Monday, July 14, 2008

China Times Editorial on Ma Ying-jeou

It's funny -- Ma was elected president even though there is a deep dissatisfaction with him within the KMT -- really because there was no one else. The China Times (translation from KNN) editorialized today on God Ma and his many human failings:

++++++++++++

President Ma Ying-jeou probably never imagined in his entire life that his popularity would decline so much in such a short period of time. That it would resemble the Taiwan stock market insofar as the bottom is still nowhere in sight. One of the main reasons for this is his character and background.

Prominent political commentator Nanfang Shuo described Ma Ying-jeou's character as one of "gentle obstinacy." Former Control Yuan President Wang Tso-jung said that Ma Ying-jeou's family doted on him as a child, turning him into an egocentric personality indifferent to other peoples' circumstances and feelings. These evaluations of his character have highlighted a key point: Ma Ying-jeou's life and political rise has been far too easy. He has been the recipient of too much public adulation. This great fortune in the first half of his life, is now costing him dearly. Perhaps the credit and deficit columns in Ma's karmic account are about to be balanced.

Ma Ying-jeou was an only son. He was doted upon. He is a man of accomplishments, with exceptional breeding. He has impeccable manners, does everything by the book, and is honest to a fault. He is both erudite and athletic. He is a Harvard Ph.D who speaks fluent English, and an athlete who can run and swim with the best of them. No matter how you look at it, Ma Ying-jeou is the cream of the crop. Parents dream of raising such a son. He is a model student and Prince Charming, all rolled into one. He is like the lotus flower that flourishes amidst the muck of the political arena, but somehow manages to stay clean. As a result he has always remained popular. His legions of screaming fans rival those of major movie stars.

When we look back at Ma Ying-jeou's political career, we see smooth sailing all the way. He had no need to struggle to achieve his goals. His political career was served up to him on a silver platter. At times he found it hard to refuse. Only after the party begged him was he willing to enter the Taipei Mayoral Election. Eventually he would become the sole savior of the KMT and the Republic of China.

Ma Ying-jeou's qualifications were too good. Just by being himself he attracted public adulation. He had no need to do anything. Public adulation and honors automatically came his way. This made him extremely concerned about his image. Any defects or dark spots were intolerable. Because he never had to pay attention to other peoples' needs or feelings, he lacks sensitivity. He does not know how to contribute to others, how to engage in quid pro quo, and does not like dirty politics.

Unfortunately politics is everybody's business. It is hardly something one can engage in alone. Ma Ying-jeou is not good at it. He attaches little importance to interaction with others. His braintrust is too small and too inbred. Most of them are ivory tower intellectuals, politically unsophisticated, fearful of outsiders, isolated, and out of touch with the outside world. This leads to a lack of dissonance during the decision-making process. This undermines the quality and responsiveness of decision-making, and eventually leads to a backlash.

Ma Ying-jeou's list of Control Yuan and Examination Yuan nominees reveals concessions to realpolitik, an effort to defuse confrontation between the Blue and Green camps, and a good faith effort to be a "president to all the people." But the KMT's conduct during the subsequent review process was outrageous. By using innocent Examination Yuan and Control Yuan nominees as scapegoats in order to show Ma Ying-jeou who was boss, KMT legislators merely proved that they were malignant tumors that ought to be excised.

President Ma Ying-jeou is not without responsibility. He failed to consult with the legislature first. Once the matter was out in the open, he tried to be an effective President. But his innate character, remote and aloof, got in the way. His acquired skills failed him as well, due to inexperience. He failed to acknowledge his responsibility to ensure cooperation between his administration and his party. Ma Ying-jeou is like a little white rabbit who has been elected King of the Jungle, who only wants to sit on his throne and remain pure as the driven snow, shielded by his confidants, willing to do what is needed to polish his public image, but unwilling to dirty his paws by coming in contact with the jackals and hyenas. Lacking the necessary ruthlessness and calculation, he delegates the dirty work to others. The office may be elective. But power must be won. If this continues, the weak and pusillanimous little rabbit will soon be exposed for what he is, and the situation will only get worse.

When President Lee Teng-hui took office, he arrived powerless and empty-handed. He pitted one rival against another, gradually building up his power base. Ma Ying-jeou does not need to play these games. People are eager to please him. He is starting from a far more advantageous place. Unfortunately, upon being elected, Ma Ying-jeou has been treating the KMT as an instrument in his service. He feels no obligation to contribute to its political survival. He doesn't consider the reform of this creaky old political party as something he must achieve in order to enhance the quality of Taiwan's political culture. He champions no political philosophy, and offers no national vision. Whatever the Executive Yuan doesn't concern him. Isn't such a presidency just a little too carefree?

When you are the President, many things are your responsibility. Being virtuous is not enough. If the President was merely a figurehead, then there would be no need to fight tooth and nail over presidential elections. In fact, people do not want Ma Ying-jeou to become another Machievellian political schemer. But for Taiwan's democratic politics to progress, we need leaders who are more aggressive and more willing to sacrifice. So far, we are still waiting for Ma Ying-jeou to show greater concern for the nation than for himself.

++++++++++++

Most of this I hear from Blues all the time. Frankly, I think it is way too early in the game to pass such harsh judgments on Ma; he's still finding his feet. I mean, surely a man who downloaded hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars into his private accounts and then beat the rap for it has more cojones than anyone suspects.

Still, it is a pity all this wasn't said during the election campaign. And it is a pity that the other candidate, the one with proven legislative experience, proven administrative capabilities, and proven political skills, wasn't elected. Bad choice the public made with that one.

The editorial may not be emphasizing structural factors enough. Note how many of the criticisms of Ma echo the criticisms of Chen -- he's aloof, can't manage people.... Could similar structures be producing similar critiques? Both Ma and Chen face some of the same problems. The ROC presidency is not a strong executive. Further, Lee and the Chiangs had power bases inside the KMT which they could use, and they could give orders through Party channels in their position as Party Chairman. Ma has neither formal nor informal clout. I suspect a lot of Old KMTers are looking at the ROC presidency and expecting to see someone like Chiang Ching-kuo, but that possibility is gone. Ma, like Chen before him, is finding out just how little power he actually has.

Only he doesn't have the excuse that it is the other party's legislature.....

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

I like how the KMT ChinaTimes calls their own people jackals and hyenas.

Its nice to see the truth published sometimes in the blue media.

Michael Fahey said...

I saw that editorial a few days ago. An interesting critique in a number of ways. For one thing, it is highly Confucian:

But his innate character, remote and aloof, got in the way.

Ma needs to reflect on his moral character. The problems with his presidency are failings within the man that could be corrected if Ma would engage more with others, forget his pride, and learn the virtue of humility with sincerity. Since this is essentially a Confucian discourse, it should be kept in mind that moral reform is possible--i.e. Ma is not a hopeless case.

Mixed in with all this though seems to be anxiety over the increasing tensions between the the powerful legislators and Ma. The author seems to be calling on Ma to reform the party so that the legislators can be controlled and the Republic saved. And I may be imagining things, but perhaps a more fundamental source of Blue anxiety is that they are awakening to the fact they have no one other than Ma, and if he fails, they are in deep trouble.

Richard said...

Put it bluntly, (half of) Taiwanese people are so stupid for believing what Ma said and the lies that the KMT put up over the last 8 years. There's some that truly believe in Ma during the run up to the election, but there were the moderates and "ex-DPP" (who were never really DPP I would say), who got suckered in. Hopefully:
1) Taiwan will still have the chance in 3 years and 10 months to elect a new president.
2) Taiwanese will be smarter then.

Anonymous said...

Well, Ma is learning, and I agree with you that it is way too early to pass the judgment. For some of you that don't know, I do worry about Ma's ability to rule for a long time. Also, what worry me the most recently is that it appears that there is no talent left in Taiwan to help him rule (well, I think a lot of really talent Taiwanese/Chinese actually chose to stay in the US). And personally, I will take a more virtuous president than someone who just a flat out liar.

Btw, even after what Chen has done, I don't see that much of criticizing from the Green camp. It is democracy at its finest, unlike Chen's neo-con like administration. Chen's failure to show up in court recently when a subpoena was issued; similar to what Rove did just one fine example (at least Rove has an excuse, Chen just flat out ignore the subpoena). I don't see you guys crying over, pro-democracy my @ss. Also, is Hsien supposed to be retired (what happen to the 10 people evil group that suppose to destroy Taiwan)? At this rate, Chen will probably want to un-retire, too, and try to run for DPP chairmanship. You see Chen still living in Taipei...if you haven't realized that of which he gave a lame excuse of why he hasn't moved down south.

Michael Turton said...

And personally, I will take a more virtuous president than someone who just a flat out liar.

Ma? Virtuous? Do you realize how much money he has legally stolen from the taxpayers? And his lifelong opposition to any progressive politics? There's nothing virtuous about Ma. He failed the test that Hsieh, Chen, and the other DPPers all passed: to do the right thing when it took guts.

Btw, even after what Chen has done, I don't see that much of criticizing from the Green camp.

You must be blind then. There's been lots of criticism.

It is democracy at its finest, unlike Chen's neo-con like administration. Chen's failure to show up in court recently when a subpoena was issued; similar to what Rove did just one fine example (at least Rove has an excuse, Chen just flat out ignore the subpoena). I don't see you guys crying over, pro-democracy my @ss.

We're not crying over a politically-motivated prosecution being dodged by Chen, not at all. Do you think any of the people who issued that subpeona gives a flying fuck in a rolling donut about our democracy?

Also, is Hsien supposed to be retired (what happen to the 10 people evil group that suppose to destroy Taiwan)?

You mean Hsieh?


At this rate, Chen will probably want to un-retire, too, and try to run for DPP chairmanship. You see Chen still living in Taipei...if you haven't realized that of which he gave a lame excuse of why he hasn't moved down south.

Why should he move down south? He's lived and worked in Taipei his whole life. His family is all there.

Michael Turton said...

And I may be imagining things, but perhaps a more fundamental source of Blue anxiety is that they are awakening to the fact they have no one other than Ma, and if he fails, they are in deep trouble.

Lots of awakenings going on! I think the lack of a successor is going to be a big issue in how quickly the island is shoved into China's arms.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Chen's failure to show up in court recently when a subpoena was issued;

Chens failture was to belive that Taiwanese can drop chinese confuzius brainwashing away and to start thinking rationaly.. First step into court direction was a first step to give up own position. instead that Chen should just send some lawer comandos to take corrupt KMT out and to send them into prison because of drug and Triad craime. Chen failed here and not in the court. noone cares what he did in the court. because for chinese brainwashed thinking being in a court is a same like to go into prison.

Tommy said...

Ouch! And in the China Times no less!

In a Blue editorial where almost every sentence is either a blatant insult or a veiled one, the potential venom in comments such as "eventually he would become the sole savior of the KMT and the Republic of China" is especially lethal.

I agree that two months into a presidency is way too early for such talk... and in the past tense no less. Was the Chinese version in the past tense?

All the same, this sort of thing has an effect on people. This can only reinforce Ma's low popularity as it vents the suspicions that minstream Blue readers may have but won't say (thereby making it easier for them to say them), and only reinforces what Green readers already know quite well.

Feiren, you said, "The author seems to be calling on Ma to reform the party so that the legislators can be controlled and the Republic saved."

I got this message too, but don't you wonder how Ma could possibly reform the party when he can't even command respect by KMT legislators just months into his presidency?

Michael said, "I think the lack of a successor is going to be a big issue in how quickly the island is shoved into China's arms."

Perhaps, but it might also be one reason why the DPP is being so quiet recently. This has all the makings of the start of factional infighting on a mass scale inside the KMT. No rudder, several ornery, power-hungry legislators, clear, early signs of internal discontent.... Not just little tiffs here and there.

Wouldn't it be interesting if people started thinking that the DPP has not been so bad after all...........

Anonymous said...

Ma? Virtuous? Do you realize how much money he has legally stolen from the taxpayers? And his lifelong opposition to any progressive politics? There's nothing virtuous about Ma. He failed the test that Hsieh, Chen, and the other DPPers all passed: to do the right thing when it took guts.

Well, please back up above statement with facts from a neutral source then I believe you. All you saying is hearsay. As for tests, I don't know what tests are you referring to. I don't know you can give a test to a politician and find out he is clean or not. I know rich deep-green here (huge donor to Chen and DPP and part of the SOGO gift card group). They don't have any good thing to say about Chen and his wife (of course this is hearsay, too). Is it Ma not guilty? And the only reason that he was even tried is because he reported EVERYTHING by the book. Of course, the word "virtuous" using on a politician has to be in its lowest form.

You must be blind then. There's been lots of criticism.

Well, clearly you think Chen and Hsieh are great or at least not bad. :P Since I am not personally involved i.e. live in Taiwan, I think I am naturally less blind.

We're not crying over a politically-motivated prosecution being dodged by Chen, not at all. Do you think any of the people who issued that subpeona gives a flying fuck in a rolling donut about our democracy?

Did you even know which case I am talking about? Do some research will help. He is not even the one been prosecuted, he could at least show up and refuse to testify. Btw, by rules Rove has to show up and can evoke EP at any question if not all, but not showing up at all is unprecedented. One big different between Ma and Chen is that Ma at least showed up for his trail. Hey, what's happening to Chen's wife (btw, if you ask a doctor, her low blood pressure is absolutely normal for a person with her condition, and should be fine to show up in court)? One of the foundation for democracy is to follow the law of the land without exception, or your "demcarcy" is simply populism. Hack, why am I surprised? This is from someone thinks Mexico is a democracy.

You mean Hsieh?

Yea, typo...

Why should he move down south? He's lived and worked in Taipei his whole life. His family is all there.

Because Chen said he will after the election. I thought he also spent a lot of money on a huge apartment down south. I didn't make this up, did I.

Michael Fahey said...

Very quickly since I have to get to work here, but the duality that the author has created between moral authority (de) and expediency (quanyi 權宜) is one of the classic dichotomies of Confucian political thought. Here de is symbolized by the lotus with its pure flower rising above muddy water while quanyi has been tarted up as Machiavellianism.

arty is confusing normal legtal maneuvering in Taiwan with a lack of moral character in his comments about Chen not appearing in court. First of all, Chen has cooperated in the past with the courts/legal system while he was in office. One example was when he answered questions from a crusading prosector down in Hualien. Secondly, not appearing in court in Taiwan is a standard part of legal maneuvering in Taiwan. Unlike common law countries, the courts here do not compel witnesses and defendants to appear.

Anonymous said...

@arty - wake up call:

KMT = GOP neo-con type corruption.

The one difference the GOP kisses AIPIC's ass and the KMT kisses China's ass.

Anonymous said...

What's worrisome is how any attempt at destabilizing the government could give China the justification for annexation. I agree that the in-fighting within the ranks of the KMT needs to be nipped in the bud to save the country.

Perhaps Ma could take some ideas from Michael Corleone in "The Godfather."

Anonymous said...

Ma's tight inner circle really looks like the Neo-Cons. Maybe this explains why it feels like the new KMT government is trying so hard to resurrect the dead 1970's. The choice of who Ma has chosen for his inner circle is a projection of Ma's own concept of Taiwan. He surrounds himself with like-minded people, "yes men", who agree with their chief on all matters and it really demonstrates how out of step (or insulated) he has been since he was CCK's house boy. Taiwan changed under his nose and Ma wasn't a part of it or tried to pretend the culture change was a passing fad.
So high were his walls of Sunism and Chiangism (and faith so blind), he didn't notice the changing democratic landscape and he may feel his thinking is shared by the majority. This is the most dangerous flaw in his character.
"Everyone must naturally believe in god the same way I do."

Anonymous said...

It is democracy at its finest, unlike Chen's neo-con like administration. Chen's failure to show up in court recently when a subpoena was issued; similar to what Rove did just one fine example (at least Rove has an excuse, Chen just flat out ignore the subpoena). I don't see you guys crying over, pro-democracy my @ss.

We're not crying over a politically-motivated prosecution being dodged by Chen, not at all. Do you think any of the people who issued that subpeona gives a flying fuck in a rolling donut about our democracy?

Come on, Michael--I know you've got better arguments than to simply slather the charge of "politically motivated" on a subpoena, cast some tu quoque, and walk away. Do some proving here!

It would be better for Chen to have his day in court, in my opinion--as a former lawyer, he should be a formidable rhetorician and should also know how to work the media over such a matter.

Instead of trying to turn this lemon into lemonade, Chen dealt a body blow to due process. This gives ammo to the KMT as they can now prosecute him for contempt and hang charges against him in absentia.

Even though I don't agree with your arguments or your motives for arguing I respect your logic. So don't be lazy here...

Robert said...

We're not crying over a politically-motivated prosecution being dodged by Chen, not at all. Do you think any of the people who issued that subpeona gives a flying fuck in a rolling donut about our democracy?

I'd have to agree with Anon above.

Don't you think that DPP has to rise above this sort of stuff?

I feel that if you're going to say something like that, at least, you should provide some citations to back it up.

Otherwise, it'll give your blue-leaning readers, of which there appear to be quite a few, the chance to say that you impose the same double standards you decry of the blues.

The purpose should be to end the cycle of wrongs, not to perpetuate it from the other side.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with your assertion. I have no idea what the motives for the trial were. It's just that this sort of thing is liable to hurt the great arguments you've already made and backed up.

Tommy said...

A small idea here. If a politician says before he steps down, "I will sell doughnuts in my retirement," nothing compells him to sell doughnuts.

I am not too familiar with the legal system, so I won't comment on that, but saying that a politician has to follow to the letter his pre-retirement personal plans is ludicrous. How is Chen reprehensible if he decides not to move?

Anonymous said...

Besides the laughable stuff about virtue and the generally laughable tone of China Times editorials, they hit one point right on the nose.

The biggest problem with Ma is that his record has shown he's not a flexible guy. He's stubborn and doesn't take into account new information easily. Even if he were a good learner, he's experience tells him that he's usually right (a problem rooted in incorrectly attributing his popularity to his actions rather than to his image), further inhibiting him from changing course.

Ma's administration is going to continue doing poorly for at least the first two years. They are just way too stubborn. What happens after that really is just anyone's guess.

Anonymous said...

2 unrelated links maybe of interest to TW observers:
Taiwan financials dive on Fannie, Freddie

(check the Daily Link thread comments section for a link to the GSEs exposure to China)

Also:

What Bud's Takeover Means for China

Next stop Taiwan Beer takeover...

Sorry these are OT.

Anonymous said...

re: Arty

The debate about Ma's "cleanness" is so old and tired. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that he took the money (and "donated" it AFTER getting caught). These are all included in prosecution's filing, and not disputed by the judge. Is that "neutral" enough?

As for the tests Michael talks about, I suppose it's the tests of democracy. How about this: Ma supported Martial Law not long before it was lifted in 1987, and against general election of president at the constitution amendment meeting (199?). What does it say about this guy's character?

Anonymous said...

The debate about Ma's "cleanness" is so old and tired. I don't think anyone disputes the fact that he took the money (and "donated" it AFTER getting caught). These are all included in prosecution's filing, and not disputed by the judge. Is that "neutral" enough?

That's fair. Except Chen and Hsieh did the same thing, but they took cash instead and no where to be traced. Unless they show me where they spent the money, they are as guilty as Ma.

As for the tests Michael talks about, I suppose it's the tests of democracy. How about this: Ma supported Martial Law not long before it was lifted in 1987, and against general election of president at the constitution amendment meeting (199?). What does it say about this guy's character?

Nothing, current Taiwan system (yes even today), and the entire democratic movements are more like populist movement common in the South America (especially in the late 80s and 90s). The funny thing is that usually the supporters of such movements are the one ultimately getting burned.

Ma against a popular vote system instead of an elector college format similar to the US one has nothing to do with anti-democracy (that's actually in the original constitution). Unless you think US is not democratic enough.

Michael Turton said...

Ma against a popular vote system instead of an elector college format similar to the US one has nothing to do with anti-democracy (that's actually in the original constitution). Unless you think US is not democratic enough.

Ma had the same opportunity to make a choice to support democracy that anyone did. But Ma actively joined the side that was attempting to suppress democracy, not the side that was struggling to create it. He showed himself to be corrupt when he did that. And weak. And venal. Ma not only opposed the lifting of martial law and the repeal of Article 100, he also actively defended the imprisonment of dissidents in correspondence with foreign governments. This did not have to be; there were many mainlanders who embraced the democracy movement.

BTW, prosecutors have not found any money in the accounts of Chen Shui-bian. Unlike Ma, who took the millions of NT but argued that he was supposed to.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Ma not only opposed the lifting of martial law and the repeal of Article 100, he also actively defended the imprisonment of dissidents in correspondence with foreign governments. This did not have to be; there were many mainlanders who embraced the democracy movement.

Michael, care to point to an academic source on this (no opinion piece please). I would love to read it.

Of course, I still think you don't really know what democracy is.

BTW, prosecutors have not found any money in the accounts of Chen Shui-bian. Unlike Ma, who took the millions of NT but argued that he was supposed to.

Don't speak too soon Michael, I would hate for you to retract this statement a year from now. Of course, I know nothing.

Anonymous said...

I think the prosecutors are going after politicans who submitted "funny" receipts. It's easy to prove guilt.

Those politicans who pocketed cash and left no paper trail are smart.

Michael Turton said...

Arty, a basic knowledge of Taiwan history would probably be a good thing to have. I just lack the time to educate you on things that can be found with internet searches or visits to the public library. If you are not aware of Ma's past, you shouldn't be discussing things here.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Arty, a basic knowledge of Taiwan history would probably be a good thing to have. I just lack the time to educate you on things that can be found with internet searches or visits to the public library. If you are not aware of Ma's past, you shouldn't be discussing things here.

I just want you to name one source. Not just saying "oh it's everywhere you just have to go look for it." Come on, name one creditable source that I can go find (online or or something I can have in the UCSD library) that accuse Ma doing these things. I am simply asking for your source, is that too much :). Since you are getting a Ph.D., do you think your committee will accept "Oh I know it is there but I can't find the source." Actually Ph.D. committee might do that in Taiwan. I seem to remember the former Education minister of Taiwan has a similar citation in his thesis.

Anonymous said...

Haha, arty...

You should know more about a politician you so fervently support. Ma was against direct elections.

Michael stated that they haven't found fund in CSB's accounts. It's a good sign, because you bet they've been looking hard, and you can't say there's political interference now that Ma is in office.

It is possible in one year's time that illegal money will have been found in CSB's accounts. If that happens, Michael's statement is still true today.

Anonymous said...

You should know more about a politician you so fervently support. Ma was against direct elections.

Can you read? I was asking for a source on how Ma against the appeal of article 100 etc. I explained why Ma's against direct election already. I am against abolishment of our elector college (because I believe in the state rights & protection it offers under a Republic constitution), and so are majority of Americans. So people like me are undemocratic? Btw, if I am a fervently supporter of Ma, I won't say he might be incompetence as a ruler even before the election (still to early to judge btw). However, he is definitely better choice than Hsieh by a long shot (or 2 million votes).

Come on Michael since the source is so easy to find according to you. Give me a link (you see I did try to google it; the only source is under your name)!

It is possible in one year's time that illegal money will have been found in CSB's accounts. If that happens, Michael's statement is still true today.

What's your point? Do you mean even pro-greens are not so sure about your MIGHTY CLEAN Chen? :) I do love to see Chen run for 2012 presidential election again though. It will be fun!

P.S. I personally don't think that will happen because the current DPP chair lady is one tough cookie, and I feel that a lot old DPPers way under estimated her abilities.

Tommy said...

Go to Google. Type in "ma ying-jeou" +"article 100" and search for it yourself. Or type in "Ma ying-jeou" +"martial law", or any one of a number of other terms. There is a wealth of references there...... but I doubt you are looking for those, Arty. The evidence of Ma's past stances on democracy and human rights issues is so overwhelming that even you could not have overlooked it by now, meaning you are only being difficult. And in such a situation, why should anyone spend time to look up a book or article for you to peruse?

Anonymous said...

Go to Google. Type in "ma ying-jeou" +"article 100" and search for it yourself. Or type in "Ma ying-jeou" +"martial law", or any one of a number of other terms. There is a wealth of references there...... but I doubt you are looking for those, Arty. The evidence of Ma's past stances on democracy and human rights issues is so overwhelming that even you could not have overlooked it by now, meaning you are only being difficult. And in such a situation, why should anyone spend time to look up a book or article for you to peruse?

I am being difficult. My God, any of you could give me a creditable source, and yet you have not produced. You think I didn't do google search? Simple, because I can't find one that is not either written by Michael, pro-green media without a source, or some wiki like link clearly typed by the same person (related to HK common laws etc which is after CCP took over HK). Clearly you guys know where the source since Michael's blog about Ma and article 100 is number 2 on google search (number 1 if you put quotation mark on them). With the same logic, if I keep posting everywhere that "Thomas" is a "whatever." Would that eventually be a fact? Thank heaven, you guys don't live in the US anymore, we need less of you here with neo-cons running rampant.

So please give me one source, please! You must have a original source for what you stated right?

Robert said...

I agree with Arty here. I don't really understand why, if there is so much proof that is so easy to find, no one will give a citation or a link that satisfies Arty's request.

I too would be interested in seeing some information on this.

Anonymous said...

"I agree with Arty here. I don't really understand why, if there is so much proof that is so easy to find, no one will give a citation or a link that satisfies Arty's request."

Arty unfailingly moves the goalposts in discussionwhenever he is backed into a corner, often by resorting to ad hominem arguments/attacks on sources, and plenty of us, of course including Michael and Thomas, have seen him do it so many times that there's no reason for us to take his requests anymore as those of a sincere debater. (Why gratify him?) And sure enough, Arty has revealed his frustrated such intention in this case: "I can't find one that is not either written by Michael, pro-green media without a source."

Straight news does not cite academic-style sources; it is, rather, governed by the threat of lawsuits if it is made up. And some of what Michael talked about is straight ol' reported news -- reported news that did not culminate in lawsuits. But it's from some years back and may not all be on line, because newspaper archives might not be on line that far back; I don't know, because I haven't looked; there's no way I would look up anything anymore for an interlocutor as dishonest as Arty. In the fine, ancient Han tradition of closed-mindedness, class consciousness, and maimed logic (INS may recognize you as an American, Arty, but I don't; you're as far from Enlightenment ideals and principles as can be imagined), he's looking for prejudice to peddle, not information to weigh.

An ad hominem and chauvinistic attack of my own here? Look back through Arty's many previous comments on this blog and you be the judge.

Robert said...

Vin, I'm quite familiar with Arty's devoted commentary here. I rarely agree with him (and here I'm sure I don't agree with him in philosophy, but on principle).

The truth is several people mentioned that the information was easily found by searching on the internet, suggesting that they had done so and that there wasn't an issue of, as you mentioned, old, pre-internet archives.

Moreover, if the sources weren't online, they could certainly give a citation that Arty could look up in his local library perhaps.

The purpose of these debates should be to convince those who don't agree with you to come to your side, not to reinforce the beliefs of those who already agree with you.

So, in my view, those of us who agree largely with Michael should be striving to give the likes of Arty all the information they can stand...

channing said...

Thought I'd chime in here...if after successive personal attacks against Arty's requests we still fail to produce one single direct quote or other tangible source supporting the allegations above, then credibility seems to be slowly creeping out the window.

Whether his search was thorough and sincere is irrelevant; he is saying that he has searched and failed to produce credible evidence. It's somebody else's turn to produce evidence if the argument is to be supported.

Anonymous said...

Robert, he's already admitted he's found sources other than Michael; he's just waiting for someone to cite one of those sources so that he can then launch an irrelevant, distracting ad hominem attack. Some of those sources are news media, and Arty's going to label them green, act like that's actually a legitimate point of debate, and then say nothing at all when someone again points out "So what if the sources are green; if they couldn't substantiate their statements, they would have been sued here in Taiwan." Arty's just out to use people, and if you feel so strongly that his wish for sources should be gratified, why don't you do a search, list here what you find, and let it be you who gets used? You're a reasonable guy; Artie's not. You say more information clarifies and forces the truth to light, but it only does so for people who keep some part of their mind open -- and that ain't our intellectually bankrupt and crass class-mongering Arty.

He already found credible evidence, Channing. Yet, with no evidence at all to back up his opinion (and without even stating what he found), he decreed what he found to lack credibility. Why fall for and support this logical-fallacy crap?

Anonymous said...

Robert, he's already admitted he's found sources other than Michael

Yes, but they are news articles written by someone in English (how do I know they are not written by Michael or Tim etc).

I didn't say the source is easy to find and readily available (you guys did). I just want one good source that's it. Thank you.

that ain't our intellectually bankrupt and crass class-mongering Arty.

Speaking by someone who can't produce a source. I always produce academic or official source when asked. Or I readily admit I was wrong (many times in this blog alone). I don't keep attacking and yet still not produce a single source.

channing said...

It doesn't matter whether Arty is out to use people to feed his own complex and whatever else people are accusing him of. There still has not been one single source named here, but the attacks against him continue.

If somebody wants to accuse him of being a troll, he had better stop trolling against him first. Without facts and evidence, personal attacks and allegations against somebody's moral character are the very definition of trolling.

We are descending into an abyss of double standards. To get out, we should produce news sources and other concrete evidence citing:

1) Evidence that Ma opposed direct elections to maintain KMT dictatorship: To be true, he must have stated in public something to the effect of his wishing to support the KMT monopoly on political power, and

2) Evidence (paraphrasing or pointing to the blog topic will do here since entries aren't easy to find) showing that our favorite commentator Arty is against democratic institutions, and has ignored clear evidence proving his arguments incorrect.

Michael Turton said...

It doesn't matter whether Arty is out to use people to feed his own complex and whatever else people are accusing him of. There still has not been one single source named here, but the attacks against him continue.

Channing, you can't be serious. Arty says the sources are written in English so how does he know *I* didn't write them? Read what he said:

"Yes, but they are news articles written by someone in English (how do I know they are not written by Michael or Tim etc)."

First, believe it or not, I don't write everything on the internet. And second, Arty's slanderous intimation there that I make shit up is flat out ridiculous. He can fuck off, frankly.

But more importantly, demanding sources for what anyone can find with a five minute internet search -- and do what Thomas asked, you'll hit a Taipei Times article right away -- is absurd. And finally, asking for sources on Ma's opposition to democratic development is like asking for sources that show Martin Luther King struggled for civil rights, and then objecting because some of them are written by black people. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Taiwan knows where Ma stood on these issues. If you doubt it, next time you are in Taiwan, run over to the Taiwan Democracy Foundation and ask them for the information -- and see if they will let you view the diplomatic correspondence from the 1980s when Ma was English secretary to Chiang Ching-kuo. It's...enlightening.

Arty is obviously playing a game. Wasting your time and mine. We've been through this with Arty before. I let him post here because he is fairly polite and doesn't make death threats or demand to rape my daughter, like some of the other KMT fuckheads who forced me to moderate with their fantasies of violence against me and my family. And also because it is important to actually experience how the other side thinks.

Michael

channing said...

Right, and since not all of us have the luxury of popping over to Taiwan on a whim, some excerpts from said documentation would be wonderful and enlightening.

Really, I would term this a "request," not a "demand." That's it. Whether Arty is here to play games is beyond my judgment (and, frankly, beyond my interest).

Anonymous said...

"Whether Arty is here to play games is beyond my judgment (and, frankly, beyond my interest)."

This is disingenuous, Channing: it's not beyond your judgement at all, and if you say it is, and if you say it's beyond your interest, that reveals you as a game player, too.

But then you've already revealed youself as such, haven't you? Like Arty, you just ignore inconvenient arguments. How can the Taipei Times and other media get away with making these statements about Ma if the statements are not true? Every politician here sues -- or at least publicy declares he will not sue -- over unsubstantiated assertions of putative cold facts. No one has ever even publicly asked Ma if he plans to sue over the media's treatment of these assertions as fact.

And what are you expecting here? For someone here to go to the Taiwan Democracy Foundation and ask to make photocopies or to else transcribe the diplomatic correspondence? If you doubt Michael's word on this, then why read this blog, unless it's to do a study of the mental architecture of someone you think is a game-playing blogger -- the kind of exercise you say you're not interested in?

Whether you call them "requests" or "demands," the crux remains the same: your refusal in this case to accept common standards for determining what constitutes a fact is outright absurd. It's a gambit only a game-player would engage in.

If you check back, in my second post, which addressed both you and Robert, I said the latter was a reasonable guy. I was selective on that point because your many posts here long ago made it clear that chauvinist-minded Hans like Arty have no monopoly on closed-mindedness and game-playing.

Speaking of Arty, are ya there, bro'? You wrote: "Or I readily admit I was wrong (many times in this blog alone)." Really??!! I don't read the comments on every single post Michael puts up, but I read at least half of them, and I've never once seen you admit you were wrong.

But maybe you have done so once or twice; regardless, where is your vaunted (by you only) honesty right now? Not only is the evidence there in secondary (media) sources; Michael even cited a primary source. And now you remain silent.

No Arty, like a good old-style Han -- in keeping with being a person whose identity is all wrapped up in better-than-you comparisons between self and others -- you don't admit you are wrong on anything of any real size and proportion. Your real identity is grounded in defensive, self-willed blindness to facts and in stubborn, game-playing defiance of facts when you can't keep them hidden from your sight. Quite a prety thing.

Save me the faux victimhood and dishonesty of your quoted statement.

channing said...

If you say so, dear sir. Clearly, those of the incorrect opinion are not allowed to make a reasonable request. I'm done for this blog entry; I feel that my opinions and honest request don't really ring here--all I got was hostility.

You have successfully stifled an unsuspecting political enemy. Cheers; you deserve a beer.

Robert said...

If you doubt it, next time you are in Taiwan, run over to the Taiwan Democracy Foundation and ask them for the information -- and see if they will let you view the diplomatic correspondence from the 1980s when Ma was English secretary to Chiang Ching-kuo. It's...enlightening.

That's all I was asking for. I just wanted someone to say where one could find such information. Diplomatic correspondences are a good start.

I wasn't saying the citation had to be an internet link.

To be clear, I was only asking because the articles I'd read, specifically regarding Ma's supposed involvement in suppressing democracy most notably in the "Professional Student" allegations, offered no undeniable proof.

Vin, my friend, do you wish to convince those who disagree with you are simply exacerbate the dispute? It seems like it would better serve such a discussion if you would stick to the subject rather than stooping to personal attacks. It doesn't help.

I know this is all pretty emotional stuff, but all too often on Michael's site, people seem to talk past each other, opting to call the other a racist or hypocrit, rather than diving into the actual subject at hand.

Michael Turton said...

Clearly, those of the incorrect opinion are not allowed to make a reasonable request.

It's not reasonable to make a request for information anyone can find with a five minute google search, channing, it's just more game playing by arty. It is a pity you decided to play. If you email me privately I will be glad to help.

Michael

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Arty, are ya there, bro'? You wrote: "Or I readily admit I was wrong (many times in this blog alone)." Really??!! I don't read the comments on every single post Michael puts up, but I read at least half of them, and I've never once seen you admit you were wrong.

Why you don't ask Micheal which topics that I admitted that I am wrong. I am too lazy to search, too. I think one of them has to do with the weapons we try to sell to Taiwan awhile ago. I call them old and out-dated but later I retracted my statement.

Anonymous said...

Like I said, Arty, if you in fact do ever admit you're wrong, it's about lesser things only; you never admit you're wrong on things related to these "political identities" issues. Indeed, you are keeping your foul record intact here by again using one of your typical passive-aggressive, disdain-for-logic tactics: focusing on a side issue rather than addresing the key point of whether you'll admit you've been demanding that a nowhere-disputed-fact be proved here. Just more cowardice -- further derelict argumentation.

I'm pretty busy today,Robert; I'll answer your reasonable question within twenty-four hours.

Anonymous said...

I should add: more to the point than anything about "political identites," Arty, you refuse to acknowledge that you arrogate to yourself debate tactics that are considered out-of-bounds in standards for fair debate and flamingly absurd in terms of logic -- tactics that would get you quickly drummed off of any debate team, because they would lead the team to repeated and overwhelming losses. "Shifting the Burden of Proof" is a fallacy almost no one ever gets away with among even half-intelligent people, let alone the crowd here. And STBOP is the stunt you tried to pull here. Simply foul, and on some level, you know you're not playing fair, but that's irrlelevant to you, isn't it? Passive-aggressive compulsion doesn't care about fair or foul, does it? (There's a hint about my reply to you, Robert.)

Anonymous said...

Like I said, Arty, if you in fact do ever admit you're wrong, it's about lesser things only; you never admit you're wrong on things related to these "political identities" issues. Indeed, you are keeping your foul record intact here by again using one of your typical passive-aggressive, disdain-for-logic tactics: focusing on a side issue rather than addresing the key point of whether you'll admit you've been demanding that a nowhere-disputed-fact be proved here.

Clearly a nowhere-disputed-fact cannot be supported by a reference. I am done with this thread (do you think Robert and other posters, didn't google it either). By the way, the Taipei time article actually briefly mentioned its source, it is almost comical if you ask me considering this blog discussed a lot media bias and mis-information. I am not shifting the burden of proof, I am asking for a source of your statement which I did not make. If it is in a live debate, "I will just say it is a made up lie by the greens and there is not proof what so ever!" Also, I am just answering your question and give you a little reference on where you might find it. The "too lazy" comment is direct at your guys if you don't get it. As for "political identity," how could there be a right or wrong. Also, what do you mean by political identity" anyway? Do you have to be pro-green to have the right political identity? Do you have to behave like a damn populist to have the right political identity? Like I say once before, I understand why some of you think in a particular way. I don't expect to change you believes, but you are the one who will be the one facing the consequences of your decisions i.e. losing the election by a huge margin. I am just here to warn you.

Again, I think I am done with this thread, good luck.

Anonymous said...

Robert,
No, I wasn't trying to persuade Arty and Channing. An ex-passive-aggressive (me) may forget now and then that it's almost never worth it to engage a PA's manipulative bullshit if the bullshit can simply be avoided, but we never forget that PAs can't be persuaded. Thomas and Michael's ways of depriving them of their ill-sought payoffs (not putting up any URLs) were far better than my way. But nothing wrong with my way, I don't think. You call someone who cheats at cards, sports, or in business a sleaze; someone who willfully cheats in argument is no different; when they purposely render discussion/argument/debate a sham, they're being sleazy. Sure, I know about separating a person's actions from the person himself, and usually that's what I do. But I know from experience that most PAs exploit these kinds of enlightened niceties. Right or wrong, a personal attack puts a PA on notice that his efforts to manipulate may create a very different kind of trouble from what he planned.

I kind of regret, though, that I spent any time at all on Arty and Channing; in some sense, even when he "loses" a PA "wins," simply because you've engaged with his cloacal manipulations: any attention you give his crap constitutes a payoff for him.

So I disagree with you here, Robert, but I respect the decency of your views and would in many particular cases agree with you.

---

A and C,
Keep the beer, Channing, and keep your wishes of good luck, Arty. Maybe focus instead, Channing, on refining your routine of playing victim; it's not nearly subtle enough yet to be persuasive. And for lord's sake, Arty, can't you come up with some better last resort than dire prophesy? Sorry, but that stuff comes off as clownish to me.

I wish you'd both stop the PA crap, but I'm sure you won't Arty, and I doubt you will, either, Channing. Not soon, anyway. Whatever. I wish you both well but hope you both always fail in all PA manipulations, both consicous and unconscious, that you attempt. Attempt away, though, if you want; I promise I will never again comment on you two or on anything you write, here or anywhere.

I promise that to you two, and most of all, I promise that to myself!

Anonymous said...

I said I wouldn't comment further, but I made an error. It's not passive-aggressive personality disorder.