How is this news. They have been saying this for decades now and will continue to say it for the forseeable future.
Someone should show those guys how to use wikipedia. They could especially benefit from reading this entry:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irredentism
Guy
Seems like the TAO’s comments have drawn protest from all part of the Taiwanese political spectrum.
wantchinatimes.com/news-subc … 0612000059
taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/ … 2003592735
I’m somewhat surprised at the reaction as saying that the Taiwan issue must be decided by people in China and Taiwan seems to me much less inflammatory that the 2005 Chinese law requiring China to go to war to prevent Taiwan’s independence or if Taiwan refuses to unify. If anything, the 2005 law presupposes that Taiwan’s fate is not solely up to the people of Taiwan, so the TAO’s comment seems to be nothing new.
For the Greens, I can certainly understand why they would be opposed to the TAO’s statement as it would put any independence decision into the hand’s of the Chinese people as well as those of Taiwan. But, I’d argue that the TAO’s position at least offers a sliver of “hope” in that it seems to leave open the possibility that Taiwan could become independent if the Chinese people also agreed to it (which is “softer” to me than the 2005 law which opposes independence automatically).
For the Blues, I’m a little more perplexed especially at MYJ’s statements. I mean, if you support the ROC Constitution (which claims to rule Taiwan and China), are opposed to independence and referendums thereon, want to see a rebirth of the zhonghua minzhu, have a history of killing and imprisoning independence supporters, have tried to wipe out local culture and languages in favor of a China-centric linguistic and cultural policy . . . how can you really say that you believe that Taiwan’s future is up to the Taiwanese people only? Seems schizophrenic. To say that Taiwan’s future is solely up to the Taiwanese means that independence is a legitimate avenue if the majority of Taiwanese choose it (and the government should implement it). Maybe I’m misreading something, but that seems anathema to the KMT.
As a relatively pro-unification/pro-Taiwan SAR supporter myself, even I have to admit that I’m not entirely enamored of the idea that Taiwan’s people can’t pick their own future. But I recognize that in supporting Taiwan’s unification with China (where even the Chinese have no real say in their governance), then accepting that Taiwan has no separate choice is part of the deal. China is a one party state with no elections, that has 2000 missiles pointed at Taiwan and has a law requiring the use of force to prevent independence. I live with it and favor unification because I think the good still outweighs the bad. It would feel hypocritcal for me to complain when China says Taiwan has no separate choice in the matter.
Except that the 1.3 billion Chinese people don’t get to vote, so even if they did support an independent Taiwan, the decision is still up to Beijing.
Pandering in an election year.
Except that the 1.3 billion Chinese people don’t get to vote, so even if they did support an independent Taiwan, the decision is still up to Beijing.[/quote]
Agreed, but even the fact that Beijing can “choose” to support/not support independence seems to me to be a hair better than just be legally committed to oppose it.
Pandering in an election year. [/quote]
I suppose so. I imagine it will work, too. I know that many people are predicting big Green victories in 2014 and maybe 2016, but I’m very dubious.
[quote=“Hokwongwei”][quote=“Zhengzhou2010”]I live with it and favor unification because I think the good still outweighs the bad.[quote]
nytimes.com/2014/06/12/busin … ppear.html[/quote][/quote][/quote]
Yep. I accept that. I don’t equivocate on this issue. I believe that any unification with China, be it as a SAR or under the ROC, means that Beijing is ultimately in charge despite whatever promises of “one country two systems” are made. I further believe that with Beijing in charge, Taiwan’s democracy and freedoms will ultimately and significantly be degraded (although probably not to a police state/KMT White Terror level). Even so, I think that unification’s benefits (increased access to Chinese markets, an end to the fractious politics, having a single agreed culture and national identity, having a clear, although subordinate, international status, and a peace dividend from drastically scaling down the Taiwanese military) make-up for the lost freedoms. Even without unification, China can already pressure large advertisers to not support certain Taiwanese newspapers or risk facing unfortunate business problems in China.
Surely it must be a very simple thing for the politicians here to point out the perversity of Beijing’s statement - that the Chinese people should decide Taiwan’s future but not China’s future.
The DPP should say, ‘We welcome all forms of democratic expression in China, especially the ability of the Chinese people to decide their own future by democratic elections. We are a democratic party. We will happily continue negotiations with Chinese leaders chosen by the Chinese people.’
That has been the KMT’s stance for over a decade now. If they agreed with the Chiense government on this or even failed to condemn the statement, they’d be booted out of office in a heartbeat.
That has been the KMT’s stance for over a decade now. If they agreed with the Chiense government on this or even failed to condemn the statement, they’d be booted out of office in a heartbeat.[/quote]
Thanks. I guess I can’t see the logical consistency of the Blue’s saying that they want Taiwan’s people to solely decide their future when their goal is preventing independence and unifying Taiwan into a nondemocratic authoritarian China where neither the Taiwanese nor the Chinese will have much say in their future. 
You mentioned about having a ‘single national culture’ following unification. Unification would not change how people think, it doesn’t work like that unless they buy into it.
I’ve reflected a bit and agree with your point. The concept I was poorly trying to express was that through unification with the PRC, Taiwan will undeniably be part of a single China, and thus all parts of Taiwan’s cultures can be thought of as dimensions of a larger Chinese culture. I see this as a benefit in that it can help end the long running debates of what parts of Taiwan’s culture are Chinese and what parts are native and what is foreign. While I recognize that the PRC is no paragon of multiculturalism (they Disney-fy minority cultures into ethnic garb, cute dances and ersatz temples), China’s very cultural diversity seems to allow a greater tolerance for different expressions of regional/local cultures than what we’ve seen in Taiwan. With the political question answered, Taiwan can more fully develop its distinctive culture without the debate that it is trying to distance itself from China or appropriate Austronesian or Japanese culture for independence driven goals.
I’d note that regional/provincial Han Chinese cultures and languages seem to have survived better in the PRC than Taiwan. Witness the continued strong use of Cantonese in GZ, Macao and HK compared to the decline of Hokkien, Hakka and Aboriginal languages in Taiwan(I think even Hokkien will be nearly wiped out in another 20-30 years). Or the continued day to day use of the formal colonial language (English) in HK compared to the much diminished use of Japanese in Taiwan. The clock can’t be unwound; nothing will revive the use of Taiwan’s non-Mandarin languages, but more modern Taiwanese cultural elements (traditional characters, night market life, Japanese-style civility, 小吃 culture, and a inauthentic but well intentioned desire to promote Austronesian culture) might still thrive.
Part of Taiwan’s distinctive culture is that it is a democracy. It is an island with its own dreams. Both of those aspects would be destroyed by unification.
Part of Taiwan’s distinctive culture is that it is a democracy. It is an island with its own dreams. Both of those aspects would be destroyed by unification.[/quote]
Yes. Undeniably Taiwan’s democracy will be greatly diminished. I don’t doubt that under unification there will still be some form of home rule and maybe even limited/controlled elections, but it won’t be democracy as Taiwan knows it now, or what most in the West would consider democracy to be.
But I don’t think that all Taiwan’s dreams will be lost. Among the 1.3B Chinese people, there are lots of dreams as well; and many are the tangible dreams that most of us deal with on a day to day level. Better places to live, a raise, better food, a nicer car, good vacations, more time with the family. True, such dreams are of a lesser magnitude in some ways than democracy and liberty but still tangible and real.
I know I must sounds like an apologist for authoritarian rule, or for those who say that democracy is inimical to a Chinese society. I prefer to think of myself as a realist who is willing to look at the truth of the situation and not make excuses for it. There are already too many pro-unificationists who prefer the “Imperial Fantasy”, who will dress up and excuse authoritarianism in the name of a vicious nationalism, who will decry democracy and self-determination as corrupting Western influences or as schemes to restore other unpalatable regimes (ie, everything we do in Tibet and Xinjiang is okay because our rule is better than theocracy or jihad). I wish more of us who are pro-unification (be it quick unification like what I want, or slowly along an illusory “status quo” like so many Taiwanese seem to want) would drop the hypocrisy and accept that with the many goods that unification can bring, there are going to be some real and significant bads as well. Taiwan should face those bads head-on and do what it can to minimize their impact, but pretending they don’t exist or diminishing their scope is self-delusional.
You’re an interesting character, Zhengzhou. You’re well-spoken, good-tempered, and rational, but while we tend to agree on a lot, somehow we wind up on opposite sides at the end.
We’ve had posters like him in the past. The good-tempered and rational manner is always a red flag. No one with any skin in the game would talk about giving up freedoms so easily. All the so called benefits Taiwan will receive are illusory as 5 years of ecfa have proven. Still doesn’t change his opinion in the slightest.
I know what to make of such people. Pretty talk covering some nasty impulses.
0.5
We’ve had posters like him in the past. The good-tempered and rational manner is always a red flag. No one with any skin in the game would talk about giving up freedoms so easily. All the so called benefits Taiwan will receive are illusory as 5 years of ecfa have proven. Still doesn’t change his opinion in the slightest.
I know what to make of such people. Pretty talk covering some nasty impulses.[/quote]
With all due respect, I don’t think you know enough about him to make accusations about nasty impulses or ulterior motives.
You’re right, though, that it’s very easy to advocate for unification and downplay the negative repercussions when you won’t have to deal with them yourself. Of course, the same is true of those advocating for independence who can simply leave when shit hits the fan.
We’ve had posters like him in the past. The good-tempered and rational manner is always a red flag. No one with any skin in the game would talk about giving up freedoms so easily. All the so called benefits Taiwan will receive are illusory as 5 years of ecfa have proven. Still doesn’t change his opinion in the slightest.
I know what to make of such people. Pretty talk covering some nasty impulses.[/quote]
With all due respect, I don’t think you know enough about him to make accusations about nasty impulses or ulterior motives.
You’re right, though, that it’s very easy to advocate for unification and downplay the negative repercussions when you won’t have to deal with them yourself. Of course, the same is true of those advocating for independence who can simply leave when shit hits the fan.[/quote]
These guys pop up periodically. You can sniff them out after a while. This guy is starting to give himself away with repeated posts. First he knows little about China but now he is knowledgeable enough to state that minority languages are better preserved in the PRC than Taiwan. Yeah right. I’ve travelled all over China and lived in Taiwan for 17 years and without extensive research I wouldn’t feel confident making such a statement.
I beg your pardon, but so what?
May I remind posters that we are here to discuss the message, not the messenger and some sort of “placement” regarding the messenger’s style & intent.
I’ll give him 50c each time he posts that.
Oh wait, someone else already does.