I was flabbergasted to read your report ("Students at risk of suicide," Aug. 7, page 3). In it, you write that according to a recent survey sponsored by the Taiwan Association of Clinical Psychiatrists, 10.21 percent of the students surveyed "have attempted suicide in the past year." Are you absolutely sure of this figure?
I have often found that students do not understand the literal meaning of "suicide" and "to commit suicide." I care very much about the fine distinctions here because the proper use of terminology affects attitudes and behavior. Don't you really mean that 10 percent of the students in the survey "have thought at one time or the other of taking their life," or "have had occasional suicidal thoughts"? Do you really mean that high a percentage of young people in the survey actually tried to do this awful thing? I find the notion very hard to believe.
During times of unusual stress, sadness or discouragement, or for persons suffering clinical depression, it may be natural for people to have a fleeting fantasy of say, hurling themselves in front of a passing car or of throwing away the precious gift of their own life. But thank heavens most of us recognize nonsense when we see it, and we let go of such fantasies or thoughts. We do not act on them.
Please tell us, then: does that survey really mean what you reported? Also, was the survey taken among a certain select group of young people, or was it a random survey? Finally, how was the survey conducted?
Father Daniel Bauer
Fu Jen Catholic University
[For answers to these questions, readers should try contacting the Taiwan Association of Clinical Psychiatrists, which conducted the survey, at 03-2653445. - Ed.]
In recent weeks, Taiwan has witnessed a surge of public anxiety over the possible introduction of Indian migrant workers. What began as a policy signal from the Ministry of Labor quickly escalated into a broader controversy. Petitions gathered thousands of signatures within days, political figures issued strong warnings, and social media became saturated with concerns about public safety and social stability. At first glance, this appears to be a straightforward policy question: Should Taiwan introduce Indian migrant workers or not? However, this framing is misleading. The current debate is not fundamentally about India. It is about Taiwan’s labor system, its
Japan’s imminent easing of arms export rules has sparked strong interest from Warsaw to Manila, Reuters reporting found, as US President Donald Trump wavers on security commitments to allies, and the wars in Iran and Ukraine strain US weapons supplies. Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi’s ruling party approved the changes this week as she tries to invigorate the pacifist country’s military industrial base. Her government would formally adopt the new rules as soon as this month, three Japanese government officials told Reuters. Despite largely isolating itself from global arms markets since World War II, Japan spends enough on its own
On March 31, the South Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs released declassified diplomatic records from 1995 that drew wide domestic media attention. One revelation stood out: North Korea had once raised the possibility of diplomatic relations with Taiwan. In a meeting with visiting Chinese officials in May 1995, as then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin (江澤民) prepared for a visit to South Korea, North Korean officials objected to Beijing’s growing ties with Seoul and raised Taiwan directly. According to the newly released records, North Korean officials asked why Pyongyang should refrain from developing relations with Taiwan while China and South Korea were expanding high-level
Swiftly following the conclusion of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun’s (鄭麗文) China trip, China’s Taiwan Affairs Office unveiled 10 new policy measures for Taiwan. The measures, covering youth exchanges, agricultural and fishery imports, resumption of certain flights and cultural and media cooperation, appear to offer “incentives” for cross-strait engagement. However, viewed within the political context, their significance lies not in promoting exchanges but in redefining who is qualified to represent Taiwan in dialogue with China. First, the policy statement proposes a “normalized communication mechanism” between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). This would shift cross-strait interaction from
RSS