|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
December 2006 Mr. Ma Clears Up Doubts I would like to congratulate the REVIEW on its decision to invite Mr. Ma Ying-jeou to say what he earnestly thinks about Taiwan and its cross-Strait relations with China. Unfortunately there has been a lot of confusion surrounding Mr. Ma and his thought in this regard since he assumed chairmanship of the Kuomintang. Because apparently he is talking in the capacity of the KMT’s chairman instead of Taipei City’s mayor, I have to point out, as a citizen of Taipei and a Taiwanese national, a few stark facts contradictory to what Mr. Ma says here. Mr. Ma is a well-known supporter of the “ultimate goal of unification with China.” His constituency supports him for this reason. Therefore to trade away Taiwan’s sovereignty and independence for China’s withdrawal of 800 missiles, according to Mr. Ma’s “five dos,” merely serves the goal of unification. Mr. Ma also puts a lot of emphasis on Taiwan’s national defense in terms of his “two feet” policy. But it is precisely Mr Ma and his KMT who have not only backpedalled but also crippled and hamstrung Taiwan’s efforts to beef up its defense force. The pan-blue alliance led by the KMT in the parliament has blocked military purchases for the past six years. Even if these bills can be passed by Mr. Ma today, our boys in the military will still have to wait till 2016 for new weapons to defend their country and family. Comparing Mr. Ma’s remarks in the REVIEW to his deeds in Taipei betrays his real intentions and clears away so much misunderstanding. Samuel Wu Oh Puh-leeze Datuk Anwar Ibrahim’s November essay “Radical Islam in Southeast Asia” is full of the usual apologia for Islamic misbehavior that we have come to expect from a plethora of Muslim intellectuals, whether Arab or Asian. As usual, Mr. Anwar repeats the canard that the Palestine problem is due to Israeli and American intransigence alone. Thus, if only the Jews would just let the Palestinians alone, former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad of Malaysia would stop being an anti-Semite and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would undergo a radical transformation in which he could contemplate a Jewish state on the planet. Oh please. The source for Islamic bigotry and lack of tolerance is to be found within Islam and not in some “neo-Orientalist” writings by Clifford Geertz or Bernard Lewis. Peter Cohen Lost in Translation In her review of the novel The Banquet Bug, Leslie Hook mentions that some of character’s English names seem less than plausible, thereby compromising the book’s authenticity. Quite the contrary—I have lived in Shanghai on and off for 10 years and names like Steel and Ocean would not even make me blink. Some of the real-life characters that have entered my orbit have included Satan, Devil, Chanal, Prada and Pepsi. In fact, some are so amusing I now regret not keeping a notebook on the subject. In my view, Ms. Yan has captured one of the quirkiest fads in contemporary Chinese society with perfection. Some young people also change these names frequently, leading to introductions such as “You remember Gucci, formally known as Rocket.” China today is a bizarre place, you have to come live it to truly understand how impossible it is to comprehend. Susan Zhou Singapore Days I read with great interest the material posted on your Web site about the defamation lawsuits against you, and the articles on Singapore’s education system and Mr. Chee. Speaking as a Singaporean, I am heartened that unlike others you have not capitulated and have instead decided to soldier on. I wish you all the best, and will as a small token of my good wishes take up a subscription with your journal. Dawn Tan On the one hand, I am not convinced that press censorship is bad for Singapore. On the other hand, being a graduate student, I would like to see more open discussion between scholars in Singapore. I feel that a true intellect-oriented society is one that allows Platonic style discussions. An incorrect viewpoint should be corrected via dialogue, not via lawsuits. To instill fear among intellects to discuss freely is counter to Singapore’s dream of “intellect progress.” However, we can only move from the present widespread “free discussion censorship” to “more freedom in public discussions” slowly. I do not feel we have an intellectual foundation for this. I would like to give the present prime minister of my country more time to open the floodgates of intellectual freedom. At the same time, I fear that the government might shut these gates further as opposed to performing any form of calculated decision on how much intellectual freedom we deserve. I fear they may decide to become too conservative when making such decisions, which might hinder us from achieving as much as we are able to achieve. As such, I am content that the REVIEW is making a stand in the present lawsuit by Singapore. I think this is necessary in order to keep issues and policies related to “intellectual freedom” in Singapore in check. Sunil Sandhu With reference to the ban on the REVIEW by the Singaporean government, there is no question that the interview with Chee Soon Juan is defamatory. By the same line of reasoning perhaps the various staff of the REVIEW should all be classified as probable murderers because there has never been a proper audit of the cupboards in their respective properties. It is very disappointing that the REVIEW and a few journalists repeatedly choose to highlight unsubstantiated points made by Mr. Chee, whose popularity is questionable even among Singaporeans supporting the political alternative. It is a disturbing matter that the REVIEW, while professing to support a fully free democracy in Singapore, does not give sufficient coverage to opposition politicians like Chiam See Tong or Low Thia Khiang, who represent the real political alternative. Instead much attention is focused on fringe viewpoints. Research on the subject of lawsuits in Singapore shows that Mr. Chiam brought three members of the ruling party to court for libel. All three apologized and paid damages. The omission to mention this event naturally does not make any claim of balanced reporting a credible one. Perhaps the most sobering thought is this: It might be the view of the REVIEW that most Singaporeans sympathize with them on this issue. For Chiam See Tong and Low Thia Khiang they would and did before on the issue of political fairness with a street protest, but not for Chee Soon Juan. Get the hint yet? Patrick Lim Reading the October editor’s letter about the defamation lawsuit brought against the magazine, I strongly support your cause. By refusing to succumb under intense pressure from Lee Kuan Yew, you have achieved a huge success for the people of Singapore. Thank you for exposing such deeds which indeed shame Singapore despite our supposedly “squeaky-clean” image. It is now high time that the world recognizes what lies beneath the surface, a turmoil of unrest that is carefully suppressed by this oppressive regime. Thank you for providing an alternative perspective to a nation which has been drowning in nauseating praise. I wish you all the best and support you for the upcoming lawsuit. Ng Yiqin On the Merits I read Michael Barr’s October essay “The Charade of Meritocracy” with an absolutely open mind and was sadly disappointed by its empty conclusions. I found no evidence in the article of racial discrimination whatsoever. He paraded a long list of statistics which basically shows how well the Chinese have been doing in Singapore compared to the other races, and he concludes that this proves that discrimination exists in Singapore. This is simply a gross misinterpretation of the evidence! All that this shows is that the Chinese are doing better than the other races in Singapore. I am glad that Mr. Barr is not a policeman, otherwise he would just conclude that anyone standing next to a dead body must be a murderer. Dr. Jen Shek Wei By chance I saw the REVIEW’s October 2006 issue in the Flushing Library today. I was very amused that two Australian political scientists are sniping at “freedom” in Singapore. Australia is the most white racist country, next to South Africa under Botha. It can “lecture” Singapore? As a young man 30 years ago I was influenced by your magazine’s pseudo-intellectual hubris in Southeast Asia. I wonder whether the REVIEW has any more relevance. All the wealthy Asian countries did not follow the Western democratic models. Derek Davies and Ho Kwon Ping have long gone. When the REVIEW disappears from Asia, the white, democratic garbage will not be missed. Mr. Lee raised a communist-controlled swamp to First World status! Victor Ho I suggest an alternative postcolonial reading of Singapore’s policy to promote the teaching of Chinese, Tamil and Malay in schools. The promotion of these Asian languages was an attempt by a multiethnic state to prevent erosion of these languages, and the eventual loss of the ability of its citizens to speak their mother tongues. The Singapore project to develop these languages was really intended to ensure that English—the lingua franca of business, law and higher education—would not completely erase Mandarin, Tamil and Malay. Harish Mehta No ResultsPlease supply at least one search term. Advertise on feer.com and in FEER |
 |
 |
