Battle stigma of insanity
With the dramatic increase in the college enrollment rate, a higher rate of students with debilitating psychological disorders, especially in low-tier institutions of higher learning, is becoming clearer.
Teachers are left scratching their heads as to how to deal with such students because they are not trained for such a task and a visit to a health professional is frowned upon at best and stigmatizing at worst in a nation where saving face is still of utmost importance.
Society sees psychological disorders as abnormal, but acceptable. Some see it as a curse caused by some inauspicious event. Some even wonder why these poor souls allow themselves to be chronically blue.
As a result, the silent psychological malady settles in unchecked, save for a few trips to the fortune teller or to the temple, which only offer limited relief.
However, visiting a health professional is not as stigmatizing, it’s cheap or free and above all it provides the quickest answer.
However, for the majority, seeking professional help is akin to being crazy, and making that journey to recovery — and ultimately a decent life — would entail losing face; living with the disorder is much more bearable than being seen visiting the psychiatrist.
For those who manage to break through the wall of shame and are willing to seek private professional help often find it unaffordable to do so, or they seek the services of doctors in public hospitals, where they are loaded with drugs without extensive consultation — writing the patient off with prescribed medicine does the trick.
Finally, some people deliberately avoid seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist lest their insurance providers find out they have a mental disorder, which could disqualify them from a life insurance plan, something that almost every citizen see as a necessity.
The majority of citizens continue to attribute the factors that lead to such debilitating maladies to superficial or supernatural forces, and that impedes any type of progress in this matter. Therefore, being aware of and well-informed — at an earlier age — about the biological, cognitive, learning and conditioning factors, as well as the morbid effects that ensue, could provide some relief to a population that is teetering on the brink of insanity.
Mo Reddad
Greater Kaohsiung
Respect Tibet
It is time for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to show his respect for the human rights of Tibetans by dropping the Republic of China’s (ROC) claim to Tibet from the ROC Constitution (“Helping Tibet would help Taiwan,” Jan. 31, page 8).
The ROC has treated Tibet like a cake drawn on a piece of paper to satisfy hunger and should wake up from this daydream that hurts both Tibetans and Taiwanese.
Taiwan has suffered enough as a victim of intimidation over its sovereign status. Taiwanese diplomats do not have diplomatic immunity because Taiwan is not considered a state — even by its ally, the US. The Taiwanese president is not allowed to visit the White House. Yet the ROC still has a map that includes Tibet, Mongolia and China as part of its territory, after it lost all of these in 1949. This map only creates problems for Taiwan.
If the ROC really wants to live in the past, it should move its government to Kinmen or Matsu, which the ROC can still legally claim as its territories.
A victimized Taiwan should not victimize Tibet or any other countries. If Tibetans are victimized, Taiwanese should help them like brothers and sisters in need. If the Tibetan spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, wants to visit Taiwan, he should be given a red carpet welcome.
The Ma administration must accept the historical facts and release Tibet from the ROC Constitution. This is a good opportunity for Ma to win a Nobel Peace Prize by releasing Tibet and respecting Tibetans.
The new legislature should also do something creative and meaningful for Taiwanese. The legislature was downsized from 225 to 113 members several years ago. Now Taiwanese would like to see the downsizing of the Constitution to fit Taiwan, for the sake of mobility, vitality and fashion.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with