Tiananmen
Do these readings complicate your original reaction to Deng's crackdown on the protests?
My first reaction to Deng's crackdown on the protests were quite justified. Even though many people were killed, and I thought that was the only way to pacify the protest. But after reading those two articles, especially the interview with Singapore's former president, Lee Kuan Yew, I was even more confused, and realized there were many other ways to stop the protest.
For example, Lee Kuan Yew stated that the object in the East is a well-ordered society that everyone have a maximum enjoyment of his freedom. This contradicts to China during the protest in Tiananmen. First of all, it shows that China isn't a well-ordered society, and also the fact that the Chinese elites were fighting for more freedom shows that they don't have a 'maximum enjoyment of their freedom'. Since China is included in the Eastern countries, then why didn't Deng agree upon more freedom for his people? At least that could prevent less loss of life.
Also, Lee Kwan Yew mentioned that "all governments that succeeded got fundamental right-- ... providing high-quality education". From my point of view, I think he's trying to mention that education and educators allow a country's economic to rise. If that's the case, then I don't understand why Deng killed the Chinese elites. They are the successors of China's economic.
Lastly, Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that "culture is the key". That means, cultures allow a certain country to have its own uniqueness. China has confucianism, which has different view points from the capitalist/nationalist. The elite's protest for more freedom probably led Deng to think of them wanting democracy. Then instead of putting down the protest, why didn't he bring Confucius values back to live? In fact, Confucianism is what makes China a unique country.
In conclusion, I feel that Deng's actions aren't justified, and he should've come up with a better solution.
My first reaction to Deng's crackdown on the protests were quite justified. Even though many people were killed, and I thought that was the only way to pacify the protest. But after reading those two articles, especially the interview with Singapore's former president, Lee Kuan Yew, I was even more confused, and realized there were many other ways to stop the protest.
For example, Lee Kuan Yew stated that the object in the East is a well-ordered society that everyone have a maximum enjoyment of his freedom. This contradicts to China during the protest in Tiananmen. First of all, it shows that China isn't a well-ordered society, and also the fact that the Chinese elites were fighting for more freedom shows that they don't have a 'maximum enjoyment of their freedom'. Since China is included in the Eastern countries, then why didn't Deng agree upon more freedom for his people? At least that could prevent less loss of life.
Also, Lee Kwan Yew mentioned that "all governments that succeeded got fundamental right-- ... providing high-quality education". From my point of view, I think he's trying to mention that education and educators allow a country's economic to rise. If that's the case, then I don't understand why Deng killed the Chinese elites. They are the successors of China's economic.
Lastly, Lee Kuan Yew mentioned that "culture is the key". That means, cultures allow a certain country to have its own uniqueness. China has confucianism, which has different view points from the capitalist/nationalist. The elite's protest for more freedom probably led Deng to think of them wanting democracy. Then instead of putting down the protest, why didn't he bring Confucius values back to live? In fact, Confucianism is what makes China a unique country.
In conclusion, I feel that Deng's actions aren't justified, and he should've come up with a better solution.
Labels: Tiananmen

