Some quick thoughts about professor Charles Glaser

 
American scholar Charles Glaser says United States should consider abandoning Taiwan to China

To thank him, I propose that we consider him for my pet crocodile Stalin's dinner because Stalin eyes him with affection, or to give him to Hitler because Hitler needs people to feed his gas chambers.

Chinese claims Taiwan its own, but could never convince anyone.  I would like Glaser to tell the world why he believes that Taiwan is a part of China.

Taiwan has 23,000,000 people.  Among them are my brothers, sisters and parents.  Scholar Glaser treat them as objects that can be given to China.  For this, I hope some day he will also have the fortune of being treated as an object.

NYTimes: patriotic Chinese manseeks to bring looted artifactsfrom Christie's Paris back to China

 

The hero of this story is a moral and patriotic Chinese man named Cai Mingchao who

... seeks to bring looted artifacts back to China, and said he had acted out of patriotic duty.

In the same spirit, China should return the land it looted from Tibetans and stop its attempt to loot Taiwan from Taiwanese. Failure to do so is essentially a statement: mine is mine; yours is also mine.

New York Times: Twist in Sale of Relics Has China Winking

Regis Duvignau/Reuters

[If the picture shows only one head, please right click the picture and view image.]

Two Qing dynasty bronze heads on display last month for an auction in Paris. Beijing says they rightfully belong to China.

By MARK McDONALD and CAROL VOGEL

Published: March 2, 2009

HONG KONG — A Chinese man’s assertion that he sabotaged the auction of two Qing dynasty bronzes at Christie’s in Paris last week handed Beijing a wry public-relations coup on Monday after it battled for months to block the sale.

The man, Cai Mingchao, a collector and auctioneer, said at a news conference in Beijing that he had submitted the two winning $18 million bids for the bronze heads of a rat and a rabbit on Wednesday, but that he had no intention of paying for them. He described himself as a consultant for a nongovernmental group that seeks to bring looted artifacts back to China, and said he had acted out of patriotic duty.

Beijing had vigorously protested the sale of the heads, saying they were looted from an imperial palace outside Beijing in the 19th century and should be returned to China. A group of Chinese lawyers tried to block the auction, but a French court allowed it to proceed. Several Western experts on cultural property said that whatever moral arguments might favor Beijing, it had no legal claim to the bronzes.

Christie’s declined Monday to confirm whether Mr. Cai, 44, had submitted the winning bids, saying it did not identify anonymous sellers or buyers. Edward Dolman, chief executive of Christie’s International, emphasized that because the auction house did not release property without payment, the bronze heads were still the property of Pierre Bergé.

Mr. Bergé was the companion and business partner of Yves Saint Laurent. Over all, the auction of the personal collection of Mr. Bergé and Mr. Saint Laurent was considered a success.

“Pierre Bergé was exercising his legal rights to sell them,” Mr. Dolman said. “We had a number of interested buyers who bid to significant levels.” The next-highest bid for each bronze was around $17 million.

Months earlier, Mr. Dolman pointed out, Christie’s privately offered the heads to the Chinese government at a price “significantly less than the underbidder was willing to pay” on Wednesday. “They rejected the offer because they thought the price was too high,” he said.

Still, the latest twist suggests that Christie’s and Mr. Bergé may have underestimated China’s determination to foil the sale. Mr. Bergé even seemed to goad Chinese officials before the auction, declaring he would give the heads to China if it would “observe human rights and give liberty to the Tibetan people and welcome the Dalai Lama.”

If Mr. Cai is indeed the winning bidder, his strategy raises the possibility that other well-heeled citizens sympathetic to China or other countries’ cultural restitution battles could disrupt sales of other disputed objects.

On the surface, it appears that the auction house would have had little reason to doubt Mr. Cai’s bona fides in advance of the sale. The general manager of Xiamen Harmony Art International Auction Company in Fujian Province in southeastern China, Mr. Cai paid a record $15 million in 2006 for a Ming dynasty bronze Buddha statue, for example.

At his news conference in Beijing, Mr. Cai said he submitted Wednesday’s bids for the bronze heads on moral and patriotic grounds. “I think any Chinese person would have stood up at that moment,” he said, adding, “I want to emphasize that the money won’t be paid.”

He said that in any case he did not have the $40 million for the two bronzes, the amount due when commissions are included, although details of his financial situation could not be confirmed.

Kate Malin, a spokeswoman for Christie’s in Hong Kong, said all potential bidders at major auctions were required to submit bank and credit information as part of a registration process.

“You can’t just call up and say, ‘I want to buy a $20 million Picasso,’ ” she said. “You have to provide satisfactory credit and bank information.”

The two bronzes, which date from 1750, were part of a 12-animal water-clock fountain configured around the Chinese zodiac in the imperial gardens of the Summer Palace outside Beijing. In 1860 the palace was sacked by British and French forces during the Opium Wars. Around that time, the heads disappeared.

Mr. Bergé suggested Monday that the Chinese government was behind the apparent collapse of the deal. Speaking on French radio, he said he was “not very surprised” by the latest twist, Agence France-Presse reported.

“The Chinese for a long time would have done anything to recover these pieces,” he said. “They didn’t recover them, so I imagine they pressured a potential buyer not to buy them.”

Mr. Bergé could have asked Christie’s to approach the bidders who were outbid at the auction and to sell the bronzes privately. But he told France-Info radio that he would keep them if Mr. Cai did not pay, The Associated Press reported.

Mr. Dolman, when asked if Mr. Cai would be allowed to take part in future Christie’s auctions, said: “He certainly won’t be allowed to bid if it is determined that this was a deliberate act to spoil the auction. Then he has acted unlawfully.”

Aside from the auction dispute, China has also been at odds with the French. In December, Beijing protested a meeting between the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader, and Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president. Beijing has accused the Dalai Lama of fomenting unrest in Tibet.

Although China failed in its restitution quest, it may have succeeded in delivering a strong message. The spectacle of the Saint Laurent sale proved a riveting stage for its claim. The collection of paintings, sculpture, furniture and knickknacks attracted bidders from around the globe. Parisians lined up for hours to view the objects before the three-day sale at the regal Grand Palais in central Paris.

Of the 12 original bronze fountain pieces taken from the Summer Palace gardens, 7 have been located; the whereabouts of the other 5 are unknown.

The China Poly Group, an arms dealer with ties to the People’s Liberation Army, bought the tiger, ox and monkey heads in 2000.

In 2003, the National Treasures Fund of China, a quasi-governmental group, brokered a deal that brought another of the bronze fountain pieces — a pig’s head — back to China. With about $1 million donated by Stanley Ho, the real estate and casino billionaire from Macao, the head was bought from an American collector, according to Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency.

Mr. Ho bought another — a horse’s head — for $8.84 million at an auction by Sotheby’s in 2007. He gave it to China Poly, which owns a museum where it displays the Qing bronzes.

Mark McDonald reported from Hong Kong, and Carol Vogel from New York. Zhang Jing contributed research from Beijing, and Maïa de la Baume contributed reporting from Paris.

A version of this article appeared in print on March 3, 2009, on page A5 of the New York edition.

Help stop AP from telling lies liketwo sides split amid civil war 60 years ago

This mantra 60 years after the two sides split amid civil war is a vicious lie that is not supported by historical facts. A reputable news agency such as AP should not insist on spreading such lies unabatedly. Do they have no shame?

IHT: Taiwan minister 周功鑫 acknowledges owning China property
International Herald Tribune - France

The Associated Press

Published: February 26, 2009

TAIPEI, Taiwan: A prominent Taiwanese Cabinet minister on Thursday acknowledged she owns property in China, setting off a firestorm of criticism on the island that eyes its mainland rival with suspicion.

The question of senior officials having close ties to the mainland is a sensitive one in Taiwan, 60 years after the two sides split amid civil war.

Many Taiwanese believe that owning property on the other side of the 100-mile- (160-kilometer-) wide Taiwan Strait undermines the official's commitment to maintaining Taiwan's de facto independence, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of the island's 23 million people.

China claims Taiwan as part of its territory and is committed to unification — by persuasion if possible, by force of necessary.

Speaking to reporters in Taipei, Cabinet minister Chou Kung-shin, who also serves as National Palace Museum director, confirmed reports in the mass circulation Liberty Times that she owned property in China, without specifying what it was.

She defended herself, saying the purchases happened before she became a minister, though there is no law prohibiting ministers from owning property in China.

"Everything is legitimate," she said. "After I became the director I reported my assets to the government as required by law."

The Liberty Times said Chou owned one residential and one office unit in Shanghai, with a combined value of $880,000.

Lin Hong-chih, a legislative whip of the ruling Nationalist Party, blasted Chou for holding property in China, saying it was an inappropriate for an official of her standing.

"This is something the Taiwanese people will not accept," he said.

Lawmakers from the pro-independence Democratic Progressive Party also criticized Chou's China property holding, saying it could call into question her loyalty to Taiwan.

Chou's acknowledgment came as she hosted the director of the Shanghai Museum — like the National Palace, a distinguished repository of Chinese art.

Earlier this month, she became the first National Palace director to visit China, concluding an agreement for her institution to borrow 29 Qing Dynasty relics from its namesake in Beijing.

The visit was seen as another important step in President Ma Ying-jeou's China engagement program, which emphasizes building political trust between the sides through closer economic relations.

Read more >> Options >>

The openly two-faced KMT

KMT under Ma Yean-Jeou never dares to say to CCP that Taiwan is a nation. But it puts on a different face in Taiwan and insists that Taiwan is a nation called Republic of China. When China's envoys and Pandas came, it put on the other face again and made the fictitious nation ROC disappear and its flags invisible. Can anyone imagine KMT declare to CCP that Taiwan is a nation, ever?

Taipei Times reported in Museum initiatives will be based on equality:

Any exchanges between Taiwan’s National Palace Museum and China’s Palace Museum in Beijing will be based on dignity and equality, Government Information Office spokesman Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓) said yesterday.

Next day, a Taiwan News report showed that 蘇俊賓 lied yet again:

Taiwan NPM Director visits Beijing on a “museum-to-museum” basis
eTaiwan News - Taiwan
(Taiwan News) – National Palace Museum (NPM) Director Chou Kung-hsin (周功鑫) visited Beijing Saturday, saying that the exchange with The Palace Museum in Beijing was based on a “museum-to-museum” basis.

Why is the exchange museum-to-museum? Because KMT will never dare to say nation-to-nation to CCP.

KMT can kowtow to CCP and be humiliated by CCP anyway it wants. Taiwanese must get rid of KMT, its lies, hypocrisy, and the constant, excruciating humiliation it brings us.

Condemn the mantra:two sides split amid civil war

Taiwanese need to get angry with and openly condemn this idiotic mantra of the press [highlighted in yellow] that so obviously contradicts the historical facts.

Democracy watchdog says China fails to enact democratic reforms in 2008

By DEBBY WU |Associated Press Writer

1:00 AM CST, January 13, 2009

... Tuesday was the first time Freedom House publicized its annual report in Taiwan, which Beijing claims as part of its territory despite the fact the two sides split amid civil war in 1949.

Taiwan president nixes Dalai Lama visit
The Associated Press

TAIPEI, Taiwan (AP) — Taiwan's president on Wednesday ruled out a visit to his island by the Dalai Lama, a gesture likely to please rival China, and give new impetus to rapidly improving relations across the volatile Taiwan Strait.

...

Those agreements include the initiation of direct flights and shipping across the 100-mile- (160-kilometer-) wide Taiwan Strait, and the resumption of postal links, broken nearly 60 years ago when the two sides split amid civil war.

Taiwan and Tibet share similar histories. Both are territories that Beijing believes should be under its rule. Despite a failed 1959 uprising that sent the Dalai Lama into exile, China controls Tibet and has refused the Tibetan religious leader's demand for greater autonomy.

Here is a letter Dr. Taitzer Wang wrote DEBBY WU, the Associated Press writer.

Dear Ms. Debby Wu:

In your nice report of 1/18 "Democracy Watchdog Says China Fails to Enact Democratic Reforms in 2008" you state "Tuesday was the first time Freedom House publicized its annual report in Taiwan, which Beijing claims as part of its territory despite the fact the two sides split amid civil war in 1949."

I'd like to point out that it has unfortunately and widely been misunderstood that Taiwan and China were involved Chinese Civil war and split in 1949 as you state. It is not so. The fact is that during the Chinese civil war in the first half of 1900s, Taiwan belonged to Japan from 1895 to 1945. The misunderstanding was due to the fact that Generalissimo Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalists, defeated by Mao Zedong's Communists, was asked by General Douglas MacCarthur, WWII Pacific Commander-in-Chief of Allied Powers, to occupy Taiwan after Japan had left in 1945. Chiang swiftly changed the name of Taiwan to "Province of China". Hence the confusion.

I lived through this period of time when I was little. In WWII, Taiwan was bombed by US B29 and other bombers. Thus, it is clear that Taiwan had nothing to do with the Chinese civil war, which took place between Chiang's nationalists and Mao's communists. The historical account can be Googled under the title of "History of Taiwan".

I hope that reporters will not perpetuate the mistaken history of Taiwan, in particular it's relation with China.

Sincerely,

Taitzer Wang 1/18

How does the mantra that has not an ounce of truth comes into existence? The answer is simple: China believes that if it keeps on telling the same lie, it may be accepted as truth. The mantra shows the effectiveness of the strategy. But as Dr. Wang pointed out, it takes a thinking man just seconds to find the truth by googling.

Where do Taiwanese go: A discussion

This discussion started as an internal NATPA Forum thread. But I hope all Taiwanese to participate. I will provide the context briefly. Please join in the discussion by adding your comment, by clicking the comment button.

CP Yeh started the thread by providing 邱垂亮's 作不成的第三勢力台灣夢

JC Han commented that he was particularly impressed by

●中國黨和台灣黨，生死之戰

　不過，假如他們真能胸襟如海納入百川，與蔡英文的民進黨、黃昆輝的台聯、民進黨四天王、一大群獨派大老、綠色政經社會菁英、野草莓運動的年輕人，以及其他愛台灣的千萬台灣人民整合起來，團結一致，眾志成城，對抗統派的馬英九和中國黨及欺負台灣夠夠的專制中國，三年後把馬英九拉下馬，把中國國民黨掃入歷史垃圾堆，一定民主政治可能。

　中國黨和台灣黨，敵我矛盾，壁壘分明，生死之戰，燒及眉頭。民主或專制、文爭或武鬥，選擇空間越來越小。等到一天，一夜醒來發覺五星紅旗已插遍全台灣，就太晚了。2300萬台灣人民都在看、在等，人要做，才會天佑台灣。

S Liao:

邱垂亮's article is great for many to read, consider, and even put in practice to defeat Nazi-KMT !!

蔡丁貴:

只有台灣人民團結起來，這一些政治人物才會整合起來。
想一想，有什麼辦法可以鼓舞台灣人民團結起來！
至少NATPA與TAUP 及TTA先要團結起來。
想一想，自己如何努力讓台灣團結起來！
大家不要只是期待別人團結起來！
放棄自己的利益，才有團結的機會！

王泰澤:

有關團結，我在 AURORA 發表過的文章，每次總是這樣想：民進黨先要帶頭下鄉親民，贏得選票，拿回政權，然後施展執政能力，贏得民心，這才是各方團結的條件。

我過去三年，每年回台灣一個月，憑個人交情，設法到處演講十場，為甚麼民進黨不能動員台灣各地的民進黨員在各地經常舉行演講會？為甚麼反而只關心國民黨的惡政，論長論短，自我浪費時間？這樣的論述能力，未免太被動，太負面；在這種氣氛籠罩下，民眾聽不到民進黨本身的正面作為。

李登輝，施明德等等，甚麼第三勢力，對下次政黨輪替來說，絕對是空談。目前存在的第二勢力不發揮，寄望自己「做頭」的第三勢力後，難道不會再有別人想要「做頭」的第四勢力？長夜漫漫何時了？

邱垂亮寫文章，同樣主張台灣政治檯上要人，都要在民進黨旗下努力，才有作為。這有其現實道理。他的這一段文字如下：

「要團結，現實主義地看，非團結在民進黨裡面不可。我是台聯、不是民進黨黨員。我認為，台聯應與民進黨合併，要搞第三勢力的台灣派也應進入民進黨，在黨內打拼、改革、團結，形成有實力、有作為的反對黨，反對、抗拒中國黨，在下次縣市長、立委、總統大選中一舉把馬英九、中國黨打倒、推翻，才是大開大闊的民主政黨政治的大有作為。」

蔡丁貴:

現階段的確要以民進黨的組織作為為團結的基礎，不要妄想組織第三勢力。沒有參加政黨的民眾最多，應該稱之為「第一勢力」。台灣的問題就是「中國併吞」與「台灣自主」的敵我鬥爭，內部矛盾的問題都被「中國黨」拿來分化第一勢力及本土政黨。政治人物為了自己的私利，很容易上癮而操弄群眾。

支持民進黨的民眾必須先為台灣而團結，但不一定要加入民進黨（政治工作者要選舉，應該加入），也不要陷入政治人物的小圈圈，各個團體或個人應該在溝通協調機制下分工合作。只有這樣，民進黨（或協調產生的政治人物）才能贏得選舉，拿回政權。只有先贏得民心，才能贏得選舉。但是不會是相反的，先贏得選舉，才贏得民心。

任何個人或政黨都必須講出自己認同的價值，實踐自已的價值，提供實踐價值的方法，領導民眾實踐認同的價值，才能贏得民心，然後選舉才會勝利。中國黨的惡劣本質從來沒有改變，台灣派自己沒有進歩、甚至是退步，才是我們真正的瓶頸。

我與一些台灣獨立建國的社團與民眾會在立法院群賢樓的門口繼續靜坐抗爭，鍛鍊意志與決心，學習非暴力抗爭的方法與行動，希望可以擴大民眾參與「還我民權」運動，提升「住民自決」的意識與行動，提升台灣人的信心與行動力，可以幫助本土政黨營選舉。我個人認為，有扎實的社會力，才會有強有力的政黨。而不會是倒果為因。我們會以在立法院的抗爭作為社會運動的基礎，貢獻我們的力量，推廣我們相信的價值。

要求軍人全面退出校園

親愛的朋友：

檢附連署書以及相關資料，敬請參閱並加入連署。我們正在計畫相關行動，包括直接到教育部要求鄭瑞城部長不可再讓軍人進入校園。後續也可能繼續召開相關記者會。除了大學，我們要將努力的面向擴及高中職，才能一舉斷後。

所以，除了邀請你加入連署，也要拜託你共同參與相關行動，必須社會齊聲要求，才能集結力量。咱們大概無法期待畢其功於一役，要實現『軍人離開校園』的願望，得要長期持續的『抗戰』。更需要各種社會力的發揮。既然遇到這樣的社會，就….當成我們的運氣，有這樣多可以去努力、去宣傳的。

要麻煩你在回覆連署時同時讓我們知道你加入的行動。謝謝！

人本教育基金會　敬上

【以下勾選後，請連同連署回條傳至：slin@hef.org. tw / Fax：02-23625015 】

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

加入「要求軍人全面退出校園」的行動　回條

○ 我(們)可以寫文章

○ 我(們)可以提供管道，宣傳我們的行動與言論

○ 我(們)可以出席記者會

○ 我(們)可以一起去教育部向部長提出要求

○ 我(們)還有一些想法與建議：

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

（連署文及連署回條如下）

校園不是沙場

要求軍人全面退出校園連署書

87年3月27日，大法官釋字第四五0號解釋，將大學法與施行細則明定大學應設置軍訓室並配置人員，負責規劃軍訓及護理課程之規劃與教學等強制規定，宣告為違憲。大學設置軍訓室和配置軍訓教官就失去法源依據。然而，十年了，軍訓教官仍然普遍存在於各大學之校園。

面對被宣告違憲，以及社會各界強力要求教官全面退出校園的壓力下，教育部無法再逃避軍人在校的事實，卻又迫於歷史壓力，未能即刻劃清軍人與教育的界限，採取『要校園妥協』的模式，規劃了教官遇缺不補政策，期許『自然達成軍人退出校園』。

這種讓外界質疑『教育向槍桿子低頭』的做法，大家並不滿意。這個做法還迫使納稅人必須繼續支付高額薪資給進駐在校園的軍人，然而，大家想，總是一種慢慢的進步，雖然軍人還在，總也是少了一些。然而，現在大家不再能安然了。種種跡象以及教育部的態度，讓我們疑慮『軍人將大舉回來啦』！

今年11月3日立法委員郭素春、楊瓊瓔、鄭金玲、李復興提案凍結「補助私立大學軍訓教官離退後遞補學生事務與輔導工作專業人力經費」三億四千二百萬元之50%，要求教育部調查各公私立大學院對於軍訓教官之實際需求，以作為大學軍訓教官員額規劃之参據。教育委員會審查後，同意凍結一億元。

教育部軍訓處隨即在11月6日發文公私立各大專院校，要求填報軍訓教官員額需求（附件一），並在11月24日前回復。

發文同日，並有署名教育部軍訓處第一科中校教官黃立夫者，對其在大專院校的學長姊教官散發「大學軍訓教官員額調查之補充說明」（附件二），內容略為：「遇缺不補政策已有鬆動跡象，因此本處必須統計各校所需總員額數，作為向部長爭取的籌碼，也可打破訓委會的謠言（大多數學校都不要教官….等）」、「請盡力爭取軍訓教官之最大員額，為大學軍訓教官未來的存續努力」、「寒假遷調能開多少缺，就看這個調查的結果了，拜託大家了！」

我們看到了一齣由立法委員搖旗、教育部軍訓處鼓動、各校軍訓教官配合吶喊的戲碼。但是，要為大家捍衛教育，堅守教育立場的教育部長在哪裡？態度是什麼呢？要站在哪一邊呢？是要將校園變沙場？還是堅守軍人不得進駐教育的重大原則！！

從最近的社會局勢，我們已經得寶貴教訓，所有自由、民主、進步、開放的價值，絕不能有些餘的妥協。所有帶著向政治現實、歷史壓力妥協的政策，雖然表面上看來呼應著自由民主的價值，但所有的政治現實與歷史壓力都在旁虎視眈眈，稍有空隙，便大舉入侵。需要民間堅定堅持的監督與持續的要求、發聲，才有機會擋住政策一一回頭。

軍人是軍人，教育是教育。現任教官如果意欲轉任教職，必須卸下軍人身分，不再聽從國防部指揮，也不再享有軍人福利特權，也不可因為先佔住位置了，就理所當然保留住這位置。教育部不應該擔任國防部調整人力的水庫。

軍人是軍人，教育是教育。校園是校園，沙場是沙場。學生不是敵人，軍人不應該負責管教學生。面對軍人要重回校園的情勢，我們要求：

一、 教育部長必須堅持教官全面退出校園，不得妥協

二、 立法委員必須尊重教育原則，不得威脅教育部接收軍人

三、 國防部必須自我節制，不得再送軍人進入校園

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------

校園不是沙場　要求軍人全面退出校園　連署回條

連署人/團體	職業	聯絡電話	行動電話	e-mail

請回傳至　Fax：02-23625015　E-mail: slin@hef.org. tw 　

行政中心：人本教育基金會秘書處　聯絡人：林欣儀　秘書02-23670151* 117

testing