Poor Eslite decision
I was shocked by the article “Eslite pulls out of deal to screen Tiananmen movie” (May 31, page 1) by Liu Li-jen, Chang Hui-wen and Jake Chung.
The authors mention the refusal by Eslite to screen a Chinese Television System documentary on democratic movements in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan.
The authors think that Eslite’s self-censorship shows that it is afraid of entangling with political issues due to China’s pressure.
A bookstore should help liberate thoughts and ideas. However, by practicing self-censorship of the film, which has sensitive elements, Eslite is actually confining voices.
What is more, the attitude of Eslite toward this incident is contradictory to the brand itself.
On its official Web site, Eslite says its vision is to be innovative and enlighten people. In reality, it has failed as a platform for freedom of speech and publication.
There are actually a lot of books about politics on Eslite’s best-seller list, such as the memoir of former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九), and its movie theaters are screening a lot of movies concerning sensitive political issues. For example, it is showing Apocalypse Now, a movie about the horrors of the Vietnam War.
It does not seem fair for Eslite to stop showing [the Tiananmen] movie because of its content.
I think Eslite should screen the documentary. After all, a bookstore should celebrate liberty, not keep knowledge captive. If Eslite keeps blocking sensitive issues from the public, it will no longer be a bookstore that respects different voices.
Recently, a lot of independent bookstores have been unafraid to voice their opinions on sensitive issues and accept differences. This is what a bookstore should be about — the liberation of knowledge.
Claudy Cheng
Taipei
No killing animals
An article about the woes of monkeys in Taitung County has provoked my deep reflection on animal rights (“Taitung County mulling monkey-catching contests,” June 5, page 2).
The author stated that the Taitung County Government was considering the event to alleviate farmers’ complaints about monkeys ravaging their orchards.
By “catching,” they mean to kill.
Taitung County Councilor Ku Chih-cheng (古志成) said that the county gave out insufficient subsidies for farmers to build electrified fences. Therefore, the county should provide more subsidies rather than hold a contest to kill monkeys.
With all the education I have, I know that killing others, human beings or not, is never a solution. Instead of killing monkeys, some methods can be adopted to prevent them from entering orchards.
They can be electrified fences or ditches, but they definitely cannot be hunting.
We do not have the right to decide the fate of wild monkeys by hunting them. We cannot kill people because they get in our way, so what right do we have to take such action against monkeys because they damage orchards?
We do not have that right. All lives are equal. If we should not kill people, we should not kill monkeys either.
As independent Taitung County Councilor Lin Wei-chih (林威志) said in the article, the department should find other ways to stop the monkeys.
Maybe the county could provide premiums and technical help so that the farmers can effectively prevent the monkeys from raiding their orchards.
However, among all the options the county has, killing animals is not an option. It is absolutely not a righteous action to take.
Kaylah Yu
Taipei
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) challenges and ignores the international rules-based order by violating Taiwanese airspace using a high-flying drone: This incident is a multi-layered challenge, including a lawfare challenge against the First Island Chain, the US, and the world. The People’s Liberation Army (PLA) defines lawfare as “controlling the enemy through the law or using the law to constrain the enemy.” Chen Yu-cheng (陳育正), an associate professor at the Graduate Institute of China Military Affairs Studies, at Taiwan’s Fu Hsing Kang College (National Defense University), argues the PLA uses lawfare to create a precedent and a new de facto legal
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
Chile has elected a new government that has the opportunity to take a fresh look at some key aspects of foreign economic policy, mainly a greater focus on Asia, including Taiwan. Still, in the great scheme of things, Chile is a small nation in Latin America, compared with giants such as Brazil and Mexico, or other major markets such as Colombia and Argentina. So why should Taiwan pay much attention to the new administration? Because the victory of Chilean president-elect Jose Antonio Kast, a right-of-center politician, can be seen as confirming that the continent is undergoing one of its periodic political shifts,
Taiwan’s long-term care system has fallen into a structural paradox. Staffing shortages have led to a situation in which almost 20 percent of the about 110,000 beds in the care system are vacant, but new patient admissions remain closed. Although the government’s “Long-term Care 3.0” program has increased subsidies and sought to integrate medical and elderly care systems, strict staff-to-patient ratios, a narrow labor pipeline and rising inflation-driven costs have left many small to medium-sized care centers struggling. With nearly 20,000 beds forced to remain empty as a consequence, the issue is not isolated management failures, but a far more
RSS