Imagining the other
This is intended for Martin de Jonge (Letters, June 2, page 8) and every arrogant egocentric who shares the opinions expressed in that letter.
De Jonge complains, as have dozens before him, that “When locals see my face, they immediately start speaking to me in English.” My response to that is: Well, duh!
De Jonge should get outside long enough to imagine the world as seen by, say, a 30-year-old citizen of Taiwan. This hypothetical person may have had, via TV, movies, personal contacts, anecdotal testimony from friends, relatives, coworkers and casual acquaintances varying degrees of exposure to perhaps thousands of non-Asian-faced aliens.
Of that number, perhaps 70 percent probably have had so little knowledge of any local language or dialect that they are unable to frame even the simplest greeting, formal or otherwise. Another 25 percent have probably known a little Mandarin, but pronounced what they knew so badly as to render it incomprehensible. The remaining 5 percent probably consisted of people with broadly varying degrees of competence in some local language or dialect. Thus, our imaginary Taiwanese, upon encountering his umpty-umth waiguoren would seem to have more than ample reason to believe that English offered the best chance to understand and be understood by said waiguoren.
That is, unless the foreigner is instantly recognizable as a Mandarin or Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) speaker, or has some distinguishing characteristic that indicates he or she is fluent in one or more local tongues.
So, I put it to de Jonge and all the people out there who think local people should recognize on sight that they speak Mandarin, or Taiwanese, or whatever: Do you have characteristics that advertise the languages you speak? If neither applies, I suggest you stop complaining and start putting more effort into trying to see things from other people’s point of view.
C. AMBROSE
Ching Shui, Taichung County
Disappointed reader
I have been reading the Taipei Times daily for several years; I used to enjoy it a lot more. Sadly, the quality of the reporting, and most especially the editorials, has declined sharply. Reporters have failed to follow up on key facts and issues regarding stories fundamental to Taiwan’s interests.
For example, after Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators and ministers fumed over the comment made by Masaki Saito, head of the Taipei office of Japan’s Interchange Association, that Taiwan’s status is still unresolved, your reporters did not ask: If Taiwan’s status was resolved, what is it? This unfolding story had been reported on for several days and yet at no time did I see a mention of an attempt to get the answer to this key question from any KMT member.
Your editorial on June 2, “Something sinister on the horizon,” is a sad example of my concern. The editorial attempted to criticize KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) China policies by comparing them to Israeli policies regarding settlers in the West Bank. Are the two situations so similar they demand analogizing?
By using the phrase of the day, “facts on the ground,” you try to contort the argument that Ma’s policies are “sinister” because Israel’s policies result in “uncertainty.” That is a pretty big stretch, though unfortunately it’s not much of a surprise.
The Taipei Times has published several editorials on Israel, all of them highly critical. While some may argue justification for this, these editorials have been so appallingly one-sided and lacking of any nuance that I must wonder if the editor isn’t anti-Semitic. No, criticizing Israel does not make one anti-Semitic, but continually publishing gratuitous, ridiculously unbalanced editorials might, and this latest example substantially supports my point.
If The Taipei Times has concerns that Ma and the KMT’s recent legislation, diplomatic efforts and economic cooperation regarding China are inimical to Taiwan’s interests and that once they become operational, they and their tragic consequences will be hard to reverse, then that’s an easy enough point to make all on its own.
I will say that the June 2 editorial wasn’t quite as heavy-handed as usual in its attack on Israel. However, conflating two such complex and unrelated international policies involving several divergent countries for the purpose of impugning Israel or the KMT and Ma (the editorial is unclear) does not bode well for the integrity, discretion and professionalism of your paper.
HOWARD WESTON
Taoyuan
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS