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
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS