Mutual misunderstanding
We should all be quite concerned with the lack of appropriate political dialogue not between lukewarm diplomats, but rather “protesters” and pro-China demonstrators.
I use the term “protester” loosely because I have no means of identifying them as a single group — they are certainly not anti-China, but rather a unity that rejects the embodiment of an apathetic government and reactionary Chinese retaliation. Recent events have been distressing as usual.
A brave Chinese student at Duke attempted to disperse a commotion between protesters and pro-China groups, but her attempt resulted in her portrayal as a traitor to her native country. We cannot overlook the global protest against the Olympics either. I see where each and every advocate is coming from. One can argue that “extremists” (again, I use this term loosely) are both the protesters against China and the pro-China protesters who are both venting their frustration, while behaving more and more irrationally. This is what truly concerns me.
I believe that expressing ones’ own opinion is crucial for an engaging seminar, but I also believe it is imperative to step back and recalibrate our own perspective by acknowledging where each person is coming from — then by recognizing the mutual source of frustration and retaliation we can alleviate our irrational instinct to defend our own stance.
Stacked against the odds of the international realm, the Chinese deserve a rational response in the face of such an outcry. To begin with, the Chinese view the sentiments against China as a direct influence from the Western media. The Western media has been criticized heavily, especially CNN, for its alleged biases against China, despite its clarifications. However, the world cannot expect China’s phenomenal growth to translate into instantaneous social change on a par with its economic growth. With power comes responsibility, but one cannot expect a sense of responsibility to always follow from economic growth.
More significantly, international criticism against the Chinese Communist Party is seen more as a slight against the national pride of the Chinese as they try to close the doors of colonialism and communism behind them. Ultimately, criticism against China is perceived by Chinese as an attempt to undermine the economic miracles China has produced and its potential capability as a leading nation.
Yet, the general Chinese must acknowledge that what they know and stand for is even more heavily influenced by their own state-controlled media. Even in an era of free information, the government filters the mass media, including the Internet. Thus, their irrational response is a byproduct of the system, which in turn was aligned with the intent of their government.
If social change is to occur, it must begin with appropriate dialogue and respect. When differing views cross, clash and raise emotional responses, one must not lose composure, but try to accept the logic behind one’s counterpart. Incidences such as branding someone a traitor and threatening her parents simply display social ineptitude. If one cannot retain the ability to respect the views of another, then one cannot expect international criticism to flutter away despite economic growth.
Kenta Hayashi
Ann Arbor, Michigan
‘Burma’ vs ‘Myanmar’
I was pleased to see the letter “Burma” vs “Myanmar” a few days ago (Letters, April 18, page 8).
A couple of points could be added to the discussion.
Aung San Suu Kyi’s party won the 1990 election; since the word “Burma” was part of the name of her party, the deft preemptive move by the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) the year before in changing the “official” name to “Myanmar” meant that her opposition party could be discarded along with the name “Burma” as part of the past.
In the “new Myanmar,” why allow a party representing “Burma” to come into power if there was no “Burma” any longer? So of course the results of the election were never recognized.
A Burmese friend in the US told me this “clever trick” hasn’t fooled the majority of Burmese people, but it seems most other people outside of Burma never bothered to ask themselves why it was so important to use the new SLORC name. It’s so easy to just follow the crowd.
J. Dempsey
Jhongli, Taoyuan County
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.