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
George Santayana wrote: “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” This article will help readers avoid repeating mistakes by examining four examples from the civil war between the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) forces and the Republic of China (ROC) forces that involved two city sieges and two island invasions. The city sieges compared are Changchun (May to October 1948) and Beiping (November 1948 to January 1949, renamed Beijing after its capture), and attempts to invade Kinmen (October 1949) and Hainan (April 1950). Comparing and contrasting these examples, we can learn how Taiwan may prevent a war with
A recent trio of opinion articles in this newspaper reflects the growing anxiety surrounding Washington’s reported request for Taiwan to shift up to 50 percent of its semiconductor production abroad — a process likely to take 10 years, even under the most serious and coordinated effort. Simon H. Tang (湯先鈍) issued a sharp warning (“US trade threatens silicon shield,” Oct. 4, page 8), calling the move a threat to Taiwan’s “silicon shield,” which he argues deters aggression by making Taiwan indispensable. On the same day, Hsiao Hsi-huei (蕭錫惠) (“Responding to US semiconductor policy shift,” Oct. 4, page 8) focused on
Taiwan is rapidly accelerating toward becoming a “super-aged society” — moving at one of the fastest rates globally — with the proportion of elderly people in the population sharply rising. While the demographic shift of “fewer births than deaths” is no longer an anomaly, the nation’s legal framework and social customs appear stuck in the last century. Without adjustments, incidents like last month’s viral kicking incident on the Taipei MRT involving a 73-year-old woman would continue to proliferate, sowing seeds of generational distrust and conflict. The Senior Citizens Welfare Act (老人福利法), originally enacted in 1980 and revised multiple times, positions older
Nvidia Corp’s plan to build its new headquarters at the Beitou Shilin Science Park’s T17 and T18 plots has stalled over a land rights dispute, prompting the Taipei City Government to propose the T12 plot as an alternative. The city government has also increased pressure on Shin Kong Life Insurance Co, which holds the development rights for the T17 and T18 plots. The proposal is the latest by the city government over the past few months — and part of an ongoing negotiation strategy between the two sides. Whether Shin Kong Life Insurance backs down might be the key factor
RSS