That none of the candidates targeted were successfully recalled suggests the proponents of the recall overstated or overstepped their understanding of the electorate’s desires to see change.
> "What is the author saying?"
> "Who cares, she's chinese."
I find that repugnant.
It also seems to be an illogical non-sequitur since the article is about a political system of three political parties headed by ethnically han-chinese people on island with a 90% ethnically han-chinese population.
This alternative interpretation doesn’t seem to have much basis either, since the author is apparently native Taiwanese, but perhaps the GP is accusing her of PRC loyalties?
It seemed pretty obvious to me that the comment was about the governments, not the ethnicity.
Even if that's the original intent, I would still find that confusing, unhelpful, and potentially offensive in a professional environment.
> The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China
The party in power is also called the Chinese Communist Party, which literally has Chinese in its name (and is referred by the comment).
I understand you had a different interpretation at first, but I invite you to reconsider. It also goes along with HN's guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
whereas when it comes to "acknowledges" One China Policy it is worded as such "interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves" so by Chinese it means those that are interested in unification with China as that is the author's stand.
I find it repugnant that you specifically erase Taiwanese by saying "han-chinese"
May as well just say "Libruls BTFO"
Reminds me of what happened in Bangladesh. Protestors opposed the leader, the leader calls them razakar (genociders, referring to the 1971 genocide), and they ironically started chanting "Who are we? Razakar, razakar!".
Of course, once she fled the country, the actual razakars ended up making a bid for power based on all the apparent support they had gotten ("look at our numbers!") and now are in line to run the country. And those who called themselves razakars now seem to regret it, realising that they were used and thrown away. This kind of negative polarisation ends up hurting way more.
Important rule of war-strategy: Always give your enemy a way out. Or they will carve a way out, and that would get ugly.
The CCP refuse to meet or engage with DPP, they'll only meet with the KMT. Meanwhile, KMT cut tons of Taiwan's defense spending in the legislature. But sure, it's all propaganda and fear mongering?
LBH, DPP blocking peaceful reunification routes, trying to insinuate it's treasonous to cooperate with CCP will only lead to forceful reunification. Any pathway to "peaceful" reunification will require political cooperation with CCP, which notionally some % on island is fine with. DDP shit fuckery (and US info warfare) wants to turn that kind of cooperation into treason, because neither wants "peaceful" reunification to happen. Cue effort to build the TW identity, and IMO we're now seeing the limits of engineering that on identity separatist/independence. If QoL on TW continues to stagnate, more and more TWers will find some form of integration with mainland acceptable, especially as they grow up... see HK kids now partying up in greater delta area post crackdown.
DPP demo mostly under 20-30s think with their heart not with their brain types. Each election cycle, getting more disillusioned/fatigued by the shitfest that is TW democratic system that took barely 30 years to start cracking apart. They're now at the part of process of dealing with contradictions of purging political opponents becuz muh security. Current DPP primary voting demographic also the last sizable cohort wave from 80s-90s before TW's terminally collapsed TFR makes newer gen #s too small to challenge 40+ voting block in a few election cycles, i.e. most voters will start thinking with their wallets, think like KMT. Incidentally probably last political configuration for peaceful reunification from both sides of the strait - politburo still likely stacked with patient geezers. Next gen of CCP leadership who only know peace can't wait to throw seperatists DPP into the torment nexus after occupation, and it's not like MSS hasn't got their hands on entire TW voter registry by now.
christianqchung•6mo ago
Kind of hard to do that when leadership doesn't control the legislature. See the Biden years after losing the House in 2022, Trump after losing the House in 2018, Obama after losing the house in 2010, Bush losing the House in 2006, and so on. Why does legislative compromise look like it comes easier in some countries than other? Not a snarky remark, an open question. German conservatives routinely coalition with social democrats, vice versa in Denmark, Switzerland has had a permanent grand coalition for a long while now, etc.
I'd like to add that existentialism in Taiwan is entirely warranted, and that denialism about an imminent military invasion was also widespread in Ukraine right up until Febuary 2022. That doesn't excuse poor domestic governance (though poor is likely a stretch, objectively the performance of the economy is very high, currently the PPP/capita is about the same as Denmark), but it does explain the priorities in messaging.
monster_truck•6mo ago
christianqchung•6mo ago
throw2736273•6mo ago
The DPP had control of both the Presidency and the Legislative Yuan for the past 8 years.