The US July 4 celebration
My fellow Americans, the best way to celebrate the 4th of July is to go to the US Institute in Taipei and register to vote. But it is not enough to register to vote. You must also vote via absentee ballot. When you vote, how will you vote? Where do you stand on the issues?
Do you stand with Hillary Rodham Clinton, who wants automatic universal voter registration? Or do you stand with Republican presidential candidates Jeb Bush, Rick Perry and Chris Christie, who support voter ID laws, which have taken the right to vote away from people? They claim they are fighting voter fraud, but voter fraud is less than 1 precent.
Do you stand with Obamacare, the Supreme Court that recently upheld Obamacare again, Democrats, Taiwan, Canada, Europe and Japan in having a national healthcare plan? Or do you stand with Republicans who want to repeal Obamacare and take away the healthcare that it gives to more than 10 million Americans?
Do you believe in an independent Supreme Court that is a check and balance to the power of the president and the US Congress? Or do you stand with Republican presidential candidate Bobby Jindal, who wants to disband the Supreme Court?
In the wake of yet another mass shooting, this time in a church in Charleston, South Carolina, do you stand with Democrats, Taiwan, Canada, Europe and Japan in having stricter gun laws and less gun violence? Or do you stand with Republicans and want easier access to guns?
Do you stand with Democrats in removing the Confederate flag from government symbols and buildings? Or do you stand with Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee who thinks a presidential candidate should not comment on the issue? Or do you stand with Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio, who thinks it is an issue for individual states to decide?
Yes, Democrats did support the Confederate flag, but then they turned against it. Yes, Republicans did fight the Confederate flag, but then they embraced it. And that is the difference between the two parties. Democrats evolve. Republicans degenerate.
Andres Chang
Boston
Our distopian present
George Orwell would have had a field day with this. In doublespeak of which Orwell himself would have been proud, the Environmental Protection Administration indeed had the cheek to call the continued long-term state-sanctioned mass poisoning with toxic air (“The club of civilized nations,” June 9, page 8) in the Kaohsiung-Pingtung area an “air quality zone” (“Kaohsiung-Pingtung air quality zone set to open,” June 27, page 3).
Let us see how this “air quality zone” pans out for the people afflicted by higher rates of cancer and other serious ailments related to toxic air (“Doctors warn on pollution risks,” Feb. 18, 2012, page 2). Department of Air Quality and Noise Control Director-General Chen Hsien-heng (陳咸亨) promised that, until June 2018, air pollution will drop by 5 percent. In other words, at this rate, people cannot expect to breathe healthy, unpolluted air until 60 years from now. In other words, millions of people continue to be poisoned for at least two generations because the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) continues to pander to the demands of corporations and not to protect people’s health and the environment.
Never mind that the promised 5 percent is unlikely to be achieved, because which corporation would be afraid of the penalties of NT$100,000 to NT$1 million (US$3,213 to US$32,134)? That sounds like the kind of back-pocket change that any corporate CEO has lying around. In any cost-benefit analysis, it is probably cheaper to just pay the penalty than to install filters. That is the insanity of economic logic for you.
Given the ridiculousness of the whole scheme, may I reiterate my rhetorical question: Has there ever been a more useless Environmental Protection Administration (“Stone Age climate policy,” Feb. 9, page 8)? In order to untangle the Orwellian double-speak, may we now call Chen Hsien-heng more accurately the director-general of the “Department of Corporate Stooges Doing Everything To Keep Air and Noise Pollution at Unhealthy Levels so Corporate Profits Remain Sacrosanct”?
This policy of miniscule steps of change is evident in the Ma administration policies concerning the environment, biodiversity (“The plight of sharks,” June 26, 2011, page 8), human rights, or economic inequality (“Environmental tax inequality,” June 22, 2012, page 8). In essence, nothing will change substantially until the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is removed. And then we must all pray that the Democratic Progressive Party has more guts to make substantial change for a more just and healthy society.
Flora Faun
Taipei
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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