Hau needs more action
I agree wholeheartedly with Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) (“Taipei mayor says he does not plan to visit Chen in prison,” Aug. 24, page 1), who said that granting former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) medical parole would “heal the wounds caused by social and political division” — a point I had also raised in an earlier letter (Letter, Aug. 3, page 8).
Hau’s call — made amid a hostile political climate because of the pan-blue and pan-green division, both at the elite and grassroots levels — reflects the magnanimity and conduct we would expect of a politician who puts the welfare of the nation above his or his party’s interests.
Hau has taken the first bold step to express his view on the issue and I urge him to further demonstrate his impartiality as a politician through concrete actions, including a visit to Chen in prison, as this will enable him to better gauge the former president’s health.
At the end of the day, Hau must demonstrate, through actions, his independence from his party on issues that are non-political in nature, as is the case of granting medical parole for Chen on humanitarian grounds.
Taiwan is facing many challenges and a humane arrangement with regards to Chen’s deteriorating health will pave the way for the ruling and opposition parties to work together to tackle the thorny issues, including economic growth, ahead.
In conclusion, I humbly reiterate my plea to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to release Chen on medical parole. This is the first and necessary step Ma must take if he sincerely wishes to reunite the divided nation. Ma’s refusal to do so will only strengthen international perception that Chen is being persecuted for advocating Taiwanese independence during his eight-year term.
Jason Lee
Singapore
Fig-leaf environmentalism
And so the fig-leaf environmentalism of Taiwan’s government continues.
This time, the transformation into a “low” carbon economy will apparently be achieved through encouraging four cities in Taiwan to reduce their carbon emissions through various energy saving measures (“EPA clarifies low-carbon cities plan,” Aug. 25, page 4). While every little bit helps, it helps only a little.
Overall, these efforts are much too late, woefully inadequate and painfully unambitious.
Notice, foremost, that they are not tied to any goals of actually reducing greenhouse emissions, as suggested by my earlier letter (“Letters,” June 11, page 8). While the proposed efforts will reduce carbon emissions for those sectors where the money is spent (eg, energy-saving lights), carbon emissions may well go up everywhere else. After all, it is national policy to grow the economy (“Ma speech focuses on economic growth,” May 21, page 1), in itself a dubious goal, benefitting mostly the rich (“Sharing the benefits of economic development,” Sept. 10, 2010, page 8).
Because economic growth is still tied to energy usage, emissions will go up. So why does the government not announce that with every 1 percentage point growth of the economy, total energy consumption must decrease by 1 percentage point? By making this a national requirement, the true decoupling of economic growth and greenhouse emissions would take place (see Cents and Sustainability: Securing Our Common Future by Decoupling Economic Growth from Environmental Pressure).
Furthermore, why on earth is this program not rolled out on a national scale making all cities eligible? For lack of money? Given that one global-warming strengthened typhoon after another is wrecking people’s lives and harming Taiwan’s economy, most likely every US$1 spent on reducing carbon emissions now will actually be US$10 saved in the future (see Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change). It is simply the short-sightedness of our decision-makers and the inadequacy of our economic systems that allow carbon-based economies to still be considered economically viable.
Not only is the scientific case for human-caused climate change now overwhelming, but also the economic case for doing something about it. Given that all the various positive climate feedbacks will probably accelerate climate change past everybody’s expectations in the next few decades, a sea-level rise of about 1m by the end of the century is quite likely (www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/default.html).
Add to that ever-strengthening typhoons and you can probably kiss Taiwan’s coastal areas bye-bye, unless literally billions are invested into sea defenses and other mitigating measures. So why not spend the billions now?
In the process, Taiwan would turn into an industrial leader in low-carbon technology, create many highly qualified professionals and dramatically reduce air pollution. Is it not worth the money to reduce rates of asthma, premature births and lung cancer (“Doctors warn on pollution risks,” Feb. 18, page 2)?
I suggest asking your children. And by the way, Ma, just because children don’t vote does not mean they do not have rights.
Flora Faun
Taipei
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS