正文
新加坡英文報紙的藏獨文章，大家要奪回話語權呀
這篇文章是28日，刊登在新加坡發行量最大的一個英文報紙today 上麵的讀者來信。此封來信是對上個禮拜文章 Tibet: an Ambiguous Case的回複。
Tibet: an Ambiguous（meaning : unclear） Case （April 26-27（是和版，周末隻出一期）），一文引用了大量一名新加坡國大中國教授對西藏比較客觀的看法。這篇文章現在在網上已經找不到了 。去 today的網站上，發行當天的文章中，隻可以看見文章的標題，可是文章的連接已經被去掉。而別的文章都可以瀏覽。估計，報紙害怕此事愈演愈烈，決定 close case. 畢竟，新加坡的老外很多。不明真相，同情藏獨得人也多。
如果這樣，就意味著新加坡的主流英文媒體，承認中國政府在西藏侵犯人權，支持藏獨！
此文章完全不承認中國政府對西藏做出的貢獻。反而，羅列了一新可笑的事實。希望各位大蝦不惜筆墨，貢獻自己的力量。我們不可應讓，英文媒體上充滿 傲慢與偏見！縱容他們去愚弄，普通的老百姓！
注意事項，
1。我們的目的，是被發表。去讓奪回話語權給事實。一切應以此為核心。
2。注意措辭，絕對不要用侮辱性言語。用詞柔和。當然這不是將我們的意思也要柔和。不要用很強的字眼。以理服人。
3。注意投稿質量，如果不能用英文寫出一份衡有說服力的文章。大家就不要投稿了。畢竟這不是什麽國外的forum。出出主意，獻些力。我的文章已經寫了一部分了，如果沒有合適的文章，我會收集大家的意見，直到禮拜三晚上。暫定禮拜四發出去。
4. 暫時不可以進入網站找到鏈接，明天補上。
5。 我會在 網，文學城， 天涯，anti-cnn 發帖。
投稿地址：news@newstoday.com.sg
身在國外，深感中國政治話語權的喪失。在西方，中國政府沒有一點公信力。除非去過中國，否則少有西方人，相信中國發生的變化。中國媒體的話語，隻在講經濟的時候才會被用到！！！而不管哪個國家的英文媒體，都是被西方主流媒體的新聞所占據！！！
We will make the world hear our voice!!! if they do not want to broadcast the truth, listen our voice, then we will get them to china, and tell him our feeling!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Monday, April 28, 2008. page 14, world news,
- Hide quoted text -
Tibet: The Other Side
John Whalen-Bridge
I read the commentary by Venessa Lee Tibet: an Ambiguous Case (April 26-27) with great interest, as I\'ve been studying the ways in which this prominent issue has been covered differently by the news media of different countries.
.
As Ms Lee states in her opening paragraph, the heady stuff of nationalism often conceals a battle over history, and a determination to gloss over unpalatable truths. Accounts from opposed directions contradict each other completely, and sometimes, the final impression is that the issue is ambiguous.
.
Ambiguities, gray areas, uncertainties and muddles exist in the world, and they ought to be described clearly when we think about a problem so that we can clarify to ourselves the difference between what we call facts and what we think of as a bone of contention.
.
If two puppies are chasing after the same bone, we can\'t say yet which puppy owns the bone, and Tibet is certainly an international bone of contention, and your article gives some of the reasons.
.
Some parts, though, settled for ambiguity too quickly and so, call for response.
.
The article, in several instances, disparages pro-Tibet points of view by associating such views mainly with Western Shangri-la fantasies, and the accounts of Chinese involvement in Tibetan-speaking regions of the world are rather forgiving.
.
Tibetant political prisoners are now thought to number in the hundreds ... but fewer than 200 ... where they once numbered in the thousands. We can ask how one would know, but the claim, in any event, is rather astonishing in light of recent news coverage.
.
The quotation from my colleague at the National University of Singapore, Dr Bo Zhiyue, regarding the Dalai Lama, is one that really made me do a double-take and wonder if there has been some mistake in the quotation. The claim that ordinary people in Tibet don\'t care about independence is astonishing to anyone who has a television.
.
To say They were liberated, I don\'t think they want to go back, as Dr Bo was quoted as saying, implies that the game plan of the Tibetan government in exile is to turn back the clock to 1900 and bring in cruel punishments, feudalism, et cetera.
.
I would challenge Dr Bo to find statements from the Dalai Lama or any of his representatives in which he expresses the wish to return to life exactly as it was. Rather, he has said innumerable times that his intention as a newly-installed young leader was to modernise the country.
.
To say Some people in the West are supporting the Dalai Lama because of his image — he\'s like a smiling Buddha. Their support is based on ignorance, they know nothing about Tibetan history, they don\'t even know where Tibet is.
.
Researchers in the Mind-Science project, including Emotional Intelligence author Daniel Goleman and Paul Eknath, have frequently commented on their interaction with the Dalai Lama, saying that he tends to express the full range of human emotions within the space of a vigorous debate but that he does not get caught up in a cycle of anger.
.
In this sense, the Dalai Lama is a role model for many people — a smiling Buddha, if you like. But Dr Bo seems to want to dismiss this idea of a smiling Buddha as a childish fantasy, saying that the West, en bloc, supports this smiling Buddha out of ignorance. The comments are offensive in many ways, and I\'m left wondering what expertise Dr Bo has brought to the discussion.
.
As a Westerner, I can tell Dr Bo where Tibet is: It is between China and India, and its situation as a geopolitical buffer zone has caused Tibetan people much grief. If Dr Bo wants to say I don\'t know where Tibet is, he can say I am wrong, that there is nothing between India and China, since Tibet is part of China. He can say that, but he would be referring to a difference of opinion about the status of Tibet, and to categorically state that views different from one\'s own are ignorance is impolite and inaccurate.
.
To say that the Dalai Lama wants to drag Tibet back to some medieval period in its own history is simply false, and anyone with access to a library or the Internet can resolve the point.
.
Demonising people with whom one disagrees signifies lack of confidence more than anything else, and China\'s recent willingness to hold some sort of talks with the Dalai Lama\'s representatives perhaps demonstrates a recognition that the demonisation strategy isn\'t working.
.
I\'d be very surprised if Today published quotations from Western academics saying that all Chinese people felt one particular way, especially if an insulting word such as ignorance were used. I write in hopes that my view can also be presented.
.
The writer is an Associate Professor of the English Language and Literature and Convenor of Religious Studies at the National University of Singapore.
這篇文章是28日，刊登在新加坡發行量最大的一個英文報紙today 上麵的讀者來信。此封來信是對上個禮拜文章 Tibet: an Ambiguous Case的回複。
Tibet: an Ambiguous（meaning : unclear） Case （April 26-27（是和版，周末隻出一期）），一文引用了大量一名新加坡國大中國教授對西藏比較客觀的看法。這篇文章現在在網上已經找不到了 。去 today的網站上，發行當天的文章中，隻可以看見文章的標題，可是文章的連接已經被去掉。而別的文章都可以瀏覽。估計，報紙害怕此事愈演愈烈，決定 close case. 畢竟，新加坡的老外很多。不明真相，同情藏獨得人也多。
如果這樣，就意味著新加坡的主流英文媒體，承認中國政府在西藏侵犯人權，支持藏獨！
此文章完全不承認中國政府對西藏做出的貢獻。反而，羅列了一新可笑的事實。希望各位大蝦不惜筆墨，貢獻自己的力量。我們不可應讓，英文媒體上充滿 傲慢與偏見！縱容他們去愚弄，普通的老百姓！
注意事項，
1。我們的目的，是被發表。去讓奪回話語權給事實。一切應以此為核心。
2。注意措辭，絕對不要用侮辱性言語。用詞柔和。當然這不是將我們的意思也要柔和。不要用很強的字眼。以理服人。
3。注意投稿質量，如果不能用英文寫出一份衡有說服力的文章。大家就不要投稿了。畢竟這不是什麽國外的forum。出出主意，獻些力。我的文章已經寫了一部分了，如果沒有合適的文章，我會收集大家的意見，直到禮拜三晚上。暫定禮拜四發出去。
4. 暫時不可以進入網站找到鏈接，明天補上。
5。 我會在 網，文學城， 天涯，anti-cnn 發帖。
投稿地址：news@newstoday.com.sg
身在國外，深感中國政治話語權的喪失。在西方，中國政府沒有一點公信力。除非去過中國，否則少有西方人，相信中國發生的變化。中國媒體的話語，隻在講經濟的時候才會被用到！！！而不管哪個國家的英文媒體，都是被西方主流媒體的新聞所占據！！！
We will make the world hear our voice!!! if they do not want to broadcast the truth, listen our voice, then we will get them to china, and tell him our feeling!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
- Hide quoted text -
Tibet: The Other Side
John Whalen-Bridge
I read the commentary by Venessa Lee Tibet: an Ambiguous Case (April 26-27) with great interest, as I\'ve been studying the ways in which this prominent issue has been covered differently by the news media of different countries.
.
As Ms Lee states in her opening paragraph, the heady stuff of nationalism often conceals a battle over history, and a determination to gloss over unpalatable truths. Accounts from opposed directions contradict each other completely, and sometimes, the final impression is that the issue is ambiguous.
.
Ambiguities, gray areas, uncertainties and muddles exist in the world, and they ought to be described clearly when we think about a problem so that we can clarify to ourselves the difference between what we call facts and what we think of as a bone of contention.
.
If two puppies are chasing after the same bone, we can\'t say yet which puppy owns the bone, and Tibet is certainly an international bone of contention, and your article gives some of the reasons.
.
Some parts, though, settled for ambiguity too quickly and so, call for response.
.
The article, in several instances, disparages pro-Tibet points of view by associating such views mainly with Western Shangri-la fantasies, and the accounts of Chinese involvement in Tibetan-speaking regions of the world are rather forgiving.
.
Tibetant political prisoners are now thought to number in the hundreds ... but fewer than 200 ... where they once numbered in the thousands. We can ask how one would know, but the claim, in any event, is rather astonishing in light of recent news coverage.
.
The quotation from my colleague at the National University of Singapore, Dr Bo Zhiyue, regarding the Dalai Lama, is one that really made me do a double-take and wonder if there has been some mistake in the quotation. The claim that ordinary people in Tibet don\'t care about independence is astonishing to anyone who has a television.
.
To say They were liberated, I don\'t think they want to go back, as Dr Bo was quoted as saying, implies that the game plan of the Tibetan government in exile is to turn back the clock to 1900 and bring in cruel punishments, feudalism, et cetera.
.
I would challenge Dr Bo to find statements from the Dalai Lama or any of his representatives in which he expresses the wish to return to life exactly as it was. Rather, he has said innumerable times that his intention as a newly-installed young leader was to modernise the country.
.
To say Some people in the West are supporting the Dalai Lama because of his image — he\'s like a smiling Buddha. Their support is based on ignorance, they know nothing about Tibetan history, they don\'t even know where Tibet is.
.
Researchers in the Mind-Science project, including Emotional Intelligence author Daniel Goleman and Paul Eknath, have frequently commented on their interaction with the Dalai Lama, saying that he tends to express the full range of human emotions within the space of a vigorous debate but that he does not get caught up in a cycle of anger.
.
In this sense, the Dalai Lama is a role model for many people — a smiling Buddha, if you like. But Dr Bo seems to want to dismiss this idea of a smiling Buddha as a childish fantasy, saying that the West, en bloc, supports this smiling Buddha out of ignorance. The comments are offensive in many ways, and I\'m left wondering what expertise Dr Bo has brought to the discussion.
.
As a Westerner, I can tell Dr Bo where Tibet is: It is between China and India, and its situation as a geopolitical buffer zone has caused Tibetan people much grief. If Dr Bo wants to say I don\'t know where Tibet is, he can say I am wrong, that there is nothing between India and China, since Tibet is part of China. He can say that, but he would be referring to a difference of opinion about the status of Tibet, and to categorically state that views different from one\'s own are ignorance is impolite and inaccurate.
.
To say that the Dalai Lama wants to drag Tibet back to some medieval period in its own history is simply false, and anyone with access to a library or the Internet can resolve the point.
.
Demonising people with whom one disagrees signifies lack of confidence more than anything else, and China\'s recent willingness to hold some sort of talks with the Dalai Lama\'s representatives perhaps demonstrates a recognition that the demonisation strategy isn\'t working.
.
I\'d be very surprised if Today published quotations from Western academics saying that all Chinese people felt one particular way, especially if an insulting word such as ignorance were used. I write in hopes that my view can also be presented.
.
The writer is an Associate Professor of the English Language and Literature and Convenor of Religious Studies at the National University of Singapore.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
