慈濟有問題

Dear all:

看大家熱烈地討論慈濟有問題, 我親自求証之以免冤枉了人家. 結果訝異地發現: 真的不想 "抹紅" 慈濟也困難耶! 因為:

1) 慈濟自己的網站大剌剌地認為慈濟醫療事業是中國人的驕傲,台灣的國民也是中國人.
http://www.tzuchi. com.tw/tzuchi/ About_Promote/ Default.aspx? ContentType= 2&IdentityID=88

2) "tzuchi" 的拼法是中國式的.

3) 慈濟從臺灣募集, 匯入中國建設學校等等公共設施的善款一向極為驚人, 而且都是在官方的掌控之下. 中國的貪官污吏們真的都是很有善心的嗎?
(Please see More discussion: 慈濟有功德嗎？)

臺灣的佛教界都被中國滲透了嗎? 慈濟是一個做了很多善事的機構, 但是我們真的很不想助長 "中國人的驕傲" 耶!
檢討慈濟大部分的錢都進了中國有沒有功德, 不是我們的重點. 重點是, 不要一切都是中國, 中國, 中國, 而使得臺灣自己被邊緣化 !

而看來下文中所提到臺灣還有很多可憐的弱勢慈善機構幾乎無法生存, 因為錢都被慈濟吸光到中國去的可信度還蠻高的.
請大家多多關注, 我們還有很多其他真正需要幫助的本土弱勢慈善機構, 請不要一切都是慈濟, 慈濟, 慈濟, 中國, 中國, 中國!
Allen Kuo

灣區台灣人社團對馬英九就任台灣總統聯合新聞稿

Dear All:

It is an excellent statement, Sydney's comment's is also very powerful.
One most important thing left out from the joint statement is the long awaited New Constitution and a proper name for the nation.

Most of us agreed that ROC or ROC-in-Taiwan are dead-end streets.
Why can't we keep that in mind and in joint statement most of the time?

Ma has shown us that he has a passive personality, if we do not push him hard enough, he would forget what he pledged during the election that he meant to be a Taiwanese Man and he would be buried in Taiwan instead of China. That's how he got elected.
Joint statement to express our voice is a good way to go.
Thanks,

Charles Chang
Sacramento
Sidney Chen wrote:



Sidney Chen wrote:

Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 14:59:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sidney Chen
Subject: Re: [BATA] A Statement from Bay Area Taiwanese Community about Ma's Inauguration
To: Kuor-Hsin Chang ,
bay-area-taiwanese- american@ yahoogroups. comg,
GlobalForumIntl@ yahoogroups. com, sbta2@yahoogroups. com

Sorry, I am a party spoiler. the statement is more like a student report for me. Basically, we are playing their games.

What is our action to counter?

Sidney

灣區台灣人社團對馬英九就任台灣總統聯合新聞稿
五月二十日是台灣新任總統就職日，對海外長期為台灣民主運動奮鬥的台灣鄉親而言應該是一個值得慶祝的日子，但是今年的520我們的心情卻是非常沉重。因為:
一、在這一次的總統大選，即將執政的國民黨因為一黨之私鼓勵台灣選民拒領入聯公投，讓台灣的兩個入聯公投都無法通過，導致國際社會誤以為台灣人民沒有參與國際組織的意願。嚴重影響台灣人民的權益、傷害台灣的外交。
If Taiwan people care, how come they did not cast their votes and instead of listening to KMT?
二、國民黨選舉前高喊「台灣向前行」，當選夜就改口「中華民國萬歲」。還沒正式執政就選前、選後前後不一，加上其主張「終極統一」，令人非常擔心國民黨隨時有可能 奚�台灣主權�?lt;/SPAN>
It was not the first time, KMT and Ma lied, how come they won by landslide?
三、國民黨挾著! 雄厚的黨產與民進黨進行一場站在不公平起始點的競 帯＜由线x舉期間賄選傳聞不斷，國民黨這一次的總統大選贏得並不光彩。
So? It was not the first time. Did KMT care “贏得並不光彩”?
四、國民黨於2000年、2004年總統大選失利後，不但無法接受敗選的事實，還聚眾鬧事，致國家於動盪不安。民進黨執政八年中，國民黨藉由其國會的優勢，對民進黨的各種政策全面?amp;shy;葛，從未善盡在野黨的責任。這種致國家利益不顧、沒有風度的政黨，其再度執政不值得慶祝。
So? The strategy works perfectly.
然? �台灣的總統大選，畢竟是台灣人民以和平方式所作的選擇。我們雖然對結果失望、憂心，但是我們尊重台灣人民的決定。我們也希望即將接任總統的馬英九先生能夠痛改國民黨的前非，施政以國家利益為優先，不要只為一黨之私。我們更希望馬先生有道德勇氣來處理國民黨黨產問題，讓台灣的政黨競 幠苷驹诠�平的起始點上。馬先生對台灣的民主化毫無貢獻，卻盡享台灣民主化的成果，更應該珍惜台灣人民付予他的權力。馬先生更應該信守競選承諾，捍衛台灣主權。海外台灣人雖然接受選舉結果，但不會坐視國民黨任何傷害台灣主權的行為。
“我們也希望即將接任總統的馬英九先生能夠痛改國民黨的前非，施政以國家利益為優先，不要只為一黨之私”
Are we asking the Mafia to give us the mercy? It sounds like during ex-DPP era, in “Dar-Shue magazine” in early 70, making emotional appeal to the bandit and its head, little Jinag.
我們更希望馬先生有道德勇氣來處理國民黨黨產問題，讓台灣的政黨競 幠苷驹诠�平的起始點上。
You are asking Ma and KMT to do the self-neutered. In “Chinese” regime, it never happened before and won’t do in the future.
We are playing in their game. As long as we are playing under ROC, we can not distinguish “Chinese” and “ Taiwan ”. In presidential election, DPP’s “神主牌” Nationalism Identity” already 破功
北加州台灣同鄉聯合會
民進黨矽谷支黨部
台灣人公共事務會北加州分會
台灣人教授協會北加州分會
北美台灣人醫師學會北加州分會



__._,_.___
Messages in this topic (2) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
Messages | Links
****************************************************************************
This is the Bay Area Taiwanese American E-Mail Group. Our main objective is to provide open communication channel for the Taiwanese American community, let the Taiwan Spirit grow and pass down to the future. To publish your e-mail, simply send it to:
bay-area-taiwanese-american@yahoogroups.com
~~~~~ BOTH TAIWAN AND THE US ARE OUR LOVES ~~~~~
****************************************************************************
Yahoo! Groups
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
Recent Activity

*
2
New Members

Visit Your Group
Y! Messenger

Instant hello

Chat over IM with

group members.
Discover Tips

on healthy living

and healthy eating

on Yahoo! Groups.
Yahoo! Groups

Women of Curves

Discuss food, fitness

and weight loss.
.

__,_._,___

228 massacre---KMT

Published on Taipei Times
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2008/05/16/2003412100

New 228 Incident material unveiled
HISTORICAL FIND: The newly discovered documents include correspondence between the dictator Chiang Kai-shek and then-KMT governor of Taiwan, Chen Yi
By Shih Hsiu-chuan
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, May 16, 2008, Page 2

Two more collections of historical material on the 228 Incident, compiled by Academia Historica, were published yesterday, adding to a series of 16 collections previously published from the files kept by the National Archive Administration (NAA).

The 228 Incident refers to a massacre that took place in 1947 when Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) troops suppressed a Taiwanese uprising, leaving tens of thousands dead, missing or imprisoned.

“After we finished clearing up the NAA material about the incident in 2007, more historical material was sent to Academia Historica by the Ministry of National Defense that were left by [late dictator] Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Chinese Nationalist Party regime,” said Chien Sheng-huang (簡笙簧), a director at Academia Historica.

Cheng said the documents in the two new collections include a lot of correspondence between Chiang and the main KMT figures in the massacre, including then-governor of Taiwan Chen Yi (陳儀) and then-minister of national defense Pai Chung-hsi (白崇禧).

Also included in the two collections were the reports on the situation in Taiwan sent from the KMT’s two major intelligence gathering bodies, Cheng said.

“This is all important historical material as it shows how Chiang saw the situation and why he decided to send in the army,” Cheng said.

Academia Historica also presented its publication of a two-volume glossary detailing 1,126 terms related to the massacre. It also includes a list of more than 1,900 historical research items and brief descriptions of the 2,267 victims by The 228 Memorial Foundation.
Copyright © 1999-2008 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.

7.9-magnitude quake

Up Next

　

Over 50,000 dead or missing in China
　

FULL HORROR EMERGES: Monday's 7.9-magnitude quake has left almost 15,000 people dead, while nearly 26,000 are buried in rubble and another 15,000 missing

AFP, DUJIANGYAN, CHINA
Thursday, May 15, 2008, Page 1

"Some towns basically have no houses left. They have all been razed to the ground."— Wang Yi, head of a police unit sent into the epicenter zone

　

A couple yesterday carries the body of their child away from a school that collapsed after a 7.9 magnitude earthquake hit the town of Hanwang in Sichuan Province.


PHOTO: AFP

　

More than 50,000 people are dead, missing or buried under rubble after China's devastating earthquake, officials said yesterday as the full horror of the disaster began to emerge.

Rescue teams who punched into the quake’s stricken epicenter reported whole towns all but wiped off the map, spurring frantic efforts to bring emergency relief to the survivors.

Planes and helicopters air-dropped supplies, 100 troops parachuted into a county that had been cut off and rescuers in cities and towns across Sichuan Province fought to pull the living and the dead from the debris.

But the overwhelming message that came back from Sichuan Province was that only now was a picture slowly beginning to form of the epic scale of Monday’s 7.9-magnitude quake.

State media quoted Sichuan Vice Governor Li Chengyun (李成雲) as saying that based on “incomplete” figures, 14,463 people were confirmed dead in the province as of mid-afternoon yesterday.

Nearly 26,000 were buried in rubble and nearly 15,000 missing, he said.

But far beyond the numbers is the human tragedy behind China’s worst quake in a generation as rescue teams claw through twisted metal and concrete.

They were looking for people like He Xinghao, 15, whose lifeless body was eventually pulled from the debris of a school close to the epicenter.

Like many other Chinese of his age, strict population policies had made him an only child, and he was showered with affection by his family.

“He was such a good and well-behaved boy. He always did his homework,” said his aunt, Ge Mi, as fresh tears flowed from her reddened eyes.

It was a scene repeated across Sichuan — a province often better known to foreigners for its endangered giant pandas.

The destruction around the epicenter in remote Wenchuan County is massive, with whole mountainsides sheared off, highways ripped apart and building after building leveled.

Cries for help were heard from a flattened school in Yingxiu, where people tried to dig out survivors with their bare hands, state media said.

“The losses have been severe,” Wang Yi, who heads an armed police unit sent into the epicenter zone, was quoted as saying by the Sichuan Online news site. “Some towns basically have no houses left. They have all been razed to the ground.”

At least 7,700 people died in Yingxiu alone, Xinhua quoted a local official as saying, with only 2,300 surviving.

Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao (溫家寶) said 100,000 military personnel and police had been mobilized.

“Time is life,” he told rescuers.

The air drop started with planes and helicopters flying dozens of sorties, dropping tonnes of food and relief aid into the worst-hit zone, most of it cut off from the outside world by landslides and road closures.

As well as Yingxiu, CCTV television said air drops were also made in nearby Mianyang, Mianzhu and Pengzhou, while helicopters flew to Wenchuan with food, drinks, tents, communications equipment and other supplies.

The rescue effort has been badly disrupted since Monday by heavy rain, and the Meteorological Authority forecast more later in the week, raising the risk of fresh landslides.

World powers including the US, the EU and the UN have offered money and expertise, and Pope Benedict XVI called for prayers to be said. However China rebuffed offers to deploy foreign search and rescue experts, saying conditions were “not yet ripe.”

A Japanese foreign ministry official in charge of emergency aid said Tokyo offered rescue teams with sniffer dogs, but China had made no request.

Australian and South Korean expertise was also politely declined, although China did accept US$1 million in aid from Seoul.

“We were told that China cannot receive rescuers now due to poor condition of transportation systems,” a Japanese foreign ministry official said.

　

　

　

　

Taiwan gives with an open heart

Thursday, May 15, 2008, Page 8

Our prayers are with the victims and families hit by the powerful earthquake in China's Sichuan Province, where the death toll continues to rise and thousands remain buried under the rubble, awaiting rescue.

In the spirit of humanitarianism, the government has expressed its condolences and offered assistance, with Premier Chang Chun-hsiung (張俊雄) on Tuesday announcing that Taipei would “provide all necessary resources” to help the Chinese government with relief work, which could include rescue teams, medical assistance and donations for reconstruction.

The same day, President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) called on the public to give generously and contribute to relief and reconstruction efforts.

The government announced yesterday a cash donation of NT$700 million (US$22.6 million) and NT$100 million in rice, adding it would seek to collect NT$1.2 billion in donations from the private sector.

Taipei’s generosity should be acknowledged as it appears to be free of the politicization that characterized Beijing’s “help” when it sent token aid to Taiwan after the catastrophic 921 Earthquake nine years ago.

For many Taiwanese, the earthquake — with its more than 2,400 fatalities and tens of thousands of people left homeless — is still a vivid nightmare and one that is sure to be brought to the surface as images of the devastation in China begin to reach us via newspapers, TV and the Internet.

As humanitarian aid and rescue teams started arriving in Taiwan, Beijing exploited the disaster to score a few political points, requiring that all international relief including donations, food and rescue teams be channeled through China.

As the result of Beijing’s interference, timely rescue efforts were delayed, such as when a Russian rescue team could not land and refuel in China and had to take a longer route through Japan.

Not only did Beijing’s actions belie a lack of compassion for Taiwanese, it also created a number of logistical and quite unnecessary problems during the critical rescue window following the catastrophe.

Some could argue that Taiwanese should not bother sending aid to China because of Beijing’s incessant bullying and threats directed at Taiwan.

But harboring an eye-for-an-eye mentality and failing to meet obligations as human beings would lower this administration to the level of China — or perhaps even Myanmar — which is not what Taiwan is all about.

Of course, there is no guarantee that all of the generous aid and donations will reach those who really need help rather than end up in the bank accounts of corrupt officials.

For this reason, every effort should be made in the days and weeks ahead to ensure that the donations reach their intended recipients.

　

　

Taiwanese care about WHO

Thursday, May 15, 2008, Page 8

I read with great interest the article on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) plans for the World Health Assembly (WHA) (“DPP members aim to take poll results to WHA,” May 10, page 3). Every year around this time, a group of Taiwanese gathers in Geneva to protest against the unfair exclusion of Taiwan from the WHO.

Not only does the WHO actively exclude Taiwan, but it also degrades its status to that of a “province of China.” On the WHO Web site, Taiwan is deliberately and incorrectly referred to as “Taiwan province.”

This policy excludes Taiwan from participating as an observer or member in the organization but has also led many to wonder if it might not be an agent of Beijing. Its defenders, of course, would argue that this isn’t the case, but is it?

For sure, this demonstrates a lack of professionalism at the WHO and goes against the constitution of the organization. This mislabeling is misleading to health professionals and academics who rely on the information provided in its Web site and other WHO publications.

In reality, there is no direct contact between China and the Department of Health in Taiwan. The healthcare system in Taiwan is much more advanced than China’s and decisions that affect the welfare of its people are for Taipei to make.

After pledging to “care” about Taiwan’s health at the WHA in 2003, Beijing was caught by the media saying: “Who gives a damn about [Taiwan]?” a sure sign, if ever there was one, of Beijing’s hypocrisy.

The health of Taiwanese should be determined by the 23 million Taiwanese, not China.

Lily Wang
Sydney, Australia

　

Up Next

Give Taiwan credit for democracy

Up Next

　

Dissident, writer, activist Bo Yang dies
　

THE UGLY TRUTH: Bo Yang was perhaps most famous for writing ‘The Ugly Chinaman,’ but his life and writing captured much of the essence of Taiwan in the 20th century
　

By Ko Shu-ling
STAFF REPORTER, WITH AGENCIES
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008, Page 1
　
Bo Yang talks to the media after being presented with an honorary doctorate by National University of Tainan on Dec. 12, 2006. The acclaimed human rights activist died yesterday morning, aged 88.


PHOTO: CNA


Writer, human rights activist and former political prisoner Bo Yang (柏楊), who infuriated both the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party with his tart critiques of Chinese culture, abusive leaders and anti-democratic behavior, died early yesterday morning of complications from pneumonia. He was 88.

Bo had been receiving treatment for pneumonia at the Cardinal Tien Hospital in Sindian (新店), Taipei County, since February.

Born in 1920 in Henan Province, China, Bo authored more than 200 works. One of the most prominent was The Ugly Chinaman (醜陋的中國人), in which he pilloried Chinese culture as dirty, noisy, divisive, obsequious and vainglorious.

The book came as a shock when it was first published in Taiwan in 1984. Although it was banned in China until 2000, underground copies were widely available.

Last August, Bo began planning a comic-strip version of the book, saying that it could reach out to young people today who tend not to read.

The New York Times once called Bo “China’s Voltaire.”

Bo, whose real name was Kuo Yi-tung (郭衣洞), followed the KMT government to Taiwan after the KMT lost the Chinese civil war.

He found work as a columnist for the Independence Evening Post, a small liberal newspaper, but quickly ran foul of the KMT dictatorship after he blasted Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) government over corruption and abuse of power. One of his more controversial pieces of writing at the time was Foreign Land (異域), a study of the KMT soldiers stranded in what would become the Golden Triangle after they were unable to join their compatriots in Taiwan. His reporting on their destitution embarrassed senior military officials who escaped from the area.

He was then jailed in 1968 following a translation of the American comic strip Popeye, which was interpreted as criticizing Chiang’s refusal to conduct free presidential elections.

He served nine years in prison, mostly on Green Island (綠島), after being convicted of acting as a communist spy — a government catchall for dealing with troublemakers during the Martial Law era.

Aside from managing a prolific writing career, which included historical studies, short fiction, journalism and translations of classical Chinese works, Bo was keen to advocate human rights and served as Amnesty International’s Taiwan office director from 1994 to 1996.

Bo’s health began to deteriorate in September 2006 and he had been in and out of hospital several times since then, eventually forcing him to stop writing.

Despite his illness, Bo followed politics closely.

He said he was disappointed at the record of the Democratic Progressive Party administration, but also worried about the KMT’s return to power.

President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) yesterday expressed his “deepest regret” over Bo’s death.

Chen said he would confer a posthumous medal on Bo and asked government agencies to assist Bo’s family with funeral arrangements.

The Presidential Office statement described Bo as a modern thinker who had been eminently capable of representing Taiwan. The president said Bo exerted a great influence on contemporary Taiwanese literature and was held in high esteem in literary circles, both domestic and international.

The statement added that Chen was grateful for the advice Bo gave him during his stint as senior presidential adviser.

The president visited Bo in hospital on Saturday. Bo’s wife, the poet Chang Hsiang-hua (張香華), told Chen at that time that he was the only president to express respect toward him.

President-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) also visited Bo in hospital on April 16.

Bo is survived by his wife and two sons and three daughters from previous marriages.

　

　

　

　

Give Taiwan credit for democracy
　

By Charles tannock
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008, Page 8

While protests over China’s crackdown in Tibet and the debate about Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence continue to fester, the injustice of Taiwan’s ongoing international isolation has barely stirred a flicker of interest despite Taiwan’s recent presidential election and referendums on UN membership. This neglect is not only shortsighted, but may also prove dangerous.

This seeming double standard can be explained partly by a sense of guilt: The West has, for the most part, embraced Kosovo’s independence in an effort to assuage its own culpability for not preventing late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic’s campaign of ethnic cleansing there. Similarly, much of the world is protesting on behalf of Tibet because countless millions have witnessed China’s brutal suppression of Tibetan culture.

Taiwan, on the other hand, does not grab our attention, because it is stable and flourishing economically. But it has never been part of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan is an unrecognized independent state with a vigorous democracy and high standards of human rights. Because Taiwan has not allowed itself to become a victim, the world simply does not feel guilty about it, and so ignores it.

But perhaps we should feel some guilt. Taiwan deserves great credit for standing on its own two feet, despite the international isolation imposed. China blocks it from participating fully in the international arena, whether through the WTO, the Olympics, or UN agencies, including the WHO. To its shame, China allows its political goal of excluding Taiwan from membership in all international organizations to trump even urgent public health concerns.

The small number of countries that recognize Taiwan diplomatically has dwindled owing to a mixture of Chinese pressure and blandishments. On top of all this, Taiwan’s nearly 23 million people go about their daily business knowing that about 1,400 Chinese missiles are ready to be launched at them at a moment’s notice.

It is not for me to say that Taiwan should be recognized as an independent country. To all intents and purposes, Taiwan is already independent, albeit without formal recognition. Equally, there are plenty of Taiwanese who would like the island eventually to reunify with China, particularly if China democratizes and ceases to be a one-party communist dictatorship. However, we cannot deny that Taiwanese are unjustly being refused their place in the wider world.

The global community should do more to usher Taiwan into the international mainstream. Western powers have helped champion human rights and self-determination within the bounds of international law. The campaigns that the West waged throughout the 1980s in solidarity with democratic forces in Soviet-dominated Eastern Europe helped bring about the end of communist domination. A similar commitment to the democratic rights of Taiwanese could have salutary effects in China. Moreover, Taiwan is a natural ally of any party that espouses the values of pluralist politics, free markets and human rights.

It seems particularly shortsighted, indeed hypocritical, for the US and Britain to seek to spread democracy and human rights throughout the world while failing to recognize and reward the Taiwanese, a people who have embraced these concepts wholeheartedly.

Unquestioning recognition of the “one China” policy sends the message that we appreciate more a country that is a big, communist dictatorship rather than a small, multiparty democracy. For the record, there are clear precedents for divided countries to enter the UN as separate states and then eventually to reunify: West and East Germany, North and South Yemen, and perhaps one day, the two Koreas.

Ultimately, it is for Taiwan and China to regulate and resolve their relations. There are already some positive signs of a bilateral thaw as a new administration prepares to take office in Taiwan, with high-level talks taking place between Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長). The democratic world has an obligation to support this process — not only because Taiwan deserves its support, but also because engaging more with Taiwan could potentially be a powerful instrument of leverage for broader change in China.



Charles Tannock is the British Conservative Party’s foreign affairs spokesman and the European Parliament’s rapporteur on the eastern dimension of the European Neighborhood Policy.
　

　

　

Middle road a betrayal of the DPP’s principles
　

By Cao Changqing 曹長青
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008, Page 8

Following the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) loss in the presidential election, a strong voice has emerged attributing the loss to the “deep green” faction hijacking the DPP and urging the party to take the “middle road.”

What is this middle road? The political reality is the “pan-blue camp” represents China, whereas the “pan-green camp” represents Taiwan. In choosing between these two definitions of national identity, asking the DPP to take the middle road is tantamount to asking it to rally around the Chinese nationalism represented by the pan-blue camp.

This suggestion not only betrays the founding principles and ideals of the DPP, but it has also proven to be unsuccessful in practice. During the party primary and presidential election, DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh (謝長廷) adopted an attitude of compromise and willingness to take the middle road — including emphasizing reconciliation and mutual survival and even defending a “constitutional one China.” The result was that the party lost by 2 million votes. Losing is not frightening in itself. What is frightening is when the loser does not even understand how the defeat came about.

Proponents of the middle road say that the relationship between Taiwan and China — and the DPP and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) — cannot be interpreted as antagonistic. But the fact is China has 1,400 missiles aimed at Taiwan. China has shown its determination to subsume Taiwan through its “Anti-Secession” Law and constantly seeks to diplomatically isolate Taiwan. If this is not the behavior of an enemy, how many more missiles and how much more oppression does Taiwan need to deal with?

The KMT is undeniably an enemy party of the DPP. Moreover, it is not a truly democratic party. If the KMT believes in democracy, it must return the public property it embezzled during the party-state era. Its continued possession of state property is the greatest testament to corruption in Taiwan. Furthermore, the party should actively remove the remnants of dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) rule and deal with the family’s history of authoritarian rule to realize transitional justice. In addition, it must truly recognize Taiwan and remove the character “Chinese” from its title (中國國民黨) to become the Taiwanese Nationalist Party.

However, not only has the KMT refused to comply with these criteria, president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) even visited the Chiangs’ grave to pay his respects. Vice president-elect Vincent Siew (蕭萬長) and former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) have also visited China to scratch the back of Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤). In doing so, the KMT has sold out Taiwan’s dignity and interests, while introducing the “one China” ideology into Taiwan.

The KMT also publicly considers the DPP its “main opponent” and intends to unite with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to curb Taiwanese independence. This has not only prevented Taiwan from achieving normal statehood, but also positions the DPP as a more antagonistic opponent than the CCP.

To those wishful thinkers within the DPP who advocate compromise and taking the middle road, not only has the KMT never reciprocated this interest, elections have also proven time and again that this route is not viable.

Any democratic party lacking in core values will eventually be eliminated by voters. If the DPP does not elect a non-factional leader who can uphold the party’s ideals, the party’s future will be bleak. As former secretary-general of the Presidential Office Chen Shih-meng (陳師孟) recently said: If the DPP were to emphasize the middle road at this point, then one should consider abandoning the DPP.

Cao Changqing is a Chinese writer based in the US.

　

　

New art wriggles into the Louvre
　

Some may find Jan Fabre’s work interesting — but placed among the Old Masters, it just looks silly

By Lynn Barber
THE GUARDIAN, LONDON
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008, Page 15

Apparently, the Louvre has a new policy of showing bits of contemporary art but, until now, they have been small, mixed shows taking not much space. Now, for its first solo show by a living artist, it has chosen a Belgian, Jan Fabre, and given him the whole of the Northern School wing — 40 rooms containing top-notch van Eycks, Bruegels, Rembrandts, Rubenses, Vermeers — to play with. He was allowed to move pictures and rearrange rooms to place his work among the Old Masters — i.e. he was given just about the most flattering commission any artist could receive and the big question is: why Jan Fabre?

The catalogue informs us that he was born in 1958 in Antwerp, where he has lived ever since, and that he was one of the pioneers of the Flemish New Wave of the 1980s, which I admit passed me by. He first came to public attention with his “Bic Art” drawings in blue ballpoint. He has his own theater troupe in Antwerp and describes himself as “dessinateur, plasticien, performeur, auteur, homme de theatre, choregraphe, editeur” which I think translates as jack of all trades.





He also claims to be a descendant of the famous entomologist Jean-Henri Fabre (1823-1915), which he likes to advertise by including insects and beetles in his work. Several of his large objects — I hesitate to call them sculptures — are completely covered with iridescent, blue-green scarabs — an eye-catching conceit the first time you see it and very, very boring thereafter.

Beetles are just one medium he favors — he also works in Biro, bone, gold sequins, drawing pins, skulls, vertebrae, synthetic hair, armor, feathers, stuffed birds and animals. He claims the bone is human bone, but this is probably one of his “jokes.” A typical work is Nature morte avec artiste, a full-size coffin covered with blue-green beetles with a peacock’s head, tail and wings sticking out, which he describes as “a reflection on death, night, absence and the materiality of the body.” The largest and mercifully last work takes up the entire floor of the vast Rubens Medici gallery and consists of 470 granite tombstones lying higgledy-piggledy on plastic grass surmounted by a giant worm with a human face vaguely resembling Fabre’s. The title is Self-Portrait as the Biggest Worm in the World or, more excitingly in Flemish, Zelfportret als grootste worm van de Wereld. But couldn’t he have at least made a decent worm? I would have thought any first-year art student would leap at the chance of making a giant worm for the Louvre, but Fabre gives us the sort of standard-issue, beige draught-excluder you could find at any craft fair.





In the evening, he gives a performance in which he supposedly demonstrates his skill as a “master of disguise,” i.e. he dons a cloth cap or a stuck-on beard and wig. This is held in the galerie Daru, which has some fabulous Etruscan sarcophagi and the Winged Victory of Samothrace. When the audience enters, Fabre is hiding behind one of the sarcophagi shouting: “Art kept me out of jail!” Then he runs around for a bit shouting: “Lord protect me from my friends — my enemies I will take care of them!” Finally, he runs up the stairs to the Winged Victory of Samothrace shouting: “Art kept me out of jail” and disappears. I hope I haven’t spoiled the plot.

Seriously, what is the Louvre thinking of? The commissioner in charge, Marie-Laure Bernadac, explained that they want to use contemporary art to attract younger people, and also to liven up some of the less-visited galleries. In this I suppose they might be successful — I’ve been to the Louvre dozens of times but never set foot in the galerie Daru before. But the effect of Fabre’s gimcrack installations in the Dutch and Flemish Old Master rooms is less benign. The whole place begins to feel like some dusty theatrical props storeroom and the great paintings on the walls are reduced to just another form of prop. It is sad. And what is really sad is that in a few years time, the Louvre will probably say: “Oh, we tried having contemporary art and it didn’t work.” Whereas what they should really say is: “Why on earth did we choose Jan Fabre?”

　

　

Up Next