Don't ban electric cigarettes
All global smoking bans define cigarettes as items that contain tobacco and about 4,000 chemicals, only one of which is nicotine, and are lit and burned by combustion to produce tobacco smoke. Electronic cigarettes are not tobacco cigarettes by that legal definition (“John Tung Foundation takes aim at e-cigarettes,” March 6, page 4).
With electronic cigarettes, a misnomer product name if ever there was one, there is no tobacco, no lighting, no burning and no 3,999 other chemicals. Categorizing electronic cigarettes to be the same as tobacco cigarettes simply because they both contain nicotine is junk science based solely on emotional association. Banning electronic cigarettes would also mean having to ban nicotine patches and gum too, as well as at least 72 food sources that billions of people depend on.
The source of nicotine for electronic cigarettes could easily be from something other than tobacco. There are 66 other species of plants that contain nicotine, including potatoes and tomatoes. If nicotine is banned, then the whole human race will starve to death. Can anti-smokers really be that emotionally and mentally stupid?
Apparently the answer is yes, they can. Instead of worshiping anti-smokers and giving them money to eradicate nicotine, anti-smokers need a lot of psychological counseling.
STEVE HARTWELL
Toronto, Canada
Rethinking debt approach
Taiwan’s public debt stood at somewhere between 27 percent and 32 percent of GDP last year.
While the size of this public debt is not quite on a European scale (where public debt often reaches 50 percent of GDP or more), nevertheless it can ill be afforded at a time when the economy is in recession. As major companies in Taiwan bend over backwards to find ways to streamline their operations, it is lamentable that the government does not follow their example.
The single greatest action the government could take to “stimulate” the economy would be to eliminate the source of public debt, which will continue to be a drag on the economic growth of Taiwan for many years to come.
Public debt comes from public spending on such things as education and healthcare. It is not merely a fallacy that such services must be publicly funded in the name of providing a “safety net.” It is a pernicious error that helps to entrap people in a spider’s web of dependency on the state.
There are a range of policy options available for paying off public debt. The first is tax increases — which nobody likes except those clients of the state who will be in a position to benefit. The second is to borrow from the public and external creditors via the bond market. Bonds, however, must eventually be paid back either by further debt or from present (or future) tax revenues. A third option is public investment in the stock and currency markets both home and abroad, which begs the question of why individual taxpayers in Taiwan are not competent to do so for themselves without the government taking their money in the first place.
But there is also a very dangerous fourth option — which your publication has not seriously opposed. That option is to inflate the money supply by asking the central bank to “inject liquidity” (ie, print money) into the economy.
At the very least, any proposed increase in the money supply at this point must be made only on an assessment which includes ‘hoarding’ — as Werner Sinn recently slandered it on your editorial pages (“Inflation is not the risk, Japanese-style deflation is,” March 2, page 9) — as part of the demand for money and not separate from the demand for money.
To act otherwise would certainly lead to greater currency depreciation, consequent price rises and damage to savings which would hurt the poorest people in Taiwan most of all.
It is of great importance that, throughout this year, you and your sister publication, the Liberty Times, vigorously agitate against both monetary inflation and increases in public spending in any sector.
Equally I urge you toward consideration of the benefits of alternative monetary systems free from political interference and of the benefits of a true program of privatization in services currently funded by a coercive and wasteful drag on the productive activities of all of the people in Taiwan.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Weeks into the craze, nobody quite knows what to make of the OpenClaw mania sweeping China, marked by viral photos of retirees lining up for installation events and users gathering in red claw hats. The queues and cosplay inspired by the “raising a lobster” trend make for irresistible China clickbait. However, the West is fixating on the least important part of the story. As a consumer craze, OpenClaw — the AI agent designed to do tasks on a user’s behalf — would likely burn out. Without some developer background, it is too glitchy and technically awkward for true mainstream adoption,
On Monday, a group of bipartisan US senators arrived in Taiwan to support the nation’s special defense bill to counter Chinese threats. At the same time, Beijing announced that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had invited Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) to visit China, a move to make the KMT a pawn in its proxy warfare against Taiwan and the US. Since her inauguration as KMT chair last year, Cheng, widely seen as a pro-China figure, has made no secret of her desire to interact with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and meet with Xi, naming it a
A delegation of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) officials led by Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) is to travel to China tomorrow for a six-day visit to Jiangsu, Shanghai and Beijing, which might end with a meeting between Cheng and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). The trip was announced by Xinhua news agency on Monday last week, which cited China’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) Director Song Tao (宋濤) as saying that Cheng has repeatedly expressed willingness to visit China, and that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee and Xi have extended an invitation. Although some people have been speculating about a potential Xi-Cheng
No state has ever formally recognized the Central Tibetan Administration (CTA) as a legal entity. The reason is not a lack of legitimacy — the CTA is a functioning exile government with democratic elections and institutions — but the iron grip of realpolitik. To recognize the CTA would be to challenge the People’s Republic of China’s territorial claims, a step no government has been willing to take given Beijing’s economic leverage and geopolitical weight. Under international law, recognition of governments-in-exile has precedent — from the Polish government during World War II to Kuwait’s exile government in 1990 — but such recognition