For every person brought up in a free world, a referendum is an instrument of democracy and joining a referendum is fulfilling one's civil duty. Before joining the EU, Poles were asked in a referendum whether they wanted to be members of the European community or not (75 percent said "yes"). Now, ahead of the ratification of the Treaty of Lisbon (amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community), many Poles hope they will be given a chance to decide whether to support or reject the treaty through the referendum.
The principle of sovereignty requires that the consent of the people be given on certain questions of public or national concern.
Hearing that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is urging people to boycott the referendum, one can't avoid asking the questions: Is this a party that believes in democracy? Can it safeguard the sovereignty of the country while attempting to take the right to decide on matters of national concern out of the hands of the people?
After all, there is already a Chinese state where people can't express their consent or disapproval. Would the KMT prefer to follow the form of rule imposed on the Chinese people by the Chinese Communist Party?
Hanna Shen
Poland
Blueprints of the future
An editorial in your newspaper titled "The environment must come first" (Page 8, Dec. 14), said that the results of "new research from the US predicts that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer as early as 2013" and added: "[The] apocalyptic scenes from the movie The Day After Tomorrow may not be too fanciful."
I was glad to see that the Taipei Times is taking global warming seriously. In an effort to show what the distant future might look like if global warming events turn out to be disastrous for humankind, a Taiwanese illustrator named Deng Cheng-hong, who runs a small advertising sign company in southern Taiwan, has come up with a series of computer-generated blueprints of what an envisioned "sustainable population retreat" to house survivors of climate change might look like.
Deng's artwork is the first of its kind anywhere in the world and can be viewed online at: http://pcillu101.blogspot.com.
His illustrations are both reassuring and ominous. Reassuring, because they speak of survival and hope; ominous, because time seems to be running out.
Dan Bloom
Chiayi City
Inappropriate language
Being an American lawyer (Washington State), a foreign-law member of the Taipei Bar Association and a native speaker of English, I am fairly able to appraise the neutrality or bias of language relating to issues in controversy. I respectfully object to the choice of prejudicial terminology in the article "Chinese missile threat growing: Chen" (Jan. 2, page 1). I refer particularly to the last part of the sixth paragraph of that article, which reads in full: "However, Chen said, the biggest hurdle for the improvement of cross-strait relations was Beijing's precondition of adhering to the `one China' principle."
Irrespective of the fact that the negotiating position or demand in question is put forth by a foreign entity (the Chinese Communist Party or "Beijing") in its own terms, good journalism does not include the use of prejudicial terms in reporting on issues in controversy. Use of the term "principle" glorifies and honors what is simply an expansionist policy that Beijing tries to justify by puffing about "territorial integrity" of an undefined "motherland."
An honorific term like "principle" should not be adopted in news coverage, as it is the propagandist terminology used by Beijing. Such glorifying terminology in this context tends to mislead local and international readers of the Taipei Times as to what President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) said, and also casts a taint on Taiwan's position by suggesting that Taiwan is not adhering to a principle.
Beijing's demand that Taiwan assume a subservient position, as the price of dialogue, is wholly unprincipled and should never be glorified and honored by use of the term "principle." The phrase "adhering to the `one China' principle" should never be used in reference to Beijing's demand for subservience to its unprincipled Taiwan policy.
Marty Wolff
Taipei County
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS