Pluralism will take time
I totally agree with Cho Keng-yu’s point (“Traditional views on sexuality stifle rights,” June 12, page 8) that there would be no need for homosexuals to “come out” if our society accepted different sexual orientations. Cho mentions that many heterosexuals wonder why homosexuals bother to come out at all. Indeed, the action of “coming out” might suggest that homosexuals are different, which is contrary to the fact that homosexuals are the same as everyone else. Since homosexuals highlight that they should not be considered abnormal and should have the same rights as heterosexuals, they do not need to “come out,” as this only gives the public the chance to label them as a “special group.”
However, while this argument has its merits we should not forget that we have long been living in a heterosexual-centric society. Our values are deeply influenced by heterosexual ideology, which explains why some people might consider homosexuals special or abnormal. If we lived in a society that was gender-plural right from the start, we would not consider the coming out of homosexuals to be strange, for it would be just as normal as heterosexuals declaring that they were going to marry.
The most important question is not whether it is necessary for homosexuals to come out, but whether our society is or will be able to accept different sexual orientations and acknowledge gender pluralism. It is still difficult for our society to accept homosexuals, bisexuals or transsexuals. Homosexual marriage has not been legalized and the existence of people of different sexual orientations is still invisible. Our society still has a long way to go before it is ready for gender pluralism.
Jean Yu
Taipei
Environmental tax inequality
Things go wrong when the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.
The lack of policy integration is all too evident in the discussion surrounding Minister of the Interior Lee Hong-yuan’s (李鴻源) call for higher energy prices to rein in pollution through energy consumption. Although making some valid points, even a recent op-ed piece (“Government must come clean about power price,” June 16, page 8) missed two crucial points.
First, environmental taxes cannot be successfully implemented in societies with great economic inequality. Any tax increase on a product is a regressive tax, meaning it hits poor people much harder than rich people.
Whenever governments try to raise energy prices to reduce consumption in poor countries like Nigeria or Venezuela, riots ensue because poor people cannot afford such increases. However, when such taxes are introduced in countries with more equitable incomes, such as Denmark, they are more accepted because most people can not only afford them, but also have money to spare to buy more energy-efficient devices. Therefore, economic equality and environmental taxes are inextricably linked — a crucial point too often missed in this debate.
It is all too evident that the poorer people and even the middle class in Taiwan have had little part in the economic growth of the past decade. Most people will consequently resist any more cuts to their incomes. Therefore, the government must address economic inequality through progressive instead of regressive tax measures (“Hon Hai boss proposes taxing the rich,” June 7, page 1).
People are not stupid. If they see subsidies going to companies with high energy consumption while the people are asked to pay more, they do not need to take a bite to see that the deal is a rotten apple.
Second, the government’s policies lack integration. Raising electricity prices appears to be just another tax to fill empty government coffers instead of being part of an integrated policy for long-term energy efficiency and renewable energy installation (“Fig leaf environmentalism,” June 11, page 8).
If the government promised to invest the money from energy taxes into energy efficiency and renewable energy, it would find much broader support.
Remember: People do not want electricity. They want the services that electricity provides. For example, people may want a cool room. One way to cool a room is to use air-conditioning run on electricity. Another is to insulate the house and use blinds to keep the heat out.
Likewise, people can travel in a fossil fuel-using car stuck in traffic jams (see Beijing) or a comfortable, punctual metro powered by wind energy (see Copenhagen).
The government should heed the advice that reducing economic inequality and implementing expensive, but ultimately beneficial environmental policies, go hand in hand.
Flora Faun
Taipei
To be or not to be Taiwanese
As I am from Taichung, I literally moved to the edge of my chair when I saw a news report that featured my hometown. (“Lin’s nationality debated in Taichung,” May 25, page 2). However, this letter is not about Taichung, but about Taiwan.
In recent decades, it seems that more and more Chinese have jumped onto the world stage. Whenever one is asked, “What would you tell your foreign friends about Taiwan?” it is inevitable that people think of figures like Ang Lee (李安), Alexander Wang (王大仁) and the “Linsanity” sensation, Jeremy Lin (林書豪). Seeing a Taiwanese shine on the global scene makes us proud and then we become desperate to claim that “we’re the same!”
However, it is somewhat awkward because those who have come under the spotlight are not very “Taiwanese.” They are born in the US, or have moved abroad to find a better education and future. I do not mean that being “more Western” holds a higher social status; however, we should think deeply about why they sought a more promising future abroad instead of in Taiwan.
More importantly, do they really identify themselves as Taiwanese? If not, isn’t it a little bit hypocritical for some of them to speak of their love for their hometowns, while not being able to speak their mother tongue well?
London Liu
Taipei
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers