Mon, Jun 02, 2008 page8

• [ LETTERS ]

  • • 
    • 
    • 

  Missing the point?

  Both Vincent Lalonde and Adam Supernant (Letters, May 26, page 8) raise some valid points, but they both seem to be missing the thrust of the argument put forward by J. Michael Cole (“Why are we sending aid to China?”, May 23, page 8).

  What China needed in the immediate aftermath of the disaster was boots on the ground contributing to the search and rescue effort, emergency supplies and equipment, logistical support and medical expertise. Not cold hard cash. China has massive foreign currency reserves on which to draw that could be distributed equitably if, and as, required.

  One final point. If money was all that was needed in the wake of a disaster, and indeed, if money somehow equated to one’s level of compassion and sympathy, why didn’t Taiwan’s government pledge an equal amount to the survivors of the Myanmar disaster?

  While it’s unfair to compare one person’s suffering with another, the Burmese, in my opinion, are in an even less enviable position than the Chinese.

  Who’s playing politics now and why are the Burmese seemingly worth less?

  Karl Haby

  Taipei

  Be wary of China

  As a foreigner who has been a long-time resident of Taiwan, to say that I feel trepidation at the growing ties between the new KMT government and China is an understatement.

  The stated goals of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Wu Poh-hsiung (吳伯雄) for his visit to China — peace, expanded business ties and increased tourism — sound benign and modest enough. No one is breathing a word about unification. But anytime one deals with Beijing, looking deeper and farther is essential.

  China’s leaders, despite their bluster about invasion and occasional missile practice in the Taiwan Strait, are nothing if not patient. With, as they believe, the “current of history” on their side, they prefer a gradualist approach; secure in their positions, their plans are spun out over decades, not the four-year cycles of Taiwanese or US politics.

  Consider Tibet. The Chinese have been in power there since 1951, with the Beijing gradually but relentlessly wearing down Tibetan culture and identity under a program of Han Chinese immigration, the crowning achievement of which is the completion of the Bejing-Lhasa railway.

  This campaign, described by the Dalai Lama as a program of “cultural genocide,” bore its deadliest fruit during the recent protests and Chinese crackdown, when Beijing justified its actions as necessary to protect Han Chinese from violence at the hands of Tibetans.

  Such a claim is reminiscent of Adolf Hitler’s insistence on annexing the Czech Sudetenland to protect the rights of ethnic Germans (or, for that matter, former US president Ronald Reagan’s claim that his invasion of newly-Marxist Grenada was motivated by his concern for the handful of US citizens there).

  Imagine for a moment that there is a real, long-term thaw in relations between China and Taiwan, bringing with it greater trade, tourism and perhaps even a large, semi-permanent Chinese population in Taiwan. Imagine then that a Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-style government is once again elected on an independence platform. A Chinese invasion, instead of making Beijing an international pariah, might be then viewed as a regrettable but necessary step to protect the safety and business interests of its people.

  It’s an alarming scenario, but not, I think, an alarmist one. Taiwanese would do well to weigh the short-term benefits of an accommodation with China against the long-range consequences. The little bird that picks the crocodile’s teeth eats well — for a while.

  Barry Hall

  Danshui

  Tourists beware

  Taiwan as a country is really trying to improve its image and to get more tourists to visit. I don’t think this will ever be very successful when foreigners are usually charged more than Taiwanese for goods and services by many businesses.

  What is so sad is that my Taiwanese friends always warn me about this. I am also not the only foreigner who has been done in like this. All foreigners I talk to about this agree with me.

  Just recently I went to Tai Mall in Nankan to get a quote about joining the local gym. I was quoted a rate of NT$1,888 per month, while my Taiwanese friend joined for NT$1,250 per month.

  When my friends at home ask me what it is like in Taiwan, the first thing I tell them is about this disgusting habit of businesses charging foreigners more. Are businesses really that short sighted? Don’t they realize what they are doing to visitors’ attitude toward Taiwan?

  Johan McCarthy

  Nankan
• Most Popular

  • 1

    First person arrested as Danjiang Bridge opens

  • 2

    TSMC shares stumble on report, but losses minor

  • 3

    Police identify man who engaged in indecency at park

  • 4

    TSMC expects global chip revenue to hit US$1.5tn

  • 5

    Trump weighs Taiwan arms package