Why does AP always speak from the POV of China?

Update: AP has a corrected version to my first complain of biased reporting.

I don't know why, and I would like to remind AP of their mission statement.

...providing distinctive news services of the highest quality, reliability and objectivity with reports that are accurate, balanced and informed.

AP reported:

President Barack Obama says he sees no need to change Washington's "one-China" policy, which views Taiwan as part of China.

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. Beijing continues to claim the island as part of its territory and threatens to attack if Taiwan moves to formalize its de facto independence.

AP, please read the 2^nd paragraph of the beginning summary of the Congressional Report dated August 17, 2009 China/Taiwan: Evolution of the "One China" Policy -- Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei before filing your inaccurate report to spread rumors around the globe.

It says:

The United States did not explicitly state the sovereign status of Taiwan in the three U.S.-PRC Joint Communiques of 1972, 1979, and 1982. The United States “acknowledged” the “one China” position of both sides of the Taiwan Strait. U.S. policy has not recognized the PRC’s sovereignty over Taiwan; has not recognized Taiwan as a sovereign country; and has considered Taiwan’s status as undetermined. (my note: in other word, strategic ambiguity)

And, please read my blog right-hand side’s “ATTENTION! MAINSTREAM JOURNALISTS” about the brief Chinese history and the illogical invention of the sentence “Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949.”

Fact:

The sentence would likely mislead uninformed readers to think that Taiwan and China have been together all the time and split in 1949 due to a civil war in which Taiwan was part of the battlefield.

However, the fact is that Taiwan was under Japanese rule since 1895 due to the Treaty of Shimonoseki signed between Japan and the Qing Dynasty in which Taiwan was given away perpetually, and therefore Taiwan was under Japanese jurisdiction when the Republic of China (ROC) was founded in 1912 replacing the Qing Dynasty. When the ROC constitution was drafted in 1925, Taiwan, since was under Japanese jurisdiction, was not included in the list of individually-listed provinces of the territory of ROC. When the ROC constitution was promulgated in 1946, Taiwan had not been brought into the territory of the ROC.

Further, it was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) that fought against each other in China's civil war. After being defeated in China, the KMT fled to Taiwan to take refuge on the island as an exile Chinese government and it therefore extended its temporary stay and doubled its role as a post-WWII administrator of Taiwan on behalf of the Allied Forces per General Order No.1.

On November 9, 2009, AP reported (the last 2 paragraphs right before the end):

Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949, but Beijing continues to claim the island as part of its territory. Relations between the sides have improved significantly after Ma took office last May.

Ma has vowed to reduce tensions across the 100-mile (160-kilometer) -wide Taiwan Strait, but he has also said Taipei and Beijing should work on improving trade relations first before moving on to sensitive political and security issues.

Great recognition of improvement of relations that has tensions! It's like describing a couple having honeymoon relationship but with tensions, kind of strange isn't it? The words just don't make much sense to appear together.

If it is true that the relations are so good after Ma took office, why does Ma have to vow to reduce tensions? It's simply not logical when one sentence appears after another!

With China's 1500 missiles still pointing at Taiwan, similar to a situation in which a hostage is being forced at gun point to make love with the hostage taker, Ma seems willing to perform such an insulting role while on-lookers applaud instead of offering assistance.

The phenomenon of improved relations is an illusion created by western media and politicians, but certainly is not being observed the same way from Taiwanese POV.

Former chairman of AIT speaks up

Nat Bellocchi, a former chairman of the American Institute in Taiwan, appeared in today's Taipei Times with this op-ed, Pitfalls and possibilities in Obama’s Taiwan line.

He expressed his opinion about how the global community (especially US and China) should interact with Taiwan in order to foster true peace and stability in the region, his remarks really made my day:

From an international perspective, Taiwan is an example of a successful transition to democracy. The most rational and reasonable outcome of Taiwan’s normalization of relations with China would be acceptance of this young democracy in the international family of nations. This is a process that will need cooperation from all sides; for its part, China will need to see that it is in its own interests to come to terms with a small and democratic neighbor with which it can live in peace.

Remember, Taiwanese never threaten nor challenge the existence of China. It was the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) who had fought against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in the past. It is the CCP who has continuously threatened Taiwanese with weapons. And it is the US officials who have continuously ignored the rights and wills of the Taiwanese people in pursuit of some US politicians' own business interests, example. A search on the internet with the combination of words like "Kissinger and China and business" will lead you to a dozen of related entries, including his recent visit to China in October 2009. Kissinger is China's favorite guest!

It is not fair to blame all the presidents, like Clinton, who followed the groundwork laid by Kissinger. However, it is up to the American people to address the issue of conflict of interest involving government officials and / or advisors and their foreign venture consulting businesses as it is beyond the scope of this post. The US foreign relations and policies have often been dominated by the interests of these consulting firms and their clients.

Nat Bellocchi also had a nice piece back in August, 2005, Identity issue raises its head again. It contains identity issue as well as a warning for the Taiwanese who believe that maintaining the status-quo is the best choice for Taiwan. For people who pay little attention about the gradual shifting of the status-quo, Bellocchi's advice in that piece was:

Unfortunately, Taiwan has one priority issue that overshadows all the others -- the lack of consensus on national identity.

That is an enormous task, but a critical necessity. Voters see "status quo" as the answer -- thinking that staying neutral can last as long as they like. My last article tried to explain why this is illusory. The result would not be a choice, but eventual unification. Ambiguity dominates the language between Taiwan, the US and China. In addition, election campaigns tend to be dominated by unreliable rhetoric. With the lack of interest among so many voters, addressing this problem should be today's top priority.

Beyond “Don’t concede more on Taiwan 美對台立場不能再讓步於中國”

I was reading this article called Don’t concede more on Taiwan by Hisahiko Okazaki published on Friday, Nov 06, 2009, Page 8 at the Taipei Times. It actually talked about how President Clinton shifted Taiwan’s status-quo, an important history lesson for Taiwanese from 1998 to 2009. Hisahiko Okazaki has served as the Japanese ambassador to Saudi Arabia and Thailand. He now runs the Okazaki Institute, a think tank in Tokyo. This piece was first published in ACFR News Group No.1528, an e-mail publication of The American Committees on Foreign Relations, on Oct. 27, 2009.

The following are the excerpts from the above link which described how Taiwan’s status-quo has been slowly shifted since President Clinton’s era:

Then on the eve of the President’s visit, stories began to circulate that the President was going to commit ‘three NOs,” that the US would oppose Taiwan independence, one-China-one-Taiwan policy and Taiwan’s formal membership in state-based international organizations. Fortunately, there was no mention of “three NOs” in the joint press conference, nor in the major policy speech at the Beijing University. Then the volte-face came. Dropping by in Shanghai, the President declared the “three NO’s” in a dialogue with Chinese intellectuals on a TV show.

Although the US Congress quickly rejected the commitment through resolutions of both Houses, China may still view the remark as an official commitment of the President of the United States and may quite likely expect President Obama to reconfirm it.

It is not difficult at all to suspect that there were some disgraceful deals behind the scenes. The date of the visit, to start with, is believed to have been besought by the US to turn attention away from a domestic scandal, and that indebted the US to say three NOs and bypass Japan and Korea while making the longest trip that Clinton made to a single country. The topics to be discussed during the Shanghai TV interview, which had originally been planned to concentrate on cultural affairs, seemed to have been changed at short notice.

The Chinese-language translation of the above article is also available.

The above article led me to read some other very important articles, which I will mention them from the latest to the oldest.

First, what did Secretary of State H. Clinton do this past February in Beijing?

Read Clinton’s China Visit Opens Door on Climate Change by Orville Schell.

The 2^nd last paragraph of the article has this:

Long after the current economic crisis is over, the situation in Tibet has been calmed, arguments over currency exchange have been forgotten, and the Taiwan split has been resolved, the world will only be beginning to confront the daunting effects of climate change. To date, the U.S. and China have been largely out of the game of climate change solutions. Without our two countries whole-heartedly in the game, there is, honestly speaking, no meaningful game being played.

What does it mean by this phrase “the Taiwan split has been resolved”?

Whatever it means, it is up to everyone’s guess! Was Taiwan bargained away without our knowledge? Is president Obama’s upcoming trip to China, for the subject of Taiwan, simply to rubber stamp the arrangement already made earlier between H. Clinton and China’s leaders in February?

Now another article back in 2003.

An article by Charles R. Smith published on Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2003 would raise some eyebrows for sure because it gave some explanations why China could advance so quickly in its military science.

Declassified documents showed that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat. (read the entire article…)

And one could find out how President Clinton had kowtowed to China’s demand back in 1998 by reading As Summit Approaches, Clinton Follows China’s Lead written by Richard Halloran just before Clinton’s trip.

The Chinese had induced Mr. Clinton to spend nine days in China, from June 25 to July 3, 1998 (just in time to return home for the July 4^th national holiday), longer than any other U.S. president’s trip to China before, and had requested Clinton to fly directly from US soil to Beijing by-passing Japan, an important ally of US in Asia. China also made Clinton appeared in Tiananmen Square symbolizing his assertion of China’s handling of the dissidence was right, thereby, bringing an end to the controversy in China's history.

I conclude that Hisahiko Okazaki’s recent article is backed up by all my other reading I have done.

Twenty three million people’s fate was nothing when a politician had to diffuse attention from his personal scandal. And I don’t understand how anyone can be accused of spying when military secrets can be “approved” officially to be transferred abroad.

Finally, Chinese dissidents may be expecting yet another time’s lock-ups or house arrests for Obama’s upcoming visit since that had been the case when the UK’s Telegraph reported on Feb. 21 2009 by David Eimer that Hillary Clinton China visit blamed for the detention of activists.

If you haven’t read the links, go ahead and read them now because history has taught us many lessons.

Germany plans to stop foreign aid to China

China has blocked the Berlin Wall Anniversary Twitter site, and previously it had also interfered with the Frankfurt Book Fair. It came as no surprise when the German government announced plan to stop foreign aid to China and it has received overwhelming supports on the comments left by the readers of the Local on-line paper.

The most recent figures available show that Germany gave China €67.5 million in 2007.

"Battling poverty is more important than ever for Germany. That means we should place our resources where they can help the most,” Dirk Niebel, the newly appointed German Development Minister told the paper. “Economic giants like China and India no longer fulfill these criteria.”

Germany is not alone in providing foreign aid to China. Among other countries are Canada, Japan, France, Australia and Great Britain, to name but a few, whose aid comes to billions of dollars.

A Canadian, Branka Lapaine has been advocating for the Canadian government to stop aid to China, she had listed nine reasons why the aid should be stopped, among them were:

China’s defence budget was $30 billion and its army is the biggest in the world. (My note: this was an old figure back then, for 2009 this figure has risen to 70.3 billion USD per Chinese government publication)

While Western democracies were concerned about what was happening in the Darfur region of the Sudan, China not only supplied arms to that country, but protected it from UN resolutions and action. (My note: China also helped Sri Lanka government to defeat the Tamil Tigers so it could build a navy base there to control the Indian Ocean.)

China supports repressive governments around the world, etc.

But what I found most interesting is that the author observed that Chinese state-owned companies are investing in natural resources companies in Canada (so that when there is energy crisis in future, China will have less to worry about? and this is on top of China’s investments in Africa.):

Chinese direct investment in Canada has grown from $54 million in 1991 to $220 million in 2004, when China Minmetals Corporation, a state-owned company, unsuccessfully attempted to buy Noranda Inc. and Falconbridge Limited. Then in 2005 China invested in two tar sands and one gold mining company. China’s National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) paid $150 million for a 1/6 interest in Calgary based MEG Energy Inc., while its Sinopec Group obtained a 40 per cent interest for $105 million in Synenco Energy Inc.’s Northern Light oil sands project in Alberta. The Zijin Mining Group invested $1.95 million in Vancouver-based Pinnacle Mines Ltd.

And the author concluded that:

Clearly China is not an impoverished country if it has millions to invest in Canada alone.

Japan had suspended aid to China twice in the past, in 1989 due to the Tiananmen crackdown, and again between 1995 to 1997 due to China’s nuclear testing in 1995.

If history taught us that China’s poor farmers are not being taken care of and their cows are poorly fed, thereby causing the source of the problem for using melamine addition to diluted milk and dairy products.

Shouldn’t China take care of its own poorest citizens before spending huge budget on military defense and in the meantime receiving foreign aids?

Will Taiwan still get advanced fighter jets?

Why did AIT head Stanton remain tight-lipped on the sale of F-16C/D fighter jets, and only saying the issue was still under discussion? Because the US will be able to decide if Taiwan is still worth defending when the outcome of the ECFA negotiations between the KMT and the CCP is clear. So it is actually good for the US to wait and see because it will make the KMT negotiators work harder for Taiwan’s interests.

Taiwan’s defense ministry urges U.S. to sell advanced fighter jets to Taiwan, but the KMT government’s planned economic policies are so contradictory (a must read link), therefore Taiwan cannot blame the US for hesitating.

Recently Taiwan’s pan-blue media, the Global View Magazine released an opinion poll indicating 58.6% were dissatisfied with Ma’s performance and 41.2% (see note below) believed that he is taking Taiwan towards unification soon (compared to 16.6% believed so in Aug. 2005). Judging from Taiwan’s public opinion, in which 68.3% believed that the two sides would not need to unify even if the economic, political, and social conditions are approximately similar (compared to 11.7% who believed that it would be time to unify when the conditions are similar), there is no doubt that Ma’s cross-strait policy is being carried out against the will of the majority. And in fact with 69% disapproved the eventual unification, this simply coincides with the earlier finding of a separate question with 68.3% supported no need for unification when the conditions on two sides are similar.

If Taiwan’s public opinion has this doubt about Ma’s ability to defend Taiwan’s interests, why shouldn’t the US officials be cautious?

After all, there is no use having the Taiwan Relations Act when the KMT-ROC has a lousy Ministry of Economic Affairs.

Those people who believe Ma is going to bring more money, with no effect on Taiwan's political status are simply not paying attention to the reality that economic policies dictate political decisions including military sales these days.

“Senior administration members have said that a decision on selling F-16s to Taiwan will not be announced until next year.” reported Taipei Times. This means that the US will be watching closely on the terms that will be contained in the ECFA, if they don’t like some terms inside the ECFA, they may decide not to sell advanced weapons to Taiwan anymore. “Improved relations between Beijing and Taipei also make future US arms sales doubtful.” This means that the US is smart and cautious enough not to let its hi-tech secrets slip through Taiwan’s arm sales to reach China through China-friendly Ma Ying-jeou.

If Taiwan gives away everything for free to China, there is nothing left to be used for bargaining. So, don’t blame on the hesitant US officials, just watch the KMT’s Ministry of Economic Affairs!

Reference:

Note: 41.2% believed Ma’s stance is unification, 3.9% believed Ma is maintaining the status-quo then unification, 23.9% believed Ma is maintaining the status-quo then decide, and 6.2% believed Ma is maintaining the status-quo forever (that leaves 24.8% with no answer or unlikely believed Ma is definitely going for an eventual independence)

The Taiwan Security Research keeps you up-to-date with Taiwan’s defense news

Pentagon wary of PRC-Taiwan ties

AIT head defends US policy on arms sales

What Obama administration had approved so far – maintenance type of arms sale

US position on Taiwan defense is shifting

Taiwan’s Major Threat Is Nature, Not China, President Ma Says

Taiwan’s legal status has its place inscribed on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Article 15

Update: An edited version is also available at the Taiwan Matters group blog.


Today’s letters to the editor’s section of the Taipei Times has this translated piece Taiwan’s history has no place in US courts, after reading it through I couldn’t quite agree with the way the author wanted his message heard.  Fortunately, I found the original Chinese language piece to read also, and I also read another related Chinese piece.  I don’t know if it was due to the lack of space on the newspaper or any other reasons, I just don’t know if it was such a good idea to cut-off some of the author’s words in a translated piece.

The following is the comparison of the original to the translation from a paragraph of the piece:

不過，中華民國政府流亡台灣雖然曾經得到美國的承認與協助，但是「台灣與澎湖的地位問題迄未確定（其實就是不屬中國的意思）」，為何每在關鍵時刻如一九五四年、一九七一年乃至最近的二○○四、二○○七年，美國官方都一再表述？必須從上述的背景才能理解。何況自從一九七九年台灣關係法生效以後，連中華民國「政府」也不被承認了。在國內，一九九九年民進黨「台灣前途決議文」對中華民國的暫時承認，實與九○年代李登輝的民主化台灣化密切相關，如今馬英九的路線顯然與李登輝時代背道而馳，如此下去確實有重新釐清、重新「決議」的必要。

Taipei Times's translation in blue:

While the US recognized and supported the ROC government in exile on Taiwan, at major times such as 1954, 1971, 2004 and 2007, US officials reiterated that the status of Taiwan and the Pescadores (Penghu) was yet to be determined. (my note: in fact "undetermined" status means they (Taiwan and Penghu) do not belong to China, it was a crucial phrase here in the original piece but was either not translated out or being omitted by the editor)

Why would they have made these comments if Taiwan really was an unincorporated territory under USMG? (my note: This whole sentence was not in the original text, but was added to explain the meaning of “undetermined”, and I think by omitting the above phrase and by adding this sentence to explain the meaning of “undetermined” is not very fair to the author)

Also, why has the US not dared to refer to our government as the ROC “government” and simply addressing it as the ROC ever since the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) took effect in 1979? (my note: another missing phrase here is the "ROC government has not been recognized since 1979") 

We have to understand the issue of Taiwan’s status in light of the abovementioned background. The Resolution on Taiwan’s Future ratified by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) in 1999 posed new directions for Taiwan’s future and this was closely linked with democratization and localization actions taken by former president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝) in the 1990s. However, President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) current line is in complete contradiction with Lee-era policies and there really is now a definite need for things to be clearly reviewed and new “resolutions” to be made.

I have some thoughts to share derived from reading this piece.

All we can see is that the US court does not want to give a ruling involving US foreign policy as it has no jurisdiction over a matter that is to be determined by the US executive branch, but the US (and all the other countries in the world except the KMT-ROC) had never recognized the transfer of sovereignty of Formosa from Japan to ROC.  They have an intention to settle the status of Formosa pending on the outcome of the Chinese Civil War.  But in the meantime, as Taiwanese opposed the KMT’s dictatorial rule and the Taiwanese nationalism evolved, local residents’ rights as guaranteed by the UDHR will have to be respected.

Unfortunately, this simple rejection of US Supreme Court to review the previous court ruling of lack of jurisdiction is being taken by the KMT-ROC as US recognizing ROC’s sovereignty over Formosa, and therefore in active pursuit of charging Lin and Chen with treason.  That is just too much!

The US must react to this latest judicial nonsense, otherwise, many people in Taiwan doing research towards Taiwan’s legal status will be easily charged with treason by the biased KMT-ROC kangaroo court as long as one does not recognize the ROC’s sovereignty over Taiwan.  The KMT-ROC is scared only of the US, I wonder why (a hidden boss?).  It is OK for the US officials to say that ROC is not a country or ROC has no sovereignty over Taiwan, but it is not OK for the Japanese representative to say so, the KMT legislators want the Ma administration to evict the current Japanese representative, and worse, the Taiwanese residents are definitely not allowed to say so, they will be charged with treason when ironically the people who deserve this in public opinion would have to be only people like Ma Ying-jeou and Lien Chan etc.

After the war, the Allied did send the KMT-ROC to administer Formosa, but as early as 1947, there were signs of discontent (actually the discontent was building-up long before Feb. 28, 1947) by Formosan residents on the KMT administrator’s corruption and its discrimination against local residents, but the problem was not addressed immediately.  The US supported the Chiang Kai-shek and ignored the discontent simply because he was an ally who fought communism.

It’s too late to reverse the history, and too late to comfort those families who lost their loved ones from executions by dictator Chiang during Taiwan’s White Terror, but it is never too late to speak-up for one’s conscience now and to support the rights of Taiwanese as guaranteed by the UDHR.  Taiwanese has rights to a nationality of their choice, and since there is no longer a Chinese Civil War, those mainlanders who prefer to go back to embrace their original motherland are free to go, and the other mainlanders who wish to become Taiwanese citizens are free to stay, but forcing all Taiwanese to become Chinese citizens ( either no-longer recognized ROC citizens, or CCP-PRC citizens) is totally unacceptable.

Contrary to its founding principle, the US government has ignored human rights of others while putting priority on its US national and international interests.  As democracy and human rights developed in Taiwan and are in conflict with the US foreign interests, the human rights of Taiwanese have been ignored again and again.  There is a consistent trail of betrayal of principle.

Not to repeat myself on the Taiwanese rights to a nationality of their choice, it is inevitable that a referendum must be held by Taiwan’s residence to resolve the future status of Taiwan.  It is not like what the US says that as long as it is resolved peacefully between the people on two sides of the Strait, adding one condition that the US’s China policy does not support Taiwan independence to give a tilted favor obviously towards the evil human rights abuser, CCP-PRC.

I simply hope that countries especially those European ones listed here (15 out of 20 tops are in Europe) can soon vision that if the CCP-PRC government can threaten Taiwan with missiles now, and can even extend its influence onto Australian and German soil now, the CCP-PRC can be further encouraged to bully around the world soon.

So, Europeans, speak-up and support Taiwanese rights to a nationality of their choice through a referendum, no one should be removed off his rights guaranteed by the UDHR.  No country should have its status stay undetermined for as long as more than half a century because it suits some other country’s strategic plan.


Cross-posted at the Taiwanese Greek Blog.

Statistics on Taiwan's Independence or Unification opinion polls - Part 1

I did some brief study of the statistics published by the Global View Magazine, the ones commissioned by the "Mainland" Affairs Council (MAC), and the one from the Taiwan Thinktank.
The following abbreviations are used throughout this post to simplify typing and save space:
SD: Maintaining the status-quo now and decide later
SF: Maintaining the status-quo forever
SI: Maintaining the status-quo now and independent later
SU: Maintaining the status-quo now and unification later
II: Independent immediately or as soon as possible
UI: Unification immediately or as soon as possible
NA: No answer or don't know
The time the poll was taken will be denoted with MM/YYYY


First, I will table the one from the Taiwan Thinktank because there was only one, so it is simple to be tabled, and I hope we can see another more recent poll from this organization before the end of this year. 
The Taiwan Thinktank opinion poll taken from 08/2007 to 09/2007:
SD 44.9%, SF 11%, SI 14.8%, SU 5.1%, II 15%, UI 1.9%, NA 7.3%

The good thing about this poll is that it accounted for all and the total percentage did add up to 100%.

Second, I will table the ones from the MAC from 2007 onwards, for English-only speaking readers, the line chart can be obtained by going to the MAC link, then click "opinion post" on the left of the page, then choose the "2009" year, click "statistics chart", I chose the "line chart" to study because it gave us an overall presentation over a number of years.

The MAC polls results (in %, but I omit writing the % sign below)


  08/2007 12/2007 03/2008 08/2008 10/2008 12/2008 04/2009 09/2009
SD   34.9     44.9     43.5     34.4      36.2     40.9      35.0       35.4
SF   17.9     20.6     20.0     22.4       25.5     25.5     27.0       28.0
SI    16.5     11.8     17.1     17.5      12.5      16.4      15.1      14.9
SU  12.2      9.2      10.5      8.3       4.4         9.0        7.6        8.7
II      10.3      7.3       6.0       8.6      14.8        6.0       6.7        5.0
UI     2.2       3.2       1.7       1.5       1.8         2.0       1.2        1.7
TT    94.0    97.0    98.8      92.7      95.2      99.8      92.6      93.7


My immediate observation is:
The NCCU 國立政治大學,which conducted the 08/2007, 08/2008, 04/2009, and 09/2009 polls on behalf of the MAC has always displayed the lower total percentage of overall responding answers (94.0, 92.7, 92.6, 93.7), lower than the other two companies.  Since, the no answer or don't know category is not listed here, it is quite reasonable for the total percentage to be lower than 95%, the other polls seem unreasonably high on the total percentage.  The Taiwan Thinktank has 7.3% of participants either don't know or no answer.


Next, the different opinion polls conducted by different organizations / companies plus the dates when some events / news may have affected people to choose their categories differently, so I take an average for each category per year.


2007
SD (34.9+44.9)/2 = 39.9
SF (17.9+20.6)/2 = 19.25
SI (16.5+11.8)/2 = 14.15
SU (12.2+ 9.2)/2 = 10.7
II (10.3+7.3)/ 2 = 8.8
UI (2.2+3.2)/2 = 2.7


2008
SD (43.5+34.4+36.2+40.9)/4 = 38.75
SF (20+22.4+25.5+25.5)/4 = 23.35
SI (17.1+17.5+12.5+16.4)/4 = 15.875
SU (10.5+8.3+4.4+9)/4 = 8.05
II (6+8.6+14.8+6)/4 = 8.85
UI (1.7+1.5+1.8+2.0)/4 = 1.75


2009
SD (35+35.4)/2 = 35.2
SF (27+28)/2 = 27.5
SI (15.1+14.9)/2 = 15
SU (7.6+8.7)/2 = 8.15
II (6.7+5)/2 = 5.85
UI (1.2+1.7)/2 = 1.45


An overall yearly comparison table is the following


            2007        2008        2009
SD       39.9        38.75        35.2
SF      19.25       23.35        27.5
SI        14.15      15.875       15
SU       10.7         8.05         8.15
II            8.8          8.85        5.85
UI          2.7          1.75        1.45


And I have reached some conclusions which were left at A-Gu's blog post, and is repeated (with slight additions) here:

I have compared the Global View Magazine polls with the ones commissioned by the "Mainland" Affairs Council's chart (thru NCC University, or other private companies).  MAC's results as I calculated the average for each year from 2007 (2 polls), to 2008 (4 polls), and to 2009 (2 polls so far), there is no increase on immediate unification, I only observe a slight drop, it never exceeds the 3% in recent years, from 2007 average at 2.7%, 2008 average  at 1.75%, and 2009 average at 1.45%.  So, the 4% here by the Global View Magazine is questionably high.  Only 3 times out of 28, this figure had ever exceeded 3% in the MAC line chart, but recently it has stayed stably below 2%.
There is also a slight drop on the status quo now & unification later, with the average from 2007 to 2009 respectively at:
10.7%, 8.05%, 8.15%.

Maintaining the status quo forever actually is the biggest change, the average from 2007 to 2009 respectively at:
19.25%, 23.35%, 27.5%.

The status quo forever could mean refusing to be part of China, therefotre wanting to be the way it is now forever if not being able to become independent.  Otherwise, the people who want to be part of China later would have chosen the maintaining the status quo and unification later category.

The maintaining the status quo and decide later also has a slight loss, the average from
2007 to 2009 respectively:
39.9%, 38.75%, 35.2%.

The drop here didn't go to those people who support unification (either immediately or later because just above we found out that both categories slightly dropped), so it has contributed to the gain in the status quo forever category.

The significant increase (19.25% to 27.5%) in the category of "maintaining the status quo forever" can be interpreted as people who would rather stay as citizens of an unrecognized (or should we say few recognized) nation if not being able to become independent (due to threats from China or pressure from the US), but would never want to become citizens of the People's Republic of China.

Or in Chinese: 寧可當不被承認的國家之國民也不願當中華人民共和國之國民

Also, I wonder if the more exchange, co-op, engagement between Taiwan's mainlanders with the Chinese, the more mainlanders or pan-blue people are afraid of going back to embrace their "motherland"?

I have observed some interesting statistics from the Global View Magazine, but don't have time to write it up now, the total percentage of all categories for the 05/2009 is 90.1%, and 09/2009 is 89.3%. More detailed observations will be posted when I have time.


Reference:
2009 10 遠見雜誌民意調查結果

China exporting censorship to Europe

Read China's Export of Censorship from the Far Eastern Economic Review about China's suppression of open expression has now reached Europe to the Frankfurt Book Fair and pay special attention to the comment left by

Alexander Lugg @ 2009-10-13 12:41:59

A similar event occurred in Melbourne, where the Melbourne International Film Festival was pressured to drop the film '10 Conditions of Love' with the threat to withdraw all Chinese films. The director of the festival refused to cave. More interesting is the context in which this happened. At the same time, Australian Stern Hu, an executive with mining company Rio Tinto, was detained by Chinese police for an alleged fraud. When the Australian government attempted to intervene they were told not to meddle in Chinese domestic affairs. I understand that several businesses are now reviewing their engagement with China as a result.

Another unfair ROC judgment and inappropriate budgets for international media attention

Simply too angry to stay away from news of Taiwan’s justice system and have to do a small post today!

This judgment handed out on October 1^st (a birthday gift to please China?) by the KMT-ROC court, and later found out by the defendant through Taiwan’s media (instead of Taiwan’s court) needs a lot of international attention because the ROC law (never approved by and forcefully imposed on the people of Taiwan) simply should not be the law of Taiwan.  This 92 year-old scholar, Su Beng, should not have to pay the fine (why increase the illegal assets of the KMT-ROC?), nor spend his retirement in a ROC cell.

This recent budget allocated for the ROC president Ma’s annual health check-up has blown-up from 14,000 to 500,000 while Taiwan’s public health system is in debt.  Does Ma want to do a cosmetic surgery?  Wait, what is Ma going to do with yet another additional budget?

While the Taiwanese Hoklo language project had been cut, there was plenty of money for the Confucius temple in Taipei, which had just spent 46,380,000 on renovation last year, but that’s not enough, the central government is going to pour in yet another 981,455,115 NTD, plus the Taipei government another 600,000,000 NTD!

Didn’t Michael Turton mention about Ma’s symbolic gestures matter before?

And this is the video of the Taipei city councilors questioning about the above mentioned budget, 馬政府從中央到地方要花費9億 8145萬5115元來重造孔廟百年新生，其中中央政府分三年給3億元，北市府提撥6 億餘元, 而孔廟去年才剛花完4638萬元納稅人錢整建一年多完工,但是健保費不依法還錢.

By the way, the Taipei City Government has owed the Bureau of National Health Insurance accumulative 34.7 billion NTD because when Ma was the mayor of Taipei he launched the boycott.

That’s not all, an up-to-date case of the indistinguishable KMT-ROC coffers!

It is so obvious which party in Taiwan is using-up the taxpayers money for things they don’t want and for its private business, and uses the illegitimate ROC justice (injustice!) system to collect more income through arbitrary fines.

Other links:

Worrisome developments when minorities are suppressed but ignored by western politicians

EU, Microsoft ready to settle browser battle

Green tea may help keep gums healthy

Older links:

Evidence that Taipei is not sure if the city is located in Taiwan

When KMT-CCP held closed-door talks, media cheers as country to country talks

UN Human Development Report 2009 - Stop UN apartheid against Taiwanese

With no surprise but to my disappointment, my country of birth, Taiwan, was not studied; and at least another 12 countries are also not listed.  (Note: There are currently 192 members in the UN, 182 are in the listing of the HDI rankings but Hong Kong, which was among the 182 listed, is not a separate member of the UN; Palestine, also listed among the 182, is an observer but not a member).

Number 1 in the ranking is Norway, it is not a country in the European Union. Seven of the top ten are in Europe.

Overall country ranking http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Country ranking by each indicator http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/indicators/

Country fact sheet http://hdr.undp.org/en/countries/alphabetical/

Yearly reports since 1990 (click the year on the left side of the link) http://hdr.undp.org/en/reports/global/hdr2010/

And I didn’t like this headline in the related AFP’s news report because it was pleasing a bully while some other countries had moved-up in ranking also, they didn't make the headline.

Why should Taiwan always cope with natural disasters by itself while other countries receive help?  These programs should have been made available to Taiwan if it were a member of the UN.  Our neighbor to the south will get aid from the UN while Taiwanese in their own country and around the globe have to donate from their own financial resources to help relieve the victims of the typhoon Morakot.

UN (place your mouse on the word “welcome” and the pop-up says…)  United Nations - It’s your world!  Really?  Certainly this phrase does not apply to the people of Taiwan.

Let’s review the purposes of the creation of the UN.

Chapter I, Article 1 of the UN Charter:

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1.     To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2.     To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3.     To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4.     To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Who is breaking the preamble to the United Nations Charter?  Stop apartheid against the people of Taiwan if the UN is truly a UNITED NATIONS!