Recriminations - That post press conference Whatsapp group chat in full

 

Presentation - Zhang Men Brewery - Kaohsiung November 18, 2023

 

3000 rounds? Yeah, like in the bar afterwards

There’s an old saying amongst copy editors as to whether something in a piece they are editing passes the ‘smell test’. It usually applies to something that sounds exaggerated or morally wrong. Basically, does it look wrong, or fake.

So when our Coconut Cop tried to emphasise what a heroic and lionhearted president he would make, he regaled his audience with a tale of when he faced down three dangerous criminals in an encounter which saw 3000 shots fired. Three Thousand? That doesn’t pass the smell test. 

After some light searching I discovered that what is known as the North Hollywood Shootout is broadly agreed to be the biggest shootout in American history. Two heavily armed bank robbers wearing body armour faced off 64 armed LAPD police officers resulting in the robbers' deaths plus injuries to 12 officers and eight civilians.

It was such a big event they even made a movie about it, although I guess that is no real surprise as it did happen in Hollywood. (44 Minutes: The North Hollywood Shoot-Out. This is the best quality version I could find on YouTube and it’s really not bad.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PUAd8MvqEY

The point is, it is estimated that 2000 shots were fired during the incident which is why our wannabe president’s claim of 3000 at his incident doesn’t pass the smell test, it being 50 percent higher.

I guess you could conclude he was leading a group of dangerously trigger-happy officers whose aim was so appallingly bad that it required emptying all that ammo at their three offenders. Who, nevertheless must have ended up with more holes than Swiss Cheese simply by the law of averages.

I searched for this incident, without success. Maybe it’s worth making a quick movie to bolster his fearless image ahead of January’s vote.

Tinkerty Tonk...    

Taiwan politics, turning into a strange animal

A political caricature of the United States Senate from 1894
Credit Library of Congress

Taiwan’s Presidential election looms, putting an end to Tsai Ing-wen’s eight years at the helm. 

While the political cycle appears to continue normally, I find myself increasingly puzzled and worried by the machinations going on within both global and Taiwan politics.

The madness of tens of thousands of deaths in Ukraine and thousands dead in Israel and Gaza, to the craziness of the Trump trials in the United States and the bitter internal battles within the Republican Party to the disintegration of the British Conservative Party and their equally bitter internal battles, it would be easy to believe diplomacy and common-sense has left the building.

After the horrors of World War Two, one would be forgiven that just a generation later we are slowly sinking back to the bad old days, rather than progressing and building a better world for everyone. 

Add to this unprecedented weather events and a continued disbelief by many that  man-assisted global warming actually exists to anti-oil protestors blocking roads in many countries and causing chaos, to anti-woke and anti-immigrant right-wing groups finding a greater voice, it’s hard to remain optimistic as we head into 2024. 

If nothing else, for those of us who keep an eye on global geo-politics 2024 will be an ‘interesting’ year. 

I now live quietly on the west bank in Bali so I’m also perhaps more interested in what happens here in Taiwan and what I’m seeing worries me. Is Taiwan moving down a path which will damage its young democracy in tandem with the madness we are witnessing elsewhere in the world? 

In my 40 years of front-line reporting of geo-politics around the world, I am watching political battles on this Beautiful Isle that are perhaps unique, in my experience anyway. I’m a long way from being an expert in Taiwan politics but I am fast coming to the conclusion that it has a unique quirkiness, although I can’t decide whether that is a strength, or a weakness. Is it pragmatic, or just daft with little political acumen behind it?

For whatever reason, my wife Joyce generally chooses to relay the blow-by-blow latest political goings-on when we get in the car. While driving I receive a running commentary on the latest progress, or, more often the lack of it. Oftentimes it makes little sense and certainly doesn’t jive with my experiences elsewhere in the world.

The latest news which made me sit up and listen a little harder was ex-Policeman Plod and erstwhile New Taipei City Mayor saying he would be happy if he does not achieve his goal of becoming Taiwan’s eighth President and would instead be happy as deputy. 

This is almost shockingly absurd for someone pushed forward by his party for the top job to then turn around and tell them he doesn’t really want it and would be happy to lose out to someone else from another party.  

I wonder what the KMT party managers’ opinion of this was? Kuomintang, founded in November 1894 and a major political party in the Republic of China, initially based on the Chinese mainland and then in Taiwan since 1949 appears not to be bothered about regaining the Taiwan Presidency? How sad is that? Such a long established political party appears happy to commit political suicide by openly stating it is no longer seeking the highest office and willing to hand over decades of governance to, er, a party less than five years old.        

Maybe it’s an astute political move but I’m afraid that thinking is lost to me and I am genuinely puzzled unless Hou Yu-ih is somehow actively trying to destroy the KMT’s political credibility from within. 

In my humble opinion such self-destruction would be no bad thing for Taiwan, particularly against the background of overt Mainland aggression and the danger of a Beijing takeover via a China friendly administration. To openly say this less than three months before the election you have all but given up makes zero political sense unless there is no fight left in the KMT and it is happy to retire from front-line politics and wither and die. 

How are voters expected to react? Voting for someone to be President who has openly stated he is not bothered if he becomes President or not, is surely a wasted vote. I’d be extremely angry if I were a party member to be let down so badly and be told ‘sorry guys we can’t really be bothered and are happy if another party wins the Presidency’. 

He is frightened of the job and thinks he cannot do it is the one obvious conclusion. He is unsure, or disagrees with KMT policies and thinks another President can better help run the country, is quite another. Either one points to massive weakness within the KMT and a huge whack of self-doubt seldom seen among high-level politicians. 

I’m more used to those seeking high office to do whatever it takes to get the job and implement their policies for what they believe is the betterment of the country as a whole. The problem generally arises around those hell-bent on achieving high office and then screwing things up, evidenced by the last four British Prime Ministers. 

To roll over and admit he is just not that bothered, Hou Yu-ih demonstrates a weakness and lack of conviction and that he is likely frightened of the job. Clearly the KMT chose their candidate extremely poorly. Terry Gou can at least string a sentence together. 

What will Hou Yu-ih campaign slogan be in the coming weeks as the competition hots up? What will he yell from the platform at rallies? “Don’t vote for me as someone else will be a better President than me, I’m really not bothered either way” Will the party faithful punch the air and scream “Yes, don’t vote KMT as someone else can likely do it better than our candidate.” 

It’s all very puzzling and, not to put too fine a point on it, ridiculous in the game of democratic politics. 

I’d be the first to admit that bipartisanship can be a good thing when high-level policies need to be enacted and there are many examples where opposition parties stop just criticising the government and vote with them for sensible and pragmatic reasons. It happens all the time to the good of ordinary people. 

Maybe we are at a point in Taiwan where the opposition parties simply oppose and criticise government policy because in their Dummy’s Guide to Politics it says that’s what they should always do.

I have to say I perceive few actual solid and workable or affordable policies coming from the opposition parties and most seem to be badly costed or just pie-in-the-sky wishes which will never happen, like a 1 million TWD subsidy for the third child, or a 230 billion TWD long-term care fund. 

What I see is apparently blind, constant criticism and gaslighting on pretty much every issue and an avoidance of the really big issues, like the Elephant in the room, China.

For the 120-year old KMT with 38 seats in a legislature of 113 total, to roll-over to an upstart four-year old TPP which has five, would be an amazing event which must have the DPP with 62 seats feeling quietly confident as long as these two oppositions continue to bicker, moan and whine, and continue to fail to come with with any credible policies of their own.

Already the embryo tie up is descending into farce if the latest batch of statements from both the KMT and TPP are anything to go by.   

Political coalitions, of course, exist in many countries and can be successful but most coalitions are made after voting takes place in order for the bigger party to secure a governing majority ie. The David Cameron UK Conservative 2010 coalition administration with the Liberal Democrats where its leader Nick Clegg served as deputy Prime Minister. It was actually a disaster, but that’s another story. 

Pre-Electoral Coalitions in Presidential Systems such as being vaunted by the KMT and TPP do exist, particularly in South America, but tend to be problematic because parties cannot use pre-electoral coalitions to secure money, patronage or government benefits under the control of presidents as they cannot be held accountable to the previous party agreements. 

This would seem to be the situation which is uncomfortably unfolding in Taiwan where  negativity in the form of hurting a popular existing administration takes precedence over positive policies aimed at convincing the electorate that their vote will be worthwhile. Does such a stance demonstrate a willingness to improve things, or just a blind aim to destroy a political adversary by fair means or foul with no real regard to the consequences? 

The furtherance of actual stated policies would not seem to be high on the agenda for the opposition as I detect little in the way of manifesto promises at this stage outside of openly criticising everything the current administration do or say… and an unhealthy obsession with high-end vaccines and eggs. 

Tinkerty Tonk...

Credibility - sadly lacking

Looking around the world, it seems there is a surfeit of lightweight and wannabe politicians and the list is growing, pretty much by the day.

Almost every week I see yet another example of someone in high office, or seeking high office, making fools of themselves as they simply do not have the gravitas, quick-wittedness, intelligence or moral compass to be able to do the job they have, or aspire to. 

I’ve long thought that credibility was one of the main attributes for a political leader and its dictionary definition is ‘the quality of being trusted and believed in.’ But you need other skills to be a political leader and the key five leadership qualities are integrity (see point one), self-awareness, courage, respect, empathy, and gratitude.

Broadly speaking, you can sum these qualities up as statesmanship, which may at times blur the attributes alluded to above but nevertheless garner trust and support among voters who believe they will not be treated fairly, not lied to and understood by a leader who is trustworthy and believable. 

I have to say that looking at the four Presidential candidates for the January elections here in Taiwan, I struggle to find all but one that comes even close to fulfilling my criteria. 

Before we look at the home front. Let’s look around the world and some other leaders, and wannabe leaders. Former US President Donald Trump is probably the best (or worst) example of what I’m talking about. The still popular Trump is mired in 91 charges across four separate criminal cases plus numerous civil lawsuits. The criminal charges include trying to overturn the 2020 election results. Don’t forget, Trump could face 700 years in jail if found guilty on all charges. 

Next in my list of recent non-statesmen would be former UK prime minister Boris Johnson, sacked for lying, former UK prime minister Liz Truss, sacked for gross incompetence after just 49 days and former UK Prime Minister David Cameron who cowardly resigned after losing his Brexit referendum rather than sticking by the result and clearing up his own mess. 

A UK opposition leader called David Milliband once made a pitch at the UK Premiership but his utter lack of gravitas and charisma pretty much sunk his chances and his policies were pretty much a side issue. One newspaper famously said “Can you imagine this guy in the same room negotiating with Vladimer Putin?” The answer was a resounding no and Millband lost because he looked and acted like a lightweight who would not have been able to dance on the world political stage with any real credibility. 

There are opposite examples such as Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan who have made huge economic and foreign policy mistakes while in office but managed to cling onto power by dint of little more than their forceful personality, charisma and actually acting like they are a statesman in charge and able to cope. 

My point is, the forthcoming Taiwan Presidential election gels around the main issue for Taiwan which is China, to the exclusion of everything else. China is the issue. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has thrust Taiwan to the world’s front pages. It has not enjoyed such prominence in the world’s psyche for decades, if ever. 

People the world over have become aware of Taiwan and its situation after Ukraine, ironically because of many high profile media stories by journalists, who did not understand the situation, that “Taiwan is next” which was, of course, nonsense and I wrote that it was at the time. 

We recently returned to a three-month long trip to Europe and when people around me were aware that Taiwan was my homebase, their first question was “Are you worried about China?”. As I see it, their helicopter, 9000km view of Taiwan is the right one. China is overwhelmingly the main issue for Taiwan and should for everyone who lives here. 

A presidential election based on arguing about the price of eggs, xxxx xxx xxx xxxx. Is complete nonsense and ignores the elephant in the room. 

Taiwan needs a president who can, with credibility and all the above-mentioned qualities of integrity,   self-awareness, courage, respect and empathy sit in the same room as world leaders and argue Taiwan’s case and solicit help against a potential invader. A potential invader which has hundreds of missiles aimed at it and daily threatens with air and seaborne threats.

What other issue will voters be thinking about when they cast their ballot? “Oh, I don’t like paying more for my eggs so I won’t vote for the current government”...”xxxxx xxxxx xxxxx 

When I look at the four candidates Taiwan has, and I have no dog in this fight as I am unable to vote, I see three candidates which do not fit my criteria as being able to do a pragmatic political dance in keeping a potential invader at bay and being effective in garnering political support from elsewhere in world and dancing on the world political stage to effectively do this. (look at Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy and you will get the idea as he as done this extremely effectively)  

By my measurements they are lightweights, more intent on scoring mind-numbingly minor political points while studiously avoiding the elephant in the room - China- either for ideological, personal or cowardly reasons. The media here does a shocking job in calling them out, sadly. 

Doesn’t Taiwan need someone who would be vocal in their opposition to having the PLA Navy sailing up the Tamsui River past my flat in the coming years?

While that might be a stretch given the sensitivities involved, China is the main issue in the coming election. Even if unspoken, candidates can be more vocal in assuring people their hearts and minds are in the right place with regards to China and its ambitions about Taiwan. 

It seems to me, all four candidates for the Presidency are frightened to do so, but three of them moreso. Politics is a delicate game but there comes a time to put up, or shut up. Maybe, without mentioning the dreaded “I” word, one of the candidates should step up and declare in strident tones at least the status quo is a line in the sand and make this an election issue. 

I remember Winston Churchill in my home country and how fifty years ago I watched his funeral on our black and white TV when he was hailed as a national hero for his part in keeping the UK democratic and helping the world win the war over fascism and oppression.

A truly great wartime leader who was unceremoniously kicked out of office after the war when the people realised he was not the peacetime leader they wanted. He is still widely revered, and is seen as a good wartime leader but not a good peacetime leader. 

Does Taiwan need a leader who can somehow get it in the best position for its continued democratic and free existence given the daily armed threats to the country.

Or someone who is more interested and can maybe bring down the price of eggs. 

Tinkerty Tonk...

Taiwan - The slide in morals and honesty

For a journalist, it is not the done thing to continually write about the same subject time after time, no matter how important you feel the subject is. Even if you strongly believe in something, a writer cannot just bombard their readers with the same narrative.  

Those of you who have read my previous columns about my concerns over the behavior of some Taiwanese politicians in terms of honesty and morality, you will find little new in the following paragraphs. Nevertheless, this also addresses wider issues about the forthcoming Presidential election and I feel it is worth repeating.

This is all ahead of probably the most important Presidential election Taiwan has seen since democracy was established after martial law was lifted in 1987.    

China’s daily and savage provocation with fighter jets and warships would not be tolerated by any other of the 195 countries in the world, barring parts of the Middle East and between North and South Korea. Such diabolical and open aggression means the choice of the next Taiwan President is more important than it has been since suffrage was established, otherwise democracy could disappear in Taiwan, forever. 

The heightened aggression, together with the West’s rock-solid support for Taiwan since the invasion of Ukraine, means Taiwan’s next leader has a stark decision…lean towards the West, or lean towards China. 

Not to put too fine a point on it, the choice is to keep Taiwan as it is and bolster its standing in the world, or kowtow and turn it into something akin to Hong Kong and the slippery slope that entails in terms of fading democracy and self determination. 

The slide in morals and honesty we see with politicians overseas on a regular basis seems to have normalized a pattern of behavior on a wider scale and we seem to be seeing a greater  slackening of ethical standards and integrity in Taiwan among those who aspire to lead. 

The UK’s Boris Johnson was removed from office for his shameless lies and behavior and former president Donald Trump has just been indicted for a fourth time on felony charges, this time for working to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

These situations are unprecedented and have set a new low in political behavior. My fear is local politicians are being tempted to ape such practices with the view that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. 

Corrupt practices have seem to have caught up with Anne Gao who has been released on a bail of TWD 600,000 as part of an investigation into allegations she made fraudulent payroll deductions and misused public funds.

Straightforward corruption like this is one thing but more insidious dishonesty has also crept into the Taiwan political arena with half-truths and downright lies being peddled as fact. It would all seem to be straight out of the Johnson/Trump playbook and some politicians appear to think it is acceptable behavior.

A perfect example of this is the recent assertion that all the Taiwan government’s budget figures are  fake. It’s almost exactly the same assertion made by ex-president Trump that the 2020 US election result was fixed, otherwise known as “The Big Lie.”

There has been a lack of any evidence to back up the assertion despite many investigations and recounts and it was never proved. Trump now finds himself heading for court to face trial for blatant lies that the election was stolen and his efforts to get the result overturned. 

If the current DDP government is faking the budget numbers, where is the evidence? How easy it is to say something like this to sow the seeds of doubt into voters minds and maybe swing the result.

If there is hard evidence, let’s see it. Or is your moral compass so lacking that lies trip so lightly to your lips if you see there might be some political mileage in it. 

Are we seeing those running for the presidency simply lying like Johnson and Trump to try and gain political points? Has Taiwan politics really sunk that low? The comparisons are becoming startling, and frightening. 

As Chinese general, strategist, philosopher, and writer Sun Tzu said the “wheels of justice grind slow but grind fine” and while they more quickly caught up with Boris Johnson, they are only just catching up with Donald Trump. 

The sad fact is some politicians now believe it is somehow justified to lie and deal in half-truths if it achieves the ultimate goal of power.  How can such easy liars be trusted? 

High level officials told me - really? Who? US officials told me - really? Who?  

Are politicians who indulge themselves with easy statements and don’t feel the need to provide background or evidence to be trusted? 

Can they be trusted to stick to their word over the really big issue of the future relationship with China? How can they be trusted to even come close to keeping election promises if they do win power.

British voters were sharply disappointed with Boris Johnson as a leader after his grand but now proven shallow lies. Americans corrected their 2016 blunder in 2020 by getting rid of Donald Trump and his subsequent rantings and lies about the stolen 2020 election. 

I hope and pray Taiwanese voters are not disappointed with the outcome of their election in January next year when it comes to voting in a leader who fills the role of being a statesman able to deal on the global stage at the same level as other world leaders.  

Particularly when it comes to dealing with China and Taiwan’s allies overseas. Lies or half-truths will not cut it when they are talking to those guys on your behalf.

Tinkerty Tonk...

Economics 101 -2

Despite the Cat’s best efforts translating the interview, I can’t for the life of me understand what Ko is talking about when he says Taiwan is in a Middle Income Trap. 

A Middle Income country is defined by the World Bank as one with a Gross National Income (GNI) per capita between USD1,036 and 12,535. Taiwan currently has a GNI per capita of USD33,565, slightly higher than that of South Korea. Broadly speaking both countries have been returning similar figures for years.

China apparently managed to escape the trap around 2015 and now has a GNI per capita of around USD20,000, but given the size of the economy many economists still consider this to be low enough for it to be considered to be still stuck in the trap.

Taiwan successfully escaped the middle-income trap a couple of decades ago, helped by a democratic political system, the nurturing of high-value-added technology industries, for example TSMC, and reduced levels of economic inequality.

Now, Taiwan is actually in danger of falling into a high-income trap, because of its low birth rate, a potential for greater inequality and growing political polarization.

Maybe Ko is mistaken in his terminology and means Middle Class Income which is an entirely  different thing and it has to be said that wage disparity and the income gap, particularly in terms of young people, does urgently need to be addressed.

But to say Taiwan is in a Middle Income Trap is economic nonsense. It appears Ko read it somewhere but as usual didn’t bother to read it carefully and understand it before trotting it out in this interview trying to sound like he knows what he’s talking about. 

Another Pie in the Face FAIL, I’m afraid. 

Tinkerty Tonk…