Pratas are not contested
I would like to point out an error in your report on the Pratas Islands which stated that "[t]he Pratas Islands in the South China Sea are claimed by Tai-wan, China, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam" ("Taiwan Presses Claim over Atoll," Nov. 9, page 1).
This is a serious mistake, since there is no dispute whatsoever over the sovereignty of the Pratas Islands. Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam have never claimed the said islands belonging to them. The Pratas Islands have been under persistent and effective control of the ROC. Since February 2000, Taiwan's coast guard personnel have been sent to the Pratas Islands to replace the marines stationed on the islands.
Similar error is also found in a report appeared on the United Daily News (Nov. 9, p. 6), which stated in the table that Vietnam claimed its sovereignty over the Pratas Islands.
While it is important for Minister of the Interior Yu Cheng-hsien (
I would like to see our top governmental officials, ideally President Chen Shui-bian (
It is also strongly recommended that a copy of the unilateral code of conduct in the South China Sea is announced in the near future by the top governmental officials who visit Taipingdao of the Spratly Islands, the largest island in the group, which has been under the persistent and effective control of Taiwan since the mid-1950s.
This unilateral declaration could serve as one of Taiwan's responses to the Declaration on Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, which was recently signed between the PRC and the ASEAN, but failed to invite Taiwan to the consultations and negotiations over the signed declaration.
Song Yann-huei
Academia Sinica
National symbols evolve
Almost nine years ago, when learning about the symbols of the national flag, national anthem, flag anthem, and "Guo Fu," I was quite surprised by what seemed to be deep nationalism and love for the country. But many of my teachers and friends considered those symbols a kind of awkward inheritance from the past that could not be changed, because it is not politically correct to think that change is possible.
Nowadays, the situation is different, and what were supposed to be sacred symbols of the country are under pressure from different institutions. The most visible of this are the flag and the national anthem.
Flags and anthems are supposed to represent the people of the country they belong to, but they are not eternal or sacred, they are supposed to evolve and change, specially if they no longer represent the common feeling of the people for whom they are supposed to stand.
The flag of the ROC is full of meaning and nostalgia for those who brought it from China more than 50 years ago. It represents their dreams of a country that lost a war without losing its existence, because they found a small island where they could continue what had become a labor of love. Today for quite a lot of Taiwanese that flag does not symbolizes anything but death, dictatorship, oppression, suffering, injustice and tears.
Nine years ago, it was "normal." Taiwan was just "KMT land" and no one knew for sure the limits between the party and the country. Today the KMT no longer represents this country, and the distinction between country and government is clearer.
The time is ripe for change and I think this will be the next necessary step for the young Taiwanese democracy to mature: to confront the past and really make a stand. A new Constitution, that truly represent the ideals of governance and society representing the 23 million people living in Taiwan is needed; we also need to begin an open discussion about our national identity and what symbols represent this identity.
If we choose the white sun and the blue skies as a symbol, legislation must be passed to protect it as being representative of Taiwan and only Taiwan so that it cannot be misused and abused.
The KMT then will need to look for another symbol to represent their ideals and constituency. If we do not change the flag, then the KMT should avoid using the emblem because it will be confusing. Even though historically this emblem is quite close to that party, if it really represents the Taiwanese people, it can only be used as most of the countries use their national symbols -- with moderation and without offending.
The KMT cannot appropriate the symbol of the country, no matter if they used it first or not. This republic is no longer "KMT land." In a true democracy, national symbols are supposed to belong to all and not to be partisan.
Francisco Carin Garcia
Taishan, Taipei 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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with