Worth of Equator Principles
To be more socially responsible, Cathay United Bank’s board of directors signed the financing of international environmental norms — the Equator Principles — a few months ago. Cathay United Bank, the first Taiwanese bank to apply the Equator Principles, now implements the rules in banking business.
It assesses the following principles when analyzing a corporate banking loan: review and categorization, environmental and social assessment, applicable environmental and social standards, environmental and social management system and Equator Principles action plan, stakeholder engagement, grievance mechanism independent review, covenants, independent monitoring and reporting, and reporting and transparency. These key factors help bankers find the right loan target.
In the past, bankers giving loan would only consider the profit of fee and interest, neglecting the environmental and social welfare factors. This created a lot of side effects, including environmental pollution and undesirable externalities, which could potentially hurt future generations.
To address long-term social welfare issues, banks, as the rally point of capital and information, should help society to make good choices through the allocation of loans and by following the Equator Principles. If that happens, people might have brighter, safer and more sustainable futures.
Roger Chen
Chiayi
Complexities of burn care
It is unfortunate that some organizations have chosen to criticize decisions made related to the care of burn patients from the Formosa Fun Coast (八仙海岸) fire (“TMA urges respect for burn decisions,” July 16, page 2). Having spent a number of years caring for burn victims in critical condition at a large burn center, I think I can understand where they are coming from. I believe the root cause is frustration. It is frustration with a course of treatment many do not understand very well, and that not all hospitals are equipped to accept or treat these patients.
Burn care is not a simple process. In fact, it is one of the most complex courses of treatment. Not only does it involve the visible injury, but then there are the sometimes hidden inhalation injuries that can be devastating. Along with it comes associated insults to the vascular system and cardiac system, among others. It is not simply a one system injury and decisions on treatment by doctors and nursing staff change daily, even hourly, based on changes in patient response and physical status. It is not a “one size fits all” injury and the sad truth is that while a victim with 70 percent burns might survive, it is possible for a patient with 30 percent burns to succumb to such injuries.
I have seen hospitals completely overwhelmed by seemingly small numbers of burn patients. True, this most likely occurs in smaller communities, but without a staff trained in the acute phase and daily care of the burn patients, most hospitals are pushed to the limit. Initial physical assessment, calculation of a burn percentage and fluid resuscitation requirements, and placing of intravenous lines and catheters can be done in any emergency department. Then there are the specialized studies. It is all rapid response.
Does Taipei have a need for a dedicated burn treatment center? I believe so. How large should it be? That is for the medical community to determine, not politicians. I applaud the reaching out to Japan for assistance and peer review of treatment given to date. There are facilities that would be happy to assist in helping to train staff in the acute, daily and rehabilitation phases of burn care. For the physicians, there are any number of avenues for them to obtain training. In the facility in which I worked, there were always several visiting doctors who were there, for varying amounts of time, for training in both acute and day-to-day burn care.
I would ask that people try to be a bit more patient and understanding before they leap to judge the care these patients are getting. Everyone associated with this disaster is doing their best to alleviate the suffering of the many victims. I wish only the very best for both families and hospital staff.
Tom Kuleck
Taichung
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS