Watch Tibet too
Much has been written these weeks about Hong Kong's economy going down and its press freedoms becoming increasingly endangered. Vice President Annette Lu (
I would like to emphasize that even if Hong Kong was performing very well economically and if it's freedom of speech was not being compromised, it would not mean that the "one country, two systems" model might be applicable to Taiwan. It is understandable that Taiwan is watching with huge interest what is happening to the former crown colony, but in fact the model practiced in Hong Kong by the Beijing government is only a trap set for the people here.
The point is that a government that does not respect human rights, autocratically rules the country and behaves like an absolutist monarch by arbitrarily arresting or executing people can always change its own policies for one or another raison d'etat.
Rather than observing Hong Kong's economic performance or hoping for some goodwill from Beijing, the people of Taiwan should take a closer look on what is going on in Tibet. With its own unique culture, Tibet is far more similar to Taiwan than Hong Kong. Des-pite British colonial rule, Hong Kong has not experienced as many influences as Taiwan has in the past and therefore has not developed such a strong cultural identity, let alone established its own democracy.
Tibet also represents a "good" example for what is happening to a people that affirms its own cultural identity toward the central government in Beijing while they have no means to defend it.
The vice president is absolutely right to say that Tai-wanese should be more self-confident and pay more attention to the threat from China.
If international relations between democratic countries are not always easy, the outcome of dealing with a totalitarian country is completely unpredictable.
Jens Kleindienst
Taipei
Street vendors should stay
I was deeply troubled by the proposal of letter-writer Garry Perkins that vendors be chased off the streets of Taipei (Letters, July 31, page 8). He describes street vendors as an "annoy-ance" and proposes they be fined NT$5,000 -- an amount that he surprisingly characterizes as "small." I can't imagine a more elitist and totalitarian approach to this "problem."
First, doesn't he realize that for many in Taiwan, NT$5,000 constitutes a good portion of the average person's wages? Sure, dinner in Chicago -- the city where Perkins says he's from -- may set you back NT$5,000. But the sum means a lot to the average street vendor, who typically earns no more than NT$20,000 monthly and who is trying to do nothing more than put food on his or her own table.
Also troubling is Perkins' contention that Taipei cannot become an "international city" until it gets rid of the annoyance of street vendors. This smacks of cultural arrogance. I suppose Perkins has never seen any street vendors in places such as New York, that most famous of "international" cities? I suppose there aren't vendors hawking pirated CDs or movies in New York? Or selling hot dogs and knishes around Central Park? Or watches or original artwork around the MOMA? These vendors lend New York character; it's the same with Taipei.
Perhaps Perkins lacks appreciation for the entrepre-neurial spirit, a quality I find common in people in Taiwan and much admire. Maybe he doesn't realize that it's better to be the head of chicken than the tail of a donkey.
Michael Logan
Taipei
Taipei will never become "a great international city" by offering incentives to its police officers for making arrests. Such a proposal would make them overly focused on their own personal profit and cause them to neglect their public service duties.
Perhaps Garry Perkins should be better acquainted with Taiwanese culture and norms first before making such ludicrous suggestions, as everyone already knows, for the most part, Taiwanese people love sidewalk vendors and that these hawkers routinely offer small bonuses directly to police officers anyway without such elaborate schemes.
M. Bob Kao
Taipei
Whether in terms of market commonality or resource similarity, South Korea’s Samsung Electronics Co is the biggest competitor of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC). The two companies have agreed to set up factories in the US and are also recipients of subsidies from the US CHIPS and Science Act, which was signed into law by former US president Joe Biden. However, changes in the market competitiveness of the two companies clearly reveal the context behind TSMC’s investments in the US. As US semiconductor giant Intel Corp has faced continuous delays developing its advanced processes, the world’s two major wafer foundries, TSMC and
The first Donald Trump term was a boon for Taiwan. The administration regularized the arms sales process and enhanced bilateral ties. Taipei will not be so fortunate the second time around. Given recent events, Taiwan must proceed with the assumption that it cannot count on the United States to defend it — diplomatically or militarily — during the next four years. Early indications suggested otherwise. The nomination of Marco Rubio as US Secretary of State and the appointment of Mike Waltz as the national security advisor, both of whom have expressed full-throated support for Taiwan in the past, raised hopes that
Authorities last week revoked the residency permit of a Chinese social media influencer surnamed Liu (劉), better known by her online channel name Yaya in Taiwan (亞亞在台灣), who has more than 440,000 followers online and is living in Taiwan with a marriage-based residency permit, for her “reunification by force” comments. She was asked to leave the country in 10 days. The National Immigration Agency (NIA) on Tuesday last week announced the decision, citing the influencer’s several controversial public comments, including saying that “China does not need any other reason to reunify Taiwan with force” and “why is it [China] hesitant
We are witnessing a sea change in the government’s approach to China, from one of reasonable, low-key reluctance at rocking the boat to a collapse of pretense over and patience in Beijing’s willful intransigence. Finally, we are seeing a more common sense approach in the face of active shows of hostility from a foreign power. According to Article 2 of the 2020 Anti-Infiltration Act (反滲透法), a “foreign hostile force” is defined as “countries, political entities or groups that are at war with or are engaged in a military standoff with the Republic of China [ROC]. The same stipulation applies to
RSS