I have lived in Kaohsiung for about five years now and I’ve learned many things during my time here. One thing I’ve learned is that being a foreign resident and an observer of cross-strait relations can be both an exhilarating and disillusioning experience. I have the luxury of having a front row seat to history being made, but I am unable to play a more active role because I can’t vote.
Perhaps that’s a good thing. As an observer, one should try to remain as objective as possible. I suppose the Chinese saying that “the observers see the game more clearly than the players” fits my situation quite well.
At a personal level, it’s probably always better to witness a crime than be involved. To what crime do I allude? The abusive China-Taiwan relationship.
Let’s first introduce the belligerent. The People’s Republic of China (PRC), for at least as long as I’ve been alive, has been like an overbearing, abusive, controlling husband. The victim: The nation of Taiwan, who is often relegated to playing the role of the controlled and abused wife.
Here is what we know: The wife once owned the house in which the husband currently lives — or at least her family did. The actual information here is quite sketchy. What is clear is that the husband took over the house and relegated the wife to the garage. Being in the garage, the wife decided to make the best of the situation and decorate and furnish the garage to the point that the neighbors began having difficulty telling which was the house and which was the garage. eventually, the husband claimed the garage was his as well. Again, the actual information available is quite sketchy.
Then one day the husband, who occasionally came over to the garage to scare away some of the wife’s friends and abuse the wife physically, emotionally and verbally, decided he wanted to build a corridor between the house and the garage. The wife believed that there were some positive aspects to building the corridor, but she also knew that it mean her husband could come over any time he pleased, scare away her friends and make the beatings ever easier for him to perpetrate.
However, she decided the rewards outnumbered the risks. So she allowed him to build the corridor. In fact, she even helped him with the construction. She believed that this act of kindness and cooperation would soften him. She asked him to allow her friends to come over sometimes and occasionally allow her to go out with them as well.
The husband didn’t say “yes” necessarily, but he didn’t say no, at least not to her face. She took this as being a sign that perhaps he was softening. It had been her hope that he’d eventually come around to her way of thinking, see where she was coming from and understand her.
He assured her that there were no problems — or he at least never said he had any problems. But then one day, just as the corridor was nearing completion, she overheard him tell some of her friends that he would not let them come over and would not let her see them. He was going to keep her in the kitchen, doing all of the housework and he would keep the door locked. He told them she was his and no one else’s. He was going to decide her fate.
She still built the corridor, however, believing that her hopes, dreams, aspirations, desires and will mattered to him. Despite all the evidence to the contrary she still continued to believe she could soften him. They just needed time. The corridor, once finished, would serve as a bridge between their two worlds, and it would also serve as an outlet for her. He had never said he wouldn’t let her have her own life, at least some of the time.
He told her that if she felt like demolishing the corridor, she could do so at any time. But that was strange, she thought, because he’d said several times before to others that if she didn’t build the corridor, he’d kill her. But no matter; he was a changed man, now.
Then one night after the corridor was built, he came to visit her. He wanted what every husband wants — a relationship with his wife. She was his, he reasoned. Why couldn’t he take what was his? She was not ready, was her response. They had lived apart for so long, and all of those bad memories still seemed so near — she just couldn’t be with him now. Give her some time! He persisted. Wait! He fought on. No! Her screams meant nothing to him.
The police arrived at their house early the next morning. It was too late. The husband had not only taken her life, but it seemed he’d also stripped her of her dignity and humanity. In effect, he’d done what he’d always said he would do. She just chose not to listen.
I suppose at a personal level it’s always better to be a witness to a crime than be involved. Then again, I, too, live in the garage.
Nathan Novak is a writer living in Kaohsiung.
Jan. 1 marks a decade since China repealed its one-child policy. Just 10 days before, Peng Peiyun (彭珮雲), who long oversaw the often-brutal enforcement of China’s family-planning rules, died at the age of 96, having never been held accountable for her actions. Obituaries praised Peng for being “reform-minded,” even though, in practice, she only perpetuated an utterly inhumane policy, whose consequences have barely begun to materialize. It was Vice Premier Chen Muhua (陳慕華) who first proposed the one-child policy in 1979, with the endorsement of China’s then-top leaders, Chen Yun (陳雲) and Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), as a means of avoiding the
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
The last foreign delegation Nicolas Maduro met before he went to bed Friday night (January 2) was led by China’s top Latin America diplomat. “I had a pleasant meeting with Qiu Xiaoqi (邱小琪), Special Envoy of President Xi Jinping (習近平),” Venezuela’s soon-to-be ex-president tweeted on Telegram, “and we reaffirmed our commitment to the strategic relationship that is progressing and strengthening in various areas for building a multipolar world of development and peace.” Judging by how minutely the Central Intelligence Agency was monitoring Maduro’s every move on Friday, President Trump himself was certainly aware of Maduro’s felicitations to his Chinese guest. Just
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS