[quote=“cfimages”]And you know full well it won’t. It’ll be snapped up by whichever development company is closest to whichever party is in power at the time.
It might be interesting to see what links the various politicians calling for its closure have to construction companies.
[/quote]
most of the people called to abolish the airport wanted to turn it into a park. Some share my view in that it should be given back to nature and relives the threat of flooding by leaving it as a wetland. If there are development profits to be made by abolishing the airport, it should be in neighboring areas where there would no longer have a height limitations for buildings.
It’s a very handy thing to fly city to city airport for regional business people, it means you can locate your Asia regional job in Taipei a lot easier. It dies promote business in Taipei. But personally I think it would be nicer as a park for all citizens, probably not going to happen.
I don’t know if your Chinese is bad or what. Page 1 of that report clearly states: 台北松山機場567萬人次（每日1.6萬人次） That’s 5.67 million passengers at Songshan Airport in 2012 (16,000 per day). Your 55,000 number is ludicrous. That would be about 150 passengers a day. There is no chance in hell that’s even in the ballpark.
I don’t know if your Chinese is bad or what. Page 1 of that report clearly states: 台北松山機場567萬人次（每日1.6萬人次） That’s 5.67 million passengers at Songshan Airport in 2012 (16,000 per day). Your 55,000 number is ludicrous. That would be about 150 passengers a day. There is no chance in hell that’s even in the ballpark.[/quote]
I don’t know if your Chinese is bad or what. Page 1 of that report clearly states: 台北松山機場567萬人次（每日1.6萬人次） That’s 5.67 million passengers at Songshan Airport in 2012 (16,000 per day). Your 55,000 number is ludicrous. That would be about 150 passengers a day. There is no chance in hell that’s even in the ballpark.[/quote]
55,000 thousand = 5.5 million.[/quote]
lol…that’s not what you said in your first post, and you never acknowledged your mistake.
Tsai Ing-wen recounting a meeting with Lee Kuan Yew where she said that in a democratic setting, leaders only served 4 or 8 years. :roflmao: :roflmao: Thatcher, Trudeau and Howard served 11 years. Harper and Merkel are on their 10th year, I believe and will likely surpass them. Netanyahu will surpass 11 years. Is English Tsai a supporter of moving towards a Parliamentary system?
[quote=“Dirt”]
Tsai Ing-wen recounting a meeting with Lee Kuan Yew where she said that in a democratic setting, leaders only served 4 or 8 years. :roflmao: :roflmao: Thatcher, Trudeau and Howard served 11 years. Harper and Merkel are on their 10th year, I believe and will likely surpass them. Netanyahu will surpass 11 years. Is English Tsai a supporter of moving towards a Parliamentary system?[/quote]
I don’t know if Tsai supports a parliamentary system or not, but that has indeed been part of DPP ideology ever since Chen Shuibian pushed for it during his second term. I believe that Chen’s motive for doing so was purely selfish - he assumed that he could become prime minister, thus skirting around the constitutional ban on a president serving two terms. I think it just goes to show why it should be illegal for the party chair to also be the president (or prime minister). I’m personally cool to the idea of turning Taiwan into a parliamentary so-called democracy, since when you combine a prime minister with party chairperson, you get someone who tries to hang onto power for life (though it usually comes to an end when the party loses power). In Lee Kuan Yew’s case, he installed his son Lee Hsien Loong into power in 2004, where he has remained (11 years and running). Lee the elder himself was prime minister for 21 years. I assume the Lee junior will try to install his son too, thus continuing the dynasty.
I wonder if the DPP’s enthusiasm for a parliamentary democracy would cool if they realized they could wind up with Eric Chu in office for 25 years (followed by his son). Most political parties are only happy with semi-dictatorship when it works out to their advantage, rather than to the opposition’s.
Who knows how things will play out in 2020? In political time, this is eons away. But Beijing—with its recent hard crackdown in Hong Kong—seems determined, yet again, to help undermine its interests in Taiwan. It’s like these guys can’t help themselves.
The Korean fish is losing steam. Given the power struggles within KMT, Tsai’s most likely opponent is Chu, not Korean Fish nor Terry Gou. It’s a good result if you support the DPP.
I suspected that Lai running was a way to gain more press for DPP, and since admitting defeat Lai and his aids have said as much, although I can’t be sure if they said it because that was their plan all along or just to keep face.
