Reaction to 《无美学，有丑行》(no aesthetics but ignominy)

I read today's Sin Chew Daily and I was attracted by an article written by Tao Jie (陶杰), titled No Aesthetics But Ignominy (I translated from 《无美学，有丑行》 http://opinions.sinchew.com.my/node/30238?tid=46). He condemned how dreadful Chinese from the Mainland jeopardized their public image through their worldwide misbehavior. He supposed that the damage of the Cultural Revolution, the absence of moral beliefs and the lack of aesthetic education as the roots of such ignominy.

Contemporary Chinese education is heavily grounded on utilitarian. The Chinese believe that mastery in maths, physics and chemistry would make them fearless worldwide. Literature, history, philosophy and arts have been ignored, not to mentioned aesthetic education.

The Western concept of "aesthetics" was first introduced to the Mainland Chinese through a German missionary, Ernst Faber. Ernst wrote a textbook, which covers seven types of aesthetics:
1. The beauty of nature, including the flora and fauna in the mountain and sea.
2. The beauty of architecture, including how palaces and buildings were structured.
3. The beauty of sculpture.
4. The beauty of picture, including drawing and painting.
5. The beauty of music
6. The beauty of eulogy
7. The beauty of lyrics

Ernst hoped that Chinese not only care about the survival needs, but also live with a better standard which concerns spiritual development. This marked the beginning of Chinese aesthetics.

Malaysian, from what I observed, are attributed with good aesthetics potentials. These potentials must be retained while the nation heading towards science and technology development. In fact, both science and aesthetics are not conflicting to each other. Instead, they should be and can be integrated, definitely through design aesthetics. We have to work hand-in-hand to make it happens.