Just to update the thread, in case anyone wasn’t following along in the news:
the signs are now gone, and CSB’s Ministry of Education fined $5000 USD.
the Ministry of Education plans to sue for theft of public property (re: confiscation of the signs),
Katag… whatever Blvd has been renamed by the Taipei city government to the Anti-Corruption and Democracy Plaza.
EDIT: Oh, another update. Looks like later today, the Ministry of Education will be attempting to hang two new screens that have just been made. At least the screen-makers will be making a profit off of this. Go Taiwan, Go!
Taipei City’s Department of Culture suggests they will likely remove the screens again, after they’re hung.
It’s a rather foolish statement. Tactically, the Americans made a decision for independence rather than put up with the monarchy in England. The Americans insured its own survival and eventually prosperity in the Americas, albeit in a different and unique type of government at the time.
Concerning the people of English descent who live on the continent of America, what’s the real difference between those who came in the 20th century and their descendants and those whose families have been in America a few hundred years longer?
Most initially immigrated here because they didn’t want to stay in the UK. Some were refugees, others weren’t.
Some speak “American” as a first language. But how does that really make them different? Its just another language with roots in the UK, just like “English”.
America is indeed part of Greater England if you look at it conceptually.
Ah yes, and there was the Chinese civil war which is why Taiwan = ROC and not PRC, just in case you slept through class in China.
Oh and by the way, I was brought up in both Taiwan and the USA. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU STALKING BY MAKING ALL THESE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ME OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS? I mean its not like who I am is a mystery. I’m not the one who exclusively uses proxies when posting online in fear that people might find out that I’m really posting from China.
ROT doesn’t exist. Where do you come up with such fantasies AC?
Question AC, who is the rightful ruler of Mainland China? ROC or PRC?
well, the butcher won the peanut, so the peanut went on to Taiwan and made promise to take back the mothership, so it’s followers could be happy living in the “things” they created for them.
the butcher went on cleaning up the mothership of undesired peasants, so that everyone was with him (some Shaghainese where called skydivers because of their unusual habit of going to the top of the buildings and jump).
the peanut went on cleaning up the small boat he had to escape in, so that no one would notice the big red dot on the side of it - they made a patch, painted it a little bit more red with a blue corner…
the butcher promised to release, one day, all the people in the small boat of the hands of the peanut.
the peanut promised to release, one day, all the people in the mothership of the hands of the butcher.
50 years later, both peanut and butcher are six feet under and the mothership is guided by followers of the butcher, while the small boat is guided by 2 guys, one pushing it east, the other pushing it west - so the boat just stays in the same place, and everyone on it just gets amused of the scene…
I see you cracked open your ROC history book finally.[/quote]
Uh Taiwan history =/= ROC History. Lets not pretend Taiwan only exists because China is there. Furthermore, I think the majority of Forumosa would agree that if anyone here is king of faulty, if not fantastically skewed, understanding of history; that is AC’s top candidate for the position.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]So what was the resolution to the Chinese Civil war which resumed after the end of WWII?
On what date did both parties agree to a final solution of the Chinese Civil war?[/quote]
Exactly when did AC change his opinion and suddenly feel that its a great time to surrender now. Whatever happened to AC’s “retake the mainland” upbringing?
Furthermore its both governments no longer both parties. Just wanted to let AC know it isn’t the 1940’s, so theres none of AC’s beloved white terror and martial law to look forward to.
So AC, who do you think is the rightful ruler of Mainland China? The PRC or ROC?
I believe the DPP still have Taiwan Independence in their charter. A minority view on Taiwan
The KMT is now offiicially the Status Quo party. A majority view on Taiwan.
Care to explain exactly what “status quo” means to the KMT?
For example, if China aims an extra 100 missles at Taiwan, what does Taiwan need to do to maintain the status quo?
Or, if China claims Taiwan is a province, what does Taiwan have to publish or report to the media to maintain the status quo?
I’m assuming “status quo” is maintaining some sort of balance, so in theory if China does something, I guess Taiwan would need to so something to maintain this balance?
It means they are attuned to the actual needs of the people. Which is the peaceful development of Taiwan, independent of the Strait Issue.
If Taiwan decides to leave US and Japan sphere of influence, will PRC still feel the need to aim missiles at Taiwan?
Taiwan should just address the issue of why PRC perceives ROC as a threat, independent of the Strait Issue.
By politely maintaining that ROChina is still administering Taiwan Province, and the Strait Issue should be resolved politically when the KMT controls the Presidential Palace, because it is the only party on Taiwan in tune with the needs of the people.
The KMT has already begun the inter-party dialogue because they understand the complexity of the situation. There is no point in debating about Strait Issue when the ruling party of Taiwan cannot even earn the credibility to go to the PRC in official capacity. They neither have the resources nor experience in resolving affairs like this.
Of course the pre-requisite of this is to have an actual dialogue with the PRC. The KMT understanding the popularity of Status Quo in Taiwan and actually having means of communicating directly with the CCP leadership makes maintaining the political balance easier than the DPP current strategy which is heavily dependent on US intervention.
The US is becoming impatient with the DPP as it drains valuable resources from US interest in the region.
What are the “actual needs of the people” ?, let me pose it to you this way, do you believe the people of Taiwan need to join China (i.e. unify).
If they don’t need to unify, then what is it they need?
Personally I do not see why “unification with China” is a precondition for developing Taiwan? There are many nations around the world, i.e. Australia who has managed to develop themselves without first becoming a province of China. Why is it necessary for Taiwan to become a province of China in order to develop?
Taiwan has managed to develop;
their own internationally traded currency
issue their own passports
manage their own national tax system
develop their own laws
create their own government
I don’t think Taiwan needs China at this point? what value would joining China give Taiwan?
Economically speaking, if there is an arguement which says that Taiwan should be a province of China because it invests heavily in China, then in theory Australia and America should abide by the same conditions. I know that Australia alone has huge resource agreements with China at the moment.
“Sphere of influence” is an interesting turn of phrase and something I would like to explore further. What aspect of America’s and Japan influence is of concern to China you think? Is it “western” ideas of democracy/independance?
Does this imply that because Taiwan is open to ideas from nations other than China, ie willing to listen to other views, China has a right to threaten Taiwan?
What mechanism is China employing that justifies using missles as a deterent to a nation just for listening to other views?
This is a good point, how does the “ROC” threaten China? I have a theory…
I think if Taiwan declares independance at a time when China (thinks) it has a claim over the island, then China will perceive itself of loose Face, and feel its a sign a weakness which may in turn cause the people not to fear the PRC as much and may threaten its own power base.
That is, the PRC feels it must always show its is strong, and to have a tiny island to go tell a land mass as large as China to go p*ss off, would be a large loss of Face (note: I really don’t know much about the cultural thing of losing face except what I see in movies).
I’m not totally clear on what you mean here. I assume you’re saying that if Taiwan refers to themselves as a province then China is happy?
That is a very interesting perspective, a political party doesn’t “control” they “govern” and only because the voters wish it. And only for the purpose for working on behalf of the public.
And besides, as far as I understand the KMT have the majority in the Legislature, in effect they already have the power to implement the needs of the people, however from what I’ve read lately they have prioritised bills which would benefit themselves (CEC, audit, etc) ahead of those which would benefit the public (budget, flood protection, etc).[/quote]
So I guess I’m asking, what needs exactly are they in tune with?
inter-party is an interesting term. Shouldn’t this be a discussion between governments, rather than political parties?
In regards to official capacity, that is China’s choice, Taiwan cannot control what another government decides. So if China chooses not to discuss the matter with Taiwan, then Taiwan can only wait until that view changes.
What “resources” and “experience” do you refer to? You’re not referring to the “stolen assets” are you? In regards to experience it was my understanding that the KMT was opposed to the CCP - there was the matter of the civil war or something?
Anyway, I would like to understand what you mean by “resources” and “experience”.
That’s funny, and all this time I thought the breakdown in communication had to do with China’s anti-succession law.
You know what is funny. Taiwan has been developing and evolving by itself for quite sometime now. The 2000 elections where the population voted in the DDP was a formal break from the old form of government and signaled self rule. The fact that China did nothing about it implies that this was part of the status quo.
If Taiwan’s evolution is part of the status quo, then that means formal independance sometime along the way will also be the status quo, because things like, free trade agreements, elections etc when they occur during the “status quo” means that development is the “status quo”.
Otherwise it would mean martial law where everything is static, but that stopped in the '80s.
My impression is that the only thing the US is impatient about is the frozen ARMs bill.
It is very difficult to continue a fruitful conversation on the subject, if you continue to use the outdated paradigm of trying to resolve the Strait Issue by the mutually exclusive policies of re-unification or independence.
Being the more progressive party the KMT takes credit for ending martial laws in the 1980’s and now is taking credit for becoming the official Status Quo party. Which is acknowledging that Taiwan is a province of ROC and that the PRC has no administrative control of Taiwan province at this time.
That is because Taiwan’s current administration doesn’t even have a back door aparatus in communicating with the PRC. Without proper outlets for communication each sides move can be seen as provoking the other.
Once the people with the knowledge capital (which only comes with experience and resources to go abroad) to deal with the PRC and USA are back in position to use the influence these faux pas that have been witnessed by everyone will quickly diminish in frequency.
So your concern about inter-government communications will be put at rest, once the LY and executive branch are controlled by the KMT. Obviously independence and identity politics are not the will of the people. The KMT understands that and has progressed to alter their party charter as such.
As for your concerns about recent laws, there are a great many ROC citizens from the business community that have felt ignored in the past few years under the DPP. Just like the cultural policies that have been implemented a few years ago had no real benefit to the business community, however, they beared with it. These laws are mainly to appease a segment of the population that has been ignored. It is a government of all the people, so each segment has a turn.
The containment policy of PRC is especially troubling to the ROC. Given the delicate nature of the ROC situation it needs to further distance itself from the USA lead initiatives; such as missile defense, etc.
Because it not only exposes ROC to the ire of the PRC, they expose ROC to the USA monopoly on arms sales.
ROC needs to demostrate that it is independent of Washington as well as Beijing on this matter, without raising the ire of either side.
The KMT has the knowledge capital, the experience, and the resources to make that a reality.
When did the topic of independance become outdated?
Here’s an interesting paradigm, when the governing party in China was the ROC which is the land mass now governed by the PRC, the constitution never included Taiwan.
When the people who made up the party known as the ROC went to Formosa and were replaced by the DDP, that signaled self-governance.
Taiwan’s 2000 election make indepedence more relevant than unification, from my point of view I would have to say that the 2000 election made unification an outdated paradigm.
Does the KMT also take credit for implementing it ?
You forgot to respond to my queries in the last post as to what exactly is “status quo”? So in your view what is the status quoe, is it what I said? progressive development of Taiwan independant of China?
I’d say the fact that Taiwan has a president, pretty much says that China does not rule Taiwan.
Wouldn’t a proper outlet be for China to converse with the publicly elected representatives of the Taiwanese? What you say could imply that unless John Howard lets the Australian opposition party talk to the President of China, anything Mr Howard says can be seen as a provocation.
Let’s be frank here - the mere thought of a Taiwanese President, is a provocation to China.
Just because someone does like something, does not mean that is instant provocation.
I don’t believe the KMT are “uniquely” qualified, just because the PRC likes to talk to them, does not make them more qualified, just better positioned. This is not as a result of “knowledge capital”, but because it is a preference to having to deal with any “Taiwanese President”.
However, unless the KMT are sanctioned by the “elected government” of Taiwan, it is improper for the oppositition party to represent the country in matters of state.
Again, as I’ve already mentioned, doesn’t the KMT have the majority in the LY now?
What references is this based on?
The KMT altered their charter so Ma could be a Presidential candidate, they are considering further changes if Ma’s case goes adversely. What is progressive about this?
AC, the stock market is reaching all time highs, unemployment is reaching all time lows. Are these not international standards of the health of the economy?
I guess missle defense is a bit of obstruction to China’s anti-succession law. I guess having missles shot down after all the money China spends on them would be troubling. Of course if China didn’t point missles at Taiwan then they wouldn’t be trouble about any missle defenses would they?
So is China advocating Europe to sell arms to Taiwan to ensure the USA does not have a monopoly? That’s great news for Taiwan, it means the PPC would be pleased that Taiwan would have multiple tenders.
Good point, how would you propose this is done?
No offense, but the KMT have said a lot of silly things recently and I’m not real confident they are qualified to help.
For example, Ma - if he’s the Presidential candidate for the KMT, then I assume he’s the most qualified from the KMT ranks i.e. the best the KMT has to offer.
Now look at Ma’s recent performance. During the investigation into the special funds, he provided (to the investigators) about 4-5 different versions of what he did.
Now, I’m no expert, but if you negotiating treaties between nations I’d want someone with a firmer grasp of the hear and now.
And take the anti-corruption ralies in Taipei last year, he was the Mayor then and yet did not enforce the law when it was being broken in his own city.
Now what if he’s President? If he wont enforce the law as a mayor, how can he be expected to enforce the law as a President?
And let’s look at his success as a KMT Chairman - he promised to return the stolen assets, and yet, his own party told him to go talk a walk.
If Ma cannot control his own party -how will he be able to control a Government?
If Ma is the best the KMT have to offer, then the KMT are certainly not the best option for Taiwan.
When CSB became a lame duck. I have no recollection of the exact date when he became outdated. But the TI policy as it stands is currently outdated. Just look at the polling number, if the party you support are conducting them on a regular basis.
When the constituents are concerned about personal safety and security, I’m sure it could be brought up. But the polls say otherwise, the KMT is the more progressive party now.
This goes back to contested results almost 4 years ago. The KMT being progressive, forward thinking, and sensitive to the populous demand not to revisit those events.
If the PRC felt the need to converse with DPP, or if the DPP felt the need to converse with the PRC, I’m sure a compromise could have been reached to facilitate a meeting.
But obviously being out of touch with reality the DPP is unable to make the same strides as the KMT in this particular area of international relations.
If being the Taiwanese President polling results conjure images of corruption, high handedness, inflexibility, and incompetence, it would provoke anyone, not just the PRC.
The KMT could run a Taiwanese President that symbolize integrity, hope, compromises, and other positive warm fuzzy adjectives. I’m positive that continued development of Taiwan and its relationship with PRC can be done in a positive and constructive manner.
Unfortunately, these result are not independent of ROC relationship with the PRC. It would be best to let a party with tack and ability to continue fostering a proper relationship the PRC, instead of one prone to diplomatic faux pas, to take the lead in the near future.
There’s a neat trick I heard about in advertising. Something about how its necessary for a person to hear something 7 times before it sinks into the subconsiousness, have a look at this…
That’s 2 down, 5 to go!
I guess that depends on whether it’s a green or blue poll huh? What polls are you referring to? I remember a couple of years back a company in Taiwan claiming to be a Gallop poll franchise showing pan-blue leads, and then the Gallop enterprise stating that there was no Taiwan franchise. So which independant polling group polls are you referring to?
I would think being killed would concern most people?
Ok, so progressive forward thinking is about not learning from past mistakes?
Here’s an interesting point, the KMT have show a visible lack of respect to the election system by not supporting the elected party in matters of national concern (i.e. speaking with China without sanction of Taiwan’s government). So let’s say the KMT party get elected in 2008. Should the DDP party respect these results and let the KMT party liaise with China, so should they, as you say, “not…revisit those events” ?
It may have occurred if the KMT party had not use a back door, maybe.
Do you mean to say the KMT will reinstate its black gold policies and drop Ma as a candidate?
Let me see if I understand you here (correct me if I’m wrong). What you are implying is that Taiwan’s financial health is the result of ONLY China’s influence? and that without China Taiwan’s economy would collapse? And that only the KMT who China sees as a friend can save Taiwan?
And that this view is irrespective of the fact that these economic figures have been improving because of the lesser influence the KMT has had (i.e. from full control under martial law to an opposition party). From my point of view, it appears the less the KMT are involved with ruling Taiwan, the better Taiwan gets?
And imagine, once Taiwan stops getting hassled by China and opens more FTAs with Europe the ecomony will be even better!
Taking the alarmist position about the PRC is not very fruitful.
If the KMT is elected into executive office, the DPP will be free to engage the CCP in a non-official capacity if they choose, it will illustrate that they are as progressive as the KMT.
But if the DPP insist on retaining their outdated conservative platform of renaming ROC landmarks in the province of Taiwan. They will quickly become irrelvant in Taiwan society.
The KMT has never suggested closing a public space for the citizens of ROC to use, because it is a progressive party that is dedicated to developing Taiwan for the benefit of all its citizens.
[quote]And that this view is irrespective of the fact that these economic figures have been improving because of the lesser influence the KMT has had (i.e. from full control under martial law to an opposition party). From my point of view, it appears the less the KMT are involved with ruling Taiwan, the better Taiwan gets?
And imagine, once Taiwan stops getting hassled by China and opens more FTAs with Europe the ecomony will be even better! [/quote]
Which is to imply that Taiwan has been operating economically well with the DDP, is this an alarming position to you?
So by “progressive”, you mean act against the wishes of the governing body of Taiwan? That doesn’t sound right to me.
Didn’t this campaign just start, and you’re saying it’s already out of date? How long should a policy last before its outdated? Then wouldn’t KMT’s policy of not releasing stolen party assets also be outdated?
So in the list of KMT assets which the DDP consider should be managed by a public trustee, the public are not barred from accessing them?
I also had a thought, I was thinking of creating the…
AC Drinking Game
Every time AC uses the following words/phrases in a post you take a drink;
progressive
Status Quo Party
needs of the people
knowledge capital
Maybe someone should run a tally of these key phrases
But we digress, Acey, do you agree that status quo is moving towards national identity since China isn’t actually doing anything to stop Taiwan having elections?
