Taiwanese Eelection 2004

[Don Stadler]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Of course our media, our rock stars, and our movie stars will never flock to your country as it is threatened (numerous times) or if it is attacked. Unlike Sadaam's country, your country is democratic, peaceful, successful, and very productive. If you had a muderous dictator, perhaps everyone would support your country more. It is sick I know, but this is the world we live in it seems.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=9912

Herb, I think you missed the real point of a visit to Uncle Saddam, the voucher for the rights to a million barrels of oil which was handed to the celeb after the interview with Saddam and the all-important press conference. The voucher was saleable to any number of brokers in the lobby of your Baghdad hotel for cash or wire transfer to a suitably discreet account somewhere. $300,000 tax-free ain't bad.....

[Billy Tsai]

I can not believe they tried to stop the normal democratic process which involves presidential voting and the referundum by trying to kill Taiwan's president
the shot was trying to kill him for sure because it was aimed at his stomach. if they had successed then the voting and referundum would be stopped.

[HS Thomas]

Shots to the stomach rarely result in a quick death. It's just very painful but I imagine ,untreated, a person could still survive for a few days.
Or have I been watching too many Westerns ?
As the perpertrators haven't succeeded I guess the voting is still on even as we post.
[ March 20, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[JiaPei Jen]

Chen Shui-bian narrowly wins re-election in Taiwan. Taiwan's first island-wide referendum, which asked whether the island should beef up defenses against China, failed to pass Saturday for lack of votes. Its failure was a blow to President Chen Shui-bian, who argued that a defeat for the referendum would be a victory for China.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-20-taiwan-vote_x.htm?csp=24

[Billy Tsai]

its all those god damn opposition parties fault, they consider themselves as chinese and still think china is still theirs they have no interest in the future of taiwan ,they dont care about taiwan and taiwan's national security and interest all they think is china and they are chinese .
those opposition parties are totally undemocratic and they should be a shamed of themselves

[JiaPei Jen]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=574&ncid=574&e=13&u=/nm/20040321/wl_nm/taiwan_election_dc_37

Taiwan's high court sealed election ballot boxes on Sunday as protesters massed to contest President Chen Shui-bian's victory after a mysterious assassination attempt and the discovery of many spoiled ballots.
Defeated Nationalist Party contender Lien Chan called for a recount and a special inquiry into the shooting of incumbent Chen on the eve of Saturday's poll that swung the vote in the island's closest-ever presidential election.

The court could select a judge to decide on a recount as early on Monday after Lien questioned how more than 330,000 votes had been ruled invalid. He lost to Chen by about 29,000 votes out of nearly 13 million cast.
.........
.........

[Jeroen Wenting]

OK, had you said "all communist governments were murderous" then I would have to agree that every government that I know of that has called themselves "communist" have killed a lot. (Althoug I think that this is more to do with them being dictators than communists) It just appeared from your comment that you were referring to all the people who support communism.......

Maybe because there's a direct and linear relation between communism and dictatorship (not in reverse, as not all dictators are communist)?

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Jeroen Wenting:

Maybe because there's a direct and linear relation between communism and dictatorship (not in reverse, as not all dictators are communist)?

I think in any situation where there is rapid political change, there are opportunities for dictators to grab power - civil wars, revolution, collapsing governments etc. As communism used revolution as its "engine", there were just too many opportunities for dictators to step in and hijack the process. Communism wasn't meant to be a dictatorship (all the people were meant to have a say in running the government), but the method of making the state move to communism (revolution) gave the dictators an opportunity to step in. Its kind of similar to the French revolution - the people revolted against having a dictator (the King) and ended up with an Emperor (Napoleon). It wasn't their orriginal intention to have a dictator in charge, but the revolution gave him the opportunity to step in.

[John Dunn]

HS T: Shots to the stomach rarely result in a quick death. It's just very painful but I imagine ,untreated, a person could still survive for a few days. Or have I been watching too many Westerns?
To many Westerns... Actually shots to the stomach are quite deadly. The bacteria etc from you bowels seeps into your wounds and poisons your body.

[HS Thomas]

Thanks ! Saved from a gross misapprehension.
What were the results of the Taiwanese elections ?

[Billy Tsai]

taiwanese won the election agains the undemocratic chinese

[JiaPei Jen]

orinally posted by HS Thomas:
What were the results of the Taiwanese elections ?

Please read my postings in this thread. Simply scroll several (less than five) postings back and you will the news.

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
those opposition parties are totally undemocratic and they should be a shamed of themselves
taiwanese won the election agains the undemocratic chinese

It is one thing to be patriotic and it is quite another to belittle the very democratic process that you are espousing. This is what happens in a democracy. The people vote & elect whom they want. The majority wins whether the winner is to you liking or not. This happens in every democracy the world over.
As long as the elections were not rigged (& that is an allegation from the opposition party) you should be happy that the you country men & women have made their voice heard which is a whole lot more than what the Chinese people in China can do.
Now, if the elections were rigged (as the opposition leader is alleging) and if the rigging was done by the current premier, what will you say? That it was the right thing to do? That because the person you support won it doesn't matter if the elections were rigged?

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
[QB]

As long as the elections were not rigged (& that is an allegation from the opposition party) you should be happy that the you country men & women have made their voice heard which is a whole lot more than what the Chinese people in China can do.
[QB]

You missed Billy's point although you indirectly restated it at the end of your sentence, they "have made their voice heard which is a whole lot more than what the Chinese people in China can do". The opposition is voting to become make Taiwan a part of China. They are trying to make Taiwan undemocratic. In a valid sense of the word, they are undemocratic.

[JiaPei Jen]

originally posted by herb slocomb
The opposition is voting to become make Taiwan a part of China. They are trying to make Taiwan undemocratic.

The statement is a false one. Please read and understand the campaign agenda of the opposition party. What Billy Tsai has posted on this forum are his "personal" opinions.
The president elect Chen Shui-Bian has agreed on a recount of votes and will accept the outcome of the recount.
[ March 23, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
The majority wins whether the winner is to you liking or not. This happens in every democracy the world over.

Unless its an American presidential election

[frank davis]

Originally posted by JiaPei Jen:

The statement is a false one. Please read and understand the campaign agenda of the opposition party. What Billy Tsai has posted on this forum are his "personal" opinions.
The president elect Chen Shui-Bian has agreed on a recount of votes and will accept the outcome of the recount.
[ March 23, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]

You are no doubt correct on the specific details of the opposition party. However, the much more important and general point is the legitimate fear based on many facts, that if Taiwan does not maintain itself as a separate county, which in fact it currently is and has been, then it will eventually be absorbed by communist China at some point and its citizens lose many liberties.
It is my understanding that the opposition party does not want a formal declaration of indepedence from China. This just facilitates and makes the eventuality of China absorbing Taiwan more likely to occur. Thus, the loss of democracy and other rights that Billy no doubt meant when he said "undemocratic".

[Billy Tsai]

the opposition parties are whole bunch of sore losers, they have already lost but they just dont accept the fact that they lost and still think the election is still running and complain all day long i am sick hearing from their bullXXXX everyday, they are all pro china they wanna move all the jobs from taiwan to china just like the outsourcing thats occurring in USA to india, they dont reconginze Taiwan's independence and all they think is china.
i havent never seen any political parties that are so undemocratic apart from the communist party ever but right now i am seeing how undemocratic they are

[Sadanand Murthy]

Originally posted by Sadanand Murthy:
The majority wins whether the winner is to you liking or not. This happens in every democracy the world over.
Response posted by Joe King:
Unless its an American presidential election

It happens even in American presidential election. US elections are caucus based; so whoever wins the majority of the caucuses wins. That is how the US elections work. Popular vote majority may not (& actually has not twice) translate into caucus vote majority.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Billy Tsai:
the opposition parties are whole bunch of sore losers, they have already lost but they just dont accept the fact that they lost and still think the election is still running and complain all day long i am sick hearing from their bullXXXX everyday,

Are you talking about US Democrats ?

[HS Thomas]

To add to Jiapei's post:

Results of the 2004 Presidential Election and Referendum Vote
"In the election for the eleventh-term president and vice president, the total number of ballots cast for the No.1 candidates Chen Shui-bian and Lu Hsiu-lien was 6,471,970; while that for the No.2 candidates Lien Chan and James C. Y. Soong was 6,442,452 ballots. The total numbers of valid ballots was 12,914,422, and of invalid ballots was 337,297, making a total number of 13,251,719 ballots cast. A total of 13,252,490 ballots were distributed, meaning that 771 were not cast. The number of the eligible voters was 16,507,179, and the turnout rate was 80.28 percent. The above represents the official announcement of the election results."
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[JiaPei Jen]

originally posted by herb slocomb
the opposition party does not want a formal declaration of indepedence from China. This just facilitates and makes the eventuality of China absorbing Taiwan more likely to occur. Thus, the loss of democracy and other rights that Billy no doubt meant when he said "undemocratic".

1. The voter turnout rate was 80.28 percent. Of 12,914,422 valid ballots,
6,442,452 or 49.9% were for the opposition party. Did 6,442,452 vote to give up Taiwan's democracy?
2. China will never tolerate Taiwan to break away permanently. That is to say, there is considerable price to pay should Taiwan choose to break away from China. How many percentage of the population in Taiwan are willing and ready to pay that kind of price?
3. Taiwan is a natural resources scarce place. What is Taiwan's current level of economic dependency on China? Is this level of dependency going to decrease or increase in the future?
4. In accordance with China's speed of integrating herself into the world, will the current ruling under the Communist Party perpetuate? Will democracy never take root in China? Will China never change? Will China remain poor in comparison with Taiwan forever?

[Billy Tsai]

The Chinese KMT party controlled Taiwan for over 50 years brainwashing everyone since they were in the kindergarden, I can still remember how they tried to brainwash me when I was in junior school. They force everyone to join their party when they were in school and said it was patriotic to do so, and Chiang Kai shek lied to the ppl everyday say we are going to retake china oneday with our mighty military force, chiang kai shek was a dictator, he killed anyone that would say anything against him or even dare to mention anything about taiwan as an indenpendent nation.
even right now the taiwanese education is not normal. they are still teach china stuffs in school instead of teaching taiwan stuffs.
[ March 24, 2004: Message edited by: Billy Tsai ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by JiaPei Jen:

1. The voter turnout rate was 80.28 percent. Of 12,914,422 valid ballots,
6,442,452 or 49.9% were for the opposition party. Did 6,442,452 vote to give up Taiwan's democracy?

Maybe, but only time will answer that with certaintity. For the present, we know that China is not democratic and anything that smoothes the way for China's absorption of Taiwan will most likely reduce liberty on the island.

2. China will never tolerate Taiwan to break away permanently. That is to say, there is considerable price to pay should Taiwan choose to break away from China. How many percentage of the population in Taiwan are willing and ready to pay that kind of price?

In recognition of Taiwan's significant national defense system, let's turn the question around : " How many percentage of the ruling class in China are willing and ready to pay the price of attacking Taiwan?"
China could overwhelm Taiwan's defense if it wanted to, but the cost would be significant. In the end, Taiwan would be devastated, so what would be the purpose? The world would be outraged and economic sanctions would be imposed by many nations further adding to the cost. Not less important would be the loss of lives on both sides. It does not make sense to attack Taiwan if Taiwan maintains a credible national defense system.

3. Taiwan is a natural resources scarce place. What is Taiwan's current level of economic dependency on China? Is this level of dependency going to decrease or increase in the future?

Japan is resource poor also. Taiwan can get all the resources it needs from other countries if it needs to, now, and in the future.

4. In accordance with China's speed of integrating herself into the world, will the current ruling under the Communist Party perpetuate? Will democracy never take root in China? Will China never change? Will China remain poor in comparison with Taiwan forever?

When China respects human rights and liberties this issue will not need discussion. There will be plenty of elections between now and that time, which appears to be far in the future.

[JiaPei Jen]

I exetremely dislike spending time to look between lines for the purpose of arguing with people.
Two referendums, which Chen Shui-Bian had pushed ahead despite warnings from Beijing and Washington not to take any steps that could fuel tensions with mainland China, held on the polling day last week. In the end, less than half the electorate voted, rendering the referendums invalid. The two referendums are: 1. asked voters whether Taiwan should boost its military preparedness if China does not renounce the right to use force against the island, and 2. if Taipei should engage in open negotiations with Beijing.
The protests against the presidential election outcome in front of the Presidential Administration Building has continued for 5 days. There will be island-wide mass demonstrations in another two days. Ballot boxes have been ordered sealed in response to vote-rigging allegations. The Secretary of Taiwan's Department of Defense has resigned.
China will never tolerate Taiwan's independence based on China's idiological priciple (not economic incentive), period. Taiwan's independence means its extinction. The size of Taiwan is much smaller than any of one single province in China. Besides, Taiwan is an island without much natural resources endowment anyway. Remember, Taiwan provokes it in the first place. China still has 1.3 billion minus 0.01 billion population. Economic sanctions? Go ahead and bring it on.
From the viewpoint of Taiwan, is it worthwhile to stage a war that there is no chance to win? Especially, the war is not "that" meaningful and necessary to fight. From the viewpoint of the people in Taiwan, pursuing prosperity is far more important than sacrificing own life for the ambition of some politicians. A large percentage of the people in Taiwan have properties elsewhere in the world, such as the U.S., Australia, ..., etc. Most will flee in case that a war looks imminent.
This is my last posting on the issue. It is an issue for the people in Taiwan to argue about. It is none of my business. Period.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by JiaPei Jen:
China will never tolerate Taiwan's independence based on China's idiological priciple (not economic incentive), period.

I guess that's the same "principle" that lead China to invade Tibet without provocation, murder 17% of its population, erase most its culture and religion, oppress its people, and make it part of China.

Taiwan's independence means its extinction. The size of Taiwan is much smaller than any of one single province in China. Besides, Taiwan is an island without much natural resources endowment anyway.

There are other examples in the world where small countries manage to exist and survive next to larger, more hostile neighbors. Furthermore, the international community needs to rally behind Taiwan and offer support. But the gutless, biased liberal news media hardly makes this a issue and the Hollywood movie actors are too stupid to act without the liberal media instructing them on what is right and wrong.

Remember, Taiwan provokes it in the first place.

As if we blame a murder victim for telling his killer, "I deserve to live".
This is the most outrageously amoral, indecent, and uncivilized statement I've seen on this issue. Taiwan has been a peaceful, democratic, and separate country with its own government for over 50 years. The Chinese govt has no claim to legitmacy since they stole control of China through armed force and now threaten Taiwan for no legitmate reason as well.

China still has 1.3 billion minus 0.01 billion population. Economic sanctions? Go ahead and bring it on.

Yes we know China is the big bully in Asia and can survive sanctions. But its murderous gang of thugs has no legitmacy to control its own country let alone others such as Taiwan or Tibet.

From the viewpoint of Taiwan, is it worthwhile to stage a war that there is no chance to win?

Taiwan has never talked of staging a war, only the murderous Chines communists talk of that.

Especially, the war is not "that" meaningful and necessary to fight.

That's for Taiwan to decide, not the Chinese thugs. For now, Taiwan has decided to maintian its defense capabilities.

It is an issue for the people in Taiwan to argue about. It is none of my business. Period.

You've did a good job in showing how the Chinese have no legitimate claim to Taiwan other than pure power lust and greed.
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ]
[ March 25, 2004: Message edited by: JiaPei Jen ][/QB]

[fred snow]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:
I guess that's the same "principle"

i guess that's the same "principle" for all the countries, except russia

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

The Chinese govt has no claim to legitmacy since they stole control of China through armed force and now threaten Taiwan for no legitmate reason as well.

By that logic then the US has no legitamacy as it came about through an armed rebellion as well

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:

By that logic then the US has no legitamacy as it came about through an armed rebellion as well

OK, that was an incomplete statement, as are most of my statements. The illegitimacy of the current communist Chinese govt rests on a number of factors. The legitimacy of the use of force depends on the purposes for which it used. There is a difference between a criminal gang executing rival gang members versus the principled use of force by a legitimate government to protect or to secure the human rights of its citizens. I think China falls into the criminal gang category owing to its continuous execution of political opponents since the days of its original revolution to the current day.

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

OK, that was an incomplete statement, as are most of my statements. The illegitimacy of the current communist Chinese govt rests on a number of factors. The legitimacy of the use of force depends on the purposes for which it used. There is a difference between a criminal gang executing rival gang members versus the principled use of force by a legitimate government to protect or to secure the human rights of its citizens. I think China falls into the criminal gang category owing to its continuous execution of political opponents since the days of its original revolution to the current day.

I suppose it depends upon the view point. To some of the Chinese, the communists were heros fighting for a better country. To others, they are the "criminals" you mentioned above. The same applies to the American revolution - to the English, the rebels were criminals.
This leads to the question - what is it that legitamises a state? I'm not sure, but it could be the democratic consent of the populace. In this case, the undemocratic Chinese government is definatly not the legitimate government, but then by that argument we should call all of the non-democratic states through history unlegitimate... I suppose it depends upon the values and view points of the people at the time.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:

I suppose it depends upon the view point. To some of the Chinese, the communists were heros fighting for a better country. To others, they are the "criminals" you mentioned above. The same applies to the American revolution - to the English, the rebels were criminals.
This leads to the question - what is it that legitamises a state? I'm not sure, but it could be the democratic consent of the populace. In this case, the undemocratic Chinese government is definatly not the legitimate government, but then by that argument we should call all of the non-democratic states through history unlegitimate... I suppose it depends upon the values and view points of the people at the time.

Our fundamental disagreement on this issue, and all the other political ones we have, will always come down to philosophical differences in how we define human rights. A government is legitimate to the extent that it does not violate the human rights of its citizens. Being democratic is no guarantee of complete legitimacy if the rights of minorities are being violated. The Chinese govt never achieved any semblance of legitmacy, but it had little to do with lack of democracy. Even if a majority of voting peasants voted for the "Cultural Revolution" in a democratic style government, it cannot justify the mass executions and widepsread theft that occurred. Human rights define legitimacy, not political structures (although certain structures are better than others in achieving legitimacy).

[Joe King]

Originally posted by herb slocomb:

Our fundamental disagreement on this issue, and all the other political ones we have, will always come down to philosophical differences in how we define human rights. A government is legitimate to the extent that it does not violate the human rights of its citizens.

I suppose this depends upon how you define human rights. If you define one particular human right as being "freedom of movement" then there are times when a government has to restrict that ie imprisoning a criminal.

Being democratic is no guarantee of complete legitimacy if the rights of minorities are being violated.

True.

The Chinese govt never achieved any semblance of legitmacy

Although I don't think it should have happened, China did gain legitamacy of a sort when the UN decided to give it the security council seat previously held by the "other" Chinese government in Taiwan. Subsequant diplomatic recognition by most countries around the world has also lent a degree of legitamacy to China, although this is most likely done for economic rather than moral reasons.

, but it had little to do with lack of democracy. Even if a majority of voting peasants voted for the "Cultural Revolution" in a democratic style government, it cannot justify the mass executions and widepsread theft that occurred.

Agreed, nothing can justify them.

Human rights define legitimacy

Not so sure about this one. I think we both agree that government in charge of a particular state should respect human rights, but to be pedantic, a government could break some human rights and remain legitimate. What would happen, for example, if the democratically elected US government decided to allow people to be arrested and imprisoned without charge or trial (in the US, I'm not talking about Guantanamo)? This would be against human rights, but the government would still be considered legitimate by many.

, not political structures (although certain structures are better than others in achieving legitimacy).

Of course. Democracy is a wonderful thing, and certainly the best one for achieving legitimacy. I hope that China will become more democratic, not only for their sake, but for ours - having the country with the largest population in the world under the control of an unacountable government is a little worrying.
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]
[ March 26, 2004: Message edited by: Joe King ]

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:
[QB]
I suppose this depends upon how you define human rights. If you define one particular human right as being "freedom of movement" then there are times when a government has to restrict that ie imprisoning a criminal.
[QB]

Criminals are those who have violated the rights of others. By such violations they are asserting that rights are not worthy of respect. Their own actions amount to a public renouncment and forfeiture of their own rights since they have no logical basis to claim fundamental rights that others do not have. So in one sense, the criminals have lost some rights since they have voluntarily forfeited them by their own actions. From another perspective, it is the duty of government to protect rights and imprisoning criminals is often necessary to do that. Taking both viewpoints together, imprisoning criminals is not a violation of human rights, but the exact opposite, the preservation of human rights.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:

Although I don't think it should have happened, China did gain legitamacy of a sort when the UN decided to give it the security council seat previously held by the "other" Chinese government in Taiwan. Subsequant diplomatic recognition by most countries around the world has also lent a degree of legitamacy to China, although this is most likely done for economic rather than moral reasons.

I'm speaking of moral, not legalistic or some type of de facto legitimcay.

[frank davis]

Originally posted by Joe King:
[QB]
I think we both agree that government in charge of a particular state should respect human rights, but to be pedantic, a government could break some human rights and remain legitimate.
[ /QB]

I'd say there are degrees and shades of legitimacy. To the degree that a government respects and protects human rights it is legitimate. China is one of the least legitimate governments to such an extent that I over simplify, but not by much, by calling it simply and plainly just illegitimate.

[Billy Tsai]

WhiteHouse Congratulations
There is nothing wrong with the one china policy because There is really 1 china that is the people's republic of china(communists dictator regime), and another neighbouring country that is Taiwan, China and Taiwan are two seperate independent nations and that is an undeniable Fact.

[nan sh]

"Taiwan's future has to be decided by Taiwanese"
That is against International law. International law sys Taiwan's independent has to be decided by both people live in Taiwan and people live in mainland China.
Where you get that idea, Billy?

[Billy Tsai]

which dumbass international law r u talking about why dont u show some evidence?
then r u saying that south korea's future and japan's future have also to be decided by north korean people
what about america's future ? does it have to be decided by people in USA and canada and England too?
if taiwan's future has to be decided by both people in taiwan and china then taiwan has no future what so ever.

[Billy Tsai]

White House press briefing

[Warren Dew]

Gosh, I vacation in China for ten days and I miss this great thread!

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Didn't you notice that China isn't the same as 30 years ago?

Seems like a lot of people haven't noticed.
The truth is, Mao Zedong and his henchmen did do a lot of evil things, including killing millions of his own people, during the cultural revolution in the 1960s and before that - Herb is absolutely right about that. He may even have killed some Tibetans, though Tibet has actually been under continuous Chinese rule since the Manchu dynasty reinvaded around 1700, and has many earlier centuries of Chinese rule dating back to the Tang dynasty (around 800 AD).
Since Mao's death in 1976 nearly thirty years ago, though, China has been moving away from Communist ideals at an ever increasing rate. Based on my visit, they now seem a heck of a lot more capitalist than the U.S. - shops and selling everywhere without even any sales tax, for example - and conversely, less socialist than the U.S., with fewer people that are supported on public funds than in the U.S., and those at a lower income relative to their private sector peers. The government remains "Communist" in name only, probably only to pacify the relatively small number of aging Maoists so they don't interfere with the vast majority of the population, who are young and interested primarily in making money.
Honestly, I think that if Herb and Joe were to visit China and see what it's really like today, first hand, Herb would like it much more than Joe. Political freedom might not be quite as much as in the U.S. - though I'm not sure of that, since it now seems that in the U.S., it seems to be okay for the police to beat you to death if you refuse to give them a blood sample, see http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/1999/Jan-24-Sun-1999/news/10466992.html - but on the other hand, economic freedom is in a way greater, in terms of being able to keep more of what's yours and turn less of it over to the government in taxes, as tax rates on private earnings are now considerably lower in China than in the U.S.

Herb:
It does not make sense to attack Taiwan if Taiwan maintains a credible national defense system.

The problem here is that while the previous Nationalist government was very big on maintaining a modern military for Taiwan, their present President Chen has been letting the military slide. One of the major reasons the present U.S. Administration doesn't care for Chen's political tactics so much is that where previously Taiwan was always anxious to get as much modern military equipment as possible, Chen has been actually been reneging on his own previous promises to buy arms for the military - reneging to the tune of $10 Billion, a significant amount for such a small nation. I can certainly see how the U.S. government might be more anxious to defend Chen's vision of Taiwan if Chen were more willing to help Taiwan defend itself, rather than preferring to rely solely on the U.S. military.
Which brings up another issue - Chen used the "assassination attempt" (with homemade bullets that seem to have been shot from a homemade device, according to the Far Eastern Economic Review) as a pretext to declare a national security alert that prevented 200,000 military and police from voting. This appears to be questionably constitutional: http://www.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/detail.asp?onNews=1&GRP=D&id=23518. Indeed, Chen's desired use of a referendum to declare 'independence' would quite clearly circumvent the constitution under which he was elected, which specifies a more prolonged amendment process. That's quite bothersome to those of us who consider constitutional government important in order to help guarantee freedom and fairness even for those who are not always in the democratic majority.