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
China’s recent aggressive military posture around Taiwan simply reflects the truth that China is a millennium behind, as Kobe City Councilor Norihiro Uehata has commented. While democratic countries work for peace, prosperity and progress, authoritarian countries such as Russia and China only care about territorial expansion, superpower status and world dominance, while their people suffer. Two millennia ago, the ancient Chinese philosopher Mencius (孟子) would have advised Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) that “people are the most important, state is lesser, and the ruler is the least important.” In fact, the reverse order is causing the great depression in China right now,
We are used to hearing that whenever something happens, it means Taiwan is about to fall to China. Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) cannot change the color of his socks without China experts claiming it means an invasion is imminent. So, it is no surprise that what happened in Venezuela over the weekend triggered the knee-jerk reaction of saying that Taiwan is next. That is not an opinion on whether US President Donald Trump was right to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro the way he did or if it is good for Venezuela and the world. There are other, more qualified
This should be the year in which the democracies, especially those in East Asia, lose their fear of the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) “one China principle” plus its nuclear “Cognitive Warfare” coercion strategies, all designed to achieve hegemony without fighting. For 2025, stoking regional and global fear was a major goal for the CCP and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA), following on Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Little Red Book admonition, “We must be ruthless to our enemies; we must overpower and annihilate them.” But on Dec. 17, 2025, the Trump Administration demonstrated direct defiance of CCP terror with its record US$11.1 billion arms
The immediate response in Taiwan to the extraction of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro by the US over the weekend was to say that it was an example of violence by a major power against a smaller nation and that, as such, it gave Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) carte blanche to invade Taiwan. That assessment is vastly oversimplistic and, on more sober reflection, likely incorrect. Generally speaking, there are three basic interpretations from commentators in Taiwan. The first is that the US is no longer interested in what is happening beyond its own backyard, and no longer preoccupied with regions in other
RSS