Ma’s absurd surrender?
While every person in Taiwan with common sense always knew that President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) ultimate goal is to surrender and unite with China, he has made it official himself in his interview with the Mexican newspaper El Sol de Mexico on Aug. 26.
He was quoted as saying: “The relationship is a special one, but that relationship is not between two countries …While it is unlikely that double recognition of both sides of the Taiwan Strait can be obtained from any foreign country, we must maintain a peaceful and prosperous relationship with Beijing” (“‘State to state’ theory is dead, Ma says,” Sept. 4, page 1).
This is official surrender. But is it surrender or simply meeting the expectations of his people in the so-called “mainland region”?
Of course, the Presidential Office will continue trying to convince the public that this is not surrender.
What else should we call it? A “diplomatic truce”?
Alex Raymond
Niaosong,
Kaohsiung County
While reading Ma’s comments as recorded in El Sol de Mexico, I could not help pondering the days when I would read such “absurdist” authors and playwrights as Samuel Beckett and Eugene Ionesco.
My profound love and concern for Taiwan — especially its students whom I used to teach — leads me to experience a sadness that borders on grief.
Ma gets it right when he says that neither the People’s Republic of China nor the Republic of China allows for the existence of another country or state within its territory. This is by definition the essence of sovereignty.
There presently exist two self-governing and sovereign states on either side of the Taiwan Strait.
Where Ma wanders into absurdist “la-la land” is when he refers to the so-called “1992 consensus.”
Perhaps mine may be considered a naive question posed by an ignorant foreigner, but I will ask it anyway: Does the “1992 consensus” exist in any written form? Was the “1992 consensus” ever recorded or transcribed?
If so, who were the signatories to this document? Did they have the authority vested in them to sign their names on such a document?
The term “1992 consensus” has been bandied about since its birth (or is still birth a more accurate term?). It seems that much could be at stake in regard to this “consensus.” It seems that certain politicians would feign to permit public policy be dictated by this “consensus.”
Certain politicians seem to be willing to allow this “consensus” to set their course and hence that of the nation.
So one would do well to ascertain the legitimacy of the “1992 consensus.”
A thought experiment that I find interesting is to question whether said consensus has any validity in a Taiwanese court. What is the legal basis of this “consensus”?
Perhaps a person with a law degree from Harvard or Yale could answer this question. Has this consensus been vetted or reviewed by any panel of justices?
Most importantly, has anyone consulted the 23 million people living in Taiwan for their opinion on the matter?
Or is the “1992 consensus” at best — at the very best — an empty slogan and empty words with no basis in fact or reality? Is it merely an absurd illusion, or even a delusion?
How can two people or parties maintain two “interpretations” while talking about one thing? In my mind, to do this adds absurdity to a paradox that is already mired in inanity and senselessness.
I seem to remember reading once about a group of philosophers in ancient China. I believe that they attached great importance to the names of things.
These philosophers called for the “rectification of names.” They understood that if any progress were to be made, people had to be sure that they were designating the same thing when they used a certain word.
Karl Marx said that events in history first appear as a tragedy before reappearing as farce. Designating Taiwan as “Chinese Taipei” would be farcical were it not a question of the tragic humiliation of some 23 million people.
Out of all the countries represented at the Beijing Olympics, only Taiwan — free and democratic Taiwan — was made to endure such an outrageous humiliation.
The world should be ashamed of itself.
Michael Scanlon
Kaohsiung County
Invest in health, not foul air
I would like to point out that an air-fueled scooter was developed some time ago in the UK as a project in Bath, where a local sandwich shop wanted to expand its delivery service to company and office workers without causing pollution (“Researchers build green scooter that runs on air,” Sept. 4, page 2).
A program on this has been aired worldwide by the Discovery Channel. There is also now an air-powered car based on the same principle that was shown at various car shows in Europe.
I think it would be fantastic if one of the Taiwanese motorscooter companies could be the first to bring the vehicles to the market, because I really question why so many people use their scooter to travel less than 500m, knowing full well the damage they are causing to the environment.
How many scooters do you see leaving a trail of smoke behind them or puffing away at traffic lights? I also wonder how much it costs the government in healthcare for chest and throat treatment for people suffering from air pollution.
If the government invested in this kind of product, it would save money in the long term and create a much healthier society.
Steve Fenton
Taichung
What bipartisan unity?
Mike Shen (Letters, Sept. 3, page 8) adopts a self-righteous attitude in attacking the legitimate concerns raised in Lee Min-yung’s article “Can Ma’s KMT secure Taiwan’s hereafter?” (Sept. 2, page 8).
However, despite his call for bipartisan unity, Shen adopts the smear tactic that he accuses Lee of using, going so far as demanding Lee change his “Chinese” surname and discard “Chinese ideas” such as “eating with chopsticks or drinking tea.”
Shen also quickly defends Taiwan’s ailing economy, arguing that President Ma Ying-jeou is not a “magician” but “capable, educated and well spoken.”
I believe that with a little sense and a review of Shen’s argument, one could point out his misguided, irrational and partisan attitude, which further creates division among the people of Taiwan.
Shen’s demand that the author relinquish his surname and ditch his way of life or face being called a hypocrite is beyond rational thought.
There are billions of Chinese and they have a multitude of nationalities and citizenships. Would a Chinese-Thai, a Chinese-Canadian, or a Chinese-Singaporean have to drop his or her surname to become a truly Thai, Canadian or Singaporean citizen?
Should Irish-Americans also abandon their Irish traditions just to differentiate themselves from Irish nationals?
Surely Shen, who lives in such a multicultural nation as the US, should recognize the inherent weakness of his argument. Should one not be able to embrace a political and national identity without getting into a conflict with ethnic heritage?
Shen’s assumption that those who use chopsticks and drink tea identify with “Chinese ideas’’ does not warrant a serious response.
But I would like to make a point, nonetheless. It is ethnocentric to automatically assume that one who drinks tea or uses chopsticks identifies with China, culturally or politically. Should all tea drinkers, from India to the UK, kowtow and acknowledge themselves as “exhibiting Chinese cultural mannerisms”? Are Japanese hypocritical for using chopsticks while not being ethnically, politically or culturally Chinese?
Should it be assumed that I exhibit Chinese mannerisms simply because I used the word “kowtow” just now?
Shen’s contention that those identifying with Taiwan politically should not associate themselves with Chinese culture or adopt Chinese mannerisms is simplistic and misunderstands pan-green-camp ideology.
Our “well-spoken” President Ma has already succeeded in making ambiguous and unclear statements with his recent claim that Taiwan and China have a “special relationship.”
Does this mean that the Republic of China (ROC) is part of the People’s Republic of China? Surely Ma is not so naive as to assume that the Chinese will agree with him that their China is a part of the ROC.
As for Shen’s confidence in Ma’s ability to improve the economy, Ma has already admitted that he will not be able to fulfill his “6-3-3” campaign pledge, thus further damaging investor confidence in Taiwan.
When Ma inherited the government, Taiwan’s economy was in a robust state, with the last three quarters seeing more than 6 percent growth. But since he entered office, economic growth has slowed, with a growth rate of about 3 percent predicted for the remaining two quarters of the year.
Perhaps with a little research and critical thinking, and with less empty rhetoric, Shen’s letter would have been more convincing.
The people and politicians of Taiwan should work in unity for the betterment of the nation. It is unfortunate that Shen and people like him claim the moral high ground while attacking others as hypocrites.
This is an approach that would further fuel division in a country facing a delicate political situation.
Roger Lee Huang
Taipei
Full marks for Sarah Palin
I am impressed: I was taken with Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s speech.
She was confident and communicative and she connected very well with the audience, which had very little knowledge of who she was.
After she accepted the nomination and thanked the audience she turned around and hugged her children. She embraced her daughter with Down syndrome and smiled. It was so natural: What I saw was unconditional mother’s love.
She knew she was going to have a disabled child, but she went ahead and delivered her. She is pro-life, we are told, so she practices what she preaches.
As a young, female, Republican politician she had the courage to fight and rile the Republican machine. Against all odds she won the Republican nomination for governor and beat the Democratic Party nominee, becoming the first female governor of Alaska at the age of 42.
Mrs Palin has made a career of changing the status quo, which, like she said, is in sharp contrast to some politicians who use change to get ahead in their careers.
Tien C. Cheng
Libertyville, Illinois
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’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
US political scientist Francis Fukuyama, during an interview with the UK’s Times Radio, reacted to US President Donald Trump’s overturning of decades of US foreign policy by saying that “the chance for serious instability is very great.” That is something of an understatement. Fukuyama said that Trump’s apparent moves to expand US territory and that he “seems to be actively siding with” authoritarian states is concerning, not just for Europe, but also for Taiwan. He said that “if I were China I would see this as a golden opportunity” to annex Taiwan, and that every European country needs to think
For years, the use of insecure smart home appliances and other Internet-connected devices has resulted in personal data leaks. Many smart devices require users’ location, contact details or access to cameras and microphones to set up, which expose people’s personal information, but are unnecessary to use the product. As a result, data breaches and security incidents continue to emerge worldwide through smartphone apps, smart speakers, TVs, air fryers and robot vacuums. Last week, another major data breach was added to the list: Mars Hydro, a Chinese company that makes Internet of Things (IoT) devices such as LED grow lights and the
RSS