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
RSS