David Pendery's letter raises very good issues, but misses my point (Letters, Nov. 9, page 8). I was responding only to the specific points raised in a previous article ("Reaction to motorbike rule mixed," Nov. 4, page 2) about heavy motorcycles being allowed on the highways, not trying to address bigger social problems. Simply deploying more scooters was not advocated as the solution to traffic congestion.
To use Pendery's figures, however, if you remove tens of thousands of cars and replace them with motorbikes, the roads would in fact be less congested. If more drivers of either type of vehicle were to use public transportation, naturally there would be even less congestion.
Please tell me where I advocated illegal or dangerous driving. It's the irresponsible driver that causes the problem -- not the type of vehicle they drive. I wrote that drivers of cars and drivers of motorbikes have equal claim to the streets, not the sidewalks.
Police should crack down on both drivers of cars and scooters that run red lights. They should also get scooters off the park paths, but when I asked an officer in Xindian, he said he wasn't even sure it was illegal.
As for the noise question, my letter simply addressed someone's complaint of the noise made by heavy motorcycles on the highway, not scooters on city streets. Pollution wasn't part of the article either. This is a debate Pendery and I would likely be on the same side of. Scooters pumping out blue smoke should be taken off the streets altogether. I believe a properly maintained, recent model motorbike, however, doesn't contribute to pollution any more than a car does. Since it uses less fuel, it may even pollute less than a car. An overall campaign to get people to use more public transportation or bicycles would also be laudable.
Craig Dodge
XINDIAN, TAIPEI COUNTY
As the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its People’s Liberation Army (PLA) reach the point of confidence that they can start and win a war to destroy the democratic culture on Taiwan, any future decision to do so may likely be directly affected by the CCP’s ability to promote wars on the Korean Peninsula, in Europe, or, as most recently, on the Indian subcontinent. It stands to reason that the Trump Administration’s success early on May 10 to convince India and Pakistan to deescalate their four-day conventional military conflict, assessed to be close to a nuclear weapons exchange, also served to
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
After India’s punitive precision strikes targeting what New Delhi called nine terrorist sites inside Pakistan, reactions poured in from governments around the world. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) issued a statement on May 10, opposing terrorism and expressing concern about the growing tensions between India and Pakistan. The statement noticeably expressed support for the Indian government’s right to maintain its national security and act against terrorists. The ministry said that it “works closely with democratic partners worldwide in staunch opposition to international terrorism” and expressed “firm support for all legitimate and necessary actions taken by the government of India
The recent aerial clash between Pakistan and India offers a glimpse of how China is narrowing the gap in military airpower with the US. It is a warning not just for Washington, but for Taipei, too. Claims from both sides remain contested, but a broader picture is emerging among experts who track China’s air force and fighter jet development: Beijing’s defense systems are growing increasingly credible. Pakistan said its deployment of Chinese-manufactured J-10C fighters downed multiple Indian aircraft, although New Delhi denies this. There are caveats: Even if Islamabad’s claims are accurate, Beijing’s equipment does not offer a direct comparison
RSS