Suing for future generations
In a recent article by Agence France-Presse on the appointment of scientist Steven Chu (朱隸文) as the next US secretary of energy, the news agency noted that Chu will be president-elect Barack Obama’s “dedicated champion in the life-or-death fight against global warming,” adding: “Chu has increasingly sounded the alarm on the dire need to address climate change before it is too late.”
The report also quotes the 60-year-old Chu as saying that our Earth is threatened with “sudden, unpredictable and irreversible disaster.”
It is important to keep readers informed about what is happening in the fight against global warming and to show both sides of the issue. Some people, like Chu, believe global warming is real, while others believe it is not.
In keeping with Chu’s feeling that alarms need to be sounded about the problem of climate change, I have started a process to file a class-action lawsuit with the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, asking for US$1 billion in damages from current world leaders for manslaughter of future generations of human beings if strong steps are not taken now to curb global warming.
The money, if any is awarded by the ICC, will be donated to the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to help inform the public about this most “dire” issue.
The only news media to report on this lawsuit so far was Reuters News Service in the Netherlands, which posted a brief news item about the suit last month.
The lawsuit might seem frivolous to some people, but those who want to read more about it can visit the Web site northwardho.blogspot.com and post their opinions.
DAN BLOOM
Chiayi City
Is Taiwan a fossil?
The government plans to apply for world heritage status for traditional Chinese characters (“Bid planned for UN heritage status for complex characters,” Dec. 19, page 3) used in Taiwan.
Premier Liu Chao-shiuan (劉兆玄) described these characters as “a living fossil.”
It is a pity to call a language, especially a “national language,” a fossil — even a living fossil.
But maybe Liu is being pragmatic. The Republic of China (ROC) was replaced in China by the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. The ROC’s UN seat was given to the PRC in 1971.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) considers ROC-PRC relations not “state-to-state” but “region-to-region.” He banned ROC flags from the streets during the visit of Chinese envoy Chen Yunlin (陳雲林), who called Ma “you” instead of “president.” China recently included two Taiwanese women among China’s 50 most beautiful people.
These facts show that the ROC as a nation has become a living fossil well before its written language could become one.
When Ma was the mayor of Taipei City, he insisted on using China’s Hanyu Pinyin system of Romanization for the capital rather than Tongyong Pinyin. Now Ma plans to spend millions of dollars on switching to Hanyu Pinyin throughout Taiwan.
Some government officials might even change the spelling of their names.
Some people are concerned that Ma might push Taiwan to use China’s simplified characters someday.
Is the step of labeling Taiwan’s traditional characters a “living fossil” just an overture to switching to simplified characters?
Step by step, Taiwan’s identity and sovereignty are being eroded.
CHARLES HONG
Columbus, Ohio
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
It would be absurd to claim to see a silver lining behind every US President Donald Trump cloud. Those clouds are too many, too dark and too dangerous. All the same, viewed from a domestic political perspective, there is a clear emerging UK upside to Trump’s efforts at crashing the post-Cold War order. It might even get a boost from Thursday’s Washington visit by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July last year, when Starmer became prime minister, the Labour Party was rigidly on the defensive about Europe. Brexit was seen as an electorally unstable issue for a party whose priority
US President Donald Trump is systematically dismantling the network of multilateral institutions, organizations and agreements that have helped prevent a third world war for more than 70 years. Yet many governments are twisting themselves into knots trying to downplay his actions, insisting that things are not as they seem and that even if they are, confronting the menace in the White House simply is not an option. Disagreement must be carefully disguised to avoid provoking his wrath. For the British political establishment, the convenient excuse is the need to preserve the UK’s “special relationship” with the US. Following their White House
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
RSS