A foolhardy plan
If the Taipei Times' story is true, then I must say that the Aborigines around the future Makao National Park have lost the moral high ground in their plea for justice ("Aborigines threaten to set national park ablaze," Jan. 4, page 2).
They feel that they are victims of the central government when stating that they have not been properly consulted on a matter so close to their life, history and traditions. They "feel angry, very angry." I sympathize with them and agree that the people living in and around the land designated to be a national park should be properly consulted throughout the process.
But when they affirm that "if it goes ahead we will set fire to the mountain in the park," it works completely against their plea and forces me to distance myself from them.
Why do the Aborigines want to be consulted in the matter when they are prepared to resort to setting ablaze an entire mountain without concern for the living ecosystem it houses? To call it preposterous and outrageous is not enough. If they want to play a key role in the design and development of the National Park it should be with the intention of protecting it. If they are prepared to vent their anger by setting fire to the entire mountain (the words of a high-ranking aboriginal leader), I sincerely invite them to ask themselves whether they are truly up to that task.
They feel that they are victims of the bureaucratic system and instead of looking for ways to overcome this situation they just make an even bigger victim of the land they claim they are protecting. Do they really think they are threatening the government?
If they want to set something alight and really threaten the government, I would suggest places like the Presidential Office, the Ministry of the Interior, The Chiang Kai-Shek Memorial Hall and so on. The more than 21 hectares of land and biomass that comprise the proposed park are guilty of nothing. If you want to retaliate, please first identify who is the real enemy, if there is one. Do not condemn to death what cannot defend and speak for itself. We are all visitors who do not remain -- even the Aborigines.
Francisco Carin Garcia
Taishan, Taipei County
We need our own museum
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiments expressed in the editorial "Put Taiwan in the Palace Museum" (Jan. 5, page 8). The National Palace Museum could sometimes be more accurately called the Chinese Nationalist Museum. The decision to create a branch of the National Palace Museum in Chiayi County should be applauded, but exactly what the museum displays deserves consideration.
I suggest that the branch museum be called the Taiwan National Museum to avoid confusion.
While providing additional display space for the National Palace Museum's collection it should also work to develop a collection that shows Taiwan's history, which is very different from China's.
There is not only the question of what should be displayed, but how it should be displayed. The exhibits in the National Palace Museum are too static and do not take advantage of the latest multimedia technology.
A visit to another of Taiwan's museums, the Museum of World Religions, shows what a museum of the 21st century should be like. From the moment you enter, it creates an interactive environment that promotes learning. Museums should be places that people of all ages and backgrounds can enjoy and learn something from.
David Reid
Panchiao, Taipei County
EPA needs to have a rethink
Did the Environmental Protection Administration do its homework before introducing the new rules banning plastics bags, and recommending the use of paper bags?
I am not so sure that they did, for two reasons. First, there is a product used in Western countries called biodegradable plastic, which is environmentally-friendly. Second, paper bags are made of wood, and wood comes from trees. Fewer trees mean less oxygen.
Is it better to deprive ourselves and our children of oxygen or to pollute the earth with plastic bags, which in fact are also used to collect garbage?
Georges Ponzoni
Taoyuan
When I visited Taiwan last summer, I called on the nation to use its status as a technology superpower to build superweapons. It is obvious to me as I return a year later that Taiwan is now answering that call. By 2030, Taiwan envisions a domestic drone hub, capable of producing large quantities of drones per year. The nation continues to tighten cooperation across the private sector, scientific researchers and the elected government, on creating new and innovative production avenues for defense, while efforts to become central to the “democratic supply chain” are only increasing. Anduril is seeing all of these positive
Singaporean former Prime Minister and current senior minister Lee Hsien- Loong(李顯龍) last month stood on Chinese soil and told Beijing that Singapore cooperates because of “shared interests”, not because of common “ethnic descent,” a significant statement that has upended China’s cognitive warfare tactics of “ethnic nationalism.” Along with using its military buildup and economic growth to expand its international dominance, China has long deployed ethnic politics to promote the idea that all ethnic Chinese around the world, regardless of citizenship, share a tight bond with the Chinese motherland, by which it means the regime of the People’s Republic of China (PRC)
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) in San Francisco on Tuesday last week said if she had not met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), she would have been “just a plain” and “even negligible” KMT chairperson, bluntly signaling the role she is playing in her visit to the US — Beijing’s messenger from Taiwan. Cheng and her delegation arrived in the US on Monday last week for a two-week visit across five major cities. Her party said the group is scheduled to meet with US lawmakers, officials, policy experts and businesspeople. Before departing, Cheng said her trip
In 1935, the German Reich led by the National Socialist Party officially created the Nuremberg Race Laws, a “legal cage”, for German Jews, stripping them of citizenship, criminalizing their personal relationships, barring them from public life, and transforming them into stateless subjects and isolating them from the rest of society. Similarly, in March 2026, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) National People’s Congress adopted the “Promoting Ethnic Unity and Progress” law, which represents the most significant shift in Chinese domestic governance since the era of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). Ostensibly designed as domestic legislation to manage China’s 56 officially recognized ethnic groups,
RSS