Translated by @krizcpec
In our country much of the common
knowledge is blocked. Whether someone works as a politician, or a
statesman, his compulsory course would be to face public protest with
a proper manner. It was a disappointment that two days ago at
Cambridge, Wen Jiabao made an inappropriate speech after a protester
hurled a shoe at him. It indicated he didn't have the skills needed
to face protesters.
The public of other countries are not like the crowds of Beichuan that are gathered specially when a politician felt like to put up a show of getting close to the people; they are not like the subordinates or subjects gathering at the Chinese embassy in London to be the audience of that kind of show either.
As for the statement from the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs that showed no grace or manner, it has been a long
term practice that that ministry would reveal the national image
through diplomatic language that is with a hint of menace, and show a
tendency to lift matters to class struggle and ideology level.
If any party is damaging to the
national image of China, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is
doubtlessly the greatest saboteur and a failed performer.
There can be many perspectives in interpreting the incident of a
shoe being thrown at Wen Jiabao. One of those perspectives is to
compare the difference between it and the “Bush shoe incident”.
That's a nice one, but sadly the commentator didn't make things
clear.
After the shoe attack, George Bush spoke in a relaxed, humorous
way, “If you want the facts, it's a size 10 shoe that he threw.”
No sign of irritation could be seen on his face. Whereas Wen Jiabao's
face turned red with anger, and launched an ideological bombardment:
“Dear teachers and students, a dirty trick like this would not end
the friendship between the Chinese and the British peoples. The
progress of humankind, the peace on earth, these are historical
trends. No force can stop them. Now let me continue with my speech.”
This reaction from a politician or even a statesman when a
protester threw a shoe at him illustrated clearly the difference
between politicians from democracies and authoritarian regimes.
And the lengthy applause at Wen's remark from those Chinese people
who were arranged to be there by the embassy or the Chinese students
who were there out of their own decision indicated a lack of
democratic political training if they truly meant it. And if they
applauded only because that was a political task, then that show was
not quite clever.
Leaders of democracies are trained by processes of elections,
debates and protests. If they are not up to their job, the voters
would vote them out of office. If they do not respond to doubts on
their performance, they would come under fire from the parliament or
congress. If they do not deal with protests properly, then they are
not qualified as leaders and the public won't vote for them.
In other words, protests are definitely a perpetual training for
those who intend to involved the political activities, or aspiring to
be politicians, statesmen, or officials. Because the more democratic
a society is , the more frequent it would be for the many ways of
protests to occur. This is the norm for a democratic and free
societies.
If politicians of democratic societies put forward a platform and
there is no voice of opposition or different viewpoint, then that is
odd. Those who laugh at leaders of democracies having to encounter
protests wherever they go are of a view that is shallow and ignorant.
So is true for those who feel that motions being passed unanimously
in NPC without any voice of opposition is better than lawmakers of
other countries arguing, or in some physical contact with each other.
This is but the result of stupefying education.
Lawmakers disagree with each other inside the parliament is an
effective means to avoid police arresting members of the public who
take to the street, it can, even more effectively, prevent the
tragedy of peaceful demonstrators being shot and killed by the armed
force. These seldom occur in countries where there are lawmakers in
heated debates or arguments with each other and the system of check
and balance in place.
Which do you prefer then: the lawmakers quarreling with each
other? or you being arrested, beaten up or even killed by the police
once you start protesting lawfully?
I do not think that throwing a shoe is the best way to protest
against Wen Jiabao. I do not think that is proper. But protesters
should not be deprived of their right to protest. Whether or not they
disrupt public order, I believe the British police would deal with
that in accordance with the law of the UK. They would not lock the
protesters up inside a dark house, or send them to “learning
classes”; they would not frame them and certainly would not make
them disappear, even if the protesters are protesting against a
premier of another country.
The protester said Wen Jiabao is a dictator, and that Wen had
lied. That is the irrefutable truth I'm afraid. Some said that to say
Wen is a dictator indicated the speaker did not understand the
political system of China, Wen Jiabao is just an administrative
officer. That's true. But Wen is the premier of a government that is
uncontested; a member of the party that is running a one-party
dictatorship; and most important of all, he is not democratically
elected. All these make it certain that he would be called a
dictator.
And Wen lied was a combined result of his personal problems and
the regime he is under. For Chinese officials, lying is not a moral
condemnation; it is but a statement of fact. Plentiful of them can be
spotted in China.
Some said that lying is Wen's freedom of speech. Wow. Freedom of
speech cannot be used as an excuse even if an ordinary person tell
lies that would affect the interests of others; even less so for Wen
Jiabao, a politician whose speech would influence the interests of a
great number of people, which would at times be a matter of life and
death.
Let me put it this way, people need to learn to protest since they
are little. In family education, it is necessary to allow room for
children to say no. In school, educators should not just cultivate
students who are obedient, who know only one answer; they must not
see students' objection to viewpoints of teachers as a sign of
disrespect.
In a nutshell, in a healthy, prosperous society, there are more
answers than one to many issues; and there are more voices than one
regarding the same thing. No one can be immune from question. No one
can be free from opposition. There is no one that cannot be objected.
The thought of self-praising as “great, glorious and correct”
should be sent to the crematorium of protests.
Why then do we Chinese people in general not oppose the officials?
First, we dare not do that. Second, we have no idea how. Third, there
are no channel for us to voice our opposition. Fourth, if we do that
nonetheless we would be arrested, sentenced, or made disappeared, so
on and so forth. Of the voice of opposition would be minimized.
The only option for the people is to condemn secretly. Or they
would have to be forced to rely on spontaneous unrest to more or less
reach their goals. If demands of sizable masses are taken no heed of,
the entire society lacks a decompression mechanism, then just like
car that is without a shock absorber, a terrible end is predictable.
In brief, lawful protests are a decompression mechanism, a shock
absorber of a car. They are indispensable to political equilibrium.
Should this equilibrium be destroyed, the social consequence would be
beyond rational expectation.
Although the propaganda machine is still trying to cover up, they
are not reporting in details that a protester has thrown a shoe at
Wen Jiabao and would not let people comment on it. Much
restriction has also been imposed on the Internet. In spite of these, the
incident is spreading through all sorts of channels and become widely
known inside China rapidly.
In this day and age, any attempt to cover up information would
result in unexpected losses, such as the loss of credibility.
In the foreseeable future, the officials would continue to have to
pay the price for the loss of their credibility. That being the case,
the effective way [to address problems] is to allow lawful
protests, which the government should see as the norm of expression
of public opinion, a normal political [feature]. A real sense of harmony society can
only be achieved if people have
legitimate channels of protest, and the officials are not handling them by means of oppression; and both sides are solving the various conflicts
between the officials and the public by means that are permitted by
the Constitution and laws, engaging in dialog with sincerity, and the
willingness to make compromises.
Protest is a form of civic education. The officials should start
learning it, and so is the public. The media should report openly and
rationally all kinds of protests, make them a mandatory
course for every one of us. Let us learn the essence of protests, and
thereby making the rational game play between the public and the
government, and among members of the public themselves a reality. If
that happen, then we are not far away from becoming a civic society.
February 4, 2009, 8:42 in Chengdu
No comments:
Post a Comment