Imagining the other
This is intended for Martin de Jonge (Letters, June 2, page 8) and every arrogant egocentric who shares the opinions expressed in that letter.
De Jonge complains, as have dozens before him, that “When locals see my face, they immediately start speaking to me in English.” My response to that is: Well, duh!
De Jonge should get outside long enough to imagine the world as seen by, say, a 30-year-old citizen of Taiwan. This hypothetical person may have had, via TV, movies, personal contacts, anecdotal testimony from friends, relatives, coworkers and casual acquaintances varying degrees of exposure to perhaps thousands of non-Asian-faced aliens.
Of that number, perhaps 70 percent probably have had so little knowledge of any local language or dialect that they are unable to frame even the simplest greeting, formal or otherwise. Another 25 percent have probably known a little Mandarin, but pronounced what they knew so badly as to render it incomprehensible. The remaining 5 percent probably consisted of people with broadly varying degrees of competence in some local language or dialect. Thus, our imaginary Taiwanese, upon encountering his umpty-umth waiguoren would seem to have more than ample reason to believe that English offered the best chance to understand and be understood by said waiguoren.
That is, unless the foreigner is instantly recognizable as a Mandarin or Hoklo (also known as Taiwanese) speaker, or has some distinguishing characteristic that indicates he or she is fluent in one or more local tongues.
So, I put it to de Jonge and all the people out there who think local people should recognize on sight that they speak Mandarin, or Taiwanese, or whatever: Do you have characteristics that advertise the languages you speak? If neither applies, I suggest you stop complaining and start putting more effort into trying to see things from other people’s point of view.
C. AMBROSE
Ching Shui, Taichung County
Disappointed reader
I have been reading the Taipei Times daily for several years; I used to enjoy it a lot more. Sadly, the quality of the reporting, and most especially the editorials, has declined sharply. Reporters have failed to follow up on key facts and issues regarding stories fundamental to Taiwan’s interests.
For example, after Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators and ministers fumed over the comment made by Masaki Saito, head of the Taipei office of Japan’s Interchange Association, that Taiwan’s status is still unresolved, your reporters did not ask: If Taiwan’s status was resolved, what is it? This unfolding story had been reported on for several days and yet at no time did I see a mention of an attempt to get the answer to this key question from any KMT member.
Your editorial on June 2, “Something sinister on the horizon,” is a sad example of my concern. The editorial attempted to criticize KMT and President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) China policies by comparing them to Israeli policies regarding settlers in the West Bank. Are the two situations so similar they demand analogizing?
By using the phrase of the day, “facts on the ground,” you try to contort the argument that Ma’s policies are “sinister” because Israel’s policies result in “uncertainty.” That is a pretty big stretch, though unfortunately it’s not much of a surprise.
The Taipei Times has published several editorials on Israel, all of them highly critical. While some may argue justification for this, these editorials have been so appallingly one-sided and lacking of any nuance that I must wonder if the editor isn’t anti-Semitic. No, criticizing Israel does not make one anti-Semitic, but continually publishing gratuitous, ridiculously unbalanced editorials might, and this latest example substantially supports my point.
If The Taipei Times has concerns that Ma and the KMT’s recent legislation, diplomatic efforts and economic cooperation regarding China are inimical to Taiwan’s interests and that once they become operational, they and their tragic consequences will be hard to reverse, then that’s an easy enough point to make all on its own.
I will say that the June 2 editorial wasn’t quite as heavy-handed as usual in its attack on Israel. However, conflating two such complex and unrelated international policies involving several divergent countries for the purpose of impugning Israel or the KMT and Ma (the editorial is unclear) does not bode well for the integrity, discretion and professionalism of your paper.
HOWARD WESTON
Taoyuan
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