If they were attacking their fellow Chinese and/or Taiwanese on the basis of their divergent views, then I’d call it politics.
When they attack their fellow Chinese and/or Taiwanese by calling them foreigners, aliens, Chinese pigs… I don’t know if you call it racism, but there’s something else going on.
Problem is, in most parts, WSR still benifit a lot from the past KMT policies (as most WSR held government jobs). Explain me why the wife of a 49er can receive pension fund from his late husband, when a non-49er doesn’t? Why so many sons of 49ers are in previlegged positions over the rest?
The problem is that the root of the separation between WSR and BSR is in the extras WSR still have. Not finishing these extras means that the Taiwanese will allways fell 2nd class. The KMT promoted for 40 years a “feed us first, then the rest” policy, and all that is happening now is a consequence of that. If there was an harmonious integration of the WSR in the Taiwanese society, Taiwan would be a different place.
Maybe Taiwanese call names to the WSR because of 40 years of being 2nd class.
There are lots of nations where some easily identifiable subset of the population have done better economically. And in many of these nations, this small subset has been accused of controlling government + dominating society. Jews, Chinese… we’re used to this. Your explanations does nothing to change the fact that this sort of behavior racist.
I also can’t figure out how Lien Chan, Lee Tung-hui, or Wang Jin-pyng have ever been “second class” citizens. But whatever.
They aren’t, but they are not the “norma” here. The “norma” BSR is the 2nd class farmer or something like that. Some people of my family are 1st class, but that is because one aunty of my wife married a 49er. Her son is a KMT guy in Yilan… but he has allready understood he has to get in touch with the roots, othewise no votes. Mind you, he drives a Lexus.
By those ‘passport holders’, I take it you mean the KMT. Well the fact is many in their ranks are actively working towards reunification. Which means subsuming a sense of ‘Taiwanese nationality’ under the Greater Chinese community run from Beijing. Holding an ROC passport doesnt automatically make them loyal to the idea of a Taiwanese identity. Much less a Taiwanese nation. Thats what the greens are on about. That there are people feeding off the Taiwan teats, legislators on government expenses yet, act as spokespersons for the preceived enemies.
Labels like traitors and communist lackeys are hyberbolic, but the basic premise is sound, from the greens standpoint.
Thats hardly racist, unless the aggreived party here feel its their ‘Chinese-ness’ thats under attack, and that this same ‘Chinese-ness’ is a whole different race grouping from ‘Taiwanese.’ Do the KMT types think like that? As in a sex crime, its the nominal victim’s perception of the ‘offense’ that counts.
This WSR versus BSR thing is really not all that different from what you would encounter on the mainland, especially in more affluent provinces having to deal with hugh influx of migrant workers. Its the same deal, basically people feel separated alienated by different dialects.
By the way ‘racism’ as an argument is so overused that its no longer the end all argument that it once was. 
[quote=“LiAoriotpolice”]By those ‘passport holders’, I take it you mean the KMT. Well the fact is many in their ranks are actively working towards reunification. Which means subsuming a sense of ‘Taiwanese nationality’ under the Greater Chinese community run from Beijing. Holding an ROC passport doesnt automatically make them loyal to the idea of a Taiwanese identity. Much less a Taiwanese nation. Thats what the greens are on about. That there are people feeding off the Taiwan teats, legislators on government expenses yet, act as spokespersons for the preceived enemies.
Labels like traitors and communist lackeys are hyberbolic, but the basic premise is sound, from the greens standpoint.
Thats hardly racist, unless the aggreived party here feel its their ‘Chinese-ness’ thats under attack, and that this same ‘Chinese-ness’ is a whole different race grouping from ‘Taiwanese.’ Do the KMT types think like that? As in a sex crime, its the nominal victim’s perception of the ‘offense’ that counts.
This WSR versus BSR thing is really not all that different from what you would encounter on the mainland, especially in more affluent provinces having to deal with hugh influx of migrant workers. Its the same deal, basically people feel separated alienated by different dialects.
By the way ‘racism’ as an argument is so overused that its no longer the end all argument that it once was. 
[/quote]
When I talk about Taiwan passport holders I am talking about all Taiwanese people, not in reference to the KMT. The division of WSR and BSR who are all Taiwanese has been accentuated and used as a tactic to win votes by the DPP.
You seem to think that the aggreived party (WSR) would think it is their ‘Chinese-ness’ that is under attack. It is their ‘Taiwan-ness’ that is under attack. We are talking about 2nd or third generation WSR, who are still considered WSR who consider themselves 100% Taiwanese (maybe even vote DPP), yet the DPP is trying to inform them that BSR are the true Taiwanese. The DPP is equating their political beliefs with being Taiwanese.
Theirs is not a policy of inclusion, hell, by using local dialect in his national address not even the aborigonals could understand what president Chen was talking about. Promoting a Taiwanese identity is not a bad thing unless as the DPP are doing it is done without including all the groups within Taiwan.
In fact, to hold the view that your parties policies are the only ones in the national interest, that to disagree with the party views is to be against your nation and defines you as a traitor, racisim is too kind a word. The DPP has some good people and I think a lot of their policies make a lot of sense, but this one… I hope they bury pretty quick, they may find push it too hard it will bury them.
Although there might be cases of 2nd or 3rd generation WSR that are DPP voters, I would say the biggest majority is deep blue. It is funny for me because I have friends from all colors, so when the “blue ones” come to meet us, we don’t discuss politics. We all know how much benefit their families had from being WSR, so there is not even a point of starting to discuss. These people are still very in touch with China, and they fly often there.
Surely this is a bit of demagoguery on your part.
DPP for sures promotes Taiwanese nationality, but I doubt they will say exactly that ie that only BSR are the true Taiwanese. More likely those third generation WSR dont really take to the localization drive emphasized by the DPP for other reasons. Their dejection is understandable when some policy may have impact on their economic situation; they may actually have to share or give up even the spoils of their forefathers’ privileges.
Must be hard on the body though they have to transit thru HK every time they go back to seek their roots. 
[quote=“LiAoriotpolice”]
Surely this is a bit of demagoguery on your part.
DPP for sures promotes Taiwanese nationality, but I doubt they will say exactly that ie that only BSR are the true Taiwanese. More likely those third generation WSR dont really take to the localization drive emphasized by the DPP for other reasons. Their dejection is understandable when some policy may have impact on their economic situation; they may actually have to share or give up even the spoils of their forefathers’ privileges.[/quote]
You seem to be missing my point. The majority of Taiwanese are not obsessed to the same extent as the DPP or the KMT, they simply dont relate to hard core ideals, from either party.
The DPP is going around now like a bunch of hard core feminists in the 80’s seeking to change everything no matter how petty. As the feminists did, trying to do away with terms like manhole, saying it shoud be a people hole. While there was support for the cause of feminists as a whole, this fringe group quickly got labled as a bunch of nutters, which is where the DPP is heading unless it eases off its hard line Hoklo nationist approach. How many people do you think really give a shit about renaming the airport? Did you see the Chinese try to instantly rename places in HK after the handover as a matter of urgency?
How much money I wonder did the government spend on radio time for “I love Haka”, after several years on the radio, I would challenge you to find anyone who has learned any Haka from it. I am sure there would be a lot more needy causes that could benifit from the governments grant.
People want action, they want to see their leaders have a plan. They all know China needs dialogue with Taiwan, but the DPP will have no discussions unless China recognizes Taiwan as a country. WTF ? Everyone knows this will not happen. So thats the plan, do nothing… sit around and make demands that everyone knows will have zero chance of success. The hardcore supports no doubt will support the DPP whatever happens, but I think they have lost the trust of the middle ground. It seems the DPP are more obsesed with settling old scores than they are about finding compromises which are in the nations interest.
And don’t get started abot how the KMT are no better, I’m not defending the KMT or getting on my soapbox about how great they are. Right now, this is about the DPP, their policies and thier vision (or lack of it).
mr boogie,
Ever take into consideration that the ROC citizen in question is 2nd class because they are less educated farmers and not BSR.
On the WSR side of the equation there are 2nd class soldiers who died in the barracks on Taiwan never to see their families again.
There is no point trying to quantify privilege and status in these cases. Because life was hard on Taiwan back then for everyone.
If the farmers in question took advantage of the KMT education and went to college, then they would be like my BSR family from Yilan. Sure they might have grown up without shoes, sleeping with farm animals, but they are not second-class anymore.
I can see how if a BSR couldn’t compete with other BSR in the Yilan education system that they would rather blame a WSR for their problems. But this type of reasoning is not grounded in reality. Not being able to face reality reduces ones ability to influence reality in ones favor. This is the fundamental reason why some people are 2nd class.
If the KMT adopted a similar tactic in Taiwan politics to blame the BSR for all the reasons why Taiwan is unable to become an elite nation, I would assure you Taiwan would be on the brink of a civil war.
What you re suggesting there is not any plan, its capitulation. By accepting the terms set by mainland China means giving up the option of any future independence. While most Taiwan people are undecided over unification or independence, I doubt they will sit still while a valid option is taken away from them. Seeing as how much a big deal the Chinese made out of an non existent 1992 consensus, with the connivance of the likes of Lien Chan and Charman Ma, imagine what they will do once Taiwan actiually accede to their demands
Politically speaking with a rabid oppositin hounding your every step, I doubt its wise to give them any more freebie ammunition to use against you. As the latest news on the indictment shows, they have got plenty of them ammos already and might have gotten lucky with one.
Also, while Lien was babbling on about 1992 consensus, and Ma about one china two interpretation, the difference is they will not be the one to actually talk with the mainland and to concede sovereignty doing it. Whether Ma will do as he now preaches if and when he is elected in 2008 remains to be seen.
Its such a sensitive issue even Lien Chan gingerly skirted around it during his failed run for presidency in 2004.
"In this recent presidential campaign, one very striking development was the fact that not only does the DPP say that the one-China principle is not acceptable but during the campaigning, the KMT and Lien Chan himself, also came to accept the position that indeed, “There is one state, on each side of the Taiwan Strait.” Indeed, according to a statement by Lien Chan’s campaign manager, Wang Jin-pyng, “Taiwan independence ought to be an acceptable alternative.” "
tp.org.tw/eletter/story.htm?id=20000318
Its easy to talk “peace for no independence” when you re not the one to take on the responsibility. Lien rightly sensed the reality of Taiwanese sentiment otherwise he would have embraced reunification during his campaign. Maybe its not cowardice exactly, but surely a case of inconsistency.
[quote=“one man riot”]
What you re suggesting there is not any plan, its capitulation. By accepting the terms set by mainland China means giving up the option of any future independence. While most Taiwan people are undecided over unification or independence, I doubt they will sit still while a valid option is taken away from them. Seeing as how much a big deal the Chinese made out of an non existent 1992 consensus, with the connivance of the likes of Lien Chan and Charman Ma, imagine what they will do once Taiwan actiually accede to their demands
Politically speaking with a rabid oppositin hounding your every step, I doubt its wise to give them any more freebie ammunition to use against you. As the latest news on the indictment shows, they have got plenty of them ammos already and might have gotten lucky with one.
Also, while Lien was babbling on about 1992 consensus, and Ma about one china two interpretation, the difference is they will not be the one to actually talk with the mainland and to concede sovereignty doing it. Whether Ma will do as he now preaches if and when he is elected in 2008 remains to be seen.
Its such a sensitive issue even Lien Chan gingerly skirted around it during his failed run for presidency in 2004.
"In this recent presidential campaign, one very striking development was the fact that not only does the DPP say that the one-China principle is not acceptable but during the campaigning, the KMT and Lien Chan himself, also came to accept the position that indeed, “There is one state, on each side of the Taiwan Strait.” Indeed, according to a statement by Lien Chan’s campaign manager, Wang Jin-pyng, “Taiwan independence ought to be an acceptable alternative.” "
tp.org.tw/eletter/story.htm?id=20000318
Its easy to talk “peace for no independence” when you re not the one to take on the responsibility. Lien rightly sensed the reality of Taiwanese sentiment otherwise he would have embraced reunification during his campaign. Maybe its not cowardice exactly, but surely a case of inconsistency.[/quote]
Interesting article, thank you. I think it just looked at what was on the table at the moment and showed little ability to think outside of the box, which I have to say Chen shui Bian and the DPP in some respects certainly can’t be accused of.
I read in the TT yesterday that Chen Shui Bian was promoting a freeze on the current constitution and bring in a new one this way (at least in his mind) he will keep everyone happy. Quite ingenious and even with the prosecutor presenting what looks like a solid case against him and his wife, I am sure his imagination will be able to put another angle on it.
Regarding cross straight relations, I have to say little imagination or effort seems to have been put in. So the DPP can stick to the king Canute strategy, just don’t expect people to be all that impressed when all that is left to do is pointless name changes to airports and I wouldn’t expect people to wait with you while the tide comes in.
Ma, while not offering the perfect solution at least has a plan. But it is better than no plan, the cross strait issue is one that is of the most concern to everyone on Taiwan. In effect the DPP are conceding they have no policy, plan or direction in this regard. Don’t like Ma’s proposed plan? Then the DPP should use their imagination and come up with a better one. Use some of that slick spin doctor ability that has impressed/frustrated so many in Taiwan.
[quote=“Mick”]Regarding cross straight relations, I have to say little imagination or effort seems to have been put in. So the DPP can stick to the king Canute strategy, just don’t expect people to be all that impressed when all that is left to do is pointless name changes to airports and I wouldn’t expect people to wait with you while the tide comes in.
Ma, while not offering the perfect solution at least has a plan. But it is better than no plan, the cross strait issue is one that is of the most concern to everyone on Taiwan. In effect the DPP are conceding they have no policy, plan or direction in this regard. Don’t like Ma’s proposed plan? Then the DPP should use their imagination and come up with a better one. Use some of that slick spin doctor ability that has impressed/frustrated so many in Taiwan.[/quote]
Taiwan and mainland are at what is usually called a stalemate. China really dont need any peace plan to resolve it. It would be nice if one is proffered that meets with Beijing’s objectives. But Beijing is willing to have it come to a fight. It isnt even reluctant to tell the whole world about it. It seems improbable now to think there will be an armed conflict, but the PLA nonetheless is preparing for that eventuality. With expansion in military spending, and securing vital energy needs outside of the west’s traditional spheres of influences.
By way of contrast what has Taiwan been doing in the meantime? Will it be willing to fight? All the fighting Chairman Ma’s party s been doing is with the executive over everything for six years. Blindlessly obstructing defense requirements from being funded.
Ma certainly makes it seem effortless with his ‘peace plan’ now, even before hes yet to be nominated for anything in 2008. He makes it sounds so easy, why didnt the DPP think of THAT? I submit Ma can afford a plan because he knows what he wants and have no qualms about underwriting his ultimate plan with the future of Taiwan. Reunification. Once you reconcile yourself to this, everything else is just so much details.
Finally, after multiple posts of self-righteous posturing… you’ve hit upon the truth.
You’re exactly right. Ma has made clear what he wants: a path that make unilateral independence impossible, and likely lead to reunification. Unlike the election of 2004, Ma can now publically speak about this path and still remain the odds-on favorite to win the 2008 election. And unlike any point in the past 50 years, Ma knows the general framework of what this peace agreement with mainland China… because Hu/Lien announced it to the world last year. So, explain this to me. Why wouldn’t Ma follow through with this plan? It can be implemented. It’s what he is campaigning on. It’s what he will be elected on. Why wouldn’t he actually follow through?
PS. Mick, I can’t stress enough that Lien/Soong’s visits to the mainland last year were revolutionary. It was absolutely an inflection point in cross-strait affairs. In the aftermath of the 2004 elections, there was a real discussion about the Chinese Nationalist Party renaming itself as the Taiwanese Nationalist Party. It was assumed by most that being painted with a “red” brush basically guaranteed a loss amongst the Taiwanese electorate. CSB and the DPP are right about one thing: we’re no longer in a period of status quo, in this regard.
I’m not so convinced Ma will put it out there in the open, more likely I think he will sidestep the issue of unification and fudge the details saying it all needs to be worked out in the years to come, in other words campaign on keeping the sttus quo. I’m also not so certain, if he were to platform on unification that he would indeed be voted into office. One may argue that the DPP made the same keeping the status quo promises with little intention of keeping them either but thats not here nor there.
However, is a stalemate the best that the DPP can come up with? The worst case senario is clear so isn’t it asing a lot to ask the people to take the risk to achieve a best case senario of a stalemate?
[quote=“cctang”]
Finally, after multiple posts of self-righteous posturing… you’ve hit upon the truth.[/quote]
You must have missed the part, many posts before where I comended you on your being more forthright than the Chairman when it comes to saying the word ‘reunification’.
[quote]You’re exactly right. Ma has made clear what he wants: a path that make unilateral independence impossible, and likely lead to reunification. Unlike the election of 2004, Ma can now publically speak about this path and still remain the odds-on favorite to win the 2008 election[/quote].
And I say you re being clever there, hedging your bet.
No unilateral independence Ma can of course say this without adverse consequences; people will simply take that to mean status quo, no declaring de jure independence. Perhaps you re trying to create the impression that under Ma, a magic deal can be reached with the mainland on a mutually agreeable independence for Taiwan.
Because while as you claim the majority Taiwanese people are for status quo, amenable to both reunification AND/OR independence, it ll be political sudden death for Ma to say it out loud; VOTE MA YING JEOU FOR REUNIFICATION.
He can get away with a peace and prosperity framework; he can win support with promoting economic opportunities for Taiwaneses on the mainland, with closer communication links, with direct flights, removal of missile threats, cheaper mail order brides(well maybe not cheap but at least they speak same same languages, an edge over the others from the South East Asia). But unless something drastic happens between now and the kickoff of 2008 campaign, he wont touch reunification not in so many syllables.
The following is from a Straits Times excerpt of an interview with the dodgy chairman;
[i]How about the unification and independence issues. Where do you stand?
We don’t believe it makes much sense to discuss unification or independence at the moment. Neither is likely in the foreseeable future.
I think our attention should focus on the maintenance of the status quo. By that we mean the constitutional structure of the Republic of China in Taiwan. In other words, the ‘Five No’s’ could be seen as an important content of the status quo. The ‘1992 consensus’ could also be considered as part of the status quo.
In other words, ‘one China’ with different interpretations. Neither side could recognise the other side legally. But it doesn’t need to be recognised. What we should do is just not deny their existence and agree to disagree.
There is no possibility that we can solve the sovereignty issue or the ‘one China’ issue at this stage. But we are fully able to manage the issue so that it will not explode and disrupt the cross-strait exchange.[/i]
What’s the deal with the Chen cabinet’s recent decision to try to impose a 3-day wait etc. on women wanting abortions? What sort of stupid-ass political calculation was behind that?
Well, it’s kind of a wait and think situation. Abortion has too many readings, and specially when you are talking about religious beliefs, one can add a lot to this talk. And let us be honest, the 3 day waiting won’t be a matter of life and death.
Now that’s a pun if I ever read one. :bravo:
I have terrible taste, I know. 