You don't say ...

The train issue in China is deeply distressing. It is fast becoming a symbol of some of the fundamental problems with the country and the Party today.

China Imposes Blackout on Train Wreck Coverage
After days of growing public fury over last month’s crash and the government’s reaction, Chinese authorities have enacted a virtual news blackout on the disaster.

Beijing imposes media ban on rail crash coverage
Chinese newspapers, which last week defied government censors, were forced to scrap pages of coverage of the Wenzhou rail crash at the last minute on Friday night, after the Communist party’s propaganda organ issued an order restricting crash coverage that was not “positive”.

How can you not give people time to mourn and memorialize those who have been lost? Why would you shut off coverage instead of allowing the public to grieve together? Moreover, shedding light on problems and harnessing public outrage can help force changes in a corruption-riddled rail system. Do you want to solve fundamental problems or not?

This quote struck me as an articulation of one of the basic problems in China, and it's something I've discussed with many friends over the years. Yet so many years later, it's still the same issue:

The host of the television program asked: “If nobody can be safe, do we still want this speed? Can we drink a glass of milk that’s safe? Can we stay in an apartment that will not collapse? China, please slow down. If you’re too fast, you may leave the souls of your people behind.”

It's just so frustrating and tragic. When 76 people in Norway are killed, it is a time for deep mourning and for national reflection. People talk about how this could have come to pass in Norwegian society -- what the implications are, how to respond so that Norway's values are maintained, while also improving security. The government's response will be scrutinized deeply so that such an incident will not happen again.

In China, when 40 people are killed, the media is told to play up positive coverage and make it a "feel-good" event to bolster the Party. Aside from the crassness, where is the introspection? It's not only the Railway Ministry that has to respond, because it wasn't just a technical hiccup. People have to ask themselves, what kind of society, what kind of incentive structure, what kind of system gave rise to the conditions that resulted in this tragedy? Should we accept things on those terms, or what needs to change? But none of these questions will be asked.

The attitude is cavalier: "Just mop up. Hey folks, shows over, get back in line." No time for mourning ... I can't even fathom the idea of pretending that everything is okay, everything is all right. Sanitize history, sanitize news, sanitize life. Blot it all out, because everything has always been all right.

---

Good for the Economic Observer. They're willing to speak what is. From the WSJ:

China’s Economic Observer decided this weekend to publish a hard-hitting special report on the previous week’s high-speed train collision near the city of Wenzhou, defying strict orders from propaganda authorities in Beijing to play down coverage of the accident.


While many other newspapers obediently killed reports and took the train collision off their front pages in response to Friday night’s order, the Economic Observer devoted eight pages to its special report, entitled “No Miracles in Wenzhou,” and promoted it on its front page with a striking illustration showing the logo for the Ministry of Railways superimposed over a black-and-white photo of one of the ruined trains.


Beneath that image was an equally striking commentary on the accident titled “Yiyi, When You’re Older.” The commentary, which takes the government to task for its opaque handling of the accident, it written as a letter to Xiang Weiyi, a 2-year-old girl whose “miraculous” rescue has been widely trumpeted in state media.


Excerpts from that essay, translated by China Real Time:


Yiyi, when you’ve grown up and started to understand this world, how should we explain to you everything that happened on July 23, 2011? That train that would never arrive, it took away 40 lives that loved and were loved, including your parents. When you’re grown, will we and this country we live in be able to honestly tell you about all the love and suffering, anger and doubts around us?


How do we tell you that, even as they’d declared there were no more signs of life in the wreckage and had started cleaning up the site, you were still there struggling in the crushed darkness. Do we tell you that, with the truth still far off in the distance, they buried the engine; that before any conclusions had been reached, the line that had given birth to this tragedy was declared open. They called your survival a miracle, but how do we explain it to you: When respect for life had been trampled, caring forgotten, responsibility cast aside, the fact that you fought to survive – what kind of miracle is this?


Yiyi, one day you might pass by this place again. When the train whistle once again startles this silent land, will we reluctantly tell you about all the hypocrisy, arrogance, rashness and cruelty behind this tragic story?


Yiyi, we should tell you the truth, our country has been this way before. We want to tell you, those adults you see have wondered countless times whether in this era we’ve forgotten love, caring and basic trust. We’re full of complaints, but our anger is only that. We believe without doubt that life will continue on this way.
…
Yiyi, how do we explain to you that, at that time, there were two completely different images of China: one blossoming in the midst of the people, the other hidden in officialdom. We hope that when you’ve grown up and understand things, when you’ve learned to see with your own eyes, think with your own mind and encounter this world through your own actions, you will find this has changed.
…
Now, Yiyi, on behalf of you lying there on that sickbed and those lives buried in the ground, people are refusing to give up on finding the truth. Truth cannot be buried – no one plans to give up the inquiry. We know that anything we take lightly today might lead to our rights being violated and our lives being ignored again tomorrow. We reap what we sow. If every fact we seek becomes a secret, we’ll never know the truth. If we keep giving up half way in our pursuit of dignity, we will never be treated with dignity.


To live – to live with dignity – is that rainbow you get to see only after suffering through the wind and the rain. Yiyi, when you’re older maybe you’ll realize that dark night of July 23 was when things started to change. After that day, we won’t simply complain, but instead learn how to advocate and act. We understand that we have rights, we respect these rights and are will spare no effort to protect them.


Yiyi, if we’re going to promise you and other regular children like you a future, the journey must start from the wreckage of the train collision. That is the best way to remember your parents, and all the others who perished there.


– Josh Chin. Follow him on Twitter @joshchin

You can't buy ...

Article from The New York Times on recent unrest in Inner Mongolia.

“The Mongolian situation is very worrying for the Chinese leadership because you can’t just throw money at an issue like ethnic identity,” said Minxin Pei, a China expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College in California.

@CCP:Like ... hello! Really?

Sigh, this is what you get when you mix Communist historical materialism with a sheen of capitalist greed. No respect or understanding for the importance of culture, or the depth of feeling regarding issues of identity. They don't even care about their own culture, much less that of other peoples.

You think you can buy your way out of this mess? Or just put up a perfunctory "museum"? Culture is something to be cherished and lived on an everyday basis. People have the right to shape their lives according to their traditions. Money doesn't make people forget.

Well, maybe it makes post-Communist Chinese people forget. But other peoples don't.

Is this what a Confucian society looks like too?

Denmark is pretty amazing: solidarity and social capital; trust of government and neighbors; resistance to abuse and oppression ... and the happiest people on earth!

(I've been to the country and can attest to the high level of trust that people have for one another, because they have confidence in other citizens. At the airport, a mother stood up and asked her neighbor (an African man) to please keep an eye out on her two young children, who were playing on the floor. Then she went off to take care of business, leaving her kids with a stranger.)

Granted, there may be some differences in how Danish society and a "Confucian society" are structured (certainly between Danish society and a traditional Chinese one), especially in areas like hierarchy and social status. And the country's values may be based off of different principles. But in some sense, the emphasis on harmony, social responsibility, and virtue mentioned in this article made me think of Confucian ethics.

As an exemplar of the Western humanistic tradition, perhaps Denmark can show us a way forward. (P.S. the US is not the only repesentative!). So the question is, how do we get there?

http://www.theatlantic.com/life/archive/2011/06/the-worlds-happiest-people/239971/


The World's Happiest People
By Robert Lavine
Jun 6 2011, 10:20 AM ET16

Denmark regularly ranks among the world's happiest countries, and it also saved most Danish Jews during World War II. What explains the society's success?

Denmark has the highest well-being of any country in the world, according to a recent Gallup Poll, with 72 percent of Danish people "thriving." (The worldwide median is just 21 percent.) In addition, during World War II, the country rescued almost all Jewish Danes from impending atrocities.

A kind of positive psychology underlies both accomplishments. People who trust their government and their neighbors, and who resist abuses in their society, are more likely to feel a sense of well-being in their own lives. Social psychology shows that countries with little trust are less likely to be happy. Networks of support between people and groups—what the political scientist Robert Putnam called social capital—promote people's well-being and their ability to react well to crises, from turmoil in North Africa to flooding in the U.S. and tsunamis in Japan.

Consider the mutual support at the root of Denmark's resistance to atrocities and what we can learn from Denmark's experience.

In 1943 the Nazi occupation met growing contempt from the Danish population. Strikes and sabotage in Denmark led to brutal reprisals. When the Danes received word of the plan to deport their Jewish citizens to concentration camps within days, the inclusive Danish community that had developed over decades or even centuries sprang into dramatic action. Danes from all walks of life helped 7,200 Jewish Danes cross the Oresund Strait to safety in neutral Sweden, allowing over 95 percent to survive the war. Nurses hid people in hospital rooms, resistance members held off armed German patrols, women followed coded messages to bring food for departing families, and refugees waded through cold water in darkness to the lights of waiting fishing boats.

Studies of personality traits may offer clues about why the rescue was so widely supported. In Dutch psychologist Geert Hofstede's Power Distance Index, which measures how differently people treat others because of their social status, Danes ranked among the lowest in unequal treatment. In a 2004 Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology study, Danes were also low in experiencing negative feelings like anger and anxiety, as well as in compulsive rule-following.

How do Danes reconcile their standing up and rescuing others with their traditional reluctance to stand out? Danes are taught not to tolerate abusive behavior, and to speak their mind even if others disagree. A case in point is the boy Christian who retaliates against bullying in the 2010 Oscar-winning Danish film "In a Better World." Danish people respect authority, but only if authority is virtuous, according to Mette N. Claushoej, recent Danish Embassy adviser in Washington (who, the embassy wishes to emphasize, was expressing her personal views). And they are taught not to think of themselves as better than others. Their sense of shared responsibility for all members of the group, evidenced by their widespread support of social welfare, might help explain the Danes taking risks during the 1943 rescue.

Furthermore, the recent Gallup well-being poll, conducted this April, isn't an outlier. For decades international surveys have shown a greater percentage of Danes who describe themselves as happy compared to other national groups. An egalitarian society with widespread financial security certainly contributes to Denmark's contentment. But contrary to welfare-state stereotypes, Forbes magazine recently rated Denmark as the world's best place to do business.

What may be essential are the supporting networks between people and groups that enhance social capital. Social capital is a major predictor of national happiness, according to new research in the 2011 Journal of Happiness Studies. A 2004 Cambridge University study concluded that mutual support and trust in society leads to well-being in Denmark and elsewhere. The research finds that the citizens of countries that scored highest for happiness also scored highest for trust in their governments, their laws, and each other. Where trust was lacking, "even the well off tended to be unhappy," according to the study.

To be sure, there is neither a simple nor linear cause-and-effect relationship between social psychology and historical events. The surveys cited began years after World War II, and what holds true in Denmark might not be the case elsewhere, such as the Arab countries now undergoing upheavals. But the upshot is that successfully confronting the atrocities of a brutal regime seems to be correlated with attaining national happiness.

Just as Denmark's defiance of the Nazis can be linked to its internal values of trust and willingness to speak out against abuse, the same traits are linked to its more recent well-being. National well-being in Denmark is forged from shared experience under stress, and the country provides a positive example as places like Egypt and Japan rebuild their societies during these tumultuous times. Take it from the world's happiest country.

Facebook in China, Part 2: Facebook's Draw

Some additional commentary on the subject:

The way Facebook would spread in China is through "your friends having it." It's exactly the same way it spread in the US: your friends at another university have Facebook. They talk about using it, and you want to stay connected, too. When Facebook opens up at your school, you quickly get an account so you can be in the loop along with them.

In 2007, we saw this effect happening at Peking University and at Tsinghua University (and probably elsewhere) among Chinese students who had made friends with international students -- virtually all of whom were Facebook users. (We definitely saw this happening among FACES delegates. =D)

This highlights one (really important) thing that Facebook has going for it, which Renren et al. don't have: that connection to international users. At the point Facebook re-enters the China market, given how things go in the next few years, that might even be a connection to the rest of the world's users.

Maybe it's only a small subset of the population in China that would be interested in this -- the educated elite at the top universities who have the opportunity to even know international folks. But that's how Facebook started out, too. If the option to use Facebook were available, that elite demographic is going to stay engaged. They eagerly read foreign news and have discussions with their friends abroad. Facebook would be the perfect tool to complement and strengthen those connections; and once they're on board, their more inland-oriented friends may follow suit. (After all, many tides in Chinese history are led by students and intellectuals.)

Now as many folks have pointed out, there are a host of local competitors already filling the "social" niche. Maybe these services will be so deeply integrated into Chinese users' lives that people won't want to leave those other ecosystems. "I've achieved level 499 on Happy Poodle Farm ... I have a prize-winning pack of canines ... I can't leave Fluffy behind, I just can't!!!" Or you might have regional networks that are deeply embedded in a certain social networking site. (I assume geography matters because your "friends" are more likely to be in your town, at least initially, though maybe that correlation will erode a little as mobility increases). Some of this represents only inertia (not to be underestimated) and some of it represents actual integration -- ganglions you'll have to carefully prise apart and free up, or move wholesale as a group.

So perhaps you'll end up with what you have today: because China is a big enough market, with many (and still growing) numbers of Internet users, many different social networks can live and coexist there, serving different demographics, depending on their level of international connection, and customized to the different experiences they want.

Now a caveat: a reverse flow is going on, too. Your Chinese friends use "Xiaonei", so why wouldn't Facebook users migrate to (ahem) indigenous Chinese sites? I did sign up for a Xiaonei account back then, primarily just to "see the other side."

But the only reason that I use it now is to keep in touch with a handful of students in the Tsinghua Symphony. They aren't on Facebook because they claim that it's kind of a hassle to regularly leap over the Great Firewall (繙墻). I kind of grumble about it every time I go on Renren -- using Facebook to connect with my friends in most of the world, and then having to sign on separately to Renren to stay connected to those few Chinese friends. I'll do it, but I'm not happy about it.

[This brings up a related point: overseas Chinese students -- people from the PRC who go abroad to study -- maintain their presence on Renren when they're in the US. They regularly roam the site and post photos to it, and perhaps they may not have the same qualms about using both. (To be honest, I don't know if it's by choice or by necessity for them, but I shall ask around). But again, that's because everyone at home has no option other than a domestic Chinese site, like Renren. If Facebook were available in China, then the dynamic could be different: might other people sign up for Facebook to stay in touch with them?]

I also have to duplicate my posts, first posting in Facebook, then translating into Chinese and posting on Renren. To be sure, half the stuff I post on Facebook I don't even think about posting on Renren -- cultural sensitivities, you know. =P And when I do post things on Renren, half the time it gets summarily deleted anyway, probably because I've used words on the sensitive list. (Nobel Prize/諾貝爾獎, anyone?)

But here's another factor that could work in Facebook's favor: if Chinese users were to have both Renren accounts and Facebook accounts, they could see the censorship happening right in front of them, side-by-side. Facebook comes off looking way better in that comparison. (I admit, this point is moot if Chinese users never even think about posting on political topics because they don't find it interesting, unlike entertainment news and pop star gossip. That might be a somewhat different problem).

Still, if Facebook ever entered China on its own terms (i.e. not censored), some kind of integration would probably happen in the end. We all love having choices, but we also prefer having an integrated service, unless there's a good reason to keep spheres of our lives separate. ("Corporate" vs. "Personal" networks, "Work" vs. "Play" -- though I guess Facebook is trying to work around that, too.) I doubt Renren would willingly allow you to take your data elsewhere, but I'm sure some enterprising app developer could make a "Profile Transitioning App" that would bundle up your data from Renren and help you port it to Facebook. That could substantially lower the barrier for transitioning. And independent app developers would probably be happy to release your data, because they'd want to jump on to as many platforms as possible while retaining users.

Maybe you can save Fluffy after all.

Facebook in China, Part 1: Facebook's Mission

My friend Kai Lukoff notes on Quora:

A Facebook that appeases the Chinese government might be a net positive for Chinese netizens, but I think it'd be a disaster for Facebook. It'd piss off far more than just 'rights groups.'

(Kai is also quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article about Facebook's prospects in China, a topic which is being floated because Mark Zuckerberg is currently on a trip to that country.)

It'd probably also go against one of the fundamental missions of Facebook (as stated by Zuckerberg during our CS106A guest lecture): Facebook lets users share more of our lives, allowing us to better understand each other. That enables us to have a greater sense of sympathy for others.

If you trim away a whole set of topics, i.e. if you censor political, religious, or civil society issues, then you may be shearing away a significant part of a person's identity.

Furthermore, Facebook is also an intentioned platform for activism, not only a passive glimpse into someone's life. We spread news among friends, post commentaries, sometimes even issue explicit invitations to take action. A Facebook persona isn't a whole person, but it's definitely a closer glimpse of some of the things one believes in and chooses to make public. Editorial choices about what to post, and what we write, help us form a greater impression of our friends -- to recognize some of the things they care about that one might not get a chance to chat about on a daily basis.

You do wonder if Facebook will start going through the well-China-is-a-big-market/we'll-do-more-good-than-harm rationalizations that Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google adopted. Or just sidestep concerns and become enablers, like Cisco. (Props to Google for trying to realign its actions with its ideals. Given the ethos of Silicon Valley, it's important to those companies from there that they live up to and propagate their ideals. Corporations aren't formed only to make money, but to build and create, and maybe, if they believe in it strongly enough, to change lives).

Yet Facebook doesn't seem to lack for users ... if the "citizens" of Facebook formed a country, it'd be like #3 in the world in terms of population, right? So perhaps they're not rushing to beat down the door to the "China market." (They were accessible until they were unceremoniously blocked a couple years ago.

So maybe it's better that they create the right experience for most of the planet -- for the communities of users who are willing to engage in that (necessarily collective) enterprise of mutual understanding and the consideration of others' viewpoints. Then, until China is ready to "play nice" and connect with the world, they'll simply have to live with a segregated, sanitized, "harmonized," somewhat crippled intranet.

Crippled in terms of lacking whole worlds of ideas and open discussion, though maybe not crippled in terms of functionality. After all, even if there's no YouTube, there are plenty of video-sharing substitutes like Youku or Tudou, right? On the other hand, some might call the open exchange of ideas one of the Web's most important functions.

In the end, I'd vote for Facebook staying true to its mission. No capitulation: Companies like Facebook and Google can win.

When will it be so?

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released today.

After years of imprisonment and house arrest, she has finally been freed by the military junta. (At least for now.) A daunting situation faces her and her countrymen, who are still ruled by a repressive dictatorship that canceled the results of the last truly free election in 1990.

It's moments like this when I wish China would be a force for good in the world and do the right thing.

Support Suu Kyi, the elected leader of Burma, with a popular mandate and immense following. Support Suu Kyi, who is moderate and humble, patient and kind, who is willing to do what is good for the people of her nation. Support Suu Kyi, and not the junta, who continue to enrich themselves, while leaving most of society in abject poverty and at risk of malnutrition; who crush dissent with an iron hand; who throw ordinary people in jail over the slightest opposition.

The article talks about the jubilation of crowds all over Burma at Suu Kyi's release, and the warnings Western nations have issued to the dictatorial leaders that foreign governments are paying attention. But one senses the junta will pay little heed to such statements. What leverage do these countries have? The West has been happily ignored for the past several years -- when the crackdown on monks occurred in 2007, when aid was delayed or outright refused in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis.

It comes down to this: who cares about the West and its admonitions? Whatever the posture of Western governments or the UN, the regime, flush with money from natural gas, can choose to deal with regional neighbors instead.

China, Thailand and India -- three countries who now have the leverage to make a difference. China has been one of the largest sellers of weapons to Burma/Myanmar, and a major investor in oil and gas pipelines, as well as numerous other infrastructure projects. Beijing provides both financial support to the regime and diplomatic cover in the international arena: "Sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty ... Non-interference ... Internal affairs, internal affairs, internal affairs."

That China has been gaining influence in Myanmar is a major reason the other two countries have felt the need to compete for the junta's favor and drop their moral qualms. If China were to choose virtue over indifferent, amoral interest; if it were to care about people and principles; then others would have to follow suit -- no more excuses.*

The world would be a very different place.

__________________

*Some might argue that it is up to democratic India and Thailand to take the lead on this issue, and I don't dispute their responsibility. But my point is that structurally, if India and Thailand consign themselves to the role of "concerned outsiders," as they did for a while (and the West continues to do), the situation won't change. China could simply step into that vacuum, while further enabling the military junta.

This is why China makes a difference: it is the primary -- sometimes even exclusive -- counterweight to the West for many of these pariah regimes. If the country took a stand, then given the balance of power in the world today, this could decisively shift outcomes, and change minds for the better.

Influencing governments can still be done in a sensitive way, not in a shrill or combative voice. And surely this sentiment is idealistic -- I know that China is not this way now. But it isn't wrong to dream if it can inform of us of how and why things are in their current state and show ways they could be improved. And so the wish is for China to be, out-and-out, a positive force in the world.

Perhaps it is because I believe too much in China's ethical tradition, and its potential to be relevant in our world. And yes, I am laying on China an additional moral responsibility, asking for a higher standard. (The only other country I have that expectation for is the United States.) But I don't think that's unfair; we can ask of ourselves that which we do not yet expect of others. In fact, we ought to. Leading by moral example is the only way forward.

URLs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/world/asia/14myanmar.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/No-moral-compass/Article1-625878.aspx
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/101105/myanmar-burma-relations

Humanism in China

There may be hope yet. The ideas and language of humanism are slowly gaining purchase in Chinese society today. (Again. The first time was in the early 20th century.)

It seems like this mode of thought ought to be a natural fit -- after all, Confucianism has at its roots a deep sense of humanity. Not all aspects of it are the same as in "Western-style humanism," but there are elements that seem compatible. (However, it may be problematic to claim that China remains "Confucian" today. sigh)

According to an article in the New York Times:

"Western-style humanism flourished in China a century ago, brought over by the Chinese students of Irving Babbitt, a professor of French at Harvard University," who advocated "retaining the good things from the past. He insisted on the importance of the individual, and the study of the humanities."

"Humanism’s gentle, evolutionary approach clashed with the make-it-new passion of many students, intellectuals and politicians grouped around China’s early 20th-century May Fourth Movement. [If only they had known what was coming -- they might have chosen differently.] In 1949, the revolutionaries won the argument when the Communist Party founded the People’s Republic of China. For over three decades, humanism vanished from Chinese thinking. 

And no wonder. Humanism directly challenged the Communist system by valuing the individual over the collective. It rejected blind obedience to authority, whether religious or political. 

Secular, it opposed deification of any kind, including of a leader like Mao Zedong. Its emphasis on human well-being, freedom and dignity threatened the party’s control over its citizens. It was, orthodox Communists said, a bourgeois theory of human nature. 

Today, it’s back, spreading among intellectuals, writers and ordinary people alike in a process that began 30 years ago, following Mao’s death in 1976. Still controversial, it is periodically subject to attacks from a state that fears that it may become the basis of an alternative ethical system that will challenge Communist Party rule. The bumpiness of humanism’s road reflects the challenge in bringing about intellectual and political change in China."

-- "In Search of Modern Humanism in China" (May 14, 2010)

In the article, Gloria Davies, a scholar of Chinese intellectual history at Monash University, observes that “Humanism has quite a lot of purchase now. It’s used in public culture as a way of maintaining some form of integrity in relation to corruption and censorship.” She pointed to [Chinese blogger and public intellectual Han] Han’s declaration “I am just a humanist,” circulating widely on the Internet. “That’s key. Amid tightened censorship, people are looking for more inventive ways to try and keep the public sphere and civil society alive, so they are resorting to words like humanism. They can always use this as some form of criticism.”

The article also notes that "how to live according to core human values like respect, kindness and care for others has deep roots in Chinese thought, written about widely by Confucius and other philosophers." Furthermore, at an event on "Humanism in China" hosted at Harvard this year, Tsinghua Professor Wang Hui expressed a new, urgent concern for what some might call more old-fashioned humanistic values.

The article classifies Wang as part of the "New Left", calling him a "sophisticated theoretician and critic of China’s present model of capitalist development." One thing I really like about this piece and Prof. Wang is his exploration of the writer Lu Xun. He looks at the kinder, deeply human side of Lu Xun -- the one who exists underneath the pointed criticism and mordant satire:

"To make his point, he turned to a little-known 1908 text by Lu Xun, arguably China’s greatest writer of the 20th century, who was appropriated by the Communists. Lu Xun, said Mr. Wang, was actually a humanist. In “Refuting Malevolent Voices,” his major concern was to find “new voices” that spoke from the heart, and spoke the truth. 

A healthy society needs truthful voices. And truthful voices come from truthful people. China sorely lacks that [Wang says.] To solve its problems, it needs more open discussion and more self-critical thinking. “A lot of people say a lot of things, but they don’t believe these things, they are just echoing other people. China is full of noise, but it’s silent. You don’t hear real voices.”

Along with a sense of humanity, this Lu Xun was also dedicated to the truth. Two meaningful things: truth and humanity. They are worth searching for. They are also necessary.

Where Chan Chan comes from

Hong Kong, you make me sad sometimes. But according to this piece by Philip Bowring in the IHT, at least you haven't given up completely...

"This city is normally associated with money making, not radical politics. But activism has been stirring, creating unease in Beijing and among local oligarch business interests. However puny Hong Kong’s voices of dissent may seem, they are a reminder of the catalytic role the territory has played in politics in the past — as a source of new ideas for China and refuge for dissenters like Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh and Emilio Aguinaldo of the Philippines."

This week, "five members of two pro-democracy political parties are due to resign from the Legislative Council, Hong Kong’s lawmaking body. Their objective is to spark a special election that they want to use as a referendum on universal suffrage for the next elections in 2012. At present, Hong Kong is on track for democratic reforms at a snail’s pace. The local administration, pressured by Beijing, which associates democratic development with dissent, remains reluctant to submit to greater public accountability. All democrats, whether or not they support the move by legislators planning to resign, want more directly elected seats to the Legislature in 2012 and a timetable for the full democratic election of the legislature and chief executive."

In recent years, Hong Kong has been seen as rather compliant with Beijing's demands. Yet Bowring notes several strains of dissent that have been growing, in addition to the continuing calls for greater self-rule from the democratic parties:

1. People on the bottom end of a growing income gap, who are getting the impression that "government is simply an accomplice of big business"
2. Middle class people, who want stability, but want the government to be more responsive to their needs.
3. Students, who care about things like human rights and the environment, which are often subsumed to the interests of powerful polluters

As Bowring points out, "the rise in anti-government and anti-Beijing sentiment may seem surprising given the recent improvement in Hong Kong’s economy and its increasing dependence on the mainland’s surging economic growth. Patriotism and pride in Chinese achievements have also been on the rise. [And I can tell you, some Hong Kongers are very pro-China.] Yet here's the crux of it:

"But Hong Kong has always separated its Chinese identity from Communist Party rule. Beijing’s unholy alliance with local vested interests offsets much of its patriotic appeal. Recent mainland crackdowns on dissent and the Internet have added to Hong Kong’s fears."

Indeed "Beijing’s recent moves may have strengthened Hong Kong’s role as a refuge for future Sun Yat-sens." So thus, Bowring notes, it may turn out that the resignation of members of democratic parties on the Legislative Council won't work. "But as an assertion of commitment to values other than money-making, they will make an impression not just on Hong Kong but on China, where the intertwining of political power and money-making is germinating a new radicalism."

I hope Hong Kong will stand up for values. Show the world there is something more than money! It goes far beyond making waves in the West -- you must demonstrate this idea to the Sinic world. Google can do it. So can you.

URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8473486.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27iht-edbowring.html