Clarification requested
Your article ("Many entertain doubts about Paal," June 13, page 3) gravely misrepresented my stance on the special defense budget. You wrote: "The budget serves the US' interest but not necessarily Taiwan's, Hsiao said, and for Lin [Chung-mo], that is difficult to accept."
I was discussing with your reporter Melody Chen my understanding of Legislator Lin's view on the budget, but your choice of words misleads readers into thinking that I hold the same views.
In fact, I believe that weapons procurement is a necessary expenditure for the sake of national security. We in Taiwan must demonstrate a strong commitment to our self-defense and I urge the public and my colleagues in the Legislative Yuan to support the special budget.
Hsiao Bi-khim
Democratic Progressive Party Legislator
Editor's note:
The transcription of the discussion that led our reporter to write the paragraph went like this:
Hsiao: "In Taiwan-US relations, things that serve the US' interest do not necessarily serve Taiwan's. It is difficult for Lin to accept the US' position. I understand Lin's feelings."
The conversation was set in the context of Lin's spat with American Institute in Taiwan Director Douglas Paal that stemmed from the defense budget. It would be difficult for the reporter to imagine Hsiao was referring to anything besides the defense budget.
Legal process unfair
On June 3, my employer, Taiwan Colors Music, received notification from the Labor Bureau that my work permit had been cancelled and that I had to leave Taiwan within 14 days. This was unanticipated and shocking. But it was also the culmination of a program of systematic harassment carried out against me by the Taitung police, despite the facts that I have been a legal working resident since 1999 and that I have not been charged with any crime.
The trouble began on April 8 when the Taitung County Culture Bureau sponsored a press conference to publicize a performance series I've been part of (I've both performed in and helped book other artists for the Dulan Organic Music Series, held in a cafe 20km north of Taitung City). The following week, after the event was reported in local media, Taitung Foreign Affairs Police officer Peter Chen (陳允萍) called the cafe manager and threatened that, due to my participation, she was subject to an NT$150,000 fine and I was liable to deportation. Chen claimed that undercover officers had documented my involvement with video footage and photos.
County Culture Bureau Director Lin Yong-fa and the Taitung City mayor intervened on my behalf -- after all, I was unpaid, and the event benefited not only the cafe and the local community but also the bureau and the performers, for whom there is no other original music venue in Taitung.
Chen promised the officials that if I made a formal statement the case would be shelved. At the precinct office I was asked a number of questions relating to my performances without any mention of my right to remain silent or to consult a lawyer. Only when my answers were printed and handed to me did I see from the statement that I was under criminal investiga-tion, and the statement of my legal rights. I protested this omission of due process, but the officers told me I would have "big trouble" if I didn't sign the statement. I signed, but they refused to give me a copy, saying, "You read it, you signed it, you should know what's in it."
Based on that statement the Labor Bureau has convicted me in absentia of violating labor laws. They have revoked my work permit, and, thereby, my residence in Taiwan.
As a writer and musician, my life in Taitung has been far from nefarious. My last CD, Ocean Hieroglyphics, is among other things an expression of the beauty of Taitung's coast, and is distributed internationally by Wind Records. I have done a number of pro bono recordings of Aboriginal elders singing their traditional songs. I write regularly for the alternative Taipei weekly POTS, and several of my essays on the predicament of Taiwan's Aboriginals will be published in an international journal this year. Selections of my poems have recently been published in Chinese translation in Taiwan Poetics.
I am in the process of mounting an appeal. But beyond the outcome of this case, the larger issue at stake for Taiwan is that something is seriously amiss when a foreign affairs police officer baldly lies about law enforcement issues to a foreign resident. The travesty is extended further when the Labor Bureau simply takes that offi-cer's evidence as prima facie that I am a criminal, and when their first step is to revoke my working rights, and thereby my residence, in Taiwan.
Taiwan's efforts to gain a place in the international community are contravened if the police force, as an extension of political authority, uses threats and intimidation to enforce a xenophobic or ladder-climbing agenda, and if the administration does not competently process issues relating to the rights of foreign residents.
One would hope that the police and government agencies of this struggling democracy would do their utmost to support creative expression and cultural exchange, rather than undermine them through narrow-mindedness and antiquated labor laws.
Scott Ezell
Dulan, Taitung County
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS