While well meaning, Richard Halloran's article ("Time to conclude Japan's string of apologies for World War II," Oct 7, page 9) calling for a final listing of all Japan's apologies to East Asian victims of its aggression during WWII contains a glaring factual error and also a logical misstep.
He states that the emperor of Japan is the only one with the moral and constitutional authority to speak for all Japanese people. To make this statement displays ignorance of basic political facts in Japan.
The individual who speaks for all Japanese is the prime minister, chosen through democratic means in a democratic society.
The constitution clearly states that the emperor is merely the "symbol" of the people. Why call for the current emperor to speak for all Japanese precisely when you are arguing for apologies for the actions of a political system of the past, one of the most salient characteristics of which was that the emperor was the constitutional sovereign, a decidedly non-democratic arrangement?
Halloran's argument, taken on its own terms, makes no logical sense. And it makes no legal sense, either. The elected government of Japan speaks for the Japanese, not the emperor, just as in Britain and the US and every other democracy around the world.
Scott O'Bryan
Assistant Professor of History, Indiana University,
Indiana, USA
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS