• Thu
  • Oct 3, 2013
  • Updated: 6:57pm
Sunday, 19 May, 2013, 3:55am

Taiwan's reaction to killing of fisherman is out of proportion

Philip Bowring says the anger at Philippines over the killing of a fisherman in disputed waters smacks of nationalistic chauvinism and will only aggravate regional tensions

BIO

Philip Bowring has been based in Asia for 39 years writing on regional financial and political issues. He has been a columnist for the South China Morning Post since the mid-1990s and for the International Herald Tribune from 1992 to 2011. He also contributes regularly to the Wall Street Journal, www.asiasentinel.com, a website of which he is a founder, and elsewhere. Prior to 1992 he was with the weekly Far Eastern Economic Review, latterly as editor.
 

Now it's Taiwan's turn to show some nationalist anger, and its target is the Philippines. Behind the outrage over the death of a fisherman lies suspicion of a Han chauvinism that can only exacerbate the tensions between China and its southern, non-Chinese neighbours.

For sure, the Philippine coastguard was guilty of the trigger-happy behaviour so common in a country which inherited its gun culture from the US and whose armed services are not known for their discipline. But the reaction by the government in Taipei, with economic and other sanctions, is out of all proportion given that this unfortunate event was clearly the result of local misjudgment rather than the state policy of the sort which sends Chinese warships well within the Philippines' exclusive economic zones, not to mention several incidents when Chinese vessels have opened fire on Vietnamese fishing boats and killed people.

For the Han chauvinists, an apology from the president of the Philippines is not enough. The Filipinos must grovel, be reminded that they, like Malays generally, are the serfs of the region. It fits well with the Hong Kong government's arrogant categorising of the country as in the same danger league as Syria because of the unnecessary loss of life in the bus hijacking incident.

The action of the Filipino coastguard was out of proportion, even assuming the fishing vessel was in Philippine waters and resisting arrest. But Taiwan's large, well-equipped fishing fleet is known almost worldwide for its contempt for others' fishing rights and the attempts to limit fishing to preserve species.

The fact that Taiwan has no formal diplomatic ties with any significant country makes it easy to avoid such transgressions becoming government-to-government issues.

Taipei's reaction seems more than just local political pressures on a weak President Ma Ying-jeou but linked to the desire to show that the island's Kuomintang government is at least as eager to pursue Chinese maritime claims as Beijing. The same has been seen in respect of the Diaoyu islands even though a limited deal with Japan on fishing has been agreed.

Taiwan's consequent higher profile in South China Sea issues makes peaceful accommodation in the region more difficult and shows the Taipei government placing more emphasis on old nationalist doctrines than strengthening relations with its non-Chinese neighbours.

It is a reminder that the now infamous "nine-dash line" by which China claims almost all the islands and related rights in the South China Sea was not a Communist invention but dates back to KMT rule. That was a time when Chinese maps made claim to chunks of Burma and other adjacent countries.

Even though most of these land borders have since been settled with the respective countries, the assumption that neighbours were once tributary states and should be again runs deep. How else can one explain the doubts now being aired by semi-official organs in China that Okinawa, centre of the old Ryukyu kingdom, is not Japanese because it was once a tributary state of China? The notion of a tributary state, one which kowtows to Beijing for political support, the right to trade or simply to give the emperor prestige, is imperialism in its simplest form.

In the Philippine case, China never exercised the attempts at hegemony which it applied to Vietnam and other contiguous states. But Filipinos are aware that the majority of people in Taiwan until some 200 years ago were closely related to those across the Luzon Strait. Incorporation into the Qing empire in the late 17th century was followed by colonisation which meant that the fate of the Taiwan indigenes was no better than that of native Americans.

As late as 1873, Beijing's admitted failure to bring all the island under control provided an excuse for a Japanese invasion to suppress "piracy" by indigenous groups - who more than two centuries earlier had successfully resisted a Japanese invasion. The attitudes of China as conqueror and coloniser still lurk despite the Philippines' successful, peaceful absorption of huge numbers of Chinese (including President Benigno Aquino's ancestors) who are better integrated than in most of Southeast Asia.

The overdone outrage over the death of the fisherman simply adds to regional suspicions of Chinese attitudes. Likewise, it is easy for most of those involved to see through Beijing's proclaimed attempt to prioritise relations with Asean by making Southeast Asia the first overseas destination of new Foreign Minister Wang Yi . By visiting four countries but avoiding Vietnam, the Philippines and Malaysia, the visit raised suspicions that it was simply to try to stir divisions within Asean while China has given away nothing either in terms of its territorial claims or refusal to discuss issues except bilaterally.

The omission of Malaysia was especially interesting given that China has so far avoided direct conflict even though its claims take in Malaysian gas fields and Layang Layang, a coral atoll 320 kilometres off the Borneo coast, which lies well within the Chinese claim just outside that of Philippines. It has an airstrip, small naval base and dive resort, and the Malaysian air force flies regular sorties over it.

Philip Bowring is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator

37

This article is now closed to comments

pslhk
No wonder FEER folded
The practiced bigot is so disconnected
PB and FC are better / worse jokers than Dean Martin /Jerry Louis
-
"an apology from the president of the Philippines is not enough. The Filipinos must grovel, be reminded that they, like Malays generally, are the serfs of the region" ?
-
"Filipinos are aware that the majority of people in Taiwan until some 200 years ago were ..."?
-
It takes one with incorrectable colonial mentality and stupid simplicity to come up with such opinions.
elderpatty
As a citizen of the United States of America, I question the statement "the trigger-happy behaviour so common in a country which inherited its gun culture from the US." Filipinos have a distinct culture from the United States and always have had. They certainly have had ample time to diverge from any cultural influences remaining since the Republic of the Phillippines gained complete independence shortly after 1948.
And I will defend my nation's "gun culture" - explicitly designed as a corrective against tyranny - in ANY comparison with other cutlures which often place much less value on individual rights. You can search the recent history of the United States of America in vain for people being run down by tanks in their national capitol.
whymak
Tanks don't kill Americans. But gun nuts kill fellow Americans anywhere from 12,000 to 20,000 a year.
Am I right to assume that individual rights, including the right to own deadly AR-15, are what stop the tanks? I am still confused. Which stops the tanks, the right to own weapons of destruction or the fearsome assault weapons?
One more point. Isn't the unlimited freedom to manufacture toxic financial waste that brought about the $16 trillion of American wealth destruction in Year 2008? With two different kinds of individual freedoms, which is worth more, $16 trillion or 20,000 lives?
Tell me which is more believable, Charleton Heston parting the Red Sea or the Second Amendment as the guarantor of American freedom?
My friend, I suggest you head back to college and take a freshman course on logic.
oasis
This article is abhorrent! There's no need to link China & its belligerence to the shooting death of a Taiwanese fisherman, which as it turns out, didn't trespass. Even if they did trespass, its outside modern norms to justify this be met with lethal force. This is the reason why Taiwanese are furious; they also feel rightly or wrongly that no punishment will be meted out to the shooters.
References to Han chauvinism are superfluous - the concept of 'Han' solidarity has withered over many generations, and mentioning this is outdated & ignorant. On China & its belligerence, whatever our opinions are, this belongs in a separate column. Firstly, Taiwanese are upset about an unnecessary manslaughter that looks to go unpunished. Secondly, the Taiwanese didn't deserve this simply because the Chinese have been acting like idiots!
whymak
SELF-HATE TAIWANESE
So you are just another Chen Shiubin diehard.
Three decades ago, Taiwan Chinese were impoverished. Be they mainlanders or Minan-speaking "locals," all they could dream about was emigrate to the US. As the satirist Bor Yang 柏楊 puts it, "to live out the rest of their pathetic lives in the US, 在美國了此殘生.”
One aberration developed by independence-minded Taiwanese is to disown their Chinese ethnicity as they become rich. But this is what Chinese people find most despicable. Among the Chinese, we seldom disown our parents because they are poor.
Aren’t Hong Kong Democracy believers just like this Taiwanese?
tracy.domenica
It turns out that most Westerners, Mr Bowring included, do not give a hoot about Taiwanese identity. They don't want Taiwanese hands on the isles and atolls either.
It seems the only idiot in this situation is you.
oasis
This article is abhorrent. Taiwanese anger shouldn't be dismissed because PRC has been acting as a belligerent. To them, this isn't about the notion of tributary states and colonialism! This was an uncalled for use of force - and as the fact currently are, those fishermen were not intruding on Philippine waters. The Taiwanese are not asking for Philippinos to grovel - they want justice served & perpetrators punished. The assumption is that civilians shouldn't be targeted with lethal force unless there's an overwhelming reason. Its equally appalling that Chinese have fired on Vietnamese fisherman. The Taiwanese believe that there will be no justice - and naturally feel aggrieved.
Linking Taiwanese 'overreaction' over the shooting of a fisherman to Han chauvinism naively overestimates the concept of 'Han' Chinese solidarity. The Taiwanese seem themselves as Taiwanese. Hong Konger's distinguish (distance) themselves from mainlanders. There is no common understanding that "we are Han so we stick up for each other". There was a sense of this many generations ago - perhaps this is when Bowring's opinions stopped evolving.
Attributing China's belligerence to a sense of cultural superiority or historical colonial privilege is superfluous. Post Cultural Revolution, China doesn't have what we call 'culture'. There's greed & selfishness, and some might debate this is the basic culture. But lets keep this separate from the anger over a hapless Taiwanese fisherman.
tracy.domenica
Are you in the business of posting the same message twice?
kazu.nagai.7
Does Bowring really think that the likes of Indonesia and Singapore can't make up their own minds about Chinese claims in the South China Sea, and end up like a Cambodia? Clearly this so-called old Asian hand needs a shake-up. What China is trying to achieve with the visit of the foreign minister to SEA, is for the non-claimant states to act as a bridge for China with the claimant states. I write from Singapore, and it's plain obvious to any observer that the city-state is friends with everyone - close with China, just as close with the US. All countries in the world have a vested interest in the freedom of navigation through international waters, and China is fully aware of that. And China recently acknowledged on the need for a code of conduct and conflict management mechanism for territorial disputes with the ASEAN claimant states, which Bowring has conveniently omitted. This is clearly a right step forward. As for the writer who suggested that the Taiwanese would have reacted differently if the fisherman was killed by Japanese, I wonder where was he when the Taiwanese reacted angrily against Japanese denial of the WWII atrocities over the years as well as their overlapping claims in the Senkakus? Just as there may be a certain level of Han chauvinism in the Taiwanese reaction, I can say the same for the underlying racism against the Chinese in the Philippines till this day. That the Philippines is involved in a running dispute with China does not help matters.
craigmount
Mr. Philip Bowring, probably self-proclaimed old Asian hand commenting about issues of the region that he considered himself an authority. So the life of a Taiwanese fisherman, a human being, a father, somebody's grandfather whose killing was in cold blood in his judgement is trivial and being blown out of proportion? If it had been your own father or grandfather or even a friend would you have said the same thing with such ease? It is easy for you to say because you are not personally connected to the situation and therefore you are totally out of place to comment (may be you don't realize it) commenting on this issue. I myself am not connected to the fisherman. Have some respect for the man who died at the recklessness and trigger happy Philipine government employee, have some respect for the dead's family whose grieve is now compounded by your thoughtless comments. Don't be so hasty to judge because you are not GOD. Don't forget this is not your back yard either. Be humble and live quietly.

Pages

Login

SCMP.com Account

or