KMT losing weight fast
Last week a Quick Take story (Woman loses 100kg for love, July 11, page 4) told of a young woman who underwent numerous surgeries and procedures to lose 100kg quickly to win the heart of the man she was interested in.
Much like this young woman, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) has attempted quick cosmetic changes to make itself more attractive to voters.
But both the woman and the KMT have made a mistake. Quick fixes don't change ingrained habits.
On July 15, KMT presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), said, while commenting on the Martial Law era, that the KMT has been "reflecting" on its conduct since losing the presidency in 2000.
At the same time he challenged the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to prove it could do a better job than the KMT and accused it of exploiting martial law history to make the KMT look bad.
His comments made me pause and do a little "reflecting" myself.
"Reflecting" was an interesting choice of terminology, because it does not imply any meaningful action or changes.
The KMT is using its majority in the legislature to hold hostage all legislation that could possibly bring about progress.
It is altering its party charter in order to allow Ma to hold office even if convicted of corruption.
It refuses to return its stolen assets to the people and it is making questionable deals with businesses to help it win elections.
What I would like to know is what conclusion the KMT has reached after all its "reflecting?"
It is hard to find any instances of concrete steps toward improvement in the KMT's behavior.
And why did it take the party until 2000 to start "reflecting" in the first place?
Ma challenged the DPP to prove it is better than the KMT -- another intriguing choice of words.
I may be wrong, but wouldn't that entail making a comparison between the DPP and the KMT? Where should we start? You could begin by looking at the performance of both parties.
With all due respect to Ma, the Martial Law era is not exactly ancient history.
It is in fact so recent that the KMT did not even start "reflecting" on its martial law mistakes until 2000.
This gives us some clue about the KMT's performance. Taking all things into account, I think Ma made a rather foolish challenge.
Based on the statements Ma and his fellow KMT members make, it amazes me that so many prominent politicians here use so little logic in public speaking.
With just these two gems from Ma, you could reach a few conclusions.
Either Ma is truly ignorant and just shooting off his mouth without any forethought, or else he considers the people of Taiwan too ignorant to recognize his faulty logic.
Since Ma is a highly educated man, I believe the latter is the case.
Either way, I think he has proven himself unworthy of holding a top office, especially considering Taiwan wants to continue its path of pursuing democratic reforms.
I truly hope the public will realize that it takes more than a quick nip and tuck to bring about real change in such a well-indoctrinated party as the KMT.
Name wITHHELD
Taipei
Clear legal status a must
Is Taiwan's sovereignty disappearing? Considering all the problems the embattled DPP administration is currently facing, a precise definition of Taiwan's legal status is more urgent than ever.
Without a clear status, Taiwan cannot attain its deserved place in the international community.
In her article ("The treaty trumps the communique," July 16, page 8), Alison Hsieh writes about the legal implications of the San Francisco Peace Treaty (SFPT) of April 28, 1952.
The Cairo Declaration does not provide a legal basis for transfer of Taiwanese sovereignty to the Republic of China (ROC) of Oct. 25, 1945.
It is just one of the proposals discussed at the end of World War II, but it was not the conclusion.
In fact, the date of the surrender of Japanese troops only marked the start of a new occupation in Taiwan when the ROC regime and its military laid claim to Taiwan without asking the people who lived here.
When the ROC regime fled to Taiwan in the middle of 1949 it became a government in exile.
According to international law, there are no actions that a government in exile can undertake to gain recognition as the legal government of its new location.
The Free French Government set up in London during World War II after Germany occupied France could not claim England as its territory, either.
By the same token, the ROC government in exile in Taiwan had no legal claim to Taiwan.
Hsieh should be applauded for pointing this out in her article.
But she also wrote that Japan renounced all its control over Taiwan and the Pescadores in the SFPT, but that no country had been designated as being the new "owner" of Taiwan.
But this is misleading. Just because no outside recipient was designated does not mean that no outside power has sovereignty over Taiwan and the Pescadores according to the SFPT.
Technically, Taiwan has belonged to the US Military Government (USMG) ever since the SFPT.
It can be argued that Taiwan is still under the jurisdiction of the principal power of the SFPT -- the US.
Since Hsieh is a researcher at the Formosan Association for Public Affairs, I suggest that she very carefully consider several important questions concerning the nation's sovereignty.
Who is "the occupying power" of Taiwan that is mentioned in laws of war in various documents?
According to Article 4b of the SFPT, the USMG has disposition rights over the "property" of Japan and Japanese nationals in Taiwan.
The term "property" very clearly includes the concept of "title."
What are the legal criteria for ending USMG jurisdiction?
Has USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan and the Pescadores ended?
If USMG jurisdiction over Taiwan is still valid, what "nationality" are Taiwanese under US law?
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
Watch out for PRC officials
Taiwan was forced to withdraw from the UN in 1971, but the government hopes to become a member of the UN again.
But its bid seems doomed again and China is the main cause.
In addition to claiming that "Taiwan is part of China's territory," Chinese officials also dismiss Taiwan's sovereignty in other contexts.
Several months ago, Taiwan wanted to apply to become a member of the WHO, but the organization refused to even put the application on its agenda for proper consideration.
WHO Director-General Margaret Chan (
In addition, the new UN Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs Sha Zukang (沙祖康) is also from China.
Sha previously served as the permanent representative and ambassador to the UN at the Permanent Mission of the PRC in Geneva from 2001 to last year.
In 2003, when Taiwan suffered through the SARS scare, Sha took a dig at Taiwanese in public: "Who cares!"
In a word, PRC officials are not friendly when Taiwan is involved.
After all, our government rejects Beijing's "one China" charade.
If we want to rejoin the UN, we have to be careful of PRC officials in international organizations.
Lin Renjay
Changhua
Visas must be a priority
Considering the high number of earthquakes that hit Taiwan and the difficult and sensitive process of storing radioactive waste, I would think twice before including the addition of 20 nuclear power plants on a list of things to do, as Benjamin Fan has done ("Five things Taiwan has to do," July 18, page 8).
In my humble opinion, the No. 1 step Taiwan should take to ensure a prosperous future for itself is to re-evaluate its out-dated visa policies, especially the rules affecting US citizens.
Truth be told, the US is the one country that has supported Taiwan all these years.
Moreover, the US is allowing hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese to emigrate there and even larger numbers of Taiwanese pursue advanced degrees there.
But very few US citizens come to Taiwan.
The ones that do usually contribute to the economy and society, yet applying to get a one year visa for Taiwan is about as painful as getting a root canal.
I don't understand why Taiwanese authorities give US citizens such a hard time.
I have heard it treats citizens from other countries even worse, but I can't speak for those countries and I believe the circumstances involved are probably different for them.
Why are the staff at Taiwanese visa offices abroad so rude, arrogant and disrespectful every time people try to apply for a visa to come here?
The process you have to go through to come here makes me wonder if it is really worth doing business in Taiwan at all.
Just down the street from the Taiwanese visa office in Hong Kong is the Chinese visa office.
At that office you are met by cordial and professional staff who welcome your visa application.
The difference in attitudes between these two offices and the way they treat you is as clear as night and day.
Immigration authorities should open their minds and hearts and be more flexible. Here is a chance for Taiwan to "Touch Your Heart" and prove the tourism slogan means something.
Touch the heart of the one country that is always and has always been in your corner. Make it easier for us to apply for visas.
Marc Plumb
Taipei
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations