Norwegian massacre suspect Anders Behring Breivik obviously knows less than he thinks he does about Taiwan, or he wouldn’t hold it up as a model of monoculturalism, a problematic and highly improbable political philosophy to begin with.
In a 1,500-page manifesto that he e-mailed before he allegedly detonated a car bomb in Oslo and gunned down dozens of young people on an idyllic island, Breivik repeatedly referred to Taiwan’s so-called anti-immigration policies as a model for Europe, lumping this nation with Japan and South Korea and praising their adherence to racial purity.
What a farce.
Breivik knows little about the dynamic in Asia. If you were to put a Filipino, a Chinese, a Japanese, an Indonesian, a South Korean and a Thai next to each other, Breivik would likely applaud the group for keeping its racial identity pure.
Breivik, in his hate for anybody not European, not Christian and not white, looked around the world for superficial examples that would support his warped vision of reality. Somehow he lit upon Taiwan, maybe because it does have somewhat stricter immigration policies than some Western countries.
However, these policies do not make this nation a monoculturalist society. In Taiwan at the moment, there are hundreds of thousands of foreigners. The majority of them come from Southeast Asia and China. Tens of thousands of cross-cultural marriages are now providing one of the most reliable sources of newborn babies in a nation that has a plummeting birthrate.
Although foreigners from all over the world — Westerners, Africans, Asians and South Americans — might find it difficult to become Republic of China citizens, they have the right to look for employment, gain residence and eventually gain permanent residency. They are allowed to own property and invest in businesses. Calling Taiwan a country that maintains racial purity is a gross misunderstanding of the facts.
When was Taiwan ever a racially pure nation? Premier Wu Den-yih (吳敦義), in his rambling way — saying Taiwan possessed a “juicy culture” — had a point: Taiwan has absorbed the cultures of many parts of the world. First there were the Aboriginal tribes, then an inflow of Han Chinese, many of whom married Aborigines. The Han were followed by Dutch and Spanish influences, then more waves of Chinese, not all of whom spoke the same language. Taiwan was then colonized by the Japanese, who left many imprints in the culture and society, before the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) brought yet another version of Chinese culture that allowed and encouraged Taiwanese to embrace aspects of US culture.
What Taiwan has been left with is a fairly vibrant culture that is abundantly open and friendly to outsiders, and readily incorporates aspects of foreign cultures. This is far different from the monoculturalist society that Breivik envisioned, and that’s before mentioning the mix of religions found in this nation: animist, Buddhist, Taoist, Christian and Muslim.
Taiwan, Japan and South Korea are safe, comfortable places to live, not because their societies restrict foreign influences, but because their societies have inculcated a good set of morals into their people.
Breivik was looking around for an excuse to justify his murderous rampage and hopes to find modern-day examples of some mythical racist society he believes Nazi Germany could have created. It would be best if he didn’t look to Taiwan, because this place is nothing like what he envisions. In fact, it’s unlikely his ideal for a country exists anywhere on this planet.
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) sits down with US President Donald Trump in Beijing on Thursday next week, Xi is unlikely to demand a dramatic public betrayal of Taiwan. He does not need to. Beijing’s preferred victory is smaller, quieter and in some ways far more dangerous: a subtle shift in American wording that appears technical, but carries major strategic meaning. The ask is simple: replace the longstanding US formulation that Washington “does not support Taiwan independence” with a harder one — that Washington “opposes” Taiwan independence. One word changes; a deterrence structure built over decades begins to shift.
Taipei is facing a severe rat infestation, and the city government is reportedly considering large-scale use of rodenticides as its primary control measure. However, this move could trigger an ecological disaster, including mass deaths of birds of prey. In the past, black kites, relatives of eagles, took more than three decades to return to the skies above the Taipei Basin. Taiwan’s black kite population was nearly wiped out by the combined effects of habitat destruction, pesticides and rodenticides. By 1992, fewer than 200 black kites remained on the island. Fortunately, thanks to more than 30 years of collective effort to preserve their remaining
After Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) met Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, most headlines referred to her as the leader of the opposition in Taiwan. Is she really, though? Being the chairwoman of the KMT does not automatically translate into being the leader of the opposition in the sense that most foreign readers would understand it. “Leader of the opposition” is a very British term. It applies to the Westminster system of parliamentary democracy, and to some extent, to other democracies. If you look at the UK right now, Conservative Party head Kemi Badenoch is
A Pale View of Hills, a movie released last year, follows the story of a Japanese woman from Nagasaki who moved to Britain in the 1950s with her British husband and daughter from a previous marriage. The daughter was born at a time when memories of the US atomic bombing of Nagasaki during World War II and anxiety over the effects of nuclear radiation still haunted the community. It is a reflection on the legacy of the local and national trauma of the bombing that ended the period of Japanese militarism. A central theme of the movie is the need, at
RSS