Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
Young Taiwanese need to read Western history on secession and reunification
- Thread starter Martian2
- Start date
William Hung
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,465
- Reaction score
- 16
So 88% of these Taiwanese youths don't want reunification.
I don't think your little Facebook threat is going to change their minds, Martin.
With youth, you need to entice them with pop culture like K-pop and Japanese Anime/Manga.
When they are adults, you then entice them with wealth.
P. S. What happened to @Kolaps? haven't seen him around.
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
A peaceful solution to the dispute is what the majority demands. Some youth is way too excited; but, once they are in the mainstream as middle aged persons, their radical ideas are bound to weaken.
Besides, the youth in Taiwan also not oblivious to the idea of a rising China. More and more graduates are willing to go, work and settle in the Mainland. Well, I am one of those wannabees. But academic positions in China is getting more and more competitive.
The majority wishes a political settlement if the status quo cannot be maintained. People are aware that a violent separatism will make China's business more convenient.
Very few have faith on a US support especially if it is Taipei stirring the calm waters.
If the status quo remains, that's China's favor. Taiwan is bound to be absorbed by the Mainland anyways. It is just a matter of time.
kankan326
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 5,217
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
Are you native Taiwanese? I saw many interesting comments made by Taiwanese that proved Taiwanese are brain washed.
For example, a guy in a Taiwan television show said mainlanders can not afford eggs for food. Recently I saw a 45 years old divorced Taiwanese man, with a salary RMB7,000/month, wants to find a bride from mainland, who has to be pretty, and younger than 25.
Are these things true?
supermeson
FULL MEMBER
New Recruit
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2015
- Messages
- 14
- Reaction score
- 0
- Country
- Location
It's like parents and children. being naughty sometimes is toleratable, but there is always a need to spank to teach right from wrong.
Lux de Veritas
BANNED
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2013
- Messages
- 3,180
- Reaction score
- -45
- Country
- Location
Most Taiwanese want to maintain status quo or go independence.
Martian2
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 5,809
- Reaction score
- -37
They can always follow in the footsteps of the Confederacy.
Most Taiwanese want to maintain status quo or go independence.
Declare independence and wait for the other shoe to drop.
We might as well get this over with.
Time to start playing the "Battle Hymn of the Republic."
TaiShang
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2014
- Messages
- 27,848
- Reaction score
- 70
- Country
- Location
The One-China Principle and the Taiwan Issue
(White Paper on Taiwan issue)
IV. Several Questions Involving the One-China Principle in the Cross-Straits Relations
Chinese territory and sovereignty has not been split, and the two sides of the Straits are not two states. The Taiwan authorities support their position on "two Chinas," including the "two states" theory proposed by Lee Teng-hui, with the following arguments: Since 1949, the territories on either side of the Straits have been divided and governed separately, with neither side having jurisdiction over the other; the government of the PRC has never ruled Taiwan; and since 1991 Taiwan has witnessed a form of government that has nothing to do with that of the Chinese mainland. These arguments are absolutely untenable, and can never lead to the conclusion that Taiwan may declare itself a state under the name of the "Republic of China," or that the two sides of the Straits have been divided into two states. Firstly, state sovereignty is inseparable. The territory is the space in which a state exercises its sovereignty. In the territory of a country there can only be a central government exercising sovereignty on behalf of the state. As we have already said, Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and, after replacing the government of the Republic of China in 1949, the government of the PRC has become the sole legal government of China, enjoying and exercising sovereignty over the whole of China, including Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits have not been reunified, Taiwan's status as a part of Chinese territory has never changed, neither, therefore, has China's sovereignty over Taiwan ever changed. Secondly, the international community recognizes that there is only one China, that Taiwan is a part of China, and that the government of the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. Thirdly, the reason that the Taiwan question has not been settled for such a long period of time is mainly due to the intervention of foreign forces and the obstruction of the separatist forces in Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits remain to be reunified, the long-term existence of this abnormal situation has not imbued Taiwan with a status and rights in international law, nor can it change the legal status of Taiwan as a part of China. The problem now is that the separatists in Taiwan and some foreign anti-China forces seek to change this state of affairs, and it is this that the Chinese Government and people are firmly against.
We firmly oppose changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum. The Taiwan separatists' attempt to change Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum on the pretext that " sovereignty belongs to the people" is futile. Firstly, under both domestic and international laws Taiwan's legal status as a part of Chinese territory is unequivocal, and there can be no premise for using referendum to decide any matter of self-determination. Secondly, the phrase "sovereignty belongs to the people" refers to all the people of a state, and not certain people or the people of a certain area. The sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people including Taiwan compatriots, and not to some of the people in Taiwan. Thirdly, at no time in history has Taiwan been a state in its own right, and since 1945 Taiwan has not been a foreign colony, nor has it been under foreign occupation. The issue of national self-determination, therefore, does not exist. In short, from the time that China recovered Taiwan in 1945, there has been no question at all of changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by holding a referendum. The only future for Taiwan is reunification with the China mainland, and certainly not separation. Any attempt to separate Taiwan from China through so-called referendum would only lead the Taiwan people to disaster.
The "two German states formula" cannot be applied to the settlement of the Taiwan issue. Some people in Taiwan have suggested that cross-Straits relations should be dealt with according to the "two German states formula," since Germany was divided into two states after World War II, and was later reunified. This proposal shows a misunderstanding of history and reality. The division of Germany after the war and the temporary division between the two sides of the Straits are questions of a different nature, the difference lying mainly in three aspects. The first is the reasons for, and the nature of, the division. After its defeat in World War II in 1945, Germany was divided into zones occupied separately by the four victorious nations of the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union according to a declaration on the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme authority and the subsequent Potsdam Agreement. The reunification of Germany became a focus of the confrontation in Europe between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were established in the zones occupied by the United States, Britain and France, and that occupied by the Soviet Union. Thus Germany was divided into two states. Obviously, the German question arose entirely from external factors, while the Taiwan issue, left over by China's civil war, is a matter of China's internal affairs. The second aspect is the difference in status between the two under international law. Germany was divided according to a series of international treaties during and after World War II, while the Taiwan question involves provisions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international treaties, stating that Japan must return Taiwan, which it had stolen from China, to the Chinese. The third is the difference between the two in their actual conditions of existence.
Against the backdrop of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two German states had foreign troops stationed in their territories and so were compelled to recognize each other and co-exist in the international community. The Chinese Government has always persisted in the principle of one China. Before Lee Teng-hui assumed power, and during his early days in office, the Taiwan authorities recognized only one China and opposed "two Chinas," and the One-China Principle has also been widely accepted by the international community. For these reasons, the Taiwan issue and the German issue cannot be placed in the same category, nor can the "two German states formula" be copied to settle the Taiwan question.
Any question can be discussed under the One-China Principle. The Chinese Government advocates that the final purpose of cross- Straits negotiations is to achieve peaceful reunification; and that to achieve this purpose, talks should be held based on the principle of one China. However, the proposals for "Taiwan independence," "two Chinas" and "two states," aiming for separation instead of reunification, violate the One-China Principle, and are naturally unacceptable to the Chinese Government. Provided that it is within the framework of one China, any question can be discussed, including the various issues that are of concern to the Taiwan side. The Chinese Government believes that Taiwan's international space for economic, cultural and social activities compatible with its status, the political status of the Taiwan authorities and other questions can be finally settled in the process of peaceful reunification through political negotiations within this framework.
The so-called controversy about democracy and system is an excuse for obstructing the reunification of China. In recent years the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly declared that "democratization on the China mainland is the key to the reunification of China" and that "the real essence of the cross- Straits issue is a contest between systems." This is an excuse for postponing and resisting reunification, as well as a scheme to deceive compatriots in Taiwan and world opinion. The CPC and the Chinese Government have consistently striven to achieve socialist democracy. To achieve peaceful reunification in the form of "one country, two systems," and to allow the two different social systems on both sides of the Straits to coexist without imposing them on one or the other: this is best able to embody the wishes of compatriots on both sides of the Straits and is itself democratic. The different social systems across the Straits, therefore, should not constitute a barrier to peaceful reunification. Moreover, the Chinese Government acknowledges the differences between Taiwan on the one hand and Hong Kong and Macao on the other and, after peaceful reunification, is prepared to apply a looser form of the "one country, two systems" policy in Taiwan than in Hong Kong and Macao. It is totally unreasonable and undemocratic for the Taiwan authorities to seek to obstruct reunification on the pretext of the "controversy about democracy and system" and to force the more than 1.2 billion people living on the Chinese mainland to practise the political and economic systems in Taiwan. The demand for democracy should not be used as a reason for refusing reunification. The essence of the difference between the two sides of the Straits on this question lies by no means in the controversy over whether to practise democracy or in the controversy over what system to practise, but rather a controversy over the choice between reunification and separation.
(White Paper on Taiwan issue)
IV. Several Questions Involving the One-China Principle in the Cross-Straits Relations
Chinese territory and sovereignty has not been split, and the two sides of the Straits are not two states. The Taiwan authorities support their position on "two Chinas," including the "two states" theory proposed by Lee Teng-hui, with the following arguments: Since 1949, the territories on either side of the Straits have been divided and governed separately, with neither side having jurisdiction over the other; the government of the PRC has never ruled Taiwan; and since 1991 Taiwan has witnessed a form of government that has nothing to do with that of the Chinese mainland. These arguments are absolutely untenable, and can never lead to the conclusion that Taiwan may declare itself a state under the name of the "Republic of China," or that the two sides of the Straits have been divided into two states. Firstly, state sovereignty is inseparable. The territory is the space in which a state exercises its sovereignty. In the territory of a country there can only be a central government exercising sovereignty on behalf of the state. As we have already said, Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory and, after replacing the government of the Republic of China in 1949, the government of the PRC has become the sole legal government of China, enjoying and exercising sovereignty over the whole of China, including Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits have not been reunified, Taiwan's status as a part of Chinese territory has never changed, neither, therefore, has China's sovereignty over Taiwan ever changed. Secondly, the international community recognizes that there is only one China, that Taiwan is a part of China, and that the government of the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China. Thirdly, the reason that the Taiwan question has not been settled for such a long period of time is mainly due to the intervention of foreign forces and the obstruction of the separatist forces in Taiwan.
Although the two sides of the Straits remain to be reunified, the long-term existence of this abnormal situation has not imbued Taiwan with a status and rights in international law, nor can it change the legal status of Taiwan as a part of China. The problem now is that the separatists in Taiwan and some foreign anti-China forces seek to change this state of affairs, and it is this that the Chinese Government and people are firmly against.
We firmly oppose changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum. The Taiwan separatists' attempt to change Taiwan's status as a part of China by referendum on the pretext that " sovereignty belongs to the people" is futile. Firstly, under both domestic and international laws Taiwan's legal status as a part of Chinese territory is unequivocal, and there can be no premise for using referendum to decide any matter of self-determination. Secondly, the phrase "sovereignty belongs to the people" refers to all the people of a state, and not certain people or the people of a certain area. The sovereignty over Taiwan belongs to all the Chinese people including Taiwan compatriots, and not to some of the people in Taiwan. Thirdly, at no time in history has Taiwan been a state in its own right, and since 1945 Taiwan has not been a foreign colony, nor has it been under foreign occupation. The issue of national self-determination, therefore, does not exist. In short, from the time that China recovered Taiwan in 1945, there has been no question at all of changing Taiwan's status as a part of China by holding a referendum. The only future for Taiwan is reunification with the China mainland, and certainly not separation. Any attempt to separate Taiwan from China through so-called referendum would only lead the Taiwan people to disaster.
The "two German states formula" cannot be applied to the settlement of the Taiwan issue. Some people in Taiwan have suggested that cross-Straits relations should be dealt with according to the "two German states formula," since Germany was divided into two states after World War II, and was later reunified. This proposal shows a misunderstanding of history and reality. The division of Germany after the war and the temporary division between the two sides of the Straits are questions of a different nature, the difference lying mainly in three aspects. The first is the reasons for, and the nature of, the division. After its defeat in World War II in 1945, Germany was divided into zones occupied separately by the four victorious nations of the United States, Britain, France and the Soviet Union according to a declaration on the defeat of Germany and the assumption of supreme authority and the subsequent Potsdam Agreement. The reunification of Germany became a focus of the confrontation in Europe between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic were established in the zones occupied by the United States, Britain and France, and that occupied by the Soviet Union. Thus Germany was divided into two states. Obviously, the German question arose entirely from external factors, while the Taiwan issue, left over by China's civil war, is a matter of China's internal affairs. The second aspect is the difference in status between the two under international law. Germany was divided according to a series of international treaties during and after World War II, while the Taiwan question involves provisions of the Cairo Declaration, the Potsdam Proclamation and other international treaties, stating that Japan must return Taiwan, which it had stolen from China, to the Chinese. The third is the difference between the two in their actual conditions of existence.
Against the backdrop of the confrontation between the United States and the Soviet Union, the two German states had foreign troops stationed in their territories and so were compelled to recognize each other and co-exist in the international community. The Chinese Government has always persisted in the principle of one China. Before Lee Teng-hui assumed power, and during his early days in office, the Taiwan authorities recognized only one China and opposed "two Chinas," and the One-China Principle has also been widely accepted by the international community. For these reasons, the Taiwan issue and the German issue cannot be placed in the same category, nor can the "two German states formula" be copied to settle the Taiwan question.
Any question can be discussed under the One-China Principle. The Chinese Government advocates that the final purpose of cross- Straits negotiations is to achieve peaceful reunification; and that to achieve this purpose, talks should be held based on the principle of one China. However, the proposals for "Taiwan independence," "two Chinas" and "two states," aiming for separation instead of reunification, violate the One-China Principle, and are naturally unacceptable to the Chinese Government. Provided that it is within the framework of one China, any question can be discussed, including the various issues that are of concern to the Taiwan side. The Chinese Government believes that Taiwan's international space for economic, cultural and social activities compatible with its status, the political status of the Taiwan authorities and other questions can be finally settled in the process of peaceful reunification through political negotiations within this framework.
The so-called controversy about democracy and system is an excuse for obstructing the reunification of China. In recent years the Taiwan authorities have repeatedly declared that "democratization on the China mainland is the key to the reunification of China" and that "the real essence of the cross- Straits issue is a contest between systems." This is an excuse for postponing and resisting reunification, as well as a scheme to deceive compatriots in Taiwan and world opinion. The CPC and the Chinese Government have consistently striven to achieve socialist democracy. To achieve peaceful reunification in the form of "one country, two systems," and to allow the two different social systems on both sides of the Straits to coexist without imposing them on one or the other: this is best able to embody the wishes of compatriots on both sides of the Straits and is itself democratic. The different social systems across the Straits, therefore, should not constitute a barrier to peaceful reunification. Moreover, the Chinese Government acknowledges the differences between Taiwan on the one hand and Hong Kong and Macao on the other and, after peaceful reunification, is prepared to apply a looser form of the "one country, two systems" policy in Taiwan than in Hong Kong and Macao. It is totally unreasonable and undemocratic for the Taiwan authorities to seek to obstruct reunification on the pretext of the "controversy about democracy and system" and to force the more than 1.2 billion people living on the Chinese mainland to practise the political and economic systems in Taiwan. The demand for democracy should not be used as a reason for refusing reunification. The essence of the difference between the two sides of the Straits on this question lies by no means in the controversy over whether to practise democracy or in the controversy over what system to practise, but rather a controversy over the choice between reunification and separation.
AndrewJin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 14,904
- Reaction score
- 23
- Country
- Location
We need the land, period.
As a Chinese who has relatives in Taiwan, I am very informed of their thoughts.
If they still reckon Dr. Sun Yat-en as the father of ROC and adhere to his will, they are welcome to live on the island. If not, leave the land and go for their US father or Japan mother.
As a Chinese who has relatives in Taiwan, I am very informed of their thoughts.
If they still reckon Dr. Sun Yat-en as the father of ROC and adhere to his will, they are welcome to live on the island. If not, leave the land and go for their US father or Japan mother.
Last edited:
Yizhi
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2015
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 4
- Country
- Location
in memory of Lee Kuan Yew and his view on TW:
What to make of Lee Kuan Yew's claim that unification is inevitable
In his latest book, One Man's View of the World, Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew says that Taiwan's unification with China is only a matter of time and that efforts to separate the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will only make the process more painful for the people of Taiwan.
Unification has become a political taboo in Taiwan and as the former Singapore leader has been a friend to the country in the past, his frank remarks are difficult for many to accept.
Moreover, the painful process of unification with China, as Lee describes it, is a reality the Taiwanese have already witnessed due to political disputes between pro-independence and pro-unification camps and the loss of its global competitiveness.
Three questions arise from Lee's prediction in his book: Do people want unification? Will we see unification? Should there be unification?
Whether one supports unification or independence for Taiwan has become akin to a religious belief that leaves little room for a rational exchange of views between parties on opposing sides.
Calling Lee's remarks interference in Taiwan's internal affairs, pro-independence supporters mostly dodged issues raised in his statements rather than responding to them.
Regarding the probability of Taiwan's unification with China, Lee said the decision would not be made by the will of Taiwanese people but as a result of economic factors and the international situation.
Lee said further that gradual and inevitable economic integration will serve to bring Taiwan and China closer and to become codependent. He also said that it was unrealistic for pro-independence supporters to pin their hopes on an intervention by the United States if war with China should break out.
If Lee's projections are correct, the most critical issue for Taiwan is to find ways to gain the most beneficial arrangement.
However bitter it may seem, Lee's prediction offers some perspectives that should be contemplated rationally to best serve the interests of Taiwan's people.
What to make of Lee Kuan Yew's claim that unification is inevitable
- 2014-10-12
In his latest book, One Man's View of the World, Singapore's founding father Lee Kuan Yew says that Taiwan's unification with China is only a matter of time and that efforts to separate the two sides of the Taiwan Strait will only make the process more painful for the people of Taiwan.
Unification has become a political taboo in Taiwan and as the former Singapore leader has been a friend to the country in the past, his frank remarks are difficult for many to accept.
Moreover, the painful process of unification with China, as Lee describes it, is a reality the Taiwanese have already witnessed due to political disputes between pro-independence and pro-unification camps and the loss of its global competitiveness.
Three questions arise from Lee's prediction in his book: Do people want unification? Will we see unification? Should there be unification?
Whether one supports unification or independence for Taiwan has become akin to a religious belief that leaves little room for a rational exchange of views between parties on opposing sides.
Calling Lee's remarks interference in Taiwan's internal affairs, pro-independence supporters mostly dodged issues raised in his statements rather than responding to them.
Regarding the probability of Taiwan's unification with China, Lee said the decision would not be made by the will of Taiwanese people but as a result of economic factors and the international situation.
Lee said further that gradual and inevitable economic integration will serve to bring Taiwan and China closer and to become codependent. He also said that it was unrealistic for pro-independence supporters to pin their hopes on an intervention by the United States if war with China should break out.
If Lee's projections are correct, the most critical issue for Taiwan is to find ways to gain the most beneficial arrangement.
However bitter it may seem, Lee's prediction offers some perspectives that should be contemplated rationally to best serve the interests of Taiwan's people.
Pangu
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2014
- Messages
- 1,501
- Reaction score
- 5
- Country
- Location
RIP honorable Mr. Lee. He was monumental in helping us establish cross strait relationship with his bold vision & wise counsel.
Lee Kuan Yew remembered as facilitator in cross-strait relations
A card and flowers for Lee Kuan Yew outside Singapore General Hospital, March 21. (Photo/Xinhua)
Lee Kuan Yew, left, with ROC president Chiang Ching-kuo at Sun Moon Lake during Lee's visit to Taiwan in 1973. (File photo/China Times)
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, succumbed to a bout of pneumonia at the age of 91 early Monday.
In Taiwan, Lee will be remembered as not only a leader who led Singapore to modernity and prosperity but also as a great facilitator who tirelessly worked to help improve relations with mainland China.
Lee's close ties with Taiwan were marked by his frequent visits. He visited Taiwan more than 25 times, the most among notable foreign leaders.
Twenty-two years ago, a historic meeting between Koo Chen-fu, chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) of Taiwan, and Wang Daohan, president of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), took place in Singapore. The meeting marked a breakthrough in cross-strait relations by institutionalizing officially-sanctioned talks between the top negotiators from the two sides.
Former SEF secretary-general Chiu Chin-yi told CNA that part of the reason why Singapore was chosen to host the historic meeting in 1993 was to pay tribute to Lee's efforts in facilitating cross-strait relations over the years.
Those efforts spanned through the presidencies of Chiang Ching-kuo, who had come out to greet Lee on airport tarmac despite his ailing health, to Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy of "no independence, no unification, and no use of force" has brought stability to cross-strait relations since 2008.
Chiu said that one year after the SEF and ARATS established the 1992 Consensus in a meeting in Hong Kong (though the term itself was not coined until 2000), the two negotiating bodies had mulled over an appropriate location to host a follow-up meeting.
As Taiwan at the time had demanded to conduct the talks on equal footing, Hong Kong was ruled out as its handover to China in 1997 was looming, while Japan was off the list for a myriad of reasons. In the end Singapore, with its melting pot of Chinese, Malay, Indian and British cultures, was selected to host the landmark talks.
Although Lee had later clarified that Singapore's role in the meeting would be limited to that of a host and that the city-state would not participate or serve as mediator in the talks in any way, Chiu said that the statement is a reflection of Lee's practical streak and high political acumen, while showing the deep ties he shares with Taiwan.
Lee Kuan Yew remembered as facilitator in cross-strait relations
- CNA and Staff Reporter
- 2015-03-23
- 10:31 (GMT+8)
A card and flowers for Lee Kuan Yew outside Singapore General Hospital, March 21. (Photo/Xinhua)
Lee Kuan Yew, left, with ROC president Chiang Ching-kuo at Sun Moon Lake during Lee's visit to Taiwan in 1973. (File photo/China Times)
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, succumbed to a bout of pneumonia at the age of 91 early Monday.
In Taiwan, Lee will be remembered as not only a leader who led Singapore to modernity and prosperity but also as a great facilitator who tirelessly worked to help improve relations with mainland China.
Lee's close ties with Taiwan were marked by his frequent visits. He visited Taiwan more than 25 times, the most among notable foreign leaders.
Twenty-two years ago, a historic meeting between Koo Chen-fu, chairman of the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) of Taiwan, and Wang Daohan, president of China's Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Straits (ARATS), took place in Singapore. The meeting marked a breakthrough in cross-strait relations by institutionalizing officially-sanctioned talks between the top negotiators from the two sides.
Former SEF secretary-general Chiu Chin-yi told CNA that part of the reason why Singapore was chosen to host the historic meeting in 1993 was to pay tribute to Lee's efforts in facilitating cross-strait relations over the years.
Those efforts spanned through the presidencies of Chiang Ching-kuo, who had come out to greet Lee on airport tarmac despite his ailing health, to Ma Ying-jeou, whose policy of "no independence, no unification, and no use of force" has brought stability to cross-strait relations since 2008.
Chiu said that one year after the SEF and ARATS established the 1992 Consensus in a meeting in Hong Kong (though the term itself was not coined until 2000), the two negotiating bodies had mulled over an appropriate location to host a follow-up meeting.
As Taiwan at the time had demanded to conduct the talks on equal footing, Hong Kong was ruled out as its handover to China in 1997 was looming, while Japan was off the list for a myriad of reasons. In the end Singapore, with its melting pot of Chinese, Malay, Indian and British cultures, was selected to host the landmark talks.
Although Lee had later clarified that Singapore's role in the meeting would be limited to that of a host and that the city-state would not participate or serve as mediator in the talks in any way, Chiu said that the statement is a reflection of Lee's practical streak and high political acumen, while showing the deep ties he shares with Taiwan.
Jlaw
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2013
- Messages
- 9,693
- Reaction score
- -22
- Country
- Location
7000 rmb/month...that poor man is living in the 1980s.
kankan326
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 5,217
- Reaction score
- -13
- Country
- Location
