I’m not a big follower of the politics but I found myself asking Taiwanese friends the major difference between the two camps. I couldn’t get any real straight answers.
Could anyone in a nutshell list 3 - 5 MAJOR differences between the two party’s campaigns for the 2016 election?
(Ignoring the hazy China status quo / pro independence point that the Green party stands for. Other than else would green do that blue wouldn’t)
It’s hard to say because Tsai Ing-wen refuses to tell anyone what she intends to do if and when she wins the presidency.
Major difference #1:
The blue side (with Eric Chu as the standard bearer for the KMT) has embraced current president Ma Ying-jeou’s policies, legacy, general direction, etc.
The green side (with Tsai Ing-wen as the standard bearer for the DPP) is not Ma Ying-jeou.
You figure out who has the better chance of winning based upon this difference. 
Guy
At least that way you know she’s not lying.
just 5? that’s easy. I won’t generalize Green and Blue, I’ll just list the differences between DPP and KMT.
[col]DPP|KMT[/col]
[col]Against black box passing of any international treaty|In favor of passing anything China related without legislative oversight[/col]
[col]Against nuclear power plant 4 going into operation as is|In favor of letting nuclear power plant 4 going into operation without major overhaul[/col]
[col]In favor of ending the 18% interest benefit to those working in the military, education, and the government|Staunch supporter of continuing the practise even if it is bankrupting the country[/col]
[col]Generally in favor of same sex marriage, at least Tsai does, and DPP drafted and sponsored the current bill|Generally against same sex marriage[/col]
[col]In favor of equal national status for all native languages of Taiwan|Repeatedly blocks the bill from passing[/col]
[col]Supports referendum law reform, as the current KMT proposed version makes referendums irrelevant|Defends the version they drafted[/col]
[col]Supports constitution reform and lowering the requirement for future amendments|Likes to keep the constitution untouchable[/col]
[col]Points out the fact that there was no such thing as the 92 agreement, stating that even Ma Ying-jiou published an editorial as the deputy chief of the Mainland Affairs Council saying there was no agreement|Claims 92 agreement is real, but dares not to say they believe the agreement is one China is open to interpretation when meeting with Chinese officials[/col]
Is that more than 5? There’s more where that came from.
Zhu is a late comer to the race, he had to clean house and get rid of former candidate Hung Hsiu-chu. Tsai has announced her platform and policies way before Zhu even declared to run. Zhu flat out copied many of Tsai’s platforms and turned around to accuse her of being unoriginal. Though past records clearly indicates Zhu and his party never were in favor or many of the items on his platform.
[quote=“hansioux”]just 5? that’s easy. I won’t generalize Green and Blue…
DPP - Against black box passing of any international treaty
KMT - Against nuclear power plant 4 going into operation as is
[/quote]
Of all the stuff you wrote about, this is the only issue that I actually care about. And what you said…sounds totally different from what I hear from every DPP supporter, who insist that the DPP will shut down ALL the nuclear power plants and deliver us a future based on “renewable energy.”
I remember very clearly a few years ago when Tsai said we should shut down all the nukes immediately and in it’s place we could use the “extra power” (ie reserve capacity coal power plants) that Taipower keeps available for peak crunch times (mainly heat waves in summer). Tsai claimed at the time that Taiwan had 25% reserve capacity, and since nukes supply 19% of total power generated, then “no problem.” Except that A) in summer it falls to as low as 3%, and B) how is burning coal better than nuclear?
Tsai isn’t stupid - she knows the anti-nuke demonstrations were only staged to get votes. So now the bait-and-switch. As soon as Tsai gets elected, I predict the anti-nuke platform gets dumped in the trash, replaced by a sudden interest in getting the 4th nuclear power plant open as soon as possible. Of course, she’ll claim that she’s doing it safely, whereas the KMT wanted a plant that would be “another Fukushima.” Just why the KMT would want that, well, erh, they just do. I expect that Tsai will extend the operating licenses of the existing 3 nuclear power plants as well, because (thanks largely to the DPP) Taiwan hasn’t been upgrading to 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, so we are stuck with the old junk which even I (as a pro-nuke person) would like to see retired as soon as possible.
They seem to want tainted food too if we judge their actions blocking legislation so yeah the party that gave us lead in rice, plastic in soft drinks, shoe leather in cooking oil, blue oysters, and a thousand others, is in fact very likely to let another Fukushima happen.
Actually I don’t think the DPP would be much better. Lax safety attitudes are heritage all Taiwanese value.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
Of all the stuff you wrote about, this is the only issue that I actually care about. And what you said…sounds totally different from what I hear from every DPP supporter, who insist that the DPP will shut down ALL the nuclear power plants and deliver us a future based on “renewable energy.”[/quote]
That probably should be the ultimate goal for the nation instead of the next president’s term in office. The fact is all 3 currently operating nuclear plants are outdated, sit on dangerous locations and deemed dangerous by international organizations such as WANO and NRDC. They are not only dangerous because of their age, but also dangerous because they sit on active faults and flood, tsunami prone areas. Unfortunately, despite being planned decades after Nuclear Power Plant 3, Plant 4 exhibits all the same issues. Plant 4 should never go online, and if nuclear power is a must, the government should at least consider going with Gen IV reactors.
Even without Plant no. 4, Taiwan’s already incapable of handling all the nuclear waste materials. Numerous attempts of shipping nuclear waste abroad have met with international disapproval. The government now wants to build a dry cask storage next to Plant 2, which the US is also forced to use with many incidents already. If the US is unable to find places to build spent fuel pools, or deep geological repositories, where exactly could Taiwan safely store spent nuclear wastes in the future? Where does it end?
Taipei Mayor Ko has said that encouraging Taiwan to use more nuclear power is like encouraging a patient whose butt hole has been stitched shut to eat more solid food.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
Tsai isn’t stupid - she knows the anti-nuke demonstrations were only staged to get votes. So now the bait-and-switch. As soon as Tsai gets elected, I predict the anti-nuke platform gets dumped in the trash, replaced by a sudden interest in getting the 4th nuclear power plant open as soon as possible.[/quote]
I doubt that would happen. Plant 4 was pushed along under CSB’s first term because of the KMT majority in the legislature. It’s KMT’s baby. Unless the plant is completely overhauled, Tsai would not put it into operation. If I’m wrong, I won’t vote for DPP and instead vote for other smaller parties in future elections.
[quote=“Dog’s_Breakfast”]
Of course, she’ll claim that she’s doing it safely, whereas the KMT wanted a plant that would be “another Fukushima.” Just why the KMT would want that, well, erh, they just do. I expect that Tsai will extend the operating licenses of the existing 3 nuclear power plants as well, because (thanks largely to the DPP) Taiwan hasn’t been upgrading to 3rd and 4th generation nuclear, so we are stuck with the old junk which even I (as a pro-nuke person) would like to see retired as soon as possible.[/quote]
KMT has been in power for the last 8 years with absolute majority in the legislature. How exactly is not upgrading to Gen IV reactors DPP’s fault?
Neat column, I wasn’t aware Forumosa had that feature. You find my comments in red.
[quote=“hansioux”]just 5? that’s easy. I won’t generalize Green and Blue, I’ll just list the differences between DPP and KMT.
[col]DPP|KMT[/col]
[col]Against black box passing of any international treaty|In favor of passing anything China related without legislative oversight FTAs are commonly negotiated and signed by governments without the involvement of the legislature, therefore legislative ratification is required. That is also the case for Taiwan. I cannot see how it is a black box if the KMT puts its legislative majority behind a free trade agreement. That agreement is open for anyone to read online. The TPP is not less of a black box than Fumao [/col]
[col]Against nuclear power plant 4 going into operation as is|In favor of letting nuclear power plant 4 going into operation without major overhaul[/col]
[col]In favor of ending the 18% interest benefit to those working in the military, education, and the government Which is grossly unfair as this benefit only applies to people who have entered the civil service before 1995. At that time civil service salaries were relatively much lower than salaries at companies. The 18% account - which has a deposit limit of 1,000,000 NT$ by the way - was part of the benefit package when these people signed up for their jobs. If this benefit is not sustainable for the country, maybe President Lee Teng-hui should have scrapped it when he became president in 1987. As it stands now, Tsai wants to cheatlaw-abiding citizens out of their savings. |Staunch supporter of continuing the practise even if it is bankrupting the country[/col]
[col]Generally in favor of same sex marriage, at least Tsai does, and DPP drafted and sponsored the current bill Tsai often talks about supporting equal rights or LGBT rights, she has never made any commitment to introduce a gay marriage bill if she becomes president. And neither has “the DPP” supported the gay marriage bill currently in the committee stage; One DPP legislator has proposed the bill and 20 have supported it, along with 2 from the KMT by the way. The public is largely divided about this issue and Tsai Ing-wen surely does not want to alienate conservative voters as long as gay voters feel her ambiguous symbol politics are good enough|Generally against same sex marriage[/col]
[col]In favor of equal national status for all native languages of Taiwan|Repeatedly blocks the bill from passing[/col]
[col]Supports referendum law reform, as the current KMT proposed version makes referendums irrelevant|Defends the version they drafted[/col]
[col]Supports constitution reform and lowering the requirement for future amendments|Likes to keep the constitution untouchable[/col]
[col]Points out the fact that there was no such thing as the 92 agreement, stating that even Ma Ying-jiou published an editorial as the deputy chief of the Mainland Affairs Council saying there was no agreement|Claims 92 agreement is real, but dares not to say they believe the agreement is one China is open to interpretation when meeting with Chinese officials[/col]
Is that more than 5? There’s more where that came from.
Zhu is a late comer to the race, he had to clean house and get rid of former candidate Hung Hsiu-chu. Tsai has announced her platform and policies way before Zhu even declared to run. Zhu flat out copied many of Tsai’s platforms and turned around to accuse her of being unoriginal. Though past records clearly indicates Zhu and his party never were in favor or many of the items on his platform.[/quote]
LTH did not have unlimited power like Chiang Sr or Chiang Jr when he first ascended to the office. Many KMT old guards were just looking for a reason to get rid of him. The fact that LTH managed to walk that thin line and transformed Taiwan into a full democracy without blood shed is a modern miracle, however it’s not the model for nation building.
The 18% limits for year of entry and cap were set after DPP fight for reform back in 1995. It was originally even more prone to abuse. KMT members were also given the these special 18% interest rate accounts back in 1971. Even though it was later put to an end, KMT party personnel who retired before amendment can still enjoy those benefits till this day. When did that insane practise end? Wow, it was 1987, what are the chances?
As for same-sex marriage, it was proposed by the DPP with 20 sponsors, that’s more than half of the DPP legislators. So there’s two KMT sponsors you say? Out of 64? That’s some overwhelming support there.
As for abusing majority in the legislature, hopefully after KMT no longer has the majority in the legislature, something can be done about setting up rules regarding international treaty proceedings.
[quote=“hansioux”][quote=“hsinhai78”]
Which is grossly unfair as this benefit only applies to people who have entered the civil service before 1995. At that time civil service salaries were relatively much lower than salaries at companies. The 18% account - which has a deposit limit of 1,000,000 NT$ by the way - was part of the benefit package when these people signed up for their jobs. If this benefit is not sustainable for the country, maybe President Lee Teng-hui should have scrapped it when he became president in 1987. As it stands now, Tsai wants to cheatlaw-abiding citizens out of their savings.
[/quote]
LTH did not have unlimited power like Chiang Sr or Chiang Jr when he first ascended to the office. Many KMT old guards were just looking for a reason to get rid of him. The fact that LTH managed to walk that thin line and transformed Taiwan into a full democracy without blood shed is a modern miracle, however it’s not the model for nation building.
The 18% limits for year of entry and cap were set after DPP fight for reform back in 1995. It was originally even more prone to abuse. KMT members were also given the these special 18% interest rate accounts back in 1971. Even though it was later put to an end, KMT party personnel who retired before amendment can still enjoy those benefits till this day. When did that insane practise end? Wow, it was 1987, what are the chances? [/quote]
Your logic is not sound. Why would Lee Teng-hui have the power to scrap the 18% interest benefit for KMT members in 1987 but not for civil servants? Besides, you are not addressing the issue of the legitimacy of such a move. The 18% benefit is an integral part of some people’s pension. What if someone just took your pension benefits away to improve the bottom line of the treasury?
I am not saying that the KMT is pro same-sex-marriage. I am merely pointing out that there is no foundation for claiming that introducing gay marriage is part of the DPP platform or even hinting in the direction that we will see the introduction of gay marriage during a Tsai Ing-wen presidency. Just because the DPP is more sympathetic to the LGBT cause than the KMT does not mean the party wouldn’t throw LGBT rights under the car to pander to more conservative demographics. The soft underbelly of DPP supporters is not a young NTU liberal arts major who participated in the sunflower movement, but a blue slipper wearing and beetlenut eating xenophobic and hobophobic prole named A-Huang.
Abusing the majority? Interesting terminology you choose for a legislative process that involves three readings and a vote.
And what exactly would you propose for international or regional treaty proceedings? 4 readings? 5 readings? 100 readings? No vote on any treaty unless there is a pan-green majority that can vote against it?
The KMT’s biggest mistake on Taiwan was 228. The KMT’s greatest achievement was bringing democracy to Taiwan. The thing that the DPP brought to Taiwan when they were in power last decade was ire from both friends (the US) and enemies (the CCP) alike.
The US started negotiating with Iran without telling anybody either domestically or internationally. It’s not an uncommon process.
The KMT didn’t bring democracy to Taiwan, Lee Deng-Hui did, for which he was promptly kicked out of the party and labelled a race traitor.
Lee Teng-hui would have been a loyal citizen of the Showa Emperor of Japan instead of the President of the Republic of China he became without the KMT. Taiwan would be a monarchy, not a democracy.
Iran does not claim the US is part of Iran.
Abusing the majority? Interesting terminology you choose for a legislative process that involves three readings and a vote.
And what exactly would you propose for international or regional treaty proceedings? 4 readings? 5 readings? 100 readings? No vote on any treaty unless there is a pan-green majority that can vote against it?[/quote]
With all respect, if the current process is acceptable, why did Speaker Wang say in February of 2009 that the Legislature’s role in cross-strait agreements was “meaningless” and “a mere formality,” and why did he call for regulation of the process, as shown below?
[quote]It would be meaningless for the government to refer a cross-strait comprehensive economic cooperation agreement (CECA) to the legislature for review after signing it, Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) said yesterday.
“What can you do after the agreement is signed?” Wang asked, adding that once an agreement is signed, it would be nearly impossible for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus to reject it and send it back to the government.
The legislature’s review would be a mere formality, he said.
Wang made the remarks when asked for comment on the government’s plan to submit the CECA for review only after it has been signed.
He also called on the Executive Yuan to submit a bill to legislators as soon as possible that would regulate the handling of cross-strait agreements.[/quote]–Flora Wang and Jenny W. Hsu, “Wang opposes CECA without review,” Taipei Times, February 27, 2009 taipeitimes.com/News/front/a … 2003437143
And if the current process is acceptable, then why, at that same time, did another KMT Legislator call for public participation in cross-strait agreements before they are signed, as shown below?
[quote]KMT caucus deputy secretary-general Lin Hung-chih (林鴻池) [said that] the government should invite the public to consider the content of any pact before it is signed. . . .[/quote]–Ibid.
And again, if the current process is acceptable, why did Speaker Wang in September of 2008 call for the regulation of cross-strait agreements, and why did he claim that attempts to regulate these kinds of agreements go back to the late 1990s, as shown below?
[quote]Legislative Speaker Wang Jin-pyng (王金平) yesterday urged the Executive Yuan to submit a draft bill regulating how the government deals with cross-strait agreements for legislative review as soon as possible.
He said the government first proposed a similar draft bill in 1997 and again in 1999 when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was in power, but the bills never cleared the legislative floor.
Wang has repeatedly called on the Cabinet to refer such a draft bill for legislative review.[/quote]—Flora Wang, “Wang urges draft on cross-strait deals” Taipei Times, September 30, 2008
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003424624
Again, with all respect, if the way the process is conducted is problem-free, I don’t see why the Legislative Speaker has repeatedly called for the regulation of it.
I thought the Greens opposed Nuke 4 going live no matter what.
The Taiwanese people changed their mind and no longer regard the roc employees as deserving such an exorbitant rate.
Simply consider that a revolution or a regime change. If they don’t like it they don’t have to live in Taiwan.
Lee Teng-hui would have been a loyal citizen of the Showa Emperor of Japan instead of the President of the Republic of China he became without the KMT. Taiwan would be a monarchy, not a democracy.[/quote]
I really have to respect your refusal to let petty things like reality and logic constrain your thinking.