If he were alive today, famed Chinese intellectual, reformer and Chinese Communist Party co-founder Chen Duxiu (陳獨秀) would be impressed by the technological and economic advances that China has made, particularly since the demise of Mao Zedong (毛澤東). “Mr Science,” a term he made famous, has been served well. If, however, in this Olympic season, Chen were to talk to fellow intellectuals who did not fear to speak out against the leadership — and there are few such people on Chinese soil these days — he would surely be disturbed by the fate of Mr Science’s supposedly inseparable partner, “Mr Democracy.”
For most people, the Olympics are not about the individual sports, because most are forgotten about until the next Games roll around. They are not about gleaming infrastructure and temporary urban beautification, nor about the corporate impact of Games sponsors, nor even about the daily pollution index.
For most people the Olympics are about spectacle and emotion in top-class competition. And meaningful competition requires fairness, discipline and mutual respect.
In preparing these Games, China has invested extensively in infrastructure and security and even run campaigns teaching ordinary Beijing people how to act in a more “cultivated” manner. But in the process it has exploited undemocratic means to mistreat Chinese people not deemed worthy of fairness, discipline and respect: minorities, the unemployed, evictees, religious groups, illegally disenfranchised landowners and all the rest. And Beijing has shown precious little sign that it will change any of this out of association with the Olympic movement.
China’s ghastly and disgusting support for the tyrants in Sudan, Zimbabwe and Myanmar, despite the conspicuous suffering in those countries, could have derailed the Olympics. Only a disaster on the scale of the Sichuan earthquake could have salvaged any sense of sympathy for the Chinese agenda.
The Games may proceed without incident, though it is notable that the government has leapt at the opportunity to publicize a threat from Muslim extremists largely outside the country to smear the legitimate concerns of the Uighur people in Xinjiang.
Well-meaning Chinese have dreamed that the Games could help show China’s true face and earn the affection and respect of foreign visitors and athletes. Sadly for them, the true face has been shown. It started with grim paramilitary goons in blue tracksuits accompanying the Olympic torch on its embarrassing tour of democratic countries. And now the Games begin with broken promises on press freedom and shipping in party members to forcibly replace ordinary Chinese hoping to see the torch relay.
The paradox of China, it seems, will endure: It demands congratulation and recognition from the “one world” of the Olympic slogan for its achievements, but refuses to accept criticism for its failures and its degenerate aspects. “No interference in other countries’ internal affairs” is the other slogan: China wants everything and will concede nothing.
The conclusion can only be that today’s China is, in spirit, the same China that Lu Xun (魯迅) parodied in the first decades of last century: insecure, petulant, hypocritical, cynical and oppressive, despite seemingly limitless potential. In some ways, China may be devolving as new wealth and old power join hands to defend the political status quo and oppose reforms that would benefit all Chinese.
The authorities therefore must mask their refusal to meet the basic challenge underlying the opportunity they were granted in 2001: showing the world that China can have a civilized government.
So, let the spin begin.
Recently, the Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) published three of my articles on the US presidential election, which is to be held on Nov. 5. I would like to share my perspective on the intense and stalemated presidential election with the people of Taiwan, as well as Taiwanese and Chinese Americans in the US. The current consensus of both major US political parties is to counter China and protect Taiwan. However, I do not trust former US president Donald Trump. He has questioned the US’ commitment to defending Taiwan and explicitly stated the significant challenges involved in doing so. “Trump believes
The government is considering building a semiconductor cluster in Europe, specifically in the Czech Republic, to support Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) new fab in Dresden, Germany, and to help local companies explore new business opportunities there. Europe wants to ensure the security of its semiconductor sector, but a lack of comprehensive supply chains there could pose significant risks to semiconductor clusters. The Czech government is aggressively seeking to build its own semiconductor industry and showing strong interest in collaborating with Taiwanese companies. Executive Yuan Secretary-General Kung Ming-hsin (龔明鑫) on Friday said that Taiwan is optimistic about building a semiconductor cluster in
The Russian city of Vladivostok lies approximately 45km from the Sino-Russian border on the Sea of Japan. The area was not always Russian territory: It was once the site of a Chinese settlement. The settlement would later be known as Yongmingcheng (永明城), the “city of eternal light,” during the Yuan Dynasty. That light was extinguished in 1858 when a large area of land was ceded by the Qing Dynasty to the Russian Empire with the signing of the Treaty of Aigun. The People’s Republic of China founded by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has never ruled Taiwan. Taiwan was governed by the
Tomorrow marks 53 years since then-US secretary of state William Rogers on Sept. 8, 1971, sent a four-page note to then-minister of foreign affairs Chow Shu-kai (周書楷) informing him that the Republic of China’s (ROC) banishment from the UN at an upcoming UN resolution was all but certain. However, if Taiwan worked with the US, there was a chance the nation could stay in the organization as a member of the General Assembly, while the People’s Republic of China (PRC) took its Security Council seat. It was an opportunity that Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, based on