Is Ma Ying-jeou a pussy?

Mucha Man,

Reassure people of what? ROC was stupid to pursue an USA alliance and dependence on the US market?
Or that Japan’s 10% drop in the market means ROC should take over diaoyutai. That won’t come off well at all.

It is in the best interest of Taiwanese to pursue in an unhindered mannered the PRC markets, just like the Taiwanese are able to pursue other global markets with little or no ROC government oversight. Who argues the contrary beside a bunch of idealogical looneys in Taiwan?

Oh yeah after 8 years of a totally uncooperative CSB administration the PRC will do a 180 for MYJ. History has shown the PRC are quite cautious, MYJ is not going to change that. I think PRC tourist should be given full access to Taiwan, like US and Canadian tourist. How many US, Canadian or Japanese tourist would come Taiwan if there was a curfew imposed on them? Who wants to go on vacation and be treated as 2nd class? To improve tourism also means getting rid of the undesireable elements in Taiwan, like TI. How many PRC tourist goto Malaysia or Indonesia, places with anti-Chinese sentiments? Contrary to popular belief, PRC citizens have free will and can choose to spend their money where ever they want.

[quote=“ac_dropout”]Muzha Man,

Reassure people of what? [/quote]

That he is pursuing a pro-Taiwan path. Ma’s approval is 20% among those who live here and can see their lives’ affected by his policies.

Those who have seen wages stagnate for the past 15 years because taiwanese businesses have pursued cheap labor all over the world. And anyone with a brain who can see that pursuing a risky strategy with an uncooperatove PRC can easily fail.

This is what Ma promised.

News to him.

As far as I know, most countries have these kinds of restrictions on mainland tourists.

Good lord, even to call you mentally challenged is to pay you a compliment.

Japanese tourists make up the lion’s share of our tourist market and have for years. Guess what? They hate the mainland tourists and have told tourist operators not to put them in hotels with mainlanders.

So, in the name of business do you agree to shut out all the mainland tourists so that we don’t lose the people who actually are already visiting in the millions?

If you don’t then shut the fuck up about suppressing the local people to make this place more palatable for the Chinese tourists - who aren’t even coming.

Ma is handsome. A-bien was an old wrinkled prune. Thats what the election boiled down to. Swapping ugly for a beauty. He was never going to be anything other than a yes man pawn.

Lien Chan had very smooth skin but was still defeated twice by Chen. Your thesis is flawed.

Ma’s performance has been terrible, this is true.

But to Mucha Man and Feiren, the DPP adopted a policy of engaging the PRC only on a state to state basis. Which China would rather poke red hot needles in their eyes. It was a policy of isolation from a giant neighbor.

Please, either put forward how Frank’s vision was different, or how such policy, over an extended period, could work for Taiwan.

I’m all ears.

Still, their policies were making companies stay in Taiwan, and kept Taiwan on the top of their biz… And going state to state was their policy, as it was/is the will of most of Taiwanese, who don’t consider themselves as part of the PRC.

The new policies made the GDP growth go from 6+ to 2+, and you cannot even say it is all fault of the financial crisis, cause it was also there in the beginning of the year.

[quote=“Mick”]Ma’s performance has been terrible, this is true.

But to Muzha Man and Feiren, the DPP adopted a policy of engaging the PRC only on a state to state basis. Which China would rather poke red hot needles in their eyes. It was a policy of isolation from a giant neighbor.

Please, either put forward how Frank’s vision was different, or how such policy, over an extended period, could work for Taiwan.

I’m all ears.[/quote]

Work in what sense? Remember it was Lee Teng Hui who first declared China-Taiwan relations were state to state so it has been the status quo for a long time. During that time Taiwanese investment in China skyrocketed, a million Taiwanese moved to China for work, and our economies grew ever more linked. What isolation are you talking about? I am all ears?

I am also all ears how a policy of capitulation is going to help? We have seen already that the Chinese approach to Ma is to go into negotiations assuming they have all the bargaining power because Ma has to fulfill the promises he made to the electorate (whereas the Chinese aren’t answerable to anyone).

What would be my solution? Well, since most Taiwanese businesses in China are making products for export, and not the domestic Chinese market, we really don’t need to be there do we? Encourage business to return to Taiwan and upgrade (in any case many are returning as labor costs rise in China). I would also suggest continuing the DPP’s tourism policies which focused on the groups that were already coming in the millions, and longer range plans for western tourists.

Continue to upgrade the agricultural sector. We made great gains under the DPP. Taiwanese fruit and rice is sold in Japan, Korea, and Malaysia (at a premium) and Hualian organic produce is now being exported to Canada. Food costs are rising around the world. There’s going to be a lot of instability. We need a strong agriculural sector for the future and we definitely need to be protecting ourself from Chinese imports.

The cabinet recently approved loans to upgrade traditional industries here in Taiwan such as bikes, golf clubs, leather, high tech fabrics, etc. Great and more of this please. Let’s keep as many jobs and industries here as we can.

Direct flights. Great. It will help a small amount. But remember that the DPP laid all the groundwork for this and the Ma admin threw all the advantage away by promising a date for direct flights. The real issue is direct cargo flights and we don’t have those. If we get them I will say well done.

As for Frank’s vision, I am not of the camp who thinks he could have made a go of it with a KMT legislative majority. In a normal country I think he would have made the better leader (even with a hostile legislative) but I reluctantly supported Ma as I thought under him the KMT would in fact enact all the policies they had been blocking for years. I assumed that they were blocking them for partisan reasons but understood they were necessary. I mean sunshine bills, land and water use bills, judicial reforms, etc. Sad to say the present legislative has no intention of putting the needs of Taiwan first.

My prediction though is that Wang Jyn Ping is goign to ram a lot of needed legislation over the comign years but be sure he is credited in the media. He will then run for president in 2012 when Ma’s star has sunk below the horizon and the DPP are still squabbling over whether to allow the pro-Chen groups to attend the next protest rally. :slight_smile:

Good post Mucha Man for the most part I agree.

However, do you really think the Chinese care what Lee Teng Hui declared? Sorry, you failed to answer the question! How would the DPP engage China with a policy that required state to state relationships?

Or , if it were to adopt a policy of non engagement , how could it sustain such a long term policy, considering the size and location of China in relation to Taiwan.

Good post Muzha Man for the most part I agree.

However, do you really think the Chinese care what Lee Teng Hui declared? Sorry, you failed to answer the question! How would the DPP engage China with a policy that required state to state relationships? [/quote]

The way they did for 8 years. It’s all games and the Chinese know this as well as gthe Taiwanese.

But again, I repeat, direct flights, to take one example, would have arrived under a DPP government as they had been laying the groundwork for years. The DPP and the Chinese were negotiating, were engaging. If Lien Chan and his cabal of sellouts had not gone to China and made deals to undermine our democracy the DPP likely would have made better progress as even the Chinese would have had to ackowledge there was no other way. But the KMT gave them another way.

Mick, there are no easy solutions. But if this was your country would you accept capitulation? Would you accept it now when it is being shown not to be any more effective than declaring yourself sovereign?

I think M.Man is making a lot of sense here. I think the lady DPP chairwoman is going to be in the running for Presidency next time around and will win.

Four years is a long time but I was watching that bastard Chen on TV tonight trying to foment WSR/BSR hatred again. The DPP have to distance themselves from him for good and present themselves as a party for everyone or in this new voting system they will never win.

Well , they’ll never win in my riding so I guess I will always be at odds with my neighbors. Like today, the stupid fuckers across the river were burning leaves for 6 hours in a row. I called the EPA and they came and stood on Yi Shou Bridge and declared they could not see any burning. Try looking up, gents. Those grey swirling clouds giving off the smell of - well, burnt leaves - were not natural formations.

Glad to see Mucha Man coming to his senses and calling Chen a bastard for his nasty brand of ethnic-based tribalism. I’d love to see Tsai win in 2012. She is a strong, professional, internationalist technocrat whose leadership could benefit Taiwan tremendously.

Will she win? Not too sure about that. Don’t think the traditional agriculture workers in the South would support a woman or the traditional Hoklo chauvinists within the party for that matter. And, unless that base is energized, it could be tough for her. Given the KMT’s strong machinery at the local level, she has her work cut out for her. She’ll make inroads into the middle to upper middle class professional Taipei City and County votes, but whether that will be enough will depend on the economy and whether Ma bungles any more things.

Gee, you might want to go back to 2000 and the fights I had with Michael Turton on this very topic. Or the more recent disagreements with Feiren in the spring. Being married to a WSR I have been keenly aware of Chen’s stoking the fires of the ethnic divide. You’ve got nothing on me and never will. :unamused:

Yeah, and even with your reservations on the tribalism, you still supported the party on here in 2004 and 2008 with an almost Maoist-like fervour. Did you get a foreign-cheerleader certificate from the party? Lots of expats would surely qualify for one of those. :smiling_imp:

Why the hell would I waste my time wanting to get anything on you? :loco: :laughing: You overstate your importance…big time.

Yeah, and even with your reservations on the tribalism, you still supported the party on here in 2004 and 2008 with an almost Maoist-like fervour. Did you get a foreign-cheerleader certificate from the party? Lots of expats would surely qualify for one of those. :smiling_imp:

Why the hell would I waste my time wanting to get anything on you? :loco: :laughing: You overstate your importance…big time.[/quote]

You spend an inordinate number of posts trying to “get” me. It’s flattering.

But let’s look at this issue seriously by way of analogy. You have stated repeatedly that you have nothing against homosexuals and yet vote and support parties and individuals with a decidedly anti-gay agenda. Grown ups aren’t one issue voters. Chen was the best person in 2000 and 2004 if you cared about Taiwan. Did I have huge problems with his anti-wsr speeches? Damn rights and I said so at the time.

I’ve never liked Chen nor have I ever cheerleaded for the DPP. I have defended them against the incessant and spurious attacks on them over the past 8 years because those attacks were neither honest nor fair. I saw what the dpp were accomplishing, especially in the south, and that got my approval. I saw that they weren’t running the economy into the ground as so many claimed and said so. Seems Ma agrees with me as he repeats Taiwan is fundamentally sound. Of course it is, but the patisans attacked this notion day and night and I rebutted. but I never lost sight of Chen’s limitations.

You on the other hand couldn’t even see the American Sarah Palin’s limitations as they smacked you in the face. So don’t lecture me on being a foreign cheerleader.

[quote=“Mucha Man”]

You spend an inordinate number of posts trying to “get” me. It’s flattering. [/quote]

Way too melodramatic there MM!!! :laughing: You have to maintain an “even keel.”

This sounds exactly like the type of tribalism you are frowning upon. :laughing: I expect this rubbish coming from the mouth of a taxi driver or a farmer down south, but from an internationalist such as yourself? :no-no:

Not so much as Turton, but you have nonetheless. That’s ok (makes things interesting for debate)–just be honest about it.

See. This type of sentence makes me really question your reading comprehension skills. Before 90 percent of Americans even knew who Palin was, I was writing a year or two ago, that she should be on the ticket in 2008. Is that a cheerleader? :laughing: Limitations? I think her selection has energized the base and appealed to some Reagan Democrats and Hillary voters (at least before the economic downturn). Of course, I disagree with her on some issues. Grown up people can do that, you know?

I think you mean she offers some base appeal to the monkey carrying racist element, but kudos for your honesty. Palin was the best you could find even two years ago? :laughing:

HG

She’s CSB puppet right now, so I have no idea where these adjectives are coming from.

Isn’t CSB running in 2012 anyways…

I do believe you are overlooking one “other” way. A way that would have been increasingly attractive as the possibility of unification was removed from the table. A way that in my opinion would have been chosen, long before China would have dealt with Taiwan on a state to state basis, or long before other countries started to recognize Taiwan as a state. Its interesting this other option, doesn’t even register or come into your reasoning when you think through the likely scenario. It certainly would explain how you reach your conclusion.

Sorry, you cant adopt a policy of only dealing with your giant neighbor on the condition they adhere to a principle they would rather go to war over first. A more moderate approach would make more sense to me, appear in the eyes of the global community to be trying to find peaceful solutions. While at the same time, we are here and they are there, keep the status quo, not push for de jure independence is what I am in favour of and make no mistake, your position is a full on push for de jure independence, recklessly ignoring the possible ramifications.

Just keeping things as they are, looking to find ways to defuse the tensions would create an atmosphere of international condemnation and outrage which would be so unappealing and instantaneous towards any aggression from China that it would provide both a safe environment, and Taiwan continues to enjoy its De facto independence. I wish I could say Ma’s moves towards China, were just that, a flamboyant display of fake appeasement. But I think he probably is genuine.

Direct flights, I agree , Frank would have brought them in too, if he could of got around the “everything must be done on a state to state basis” clause in his parties charter.

[quote=“Mick”]Sorry, you cant adopt a policy of only dealing with your giant neighbor on the condition they adhere to a principle they would rather go to war over first. A more moderate approach would make more sense to me, appear in the eyes of the global community to be trying to find peaceful solutions. While at the same time, we are here and they are there, keep the status quo, not push for de jure independence is what I am in favour of and make no mistake, your position is a full on push for de jure independence, recklessly ignoring the possible ramifications.
Direct flights, I agree , Frank would have brought them in too, if he could of got around the “everything must be done on a state to state basis” clause in his parties charter.[/quote]
I think that the fear of “ramifications of reckless behavior”, which is taken to mean provoking military action from the PRC, is often used as a fear factor. The “state to state” model may not be very realistic in terms of getting things done expediently but the benefit is that it is clear where both sides stand on the issue. Simply dispensing with the “state to state” model in favor of being ‘pragmatic’ and giving the KMT a free pass to negotiate things in closed door sessions does not give most people a warm, fuzzy feeling. No amount of lip service about the dignity of the ROC or saluting of the flag can actually assure anybody about where they stand on the issue…