I refer to the front-page article published on the 15th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre ('Birthday girl comes to terms with June 4 legacy', June 4).
I find it rather disquieting that a 15-year-old girl was quoted to give a Beijing slant on the issue. She was quoted as saying 'over 200 people died'. There certainly were more than 200, ranging in estimates from several hundred to thousands. They 'died'. They certainly did.
I question the use of this word, though, which is used as if these people collectively reached old age and coincidentally shuffled off this mortal coil on the same day, or were swept away by a flood or an outbreak of disease.
Actually, they were murdered by a totalitarian government bent on keeping control, fearful of losing its power, on a day when the crowds were peacefully protesting against a government racked with corruption, cronyism and all the other malpractices that come packaged with despotic regimes.
And how Peter Lok ('June 4: one-sided story') in Letters of the same issue, complains about young people 'having their minds poisoned' by the coverage of the protests is beyond me. 'They murdered the students', he quotes. Well, if you can think of a better word for the killing of unarmed people who are fighting for the right to express their views, then I would like to hear it. 'Poisoned mind?' 'Gospel truth?' You need to look at some facts about the massacre, which, incidentally, you will not be getting from the dictators in Beijing.
I have heard Nazis talking in a pathetic attempt to justify the Holocaust. Though the situation and casualty figures may be very different, the principle is the same: justification of a horrific and unnecessary crime.
Beijing informs us of the 'benefits' and 'stability' that it infers came from the murder of hundreds or thousands of people. I am sorry, but it does not wash with me, nor anyone that I
