Lawmakers are not gods
During the reviews of the nominees for the Council of Grand Justices, some legislators questioned whether the nominees are patriotic, based on whether they would sing the national anthem.
Since I have no legal background at all, it would be greatly appreciated if these legislators could address the following issues in their questioning of the nominees: How should the phrase “the Three Principles of the People, the foundation of our party” be interpreted and explained? Can the ideals or dogma of a political party be incorporated into the Constitution? Would that be in line with the democratic political ideals of a modern society?
Unfortunately, the legislative question-and-answer sessions seem to have deteriorated into a question of whether or not the nominees sing the national anthem.
That the nominees are being called in to question based on whether they would sing the anthem brings to mind the scene in director Wan Jen’s (萬仁) film Super Citizen Ko (超級大國民) in which a victim of political persecution about to be executed walks through a dark prison corridor. As he does so, he shows the signs for the Chinese characters “2” and “1” as a symbol of Article 2, Clause 1 of the Punishment of Rebellion Act (懲治叛亂條例), which stipulated the death sentence for “committing an overt act with intent to destroy the organization of the state.”
Based on “intent,” the government sent dissidents to the execution ground, and those that were deemed guilty during the White Terror era were determined by the government to be guilty of having such “intent.”
In today’s Taiwan, is “intent” sufficient to assume that people of differing political opinions are guilty of something? Can people assume that nominees for a seat on the Council of Grand Justices are not patriots just because they do not want to sing the national anthem? This kind of questioning perfectly highlights how controversial the text of the anthem is.
We live in a mature democracy, and everyone is of course free to have an opinion about the suitability of the grand justice nominees and their qualifications.
However, legislators should not use accusations of “intent” to force someone to reveal their inner convictions — they must remember that they are ordinary people, not gods.
Huang Ju-hui
Taipei
Second-class citizens
I was appalled on a recent visit to Alishan National Scenic Area to find that ticket prices for foreign visitors were 50 percent higher than those for Taiwanese. On explaining that I possessed an Alien Permanent Residency Certificate, the ticket man said that only a full national ID card would warrant local prices.
The government must put an end to this. If Taiwan expects foreigners to continue to come here to work, pay taxes, integrate properly and assimilate into society, then it needs to treat them as fellow human beings, not as second-class citizens.
Furthermore, the government has pumped money into the tourism industry over the last few years, and yet at the same time, visitors are discriminated against when they get here. It does not look good.
I should add that this has not been my experience in most other parts of the nation and that generally speaking, Taiwanese are some of the most welcoming people I have met. Nonetheless, this anomaly needs to be addressed to protect Taiwan’s image as an inclusive and welcoming holiday destination.
Incidentally, Alishan lived up to its reputation as an enchanting scenic attraction and I shall be revisiting as soon as there is ticket price parity.
Oliver Drewett
Pingtung County
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