2014年3月16日星期日
2011年11月28日星期一
TOEFL Essay #2
Should teachers reveal their political and social views in class?
Professors in universities or academia in other forms are widely supposed to be hopelessly neutral in classroom as it is widely believed that professors are supposed to present all different ideas in front of the audience. Their job has no components of presenting their personal standpoint while should try all means to guard the tendency of the academia becoming the game preserves of some theory or some views. However my contention is that professors should not be inhibited from revealing their political or social views in class.
Professors are human beings, plus they have the responsibility to “defend for the right so you can say, even I don’t agree with you”. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the professor should be a pointless person. It is to the very contrary that professors are nearly always the group of people who have the strongest points towards political events and social change. A common lecture of political science may be composed by a series of political theories from Machiavelli to Henry Kissinger with the comments from the professor. It may seem as if the professor didn’t present any tiny traces of his/her own view. But the truth is he/she actually penetrated the view into his/her comments which would root in the mind of the students and sometimes may do more harm than good. Think about a professor who’s strongly for invasion to other countries. After the lecture, a group of students who used to be fighters against war of any kind may be reshaped into pro-invasion after the course. Therefore, isn’t it much better if the professor’s allowed to announce his/her ideas clearly in the class? At least in the latter scenario, the students would be able to understand that there are possible biases before the lecture and they would be quite alerted.
It is true and has been argued by many that professors shouldn’t reveal their political views or social views because they are cultivating the future of the country and they should not contribute to the prevailing of any certain schools. Isn’t it true? Yes, it is. However, be free to speech is the fundamental rule of democracy. By stopping a professor from revealing his own idea in class, aren’t we trying to stop one kind of violence by conducting another kind? Professor and the whole academia should promote a comfortable and tolerant environment for the creation and growth of any ideas. It is their first and foremost responsibility. But it doesn’t necessarily stop them from showing the true them in front the public.
Yes. By allowing professors to speak out their own political and social ideas will bring some uncomfortable moments. But it is just by allowing them say it out that we are truly practicing democracy and open the possibility of discussion.
Professors in universities or academia in other forms are widely supposed to be hopelessly neutral in classroom as it is widely believed that professors are supposed to present all different ideas in front of the audience. Their job has no components of presenting their personal standpoint while should try all means to guard the tendency of the academia becoming the game preserves of some theory or some views. However my contention is that professors should not be inhibited from revealing their political or social views in class.
Professors are human beings, plus they have the responsibility to “defend for the right so you can say, even I don’t agree with you”. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the professor should be a pointless person. It is to the very contrary that professors are nearly always the group of people who have the strongest points towards political events and social change. A common lecture of political science may be composed by a series of political theories from Machiavelli to Henry Kissinger with the comments from the professor. It may seem as if the professor didn’t present any tiny traces of his/her own view. But the truth is he/she actually penetrated the view into his/her comments which would root in the mind of the students and sometimes may do more harm than good. Think about a professor who’s strongly for invasion to other countries. After the lecture, a group of students who used to be fighters against war of any kind may be reshaped into pro-invasion after the course. Therefore, isn’t it much better if the professor’s allowed to announce his/her ideas clearly in the class? At least in the latter scenario, the students would be able to understand that there are possible biases before the lecture and they would be quite alerted.
It is true and has been argued by many that professors shouldn’t reveal their political views or social views because they are cultivating the future of the country and they should not contribute to the prevailing of any certain schools. Isn’t it true? Yes, it is. However, be free to speech is the fundamental rule of democracy. By stopping a professor from revealing his own idea in class, aren’t we trying to stop one kind of violence by conducting another kind? Professor and the whole academia should promote a comfortable and tolerant environment for the creation and growth of any ideas. It is their first and foremost responsibility. But it doesn’t necessarily stop them from showing the true them in front the public.
Yes. By allowing professors to speak out their own political and social ideas will bring some uncomfortable moments. But it is just by allowing them say it out that we are truly practicing democracy and open the possibility of discussion.
TOEFL-Essay #1
I was required to accomplish two TOEFL essays within 25 mins. And here we go:
The idea that professors' appearance on TV creates Win-win situation for different stakeholders is widespread but the author presents her contention against the idea, claiming nobody would benefit from this game.
First of all, the professors don't benefit from this appearance from a professional standpoint. He/She might be considered as not being a serious researcher by fellow scholars. This will lead to worse results including that the professor may not be invited to important conferences, important meetings discussing the recent development of the discipline. The professor may even have trouble getting money for his/her research. Therefore, to show his/her face on TV, in many ways, has been regarded as a disadvantage in their career.
Secondly, time, the most sacred and important resources for a professional scholar would be largely invested for showing on TV. It doesn't only include the time of appearance on TV, but also the time preparing for the show, rehearsing, traveling and even the time spent on make-up. All the time wasted on this topic may have been invested on research, on university business, or on meeting with students. Therefore, to appear on TV will do no good to both university and students, letting alone the possible problems.
The third but not the least, is that the public who's supposed to be the main party benefited from this game would not at all. The TV wants no real knowledge. They want title rather than substance. The professor may be invited to give a small talk on the basics of some discipline or background introduction of the movie version of some historical events. This can absolutely be done by some TV reporter if they have done some homework.
The idea that professors' appearance on TV creates Win-win situation for different stakeholders is widespread but the author presents her contention against the idea, claiming nobody would benefit from this game.
First of all, the professors don't benefit from this appearance from a professional standpoint. He/She might be considered as not being a serious researcher by fellow scholars. This will lead to worse results including that the professor may not be invited to important conferences, important meetings discussing the recent development of the discipline. The professor may even have trouble getting money for his/her research. Therefore, to show his/her face on TV, in many ways, has been regarded as a disadvantage in their career.
Secondly, time, the most sacred and important resources for a professional scholar would be largely invested for showing on TV. It doesn't only include the time of appearance on TV, but also the time preparing for the show, rehearsing, traveling and even the time spent on make-up. All the time wasted on this topic may have been invested on research, on university business, or on meeting with students. Therefore, to appear on TV will do no good to both university and students, letting alone the possible problems.
The third but not the least, is that the public who's supposed to be the main party benefited from this game would not at all. The TV wants no real knowledge. They want title rather than substance. The professor may be invited to give a small talk on the basics of some discipline or background introduction of the movie version of some historical events. This can absolutely be done by some TV reporter if they have done some homework.
2010年1月2日星期六
Not Going Home
In July, 20-year-old Qian got his big break. Having attended one of the top 10 Chinese universities in China for the past two years, Qian decided he would study abroad for a year in the U.S. After just four months as a junior at Minnesota University, Qian has decided his career dreams in engineering can best be achieved in America and so he’s not returning to China – at least the foreseeable future.
Qian’s news came as a surprise during a phone conversation on Thanksgiving. Our “conversation” turned out to be his monologue about how awful Chinese universities are compared to their America’s.
“For the first time in my life I realized what it means to teach and to study,” he said. “My previous two years in college can be considered nonsense and guideless compared to the life I’ve had in the States. I realize now that the Chinese don’t care about you. They don’t provide anything to facilitate my chase for excellence. All they are doing is killing talent. Thereby, I’ve decided to extend my stay at the Minnesota University and probably become a total transfer and contribute to the U.S.”
As engineering major, Qian said he had all of the resources he could ever hope for to design his own circuit. In China, he reminded, this wouldn’t be the case as all the students are instructed to read and remember the rules in the textbooks.
Further, Qian shared his appreciation of having an advisor who consults with him about possible career paths. In China, students complain that they get little to no advice from faculty members, and they must figure out their career by themselves and hope for the best.
Coincidentally on the other side of the world, Qian’s complaints about limited possibilities in China were strikingly contrasted by 26 years old James’ decision to indefinitely extend his stay in China. In fact, China may be James’ final destination after taking an absence from school in the U.S. to travel. Holding his Chinese girlfriend tightly and smiling, James said that the opportunities afforded him as a student in Paris didn’t compare with his daily discoveries in Shanghai and the surrounding provinces which have become an adventure-land for his exploration,
Certainly Shanghai has undergone tremendous restructuring in preparation for the country’s hosting of the World Expo in 2010. Even I have to admit that the public transportation and city services are incredible and life in the city is now very convenient. “You see, you admit it” James and his girlfriend said, teasing me. “And we would love to stay here.”
So what are we to think about the Chinese citizen who never wants to return to China and the American citizen who only wants to spend the rest of his life in China? Their stories present a confusing picture of two different Chinas.
Qian, who comes from Liu Zhou (a small city in inland China) is like so many of China’s poor who live in underdeveloped cities and remote rural areas that do not provide even the most fundamental conveniences and services for their constituents. Life is so depressing for people living outside of the major cities that it doesn’t take a genius to want to leave for a better life. On the other hand, Shanghai is an exciting city, developing quickly and so it’s not hard to understand why visitors never want to leave.
But what makes James’ and Qian’s chosen paths particularly interesting is that most Chinese people don’t understand why foreigners want to live in China rather than their country of origin. While the global communities are talking about the century of China, the G2 and the annual growth rate of 8%, the Chinese people are talking about the corrupt Chinese government, the dying environment and the rotting social welfare system. In fact, most Chinese dream of leaving the country so their lives will be better and they can be free.
Surely if history has taught us anything it’s that we all need to find our own way and pursue our own dreams. History also teaches that unsustainable development doesn’t last long. The bubbles of glitz and glamour of Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen might seem to be exciting, but underneath the surface things are not what they seem for far too many people. When the majority of the country abandon their hope, no matter how big and fascinating the bubble is that has been produced, that bubble will eventually pop. Thereby the most important thing to keep in mind as we are dreaming of our better futures is not whether this is China’s century, but rather that our dreams should go beyond ourselves and help to feed the hungry, cloth the naked and free those who are oppressed.
2008年5月7日星期三
When Plato meets Confucius
Jiang Zemin, the former president of P.R.China went crazy to some journalists from Hong Kong in a meeting in 2000. The reason is quite simple. The “improper” journalists had asked again and again about the central government’s arrangement for next Chief Executive of Hong Kong Special Administration Region. It is widely known that that position should be assigned by Beijing, through the central government had long claimed that the Chief Executive had been selected through democratic election procedure. To ask this question publicly equals to split the gee string away and to announce the mass’s distrust towards the government drily.
In his “counter back” statement, there is an episode of words that is very interesting:
“Mr. Wallace (a journalist from Columbia broadcasting system, who has given President Jiang an interview when he was paying U.S. a state visit) is much better than you (the journalists from Hong Kong) all as journalists. I had such a great talk with him”
This statement indirectly answers two questions which have been under request since the crisis in Tibet happened in March:
Why have the western media, represented by CNN, which has a tradition and outstanding reputation as being objective and reasonable been so rude, so arrogant and so prejudiced in reporting the crisis and all the events happened in London and Paris?
Why have the Chinese people reacted so fiercely so quickly and as if they have been so mistreated?
These two questions have been raised firstly by a very famous critic in China—Mr. Qiu Zhenghai. President Jiang’s comment is not coincidental. To some extent, the Chinese history of twentieth-century is a process of becoming Americanized. On one hand, most of the top intelligences in twentieth century China have studied in America. Sun Yat-sen, who is George Washington of contemporary China, has complex and strong relation with America. On the other hand for a country which used to be the top one while has long lost that position, it is so common that they are thirsty to be the front runner and taking the super power—America as its standard. Gradually it becomes a habit and causes inferiority among the Chinese people. This inferiority causes the Chinese government used to behave trucklingly in front of other countries in order to please them. During the R.O.C era, the government can easily fire a chief editor in a private press in order to appease the anger of Japan. After 1949, the officials of the government even conduct this policy to each and every country indiscriminatively. The Filipino navy killed Chinese fishermen. All the media on the mainland China were forced to keep quite on this issue since Beijing wants to keep a “friendly atmosphere” for the coming state visit by the Philippine president. Thousands of Chinese Indonesian women were raped and hundreds of Chinese Indonesians were killed during the 1998 Indonesian crisis. Again it is prohibited to mention. Even today, it is kept sensitive in mainland China. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics propaganda there is a specific clause for the foreign journalists. This clause put the right and freedom of foreign journalists to a prior position. However on the other hand in order to make the illusion rooted into everyone’s mind that Beijing is widely respected and becomes a leader world-widely, all different voices are extremely forbidden around China. Nanfang City News, one of the tiny few newspapers, which dares to be honest, has been punished again and again. It has become very conservative now comparing to the first few years. Words have arrived that Hu Jia has been sentenced to three and a half years in jail. He has done nothing but speaking out his different voices from the central government’s point of view.
When you treat others as your lord how can you request them to treat you as a friend?
For a lot Chinese people, especially those abroad, it is very common that the western media makes fun of China and sometime Chinese people as well. No one really takes their report seriously. From a lot of people’s point of view, their reports are objective and reasonable when compared to the ones offered by Beijing. Compared to Jack Cafferty they are more lovely more like gentlemen and more tolerant. The biased reports by western media did raise some dissatisfaction among some people. During last meeting with Paulson before her retiring, vice Prime Minister Wu Yi complained that American media have been so mean to China and haven’t seen all the processes China has made and all the benefits America has gained during all these years negotiation.
However this time, everything’s changed. The Jack Cafferty’s have found themselves a wrong and tough enemy—China.
I was asked when I was in L.A. why Chinese people had taken Beijing Olympics so seriously. I was smiling and dragged along with it. How can I explain that Chinese people have taken it chance to get back their dignity? How can I explain that Chinese people know it so clearly that they have their root in their mother culture and the discrimination derived from “yellow peril” is still wondering around and they hope a successful Olympics can gain them respect and revise some stereotyped prejudice? In this context, China has no relation with communist party, has no relation with a Chinese’s nationality and only has relation to the culture. The Chinese culture might be one of those softest ones around the world and has been deeply hurt and tortured after 1949 but it has the most powerful strength in the universe. That is why when Beijing was still trying to compromise to the western media and some knavish NGOs the Chinese people stood up and formed a stream of power to protect “China”!
It is Labor Day holiday. I have received a lot emails and online messages appealing people to join the mass movement of boycotting Carrefour. On the other hand, authorities have blocked all the searching results about Carrefour one week ago. The authorities have sent out a lot cell phone text messages calling people to be reasonable when they are express patriotic mood. Beijing set out to make the illusion that everything was fine and nothing had happened before, again, after its meeting with the envoys from Europe, who had been shocked by the power of Chinese people.
I feel the mass has been treated again.
In his “counter back” statement, there is an episode of words that is very interesting:
“Mr. Wallace (a journalist from Columbia broadcasting system, who has given President Jiang an interview when he was paying U.S. a state visit) is much better than you (the journalists from Hong Kong) all as journalists. I had such a great talk with him”
This statement indirectly answers two questions which have been under request since the crisis in Tibet happened in March:
Why have the western media, represented by CNN, which has a tradition and outstanding reputation as being objective and reasonable been so rude, so arrogant and so prejudiced in reporting the crisis and all the events happened in London and Paris?
Why have the Chinese people reacted so fiercely so quickly and as if they have been so mistreated?
These two questions have been raised firstly by a very famous critic in China—Mr. Qiu Zhenghai. President Jiang’s comment is not coincidental. To some extent, the Chinese history of twentieth-century is a process of becoming Americanized. On one hand, most of the top intelligences in twentieth century China have studied in America. Sun Yat-sen, who is George Washington of contemporary China, has complex and strong relation with America. On the other hand for a country which used to be the top one while has long lost that position, it is so common that they are thirsty to be the front runner and taking the super power—America as its standard. Gradually it becomes a habit and causes inferiority among the Chinese people. This inferiority causes the Chinese government used to behave trucklingly in front of other countries in order to please them. During the R.O.C era, the government can easily fire a chief editor in a private press in order to appease the anger of Japan. After 1949, the officials of the government even conduct this policy to each and every country indiscriminatively. The Filipino navy killed Chinese fishermen. All the media on the mainland China were forced to keep quite on this issue since Beijing wants to keep a “friendly atmosphere” for the coming state visit by the Philippine president. Thousands of Chinese Indonesian women were raped and hundreds of Chinese Indonesians were killed during the 1998 Indonesian crisis. Again it is prohibited to mention. Even today, it is kept sensitive in mainland China. In the 2008 Beijing Olympics propaganda there is a specific clause for the foreign journalists. This clause put the right and freedom of foreign journalists to a prior position. However on the other hand in order to make the illusion rooted into everyone’s mind that Beijing is widely respected and becomes a leader world-widely, all different voices are extremely forbidden around China. Nanfang City News, one of the tiny few newspapers, which dares to be honest, has been punished again and again. It has become very conservative now comparing to the first few years. Words have arrived that Hu Jia has been sentenced to three and a half years in jail. He has done nothing but speaking out his different voices from the central government’s point of view.
When you treat others as your lord how can you request them to treat you as a friend?
For a lot Chinese people, especially those abroad, it is very common that the western media makes fun of China and sometime Chinese people as well. No one really takes their report seriously. From a lot of people’s point of view, their reports are objective and reasonable when compared to the ones offered by Beijing. Compared to Jack Cafferty they are more lovely more like gentlemen and more tolerant. The biased reports by western media did raise some dissatisfaction among some people. During last meeting with Paulson before her retiring, vice Prime Minister Wu Yi complained that American media have been so mean to China and haven’t seen all the processes China has made and all the benefits America has gained during all these years negotiation.
However this time, everything’s changed. The Jack Cafferty’s have found themselves a wrong and tough enemy—China.
I was asked when I was in L.A. why Chinese people had taken Beijing Olympics so seriously. I was smiling and dragged along with it. How can I explain that Chinese people have taken it chance to get back their dignity? How can I explain that Chinese people know it so clearly that they have their root in their mother culture and the discrimination derived from “yellow peril” is still wondering around and they hope a successful Olympics can gain them respect and revise some stereotyped prejudice? In this context, China has no relation with communist party, has no relation with a Chinese’s nationality and only has relation to the culture. The Chinese culture might be one of those softest ones around the world and has been deeply hurt and tortured after 1949 but it has the most powerful strength in the universe. That is why when Beijing was still trying to compromise to the western media and some knavish NGOs the Chinese people stood up and formed a stream of power to protect “China”!
It is Labor Day holiday. I have received a lot emails and online messages appealing people to join the mass movement of boycotting Carrefour. On the other hand, authorities have blocked all the searching results about Carrefour one week ago. The authorities have sent out a lot cell phone text messages calling people to be reasonable when they are express patriotic mood. Beijing set out to make the illusion that everything was fine and nothing had happened before, again, after its meeting with the envoys from Europe, who had been shocked by the power of Chinese people.
I feel the mass has been treated again.
2007年12月12日星期三
New essay about Taiwan
Taiwan - Up For Grabs?
By Jack R. Huang, China
On the surface, Taiwan presents a complicated issue for the people who live there. Most Taiwanese believe that should Taiwan and the China reunify they will lose their freedom.
The U.S. has gone to great political length to try and preserve Taiwan's independent state status. In fact, many argue that America has little interest in this area of the world other than to make Taiwan a model of democracy for Mainland China, and even the world.
"Is it in America's best interest to keep this tension going? If America allows Taiwan to reunify with the Mainland, it may experience economic repercussions in East Asia but in the end America will gain a friend in the Chinese people. If America supports Taiwan's independence, it will lose much more." -Jack Huang
But beneath the surface of Taiwan's future is history's footprint which presents a complicated picture of other interested parties that want a stake in the country.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of the first to recognize Taiwan's immeasurable value to America. He compared the island to a super aircraft carrier for America because of where it is situated strategically.
Eisenhower was prescient. After World War II, Taiwan became of immense importance to America because it could be that super aircraft carrier that would prevent communism from spreading outside of China. Taiwan became part of a chain of islands or the First Archipelago of West Pacific.
And to protect Japan from capitulating to either Chinese or Russian Communist forces, the U.S. gave the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Island (Senkaku Island) "back" to Japan so that they a barrier of protection could exist in and beyond the Taiwan Strait. The Archipelago would provide protection to the allied forces by serving as outposts to help them intercept any attacks perpetrated by the Soviet Union or China.
While these are historical issues their relevance is nonetheless important today. The U.S. has maintained tensions in the region on purpose, and these tensions have caused a lot of friction in U.S. - Chinese relations. In fact, many people in China believe that the only way China and Taiwan can work out a peaceful result is if the U.S. is involved. As such, many Chinese feel as though the their future exists under the shadow of America.
But is it in America's best interest to keep this tension going? If America allows Taiwan to reunify with the Mainland, it may experience economic repercussions in East Asia but in the end America will gain a friend in the Chinese people. If America supports Taiwan's independence, it will lose much more.
But America is not the only contender hoping to determine Taiwan's future. Japan has been an extremely important stakeholder, too. For 50 years prior to 1945, Taiwan was a Japanese colony. Today Japan wants Taiwan back - if only to strategically hold China back.
Japan sees China's economic prowess as being extremely threatening and it is concerned that its own position within the Asian economy will be marginalized. The only solution? Batten down China in her cradle.
With the U.S. and Japan in their court vying for their future, many Taiwanese believe that the Mainland will not dare to use military power against them. But there might be a cost to having American and Japanese garrisons ready and waiting to protect Taiwan, allowing it to remain a sovereign democratic state.
Certainly if the Japanese have their way they would want control over the ship routes in the southern hemisphere. And how would that occur? Japan might use Taiwan as a springboard to threaten Hong Kong, the Philippines and Indonesia.
There's no question that profit on these high seas supersedes most global relationships and could even drive war. And as China becomes a major economic competitor of the US, Taiwan's status becomes even more interesting, and its future more clouded.
Could Taiwan ever be the model for China to grow a civil society? I don't think so. China needs a strong central government to rule over its 1.4 billion citizens who are spread out over 9.6 million square kilometers. It's not that China can't become democratic but to do so it needs to become a civil society.
A very famous diplomat from Taiwan by the name of Hu Weizhen once said that the Taiwan issue is definitely not an international concern. The Taiwanese people are Chinese. Therefore, foreign countries have no business intervening in Taiwan's future. Any foreign intervention only raises instability in the region. The best solution is to try and promote the idea that China is not two countries as Taiwan is not a country whose future can be bought by the highest bidder.
By Jack R. Huang, China
On the surface, Taiwan presents a complicated issue for the people who live there. Most Taiwanese believe that should Taiwan and the China reunify they will lose their freedom.
The U.S. has gone to great political length to try and preserve Taiwan's independent state status. In fact, many argue that America has little interest in this area of the world other than to make Taiwan a model of democracy for Mainland China, and even the world.
"Is it in America's best interest to keep this tension going? If America allows Taiwan to reunify with the Mainland, it may experience economic repercussions in East Asia but in the end America will gain a friend in the Chinese people. If America supports Taiwan's independence, it will lose much more." -Jack Huang
But beneath the surface of Taiwan's future is history's footprint which presents a complicated picture of other interested parties that want a stake in the country.
President Dwight D. Eisenhower was one of the first to recognize Taiwan's immeasurable value to America. He compared the island to a super aircraft carrier for America because of where it is situated strategically.
Eisenhower was prescient. After World War II, Taiwan became of immense importance to America because it could be that super aircraft carrier that would prevent communism from spreading outside of China. Taiwan became part of a chain of islands or the First Archipelago of West Pacific.
And to protect Japan from capitulating to either Chinese or Russian Communist forces, the U.S. gave the Ryukyu Islands and Diaoyu Island (Senkaku Island) "back" to Japan so that they a barrier of protection could exist in and beyond the Taiwan Strait. The Archipelago would provide protection to the allied forces by serving as outposts to help them intercept any attacks perpetrated by the Soviet Union or China.
While these are historical issues their relevance is nonetheless important today. The U.S. has maintained tensions in the region on purpose, and these tensions have caused a lot of friction in U.S. - Chinese relations. In fact, many people in China believe that the only way China and Taiwan can work out a peaceful result is if the U.S. is involved. As such, many Chinese feel as though the their future exists under the shadow of America.
But is it in America's best interest to keep this tension going? If America allows Taiwan to reunify with the Mainland, it may experience economic repercussions in East Asia but in the end America will gain a friend in the Chinese people. If America supports Taiwan's independence, it will lose much more.
But America is not the only contender hoping to determine Taiwan's future. Japan has been an extremely important stakeholder, too. For 50 years prior to 1945, Taiwan was a Japanese colony. Today Japan wants Taiwan back - if only to strategically hold China back.
Japan sees China's economic prowess as being extremely threatening and it is concerned that its own position within the Asian economy will be marginalized. The only solution? Batten down China in her cradle.
With the U.S. and Japan in their court vying for their future, many Taiwanese believe that the Mainland will not dare to use military power against them. But there might be a cost to having American and Japanese garrisons ready and waiting to protect Taiwan, allowing it to remain a sovereign democratic state.
Certainly if the Japanese have their way they would want control over the ship routes in the southern hemisphere. And how would that occur? Japan might use Taiwan as a springboard to threaten Hong Kong, the Philippines and Indonesia.
There's no question that profit on these high seas supersedes most global relationships and could even drive war. And as China becomes a major economic competitor of the US, Taiwan's status becomes even more interesting, and its future more clouded.
Could Taiwan ever be the model for China to grow a civil society? I don't think so. China needs a strong central government to rule over its 1.4 billion citizens who are spread out over 9.6 million square kilometers. It's not that China can't become democratic but to do so it needs to become a civil society.
A very famous diplomat from Taiwan by the name of Hu Weizhen once said that the Taiwan issue is definitely not an international concern. The Taiwanese people are Chinese. Therefore, foreign countries have no business intervening in Taiwan's future. Any foreign intervention only raises instability in the region. The best solution is to try and promote the idea that China is not two countries as Taiwan is not a country whose future can be bought by the highest bidder.
2007年10月9日星期二
China,a milestone which can't get rid of
China,a milestone which can't get rid of
By Jack R.Huang
Myanmar!Myanmar!!Myanmar!!!
Myanmar is becoming a new hot issue around the world.Media has been paying higher and closer attention to it day after day since the democratic parade broke out and especially since President Bush and Minister Brown respectively gave speech supporting the democratic movement in Myanmar.In their speech,China is a highlight point.Then all the democratic fighters around the world put their fire towards China.
China is walking on the edge of a cliff.
If China doesn't take any action,it will be criticized as less-responsible.But if she does everything that western countries desire, China will move more forward towards the position of regional policeman for America.Apparently China would not opt either one.But the tons of thousands of media reports have given us an impression that China should bear the hugest part of responsibility if we can not resolve Myanmar issue properly.
Strategically comparing with Iran and Iraq Myanmar are not so important in the version of America and other western countries.The purpose is to hold back China.
First of all let's check out what China has done to improve the situation in Myanmar.In early July this year,China succeeded host the negotiation between higher officers from US and Myanmar.In late last month,China helped the special envoy of UN to get Visa to enter Myanmar.That is almost the only way we have now to get in touch with Aung San Suu Kyi.Then at last it is widely believed that it is the pressure from Chinese government that caused Myanmar military government keep restraint for more than one month.
Now,different interest groups are asking China again and again to express their attitude to this event and to do more.I never doubt that there are some organizations do concern the human rights situation in Myanmar but I do doubt that how many of them do so for they care but not for their fame or even just to play some cheap lip service.
In the map we can notice that because of Everest Mountain,Myanmar is the only overland tunnel between Southern and Eastern Asia.What's more,for China which is building a petrol pipeline though Myanmar,it means a possibility of getting rid of Malacca Strait which is among the surround of American garrison.Because of this interest relation,Beijing keeps a close relation between Naypyidaw since 1950s.Everybody presume that China has absolute impression upon Myanmar,though it is not true.And the truth is the more they pushed China publicly the worse the result can turn out. The military government can become very sensitive and suspicious to every movement and announcement made by Beijing and judge if it is for their own interests or not by their own standard. The direct result is that there will be very little room for China to mediate and coordinate all different interest groups.As China is one of the only few countries that have normal relation with Myanmar.It will only cause the things more and more complicated and hard to deal with.
The primer for this protest demonstration is that the military government of Myanmar raised the price of most of the petrol product without informing the public.As the development of the movement,the public asked for more from the military government,including democracy.From my perspective it is a very normal "revolution".This year nearly all the eastern Asia countries have suffered a lot from the growing oil price.Indonesia government even doubled its Berget for petrol subsidy.
After the military government publishing the new petrol price,a lot of Burmese have to walk to work for they can bear the new price for bus ticket.Some of them have even to pledge to survive.Myanmar is a country founded on Buddhism.All the male citizen has to renunciate at least once in their life or he would be looked down upon by the society.Buddhism may be the religion in the world emphasis peace most.No matter how poor a family is,the Burmese family would prepare the best and the most they can to support the monks from temple.Poor as Myanmar is now,temple bears a lot of duty of public education.Actually the largest free school in Myanmar is founded by a famous monk in which youngsters study and being cultivated according to Buddhist doctrine.All in all Buddhism and monk are respected by the whole society.
I noticed that the declaration of American and European authorities sounds as if they are speaking with and for justice or even as if they are justice.Are they really so clear?Who is it that made Myanmar under economic sanctions?It is America and European countries!It is them that help to make the richest country in eastern Asia in 1950 to one of the poorest in the world in 2007.The poor economy directly causes a poor education system.A poorly cultivated public can never be a base for civil society.Without a base for civil society,I can't see the possibility of a democratic country.
Beijing is a milestone, which we can't get rid of if we want to resolve Myanmar problem.
As the interest relation I mentioned above,the attempt to resolve Myanmar problem without Beijing can only give Beijing the motive to worsen the situation in Myanmar.We need to make it aware to Beijing that supporting an military will cause endless problems in the long-term and the short-term benefit can't make it up comparing the long-run cost.We can find evidence from the cold war history.However we should figure out a way so that we can found a democratic government while we can keep some of China's interest in Myanmar. Secondly we need to realize that beside the corruption part,Myanmar military government fight with all different gangster parties.Ironically to some extent the military government is the key element of peace.Thereby we can know that in a considerable time we need to maintain military power in Myanmar.Based on these two points,I'm bold to raise my thoughts.That is to let China and other ASEAN countries form a peace keeping power.Intead of the military government we use this army to keep the peace of Myanmar.Under the guard of this army we begin the building of a new democratic government.Then after the democratic government can run smoothly they can build up their own military power.
By Jack R.Huang
Myanmar!Myanmar!!Myanmar!!!
Myanmar is becoming a new hot issue around the world.Media has been paying higher and closer attention to it day after day since the democratic parade broke out and especially since President Bush and Minister Brown respectively gave speech supporting the democratic movement in Myanmar.In their speech,China is a highlight point.Then all the democratic fighters around the world put their fire towards China.
China is walking on the edge of a cliff.
If China doesn't take any action,it will be criticized as less-responsible.But if she does everything that western countries desire, China will move more forward towards the position of regional policeman for America.Apparently China would not opt either one.But the tons of thousands of media reports have given us an impression that China should bear the hugest part of responsibility if we can not resolve Myanmar issue properly.
Strategically comparing with Iran and Iraq Myanmar are not so important in the version of America and other western countries.The purpose is to hold back China.
First of all let's check out what China has done to improve the situation in Myanmar.In early July this year,China succeeded host the negotiation between higher officers from US and Myanmar.In late last month,China helped the special envoy of UN to get Visa to enter Myanmar.That is almost the only way we have now to get in touch with Aung San Suu Kyi.Then at last it is widely believed that it is the pressure from Chinese government that caused Myanmar military government keep restraint for more than one month.
Now,different interest groups are asking China again and again to express their attitude to this event and to do more.I never doubt that there are some organizations do concern the human rights situation in Myanmar but I do doubt that how many of them do so for they care but not for their fame or even just to play some cheap lip service.
In the map we can notice that because of Everest Mountain,Myanmar is the only overland tunnel between Southern and Eastern Asia.What's more,for China which is building a petrol pipeline though Myanmar,it means a possibility of getting rid of Malacca Strait which is among the surround of American garrison.Because of this interest relation,Beijing keeps a close relation between Naypyidaw since 1950s.Everybody presume that China has absolute impression upon Myanmar,though it is not true.And the truth is the more they pushed China publicly the worse the result can turn out. The military government can become very sensitive and suspicious to every movement and announcement made by Beijing and judge if it is for their own interests or not by their own standard. The direct result is that there will be very little room for China to mediate and coordinate all different interest groups.As China is one of the only few countries that have normal relation with Myanmar.It will only cause the things more and more complicated and hard to deal with.
The primer for this protest demonstration is that the military government of Myanmar raised the price of most of the petrol product without informing the public.As the development of the movement,the public asked for more from the military government,including democracy.From my perspective it is a very normal "revolution".This year nearly all the eastern Asia countries have suffered a lot from the growing oil price.Indonesia government even doubled its Berget for petrol subsidy.
After the military government publishing the new petrol price,a lot of Burmese have to walk to work for they can bear the new price for bus ticket.Some of them have even to pledge to survive.Myanmar is a country founded on Buddhism.All the male citizen has to renunciate at least once in their life or he would be looked down upon by the society.Buddhism may be the religion in the world emphasis peace most.No matter how poor a family is,the Burmese family would prepare the best and the most they can to support the monks from temple.Poor as Myanmar is now,temple bears a lot of duty of public education.Actually the largest free school in Myanmar is founded by a famous monk in which youngsters study and being cultivated according to Buddhist doctrine.All in all Buddhism and monk are respected by the whole society.
I noticed that the declaration of American and European authorities sounds as if they are speaking with and for justice or even as if they are justice.Are they really so clear?Who is it that made Myanmar under economic sanctions?It is America and European countries!It is them that help to make the richest country in eastern Asia in 1950 to one of the poorest in the world in 2007.The poor economy directly causes a poor education system.A poorly cultivated public can never be a base for civil society.Without a base for civil society,I can't see the possibility of a democratic country.
Beijing is a milestone, which we can't get rid of if we want to resolve Myanmar problem.
As the interest relation I mentioned above,the attempt to resolve Myanmar problem without Beijing can only give Beijing the motive to worsen the situation in Myanmar.We need to make it aware to Beijing that supporting an military will cause endless problems in the long-term and the short-term benefit can't make it up comparing the long-run cost.We can find evidence from the cold war history.However we should figure out a way so that we can found a democratic government while we can keep some of China's interest in Myanmar. Secondly we need to realize that beside the corruption part,Myanmar military government fight with all different gangster parties.Ironically to some extent the military government is the key element of peace.Thereby we can know that in a considerable time we need to maintain military power in Myanmar.Based on these two points,I'm bold to raise my thoughts.That is to let China and other ASEAN countries form a peace keeping power.Intead of the military government we use this army to keep the peace of Myanmar.Under the guard of this army we begin the building of a new democratic government.Then after the democratic government can run smoothly they can build up their own military power.
订阅：
评论 (Atom)