Lost in translation

(With thanks to The Straits Times)
Nov 6, 2009/Fri
REACTION TO MM'S SPEECH
'Balance' gets lost in translation
By Chan Cheow Pong

A SPEECH delivered last week by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, urging the United States to continue its leading role in the Asia-Pacific region, became an eye-catching, controversial news item in China this week after the state-owned Global Times gave it high-profile coverage. The newspaper represented Mr Lee as saying that 'the US should counteract China's rise'.

The big headlines, prominent position, sensational writing, as well as the reach of the Internet, succeeded in drawing the attention of many Chinese readers to the story. Before long, it elicited numerous reactions, with those from netizens especially vehement.

Among the latter, some consisted of emotional rantings, while some were clear-headed analyses. One cannot help but feel that the indignation was a manifestation of a complicated mixture of national pride and a deep sense of insecurity.

The scholars who were interviewed toed the line of the newspaper. They interpreted Mr Lee's comments as a reflection of Singapore's disregard of Chinese public opinion and the country's alignment with the US. They took exception to Singapore's small-nation diplomacy.

One can decipher a certain type of Chinese public opinion amid the uproar - an almost knee-jerk defensive attitude, even animosity, when encountering views that are possibly but not necessarily critical of China. As it was in this case, the context of Mr Lee's speech and his precise choice of words did not matter.
Indeed, the 'Singapore's Nanyang Post', quoted by the Global Times in its reports, does not even exist. The source was a second-hand news portal with a similar name.

The phrase 'counteract China', attributed to Mr Lee, was translated by the portal from an AFP report. It was this less than accurate translation that angered Chinese netizens.

Mr Lee's original comments in English were: 'The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance.'

'Balance' and 'counteract' are two different concepts in international relations. Mr Lee's comments represent his assessment of China's strengths and potential, and are consistent with his long-held view that there must be a balance of power in the Asia-Pacific, so that no one country can dominate the region.

Singapore is in no position to formulate the rules of the game of the international community or influence the international structure. It can only accept the international reality as it is. A balance of forces in the region would be in line with Singapore's interests.

But even if the Minister Mentor's words had been understood accurately, his view would still have caused unhappiness among those Chinese netizens who are filled with a sense of crisis, worried that China's rise could be thwarted. They feel the need to retaliate against even mild criticisms of China from the outside world, seeing in such criticisms a questioning of China's rise and a threat to China's interests.

Chinese leaders have been traditionally prudent in their words and actions on the international stage. From Deng Xiaoping and Mr Jiang Zemin to Mr Hu Jintao, past and current leaders have stressed more than once that China will 'never seek hegemony'. However, the reports by Global Times and the strong reactions from the netizens paint another picture. They undermine the credibility of China's assurances of its 'peaceful development'.
Besides, such reports give the outside world, especially foreign readers, the impression that some patriotic and highly nationalist Chinese citizens firmly believe that China is already a supreme power. Some Chinese, including academics, seem to subconsciously reflect China's wish to become the 'big brother' in East Asia. As a result, the outside world may not be reassured, but instead may become even more suspicious, of China's rise.

The current incident reveals that being aware of the self-confident but sensitive Chinese public opinion is something that all countries interacting with China need to grapple with. Being a small nation, Singapore enjoys close ties with China and has no direct conflicts of interest with this big nation. But that does not guarantee that it will win the understanding of the Chinese media and people on matters concerning its own core national interests.

A small nation's interaction with a big nation and a big nation's interaction with a small nation contain subtle differences. Singapore may interact with China on an equal footing, but it definitely has a deep appreciation of the differences in strength between the two countries.

On the other hand, China, whose power is on the rise, has the ability and resources to mould its own external environment. It will have its own perspective of the world, and its citizens will also have certain subjective expectations of small nations, including of Singapore, which shares a similar language and culture.

Such subjective expectations can be a help in deepening bilateral ties if they are based on mutual understanding. Conversely, if the reality does not match those expectations, they could lead to a strong backlash in China and test the resilience of bilateral ties.

Chinese President Hu Jintao will be making a state visit to Singapore and will attend the Apec summit in a few days, signifying that bilateral ties have moved forward. The clamour in the media and on the Internet at this special moment is a bit 'disharmonious', highlighting the weak areas in bilateral ties.

Let us hope that the leaders of Singapore and China have the wisdom to prevent the long-term, close and friendly ties between the two countries from being affected by news reports aimed at arousing readers. That is unnecessary and not worthwhile.

The writer is Lianhe Zaobao's Beijing correspondent. The article appeared in Lianhe Zaobao yesterday. Translated by Lim Ruey Yan.