Fighting for survival
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party pushed through an amendment to the Nuclear Reactor Facilities Regulation Act (核子反應器設施管制法), which passed its third reading with their legislative majority — without sufficient discussion or serious review. The bill is not for the sake of energy security or Taiwan’s future; it is a political maneuver.
The blue and white camps know all too well that the nuclear issue would stir up social tensions, and their real goal is to shift the focus and drain the energy of civil society. This not only tramples on the democratic process, but also disregards the overall development of Taiwan.
They care less about the risk of nuclear safety or the long-term development of the country, and more about consolidating their power.
This is not a battle between the blue-white and green camps, but a battle for Taiwan’s survival.
When forces try to paralyze the legislature and manipulate our democracy, we cannot just defend ourselves passively. We need to recognize that this vicious battle is to make Taiwan lose its ability of self-determination, and cause social divisions from within.
Today, the only weapon left in the public’s hands could be the recall motions, which can warn the blue and white camps that this land is not a bargaining chip, and this society is not a stage for them to carry out struggles.
When politicians ignore public opinion and do whatever they want, the people have no choice but to use the weapon of democracy to make them pay for their actions.
Currently, they are continuing to pass any bill they want, but we will make the stance clear with our recall votes.
Democracy does not fall from the sky by itself, as it is protected again and again through monitoring and defense: It is so in the past, in the present and in the future.
This is our Taiwan, not a “rage room,” where they can vent anger by smashing objects. It is certainly not a commodity for sale.
Shih Li
Tainan
Economic sensibility
I appreciated the editorial on Wednesday (“Managing currency risks,” May 14, page 8), which rightly highlighted the potential economic risks posed by the rapid appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar. As noted, while the NT dollar’s surge might not signal a repeat of the 1985 Plaza Accord era, the parallels with Japan’s “lost decades” should not be ignored.
Taiwan’s export-driven economy is particularly sensitive to foreign exchange fluctuations. Electronics firms might be more resilient today than the textile companies of the 1980s, but they are not immune to global currency volatility and its impact on competitiveness. A stronger NT dollar could erode profit margins, discourage investment and reduce long-term growth potential — especially as Taiwan strives to secure deeper trade relationships, such as with the US.
It is therefore reassuring that the central bank is taking a cautious and measured approach.
Still, I echo the call for broader government preparedness. Targeted support for vulnerable sectors — such as textiles, machine tools and chemicals — is vital. These industries, although less prominent, remain important pillars of local employment and industrial diversity.
Policymakers must balance market freedom with proactive interventions to cushion Taiwan’s economy from global financial turbulence. Stability is not just a financial goal — it is a social necessity.
Fang Sheng-kai
Taipei
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS