Which flag to keep flying?
The current debate over the national flag is very interesting ("Pro-independence groups seek referendum," Nov. 14, page 3). Shew Down-kwen (許登崑) is quoted as saying, "In 1913, the nationalist government's senate in Nanjing voted for a five-color flag as the national flag of the Republic of China ... However, the KMT decided to replace the five-color flag with its own party flag in 1924."
As we are all aware, this is the present flag officially representing Taiwan and is recognized by most people around the world, even if their own governments do not.
What is of greatest interest is the lack of information regarding the original banner, which, given the accuracy of Shew's statement, should be very pertinent to Taiwan's current dilemma.
It is sparklingly clear that the national flag is indeed a KMT emblem that has been thrust upon the people of Taiwan without consultation or consent.
What is not clear, however, is what alternatives there are and how they could be implemented by the government.
If Shew's assertions are correct then the people of Taiwan, if provided with the correct historical details, may be able to overcome some of their nationalist education biases.
It would be beneficial if your newspaper would shed more light on such issues so that the people of Taiwan can better understand their past and pave the way toward an identity which can truly refute all fraudulent claims of sovereignty.
Looking forward to more information, and perhaps a picture, to contribute to our growing freedom.
David Kinsella
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers