The article about local "newsmaker" Father Jan van Aert of the Catholic Church and St. Anne's Home in Tianmu, was very insightful ("Dutch father surprised by Chen's invitation to the Pope's funeral," April 16, page 2).
The Dutch clergyman and longtime Taiwan resident was invited to go to Rome with President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) to attend the Pope's funeral, and what does he do upon returning to these shores? After Chen lauds Father van Aert in public at a press conference as an "unknown hero who promotes the power of reconciliation and faith in peace," the clergyman a few days later tells a reporter, explaining his religious faith: "I pity people who do not know [Jesus]. They have little comfort in their sufferings."
So van Aert presumably "pities" Chen and most of the people in Taiwan -- about 90 percent of the 23 million people who live here who are Buddhists or Taoists -- because they do not know Jesus? And this comes from the mouth of a "hero who promotes the power of reconciliation and faith in peace?"
Van Aert says he "pities" non-Christians. It's rather strange and sad when Western missionaries still say, in public, that they look down upon and feel sorrow -- "pity," even -- for the people they have come to "save" here in Taiwan.
So the good father pities the man who had the kindness to invite him on his airplane to go to Rome as a hero of reconciliation. Nice touch, sir.
Dan Bloom
Chiayi
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS