A legitimate government
Why should any Taiwanese, including former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), be tried under the laws and Constitution of the Republic of China (ROC), which were imposed upon us without our approval? The only legitimate government is one which has the consent of the people.
The ROC government under the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) decades ago asked Taiwanese to join their fight against the Chinese communists and regain control of the “mainland.” Now the KMT has done an about-face and plans to surrender to the communists and make Taiwan part of China — taking the Taiwanese people along as hostages.
Taiwanese cannot be governed this way nor should they be governed by discriminatory rules. They need a functional constitution approved by themselves.
The Democratic Progressive Party administration intended to rewrite the ROC Constitution because many rules are not applicable to Taiwan’s situation, but they were warned by the US executive branch against changing the “status quo.”
Most Taiwanese don’t want to be governed by the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the US Military Government or the repressive KMT.
Nor do Taiwanese want to live in a limbo in which their rights are not safeguarded because there is no de jure nation to protect their rights in international organizations.
The US government has ignored the rights of Taiwanese for more than half a century, leaving them unrepresented and stateless.
As the KMT is not sincere about change, in order for Taiwan to function normally and according to fair rules, a civil government must replace the one imposed upon Taiwan since the issuance of General Order No. 1 by General Douglas MacArthur on Sept. 2, 1945.
This order must be terminated, giving the Taiwanese the freedom to form their own government and draft their own constitution. A legislative election would preferably be supervised by a qualified international body.
ALISON HSIEH
Athens, Greece
Stop the falling birth rate
A report by the Washington-based Population Reference Bureau found that Taiwan has the world’s lowest birth rate (“Report says birth rate in Taiwan is lowest in world,” Sept. 22, page 2). This unfolding crisis has been of growing concern to officials for quite some time. The fertility rate in Taiwan hasn’t even been at the replacement level (2.1) since 1983.
The best “solution” the government has been able to come up with so far is offering a nominal subsidy to entice married couples to have more children. There seem to be few takers.
In the past two years alone, the fertility rate has dropped from 1.2 children per woman to one child per woman, with no signs of a slowdown in the decline. If anything, the drop is accelerating.
The reasons for Taiwan’s rapidly falling birth rate are manifold: governmental family planning policies over the past 50 years, societal values that emphasize higher education and careers for women over marrying and having children, the economic considerations of child-rearing, and the widespread acceptance and use of selective abortion as a means of birth control. Not coincidentally, abortion was legalized in 1984, the same year Taiwan’s birth rate fell below the replacement level.
The low birth rate has led to numerous other problems, including a school crisis resulting from too few new students, a serious sex-ratio imbalance, a labor shortage and growing national debt (since there are fewer workers to support increasing government expenditures).
Unfortunately, years of listening to and accepting the advice of population control “experts” on how to achieve “sustainable” development has backfired.
If we fail to teach younger generations that children and families are the building blocks of society and a valuable asset necessary for a nation’s long-term growth and stability, the Taiwanese risk becoming an “endangered species” (no disrespect intended).
The government simply doesn’t have the money to bribe couples into having children. No matter how much we hate to admit it, there are many problems that money just can’t solve.
WAYNE T. SCHAMS
Pingtung
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past