A fond fan farewell
Goodbye, Spock.
In Star Trek, humanity was portrayed by the rapport between Kirk, Spock and McCoy. Passionate McCoy represented our emotions. Logical Spock represented our intellect. And Kirk was the balance between the two that makes us who we are.
In real life, these three actors’ backgrounds seemed to help destine them to play their parts. William Shatner was classically trained for the stage in Canada. Leonard Nimoy was trained in the contemporary US stage. And DeForest Kelley, who passed away some years ago, was a television actor.
In the words of Nimoy: “He [Kelley] doesn’t perform for the camera. He behaves for the camera.”
Intellect and emotion often collide. And sometimes they agree. In The Wrath of Khan, both Spock and McCoy tell Kirk that it was a mistake for him to accept a promotion. And Kirk, like so many of us, still did the wrong thing even though we knew and felt that it was wrong.
Nimoy also showed off his directing talents in The Search For Spock and The Voyage Home. The latter was a bigger hit with both audiences and critics; once again reminding us that you do not need sex or violence to sell a movie. It was also well-received by audiences who were not Star Trek fans; once again reminding us that you do not even need to be a fan to like Star Trek.
The Voyage Home also showed us the limits of logic.
When asked: “How do you feel?” Spock does not understand the question.
Yes, we need cold logical reason, but to deny our feelings is to deny our humanity. And that is what Spock did. By embracing his logic and his Vulcanness, and in the absence of his feelings, he reminded us of our own logic and our own feelings. We embrace our own humanity when we have feelings even for things that do not have feelings for us.
Goodbye, Leonard Nimoy, and thank you. I am and always shall be, your fan.
Andres Chang
Taipei
Taiwan’s purgatory
On Saturday, Taipei Mayor Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) delivered an emotional speech at a governmental memorial ceremony in tears, saying: “The pain of 228 cannot be expressed in words.”
Who was liable for the 228 Massacre? In 1947, Taiwan was under Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) military occupation. It was Chiang who gave the order to massacre innocent civilians.
After the killings, Taiwan was placed under martial law and White Terror ensued. Tens of thousands were killed and trapped Taiwan into political purgatory even to this day.
Coming after the Sunflower movement last year, this year marked a very different 228 commemoration. Chiang statues were beheaded at several locations in Taiwan.
Tainan Mayor William Lai (賴清德) said that he would push for the speedy removal of Chiang statues from schools within his city limits.
However, Ko said he has no plans to call for the dismantling of Chiang statues because he did not want to be antagonistic.
Ko’s statement was challenged by Democratic Progressive Party Taipei City Councilor Liang Wen-jie (梁文傑), who said that if Ko told the German people to retain Hitler’s statue, the Germans would probably think Ko was crazy.
Ko said it was necessary to move beyond history toward a harmonious future, and asked: “If you remove Chiang Kai-shek statues from schools, then what should be done about the statue at Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall in Taipei?”
Remove it too? Yes, Taiwan needs consensus on the true history of Taiwan and the real political status of Taiwan.
DPP Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) said at the 68th commemoration of the 228 Incident that all Taiwanese have a mission — to put an end to all mistakes in history and make Taiwan an authentically free and democratic country.
The 228 Incident was not just a serious mistake, but an unforgivable crime. To make the mistake of saying: “The Republic of China [ROC] is Taiwan and Taiwan is the Republic of China” is also an obvious error.
General Order No. 1 stated that the Japanese military must surrender to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, rather than the ROC, so there was no legal document giving the ROC legal sovereignty over Taiwan.
On Friday last week, while Taiwan commemorated the 68th 228 Anniversary, Roger Lin, Julian Lin and Taiwan Civil Government filed a joint suit against the US and the ROC.
The complaint is a carefully crafted history lesson attacking the 1946 ROC Nationality Decrees depriving the residents of Taiwan, then commonly called Formosa, of their Japanese citizenship. These decrees, never authorized by the US, have left Taiwanese stateless, trapped in what the District of Columbia Court of Appeals has called “political purgatory.”
The complaint also involves the “ROC’s nationality decrees imposed upon the people of Taiwan, without the express or implied consent of the people of Taiwan, an ROC nationality that, to this day, does not offer the people of Taiwan an internationally accepted nationality.”
Article 5 of the Treaty of Shimonoseki gave Formosans two years to decide their nationality. How did it come to pass that in 1946, Taiwanese rights of nationality were deprived? As Tsai has said, let us put an end to alll mistakes in Taiwan history. Let us make collective efforts to find out and ratify our Taiwanese nationality.
John Hsieh
Hayward, California
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath