And I want to be heard.
In a sense, I have been heard from time to time. The problem is that it has never been done in a nice way.
To explain what I mean, and why I want to be heard particularly this time, let me use as an example the most recently case, i.e., my March 9 blog. In it, I put forward some of my ideas on how to tackle the current global economic crisis - the subject of the London Summit - as part of a series on China's democratization and its impact on the world.
Three days later, President Barack Obama gave a speech to a group of U.S. business leaders. Comparing his speech with my March 9 blog, one could say that he was pretty receptive to my ideas. But he did not mention my name. -- That's not very nice, was it? -- I was so shocked by his speech that I scrambled to save my blog as screen graphics. (Of course, other pundits similarly "borrowed" my ideas, too.)
With the G20 coming to London, I particularly wanted to be heard this time. That's why you saw a flurry of book-borrowing activities from me in the last few days, culminating yesterday with my borrowing one book from Vancouver Public Library and returning 5 to SFU, making the total number on loan 4, thus signaling my willingness to be considered to replace Hu Jintao as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.
Now, when I started my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang, I thought of myself just a simple guy trying to right a wrong. (Or maybe two wrongs, including the one inflicted on me.) Even with the realization that Chinese government was considering me for a leadership position in China, I have always held my cause in Canada very dearly.
That's why I do not always do what the Chinese government want me to do, as can be seen from more than one places in my blogs. The most recent example was from my last letter to the Governor General. On the day of President Obama's visit to Ottawa, I returned one book early in the morning, making the total number of books on loan 5. But I refused to return another one later that day, which, I believe, would have made the total number 4 and injected myself onto the Ottawa scene that day. Indeed, I borrowed three more items from SFU the following day, making the total number of items on loan 8 and signaling that my intention had been mostly personal. (I did not know at the time that 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation in China as well. To me, 8 has always been a lucky number and meant good fortune. Another possible misinterpretation of my borrowing records was that some people might have looked into them a little too carefully. If I want to signal numbers within a total number, I would go to different libraries. I will get back to these points later.)
As I said before, I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. But to say that I am totally uninterested in politics now is probably not true, either. I am a naturally curious person. As such, I learned quite a lot about politics in the past few years. Although I still maintain that to be a professional politician isn't a suitable career for me, I did give some thoughts about China's democratization, which has always been my wish for China as well as for the world. That's why I wrote about it recently. My thinking was that if people are interested in those ideas, they can talk about them, or even implement them. I just want to get recognized, which might also help me to get out of my insufferable situation.
The three numbers implied in the acknowledgement I published on March 17 perhaps best captured my intentions. The three numbers are 6, 8 and 9. (I think everyone knows 17 means 8 and 9. Indeed, the first time I was taken to the mental institution, I was assigned room No. 17.) And in my mind, 6 and 8 are pretty much the same, just with different emphasis.
The next day, I read an article which challenged the reader to discern 6 rainbows in an accompanying picture. I could not do it without seeing the answer. This exercise made me conscious of the 6 items I borrowed from SFU and I looked carefully into them. To avoid confusion, I simply started fresh and borrowed another 6 books from SFU.
Partly to continue making my point, I borrowed 2 more books from VPL the following day, March 19. I was aware that number 2 had been given the meaning of 11. But I hoped that from my recent writings, people should have realized that I had always favored "dialogue and cooperation" between China and U.S.A.
On Saturday, President Obama made 4 points in his weekly radio address. And he did so in front of a bookshelf. I wondered, for the first time, if in Chinese politics, 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation as well. I returned the 2 books from VPL later that day, just to be safe.
On Thursday, March 26, I read a new article by Li Yang, who had disappeared from the Internet in early 2006. This was a significant development especially considering that I had got the impression lately that Mr. Jiang Zemin, the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership and my chief backer, was ailing. His article seemed also to confirm that 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation in Chinese politics.
That's why I went to SFU that evening and returned a book. But I still did not want to give up my personal cause. I borrowed 3 books from VPL the following day, making the total number 8.
Nothing happening, I returned the 5 books from SFU and borrowed one from VPL yesterday. The total number is now 4. The message is clear: Even if it means losing my personal cause, I want to be heard this time.
I simply want to be heard.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 09, 2009
China’s democratization and its impact on the world (3)
Ninety years ago, John Dewey, one of the founders of American Pragmatism, went to China and gave a series of lectures across many parts of the country for over two years -- his longest stay overseas. It was a momentous time in China where people were hungry for new ideas. Dewey's lectures were well received. However, asides from his educational philosophy which had a lasting effect on China, his social and political philosophies were deemed too modest for a country ripe for revolutionary change.
I recall this little-known anecdote in Sino-U.S. relations to illustrate a couple of points. One is that I believe pragmatism still offers the best hope for dialogue and cooperation between Chinese people and American people. It did not work out ninety years ago; I do not see it happen any time soon given that Dewey's pragmatism is not mainstream in the U.S. and China has not emerged from its shadow of political control. But I have hope for the future. Two is that there was a reason for China's embrace of communism ninety years ago. Simply put, Chinese people were too destitute. As Warren Buffett observed, even Americans became very responsive to communism during the Great Depression.
And it is this second point that is related to our current affair of the world. As the global economic crisis seems to deepen everyday and ordinary people experience more and more hardship, the danger is ever more present for various extreme ideologies to take hold. It rests on our political leaders not to allow this to happen.
Many people have written about the global economic crisis. Since I had the chance to think about the issue in connection to my thoughts about China's democratic future, I'd like to add my two cents.
Many a time in our recent history, scholars of various stripes have pronounced the end of ideology. But the truth of the matter is, as long as there are divisions along various lines in our society, there will be ideologies. Ideology in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. What we need to guard against is ideological extremism. Since pragmatism is inherently modest, it should be relevant to our situation at hand here. Just like thirty years ago when China embraced pragmatism to save its economy from collapse after decades of rigid socialism, today's world should consider a similar philosophical approach to get itself out of the current global economic slump after decades of unfettered capitalism.
This unfettered capitalism has neo-liberalism at its foundation. Claiming to be a revival of classical liberalism at the beginning, neo-liberalism has become nothing short of liberalism taken to the extreme. In order to justify unrestrained personal greed and free-market fundamentalism, neo-liberals often refer to Adam Smith's invisible hand from The Wealth of Nations as their justification. The problem is not their going back to the source. The problem is their intellectual dishonesty in interpreting the source.
More than just the founding pioneer of modern economics as he is widely known, Adam Smith is also a moral philosopher. His first major work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, though rarely mentioned by today's neo-liberals, provided ethical and philosophical foundations to his economic theories. Besides using invisible hand to describe market in the creation of wealth, he also used the same term to describe morality in the distribution of wealth. As Smith put it himself: "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." If socialism means more equitable distribution of wealth, one could say Smith is a socialist.
Another similarly distorted fact about Adam Smith is that he is an individualist. Far from explaining all human behaviors on a narrow presumption of self-interest, Smith developed his theory of sympathy as a centerpiece of his moral philosophy. Today, it is precisely this lack of sympathy for others that underlies much of the moral decline in our societies. As neo-liberalism became the dominant ideology of our time, self-interest and personal greed are increasingly used to justify all sorts of immoral behaviors. One of the consequences is that many people think it is perfect acceptable to be dishonest if there is a gain to be made personally. Business executives manipulate books and rules in order to award themselves extravagant paychecks. Economists - I have seen them both here and in China - develop theories in order to serve their respective interest groups. Journalists report stories in order to conform to the prevailing ideologies, etc, etc.
In political arena, this narrow individualist focus and lack of sympathy for others lead to an unwillingness to appreciate opposing views. Ideological positions become entrenched and political debates become confrontational. As a result, politics is increasingly polarized.
Pragmatism enables us to see a situation objectively. And objectivity is needed to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater when saving capitalism from its past excesses. For example, while objectively everyone would agree that protectionism is a sure receipt to turn the global recession into a depression, we can still witness a worrying trend towards adopting various protectionist measures around the world lately.
Acknowledgement (20090317):
If there are anything new in this blog, they are built on what I read in the public domain. To perhaps state the obvious, these include, among others: All recorded words by Warren Buffett that I could get my hands on, and in particular, an interview recorded in the book I.O.U.S.A. by Addison Wiggin and Kate Incontrera; Speeches, interviews and other public comments by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao; A recent essay by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society by Jerry Z. Muller; Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism by Patricia H. Werhane; And The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul.
I recall this little-known anecdote in Sino-U.S. relations to illustrate a couple of points. One is that I believe pragmatism still offers the best hope for dialogue and cooperation between Chinese people and American people. It did not work out ninety years ago; I do not see it happen any time soon given that Dewey's pragmatism is not mainstream in the U.S. and China has not emerged from its shadow of political control. But I have hope for the future. Two is that there was a reason for China's embrace of communism ninety years ago. Simply put, Chinese people were too destitute. As Warren Buffett observed, even Americans became very responsive to communism during the Great Depression.
And it is this second point that is related to our current affair of the world. As the global economic crisis seems to deepen everyday and ordinary people experience more and more hardship, the danger is ever more present for various extreme ideologies to take hold. It rests on our political leaders not to allow this to happen.
Many people have written about the global economic crisis. Since I had the chance to think about the issue in connection to my thoughts about China's democratic future, I'd like to add my two cents.
Many a time in our recent history, scholars of various stripes have pronounced the end of ideology. But the truth of the matter is, as long as there are divisions along various lines in our society, there will be ideologies. Ideology in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. What we need to guard against is ideological extremism. Since pragmatism is inherently modest, it should be relevant to our situation at hand here. Just like thirty years ago when China embraced pragmatism to save its economy from collapse after decades of rigid socialism, today's world should consider a similar philosophical approach to get itself out of the current global economic slump after decades of unfettered capitalism.
This unfettered capitalism has neo-liberalism at its foundation. Claiming to be a revival of classical liberalism at the beginning, neo-liberalism has become nothing short of liberalism taken to the extreme. In order to justify unrestrained personal greed and free-market fundamentalism, neo-liberals often refer to Adam Smith's invisible hand from The Wealth of Nations as their justification. The problem is not their going back to the source. The problem is their intellectual dishonesty in interpreting the source.
More than just the founding pioneer of modern economics as he is widely known, Adam Smith is also a moral philosopher. His first major work, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, though rarely mentioned by today's neo-liberals, provided ethical and philosophical foundations to his economic theories. Besides using invisible hand to describe market in the creation of wealth, he also used the same term to describe morality in the distribution of wealth. As Smith put it himself: "What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." If socialism means more equitable distribution of wealth, one could say Smith is a socialist.
Another similarly distorted fact about Adam Smith is that he is an individualist. Far from explaining all human behaviors on a narrow presumption of self-interest, Smith developed his theory of sympathy as a centerpiece of his moral philosophy. Today, it is precisely this lack of sympathy for others that underlies much of the moral decline in our societies. As neo-liberalism became the dominant ideology of our time, self-interest and personal greed are increasingly used to justify all sorts of immoral behaviors. One of the consequences is that many people think it is perfect acceptable to be dishonest if there is a gain to be made personally. Business executives manipulate books and rules in order to award themselves extravagant paychecks. Economists - I have seen them both here and in China - develop theories in order to serve their respective interest groups. Journalists report stories in order to conform to the prevailing ideologies, etc, etc.
In political arena, this narrow individualist focus and lack of sympathy for others lead to an unwillingness to appreciate opposing views. Ideological positions become entrenched and political debates become confrontational. As a result, politics is increasingly polarized.
Pragmatism enables us to see a situation objectively. And objectivity is needed to ensure that the baby is not thrown out with the bathwater when saving capitalism from its past excesses. For example, while objectively everyone would agree that protectionism is a sure receipt to turn the global recession into a depression, we can still witness a worrying trend towards adopting various protectionist measures around the world lately.
Acknowledgement (20090317):
If there are anything new in this blog, they are built on what I read in the public domain. To perhaps state the obvious, these include, among others: All recorded words by Warren Buffett that I could get my hands on, and in particular, an interview recorded in the book I.O.U.S.A. by Addison Wiggin and Kate Incontrera; Speeches, interviews and other public comments by Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao; A recent essay by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd; Adam Smith in His Time and Ours: Designing the Decent Society by Jerry Z. Muller; Adam Smith and His Legacy for Modern Capitalism by Patricia H. Werhane; And The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul.
Friday, March 06, 2009
China’s democratization and its impact on the world (2)
During the recent U.S. presidential election, Republican candidate Sen. John McCain accused his rival then Sen. Barack Obama of being a socialist on the central issue of the campaign -- economic policies. It was the first time that I followed a presidential election in the United States. I learned quite a lot. But I have to say that I found this particular episode a little bit amusing.
My amusement came from a reflexive comparison between the economic debate in U.S. and the economic approach in China, where ideology had long been replaced by an innate sense of pragmatism. This economic pragmatism is best highlighted by a Chinese proverb made famous by its late leader Deng Xiaoping: “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.” This good cat has an official moniker. It’s called socialist market economy. Despite initial warnings by demagogues Left and Right that such an unorthodox approach could not possibly work, China has managed to achieve phenomenal GDP growth since the beginning of transformation to a socialist market economy thirty years ago. Overall, pragmatism worked wonders in China’s economic arena.
Historic as the transformation in economic policies is, the fundamental reason for China’s economic miracle, however, lies in its economic characteristics, the most important of which is its people. Rather than to strengthen those characteristics, some officials in parts of China have exhibited a foolish inclination to abandon them for want of something more glamorous. What this revealed is that some people in the ruling CCP appeared to have lost touch with reality.
This is not surprising, considering that, due to the authoritarian nature of Chinese government, the group of people who benefited most from thirty years’ economic expansion are those closest to the ruling CCP and the majority of people have not been able to share the economic benefits they deserved. The name of the communist party might give the appearance of a far left party. In reality, it has morphed into something far more right-wing than the central-left character of the overall population. That’s why, despite the official moniker of socialist market economy, the ruling CCP has not lived up to its promise of a just and equitable society -- the essence of socialism. The contradiction between slogan and reality is perhaps best captured by a Chinese saying: “Advertise with a goat head and sell dog meat.”
The evidence is everywhere. Growing income gap between rich and poor. Growing development gap between urban and rural areas. Environmental degradation. Rampant corruption. Mass demonstrations and social unrests. Just by looking at the miserable state of supply of public goods such as health insurance and social security, one might say China is a more capitalist society than, say, Canada. No wonder China has not unleashed the full potential of its domestic consumption.
The root problem is, of course, that the political superstructure has not kept up with pace of change in the economic fundamentals. In particular, it is very difficult to look after the interest of vast majority of working men and women in the current political system. Democratization, properly planned and implemented, should be viewed as the solution to many of China’s problems.
I believe a genuine democracy calls for a multi-party system. Besides, from what I can see, there are ideological and other fractions inside CCP already. Therefore, I see that CPP be broken into three separate parties for China’s democratization.
The first one I shall call the People’s Party. This is a central-left party representing the interest of peasants and vast majority of salaried workers, including white collar and other knowledge workers. The second one is a central-right party representing the interest of entrepreneurs, business managers and other professionals. I am leaving the name of the second party open because I feel, if and when China starts its democratization, peaceful unification with Taiwan will become a much more distinct possibility. It may not be far-fetched then for KMT to come back to mainland as a political entity.
The above two will be the main parties in China’s democratic future, with the People’s Party being the dominant one as it attracts the majority of people. CCP as a fringe party will still be there because I believe it may still be attractive to certain people who either believe in its ideology or want to guard its legacy. As for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan, because of its stated ideology, it will be extremely difficult for them to expand to mainland. Taiwan, in a unified China, will be similar to Quebec in Canada.
Democratization will be a long process. There will be some of the ideas we can learn from liberalism, such as individual responsibility and equality of opportunity. But we should firmly reject its narrow individualist focus and instead regard people as relational and moral beings in society. We need to strengthen and modernize the rule of law. We need to develop the media into an integral part of the democratic discourse. Most of all, we need to find democratic inspiration from our own cultural traditions and educate the mass on what it means to be democratic citizens. Just like economic pragmatism unleashed China’s economic potential, I believe political pragmatism - unearthed mostly from our own cultural resources - would unleash China’s democratic potential as well.
Party ideologies will be there. Yet from a pragmatist’s point of view, different ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, merely provide different sets of tools to address societal problems. The key for government is to reject extreme measures and achieve the right balance in formulating public policies. Pragmatism emphasizes facts, practical experiences and real results. Pragmatists are open to all ideas as long as they are useful to the situation at hand. When future Chinese democracy takes on its distinct pragmatist character, we will have a more accountable, more transparent, yet less confrontational, less polarized politics. Because the central-left People’s Party is the dominant party, an overall socialist approach should be expected from the resulting public policies.
That’s my hope for China’s democratic future -- a Chinese-style, socialist democracy.
My amusement came from a reflexive comparison between the economic debate in U.S. and the economic approach in China, where ideology had long been replaced by an innate sense of pragmatism. This economic pragmatism is best highlighted by a Chinese proverb made famous by its late leader Deng Xiaoping: “No matter if it is a white cat or a black cat; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.” This good cat has an official moniker. It’s called socialist market economy. Despite initial warnings by demagogues Left and Right that such an unorthodox approach could not possibly work, China has managed to achieve phenomenal GDP growth since the beginning of transformation to a socialist market economy thirty years ago. Overall, pragmatism worked wonders in China’s economic arena.
Historic as the transformation in economic policies is, the fundamental reason for China’s economic miracle, however, lies in its economic characteristics, the most important of which is its people. Rather than to strengthen those characteristics, some officials in parts of China have exhibited a foolish inclination to abandon them for want of something more glamorous. What this revealed is that some people in the ruling CCP appeared to have lost touch with reality.
This is not surprising, considering that, due to the authoritarian nature of Chinese government, the group of people who benefited most from thirty years’ economic expansion are those closest to the ruling CCP and the majority of people have not been able to share the economic benefits they deserved. The name of the communist party might give the appearance of a far left party. In reality, it has morphed into something far more right-wing than the central-left character of the overall population. That’s why, despite the official moniker of socialist market economy, the ruling CCP has not lived up to its promise of a just and equitable society -- the essence of socialism. The contradiction between slogan and reality is perhaps best captured by a Chinese saying: “Advertise with a goat head and sell dog meat.”
The evidence is everywhere. Growing income gap between rich and poor. Growing development gap between urban and rural areas. Environmental degradation. Rampant corruption. Mass demonstrations and social unrests. Just by looking at the miserable state of supply of public goods such as health insurance and social security, one might say China is a more capitalist society than, say, Canada. No wonder China has not unleashed the full potential of its domestic consumption.
The root problem is, of course, that the political superstructure has not kept up with pace of change in the economic fundamentals. In particular, it is very difficult to look after the interest of vast majority of working men and women in the current political system. Democratization, properly planned and implemented, should be viewed as the solution to many of China’s problems.
I believe a genuine democracy calls for a multi-party system. Besides, from what I can see, there are ideological and other fractions inside CCP already. Therefore, I see that CPP be broken into three separate parties for China’s democratization.
The first one I shall call the People’s Party. This is a central-left party representing the interest of peasants and vast majority of salaried workers, including white collar and other knowledge workers. The second one is a central-right party representing the interest of entrepreneurs, business managers and other professionals. I am leaving the name of the second party open because I feel, if and when China starts its democratization, peaceful unification with Taiwan will become a much more distinct possibility. It may not be far-fetched then for KMT to come back to mainland as a political entity.
The above two will be the main parties in China’s democratic future, with the People’s Party being the dominant one as it attracts the majority of people. CCP as a fringe party will still be there because I believe it may still be attractive to certain people who either believe in its ideology or want to guard its legacy. As for the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) of Taiwan, because of its stated ideology, it will be extremely difficult for them to expand to mainland. Taiwan, in a unified China, will be similar to Quebec in Canada.
Democratization will be a long process. There will be some of the ideas we can learn from liberalism, such as individual responsibility and equality of opportunity. But we should firmly reject its narrow individualist focus and instead regard people as relational and moral beings in society. We need to strengthen and modernize the rule of law. We need to develop the media into an integral part of the democratic discourse. Most of all, we need to find democratic inspiration from our own cultural traditions and educate the mass on what it means to be democratic citizens. Just like economic pragmatism unleashed China’s economic potential, I believe political pragmatism - unearthed mostly from our own cultural resources - would unleash China’s democratic potential as well.
Party ideologies will be there. Yet from a pragmatist’s point of view, different ideologies such as socialism and capitalism, merely provide different sets of tools to address societal problems. The key for government is to reject extreme measures and achieve the right balance in formulating public policies. Pragmatism emphasizes facts, practical experiences and real results. Pragmatists are open to all ideas as long as they are useful to the situation at hand. When future Chinese democracy takes on its distinct pragmatist character, we will have a more accountable, more transparent, yet less confrontational, less polarized politics. Because the central-left People’s Party is the dominant party, an overall socialist approach should be expected from the resulting public policies.
That’s my hope for China’s democratic future -- a Chinese-style, socialist democracy.