UK wrongly assessed
Harold James’ fundamentally flawed view of British politics is compounded by factual mistakes (“Another failed British experiment recalls the 1970s,” May 1, page 9).
The Liberal Democrats did not hold the balance of power in 1974 — it was founded in 1987. A successor to the Liberal Party, it incorporated the Social Democratic Party, which in turn was a breakaway group from the Labour Party.
As such, it advocated policies to the left of Labour and has only recently under its new leader moved toward the center ground of British politics — at least on economics.
Here currently lie both the Conservative and Labour parties. Centrist politics is not the Liberal Democrats’ home ground. The party’s policies on immigration, tax and justice, for example, remain progressive and to the left of Labour.
To suggest that it is only now that the major political parties are imitating one another again misrepresents the current situation. When former prime minister Tony Blair became the Labour Party’s leader 16 years ago, it marked Labour’s imitation of previous Conservative policies. Indeed, that arguably was the point of “New” Labour.
To further make comparisons with Italy in 1992 is again to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of British politics: There may be a question over Labour’s long-term survival in the event of significant electoral reform, but the two major political parties that will undoubtedly take the two largest shares of seats in the House of Commons are not going to disappear any time soon.
Furthermore, James glosses over the cause of the immediate economic problems that the UK faces and suggests that it is Britain that needs to reform. The real major reform that needs to take place is that of the international financial markets that led to the crisis in the first place, not least the US’ rating system that was able to rate sub-prime mortgages as triple-A when they were worthless. It’s international regulation that’s needed. Britain alone isn’t able to do much.
James himself indicates the problem when he repeats the scare-story that the financial markets won’t like a British “hung” parliament. If that’s what the British people have voted for in a democratic election, that’s their decision. If the markets don’t like it, then the problem is with the markets, not the election.
To have the audacity to threaten the UK’s economy because of a democratic result it doesn’t like reveals the extent to which the world, beholden to a few unelected, unaccountable, rich financial speculators, needs to regulate the very markets they operate in before many more economies are wrecked and peoples’ lives are ruined.
PAUL DEACON
Kaohsiung
Perception is everything
By now, we have all heard of the pitfalls of the proposed economic cooperation framework agreement (ECFA), but another aspect to consider is how Taiwan will be perceived internationally when an ECFA solidly ties its economy to China.
When purchasing dried anchovies at an Asian market, I usually see two options: The cheaper product from China and the more expensive product from Japan. While the Chinese product is good most of the time, on occasion, moisture is present inside the package, which allows fungus to grow on the product, rendering it inedible. The Japanese product rarely has this problem.
While this is a typical case of “you get what you pay for,” it’s something Taiwanese businesses need to heed carefully. Recently, a Chinese friend told me that she suddenly fell ill while visiting relatives in China. Later on, she heard stories of unethical outlets that would substitute food ingredients with poisonous items simply to cut costs — replacing yeast with detergent in bakery products and standard preservatives with pesticides to keep fish fresh in appearance (never mind that the pesticide is absorbed into the fish itself). While her illness may not be linked to such shady practices, it’s the perception that hurts the “Made in China” label. She felt sad for her people and urged us not to travel to China.
Which brings us back to the choice of products made in Taiwan or China. Usually when presented with this choice, I choose the Taiwanese product not because of ancestral loyalty, but because of product quality.
In the early 1990s when Hyundai was still relatively new in the US auto market, many Korean Americans preferred Japanese cars over Hyundais based on quality. However, with Taiwan and China linking closer economically, the negative perceptions of Chinese products may tarnish Taiwanese sales. How can US consumers be confident that the made-in-Taiwan product doesn’t contain made-in-China ingredients?
Go ahead Taiwan Inc, sign an ECFA and cover your products with the “Made in China” shroud. As the old saying goes, “you’re only as strong as your weakest link.” The more you chain yourself to China, the more you’ll be perceived as China … for better or for worse.
CARL CHIANG
Richmond, California
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
China’s supreme objective in a war across the Taiwan Strait is to incorporate Taiwan as a province of the People’s Republic. It follows, therefore, that international recognition of Taiwan’s de jure independence is a consummation that China’s leaders devoutly wish to avoid. By the same token, an American strategy to deny China that objective would complicate Beijing’s calculus and deter large-scale hostilities. For decades, China has cautioned “independence means war.” The opposite is also true: “war means independence.” A comprehensive strategy of denial would guarantee an outcome of de jure independence for Taiwan in the event of Chinese invasion or
A recent Taipei Times editorial (“A targeted bilingual policy,” March 12, page 8) questioned how the Ministry of Education can justify spending NT$151 million (US$4.74 million) when the spotlighted achievements are English speech competitions and campus tours. It is a fair question, but it focuses on the wrong issue. The problem is not last year’s outcomes failing to meet the bilingual education vision; the issue is that the ministry has abandoned the program that originally justified such a large expenditure. In the early years of Bilingual 2030, the ministry’s K-12 Administration promoted the Bilingual Instruction in Select Domains Program (部分領域課程雙語教學實施計畫).
Former Fijian prime minister Mahendra Chaudhry spoke at the Yushan Forum in Taipei on Monday, saying that while global conflicts were causing economic strife in the world, Taiwan’s New Southbound Policy (NSP) serves as a stabilizing force in the Indo-Pacific region and offers strategic opportunities for small island nations such as Fiji, as well as support in the fields of public health, education, renewable energy and agricultural technology. Taiwan does not have official diplomatic relations with Fiji, but it is one of the small island nations covered by the NSP. Chaudhry said that Fiji, as a sovereign nation, should support
RSS