Be proud of your nation’s flag
First, a quick introduction. I am a Canadian in my mid-50s and am thoroughly enjoying my first visit to Taiwan. The people are wonderful, the transportation inexpensive and the sights wonderful.
I believe Taiwan to be a hidden gem, which many of my fellow Canadians should consider visiting, but for some reason it does not seem to be as common as other Pacific Rim destinations, and that is a shame because the country has much to offer to a visitor.
But, I digress.
When I read Torch Pratt’s letter concerning Taiwan’s national flag (Letters, March 21, page 8), I must confess I was more than a little surprised. This was the first I had ever heard about the issue. That said, I think I can share something from my nation’s history that you might find of interest.
Everyone recognizes the Canadian flag for what it is — two vertical red bands, with a central white panel that holds a symbolic maple leaf. Canadians love our flag, and it always warms my heart when I see it displayed in a foreign country, as it’s a symbol of my homeland.
However, this was not always the case. Prior to 1965, the Canadian flag had nothing in common with the current one. The old flag contained a big red panel, with the national crest on the right-hand side, and the British Union Jack in the upper left quadrant.
In 1965, it was proposed that Canada replaced its flag with one that was distinctly Canadian. As much as most Canadians appreciate being part of the British Commonwealth, we wanted our own unique identity. In ways I suspect not unlike a teenager wanting to begin to spread their wings of independence — still loving their parents, but wanting to show autonomy and their own uniqueness.
The concept of a new flag was not met with fully open arms. Many people who had fought in World War I or World War II under the old flag were very upset about this, as was one of the national political party leaders. However, the younger generation were more open to the concept, and the search for a new flag began. After many unusual prototypes were presented, the current flag was finally selected, and the rest is history.
I heard concerns expressed that when shown in small format, the Taiwanese flag might be confused with that of Myanmar. I do not think that is anything to be concerned about. If you shrink down the Canadian flag and show it beside the flag of Peru, those two flags could also be potentially confused.
However, most of the time one looks at their national flag is when its flying in the breezes of their native land and there is no mistaking it for anything other than what it is. When I see it on the tail of an Air Canada aircraft, I do not mistake it for anything else.
To me, the Taiwanese flag appears to be a nice combination of esthetically pleasing components, bold color combinations and not the somewhat boring (please forgive me, those who come from countries that have this) a two or three panel spread of basic colors. If you really want to confuse flags, try to remember which combination of horizontal color panels represents which country. Canada’s red maple leaf and Taiwan’s bold white sun ensure that confusion does not happen.
As an outsider, I fully recognize my input has little merit in what Taiwanese as a people choose to do. That is entirely the choice of the people of Taiwan as a democratic nation.
All I want to say is this: Whatever you choose to do, embrace your flag with open arms. Love it, cherish it and be proud of it representing you around the world, wherever your travels might take you.
Calvin Pond
Calgary, Canada
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