And the reason Ma used to be popular among the Taiwanese was because of what?
(A sincere question by me. Not rhetorical)[/quote]
Because anyone seemed better than CSB, the public was tiring of the DPP, Ma had a “clean, upright” image, and the public actually thought the KMT had what it took to fix the economy.
Elections are complicated. The winner always likes to say that it was, conveniently, his or her pet position that helped him or her sweep to victory, but for many that’s not the case. As noted above, Ma won on a clean governance platform that advocated not rocking the boat with China and the US. That’s what he did during his first term, and that’s why he remained popular throughout it. By the time of his second term, though, he had spent almost all of the goodwill political capital those platforms had brought, and people came to the realization that there isn’t anything left to look forward to. This pattern will repeat itself over and over, irrespective of party affiliation and even country. Where Ma really failed was not bringing new ideas to the table in his second term.
I think Xi Jinping made a mistake by not meeting Ma at APEC.
Perhaps you should read what Xi’s ex-wife had to say about him. 
And the reason Ma used to be popular among the Taiwanese was because of what?
(A sincere question by me. Not rhetorical)[/quote]
Because anyone seemed better than CSB, the public was tiring of the DPP, Ma had a “clean, upright” image, and the public actually thought the KMT had what it took to fix the economy.[/quote]
How powerful do you think the infamous 6-3-3 riddle/gimmick was in persuading the voters at that time? Compared to personal quality of Ma, (who the pro-China media branded as clean, upright and “Harvard educated,” was the 6-3-3 gimmick a more significant factor, or a less significant factor?
I know this thread is about Hung, but I do wonder about this claim, Hok. I remember pretty clearly after Typhoon Morakot in 2009 how upset people in south Taiwan were about the perceived incompetence/indifference of the central government after their communities were devastated. All the talk I heard was how poorly this government performed compared to the central government’s response to the 921 earthquake in the 1990s. The shine on the Ma government started to come off pretty quickly well before Ma was elected for a second term.
Guy
Ma’s approval rating went south with Morakot and he really hasn’t been ‘popular’ by even the most generous definition of the term since then. Granted, he wasn’t universally despised in his first term the way he is now, but that hardly equates to popular. This TVBS survey has a chart that maps his approval ratings over the last 7 years: tvbs.com.tw/export/sites/tvb … 330713.pdf
Explaining Ma’s absolute collapse in his second term with the notion that it’s largely because he’s failed to come up with new policy is off the mark. This term started out with the botched handling of the beef controversy and a huge corruption scandal that took down one of his biggest allies, and it’s been downhill from there in terms of failed power struggles, messy policy implementation, refusal to heed public opinion and the failure to handle the civil movements that that caused, and scandals of all stripes. On a more fundamental level, the idea that Taiwan could hitch its economy to China’s and it’d benefit all of society without substantive consequences for Taiwan’s sovereignty, so crucial to Ma’s support outside of the deep blue base, has lost all credibility. Those are the reasons his popularity has plunged, not a lack of new ideas.
Well, I said clean, not competent. I should have been clearer – by popular I meant he had enough to support to handily win reelection. Poor implementation and not listening to public opinion were already apparent during his first term, but there was still enough goodwill for voters to give him the benefit of the doubt. By not bringing in new ideas, it became clear that his original platform wouldn’t hold together under extrenal and internal pressures, and he failed to adapt by introducing better policies.
I think the huge plummet in popularity was all of these things building up without many even realizing it… Then the gigantic nail in the coffin was his persecution of Wang Jin-pyng, who is infinitely more popular than Ma could ever dream of being. The public perception is that this was motivated by Ma’s grudge against Wang, or an attempt to “purify” the party ideologically, or both. Whatever the case, it brings to mind less-than-savory methods of old for dealing with political rivals. If you look at approval polls, September 2013 is when things went form not great to utterly disastrous for the Ma administration (as I recall).
And the reason Ma used to be popular among the Taiwanese was because of what?
(A sincere question by me. Not rhetorical)[/quote]
Because anyone seemed better than CSB, the public was tiring of the DPP, Ma had a “clean, upright” image, and the public actually thought the KMT had what it took to fix the economy.[/quote]
That is absolutely not true. The only time Ma actually faced CSB in an election was CSB’s bid to get re-elected as Taipei’s mayor. At that time CSB was immensely popular, and there wasn’t a single accusation of corruption that you could pin on CSB back then. CSB’s approval rating after his first term was over 70%, but he still lost the election to Ma.
So Ma’s popularity has nothing to do with how well or poorly CSB does things, or whether or not the public was tiried of the DPP. Remember it was Ma forcing out CSB as the incumbent that gave CSB the clear to run for president, before then DPP had always been a minority party.
So given those facts, your reasoning cannot explain Ma’s popularity before the CSB administration. The fact is, Ma has always been popular, and he gained that popularity not through elections, but through carefully cultivated image of being young, handsome, polite, well mannered, and in great physical shape.
I don’t know enough about the KMT prior curriculum to meaningfully respond. Nonetheless, my “ideal” China lets regions opt out and become independent. I don’t imagine the KMT ever would have espoused that (or I will seriously need to reevaluate my views on them).
I’m big enough to admit that I’ve probably had my share of indoctrination.n I would mention though that I was pretty Green through my young adulthood. I have come to Redness out of my view of pragmatism (others may call it defeatism or surrender, take your pick).
I suspect you are right. It would be interesting to learn more.
For me, it is a lack of viable options. 1C2S may not cure many of Taiwan’s problems, but the other options are unfeasible in my view and the attempt will lead to drastically worse outcomes. TI and Re-conquest lead to war. Soft TI (ROC sovereignty) might be able to skirt war for a while but China won’t accept it as a permanent solution either (thus leading back to war). So between faster unification or status quo/slow unification I’d prefer that Taiwan does it quickly, with its eye open and from a position of relative strength where it might still be able to preserve some of what it has. Waiting another 20 plus years for China to get stronger and wealthier, while Taiwan continues to hollow out and fade is a recipe for crummy terms in my view. The Lien Chans of the world will negotiate their own private deals, move their capital to China and look out for their own interests at Taiwan’s expense along the way. Better for an elected government to negotiate Taiwan’s terms collectively rather than letting individuals do it little by little for their own gain.
[quote=“sofun”] In traditional Chinese culture, uneducated folks when faced with illness or difficulties, would go to the Tao temples to seek written spell paper. They would burn the paper, and dump the ashes it into a cup of water, and drink it up. In this analogy, the 1-country-2-systems system is the spell paper.
From the perspective of the Tao temple (Chinese gov), the ultimate goal is to take possession of Taiwan (pun intended.) The Tao shaman is not concerned with how you reconcile within your head how the spell paper came to have that supposedly magical healing power. Anything is fine, 1-sytem 2 system 3 system, etc ------AS LONG AS he takes possession of Taiwan.[/quote]
Agreed, 1C2S is mostly going to be 1C1S, with only some marginal variations regarding limited home rule and controlled elections (or toothless positions; maybe both). In my view, any unification is going to be controlled by the PRC no matter what name we give it and the result will be a substantial impairment of democracy and liberty in Taiwan. In my view, for the foreseeable future, one cannot reasonably support unification and democracy. Taiwan and the ROC will not bring democracy to China; only the Chinese people can do it.
Surely there are other reasons Ma won in 1998? I’m not familiar enough with the time period to know why. But I would like to have a little more faith in the voters than these reasons would suggest.
[quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Agreed, 1C2S is mostly going to be 1C1S, with only some marginal variations regarding limited home rule and controlled elections (or toothless positions; maybe both). In my view, any unification is going to be controlled by the PRC no matter what name we give it and the result will be a substantial impairment of democracy and liberty in Taiwan. In my view, for the foreseeable future, one cannot reasonably support unification and democracy. Taiwan and the ROC will not bring democracy to China; only the Chinese people can do it.[/quote]
Right. I’d say if my Mandarin skill were limited, I would likely have reached the conclusion that you (and Mearsheimer’s school of thought) reached.
There has been significant effort from China over the past decades to promulgate this formula of thought: 1. Inevitability in the time scale as the premise, 2 “Limited options at a single point of time, usually presumed to be at China’s choosing” in the conclusion.
I too believe in inevitability. However, it’s a different kind of inevitability that is based on a profound understanding of China and Chinese-ness.
Surely there are other reasons Ma won in 1998? I’m not familiar enough with the time period to know why. But I would like to have a little more faith in the voters than these reasons would suggest.[/quote]
Actually no. It was his image carrying him along, not much else. He turned out so-so as mayor, but no disaster. Chen was better. Note that Chen won in 1994 due to a blue split, Taipei was and is deep blue.
Surely there are other reasons Ma won in 1998? I’m not familiar enough with the time period to know why. But I would like to have a little more faith in the voters than these reasons would suggest.[/quote]
Actually no. It was his image carrying him along, not much else. He turned out so-so as mayor, but no disaster. Chen was better. Note that Chen won in 1994 due to a blue split, Taipei was and is deep blue.[/quote]
Actually he was a disaster as mayor, it was just covered up by subsequent KMT mayors. A lot of what Ko is dealing with right now is left from Ma’s tenure, including the disastrous Taipei Dome, which was conducted and approved by Ma as the mayor of Taipei city.
Surely there are other reasons Ma won in 1998? I’m not familiar enough with the time period to know why. But I would like to have a little more faith in the voters than these reasons would suggest.[/quote]
Actually no. It was his image carrying him along, not much else. He turned out so-so as mayor, but no disaster. Chen was better. Note that Chen won in 1994 due to a blue split, Taipei was and is deep blue.[/quote]
Actually he was a disaster as mayor, it was just covered up by subsequent KMT mayors. A lot of what Ko is dealing with right now is left from Ma’s tenure, including the disastrous Taipei Dome, which was conducted and approved by Ma as the mayor of Taipei city.[/quote]
The impression was that he was so-so, that he was worse, well the city slid down a little. Taipei Dome may well land Ma in jail.
Surely there are other reasons Ma won in 1998? I’m not familiar enough with the time period to know why. But I would like to have a little more faith in the voters than these reasons would suggest.[/quote]
You shouldn’t. That was almost 20 years ago and the casual racist hatred of the dpp and the blind partisanship of voters was palpable in Taipei. I was living in muzha and my wife at the time was wsr so I was pretty clued into how people thought. She was intelligent and travelled but she voted for Ma largely on his image (which included the fact he was seen as modern and progressive, anti black gold, anti corruption, etc) and because he was wsr. It’s been interesting to watch her and other wsr I know slowly change. She voted Tsai in 2012 and wrote me to say she had cast her first vote for the opposition something she said she could never have imagined when we met.
[quote=“Mucha Man”]
You shouldn’t. That was almost 20 years ago and the casual racist hatred of the dpp and the blind partisanship of voters was palpable in Taipei. I was living in Muzha and my wife at the time was wsr so I was pretty clued into how people thought. She was intelligent and travelled but she voted for Ma largely on his image (which included the fact he was seen as modern and progressive, anti black gold, anti corruption, etc) and because he was wsr. It’s been interesting to watch her and other wsr I know slowly change. She voted Tsai in 2012 and wrote me to say she had cast her first vote for the opposition something she said she could never have imagined when we met.[/quote]
Don’t leave out the fact that many women voted for Ma based on his looks. (sad but true) 
Just look at Ma’s opponents during the mayoral and presidential elections in the past.
[quote=“sofun”][quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]
Agreed, 1C2S is mostly going to be 1C1S, with only some marginal variations regarding limited home rule and controlled elections (or toothless positions; maybe both). In my view, any unification is going to be controlled by the PRC no matter what name we give it and the result will be a substantial impairment of democracy and liberty in Taiwan. In my view, for the foreseeable future, one cannot reasonably support unification and democracy. Taiwan and the ROC will not bring democracy to China; only the Chinese people can do it.[/quote]
Right. I’d say if my Mandarin skill were limited, I would likely have reached the conclusion that you (and Mearsheimer’s school of thought) reached.
There has been significant effort from China over the past decades to promulgate this formula of thought: 1. Inevitability in the time scale as the premise, 2 “Limited options at a single point of time, usually presumed to be at China’s choosing” in the conclusion.
I too believe in inevitability. However, it’s a different kind of inevitability that is based on a profound understanding of China and Chinese-ness.[/quote]
My Mandarin skill is definitely limited and I claim no understanding of China, profound or otherwise. Whether it is propaganda or not, the odds seem to favor the likelihood of unification and not independence to me given the comparative populations, economies, militaries, and diplomatic statuses. Certainly there is a human factor at play too; until the latest elections I was of the firm view that if the Taiwanese people couldn’t even risk voting Green then there was no way they’d ever stomach riskier moves towards independence. I’m still far from convinced that a Taiwanese majority wants independence but I will adjust my views in light of developing circumstances.
Taiwan’s voting results misled you and most Taiwan watchers. There is no fixed way of interpreting what it means to vote Green or Blue. The correct interpretation changes on a case-by-case basis.
If you’re out of touch with the zeitgeist of Taiwan (due to living abroad or not fully raised in Taiwan, limited language skills etc), or not even aware of that there is such thing, it is extremely hard to read it, let aloe making sense of it.
In retrospect it is to Taiwan’s advantage in terms of national strategy and survival by being hard to read.
[quote=“sofun”]
Taiwan’s voting results misled you and most Taiwan watchers. There is no fixed way of interpreting what it means to vote Green or Blue. The correct interpretation changes on a case-by-case basis.
If you’re out of touch with the zeitgeist of Taiwan (due to living abroad or not fully raised in Taiwan, limited language skills etc), or not even aware of that there is such thing, it is extremely hard to read it, let aloe making sense of it.
In retrospect it is to Taiwan’s advantage in terms of national strategy and survival by being hard to read.[/quote]
unless China can successfully launch a swift and decisive invasion/occupation of the entire island of Taiwan, it’s going to be a risky move. a prolonged war with Taiwan or worse, yet, with US or other foreign troops is not in China’s favor. Or more precisely, not in the CCP’s favor. who knows where it can lead? it may end up being the catalyst for a violent overthrow of the Chinese communist regime. Not that it’s a good thing for Taiwan. Even if the Communists get toppled and new regimes take power, they may still decide to take Taiwan to improve their political power.