Mother Theresa wrote:Swede's right. The international media didn't pick up this story because they're in bed with the KMT. The international media don't give a shit about the KMT. They picked up the story because, despite Taiwan's advances in LED technology and public transportation, the country's highest level politicians have repeatedly demonstrated that they're a pathetic joke.
1. Swede didn't pass comment on that, all he said was you can't use force in the legislative because it's not democratic.
2. I didn't say it was reported because of the KMT, I said because the international media frequently gets its lead from the KMT media they'll focus on what happened and not why it happened. There's an important difference. And from what I've read that's exactly what they've done - and of course only having a quote from the KMT.
The legislative yuan, which in most developed nations would comprise well-educated, fairly rational, adults who engage in debate, discussion and fairly civil decision-making processes, in Taiwan are a bunch of hooligans with no self-restraint, common decency or regard for laws and procedures.
Even I would acknowledge that most of the time the legislative resolves matters without resorting to physical conflict. It shouldn't happen at all, but that doesn't mean it is never justified
. As I said to Swede, if you have a choice between accepting an incredibly undemocratic and unconstitutional law that could easily sabotage or swing important elections and stalling it by creating a physical fillibuster, I find it hard to believe that a majority of people would not consider the latter.
The reason people like you and me can be all high and mighty about this is because in the countries we were born in you simply don't get national-level legislatives passing laws like this. Or if it happened we could be sure it would be stopped one way or another. We're lucky, whereas Taiwan is saddled with an emerging democracy where the incumbant KMT will do anything to stop losing power (including running over policemen) and the Opposition DPP won't just accept the status-quo. I doubt this would have happened if the DPP were fairly confident the Supreme Court would strike this down and that decision would have effect. But from form they will:
1. Turn the petition down.
2. Support it but in a vague way that doesn't require a change in the law on a timescale that makes a difference.
3. Support it but the legislative will drag its feet and again nothing will change on a timescale that matters.
In many ways the DPP is in between a rock and a hard place, as it is expected to act as if it were in a democracy yet the cards are and have always been firmly stacked against it - so in many ways it isn't in a democracy.
TainanCowboy wrote: Cueball wrote:
I'm only a prick when interacting with morally-bankrupt idiots.
Ahh well...another DPP supporter chimes in with political logic extraordinaire....
TC, is it ever possible for you to not label someone as a DPP supporter just because they have something good to say about the DPP or won't jump on the bandwagon and lay into it?
If someone calls me a prick I have a right to respond in kind. Or maybe that only applies for DPP critics.....
I tell you what I do support the DPP in this case because if it happened in my home I'd want the Opposition to do the same thing, fight tooth & nail for democracy. That the DPP have done this thing too often and for the wrong reasons in the past isn't relevant in my view. This time they were justified.
I say this as someone who actually once notionally supported the KMT (and before the stuff over Chen's corruption emerged).
People deserve the politicians they elect.
What if they voted for the other guy? Or they and a majority of other people voted for the other guy but that didn't count for anything because the victor cheated and it wasn't detected because the Police/prosecutors/whoever supported him/her? Or they did vote for the politician but they left their mind-reading devices at home and didn't realise that this person would help push through a law that would stop them being able to choose their local leaders directly or indirectly?
People deserve the politicians they elect only if it is clear what that person will do once elected or would be clear to anyone else. They can't be held responsible for those politicians doing completely unexpected things, and if I'd told you in 2008 that if the KMT won the legislative election they'd ensure that 50+ mayors, overwhelmingly KMT I believe, could stay on until 2014 despite being elected in 2005 I'm sure you'd have laughed and branded me a DPP loonie or some such.