Markings matter
The article you printed on demands by student gay and lesbian groups (“Gay, lesbian groups call for public restroom equity,” May 4, page 2) brought up some issues that university and other officials should consider before making rash policy decisions.
If student activist leaders Tsai Pi-jung (蔡璧嶸) and “Strawberry” think that restrooms designated as “men’s rooms” or “women’s rooms” create a lot of trouble for the tiny percentage of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students, just imagine how much more confusion (and needless harassment and embarrassment) markings with toilets and/or urinals would create for the vast majority of non-GLBT students.
While a urinal marking would clearly indicate a males-only restroom, what about a restroom with only a toilet marking or with both toilet and urinal markings? After all, men don’t just use urinals in public restrooms.
Men who need to use a toilet might understandably feel apprehensive knowing that a restroom with a toilet or toilet/urinal marking is also designated for women’s use. Similarly, would women feel comfortable knowing that any restroom they use might have male users inside?
We might reason that, if such a marking system were to be used, users would in time deduce that restrooms with only a toilet marking are intended for women and restrooms with toilet/urinal markings are intended for men. But that would inevitably lead users to designate restrooms according to gender rather than function — something that the students in the article are lobbying against.
Either way, the proposals they are making are completely illogical.
WAYNE T. SCHAMS
Pingtung
Cleaning up Taichung
In an effort to reduce harmful emissions in our city, Taichung Mayor Jason Hu (胡志強) is offering free bus services in an attempt to lower the number of vehicles polluting our streets, as well as encouraging use of public transport.
While I applaud his efforts, is this really the most effective measure he can come up with?
Taiwanese love convenience, and until Taichung has an efficient public transport system, I feel the majority of people will continue to rely on other ways of getting from A to B.
If Hu really wants to reduce pollution levels in Taichung, there are more effective ways of doing so.
First, Taichung needs a police force that does its job. Day after day I see policemen driving past homemade farm vehicles that pump out more blue than a local KMT rally.
The same goes for hundreds, if not thousands, of old scooters that emit a steady stream of blue smoke. It’s these same mass polluting vehicles that usually pay no road tax, gas tax or insurance fees.
Why do I never see one of these polluting vehicles being stopped by police? Why aren’t law-abiding citizens who pay their fees raising a stink about this? The money collected in the form of fines from these illegal and polluting vehicles alone would be enough to run a serious anti-pollution campaign and create awareness of the problem.
Another way Taichung can seriously reduce pollution is to start an anti-pollution task force.
I live in Situn District (西屯), and while walking during the late evenings I can regularly smell burning plastic and rubber. As soon as it’s dark, people burn their garbage and send tonnes of harmful smoke into the air. Taichung is in a basin, and these pollutants stay with us until we have a strong wind to flush the area.
With an anti-pollution task force and fines that actually dent a pocketbook, people will see that Hu is serious about reducing pollution and cleaning up our city.
The fines can also pay for the operations and wages of the task force, therefore ensuring money will not be taken from other sectors.
When rules are not enforced, changes will not be made. Until the Taichung City Government becomes responsible and enforces the law, it can not expect its citizens to be responsible for their actions.
The local government needs to lead by example, and as long as it continues to turn a blind eye, so will the people of Taichung.
Again, I applaud Hu’s efforts to clean up our city, but let’s make sure he’s doing it effectively, and creating jobs while he does so.
NAME WITHHELD
Taichung
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
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
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
RSS