Government has blinders on
Some 50 years ago, my boss assigned me to a team to work for a client whose organization had control of nuclear power stations. The case involved a proposal to license a new method of producing nuclear power that was, in the client’s view, better than existing methods. The major advantage was that the decay products had lower potential to damage health by radiation.
There was, in my mind, a substantial problem: One of the non-radioactive products was a metal whose toxicity was not known, but similar metals have clear health effects, some good, some bad.
The client’s estimate of the number and size of plants that would use the new process would increase the amount of this metal in the Earth’s outer layer more than 20-fold in the next 100 years.
The client did not care; his concern was damage by radioactive materials; other agencies were in charge of toxic materials. His blinders prevented him from realizing that those agencies could not pass rules to change the laws of physics once new plants were licensed.
Fortunately I managed to convince my boss to replace me on the team.
That episode came to mind on reading “Minister sparks legal driving age debate” (Taipei Times, July 10, page 4). From that piece it seems clear that the blinders are firmly on.
The concern is focused on two considerations: First, what would be the effect on the number of unlicensed drivers and second, what effect would it have on the deaths and casualties caused by licensing people over 16 years of age (with no statement of which of the three methods of reckoning age used in Taiwan would be used).
A few other effects might be worth considering. Among them:
What would be the effect on people under 16 becoming unlicensed drivers?
What would be the effect on air pollution?
What would be the health effects due to teenagers walking less than they already do?
How would incentives to reduce exercise affect the nation’s ability to defend itself in an emergency?
What would be the effect of the additional vehicles used by the newly licensed (and newly unlicensed) driver on the availability of parking in the already overburdened streets?
I hope that the government will, at some time in the future, develop the ability to think more broadly about the issues.
If not, maybe they should ask five-year-olds how many of them think that five-year-olds would do a better job of governing than the current government officials.
Emilio Venezian
Taichung
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS