Taiwan elections

[Gustaf]

A conflict would obviously be bad, but Taiwan is after all a democracy and China is not. I think it is better for Taiwan to remain a good example than to be sucked into a Chinese dictature. And I am not convinced of the "two systems-talk", it doesn't seem to be working well in Hongkong. If people want to form independent nations, let them! China is essentially an imperialist state and should learn to behave themselves.

[Gustaf]

A conflict would obviously be bad, but Taiwan is after all a democracy and China is not. I think it is better for Taiwan to remain a good example than to be sucked into a Chinese dictature. And I am not convinced of the "two systems-talk", it doesn't seem to be working well in Hongkong. If people want to form independent nations, let them! China is essentially an imperialist state and should learn to behave themselves.

That would be a CW position by someone from the liberal democratic West.  I am from the Orient and see things a bit differently.  First, I do not see Hong Kong as not working.   For me there is nothing any average Joe cannot do today they could do before 1997.  Sure Mainland China tried to push Act 21 down its throat.  But that act is not that much different from the American Patriotic Act the Bush administration pushed in the USA.  For sure the Hong Kong economy has not been doing as well recently.  But that has more to do with deflation related to economic integration with Guangdong province where the price gap between Hong Kong and Guandong is much larger than the productivity gap.  Deflaction and economic convergence is bound to take place regardless of the political sytsem.  I been visiting  Hong Kong once a year since the early 1990s and  on the whole Hong Kong has done quite well under One Country Two Systems.

As for my home province of Taiwan I really do not see the benifits of "democracy" and competitve politics.  I only see, since the early 1990s. competitve populism and poor economic mangement.  Funny how more "democratic" Taiwan gets the worse its public policy gets.  Corruption, the budget deficit, crime, unemployment and so on all have surged since the early 1990s.  In fact, one million people from Taiwan province have migrated to and are living in Mainland China today.  Funny how fully 5% of the population of "democratic" Taiwan prefer authoritarian Mainland China.  A poll of residents of Shanghai from Taiwan Province showed that they consider the quality of life in all respects are superior in Shanghai than Taipei.  The one exception, and I can atest to that, is health care, where the gap between Shanghai and Taipei is still large.  

It is funny that the economic mismagement of Chen Sui-Bien that drove that one million people from Taiwan to migrate to Mainland China actually helps his reelection campaign.  Reason is that most of that one million are urban, middle-class, highly educated, and ages 30-50.  That fits the strongest demographic profile of the pro-reunification Pan-Blue opposition.  The ruling pro-independence Pan-Green bloc led by Chen are strong in rual, low-income, low-education and 60+.  In other words, Chen is strong with the Bubbas and Billy Bobs of Taiwan Province, many of whom would vote for Pan-Green no matter what.  Truely ironic.  One of the first cases of elecoral politics where economic mismangement actually HELPS the incumbent.

The people will occassionally reject democracy like the Germans in the 30s. It is sad but not "good" or supportive of an argument against democracy.

[Gustaf]

I am not opposed to democracy.  But I see it as a means not an end.  Same could be said for the one million people from Taiwan Province that moved to the Mainland.  Most of them I am sure have no problem with democracy in the abstract.  It is that at that place, at time, that particular stage of development, the so-called "democarcy" on Taiwan Province is not delivering the correct policies for them thrive in an economic sense.  

I think there is a misconception of definitions here.  I think most of the positive aspects you think of when the word "democracy" is used should really be refered to as "civil society."  While there is for sure some correlation between the two, one does not necessary imply the latter.  Competitive electoral politics has not made Taiwan any less corrupt than the authoritarian 1980s.  In fact it is even more corrupt today.  Ditto for places like India, Philippines, and so on.  

Well, we just disagree then. I do believe democracy in the long run out-performs other systems in all areas. It is both principally right and practically beneficial. But if you don't agree, you don't agree. I am also not convinced that Taiwan is doing as badly as you think economically, but I don't have any exact figures in my head. The only strong argument against independence that I would agree on is that China would actually be imperialist enough to invade, or something similarily stupid.

[Gustaf]

I believe in strong democracy, however I also believe in keeping out of other nations internal affairs. Leave Taiwan and China to battle it out amongst themselves for goodness sakes!

I wonder how that would turn out for Taiwan? I believe in international law. If China would interfere with the internal affairs of what should rightly be a sovereign state, the international community should back up Taiwan. Sadly, we lack the moral force to do this. Even president Bush, so often praised for his moral approach to dictatorial regimes has betrayed Taiwan. Sad how far western politicians are ready to go in order to appease China.

[Gustaf]

I agree, I back Taiwan's stance completely. Democracy should always be encouraged. That said, I would not favour military involvement. It would be catastrophic. Peaceful means of cohersion should be used instead (Sanctions etc.)

Yeah, I'm not advocating a war with China, believe me!

[Gustaf]

But that is a problem.  TAIWAN IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.  Republic of China(ROC) is a sovereign state.  As per the Constitution of the Republic of China, Taiwan and Mailand China both belong to ROC.  As per the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China(PRC), Taiwan and Mainland China belong to PRC.   This is a classic CIVIL WAR.  International law for sure does NOT apply.  If a PRC attack on Taiwan Province violates international law then when PRC took over Hainan Island in 1950 from ROC armed forces and ROC, that act should also be considered a violation of international law.  As of March 1950, the legal status of Hainan Island (same place the US spy plane was forced to land back in April 2001) and Taiwan Province were the same.  Do not see why the attack by PRC in 1950 was legal and an attack today on Taiwan Province is illegal under international law.

The UN got it right: "There is only One legal govenment of China and Taiwan is part of that One China."  

This is a domestic affair of the Chinese.  International law does not apply.

When Hitler holocausted the Jews it was not a domestic affair. When Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds it was not a domestic affair. And if China invades what is for all practical purposes an independent democratic state, then it will NOT be a domestic affair. If you read my post you will notice it says "what should rightly be a sovereign state". I know it isn't, but it should be. They have a different political system and should be allowed to pursue it. You have previosly drawn comparisons with the imperialistic policies of Western powers in the nineteenth century and I am inclined to agree. But that was a hundred years ago and China should start readjusting itself to a modern world where you don't use out-dated imperialist arguments to force yourself on other peoples. Like Tibet, Hongkong or Taiwan.

[Gustaf]

I am afriad we will have to agree to disagree.  All those events you spoke of I also consider domestic affairs.  However I condem those events, I feel that they are the affairs of others.

I view a PRC attack on Taiwan Province the same as the USA assult and suppression of the in 1861-5 Southern Independence movenment.  Same as the 1995 crushing by Croatia of the Serb Republic of Krimnia.  Why not demand these acts of "violation of international law" be reversed, if we were to take your logic?

If a PRC attack of Taiwan Province is an international affair, then the PRC takeover of Guangdong, Guangxi, Yunnan, SzeChuan, GuiZhou, Gansu, and XingJiang provinces in late 1949 after the formation of the PRC are also international affairs.  Ditto for the PRC takeover of Hainan Island in 1950.  Why not demand the return of such provinces to the Taipei based ROC regime? Why do we allow such violations of "international law" not to be reversed?  By not reversing them are we not encouraging futher violations of such "international law"?

I agree that we will probably have to agree to disagree!
Reversing and preventing aren't the same thing. You would have to agree that the unwarranted Swedish assault on Denmark in 1657 was a violation of international law (to give one odd example). Does that mean we should return the terrtory we claimed in the peace of 1658? No, history is history. The future is another issue.

[Gustaf]

As an incumbent, one could never count Chen out, no matter how far back Chen is in the polls.  There are still plenty of tricks in his bag.  The key question is how the undecided will break.  Most polls has Lien-Soong having a 45-35 lead in the polls.  Traditionally, most undecided break against the incumbent.  But Taiwan Province politics does not work like others.  Historically, the now ruling DPP captures a good deal of the undecided on election day.  This was mostly because DPP supporters were reluctant to indicate their voting preferences due to they fear that such a preference revealed to pollsters might come back to bite them by the then ruling KMT, especially during the early 1990s.  Also, DPP is strong in the less educated electorate who are also relectuant to indicate their preferences.
Even since the DPP capured power in 2000, the first factor has become less signficant.  If I had to guess now I will still give the edge to Lien-Soong.

But I feel the fact is that no matter who wins, the policy choices of whoever is in charge of Taipei is fairly limited.  Chinese reunifiation most likely cannot be delayed and for sure will take place within 15-20 years, no matter who is in charge in Taipei.  Another Chen administration would mean the chances of an armed attack by the PLA provoked by the Chen administration will go up but I suspect even Chen would not be foolish enough to try to tangle with the PLA.

I hope you're wrong about reunification. That would be a sad event. Hopefully China will grow up and start acting like a modern nation state, not like the arrogant, Machiavellian, nineteenth century imperialists they are right now.

[Gustaf]

Free Tibet!
Free Uigherstan!
Free Inner Mongolia!
Free Manchuria!
Free Hong Kong!
Promote Human Rights!
Annoy Jaichind!

Yeah, it probably will. JR actually tried to enroll him for the fantasy elections...

Uigherstan, is that the Moslem place in western China? Or am I completely off track?

[Gustaf]

But that is a problem.  TAIWAN IS NOT A SOVEREIGN STATE.  Republic of China(ROC) is a sovereign state.  As per the Constitution of the Republic of China, Taiwan and Mailand China both belong to ROC.  As per the Constitution of the Peoples Republic of China(PRC), Taiwan and Mainland China belong to PRC.   This is a classic CIVIL WAR.  International law for sure does NOT apply.  If a PRC attack on Taiwan Province violates international law then when PRC took over Hainan Island in 1950 from ROC armed forces and ROC, that act should also be considered a violation of international law.  As of March 1950, the legal status of Hainan Island (same place the US spy plane was forced to land back in April 2001) and Taiwan Province were the same.  Do not see why the attack by PRC in 1950 was legal and an attack today on Taiwan Province is illegal under international law.

The UN got it right: "There is only One legal govenment of China and Taiwan is part of that One China."  

This is a domestic affair of the Chinese.  International law does not apply.

When Hitler holocausted the Jews it was not a domestic affair. When Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds it was not a domestic affair. And if China invades what is for all practical purposes an independent democratic state, then it will NOT be a domestic affair. If you read my post you will notice it says "what should rightly be a sovereign state". I know it isn't, but it should be. They have a different political system and should be allowed to pursue it. You have previosly drawn comparisons with the imperialistic policies of Western powers in the nineteenth century and I am inclined to agree. But that was a hundred years ago and China should start readjusting itself to a modern world where you don't use out-dated imperialist arguments to force yourself on other peoples. Like Tibet, Hongkong or Taiwan.

I agree.  Tiawan, Tibet, Hong Kong, Manchuria and Uigherstan are not Chinese.  They were siezed illegally (accept Tiawan) by a rouge government that STILL commits terrible human rights abuses.  The only reason that the UN will not recongnize Tiawan is because of the influence of the ChiComms on the Security Council.  It's wrong!  Plain and simple.  I can only hope that the influence of Hong Kong will be enough to topple the ChiComm government.

One could certainly hope so...probably wont happen though. It would be sad to see Hongkong succumb to the Chinese altogether. I've read the great novels by James Clavell, and held an interest in Hongkong ever since. I wonder if Clavell is still alive? If not, he must be turning in his grave...

[Gustaf]

Because he is a Chinese ultra-nationalist who views democracy and human rights with utter contempt.

That's right. He is actually against democracy, the first person I have ever met to speak openly against it. (A surprisingly large number of people are against democracy, but few will admot directly to it). Perhaps he's a Chinese intelligence officer out to infiltrate the western world, lol...

[Gustaf]

Because he is a Chinese ultra-nationalist who views democracy and human rights with utter contempt.

Why is he a libertarian then?

Don't ask me. He's a mystery...

[Gustaf]

He doesn't post that much.

No, not besides predicting a win for the pro-Commie parties in Taiwan, and telling us how bad things are in Taiwan, and how much better off they would be if they joined China. And criticizing democracy, of course.

[Gustaf]

We are all entitled to our opinions.
Well, maybe not if you ask Jaichind.

Lol, haha...

[Gustaf]

It was a lame swipe at humor, but it worked.

Rather lame, yes...

[Gustaf]

What time is it over there?

In Sweden? 2 a.m.

In Taiwan? Something like noon, but I don't know. I think he lives in NY, though.

[Gustaf]

2 AM is late.  Aren't you tired?  Get some sleep.

So that means when I'm waking up you're getting out of school, and a few hours after I fall asleep, you get up.  Time Zones are cool.

Yeah, but also annoying...I am never on the same time as anyone else. I don't feel tired, strangely enough, but I probably will tomorrow...

I will go to bed...in a while....

[Gustaf]

What do they have on television is Sweden at 2:00? (AM, that is)

Ehhhh....no idea really...bad films, I guess, reruns. Some network broadcasts one of your late night shows, Jay Leno or Conan O'Brien. Why do you ask?

[Gustaf]

Haha.  We have Saturday Night Live, you have bad films.

Well, few people are up watching tv by that time of night.

[Gustaf]

Haha.  We have Saturday Night Live, you have bad films.

Well, few people are up watching tv by that time of night.

Plenty of people watch SNL.  Unless you were talking about sweden.

I was talking about Sweden, and also I have no idea whatsoever about what SNL is.

[Gustaf]

SNL=Saturday Night Live.

Ah, I should have gotten that. It was broadcasted in Sweden a few months ago, I remember watching a trailer for it of some sort. It included Chevy Chase doing a parody of Robert de Niro in "Taxi Driver". Never watched it though.

[Gustaf]

Which day is the election?

[Gustaf]

Because he is a Chinese ultra-nationalist who views democracy and human rights with utter contempt.

You've just described the vast majority of the population of China.

And of the US...

j/k...I think...