached by telephone. Security forces in riot gear have encircled the monastery. No classes or prayer gatherings were held Tuesday, and one monk said he and his peers were reading scriptures in their rooms.

“This morning, I cried,” he said.

The monk declined to give his name for fear of government retribution. A year ago this month, he was studying in Lhasa, the Tibetan capital, and taking part in protests to mark the 49th anniversary of the failed uprising. When security forces suppressed those protests, Tibetans began rioting in the streets, attacking ethnic Han Chinese civilians and burning shops and vehicles.

The uprising quickly spread to Tibetan areas in other provinces, becoming the largest rebellion against Chinese rule in decades. At least 19 people were killed in Lhasa, most of them Han Chinese civilians, according to the Chinese government. In the violent repression that followed, 220 Tibetans were killed, nearly 1,300 were injured and nearly 7,000 were detained or imprisoned, according to the Tibetan government in exile. More than 1,000 Tibetans are still missing.

In a report released Tuesday, Human Rights Watch said that official Chinese accounts of last year’s uprising and its aftermath showed that “there have been thousands of arbitrary arrests, and more than 100 trials pushed through the judicial system.”

Officials from Lhasa said last week that 953 people were detained after the riots and that 76 of them were sentenced on charges of robbery, arson and attacking government institutions. The others have all been released, the officials said.

The Chinese government has accused the Dalai Lama of fomenting separatist violence; he says he is pushing only for autonomous powers that are outlined in the Chinese Constitution.

In his speech, the Dalai Lama reiterated that such autonomy had been promised to Tibet by Mao and other senior Chinese leaders whom he met in Beijing in 1954 and 1955. The Dalai Lama began negotiations over the future of Tibet after Chinese troops invaded the Tibetan plateau and seized full control of Tibet in 1951.

Despite the promises from Mao, he said, the Chinese government carried out “a series of repressive and violent campaigns” through the decades, including what the Chinese called “patriotic re-education” and “strike hard” campaigns after the protests last year.

“These thrust Tibetans into such depths of suffering and hardship that they literally experienced hell on earth,” the Dalai Lama said.

China has defended its policies in Tibet by saying that it abolished a feudal slave-holding system overseen by the Dalai Lama and poured vast sums of money into building roads, railroads and other infrastructure projects.

Despite his harsh words, the Dalai Lama reaffirmed his commitment to trying to maintain a dialogue with China.

Jonathan Ansfield contributed reporting from Beijing, and Hari Kumar from New Delhi.

Are Taiwanese civilized?

A 2009-03-07 entry from Letters from Taiwan entitled Ironic starts with:

Two articles in the Taipei Times today go some way to illustrating the gaping chasm between Government words and deeds. On the one hand we have the President making comments ahead of International Women's Day and on the other we have the Council of Labor Affairs (CLA) decision to allow an employer to declare maternity leave for female employees as unpaid leave.

Google search on Taiwan maternity leave shows this entry:

Wide Variations in Maternity Benefits

Asian countries provide the least number of weeks' statutory maternity leave. Women in Singapore and Taiwan are entitled to just 8 weeks, and in Hong Kong, ...

This is discouraging. Is Taiwan the worst in the world? I found an international comparison chart from Wikipedia. I am so appalled.

Asia/Pacific

Country	Paid maternity leave	Paid paternity leave	Unpaid maternity leave	Unpaid paternity leave	Restrictions
Afghanistan	90 days 100%
Azerbaijan	126 days 100%
Australia	0 weeks	0 weeks	52 weeks	52 weeks	Only the primary carer is entitled to leave, i.e. the 52 weeks are shared between parents
Bahrain	45 days 100%
Bangladesh	12 weeks 100%
Cambodia	90 days 50%	10 days special leave for family events
China	90 days 100%
Fiji	84 days Flat rate
India	12 weeks 100%
Indonesia	3 months 100%	Two days' paid when wife gives birth
Iran	90 days 66.7% for 16 weeks
Iraq	62 days 100%
Israel	14 weeks 100%		1 year
Japan	14 weeks 60%
Jordan	10 weeks 100%
Korea, Republic of	90 days 100%		1 year (400US$ per a month paid by Employment Insurance)until the child is 3 years old	1 year (400US$ per a month paid by Employment Insurance)until the child is 3 years old
Kuwait	70 days 100%
Lao People's Democratic Republic	3 months 70%
Lebanon	7 weeks 100%
Malaysia	60 days 100%
Mongolia	120 days 70%
Myanmar	12 weeks 66.7%	Six days of "casual leave" that can be used by fathers to assist their spouses at the time of confinement
Nepal	52 days 100%
New Zealand	14 weeks @ up to NZ$407.36/week		38 weeks	Fathers can share unpaid (extended) leave with the mother of the child.
Pakistan	12 weeks 100%
Papua New Guinea	12 weeks 0%
Philippines	60 days 100%	Seven days paid paternity leave for married workers
Qatar	50 days 100% for civil servants
Saudi Arabia	10 weeks 50% or 100%	One day
Singapore	16 weeks 100%
Solomon Islands	12 weeks 25%
Sri Lanka	12 weeks 100%
Syrian Arab Republic	50 days 70%
Thailand	90 days 100% for 45 days then 50% for 45 days
United Arab Emirates	3 months 100%
Vietnam	4–6 months 100%
Yemen	60 days 100%

A community blog for Taiwan-loving people

Will Taiwan survive the KMT/CCP coaltion to turn Taiwan into another Tibet? Only if enough Taiwanese start speaking up to protect their rights. It should be obvious that

• If 100% of Taiwanese speak up, then Taiwan will always belong to Taiwanese, but
• if 0% Taiwanese are willing to speak up, then Taiwanese will forever be slaves of other nations.

WE ALL must work hard and fast to scale towards 100% speaking up.