LINHAI, Sep. 10
http://www.upiasiaonline.com
Chinese writers are engaged in a battle of the pens over the issue of widespread resentment toward China's newly rich. Mao Yushi, a well-known scholar and economist who is considered a man of conscience, sparked this debate with a widely read article titled, "Speak for the Rich and Do for the Poor."
Mao has earned high regard for his acts of political courage -- signing an appeal for the Tiananmen Mothers group, speaking out on behalf of a jailed writer and critic, and siding with a private entrepreneur who was being framed. He is also credited with providing financial support to prisoners of conscience. For awhile he was on a government black list banning his name and comments from the media.
But his recent comments are untimely and out of synch with the social reality.
Mao seeks to defend the wealthy from the people's resentment, but in present-day China there is no need to indiscriminately do so. The rich in China are privileged, the poor are underprivileged. Most social resources, as well as the power to legislate and even the right to speak out, are in the hands of the rich and powerful. The legislative bodies let wealthy special interest groups dictate their laws and policies. It is the poor who suffer from unjust treatment.
Scholar Mao has pointed out that under the current system, the benefits enjoyed by the rich are not guaranteed. He argues that their benefits should be protected, saying that only if property is protected can the poor become rich. Based on these comments, we do not wrong Mao if we view him as a spokesperson for the special interest groups. Whatever his original intention, he has drawn a great deal of criticism for his position on this issue.
Certainly there are cases where the rich are bullied by the powerful, but they are rare. It is important to stand up for a rich person who faces injustice, but this does not mean we should speak up for all the rich. If a corrupt official is treated unjustly we should speak up for this official. But if someone advocates standing up for all corrupt officials, it will definitely arouse antipathy from the people. Whether rich or poor, we should speak up for people whose human rights are violated or whose legitimate property rights are denied.
At present there is a serious gap between rich and poor in China. The reality is that most wealth comes from power and most poverty results from a lack of power.
U.S.-based Chinese scholar Xue Yong commented wisely when he said the Chinese people do not resent wealth gained through legitimate means; what they resent is wealth gained through unscrupulous means. For example, Yao Ming, the famous Chinese basketball player in the United States, is extremely rich, but the Chinese people do not resent him.
By contrast, many officials have become wealthy through the abuse of power -- as have the businessmen and others who ally with them. We must therefore consider the causes of polarization between the rich and the poor, rather than criticizing those who resent the current situation.
Apologists for Chinese entrepreneurs, including Mao, emphasize their contributions to China's economy and society as well as the difficulties they face. However, these comments are untimely and inaccurate.
Managers of enterprises are not all entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs are those who discover new products, create new technologies, open new markets, discover new resources and establish new economic organizations. They do innovative work and they take risks. In democratic countries with equal opportunity, entrepreneurs can become heads of companies by establishing a business, bearing risks and becoming rich through their own efforts.
But the situation in China is rather complicated. Many "entrepreneurs" are the heads of state-owned enterprises, assigned because of their official standing and administrative rank; or managers in state-owned monopolies such as the electricity and water industries; or children of important leaders whose status gives them free reign in the business sector; or government officials who start their own businesses.
In the 1980s there was a saying, "no work, no wealth." Now it has become "no power, no wealth". Under this circumstance, those who work are not comfortable with Mao's assertion that "entrepreneurs" are the main producers of wealth.
Mao has indicated that the wealthy deserve sympathy because they have to pay various taxes and deal with arbitrary government officials -- flattering them, giving them valuable gifts, treating them to meals and providing them entertainment. However, business people are clever; they would not do any of these things at a loss to themselves.
Without such contacts with government officials, how could real estate developers get land? Without back-up from political figures, how could tycoons get billions in bank loans? Without giving presents to the officials in the tax office, how could entrepreneurs avoid paying taxes?
The rich are not bullied by the government. That was once the case, but it is long past. Ever since General Secretary Jiang Zemin introduced his theory of "three represents," money and power have been joined together. The company heads have all joined the Communist Party and become the "new social class" that supports one-party dictatorship.
It seems that Mao, a man of conscience, originally intended to deflect people's resentment away from the wealthy class, but has ended up defending a system that polarizes rich and poor. This is really unexpected from a scholar of his standing.
--
(Wu Gaoxing is a freelance writer on Chinese economics and politics in Linhai, Zhejiang province. He is a former middle school teacher, lecturer and director of the Political Research Department at Taizhou's Supply and Sale School. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at http://www.chinaweekly.com. ©Copyright Wu Gaoxing.)
没有评论:
发表评论