Unlike the high-profile, flamboyant Chinese tycoon Chen Guangbiao (陳光標), many Taiwanese carry out their charitable deeds quietly. Donations for relief efforts after the massive earthquake and tsunami that struck Japan on March 11 are no exception. Government information shows donations from Taiwanese and local charity groups had reached more than NT$3 billion (US$103.5 million) by late last month.
It therefore comes as a shock and causes mixed feelings among many donors to learn that the Red Cross Society of the Republic of China (ROC) decided to send only a fraction of Taiwan’s collective love to Japan in what the organization called the initial phase of relief. According to the organization, a total of NT$1.5 billion had been raised from the public as of March 28. During a meeting on March 31, its management unanimously agreed to give the Red Cross in Japan US$15 million for emergency relief first and withhold the remaining sum until the Japanese came up with a clearer reconstruction and rebuilding plan.
This is dumbfounding. How could the Red Cross Society of the ROC take upon itself to decide how the funds should be used when Taiwanese donors’ intentions were clear that their donations were for relief, not to meddle in Japan’s domestic affairs?
The organization, in its defense, argued that it is its long-standing policy to give out large disaster relief funds in phases, depending on the need of the country.
As Article 19 of the Charity Donations Act (公益勸募條例) clearly stipulates that donations raised by charitable groups cannot be used for purposes other than what was stated in a plan approved by the authorities, the Red Cross in Taiwan should make its plan public. If the plan is found to contain little detail, the responsibility would fall on the authorities.
The latest controversy concerning the organization reminds many that this is not the first time it has seemingly taken the liberty to allot funds donated by the public for purposes different from the donors’ original intent. Many vividly recall that in June, 2008, it decided to donate NT$64 million — an amount it received from the Taipei City Government’s leftover 921 Earthquake relief funds — to a school in China following the 2008 Sichuan earthquake.
While some may argue that the donation went to a good cause anyway by helping the students in Sichuan, the problem lies in donors not being properly informed as to how their donations will be used.
While the latest controversy should not denigrate the Red Cross Society of the ROC, which has earned recognition for its good work in the past, the latest incident was a further instance of the organization seemingly arbitrarily deciding how to use donations without the donors’ consent. The organization should conduct its operations with transparency if it is to maintain its reputation.
Some Netizens posting on a Facebook group said that they had lost confidence in the Red Cross Society of the ROC and would take their donations to other relief groups. It would be an utter shame if the organization tarnished its hard-won reputation — and more importantly, tarnished Taiwanese humanitarian relief efforts and betrayed the kindness of the Taiwanese.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US