Arrogance of the elites
After reading Hsu Shih-jung’s (徐世榮) opinion piece, it occurred to me that a similar event is happening in the US as well (“Experts vs the people: democracy in jeopardy,” March 17, page 8). President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) is hellbent on signing an economic cooperation framework agreement while US President Barack Obama is equally determined in ramming through sweeping changes in healthcare. While the people in Taiwan are supportive of a vibrant economy and the people in the US want to see improvements in healthcare delivery, both heads of state have gone far beyond their constituents’ comfort zone.
The concern for the majority in Taiwan is that its sovereignty will be lost if its economy is overly influenced by China, while the majority of Americans either don’t want or have concerns about government taking on a significantly greater role in their healthcare. Ma wants to cut a closed door deal with China without giving Taiwanese the option of a referendum. Obama wants to pass healthcare legislation with “50 percent plus one vote.” What both of them fail to realize is that on issues with major societal ramifications, a broad supermajority consensus is preferable, maybe even required. While they both have comfortable majorities in the legislative branch, neither of them has that broad public support.
What is really sad is that both men are traveling around their respective countries in a futile attempt to convince the public that their expert opinions should override any concerns. The arrogant “just trust me” or “you will assimilate” sales tactics simply won’t work. As Hsu said, in this age of easily accessible information, the elite cannot simply ignore a well informed public. Those who go against the wishes of their people on major issues risk being removed from office either by vote or by force.
CARL CHIANG
Richmond, California
Rectifying bad science
This morning I got an e-mail from Michael Repacholi, former coordinator of the WHO’s Radiation and Environmental Health Unit, regarding a story in the Taipei Times (“Taipower accused of endangering health,” March 14, page 2). He wanted to help Taipower clarify the issues.
In 2008, I wrote a book, Electromagnetic Phobia (電磁恐慌), published by the National Taiwan University, and Repacholi offered a foreword for it, after C.K. Chou, chairman of a division of the Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE), a top-notch authority on electromagnetic field safety, explained and translated the content to him.
The aim of my “popular science” book was to correct the misinformation that people have received from some activists and media, who say “electromagnetic fields [EMFs] endanger health.”
There are international safety standards on EMFs, supported by the WHO and tha IEEE and most developed nations. These standards have been long tested, based on copious peer-reviewed evidence. In contrast, activists’ claims are based on little evidence or on non-scientific anecdotes, or even guesses, but activists make their assertions loudly and the media love them.
As long as an EMF is within the standard, there is no need to worry about its health effects. We rarely encounter EMFs that go beyond the standards in our daily life. We are well protected.
Many people are worried about EMFs, and they protest against these “innocent” power or communication facilities. People’s health, society and the nation are seriously hurt, not by EMFs, but by inaccurate perceptions. We need to learn the “real” science behind EMFs’ effect on health. We should feel at ease being neighbors of power substations or mobile-phone base stations, or using microwave ovens and the like.
I encounter these kinds of protests from the media almost everyday. It is very sad that our society is wasting resources — manpower, time, media coverage — on needless, unproductive issues. Lawmakers usually are not science majors, and tend to side with scared people, often for political reasons. I have been invited to many “public hearings” held by lawmakers, purportedly to resolve conflicts, but what usually happens is more emotional protests are generated.
All in all, it is messy and a waste of resources.
LIN JI-SHING
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath