Usually, my conversation with my father-in-law is about the stock market.
That particular day whilst visiting Shuri Castle in Naha, our conversation veered towards the topic of weak/strong China vis-a-vis bad/good China. (thanks to those plague from the Qing era).
We somewhat agree that it is preferable to have a strong China who is bad (in the context of democracy and human right) rather than a weak China who is good as long as the government is not as bad as that of Mao's. (My view of Mao's government is both bad and weak.)
It is embedded in almost all Chinese that they have been a victim of imperialism or foreign aggression. I cannot deny I do share this thoughts every now and then. Hence I am sometime less critical and more partial and more permissive of what China/CCP does.
We also come to the broad consensus that a weak country cannot be good especially for a large country like China. Being weak is synonymous with being bad in the modern history of China. (Strong/weak is read in the diplomatic, military and economic context).
While I offer no evidence of support, this sentiment is perhaps shared by the great many of the 1.3 billions Chinese
Having said all those above, there is no question that what you wrote is the way forward for China and it is the aspiration of many of us who are increasingly disappointed with the slow progress made in human right and democracy. You correctly pointed out that CCP's reaction to LXB's Nobel prize is evidence of her very own insecurity. This I am with you.
The problem with China today is the lack of confidence at the CCP leadership level. I am dead sure that they know what is inevitable yet they have chosen a (hopefully) longer road (though I am also becoming more frustrated).
Lets hope that LXB is the last famous prisoner of conscience. (admittedly this is a very unremarkable hope)
By the way, I suspect that the modern China (neither had the classical China) is uninterested to export any of her ideology or impose her way of life with the rest of the world unlike the European with her enlightenment, the American her democracy. Let me be candid, China hasn't had anything superior (I mean in soft power aspect) to offer the world yet.
That still leave me not an advocate for a more assertive China in the world affairs. I strongly believe the priority is still to elevate the standard of living and to ease the overbearing control over her citizens.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Glimpses of Ryukyu
The 19th century Meji Gvernment's annexation of Hokkaido and Ryukyu proved lasting. Unlike Penghu, Taiwan, Laiodong Penisunlar, Shakalin and Korea, these two territories remain firmly within the Japanese border despite the WW II's unconditional surrender.
Ryukyu Kingdom, once a small yet independent maritime nation, is now just Okinawa Prefecture. I had always been mystefied by this special island nation.
Her merchant ships had traded as far as Annam, Siam and Malacca. Her diplomats had successfully maneuvered between two empires paying tribute to both without irking either.
Her land saw the fiercest battle in the Pacific war theater with thousand of her civilians were herded to jump off the cliff seemingly for the dignity of her emperor who was but a foreign ruler just 70 years earlier.
Being a small nation sandwiched between two giants, they are destined to be swallowed by either one. I have this profound sympathy for her and her peoples.
My recent trip to Okinawa was predominantly a children-centric tour. We visited the Churaimi Ocean Expo and sampled the local diets that were commonly attributed as the reason of longetivity among the locals.
That gave me very little opportunities to have a deeper glimpse of Okinawa.
At the downtown fish market in Naha, a trader told me that the younger generation could probably understand bits of Ryukyuan language but could barely speak the tongue. They have largely been Japanized though are conscious of their difference from the mainland Yamato.
This is not surprising given that she had been annexed by Japan 130 years ago and first came under the Japanese Shogun's suzerainty 4 centuries earlier.
Further, genetically they are both Mongoloid and religiously there is no conflict. After such a long period of subjugation, it is actually surprising to see any surviving Ryukyu culture and language.
Another young and handsome trader at Okinawa World, a theme park built on top of a 900 meter underground cave with amazing columns of stalactites and stalagmites, selling dragon-fly souvenier told me that if at all any facial feature that distinguish them from the Yamato is their dark and thick eyebrow. I wondered how objectiev this could be?
It was also interesting that the same chap told me his name is 6 Chinese characters in length, 3 each made up his surname and first name, that is a wholesome 6 characters compared to the typical 4-5 characters in a Japanese name.
Another cultural relic that is prevailent all over the island is the shishi (read in Hokkien, you can perhaps figure out what it is). It is a Ryukyuan lion figurine that is commonly seen on top of the roof or stood in pair just outside the gate or the door. The function is to expel the evil spirits.
At the Shuri castle in Naha where the last Ryukyu Kings resided, we could still see plague gifted by the various Qing emperors as late as Tongzhi.
The modern Sino-Japanese conflict started with a Ryukyu ship wreckage off Taiwan in 1871 where scores of Ryukyuan subjects were killed by the Taiwanese aborigine. The Meiji smelt blood and claimed compensation against the Qing government. A small and unsuccessful expedition was launched in 1874.
It is unimaginable that the millions of dead that followed in the ensuing 70 years had direct link to this Pacific Island. A monument commenmorating the deads stood elegantly silent just below the principla Shinto temple in Naha. I was able to stand before the monument to reflect for a few minutes the historical significant of a marine mishap.
The island is slow-paced ( the speed limit on the highway is 80 km/ph and around 40-50 km/ph off the highway) and the peoples like the Japanese are courteous and well-mannered. English, suprizingly is not widely spoken despite a huge American military presence in the island taking up almost 20% of land mass in Okinawa island.
Okinawa is a beautiful island with sandy beaches and scenic coastal line. The seafood is abundant and there is a type of seaweed that taste like fish roe. It is called the green cavier. I don't remember the name but it is surely one of the dedicacy my younger boy and I remember.
The weather in December is mild with 15-20 celcius but it is the low season for tourist to this Japanese's Hawaii.
There are reasons to come back for this island that is riched in history.
Ryukyu Kingdom, once a small yet independent maritime nation, is now just Okinawa Prefecture. I had always been mystefied by this special island nation.
Her merchant ships had traded as far as Annam, Siam and Malacca. Her diplomats had successfully maneuvered between two empires paying tribute to both without irking either.
Her land saw the fiercest battle in the Pacific war theater with thousand of her civilians were herded to jump off the cliff seemingly for the dignity of her emperor who was but a foreign ruler just 70 years earlier.
Being a small nation sandwiched between two giants, they are destined to be swallowed by either one. I have this profound sympathy for her and her peoples.
My recent trip to Okinawa was predominantly a children-centric tour. We visited the Churaimi Ocean Expo and sampled the local diets that were commonly attributed as the reason of longetivity among the locals.
That gave me very little opportunities to have a deeper glimpse of Okinawa.
At the downtown fish market in Naha, a trader told me that the younger generation could probably understand bits of Ryukyuan language but could barely speak the tongue. They have largely been Japanized though are conscious of their difference from the mainland Yamato.
This is not surprising given that she had been annexed by Japan 130 years ago and first came under the Japanese Shogun's suzerainty 4 centuries earlier.
Further, genetically they are both Mongoloid and religiously there is no conflict. After such a long period of subjugation, it is actually surprising to see any surviving Ryukyu culture and language.
Another young and handsome trader at Okinawa World, a theme park built on top of a 900 meter underground cave with amazing columns of stalactites and stalagmites, selling dragon-fly souvenier told me that if at all any facial feature that distinguish them from the Yamato is their dark and thick eyebrow. I wondered how objectiev this could be?
It was also interesting that the same chap told me his name is 6 Chinese characters in length, 3 each made up his surname and first name, that is a wholesome 6 characters compared to the typical 4-5 characters in a Japanese name.
Another cultural relic that is prevailent all over the island is the shishi (read in Hokkien, you can perhaps figure out what it is). It is a Ryukyuan lion figurine that is commonly seen on top of the roof or stood in pair just outside the gate or the door. The function is to expel the evil spirits.
At the Shuri castle in Naha where the last Ryukyu Kings resided, we could still see plague gifted by the various Qing emperors as late as Tongzhi.
The modern Sino-Japanese conflict started with a Ryukyu ship wreckage off Taiwan in 1871 where scores of Ryukyuan subjects were killed by the Taiwanese aborigine. The Meiji smelt blood and claimed compensation against the Qing government. A small and unsuccessful expedition was launched in 1874.
It is unimaginable that the millions of dead that followed in the ensuing 70 years had direct link to this Pacific Island. A monument commenmorating the deads stood elegantly silent just below the principla Shinto temple in Naha. I was able to stand before the monument to reflect for a few minutes the historical significant of a marine mishap.
The island is slow-paced ( the speed limit on the highway is 80 km/ph and around 40-50 km/ph off the highway) and the peoples like the Japanese are courteous and well-mannered. English, suprizingly is not widely spoken despite a huge American military presence in the island taking up almost 20% of land mass in Okinawa island.
Okinawa is a beautiful island with sandy beaches and scenic coastal line. The seafood is abundant and there is a type of seaweed that taste like fish roe. It is called the green cavier. I don't remember the name but it is surely one of the dedicacy my younger boy and I remember.
The weather in December is mild with 15-20 celcius but it is the low season for tourist to this Japanese's Hawaii.
There are reasons to come back for this island that is riched in history.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
馬英九向錢穆遺孀致歉
Qian Mu is my favorite Chinese History scholar cum writer. I had read most of his publications and developed an immense liking of his writing and analysis when I was in my 20s.
This apology is long overdued and I am very happy to see the leaders across the Strait like Wen and Ma who embody many fine aspects of the best Confucianist values - the respect for the scholars.
2010-08-31
(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)國學大師錢穆六十年代離開香港後，定居台北素書樓。一九九○年，錢穆病榻中，因被指控侵佔市府土地，被逼搬離故居，旋即病逝。馬英九(相關)昨日在錢穆逝世二十周年追思會上，以總統身分向錢穆遺孀胡美琦致歉，強調當局重視文人故居，不再做出「不公不義」的事。
一九六七年，錢穆夫婦應蔣介石邀請從香港遷往台北，在翠林幽谷的外雙溪建房，親手繪製圖樣，由當局代為施工。次年入住時，錢穆因紀念母親命名此樓為「素書樓」，在此長居二十三年。
一九九○年，當時的台北市議員周伯倫，指稱素書樓佔用市府土地，而時任立委的陳水扁(相關)也強烈要求台北市政府收回。當時錢穆雖高齡九十六歲，眼盲體衰，但不甘受辱，決定搬走，三個月後辭世。
馬英九昨日表示，他以飲水思源、追念大師的心情參加追思會，對事件一直耿耿於懷，一九九八年當上台北市長之後，開始整修名人故居。○二年素書樓整修完成，重開大門時，他即以台北市長身分，向錢穆遺孀胡美琦鞠躬，代表市政府致歉。
他昨日再次向錢夫人表達歉意，強調賓四先生（錢穆）沒有霸佔公產，那塊地是賓館用地，在錢穆返台前原作招待外賓之用，絕無侵佔公有財產之事。
「君子疾沒世而名不稱焉」，馬英九又引《論語‧衞靈公篇》來說明錢穆的委屈。他表示，台灣社會除自由民主外，也講求公平正義；對於不公不義的二二八事件、白色恐怖及錢穆故居風波等，他保證不再發生。
八十二歲的錢穆遺孀胡美琦昨日坐着輪椅致詞表示，四十三年前由於兩位蔣總統禮賢下士，讓他們夫妻住進素書樓，卻因政客的污衊而搬離。她說，世事無常，如同錢穆生前所寫「塵世無常，性命終將老去；天道好還，人文幸得綿延。」
錢夫人因長年住院，已很少回故居，昨日睹物思人，難掩傷感，不時拭淚。台北市文化局長謝小韞在追思會中，向錢夫人深情地說：「這裏永遠是您的家」。
為紀念錢穆學術貢獻，目前「素書樓」已改為紀念圖書館，委託東吳大學管理，並定名「錢穆故居」，定期舉辦書畫展、學術座談會等。
This apology is long overdued and I am very happy to see the leaders across the Strait like Wen and Ma who embody many fine aspects of the best Confucianist values - the respect for the scholars.
2010-08-31
(綜合報道)(星島日報報道)國學大師錢穆六十年代離開香港後，定居台北素書樓。一九九○年，錢穆病榻中，因被指控侵佔市府土地，被逼搬離故居，旋即病逝。馬英九(相關)昨日在錢穆逝世二十周年追思會上，以總統身分向錢穆遺孀胡美琦致歉，強調當局重視文人故居，不再做出「不公不義」的事。
一九六七年，錢穆夫婦應蔣介石邀請從香港遷往台北，在翠林幽谷的外雙溪建房，親手繪製圖樣，由當局代為施工。次年入住時，錢穆因紀念母親命名此樓為「素書樓」，在此長居二十三年。
一九九○年，當時的台北市議員周伯倫，指稱素書樓佔用市府土地，而時任立委的陳水扁(相關)也強烈要求台北市政府收回。當時錢穆雖高齡九十六歲，眼盲體衰，但不甘受辱，決定搬走，三個月後辭世。
馬英九昨日表示，他以飲水思源、追念大師的心情參加追思會，對事件一直耿耿於懷，一九九八年當上台北市長之後，開始整修名人故居。○二年素書樓整修完成，重開大門時，他即以台北市長身分，向錢穆遺孀胡美琦鞠躬，代表市政府致歉。
他昨日再次向錢夫人表達歉意，強調賓四先生（錢穆）沒有霸佔公產，那塊地是賓館用地，在錢穆返台前原作招待外賓之用，絕無侵佔公有財產之事。
「君子疾沒世而名不稱焉」，馬英九又引《論語‧衞靈公篇》來說明錢穆的委屈。他表示，台灣社會除自由民主外，也講求公平正義；對於不公不義的二二八事件、白色恐怖及錢穆故居風波等，他保證不再發生。
八十二歲的錢穆遺孀胡美琦昨日坐着輪椅致詞表示，四十三年前由於兩位蔣總統禮賢下士，讓他們夫妻住進素書樓，卻因政客的污衊而搬離。她說，世事無常，如同錢穆生前所寫「塵世無常，性命終將老去；天道好還，人文幸得綿延。」
錢夫人因長年住院，已很少回故居，昨日睹物思人，難掩傷感，不時拭淚。台北市文化局長謝小韞在追思會中，向錢夫人深情地說：「這裏永遠是您的家」。
為紀念錢穆學術貢獻，目前「素書樓」已改為紀念圖書館，委託東吳大學管理，並定名「錢穆故居」，定期舉辦書畫展、學術座談會等。
Monday, August 23, 2010
Mandarin and Cantonization - 500 words Reply to David Tang
As an overseas Chinese, I treasure the importance to preserve one’s identity and one’s language in a minority environment. I thus have great empathy for Sir David. (David Tang Wing-cheung’s Cantonese is a rich and subtle language that must be preserved”, August 23)
I want to relate the adoption of Mandarin in South East Asia. My parents, like the overwhelming majority of their generation, received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Many Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, still proudly speak Mandarin among them.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language despite their different vernacular.
After the Second World War, the South East Asian Chinese educationist and the community had the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying language.
The major resistance to Mandarin is among the Cantonese peoples in pockets of area where they form the majority. The often cited evidence of Cantonese sophistication is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese.
What is ironic is that there is very sizable number of non-Cantonese in Hong Kong and their second generations are all converted into Cantonese speaking. Isn't Cantonese imposed on these non-Cantonese?
Understandably, this was a deliberate British colonial “divide and rule” policy to promote Cantonese primacy in the school.
It didn’t help that, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung introduced the disastrous mother tongue policy by assuming that the mother tongue was Cantonese and worst by promoting Cantonese in post-handover as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country".
What I find most amusing is that even the recent arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly makes them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local are adopting English names such as David as their own.Many locals, with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland, have their own skepticism of anything Mainland and these include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
However, it is still either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand.
The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
Our children started to learn Mandarin half-heartedly only after the handover; and our shopkeepers half-competently only after the SARs.
We should promote Mandarin as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese in school. This is a historical decision Hong Kong cannot wait.
Cantonese as a vernacular, like the Taiwanese, will always be around, alive and kicking.
I want to relate the adoption of Mandarin in South East Asia. My parents, like the overwhelming majority of their generation, received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fujianese.
Many Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, still proudly speak Mandarin among them.
These show how readily the South East Asian Chinese accept Mandarin as their own common language despite their different vernacular.
After the Second World War, the South East Asian Chinese educationist and the community had the foresight to install Mandarin as the unifying language.
The major resistance to Mandarin is among the Cantonese peoples in pockets of area where they form the majority. The often cited evidence of Cantonese sophistication is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese.
What is ironic is that there is very sizable number of non-Cantonese in Hong Kong and their second generations are all converted into Cantonese speaking. Isn't Cantonese imposed on these non-Cantonese?
Understandably, this was a deliberate British colonial “divide and rule” policy to promote Cantonese primacy in the school.
It didn’t help that, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung introduced the disastrous mother tongue policy by assuming that the mother tongue was Cantonese and worst by promoting Cantonese in post-handover as keeping the "2 systems" in the "one country".
What I find most amusing is that even the recent arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly makes them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local are adopting English names such as David as their own.Many locals, with memory of constant turmoil and persecution in the Mainland, have their own skepticism of anything Mainland and these include Mandarin that is seen as imposed top-down.
However, it is still either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand.
The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
Our children started to learn Mandarin half-heartedly only after the handover; and our shopkeepers half-competently only after the SARs.
We should promote Mandarin as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese in school. This is a historical decision Hong Kong cannot wait.
Cantonese as a vernacular, like the Taiwanese, will always be around, alive and kicking.
Mandarin and Cantonization - Unedited Reply to David Tang
Being a member of Overseas Chinese Diaspora, I treasure how important to preserve one’s identity and one’s mother tongue in a minority environment. I thus have great empathy for Sir David. (David Tang Wing-cheung’s Cantonese is a rich and subtle language that must be preserved”, August 23)
Let me be clear, I am not in favor of suppressing Cantonese but I do take the stance to promote the use of Mandarin for the Chinese anywhere anytime.
I want to discuss about the spread of Mandarin usage outside the Mainland China by relating my family experience in the South East Asia. My parents received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, they still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fukienise (Fujianese in Pinyin) by descent.
As a young child growing up in repressive environment in the 1980s, my generation was constantly reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular when we went to school. This was true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony in South east Asia.
Even the Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them perhaps with an accent Sir David would perhaps regard as insufficiently good.
These show how readily the South East Asian 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 Chinese Diaspora. It was done without any political pressure from Beijing at all and with the consensus of all the major tribes of Chinese.The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese-centrism in pocket where the Cantonese descent forms the majority. It is also very ironic that many prominent Cantonese would rather speak English than Mandarin.
I know this may be controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true from Vancouver to Kuala Lumpur, not to mention Hong Kong.Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin or other vernacular which may be true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin. The Cantonization phenomena in Kuala Lumpur, I believe, is largely attributed to the rise of Hong Kong pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s. The reasons are rooted in the perceived Cantonese superiority and the popularity of its pop culture.
Many of the Chinese who lived in Hong Kong today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fukien (Fujian in Pinyin) organization, there is more than a million Fujianese in Hong Kong. If we add up the more frequently encountered waves of immigrants or refugees from Chiu-chow (Chaozhou in Pinyin), Shanghainese and Hakka (many of whom are actually native in the New Territory), the non-Cantonese number is definitely very substantial in Hong Kong.However, their second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the Chinese in Cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin uninterrupted from the 1950s until today. Such is the miserable state of Mandarin in Hong Kong.Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which was right but he got it wrong in that the mother tongue was presumed to be Cantonese. Mr Tung hails from Zhejiang.That's ironic and unfortunate for Hong Kong.
There were indeed many great scholars such as Professor Qian Mu (钱穆) who came to Hong Kong and set up the predecessor of what is now the Chinese University during those difficult years in 1950s . Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized, at least in their name. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names such as David as their own.Of course the social political backdrop between Hong Kong and Overseas Chinese Diaspora 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.
What is the state of Mandarin today?
Only after the handover that the children are beginning to learn Mandarin; and only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin of an acceptable standard to the Mainland visitors.
I think it is either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand. The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
The promotion of Mandarin in Hong Kong at least in the school as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese doesn’t deprive the cultural value of Cantonese. Cantonese as a vernacular like the Taiwanese will always be around, alive and kicking.
Let me be clear, I am not in favor of suppressing Cantonese but I do take the stance to promote the use of Mandarin for the Chinese anywhere anytime.
I want to discuss about the spread of Mandarin usage outside the Mainland China by relating my family experience in the South East Asia. My parents received Chinese education in Mandarin at about the turn of 1960s, they still converse to each other in Mandarin, never mind that they are both Fukienise (Fujianese in Pinyin) by descent.
As a young child growing up in repressive environment in the 1980s, my generation was constantly reminded to speak more Mandarin and less vernacular when we went to school. This was true for Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, the three former British colony in South east Asia.
Even the Indonesian Chinese who migrated to Hong Kong, most of whom left Indonesia between 1950s-1960s, Mandarin is still proudly spoken among them perhaps with an accent Sir David would perhaps regard as insufficiently good.
These show how readily the South East Asian 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 Chinese Diaspora. It was done without any political pressure from Beijing at all and with the consensus of all the major tribes of Chinese.The major resistance to Mandarin are perhaps among the Cantonese peoples. I am increasingly affirmed of my view that there is a sort of Cantonese-centrism in pocket where the Cantonese descent forms the majority. It is also very ironic that many prominent Cantonese would rather speak English than Mandarin.
I know this may be controversial. My own experience has been that the Cantonese speaking peoples tend to impose their own as the "lingua franca". This is true from Vancouver to Kuala Lumpur, not to mention Hong Kong.Cantonese speaking peoples instinctively regard Cantonese as more sophisticated than Mandarin or other vernacular which may be true. The often cited evidence is that the Tang Dynasty's poem is best read out in Cantonese than in Mandarin. The Cantonization phenomena in Kuala Lumpur, I believe, is largely attributed to the rise of Hong Kong pop music and TVB popular dramas from the late 1970s. The reasons are rooted in the perceived Cantonese superiority and the popularity of its pop culture.
Many of the Chinese who lived in Hong Kong today are not originally Cantonese. According to the local Fukien (Fujian in Pinyin) organization, there is more than a million Fujianese in Hong Kong. If we add up the more frequently encountered waves of immigrants or refugees from Chiu-chow (Chaozhou in Pinyin), Shanghainese and Hakka (many of whom are actually native in the New Territory), the non-Cantonese number is definitely very substantial in Hong Kong.However, their second generation are all converted into Cantonese speaking. This in large part is due to the British colonial policy in teaching the Chinese in Cantonese. There is only one school that teaches Mandarin uninterrupted from the 1950s until today. Such is the miserable state of Mandarin in Hong Kong.Upon the handover, the former Chief Executive, Mr. C.W Tung advocated and implemented the mother tongue language policy which was right but he got it wrong in that the mother tongue was presumed to be Cantonese. Mr Tung hails from Zhejiang.That's ironic and unfortunate for Hong Kong.
There were indeed many great scholars such as Professor Qian Mu (钱穆) who came to Hong Kong and set up the predecessor of what is now the Chinese University during those difficult years in 1950s . Yet Mandarin didn't stay as the mainstream.What I find most amusing is that even the latest arrivals from the Mainland are rushing to be Cantonized, at least in their name. When applying for their identity card, they happily swap their name from Pinyin to Cantonese spelling. Abandoning Pinyin spelling supposedly make them Hong Kongers. Maybe they are not aware that the local Hong Konger are adopting English names such as David as their own.Of course the social political backdrop between Hong Kong and Overseas Chinese Diaspora 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.
What is the state of Mandarin today?
Only after the handover that the children are beginning to learn Mandarin; and only after the SARs that the shopkeepers are beginning to speak Mandarin of an acceptable standard to the Mainland visitors.
I think it is either very clannish or very colonial for Sir David to claim that Hong Kong would fare better politically if we continue to use a language which the northerners did not understand. The word "northerner" is very segregationist last heard in the era of American Confederacy but I could find myself amused with the word as yet another Sir David's demonstration of caricature with great sense of humor.
The promotion of Mandarin in Hong Kong at least in the school as the main medium of instruction whilst teaching Chinese doesn’t deprive the cultural value of Cantonese. Cantonese as a vernacular like the Taiwanese will always be around, alive and kicking.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Any Veteran Day in China?
You wrote about the American’s Veteran Day.
I had meant to reply but my efforts then were somehow due to the technical reason not saved and published in the blog.
This is my belated Johny-come-lately reply.
I am asking myself if there is any equivalent in China. If there is, what is it?
The first two occasions that came to my mind are naturally Qing Ming (清明) and Chong Yang(重阳 ) festivals. Both are dedicated to remember the deceased ancestors.
Yet in none of which we are taught or brought up to use the occasion to thank the veteran be it military or stretched more broadly to include the civilian volunteers who sacrificed for the country and the peoples.
Next came the less obvious, the Duanwu (端午) festival, better known as the Dragon Boat Festival, is actually celebrated for pretty much the dragon boat racing (at least in Hong Kong or in Penang) and the eating of the rice dumpling (I confess I belong to this category).
Most people are oblivious to the cause of the festival. Arguably the patriotism of Qu Yuan (屈原) which the occasion is commemorating is most approximate to the raison d'être of the Veteran Day.
Yet, we don’t see the Chinese people are parading. We also don’t see the veteran are marching in goose steps or being wheeled in proudly with the battle wound.
Is it that the Chinese people are ungrateful to the very peoples who sacrifice to defend her or to serve her?
I fear the answer is yes. The veteran are largely forgotten. This is sadly the reality.
At the same time, we need to understand that the Chinese culturally is not militaristic as a society like the American.
With this in mind, we could understand why the veteran is not celebrated the same way.
Personally, I think the society in particular should make greater effort to promote the awareness of the service rendered by the Veteran to the society and to the country and this can be subsumed into an occasion such as the Duanwu which is falling on June 16 this year.
I had meant to reply but my efforts then were somehow due to the technical reason not saved and published in the blog.
This is my belated Johny-come-lately reply.
I am asking myself if there is any equivalent in China. If there is, what is it?
The first two occasions that came to my mind are naturally Qing Ming (清明) and Chong Yang(重阳 ) festivals. Both are dedicated to remember the deceased ancestors.
Yet in none of which we are taught or brought up to use the occasion to thank the veteran be it military or stretched more broadly to include the civilian volunteers who sacrificed for the country and the peoples.
Next came the less obvious, the Duanwu (端午) festival, better known as the Dragon Boat Festival, is actually celebrated for pretty much the dragon boat racing (at least in Hong Kong or in Penang) and the eating of the rice dumpling (I confess I belong to this category).
Most people are oblivious to the cause of the festival. Arguably the patriotism of Qu Yuan (屈原) which the occasion is commemorating is most approximate to the raison d'être of the Veteran Day.
Yet, we don’t see the Chinese people are parading. We also don’t see the veteran are marching in goose steps or being wheeled in proudly with the battle wound.
Is it that the Chinese people are ungrateful to the very peoples who sacrifice to defend her or to serve her?
I fear the answer is yes. The veteran are largely forgotten. This is sadly the reality.
At the same time, we need to understand that the Chinese culturally is not militaristic as a society like the American.
With this in mind, we could understand why the veteran is not celebrated the same way.
Personally, I think the society in particular should make greater effort to promote the awareness of the service rendered by the Veteran to the society and to the country and this can be subsumed into an occasion such as the Duanwu which is falling on June 16 this year.
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Premier Wen Visiting My Old School
**Due to the earthquake in Qinghai earlier in the month, the Premier's visit to Brunei has been postponed**
** Post to be updated ** I am thrilled that Premier Wen will be visiting my old school - the Ching Hwa Middle School of BS Begawan - when he visits Brunei next April 22-23. Unimaginable! My niece is busy practicing a dance performance for the visit. This is a big moment for the humble little Chinese community that I come from and for the Chinese school which so many of my family gave so much for. My late father who was on the school board for 20+ years. My mother who was on the board briefly later on. I have aunts and uncles who grew up studying there, met each other, got married and later taught at the school. Both my parents, myself, my sister and all my children and my sister's children studied in the school, as are most of my cousins. Through it all, we donated to the school and rooted for it in competitions and brag about it when it produced excellent examination results. So much of my life is actually connected to the school which is why I am reflecting on this news with such great pride.
** Post to be updated ** I am thrilled that Premier Wen will be visiting my old school - the Ching Hwa Middle School of BS Begawan - when he visits Brunei next April 22-23. Unimaginable! My niece is busy practicing a dance performance for the visit. This is a big moment for the humble little Chinese community that I come from and for the Chinese school which so many of my family gave so much for. My late father who was on the school board for 20+ years. My mother who was on the board briefly later on. I have aunts and uncles who grew up studying there, met each other, got married and later taught at the school. Both my parents, myself, my sister and all my children and my sister's children studied in the school, as are most of my cousins. Through it all, we donated to the school and rooted for it in competitions and brag about it when it produced excellent examination results. So much of my life is actually connected to the school which is why I am reflecting on this news with such great pride.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Power Influence in Southeast Asia - Comments from Anonymous
Anonymous said...
The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.
Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.
Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.
Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.
Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
-------------------------------------
KH says:
Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.
My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.
In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.
Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.
My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.
Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.
The question is always relative power vs absolute power. I think in terms of absolute power US influence is unquestionable. They have their navies, their internet, their Americana of American Idol, Glee & Lady Gaga. Heck even Yao Ming and Jackie Chan know where the center of the world lies.
Yet there is no doubt that the gap is getting closer and relatively it looks like China is on the move. It doesn't help that we tend to look at these things thru the stars & stripes tinted glasses of CNN, NBC etc and despite their protestations media neutrality, cultural bias is something that will always be difficult to remove.
Yet while US definitely has a head start, China has a natural advantage. Tell me an East Asian/South East Asian country that has not been touched by Chinese culture throughout its history and I'd probably tell you East Timor and Papua New Guinea doesn't really count. China is good at coddling South East Asian countries because it is an Asian country and it instinctively understands how Asians like doing things.
Not to say China does not have disputes with its neighbors. Japan, Vietnam & India come immediately to mind. However, China's rise coincides with Asia's rise, and are inseparable.On the other hand, one could argue that increasing Chinese influence in South East Asia merely reflects a return to normal status of the last 1500 years. Colonization & Pax Americana are a blip in history and it not a matter of If but When that South East Asia returns to the motherland.
Or as Deng Xiaoping has been know to say... "its too early to tell"...
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
-------------------------------------
KH says:
Thanks for your comment "anonymous"! I applaud - and readily concede - your two excellent points on China's natural geograohical advantage and by taking the historical perspective.
My initial posting was a snapshot arguing that reports of the demise of America's influence in Southeast Asia is greatly exagerated. It does not pre-suppose that the same would be same for the future. Indeed, my closing argument was that unless we have some form of emperical measurement it would be difficult to discern the changes taking place.
In fact, when we look from the structural or historical perspective, China has an enormous built-in advantage. In terms of geographical location, there is no way Southeast Asia can ignore China. Evan at its weakest during the late Ching and early Republican era, China managed to profoundly shape Southeast Asia through migration. America can, if it chooses to, disappear from the region, but China? Never. China's proximity is an enormous source of power and influence. But one can also say that is a constant and that is supported by history. If anything, advances in technology can only strengthen China's position.
Another aspect which I neglected to elaborate on is the role of ethnic Chinese in Southeast Asia. Unlike first generation Chinese migrants, the question of identity for their ethnic Chinese population is now unambiguously localised. However, their cultural heritage and linguistic links makes it easy to "germinate" strong social-civic-intellectual connection with China.
My hypothesis is premised on the orientation amongst the country's elite. It may be no accident that the business elites (many of whom ethic Chinese) are more strongly drawn to China or more specifically to the economic opportunity in China's resurgence. But other than Singapore, Southeast Asia's political or military elite are rarely of Chinese ethnicity and hence less attuned to China. Nonetheless, as we saw with Hong Kong and Macau, when a society decides to reorientate itself to a different bearing things can change very quickly.
Which bring me to the question of what are the common interests for America to sustain its power and influence in Southeast Asia? And I could see none that is compelling. As powerful and influential as the US may be in Southeast Asia, America's power and influence has largely been by choice and not inevitable as in the case of China. With the end of the Cold War, America finds it difficult to justify the political and military investment that is needed to remain a power in the region. For years, the US also saw itself as the vanguard and defender of the global economic system of (open and capitalist) trade and commerce. However, that system is also becoming less American/Western centric as Southeast Asia, India, China and Brazil etc becomes bigger players in the global economic and commercial system.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Power Influence in Southeast Asia - China on the Rise and America on the Wane?
Let me shake off my long stupor of not posting since February by elaborating on a discussion I had with my cousin-nephew who is presently studying international relations (plus Chinese and Arabic languages) at Georgetown University in Washington DC.
My contention is a contrarian argument to the prevailing view that China is on the rise and America is on the wane in Southeast Asia. This argument often confuses China's enormous trade links, free-trade agreements and high-level political exchanges with Southeast Asia for power and influence. My argument is that the view is impressionistic and is not entirely supported by a rigorous and sober examination of many other key matrices for power and influence. My hypothesis is that while America power and influence is no longer dominant in Southeast Asia, it is still probably the strongest power in a region where China's power and influence has expanded enormously.
My model for understanding power and influence rests on examining 4 different facets of power and influence, and in each case focus on aspects that are largely measurable as opposed to a lesser reliance on subjective considerations such as "soft power".
My 4 facets - and they are not intended to be equally important at all times - are: economic, political, strategic/military and social-civic links.
China has enormous heft as Southeast Asia's largest (and fast-growing) trading partner, well-spring of funding, bilateral and regional economic cooperation and growing institutionalised relationships (FTAs etc.).
But economic links are not limited to trade. At the very least we should also look at investments (both inwards and outwards), monetary policy and commercial links. In Southeast Asia, the amount of cumulative investments by USA, Japan and Europe remains enormous, and in most countries far dwarfs China's nascent investments. Japan has been Southeast Asia's largest investor for many decades and those Japanese companies remain major employers and exporters in many Southeast Asian countries. How easily people forget but they are a hidden giant that should not be overlooked. So size of investment is one key measure.
As far as commercial links, precisely because so many US and European MNCs have operated so long in Southeast Asia they have become "invisible". People forget that AIA, Citibank, Facebook, Visa card, P&G (Pampers, Pantene, Duracell, Gilette etc.), Colgate Palmolive, Esso, Yahoo!, FedEx, Boeing are American companies; while Shell, HSBC, BP, Prudential, Nestle are European. Of course, the lines are often blurred because such is globalization that Nike may be American but the product is often made in China by a Korean invested firm financed by the Japanese. But all else being equal, China still has some distance to go in terms of commercial influence. After all, what is the largest Chinese company operating in Southeast Asia?
All those are in the realms of influence, but none more than monetary policy. There are many Southeast Asian currencies that are either pegged or linked to the US Dollar and for that reason their central banks keep large portions of their hard currency reserves in US Dollar. The power to influence so many Southeast Asian currency gives the US Federal Reserves significant leverage over the monetary policies in Southeast Asia - such as interest rates - that the People's Bank of China will not have until the RMB becomes a full fledged international reserve currency. Even as China becomes an enormous trading power with Southeast Asia, the terms of trade are still mostly done on US Dollar terms. These are all important measures on the economic power and influence.
Another important measure is foreign reserves/foreign investments, which for Southeast Asian countries are still mainly held in American or European assets. And the same can be said for holdings of Southeast Asian debt, which if in foreign hands are still predominantly held by Western institutions and funds; although given the growth of China's investment funds this could soon change. This is a source of influence (verging on power) that is easily overlooked but in times of crisis, holders of debt provides enormous leverage over the governments of the day (e.g., currently in Greece, but seen recently with Dubai, Iceland, Estonia, or Latin American countries from time to time). In times of conflict and international sanctions, there have been precedence of foreign assets being seized e.g. Iran, Iraq (after invasion of Kuwait), North Korea and Yugoslavia (sanctions).
Moving on to political links. For Southeast Asian countries China presents a seemingly simple political equation: unquestionable support for China's policies on Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang etc., no overt critisism of China , and in return China will grant a lot of personal respect, not pose any awkward questions on one's own political legitimacy or messing about with the opposition party, etc. And then, everyone can get down to business of economic growth. that is easy to like. America has tended to present a less diffident, more self-interested and incoherent relationship even as the host nation feels ignored.
At the senior leadership level, China pays a lot of attention with frequent exchange of visits with regional heads of states and government. Likewise there are extensive links at the ministerial and official level as befitting a major (even dominant?) regional political power. China plays a deft hand in this very Asian form of influence. The level of attention simply far outdistanced anything America (which has a more global spread of interests) can possibly muster in the region.
On the otherhand, if we look at what has been invested in terms of long term institutional presence in the region a more balanced picture emerges. America maintains large multifaceted (with political, economic, military, consulate, cultural (tourism, education etc.), public diplomacy functions) embassies in most Southeast Asian countries often they are the largest embassy in town. Often the US maintains consular offices outside the capital as well. China maintains comparatively large but by comparison a more modest presence that in many cases are behind those of the UK, France and even Germany. Granted, the person-to-person relationship is perhaps the most important measure for most Southeast Asian cultures; but it is important to remember there are other measures of political ties.
And not least, there is developmental aid as a measure of power and influence, although I often question the effectiveness of aid as a form of political leverage. In some countries there are still US-aid projects, but the scale is unlike during the height of the Cold War. I recall there is a US funded FELDA development near Seremban called "LBJ" after the US President Johnson! Likewise, aid from Japan which boomed in the 80s and 90s but are now a thing of the past. On the otherhand, official aid from China especially on infrastructure is expanding. This is definately also a source of growing Chinese political influence.
On the military/stretegic level, the starkest measure is obviously military presence by either China or the US in Southeast Asia. America clearly has a historic head-start: even with the closure of US bases in the Philippines it now has (official) access to bases in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, in addition to military advisors/liaison in other locations especially on counter-terrorism. That is before one considers the US Navy Seventh Fleet based in Japan and Guam which is present in the South China Sea at any one time.
China on the otherhand claim a policy against the stationing of any foreign military forces, hence precluding the stationing of the PLA outside Chinese territory - outside of UN peacekeeping or naval expeditions.
The US also has long term military alliances or mutual defence treaties with Philippines and Thailand (both are regarded as Major Non-NATO Ally) and use of military bases in Singapore. On another note, Singapore and Malaysia are part of the FPDA (Five Forces Defence Arrangement) which allows for Australia, New Zealand and the UK to come to be defence of Malaysia and Singapore. Brunei also has its own defence arrangements with the UK, British bases and military personnel. China's closest military partners in Southeast Asia are probably Cambodia and Myanmar.
In my view, another key measurement is the choice of supplies of armaments. When it comes to making significant long term investments (both in money and reliance on continuing training and technical support), Southeast Asian countries are still predominantly choose to be armed with US or European weapon systems. The US which supplied the backbone of the airforces of Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia (apart from its Russian made the MIG-29s), France also has a strong position as an alternative supplier of choice especially for naval vessels and helicopters.
Taken together the above reality are very clear and unequivocal measures of US (and British) hard power in Southeast Asia.
Overall, regional sensitivities over China's role, historic enemities (such as with Vietnam), common borders with Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam - and lingering disputes such as over the Spartly Islands - is probably the biggest weakness in China's strategic influence in Southeast Asia. It is arguable if any Southeast Asian countries will tolerate very much Chinese military influence or presence, if ever, at all!
And the final facet is the social-civil aspect. A lot of this are sometimes characterised as "soft-power". I prefer to see this from the narrower prism of intellectual orientation of the ruling elite. Put simply, while everything from as mundane as baseball and hollywood movies or Korean soap operas - to ideas and ideals like capitalism, democracy and the rule of law - all exerts a pull on the public imagination; a more profound and immediate influence could be found in whatever that form the intellectual grounding of a country's governing elite and policy makers.
For decades, the elites of Taiwanese and Philippines are educated in the US and they bring about a distinctly American intellectual influence and extend America's influence into those countries via those personal networks. The same is true for the Singaporean and Malaysian elites and policy makers and their British influence. The modernisation of the Indonesian economy in the 1960s and 70s was led by what was called the "Berkeley mafia" of US trained economists. German-educated former President Habibie sought to orientate Indonesia to German technical experts.
Hence, for me an important indicator of China or America's influence is the where were Southeast Asia's leaders and elite educated? And almost as importantly: where do they send their children to be educated? Because that shows who they really admire. Right now, not many are sending their children for higher education in China. More esoterically, one can even look to where do Southeast Asian leaders and their family go for a holiday or buy private property as an indicator? That actually makes a difference when one considers that the leaders of Myanmar and Cambodia used to holiday or go for medical treatment in China a lot. Not any more one may assume?
More directly, another measure could be to look at the source of the society's intellectual input = its "mindshare". What is going into the minds of the country's leaders and policy makers? Where do they buy their books? And where are the authors of those books they are reading from? Who are the experts they get advise from? Countries look to those they wish to emulate for advise: economic and policy experts used to come from the old colonial masters, then in the 50s and 60s some got (ill)advisers from the Soviet Union or China, while others turn to American experts (including from NGOs like Ford Foundation or Rockerfeller Foundation). The strategic importance of the export of advisers is such that even Taiwan used to export agricultural experts as a diplomatic tool. And more recently there was a time when experts from Japanese were popular. It may not be as obvious now, but if Southeast Asian countries are hiring Arup for city planning, Goldman Sachs to advise on privatization or McKinsey to develop an economic strategy or even the World Bank/IMF, it simply reflects the reality of the continuing influence of the West, especially America in shaping Southeast Asia's thinking on the level fo government policy.
Even on the casual level, the media and news channel that currently dominate the mindshare of the educated middle class in Southeast Asia tend to be cable/satellite television and the internet that mainly of a Western (or American) origin. Rubbish or not, that is a measure of influence on the default world view and intellectual orientation of Southeast Asia. In this regard, take the example of the BBC which allows the UK to punch above its weight and Japan which has little influence relative to its importance in the region. It has been remarked that China is a world-to-itself in cyberspace and in its media (not only due to censorship but because of language and size that made it self-contained) but it has still little mindshare outside of Greater China. And even if language ceases to be a barrier, it has a steep hill to climb when competing for mindshare with the open uncensored media that Southeast Asia long has access.
In conclusion, I would like to submit that there is much more to America's power and influence in Southeast Asia than meets the eye. And plainly because we have taken them for granted we forget how pervasive and powerful America still is. China is the shiny new thing that seized our attention because its power and influence have been growing so quickly and so overtly that many have mistaken rate of change for size. I hope for a more emperical study that compare their power and influence both in real terms and in relative terms; for power and influence is not a zero sum game between the two powers: both could be growing or both could be waning because we should not forget that as the nations of Southeast Asia grows they also become less susceptable to being influenced and are regional powers in their own right.
My contention is a contrarian argument to the prevailing view that China is on the rise and America is on the wane in Southeast Asia. This argument often confuses China's enormous trade links, free-trade agreements and high-level political exchanges with Southeast Asia for power and influence. My argument is that the view is impressionistic and is not entirely supported by a rigorous and sober examination of many other key matrices for power and influence. My hypothesis is that while America power and influence is no longer dominant in Southeast Asia, it is still probably the strongest power in a region where China's power and influence has expanded enormously.
My model for understanding power and influence rests on examining 4 different facets of power and influence, and in each case focus on aspects that are largely measurable as opposed to a lesser reliance on subjective considerations such as "soft power".
My 4 facets - and they are not intended to be equally important at all times - are: economic, political, strategic/military and social-civic links.
China has enormous heft as Southeast Asia's largest (and fast-growing) trading partner, well-spring of funding, bilateral and regional economic cooperation and growing institutionalised relationships (FTAs etc.).
But economic links are not limited to trade. At the very least we should also look at investments (both inwards and outwards), monetary policy and commercial links. In Southeast Asia, the amount of cumulative investments by USA, Japan and Europe remains enormous, and in most countries far dwarfs China's nascent investments. Japan has been Southeast Asia's largest investor for many decades and those Japanese companies remain major employers and exporters in many Southeast Asian countries. How easily people forget but they are a hidden giant that should not be overlooked. So size of investment is one key measure.
As far as commercial links, precisely because so many US and European MNCs have operated so long in Southeast Asia they have become "invisible". People forget that AIA, Citibank, Facebook, Visa card, P&G (Pampers, Pantene, Duracell, Gilette etc.), Colgate Palmolive, Esso, Yahoo!, FedEx, Boeing are American companies; while Shell, HSBC, BP, Prudential, Nestle are European. Of course, the lines are often blurred because such is globalization that Nike may be American but the product is often made in China by a Korean invested firm financed by the Japanese. But all else being equal, China still has some distance to go in terms of commercial influence. After all, what is the largest Chinese company operating in Southeast Asia?
All those are in the realms of influence, but none more than monetary policy. There are many Southeast Asian currencies that are either pegged or linked to the US Dollar and for that reason their central banks keep large portions of their hard currency reserves in US Dollar. The power to influence so many Southeast Asian currency gives the US Federal Reserves significant leverage over the monetary policies in Southeast Asia - such as interest rates - that the People's Bank of China will not have until the RMB becomes a full fledged international reserve currency. Even as China becomes an enormous trading power with Southeast Asia, the terms of trade are still mostly done on US Dollar terms. These are all important measures on the economic power and influence.
Another important measure is foreign reserves/foreign investments, which for Southeast Asian countries are still mainly held in American or European assets. And the same can be said for holdings of Southeast Asian debt, which if in foreign hands are still predominantly held by Western institutions and funds; although given the growth of China's investment funds this could soon change. This is a source of influence (verging on power) that is easily overlooked but in times of crisis, holders of debt provides enormous leverage over the governments of the day (e.g., currently in Greece, but seen recently with Dubai, Iceland, Estonia, or Latin American countries from time to time). In times of conflict and international sanctions, there have been precedence of foreign assets being seized e.g. Iran, Iraq (after invasion of Kuwait), North Korea and Yugoslavia (sanctions).
Moving on to political links. For Southeast Asian countries China presents a seemingly simple political equation: unquestionable support for China's policies on Taiwan/Tibet/Xinjiang etc., no overt critisism of China , and in return China will grant a lot of personal respect, not pose any awkward questions on one's own political legitimacy or messing about with the opposition party, etc. And then, everyone can get down to business of economic growth. that is easy to like. America has tended to present a less diffident, more self-interested and incoherent relationship even as the host nation feels ignored.
At the senior leadership level, China pays a lot of attention with frequent exchange of visits with regional heads of states and government. Likewise there are extensive links at the ministerial and official level as befitting a major (even dominant?) regional political power. China plays a deft hand in this very Asian form of influence. The level of attention simply far outdistanced anything America (which has a more global spread of interests) can possibly muster in the region.
On the otherhand, if we look at what has been invested in terms of long term institutional presence in the region a more balanced picture emerges. America maintains large multifaceted (with political, economic, military, consulate, cultural (tourism, education etc.), public diplomacy functions) embassies in most Southeast Asian countries often they are the largest embassy in town. Often the US maintains consular offices outside the capital as well. China maintains comparatively large but by comparison a more modest presence that in many cases are behind those of the UK, France and even Germany. Granted, the person-to-person relationship is perhaps the most important measure for most Southeast Asian cultures; but it is important to remember there are other measures of political ties.
And not least, there is developmental aid as a measure of power and influence, although I often question the effectiveness of aid as a form of political leverage. In some countries there are still US-aid projects, but the scale is unlike during the height of the Cold War. I recall there is a US funded FELDA development near Seremban called "LBJ" after the US President Johnson! Likewise, aid from Japan which boomed in the 80s and 90s but are now a thing of the past. On the otherhand, official aid from China especially on infrastructure is expanding. This is definately also a source of growing Chinese political influence.
On the military/stretegic level, the starkest measure is obviously military presence by either China or the US in Southeast Asia. America clearly has a historic head-start: even with the closure of US bases in the Philippines it now has (official) access to bases in Singapore, Thailand and the Philippines, in addition to military advisors/liaison in other locations especially on counter-terrorism. That is before one considers the US Navy Seventh Fleet based in Japan and Guam which is present in the South China Sea at any one time.
China on the otherhand claim a policy against the stationing of any foreign military forces, hence precluding the stationing of the PLA outside Chinese territory - outside of UN peacekeeping or naval expeditions.
The US also has long term military alliances or mutual defence treaties with Philippines and Thailand (both are regarded as Major Non-NATO Ally) and use of military bases in Singapore. On another note, Singapore and Malaysia are part of the FPDA (Five Forces Defence Arrangement) which allows for Australia, New Zealand and the UK to come to be defence of Malaysia and Singapore. Brunei also has its own defence arrangements with the UK, British bases and military personnel. China's closest military partners in Southeast Asia are probably Cambodia and Myanmar.
In my view, another key measurement is the choice of supplies of armaments. When it comes to making significant long term investments (both in money and reliance on continuing training and technical support), Southeast Asian countries are still predominantly choose to be armed with US or European weapon systems. The US which supplied the backbone of the airforces of Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Philippines and Malaysia (apart from its Russian made the MIG-29s), France also has a strong position as an alternative supplier of choice especially for naval vessels and helicopters.
Taken together the above reality are very clear and unequivocal measures of US (and British) hard power in Southeast Asia.
Overall, regional sensitivities over China's role, historic enemities (such as with Vietnam), common borders with Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam - and lingering disputes such as over the Spartly Islands - is probably the biggest weakness in China's strategic influence in Southeast Asia. It is arguable if any Southeast Asian countries will tolerate very much Chinese military influence or presence, if ever, at all!
And the final facet is the social-civil aspect. A lot of this are sometimes characterised as "soft-power". I prefer to see this from the narrower prism of intellectual orientation of the ruling elite. Put simply, while everything from as mundane as baseball and hollywood movies or Korean soap operas - to ideas and ideals like capitalism, democracy and the rule of law - all exerts a pull on the public imagination; a more profound and immediate influence could be found in whatever that form the intellectual grounding of a country's governing elite and policy makers.
For decades, the elites of Taiwanese and Philippines are educated in the US and they bring about a distinctly American intellectual influence and extend America's influence into those countries via those personal networks. The same is true for the Singaporean and Malaysian elites and policy makers and their British influence. The modernisation of the Indonesian economy in the 1960s and 70s was led by what was called the "Berkeley mafia" of US trained economists. German-educated former President Habibie sought to orientate Indonesia to German technical experts.
Hence, for me an important indicator of China or America's influence is the where were Southeast Asia's leaders and elite educated? And almost as importantly: where do they send their children to be educated? Because that shows who they really admire. Right now, not many are sending their children for higher education in China. More esoterically, one can even look to where do Southeast Asian leaders and their family go for a holiday or buy private property as an indicator? That actually makes a difference when one considers that the leaders of Myanmar and Cambodia used to holiday or go for medical treatment in China a lot. Not any more one may assume?
More directly, another measure could be to look at the source of the society's intellectual input = its "mindshare". What is going into the minds of the country's leaders and policy makers? Where do they buy their books? And where are the authors of those books they are reading from? Who are the experts they get advise from? Countries look to those they wish to emulate for advise: economic and policy experts used to come from the old colonial masters, then in the 50s and 60s some got (ill)advisers from the Soviet Union or China, while others turn to American experts (including from NGOs like Ford Foundation or Rockerfeller Foundation). The strategic importance of the export of advisers is such that even Taiwan used to export agricultural experts as a diplomatic tool. And more recently there was a time when experts from Japanese were popular. It may not be as obvious now, but if Southeast Asian countries are hiring Arup for city planning, Goldman Sachs to advise on privatization or McKinsey to develop an economic strategy or even the World Bank/IMF, it simply reflects the reality of the continuing influence of the West, especially America in shaping Southeast Asia's thinking on the level fo government policy.
Even on the casual level, the media and news channel that currently dominate the mindshare of the educated middle class in Southeast Asia tend to be cable/satellite television and the internet that mainly of a Western (or American) origin. Rubbish or not, that is a measure of influence on the default world view and intellectual orientation of Southeast Asia. In this regard, take the example of the BBC which allows the UK to punch above its weight and Japan which has little influence relative to its importance in the region. It has been remarked that China is a world-to-itself in cyberspace and in its media (not only due to censorship but because of language and size that made it self-contained) but it has still little mindshare outside of Greater China. And even if language ceases to be a barrier, it has a steep hill to climb when competing for mindshare with the open uncensored media that Southeast Asia long has access.
In conclusion, I would like to submit that there is much more to America's power and influence in Southeast Asia than meets the eye. And plainly because we have taken them for granted we forget how pervasive and powerful America still is. China is the shiny new thing that seized our attention because its power and influence have been growing so quickly and so overtly that many have mistaken rate of change for size. I hope for a more emperical study that compare their power and influence both in real terms and in relative terms; for power and influence is not a zero sum game between the two powers: both could be growing or both could be waning because we should not forget that as the nations of Southeast Asia grows they also become less susceptable to being influenced and are regional powers in their own right.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
The Price to Pay for the Great Firewall of China
If there was any doubt before, now I have no doubt this blog is barred in China. I hope that one day very soon that the China and the CCP will realise it is strong enough not to fear words. And that include our's!
It may be that China has reasons to fear that the Chinese people - the masses - will act (or overeact) irrationally to information and the opinions of others. May be they lack the faculties of critical thinking, rational thinking, wisdom, tolerance and self-belief to respond in the most positive manner. That is also one of my concerns as China becomes a global power of historic proportions. By consciously feeding the population one carefully calibrated set of world view; one that is conducive to the ideal reality of the CCP, the CCP simply ensure that the danger persists and that can only increase.
Where most observers would see this through a power political lens, I happen to also see this as a cultural condition. One only has to look at many Chinese families to see a similar pattern of pride mixed with bitterness, success mixed with insecurity, respect mixed with resentment, love mixed with deception. Picture a scenario we see all so often: a family with showy and ambitious parents on-the-make. The parents push the kids hard, demand obedience but never listen or understand who the children really are or respect what they want from their lives. The parents lavish material goods and boasts of only good things but never admits of mistakes. Family life is competitive and opportunistic - anyone who behaves differently are treated harshly not only by parents but also by siblings. We can think of so many such families. The results are often the same, once the lid goes off the pressure-cooker, the kids rebel into all sorts of self-destructive behavior and the family crumbles into disarray, decline, and sometimes, in tragedy.
I believe the irony in the next 5 - 10 years may be this. There may come a day when Chinese public opinion becomes so unrealistic and unreasonable that CCP's controls becomes the last line of defense for the Chinese nation - and the rest of the world - from national and global tragedy.
Like someone who keeps a lion cub as a pet in the middle of a city, as the lion grows up the cage that used to keep the owner safe becomes something that struggles to protect the rest of the city (i.e. the world) from the lion - and, the lion (the Chinese people) from itself. Because the lion wants to leave the cage although the lion does not know that it is unable to handle and survive in the city and unable to survive in the wild. The CCP might find itself in the no-win position being the zoo-keeper struggling to keep the lion in the cage.
Society and the nation improves through self-examination and self-correction. Society must be open to new facts and new questions about the status quo no matter how uncomfortable or how disruptive they may be. The CCP needs to transition to a different social contract based on a more open and enlightened approach - even at the cost of its own demise - otherwise, to use a well-worn expression, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Any true Chinese patriot would wish China to avoid that fate.
It may be that China has reasons to fear that the Chinese people - the masses - will act (or overeact) irrationally to information and the opinions of others. May be they lack the faculties of critical thinking, rational thinking, wisdom, tolerance and self-belief to respond in the most positive manner. That is also one of my concerns as China becomes a global power of historic proportions. By consciously feeding the population one carefully calibrated set of world view; one that is conducive to the ideal reality of the CCP, the CCP simply ensure that the danger persists and that can only increase.
Where most observers would see this through a power political lens, I happen to also see this as a cultural condition. One only has to look at many Chinese families to see a similar pattern of pride mixed with bitterness, success mixed with insecurity, respect mixed with resentment, love mixed with deception. Picture a scenario we see all so often: a family with showy and ambitious parents on-the-make. The parents push the kids hard, demand obedience but never listen or understand who the children really are or respect what they want from their lives. The parents lavish material goods and boasts of only good things but never admits of mistakes. Family life is competitive and opportunistic - anyone who behaves differently are treated harshly not only by parents but also by siblings. We can think of so many such families. The results are often the same, once the lid goes off the pressure-cooker, the kids rebel into all sorts of self-destructive behavior and the family crumbles into disarray, decline, and sometimes, in tragedy.
I believe the irony in the next 5 - 10 years may be this. There may come a day when Chinese public opinion becomes so unrealistic and unreasonable that CCP's controls becomes the last line of defense for the Chinese nation - and the rest of the world - from national and global tragedy.
Like someone who keeps a lion cub as a pet in the middle of a city, as the lion grows up the cage that used to keep the owner safe becomes something that struggles to protect the rest of the city (i.e. the world) from the lion - and, the lion (the Chinese people) from itself. Because the lion wants to leave the cage although the lion does not know that it is unable to handle and survive in the city and unable to survive in the wild. The CCP might find itself in the no-win position being the zoo-keeper struggling to keep the lion in the cage.
Society and the nation improves through self-examination and self-correction. Society must be open to new facts and new questions about the status quo no matter how uncomfortable or how disruptive they may be. The CCP needs to transition to a different social contract based on a more open and enlightened approach - even at the cost of its own demise - otherwise, to use a well-worn expression, it will eventually collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. Any true Chinese patriot would wish China to avoid that fate.
Friday, January 22, 2010
My Statement of Defence - LXB
我的自辯--劉曉波
《起訴書》（京一分檢刑訴[2009]247號）列舉了六篇文章和《零八憲章》，並總中引述了三百三十多字據此指控我觸犯了《刑法》第105條第2款之規定，犯有“煽動顛覆國家政權罪”，應當追究刑事責任。
對《起訴書》所列舉事實，除了說我“在徵集了三百餘人的簽名後”的事實陳述不準確之外，對其他的事實，我沒有異議。那六篇文章是我寫的，我參與了《零八憲章》，但我徵集的簽名只有70人左右，而不是三百多人，其他人的簽名不是我徵集的。至於據此指控我犯罪，我無法接受。在我失去自由的一年多時間裏，面對預審警官、檢察官和法官的詢問，我一直堅持自己無罪。現在，我將從中國憲法中的有關規定、聯合國的國際人權公約、我的政治改革主張、歷史潮流等多方面為自己進行無罪辯護。
一、改革開放帶來的重要成果之一，就是國人的人權意識的日益覺醒，民間維權的此起彼伏，推動中國政府在人權觀念上的進步。2004年全國人大修憲，把“國家尊重和保障人權”寫進了憲法，遂使人權保障成為依法治國的憲法原則。這些國家必須尊重和保障的人權，就是憲法第35條規定的諸項公民權利，言論自由便是基本人權之一。我的言論所表達的不同政見，是一個中國公民在行使憲法所賦予的言論自由權利，非但不能受到政府的限制和任意剝奪，反而必須得到國家的尊重和法律的保護。所以，起訴書對我的指控，侵犯了我作為中國公民的基本人權，違反了中國的根本大法，是典型的因言治罪，是古老的文字獄在當代中國的延續，理應受到道義的譴責和違憲追究。《刑法》第105條第二款也有違憲之嫌，應該提請全國人大對其進行合憲性審查。
二、《起訴書》根據所引的幾段話就指控我“以造謠、誹謗等方式煽動顛覆國家政權，推翻社會主義制度”這是欲加之罪。因為“造謠”是捏造、編造虛假資訊，中傷他人。“誹謗”是無中生有地詆毀他人的信譽與人格。二者涉及的都是事實的真假，涉及他人的名譽與利益。而我的言論皆為批評性的評論，是思想觀點的表達，是價值判斷而非事實判斷，也沒有對任何人造成傷害。所以，我的言論與造謠、誹謗風馬牛不相及。換言之，批評不是造謠，反對更不是誹謗。
三、《起訴書》根據《零八憲章》的幾段言論指控我誣衊執政黨，“試圖煽動顛覆現政權”。這指控有斷章取義之嫌，它完全無視《零八憲章》的整體表述，無視我所有的文章所表述的一貫觀點。
首先，《零八憲章》指出的“人權災難”都是發生在當代中國的事實，“反右”錯劃了五十多萬右派，“大躍進”造成了上千萬人的非自然死亡，“文革”造成國家的浩劫。“六‧四”是血案，許多人死了，許多人被投入監獄。這些事實都是舉世公認的“人權災難”，確實為中國的發展帶來危機，“束縛了中華民族的自身發展，制約了人類文明的進步。”至於取消一黨壟斷執政特權，不過是要求執政黨進行還政於民的改革，最終建立“民有、民治、民享”的自由國家。
其次，《零八憲章》所申明的價值和所提出的政改主張，其長遠目標是建成自由民主的聯邦共和國，其改革措施是十九條，其改革方式是漸進的和平的方式。這是有感於現行的跛足改革的種種弊端，要求執政黨變跛足為雙足，即政治與經濟同步並進的均衡改革。也就是從民間的角度推動官方儘快動還政於民的改革，用自下而上的民間壓力敦促政府進行自上而下的政治變革，從而形成官民互動的良性合作，以儘早實現國人的百年憲政之夢想。
再次，從1989年到2009年的二十年裏，我所表達的中國政治改革的觀點，一直是漸進、和平、有序、可控。我也一貫反對一步到位的激進改革，更反對暴力革命。這種漸進式改革主張，在我的《通過改變社會來改變政權》一文中有著明確的表述：通過致力於民間權利意識的覺醒、民間維權的擴張、民間自主性的上升、民間社會的發展，形成自下而上的壓力，以推動自上而下的官方改革。事實上，中國三十年的改革實踐證明，每一次具有制度創新性質的改革措施的出臺和實施，其最根本的動力皆來自民間的自發改革，民間改革的認同性和影響逐漸擴大，迫使官方接受民間的創新嘗試，從而變成自上而下的改革決策。
總之，漸進、和平、有序、可控，自下而上與自上而下的互動，是我關於中國政治改革的關鍵字。因為這種方式代價最小，效果最大。我知道政治變革的基本常識，有序、可控的社會變革必定優於無序、失控的變革。壞政府治下的秩序也優於無政府的天下大亂。所以，我反對獨裁化或壟斷化的執政方式，並不是“煽動顛覆現政權”。換言之，反對並不等於顛覆。
四、中國有“滿招損、謙受益”的古訓，西諺有“狂妄必遭天譴”的箴言。我知道自己的局限，所以，我也知道我的公開言論不可能十全十美或完全正確。特別是我的時評類文章，不嚴謹的論證，情緒化的宣泄，錯誤的表述，以偏蓋全的結論……在所難免。但是，這些有局限性的言論，與犯罪毫無關係，不能作為治罪的依據。因為，言論自由之權利，不僅包括發表正確觀點的權利，也包括發表錯誤言論的權利。正確的言論和多數的意見需要保護；不正確的言論和少數的意見，同樣需要權利的保護。正所謂：我可以不贊成或反對你的觀點，但我堅決捍衛你公開表達不同觀點的權利，哪怕你所表達的觀點是錯誤的，這，才是言論自由的精義。對此，中國古代傳統中也有過經典的概括。我把這種概括稱為二十四字箴言：知無不言，言無不盡；言者無罪，聞者足戒；有則改之，無則加勉。正因為這二十四字箴言道出了言論自由的要義，才能讓每一代國人耳熟能詳，流傳至今。我認為，其中“言者無罪，聞者足戒”，完全可以作為當代國人對待批評意見的座右銘，更應該成為當權者對待不同政見的警示。
五、我無罪，因為對我的指控有違國際社會公認的人權準則。早在1948年，中國作為聯合國的常任理事國就參與起草了《世界人權宣言》；五十年後的1998年，中國政府又向國際社會作出了簽署聯合國制定的兩大國際人權公約的莊嚴承諾。其中《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》把言論自由列為最基本的普世人權，要求各國政府必須加以尊重和保障。中國作為聯合國常任理事國，也作為聯合國人權理事會的成員，有義務遵守聯合國制定的人權公約，有責任餞行自己的承諾，也應該模範地執行聯合國發佈的人權保障條款。惟其如此，中國政府才能切實保障本國國民的人權，為推動國際人權事業做出自己的貢獻，從而顯示出一個大國的文明風範。
遺憾的是，中國政府並沒有完全履行自己的義務和兌現自己的承諾，並沒有把紙上的保證落實為現實的行動，有憲法而無憲政，有承諾而無兌現，仍然是中國政府在應對國際社會的批評時的常態。現在對我的指控就是最新的例證。顯然，這樣的因言治罪，與中國作為常任理事國和人權理事會的成員的身份相悖，有損於中國的政治形象和國家利益，無法在政治上取信于文明世界。
六、無論在中國還是在世界，無論是在古代還是現當代，因言治罪的文字獄都是反人道反人權的行為，有悖於大勢所趨、人心所向的時代潮流。回顧中國歷史，即使在家天下的帝制時代，從秦到清，文字獄的盛行，歷來都是一個政權的執政污點，也是中華民族的恥辱。秦始皇有統一中國之功，但其“焚書坑儒”之暴政卻遺臭萬年。漢武帝雄才大略，但其閹割太史公司馬遷之舉則倍受病詬。清朝有“康乾盛世”，但其頻繁的文字獄也只能留下名。相反，漢文帝在二千多年前就廢除過因言治罪的“誣謗罪”，由此贏得了開朝仁君的美名和歷代推崇的“文景之治”。
進入現代中國，中國共產黨之所以由弱而強，最終戰勝國民黨，在根本上源自其“反獨裁爭自由”的道義力量。1949年前，中共的《新華日報》和《解放日報》經常發文抨擊蔣家政權對言論自由的壓制，為因言獲罪的有識之士大聲疾呼。毛澤東等中共領袖也多次論及言論自由及基本人權。但1949年後，從反右到文革，林昭被槍斃，張志新被割喉，言論自由在毛時代消失了，國家陷於萬馬齊喑的死寂。改革以來，執政黨撥亂反正，對不同政見的容忍度有大幅度提高，社會的言論空間不斷擴大，文字獄大幅度減少，但因言治罪的傳統並沒有完全滅絕。從四‧五到六‧四，從民主牆到零八憲章，因言治罪的案例時有發生。我此次獲罪，不過是最近的文字獄而已。
二十一世紀的今天，言論自由早已成為多數國人的共識，文字獄卻是千夫所指。從客觀效果上看，防民之口甚於防川，監獄的高牆關不住自由的表達。一個政權不可能靠壓抑不同政見來建立合法性，也不可能靠文字獄來達成長治久安。因為，筆桿子的問題只能訴諸筆桿子來解決，一旦動用槍桿子解決筆桿子的問題，只能造成人權災難。只有從制度上根絕文字獄，憲法所規定的言論自由權利才能落實到每一位國民身上；只有當國民的言論自由權利得到制度化的現實保障，文字獄才會在中國大地上滅絕。
因言治罪，不符合中國憲法所確立的人權原則，違反了聯合國發佈的國際人權公約，有悖於普世道義與歷史潮流。我為自己所做的無罪辯護，希望能夠得到法庭的採納，從而讓此案的裁決在中國法治史上具有開先河的意義，經得起中國憲法之人權條款與國際人權公約的審查，也經得起道義的追問和歷史的檢驗。
謝謝大家！
劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
(自由亞洲電台)
《起訴書》（京一分檢刑訴[2009]247號）列舉了六篇文章和《零八憲章》，並總中引述了三百三十多字據此指控我觸犯了《刑法》第105條第2款之規定，犯有“煽動顛覆國家政權罪”，應當追究刑事責任。
對《起訴書》所列舉事實，除了說我“在徵集了三百餘人的簽名後”的事實陳述不準確之外，對其他的事實，我沒有異議。那六篇文章是我寫的，我參與了《零八憲章》，但我徵集的簽名只有70人左右，而不是三百多人，其他人的簽名不是我徵集的。至於據此指控我犯罪，我無法接受。在我失去自由的一年多時間裏，面對預審警官、檢察官和法官的詢問，我一直堅持自己無罪。現在，我將從中國憲法中的有關規定、聯合國的國際人權公約、我的政治改革主張、歷史潮流等多方面為自己進行無罪辯護。
一、改革開放帶來的重要成果之一，就是國人的人權意識的日益覺醒，民間維權的此起彼伏，推動中國政府在人權觀念上的進步。2004年全國人大修憲，把“國家尊重和保障人權”寫進了憲法，遂使人權保障成為依法治國的憲法原則。這些國家必須尊重和保障的人權，就是憲法第35條規定的諸項公民權利，言論自由便是基本人權之一。我的言論所表達的不同政見，是一個中國公民在行使憲法所賦予的言論自由權利，非但不能受到政府的限制和任意剝奪，反而必須得到國家的尊重和法律的保護。所以，起訴書對我的指控，侵犯了我作為中國公民的基本人權，違反了中國的根本大法，是典型的因言治罪，是古老的文字獄在當代中國的延續，理應受到道義的譴責和違憲追究。《刑法》第105條第二款也有違憲之嫌，應該提請全國人大對其進行合憲性審查。
二、《起訴書》根據所引的幾段話就指控我“以造謠、誹謗等方式煽動顛覆國家政權，推翻社會主義制度”這是欲加之罪。因為“造謠”是捏造、編造虛假資訊，中傷他人。“誹謗”是無中生有地詆毀他人的信譽與人格。二者涉及的都是事實的真假，涉及他人的名譽與利益。而我的言論皆為批評性的評論，是思想觀點的表達，是價值判斷而非事實判斷，也沒有對任何人造成傷害。所以，我的言論與造謠、誹謗風馬牛不相及。換言之，批評不是造謠，反對更不是誹謗。
三、《起訴書》根據《零八憲章》的幾段言論指控我誣衊執政黨，“試圖煽動顛覆現政權”。這指控有斷章取義之嫌，它完全無視《零八憲章》的整體表述，無視我所有的文章所表述的一貫觀點。
首先，《零八憲章》指出的“人權災難”都是發生在當代中國的事實，“反右”錯劃了五十多萬右派，“大躍進”造成了上千萬人的非自然死亡，“文革”造成國家的浩劫。“六‧四”是血案，許多人死了，許多人被投入監獄。這些事實都是舉世公認的“人權災難”，確實為中國的發展帶來危機，“束縛了中華民族的自身發展，制約了人類文明的進步。”至於取消一黨壟斷執政特權，不過是要求執政黨進行還政於民的改革，最終建立“民有、民治、民享”的自由國家。
其次，《零八憲章》所申明的價值和所提出的政改主張，其長遠目標是建成自由民主的聯邦共和國，其改革措施是十九條，其改革方式是漸進的和平的方式。這是有感於現行的跛足改革的種種弊端，要求執政黨變跛足為雙足，即政治與經濟同步並進的均衡改革。也就是從民間的角度推動官方儘快動還政於民的改革，用自下而上的民間壓力敦促政府進行自上而下的政治變革，從而形成官民互動的良性合作，以儘早實現國人的百年憲政之夢想。
再次，從1989年到2009年的二十年裏，我所表達的中國政治改革的觀點，一直是漸進、和平、有序、可控。我也一貫反對一步到位的激進改革，更反對暴力革命。這種漸進式改革主張，在我的《通過改變社會來改變政權》一文中有著明確的表述：通過致力於民間權利意識的覺醒、民間維權的擴張、民間自主性的上升、民間社會的發展，形成自下而上的壓力，以推動自上而下的官方改革。事實上，中國三十年的改革實踐證明，每一次具有制度創新性質的改革措施的出臺和實施，其最根本的動力皆來自民間的自發改革，民間改革的認同性和影響逐漸擴大，迫使官方接受民間的創新嘗試，從而變成自上而下的改革決策。
總之，漸進、和平、有序、可控，自下而上與自上而下的互動，是我關於中國政治改革的關鍵字。因為這種方式代價最小，效果最大。我知道政治變革的基本常識，有序、可控的社會變革必定優於無序、失控的變革。壞政府治下的秩序也優於無政府的天下大亂。所以，我反對獨裁化或壟斷化的執政方式，並不是“煽動顛覆現政權”。換言之，反對並不等於顛覆。
四、中國有“滿招損、謙受益”的古訓，西諺有“狂妄必遭天譴”的箴言。我知道自己的局限，所以，我也知道我的公開言論不可能十全十美或完全正確。特別是我的時評類文章，不嚴謹的論證，情緒化的宣泄，錯誤的表述，以偏蓋全的結論……在所難免。但是，這些有局限性的言論，與犯罪毫無關係，不能作為治罪的依據。因為，言論自由之權利，不僅包括發表正確觀點的權利，也包括發表錯誤言論的權利。正確的言論和多數的意見需要保護；不正確的言論和少數的意見，同樣需要權利的保護。正所謂：我可以不贊成或反對你的觀點，但我堅決捍衛你公開表達不同觀點的權利，哪怕你所表達的觀點是錯誤的，這，才是言論自由的精義。對此，中國古代傳統中也有過經典的概括。我把這種概括稱為二十四字箴言：知無不言，言無不盡；言者無罪，聞者足戒；有則改之，無則加勉。正因為這二十四字箴言道出了言論自由的要義，才能讓每一代國人耳熟能詳，流傳至今。我認為，其中“言者無罪，聞者足戒”，完全可以作為當代國人對待批評意見的座右銘，更應該成為當權者對待不同政見的警示。
五、我無罪，因為對我的指控有違國際社會公認的人權準則。早在1948年，中國作為聯合國的常任理事國就參與起草了《世界人權宣言》；五十年後的1998年，中國政府又向國際社會作出了簽署聯合國制定的兩大國際人權公約的莊嚴承諾。其中《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》把言論自由列為最基本的普世人權，要求各國政府必須加以尊重和保障。中國作為聯合國常任理事國，也作為聯合國人權理事會的成員，有義務遵守聯合國制定的人權公約，有責任餞行自己的承諾，也應該模範地執行聯合國發佈的人權保障條款。惟其如此，中國政府才能切實保障本國國民的人權，為推動國際人權事業做出自己的貢獻，從而顯示出一個大國的文明風範。
遺憾的是，中國政府並沒有完全履行自己的義務和兌現自己的承諾，並沒有把紙上的保證落實為現實的行動，有憲法而無憲政，有承諾而無兌現，仍然是中國政府在應對國際社會的批評時的常態。現在對我的指控就是最新的例證。顯然，這樣的因言治罪，與中國作為常任理事國和人權理事會的成員的身份相悖，有損於中國的政治形象和國家利益，無法在政治上取信于文明世界。
六、無論在中國還是在世界，無論是在古代還是現當代，因言治罪的文字獄都是反人道反人權的行為，有悖於大勢所趨、人心所向的時代潮流。回顧中國歷史，即使在家天下的帝制時代，從秦到清，文字獄的盛行，歷來都是一個政權的執政污點，也是中華民族的恥辱。秦始皇有統一中國之功，但其“焚書坑儒”之暴政卻遺臭萬年。漢武帝雄才大略，但其閹割太史公司馬遷之舉則倍受病詬。清朝有“康乾盛世”，但其頻繁的文字獄也只能留下名。相反，漢文帝在二千多年前就廢除過因言治罪的“誣謗罪”，由此贏得了開朝仁君的美名和歷代推崇的“文景之治”。
進入現代中國，中國共產黨之所以由弱而強，最終戰勝國民黨，在根本上源自其“反獨裁爭自由”的道義力量。1949年前，中共的《新華日報》和《解放日報》經常發文抨擊蔣家政權對言論自由的壓制，為因言獲罪的有識之士大聲疾呼。毛澤東等中共領袖也多次論及言論自由及基本人權。但1949年後，從反右到文革，林昭被槍斃，張志新被割喉，言論自由在毛時代消失了，國家陷於萬馬齊喑的死寂。改革以來，執政黨撥亂反正，對不同政見的容忍度有大幅度提高，社會的言論空間不斷擴大，文字獄大幅度減少，但因言治罪的傳統並沒有完全滅絕。從四‧五到六‧四，從民主牆到零八憲章，因言治罪的案例時有發生。我此次獲罪，不過是最近的文字獄而已。
二十一世紀的今天，言論自由早已成為多數國人的共識，文字獄卻是千夫所指。從客觀效果上看，防民之口甚於防川，監獄的高牆關不住自由的表達。一個政權不可能靠壓抑不同政見來建立合法性，也不可能靠文字獄來達成長治久安。因為，筆桿子的問題只能訴諸筆桿子來解決，一旦動用槍桿子解決筆桿子的問題，只能造成人權災難。只有從制度上根絕文字獄，憲法所規定的言論自由權利才能落實到每一位國民身上；只有當國民的言論自由權利得到制度化的現實保障，文字獄才會在中國大地上滅絕。
因言治罪，不符合中國憲法所確立的人權原則，違反了聯合國發佈的國際人權公約，有悖於普世道義與歷史潮流。我為自己所做的無罪辯護，希望能夠得到法庭的採納，從而讓此案的裁決在中國法治史上具有開先河的意義，經得起中國憲法之人權條款與國際人權公約的審查，也經得起道義的追問和歷史的檢驗。
謝謝大家！
劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
(自由亞洲電台)
I Have No Enemy - LXB
劉曉波的妻子劉霞透過自由亞洲電台網站，發表劉曉波題為「我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述」的文章。
以下為文章全文：
我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述 劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
在我已過半百的人生道路上，1989年6月是我生命的重大轉折時刻。那之前，我是文革後恢復高考的第一屆大學生（七七級），從學士到碩士再到博士，我的讀書生涯是一帆風順，畢業後留在北京師範大學任教。在講台上，我是一名頗受學生歡迎的教師。同時，我又是一名公共知識分子，在上世紀八十年代發表過引起轟動的文章與著作，經常受邀去各地演講，還應歐美國家之邀出國做訪問學者。我給自己提出的要求是：無論做人還是為文，都要活得誠實、負責、有尊嚴。那之後，因從美國回來參加八九運動，我被以「反革命宣傳煽動罪」投入監獄，也失去了我酷愛的講台，再也不能在國內發表文章和演講。僅僅因為發表不同政見和參加和平民主運動，一名教師就失去了講台，一個作家就失去了發表的權利，一位公共知識人就失去公開演講的機會，這，無論之於我個人還是之於改革開放已經三十年的中國，都是一種悲哀。
想起來，六‧四後我最富有戲劇性的經歷，居然都與法庭相關；我兩次面對公講話的機會都是北京市中級法院的開庭提供的，一次是1991年1月，一次是現在。雖然兩次被指控的罪名不同，但其實質基本相同，皆是因言獲罪。
二十年過去了，六‧四冤魂還未瞑目，被六‧四情結引向持不同政見者之路的我，在1991年走出秦城監獄之後，就失去了在自己的祖國公開發言的權利，而只能通過境外媒體發言，並因此而被長年監控，被監視居住（1995年5月-1996年1月），被勞動教養（1996年10月-1999年10月），現在又再次被政權的敵人意識推上了被告席，但我仍然要對這個剝奪我自由的政權說，我監守著二十年前我在《六‧二絕食宣言》中所表達的信念——我沒有敵人，也沒有仇恨。所有監控過我，捉捕過我、審訊過我的警察，起訴過我的檢察官，判決過我的法官，都不是我的敵人。雖然我無法接受你們的監控、逮捕、起訴和判決，但我尊重你的職業與人格，包括現在代表控方起訴我的張榮革和潘雪晴兩位檢察官。在12月3日兩位對我的詢問中，我能感到你們的尊重和誠意。
因為，仇恨會腐蝕一個人的智慧和良知，敵人意識將毒化一個民族的精神，煽動起你死我活的殘酷鬥爭，毀掉一個社會的寬容和人性，阻礙一個國家走向自由民主的進程。所以，我希望自己能夠超越個人的遭遇來看待國家的發展和社會的變化，以最大的善意對待政權的敵意，以愛化解恨。
眾所周知，是改革開放帶來了國家的發展和社會的變化。在我看來，改革開放始於放棄毛時代的「以階級鬥爭為綱」的執政方針。轉而致力於經濟發展和社會和諧。放棄「鬥爭哲學」的過程也是逐步淡化敵人意識、消除仇恨心理的過程，是一個擠掉浸入人性之中的「狼奶」的過程。正是這一進程，為改革開放提供了一個寬鬆的國內外環境，為恢復人與人之間的互愛，為不同利益不同價值的和平共處提供了柔軟的人性土壤，從而為國人的創造力之併發和愛心之恢復提供了符合人性的激勵。可以說，對外放棄「反帝反修」，對內放棄「階級鬥爭」，是中國的改革開放得以持續至今的基本前提。經濟走向市場，文化趨於多元，秩序逐漸法治，皆受益於「敵人意識」的淡化。即使在進步最為緩慢的政治領域，敵人意識的淡化也讓政權對社會的多元化有了日益擴大的包容性，對不同政見者的迫害之力度也大幅度下降，對八九運動的定性也由「動暴亂」改為「政治風波」。敵人意識的淡化讓政權逐步接受了人權的普世性，1998年，中國政府向世界做出簽署聯合國的兩大國際人權公約的承諾，標誌著中國對普世人權標準的承認；2004年，全國人大修憲首次把「國家尊重和保障人權」寫進了憲法，標誌著人權已經成為中國法治的根本原則之一。與此同時，現政權又提出「以人為本」、「創建和諧社會」，標誌著中共執政理念的進步。
這些宏觀方面的進步，也能從我被捕以來的親身經歷中感受到。
儘管我堅持認為自己無罪，對我的指控是違憲的，但在我失去自由的一年多時間裏，先後經歷了兩個關押地點、四位預審警官、三位檢察官、二位法官，他們的辦案，沒有不尊重，沒有超時，沒有逼供。他們的態度平和、理性，且時時流露出善意。6月23日，我被從監視居住處轉到北京市公安局第一看守所，簡稱「北看」。在北看的半年時間裏，我看到了監管上的進步。
1996年，我曾在老北看（半步橋）呆過，與十幾年前半步橋時的北看相比，現在的北看，在硬體設施和軟體管理上都有了極大的改善。特別是北看首創的人性化管理，在尊重在押人員的權利和人格的基礎上，將柔性化的管理落實到管教們的一言一行中，體現在「溫馨廣播」、「悔悟」雜誌、飯前音樂、起睡覺的音樂中，這種管理，讓在押人員感到了尊嚴與溫暖，激發了他們維持監室秩序和反對牢頭獄霸的自覺性，不但為在押人員提供了人性化的生活環境，也極大地改善了在押人員的訴訟環境和心態，我與主管我所在監室的劉崢管教有著近距離的接觸，他對在押人員的尊重和關心，體現在管理的每個細節中，滲透到他的一言一行中，讓人感到溫暖。結識這位真誠、正直、負責、善心的劉管教，也可以算作我在北看的幸運吧。
政治基於這樣的信念和親歷，我堅信中國的政治進步不會停止，我對未來自由中國的降臨充滿樂觀的期待，因為任何力量也無法阻攔心向自由的人性欲求，中國終將變成人權至上的法治國。我也期待這樣的進步能體現在此案的審理中，期待合議庭的公正裁決——經得起歷史檢驗的裁決。
如果讓我說出這二十年來最幸運的經歷，那就是得到了我的妻子劉霞的無私的愛。今天，我妻子無法到庭旁聽，但我還是要對你說，親愛的，我堅信你對我的愛將一如既往。這多年來，在我的無自由的生活中，我們的愛飽含著外在環境所強加的苦澀，但回味起來依然無窮。我在有形的監獄中服刑，你在無形的心獄中等待，你的愛，就是超越高牆、穿透鐵窗的陽光，撫摸我的每寸皮膚，溫暖我的每個細胞，讓我始終保有內心的平和、坦蕩與明亮，讓獄中的每分鐘都充滿意義。而我對你的愛，充滿了負疚和歉意，有時沉重得讓我腳步蹣跚。我是荒野中的頑石，任由狂風暴雨的抽打，冷得讓人不敢觸碰。但我的愛是堅硬的、鋒利的，可以穿透任何阻礙。即使我被碾成粉末，我也會用灰燼擁抱你。
親愛的，有你的愛，我就會坦然面對即將到來的審判，無悔於自己的選擇，樂觀地期待著明天。我期待我的國家是一片可以自由表達的土地，在這裏，每一位國民的發言都會得到同等的善待；在這裏，不同的價值、思想、信仰、政見……既相互競爭又和平共處；在這裏，多數的意見和少數的儀意見都會得到平等的保障，特別是那些不同於當權者的政見將得到充分的尊重和保護；在這裏，所有的政見都將攤在陽光下接受民的選擇，每個國民都能毫無恐懼地發表政見，決不會因發表不同政見而遭受政治迫害；我期待，我將是中國綿綿不絕的文字獄的最後一個受害者，從此之後不再有人因言獲罪。
表達自由，人權之基，人性之本，真理之母。封殺言論自由，踐踏人權，窒息人性，壓抑真理。
為餞行憲法賦予的言論自由之權利，當盡到一個中國公民的社會責任，我的所作所為無罪，即便為此被指控，也無怨言。
謝謝各位！
劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
以下為文章全文：
我沒有敵人——我的最後陳述 劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
在我已過半百的人生道路上，1989年6月是我生命的重大轉折時刻。那之前，我是文革後恢復高考的第一屆大學生（七七級），從學士到碩士再到博士，我的讀書生涯是一帆風順，畢業後留在北京師範大學任教。在講台上，我是一名頗受學生歡迎的教師。同時，我又是一名公共知識分子，在上世紀八十年代發表過引起轟動的文章與著作，經常受邀去各地演講，還應歐美國家之邀出國做訪問學者。我給自己提出的要求是：無論做人還是為文，都要活得誠實、負責、有尊嚴。那之後，因從美國回來參加八九運動，我被以「反革命宣傳煽動罪」投入監獄，也失去了我酷愛的講台，再也不能在國內發表文章和演講。僅僅因為發表不同政見和參加和平民主運動，一名教師就失去了講台，一個作家就失去了發表的權利，一位公共知識人就失去公開演講的機會，這，無論之於我個人還是之於改革開放已經三十年的中國，都是一種悲哀。
想起來，六‧四後我最富有戲劇性的經歷，居然都與法庭相關；我兩次面對公講話的機會都是北京市中級法院的開庭提供的，一次是1991年1月，一次是現在。雖然兩次被指控的罪名不同，但其實質基本相同，皆是因言獲罪。
二十年過去了，六‧四冤魂還未瞑目，被六‧四情結引向持不同政見者之路的我，在1991年走出秦城監獄之後，就失去了在自己的祖國公開發言的權利，而只能通過境外媒體發言，並因此而被長年監控，被監視居住（1995年5月-1996年1月），被勞動教養（1996年10月-1999年10月），現在又再次被政權的敵人意識推上了被告席，但我仍然要對這個剝奪我自由的政權說，我監守著二十年前我在《六‧二絕食宣言》中所表達的信念——我沒有敵人，也沒有仇恨。所有監控過我，捉捕過我、審訊過我的警察，起訴過我的檢察官，判決過我的法官，都不是我的敵人。雖然我無法接受你們的監控、逮捕、起訴和判決，但我尊重你的職業與人格，包括現在代表控方起訴我的張榮革和潘雪晴兩位檢察官。在12月3日兩位對我的詢問中，我能感到你們的尊重和誠意。
因為，仇恨會腐蝕一個人的智慧和良知，敵人意識將毒化一個民族的精神，煽動起你死我活的殘酷鬥爭，毀掉一個社會的寬容和人性，阻礙一個國家走向自由民主的進程。所以，我希望自己能夠超越個人的遭遇來看待國家的發展和社會的變化，以最大的善意對待政權的敵意，以愛化解恨。
眾所周知，是改革開放帶來了國家的發展和社會的變化。在我看來，改革開放始於放棄毛時代的「以階級鬥爭為綱」的執政方針。轉而致力於經濟發展和社會和諧。放棄「鬥爭哲學」的過程也是逐步淡化敵人意識、消除仇恨心理的過程，是一個擠掉浸入人性之中的「狼奶」的過程。正是這一進程，為改革開放提供了一個寬鬆的國內外環境，為恢復人與人之間的互愛，為不同利益不同價值的和平共處提供了柔軟的人性土壤，從而為國人的創造力之併發和愛心之恢復提供了符合人性的激勵。可以說，對外放棄「反帝反修」，對內放棄「階級鬥爭」，是中國的改革開放得以持續至今的基本前提。經濟走向市場，文化趨於多元，秩序逐漸法治，皆受益於「敵人意識」的淡化。即使在進步最為緩慢的政治領域，敵人意識的淡化也讓政權對社會的多元化有了日益擴大的包容性，對不同政見者的迫害之力度也大幅度下降，對八九運動的定性也由「動暴亂」改為「政治風波」。敵人意識的淡化讓政權逐步接受了人權的普世性，1998年，中國政府向世界做出簽署聯合國的兩大國際人權公約的承諾，標誌著中國對普世人權標準的承認；2004年，全國人大修憲首次把「國家尊重和保障人權」寫進了憲法，標誌著人權已經成為中國法治的根本原則之一。與此同時，現政權又提出「以人為本」、「創建和諧社會」，標誌著中共執政理念的進步。
這些宏觀方面的進步，也能從我被捕以來的親身經歷中感受到。
儘管我堅持認為自己無罪，對我的指控是違憲的，但在我失去自由的一年多時間裏，先後經歷了兩個關押地點、四位預審警官、三位檢察官、二位法官，他們的辦案，沒有不尊重，沒有超時，沒有逼供。他們的態度平和、理性，且時時流露出善意。6月23日，我被從監視居住處轉到北京市公安局第一看守所，簡稱「北看」。在北看的半年時間裏，我看到了監管上的進步。
1996年，我曾在老北看（半步橋）呆過，與十幾年前半步橋時的北看相比，現在的北看，在硬體設施和軟體管理上都有了極大的改善。特別是北看首創的人性化管理，在尊重在押人員的權利和人格的基礎上，將柔性化的管理落實到管教們的一言一行中，體現在「溫馨廣播」、「悔悟」雜誌、飯前音樂、起睡覺的音樂中，這種管理，讓在押人員感到了尊嚴與溫暖，激發了他們維持監室秩序和反對牢頭獄霸的自覺性，不但為在押人員提供了人性化的生活環境，也極大地改善了在押人員的訴訟環境和心態，我與主管我所在監室的劉崢管教有著近距離的接觸，他對在押人員的尊重和關心，體現在管理的每個細節中，滲透到他的一言一行中，讓人感到溫暖。結識這位真誠、正直、負責、善心的劉管教，也可以算作我在北看的幸運吧。
政治基於這樣的信念和親歷，我堅信中國的政治進步不會停止，我對未來自由中國的降臨充滿樂觀的期待，因為任何力量也無法阻攔心向自由的人性欲求，中國終將變成人權至上的法治國。我也期待這樣的進步能體現在此案的審理中，期待合議庭的公正裁決——經得起歷史檢驗的裁決。
如果讓我說出這二十年來最幸運的經歷，那就是得到了我的妻子劉霞的無私的愛。今天，我妻子無法到庭旁聽，但我還是要對你說，親愛的，我堅信你對我的愛將一如既往。這多年來，在我的無自由的生活中，我們的愛飽含著外在環境所強加的苦澀，但回味起來依然無窮。我在有形的監獄中服刑，你在無形的心獄中等待，你的愛，就是超越高牆、穿透鐵窗的陽光，撫摸我的每寸皮膚，溫暖我的每個細胞，讓我始終保有內心的平和、坦蕩與明亮，讓獄中的每分鐘都充滿意義。而我對你的愛，充滿了負疚和歉意，有時沉重得讓我腳步蹣跚。我是荒野中的頑石，任由狂風暴雨的抽打，冷得讓人不敢觸碰。但我的愛是堅硬的、鋒利的，可以穿透任何阻礙。即使我被碾成粉末，我也會用灰燼擁抱你。
親愛的，有你的愛，我就會坦然面對即將到來的審判，無悔於自己的選擇，樂觀地期待著明天。我期待我的國家是一片可以自由表達的土地，在這裏，每一位國民的發言都會得到同等的善待；在這裏，不同的價值、思想、信仰、政見……既相互競爭又和平共處；在這裏，多數的意見和少數的儀意見都會得到平等的保障，特別是那些不同於當權者的政見將得到充分的尊重和保護；在這裏，所有的政見都將攤在陽光下接受民的選擇，每個國民都能毫無恐懼地發表政見，決不會因發表不同政見而遭受政治迫害；我期待，我將是中國綿綿不絕的文字獄的最後一個受害者，從此之後不再有人因言獲罪。
表達自由，人權之基，人性之本，真理之母。封殺言論自由，踐踏人權，窒息人性，壓抑真理。
為餞行憲法賦予的言論自由之權利，當盡到一個中國公民的社會責任，我的所作所為無罪，即便為此被指控，也無怨言。
謝謝各位！
劉曉波（2009年12月23日）
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Oldest Chinese Temple in America (Mendocino 1854)
This is something I have learnt: "Anything is Possible".Last week I spent a magical week at a tiny coastal town in Northern California called Mendocino (pop. 1300).
I was there for the Core Value Mastermind retreat with Linda Chandler, an annual class for her mentorees from all over the world to learn, appreciate and reconnect with ourselves and with one another. In many ways it was an intensely enriching and meaningful experience.
Mendocino is a quintessential rural American town, sitting atop the craggy cliffs, inlets, rocks and the pounding waves on an achingly beautiful stretch of the Pacific Coast. Above, on the hills behind it, enormous Redwood trees stand majestically some of them as much as 2400 years old, amidst gentle rivers that gleam with jade-green water. The sun rises from behind the hills, so each day break I gasp at the views of the coast covered in golden spray from the pounding surfs while the hills are wrapped in golden ribbons of mist. The sights, sounds and the spiritual energies of its surrounding nature are beautiful beyond words. The towns are occupied by artists, artisans and all kinds of refugees from urban / material life. Almost everyone in this part of the world is white. Quite the last thing I would expect to find is a Chinese temple.
So imagine my delight when Low, a course mate from Singapore now living and working in Guangzhou, showed me a temple right in the middle of Mendocino. Moreover, it is in good repair, in use and the altar fittings and decorations are quite new. The temple was dedicated to Kuan Ti and a picture of him adorned the altar. I felt a good connection with it, not only because it was a nice surprise, but because for days that week I have been reflecting on the very same value that Kuan Ti (or Kuan Yu) symbolises: integrity, friendship and courage as they apply to my own life.
It was not open, though, both times when I visited last week, because the key is kept with a few town's people and the one Low know of was not in. According to the website (yes, it has one) the temple has been maintained by 4 generations of the "Hee" family.
A plaque outside the temple indicate that the temple was built in 1854 and is now in California's list of historical places. That means it was built only 5 years after the Gold Rush started in California and 2 years after Mendocino was settled. According to some, it is the oldest surviving Chinese temple in America.
Wow! all that right in this tiny little town of Mendocino. Life is full of wonderful discoveries.
[photo from online. Will post more when I receive them]Friday, January 8, 2010
HK New Year Day Protest - A Father's explanation
"Why are there so many peoples walking on the street?", my son asked me. Before I could figure out how to explain in a way a four years old could understand. He shot me several more questions - " why are they carrying flag? ", "what are they singing", "why are there so many police?"
This was on the New Year Day along the Queen's Road. The Pan-Democratic camp organized the New Year Protest March which has in recent years become almost an annual custom.
The protesters had a myriad of petitions but two stood out prominently - universal franchise for 2012 and release of Liu Xiaobo.
The Pan-Dem had been working to pressure on an earlier date for universal franchise as well as the abolishment of functional constituencies which are a depository of various professional and business interest. Actually, several Pan-Dem legislators are planning to resign to force an island-wide reelection which they hope is a surrogate of a referendum on calling for earlier universal franschise.
Calling for the release of Liu is perhaps a last minute inclusion as Liu was sentence a week earlier on X-mas for 11 years. Several brave hearts put up a banner calling for the end of one party dictatorial rule.
HK is perhaps the only place under the Chinese sovereignty in which freedom of expression is not restrained.
The dissidents in HK need not worry being waken up middle of the night and taken to icy-cold lock up for interrogation. In a certain country, witness invited by the authority to give evidence could find himself death plunging from multiple storey building the next morning. In a slightly more enlightened country, the dissidents would have to watch their mouth lest they are sued for defamation into oblivion.
Nothing of these happen in HK.
13 years had lapsed since the handover. The CCP's pledge of preseving the one country two systems in HK for 50 years has only 37 years to go. Will HK be better or worse, only time can tell. But there were these retirees, parents with young children, students and ordinary peoples who were trying to make the difference.
Standing on the pavement, bending down to HR's eye level, I told him that these peoples were expressing themselves by walking, by singing, by shouting slogan, by hitting the drum, by hoisting banners and flags, trying to make China better and Hong Kong happier.
He seemed understood.....or it was just what I want to believe.
This was on the New Year Day along the Queen's Road. The Pan-Democratic camp organized the New Year Protest March which has in recent years become almost an annual custom.
The protesters had a myriad of petitions but two stood out prominently - universal franchise for 2012 and release of Liu Xiaobo.
The Pan-Dem had been working to pressure on an earlier date for universal franchise as well as the abolishment of functional constituencies which are a depository of various professional and business interest. Actually, several Pan-Dem legislators are planning to resign to force an island-wide reelection which they hope is a surrogate of a referendum on calling for earlier universal franschise.
Calling for the release of Liu is perhaps a last minute inclusion as Liu was sentence a week earlier on X-mas for 11 years. Several brave hearts put up a banner calling for the end of one party dictatorial rule.
HK is perhaps the only place under the Chinese sovereignty in which freedom of expression is not restrained.
The dissidents in HK need not worry being waken up middle of the night and taken to icy-cold lock up for interrogation. In a certain country, witness invited by the authority to give evidence could find himself death plunging from multiple storey building the next morning. In a slightly more enlightened country, the dissidents would have to watch their mouth lest they are sued for defamation into oblivion.
Nothing of these happen in HK.
13 years had lapsed since the handover. The CCP's pledge of preseving the one country two systems in HK for 50 years has only 37 years to go. Will HK be better or worse, only time can tell. But there were these retirees, parents with young children, students and ordinary peoples who were trying to make the difference.
Standing on the pavement, bending down to HR's eye level, I told him that these peoples were expressing themselves by walking, by singing, by shouting slogan, by hitting the drum, by hoisting banners and flags, trying to make China better and Hong Kong happier.
He seemed understood.....or it was just what I want to believe.
Monday, December 28, 2009
10 Years of Personal Introspection on China's Human Right
On the Milennium eve, at the Tiananmen Square, as soon as several middle aged peoples were unfurling the Falungong banners, several plain cloth polices, pounced on them and pressed them down to the ground.
Many unsuspected revellers crowded the spot and raised the cameras to capture this unexpected incident. Equally unexpected was how fast the police, mainly in uniform now, came to the scene and forcefully wrested off the cameras, one of which belonged to my friend and the crowd were not even asked to disperse as the police acted so fast to bundle off the Falungong protesters into one of the police van, always seen patrolling at the Square.
All happened so fast probably within 2 minutes.
The police who had wrested off the cameras did not seem intend to return the cameras until I intervened to say that we were foreigners. Upon which, the film roll was removed (this was pre-digital camera era) and the camare was returned to my friend. We quickly walked off not to mess with the police.
I don't recall reading the fate of the arrested protesters in the newspapers or online (the internet connection then was still very eratic). Most probably, it was never reported anywhere until this post 10 years later.
I don't support Falungong at that time and not even now. I am no big fan and always sceptical of religious celebrity like Li Hongzhi. I was careless how they were treated.
I wrote this because I thought I have learned that there was something very precious that I have hitherto ignored and deliberately defended at time in that period of 10 years. The crux was not whether one supports Falungong or not; the crux was how CCP dealt with it.
Fast track to Dec 25th, 2009, Liu Xiaobo, the initiator of Charter 08 was seemingly subjected to due process after having been detained for 6 months and was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for subversion.
This blog voiced reservation on certain aspects of the Charter yet reproduced it in its entirety believing then and believing still the freedom of speech is healthy for China. Without the benefit of reading the judment and knowing the evidence alluded on the charges, my instint is that the sentence are disproportionate to the alleged crime. Liu didn't advocate revolution by force to overthrow the CCP regime. Dr. Sun Yat Sen did. Mao Zedong did. Liu was criticising at the very core the one party rule by the CCP and that is not unjustified by the facts and reasons.
Many unsuspected revellers crowded the spot and raised the cameras to capture this unexpected incident. Equally unexpected was how fast the police, mainly in uniform now, came to the scene and forcefully wrested off the cameras, one of which belonged to my friend and the crowd were not even asked to disperse as the police acted so fast to bundle off the Falungong protesters into one of the police van, always seen patrolling at the Square.
All happened so fast probably within 2 minutes.
The police who had wrested off the cameras did not seem intend to return the cameras until I intervened to say that we were foreigners. Upon which, the film roll was removed (this was pre-digital camera era) and the camare was returned to my friend. We quickly walked off not to mess with the police.
I don't recall reading the fate of the arrested protesters in the newspapers or online (the internet connection then was still very eratic). Most probably, it was never reported anywhere until this post 10 years later.
I don't support Falungong at that time and not even now. I am no big fan and always sceptical of religious celebrity like Li Hongzhi. I was careless how they were treated.
I wrote this because I thought I have learned that there was something very precious that I have hitherto ignored and deliberately defended at time in that period of 10 years. The crux was not whether one supports Falungong or not; the crux was how CCP dealt with it.
Fast track to Dec 25th, 2009, Liu Xiaobo, the initiator of Charter 08 was seemingly subjected to due process after having been detained for 6 months and was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment for subversion.
This blog voiced reservation on certain aspects of the Charter yet reproduced it in its entirety believing then and believing still the freedom of speech is healthy for China. Without the benefit of reading the judment and knowing the evidence alluded on the charges, my instint is that the sentence are disproportionate to the alleged crime. Liu didn't advocate revolution by force to overthrow the CCP regime. Dr. Sun Yat Sen did. Mao Zedong did. Liu was criticising at the very core the one party rule by the CCP and that is not unjustified by the facts and reasons.
China has progressed incredibly in the last 10 years almost at every fronts earning almost a place in a bi-polar world power structure. However when it comes to dealing with political dissent, CCP remains the same unrepentant authoritarian.
A lot of Chinese are proud with China under the CCP leadership (at least the last 30 years) and myself included. With that pride, we tend to hold CCP to a lesser standard calling it Chinese characteristics. Yet that pride must not water down our concern for violation and transgression of basic human rights in China in the name of national security which is often a by-word for entrenching one party rule.
The best way to perpetuate the CCP rule is to strengthen it's intra-party democracy offering ever better and ever cleaner talents for the country and usher in a free society securing the real mandate of the peoples through democratic process.
Large number of urban Chinese who have become more affluent will surely demand more of CCP in the next decade. It is better start looking at political reform now without which China will always be regarded as having more brute than grace anywhere and anytime.
My wish for the next decade is to write a note at the end of it of something sweeter and more inspiring rather than sour and mere hopeful.
Happy 2010!
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
China gives history lesson on warming
This is an interesting article that offer a different perspective to the impact of global warming to China's fortune.
SCMP.com - China gives history lesson on warming: "SCMP.com - China gives history lesson on warming"
China gives history lesson on warming
While world weighs how to fight climate change, Chinese recall past glories when mercury rose
Stephen Chen Dec 08, 2009
If 3,600 years of history is anything to go by, Chinese civilisation has flourished when temperatures have been at their warmest and declined when the climate cooled.It is a relationship that could hold lessons for today, says Professor Xie Zhenghui, deputy director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences."
Ask the scientists and some will warn the growing season for farmers will become shorter, the weather more extreme and sea levels higher. Moreover, they say China, as the biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases that cause warming, risks being blamed by other countries for disasters around the world. Others see potential benefits. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would accelerate the growth of crops, higher temperatures would open up for cultivation land in northern areas such as Inner Mongolia that are too cold to grow crops today, warmer air over the oceans would bring more rain to China's drought-plagued interior and the frequency of extreme weather would eventually decrease once temperatures stabilised, they say.
"Chinese historical records show that the temperature would stabilise after a sharp climb. Mother Earth has a lot of mechanisms to adjust herself to a new equilibrium," Xie said. "In my opinion, the sooner the temperature increases the better. The longer it takes, the more extreme weather we will have to face. Extreme weather is the hallmark of transitional periods. Once we enter the warm and stable periods like those in the Han and Tang dynasties, we will be fine."
History was a word on the lips of many in the Danish capital as the biggest and most important UN climate change conference yet opened, with organisers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the last, best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming.The conference, the climax of two years of contentious negotiations, convened in upbeat mode, but major issues holding up a binding agreement have still to be resolved.
Conference president Connie Hedegaard, a former climate minister of host Denmark, said: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one - if we ever do."
As the division of opinion among Chinese experts suggests, predicting the future may be beyond contemporary climate science. But the past may indeed hold lessons. For thousands of years, Chinese scholars have kept meticulous meteorological records; such information was crucial for the government to plan and guide agricultural production. Everything was archived, from the date each year that ice began forming at the mouth of the Yellow River to the flowering and seeding patterns of certain plants. The data allows scientists today to chart a reliable pattern of climate change in China over three and a half millennia.
From the prosperity of the Shang dynasty 3,600 years ago to the ruin of the Bronze Age, the cultural peak of the Tang dynasty in the seventh to 10th centuries and the subsequent ravages wrought by horsemen from the north, Chinese civilisation has reached its highest points when temperatures have been warmest and its lowest points when they have cooled.
Wang Zijin, an environmental historian at Beijing Normal University, said the relationship between temperature and success was no coincidence. When the weather cooled, agricultural output fell, wealth contracted, discontent rose and China became more vulnerable to invasion from the north."In the long term, warming may not be a curse but a blessing [to China]," he said. "If the temperature continues to rise, we may not see the return of elephants but it will be very possible that rice and bamboo can again grow along the Yellow River. Xinjiang, Gansu and Inner Mongolia will become much more habitable than today."
This relationship between temperature and dynastic potency was first drawn by meteorologist Zhu Kezhen in a 1972 paper. Zhu plotted on a graph temperatures in the Yellow River region from 1500BC to 1950. Based on archaeological artefacts and historical documents, the graph charted the rises and falls in average temperature.It showed that there were three extended periods of warm temperatures.
The first coincided with the Shang dynasty (1600BC-1046BC), when the annual average temperature reached as high as 11.3 degrees Celsius. This period saw the emergence of the first comprehensive set of Chinese characters, massive construction of palaces and cities, large-scale farming and the production of systematic astronomical records and sophisticated bronze wares.
The second extended period of warm temperatures lasted more than 700 years, from the Eastern Zhou dynasty (770BC-256BC) to the Western Han dynasty (206BC-9AD), when average temperatures peaked at 10.7 degrees Celsius. In the Eastern Zhou, China's territory expanded from the Yellow River to Guangdong, Yunnan and Sichuan. There was an enormous bamboo forest along the Yellow River, while the Yangtze River cut through lush rainforest. At this time slavery was abandoned, iron tools became popular in farming and Confucius and other scholars established the philosophies that still shape Chinese society. By the time temperatures started to dip, China had built the Great Wall and a national road network and conquered Xinjiang, Vietnam, Taiwan and Korea.
A third warm period, when average temperatures peaked at 10.3 degrees, coincided with the Tang dynasty, widely seen as the peak of Chinese civilisation. Some historians estimate China accounted for 60 per cent of global gross domestic product during this era. From textiles, ceramics, mining and shipbuilding to paper making, China led the world. And there were more poets in the Tang than at any time in history. In between these great dynasties, average temperatures plunged and chaos reigned. The Chinese empire retreated, and was even driven into the sea by the invading Mongols who established the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). The longest period of relative cold lasted from the end of the Tang to the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911.
Now temperatures are on the rise again, matched by scorching economic growth. According to the Yellow River Conservancy Commission, the average annual temperature was 10.3 Celsius from 2001 to 2007 - the same as in the Tang dynasty.Zhu's research was based on records which make for interesting comparisons with the present day. Rice could be harvested twice a year to the north of the Yellow River in the Eastern Zhou dynasty, whereas the region is generally dry now. Plum trees were common along the Yellow River in the Tang dynasty, but since then have only grown further south. Xu Ming, chief author of a study by global environmental group WWF on the impact of climate change in the Yangtze River region, said China should focus less on prevention and more on mitigation - water redistribution facilities, tree planting and developing new crops. "China should do something within its limited capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but no matter what we do, global warming is inevitable," said Xu, a professor at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. A rise in sea levels would pose a threat to coastal cities, which could end up below sea level and needing protection by dykes, he said. "Adaptation requires a tremendous amount of money, resources and advanced technology. China is far from ready."
SCMP.com - China gives history lesson on warming: "SCMP.com - China gives history lesson on warming"
China gives history lesson on warming
While world weighs how to fight climate change, Chinese recall past glories when mercury rose
Stephen Chen Dec 08, 2009
If 3,600 years of history is anything to go by, Chinese civilisation has flourished when temperatures have been at their warmest and declined when the climate cooled.It is a relationship that could hold lessons for today, says Professor Xie Zhenghui, deputy director of the Chinese Academy of Sciences' International Centre for Climate and Environmental Sciences."
Ask the scientists and some will warn the growing season for farmers will become shorter, the weather more extreme and sea levels higher. Moreover, they say China, as the biggest emitter of the greenhouse gases that cause warming, risks being blamed by other countries for disasters around the world. Others see potential benefits. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would accelerate the growth of crops, higher temperatures would open up for cultivation land in northern areas such as Inner Mongolia that are too cold to grow crops today, warmer air over the oceans would bring more rain to China's drought-plagued interior and the frequency of extreme weather would eventually decrease once temperatures stabilised, they say.
"Chinese historical records show that the temperature would stabilise after a sharp climb. Mother Earth has a lot of mechanisms to adjust herself to a new equilibrium," Xie said. "In my opinion, the sooner the temperature increases the better. The longer it takes, the more extreme weather we will have to face. Extreme weather is the hallmark of transitional periods. Once we enter the warm and stable periods like those in the Han and Tang dynasties, we will be fine."
History was a word on the lips of many in the Danish capital as the biggest and most important UN climate change conference yet opened, with organisers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the last, best chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming.The conference, the climax of two years of contentious negotiations, convened in upbeat mode, but major issues holding up a binding agreement have still to be resolved.
Conference president Connie Hedegaard, a former climate minister of host Denmark, said: "This is our chance. If we miss it, it could take years before we got a new and better one - if we ever do."
As the division of opinion among Chinese experts suggests, predicting the future may be beyond contemporary climate science. But the past may indeed hold lessons. For thousands of years, Chinese scholars have kept meticulous meteorological records; such information was crucial for the government to plan and guide agricultural production. Everything was archived, from the date each year that ice began forming at the mouth of the Yellow River to the flowering and seeding patterns of certain plants. The data allows scientists today to chart a reliable pattern of climate change in China over three and a half millennia.
From the prosperity of the Shang dynasty 3,600 years ago to the ruin of the Bronze Age, the cultural peak of the Tang dynasty in the seventh to 10th centuries and the subsequent ravages wrought by horsemen from the north, Chinese civilisation has reached its highest points when temperatures have been warmest and its lowest points when they have cooled.
Wang Zijin, an environmental historian at Beijing Normal University, said the relationship between temperature and success was no coincidence. When the weather cooled, agricultural output fell, wealth contracted, discontent rose and China became more vulnerable to invasion from the north."In the long term, warming may not be a curse but a blessing [to China]," he said. "If the temperature continues to rise, we may not see the return of elephants but it will be very possible that rice and bamboo can again grow along the Yellow River. Xinjiang, Gansu and Inner Mongolia will become much more habitable than today."
This relationship between temperature and dynastic potency was first drawn by meteorologist Zhu Kezhen in a 1972 paper. Zhu plotted on a graph temperatures in the Yellow River region from 1500BC to 1950. Based on archaeological artefacts and historical documents, the graph charted the rises and falls in average temperature.It showed that there were three extended periods of warm temperatures.
The first coincided with the Shang dynasty (1600BC-1046BC), when the annual average temperature reached as high as 11.3 degrees Celsius. This period saw the emergence of the first comprehensive set of Chinese characters, massive construction of palaces and cities, large-scale farming and the production of systematic astronomical records and sophisticated bronze wares.
The second extended period of warm temperatures lasted more than 700 years, from the Eastern Zhou dynasty (770BC-256BC) to the Western Han dynasty (206BC-9AD), when average temperatures peaked at 10.7 degrees Celsius. In the Eastern Zhou, China's territory expanded from the Yellow River to Guangdong, Yunnan and Sichuan. There was an enormous bamboo forest along the Yellow River, while the Yangtze River cut through lush rainforest. At this time slavery was abandoned, iron tools became popular in farming and Confucius and other scholars established the philosophies that still shape Chinese society. By the time temperatures started to dip, China had built the Great Wall and a national road network and conquered Xinjiang, Vietnam, Taiwan and Korea.
A third warm period, when average temperatures peaked at 10.3 degrees, coincided with the Tang dynasty, widely seen as the peak of Chinese civilisation. Some historians estimate China accounted for 60 per cent of global gross domestic product during this era. From textiles, ceramics, mining and shipbuilding to paper making, China led the world. And there were more poets in the Tang than at any time in history. In between these great dynasties, average temperatures plunged and chaos reigned. The Chinese empire retreated, and was even driven into the sea by the invading Mongols who established the Yuan dynasty (1271-1368). The longest period of relative cold lasted from the end of the Tang to the fall of the Qing dynasty in 1911.
Now temperatures are on the rise again, matched by scorching economic growth. According to the Yellow River Conservancy Commission, the average annual temperature was 10.3 Celsius from 2001 to 2007 - the same as in the Tang dynasty.Zhu's research was based on records which make for interesting comparisons with the present day. Rice could be harvested twice a year to the north of the Yellow River in the Eastern Zhou dynasty, whereas the region is generally dry now. Plum trees were common along the Yellow River in the Tang dynasty, but since then have only grown further south. Xu Ming, chief author of a study by global environmental group WWF on the impact of climate change in the Yangtze River region, said China should focus less on prevention and more on mitigation - water redistribution facilities, tree planting and developing new crops. "China should do something within its limited capacity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but no matter what we do, global warming is inevitable," said Xu, a professor at the Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research under the Chinese Academy of Sciences. A rise in sea levels would pose a threat to coastal cities, which could end up below sea level and needing protection by dykes, he said. "Adaptation requires a tremendous amount of money, resources and advanced technology. China is far from ready."
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Can China be a true global leader?
This morning I read a letter in the FT from a Chinese woman living in Hong Kong that says, along the lines, that China is not interested in being a global leader, not interested in any action that is driven by "values" and is instead focused only on an "exchange of needs" driven by national interest. And so, she continued, with Europe and Japan having problems of their own, America will be without any real allies and should therefore retreat from global leadership.
I am uncomfortable with her conclusion. Firstly, I think leadership abhors a vacuum - if America stays home there will be some power (even if its not China) will be more than willing to fill it. Secondly, I dare say that in the scope of history America has (largely) been benign power. From a historical perspective of the dominant empires through the ages, it says something that people can openly complain about America - or even work to undermine America - and not worry about their families being enslaved, imprisoned or slaughtered.
But her view on China actually caused me even more discomfort, mainly because I worry it has some semblence of reality.
My observation is that China has a classic international policy i.e. there are no allies/enemies, only national interest; heavily leavened with a strong emphasis on national sovereignty (as a proxy for absolute internal control by the State/Party), the effects of which makes China popular to smaller countries or weaker governments because China treats all sovereign states as equals and without questioning anyone's political legitimacy so long as they are in power. China stands up for others rarely and only when it serves as a proxy for its own issues such as national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.
China is used to being an authoritarian empire but is less adept at being a team player. Without question China is a real player in many arenas of the world - especially in economics and trade - but it picks and chooses only those where it stands to benefit. It invests reluctantly in the responsibilities to the 'global system' or in global institutions makes it possible. However its dealings, while shrewed and often effective, often reflects purely a power relationship. Where it really matters, China does not seek to build coalitions or institutions rather it would rely on its own bargaining position and power.
In many ways, this is a reflection of reality that there are limits to China's resources and ability to contribute. Premier Wen's statements that China 'is a still a developing country and we should be sober minded". But I suspect even when it is more powerful, it will still be more comfortable dealing with power relationships than being a team player, either in concert with other global powers or within global frameworks or institutions especially one based on rules and law.
I suspect China is fine with global systems so long as it is winning and hear praises but it will have a hard time accepting criticism of "peers" or be subject to limitations under a rules based system. China will say its a question of sovereignty but at its heart China has not learnt to share power or responsibilities. For China, one is either a loyal supplicant/vassel state or a rival power to be deftly managed and defeated. I am not sure Chinese statecraft has a tradition of dealing with a multi-polar world with "peer" states; much less be willing to give up benefits in order to protect and respect the rights of the weaker party purely on the ground of righteousness (otherwise known as "values").
It took the major powers in Europe many centuries of warfare to learn co-existance and cooperation, even though in Europe no power was ever dominant since the Roman Empire hence has a deeper tradition in dealing with a multi-polar world of diplomacy and compromise.
I am concerned that the rise of China, unless accompanied by a willingness to strengthen the global system, will weaken global institutions and international governance - which was after all founded on Western ideals of equality, fairplay, democracy, respect for rules including acceptance of majority decisions after open debate.
It would be tragic if the arrivial of the world's oldest continuous civilization on the world stage will be to set the clock back on human progress and to a less enlightened age.
I am uncomfortable with her conclusion. Firstly, I think leadership abhors a vacuum - if America stays home there will be some power (even if its not China) will be more than willing to fill it. Secondly, I dare say that in the scope of history America has (largely) been benign power. From a historical perspective of the dominant empires through the ages, it says something that people can openly complain about America - or even work to undermine America - and not worry about their families being enslaved, imprisoned or slaughtered.
But her view on China actually caused me even more discomfort, mainly because I worry it has some semblence of reality.
My observation is that China has a classic international policy i.e. there are no allies/enemies, only national interest; heavily leavened with a strong emphasis on national sovereignty (as a proxy for absolute internal control by the State/Party), the effects of which makes China popular to smaller countries or weaker governments because China treats all sovereign states as equals and without questioning anyone's political legitimacy so long as they are in power. China stands up for others rarely and only when it serves as a proxy for its own issues such as national sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs.
China is used to being an authoritarian empire but is less adept at being a team player. Without question China is a real player in many arenas of the world - especially in economics and trade - but it picks and chooses only those where it stands to benefit. It invests reluctantly in the responsibilities to the 'global system' or in global institutions makes it possible. However its dealings, while shrewed and often effective, often reflects purely a power relationship. Where it really matters, China does not seek to build coalitions or institutions rather it would rely on its own bargaining position and power.
In many ways, this is a reflection of reality that there are limits to China's resources and ability to contribute. Premier Wen's statements that China 'is a still a developing country and we should be sober minded". But I suspect even when it is more powerful, it will still be more comfortable dealing with power relationships than being a team player, either in concert with other global powers or within global frameworks or institutions especially one based on rules and law.
I suspect China is fine with global systems so long as it is winning and hear praises but it will have a hard time accepting criticism of "peers" or be subject to limitations under a rules based system. China will say its a question of sovereignty but at its heart China has not learnt to share power or responsibilities. For China, one is either a loyal supplicant/vassel state or a rival power to be deftly managed and defeated. I am not sure Chinese statecraft has a tradition of dealing with a multi-polar world with "peer" states; much less be willing to give up benefits in order to protect and respect the rights of the weaker party purely on the ground of righteousness (otherwise known as "values").
It took the major powers in Europe many centuries of warfare to learn co-existance and cooperation, even though in Europe no power was ever dominant since the Roman Empire hence has a deeper tradition in dealing with a multi-polar world of diplomacy and compromise.
I am concerned that the rise of China, unless accompanied by a willingness to strengthen the global system, will weaken global institutions and international governance - which was after all founded on Western ideals of equality, fairplay, democracy, respect for rules including acceptance of majority decisions after open debate.
It would be tragic if the arrivial of the world's oldest continuous civilization on the world stage will be to set the clock back on human progress and to a less enlightened age.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
What China Reveres Today? Part II
Most mainland Chinese simply do not have access to alternative views. I also don't agree that people who are not used to critical views are able to discern propaganda when they see it especially one that is disseminated through soft culture means such as film.
Talking about the literature in china, there are not too many that accentuate modern values. Bao Ching Tian is a story of a justice and not a justice system. Shi Ji is critical but successive generations of historian failed to live up to it. This is evident with the successive 24/25 official chronicle of dynastic history.
Analect is not taught in school any longer. Further, Analect promotes benovalent governance (ren) and not democracy; Analect teaches obligation (忠孝) and not rights and not interest; Analect focuses on code of conduct (li) and not system.
The various wu xia novels amplifies wu and xia behaviours which are today conducts mainly outside the legal bound. The concept of yi promoted in these novels could be easily manipulated to downplay the neccessity to observe law and regulation.
The worst is that there are too many of writers in the mainland who were doctrinated by an education that is neither inclusive nor objective. Even if they are not doctrinated they are influenced subconsciously from the communist perspective of things.
The few critical writers and reporter are cowed and few got their view aired through media. For instance, the last two books that I spoke about are both banned in China. Even with the almost omnipresent internet is censored in mainland. This is just not good. But this is the status quo!
With that it leaves the majority of 1.3 billion Chinese subservient without critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle with a government sets upon restraining freedom of expression which in turn produces a bunch of uncritical and passive subjects and not a group of citizen seeking to actively advancing rights and interest.
Be fair, even the few of us who are fortunate enough to be informed simply have no guts to compromise our comfort our liberty to fight against a high-handed government intend to perpetuate in power. That's the irony!
Talking about the literature in china, there are not too many that accentuate modern values. Bao Ching Tian is a story of a justice and not a justice system. Shi Ji is critical but successive generations of historian failed to live up to it. This is evident with the successive 24/25 official chronicle of dynastic history.
Analect is not taught in school any longer. Further, Analect promotes benovalent governance (ren) and not democracy; Analect teaches obligation (忠孝) and not rights and not interest; Analect focuses on code of conduct (li) and not system.
The various wu xia novels amplifies wu and xia behaviours which are today conducts mainly outside the legal bound. The concept of yi promoted in these novels could be easily manipulated to downplay the neccessity to observe law and regulation.
The worst is that there are too many of writers in the mainland who were doctrinated by an education that is neither inclusive nor objective. Even if they are not doctrinated they are influenced subconsciously from the communist perspective of things.
The few critical writers and reporter are cowed and few got their view aired through media. For instance, the last two books that I spoke about are both banned in China. Even with the almost omnipresent internet is censored in mainland. This is just not good. But this is the status quo!
With that it leaves the majority of 1.3 billion Chinese subservient without critical thinking. This is a vicious cycle with a government sets upon restraining freedom of expression which in turn produces a bunch of uncritical and passive subjects and not a group of citizen seeking to actively advancing rights and interest.
Be fair, even the few of us who are fortunate enough to be informed simply have no guts to compromise our comfort our liberty to fight against a high-handed government intend to perpetuate in power. That's the irony!
What China Reveres Today
An interesting way of looking into the question you posed is to look at the films produced in the mainland which in turn reflect what the censor is endorsing and what is not. The censor is obviously the powerful CCP propaganda commission.
At one time around the turn of the milenium, the various Qing emperors were chronicled in positive light against what we were once taught - racist, brutal and etc.
Kangxi was portrayed to have unified the modern China against the various rebelions never mind that some were led by the Han like the Zheng in Taiwan and Wu in Yuanan.
In another series, Yongzheng was credited to have clean up the corrupted bureacracy never mind that he launched brutal purge on scholars critical of his regime; the same goes to Qianlong who was credited to consolidate the empire never mind that his regime marked the decline of the chinese civilization.
These Qing's historical drama was followed by various series on Wudi, Taizhong (Li Shiming), Taizu (Zhu yuanchang)and others.
The message through these emperor-centric series is clearly one for unified China and that the central government is more partial to the peoples againist the corrupted local government or the renegade warlord. (this justify the need for a strong central government). Today, wee see lot of aggrieved Chinese petitioned their grievance through adminisgtrative means in Beijing rather than resorting it via the legal system. This of course point to the disfunctional legal system in which the judges are not regarded as independent. This is another story.
I recall a particular series (Towards the Republic, literal translation) that gave a revionist view on the turn of events during the 19th century. This series was the first attempt made to reproach the KMT linking up the two republic to SYS.
This happened in early 2000s. From then on until the most recent film "The Founding of the Republic", the theme remains the same. This film is a romanticized version of history where Mao was invitably portrayed in the most heroic and magnificent manner and Chiang was unusually for a mainland film portrayed as one who was a victim rather than a leader of corruption and incompetency by his own administration.
During the same time, critical literature or investigative report are constantly being scrutinized and the reporter.writer at time were harassed if not sacked from position. Activists or human right lawyers were beaten up and at time jailed for leaking secret or some made-up charges.
No question, the reverence today is still tipped in favor of the official preference - unification and central government centered at CCP rule.
There is still not loosening of censor over literatures, film production critical to the CCP rule. I only hope to see one film chronicling the misdeed of Mao or the tragedy of Cultural Revolution or the disaster of Great Leap Forward, will I believe that China is heading to the right direction.
The fact remains that the continuous adoration to Mao as seen in the recent national parade does not augur well for a free and democratic China. What will be a historical moment of China transformation is the the moment when Mao's portrait is taken off the Tiananmen and the RMB, that's the day signifiying real and meaningful reform.
To conclude, CCP is more of Qin than Zhou and more Han-Tang than Song. Having said this, China must depart from even Zhou and Song and align herself more with the universal values. The claim of Chinese characteristic is just an excuse to disassociate with democracy, human right and constitutionalism.
I would like to think that copying the USA,a continental system, to China which is pretty much a continent itself, will do more good than the present form of unitary structure. I will leave this discussion to another day.
At one time around the turn of the milenium, the various Qing emperors were chronicled in positive light against what we were once taught - racist, brutal and etc.
Kangxi was portrayed to have unified the modern China against the various rebelions never mind that some were led by the Han like the Zheng in Taiwan and Wu in Yuanan.
In another series, Yongzheng was credited to have clean up the corrupted bureacracy never mind that he launched brutal purge on scholars critical of his regime; the same goes to Qianlong who was credited to consolidate the empire never mind that his regime marked the decline of the chinese civilization.
These Qing's historical drama was followed by various series on Wudi, Taizhong (Li Shiming), Taizu (Zhu yuanchang)and others.
The message through these emperor-centric series is clearly one for unified China and that the central government is more partial to the peoples againist the corrupted local government or the renegade warlord. (this justify the need for a strong central government). Today, wee see lot of aggrieved Chinese petitioned their grievance through adminisgtrative means in Beijing rather than resorting it via the legal system. This of course point to the disfunctional legal system in which the judges are not regarded as independent. This is another story.
I recall a particular series (Towards the Republic, literal translation) that gave a revionist view on the turn of events during the 19th century. This series was the first attempt made to reproach the KMT linking up the two republic to SYS.
This happened in early 2000s. From then on until the most recent film "The Founding of the Republic", the theme remains the same. This film is a romanticized version of history where Mao was invitably portrayed in the most heroic and magnificent manner and Chiang was unusually for a mainland film portrayed as one who was a victim rather than a leader of corruption and incompetency by his own administration.
During the same time, critical literature or investigative report are constantly being scrutinized and the reporter.writer at time were harassed if not sacked from position. Activists or human right lawyers were beaten up and at time jailed for leaking secret or some made-up charges.
No question, the reverence today is still tipped in favor of the official preference - unification and central government centered at CCP rule.
There is still not loosening of censor over literatures, film production critical to the CCP rule. I only hope to see one film chronicling the misdeed of Mao or the tragedy of Cultural Revolution or the disaster of Great Leap Forward, will I believe that China is heading to the right direction.
The fact remains that the continuous adoration to Mao as seen in the recent national parade does not augur well for a free and democratic China. What will be a historical moment of China transformation is the the moment when Mao's portrait is taken off the Tiananmen and the RMB, that's the day signifiying real and meaningful reform.
To conclude, CCP is more of Qin than Zhou and more Han-Tang than Song. Having said this, China must depart from even Zhou and Song and align herself more with the universal values. The claim of Chinese characteristic is just an excuse to disassociate with democracy, human right and constitutionalism.
I would like to think that copying the USA,a continental system, to China which is pretty much a continent itself, will do more good than the present form of unitary structure. I will leave this discussion to another day.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Revisiting Chinese History - Xiao Jiansheng
Chinese History - A Revisit, a banned book in mainland China, critically reviews the Chinese History from her mythical foundation from Pangu to the present day of the CCP's rule.
The writer, Xiao Jianzheng gave an elaborate and at time repetitive account as to why human right, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law failed to develop in China even though there were several opportunities in the the 4 millennia of history.
Xiao gave generous credit to the Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn Period for allowing an atmosphere of relative freedom to the peoples then. I was surprise to learn that there were then many practices that requires the ruler to defer to the "Guo Ren" (arguably the closest concept is citizen as opposed to the general subject who have no political rights).
He was highly critical of Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, the Yuan Mongol, the Ming's Zhu Yuanzhang and the Machu Qing for imposing a dictatorial, illiberal and oppressive regime.
He complaint that the Legal School of Thought for the largest part of Chinese history was the various dynasty ruling philosophy with the Confucianism co-opted to legitimize the heavenly mandate. The imposition of brutal penalty by killing indiscriminately the offender's family members simply by association or massacring the defeated soldiers or civilians after conquest was a constant feature of the Chinese history.
The respect for life and the mercy for the weak are absent in larger part of the Chinese history and are not regarded as virtue but seen as a weakness. There maybe literature recorded the suffering and poverty of the peoples but none were critical to scrutinize the rulers. None offered a rival ideology or political doctrine to challenge the status quo. All dynasty were established by and large by the concept of replacing the heavenly mandate except that of the racist Yuan Mongol.
Surprising he gave raft review of the Song even though the Song was regarded generally as the weakest of all dynasty in the Chinese history. Xiao's justification vest in the Song's founding philosophy in governing the country with civility and humanity and that in turn allows mercantilism and high culture to flourish as witnessed by the quantity of finished goods and literature, poem and painting unearthed.
With the end of Song at the end of the genocidal Yuan Mongol, it also ended the Chinese civilization which once honored self integrity, respect life, relative equality for the woman, merciful of the aged, orphan, widows and the sick, promote mercantilism and literature.
What became the subsequent Chinese civilization are best exemplified by the values promoted by the classical novels of the Three Kingdoms and the Water Margin. The violence committed by the various heroes against many innocent was not condemned. The practice of camaraderie akin to gansterism is worshiped and not despised. The conduct out of legal bound is not criticized but regarded as loyalty to the clans and the family. These negative values together with the authoritarianism inherited from the earlier authoritarian dynasty became the mainstream vices into the present generation.
Xiao also analyzed the structure of power of the government. The earlier dynasty divided the power between that of the ruler and the prime minister. However the Ming destroyed the prime ministerial office with the power soley vested in the ruler which was then usurped by the eunuch or empress without check and balance. The Qing continued with the practice without the prime minister.
Coming close to the modern era, Xiao was also critical of the conduct of Dr. Sun Yat Sen in the early years of the Republic for failing to deliver a constitutional China. Admittedly many of the Sun's shortcomings while known but is not widely published. Sun's dictatorial traits in managing the KMT came to be scrutinized and his political decision away from a federated China in early 1920s was heavily criticized.
Most interestingly, the May Fourth Movement was severely criticized. The movement whilst promote science and democracy was premised upon a sense of lawlessness and mass popularity.
Eventually the movement was stolen by the Communism to legitimate violence revolution as opposed to a constitutional change of government.
Toward the end of the book, it became very clear that Xiao viewed the failure of China to develop democracy, constitutionalism, human right and the rule of laws to the lack of faith in God unlike the Judeo-Christian civilization in the West.
He favor a multi-polar power structure to keep a healthy check and balance for the peoples welfare. No wonder the single polar ruling structure of CCP China bans the book.
The writer, Xiao Jianzheng gave an elaborate and at time repetitive account as to why human right, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law failed to develop in China even though there were several opportunities in the the 4 millennia of history.
Xiao gave generous credit to the Zhou Dynasty and the Spring and Autumn Period for allowing an atmosphere of relative freedom to the peoples then. I was surprise to learn that there were then many practices that requires the ruler to defer to the "Guo Ren" (arguably the closest concept is citizen as opposed to the general subject who have no political rights).
He was highly critical of Qin Shihuang, Han Wudi, the Yuan Mongol, the Ming's Zhu Yuanzhang and the Machu Qing for imposing a dictatorial, illiberal and oppressive regime.
He complaint that the Legal School of Thought for the largest part of Chinese history was the various dynasty ruling philosophy with the Confucianism co-opted to legitimize the heavenly mandate. The imposition of brutal penalty by killing indiscriminately the offender's family members simply by association or massacring the defeated soldiers or civilians after conquest was a constant feature of the Chinese history.
The respect for life and the mercy for the weak are absent in larger part of the Chinese history and are not regarded as virtue but seen as a weakness. There maybe literature recorded the suffering and poverty of the peoples but none were critical to scrutinize the rulers. None offered a rival ideology or political doctrine to challenge the status quo. All dynasty were established by and large by the concept of replacing the heavenly mandate except that of the racist Yuan Mongol.
Surprising he gave raft review of the Song even though the Song was regarded generally as the weakest of all dynasty in the Chinese history. Xiao's justification vest in the Song's founding philosophy in governing the country with civility and humanity and that in turn allows mercantilism and high culture to flourish as witnessed by the quantity of finished goods and literature, poem and painting unearthed.
With the end of Song at the end of the genocidal Yuan Mongol, it also ended the Chinese civilization which once honored self integrity, respect life, relative equality for the woman, merciful of the aged, orphan, widows and the sick, promote mercantilism and literature.
What became the subsequent Chinese civilization are best exemplified by the values promoted by the classical novels of the Three Kingdoms and the Water Margin. The violence committed by the various heroes against many innocent was not condemned. The practice of camaraderie akin to gansterism is worshiped and not despised. The conduct out of legal bound is not criticized but regarded as loyalty to the clans and the family. These negative values together with the authoritarianism inherited from the earlier authoritarian dynasty became the mainstream vices into the present generation.
Xiao also analyzed the structure of power of the government. The earlier dynasty divided the power between that of the ruler and the prime minister. However the Ming destroyed the prime ministerial office with the power soley vested in the ruler which was then usurped by the eunuch or empress without check and balance. The Qing continued with the practice without the prime minister.
Coming close to the modern era, Xiao was also critical of the conduct of Dr. Sun Yat Sen in the early years of the Republic for failing to deliver a constitutional China. Admittedly many of the Sun's shortcomings while known but is not widely published. Sun's dictatorial traits in managing the KMT came to be scrutinized and his political decision away from a federated China in early 1920s was heavily criticized.
Most interestingly, the May Fourth Movement was severely criticized. The movement whilst promote science and democracy was premised upon a sense of lawlessness and mass popularity.
Eventually the movement was stolen by the Communism to legitimate violence revolution as opposed to a constitutional change of government.
Toward the end of the book, it became very clear that Xiao viewed the failure of China to develop democracy, constitutionalism, human right and the rule of laws to the lack of faith in God unlike the Judeo-Christian civilization in the West.
He favor a multi-polar power structure to keep a healthy check and balance for the peoples welfare. No wonder the single polar ruling structure of CCP China bans the book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)