- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 25739 Hour
- Reading permission
Exchange #4 on the main topic
I disagree with the article mainly because it is too negative on Ma and nothing is said of Mr. Wang Jin Ping. If Mr. Wang is a true patriot and good losser he would have immediately agreed to be Mr. Ma's vice presidential candidate. This will act as a balance to any doubts about the intent of Mr. Ma and also to accept the fact that he lost out to a fair election and that he is willing to put down his pride and work for the good of the Chinese on both sides of the straits. If Taiwanese were to learn about democracy, the leaders had to understand that once the election is over it is time to re unite under the leader chosen by the majority. It will not help Taiwan or Chinese on both sides of the straits if KMT party were to break apart. This was how Chen won after the bad losser Soong break the party. Please do not let it happen again.
There fore the press should encourage the 2 to work together rather than to sow more seeds of discord by such negative comments on Ma.
There are those who read this article and thought I was "too harsh on Ma."
I opine that due to re-unification considerations, it is the duty of our generation to point out all the sharp protrusions on the banks of the icy river gorge so that Mainlanders will not sustain serious injuries while negotiating the twists and turns in paddling down the treacherous white waters of re-unification talks..
FYI, this article was not written to support Lien and Wang against Ma -- as someone in the inner forums seemed to be intimating.
In fact, Chinadaily.com was the first in expressing the hope that Ma Yin-jeou would be able to become a Chinese folk hero by re-adjusting his openly defiant stand against the ASA.
Here we are simply making an analysis taking into account the possible obstacles ahead of us during prospective cross-strait negotiations.
Problems are there to be confronted and solved, not ignored and brushed under the carpet.
That would have been adopting an ostrich mentality thumbing noses at the righteous stand espoused in the articles of the ASA that was passed by the NPC on 3-14-05.
Pointing out Mr. Ma's faux pas here is not tantamount to denouncing him. Quite contrariwise, we are here fervently hoping that he does not rock the boat again with his maverick political stand impossible for the mainland to countenance.
In fact, if you look closely at the post, it was suggested that his shortcomings be GLOSSED OVER.
This does not mean we should turn a blind eye to his gross errors which are non-conducive to the cause of re-unification. It only means we care enough about the issue to alert him at this stage of the political process.
There are many reasons why Lien, Soong, and Wang do not see eye-to-eye with Mr. Ma and the conflict is not simply symptomatic of internecine squabbles.
There are potential dangers in placing an inordinate amount of faith on Mr. Ma as if he is going to lead Taiwan back to the embrace of the motherland as soon as he assumes power.
The reality of China's rapid economic growth and dependence on maritime routes for raw materials dictates that she needs to break out of the First Island Chain in the near future -- and hence the urgency that Taiwan not be allowed to delay re-unification talks.
Judging from Ma's obstinate opposition to the ASA, it is difficult to imagine that he would be as cooperative as any of the Lien-Soong-Yok trio with the Beijing government for the reasons I had enumerated in the post.
I am looking at the problem purely from the standpoint on whether Ma's prospective administration would help or hinder the progress of re-unification.
No one pays serious attention to Chen these days, and so he is really out of the equation as of this moment.
Still, it cannot be ruled out that just before 2008, Chen may suddenly announce that he is going to Beijing for talks based on the 1992 Consensus.
It would be as much an anticlimax as Nixon's going to China except that the man is an untrustworthy chameleon. Even so, by so doing Chen would have stolen the thunder from under the Pan Blue camp just before the election.
Ma is a force to be reckoned with, but that makes any obstinate resistance from him to the cause of re-unification all the more unpredictable and perilous.
Right now he is saying that he would follow through with Lien's Five-Point Vistas in cross-strait rapprochement and that he would accept the 1992 Consensus as the basis for cross-strait talks.
The unspoken fear in many quarters these days is that if he does become Taiwan's leader in 2008 -- as is likely to be the case -- he will revert back to his poor judgmental habits exemplified by his stand on the felongoon and ASA issues.
In the least, I don't think he has the forcefulness of character to uproot Taidu forces from the island.
As I said, there are only Hanjian and non-Hanjian forces on the Island. There is no such thing as a multi-party political habitat on the Island.
This type of Hanjian forces masquerading as "American-style democratic party" was what the U.S. had been aiding and abetting to be established on the mainland all along, and the Chinese government had been entirely correct in nipping these so-called dissidents in the bud.
Just look at Taiwan's DPP today and you would understand why it is necessary to keep an eye on these good-for-nothing vagabonds who are good at forming opposition parties but once in power, will sell the nation out in no time.
That's also why one always hears about certain U.S. 'senators' (read thugs) expressing his/her 'concern' over the incarceration of this and that dissident. They are not interested in the personal fates of these individuals or the good of the Chinese nation, but they are mightily interested in their potential trouble-making capabilities in throwing monkey's wrenches into the control room of the Chinese economic juggernaut.
Would these 'senators' have tolerated political subterfuge of their own 'dissidents' who advocate the overthrow of their own government on the pretext that it is their democratic right to register a party to that end?
Not a chance.
The reality is that even a little deviance from mainstream orthodoxy -- which is in fact the dominant rule of the military-industrial complex in Washington D.C. -- as advocated by old Lyndon LaRouche (not the new, mellowed version of him) -- was dealt with by long prison terms meted out to his major assistants to the tune of 77 years (later pardoned by Clinton in 1996) during the 1980's.
Where else in the world do you see even one POLITICAL PARTY rooting to change its national constitution and go the independence route without fear of being tried for treason?
Only in Taiwan -- which goes to show that on that island international power politics is at play, and that the TUP and DPP are quintessential motley organizations of Hanjian thugs, not political parties.
In any other country, leaders of the two independence-advocating organizations would have been summoned before the Highest Court to answer to the charge of treason, let alone be allowed to register as political parties.