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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
The military is conducting its annual Han Kuang exercises in phases. The minister of national defense recently said that this year’s scenarios would simulate defending the nation against possible actions the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) might take in an invasion of Taiwan, making the threat of a speculated Chinese invasion in 2027 a heated agenda item again. That year, also referred to as the “Davidson window,” is named after then-US Indo-Pacific Command Admiral Philip Davidson, who in 2021 warned that Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) had instructed the PLA to be ready to invade Taiwan by 2027. Xi in 2017
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS