Racism begone
The very good recent editorial on racism toward Aborigines was well-written and to the point (“Racist remarks cannot be tolerated,’’ May 18, page 8). Racist remarks by any public figure, be he or she a member of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) or the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), should never be tolerated in this multi-ethnic nation.
So shame on Liao Wan-lung (廖萬隆), a member of the KMT, for wondering out loud in public “whether it would be possible to discourage intermarriage between Aborigines and other ethnicities to ensure the preservation of Aborigines’ cultural heritage.’’
And shame on President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) for his “tepid response [to Liao that] simply did not go far enough.”
Although, to tell the truth, the KMT is not the only party to say racist things about Taiwan’s Aborigines. A few years ago, a DPP legislator in Taipei referred, in public, to Aborigines with the racist word Huan-ah — a slur in Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) that literally means “wild savages.” I read about this incident in the Taipei Times, by the way.
One more note, speaking of racism: I have also noticed that sometimes — not always, but sometimes — when a front page or inside photograph depicting Taiwanese Aborigines appears in your newspaper, it is often given a witty yet mocking title and caption, insulting the spiritual beliefs of Aborigines in some instances or gently mocking their clothes, their facial tattoos or their customs.
You would never permit photo headlines or photo captions that mock African Americans or Christians or Muslims, yet for some reason your copy editors (and their supervising editors) sometimes allow photo headlines and photo captions that treat Aborigines in a jocular, mocking and yes, racist way.
If it’s wrong for KMT and DPP legislators to make racist comments about Aborigines, and it is, then it is also wrong for the progressive and liberal Taipei Times to treat Aboriginal customs and beliefs in racist, Han-supremacist ways.
I hope future photo captions and titles will reflect my concerns.
ARRON BECK
Kenting, Taiwan
Raising standards
John Fleckenstein’s letter did not come too late — it just should have popped up as banner headline (Letter, May 17, page 8).
Taiwan’s seemingly helpless Ministry of Transportation and Communications has never tackled the issue of “idling engines,” despite sufficient information and literature about the waste of energy and money, insanity and health damage caused by idling engines.
Taipei’s scooters are only one example. Another is the dozens of tourist buses whose engines are left running with the air conditioning on and the door open (frequently with a sleeping driver inside). One can see this every day at all the tourist spots.
A further example: Families with babies and young children sleeping in their vans and cars as they enjoy a fine Sunday afternoon, with their air conditioning and engine running.
Never heard of carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide? Don’t these people care about their fellow citizens or the environment?
Taiwan has enough schools and education institutes, unfortunately populated by many students who are also idling, since learning is intended primarily for exams. How much do Taiwan’s students learn about life or a “life with higher qualities?” What about a life that respects humans and nature or a life with morals, caring for others and responsibility?
Idling scooters are a prominent problem, although just a part of the country’s notorious sub-standards. It’s the duty of everybody to raise these standards.
ENGELBERT ALTENBURGER
Kaohsiung
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS