The author began this lazy Saturday with an afternoon coffee with a Taiwan-based political risk consultant, serving American companies hoping to get established in the local market on the island. As much as he tried his best to portray some advantages of Taiwan, especially in the technological and cost side of doing business, the key takeaway, ultimately, was how difficult it is to attract clientele for the local office here. This was especially so when compared to other offices based in China and Southeast Asia, where clients piled in to inquire about services offered.
Taiwan, for the same companies, seems to be a hard sell. The consultant lamented the lack of interest in the market itself, forcing the local office here to operate only at an ad hoc, semi-permanent basis with an extremely uncertain future. With China the elephant in the room when speaking about the advantages of doing business in Taiwan, the consultant was pretty much forced to give away free info on the island as part of a "Greater China" package. In essence, it could be said that for many American companies, Taiwan is at the very fringe of their respective Asian expansion efforts.
Of course, certain economic realities has to be observed when perceiving Taiwan's status as an "economic fringe" of some sort. Yes, it is true that it has failed to move up the manufacturing value chain as South Korea has done, and yes, it has become more and more dependent on the growing Chinese economy, with more and more indifference toward a swamping of the island by mainland tourists. But given that Taiwan remains much wealthier than many booming Southeast Asian states, the author would like to argue that the idea of being on the fringe is more of a mental state.
What does the author mean by this? The logic is that people, when they believe themselves to be cut off from others and passively placed into a state of isolation, will attempt to behave in ways that strengthen their sense of separateness from others in order to justify that the relative isolation is in fact not forced but voluntary and very much enjoyed. They start to zone out events that are happening outside with no conflict of interests with themselves, instead focusing on how they continue to survive on their own, taking the isolation as a given and excluding outsiders as a natural reflex.
This was very much so when the author went to a local Indian restaurant with a Taiwanese-American friend later at night. The restaurant advertises itself as being featured in TripAdvisor, and the staff even spoke broken English to two obviously Asian-looking guys. Trying to be authentic? Unlikely. The author is much more inclined to think that it is one of the very very few real Indian places in Taipei, thus earning a top spot by default on TripAdvisor, becoming a foreigners' hangout in the process. If anything, the staff is trained to think anyone going in for a meal to not be "truly local."
Countries are just like people in this way. Universal perception of "apart-ness" not just change attitudes but institutions. Everything from the media to politicians evolve to "look inward," answering to such demands from their constituencies and main audience, and no longer think about their status as the global fringe as any sort of a problem. Learning about the outside, like going to a real Indian restaurant, become no longer something worth putting in efforts for. Inside, in places like Taiwan and Japan, news from the outside are met purely with an "I could care less" nonchalance.
To close this post, the author actually feels that it is fortunate to fall on the annual International Women's Day (March 8th, for those not in the know). As the issue of "economic fringe" has been the underlying reason for gender inequality in many places around the world. The same logic seem to apply for women's passivity in this issue. For many women, they seemed to have accepted lesser rights, opportunities, and lower wages when compared to men as a unchangeable given, arguing that its persistence is a matter of preserving tradition and worse yet, just the way it should be.
They seem to forget that it has not been always like that. The rise of human civilization did not automatically create any laws or rules stipulating female inferiority. Matrilineal societies existed and continue to exist. But because women chose not to resist gradual pressure to submit to secondary statuses that they became fringe subjects. Over time, social norms and laws developed to institutionalize their status at the fringe. For both states and people, they must realize that their quiet acceptance of indignity can only make indignities much much stronger and systematic over time.
Taiwan, for the same companies, seems to be a hard sell. The consultant lamented the lack of interest in the market itself, forcing the local office here to operate only at an ad hoc, semi-permanent basis with an extremely uncertain future. With China the elephant in the room when speaking about the advantages of doing business in Taiwan, the consultant was pretty much forced to give away free info on the island as part of a "Greater China" package. In essence, it could be said that for many American companies, Taiwan is at the very fringe of their respective Asian expansion efforts.
Of course, certain economic realities has to be observed when perceiving Taiwan's status as an "economic fringe" of some sort. Yes, it is true that it has failed to move up the manufacturing value chain as South Korea has done, and yes, it has become more and more dependent on the growing Chinese economy, with more and more indifference toward a swamping of the island by mainland tourists. But given that Taiwan remains much wealthier than many booming Southeast Asian states, the author would like to argue that the idea of being on the fringe is more of a mental state.
What does the author mean by this? The logic is that people, when they believe themselves to be cut off from others and passively placed into a state of isolation, will attempt to behave in ways that strengthen their sense of separateness from others in order to justify that the relative isolation is in fact not forced but voluntary and very much enjoyed. They start to zone out events that are happening outside with no conflict of interests with themselves, instead focusing on how they continue to survive on their own, taking the isolation as a given and excluding outsiders as a natural reflex.
This was very much so when the author went to a local Indian restaurant with a Taiwanese-American friend later at night. The restaurant advertises itself as being featured in TripAdvisor, and the staff even spoke broken English to two obviously Asian-looking guys. Trying to be authentic? Unlikely. The author is much more inclined to think that it is one of the very very few real Indian places in Taipei, thus earning a top spot by default on TripAdvisor, becoming a foreigners' hangout in the process. If anything, the staff is trained to think anyone going in for a meal to not be "truly local."
Countries are just like people in this way. Universal perception of "apart-ness" not just change attitudes but institutions. Everything from the media to politicians evolve to "look inward," answering to such demands from their constituencies and main audience, and no longer think about their status as the global fringe as any sort of a problem. Learning about the outside, like going to a real Indian restaurant, become no longer something worth putting in efforts for. Inside, in places like Taiwan and Japan, news from the outside are met purely with an "I could care less" nonchalance.
To close this post, the author actually feels that it is fortunate to fall on the annual International Women's Day (March 8th, for those not in the know). As the issue of "economic fringe" has been the underlying reason for gender inequality in many places around the world. The same logic seem to apply for women's passivity in this issue. For many women, they seemed to have accepted lesser rights, opportunities, and lower wages when compared to men as a unchangeable given, arguing that its persistence is a matter of preserving tradition and worse yet, just the way it should be.
They seem to forget that it has not been always like that. The rise of human civilization did not automatically create any laws or rules stipulating female inferiority. Matrilineal societies existed and continue to exist. But because women chose not to resist gradual pressure to submit to secondary statuses that they became fringe subjects. Over time, social norms and laws developed to institutionalize their status at the fringe. For both states and people, they must realize that their quiet acceptance of indignity can only make indignities much much stronger and systematic over time.
Comments
Post a Comment