Happy New Year, Chen Shui-Bian?
Filed under:-mini-posts, Analysis, economy, General, Opinion | Tags:chen shui bian, China, economy, Mainland, taiwan
Add comments
With the Lunar New Year approaching, Chinese from the around the world are hoping to head home and spend time with their family. That’s true even of Taiwan’s former president, Chen Shui-bian, even though he’s in jail on charges of embezzling state funds.
So Chen has started a letter-writing campaign asking the public to lobby his successor, Ma Ying-jeou, for a chance to go home. Chen, who was Taiwan’s president from 2000 to 2008, has been imprisoned since November 2008 and was officially sentenced to life in prison on charges of corruption last September.
Chen is still appealing his sentence, which means that under Taiwanese law he is eligible for parole until the appeal is heard. But so far, the court has kept him in prison on the grounds that his crimes are serious, reasoning that he might tamper with evidence and could try to escape.
So far, there’s no sign of mass support for Chen’s campaign, but his office says it has received quite a few positive responses. Chen remains popular among Taiwan’s pro-independence groups.
Some human-rights watch groups have raised concerns about the Taiwan government’s handling of Chen’s case. They say that the prosecution’s case against Chen and his family members might be politically motivated.
Cheng Wen-lung, Chen’s lawyer, said the campaign might not work, “but not trying means no chance at all.” The lawyer added that Chen’s legal team has applied for his release eight times.
The Presidential Office’s spokesman did not return calls for comment.
So far the prospects for parole don’t appear good. On Wednesday, the day after Chen’s office initiated the campaign, Chen’s wife, Wu Shu-jen, was sentenced to nine months in prison for abetting false testimony. Chen’s son Chen Chih-chung, his daughter Chen Hsing-yu and son-in-law Chao Chien-ming also each received a three-month sentence for giving false testimony.
So it looks like Chen wants to be home for the holidays.
Chen’s lawyers have actually made appeals for some kind of parole many times already, but each time it has been denied. So Chen now wants to organize a letter writing campaign to apply some political pressure for his release.
Does Chen deserve to be home for the holidays? Should Ma show some mercy on KMT’s former political foe?
My advice to Ma is no. Don’t do anything so foolish. Let the judicial process take its course. Taiwanese politics is polarized enough the way it is. To politically interfere so crudely in such a sensitive judiciary process would not bring anyone any good. To do so helping a convicted crook like Chen would be suicidal to your political career.
Ma, I know your approval rating has been abysmally low. But when even Rock Star President Obama is having trouble with approval ratings, you should take some heart. Hurricanes, the economy, beef imports all have taken their toll. But things should be turning around soon. With a free trade agreement with Mainland on the table, and signs that the U.S. economy is turning the corner, there should be much to look forward to in the coming new year.
The coming year is the year of the Tiger, an animal endowed with vigor and power. Let’s toast that the coming year will bring re-invigoration and prosperity to people on both sides of the strait!
As for Chen? I wish him good health and good life, too – so long as he does not use illicit or underhanded means to bring more pain and hurt to the people of Taiwan.
There are currently 2 comments highlighted: 60157, 60168.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:15 am
Should Ma show some mercy on KMT’s former political foe?
Allen, if you’re indicating that it is the government that is deciding whether Chen is in jail or not pending the hearing of his appeal it bodes badly for Taiwanese liberty. Only the judiciary, without political pressure, should make that decision.
Should he be bailed? Depends where you’re coming from. In terms of having a fair trial Jerome Cohen, Ma’s own teacher at Harvard and an American cheerleader for Ma before the election, has said he should because without it he can’t form a proper appeal.
Politically it would actually be in Ma’s own interest to see Chen bailed as he only causes trouble for the DPP. Since he has been in jail he has mostly been quiet and actually let them get on with their job – criticising the KMT and challenging them at elections.
When you refer to Chen as the KMT’s former political foe, you touch upon the reason they hate him so much. They don’t care about his supposed crimes as many in the KMT are just as corrupt. In their eyes his “crime” is beating them twice in the presidential elections, which he needs to be punished for. However, in allowing their hatred of Chen to control them the KMT have given their opponents time to get their act together.
Ma, I know your approval rating has been abysmally low. But when even Rock Star President Obama is having trouble with approval ratings, you should take some heart.
Yes, but why have Obama’s ratings dipped? Because he was initially over-hyped and has had a number of his own problems, like health care reform. Yet he is still a net-asset for the Democrats.
On the other hand Ma is dragging the KMT down, and his problems are mostly of his own doing. He wasn’t criticised for the hurricane, he was criticised for the response. It was also he that negotiated the US beef deal without properly considering the reaction in the Taiwanese public. But that’s classic dictatorial KMT behaviour – impose a decision on the populace, assuming they won’t object.
Also Obama does not have anyone pulling his strings, whereas the public in Taiwan increasingly do not know who is in charge – Ma or the KMT bigwigs.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:57 am
raj, so angry to read ur viewpoint. we chinese have enough of u westerners trying to tell us what is good for us, “democracy”, “universal rights”, “rule of law”… 30 years of success is not enough for the west, they will always try to stop and split us, but we stand against it. unfortunately taiwan is still in west’s hands.
i think ma might be a good “president” of taiwan province, but he has accepted weapons from the west, so maybe he is the same traitor as chen. if he makes decision to keep chen imprisoned, he will have done a right thing. otherwise he will be a scoundrel of history and he has hurt the chinese nation.
February 8th, 2010 at 12:07 pm
hainan88
The author, Allen, asked for comments/opinions – I put mine forward. If you’re new to the blog, have a look at the conduct rules below.
http://blog4china.org/2009/06/01/call-for-comments-on-the-code-of-conduct-at-fools-mountain/
I draw your attention to the first principle. Everyone is welcome to express their views – you, me, Allen, everyone. So please do not say who has a right to comment or not.
Taiwan is in no one’s hands other than those of the Taiwanese people.
Well, maybe China should punish Ma and Taiwan for buying them? That would be the easiest way to stop the arms being bought.
February 8th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Obama does not have anyone pulling his strings??? oh, pleee..ase. Read Wesley Tarpley (think that’s the correct spelling) unauthorized biography of America’s first president from the land of aloha.
Of course you’d probably say, oh, his enemies got this book out to try and tank his chances (was around or before the election i think). But there’s never smoke without some fire.
america is an oligarchic-plutocracy and the man with his hand on the buttons owes favours to the big guys who put him there.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Allen, eligable doesn’t mean automatic approval. Also isn’t it the case in our judicial system that convicted fellons ususally serve the sentence while “proper appeal” is under way? If that’s good enough for Americans, why shouldn’t it be good enough for Chen? I mean the bank vults were not fill of politics, but stolen money.
For example last 2-3 year there were news of black men wrongly convicted of rape were freed after decades of incarseration, when newly available DNA test exhonorated them on appeal. Not one of them were paroled during the appeal.
February 8th, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Charles
If that’s good enough for Americans, why shouldn’t it be good enough for Chen?
Because Taiwan has its own political system and the people that usually don’t get bailed are charged with crimes like murder, violent assault, etc?
Not one of them were paroled during the appeal.
And that was probably a mistake.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:58 pm
Raj, I was refering to the underlying principle of mounting appeal while incarcerated, not if US law is applicable in Taiwan. If US law considers this viable, so can ROC law.
Anyways, according to ROC penal code section 41, defense parole is based on sentencing guideline or actual sentence, not if crime is violent. Section 41 states crimes requiring 5 year or less, or 6 month actual sentence, may qualify – Chen got life.
Also, if the verdict document does not stipulate possibility of defense parole, then it is not possible. Here’s Chen’s verdict, I did not find “易科罰金” mentioned.
February 8th, 2010 at 11:10 pm
Charles, just because something is considered viable in one country doesn’t mean it’s the best course of action to use all the time. I’ve heard that argument used many times when people say that China can’t hack US freedoms, so I don’t see why suddenly if the US can do it so can everyone else.
If Chen can’t get bail because of his sentence, why is that never mentioned by the judges when they refuse bail? Their attitude is that they can grant it but don’t choose to.
February 9th, 2010 at 2:54 am
Allen, in the discussion in FM about Chen’s trial the major opinion was that it was not a fair trial,- which you describe as “Some human-rights watch groups have raised concerns”. I will come to that at the end again.
What really makes me upset is this sentence:” bring more pain and hurt to the people of Taiwan.” In Chens presidency the unleashing of Taiwan’s Tiger, which started under Lee, came to a high. The economic facts speak for itself. I wrote in another thread that nowadays Taiwan stands for excellence,- mainly because capable people, not KMT crown-princes, got into power. You did not live here during that time – what do you know?
Fact is, that Ma’s main actions after being elected was to pay back his contributors, one of the real reasons why his approval ratings are so low.
About Ma: you know what people think about Morakot: One day was delayed as he first rejected the American help. Why? First he was afraid allowing American Soldiers could hamper his “honeymoon with PRC”, second he preferred a good PR action from a PRC help, to summarize, he kowtowed to mainland china. If that is true, this action cost the life of several hundred people…
We have been there, that for the same “crime” using special fund money, Ma was cleared, while Chen was not allowed to use the same argument: He spent a multiple on other occasions, with receipts , than that what he was accused for to have kept illegally.
We know that Taiwanese prosecutors and judges have never been cleansed for the rulings they did under CKS. But this cleansing must come internally, and that makes the progress so slow. Currently you cannot trust Taiwanese judiciary. The remnant from that time is seen in very harsh and strict rulings,- last case was KMT legislator Diane Lee (Feb. 5).
Now, there was this family purse thread in FM. And you know that one of the arguments for the “officially sentenced life in prison” was that “he must have known what his wife did”. I, like Steve, trust also all my money to my Taiwanese wife, and I wonder how it is in your case? Of course you are safe in the U.S. of any kind of this manipulated processes.
I end with a reference to a song from Phil Ochs, which I like very much: “There but for fortune”.
February 9th, 2010 at 3:45 am
Josef
“What really makes me upset is this sentence:” bring more pain and hurt to the people of Taiwan.” In Chens presidency the unleashing of Taiwan’s Tiger, which started under Lee, came to a high. The economic facts speak for itself. I wrote in another thread that nowadays Taiwan stands for excellence,- mainly because capable people, not -KMT crown-princes, got into power. You did not live here during that time – what do you know?”
– I don’t see anything wrong with that sentence, the crumple of hope toward the son of Taiwan is not pain and hurt? If I will to agree Taiwan stand for excellent has nothing to do with KMT crown-prince, then I think it should have nothing to do with DPP and Lee as well. Btw, why mention Lee and not Jiang Jing Guo?
February 9th, 2010 at 4:14 am
Josef,
You have got the economic facts so fundamentally wrong it’s not even funny. Under Chen, Taiwan economically had severely underperformed. For instance, when Chen took office, the per capital GDP of Taiwan was near 35% bigger than that of South Korea; and when he left the office, it was near 20% smaller than the Korean counterpart. See http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2006/02/data/weorept.aspx?pr.x=59&pr.y=7&sy=2000&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=528%2C542&s=NGDPDPC%2CLUR&grp=0&a=
Both Taiwan and South Korea are Asian Tiger members. (The other 2 are Hong Kong and Singapore, leading them by quite a bit.)
A recent TV program in Taiwan examining the last decade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uMGZUSEPLQ
A few highlights:
* Korea once was poorer than Taiwan, and now is quite a bit richer than Taiwan.
* The gap between mainland China and Taiwan is getting much smaller.
* There has been no real income increase in the last decade.
* The real income of recent A-level college graduate in mainland is catching up that of Taiwan. In some cases, it’s actually higher. 5 years out of graduation, the mainland Chinese’s pay increase has been much faster.
February 9th, 2010 at 4:17 am
@Josef #9,
There is obviously (as usual) a lot we don’t see eye to eye. 😉 But what got me a little upset is this sentence.
You wrote:
Really? Does the fact that Clinton presided over a time of prosperity while Obama did not also speak for itself? What about Reagan vs. Carter?
Besides, did Chen’s administration really excel so much in economic management? My understanding is that Ma got elected in large part because of economics. Most Taiwanese believe he will better be able to manage the economics of Taiwan – in part by forging better relations with the Mainland.
Anyways that’s not the part that got me upset, but the last part. “You did not live here during that time – what do you know?”
I traveled many times and did live (for several months) in Taiwan during that period. I voted in that period. I paid taxes in that period. But what about you? Should we start comparing resumes? Shall we consider how many days we lived in Taiwan – or how much attention we paid to the press – or how much taxes we paid to the coffers of Taiwan? Does my income matter – or my asset (since tax is based mostly on those)? How about my family heritage (some here have suggested that only certain “ethnicities” in Taiwan should be entitled to Taiwan you know)? Shall we compare how much Taiwanese blood I (or you) have?
Anyways – enough of my ranting. Your comments are welcomed here. I enjoy reading them – as that of many people with whom I disagree. The last sentence of my post is a personal commentary. Hold me to fire if you don’t agree. But don’t belittle my comments based on some silly, arbitrary standards….
February 9th, 2010 at 5:56 am
jxie, I best refer to FM, Steve, he wrote in http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2009/09/12/chen-shui-bian-gets-life/ #153: from there
The Taiwan GDP in 1988 was $7,907.18 US and in 2008, $30,881.48 US. It grew every year but one, and the growth in actual dollars was greater during Chen’s terms than during Lee’s. Exactly how did they destroy Taiwan’s economy and society? I was living there during Chen’s first term. Business was booming and the society was fine.
I do not know if you laugh or not about this statement.
Allen, I apologize for the sentence which annoyed you. I lived in Taiwan during Chen’s presidency and saw, especially the south flourishing in a way which I describe as unbelievable. I just was wondering if you had seen that too. And after one year in Singapore I was glad to return back. But now I ask you to be more specific: How exactly did Chen “bring pain and hurt to the people of Taiwan”?
Just compare Ma and Chen, both lawyers’ development: One was sent as a son of a high KMT official to Harvard, the other one made his way by his own – with whom do you think Taiwanese can identify better? You quoted马上就好, but you know the result….
February 9th, 2010 at 7:41 am
@Josef #13,
Ok – now I am getting annoyed with you. Who said who destroyed Taiwan’s economy and society? If you compare Taiwan’s economic growth in the 2000’s it wasn’t bad. It was just bad compared with what it could be – and with other Asian economies. Taiwan was getting left behind, and people know it. This is why even today despite fears of competition from the Mainland, Taiwan will most likely sign the free trade agreement.
As for pain and hurt – go read the newspapers a bit. There are so many angles to approach it. Even my green friends feel betrayed by his actions.
As your last paragraph – I will spare some bytes on the server.
February 9th, 2010 at 7:50 am
Josef, didn’t see Steve’s early comment. The data he quoted is messed up. The per capital GDP data of earlier years (including 1988) is nominal data, and latter years (including 2008) is PPP data. It was pretty well known — at least to a mainlander like me who then lived with some Taiwanese roommates — that Taiwan’s per capita nominal GDP cleared $10K in 1991. In 2008, according to the World Bank, Taiwan’s nominal per capital GDP was $17K. I don’t know in that set of data, where the diversion of nominal GDP and PPP GDP began though.
PPP is so screwed up in so many different ways. Often an international organization, e.g. the World Bank, collected some very partial data years if not decades ago, and that became the base for PPP ratio calculation. Official inflation data is used to build on top of that as the current PPP ratio. Well, the implicit PPP ratio in Taiwan today, is actually higher than that in mainland now. It sounds kind of ridiculous at first, but on second thought it may not totally out of whack considered how weak the Taiwanese Dollar has been. But still though, it really doesn’t sound right given how overall Taiwan is more developed than mainland.
From $10K in 1991 to $17K in 2008, that’s annualized 3% nominal growth in dollar term — not even in constant dollar term. Considered the dollar-based inflation, the real dollar-based growth may be very close to 0, if not outright negative. In 1990, the starting salary of a tenured professor in Taiwan was roughly $35K. Today? It’s roughly the same.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:39 am
“Just compare Ma and Chen, both lawyers’ development: One was sent as a son of a high KMT official to Harvard, the other one made his way by his own – with whom do you think Taiwanese can identify better?”
Of course Chen is many times better, that is where the pain and hurt come from.
February 9th, 2010 at 8:59 am
“Taiwan was getting left behind, and people know it.”
Like TSMC, UMC, ASE, Mediatek, ACER, ASUS, Benq, …. a very long list, and all got left behind – I do not know which Taiwan you mean.
As for pain and hurt, go read your own thread about the life sentence and the various opinions there (you can also read today’s apple daily, or Taiwanese news)
But I see we are at a point of the discussion were a break could help. I still value your opinion very high.
February 9th, 2010 at 9:05 am
@Josef #17,
OK – a timeout would be good.
Just so you don’t misunderstand. I am proud of Taiwan. We pride ourselves on working hard, on bootstrapping ourselves, on making things better for the next generation.
As for Chen, he is a lowlife however I look at it. As a Chinese, I feel he is a traitor to the nation. As a Taiwanese, I feel he is a double-tongued serpent who has lied and betrayed us – and who continues to want to use us.
OK – now I’ll go time out.
February 9th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
Allen (18)
As a Chinese, I feel he is a traitor to the nation. As a Taiwanese, I feel he is a double-tongued serpent who has lied and betrayed us – and who continues to want to use us.
Problem is that his nation isn’t China – it’s Taiwan. He was elected to serve the best interests of the island, not that of China or Chinese nationalists.
As for lying and betraying the Taiwanese people, I guess you’re talking about having his hand in the till. That might have been the case, though if so the KMT did much worse through its years of plundering. I think people are disappointed in Chen because they thought he would be different. Apparently he wasn’t.
That said I think it’s a bit much to say he “betrayed” the Taiwanese people. Under Chen Taiwanese democracy was strengthened, not weakened. It was the first time there was a peaceful transition of power from the KMT to another party, said non-KMT president staying in office for a second term and then power passing back to the KMT when they won the 2008 election. There was no state of emergency imposed to stay in office, no persecution of opposition (i.e. KMT) politicians to make life hard for them, no gerrymandering, etc.
The only question is whether Taiwan will be democratic enough in 2012 to allow the DPP to regain the presidency (and maybe gain the legislative) if that is what the people of Taiwan want.
February 9th, 2010 at 1:06 pm
“Under Chen Taiwanese democracy was strengthened, not weakened.”
Huh?
“The only question is whether Taiwan will be democratic enough in 2012 to allow the DPP to regain the presidency (and maybe gain the legislative) if that is what the people of Taiwan want.”
Don’t insult Taiwanese though some do support KMT. Taiwan democracy spirit is the blood and sweat of all Taiwanese. The smooth transition that earns our respect is the one when Chen won his first president.
Chen Shui Bien is like what Allan put it, a lowlife. What he did damage the sensible and noble of democratic that ultimately could strengthen CCP grip toward China.
Life sentenced is an extremely light punishment for one scumbag.
February 9th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Don’t insult Taiwanese though some do support KMT. Taiwan democracy spirit is the blood and sweat of all Taiwanese.
What exactly are you trying to say in response to my point that the test of Taiwanese democracy will be whether it’s possible for the DPP to win in 2012 in a fair contest if that’s what people want?
The smooth transition that earns our respect is the one when Chen won his first president.
What about the transition in 2008, what was wrong with that?
What he did damage the sensible and noble of democratic that ultimately could strengthen CCP grip toward China.
How on earth did he do that?
February 10th, 2010 at 12:10 am
“So Chen has started a letter-writing campaign asking the public to lobby his successor, Ma Ying-jeou, for a chance to go home.”
Oh, I don’t like what Chen is doing here. Is he still playing political games? I mean, as a lawyer, Chen should know better that it is the court, the judiciary who decides whether he gets a parole. However, Chen is making it like Ma has the ultimate decision on his parole. He’s trying to give the public the influence that Ma is above the law and controls the law. It also creates tensions between KMT and the legal system. It’s like a naughty boy asking his mum to give him the water gun his father locked away – nothing wrong on the surface, but if you think carefully…
February 10th, 2010 at 4:23 am
Raj,
“What exactly are you trying to say in response to my point that the test of Taiwanese democracy will be whether it’s possible for the DPP to win in 2012 in a fair contest if that’s what people want?”
I am responding your insensible presumption/question “The only question is whether Taiwan will be democratic enough in 2012 to allow the DPP to regain the presidency (and maybe gain the legislative) if that is what the people of Taiwan want.” What is your rational to raise this question?
“What about the transition in 2008, what was wrong with that?”
Nothing is wrong. I thought you also wrote, “There was no state of emergency imposed to stay in office, no persecution of opposition (i.e. KMT) politicians to make life hard for them, no gerrymandering, etc.” The only state of emergency that happened if I recall correctly was caused by the magic bullet. No? What do you expect in 2008 when even most DPP supporters know they are going to lose?
“How on earth did he do that?”
During a lunch break after the long meeting, there is some exchange of political view among Taiwanese, Chinese and Malaysian.
Taiwanese say to the Chinese, you Communist know nothing about election and democracy, why talk politic? The Chinese refute, if democracy is about electing a scumbag like Chen Shui Bien, we rather not to have it. The Malaysian play the pacify role, at least the Taiwanese have a choice to elect again, though I think democracy may not work perfectly in some country.
This happen two/three years back while Chen is still the president. The Malaysian is me.
DPP and Chen is assigned the “duty” by Taiwanese to tell the 1.3 billion Chinese what is democracy, and why they insist the stand on no unification yet Chen failed and failed miserably.
February 10th, 2010 at 10:25 am
Rhan
What is your rational to raise this question?
Only that the KMT was very unhappy about being in opposition for 8 years, and we will have to see how far they are willing to jerrymander/stack the system in their favour to stop that happening again. I am not yet persuaded that they will do that on a large scale, but what with their recent changes to the law to allow various local politicians (overwhelmingly KMT) to stay on long after their electoral mandates have expired things are not exactly moving in the right direction.
The only state of emergency that happened if I recall correctly was caused by the magic bullet.
The 2004 election still took place. No state of emergency was introduced to stop the election. Chen faced the electorate and (narrowly) won.
DPP and Chen is assigned the “duty” by Taiwanese to tell the 1.3 billion Chinese what is democracy, and why they insist the stand on no unification yet Chen failed and failed miserably.
Eh, where on earth did you get this from? Taiwanese don’t want their leaders to reform Chinese politics, they want them to govern Taiwan. Chen was hated by many/most Chinese people because he’s pro-independence, he could never convince them democracy is good.
If anyone has such a duty it’s the KMT, given they’re Chinese nationalists.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:47 pm
*****Politically it would actually be in Ma’s own interest to see Chen bailed as he only causes trouble for the DPP. Since he has been in jail he has mostly been quiet and actually let them get on with their job – criticising the KMT and challenging them at elections. *****
Whoever wrote this never passed grammar school.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:23 am
@Raj Says:
February 9th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
“Problem is that his nation isn’t China – it’s Taiwan. He was elected to serve the best interests of the island, not that of China or Chinese nationalists.”
Raj is clueless when it come to Taiwan affair. He does not know what Taiwan Constitution stand for. The Taiwan Constitution stand for the Republic of China. People who are are citizen of Taiwan are also citizen of the Republic of China. Taiwan is a province of Republic of China. Citizen of Republic of China are call Chinese. For more information about the Republic of China Constitution, please visit this website,
The Republic of China Constitution
http://www.president.gov.tw/en/prog/news_release/document_content.php?id=1105498684&pre_id=1105498701&g_category_number=409&category_number_2=373&layer=on&sub_category=455
Raj misleads other people with his statement.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:55 am
wuen
I’m afraid that you are the one who is clueless. The ROC constitution is a relic from another age, and whilst it provides for a mechanism of governance its historic ties to China don’t change the fact that the Taiwanese president’s electorate is from Taiwan (plus a few tiny islands). His responsibility is towards those people and those people only.
February 11th, 2010 at 1:27 pm
@Raj Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:55 am
The ROC Constitution is not a relic from another age. It is present now and it still relevant in the court of law in Taiwan. The citizen of ROC live under the system of a Republic. In a Republic, all citizen must abide by the Constitution including the President. People like Raj try to undermine what the Chinese in Taiwan have accomplish through electoral process in the National Assembly. The ROC Constitution represent the consensus between different parties in ROC. One day, both the PRC and ROC Constitutions will be unify into one. Both PRC and ROC agree their is only one China.
Currently, the government in mainland China and Taiwan are working toward strengthening the Constitutions by opening up to each others and recognize the existence of the Constitutions from PRC and ROC. The DPP try to destroy the ROC Constitution and impose their doctrine, but fail.
You have the right to not recognize the ROC Constitution, but that does not mean the citizen of ROC agree with you.
Long live the Constitution of Republic of China and the Constitution of the People Republic of China. Long live China.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
wuen, whether something is legal or not does not mean it cannot be a relic – look the definition of the world up in a dictionary. It is not relevant in the slightest to modern Taiwan, it was designed for when the KMT ruled China.
The ROC is Taiwan, but only the KMT (and a few minor parties) agree there is only one China. The KMT are a political party, not Taiwan. A majority of Taiwanese do not agree that they are part of China.
Ok, let’s get some opinion polling from people in Taiwan and see what they have to say. Do you maintain they think they are part of China?
Long live China and Taiwan, but may Taiwan never be forced into union with China.
February 11th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
@Raj
Through out the whole discussion, to be perfectly honest I do not understand your arguments at all. It is not that I disagree is just that I don’t understand your point of view.
Chen, is a criminal and he should not be paroled. Yes KMT have done their evil deeds in the past and have reformed since then, but to me… Chen has made a disgrace out of Taiwan by embezzle so much money out of Taiwan when people of Taiwan needs it the most. I think that is what most common Taiwanese people are mad about.
He has committed a crime in the name of Democracy and created a debacle out of the whole court trial. I am sorry to say, I don’t feel sympathy for him. You do the crime you do the time right?
On a side note, UDN have reported Chen still have estates and investments in United States, I wonder when the FBI or the CIA going to confiscate that.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
@Raj Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 4:01 pm
Raj is trying to mislead again. He work very hard to mislead people. Raj use his imagination to create a fictitious Taiwan. The ROC represent everyone in Taiwan, not only the KMT. The majority citizen of ROC want to stay in the status quo. The status quo mean there is only one China and the power of governance come from Constitution of ROC. This Constitution will stay and not disappear.
The government of PRC and the ROC are working to unify both Constitutions. The Chinese in Taiwan and the Chinese in mainland China are happy to be at peace with each other. Both share the same civilization and culture. The DPP who try to be different are failing miserably. The DPP have no hope of winning in the long run and are becoming agitated.
The citizen of ROC (Taiwainese) embrace the one China concept, because Taiwanese do not deny they are also Chinese. They have not voted out the Constitution of ROC even when the DPP was in power. Even when the DPP tried to change the name of Company from China to Taiwan, it dare not touch the Constitution of ROC. One day the DPP will be consider a traitor to ROC and will be punishes in Taiwan.
In America, there are traitor to the American Constitution. The DPP share similar characteristic with American politician who are traitor to their nation. American politician support Israel first before America and they steal the citizen money. The DPP support Japan first before the ROC and they steal the citizen money. This is a treacherous act. When the people from U.S and Taiwan wake up to the treacherous act of their government, these traitor will have no place to hide in their respected nation. The ROC is one step ahead of U.S. in punishing these traitors. The traitor Chen Shui-Bian have no place to hide. He had been sentence to prison and he will not be the last.
Raj can dream about his fictitious Taiwan while the real world become a nightmare to him when the relationship between the citizen of ROC and the citizen of PRC is improving and become closer to unification. This unification will not be force but will come gradually.
Long live the Republic of China. Long live the People Republic of China. Long live China.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
@Wuen
This is a risky talk to weigh in on, but I’ll try anyway. I think you’ve kinda missed what Raj was getting at. I could be wrong, but I don’t think he was trying to dismiss the constitution of the ROC in its entirety; it is afterall the legal basis for the whole state, and the one that has given legal status to all of the state’s politicians, including Chen Shui-bian. The relic, I think, is the idea that the ROC’s authority extending beyond “free area of the Republic of China”. Obviously Chen Shui-bian was legally running for the presidency of the ROC, but I think what Raj was getting when he said “Problem is that his nation isn’t China – it’s Taiwan” (and I’m sure he’ll correct me if I’ve got him wrong) is that Chen Shui-bian’s own definition of himself and his nationality was Taiwanese rather than Chinese- regardless of what the constitution said. He campaigned (and won) on a platform where he claimed to represent the interests of Taiwan and the people living there; not ‘China’, in spite of the legal definition of the office.
The constitution of the ROC can, obviously, be changed. The DPP wasn’t able to change the name of the state, not because of cowardice, but because they didn’t have enough seats in legislative yuan. Finally, it’s worth pointing out once again that Chen is not in jail for advocating the legal separation of the ROC and PRC’s territories and redefinition of the ROC (which is not a crime in the ROC). He’s in jail for corruption.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
hi miaka (30)
Glad to see that you’re back. So if you don’t understand, I’m happy to answer any specific questions you have about my views. To make things clearer.
Yes, if you do the crime you do the time. But you have to be given the chance to prove your innocence, which is hard if you’re always being kept in detention, your conversations with your lawyer are recorded, etc. Even one of Ma’s fans, a former Harvard teacher, said Chen can’t properly exercise his right to appeal whilst being locked up.
My view is that a lot of people are angry at Chen because they believe he’s guilty of something. Does that mean he’s guilty of all/any of the crimes he’s been charged with?
wuen (31)
Can you do anything other than spurt Chinese nationalist propaganda? The Taiwanese public have had no option to “vote out” the ROC constitution – there is no such process. Even if they did China has threatened war if they changed their territorial claims.
Let’s have a look at some of the polls used by Steve on this blog.
http://blog.foolsmountain.com/2010/01/07/present-attitudes-in-taiwan/
http://www.gvm.com.tw/gvsrc/200910_GVSRC_others_E.pdf
Page 3 shows that, even if the Chinese and Taiwanese systems reach parity/become similar, only 11.7% support unification. 68.3% say that unification would not be necessary.
Furthermore, lower on page 3 we see the following.
When asked whether China and Taiwan should eventually be unified, 15.7% of people agreed and 69% disagreed.
When asked whether Taiwan should ultimately become an independent country (I guess this means declare independence), 47.2% said it should and 34.1% it shouldn’t.
Do you have any polls to back up your position?
As for your comment about the DPP stealing people’s money, if you’re upset about that how do you feel about the US$ hundreds of millions that the KMT stole during their decades in power?
February 11th, 2010 at 10:42 pm
@Lime Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:08 pm
You are wrong to trying to defend Raj statements. Raj do not understand Chinese affair. Let me clear this up for you.
The ROC have legal right to govern mainland China, but the PRC is governing instead of the ROC. The PRC is blocking the ROC from governing mainland China. If one day the PRC disappear or is overthrown by the people, then the ROC can claim mainland China and act as the sole government of all China. Right now, the ROC can only exercise it power in the province of Taiwan and it islands. It have never abandon it right to govern all of China.
People like Raj is imagining that the ROC have abandon mainland China because he believe in the DPP. The KMT, People First Party and many others smaller parties do not challenge the right to govern all of China. It will be a mistake for them to abandon mainland China and the proof is in the Constitution of the ROC. Chen Shui-Bian is a traitor to the ROC, one example is because he did not defend the Diaoyutai Island from the incursion of the Japanese military boat. He is willing to give the Daioyutai to the Japanese instead of doing a political protest to the Japanese. The PRC government cannot interfere by sending military boat into Diaoyutai Island because it is under the jurisdiction of the Taiwan province. Only the ROC can send a military boat to Diaoyutai Island. The PRC did protect the sovereignty of ROC on Diaoyutai Island by lodging a political protest to the Japanese ambassador.
Chen Shui-Bian do not dare destroy the Constitution of ROC because it is this Constitution that prevent the PRC military from invading Taiwan and destroying the DPP. The PRC recognize the existence of ROC and will no invade as long as the ROC is alive. Nowadays, both government are in competition to improve the life of their respected citizen to gain recognition and this is a good thing for all Chinese.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
@Lime #32,
I think you made some good points. I agree with you and Raj that there has been a political movement in Taiwan to frame Taiwan as a separate, sovereign nation with a separate, independent history from Mainland China.
I personally believe if Taiwan really wanted to go that route, it would have gone that route in mid 2000’s. Now it’s 2010, it will become more and more difficult to do so.
Even as we entertain that thought, we should not also overlook the fact that there are many Taiwanese who are proud to be a part of ROC – of a unified China. The ROC Constitution does mean something. It ain’t something that is casually cast aside can a vote. If it were so, we wouldn’t really need a Constitutional gov’t. We might as well have rule by mob. Besides, if people really wants to throw the Constitution, we are talking not just of change of government but of regime, something that have almost always been accompanied by war and violence.
Of course – underlying all this we need to go back to the notion of self determination which we have discussed before. Do the people of Taiwan – by mere fact of living in a contiguous region bounded by water – have a right to unilaterally decide their political fate independent and separate from the political entity which they have previously been bound – by law, Constitution, history, culture, language, etc. Self determination per se does not answer this question. It is our specific notion of self determination. Does self determination require determination by ethnicity, religion, or geographic region (natural or arbitrary). For that – to each his own. I guess people can raise the flag of self determination for whatever political purpose they want.
February 11th, 2010 at 10:54 pm
@Raj Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
Here is a quick reply to his statements. The survey show 42% of Taiwanese want to remain in status quo compare to 23.9% want to separate. The people who want to maintain the status quo are willing to be call Chinese while the people who want to separate do not want to be call Chinese. Here is the proof that a majority of Taiwanese want to stay in China under the rule of the ROC. The other percentage of people do not reject to be Chinese. See for yourself.
From the link provided by Raj
Maintain the status quo for now, then see what happens later: 42.5%
Support Taiwan independence: 23.9%
Maintain the status quo forever: 7.6%
Reunify with mainland China: 7.4%
Decline to respond: 18.69%
Raj can’t understand the survey correctly.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
@Wuen #36,
I’d further add, the 18.7% decline to support is very interesting by itself.
Politics over the past decade has been very divisive. I’ve got cousins from the South who cuss at me when they found out I’d not support independence. I’ve run into people in the South pick fight with me when I spoke mandarin instead of taiwanese while visiting family in the South. The DPP brand of politics has been violent and disruptive, that’s for sure. No wonder close to 20% decline to state.
To me, in the end, the polls are meaningless. In the times of Chen’s administration, depending on the polls you cite, the support for independence could be over 45%. The Chinese way is not to seek confrontation, but to change the circumstances to your advantage such that you don’t have to fight.
As China grows stronger, things will take care of itself. The polls in Taiwan will follow the tide of history. Make no doubt about that.
And few entities in world are in as good a position as China to make history. Also make no doubt about that.
That’s all that matters – in my humble opinion.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
@Allen Says:
February 11th, 2010 at 11:02 pm
“I’d further add, the 18.7% decline to support is very interesting by itself.”
It is not 18.7% decline to support but 18.7% decline to respond to the survey. If the 18.7% want to separate from China, then they will respond to the survey, increasing the 23.9%.
I am glad you support China. The DPP are monster like the Right Wing Conservative in America who bash any American who disagree with their invasion of the Muslim regions and call them anti-Semite.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
@wuen #38,
My bad. I meant 18.7% declined to state.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:20 pm
@Allen
I have slowly come around to your view that the moral and legal arguments for the ‘self-determination’ of any group of people (Taiwanians, Tibetans, Quebecois, Chinese) is groundless unless taken to its logical conclusion; the right of every individual to determine their own legal/political identity. Nationality is, afterall, a completely imaginary construction that often differs from person to person and does not conform to the attempts at legal enforcement of a political authority’s defintion. No political authority’s definition, therefore, is any more justified than any others, in any objective sense. I put it to you then that we, as private individuals who (let’s assume) are not competing for any sort of political power, need to frame our arguments for our preferred political configurations in terms of their practical functionality. So to me, the only relevant question in debate between the DPP’s position and the eventual-reunification position is who would it benefit and how?
To your specific points, I’ve never met anyone who has advocated ‘throwing out the ROC’s constitution’. What the DPP wants to do is change it, within the legal boundaries that it itself sets. Not to nitpick, but if the ROC’s government was to separate the territory of Taiwan from the PRC’s territory (ie, drop their claim to the PRC’s territory) it could not be described as being a move independent from the ‘political entity which they had been previously bound’, as every political entity to which they were bound (the Dutch East India Company, the Ming state, the Qing state, and the Japanese Empire) are all now defunct. The only remaining one is the ROC state itself. You could say they would be unilaterally separating from the cultural and territorial entity (if cultures and territories can really be bound into ‘entities’ without political frameworks) to which they were once attached, but I think that’s as far as you can go. That, perhaps, is the difference between the Tibet and Taiwan debates. The ROC is already a self-determining political entity.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:34 pm
@Lime #40,
You stated emphatically: “The ROC is already a self-determining political entity.”
It’s something we can agree to disagree. Yes – the ROC is self-determining entity to a certain extent – but a very qualified one – subject to the special circumstances of cross-strait relations.
The Chinese people all want peace. Hence people from both sides of the strait are now able to enjoy peace and prosperity and a broad spectrum of bilateral exchange despite an ongoing political impasse.
However the willingness by one party to extend some breathing space to another does not mean ergo the formation of a new norm or a de jure settlement to the political impasse – or a new framework where the impetus for resolving the impasse lies unilaterally at the discretion of one side – in the name of “self determination.”
February 11th, 2010 at 11:44 pm
@Raj
Chen openly admitted that he did take the money. He also justify it by saying publicly that is money that supports the independence movement. It was all over the Taiwanese News Paper.
Contrary to what you might believe, when all of the hoopla before his trial, he was given every chance to prove his innocence. It is also reported that he has assets here in U.S still a lot of asset. So forgive me for being unforgiving towards him, because he did do the crime.
He is not that great of a guy as you may think he is….
February 12th, 2010 at 1:04 am
@Allan #37
Any survey that does not provide the option of status quo is invalid, because the Taiwanese are loyal to the ROC and if the unification with the PRC is force upon them, they will choose separation of government not of nation. Taiwanese are loyal to the ROC because the ROC have succeeded in improving the life of all Taiwanese. For this reason the PRC recognize the ROC.
The majority of Taiwanese want the status quo and any survey who do not mention the status quo are invalid.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:16 am
@miaka9383: Ma openly admitted that he transferred his allowance to his private account. He also justified it by saying that he spend much more than he transferred.- please explain why this logic cannot be applied to Chen?
As a president nearly every day was observed, protocol led and it seems that prosecutors did not even find any entry (example meetings under 4 eyes) which could support their accusations. I am sure if they were, there would have been loudly published. And simply, that makes me a little curious about the case. I know the Swiss (I lived there) : they would never give out data unless they get something. How come that no data since then, example form the richer KMT bosses, did not reach publicity? For me, there are still too many flaws in this process, but when raising this concerns I received answers like scape-goat etc.
wuen: where do you get that statement: “The people who want to maintain the status quo are willing to be call Chinese while the people who want to separate do not want to be call Chinese ” I tell you: much much more people call themselves Chinese in Taiwan, but believe me, except a tiny minority, which is dying out, wants unification. Especially when you look at the trend and at opinions of young people. One often heard argument is: why should I want to unify with a nation which is hostile (i.e. missiles) to me?
Allen: I don’t buy your “love for Taiwan” anymore. You are sitting in the states, enjoying the “western definitions of freedom” but propose to this island the “Chinese (communist) definitions of freedom”. I do care, as I am settled down here with family and house and your agitations are a thread to me. I do not exclude an unification in the future, but not because China gets stronger, but probably when China changes (to the good).
Back to the topic: I think a release of Chen would potentially hurt the DPP. They just established a winning new image of a clean party again and need desperately to break the high majority in the legislation (I don’t mean that they get the majority, just breaking a 75% or 66% figure, depends how you collapse groups etc.). Chen, like Obama if you want, is rhetorical brilliant. Commercial newspapers etc. would still give him a platform to the public and the outcome is very uncertain. And KMT don’t want to gamble on that either. To my opinion that is the main and true reason why he never was released. And I remember one of the court justification of the past even openly stated it: he might stir and create troubles.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:38 am
@Josef 44
You agree with me that Taiwanese want to be call Chinese by saying “much much more people call themselves Chinese in Taiwan”.
You disagree with me the future in Taiwan is for unification by saying “but believe me, except a tiny minority, which is dying out, wants unification. Especially when you look at the trend and at opinions of young people”. This is your wishful thinking. Why will “much much more people call themselves Chinese in Taiwan” want to separate from China when they call themselves Chinese. Your reasoning is flaw. You are mix up with unification of Nation and unification of Constitutions. China is one nation with two Constitutions. Taiwanese are loyal to the Constitution of ROC.
Chinese from both side desire peace and prosperity and both governments will work together to provide a unify solution for peace and prosperity.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:40 am
@Josef
I don’t understand what you are asking me or what logic you are referring to?
My point is simply he is guilty. There may be flaws in the processes and it may need to be changed. But the evidences that are out there still shows he is not completely innocent. I agree that KMT has not be completely innocent in the past, the most famous case is Wu Qing Feng, but there are no blatant evidence that they are as corrupt as Chen is.
I mean why would his wife receive a guest at the president’s mansion and out in the media had said he/she had given some gifts to the first lady and later on their company becomes a private contractor for the government?
There are many questionable behaviors from this couple that points to the guilty side and they have testimony that proves it. This family’s refusal to cooperate with the police to cleanse their guilt is also questionable, it almost seemed like he has something to hide.
Also if their assets are completely frozen why is it that they still have a nice house in Virginia of all places?
Also they have broadcast their son’s wedding and the expensive wedding gifts that his son has gotten, but have you notice that some of this guest have benefit a lot from Chen?
Too many of these evidences that points to guilt. I just don’t understand why you guys think he is innocent as a lamb?
February 12th, 2010 at 2:20 am
Sometimes the opinions on an idea, a person, or a party can change very fast. There is no reason to believe poll results are anything but ephemeral. At the beginning of Lee’s first term, actually majority of Taiwanese desired eventual unification. Due to a host of reasons, the poll results gradually changed and have become mostly stable in the last decade or so. At the end of Lee’s first term, Taiwan’s per capita GDP was about 30 times of mainland’s. Today, it’s a bit over 4 times. A handful mainland cities and a couple of provinces will likely overtake Taiwan very soon.
When Qing controlled Taiwan, Taiwan was like the poor brother of Fujian — and Fujian was quite a bit poorer than Zhejiang and Jiangsu. In the context of Chinese history, Taiwan enjoying higher living standard over Zhejiang and Jiangsu is an extreme abnormity. For roughly half of the last 2 millennia, folks in the Great Yangtze River Delta had enjoyed the highest living standard in the world. My money is that within the next couple of decades, they will regain that lead. A recent study on childhood iodine intake and brain development found the mean IQ of school children in that area at 116, which is 85 percentile of the worldwide population.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:14 am
Raj@24
“Eh, where on earth did you get this from? Taiwanese don’t want their leaders to reform Chinese politics, they want them to govern Taiwan. Chen was hated by many/most Chinese people because he’s pro-independence, he could never convince them democracy is good.”
You have a very narrow insight toward the role of DPP and the wish of Chinese in general. Typical westerners view point. If Mao could carry out his resist toward KMT at a rustic Yan’an and further conquer China with Communist ideology, what make you think Taiwanese cannot do it with a democracy creed from a well develop island?
DPP have a number of faction, not all are pro-independent. If you tell me Chen is pro-independent before he was elected as president, I tend to believe. If you still babbling the same at this point of time, I think DPPers also can’t stop laughing at your naivete.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:41 am
at miaka9383: exactly that what I was asking for. Be specific. And the fact, that until now, no really hard case was trumpeted in the press makes me suspicious. Like you wrote: his wife received gifts etc. and you follow the argumentation of judge Lai: “He must have know”.
I only try to place myself in his position (an hypothetical, innocent one): having a 200% job I don’t care about family financials. Then I am faced with facts: 100M USD (which is the main reason most of the people regards me guilty). I continue to plead not guilty as in this hypothetical version I am, which you (miaka9383) call “not cooperate with police”. They arrest me so I cannot get my arguments be heard but in the meantime an incredible smear campaign starts.
Now try another hypothetical, guilty version: Although my ambitions are mainly political, I try, beneath my heavy loading job to squeeze out as much money as possible, even if I don’t need that money. And of course with that I risk to jeopardize the future of my children, due to pure greed. They catch me, but as stubborn and stupid as I am, I do not compromise to a backdoor, even after the press made me politically dead.
This second version does not make so much sense to me, that’s why I wondered if someone, i.e. in FM, knows more,
example hard facts. My Chinese is still too weak to read Chinese newspapers (except headlines) so I know only what reaches English newspapers. And at least there, I never found hard evidence.
jxie: I think too that economic facts will outweigh any “feeling or being Chinese sentiments” in any poll on unification. And I also agree with you on the trend which might also influence public opinions.
wuen, that was not my wishful thinking but based on a survey on students. Currently, yes, it is also my wish, but this can also change with the changing of China.
February 12th, 2010 at 5:18 am
@Allen
So is the PRC then not a self determining entity either? Perhaps we have to work on the definition of ‘self-determining entity’. One immediate problem with your response though is the description of the conflict as a “political impasse”. Neither side in the conflict recognises the other as legally existant, and until that changes, there can be no de jure settlement; meaning the conflict is in no way legal, as it exists between two separate and mutually exclusive legal worlds. The ‘conflict’ is simply a physical one that exists because neither side is capable, or willing to risk the consequences of attempting to extend its political authority into all of the territory it legally defines as its own. If the ROC decided to claim the Mars as its territory, it really wouldn’t be any different. Not being able to take control of the Mars, or being claimed by the Martians, who also cannot take control of you, should not (at least in my mind) undermine a state’s status, if its capable of governing its own territory, that is to say ‘self-govern’, as both the PRC and ROC do. If India claimed Pakistan as its territory tomorrow would we then strip Pakistan of its status as a ‘self-governing entity’, even if it did in fact continue to self-govern?
[Sorry about the bizarreness of the Martian analogy; I couldn’t think of a better way of explaining myself.]
February 12th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
Allen (35)
Even as we entertain that thought, we should not also overlook the fact that there are many Taiwanese who are proud to be a part of ROC – of a unified China.
Come on, be honest – when you talk about “many” they’re a small minority. A clear majority of Taiwanese want no political involvement with China.
++++
wuen (36)
The people who want to maintain the status quo are willing to be call Chinese while the people who want to separate do not want to be call Chinese.
Where in the polling data does it say that? I have met lots of Taiwanese people but none identified themselves as being Chinese. Some say they have some “Chinese” heritage, but that’s as far as they go.
The fact is that this poll clearly shows that Taiwanese do not want unification with China and more people back eventual independence for Taiwan than oppose it.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:51 pm
@Josef
Of course in English paper they are nto going to go into details about evidence of corruption. There are just way too many details that even I don’t know how to translate
Also Chen later on, more than one occasion compared himself to Human Right activists and said “Where do you think the money that funds Taiwanese independence is from?”
It is pure greed and his didn’t jeopardize his whole family… his whole family is in on it.
His son recently came out and said to the media that they are poor and to stop persecuting him. And I once again must stress, if they are so poor why do they have an asset in Virginia?
But there are way too many head lines especially http://fe3.udn.com/search/udnsearch.jsp?f_PAGE=3&select=0&hitsBind=157;157;57;0;0;0;1;1;0;0;0;-1;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;0;&Hits=373&Keywords=%B3%AF%A4%F4%AB%F3
to show that he is indeed corrupt or just surrounds himself with corrupt people.
As of 2/9 http://www.udn.com/2010/2/9/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS1/5416185.shtml
His wife’s sister in law and brother just admitted guilt in embezzeling money in the second (bank?) reform.
The investigators accused them and Chen family, when during the merge between 2 banks (Cathay Bank and Shi Hua) they have accepted bribery from Yuan Da (I believe it is another bank that bought both banks)
Chen’s wife’s lawyer in the article said she did accept 20M of political contributions from Yuan Da.
And then her brother and sister in law admit to guilt that they helped her move the money to (Cathay Bank?) and other places associate with this Company.
(I am just briefly translating the article and taking the important points.. ? are for those I don’t know the english word to)
On 2/3
http://www.udn.com/2010/2/3/NEWS/NATIONAL/NATS3/5404235.shtml
Chen was Charged for Perjury
The investigator found evidence of during the investigation of Chen misusing Government Funds that has been allocated to his office for his personal use, that Chen had called Ma yong Cheng and Lin De Xun (his office managers) into President’s house and asking them lie about the receipt and directing them to tell the police that they were from the uses of secret foreign affairs.
But Ma was acquitted on lack of evidence. In the same case, Chen xin yi (Chen’s office wei yuan) was charge with destroying the evidence, and Lin was sent to the Taipei distrct attorney’s office for further investigation.
(questionable behavior?)
————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
There are many cases that Chen has many implication that he was involved :
– The question of the government funds- http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%9C%8B%E5%8B%99%E6%A9%9F%E8%A6%81%E8%B2%BB%E6%A1%88
– 2nd Bank reform — which is still under investigation
– The Buying of land in Long Tan
– The Contract of building South port Museum- That is 2 M there…
plus couple of other cases involving his wife. During a land developing case involving SOGO, how she had accepted money and gift certificates (a lot of it) from SOGO. When it first happened ,first she denies it and then later on admits that it was gifts from the company. This case has something to do with insider trading between companies.
I have listed a lot but if this is not enough as evidence or you still constitute as speculation or suspicion then that we can agree to disagree.
February 12th, 2010 at 1:47 pm
@Raj #51
Your link to survey about 45% of the pool want independence is invalid. Read my post at #43.
Why is the survey invalid. I will give you a example. For example, If their are three options A, B and C. The survey only give two options which are options A or C and option A is closer to B but does not represent B. The person want to chose option B but is not available, he would choose option A. But option A is not his real choice. So the survey does not represent the true choice of this person. In the survey of 45% who want independence, option B which represent the status quo is not available.
You do not understand the meaning of status quo in Taiwan. The status quo mean Taiwanese are Chinese from the ROC. If you don’t believe me, read the Constitution of ROC. You don’t want to acknowledge the ROC’s Constitution because it contradict your view.
You hang only with friend who have the same tough as you do. I also have Taiwanese friends who call themselves Chinese. They are living in North America. I also have a Taiwanese descendant friend who came from South America and consider himself Chinese. They consider themselves also Taiwanese. Being Taiwanese and Chinese is in accord to the Constitution of the ROC. They don’t trust the PRC and are loyal to the ROC. The argument about my Taiwanese friends not being Chinese is invalid to represent the majority of Taiwanese.
I know there are Taiwanese who don’t want to be Chinese in Taiwan, but they are few compare to the majority of Taiwanese according to a valid survey who have put the option of status quo. Imperial Japan occupy Taiwan for over 50 years, so there are elements of Japanese screw teaching left inside some Taiwanese. Imperial Japan taught his subjects that Chinese are low life compare to Japanese and Taiwanese.
If your Taiwanese friends do not want to be consider has a Chinese by default, then he should vote against the status quo. Only 23.9% of the people from the survey vote for independence when the option of status quo was also available. Even within the 23.9%, some want to separate from the PRC and not from China.
If you want to convince me that Taiwanese don’t want to be Chinese, then show me a survey in which the majority of Taiwanese don’t want to be Chinese as in the Constitution of ROC.
February 14th, 2010 at 3:33 am
大家新年快樂
miaka9383, thanks for the links and the information.
Just to explain my curiosity: The combination of donation and favor action is from a moral point of view a crime. The difference to bribery, which is a crime from point of justice, is the hard evidence that the involved parties had some deal before hand. And I was curious about this essential part. In the first verdict this part was down-plaid like: “must have known…” and “higher standards for leaders required”.
When the money was found, why did Chen not leave Taiwan? I suspected, that he never had this “criminal meetings” which are necessary for a bribery verdict. It might not have been necessary, as the “donations” were coming by itself, as part of a known procedure. As a lawyer he knows details and felt save…
In many of your points this missing part for bribery is either connected to a family member or statement against statement.
The DPP wanted their government to be different to the predecessor, therefore the “donation-favor” combination was already enough to turn away from Chen. But for the courthouse, but also for the reputation of the judicial system this hard evidence is mandatory. I refer to this article
“It’s time to release Taiwan’s former president: Apple Daily”
http://www.etaiwannews.com/etn/news_content.php?id=1176457&lang=eng
But certainly from moral point of view, you have convinced me.
February 17th, 2010 at 5:38 pm
@Josef
I don’t know how much you understand about the Chinese family structure, in fact I don’t know your background at all so I will not assume… You should probably approach it from that point of view. I understand what you are saying about hard evidence.
But “criminial meetings” were done through his wife. Now, in a Chinese Family Structure, the wives controls the money. All of the bribery money were all funneled through the wife, her family, and their children. So of course Chen didn’t leave the country, because he didn’t think he was going to be linked to it, and he knew that he as a lawyer, these are all circumstancial evidence.
So that begs the question… is he just as corrupt or he just surrounds himself with corrupt people.
The Apple Daily article thinks that the President should be released but they do not have any evidence that proves that he should be release. Every circumstancial evidence proves his guilt.
I have a fellow Taiwanese Blogger that goes and sits in his hearing everyday and some of the evidence that she said she has heard makes her even more convinced that he is guilty and he needs to be jailed and give the money back.
So should the judge release Chen? i think it would be in his best interest not, or else he might get murdered…. Him and his family are probably most hated family in the history of Taiwan.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:16 pm
miaka (55)
i think it would be in his best interest not, or else he might get murdered…
He has a 24 hour armed guard, and if he was released he would probably keep a low profile (i.e. stay at home).
As for whether he should be released, I don’t think whether he is guilty or innocent should matter as to whether he should be released pending the result of his appeal.
Everyone has a right to appeal even if they seem guilty as hell. So unless you believe that everyone should be locked up until “proven innocent”, Chen should be released to allow him to mount his appeal in the fairest way possible. As I think I mentioned earlier, this is something that President Ma’s former tutor said, that Chen needs to be given the same rights as anyone else and he can’t mount a proper defence if he’s locked up.
If we don’t give the “guilty” the same rights as we would want if accused of a crime then it becomes all too easy for the authorities to start suspending them for anyone they don’t like, regardless of whether they’re a criminal or not. After all a lot of officials very much believe that we’re all guilty of something, so they don’t see the problem in denying us legal rights.
The only reasons he should be refused to be released is that he would be a significant flight risk, would intimidate witnesses, etc. I don’t believe any of those things are credible.
February 17th, 2010 at 10:30 pm
@Raj
You don’t believe any of those things are credible… what things? That he IS a flight risk? or he wouldn’t intimidate witnesses? I know a lot of people personally that would love to see Chen locked up and the money that he and his family stole given back to Taiwan.
I am not saying I don’t agree with your position about the guilty but this case just does not apply to Chen. A person with that MUCH power with that MUCH corruption surrounding him, would you still say he is innocent as lamb?
And his acts are not forgivable because he did run on a platform of being clean and how KMT are evil corruptors. And yet evidence have proven that he was taking bribery to help the sales along for KMT properties and many other cases. I am sorry… he is just as bad as the old goons in the KMT
February 18th, 2010 at 2:08 am
Both the PRC and ROC are fighting corruption among government official and business men. China will not be a safe heaven for people who steal or misappropriate public money. The trial process of Chen Shui-Bian should not leaves any holes unchecked. Through Chen Shui-Bian, the prosecutor team have traced a trail of corruption through many organizations.
The court have made a wise decision for not releasing Chen Shui-Bian. Chen Shui-Bian is not a ordinary prisoner, he have influence and followers who are willing to disrupt the court trial to save him. Thinking that he is like a ordinary prisoner who can do no harm when release is to suspend common sense. If the court released him, he could communicate with his henchmen and harass people who would denounced him during the trial. The best strategy is to not allow him to meet with his family and associates until the trial is over. Currently, life for Chen Shui-Bian is not easy, but he bring this to himself by ignoring the corruption among his family and associates while he was president of ROC. Since his family have proven to be liars, the court should not trust his family until they finish spending their time in jail.
The PRC and ROC are competing to form a clean government. The loser are the corrupted people who have no place to hide in China.
February 18th, 2010 at 8:35 am
“The PRC and ROC are competing to form a clean government. The loser are the corrupted people who have no place to hide in China.”
Can PRC do this without an effective and open media? Or they do it by selectively base on random and preference? The great thing that happen in Taiwan is that a past presidency position doesn’t spare you any privilege to flee the rule of law. Can this happen in PRC?
Of course China has no place for the corrupted, as most of them already run off to the West, the heaven that upholds rights for both political refugee and criminals.
Perhaps the losers are the common folks?
February 18th, 2010 at 1:55 pm
miaka
You don’t believe any of those things are credible… what things? That he IS a flight risk? or he wouldn’t intimidate witnesses?
I’m saying that none of the reasons cited by the judges as to why he should not be released (such as being a flight “risk”) are credible.
I know a lot of people personally that would love to see Chen locked up and the money that he and his family stole given back to Taiwan.
I know a lot of people personally who would be happy if all the bankers in the world were lined up against a wall and shot. We have courts for a reason, to stop mob “justice”.
A person with that MUCH power with that MUCH corruption surrounding him, would you still say he is innocent as lamb?
You’re defaulting to the “he must be guilty of something” position, which is perverting the concept of due process and being innocent until proven guilty. The rules must apply to everyone or they may end up applying to no one. If you’re happy with the idea of being taken before a court and forced to try to prove your innocence, fine. But I don’t fancy it.
And yet evidence have proven that he was taking bribery to help the sales along for KMT properties and many other cases.
Did it? If you’re talking about the evidence from J. Koo let’s look at the facts.
1. His family has long been bedrock KMT.
2. He was an overseas fugitive at the time he gave evidence.
3. He was allowed to return to Taiwan unmolested to give evidence.
4. He was allowed to leave Taiwan without being charged/arrested.
It’s obvious Koo was given a deal that if he testified against Chen he’d be off the hook. So who do you believe, someone who fled overseas and was benefiting from pointing the finger at Chen, or someone who waited to be charged and arrested after losing his presidential immunity despite supposedly being a flight-risk and having massive amount of money ready for access overseas?
I am sorry… he is just as bad as the old goons in the KMT
Quite possibly, but if the old goons in the KMT are free why should Chen be the only former senior politician in jail with a life sentence, as well as being the only one to have been detained whilst the trial was on-going? It just furthers the position that the case against him is politically-motivated.
February 18th, 2010 at 2:32 pm
@Rhan 59
“Can PRC do this without an effective and open media? Or they do it by selectively base on random and preference? The great thing that happen in Taiwan is that a past presidency position doesn’t spare you any privilege to flee the rule of law. Can this happen in PRC?”
To answer your answer, I had gathered a list of articles about the PRC fighting corruption in mainland China. These are recent articles but the fight for corruption started a decades ago since the Tienanmen protest of 1989.
Former vice mayor jailed for taking bribes
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-12/17/content_9194802.htm
Shanghai official investigated over bribery charges
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/13/content_9167384.htm
Lawmaker investigated for allegedly accepting bribes
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2009-11/11/content_8946732.htm
40% of business bribes in construction sector
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/bizchina/2009-09/03/content_8654452.htm
College president jailed for taking bribes
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-06/20/content_8305385.htm
US label maker admitted paying bribes in China
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-08/10/content_8550231.htm
Over 140,000 officials hand in bribes
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-09/22/content_6126801.htm
Carrefour supervisors in Beijing prosecuted for taking bribes
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2008-07/02/content_6811523.htm
China jails former top judge for corruption
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/19/china-supreme-court-judge-jailed
Chongqing’s former police director on trial
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/09/content_9447165.htm
Chongqing’s crackdown on gangs to continue
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-01/23/content_9366838.htm
China’s soccer chief held in matchfixing probe
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/sports/2010-01/21/content_9356440.htm
Chinese officials’ overseas trips down 45 percent in 2009
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/11/content_9459330.htm
The list of article about corruption can go on. As you can see, corruption affect many layer of society such as in business, manufacturing, construction, government, judicial court, law inforcement, education, sport, criminal underground and bank loans. The government in the PRC are fighting corruption that happen to appear anywhere. It is even reforming the judicial court system. One example is to exclude incompetent judge by making them pass an exam create by the state this year. This exam happens from time to time to test the competence of judges.
Even without a open media, liberty and free speech such as the United States, the PRC is fighting corruption more effectively and vigorously than the American. The team that deal with corruption in China have gained many experience in finding evidence to charge corrupt people. The top people in the PRC government are making sure the officials does not misappropriate money from the public.
China have a better chance of creating a society with less corrupt officials than the U.S. For this reason the ROC must also fight corruption so it can look into the eye of the PRC :-). Even if the government in the PRC does not have a direct election to chose the president and have only one party in charge of the executive branch, the government is listening to the concern of the people and improving the welfare of the people.
The PRC is not trying to arrest all corrupt people. It is trying to make them change their way by jailing high profile people like actor, city mayor, military general, president of an association, etc who have not pay their taxes or accept bribe. The ROC is also using the same tactic as the PRC, it is jailing Chen Shui-Bian so other corrupt officials will stop their corrupt ways and to prevent potential corruption case to appear.
China does not need to have a system like the U.S. Free speech and liberty is corrupted in the U.S. by the officials who lie and accept bribe. The system of overthrowing an incompetent government is more successful then a full election in cleaning a corrupt government. If the government could not provide safety and just rule to the people, the citizen in China will overthrow them through revolution. That is the mandate of heaven granted to Chinese.
China have implemented a system in which all officials must declare their properties and assets to the state. The corrupt official now have less room to hide their illicit gains. The citizen of China does not lose under this circumstance.
New officials must declare assets
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90776/90785/6861950.html
February 18th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@Raj
I think in this case we have to agree to disagree because in this case no matter how much you disagree with the process, the reality is he is guilty until proven innocent. There are many cases like this in U.S that gets done that way. Mob mentality or not, there are many OTHER evidence besides John Koo that didn’t leave the country and those are credible to me. If you just read English newspapers, then you are not getting a complete picture. If you just read English blogs, you are not getting a complete picture.
The case against him whether you believe it or not, political motivation is only a small fraction of it.
I don’t know if you understand the meaning of Guilty by Association. That may be a perversion of Due Process and the Law but that is the reality of some of these corruption cases.
Plus, he is a flight risk. If you believe that he is not, then you must be truly an idealistic person. All of his children have left the country to U.S living here.
Topic rests here… I don’t feel like debating on this some more. The opinion that I am getting from you is that he is innocent, but there are way too many circumstantial evidence that just makes him guilty in my opinion. Which is fine. You are looking at this from a legal/technical point of view and I am looking at it from a moral point of view. Have a good New Year…
February 18th, 2010 at 4:09 pm
miaka
Yes, I think that we will have to agree to disagree.
the reality is he is guilty until proven innocent. There are many cases like this in U.S that gets done that way
Well, if you’re ok with that then it would be fairly hard for you to argue against a future case where you think there’s been a miscarriage of justice. Personally I don’t think guilty until proven innocent is ever right, nor should it be tolerated.
Plus, he is a flight risk
Well I have said before that he’s guarded 24/7 by armed guards provided by the State (i.e. not employed by him). I have not heard why he will be able to get past them – he’s not exactly Bruce Willis.
I don’t know if you understand the meaning of Guilty by Association. That may be a perversion of Due Process and the Law but that is the reality of some of these corruption cases.
I know guilt by association, and it has no place in any court.
The opinion that I am getting from you is that he is innocent, but there are way too many circumstantial evidence that just makes him guilty in my opinion
No, my opinion is that regardless of his guilt or innocence he must be offered the same rights as any other person accused of a crime, because if you start allowing people’s rights to be breached based on whether they’re perceived to be innocent or guilty you will get many more miscarriages of justice.
If people are to be locked away for their whole lives based on circumstantial evidence, again, that will lead to more miscarriages of justice. If a precedent is set of circumstantial evidence being “ok”, prosecutors will use time and time again and judges will accept it.
You are looking at this from a legal/technical point of view and I am looking at it from a moral point of view.
For me it is immoral to offer legal rights to some people and not others just because they’re perceived to be guilty.
Have a good New Year…
You too.
March 4th, 2010 at 7:06 pm
I can see this Raj is a spy or something, he keeps saying China vs Taiwan to confuse everyone. The split of Mainland and Taiwan is the result of China Civil War, and the Civil War is not officially ended yet, thus both Mainland and Taiwan belongs to China. Also I think he’s not ignorant enough not knowing Taiwan’s officially name is “Republic of China”. So next time when you say “China”, please indicate which “China” you mean, ROC/Taiwan or PRC/Mainland.
Alan
March 4th, 2010 at 7:07 pm
I assume Raj is an Indian name…
March 4th, 2010 at 7:11 pm
I mean Brit Indian
March 4th, 2010 at 7:50 pm
@Alan
I do not assume Raj is a British Indian — he is a British. No Indian pride themselves of using the name Raj in a English speaking forum, because the word Raj represent “the British rule in India: in South Asia, the period of British rule from 1858 up to 1947 of what are now the countries of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, and Sri Lanka”.
The person who use Raj as his signature name is showing no respect toward the Indian and the South Asian.
March 5th, 2010 at 12:42 am
“So next time when you say “China”, please indicate which “China” you mean, ROC/Taiwan or PRC/Mainland.”
I would say ROC / PRC is actually very confusing, perhaps no one except Chinese and politician love to play around with all this term. The rest have no problem to know China and Taiwan.
“I assume Raj is an Indian name…”
What about name like Allen, Jason, Wahaha or Alan, Alien, any assumption made? Is name/nick sound that important?
What is wrong if Raj a Indian?
March 5th, 2010 at 2:05 am
“I would say ROC / PRC is actually very confusing, perhaps no one except Chinese and politician love to play around with all this term. The rest have no problem to know China and Taiwan.”
If you think using ROC / PRC is confusing, it show you do not have the ability to comprehend a scholarly article. Have you ever read any scholarly article about politic? They don’t get confuse by using ROC and PRC. Only a incapable reader get confuse. You should level up your reading ability.
“What about name like Allen, Jason, Wahaha or Alan, Alien, any assumption made? Is name/nick sound that important? ”
You are an ignorant about Indian and South Asian history and it show by not knowing the weight of the word Raj. Do you know how the British Imperial destroy a great civilization in South Asia? The best defense against ignorance is to study.
“What is wrong if Raj a Indian?”
You ask this question because you get confuse and you are an ignorant.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:51 am
@rhan: “What is wrong if Raj a Indian?”
rhan learn to read. the problem is not if raj is indian, he is british, he still enjoy the colonial and imperailist attitudes of these people. u must learn asian history like wuen writes.
it is very important where people are from because different people think differently. we chinese believe in peace and the political way of opening up under sociliast democracy. however westerns want to split our great country, we must firmly stand against it and complete the task of uniting under the motherland.
actually claims that some “foreign friends” think in different way or “u must look at individuals” is wrong. it is just a sort of imperialist tool to confuse us. in the end the system determines people’s thinking, if u have a non-imperialist thinking the people can freely develop their thinking, otherwise u have imperalist thinking.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:05 am
@ wuen #69: OK, enough is enough. There is no need to call anyone personal names. You can make your point without the ad hominum attack.
@ Alan #64: Raj isn’t Indian, he’s British, so there’s no need to keep stating or implying he’s Indian.
In Taiwan, everyone uses the word “Taiwan” and I rarely heard the term ROC actually used by the people there to refer to their own country, and I lived there for years. I think we all know what people mean when they use the terms “China” and “Taiwan”. If we want to get picky, we’d have to apply the same rule every time someone used the word “China” and was referring to the mainland only, which is usually the case. What you wrote is technically correct, there is a PRC and an ROC, but it’s not always practical to use that terminology on the blog.
I really don’t think Raj is a spy, but you can think what you want. 🙂
@ hainan88: I think Rhan knows how to read so you can make your point without the insults.
March 5th, 2010 at 6:45 am
Writing this article and mocking about people in prison speaks for itself.
Using the freedom to write (living in a country where it is allowed to write) and proposing this freedom to be removed for Taiwan (the European countries feedback to Ma’s “renaming” initiative to ROC was very clear) speaks for itself either. So, when it comes to identify a spy, who wants to ruin the future of Taiwan, I see here better candidates.
I considered both arguments from miaka9383 and Raj as constructive and adding value. Miaka9383 just reminding us of the amount behind (even a CEO, as employee, of a big company should not own 100M USD when he retires) and Raj pointing out the missing final proofs.
March 5th, 2010 at 9:44 am
@Steve
Could you be more specific about the ad hominem attack?
What I say about Rhan is the truth, he admit himself he get confuse by using ROC and PRC. When debating seriously about a subject, one should use the correct term to accurately reference the subject. Speaking casually is a different matter, people often use short phrase to describe their idea or opinion, but it doesn’t mean they are correct. I understand it is inconvenient to use the term ROC and PRC when speaking, but it is inconvenient to use it in writing? If people in this forum talk about China, this mean mainland China and the province of Taiwan. If he specify mainland China only then he should use the word PRC. Rhan is not the only person who get confuse on this matter. Some are genuinely confuse while some intent to lead others to confusion. Studying a scholarly article will clear the confusion. I am trying to be formal in my writing, are you doing the same?
And what is wrong by saying someone is ignorant about a topic. The word ignorant is not a slang. Should I replace the word ignorant by a another phrase such as lack of knowledge.
If Raj is a Indian, then I have no problem he name himself Raj, because he will be degrading only himself — but Raj is a British. The British colonial rule in South Asia destroy many people livelihood by planting opium in large scale and selling these opium to East Asia. The plantation of opium created famine in South Asia if you don’t know. The British themselves outlaw opium in their own country. For a British to call himself the Raj is mocking the South Asian. It is equivalent as saying “I am British and I dominate over Indian and South Asian”. He offend the South Asian. Why should a person like Raj gain respect when he don’t give respect to others. He is mocking people ignorance by using the name Raj.
Only people who are ignorant about the history of South Asia under British colonial rule would accept someone like Raj. And only people who intent to hurt South Asian will accept a person like Raj after knowing the history of British colonial rule in South Asia and the definition of the word Raj.
If Raj want to defend himself, he should tell me why he use the word Raj as his signature name.
If a person feel insulted by someone opinion of him, I believe this person can defend himself. By defending a person in a debate without his consent it is to look down on him.
@ Josef
What do you mean when you say “Writing this article and mocking about people in prison speaks for itself”?
March 5th, 2010 at 12:58 pm
I apologize for hurting the feeling of the British people. When a refer the British at #73, I don’t mean the British people in England, but the British Imperialist. It is my mistake to not use the accurate term to describe a group of people.
I hope people understand why it is important to use the correct term to refer a subject. If not it will lead to confusion.
Being ignorant will also lead to confusion. The best defense against confusion is to be formal in speech and writing and to pay great attention to detail. That why taken the time to read, speak and write is more important than expediency.
About the matter of PRC and ROC confusion, do we agree that when we mention China it include the PRC and ROC? If we can’t agree on the term China, then we cannot make ourselves understand and will lead to confusion.
I have a correction to make. When I mention mainland China, it does not only mean PRC, it also mean ROC. ROC is much Chinese as the PRC. And when I say province of Taiwan or only Taiwan I mean the PRC and ROC. But when I say PRC, then I speak of the jurisdiction the PRC can control effectively in China, that mean it exclude Taiwan and vice-versa when I say ROC. It seem confusing at first, but it is not when one read the constitution. Not everyone get it right the first time, I made some mistake just like everyone. I was also ignorant and confuse before I read the constitution of PRC and ROC and scholarly articles about China.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
@wuen: Raj is a very common Indian first name, and I consider it perfectly fine if any British Indian or British non-Indian would name their children Raj. And it usually has no connotation with the British rule when used as a first name, cause “Raj” is how you say “Reign” or “King” in Hindu, and I suppose by now you know why the British rule is called “British Raj”, this is a chikcen and egg problem.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
@justkeeper
Thank for your reply.
I am wrong about Indian not using the name Raj. It seem the Indian do not degrade themselves by having the name Raj in their point of view. There are no problem when a Indian call himself Raj if the Indian could ignore the definition of the word Raj in English. But there could be a problem when a British call himself Raj. I apologize to all the Indian who call themselves Raj.
There are word with two interpretations, but in English the word Raj have only one.
For a non-Indian English speaker the word Raj is not ambiguous, but I think it is ambiguous for an Indian who speak English.
If the word Raj in English mean dominion over China by the British, then I would find it offensive that a British would call himself the Raj. Are their some Indian that are not offended by a British calling himself the Raj? I respect their choice of answers.
March 5th, 2010 at 3:37 pm
But British domination of India, there wasn’t really a concept of India as a political entity.
March 5th, 2010 at 4:46 pm
@Rhan
I admit I made a mistake in answering the question “What is wrong if Raj a Indian?” The word Raj have a different meaning for the Indian. I did not know. I thought these Indian who call themselves Raj were traitor to their nation. I am wrong in assuming this. For this I am wrong.
I assume you defended these Indian who are call Raj. I did not wanted you to defend the traitor to India because of your ignorance and confusion. For this assumption, I am wrong.
Do you feel offended when I call you an ignorant and confuse for this question? I apologize for describing you as an ignorant and confuse person for this question. It was me who got confuse and is an ignorant about this question.
March 5th, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I have a question about the definition of the word Raj in English. Why the English word Raj is not a one-to-one translation of the word raj(राज) of the Hindustani language in all the English dictionary I consulted?
I read somewhere the word raja in Hindustani mean monarch and rajan in Sanskrit mean king or reign. Is the word raj derive from the word raja or rajan? If it true, then when was the word raj is being use at the earliest. I think the word raja and rajan is a old word that appear before the 17th century and the word raj appear during the 18th century.
Does the name Raj or Raja always come first to indicate the position of the person? Could lower caste be call a raj in India? If a person have the name raj, does it mean his ancestor was a king or monarch?
If I am wrong please correct me.
March 5th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
@ Josef #72: I don’t believe Allen was mocking anyone but he was expressing his point of view. Yours is obviously different and that is fine, but please don’t overstate Allen’s intentions. Though Allen and I might not always agree, I’ve known him for quite awhile and I’m sure he never meant to mock anyone. However, he does have strong feelings towards Chen and his previous behavior. Let’s keep it on that level, shall we? You can certainly express your strong opinions and we all look forward to hearing them.
@ wuen #73: Rhan has been a contributor on this blog for awhile and I can assure you he isn’t ignorant and neither are you. You can disagree with his opinions all day long but let’s keep the discussion on a more civilized level. Calling someone ignorant is making a big assumption on your part and leaves the door open for having the other person call you ignorant. That leads to a circular and dead end discussion. I always enjoy reading your opinions and appreciate your clarity, so I’m glad you take pride in writing with that style.
We’re not so picky on “handles” and who chooses to use them. If you want to ask Raj (as you appear you want to do) why he uses that specific name, I’d also be interested in hearing his reply. But I haven’t heard anyone question someone using the name “Chinktalk” when last I checked, that contained just about the worst racial slur you can call a Chinese person, at least in the USA. Why the double standard? The term “British raj” refers to the imperialistic rule of England over India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, which encompasses a lot more than growing opium. But as you suggest, when I personally hear the word “Raj” I think of British rule over India and not a person’s first name. As Allen wrote in #77, at the time there was no concept of “India” in the subcontinent itself. In fact, there are parts of modern day India such as Kerala that were never a part of the previous major kingdoms located in that region. We’ve had a lot of Indians commenting on the blog and so far, no one has had a problem with Raj’s moniker.
Per the whole PRC/ROC thing, do your really want to correct everyone who uses the term “China” when they mean “mainland China”? If I did so, I’d be editing all the time! I think everyone knows what is meant by either term. You are certainly welcome to use PRC or ROC when you feel it is warranted but I’m not sure it’s practical for others to do so.
wuen #78, you wrote, “I have a correction to make. When I mention mainland China, it does not only mean PRC, it also mean ROC. ROC is much Chinese as the PRC. And when I say province of Taiwan or only Taiwan I mean the PRC and ROC. But when I say PRC, then I speak of the jurisdiction the PRC can control effectively in China, that mean it exclude Taiwan and vice-versa when I say ROC. It seem confusing at first, but it is not when one read the constitution. Not everyone get it right the first time, I made some mistake just like everyone. I was also ignorant and confuse before I read the constitution of PRC and ROC and scholarly articles about China.”
Honestly, I can’t make any sense out of this comment. Mainland China is ruled by the PRC and Taiwan is ruled by the ROC. To say each covers both is more confusing than just calling them China and Taiwan. No one seems to be confused by this except possibly you? But even you seem to grasp it. You can use whatever terminology you want but everyone else is fine with calling the PRC either China, mainland China or the PRC (it’s just China 99% of the time) and calling the ROC either Taiwan or the ROC (it’s just Taiwan 99% of the time). Sometimes legal definitions can also be fantasies, as I’m sure the Mongolians would tell you if you insisted they were part of the ROC. 😉
March 5th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
@Steve
I agree calling people ignorant during a debate degrade the debate. I am willing to self-censorship my opinion of others for a better atmosphere on this forum. I will concentrate on the topic of the debate.
A legal definition become obsolete when a government fail to defend the legal definition.
For example when Mongolia declare independent from China. The Chinese government did not fight over to retain Mongolia. This permitted Mongolia to separate from China. The KMT who represent the government at that time failed to defend the constitution. Today Mongolia is recognize by the U.N. as a independent country. It is very hard for the ROC to gain back Mongolia.
Another example is when the 11 states of the U.S. declare independent from the Union, the government of the U.S. fought for the integrity of the Union so these states could not separate. The U.S. defended the constitution by preventing these 11 states from gaining independent. The constitution of the U.S. do not permit to declare independent in any form. The U.S. succeeded in defending the legal definition of the constitution.
A legal definition could also become void if it lead to confusion. If the politician in China are confuse over the legal definition of mainland China and Taiwan, it would never find a solution to peace and it could lead to war. I understand people in this forum are not politician; the legal definition is not that important — but if is not important, then why come here to debate.
Everyone as a opinion on a word and it definition, why not keep it to oneself. Debating take energy and time away from others enjoyable activities. Everyone who come here to debate have his or her own reason. My reason it is to offer my perspective. I am here to learn and see if my belief could stand the argument of others. I believe that many people misunderstand and a few who want to mislead. I respect all people except for the one who try to mislead by saying a statement is true while he know it is false.
The reason why some people are confuse is because of news media. The news media influence our way of thinking. Looking at some news article can be deceiving because of the journalist who is not specialize in reporting political news. If one want to understand the political message, it would be better to read a scholarly articles that have author that really understand political news. Scholarly articles are hard to find.
Seeking the truth is not easy if one have a shaky knowledge of the terminology. It took me a lot of time to understand many specialize word. I start to relearn those words by accepting my ignorance, because it is more easier that way to relearn what I have learn that was not true or accurate. Being ignorant at first when learning is like a emptying the cup to easily accept the new flow of knowledge.
To make sens of my comment, one need to grasp accurately the terminology of the PRC, ROC, China, mainland China, Taiwan, jurisdiction, etc. It is a lot of work. I don’t expect people to understand it now — I hope eventually it will be understand.
March 5th, 2010 at 11:24 pm
@Wuen and Steve
If you guys want to debate about the different terms and meaning of PRC and ROC and China and mainland China, I suggest you guys create a different post. Wuen, when discussing issues liek this, please do not take a superior tone towards another, it is not only disrespecting the Admin, but also everyone of us who actually participate and discuss different issues at hand.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with some of the stuff you have posted but with the short time that you have been here, you have been nothing but offering annoyance to those of us who wish to actively discuss our difference in opinion.
This is not a place to where you debate. This is a place for conversation. If you do not wish to have conversation with someone who disagrees with you then please leave. Or please follow blog rules.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:38 am
@wuen #81
Mongolia “declared” independent more than once, and it didn’t really mean jack in the long run until CKS agreed that it could hold a referendum to decide its own fate, pressured by Soviet Union at the end of WW2. CKS had his own calculations, which would be a long story. There was no ROC constitution to defend when Mongolia held its referendum in 1945. The ROC constitution didn’t get passed until almost 1947.
Until after CKS lost the mainland, ROC in the UN contended since Soviet Union didn’t keep their end of the bargain, the agreement between ROC and it in 1945 was voided. A part of the agreement was to allow Mongolia’s referendum. Professor Ma (not as President Ma) considered that an invalid argument — in his mind, Mongolia is not a part of ROC’s 固有疆域.
If forming an independent nation is like giving birth, mixing ROC & Taiwan in an Internet forum probably doesn’t even amount to fantasizing a kiss on the cheek. Methinks you ought to take it easy.
March 6th, 2010 at 12:59 am
@jxie
What you say is true. There were no constitution of ROC until 1947. It is the Provisional Constitution the KMT fail to defend.
March 6th, 2010 at 3:58 am
Wuen,
My comment is a reply to Alan and solely to Alan, my apology not to make this clear. I believe many that make comments here are with different background, not all are familiar with law, constitution and some even can’t interpret English term correctly, myself included. Hence some mercy and tolerance might be required from commentators that are knowledgeable. By the way, don’t stress yourselves, I love to read your comments.
Steve,
You raise one interesting question. I have been curious all this while why no one protest the name “Chinktalk”. In my country, we were called using insulting term such as “chink” and “chinkie” and I have been very surprise FM allow name like “Chinktalk”. I held the belief that perhaps most Chinese here had walked out from our usual sense of inferior and not easily step into any path of provocation. I hope I am right.
March 6th, 2010 at 4:17 am
Hi Rhan~
Honestly, I was as surprised as you but since the Chinese people on the blog didn’t seem to mind, I didn’t feel it was my place to arbitrarily make that judgement. Personally, I would never use such a term. Even though I’m not Chinese, maybe I’m more sensitive to racial insults? I know I would be very protective if such a term was ever aimed at my wife. I also hope you are right but I’d like to know how our other bloggers feel about that particular handle.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:06 am
@Rhan
I apologize to you and Allan for the mistake of answering your question that is not address to me. You added the quote and I did not read it carefully. It is also my mistake. I got carry away during the conversation. I really like to participate in the conversation in this forum. After a long reflection on my past action in this forum, I acknowledge my manner shame myself and also the Chinese people who I belong in culture. I am thankful for your kind gesture toward me in spite of what I have said about you. I will put aside my confrontational attitude and continue to provide what I hope to be a interesting conversation.
@Raj
I take upon myself the blame of falsely accusing you of offending the Indian. I respect your right to carry the handle and I will not ask anymore for your reason to carry the handle Raj. I respect you privacy and decision. I apologize for harming your reputation, accusing you of ignorance and misleading others with your statements. I hope to make it up to you by providing an interesting conversation the next time we disagree on a topic.
March 6th, 2010 at 5:26 am
@wuen,
Mongolia had been in a declared independent state, supported by Soviet Union, long before 1945. However, it wasn’t recognized by ROC (including the early period not controlled by CKS), or the US and the UK for that matter.
In 1945, CKS barely controlled Xinjiang, but not Outer Mongolia and Manchuria (plus Tibet). Looking at the cards he was dealt, he decided to agree to Mongolia’s referendum, in exchange of Soviet Union:
* flighting Japanese in Manchuria
* returning Manchuria to ROC after the war
* not interfering in Xinjiang
* not supporting CCP
It’s easy to blame CKS now, but it wasn’t totally inconceivable that he could lose all peripheral pieces to foreign powers. Granted, at the end he lost all but a small island to a much tougher Mao. If you stand from a Chinese nationalist angle, Mao certainly was a better manager than CKS in keeping China together.
An interesting what-if: what if Japan surrendered before Germany was defeated? Soviet Union would’ve been occupied in the European battles, and Mongolia would’ve been an easy picking for CKS. CKS might’ve been able to render the Mongolian independence “illegal”…
March 6th, 2010 at 6:03 am
@Rhan #85,
Huh?
March 6th, 2010 at 7:40 am
@jxie
Thank you for providing a elaborate information about Mongolia independence. My interpretation is too short and inaccurate.
I don’t blame CKS for the lost of Mongolia. I understand he was in a difficult situation with the war against the communist and Imperial Japan. CKS did what he thought was the best for China. I can’t blame I man who try his best.
Mongolia is not a threat to China. For this reason CKS had not made a wrong decision to let it go in exchange for stability with the Soviet Union. If CKS had loss Tibet or Xinjiang, it would be a terrible loss of security for China. Today Outer Mongolia independence does not constitute a threat to China. China can live with a independence Outer Mongolia.
March 8th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There were two highlighted comments from jxie, both expressing a down turn or low improvement performance of Taiwan during Chen Shui Bians ruling. I want to bring some (non-numerical) counterarguments: I think Taiwan is so precious to China (excuse me if I just use now the simple names) because of its outstanding semiconductor and electronics industries. All of the European industrial leading nations would spend enormous sums to get this position (and some of them did, without success).
Certainly it is true that a president starts at conditions given from outside, so comparing absolute numbers might not be very significant. Then one should compare or study actions and activities. Now, there were astonishing projects happening in the last decade, science parks, high speed rail to connect the centers but also the cautious opening to China (i.e. not allowing the last technology to be transferred) which on one hand supported on the other hand secured the High Tech Country Taiwan. I did not see anything like that in the last two years, and currently the part-time president is busy with his other job, advertising for KMT (I know Chen had also this double positions).
I would not dare to say that this improvement which I see, is despite Chen Shui Bian,- might be he selected the most offering competitor (which is a quality criteria) instead of competitor based on party relations?
I found Rajs’ arguments very good which led me to some emotional (collapsed) comment, which I regret.
I know the Chinese family structure (similar on both sides of the strait) very well, that’s why I regard it even more important to find some direct proof for Chen Shui Bian’s judgment.
When is the tiger, walking behind the fox, who made some illegal businesses, also guilty?
Now, there are certainly people who hates Chen Shui Bian because of his support for the Independence Movement. But it would be a shame and a sad stepback in time, if that would be the reason, that he is kept in jail.
March 8th, 2010 at 3:18 pm
@Josef
The importance of Taiwan depend on who you ask. Some people think Taiwan is important because both side of the strait share similar culture and history. Some believe the system in Taiwan such as the rule of law, judicial system and democracy Parliament could improve the PRC system. Others believe Taiwan is attach to the strength of China, a loss of Taiwan mean a weak China. Of course their could be other factor that determine the importance of Taiwan.
In the point of view of the PRC government, Taiwan is a security importance. The PRC government don’t pay to much attention to Taiwan Technologies or cash reserve. The PRC government promise not to levy any tax in Taiwan. Also it does not ask the transfer of Technologies from Taiwan to mainland China. What really matter is the problem of security. Taiwan security is also mainland China security. If Taiwan get invaded, then soon mainland China will also get invaded. Taiwan importance is like Tibet, Xinjiang and Hainan. These regions must be held secure by the Chinese PRC or ROC. If not foreign force could station their troop and harass China. China need to station troop in Tibet, Xinjiang, Hainan and Taiwan to protect mainland China. The loss of any of these regions will weaken China.
The problem with Chen Shui Bian is not only he is corrupt, but also a security menace to the Chinese. If he succeed in declaring independence, the security status of China would be heavily affected. Chinese know the Imperial Japanese use Taiwan as a launcher point in the attack of China, so it could not let this happen again. Most of the people who seek independence from China in Taiwan are also pro Japanese. The DPP does not represent aboriginal ethnic group of Taiwan. By stopping Chen Shui Bian, the ROC is stopping a corrupt official and a dangerous politician to the Chinese. The next on the line of person who should be put on trial is Lee Teng-Hui who was in charge of the KMT and it associates. Except it won’t go so far because the trial of Chen Shui Bian and it associates should be enough to send a message to corrupt and/or dangerous politician to stop or weaken their activity of undermining the ROC.
Currently the best strategy to achieve peace is to promote trade from both side, protect the citizen of PRC and ROC in both side and acknowledge the achievement of both side.
March 9th, 2010 at 4:51 am
@Josef
Actually most of what you called Chen’s accomplishments, started in Lee’s days. Chen didn’t have many economic initiatives of his own.
TMSC is Taiwan’s cream of the crop. Its revenue grew from $5.5 billion in 2000, to $10 billion in 2008. It’s not bad, only if you overlook that the much bigger Samsung Electronics grew from $25 billion to $70 billion in the same period; and Huawei leaped from $1.9 billion to $23 billion. (All numbers are converted from local currencies hence they may be slightly different than the other versions other there.)
In the last 15 years or so, Taiwan has done reasonably ok in semiconductor and electronics, but very poorly in just about everything else. In retrospect, what has hurt it the most, was not taking advantage of the rising of mainland China. Lee’s, and to an extent Chen’s, “no haste, be patient”, has cost Taiwan almost 2 decades in its progress. In the 90s, Taiwan tried to position itself as the logistic center of the A-Pac region — but think about it, how? It didn’t even have direct commercial link with the fastest growing economy. Taiwan’s infrastructure was much better than mainland’s, and it could’ve done so much more… Today? Honestly, I tend to think Taiwan’s infrastructure (and education for that matter) is starting to trail behind the YRD and PRD regions.
March 9th, 2010 at 6:04 am
Hi Josef
“Now, there are certainly people who hates Chen Shui Bian because of his support for the Independence Movement.”
I have doubt toward this statement if you are referring to Taiwanese. There are many reasons to hate CSB but his support for independent movement is definitely not one. CSB major despicably act is what he did to split Taiwanese into a racialist divided society, he intensify hate among the so-called new and late comers to strengthen his support and power, and I think he deserved the “hate” today.
March 10th, 2010 at 1:55 am
jxie 93: I only write out of my head: in recent high school competitions, Taiwan scored excellent notes, sometimes even better than Singapore (and certainly far beyond any Korean or Japanese schools). It is not only TSMC (which is not the only semiconductor manufacturer, and, TSMC is #1,- Samsung, Huawei is not) – what about the leading positions of chip designer MediaTek, Notebook and flat planers manufacturers? To leave electronics – on top we know that one of the best tennis rackets and one of the lightest bicycles are coming from Taiwan (this info is from the technology museum in Kaohsiung). I regard sharing knowledge (my job) as a good thing, but some of my European expat colleagues regards this restricted “sell-out” like CSB did (no haste be patient) as superior to the strategies of some European companies, which at the end lost the business. And Americans sometimes think similar. This depends simply on the point of view – good for Taiwan or good for the world…
Rhan 94: there is this minority (sometimes quoted in this thread as majority) who wants unification now – and this group hates CSB for his support for the independent movement. But you are correct about his split-intentions for gaining power, which in general were not appreciated by the people (KMT but also DPP). I don’t think people really hate him for that, it is just annoying. This is simple because nearly every family is already mixed with new and old-comers.
Correlated to this split intentions are the actions to uncover Taiwan’s dark history (CKS, white terror etc.). And for that a certain group hates CBS. But this is similar to the independent movement and would make CSB (if he is for that in prison) potentially a hero for some people, like the names on the table on Green Island. You have seen Ma’s answers to victims “bla bla difficult times” so now wonder that there is very emotional split within Taiwan, but the root cause is not the one who uncovers it. I hope that this wounds heal sometimes, but that needs more honest actions from the KMT.
I don’t think people really hate him for the bribery and the accusations from the prosecutors. The Chen Family is by far not amongst the richest in Taiwan (and people love to hear news and scandals about celebrities).
March 14th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
@Josef
Why did you not add Green Terror on Taiwan’s dark history?
Remember when A-Bian’s Gestapo tactics on Next Magazine in March 20, 2002. Chen regime stormed the offices of Next Magazine and the private residence of one of its reporters in a chilling attempt to intimidate Taiwan’s ostensibly free media into cowed silence.
After A-Bian despicable excuse, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists and The Paris-based “Reporters Without Borders” never believed a thing he said.
Here’s a statement from CPJ: http://www.cpj.org/protests/02ltrs/Taiwan20march02pl.html
Here’s another statement from CPJ after being deceived by A-Bian: http://www.cpj.org/protests/02ltrs/Taiwan01apr02pl.html
” …recent actions by your government have undermined Taiwan’s legal protections for freedom of speech, which is guaranteed in Article 11 of the constitution… CPJ strongly urges Your Excellency to ensure that your promises to respect press freedom are reflected in the policies and actions of your administration… we are not convinced that the articles in Taiwan Next and China Times pose a genuine threat to national security… we see no justification for raiding the offices of Taiwan Next and attempting to censor the publication…”
The DPP’s obsession of Democracy with A-Bian in power as this free world leader is a mirage.
March 15th, 2010 at 1:30 am
@Jason, I certainly would not justify this action. But this cannot be compared to the White terror. I recommend to you a visit to Green Island and the museum there, which was the former prison for political enemies. Other evidences in Taipei are already under a KMT “removal” or at least “renaming” plan.
Furthermore, just take recent data and events concerning freedom of press and the house of freedom for democracy rating. Taiwan only once received a (1,1) for democracy, which was never achieved by “old democracies” like Japan,..
It is not so much DPP’s obsession but rather the lack in some parts of KMT which makes the difference. The “new KMT” as many hoped for, did not come with president Ma.
Under CBS and also through him, this crimes of the past were made visible, which most likely was the hardest blow to KMT. How can you recruit young people, when you deny the crimes of the past? No matter who managed the firing of the gun in 2004 – alone remembering people of the past made a change of the vote! That’s why I guess a certain fraction of the KMT really hates him.
June 9th, 2010 at 3:50 am
Just the newest development (but certainly not changing the overall picture)
“The court ruling said that evidence provided by prosecutors failed to prove that Chen had embezzled diplomatic funds, court spokesman Huang Chun-ming (黃俊明) said.”
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2010/06/09/2003475048
I still wonder if there is really one unique and clear case.
June 11th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
@Josef
Bian got 20 years in jail. He is not totally innocent. The news that you quoted is just one particular case which is regarding misuse of foreign relation funds.
But cumulative of all of the cases being brought against Chen Shui Bian plus his appeal, the judge reduced total number of sentence from life in prison down to 38 years and then down to 20. Through out a fellow blogger’s reporting (she goes and sits and listens to the trial) she felt that the judge was being very lenient towards A Bian.
But I am happy him, his wife and other people involved got jail time.
Here is the chinese press release from the court:
http://tph.judicial.gov.tw/newsDetail.asp?SEQNO=46942
You will see a breakdown of the charges and the different corruption charges that are against him. Remind you guys this was his appeal.