The bombshell book by former US national security adviser John Bolton, The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir, has sparked intense debate. Unlike Americans, who are focusing on US President Donald Trump’s ability to govern, local media have highlighted chapter 10, “Thunder Out of China,” and used that as a basis for how they view the future development of US-Taiwan relations. For example, on page 288, Trump compares Taiwan to the tip of one of his Sharpie pens and China to the Oval Office’s Resolute desk, and on page 290, Bolton predicts that after Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds, Taiwan could be next. It is not clear whether Bolton’s motivation for publishing this book was to take revenge on Trump or to wade in as an influence in the US presidential campaign. Perhaps only those involved know what is true. What Taiwanese should be paying attention to is whether there might be pro-China forces in the nation trying to use the book to manipulate public opinion, once again creating the narrative that the US is “abandoning Taiwan.” Regardless of whether the US will stand up for Taiwan, there is no doubt that the nation must be prepared to resist China’s threats. Discussing whether the US will abandon Taiwan is a red herring in the contest between the government and the opposition. Trump’s China policy has been influenced by US National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, who succeeded Bolton nine months after he was sacked, and his positions on the Taiwan issue and US national security. Observers had expected O’Brien to continue Bolton’s hardline, hawkish China stance, and even China’s assessment was that O’Brien is a hawk disguised as a dove, whose anti-Chinese stance remains unchanged, although he might use more peaceful means. In his book While America Slept: Restoring American Leadership to a World
Asked whether he declined to impose sanctions against China, US President Donald Trump said: “Well, we were in the middle of a major trade deal... [W]hen you’re in the middle of a negotiation and then all of a sudden you start throwing additional sanctions on — we’ve done a lot.” It was not a proud moment for Trump or the US. Yet, just three days later, John Bolton’s replacement as director of the National Security Council, Robert O’Brien, delivered a powerful indictment of the Chinese communist government and criticized prior administrations’ “passivity” in the face of Beijing’s contraventions of international law and norms. Months earlier, O’Brien gave a scathing critique of the international community’s failure to respond to the Uighurs’ plight: “Where is the world? We have over a million people in concentration camps. I’ve been to the genocide museum in Rwanda. You hear: ‘Never again, never again is this going to happen,’ and yet there are re-education camps with over a million people in them.” US Vice President Mike Pence, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, US Deputy National Security Adviser Matt Pottinger and other administration officials have all pushed to help the Uighurs by punishing responsible Chinese officials. No administration member was muzzled or reprimanded, despite ongoing trade talks and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) deep resentment at the US’ “interference in China’s domestic affairs.” As the US Congress moved legislation to do just that, Trump offered no objection and did not press US Republicans to oppose it. The bill sailed through, and he signed it into law with a strong supporting statement. How to square this circle? Trump campaigned as a transactional operator who could significantly change the status quo in ways his predecessors could not or would not. He was a master of
In an opinion piece, Chang Jui-chuan (張睿銓) suggested that Taiwan focus its efforts not on making citizens “bilingual,” but on building a robust translation industry, as Japan has done (“The social cost of English education,” June 29, page 6). Although Chang makes some good points — Taiwan could certainly improve its translation capabilities — the nation needs a different sort of pivot: from bilingualism to multilingualism. There are reasons why Japan might not be the most suitable role model for the nation’s language policy. Bluntly put, Japan’s status in the world is unquestioned. The same cannot be said of Taiwan. Many confuse it with Thailand or assume it is either part of China or should be. Taiwan needs to communicate its message to the world — what it is, what it stands for, that it exists — in a way Japan simply does not. Translation is valuable and necessary, but as it breaks down barriers between interlocutors, it also creates them. There is a reason why people say that subtleties are often “lost in translation.” The burden falls not just on interlocutors, but on translators to ensure that messages are understood across cultural boundaries. Instead, Taiwan might want to look to Palestine. Although they are not exactly the same, both nations want peace, recognition and to be understood on their own terms, but have repeatedly been denied a seat at the table by the international community. Palestine’s message is understood more clearly, because communicators of that message have something Taiwan needs: intercultural communicative competence. This is cultivated in part through multilingualism. The more languages someone is aware of and can communicate in, the more likely they are to be sensitive to and able to speak to others’ perspectives on the world. Simply employing translators will not make Taiwan’s message more persuasive to the world over time. However, encouraging
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Facebook has succeeded for years in fending off critics and regulators in Washington who have complained about the company’s market power and its failure to protect privacy, police hate speech and curb political disinformation. Now, a boycott by major advertisers and a subsequent slide in its shares are forcing the world’s largest social media network to reckon with the very issues that policymakers have long failed to resolve. The corporate backlash could also embolden the US Congress to take action. Some concerns about the company’s massive reach and failure to deal with problematic speech are shared by US Democrats and US Republicans alike. “We have gotten to a tipping point. The Trump administration, COVID, Black Lives Matter, the ugliness social media is surfacing — I think people finally realize this is not OK, this is not an open exchange of ideas. This is blatant hatefulness and divisiveness,” University of California, Berkeley professor Hany Farid said. The growing exodus by advertisers started last week by companies including Unilever, Coca-Cola and Starbucks over concerns about ads appearing next to inappropriate content on the platform. The boycott, which on Friday last week drove down Facebook’s stock more than 8 percent — though it recovered some ground Monday — was aimed at pushing the social network and its peers to limit hate speech and posts that divide and misinform. The boycott has put a spotlight on Facebook’s policies at a time when the company is already under intense scrutiny in Washington over multiple issues and is facing a push to raise liability for third-party content in addition to multiple antitrust inquiries. Facebook’s cofounder and chief executive officer Mark Zuckerberg announced policy changes on Friday last week, saying Facebook would now label posts that are newsworthy, but violate its rules — which could apply to posts by US President Donald Trump
European leaders talk of shortening supply chains and curbing China’s Belt and Road Initiative, but on the ground in Italy, Gimmi Baldinini said that his designer footwear company is in no position to cut ties with China. “Chinese workers have a better hand with gym shoes,” said the chairman of Baldinini, founded by his family in 1910 in northern Italy, where it still has the main production hub for the top segment of his goods. To produce sports shoes, the company relies on a Chinese plant in the Shenzhen area. “Production costs over there are 75 percent lower than in Italy. I cannot consider cutting them off and reshoring that particular production line. Simply, there is no other way — unless the Italian government decides to dramatically cut tax and labor costs,” Baldinini said. Already buffeted by US-China trade tensions, the EU has stepped up efforts to produce closer to home in the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, which is causing the steepest recession in almost a century. While drugs and medical gear have been an immediate priority, the initiative is wide-ranging. In an unusual foray into industrial policy, European Central Bank President Luis de Guindos and Dutch central bank President Klaas Knot have independently argued that companies should consider moving parts of their supply chains closer to home even if that meant higher costs. While the US might have voiced its concerns about China’s economic rise earlier and more loudly, Europe is seeking to thwart China’s expansionist policies, including using tariffs to try to curb the Belt and Road Initiative. As part of a proposed 750 billion euro (US$843 billion) virus recovery package, the European Commission is talking about ensuring “strategic autonomy” in key sectors and building stronger value chains within the EU. It says that a new pharmaceutical strategy would address risks —
Taiwan has for decades singlehandedly borne the brunt of a revanchist, ultra-nationalist China — until now. Ever since Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison had the temerity to call for a transparent, international investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic, Beijing has been turning the screws on Canberra. This has included unleashing aggressive “wolf warrior” diplomats to intimidate Australian policymakers, enacting punitive tariffs on its exports, and threatening an embargo on Chinese tourists and students to the nation. A tense situation became more serious on June 19 after Morrison revealed that a “sophisticated state-based actor” — read: China — had launched a large-scale cyberattack against Australia, targeting all levels of government, political organizations, essential service providers and critical infrastructure. It is not the first time that Australia has been targeted by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s Unit 61398 cyberwarfare group. In September last year, Reuters said Australian intelligence had found that China was responsible for a hacking attack on the Australian parliament and three of its largest political parties prior to the general election in May that year. However, the range and depth of the latest attack have unnerved Canberra. Beijing has shown that it is willing to launch an offensive cyberattack as a means to coerce a foreign nation on a scale that many Western intelligence analysts had hitherto assumed would only be employed during a wartime scenario. In response, Canberra on Tuesday announced that it would spend A$1.35 billion (US$935 million) over the next decade in cyberweapons and defenses, as well as recruit at least 500 additional cyberspies. It is the largest investment that the Australian government has ever made in such capabilities. In addition to the cyberthreat, Beijing has also been using old-fashioned espionage to influence Australia’s domestic politics. The latest case to rock the nation occurred on Friday last week when New
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Reform Committee has announced the party’s latest cross-strait policy, which it is calling: “Affirming the contribution of the 1992 consensus.” However, several former party chairs are unhappy that the so-called “consensus” looks set to be consigned to the history books by KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) and have accused the KMT’s Central Committee of aping the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). Chiang has strongly rejected accusations that he is turning the party into a “DPP lite.” Disappointingly, despite the months that have passed since the KMT was trounced in January’s presidential and legislative elections, the party is still bogged down in a quagmire of its own making, rehashing old arguments and making little progress toward meaningful reform. The main reason for the KMT’s poor showing at the elections is clear: foreign policy, or specifically, pursuing a cross-strait policy that has already been publicly rejected. During the 2016 presidential and legislative elections, which returned the DPP to power with a historic legislative majority, voters rejected then-president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) cross-strait formula, which recognized the “1992 consensus,” while maintaining that each side could interpret what it meant in its own way. Two years prior, the Sunflower movement captured the public mood and galvanized voters against the cross-strait service trade agreement with China that the Ma administration was attempting to ram through the legislature without proper scrutiny. The then-following elections were a turning point for the nation — a categorical rejection of the pro-China policies of the Ma era. Today, the public mood is even clearer than it was four years ago. The “1992 consensus” that the KMT claims to have achieved with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was long ago contorted and compressed by Beijing to mean simply “one China.” Last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) used a set-piece speech to try to bamboozle Taiwan
The term “competency” is prominent in the 12-Year Basic Education Curriculum Guidelines introduced on Aug. 1 last year. According to the National Academy for Educational Research, competency is the knowledge, capacity and attitude to solve problems and face future challenges. The shift in focus is a bid to keep up with rapid changes in the world and to solve problems caused by favoring credentialism, but however good the intention might be, the policy is also a burden for many schools. The competency-based curriculum brings a driving force for change to schools. Many educators with great enthusiasm for teaching are eager to sign up for workshops on the new guidelines — even at the expense of their own time — so that they can shift their teaching toward building competencies, and inspire and motivate their students to learn. Many of these dedicated educators are experienced senior teachers and some of them have won the National Excellent Teacher Award, and they all infuse tremendous positive energy into K-12 education. The new curriculum is to inevitably lead to longer teaching times, because in-class activities must be diverse and encourage students’ participation. Another headache for teachers is how to juggle teaching progress and teaching depth so that they can achieve both. On the students’ side, preparation for lessons is necessary, as they must find out which parts of the material they do not understand so that they can raise questions in class, allowing for in-depth discussions. This would effectively reduce lecture time and bring lessons in line with the spirit of the new curriculum: “Taking the initiative, engaging the public and seeking the common good.” This new way of teaching breaks out of the classroom framework, no longer just taking place between the opening and closing bells of the school day. The question is how to equip students and motivate
Defend the islands I am writing in response to Yao Chung-yuan’s (姚中原) article (“Taiwan needs new approach on islands,” June 30, page 8). I concur fully with Yao’s assertion, and by extension that of Ian Easton, that the Ministry of National Defense should permanently station personnel on the outlying islands of Taiwan. Despite periodic training, Coast Guard Administration personnel do not have the combat skills to engage in the defense of the islands. Taiwan’s sovereignty is at stake, be it on the Pratas Islands (Dongsha Islands, 東沙群島), Itu Aba Island (Taiping Island, 太平島), Kinmen, Wuciou Island (烏坵), Matsu, Pengjia Islet (彭佳嶼) and all outlying islands under Taiwan’s control. All are tempting targets for China to grab, which would result in a huge loss of face for President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). The prevailing notion in the ministry that it would not defend the outlying islands because of logistical resupply difficulties and other excuses is unacceptable. Whatever happened to the spirit of the Berlin airlift? Interpreted another way, it reads: “Yes, we know you are Taiwanese citizens, but do not count on us to defend you.” What a sellout. For its part, the US needs to buttress its security commitment to Taiwan by resurrecting the Formosa Resolution which was rescinded in 1974. The resolution authorized the US president to militarily assist in securing all territories and other possessions under the control of the Republic of China. Some look upon the islands as worthless piles of rock and sand, totally dismissing their defensive value. Each island has its own strategic value. Dongsha, for example, sits at the southern tip of the Taiwan Strait and the northern entrance of the South China Sea. Control of Dongsha would enhance China’s ability to block access to both waterways impeding rapid transport of Middle Eastern oil to Japan and South Korea, provide a convenient stage
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Who decides your gender? A growing number of teenagers say it is up to them — and are rejecting the traditional markers of “male” or “female” in favor of identifying as “genderqueer,” which refers to people who do not fall squarely within the gender binary. Stars like Indya Moore have come out as nonbinary, and prefer the use of the pronouns they and them. Nonbinary characters are also increasingly featured in breakout TV shows, such as Asia Kate Dillon’s role in Billions. Yet nonbinary teenagers say that they are widely misunderstood and face prejudice. US President Donald Trump, for instance, decreed that protections against healthcare discrimination were to be applied based exclusively on biology rather than one’s inner sense of gender. British newspaper the Guardian is launching “Genderqueer generation,” a series of stories centered on, and often told by the children and young adults who are rejecting traditional gender identities. It began by asking four of them to describe how they realized they were nonbinary. Ari, 18, from Connecticut said: “The first time someone used my pronouns, I almost cried. I don’t know really how I came to identify as nonbinary, as much as I came to identify as not a girl first. Until I was seven, I loved dresses and glitter and sparkles and everything. And then something changed. I don’t know what it was. I was like, I hate girly things. I hate the color pink. And I think that was me becoming what I like to call a conscious human being.” “Then I thought, what if I am a boy? And I was just like, no, that’s gross. Which is not very kind to boys. But no, that’s not me. I didn’t know at all what I was experiencing or doing until I had the Internet to give me the words
Three countries — the US, Brazil and Mexico — account for 46 percent of the world’s reported COVID-19 deaths, yet they contain only 8.6 percent of the world’s population. Some 60 percent of Europe’s deaths are concentrated in Italy, Spain and the UK, which combined account for 38 percent of Europe’s population. There are many fewer deaths and lower death rates in most of northern and central Europe. Several factors determine a country’s COVID-19 death rate: the quality of political leadership, the coherence of the government’s response, the availability of hospital beds, the extent of international travel and the population’s age structure. Yet one deep structural characteristic seems to be shaping the role of these factors: countries’ income and wealth distribution. The US, Brazil and Mexico have very high income and wealth inequalities. The World Bank reports the respective Gini coefficients for 2016 to 2018 at 41.4 in the US, 53.5 in Brazil and 45.9 in Mexico. On a 100-point scale, a value of 100 signifies absolute inequality, with one person controlling all income or wealth, and zero means a completely equal distribution per person or household. The US has the highest Gini coefficient among advanced economies, while Brazil and Mexico are among the world’s most unequal countries. In Europe, Italy, Spain and the UK — with Gini scores of 35.6, 35.3 and 34.8, respectively — are more unequal than their northern and eastern counterparts, such as Finland (27.3), Norway (28.5), Denmark (28.5), Austria (30.3), Poland (30.5) and Hungary (30.5). The correlation of death rates per million and income inequality is far from perfect, and other factors matter a lot. France’s inequality is on par with Germany’s, but its COVID-19 death rate is significantly higher. The death rate in relatively egalitarian Sweden is significantly higher than in its neighbors, because Sweden decided to keep
A study by the Health Promotion Administration released on Monday shows that obesity is on the rise. It attributed the trend to the prevalence of automated devices such as robot cleaners and washing machines, a lack of activity due to long work hours, and the growing number of food delivery services. One expert cited in the study also points to the pervasiveness of shops selling sugary beverages, which remain popular despite legislation last year requiring shops to advertise the amount of sugar and calories in their drinks. Ultimately, people are free to choose what they eat and drink, and the amount of physical activity they engage in, but the government can take actions to promote a healthier lifestyle. An article published by Web site healthline.com on Sept. 21, 2018, suggests a multi-tiered approach, including encouraging meals with fewer calories and “spontaneous exercise,” and promoting healthier diets — starting with school meals for children. Citing Global Obesity Prevention Center executive director Bruce Lee, the article says that such ideas work only if they become a habit. “This can’t be a part-time thing. You can’t say: ‘As a hobby I’m going to change my nutrition and physical activity,’” the article quotes Lee saying. This is why the last suggestion — regulating school meals to promote children’s health — is an important place to start. If children grow up eating junk food, not only is their success at school affected, they are also unlikely to ever develop healthy eating habits. To encourage healthy lifestyles for adults, including regular exercise, the government could work with companies to form initiatives for employees. For example, as many companies in Taiwan have workplace cafeterias or rent out space to businesses catering to their employees, the government could subsidize companies that offer healthy onsite food choices for workers. For those who cook at
Hsiao Bi-khim (蕭美琴) is to be Taiwan’s next representative to the US. Hsiao is well versed in international affairs and Taiwan-US relations. In her days as a student in the US, she was a member of the Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) and served as chief executive of the Democratic Progressive Party’s US mission. She is familiar with a broad spectrum of Taiwanese affairs in the US. FAPA hopes that Hsiao, after taking up her new post, would continue to deepen and normalize relations between Taiwan and the US, and that she would try to get a free-trade agreement (FTA) signed during her time in the position. A Taiwan-US FTA is in the best interest of both nations. Taiwan would benefit in at least three ways: An agreement would boost Taiwan-US trade and investment, raise Taiwan’s strategic position in the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy and boost international recognition of Taiwan. US-China relations are deteriorating because of the trade dispute and the COVID-19 pandemic. China’s worsening investment environment is expected to incentivize investors from the US and other countries to accelerate their exodus from China, causing global supply chains to be restructured. A Taiwan-US FTA would not only upgrade trade partnerships and attract foreign investment to Taiwan, but also help the nation to join regional economic integration initiatives, such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. China’s expansion of its economic and military influence has badly upset regional stability and led the US to view China as a strategic competitor. To prevent China from stealing advanced US technology and keep Chinese-made 5G communications products from threatening US national security, the US has increased its cooperation with Taiwan’s technological and military industries. The US has persuaded Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co to construct a factory in the US. There is also a plan to set up
On Sept. 27, 2002, the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste (East Timor) joined the UN to become its 191st member. Since then, two other nations have joined, Montenegro on June 28, 2006, and South Sudan on July 14, 2011. The combined total of the populations of these three nations is just more than half that of Taiwan’s 23.7 million people. East Timor has 1.3 million, Montenegro has slightly more than half a million and South Sudan has 10.9 million. They all are members of the UN, yet much more populous Taiwan is denied membership. Of the three, East Timor, as a Southeast Asian nation, is of particular interest to Taiwan. The histories of both nations have many related and informative experiences, and the indigenous peoples of East Timor and those of Taiwan have common ancestral links in their Austronesian heritage. Both nations became involved in world trade and politics during the era of global navigation — a time when European powers came to Asia in search of the lucrative spice islands. The Portuguese landed in East Timor in the early 16th century. They did not find spices there, but found sandalwood, which had definite commodity value, and so they decided to stay. Portugal would colonize the eastern half of Timor island and fight the Dutch over who would colonize its western half. Related Dutch colonies would ultimately become the Dutch East Indies, present day Indonesia. In 1702, Portuguese Timor became the official name of this colony. As for the Dutch, the Portuguese would eventually make peace and get them to guarantee Portugal’s half of the island in the Treaty of Lisbon in 1859. Taiwan, on the other hand, got only its name, Formosa, from the Portuguese when in the mid-16th century Portuguese trading ships from Macau passed by Taiwan on the way to Nagasaki. However, while Portugal never colonized
On Tuesday last week, representatives of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislative caucus held a news conference at which they declared their opposition to the government’s nominees for Control Yuan members. They asked why the governing Democratic Progressive Party is proposing a full list of nominees for Control Yuan membership even though it has called for abolishing the Control Yuan and the Examination Yuan. The KMT legislators announced that their caucus would boycott President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Control Yuan nominations on the grounds that the Examination Yuan and Control Yuan should be abolished. However, from a legal point of view, the proposal to abolish these two branches of government is a completely separate matter from the president’s duty to nominate Control Yuan members. Until such time as the Constitution is amended to abolish these two branches, the president must nominate members to the Examination Yuan and Control Yuan in accordance with the Constitution as it is. To do otherwise would be unconstitutional. Council of Grand Justices Constitutional Interpretation No. 632 says: “The Control Yuan is an integral and indispensable national agency for the normal operations of the constitutional system with its specific power bestowed by the Constitution. Given that the [president], [vice president] and [members] are all legal positions preserved by the Constitution, it behooves all constitutional agencies, as regards their respective duties, to maintain the functional existence and normal operations of the Control Yuan.” “To ensure the continuous exercise of power by the Control Yuan, prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent [president], [vice president] and [members], the president should nominate candidates to fill these positions in a timely manner and seek the Legislative Yuan’s consent. The Legislative Yuan, in turn, should exercise such consent power in a timely manner to maintain the normal operations of the Control
EDITORIAL CARTOON
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson set out his hopes for easing Britain’s lockdown last week and also his aching for a return to a more familiar life. “I want to make one thing clear, I would love to play village cricket again,” Johnson said. When it comes to the most quintessential of English games, the prime minister regards himself as a “D-league” sportsman who is outshone by both his brothers. However, he knows that there is no clearer sign that all is not well than the absence of men and women in white on village greens. For many in Johnson’s Conservative Party, cricket is more than just a game. It represents tradition and national identity in an era of unprecedented upheaval. As the UK faces the pressures of the COVID-19 pandemic, Brexit’s trade disruption and strains on race relations, the desire for the genteel summer sport of the Tory heartlands speaks to a deeper yearning for simpler times. COVID-19 is not just a health emergency and an economic disaster for the Conservatives. It has turned into a crisis of political self-confidence that has sparked an intense internal debate over the direction of Britain’s oldest and most successful party. For decades, the Tories have stood for libertarianism, fiscal prudence and the free market. The party is now spending billions to rescue the economy. One senior Tory said the party was dangerously adopting “socialism.” The big risk is that even this huge gamble might not work. In a major speech on Tuesday, Johnson set out his vision for dragging the economy out of what might be its deepest recession in 300 years and confirmed his commitment to long-term investment in some of the country’s most deprived regions, arguing that balancing the books must wait until recovery is secure. Reprising spending pledges he made before December last year’s general
RSS