Last night's Tembusu Forum about U.S./ China relations was really something. Nearly every speaker brought an interesting perspective to the topic, though I felt that the question was best addressed by the last speaker for the evening, Dr. Huang Jing. His explanation of the issue was so sharp and crisp, it brought the discussion together very nicely. Prof. Zheng Yong Nian's cultural viewpoint of the matter was also quite fresh, despite being very difficult to comprehend...
Regardless, I get the feeling that this particular forum also offered us a glimpse of the potential of this Tembusu Forum series. It seems to have found its purpose as a platform. From what I gather, the earlier forums weren't as convincing as this one was. It'll be exciting to see what the future forums present.
On that note though, it might useful to question how future forums can be improved. One friend of mine made the observation that nearly all the ambassadors at these forums so far were pretty useless in presenting critical analyses of the themes. Most of them seemed to bypass the main point of contention and merely offered one-sided views. I reckon this is such a pity, because despite (very likely) having invaluable insights to these international topics, they also seem to be constrained by the need to represent their countries in appropriate light. So all we get to benefit from them is really some over-optimistic fluff.
Perhaps this should lead us to question the value of the ambassadors' contributions to these forums. At first I was tempted argue that the ambassadors probably do not have a place in this type of intellectual discourse, where the audience expects more rigorous analyses of highly contentious issues. But then I realised that that perspective was based on the assumption that the forum ought to fulfill a purely intellectual function. If so, it seems like the obvious outcome of such an aim would be to invite only academics/ non-politically-involved experts to speak.
However, it then hit me that this is not the case. Tembusu Forum is also a publicity event. I think it currently serves a crucial role in exposing Tembusu to the public, and vice versa, in order to establish some reputation or some sense of identity for the college. The ambassadors could also play a role in promoting the college to the countries they represent, and that is important too for Tembusu's goal of maintaining diversity.
So the question now really is, how much space should be allowed for ambassadors to participate in these forums? Well it seems with this re-framing of the issue that there really isn't much of a problem as I had initially presumed. From what we saw last night there already seems to be a fairly good balance. (I'd like to assume that Prof K is actively making these choices.) Given the work constrains of these diplomats, one could predict that they would usually present the most optimistic, politically-correct response to a problem. That, in itself, is not entirely worthless, and would probably work as a good base case. Given these conditions, some predictions can be made about the subsequent forums:
1) There will be at least one ambassador at each event
2) The first presenter will be an ambassador, to set the grounds of the discussion
I'm also conscious of the fact that it is in a college that these forums are being presented. To a speaker, we (the college) represent the "hope", "leaders" or "problem-solvers" of the future, and that almost immediately predisposes them to frame their response positively. Even Prof K tries to impress his optimism. What that means is that by default, all these forums will be angled in a forward-looking and hopeful perspective. In more cynical terms, there will always be a bias in the views presented. As a student and an audience, our job then is simply to adjust our expectations accordingly and simply be the discerning critics we are supposedly taught to be.
No comments:
Post a Comment