Milton Liao's letter "'Taiwanese' is propaganda" (Letters, Dec. 23, page 8), in attempting to define Ben Goren's bias towards the DPP, unintentionally paints himself into the same corner.
He shows complete and utter disregard for anyone on the island who might be anything other than a "Mainlander." Liao's thoughts could come straight out of Beijing's People's Daily.
Liao obviously has little or no understanding of Taiwanese cultural history or of China's place in that history. He states that since Chen Shui-bian (
He fails to mention the previous 50 years of KMT rule during which tens of thousands of innocent Taiwanese were slaughtered while being forbidden to speak their own language. Anyone objecting to KMT rule was put in prison and many were never heard from again.
This omission from his description of "poor" Mainlanders suffering ethnic discrimination is interesting. It seems he has absolutely no knowledge of what has transpired during the 50 years of dictatorial rule in Taiwan.
Taiwanese understand Chinese culture and its influence on their lives.
For the most part they embrace their own centuries-old culture, which has survived despite occasional Chinese oppression.
Next year, Taiwanese will choose their fate, and that fate will not be chosen for them by China or the US.
They as a people have earned that right.
Not one individual living in China today can make that claim.
Sam Small
Seattle, Washington
Liao gets it wrong
Milton Liao's polemic against my recent letter (Letters, Dec. 17, page 8) is indicative of the poor quality of debate concerning Taiwanese nationalism, especially regarding contributions from self-styled "Chinese loyalists" writing from outside the country they claim to care for.
Liao's "one-size-fits-all" prescription for the "shared identity" that he insists residents of Taiwan should have ignores substantial academic research to the contrary.
Indeed, if it were so simple a matter as saying that there is no such thing as "Taiwanese nationalism," why would authors like Melissa Brown, Paul Katz and Murray Rubenstein spend so much time and effort researching a "pie-in-the-sky postulation"?
Furthermore, why would China, the KMT, the PFP and the US State Department be so worried about the upcoming UN referendum?
For his edification, I refer Liao to an article by Chang Mau-kuei in the book Religion and the Formation of Taiwanese Identities published by Palgrave Macmillan, in which he argues Taiwanese nationalism has its roots in the 1920s and began to develop substantially shortly after the 228 massacre in 1947.
Furthermore, if Liao were aware of Benedict Anderson's writings on nationalism, he would perhaps be forced to take a more measured and less belligerent tone, as he would have to evaluate his own national identity as one among competing nationalisms.
That well over 60 percent of Taiwanese are now reported to profess identification specifically with this island does not trouble Liao who, without critical reflection, regurgitates pan-blue discourse and misinformation that "Mainlanders" are being victimized and that the economy is in deep trouble, despite evidence to the contrary.
Blaming the executive branch for all the troubles of a country whilst ignoring the role of the Legislature in carrying out its responsibility to maintain the integrity of the democratic process is nothing more than selective finger pointing that can be dismissed as unconstructive and hyperbolic. It is the Republic of China (ROC) Constitution and its imbalance and overlap of powers that prevents Taiwan from moving forward.
It is sentimental attachment to the imported artifice of the ROC that allows a minority to demand that the majority accept its concept of national identity under duress.
I'm sure that if Quebecois politicians demanded the same of the western Canadian provinces, they would be soundly rebuffed.
Taiwanese nationalism is no more "cooked up" than any other nationalism in the world. Without a livable environment no economic activity is viable.
Long-standing historical, cultural and ethnic ties with shared history and points of origin have not prevented the UK and the US from developing as separate nation states, each with their own seat in the UN.
It is time that commentators like Liao acknowledged that the only reason Taiwan is still an unwelcomed international player is because the geo-strategic concerns of larger countries are being prioritized over the needs of its 23 million people, whose demands for recognition are sadly regarded as little more than annoying footnotes in the US and China's struggle for industrial supremacy and military and energy security.
Ben Goren
Siluo
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers