Addressing common history
In the era of globalization, characterized by widespread access to the Internet and social media, swift rhythm of life, mass production and rapid consumption of the news, it is relatively easy to fall into the trap of following some simplified patterns while speaking about historical processes and events, especially if they took place in another part of the world.
The unfortunate fact is that today no one can feel safe from the danger of forming a personal opinion based upon a mixture of truthful and incorrect information circulating around us.
In this regard, we could not fail to notice the editorial and some emotional references to the tragic, but heroic story of the liberation of Europe by the Soviet soldiers in 1945, that go against well-known historical facts (“Prague’s mayor shows the way,” March 13, page 8).
First, it should be noted that the Prague Strategic Offensive of the Soviet Army was the last major military operation of World War II in Europe, bringing an end to the continued years-long Nazi occupation of the city and the country as a whole. The offensive was supported by the Czech Resistance and resulted in more than 53,000 Soviet and Allied soldiers killed and wounded in just five days.
World War II itself holds a very special — even sacred — place in the minds of many of the world’s nations. This is especially true for Russians, as our country lost more than 26 millions of its citizens from 1941 to 1945 while defending the right to exist and then playing a decisive role in liberating the occupied states of Europe.
The verdict of who represented the force of good and who represented the force of evil during that period was enshrined in the fundamental documents of the universally recognized and highly respected international legal body — the Nuremberg Tribunal held by the Allies in 1946.
This year we celebrate the 75th Anniversary of the end of World War II, and we truly believe that no one can distort the historical truth about our fathers and grandfathers, just because they cannot stand up for themselves.
Indeed, our common history is a highly sensitive and complex matter to be addressed in a careful and respectful way, so one should be extremely cautious in trying to make an assessment of fateful events that took place relatively recently, forged of blood and tears.
We sincerely hope that every person or organization capable of influencing others will be strictly devoted to maintaining this priority and refrain from mixing today’s politics with sensitive historical facts, flatly applying black and white labels just for the goal of a transient dramatic effect.
It is the only way to fight “fake news” and mitigate its harmful effect on society and international relations, thus promoting attentive and respectful attitude towards each other.
Sergey Petrov
Representative Office in Taipei for the Moscow-Taipei Coordination Commission on Economic and Cultural Cooperation
Re-evaluating mask ban
Like all non-Taiwanese living in Taiwan, I feel incredibly blessed to be living a relatively normal life as all our assumptions about economics and security come crumbling down in the US and elsewhere.
Thank you, Taiwan! I love you madly.
Today, as I was strolling through my local hypermarket, I was shocked to see an entire rack of 3M N95 respirator masks, the shortage of which is causing doctors, nurses and other key people around the world to face a greatly heightened risk of COVID-19 infection.
I bought a few and thought it was strange that no other shoppers seemed interested in them. They cost too much, I was told (NT$139, about US$4.60 US).
Clearly, an N95 respirator is overkill for ordinary Taiwanese these days.
However, we still cannot buy and ship them to our friends and loved ones abroad. I appreciate all that Taiwan’s strict policies have accomplished so far, but these particular masks are needed far more in other countries right now. The total ban on shipping masks abroad should be immediately re-evaluated on humanitarian grounds. Taiwan itself should not become guilty of hoarding.
[Editor’s note: From April 9, people are to be allowed to mail up to 30 masks to family members abroad.]
Peter Dearman
New Taipei City
In an article published in Newsweek on Monday last week, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged China to retake territories it lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. “If it is really for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t China take back Russia?” Lai asked, referring to territories lost in 1858 and 1860. The territories once made up the two flanks of northern Manchuria. Once ceded to Russia, they became part of the Russian far east. Claims since then have been made that China and Russia settled the disputes in the 1990s through the 2000s and that “China
Trips to the Kenting Peninsula in Pingtung County have dredged up a lot of public debate and furor, with many complaints about how expensive and unreasonable lodging is. Some people even call it a tourist “butchering ground.” Many local business owners stake claims to beach areas by setting up parasols and driving away people who do not rent them. The managing authority for the area — Kenting National Park — has long ignored the issue. Ultimately, this has affected the willingness of domestic travelers to go there, causing tourist numbers to plummet. In 2008, Taiwan opened the door to Chinese tourists and in
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je (柯文哲) on Thursday was handcuffed and escorted by police to the Taipei Detention Center, after the Taipei District Court ordered that he be detained and held incommunicado for suspected corruption during his tenure as Taipei mayor. The ruling reversed an earlier decision by the same court on Monday last week that ordered Ko’s release without bail. That decision was appealed by prosecutors on Wednesday, leading the High Court to conclude that Ko had been “actively involved” in the alleged corruption and it ordered the district court to hold a second detention hearing. Video clips
Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) Chairman Ko Wen-je’s (柯文哲) arrest is a significant development. He could have become president or vice president on a shared TPP-Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) ticket and could have stood again in 2028. If he is found guilty, there would be little chance of that, but what of his party? What about the third force in Taiwanese politics? What does this mean for the disenfranchised young people who he attracted, and what does it mean for his ambitious and ideologically fickle right-hand man, TPP caucus leader Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌)? Ko and Huang have been appealing to that
RSS