China’s Charter 08
Recently, over 2000 Chinese citizens signed the document below, released on December 10th, calling for human rights and democracy with an eventual end to one party rule. I’ve used the translation from the New York Review of Books with sections of their Postscript included. This document was signed by Chinese citizens living inside China, not expat dissidents living abroad. The Postscript gives some information concerning the status of a few of the 303 intellectuals who had signed the document. The blog Global Voices also has an in-depth look at the current status of the more prominent signatories.
What do you think of this document? Should it be discussed or dismissed? Should the signers be arrested and jailed? Is there room in the current China for this type of discussion?
I. FOREWORD
A hundred years have passed since the writing of China’s first constitution. 2008 also marks the sixtieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the thirtieth anniversary of the appearance of the Democracy Wall in Beijing, and the tenth of China’s signing of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are approaching the twentieth anniversary of the 1989 Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters. The Chinese people, who have endured human rights disasters and uncountable struggles across these same years, now include many who see clearly that freedom, equality, and human rights are universal values of humankind and that democracy and constitutional government are the fundamental framework for protecting these values.
By departing from these values, the Chinese government’s approach to “modernization” has proven disastrous. It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse. So we ask: Where is China headed in the twenty-first century? Will it continue with “modernization” under authoritarian rule, or will it embrace universal human values, join the mainstream of civilized nations, and build a democratic system? There can be no avoiding these questions.
The shock of the Western impact upon China in the nineteenth century laid bare a decadent authoritarian system and marked the beginning of what is often called “the greatest changes in thousands of years” for China. A “self-strengthening movement” followed, but this aimed simply at appropriating the technology to build gunboats and other Western material objects. China’s humiliating naval defeat at the hands of Japan in 1895 only confirmed the obsolescence of China’s system of government. The first attempts at modern political change came with the ill-fated summer of reforms in 1898, but these were cruelly crushed by ultraconservatives at China’s imperial court. With the revolution of 1911, which inaugurated Asia’s first republic, the authoritarian imperial system that had lasted for centuries was finally supposed to have been laid to rest. But social conflict inside our country and external pressures were to prevent it; China fell into a patchwork of warlord fiefdoms and the new republic became a fleeting dream.
The failure of both “self- strengthening” and political renovation caused many of our forebears to reflect deeply on whether a “cultural illness” was afflicting our country. This mood gave rise, during the May Fourth Movement of the late 1910s, to the championing of “science and democracy.” Yet that effort, too, foundered as warlord chaos persisted and the Japanese invasion [beginning in Manchuria in 1931] brought national crisis.
Victory over Japan in 1945 offered one more chance for China to move toward modern government, but the Communist defeat of the Nationalists in the civil war thrust the nation into the abyss of totalitarianism. The “new China” that emerged in 1949 proclaimed that “the people are sovereign” but in fact set up a system in which “the Party is all-powerful.” The Communist Party of China seized control of all organs of the state and all political, economic, and social resources, and, using these, has produced a long trail of human rights disasters, including, among many others, the Anti-Rightist Campaign (1957), the Great Leap Forward (1958–1960), the Cultural Revolution (1966–1969), the June Fourth [Tiananmen Square] Massacre (1989), and the current repression of all unauthorized religions and the suppression of the weiquan rights movement [a movement that aims to defend citizens' rights promulgated in the Chinese Constitution and to fight for human rights recognized by international conventions that the Chinese government has signed]. During all this, the Chinese people have paid a gargantuan price. Tens of millions have lost their lives, and several generations have seen their freedom, their happiness, and their human dignity cruelly trampled.
During the last two decades of the twentieth century the government policy of “Reform and Opening” gave the Chinese people relief from the pervasive poverty and totalitarianism of the Mao Zedong era, and brought substantial increases in the wealth and living standards of many Chinese as well as a partial restoration of economic freedom and economic rights. Civil society began to grow, and popular calls for more rights and more political freedom have grown apace. As the ruling elite itself moved toward private ownership and the market economy, it began to shift from an outright rejection of “rights” to a partial acknowledgment of them.
In 1998 the Chinese government signed two important international human rights conventions; in 2004 it amended its constitution to include the phrase “respect and protect human rights”; and this year, 2008, it has promised to promote a “national human rights action plan.” Unfortunately most of this political progress has extended no further than the paper on which it is written. The political reality, which is plain for anyone to see, is that China has many laws but no rule of law; it has a constitution but no constitutional government. The ruling elite continues to cling to its authoritarian power and fights off any move toward political change.
The stultifying results are endemic official corruption, an undermining of the rule of law, weak human rights, decay in public ethics, crony capitalism, growing inequality between the wealthy and the poor, pillage of the natural environment as well as of the human and historical environments, and the exacerbation of a long list of social conflicts, especially, in recent times, a sharpening animosity between officials and ordinary people.
As these conflicts and crises grow ever more intense, and as the ruling elite continues with impunity to crush and to strip away the rights of citizens to freedom, to property, and to the pursuit of happiness, we see the powerless in our society—the vulnerable groups, the people who have been suppressed and monitored, who have suffered cruelty and even torture, and who have had no adequate avenues for their protests, no courts to hear their pleas—becoming more militant and raising the possibility of a violent conflict of disastrous proportions. The decline of the current system has reached the point where change is no longer optional.
II. OUR FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
This is a historic moment for China, and our future hangs in the balance. In reviewing the political modernization process of the past hundred years or more, we reiterate and endorse basic universal values as follows:
Freedom. Freedom is at the core of universal human values. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, freedom in where to live, and the freedoms to strike, to demonstrate, and to protest, among others, are the forms that freedom takes. Without freedom, China will always remain far from civilized ideals.
Human rights. Human rights are not bestowed by a state. Every person is born with inherent rights to dignity and freedom. The government exists for the protection of the human rights of its citizens. The exercise of state power must be authorized by the people. The succession of political disasters in China’s recent history is a direct consequence of the ruling regime’s disregard for human rights.
Equality. The integrity, dignity, and freedom of every person—regardless of social station, occupation, sex, economic condition, ethnicity, skin color, religion, or political belief—are the same as those of any other. Principles of equality before the law and equality of social, economic, cultural, civil, and political rights must be upheld.
Republicanism. Republicanism, which holds that power should be balanced among different branches of government and competing interests should be served, resembles the traditional Chinese political ideal of “fairness in all under heaven.” It allows different interest groups and social assemblies, and people with a variety of cultures and beliefs, to exercise democratic self-government and to deliberate in order to reach peaceful resolution of public questions on a basis of equal access to government and free and fair competition.
Democracy. The most fundamental principles of democracy are that the people are sovereign and the people select their government. Democracy has these characteristics: (1) Political power begins with the people and the legitimacy of a regime derives from the people. (2) Political power is exercised through choices that the people make. (3) The holders of major official posts in government at all levels are determined through periodic competitive elections. (4) While honoring the will of the majority, the fundamental dignity, freedom, and human rights of minorities are protected. In short, democracy is a modern means for achieving government truly “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule is rule through a legal system and legal regulations to implement principles that are spelled out in a constitution. It means protecting the freedom and the rights of citizens, limiting and defining the scope of legitimate government power, and providing the administrative apparatus necessary to serve these ends.
III. WHAT WE ADVOCATE
Authoritarianism is in general decline throughout the world; in China, too, the era of emperors and overlords is on the way out. The time is arriving everywhere for citizens to be masters of states. For China the path that leads out of our current predicament is to divest ourselves of the authoritarian notion of reliance on an “enlightened overlord” or an “honest official” and to turn instead toward a system of liberties, democracy, and the rule of law, and toward fostering the consciousness of modern citizens who see rights as fundamental and participation as a duty. Accordingly, and in a spirit of this duty as responsible and constructive citizens, we offer the following recommendations on national governance, citizens’ rights, and social development:
1. A New Constitution. We should recast our present constitution, rescinding its provisions that contradict the principle that sovereignty resides with the people and turning it into a document that genuinely guarantees human rights, authorizes the exercise of public power, and serves as the legal underpinning of China’s democratization. The constitution must be the highest law in the land, beyond violation by any individual, group, or political party.
2. Separation of Powers. We should construct a modern government in which the separation of legislative, judicial, and executive power is guaranteed. We need an Administrative Law that defines the scope of government responsibility and prevents abuse of administrative power. Government should be responsible to taxpayers. Division of power between provincial governments and the central government should adhere to the principle that central powers are only those specifically granted by the constitution and all other powers belong to the local governments.
3. Legislative Democracy. Members of legislative bodies at all levels should be chosen by direct election, and legislative democracy should observe just and impartial principles.
4. An Independent Judiciary. The rule of law must be above the interests of any particular political party and judges must be independent. We need to establish a constitutional supreme court and institute procedures for constitutional review. As soon as possible, we should abolish all of the Committees on Political and Legal Affairs that now allow Communist Party officials at every level to decide politically sensitive cases in advance and out of court. We should strictly forbid the use of public offices for private purposes.
5. Public Control of Public Servants. The military should be made answerable to the national government, not to a political party, and should be made more professional. Military personnel should swear allegiance to the constitution and remain nonpartisan. Political party organizations must be prohibited in the military. All public officials including police should serve as nonpartisans, and the current practice of favoring one political party in the hiring of public servants must end.
6. Guarantee of Human Rights. There must be strict guarantees of human rights and respect for human dignity. There should be a Human Rights Committee, responsible to the highest legislative body, that will prevent the government from abusing public power in violation of human rights. A democratic and constitutional China especially must guarantee the personal freedom of citizens. No one should suffer illegal arrest, detention, arraignment, interrogation, or punishment. The system of “Reeducation through Labor” must be abolished.
7. Election of Public Officials. There should be a comprehensive system of democratic elections based on “one person, one vote.” The direct election of administrative heads at the levels of county, city, province, and nation should be systematically implemented. The rights to hold periodic free elections and to participate in them as a citizen are inalienable.
8. Rural–Urban Equality. The two-tier household registry system must be abolished. This system favors urban residents and harms rural residents. We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.
9. Freedom to Form Groups. The right of citizens to form groups must be guaranteed. The current system for registering nongovernment groups, which requires a group to be “approved,” should be replaced by a system in which a group simply registers itself. The formation of political parties should be governed by the constitution and the laws, which means that we must abolish the special privilege of one party to monopolize power and must guarantee principles of free and fair competition among political parties.
10. Freedom to Assemble. The constitution provides that peaceful assembly, demonstration, protest, and freedom of expression are fundamental rights of a citizen. The ruling party and the government must not be permitted to subject these to illegal interference or unconstitutional obstruction.
11. Freedom of Expression. We should make freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom universal, thereby guaranteeing that citizens can be informed and can exercise their right of political supervision. These freedoms should be upheld by a Press Law that abolishes political restrictions on the press. The provision in the current Criminal Law that refers to “the crime of incitement to subvert state power” must be abolished. We should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.
12. Freedom of Religion. We must guarantee freedom of religion and belief, and institute a separation of religion and state. There must be no governmental interference in peaceful religious activities. We should abolish any laws, regulations, or local rules that limit or suppress the religious freedom of citizens. We should abolish the current system that requires religious groups (and their places of worship) to get official approval in advance and substitute for it a system in which registry is optional and, for those who choose to register, automatic.
13. Civic Education. In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party. We should replace them with civic education that advances universal values and citizens’ rights, fosters civic consciousness, and promotes civic virtues that serve society.
14. Protection of Private Property. We should establish and protect the right to private property and promote an economic system of free and fair markets. We should do away with government monopolies in commerce and industry and guarantee the freedom to start new enterprises. We should establish a Committee on State-Owned Property, reporting to the national legislature, that will monitor the transfer of state-owned enterprises to private ownership in a fair, competitive, and orderly manner. We should institute a land reform that promotes private ownership of land, guarantees the right to buy and sell land, and allows the true value of private property to be adequately reflected in the market.
15. Financial and Tax Reform. We should establish a democratically regulated and accountable system of public finance that ensures the protection of taxpayer rights and that operates through legal procedures. We need a system by which public revenues that belong to a certain level of government—central, provincial, county or local—are controlled at that level. We need major tax reform that will abolish any unfair taxes, simplify the tax system, and spread the tax burden fairly. Government officials should not be able to raise taxes, or institute new ones, without public deliberation and the approval of a democratic assembly. We should reform the ownership system in order to encourage competition among a wider variety of market participants.
16. Social Security. We should establish a fair and adequate social security system that covers all citizens and ensures basic access to education, health care, retirement security, and employment.
17. Protection of the Environment. We need to protect the natural environment and to promote development in a way that is sustainable and responsible to our descendants and to the rest of humanity. This means insisting that the state and its officials at all levels not only do what they must do to achieve these goals, but also accept the supervision and participation of nongovernmental organizations.
18. A Federated Republic. A democratic China should seek to act as a responsible major power contributing toward peace and development in the Asian Pacific region by approaching others in a spirit of equality and fairness. In Hong Kong and Macao, we should support the freedoms that already exist. With respect to Taiwan, we should declare our commitment to the principles of freedom and democracy and then, negotiating as equals and ready to compromise, seek a formula for peaceful unification. We should approach disputes in the national-minority areas of China with an open mind, seeking ways to find a workable framework within which all ethnic and religious groups can flourish. We should aim ultimately at a federation of democratic communities of China.
19. Truth in Reconciliation. We should restore the reputations of all people, including their family members, who suffered political stigma in the political campaigns of the past or who have been labeled as criminals because of their thought, speech, or faith. The state should pay reparations to these people. All political prisoners and prisoners of conscience must be released. There should be a Truth Investigation Commission charged with finding the facts about past injustices and atrocities, determining responsibility for them, upholding justice, and, on these bases, seeking social reconciliation.
China, as a major nation of the world, as one of five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and as a member of the UN Council on Human Rights, should be contributing to peace for humankind and progress toward human rights. Unfortunately, we stand today as the only country among the major nations that remains mired in authoritarian politics. Our political system continues to produce human rights disasters and social crises, thereby not only constricting China’s own development but also limiting the progress of all of human civilization. This must change, truly it must. The democratization of Chinese politics can be put off no longer.
Accordingly, we dare to put civic spirit into practice by announcing Charter 08. We hope that our fellow citizens who feel a similar sense of crisis, responsibility, and mission, whether they are inside the government or not, and regardless of their social status, will set aside small differences to embrace the broad goals of this citizens’ movement. Together we can work for major changes in Chinese society and for the rapid establishment of a free, democratic, and constitutional country. We can bring to reality the goals and ideals that our people have incessantly been seeking for more than a hundred years, and can bring a brilliant new chapter to Chinese civilization.
—Translated from the Chinese by Perry Link
POSTSCRIPT
The planning and drafting of Charter 08 began in the late spring of 2008, but Chinese authorities were apparently unaware of it or unconcerned by it until several days before it was announced on December 10. On December 6, Wen Kejian, a writer who signed the charter, was detained in the city of Hangzhou in eastern China and questioned for about an hour. Police told Wen that Charter 08 was “different” from earlier dissident statements, and “a fairly grave matter.” They said there would be a coordinated investigation in all cities and provinces to “root out the organizers,” and they advised Wen to remove his name from the charter. Wen declined, telling the authorities that he saw the charter as a fundamental turning point in history.
Meanwhile, on December 8, in Shenzhen in the far south of China, police called on Zhao Dagong, a writer and signer of the charter, for a “chat.” They told Zhao that the central authorities were concerned about the charter and asked if he was the organizer in the Shenzhen area.
Later on December 8, at 11 PM in Beijing, about twenty police entered the home of Zhang Zuhua, one of the charter’s main drafters. A few of the police took Zhang with them to the local police station while the rest stayed and, as Zhang’s wife watched, searched the home and confiscated books, notebooks, Zhang’s passport, all four of the family’s computers, and all of their cash and credit cards. (Later Zhang learned that his family’s bank accounts, including those of both his and his wife’s parents, had been emptied.) Meanwhile, at the police station, Zhang was detained for twelve hours, where he was questioned in detail about Charter 08 and the group Chinese Human Rights Defenders in which he is active.
It was also late on December 8 that another of the charter’s signers, the literary critic and prominent dissident Liu Xiaobo, was taken away by police. His telephone in Beijing went unanswered, as did e-mail and Skype messages sent to him. As of the present writing, he’s believed to be in police custody, although the details of his detention are not known.
On the morning of December 9, Beijing lawyer Pu Zhiqiang was called in for a police “chat,” and in the evening the physicist and philosopher Jiang Qisheng was called in as well. Both had signed the charter and were friends of the drafters. On December 10—the day the charter was formally announced—the Hangzhou police returned to the home of Wen Kejian, the writer they had questioned four days earlier. This time they were more threatening. They told Wen he would face severe punishment if he wrote about the charter or about Liu Xiaobo’s detention. “Do you want three years in prison?” they asked. “Or four?”
On December 11 the journalist Gao Yu and the writer Liu Di, both well-known in Beijing, were interrogated about their signing of the Charter. The rights lawyer, Teng Biao, was approached by the police but declined, on principle, to meet with them. On December 12 and 13 there were reports of interrogations in many provinces—Shaanxi, Hunan, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangdong, and others—of people who had seen the charter on the Internet, found that they agreed with it, and signed. With these people the police focused on two questions: “How did you get involved?” and “What do you know about the drafters and organizers?”
The Chinese authorities seem unaware of the irony of their actions. Their efforts to quash Charter 08 only serve to underscore China’s failure to uphold the very principles that the charter advances. The charter calls for “free expression” but the regime says, by its actions, that it has once again denied such expression. The charter calls for freedom to form groups, but the nationwide police actions that have accompanied the charter’s release have specifically aimed at blocking the formation of a group. The charter says “we should end the practice of viewing words as crimes,” and the regime says (literally, to Wen Kejian) “we can send you to prison for these words.” The charter calls for the rule of law and the regime sends police in the middle of the night to act outside the law; the charter says “police should serve as nonpartisans,” and here the police are plainly partisan.
Charter 08 is signed only by citizens of the People’s Republic of China who are living inside China. But Chinese living outside China are signing a letter of strong support for the charter. The eminent historian Yu Ying-shih, the astrophysicist Fang Lizhi, writers Ha Jin and Zheng Yi, and more than 160 others have so far signed.
—Perry Link, December 18, 2008
There are currently 33 comments highlighted: 23954, 23959, 23965, 23977, 24024, 24035, 24058, 24059, 24060, 24064, 24070, 24106, 24108, 24110, 24132, 24133, 24141, 24145, 24214, 24426, 24428, 24443, 24505, 24581, 24584, 24593, 24596, 24612, 24738, 24898, 24930, 25205, 25522.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
WOW! Another ‘big leap”? Too much and too fast. In my previous posts, the democracy from the west (or demo crazy) is not suitable for today’s China. We’ve too many basic problems to fix now.
Too many changes at one time would lead to disaster and many young innocent folks will die – still not learning from Tienanmen incidence. I do not think you can overthrow CCP in one small fight. Idealism and practicality seldom co-exist. If it were successful by force to some extend, then Taiwan will be invaded to divert the national focus.
I wonder who is behind this movement – Falon Gung, KMT, CIA, or some one from the ivory towers.
The 2,000 or so signed will lose their visas to China.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
@TonyP4: No visas to lose. All the signees are Chinese citizens living in China. That’s what makes it so different from the usual “China needs to do this or that” papers put out by dissidents living abroad. It seems the people behind this are just a smattering of Chinese from different walks of life, even some in the government. I was as surprised as you are when I first read about it. In fact, it was S.K. Cheung who brought it to my attention on another thread.
December 26th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Before saying anything about this, I would like to point out that I have fairly unusual political opinions, which, in some respects, are typical of people in Western countries, and, in other respects, are idiosyncratic.
I think that democracy is overrated. I don’t care whether China starts to have free elections or not. However, “democracy” has the potential to be a useful rallying cry because many people conflate it in their minds with other issues. However, it’s useful only to the extent that people who talk about democracy also talk about things like freedom, human rights, and, most importantly, the independent judiciary. Freedom and human rights come from having an independent judiciary. Point #7 is “election of public officials”, but I wonder how conducive that really is to the other things that they want. There’s a lot of room for problems to be caused by the public electing officials who don’t care about the rest of the list.
When they say, “In our schools we should abolish political curriculums and examinations that are designed to indoctrinate students in state ideology and to instill support for the rule of one party”, I think we should note that this is a bit of a problem in all countries. They then say that they want to foster civic consciousness and promotes civic virtues that serve society, but, a lot of the time, it’s tricky to tell the difference between that and state ideology. I do think it’s straightforward to say that Chinese students should no longer be required to study Marxism-Leninism, since basically nobody in China believes in that stuff anymore anyway.
They say, “We should establish instead a system that gives every citizen the same constitutional rights and the same freedom to choose where to live.” I think that’s basically a good policy in a lot of situations and often an important thing. However, I disagree with the commonly-held view that freedom of movement inside a country must be held as a sacrosanct, inherent right. Almost holds the view that the right to move between countries is sacred and inalienable, but apparently in becomes so within state borders. On the contrary, I’m glad that not everyone from everywhere in China that wants to move to Hong Kong gets to move there, for the same reason that I’m glad not everyone from anywhere in the world who wants to move to, say, Paris or Toronto gets to move there.
Most of “what we advocate” strike me as pretty obvious things that right-thinking people in general will find it easy to root for, either immediately or eventually. Still, the more interesting and difficult question is … how does China get from here to there?
December 27th, 2008 at 12:31 am
“It has stripped people of their rights, destroyed their dignity, and corrupted normal human intercourse.”
I’m all for opening China up further, but the tone of this article is ridiculous. While I agree rights of the people in China is more theory than in execution, it’s not as if the Chinese people had a lot of rights before the Communists took power.
And I don’t care for “legislative democracy.” That sounds like a surefire way to failure. Western China development would fall, Chinese politicians would start supporting short term shortsighted plans just to ensure votes, etc.
The amount of changes in this “declaration” is ridiculous. I would support direct elections all the way up to city mayor, but past that, China is still too early in a developmental stage with an unwieldy population crisis to have complete direct elections.
What type of people actually signed this, do any China bloggers know? Like are they supporters of full democracy now, people who wish to completely overthrow the CCP from power etc. To me, it seems as if only the “rights activist” type frequently featured in the western media would support something like this.
Also, two thousand people in China isn’t really a lot. And so far, none of the people mentioned are names which I recognize and/or respect for writing serious, well thought essays on democratizing China, not the demagogues and panderers to the western media that are usually featured.
From the postscript I see that most well known and respected signatories were only questioned, not detained. The only people detained seemed to be people who were already on the verge of being contained. This is already such a huge improvement that I’m sure most people who’ve been following China long term would agree with me that allowing China to progress along its current path and speed would be most beneficial in the long run. No one wants to see another disaster like the one that happened in Russia because of a lack of patience, especially since China’s progressing so nicely.
December 27th, 2008 at 12:55 am
@Steve
@S.K. Cheung
I posted the following on the FM Thread: China’s 30-Year Journey of Reform and Opening Up.
I am still trying to wrap my head around this. Could take a while for me to understand the context. I just don’t know the players and the background.
—————-
@S.K. Cheung #107
@Steve #108
You never know where life will take you. As Billy Collins says, “Man plans, God laughs!” You can say that again.
SK, you mentioned Charter 08. I went, “Huh?” So, I googled it. I ended up, after several detours, at a familiar site, the China Media Project, which led to the NY Review of Books, which published the whole manifesto. In the prologue, the author mentions “Charter 77″.
The mere mention of Charter 77 took me back to my teenage days and “Prague Spring”. I was 17 years old and was astonished at the turn of events in Czechoslovakia. A leader named Dubcek was attempting to reform a Soviet state. Wow, unheard of at that time. I was fascinated. Brezhnev, the Soviet leader, was less than thrilled. By August, the Soviet Union invaded Czechoslovakia and crushed the movement.
I remember the great book and the movie which recounted those days, “The Unbearable Lightness of Being”. I remember the 1969 World Hockey Championship when the Czechoslovakians beat the Russians twice; the tension in the first game was unimaginable. The ensuing victory celebrations in Prague were great. I remember Havel and Charter 77. That was the first time I became aware of Havel. Then the “Velvet Revolution” in 1989.
So back to Charter 08. Atimes.com ran an article about this. I don’t know the players from Adam. But, here it is anyway. What will happen, we will just have to see.
And you are right, SK, pretty big cojones. Steve, I am looking forward to your take on this.
SK, I wonder if I would have the guts to sign the Charter if I were living in China? Interesting question. Hmmm…
There was a piece out at China Media Project, Hu bows to the left in 30th anniversary speech. There was an interesting analysis of word usage by Hu. Here is a snippet. There is a graphic at CMP which compares the use of certain terms (Socialism, Socialism with Chinese characteristics, 4 Basic Principles, and Marx) at the 17 Congress with his usage at the 30th anniversary shindig.
It is interesting to me, but unfortunately rather meaningless since I don’t understand the context. Steve, SK, HKer, WKL and FOARP, maybe you can help out on this?
December 27th, 2008 at 1:09 am
Also, I think that a constitutional monarchy, as in Great Britain or Thailand, would be quite suitable for China. Long live the emperor! Maybe Charter 09 will propose that.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I am in favour of this charter being communicated to as many people as possible in China – and criticised by everyone who can formulate even the slightest quibble with it. I am British, and as sure as anything I am not in a position to say anything about he charter except what I think of it (the difference between saying what you think someone else should do and what you think should be done is subtle but big) but I will say that there are parts that I do not agree with. Registration should not be necessary unless it is something the government actually has a business in registering – which should be fairly uncommon in my view. But my view is not import, much more important is that as many citizens of the People’s Republic get to see this as possible. There will be many who call these folk traitors – including, I’m sure, ‘Netizen K’, ‘Facts’, Charles Liu, ‘Perspectivehere’, ‘Pfeffer’, ‘BXBQ’, ‘the Chairman’ and a few others – all I can say to you guys, is that if you think I am wrong, you should come here and prove it! And if you think I am being unfair, I am willing and ready to be disproved! If you think these people are just a bunch of ‘intellectuals’ seeking ‘three years of fame’ (which will apparently be ‘enjoyed’ in a jail cell) – criticise, let the whole world see your reasons for denying the Chinese people the rights that the 2000 signers of Charter 08 want. If you want to try to defend the whole “can’t give them eveything they want yet” argument, you’d better do better than “We don’t want to rock the boat and spoil the CCP’s grip on power”.
Like I said, I’m British, I will probably never be a Chinese citizen, but I have a great affection for China and wish the Chinese people all the best. I still remember an acquaintance of mine – a colleague who taught at a Nanjing University, and who gave me a dressing down for saying that Weihaiwei “used to be British”, who was a member of a pro-democracy party. I don’t know if it was the one that Guo Quan founded, but it might very possibly be. At any rate, she was about as ordinary as you could get, a middle-aged housewife with a husband, child, and a job, but she seems much more brave, patriotic, and capable, than a good number of those you see trying to deny their countrymen rights because “it’s too soon”.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:44 am
As for claiming that 19 propositions is ridiculous, it essentially boils down to one – “freedom” – the rest is just small print. Indeed – a list of 21 demands 89 years ago was not seen as “ridiculous”, but terrifying and despicable – my hope is that this “19 demands” will be have an opposite but equal effect!
Likewise – anyone seeking to mystify China and make as if Chinese do not love freedom as much as any other people on Earth – White, Black, Yellow, Red, Purple or whatever – China is now a country full grasped of modernity. Given the choice, she is as unlikely to want to continue under a dictatorship of any form as she is to to sell herself into foreign servitude.
民主主义万万岁!
December 27th, 2008 at 2:31 am
I got a chuckle out of the following excerpts from the manifesto’s foreword.
It is amazing how money can motivate humans (self-interest), when all the other platitudes fail, e.g. humanity, decency, respect. ::chuckle::
In a slightly different manner and degree, this reminds me of the American ruling elite who are now shocked at the behavior of other ruling elites on Wall Street. Why are they shocked at the financial crisis scandal and the Madoff scandal, among others? Because it has seriously wounded their wealth, money and sense of well-being! Now they want reform and protection from the “free-market racketeers”! 
::LMAO::
And lo and behold, the ruling elites and wealthy aren’t spending as much this Christmas, as Bloomberg and WSJ report. Say it ain’t so, Joe! ::LMAO:: You should see the hideous chart showing how sales have dropped this Christmas.
Pardon me, my schadenfreude is showing. 
Fritjof Capra is still right. We have a major-league “crisis of perception”. ::shaking my head::
December 27th, 2008 at 4:47 am
To Steve,
thanks for the translated piece. Nice to finally see it in its entirety. Most staunch China defenders today will point to Deng and 1978 as the impetus for China’s growth in the last 30 years. However, if those same individuals were there in 1978, I wonder how they would’ve viewed their prospects over the next 3 decades, at that time. And the symmetry of the timing is also beautiful…30 years of crap, 30 years of progress and opening up, and I wonder how things will look in 2038? If history goes on to show that this Charter helped to define China’s course from 2008-2038, I think that would be cause for celebration.
As it stands, what this Charter proposes is hardly earth-shattering; but of course uttering something of this nature gets you house-arrest in China. Though I’d agree with James that, if this Charter saw the light of day in years past, the authors would’ve faced much more dire consequences than mere “questioning”. Having said that, for such a document to provoke even a visit from the authorities speaks of how much further China still has to go.
As Steve points out, the most encouraging part about this is the fact that the signatories are Chinese living in China. These are people who live the realities, boots on the ground, yet dare to dream. They might be accused of idealism, but they should be immune to critiques of “people don’t understand China” which people like me seem to attract. In fact, I’d suggest that these signatories understand China better than most here. Of course, I should also open up a Vegas book with an over/under on how long it takes before the signatories are accused of being on the CIA payroll.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:30 am
I just had a nice holiday dinner with family … so I’m not in much of a mood to argue or nit-pick.
But to the extent I am a Chinese intellectual, I will not sign the document.
When I read it, I got a distinct feeling of vacuousness, of non-conviction, of someone groping with a shallow intellectual understanding of Western political philosophy …
I am a musician on the side and take music pretty seriously. Recently, one of my friend introduced me to this nifty software that can arrange beats, chord progressions, even melodies when given the bare minimum of “seed” parameters. The resulting mix is usually not that bad … but definitely not very good. It’s usable in some clubs, perhaps as background music – but not as “real music” in real concert halls…
Anyways – this piece sounds just like such a mix. A computer program, given some Western ideological dictionary, could probably come up with something similar. I personally would treat this document more like a comic strip of political fodder than say the Magna carter, the American Bill of Rights, Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, the Communist Manifesto, or the Federalist Paper!
As for Steve’s question whether these guys should be jailed? Nah … I wouldn’t bother. If there is going to be a revolution in Mainland China, it won’t be from this document (or group of people).
December 27th, 2008 at 6:12 am
To Allen,
without nit-picking, you couldn’t sign the document, since you’re not a CHinese living in China. That’s the beauty of it. Besides, has the CCP earned their Gettysburg? Even if this CHarter is Rights and Freedoms 101, it’s still a big leap for China…and that’s the pathetic part.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:13 am
@Allen #11
Allen, I can see it so clearly now.
Now most translations sound vacuous to me, but maybe you are talking about the original Chinese charter. And I am no fan of the digitalization of music, sound engineers who are assembling albums and recordings from short bites and programs which write music. Music has a soul, a life of its own. Now, digitalization in its own right is not the problem, it is how we use digital tools. Too often, the recordings are squeezed into MP3 and MP4 formats which are compressed and optimized. Too often, recordings are optimized to perfection. And with digital media, I fear that the harmonics are lost.
I agree, the wording of the charter sounds pedantic, too academic, and too hollow. The charter is just begging for the right author, a man who understands music, a man with a keen legal mind, a multicultural Renaissance man, a man of Enlightenment, a modern Thomas Jefferson. Allen, you are that man.
Just don’t start wearing powdered wigs, calling your wife, Martha, or calling your home, Monticello. And please don’t start buying slaves. And please don’t start writing “the pursuit of happiness” as “the purʃuit of happiness”. And you don’t have to move to France.
::lmao::
December 27th, 2008 at 6:19 am
To Jerry,
sounds like you must be a fan of the vinyl. I agree there’s a certain je ne sais quoi that the old school piezoelelctrics can muster which the digital signal doesn’t quite capture. On the other hand, can’t beat having a kajillion songs in something the size of a fancy lighter (tho, sadly, that something at least for me will never be a Zune. Steve Jobs all the way for that one)
December 27th, 2008 at 6:34 am
@S.K. Cheung #14
I am not a purist, by any means. I own 2 iPods. I am a paradox.
I just think that the guys who write the digitalization code and protocols could do a better job. And mp4 sounds better. But then again, I have Bose and Shure earphones.
My dad has over 30,000 vinyl recordings. And a great sound system. I think there is a difference. But it may all be in my head.
I don’t like or trust Zune.
December 27th, 2008 at 7:07 am
I have to admit that I posted this without reading the charter itself. Jerry and SKC had started to talk about it and I just wanted to release it for comment as quickly as possible, so I asked a few neutral questions and threw it out there.
Now I’ve had a chance to read it. I majored in Political Science, which pretty much consists of two branches. Those are a theoretical and a practical branch. I was always more into theory; how do you set up a government to keep the government officials from screwing things up the least (they will always screw things up; you just try to minimize it). The other side is practical; how to organize, run a campaign, get votes, raise money, poll, etc. Obama is the master for that but it’s not my thing.
There are really three issues here; the wording of the document itself, the fate of the signers, and whether the Chinese people should have a chance to read and discuss it.
First we can look at the wording. This document seems to be a “copycat” document. Let’s take a basic political government textbook and start copying out the standard structure of a theoretical democratic government. There is nothing “Chinese” in here and to me the way it is written seems designed to piss off the CCP. The “Foreword” lists just about every disastrous CCP policy over the last 60 years. What kind of reception will you get when you blast the people you are trying to convince? Looking at it pragmatically, they lost before they even started. Mao is dead, Zhou is dead; Deng is dead; Jiang has little power so what is important these days is the governing philosophy of Hu, Wen, key Communist party officials and the most politically influential Chinese generals. China is here and needs to move forward; is it really a good idea to delve so much into the past?
The freedoms are all fine and good, but to implement those in China would take a minimum of 50 years, and I don’t think they’d survive in this form. You’ve gotta walk before you can run, and China is barely crawling right now in terms of modern political development. As some have pointed out, should China even be a democracy? If so, to what degree? This document assumes a lot in terms of government structure, and I think most of that has yet to be determined. I agree with James #4’s statement: “I would support direct elections all the way up to city mayor, but past that, China is still too early in a developmental stage with an unwieldy population crisis to have complete direct elections.” From what I’ve been told by my Chinese friends, it seems the Chinese people see the corruption as mostly a local thing, and stripping power from local officials who misbehave would have a huge effect on government responsiveness and fairness.
A lot of these ideas are “pie in the sky” to me; idealistic notions that can’t even be looked at for a few decades. I think a charter that didn’t bring up the past but started by saying “Today we are here, and tomorrow we need to go there. How do we get from here to there?” would be far more effective than this. By bashing the party you are trying to change, you alienate your potential allies. Not a smart move.
The next question is the fate of the signers. I agree with SK and Jerry in that these people have “cojones grandes”, since the usual fate for doing something like this is jail time. I’m with Allen; I hope they just let them be, but I have a feeling the more prominent ones will do some jail time.
Should the Chinese people have a chance to read and discuss this? By the way it is worded, the only ones who can really understand it would have to have some educational background, and I have the feeling a large percentage would object to the Foreword and many of the particulars, though they would agree with pieces. I agree with FOARP; let them look it over and discuss it, at least in an edited version with the Foreword expunged. In my mind, the Foreword itself showed me that the writers don’t really understand practical politics very well, which makes me think it was written by Chinese academics rather than realists.
TonyP4, you wonder who is behind this movement – Falun Gong, KMT, CIA, or some one from the ivory towers? The answer is easy; Allen is behind it. Of course, being a lawyer he’ll…
Deny Everything
Admit Nothing
Demand Proof
The more he denies, the more we’ll know he’s guilty.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:42 am
#16 says what I am thinking for 8 hours.
In many ways I agree with Steve, but I also think that the document is like a wish list for lawers looking for work. Lawsuites popping up all over the country, people going nuts with new found rights, oh yeah all in the name of human rights and the lawers making money off human misseries.
This document is from Chinese citizens inside China, that’s funning it sounds more like what white Christian people wanted from thier gov’ts in the west not long ago.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:57 am
@Steve #16
Aaah, a ‘Nova PoliSci major. Now I understand you better. You have been educated by the Augustinians. I went the route of the Jesuits. Society of Jesus. Jesus was a Jew. I think you can figure out the rest.
Thanks for all the comments from everyone. I knew I could learn a lot from you, Steve.
Yes, and I agree. Allen is behind this. You forgot one item on your list: “Keep running up those billable hours”!
You mentioned OB in running a campaign. I also would mention Rahm Emanuel.
Questions, Steve.
• What is this with this digging up the past? You can’t change history. Well, yeah, there are some discussions in quantum mechanics about the multiverse, moving to other universes, the nature of time, potentiality. But I digress. If you can change history, we Jews sure missed that one. Yahweh knows that we had motivation.
Is there anything like a Chinese cultural propensity for digging up the past? I don’t know. Is this being used to motivate people?
• You mention “modern political development”. Let’s talk about some underlying foundations. What is the rate of literacy in China? What are the levels of literacy in China? What is the level of education? How sophisticated is education in China? How many people get sophisticated education?
• Is China ready for the Chinese version of Tom Paine? Are the Chinese ready for their own version of “Common Sense”?
• What will motivate or necessitate this kind of proposed change in China? Is economic development pushing these changes?
• Maybe they want to bash the party? Don’t ask me. Maybe they sense something we don’t?
• Is this a subtle “Declaration of Independence”? It is certainly not as direct or eloquent as the DOI. But maybe this is their way to push a “Bill of Rights” before they have drawn up their constitution?
• If this is a non-starter, why does the Chinese government react so?
December 27th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Just a stunt show by the same group of guys as every year.
BTW, I have a porn version of this charter.
December 27th, 2008 at 11:09 am
@Leo #19
Hi Leo. Would you mind helping me out on this? I basically know nothing about this and am trying to learn. You mentioned that this is, “Just a stunt show by the same group of guys as every year.” Would you be so kind as to point me to some links showing that this is an annual stunt. Thanks.
December 27th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
I found the Charter almost nostalgic. In my early 20’s in China, I have seen my share of such documents. I would have probably signed it, prerogatives of youth. Unfortunately these people never grow out of their fenqing phase. Now they are thoroughly detached from reality, with their ideas and languages stuck in the late 70s democracy wall period.
I would like to see a person who was democracy advocate, then stayed out of politics for a while, succeeded in some other areas of endeavor, then finally going back to advocate for democracy again. Until that happens, I still view them as dreamers turned loser. However, it does call the intelligence of CCP into question, why do they react to this at all?
December 27th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
My 2 cents. I would enjoy this time with my family than wasting it on such farce. I am happy China just had another stellar year despite all the disasters natural and man-made. By the end of 08, China should pass over Germany to be the 3rd largest economy in the world, closing in on Japan. In no more than 3yrs, China should claim the No2 spot. Chinese economy fares better than any other major economy, ‘09 will be another year of great progress. So China is on the right track as the majoriy of Chinese people agree. Those activists/dissidents/western lackeys can wail all they want, I am very happy. ZhongGuo JiaYou!!
Merry Christmas and happy New Year, everyone!
December 27th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
As I like to use same argument like a broken record, compare China 30 years ago to China today. We’ve been making progress in all fronts – economic, lifting citizens out of poverty, human right… Why leave the engine of progress progress or what works continues.
I can tell we have many problems and the system has to be tweaked a lot but NOT another big leap and revolution in Mao’s era. If the government is really bad, we need revolution. Not today. Have we learned anything from history?
The west has more natural resources per capita (check US and Norway), so their citizens are more educated. It is great for a two-party democracy society. The vote does not weigh the same for a poor farmer in China and an average urbaner. Talks is good for talk but not for practice.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
For me, I am for Chinese Democracy if it is without Axel Rose singing it. ie. without foreign influences. This Charter 08 SOUNDS like a script written by white people for the Chinese. It is interesting to note that NONE of the Fundamental Principals proposed are attained by the developed nations today. Yet they are expected to be accomplished “sans fault” by the Chinese government and the Chinese people given the present state of Chinese development.
It is also very interesting to note that the Charter mentions much of the Chinese defeats but none of its accomplishments; very much like the propaganda provided by the Western media. I can open up any Western newspaper any day and see this type of writings.
So the Charter is written by Chinese people living in China, and endorsed by some prominent people, an example of institutional jeopardy is the former Japanese prime minister Sato who urges the US to nuke China in the 60’s and is awarded the Noble Peace prize. The prestigeous Noble Prize can be farcically erroneous and notable people can be just as prone.
The mention of the Czech Republic’ 77 Charter made me think of one day China will be the satellite of the US and allow defence missles to be placed in China pointing at Russia. I have met quite a number of Czech Jews here in Canada and they get unquestioned support from their community, their businesses are given very forgiving supports even they make so many mistakes. If China goes down the drain, the Chinese people worldwide will be dirt. The World of Suzie Wong revisited.
I think the Charter 08 should be applied to all nations in the world and should not be targeting China when not one nation has attained it. Not knowing China personally, the rise of China has done more for my human rights here in Canada than any of the Canadian politicians’ talk of democracy and human rights.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
The following article is written by a Canadian in Taiwan on China:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/18/f-taiwan.html
I don’t why white people always take the liberty of medling in Chinese affairs and you never see Chinese people doing it in Canadian affairs. I wonder how the Chinese would be treated in Canada if some Chinese people start to advocate for Quebec independence.
December 27th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
Hey, C-Talk, nice segue into changing the subject there. Mission accomplished!
December 28th, 2008 at 4:01 am
@Jerry #18: Yep, I got stuck with those super conservative Augustinians rather than the ultra liberal Jesuits, the counter-reformation guys. I should have gone to Notre Dame.
Was Jesus a Jew? I don’t think so. When I was in England and saw him on the crucifix, he was definitely English. When I was in Germany, he was definitely German. In southern France, he was this emaciated guy with blood everywhere, but definitely French. He was never Jewish… and don’t confuse me with the facts.
Funny thing~ they dug up Jews buried around the time of Jesus and then had a specialist who does this sort of thing for police work; recreate the face of a typical Jew of that time. He was about 5’6”, round face, cropped beard, flatter nose, rather stocky; nothing at all like Jesus is portrayed.
When I was there, no one called us ‘Nova. It was either Vanilllanova or Villanowhere, so I think the ‘Nova tag was a Brent Musberger special created in ’85 during the NCAA national championship run. Rollie Massimino’s first year as coach was my freshman year; he was a little guy, only about 5’5”.
“Billable hours”… great phrase. The life blood of a lawyer, huh?
OB seemed to have run the campaign. I guess all those years of being a “community organizer” (actually, party hack for the Chicago political machine) came in handy when running for prez. I personally thing Emanuel will be a very good chief of staff. The best one in my lifetime was James Baker, and Rahm Emanuel reminds me of Baker in many ways. You have to be one tough SOB to handle that job.
I’ll try to answer your questions as best I can, but remember that these are all just educated guesses. That reminds me of an old Woody Allen joke: “I was thrown out of college for cheating on the metaphysics exam; I looked into the soul of the boy sitting next to me.”
I don’t think there’s anything in Chinese culture different from any other culture in terms of digging up the past. My guess is that they are trying to justify their charter by comparing their “enlightened” views to the horrors of the past, or maybe wanting to show that there is a progressive evolution from totalitarianism to this form of democracy. To illustrate why I don’t think it’s part of Chinese culture, I can give you a family example.
My father in law, Fu Tian Long, was the first person in Taiwan to import/export with Japan and had many businesses when Taiwan was poor, back in the 50s through the 70s. Even though he was financially very successful, he was a prime driver of human rights and democracy. Back then, if you went against the KMT, bad things happened; your wife was run over by a car, your kids mysteriously disappeared or you just went to Green Island for a few years. My father in law never went to jail (worst thing was a few hours of questioning). The reason was that instead of condemning the KMT, he did what I recommended and always talked positively; how can we improve our society and make it a better place? Everything was always positive, so the KMT couldn’t go after him since he never said anything bad about them. That created a certain respect that allowed him to have some influence with them.
When my wife has met major figures in modern Taiwan politics and mentioned her father, they all said he was their hero when young and a major reason they became involved. So you can have a positive influence without dredging up the past. I never met my father in law; he died just before I first met my wife. But this particular aspect of his philosophy made a big impression on me and I incorporated it into my life and my dealings with others. I think it is a very wise way to deal with people.
I looked up levels of literacy for another post and found that the literacy standard had been lowered in China after the CCP took over. They switched to simple rather than traditional Chinese, they lowered the number of characters needed to be considered literate, and many of the numbers have been fudged by local leaders for political reasons. Having said that, I think the level of education in China is pretty good based on my interaction with the people there. But there are a few caveats.
Where were you educated? In the major cities, the elementary and middle school education is excellent. It is primarily rote learning but that makes sense when to be literate, you need to memorize characters. Math, reading, writing and science skills are all very good. To get into high school, there is a two tiered system similar to the rest of the Asian countries. If you pass the test and get into a Tier One high school, you can track to the best universities. If you don’t pass the test and are put into a Tier Two high school, your chances in life are severely diminished. You cannot go to a top university and the level of education you’ll receive in high school will be much lower than a Tier One high school.
University education is very inconsistent. Some universities are very good and some are horrible. The best ones that I heard about were Qinghua and Beijing Universities in Beijing, Fudan and Jiaotong Universities in Shanghai, I believe Nanjing University was very good, and there is also a Jiaotong University in Chengdu that is supposed to be good. I don’t know much about the ones in southern China. Chinese commentators, please step in here to add to or correct anything I said about the highest rated universities. In general, it is extremely difficult to get into the best colleges, but the education you receive there isn’t that good. That’s why most of the top Chinese students want to go to grad school overseas. The rich kids that don’t have great grades and high test scores all go to school overseas.
For me, Tom Paine was instrumental in showing the colonists that they weren’t British and gave them a sense of being Americans. It was more of a revolutionary tract. I didn’t meet many Chinese who wanted revolution, they just wanted reform. So I’m not sure if a “Tom Paine” style tract is even needed.
I think economic development is helping the status quo maintain itself. As long as the economy continues to boom, the style of government is safe. What would necessitate a change would be an economic slump, where the middle class feels it is losing ground and doesn’t have a say in bringing the reforms necessary in order to revive the economy. That’s when corruption becomes completely unacceptable. That’s when people really get angry.
I think people want to bash the party on a local level but not on a national level. They hate their corrupt, arrogant local officials but they like and respect many of the national figures, especially Wen Jiabao.
I suspect some academics might think this document is a kind of “Declaration of Independence” but I agree with you and the other commenters that it isn’t an effective one. I think they have put the cart before the horse. For me, if they can create a semblance of democracy on the local level while creating a more independent judiciary, increasing pay for both judges and law enforcement while ruthlessly punishing corruption within those entities, people would be far more content than taking the chance on changes as widespread as this charter proposes.
• If this is a non-starter, why does the Chinese government react so?
Why? Because not everyone in China is as supportive of their government as many of our commenters. When no one elects you, you have no real legitimacy in your own eyes and see danger everywhere. Local leaders see their autocratic power threatened; in fact, they know they could never win a free and fair election. On the national level, Hu and Wen are secure but there are many politicians hoping to position themselves for future leadership in the government. Changing the form of government negates their entire careers and future prospects. You pay your dues for decades, living in outlying provinces, hoping to get your shot at one of the top positions. You don’t want to see that jeopardized. Politicians of all nations act out of self interest; that’s why checks and balances were created.
@ Leo #19: Porn version of this charter? Where’s the link?? TonyP4 is our porn critic and can give us a thorough review.
@ facts #22: I sure hope you’re right. I have the feeling no country will do very well economically over the next year or two. I think we’re all in for a rough ride but if we stick together, we can all get through this. Reminds me of something Ben Franklin once said during the Revolution, “We must, indeed, all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” Maybe more apropos to this thread was when he said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Hope you have a great New Year!!
@ ChinkTalk #24: Hey, I think you’re the first to mention Axl Rose!
I’m sorry, Guns n Roses no longer exists, at least not in China. The CD has been banned, their website is banned, Baidu is censoring any searches for the CD. In fact, here’s an article in The Telegraph with the full scoop. I got a kick out of statements like “unidentified Chinese Internet users had described the album as part of a plot by the West to “grasp and control the world using democracy as a pawn.” The album “turns its spear point on China,” the article said.”
Imagine, Guns n Roses as a tool of the CIA. That’s hilarious!
December 28th, 2008 at 4:20 am
The CCP will fall and those behind the scenes can see that. China has a legal constitution that it does not pay any attention to . The UN has finally nailed them to answer for the forced illegal, imoral organ harvesting and torture of Falun Gong practitioners and many other political prisioners.The good people of the world have woken up including so many Chinese people.
So be rational about this and ask your self why the Ccp persecutes Falun Gong? Look at Why they have murdered some 80 million of their own people in the last 60 years and the count is still mounting today. The Ccp is yesterdays world and good people in China and all around the world want these henuious crimes to stop.And stop they will and Thats why the Ccp is so afraid of Falun Dafa. NO matter what they do to us we will expose to the world. They cannot stop us. 9 years on and we are stronger and more popular than ever. We embody truth compassion and forbearance and that is something the Ccp will never understand nor implement. This is a battle between Good and evil .Which side for a good future are you on?
December 28th, 2008 at 5:57 am
To Tony P4:
I think most would agree that China is better off today than in 1978. But was 1978 the year of the Deng Revolution? I’ve certainly never called it that. What he proposed did require a radical change in CCP thinking, to be sure. And in retrospect, his idea was what China needed at that time, sans revolution. So this Charter calls for some radical thinking today (at least by CCP and CHinese standards). Yet must it be associated with the negative connotation of a revolution? To me, it’s a list of things where the system needs to be tweaked (some are big tweaks, no question, but hey, this is China we’re talking about).
Talk about rights and freedoms is cheap, no question. I look forward to the day when China can walk the walk.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:12 am
To C-Talk #24:
Gosh, Guns n Roses is so 1990’s; thought you’d have gone with something contemporary and Canadian like NIckelback for your example, at the very least.
Regardless of how the charter SOUNDS, it was written by Chinese people in China. Often, people complain that calls for freedom etc are meaningless as they arise overseas, and do not represent Chinese sentiment. Then when a bunch of CHinese people put something together, you guys dismiss it as “western-sounding”. SO how does a guy promote any call for rights and freedoms in a manner that would suit you people? Or is it that any such call does not suit you people, no matter its origin or how it’s framed? I’d also like you to show me an example of rights/freedoms-promotion CHinese style, from which the authors could’ve drawn their inspiration, if you so object to western influences.
“It is interesting to note that NONE of the Fundamental Principals proposed are attained by the developed nations today.” – that seems to be an overly-indulgent statement. I (and apparently you) happen to live in one such nation, though I’m not sure if there are others.
I have no idea what your 3rd and 4th paragraphs are talking about. And if Paragraph 5 is even remotely true, then you must live in a very deprived and depraved part of our country. For that, I sympathize.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:22 am
@TonyP4: When I wrote about Green Island in #27, it reminded me of the traditional Taiwanese folk song sung here by Vienna Teng, called Green Island Serenade on this You Tube video. Had you heard of her or the song before? My wife and I have seen her live in San Diego. She hails from the Bay Area and her parents were originally from Taiwan. I highly recommend her first CD, called Waking Hour.
Single guys out there, Chinese women adore her music. They will perceive you as kind, sensitive and worldly. They will then adore you for introducing them to her music.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:44 am
@ S.K. Cheung #29: Is 1978 really the key year? Or would you consider 1989 and the Shenzhen FTZ to be more important? Since these events are before my time there, I’d like to hear a more local perspective. Everyone feel free to comment on this…
December 28th, 2008 at 6:54 am
Chink Talk@ 24
You say “This Charter 08 SOUNDS like a script written by white people for the Chinese.”
You SOUND like a racist.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:55 am
To Steve:
I chose 1978 because that’s when the move towards a more free market-type economy began, resulting in the oft-referenced years of economic progress.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:56 am
TO Santa #33:
LOL that’s a good one. Don’t you just love the caps….
December 28th, 2008 at 7:52 am
I hate it when people play the “Chinese” card; that is, something isn’t a “Chinese” idea, it’s a Western idea, and therefore China shouldn’t adopt it. Modern democratic government originated in the West. Well, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, India, Indonesia, the Philippines, etc. are not Western, but none of them are demanding to be ruled by dictators until they think of some unique form of government they can adopt for themselves. Democracy isn’t Western; it exists, flaws and all, on every continent and among multiple cultures. Besides, Marxism is a Western philosophy, too. Should the CCP reject it because of its culture of origin? Of course, China has “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Well, why not “democracy with Chinese characteristics”? I realize that Charter 08 sounds a lot like the West. But apparently 300 Chinese people think it’s a good idea. Why not let the Chinese public discuss it and publish their own critiques to it?
I can accept the idea that China needs to change gradually. But I can’t accept the idea that the Chinese are not entitled to read and discuss anything they want, regardless of what it says. Chinese people are not children. They should be allowed to read anything and agree or disagree with it as they please. If the majority of Chinese are as happy with the way things are as some of you indicate, then there shouldn’t be a problem with them reading anything.
Regardless of whether you agree with them, the signatories of Charter 08 are heroes simply for sticking their necks out and showing how the CCP hasn’t changed along with the times. You can’t change history, but it’s useful to recall that even after 30 years of economic growth, the CCP still behaves like it did during the Hundred Flowers movement in the 1950s. It’s time for the CCP to grow up and learn how to take criticism. It needs to serve the people by refraining from meddling in their intellectual affairs. The Chinese have a long and proud history of public discourse. The CCP should honor that tradition and kindle it, or at least remain indifferent to it. Then, perhaps, Charter 08 will be dismissed by the Chinese public, and a better, more “suitable” Charter will take its place.
December 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
#24 Chinktalk;
Regardless of the controversial title, its music is still stuck in the 1990’s. That bonehead Axel Rose didn’t bother to do some kind of promotion or publicity work when the Album was released. I heard some of the tracks and they suck anyways. The only thing good about it is that I was able to get a coupon for a free Dr. Pepper:p
People think multiparty rule is the way to go but it has brought nothing but divisions within the country. Think of the numerous protests by the people and the government tries to satisfy everyone but usually satisfies no one. It reminds me of why the US have such a deficit. The US doesn’t have the balls to tax everyone or ask its citizens to sacrifice our debt so that our children don’t have to deal with the problem. Instead, they do nothing, let the deficit swell and let our children take care of it until one day our country will go bankrupt.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I have been reading this blog for a while and have enjoyed very much the contributions. Thank you all so very much for your contributions on previous posts. Most posts, even ones I have not disagreed with, have added much to my own thinking. Now I wish to add my own viewpoints on this very important topic.
This Charter looks like it came right out of Gene Sharp’s Albert Einstein Institution’s velvet revolution chop shop. It has all the markings. For example, the political reforms called for resemble a warmed over US constitution. Someone is preying on the politically naive political consumers in China. Would not be the first time. Lots of foreigners come to China and do the same. Look at the success of that swill called Budweiser.
But why Sharps’ interest? Is it to bring down or cause trouble to the biggest threat of a US dominated global system? Sharp’s specialty is naïve political consumers. They didn’t do such a good job in Rangoon this year so why not try for one last jab in China before the year’s end. After all it is just a job for them. Who cares if a few folks spend some time in jail? They will be spending that same time living their comfy lives in DC. Anyway, the China work will look good for fundraising in both public and private circles.
But surprise, surprise! The Chinese have been doing governments for longer than any other living human society. They don’t need to blindly imitate a western political model that has now proven incapable of lifting the world out of poverty. Any development expert worth their salt and not bought by the ruling power in the West will tell you that western liberal democracies do not work in most situations where economic development has not reached a high stage. Too few economic goods being chased by too many political actors (voters). The world is full of illiberal democracies. Perestroika did not work. African democracy in the immediate post-colonial setting flopped big time. The list goes on. This is not made up. Compare then this situation to Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and so forth. The model that China is employing works if these other Asian examples with similar cultural leanings have any lessons to share.
Anyone who has lived in China for the last 30 years can attest to the progress in all fields. Just yesterday in a rural county suburb of Beijing I witnessed one of the largest mega protestant churches I have seen in China and it was just down the street from the local government building. Of course it is obvious to all but fools there is a long trek going forward. But it is being traversed as you read this by the tireless people of China who are working harder than almost any nation on the globe to improve their lot. They have their eye on the prize and will not give it up without a struggle.
Where the Russians failed miserably, the Chinese have built on the ruins of that flop to create a successful socialist economic system. Want to match it against the Keynesian model now? I know, you will take a rain check given the current circumstances. That is until the moneyed elite in the West figure out how to get back on track and continue widening the gap between the haves and have-much-less crowd. There will come a time when the haves can not squeeze enough economic blood out of poorer countries to give their workers enough goodies to keep them fat and stupid. And that time may be coming sooner than you think.
Human societies are living things. And China is the oldest. They were writing books about politics and economics long before most people could even write. They know what they are doing. They are buying time. And they eventually will create a new political and economic system that will be the platform for the next stage in human development. It will contain elements of the liberal western model to be certain. But it will improve on these. And this model will be used by other nations that are suffering greatly under the present world system to lift themselves out of poverty and restore their human dignity. But this all takes time. China must find their way first across the stream by feeling the stones one at a time. You can not rush Mother Nature without paying a price.
Do not blame the poor folks who signed the Charter. Just like the students on Tiananmen Square who were manipulated by the CIA coached student leaders (who are now living very nice lives in the west-40 pieces of sliver?), these suckers are pawns in just another one of those hit jobs by the likes of Sharp & Co. It will fail. And not because of any government crackdown. But because the Chinese people are too smart to fall for any cheap trick like this. They were not born yesterday as a people and are not kids anymore. They are well aware the stakes are high. Zhang the plumber knows how easy China could slip back into chaos without strong government guidance especially in times of hyper economic development. Political development will come, but when it is supposed to and not a minute sooner. They will choose the hour. And then they will create a system that suits them and jump starts a true New Age of peace and progress for all the world’s citizens. When that time comes, China will have fulfilled its destiny.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
@WillF
Regardless of whether you agree with them, the signatories of Charter 08 are heroes simply for sticking their necks out and showing how the CCP hasn’t changed along with the times.
Whether CCP has changed or not in its governing posture and its rhetoric, its actual policies probably undergone more changes than any ruling party in the world in last 30 years, short of being overthrown by a revolution. Ultimately, do we want to measure the progress by some rigid ideological sticks or by results?
We are being told that this gradualist reform can’t last because it is not democratic, and the success subject to the whims of few people at the top. This maybe true, it is certainly proven to be true in some democratic countries, where a few people at the top (fewer the the number of people in Poliburo) can drive a country to the abyss without any real check on their power for a looong time.
December 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’m devastated to hear that Zhang the plumber has seen through this imperialistic western plot to oppress the proud Chinese people.
December 28th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
@Steve #31
Vienna Teng (was she born in Vienna and I know HongKonger was born in Hong Kong, haha) is great, talented and beautiful. I admire her most is how she followed her dream. For most Chinese and other Asians, sing and dance (beside classical music) is ‘not a decent job’. She can make a lot of easy money with her degree from Standford. With her beautiful voice and talents, I hope she will – if money is one measure of success in life. She is our modern pioneer.
@Cheung. #29.
Deng is remembered as the father to open up China. It is not revolution and not original (one other country had done so and I forget the name). The original ideas on 4 modernizations was conceived by Chou Enlai. To implement the plan like building the infrastructure in one new city to start is genius. US opening up to Chinese goods while playing against Russia is luck. Plus a lot of hard working.
Again, it fits my 3 pillars of success: gene (smartness), hard working and luck.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
@ baiyunma #38: Thanks for the long response. I have to admit I had no idea who Gene Sharp was, so I had to look him up. You banged on him pretty good, but you didn’t substantiate any of your accusations. So if you wouldn’t mind expanding on what you said, could you…
1) Tell the rest of us who he is.
2) Let us know what evidence you have that he was involved with this particular Charter.
3) How was he involved in Rangoon?
4) Where and how did the CIA train or coach the student leaders who took part in Tiananmen Square?
A few comments: China IS part of the global system. In fact, without China to carry US debt, the American economy would be in big trouble (if it isn’t already) and the Chinese would lose their most valuable customer. Why would the USA want to destroy a country that it is joined to at the hip?
I read a lot of references in this blog to the USA trying to subvert China and China’s progress in the world. Every problem China has is caused by the CIA, some American think tank, etc. America is jealous of China and worried China will usurp the USA’s position in the world as sole superpower. This is all nonsense. If you take a course in geopolitics, you’ll figure out pretty quickly that the USA and China are natural allies. China’s threats come from the north and west. China wants to ally itself with the USA against Russia just as much as America wants to ally itself with China against Russia. There has never been much of a threat from India, but China feels it needs to control the ‘roof of the world’ for geopolitical reasons, mostly intense population pressure inside India so it needs that buffer zone.
It makes sense for both China and the USA to be political and economic allies. The major conflicts tend to be economic details such as currency manipulation and industry protection. Both sides want the Taiwan issue handled peacefully. It’s not the 50s, the CIA isn’t involved with Tibetan independence anymore. Countries adjust their policies according to present day circumstances and are not hidebound to their past if it isn’t in step with their current situation. What happened in the 40s, 50s, 60s and 70s is irrelevant to what is happening today. Beyond the political posturing, China and America have a pretty good working relationship.
China is an old kingdom with a glorious history. But the political system it had for centuries is no longer competitive in today’s world. Their big innovation was a competitive civil service and the ability to run a large land area and population in a time of limited technology. Today the world is different and those old systems aren’t applicable, so history is nice to read about but not much of a factor in today’s world.
The western political model can’t lift third world countries out of poverty if those countries are run by dictators who don’t educate their people, are corrupt and run an inefficient system. Countries that make education a priority, have a modern system that is relatively uncorrupt and get their best people involved in government have been successful and have risen out of poverty. Foreign aid usually ends up in some government official’s swiss bank account. Western aid and business in Africa didn’t help those countries develop, and neither will China’s aid and business. Until those countries reform their political processes, they are doomed to failure. Numerous studies have shown that famine isn’t caused by drought, it’s caused by bad government. Even Bangladesh has the inherent capacity to feed itself; it just doesn’t have the government to get it done.
I agree with your observation about a country needing its voters to be educated and somewhat successful before it is ready for democracy. That’s why I thought James’ idea about elections up to the level of mayor made sense.
“That is until the moneyed elite in the West figure out how to get back on track and continue widening the gap between the haves and have-much-less crowd.”
This sentence didn’t make much sense to me. China has one of the largest gaps between the haves and the have nots in the world. It’s like the US Gilded Age in the 1870s. Since you live in China, you can surely see that. I used to treat my colleagues to Haagen Daz and Starbucks on a regular basis because I knew that even though they were well paid professionals, it was still a strain on their budgets to go to those stores. The average Chinese simply cannot afford it. When you’re rich in China, you’re really rich since labor is so cheap. Even a person on a modest retirement can go there and live like a king.
“Political development will come, but when it is supposed to and not a minute sooner. They will choose the hour. And then they will create a system that suits them and jump starts a true New Age of peace and progress for all the world’s citizens.”
That’s pretty optimistic. I agree that China will eventually have some sort of “democracy with Chinese characteristics” but wouldn’t that mean that other countries, rather than copying China, will have their own systems with their own unique characteristics? Do you really think China will jump start a true New Age of peace and progress for all the world’s citizens? I’m just hoping they jump start peace and progress for their own citizens. I think that would be an incredible accomplishment!
“When that time comes, China will have fulfilled its destiny.”
As T.E. Lawrence once said, “Nothing is written.” China’s destiny is whatever she makes of it.
December 28th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
@ Father Christmas #40: That’s because Zhang the plumber is worried about his job being taken by Stosh the Polish plumber. (it’s a Euro joke)
December 28th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
This is a great discussion. I’m glad we don’t have to worry about being thrown in jail because of it. Too bad the Charter 08 folks, who started the debate, weren’t so lucky.
December 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
You know there’s a lot of crazy talk on this thread, but this comment by Chinktalk has to take the biscuit:
. . . . Okay, I really don’t get the comment about “Czech Jews”, or about business “going down the drain” (if you mean that the Czech economy is not performing well, please go and check the facts).
Once again there seems to be the idea that the advent of democracy in China would turn it into a US puppet – not once has anybody actually tried to justify this, let alone explain it – there are many democratic countries in the world which do not allow the basing of foreign troops on their soil – Switzerland, Sweden, Finland etc. all being examples, many democratic countries openly oppose US policy – so come on, actually explain this one instead of simply assuming that the advent of democracy in China would automatically make it into a US ally.
Finally, the whole reference to The World of Suzie Wong, I’m sorry, but I cannot see how Nancy Kwan’s performance in that film was some kind of great defeat for the Chinese people, or even much worse than many present day depictions of Europeans and Americans on Chinese television. Have you actually gone and read the book? Apart from a few scenes, pretty much everything in it can be found in modern-day life in mainland China, so I cannot think it was that inaccurate a depiction of life in 60’s Hong Kong.
@WillF – Absolutely, how exactly can pro-democracy activists express their opinions without being accused of being western puppets if you seek to define democracy as an explicitly western thing? And just why do people try to define democracy as a ‘western’ form of government? Especially given the number of countries outside of Europe and North America which are ruled by elected governments?
December 28th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
Let me add a couple of more thoughts …
A lot of times, my eyes roll when words like democracy, human rights, freedom, rule of law, separation of power, communism-is-bad, CCP-just-want-to-stay-in-power, etc. roll out of political discourse regarding China.
My eyes rolls because in many ways – everyone – every people (yes, including the Chinese people) want the same thing. They want a society that allow the common people to be empowered to lead dignified, purposeful lives.
That goes without saying. And for any political document to have a soul – to have lasting power – it must be written to answer to how those yearnings can satisfied.
In the West, the rhetorics of freedom of abuse of an overachieving gov’t was developed in the enlightenment in its fight against feudalism. The rhetoric was robust and powerful and was later used also to promote domestic civil rights.
In the last 75 years or so, the rhetoric has also been transformed into a geopolitical tool in the West’s fight against the Axis in WWII and the Soviet Union in the cold war.
What about China’s experience?
For Chinese people who cares about human rights – who yearn for dignity of human life – we must address China’s own experience. Right or wrong, most Chinese today see their suffering of the last 100-150 years as a result of foreign incursion, dilapidated incompetent governance, poverty, and domestic turmoils. Any vision of Chinese human rights must address this. Mere lofty rhetoric of democracy and human rights simply won’t do.
The CCP – while so very imperfect in so many ways – do address many of these issues. No one can argue that through unifying the country and making the country strong, the CCP has enabled the Chinese people to enjoy a good 30 years of social and economic development.
Of course, as the Chinese people become more well off and engage in more critical examination of their history, they may one day see that a lot of their suffering is not just due to foreign incursion and poverty, but also due to their own governance structure where a segment of the Chinese nation preys on another.
If so, the CCP’s political vision of mere strong nationhood and economic development may not be enough. People would demand a “charter” that would address not just poverty and social stability, but also reforms that would help to avoid calamities such as great leap forward, the cultural revolution, and corruption (driven in part by a pervading, overwhelming sense by many government officials that they are not just above the law – but also above most common people), etc.
Perhaps some version of Western notions of democracy may be relevant when we get to that stage.
Today though, people must respect (or at least understand) why a lot of Chinese people like me scoff at documents like Charter 08. The document simply does not address the experience, history, fears and needs of the Chinese nation as most Chinese current see their situation.
Anyways – this is the basis of my intense allergic reactions (don’t worry, I’ve got prescriptions) to these documents!
December 28th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Yes Allen, but you also have no problem with the Taiwanese being forced at gunpoint to annex themselves to China, thus losing their sovereignty. You are happy to see democratic freedoms suppressed in ethnic Chinese societies where they currently exist if it serves the goal of recreating the Qing Empire and thus making China ’strong’. It’s a pretty shallow, narrow and selfish world view.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
@Allen – To be quite honest, my experience is that most Chinese people would not agree with you. The majority of Chinese people I have met support democracy – this includes my former co-workers, my classmates, students, teachers, friends and acquaintances. The only people who did not support it were those who were sure that China is already a democracy – these were, in the main, strong supporters of the communist party. I never once heard anyone say that they thought that democracy was a western idea only. In fact, it is only on websites like this, and in the main from expatriate Chinese who feel a stronger attachment to those things they see as Chinese as opposed to western, that I have seen democracy referred to as an exclusively western thing. I think that most of the Chinese people I have met would agree with most of the demands in this charter, but would certainly would also wish to criticise some of the points. However, the majority of Chinese people will never get a chance to read this charter even if they were minded to read it.
I would also say that much of the adverse reaction amongst a certain section of this website’s readers appears to have been to the listing of calamities that communist rule has brought upon China. My guess is that they are used to seeing such histories written by people who they see as foreign enemies or domestic traitors. I do not know how to counter this view except to say that these people have bought into an unhealthy and incorrect world view.
December 28th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
@Father Christmas
There is no sovereignty of Taiwan to start with. Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to China, Taiwan still is part of China as we speak, no annexation to speak of. Overwhelming majority of Chinese over the world would be happy to see China unite. To make China strong is in the interest of all Chinese. Democracy is just the pie in the sky pipe dream, replace it with utopia or paradise or 72 virgins what have you, democracy is nothing more than the equivalent of Wall St. toxic loans in politics. BTW, KMT was the worst gov. ruled China in the 20th century, with unprecedented destruction to Chinese lives, territory, and psyche, it was the most incompetent and corrupt gov. in recent Chinese history, it brought China nothing but shame, that period was indeed one of the darkest and lowest point in Chinese history. Good riddance it was flushed into the toilet of Chinese history where it rightly belongs. I say Amen. To this day, KMT in Taiwan still does everything it can to split the Chinese nation and work against Chinese interest at every turn. So glad CCP is able to squash KMT and picks up the mass KMT left to again make China a proud nation, it once was.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
@all
I think the most disheartening thing to the proponents of this farce is not the rejection of “charter 08″. It’s the disinterest of such, with full force of the activist community plunged in, the mainstream Chinese communities in and outside China don’t really give a damn. China is on the right track, Chinese people are concentrated on keeping improving their lives, no one is interested in another great leap forward.
@steve
Legitimacy and election have no inherent connection. You are entitled to your view, but you have no right to expect others to agree with you or assume your view should be universally applied everywhere. CCP has more legitimacy than any other government in the world, given the approval rating it gets from the Chinese people. Still please don’t quote Paine or Franklin to prove the rightness of American system. It’s like to quote Koran to prove the rightness of Islam, or quote Bible to prove the rightness of Christianity, rather pointless.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
@facts. . .
Mao’s CCP was easily the worst government China had in the 20th Century. He inflicted more damage on the Chinese people than Japan ever did. And don’t give me the crap about Mao unifying China and defeating the Japanese. Mao inherited a unified China from the KMT, and the Americans defeated the Japanese.
KMT rule was corrupt and vicious, but no more so than that of Mao. Say what you like about Chiang Kai-shek, but at least he wasn’t a disease ridden bodyguard buggering pedophile like Mao, and I think that counts for something. More importantly, at least China enjoyed a lively cultural and intellectual life under the KMT. Chinese culture thrived, enjoying a golden age that excelled anything seen since.
Sun Yat-sen was the last honorable Chinese politician. Zhang Ailing was the last great Chinese writer.
Those, pengyou, are the true facts.
December 28th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
@Facts – Franklin and Paine didn’t invent democracy, they didn’t even create the American version of it, and they criticised democracy as well as advocating it. It is just as valid to quote them as it is to quote any communist theorist in criticising or defending communism, or any catholic scholar in criticising or defending Catholicism. Why don’t you practice what you preach and only quote non-Chinese non-communist sources when trying to defend the Chinese communist government? Or is this because this would be infernally silly?
Can I please have a straight answer from any of the people who have asserted that democracy in China would make China a ’slave’ of America as to why they believe this? The examples of Bolivia, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Spain, France, Ireland, Switzerland, Sweden and other countries would seem to disprove this.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:13 am
@Steve #27
@S.K. Cheung #30
@ChinkTalk
Steve, thanks for your reply. That helps in my understanding of China and its people. China is a huge subject and I keep learning a little bit more every day.
Well, if you went to ND, you would have had to put up with the Holy Cross priests and snowballs hurled by ND fans at their own team. Then, dealing with the revelation that god was not on your side. Then, being an Italian-American and having to root for the Fighting Irish? Meshuggina! Oy vey. Could have been traumatic. If I were you, I’d be grateful for those Augustinians at Villanova.
And I certainly remember Rollie.
Great story about your father-in-law.
My main reason for the inclusion of Tom Paine (who grew up in England and immigrated to America in 1774, 2 years before he published “Common Sense”) was because he could express complex ideas simply. Quite a talent. Yes, he was definitely a revolutionary figure. And he was zealous, being a newly-minted American. He held King George in bitter contempt. (BTW, he also held Napoleon in extreme contempt.) He just had this way with words. And he was very inspirational.
You wrote about impending global economic problems, even in China. I agree.
And that leads me to “If this is a non-starter, why does the Chinese government react so?”
As you said, “Politicians of all nations act out of self interest; that’s why checks and balances were created.” I agree wholeheartedly; they are generally not very philanthropic. And you make some very good points. But I think there is even more in this equation.
This has been a hard year in China. I noticed reports about the hard winter earlier this year. I have seen, earlier this year, the spiking global inflation and spike in food prices, which hit China, too. Then there was the Sichuan earthquake. The Olympics was a bright spot for China. But then along came the Wall Street financial meltdown and the global recession. China has lowered their Central Bank overnight rate 5 times. They are putting together (or rehashing) an infrastructure investment program. The credit crunch required China to infuse cash into the banking system for liquidity purposes. With the recession in the West, Chinese exports have dropped dramatically. Many factories are closing. People are losing jobs. GDP growth is dropping.
Now all of this could induce feelings of panic in the steadiest of leaders. And I believe that it contributes to an overreaction to this charter.
If you then add the omnipresent, worsening environmental and ecosystem problems which face China and the world, these are queasy times, at best. Add the knowledge that our global economy also has a huge derivatives market, now around $550 trillion. Then look at all those wonderful, complex mathematical models for the many derivative products. And when Mandelbrot and Taleb start having sleepless nights, well, what can I say. They understand the nature of computational complexity, probably better than anyone else.
These are touchy times. Yes, there are economic and political dynamics at play. There is also a human dynamic at play and a global “crisis of confidence”. These are strange, hard times. It is hard to forecast what is going to happen. One guarantee here: panic will not make the situation better.
#30
Good points, SK.
I agree. That is rather cheeky, CT. CT, we all can surely improve on many fronts. But I really think China has a bit further to go regarding the principles, compared to the US, Canada and many Western nations. And god knows I can go on and on about the improvements I would like to see in the US.
It is just that, here at FM and elsewhere, I see the use of this kind of argument (reminiscent of “tu quoque”) to invalidate any proposed changes in China or criticisms of China. You are more than welcome to criticize my country. As far as I care, you can criticize your own country, too. But I would prefer more specifics, not the “broad brush”, “shotgun” approach. As SK has pointed out, overly indulgent statements don’t advance the discussion. They seem merely an attempt to squelch the discussion.
That said, I believe that all people, everywhere, should have:
• Freedom. Freedom of worship or non-worship. Freedom of speech. Freedom of assembly. Freedom of the press. Freedom to strike. Freedom of association. Freedom to have a wonderful life. Freedom to be happy and to pursue it with vigor. (I had to throw that in; my grandmother would always say, “Be happy, baby!”)
• Equality.
• Sovereignty. Government should serve the people. It should be of the people, for the people and by the people.
• Access to high quality education. Quality education is a cornerstone of a good life. It also should encourage all to be critical-thinking citizens, who participate in their governance.
• Sustainable living conditions. They should not want for food. They should have decent shelter. They should have decent work, which provides them a sense of fulfillment, a sense of pride and a decent income.
I have probably missed some things here. How to achieve and define these qualities is up to the people. Yes these qualities are abstract. It is up to people to decide what they want. Not the rulers on high. Not the elite.
BTW, this applies, not only to people in China and the US, but to people everywhere. Call me an idealist, if you want. But this is my vision.
At least the people who wrote and signed Charter 08 are willing to stand up for their dreams. I admire them.
And I will quote Franklin, as Steve did earlier (I have loved these quotes for a long time.). Franklin was espousing some big concepts here, which transcend forms of government.
We either stand up for the rights, freedom and sovereignty of all people, or we stand for the rights, freedom and sovereignty of no one.
December 29th, 2008 at 12:57 am
KMT agrees the concept of one China. They claimed at one time to reunite China by force. At one time (I do not know it is still true now) they had a China ‘congress for mainland China’ in Taiwan with ‘governor’ for each province (these old ‘governors’ barely walked and felt asleep during the televised meeting – a kind of circus).
No one in the right mind in China agrees with the Charter 08 except the 2,000 or so brave souls. Same as today’s sentiment towards Tienanmen incident in China. Most are busy to make money to improve their lives. The west’s ideas are good for them, but not suitable for today’s China.
US and China should be the best trade partners, one providing high tech and the other cheap labor. Same for countries that have a lot of natural resources that China does not have.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:16 am
But TonyP4, Taiwan is now a democracy. They no longer advocate annexing the PRC. You do realize Taiwan has moved on a bit, right?
Well, Taiwan is a democracy for a little longer anyway. The PRC’s decades of imperialistic bullying are close to achieving their goal of destroying the Chinese world’s most vibrant democracy.
It’s quite a sad time for Chinese people.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:23 am
@ Santa’s helper
Say whatever you want. PRC stands today as Chairman Mao the founder of it. Yes, Chairman Mao is the father of the New China, no amount of cuss can change this fact. Chairman Mao for the first time in past 200 yrs gave the Chinese nation a spine, gave China peace for over 60 yrs and still counting, gave China an economy ranked 3rd in the world at end of 08 and still rising. Yes, China once again is a pound nation it was. Once again, Chinese all around the world can feel pound for their motherland. Chairman Mao is the man who stopped the down spiral of China, who put China on the upward path. Generations of Chinese will be grateful for the great Chairman.
As for KMT, it brought China shame upon shame, it inherited a united China, but it gave away Mongolia, it almost lost Tibet, it wants to secede Taiwan now. Yes, the performance during the Japanese invasion was the verdict of history that forever nailed KMT on the top of most incompetent gov in Chinese history. True, China had to be save from Jap by the allies, what a gift of shame KMT brought on China forever. Yet, with light infantry and pitiable supplies but valiant spirit , PLA was able to draw a tie with the almighty US, who just annihilated Japan 5 yrs before with its overwhelming air/land/sea power (the same Japan that smashed KMT like hammer pounced on a watermelon). For the first time in history, the mighty West had to sign armistice with a third world country, for the first time in past 200 yrs, China stopped invaders before they stepped on Chinese soil. What the US can do the CCP, nothing but to sit down and talk. For the first time in past 200 yrs, the West was not able to dictate terms of the treaty but negotiate. For the first time in past 200 yrs China could stand tall and look the West in the eye. From then onward, China will never be pushed around any more, China has gained a spine. To compared CCP and KMT, is like compare the lion to a rat. Yes, it’s the CCP/PLA and Chairman Mao who brought back the dignity and honor of the Chinese nation. The scums of KMT is the crap that stinks forever in the compost pile of Chinese history.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:31 am
@Facts,
‘peace for 60 years’? Didn’t quite a few PLA get shot up while playing at being bully boys in Vietnam?
The ROC has a far better record at maintaining peace than the belligerent and xenophobic PRC.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:49 am
@BBD,
I bet the West/Japan love ROC but hate PRC, who would not? “The Belligerent and xenophobic PRC”, haha…
Are you telling me KMT gave the world a compliant and entertaining ROC? What a joke!!
To the Opium traders, to the Western/Japanese garrisons in China, to the authorities in Western concessions on Chinese soil, to those foreign thugs and sailors, how belligerent and xenophobic China has turned since the days of ROC, huh? The days of killing Chinese like stepping on a bug was forever gone, if you need to be reminded. Yes, China is belligerent and xenophobic by your standard, and guess what… PRC will stay this way for a long time to come, what you are goona do about it? I guess you can either put up or shut up.
December 29th, 2008 at 1:59 am
@facts
Why the aggro nationalist posturing?
Is it your way of compensating for those years locked up in Zhongnanhai as a catamite?
December 29th, 2008 at 2:11 am
@BBD
Taiwan does not say to annex China, as it is NOT possible, esp. without the backing from US.
Taiwan’s ‘democracy’ is real:
* I enjoyed watching the female politicians hitting each other. All the frustration can be released in one big blow – cheaper to see a doctor. I advise to send in their better-looking, female assistants.
* Ask how the presidents pocketed money from its citizens. I bet Sung’s brother is the unpublished richest man in Asia. Ask your former president how he did it before he goes to jail. Nothing to be ashamed of as most Asian ‘democratic’ governments are the same: x-Vietnam, x-Philippine, x-Indonesia, x-Taiwan, x-Taiwan (2 times not a typo)…
Some money was from US to buy influence, and they ended up in some politicians’ pockets and were used to bail out the reckless spending.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:13 am
Where most world leaders don’t think that democracy is the best form of gov’t, some here wants it for a great country like China. Go figure?
Too many leaders know that people do not know what they want and what they want is not good for the country, can any people run a country the way the rest of us would love to live in. Not.
Those old Asian colonial nations of western powers had no choice but to become democracies, if they wanted western aids they had to denounced communism. And the losers of wars and those countries that backed the wrong side are now running dogs of western masters. A word about the western European democracies, if they are not in the G-8 than they are just a whore nation or a welfare state.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:16 am
@BBD
Predictably, you go to your last resort—personally attacks. I am sorry, you have no comebacks. I am just stating facts, sorry it’s too hard for you to handle. I know reality hurts. Now go, wail all you want.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:22 am
@FOARP
I would quote Chinese sources, but the Westerners would then engage in endless squabbling on the validity of sources. Being brainwashed by Western propaganda, Westerners only accept Western sources as valid, I do so to avoid endless distraction and concentrate on the topic at hand.
I never said anything about democracy being slave of the US. I only said, democracy has lost its meaning, to different people it has different meaning. Many times democracy is like a million dollars, go ask anyone on the street, do you like a million dollars, the answer is always yes, but that doesnt mean anything. Democracy is void of any meaningful definition, but only a vague sense of good life. I could invent another name like Cleeon or something in place of democracy. Once Cleeon has been repeated enough times associated with a good life (the work of an omnipresent propaganda machine), I walk on the street ask people, do you like Cleeon, everyone would say yes. What does this tell you, nothing!
December 29th, 2008 at 2:39 am
@facts
At least you got to learn a new word.
December 29th, 2008 at 3:03 am
Jerry #53 – I appreciate your comments.
“But I would prefer more specifics, not the “broad brush”, “shotgun” approach. As SK has pointed out, overly indulgent statements don’t advance the discussion. They seem merely an attempt to squelch the discussion.”
What do you think of:
Santa’s little helper #51 ” but at least he wasn’t a disease ridden bodyguard buggering pedophile like Mao”
and
Bodyguard Buggering Dictator! #57
“The ROC has a far better record at maintaining peace than the belligerent and xenophobic PRC.”
December 29th, 2008 at 3:03 am
@facts
And can I please have a million dollars?
December 29th, 2008 at 3:50 am
Look at the west and tell me what’s wrong with the democracies there. See in the EU and the UK, most of the new people are not whites nor Christians but East Indians, black Africans, and black Muslims. Even in North America the same, many whites don’t come here as before. Now is mostly East Indians and black Caribbeans, and they are mainly Muslims and Hindi not Christians coming here this days.
So many see the West, Canada and America dying under democracy gone wrong and unchecked, and having O’bama as a western master ruler is gonna finish the job.
Some democracies in the West and that of the US has freedoms and human rights that we in Canada don’t want, and lots of what we have here I can not wish it on China. The wrong kind of democracy is bad for China and it will also destroyed what is China.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:24 am
@FOARP 49
Yes many Chinese believed that Democracy in China is good in the long run, they forgot what is the direct cause because they converted to Democracy. Taiwan is complaining about corruption in its government while progress in that country remained stagnant. Korea is in debt while its leaders never got above 50% approval rating. I think most Chinese cares more about economic prosperity in China rather than political issues. I think the situation in China’s CCP control of its government is like how China has to break eggs to make omelet. Many outside observers complained that China breaking eggs while its Chinese citizens are enjoying the omelets.
December 29th, 2008 at 5:31 am
@ChinkTalk #65
Thanks for your remarks. I try to refrain from polemics, demagoguery, propaganda, teleology and ad hominem attacks. I tend not to engage with practitioners of such; they are way beyond cheeky. Thus, you will find me intentionally ignoring the conversations between 2 of the parties here.
December 29th, 2008 at 6:19 am
I have a question about the photo – why are the characters not in simplified Chinese?
Here’s a Baidu search on “08 宪章”:
http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=08+%CF%DC%D5%C2
First glance on the discussion opinions about it seem to be varied. This one for example:
* “居然提到中国联邦制这种话语，连呼上当。不了解中国的人配给中国开这个药方吗？这不是要害死老百姓，断送中国的未来吗？”
(it contains language about federalism, I feel duped. A prescription from Chinese who doesn’t understand China? Wouldn’t this kill common people and end China’s future?)
December 29th, 2008 at 6:28 am
To WillF #36:
of course, your entire post should be framed and put into a museum.
But I especially enjoyed this line: “If the majority of Chinese are as happy with the way things are as some of you indicate, then there shouldn’t be a problem with them reading anything.”- this is something I’ve never understood about the CCP. If the CCP is so confident in the Kool-Aid she’s hawking, then she should welcome contrarian voices and Charters critical of her regime, since there would be no doubt that the masses would continue to throw their support behind her. And yet….people get arrested, and i wonder how many PRC Chinese have had the pleasure of reading the thing, as we have.
December 29th, 2008 at 7:04 am
To “Facts” #50:
“the mainstream Chinese communities in and outside China don’t really give a damn. China is on the right track, Chinese people are concentrated on keeping improving their lives, no one is interested in another great leap forward.” – without actually casting aspersions on the tenor and content of your messages, you seem to display a propensity to speak for a whole bushel-ful of Chinese people, when you are but one. Why is that?
December 29th, 2008 at 7:09 am
To Charles #70:
“why are the characters not in simplified Chinese?” – that’s a good question. Maybe these “intellectuals” were smart enough to learn the full-on version.
December 29th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Steve, thanks for posting this.
Should this document be discussed or dismissed? Discussed. Should the signers be arrested and jailed? No. Is there room in the current China for this type of discussion? Apparently not, at least not if you ask the leadership. They prefer to silence or arrest people, and manipulate the public into believing that such a document is harmful for China’s ‘harmonious society.’ Why? Because they believe that keeping its citizens ignorant makes for more shopping, more shopping makes for more profits (and less time to think), more profits make for more economic stability, more stability makes for more governmental legitimacy. Are they right? Well, most leaders of other countries are doing the same thing. Seems like they’re getting away with it.
December 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
@Charles – Wow, your proof for the foreign origin of this charter is the photo which was chosen by Fool’s Mountain? Perhaps we need to re-introduce you to what happens to Chinese citizens who carry such signs in public on the mainland?
Likewise, selected comments which, without giving their grounds for thinking so, express the opinion that this charter would “kill common people and end China’s future” are hardly a valid demonstration of anything.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Talking about the porn version, it’s here: http://www.ccthere.com/article/1940488
December 29th, 2008 at 11:02 am
So how does one go about saying what a Chinese origin democracy looks like? Well, obviously you might try going back to those 19th century Chinese theorists and scholars. How about the 1895 declaration of independence by the “Taiwanese Democratic Republic” – according to some Asia’s first republic?
(from Wikipedia)
It would seem that even the Qing officials of 1895 supported a state in which “All government officials shall be chosen by the people” and “all official affairs shall be carried out impartially” – and these were certainly people untouched by “western propaganda”.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
@FOARP #77
For sure, these were certainly people untouched by “western propaganda”. But they had their own propaganda of hijacking “democracy” and put themselves still on power during a national crisis.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Regarding this “Charter 08″ , there is really nothing new and exciting. Kids in school know all of these. It’s just too easy to write something on paper. The most important thing is the implementation. The biggest challenge is how to implement democracy and freedom in a country like China.
In the past 100 years,from those warlords to KMT to CCP all claimed of advocating democracy and freedom .
I will be more interested in seeing those so called intellectuals draw a step by step implementation plan with all risk control.rather than selling old ideas.
Communism was great on paper but everyone failed on implementing it.
December 29th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I got the following message from my friend and like to share it with you all. It is in traditional Chinese.
祝你
一家瑞氣，
二氣雍和，
三星拱戶，
四季平安，
五星高照，
六畜興旺，
七星高照，
八面春風；
九運當頭，
十全十美，
總之新年快樂，萬事如意！
正逢新春之際，
祝您位高權重責任輕，
錢多事少離家近，
每天睡到自然醒，
工資數到手抽筋，
獎金多到車來運，
別人加班您加薪！
辦事處處順，
生活步步高，
彩票期期中，
好運天天交，
家中出黃金，
牆上長鈔票！
棒棒的BODY，
滿滿的MONEY，
多多的HAPPY，
心情天天很SUNNY，
無憂無慮象個BABY，
總之，新年你最快樂。
Happy 2009!
‘8′ is not a lucky no to me any more.
Hope all the problems in 2008 will be gone!
December 29th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
We can argue endlessly about whether the KMT or the CCP was more devastating to China in the past. However, let’s compare the following fact patterns showing the development of Taiwan and mainland China over the past 30 years:
Under KMT rule, Taiwan experienced dramatic economic growth in the 1970s and 1980s, and today is very highly developed. Chiang Ching-kuo also instituted democratic reforms and greater freedom of expression, which were furthered by Lee Teng-hui, and the result has been a vibrant democracy. While corruption exists, as it does in every country, in Taiwan there are direct and orderly consequences for falling out of favor with the people: you lose your job. Despite the corruption, I doubt very seriously that many Taiwanese wish they could go back to the old dictatorship. I also doubt that they want to be ruled by the CCP, for similar reasons (not because they are brainwashed).
Under CCP rule, mainland China experienced dramatic economic growth starting in the 1980s, and today is far better off than it was in the early days of the People’s Republic. However, the PRC has not instituted democratic reforms. They have made strides in freedom of expression, but as we can see with the Charter 08 situation, they continue to suppress dissent, if not systemically, then at least arbitrarily or strategically. Corruption is rampant among mainland Chinese government officials, and is at least as severe as it is among Taiwanese government officials, and probably more so. Chen Shui-bian was corrupt, but we’ll never know the full extent of Jiang’s or Hu’s corrupt dealings, as those are undoubtedly state secrets. Perhaps the majority of Chinese are OK with the system and don’t want democracy, but we’d never know because they can’t vote or freely express their opinions on the matter.
Thus, it seems to me that in the last 30 years, the KMT and the CCP have both met the challenge of economic growth. However, the KMT took things one step further, to the benefit of Taiwan. The CCP has yet to take that step. So the question remains: 1. Should the CCP institute political reform, and 2. If not, why not?
The “why not” is what I want to know. It seems to me that democracy with Chinese characteristics wouldn’t solve all of China’s problems, but I can’t think of any problems that would be made worse as a result. There are plenty of examples of democracies that have skilfully managed economic growth without suppressing free speech, religion, freedom to organize, etc. There are also plenty of examples of dictatorships (Burma, North Korea, etc.) that have failed to produce economic growth and continue to suppress free speech, etc. Further, there are dictatorships that have produced economic growth, and democracies that have failed to do so.
The point here is that “democracy”, that is, representative government, free speech, etc. on the one hand, and economic growth on the other hand, are mutually exclusive. The CCP likes to promote the idea that China isn’t ready for these things; i.e. at China’s stage of development, you can’t have both. But there’s simply no basis for that. There are plenty of reasons to think that greater freedom of speech and a gradual dissolution of the one-party state in favor of a stable, multiparty system in which the CCP was just one of many parties could produce the same results.
On the other hand, the benefits of democracy with Chinese characteristics are obvious. Ask any student in China (or anywhere) if she would rather live in a system where she was in danger of being jailed for her political opinions or if she would rather live in s system where she could express herself freely. I think the answer is obvious. Look at the popularity of the Internet in China, and look at the common practice in China of airing local grievances in Beijing. People like expressing themselves. They like to share ideas, and they like to think that there’s someone in the government who is willing to listen. Democracy with Chinese characteristics could, if done correctly, could provide for both of these things. However, if the CCP keeps shooting down things like Charter 08, good ideas can never get started.
I think we can all agree that radical, immediate change would invite chaos and be damaging to China. A gradual, thoughtful approach would be much better. But the CCP has consistently resisted proposals like this, and their reasons are flimsy. If they were serious about improving China and serving the people, they would let the Chinese people help themselves by discussing the situation among themselves.
December 29th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
@ WillF #44: Agree. Would this type of discussion taking place in China really promote instability? Maybe they’d say it would hurt the feelings of the Chinese people, but these ARE the feelings of various Chinese citizens. (actually over 2000; the 300 were the intellectuals) I’ve always felt that if you truly felt secure in your position, you would not have a problem with discussion and criticism of said position. I guess they just don’t feel very secure.
@ FOARP #45: I didn’t get that Czech Jews part either. And I agree that democracy really has nothing to do with the United States. Its original development was in ancient Greece, and then it made its reappearance in a modern form in England. The United States was a further progression and now it’s practiced all over the world, in one form or another. How citizens vote in China has nothing in common with how they might vote in the USA, England, Bolivia, India or New Zealand. I hate to break it to many of the commenters, but some nations actually WANT US bases on their soil.
The World of Suzie Wong? Has CT been to China lately? Hookers knock on your hotel room door at midnight, are around the bars and clubs, you get approached walking on the road at night, and just look inside any shop with the barbershop pole spinning. I’d say the more successful China has become, the closer it’s moved to the world of Suzie Wong.
Something I have noticed about expatriates, and you also mention it here, is that because they don’t actually live in the country to which they are from, their ideas of that country tend to stagnate and they become very conservative in their thinking. Also, their sense of nationalism increases. Rather than all politics being local, their brand of political thinking tends to become almost purely concerned with foreign policy issues.
@ Allen #46: Allen, one thing I like about you is that you are always consistent in your positions. And I think you brought up a really good point that I’d like to enlarge upon. You wrote, “In the West, the rhetorics of freedom of abuse of an overachieving gov’t was developed in the enlightenment in its fight against feudalism.”
The change from feudalism to an industrialized society has always brought with it great dislocation, enormous society energy and fervent nationalism. In the case of Europe, wars went from being small, aristocratic affairs to large, internecine conflicts wreaking great destruction. Before, people identified with their clan or village, but afterwards they identified with their country, and felt the need for expansion and conquest.
When Commodore Perry’s fleet arrived in Edo, Japan in 1853, Japan was a feudal economy. Their subsequent industrialization had the backlash of the Satsuma Rebellion (think Tom Cruise’s “The Last Samurai”), a fervent rise of nationalism and imperialistic conquest under the guise of uniting the Asian countries against the imperialism of the west (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere) but in reality, expansion of their sphere of influence and the subjugation of their neighbors under the reasoning that they were a superior race and Japan needed to take up the yellow man’s burden, so to speak. This was again accompanied with a tremendous energy caused by the freeing of people from their previous hand-to-mouth existence and a belief that nationalization, military and economic success was their destiny. We all know how that story ended.
China was predominantly a backwards, feudalistic society when the CCP took over in 1949. There was some progress for the first eight years, but under the GLF and CR, the country slipped even further into a feudalistic setting, with land owned not by landlords but by the party; however with the same effect as European and Japanese feudalism. Starting with Deng’s reforms, China has been coming out of their feudalistic age and into the modern, industrial age. There is a tremendous increase in nationalism. There is huge economic progress. There is military modernization. There is great resentment with Japan for its previous incursion and subjugation. There is animosity for former Western aggression. There is talk of China being a superior race that will soon dominate the world.
But there are also people in China who read and remember history, and don’t want China to go down that road. I expect there to be conflict between the two groups in the future. I am seeing conflict between the two groups on this blog. As the poet and philosopher George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
How China continues down the road to modernization without slipping into this pattern is what this discussion is really all about. Some believe it can continue to move down the road to success with a totalitarian government, and that democratic government is “messy” and “inefficient”. Some believe that a more western style democracy is the ticket. Others, including me, feel that China will develop her own version of democracy that incorporates the unique features of her society and culture.
Is your “allergic reaction” to this document caused by the feeling it is too much like a western style democracy? If so, what “Chinese” features would you propose to moderate that influence? What democratic countries which are not western would you use as a model for what China is looking for? Or do you think China’s solution will be totally unique and if so, what unique characteristics would you consider in that form of government?
December 29th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
@Willf
I don’t think the situation in China and Taiwan are comparable. China had to devote resources to manage the obstacles of Western hostility. For instance, semiconductor fabrication equipment are not allowed to be exported to China, that is the reason why Taiwan has a more advanced semiconductor fabrication industry, Taiwan imported all chip fabrication machinery from the US, China has to produce its own from scratch. Same happened in machine tooling, without advanced tooling, it’s impossible to produce high grade produce at competitive price. Same situation in the commodities and oil, the amount China needs to secure for its industrial development is entirely different from that of Taiwan. Not to mention the international politics, nuclear weaponry, space programs, fusion research, genetics, etc, stuff Taiwan doesn’t even dream of. The development of a massive continental size country with 1.3 billion population is entirely different to a tiny island province with the comparable population of Shanghai. Taiwan essentially acts like America’s puppy, its leader dies trying to find a chance to kowtou to American master. How many nights its leader spends in the US, and which congressman had a dinner with Taiwan “president” on the stopover to some banana republic is headline news in the island, while US secretary of State comes to China begging help with NK, or Paulson comes to begging for money, that tells you where Taiwan figures in the grand scheme of things.
So Taiwan experience has very little bearing on things in China. More comparable case would be India, similar size in population and land, only it has a Western style parliamentary democracy, whereas China chose its own course. India gained independence 2yrs prior to the founding of PRC, 60 yrs later. In every conceivable category of human development, industrial capability, trade indicators, research and development, etc.. India is no comparison. Especially, given the fact India has much more wider access to Western technologies due to its democracy status. But the results still overwhelmingly favor China. To put it succinctly, two thumbs down India, period. Let me say it again, China is on the right track, Chinese system is vastly more superior than India. China will progress on its own terms and timing, tossing around a copy of Chinese translation of US constitution is best meaningless if not harmful.
@skc
It’s very true, how dare I speak for the Chinese people other than myself? Sorry, I forget it is the exclusive right that belongs only to the Chinese dissidents and Western activists—–the self-anointed spokespersons of the oppressed Chinese people. What a joke!!
And what more, my statement is backed by the consistent results of PEW research, more than 80% Chinese believe China is on the right track. For those who are so eager to advance the rights of an oppressed people, why don’t you listen to those people themselves for a second? Or is that you know better what the Chinese people want than Chinese people themselves? Give me a break!
December 29th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
WillF, I think no one is against reform. Of course, as China, along with US and many other countries, are not perfect.
But is advocating overthrowing of current realities, and framework of Chinese politics “reform”? I for one find it interesting the word “Constitution” in the article title is not translated into English. It calls for a lot more than reform, as it clearly stated China’s current constitution should be abolished, not amended.
As the Baidu search in comment 70 shows, this is being discussed inside China already, and the opinion is not all favorable. Take our own example, should we ged rid of GW Bush regime by abolishing our constitution? Change America from capitalism to socialism? Heck no. If not why not? Do the Chinese have right to the same consideration as well?
So, according to your “CCP has consistently….” opinion, time has run out for them. Let me remind you it took us 100 years between emancipation and inking of basic semblences of civil rights for African Americans. It took another 45 years for it to become reality. Why wasn’t this accomplished thru a “new constitution”?
If our yet perfect union took 100 years to act on basic human rights, via incremental amendments not outright abolition of existing framework, what right do we have to opin less generousely about others?
December 29th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
@ Facts #83 “For those who are so eager to advance the rights of an oppressed people, why don’t you listen to those people themselves for a second?”
Happy, happy, right? Maybe the Pew survey had better luck than this one.
http://www.danwei.org/survey/nanjing_standard_answers.php
http://my1510.cn/article.php?6568a89d082c1d1a
http://zonaeuropa.com/200812c.brief.htm#025
Is this more western propaganda, or another isolated incident like the Xintai mental institute?
December 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
@WillF
Taiwan’s explosive growth depended on US’s support, a rich country. Taiwan’s size and China’s size is not comparable as some one pointed out. Comparing KMT and CCP is comparing apples to oranges. Without US’s support, India, a democratic country, is still behind China with the same size.
December 29th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
@Jerry #53: Ah, you forget that when I would have gone to Notre Dame, they’d won a national championship my freshman year and both Joe Montana and “Rudy” arrived my sophomore year, so God WAS on their side back then. Irish-Americans drink; Italian-Americans drink; I guess the difference is Guinness and Jameson (none of that Protestant Bushmills for the Catholic boys) for the Irish while we Italians went for the Chianti, Grappa, Sambuca, Amaretto, Frangelico, Limoncello… aw hell, we drink everything!
I was watching a show on the History Channel about the Revolutionary War and it seems Tom Paine’s Common Sense arrived just in time to keep Washington’s army together. The cause was falling apart so it was just the spark they needed at the time. It fit TonyP4’s pillars of success: “smartness, hard working and luck”.
I agree with your overall synopsis of the economic situation in China these days. I think the key date will be when the Spring Festival is over; when those employees who visited their families come back to their factories in Guangdong to see the doors and gates padlocked and the owners out of the country after absconding with all the money. I hope I’m wrong, but I have an impending sense of doom about it. We’ll all know in a few weeks.
Futures derivatives always seemed like a shell game to me; rather than buying primary assets, you are essentially gambling on what those assets will do, like a series of mirrors lined up in a funhouse. They can come up with all kinds of technical jargon to describe what they are doing, but to me it’s just playing craps at Vegas.
When I quoted Franklin, the second one was my subtle joke to you; i.e., I was also referring to the so-called USA Patriot Act, though I see nothing patriotic about it.
@TonyP4 #54: You are correct; the old National Assembly in Taipei was the congress for mainland China with governors who were all friends of CKS and got their fat paychecks for taking naps while in session. The true congress was the Provincial Assembly in Taichung, where my brother in law served for 18 years and I had to chance to visit while in session back in 1993. These days, that Assembly is no more (abolished in 2005) and the Legislative Yuan in Taipei is the only Congress left.
Tony, I feel many in China agree with your position on Charter 08 but certainly not all. My experience there was similar to FOARP. We talked about political issues all the time; I mostly asked questions and listened to what they had to say. I worked with the technocrats (same as FOARP) and the majority felt that China had to reform its political process over time, and that reform would be democratic in nature.
@ BBD #55: I’m not sure if the KMT has officially given up their claims on the mainland, Mongolia, etc. I think it’s still in their party platform, though no one pays attention to it anymore. Allen, do you know if it’s still in there?
@ TonyP4 #60: Ahh… the good ol’ days! The women fought much better than the men, who were pathetic. Scratching, clawing, throwing shoes… it was great!! People in Taiwan sure get emotional about their politics.
Going over the governments you mentioned, Vietnam isn’t a democracy so they don’t really count but they are corrupt for business; mostly government hong bao. Both parties in the Philippines are University of the Philippines alumni and know each other well; they just take turns being corrupt. However, it’s better than when Marcos ran it as a dictator, and also less corrupt than back then. The corruption isn’t swept under the rug anymore. Indonesia used to be as bad as China and Vietnam under Suharto in terms of corruption but it’s actually gotten a lot better lately, since 2004 when they went… uh… democratic. The corruption in Taiwan under the KMT dictatorship was horrible, but things have improved a lot since 1996 and having an elected president, along with opposition political parties. You can’t begin to compare corruption in Taiwan with that in mainland China; it’s night and day. Anyone who’s done business in both countries is aware of that, including Chinese businessmen. This isn’t any big secret; everyone knows it. The fact that Taiwan politicians have gone to jail for corruption is the surprise. That only happens in mainland China when the politician gets on the wrong side of the current leader, as Chen Liangyu did when he wouldn’t play ball with Hu and Wen.
The trial hasn’t started yet but Chen Shui-bian sure looks like he’ll have a hard time defending his actions. I think in terms of a wife, he chose poorly…
@vmoore55 #61: “Where most world leaders don’t think that democracy is the best form of gov’t, some here wants it for a great country like China.” Which world leaders are you referring to? Most world leaders I know of prefer democracy. I’m not doubting you; I just can’t think of any major world leaders outside of China that think this way. Maybe you could list a few?
Also, I think you are mistaken in terms of recent immigrants to North America. I’d say outside of Mexico, in the USA the majority are from Asia. In Canada, I’d definitely say the majority are from Asia, but I’ve spent most of my Canadian time in Vancouver. Can any of our Canadian commenters confirm or deny this?
When I was working in Shanghai, we occasionally had training schools in the States and my colleagues had to get visas in order to attend. It was really hard for someone who hadn’t made the trip before to get one. I went to the American embassy to see if I could move the process along and in some cases ended up giving a personal guarantee to get them the visa. When I talked to staff at the embassy about it, they said they had to be careful because over 60% of Chinese citizens with travel or student visas were overstaying said visas. After 911 it became even harder to get that first one. However, once you had made your first trip, subsequent visas were easy to get.
They looked at three areas on application: age, marital status and savings. If you were young, unmarried and didn’t have much in savings, you were screwed because those people were the ones who tended to stay illegally. Unfortunately, in the semiconductor industry most people are young, unmarried and didn’t have much in savings.
@pug_ster #68: People might complain about their leaders in democratic governments, but they don’t want to get rid of their right to choose them or their right to kick them out of office. China’s leaders get high approval ratings while economic times are good. We’ll see what the numbers look like when times are bad. Every growing economy hits a temporary wall sooner or later, and China won’t be an exception. You can’t grow at 10+% forever, and the more you tie your prospects to the rest of the world, the more world events affect your economy. In Japan, MITI bureaucrats were considered geniuses in the 70s and 80s but are now considered obstructionists. It’s easy to be a genius in a developing economy.
China has built its success on exports; now those exports are drying up and the domestic economy isn’t picking up the slack. That’s the good and bad of it, unfortunately. This holiday season has been a retail disaster, so I think you’re going to see a lot of cancelled orders to China in the next couple of weeks. By the end of January, things could get really tough with a lot of layoffs everywhere in the world. Those omelets might get a lot smaller.
@Charles Liu #70: To be honest, I only learned enough characters to drive around Taiwan and never learned any simplified ones. I’m a complete dolt when it comes to written Chinese; I admit it. I took that photo from the Global Voices link I referenced in the initial paragraph; just to give it a little pizzazz. I didn’t mean to offend anyone; I was trying to make this thread as neutral as possible so everyone could contribute based on their feelings and not based on my write up.
@Wu Di #74: Thanks for answering the actual questions I posed! Seems like so far, Chinese are saving more than spending, except among the rich. But middle class spending is what drives any economy so right now more of the profits are coming from exports. I know the government is trying to increase spending among Chinese citizens themselves, but it doesn’t seem to be working yet.
@BMY #78: I’m not sure I understand what you mean when you say “But they had their own propaganda of hijacking “democracy” and put themselves still on power during a national crisis.” Could you elaborate on that? How did they hijack democracy?
I agree with your step by step approach but would they feel that by doing so, their chances of jail time would increase because they were so specific? I’m not so sure Communism was so great on paper, though. It failed to take into account human nature and George Orwell seemed to have the weaknesses pegged back in 1945 when he wrote Animal Farm.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Steve, always insightful. Thanks!
Hongkonger, this is for you. The old Hong Kong http://hk.myblog.yahoo.com/ekwleung/article?mid=2127
December 29th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
SK @ 71,”how many PRC Chinese have had the pleasure of reading the thing, as we have”
Well, quite a few. Check the baidu search link in comment 70. Appearantly there are divergence of opinions about 08 Constution Charter:
- full on for/against
- retrospective comparison with 1908 Constution Charter
- commentary from Zhao Zihyang “western reform faction” countering recent “not changing flag” sociaist reform speech by Hu.
- conspiracy theory that this is the opening salvo for federalist revolution
December 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
I don’t get the antipathy to the federalist element of the charter.
What would be wrong with a Chinese federation? It might create some problems. It might also solve a few. I don’t see why it shouldn’t be workable.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
TonyP4’s little message is a true reflection of what Chinese people want.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:19 am
@facts and TonyP4:
I totally agree that the two came from quite different circumstances. However, I don’t think it’s completely unfair to compare the two. Both are Chinese societies, and both were guided by authoritarian governments toward economic development. I agree the US helped a lot in Taiwan, but to call it America’s “puppy” is just anti-Taiwanese nationalist garbage. The Taiwanese took advantage of their close relationship with the US to build a sustainable and dynamic economy for themselves.
Anyway, my main goal in comparing the two was to get past the failures of both the KMT and the CCP in the far past and take a brief look at how each power has ruled its respective territory in the last 30-40 years. I agree that developing a country of 1.3 billion is far more difficult than developing one the size of Taiwan. And I think that given the limitations, the CCP has done a great job of developing China economically. My point was that the KMT, unlike the CCP, took their reforms a step further by developing democratic institutions that are quite popular in Taiwan. This has not resulted in economic collapse for Taiwan, but has resulted in greater public participation in government affairs, a free press, etc. This is a good thing for the Chinese people in Taiwan. The CCP should take similar measures in mainland China, if they want to claim superiority in the “who’s better for China” competition. I think such a competition is pointless, but you started it, Facts, when you claimed that the KMT was “the worst gov. ruled China in the 20th century”.
As for the India comparison, I think it’s very misleading. First, India and China are two extremely different cultures. They have similar populations, but China is 3 times larger in area than India: China’s territory is ~9.6 million square km, whereas India’s is only ~3.2 million square km.
But if we must compare the two, as you insist, let’s do so. India’s economic growth was stunted not only (like China) by its large population , but also (like China) by its heavily socialist economic policies, that it maintained until the early 1990s. There’s no question that India’s democratic government failed to develop its country’s economy in the early years. There’s also no question that China’s dictatorial government also failed in this regard. India began opening up its economy in earnest in 1991, whereas China began reforms in the late 1970s. However, judging from 1991, India’s growth rates have been ~6-8% yearly, and last year reached ~9.1%. While this falls short of China’s growth rates, it’s hardly “two thumbs down”. It is actually regarded as remarkable. Indeed, in the US, and I’m sure elsewhere, when people talk about emerging superpowers, they usually mention “China and India” in the same sentence. So even though I don’t think the two can be compared, if you want to do so, you’d only be hurting your own argument that democracy will ruin Chinese economic growth. India is, if anything, a perfect example of how a democratic nation can still adopt sound economic policies and manage rapid growth.
I should also point out that in addition to enjoying rapid economic growth, India also enjoys a free press and unregulated Internet access, both of which China lacks.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:24 am
@Steve #82,
I replied to you in the “open thread” a little … but that was in context of FOARP’s comment there.
Here I just want to note briefly that while I do appreciate you trying to generalize the experience of nationalism – from Europe to Japan (I will neither dispute nor agree) – my understanding of nationalism is that the more you dig into it, the more you realize each nation’s version is different.
For me, I have long ago given up on trying to study “nationalism” as a human phenomenon but instead to treat “nationalism” as an integral part of studying a nation’s history, culture, and social fabric in the “modern context.” Some times, I do run into Eureka type similarities in my studies of different cultures and peoples. But for the most part, I refrain from trying to understand any one version through the lens of any particular other.
Just as Chinese history and culture is probably best understood in the context of Chinese history and culture, so is Chinese nationalism, I think….
In any case, regardless of whether we agree on the proper lens through which to study nationalism, I will disagree with you that charter 08 is behind controlling the development of Chinese nationalism as you seem to suggest with this:
I understand that in human history, nationalism (like any other type of ideologies, including religion, democracy, liberty, civility, anti-terrorism) has been used (manipulated, distorted, whatever) to make war, and that many people want to do their best to learn from history and try to prevent future atrocities.
However, I don’t think the answer to world peace is through elimination of nationalism – just as world peace is not to be obtained by getting rid of “religion,” promoting “democracy,” “liberty”, “civility,” or “anti-terrorism.”
What is the path to world peace? I personally think it’s has to be achieved either through a world government that is truly geared toward working for the benefit of all mankind, not just the people of a few rich countries – or anarchy in a Communist utopian type of way.
Anyways – since neither is feasible in the immediate future … I’ll leave that topic for another thread in the distant future!
December 30th, 2008 at 12:26 am
@WillF,
India cant set up SEZ along its coast line (WHY ?), Imagine China had no SEZ.
BTW, in India, 43% of kids under age 5 are under weight, hardly improved in last 15 years.
Also, the cornerstone of democracy is that “everyone is born equal”, then why after 60 years of democracy, caste system is still deep-rooted in their society ?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Steve :
your view of corruption doesnt hold water.
I agree the problem of coruption in China is very serious, but the reason is hardly democracy or one party system. the problems of corruption in india is as worse as in China if you compare the scale of infrasture building in two countries.
Assume you were a government official in a small town of China, do you have chance of being corruptive if government hasnt invested in your town ?
Thinks of scale of economic development in China in last 20 years, it gives governent officials tons of opportunities to be corruptive. Taiwan ? they have been busy at fighting against each other, not economy, the money were spent for diplomatic casue, government officials hardly have chance to be corruptive. the same for indonesia in last 4 years.
Also, in democratic countries, they are usually controled by nobles, or riches, why on earth do they need to be corruptive ? like the CEO of GM flied to Washington, like the AIG top executives used taxpayers $$ to go to luxuary resorts, their corruptiions are simply legalized, AS THEY CONTROL THE ECONOMY, so the laws are made for their needs.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:49 am
Wahaha, village/township elected officials can be impeached under the current system. This topic came up during the Taishi thing over at Sunbin:
http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/10/taishi-and-village-impeachment.html
(Don’t forget to check out his picture of Paris Hilton
And Taiwan officials are not corrupt? Have you been following the Ahbian indictment? He sent his wife’s panty money to FLG via Wang Dan and the Taiwan Lobby in DC forcrissake.
December 30th, 2008 at 12:59 am
@nationalist sentiments in this thread:
I’ve heard a lot about Western propaganda in this thread. I don’t dispute that there is Western propaganda; I’ve seen it and heard it. But remember, there is also Chinese propaganda. I’ve seen it and heard it, and you probably have too.
I’m reading a book right now called Senso. It’s a collection of letters from the 1980s written to a Japanese newspaper from Japanese who remembered World War II (the Greater East Asia War). It’s interesting to hear the sentiments expressed in these letters and compare them to some of the sentiments I’m seeing in this thread. Most letters refer to a hypernationalist sentiment at the time that emphasized the greatness of the Japanese and the desire to defeat the evil Americans and British. Most also talk about the lack of freedom of expression or dissent during the buildup to the war. Nearly all of the letters speak bitterly of the war and lament the entire period of Japanese history.
The main thing I’m drawing from the book is that nationalism is a dangerous thing. It’s natural to feel proud of one’s country. There’s nothing wrong with loving one’s nation; I know I do. But one must always remember that this patriotism can be easily exploited by those in power. The Japanese leaders in the 1930s did so, and it aided them in their delusional quest for domination in Asia. It’s happened in the US too; Bush did it in 2003 in the lead-up to the Iraq War. Ambitious politicians will periodically attempt to exploit people’s emotions, but I believe the best way to prevent them from getting what they want is to control one’s emotions with one’s mind. We must always question whether what our government says is best for the country really IS best for the country. We must always ask ourselves whether we support our governments’ actions because we believe they are reasonable and justified, or simply because we have a gut reaction to rally to our governments’ causes. As Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” We must always remain vigilant and recognize that there are those who wish to fool all of us all of the time, and we must try to ensure they never fool any of us any time.
I’m not targeting the Chinese in particular. I understand that this is a blog about China. If it were a blog about the US, there would probably be plenty of nationalist rhetoric tossed around over US domestic and foreign policy. But I want to tell this to as many people from as many nations as possible: propaganda is everyone’s enemy. Think before you drink (the Kool-Aid).
December 30th, 2008 at 1:01 am
@Steve #82,
In response to your questions (I added the numbering):
1.) My problem is not that it looks too Western. Heck, modern computers were invented in the West, and I have no problem introducing them to China. The problem is not that it looks “too Western;” it also has nothing to do with cultural pride. The problem is that you are taking a solution created for another society without really understanding what the target society needs. The Chinese people deserve better.
2.) Chinese people need to focus on good governance and creating environments for continued social and economic developments. Start with solutions that solve those problems. Again copying ideological rhetoric from other societies that did not go through the same history or share the same social or economic context and doing so without clearly articulating how such alleged ideals solves real-life problems is silly and not helpful. Simply saying – hey these ideologies are grafted from the successful West is not good enough.
3.) None. I don’t think there is a prosperous, multi-cultural democracy that I would look up to as China’s role model in today’s world. China would have to create a solution that works and hopefully that could be another of China’s legacy to the world.
4.) China’s system would be unique. I believe it would be a meritocracy combined with a healthy dose of administrative law. Regulations would be promulgated as laws to promote policy, but not as laws for the preservation of “rights”. There would be checks and balances in gov’t so not every important gov’t action will have to be top-down or centrally driven. There will be rule of law of the type that facilitate more transparencies in governance and in economic transactions – but not necessarily of the type that constrains government policy. In other words, social reform and policy will continued to be cast in the forums of policy making and not in the rhetoric of the law (i.e. Constitution, human rights) as in the West. People will have a voice in the government – though we will not necessarily have elections of top officials or a multi-party system.
This is a big topic. I might as well stop here for now…
December 30th, 2008 at 1:05 am
To TonyP4 #80:
that’s awesome. I particular like the second stanza. And the full-on Chinese is a nice touch. It’s also probably similarly applicable next month for Chinese New Year. Oh, to be able to get up without the beckon call of the alarm clock…that’s definitely worth sleeping on.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:09 am
To WillF #81:
again, awesome. You’re 2 for 2 in going yard. I also noticed that, while people have quibbles with your KMT/CCP comparisons, no one has even attempted to address your question of “why not”. Shame, really, I was looking for a laugh….
December 30th, 2008 at 1:13 am
@Wahaha 94:
Again, the two countries can’t be compared. Their cultures are extremely different. But look at China. The cornerstone of the CCP is equality as well. But the 60% of the Chinese population that lives in rural areas is also deeply unequal to the urban Chinese, and has been, virtually by design, since the inception of the PRC (the central planners of the 1950s made a conscious effort to emphasize urban development over rural development). Democracy doesn’t solve inequality, and neither does authoritarianism. Not that I ever alleged that democracy solved inequality. Don’t put words in my mouth.
Still, are you arguing that India’s problems are a result of its democratic government? Because my point wasn’t that India is better than China, it was that democracy in India isn’t preventing it from growing economically. Again, it was in response to the misleading but oft-repeated argument: “India’s economy is bad, India is a democracy, therefore China shouldn’t be a democracy.” The first premise of that argument is untrue, and therefore that argument fails.
@ Facts:
I missed the bit about PEW research. What does “right track” even mean? Over 80% of Americans think the US is on the “wrong track”, but <0.1% of Americans (my estimate, admittedly) think the US should become less democratic, or be more like China in terms of politics. What if PEW asked the central question in this thread, “Should the CCP take steps toward a representative democratic government”? But they couldn’t ask that, because the CCP wouldn’t let them. Again, why not?
December 30th, 2008 at 1:14 am
To Fiction #83:
I’d be happy for you to point it out next time I’m speaking for anyone other than myself, as I have you. Good luck with that.
Hey, since when did you believe in American sources? Oh, I see, it’s only good enough when convenient for you…how nice. Actually, what’d be even nicer is if the same research could be conducted in CHina (by PRC citizens even, if you’d like). Ah, an opinion poll of CHinese people in China, unfettered by the CCP…dream big, I say.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:21 am
@WillF #81,
I suppose you would argue that the U.S. is democratic and has a gov’t by the people, of the people, and for the people?
December 30th, 2008 at 1:22 am
To Charles Liu #70:
yeah, I saw that. Thanks for the link. Nice to see it being discussed where it matters most. Nice to also see that opinions on both sides are being allowed.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:49 am
@Allen 103:
No, I believe such a government is impossible to achieve anywhere. But I believe that on the whole, our government is closer to that ideal than China’s government, and I believe that our people do at least have a significant voice in how our country is run. We let our politicians get the best of us too often, but we also often make them pay.
But the beauty of democracy is that democracy is inherently culture-specific. When you’re trying to get votes from Americans, you’re going to operate in an American way. If you want to get votes from Japanese, you want to operate in a Japanese way. If China were to have democracy, it would be Chinese democracy. That’s why I haven’t once advocated a transplant of the US system into China. What I advocate is as follows:
1. Free speech, a free press and unregulated Internet access in China. This would allow the Chinese to talk amongst themselves about whether they want a new system, and what it should look like.
2. Allowing the creation of new, independent political parties in China. This would allow Chinese to form their own political parties, if they wish, and realistically have a chance to put their ideas for political change into action, should the majority of Chinese decide they’d like to give it a try. There are, of course, already other political parties in China, but they are minor and are anything but independent.
3. Gradual separation of the state from the CCP. This would allow the administrative bodies of the state to operate under orders from the National People’s Congress and the President of the PRC, rather than the CCP Politburo. This would, hopefully, give China’s new political parties the ability to actually put their ideas into practice.
Are these really radical ideas? Are they really that terrifying? They seem feasible to me. There are already executive and legislative institutions in China; they just are under de facto control of the CCP. Let’s see if they can operate independently. Hey, if it really sucks without them, the CCP can always get re-elected to power.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:28 am
@WillF
First, India and China are two extremely different cultures. They have similar populations, but China is 3 times larger in area than India: China’s territory is ~9.6 million square km, whereas India’s is only ~3.2 million square km.
—————————————- China —————– India
Land Mass (square km) —- 9,326,410 ———- 2,973,190
Percent Arable —————– 14.86% ————– 48.83%
Arable Land Mass ————- 1,385,905 ———- 1,451,809
Population ———————– 1,330,044,544 — 1,127,995,904
Arable per person ———- 0.0010 ————— 0.0013
December 30th, 2008 at 2:53 am
“The relationship between liberalism and democracy may be summed up by Winston Churchill’s famous remark, “…democracy is the WORST form of Government except all those other forms…” Churchill didn’t see a liberal communist Chinese system coming.
“In short, there is nothing about democracy per se that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses.” The writing is on the wall and some ask why not.
December 30th, 2008 at 2:57 am
@WillF #105,
No – your ideas are not “terrifying,” but I just do not agree with them.
Regarding to the U.S., I really don’t think we have as much voice as you make out. We have two political parties that are beholden to similar interests (military establishment, corporations, special interests, etc.). We do have a press that is not as regulated by the government as that in China, but our press is nevertheless not “free.” (Our press has been dumbed down to cater to commercial interests, 3 minute stories, with very few genuine discourse that challenges established ideologies) An institution that does not generate true discourse is not “free” – even if there is no explicit laws regulating it.
In the big picture, if we look to our last election, we’ll see that there are no really new ideas (outside of the rhetoric of change) that came out of this past election. People are really too saddled with burdens of day-to-day living to challenge the established political establishments. Democracy is hard. Is mass participation to way to go to solve a lot of the complex, technocratic problems facing our country? Even if yes, are we choosing between two parties that are really that different? We’ll see….
AS for China, I have this to add:
1. Free speech. Yes I like “free speech” for China – except my bar is higher: not just the superficial “no government interference” western type. But a type that support true creation and exchange of ideas. In a China of the future, not only should government not suppress speech, but people should have the education, will, resources, economic means to want to participate in such speech. For today, I believe the gov’t has a role in regulating speech. I don’t like the lines that are drawn (some are too damn sily and politicized), but I do believe the Chinese gov’t has an important role to play in regulating speech in China (at the minimal, to avoid garbage, sensationalized, tabloid, politicized, incendiary type press).
2. Political parties. I don’t believe this is important or necessary. I do believe the CCP ought to develop a new ideology for China and to welcome and invite the best and brightest Chinese to join the party and government in serving the people. I also believe the CCP should allow, invite, tolerate always more differences within the CCP.
3. Separation of CCP / state. I am indifferent to this. I don’t see it as a priority today. It hasn’t really done Taiwan (where I was born and grew up) much good. This might be important or might not important for China in the future – we’ll see as situations develop further.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:07 am
Let me add something to the comparison between India and China. India has more farm land and river than China (so land comparison is not apple to apple). However, China produces almost double the farm products than India. China’s governance, farm technology (fertilizers…), utilization of land… are better than India.
Chinese and Indians are just as smart and hard working as each other. Indians and Chinese have the same level of success in US – Indians are slightly superior due the Indian migrants are from the higher society class in India.
The governance in China is far superior. There are too many evidences. Indians will barely sponsor the Commonwealth Game. Their assistance to Mumbai incident is just a condole call from the central government. India’s top cities are years behind China’s Tier II cities. And on and on.
With a democratic society for so many years and English being one of the official languages, India should do better than China, but not. They do not have the support of US and stick with the loser (Russia) for too long. The governance is weak and not efficient. They need to control the population growth to start with and not let religion to govern their life (which modern cities let their holy cows roaming/shitting around?).
I respect the Indian culture. They’re happy folks, so the wealth of a country is one measure of success, but not the only measure. To learn more about Indian culture, watch the movie “Outsourcer” I rented from Netflix.
As in my previous post, I hope China will fix their basic problems and move to a more democratic society.
December 30th, 2008 at 3:21 am
WillF:
You gave answers from textbook. No offense, but I dont give a damn about answers from textbook. for examples:
1) As people can vote, so the elected politicians will work for people. such explanation doesnt mean anything to me, what I see is that the elected politicians in India, Russia and USA cared more for riches than people who voted them in.
2) Free speech, sounds great. BUT IT DOESNT SOLVE PROBLEMS most of times, more likely creates more problems. (Yes, it may “solve” the problem for several individuals, but create problems for hundreds times more people.)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/29/carnegie.tenant/index.html
What I want to hear is how a political system solved a REAL WORLD economic problems. Like the one I asked you : why couldnt India set up SEZ along her coastline ? How about you give us an example that the democratic system in India effectively solved a big economic issue ?
BTW, there is no question that the current system in China has tons of flaws. but if a person has an ugly mark on his butt, will he allow doctors to replace that mark with a piece of skin from his face ?
December 30th, 2008 at 4:10 am
@Facts #83
@S.K. Cheung
Ok, Facts (OR should I use the moniker SK hung on you, “Fiction”. Has a rather eponymous ring to it.) your propagandized, sanitized version of the Pew Research Center’s “The 2008 Pew Global Attitudes Survey in China: THE CHINESE CELEBRATE THEIR ROARING ECONOMY, AS THEY STRUGGLE WITH ITS COSTS — Near Universal Optimism About Beijing Olympics”. Too bad that you pick and choose what to disclose! As I pointed out at FM’s “China Punishes France and the EU” thread, you failed to disclose Pew’s complete data, and their misgivings and cautions about the China survey. And my misgivings about the survey’s sampling techniques and China’s satisfaction result. Here is a recap of the survey with some of the points I mentioned.
We, the participants at FM, are, for the most part, fairly intelligent. We would like to make our own decisions. Please tell both sides of the story. Let us make our own decisions. This is not a rag like Xinhua.
###########
Originally published out at China Punishes France and the EU
In that regard, Pew’s 2007 survey showed that the relatively low Chinese personal contentment was in line with the still modest level of per-capita income there – looking across the 47 countries included in that poll, life satisfaction ratings in China fell about where one would predict based on the country’s wealth. (#1) The current poll takes a deeper look into how the Chinese people evaluate their lives and specific conditions in their country, providing further insight into the contrast between the average Chinese’s satisfaction with the state of the country and its economy and relative dissatisfaction with elements of personal life.
The new data suggest the Chinese people may be struggling with the consequences of economic growth. Notably, concerns about inflation and environmental degradation are widespread. And while most Chinese embrace the free market, there is considerable concern about rising economic inequality in China today.
These are the latest findings from the 2008 Pew survey of China. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 3,212 adults in China between March 28 and April 19, 2008, a period which followed the March 10 onset of civil unrest on Tibet and preceded the May 12 earthquake in China’s Sichuan Province. The sample, which is disproportionately representative of China’s urban areas, includes eight major cities, as well as medium-sized towns and rural areas in eight Chinese provinces. The area covered by the sample represents approximately 42% of the country’s adult population. (#2)
Almost universally, the Chinese respondents surveyed complain about rising prices – 96% describe rising prices as a big problem for the country, and 72% say they are a very big problem. And nearly half (48%) of those polled say health care is difficult for their family to afford.
But the Chinese are almost as concerned about equity in China as they are about inflation. About nine-in-ten (89%) identify the gap between rich and poor as a major problem and 41% cite it as a very big problem. Worries about inequality are common among rich and poor, old and young, and men and women, as well as the college-educated and those with less education. In that regard, despite economic growth, concerns about unemployment and conditions for workers are extensive, with 68% and 56% reporting these as big problems, respectively.
Complaints about corruption are also widely prevalent, with 78% citing corruption among officials and 61% citing corruption among business leaders. Six-in-ten also rate crime as a big problem. Concerns about both corruption and crime are widespread among all segments of China’s population.
While corruption is seen as a problem, most Chinese (65%) believe the government is doing a good job on issues that are most important to them. However, poorer Chinese and residents of the western and central provinces covered in the survey give the government somewhat lower grades than do citizens in eastern China.
Environmental issues also emerge as a top problem and a top priority. Roughly three-in four (74%) cite air pollution as a big problem and 66% so named water pollution. In response, as many as 80% of Chinese think protecting the environment should be made a priority, even if this results in slower growth and a potential loss of jobs
The Chinese score is over 3 standard deviations from the mean; it is in the outside 11% of the population of scores. Which means it is a statistical outlier, and it bears additional examination and investigation.
Here is my documentation:
You ignored all of the other Pew data about Chinese dissatisfaction. How convenient for you!
December 30th, 2008 at 4:12 am
@Willf
I don’t even know where to start. Taiwan province is in no way to compare with mainland China. We are talking entirely different set of limitations and driving forces. You never dressed the issue of technology blockade of West to China. The industries that give Taiwan advantage over mainland are those only Taiwan can build from importing Western technologies, but mainland can’t. It was only because the West needs to build up Taiwan to enclose China, nothing Taiwan did for itself. Taiwan benefited from being West/US tool to encircle China. How can mainland take the same strategy? Actually after the so-called democracy in Taiwan province, Taiwan’s economic growth has slowed down significantly, I don’t think mainland can afford such slow down.
No other developing countries achieved what PRC has achieved, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia. Compared to the historic achievements of China in past 200 yrs, PRC has reached the height never would have been dreamed of in the days of ROC. Then compared to what the US achieved at the 60th yr of the founding of USA, PRC again out-did America. All in all PRC is the best thing has happened to the Chinese nation.
China had a parliamentary democracy system in the 20th century, ROC was the first democratic republic in Asia. What did it brought to China? Civil wars, foreign invasions, starvation. How much Chinese population has changed from the founding of ROC to its doom in 1949? How much Chinese population has changed since the founding of PRC? Given the growth rate that experienced in PRC period, how much Chinese population had lost during the period of ROC? 500 million to 700 million? ROC should be the most murmurous regime the world had ever seen.
What PRC achieved even in the first 30 yrs of rule would put ROC in infinite shame. Population doubled, nuclear armed, industrial production, life span, food produced, literacy rate, etc… no comparison here. All this just to tell you, Western democracy China had tried already, it never worked, China was dragged through a bloodbath of civil wars and Jap invasions, it brought China shame upon shame, death upon death.
Asking questions about throwing out the Chinese constitution of cause should not allowed. Would the US allow a survey to ask should US have a nazi government or communist government? I don’t even understand why I am here writing this to you. All the nonsense of democracy is just pie in the sky pipe dream. Russia tried it, and lost more than 10million population in the ’90s, of cause Western media sweeps it under the rug.
China is doing so well compared to China itself in the past, compared to other developing countries of the world? The countries tried democracy, Russia lost 10s millions of population, economy destroyed, territory taken away, India falling further and further back to China. Why China should give up what’s working to try something proved to fuck a country? Just because Western propaganda promised the pie in the sky? Your listing of propaganda talking points doesn’t make any sense.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:21 am
@Jerry
You don’t need to go through all that mumble jumble, just say you don’t accept the results, and give your own version of it, that would make it a lot easier on yourself. I don’t think you would accept any data that doesn’t fit you expectation. I don’t have anything to say, just read the report, take it or leave it.
As to what you want to call me, I can care less.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:00 am
@ Comrade Facts,
I fully understand your love of China (and CCP).
I am pro China too. But I think your comparison of PRC with pre 1949 ROC is not very fair. Whom are you blaming for the lost of 500 million to 700 million lives by the period of ROC? I understand there were many parties involved.
the statement like “ROC should be the most murmurous regime the world had ever seen.” went a bit too far. It sounds very familiar with some statements on some paper if we just change a name.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:12 am
@Facts #113
@S.K. Cheung
“You don’t need to go through all that mumble jumble”
Well, Facts, what you call “mumble jumble”, I call ”stating what the report actually said”. And a “factual” statistical analysis of the Chinese result on overall satisfaction when compared to other countries. And, facts, I love doing this; it is worthwhile. But thanks for your concern, nonetheless. I just don’t want to depend on you making my conclusion for me. Not necessary. I assume that most people here at FM are capable of reading the report, should they want to, and reaching their own conclusions, whatever they may be.
December 30th, 2008 at 5:31 am
@Steve #87
Sorry about my poor English and didn’t make it clear.
My understanding of what FOARP quoted on #77 is the Qing governor in Taiwan in 1895 just used the name of democracy as a mean and tried to still seize power during a political vacuum. This is the same with many Qing provincial governors made statements of democracy and republic and and became(claimed to be) elected republic governors in 1911 during the fall of Qing.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:25 am
To Tony P4 #109:
I’m as agnostic as the next guy, but I would suggest treading gently with statements such as “not let religion to govern their life”. As far as I’m concerned, to each their own.
BTW, couldn’t agree more with your last statement.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:32 am
To Wahaha #110:
all these months, and you still haven’t ceased to amuse me. “but if a person has an ugly mark on his butt, will he allow doctors to replace that mark with a piece of skin from his face ?”- what’s that got to do with the price of tea in CHina? If ” (the) current system in China (which) has tons of flaws” is the skin on the butt, what is the facial skin analogous to? Besides, if that were the case, I’d just hack off the butt skin (ie ugly CCP flaws), slap a band-aid on it, and be done with it.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:41 am
@ facts: You’ve addressed me a few times so I owe you an answer. I’ll try to take each of your points one at a time.
“There is no sovereignty of Taiwan to start with. Taiwan’s sovereignty belongs to China, Taiwan still is part of China as we speak, no annexation to speak of.”
False; The definition of “sovereign” is: (of political bodies) not controlled by outside forces; “an autonomous judiciary”; “a sovereign state”. China does not control Taiwan’s government, military or any of its administration. You might want China to have sovereignty over Taiwan, but it currently does not. What you want is fine and your opinion, but it is not current reality.
“Overwhelming majority of Chinese over the world would be happy to see China unite.”
Opinion, not fact; You need to substantiate this in order for it to be a fact.
Your opinion of the KMT is negative (so is mine) but it is our opinion, not fact. We might think it’s the worst government in recent Chinese history but it only an opinion. The corruption of the CKS KMT is well-documented but so is the corruption of the current CCP government.
“To this day, KMT in Taiwan still does everything it can to split the Chinese nation and work against Chinese interest at every turn.”
False; The current KMT in Taiwan’s platform is eventual reunification. The CCP government has had party to party talks with them and supported the KMT in the last election. They hate the DPP, not the KMT.
“It’s the disinterest of such, with full force of the activist community plunged in, the mainstream Chinese communities in and outside China don’t really give a damn.”
Opinion, not fact. No substantiation for your comment.
“Legitimacy and election have no inherent connection.”
False; Elections are to establish legitimacy and have no other purpose. If you disagree, name the ulterior purpose of having an illegitimate election.
“You are entitled to your view, but you have no right to expect others to agree with you or assume your view should be universally applied everywhere.”
I don’t expect others to agree with me. I also did not propose a government system for China except to say they would have to work that out for themselves and it’d need to be unique to China rather than be a copy of a western system. If you read my original post in #16, you’ll find I called it a “copycat” document and wasn’t impressed with how it was written. My OPINION is that most people in China would agree with me that it would need to be unique to China and not a direct copy of another country’s system. What in here do you disagree with?
“CCP has more legitimacy than any other government in the world, given the approval rating it gets from the Chinese people.”
Opinion, not fact. I’m guessing you are using the Pew ratings that Jerry posted in their entirety. Approval rating for one aspect of a system does not equal legitimacy.
“Still please don’t quote Paine or Franklin to prove the rightness of American system.”
False; I did not quote Paine or Franklin to prove the rightness of American system. I quoted Paine to show that Chinese, Americans and every other country all need to stick together during this upcoming economic recession/depression rather than fight against each other economically, which would be a disaster for all of us. The Franklin quote was for Jerry; it was a criticism of the USA Patriot Act and he understood what I was saying, trust me. (It was anti-Bush)
“Chairman Mao for the first time in past 200 yrs gave the Chinese nation a spine, gave China peace for over 60 yrs and still counting, gave China an economy ranked 3rd in the world at end of 08 and still rising.”
False; China has not had peace for over 60 years. There was the Quemoy bombing; the Korean War, various border conflicts, the re-absorption of Tibet; the war with Vietnam. How can you call that peace? Mao died in 1974, when the economy was in a shambles. You can compliment Deng, Jiang and Hu, but not Mao in terms of economic development. He had nothing to do with the improved economy. In fact, the economy was a disaster under his rule.
“Chairman Mao is the man who stopped the down spiral of China, who put China on the upward path. Generations of Chinese will be grateful for the great Chairman.”
Opinion, not fact. You may love Mao and what he did; most Chinese I know were far fonder of Zhou Enlai. Those are both opinions but certainly not facts. Most Chinese I know would also say that Deng put China on the upward path. Still an opinion, but one that can be substantiated with more economic data than anything you can produce for Mao.
“As for KMT, it brought China shame upon shame, it inherited a united China, but it gave away Mongolia, it almost lost Tibet, it wants to secede Taiwan now.”
False; KMT does not want Taiwan to secede now. It wants eventual reunification. Even the slightest knowledge of Taiwanese politics would make this known. What you also fail to mention is that when it was in China, the KMT never actually ruled the entire country. It was mostly ruled by various warlords with CKS as more of an overlord but he and his government did not exercise direct control over the country. How can it give something away that it never controlled?
“True, China had to be save from Jap by the allies, what a gift of shame KMT brought on China forever.”
The first part is fact; the second part is opinion. I somehow doubt the shame will last forever. Allies are supposed to help each other in time of war; that’s what it means to be an ally.
“Yet, with light infantry and pitiable supplies but valiant spirit , PLA was able to draw a tie with the almighty US, who just annihilated Japan 5 yrs before with its overwhelming air/land/sea power (the same Japan that smashed KMT like hammer pounced on a watermelon). For the first time in history, the mighty West had to sign armistice with a third world country, for the first time in past 200 yrs, China stopped invaders before they stepped on Chinese soil. What the US can do the CCP, nothing but to sit down and talk. For the first time in past 200 yrs, the West was not able to dictate terms of the treaty but negotiate. For the first time in past 200 yrs China could stand tall and look the West in the eye.”
False; The war was with the United Nations, not the US. The combined force never had any intention of invading China. The armistice was with North Korea, not China. China was an ally of North Korea, just as China was an ally of the United States during the war with Japan. Also, different western countries had negotiated with the Qing dynasty without dictating terms. You might want to read up on your own history.
“I bet the West/Japan love ROC but hate PRC, who would not? “The Belligerent and xenophobic PRC”, haha…”
Opinion; most western diplomats consider China far more important than the ROC and have also endorsed the “One China” principle on numerous occasions.
“To the Opium traders, to the Western/Japanese garrisons in China, to the authorities in Western concessions on Chinese soil, to those foreign thugs and sailors, how belligerent and xenophobic China has turned since the days of ROC, huh? The days of killing Chinese like stepping on a bug was forever gone, if you need to be reminded. Yes, China is belligerent and xenophobic by your standard, and guess what… PRC will stay this way for a long time to come, what you are goona do about it?”
False; the opium trade took place under the Qing dynasty with the Chinese mandarins getting a BIG cut of the profits. The western garrison in China during the war was to help China fight the Japanese, which I’m sure had the approval of the vast majority of Chinese citizens. Foreign thugs and sailors? If a foreigner killed a Chinese during the Qing dynasty, that foreigner was tried by the Qing court and put to death. There are all kinds of documentation in the historical record. It also sounds like you are saying China is xenophobic. The CCP says that China’s rise is strictly peaceful so you are contradicting your own government. Don’t you sound like an enemy of the Chinese people?
“I would quote Chinese sources, but the Westerners would then engage in endless squabbling on the validity of sources. Being brainwashed by Western propaganda, Westerners only accept Western sources as valid, I do so to avoid endless distraction and concentrate on the topic at hand.”
Fallacious argument, called “two wrongs make a right”.
It is claimed that person B would do X to person A.
It is acceptable for person A to do X to person B (when A’s doing X to B is not necessary to prevent B from doing X to A).
Until you quote Chinese sources and “Westerners” question the validity, you cannot logically make this claim.
“Once Cleeon has been repeated enough times associated with a good life (the work of an omnipresent propaganda machine)”
Opinion; you have not substantiated any “omnipresent propaganda machine” and examples of such.
“I don’t think the situation in China and Taiwan are comparable. China had to devote resources to manage the obstacles of Western hostility. For instance, semiconductor fabrication equipment are not allowed to be exported to China, that is the reason why Taiwan has a more advanced semiconductor fabrication industry, Taiwan imported all chip fabrication machinery from the US, China has to produce its own from scratch.”
False; semiconductor equipment is allowed to be exported to China. I worked in this business for over 20 years and know more about that industry than you can imagine. (I was in China as Business Development Manufacturer for precisely this reason) Also, the most critical equipment (photolithography) comes from Japan, not the USA. The only other source is Philips in Holland. The advanced Chinese fabs don’t use any Chinese tooling; it just isn’t competitive. China’s biggest problem in that industry is poor infrastructure, especially in utilities, and a small pool of qualified engineers. You have no idea what you are talking about.
“Same happened in machine tooling, without advanced tooling, it’s impossible to produce high grade produce at competitive price.”
False; virtually all advanced machine tooling comes from Japan. There are no trade restrictions on its purchase. China’s advantage is in low cost manpower, not in capital outlay. I have been to many machine shops in China that had the most advanced CNC equipment you can buy. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
“Same situation in the commodities and oil, the amount China needs to secure for its industrial development is entirely different from that of Taiwan.”
False; China produces oil internally; Taiwan has zero oil resources. China still needs to import oil and buys it at the world price, same as every other country.
“Not to mention the international politics, nuclear weaponry, space programs, fusion research, genetics, etc, stuff Taiwan doesn’t even dream of.”
False; Taiwan is doing genetic research. I have several friends currently working there for that specific reason.
“Taiwan essentially acts like America’s puppy, its leader dies trying to find a chance to kowtou to American master.”
Opinion with no substantiation. Incidentally, no one “kowtows” in the western world. That is a Qing dynasty custom. I thought they were a “foreign” dynasty? Why would Chinese practice a foreign custom? Isn’t this just a cheap insult to Taiwanese? I thought they were your compatriots? Have you ever been to Taiwan? Have you done business there? Do you have any idea what Taiwan is like?
“Especially, given the fact India has much more wider access to Western technologies due to its democracy status.”
False; India was allied with the Soviet Union for most of postwar history. It has only recently begun to deal with the United States, and that position isn’t popular with many of its people. Today it has the same access to technology as China.
“It’s very true, how dare I speak for the Chinese people other than myself? Sorry, I forget it is the exclusive right that belongs only to the Chinese dissidents and Western activists—–the self-anointed spokespersons of the oppressed Chinese people. What a joke!!”
Logical fallacy; this is an ad hominum attack. SKC never said he was a spokesperson for the Chinese people; you made it up and then attacked him for it. You represent your own opinion, SKC represents his own opinion; Chinese dissidents represent their own opinions and western activists represent their own opinions.
“You never dressed the issue of technology blockade of West to China. The industries that give Taiwan advantage over mainland are those only Taiwan can build from importing Western technologies, but mainland can’t. It was only because the West needs to build up Taiwan to enclose China, nothing Taiwan did for itself. Taiwan benefited from being West/US tool to encircle China. How can mainland take the same strategy?”
False; again, you just make this stuff up. There was a technology blockade many years ago but that changed over a decade ago. China isn’t competitive because to build semiconductors, you need reasonably clean water, you need consistent utilities, you need excellent transportation systems, you need efficient customs operations, etc. At this time, it’s less expensive to make wafers in Taiwan and ship them overseas than to make them in Shanghai and do the same. Those plants weren’t built for export; they were built to supply China’s internal market. Once China joined the WTO, protective tariffs were lowered and at that point, it became cheaper to ship the chips from Taiwan rather than making them in China. That industry is capital intensive, not labor intensive. Making chips in China has no advantages. Once again, you have no idea what you’re talking about.
“No other developing countries achieved what PRC has achieved, India, Mexico, Brazil, Russia. Compared to the historic achievements of China in past 200 yrs, PRC has reached the height never would have been dreamed of in the days of ROC. Then compared to what the US achieved at the 60th yr of the founding of USA, PRC again out-did America. All in all PRC is the best thing has happened to the Chinese nation. “
False; the current GDP per capita is much higher in Taiwan than in China. The mean income for a Taiwan worker is also much higher. China’s growth has been fantastic, but China also started so far behind the rest of the world that it still hasn’t caught up to the ROC. As far as comparing it to the founding of the USA, you’re talking a 200 year difference, so to compare is absurd. Why not compare it to the first 60 years of the Xia dynasty? It makes as little sense.
“China had a parliamentary democracy system in the 20th century, ROC was the first democratic republic in Asia.”
False; Japan had a parliamentary democratic system before the ROC. The democratic system in the ROC only started in 1986. Before that, it was a military dictatorship. In fact, the political structure of the ROC and the PRC were originally the same, they were both Leninist systems.
“What did it brought to China? Civil wars, foreign invasions, starvation.”
False; civil war was brought by the CCP since at the time, the ROC was the ruling party. The foreign invasion was brought by Japan, and there was far greater starvation under the CCP than under the ROC. The GLF was the worst famine in 20th century China.
“How much Chinese population has changed from the founding of ROC to its doom in 1949? How much Chinese population has changed since the founding of PRC? Given the growth rate that experienced in PRC period, how much Chinese population had lost by the period of ROC? 500 million to 700 million? ROC should be the most murmurous regime the world had ever seen.”
If you’re trying to say what I think you’re trying to say (this part is hard to understand), you are trying to equate a lack of population growth with murder. That makes no sense. Are you saying that because France has zero population growth, it is in essence murdering millions each year because one hundred years ago, the population growth was higher? In fact, the population growth strongly encouraged by Mao has not only been a disaster for the country, the CCP has admitted as much and instituted a one child policy to lower the population. Under your reasoning, does this means the current CCP is murdering millions of people every year?
“What PRC achieved even in the first 30 yrs of rule would put ROC in infinite shame. Population doubled, nuclear armed, industrial production, life span, food produced, literacy rate, etc… no comparison here. All this just to tell you, Western democracy China had tried already, it never worked, China was dragged through a bloodbath of civil wars and Jap invasions, it brought China shame upon shame, death upon death. “
False; the population increase is considered by the CCP to have been a horrible policy, industrial production in China during the first 30 years was minimal compared to its size (do you really want to count the steel production from “backyard furnaces”?), life span increased for sure, but that usually happens when you are not fighting wars, food produced still produced huge famines, literacy rate was increased. There was no western democracy in China during the ROC years. Do you think the slaughter of CCP leaders in Shanghai was democracy? It was a military dictatorship with a Leninist party organization. China has never tried democracy. Dr. Sun Yat-sen was never able to accomplish that dream. But once the war was over; let’s look at those same issues over in Taiwan. Population in 1949 was 7.39 million, today it is 22.8 million. Pretty large increase. No nuclear arms, but no one is complaining about that, including the CCP. Industrial production in the first thirty years was much higher in Taiwan on a per capita basis. Life span in China today is 71; in Taiwan it is 72. Food production in Taiwan is pretty high but unlike China, Taiwan did not experience famines from 1949 to 1979. The current Taiwan literacy rate in 96.1% while in China it is 90.9%.
“Asking questions about throwing out the Chinese constitution of cause should not allowed. Would the US allow a survey to ask should US have a nazi government or communist government?”
The quick answer is yes. In fact, you can do it yourself.
“Russia tried it, and lost more than 10million population in the ’90s, of cause Western media sweeps it under the rug.”
False; western media reported it in great detail. Russia had a limited democracy without any democratic structures in place. Their failure was for the same reason that democracy at the time of Tiananmen Square would also have failed. That doesn’t condemn democracy; it condemns the introduction of democracy when the institutions of democracy are not in place. They seem to be doing better lately, if you’ve noticed. They still hold elections.
“Russia lost 10s millions of population, economy destroyed, territory taken away.”
False; Russia did not lose territory, the hegemonic imperialist Soviet empire lost territory. Lately, Russia’s economy is booming. Moscow is now the most expensive city in the world.
“You don’t need to go through all that mumble jumble, just say you don’t accept the results, and give your own version of it, that would make it a lot easier on yourself. I don’t think you would accept any data that doesn’t fit you expectation. I don’t have anything to say, just read the report, take it or leave it.”
What mumbo jumbo? He supplied the data you referenced (Pew Report) after you had used it as your substantiation. If you thought it was mumbo jumbo, why did you bring it up in the first place? Jerry didn’t give you his own version, he gave you the complete and original report. There was only one version. You referenced the data, not him. Why won’t you accept your own data?
Facts, I don’t have any problem with your opinions per se, but you make all sorts of false statements, give opinions as facts, back up nothing you say and then launch ad hominum attacks on anyone that calls you on it. The purpose of a blog is to exchange information, ideas and opinions. What system is best for China? That’s an opinion. There is no correct or incorrect answer until that system is tried under the present circumstances. Your opinion is just as valid as everyone else’s. But when you throw around “facts” that are not facts, when you substantiate nothing you say, your opinions have no real validity in terms of adding to the discussion.
So you have two options; you can write something nasty to me or about me, or you can continue to give your opinions but with some validation and substantiation rather than simply emotional responses. I hope you go with the second option, since I would like to have a better understanding of why you think the way you do. I’m willing to change my opinion, but only if I have a compelling reason to. Why don’t you give me one?
December 30th, 2008 at 6:42 am
To Fiction #113:
I think it’s very admirable how you can quote “research” in one post, then call the details of said research “mumble jumble” in 12 hours and 12 minutes. Nothing like displaying such strength of conviction. Better you than me, I always say.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:45 am
@Allen:
Thanks for staying focused on the topic. I guess “voice” is hard to measure politically. To be sure, there are vested interests, but voting in my opinion adds an important feature to the political process. We could argue endlessly about whether voting makes a difference. I doubt I’ll change your opinion on the matter and I doubt you’ll change mine. But my general feeling boils down to this: if people can vote, they may change things, or may not. If people can’t vote, they won’t change things, period. That is, without some sort of messy political turmoil (i.e. Tiananmen Square, or worse, civil war). Nobody wants that for China.
So in a democratic society, if the government is doing a bad job, at least in theory there’s a backup system (voting) to throw the government out and put in a better one. It doesn’t always work, but it does sometimes. As for the Chinese system, what if the Chinese government one day decided it didn’t care about economic growth for the average citizen anymore and wanted to line its own pockets at the expense of the people? How could the Chinese people change their government in the event of such a turn? There is no peaceful process of removing the CCP entirely. Thus, while I admit the CCP has done a lot of good, there’s a serious danger that it can’t or won’t keep it up forever. In a democratic system, there’s the possibility of a peaceful transfer of power. In China, there is none.
As for your critique of free press, I assume you’re thinking of the Fox News/CNN-style media in the US. They do suck, but there is plenty of intelligent journalism out there as well. There are some great thought pieces and op/eds published in the New York Times, the New Yorker, Salon.com, the New Republic, just to name a few of the more liberal ones. The average American may not read these papers, but plenty of people do. And our evening news shows aren’t so bad. And investigative journalism does have some positive impact: it was two young reporters for the Washington Post that revealed Watergate in the 1970s; the Washington Post revealed the Walter Reed hospital scandal in 2007, etc.
As for your vision of future China, I think it’s wonderful. All nations should strive for a fully educated, participatory population. But the fact of the matter is most people don’t have the drive to get that college degree and engage themselves in the issues of the day. That doesn’t mean you should deprive those that do from freely exchanging ideas without government interference. That being said, I completely agree that education is very important for a free press and democracy in general.
As it stands now, I’m not sure that the news programming in China is any better than CNN or Fox News in terms of unbiased or significant reports. While my Chinese is still too rudimentary to follow Chinese broadcasts, I know that CCTV9 and the China Daily are terrible. I’m sure the Chinese language media isn’t as bad as the English language stuff, but I honestly don’t know how good it is. How good is it? I do know, though, that the high-brow media in China can’t stick its neck out too far without fear of reprisal.
If there was a way in which the CCP could encourage a higher level of debate, I think that’d be fantastic. We should adopt it in the US. But that doesn’t mean the CCP should stick with the current model until they come up with it.
However, I’d like to point out that it seems we’d both like the same thing for China: a more open, just, and free-thinking society. We happen to disagree on how China will best achieve that.
@Facts:
I don’t expect mainland China to develop as fast as Taiwan. I merely meant to show that if you look at the past 30 years, both parties have done a lot of good for their respective zones of control. Pointing to the bad old days of the KMT to condemn the present-day KMT is about as good an argument as pointing to the Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution-era CCP to condemn the present-day CCP. They are both very different entities.
I also don’t think you give the KMT enough credit for the development of Taiwan. There are plenty of countries that had access to all the best technology, but they haven’t achieved what Taiwan has achieved. The US has given lots of aid to other countries, and they have squandered it where Taiwan has used it wisely.
“Would the US allow a survey to ask should US have a nazi government or communist government?”
Yes, it would. Just today I was interrupted on the street by an advocate for socialist revolution. Most of us don’t think it would be a good idea, but we’re not going to throw him in jail for it. Perhaps most people in China think Charter 08 is a bad idea. We’ll never know, though. Again, what’s the harm in allowing people to exchange ideas, even bad ideas?
As for the “why allow debate on a system that screwed up China before” argument, it’s been nearly a century since the 1911 Revolution. Times change. The West is no longer itching to take China apart, and Japan is no longer eager to invade. Maybe it’s time to reopen the debate.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:48 am
@ BMY #@116: Is that when all the warlords started appearing in China? Were they mostly former Qing governors that were able to fill the power vacuum?
Thanks for the additional explanation. I understood and agreed with your second part, but just wasn’t sure about the first part and wanted to clarify it with you. I understand it now and will need to read up on the history of that time. Seems it was an interesting historical period. I’m more up on the 1920s through the 1940s as far as the history is concerned. I’m much weaker in the early post-Qing period.
December 30th, 2008 at 6:57 am
To Steve #119:
WOW! To say “well said” doesn’t nearly say it well enough. Noble of you to put in the time, effort, and goodwill to point “Fiction” towards the light. However, I wouldn’t hold your breath wrt your last query.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:01 am
@ S.K. Cheung: W.C. Fields once said, “If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.”
December 30th, 2008 at 7:04 am
To Steve:
LOL. I think we’ve certainly witnessed the ol’ college try, at least on your part.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:05 am
@Steve #119:
Awesome.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:08 am
@Steve #122
yes, most of the warlords in early ROC era were former Qing officials.
Don’t worry. You know so much already. It’s all right of not knowing something sometimes.
I’ve learned a lot from you and others just on this blog and thank you.
December 30th, 2008 at 7:41 am
@Steve #119
@S.K. Cheung #120
Steve, that was a masterpiece. Kudos to you and then some!
Yes, tragically, it was Patriot I and II which drove that Franklin quote home to me, again. And then the FISA rewrite and Mukasey’s new rules and directions for the FBI. Won’t the ghosts of McCarthy, Nixon and J. Edgar ever die? I just don’t know; so far they have shown amazing persistence in lingering in our wounded national psyche.
That said, both quotes are still amazing, timeless quotes.
Steve, I just condensed what I originally said about the Pew Survey to Facts. I did not want to bore you with the whole thing again.
SK, yes, it is amazing how Facts can change paradigms to suit himself. I noted that quality over at the “China Punishes France” thread a while back. Some things just don’t change.
Steve, I will soon answer #87. WillF and SK, I have some questions for you, which I will get to. I just am taking detours today.
SK, Steve et al, thanks for your fact checking (Or should I say “Facts” checking? Or possibly, “Fiction” checking? Whatever!).
::LMAO::
December 30th, 2008 at 7:42 am
@Admin
Please highlight #119. Thanks, LC.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:11 am
@Steve #119,
Wow – I commend your effort! Makes for good reading – though I disagree with a lot (A LOT) of what you wrote!
Facts – keep on articulating what you feel like articulating. I enjoy what you write. Of course what you write are facts interleaved with opinions, going by Steve’s strict definition of “facts,” but under that definition – few of what any of us write or what history record could count as strictly “facts.”
Politics is about telling a story, selling a vision, and answering people’s calls for a more just, more hopeful, and more equitable society.
Logic and facts have a role in the discussions – but I don’t think anyone can strictly argue for their point of view purely under the banner of “fact,” “logic,” “truth” or the likes…
If that’s Steve’s point – then for me I guess the point is well taken.
But if Steve is claiming he’s got counter arguments based on the real “facts,” have I got more “facts” for everyone!!!
December 30th, 2008 at 8:33 am
To Jerry:
““China Punishes France” ” – missed that thread. Tho I see it nearly hit 3 bills. But whatever evidence of Fiction’s proclivities I missed there, I think I’ve seen in spades everywhere else. A demain, mon ami.
December 30th, 2008 at 8:49 am
To Allen:
“Facts – keep on articulating what you feel like articulating. I enjoy what you write.” – I agree, for he/she should avail him/her-self to those rights afforded by the country where you (and I’m presuming he/she) live. Too bad he/she feels less generous in providing such latitudes towards his/her native countrymen about whom he/she purportedly cares so much. As for “enjoyment”, I also agree, tho my sentiment is derived more along the lines of that which accompanies diversions like Little Britain or Little Britain USA. In that regard, as with numerous others, I believe our sentiments differ.
As for Steve’s point, I think it’s that if you want to pass off a statement as fact (and not merely as opinion), it’s best to have some substantiation (and not just the kind you disavow within 12 hours). Otherwise you’re just referencing facts not in evidence. As for whether his/her intent is of the former or the latter, only he/she can so inform, but the deluded nature of his/her moniker speaks volumes.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:24 am
@SKC
Verifiable facts are subject to manipulation to produce effects that can be more misleading than fictions.
… Too bad he/she feels less generous in providing such latitudes towards his/her native countrymen about whom he/she purportedly cares so much….
Liu Xiao-po is detained by police is a fact, but the fate of Liu Xiao-po is not awaiting an average Chinese posting cranky political manifestos online. You have to really look for trouble to get in trouble in such cases. CCP will not pay attention to your opinion until of course when it starts to matter.
It is also a fact that in Guantanamo there were some pretty ugly stuff going on, but the fate Guantanamo detainees is not awaiting for an average anti-Iraq-war activist, not even an Arabic American.
Spend some time with Chinese blog-sphere you will find it no less vibrant than anywhere else. Chinese may be caged birds, but the cage is getting ever larger. Most of them can no longer sense this cage. But out of the 1.33 billion birds, there are always a few Kamikaze ones who would keep flying until they hit something.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:48 am
It’s a good idea to go to the places one likes or dislikes – Westerners should go to China, and we would probably be better off to have a travel agency aimed at the fenqing, where they could buy guided tours to the US, Europe and Taiwan. A lot of the more extreme viewpoints in these discussions simply seem to be due to not knowing much about the place one talks about (as an example, 环球时报 is not a good source on how daily life is like on Taiwan).
December 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am
@SKC: “““China Punishes France” ” – missed that thread. Tho I see it nearly hit 3 bills. But whatever evidence of Fiction’s proclivities I missed there, I think I’ve seen in spades everywhere else. A demain, mon ami.”
I feel guilty for feeding the troll back in that thread – though the answers were quite amusing, if not bemusing.
December 30th, 2008 at 10:59 am
And now, finally, I’ve had a look at the charter. It’s a non-starter to say that documents of this type will always seem crude. They are a bit like “extreme programming” or “agile development”-like manifestos, describing abstract principles in a bombastic way. Still, I think it’s good as a counter-vision to those who simple think along the lines of traditions. Even though it would turn out to be non-productive, it’s the beginning to sketch an alternative to CCP’s vision, and in that sense it’s valuable.
Another thing, of course, is to remember that the CCP’s vision, today as well as back in the Mao era, was grounded in Western thinking. If China wants to do something completely Chinese, they should go back to the imperial system and perhaps make it more diverse by bringing in some alternative thinking, like Mozi. But what do I know?
December 30th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
@steve
Your comment on my arguments are almost comical. I will go through some of your points for entertainment purposes, because they are so off the chart, really can’t be taken seriously. For now let me just say, your Western apologist views will get you nowhere in China, and many of your opinions are insults to common Chinese folk. Again I can predict the so-called Charter 08 will go nowhere, it’s just a farce as it is.
=========================================
“Chairman Mao for the first time in past 200 yrs gave the Chinese nation a spine, gave China peace for over 60 yrs and still counting, gave China an economy ranked 3rd in the world at end of 08 and still rising.”
False; China has not had peace for over 60 years. There was the Quemoy bombing; the Korean War, various border conflicts, the re-absorption of Tibet; the war with Vietnam. How can you call that peace? Mao died in 1974, when the economy was in a shambles. You can compliment Deng, Jiang and Hu, but not Mao in terms of economic development. He had nothing to do with the improved economy. In fact, the economy was a disaster under his rule.
==============================================
You have a different concept of peace to most Chinese. Peace to Chinese mean no foreign invasion to Chinese homeland. yes CCP has secured Chinese borders and given peace for the Chinese people for 60 yrs, and counting.
Comparing the amount of food/grain, industrial output, life expectancy, literacy rate, health care by PRC in 1974 to that during the ROC yrs, if you call China in 1974 was in shambles and disaster, what you call the days of ROC? Hell on earth?
========================================================
“Chairman Mao is the man who stopped the down spiral of China, who put China on the upward path. Generations of Chinese will be grateful for the great Chairman.”
Opinion, not fact. You may love Mao and what he did; most Chinese I know were far fonder of Zhou Enlai. Those are both opinions but certainly not facts. Most Chinese I know would also say that Deng put China on the upward path. Still an opinion, but one that can be substantiated with more economic data than anything you can produce for Mao.
=====================================================
The fact is Chairman Mao was the founding father of PRC, PRC has brought the Chinese nation to what it is today. Yes Chairman Mao stopped the downward spiral of China, and set China on an upward path. Do you have source/data to substantiate your statement on Chinese opinion for Premier Zhou? None I see.
Why don’t you use your own standard, or you have one standard for me and another one for yourself? And when did I ever say, every single statement I wrote is a fact, and how could you ever make an arugment with facts only? This is just another hit-the-straw-man tactics of yours. Making up some statements call it mine, beating it to death and declare victory.
Here I specifically pick the examples on Chairman Mao. He is the Man, kicked out the Western overlords, and steered the Chinese nation on a new rising course, setting China free from the shackle of 150yrs of sordid Western domination. The West tried everything, military intervention in NK and Vietnam, (both got beaten off), economic blockade for 30 yrs, but none worked. How the West/Japan and their Chinese lackeys hate him! How much energy is put in producing the dirt to demonize such a towering figure… unsubstantiated rumors about his personal life to graphical details.. Chairman Mao has become one of the most demonized/vilified figures by Western propaganda.
But Chinese people remember and honor him, many Chinese families hang Chairman Mao’s portrait in their house, Chairman Mao is the most admired hero among the Chinese youth. Every day in Beijing, there is always a long line of people—the simple common folk from all over China with their family (mostly on their first visit to the capital)—waiting patiently outside Chairman Mao memorial, to pay their respect. I have never been to Beijing, but when I go, a visit to Chairman Mao Memorial to pay my respect is definitely the first order of business. As time goes on, the significance of the Chairman in Chinese history will only grow, future generations see more clearly the indisputable contributions he made to the Chinese nation. Chairman Mao–forever the great helmsman of the Chinese people–rest in peace. I don’t expect you understand, and do I and millions of Chinese care what you think of Chairman Mao? I don’t think so. Chairman Mao is our national hero, period.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
@Willf #121
I don’t think you understand what I have told you. Your thinking is that democracy is just the absolute truth and yardstick to measure any nation. So the question is only why China not adopt it now, why the wait, why not talking about it, when this is going to happen? My question is why we should, why we want to give up something working and waste time on a failed approach?
When I said China tried it in 1911, it didn’t work, you said the circumstances were different it may work now. See for you democracy is the absolute truth, so it can’t be wrong. Not me. In 1911 Western system of government was proposed s the solution to solve the problems for China. The warlords, the foreign invasions, the economic development, etc. The ROC solved none of the problems, only made the crisis worse, it led China from civil war to civil war, British invasion to Japanese invasion, starvation to starvation. Why all the disasters after 1911 can’t be the direct result of adopting the Western demoncrazy? It’s unthinkable to you, but not to me.
Now PRC has set China on a new course, things have improved greatly, and you want CHina to go back to 1911 and give Western demoncrazy another try? Are you going to give 1.3 billion Chinese an insurance policy? You think China should give up what is working and going for the pie in the sky one more time? YOu make no sense.
December 30th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I wonder what would happen if you tried to piss on Mao’s corpse?
[Allen: This is borderline incendiary speech - borderline hate speech in my opinion. Is there really a need to communicate in this fashion?]
December 30th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
@#119. Will require repeated reading. Add my opinions here before I forget.
* Pew report is great but need update on Chinese. I do not thing the satisfactory score is that high now.
* My hope is Taiwan will reunite with the mainland peacefully like Hong Kong and Macau and maintain their political system for the next 50 years.
* Mao did a lot of good to China in the first years, but his stupid policy, ‘big leaps (backwards)’, ‘(anti-) cultural revolution’… did a lot of harm to China and a lot of folks died. History will not be nice to him. Bush is mediocre but few die because of him (besides the soldiers sent to Afghan. and Iraq).
* Yung almost became an emperor after Qing was overthrown.
* Russia economy depends on oil/gas and commodities (timber…). They were on top of the world when a barrel cost $140 and not now when it is $40 per barrel. When a country depends on resources, they tend to be lazy and drink too much vodka.
Japan is opposite – hard working as they do not have resources.
So, are folks in Caribbean. My joke: they sleep under a coconut tree in the day time, and when they’re hungry, they just climb up the tree to get some coconut. The only reason they die is the coconut falls on their heads during their afternoon sleep.
* If you pissed on Mao before his death, you got your head chopped. After his death, you got your dick chopped.
In either case, your body part (or parts) will be recycled so other human rights will be observed.
December 30th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
@ Steve 119
@ facts
I think few comments in this blog can pass Steve’s opinion/fact test. Why not relax this requirement a bit?
“Overwhelming majority of Chinese over the world would be happy to see China unite.”
Opinion, not fact; You need to substantiate this in order for it to be a fact.
——————————————————————————————————
Chinese are single-minded about being an united country – this is rooted in the culture. Westerners tend to underestimate this culture feature. It’s same difficult for Chinese to understand why the two groups in Belgium are considering to split the country, which is already small. The nation state is a west concept.
“It’s the disinterest of such, with full force of the activist community plunged in, the mainstream Chinese communities in and outside China don’t really give a damn.”
Opinion, not fact. No substantiation for your comment.
——————————————————————————————————
I looked at the name list of 303 so-called prominent intellectuals (they are everywhere on internet). Out of 303, about 100 are professional ‘activists’ (yes, that’s what they put down as their profession). I can only recognize about 10. Out of these 10 people, a couple of names are very unpopular in China
Mao Yushi, who openly advocates China stop protecting its farm lands and rely on food import
Jiao Guobiao, who is infamous for his radical opinions. For instance, ‘if I were the leader of China, I would sell the country to the US as its 51st state for 1 cent’; China should have surrendered to Japan to avoid killing during WWII
Among the 10 names I recognized, there is Woser, the supporter of free Tibet. I guess she is there for Clause 18
Do a search ‘08宪章’ in google, you can see all kinds of anti-china forces jumping out to claim their support. Since I don’t believe these anti-china groups genuinely care about Chinese people’s interest, it’s hard to take the face value of ’08 charter’ without questioning the motivation behind. I don’t say all people signed have other agenda, since there are some Chinese converted to democracy, and genuinely believe America democracy system is the answer for China.
Regarding how to assess PRC’s first 30 years, there is a new school emerging in China:
Instead of being completely negative about the 1st 30 years, they think it’s during that period the country set up the key foundations, including gaining peaceful time, for the development of the 2nd 30 years; therefore, China’s recent success should be tracked back further than 30 years.
In China, among people, also within CCP, there are leftwing and rightwing. In a simple view, rightwing advocates ‘freedom’, leftwing for ‘equality’. But, people in the West usually hear rightwing voice only. If you go to Chinese forums, you can see lots of debates between them, sometimes quite violent.
Here is an article ‘A Different View Of Charter 08’ written by a leftwing blogger
http://zonaeuropa.com/200812b.brief.htm#006
December 30th, 2008 at 6:49 pm
Sophie @141, if you are looking for anti-China forces, look no further than this blogpost. Has anyone looked into GVO’s association:
- Julian Pain, former head of Reporter Without Border internet freedom desk.
- Ethan Zuckerman was a long time member of Open Society Institute’s Technology board (That’s right George Soro’s OSI – the guy who raped Thai Bhat back in the 90’s and bank rolled Burma’s little uprise last year.)
- And of course, our Rebecca MacKinnon.
It’s no wonder Steve didn’t use the 2nd photo in the GVO blogpost – if Oiwan Lam can’t muster a crowd bigger than the semi-regular FLG protest, she doesn’t deserve to be on the paper.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Of course the opinions should be considered – and the people who signed it should not be arrested. Are new ideas so scary to the CCP that they have to forcibly control discussion?
Either they are generally admired/supported by the people such that documents like this do not threaten their position, or if this realistically could undermine their rule it shows public “support” is skin-deep at best and won’t hold up after much informed debate.
December 30th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Sorry Allen, but I find this reverence for a murdering megalomaniac pathetic. It’s a bit like those sad Germans who still revere Hitler.
Whatever benefits Mao brought to China (and these are greatly exaggerated), his self-serving brand of leadership also brought massive misery (often ignored), making him a critically flawed figure.
Sun Yat-sen is far more deserving of Chinese people’s respect.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
@Charles Liu – “Raped the Thai Baht” – He also ‘raped’ sterling, if you want to put it that way. He’s a currency speculator, what do you expect? As for the rest, all I can say is that your obsession with proving that everyone who is critical of the Chinese government is somehow connected to the US government is deeply unhealthy and, frankly, weird. By your standards, Obama is a card-carrying member of the Weather Underground – well, he was on the same board as the head honcho and received funding from them, didn’t he? By what evidence do you make out Rebecca Mackinnon to be “anti-China”? She teaches at a Hong Kong university – is this your evidence?
@Sophie – I have heard of some of the people on the list, but not through Chinese politics. I studied astrophysics at university, and worked at Nanhang for a term – that’s how I heard Fang Lizhi.
@Admin – Why are we highlighting comments that start with the sentence “Your comment on my arguments are almost comical”? (or even “To be quite honest, my experience is that most Chinese people would not agree with you”). If it were up to me, I would do away with all this highlighting, but this is not my blog, however, it does give the impression, when two people are arguing over a point, of agreeing with that person over the other.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
@Sophie – Why do you say “America democracy”? Democracy is not the property of the United States, nor is the US the be-all and end-all of democracy, nor does everyone who supports democratic reform in China support the policies of the US government.
December 30th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
@FOARP – #145,
It was I who highlighted #137 – as a response to #119 (which was highlighted).
I think I agree that we need to improve the highlighting system. As I mentioned in a previous thread – the highlighting is not done in any systematic way. As is currently implemented, it is not meant to indicate a “recommended” post – as in this is good stuff – but only as something to check out – for any number of reasons (from this is a representative post … to this is a great post (whether the editor agrees or not is not relevant) … to this is a post someone need to respond to … to even sometimes this is crazy stuff – hilarious, comical, definitely worth a laugh).
The highlighted posts are also not exhaustive … there are perhaps others worthy bringing to a casual readers’ attention, but which we editors didn’t quite get to.
If people have suggestions on what to do with highlighting, please make your ideas known either at the previous thread or the “open thread.”
December 30th, 2008 at 11:46 pm
Sophie #141 – “Since I don’t believe these anti-china groups genuinely care about Chinese people’s interest, it’s hard to take the face value of ’08 charter’ without questioning the motivation behind. I don’t say all people signed have other agenda, since there are some Chinese converted to democracy, and genuinely believe America democracy system is the answer for China.”
I agree with you 100%.
In my opinion, Western democracy and human rights proponents lose their credibility with me because throught the results fo their actions I feel that they have agendas other than the Chinese people at heart. If they really care about the Chinese people and China they would want peace between Taiwan and China. They would want peace between Tibet and China. It always makes me laugh when I see in the news that most of the Free Tibet protesters are white people. Why is it that I never see any protests in such a large scale and publicity when it comes to the homeless in Vancouver. When it comes to the abuse and neglect of the Aboriginal communities in Canada. Do they really care about human rights? Where are those human rights people now when the Israelis in its fourth day are bombing Gaza? As of today, I have been trying very hard to find the rationale for these so called “human rights” activists’ actions and non-actions, I cannot find any.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:00 am
@FOARP,
Thanks for continuing giving us feedback on the highlighting feature. This feature is imperfect but some readers think it’s helpful.
Generally, I defer to post writers and our editors to do the highlighting. As to the particular comments you mentioned, I personally would not highlight either of them. However, as bt argued in another thread, highlighting can be used to facilitate discussion as well as to pinpoint the best comments. So I am OK with a little bit over-highlighting.
And if anyone feels one comment/POV is slighted by our editors, please let me know and I can make up for it by, well, highlighting it.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:11 am
@Chinktalk
In the (admittedly small) Tibet protests I have seen the largest single contingent of protesters has appeared to be western Buddhists. I think they are more driven by the freedom of religion angle than some desire to ‘oppose China no matter what’. Really the Chinese government only has itself to blame for the existence of such protests.
I think the Chinese people deserved a lot better than Mao and Chiang Kai-shek. I think they deserve better than a one party government that reveres a murderer like Mao to shore up its own legitimacy.
I have protested against Israel on numerous occasions – admittedly not recently, but protesting was something I did a lot more of when I was at university. I have never attended a China targeting protest in my life.
You seem to think that any westerner who criticizes aspects of China (and particularly Chinese nationalism) buys into some pro-US world view. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my case your assumptions are far from the truth.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:14 am
FOARP, not everyone. Let’s just say I can’t find anyone connected with FM taking money from any of RSF, OSI’s Chinese counter part. Can you? Let’s see some links.
As far as I can tell, those of us in FM are truely “grassroot”.
What’s really ironic is while it’s the same old NGO/GO money and agenda under the facade of “new media” like GVO, some of us netters who doesn’t have any connections with the CCP are accused of taking 50 cent RMB (7 cent US) bribes.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:42 am
@Charles Liu – It’s news to me that you are ‘in’ FM any more than I am, otherwise, congratulations, you are capable of thinking that that those who hold so-called “pro-China” opinions genuinely hold their opinions and are not paid to do so. Now, you know how they think what they think without someone telling them to do so? Right, the people who you label “anti-China” (which, in your view, seems to mean wanting the Chinese people to live under a government of their own choosing) are also perfectly capable of holding their opinions without being paid to do so. I know, it seems so strange that anyone could want to, say, sign a list of fairly basic reforms, without George Soros and the CIA being behind it, but it’s true.
So George Soros has contributed some money to Global Voices Online? So what? Anti-CNN gets its money from private citizens who support bashing the western media – does this mean that the people who write for it do not actually believe what they are writing? Would it be evidence of sinister dealings if, say, one of the contributors to FM had family relations in the Chinese communist party? Or if they had worked in the state media? And if OSI and RSF (which do not actually seem to be more than incidentally connected) are puppets of the US government, why do they spend so much of their time involved in criticising it?
Listen, you are buying into an illogical conspiracy theory in which all critics of the Chinese government are puppets of the US government, and in which even the most incidental connection to US government monies is proof of a pay-off. Just like the 9/11 truthers, the JFK nuts, the UFO crazies, the moon-landing denialists, the NWO/ZOG maniacs – go and check out the kind of things these guys write and then come back and read your own writings – you will see a lot of parallels.
December 31st, 2008 at 12:48 am
FOARSE, I never said I’m in FM any more than you. Never the less I can’t find you taking anybody’s money either.
If you can link any of anti-CNN’s money to any NED or OSI’s Chiensse counter part, let’s see some links. Until then I’ll take your “if” as if you have no proof.
Do you even have an iota of “incidental connection”?
December 31st, 2008 at 1:12 am
@Facts #137&138
“You have a different concept of peace to most Chinese. Peace to Chinese mean no foreign invasion to Chinese homeland. yes CCP has secured Chinese borders and given peace for the Chinese people for 60 yrs, and counting”
There was no foreign invasion after the end of the second war and before 1949 in ROC era . ROC(both KMT and CCP) had two of the most powerful military machines in the world then. And there hasn’t been any foreign invasion after ROC government fleet to Taipei.
“Comparing the amount of food/grain, industrial output, life expectancy, literacy rate, health care by PRC in 1974 to that during the ROC yrs, if you call China in 1974 was in shambles and disaster, what you call the days of ROC? Hell on earth?”
It’s pointless to compare 1974 and pre 1949. most of the countries on earth had made progress from the 40s to the 70s. the “Hell on earth” in ROC was partially because a group of people were using wars to try to solve the political difference(there was no much difference between anyway) and established PRC via civil war. I am not here to blame who was responsible for the civil war. I am just saying it is not fair to blame ROC for the wars. Without the chaos of fighting warlords and Japanese in ROC ,there would not be a PRC in 1949.
“the fact is Chairman Mao was the founding father of PRC, PRC has brought the Chinese nation to what it is today.”
It is true that Mao was the founding father of PRC. But not him who brought the Chinese nation to what it is today.It was Zhou and Deng and Chinese people who brought China to what it is today. The whole economy was planned and managed by Zhou from the 50s-70s while Mao constantly destroyed the economy and culture.
“Here I specifically pick the examples on Chairman Mao. He is the Man, kicked out the Western overlords, and steered the Chinese nation on a new rising course, setting China free from the shackle of 150yrs of sordid Western domination. The West tried everything, military intervention in NK and Vietnam, (both got beaten off), economic blockade for 30 yrs, but none worked”
If there was no Mao.there won’t be tens of thousands of Chinese man and woman lost their lives for countries who are no much friendly to China right now. NK people would have had better life.economic blockade for 30 yrs had worked well and we didn’t have much and didn’t have much contacts with the rest of the world and that’s why we had a open door policy later on.
“But Chinese people remember and honor him, many Chinese families hang Chairman Mao’s portrait in their house, Chairman Mao is the most admired hero among the Chinese youth”
Are you able to tell where you get that “most” from? Myself and some I know don’t honor him and some other do honor him. But I don’t know which side has the “most”
“Why all the disasters after 1911 can’t be the direct result of adopting the Western demoncrazy? It’s unthinkable to you, but not to me.”
I am one of them who prefer Chinese charactered and gradually progressed democracy and very allergic to hollow “freedom and democracy” slogan and against overnight political change. But to blame western democracy for the chaos after 1911 is not fair at all. If we simply look at history, there were always chaos whenever a dynasty ended because of political vacuum which had nothing to do with democracy or not. That’s why I am sort of person who against any revolution ,republic revolution or communist revolution or democracy revolution .
December 31st, 2008 at 1:29 am
It appears there are more than “incidental connection” between the author of ‘08 Charter’, Liu Xiaobo, and guess who – the NED:
Liu Xiaobo, President of Chinese dissident group ICPC:
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Xiaobo_Liu_378792980.aspx
ICPC received $135,000 from the NED in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
$135,000 from the NED in 2006:
http://www.ned.org/grants/06programs/grants-asia06.html
$85,000 from the NED in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
Now, I’m pretty sure it is a violation of the Foreign Agent Registration Aact for someone US resident to take Chinese government’s money, then advocate/incite the overthrow of the US government and abolition of existing US constitution.
As a patriotic American and loyal tax payer I believe my tax dollars are wasted on GW Bus regime’s BS foreign policy implement such as this.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:35 am
I think I agree with FOARP about the highlighting . I wouldn’t highlight too emotionally charged/personal attacking comments .
to facilitate discussion via highlighting doesn’t really help if there are quite few highlighted. I would suggest only highlight quality comments. or if there is a way to use different colour of highlighting to facilitate discussion.
December 31st, 2008 at 1:36 am
sorry, #156 should be on the open thread as Admin suggested
December 31st, 2008 at 1:56 am
And ICPC is not the only source of my tax dollar for Liu Xiaobo. He also gets money from Uncle Sam for minzhu zhongguo (Democratic China):
- $145,000 in 2007:
http://www.ned.org/grants/07programs/grants-asia07.html
- $136,000 in 2005:
http://www.ned.org/grants/05programs/grants-asia05.html
- $135,000 in 2004:
http://www.ned.org/grants/04programs/grants-asia04.html
Pray tell, why would we lament Chinese money corrupting our political process, while sending many folds more to China, to corrupt their political process? Advocating overthrowing of the Chinese government? Abolition of China’s constitution?
And why can’t FM get this kind of money? Second thought better not, FARA can land you up to 25 years in jail.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:53 am
Bodyguard Buggering Dictator #150 – “You seem to think that any westerner who criticizes aspects of China (and particularly Chinese nationalism) buys into some pro-US world view. I can’t speak for everyone, but in my case your assumptions are far from the truth.”
Thanks for your comments.
Let me state unequivocally that I am pro-American. Maybe surprising to you, I am also very much pro-West. I am just disgusted by the Western media’s lies and anti-Sino propaganda. There is something very un-democratic about the way the Western media’s manipulation of the general populace by using brainwashing techniques. Very much what we accused the Communists of doing. What I find funny about these “human rights and democracy” protestors is that they have so much money to go to China to do protests. Where do they get the money from? How does the Dalai Lama support over 200,000 of his followers living in India. I sure would like transparent financial reports on their income and expenses. Would any of these organizations like Free Tibet would be interested in disclosing their financial statements. What I am saying is that I don’t think a lot of these organizations are really interested in human rights or democracy for the Chinese people, there are hidden agendas. While the Charter 08 is proposed by Chinese people in China, much of the content, I find personally, is nothing new and sounds more like often used mantras in Western newspapers.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:16 am
SKC,
do you know how to live without drinking water and no bathroom ? do you know how it feels that you and your parents living in a small room ? do you know how it feels that you have to work 12 hours a day and 6 days a week ? and even work hard like that you cant afford eating in a decent restaurant ? Do you know the feeling that others look down on you simply cuz your country is poor ?
That is an ugly mark on your face I was talking about. what is so laughable about that, huh?
Remember we once argued about what union could “accomplish”? see what UAW did to US auto industry ? see why so many states in US are about to bankrupt ?
BTW, about Mao: to lot of chinese, he is hero, simply cuz he stood up against West, especially for those who didnt suffer the pain of 1960s. How will he be judged in the future? I dont know. but one case showed that his status in China cant be replaced :
A portrait of Mao by Andy Warhol was sold for $120,000,000 in Hong kong.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:52 am
@BMY #`154
“There was no foreign invasion after the end of the second war and before 1949 in ROC era . ROC(both KMT and CCP) had two of the most powerful military machines in the world then. And there hasn’t been any foreign invasion after ROC government fleet to Taipei.”
You statement lacks logic. Why the lack of invasion is not the result of the PRC’s defense build up? India tried to push into Tibet, but was routed by PLA. Soviets tried to push into the Northeast and Northwest, but could not, because China was nuclear armed. After WWII, ROC gave up Mongolia in 1945. Why the most powerful military machine of ROC stood idle by? No foreign invasion of Taipei, because Taiwan was already the satellite state of the US. Taiwan has no independent will, it has to obey the American master. When the US told Taiwan to gave up nuclear program, Taiwan had to obey. But not PRC. Yes, PRC has ensured 60yrs of peace for the Chinese people and counting, a feat ROC never accomplished.
“It’s pointless to compare 1974 and pre 1949. most of the countries on earth had made progress from the 40s to the 70s. the “Hell on earth” in ROC was partially because a group of people were using wars to try to solve the political difference(there was no much difference between anyway) and established PRC via civil war. I am not here to blame who was responsible for the civil war. I am just saying it is not fair to blame ROC for the wars. Without the chaos of fighting warlords and Japanese in ROC ,there would not be a PRC in 1949″
Why pointless? Most country made progress from 1911 to 1949 too, what progress ROC made over those years, besides civil wars, Japanese invasion, and starvation? Regarding civil war, it was the direct result of the incompetence of ROC leadership to secure peace inside China. There are always people not willing to settle issue peacefully, a government’s responsibility is to enforce peace and tranquility. ROC failed miserably, ROC never deserve the power it gained, so rightfully it was kicked out.
“It is true that Mao was the founding father of PRC. But not him who brought the Chinese nation to what it is today.It was Zhou and Deng and Chinese people who brought China to what it is today. The whole economy was planned and managed by Zhou from the 50s-70s while Mao constantly destroyed the economy and culture.”
There were the same Chinese people in the past 200 yrs, why only during PRC era China has risen to such height? Why Mr. Zhou and Mr. Deng all praised and honored Chairman Mao? To say Chairman Mao destroyed economy and culture is to equivalent to call ROC killed 500million to 700 million Chinese. True Chairman Mao instituted misguided policies, but that was out of the eagerness to speed up China’s development. The establishment of PRC gave the platform for all the wonderful things happened later to China. Why prior to PRC the same Chinese people under all sorts of leadership never able to achieve any where close to the achievements of PRC era? That only points to the absolute necessity of PRC for the achievements to come about. The establishment of PRC is the prerequisite for China to accomplish the feat of today’s China. Chinese people are forever grateful for Chairman Mao’s contribution in the founding of PRC. That’s why so many Chinese common folk all across the vast land of China come to pay respect at Chairman Mao Memorial. You think the Chinese people are fools, no Chinese people how it was like without PRC, the mistake of early yrs of PRC can be corrected as it has been, the fruit of the founding of PRC will keep benefiting the Chinese people for generations to come. And Chinese people know how to honor Chairman Mao—our national hero, the greatest statesman of his time.
“If there was no Mao.there won’t be tens of thousands of Chinese man and woman lost their lives for countries who are no much friendly to China right now. NK people would have had better life.economic blockade for 30 yrs had worked well and we didn’t have much and didn’t have much contacts with the rest of the world and that’s why we had a open door policy later on.”
Well, before PRC, how many friendly countries came to China to lives from 1842 to 1949? Did China not having an open door policy from 1911 to 1949? In 1950, China had to deny West access to NK, where Japan launched its invasion of China only 20 yrs before Korean war. What happened afterwards in NK was not Chairman Mao’s business, his first and utmost duty was to ensure peace for China, which ROC failed miserably. Maybe ROC had the welfare of NK in mind when it surrendered Northeast to Japan without a fight in 918 at the cost of 35 million Chinese lives. How thoughtful!
“Are you able to tell where you get that “most” from? Myself and some I know don’t honor him and some other do honor him. But I don’t know which side has the “most””
“我心目中的英雄”网络调查 毛泽东排名第一
http://culture.people.com.cn/GB/22219/5705428.html
Those Westerners are eager for me to quote Chinese sources, there you go.
“I am one of them who prefer Chinese charactered and gradually progressed democracy and very allergic to hollow “freedom and democracy” slogan and against overnight political change. But to blame western democracy for the chaos after 1911 is not fair at all. If we simply look at history, there were always chaos whenever a dynasty ended because of political vacuum which had nothing to do with democracy or not. That’s why I am sort of person who against any revolution ,republic revolution or communist revolution or democracy revolution .”
You believe it’s not fair to blame the chaos after 1911 on ROC, but you believe the difficulties after 1949 should be blamed on Chairman Mao. I believe a government should take responsibility for the state of the affairs of the country, which is called accountability. ROC totally lost control of the country, blame should fall squarely on ROC. Just as the difficulties in early yrs of PRC, Chairman Mao took the blame. Even there was no foreign invasion, population doubled, life expectancy/literacy rate/health care all improved greatly. Compared to PRC, ROC was really a failed state, ROC leadership of cause should take the blame. You need to be at least consistent in applying your own standards.
December 31st, 2008 at 4:41 am
@Wahaha #110, 160
@S.K. Cheung #118
Wahaha, you wrote in #110
SK responded in #118
Wahaha, you responded in #160
Wahaha, I must be missing something here. You wrote an ambiguous reference to an “ugly mark”. SK, IMHO, was seeking clarification for this analogy, which I did not understand either. He did this in his humorous, sarcastic manner, which, BTW, I appreciate. Then you scold, some might say excoriate, SK for his supposed insensitivity to the plight of poor Chinese people.
Huh? Wahaha, why would you expect us to know what your reference to “ugly mark” meant? Do you think that you can make a mysterious remark/analogy and reasonably expect us to know what it means? Then, you have the temerity to scold SK for insulting impoverished, poor Chinese people. Again, huh?
How are we supposed to know that your “ugly mark” is a reference to the suffering of impoverished Chinese people? Osmosis? Omniscience? If that is what you meant, then I would suggest that you be clearer about what you write. Say/write what you mean. Do not hold people accountable for not being able to discern your ambiguities.
I am pretty sure that SK meant no disrespect to the plight of suffering Chinese people. I mean no disrespect, either.
All that said, I wonder if your diatribe was instigated by SK’s remark, “all these months, and you still haven’t ceased to amuse me.” ??
December 31st, 2008 at 5:50 am
” Just like the 9/11 truthers, the JFK nuts, the UFO crazies, the moon-landing denialists, the NWO/ZOG maniacs – go and check out the kind of things these guys write and then come back and read your own writings – you will see a lot of parallels.”
Yes, I do see a parallel – that’d be YOU, Mr. FOARP.
All these be-labelled people by YOU, mr. Paranoid ( Fear -of- a-red -planet)are crazy? Really? Says who? You ? Where are your Proofs, i.e. Disproofing proofs of your claims and accusations?
What makes you think you can trust your professor, your university, the British education bureau/ministry to whom and which you are submitting yourself – with your time, money and brain cells, and for what? A Master’s Degree? And having read books and papers by necessity and personal preference, you have declared yourself a you-know-it-all, aye? – Well qualified to deem others from good universities, strong academic backgrounds, some with successful investigative careers, government & military whistle blowers, not a few PhDs in applied sciences etc nuts, crazy, derranged, do ya?
“Until then I’ll take your “if” as if you have no proof. ” Well said Charles Liu.
Oh, BTW, I don’t subscribe to every conspiracy theory / POV, nor think that the West is always trying to screw the Chinese people, or the Africans or the Indians. A lot of time they are just incompetent and stupid – and having made infinite stupid statements and reports for ages, who can blame the general distrust of the hypocritical west?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:33 am
To Wuming #133:
“CCP will not pay attention to your opinion until of course when it starts to matter.”- So since Mr. Lu is now detained, does that mean his charter is starting to matter? Even if it was, why must the attention equal detention?
“you will find it no less vibrant than anywhere else.” – glad to hear it. HOpe it will become more vibrant every day. Maybe even lose the cage someday…
December 31st, 2008 at 6:45 am
To Fiction #137:
your “logic” is illogical.
“Chairman Mao was the founding father of PRC, PRC has brought the Chinese nation to what it is today”. If A caused B, and B caused C, doesn’t mean that A caused C. By your logic, since Columbus discovered North America, and North America is what it is today, then Columbus is the reason for North America being what it is today. How goofy is that?
So “millions” of Chinese pray at the altar of Mao, you say? Since there are 1300 million Chinese, how many millions don’t, you figure?
December 31st, 2008 at 6:45 am
@ Wahaha #160: Just to clarify, that Andy Warhol portrait of Mao Zedong was sold to Joesph Lau in Hong Kong for $17.4 million US dollars, which is almost $135 million Hong Kong dollars… even higher than you stated. I just wanted to pass on the link for anyone interested.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:14 am
To Wahaha #160:
the amusement continues…
“ugly mark on his butt” (#110)
“ugly mark on your face” (#160)
I mean, I’d love to humour you, but it’s tough with a moving target. Did someone surgically move said ugly mark from the derriere to the face in the span of 50 comments? Those hardships you listed in #160 are indeed deplorable…so are you attributing those to China “(which) has tons of flaws”? Maybe I should allow you to clarify before I respond, lest you fly off the handle once again.
The above notwithstanding, what does any aspect of your colourful example have to do with Charter 08? I mean, I know you have a thing for flighty examples, but as Jerry notes, I suck at mind-reading. So you’ll have to connect the dots for me.
As for the shape-shift back to unions, yes, the UAW needs to make concessions, but the big 3 are failing in part because they’re car-makers whose cars no one wants. You can’t hang that aspect of their failure on the UAW. And since you show concern for the little guy, you might observe that the work of the UAW allows its members to not have to know “how it feels that you have to work 12 hours a day and 6 days a week ? and even work hard like that you cant afford eating in a decent restaurant ?” By that metric, you might even consider that China could use a union or two.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:01 am
To CTalk #148:
“When it comes to the abuse and neglect of the Aboriginal communities in Canada. Do they really care about human rights? ” – I agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that certain issues speak more prominently to certain individuals than other issues might. And, for fear of sounding flippant, there are only so many hours in a day. So from a practical standpoint, one has to pick one’s battles.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Yes.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:55 am
@Charles Liu – So the fact that Liu Xiaobo was a member of organisations which received grants from the NED (an NGO) makes him the same as people who try to circumvent laws preventing foreign funding of political parties through back door means? Yet again, you seem to be grasping at straws when there really is no ‘there’ there.
Yes, when I say ‘if’ that means that I am writing hypothetically – and that concludes the English lesson for today.
My point was that the fact that I can connect people who write for FM to the Chinese communist party does not mean that the people who write for FM are CCP puppets, any more than an incidental link between the US government and Liu Xiaobo or Hao Wu or any of the rest means that they are US puppets.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:12 am
BMY #114
“Whom are you blaming for the lost of 500 million to 700 million lives by the period of ROC? I understand there were many parties involved.”
Sure, but who’s the ruling party? Isn’t a common knowledge that it is the ruling party that should be most responsible? Obviously here is a double standard when passing judgment on KMD ’s ROC and CCP’s PRC.
To those who still blindly deny CCP’s legitimacy, a historical fact which even the politicians like the Nixons found it difficult to deny and had to acknowledge and deal with it, I’d like to say that you conveniently ignored one important thing when it comes to the issue of legitimacy, the people’s will and support. Can any cause be successful or any regime come to and maintain power without support from a majority of people? Whatever your opinion about CCP or PRC, you cannot wish away this fact: at that historical moment (1949), it was the Chinese people who dumped KMD (they’d had enough of it) and chose CCP. Whoever lost people’s support lost legitimacy to rule. That’s why even with billions of money support from the US in the 1940s, KMD lost China to CCP.
To those who have a tendency to idealize the pre 1949 era, a comment from another forum (which speaks for me) might be enlightening.
http://fray.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/1616272.aspx
“Maybe I should have put it this way — prior to Mao, most of China had a staggering death rate, due to constant malnutrition, periodic famines, civil war, and the epidemics that tend to accompany famine and war. The data I’ve seen suggest that about half of all Chinese were dying before reaching adulthood. Mao pretty much fixed these problems, and, except during the Great Leap Forward, the death rate during his rule was dramatically lower than it had been. China’s population didn’t grow at all from about 1800 to about 1950 (while the rest of the world’s population grew by leaps and bounds) because there simply wasn’t enough food in China to keep more people alive. This all changed under Mao — as you note, China’s population grew tremendously during Mao’s rule. The population growth was because, unlike during the previous 150 years, most Chinese babies born during Mao’s rule survived to maturity and had babies of their own, rather than dying of warfare, disease, or (primarily) starvation. China’s death rate went from being similar to (or worse than) what we see now in the most war-torn, famine stricken African countries to being only slightly higher than Western countries. This accomplishment gives Mao god-like status to many of China’s ordinary people, no matter how serious his flaws and mistakes were…
Basically, the worst times under Mao weren’t much worse for ordinary Chinese people than the decades prior to when Mao took power, while the rest of the time (the vast majority of Mao’s rule) was much, much better for ordinary Chinese people. However, most Americans know nothing of China prior to Mao, so they don’t realize this.”
One more thing I’d like to add: it’s very fine if you come from, or get most of your sources from, or speak for, a group of people with this background, people who lost property and prestige, even beloved ones, during the Chinese revolution under CCP, people who then escaped from mainland to Taiwan or Hong Kong or western countries. But it is a bit unfair of you to refuse to see and give due respect to the fact that the majority of Chinese people, then illiterate and poverty stricken, saw the legitimacy of CCP and PRC with the view a world apart from yours, that they had all their reasons and were entitled to do so.
If you have problem of being objective to this simple historical fact, you may have far more difficulties of being fair-mindedly when seeing or saying about things in China today.
December 31st, 2008 at 11:38 am
@snow,
I was not arguing CCP’s(or KMT’s) legitimacy as it is pointless to argue. I was just questioning Fact’s blame of everything on ROC which is I think diffrent with the history I read when I grow up in China
And I am not interested in comparing ROC and PRC. But I do think it is not very fair to blame everything bad on ROC万恶的旧社会
First of all , KMT was not the ruling party(power) of early years of ROC which capitaled in Beijing .-historical fact
Secondly, most of the warlords were not created by KMT or ROC . -historical fact
Thirdly, most of the wars pre the mid 30s between warlords had no much to do with KMT or Beijing government.-historical fact
Fourthly, Japanese invasion was not ROC government’s fault. For sure ROC was weak , but it inherited a weak country with never stooped civil wars. -historical fact
Finally, civil wars between KMT and CCP was not only caused by ROC government.-historical fact
I am not here to argue who’s responsible and just saying many parties involved the chaos of ROC and to blame one is not very fair. To compare life span, birth rate etc between war time and peaceful time is not a very fair comparison. You can’t compare the lost of lives during CR and during a Japanese booming compain or the battle of 四平. lives should not be lost in one and the lost of lives could not be avoided in the other.
I don’t speak for any group but myself. I am a 根正苗红的红五类 and have no any relationship with the groups you mentioned. I am sort of person who just likes fairness. I blame CCP of CR but I defend CCP when people accuse CCP of culture genicide on certain area which I don’t think it’s fail to say so. .I criticize Dalai Lama ’s propaganda towards China but I defend Dalai Lama when he is accused of the self system because I don’t think it’s fair to accused him when he was choosed by the system as a baby. I blame KMT’s dictatorship but I defend KMT when KMT is accused for all the lost of lives and Chaos in pre 1949 ROC as my understanding of history doesn’t say so.
This is why my wife often says me stupid of “左右里外不是人”. But I am who I am .
December 31st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
@snow
Thanks for the link to the slate discussion. I found the views of “freetrader” very close to mine. The main point is this: Deng’s post Mao policy was to reverse almost every one of Mao’s policies. If you agree that most of the Chinese are much, much better off than 30 years ago, you can’t help but thinking what if there wasn’t a Mao … Of course, there is no do-over in history.
I also agree that it is still not the time for a national discussion to re-evaluate Mao in China. Intense pragmatism of Deng is what got us here, intense pragmatism is the route we Chinese should follow in the foreseeable future.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
@Wahaha
Have you asked the families of those millions who died of starvation how they feel about Mao because of Mao’s stupid policies, big leaps (backward), (anti-) cultural revolution… ? I know millions worship him but I do not understand why unless they’ve been brain washed. Wake up!!!
Mao started out good, but when he wanted to become God, the rest was bad history and suffering to China. He tried to cover the whole sky with one hand, a Chinese saying. Citizens were brain washed as the most ‘powerful’ country on earth even they were starving to death. Can anyone be more stupid than that even today? Yes, Mao thought so as he wanted no one to be educated.
I was lucky not to live like that poor conditions. Do you think the government and/or former government should be blamed partly for that? I wish every one in US have a day of no food and turn down the heat – same as being blind for one day. Do not think Chinese are dumber and/or lazier than Americans. As in my many posts, Americans are rich due to the ample natural resources per capita. To illustrate, in the 50s, many Texans could just drill oil from their backyard. They did not have to drill miles down as in Canada for example. Another example is the ample farm land per capita. You can say God is not fair, but who tells you life is fair.
US economy is highly exaggerated – the rest of the world like US to be in the down side as they are jealous and US have been bullying others. It is not that bad. US has recession once a while and we survive and learn our lessons. This one is tougher though. US still is the richest and most influencial after he makes some adjustments.
December 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Mao’s portrait is worth millions and so he should be worshiped. Should we worship Mono Lisa by the same logic?
Wahaha, you always have good points, what happened to this post? You must not be in a good mood or being brain washed by the ghost of Mao or Mao is your relative.
Do you want the government to be rich (and powerful) and not sharing the wealth with the citizens?
December 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
@tonyP4
I am not even sure of the “Mao started out good” part. He did his fair share of prosecutions before 1949 and his post 1949 policies (land reform for example) quickly went awry. By 1957, he had not quite consider himself god yet but the large scale destructions already started to occur.
I consider him as a fenqing who never grew up. Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping were also fenqings in their youth, but eventually grew into pragmatic adults.
December 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
S.K. Cheung Says: #168
December 31st, 2008 at 8:01 am
To CTalk #148:
“When it comes to the abuse and neglect of the Aboriginal communities in Canada. Do they really care about human rights? ” – I agree with your sentiment. However, I would say that certain issues speak more prominently to certain individuals than other issues might. And, for fear of sounding flippant, there are only so many hours in a day. So from a practical standpoint, one has to pick one’s battles.
Sir or Madam, please do not get offended but this is the most irresponsible and oxymoron statement I have ever heard.
ON ANOTHER MATTER:
I was too young to witness the Mao-Nixon opening up of China – ping-pong diplomacy. But for as long as I can remember, Mao was this monster that killed millions and millions of Chinese people. It is only recently that I start to question the validity of this accusation which has been hammered into my psyche from newspaper to newspaper from year to year. Of course, I was myopic since my information came strictly from North American sources. It was not until the 1990’s that I met Chinese people from China. I have met people who are dishwashers to aircraft engineers. Not one harbour any hatred towards Mao. At worst, some would suggest that it was the times and he had to do what he had to do. Most show a certain quiet affection perhaps respect.
Just got this from Xinhua, the photo that striked me the most is the one with Mao shaking hands with the daughter of Gerald Ford. He was completely without pretense, welcoming this young American to have a look at humble China. There is a certain greatness to Mao. Just like Abraham Lincoln, did he kill any Americans?
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-12/30/content_10580451.htm
December 31st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Steve,
the 17.4 million dollar portrait was sold in 2006,
the 120 million dollar portrait was sold in 2008.
http://financetrends.blogspot.com/2008/05/art-inflation-120-million-mao.html
In November 2006, Hong Kong real estate magnate Joseph Lau paid $17.4 million for a smaller Warhol Mao portrait, a record at that time. ……
_________________________________________________________
Tony,
obviously I offended you.
Please read my post again, I said “especially for those who didnt suffer the pain in 1960s.”
In the minds of lot of Chinese, Mao is viewed as THE one who ended an era that Chinese feel ashame of. Cuz of that, lot of chinese, “especially for those who didnt suffer the pain in 1960s”, are willing to forgive his wrongdoing in great leap and cultrue revolution.
http://www.sinovision.net/index.php?module=news&act=details&col_id=8&news_id=65423
Currently, Mao is just viewed as a symbolic figure for a stand-up China, against West suppression (like against West media) and for equal society ( no gap between rich and poor.) What he did in 60s is of no importance to people who dont care about politics. (did Russia people care Putin was a former KGB when they elected him as their president ? we know how much people under Soviet Unions hated KGB.)
That the CCP doesnt allow people talking about Mao’s wrongdoing is no difference from that the Japanese government doesnt talk about role of its emperor in WWII. If you think Mao did 30% right and 70% wrong, I have no problem with that; If you bash him for his wrongdoing (or crimes), I dont have problem with that either; but if you say he was a devil to China as Stalin to Soviet Unions, I am sorry, I disagree.
_________________________________________________________
SKC,
Charter 8 will bring poverty to China, and another culture revolution.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Wahaha, no offense at all. Just different opinions. It is good to understand each other, so our world will have less conflicts.
Folks still worship Mao in Tienanmen square and that is what I saw. I’m just curious how the young, educated Chinese look at Mao and learn from history. If we never learn, history will just repeat itself. Have a good day.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
To CTalk #177:
no offense taken. I was afraid my statement might sound flippant, though I’m not sure how it’s irresponsible. And “huge pebble” or “tiny giant” are oxymorons; not sure how my statement qualifies in that domain.
That being said, perhaps you can enlighten me on how you’ve addressed the problems in your town/district/state/province/country before diverting your energies to a discussion about China.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
@Wahaha – I know you are committed to the idea that democracy is a luxury which only rich countries can afford (an opinion I entirely disagree with), but why exactly do you think that Charter 08 would result in “another culture revolution”. Anyone who knows their history knows that the cultural revolution was started by Mao to eliminate competitors within the communist party and to bring China under his total control, there is no suggestion of anything like that in Charter 08. Under a democratic system, China would no longer be dominated by a corrupt elite making up less than 5% of the population, and the instability which comes with an authoritarian system due to there being no proper way of transferring power would be eliminated. As long as the dictatorial system remains in place, upheavals like the CR are more, not less likely.
It is odd that you mentioned Stalin. In fact, many Russians remember him fondly – perhaps even more now than before the fall of the Soviet Union. When Russian soldiers rolled into Georgia this year, the first place many wanted to go after the cease-fire was Gori, Stalin’s birth place, to have their photos taken with Stalin’s statue. To them he represents the same kind of national strength that the Chinese find in Mao, and they are just as willing to make excuses for his misconduct and brutality.
Stalin’s accomplishments were, in many ways, greater than Mao’s. Mao half-heartedly fought the Japanese whilst directing the main part of his attention to the KMT, and then fought to a bloody standstill in Korea, and ended up half destroying China’s economy with his hare-brained policies. Stalin, on the other hand, built a strong Soviet economy, if it was overly directed to mass production of weapons, this is at least better than producing massive amounts of useless steel in an attempt to climb the world rankings for steel production! Stalin was also the leader who can claim greatest credit for the destruction of the Nazis, and it was under his directions that the Soviets conquered all of traditional Russian territory, outside of Finland, which became a neutral and un-armed country partly occupied by Soviet troops, there was not one bit of Tsarist territory free of the red flag. Compare this to Mao.
As much as I dislike both of them, and as much as they were practically identical in character and outlook (indeed, both Khruschev and Brezhnev said as much), Stalin was, by any measure, the ‘greater’ leader. However, the miseries which their respective countries continue to suffer under are very much connected to their times in power. Both these leaders could have freed their peoples, and both decided to keep them enslaved for their own personal benefit. They are both equally deserving of censure.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I think the legacy of political leaders improves with time. Jimmy Carter was wildly unpopular in 1980, but his image has been rehabilitated somewhat over the last 28 years. Gosh, in 30 years, even GWB’s tenure might not look so bad. No reason why Mao’s image wouldn’t experience the same benefit of the passage of time. Apparently, for some, it already has.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
FOARP,
BEFORE you have freedom, you must have law. Just like current financial crisis and 1920s stock market bubbles, government let wall street run by themselves without laws restricting their behaviors, the results were disasters.
Most of Chinese have little sense of laws or dont know how to use laws to protect themselves. You can see this even in America, most chinese are afraid of going to court, and during the current crisis, most chinese buinessmen and homeowner dont know how to use bankruptcy law to protect their properties, and they have been in America for over 10 years. ( I mentioned before that some victims in China kidnapped other people or criminals.)
In a society without law, freedom will only bring disasters.
_________________________________________________________
About Stalin,
It is about national pride that Yeltsin destroied in 1990s. The same reason that lot of Chinese admire Mao.
As who did more for his country, I think Mao did more, as he completely destoried the class system of old feudal China and liberated chinese women.
December 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
SK Cheung #180 – “irresponsible” -suggesting that it is ok to ignore or delay human rights for Canadian Aboriginals, eg.
More than 150,000 aboriginal children were required to attend state-funded Christian schools as part of a program to strip them of their native culture and assimilate them into Canadian society. That’s “culture genocide”.
During the 70’s, a whole community of Innuits was relocated to a barren area in the Baffen Islands in Northern Canada without any life support and left to fend for themselves. 90% of the community decimated.
1990, Canadian Police dumped 17-year-old aboriginal Neil Stonechild in a remote field in Saskatoon frozen to death.
2008, Winnipeg police tasered aboriginal Michael Langan, 17, to death.
“Oxymoron” – “huge pebble, tiny giant” – HUGE/TINY- let’s put the full force of protests, including violence by Tibetan rioters that killed Chinese people, to highlight China’s treatment of Tibetans, etc. PEBBLE/GIANT – it’s ok to put off or ignore the Canadian Aboriginal human rights abuses while they are the victims of genocide.
SKCheung _”That being said, perhaps you can enlighten me on how you’ve addressed the problems in your town/district/state/province/country before diverting your energies to a discussion about China.”
I hope there is no prerequisites required before we are allowed to opine on issues on this blog.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
@SKC #165,
You wrote:
Actually, in general, I think the proposition you think so absurd is actually true – not only in a scientific way (you can break almost all events where a causes b into finer details where a causes subevent 1 which causes subevent 2 … which causes subevent n which ultimately causes event b; you can also connect many seemingly random events through causation chains where seemingly unimportant effects are actually made important through “chaotic interactions”), but also (more practically) in the courts.
I’ll give you a very simple example.
I drink and I drive. I lightly injured someone along the way. The victim is rushed to the hospital. The doctor that treated the victim conducted malpractice and killed the patient. I am fully liable for the patient’s death even though I may think to have caused only the slight injury, not the victim’s death. This is so because in the court’s eye, but for my drinking and driving, the doctor would have never had the chance to conduct malpractice to kill the patient!
The world is interconnected in strange, frightening, as well as wondrous ways.
So yes, back to your example about Columbus – to the extent that anyone has a hand in creating modern America of today, Columbus definitely had a hand in causing what America is today. Of course, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the contributions made by the millions of immigrants who had since arrived in America. But I think it’s safe to say had Columbus not discovered America in 1492, world history would have been different. America as we know it today would consequently also be different.
OK guys – have a safe and happy New Year: AND do not drive if you do drink!
December 31st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
As for this charter 8, I’ll throw my hat in the ring. First off, I agree with the many commentators who question the importance of this article. Reading the proposals, it doesn’t sound too insightful, nor will it seem to produce any actionable steps imo. There is a lot of fluff in the charter, like ending stuff that needs to be ended, start doing things that need to be done, blah blah blah. It reminds me of politicians who say they will “end ineffective government programs”, jeez, why didn’t i think of that! Or even better, the SNL skit where the economic expert was explaining how to solve the economic crisis, “define the problem, figure out a solution, implement the plan, and FIX IT!”
But speaking of reform in the CCP, I would like propose this question, who decides change in the CCP? I mean, i feel like when we talk about the ccp, we treat them as some mystic monolithic entity, and forget the ccp is made up of people who have their own opinions and goals. How do reforms get passed?
@admin
About the highlighting, just my 2 cents, i think it could be used by casual readers as a fast and easy way to understand the flow of the debate. This article is the perfect example where there are over 170 comments.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Foarse @ 170 “So the fact that Liu Xiaobo was a member of organisations which received grants from the NED (an NGO)”
That is not it – Liu Xiaobo is the President of ICPC and Founder of Minzhu Zhongguo, which received grants from the NED (a quasi-governemnt NGO funded by the US Congress to overtly conduct what the CIA used to do covertly.)
This is the whole context of the fact. Now, can you qualify anyone associated with FM or anti-CNN to this degree? With citation?
Let’s see your substantiate your “hypothetical”. I don’t see you disputing the cites I’ve provided.
December 31st, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Yes, democratic society is only afforded by richer nations. My arguments:
* Richer nations tend to be more educated in the entire society. As in my previous post, a vote from the uneducated farmer cannot weigh the same as the average urbaner.
* As in my previous posts, most ‘democratic’ countries in Asia are corrupt at least at one time. Japan and S. Korea are more educated, so they are less corrupt. Singapore is not corrupt with a one-party, semi democratic society.
I do not know how to classify China. It is not totally corrupt in the central government, but corrupt as hell in the local governments. Corruption in business is acceptable in their culture – what my US friend running business in China told me.
* democratic society practices their own human right which is different from China’s. China cannot afford to spend millions to trial OJ Simpson whom we know is 99% guilty. China just ‘kills’ one and ‘warns’ a hundred – or thousands in today’s information society – not a good way in western standard but cost effective.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Look, I have a real problem with Liu Xiaobo taking my tax dollar and advicating “a new constitution” for China. US govenrment funding abolition of China’s existing constitution? That seems to be beyond self-serving.
Has Liu Xiaobo really thought about what would happen if the current Chinese goernment and constitution is suddenly abolished? China and 1.3 billion people would be sunk into a stateless chaos and suffer worse fate than Iraq.
Why is our US constitution so devoid of any semblence human rights (only white men are human, women and blacks are property) not abolished, but allowed to reform slowly thru rare amendments:
- Sufferage was ratified in 1920 – 150 years later.
- African Americans are still not recognized as human per original text’s intention which remain unamended to date. Civil rights thru legislation and supreme court decision failed America in 1875, 1896, 1957, 1960. Not until 1965 was any semblence of rights enforced for African Americans – nearly 200 years later and 100 years after emancipation.
Wouldn’t a reform turely in the interest of China, 1.3 billion innocent people, and spirit of democracy, be amendments to China’s existing constitution under currnet political realities and existing socialist framework – rather than advocacy of abolition made with undue foreign influence?
That’s really it isn’t it? Gotta get rid of them communists. And is this really how the Chinese people feel? Or is this our agenda?
December 31st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
@Allen: I think it’s safe to assume that if A partly causes B, and B causes C, then A is partly responsible – but if we say that there is a necessary causal relationship, we’re wrong. In this particular example, I also see another archetype – the despot that unites a country. Instead of being too long-winded, I’ll use the “national father” of Sweden as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustav_Vasa
“Gustav was an enigmatic person who has been referred to as both a liberator of the country and as a tyrannical ruler, which has made him the subject of many books.”
I think the same could be said about Mao Zedong, and in both cases we can probably say that while the ruler in question united the country, his period of rule itself wasn’t necessarily that great. People attribute all sorts of great things to the leader because they did benefit from his rule, attributions that are often vastly exaggerated.
@TonyP4: “I do not know how to classify China. It is not totally corrupt in the central government, but corrupt as hell in the local governments. Corruption in business in acceptable in their culture.”
China is corrupt as hell as a general rule, and I don’t know too much about the level of corruption in the central government because it’s not that transparent. I think corruption diminishes with accumulating wealth in society, though. The idea that the central authorities are so much better than the locals is probably wishful thinking. I guess you can say that out in the countryside, there is no law at all, or simple direct rule by whoever is in charge.
“democratic society practices their human right. China cannot afford to spend millions to trial OJ Simpson that we know he is 99% guilty.”
Most other societies don’t need to afford that. The US is, well, quite extreme.
December 31st, 2008 at 8:20 pm
@Allen #185
Wow, a perfect description of the “butterfly effect”!
However, I’d say your example is more of a legal than a scientific one. From what I’ve heard from lawyers overseas, in most other countries, the drunk driver would not be liable for the doctor’s malpractice but only for his/her own actions. Since you’re a lawyer, you’d know this better than me. Isn’t American tort law different than most other countries in terms of responsibility?
I agree with you on your description of causative effect. It’s kind of a percentage thing. Columbus had an influence on today’s world through his voyages but as a contributing factor, it’d be miniscule when other factors were taken into consideration. Though miniscule, it’d still be a key historical driver, for without Columbus’ voyages, the history of the Americas would undoubtedly be different from what it is today.
Tonight’s the one night of the year I never leave the house.
December 31st, 2008 at 9:16 pm
@Steve #191,
Yes, you are right: the example was meant to be a legal example only. The scientific explanation was left as a principle explained in parenthesis in my original post.
As for overseas v. U.S. law, you are also right. I’m sure you can find jurisdictions that would not find full liability for the drunk driver above.
But this was only one example. In general for torts (in all jurisdictions), to get liability, one has to prove negligence and causation. Causation is always the tricky thing – esp. in mass torts – where for example a pollutant increases risks of cancer by say 1%, and one need to prove whether the pollutant actually caused the cancer.
Anyways … I’m way off topic!
December 31st, 2008 at 9:58 pm
I need to object to Liu Xiaobo’s “Tiananmen massacre of pro-democracy student protesters” statement.
According to a 1998 TAM retrospective from Columnbia University School of Journalism, no students were killed in the square that night:
“as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square”
Jay Mathews goes on and says if we are not precise about where it happened and who were its victims, people will never understand what it meant.
Also, declassified NSA intelligence shows casualty was estimated at 180-500, in-line with the 241 figure released by the Chinese government, mostly from workers battling the troops(whom were initially unarmed according to NSA intel) en-route to TAM.
December 31st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I forgot to link the source of my information on #184:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/12/29/f-rfa-cormier.html
January 1st, 2009 at 12:46 am
To Allen #185:
of course I have to defer to you for legal definitions of causation. However, scientifically, it is relatively easy to show association, but much much harder to show causation. So while Mao will forever be associated with China’s circumstances, it becomes increasingly, with each passing day, untenable to claim that he caused it.
Agree with your last statement. Get a designated driver, or a cab, folks!
January 1st, 2009 at 1:03 am
To CTalk #184:
I didn’t suggest it was ok to ignore the world’s atrocities. I merely suggested that not everyone can put out every fire the world over. The reason why I sought your resume was because, if you’re going to berate me for not fixing all that ails the world, I wanted to see the gargantuan amount of good you’d done prior to frequenting these parts.
And since you at least agree that there are no prerequisites, I think I’ll take the liberty to continue to opine.
Huge pebble is an oxymoron. Tiny giant is an oxymoron. Huge and tiny are just opposites. Pebble and giant have no particular relationship. If you want to make those into the analogies you have, be my guest. But let’s just be clear that those analogies have nothing to do with any I wrote in #168, which you somehow likened to an oxymoron. I’m still scratching my head on that one.
THe 1990 and 2008 incidents are police incidents. You’re likely aware that, even in the last year, there have been many taser-related deaths. And there are public inquiries ongoing, none moreso than that arising from the unfortunate Dziekanski case. I wouldn’t consider those systematic human rights abuse cases, and i’ve certainly not heard them addressed as such.
As for your more historical examples, the Canadian government in the last 2-3 years has embarked on several land claim treaties as a means of reparation for past wrongs. A little late, to be sure, but not complete inaction.
And you know, if you want a blog for Canada, you’re more than welcome to fly at’er. And to be sure, Canada has unresolved issues. But I hope your point is not to say that Canadians can’t complain about China unless and until all her problems are fixed. That ship sailed a long long time ago, even on this blog.
January 1st, 2009 at 1:28 am
@S.K. Cheung #182
Jimmy Carter has done much to redeem himself after his tepid, at best, presidency. But Carter’s lackluster presidency is not solely Jimmy’s fault. The years following Nixon’s presidency and the Vietnam War were a very difficult time for the US.
That said, Jimmy’s work with Habitat for Humanity, global election monitoring and the Carter Center is stellar. His courage in standing up for what he believes is right is most commendable. I am amazed at his courage in challenging Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Arabs; that stand is the “3rd rail” of American and global politics. IMHO, I would rate his post-presidency as the finest post-presidency of any American president, ever.
Regarding GWB, I don’t want to waste my time on him now. Regarding Mao, you said:
I have no quarrel with historical revisionism, if it is used to obtain a more accurate view of past history. I reject historical revision which attempts to “sweep the dirt under the rug” or put a glittering veneer on a putrid past. As the old saw goes, “Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it!” Granted, Mao probably did some wonderful things for China, as Stalin did for Russia. But on a whole, I consider Mao and Stalin as infamous “black holes” in the Legion of the Damned.
I admire leaders like Anwar Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin. They were tough leaders who shed lots of blood in their earlier years. In their later years, they redeemed themselves with exceptional leadership, for which both were assassinated. I admire Carter eschewing the easy life for a very rewarding public life.
January 1st, 2009 at 7:45 am
@FOARP #181
I thought it was Comrade Zhukov who defeated the Nazis. Comrade Stalin excuted most of the Red army generals before the war which helped greatly the Nazis.
January 1st, 2009 at 7:58 am
@Charles Liu #193
I don’t agree with LiuXiaoBo’s approach but the claims by those link may not be accurate, according to few eyewitness I know.
January 1st, 2009 at 12:55 pm
@Charles – English lesson number 2:
hy⋅po⋅thet⋅i⋅cal
/ˌhaɪpəˈθɛtɪkəl/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [hahy-puh-thet-i-kuhl]
–adjective
1. assumed by hypothesis; supposed: a hypothetical case.
2. of, pertaining to, involving, or characterized by hypothesis: hypothetical reasoning.
Either actually learn the meaning of the word “hypothetical”, or just learn this: the fact that someone receives grants does not make them a paid secret agent, that was the entire point of my saying that even if people associated with FM or Anti-CNN were receiving Chinese state monies, they would probably still write what they write and believe what they believe.
As for disputing your sources, all I will say is what I have already said: they do not support your hypothesis. You appear to be saying that these people are the secret agents of a foreign power, this cannot be so if it is being done overtly. The entire reason that democracy movements used to be supported covertly is that they were not allowed at all. Now the government can no longer claim that being pro-democracy is illegal per se, they instead use ridiculously Orwellian language like “stirring up unrest against state power” to punish these people. However, these people would believe what they believe and write what they write even if they did not receive money from any western organisation, and the Chinese government would continue to persecute them even if they were not supported by foreign organisations. The case of Guo Quan and his nationalist-orientated pro-democracy party demonstrates this.
Now please explain to everyone why you posted that article calling for the killing of the drafters of the charter. You cannot say it is representative of general Chinese opinion – a brief search of the internet shows that it is not, in fact, given that only 19% of the Chinese public have internet access, it is entirely dubious whether any internet opinion could be representative. Nor can you say that it was chosen at random, since you then still made the decision to post it on this website. It appears that you are merely quoting other saying what you would like to say yourself, but do not because you wish to avoid censure.
January 1st, 2009 at 2:06 pm
@BMY -
I believe you are correct, but Zhukov is not nearly as celebrated as Stalin is in today’s Russia – perhaps this is something to do with Zhukov’s later political career, I don’t know. It is interesting also to see how, although it was Jefferson Davis who was president of the Confederate States, the figure of Robert E. Lee is by far the more popular in the southern United States. Likewise, when I was a kid in the 80’s, General Montgomery was still largely credited amongst the older generation with many of our victories in the second world war, but his not nearly so popular or well known now. However, despite the many attempts to debunk and expose him, Winston Churchill’s reputation remains firm both in the UK and abroard – although nobody would dream of displaying his picture in their car, or in their house, in the way that many Chinese and Russians still display Stalin or Mao.
History has a funny way of rescuing the reputation of people who were failures at the time, and of bringing low those who were given the most credit at the time of the events – and these things are cyclical. No doubt a future Russian regime might find Zhukov a more useful example than Stalin and seek to promote his example of relatively loyal service under extreme circumstances, and give him the greatest credit for the Soviet victory in WWII. For that matter, Mao Zedong receives much credit for things (such as the liberation of women, for example) which may well have had little to do with his input, and perhaps a future Chinese government might find the examples of Zhu De and Zhou Enlai more worthy of promotion – not that these people are not already celebrated in China, but they could be celebrated more.
One final thing, one thing I had expected to see before arriving in China, but did not see even once, were statues of Mao placed in parks and squares. In fact the only place I remember seeing a statue of Mao was in the museum at the foot of the Nanjing bridge. However, the only time I went to northern China was on a brief holiday in Beijing, and I am told that in northern China statues of Mao are more common – is this true? Someone also told me that statues of Mao used to be more common, but they were removed – is there any truth in this? Most surprising was the absence of a statue of Mao in Tiananmen square – at least I did not see one, although I did not visit the mausoleum. I had no desire to stand in line waiting for a glimpse of the embalmed corpse of a dictator.
In fact, I met about as many people who expressed dislike for Mao as I met who expressed approval. However, I did spend most of my time in China in Jiangsu province and Shenzhen, where much credit is given to Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping respectively.
January 1st, 2009 at 2:16 pm
One more thought – At the time of Stalin’s death (which more than one person has claimed to have been the result of an assassination, convincingly in my opinion) he was 74 years old. Given the increasingly paranoid behaviour of Stalin in the years before his death, it is entirely likely that he might have taken a similar direction to the one Mao (who died aged 82 – and it would seem of natural causes) did post-1965. The governments which came after Stalin did their best to de-Stalinise the Soviet Union in a way that no government did after Mao (even if they criticised his economic policies), yet Stalin, who was not even a native-born Russian, remains celebrated in Russia. Perhaps this just shows that people just don’t know how lucky they are.
January 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
FOARP Says: to Tu Quoque # 163
# 169
“you have declared yourself a know-it-all, aye? – Well qualified to deem others …nuts, crazy, derranged, do ya?”
[FOARP Replies] “Yes.”
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
18 hours ago, one ‘cdddraftsman’ comments…”GWB [is] the greatest president …….No Question there at all…”
cdddraftsman (18 hours ago)
GWB the greatest president since George Washington !
No Question there at all , he stuck it to the Demofacists tards of this country by ramming a just war up their assholes sidways . We’re all grateful for his efforts !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
January 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
@ Allen 98 & 108
“An institution that does not generate true discourse is not “free” – even if there is no explicit laws regulating it.”
and
“Yes I like “free speech” for China – except my bar is higher: not just the superficial “no government interference” western type. But a type that support true creation and exchange of ideas.”
As much as I would like to appreciate your aspirations for China, your comments remind me of the Bush Administration’s approach to Environmental policy. When the Democrats set out a proposal the Bush administration shot it down as “insufficient” and “not comprehensive.” In short, they said we should do nothing until we can do everything. Even worse, they set out to discredit existing scientific research and recommended we start all over. These are delay tactics not arguments.
I don’t think the question here is whether China should “adopt” or “copy” another system. These words are too simplistic and painting the discussion that way unfairly cheapens arguments in support of change. Whatever your objections about the US version of freedom of expression and mainstream media the dialogs you look for do exist and can happen in the open. Do you think the privileged few who travel outside of China should be the only ones who can discuss their own system openly? Do you honestly feel people in China are less capable of having this conversation than anyone here? If China’s academics can’t discuss the future of their system how do you expect to achieve the society you envision? Based on my experiences, I don’t think it is the people who aren’t ready.
January 1st, 2009 at 4:50 pm
@Tu Quoque – Are you trying to imply that I am “cdddraftsman”? I cannot understand the purpose of your comment otherwise. For the record, I am not, in fact I have gone on record many times to say how much I disagree with the Bush government’s policies towards torture. All I can say is that since 2006 I have only ever posted comments using the FOARP handle, and before that, I posted under my real name. Perhaps your IP address should be checked against other those of other commentators so that we may be sure that you are not someone else?
January 1st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
@Ted (#204): Couldn’t agree more. This argument, “either it should be perfect, or we’ll just stick to what we have now”, seems to be very common. It’s the same when human rights or democracy is discussed by first saying that the concepts are great, then that they do not mean at all what they do in the West, and then finally not defining them so they become empty shells. I wonder how much ink and paper have been wasted in the PRC on such practices.
January 1st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
“not just the superficial “no government interference” western type”
It depends on where you look. I’m not sure about the US, but in many other Western countries smaller magazines and organizations can get government grants to promote cultural development. That’s more than “no government interference”, but I’m not sure that’s what Allen has in mind? I’m sure we can think of other improvements as well, unless we are die-hard libertarians and resent all government funding.
January 1st, 2009 at 8:40 pm
@facts #137
Ok, I’ll give this one more try…
“Your comment on my arguments are almost comical. I will go through some of your points for entertainment purposes, because they are so off the chart, really can’t be taken seriously. For now let me just say, your Western apologist views will get you nowhere in China, and many your opinions are insults to common Chinese folk. Again I can predict the so-called Charter 08 will go nowhere, it’s just a farce as it is.”
This might pass for humor where you live, but the first thing you tell a foreigner coming to another country to give a training seminar is to “not try to be funny, don’t tell any jokes, stick to the material” because humor tends not to cross cultures very well. What you just offered are ad hominum attacks, which means attacking the person rather than what the person said.
Many of my comments were not of my own but comments of your fellow countrymen, educated at your best universities, working for some of your most successful corporations. I’m not sure what I said made me a “western apologist” except that it seems if anyone disagrees with any of your unsubstantiated views, they are automatically a “western apologist”. When I lived in China, I “got everywhere” with the people there and had no problem making friends. None of them were insulted; just you. You might find if you lived overseas, the quality and quantity of your foreign friends would be pretty limited with your current attitude. Or would you not want any foreign friends since that might make you actually consider other viewpoints and “contaminate” your opinions, making you less “Chinese”?
“So-called”? How is it “so-called”? That means it is improperly named, yet its name is “Charter 08”. What’s so improper about its name? Or did you just use the term without thinking what it actually means? Or did you know what it actually meant?
Predicting the charter will go nowhere is an opinion which I respect and is the purpose of this blog topic. It’s one of the few times you ever worded something as an opinion. I happen to also believe it won’t go anywhere. Since we agree on this, does that also make YOU a “western apologist”?
“You have a different concept of peace to most Chinese. Peace to Chinese mean no foreign invasion to Chinese homeland. Yes CCP has secured Chinese borders and given peace for the Chinese people for 60 yrs, and counting.”
facts, peace means not being in a state of war, regardless of whether it is on your homeland or not. The last foreign power that invaded China was Japan. That war ended when China was still ruled by the ROC, which doesn’t fit so well with your theory. Under your definition, the US’s participation in WWI was “peace” since there was no invasion of the USA. The US’s presence in Iraq is also “peace” to you. When Japan invaded China, would you also say Japan had “peace” because there was no fighting on Japanese soil? I doubt you can find many others, Chinese or foreigner, who would agree with your definition.
“Compared the amount of food/grain, industrial output, life expectancy, literacy rate, health care by PRC in 1974 to that during ROC yrs, if you call China in 1974 was in shambles and disaster, what you call the days of ROC? Hell on earth?”
You’d be hard pressed to find a bigger critic of CKS than I am. But let’s look at your example. In 1974, China had been run by the CCP for 25 years with as you say, no wars on home soil during that time, and no wars at all for 22 years. When the ROC ran China, it was in a perpetual state of war so impossible to compare those two eras. That’s why I compared it with Taiwan, so we are talking the same situations in the same time periods with a direct comparison of the ROC and CCP’s performance. Taiwan has very few natural resources compared to China, so China’s development should have far surpassed Taiwan’s, shouldn’t it?
This is from the Ten Worst Famines of the 20th Century The GLF was #1 on the list.
1. China 1958-62 Between 10 and 30 million people died as a result of Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward. His plan involved modernising agriculture and increasing grain production. Farmers were collectivised into communes of about 25,000 people and had to give the state a large percentage of their crops. Officials often exaggerated the size of harvests, and in many places the entire grain harvest was seized together with livestock, vegetables and cash crops. China’s leaders appeared to have been unaware of the severity of the famine – from 1958 until 1961 China doubled its grain exports and cut imports of food.
“Yes Chairman Mao stopped the downward spiral of China, and set China on an upward path. Do you have source/data to substantiate your statement on Chinese opinion for Premier Zhou? None I see.”
Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. When I lived there and based on my job, I spent time with hundreds of Chinese citizens in the industrial sector. We talked about the past all the time. The vast majority of them thought Zhou was better than Mao. In fact, there was even a saying they taught me; “It is China’s curse that the number two man in China is always better than the number one; Zhou better than Mao; Zhu better than Jiang; Wen better than Hu.” I heard that expression several times from different people, and the other Chinese with me always nodded their heads in agreement. They also said they felt that Zhou mitigated many of Mao’s policies during the Cultural Revolution, and that Zhou set up the alliance with the United States that helped lead to China’s modernization. They told me many stories about things Zhou had said and done. When Zhou died, a huge, spontaneous outpouring of Chinese attended his funeral though the government did not encourage it, greater than the numbers for Mao’s funeral which was encouraged. Why was this?
“Why don’t you use your own standard, or you have one standard for me and another one for yourself? And when did I ever say, every single statement I wrote is a fact, and how could you ever make an argument with facts only? This is just another hit-the-straw-man tactics of yours. Making up some statements call it mine, beating it to death and declare victory.”
I’ve given you an explanation, but you don’t give any for your opinions. So what are you telling me, that machine tool import is an opinion? That semiconductor equipment import is an opinion? Those are either allowed or they are not allowed. What you said is either true or it isn’t. Why don’t you justify what you said on those two points? Then tell us how the KMT is trying to split the Chinese nation. I’d like to hear your take on that.
If you read other comments, opinions are usually prefaced with “in my opinion” or “I believe”; something to that effect. Yours are not. You state your opinions as if they were facts, and you don’t give any reasons why you’ve formed the opinions you do. You use the handle “facts” which is fine, but never seem to give any. Facts help to substantiate opinions. Facts are the basis on which we hang opinions. “Facts” is your byline.
Making up some statements and calling them yours? I didn’t declare victory; I asked you to explain what you meant, point by point. I quoted you word for word. How is that making up statements? You are attributing something to me which I never said or did. Incidentally, that is the meaning of a ‘straw man’ argument.
I don’t want to make this too long so I’ll stop here. “facts”, it’s not what you say, it’s how you say it. You make blanket statements without any backup, then dismiss anyone who questions them. I’ve been watching your replies to other commenters over time and you do the same for everyone who asks you a question or disagrees with anything you say. I threw out two options; you obviously chose the first one. To be honest, you sound pretty young and without much experience.
January 1st, 2009 at 9:14 pm
@sophie #141:
Sophie, I think you misunderstand my point with “facts”. I have no problem with his opinions, but with his presentation of them. Let’s look at what you wrote; it was filled with substantiation of what you believed in. I agree with you on most of it. I actually agreed with “facts” on some of his opinions, but I didn’t like the way he attacked people with opinions that were different from his. You wrote, “Since I don’t believe these anti-china groups genuinely care about Chinese people’s interest…”. When you said “I don’t believe” I knew you were voicing an opinion, and one you backed up with a persuasive argument. Some evidence you gave for your beliefs weren’t exactly facts, but they WERE persuasive arguments, at least to me.
In A Country’s Hurt Feelings I questioned William Huang about one of his posts. His reply was like yours; well argued, persuasive and fair. He allowed me to get a better understanding of what many Chinese people are thinking and changed my opinion of that particular situation. I appreciated him taking the time to enlighten me about that particular aspect of Chinese thinking.
That’s all I’m asking; let’s be civil and not so quick to jump down someone’s throat just because they happen to share different opinions. If you’ve read many of my posts, you’ve probably noticed that I’m not “anti-China”. My experiences were very positive when I was there. No one ever attacked me, insulted me or treated me unkindly. Because the debate is so heated and the media rhetoric so biased on both sides, I tend to trust my experiences, what Chinese people actually told me, rather than much of the rubbish that passes for news reports.
Sophie, nothing irks me more than some reporter or editorialist from a western country taking a two week “fact-finding” trip to China and then acting like he/she knows the country intimately. “Oh look, they eat scorpions on a stick!” “They are destroying all the hutongs.” (many of which have no indoor plumbing, which these same people would never accept in their own countries) “Chinese people have more freedom/less freedom/no freedom/economic but not political freedom (take your pick) than before.” It goes on and on and I can see why you’d roll your eyes after reading such drivel.
By the way, I thought your post was excellent!
January 1st, 2009 at 11:10 pm
” ……Do you honestly feel people in China are less capable of having this conversation than anyone here? If China’s academics can’t discuss the future of their system how do you expect to achieve the society you envision? Based on my experiences, I don’t think it is the people who aren’t ready.”
Steve,
Obviously you read a lot, studied a lot, have good theory, but frankly speaking, I dont think you have spent enough time studying real world problems.
Your question is similar to “Do you honestly believe American people not willing to scrafice for other people ?”
Please have a look of the modernization program of O’Hara airport in Chicago, which will create 195,000 jobs but needs land acquisition from 2,800 people.
Chinese and Americans are all human beings. Given the same condition, I would expect Chinese will behave the same way as Americans do,………. and because usually they are 10 to 100 times poorer, I believe they would care about money more.
January 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@ Wahaha #210:
Hi Wahaha, Happy New Year~
The quote you used wasn’t mine, it was from Ted #204. I guess all westerners look alike!
Incidentally, I completely agree with your last paragraph.
January 1st, 2009 at 11:45 pm
@ Wahaha #210:
“Chinese and Americans are all human beings. Given the same condition, I would expect Chinese will behave the same way as Americans do,………. and because usually they are 10 to 100 times poorer, I believe they would care about money more.”
This reminded me of something my sister-in-law once said. She lives up in the Bay Area and her boyfriend at the time was taking her on vacation to Costa Rica. After she returned, my wife called her to see how it went.
She said, “It was horrible! Why did he take me to a third world country? It was so poor! It reminded me of Taiwan 40 years ago. Why couldn’t we have gone to Paris, Rome or London?”
So many times, people from wealthier countries go to third world countries and marvel about how “simply” the people live, like it’s some kind of earthly paradise. What they fail to realize is that those people work HARD and LONG HOURS every single day, just to barely survive. Political theory doesn’t matter so much when you’re trying not to starve. It only matters to the wealthy and the academia in those countries. This particular story has stayed with me while traveling, and “opened my eyes” to the reality of how many people live.
For me, this is what I personally consider a “real world problem”.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
@FOARP #201
Interesting point about how those political figures get celebrated today.
Regarding your questions about statues of Mao-
“I am told that in northern China statues of Mao are more common – is this true?”
Sorry I don’t really know . I lived in northern China for 30 years but I didn’t travel lots of places and I’d never seen one statues of Mao. no surprise you didn’t see any. I remember I’ve only seen one or two big base of statues somewhere in the 80s and I was told Mao’s statues were on the top before.
“Someone also told me that statues of Mao used to be more common, but they were removed – is there any truth in this?”
I believe so. I was too little in CR to remember things by myself. But according to my parents and some of old generation I know, there used to be Mao’s statues everywhere in China during CR. I guess there was a instruction from the top and most of the statues got removed after CR. There was one in the uni camps my father attended in the 60s. But I didn’t see it when I visit the place in the late 80s.
January 2nd, 2009 at 12:42 am
FOARP Says:
@Tu Quoque – Are you trying to imply that I am “cdddraftsman”?
No, you misunderstood…Oh, I know FOARP is FOARP – who cares, anyway?
Fact is, I agree with FOARP most of the time – when he sticks to facts and provides proofs. It is your recent show of hubris with regards to Charlie Liu that bugs me – It’s absolutely NOTHING personal, although I am guilty of holding FOARP to higher standards, simply because I know FOARP , though condescending at times, is so much better than someone who resort to spewing unsubstantiated diatribes and branding people in broad strokes as nuts, brainwashed and crazies.
Back to the comment in question: I was just trying to show no matter what the overwhelming public opinions, established historical and scientific facts, the undeniable aftermath of their draconian administration and policies, say , about GWB, there will always be people like“cdddraftsman”who sing the praises of these tyrants. So, the same loyalty and (blind) faith in political and religious leaders such as Mao, Dalai Lama, GWB, Tony Blair, Castrol, etc – though unpalatable to you or others, does not mean these loyalists are nuts, brainwashed, crazy. It is all a matter of each arguing for their own individual and collective entrenched interests.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezIU6ZxYU3A&feature=related
cdddraftsman: “GWB the greatest president since George Washington ! No Question there at all , he stuck it to the Demofacists tards of this country by ramming a just war up their assholes sidways . We’re all grateful for his efforts ! “
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:53 am
Wahaha 210# Actually that was my comment. I’m not familiar with the current O’Hare project but based on your comments I can imagine the situation. Robert Moses’ heavy handed approach to city planning was constantly discussed in my University urban planning classes and when I see development in China today, it is with the understanding that the US went through similar phases. If you take the time to look, you can find numerous examples in US History where the national interests trump local interests and the common good was valued above the rights of the individual. In my opinion the protests and vigorous discussion that accompanied such decisions not only helped to inform the government but ameliorated the feelings of the people. As for Moses, his planning policies rippled throughout the US and led to our automobile-centric lifestyle today…
Maybe I was unclear but I’m not asking that China adopt another system, simply whether or not China’s academics and the Chinese people should be able to discuss China’s system of government. Personally, I think it is best that these kinds of discussions start in the academic world precisely because it isn’t the real world.