> "What is the author saying?"
> "Who cares, she's chinese."
I find that repugnant.
It also seems to be an illogical non-sequitur since the article is about a political system of three political parties headed by ethnically han-chinese people on island with a 90% ethnically han-chinese population.
This alternative interpretation doesn’t seem to have much basis either, since the author is apparently native Taiwanese, but perhaps the GP is accusing her of PRC loyalties?
It seemed pretty obvious to me that the comment was about the governments, not the ethnicity.
Even if that's the original intent, I would still find that confusing, unhelpful, and potentially offensive in a professional environment.
> The Republic of China and The People's Republic of China
The party in power is also called the Chinese Communist Party, which literally has Chinese in its name (and is referred by the comment).
I understand you had a different interpretation at first, but I invite you to reconsider. It also goes along with HN's guidelines:
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
whereas when it comes to "acknowledges" One China Policy it is worded as such "interest in a peaceful settlement of the Taiwan question by the Chinese themselves" so by Chinese it means those that are interested in unification with China as that is the author's stand.
I find it repugnant that you specifically erase Taiwanese by saying "han-chinese"
That none of the candidates targeted were successfully recalled suggests the proponents of the recall overstated or overstepped their understanding of the electorate’s desires to see change.