Nothing being done for Lanyu
Your editorial late last year (“Living in a nuclear wasteland,” Dec. 2, 2011, page 8) was an informative summary outlining the Tao Aborigines’ dilemma, praiseworthy in its attempt to put a spotlight on this issue in the run-up to January’s presidential election.
However, this is not just an election-year issue. The storage site of low-level radioactive waste used by government-owned Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) for decades is a public health issue that urgently needs to be addressed, both in the short and long term. With this letter, I want to raise additional points regarding this debate and suggest ways the scientific community could do more.
First, no scientific articles have been published on the issue of radioactive contamination of Lanyu (蘭嶼), also known as Orchid Island. A search on PubMed, the database of scientific journals, yields zero results for articles published on this issue. Why isn’t it monitored more closely by the scientific community?
It must be noted that Huh Chih-an’s (扈治安) study at Academia Sinica was funded by Taipower, thus making it difficult for him to report his findings to the public. He was, however, able to discuss his research at a joint symposium on International Collaborative Study among Taiwan, Lithuania and Latvia at National Ocean University in Keelung on Oct. 26 last year.
Fortunately, Peter Chang (張武修) of Taipei Medical University’s School of Public Health photographed slides from this presentation, so when Huh declined to comment on the breaking story of Lanyu’s increased cesium-137 levels, Chang was the only person who could intelligently interpret Huh’s results for the general public. If Chang had not attended Huh’s presentation, the story might never have emerged. However, as a scientist, isn’t Huh ultimately obliged to serve the public by making a full disclosure of his findings?
Further, the world-class brainpower at Academia Sinica need not be funded at all by outside interests to conduct whatever research they deem important. Shouldn’t Academia Sinica take the responsibility to continue this research themselves — independently — instead of acting passively and only responding to requests from those with potentially vested interests?
Taipower’s response to the public outcry has been to throw money at the problem in the hope that it goes away. This has come in the form of attempts to placate Lanyu’s Aboriginal community with free electricity and some monetary compensation.
However, the fact remains: The government’s electric company duped the entire island; gross fraudulence affecting the health and well-being of 4,000 residents with illicit storage of toxic waste — and this is material that nobody can say what its long-term effects and risks are. Not only did Taipower trick Lanyu residents for years by telling them the dumpsite was a fishing cannery, the fraud goes back even further: Deceiving the island’s (illiterate) representative into signing the initial contract in the first place.
There is a crisis in public confidence at play, which authorities have yet to address. How could anyone trust Taipower to act in service to the public now? When rusting barrels were repackaged recently, the process was kept secret.
All of Taipower’s actions should at the bare minimum be held to the strictest standards of transparency.
Trista di Genov
Taipei
US support is bipartisan
Your opinion page rarely makes me as angry as I was the other day, reading the claptrap by Li Thian-hok (李天福) (“US Taiwanese should vote GOP,” March 16, page 8)
The US’ policy toward Taiwan — to defend it from Chinese military action — is not a partisan policy. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats own that policy. It has even-handed support from members of both parties and from the US public.
Former US president Richard Nixon — a Republican — set in motion the decision to restore normal diplomatic relationships between the US and China and former US president Jimmy Carter — a Democrat — formalized the decision. Furthermore, the Taiwan Relations Act was overwhelmingly passed by the US House of Representatives and US Senate with bipartisan support (345-55 and 85-4 respectively).
Taiwan has many supporters in both political parties and it is easy to find examples within both parties of people who kowtow to the Chinese Communist Party.
There is no reason supporters of Taiwan should automatically decide to vote Republican. Any claim to the contrary is just flat wrong.
Jim Walsh
Taipei
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS