Questions of economy
As a student of National Taiwan University, I am embarrassed that the institution employs economics professors as naive as Lu Hsin-chang (盧信昌), who claimed the following in a recent article: “The trade system is capable of dealing with the short-term impact caused by climate change. Unless world population growth skyrockets, agricultural trade is expected to be healthy and prices will remain stable” (“The nation’s agricultural policy needs overhauling,” June 8, page 8).
However, this is not true for the short term and even less so for the long term. Lu still seems to think that markets can regulate everything when it has become increasingly clear that we need better government regulation and investment concerning everything from food safety and security to environmental protection.
Just a quick read of Wednesday’s Taipei Times would have set Lu straight.
The UN reports that food speculators have greatly influenced food prices during the past few years and will continue to do so unless regulated by the world’s governments (“Speculators pushing up food prices: UN,” June 8, page 6). Food speculation by corporations and the wealthy explains the short-term price hikes which make food unaffordable to the poorest. Much worse is that food prices can only go up in the long term. More people want to eat meat-based diets, while water supplies are drying up and climate change creates unpredictable weather patterns that drive up food prices worldwide (“Warming planet puts additional strains on food supply chain,” June 8, page 9).
Again, the solution does not lie in promoting the “capable” trade system (aka the free market), but in governments investing more in a new “green revolution” to deal with the problems caused by climate change and water scarcity. Naturally, greenhouse gases need to be cut worldwide, and Taiwan is still one of the worst offenders.
If these examples do not make the case for more active government oversight, the latest food scares surely do (“Global food chain emphasizes profit more than health,” June 8, page 9 and “Food scare presents test for public,” June 8, page 8). And that is all in one day’s reading. Seems like somebody did not do their assignment.
Let’s hope students will one day be taught by economics professors who also read about environmental issues instead of blindly believing in the so-called wisdom of the free market.
FLORA FAUN
Taipei
Easing the pain?
Proponents of the death penalty say that it is necessary because it helps the families of the victims feel a sense of justice, thus alleviating the pain and suffering of losing a loved one to crime.
With the recent news of the wrongful execution of air force serviceman Chiang Kuo-ching (江國慶), I have been thinking about this a great deal.
How much did the execution of Chiang alleviate the pain and suffering of the raped and murdered girl’s family?
Very little I suspect.
But how much has the knowledge that an innocent man was murdered to give them this slight solace increased the family’s pain and suffering?
A great deal I expect.
BILL MCGREGOR
Fengyuan
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS