Dangerous optimism
I appreciate your newspaper and especially the range and quality of opinions presented on your editorial page. But I feel the recent Liberty Times editorial, "Taiwan is sovereign but abnormal" (Nov. 21, page 8), makes some dangerous errors, ones which are not uncommonly heard in Taiwan.
Although the editorial is clearly set forth, it embodies three types of errors. The first is to present erroneous conclusions based on correct facts without distinguishing between the facts and the conclusions; the second is not to distinguish between de jure, de facto, and consensual independence and the third is to believe that "if I say it is so, then it must be so."
When Taiwan was relinquished by Japan at the end of World War II, the author correctly notes that the Japanese did not specify by whom it was to be governed. However, it is the author's assumption that this left the definition of Taiwan in limbo, and it seems to me highly unlikely that this was what any of the parties involved considered to be the case.
The most logical assumption would have been that Taiwan should have been returned to the entity which had governed it before the Japanese had controlled it -- even though the national identity of that state was currently in question. Since China had ceded Taiwan to Japan in 1895 by a treaty which many still feel to this day was unjust, the country to whom it was intended must have been China, regardless if that meant the Republic of China (ROC) or the People's Republic of China could not be determined at the time.
For occupied territories to be granted independence after their colonizers have been defeated is highly unusual, and as far as I am aware, was not the case with other territories at the end of the World War II.
At this point Taiwan is certainly acting as an independent and sovereign state, but the "abnormality" of this situation is that its de jure status is unresolved and there is no international consensus on its future course. The article states that Taiwan "has all the requirements of statehood," but it does not consider the latter two aspects of independence, without which de facto independence is likely to be only a temporary condition.
Finally, the article states that Taiwan should take on its own name, Constitution and UN membership. This may be a wonderful ideal, but it seems to ignore the political realities of the situation. Although Taiwan has been moving in the direction of self-determination for the past 50 years, China's views on the situation have not changed.
It is not unknown for a territory or a country to peacefully declare its independence, but by far the most common consequence is armed conflict -- as we have seen for many years. Chechnya is a good example.
I certainly do not mean to say that Taiwan should "hand the keys to the city gate" to China, and I have confidence that Taiwan's leaders are not lacking in diplomatic skills (despite recent remarks by the foreign minister). But I am concerned with what seems to be an epidemic of unrealistic optimism, as indicated by the article in question. This is an optimism which is not only unrealistic, but dangerous.
We might wish that the world respected and supported self-determination and individual liberties of sovereign states, but it appears the world does not work this way, as shown in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places too numerous to mention. Optimism is always necessary, but it must be supported by a more realistic view of the situation.
Thomas Baker
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Fight censorship
Maybe Taiwan should bring law suits against censorship in those countries constitutionally protecting free speech ("China forces APEC to scrap Taiwan ad," Nov. 18, page 1).
The ROC flag was forcefully removed first in Athens, then the UN, even in Taipei and now in Chile. Is the whole world becoming China's big censoring territory?
Instead of condemning China's human rights abuses, free speech included, the whole world is encouraging China to extend its evil power into their free societies.
Lawsuits filed in countries where censorship takes place, even if not successful, would force a government to examine itself -- not to mention their commitment to the people.
Of course, China is afraid the truth will come out through these ads. Taiwan is a sovereign, independent country. It is through the right of free speech that the truth can be known to the world -- which is precisely why free speech must be protected. These countries have nothing to fear in free speech, and have no business becoming China's partner in censorship.
If successful, maybe China will realize human rights are still the rules and values of free societies. Maybe China will think about improving human rights at home. If not, they can hole up in their "middle kingdom" and abuse only their own citizens or extend relations with North Korea or Syria, where humans rights abuses are common.
Chen Ming-chung
Chicago, Illinois
Repressive policy? You bet!
Over the past year, and more recently in the past couple of months, articles in various newspapers are reporting the difficulties facing foreign spouses and children born to foreign spouses here in adapting to the local environment and culture. In such reports, government officials and experts tell us of the importance of these inappropriately named "new Taiwanese" learning to speak, read and write Mandarin.
One plan suggested by the government: force foreign spouses to enter compulsory Chinese language courses. Wait a minute. Doesn't this sound like some sort of violation of civil liberties and a disregard for the basic rules of democracy? Since when do you have the right in a democratic country to force anyone -- with the exception of children -- to attend school? Could the government force any "not new" Taiwanese citizen to attend Chinese language schools? No. And I am sure that, like in developed countries, some people in Taiwan got bad grades in school in their mother tongue class, and could do with attending school again. Yet we do not see the government sending them back to school.
Basic rule of democracy: You have the right to make your own decisions. Foreign spouses of Taiwanese should have the right not to attend Chinese language courses, even if these are truly beneficial to them. These courses can be a plus to foreigners, but they must remain optional. Making such courses compulsory is to treat the "new Taiwanese" as second-class citizens, and doesn't grant them equal rights with regard to freedom.
Last but not least, I do recall hearing last year that the ROC does not actually have an official language endorsed by the Constitution. So what is the legal basis to make it compulsory to learn Chinese? How about Taiwanese? Or Hakka? In a mixed nationality marriage, if the children ought to be taught Chinese, shouldn't this be the responsibility of the Taiwanese parent?
Michel Theron
Tainan
On Sunday, 13 new urgent care centers (UCC) officially began operations across the six special municipalities. The purpose of the centers — which are open from 8am to midnight on Sundays and national holidays — is to reduce congestion in hospital emergency rooms, especially during the nine-day Lunar New Year holiday next year. It remains to be seen how effective these centers would be. For one, it is difficult for people to judge for themselves whether their condition warrants visiting a major hospital or a UCC — long-term public education and health promotions are necessary. Second, many emergency departments acknowledge
US President Donald Trump’s seemingly throwaway “Taiwan is Taiwan” statement has been appearing in headlines all over the media. Although it appears to have been made in passing, the comment nevertheless reveals something about Trump’s views and his understanding of Taiwan’s situation. In line with the Taiwan Relations Act, the US and Taiwan enjoy unofficial, but close economic, cultural and national defense ties. They lack official diplomatic relations, but maintain a partnership based on shared democratic values and strategic alignment. Excluding China, Taiwan maintains a level of diplomatic relations, official or otherwise, with many nations worldwide. It can be said that
Victory in conflict requires mastery of two “balances”: First, the balance of power, and second, the balance of error, or making sure that you do not make the most mistakes, thus helping your enemy’s victory. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has made a decisive and potentially fatal error by making an enemy of the Jewish Nation, centered today in the State of Israel but historically one of the great civilizations extending back at least 3,000 years. Mind you, no Israeli leader has ever publicly declared that “China is our enemy,” but on October 28, 2025, self-described Chinese People’s Armed Police (PAP) propaganda
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) made the astonishing assertion during an interview with Germany’s Deutsche Welle, published on Friday last week, that Russian President Vladimir Putin is not a dictator. She also essentially absolved Putin of blame for initiating the war in Ukraine. Commentators have since listed the reasons that Cheng’s assertion was not only absurd, but bordered on dangerous. Her claim is certainly absurd to the extent that there is no need to discuss the substance of it: It would be far more useful to assess what drove her to make the point and stick so
RSS