Talking about dictators. I remember this clever quip I read somewhere long ago (I paraphrase from memory): Some one (in the 1940s) was asked when the world will be at peace, and he said that would happen when "Stalin's widow tells Mussolini at his deathbed that Hitler had died on the way back from Franco's funeral."
It is indeed remarkable how many dictators existed together at that same tumultous era. If we were to scan the rest of the world that would also be the time of the Generalissimo Chiang and Mao in China, and the military regime in Japan. Not to mention all the countries under colonialism which are at best benign dictatorships by foreign powers.
It was a credit to the institutional stability and democratic traditions of Britain and the United States that they resisted all temptations to follow suit. In the late 1930s, the Great Depression was taking its toll. Every conventional wisdom were open to question and overthrow because the "system" as it was no longer seem to serve the interests of the people. Bolshevik and nationalist forces were undergoing a tug of war that pressurized the political systems all around the world, including Britain where many voices called for extraordinary measures for an extraordinary time. FDR in his early days had to stand up to pressure to assume dictatorial powers to turn around the economy. Such was the forces of the time.
What is the price of mid-20th century dictatorships? By rough calculation, World War 2 led to the deaths of 60 million people world wide. Stalin and his purges and famines probably added 10million more. Mao and his madness between the 50s and 70s would account for 20 million more. Against a total world wide population of 1.5 to 2 billion at the time, we are talking about more than 5% fatality - globally - from a handful of men and millions more being denied their humanity.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Reflections on Mao
[As almost all my comments exceed the 3 paragraph rule, this becomes a posting!]
It was Stalin who once said, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Stalin, Mao, Hitler and later on Pol Pot took this to the extreme against their own people.
But the real tragedies are not only counted in deaths. The real tragedies was that no one, without any exception, was spared the every day terror from knowing that they were not allowed to be human. Yes, those men created monster societies that systemetically denigrated the humanity of its own people. Millions were imprisoned, exiled, exposed to cruelty, abuse and millions of lives destroyed. But the experience of living in fear, suspicion, lies, subterfuge and deception - maybe without even knowing it - was the toxic legacy they left behind.
Bro, may be you have a better idea of how that is influencing the every day mentality, interaction, impulses and instincts of common people in China?
I know humanity and the human spirit is resiliently capable of endless healing, reinvention and overcoming the negative because like plants we edge towards light.
It is incredible how quickly people can also forget and move on; in spite of the best efforts of zealots to fan old fears and grievences. This does not mean dictators like Mao should best be forgotten, but it should mean that the best lessons can be drawn from it.
The Chinese Communist Revolution can do worse than dissociating itself from Mao. After all, the revolution was not the work of one man alone and many others have sacrificed under its banner out of ideal and love for the nation. The revolution would most definately have succeeded even further if not for Mao's madness in his last 20 years. The tragedy was that without checks on personal power, one person's paranoia and insecurities "infected" millions and ruined countless lives.
So has China internalized the better lessons from Maoism? So far the signs are not very promising. By not confronting his legacy in an honest and courageous way, China will not learn from its past. But I am hopeful that with time, a more diverse society and more conscious citizenry the day will come when institutions, the law, civil and political rights will be strong enough to punish a future budding "Mao" into prison, after a fair trial, under a legal and administrative process and after public exposure from concerned citizenry. More importantly, that instead of manipulating it as a wronged martyr, he would be ashamed and seek public forgiveness, which eventually will be given.
Society should be empowered to stand up for righteousness; but it is the individuals who, in addition to knowing the right from the wrong, must also have a sense of compassion and generousity of forgiveness.
It was Stalin who once said, "one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic". Stalin, Mao, Hitler and later on Pol Pot took this to the extreme against their own people.
But the real tragedies are not only counted in deaths. The real tragedies was that no one, without any exception, was spared the every day terror from knowing that they were not allowed to be human. Yes, those men created monster societies that systemetically denigrated the humanity of its own people. Millions were imprisoned, exiled, exposed to cruelty, abuse and millions of lives destroyed. But the experience of living in fear, suspicion, lies, subterfuge and deception - maybe without even knowing it - was the toxic legacy they left behind.
Bro, may be you have a better idea of how that is influencing the every day mentality, interaction, impulses and instincts of common people in China?
I know humanity and the human spirit is resiliently capable of endless healing, reinvention and overcoming the negative because like plants we edge towards light.
It is incredible how quickly people can also forget and move on; in spite of the best efforts of zealots to fan old fears and grievences. This does not mean dictators like Mao should best be forgotten, but it should mean that the best lessons can be drawn from it.
The Chinese Communist Revolution can do worse than dissociating itself from Mao. After all, the revolution was not the work of one man alone and many others have sacrificed under its banner out of ideal and love for the nation. The revolution would most definately have succeeded even further if not for Mao's madness in his last 20 years. The tragedy was that without checks on personal power, one person's paranoia and insecurities "infected" millions and ruined countless lives.
So has China internalized the better lessons from Maoism? So far the signs are not very promising. By not confronting his legacy in an honest and courageous way, China will not learn from its past. But I am hopeful that with time, a more diverse society and more conscious citizenry the day will come when institutions, the law, civil and political rights will be strong enough to punish a future budding "Mao" into prison, after a fair trial, under a legal and administrative process and after public exposure from concerned citizenry. More importantly, that instead of manipulating it as a wronged martyr, he would be ashamed and seek public forgiveness, which eventually will be given.
Society should be empowered to stand up for righteousness; but it is the individuals who, in addition to knowing the right from the wrong, must also have a sense of compassion and generousity of forgiveness.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Denouncing Mao
I wish Mao should have been dead in early 50s.
I have been in and out of beijing as if she is my second home. With so many opportunities, I refuse to go to the mausoleum knowing full well that i will remove my belt from the waist and wipe him into pieces earning myself life sentence in doing so.
Mao, together with Hitler and Stalin, were the three giant monsters men have seen in the last century. The ease with which they eliminated their own peoples were appaling, senseless and cold blooded. Of course, Jews or class enemy could hardly be described as their own peoples is perhaps their justifcation. I don't recall Imperial Japanese killed his own peoples. In this sense, the Imperial Japanese looked like saint, no wonder they still are to many right wing Japanese.
I just read Anne Applebaum's book on The Soveit's Gulag. This history was not easy to read. Too sad, too tragic. The cruelty, the brutality and the babanality of the communist system meted out against their opponents, very often perceived if not imagined, make the reading very painful.
The numbers of peoples subjected to the gulag system was enormous. One conservative count gave the figure of almost 28 million peoples in 30 years between 1920s to 1950s.
Who were these peoples? Why suddenly such a huge rise. Even the Tsarist system that Lenin and Stalin were fighting against made them seemed like amateur gaolers. There were peoples arrested simply because they were late to work or an adolecent stealing just piece of bread. Many were detained by virtue of association having the bad fortune of being the spouse or the children of the enemy of the peoples, a political crime. Some told a bad joke on Stalin.
These peoples were made to walk through a system only enduring is the survival strategy. What they experienced? It was an experience of arbitrary arrest, brutal interrogation, unjust trial, disproprotion penalty even if guilty, the often fatal journey to the designated gulag camps in the far north or the far east, the hard labor in the mine, forest occassioned by the sub-zero temperatures without decent warm clothing and safe equipment (if there was any equipment), the poor food ratioining (as low as 300g of bread for a day), the bugged and infested living conditions, and the not infrequent crime from gang rape to theft and murders.
Whatever the ideal of the classic Communism, its association with the repressive regime the ideology help created render it eternally notorious.
The gulag is known as the labor reform camp in China. I don't know how many peoples went through the hell. It must have been enormous as well. Deng himself went through it too. The numerous campaign launched during Mao's era to eradicate, landlord, land owning peasants, business owners, intellectuals, former officers, right wings must have erased million of peoples besides the very often published 30 million casulty in the great leap forward disguised as "the three year of natural calamtiy" in the mainland propaganda.
After reading the book, it becomes easier to understand why there are so many peoples apprehensive of the CCP. The highly repressive and brutal system CCP installed and is now gradually dismantling remain alive in the memory of the peoples living today, especially those who escape the mainland. Those who stayed were probably dead and if they survive, they become deaf or amnesia on the matters.
There was a girl who survived because her mother was determined enough to bring up the three children on her own after her husband, a small time bourgegeoius, was made a collateral casulty in the class struggle. What was his guilt? There was no crime against society, no rebelion against the party. The life was taken away simply because he was a bourgegeoius. You and I are unlikely to survive either in those conditions. That girl grew up and eventually became my family member.
I am asked how do I feel with Mao's portrait remaining in the RMB 100 dollar bill. It is more than ironic. It is actually tragic to the Chinese. As far as I am concerned for the last 20 years (after I know China better), my answer is outrage of the highest order.
To my mind, his corpse should be removed at once from public scene and his portrait from Tiananmen Gate to the dollar bill should be removed as well.
Think of Hitler, it is even now a crime to praise him in Germany! Think about Stalin, there was even a secret speech denouncing him only few years after his death. (I find it repugnant that many places in the world, Lyon included, still name a street after him.)
What about Mao, the CCP and the peoples treat too kindly of him. He should take his place with the other two monsters.
Chinese peoples gotta be taugh about this history. CCP has to face its record, as much as the American democratic party faces its pro-segeragation past. Mao maybe the father of PRC but he is not the father of China. He is not China's Washington; he is China's Stalin.
If the orignal sin of America is the slavery and the original sin of PRC is Communism ( admittedly much has been removed), removing it's final ties with Mao as the symbol help create a modern, progressive, liberal and democratic China.
We can go down that shinning path.
I have been in and out of beijing as if she is my second home. With so many opportunities, I refuse to go to the mausoleum knowing full well that i will remove my belt from the waist and wipe him into pieces earning myself life sentence in doing so.
Mao, together with Hitler and Stalin, were the three giant monsters men have seen in the last century. The ease with which they eliminated their own peoples were appaling, senseless and cold blooded. Of course, Jews or class enemy could hardly be described as their own peoples is perhaps their justifcation. I don't recall Imperial Japanese killed his own peoples. In this sense, the Imperial Japanese looked like saint, no wonder they still are to many right wing Japanese.
I just read Anne Applebaum's book on The Soveit's Gulag. This history was not easy to read. Too sad, too tragic. The cruelty, the brutality and the babanality of the communist system meted out against their opponents, very often perceived if not imagined, make the reading very painful.
The numbers of peoples subjected to the gulag system was enormous. One conservative count gave the figure of almost 28 million peoples in 30 years between 1920s to 1950s.
Who were these peoples? Why suddenly such a huge rise. Even the Tsarist system that Lenin and Stalin were fighting against made them seemed like amateur gaolers. There were peoples arrested simply because they were late to work or an adolecent stealing just piece of bread. Many were detained by virtue of association having the bad fortune of being the spouse or the children of the enemy of the peoples, a political crime. Some told a bad joke on Stalin.
These peoples were made to walk through a system only enduring is the survival strategy. What they experienced? It was an experience of arbitrary arrest, brutal interrogation, unjust trial, disproprotion penalty even if guilty, the often fatal journey to the designated gulag camps in the far north or the far east, the hard labor in the mine, forest occassioned by the sub-zero temperatures without decent warm clothing and safe equipment (if there was any equipment), the poor food ratioining (as low as 300g of bread for a day), the bugged and infested living conditions, and the not infrequent crime from gang rape to theft and murders.
Whatever the ideal of the classic Communism, its association with the repressive regime the ideology help created render it eternally notorious.
The gulag is known as the labor reform camp in China. I don't know how many peoples went through the hell. It must have been enormous as well. Deng himself went through it too. The numerous campaign launched during Mao's era to eradicate, landlord, land owning peasants, business owners, intellectuals, former officers, right wings must have erased million of peoples besides the very often published 30 million casulty in the great leap forward disguised as "the three year of natural calamtiy" in the mainland propaganda.
After reading the book, it becomes easier to understand why there are so many peoples apprehensive of the CCP. The highly repressive and brutal system CCP installed and is now gradually dismantling remain alive in the memory of the peoples living today, especially those who escape the mainland. Those who stayed were probably dead and if they survive, they become deaf or amnesia on the matters.
There was a girl who survived because her mother was determined enough to bring up the three children on her own after her husband, a small time bourgegeoius, was made a collateral casulty in the class struggle. What was his guilt? There was no crime against society, no rebelion against the party. The life was taken away simply because he was a bourgegeoius. You and I are unlikely to survive either in those conditions. That girl grew up and eventually became my family member.
I am asked how do I feel with Mao's portrait remaining in the RMB 100 dollar bill. It is more than ironic. It is actually tragic to the Chinese. As far as I am concerned for the last 20 years (after I know China better), my answer is outrage of the highest order.
To my mind, his corpse should be removed at once from public scene and his portrait from Tiananmen Gate to the dollar bill should be removed as well.
Think of Hitler, it is even now a crime to praise him in Germany! Think about Stalin, there was even a secret speech denouncing him only few years after his death. (I find it repugnant that many places in the world, Lyon included, still name a street after him.)
What about Mao, the CCP and the peoples treat too kindly of him. He should take his place with the other two monsters.
Chinese peoples gotta be taugh about this history. CCP has to face its record, as much as the American democratic party faces its pro-segeragation past. Mao maybe the father of PRC but he is not the father of China. He is not China's Washington; he is China's Stalin.
If the orignal sin of America is the slavery and the original sin of PRC is Communism ( admittedly much has been removed), removing it's final ties with Mao as the symbol help create a modern, progressive, liberal and democratic China.
We can go down that shinning path.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Three cheers for the rule of law in Malaysia. What a contrast, the power of thugs on one side and power of the law on the other. The courts have stood up, although as happened before this may merely be due to negligence in not buying off, intimidating or silencing the judges before a ruling. But at least the courts had a chance to regain its credibility and integrity. The royals had two chances - both the father and the son - and flopped both times for want of courage and sense of righteousness. Now there will be a third chance.
The PKR surely has been through a test of political unity and so far it has stood firm and not splintered in the midst of pressure. They have been playing a weak hand and gained strength but one wonders when the moment comes, will they know when they can go for the jugular? Dato' Anwar's record on that is at best mixed. And when they do so, are they ready for power? My view is that they are closer to power than being able to deliver effective change with their power. The big challenge is not simply to gain power. That is the easy part. To be sustainable and effective, PKR has to turn its win into a convincing mandate for an alternative vision for Malaysia, attract a new cadre of leadership in the government/public sector and bridge its own religious/secular divide.
The BN is facing only bad choices to choose from. Out of energy, out of ideas and soon possibly it will fail to inspire even the fear, greed or complacency that has kept it in power in the past decade. It credibility is in terminal decline and so is its electability.
The tipping point will only be apparent in hindsight, but I suspect the power grab in Perak rank high as a possibility. Certainly BN will not survive a major loss in the elections if and when the Perak State Assembly is desolved. At this rate, it will soon be an East Malaysian coalition (but don't forget, Dato' Anwar was the one who finally won back Sabah for BN through elections). Even the rats would desert a sinking ship, so come the tipping point the end might come quicker than anyone imagined.
UNMO especially still have the option to go out really ugly - Najib is after all his father's son. The end of the Suharto era came to mind. BN and its money still controls the security apparatus: those thuggish special branch goons in batik shirts, dark suits and songkoks. When I ushered about 11 heads of states during the APEC Summit in Bangkok in 2003, I was actually taken aback by - among all the security personnel milling about - how ugly and nasty looking the ones around Dr M were. They are still more than capable of stirring up racial troubles, manipulate the judges, clamp down on civil society, lock up opponents under ISA and did I mention stirring up racial trouble? If they do so, and I believe BN is desperate or dumb enough to try, that will be a true test for Malaysia. I have faith that the Malaysian people will stand up for the kind of Malaysia they want and to cast-away the politics of fear and division. They will lift the curtains and let the light in to dispel the ghosts of the events - 40 years ago today - May 13, 1969 - so that they no longer hold a fearful spell over Malaysians. A better Malaysia will emerge from this 40 year old shadow that has stunted the growth of Malaysian society and race relations for too long.
Yes, my hope is that BN do not go out with a whimper but instead with a test of nationhood, a watershed moment that wakes Malaysians up from its slumber, resignation, cynicism to actually want something .....and to make a clear peaceful choice for a new and better Malaysia.
The PKR surely has been through a test of political unity and so far it has stood firm and not splintered in the midst of pressure. They have been playing a weak hand and gained strength but one wonders when the moment comes, will they know when they can go for the jugular? Dato' Anwar's record on that is at best mixed. And when they do so, are they ready for power? My view is that they are closer to power than being able to deliver effective change with their power. The big challenge is not simply to gain power. That is the easy part. To be sustainable and effective, PKR has to turn its win into a convincing mandate for an alternative vision for Malaysia, attract a new cadre of leadership in the government/public sector and bridge its own religious/secular divide.
The BN is facing only bad choices to choose from. Out of energy, out of ideas and soon possibly it will fail to inspire even the fear, greed or complacency that has kept it in power in the past decade. It credibility is in terminal decline and so is its electability.
The tipping point will only be apparent in hindsight, but I suspect the power grab in Perak rank high as a possibility. Certainly BN will not survive a major loss in the elections if and when the Perak State Assembly is desolved. At this rate, it will soon be an East Malaysian coalition (but don't forget, Dato' Anwar was the one who finally won back Sabah for BN through elections). Even the rats would desert a sinking ship, so come the tipping point the end might come quicker than anyone imagined.
UNMO especially still have the option to go out really ugly - Najib is after all his father's son. The end of the Suharto era came to mind. BN and its money still controls the security apparatus: those thuggish special branch goons in batik shirts, dark suits and songkoks. When I ushered about 11 heads of states during the APEC Summit in Bangkok in 2003, I was actually taken aback by - among all the security personnel milling about - how ugly and nasty looking the ones around Dr M were. They are still more than capable of stirring up racial troubles, manipulate the judges, clamp down on civil society, lock up opponents under ISA and did I mention stirring up racial trouble? If they do so, and I believe BN is desperate or dumb enough to try, that will be a true test for Malaysia. I have faith that the Malaysian people will stand up for the kind of Malaysia they want and to cast-away the politics of fear and division. They will lift the curtains and let the light in to dispel the ghosts of the events - 40 years ago today - May 13, 1969 - so that they no longer hold a fearful spell over Malaysians. A better Malaysia will emerge from this 40 year old shadow that has stunted the growth of Malaysian society and race relations for too long.
Yes, my hope is that BN do not go out with a whimper but instead with a test of nationhood, a watershed moment that wakes Malaysians up from its slumber, resignation, cynicism to actually want something .....and to make a clear peaceful choice for a new and better Malaysia.
Friday, May 8, 2009
I too support Mandarin as the unifying language for China and for all Chinese elsewhere.
Like you, I also do not agree that language should be a "litmus-test" for being Chinese either by identity or nationality. That would be a prescription for division.
In general, I favour whatever unites and disfavours anything that divides.
There will always be the issue of snobbery (or language imperialism). After all, there are countless regional accents to spoken Mandarin. That's just the human weakness of narcissism - of loving all that is like one-self and creating artificial divisions from others - a sign of character weakness rather than strength.
One hopes with greater openness to the world, even 1.3 billion people will find more alike with one another than with the remaining 4.6billion. And once we realise that we are one planet among billions, we will realise we are all in this together.
Like you, I also do not agree that language should be a "litmus-test" for being Chinese either by identity or nationality. That would be a prescription for division.
In general, I favour whatever unites and disfavours anything that divides.
There will always be the issue of snobbery (or language imperialism). After all, there are countless regional accents to spoken Mandarin. That's just the human weakness of narcissism - of loving all that is like one-self and creating artificial divisions from others - a sign of character weakness rather than strength.
One hopes with greater openness to the world, even 1.3 billion people will find more alike with one another than with the remaining 4.6billion. And once we realise that we are one planet among billions, we will realise we are all in this together.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Mandarin and Chinese Identity
On the BIG question you pose - my view is that language is definitely part of the Chinese identity.
That doesn't follow by speaking Mandarin, one is a Chinese, anymore than speaking English makes one an American.
There are other aspects to being Chinese, besides being the obvious by the DNA. Legal naturalization is another avenue.
I advocate that anyone who identify to being Chinese or subscribe to Chinese culture, values and aspiration should be treated as Chinese.
Speaking Mandarin (Putonghua is a political jargon) or Cantonese or Shanghainese - or English does not in my view affect one's identity as Chinese.
Vernacular is by nature parochial and all languages start as a vernacular.
However, being modern Chinese, even among the more recalcitrant in the Cantonese enclave of Hong Kong, do accept or are beginning to accept the consensus that Mandarin is the unifying or common language for all Chinese. I mean unifying in the sense of being a lingua franca of all Chinese.
Looking back, we Chinese by the Emperor Qin the First's edict have made the decision to unify our written language and now we have since the Republican age decided in favor of Mandarin as the unifying spoken tongue. The decision is partly political and partly social. Yet the decision for Mandarin is not a coorcive one.
I do support the primacy of Mandarin as the unifying spoken tongue for all Chinese, I
strongly caution against Mandarin taking any form of language imperialism.
Bear in mind that there are circumstances and conditions in time and space where mandarin speaking and Chinese language learning are challenging. Thus, speaking Mandarin or literacy in Chinese language must not be made the condition to qualify whether a person is a Chinese.
Further, what I described as language imperialism is the phenomena where the more fluent speakers are looking down at or discriminating against the less fluent.
The word of language imperialism is coined after my own observation of how Cantonese always tease the non Cantonese for their less than perfect Cantonese pronounciation and this is institutionalized in the scholl and compulsively practised in the society where it compells the second generation of non Cantonese Hong Kongers to give up their own in subservience to the ruling vernacular.
The ultimate primacy of a language is seduction and not compulsion. Hence, I believe in the soft power. Natually I favor inclusiveness in promoting Mandarin and retaining vernaculars. The best word to describe inclusiveness in Chinese is - 有容乃大.
Actually, over here in Mainland, there are now radio news broadcast in the vernacular. I heard them in Shanghai and in Guangzhou. These development are welcome as long as the vernaculars are not promoted for furtherance of a parochial identity.
Let's call on all Chinese to strive to master the Mandarin and literacy in Chinese language to the best they can, besides whatever their vernacular, dialect or foreign language they may prefer. Mandarin is the temporal tongue that connect us all and the Chinese literacy is the transcedental link that ties us through the generations.
That doesn't follow by speaking Mandarin, one is a Chinese, anymore than speaking English makes one an American.
There are other aspects to being Chinese, besides being the obvious by the DNA. Legal naturalization is another avenue.
I advocate that anyone who identify to being Chinese or subscribe to Chinese culture, values and aspiration should be treated as Chinese.
Speaking Mandarin (Putonghua is a political jargon) or Cantonese or Shanghainese - or English does not in my view affect one's identity as Chinese.
Vernacular is by nature parochial and all languages start as a vernacular.
However, being modern Chinese, even among the more recalcitrant in the Cantonese enclave of Hong Kong, do accept or are beginning to accept the consensus that Mandarin is the unifying or common language for all Chinese. I mean unifying in the sense of being a lingua franca of all Chinese.
Looking back, we Chinese by the Emperor Qin the First's edict have made the decision to unify our written language and now we have since the Republican age decided in favor of Mandarin as the unifying spoken tongue. The decision is partly political and partly social. Yet the decision for Mandarin is not a coorcive one.
I do support the primacy of Mandarin as the unifying spoken tongue for all Chinese, I
strongly caution against Mandarin taking any form of language imperialism.
Bear in mind that there are circumstances and conditions in time and space where mandarin speaking and Chinese language learning are challenging. Thus, speaking Mandarin or literacy in Chinese language must not be made the condition to qualify whether a person is a Chinese.
Further, what I described as language imperialism is the phenomena where the more fluent speakers are looking down at or discriminating against the less fluent.
The word of language imperialism is coined after my own observation of how Cantonese always tease the non Cantonese for their less than perfect Cantonese pronounciation and this is institutionalized in the scholl and compulsively practised in the society where it compells the second generation of non Cantonese Hong Kongers to give up their own in subservience to the ruling vernacular.
The ultimate primacy of a language is seduction and not compulsion. Hence, I believe in the soft power. Natually I favor inclusiveness in promoting Mandarin and retaining vernaculars. The best word to describe inclusiveness in Chinese is - 有容乃大.
Actually, over here in Mainland, there are now radio news broadcast in the vernacular. I heard them in Shanghai and in Guangzhou. These development are welcome as long as the vernaculars are not promoted for furtherance of a parochial identity.
Let's call on all Chinese to strive to master the Mandarin and literacy in Chinese language to the best they can, besides whatever their vernacular, dialect or foreign language they may prefer. Mandarin is the temporal tongue that connect us all and the Chinese literacy is the transcedental link that ties us through the generations.
Timing is Everything
Carter is a better president but with bad timing. If so, I could only feel sorry for him.
Timing is everything as you so succinctly noted is indeed really everything because this is what happens.
How else are we going to judge the success or otherwise of a person/policy/decision and etc? If it is not based on the simple test of what is and what is not accomplished.
Any particular action or inaction always coincide with time and space. The same with any response and counter response that constitute an event. Thus timing matters more so than the intellect or moral integrity of a person in determining the objective outcome of what is sound or unsound.
To say if one person is good or bad is really nothing to do with the material achievement.
It is part of critical analysis to offer revisionist view. However that remains rare and most often fails to reverse the orthodox view. To my mind, the revisionist view if substantiated by newly discovered evidence formerly not available or understood, overtime, it may be successful in replacing the orthodox view. I recall those earlier Catholic persecution of pioneer scientist in geography and astronomy in the reformation period as an example.
In the stock market, investor will also say timing is everything; the same is true with the economist. It is said that the economist's prediction is always right, the only question is when he gets it right.
Thus, success depends on timing and timing yields success. The Chinese says it best - 英雄造时势, 时势造英雄.
In my view, Carter has failed to seize his opportunity as a President and the history at most can give him credit for his other non-executive accomplishment.
I am actually very fond of Carter. I remember my father told me when I was a small kid that the American President was originally a peanut planter. At that time, I didn't know how powerful was America but I did know it was really a big deal going from a peanut planter to becoming a President. This memory is really sweet because it is one of those conversation between father and son that stick in my formative years.
Timing is everything as you so succinctly noted is indeed really everything because this is what happens.
How else are we going to judge the success or otherwise of a person/policy/decision and etc? If it is not based on the simple test of what is and what is not accomplished.
Any particular action or inaction always coincide with time and space. The same with any response and counter response that constitute an event. Thus timing matters more so than the intellect or moral integrity of a person in determining the objective outcome of what is sound or unsound.
To say if one person is good or bad is really nothing to do with the material achievement.
It is part of critical analysis to offer revisionist view. However that remains rare and most often fails to reverse the orthodox view. To my mind, the revisionist view if substantiated by newly discovered evidence formerly not available or understood, overtime, it may be successful in replacing the orthodox view. I recall those earlier Catholic persecution of pioneer scientist in geography and astronomy in the reformation period as an example.
In the stock market, investor will also say timing is everything; the same is true with the economist. It is said that the economist's prediction is always right, the only question is when he gets it right.
Thus, success depends on timing and timing yields success. The Chinese says it best - 英雄造时势, 时势造英雄.
In my view, Carter has failed to seize his opportunity as a President and the history at most can give him credit for his other non-executive accomplishment.
I am actually very fond of Carter. I remember my father told me when I was a small kid that the American President was originally a peanut planter. At that time, I didn't know how powerful was America but I did know it was really a big deal going from a peanut planter to becoming a President. This memory is really sweet because it is one of those conversation between father and son that stick in my formative years.
Thoughts on" Mandarin and Cantonization"
A wonderful post from KY on the above subject! Agree, its better to comment as a posting because after all, this blog is about our virtual conversations.
Growing up, I certain felt a little adrift because I do not speak Cantonese, while the more "fashionable" amongst us sometimes banter away in slangy Cantonese acquired from the latest TVB drama. As a child, I hardly heard Cantonese being spoken by the elderly in Brunei - only by teenagers. Brunei is perhaps one of the less Cantonized communities in SEAsia, most Chinese were Fujian (Min-nan especially from Jinmen), followed by Hakka, Hainan, Cantonese and by Foochow (many from Sarawak), some Baba-Nonya, Peneng-ite Fujian, Teochew being the minority. In fact, I did some informal surveys. First when I was in primary school, my Chinese school had a curious practice of recording our ancestral origins against our names in the class file. So if you peek into the teacher's attendance file you could see quaint references to our ancestral "counties" against our names - which was how I found the vast majorities (more than 60%) of my class were from Jinmen. Either that or their parents did not know better. The second informal poll was by wondering around the Chinese cemetery during Qingming and reading the tombstones. However, my impression was they were more variety among the dead. Among the dead, there were more Cantonese - Toisan, Huichow, DaPu etc.
One theory is that being a relatively new Chinese settlement - few families go back even 100 years and most families trace their first generation to the 1930s or the immediate post-war - this trend favoured migrants from Taiwan as opposed to the Communist Mainland. The second theory is that many of the Cantonese probably inter-married with non-Cantonese men hence the off-springs are mainly identified with the non-Cantonese father-side. The third theory is that in Borneo, the Cantonese population was relatively smaller to begin with. Sarawak is a large bastion of Foochow migration and Sabah is mainly Hakka, whereas the Cantonese are very well represented in West Malaysia due to the tin mining industry.
Mandarin is definately the lingua franca for Chinese of our parent's generation, which unified the different dialect groups. Thanks to the growth of China, Putonghua will probably continue to have a strong presence in SEAsia. Certainly, the unifying language and a common "Chinese" identity that Chinese education produced made many inter-clan/dialect marriages possible, which then weakened the dialect/clan based identity even more.
Another influence which I believe made a big difference was the continuing support from Nationalists in Taiwan for Chinese education in SEAsia as a counter-weight to leftist influence. Again, Mandarin was heavily promoted as the "guo yu" national language for overseas Chinese. Large numbers of younsters of my parent's generation including my late-father benefited from university education in Taiwan. Many of them went to Shifan-Daxue, the teachers training university and returned to be the next generation of educators in Chinese schools. Brought up on the elitist version of China (with KMT influence?), they can claim direct lineage to many of the proponents of the May 4th Movement; in fact, many of the university professors in Taiwan in the 50s and 60s were the surviving intelligensia of the May 4th generation.
My late-father was a founder and long-time member of the Brunei Taiwan Alumni Association. I think it would be fascinating to study the impact of this sub-culture of SEAsian Chinese educated in Taiwan in the 50s, 60s and 70s. As a Chinese-educated generation, I believe they had a formative experience like no other generation that came before - or anytime after.
A third source of inspiration behind the fate of Mandarin in SEAsia came - ironically -from some one who were the nemesis of Chinese-educated community. In heavily promoting the use of Mandarin at the expense of dialects, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore was influential in continuing the growth momentum of Mandarin in SEAsia. In particular, by setting himself as an example and forcing himself to learn to speak Mandarin in his 30s -40s after he become PM inspired a lot of Chinese to do the same. Without official encouragement in Singapore in the 70s and 80s, the critical mass of Mandarin speakers in SEAsia would be weaker today. In a roundabout way, Singapore schools helped to preserve Mandarin in Indonesia. My Indonesian-born Uncle claimed that the older generations all spoke only dialects but the latter generation spoke only Mandarin because they were sent to school in Singapore in the 70s and 80s - so he (Taiwan-educated/Mandarin speaker who "exiled" himself from Indonesia since the early 60s) could only talk to his nephews but hardly to his siblings!
Hong Kong is a different story. Within the Chinese speaking world, presumably Hong Kong was the least affected by politics or political interference. Would it be correct to presume that - the evolution of Chinese culture as practiced in Hong Kong is as close as it gets to what it would have been without political oppression and manipulation? Can Hong Kong can be considered a control-sample for cultural/linguistic development i.e. as a proxy for what would happen for China if simply left alone - but with large dose of foreign influence?
So if Hong Kongers believe in Cantonisation because of its perceived superiority to Putonghua, is it simply a case of the Cantonese being what the Cantonese have pride themselved for hundreds of years i.e. as the rebels, mavericks, non-conformists and smartie-pants who sneer at the central authority too far away to control them? By the way, similar attitude exists amongst the Shanghainese or Zhejiang-ese or (more politically-tinged way) in Taiwan. So practicality in commmunication aside, the BIG question is - how much does speaking Putonghua or Cantonese or Shanghainese - or English even - affect one's identity as Chinese?
Growing up, I certain felt a little adrift because I do not speak Cantonese, while the more "fashionable" amongst us sometimes banter away in slangy Cantonese acquired from the latest TVB drama. As a child, I hardly heard Cantonese being spoken by the elderly in Brunei - only by teenagers. Brunei is perhaps one of the less Cantonized communities in SEAsia, most Chinese were Fujian (Min-nan especially from Jinmen), followed by Hakka, Hainan, Cantonese and by Foochow (many from Sarawak), some Baba-Nonya, Peneng-ite Fujian, Teochew being the minority. In fact, I did some informal surveys. First when I was in primary school, my Chinese school had a curious practice of recording our ancestral origins against our names in the class file. So if you peek into the teacher's attendance file you could see quaint references to our ancestral "counties" against our names - which was how I found the vast majorities (more than 60%) of my class were from Jinmen. Either that or their parents did not know better. The second informal poll was by wondering around the Chinese cemetery during Qingming and reading the tombstones. However, my impression was they were more variety among the dead. Among the dead, there were more Cantonese - Toisan, Huichow, DaPu etc.
One theory is that being a relatively new Chinese settlement - few families go back even 100 years and most families trace their first generation to the 1930s or the immediate post-war - this trend favoured migrants from Taiwan as opposed to the Communist Mainland. The second theory is that many of the Cantonese probably inter-married with non-Cantonese men hence the off-springs are mainly identified with the non-Cantonese father-side. The third theory is that in Borneo, the Cantonese population was relatively smaller to begin with. Sarawak is a large bastion of Foochow migration and Sabah is mainly Hakka, whereas the Cantonese are very well represented in West Malaysia due to the tin mining industry.
Mandarin is definately the lingua franca for Chinese of our parent's generation, which unified the different dialect groups. Thanks to the growth of China, Putonghua will probably continue to have a strong presence in SEAsia. Certainly, the unifying language and a common "Chinese" identity that Chinese education produced made many inter-clan/dialect marriages possible, which then weakened the dialect/clan based identity even more.
Another influence which I believe made a big difference was the continuing support from Nationalists in Taiwan for Chinese education in SEAsia as a counter-weight to leftist influence. Again, Mandarin was heavily promoted as the "guo yu" national language for overseas Chinese. Large numbers of younsters of my parent's generation including my late-father benefited from university education in Taiwan. Many of them went to Shifan-Daxue, the teachers training university and returned to be the next generation of educators in Chinese schools. Brought up on the elitist version of China (with KMT influence?), they can claim direct lineage to many of the proponents of the May 4th Movement; in fact, many of the university professors in Taiwan in the 50s and 60s were the surviving intelligensia of the May 4th generation.
My late-father was a founder and long-time member of the Brunei Taiwan Alumni Association. I think it would be fascinating to study the impact of this sub-culture of SEAsian Chinese educated in Taiwan in the 50s, 60s and 70s. As a Chinese-educated generation, I believe they had a formative experience like no other generation that came before - or anytime after.
A third source of inspiration behind the fate of Mandarin in SEAsia came - ironically -from some one who were the nemesis of Chinese-educated community. In heavily promoting the use of Mandarin at the expense of dialects, Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore was influential in continuing the growth momentum of Mandarin in SEAsia. In particular, by setting himself as an example and forcing himself to learn to speak Mandarin in his 30s -40s after he become PM inspired a lot of Chinese to do the same. Without official encouragement in Singapore in the 70s and 80s, the critical mass of Mandarin speakers in SEAsia would be weaker today. In a roundabout way, Singapore schools helped to preserve Mandarin in Indonesia. My Indonesian-born Uncle claimed that the older generations all spoke only dialects but the latter generation spoke only Mandarin because they were sent to school in Singapore in the 70s and 80s - so he (Taiwan-educated/Mandarin speaker who "exiled" himself from Indonesia since the early 60s) could only talk to his nephews but hardly to his siblings!
Hong Kong is a different story. Within the Chinese speaking world, presumably Hong Kong was the least affected by politics or political interference. Would it be correct to presume that - the evolution of Chinese culture as practiced in Hong Kong is as close as it gets to what it would have been without political oppression and manipulation? Can Hong Kong can be considered a control-sample for cultural/linguistic development i.e. as a proxy for what would happen for China if simply left alone - but with large dose of foreign influence?
So if Hong Kongers believe in Cantonisation because of its perceived superiority to Putonghua, is it simply a case of the Cantonese being what the Cantonese have pride themselved for hundreds of years i.e. as the rebels, mavericks, non-conformists and smartie-pants who sneer at the central authority too far away to control them? By the way, similar attitude exists amongst the Shanghainese or Zhejiang-ese or (more politically-tinged way) in Taiwan. So practicality in commmunication aside, the BIG question is - how much does speaking Putonghua or Cantonese or Shanghainese - or English even - affect one's identity as Chinese?
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Mandarin and Cantonization
Talking about the spread of Mandarin usage in the SEA, I must relate a small story from my parents. Despite the fact that they received merely primary education at about the turn of 1960s, they converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Even until 80s when we went to school, we are reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular. I believe this is true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony. Even for Indonesian Chinese whom I met in HK, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them.
These show how readily the SEA Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language. A big credit to all the pioneers and successive generation of chinese educationist who have the foresight to install mandarin as the unifying spoken language for the disapora.
To this, you and I are indebted to.
The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese speaking peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese Cultural Imperialism. I know this is a big word and controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true in KL and it is true in HK.
The phenomena in KL, I believe, is attributed to the rise of HK pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s.
It is my observation, maybe controversial, that the Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin which maybe true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin.
This observation is based on my 19 years (to be exact) experience living in the Cantonese speaking environment both here in HK and KL.
Let's me talk about my observation of HK, my adopted home. Many of the Chinese who lived in HK today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fujian organization, there is more than a million or so Fujianese in HK. Personally, I encounter many Chaozhou, Shanghainese and Hakka in my 9 years living in HK. By the way, there are substantial Hakka native in the New Territory.
So, the non-Cantonese number is definitely not small in HK.
However, the second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the local cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin from the 1950s. Such is the miserable record and state of Mandarin in HK.
Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which is right but got it wrong in that the mother toungue is Cantonese. CW Tung hails from Zhejiang.
That's ironic if it is viewed against what was happening in the SEA as KH brilliantly pointed out in the earlier post.
Surely, there must have been waves of "May 4th Chinese" (allow me to use this term for convenience) and nationalist Chinese (many famous scholars including my favorite historian Qian Mu 钱穆 who headed to HK during those difficult years. Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.
What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the mainland after the handover are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their ID, they happily swap the pinyin to cantonese spelling for their name. Abandoning pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers - this was what I overheard when I was applying for my son's ID. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names as their own.
Just last Sunday, an elderly couples spoke to me in Cantonese advising me that I should teach my sons "our language".
Of course the social political backdrop between HK and SEA are very different. Retaining Cantonese in post-handover is seen as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country". Prior to the handover, the local Hong Kongers with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the mainland from the Great Leap Forward to the Cultural Revolution and Tiananmen Incident, have their own reservation of anything Mainland and these surely include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
Only after the handover that the kids are beginning to learn Mandarin. My own observation is that the kids in the primary have better command in Mandarin than the older groups. And only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin to the mainland visitors.
Let's wish Mandarin is really putong (universal) to all Chinese everywhere. This will realize one of the original intent of the May 4th pioneers. I hope I am not imputing this.
May Fourth and the SEA Chinese - KH
Let us all spend a moment with the unsung and unnamed heroes who lived and some who perished in the spirit of the May 4th Movement.
May be it get romanticised, but I really admire those idealistic youths as truest patriots who saw China not as it was but as what it could be with modernisation.
The only regret is that unlike Japan's Meiji restoration, such progressive forces failed to be matched by benign political forces to bring constructive change to the nation.Their cause spanned not just science and democracy, but also encompassed liberalism, socialism, social justice, constitutionality, equality - even nationalism - and other progressive ideas.
It shows the power of ideas. A cause based on nothing but "ideas" could inspire an entire people - even when the nation was crushing under feudalism, superstition and narrow-mindedness - spread over violence, chaos, hunger, wretched poverty, corruption, national demise and suffering on a grand scale.
In the midst of all that, the May 4th generation created a beautiful period in Chinese consciousness that has not been matched ever since; the passionate flowering of culture, literature, social reform and education.
My own appreciation of the May 4th movement lies with its impact on the overseas Chinese especially in SEAsia. Between 1910-1930s, SEAsia went through a tremendous period of change when Chinese population were growing fast both in number and in wealth. The wealthier members of Chinese society began to devote themselves to starting schools for the community. Different dialect groups started their own study halls.
Then 1919 and the May 4th movement came and there was a new consciousness for the "Chinese" nation, people began to look beyond their clans and dialect groups. With the political persecution that followed Chinese intellectuals in 1920s and 30s, large numbers of May 4th generation of educated youths fled China and as exiles and refugees many of them ended up teachers in these new Chinese schools in SEAsia.
So in SEAsia, entire generations of childrens of uneducated peasants and coolies suddenly came in contact with some of the intellectual cream of China. And instead of teaching in dialects, these new teachers began teaching in this modern language of one China - plain spoken Mandarin. That is why if the language of my grandparents were dialects, the language of my parents (and their siblings and peers) are all Mandarin. It all happenned within the space of one short generation.
So I disagree that May 4th will be forgotten. Its too soon to tell. I believe once history is recalled in 100 years from now, May 4th could well be seen as the true Chinese revolution of the 20th century. All others were changes of government but I believe May 4th drew a veil over "old" China and brought forth the modern China. A change in the nation is easily bigger than change in its government
May be it get romanticised, but I really admire those idealistic youths as truest patriots who saw China not as it was but as what it could be with modernisation.
The only regret is that unlike Japan's Meiji restoration, such progressive forces failed to be matched by benign political forces to bring constructive change to the nation.Their cause spanned not just science and democracy, but also encompassed liberalism, socialism, social justice, constitutionality, equality - even nationalism - and other progressive ideas.
It shows the power of ideas. A cause based on nothing but "ideas" could inspire an entire people - even when the nation was crushing under feudalism, superstition and narrow-mindedness - spread over violence, chaos, hunger, wretched poverty, corruption, national demise and suffering on a grand scale.
In the midst of all that, the May 4th generation created a beautiful period in Chinese consciousness that has not been matched ever since; the passionate flowering of culture, literature, social reform and education.
My own appreciation of the May 4th movement lies with its impact on the overseas Chinese especially in SEAsia. Between 1910-1930s, SEAsia went through a tremendous period of change when Chinese population were growing fast both in number and in wealth. The wealthier members of Chinese society began to devote themselves to starting schools for the community. Different dialect groups started their own study halls.
Then 1919 and the May 4th movement came and there was a new consciousness for the "Chinese" nation, people began to look beyond their clans and dialect groups. With the political persecution that followed Chinese intellectuals in 1920s and 30s, large numbers of May 4th generation of educated youths fled China and as exiles and refugees many of them ended up teachers in these new Chinese schools in SEAsia.
So in SEAsia, entire generations of childrens of uneducated peasants and coolies suddenly came in contact with some of the intellectual cream of China. And instead of teaching in dialects, these new teachers began teaching in this modern language of one China - plain spoken Mandarin. That is why if the language of my grandparents were dialects, the language of my parents (and their siblings and peers) are all Mandarin. It all happenned within the space of one short generation.
So I disagree that May 4th will be forgotten. Its too soon to tell. I believe once history is recalled in 100 years from now, May 4th could well be seen as the true Chinese revolution of the 20th century. All others were changes of government but I believe May 4th drew a veil over "old" China and brought forth the modern China. A change in the nation is easily bigger than change in its government
Monday, May 4, 2009
90th Anniversary of May Fourth Movement
Today marks the 90th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement.
It started off as a PKU student-led protest against the decision of the League of Nations at the Pasis Peace Conference in awarding Japan the control of German's concession in Tsingtao. This in turn unleash a series of patriotic protest against the imperial rule and also a debate on how China should be modernized. The two slogans then were Mr. Sai and Mr De - the epithet for science and democracy.
In that 90 years since 1919, China experience three phases, each lasting 30 years. First it was war against invaders and civil strive; the second was Mao's era of internal turmoil; the last is the reform and liberalization.
What has been accomplished in term of science and democracy?
The best answer is probably coming from the SCMP - the anniversary will largely pass unnoticed.
Such is the fate of what is probably the most significant cultural and political event in the last 100 years.
Actually there is a great deal of scientific progress made in China. Even the President Hu is theoretising his governing philosophy introducing the concept of scientific development pespective (科学发展观).
Yet, everything in China yields to politics. Any high profile celebration of the May Fourth Movement may be seen as giving encouragement to the liberal forces. June 4 is only a month away. Further, nothing can take away the glory of the founding of PRC 60 years ago - to be celebrated on October 1.
I am endeavoured to see the PRC as the second republic following the ROC as opposed to a clean break from the past.
Two weeks ago, I visited the little Red Chamber of Wuhan. This was were the first Republican meeting was convened following the successful Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命) that ended the milenium imperial rule.
There were many unnamed hero but they all belong to the ages.
************************************************************
When I was back to Hong Kong, my wife brough home from the library the book the Founding Brother by Joseph Ellis.
The most markedly difference between the two revolutions is the almost absence of political violences in the America founding experience.
The only violence among the American founders were the the bullet released in a duel in which Alex Hamilton was struck by Aaron Burr.
In contrast,the violence in China from the inception of the first republic went on for almost 65 years ended only in 1976.
Chimerica or Amechina?
It started off as a PKU student-led protest against the decision of the League of Nations at the Pasis Peace Conference in awarding Japan the control of German's concession in Tsingtao. This in turn unleash a series of patriotic protest against the imperial rule and also a debate on how China should be modernized. The two slogans then were Mr. Sai and Mr De - the epithet for science and democracy.
In that 90 years since 1919, China experience three phases, each lasting 30 years. First it was war against invaders and civil strive; the second was Mao's era of internal turmoil; the last is the reform and liberalization.
What has been accomplished in term of science and democracy?
The best answer is probably coming from the SCMP - the anniversary will largely pass unnoticed.
Such is the fate of what is probably the most significant cultural and political event in the last 100 years.
Actually there is a great deal of scientific progress made in China. Even the President Hu is theoretising his governing philosophy introducing the concept of scientific development pespective (科学发展观).
Yet, everything in China yields to politics. Any high profile celebration of the May Fourth Movement may be seen as giving encouragement to the liberal forces. June 4 is only a month away. Further, nothing can take away the glory of the founding of PRC 60 years ago - to be celebrated on October 1.
I am endeavoured to see the PRC as the second republic following the ROC as opposed to a clean break from the past.
Two weeks ago, I visited the little Red Chamber of Wuhan. This was were the first Republican meeting was convened following the successful Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命) that ended the milenium imperial rule.
There were many unnamed hero but they all belong to the ages.
************************************************************
When I was back to Hong Kong, my wife brough home from the library the book the Founding Brother by Joseph Ellis.
The most markedly difference between the two revolutions is the almost absence of political violences in the America founding experience.
The only violence among the American founders were the the bullet released in a duel in which Alex Hamilton was struck by Aaron Burr.
In contrast,the violence in China from the inception of the first republic went on for almost 65 years ended only in 1976.
Chimerica or Amechina?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)