Chan’s White Man’s Burden
At the end of the Taipei Times’ April 21 editorial, “Jackie Chan [成龍] — Friend of Repression,” it states: “The Taipei City Government should do the right thing and replace Chan as its spokesman for this summer’s Deaflympics.”
Despite the fact that I usually agree wholeheartedly with the Taipei Times’ editorial stance, I must, in this instance, with all respect, beg to differ for three reasons:
First, Chan’s views in regard to Hong Kong have been well known for a long time. The Taipei City Government was certainly aware of Chan’s attitude and “world view” before the members invited him to serve as spokesman. Better that they never asked him at all than to retract their invitation.
Second, Chan certainly has his right to freedom of speech. As hopelessly ignorant, naive and truly pathetic as they were, Chan’s comments fell within the acceptable parameters of free speech.
In my opinion, none of his statements were so egregiously hateful, or hate-provoking, that they should be squelched or censored. By the way, I find it ironic that his comments — while receiving considerable notice and commentary in Hong Kong and Taiwan — were ignored in China.
Third, I basically view Chan as a woefully pathetic loser whose “star is descending.” He is desperately clinging to his vanishing career. Hence his groveling and kowtowing.
Most pathetic of all is that he has psychologically internalized imperialist oppression and colonialist ideology.
Chan has psychologically internalized, and made his own, the ideas expressed in Rudyard Kipling’s poem The White Man’s Burden. According to the colonial world view, the non-European peoples of Africa, Asia and the Americas were viewed as helplessly childlike. They were seen as utterly incapable of governing themselves or managing their own affairs. Thus, they were in dire need of a strong, authoritarian “father figure.” White European people viewed themselves as carrying the heavy “burden” of ruling over and encouraging the cultural development of people from other ethnic and cultural backgrounds until such time as these people were able to assume their rightful place in the world by thoroughly adopting Western ways.
Rather than being barred from entering Taiwan, Chan should be encouraged to come and see for himself. Hopefully, he will benefit from the education that he will receive. Hopefully, he will learn through dialogue. At the very least, if allowed to enter Taiwan, Chan will be obliged to explain himself and provide support and proof for his ideas.
MICHAEL SCANLON
East Hartford, Connecticut
No peace without Taiwanese
Fidel Ramos’ key message in his article “Constructing Asia’s missing links” (April 16, page 8) was that peace between Taiwan and China will be established when Taiwan is annexed by China, and when the US stops its arms sales to Taiwan. This is a political position that ignores the Taiwanese who do not want to be part of China, and it ignores the fact that China has about 1,500 missiles aimed at the island and an “Anti-Secession” Law legitimizing a military attack on Taiwan.
Most politicians in Taiwan, regardless of party ideology, agree that deeper economic agreements and an open dialogue with China form part of the way to peace and mutual understanding. This is precisely why Taiwan and China experienced the largest economic integration during Taiwan’s eight years under the Democratic Progressive Party, with independence as its ultimate objective. A pro-China supporter like Ramos should take note of this.
Taiwan’s current Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) government is trying to reach a kind of free trade agreement with China. In this context, however, Taiwan is experiencing a heated debate, as China has set the acceptance of a “one China” policy as a condition for an agreement and thus Taiwan would formally become part of China. This is pursued despite 80 percent of Taiwanese being opposed to an agreement with a “one China” condition. Thus, Ramos is speaking against a vast majority of Taiwanese.
US arms sales to Taiwan are, according to Ramos, “a major obstacle to easing tensions.” Arms races are rarely a success, but if China maintains its “Anti-Secession” Law providing for an attack on Taiwan if it will not become part of China, and continues to set up missiles during the current negotiations, Taiwan has the right to buy defensive weapons.
It does not promote understanding of a complex conflict to make a one-sided and distorted analysis of reality while ignoring Taiwan’s democratic population of 23 million people.
MICHAEL DANIELSEN,
CHAIRMAN, TAIWAN CORNER
Copenhagen, Denmark
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS