Snap back to reality
Dennis Hickey’s criticism (Letters, May 30, page 8) of Gerrit van der Wees’ article (“The US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8) reeks of the perverse logic and myopic perspective of an academic angling for support from moneyed interests in China and perhaps even the US.
He admits that Taiwan is a democracy, but since in his argument it allegedly has no strategic value to the US, it can be sacrificed.
Going further, he argues that the US can still profit economically from Taiwan even if its democratic values are sacrificed to China’s autocracy, thus the US should not be concerned.
Finally, as he criticizes van der Wees for trying to “prove” his love for Taiwan, Hickey has no compunction about showing his disdain for Taiwan as an ally of the US and for its democracy. Somehow, he concludes we can all love Taiwan and at the same time sacrifice it to China — for moneyed interests of course. What passport does he hold?
Jerome Keating
Taipei
It is my belief that it is Dennis Hickey who could use a good dose of reality (Letters, May 30, page 8). He also ought to learn a few lessons in civility and common courtesy.
I wonder how many “foreign policy analysts” there are who would call Gerrit van der Wees (“The US will continue to support Taiwan,” May 16, page 8) a “great white father,” who can no longer objectively analyze the danger-fraught, highly complex trilateral relationship between Washington, Taipei and Beijing from a proper perspective, because he has “gone native.”
In fact, I believe that Hickey owes van der Wees an apology.
By using such racist expressions as “going native” and “great white fathers” (I think that someone has perhaps seen the movie Dances With Wolves once too often), Hickey is not only displaying his ignorance in general, he also betrays his specific ignorance regarding van der Wees.
Previously, van der Wees worked as an aerospace engineer for the Dutch government on its space policy. In 2005, he moved to Washington to work on issues that concerned Taiwan. His wife is Taiwanese and since 1980, he and his wife have worked sub rosa on human rights in Taiwan via their newsletter, Taiwan Communique, www.taiwandc.org.
In 1980, Taiwan was still under martial law. Taiwan has the “distinction” of having had the longest period of martial law of any country in the world; only in 1987 was martial law lifted by then-president Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國).
Therefore, for seven years, this courageous couple took no little risk in struggling for social and human rights in Taiwan.
Van der Wees is spot on in giving his reasons why the US should support Taiwan, especially when he writes: “First and foremost, Taiwan is a democracy ... If the US wants democracy to prevail in East Asia, it had better stand by its allies.”
Now, let’s compare Van der Wees’ words with what Hickey scribbles in his contemptible, despicable letter, namely: “Yes, Taiwan is a democracy, but it has little or no strategic value to the US.”
First, Hickey is dead wrong to state that Taiwan is of “little or no strategic value to the US.” Taiwan is of paramount strategic importance, not only to the US, but to many other countries.
However, it is Hickey’s sneering, cavalier dismissal of Taiwan’s democracy that I find most shocking and sickening.
The cherished and precious ideals of liberty, democracy and freedom supposedly form the very bedrock of US society. The US founding fathers put their own lives at risk. Any one of them — if caught — faced being hanged by order of Great Britain’s King George III.
And then, there is the issue of honor — national honor. It is honor that will compel the US to come to Taiwan’s aid, should the country ever be attacked or threatened. The US is duty-bound by the Taiwan Relations Act.
Yes, I do believe that — for his racist remarks — Hickey owes van der Wees an apology. The former owes the latter an apology also for his risible and condescending order that van der Wees “do his homework.” It is Hickey who should “bone up on” his US history — the new republic’s founding fathers and the ideas and ideals that formed the basis of their policies.
Michael Scanlon
East Hartford, Connecticut
Tighten the food ship
The scale of food contaminated by di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) and other similar chemicals in Taiwan is astonishing. Many well-known food and drug producers have also been implicated in this scandal.
The victims are numerous, the health cost immeasurable and the reputation of Taiwan’s food industry seriously tarnished.
The whole issue is inexcusable and it has proven that Taiwan is backward in its food safety practices. Since the addition of plasticizers has been practised by many food producers for many decades, this has become a culture in itself.
It is hard to imagine that so many food experts and professionals in the Taiwanese food industry failed to recognize and stop this practice until it was accidentally discovered by an analyst at the Food and Drug Administration.
The competition in the food business is harsh and its greed is unstoppable. These factors drive away the honest producers.
That’s why government is there to hold producers accountable. The way to solve this issue once and for all is to enact strict and verifiable regulations in Taiwan. Food additives in addition to emulsifiers have to be regulated as well. Otherwise, this episode is not going to be the end of the food scare story.
Yang Ji-charng
Ohio
Former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) in recent days was the focus of the media due to his role in arranging a Chinese “student” group to visit Taiwan. While his team defends the visit as friendly, civilized and apolitical, the general impression is that it was a political stunt orchestrated as part of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) propaganda, as its members were mainly young communists or university graduates who speak of a future of a unified country. While Ma lived in Taiwan almost his entire life — except during his early childhood in Hong Kong and student years in the US —
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
RSS