tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post4785313202708657310..comments2023-10-06T18:55:46.317+08:00Comments on That's Impossible! Politics from Taiwan: Legislative wranglings阿牛http://www.blogger.com/profile/08403972286057197709noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-58944830016201588662009-01-17T03:39:00.000+08:002009-01-17T03:39:00.000+08:00A-gu, you wrote:- - -The resolutions are not in co...A-gu, you wrote:<BR/>- - -<BR/><I>The resolutions are not in contradiction</I> [...]<BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>There's a huge difference between those two resolutions (which aren't laws, but rather <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ" REL="nofollow" TITLE="yes, I'm only a bill...">bills</A>, or expressions of opinion/statements of intent), and that difference is this: the <A TITLE="Taiwan's Democratic Progressive Party">DPP</A>'s explicitly states that Taiwan and China are two separate countries, while the Chinese Nationalist Party's (<A TITLE="KMT = Kuomintang, or 'Killed Many Taiwanese'">KMT</A>) allows the "region-to-region" framing.<BR/><BR/>Now the <A TITLE="KMT = Kuomintang, or 'Killed Many Taiwanese'">KMT</A> could be just trying to counter Ma Ying-jeou's latest crappy surveys, but anyway (as Thomas and Stop Ma both imply), laws don't seem to matter to that party.<BR/><BR/>BTW, run that CNA article <A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Ftw.news.yahoo.com%2Farticle%2Furl%2Fd%2Fa%2F090115%2F5%2F1d1qz.html&sl=zh-CN&tl=en" REL="nofollow" TITLE="'' (Xinhua News Agency in Taipei on the 15th)''">through Google translation</A>, and watch 中央社 get translated as "Xinhua" in the dateline. I kid you not.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://taiwanmatters.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow" TITLE="Taiwan Matters!">Tim Maddog</A>Tim Maddoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16943522529132663780noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-78546781702118503562009-01-17T00:09:00.000+08:002009-01-17T00:09:00.000+08:00...I'd have to side with Thomas on this one. I'm ....<BR/>.<BR/>.<BR/>I'd have to side with Thomas on this one. I'm very skeptical. But then again, I wouldn't trust the KMT more than a stone's throw.<BR/>.<BR/>.<BR/>.skiingkowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05381159852660053893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-23709596552713391512009-01-16T21:51:00.000+08:002009-01-16T21:51:00.000+08:00I think it is all words miself. What the KMT negot...I think it is all words miself. What the KMT negotiators do and what is on the books doesn't have to be in sync. The party-to-party negotiations are opaque already, and Ma seems to have been talking about the sovereignty issue out of both sides of his mouth anyways... harming sovereignty while saying he hasn't.Tommyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13552370490869601403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3444895069543408811.post-87677616651162047592009-01-16T16:43:00.000+08:002009-01-16T16:43:00.000+08:00That's interesting, to say the least!I don't reall...That's interesting, to say the least!<BR/><BR/>I don't really see the point to a second, almost identical resolution instead of amending the first, but I'm no lawmaker. They sound like they might put Ma in the uncomfortable position of having to call himself President... <BR/><BR/>And as for the first sentence of the DPP's resolution, it sounds like the sort of thing that the PRC would get very mad at. How'd that sneak through?Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13079284428870214896noreply@blogger.com