Ma blind to ECFA danger
There is a general rule for the political leaders of this world — self interest.
Without self-interest, negotiations cannot be settled, as both sides must feel they have somehow benefited from interaction with the other side. All over the world, it appears, however, that the public’s desires are considered last, even when a minority of people support a government’s egocentric plans, just as those who voted for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) last year — naively, greedily or as a result of manipulation from the media.
People are easily manipulated into believing that they will benefit from these government agendas. US President Barack Obama promised change, just as Ma did with his 6-3-3 agenda. They used attractive campaign slogans to win votes. For those reasons, they both won the presidencies. But why has the approval rate of both leaders dropped so quickly? Obama at least has tried to maintain people’s trust in him, but Ma plays the game inside a closed box with a phone to tell his Cabinet what to do next.
“Anti-war” Obama is now moving the focus away from Iraq toward Pakistan. So the war continues — but on another turf. Similarly, Ma’s “no” promise about unification with China is also crumbling, as have most of the other promises he made.
During an economic crisis, people want governments to do whatever it takes to end the pain. While many developed countries are bailing out those who caused the economic crisis, Ma is using his close relationship with the People’s Republic of China as an excuse to improve Taiwan’s economy by emphasizing the importance of an economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), whose content remains a mystery.
Should the people fall for it? Will things really improve for Taiwan with this agreement? Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) letter to the Taipei Times (Letters, March 1, page 8) is more convincing than Ma’s repetitive words about why he feels the ECFA is better. Tsai gave more than 10 reasons why an ECFA would have disastrous consequences for Taiwan, while Ma cannot even give half that many reasons as to why it would be beneficial.
ALEX RAYMOND
Niaosong, Kaohsiung County
Prosecute kitten ‘sadist’
If National Taiwan University believes that the student who is suspected of skinning kittens he adopted and throwing them off buildings is responsible, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law — for the sake of animals and the community as a whole (“University vows to probe abuse, deaths of kittens,” Feb. 25, page 2).
People who think that making animals suffer is “fun” need immediate intervention to prevent their violence from escalating. Animal abusers are cowards who take their issues out on “easy victims” — often including members of their own species. Psychiatrists, criminal profilers and law enforcement officials have repeatedly documented that young people who are cruel to animals often turn that violence against humans. The standard diagnostic and treatment manual for conduct disorders also lists cruelty to animals as a criterion for diagnosis.
People who hurt animals need prison time, counseling and a ban on contact with animals to prevent their sadism from continuing.
JASON BAKER
Hong Kong
228 bias? Think again
I was shocked to learn that a group of so-called “academic historians” has accused the 228 Memorial Foundation of being biased in its interpretation of the 228 Incident (“Academic accuses 228 Foundation of historical bias,” March 1, page 2).
If those historians who are supposed to be experts on Taiwanese history have a non-biased version of the truth, why aren’t they presenting evidence to the public to rebut the so-called biased interpretations agreed upon by academics the world over?
One of the historians even had the nerve to attack former US naval attache George Kerr, claiming that his interpretation of the 228 Incident was the result of Kerr’s support for the independence camp, which sullied the image of the regime of dictator Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石). What an outlandish accusation!
It is obvious that those so-called expert historians and their diehard KMT cohorts still do not accept the truth, known around the world, that Chiang and former president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) terrorized Taiwan for decades and massacred thousands of innocent people who were critical of their rulings.
Taiwanese should be grateful to Kerr, whose eyewitness account of the 228 Incident and the subsequent arrests and execution of Taiwanese is so well presented in his book Formosa Betrayed, which should be required reading for every college student.
In his book, Kerr wrote that a prominent person told him “he had witnessed the notorious ‘Rape of Nanking’ by the Japanese in 1937, but that this [rape of Formosa] surpassed it, for the Nanking Rape was a product of war, a wild outburst of wartime passion, whereas this was coldly calculated revenge perpetrated by the Nationalist Government upon its own people [in peacetime].”
Despite Ma’s gestures of reconciliation toward 228 victims’ families, the wound of the savage incident will never heal because Ma and his KMT followers continue to exonerate the Chiangs’ crimes by saying they did not do the killing themselves and therefore should not be held accountable.
KRIS LIAO
San Francisco, California
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Mainland Affairs Council Deputy Minister Shen You-chung (沈有忠) on Thursday last week urged democratic nations to boycott China’s military parade on Wednesday next week. The parade, a grand display of Beijing’s military hardware, is meant to commemorate the 80th anniversary of Japan’s surrender in World War II. While China has invited world leaders to attend, many have declined. A Kyodo News report on Sunday said that Japan has asked European and Asian leaders who have yet to respond to the invitation to refrain from attending. Tokyo is seeking to prevent Beijing from spreading its distorted interpretation of wartime history, the report
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
RSS