Taiwan and the WHO
I fully agree with Andy Knight’s argument that the global epidemic prevention network is not complete without the inclusion of Taiwan in the WHO (“Taiwan Should Gain WHO Status,” May 19, page 8). Justice and basic human health rights to which all human beings are entitled are not served to the 23 million Taiwanese people if Taiwan is left outside the WHO network.
China once again blocked Taiwan’s application to sit as an observer at the World Health Assembly meeting on May 19. This is the 12th time China has ignored the well-being of Taiwanese.
Beijing’s argument that China has provided and would provide protection to Taiwanese during an outbreak of communicable disease is highly suspect, as no such assistance has ever been rendered to Taiwan by China.
Beijing has even had serious difficulty preventing and controlling outbreaks of diseases originating inside China.
Despite the numerous times Taiwanese have provided aid to Chinese following natural or man-made disasters, Beijing has never shown any mercy toward Taiwanese.
For example, for the May 12 earthquake in China, Taiwanese have already donated more than US$150 million, with the Taiwanese Government quickly dispatching rescue personnel and equipment to China.
Despite the ongoing goodwill shown by Taiwanese and the Taiwanese Government, China has not shown any appreciation and continues to block Taiwan’s applications for WHO membership.
For the sake of global health protection and safety, the WHO should not allow China to dictate its policies and leave the gap in the global epidemic protection network unclosed.
Jong Huang
Edmonton, Alberta
Nobel Prize vs sovereignty
Charles Kao (高希均) told a Singapore newspaper that President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) might have a chance of winning a Nobel Peace Prize around 2011 (“‘CommonWealth’ founder sees Nobel in Ma’s future,” May 31, page 3). If Kao’s prediction were correct, the cost to Taiwan would be high and the sad precedent set by the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to then-US national security adviser Henry Kissinger and North Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho in 1973 would risk being repeated.
Despite the prize, given to Kissinger and Le for their role in the so-called Paris Peace Accords, fighting in Vietnam actually did not stop until the war ended in 1975. Worst of all, South Vietnam was taken over by the North Vietnamese and has been under communist rule ever since.
If Ma won a Nobel Prize for superficial peace, most likely Taiwan would ultimately be annexed by China and Taiwanese would find themselves under Chinese communist control.
Kissinger betrayed not only South Vietnam but also Taiwan. It was Kissinger who helped implement the “one China” policy that has haunted Taiwan since the early 1970s. Even today, Kissinger continues to justify “the territorial integrity of a united China” (“Kissinger: PRC apologist to the end,” May 3, Page 8). Kissinger should review the 1895 Shimonoseki Treaty between Japan and China and the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty between the US, Japan and 46 other countries. Taiwan is not part of China by any means or measures and his continued stance on the matter is regrettable in its failure to accept reality.
Ma, as president of Taiwan, should not follow in Kissinger’s steps in betrayal of Taiwan. The Nobel Prize is a great honor, but it will be not be worth a penny if it is won at the price of the sovereignty of Taiwan, democracy and freedom.
Charles Hong
Columbus, Ohio
Getting a good deal
I take issue with Johan McCarthy’s argument that foreigners are “usually charged more than Taiwanese for goods and services” (Letters, June 2, page 8). McCarthy was probably charged the standard rate for the gym he joined, while his Taiwanese friend either spoke Mandarin well enough or knew enough to ask for a discount. When I enquired about renewing my membership at my gym, I asked whether any promotional discounts were available. I was told the gym was offering a “buy one year, get one free” deal, which is quite a bargain. The key to getting a bargain in Taiwan is knowing what the going rate for a good or service is and knowing when you can haggle and when you can’t — something I have learned after buying memberships at two gyms. It doesn’t really matter whether you’re a local or a foreigner.
I have visited countries — Egypt and India come to mind — where foreigners are frequently and openly required to pay higher rates than locals. Even though my Mandarin isn’t very good, I have never found this to be the case in Taiwan.
I have also visited countries where I could actually see vendors calculating the “special foreigner markup” when I sought to buy something as mundane as a bottle of orange juice.
In my experience, Taiwanese are wealthy enough that they can’t be bothered to do this.
Don Silver
Taipei
Getting bike-friendlier
Your article on cycling in Taiwan highlights some of the problems cyclists are confronted with (“NGOs say Taiwan’s cities not convenient for cycling,” June 2, page 2).
Although the government deserves some credit for the construction of bike paths around Taiwan in recent years, these bike paths are mostly for recreational purposes and fail to solve the problems of cycling in urban areas.
Plans to construct bike paths on major roads such as Dunhua Road in Taipei City may be well intended, but are not necessarily the best way to spend government money. A poorly designed and little used bike path would only create negative perceptions among motorists and cyclists.
One major problem cyclists face is the lack of suitable locations to park their bikes when they arrive at their destination. Where bike parking does exist it is often poorly designed and doesn’t properly protect bikes from damage or theft. The double-decker bike racks like those near the Gongguan MRT station are the only well-designed racks I have seen in Taiwan. Yet they have only been installed at a few MRT stations and nowhere else in the city.
Most importantly, governments need to introduce measures that actively reduce the number of cars and motorcycles on roads. This will make the roads safer and create the space that cyclists need. It would also have the added benefits of reducing pollution and traffic accidents.
It would also be very helpful if politicians and government officials spent more time riding bicycles, as it would allow them to make better-informed decisions about the needed infrastructure.
David Reid
Xindian, 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
As an American living in Taiwan, I have to confess how impressed I have been over the years by the Chinese Communist Party’s wholehearted embrace of high-speed rail and electric vehicles, and this at a time when my own democratic country has chosen a leader openly committed to doing everything in his power to put obstacles in the way of sustainable energy across the board — and democracy to boot. It really does make me wonder: “Are those of us right who hold that democracy is the right way to go?” Has Taiwan made the wrong choice? Many in China obviously
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