[quote=“hsinhai78”]These protestors lack any democratic legitimation.
What kind of behaviour is this? You dislike the way the majority caucus acts so you break into parliament and disrupt the session? Under what mandate anyways? These students were not elected by the Taiwanese people, they merely act on their own behalf. They do however obstruct democratically elected representatives from exercising the people’s sovereignty.[/quote]
KMT in June 2013: We promise – in writing – that we will allow an item-by-item review of this pact (which only the KMT was involved in negotiating) in the legislature, and we will not make it automatically go into effect.
KMT on March 17, 2014: We don’t care about our promises. This is either going to a vote on the legislative floor without an extensive review or we’re just going to make it an executive order making a vote nullified anyway.
The KMT has torn up its credibility and made itself out to look like a party of tyrants. Way to go.
That is a lack of democratic legitimacy. The KMT is happy to put on a face of democracy and republicanism as long as it serves their needs. When it doesn’t anymore, they tear up agreements and force things through in a tyrannical way. I don’t know how anyone could think Taiwan’s democracy is healthy when the head of the ruling party has effective control over both executive and legislative branches.
I’m not against the pact. “How many” sectors are opened or not is not as relevant as which ones. The pact itself is not necessarily evil the way the DPP has loved portraying it. They did this back in 2010 over ECFA, as well, and so far that hasn’t resulted in the sinking of Taiwan.
However, I with every fiber of my being disagree with how the service trade pact has been implemented, from closed-door negotiations to the KMT’s overbearing tyranny in the legislature. If it’s a good agreement, why keep it secret and force it through? If it’s a good agreement but people are too stupid to understand, why not explain? There is an undeniable authoritarian streak in this party…
I’m not against the pact. “How many” sectors are opened or not is not as relevant as which ones. The pact itself is not necessarily evil the way the DPP has loved portraying it. They did this back in 2010 over ECFA, as well, and so far that hasn’t resulted in the sinking of Taiwan.
However, I with every fiber of my being disagree with how the service trade pact has been implemented, from closed-door negotiations to the KMT’s overbearing tyranny in the legislature. If it’s a good agreement, why keep it secret and force it through? If it’s a good agreement but people are too stupid to understand, why not explain? There is an undeniable authoritarian streak in this party…[/quote]
PLUS I’ll bet there’s nothing in there about getting more jeezin Root Beer in.
Talk about salting the wound… :no-no:
I’m not against the pact. “How many” sectors are opened or not is not as relevant as which ones. The pact itself is not necessarily evil the way the DPP has loved portraying it. They did this back in 2010 over ECFA, as well, and so far that hasn’t resulted in the sinking of Taiwan.[/quote]
This pact fails in how many sectors opened, which sectors opened, and how they are opened all at the same time. Plus the black box negotiation like what they did with ECFA. The affected industries were not consulted before or after signing the pact. President Ma said the Public Hearing which are required as part of the process is a waste of time. The deal favors China, which allows their industries to enter most sectors, while they remain closed to Taiwan. TV, radio is a good example. Even though most Taiwanese companies can’t afford going into the Chinese TV or radio business anyway, but China won’t even entertain the idea for formality sake.
DDP has no portrayed it as evil, that is what the blue/red-washed medias are trying to portray the DDP. DDP simply wishes to examine the deal line by line, which seems fair since the deal was a black box negotiation without consulting affected sectors.
ECFA hasn’t resulted in the sinking of Taiwan, although it was tauted to dramatically improve the economy when KMT was shoving it down everyone’s throats. That hasn’t happened either. Oh, KMT also said signing of ECFA will bring in more FTA deals with other nations, didn’t happen either. Now they are saying passing the service sector deal would bring FTA with other countries, which I’m afraid is also a lie.
So why sell out small business interests to benefit cooperations and China over nothing?
I literally saw someone on Monday morning holding a banner that said 邪惡的服貿 – and that was before the domineering in the legislature – so I’m pretty sure they really are portraying it as evil.
I literally saw someone on Monday morning holding a banner that said 邪惡的服貿 – and that was before the domineering in the legislature – so I’m pretty sure they really are portraying it as evil.[/quote]
If the goal is to forcefully pass a treaty without public supervision, then I guess the service sector trade pact is evil just in the process of it all.
The opposition does not have the votes to block the bill. There’s nothing illegal about what the nationalists are doing. After all, this is how the parliamentary procedures are conducted. The majority is not obligated to do a line by line review of the bill.
The students are essentially blocking the democratic progress. It’d be one thing if the students were protesting outside of the legislature, but occupying the building so that sessions cannot be conducted is essentially counterproductive.
So the students are in fact the non-democratic ones.
Was just talking about this with a local client and this is what he said.
" Two years ago all of Taiwan knew the KMT wanted to make closer deals with China, they knew the way the KMT negotiates said deals, and the voted to put the KMT in control of both the presidency and the legislature. If the majority were opposed, to the deals and the negotiations, the DPP would be in power."
It’s never that simple. If all candidates were robots who behaved reliably, that argument would stand up. But there are other factors at play, including the 50 years of unchallenged control over the education system the KMT has enjoyed, the way local and even foreign media portray the DPP as a bunch of ne’erdowells, the huge stain on the opposition party left by Chen Shui-bian’s shortsighted greed, the charisma of Ma, the lack of charisma of Tsai, etc. etc.
Voters are, first and foremost, ignorant. Your average Zhou, Lin, and Wang don’t need the specifics of how the KMT handles legislative affairs and pushes its weight around. They only watch the TV news, which offers more in the way of YouTube videos and pictures of cute girls doing inane things than hard-hitting political analysis.
The argument that “you voted KMT, so this is what you get” is majoritarianism at its worst. “I won, so I get to do whatever I want.” It’s thinking like that which tears apart fragile democracies, as happened in Egypt, as could happen in Taiwan.
To elaborate on how details of the service trade pact is simply absurd and that’s why Ma administration doesn’t wish to go through a line by line process in the legislature even though they have the majority.
Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences winner Joseph Stiglitz said about Trade Agreements:
[ul]First, any trade agreement has to be symmetrical
Second, no trade agreement should put commercial interests ahead of boarder national insterests
Finally, there must be a commitment to transparency[/ul] Editorial by Stiglitz
This trade deal is anything but symmetrical. There are no restrictions to Chinese capitals setting up shop in Taiwan on all but a few sectors. While severe restrictions apply to Taiwanese companies on most sectors.
Education: opened to Chinese in Taiwan, closed to Taiwanese in China. Electronic Markets: opened to Chinese in Taiwan, Taiwanese only allowed in Fujian, oh, and no cross boarder transactions, and must have 55% Chinese investments. Cross boarder transactions: opened to Chinese with no restrictions in Taiwan, no promises made by China for Taiwanese in China. Publishing, Any sector setting up shop: opened to Chinese in any form possible in Taiwan, Taiwanese investment can’t exceed over 65%, lowest registered capital has to be the same as Chinese companies. Reseller: opened to Chinese in Taiwan, closed to Taiwanese in China. Banking: opened to Chinese with little restrictions, Taiwanese banks can only open in Fujian and must do it with Chinese investments Insurance: opened to Chinese in Taiwan, Taiwanese companies that meet the requirement will be allowed to enter China, “requirement standard” is up to China. Investment Banks: Chinese banks can buy Taiwanese investment products that meet the requirement. Taiwanese banks that meet the requirement can set up special “Rural Savings Branches” in China, “requirement standard” is up to China. Medical: Taiwan can setup 20 hospitals in China, but with the lack of medical professionals here in Taiwan to begin with, there will be even worse drain on medical professionals. But Chinese can open hospitals without number restrictions and only requires Taiwanese investments without specifying a minimum required. Health: Taiwanese Retirement homes only allowed in Fujian and Guadong. Hospitals and others only allowed in appointed cities.
Entertainment and media: opened to Chinese in Taiwan, restricted to one company for import into China, and requires to pass Chinese censorship Games: Taiwanese games are required to go through censorship lasting at least 2 months Ocean Shipping: Taiwanese only allowed in Fujian Accounting: Taiwanese reuqired to obtain Chinese accounting license Construction: Taiwanese only allowed to obtain license and work in Fujian Market Survey: Taiwanese companies required to have Chinese investments. Telecomm: Taiwanese companies required to have at least 50% Chinese investments.
[quote=“JillyPolla”]The opposition does not have the votes to block the bill. There’s nothing illegal about what the nationalists are doing. After all, this is how the parliamentary procedures are conducted. The majority is not obligated to do a line by line review of the bill.
The students are essentially blocking the democratic progress. It’d be one thing if the students were protesting outside of the legislature, but occupying the building so that sessions cannot be conducted is essentially counterproductive.
So the students are in fact the non-democratic ones.[/quote]
And that’s how someone can use parliamentary majority to legally turn a country into a dictatorship or sell it out to another country. Plenty of people have done it before.
It’s never that simple. If all candidates were robots who behaved reliably, that argument would stand up. But there are other factors at play, including the 50 years of unchallenged control over the education system the KMT has enjoyed, the way local and even foreign media portray the DPP as a bunch of ne’erdowells, the huge stain on the opposition party left by Chen Shui-bian’s shortsighted greed, the charisma of Ma, the lack of charisma of Tsai, etc. etc.
Voters are, first and foremost, ignorant. Your average Zhou, Lin, and Wang don’t need the specifics of how the KMT handles legislative affairs and pushes its weight around. They only watch the TV news, which offers more in the way of YouTube videos and pictures of cute girls doing inane things than hard-hitting political analysis.
The argument that “you voted KMT, so this is what you get” is majoritarianism at its worst. “I won, so I get to do whatever I want.” It’s thinking like that which tears apart fragile democracies, as happened in Egypt, as could happen in Taiwan.[/quote]
Just repeating what one foreign educated Taiwanese citizen believes. I think an awful lot of people share his views.
Presumably though the DPP can overturn things after 2016, especially if, as they claim, it doesn’t follow WTO rules (I’ve no idea if it follows them or not).
I just spent a couple of hours in and around the Legislature. The courtyard and environs are swamped with students and other protesters, more or less constantly being spoken to by an assortment of leaders, professors, etc. I climbed a ladder to the roof, which is the only way in as the first floor windows are all manned by police, and then in a second-story window. The stairs are blocked by furniture and, interestingly, a bust of Sun Yat-sen. Lots of students, some with drums, most with laptop computers. I thought I saw Robin Wrinkler giving a TV interview down the hall, but I might have been mistaken. I slipped through the barricade and went downstairs to the lobby, which is full of police, mostly sleeping, but some standing in formation in front of the main doors, which are barricaded on the inside with furniture, all the doors except one, on the south side. Some DPP legislators were walking around. Inside the legislature itself was mostly students, many asleep, many on their phones. Some were speaking on various subjects. It seemed that everyone with a grievance was speaking about it, and I asked one DPP legislator, Hsu Tain-Tsai, if he was concerned that they might lose focus on the whole China trade deal thing, but he seemed to feel multilateral protesting was a good thing.
I stuck around for a couple of hours, took some photos, and then climbed back down the ladder (It sure was the wrong day to bring my badminton gear with me). They pulled the ladder up onto the roof after I got back down, for some reason.
By the way, parliamentary resolution back in June and August of 2013 confirmed that pact was to be gone over line by line.
Head of the legislature Wang Jin-ping said 25th of June last year of the parliamentary resolution “The Cross-strait Service Sector Trade Pact should be reviewed line by line in the legislature and voted item by item. The Special Deals should also be reviewed and voted item by item. It is not to be voted on as a packet. Unless it has passed actual review process in the legislature, there can not be a call for activation.”
Those who signed includes Wang Jing-ping (KMT), Vice-head of the legislature Hong Xiu-zhu (KMT), Lin Hong-chi (KMT), Lai Shi-bao (KMT), Lin De-Fu (KMT), Ke Jian-ming (DPP), Chiou Yi-ying (DPP), Pan Meng-an (DPP), Hsu Zhong-hsin (TSU), Huang Wen-ling (TSU), Li Tong-hao (PFP)
The situation in the parliament directly violated the signed resolution, and it isn’t difficult to imagine it would cause an uproar.
But of course, after the August confirmation of the resolution, Wang tried to replace Wang Jin-ping by a smearing campaign.
If you start making a list of recent matters that may ruffle a few feathers, like:
-the travesty of the verdict in corporal Hong’s case
-the land grab deals and their human cost
-quality of life spiraling, cost of living skyrocketing
-food and drink scandals non stop
etc. ad nauseum
That would make people happy, methinks. Did you mean skyrocketing?
Hansioux, do you have a link to a news article from June 25 last year? I was trying to find one earlier and admittedly didn’t try very hard, but couldn’t.
That would make people happy, methinks. Did you mean skyrocketing?
Hansioux, do you have a link to a news article from June 25 last year? I was trying to find one earlier and admittedly didn’t try very hard, but couldn’t.[/quote]
[quote=“Hokwongwei”]
Hansioux, do you have a link to a news article from June 25 last year? I was trying to find one earlier and admittedly didn’t try very hard, but couldn’t.[/quote]
“The Cross-strait Service Sector Trade Pact should be reviewed line by line in the legislature and voted item by item. The Special Deals should also be reviewed and voted item by item. It is not to be voted on as a packet. Unless it has passed actual review process in the legislature, there can not be a call for activation.”
