Dealing with criticism
From my own experience of having lived in Taiwan for more than 13 years, it seems to me that, for many Taiwanese, criticism is seen as a personal attack on the notion of face. No criticism, however constructive, is understood as a tool from which to analyze, or by which to grow, either personally or mentally.
The rigid rote-learning inculcated by an outdated education system can only produce linear-thinking individuals and it blinds adults, especially students, to the viewpoints, ideas or criticisms of “others.” This must be extremely frustrating for the Taiwanese, who otherwise generally seem like very kind and caring people — but only when judged from their perspective.
A small case in point: Several years ago, I went to a petting zoo in Calgary, Canada, and noticed a Taiwanese family of four. With my own child in tow, I bought three small boxes of animal feed, one for my son and the other two for the “waiguoren.”
A few moments later, I ran out of my own supply so I went back to the young boy and asked him if he could give me a small handful of the feed for my son. The boy’s mother saw this and was quick to admonish me, hysterical body language and all.
She yelled at me, saying: “Go buy your own.”
However, when I tried to explain that it was I who bought the feed — expecting an apology — she only grabbed her child by the arm and, in a huff, took him away. She had lost face and did not know how to deal with it. Waiting for her to say sorry, there were two hopes: Bob and none.
Criticism, and mine was merely a factual observation, turned her plain ugly. However, do not blame the Taiwanese, blame the Taiwanese education system and, as a partial remedy to such a conundrum, let’s hope the education system can revamp itself, perhaps by setting up debate clubs, for credit, in junior and senior high schools.
Anthony Kronman, a professor, said: “Education is, by definition, not intended to prepare students for a specific vocation. Rather, the critical thinking, civic and historical knowledge and ethical reasoning that the humanities develop have a different purpose: They are prerequisites for personal growth and participation in a free democracy, regardless of career choice.”
One need only see in Taiwan how criticism and democracy do not always go hand in hand.
Finally, where is the logical criticism in gastronomist Fei Chi’s (費奇) statement that Danny Holwerda did not “appreciate” the taste of pi dan? (“American blogger on CNN sparks ‘pi dan’ brouhaha,” July 1, page 4.) To be precise, let me use her own tools of criticism: Because I am a non-smoker, I should learn how to appreciate cigarettes or second-hand smoke, or the putrid stench wafting up from the bowels of some unnamed street in Taipei or Chiayi. If the problem — foul odors, strange tastes and eyesores — do not go away, you have to adapt to it. Internalize it and it will go away — just do not criticize it. If you do, you may go to jail for two months and get a NT$200,000 fine.
KEVIN LARSON
Chiayi City
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
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
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