Ban double parking Macabe Keliher seemingly suggested that Taipei, on par with other international cities, widen streets to make room for bus lanes ("City buses turn Taipei streets into death zones," August 2, Page 8). This approach lays too much blame on the bus drivers and avoids the real problem. Spending more public money to resolve the problem of aggressive driving by building wider streets is not the solution in the near or long term. Simply stated, the bus driver (in a recently reported case) "swerved to avoid a double-parked van." Therein lies your final solution -- ban all double parking. Current traffic regulations allow drivers to double park if they leave their emergency lights flashing and engine running. That wishy-washy solution to the lack of parking spaces in front of a 5m wide store is the root cause of these dangerous situations. Buses and cars must swerve to avoid a double-parked car putting cyclists and cars in other lanes in a compromising situation. Many streets already make this allowance for double parking with a solid white line to separate the traffic lane. Cars routinely double and triple park beyond the solid white line and into the traffic lane, causing headaches and anxiety for all traffic flowing along. Banning and most importantly, enforcing the double parking rule removes the danger to all who must travel down Taiwan's roads. The numerous double-parked cars who are ticketed and impounded will generate sufficient revenue to fund a separate traffic or parking enforcement arm of the police. Education about the solution by the enforcers of public safety laws -- the police, Mayor Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and bureaucrats -- can cut back on public sympathy appearances over tragic traffic deaths as well as tireless speeches about punishing those responsible for another needless death. Public safety, a revolution for the new Taiwan, begins with political action rather than speeches. Jeff Chen
Taipei Gore owes China a lot I just finished reading an article written by Li Thian-hok (李敦厚) ("What would Al Gore's Taiwan policy be?", August 1, Page 8) with which I generally agree. Let there be no mistake, Al Gore owes China big time. The Chinese government was a weighty factor in the 1996 re-election of Bill Clinton and Al Gore, and Gore knows it. He denies it of course, but doubtlessly he does grant the Chinese favors. However, Li's claim that "As president, Gore is more likely to place US national interests ahead of personal political calculations in making foreign policy and national security decisions" is false. Al Gore is more swayed by political polls and paybacks he owes the Chinese government than what is the right thing to do. Let us keep hoping Bush gets elected, which appears to be a probable conclusion. I believe he will support the Taiwan Security Enhancement Act and will take a much friendlier position toward Taiwan. It is also clear that his vision will not be skewed by the Chinese government. He does not owe them anything and will take on a much more logical view toward the Chinese as well. Bryan Huft
Minnesota Energy options I read Chiu Yu-Tzu's interview with John Byrne ("Taiwan does indeed have nuclear alternatives," August 2, Page 4) about developments in the global energy system. He emphasized the development of micro-tarbines and fuel cells. He said he would also suggest to the MOEA the use of fuel cells as alternatives to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. The Dispersive Power Coalition of America (DPCA, 美國分散型電源連) forecasts that there will be 35,000 mwDP (Dispersive Power) to be constructed from 2000 to 2020. This amount accounts for 20 percent of newly constructed generating power during same period. In the US, there are a lot of gas piping lines (not LNG); their costs are very cheap in comparison with Taiwan. In such beneficial circumstances, DPCA foresees that dispersive power will only make up 3.7 percent of generated power in the US even in 2020. I don't think DP (such as micro-gas turbine, fuel cells, wind power generating) will be possible energy options for Taiwan. Liu Chen-chien
Taipei
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then