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?
christianqchung•6h 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•6h ago
christianqchung•5h ago
throw2736273•3h ago
The DPP had control of both the Presidency and the Legislative Yuan for the past 8 years.