Rethink of women's abortion rights needed
Thirty years ago, on Jan. 22, 1973, the US Supreme Court announced its decision in Roe versus Wade, ruling 7 to 2 that a Texas statute banning abortion except when a woman's life was in danger violated a constitutional right to privacy.
So what does that have to do with Taiwan? Nothing really, just that I thought of a friend who was born, educated in Taiwan and went to the US for graduate study. With the company of her boyfriend at that time she had an abortion in New York state. She described the process as "peaceful" and "safe." Although it did take quite some time for her to feel "healthy" mentally again, she had made her own decision about it. It is somehow difficult to imagine women in Taiwan being provided with the same kind of space to make the right choice given their individual circumstances.
Abortion is taken so much for granted in the US today that most women surveyed by a group of clinics in Washington State did not know that it had ever been illegal, according to an article in New York Times ("30 years after Roe v. Wade, New Trends but the Old Debate," Jan. 20, 2003). And I doubt if women in Taiwan know that abortion is illegal in Taiwan under Article 288 of the Taiwanese criminal code. Only in "exceptional" cases, identified in the Genetic Health Law, can women have an "artificial miscarriage." The law states, for example, that the woman can terminate the pregnancy if "the pregnancy and giving birth would have an impact on her mental health or family life." The recent controversy over a proposed amendment to the Genetic Health Law that would force women to first undergo two hours of counseling with a psychologist and a six-day cooling off period was not about the limitation on a woman's right to abortion, but was a limitation on the legally allowed "artificial miscarriage."
Taiwanese women do not have the right to abortion. Should we have that right? It requires an honest discussion among all parties. A hypocritical compromise is not getting us far. The important issue is not only a matter of thinking -- how we Taiwanese view life and so on -- but also a matter of practicalities. When the law isolates itself from reality, women who need abortions will get them somehow, regardless of what law says. Roe versus Wade, no matter how important that case is for American society, remains a remote case for us. Taiwanese need to do our own thinking, and please, in a sincerely honest way.
Felicia Chen
Taipei
KMT's plan for assets does little to reassure voters
It is rather disturbing to learn that the KMT is planning to put the bulk of its assets into a trust fund operated by a Swiss bank, a practice commonly employed by dictators around the world to hide their illegally acquired assets ("KMT says it'll move its funds to Switzerland," Jan. 23, page 3, and "DPP attacks KMT attempts to place its assets in trust," Jan. 24, page 3). I hope the Swiss government does not accept the offer of managing the fund because the money was obtained illegally. However, if they do, Taiwan's government should ask Switzerland to freeze the trust fund and return it to Taiwan where it legally belongs.
It is fairly naive for a politician like KMT Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) to think that his party will be able to regain power by simply hiding its ill-gotten assets overseas, hoping perhaps out of sight will be out of mind. You cannot erase the reputation for corruption by transferring funds elsewhere and hoping the public will then vote for you. It is very obvious that the KMT and its followers still don't get it.
If Lien or his party is ever to regain the trust of the people, he should be bold enough to return the party assets to the people. As Taiwan's economy continues to be sluggish, Lien's bold gesture will be the best gift of trust to the public. The government can then use the funds to create thousands of jobs that will speed up the economic recovery.
I hope legislators will enact a law banning political parties from having profit-making businesses. Furthermore, a new law should be enacted that will ban individuals who own property outside of Taiwan from running for president.
Imagine, if the US president, George W. Bush, owned a vacation home in France or Switzerland. Only then can Taiwan be recognized as a true democratic country.
Kris Liao
San Francisco, California
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS