Taiwan, As Presented By John Oliver

For months, I’ve been lobbying Last Week Tonight to do a segment on Taiwan. There was a Facebook group and a petition, which were covered by the Taipei Times. 

Why Last Week Tonight? I chose them specifically because they did strong segments on China, the Uyghurs and Hong Kong in the past. The Daily Show and The Late Show have blundered on China and Taiwan in the past, getting Taiwan’s situation painfully wrong or softballing China. They were not ideal candidates. Oliver handled similar sensitive topics well: he was the guy to do this.

Fast forward to last Sunday’s episode. I have no idea if my effort had any impact at all — Perhaps they got the idea independently and it was a big, fat coincidence. One of the producers is Taiwanese-American and one of the writers used to live in Kaohsiung, so it’s entirely possible this had nothing to do with my petition. 

I just wanted the show to happen. It did. That’s the win.

Taiwan needs a moment in front of a mainstream Western liberal audience in a fun, easily digestible format. We need to reach the people who will tune into a late-night news satire show, but won’t get around to listening to Tsai Ing-wen on CNN or read an editorial in the Wall Street Journal. We need that because there’s just not enough general knowledge about Taiwan out there, there’s a global dismissal of the wishes of the Taiwanese people for their own future. The John Oliver Effect is real.

I do want to talk about the segment’s strong and weak points. But before going down that road, let’s all admit that as a whole, it was an unqualified success. It not only got Taiwan in front of a mainstream liberal audience — which, again, was the key goal — but it did a highly competent job, too. On the whole, I’d give this a 95% out of 100, and that’s a damn good appraisal for someone as picky as me about good coverage of Taiwan.

What the show did right

Let’s start with what they got right because I want to emphasize that it was indeed excellent. The messaging was on-point. Any criticism I have is pretty much meaningless in the face of this all-important triumph. They used Taiwanese voices to make points about Taiwan: not only President Tsai but also Legislator Freddy Lim. Ending on finally letting Taiwan decide its own future, was moving. 

The show got the ‘stacks of warplanes’ right. They pointed out that Taiwanese voters have been electing people who are pretty comfortable calling Taiwan an independent, sovereign country. They used amusing media — butt plugs, John Cena, a WHO representative (figuratively) pretending to have a brain hemorrhage to avoid talking about Taiwan — to show just how cringy it is for the world to so clearly want to avoid talking about Taiwan for fear of shattering so many glass hearts in China. 

The history was done quite well: I’d give it a 99%. The only nitpicks I have are: the Qing did not govern all of Taiwan. It held about a third of Taiwan until the final decade of its rule. Perhaps 228 deserved a moment. But the White Terror was covered in length. Now millions of Americans know that Taiwan was once a Japanese colony and the KMT military rule was horrible.

The murky jungle of communiques and carefully worded agreements and acts were also handled quite well, with the top-notch Kharis Templeman explaining (in a replay of a video produced by Bloomberg) how the US acknowledges but does not necessarily accept the Chinese claim on Taiwan, and that Taiwan’s status is undetermined. Having regular Taiwanese people explaining how they feel about China (in a video by SBS Dateline), in Taiwanese, is a win too.  

Declaring independence and the status quo 

It is worth discussing the weaker aspects, however, as an exercise in media dissection rather than actual criticism. I loved the show, and I want to keep that clear. Even the parts I didn’t love achieved their goal, and I love that goal. 

First is the way Oliver discusses Tsai’s own words: he makes it sound like she’s in favor of “maintaining the status quo” and “not declaring independence” when that’s not exactly what she said. It’s true that she chooses her words carefully (she has to), but here are her exact words:

The idea is, we don’t have a need to declare ourselves an independent state, we are an independent country.

It is perhaps true that she drew a line at issuing a piece of paper called the Declaration of Independence. But she didn’t say Taiwan would “stop short” of a formal declaration of independence. She offered an entirely different perspective: that there is no NEED to formally declare independence because Taiwan is already independent. Would you need to ask any other functioning country to declare its independence? No. So why would you need to ask it of Taiwan?

That is one kind of pro-independence position, and that was the position she was elected on.

“Independence” can mean many different things, including believing that there is no need to formally declare what you already are. The position that “independence” has to involve a formal declaration is a very narrow and exclusive one. It relegates “independence” to some kind of radical fringe. Pro-independence supporters are not a fringe element, so defining it to make them so is not a complete analysis. 

The second weak part was the discussion of the “status quo.” The poll cited in the episode is formed in such a way that many with pro-independence leanings choose the “status quo” under the prospect of war. What they’re choosing isn’t the “status quo.” They’re choosing sovereignty without war, which is also a functionally pro-independence position. 

While Oliver did mention that “the status quo” can mean different things to different people, he didn’t elaborate. When you talk about the status quo, you really have to point out the conditions under which people are answering: with guns to their heads. Literally, in the form of missiles and warplanes.

Who would choose the status quo if they did not have a gun to their head? Perhaps some people — certainly some internal disputes about the name of the country would have to be worked out — but I doubt it would be many.

I think it’s better to pick something that paints a clearer picture, something that shows that there’s some internal disagreement but also highlights the strong consensus that exists alongside it: Taiwanese identity. 

Around 70% of Taiwanese identify as solely Taiwanese. About a third identify as Taiwanese and Chinese, with other research showing most of those prioritize Taiwanese identity. About 2% — less than the margin of error — identify as solely Chinese.

That shows some internal divergence of opinion while clarifying that there is indeed a consensus: to not be a part of China, in whatever form that takes. 

Taiwan’s military recruitment problem 

The topic of Taiwan’s armed forces also deserves some more analysis. It’s true that recruitment is down, the topic flows clearly from the previous point, and the video is amusing: I imagine that’s why the writing team decided to include it. 

However, it has the side effect of once again making Taiwan seem more divided than it is. 

Of course, we’re not in a real wartime situation (yet), but polls show that most Taiwanese people are, indeed, willing to defend their country. If there is no ambivalence towards fighting an invasion, then what is the reason why military recruitment is low? Mostly that the military doesn’t offer a great career path. It’s not seen as desirable or something for “successful” people to do, which is a shame when you are facing a superpower like China. The pay is mediocre, and while you can retire young and get a good pension — last I heard you could get 50% pay after leaving a military career at 40 — overall it’s just not a prestigious choice. 

The other reason has to do with Taiwan’s own history. The military used to be the oppressors. It’s hard to expect the descendants of people whom the military routinely detained, disappeared, tortured, and killed are going to be signing up for the military or to fight under that white sun and blue sky symbol that oppressed them for so long. 

The military doesn’t have a recruitment problem due to ambivalence about China. They have it because they don’t provide attractive career opportunities, and retain some symbolism of an authoritarian past. 

Celebrating the win while thinking ahead 

The segment deserves to be celebrated. The messaging is on point, and the weaker parts don’t detract from it. If there was more time, I would have also included: Taiwan’s amazing COVID response (yes, it’s still amazing), marriage equality and other progressive credentials, and perhaps a little less on the weaker ‘status quo’ and ‘military’ sections. 

But as it is, it’s great work — better than I expected from a Western media outlet, and better than anything Last Week Tonight‘s fellow satire news shows could have offered. Indeed, that’s why I chose them for the petition and Facebook page.

I’d love it if more Western media talked about Taiwan, and made an effort as earnest as Last Week Tonight in doing so. Clearly, they can if they want to. I mention the weaker points above just to clarify the nuances I hope to see more in the future. 

This segment gets the right message in front of the right audience, which simply writing about Taiwan was never going to do. That’s a win, and I’ll take it.