‘Burma’ vs ‘Myanmar’
“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet).
In a recent article I wrote to the editor (Letters, April 14, page 8) I was dismayed to find that the Taipei Times took the liberty of changing the name “Burma” to “Myanmar.”
Indeed, what is in a name? A name ensured a tragic end to the famous young lovers Romeo and Juliet in their quest for love.
A difference in opinion over the name of “Macedonia” guaranteed ongoing disputes between Macedonia and Greece.
A “minority”-like name promised a lifetime of discrimination for thousands of Blacks, Irish and Jews throughout the US and Europe up until the early 20th century (and even today in certain areas).
Enforced name changes saw the humiliation and cultural genocide of Aborigines everywhere, and the “wrong” names linked to a certain caste or class guaranteed a lifetime of suffering in much of South Asia.
In the case of Taiwan, the name that is selected for the country impacts on its right to participate in international organizations and its very right to existence as an independent, sovereign state.
The recent name change of the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall to today’s National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall certainly saw plenty of controversy.
The official name of Burma today is the “Union of Myanmar.” This was passed in 1989 by the current Burmese junta, a political act intended to justify its rule and its xenophobic, anti-West attitude.
Though many of its allies recognize this name change, some of the world’s more prominent states such as the US and the UK continue to use the name “Burma.” Even today, the US embassy on University Road in Rangoon/Yangon proudly refers to itself as the Embassy of the United States, Union of Burma.
Many non-governmental organizations and pressure groups, as well as human rights and democracy activists, also choose to recognize “Burma” and not “Myanmar.”
This is an important issue, as referring to the state as Burma guaranteed the recognition of the sovereignty and independence of the Burmese state, but not of its repressive, backward and shameful military junta.
Just as the term “Chinese Taipei” is derogatory to the 23 million people of Taiwan, and just as vice president-elect Vincent Siew’s (蕭萬長) attendance at the recent Boao Forum in his capacity as a civilian chairman of the Cross-Straits Common Market Foundation was a very conscious but misguided choice, the Taipei Times’ changing of “Burma” to “Myanmar” is a disappointing, misguided and political action, which I believe is unwarranted and beyond the scope of its “reservations to edit, change, or condense” for the benefit of the paper.
For a paper dedicated to progressive, democratic ideals, I truly hope the Taipei Times will at least respect the rights of its readers when publishing their letters.
Roger Lee Huang
Taipei
Why the US should invite Ma
I enjoyed reading the letter “Go West, Mr Ma” (Letters, March 29, page 8).
The thought-provoking idea that Li Chen-ching proposed coincides with the latest development in cross-strait relations, in which vice president-elect Vincent Siew met with Chinese President Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) and former US secretary of state Colin Powell during the recent Boao Forum in Hainan.
The optimistic comments of Mr Li and Mr Powell have inspired me to point out that Taiwan’s democracy has shed new light on China.
And it is time that the US employed a pragmatic strategy to ensure multilateral harmony by allowing president-elect Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) to visit the US in a low key manner before his inauguration.
Ma’s overwhelming victory has served as a beacon of hope for the development of democracy in China.
A man with a global vision and decent qualities for a leader, Ma has been well received by the majority of the Chinese in China, including even the leaders there.
To cement a win-win-win situation in the Asia-Pacific region, the US should seriously regard Ma’s visit as a plus for everyone and therefore invite him for an informal visit as soon as possible.
Nina Hsu
Taipei
For three years and three months, Taiwan’s bid to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) has remained stalled. On Nov. 29, members meeting in Vancouver agreed to establish a working group for Costa Rica’s entry — the fifth applicant in line — but not for Taiwan. As Taiwan’s prospects for CPTPP membership fade due to “politically sensitive issues,” what strategy should it adopt to overcome this politically motivated economic exclusion? The situation is not entirely dim; these challenges offer an opportunity to reimagine the export-driven country’s international trade strategy. Following the US’ withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Two major Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-People’s Liberation Army (PLA) power demonstrations in November 2024 highlight the urgency for Taiwan to pursue a military buildup and deterrence agenda that can take back control of its destiny. First, the CCP-PLA’s planned future for Taiwan of war, bloody suppression, and use as a base for regional aggression was foreshadowed by the 9th and largest PLA-Russia Joint Bomber Exercise of Nov. 29 and 30. It was double that of previous bomber exercises, with both days featuring combined combat strike groups of PLA Air Force and Russian bombers escorted by PLAAF and Russian fighters, airborne early warning
Since the end of former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) administration, the Ma Ying-jeou Foundation has taken Taiwanese students to visit China and invited Chinese students to Taiwan. Ma calls those activities “cross-strait exchanges,” yet the trips completely avoid topics prohibited by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), such as democracy, freedom and human rights — all of which are universal values. During the foundation’s most recent Chinese student tour group, a Fudan University student used terms such as “China, Taipei” and “the motherland” when discussing Taiwan’s recent baseball victory. The group’s visit to Zhongshan Girls’ High School also received prominent coverage in
India and China have taken a significant step toward disengagement of their military troops after reaching an agreement on the long-standing disputes in the Galwan Valley. For government officials and policy experts, this move is welcome, signaling the potential resolution of the enduring border issues between the two countries. However, it is crucial to consider the potential impact of this disengagement on India’s relationship with Taiwan. Over the past few years, there have been important developments in India-Taiwan relations, including exchanges between heads of state soon after Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s third electoral victory. This raises the pressing question:
RSS