Marc C should have had the balls to simply say 'racism'.
'Reverse racism' my left foot. The very term 'reverse racism' is racist by definition.
That said, Marc C was correct in nothing how absurd the reaction to this thing has been. The media has published hysterical nonsense from one idiot after another. Pathetic.
In the Sunflower protests in Taiwan (which saw protesters occupy the national legislature for weeks) lecturers from various universities also gave classes in the street in solidarity.
Maybe Beijing could simply phase in actual democracy as promised?
They can then go ahead and buy the result, in the time honored fashion.
In a small territory with a homogeneous population, most of whom are obsessed with money, eating and shopping, this plan should be a piece of cake.
The KMT can be in the background to discretely advise if needed.
You might also want to consider that Taiwan's Sunflower protesters (and their various predecessors) may have provided inspiration to the current movement in Hong Kong.
Seems at least as likely as a U.S. plot to destabilize China by fomenting the dreaded 'splittism'.
Wonder if US meddling was a factor in the Scottish referendum?
Err yes. You're right Chris. The DPP pay me TWD 0.5 per post.
If you only bought up Taiwan because you felt the comparison didn't work due the different situations then stop there.
If that was your sold purpose there was no need to present your 'wise' view a non-KMT government in Taiwan would destabilize things.
Sent my earlier reply while you were posting yours, so didn't see your last post.
I'm not a fan of the CCP. Simple as that. Nor am I a fan of the KMT. I am a fan of self-determination, and this has advanced in Taiwan (mostly despite the KMT) far more than in China.
I don't really buy into the whole 'century of humiliation'. China was historically a imperial bully similar to Britain and the other Western powers. So Chinese nationalism seems pretty hollow and overblown. Be nationalistic by all means, but less selective memory would be nice.
Chinese seem to obsess on their 'humiliations' at the hands of Westerners and Japanese. Their 'humiliations' at the hands of Mongolians, Manchurians, Tibetans etc. all get forgotten. Odd given that the modern Chinese nation was essentially founded on anti-Manchu sentiment. Chinese overlook the barbarity they inflicted on others (e.g. a reason China has no Miao separatist movement could be the castration of the Miao).
I'd say my comment was pretty balanced and informed. I'm not so sure about yours. My guess is that you've never taken the time to learn anything very much about either Taiwan or Hong Kong.
I just watched the TV segment now. Contrary to what the presenter said, "one country, two systems" is not a "saying". More accurately it refers to a specific proposal from Beijing that involves territories giving up their sovereignty (i.e. becoming part of the PRC) in exchange for Beijing permitting limited freedoms beyond those enjoyed in the rest of the PRC. Hong Kong's example has exposed the weakness of this idea - Beijing's insincerity.
I don't get your reasoning about how a Green election victory in Taiwan could somehow threaten what you believe to be the "default" of "one country, two systems". First, "one country, two systems" doesn't exist in Taiwan. Second, those who harp on about the importance of preserving the status quo there (i.e. continue shoring up the crumbling remnants of yet another authoritarian regime) overlook that the status quo is fluid.
While the current KMT government is committed (at least publicly) to upholding sovereignty (i.e. no "one country, two systems"), they are pursuing economic liberalizations that threaten to ultimately destroy Taiwan's democracy. For example, a democracy can't sustain a free press under Chinese ownership of its media, extending citizenship to business migrants from a country committed to your destruction becomes problematic at election time, opening your communications infrastructure to investment from a regime that practices censorship and plots to bomb you is dumb, etc.
Given the reality, I don't get what a Green election victory threatens. Despite the absurd things said about Chen Shuibian, his presidency did not see war break out. On the contrary it saw healthy growth in engagement across the Taiwan Strait. The intransigence on cross-strait relations during his presidency came entirely from Beijing. Rather than deal with Taiwan's elected government the CCP went and negotiated with the KMT. That nicely demonstrates the contempt both parties have for democracy, and Taiwan's people.
"Anti communist knee-jerk". . . wow.
"One country, two systems" should not be called "a default that came about almost by historical accident for Taiwan".
"One country, two systems" is peddled only by Beijing and its allies. No major political party in Taiwan has endorsed it.
The KMT (i.e. the Blues) might support the "One China Policy", but that doesn't imply their giving up the sovereignty of Taiwan/ROC.
KMT counter-proposals to "one country, two systems" have been along the lines of a 'Chinese Confederation' (including the PRC and ROC/Taiwan). These ideas have been rejected by Beijing.
So regardless of who wins the next election in Taiwan (i.e. Blues versus Greens), nothing changes for 'one country, two systems', because Taiwan and it's politicans have always rejected it.
As for Hong Kong and Nickita's piece. . .
Had it not been for the CCP threatening to invade HK if the British allowed democracy, the territory would likely got universal suffrage decades ago. So HKers have plenty of reasons to prefer British rule. Had the equation simply been HK citizenry versus Westminster, the people of HK would have been far better off politically than they are now. Of course without HK's boom period as the gateway to China they'd probably be poorer economically.
On historical HK riots: The 1956 riots involved KMT attacking CCP and general mayhem; the 1967 riots were CCP against the HK government - and saw pro-government journalists burned to death (nothing much changes there).