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
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