vTaiwan: An experiment in participatory governance
technologyreview.com
technologyreview.com
I wanted to compliment her g0V org on a great rewrite of the online dictionary published by the Ministry of Education: really clean URLs, using open data for translations, publishing the original data under a nice license, behind a CDN – and she commented, oh yeah I just deployed an update (!). https://www.moedict.tw/
Many years ago, Audrey also elucidated Chinese language Twitter users living in 2x the density of English users, which foreshadow's Twitter's decision in lengthening limits to 280 chars for English but not for Chinese: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=875414
About g0v and a list of projects: http://g0v.asia/
(Edit: this is not a rethorical question. I worked with this dictionary before and if it is indeed allowed to extend it I have work to do)
"The use of words, radicals, strokes, glyphs, phonetic readings and interpretations of the individual items in the Revised Mandarin Dictionary may not be modified or converted into simplified forms.
However, the change of the code according to the contents of the reference table provided by the Ministry of Education, as well as modifications unrelated to the specific items in the Revised Mandarin Dictionary specified above, are deemed as outside the scope of prohibition of modification."
(Source: http://resources.publicense.moe.edu.tw/reviseddict_10312.pdf )
使用者對於《重編國語辭典修訂本》個別條目的詞目、部首、筆畫、字形、音讀及釋義等內容不得為任何修改，或轉為簡化字。惟依教育部所提供對照表內容作字碼改換，或不涉及更改《重編國語辭典修訂本》個別條目所有內容之調整行為，可不被認定構成上述禁止修改條款之拘束範圍。
I'm surprised but pleased by the clause concerning the transformation in simplified characters, and all in all this is less restrictive than what I thought.
(as a radically transparent Minister, all visits and all internal meetings I chair are published on the internet: https://visit.pdis.tw/.)
And about the article, they are now requesting feedbacks from the public for the next immigration bill [2], that will make even easier to apply fo the visa.
[1] https://foreigntalentact.ndc.gov.tw/en/cp.aspx?n=128B875DE9C...
[2] https://join.gov.tw/policies/detail/1b688f9c-5f05-47ce-ab56-...
Taiwan is home to the world's largest coal-fired power station (which is also the world's largest emitter of CO2 - equivalent to that Switzerland) and just announced construction of a new coal-fired plant 40 minutes from Taipei[1], much to the dismay of residents, environmental groups, and those related to the estimated 1,000 people killed each year by the existing plants. [2]
[1] https://thediplomat.com/2018/05/taiwan-takes-a-step-back-wit...
I'll admit the site isn't very clear, but given that this is the "Employment Gold Card Permit for Foreign Special Professionals", do the "Qualification[s] of Foreign Special Professionals" have any relevance?
> Q2：How to prove that a candidate possesses unique talent, or outstanding R&D ability or innovation performances in top-notch basic research or forward-looking technology?
> A2：One of the following items must be provided:
> 1.Domestic or foreign certificate verifying possession of a Ph.D. degree, verification of domestic or foreign work experience in a relevant field for 3 years or more, or documents verifying academic research during the most recent three years.
> 2.Documents verifying domestic or foreign work experience in a relevant field, technology (such as a domestic or foreign patent certificate, etc.), technology licensing (such as technology licensing contract, etc.), or receipt of awards.
Sounds like what happened to We the People in the U.S.
After I joined the cabinet as the Digital Minister, we have iterated on it quite a bit: https://civichall.org/civicist/what-vtaiwan-teaches-us-about...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDwfk5jo_ow https://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2018...
The tech sounds interesting to apply to other situations too, like collaboration on open source projects.
The Sunflower Student Movement, mentioned a throughout this article, lead to the formation of the progressive nationalistic New Power Party in 2015. This party was co-founded by lead singer of the political metal band Chthonic, Freddy Lim, who is now one of 5 members of the party in the Taiwanese legislature (out of a total of 113 seats).
Hong Kong is extremely unlikely to be able to emulate the political success Taiwan has had (which is, baring some diplomatic hiccups, total - it is, contrary to PRC, USA, and occasionally ROC statements, a totally normal country similar to China in language and, to a lesser extent, culture, but not otherwise related). Mainland China knows this and has been ignoring statements of sovereign control by the Republic of China for some time. But they do control the island of Taiwan, as well as several others.
To be fair, the PRC claims over the territory controlled by the ROC are just as ridiculous as the corresponding claims made by the ROC over lands controlled by the PRC. (Arguably the PRC claims are crazier, since they have _never_ controlled Taiwan, Kinmen, etc.)
The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise requires some seriously twisted historical revisionism.
> The ROC is as much a legitimate government over its territory as the PRC is of its territory. To believe otherwise requires some seriously twisted historical revisionism.
De jure, yes. I'm sure Chiang wanted to re-conquer China from the PRC as well. I think if ROC is reestablished on the mainland at some point it will NOT be a direct successor state to ROC (Taiwan).
A real world example is Russia, it is a successor state to the USSR with little (no?) direct connection to the Russian Empire even though it restored the flags and symbols of that state.
Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here.
> De jure, yes.
_And_ de facto. The PRC has _never_ exercised control over Taiwan, Kinmen, etc. The PRC claims to the lands controlled by the ROC are as ridiculous as the ROC claims to lands controlled by the PRC _both_ de jure and de facto. By any reasonable measure, there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now.
> Neither has the PRC. I'm not sure why that's relevant here.
(de jure) ROC is the same Republic of China that was established in 1912. PRC was declared in 1949.
> there have been two independent countries sitting next to each other for almost 70 years now.
Yes, but the PRC (and KMT until it became clear that retaking the mainland was impossible) is openly hostile to that viewpoint, which is what I originally posted.
The revolution was between the Communist party and Nationalist party. The Nationalist party, the Kuomintang, has it's roots in China, consider themselves Chinese, and consider themselves the true government of China as they were in the past. They only claim this officially. Of course people in reality know that they don't actually have any control of China and have zero chance of regaining it in the future. Typically they are descendants mainland Chinese. This is the blue party. In an extreme simplification, they can thought of as the republican party. Usually older people, more conservative, more friendly to China, and consider themselves more Chinese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.)
There is also the Green party, which grew in opposition to the kuomintang. They were not as involved in the revolution and I think they care even less about sovereignty over China than the blue party, who as I mentioned, already care very little about it. The green party members are typically descendants of families that were in Taiwan before the revolution. In an extreme simplification, they can be thought of as the democratic party. Usually younger people, more liberal, less friendly to China, and consider themselves more Taiwanese. (Extreme extreme oversimplification.)
I don't have enough knowledge to elaborate past the very very basics but I thought I would clear up some of the differences, and point out that both parties care little about sovereignty over China. Also, the grandparent comment I think made a good distinction by specifying "taiwanese nationalist" and "chinese nationalist", removing ambiguity about what the "nation" in "nationalist" refers to. The capital-n Nationalist party does claim sovereignty over China, but only in an official capacity and they are indeed more pro-China.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl...
Both the PRC and the ROC would have long ago been seated in the UN if there never were a position for "China" on the security counsel. That position allowed the ROC to block the PRC's seat in the UN when it represented "China" and it then allowed the PRC to block the ROC's seat later when it represented "China". The reason that the representation for "China" was switched to the PRC from the ROC was because that step was possible procedurally within the UN's rules even though the ROC was against it. In other words, due to a procedural quirk the ROC could keep the PRC from being seated as a separate country, but couldn't keep its own representation from being switched. After that point the PRC could play the same games.
If there were no seat for "China" on the security counsel or if the rules were different or simply if the ROC would have allowed it at the time, both the ROC and the PRC would have seats in the UN. But none of this means that the UN accepts the PRC's claims to Taiwan.
edit: The downvoting is a bit disturbing. I'm quite honestly curious if there is anything factually wrong with what I've written. My suspicion is that these facts do not match the false assumptions of some HN readers and that they'd rather hide it away instead of confronting it directly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-China_policy
In the case of the United States, the One-China Policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position."
You are correct that there is no 'legal reason' why a country could not recognize both states, other than that recognizing one means the other will break off relations (and, in the case of the PRC, possibly take punitive action against that you). Ultimately, the legal niceties are irrelevant; what is important is power politics.
The quote you provide does _not_ say that. It says that the US has _acknowledged_ that both the PRC and the ROC maintain their is one China and that Taiwan is a part of it. It does _not_ say that the US _agrees_ with that position. It also does not say that it considers the PRC the government of that "China". It does not say that Taiwan is governed by the PRC. The US has _never_ stated that it considers the PRC the rightful government of Taiwan.
You are however extremely correct about the ambiguity of the US position.
Click the link in my post.
The fact is that the UN has not passed any resolution recognizing the claims of the PRC to Taiwan. There is no implicit recognition. Here's a thought experiment: If the PRC introduced such a resolution, do you know what would certainly happen? The US (at the very least) would veto it, since the US itself has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (in fact, if anything the US has committed to defend Taiwan from the PRC). The only rational conclusion is that the PRC has never tried to pass such a resolution because it knows it would lose. You're idea that this supports implicit acceptance of such a resolution is totally ridiculous.
Regardless I hope you would at least have the self-respect and honesty to acknowledge that the UN never has accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan.
> The claims of the PRC And the points of that resolution are basically the same. It’s not explicitly saying the PRC is right, it doesn’t have to do that, it’s just saying the exact same thing that the PRC has been saying. Which is normal English means “the UN has accepted the position of the PRC.”
If my response was a strawman, then I guess that means that you admit that the UN has in fact never accepted the PRC's claims to Taiwan. I'm glad that we're agreed on that fact. (And frankly, it is a _fact_ since no such statement has been made by the UN.) Once again I'm sorry that I set up a strawman. I don't want to put words in your mouth.
As an addendum to others reading who possibly don't know much of the history: The UN has never accepted the claims of the PRC to Taiwan (or other territories controlled by the Republic of China). The US (as well as many other countries) also has not accepted that. They often make vague statements to appease the PRC (i.e. China) because the PRC builds a lot of propaganda on a mythical "re-unification" even though the PRC has never actually controlled Taiwan. The only reason why both the PRC and the ROC are not seated in the UN is because the PRC blocks the ROC's admission. The ROC used to do the same when it held the seat until the 70s. The PRC and the ROC have been two separate countries with a (admittedly large) border dispute for almost 70 years now. It's sad the the UN and much of the world just kind of ignores the lack of representation of Taiwan in the UN (as well as other political bodies) and it is sad that the world doesn't force both the PRC and the ROC to the table to simply sign an official peace treaty acknowledging the reality of their situation, but apparently peace, stability and self-determination is not that important to most of the world.
Well, first, it's not exactly like forcing the PRC to do anything like that is practical.
And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically.
Well "force" as in sanction the PRC until it backs down from its militaristic position. Of course it's up to the PRC how to react, but the world shouldn't tacitly accept its military belligerence.
> And, second, externally imposed partitions haven't exactly been sources of peace and stability, historically.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by this. How is there an externally enforced partition? The current status is that there are two countries. That wasn't externally enforced. It was the result of a stalemate between the two sides in a civil war and the inability of either side to fully beat the other. Also how would the PRC and the ROC signing a peace treaty not be the epitome of "peace and stability"? Are you actually implying that the PRC's claims that it may someday invade the ROC better represent "peace and stability" than the current status quo of two countries* co-existing more-or-less peacefully?
I presume I just am misunderstanding you though because I find your statement very confusing. Feel free to correct me.
*They treat each other as countries whether they are willing to use the word or not.
This statement is a little odd. Both the PRC and the ROC refuse to have diplomatic relations with any government that has diplomatic relations with the other. (A policy started by the ROC by the way, but now clearly is pushed more strongly by the PRC.) However, there is no legal reason why a country couldn't have relations with both the PRC and the ROC. They are simply two different countries with a border dispute. The fact that both their official names have China in them is entirely irrelevant.
But yes it's good for people to keep in mind that the PRC is usually colloquially referred to as China and the ROC is usually referred to colloquially as Taiwan (often to the consternation of ROC citizens in other ROC-controlled islands like Kinmen). Keeping in mind that these are two different countries makes statements made by their respective governments easier to understand.
Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area.
> Taiwan would probably does not care about its Qing-era claims one way or another; the only reason the status quo is maintained by both parties is that it allows the PRC to ignore what is de facto a breakaway independent province. Being okay with Taiwan existing as just Taiwan is a slippery slope that could potentially lead to Catalan-style separatism not only in Tibet and Xinjiang, but in strong regional centers of power like Guangdong and the Shanghai area.
You start by writing "Well, no", but literally nothing in your reply contradicts anything in mine.
de facto a breakaway independent
province.
The Qing acquired Taiwan violently in 1683. China lost Taiwan to the Japanese after the Qing's defeat in First Sino-Japanese War (1894-1895). China ceded Taiwan to Japan on 17 April 1895. Japan lost Taiwan to the Allies after the Japanese defeat in WW II. Unfortunately, the relevant peace treaties (Treaty of San Francisco [1] and Treaty of Taipei [2]) did not specify Taiwan's exact legal status (that is the root cause of the today's legal status of Taiwan). But important: those treaties did not say that Taiwan was a part of China.
Note that all three, Qing, Japan and the US acquired Taiwan by force.
The thing that really connects China and Taiwan is ethnicity. Almost all Taiwanese citizens are descendants of people who migrated from the mainland (including the 'aboriginals', who just migrated much earlier). Note that Taiwan became an island only about 10000 years ago, when sea levels rose. Taiwan was joined to the mainland before.
Catalan-style separatism
There is another dimension to China's will do subdue Taiwan, probably the most important reason: Taiwan's thriving democracy, which undermines and contradicts the Chinese Communist Party claim to power, which includes the narrative that democracy is neither needed nor wanted, nor desirable for the Chinese people. In this regard it's important to be aware that Taiwan is observing keenly what's happening in Hong Kong, and the results are not pretty, from [3]: "The Hong Kong example, whose success was ostensibly meant to persuade the Taiwanese that their future lies with China, now proves beyond doubt that the terms, whatever they are and binding though they may be under international law, would be changeable or expandable, subject to revisions or elision by the CCP."
Yet another reason is geo-strategic. Taiwan's location is ideal for controlling and interrupting shipping to/from China, and to launch attacks on the mainland. China doesn't worry about Taiwan itself, but China does not want competing powers (now the US, in the past Japan) sitting in Taiwan. (For the same reason, China supports the current situation in North Korea.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_San_Francisco
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Taipei
[3] https://sentinel.tw/death-sino-british-joint-declaration/
In this case, the results are pretty good. A great thriving economy, no protests, and very little meddling from Mainland China.
> After years of steady growth, the city's gambling revenue posted year-on-year drops for six straight months from June. The annual total for this year is widely expected to fall below the figure for last year -- 360 billion Macau patacas ($45 billion).
> The city's gross domestic product in the July-September quarter decreased by 2.1% from a year earlier for the first economic contraction in five years due mainly to the slump in the casino industry, which accounts for nearly half the economy.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Anti-corruption-campaign-hu...
The Chinese civil war never ended since there was no treaty or truce signed, and neither party is able to assume complete control over the territory.
Also an interesting anecdote: the ROC claim of the Chinese territory also includes the country of Mongolia since it was allowed independence by the communist party to appease the Soviets.
Do you believe PRC doesn't have enough military force to conquer Taiwan right now?
1. Unlike with Ukraine and Russia, Taiwan is not connected to China by land. Amphibious invasions are by default incredibly hard to pull off. China’s blue water fleet might not be up to the task yet. At least, not without sustaining a large amount of casualties over a period of time, which could lead to negative public opinion back at home and sapping the war effort- a non-military, political dimension as I mentioned.
2. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan’s political system is much more stable. The sort of widely-disputed election that led to the Euromaidan protests and the conflict does not seem to take place in Taiwan. The post-1949 waishengren are not analogous to the Donbass separatists; the PLAN can’t just sneak arms to them and expect them to rise up against the Taiwanese government. Like South Korea, Taiwan has a democracy that is prone to activism and demonstration, but is fundamentally viewed as legitimate.
3. Unlike Ukraine, Taiwan is more economically developed country. Among the many effects of that anything that affects it will have a larger affect on world markets than what happened to Ukraine. Of course, China is also much more tightly integrated into the global economy than Russia is, so it’s anyone’s guess as to if anyone will bother to sanction a militarily aggressive China.
4. Regardless of the current administration’s ambivalence towards its allies, the U.S. has had long-standing defensive commitments to protect Taiwan. The U.S. Seventh Fleet is right there.
I’m not saying that China couldn’t wage an aggressive war against Taiwan, nor that they couldn’t win. I’m just saying that it’s a much more complicated situation- indeed, an unprecedented situation- that all us armchair speculators and latter-day Tom Clancy’s cannot foresee.
ROC is still contending against PRC regarding to the representation of China[0]. It's Chinese government's affair, and nothing related to Formosan because both of them, including PRC and ROC, do not own Formsa's sovereignty[1].
> JURIDICAL ASPECTS OF THE FORMOSA SITUATION
> In the Japanese Peace Treaty of April, 1952, Japan formally renounced all right, title and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores, but again this did not operate as a transfer to Chinese sovereignty, whether to the Chinese People's Republic or to the Chinese Nationalist authorities.
And Formosa may be handled in the same way as Ryukyus[2][3]. That's the reason why ROC rejected to admit Japan remains residual sovereignty over Ryukyus when Ryukyus was returned back to Japan[4].
[0]. https://imgur.com/a/eoJhPsY
[1]. http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/large/cab-129-...
[2]. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23...
[3]. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1955-57v23...