‘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
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
RSS