From: hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang)
Subject: Re: Control?! (The Six-Year...)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 15:24:20 GMT

In article <kupmdlINNnt0@pollux.usc.edu> mcyang@pollux.usc.edu (Bien-Chao Yeun) writes:
>In article <1992Apr15.215629.9888@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.
>edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>-  Well, call me naive, but I always thought that the whole purpose of s.c.t.
>-  is to increase the understanding of viewpoints, not spreading a religion.
>-  No wonder someone (I think it's Hsu Hsin-liang) said that TI is a religion.
>-  Wouldn't "democracy for Taiwan" be a better religion?
>
>When did ideology become religion ?   I don't think any one will call
>TI a religian.  I do recall that some politician call it a "belief".
>I personally feel that "belief" is much closer to ideology than
>"religian".   After all, it is not something we have to worship.
>

Fine.  Let's call it a belief rather than a religion.  But you still have
evaded my question, namely, that why isn't a "democratic Taiwan" a better
belief than TI?  A democratic Taiwan quarantees that people can choose
whether to independent or not.  TI doesn't guarantee democracy.
Why not kill two birds with one stone?

>In article <1992Apr15.215629.9888@sbcs.sunysb.edu> hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.
>edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>- What I see in the recent brouhaha in the NA is power struggle, not 
>- ideological struggle.  What really should be argued in the NA, is whether 
>- the political system in Taiwan should be presidential or parliamentary.  
>
>Yes, it is indeed a power struggle.  But, what is really behind all these 
>power struggle ?  Couldn't it be ideology ?
>
>Many KMT national assembly-persons, especially those Wai-Shen Ren, have
>openly expressed their major concern about the direct election of the
>president.  They said the direct election will create an image of a
>"Taiwanese President" who will become a strong implication of Taiwan
>being an independent country.   Those native Taiwanese KMT assembly-persons,
>especially those from southern areas, don't carry the same kind of ideology
>regarding to this issue.    Most of them incline to support the direct
>election.   I speculate that most of them do support independence
>as long as their personal benefit can be preserved or even enhanced.
>
>As for DPP assembly-persons, they know very well about the implication
>of the way the president is elected.   Their support of direct election
>is consistent with their ideology.


Unfortunately you have chosen not to discuss the part of my message about
presidential versus parliamentary, which is really the core of the problem.
Yes, DPP has been consistent.  But the consistency is more in their goal
of gaining political power (nothing wrong with that) and less in what
should really be their concern:  the welfare of the people. 
In the same vein, KMT has been consistent too, as you described.  But the
bottom line is still power struggle and personal welfare.  President Lee
disappointed me very much when he moved to further solidify the power
of the presidency.  HE should realize that he won't be the president
forever and Hau won't be the premier forever.  His move, if successful,
may become the cause of chaos in the years to come.

It's also unfortunate that Ms. lko has ignored my challenge.
For an avid TI supporter and one with a Ph.D., without faimily constraints
and is just starting her career, where can she find a better theater
than Taiwan?


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan