Although the NT$10,000 cash handouts have not yet been distributed, they have already sparked intense online debate regarding how they should be used, with the most heated discussion focused on Buddhist Master Shih Chao-hwei’s (釋昭慧) suggestion to not claim the cash, but rather return it to the government to “expand the nation’s life.”
This reminds me of something I experienced recently.
On a busy street that I often visit, there is a middle-aged man in a wheelchair who sells Yulan magnolias (玉蘭花) with his child. Not far from him is a monk who sits quietly on a small stool between two shops, holding a bowl for alms. Compared with the disabled man — working hard to sell his wares, refusing to bow to fate and earning a living with his own two hands — the monk, who just sits there and receives donations without uttering a word, obviously has it much easier.
As I was passing by that day, the monk had just finished the day’s round of alms. The three of us — myself, the monk and the disabled flower seller — crossed paths right in front of the flower stall, surrounded by an endless stream of hurried pedestrians.
As the monk passed by, he took advantage of the crowd cover and quietly slipped a stack of red bills into the disabled man’s flower basket — which was still full of flowers due to lack of business — then walked away into the crowd as if nothing had happened. If it were not for my sharp eyes and that the three of us just so happened to cross paths at that moment, it would have been nearly impossible for anyone else to notice.
I felt ashamed for having judged the monk’s character based on surface-level observations. With the shame came reflection — the unexpected NT$10,000 that I am about to receive does not need to be returned to the government. It could be donated to a charitable organization.
A charitable organization I once donated to recently sent a letter informing me that donations have dropped significantly this year — likely due to the effects of tariffs and inflation.
Perhaps this is an alternative that everyone can consider.
Jimmy Hsu is a farmer.
Translated by Kyra Gustavsen
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