Democratic Progressive Party legislative caucus convener Ker Chien-ming (柯建銘) on Sunday said that he expects the NT$6,000 that is to be distributed to all Taiwanese citizens and qualifying foreign residents as part of a tax rebate in a special budget could be given out as early as the middle of April. According to news reports, people are to be given three options through which they can receive the cash: They can apply online, withdraw it from ATMs or receive it over the counter at a post office. I would like to have the option to return the money as a donation to the government to go toward the purchase of defensive weapons, be it the US-made M136 Volcano Vehicle-Launched Scatterable Mine System that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) seems so intent on blocking, or Patriot air-defense missiles. The more the government buys of these, the safer Taiwan will be. I suggest that on the Web site where people are to apply for the handout, following confirmation of the applicant’s identity, an “other” button should appear, tucked away somewhere in the corner so that the opposition parties cannot accuse the government of moral blackmail. On clicking this, the applicant would be given the option to donate the amount, in full or in part, to the government, to be used for national defense or provide aid for the financially disadvantaged. The government could also consider providing a grace period of one month, allowing people to withdraw the donation offer should they change their mind. During the grace period, the government could send reminders to people, through e-mail or text according to the information entered at the time of the application, to confirm their decision. Taiwanese want peace, but peace depends on one’s ability to protect oneself. Of course, the handouts would be returned
I first visited Taiwan in 1985, when I was deputed by His Holiness the Dalai Lama to start a dialogue with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). I spent three days talking to officials, the end result being the signing of an agreement where the Republic of China (ROC) recognized the right to self-determination of Tibetans. According to official KMT records in Nanking, Tibet never paid taxes to the ROC government. In 1997, the Dalai Lama made his first ever visit to Taiwan on the invitation of then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). Lee took the bold step of opening Taiwan’s doors to His Holiness. The visit was most successful and changed the attitude of His Holiness toward Taiwanese. His Holiness asked me what I thought of his visit and I advised him saying that, as this was his first visit ever to a “Han territory,” it was historical, and if he was successful in Taiwan he would be successful in China. After seeing Taiwan’s robust democracy, His Holiness recognized Taiwanese as a separate entity to Chinese. Later that year I visited Taipei to start grassroots lobbying for Tibetan issues. On one occasion I met then-Taipei mayor Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), who was quite upset, as he had not been given an audience with His Holiness during his visit. As mayor, Chen issued an invitation to His Holiness, which His Holiness accepted when Chen was president. In a breakfast meeting with former American Institute in Taiwan director James Lilley and then-Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Hsu Hsin-liang (許信良), the latter asked Lilley whether he thought China would ever fire missiles toward Taiwan. Lilley turned toward me and said: “Why don’t we ask our Tibetan friend?” I retorted by giving the example of the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1950, where they used modern weapons against us
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the pride of the nation, has recently become a villain to residents of Tainan’s Annan District (安南). In 2017, TSMC announced plans to build the world’s first 3-nanometer fab in Anding District (安定). While the project was once welcomed by residents of Tainan, it has since become a source of controversy. The new fab requires a huge amount of electricity to operate. To meet TSMC’s surging electricity demand, plans are under way to construct a 1.2 gigawatt gas power station near a residential area in Annan District. More than 10,000 Annan residents have signed a petition opposing the power plant’s construction. Locals fear that the power plant will worsen air pollution in the region, which is already severe. In Tainan, average concentrations of toxic PM2.5 pollution — particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers — are already about four times higher than the WHO standard. The planned location of the power plant is within a few kilometers of communities, schools and a hospital. Moreover, residents are worried about potential gas explosions resulting from the construction of pipelines in the area. Environmentalists have also raised concerns that the site is home to protected species, such as the grass owl. The case has garnered significant local media attention, but TSMC hides behind the scenes, as if the controversy were unrelated to it. Yet as the planned power plant’s biggest customer, TSMC is central to the story. TSMC’s failure to stand up for the residents of Annan is merely the latest example of the company’s delayed transition to renewable energy. Worldwide, TSMC lags behind its competitors when it comes to renewable energy usage. In 2021, renewable energy accounted for just 9 percent of TSMC’s overall electricity consumption, compared with 20 percent for Samsung and 80 percent for Intel. At the same time,
Over the Lunar New Year period, I once more took stock of the four townships within the constituency I serve and discovered that the only one with a written history was Huwei Township (虎尾鎮), two volumes with a total of 800,000 words that were printed five years ago. Of the 76 villages and boroughs within those four townships only 25 or so have any written records of their development. Only seven of the rural and urban townships of the 25 in Yunlin County have written histories, while of the 392 boroughs and villages within the county, only 100 or so can lay claim to a local written record of their development. It appears that the history of Yunlin is largely lost to us, save for what is etched into individuals’ memories, which will soon be lost to us over time. How, then, will the local histories of Taiwan be written? Everyone knows that they are responsible for protecting their own country. By the same logic, everyone is equally responsible for making sure the stories of the places in which they live are written down. It is in this spirit that the idea of “community building” in Taiwan was first promoted more than two decades ago, the first stage of which was to take stock of the local culture, history, industry, land and topography: that is, to come to understand one’s home and to write down what one finds. Through in situ fieldwork and making an inventory of local resources, one would then bring together all aspects of community life — the people, academia and industry — and develop the special characteristics of that locality, to become the pillars of local innovation and environmental sustainability. However, given the circumstances in Yunlin County, it is difficult to see whether the theory and practice
EDITORIAL CARTOON
In a strange way, the best thing that could have happened to Google (now masquerading as Alphabet, its parent company) was Facebook. Why? Because although Google invented surveillance capitalism, arguably the most toxic business model since the opium trade, it was Facebook that got into the most trouble for its abuses of it. The result was that Google enjoyed an easier ride. Naturally, it had the odd bit of unpleasantness with the EU, with annoying fines and long drawn-out legal wrangles. However, it was Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg — not Google’s Larry Page, Sergey Brin and their adult supervisor Eric Schmidt — who was awarded the title of evil emperor of the online world. This sometimes enabled Google to fly below the regulatory radar and avoid public criticism. Its relative immunity might also have been fostered by credulity induced by its “Don’t be evil” motto. What might also have helped is the way that, over the years, it fumbled quite a few things — Google+, Google Wave, Google Glass, Knol and Google Reader, to name just five. On the other hand, it also managed to create useful and successful products — Gmail, for example, plus Google Maps, Google Scholar, Google Earth and Google Books. And, of course, it made inspired acquisitions of YouTube in 2006 and of artificial-intelligence start-up DeepMind in 2014. What enabled the company to get away with that mixture of creativity, fumbling and indirection, obviously, was that it was always rolling in money. The mighty cash pump of its search engine and associated ad business has dependably provided revenues of US$100 billion-plus a year since 2017 for the enrichment of its shareholders. With that kind of income you can afford to make a lot of mistakes, especially when you own the search engine that has a near monopoly of
Why are we so outraged by “nepo babies”? This is a question of particular interest to nepotism babies themselves who, since a recent New York magazine article on the children given a leg-up by their famous parents, have been attracting a level of opprobrium they are finding unnecessary and unfair. After all, they say, they might get a foot in the door, but then they have to work twice as hard and be twice as good or at least prove themselves equal to the task. Kaia Gerber, the model daughter of Cindy Crawford, was last week the latest to make a variation on this point, which has been repeated so many times by nepo babies down the decades that it has become a sort of proverb. Let us first take issue with this maxim. It is just not true. The sons and daughters of the famous are helped all the way along. The forces that propel them into their first job — members of the industry wanting to please their parents — are still present at the second and the third. No one sacks or underpromotes the child of someone very important if it could possibly be helped: Why risk torpedoing your own career? Instead, thresholds are lowered, sometimes literally (Lily-Rose Depp, daughter of Johnny Depp, is just 160cm, but a stupendously successful model). And far from having to work extra hard to prove themselves, nepo babies have the scope to fail upwards, repeatedly. Bjork’s daughter, Isadora, had her big break at 17 with the film The Northman, which flopped. Yet she signed a major modeling contract just two months later. Give a nepo baby a second or third chance and earn even more gratitude from those influential parents. They are also protected from many of the nasty obstacles their peers
Wall Street sure does love a fad, and it looks as if artificial intelligence (AI) might be the next “it” thing. Shares of struggling digital-media company BuzzFeed Inc on Thursday soared as much as 200 percent after saying “AI inspired content” would become “part of our core business” this year. It apparently mattered little to investors that the type of content BuzzFeed has in mind includes its signature quizzes (“Try to Identify 8/8 of these Famous Rodents If You Can” or “If You Paid Attention In Third Grade, This Quiz Will Be Incredibly Simple”). Based on the reaction in BuzzFeed shares, it would not be long before all sorts of companies in all sorts of industries trip over one another to announce some new initiative involving AI. Details? Do not bother asking. They will come later. All you need to know is that we are getting into AI! And it will be huge! If all this sounds familiar, it should. Fads have always been a part of Wall Street, but seem to have really picked up during the dotcom boom of the late 1990s. Like AI now, iterations of the Internet had been around for a few decades, but the technology developed quickly to the point where it became available to the masses. For the first time, ordinary citizens could plug into the “world wide web” and start surfing. Companies tied to the Internet went public and watched their shares soar, with perhaps the most famous being Web browsing company Netscape, whose shares rose from US$28 to US$75 on its first day of trading as a public company. Sure, everyone kind of knew the Internet would be big and change the economy. The problem was that nobody truly knew in what ways or how to make money from it — but that did
A memorandum from US Air Mobility Command Commander General Mike Minihan, leaked on social media on Friday, warns of a US military conflict with China over Taiwan as soon as 2025. His is not the first such warning. Minister of National Defense Chiu Kuo-cheng (邱國正) told lawmakers in June 2021 that China might attempt an invasion in 2025, and US Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Mike Gilday in October last year said that an invasion might occur as early as next year. Minihan’s comments, which Agence France-Presse said were confirmed by the Pentagon, present an opening for Taipei to press Washington to step up its defense measures. While nobody wants war, and Minihan said the main goal would be to deter a conflict, the comments from such a high-ranking US military official show that the Pentagon is taking the threat of war in the Taiwan Strait seriously, and that it is preparing for possible US involvement in such a conflict. On Wednesday, the Taipei Times reported that the US government is appropriating funding to facilitate Taiwan’s participation in its International Military Education & Training (IMET) program. Taiwan’s participation in the program, which aims to bolster regional defense capabilities by providing training and education to military personnel around the world, is mentioned in the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2023. “IMET has been proven to be an effective means to strengthen the military and international alliances, which are crucial for the US to reach its national security goals,” the American Institute in Taiwan told the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the sister newspaper of the Taipei Times). If there truly is concern among high-ranking US military personnel about a Chinese attack on Taiwan in the next few years, then Taipei and Washington must expedite such initiatives, as well as Taiwan’s procurement of US weapons. In October last year, the Nikkei
The Cabinet reshuffle has finally come to an end, and former vice president Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁) has been nominated as the new premier. The appointment should be accepted and welcomed by all political factions and parties, and the next Cabinet, with a grand vision, is expected to lead the nation to a whole new level. Judging from the Constitution of the Republic of China, Taiwan is closer to a presidential system. The president takes responsibility for the administrative team, be it a success or a failure, while the premier executes the president’s vision. The constitutional design allows the Cabinet and the premier to focus entirely on administrative affairs and national development. They do not have to pay particular attention to a single electoral district, or spend time and money on attending funerals and weddings to win more votes. In other words, the Cabinet and the premier treat every electoral district equally. Compared with a parliamentary system, Taiwan’s system does have quite a few merits. However, it should be understood that the president is held accountable for the results of the Cabinet and the premier’s policy execution. Therefore, if the Cabinet and the premier fail to live up to the public’s expectations, the president must take action and, if necessary, appoint a new administrative team. At the same time, the premier has to accept the president’s will, concentrating on the long-term development of the country, rather than catering to the interests of voters. The role of the premier is very different from that of legislators and councilors. The premier has a greater responsibility to lead an administrative team. Legislators and councilors strive to do their best to convey the public’s opinions, even though some proposals offered by the general public might not be feasible. However, the premier should have a
The Chinese government seems to have fallen back in love with economic growth. As the chaotic exit from its “zero COVID” policy has unfolded — leading to tens of thousands of deaths (at least) — the nation’s leaders have been eager to profess their undying devotion to robust economic recovery. However, lip service alone can get China nowhere. Last month’s Central Economic Work Conference — the annual meeting where the top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) sets the economic policy agenda for the next year — established growth as the government’s top economic priority for this year. In the weeks that followed, the public was treated to a spectacle not seen in years, as provincial governors fell over themselves to echo the CCP’s commitment to growth, and reassure jittery private investors and entrepreneurs. The political motivation for this shift is obvious. The CCP hopes to restore public support, after popular frustration with draconian “zero COVID” restrictions gave way to dissatisfaction with the botched exit from the policy. However, it can mean little unless the government translates its pro-growth rhetoric into action. To some extent, it already has. From easing borrowing restrictions on “high-quality” property developers to supporting demand for housing, measures aimed at breathing new life into the beleaguered real-estate sector are high on the government’s agenda. Such efforts are far from sufficient. As important as the property sector is to China’s GDP, a moderate real-estate rebound alone cannot drive a comprehensive economic recovery, let alone a return to rapid growth. Likewise, the government’s other short-term stimulus measures — such as monetary and fiscal expansion, including infrastructure investment — are likely to provide only a temporary boost. China’s COVID-19 restrictions left deep scars on the economy. Before the pandemic, the country boasted 44 million micro and small enterprises, which accounted for about 98 percent
On Jan. 15, Tainan City Councilor Lee Chong-lim (李宗霖) of the Taiwan Statebuilding Party posted on Facebook a photograph of a pack of Chinese-made Liuzhou Snail Rice Noodles, describing its packaging as “united front” propaganda to promote unification with China. “You are Chinese and so am I, so after rounding up, you are all my people,” the packaging reads. The post drew a lot of public attention, and the Ministry of Economic Affairs said it would take measures to deal with the issue, including pulling all illegal products from the shelves. The Taiwan Statebuilding Party has duly performed its public duty in a democracy of scrutinizing the government. However, another opposition party, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), working in tandem with the pro-China media, claimed that the Liuzhou Snail Rice Noodles incident is nothing but an “anti-China” scheme hatched by the pan-green camp. The KMT seems to be defending these illegally imported products, which have also raised food safety concerns. Ironically, it was this same group of KMT politicians who, at the end of 2021, tried to ban US pork imports on the pretext of ensuring food safety and safeguarding the public’s well-being. The KMT also proposed a referendum and tried to interrupt the legal, standard process of importing US meat. In addition to Chinese aggression and antagonism toward Taiwan, the issue of food safety in China has long been a problem. Several food-related incidents have been exposed in China, including fake eggs, fake soy sauce, industrial salt mixed with edible salt, plastic rice and milk tainted with melamine. Given China’s strict censorship and control over freedom of speech, these food safety issues uncovered by the media are only the tip of the iceberg. China’s totalitarian government lacks an independent judicial system, and the Chinese public is restricted from keeping a
EDITORIAL CARTOON
For many Europeans, last summer was one of the worst in living memory, and not only because of the cruel war on their eastern flank or the return of inflation. Even more important, from a long-term perspective, it was the public’s realization that the continent is far more vulnerable than expected to changing environmental conditions. As Europe experiences the warmest winter on record, it must prepare for more climate upheaval, from substantially warmer temperatures to variable water resources, both of which pose a fundamental political challenge to the European project. For decades, Europeans have concealed the deeply political nature of European integration behind an economic project focused on ensuring the free flow of goods, capital, services and people between member states. It has worked because the single market can rely on a vast legacy of infrastructure and institutions to ensure its material security. Goods can travel safely across the continent because roads are, for the most part, free from floods. European farmers can produce food, thanks to centuries of reclamation and benign rainfall. Financial centers can operate at the rhythm of capital markets, because their workers do not have to wade through rivers on their way to work or carry buckets for hours to secure water for their families. The infrastructure and institutions that convert the climate into such predictable operating conditions are an inheritance, financed, in Europe’s case, by colonial resources and, more recently, by the Marshall Plan, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and member states’ own treasuries. All helped establish the legitimacy of modern European states. However, the past summer and the anomalous winter that has followed provide abundant evidence of the ongoing demise of Europe’s once-favorable human geography — and that the continent’s constructed landscape, finely tuned to earlier climate conditions, is no longer fit for purpose. Last
The latest Cabinet reshuffle retains top economic and finance officials in their posts. Minister of Economic Affairs Wang Mei-hua (王美花), National Development Council Minister Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫), Financial Supervisory Commission Chairman Thomas Huang (黃天牧) and Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) Minister Chu Tzer-ming (朱澤民) are all to remain. President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and former vice president Chen Chien-jen (陳建仁), who is to be sworn in as the new premier tomorrow, reportedly wanted them to complete unfinished tasks and maintain coherent policymaking. This indicates that Tsai’s administration wants to formulate consistent and stable policies, reassure the business community and restore public confidence as the nation’s economy faces rising challenges this year. The DGBAS on Jan. 18 reported that Taiwan’s economy last quarter contracted 0.86 percent year-on-year, ending 26 straight quarters of annual growth, due to a sharp decline in exports. The downturn in external demand, including for semiconductors, dragged the nation’s GDP growth for last year to 2.43 percent, missing the government’s forecast of 3.06 percent and marking the slowest expansion in six years. The trend is likely to continue this quarter. Nevertheless, the promotion of Chuang Tsui-yun (莊翠雲) to minister of finance from the deputy post — replacing Su Jain-rong (蘇建榮), who is returning to teaching at National Taipei University — came as a surprise to many. Previous finance ministers have mostly come from the fields of finance and taxation, while Chuang has a background in managing state-owned property. She is a graduate of National Chengchi University’s Department of Land Economics and worked in several positions at the National Property Administration for nearly three decades before taking the deputy finance minister’s office in 2016. Chuang is also to become the agency’s third female minister, following Shirley Kuo (郭婉容), who served as minister from 1988 to 1990, and Kuo’s daughter, Christina
Criticisms of corruption, a poorly managed bureaucracy and uninformed, unprincipled or unaccomplished policy in China are often met with harsh punishments. Many protesters in the “blank paper movement,” for example, have been disappeared by the authorities. Meanwhile, the WHO has asked China to provide data on its COVID-19 situation, with the Chinese government choosing to disseminate propaganda instead. The first amendment of the US Constitution, written in 1791, prohibits the US government from abridging the freedom of speech, press, assembly, petition, or religion. More than 200 years later, China, the world’s second-largest economy, still lacks the freedoms of speech and the press, among others. A democratic government of the people, by the people and for the people would listen to people’s complaints, as power originates from people. Freedom of speech is essential to achieve that purpose. On the contrary, an autocratic government, which derives its power from a dictator, would not hesitate to suppress people’s voices and ignore their concerns. It has been reported in China that some people who had received three doses of the Sinovac Biotech COVID-19 vaccine have died, while some unvaccinated people have survived COVID-19 infection. Although there is no statistical data to confirm its scientific merits, the efficacy of one or two doses of the Sinovac vaccine has consistently been shown to be much lower than that of mRNA vaccines in all age groups. Therefore, it is scientifically puzzling that earlier studies have said three doses of the Sinovac vaccine matches the efficacy of mRNA vaccines. That Sinovac’s inactivated vaccine does not provide effective protection against the Omicron subvariants of SARS-CoV-2 supports the argument that such vaccines might divert the immune system toward multiple targets, compromising its resilience against the mutated virus. China and the WHO should find out the facts and quickly supplement the vaccines currently on offer in
As the People’s Republic of China (PRC) constantly strives to rewrite the Taiwan narrative, it is important to regularly update and correct the stereotypes that the PRC tries to foist on Taiwan and the world. A primary stereotype is that Taiwan has always been a part of China and its corollary that Taiwan has been a part of China since time immemorial. Both are false. Taiwan has always been a part of the vast Austronesian empire, which stretched from Madagascar in the west to Easter Island in the east and from Taiwan in the north to New Zealand in the south. That part of Taiwan’s history needs recognition, as many in the West remain ignorant of it. Taiwan has never been a part of China. Parts of Taiwan have been colonized by other nations including the Dutch, Spanish, fleeing Ming loyalists and pursuing Manchu rulers. Although each had a temporary claim to a part of Taiwan’s history, the only nation to control and rule Taiwan was Japan. Japan received the Manchu section of Taiwan in the 1895 Treaty of Shimonoseki; it did not get it from China. The Manchu Empire was not China, but rather China at that time was a part of the Manchu Empire. Japan set out to conquer and control the whole island. Taiwan has appeared on the maps of many nations, and under many names, but designation on a map cannot be used as a qualification for possession. It is simply recognition of location. A second and related cliche that is often tossed around in Western history is the erroneous idea of what constitutes China. After the Mongols conquered the lands from Europe in the west to Korea in the east, and from Russia in the north to India in the south, they divided their empire into four khanates. China
To boost Taiwan’s international competitiveness, the government has launched a “bilingual nation” policy, pledging to achieve this goal by 2030. After the new Cabinet takes shape, it should promptly review the implementation of the policy, and then make adjustments if needed. How can Taiwanese’s English be improved? The answer is simple: Better English education would be a start. Oddly, many universities and even the College Entrance Examination Center (CEEC) are doing the opposite at the moment, taking Taiwan further away from becoming a “bilingual nation.” The CEEC, for example, which holds the General Scholastic Ability Test (GSAT) in January as well as the Advanced Subjects Test (AST) in July every year, last year removed English as a subject from the AST. Such assessment without the English subject is certainly unfavorable to the bilingual policy. The removal of English has misled the public into believing that English is no longer valued and that they should not take it seriously. Soon after the AST abandoned English, as many as 104 university departments announced that they would no longer take the results of the GSAT’s English subject as a criterion for admission starting this year, hoping to attract freshmen by dumping English amid the “low-birthrate tsunami” hitting Taiwan. Due to this trend, many in Taiwan seem to believe that English-related departments at universities are of limited use, leading to a plunge in enrollment. Meanwhile, some universities have been saving personnel costs by turning English courses from compulsory to elective or cutting them extensively. This means that college students do not need to learn English anymore. There are also universities that have been cheating the Ministry of Education out of its grants for “EMI” (English-medium instruction) courses by fabricating various programs, and schools that have been overdoing EMI by teaching Chinese in English only, departing from the
EDITORIAL CARTOON
RSS