Chen wins the election, but Lien demands a recount
I think that if Lien really had issue with the election being held so soon after Chen's shooting, he should have mentioned it before the election took place. Right now his actions just makes him look like a sore loser.
After reading about Chen's life, I got the sense that this is a man who is a survivor, determined to stand up for his beliefs, and take responsibility for the consequences of his actions. If anything, his actions in the past have shown that he does not act out of impulse or emotion, but takes care to examine the possible outcomes. Instead of just using his own party's political platform, he wanted to bring in opinions from the other parties to try and create brainstorm sessions on how to deal with the affairs of the state. I wish more American politicians took the kind of social responsibility that Chen exhibits, and interest in creating harmony amongst the political factions instead of just safely sticking to the party line.
i just wrote about this. i think i'm really moved by chen sui bien's sacrifices for taiwan. and i despise lien chan. he's so corrupt. everyone knows how he's manipulated money and connections for his own sake. i can't possibly imagine what would happen to taiwan if he came to power.
All politicians are corrupt. Having connections or guanxi are vital in order to climb up to the top in East Asian and it's mainly a cultural thing. What would happen to Taiwan? In short, warmer relations with China and stability in the region without anyone having to suffer a war. =P
In East Asian societies, I mean. Do you think people in China, Taiwan, Korea, Japan and Hong Kong don't rely on connections to be where they are today?
And when there's war, there's bloodshed and violence.
Oh. And the maintenance of the current status quo. =P
Sorry for the excessive comments, but when it comes to politics, things aren't always as simple as they appear to be.
agree. politics are a tricky things, especially when the issue of control over a "sovereign" nation is at risk.
but the point is, progress demands risk, as evidenced by the abolishment of slavery, women's liberation, the falling of communism. to the taiwanese, the issue is no different with chinese rule. they want a leader who will bring them freedom from the chinese. it's not about who can make the most connections, who is the biggest spender, who is the richest man (and lien chan, btw, is one of the richest men in taiwan). it's about who can carry their cause most truthfully as a national leader. and that's chen sui bien.
You know what? One of the things I don't understand about TIers is why you keep making this distinction between Chinese and Taiwanese. The most common misperception is that China is a homogenous country where everyone speaks Mandarin. In fact, I'm sure you probably don't even know how diverse China really is. No. Mandarin, Taiwanese and Cantonese aren't the only Chinese dialects out there. Oh wait! You're Taiwanese, not Chinese! =P! Taiwanese is in fact, the same dialect that is spoken in southern/coastal Fujian. Isn't that where your ancestors are from? Yeah sure. You can go ahead and deny that you're Chinese, but you certainly cannot deny that you're Han now, can you? You know why I think it's funny? I think it's funny because even those (Han) Chinese who have migrated to SE Asia and established communities there still consider themselves ethnic Chinese despite having been there for generations. Singapore is an independent country and most of the population consist of those who are ethnic Chinese. I don't see them denying their ethnic and cultural heritage despite having lived their for generations now do they? What about Hong Kong and Macau? The culture is different in both of these places after having evolved along a different path from the mainland, but you know what? Hong Kongers and people in Macau still identify themselves as Chinese despite having been former colonies.
Did it ever occur to you that there are provinces in China? Chinese culture also takes on different variations in each province. Cantonese, people in Zhejiang, Jiangsu (where Shanghai is located), Shandong, Hunanese, Yunnanese, Fujianese and so forth are all Chinese, but there are even differences amongst them. Okay. So, since Taiwan is so "different" and should be independent, it follows that all the provinces, autonomous regions and special administrative regions should all declare their independence because they are different too? After all, they are all different in their own way! Wow! Let's have a second Warring States Period!
If you say the culture is different in Taiwan and China, then point out the differences to me. What are the differences?
There are even differences amongst the Chinese themselves. The Chinese language is divided into 5 groups: Mandarin, Yue, Min, Wu, Gan and Xiang. Need I even say that there are many different variations of these languages within these groups themselves? Even a village that is merely a few miles away from another village speak dialects that are mutually unintelligible with each other. There are even variations in Mandarin. There's Northern Mandarin, Southern Mandarin and Southwestern Mandarin. The Yue languages include Cantonese, Toisanese (Taishanese) and the Zhongshan (Chungshan) dialect. The Min languages are spoken in Fujian and Taiwan. Yes. If you don't believe me, you can go look it up. Shanghainese is grouped under Wu and there exists more dialects in that group alone.
Did you know that in addition to the Han, who make up 92% of the population, there are 55 national minorities including the Manchus, Mongolians, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Koreans (in Northeast China in what used to be Manchuria), the Hui (Chinese Muslims), the Bai, the Dai,the Miao, the Zhuang and so forth? Okay. So should these groups secede and form their own independent states as well? They are all different, are they not? =P
One more thing before I finish arguing with you about this. What Taiwan WantsUnder Gallery and Graphics is a link to Who's Who. These are stats that are compiled by the CIA. These may be generalizations because I know opinion is divided, but don't you think it is ironic that the aborigines, the first inhabitants in Taiwan, are generally KMT supporters and support the status quo? They were the original inhabitants in Taiwan and have lived there long before any Chinese (Han) migrants settled on the island.
Sorry. I guess the link didn't work.
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501040315/#
guess i hit a nerve. you're sounding angry. my apologies. i didn't mean to write anything incendiary, other than my own personal beliefs. to which you are entitled to your own, and mine.
on another note, do you think then, it was wrong for the colonies to fight for independence from england? is it not the same idea? or for the canadians to claim independence from france?
and honestly, most people i know from singapore and hong kong don't label themselves as chinese. they call themselves singaporean or cantonese. but maybe we are drawing from different samples =l.
man, someone needs to chill. cat, you're not even arguing about the same thing. actually, i'm not even sure what you actually support.
taiwan, at the turn of the 20th century, was a Japanese colony (essentially, the Japanese leverage a fishing dispute into annexation of the island). i think the taiwanese people have a much stronger claim for cultural independence, than the examples that you cite.
also, don't be so quick to claim the banner of the aborigines, when you clearly aren't one yourself, and you have no idea who you're actually arguing with.
as for politicians being corrupt, boo hoo. bush and kerry are both children of privilage and wealth, as are politicians in most countries, but what does that matter here? it's a valid comment, but in this thread the "politicians are corrupt" argument is just ad hominem.
btw - i wouldn't be using CIA stats to backup any argument nowadays (that's not a fair attack, but neither are yours).
If you ever take a course on modern Chinese history, China, which had then been ruled by the Qing (Ching) dynasty, had to cede Taiwan and Korea to Japan when they lost the Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895) under the Treaty of Shimonoseki.
As a matter of fact, I have met someone from Singapore in one of my classes and he tells me that Singaporeans don't consider themselves to be Chinese nationals. Rather, they do identify themselves as ethnically and culturally Chinese.
People in Guangdong province identify themselves as Cantonese as well. My parents identify themselves as Cantonese, but in a larger cultural context, we identify ourselves as Chinese. Similarly, people in Hong Kong may attach a regional identity on themselves, but in a larger cultural context, people will identify themselves as ethnically and culturally Chinese. In fact, I have family in Hong Kong.
What I'm trying to say is that regional identities exist in China. I'm Taishanese (Toisanese), but put in a larger context, I'm Cantonese because Taishan (Toisan) is part of Guangdong province. If you put that in an even larger context, I'm Chinese. It's the same thing with being a Canadian. I'm a Vancouverite, because I'm from Vancouver. Put that in a larger context, I am a British Columbian because I reside in the province of British Columbia. Put that in an even larger context, I am Canadian. I don't identify myself as a Chinese national. When I call myself Chinese, I mean that I am ethnically and culturally Chinese, but I'm not a citizen of China.
The French only controlled Quebec before it was conquered by the British. Canada outside Quebec is mainly English-speaking. We didn't fight a war to gain independence from Britain. I think you need to get your facts straight. Canada gained its independence in 1867 by asking and negotiating for it in Britain. Thus the Dominion of Canada.
KWC: I already said that these may be generalizations in one of my comments, but I do not agree with you that all Taiwanese support independence. Opinions are divided in Taiwan over whether the island should reunify with China, maintain the status quo or embark upon the path of reunification.
Did you know that any country that establishes diplomatic relations with the PRC has to adhere to the One-China policy? The ROC on Taiwan has given up its claim on the mainland back in 1991 if I rememember correctly. The One-China policy basically states that there can only be one China and Taiwan is an inalienable part of China. Taiwan currently only has diplomatic relations with various states in Latin America and Africa, but other than that, almost every country in the world has established diplomatic relations with the PRC.
Taiwan, ROC did have a seat in the United Nations, but they got kicked out of the UN it was replaced by the PRC in 1971. The U.S did not establish full diplomatic relations with China until 1979.
I am assuming here that it is because of this that most countries cannot accept the idea of two Chinas because they have full diplomatic relations with the the PRC. All countries that have full diplomatic relations with the PRC have the adhere to the One-China policy. This is why they cannot support Taiwanese independence although the U.S sells arms to both the PRC and the ROC in Taiwan.
In case you're wondering, I support the status quo for now, but I hope the issue will be resolved someday. I also hope reunification will occur sometime far into the future.
In case you're wondering, yes, I was born in Vancouver and I'm second-generation CBC. =P
KWC: I was arguing over the distinction that TIers like to make between Taiwanese and Chinese as if they're separate ethnic groups when redchillipepper was talking about being free from Chinese rule as if these were two separate ethnic groups. Well, they just might as well be two separate ethnic groups if Taiwan became independent. Again, you're entitled to your own opinion and so does redchillipepper, but I just don't see the point of TIers wiping off all traces of their Han (Chinese) roots as if they had never existed to begin with.
(man, you need to learn to post once)
first, where did I ever say that all taiwanese support independence? who are you addressing when you say, "but I do not agree with you that all Taiwanese support independence."
second, i never even mentioned Quebec or Canada. what facts about Canada and Quebec do i need to get straight? this conversation has nothing to do with the formation of Canada.
third, i did get the fishing dispute wrong. i think that might have been okinawa. doesn't change the basic point that for most of the 20th century, taiwan was not part of china. speaking of okinawa, when I lived in there, they didn't refer to themselves as Japanese, and, historically speaking, they have very good arguments to say so: up until the latter 19th century, they were a separate island kingdom, that got caught in a dispute between china and japan.
fourth, what does your identity crisis have to do with taiwanese independence? i could care less if you are from vancouver, and it really has nothing to do with this, other than it means you don't speak for the aborigines of taiwan.
fifth, Japan was settled by China. does that make me culturally Chinese? Also, Thailand has Chinese people. Does that mean Thailand should be part of China? Hell, Chinatown in San Francisco has a whole bunch of Chinese people. Does that mean that Chinatowns everywhere should be claimed by China? what point are you trying to make about regional versus cultural identity?
sixth, plenty of aborigines in Taiwan speak Japanese. Does that mean that Japan should get to claim them? what point are you trying to make with regard to language similarities, or is this just something you learned in class?
try as you might to throw your wanton classroom erudition around, you really aren't making a whole lot of sense, and with regard to the One China policy, did you think you were telling me something insightful that I didn't know? this is mean to say, but the fact is half of what you said is in reply to imaginary comments, and the other half has nothing to do with what i said. this is getting silly to respond to. i expected a weird response, but this is bizarre.
btw - you've done a terrible job with the word "culturally." at times you argue that it's racial, sometimes you're arguing that it's nationalistic, at other times you argue that it has to do with language, and at others you make it purely an issue of self-identity. culture does have elements of all of these, but the way you argue you're flip-flopping.
if it's racial, then all arguments are hopeless, and we all probably share Genghis Khan's blood.
if it's nationalistic, then all your other comments about language, genetic variations among provinces, etc... can go into the trash because it's simply a matter of a piece of paper tying people together.
if it's language, I think I've already pointed out the problems with that.
if it's a question of self-identification, then you certainly should have no problems with taiwanese people who make a big deal about calling themselves taiwanese, not chinese, as it's their identity to chose, not yours.
(apologies to mike for all this grandstanding on his blog, but this is fun :). we can move this elsewhere if this doesn't amuse you. )
firstly, we didn't fight a war for independence? i surely hope that you aren't talking about the 13 colonies, april 1776, lexington mass? if you break it down according to your theory, then americans are british in a larger context. sure. okay. but even if our forefathers (however many generations back) were british, americans are culturally different than the british, no? and yet we fought for independence. should we have just given up back then because we were british once? in that line of argument, we all originated from some "mother" culture, so we should just abdicate ourselves to being submissive to that mother culture. and in your "big scheme" mentality, we're all african. so should we just give up our national / political heritages and claim ourselves to be african? your arguments fail here; you can't simply delineate cultural lines where it supports your arguments. you need to be consistent.
secondly, i think you should stop using friends who are from singapore or hong kong as evidence of your theory. you're overgeneralizing. just because one of your friends thinks that he is chinese and not singaporean doesn't really help in your argument. it's all about statistics and significance, and one person isn't really going to sway the judge.
thirdly, i don't really get what you're talking about. your arguments are kind of dispersed. and since when does being chinese necessarily have to entail being a citizen? where are you going with this?
lastly, what does having diplomatic relations with prc have anything to do with it? just because china has more financial leverage in situations doesn't make it politically correct. and this argument is gratuitous, btw.
oh. and i'm part aboriginee. i've got the full native blood in me. even if i didn't, i don't think i'd appreciate less how china is different than taiwan (and having lived for years in both, they are culturally different), or what makes taiwan so sacred. no culture is undiluted. america itself is a melting pot of races, ethnicities, cultures, bastardized or not. and taiwan is too. it's a bit dutch, japanese, aboriginee. and china too, my dear, is also a mix of japanese, mongolian, and the list goes on. everyone is a mix. but everyone has a right to hold to what they believe is *their* culture, regardless of whether it's "pure" or not. and btw, although i am aboriginee, i have taken plenty of courses on china, modern day history and what not, and have befriended many chinese and understand what it is like to live there. so please don't insinuate that i'm ignorant of china. you can attack my arguments but don't personally lambaste me. it's just not becoming.
I retract #2 as I see you were responding to redchilipepper with regard to Canada. My mistake. Should still give you plenty of points to respond to.
BTW - I think you missed her point. Canada was a colony, a settlement. By definition, this pretty much means that its culture was identical to the countries settling it. Over time, the cultural identity diverged, and it became independent.
I'm closing out further comments to this post. It has gotten way past the point of civilized discussion. I should have closed the comments days ago and I would have, had I known it would come this far.
This is not a place for people to attack each other in their beliefs -- political, racial or otherwise.
While I appreciate that you all feel strongly about your viewpoints, I don't really think anyone is capable of changing anyone else's mind.