Taiwan's Independence

You are the one who claimed the people in Hong Kong "can't read history to save their own lives" and they "are blaming te wrong people for their own mess". YOU are the one who is freaking insulting me and my entire family for saying that we have no idea what is going on, even when we lived through it ourselves. Just where the heck where you when my parent voted in the 96 legislature elections? Where were you when Beijing decided that the HK Provisional Legislature council should be "elected" by 400 odd people out of freaking 6 million citizens who are chosen by the PRC (and no one else had any say who gets in)? Where were you when the chief executive, who is elected by the same "election committee", decided that the PRC should be able to override the rulings of our highest Supreme Court just because he did not like its rulings, when it should be the highest court in HK and gets the final word on this matter? I was there and I saw it all happen, before giving up and left. And even today my parents and most relatives are still living in Hong Kong and none of them like what is happening.Ironic that your position is that "you Westerners hve no idea the situation in China" because you just did the exact same thing to ME and my entire family, in a much more insulting way.

As to what this have to do with Taiwan, Hong Kong was used as an example of how Taiwan could maintain its democracy when unified with China. It is a terrible example and this is why.

You know, if we still had Troper Tales, that would go down as an epic "Reason You Suck" Speech.

.*applause*

No kidding.

How about a CMOA page for the forums?

*applauds too*

Then what? Wanna suggest breaking away from China from Hong Kong? Chill out a little, because you clearly know where I am when I participated in this debate, and you're about to turn it into some kind of hate speech speedchess, which I strongly advise against. Hong Kong is Hong Kong, Taiwan is Taiwan. You should also be aware that Hong Kong is the only place ever to have a massive cop protest because of a law which actually stops them from receiving corruption money on top of their occupation pay.

You are the one who keeps on comparing which glass has the blacker shade here. I don't mean to be rude but I did not know you were there the whole time until your latest post brought it up. At least now I know what your stand is, all I can say is that you've been given enough liberty and space to say what's meant to be said. Hong Kong is highly packed for its policies, and same goes for Taiwan, but you can't really compare both when you're incorporating slippery slope mixed with that hate of yours

You were the one saying he didnt know what he was talking about Ms. "chill out".

Seriously, you can't just go "LAH LAH LHA CANT HEAR YOU" and repeat your points. listen to what he actually said!

edited 19th Nov '12 2:22:59 PM by Joesolo

Cassie, you can't use Hong Kong as a talking point in your argument and then, when you get slapped down, go "doesn't matter, Hong Kong is different." If you had said to start with that Hong Kong was different, you would have been believable. Now you just look like a sore loser.

@ Cassie: I might be angry at what is happening to Hong Kong but I do not hate the PRC itself. I am not one of those who wants HK to go independent (and trust me, at the moment that are heaps. I still have some old HK school friends on facebook and you have no idea how many pictures suggesting that I've seen. My sister herself is pretty open to the idea) because I am of the opinion that PRC should keep HK and use her as an incentive to improve herself. Afterall, the promise "remaining unchanged for 50 years" is so that China herself can improve to the level of HK, as opposed to HK dragging down to her level which is what seems to be happening at the moment.

Interesting that you brought up the cop protests (which, btw, happened in the 70s). Now, I haven't actually lived through the cop protests, but from what I heard from my parents (who lived through the days when you have to pay the cops to do their job: they were called "licensed gangsters") what happened was the HK government saw the problem of corruption and set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption (the ICAC) in order to tackle it. After a couple of high-profile arrests and prosecution of a couple of infamously corrupt cops the rest pretty much panicked, because the ICAC could persecute them all retrospectively. This was the reason why they held a protest. And afterwards the government promised not to charge any more cops for their past corruption (but will still arrest and charge anyone who accept bribes from then onwards) and that solved the problem. I wouldn't say that nowadays HK has zero corruption, but it is hilarious for me when I got back last year to renew my ID card and the whole custom office was filled with posters and a big TV hammering the idea that giving red packets of money (which is traditional for the Chinese to give thanks) to official is corruption and highly illegal. Also, the ICAC is pretty visible in HK with TV shows and stuff where the ICAC heroes find evidence and arrest villains from the officials down to people in private enterprises (yes, in HK it is illegal for CE Os to accept bribes too. Don't ask me how that works though) who accept bribes. It even entered the HK slang, where "being asked out for coffee" by the ICAC is seen as being in BIG trouble.

tl;dr version: IMHO the cops protest was actually a sign that corruption was being tackled given what they finally got was "not going to arrest anymore cops for past infractions, but no more bribes" (I'm not quite sure what they were asking for, but that was what they accepted).

Now, as to applying the "slippery slope": I was not the one who used Hong Kong as an example of how Taiwan could be unified with the PRC without damaging its democracy. I am just saying, and this is what I've been trying to say all along, that Hong Kong is a very very bad example for it, given that her own rule of law literally had gone backwards after the handover (her democratic progress seem to be going more back and forth though. They do now have universal sufferage for they legislature council but the pro-PRC parties and politicians have been using tactics like organising "voting banquets" for elderly people- where they held banquets and meals for elderly voters and than drive them to voting broths on coaches- in order to get votes. That's also how they gather up people to support pro-PRC policy demonstrations where the elderly have no idea what is going on. That's, however, more closer to breadloaf's comment about how the democracy is getting undermined by the places' own people).

edited 19th Nov '12 3:05:42 PM by IraTheSquire

Yeah, I'm all for admitting that PRC government can't do much good, but the negative points shouldn't capitalized. After all, we are talking about a publically-self-admitted government which has corruption problems and work is in progress to curtail it. I'm not saying that this corruption-laden government should go scot free just because it brought progress, but neither did I say that the government structure should be changed for this particular heck.

And one of the previous posts offended me the most, by putting democracy on a high horse that didn't exist. I do not want to focus on that. Hong Kong's own democratic structure, I have no problem with. But like Taiwan, the place is run by its people. How well the people can exercise the system determines how full well the place can be. We both know that PRC powers-that-be has a say in how Hong Kong runs, but that's really because Hong Kong is officially a trade zone.

Addendum: 红包钱? yeah. That can count as a form of bribery. In fact, it's an euphemism for bribe.

edited 19th Nov '12 3:43:04 PM by Cassie

@Achaemenid

I say that for a couple of reasons; as flawed as the PRC is, we cannot completely rule out its improvement. Breadloaf seems to be the most optimistic about China's improvement. However, I meant it partly as a statement of how unrealistic it is to ignore the way China is.

But here's why unification would still be a a gamble. You can talk about all the potential benefits that unification will create, but you can also talk about if it's necessary? Why can't these benefits be negotiated through better relations? If China can change and become democratic, then certainly it can change enough to foster good relations with Taiwan and vice versa. But ultimately, it is the decision of the Taiwanese people.

I'll admit right now that I do have biases as well; as someone whose family is from Taiwan, it's an issue where I can't simply say unify so easily.

China is repressive, yes, but it has made very great progress in human rights over the few past decades, especially considering the sheer difficulty of governing over a billion people. Certainly it is in a far cry from the Mao Zedong era, at the height of the Cultural Revolution.

A far cry better does not mean it's good enough yet though. It is still quite oppressive compared to other countries. Still a lot of room to improve.

That's not saying much. seeing as he is one of the 3 or 4 worst dictators in history, thats among the lowest bars you could set.

Look, most of the people here not from Hong Kong or Taiwan basically compose their arguments out of "Why can't I divide China?". Why can't I divide any part of Western nations over any infraction? You state "because it's democratic" but if there's a separatist movement here, it's a separatist movement. You can't justify crimes because of the system of government.

I don't like the whitewashing of Taiwanese history. Oh, Tienanmen Square proved China was what? Because the White Terror in Taiwan didn't mean anything? I guess lives of people who are anti-capitalist don't matter.

Unification has to be a long process to produce a government that Taiwan and China can both be under. I don't care if it takes 50 years, so long as they get started now. Everything is a gamble. Do you have any guarantees that keeping Taiwan around won't have them simply become a US military proxy base and cause a war later on? Do you have guarantees that a duo-nation trade bloc will work out better than rejoining?

But, as for the point that Hong Kong is a bad example, I don't think so. You're talking about problems and protests that occur in Hong Kong because of possible backtracking on rights, and making spurious claims that the British would have been better which can never be proven because we'll basically never know. Britain rolled in elections just before the hand-over and to think that they would instantly start interfering with it when they were about to lose the territory would require Britain to be controlled by totally insane nutjobs. Did China come in and claw away elections? Did they shut down the news agencies? No, they didn't but that's how you act if Taiwan were to rejoin China.

Hong Kong will be getting full elections by 2017, no temporary legislative council and no half appointed legislature. Full elections. But you conveniently ignore this for the little problems. I'm not saying, let's just ignore the problems that the CPC causes, I'm saying that Hong Kong is still moving ahead and you're having problems moving along. You weren't a full democracy before, you were a standard style British technocracy as are most municipalities, so let's not pretend like democracy vapourised upon contact with the Communists. (ie. Hong Kong would be having a different set of democracy related problems if it weren't for the CPC and it's doubtful you'd have less. Most capitalist countries are in a major backslide right now, and Hong Kong is merely sticking to the rule)

As for the people making strange remarks about PRC having no claim to Taiwan and whatnot, I prefer not to discuss historical revisionism. If you want to make up crap about the Chinese, there's alternate history forums elsewhere. As far as civil wars are concerned, the legitimate government is the one that wins. I'd prefer the better government to win, of course, but China's civil war was between two terrible factions with long histories of human rights abuses. I honestly question the integrity of blatantly ignoring the crimes perpetrated by those in the old military dictatorship of Taiwan.

edited 19th Nov '12 8:49:02 PM by breadloaf

"Tienanmen Square proved what?"

It proved china still was a murderous and oppressive government, thats what!

I'm not saying they shouldn't be united anyway. I'm saying they shouldnt be united under the PRC.

edited 19th Nov '12 8:46:26 PM by Joesolo

Which is pointless, it happened in 1989. It's not like the West didn't have a slew of murdering protesters just years prior to that. CPC now isn't going to repeat that, the premier stepping down right now was one of the protest leaders there for god's sake.

EDIT: Fixed the incorrect year.

edited 19th Nov '12 11:25:55 PM by breadloaf

1989. Not that the correct date all that relevant to the discussion at hand.

@Breadloaf Whitewashing? Are you referring to the claims of Taiwan democracy being better? Well, true we have been neglecting the government of the ROC in this discussion. I don't support the ROC taking China either though. There are some who consider it to just be a government in exile who settled in Taiwan without much consent from the people living there. It's not as black and white as "the ROC oppressed the people living there" but there was animosity on both sides.

And of course the White Terror is why many DPP members still hold a grudge against the KMT.

We can always test relations as they are; ranging from simple benefits like direct flights, factories, organizational participation, to helping each other have global presence but once unified, you're not going to let the region go, as you have aptly, stated for better or for worse. It's a responsibility that shouldn't just be boiled down to "numbers of pros and cons".

Just as you ask some of the people "why shouldn't we divide up western countries"? I could ask the same thing, "why shouldn't we just unify Britain and the United States?" These arguments just go in circles, and aren't really the most analogous situations to Taiwan.

I'm sorry, but it seems like you just want "some democratic government" to control Taiwan and China?

You're right, both the PRC and the ROC were in the wrong during the Chinese Civil War. That's why many of us are trying to think of the people of Taiwan.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:43:20 PM by blueflame724

I was 13 in '89. I watched that on the news. Even the South African media were appalled. That... took some doing, to be honest.

And, if you try to convince me that it was ages ago... well, I'm not buying.

edited 19th Nov '12 10:21:14 PM by Euodiachloris

You talk about China and Taiwan being one country like it's something anyone but the elderly can even remember. Fifty or sixty years ago, wanting Taiwanese independence meant being a separatist. Today, it just means wanting to maintain the status quo.

Heck, I even know what the Taiwanese flag looks like.

I no more think of it as part of China than I think of Mongolia as such.

The reason I'd want a new unified government is because I don't think the PRC or ROC governments would be capable of handling the new unified territory, also because of the past crimes of each. Taiwan's democracy isn't really all that different from what people enjoy in the power coastal provinces of China. Heck, those two groups of entities are basically quite well merged at this point.

Creating independence is a distancing in business relations, there's no denying this. I believe a recent study about US/Canada, showed that the border between the two countries was equivalent to a thousand km distance.

I also don't believe that an argument that UK/USA unifying is analogous. Scotland/Britain makes more sense, or Ireland/Britain. Or Catalonia/Spain. Or Quebec/Canada. I know UK/USA are related, from the original Thirteen Colonies but Britain gave it up. Taiwan was part of China since Qing dynasty, which is in fact long than Germany was even a country, but Germany was re-unified despite 40 years of separation. So I don't think that is a valid argument against unification and I don't think either side has really gave up on the other. Really, it's the Taiwanese natives that would think otherwise which is a more difficult question to answer.

Though with native groups, I look to Nunavut leading an Inuit government, with that as one of the official languages, with self-rule and non-interference from "White" (not really all that white anymore :P ) Canada, and they're doing great. They're doing great as a part of Canada. If they need help, they're included in the equalisation formula. What am I saying? I'm saying that Taiwan can benefit as being part of the Chinese nation so long as the unification includes them in a mutually beneficial format.

It's do-able. I don't think it'll happen any time soon but with the way they're already working together (for instance, the new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping was well known for courting Taiwanese relations in Fujian province), they're already working towards building a more unified country. Or maybe, they just continue to play the game of separate governments but in fact act as one country outside of the internal dispute (becoming something more like the UK). That's an acceptable trade-off if full unification is impossible.

As for the comments about people being born whenever, it's like history is a span of 20 years or something. To anybody in the region, 60 years is contemporary events.

Newsflash: Scotland may be becoming independent of the UK (and, has always been its own country, if not quite a nation for over 300 years, you know). Ditto Catalonia (and, it's been forced into Spain for quite a while, too).

Mergings and secessions happen all the time. To countries big and small. China doesn't have to hold every damn inch of historical claim (some of it quite dubious) in the here-now. I mean, it's not like it'll suddenly stop being China because it doesn't hold islands and territories it's not seen eye-to-eye with for decades.

edited 19th Nov '12 11:59:45 PM by Euodiachloris

Here & here are the leaked video mentioned with translations. Brief background: DBC is instrumental in rallying the people to protest against the Moral and National Education I mentioned in the last page. The liaison office refers to this.

Now tell me that PRC is not shutting down news agencies.

PRC is improving I'd give you that. But I have to disagree that things in HK are not moving backwards, let alone moving ahead. At least I can hope that its just that the Central Committee is too busy with the recent changeover and now that things are settle something is done about it.

edited 20th Nov '12 12:18:48 AM by IraTheSquire

Blame it all on the Ministry of Media that's in charge for the past years for making internet a total shit for everyone in China. Even China's own netizens have been raising hell about the issue.

Believe it or not, there's those in the PRC government that supports free criticism and looser freedom of speech, and those who are all into control, control and control. The most recent one being arrested, Bo Xi Lai, is pro-control. His arrest wasn't just a ruse to shut the control faction, or to make a publicity stunt.

Give it time, PRC may nail down one problem at a time. A few at a time even. Remember the time it took for China to hit its current developing status.

edited 20th Nov '12 2:37:09 AM by Cassie