As far as political sentiment and support for Taiwan go, I am fully in accord with Jerome Keating ("China must learn from Taiwan's democracy," May 9, page 8). However, it seems to me he ignores some of the realities in order to present an over-simplification unworthy of him or the situation.
First, his constant use of "Taiwan versus China" rhetoric would cause an uninformed reader to believe that this was a united nation struggling against a foreign oppressor. Of course Taiwan is not at all united, as the recent visits of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and his People First Party counterpart James Soong (宋楚瑜) show.
These men are patently willing to become part of China, as are their people. They are self-evidently not democrats, tainted as they are by their collaboration with the former dictatorship, and it must be assumed that those who follow in their train would similarly "use" rather than "practice" democracy. Is this what they have to teach China? Democratic advances have been made by a minority of KMT members and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), and I wish China would learn from them, but this is not the whole story.
As for the "rule of law," regulations about motorcycle helmets and garbage disposal are obeyed because they are enforced. Unenforced laws are not obeyed, in any country, and there are plenty of unenforced laws in Taiwan. Helmet regulations? How about traffic regulations? Canvass many of the Filipino, Thai and Indonesian indentured laborers and ask them what they think of the rule of law in regard to their contracts and human rights. Is this what we are to teach China? Keating's is a very selectively constructed Taiwan.
I think Taiwan is an amazing country which has done very well in advancing democracy, human rights and the rule of law, but let's balance propaganda with reality. I should have thought that someone with the undoubted intelligence, experience and knowledge of Keating might present us with something more analytical, balanced and profound than a Friday-night pub rant.
Rowan Hunter
Taipei
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS