Ben Goren and Milton Liao both make valid points in their recent debate (Letters, Dec. 17, page 8 and Dec. 23, page 8). Goren was on the right track with his reference to a "concept of `Taiwaneseness' that is inclusive, not exclusive," but his urging those in Taiwan to "discard old allegiances and identities" will not stand.
Liao's letter, meanwhile, though possessing something of a reactionary tinge, is correct in recognizing the importance of Chinese culture and history as braided into the fabric of Taiwan.
In recent elections roughly an equal number of people voted for the DPP [Democratic Progressive Party] and the KMT [Chinese Nationalist Party]. Whoever they vote for, most people in Taiwan are normal people, and though their views are in conflict, it is unjust to denigrate their values.
The debate about people and politics in Taiwan is framed as a "dictators versus democrats" argument, which is a slam-dunk for those on the right side of the issue, but yields a context that fosters nothing but enmity.
More broadly, people in Taiwan are much more varied and profound than the true believers would have us believe, while the nation has been subject to unusual conditions of development, autonomy, government, settlement and cultural development.
Liao was right about Chinese ancestry and influence in Taiwan, and anyone who suggests ignoring or severing China from Taiwanese life should be drummed out of the argument. Additionally, we find that European and Japanese influences in Taiwan, past and present, are notable, while nowadays the impact of immigrants from Southeast Asian nations is shaping Taiwanese culture in meaningful ways.
Meanwhile there are a number of other immigrants in Taiwan, not least Europeans or Americans like myself. Our problem can be that although we desire to contribute to harmony and unique identity here, we also wish to maintain our particular identities and allegiances to our nations, homes, cultures and ethnicities.
These are the very pith of who we are, and a flattening solution like "Taiwaneseness" is not appealing (though it is certainly a birthright to many Taiwanese people).
Taiwan, with its amazing variety of communities intersecting with one another, is a country of many ellipses, a contingent, mutable land wherein people can -- must -- at once retain and pare away essentialist conceptions of race, ethnicity, culture and nationality.
In doing this they will discover delightfully robust -- though admittedly decentered -- new identities.
Some have said that Taiwan is not a "normal" country, and this appears to be true in many respects. But perhaps the nation finds itself at the vanguard of a fecund new identity model.
I am no doubt here sounding Utopian, but our challenge may be to combine Taiwan's many identities -- the new arrivals, the isolated others, the merchant strangers, the true believers, the assimilated citizens, the angry activists, the proud natives, the disoriented aliens -- into a many-hued identity that will evince a fruitful, inclusive, cosmopolitan transnationality of creative coexistence and combinatory human potential.
David Pendery
Taipei
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
Taiwan is confronting escalating threats from its behemoth neighbor. Last month, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army conducted live-fire drills in the East China Sea, practicing blockades and precision strikes on simulated targets, while its escalating cyberattacks targeting government, financial and telecommunication systems threaten to disrupt Taiwan’s digital infrastructure. The mounting geopolitical pressure underscores Taiwan’s need to strengthen its defense capabilities to deter possible aggression and improve civilian preparedness. The consequences of inadequate preparation have been made all too clear by the tragic situation in Ukraine. Taiwan can build on its successful COVID-19 response, marked by effective planning and execution, to enhance
RSS