[quote]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/13/AR2006031300592.html
Chen expressed dismay that other nations should criticize Taiwan for taking steps to stay out from under Chinese domination. China, with its 1.3 billion people and rising economic power, is like a raging elephant, he said, while Taiwan is like a little rabbit trying to avoid being crushed.
“I think China is like a big, unleashed elephant entering a porcelain shop,” he said. “If China ever goes out of its mind, it will smash and destroy all the porcelain in the shop.”[/quote]
This man cracks me up. Rabbits, Elephants…
His appeal to “other nations” is going to fall on deaf ears. “Other nations” are not going to be sympathetic to one who, in his own dimwitted analogy, unleashes the elephant.
Jesus guys, you don’t make it easy…
There is, I believe, a strong argument for opening up the RoC Constitution to deal with the multiple governance problems which bedevil the document. Taiwan’s ‘French system’ of executive-legislative relations doesn’t work here (the conventions have never been accepted), so we’re left with a parliamentary/presidential hybrid that has none of the safety valves inherant in each. The RoC premier cannot call a dissolution of the LY to resolve deadlocks between the government and legislature (standard procedure in parliamentary systems), and the president has no veto powers over legislation passed by the LY (a basic ingredient of most presidential systems). So we’re left with a dog of a system that encourages a lack of restraint on all sides, and is almost designed to freeze-up. This NEEDS fixing. What do we do about it?
[quote=“guangtou”]Jesus guys, you don’t make it easy…
There is, I believe, a strong argument for opening up the RoC Constitution to deal with the multiple governance problems which bedevil the document. Taiwan’s ‘French system’ of executive-legislative relations doesn’t work here (the conventions have never been accepted), so we’re left with a parliamentary/presidential hybrid that has none of the safety valves inherant in each. The RoC premier cannot call a dissolution of the LY to resolve deadlocks between the government and legislature (standard procedure in parliamentary systems), and the president has no veto powers over legislation passed by the LY (a basic ingredient of most presidential systems). So we’re left with a dog of a system that encourages a lack of restraint on all sides, and is almost designed to freeze-up. This NEEDS fixing. What do we do about it?[/quote]
guangtou…guangtou…guangtou…
This is a problem to be resolved by the people in Beijing.
Silly boy!
guangtou,
If Taiwan’s government was ernest about just amending the constitution to make ROC more productive, I don’t believe the PRC would care or mind.
When the LY seat was being reduced you see the PRC up in arms? When the National Committee was disband did the PRC fly any missiles at Taipei?
However, if TI is the true motive behind the any suggested change, then of course the PRC would be concern. And of course being the opposition party, the pan-Blues would also be concerned.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]guangtou,
If Taiwan’s government was ernest about just amending the constitution to make ROC more productive, I don’t believe the PRC would care or mind.
When the LY seat was being reduced you see the PRC up in arms? When the National Committee was disband did the PRC fly any missiles at Taipei?
However, if TI is the true motive behind the any suggested change, then of course the PRC would be concern. And of course being the opposition party, the pan-Blues would also be concerned.[/quote]
You see, guantou…
Taiwan has to consult with Beijing first.
Let’s not forget the USA as well. They don’t like being left out.
You know it takes a lot of work for them to translate back and forth in English and Chinese to make sure we know what we are talking about in Chinese.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]Let’s not forget the USA as well. They don’t like being left out.
You know it takes a lot of work for them to translate back and forth in English and Chinese to make sure we know what we are talking about in Chinese.[/quote]
Yeah, it’s even more confusing when the official opposition supports the Beijing propaganda at the expense of the interests of the Taiwanese.
The true intention behind TI is to make a new constitution when amending the old one would do. The reason Beijing will not tolerate a completely new constitution is the old constitution made in 1947 and amended many times afterwards in Taiwan, is nevertheless a constitution made by China (of the time), in China, for a China (ROC), so it is a One China constitution, as Frank Hsieh has pointed out. Getting rid of that would trigger war, I assure you of it. It ditches ROC and is good as declaring de jure independence. Everybody knows this.
Guangtou, you gotta pay more attention to code words CSB uses for his base’s benefit like “we need a constitution fit for Taiwan.” He’s not talking about solving the parliamentary/presidential gridlock there. He’s talking about TI. It’s a stock phrase from the standard TI playbook. Read CSB’s five no’s pledge in reverse order, and you have the order of the next steps in the TI playbook.