Article 3 of the Ministry of Health and Welfare’s Standards on Assessing Donor Suitability for Blood Donation (捐血者健康標準) states that people should wait at least two months between donations of 250ml and at least three months for those giving 500ml. However, it also says that men should give a maximum of 1,500ml per year and women should give a maximum of 1,000ml. In other words, when a donor has reached the limit for annual blood donations, even if they waited the required interval between them, they would still have to wait until after their next birthday before giving blood. The Taiwan Blood Services Foundation says the limits to the amount of blood people can donate is set out of a concern for donors’ iron levels. When a man has donated 2,000ml blood, he might have lost 1,000mg iron and needs time to replenish it. However, regular blood donors have a good idea about how to look after their bodily health. If donors judge that there is no problem with their health, as long as they have fulfilled the three-month waiting period, they should be allowed to donate another 500ml. Besides, Taiwan has become an aged society. The population of young people is falling, and there are certain restrictions as to who can donate blood. Under these conditions it will become more of a challenge to maintain a balance between supply and demand of blood. If the limit on blood donations could be conditionally relaxed when the Taiwan Blood Services Foundation announces low stocks of blood or when there is a major disaster, such as last week’s Taroko Express train crash, it would help meet an urgent demand for blood. This small adjustment to the rules would enable many regular blood donors to roll up their sleeves and give blood when it is most needed. Fu Yen-wen is
Interrupting the assimilation of Xinjiang’s Uighur population would result in an unmanageable national security threat to China. Numerous governments and civil society organizations around the world have accused China of massive human rights abuses in Xinjiang, and labeled Beijing’s inhumane and aggressive social re-engineering efforts in the region as “cultural genocide.” Extensive evidence shows that China’s forceful ethnic assimilation policies in Xinjiang are aimed at replacing Uighur ethnic and religious identity with a so-called scientific communist dogma and Han Chinese culture. The total assimilation of Uighurs into the larger “Chinese family” is also Beijing’s official, central purpose of its ethnic policies in the region. Consequently, numerous Western actors are escalating their political, economic and diplomatic pressure on Beijing to coerce it into stopping the program. In the US, last year’s Uyghur Human Rights Policy Act condemns gross human rights violations of ethnic minorities in Xinjiang, and calls for an “end to arbitrary detention, torture, and harassment of these communities inside and outside China.” During his presidential campaign, US President Joe Biden referred to the crackdown on Uighurs as “genocide,” and in the past few months imposed numerous political and economic sanctions on Beijing. The UK has imposed sanctions on Chinese officials, and British lawmakers are discussing a genocide trade bill that, if passed, would seriously restrict trade with China. Political parties in northern Europe are asking to end the EU’s free trade talks with China. The list of measures goes on. A consequence of the growing public outcry against Beijing’s assimilation policies in Xinjiang is the probable partial boycott of next year’s Beijing Winter Olympic Games. After all, how could a country send its athletes to an event organized by a genocidal regime? Numerous representatives of Western governments have added their support for the boycott. Canadian lawmakers have called for the relocation of the
In the past few months, Taiwan’s print media seem to have become engulfed in a “digital currency fever” — almost every day there are reports about digital currencies saying that central banks in many countries are rushing to research and issue them. On Oct. 10 last year, the Chinese-language Economic Daily News reported that seven major national central banks, including the US Federal Reserve, had drafted principles for the issuance of central bank digital currencies (CBDC), in the hope of catching up with China. The Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) in June last year reported that Taiwan’s central bank completed a study on “wholesale CBDC feasibility technology” for large interbank transactions. Eighty percent of central banks around the world have initiated such research, and others are taking an increasingly positive view of CBDCs. Why are Taiwan’s — rather than Japan’s or the US’ — financial media suddenly filled with reports about digital currencies? China is a pioneer in advocating digital currencies. The People’s Bank of China began researching them in 2014 and founded research institutes in 2017. In April last year, it announced that internal “digital renminbi” pilot tests would be conducted in Chinese cities including Shenzhen and Beijing, the venue of next year’s Winter Olympic Games. China believes that when digital currency technology is mature, the digital renminbi would be used for borrowing and transactions under its Belt and Road Initiative so it can bypass the US dollar-based SWIFT system. This shows that the Chinese central bank’s acceleration of digital currency development is intended to challenge the hegemony of the US dollar. A digital currency researcher in Beijing has said that “future international competition may focus on the field of digital finance, and digital currency could be the ultimate battlefield.” Broadly speaking, a digital currency is an electronically realized currency, such as transactions through mobile phones or
EDITORIAL CARTOON
They are not leaders for life — not technically, at least. In political reality, the powerful tenures of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and, as of this week, Russian President Vladimir Putin are looking as if they will extend much deeper into the 21st century — even as the two superpowers whose destinies they steer gather more clout with each passing year. What is more, as they consolidate political control at home, sometimes with harsh measures, they are working together more substantively than ever in a growing challenge to the West and the world’s other superpower, the US, which elects its leader every four years. This week, Putin signed a law allowing him to potentially hold on to power until 2036. The 68-year-old Russian president, who has been in power for more than two decades — longer than any other Kremlin leader since Joseph Stalin — pushed through a constitutional vote last year allowing him to run again in 2024, when his six-year term ends. He has overseen a systematic crackdown on dissent. In China, Xi, who came to power in 2012, has imposed even tighter controls on the already repressive political scene, emerging as one of his nation’s most powerful leaders in the seven decades of Chinese Communist Party rule that began with Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) often-brutal regime. Under Xi, the government has rounded up, imprisoned or silenced intellectuals, legal activists and other voices, cracked down on Hong Kong’s opposition and used security forces to suppress calls for minority rights in Xinjiang, Tibet and Inner Mongolia. CONSOLIDATING POWER Xi has sidelined rivals, locked up critics and tightened the party’s control over information. An ongoing crackdown against corruption has won popular support while also keeping potential competitors in line. His steady consolidation of power led to the removal of term limits on the Chinese presidency in 2018,
Half of Myanmar’s population is under the age of 30, and many of them have benefited from their country’s fragile, imperfect democratic transition over the past decade. They know the military’s return to power could reverse hard-won gains in human development and fundamental freedoms. Their future is at stake. So are their lives. On March 27, Burmese Army Senior General Min Aung Hlaing used the occasion of Armed Forces Day to claim that the military would protect the people and promote democracy. This turned out to be the bloodiest day since the military coup on Feb. 1. Yet, as a father clutching his dying son poignantly said: “On this day, both lives and futures are being lost.” With their prospects vanishing before their eyes, tens of thousands of young people have taken to the streets across Myanmar. They are refusing to live without hope. The country’s backsliding is already being felt acutely. In addition to COVID-19, Myanmar is confronting a compounding economic crisis. A World Bank regional forecast shows that GDP is on track to shrink by 10 percent this year, compared with 6.8 percent growth in 2019 and 1.7 percent growth last year, when the country was reeling from the pandemic. Late last year, the UN Development Programme’s household vulnerability survey signaled that poor households are being pushed further below the poverty line, while many vulnerable households are being dragged toward it. Even previously financially secure households are facing massive shocks from business closures and loss of employment. On the streets of Yangon, Mandalay and other cities, Myanmar’s citizens have come to experience these crises in the starkest of terms, with countless personal tragedies unfolding behind the data. Young people are watching employment opportunities disappear as investment plummets. International buyers and factory owners are questioning the viability of their local operations, given the lack of worker safety
Just a few days after Friday last week’s fatal Taroko Express No. 408 train crash, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), predictably, seized the opportunity to blame the tragedy on the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP). At a press conference on Monday in Taipei, KMT caucus secretary-general Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) accused the DPP administration of negligence, saying it had failed to implement safety recommendations laid out by an ad hoc committee following the Puyuma Express derailment in 2018 that killed 18 people. Executive Yuan spokesman Lo Ping-cheng (羅秉成) rejected the accusations, saying the Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) had already implemented numerous safety improvements recommended by the committee. The KMT appears to have amnesia: Three of the major TRA accidents over the past decade happened during the administration of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), a KMT member. Two of those accidents — one in Taoyuan in 2012 and another in Changhua in 2015 — involved trains colliding with vehicles on the tracks, similar to the crash that occurred last week in Hualien County. As is typical practice in Taiwan whenever a tragedy occurs, Minister of Transportation and Communications Lin Chia-lung (林佳龍) tendered his resignation. However, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and other officials told Lin that this is not the time to discuss resignations — and they are right. Maybe it was a lack of proper supervision of TRA construction projects on the part of Lin that led to the accident — but just as KMT Chairman Johnny Chiang (江啟臣) wrote on Facebook on Saturday, nobody’s resignation will solve the safety issues at hand, or make up for the lives lost. The government must now focus on reparations and improvements. There are clearly systemic issues to work out, especially when a contractor can get track-level access unsupervised, and when there are no barriers between tracks and
In studies of Taiwan’s demographic changes, the Institute of Sociology at Academia Sinica has found that a mere 36.5 percent of men and 19.6 percent of women think getting married is an important life event. The institute also found that the government spending money or amending laws and regulations in order to encourage families to have children is having no impact on the birthrate. Opinions differ on whether this kind of change is a matter of national security, as Japan faces a similar situation, without having a negative impact on its economic strength. Fewer women are willing to marry and the divorce rate is rising. One reason for this is better access to universities and colleges, making it easier for women to build their own careers, but an even more important factor is that women can take back control of their own lives and are no longer restricted by traditional dogmas. A look at the number of men and women who no longer think marriage is an important life event makes it clear that women are willing to challenge traditional family values. In addition to conflict between married women and their in-laws, it is common to see how the happiness of married women depends on whether they give birth to a son who can carry on the family line and how others determine their value. Add work pressure to the pressure of giving birth to a son, how these pressures can force women to abandon other life options, and the unwillingness to become another person’s or even another family’s work tool, and it is not very difficult to see that these are the main reasons many women rank marriage very low. These are not factors that government policy can do much to change. Is this kind of self-awareness among women a bad thing? In the
Early last month, China’s rubber-stamp legislature, the National People’s Congress (NPC), officially approved the country’s 14th Five-Year Plan. The strategy was supposed to demonstrate that China has a long-term economic vision that would enable it to thrive, despite its geopolitical contest with the US. However, before the ink on the NPC’s stamp could dry, China had already begun sabotaging the plan’s chances of success. The new plan’s centerpiece is the “dual-circulation” strategy, according to which China would aim to foster growth based on domestic demand and technological self-sufficiency. This would not only reduce China’s reliance on external demand; it would also increase the reliance of its major trading partners — except the US — on access to its market and increasingly high-tech manufacturers. China has been laying the groundwork for this strategy for a while. At the end of last year, Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) concluded the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) with the EU. He had to make some concessions to get there, but it was worth it: The deal had the potential not only to deepen EU-China ties, but also to drive a wedge between Europe and the US. However, Xi is now undermining his own good work, by poisoning relations with critical trading partners. Over the past couple of weeks, China has blacklisted several members of the European Parliament, British and Canadian lawmakers, and academics and research institutions in Europe and the UK. To be sure, the sanctions were retaliatory: the EU, the UK and Canada had sanctioned a small number of Chinese officials who are implicated in ongoing human rights abuses against the largely Muslim Uighur minority in the Xinjiang region. While these abuses are nothing new, recent reports that forced Uighur labor is being used to harvest cotton have brought them to the fore. China is sanctioning its critics
The Taiwan Railways Administration (TRA) has just had another major accident, this time involving the Taroko Express, the cruel irony being that it was caused by a subcontractor working on the agency’s six-year safety improvement project. The train, traveling without incident until it reached the section of the track onto which a crane truck had slid, was involved in a tragic collision, claiming many lives on board. The debate in the media has focused on why a subcontractor’s vehicle was parked on a slope next to the track, but the question is not why events unfolded as they did, it is why the subcontractor and the TRA chose to disregard “Murphy’s law.” This construction project started three years ago and, during that period, the driver might well have parked his vehicle on that slope countless times, and the very idea that it could lead to an accident would have left his subconscious mind a long time ago. Things you would never believe could happen will do so when you least expect it, often to devastating effect, which is the very definition of Murphy’s law. In their subconscious, neither the subcontractor nor the project managers ever thought that parking a vehicle on a slope would cause an accident, and even if they had their standard operating procedures to follow, in the absence of any awareness of Murphy’s law, it was only a matter of time before a “gray rhino” event occurred. TRA data showed that over the past decade, there had been 99 derailments, an average of almost 10 a year, strongly suggesting that the agency really lacks a concept of Murphy’s law. That the safety improvement project could be postponed shows that safety was not a priority for the agency. The TRA is a state-owned operation and undoubtedly has all kinds
EDITORIAL CARTOON
One of the most crucial early tests for US President Joe Biden concerns Afghanistan. An emboldened Taliban have escalated their campaign of assassinations and attacks since reaching a deal with the administration of former US president Donald Trump that called for power sharing in Kabul and a full US military withdrawal by May 1. Biden’s policy course will not only determine Afghanistan’s fate, but also affect regional security, the global war on terror and the US’ international standing at a time when its relative decline has become unmistakable. The US came full circle in February last year, when Trump, seeking to cut and run from Afghanistan, signed a “peace” agreement with the same militia that the US had removed from power by invading the country in the aftermath of the attacks in New York on Sept. 11, 2001. Trump’s Faustian bargain, struck behind the back of the elected Afghan government, bestowed legitimacy on the Taliban. The surge in violence since then shows how little Afghanistan gained from the US-Taliban deal. It makes sense for the US to exit a long and futile war that has cost more than US$800 billion and the lives of 2,218 US service members. (The US’ and NATO’s combat role in Afghanistan ended before Trump took office, with Afghan government forces assuming full security responsibility on Jan. 1, 2015.) What does not make sense is what H.R. McMaster, the US national security adviser in the first two years of the Trump administration, called the US’ “Munich-like appeasement” of “some of the most horrible people on Earth.” In effect, Trump set out to abandon Afghanistan to terrorists and their sponsors in Pakistan, whose all-powerful military created the Taliban group, still harbors its leadership and provides cross-border sanctuaries for its fighters. The Pakistani military would be the real winner from a deal that
“Wholly counterproductive” — this was as how Joanne Smith Finley, a professor at Newcastle University, described China’s sanctions on her, along with a series of British politicians and lawyers, as punishment for their advocacy for the Uighurs. That was putting it mildly. However, is it the case that Western sanctions on China will be, by contrast, productive? Sadly, that seems unlikely. International outrage at China’s policies of incarceration and social coercion in Xinjiang continues to grow. As someone who has been engaged with the region for two decades, I see that as much needed. However, it is crucial that the energy being generated is put to good use. The gloves might be off, but what is the strategy? Sanctions send a signal that the world is watching, but if they are to be in any way effective, the sanctioned have to believe that changes to their behavior would lead to improved relations. There is little chance of Beijing forming this view, given the state of Sino-Western relations: not while US President Joe Biden tries to strong-arm China by maintaining his predecessors suite of tariffs and sanctions on its technology companies; not while Washington provocatively declares that its “defense” interests extend all the way up to China’s coastline — with the British Royal Navy now joining in the saber-rattling in the East and South China seas. In such a context, sanctions only escalate tensions and give politicians an opportunity to posture. As “a badge of honor” was how British Member of Parliament Iain Duncan Smith received his ban from the People’s Republic of China. Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam (林鄭月娥) said the same when she was sanctioned by then-US president Donald Trump in August last year: “It’s an honour.” China’s sanctions were not equivalent to the UK’s — they were aimed at people taking
On Monday, China’s navy issued a statement that the Liaoning aircraft carrier was conducting “routine” drills in the waters around Taiwan, saying that “similar exercises will be conducted regularly.” The statement follows a well-worn playbook by China’s military to gradually normalize provocative and aggressive behavior. At sea, Beijing is using a combination of its navy, quasi-military coast guard and fishing boat militia to conduct near-daily forays into Taiwanese territorial waters; in the air, fighter jets, heavy bombers and reconnaissance aircraft constantly nibble away at the margins of Taiwan’s airspace. The effect is akin to being slowly asphyxiated by a boa constrictor. As evidence that China’s tactics are bearing fruit, Taiwan’s air force last month announced that it would no longer scramble fighter jets to intercept every incursion by Chinese aircraft and would instead primarily track intruders with ground-based missile systems. At first glance, China appears to have chalked up a clear victory. Leveraging its superior size, the Chinese military has fought a successful “gray zone” battle of attrition against Taiwan, wearing its aircraft and personnel into the ground, and forcing a change of tactics. In fact, the change of tactics is an astute move that will conserve Taiwan’s limited number of aircraft while simultaneously reducing the likelihood of a mid-air incident that could easily escalate into full-blown conflict. The UK’s air war with Nazi Germany’s air force, the Luftwaffe, during World War II, later dubbed the Battle of Britain, provides an interesting historical parallel. Like Taiwan, Britain was separated from German-occupied France by a large body of water — the English Channel — comparable in size to the Taiwan Strait. German military commanders realized that it would be necessary to gain air superiority over Britain before they could launch an amphibious invasion. Similar to the situation Taiwan faces today, the UK’s Royal Air Force
I have always held a deep respect for the broad-mindedness and open nature of true artists, as opposed to those cold-blooded artists for hire who abandon their values for a few gold sovereigns. The fundamental difference between these two types of artists lies in the strength of their convictions, which dictates whether they will hold fast to their beliefs when they are severely tested, or simply cast them aside as extraneous flotsam. Chinese-American actor Ryan Jiang (姜光宇) is a Falun Gong practitioner. He received the “best actor” award at the 2019 Wales International Film Festival for his leading role in the film Origin Bound. The film also received the “best feature film” award at the Greatest Show of All Time film festival in New York City. Jiang has said that he views the awards as a form of recognition for the human rights issues, moral questions and values explored in the film, and that the awards give Falun Gong practitioners support, validation and encouragement in light of two decades of persecution. Hopefully, more films that highlight similar positive values will be made in the future. Jiang previously starred in big-name Chinese productions such as Yongzheng Dynasty (雍正王朝). However, Jiang held fast to his principles on human rights, and when Chinese film and television production companies began to include a clause in employment contracts that require actors to renounce Falun Gong, Jiang refused to comply, which meant that work dried up and he disappeared from the Chinese market. After leaving the Chinese entertainment industry 17 years ago, Jiang has slowly carved out a niche for himself in New York. I have known Taiwanese actor Eddie Peng (彭于晏) and his elder sister since kindergarten. I remember that Peng always wore a sunny smile. Peng grew up in a single-parent family with his mother raising three children. Over
On Wednesday, the Indian Ministry of External Affairs posted on Twitter a condolence message regarding a fatal train crash in Taiwan that on Friday last week killed 50 people. It was probably the first time that the ministry posted online about Taiwan. It was a humanitarian gesture; however, it also indicates a subtle policy shift. It might not mean that India will proactively engage Taiwan in the near future, but it is a positive development. India’s preference to manage its ties with China has led it to overlook Taiwan for a long time, but recent developments have compelled New Delhi to rethink its policy and approach toward Beijing. India is well aware that a protracted India-China boundary dispute is no more about differing perceptions, and China has no interest in maintaining the “status quo.” While a dialogue between the two sides in the hope to achieve a breakthrough in the dispute is on, India is also exploring other options to deal with the China challenge. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue summit last month is a case in point. While India’s outlook on China has drastically changed, China’s aggression against India and its other neighbors continues, despite New Delhi being cautious about Beijing’s sensitivities. Skeptics believe that engaging Taiwan would bring the wrath of China. The truth is that China has been nonaccommodative and aggressive toward India at the mutual border, and Taiwan has not been a reason behind Beijing’s aggressive postures. China has primarily been motivated by certain factors: for example, its efforts to consolidate its territorial claims; keeping India preoccupied with the dispute; its age-old practice of “teaching countries a lesson;” and preventing India from cooperating with like-minded countries, especially the US. However, Taiwan has hardly been a cause for the standoffs. Seemingly, China, which has resolved border disputes with 12
After the crashes of an F-5E jet, which took off from Taitung Air Base in October last year, and an F-16, from Hualien Air Base in November last year, two F-5E jets from Taitung Air Base collided in midair last month, a tragedy that filled every Taiwanese with sorrow and regret. It might be difficult for Taiwan to procure foreign military aircraft, but the lives of our brave pilots are priceless. In addition to temporarily grounding F-5s for two weeks for a checkup, the air force should upgrade its training equipment and review its safety protocols to avoid further crashes. The air force should better use flight simulator training and upgrade its ground-based training facilities. Only after going through flight simulator training — such as virtual night flight missions and spatial disorientation scenarios, as well as using computers for flight stability — and passing a test should pilots be allowed to perform actual night flight missions. The air force has purchased flight simulators from Lockheed Martin, the US maker of F-16s, and the National Chung-shan Institute of Science and Technology, but the companies are not specialized flight simulator developers, unlike Canadian Aviation Electronics or the Thales Group. As a result, there is still a gap between flight simulator training and real-life situations. In addition, the US-based Defense News last month reported that the Airborne Tactical Augmented Reality System jointly developed by Red Six Aerospace and the US Air Force is nearing completion. While wearing a modified Gentex HGU-55 helmet equipped with the advanced augmented reality system, pilots in real jets can see virtual images of other aircraft. The system even allows pilots to engage in various live exercises with ally or enemy planes, helping them to complete various training exercises, such as formation flying, midair refueling and dogfights, as well as air-to-land attacks and
EDITORIAL CARTOON
Janice Matthews* always knew she would be a gun owner someday. She was raised in Alabama where her family members rarely left their home unarmed. Still, after more than three decades in California she was not in a rush to start shopping around at gun stores. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Matthews started hearing rumors of food shortages and noticed store shelves emptied by shoppers panic-buying everything from bullets to toilet paper. After her daughter moved out of their home, she was left with an empty nest and a lot of anxiety. “I was thinking of what they predicted in the Bible and I thought I would have to protect the little bit that I had,” Matthews, 55, said. So one day in the spring of last year, she waited six hours in line outside a northern California gun shop to become one of the millions of Americans who became first-time gun owners last year. Americans bought a record number of firearms last year. From March to August last year, an estimated 5 million people bought their first ever gun between March and August, said the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade organization, and that number continued to climb throughout the year. Black Americans saw the highest increase in new gun owners of any demographic, the foundation found, with gun ownership in the group up by a staggering 58.2 percent. Although black Americans have a multitude of reasons for buying a gun — some new gun owners talked about stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic, others about the anxiety of seeing scores of armed white protesters rallying against lockdown orders or the election results — many had a common experience in the process of obtaining one. They were met with apathy, and in some cases disrespect, from white gun store owners, gun club members and
RSS