‘Burma’ vs ‘Myanmar’
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet).
In a recent article I wrote to the editor (Letters, April 14, page 8) I was dismayed to find that the Taipei Times took the liberty of changing the name “Burma” to “Myanmar.”
Indeed, what is in a name? A name ensured a tragic end to the famous young lovers Romeo and Juliet in their quest for love.
A difference in opinion over the name of “Macedonia” guaranteed ongoing disputes between Macedonia and Greece.
A “minority”-like name promised a lifetime of discrimination for thousands of Blacks, Irish and Jews throughout the US and Europe up until the early 20th century (and even today in certain areas).
Enforced name changes saw the humiliation and cultural genocide of Aborigines everywhere, and the “wrong” names linked to a certain caste or class guaranteed a lifetime of suffering in much of South Asia.
In the case of Taiwan, the name that is selected for the country impacts on its right to participate in international organizations and its very right to existence as an independent, sovereign state.
The recent name change of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to today’s National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall certainly saw plenty of controversy.
The official name of Burma today is the “Union of Myanmar.” This was passed in 1989 by the current Burmese junta, a political act intended to justify its rule and its xenophobic, anti-West attitude.
Though many of its allies recognize this name change, some of the world’s more prominent states such as the US and the UK continue to use the name “Burma.” Even today, the US embassy on University Road in Rangoon/Yangon proudly refers to itself as the Embassy of the United States, Union of Burma.
Many non-governmental organizations and pressure groups, as well as human rights and democracy activists, also choose to recognize “Burma” and not “Myanmar.”
This is an important issue, as referring to the state as Burma guaranteed the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the Burmese state, but not of its repressive, backward and shameful military junta.
Just as the term “Chinese Taipei” is derogatory to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and just as vice president-elect Vincent Siew’s (蕭萬長) attendance at the recent Boao Forum in his capacity as a civilian chairman of the Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation was a very conscious but misguided choice, the Taipei Times’ changing of “Burma” to “Myanmar” is a disappointing, misguided and political action, which I believe is unwarranted and beyond the scope of its “reservations to edit, change, or condense” for the benefit of the paper.
For a paper dedicated to progressive, democratic ideals, I truly hope the Taipei Times will at least respect the rights of its readers when publishing their letters.
Roger Lee Huang
Taipei
Why the US should invite Ma
I enjoyed reading the letter “Go West, Mr Ma” (Letters, March 29, page 8).
The thought-provoking idea that Li Chen-ching proposed coincides with the latest development in cross-strait relations, in which vice president-elect Vincent Siew met with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and former US secretary of state Colin Powell during the recent Boao Forum in Hainan.
The optimistic comments of Mr Li and Mr Powell have inspired me to point out that Taiwan’s democracy has shed new light on China.
And it is time that the US employed a pragmatic strategy to ensure multilateral harmony by allowing president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to visit the US in a low key manner before his inauguration.
Ma’s overwhelming victory has served as a beacon of hope for the development of democracy in China.
A man with a global vision and decent qualities for a leader, Ma has been well received by the majority of the Chinese in China, including even the leaders there.
To cement a win-win-win situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the US should seriously regard Ma’s visit as a plus for everyone and therefore invite him for an informal visit as soon as possible.
Nina Hsu
Taipei
In the event of a war with China, Taiwan has some surprisingly tough defenses that could make it as difficult to tackle as a porcupine: A shoreline dotted with swamps, rocks and concrete barriers; conscription for all adult men; highways and airports that are built to double as hardened combat facilities. This porcupine has a soft underbelly, though, and the war in Iran is exposing it: energy. About 39,000 ships dock at Taiwan’s ports each year, more than the 30,000 that transit the Strait of Hormuz. About one-fifth of their inbound tonnage is coal, oil, refined fuels and liquefied natural gas (LNG),
To counter the CCP’s escalating threats, Taiwan must build a national consensus and demonstrate the capability and the will to fight. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) often leans on a seductive mantra to soften its threats, such as “Chinese do not kill Chinese.” The slogan is designed to frame territorial conquest (annexation) as a domestic family matter. A look at the historical ledger reveals a different truth. For the CCP, being labeled “family” has never been a guarantee of safety; it has been the primary prerequisite for state-sanctioned slaughter. From the forced starvation of 150,000 civilians at the Siege of Changchun
The two major opposition parties, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), jointly announced on Tuesday last week that former TPP lawmaker Chang Chi-kai (張啟楷) would be their joint candidate for Chiayi mayor, following polling conducted earlier this month. It is the first case of blue-white (KMT-TPP) cooperation in selecting a joint candidate under an agreement signed by their chairpersons last month. KMT and TPP supporters have blamed their 2024 presidential election loss on failing to decide on a joint candidate, which ended in a dramatic breakdown with participants pointing fingers, calling polls unfair, sobbing and walking
In the opening remarks of her meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing on Friday, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairwoman Cheng Li-wun (鄭麗文) framed her visit as a historic occasion. In his own remarks, Xi had also emphasized the history of the relationship between the KMT and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Where they differed was that Cheng’s account, while flawed by its omissions, at least partially corresponded to reality. The meeting was certainly historic, albeit not in the way that Cheng and Xi were signaling, and not from the perspective
RSS