Taipei lacks lighting
In Taipei there should be more streetlights because it’s too dark at night to walk.
It’s very dangerous to walk along dark streets. Stray animals or criminals could attack us. Also, we could get hit by motorcycles, scooters or bicycles that are on the sidewalk.
Some street corners have lights, while others don’t. Also, some streets have more lights, while others have less. Some lights are bright, while others are not, or are broken.
The city should install more lights, use brighter bulbs in all streetlights and repair all broken lights as soon as possible.
JORDAN HSIEH
Taipei
The legitimacy of ROC rule
The recent protest against the detention of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has brought up an issue relating to the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the Republic of China (ROC) and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) rule in Taiwan.
Before 1987, Taiwan was under Martial Law for 38 years, otherwise known as the White Terror, which was inflicted on the population by an authoritarian regime that legitimized its rule of Taiwan on the Cairo Declaration and on the suppression of protests and revolts by Taiwanese against corruption and discrimination against Taiwanese.
Less well known is the fact that, until the 1990s, personnel working in the ROC court system and other government bureaucracies were appointed based on provincial proportionality to ensure that a minority of Chinese immigrants would perpetually occupy key positions. All this was based on a Constitution not ratified by Taiwanese.
If “rule by consent” is the core value of democracy, then the inhumane, discriminatory and unjust persecution we see today of Chen, his family and countless other Taiwanese as well as the KMT’s de facto one party rule of Taiwan should make us call into question whether democracy exists in Taiwan or whether ROC rule over Taiwan is legitimate.
Whatever crime Chen is accused of, it is not a violent crime.
Rather, Chen is a peaceful man who during his tenure as president of Taiwan did everything possible to accommodate the dethroned KMT rulers, to the point of being accused of treating Chinese in Taiwan better than their own Taiwanese compatriots.
However, that did not prevent Chen’s persecution by the corrupt court system in order to intimidate future Taiwanese from challenging KMT supremacy over Taiwan.
The injustice and inhumane rule of the ROC does not stop there.
The entire system of resource distribution is unjust, from the disproportionate sum allocated to Taipei City where most Chinese immigrants reside, to an educational system favoring the descendants of Chinese immigrants and unfair prosecution of Taiwanese political and economic crimes compared with those committed by Chinese compatriots.
Chen’s case stands out as the most arrogant and daring of all, carried out by a shameless KMT party machine.
If these violations of Chen’s human rights continue, it will no doubt prove once again the illegitimacy of ROC and KMT rule in Taiwan.
CHEN MING-CHUNG
Chicago
“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
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
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS