The measure of a society is not in the sophistication of its material culture nor the rise in its quality of life. It is in the consideration it shows for its weakest and most vulnerable members.
Regarding the recent disaster in our neighboring countries in Asia, what is our attitude toward this tragedy in Taiwan?
There are simply too many things in this world that cause concern. But as members of the world community, we need to consider these issues, which affect the whole of humanity. But living in Taiwan, where is our effort directed? What are we concerned about? We are concerned about whether we are called Taiwan or China. Whether we are Taiwanese or Chinese. Whether we have 26 or 27 diplomatic allies.
The loss of life from the earthquake off Sumatra and the associated tsunamis is the highest of any such event in many decades. Even if the victims survive the immediate situation, the job of rebuilding their homes and assuaging the grief of their loss will be long and hard. This should not be difficult to understand by people who have experienced the 921 Earthquake. Taiwan's charitable organizations responded so rapidly and warm-heartedly in providing aid to the devastated areas.
Compared to the compassion of the people, the government's performance seems to have come up short. Taiwan is constantly saying that it wants to "engage with the world," so isn't this time, when much of Asia is engulfed in disaster, a good time to act? The government need only divert its generous diplomatic budget, or its arms procurement budget, and it would be able to assist innumerable people engulfed by the disaster. Could any action be more meaningful?
I recall reading about Mark Chen (
We have spent US$41.5 million to buy off a tiny country that will not stand firm in its support for Taiwan. If we are that concerned with the status that other countries accord Taiwan, and want the whole world to know about Taiwan and respect Taiwan, then surely giving US$41.5 million in aid to the quake victims in south Asia would be far more beneficial? By doing this, not only do we help people in time of trouble, we also accumulate merit and elicit the heartfelt admiration of people around the world. Why should we not act in this way? The reasoning is obvious, and I truly hope that our government can see that our priorities are revealed by where our compassion lies.
China will now be contributing US$63 million in money and goods to the relief effort. If our government really wants to compete with China, we should compete in the area of who can do more for the victims of disasters around the world than to compete over who can spend more on armaments.
Following the 921 Earthquake in Taiwan, half the donations received by the Red Cross came from abroad. In our time of need, people in other countries came to our aid and did not ignore us. They reached out a helping hand. Now that south Asia has suffered a natural disaster many times more severe than the 921 Earthquake, and people of the affected countries are in dire straits, both the government and the private sector should go their aid, helping them overcome their current difficulties and rebuild their homes.
C.V. Chen is a senior partner at the law firm, Lee and Li, and president of the Red Cross Society of the Republic of China.
TRANSLATED BY Ian Bartholomew
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