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
Taiwanese pragmatism has long been praised when it comes to addressing Chinese attempts to erase Taiwan from the international stage. “Taipei” and the even more inaccurate and degrading “Chinese Taipei,” imposed titles required to participate in international events, are loathed by Taiwanese. That is why there was huge applause in Taiwan when Japanese public broadcaster NHK referred to the Taiwanese Olympic team as “Taiwan,” instead of “Chinese Taipei” during the opening ceremony of the Tokyo Olympics. What is standard protocol for most nations — calling a national team by the name their country is commonly known by — is impossible for
India is not China, and many of its residents fear it never will be. It is hard to imagine a future in which the subcontinent’s manufacturing dominates the world, its foreign investment shapes nations’ destinies, and the challenge of its economic system forces the West to reshape its own policies and principles. However, that is, apparently, what the US administration fears. Speaking in New Delhi last week, US Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau warned that “we will not make the same mistakes with India that we did with China 20 years ago.” Although he claimed the recently agreed framework
The Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) on Wednesday last week announced it is launching investigations into 16 US trading partners, including Taiwan, under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether they have engaged in unfair trade practices, such as overproduction. A day later, the agency announced a separate Section 301 investigation into 60 economies based on the implementation of measures to prohibit the importation of goods produced with forced labor. Several of Taiwan’s main trading rivals — including China, Japan, South Korea and the EU — also made the US’ investigation list. The announcements come
Taiwan is not invited to the table. It never has been, but this year, with the Philippines holding the ASEAN chair, the question that matters is no longer who gets formally named, it is who becomes structurally indispensable. The “one China” formula continues to do its job. It sets the outer boundary of official diplomatic speech, and no one in the region has a serious interest in openly challenging it. However, beneath the surface, something is thickening. Trade corridors, digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence (AI) cooperation, supply chains, cross-border investment: The connective tissue between Taiwan and ASEAN is quietly and methodically growing
RSS