Author: wchao37

Long-, short-, and medium-term prospects of a Ma Yinjeou administration [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-23 12:44:56 |Display all floors

Exhange #2 on the main topic

Poster A said:

My graduate school thesis was on Virginia Woolf who was the vanguard in the stream of conciousness novels.

I did not have the least intention to nickpick you at all. But I do think to point out someone's greetings with his daughters is atypical of Chinese is at best the commission of generalization.

I enjoy your writings often and admire your style in many of your postings. But this time I have to disagree with you on this point.

The ways to win over neutral and somewhat right to the center Taiwanese is to point out more commonly shared values with them, not to emphasize the minute and really quite irrelevant differences.

I don't doubt you always have the best intentions and try to do the best for China.

Sometimes this overheated passion can blind us to the cooler ways to handle some very thorny situations.

I have no intention to impune your motives at all and just try to help with ways I know how.

Since Pre. Hu and others have treated Taiwanese as our own people instead of potential enemies, the situation has improved so much and I just do not want anything to jeopardize this auspicious process which will lead to the eventual unification with Taiwan.

Just imagine how you will feel if some one said that the way you greeted your sons or daughters was atypical of chinese?

Will you be miffed at best?

No one can change his or her personal style which has really nothing to do with the large issues of Taiwan.

I just want to reduce as much friction as possible between Taiwan and China and have the least intention to offend you. There is no doubt that you have good points which are self-evident.


My response:

Your explanation is reasonable and obviously we are in the same boat then.

Who amongst the descendants of the Yellow Emperor who witness the cross-strait exchanges do not choke with emotions these days?

Knowing what we know about China's modern history and the misery of her people in the not-so-distant past -- and then to stay completely uninvolved and equanimous -- is humanly impossible unless we are zombies.

The West wouldn't even allow us to have the peace and quiet to reflect on the pain. They say we are 'ultranationalists' when we talk about the suffering of our people, and they even have a name for it -- "victimization syndrome."

Well I'll be darned -- we are certainly not gloating over the fact that we had been the victims. We are simply re-stating the facts with a clearer focus than before. We have been victimized for too long and now the victimizers won't even let us call a spade a spade.

Oh about Ma's atypical manner of greeting his two daughters:

Again, it was mentioned without malice at all on my part.

It just felt so awkward to me -- see, I am used to seeing either Western-style warm-hearted open embraces, or Eastern quiet reticence when political figures are with their families. But not the awkward feeling when I saw the way he interacted with his own family.

Yes, I also don't want to ruffle the feathers and the mention was merely a reflection of the fact that I had taken some courses in law enforcement and part of what I learned was that the psychological profiling of individuals includes the way they think of and physically interact with their next of kin.

Thank you too for providing me with your precious thoughts.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-23 13:01:02 |Display all floors

Exchange #3 on the main topic

Poster B said:

There is certain validity in Mr. WChao's doubt that Mr. Ma's place of birth and education will make him less Chinese. However, the history of HongKong and Taiwan are quite different from the USA where a person not born in USA will automatically be disqualified as president.

If judged by place of birth and citizenship, half the lego members of Hong Kong will have to be disqualified.

Some examples that place of birth is not a measure of loyalty are Canada and Switzerland. Canada allows dual citizenship and so does Switzerland. Both are quite strong countries and the citizens are no less patriotic. In fact the governor general of Canada is Ms Adriene Clarkson who is of Chinese descent and was born in Hong Kong. So was the previous Governor General of British Columbia, who is Mr. David Lam and was also born in Hong Kong.

Ms. Albright, the former secretary of state for USA is not born in the USA and so is Mr, Kissinger. They hold very high office and privy to alot of state secrets.

Mr. Ma, being a politician will not like to alienate any potential votes of Taiwan. As such, until he is the elected president one should not judge him too harshly unless one wanted to destroy the KMT and again let the Chen camp win by default.


My response:

Thanks for your response with the right attitude. I can tell your motivation is entirely honorable. So I am willing to discuss the issue here with equal equanimity.

The examples you quote are factual but they aren't at the prime-ministerial or presidential level and the political entities you mentioned are not pivotal states as are China and the U.S.

I don't think either China or the U.S. will have a naturalized citizen as its President. A Vice-President maybe, but not the President.

This is not to say that naturalized citizens are not trustworthy. It only reflects the psychological need for the citizens of a pivotal state to feel complete trust of their chief executive in control of that red button for launching nuclear weapons.

Also it was not due to lack of historical experience that people of different nations had refrained from putting a foreign-born subject on the top post.

For instance, in Europe the king or queen of one country often doubled up in the same capacity in another, especially before the establishment of nation states after October 24, 1648 when the Treaty of Westphalia was signed at Munster between the Holy Roman Emperor and the King of France and their respective allies, which put an end to the Thirty Years War.

But then we are talking about medieval or pre-modern Europe. Even during Napoleon Bonaparte's era his brothers and sisters were enthroned as kings and queens of half a dozen European nations -- only because Napoleon crowned himself emperor and the circumstances were different.

So even though it is not spelt out in the Constitutions of individual nations, few modern countries allow a non native-born citizen to reach the acme of power.

In America, unless Arnold Schwarzenegger can pull a rabbit from a proverbial hat this is not going to happen any time soon either.

Too much is at stake and there simply ain't enough national urgency in pivotal states to experiment with kraut politics in the corridors of the Windsors.

Having said that, I want to remind you to take a closer look at what I am saying in the main post.

The Lien-Soong-Wok trio expressed their emotions very vividly during their trips to the various stopovers in China. They were born in China and without any external prompting all three conveyed their consciousness of their Chinese roots.

They have all read their Chinese history and learnt how the fake cultists rebelled in various periods -- such as the Yellow Turbans and Red Eyebrows during East Han Dynasty; and the White Lotus and Hui's during the Qing.

None of the three party leaders thought the Felongoons were good model citizens exercising their rights to practise their religion in public and that Beijing was dealing too harshly with them when they surrounded the Zhongnanhai Compound.

Only Ma Yin-jeou did.  

Apparently his admission to Harvard Law School did not require Chinese history as part of its Pre-Law curriculum.

On the point of the ASA, again Ma was openly defiant of the will of the entire Chinese nation represented by 2896 delegates at the Great Hall of the People on March 14, 2005 during the 3rd plenum of the 10th NPC Session, at which time the bill was passed without one single dissenting vote during the anonymous balloting.

These two facts gave us a glimpse of the inner world of Ma who is now destined to have a clear shot for the top post on the Island in three more years.

Is it that far-fetched to expect more from such a person and analyze where he might go wrong in future negotiations? I don't think so.

Don't make it sound as if I do not wish Ma to be a perfect candidate for the negotiations that are going to culminate in the eventual re-unification of the Chinese nation.

It is just that if his past performance is any guide, smooth-sailing negotiations such as would have been possible with Lien, Soong and Yok had they been destined to fill Ma's shoes is not going to happen with Ma.

My intention is solely to point out the sharp protrusions around the invisible corners so that prospective negotiators will not bump and injure their heads unnecessarily when they negotiate the twists and turns during marathon bull sessions with Ma's men after the 2008 election.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-23 22:57:42 |Display all floors

Exchange #4 on the main topic

Poster C:

I disagree with the article mainly because it is too negative on Ma and nothing is said of Mr. Wang Jin Ping. If Mr. Wang is a true patriot and good losser he would have immediately agreed to be Mr. Ma's vice presidential candidate. This will act as a balance to any doubts about the intent of Mr. Ma and also to accept the fact that he lost out to a fair election and that he is willing to put down his pride and work for the good of the Chinese on both sides of the straits. If Taiwanese were to learn about democracy, the leaders had to understand that once the election is over it is time to re unite under the leader chosen by the majority. It will not help Taiwan or Chinese on both sides of the straits if KMT party were to break apart. This was how Chen won after the bad losser Soong break the party. Please do not let it happen again.

There fore the press should encourage the 2 to work together rather than to sow more seeds of discord by such negative comments on Ma.


My response:

There are those who read this article and thought I was "too harsh on Ma."

I opine that due to re-unification considerations, it is the duty of our generation to point out all the sharp protrusions on the banks of the icy river gorge so that Mainlanders will not sustain serious injuries while negotiating the twists and turns in paddling down the treacherous white waters of re-unification talks..

FYI, this article was not written to support Lien and Wang against Ma -- as someone in the inner forums seemed to be intimating.

In fact, was the first in expressing the hope that Ma Yin-jeou would be able to become a Chinese folk hero by re-adjusting his openly defiant stand against the ASA.

Here we are simply making an analysis taking into account the possible obstacles ahead of us during prospective cross-strait negotiations.

Problems are there to be confronted and solved, not ignored and brushed under the carpet.

That would have been adopting an ostrich mentality thumbing noses at the righteous stand espoused in the articles of the ASA that was passed by the NPC on 3-14-05.

Pointing out Mr. Ma's faux pas here is not tantamount to denouncing him. Quite contrariwise, we are here fervently hoping that he does not rock the boat again with his maverick political stand impossible for the mainland to countenance.

In fact, if you look closely at the post, it was suggested that his shortcomings be GLOSSED OVER.

This does not mean we should turn a blind eye to his gross errors which are non-conducive to the cause of re-unification. It only means we care enough about the issue to alert him at this stage of the political process.

There are many reasons why Lien, Soong, and Wang do not see eye-to-eye with Mr. Ma and the conflict is not simply symptomatic of internecine squabbles.

There are potential dangers in placing an inordinate amount of faith on Mr. Ma as if he is going to lead Taiwan back to the embrace of the motherland as soon as he assumes power.

The reality of China's rapid economic growth and dependence on maritime routes for raw materials dictates that she needs to break out of the First Island Chain in the near future -- and hence the urgency that Taiwan not be allowed to delay re-unification talks.

Judging from Ma's obstinate opposition to the ASA, it is difficult to imagine that he would be as cooperative as any of the Lien-Soong-Yok trio with the Beijing government for the reasons I had enumerated in the post.

I am looking at the problem purely from the standpoint on whether Ma's prospective administration would help or hinder the progress of re-unification.

No one pays serious attention to Chen these days, and so he is really out of the equation as of this moment.

Still, it cannot be ruled out that just before 2008, Chen may suddenly announce that he is going to Beijing for talks based on the 1992 Consensus.

It would be as much an anticlimax as Nixon's going to China except that the man is an untrustworthy chameleon. Even so, by so doing Chen would have stolen the thunder from under the Pan Blue camp just before the election.

Ma is a force to be reckoned with, but that makes any obstinate resistance from him to the cause of re-unification all the more unpredictable and perilous.

Right now he is saying that he would follow through with Lien's Five-Point Vistas in cross-strait rapprochement and that he would accept the 1992 Consensus as the basis for cross-strait talks.

The unspoken fear in many quarters these days is that if he does become Taiwan's leader in 2008 -- as is likely to be the case -- he will revert back to his poor judgmental habits exemplified by his stand on the felongoon and ASA issues.

In the least, I don't think he has the forcefulness of character to uproot Taidu forces from the island.

As I said, there are only Hanjian and non-Hanjian forces on the Island. There is no such thing as a multi-party political habitat on the Island.

This type of Hanjian forces masquerading as "American-style democratic party" was what the U.S. had been aiding and abetting to be established on the mainland all along, and the Chinese government had been entirely correct in nipping these so-called dissidents in the bud.  

Just look at Taiwan's DPP today and you would understand why it is necessary to keep an eye on these good-for-nothing vagabonds who are good at forming opposition parties but once in power, will sell the nation out in no time.

That's also why one always hears about certain U.S. 'senators' (read thugs) expressing his/her 'concern' over the incarceration of this and that dissident. They are not interested in the personal fates of these individuals or the good of the Chinese nation, but they are mightily interested in their potential trouble-making capabilities in throwing  monkey's wrenches into the control room of the Chinese economic juggernaut.

Would these 'senators' have tolerated political subterfuge of their own 'dissidents' who advocate the overthrow of their own government on the pretext that it is their democratic right to register a party to that end?

Not a chance.

The reality is that even a little deviance from mainstream orthodoxy -- which is in fact the dominant rule of the military-industrial complex in Washington D.C. -- as advocated by old Lyndon LaRouche (not the new, mellowed version of him) -- was dealt with by long prison terms meted out to his major assistants to the tune of 77 years (later pardoned by Clinton in 1996) during the 1980's.

Where else in the world do you see even one POLITICAL PARTY rooting to change its national constitution and go the independence route without fear of being tried for treason?

Only in Taiwan -- which goes to show that on that island international power politics is at play, and that the TUP and DPP are quintessential motley organizations of Hanjian thugs, not political parties.

In any other country, leaders of the two independence-advocating organizations would have been summoned before the Highest Court to answer to the charge of treason, let alone be allowed to register as political parties.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 4

Post time 2005-7-24 06:38:33 |Display all floors

Do you think

Ma would have the guts to stand up against CIA?

Personally I think culture background is important but it's more important in this case to test the extreme case. The CIA wouldn't let him go other ways easily even if he is as naive as he showed so far.

Don't forget how Jiang  Jing Guo died.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-25 06:03:50 |Display all floors



Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-25 14:32:06 |Display all floors

The CIA? Nah, it is highly unlikely

I believe only in hard evidence.

The unsubstantiated account that Chiang Jin-guo's death was caused by the CIA falls in the realm of rumors and not facts.

Why would they kill the man? To put Lee into his spot? In that case you are suggesting that James Soong must have worked for the CIA. Is that possible?

Remember that it was far from clear after Chiang Jin-guo passed away that Lee would replace him. In fact, Madame Chiang (Soong Mei-lin) disliked Lee and wanted to have someone else in his place, but she did not carry enough clout in the ensuing struggle and had to leave for Long Island, New York for good when she failed.

Only with James Soong's strong support was Lee TH able to seize power against the wishes of KMT veterans.

James Soong was the perpetual opportunist no matter who he thinks he is these days, and by supporting Lee TH for his own personal gain, he opened the door to Taidu’s rule over Taiwan.

The man is totally shameless, but for the sake of China’s unification, the CCP has to deal with all kinds of unsavory figures like him, gloss over what they said or did, and in fact treat them like saints.

In retrospect, even as late as January, 1949, any CCP underground members seized by the KMT were buried alive. There was a documentary on it a fortnight ago on CCTV-9 International Channel about such a man whose widow had survived 56 years to tell the story. Yes, they were caught and tortured and buried alive just for being CCP members.

So let me repeat: for the sake of re-unification of the motherland, the CCP has to think of the big picture that will benefit FUTURE generations of Chinese and in fact of all Mankind, because the Great Revival of our nation that will fundamentally alter the balance of forces between Zheng He-goodness and Columbus-evil in our world is at stake here and we have to let bygones be bygones and gloss over all those past grievances.

The CCP is the vanguard of the Chinese Revolution and its members cherished lofty goals. The party had behaved with exceptional generosity in treating its former enemies.

There is a propensity these days to find fault with the CCP and talk about this and that corrupt official as if that is the typical case amongst this exceptional group of men and women.

In such instances you need to keep in mind that there are always bad apples who metamorphosed into vermins after gaining entry into the Party.

But in the main, it is a foregone conclusion that without the CCP, there would have been no New China, and not only China but the rest of the developing world would have been enveloped in the Dark Ages for generations.

If these vanguards of the Chinese Revolution were truly all incompetent and corrupt – as the naysayers would have you believe -- what is there for the Americans to worry about then and why should the Pentagon find it necessary to become so paranoid about China that it has to incessantly exaggerate the prowess of a nation that spends only 1/27th of its own military budget?

Why did the Bush White House hold a national banquet (only the fifth time in Bush's entire tenure as President) in honor of the Indian Prime Minister in order to draw that nation into America's orbit to ‘counter-balance’ China?

Why did they hold onto the airbases in Central Asia and continued to wreak havoc on the indigenous governments there so much so that the leaders of the SCO finally woke up to their culpability enough to draw a resolution with Russia and China badgering Bush to quit Central Asian airfields?

Why did the State Department welcome the Vietnamese leader as a final step in normalizing their relations in an attempt to sow seeds of discord between the two Asian nations in the South China Sea and also with a view to establishing a logistic base in the area?

Think who we have to thank for, ladies and gentlemen.

Don't let their self-effacing modesty in seldom taking credit for their sacrifices -- including the tragedies of their fellow party or family members being buried alive by the KMT as late as January, 1949 -- blind us to the fact that these vanguard men and women in China's revolution are the most venerable people in the world, and that is just a simple fact no one can deny.

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2005-7-25 14:39:31 |Display all floors

Right on..

thank you.

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email:
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.