I'm curious what you mean when you say you "give these freedoms". Your phrasing seems to imply that you had some kind of choice in the matter. Forgive my ignorance, but in the Western world the impression is that the "choice" is pretty stark: give up your freedoms, or land in jail or worse. Most people I know would give up their freedoms happily under those circumstances. But in truth, what were the alternatives when you made your choice?
Forgive me if I seemed a little vague. As you may know, the Chinese culture and language tends to have many implicit references and I forget to be more explicit sometimes when I'm addressing an audience who isn't Chinese. English isn't my native language either.:-)
The concept of "choice" when it comes to voting is quite different. We don't necessarily use paper ballots when choosing our leaders, it is very much an implied contract (think of the Confucian legacy) between the people and its leader (the use of the singular by no means implies one person), where the people recognise the legitimacy of rule as long as the leader operates in a "just" manner which does not bring hardship to the people. I agree that this has been rather hazy in the past; Chairman Mao's policies are widely regarded now as a bad thing, but the resulting victory of Deng Xiaoping and the leftist Hua Guofeng led us to path of market liberalization that we are pursuing now. All without the direct involvement of the people.
I'd also like to know what choices you have when you vote. Again, your phrasing seems to imply you have some level of choice. Is there ever an alternative on the ballot? In the Western world the impression is there is never more than one candidate for an office, and they will get elected regardless of what the voters do. It seems to me that if the voters cannot affect the outcome then they are not the ones who "elect" the government. If that's not the case could you reply and tell us how it really works?
I think my answer to your first paragraph kinda covers this.:-)
Lies? Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, my friend. We don't vote for the ruling party with paper ballots but our hearts. In a sense, it's not too different from the days of imperial China - the leader has the Mandate of Heaven. There is a complex relationship between the leader and the people, and it does not mean that the leader has free reign to be autocratic and despotic. Do you think that the Chinese people do not have it in them to throw off the shackles of unjust rule? History has shown that emperors who brought too much hardship to their people were deposed.
If it's paper ballots that you want and absolutely must have, I can point to the fact that local elections have been held recently in villages and towns. I can see that as a good thing, the people have more say in local governance - after all, the central government cannot have its fingers in every pie.
Perhaps there are those who feel the current regime is unjust. I can respect that. I can't speak for the majority of people, but I do know of many who are happy the way things are and proud of the country. We don't feel this way because we have to, we don't think the government is perfect, but how is this different from patriotism in, e.g. France or the United States?
You say several times that you voted for the government you have. That is a lie. China is not a democracy, it is a one party state. And with that, the rest is just the same arguments dictators throughout the times have used.
Funny, Singapore is pretty much a one party state as well - the People's Action Party has been in power throughout the establishment of the Singaporean state. Yet I hardly hear the words "Singaporean government" and "dictators" mentioned in the same breath.
Is a multi-party democracy necessarily the best model that fits all societies regardless of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds? The problem with multi-party democracy, as I see it, is the allocation of so many resources in the process of pitching the party to the people. And since elections can swing either way, parties tend to push for short-term policies not always aimed at the long-term benefit of the society. Because short-term results are what gets rewarded and noticed. How would you respond to that?
I can't say if things are "on the right track", and I suspect neither can the government or anybody else. Time will tell, as it has the habit of doing. Nothing really is perfect and what China has seems to work for it at the moment (IMHO), so why fix it if it ain't broke?
My personal take on this: the Chinese government shouldn't really judge your "obsession with personal freedom", as you put it. Or any of its people. I've lived around long ago to understand that the intellectual development in your part of the world is different, you had your Greek and Roman influences from classical antiquity and the resulting changes from the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment periods that lead to different ideals and worldviews. I can respect that.
Coming from China and pursuing graduate studies in Europe, I find that some of these organisations persist in criticizing the "Chinese way". Armchair philosophers pointing at our human rights record and our "one party state" as they like to call it as a "concern" (to put it very euphemistically).
I'd like to say that you may not completely understand the Chinese context. Not all of us have the same concept of "personal freedoms" that you do. We understand that we must sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for the greater good of the society as a whole. I can only speak for my friends, family and myself, but we give these freedoms happily and in the knowledge that we know that the government that we elected works for the benefit of all in China. Not all of us agree, we all know there are plenty of dissidents who openly voice their opinions, but you must recognise that these can be dangerous people.
In a society as large as China, there are always pockets where the seeds of discord can grow into a tree that could serve to disrupt the harmony. Does government censorship necessarily have to be a form of repression? No. I remind you that many of us freely voted for the government that we have and while you hear of the vocal minority who protest such actions, you never hear of the silent majority who recognise the benefits.
The Chinese government is not a "great evil" as some would have you believe. I, and others I know, feel that whatever is being done is more out of necessity and would like to at least point to things like our recent economic record and educational successes as some indication that the system works.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm curious what you mean when you say you "give these freedoms". Your phrasing seems to imply that you had some kind of choice in the matter. Forgive my ignorance, but in the Western world the impression is that the "choice" is pretty stark: give up your freedoms, or land in jail or worse. Most people I know would give up their freedoms happily under those circumstances. But in truth, what were the alternatives when you made your choice?
Forgive me if I seemed a little vague. As you may know, the Chinese culture and language tends to have many implicit references and I forget to be more explicit sometimes when I'm addressing an audience who isn't Chinese. English isn't my native language either. :-)
The concept of "choice" when it comes to voting is quite different. We don't necessarily use paper ballots when choosing our leaders, it is very much an implied contract (think of the Confucian legacy) between the people and its leader (the use of the singular by no means implies one person), where the people recognise the legitimacy of rule as long as the leader operates in a "just" manner which does not bring hardship to the people. I agree that this has been rather hazy in the past; Chairman Mao's policies are widely regarded now as a bad thing, but the resulting victory of Deng Xiaoping and the leftist Hua Guofeng led us to path of market liberalization that we are pursuing now. All without the direct involvement of the people.
I'd also like to know what choices you have when you vote. Again, your phrasing seems to imply you have some level of choice. Is there ever an alternative on the ballot? In the Western world the impression is there is never more than one candidate for an office, and they will get elected regardless of what the voters do. It seems to me that if the voters cannot affect the outcome then they are not the ones who "elect" the government. If that's not the case could you reply and tell us how it really works?
I think my answer to your first paragraph kinda covers this.Lies? Perhaps it is a matter of perspective, my friend. We don't vote for the ruling party with paper ballots but our hearts. In a sense, it's not too different from the days of imperial China - the leader has the Mandate of Heaven. There is a complex relationship between the leader and the people, and it does not mean that the leader has free reign to be autocratic and despotic. Do you think that the Chinese people do not have it in them to throw off the shackles of unjust rule? History has shown that emperors who brought too much hardship to their people were deposed.
If it's paper ballots that you want and absolutely must have, I can point to the fact that local elections have been held recently in villages and towns. I can see that as a good thing, the people have more say in local governance - after all, the central government cannot have its fingers in every pie.
Perhaps there are those who feel the current regime is unjust. I can respect that. I can't speak for the majority of people, but I do know of many who are happy the way things are and proud of the country. We don't feel this way because we have to, we don't think the government is perfect, but how is this different from patriotism in, e.g. France or the United States?
You say several times that you voted for the government you have. That is a lie. China is not a democracy, it is a one party state. And with that, the rest is just the same arguments dictators throughout the times have used.
Funny, Singapore is pretty much a one party state as well - the People's Action Party has been in power throughout the establishment of the Singaporean state. Yet I hardly hear the words "Singaporean government" and "dictators" mentioned in the same breath.
Is a multi-party democracy necessarily the best model that fits all societies regardless of cultural and socio-economic backgrounds? The problem with multi-party democracy, as I see it, is the allocation of so many resources in the process of pitching the party to the people. And since elections can swing either way, parties tend to push for short-term policies not always aimed at the long-term benefit of the society. Because short-term results are what gets rewarded and noticed. How would you respond to that?I can't say if things are "on the right track", and I suspect neither can the government or anybody else. Time will tell, as it has the habit of doing. Nothing really is perfect and what China has seems to work for it at the moment (IMHO), so why fix it if it ain't broke?
My personal take on this: the Chinese government shouldn't really judge your "obsession with personal freedom", as you put it. Or any of its people. I've lived around long ago to understand that the intellectual development in your part of the world is different, you had your Greek and Roman influences from classical antiquity and the resulting changes from the Renaissance, Reformation and Enlightenment periods that lead to different ideals and worldviews. I can respect that.
Coming from China and pursuing graduate studies in Europe, I find that some of these organisations persist in criticizing the "Chinese way". Armchair philosophers pointing at our human rights record and our "one party state" as they like to call it as a "concern" (to put it very euphemistically).
I'd like to say that you may not completely understand the Chinese context. Not all of us have the same concept of "personal freedoms" that you do. We understand that we must sacrifice some of our personal freedoms for the greater good of the society as a whole. I can only speak for my friends, family and myself, but we give these freedoms happily and in the knowledge that we know that the government that we elected works for the benefit of all in China. Not all of us agree, we all know there are plenty of dissidents who openly voice their opinions, but you must recognise that these can be dangerous people.
In a society as large as China, there are always pockets where the seeds of discord can grow into a tree that could serve to disrupt the harmony. Does government censorship necessarily have to be a form of repression? No. I remind you that many of us freely voted for the government that we have and while you hear of the vocal minority who protest such actions, you never hear of the silent majority who recognise the benefits.
The Chinese government is not a "great evil" as some would have you believe. I, and others I know, feel that whatever is being done is more out of necessity and would like to at least point to things like our recent economic record and educational successes as some indication that the system works.