I find King Chwan-Chuen's (金傳春) article ("Cultivating women in academia, March 13, page 8) riddled with numerous conciliatory and ignorant remarks, although I don't think they were intentional.
In his efforts to praise and "promote" women's endeavors in these fields he forgets that his voice and ideas stem from a patriarchal understanding of the world, one that is unfavorable to and marginalizes women in every sphere of society, public and domestic. Patriarchy and its insidious ideology touches, affects and infects all of us. It is women and children who pay by far the heaviest price, however.
I also find amusing a question that arose at the male-dominated MIT conference: "What are the systemic causes of the problems we face?" I would like to respond by asking, "Who is `we,' white man?" Women have faced these problems all along and all alone, and continue in their struggle today to be heard and treated equally at all levels of society. It is men who perpetuate oppression against women and only recently with the advent of "politically correct" language have a few people realized this. Patriarchy is the systemic cause of the problems we face. Not just in universities, but in society; in the world.
The next question from MIT is even laughable: "What might we do (italics mine) collectively [to stop these problems from reoccurring]?" The question presupposes that men were never part of the problem, but injects a male-female collective known as "we." Might I suggest that men accept the blame for creating the glass ceiling, gross inequalities between men's and women's wages, abhorrent and discriminatory treatment of women in the so-called "hard sciences," math, physics and engineering. I could render a litany, but I won't.
As King is a professor in the health sciences he should also know that a registered nurse can do two-thirds the work of a doctor, but because of her "lesser" status, she earns the wages "fit" for such a position.
Kevin R. Larson
Tainan
Cultural purge not an answer
Although the symptoms among Taiwan's political and academic elite can be diagnosed, intellectual autism cannot be easily cured with a cultural purge. "Getting rid of such a culture," as Bob F.Y. Kuo (郭峰淵) put it (`Intellectual autism' plagues elite, March 18, page 8), is neither a meaningful nor structured form of therapy, especially when one is attempting something wider. Even if such a remedy were feasible, moreover, inverting, purging, reforming and reinventing a culture does not, and should not, have the primary purpose of advancing intellectual pursuits.
In his assessment of Taiwan's academic and political elite, Kuo pointed his axe in several directions. First, he stated in clear terms that "smart people" share a common thread, namely that "they are good at taking exams." He proceeded to infer that Taiwan's elite were substantially cunning, forwarding vacuous arguments with little or no public value. Perhaps this alone is an indication of how Kuo had misconstrued his first of many strawmen, since being smart has absolutely nothing to do with one's performance on and the outcome of annual national examinations. If one were to narrowly define smart as an ability to do well on exams, then such a definition would logically disqualify Einstein. It would also follow that a high school drop-out like Bill Gates was and still is, lacking smarts.
The apex of Kuo's spurious argument was a criticism of Chinese culture, chiefly for its apparent historical record of intellectual autism. Clearly, the fault of the Chinese is not a matter of intellectual autism, as Kuo argued. Rather, the fault is either intellectual egoism or childish denial, if such a criticism is warranted (and I contend that it isn't).
It is both disheartening and richly ironic that a professor from a national university, named after the founding father of the ROC, would make such an egregious remark while criticizing, of all things, Chinese culture. It is one thing to condemn public policy, but to hold an entire culture in contempt -- for a historical period spanning thousands of years -- is foolhardy. It seems appropriate, then, that at the end of the day the executioner became the unwitting victim of his own axe. His dubious metaphor confused intellectual autism with the less severe malaise of intellectual denial, which served as a biting example of intellectual autism at its best.
Sydney C.K. Wong
Lukang
No `consensus' over name
Taiwan's opposition parties have been demanding that the government accept the so-called 1992 "consensus" with Beijing, agreeing to disagree on what the term "China" means. If that consensus holds any water, Taiwan is no less entitled to the name "ROC" than Beijing is the "PRC." But why has Beijing kicked up a big fuss about US Secretary of State Colin Powell referring to Taiwan as the ROC ("US scrambles as Powell learns the art of `diplospeak,'" March 15, page 1)? Even if Taiwan and China did reach some kind of political understanding in 1992, Beijing has no intention of admitting it now. The opposition parties and pro-unification media would do well to stop harping on that mysterious covenant. Meanwhile, Taiwan may as well focus on promoting its real name in the international community.
Aye Nge
Taipei
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with