Gujarat strife discussed
Jonathan Power should be commended for his article on South Asia ("The US is piggy in the middle between Pakistan and India," May 6, page 9). However, I would like to take this opportunity to comment upon some of his observations.
-- The state government of Gujarat can be accused of sheer incompetence and administrative apathy, but not collusion or planning massacres. How the various diplomatic missions came to their conclusions is best left for them to clarify. But how much information can be gathered in a visit of a couple of hours to Ahmedabad? Maybe they should become detectives.
-- Power goes on to ask how can 180 million muslims trust India's secular fabric. Power should not be so condescending. Gujarat, with 5 million Muslims, is part of India. Most Muslims live in other parts of India and none of these places have had any trouble as a result of the events in Gujarat. Ordinary Indians are still going about their daily grind. That should be a clear enough answer for you. It's like saying that because the tormentors of Rodney King were acquitted by an all-white jury, blacks deserve to ask for a black homeland carved out of the US.
-- Instead of harping on the UN resolutions, and we know how much every country worth its salt "respects" UN resolutions, the way out is to convert the current border between the two parts of Kashmir into a permanent one. This would mean recognizing the partition of Kashmir, which has been the reality for the past 50 years. This is the only way out of the mess.
-- Power should concentrate his energies on lobbying the US government to encourage Pakistan to recognize the above and stop trying to justify its failed "two nation" theory. The methodical way in which the train was torched at Godhra indicates good organization. And remember Gujarat has a long porous border with Pakistan. Whether Pakistan actually participated in the riots can be investigated. However, what cannot be denied is that Pakistan can be relied upon to fish in troubled waters and provide Muslims in India with weapons and money for "revenge."
Kumar Parekh
Kenmore, Australia
Missionaries misunderstood
How sad I was to read Dan Bloom's letter on missionaries in Taiwan (Letters, May 6, page 8). Bloom has definitely been misinformed regarding the purpose of missionaries.
A missionary is someone who "goes into all the world to preach the gospel of Christ." No religion is superior to any other religion. Jesus did not come to state that Christianity was superior to Buddhism, Daoism or any other religion. According to the Old Testament prophets and the teaching of Jesus, God is very critical of "religion" if that means religious services divorced from real life, loving service and the moral obedience of the heart. The purpose of Jesus was to show people that He is the only way to God. And that should be the purpose of the missionary, too.
As for conversion, this also is not the work of the missionary. A person cannot convert another person; it is the sole responsibility of God to change hearts and lives. May God change the heart of Mr. Bloom.
Norma Christiansen
Taichung
Police not always helpful
The tone of your article on the Foreign Affairs Police ("Pay attention to your visa, officer advises foreigners," May 14, page 4) suggests how cheerfully helpful they are while administering their visas. I admit that over the past 15 years there have been vast improvements to the service offered to foreigners visiting Taiwan, but I find it hard to believe that their general attitude of moral superiority and rudeness when faced with a visa overstay has changed much. What is most galling is that the cause of this problem, confusing visa requirements, is readily admitted by the police themselves.
Remembering my terrible experience of overstaying, I looked back at my old passport and my first visa to Taiwan reads: "Visitor visa, valid until ..." Being the top two lines I took this to mean (as most people do) that my right to stay in Taiwan expires on the given date. Those who read further discover the following phrase at the bottom: "Duration of stay: 60 days."
In other words, the right to enter Taiwan is what is being stated, not the date to leave. Officer Tsao readily admits that 90 percent of their visa problems are related to overstaying and "most people overstay ... because they misunderstood the information on their visa ..." People misunderstand because it is confusing.
Furthermore, Tsao later advises those who want to extend their visas to do so at least 15 days before they expire. But if the validity of the visa refers only to the last possible date of arrival, then he is confusing the issue even further by using the word visa. Most people think the word visa means the time given to remain in a country rather than the time until which you may enter. Therefore, if Tsao himself refers to the visa expiry date as being the last day that you may remain in the country, the words "Visitor visa, valid until" seem pretty conclusive, so why look further if you have apparently already been informed of the expiry date?
When this happened to me, I was treated rudely and told that the only solution was to immediately fly to Hong Kong. Meanwhile, we have the police openly admitting that the way their visa is written is causing confusion. Why then don't they change either the wording: "Permission to enter the country expires on ..." for example, or provide each visa issuing office with a short statement clarifying what the different dates mean. Or perhaps they just enjoy gloating over us "stupid" foreigners who constantly "disregard" the rules.
John and Viki van Deursen
Taipei
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs