A lack of moral leadership
Whenever foreigners praise Taiwanese for their friendliness and kindness, I feel like I must be living in a parallel universe (“Book review: Virtuous island,” Sept. 21, page 14).
Take, for example, the recent letter in which James Baranishyn voiced his concerns about air pollution, particularly the inconsiderate burning of joss paper (Letters, Sept. 19, page 8). His letter raised three issues for me.
First, I once confronted a neighbor who was burning joss paper, as the smoke was contaminating the entire street, including my apartment. Instead of listening to my concerns or possibly stopping what he was doing, he called the police and threatened to have me arrested for “having insulted his honor” or whatever.
I had to tell him “sorry” when inside I believed myself to be totally in the right in defending my health and the planet’s health.
I have been threatened with arrest and physical violence at least five times simply for reminding Taiwanese of their own traffic rules or of decent behavior toward fellow human beings.
So much for the supposed friendliness of Taiwanese: It vanishes into thin air, just like burned joss paper, as soon as you criticize them in any way.
Taiwanese have no culture of dealing with criticism, no matter how justified, and especially not criticism from foreigners, because then they become all emotional and irrational about losing face.
Second, most religious leaders are completely irresponsible when it comes to protecting the health of Taiwan’s residents and the environment (“Temple traditions versus environmental concerns,” Aug. 1, page 3).
Besides the toxic air pollution that religious practice produces, many temples burn their trash or throw it in a nearby river, while the idiotic release of prayer animals encourages animal cruelty and the introduction of dangerous animals, including poisonous snakes.
Most disappointing, however, is the almost total absence of moral leadership on these issues: While the Dalai Lama and the Pope are outspoken about the need to protect the environment, you almost never hear a religious leader in Taiwan speak out forcefully about the need to protect people’s health and the environment. This lack of moral leadership is pathetic.
To be fair, there are some religious groups that work on issues like recycling, but they are a minority, and they do not speak up loudly enough against the misconduct of the many (“PET bottles collected,” Sept. 6, page 4).
Third, with the effect of severe weather on an aging population (“Cancer No. 1 death cause for 35th consecutive year,” June 20, page 3) and record temperatures again in September (“Temperature in Taipei hits record high for September,” Sept. 28, page 3) and October (“Record temperatures set,” Oct. 2, page 3), the urgency of improving air quality and saving the planet from disastrous climate change should be ever more apparent.
While President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) government is moving toward some of the right solutions (e.g., a circular economy, renewable energy), although much too slowly, the so-called “moral leaders” as well as most Taiwanese should be ashamed of continuing their anachronistic, dangerous and inconsiderate behavior.
In a Facebook post on Wednesday last week, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Taipei City Councilor Hsu Chiao-hsin (徐巧芯) wrote: “The KMT must fall for Taiwan to improve.’ Allow me to ask the question again: Is this really true?” It matters not how many times Hsu asks the question, my answer will always be the same: “Yes, the KMT must be toppled for Taiwan to improve.” In the lengthy Facebook post, titled “What were those born in the 1980s guilty of?” Hsu harked back to the idealistic aspirations of the 2014 Sunflower movement before heaping opprobrium on the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP)
The scuffle between Chinese embassy staffers in Fiji and a Taiwanese diplomat at a Republic of China (ROC) Double Ten National Day celebration has turned into a public relations opportunity for the government, Beijing and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). Although the incident occurred on Oct. 8, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA) downplayed it, only for the story to be picked up by the foreign media, forcing the ministry to respond. The public and opposition parties asked why the government had failed to remonstrate more strongly in the first instance. It is still unclear whether the ministry missed a trick
US President Donald Trump and his Democratic rival, former US vice president Joe Biden, are holding their final debate tonight. In their foreign policy debate, China is sure to be a major issue of contention for the two candidates. Here are several questions the moderator should pose to the candidates: For both: In the first televised US presidential debates in 1960, then-Democratic candidate John F. Kennedy and his Republican counterpart, Richard Nixon, were asked whether the US should intervene if communist China attacked Taiwan’s outlying islands of Kinmen and Matsu. Kennedy said no, unless the main island of Taiwan was also attacked.
For most of us, the colorful, otherworldly marinescapes of coral reefs are as remote as the alien landscapes of the moon. We rarely, if ever, experience these underwater wonderlands for ourselves — we are, after all, air-breathing, terrestrial creatures mostly cocooned in cities. It is easy not to notice the perilous state they are in: We have lost 50 percent of coral reefs in the past 20 years and more than 90 percent are expected to die by 2050, a presentation at the Ocean Sciences Meeting in San Diego, California, earlier this year showed. As the oceans heat further and