TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Taiwan's Independence

Go To

breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#676: Nov 28th 2012 at 8:52:11 AM

Well so long as there are overriding economic/political factors (chiefly, the United States's presence and the Chinese economic agenda), I don't think that Japan/Taiwan will come to blows over the territory disputes any time soon. At least, not until Japan reasserts its ability to conduct offensive warfare.

@ Phillipe

Personally, I don't think nationalism is sufficient. I look at, for instance, the National Assembly in Quebec and also at Scotland. They aren't independent, not any sense of the word that would mean a separate country. Shared currency, borderless crossing and tax-less goods trade. Plus sharing not just in an economic union but a taxation union. Quebec, for instance, enjoys a status as being a part of the federal equalization program, a status that they specifically stated they wished to retain even when "independent".

In essence most of the independence movements throughout the West want all the benefits and status that being part of a country would entail but want the right to fly a different flag. It's incredibly selfish, and basically outlines all the problems of the EU as it stands. Would you rather they were separate countries still screwing each other? They're just screwing each other somewhat less.

I'm not sure, as others pointed out that Austria is the best example, but I get what you mean. I personally don't view 50-100 years as a long time. China has been around for thousands of years. They have territories come and go over periods of centuries. Taiwan is a more recent one, only being perhaps 3-4 centuries under Chinese control before the recent losses and reclaiming. And I take the view of the local people there who would not view 50 years as nothing more than a blink of an eye.

@ Trivalis

Which ROC are you talking about? The KMT was not a strict continuation of what Sun Yat Seen was doing when he collected the people in the Five-Race Alliance to take down the Qing Dynasty. There was a specific split between the Commie groups and the Nationalist groups (lead by the KMT) after Sun Yat Seen died. So when you say that Taiwan was a part of ROC, that's true, but it is the KMT that went to take Taiwan by force later when they lost the civil war on the mainland.

So what hypocrisy are you talking about exactly?

@ National People's Congress

The BBC also states it is NOT a rubber stamp committee. It's the BBC that states (from where I gleaned as much English-language information on recent proceedings) that while it doesn't enjoy all the powers you would expect from a legislative body it is not a powerless rubber stamp committee as you paint it out to be. I know it's fun and easy to paint countries as "democratic" and "undemocratic" even when the case is not even remotely true.

I mean what is "the communist party"? You don't even know how the Chinese government works. You just say that word. What does it even mean? I will tell you what happens. The State Council runs the day to day legislative proposals to the National People's Congress which has to go in for a review, typically first by the NPC's standing committee (think of a US senate standing committee). That goes through a first round review before going to the NPC. But they don't vote on it immediately, rather they usually listen to the complaints and discussions of NPC members in order to revise/revisit the proposal. If the proposal cannot be revised to the point of liking by the NPC to pass a vote, it is simply withdrawn. As an example, the recent property rights bill took 9 years due to constant complaints by the NPC that it didn't do enough to protect one set of rights or another (or did too much for something). It's a 3000 person elected body, it's bound to be slow as hell.

So what part of that sounds like rubber stamp committees? It's totally flawed and has major problems but rubber stamp it is not. It's more like a cross between the Canadian Senate and House of Commons. But that example probably doesn't work well for Americans, so I'll say it's like a cross between the US Senate and... hmmm... maybe the US Supreme Court? I can't think of anything comparable in the USA.

The point is this, China is less democratic on the whole compared to Taiwan, but Taiwan is not really less democratic than specific parts of China. I mean, what if I said Europe wasn't democratic because Greece, Italy and Spain have completely broken voting mechanisms hijacked by small power groups? You'd say that was an unfair representation of Europe since Europe is more than just those countries. Or what if I said USA wasn't democratic because of Florida? Florida is just one place where people can't vote and their vote is completely disregarded. Most of the rest of America can vote perfectly fine.

China is not just Xinjiang province. It is also Fujian, Shanghai, Chongqing and so on. I would certainly prefer a more free China and I would certainly prefer political power were more evenly distributed, but as it stands, the rights of Chinese in the power municipalities and coastal provinces are basically the same as that of Singapore or Taiwan, but those in the poor areas (such as Tibet or Xinjiang) are much worse.

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#677: Nov 28th 2012 at 11:05:29 AM

[up] "the communist party" means the people that control the government of china. by this point they arnt really communists, but thats what their called.

I'm baaaaaaack
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#678: Nov 28th 2012 at 11:54:33 AM

Which ROC are you talking about? The KMT was not a strict continuation of what Sun Yat Seen was doing when he collected the people in the Five-Race Alliance to take down the Qing Dynasty. There was a specific split between the Commie groups and the Nationalist groups (lead by the KMT) after Sun Yat Seen died. So when you say that Taiwan was a part of ROC, that's true, but it is the KMT that went to take Taiwan by force later when they lost the civil war on the mainland. So what hypocrisy are you talking about exactly?

It didn't take it by force so much as it relocated to a land that already belong to ROC (for the obvious reason that the rest of its territory was seized by Communist Party). I mean, the land had to belong to someone after Japan returned it to China.

Even if KMT's claim was illegitimate, it doesn't make PRC's claim legitimate.

I don't get it. Are you trying to "punish" ROC for its founding party's past crimes, by handing it over to PRC?

Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#679: Nov 28th 2012 at 12:06:36 PM

Yea, they didnt invade the island- it was already theirs!

I'm baaaaaaack
Edje Since: Sep, 2012
#680: Nov 28th 2012 at 1:32:00 PM

When did people in Florida lose the right to vote?

I'm not sure I can agree that 50 years is considered a blink of an eye to the local people, they don't live any longer than anybody else, and have no experience with most of China's long history. The funny thing about history is everyone actually has the same amount.

Assuming you're reading the same BBC article I am, it describes it as 'little more than a rubber stamp'. In the case you cite, which I assume to be the 2007 property rights law, passed with more than 99% of the delegates, FYI. It appears to me that the cause of the delay was internal disputes within the ruling Communist Party, over the nature of the law. The Communist Party has 80 million members including almost all officials and military officers. Party members also make up 70% of the NPC and hold almost all top positions in government at every level. China could charitably be described as a one party state. Given the censorship and restrictions in China, I dispute that in any part of China, even the rich coastal cities like Shanghai, people have the same rights they do in Taiwan.

edited 28th Nov '12 2:32:50 PM by Edje

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#681: Nov 28th 2012 at 3:52:48 PM

My God, not this thread again. Why won't it just die?

Breadloaf. I'm pretty sure I've told you this before. But one more time.

The people of a country have a right to make their own decisions, including remaining independent. That's democracy. It's very simple. In fact, it's the foundation of the privilege you and other like-minded Westerners live under.

But you keep darting around this issue, making other argument and trying to make comparisons. You compare the situation to other situations in history, all of which are of course invalid because they've happened already, and so you can't catch your opponents in an inconsistency. But all of this isn't important. What's important is the basic point I made (that democracy is a fundamental right) which is a point that you've failed to answer.

If it makes you feel better, it's a point the CCP can't seem to answer either. I haven't seen a straight answer from them any more than I've seen one from you. All they do is complain about how insidious foreigners disguise their Western values as universal. But I've never seen a decent logical position.

But if you can't give me a good reason why the people of Taiwan shouldn't be allowed to make their own decisions, you should just leave this argument. Because we're all just repeating ourselves, and have been for a while.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#682: Nov 28th 2012 at 5:30:00 PM

[up]

My apologies ultrayellow(since I ended up waking up the thread). I just hoped we could reach a consensus on this topic. To reiterate, I'm kind of biased towards independence, but in the end I'm willing to agree that it's up to the Taiwanese to make an informed decision, and that they should have the freedom to do so, even in the face of the so called benefits.

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#683: Nov 28th 2012 at 5:35:34 PM

You don't need to apologize. But I don't think consensus is possible. This is an issue where people keep their true motivations (which are generally rooted in tangentially connected political opinions) hidden. Which makes it very difficult to ever agree.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#684: Nov 28th 2012 at 10:31:06 PM

No I'm sorry but I feel like people here are imposing their opinions on the people of Taiwan. The main reason why I only present pragmatic reasons for unification is that I cannot actually speak for the Taiwanese people. Yet everyone on the opposite end of the discussion says this:

a) Democracy is the only legitimate form of government

Sure, but I have never disputed this. I'm all for a democratic government that rules all of China, including Taiwan.

b) People of Taiwan want independence

No, they do not. And everyone conflates a separate opinion, which is status quo, with independence. Or claim it is de facto independent.

No, it is not. Firstly, polls already show they do not want independence. Secondly, you talk about democracy... until the Taiwanese vote in a way that doesn't match your argument. Then it was "something else".

I tried to avoid this part of the discussion so that we didn't make presumptions on the opinions of the Taiwanese. Yet over and over again, that is all the pro-independence side has been doing. Assuming the Taiwanese want independence. No. And they've voted no. They've surveyed and answered the question and said no. So stop trying to pretend like I'm the one making shit up when you are.

c) Taiwan as a part of ROC

Joesolo and Trivalis. Using italics doesn't change history and using other font settings doesn't improve your argument. I can use synonyms to reword how the communist party came to power in mainland China and make them seem super awesome. Fact of the matter is that the ROC split, in a civil war. The factions involved were factions of the original ROC. Sun Yat Seen had both communists and nationalists in his original coalition. I do not like historical revisionism. Taiwan is not the nationalists "right" to own.

It was part of China, and whichever government came out of the civil war, would have been the new owner of it. Except the civil war wasn't fully resolved, so now it's a confused issue.

I mean you guys love to talk about democracy but you skip around the fact that the nationalists lost because they got kicked out of the country by the people. The communists took power in the vacuum afterward but do you really think the nationalists lost because evil people always win? The KMT weren't nice. They didn't "relocate" to Taiwan. People died. Many people died. And they continued to die up to the 1990s in secret murder campaigns in the White Terror. So don't give me shit about how nice the KMT were. Everyone else has based their arguments on the current Taiwanese people and their right to declare independence based solely on nationalist reasons. You are basing your reasons for independence on made up history.

d) Pragmatism versus Idealism

I'm okay to disagree on the topic that idealism trumps my pragmatic reasons. I'm also not very adverse to the idea that rather than unification, China/Taiwan combine on economic/political blocs (ala EU) rather than fly the same flag.

I am however highly adverse to pointless antagonistic independence movements.

Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#685: Nov 28th 2012 at 10:41:49 PM

[up]

Fact of the matter is that the ROC split, in a civil war. The factions involved were factions of the original ROC. Sun Yat Seen had both communists and nationalists in his original coalition. I do not like historical revisionism. Taiwan is not the nationalists "right" to own.

Yes and which "faction" managed to get a hold of Taiwan and accompanying islands? The KMT, which retained the identity of ROC.

Conversely, which faction managed to get a hold of mainland? The CCP, which created PRC. If we accept that PRC as legitimate, then why not ROC?

I mean you guys love to talk about democracy but you skip around the fact that the nationalists lost because they got kicked out of the country by the people. The communists took power in the vacuum afterward but do you really think the nationalists lost because evil people always win? The KMT weren't nice. They didn't "relocate" to Taiwan. People died. Many people died. And they continued to die up to the 1990s in secret murder campaigns in the White Terror. So don't give me shit about how nice the KMT were. Everyone else has based their arguments on the current Taiwanese people and their right to declare independence based solely on nationalist reasons. You are basing your reasons for independence on made up history.

I'm not basing my current argument on levels of democracy; I'm basing it on straightforward reasoning on legitimacy of a state. There's no reason why ROC-continuation can't be legitimate while PRC is legitimate. You're the one that keeps bringing up the "evil past of KMT" when that's not in response to what I'm talking about.

It's a whole another can of worms to talk about democracy. For one thing, you mentioned PRC's National People's Congress. While it may be a de jure legitimate legislature, keep in mind that it defers initial drafting and policymaking to CCP Politburo. That's the thing: while NPC can ratify laws, CCP is the one that makes them. There are no other lobbyist groups that can challenge CCP and so the party gets to monopolize lawmaking.

If you're proposing that current ROC isn't a direct continuation of the original ROC, then here's the answer to that: it belongs to no state. It's not part of "China" at all because it's been abandoned. Then it only makes sense for the Taiwanese people to decide their own national identity.

RavenWilder Since: Apr, 2009
#686: Nov 29th 2012 at 2:42:41 AM

[up][up] How is Taiwan's current status quo not independent from China?

It has a seperate currency from China's. It pays no taxes to China, and Chinese people pay no taxes to it. It conducts foreign relations without consulting with China, and vice-versa. None of its laws and procedures are enforced in China, and none of China's laws and procedures are enforced in it. It has a seperate governing body from China's, and neither governing body answers to the other or even consults with the other all that much. It has its own military and secures its own borders without Chinese help, and, again, vice-versa.

In every meaningful definition of the term, Taiwan is independent of China; all it's lacking is official recongition of that fact. And, in my opinion, when the official position on something contradicts self-evident reality, then the official position must change to accomodate reality, not the other way around.

blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#687: Nov 29th 2012 at 8:09:49 AM

@Breadloaf Maybe I haven't addressed it enough, but I acknowledge that the ROC and the KMT are flawed. However, the system that's operating now allows the Taiwanese to, for the most part make their own decisions.

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
breadloaf Since: Oct, 2010
#688: Nov 29th 2012 at 8:24:02 AM

Perhaps I came off as too harsh but I have these discussions with actual Taiwanese and I try to have ignored how many posters here assume that their own pro-American or Western stance is the "democratic majority" of the Taiwanese.

The overriding belief by most of the Taiwanese is that THEY should rule all of China and in what way does that sound like independence? Most of the de facto independence is based on their inability to rule all of China. They ride on a pipe dream. That's why the most recent movement is that of full independence, headed by the greens, primarily supported by the native people of Taiwan, rather than the ethnic groups that were imported from the mainland in the last few centuries (and those from Japan).

My grand issue here is that people claim to be democratic, claim to speak out for the people of Taiwan and claim this and that about the majority view. But they are not the majority view. It is as skewed as people who think that relations with Iran would improve under the greens, yet they've never talked to greens. They hate America and despise it.

They want to rejoin but they don't know how yet and so they keep to status quo, constantly hoping maybe in the next ten years we can do something. And it repeats every ten years.

I raise the issue of KMT's past crimes because it is those same crimes that people say that makes PRC illegitimate. Now you're trying to turn around my turn around logic. I'm pretty sure this is simply due to the thread length. So I'll just end it off by saying, it makes what you are saying completely moot. If both are legitimate, as you have now stated, then Taiwan independence is not an absolute right anymore.

And unless people think Singapore is a hell hole, that is basically what the coastal provinces of China are like. They do, in fact, speak out against the government, but the minute rules and how the game is played, I don't know. That's something you learn growing up there which I did not do. It's not like I can say anything I want in the West; I can say MORE things I want in the West. Democracy is a gradient and the only things that appear to relate to one another seem to be prosperity and rights.


Now, I move onto my next peeve of this thread. Thinking of countries in stark terms. I'll show you what I mean.

Here let me describe to you a system:

The king is the absolute head of state capable of deciding which people form the government in the legislative branch, or if necessary, simply dissolve the current regime. The legislative branch is unicameral, an elected lower house can produce legislation but the appointed upper house must approve it. Then the king must approve that legislation.

All people must swear an oath to the king and all his rightful heirs. Each government is usually given a five year mandate, renewable without limit. The elected candidates are chosen by whatever rules the parties choose internal and so only internal politics matter. Legislative debates never involve the public, there are no referendums and once a government is formed it can only be voluntarily dismantled by itself or the king.

The justice system is entirely through appointments, there are no elections and all decisions are final. No one may overrule a court's decision except a higher court, and at the supreme court level, it can overrule government.

Let me describe to you another system:

Everyone may vote and anybody may run. Those who win form local government. From here, a smaller pool of candidates are formed from the winners, who are then voted upon to form the next level of government. This process continues until the highest level of government is chosen.

If a particular government official proves themselves to have run a region well, then they can be picked for administrative duty in the bureaucracy at the equivalent level. If they continue to prove themselves in that situation then they receive a higher status administrative position; higher status meaning a more economically important region or a higher rank. Any scandal, civil unrest, unusual number of protests or petitions or being caught in a crime (criminal, corruption or otherwise) results in immediate sacking and if convicted of a crime, punished to the maximum possible extent of the law. Punishments are generally harsher than the average citizen to make an example of government officials who act unfavourably to the people.

Only through rising through each successive rank, either by being voted onto the next level, or proving themselves within the bureaucracy, can they reach the highest levels. There they may receive a chance to run the country at the top positions before then retiring.

I'll stop there.

My point is this. How a country is democratic or undemocratic is a lot more difficult than making blanket statements about a people or a country. What matters is political culture. How do politicians have to react when they screw up? What is the decision making process?

For instance, you said the CCP Politburo makes most legislation decisions. Actually no. They barely make ANY decisions. It is the NPC Standing Committee that makes the most legislative proposals. The second most is the State Council. So yeah, you even have basic facts wrong. The Politburo is an executive-like body. It's not like Obama makes the most legislative proposals in the US government, that's mostly congress doing it. And how does Congress decide what goes through? Internal discussions. Americans don't vote on issues directly.


blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#689: Nov 29th 2012 at 9:41:36 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_independence

Might as well get a start looking at the distinct views regarding independence.

Wow, that's quite insulting to say that Taiwanese only want independence because they can't control all of China.

This might sound like I'm being inconsistent, but controlling those territories is the official position of the ROC. There is still a distinction in terms of what people think. And no, it does not suddenly make the ROC's claim of them legitimate either.

edited 29th Nov '12 9:49:57 AM by blueflame724

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#690: Nov 29th 2012 at 11:07:32 AM

The thread's becoming long because you keep straying from the point we were making in your responses.

My simple point. Do you think PRC is legitimate while ROC is not? If so, why? Why shouldn't the continuing state of ROC be allowed to govern itself as it did since 1912, and if it shouldn't, why should it be PRC which never had any control over it?

[down][down]breadloaf.

edited 29th Nov '12 3:58:53 PM by Trivialis

Edje Since: Sep, 2012
#691: Nov 29th 2012 at 12:34:02 PM

Well, I would argue that the CCP has killed orders of magnitude more people and caused orders of magnitude more human suffering than the KMT, which makes the CCP worse, but that's not really your point.

Your point seems to me to be that the PRC is just fine for the people of China, maybe not quite a western style liberal democracy, but fine, and that is just not true. People in China don't have rights that they would have in Taiwan, and the rights they officially have don't matter because the government isn't responsible to them or to anything but itself. Your characterizations of the PRC's government are misleading, the point isn't that the Standing Committee and State Council have the formal power and issue the official decrees, what matters is that virtually everyone on those panels is a member of the CCP, the actual decisions are made by the CCP. And you're right that the formal structure of the institutions isn't the only factor in democracy, but that's exactly the point, China doesn't have a political culture that fosters democracy or human rights.

blueflame724 Since: May, 2010
#692: Nov 29th 2012 at 12:55:14 PM

[up][up]

Is that addressed to Breadloaf or me?

I treat all living things equally. That is to say, I eat all living things
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#693: Nov 29th 2012 at 1:33:48 PM

@bread loaf- you say "the people" like everyone suddenly decided to kick out the nationalists. Your so wrong it's not even funny. There was a civil war, with support for both sides from parts of the population. and then the japanese invaded in the middle of it, crushing the nationalists. then the soviet union invaded the japanese held areas and literally handed half the country, plus hundreds of thousands of weapons and ammunition to mao and co, and supplied them. the Nationalists were given some gear by the rest of the allies, but that was it. they lost some of their main areas of support thanks to the soviets.

you want to blame US for "forcing our opinions on taiwan". Well the communists forced their opinions on all of the mainland.

if you want evidence of this, just look at what they did to tibet.

I'm baaaaaaack
Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#694: Nov 29th 2012 at 1:49:44 PM

Enough is enough. You do not and cannot have a say in who has credit in leading how large of a land, simply because of what methods they use. The biggest pot calling kettle black would be USA citizens in this issue. And you can't speak for who gets to be independant when there's no dissent going on, while the middle east is tearing itself apart because of worse political decisions. Taiwan does NOT deserve a seat in UN, because it's not a wholesale country. Your continued Ad Hominem attacks on the PRC authorities may sound credible, but they fail to justify why should Taiwan be independent and risk turning a whole region into a warzone.

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
Joesolo Indiana Solo Since: Dec, 2010 Relationship Status: watch?v=dQw4w9WgXcQ
Indiana Solo
#695: Nov 29th 2012 at 1:56:15 PM

[up] "simply because of what methods they use."

well, I guess you'd be alright with everything israel's done, that Nazi Germany's take over of Europe was legitimate, The british should never have given india it's independence, the southern US had no right to leave, and numerous other rebellions, break offs, invasions, annexation, ect. ect. throughout history.

so basically, no, your wrong, we CAN judge them by how they took power.

edited 29th Nov '12 1:57:03 PM by Joesolo

I'm baaaaaaack
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#696: Nov 29th 2012 at 2:19:37 PM

Cassie, breadloaf, Taiwan is independent in all but name. Just accept that. I never claimed that the majority want to stop being the ROC and start being the ROT. All I claimed was that they REALLY don't want to be a province of the PRC. That's supported by the data on every election they've ever had.

And breadloaf, unless you can find some evidence to support your claim that I ignored Taiwan's people when they didn't vote the way I wanted, you're either wrong or a liar.

Edit: Don't Godwin, Joe. It lowers the quality of the discussion/debate (it's clearly a debate, I just left in discussion to be polite). Plus, Hitler was elected fairly. So the comparison's not quite apt.

edited 29th Nov '12 2:37:55 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Cassie The armored raven from Malaysia, but where? Since: Feb, 2011
The armored raven
#697: Nov 29th 2012 at 2:55:02 PM

[up]The ONLY issue I'm having here is people here keep wanting Taiwan to be 'free' and 'independant' while not knowing the long lasting consequences and logical setbacks

What profit is it to a man, when he gains his money, but loses his internet? Anonymous 16:26 I believe...
CPFMfan I am serious. This is my serious face. from A Whale's Vagina Since: Aug, 2010
I am serious. This is my serious face.
#698: Nov 29th 2012 at 3:00:39 PM

(been lurking)

Hitler was not elected fairly, to any office. He was appointed to Chancellor after he lost two Presidential elections (he got 30% while the winner got 50% in the second election that determined the Presidency). From there he abolished all democratic aspects of Germany.

The southern states had NO RIGHT to secede. Don't compare the North stopping their treason to the Germans invading their neighbors.

(back to lurking)

edited 29th Nov '12 3:04:45 PM by CPFMfan

...
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#699: Nov 29th 2012 at 3:56:18 PM

We're going in circles so I'm going to be blunt.

Cassie, why isn't Republic of China a wholesale country, when it existed since 1912?

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#700: Nov 29th 2012 at 6:05:26 PM

@Mfan: Interesting. My apologies. He was appointed fairly, then.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.

Total posts: 1,170
Top