Lu's schemes are vile
Vice President Annette Lu (
It is highly inappropriate in this day and age for a role model to advocate the transmigration of minority peoples. Her patron-izing proposal seems ignorant of the foolhardy schemes of the past that have seen indigenous people treated as pawns. Like [former Soviet dictator Josef] Stalin's "minority enclaves," or Canada's Inuit "relocations" and "reservations," or South Africa's apartheid "homelands," Lu's schemes conjure up nightmarish images of how the majority has treated the minority.
This is the second vile scheme that Lu has concocted for Taiwan's minorities, the other being AIDS villages for HIV/AIDS victims.
Both ideas deserve to be firmly tossed into the dust heap of ill-conceived plans and the current administration needs to take proactive actions that demonstrate bottom-up consultation with the public, rather than engaging in reckless top-down policy brainstorming.
David Sadoway
Taipei
Stardom no excuse for A-Mei
The singer Chang Hui-mei (張惠妹), also known as A-mei (阿妹), has been examined under a magnifying glass. She could have been her politically insensitive self if she was no celebrity.
But as someone who makes millions of bucks across Taiwan, China and Hong Kong, every aspect of her life, including her private romantic relationships, is judged by the media and the public.
A-mei excuses herself from being political because she is a singer. But everyone has more than one identity: No one is two-dimensional.
She is a singer, but she is also an adult who is expected to have thoughts and stand up for what she believes. This does not necessarily include making a stand on how cross-strait issues should be resolved, but just standing up for her choice and her right to sing her national anthem.
But she doesn't. Being a singer is not a blanket excuse for not having a mind of her own or a retreat from the world of "grown-ups." And no, we don't "all" know that "singers should not be involved in politics," as A-mei said.
Does being an entertainer take away her right to express her stance?
Or, if it is indeed her right, just as it is for Taiwanese businessmen in China, to avoid any political involvement in order to continue making money in China, should she be free to choose insulation from political involvement so that she can sell records in China?
Of course, Vice President Annette Lu's comment that A-mei could choose singing when there is a war between the two governments is far out.
But judgment of Lu's comment, which once again lacks common sense, should be separated from an entertainer's right to express their opinions about controversial issues.
If it is an entertainer's "right," then I guess A-mei can choose to take it up, or forgo it. But as someone who has enjoyed her performances, I despise A-mei for bowing to China's illogical criticism about what her rights should be. Any reasonable person should be able to disagree with this criticism, and if I were in her shoes I would stand by what I have chosen to do. But that would be me.
Weini Wen
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