The limits of belief
I have served as a registered nurse for 29 years. In 2003, I was invited to help take care of the former first lady, Mrs Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
I soon learned that then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was trying very hard to give up his practice of getting up twice in the night to take his wife to the restroom. It was the third year of his presidency.
I often heard from contacts in the president’s family that he was content with small servings of food and living in a small house. He often stayed in his study for up to two hours after bedtime, paying particular attention to news of vulnerable persons and volunteer issues.
As the red-shirt protests clogged Taipei, Mrs Wu’s condition deteriorated to semi-comatose, and she was unable to recognize her son when he rushed back from the US. The president was terribly sorrowful that night and cried out, asking how his lifelong efforts could have resulted in each of his family members suffering these kinds of hardships.
At the time, a group of Christians went to National Taiwan University Hospital and asked the president to kneel down and pray together for Mrs Wu. Every day he prayed from Micah 6:8: “He has showed you. O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
He often cried to the Lord to ask for strength to forgive others and the wisdom to lead Taiwan. He said that if Jesus saved his wife and helped relieve the red-shirt crisis, he would be honored by God’s pardon.
In the last two years, Mrs Wu has grown weaker than ever. Recently, she has been losing consciousness because of low blood pressure. But she has frequently urged her husband and her family to work as volunteers to help vulnerable persons, and has asked me to collect relevant information for them. Unfortunately, the president’s family has been trapped by incredible legal challenges since May.
Why is it so difficult for me to believe that the president’s family would commit such a crime as corruption?
Joyce Chang
Taipei
‘Pan-pan’ and ‘Tu-tu’
It is time to revisit the issue of China’s gift of Trojan pandas to Taiwan given their imminent arrival in Taipei.
For years, the Democratic Progressive Party resisted prodding by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to accept the pandas because doing so could compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his KMT government have no such concerns, possibly because they are not concerned about the sovereignty of Taiwan.
Many people view the pandas simply as cute animals to see in a zoo, and are unconcerned about the controversy. This is understandable. If you have ever seen a panda — which I have on several occasions in the US — it is a little like watching grass grow because most of the time, it hides or sleeps.
Waiting in line for hours to see grass grow is a colossal waste of time.
China, as usual, has attached intolerable conditions to the pandas that former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) arranged for Taiwan to receive. One is that they not be renamed; the names selected by the “Chinese compatriots” are Tuan-tuan and Yuan-yuan, which together mean “unification.”
For this reason, and whether the Taipei Zoo agrees or not, we should call these pandas by their true names, that is, the names that reflect the nature of the agreement that will bring them to Taiwan.
I propose that we call the panda known as Tuan-tuan by the name Pan-pan (叛叛), and the panda known as Yuan-yuan by the name Tu-tu (徒徒).
Together, these names form the word pantu (叛徒), or “traitor.”
This is an apt reminder of the essence of the “gift” that Lien has arranged for Taiwan, and of the sinister, unsubtle message from China that these cuddly bears will bring with them.
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
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