The limits of belief
I have served as a registered nurse for 29 years. In 2003, I was invited to help take care of the former first lady, Mrs Wu Shu-jen (吳淑珍).
I soon learned that then-president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) was trying very hard to give up his practice of getting up twice in the night to take his wife to the restroom. It was the third year of his presidency.
I often heard from contacts in the president’s family that he was content with small servings of food and living in a small house. He often stayed in his study for up to two hours after bedtime, paying particular attention to news of vulnerable persons and volunteer issues.
As the red-shirt protests clogged Taipei, Mrs Wu’s condition deteriorated to semi-comatose, and she was unable to recognize her son when he rushed back from the US. The president was terribly sorrowful that night and cried out, asking how his lifelong efforts could have resulted in each of his family members suffering these kinds of hardships.
At the time, a group of Christians went to National Taiwan University Hospital and asked the president to kneel down and pray together for Mrs Wu. Every day he prayed from Micah 6:8: “He has showed you. O man, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God.”
He often cried to the Lord to ask for strength to forgive others and the wisdom to lead Taiwan. He said that if Jesus saved his wife and helped relieve the red-shirt crisis, he would be honored by God’s pardon.
In the last two years, Mrs Wu has grown weaker than ever. Recently, she has been losing consciousness because of low blood pressure. But she has frequently urged her husband and her family to work as volunteers to help vulnerable persons, and has asked me to collect relevant information for them. Unfortunately, the president’s family has been trapped by incredible legal challenges since May.
Why is it so difficult for me to believe that the president’s family would commit such a crime as corruption?
Joyce Chang
Taipei
‘Pan-pan’ and ‘Tu-tu’
It is time to revisit the issue of China’s gift of Trojan pandas to Taiwan given their imminent arrival in Taipei.
For years, the Democratic Progressive Party resisted prodding by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to accept the pandas because doing so could compromise Taiwan’s sovereignty.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and his KMT government have no such concerns, possibly because they are not concerned about the sovereignty of Taiwan.
Many people view the pandas simply as cute animals to see in a zoo, and are unconcerned about the controversy. This is understandable. If you have ever seen a panda — which I have on several occasions in the US — it is a little like watching grass grow because most of the time, it hides or sleeps.
Waiting in line for hours to see grass grow is a colossal waste of time.
China, as usual, has attached intolerable conditions to the pandas that former KMT chairman Lien Chan (連戰) arranged for Taiwan to receive. One is that they not be renamed; the names selected by the “Chinese compatriots” are Tuan-tuan and Yuan-yuan, which together mean “unification.”
For this reason, and whether the Taipei Zoo agrees or not, we should call these pandas by their true names, that is, the names that reflect the nature of the agreement that will bring them to Taiwan.
I propose that we call the panda known as Tuan-tuan by the name Pan-pan (叛叛), and the panda known as Yuan-yuan by the name Tu-tu (徒徒).
Together, these names form the word pantu (叛徒), or “traitor.”
This is an apt reminder of the essence of the “gift” that Lien has arranged for Taiwan, and of the sinister, unsubtle message from China that these cuddly bears will bring with them.
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
After declaring Iran’s military “gone,” US President Donald Trump appealed to the UK, France, Japan and South Korea — as well as China, Iran’s strategic partner — to send minesweepers and naval forces to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. When allies balked, the request turned into a warning: NATO would face “a very bad” future if it refused. The prevailing wisdom is that Trump faces a credibility problem: having spent years insulting allies, he finds they would not rally when he needs them. That is true, but superficial, as though a structural collapse could be caused by wounded feelings. Something
RSS