Chinese scholars for imperial use

LI ZHINING

BEIJING, China, Dec. 27

The term "democracy" as used by China's state leaders has a different meaning from that understood in the West, according to Andrew J. Nathan, China expert and professor of political science at Columbia University in New York.Chinese officials are not elected in any real sense; they are chosen by the Chinese Communist Party, which represents a major divergence between the Chinese and U.S. concepts of democracy.

However, Yu Keping, a Beijing official and scholar famous for writing the widely discussed article "Democracy is a Good Thing," has claimed that the criteria for democracy includes not only direct elections but also public supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in government. Further, Yu said China cannot simply copy the democratic model of other countries, but must walk its own path.

Actually, the Chinese scholar's statements attempt to turn simple concepts into complex ones in an effort to appear profound. In fact they are an embarrassment. China's current social systems have nothing at all to do with the word "democracy." In the hands of those potentates, the word "democracy" is merely a "thing" to be used to convey lies.

It is not rare to hear such Chinese "scholars for imperial use" label anything that pleases those in power "a good thing." On the other hand, for anything that harms the interests of the potentates, those scholars will concoct a new form, give it an extreme makeover and take away its essence until it becomes "a good thing" for the potentates.

This is how the word "democracy" came to become "a good thing" for the Chinese.

In fact, democratic politics have never been acceptable to Chinese authorities throughout the nation's history. The suggestion that the people should be granted the right to choose their government through open elections remains taboo, even now.

Nevertheless, the rulers have encountered some trouble in this regard. Since the May 4th Movement of 1919, the word "democracy" has been etched into the minds of the Chinese people. It was the standard by which advances and counter-revolutionary moves were judged. As a result, it's difficult to negate democracy and openly advocate autarchy.

The Chinese rulers' solution to this problem is to adopt the word "democracy" in name but completely change its essence.

Take Mao Zedong, who obviously did not approve of democracy, for example. In his critical article "How to Correctly Handle the Internal Struggles of the People" he openly stated that democracy was a means rather than an end. Therefore, we could conclude that there is no need for China to implement a democratic system. In fact, Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping after him both insisted on political autarchy. Not even they could publicly identify democracy as counter-revolutionary.

The mindset remains the same today. Obviously, the "scholars for imperial use" cannot condemn democracy as a reactionary thing, which will undermine its value. Thus, they adopted Mao's practice of using it as the means to a different end, proclaiming that "democracy is a good thing." But in reality, they have taken away the bones and muscles of democracy and made it into a new dish. The scholars first presented this delicacy to the leadership to be sure it pleased them, then they offered this false dish to the people.

This is in fact a mediocre and uncreative approach. It is like adding the term "with Chinese characteristics" to the term "socialism" to create something that is not socialism at all. The tem "with Chinese characteristics" has also been attached to "democracy" to create something that is not democracy at all. .

As a matter of fact, there are no unique or odd national conditions in China to justify this approach. The scholars always chatter shamelessly about China's unique "national conditions." But what nation in the world has unique national conditions? Why is it that most countries in the world are capable of implementing democracy, but not China?

Yu Keping's definition of democracy, which includes supervision of those in power and citizens' participation in governance, is not the practice in modern China. The people are still not the real owners of the nation. The citizens' participation in governance is exactly as much as the rulers wish to grant them. If it is none, then the people have no such right. The Chinese people do not even possess the freedom of speech; what other kind of participation can they even imagine?

Democracy cannot be divided into Western and Eastern styles. If the Chinese rulers do not want national elections and separation of the three major powers of government, they should be brave enough to say so publicly; at least that would be considered honest. But now, the scholars are playing around with language and spreading false ideas to fool the people. They want to mislead the people into thinking they have democracy. Their purpose is to make the people feel grateful and indebted to the rulers, so they will not cause troubles or create mass incidents.

It has been said that to applaud dictatorship is to despise the people. Unfortunately, many Chinese scholars do not seem to care much about this point. Moreover, the rulers and the scholars control the media in China, which prevents people from probing more deeply. Otherwise the leaders would not be able to handle the barrage of questions they would face.

---

(Li Zhining is an independent thinker and writer. He was formerly a researcher at the Economic Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Li Zhining.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/27/chinese_scholars_for_imperial_use/9050/

Nanjing massacre is a human shame

LIU HONGBO

WUHAN, China, Dec. 20

In the Chinese city of Nanjing, thousands of people gathered on Dec. 13 to mark the 70th anniversary of the 1937 Nanjing Massacre. The mood was solemn, but the prevailing public attitude was, "Remember the history, not the hatred."

As a matter of fact, there is no question about whether or not to remember the history, in my opinion. Precisely speaking, there is only the issue of whether or not to hold onto the hatred. History should not be forgotten or twisted, while hatred should not be kept alive or strengthened. Considering the Nanjing Massacre, people should keep the history firmly in mind but put an end to the hatred.

For a race that was hurt and insulted, it is not difficult to fix the history in our minds, while to terminate the hatred is harder. But only in this way can the race demonstrate its noble and rational character. Our race should retain its dignity, not because we are Chinese claiming to possess a special timber, but because we are human beings and thus should have a real sense of the majesty of our civilization.

Butchering is insane and inhuman. It must be indicted rather than duplicated. Hatred is the poison that leads to butchering; if what is evoked by the memory of killing is hatred, this is to say that a crazy behavior evokes a crazy idea. I believe that such an expression is not righteous; it is rather irrational.

Air sirens sounded for a long time during the memorial event. But what were they for? They should not sound a warning about falling behind and being beaten. They should call attention to barbarity and civilization, to killing and to peace. It's not easy to raise all human societies to the same level of development, but being advanced doesn't give one society the qualification to beat up others. Preserving civilization and creating everlasting peace should not be subject to the different levels of societies, races or countries.

To remember history doesn't mean becoming addicted to sadness or building up anger or harboring hatred, waiting for a historic opportunity to take revenge. It means walking away from historic tragedy and creating human lives. To remember history is to persist in the truth. No matter the circumstances, a person of dignity should not hesitate to insist on the truth at whatever the cost.

Nevertheless, ending hatred should not depend on the attitude of the perpetrator. Mankind should live with dignity; a victim must not lower his or her own standard to that of an animal just because the injuring party has done so. In other words, if it is true that extinguishing hatred requires the perpetrator to admit his or her brutality, it means one cannot independently develop one's nobility and rationality and needs someone else, who may be normal or abnormal, to attain freedom and release.

The Nanjing Massacre was a specific incident that caused the deaths of nearly 300,000 civilians and those soldiers who put down their weapons to surrender. The perpetrator was the Japanese army. This incident was also part of humanity's history of butchering its own kind, using human intelligence to organize efficient killing. That is the failure of "the most superior of all creatures" and the utmost absurdity; such killing is not only a wound to humanity but also its shame. The wound of the victim is the shame of the perpetrator; the stain can never be removed.

The reason for the Chinese people to remember the Nanjing Massacre should not be that the Chinese especially like to indulge in suffering, but because the Chinese carry the responsibility to keep the memory for all humanity.

Unfortunately, I found that this year's memorial event could not count as a universal one, for it was still an outpouring of the grief of a specific race, rather than a human tragedy shared by the international community. Therefore the Chinese must, of necessity, carry the full burden of this memory.

As members of the human race we need to remember the Nanjing Massacre, and the other massacres that have occurred at Auschwitz and in Rwanda, and any other place in the world at any time. All massacres are evil; they cannot be divided into higher or lower levels.

Moreover, killing people of a different race is not more or less evil than killing those of a different religion. Massacring people of the same race, religion or ideology is not more or less rational than massacring those of different races, religions or ideologies. Thus so-called "honor killings" or "killing for a great purpose" do not exist in a real sense. Putting gold plating on evil deeds does not change their character.

--

(Liu Hongbo is a noted writer and critic on current affairs. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the Chinese original can be found at www.ncn.org and liuhb.blog.sohu.com . ©Copyright Liu Hongbo.)

Obstacles to Hong Kong's democracy (2)

JIN ZHONG

HONG KONG, China, Dec. 12

In Hong Kong's by-election for the Legislative Council last week, pro-democracy candidate Anson Chan was proclaimed the winner with 170,000 ballots, while pro-Beijing candidate Regina Ip received some 30,000 fewer votes. The gap was wider than expected.

Many commentators interpreted the result as a strong signal from Hong Kong citizens calling for universal suffrage in 2012.

Surprisingly, when Chan took her seat in the Council three days later, Tsang Tak-sing, head of the Home Affairs Bureau, verbally attacked her during a meeting. Tsang accused her of becoming a "sudden democrat" who "suddenly cares about people's livelihood," pointing out that she was formerly an official under the British colonial government in charge of people's livelihood affairs.

Chan responded that Tsang's offensive remarks were a personal attack and asked for an apology. Other Council members of the democratic camp commented that Tsang's insulting the new councilor was to show off his panache as an official. This incident became a headline story in local media.

Tsang Tak-sing actually violated the principles of the Council; government officials were supposed to be attending the meeting as guests or observers and to respond to enquiries from the councilors. The idea is that public servants should report to the legislators, who represent the public, and be interrogated by them. What was the sense in reversing the positions of host and guest and initiating an attack on a councilor?

Secondly, Chan is a councilor elected by 170,000 voters and must speak on behalf of the voters. Everyone can choose one's own political leanings. This has nothing to do with the "sudden democrat" issue.

What's more apparent, Tsang has revealed his bias and deep hostility to Hong Kong's democracy.

As far back as 1967, at the peak of the Cultural Revolution, Tsang participated in leftist-inspired riots against the British and was jailed for two years for his activities. After that, he became the one chosen and groomed by the Chinese Communist Party to rule Hong Kong. He was editor-in-chief of Ta Kung Pao, considered a pro-Beijing newspaper, and served four terms as a Hong Kong deputy to the National People's Congress in Beijing.

After Hong Kong's handover to China in 1997, Tsang was immediately recruited into the Central Policy Unit, which was created in 1989 as a government advisory body. In this capacity, for seven years Tsang served as an advisor to the chief executive. Moreover, when Chief Executive Donald Tsang's term of office was renewed this year, Tsang Tak-sing was appointed head of the Home Affairs Bureau and became part of the top leadership in Hong Kong.

Tsang Tak-sing's behavior at the Legislative Council has been described as an outbreak of "leftist poison," an unscrupulous act that defies the civilized practices within Hong Kong's political circles. The leftists in Hong Kong defended him by saying his words merely reflected his own personal feelings and views.

This excuse could be excellent and very true. What was he feeling and thinking about? Perhaps he was distressed that a "supporter of an evil cause," the previous British administration that he has hated for decades, was widely welcomed into the Council 10 years after Hong Kong's handover.

Or maybe he felt bad that the so-called pro-democracy camp -- renamed "the opposition camp" by the leftists -- besides siding with Western power to bully others, the behavior of Chinese traitors, was captivating the people in the name of democracy. Despite the leftists' victory in the District Council elections in October, they could not defeat the reputation of Anson Chan. Without dashing her image, how could the leftists effectively control the drive for universal suffrage in 2012?

Perhaps most important was that Tsang's experience wallowing in political circles gave him confidence that the central government will never switch its policy of supporting the leftists in Hong Kong, that China's powerful rise will not be stopped, and that what Hong Kong needs is the courage he possessed when he went to jail, to oppose the previous British administration.

So now he needs to bravely stand out to fight the opposing power of an adverse current. This would explain why Tsang Tak-sing behaved like a man with strong backing and no fears. Tsang's outburst of "leftist poison" represented his vision that as soon as the leftists gain full control over Hong Kong, they will punish all the organizations and individuals that threaten their power and interests.

People said that Tsang's humiliation of Anson Chan was humiliating 170,000 voters. In fact, his insult impacts a much higher number.

--

(Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Open Magazine, a political journal based in Hong Kong. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the Chinese original can be found at www.ncn.org and in the December 2007 issue of Open Magazine. ©Copyright Jin Zhong.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/12/obstacles_to_hong_kongs_democracy_2/1668/

Obstacles to Hong Kong's democracy (I)

JIN ZHONG

HONG KONG, China, Dec. 10

The by-election for Hong Kong's Legislative Council held on Dec. 2 should not be ignored; it was significant in terms of the territory's future democratic development.

Prior to the election, opinion polls showed a 10-percent lead for Anson Chan, former head of the civil service under the British government and now considered pro-democracy, over Regina Ip, former security chief now viewed as pro-Beijing.

On the other hand, some media had analyzed that Chan might lose because of the pro-Beijing group's tactics to discredit her and also its overwhelming influence within the Legislative Council.

Similar to Taiwan, Hong Kong society can be divided into two groups, the pro-democracy and pro-Beijing (also known as leftist) camps. Neither group had a strong enough candidate to guarantee a win for the one open seat in the Legislative Council, therefore each decided to support a popular public figure, Anson Chan and Regina Ip, who both had no party affiliation but had different political leanings.

Both women served as public officials under previous administrations. This reveals a characteristic of Hong Kong politics -- political parties are not yet mature enough to provide leadership on a par with the administrative system. This is related to the city's strong commercial orientation and limited political experience, as well as the effective system of governance left behind by the British and the tremendous influence now wielded by mainland China.

In addition, this election demonstrated that the desire for democracy among Hong Kong citizens is increasing.

Chan's participation in this election symbolized this aspiration. Chan is a retired former top official, who is already 68 years old. She seeks neither power nor her own private interests, but is driven by the fundamental desire to see democracy practiced in Hong Kong. The political risk she faced was not akin to that of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese pro-democracy activist who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991. Nevertheless, Chan resolutely and determinedly cast herself into this competition to represent the consciousness of the elite class in Hong Kong.

On the other hand, Regina Ip, former head of the Security Bureau, is publicly recognized as a conservative in Hong Kong's political circles. Her participation in the election reflected the reality of Hong Kong's increasingly "red" drift. In order to win votes, she had no choice but to apologize for advocating a treacherous security bill under Article 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law, which would have subjected Hong Kong to China's Constitution in matters related to national security and prohibited Hong Kong from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies. Moreover, in her campaign pamphlets Ip even promised to strive for universal suffrage in Hong Kong in 2012.

In fact, China's central government, dominated by the Chinese Communist Party, the supreme ruler of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, will not permit Hong Kong to introduce universal suffrage in 2012 or even in 2017. China will not make this concession.

Some may not understand why the Chinese government is so stingy. If you pay attention to the efforts mainlanders have to make just to have their basic human rights respected, you will get the point.

The Chinese government cannot sit back and allow democracy to be practiced under the nose of the CCP. It cannot tolerate Hong Kong crossing the line -- allowing one person one vote to elect the chief executive -- under China's red flag with five stars. This would undermine the system of control maintained by the CCP. What's even more dangerous, it would break the myth that the one-party system will last for dozens more years. If 100,000 mainland tourists were to visit Hong Kong, the Chinese people would soon be shouting, "That's enough!" and demanding that they be given political power.

In fact, the practice of democracy both in Taiwan and Hong Kong can provide good experience for the future China. Taiwan already has a certain democratic foundation, and Hong Kong is striving toward that. The ideal of democracy that the whole world -- except for China -- recognizes lies in building up a system that truly protects human dignity and rights, rather than selecting a leader the people like.

There are many complaints about the 200-year-old democracy in the United States and the 20-year-old democracy in Taiwan. Even in Russia, although there are no bans on newspapers or political parties since communism was abandoned and democracy instated, the dark side of that society surprises us.

All the facts tell us that building a democratic system in China, where the traditional society under imperial power lasted for thousands of years, will be a long and slow process. While the Chinese are moving forward with that process, there will be both joys and frustrations. The future will definitely not be won or lost through a single election.

(To be continued)
--
(Jin Zhong is editor-in-chief of Open Magazine, a political journal based in Hong Kong. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the Chinese original can be found at www.ncn.org and in the December 2007 issue of Open Magazine. ©Copyright Jin Zhong.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/10/obstacles_to_hong_kongs_democracy_i/3796/

The misfortunes of China's journalists

ZAN AIZONG

HANGZHOU, China, Dec. 7

It is an odd phenomenon in China that many authentic journalists -- those dedicated to real reporting -- cannot obtain a journalist's license while official, licensed journalists do not really report, but receive higher pay than the former.

Those in the first group are called "news workers," to be differentiated from the many official journalists. In reality, the latter may be seen as phony. They are always paid on time whether they write articles or not, and no matter what quality of work they produce. They tackle only those subjects assigned by the authorities and will not initiate independent investigations. In this way they face no risks in their work.

Chinese media have undergone a transformation in an attempt to align them with the market economy and make them profitable. This has contributed to the emergence of large numbers of news workers who are contracted by media.

Many news media ignore regulations under the country's Labor Law, offering no on-the-job injury insurance, for example. Many don't sign employment agreements. Moreover, they pay according to output. There are no less than 250,000 people who earn their living word by word. They make up more than half the official total of 550,000 journalists in the country.

While the official slogan "scientific outlook on development" is being promoted throughout the country, the ruling Chinese Communist Party and those who share its vested interests are accelerating the privatization of power. Journalists with licenses issued by the Press and Publications Administration are kept busy working on soft, buttery stories and those with the red seal of approval.

Meanwhile, throngs of news workers, alongside unlicensed "barefoot lawyers," are taking to the Internet and alerting the public to this process of power privatization by revealing the corruption in official circles.

Some such stories have offended powerful figures, putting the journalists' jobs and even their lives at risk. Even so, when one defender of the people's rights is knocked down, another one rises up to carry on the fight.

Xu Xiang, dubbed "China's celebrity journalist" by Internet users, or "netizens," is one example. Xu was detained for 10 days and accused of deceiving and misleading readers after he wrote a commentary criticizing the Party secretary of Changsha city for paying to cover up someone's wrongdoing. Xu had an employment agreement with the Democracy and Law News, but not a proper journalist's license. Therefore he was labeled a fake journalist by the government and the court, damaging his reputation.

Lan Chengzhang from the China Trade News was another example. In January, Lan was beaten to death by the owner of an illegal coal mine in Datong city, Shanxi province, where he went to investigate. Lan was later labeled a fake reporter without a legal license, and accused of trying to extort money from the mine owner by threatening to expose his activities.

The owner had reportedly asked a media professional how to deal with the reporter, and was allegedly told: If he is a real reporter, treat him well and give him money; if he is fake, then settle it with violence. After receiving this advice from a media insider, the owner confirmed that Lan had no legal journalist's card -- which cost him his life.

Three days after Lan's death, the News and Publications Bureau of Datong city issued a notice of a crackdown on illegal journalists, newspapers and magazines. "Those reporters who do not hold a legal journalist ID issued by the News and Publications Administration are fake," the notice declared.

If this is to be the criterion allowing journalists to work from now on, there is no telling how many more "news workers" like Xu Xiang and Lan Chengzhang will encounter misfortune. It puts 250,000 "illegal reporters" at risk.

--

(Zan Aizong is a former journalist, currently an active Internet writer and columnist focusing on media, journalism and freedom of speech in China. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Zan Aizong.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2007/12/08/commentary_the_misfortunes_of_chinas_journalists/8527/

China should learn civilized diplomacy

FANG JUE

NEW YORK, Dec. 1

China's refusal to allow the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier group to berth in Hong Kong for Thanksgiving Day was a misunderstanding, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi reportedly told U.S. President George W. Bush during a phone call on Nov. 27.

This is an excuse from the highest leadership. The incident, in fact, was not a case of misunderstanding but a purposeful action.

A China-U.S. agreement had been reached several months earlier that the USS Kitty Hawk would be allowed to visit Hong Kong from Nov. 21 to 24 during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday. On Nov. 21, one day before Thanksgiving, when the carrier group with 8,000 sailors was approaching Hong Kong, the U.S. side was suddenly informed by Chinese authorities that there was "no approval for the berthing." Moreover, the Chinese side refused to offer an explanation for this unilateral, last-minute decision.

The planned berthing was not for military purposes but merely an arrangement for the sailors to celebrate a holiday. Thanksgiving Day isn't even a political holiday, like the U.S. Independence Day on July 4. It is a civilian holiday when families get together with their loved ones once a year, similar to the Lunar New Year's Day for the Chinese.

On this U.S. holiday, according to the original arrangement between the two sides, U.S. troops stationed overseas would be granted an opportunity to meet their family members, many of whom had flown to Hong Kong for the occasion. It was a perfect embodiment of President Hu Jintao's slogans advocating "people oriented" leadership and a "harmonious society."

However, the real practice was neither people-oriented nor conducive of harmony. The result was that the U.S. sailors could not meet their family members, after nearly 300 of them had spent their own money to fly to Hong Kong. The aircraft carrier was forced to return to its base in Japan.

The Chinese government has accumulated a list of complaints against the United States over certain issues in recent years. The list reflects long-term differences between China and the United States. However, long-term differences must be resolved in the long run, and should not be reflected in the treatment of regular U.S. troops and their innocent family members.

There is no honor or credit in this kind of erratic behavior. Using a situation like this as a pretext for high-flown talk and beating about the bush is a reflection of Cold War mentality. It is not civilized diplomacy.

Actually, China displayed the same Cold War approach a few days earlier, when two U.S. minesweepers encountered a storm in international waters and requested permission to shelter and refuel in Hong Kong. But China turned down this request. As a result, the two minesweepers had to refuel from a U.S. tanker and fight the storm on their own until they could leave the area.

It is common practice between countries that are not at war that if the navy of one country requests help from the other in an emergency, the help should be given as far as possible. However, the Chinese government completely ignored this civilized rule based on humanitarian concerns.

The Chinese Navy has carried out joint exercises at sea with the U.S. Navy more than once. However, when the U.S. ships faced a real danger, the Chinese refused to give them a hand. This resembles the situation between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War, when the USSR took every opportunity to make things difficult for the United States.

Hu Jintao, who is not only head of state but also chairman of the Central Military Commission, must be the person responsible for this Cold War approach. No other individual or institution would have the authority to give such an order, not even the Chinese Navy or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

It appears necessary to remind Chairman Hu of the fact that times have changed. The Cold War ended more than 16 years ago.

If the Chinese government has anything to discuss with its U.S. counterpart, there are proper channels for communication and negotiation. There is no need to play little tricks to make up for the lack of a big stick. Gamesmanship without actual strength will have no impact. If China has no big stick to wield, it might consider trying civilized diplomacy.

--

(Fang Jue is a political activist and freelance writer living in the United States. He was a former government official in China and worked at the Politics Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He was a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University in 2003. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.chinaeweekly.com. ©Copyright Fang Jue.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2007/12/01/commentary_china_should_learn_civilized_diplomacy/1668/