Thursday, October 9, 2014

It's Double-Ten Day --- Which begs the question: when is Taiwan's birthday?

October 10 is a holiday in Taiwan. What does it mean for real?

The R.O.C. fascist dictatorship existed from 1911 to 1949 = 38 years.
The R.O.C. fascist dictatorship in exile oppressed Taiwan from 1945 to 1996 = 51 years.
The sham R.O.C. democratic government of Taiwan has existed from 1996 (when Taiwan had its first direct presidential elections to the present) = 18 years.

Taiwan is not 103 years old. The Republic of CHINA rule over its own territory ceased to exist many decades ago.

So how should we calculate the age of Taiwan and when should we celebrate its birthday?  Definitely not 10/10.  

How about May 23 -- that is May 23, 1895, the date that the Formosa Republic / Taiwan Republic was declared... a declaration of independence from foreign colonial rule.  If so, despite the lapse into foreign colonial rule first of the Japanese and then the R.O.C. government in exile, Taiwan would officially be 119 years old this year.  

Or April 28th  could be celebrated as Taiwan's birthday. April 28, 1952 is the date that the Treaty of San Francisco came into effect (it was signed Sept. 8, 1951).  In this treaty Japan gave up its claim to Taiwan but did not designate a successor. Therefore by international law, the people of Taiwan could legally claim their own sovereignty on this day.  With this calculation, Taiwan would be officially 62 years old this year. 

One final possible birthdate to celebrate is March 23, 1996. This date represents the first time that the regime governing Taiwan was forced by the people to hold direct presidential elections. Unfortunately they were carried out under a constitution not for Taiwan but for the Republic of China before the end of its rule in China and its sham rule over China in exile. In this case, Taiwan would be 18 years old this year.

Which one do you think we should celebrate as Taiwan's birthday?

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Links on Hong Kong

Tear Gas Attacks

On the way China's dictator looks at the situation in Hong Kong, Eastern Turkestan and Taiwan.

Live feed in Hong Kong

Comparing how the UK handled Scotland versus how China handles Hong Kong

And in the meantime in Taiwan... Ma was hit by the book Formosa Betrayed

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Monday Morning Protest

A protest this fine morning across from the Bureau of Consular Affairs

The police seemed to be taking notes.

What is this bus doing here? To bring in riot police? To arrest people? The protest is so small and peaceful ... why the need?

Friday, May 2, 2014

Political Wisdom from Literature: The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien on China, the KMT and Taiwan

While one writer has compared the Ma regime to the galactic empire of Star Wars, I was thinking of another literary and film analogy: The Lord of the Rings.

The day the Su-Ma meeting was reported, I could just imagine the discussion between Saruman and Gandalf in Orthanc.  Ma/Saruman talking with Su/Gandalf regarding Mordor/China.

Picture it:

Saruman/KMT/Ma: "A new Power is rising. Against it the old allies and policies will not avail us at all... We may join that Power. It would be wise... There is hope that way. Its victory is at hand; and there will be rich reward for those that aided it."

Su/Gandalf: "Ma, I have heard speeches of this kind before, but only out of the mouths of emissaries from China/Mordor to deceive the ignorant."

Ma/Saruman: "I did not expect you to  show wisdom, even in your own behalf; but I gave you the chance of aiding me willing, and to save yourself much trouble and pain. The third choice is..." preemptive detention.

Su: "Tell me, "friend," when did Ma/Saruman exchange reason for madness.  There is only one Lord of the Rings and he does not share power."

And after Theodon/Taiwanese people confronts Ma/Saruman in his ruin: ""Were you ten times as wise you would have no right to rule me and mine for your own profit as you desired."

I could hear Treebeard/Taiwanese people after the recent events of the Sunflower Movement and the fast of Lin I-hsiung speaking of Saruman/Ma: "I think that I now understand what he is up to. He is plotting to become a Power... and now it is clear that he is a black traitor... I have been idle. I have let things slip... I will stop it!"

I could hear the media, the KMT hangers-on, sycophants and wannabes (and perhaps the American State Department sinophiles getting a tingle up their legs) enamored with the voice of Saruman/Ma/China/Mordor: "It was a delight to hear the voice speaking, all that it said seemed wise and reasonable, and desire awoke in them by swift agreement to seem wise themselves. When others (Taiwanese students, etc.) spoke, they seemed harsh and uncouth by contrast; and if they gainsaid the voice, anger was kindled in the hearts of those under the spell. For some the spell lasted only while the voice spoke to them, and when it spoke to another they smiled, as men do who see through a juggler's trick while others gape at it. For many, the sound of the voice alone was enough to hold them enthralled..."

And finally I could hear Saruman/Ma/KMT when thwarted saying that if they cannot have Taiwan, they will ruin it so that the Taiwanese cannot enjoy it.  I could hear the conversations when Saruman/Ma had taken over the Shire and implemented the ECFA and TiSA and the special "free" trade zone.

Taiwanese people: "We grow a lot of food, but we don't rightly know what becomes of it. It is all these "gatherers" and "sharers," I reckon, going round counting and measuring and taking off to storage. They do more gathering than sharing, and we never see most of the stuff again."

Taiwan under the KMT had become "a bare and ugly place, with a mean little grate that would not allow a good fire... on every wall was a notice and a list of Rules."  "A lot of rules and orc-talk."

"And Ma doesn't hold with folk moving about protesting... there are hundreds of armored police and they want more, with all these new rules. Most of them are in it against their will, but not all of them. Even in Taiwan there are some as like minding other folk's business and talking big."

"There was a whole line of ugly new housing developments"...

"This country wants waking up and setting to rights," said the White Wolf Chang An-lo 張安樂 ("former" hahaha) ganster, "and Ma is going to do it; and make it hard, if you drive him to it. You need a bigger Boss (China). And you'll get one before the year is out, if there's anymore trouble. Then you'll learn a thing or two, you little country-bumpkin Taiwanese rat-folk..." who do not deserve to be called "Chinese."

"The KMT ruffians/mafia are on top, gathering, robbing and bullying, and running or ruining things as they like, in Ma's name. And not in Ma's name even for much longer. He'll be a prisoner pretty soon in Taipei" when China takes over.

The KMT was brought over in 1945 after the Japanese were kicked out, and "before we knew where we were they were planted here and there all over Taiwan/the Shire, and were felling trees and digging and building themselves sheds and houses just as they liked... soon they began lording it around and taking what they wanted."

"Everything except Rules got shorter and shorter, unless one could hide a bit of one's own when the ruffians went round gathering stuff up, 'for fair distribution': which meant they got it and we didn't, except for the leavings... if you could stomach them."

Thursday, May 1, 2014

Chinese Brainwashing Abroad

Rejecting Confucius Funding
April 29, 2014
Professors at the University of Chicago have renewed their opposition to the Chinese-government funded Confucius Institute on their campus, with more than 100 of them signing a petition calling on the Council of the University Senate to vote to terminate the university’s contract with Hanban, the government entity that oversees the centers of Chinese language teaching and research.
“There really are two concerns: substantive issues and then there are procedural issues,” said Bruce Lincoln, the Caroline E. Haskell Distinguished Service Professor of the History of Religions and an organizer of the petition. “The substantive issue is this is really an anomalous sort of arrangement where an entity outside the university and a powerful entity and an entity that has strong interest in what’s taught is in effect seriously influencing who’s teaching and what’s taught under our name and inside our curriculum.”
In regard to procedural issues, the petition argues that the decision of whether to renew the contract for the Confucius Institute should properly belong to the elected council of faculty members and not to administrators. Time is ticking: the five-year contract, which expires in September, will be automatically renewed for another five years unless either party notifies the other of intent to terminate at least 90 days before the agreement's end.
“Although it is generally acknowledged that decisions concerning the establishment of entities with teaching responsibilities ('education') fall within the purview of the council for approval, and although the original [a]greement with Hanban signed on 29 September 2009 prominently included such teaching, the creation of the Confucius Institute was not brought before the council at that time,” the petition states. “We believe it now falls to the council to remedy that oversight with regard to a contract with Hanban which specifies: in Article 4, that the Confucius Institute will undertake the teaching of Chinese language, provide Chinese language teaching resources, and train Chinese language instructors; and in Article 6, that Hanban will provide 3000 volumes of Chinese books, teaching materials, and audio visual materials, as well as send sufficient numbers of qualified [Chinese] instructors … and pay for their airfares and salaries.'"
The establishment of Confucius Institutes on U.S. campuses has been controversial. On the one hand, universities -- especially those that don't have robust Chinese language departments of their own -- have welcomed the influx of foreign money and the ability to import Chinese language instructors at Hanban's expense. On the other, many have raised concerns that in partnering with a Chinese government entity to support the teaching of language and culture, universities are in effect ceding their control over the curriculum. In December, the Canadian Association of University Teachers issued a statement urging the country's universities to sever their ties with Confucius Institutes for these reasons, arguing that in allowing an entity of an authoritarian government to have a say over curriculum, texts and class discussion topics, universities are "compromising their own integrity." 
Critics of Confucius Institutes have also raised concerns related to allegedly discriminatory hiring. Ontario's McMaster University opted to close its Confucius Institute last year after a former instructor filed a complaint with the province's Human Rights Tribunal alleging that the university was “giving legitimization to discrimination” because her contract with Hanban prohibited her participation in Falun Gong. 
The Chicago faculty petition cites both the CAUT statement and the McMaster decision and alleges that Hanban-hired instructors are trained to divert or ignore questions on politically sensitive topics in China like Tiananmen Square and Taiwan. "Among the problems posed by Hanban’s control of the hiring and training of teachers is that that [sic] it thus subjects the university’s academic program to the political constraints on free speech and belief that are specific to the People’s Republic of China," states the petition, which includes 7 department chairs among the 108 total signatories.
Notably absent among the petition's signatories are the university's China specialists, however, with the exception of one professor emeritus, Anthony C. Yu.
Edward Shaughnessy, a professor in early Chinese studies and the chair of the Department of East Asian Languages and Civilizations at the time the Confucius Institute was established, took issue with the petition's depiction of Hanban control over hiring and the curriculum.
"The Department of East Asian Languages and Civilization is fully responsible for all Chinese language teaching that goes on on campus," he said.
Shaughnessy said that the department interviews the visiting instructor candidates proposed by Hanban and then votes on their appointments. The instructors teach courses under the auspices of the department, Shaughnessy said: in other words there's no parallel Confucius Institute curricular track offering different courses or using different materials (indeed the faculty petition even notes that Chicago has "ignored the provisions in the agreement specifying that Hanban will supply texts and course materials for Chinese language instruction").
"Our Confucius Institute does not offer classes of its own; the teachers participate in the University of Chicago Chinese language program," said Dali Yang, the director of the Confucius Institute and a professor of political science. He added however that the primary function of the Confucius Institute at Chicago is to fund faculty research projects related to China. He said that a faculty committee vets the research proposals, and while a budget listing the selected projects is sent to Hanban for approval, Yang said that in all cases the projects selected by the faculty committee have been funded. 
"We have instituted processes to be sure that the research agenda is led by our faculty," Yang said.
"These functions of research support and language instruction serve the intellectual interests of our faculty members and our students’ growing interest in learning Chinese," John Mark Hansen, the Hutchinson Professor in Political Science and chair of the Confucius Institute's Board of Directors, said in a written statement. "In that sense it is not fundamentally different from support for scholarship on particular places that our scholars receive from governments and foundations all over the world."
The statement from Hansen, also a senior adviser to Chicago's president, continues, in part: "A committee of three distinguished faculty members has been working since February to review the CIUC's [Confucius Institute at the University of Chicago's] activities and make recommendations concerning areas of value or potential concern. Their work has included discussions with a wide range of faculty colleagues, including outspoken critics of the Confucius Institute. They reached out to all faculty members via email and held open meetings to solicit feedback. Their conclusions and recommendations will inform the CIUC board and the relevant deans and the provost as they proceed with decisions concerning the renewal of the university's agreement with the Confucius Institute."
Judith Farquhar, the chair of that committee, said it was convened by the board of the Confucius Institute on behalf of the president and provost. The committee report is complete, she said, but has not yet been released to the faculty council pending review by the Confucius Institute board and the university administration. She expects the council will take up the report at its May 13 meeting. 
Melina Hale, the spokeswoman for the committee of the council (essentially the executive committee) confirmed that a discussion on the subject of Confucius Institutes is planned for the May meeting. 
As for a vote? "I don't anticipate a vote," Hale said.
A press release distributed by the petition's backers states that "it is still unclear whether President Robert J. Zimmer will permit a vote on the issue or if he will seek to block it." A spokesman for the university, Jeremy Manier, declined to respond to a question about whether the university administration considers it to be the prerogative of the faculty council to take a binding vote on the question of contract renewal.
The latest faculty petition represents the second time that Chicago faculty have objected to a lack of a formal vote on the subject. In 2010, more than 170 Chicago faculty signed a petition objecting to the growing "corporatization" of the university, which cited the failure to consult faculty governing bodies on the establishment of the Confucius Institute as one of many manifestations of the university's movement toward "administrative centralization, entrepreneurial pursuit of profit, evasion and effacement of faculty control." That petition described the Confucius Institute as "an academically and politically ambiguous initiative" and argued that the university risked the use of its reputation to "legitimate the spread of such Confucius Institutes in this country and beyond." 
Marshall Sahlins, the Charles F. Grey Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Anthropology at Chicago and the author of several critical articles on Confucius Institutes (including this one, from The Nation), said that the Chinese government has courted elite universities like Chicago, Columbia and Stanford as part of a strategy to gain acceptance. In a GW Hatchet article from last year, a George Washington University administrator cited the establishment of Confucius Institutes at elite institutions like Chicago as increasing the university's comfort level with the concept.
"Consequently the adverse would be if they [elite universities] withdrew from the Confucius Institutes the effect would be quite the reverse: other places will think twice about joining or renewing their contracts," Sahlins said.

Read more:
Inside Higher Ed 

Src: Inside Higher Education article

Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Lîm Gī-hiông (林義雄 Lin I-hsiung) halts his fast.

Following is the public statement Lin I-hsiung issued declaring an end to his fast and calling for a mobilization of Taiwanese people for an extended fight for Taiwan's democracy.

When we have an English translation available, we will post it.









  1. 要求立法院補正「公民投票法」:包括提案連署門檻過高、投票結果計算不合理、審議委員會的設置……等等。

  2. 阻止立法院通過「自由經濟示範區特別條例」。   3. 召開全國「公民憲政會議」,推動修憲。

  4. 在今年的七合一選舉和來年的立委、總統選舉時,要求候選人承諾促成非核家園。   5. ……等。




      敬祝 平安

                        林義雄 敬上

Thursday, April 24, 2014

Including the Entire Letter of Judy Linton 林奐均 to her father Lin I-hsiung 林義雄

While many of the newspapers did include the entire letter that Judy Linton wrote to her father, Lin I-hsiung, just before he began his hunger strike, some news sources only included excerpts that might give a skewed understanding of what Judy Linton wrote. Here is the letter in its entirety -- both in English and Mandarin. This was written as a personal letter from Judy Linton to her father, not written with the media in mind.

Dear Dad,

We never know what tomorrow may bring.  A wise person would never take any moment for granted.  Any time we meet anyone, it may be our last time.

With all of my heart, I hope for many more years of life together with you - that my children will have many more years with their grandfather.  I hope tonight is not our last meeting, but it is always a possibility.  You have had many years to write all your thoughts down to me.  Please allow me a little chance to say some things to you.  

You have always been a good dad.  And you’ve been a wonderful grandfather.  The only grandfather my five girls know.  Having your love in their life is making them strong, just as your love has made me strong through the years.  You do realize you play a very important role in their little lives, right?  If ever you feel weak and lose the will to persevere, would you please remember their five faces and fight to stay alive?  Your life will strengthen them.  To lose you would cause a great hole in their hearts.  Please fight to stay with us.  

Dad, I know that you are willing to die for a good cause.  That’s what makes you a remarkable man.  But since I don’t know if I’ll ever get the chance to say this again, please allow me to say now: “You are not yet ready for eternity.”  Dear Dad, if Heaven were made for righteous men, you would be the first person admitted.  I don’t know of any other man more righteous than you in all of history.  You live up to your name.  But entrance into Heaven is not through a man’s own righteousness.  

Dear Dad, you have read about all the different religions.  Almost all religions are the same.  They talk about ‘being good.’  But the Bible is different from all others.  The Bible says that no one is good.  Not even one.  “No one will be declared righteous in God’s sight by observing the law; rather, it is through the law we become conscious of sin.”  Meaning, the purpose of the ‘do good’ laws is to show us how much we sin.

I have heard you quote First Corinthians 13 many times.  “Love is patient, love is kind...”     It is a wonderful reminder of how to love others, and at the same time it shows us plainly how often we fail, especially with those closest to us.  How often have I failed to show patience and kindness to my own kind mother and sweet children?  

We cannot enter Heaven based on our own righteousness.  You have said in your own letters to me that you, too, have often failed.  No matter how ‘good’ we are in this life, “there is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”  The only righteousness God accepts “comes through faith in Jesus Christ.”  Meaning, faith is the righteousness with which we must wear to gain entrance into Heaven.  

It is midnight now.  I wonder if I should write more or stop.  This very morning, we celebrated Easter.  We celebrated Jesus’s dying on the cross and rising from the dead after 3 days.  Dear Dad, you have spent an entire lifetime following Jesus’ many good teachings.  As you now put your own life on the line for Taiwan’s democracy, could you please spend some time reflecting on why Jesus sacrificed his life?  Jesus died on the cross to pay for your sins, so that if you believe in Him, you will be forgiven, and you will be declared righteous by God Himself.  

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life.  Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.“  

Dear Dad, as a gift to your daughter, please give me more chances to discuss life with you.

Love you so much,


Easter Sunday
April 21, 2014






親愛的爸爸,你涉獵各種不同宗教的書籍,其實幾乎所有的宗教都一樣,談的都是「行善」。但聖經和其他宗教不一樣,聖經說:沒有義人,連一個都沒有。「所以凡有血氣的,沒有一個因行律法能在 神面前稱義,因為律法本是叫人知罪」(羅馬書三章20節)。換言之,律法告訴人要「行善」,但這些律法的目的是要向我們顯明我們犯了多大的罪。


我們無法靠自己的公義進天堂,你在寫給我的信中也說過你經常失敗。不論我們此生多「良善」,「並沒有分別,因為世人都犯了罪,虧缺了 神的榮耀」(羅馬書三章22-23節),上帝接納的唯一公義是「因信耶穌基督」而來的,也就是說,我們進天堂所必須穿戴的公義就是「信耶穌基督」。


約翰福音三章16節:「神愛世人,甚至將他的獨生子賜給他們,叫一切信他的,不致滅亡,反得永生。因為 神差他的兒子降生,不是要定世人的罪,乃是要叫
世人因他得救。信他的人,不被定罪,不信的人,罪已經定了,因為他不信 神獨生子的名。」


Love you so much,