Tea Party unwelcome
The Tea Party movement has arrived in Taiwan. Although its actual strength remains shrouded in mystery, its frequency in the English-language media has markedly increased recently, with three letters in the Taipei Times just this month (June 8, 14 and 17).
Its message is hilariously simplistic: The free market is good, the government is bad. The worst thing, of course, are those nefarious taxes. So before the outraged Taiwanese populace reverts to revolutionary mode and starts stealing tea boxes from local supermarkets to dump them into Taiwan’s polluted rivers and seas, let me remind them that mixing black and white results in gray, and that, in the real world, governments and the rules they impose are a necessity for civilized societies to exist — and to run governments, you need taxes.
So the question really should be what is a reasonable level of taxation, and how should those taxes be spent?
The answer to this really depends. A few years ago, I lived in Denmark, where most citizens vote for governments that tax them at around 50 percent of their income because they know they get a good deal for it. Denmark is one of the best countries to live in because it is run by an extremely efficient and competent government.
On the other hand, I am sure Zimbabwe’s citizens are quite unhappy to pay just 5 percent taxes to keep President Robert Mugabe’s government in power. So it really depends: Governments can spend taxes wisely and effectively, or not.
In today’s interconnected world, we will need more and better rules and regulations to deal with globalized problems such as public health and environmental and food security, to name just a few. At a recent conference during Taipei Medical University’s 50th anniversary, the theme of how to establish global rules to handle these interconnected problems in a framework of global governance was fervently discussed.
Stephen Schneider, a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, recently stated during his lecture at National Taiwan University that we urgently need some sort of competent global governance, because without reasonable and mutually agreed upon rules and taxes, such as taxes on greenhouse gases, our world will go down the drain in an anarchistic mess of governments squabbling over ever-decreasing resources and a deteriorating environment.
Absence of government rules and taxes means anarchy. Therefore, I advise all Tea Partiers to permanently move to a country like Somalia where they can enjoy the benefits of a society without governmental oversight, instead of publishing obdurate nonsense postulating an anti-government revolution in Taiwan, one of the better-run countries in the world, although still with many problems pending good governmental regulation, not least in the areas of public health and the environment.
BRUNO WALTHER
Taipei
Future of Taipei’s airports
I have two suggestions to make about Taipei’s airport situation, which was discussed in a recent editorial (“Taipei doesn’t need two airports,” June 18, page 8). First, have the government take over the old Taoyuan Air Force Base (AFB), which currently belongs to the Navy and turn it into a domestic airport for Taiwan and the base for all international flights between Taiwan and China. Having a tramway between Taoyuan International Airport and Taoyuan AFB along with a new MRT line will speed the way for travelers.
Second, turn Taipei Songshan Airport into a metropolitan park. Songshan Airport is dangerous for aircraft due to the mountainous terrain in the area and an annoyance because of the noise it creates for the city.
GENE HIRTE
Taichung
Taiwan has lost Trump. Or so a former State Department official and lobbyist would have us believe. Writing for online outlet Domino Theory in an article titled “How Taiwan lost Trump,” Christian Whiton provides a litany of reasons that the William Lai (賴清德) and Donald Trump administrations have supposedly fallen out — and it’s all Lai’s fault. Although many of Whiton’s claims are misleading or ill-informed, the article is helpfully, if unintentionally, revealing of a key aspect of the MAGA worldview. Whiton complains of the ruling Democratic Progressive Party’s “inability to understand and relate to the New Right in America.” Many
US lobbyist Christian Whiton has published an update to his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” discussed on the editorial page on Sunday. His new article, titled “What Taiwan Should Do” refers to the three articles published in the Taipei Times, saying that none had offered a solution to the problems he identified. That is fair. The articles pushed back on points Whiton made that were felt partisan, misdirected or uninformed; in this response, he offers solutions of his own. While many are on point and he would find no disagreement here, the nuances of the political and historical complexities in
Taiwan faces an image challenge even among its allies, as it must constantly counter falsehoods and misrepresentations spread by its more powerful neighbor, the People’s Republic of China (PRC). While Taiwan refrains from disparaging its troublesome neighbor to other countries, the PRC is working not only to forge a narrative about itself, its intentions and value to the international community, but is also spreading lies about Taiwan. Governments, parliamentary groups and civil societies worldwide are caught in this narrative tug-of-war, each responding in their own way. National governments have the power to push back against what they know to be
Taiwan is to hold a referendum on Saturday next week to decide whether the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant, which was shut down in May after 40 years of service, should restart operations for as long as another 20 years. The referendum was proposed by the opposition Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) and passed in the legislature with support from the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Its question reads: “Do you agree that the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant should continue operations upon approval by the competent authority and confirmation that there are no safety concerns?” Supporters of the proposal argue that nuclear power