There is an old saying in Chinese that essentially means that when an academic tries to reason with a warrior, they might as well be talking to a wall. Times have changed, and military men are far more reasonable now than when this saying emerged. Retired army general Yu Pei-chen (于北辰) is a good example of this.
Today, academics are now often the ones who cannot be reasoned with. Alice Ou (區桂芝), who teaches Chinese Literature at Taipei First Girls’ High School, and Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Legislator Weng Hsiao-ling (翁曉玲), who is also an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University, are examples of such academics.
CHINESE?
The Paris Olympics provided Weng with a chance to make a fool of herself, which she duly did.
Talking about the Taiwanese badminton duo winning a gold medal in the men’s doubles final, she said she is proud to be Chinese, drawing attacks from all sides on the Internet.
I also responded to her on Facebook, saying that her comment was as absurd as an American saying they were proud to be British. It is a sign of the times, and the strange reality is that in today’s Taiwan, such a person is a professor and a legislator.
Asked about how she felt about being besieged online, Weng said, “Are we not Chinese?”
However, when a student posted a sign that said “Chinese professor” on her office door, she called her student “narrow-minded.”
Why was she angered by students calling her “a Chinese professor” when she called herself Chinese? Her students were “broad-minded” enough to promote her to full professor despite her being an associate professor.
Weng is bad at logical thinking. She appears unaware of linguistic ambiguity and the precise meaning of words.
“China” refers to the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in the international community.
Therefore, by saying that she was proud to be Chinese when Taiwanese athletes won a gold medal, she was saying she was proud to be from the PRC. This is why she angered Internet users.
However, she contradicted herself by asking, “Is the Republic of China [ROC] not China?” when the KMT, the party she belongs to, emphasizes the “one China” principle. If the PRC and the ROC were both China, there would be “two Chinas.” Exactly how many Chinas are they advocating for?
Weng could make this clear, as clearly she does not grasp the concept of a modern country, mixing up culture, consanguinity and nationality.
FREEDOM?
Ou is not much better when it comes to critical thinking. In a short video, she said that the kind of freedom “we Chinese” promote is the same as what Westerners speak of.
Referring to the writings of ancient Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi, Ou said it is spiritual freedom that matters.
“One would not be constrained by the outside world if one’s mind is free,” she added.
The definition of liberty and human rights is entirely different from the freedom mentioned in Zhuangzi’s work. How could she mix them up?
It is little wonder that she does not care that China scored 9 out of 100 in Freedom House’s Freedom in the World report while Taiwan, a country unbearable to her, scored 94.
Her motherland is China, the one across the Taiwan Strait, which she referred to as “in my blood” and “a part of my life.”
Lee Hsiao-feng is an honorary professor at National Taipei University of Education.
Translated by Fion Khan
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