Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

After Ma in power, Taiwan’s public service is full of ATPC employees

The abbreviation ATPC means anti-Taiwan pro-China. And the ATPC trend is more severe from the top to the bottom.

The Government Information Office (GIO) had a traitor Kuo Kuan-ying ( 郭冠英 aka: Fan Lan-chin; see his image with Canadian fall colors) in its Toronto office, the Ministry of Economic Affairs had someone who gave the ECFA promotion project to a professional firm that is both racially discriminatory and not so professional. And there is even more!

Inside the GIO, there are also some foreigners with multiple language skills (for example, German and English) hired to inject pro-KMT, or anti-Taiwan pro-China propaganda into the internet blogosphere.

For example, what does this ROC’s GIO editor do during his office hour? (My apology for choosing him as a sample to talk about because he is just doing his job given by his boss!)

Mr. Tilman Aretz left his first comment on the Taiwan Matters’ blog post, and upon examination, he is a current ROC’s GIO editor according to this link

That’s what a GIO editor does at Taiwan’s taxpayers’ expense, at 9:09am, first task in the morning when he entered his office was to troll the pro-Taiwan blogs, making pro-KMT comments on our Taiwan Matters group blog to undermine our volunteer efforts (often missing our good night sleep) in speaking up for Taiwan as if he was just an ordinary reader.

About Aretz’s blog’s post on whether Greater China = pro-unification?

I disagree on his concept of including Taiwan in the “greater China” cultural classification as he did not include Singapore (whose culture has heavy influence from the Chinese tradition as well) in his GREATER CHINA FACTBOOK. Therefore, there is a double standard between Taiwan and Singapore there.

The terminology “greater China” used by him is from the stand point of the great Han-Chinese chauvinistic view equally shared by the CCP and the KMT, aims at assimilating, by force if necessary, the ethnic minority groups of China and/or its neighbors without their consent into a Han-race-based country, the “Great China”.

Mr. Aretz stated:

“I was a student in the 1980s and 1990s, Taiwan studies were naturally regarded an integral part of sinology, there was no shred of doubt about it.”

Now he can take a look at Taiwan Study on my post and study harder on Taiwan’s history. It is a matter of upgrading his Taiwan knowledge as he advances along in his career path as a GIO editor in Taiwan.

“Should China and Taiwan politically unite? Under the present circumstances I can only express a strong warning against such a step. An immediate unification with the PRC we know now would require Taiwan to give up its freedoms and surrender to CCP rule.”

Very good observation by Mr. Aretz, and he should warn his boss about this, not just because of losing one’s freedom but also because he and his boss will both lose their jobs if the two countries merge (there will be no need for Taiwan’s MOFA and GIO to exist anymore).

“While keeping the name "Republic of China" seems to be hard to stomach for independence activists who associate the ROC with Chiang Kai-shek's regime, it should be considered that the ROC has changed dramatically and the KMT in the 21st century is not the KMT of Chiang Kai-shek any more”

Taiwanese people voted for Ma in 2008 because they were willing to give him (and his KMT party) the benefit of the doubt on his ability to govern the country, but Ma was more interested in bringing back the dead dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s legacy by renaming the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. Did the KMT of the 21st century change? I doubt it!

“If China and the international community approve Taiwan independence and the people on the island want it, what would be wrong with it? China and Taiwan could thus develop close and excellent relations and might even form a federation of two sovereign and independent states, which would be a win-win situation.”

Do you think Taiwanese people’s wish (through a democratic referendum outside of the ROC constitution and laws) to form a normal nation need the approval of the authoritarian government of the People’s Republic of China? Is it possible that the PRC will approve it? The PRC doesn’t even want to keep the status-quo, it wants to swallow up Taiwan as soon as possible!

Besides, Taiwan had a democratic republic proclaimed on May 23, 1895 (though very short lived) but long before the existence of the ROC (founded in 1912) and the PRC (founded in 1949).

The situation described by Mr. Aretz will never happen for obvious conflicting reasons. Did the British Empire approve the independence of the 13 American colonies in 1776? My comparison here obviously was not the best as the 13 states were colonies of the British Empire whereas Taiwan was not a colony of the PRC, rather, only some parts of Taiwan were at one time the colony of the Ching Dynasty, which the Han-Chinese tried to overthrow.

But, if the international community wakes up and accepts my human rights concept, i.e., the Taiwanese people’s self-determination right must be respected and supported, plus the Chinese human rights activists must be encouraged and supported, then Taiwan as a free and democratic nation can live peacefully with a democratic China.

Is it better for China to be democratic and transparent, or is it better to do business with China regardless of its political system? If the international community thinks it is fine for China to continue its authoritative government, and for Taiwan to be continuously under missile threat, then sooner or later the missiles will reach your far-away country too.

Reference source:

1 comment:

Arthur Dent said...

Good post. And thanks for highlighting the role of foreigners in helping the Government's unification-led policies.

Post a Comment