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
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,
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,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then
RSS