Welcome back to this journal, these jottings from Taiwan, an interesting, memorable, and important place. (I have mentioned the reasons for its importance before; I will do so again later.) Just joining us? Previous parts are at the following links: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, and VII.

Meet Mab Huang, a professor at Soochow University. He is a venerable, marvelous-looking gent, in a light summer suit and wide-brimmed hat. He has a trace of an English accent. He explains that he had an English tutor, when a boy. He has a long, interesting face — I think of a Chinese John Updike.

Professor Huang studied at the University of Chicago and Columbia, under some of the most important intellectuals of the age. One was Leo Strauss, “but I’m not a Straussian,” Huang says. Another was Friedrich Hayek. “Are you a Hayekian?” I ask. “No!” he says, laughingly. “I am!” I say.

I ask him a standard question: “Is Taiwan a country? A nation? A state? An offshoot of China? A Chinese province-in-waiting? What is it?” He says it’s hard to say. Certainly, in the minds of some, there is a community, a shared experience, a shared commitment, a sense of solidarity . . .

Many people who came from China, says Huang, could not speak the language — the Taiwanese version of Chinese — and did not really make an effort. And that made them “to some degree cut off.”

Huang suspects that Taiwan’s best shot at independence was right after World War II. In any event, this is a big subject, about which we could speak for a long time . . .

‐As we talk, Huang mentions that Taiwan could do a better job in its treatment of migrant workers. He is not the first person from whom I’ve heard this.

‐Discussion of unification, independence, and all that puts a line in my head. A mystic chord of memory has been struck. I’ll have to Google. Okay, this is it — you can sing along:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

That’s a long sentence, isn’t it? And not bad.

‐I ask Professor Huang whether the Taiwanese public is aware of the gross human-rights violations on the mainland. He says, “Not as much as one would like to think.” He then says, if I have understood him correctly, something like the following:

As a rule, those who are interested in cooperation with Beijing choose not to see the human-rights violations. And those who are working for independence don’t want anything to do with China at all. They keep their backs turned. So . . .

‐What about the rise of China? Is that a help or a hurt to Taiwan? All depends, says the professor. If you’re in the unification camp, you welcome it. The incorporation of Taiwan seems ever clearer, more logical, and more natural. If you’re in the independence camp — you see this rise as a threat.

Huang’s own view is subtle and complicated, and I doubt my ability to do it justice, here and now . . .

‐Okay, the terrible question: If the PRC attacks, will Washington defend? Like everyone else, Huang thinks an attack is unlikely at this point. But if such a thing occurred — who knows? There is a debate, Huang says. China has been doing its best to persuade Taiwan that Washington will do nothing. The independence people tend to have greater trust in the U.S.

‐About Chiang Kai-shek, Professor Huang is very subtle, as one probably should be about so enigmatic, multifaceted, and ambiguous a figure. He was a tyrant, yes. He put his signature on execution orders. And the victims were mere democratic strivers. But he was also a deterrent — a deterrent to something worse. He was a traditional, almost Confucian statesman. You can see him in the Qing dynasty. But then, he was a convert to Christianity.

It’s all mixed up, says Huang, and, lo, it is.

‐What about the notion of “Asian values,” as distinct from “Western values”? Do Asian or Western values exist? Huang says there are certain regional characteristics and traditions. But there is also a “universalist dimension.” “We all want to live happily. We all want to live well. We want to speak our minds. I have no doubt about that.”

‐We have this expression “a scholar and a gentleman.” It seems to me that the expression was made for Mab Huang. Is his combination of erudition, nimbleness, and gentleness passing away? Or will we always have it, in select individuals? Professor Huang tells me that he has been teaching for 50 years. Learning, and getting better, all the while, I’m sure.

‐Soochow University was founded by Methodists in China at the turn of the last century. Leaving the campus, I see a sign, with the school motto: “Unto a full grown man.”

‐You will hear that the Grand Hotel, the grande dame of hotels in Taipei, is “over the top.” I suppose it is. I also don’t think that over-the-top is predictably and inevitably bad.

They say that Madam Chiang liked her red-bean cakes in this establishment. I have to agree — quite nice.

‐I mentioned the Methodists a moment ago. Here in Taipei, I see a Methodist church, and other churches, and various temples, etc. And I think, “You know, religious pluralism is a relatively rare thing in the world.” That is, the allowance of it.

‐It’s good to see that long hair and motorcycles are still cool, somewhere! Are they cool everywhere? Also, I must say this: On the streets of Taipei, there are a lot of Justin Bieber haircuts. The reach of that little Canadian is sort of awe-inspiring. In the ’50s and ’60s, were there Elvis cuts here? Probably.

‐In Part IV of this journal, I mentioned something about names — Chinese names and English names. Very often, a Chinese or Taiwanese person will have an “English” name, for the benefit of English-speakers. I always thought English-speakers — or Westerners, let’s say — should make a greater effort to learn the Chinese names. How hard can it be? Isn’t it just a matter of courtesy? Don’t people deserve to be called by their right names?

I find myself softening on this English-name business. Often, the Chinese names are virtually unpronounceable by English-speakers. Also, should a person have to hear his name pronounced incorrectly over and over? Is it not better, sometimes, to have an alternative name?

And then there’s this: the impossibility of transliterating certain names. I show a Taiwanese friend the name of another Taiwanese friend, whom I know by his English name. The Chinese name in question is Tze-Chen Sheng. “So, how do you pronounce this?” I say to my friend (the original one). She says, “I have no idea. There’s not enough information here to pronounce either name. I’ll have to hear them, spoken by him.”

Well, then. You see?

Catch you tomorrow for No. 9, y’all (as I don’t think they say in Taipei). Thanks.

To order Jay Nordlinger’s new book, Peace, They Say: A History of the Nobel Peace Prize, the Most Famous and Controversial Prize in the World, go here. To order his collection Here, There & Everywhere, go here.