When people negatively stereotype Taiwan, they tend to focus on one of two things: a reputation for making inexpensive, non-durable goods, or the brawls that often pass for legislative sessions.
Anyone familiar with Taiwan knows that this country offers its inhabitants and the world much more than just a place to buy cheap widgets or the punchline to a comic variety show.
"Made in Taiwan" was once synonymous with cheap plastic goods that would quickly fall apart. This perception is so entrenched that several years ago, even a major British company ran an advertising campaign around it, something to the effect of "You can either be a winner and buy our quality goods, or you can be a loser and buy Made in Taiwan crap."
Obviously, this was offensive and simplistic, and as many noted at the time, the advertisers had probably designed their ads on computers built in Taiwan. Irony will always have a place in the world.
But it has to be said that these two negative stereotypes are a reflection of two trends in this society that do exist, and are increasingly converging: nonchalance about quality, and bitter political partisanship.
Some people consider the cha bu duo (
The way to avoid the wrath of zealots and despots is to be low-key and not take absolute stands on anything: "If the military policemen want to stop me for no reason and question me, it will only make things worse if I get upset; so cha bu duo. Just take it on the chin and move along."
This works in certain scenarios, but is hopeless in others: No one would want their doctor to begin surgery like this: "Is this where the incision should go? Ah, well, cha bu duo, close enough."
So why are Taiwanese willing to accept this kind of haphazard jury-rigging when it comes to their system of government? There is nothing wrong with thinking, for instance, that the current president is an incompetent and corrupt fool. But it is another to attempt to oust him for these reasons by using non-legal means, as his opponents are doing now.
But in Taiwan's politicized society, there is neither black nor white, but only blue and green. Few people are worried about the deleterious long-term effects that creating an extra-legal precedent for ousting a democratically elected official will have on their system of government. And Taiwan's political leaders couldn't care less: they are all politicians, not leaders.
Whether our readers support the blues or the greens, they should be asking themselves a very serious question: Is a political victory worth dismantling the mechanisms of Taiwan's fragile democracy?
If the answer from most is anything but "no," then there is very little hope for the survival of the liberty that people in Taiwan now enjoy, nor for the kind of accountability that has made President Chen Shui-bian (
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS