Still missing: expat humility
Were it not for continued US military protection over the past six decades, Taiwan would likely have been forcefully absorbed by China long ago. Given these circumstances, it is unrealistic to suggest policymakers and academics abroad should not have any direct role in determining Taiwan’s future (“More expatriate humility, please,” Sept. 29, page 8).
Taiwan’s ambiguous political status has far-reaching geopolitical implications, many of which are beyond the preferences of the Taiwanese.
I wholeheartedly agree that, in a perfect world, “the battle for Taiwan’s future [would belong] to one people and one people alone: the Taiwanese,” but the reality is more complex than J. Michael Cole implies. There are indeed many non-Taiwanese policymakers and thinkers — particularly in Beijing and Washington — who have an important role to play in maintaining peace and stability across the Strait, while working toward a permanent solution.
It is through the trilateral relationship between Taipei, Beijing and Washington that the future of Taiwan will likely be decided.
Alex Jeffers
Taipei
With all due respect Mr Cole, it is you who needs to learn some humility. I am shocked and disappointed that a fellow Canadian would espouse such a pontificating stance. Your editorial was no doubt directed, not at those who don’t really care about this country, but those who do so deeply. Does the fact that we weren’t born here or don’t have citizenship preclude us from having an opinion? You seem to suggest the cross-strait situation is far too nuanced for us — except you, evidently — ignorant foreigners to fully understand. We long-term residents have just as much a right to voice our opinions as any citizen. Many of us have studied the situation and hold opinions that reflect our values and backgrounds.
In fact, many of our views have developed because of the Taipei Times itself. Not a day goes by without an editorial to the left or a cartoon above your very letter that voices outrage at the denigration to Taiwan’s dignity by the forces of appeasement. Maybe more Taiwanese would be more vocal about the outrages the People’s Republic of China continues to perpetrate against Taiwan if they knew there was more support for a homegrown constitution.
You mention the Spanish Civil War; as an educated Canadian, I’m sure you’re aware that 721 Canadians fought and died serving in the MackenziePapineau Battalion, not because they were Spanish, but because they loved liberty and democracy, as do those who speak of their love for Taiwan now.
Would you suggest non-Canadian residents of Canada not voice their opinions about Canadian matters that affect them? From my point of view, it is you who is being arrogant to suggest I keep my mouth shut. Sometimes, just sometimes, people need to be outraged.
Iain Palmer
Greater Taichung
This probably fits the “Did I miss something” department, but it was with surprise that I read Cole’s recent op-ed piece. Granted that as a deputy news editor at the Taipei Times, Cole has a fairly secure pulpit from which to lecture the expatriate community, but I am left wondering at what occasioned his recent outburst. It reads like the “Confessions of a high-road addict.”
Other questions also arise: Is it necessary to bring in local writer Wendell Minnick to support his view? Does the reference to “Japan expert” John Dower’s critique of [Ernest] Hemingway mean that one should only express a comment if it will make a difference in history? One can certainly grant that Hemingway promoted his own “macho” image, but an alternative viewpoint could be that while he may not have directly impacted the Spanish Civil War, Hemingway did write a great novel about it (For Whom the Bell Tolls) and he did make many outside Spain aware of the many nuances in the conflict as well as the conflict itself.
I would venture that there may be a tinge of jealousy in Dower that Hemingway’s work is more famous than Dower’s Cultures of War. As I said, I may be missing the back story to Cole’s piece, but it does seem he is crossing the line in using his position to promote what he feels people can or cannot express their opinions on.
Jerome Keating
Taipei
J. Michael Cole responds:
I invite readers who claim that I was telling expatriates and migrants that they cannot voice any opinion and should “shut up” because they are not Taiwanese to re-read my article. What I suggest is simply more humility when we do so, whether we’re English teachers passing through for a couple of years, some “expert” at a reputable think tank, or a migrant who has made Taiwan his or her home.
As a journalist and columnist, I believe I owe it to my readers to demonstrate that I will not shy away from revisiting my assumptions, even when doing so proves that I have been wrong in the past. I would much rather sound contradictory than show signs of a stagnant mind.
The exercise of journalism is a learning experience and its practitioners, those who take the profession seriously at least, will inevitably be changed by it. The op-ed was part and reflective of my ongoing effort — and yes, struggle — to get closer to the “truth,” without any pretension of ownership.
In no way was this an attempt to “appease” the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) following their attack on my person last month, or the leadership in Beijing, or to insult fellow expatriates. Rather, it is part of my endeavor to find the best voice possible to communicate with those whose identity and survival is at stake.
We all have a right to voice our opinions, but if we decide to become “involved” in Taiwanese politics, I contend that we should pause for a second and think about how our prescriptions are construed and digested, or whether they are even welcome, by Taiwanese.
Over the years I have had the honor of interacting with a great many Taiwanese military officials, politicians, academics and ordinary citizens, and during that time I have paid close attention to how they interact with expatriates. It has become evident to me that in many instances expatriates and Taiwanese were talking past each other when the former believed that we can “help” Taiwanese make policy decisions, decide who to vote for, or define their identity. Either expatriates were “right” and Taiwanese are always wrong, or there’s something we in the first category didn’t get.
If we’re seriously committed to participating in the Taiwan experiment, I think we owe it to ourselves — and to the principal subjects, the Taiwanese themselves — to question our assumptions and not immediately take it as a personal insult when we are told that we might be getting it wrong.
Chinese agents often target Taiwanese officials who are motivated by financial gain rather than ideology, while people who are found guilty of spying face lenient punishments in Taiwan, a researcher said on Tuesday. While the law says that foreign agents can be sentenced to death, people who are convicted of spying for Beijing often serve less than nine months in prison because Taiwan does not formally recognize China as a foreign nation, Institute for National Defense and Security Research fellow Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲) said. Many officials and military personnel sell information to China believing it to be of little value, unaware that
Before 1945, the most widely spoken language in Taiwan was Tai-gi (also known as Taiwanese, Taiwanese Hokkien or Hoklo). However, due to almost a century of language repression policies, many Taiwanese believe that Tai-gi is at risk of disappearing. To understand this crisis, I interviewed academics and activists about Taiwan’s history of language repression, the major challenges of revitalizing Tai-gi and their policy recommendations. Although Taiwanese were pressured to speak Japanese when Taiwan became a Japanese colony in 1895, most managed to keep their heritage languages alive in their homes. However, starting in 1949, when the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) enacted martial law
“Si ambulat loquitur tetrissitatque sicut anas, anas est” is, in customary international law, the three-part test of anatine ambulation, articulation and tetrissitation. And it is essential to Taiwan’s existence. Apocryphally, it can be traced as far back as Suetonius (蘇埃托尼烏斯) in late first-century Rome. Alas, Suetonius was only talking about ducks (anas). But this self-evident principle was codified as a four-part test at the Montevideo Convention in 1934, to which the United States is a party. Article One: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a) a permanent population; b) a defined territory; c) government;
The central bank and the US Department of the Treasury on Friday issued a joint statement that both sides agreed to avoid currency manipulation and the use of exchange rates to gain a competitive advantage, and would only intervene in foreign-exchange markets to combat excess volatility and disorderly movements. The central bank also agreed to disclose its foreign-exchange intervention amounts quarterly rather than every six months, starting from next month. It emphasized that the joint statement is unrelated to tariff negotiations between Taipei and Washington, and that the US never requested the appreciation of the New Taiwan dollar during the
RSS