Acey,
Actually the question was whether the KMT is abusing democracy by implementing bills for forward their own agenda, basically the same point you implied of the DDP.
So what’s your view, are the KMT abusing democracy for their own purpose?
Regards
Michael G
It seems that KMT understands democracy and the democratic process perfectly.
Another one of those adapt or perish arguments, I guess. :bouncy:
And since when does the KMT knows how to save money (except to save it in their pockets)?
Since they have the majority in the LY, aren’t they already the “party of the people”?
discussable, as they don’t have the Executive majority.
What happens in Taiwan is that there is one party that has the Executive trying to make laws to fulfil their agenda, and another party that has the Legislative trying to make laws to fulfil their agenda. Kind of hard to make a distinction between who gets dirtier, being that the first is also trying to pave way for the transition normal to countries that underwent dictatorship->democracy evolution. As there was no disbanding of the ancient dictator’s party, it is a lot more difficult to make this transition.
People may think that what the government is doing is creating “ethnic” whatever, but unless you look to what happened in other countries with the same transition, you’ll never understand it. I don’t defend the DPP policies (some of them are not good at all, and the constant brawls in the LY don’t help them) but for me, all this situation should have ended long ago with the dismantling of the KMT. As pure and simple as that.
Why should the KMT be dismantled, and “who” would do the dismantling? The KMT membership apparently doesn’t want to dismantle it, and those who vote KMT are apparently okay with it in its current state.
In most political systems, it’s the legislature that’s given the legal authority to make laws. The executive branch is then given the legal authority to execute them. In Taiwan, the system has broken down, since legislative yuan has been crippled despite the fact that one party owns a clear numerical majority.
cctang, the problem lies on the system itself, not in the DPP government. There is no clear understanding of powers over here.
Just go ask the Fascist if they voted by themselves to be dismantled? You have a lot of places to go look for.
[quote=“mr_boogie”]cctang, the problem lies on the system itself, not in the DPP government. There is no clear understanding of powers over here.
Just go ask the Fascist if they voted by themselves to be dismantled? You have a lot of places to go look for.[/quote]
I think that’s actually a pretty fair statement, mr_boogie.
BB,
Grumble…I like that 
I grumble about Taiwan Politics
If I were take my discussions to the Government directly it would sort of defeat the purpose of having a Taiwan Politics forum?
Think about it, if your solution is that we shouldn’t discuss politics amongst ourselves why bother posting at all?
And finally, who’s to say I haven’t? Have you been monitoring my inbox? 
Actually fact is I do write to the DDP, but there’s no reason why I cannot pose these questions in two places at once?
And while I wait for my response from the DDP, I’m interested to hear your responses regarding the same questions.
I’ve pose many questions here, and all I’m getting as responses so far is “progressive people party”.
I don’t mind a good debate, but it’s a little one sided if the blues won’t respond to my questions.
Regards
Michael G
[quote=“mkegruber”]Acey,
Actually the question was whether the KMT is abusing democracy by implementing bills for forward their own agenda, basically the same point you implied of the DDP.
So what’s your view, are the KMT abusing democracy for their own purpose?
Regards
Michael G[/quote]
That’s a philosophical disconnect. Since those elected in the LY have very few contested results. So as others have mention “their” aggenda is in tune with their constituents aggenda.
However, the same cannot be said of the Executive office. The results were contested, the populous demonstrate in the individuals removal from office, the person in office has repeated exclude people from his message by speaking the non-official dialect in public when delivering key speaches.
And of course they have illustrate their irrelvance to Taiwan society by pursuing an outdated strategy of TI when the majority of the people in the province of Taiwan clearly support Status Quo.
The ironic thing is of course polling have shown more support for the renaming of the street than the renaming of the park. Even though the effort to rename the park was heavy promoted in the media by the DPP. Dare I say it, people are getting tired of CSB “renaming” efforts and over-exaggeration of ROC history.
All of Taiwan should mean everyone on Taiwan province and Fujian province (that ROC administers), not just the Minnan speak people South of Taizhong.
Besides identity politics, the KMT policies actually have greater appeal than what the DPP has been offering up to this point. So the challenge is of course on the DPP to demonstrate they are as progressive as the KMT on all fronts.
No, no, you are missing the point here…
The DPP doesn’t contest results, the KMT contest any result where they loose.
AC - Once and for all - Status Quo means independence - if not, tell me which part of the government in Taiwan relies on a foreign government?
Another part of the Status Quo - one that people don’t talk about it - is that it means “let-us-fill-our-pockets-and-fly-to-US-or-China-while-we-can” type of people. Let us compare how much the DPP personnel against how much the KMT personnel have robbed, shall we?
Wang? He beats the crap out of all the DPP’ers together, no?
Soong?
…
…
…
And, last but not least, to confirm that the “old power” is still a force in Taiwan, we just had a shooting in Taipei County, where a professional gunmen shot a PFP (yes, PFP, not a DPP or TSU) councilman. There are 2 main explanations, one is because he was critic of some collusion between government officials and construction companies (and if it is Taipei Country, it can only mean KMT people) and the other because he was owing money and was not paying based on his status.
It is ok for the KMT to be hypocritical, didn’t you know? The hypocrite-in-chief is running for president under the KMT banner.
That’s really really funny. Can’t declare independence so let’s define independence as what we have today.
This is a paraphrase from the DPP definition of Taiwan.
“Status Quo is ROC administering Taiwan Province, and outlying islands of Fujian Province which PRC has no authority over”
Can you read Chinese version of the DPP charter. Until Taiwan independence clause is removed. I fear your interpretation to be overstating the case. Let me translate your guiding principles for you. Since I know most Taiwanese supporter struggle with Chinese.
From the DPP Cross Strait Guiding Principles
“…the people of Taiwan pursue political autonomy…”
The DPP policy must be outdated or their supporters must be outdated. I recommend supporting the real progressive party in Taiwan at this point.
DPP politician also need the services of pollsters. Can you imagine the confusion if the politicians were also buying into their own hype.
Freakin’ racist yams & DPP. Can’t even keep their own freakin’ hype straight.
So, AC, what differences are there between what the ROC is now and the rest of the countries?
I don’t see any…
[quote]
Task force to draft `normal country’ resolution for DPP
By Flora Wang
STAFF REPORTER
Thursday, May 17, 2007, Page 3
The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) Central Standing Committee established a task force yesterday to draft a “Normal Country Resolution” that will address several issues, including sovereignty, education and the economy.
After the committee meeting, DPP Chairman Yu Shyi-kun said that the resolution will be drawn up by nine party members led by DPP Legislator Chai Trong-rong (蔡同榮).
Some of the other members will be DPP Secretary-General Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍), DPP legislative whip Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘), former acting Kaohsiung mayor Yeh Chu-lan (葉菊蘭) and Presidential Office Secretary-General Chiu I-jen (邱義仁), Yu said.
Major figures from civic groups will be invited to consult, he said.
“The `Normal Country Resolution’ will address not only the nation’s sovereignty but also transitional justice, education, culture and economy,” he said.
“We have been in power for eight years. We have to evaluate our prospects and ideals over the past eight years. The `Normal Country Resolution’ will give consideration to both DPP’s victory in the upcoming presidential and legislative elections and the party’s core values,” he said.
Yu said the WHO’s latest rejection of Taiwan’s membership bid highlighted “the need for Taiwan to become a normal country.”
When asked if the new resolution would contradict or replace the party’s “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” passed in 1999, Yu said it would replace the 1999 version after being passed by the extraordinary National Congress next month.
That congress meeting has been set for June 30
The “Resolution on Taiwan’s Future” was written into the party platform to replace the “Taiwan Independence Clause” as part of the DPP’s preparations for the 2000 presidential election.
Prior to 1999, the party’s stance on national identity was embodied in the 1991 “Taiwan Independence Clause,” which set a goal of an independent country named the “Republic of Taiwan.”
The 1999 resolution, however, stated that the DPP recognized that Taiwan was already an independent country, named the “Republic of China.”
“Every resolution is drafted under a certain historical background. It must exist because of certain space and time … [Resolutions] are gradually evolving in response to the changes of time and space,” he said.
Meanwhile, Lin said that the new resolution would have to be completed one month before the June 30 congress if it were to be voted upon at that meeting. But if that was not sufficient time more could be given because the annual National Congress is expected to be held sometime between July and September.
[/quote] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/05/17/2003361246
and now, back to the topic
[quote]
KMT’s name change fight opens rift
By Mo Yan-chih
STAFF REPORTER
Monday, May 28, 2007, Page 2
The fight over the name change of Chiang Kai-shek (CKS) Memorial Hall turned fiercer last week as the Ministry of Education and Taipei City Government clashed over whether it was legal to cover the monument’s name plates with banners and canvas.
In addition to tearing down the banners and canvas put up by the ministry on Tuesday morning, the city government retaliated against the central government’s renaming the hall “National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall” by announcing it would rename a section of Ketagalan Boulevard directly in front of the Presidential Office Building the “Anti-Corruption Democracy Square.”
The move immediately won the full support of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and most pan-blue politicians, who hailed Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), son of retired general and former premier Hau Pei-tsun (郝柏村), for his “creative” tactics in defending dictator Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) legacy.
The KMT’s move to counter the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government’s name change, however, is likely to cost the party the respect and support of younger voters, analysts said.
“How can the KMT rename the boulevard `Anti-corruption Democracy Square’ when it is marred by corruption? The party does not understand the meaning of transitional justice,” said Lee Shiao-feng (李筱峰), a history professor at Shih Hsin University.
Transitional justice, a campaign intended to heal the wounds of the oppression and human rights violations that the nation saw during its decadeslong dictatorship, will not be successful unless the old regime formally recognizes past wrongdoings and removes symbols glorifying the dictatorship, Lee said.
“The KMT is ignoring the people’s wish to rebuild a national identity and refusing to apologize for what it has done. The move can only result in a negative effect on its reputation,” he said.
While pan-blue politicians rushed to defend Chiang, Demos Chiang (蔣友柏), the 31-year-old great-grandson of Chiang Kai-shek, said in a recent interview with the Chinese-language Next Magazine that the Chiang family had persecuted the people of Taiwan and the KMT should come clean.
“We can’t keep living on past glories and refuse to accept criticism. Some of us must stand up and admit our past,” he said in the interview.
Demos Chiang’s remarks surprised pan-blue politicians, who struggled to interpret his words, while arguing that Chiang Kai-shek had paved the way for economic growth and fended off Communist invasion.
“No historical figures are perfect … We should judge Chiang Kai-shek’s merit fairly. In my view, he made more contributions than mistakes,” KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) said.
Ku Chung-hwa (顧忠華), a political analyst and sociology professor at National Chengchi University, said Demos Chiang’s comments reflected a general consensus among the public, especially among younger generations, that transitional justice should be pursued through a cooperative effort across party lines.
“Taiwanese now have the knowledge and wisdom to tell right from wrong and changing the name of CKS hall should not be a political issue,” Ku said.
“The KMT’s moves to defend Chiang Kai-shek simply show that its position is far from democratic,” he said.
A younger KMT spokesperson, 31-year-old Su Jun-pin (蘇俊賓), voiced his support for Demos Chiang’s statement about his own family’s history.
“Such introspection should be encouraged, especially coming from younger generations … It is progress to be able to face history with honesty,” he said.
Lee urged the city government and the KMT not to continue its “farce” retaliation by renaming a section of Ketagalan Boulevard, and condemned the party for accusing the government of creating an ethnic divide by changing the name of the memorial.
“This has nothing to do with the issue of ethnicity. I don’t think pan-blue supporters want the mistakes made by the former regime to continue,” he said.
Commenting on the city government’s plan, KMT Taipei City Councilor Wang Chih-ping (汪志冰) also expressed doubt over the plan to rename part of the boulevard, urging Hau to reconsider the issue before taking any action.
“It’s a sensitive time to rename the boulevard. In my view, the city government is starting an irrational fight with the education ministry. It should consider the consequences of such a plan,” Wang said.
[/quote] http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2007/05/28/2003362775
More name games, signifying nothing.
Yeap, I personally propose the Roosevelt Road to be renamed to that great American Marie-Joseph-Paul-Yves-Roch-Gilbert du Motier, although all that will be hard to put as a single address…