Bad news and idiocy in Taiwan and the US

Here in Taiwan over the past few months there have been more and more signs that the country is going backward under the current government. One example I have mentioned in previous post was the cutting down of old trees at a middle school in order to build a parking garage. But there are many examples of this type of push for "development" regardless of the environmental and human costs. In Danshui a group of the worst anti-environmental legislators and city councilors turned out in person to support a vote to build a bridge across the river which will threaten the local ecology and ruin the town's famous sunsets, not to mention bringing yet more automobiles to pollute the air and jam the roads. Also in Danshui, the government wants to confiscate land along the coast to build a housing development, despite environmental problems, opposition from the land owners and the fact that the previously built housing development is still half empty. Of course supporters of such projects constantly repeat the usual rhetoric about the "benefits" of development, but the question is who really will benefit? In most cases it will be a small minority of people (some no doubt friends of the politicians pushing these projects). The majority will see little in terms of economic benefits and will lose much more in terms of quality of life.

In Taipei, the city government has been pushing "urban renewal", and riding roughshod over any opposition. Last year in the Shilin district, a majority of the residents in one block voted to participate in one such project but one family, who owned a building there that they'd lived in for decades, declined. The private developer who had the contract was still allowed to go ahead. Despite the support of substantial number of activists, the family's home was forcibly torn down. More recently, the city decided to develop a neighborhood in the center of the city occupied mainly by families brought over from China by the KMT. The land technically had never belonged to them nor were their houses technically legal, but they had lived there for half a century and the government had provided utilities and assigned house numbers, treating their residences just like legal ones. But when the government suddenly decided to take the land back, they were forced out. What's more, many of the activists and supporters who tried to block the destruction were treated very roughly by the police. This has also become an uncomfortably common situation, as this news item about another protest shows. While in the latter case the Interior Minister promised an investigation, these incidents show that many of Taiwan's police are still stuck in a martial law mentality, where their job was oppress the people rather than serve them.

Most recently, Taiwan has been embroiled in a dispute with the Philippines. A Taiwanese fisherman was shot and killed by the Philippine coast guard, who apparently fired over fifty rounds at his boat. It is possible that the Taiwanese boat was illegally fishing in Philippine waters, but there is really no excuse for such a disproportionate use of force. Considering the criminal activities that a substantial proportion of police in the Philippines engage in, including extortion and murder, perhaps it is not a surprise that there are some loose cannons in the coast guard as well. The Philippine government response has not been satisfactory either. Aquino, the Philippine president, even said the matter would be dealt with under the "one China" policy, a slap in the face to Taiwan's sovereignty much like the time not long ago when the Philippines repatriated a number of Taiwanese arrested for Internet fraud (I think it was) and "repatriated" them, not to Taiwan, but to China. And in a sign that things will probably not improve there soon, people like the absurd Imelda Marcos (widow of the country's former corrupt dictator and well-known collector of shoes) won reelection to their legislature.

But in Taiwan this incident has given rise to as much idiocy as in the Philippines. The government has rather pointlessly threatened to freeze all importation of workers from the Philippines, even to the extent of not renewing the contracts of those already here, no matter how attached some of them may be to their employers. Worse yet, some numbskulls among the public have decided to blame the Filipinos here for their government's actions. There was one news story about vendors in a market putting up signs saying they wouldn't sell to Filipinos, reports of people cursing and shouting at Filipinos (or people they thought were Filipinos) in public, and at least one report of a Filipino being physically attacked. Such stupidity is at least as inexcusable as the actions of the Philippine coast guard, if not more so. It's as bad as the random acts of violence in the US in the wake of 9/11 targeting Muslims (or people the perpetrators were stupid enough to take for Muslims). The one positive thing is that many Taiwanese have expressed disgust at such attitudes, though it's hard to tell what the attitude of the majority is.

Some politicians in Taiwan have even called on the government to ask China to help put pressure on the Philippines. This idea is so unaccountably moronic it's hard to believe anyone could suggest it with a straight face. It's a bit like if a pig were having a dispute with a sheep, and decided to ask the wolf next door to help it out. Of course some of the extremists who have made such suggestions actually want Taiwan to be taken over by China, but it's hard to believe that anyone else would seriously listen to them. I also wonder where all these people railing against the Philippines on this occasion were when China has done things like detain a Taiwanese citizen without cause for several weeks, as happened not too long ago. Granted, no one died in that case and he was eventually released, but the outrage was still considerably more muted than one might expect, given the reaction to this incident. Could it be that because the Philippines seems like an easier target?

In the US, not too long ago there was the Senate's failure to pass expanded background checks or do anything else in the way of gun control. In the meantime, not only does gun violence continue to regularly make headlines, but things like this also happen (it's appalling that there's actually a company out there marketing guns to young children). While there's some hope of an immigration reform bill passing, from what I recall reading the current version has some notable flaws, such as tying the path to citizenship for undocumented Americans to "progress" on border security.

Also, the Obama administration seems to suddenly be besieged by scandals and controversies, though one of them seems to have been basically manufactured by the Republicans. I refer to the brouhaha about the incident in Benghazi last year. For one thing, it's not entirely clear what the Republicans are accusing the administration of doing. They have spent months harping on the talking points used in the days after the incident, as if they indicate a sinister attempt to mislead the American people. What's seems far more likely is that there was still genuine uncertainty about what had happened. The anti-Muslim YouTube video had in fact sparked riots in Egypt that day, and I believe there actually were some protests in Benghazi as well [Edit: According to this summary of events, there were no protests in Benghazi that day, but the attack that night began with gunfire and "sounds of chanting", which in the confusion, together with the attack on the US embassy in Cairo during protests that day, might have led to the idea that the attackers were protestors] so it is not surprising that many in the US government believed the attack on the consulate was a result of these protests getting out of control. The whole sequence of events was very confused, and it should surprise no one that for a few days there was considerable debate in the government about the incident, and some people went on TV with explanations that didn't fit what had actually happened. And it's not as if everyone suddenly obtains and absorbs the real facts as soon as they are available. There were people high up in the Bush administration (including Cheney, if I recall correctly) saying that Saddam Hussein had direct ties to al-Qaeda months after it had been conclusively proven that he did not. In the case of Benghazi it only took a week or so for the Obama administration to settle on what seems to be the correct explanation of events.

More serious are the implications that the administration deliberately allowed the attack to take place by failing to provide proper security or take action to stop the attackers. This is of course ridiculous. First of all, an incident like this couldn't possibly be politically beneficial to the administration. Some talked about a failure to call in air power at the time of the attack. Aside from the question of what good it would have done once the attackers were inside the building, the military has said nothing was in range to do any good and no one has proved otherwise. A plane was sent to help evacuate the staff. A special forces team in Tripoli would not have made it in time to help (the review board that investigated the incident did not fault the military response). The failure to respond to requests for better security prior to the attack were regrettable, but I would suspect that many embassies and consulates in troubled areas could use more security than they are getting. The State Department only has so much money to spend on security measures, so there is a constant need to weigh risks and make hard choices about how much can be done. The only thing that could ensure that all such requests would get fulfilled would be more money in the State Department's security budget. Guess who's responsible for keeping such funds at minimal levels? Some of these same Republicans railing against the administration now.

The news that the IRS apparently targeted tea party groups for investigation, on the other hand, seems to be a real scandal rather than Republican hot air. As Jon Stewart pointed out, it suddenly provides the conspiracy freaks on the right with real evidence that they are not merely paranoid fantasists. However, there are a few things that are worth pointing out. First of all, the IRS is an independent agency and at the time these investigations took place it was actually headed by a Bush appointee. Of course, to the general public the President is responsible for everything the government does, and to a certain degree he does have to take responsibility. But no one person can possible fully control the entire federal government or even know what all parts of it are doing, especially essential autonomous parts like the IRS. This doesn't fully absolve Obama, but it's worth keeping in mind.

Furthermore, my initial reaction to the news was to wonder why these groups are able to claim tax exempt status in the first place. After all, as a number of stories mentioned, groups claiming tax exempt status can engage in political activity but must be “primarily engaged in the promotion of social welfare”. Does anyone seriously believe that the primary purpose of any of these groups – or liberal groups like MoveOn, whose petitions I sign myself from time to time – is anything other than political advocacy? I suppose one could argue that political activity could be part of promoting social welfare, but since not all political activity promotes social welfare, there would have to be more detailed rules to clarify matters. Perhaps all these groups should lose their tax exempt status. Of course there is no excusing selective application of the rules, which is the real problem here (though it seems one directive did refer to groups advocating both limiting and expanding government, which in the latter case would include many liberal groups). If the rules were applied fairly, even many right wingers should approve, as long as they are being consistent. [Edit: It seems that at least a few liberal groups did receive the same extra scrutiny that these tea party groups supposedly got. Progress Texas, a group that I have signed a number of petitions from, issued a statement saying they received extra vetting, and that they had no problem with it. I would not be surprised if a closer investigation shows that conservative groups did not actually receive disproportionate scrutiny, especially considering, as some commenters have observed, many of these groups are openly anti-tax, an attitude that the IRS is bound to pay a little extra attention to].

As for the Justice Department's seizure of AP reporters' phone records, I'm still not sure what to make of that one. The government claims the leak they were investigating was a serious one that endangered national security and American lives, but I didn't see a clear explanation of how it did so. In any case, the response seems disproportionate, much like the government's treatment of Bradley Manning. At this point at least, it looks like the government was in the wrong, though again I don't know how much Obama himself can be held responsible.

Overall, things seem to be in something of a mess in both Taiwan and the US lately. It would be nice to see some improvement in the coming weeks and months, but being cynically inclined, I find it hard to be very optimistic.