Chan’s White Man’s Burden
At the end of the Taipei Times’ April 21 editorial, “Jackie Chan [成龍] — Friend of Repression,” it states: “The Taipei City Government should do the right thing and replace Chan as its spokesman for this summer’s Deaflympics.”
Despite the fact that I usually agree wholeheartedly with the Taipei Times’ editorial stance, I must, in this instance, with all respect, beg to differ for three reasons:
First, Chan’s views in regard to Hong Kong have been well known for a long time. The Taipei City Government was certainly aware of Chan’s attitude and “world view” before the members invited him to serve as spokesman. Better that they never asked him at all than to retract their invitation.
Second, Chan certainly has his right to freedom of speech. As hopelessly ignorant, naive and truly pathetic as they were, Chan’s comments fell within the acceptable parameters of free speech.
In my opinion, none of his statements were so egregiously hateful, or hate-provoking, that they should be squelched or censored. By the way, I find it ironic that his comments — while receiving considerable notice and commentary in Hong Kong and Taiwan — were ignored in China.
Third, I basically view Chan as a woefully pathetic loser whose “star is descending.” He is desperately clinging to his vanishing career. Hence his groveling and kowtowing.
Most pathetic of all is that he has psychologically internalized imperialist oppression and colonialist ideology.
Chan has psychologically internalized, and made his own, the ideas expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden. According to the colonial world view, the non-European peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas were viewed as helplessly childlike. They were seen as utterly incapable of governing themselves or managing their own affairs. Thus, they were in dire need of a strong, authoritarian “father figure.” White European people viewed themselves as carrying the heavy “burden” of ruling over and encouraging the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until such time as these people were able to assume their rightful place in the world by thoroughly adopting Western ways.
Rather than being barred from entering Taiwan, Chan should be encouraged to come and see for himself. Hopefully, he will benefit from the education that he will receive. Hopefully, he will learn through dialogue. At the very least, if allowed to enter Taiwan, Chan will be obliged to explain himself and provide support and proof for his ideas.
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
No peace without Taiwanese
Fidel Ramos’ key message in his article “Constructing Asia’s missing links” (April 16, page 8) was that peace between Taiwan and China will be established when Taiwan is annexed by China, and when the US stops its arms sales to Taiwan. This is a political position that ignores the Taiwanese who do not want to be part of China, and it ignores the fact that China has about 1,500 missiles aimed at the island and an “Anti-Secession” Law legitimizing a military attack on Taiwan.
Most politicians in Taiwan, regardless of party ideology, agree that deeper economic agreements and an open dialogue with China form part of the way to peace and mutual understanding. This is precisely why Taiwan and China experienced the largest economic integration during Taiwan’s eight years under the Democratic Progressive Party, with independence as its ultimate objective. A pro-China supporter like Ramos should take note of this.
Taiwan’s current Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is trying to reach a kind of free trade agreement with China. In this context, however, Taiwan is experiencing a heated debate, as China has set the acceptance of a “one China” policy as a condition for an agreement and thus Taiwan would formally become part of China. This is pursued despite 80 percent of Taiwanese being opposed to an agreement with a “one China” condition. Thus, Ramos is speaking against a vast majority of Taiwanese.
US arms sales to Taiwan are, according to Ramos, “a major obstacle to easing tensions.” Arms races are rarely a success, but if China maintains its “Anti-Secession” Law providing for an attack on Taiwan if it will not become part of China, and continues to set up missiles during the current negotiations, Taiwan has the right to buy defensive weapons.
It does not promote understanding of a complex conflict to make a one-sided and distorted analysis of reality while ignoring Taiwan’s democratic population of 23 million people.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN,
CHAIRMAN, TAIWAN CORNER
Copenhagen, Denmark
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
In 2025, it is easy to believe that Taiwan has always played a central role in various assessments of global national interests. But that is a mistaken belief. Taiwan’s position in the world and the international support it presently enjoys are relatively new and remain highly vulnerable to challenges from China. In the early 2000s, the George W. Bush Administration had plans to elevate bilateral relations and to boost Taiwan’s defense. It designated Taiwan as a non-NATO ally, and in 2001 made available to Taiwan a significant package of arms to enhance the island’s defenses including the submarines it long sought.
RSS