• [023]  Midnight Caller (12/19/2007)  Earlier, I wrote this about the Hong Kong Island Legislative Council by-election:

• [022]  The Heritage Foundation Meeting (12/19/2007)  (Huang Ching-long's blog)

[in translation]

... In order to sell the Taiwan referendum to join the United States, the Taiwan representative's office got the Heritage Foundation to hold a discussion forum on December 18.  This is a fairly typical policy pitch and the Heritage Foundation chose a neutral subject title: Taiwan's United Nations Bid: Domestic Democracy of International Crisis?  The invited speaker was the Taiwan representative Joseph Wu.  Two discussion panel were to follow.  The first one was to be chaired by Heritage Foundation senior research fellow John Tkacik Jr, with the panelists being former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Randall G. Schriver and legal scholar professor Chen Lung-chu.  The second one was to be chaired by Ambassador Harvey Feldman, with the panelists being Center for Strategic and International Studies' International Security Program senior associate Bonnie Glaser, American Institute in Taiwan director David Brown and Democratic Progressive Party's advisor Michael Fonte.  Unfortunately, Taiwan's Government Information Office took out an advertisement in the Washington DC newspaper Politico beforehand and raised a storm for the meeting.

This full-page advertisement appeared on page 14 of the December 13 issue of Politico.  The headline read: The Practical Imperative of UN Membership for Taiwan.  This was accompanied by a photograph of President Chen Shui-bian and Vice-President Annette Lu holding up torches and jogging in front of the Presidential Office in October this year.  There were four sections of texts that explained the reasons why Taiwan should be admitted into the United Nations.  Further down is a photograph of a goldfish trapped in a fish bowl with the words 'End political apartheid' stamped across it.  Two more lines of text read: "A vital life should not be limited, a democratic nation not isolated."

If this is all there is in that advertisement, outsiders would not have any problems.  They might even say praise the advertisement for its attractiveness.  The mistake was that the information about the meeting was printed in the bottom left corner of the advertisement.  The meeting was labeled a discussion of Taiwan joining the United Nations, and the names of the organizers and speakers were also listed as if they were propagandizing for Taiwan's cause.  "UN Membership for Taiwan" appeared in big letters at the bottom, with the URL: www.gio.gov.tw as if they needed to tell the world that this was propaganda paid for by the Taiwan government!
 

When the meeting began, Heritage Foundation's Asia Studies Center director Walter Lohman said that the advertisement was inappropriate and easily misunderstood.  He said that although the Heritage Foundation is organizing this meeting, it held no position about either supporting or opposing Taiwan's entry into the United Nations.  He said that the headlines, photographs and texts in the advertisements may cause people to think that the Heritage Foundation is propagandizing for the Taiwan government and therefore he had to speak out in order to dispel any such notion.  At this time, word came that Bonnie Glaser had withdrawn from the meeting.  Indeed, when the second session began, the chairman Feldman read a statement from Glaser to protest the Taiwan Government Information Office's advertisement which was the reason for her withdrawal.

What was the Government Information Office thinking when they took out that advertisement?  Their decision-makers obviously misjudged the professionalism and judgment of American think tanks.  Although the Heritage Foundation was asked by the Taiwan representative's office to hold this meeting, this isn't Taiwan and money isn't everything.  While American think tanks hold different positions and beliefs, they are all required to have professionalism, independence and integrity because these are the bases by which they can exert their influence.

In the second session, Ambassador Harvey Feldman is a honorary research fellow of the Heritage Foundation and he was practically speaking on behalf of the foundation.  He started by saying that if Taiwan wants to join the United Nations, it must have the consent of the UN Security Council.  But China is a member of the UN Security Council and it will veto the motion (note: He asked all those present: Does anyone here think that China will not veto?).  Not only that, but Russia and France will also veto.  Therefore, the chances of Taiwan joining the United Nations is zero!  If such is the case, then why bother holding a referendum?  Not only that, Feldman re-read aloud the words of Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Thomas Christensen and said that he agreed with this position of the American government.  He did so in order to prove that he was an independent expert just as the Heritage Foundation is an independent think tank, and neither will be influenced by the Taiwan sponsorship of this meeting.

I’ve my reservation on those China hands, I wonder just how much do they truly understand China and Chinese, not just the ability to speak the language.  Here are couple of excerpts from The Private Life of Chairman Mao by Dr. Li, to prove my point.

Page 120: Mao described himself best.  I am heshang dasan, he told Edgar Snow in 1970, literally meaning “a monk holding an umbrella.”  But heshang dasan is only the first half of a couplet.  The second, most important and meaningful, half, wufa wutian – is always left unsaid.  The sound wufa wutian, meaning ‘without hair, without sky,” is the same as an expression that means “without law, without god” – a man subject to the laws of neither man nor god.  Mao’s interpreter that day was a young woman without a classical education, and she translated the Chairman’s self-description as “a lonely monk walking the world with a leaky umbrella.”  Edgar Snow and numerous scholars after him concluded that Mao had a tragic, lonely view of himself.  Nothing could have been further from the truth.  Mao was trying to tell Edgar Snow that he was a god and law unto himself, wufa wutian.

From Pro States in Flames, here is part of the speech:

[in translation]

At the present, the Party Central Committee's concept of building a harmonious society is deeply popular among the people.  Everybody wants to have a harmonious society.  This is consistent with the Buddhist notion of 'blending.'  We believe that under the leadership of Master Priest Zhengci, the Puzhao Temple will revive its past glory and make even greater contributions towards the development of religious affairs, the advancement of economic development and the construction of a harmonious society in our city of E'chou.

When I read today's front page in United Daily News, I had to say that I was "discomforted."  I don't mean the report about the father who stabbed himself and his children, but I am referring to the KMT advertisement on the top left corner of the newspaper.

 
[translation: Governance: Blue is better than green.  In 2000, there were 2,471 suicides when the KMT ruled; in 2006, there were 4,406 suicides when the DPP ruled (new historical high).]

Previously, the KMT has a series of such advertisements about governance.  In the previous three days, they focused on economic growth rate, unemployment rate and rich-poor gap.  This is what the 'blue' camp is good at.  The 'blue' camp want to talk about the economy whereas the 'green' camp want to talk about referenda.  It makes sense for the KMT to use these statistics as their weapons.

But today's theme shocked me.  The KMT brought up the number of suicides!  ... The conclusion suggested by the KMT as that since the number of suicides went up during DPP rule, 'blue' must be better than 'green.'

I don't mind about wrangling between political parties, with occasional dirty tricks.  These political risks are the crosses that the politicians must bear.  But isn't it disrespectful to the dead to invoke their deaths as political weapons?  While a frequent issue in Taiwan is the economy, did all 4,406 persons commit suicide due to the ineptitude of the DPP?  Many of them were probably lovesick, or troubled by chronic illness.  Should the deaths of these people be blamed on the DPP?

... I don't want to be a defender of the DPP.  By my own reckoning, I lean towards 'blue.'  But when the number of suicides is used for propaganda, how can that be described other than 'discomfiture' (plus 'bad taste')?

• [016]  Divorce Democracy-Style (12/17/2007)  (Beijing News)

Houanling village, Tanghekou town, Huairou district, Beijing City is a small village with 187 persons living in 71 households.  Recently, almost 20 of those households are about to have divorces.  The key point is to note that when a married couple get divorced, the household is split into two households.

It has been known that the village party secretary and the village mayor do not get along.  Their squabbles has split the villagers into one or the other camp.  There is a new election for village representatives, of which 31 are supposed to be elected.  The voters are the households (and not the individual people).  The village is divided into three brigades.  So far, the elections within the first two brigades have ended with 25 village representatives, of which two-thirds support the village mayor.

The election in the third brigade is about to be held, with 15 households participating.  The balance of power was about the same between the village party secretary and the mayor.  That was until the supporters of the party secretary decided to shift the balance by obtaining divorce.  On December 12, a dozen or so villagers showed up at the Huairou district Civil Affairs Bureau to get quick divorces.  Wen Haili said, "I'm getting divorced not because of emotional problems with my husband.  We need to become separate households as quickly as possible for the election of village representatives."  Liu Hanshen said: "I want to get a divorce and I also want my parents to get divorced.  We are now two households.  After the divorce, we will become four households."  The divorcing villagers intend to get re-married after the election; however, they will not re-combine their household registration.

The origin of the concept was that the many of the married couples in the village had maintained separate household registrations.  For example, the village mayor and his wife are married but are registered as two households.  In his defense, the village mayor produced documentation that proved that their household registrations were made long before they were married.  His wife was a widow, and she wanted to keep a separate household registration because she considered herself the proper wife of her first husband.

There does not appear much that the two government officials can do because everything is quite legal.

• [015]  The Pan-Democratic Response (12/17/2007)  Here are two separate news reports about the pan-democrats' response to the report on constitutional development from Hong Kong SAR Chief Executive Donald Tsang.

(SCMP)  Democracy 'not' in pocket, warns Anson Chan.  By Chris Yeung and Albert Wong.  December 17, 2007.

... 

Mrs Chan said the government has failed to give a convincing answer to why universal suffrage could not be held in 2012 although most people wanted it. Legco, she said, should back the majority view of society until it was proved no longer possible.

However, the convenor of the executive council, Leung Chun-ying, said during a Newsline programme, broadcast by ATV World last night, that the implementation of universal suffrage "isn't just a question of the preference of the Hong Kong people".  Since democratic reforms needed the agreement of the chief executive, at least two-thirds of the Legislative Council, and the National People's Congress, "you need to find common ground", he said.  Although he thought Hong Kong was ready for direct elections of the chief executive in 2012, when asked whether he thought he would see that happen, he replied: "I wouldn't bet on it".

A source in the pan-democratic camp said privately they were not optimistic the Standing Committee would give a clear timetable of universal suffrage for the chief executive in 2017.  "Pan-democrats must set the record we are prepared to negotiate for a compromise. We have never said our position is kind of `2012 or nothing'. We may consider an interim electoral method that is fully undemocratic as long as there is an ultimate universal suffrage package with a timetable."

(Apple Daily)  No timetable promised; not a single word on a roadmap; the pan-democrats will not compromise

[in translation] We interviewed Anson Chan and she said that the Chief Executive's constitutional development report did not promise that if universal suffrage could not be implemented in 2012, then it will happen in 2017; the report pointed out that more than half of the people of Hong Kong support double universal suffrage in 2012 but it did not offer any sufficient reason not to implement that in 2012.  Therefore, the various sectors ought to continue to strive for double universal suffrage in 2012. 

... A pan-democrat pointed out that every since the battle over the political reform package in 2005, the pan-democrats have requested to conduct official dialogue with the Chief Executive and the Central Government.  At the time, Donald Tsang ignored them and the Central Government refused to hold discussions (except for some "unofficial" communication).  The situation has not improved up to now.

A pan-democrat claimed that outsiders criticize the pan-democrats "opposing for the sake of opposing."  In fact, it was the Central Government which refuses to communicate with the pan-democrats.  In this Chief Executive's constitutional reform report, it was acknowledged that more than half of the people support double universal suffrage in 2012.  The Central Government must respect public opinion and hold discussions with the pan-democrats in order to reach a consensus on the timetable and the roadmap.

What is the public opinion anyway?  Here is the Hong Kong Research Association poll (caveat: unknown bias because this is a automated voice interviewing without control on respondent selection):

Q4.  How shall universal suffrage for the Chief Executive proceed?
42%: 2012
30%: 2017 after a transitional period
24%: After 2017, after a transitional period
  4%: No opinion

Q5. Is it possible that 2/3 of the Legislative Council will pass the bill for 2012 universal suffrage for the Chief Executive?
25%: Yes
56%: No
19%: No opinion

Q6. If 2012 universal suffrage for the Chief Executive cannot be achieved, do you accept 2017?
59%: Yes
25%: No
16%: No opinion

Q7.  How shall universal suffrage for the Legislative Council proceed?
36%: 2012
30%: 2016 in steps
28%: After 2016, in steps
  6%: No opinion

Q8.  Is it possible that 2/3 of the Legislative Council will pass the bill for 2012 universal suffrage for the Legislative Council?
27%: Yes
51%: No
22%: No opinion

Q9. If 2012 universal suffrage for the Chief Executive cannot be achieved, do you accept 2016?
57%: Yes
29%: No
14%: No opinion

On one side, the pan-democrats are citing the information in Q4 and A7 about the support for double universal suffrage in 2012.  On the other side, the pro-establishment camp are referring to the information in Q6 and Q9; the 'reason' for the delay is due to Q5 and Q8.  How do you write a timetable and roadmap given Q5 and Q8?  The devil is in the details about how to get at least ten of the legislative councilors from the functional constituencies to vote themselves out of Legco.

• [013]  Hong Kong By The Numbers (12/16/2007)  (HKU POP) (1,012 Hong Kong persons interviewed by telephone during December 3-7, 2007)
   
  Comment: Hong Kong people feel positively towards people everywhere.  But with respect to governments, there are three major exceptions towards which there are strong negative feelings.  These three are 'democratic' countries.  Meanwhile, Hong Kong people like 'authoritarian' places such as mainland China and Singapore.  Is it because Hong Kong people hate democracy, freedom and liberty?

	Feel  positive towards  government	Feel  negative towards government	Feel positive towards people	Feel  negative towards  people
Hong Kong	47%	9%	58%	5%
Mainland	49%	12%	39%	16%
Taiwan	10%	56%	40%	10%
Macau	44%	14%	51%	3%
Singapore	59%	7%	63%	3%
Canada	45%	4%	52%	1%
Australia	46%	4%	47%	3%
Japan	17%	43%	46%	12%
South Korea	39%	11%	45%	8%
United Kingdom	38%	12%	45%	7%
USA	16%	45%	41%	8%
Thailand	20%	29%	40%	9%
France	24%	7%	32%	7%
Germany	26%	6%	31%	3%
Italy	18%	6%	28%	4%
Russia	17%	24%	26%	7%

• [011]  Fuck Chemistry (12/15/2007)  (KDNet)  Another piece of evidence for "Where Chinglish comes from."
  

• [010]  Assassination News From Taiwan (12/15/2007)

  (Taipei News)

  The Presidential Office received another threat against President Chen Shui-bian ( 陳水扁 ) yesterday, this time in the form of an e-mail, Presidential Office Spokesman David Lee ( 李南陽 ) said.  It was the fourth threat made against members of the first family within the course of a week.  The previous three targeted the president's daughter Chen Hsing-yu ( 陳幸妤 ), his son Chen Chih-chung ( 陳致中 ) and the president.

  Lee said the e-mail, sent by someone describing themselves as the "black killer," contained threats to shoot the president with two bullets, kidnap his grandsons and sexually assault his daughter.  Later yesterday, the Presidential Office made the content public.

  Here is the actual text from "the killer in black clothing" (黑衣殺手) (via UDN):

  

  砰砰ㄚ本甲林北蠟筆小新一點要不然賞您兩顆土豆強姦姓餘的梆架小ㄤㄤ輪椅ㄟ座了尚辛苦囉林北乎伊躺咧睏叉您老母。

  The opposition is saying that this was another ruse manufactured by Chen Shui-bian for election purposes.  Perhaps, but it was not concocted by senior officials because they are unlikely to be able to write "Martian" (see China Daily for an introduction to the 'language').  By comparison, here is the threatening letter to the President's son.

  

  (Apple Daily editorial)

  If I were Chen Shui-bian, I must be crying hard.  How come when my son, daughter and myself received threats repeatedly, nobody offers me any sympathy?  Instead, they heap scorn upon me.  Why does everybody think that I fabricated this?  How come even my American friends think that I am manipulating for the elections?  How come nobody believes what I say?

  We would like to ask the President: When the family of an ordinary citizen is threatened, they receive sympathy.  As the President, you should have the trust and support of the people.  Instead, you are treated as a joke and everything you say is regarded as farting.  Why is that?  As the President, you have lost the trust and respect of the people and your authority has disappeared.  Even when you are threatened, nobody believes you.  Why is that?

  When the presidents of other nations receive threatening letters, they will turn them over to departments such as the Secret Services to handle.  They will keep quiet in order not to create a stir and affect the presidential stature.  This also gives no free publicity to the senders of the threatening letters.  However, you do exactly the opposite and you make a loud public complaint as if you want everybody to know.  This is bound to create suspicion that you want to use this threat to gain some sympathy and you want the voters to transfer the sympathy to DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh and the other DPP legislature candidates.  Wrong!  People do not believe that the threats against you are real and they will also regard Hsieh and the other DPP legislature candidates as co-conspirators in your lies.

  The bankruptcy of your character is your own personal problem.  But the bankruptcy of the character of the president becomes a problem for the people as a whole.  That is why the responsibility of a leader is so huge.  If you are honest and forthright, the people will love you and forgive you even if you are incompetent.  Everybody will still be positive-thinking and content.  But you happen to be deceptive and dishonest with a bag full of tricks.  People are forced to guess at the motive every time that you speak, and they become depressed and negative-thinking.  It is painful for those who don't trust you, for who wants to hold doubts about their state leader?  Because of the painfulness of this, many people simply refuse to consider you as their president anymore and this relieves them of the emotional burden that you caused them.

  In order to be trusted, you must first deserve the trust.  You have been the president of one political party and you are always campaigning for your party.  You do everything necessary to win.  You have a bag full of cunning little tricks.  You do things to attain temporary objectives.  The net result is that people do not think that you deserve their trust anymore.  Sometimes, your motive is good and you want to do something for Taiwan.  But a good motive is not necessarily better than a pure motive.  Your motives are too complicated and too impure, and this causes people to doubt your original good intentions.

  In the future, please do not tell us about what you "want" to say.  Instead, tell us what you "should" say.  To do so, you need to start again on the basis of honesty and forthrightness.

  (Apple Daily)  Meanwhile, the other assassination topic of interest is the novel "The Story of the Assassination of Ma" (刺 馬 記).  This novel was published in September 2006.  In the novel, a number of details have turned out to be true later on: the resignation of Ma Ying-jeou as KMT chairman on account of the special fees case; the threatening parcel sent to Taipei city mayor Hau Lung-bin; the threat against President Chen Shui-bian's daughter;etc.

  

  In the novel, on the final Saturday before the presidential election in March 2008, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou traveled to Kaohsiung city to campaign and was shot three times in the abdomen.  The injuries were not life-threatening.

  (TVBS)  When AIT chairman Raymond Burghardt came to visit recently, he met with KMT vice-president candidate Vincent Siew.  During the meeting, Siew spoke about three foul plays by the DPP.  Foul play #1: President Chen does not like his party's candidate Frank Hsieh, and so Hsieh will be assassinated in order to make way for Su Cheng-tseng to become the candidate.  Foul play #2: On the 228 march or the 314 anti-Chinese-anti-splittism-law march, riots will occur that lead to imposition of emergency laws that will postpone the election.  Foul play #3: Assassinate the KMT candidate.

  Which is the novel?  "The Story of the Assassination of Ma" or the TVBS news story?

The government's report on political reform has come under fire for its over-reliance on some opinion polls that were conducted through unprofessional means, a public-opinion expert says.

Robert Chung Ting-yiu, director of the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, criticized the government's report for extensively quoting polls regardless of their methodology and professional standards.

Findings of several polling agencies were quoted in the report, including those conducted by the University of Hong Kong, the Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies of Chinese University, the Hong Kong Research Association and Ming Pao.

Controversial conclusions, including that 60 per cent accepted universal suffrage for the chief executive in 2017 if it could not be attained by 2012, and that more than half supported retaining functional-constituency seats, were mostly drawn from the polls conducted by the Hong Kong Research Association.

"I believe some of the polls quoted were done through unprofessional means like using interactive-voice-response technology, which is not a recognized method of professional opinion polling," Dr Chung said.

The Hong Kong Research Association confirmed yesterday that its survey was conducted by an interactive-voice-response system.  The polling agency was founded in 2004 with Thomas So, a part-time member of the Central Policy Unit, as its chairman. He is the executive director of the Hong Kong New Generation Cultural Association.

The surveys carried out by the Public Opinion Programme, Chinese University and Lingnan University are conducted through real interviews by research assistants.

• [005]  Hope and Fear (12/12/2007)  Committee of 100: 2007 Parallel Survey: American and Chinese Attitudes Toward Each Other
   
  This is long survey from which I note the following two tables.  With respect to the greatest concerns about U.S.-China relations, the Chinese were most concerned about Taiwan, but the Americans don't think that is an issue.
   
  
   
  And if there were cross-straits military hostilities, what is the American support for intervention?
   
  

• [002]  Liberty Square (12/11/2007)  (Taipei Times)

National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall ( 台灣民主紀念館 ) attracted hordes of tourists and curious onlookers at its opening yesterday morning. While the name change to "Liberty Square" ( 自由廣場 ) drew a handful of protests, most visitors had positive comments about the government's decision to change the hall's name from Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall ( 中正紀念堂 ).

(Apple Daily)  Yesterday, Liberty Square was opened and hordes of people entered to take photographs, including newly weds. Taichung Third District's Legislature candidate Lin Chun-tung of the Liberal Democratic Party climbed up the stele in the plaza, took off his pants and urinated into a cup.  He yelled: "At Liberty Square, you are at liberty to do whatever you want."  Onlookers were astonished at the sight.

(Taipei Times)

Several Democratic Progressive Party lawmakers went to the ministry yesterday morning to commend Ministry of Education Secretary-General Chuang Kuo-jung (莊國榮) for his leadership in overseeing the project.

Chuang has become a household name because of his snappy comebacks and caustic remarks about the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and its top leaders, including calling presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) "sissies," "gay-like" and "wimps."

(TVBS)

The DPP lawmakers went to the Ministry of Education in support of Chuang Kuo-jung, but a female heckler showed up uninvited and yelled: "Down with Ah Bian!  Taiwan is finished!  Taiwan is finished! ... I am trying to save my family, my children, my husband and my country.  The people at the Ministry of Education are all trash."  She yelled so forcefully that her dentures fell out.

 
The heckler had a backpack which was not zipped.  So DPP lawmaker Wang Shu-hui reached in and took out the documents to start reading.  Then she suddenly exclaimed:  "This is a list of informants.  Taiwan provided you with a good life.  This is a list of shameless Communists!"  When asked why she poked her hand into someone else's backpack, Wang said: "I was trying to help her.  Her stuff was about to fall out."

(TVBS)

The pan-green camp is running on the basis of "removal of authoritarianism, transitional justice."  Instead, DPP presidential candidate Frank Hsieh gets less exposure than a minor official from the Ministry of Education.  Hsieh has been holding meetings to explain his proposed policies but who is paying attention?  The Hsieh campaign spokesperson said: "Chuang Kuo-jung is neither a government spokesman nor a political campaign spokesperson.  Therefore, we don't feel that people should pay too much attention to what he says."  Hsieh said himself: "Please do not dance to his tune.  Here we are talking about our ideas and we are speaking about livelihood and economic issues every day, but nobody is giving us airtime."

Famous sayings of Chuang Kuo-jung:

(TVBS)  郝市長如果對這種事情不滿，我歡迎他隨時來告我，有種的話，他可以到法庭出庭，我會讓他哭著回去找媽媽！ Translation: If mayor Hau Lung-bin is not happy about this, I welcome him to sue me anytime.  If he has the guts, he can show up in court and I will send me back crying to this mama.! (YouTube)

(TVBS)  蔣經國是馬英九他媽媽，但對台灣絕大多數的人是，他媽再加一個『的』。 Translation: Chiang Ching-kuo is Ma Ying-jeou's mama.  For the majority of the people in Taiwan, they say: "His mother's."  (note: this is the abbreviation of the common curse: "Fuck his mother's cunt") (YouTube)

(TVBS)  總統候選人最大的特徵是從小乖，那完蛋了！就像我有一些德國朋友來台灣，或我去在德國，他就跟我談到對台灣的政治現象，大家在聊，他們非常好奇，為什麼台灣的女生有些人很喜歡馬英九，德國人跟我說，就德國女人的觀點來看，馬英九很娘啊！不太像男人啊！ Translation: When a presidential candidate's biggest characteristic is obedience since childhood, then it is over for him!  When some of my German friends come to Taiwan, or when I go to Germany, we would chat about the politics in Taiwan.  They are very curious: Why do these Taiwanese girls like Ma Ying-jeou?  The Germans tell me that German women would regard Ma Ying-jeou as sissy!  He does not look manly!

(TVBS)  郝龍斌蠻熱愛蔣中正的，我看他跟他緊緊擁抱在一起，人家還以為是GAY勒，所以我覺得當他這麼熱愛蔣中正的時候，然後跟威權體制，這麼緊密唇齒相依的時候，我們就沒什麼指望！ Translation: Hau Lung-bin loves Chiang Kai-shek dearly.  I see that they embrace each other so tightly that people think they are gay.  Therefore, I feel that when he loves Chiang Kai-shek so dearly and he follows the authoritarian system, we have no hope for Hau!

(Apple Daily)  郝龍斌雖欠缺民主法治素養與獨裁者抱太緊，但有勇氣，勇於捍衛他所支持的事情。馬英九給我的感覺是『小孬孬』，就是一輩子恐怕不知什麼叫guts（膽識勇氣）、男子氣概和魄力，這一點他遠不如郝龍斌。 Translation: Although Hau Lung-bin does not have any sense of rule of law under democracy and he embraces dictatorship too closely, he has the courage to defend what he supports.  Ma Ying-jeou gives me the feeling that he is "wimpy."  He will never ever learn the meaning of 'guts' and the demeanor and charisma of a man.  In this sense, he is far less a person than Hau Lung-bin.