Putting children at risk
What a fat lot of good Taiwan’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was during the dust storm that hit the country on March 21.
You would have thought when Taiwan’s air pollution levels became “hazardous” — the official term used for the most severe level of pollution, right above “very unhealthy” — it would do more than merely advise people not to go outside unless it was necessary.
I was astounded that the EPA apparently did not inform the Ministry of Education (MOE) of the danger posed to children’s health. The MOE could then have instructed schools to keep children indoors until the air quality was no longer hazardous.
The next morning, air pollution was still at a hazardous level and yet at my son’s elementary school, PE teachers were having basketball practice outside as usual. Either they did not know, or did not care, just how severe the pollution was.
Most teachers and parents don’t go to the EPA Web site to look at the numbers, so it’s up to the EPA to tell the MOE when kids should be kept indoors. An official notification from the MOE, based on advice from the EPA, could have avoided unnecessarily exposing children to incredibly and hazardously high levels of fine particles.
PETER WILDS
Taichung City
Joining the big leagues
Recently, I read the news in a local paper that the FTSE Group is considering upgrading Taiwan’s stock market to a developed market. I am very excited about this, but there are a few issues that I believe are particularly important before we celebrate this potential move.
The first concerns the widely known exchange rate manipulation and capital flow issues in Taiwan. I believe the label of developed market shouldn’t just be a one-way street; rather, there should be mutual gains.
The ability to foster regional capital flows and improve market efficiency should also be part of the assessment criteria, in addition to local regulations and advanced trading systems.
Although some argue Hong Kong’s fixed exchange rate regime is counterproductive, Hong Kong’s market-friendly regulations and flexible capital flows more than compensate for its inflexible exchange rate regime.
The second issue concerns the proposal to raise the daily stock-trading limit from seven to 10 percent. Most retail investors are not required to have deposits in their accounts before placing trades and are only required to settle the accounts within the next two trading days for single stock orders of less than 100, with a 50 percent deposit required for orders exceeding 100 shares.
This contrasts with developed markets, where trading accounts need to be fully funded before orders can be processed unless they are made by large institutions and routed through brokers.
This needs to be modified before upgrading the TAIEX. If not, the market will surely be too risky for local retail investors. As it stands, the settlement process — an unreasonably risky one — helps the brokerage firms to draw in businesses, as the current process is equivalent to providing two free days of credit to investors.
I believe these two important issues are being overlooked. The FTSE’s proposed upgrading of the TAIEX is a good opportunity to make changes that will protect investors. Other modifications under consideration to help investors improve their risk monitoring are also welcome.
We must avoid a blind rush to join the developed market league. We should include wider considerations and ask ourselves whether the benefits outweigh the costs of relaxing capital flow regulations, a widening of the NT dollar trading band and changes to how brokers manage settlements.
These concerns must be addressed to protect investors before we make the charge to join the financial big leagues.
JIMMY CHAIWEI CHIU
Taipei
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
RSS