After reading an article in the Taipei Times, I was disappointed to learn of a proposal that would ban smoking in all of Taichung's outdoor public spaces. I support a smoking ban on indoor locations, but to pass a law banning smoking outdoors is a waste of time, money and effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
First, who will enforce this ban? Daily, I see policemen turning a blind eye to all sorts of traffic violations such as speeding, driving the wrong way down a road, turning left at intersections, turning right on red lights and riding motorcycles without helmets.
These are serious violations that can cause severe injury or death. If a number of police officers don't care about these serious offenses, why should they care about a smoking ban, especially when the majority of police officers in Taiwan are smokers themselves?
Second, if the Taichung City Government is so concerned about the pollution in our city, why don't they enforce strict regulations regarding scooter pollution? Not a day goes by where I don't drive through thick blue smoke that pours out of hundreds, if not thousands of scooters.
Three-wheel farm vehicles that are dangerous, uninsured and polluting also contributing to the problem.
Every six months I have to pay to have my car inspected to make sure it's roadworthy. Is there no similar law for scooters? Do scooters not need to be emissions tested like vehicles in so many other countries?
Third, if pollution is such a big concern, why is burning ghost money allowed? I know this is Taiwanese tradition and culture, but is it really necessary to honor your ancestors or gods by creating a lot of pollution?
I would think that gods and ancestors would want us to live in a safe world that is free from pollution, not in a world where our methods of honoring them are contributing to disease and death.
If the Taichung City Government really wants to reduce pollution in our city and create a better living environment for its residents, I think there are other options that are more viable, realistic and attainable than a smoking ban.
During the US-India Strategic Partnership Forum’s third leadership summit on Aug. 31, US Deputy Secretary of State Stephen Biegun said that the US wants to partner with the other members of the Quadrilaterial Security Dialogue — Australia, India and Japan — to establish an organization similar to NATO, to “respond to ... any potential challenge from China.” He said that the US’ purpose is to work with these nations and other countries in the Indo-Pacific region to “create a critical mass around the shared values and interest of those parties,” and possibly attract more countries to establish an alliance comparable to
On August 24, 2020, the US Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, made an important statement: “The Pentagon is Prepared for China.” Going forward, how might the Department of Defense team up with Taiwan to make itself even more prepared? No American wants to deter the next war by a paper-thin margin, and no one appreciates the value of strategic overmatch more than the war planners at the Pentagon. When the stakes are this high, you can bet they want to be super ready. In recent months, we have witnessed a veritable flood of high-level statements from US government leaders on
China has long sought shortcuts to developing semiconductor technologies and local supply chains by poaching engineers and experts from Taiwan and other nations. It is also suspected of stealing trade secrets from Taiwanese and US firms to fulfill its ambition of becoming a major player in the global semiconductor industry in the next decade. However, it takes more than just money and talent to build a semiconductor supply chain like the one which Taiwan and the US started to cultivate more than 30 years ago. Amid rising trade and technology tensions between the world’s two biggest economies, Beijing has become
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new