Hau needs more action
I agree wholeheartedly with Taipei Mayor Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) (“Taipei mayor says he does not plan to visit Chen in prison,” Aug. 24, page 1), who said that granting former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) medical parole would “heal the wounds caused by social and political division” — a point I had also raised in an earlier letter (Letter, Aug. 3, page 8).
Hau’s call — made amid a hostile political climate because of the pan-blue and pan-green division, both at the elite and grassroots levels — reflects the magnanimity and conduct we would expect of a politician who puts the welfare of the nation above his or his party’s interests.
Hau has taken the first bold step to express his view on the issue and I urge him to further demonstrate his impartiality as a politician through concrete actions, including a visit to Chen in prison, as this will enable him to better gauge the former president’s health.
At the end of the day, Hau must demonstrate, through actions, his independence from his party on issues that are non-political in nature, as is the case of granting medical parole for Chen on humanitarian grounds.
Taiwan is facing many challenges and a humane arrangement with regards to Chen’s deteriorating health will pave the way for the ruling and opposition parties to work together to tackle the thorny issues, including economic growth, ahead.
In conclusion, I humbly reiterate my plea to President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to release Chen on medical parole. This is the first and necessary step Ma must take if he sincerely wishes to reunite the divided nation. Ma’s refusal to do so will only strengthen international perception that Chen is being persecuted for advocating Taiwanese independence during his eight-year term.
Jason Lee
Singapore
Fig-leaf environmentalism
And so the fig-leaf environmentalism of Taiwan’s government continues.
This time, the transformation into a “low” carbon economy will apparently be achieved through encouraging four cities in Taiwan to reduce their carbon emissions through various energy saving measures (“EPA clarifies low-carbon cities plan,” Aug. 25, page 4). While every little bit helps, it helps only a little.
Overall, these efforts are much too late, woefully inadequate and painfully unambitious.
Notice, foremost, that they are not tied to any goals of actually reducing greenhouse emissions, as suggested by my earlier letter (“Letters,” June 11, page 8). While the proposed efforts will reduce carbon emissions for those sectors where the money is spent (eg, energy-saving lights), carbon emissions may well go up everywhere else. After all, it is national policy to grow the economy (“Ma speech focuses on economic growth,” May 21, page 1), in itself a dubious goal, benefitting mostly the rich (“Sharing the benefits of economic development,” Sept. 10, 2010, page 8).
Because economic growth is still tied to energy usage, emissions will go up. So why does the government not announce that with every 1 percentage point growth of the economy, total energy consumption must decrease by 1 percentage point? By making this a national requirement, the true decoupling of economic growth and greenhouse emissions would take place (see Cents and Sustainability: Securing Our Common Future by Decoupling Economic Growth from Environmental Pressure).
Furthermore, why on earth is this program not rolled out on a national scale making all cities eligible? For lack of money? Given that one global-warming strengthened typhoon after another is wrecking people’s lives and harming Taiwan’s economy, most likely every US$1 spent on reducing carbon emissions now will actually be US$10 saved in the future (see Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change). It is simply the short-sightedness of our decision-makers and the inadequacy of our economic systems that allow carbon-based economies to still be considered economically viable.
Not only is the scientific case for human-caused climate change now overwhelming, but also the economic case for doing something about it. Given that all the various positive climate feedbacks will probably accelerate climate change past everybody’s expectations in the next few decades, a sea-level rise of about 1m by the end of the century is quite likely (www.copenhagendiagnosis.com/read/default.html).
Add to that ever-strengthening typhoons and you can probably kiss Taiwan’s coastal areas bye-bye, unless literally billions are invested into sea defenses and other mitigating measures. So why not spend the billions now?
In the process, Taiwan would turn into an industrial leader in low-carbon technology, create many highly qualified professionals and dramatically reduce air pollution. Is it not worth the money to reduce rates of asthma, premature births and lung cancer (“Doctors warn on pollution risks,” Feb. 18, page 2)?
I suggest asking your children. And by the way, Ma, just because children don’t vote does not mean they do not have rights.
Flora Faun
Taipei
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