All Things Considered, August 1, 2006 · If leading contender Ma Ying-Jeou is elected Taiwan's president in 2008, he will share one policy goal with Beijing: opposition to current efforts to move Taiwan toward independence.
Usually in English, people say Taiwan and China, but Ma keeps reiterating Mainland and Taiwan, explaining his mindset that he thinks both are one country.
Hopefully the treaty Ma is advocating will not sell out Taiwan sovereignty and compromise military strength in exchange for a tenuous promise to not invade Taiwan. Living with no dignity in Taiwan is no better than living in fear under Chinese guns. (Although the treaty is not to be trusted to guarantee security anyway).
All foreign reports on Taiwan seem to declare that China and Taiwan split amid in 1947 due to the Chinese Civil War. This report is drastically misleading as it implies that Taiwan and China are united at all times before 1947, whereas in fact Taiwan was formerly ruled by Japan (and only 200 some years before by Ching dynasty) and in no way has participated in the Chinese Civil War. After WWII, Taiwan is dragged into the Chinese Civil War and never actively participating. Why impose on the Taiwanese the burden of the Chinese Civil War?
All foreign media's juxtaposition of Taiwan and China in all reports on Taiwan will ingrain into audience the idea that Taiwan and China are one single entity, whether or not they're two countries. This type of reporting to always define Taiwan in terms of China will undermine any of Taiwan singularity and forever frame Taiwan into a mere peripheral or subculture of China. Without developed national character, Taiwan will always be an abnormal country isolated and self-pitying in the ranks of the world nations.
Ma's economic policy would inevitably cast Taiwan into the hands of China, like Hong Kong, where Chinese trades would make the people unable to reject and resist demands from the hegemonic China.
Although I'm probably biased, I don't see how Ma is charismatic. He's not as good-looking as show stars and his performance in Taipei is at best mediocre. It is very disappointing to see the Taipei dome still lying flat on its belly.
Hopefully in 2008, Taiwanese will make a decision that will forever impart all children of Taiwan the hopes for to become dignified, free, and equal citizens of the Earth.
I remember Thomas Paine's (spelled right?) contention in the Common Sense, something like" "If there would be war, let there be war in my days, so my children may live in peace."
If Taiwan will sell out their dignity for temporary security or economic gains, they will cast their posterity's happiness forever into pits of darkness.
Moreover I don't understand why foreign media never or hardly mention Chen's efforts to placate and gain the favors of China. Isn't the recent rising frequencies of transportation links an obvious example? All foreign reports fall into the following psychological connection: Chen <=> pro-independent <=> shows China the cold shoulder <=> provokes China <=> destablizes situation in the Taiwan Strait.
If China wants to talk, can Taiwan really refuse to talk amind international pressure? Obviously, the ball is in China's court. Until China becomes more open, no progress will be made in the Taiwan Strait.
"Some Taiwanese right-wingers see Ma as a possible turncoat who might sell-out Taiwan to the Communists"
This statement is so weird. Anthony Kuhn, please read A LITTLE about Taiwanese politics.
In general, domestically, the DPP is leftist (liberal, pro-environment, highly concerned with minority issues, women's issues, pro-labor, income inequality issues) while the KMT is conservative (pro-business), and these days, pro-China.
Is Kuhn try to fart that anyone anti-China is right wing? Well, if China was ever truly communist and not just state-capitalist, they are something like fascist now. Pro-China, majority over minority, reckless economic growth is fine as long as it's only screwing over a large chunk, but minority of people. Authoritarian. Unchecked police powers, a-okay. Seems pretty right-wing to me.
Everyone knows that the KMT used to be rabidly anti-China and was a conservative, authoritarian party. So now they're in love with China, but they haven't lost their right-wing tendencies.
To sum up, a right wing party in Taiwan did at one point hate China. However, the party today that likes China today is that same right wing party. Today, China is pretty right wing itself. So to just say that "only a right-winger wouldn't be able to accept unification with lefty, communist China" is wrong since it is pretty right wing.
Ahhh... maybe I shouldn't have tried to spend so much time figuring out wrongness... it's wrong in too many ways...
In general, domestically, the DPP is leftist (liberal, pro-environment, highly concerned with minority issues, women's issues, pro-labor, income inequality issues) while the KMT is conservative (pro-business), and these days, pro-China.
Both are right wing nationalist system parties who disagree on very little except China links and the future status of Taiwan, as well as the future of its democracy. Both a are pro-business system parties (you haven't seen any major labor reform under the DPP, have you?). The major difference is that the KMT is Chinese nationalist, the DPP Taiwan nationalist. The DPP faintly resembles the Establishment Democrats in the US, though it is more populist than they are. The KMT has no direct US analogue, since none of the US parties has as its stated policy the destruction of the national polity and its absorption into a neighboring state.
While I agree that the DPP and KMT are both pro-business, Kuhn's description of the greens as being right wing was unfortunate given his audience at NPR. If his opponents are right wing, then Ma is implicitly 'progressive.' In effect, Kuhn is endorsing Ma to an audience that knows very little about Taiwan.
To simply call both the DPP and KMT pro-business and thus conservative is simply inaccurate Michael.
You can sorta explain this by ethnic politics, but the DPP has made a concerted effort to build up businesses and infrastructure in the relatively poorer central and southern Taiwan. They have consistently tried to reduce the disparity in government resources, educational opportunities, and economic opportuntities between the north (Taipei) and the south.
You got to look at who supports independence. There are tons of rich guys that are DPP patrons and deep-deep-Green. But it's not a majority. And the likelihood of someone poor, lower-class supporting the DPP is just much, much higher. Taiwanese democracy isn't so broken that there is no effect on the DPP despite the fact that many of their supporters are poor.
Again, you can partially attribute it to ethnic politics, but what about farm subsidies, another poor constituency that the DPP generally supports.
And don't just pick business issues. The vice-presidency is a largely symbolic office, as it is in the US (pre-Cheney), but the fact that the US has never elected anyone non-Christian, non-white to either the Presidency or Vice-Presidency says something. John F. Kennedy had problems for being Catholic! But in Taiwan, you have a woman vice-president. What about the rule of having 40% of DPP candidates (or is it overall candidates) female? Sorry, I don't have time to look up the exact rule, but that means something too.
One last thing. Taiwan has universal healthcare that doesn't cost the average citizen very much money. You seem to be saying that both the US and Taiwan are pro-business and thus conservative. Well, Taiwan beats the shit out of the US on this one on the liberal scale. Healthcare in Taiwan is very good quality, reasonably priced, and universally available. It does look like the cost is increasing beyond revenue, but it also looks like at least a good chunk of it is caused by corruption and gross inefficiency and can be fixed, knock on wood.
To simply call both the DPP and KMT pro-business and thus conservative is simply inaccurate Michael.
Hmmm...I never said that they were conservative, so your lecture was, nice, and thanks, but it was directed at someone in your imagination, not on my blog.
Health care is not a "liberal" policy except in the US.
You also said the two parties disagree on very little. The issues I mentioned are major issues that are largely supported by the DPP and not usually by the KMT.
And what do you mean by populism? Populism usually refers to a subset of liberal policies that is supported by rable rousing. Maybe like wealth distribution, land reform, that you see in some African and South American countries. I can't think of examples of how it is used to implement right-wing policies.
This is all really confusing to talk about if you don't equate right-wing and conservative and left-wing and liberal, which are the normal conventions.
"Healthcare is not a liberal policy except in the US."
Some countries are generally more liberal so yes, it is true, their more conservative leaning folks would support healthcare as well. But do you really think this is true of most countries in the world? What about after accounting for population, eliminating non-democracies? What's the proportion after that? I don't know what your reason for being so sure is, but I can't see it.
You also said the two parties disagree on very little. The issues I mentioned are major issues that are largely supported by the DPP and not usually by the KMT.
Outside of China policy and related issues, where are the major disagreements? Both now support the 4th nuke plant, the suppression of labor rights, the health care system, etc. Both are essentially center-right parties on the European, not US, model. They are both rightist -- both yak about fair income distribution but neither does a thing about it. They are definitely not "conservative" in any sense, since both are revolutionary parties that want to do away with the current national polity and replace it with something else. Both are System parties in that the Concrete-and-Development Machine that fuels the island's political economy is served by them both.
Hope that is clear. You're right, I probably misused the terminology, and I apologize for the confusion I caused.
Then TW will be like hell !
ReplyDeleteUsually in English, people say Taiwan and China, but Ma keeps reiterating Mainland and Taiwan, explaining his mindset that he thinks both are one country.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the treaty Ma is advocating will not sell out Taiwan sovereignty and compromise military strength in exchange for a tenuous promise to not invade Taiwan. Living with no dignity in Taiwan is no better than living in fear under Chinese guns. (Although the treaty is not to be trusted to guarantee security anyway).
All foreign reports on Taiwan seem to declare that China and Taiwan split amid in 1947 due to the Chinese Civil War. This report is drastically misleading as it implies that Taiwan and China are united at all times before 1947, whereas in fact Taiwan was formerly ruled by Japan (and only 200 some years before by Ching dynasty) and in no way has participated in the Chinese Civil War. After WWII, Taiwan is dragged into the Chinese Civil War and never actively participating. Why impose on the Taiwanese the burden of the Chinese Civil War?
All foreign media's juxtaposition of Taiwan and China in all reports on Taiwan will ingrain into audience the idea that Taiwan and China are one single entity, whether or not they're two countries. This type of reporting to always define Taiwan in terms of China will undermine any of Taiwan singularity and forever frame Taiwan into a mere peripheral or subculture of China. Without developed national character, Taiwan will always be an abnormal country isolated and self-pitying in the ranks of the world nations.
Ma's economic policy would inevitably cast Taiwan into the hands of China, like Hong Kong, where Chinese trades would make the people unable to reject and resist demands from the hegemonic China.
Although I'm probably biased, I don't see how Ma is charismatic. He's not as good-looking as show stars and his performance in Taipei is at best mediocre. It is very disappointing to see the Taipei dome still lying flat on its belly.
Hopefully in 2008, Taiwanese will make a decision that will forever impart all children of Taiwan the hopes for to become dignified, free, and equal citizens of the Earth.
I remember Thomas Paine's (spelled right?) contention in the Common Sense, something like" "If there would be war, let there be war in my days, so my children may live in peace."
If Taiwan will sell out their dignity for temporary security or economic gains, they will cast their posterity's happiness forever into pits of darkness.
Moreover I don't understand why foreign media never or hardly mention Chen's efforts to placate and gain the favors of China. Isn't the recent rising frequencies of transportation links an obvious example? All foreign reports fall into the following psychological connection: Chen <=> pro-independent <=> shows China the cold shoulder <=> provokes China <=> destablizes situation in the Taiwan Strait.
ReplyDeleteIf China wants to talk, can Taiwan really refuse to talk amind international pressure? Obviously, the ball is in China's court. Until China becomes more open, no progress will be made in the Taiwan Strait.
"Some Taiwanese right-wingers see Ma as a possible turncoat who might sell-out Taiwan to the Communists"
ReplyDeleteThis statement is so weird. Anthony Kuhn, please read A LITTLE about Taiwanese politics.
In general, domestically, the DPP is leftist (liberal, pro-environment, highly concerned with minority issues, women's issues, pro-labor, income inequality issues) while the KMT is conservative (pro-business), and these days, pro-China.
Is Kuhn try to fart that anyone anti-China is right wing? Well, if China was ever truly communist and not just state-capitalist, they are something like fascist now. Pro-China, majority over minority, reckless economic growth is fine as long as it's only screwing over a large chunk, but minority of people. Authoritarian. Unchecked police powers, a-okay. Seems pretty right-wing to me.
Everyone knows that the KMT used to be rabidly anti-China and was a conservative, authoritarian party. So now they're in love with China, but they haven't lost their right-wing tendencies.
To sum up, a right wing party in Taiwan did at one point hate China. However, the party today that likes China today is that same right wing party. Today, China is pretty right wing itself. So to just say that "only a right-winger wouldn't be able to accept unification with lefty, communist China" is wrong since it is pretty right wing.
Ahhh... maybe I shouldn't have tried to spend so much time figuring out wrongness... it's wrong in too many ways...
Whoops. By pro-China (CCP), I meant ultranationalist. Sorry it sounds stupid to say that China is pro-China.
ReplyDeleteIn general, domestically, the DPP is leftist (liberal, pro-environment, highly concerned with minority issues, women's issues, pro-labor, income inequality issues) while the KMT is conservative (pro-business), and these days, pro-China.
ReplyDeleteBoth are right wing nationalist system parties who disagree on very little except China links and the future status of Taiwan, as well as the future of its democracy. Both a are pro-business system parties (you haven't seen any major labor reform under the DPP, have you?). The major difference is that the KMT is Chinese nationalist, the DPP Taiwan nationalist. The DPP faintly resembles the Establishment Democrats in the US, though it is more populist than they are. The KMT has no direct US analogue, since none of the US parties has as its stated policy the destruction of the national polity and its absorption into a neighboring state.
Michael
While I agree that the DPP and KMT are both pro-business, Kuhn's description of the greens as being right wing was unfortunate given his audience at NPR. If his opponents are right wing, then Ma is implicitly 'progressive.' In effect, Kuhn is endorsing Ma to an audience that knows very little about Taiwan.
ReplyDeleteTo simply call both the DPP and KMT pro-business and thus conservative is simply inaccurate Michael.
ReplyDeleteYou can sorta explain this by ethnic politics, but the DPP has made a concerted effort to build up businesses and infrastructure in the relatively poorer central and southern Taiwan. They have consistently tried to reduce the disparity in government resources, educational opportunities, and economic opportuntities between the north (Taipei) and the south.
You got to look at who supports independence. There are tons of rich guys that are DPP patrons and deep-deep-Green. But it's not a majority. And the likelihood of someone poor, lower-class supporting the DPP is just much, much higher. Taiwanese democracy isn't so broken that there is no effect on the DPP despite the fact that many of their supporters are poor.
Again, you can partially attribute it to ethnic politics, but what about farm subsidies, another poor constituency that the DPP generally supports.
And don't just pick business issues. The vice-presidency is a largely symbolic office, as it is in the US (pre-Cheney), but the fact that the US has never elected anyone non-Christian, non-white to either the Presidency or Vice-Presidency says something. John F. Kennedy had problems for being Catholic! But in Taiwan, you have a woman vice-president. What about the rule of having 40% of DPP candidates (or is it overall candidates) female? Sorry, I don't have time to look up the exact rule, but that means something too.
One last thing. Taiwan has universal healthcare that doesn't cost the average citizen very much money. You seem to be saying that both the US and Taiwan are pro-business and thus conservative. Well, Taiwan beats the shit out of the US on this one on the liberal scale. Healthcare in Taiwan is very good quality, reasonably priced, and universally available. It does look like the cost is increasing beyond revenue, but it also looks like at least a good chunk of it is caused by corruption and gross inefficiency and can be fixed, knock on wood.
To simply call both the DPP and KMT pro-business and thus conservative is simply inaccurate Michael.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...I never said that they were conservative, so your lecture was, nice, and thanks, but it was directed at someone in your imagination, not on my blog.
Health care is not a "liberal" policy except in the US.
Michael
Then what do you mean by right-wing?
ReplyDeleteYou also said the two parties disagree on very little. The issues I mentioned are major issues that are largely supported by the DPP and not usually by the KMT.
And what do you mean by populism? Populism usually refers to a subset of liberal policies that is supported by rable rousing. Maybe like wealth distribution, land reform, that you see in some African and South American countries. I can't think of examples of how it is used to implement right-wing policies.
This is all really confusing to talk about if you don't equate right-wing and conservative and left-wing and liberal, which are the normal conventions.
"Healthcare is not a liberal policy except in the US."
Some countries are generally more liberal so yes, it is true, their more conservative leaning folks would support healthcare as well. But do you really think this is true of most countries in the world? What about after accounting for population, eliminating non-democracies? What's the proportion after that? I don't know what your reason for being so sure is, but I can't see it.
wow wow,wait a minute, which one is michael? I'm so confused. some anonymous one is another Michael?
ReplyDeleteYou also said the two parties disagree on very little. The issues I mentioned are major issues that are largely supported by the DPP and not usually by the KMT.
ReplyDeleteOutside of China policy and related issues, where are the major disagreements? Both now support the 4th nuke plant, the suppression of labor rights, the health care system, etc. Both are essentially center-right parties on the European, not US, model. They are both rightist -- both yak about fair income distribution but neither does a thing about it. They are definitely not "conservative" in any sense, since both are revolutionary parties that want to do away with the current national polity and replace it with something else. Both are System parties in that the Concrete-and-Development Machine that fuels the island's political economy is served by them both.
Hope that is clear. You're right, I probably misused the terminology, and I apologize for the confusion I caused.
Michael