From: hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang)
Subject: Re: Control?! (The Six-Year...)
Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 21:56:29 GMT

In article <kuouvqINN6mb@pollux.usc.edu> mcyang@pollux.usc.edu (Bien-Chao Yeun) writes:
>
>People on soc.culture.taiwan like to talk about and spread their
>ideologies more than to win some "popularity contest" on the net. That's
>the reason that there are many bitter ideological conflicts such as TI vs 
>unification, capitalism vs. socialism, feminism vs male chauvinism ...etc.   
>The way people use Internet to communicate with each other, somehow, greatly
>increase the trend of using this type of communication.   
>

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?

>On the other hand, it's a totally different game in real life politics.  
>And Hsu is a very intelligent politician.
>

I can't argue with that.

>In article <1992Apr14.223347.28251@sbcs.sunysb.edu>  
>hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>- Ms. lko, you have been away from Taiwan for too long to see that Taiwan
>- is not such a polarized society as you remember. If you really care about
>- Taiwan, why not spend some time (say a year) there?  Then maybe you can get
>- some better perspective and find something more substantial to argue about.
>
>It really depends on how you make your judgement.   By looking at the recent
>activities in the National Assembly and Legislature Yuan, it seems to me
>that Taiwan is a very polarized society.
>

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.  In the latter,
the majority party of the parliament forms the government, and the president
is more of a ceremonial figurehead.  In this case, the question of direct or
indirect presidential election is totally moot.   THe parliamentary system
is MUCH better for Taiwan than presidential, since it makes the strongman
government less likely to recur.  DPP doesn't want the parliamentary
system because they don't have enough manpower or popular base to win a
majority in the parliament.  (DPP stands a much better chance with a
presidential system since the party has a few excellent demagogues.) 
The top echelon of KMT doesn't want it either because they are too power-crazed
to put the well-being of the people and the country before themselves.

>In article <1992Apr14.223347.28251@sbcs.sunysb.edu>   
>hsiang@sbhsiang.cs.sunysb.edu (J. Hsiang) writes:
>- With [lko's] qualification, I'm sure you can find a reasonable job there.
>- Why not give it a try?
>
>This is not a good way to argue, is it ?   Please stick to the subject.

This is my challenge to Ms. lko.  There's only one place for TI, and that is
Taiwan.  I respect people like Hsu Hsin-liang, Kuo Pei-hong, 
Chang Tsang-hong, who go back to Taiwan and put themselves on the line.
Since Ms. lko no longer has the convenient excuse such as "still in school",
I don't see anything wrong with challenging her to put her money where her
mouth is.


Newsgroups: soc.culture.taiwan