A lack of moral leadership
Whenever foreigners praise Taiwanese for their friendliness and kindness, I feel like I must be living in a parallel universe (“Book review: Virtuous island,” Sept. 21, page 14).
Take, for example, the recent letter in which James Baranishyn voiced his concerns about air pollution, particularly the inconsiderate burning of joss paper (Letters, Sept. 19, page 8). His letter raised three issues for me.
First, I once confronted a neighbor who was burning joss paper, as the smoke was contaminating the entire street, including my apartment. Instead of listening to my concerns or possibly stopping what he was doing, he called the police and threatened to have me arrested for “having insulted his honor” or whatever.
I had to tell him “sorry” when inside I believed myself to be totally in the right in defending my health and the planet’s health.
I have been threatened with arrest and physical violence at least five times simply for reminding Taiwanese of their own traffic rules or of decent behavior toward fellow human beings.
So much for the supposed friendliness of Taiwanese: It vanishes into thin air, just like burned joss paper, as soon as you criticize them in any way.
Taiwanese have no culture of dealing with criticism, no matter how justified, and especially not criticism from foreigners, because then they become all emotional and irrational about losing face.
Second, most religious leaders are completely irresponsible when it comes to protecting the health of Taiwan’s residents and the environment (“Temple traditions versus environmental concerns,” Aug. 1, page 3).
Besides the toxic air pollution that religious practice produces, many temples burn their trash or throw it in a nearby river, while the idiotic release of prayer animals encourages animal cruelty and the introduction of dangerous animals, including poisonous snakes.
Most disappointing, however, is the almost total absence of moral leadership on these issues: While the Dalai Lama and the Pope are outspoken about the need to protect the environment, you almost never hear a religious leader in Taiwan speak out forcefully about the need to protect people’s health and the environment. This lack of moral leadership is pathetic.
To be fair, there are some religious groups that work on issues like recycling, but they are a minority, and they do not speak up loudly enough against the misconduct of the many (“PET bottles collected,” Sept. 6, page 4).
Third, with the effect of severe weather on an aging population (“Cancer No. 1 death cause for 35th consecutive year,” June 20, page 3) and record temperatures again in September (“Temperature in Taipei hits record high for September,” Sept. 28, page 3) and October (“Record temperatures set,” Oct. 2, page 3), the urgency of improving air quality and saving the planet from disastrous climate change should be ever more apparent.
While President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government is moving toward some of the right solutions (e.g., a circular economy, renewable energy), although much too slowly, the so-called “moral leaders” as well as most Taiwanese should be ashamed of continuing their anachronistic, dangerous and inconsiderate behavior.
For the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), China’s “century of humiliation” is the gift that keeps on giving. Beijing returns again and again to the theme of Western imperialism, oppression and exploitation to keep stoking the embers of grievance and resentment against the West, and especially the US. However, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) that in 1949 announced it had “stood up” soon made clear what that would mean for Chinese and the world — and it was not an agenda that would engender pride among ordinary Chinese, or peace of mind in the international community. At home, Mao Zedong (毛澤東) launched
With a new White House document in May — the “Strategic Approach to the People’s Republic of China” — the administration of US President Donald Trump has firmly set its hyper-competitive line to tackle geoeconomic and geostrategic rivalry, followed by several reinforcing speeches by Trump and other Cabinet-level officials. By identifying China as a near-equal rival, the strategy resonates well with the bipartisan consensus on China in today’s severely divided US. In the face of China’s rapidly growing aggression, the move is long overdue, yet relevant for the maintenance of the international “status quo.” The strategy seems to herald a new
To say that this year has been eventful for China and the rest of the world would be something of an understatement. First, the US-China trade dispute, already simmering for two years, reached a boiling point as Washington tightened the noose around China’s economy. Second, China unleashed the COVID-19 pandemic on the world, wreaking havoc on an unimaginable scale and turning the People’s Republic of China into a common target of international scorn. Faced with a mounting crisis at home, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) rashly decided to ratchet up military tensions with neighboring countries in a misguided attempt to divert the
Toward the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) final term in office, there was much talk about his legacy. Ma himself would likely prefer history books to enshrine his achievements in reducing cross-strait tensions. He might see his meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Singapore in 2015 as the high point. However, given his statements in the past few months, he might be remembered more for contributing to the breakup of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). We are still talking about Ma and his legacy because it is inextricably tied to the so-called “1992 consensus” as the bedrock of his