Liberty and the pursuit of happiness is the birthright of every human being on the planet, yet in light of another brawl in the Taiwanese Legislature, I’ve come to wonder whether or not Taiwan has the maturity to form a stable democracy.
Some background is in order if you are unfamiliar with Taiwan’s political situation. Since martial law was lifted from Taiwan in 1991, the kidney shaped island has been holding elections in efforts to form their own independent sovereignty. Like most political democracies, two parties dominated most of the votes. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP or Green Party) and the Kuomintang (KMT or Blue Party). Both parties are at each other’s throats.
The DPP is characterized as a more socialistic party, making promises of welfare reform and public health initiatives. Originally the DPP was pro-independence, but they have softened their stance to prevent an outbreak of hostility from China and to appease American trade interests. The KMT party is more big business friendly and has positioned itself to be open for reunification, but does not commit itself to such a cause. Since China holds Taiwan to be a renegade state and desires reunification, they are stauch supporters of the KMT party, the only party open to the option.
January 19, 2007, the KMT had dominated the majority of the Parliament in the elections, and during the final legislative session of parliament, DPP party members bum-rushed the speaker’s podium to prevent voting because they claimed the vote had been corrupted. A brawl errupted, a shoe was thrown, and I’m sure somebody’s feelings were hurt in that room. If it’s any consolation, atleast it wasn’t as bad as what happened to old Julius.
Now back to my main question — is Taiwan ready for independence? I’m going to take a position for once and say ‘NO’. This brawl in parliament is yet another embarassment. If I was a foreign ambassador attending Taiwanese parliament, I would go in with full football pads and a pair of brass knuckles. A country which can’t show a degree of civility in parliament during a non-partisan commission hearing is still too immature to be able to stand on its own. Really, who throws a shoe in parliament? It’s undignified and shows that Taiwan is incapable of civility in its highest levels of government leadership. They’re like a bunch of monkeys flinging poo at each other.
(We have the shoe, now where is Cinderella?)
More Links:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244894,00.html
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1104AP_Taiwan_Legislative_Brawl.html
January 20, 2007 at 2:37 pm |
I don’t think this is uncommon. I’ve seen brawls happen in many European governments as well. If anything, it does not shows a lack of civility as it is indicative of…um…passion?
January 22, 2007 at 1:51 am |
No. Taiwan is not ready for independence, but it’s not because of the legislative brawling – not directly at least. If anything, the brawling shows how incredibly dire the democratic situation is in Taiwan with power in the hands of the KMT, even after President Lee Teng Hui declared the end of martial law and the beginning of more “normal” political processes.
If we act like animals, it is because they have made us animals. When I become King of Asia, I’ll see to it personally that the ill-gotten gains from KMT rule are confiscated, redistributed, and the descendents of the original tyrants jailed.
January 22, 2007 at 12:05 pm |
South Korea’s parliament is quite…robust as well, not too different from what goes on in Taiwan. With considerable aid and support from Western nations like the U.S., South Korea has risen as not only an independent country, but one with a strong economy and lightning speed technological development. Whether or not Taiwan is ready for indepdence cannot be measured by the corruption and fistfights that occur within its government.
The main obstacle to overcome before independence can be a realistic goal is to find a way to forge solidarity among the Taiwanese people. The split between DPP and KMT is about 50-50…and the sentiments between the two parties are something akin to Northerners and Southerners in the U.S. during the Civil War. Moreover, the people’s faith in their government is even less than the faith U.S. citizens currently hold for the Bush administration. Thus, the average citizen in Taiwan doesn’t even WANT sovereign independence; they just want to maintain Taiwan’s economic prosperity, at pretty much whatever cost.
Remember after the Cold War how the U.S.S.R. was broken up into a gazillion little countries that to date most people still have never heard of? If somehow the U.S. declares China its arch-nemesis, and then prevails against China, Taiwan might be granted independence at the benevolent hands of Westerners.
Is that really what we want, though? To yet again be entirely reliant on the whims and fancies of the white folk?
I know I didn’t really express my stance on this issue in this comment. Presently, I’m pro-independence mostly because I can’t stand Hu Jintao.
January 22, 2007 at 12:11 pm |
dionysian,
When you become King of Asia, consider promulgating mass genocide of all members of the KMT, seize all their assets and property and redistribute it to the Taiwanese people. They took it from us first. You wouldn’t be committing a crime against humanity; rather, it’d be manifest social justice.
January 22, 2007 at 4:38 pm |
Hu who?
Jokes aside, there’s no way the US would declare China their arch nemesis, not when half of what Americans own is made in China.
“When I become King of Asia, I’ll see to it personally that the ill-gotten gains from KMT rule are confiscated, redistributed, and the descendents of the original tyrants jailed.”
That would make you Chairman Mao II.
January 22, 2007 at 7:04 pm |
“there’s no way the US would declare China their arch nemesis, not when half of what Americans own is made in China”
That’s just because we haven’t maximized our exploitation of India yet. Let’s not forget Mongolia either. That’s a fresh market waiting to be tapped by Western imperialistic capitalism.
Anything computer or high-tech related that China manufactures for the U.S. can be done by Taiwan. If production levels is a concern, then we could always enslave the KMT party leaders.
Why is China so keen on Taiwan? Why doesn’t China try to claim North and South Korea as renegade provinces? Or Japan? Yeah. Tell President Hu to go invade Japan and reclaim it as Chinese territory. Leave teentsy weentsy Taiwan alone.
January 22, 2007 at 7:55 pm |
The reason the US won’t make China it’s arch nemesis is due to several factors, one of which is that China owns most of the US’s debt. Aside from having a vastly miniscule population compared to China, Mongolia simply does not have the necessary infrastructures to support the needs of the US.
India is a tech industry more than anything right now, at least that’s where they are developing. We don’t arbitrarily decide who is going to be our manufacturers vs. our service providers. As dictated by the rules of international economics, these markets take years to develop and require a lot of investment capital to begin functioning.
Even Taiwan invests in China. In terms of the cost of living, Taiwan is now on par with Japan and Korea, and has been for awhile. As countries become more sophisticated economically, they naturally move up the industrial hierarchy, which means less manufacturing, more banking/service oriented. China is still selling itself on low labor costs, something it can still afford to do. So the economies of the two countries can’t really be compared fairly.
January 22, 2007 at 8:27 pm |
I recently watched a documentary on China’s labor market, where it invites rural peasants into the big cities to do industrial work. Although what they earn in the cities help support their families back in the countryside in a way they could never accomplish without the job, the international community has had its knickers jumbled in outrage at the profound human rights violations that go on. China will inevitably have to reevaulate its approach to harvesting manual labor if it wishes to maintain respectful standing, regardless of the economic relationships at hand.
A lot of Taiwanese are angered by the influx of Chinese workers on the island and resent Taiwanese businesses (mostly Kuomintang run) for investing in China because it drops costs down by so much that it throws competition off balance. Taiwanese workers are out of jobs because the Chinese will do the same work for far less pay. Outsourcing to China is cheaper as well. I can see why the Chinese might love this arrangement, but many Taiwanese are not happy at all.
January 24, 2007 at 5:44 pm |
One China!
January 24, 2007 at 5:53 pm |
ummm hell no — Just because the parliament can’t get its act together doesnt mean they should cede their autonomy to dictators.
January 24, 2007 at 6:32 pm |
Unless, of course, that dictator is our very own King of Asia, dionysian.
January 24, 2007 at 8:47 pm |
What’s the English equivalent of “hua(3) ren(2)?” That is, the word for “those-persons-of-Chinese-ancestry-but-not-necessarily-of-Chinese-nationality”? I kind of feel obligated to educate the young’uns who like to say, “I’m Taiwanese, not Chinese” by telling them, “Well technically you’re still Chinese, but of Chinese ethnicity and not of Chinese nationality, so you call yourselves CHOCOWINNEBAGOS” (Where CHOCOWINNEBAGOS is replaced by this word I am looking for, you know, if you didn’t figure that out yet).
January 25, 2007 at 7:52 pm |
I’ve always understood Chinese to not be a term denoting ethnicity, but a term denoting nationality, just like Taiwanese (to those claiming independence). Hence, it’s correct to say you’re Taiwanese, and not Chinese, or to say you’re Chinese because you’re from the mainland.
When East Asians talk about ethnicity, there’s that phrase, “loong de chuan ren,” or…I think it’s translated to “people of the dragon,” but someone please correct me if I’m wrong. That’s how we talk about ethnicity rather than nationality–to say we’re Han. Thus, Chinese and Taiwanese people are, generally, ethnically Han (with a few exceptions– there are other ethnicities within China besides Han but who still “look Chinese”).
January 25, 2007 at 9:20 pm |
No, no, not “Han(4)”, “Hua(3)”. Chinese is, unfortunately, a single word representing two ideas: “Jung guo ren” and “Hua ren”, with the first being “Chinese nationality” and the second being “of one of the hundreds of tribes originating from China, most likely Han though not exclusive of the descendents of the other tribes.” I know Taiwanese who were previously from Min’nan but of the Miao (Hmong) descent, for instance (okay … I know one family … ), so “Han” isn’t accurate. Plus, what non-HuaRen would understand Miao? I don’t know. Maybe I’m getting too technical here.
If I’m not mistaken, you used “people of the dragon river”, which makes sense because “Hua ren” society originated around the Yellow River (of course since you didn’t use tones it’s possible you also said “people of the dragon boat” … which makes much less sense … ). Yeah, this probably does mean the same thing, but COME ON!!! It’s so long!!! Isn’t Hua Ren easier? (From that link: “*** Huaren are people of Chinese origin by birth, descent and heritage inside and outside China.***”).
Now if you don’t mind, dionysian has to step back into character and return to bashing minorities, women, philosophers …
January 26, 2007 at 4:35 pm |
“Hua ren” = Chinese Diaspora
or wait…I think Chinese Diaspora includes two more characters plus “hua ren”? one of those words being “overseas” or something?
I’m pretty sure there is a distinction, albeit subtle, between “hua” and “han.” We need to drag Alithair into this forum. This is the kind of stuff he has expert knowledge in.
February 7, 2007 at 12:42 am |
It’s “hua(3)” “qiao(2)”, or “bridge” that you’re thinking of. My understanding has always been that there’s a HUGE difference between Hua and Han, but that doesn’t answer my question. What is the term in English?