When people negatively stereotype Taiwan, they tend to focus on one of two things: a reputation for making inexpensive, non-durable goods, or the brawls that often pass for legislative sessions.
Anyone familiar with Taiwan knows that this country offers its inhabitants and the world much more than just a place to buy cheap widgets or the punchline to a comic variety show.
"Made in Taiwan" was once synonymous with cheap plastic goods that would quickly fall apart. This perception is so entrenched that several years ago, even a major British company ran an advertising campaign around it, something to the effect of "You can either be a winner and buy our quality goods, or you can be a loser and buy Made in Taiwan crap."
Obviously, this was offensive and simplistic, and as many noted at the time, the advertisers had probably designed their ads on computers built in Taiwan. Irony will always have a place in the world.
But it has to be said that these two negative stereotypes are a reflection of two trends in this society that do exist, and are increasingly converging: nonchalance about quality, and bitter political partisanship.
Some people consider the cha bu duo (
The way to avoid the wrath of zealots and despots is to be low-key and not take absolute stands on anything: "If the military policemen want to stop me for no reason and question me, it will only make things worse if I get upset; so cha bu duo. Just take it on the chin and move along."
This works in certain scenarios, but is hopeless in others: No one would want their doctor to begin surgery like this: "Is this where the incision should go? Ah, well, cha bu duo, close enough."
So why are Taiwanese willing to accept this kind of haphazard jury-rigging when it comes to their system of government? There is nothing wrong with thinking, for instance, that the current president is an incompetent and corrupt fool. But it is another to attempt to oust him for these reasons by using non-legal means, as his opponents are doing now.
But in Taiwan's politicized society, there is neither black nor white, but only blue and green. Few people are worried about the deleterious long-term effects that creating an extra-legal precedent for ousting a democratically elected official will have on their system of government. And Taiwan's political leaders couldn't care less: they are all politicians, not leaders.
Whether our readers support the blues or the greens, they should be asking themselves a very serious question: Is a political victory worth dismantling the mechanisms of Taiwan's fragile democracy?
If the answer from most is anything but "no," then there is very little hope for the survival of the liberty that people in Taiwan now enjoy, nor for the kind of accountability that has made President Chen Shui-bian (
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry