You can't use Hong Kong as an example of the electoral system anywhere else in China, for reasons that I think are obvious. I haven't met anyone that "believes in" elections in the rest of China -- they're viewed as part of the internal politics of the Communist Party, not as a tool for regular people to make decisions on the direction of their governance. The people I've met, including (or more accurately, mostly) mainlanders immigrated into the US, believe that the Chinese government rules with an iron fist, and mostly they think it's preferable to democratic rule.
But even accepting that premise, arresting lawyers who defend unpopular positions doesn't seem to be more convincing than just selecting lawyers who will play along in the first place. Or they could have judges keep ruling against the lawyers they don't like and then not arrest them. Constantly throwing them into detention to show that the system isn't totally corrupt doesn't strike me as one that's going to convince anyone.
I'm... not using it as an example of such? I'm pointing out that even shams have to be believeable, or there's no point to them.
Also, no, throwing one lawyer (or even hundreds of lawyers) in jail is nothing compared to banning all (real) lawyers. There's 1.36B people in China. You give 1.35B of them the lawyers they want and just suppress the ones you really don't like. Bonus side-effect: The 1.35B people naturally assume that the lawyers you do send to prison MUST be really bad people, since you're not arresting their lawyers.
I don't know man. I feel like this is basic autocracy 101: you don't actually have the ability to suppress everybody if they really wanted to rise up against you, so you pick your battles, divide and conquer, make some people grateful for the rights you extend them even as you forcefully squash them for others. If you don't get it... I don't know what I could tell you that you couldn't learn just from examining the history of autocratic governments. (Hell, arguably, it's basic governance 101. This sorta thing isn't exactly limited to just autocracies.)
The communist party leadership certainly has no particular tolerance for anyone questioning their rule, but I think it's worth remembering that many of them also came of age during the cultural revolution and the horrors of its show trials. With that kind of history it's not surprising that China is still trying to have a degree of real judicial fairness, even as they're also then regularly punishing political resistance through that system. That those two ends are mutually contradictory reflects the Chinese leadership's own ambivalence.
A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
We seriously complaining that China's sham legal system isn't shammier?
Complaining? No. It's terrible and they suck. I'm wondering why it's not shammier, because it seems like they manage most other aspects of governance more smoothly.
Also, no, throwing one lawyer (or even hundreds of lawyers) in jail is nothing compared to banning all (real) lawyers. There's 1.36B people in China. You give 1.35B of them the lawyers they want and just suppress the ones you really don't like. Bonus side-effect: The 1.35B people naturally assume that the lawyers you do send to prison MUST be really bad people, since you're not arresting their lawyers.
Well, I'm saying, they wouldn't have to throw those lawyers in jail in the first place if they picked and chose the cases where they really wanted the defendant to lose, and assigned sham defenders just for those. It's the clients they didn't like. Even in a tyranny, nothing says "show trial" like arresting the defendant's lawyers. No one I've talked to in China or out of it thinks the cases against the lawyers are real, even if they hated the dissidents.
I get why they punish dissidents. It sends a message to stop the dissidence. What's the endgame for punishing lawyers? What message are they trying to send? Don't defend people the government doesn't like? Someone's going to defend them, or else they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't do a good job? Then why didn't they just bar the good lawyers from the case and reassign someone they knew was going to do a bad job?
I don't know man. I feel like this is basic autocracy 101: you don't actually have the ability to suppress everybody if they really wanted to rise up against you, so you pick your battles, divide and conquer, make some people grateful for the rights you extend them even as you forcefully squash them for others.
Yeah, and they can do that with sham trials and sham lawyers. Or they can do that with just judges and their not-really-trial-by-jury system, whose conviction rate fell to "just" 99.92% earlier this year. I just don't see where attacking your own judicial system figures into the autocratic method.
That those two ends are mutually contradictory reflects the Chinese leadership's own ambivalence.
That's kind of believable, it's just strange that they just let it keep going on. I've read that there's a historical gap between the national party and local governments, where a lot of the thuggery comes from the local governments, but this has been going on regularly for decades. It seems like something that they'd decide one way or the other, even if they only apply it in highly publicized cases.
Also, no, throwing one lawyer (or even hundreds of lawyers) in jail is nothing compared to banning all (real) lawyers. There's 1.36B people in China. You give 1.35B of them the lawyers they want and just suppress the ones you really don't like. Bonus side-effect: The 1.35B people naturally assume that the lawyers you do send to prison MUST be really bad people, since you're not arresting their lawyers.
Well, I'm saying, they wouldn't have to throw those lawyers in jail in the first place if they picked and chose the cases where they really wanted the defendant to lose, and assigned sham defenders just for those. It's the clients they didn't like. Even in a tyranny, nothing says "show trial" like arresting the defendant's lawyers. No one I've talked to in China or out of it thinks the cases against the lawyers are real, even if they hated the dissidents.
I get why they punish dissidents. It sends a message to stop the dissidence. What's the endgame for punishing lawyers? What message are they trying to send? Don't defend people the government doesn't like? Someone's going to defend them, or else they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't do a good job? Then why didn't they just bar the good lawyers from the case and reassign someone they knew was going to do a bad job?
That's why they arrest the lawyers AFTER the trial, after MANY trials.
Dude, what is not to get about this? If you're a famous well-known dissident, you get the lawyer of your choosing; in fact, nothing inappropriate happens during the trial, except for the judgement, because you're a famous well-known dissident, and people are going to be watching very closely. We don't give you any reason to complain, any legitimate grievances to air as long as attention is focused on you.
Except AFTER you're put away, a few months later after all the attention has been drawn away, maybe even specifically timed to coincide with some big news-grabbing events, your lawyer joins you in prison, because your lawyer isn't famous and well-known, except for among other lawyers, and they're precisely the people we want to send a message to: stop defending dissidents or we'll come get you later.
It's not a binary between total sham and total justice. It's the exact same thing as bullshit investigations in the Western world. You don't just come out and say, "There is no corruption here, move along people!" because people will recognize it as bullshit and get angry. Instead, you say, "We're going to investigate it," and you do everything by the book to placate the masses, and then when they're no longer paying attention, you quietly sweep it all under the rug.
Edit: Specifically, re. your question of what's the endgame for punishing lawyers - no lawyers are willing to defend Ai Weiwei, and instead he has to self-represent. We'll also settle for no relatively well-known, well-connected, well-off lawyers being willing to defend him, especially ones with domestic media or international connections. He can have some fresh-out-of-law-school pup if he wants.
And here I was figuring President Trump would trigger the global nuclear apocalypse.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think an India-Pakistan nuclear war will trigger global nuclear apocalypse. It sure as fuck won't be good for the rest of us, but I don't think total nuclear annihilation of the Indian subcontinent would result in enough blast detritus to block out the sun.
Both China and Russia would probably react.
Very likely, considering the Soviet Union was instrumental to arbitrating peace between India and Pakistan (which were both 1) endorsed by the United States and 2) ultimately collapsed, sooner or later), and Russia is India's foremost military partner and supplier (while also supplying much smaller amounts of equipment to to Pakistan). Additionally, China is historically Pakistan's closest military partner (along with the United States) and one of its main suppliers (if not the primary supplier).
India is the third largest standing army, if I remember correctly, and something like 70% of India's new military hardware is manufactured in Russia, or in India under Russian license (like the T-90 tank).
That being said, I don't think they'd react with their own nuclear arsenals. But I'm also counting on seeing more than one more conventional war between India and Pakistan in my lifetime.
This is really one of the areas that is most likely to flare up into serious large scale conflict/nukes in the world. They have enough nukes to really do horrors upon their opponents but neither has enough for MAD so they might be stupid enough to actually do a limited nuclear exchange.
I actually don't think a nuclear showdown is likely--of course, we're both dealing in pure speculation--because of the fundamental nature of the historic conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India are not driven by some sort of philosophical resentment or incompatibility, like what a world-ending showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union would've been presumably. They are over specific historic grievances that began with the dismantling of Britain's Indian Empire up to 1947. The contested territories--like Jammu and Kashmir, most obviously--are physical places both countries want (and preferably, want intact). Their antagonisms are over contestable gains and losses (indeed, a major point for either side are the constant violation of borders by the enemy). The historic causes are the notions of Hindus chaffing under Muslim rule, and Muslims chaffing under Hindu rule, while the modern ones extend from that combined with the tendency that, even with a decisive victory (India in 1971 for example), neither side can completely vanquish the other.
Similarly, the "unintentional escalation" towards nuclear war--another doomsday American/Soviet scenario--seems unlikely too. Both sides maintain massive conventional forces (in the face of comparatively limited nuclear arsenals) that they can, and in all likelihood will, use again to resolve their disputes. Nuclear weapons are more of a political accessory whose effectiveness has largely been negated by parity (of course, that doesn't mean they're not dangerous, but the same region proved that they could kill millions without splitting the atom, just look at the East Bengal Famine--and people are worried about Pakistan potentially losing control over its arsenal amid a bad power shift).
It could still result in a catastrophic loss of human life, of course, but not what we'd think of as a limited nuclear exchange (as a matter of necessity--neither said currently has any active weapons, and probably no more than 250 warheads in storage, possibly less) triggering a global nuclear exchange.
And here I was figuring President Trump would trigger the global nuclear apocalypse.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think an India-Pakistan nuclear war will trigger global nuclear apocalypse. It sure as fuck won't be good for the rest of us, but I don't think total nuclear annihilation of the Indian subcontinent would result in enough blast detritus to block out the sun.
Both China and Russia would probably react.
Very likely, considering the Soviet Union was instrumental to arbitrating peace between India and Pakistan (which were both 1) endorsed by the United States and 2) ultimately collapsed, sooner or later), and Russia is India's foremost military partner and supplier (while also supplying much smaller amounts of equipment to to Pakistan). Additionally, China is historically Pakistan's closest military partner (along with the United States) and one of its main suppliers (if not the primary supplier).
India is the third largest standing army, if I remember correctly, and something like 70% of India's new military hardware is manufactured in Russia, or in India under Russian license (like the T-90 tank).
That being said, I don't think they'd react with their own nuclear arsenals. But I'm also counting on seeing more than one more conventional war between India and Pakistan in my lifetime.
This is really one of the areas that is most likely to flare up into serious large scale conflict/nukes in the world. They have enough nukes to really do horrors upon their opponents but neither has enough for MAD so they might be stupid enough to actually do a limited nuclear exchange.
I actually don't think a nuclear showdown is likely--of course, we're both dealing in pure speculation--because of the fundamental nature of the historic conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India are not driven by some sort of philosophical resentment or incompatibility, like what a world-ending showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union would've been presumably. They are over specific historic grievances that began with the dismantling of Britain's Indian Empire up to 1947. The contested territories--like Jammu and Kashmir, most obviously--are physical places both countries want (and preferably, want intact). Their antagonisms are over contestable gains and losses (indeed, a major point for either side are the constant violation of borders by the enemy). The historic causes are the notions of Hindus chaffing under Muslim rule, and Muslims chaffing under Hindu rule, while the modern ones extend from that combined with the tendency that, even with a decisive victory (India in 1971 for example), neither side can completely vanquish the other.
Similarly, the "unintentional escalation" towards nuclear war--another doomsday American/Soviet scenario--seems unlikely too. Both sides maintain massive conventional forces (in the face of comparatively limited nuclear arsenals) that they can, and in all likelihood will, use again to resolve their disputes. Nuclear weapons are more of a political accessory whose effectiveness has largely been negated by parity (of course, that doesn't mean they're not dangerous, but the same region proved that they could kill millions without splitting the atom, just look at the East Bengal Famine--and people are worried about Pakistan potentially losing control over its arsenal amid a bad power shift).
It could still result in a catastrophic loss of human life, of course, but not what we'd think of as a limited nuclear exchange (as a matter of necessity--neither said currently has any active weapons, and probably no more than 250 warheads in storage, possibly less) triggering a global nuclear exchange.
Do you have a source for that? The Indian Agni missiles are solid-fueled Intermediate range ballistic missiles, which is something that only really gets built for delivery nuclear warheads, and they also have a ballistic missile sub, which doesn't really make much sense to have out and operating if you aren't going to have it already loaded with your second strike weapons.
And here I was figuring President Trump would trigger the global nuclear apocalypse.
If it makes you feel any better, I don't think an India-Pakistan nuclear war will trigger global nuclear apocalypse. It sure as fuck won't be good for the rest of us, but I don't think total nuclear annihilation of the Indian subcontinent would result in enough blast detritus to block out the sun.
Both China and Russia would probably react.
Very likely, considering the Soviet Union was instrumental to arbitrating peace between India and Pakistan (which were both 1) endorsed by the United States and 2) ultimately collapsed, sooner or later), and Russia is India's foremost military partner and supplier (while also supplying much smaller amounts of equipment to to Pakistan). Additionally, China is historically Pakistan's closest military partner (along with the United States) and one of its main suppliers (if not the primary supplier).
India is the third largest standing army, if I remember correctly, and something like 70% of India's new military hardware is manufactured in Russia, or in India under Russian license (like the T-90 tank).
That being said, I don't think they'd react with their own nuclear arsenals. But I'm also counting on seeing more than one more conventional war between India and Pakistan in my lifetime.
This is really one of the areas that is most likely to flare up into serious large scale conflict/nukes in the world. They have enough nukes to really do horrors upon their opponents but neither has enough for MAD so they might be stupid enough to actually do a limited nuclear exchange.
I actually don't think a nuclear showdown is likely--of course, we're both dealing in pure speculation--because of the fundamental nature of the historic conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India are not driven by some sort of philosophical resentment or incompatibility, like what a world-ending showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union would've been presumably. They are over specific historic grievances that began with the dismantling of Britain's Indian Empire up to 1947. The contested territories--like Jammu and Kashmir, most obviously--are physical places both countries want (and preferably, want intact). Their antagonisms are over contestable gains and losses (indeed, a major point for either side are the constant violation of borders by the enemy). The historic causes are the notions of Hindus chaffing under Muslim rule, and Muslims chaffing under Hindu rule, while the modern ones extend from that combined with the tendency that, even with a decisive victory (India in 1971 for example), neither side can completely vanquish the other.
Similarly, the "unintentional escalation" towards nuclear war--another doomsday American/Soviet scenario--seems unlikely too. Both sides maintain massive conventional forces (in the face of comparatively limited nuclear arsenals) that they can, and in all likelihood will, use again to resolve their disputes. Nuclear weapons are more of a political accessory whose effectiveness has largely been negated by parity (of course, that doesn't mean they're not dangerous, but the same region proved that they could kill millions without splitting the atom, just look at the East Bengal Famine--and people are worried about Pakistan potentially losing control over its arsenal amid a bad power shift).
It could still result in a catastrophic loss of human life, of course, but not what we'd think of as a limited nuclear exchange (as a matter of necessity--neither said currently has any active weapons, and probably no more than 250 warheads in storage, possibly less) triggering a global nuclear exchange.
Do you have a source for that? The Indian Agni missiles are solid-fueled Intermediate range ballistic missiles, which is something that only really gets built for delivery nuclear warheads, and they also have a ballistic missile sub, which doesn't really make much sense to have out and operating if you aren't going to have it already loaded with your second strike weapons.
My own head, but you bring up a valid point--the last source I'd read was several years ago (if not earlier), so the number could've changed since then.
In the area of ballistic missile submarines, I actually heard it was still undergoing trials (on the other hand, Wikipedia says it should've been commissioned in February of this year). I don't think it's carrying any active warheads, but I could definitely be wrong.
I'm still not expecting a nuclear exchange between the two republics before at least one more conventional war.
Also, no, throwing one lawyer (or even hundreds of lawyers) in jail is nothing compared to banning all (real) lawyers. There's 1.36B people in China. You give 1.35B of them the lawyers they want and just suppress the ones you really don't like. Bonus side-effect: The 1.35B people naturally assume that the lawyers you do send to prison MUST be really bad people, since you're not arresting their lawyers.
Well, I'm saying, they wouldn't have to throw those lawyers in jail in the first place if they picked and chose the cases where they really wanted the defendant to lose, and assigned sham defenders just for those. It's the clients they didn't like. Even in a tyranny, nothing says "show trial" like arresting the defendant's lawyers. No one I've talked to in China or out of it thinks the cases against the lawyers are real, even if they hated the dissidents.
I get why they punish dissidents. It sends a message to stop the dissidence. What's the endgame for punishing lawyers? What message are they trying to send? Don't defend people the government doesn't like? Someone's going to defend them, or else they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't do a good job? Then why didn't they just bar the good lawyers from the case and reassign someone they knew was going to do a bad job?
That's why they arrest the lawyers AFTER the trial, after MANY trials.
Dude, what is not to get about this? If you're a famous well-known dissident, you get the lawyer of your choosing; in fact, nothing inappropriate happens during the trial, except for the judgement, because you're a famous well-known dissident, and people are going to be watching very closely. We don't give you any reason to complain, any legitimate grievances to air as long as attention is focused on you.
Except AFTER you're put away, a few months later after all the attention has been drawn away, maybe even specifically timed to coincide with some big news-grabbing events, your lawyer joins you in prison, because your lawyer isn't famous and well-known, except for among other lawyers, and they're precisely the people we want to send a message to: stop defending dissidents or we'll come get you later.
It's not a binary between total sham and total justice. It's the exact same thing as bullshit investigations in the Western world. You don't just come out and say, "There is no corruption here, move along people!" because people will recognize it as bullshit and get angry. Instead, you say, "We're going to investigate it," and you do everything by the book to placate the masses, and then when they're no longer paying attention, you quietly sweep it all under the rug.
Edit: Specifically, re. your question of what's the endgame for punishing lawyers - no lawyers are willing to defend Ai Weiwei, and instead he has to self-represent. We'll also settle for no relatively well-known, well-connected, well-off lawyers being willing to defend him, especially ones with domestic media or international connections. He can have some fresh-out-of-law-school pup if he wants.
I don't think the kind of legitimate trial you describe usually happens. In high profile, publicized cases they have rejected all the defense's witnesses, barred lawyers from entering courtrooms, packed off defendants without letting them speak, denied access to evidence, and refused defendants access to their lawyers. Ai Weiwei's trial in 2012 was closed, held in secret.
What high profile case looked like the government was trying to make things look above board? They've all looked pretty bad. And again, the Chinese court system reported an 0.08% acquittal rate earlier this year. How legitimate does that look to even a casual observer? Isn't the theorized endgame going to look pretty goddamned bad when defendants regularly find that law firms are unwilling to represent them?
Also, I don't think any Chinese lawyers really have domestic media or international connections. No one talks directly to the BBC or the Times or anyone else, it's always their wives and family members waiting outside the courtroom for them. I feel like the explanations you provided are more theorycrafted than evidence-based. In practice the Chinese courts are not seen as very aboveboard and in the last year the Jinping administration has been clamping down everywhere.
I feel like the explanations you provided are more theorycrafted than evidence-based. In practice the Chinese courts are not seen as very aboveboard and in the last year the Jinping administration has been clamping down everywhere.
I would respond, but I'm a little busy eating moon cake right now.
To share something shameful about myself: I actually don't like mooncake--or at least, all the mooncake I've ever eaten since I was a child. But I also tend to avoid a lot of high-calorie foods.
Across the strait--or rather, several hundred kilometers to the southeast--an issue that is somewhat near and dear to me but I considered skipping until I saw how it made the general news feeds (rare for Taiwanese news*). The Ministry of National Defense in Taipei has asked Google Maps to obscure or otherwise blur updated photos of Taiping Island/Itu Aba Rock, specifically of newly completed structures, on its premium service. Their reasoning was that any structures built on the rock/island/floating controversy with potable water are of a military nature (whether operated by the ROC Navy or Coast Guard Forces) and their details are classified. Obviously, major governments have access to satellite photography in ways other than Google (and that is where Google Maps and competing services typically buy their satellite data, as far as I know), but the facilities are also supposed to be classified from civilians, including people who are actually paying money for Google Maps. While it'd be very easy to dismissively say, "Yeah, well the photos are already out there, so what's the point? Get over it," that somewhat ignores the reality that the MND is upset by the future updated photography as well (and government bodies do regularly ask Google Maps to blur things out, with mixed success).
Aside from this little bit of fuss, I do find the implications interesting. Classified nature aside, amateur speculation has suggested the largish tower-structures (they're at least two stories tall, sometimes suggested to be four stories) are not wave breaks, but new antiaircraft artillery towers (I've also heard the idea of them housing the Bofors 40 mm L/60), or perhaps some sort of surface-to-air missile (less likely) or early warning radar site. Whatever the case, it's another piece on the increasingly giant pile of evidence that suggests the Taiwanese government will, in fact, be a total bummer to its neighbors and possibly the rest of the Free World and not promptly abandon the largest of the Hague-designated rocks in the Spratleys like they would if they were totally cool, but continue to harsh their buzz.
Here's a rip of the Google Map image.
*If I haven't mentioned it before, I hate American gridiron footballer Taiwan Jones (or perhaps more specifically, his parents or whoever gave him the name). I'm sure he's an upstanding citizen and a skilled athlete, but every time he appears in my English news aggregate, I die a little inside.
To share something shameful about myself: I actually don't like mooncake--or at least, all the mooncake I've ever eaten since I was a child. But I also tend to avoid a lot of high-calorie foods.
I was eating a non-traditional mooncake, which had a salted duck egg yolk custard. (God, that is a long-ass description.) It was delicious.
All gone now though. Just the traditional stuff left. Two yolks though.
0
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
edited September 2016
India conducted what they call "surgical strikes" in Kashmir. Right now it's a bunch of claims and counter-claims about what actually happened, but the sabers are all rattling and there are reports of Pakistani officials calling for nuclear strikes against India in retaliation. Yeah. Neither side is wanting to back down and the rhetoric is getting hotter and hotter.
Mayabird on
0
Options
WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
I'm not sure what kinds of line we crossed, or how many, but I'm preeeetty sure we just crossed something.
I voted against this guy. I'm not sure if there's anything I, as an individual, can do. This is so goddang depressing.
I read an article on this earlier and was stunned.
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," Duterte said, pausing and pointing to himself.
Hitler massacred three million Jews... Now there is three million, there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.
Whut. How did this man become your head of state. I sorta laughed at him calling Obama a "son of a whore" and telling the EU "fuck you," but at this point I can't even find humor in his absurd statements.
Kaputa on
+5
Options
WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
I voted against this guy. I'm not sure if there's anything I, as an individual, can do. This is so goddang depressing.
I read an article on this earlier and was stunned.
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," Duterte said, pausing and pointing to himself.
Hitler massacred three million Jews... Now there is three million, there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.
Whut. How did this man become your head of state. I sorta laughed at him calling Obama a "son of a whore" and telling the EU "fuck you," but at this point I can't even find humor in his absurd statements.
I'm no expert in our local political scene, but as far as I interpret it, here are some factors why he won:
There were five of them running for presidency.
Of his opponents, one got buried under a shit ton of corruption allegations (some of which were actually true);
The other one had major image issues (not down-to-earth, bit of a classist and a blowhard, that sorta thing), not to mention he was the then-current administration's bet. At that time, the Aquino administration was pretty low on the public satisfaction rating;
The third one was perceived to be good, but her bout with late-stage cancer pretty much turned off people. (She died yesterday);
The fourth one was, like him, trying for a populist (but way nicer) image, but people were wary of her inexperience.
There also was some level of resentment and dissatisfaction with what the people saw as a government for the rich and the oligarchs; Duterte capitalised on it by presenting himself as "one of us"... mainly by talking like a drunken uncle.
People flocked to his tough guy image, because he touted his firm governance of his city as the main reason it's so peaceful and progressive. The Davao Death Squads were dismissed as just rumors.
People here get drawn easily to promises of a quick solution to our problems, plus there's the undercurrent of "If it's not happening to me I don't care" mentality that everyone, to some extent, is guilty of. (Frankly, I realize I can be guilty of this as well)
Note that he only won with a plurality of 39ish%; it basically means that about 60% of the voting public still did not vote for him.
The local social media is getting very toxic here. People from both sides are trying to make it into a "them-versus-us" scenario, and become increasingly hostile to anyone not sharing their views.
I voted against this guy. I'm not sure if there's anything I, as an individual, can do. This is so goddang depressing.
I read an article on this earlier and was stunned.
"If Germany had Hitler, the Philippines would have...," Duterte said, pausing and pointing to himself.
Hitler massacred three million Jews... Now there is three million, there’s three million drug addicts. There are. I’d be happy to slaughter them.
Whut. How did this man become your head of state. I sorta laughed at him calling Obama a "son of a whore" and telling the EU "fuck you," but at this point I can't even find humor in his absurd statements.
I'm no expert in our local political scene, but as far as I interpret it, here are some factors why he won:
There were five of them running for presidency.
Of his opponents, one got buried under a shit ton of corruption allegations (some of which were actually true);
The other one had major image issues (not down-to-earth, bit of a classist and a blowhard, that sorta thing), not to mention he was the then-current administration's bet. At that time, the Aquino administration was pretty low on the public satisfaction rating;
The third one was perceived to be good, but her bout with late-stage cancer pretty much turned off people. (She died yesterday);
The fourth one was, like him, trying for a populist (but way nicer) image, but people were wary of her inexperience.
There also was some level of resentment and dissatisfaction with what the people saw as a government for the rich and the oligarchs; Duterte capitalised on it by presenting himself as "one of us"... mainly by talking like a drunken uncle.
People flocked to his tough guy image, because he touted his firm governance of his city as the main reason it's so peaceful and progressive. The Davao Death Squads were dismissed as just rumors.
People here get drawn easily to promises of a quick solution to our problems, plus there's the undercurrent of "If it's not happening to me I don't care" mentality that everyone, to some extent, is guilty of. (Frankly, I realize I can be guilty of this as well)
Note that he only won with a plurality of 39ish%; it basically means that about 60% of the voting public still did not vote for him.
The local social media is getting very toxic here. People from both sides are trying to make it into a "them-versus-us" scenario, and become increasingly hostile to anyone not sharing their views.
The connections between Trump and Duterte are innumerable.
Also how is the latter's name supposed to be pronounced? I keep saying it as Dew-twer-tay.
Do-tear-te
Man, it's so depressing when the president does all these kinds of things and says all these kinds of stuff, and people go out of their way to defend them. My previous and current workplaces are mostly pro-Duterte and it's just frustrating. Drug users and criminals have effectively been dehumanized, and people just don't care what happens to them. Not to mention the fact that the death penalty is suspended in the Philippines for more than a decade now - rendering Duterte's plan to kill all the drug users illegal. But apparently it's ok since their criminals, they should've known better, it's the only way to achieve peace, blah blah blah - even when you point out that countries that have implemented a similar "drug war" have never actually solved the drug problem! Any reasoned argument is labeled as "biased," "yellow" (pertaining to supporting the previous admin whose primary color is yellow), even when you also were critical of the previous admin.
The current officials that are allies with the previous admin are also being targeted by Duterte. Leila De Lima, a female senator who is from the same party as the previous admin, is one of Duterte's most high profile detractors and has launched a senate investigation regarding the extra-judicial killings. What happened to her?
She was removed as head of the Senate Justice committee by Duterte's allies, and then was accused by Duterte of supporting drug lords, and had drug lords that are currently in prison testify against her in exchange for leniency (apparently he's not so tough against drug lords as long as he gets what he wants).
He also revealed that De Lima has been having an affair with her driver in order to further discredit her (ignoring the fact that he himself has no wife but many mistresses).
But in the course of the discussion, the lawmakers also mocked and laughed at the supposed De Lima sex video.
“If it were pleasing to the eyes, okay. If not, then don’t show it,” Suarez said in Filipino.
Atienza added he has seen the video. “You’re lucky if you haven’t seen it,” he said as the room burst into laughter.
“It’s scary. President Duterte’s reaction is right. You will lose your appetite,” Atienza said. “The performers were ugly.”
Suarez said he saw the video only last Tuesday. “The partner was good,” he said.
A young female reporter pursued the question: “On phallic domination, do we really need to show a sex video of Senator De Lima who is a woman just to show her relationship with her driver? Isn’t that a form of slut shaming?”
The room went silent, before Suarez said: “Meron bang ganun (Is there such a thing)?”
The political situation here in the Philippines is just shit.
He's also declared the next US/Philippines joint exercises to be the last. :-/ I'm over here right now with my (now) wife, visiting the family.
Jesus.
This man is terrible and going to destabilize the region. Is he just going to shoot the Chinese? Sign over the South China Sea? Try to invade them? What the fuck is wrong with him?
I knew his election was bad. But this is beyond any of my predictions.
I'm really curious how Duterte plans to deal with China and whether or not he'll move from a US alliance to a Sino one. It's concerning if he does, but I'm also not sure if the Philippine people are willing to forego their US alliance so willingly.
I'm really curious how Duterte plans to deal with China and whether or not he'll move from a US alliance to a Sino one. It's concerning if he does, but I'm also not sure if the Philippine people are willing to forego their US alliance so willingly.
It's just nonsense, China is literally ignoring our sovereignty and claiming our territories as theirs, even when they already lost in international court. All the US did is criticize duterte's on going drug war. But apparently, for duterte, being insulted is a greater sin than actual foreign takeover. Most Filipinos actually like the US (there are a lot of Filipinos with relatives in the US, and cultural osmosis), and hate China (our fishermen are unable to do their jobs cause of the Chinese presence in the South China Sea near the Philippines).
One of the talking points during the election early this year was actually how the presidential candidates would handle the territorial dispute with China, and duterte portrayed himself as being tough against them. Hell, during one of the debates, duterte literally answered that he would ride a speedboat carrying the Philippine flag towards the disputed territory and then plant it there in front of China, and if China tries to kill him at least he will be a hero. Now he's talking about having better relations with them. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to having better relations with China, however he's just being extremely stupid in how he does it.
If you couldn't tell, I really fucking hate Duterte.
I'm really curious how Duterte plans to deal with China and whether or not he'll move from a US alliance to a Sino one. It's concerning if he does, but I'm also not sure if the Philippine people are willing to forego their US alliance so willingly.
It's just nonsense, China is literally ignoring our sovereignty and claiming our territories as theirs, even when they already lost in international court. All the US did is criticize duterte's on going drug war. But apparently, for duterte, being insulted is a greater sin than actual foreign takeover. Most Filipinos actually like the US (there are a lot of Filipinos with relatives in the US, and cultural osmosis), and hate China (our fishermen are unable to do their jobs cause of the Chinese presence in the South China Sea near the Philippines).
One of the talking points during the election early this year was actually how the presidential candidates would handle the territorial dispute with China, and duterte portrayed himself as being tough against them. Hell, during one of the debates, duterte literally answered that he would ride a speedboat carrying the Philippine flag towards the disputed territory and then plant it there in front of China, and if China tries to kill him at least he will be a hero. Now he's talking about having better relations with them. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to having better relations with China, however he's just being extremely stupid in how he does it.
If you couldn't tell, I really fucking hate Duterte.
I'm sure once Trump is elected, Duterte and Trump will realise they're actually soul-brothers, and US-Filipino relations will be the best ever.
That or one of them will insult the other, and the US will nuke the Philippines out of vengeful spite. One or the other. Hard to say.
When are the next elections? Will his presidency last long enough to make any impact on US-China relations in the region?
In the Philippines, presidents are limited to one 6-year term. So we're stuck with duterte until 2022, unless he gets impeached (probably not gonna happen) or declares martial law and prolongs his presidency indefinitely (actually possible)
PSN: jrrl_absent
0
Options
WearingglassesOf the friendly neighborhood varietyRegistered Userregular
When are the next elections? Will his presidency last long enough to make any impact on US-China relations in the region?
In the Philippines, presidents are limited to one 6-year term. So we're stuck with duterte until 2022, unless he gets impeached (probably not gonna happen) or declares martial law and prolongs his presidency indefinitely (actually possible)
Normally, I'd say that Filipinos have a strong aversion to anything "Martial Law" and that won't fly, but with the Kool-aid the rabid Duterte supporters are drinking, I'm not so sure now.
When are the next elections? Will his presidency last long enough to make any impact on US-China relations in the region?
In the Philippines, presidents are limited to one 6-year term. So we're stuck with duterte until 2022, unless he gets impeached (probably not gonna happen) or declares martial law and prolongs his presidency indefinitely (actually possible)
Normally, I'd say that Filipinos have a strong aversion to anything "Martial Law" and that won't fly, but with the Kool-aid the rabid Duterte supporters are drinking, I'm not so sure now.
Could this be a potential Venezuela situation? Duterte already started going after his political rivals to cement his power.
When are the next elections? Will his presidency last long enough to make any impact on US-China relations in the region?
In the Philippines, presidents are limited to one 6-year term. So we're stuck with duterte until 2022, unless he gets impeached (probably not gonna happen) or declares martial law and prolongs his presidency indefinitely (actually possible)
Normally, I'd say that Filipinos have a strong aversion to anything "Martial Law" and that won't fly, but with the Kool-aid the rabid Duterte supporters are drinking, I'm not so sure now.
Could this be a potential Venezuela situation? Duterte already started going after his political rivals to cement his power.
Probably not within two, three years. Depends on whether the saner Senators migrate to his side to profit, or try to oust/oppose him get brownie points with businessmen. Or die.
I seem to remember that the Philippines had an issue of 'brain drain' where people were emigrating to get a better job, and a good chunk were women. Has Duerte or previous leaders done anything to fix this?
I seem to remember that the Philippines had an issue of 'brain drain' where people were emigrating to get a better job, and a good chunk were women. Has Duerte or previous leaders done anything to fix this?
Not really... there aren't enough jobs in the city that can support extended households, so a lot of people resort to overseas jobs. Nobody seems to think of this as a problem enough to make a fuss about, especially since overseas workers' remittances actually make a good chunk of the Philippines' GDP (10%).
I seem to remember that the Philippines had an issue of 'brain drain' where people were emigrating to get a better job, and a good chunk were women. Has Duerte or previous leaders done anything to fix this?
Not really... there aren't enough jobs in the city that can support extended households, so a lot of people resort to overseas jobs. Nobody seems to think of this as a problem enough to make a fuss about, especially since overseas workers' remittances actually make a good chunk of the Philippines' GDP (10%).
Do they vote?
There's a pretty large Filipino-Canadian population now. Apparently the Phillipines is Canada's #1 origin for immigrants now. Likely up near ~1M Filipinos in Canada now, though the last hard numbers were from 2011.
I seem to remember that the Philippines had an issue of 'brain drain' where people were emigrating to get a better job, and a good chunk were women. Has Duerte or previous leaders done anything to fix this?
Not really... there aren't enough jobs in the city that can support extended households, so a lot of people resort to overseas jobs. Nobody seems to think of this as a problem enough to make a fuss about, especially since overseas workers' remittances actually make a good chunk of the Philippines' GDP (10%).
If I'm not mistaken, it's a common regional issue--you see similar phenomenons in Indonesia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent Vietnam (it's possible the Vietnamese government is savvier when pursuing lucrative foreign business investment that sometimes mitigates this sort of thing).
I seem to remember that the Philippines had an issue of 'brain drain' where people were emigrating to get a better job, and a good chunk were women. Has Duerte or previous leaders done anything to fix this?
Not really... there aren't enough jobs in the city that can support extended households, so a lot of people resort to overseas jobs. Nobody seems to think of this as a problem enough to make a fuss about, especially since overseas workers' remittances actually make a good chunk of the Philippines' GDP (10%).
If I'm not mistaken, it's a common regional issue--you see similar phenomenons in Indonesia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent Vietnam (it's possible the Vietnamese government is savvier when pursuing lucrative foreign business investment that sometimes mitigates this sort of thing).
Not surprising. Delaware is basically a corporate dystopia. Lax laws and tons of corporate HQs. My dad worked for Dupont, so I had the pleasure to take a bunch of trips to the state growing up.You could have filmed a cyberpunk series in Wilmington with very little set dressing.
Formosa Plastics is sort of emblematic of our history, a perfect slice of postcolonial Taiwan, which until 20 years ago, was entirely characterized by decades of a hardcore neoclassical capitalist dictatorship. You don't have decades of capitalism like that without a fundamental rot in the framework of country that we're still dealing with, even after the radical transformation of society.
It was founded in the 1950s via a loan from the United States--and now it's the fifth largest chemical company in the world, and one of the largest Taiwanese companies. One of the few good things to come from the decades of the Kuomintang's pursuit of a right-wing utopia was that it made Taiwan one of the merchantilist nations on Earth, and that's still true. Taiwan was never nearly large or wealthy enough to imitate the United States and drive economic growth through internal consumption and investment, and it was too big to become a banking state (most of those don't have the remnants of giant World War-era armies lingering around either). In the simplest sense, the Taiwanese economy became about clearly defined industrial production sold to other countries for hard currency. In a poor island drained by the Japanese war in the Pacific, blasted into rubble by American bombers and then squashed underneath the boot of Chinese Nationalist military-state, you don't make money by selling imaginary futures or interest payments. You make it by making crap for very cheap, selling it abroad, and hoarding all that money to spend on more ways to make crap other countries want. The average Eastern European had more firsthand experience with computers than the average Taiwanese, but that didn't stop us from deciding we'd manufacture computer chips for the rest of the world. Those profits don't go to higher wages or lower taxes--it's more cost-efficient to simply ensure food and the other things people spend money on stay cheap--they go back into the economic machine.
It's worked pretty well in many cases. During the great recession, when the Taiwanese economy contracted, the country was both effected less harshly (thanks to a spike in government spending in part, and climbing trade with China) and recovered much faster. For a few years I seriously considered returning myself simply because job prospects were so much stronger than where I lived in the United States (hence why I did my conscription at that time).
That's my (possibly completely incorrect) understanding of the economics. I'm sure this gave us TSMC, the largest semiconductor producer in the world. It also gave us Formosa Plastics a few decades before it. It's the sort of company that basically acted with complete immunity for decades before the late 1980s and actual laws were applied to its domestic behavior--overseas, the government didn't care how it behaved until it became a embarrassment. Since then, Formosa has bribed official in Cambodia to allow it to dump thousands of tons of mercury-laden waste (leading to local deaths), had multiple small explosions of its plants in the US, tried to bribe and cover-up the cancerous nature of pollutants, and paid out a half-billion US to Vietnamese people effected by the massive fish kill-off from its dumping (probably under threat of the Vietnamese government, who'd finally had enough).
Fun fact: my hometown is home to the largest coal fire plant in the world. By itself it probably produces carbon dioxide output comparable to the entire country of Switzerland.
Posts
I'm... not using it as an example of such? I'm pointing out that even shams have to be believeable, or there's no point to them.
Also, no, throwing one lawyer (or even hundreds of lawyers) in jail is nothing compared to banning all (real) lawyers. There's 1.36B people in China. You give 1.35B of them the lawyers they want and just suppress the ones you really don't like. Bonus side-effect: The 1.35B people naturally assume that the lawyers you do send to prison MUST be really bad people, since you're not arresting their lawyers.
I don't know man. I feel like this is basic autocracy 101: you don't actually have the ability to suppress everybody if they really wanted to rise up against you, so you pick your battles, divide and conquer, make some people grateful for the rights you extend them even as you forcefully squash them for others. If you don't get it... I don't know what I could tell you that you couldn't learn just from examining the history of autocratic governments. (Hell, arguably, it's basic governance 101. This sorta thing isn't exactly limited to just autocracies.)
Complaining? No. It's terrible and they suck. I'm wondering why it's not shammier, because it seems like they manage most other aspects of governance more smoothly.
Well, I'm saying, they wouldn't have to throw those lawyers in jail in the first place if they picked and chose the cases where they really wanted the defendant to lose, and assigned sham defenders just for those. It's the clients they didn't like. Even in a tyranny, nothing says "show trial" like arresting the defendant's lawyers. No one I've talked to in China or out of it thinks the cases against the lawyers are real, even if they hated the dissidents.
I get why they punish dissidents. It sends a message to stop the dissidence. What's the endgame for punishing lawyers? What message are they trying to send? Don't defend people the government doesn't like? Someone's going to defend them, or else they wouldn't be having this problem. Don't do a good job? Then why didn't they just bar the good lawyers from the case and reassign someone they knew was going to do a bad job?
Yeah, and they can do that with sham trials and sham lawyers. Or they can do that with just judges and their not-really-trial-by-jury system, whose conviction rate fell to "just" 99.92% earlier this year. I just don't see where attacking your own judicial system figures into the autocratic method.
That's kind of believable, it's just strange that they just let it keep going on. I've read that there's a historical gap between the national party and local governments, where a lot of the thuggery comes from the local governments, but this has been going on regularly for decades. It seems like something that they'd decide one way or the other, even if they only apply it in highly publicized cases.
That's why they arrest the lawyers AFTER the trial, after MANY trials.
Dude, what is not to get about this? If you're a famous well-known dissident, you get the lawyer of your choosing; in fact, nothing inappropriate happens during the trial, except for the judgement, because you're a famous well-known dissident, and people are going to be watching very closely. We don't give you any reason to complain, any legitimate grievances to air as long as attention is focused on you.
Except AFTER you're put away, a few months later after all the attention has been drawn away, maybe even specifically timed to coincide with some big news-grabbing events, your lawyer joins you in prison, because your lawyer isn't famous and well-known, except for among other lawyers, and they're precisely the people we want to send a message to: stop defending dissidents or we'll come get you later.
It's not a binary between total sham and total justice. It's the exact same thing as bullshit investigations in the Western world. You don't just come out and say, "There is no corruption here, move along people!" because people will recognize it as bullshit and get angry. Instead, you say, "We're going to investigate it," and you do everything by the book to placate the masses, and then when they're no longer paying attention, you quietly sweep it all under the rug.
Edit: Specifically, re. your question of what's the endgame for punishing lawyers - no lawyers are willing to defend Ai Weiwei, and instead he has to self-represent. We'll also settle for no relatively well-known, well-connected, well-off lawyers being willing to defend him, especially ones with domestic media or international connections. He can have some fresh-out-of-law-school pup if he wants.
I actually don't think a nuclear showdown is likely--of course, we're both dealing in pure speculation--because of the fundamental nature of the historic conflict. The wars between Pakistan and India are not driven by some sort of philosophical resentment or incompatibility, like what a world-ending showdown between the United States and the Soviet Union would've been presumably. They are over specific historic grievances that began with the dismantling of Britain's Indian Empire up to 1947. The contested territories--like Jammu and Kashmir, most obviously--are physical places both countries want (and preferably, want intact). Their antagonisms are over contestable gains and losses (indeed, a major point for either side are the constant violation of borders by the enemy). The historic causes are the notions of Hindus chaffing under Muslim rule, and Muslims chaffing under Hindu rule, while the modern ones extend from that combined with the tendency that, even with a decisive victory (India in 1971 for example), neither side can completely vanquish the other.
Similarly, the "unintentional escalation" towards nuclear war--another doomsday American/Soviet scenario--seems unlikely too. Both sides maintain massive conventional forces (in the face of comparatively limited nuclear arsenals) that they can, and in all likelihood will, use again to resolve their disputes. Nuclear weapons are more of a political accessory whose effectiveness has largely been negated by parity (of course, that doesn't mean they're not dangerous, but the same region proved that they could kill millions without splitting the atom, just look at the East Bengal Famine--and people are worried about Pakistan potentially losing control over its arsenal amid a bad power shift).
It could still result in a catastrophic loss of human life, of course, but not what we'd think of as a limited nuclear exchange (as a matter of necessity--neither said currently has any active weapons, and probably no more than 250 warheads in storage, possibly less) triggering a global nuclear exchange.
Do you have a source for that? The Indian Agni missiles are solid-fueled Intermediate range ballistic missiles, which is something that only really gets built for delivery nuclear warheads, and they also have a ballistic missile sub, which doesn't really make much sense to have out and operating if you aren't going to have it already loaded with your second strike weapons.
My own head, but you bring up a valid point--the last source I'd read was several years ago (if not earlier), so the number could've changed since then.
In the area of ballistic missile submarines, I actually heard it was still undergoing trials (on the other hand, Wikipedia says it should've been commissioned in February of this year). I don't think it's carrying any active warheads, but I could definitely be wrong.
I'm still not expecting a nuclear exchange between the two republics before at least one more conventional war.
I don't think the kind of legitimate trial you describe usually happens. In high profile, publicized cases they have rejected all the defense's witnesses, barred lawyers from entering courtrooms, packed off defendants without letting them speak, denied access to evidence, and refused defendants access to their lawyers. Ai Weiwei's trial in 2012 was closed, held in secret.
Other citations:
https://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/china0408/9.htm
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1409752-5-ways-political-court-cases-are-intentionally-sabotaged-in-china/
https://chinachange.org/tag/arbitrary-detention/
What high profile case looked like the government was trying to make things look above board? They've all looked pretty bad. And again, the Chinese court system reported an 0.08% acquittal rate earlier this year. How legitimate does that look to even a casual observer? Isn't the theorized endgame going to look pretty goddamned bad when defendants regularly find that law firms are unwilling to represent them?
Also, I don't think any Chinese lawyers really have domestic media or international connections. No one talks directly to the BBC or the Times or anyone else, it's always their wives and family members waiting outside the courtroom for them. I feel like the explanations you provided are more theorycrafted than evidence-based. In practice the Chinese courts are not seen as very aboveboard and in the last year the Jinping administration has been clamping down everywhere.
I would respond, but I'm a little busy eating moon cake right now.
Across the strait--or rather, several hundred kilometers to the southeast--an issue that is somewhat near and dear to me but I considered skipping until I saw how it made the general news feeds (rare for Taiwanese news*). The Ministry of National Defense in Taipei has asked Google Maps to obscure or otherwise blur updated photos of Taiping Island/Itu Aba Rock, specifically of newly completed structures, on its premium service. Their reasoning was that any structures built on the rock/island/floating controversy with potable water are of a military nature (whether operated by the ROC Navy or Coast Guard Forces) and their details are classified. Obviously, major governments have access to satellite photography in ways other than Google (and that is where Google Maps and competing services typically buy their satellite data, as far as I know), but the facilities are also supposed to be classified from civilians, including people who are actually paying money for Google Maps. While it'd be very easy to dismissively say, "Yeah, well the photos are already out there, so what's the point? Get over it," that somewhat ignores the reality that the MND is upset by the future updated photography as well (and government bodies do regularly ask Google Maps to blur things out, with mixed success).
Aside from this little bit of fuss, I do find the implications interesting. Classified nature aside, amateur speculation has suggested the largish tower-structures (they're at least two stories tall, sometimes suggested to be four stories) are not wave breaks, but new antiaircraft artillery towers (I've also heard the idea of them housing the Bofors 40 mm L/60), or perhaps some sort of surface-to-air missile (less likely) or early warning radar site. Whatever the case, it's another piece on the increasingly giant pile of evidence that suggests the Taiwanese government will, in fact, be a total bummer to its neighbors and possibly the rest of the Free World and not promptly abandon the largest of the Hague-designated rocks in the Spratleys like they would if they were totally cool, but continue to harsh their buzz.
Here's a rip of the Google Map image.
*If I haven't mentioned it before, I hate American gridiron footballer Taiwan Jones (or perhaps more specifically, his parents or whoever gave him the name). I'm sure he's an upstanding citizen and a skilled athlete, but every time he appears in my English news aggregate, I die a little inside.
I was eating a non-traditional mooncake, which had a salted duck egg yolk custard. (God, that is a long-ass description.) It was delicious.
All gone now though. Just the traditional stuff left. Two yolks though.
Great Leader Duterte willing to unleash a Hitler on PHL criminals.
I voted against this guy. I'm not sure if there's anything I, as an individual, can do. This is so goddang depressing.
Whut. How did this man become your head of state. I sorta laughed at him calling Obama a "son of a whore" and telling the EU "fuck you," but at this point I can't even find humor in his absurd statements.
I'm no expert in our local political scene, but as far as I interpret it, here are some factors why he won:
The local social media is getting very toxic here. People from both sides are trying to make it into a "them-versus-us" scenario, and become increasingly hostile to anyone not sharing their views.
Sounds like Trump.
Also how is the latter's name supposed to be pronounced? I keep saying it as Dew-twer-tay.
http://cnnphilippines.com/news/2016/09/29/Duterte-last-US-joint-military-exercise.html
He's also declared the next US/Philippines joint exercises to be the last. :-/ I'm over here right now with my (now) wife, visiting the family.
Do-tear-te
Man, it's so depressing when the president does all these kinds of things and says all these kinds of stuff, and people go out of their way to defend them. My previous and current workplaces are mostly pro-Duterte and it's just frustrating. Drug users and criminals have effectively been dehumanized, and people just don't care what happens to them. Not to mention the fact that the death penalty is suspended in the Philippines for more than a decade now - rendering Duterte's plan to kill all the drug users illegal. But apparently it's ok since their criminals, they should've known better, it's the only way to achieve peace, blah blah blah - even when you point out that countries that have implemented a similar "drug war" have never actually solved the drug problem! Any reasoned argument is labeled as "biased," "yellow" (pertaining to supporting the previous admin whose primary color is yellow), even when you also were critical of the previous admin.
The current officials that are allies with the previous admin are also being targeted by Duterte. Leila De Lima, a female senator who is from the same party as the previous admin, is one of Duterte's most high profile detractors and has launched a senate investigation regarding the extra-judicial killings. What happened to her?
Here's a particularly galling quote from that article:
The political situation here in the Philippines is just shit.
PSN: jrrl_absent
Jesus.
This man is terrible and going to destabilize the region. Is he just going to shoot the Chinese? Sign over the South China Sea? Try to invade them? What the fuck is wrong with him?
I knew his election was bad. But this is beyond any of my predictions.
It's just nonsense, China is literally ignoring our sovereignty and claiming our territories as theirs, even when they already lost in international court. All the US did is criticize duterte's on going drug war. But apparently, for duterte, being insulted is a greater sin than actual foreign takeover. Most Filipinos actually like the US (there are a lot of Filipinos with relatives in the US, and cultural osmosis), and hate China (our fishermen are unable to do their jobs cause of the Chinese presence in the South China Sea near the Philippines).
One of the talking points during the election early this year was actually how the presidential candidates would handle the territorial dispute with China, and duterte portrayed himself as being tough against them. Hell, during one of the debates, duterte literally answered that he would ride a speedboat carrying the Philippine flag towards the disputed territory and then plant it there in front of China, and if China tries to kill him at least he will be a hero. Now he's talking about having better relations with them. Now, I'm not entirely opposed to having better relations with China, however he's just being extremely stupid in how he does it.
If you couldn't tell, I really fucking hate Duterte.
PSN: jrrl_absent
I'm sure once Trump is elected, Duterte and Trump will realise they're actually soul-brothers, and US-Filipino relations will be the best ever.
That or one of them will insult the other, and the US will nuke the Philippines out of vengeful spite. One or the other. Hard to say.
Really sucks that Duterte feels the need to be such a petulant child about his role as president.
We will just buddy up to Vietnam.
Philippines are in an extremely important location for trade though. Still dude seems to be suiciding right into the Chinese.
In the Philippines, presidents are limited to one 6-year term. So we're stuck with duterte until 2022, unless he gets impeached (probably not gonna happen) or declares martial law and prolongs his presidency indefinitely (actually possible)
PSN: jrrl_absent
Normally, I'd say that Filipinos have a strong aversion to anything "Martial Law" and that won't fly, but with the Kool-aid the rabid Duterte supporters are drinking, I'm not so sure now.
Could this be a potential Venezuela situation? Duterte already started going after his political rivals to cement his power.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-37516098
Probably not within two, three years. Depends on whether the saner Senators migrate to his side to profit, or try to oust/oppose him get brownie points with businessmen. Or die.
WoW
Dear Satan.....
Not really... there aren't enough jobs in the city that can support extended households, so a lot of people resort to overseas jobs. Nobody seems to think of this as a problem enough to make a fuss about, especially since overseas workers' remittances actually make a good chunk of the Philippines' GDP (10%).
Do they vote?
There's a pretty large Filipino-Canadian population now. Apparently the Phillipines is Canada's #1 origin for immigrants now. Likely up near ~1M Filipinos in Canada now, though the last hard numbers were from 2011.
If I'm not mistaken, it's a common regional issue--you see similar phenomenons in Indonesia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent Vietnam (it's possible the Vietnamese government is savvier when pursuing lucrative foreign business investment that sometimes mitigates this sort of thing).
Vaguely related--the shitstorm with Hollywood-Evil-Corporation-In-Real-Life Formosa Plastics continue into another month, with thousands of protesters demanding the government force the Taiwanese corporation to compensate for the catastrophic damage done to environment and the fishing industry for its illegal dumping. Formosa Plastics is in trouble in Taiwan (and elsewhere) for failing to meet regulatory statutes on the coal-fire power plants it operates to power a textile clothing factory in central Taiwan on sulfur content of emissions. Apparently they're also causing problems in Delaware in the United States.
Not surprising. Delaware is basically a corporate dystopia. Lax laws and tons of corporate HQs. My dad worked for Dupont, so I had the pleasure to take a bunch of trips to the state growing up.You could have filmed a cyberpunk series in Wilmington with very little set dressing.
It was founded in the 1950s via a loan from the United States--and now it's the fifth largest chemical company in the world, and one of the largest Taiwanese companies. One of the few good things to come from the decades of the Kuomintang's pursuit of a right-wing utopia was that it made Taiwan one of the merchantilist nations on Earth, and that's still true. Taiwan was never nearly large or wealthy enough to imitate the United States and drive economic growth through internal consumption and investment, and it was too big to become a banking state (most of those don't have the remnants of giant World War-era armies lingering around either). In the simplest sense, the Taiwanese economy became about clearly defined industrial production sold to other countries for hard currency. In a poor island drained by the Japanese war in the Pacific, blasted into rubble by American bombers and then squashed underneath the boot of Chinese Nationalist military-state, you don't make money by selling imaginary futures or interest payments. You make it by making crap for very cheap, selling it abroad, and hoarding all that money to spend on more ways to make crap other countries want. The average Eastern European had more firsthand experience with computers than the average Taiwanese, but that didn't stop us from deciding we'd manufacture computer chips for the rest of the world. Those profits don't go to higher wages or lower taxes--it's more cost-efficient to simply ensure food and the other things people spend money on stay cheap--they go back into the economic machine.
It's worked pretty well in many cases. During the great recession, when the Taiwanese economy contracted, the country was both effected less harshly (thanks to a spike in government spending in part, and climbing trade with China) and recovered much faster. For a few years I seriously considered returning myself simply because job prospects were so much stronger than where I lived in the United States (hence why I did my conscription at that time).
That's my (possibly completely incorrect) understanding of the economics. I'm sure this gave us TSMC, the largest semiconductor producer in the world. It also gave us Formosa Plastics a few decades before it. It's the sort of company that basically acted with complete immunity for decades before the late 1980s and actual laws were applied to its domestic behavior--overseas, the government didn't care how it behaved until it became a embarrassment. Since then, Formosa has bribed official in Cambodia to allow it to dump thousands of tons of mercury-laden waste (leading to local deaths), had multiple small explosions of its plants in the US, tried to bribe and cover-up the cancerous nature of pollutants, and paid out a half-billion US to Vietnamese people effected by the massive fish kill-off from its dumping (probably under threat of the Vietnamese government, who'd finally had enough).
Fun fact: my hometown is home to the largest coal fire plant in the world. By itself it probably produces carbon dioxide output comparable to the entire country of Switzerland.