China's HK policies fail
Chinese officials, such as Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing (李肇星), use every opportunity to point out that there is more democracy in Hong Kong now, under Chinese rule, than when it was a British colony. They say that, since the people of Hong Kong did not complain under British rule, it is hypocritical of Western powers to accuse China of suppressing their human rights ("China snorts at Western concern for human rights," July 16, page 1).
At first blush, the rationale may seem reasonable. However, what Chinese officials are really saying is that if Western powers thought it was okay for the British to deny the people of Hong Kong a say in their future, then China should not be criticized for doing the same. In addition, the people of Hong Kong have no cause for complaint. After all, they have never had a say in their future so it should not matter to them if their oppressors are British or Chinese.
But the Chinese comparison of its rule with British rule is incomplete. During the past century, the British have de-colonized. Beginning with Canada in the mid-1800s, the British allowed their far-flung colonies to gain independence. The 53 members of the Commonwealth are former British territories who now govern themselves. If that practice continues, it is likely that when Hong Kong develops the desire for self-government, the British will also help coordinate its independence and membership of the Commonwealth.
On the other hand, I can think of no territory that China has let go of. To the contrary, in the past century, China has been absorbing territories that may once have paid tribute to the Chinese empire, but were actually self-governing. Its desire for Taiwan is yet another example of China's appetite.
To complete the comparison of the human right records of British and Chinese rule over Hong Kong, British de-colonization and Chinese expansionism must be considered. At that point, perhaps Chinese officials will find other arguments to justify their disregard for the concerns of Hong Kong's people.
Kenneth Choy
Hong Kong
Blinded by dogma
I am American living in Taipei, and I caution Taipei Times readers not to be fooled or swayed by Joel Linton's letter (Letters, July 18, page 8).
Unlike that writer, I did see Fahrenheit 911. There were no fabrications or lies in the movie. It was a compilation of public news coverage, interviews and legal documents about George Bush and the Iraqi war.
By his letter, it is clear to me that Linton is one of those members of the religiously fanatical far-right wing that has taken over the Republican party and pushes Bush's despicable agenda. I call that agenda "the will to believe and the will to deceive."
This is where unscrupulous individuals and groups (both in and out of political office) invoke God as they use fiction, misrepresentations and outright lies to control others through fear and blind faith. The Linton letter is a good example of this.
In the letter, the writer first states fiction and not fact about the movie. Then he misrepresents all those who oppose Bush and his war as aligned with communist China. Then he outright lies, saying anti-Bush people are all social manipulators who will destroy public education.
And of course as the clincher he invokes God in the end.
Don't be deceived and don't believe letters and statements like that. See the documentary yourself if you want. And make your own decisions -- based on fact, not fear.
Gary Faraci
Taipei
Joel Linton's attack on Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911 (presumably without having actually seen the film himself) is so confused, blinkered and laughable that it is hardly worth replying to.
Still, it's certainly some kind of achievement to equate the "socialist, extreme leftist" Moore with both the current mainland Chinese government and the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)!
I'll limit myself to two points in response to Linton's letter. First, from my non-American perspective, Moore is very far from being an extreme leftist.
Second and more importantly, there is no such thing as "truth" in a documentary. Every editing decision -- the choice of shot, how long to keep it, what to follow it by -- is a manipulation of reality. Even the cinema verite ideal of capturing life as it is lived in front of the camera without the mediation of the filmmakers themselves is fundamentally flawed: the very act of switching on a camera changes "truth," changes "reality."
I'm no great fan of Moore's work, but in contrast to the claims to balanced reporting made by the mainstream news media, his lack of hypocrisy is pretty admirable.
Ian Johnston
Taipei
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations