Plastic-bag ban a key move
I write to comment on the government's intention to ban the use of free plastic bags in supermarkets and the use of plastic cutlery and crockery in public places.
Opponents of the move have speculated that an increase in the use of water for dishwashing by restaurants could lead to a water shortage, or at least exacerbate future water shortages. They have also argued that the inevitable decrease in the use of plastic will harm the plastic-manufacturing and recycling industries, causing widespread job losses.
Pollution is not just a terrible sight. It destroys our only natural resource -- our environment. If we damage our environment, we also damage all of the natural resources therein. Industries use much more water than restaurants in the washing-up process. Far more water is used to manufacture a plastic container than would be used to wash that container. The law doesn't ban disposable paper cutlery and crockery, so the plastic indus-try's loss will be the paper industry's gain.
Plastic accounts for 20 percent of Taiwan's waste problem. By cutting back on plastic waste the government will save a lot of money, which it could invest in such things as job creation, education and health. Paper is biodegradable, while plastic is not, so wasted paper presents much less of a problem than wasted plastic.
Probably the most important aspect of the government's plan is not the money that will be saved or the extent to which the waste problem will be reduced, but the fact that an effort is being made to extend the time limit that our "theory of destruc-tion" has placed on Mother Nature. To take at all cost without looking into the future is already proving fatal. The new policy will be a step toward sustainable economic growth accompanied by a little bit of care for Mother Nature.
Don't kill our world. She is all we have.
Cobus Olivier
Nantou County
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing