Just blame the DPP
In the story about President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) faulting the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) for complaining about the Taipei International Flora Expo, your headline is conspicuous (“Ma faults DPP over Flora Expo,” Sept. 18, page 3). Alleged procurement scandals related to the flora expo are the responsibility of Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌), a Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) member. Taipei resident wonder how Hau can use their tax money in such a way.
“The DPP’s constant attacks on the expo will only result in a lose-lose situation that not only ruins the expo, but also shames the country,” Ma said.
Ma’s criticism is unjustifiable and unacceptable. How can a president blame the opposition party for the scandals his own party has committed? Many people suspect that the recent raid on former president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) office may be nothing but a subterfuge to distract the public from KMT mistakes.
People in Taiwan and worldwide remember vividly that, a few years ago when Chen was charged for misuse of the national affairs secret fund, then-Taipei mayor Ma wanted “Chen to die in an ugly manner” and asked Chen to resign.
Ma also let tens of thousands of red-shirt protesters crowd the streets of Taipei, causing traffic jams for days. Apparently, Ma did not think this would “shame the country” since it related to the DPP. The country would be shamed only if the KMT’s fame was at stake, according to Ma.
Three close associates of Hau have resigned and the KMT wants to settle the expo procurement scandals with these resignations. Taiwan’s judiciary system is notorious. Most of the judges are not color blind: They penalize green and exempt blue. The biased judiciary system is the true shame of the country.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
The missing links of history
While Nathan Novak did a good job of addressing president Ma’s claim that the KMT defeated the Japanese in World War II, there was a glaring absence in his analysis (“KMT keen to distort history as well,” Sept. 16, page 8).
He writes: “The war in the Pacific, though it had Chinese involvement, was won almost entirely by US forces.”
This justifiably assigns the major role in Japan’s defeat to US forces, with Chinese troops also acknowledged as making a significant contribution. What he fails to mention anywhere in his piece is the part played by other Allied forces.
For example, British and Indian troops were heavily involved in the successful campaign in Burma, and Australians and New Zealanders played a leading role in the fighting in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands. Even during the assault on Okinawa in the closing stages of the conflict, about a quarter of the naval air power was provided by a combined carrier group comprised of Australian, British, Canadian and New Zealand ships and personnel.
The intervention of the Soviet Union in Manchuria in August 1945 is also worth mentioning, since some historians go as far as to say that this was more significant in bringing Japan to the negotiating table than the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Tony Phillips
Taipei
Bickering is essential
Regarding Adrian Ineichen and Lin Chia-yin’s letter, I can appreciate the idealistic qualities of building bridges and opening up to new ideas (“Letter,” Sept. 15, page 8). However, the reality is that it is not quite so easy to put aside history unless one doesn’t mind increasing their odds of repeating past mistakes.
Remember that the KMT is the Chinese Nationalist Party, not the Taiwanese Nationalist Party. This major distinction often puts it at odds with the interests of Taiwanese.
For example, the recently proposed change to the education curriculum whereby Chinese history would receive greater emphasis than Taiwanese history is based on the logic that everyone in Taiwan descended from China. If one applied that faulty logic, then as an American I should have learned more about King George III than George Washington.
The problem is not the DPP “hating” the KMT for publicity. It is because the KMT has not been adequately accountable in the past for its human rights violations during the Martial Law era and Ma’s current Beijing-centric actions have left many wondering if he is the president of Taiwan or the governor of a Chinese province. Being treated as second-class citizens on your own turf is a continuing problem.
While it may be uncomfortable to see fist fights break out in the legislature, the past and present actions of the KMT are why there is tension between the KMT and the pro-independence DPP.
Carl Chiang
Richmond, California
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations