Grudgingly, I’ll try to be a politician

To be or not to be? That's the Shakespearean question bothering me these days. Irony is, when the question was about whether I should be a politician, the mere fact that I spent so much time pondering it, especially at this time of great crisis, already illustrated what I have been saying all along, that I could never be a politician.

But grudgingly, I think I'll try to be a politician.

UNSC Resolution 1784

The current crisis originated from North Korea's nuclear test on May 25. The latest development was that last Wednesday June 10, after more than two weeks' apparently stalked negotiations at the United Nation Security Council, China and Russia agreed onto a tough-worded draft resolution backed by the U.S.. The resolution was adopted by UNSC last Friday.

Why the sudden movement at the UN last Wednesday? I would say it had to do with what I typed into my computer the day before. As I mentioned several times already, the Canadian and U.S. governments were able to read the files on my portable disc. From my experience this time, I would say that they were able to capture every one of my keystrokes. (I have since bought another computer, on which this blog is being composed.) In order to put the political development in context, I'll copy and paste here the first several paragraphs of my writing last Tuesday June 9:

The North Korea situation is still a mess. More than two weeks after it conducted a nuclear test in defiance of the international community, U.N. Security Council has yet to bring forward a united response to the crisis. At the mean time, North Korea is increasingly bellicose, openly threatening the use of nuclear weapon in a "merciless offensive" through a state-run newspaper today.

China should and must deal a firm hand with North Korea this time. But in order for that to be effective, China needs first to take an even firmer approach to Russia, the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. China, together with the United States and other countries in the region, can then better leverage its influence over North Korea to make it give up its nuclear weapon.

In my June 2 update to my previous blog I argued that logically, Russia had to be the backer of North Korea's nuclear test. Later in the week, I found the telltale sign of its role in creating the crisis in a published interview of its president, Dmitry Medvedev, with Maria Bartiromo of BusinessWeek. Apparently, Mr. Medvedev was caught off-guard by the North Korea question. Otherwise, he would have hid his government's role in the nuclear test better. As I commented at the end of Bartiromo's article:

"On North Korea, Mr. Medvedev was lying through his teeth to you, Maria. The truth of the matter is, the recent N Korea nuclear test was aimed at China, with the backing of his government. That's probably why he did not mention a word of China in his interview with you. (Indeed, China was the only country he did not mention because U.S. was implicitly mentioned when he emphasized its allies Japan and S Korea.)"

The political logic behind the latest development at UN is as follows: The Obama administration is reluctant to accept my idea of a G2. The Russian government is firmly against it. I am widely regarded as the real leader of China with my proposals of China's democratization and Sino-U.S. relations. As such, the goals of U.S. and Russian governments somewhat converged on China and they therefore had an incentive to work together against me. Once they learned what I was about to publish last Tuesday, they quickly "reconciled" their differences on North Korea - with Russia agreeing to the U.S. position - at the UNSC with a resolution that put great pressure on China before my story could become public.

That China felt great pressure from this resolution was evident from the warning voiced by its ambassador to U.N. after the vote: "Under no circumstance should there be the use of force or the threat of use of force" in implementing the resolution. That's why we saw on CBC NewsWorld, one of the headlines all day Friday was "7th heaven", 7 being the most dreadful number in Chinese politics and used by Mr. Obama in his Cairo speech just recently on June 4. And on its Politics program with Don Newman, the anchor said: "Nobody wanted World War I, but …" He even mentioned the word "hibernate", from my original blog where I unwittingly spelled out the truth about China's nuclear force. (It's really sad that even after all these years, that's all came to some people's minds when they thought of me.) And on its evening flagship National program, the top headline was "T minus one sleep", perhaps a snipe at my slowness in writing my experience. (And I would suggest that the political drama in Ottawa in the past couple of days surrounding a rare summer election speculation was connected to my situation.)

U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file

The first time I suspected there might be a U.S.-Russian cooperation on my file was on February 10, 2009 when two satellites, one from the United States and one from Russia, collided in space. The chance that such a collision was a pure accident was extremely small. And the timing of the incident pointed to the cooperation between these two governments because Chinese government had a plan to bring me out into public in a celebrating atmosphere the day before, on February 9, the end of Spring Festival period and a significant Chinese holiday. (As it turned out, there appeared to be significant objection within the Chinese government, as manifested by two incidents happened to Chinese Central Television on that day. One was a reported satellite difficulty that affected transmission of TV signals for hours in the morning. Then in the evening, a huge fire engulfed the CCTV building.) What the U.S. and Russian governments wanted to accomplish with this "accident" in space were (1) to tarnish my public image at the start of my debut by reminding people that the Chinese government had conduct an anti-satellite (ASAT) experiment in connection to my possible debut in early 2007; and (2) to demonstrate their technological know-how. (From this and many others events people can see that China has a long way to go in terms of managing its international public relations.)

Of course, I did not know in advance of China's ASAT test. Indeed, I had come out and strongly condemned it after I learned its connection to my situation. I should add that this was not the only incident where the Chinese government had portrayed me in a militaristic fashion. Such portraitures did nothing to help my situation here other than to complicate it, as I often complained. Perhaps the most idiotic of them all was President Hu Jintao's link of my Pattullo Bridge protest in 2005 to "air defence". (Of course, my protest on Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government, as I said many times. I got the idea from someone who, I believe, had nothing to do with Chinese government. I went on with my bridge protest only after all my other protests, including fasting day-in and day-out in freezing temperature in front of the Parliament in Ottawa, had failed to generate media attention on my cause. Even the timing of my protest was tied to Canadian domestic political situation: Although nobody admitted it, I believe it was my protest that gave the then opposition parties the resolve to bring down the then Liberal government and to begin a rare winter election. -- The non-confidence motion that defeated the government was a one-sentence general statement that "this House has lost confidence in the government", without being specific. For more background of my protest, please read here, here, and here.) Still, I feel sorry for the misunderstanding caused by Chinese government's idiotic portraitures of me.

Why was the U.S. administration reluctant to accept my G2 proposal of Sino-U.S. cooperation? I think fundamentally, it was due to U.S.'s hegemonic tendencies. I am not going to get into the abstract debate on whether the United States is an empire or not. Even for Barack Obama, there were telltale signs that he did not want to give up U.S.'s sole superpower status. That's why I called him (and his predecessor Mr. Bush) a "bubble-builder" in my January 18 blog. (I'm sure that he understood what I meant. That's why he had since tried to give alternative interpretations of the word "bubble".)

In my previous blog, I recalled that Mr. Obama could not give a coherent response to my April 2 blog during his post-G20 European tour. One response he gave was quite telling though: He stated the obvious fact that the U.S. was still the dominate military power in the world. The underlying message was simple: If necessary, he would not hesitate to use military power to preserve U.S.'s sole superpower status.

In my previous blog, I also talked about Mr. Obama's speech at Georgetown University on April 14 where, after he had succeeded in putting military pressure on China with the engineered hostage crisis off the coast of Somali, he essentially demanded that I should be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership, effectively proclaiming that my G2 idea was dead. In his speech, he mentioned that this 21st century would be another "American Century". Similarly, on the day after his 100th day in office when he succeeded in deceiving me by pretending that he would bring me out into public on that day, he gave another speech where he used the phrase "American Century" again to justify his keeping me away from the public.

Again, I am not going to get into abstract debate about "American Century" - just like the word "empire", much is depended on the definition. The mere fact that he used this phrase again and again to justify keeping me and thus my idea of G2 away from public was quite telling. And from my own experience, I can see that it is this hegemonic tendencies on the part of the U.S. administration that is a major part of the root cause for the potential conflicts between U.S. and China.

Because the U.S. government - and perhaps many other governments - was able to read the files on my disc, it's a good idea to copy and paste again some of the key phrases about my G2 idea from my disc. These are: "a new international order", "multi-polar world", "international democratic order", "counterbalance to America's hegemonic tendencies", "China and the developing countries", etc. These words should give people additional flavour of my idea on international relations. But most important of all, I should point out, my idea of G2 is a peaceful concept. It does not challenge American leadership per se. It merely offered a peaceful mechanism to transform the current uni-polar world order to a more democratic multi-polar one.

Russians are a bit trickier. My feeling is that the Russian government was fundamentally opposed to my idea of G2. Not only that, they in fact wanted to see China and U.S. walk down a more confrontational path. I mentioned before that I had foiled several potential conflicts across the Taiwan Strait over the years. In most of those cases, Russians appeared to have been on the side of Chinese government. It seemed to me that China and Russia had some kind of alliance. If that's the case, I think China should re-orient its approach to Russia.

From my own experience, I feel Russia supported China's confrontation with U.S. for its own reasons. Most other times, it just wanted to be troublesome. I remembered that after I had not cooperated on the plan to take Taiwan by force in late September or early October 2007, Vladimir Putin was very upset as evidenced by the news he made with the phrase "a lunatic dancing on a razor-thin edge", which was clearly nut-cracking my just-finished article on my experience in the mental hospital, entitled The Governments Pushed Me To The Edge Yet Made Sure I Did Not Fall Over The Edge. And more recently on the day of Mr. Obama's visit to Ottawa, Russian planes approached Canadian air space. Note that the Chinese government had a plan to bring me out on that day as well, as I revealed in my February 20 blog. What's Russia's purpose to send war planes over, other than "troublesome just to be troublesome", as prime minister Stephen Harper put it?

Of course, the U.S. and Russian governments would not have taken me and my G2 idea so seriously if I were not widely regarded as the real leader of China. And here came a dishonesty on the part of Chinese government, which I had disclosed before. As I said in my April 2 blog, Chinese government wanted to make me the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership - a super leader - yet "maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada". As I said, this plan of Chinese government had caused friction between U.S. and China. Looking back, I am afraid that my genuine desire to get away from politics may have been taken advantage of by the Chinese government. And judging from Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo, it is quite possible that their bestowing me a super leader status was contingent upon my successful establishment here.

It was mostly because of this realization that I decided that I should go back to politics in a honest way - except for myself. That's the only way to resolve the situation. I have written enough on me and politics as a profession, and every word of it was true. However, there is no point in being honest to myself (that I can never be a politician) if everyone else thinks otherwise (that I am the true political leader of China). And if my realization is correct, the only honest way for the Chinese government to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.

But I also knew this was a wrong decision. That's why I was so torn-apart by it. Indeed, I think it was a mistake for the Chinese government to have picked me years ago as a potential candidate for the top leadership position in China. I don't know exactly why I was picked. Perhaps Warren Buffett was a factor. But frankly, I think I am just an average guy. If anything, I perhaps have a stronger sense of right and wrong than other people. When it comes to politics, though, I am awfully ill-equipped. As the events in the past few weeks demonstrated, I had to be responsible for at least some of the serious damages done to China.

Events after North Korea nuclear test

Let's face it. Not only was North Korea's nuclear test aimed at China, even the date was carefully chosen to disrupt China's plan to bring me into public. May 25 was when Mr. Wu Poh-hsiung, Chairman of KMT started a highly visible tour of mainland. Chinese government probably had a plan to bring me out into public as the next super leader (but maintain in public I was only the 6th generation) around May 25 or 26 thus reveal at the same time what I have done, among other things, for peace across the Taiwan Strait. (I should add that I do not always know Chinese government's exact plan, such as the one on May 12, which I only knew after the fact. Partly this is because I lack experience in politics. Partly it is due to the way I receive my information. Ever since I embarked on my journey, I have not received a single message plainly, whether it was from the Canadian government and opposition parties, or from Chinese government, or from U.S. government and opposition politicians, or from the media. The messages were always hidden. I didn't always get them in my first reading. Indeed, a lot of times I only discovered the hidden messages when I went through the whole news the second, third, or even fourth time. Of course, even when I got the messages, I did not always act on them.) For me, I think it is simply the right thing to do to guard peace.

Indeed, I wrote my last major blog with an eye on the developing situation in Taiwan. Apparently, the U.S. administration had influenced the opposition DPP in an attempt to create social unrest and/or chaos on or around May 17 in Taiwan as part of their plan to create problems for China, who was preparing for war with India. Taiwan's former leader Chen Shuibian, who was held in prison for corruption-related charges, had started a hunger strike. After the current DPP leader's visit to the U.S., the entire DPP top brass, who had distanced themselves from Chen, visited him just before the mass demonstration their party organized. In light of this situation, in my initial draft of my last blog I started with writing my own experience in prison. Indeed, I believe it was because of these initial passages, unpublished but observed by the U.S. administration nevertheless, that prevented social unrest from flaring up in Taiwan in mid-May.

… Nice guy finishes last. My own experience was so miserable that I cried many times.

I remembered crying as far back as in the summer of 1994. I was in the office of a business professor at SFU, telling him what happened between my Stats professors and me. Many years would pass me by while I was bullied, harassed as well as humiliated without a job. I became depressed. But I did not file my lawsuit until November 2002. Even that was at the end of a status of limitation period. (Of course, I did not know the involvement of the federal government when I filed my lawsuit.)

I remembered crying on November 29, 2006, over the disappearance and potential cover-up of another young girl, Tamra Keepness, in Saskatchewan.

My last significant cry was after November 28, 2007, the first day of my trial in Judge Steinberg's "kangaroo court". I cried because I felt I was losing my cause of seeking justice for Cecilia Zhang, having realized that I had been cheated by both the judge, who apparently had been influenced by the government after I was last in his court, and the opposition Liberals, whose moral outrage during the Question Periods in parliament before my trial was just hot air. Knowing that I was under 24 hour video surveillance (duo to my earlier hunger strike) in prison, I had to control my crying with my back facing the camera. Still, the prison doctor was at my door in no time. Apparently he had been hard pressed by the governments to find any evidence to prove that I was mentally ill so as to discredit my cause.

And my situation is not much better, being in a virtual prison as I often say I am in. Moreover, I am still on probation by Judge Steinberg's order, issued after he had convicted me AND made sure that I would be sent back to mental hospital for forced psychiatric medication. Any "bad behaviour" would automatically land me in a real prison, together with forced psychiatric medication. Even if I have to be hospitalized for other sickness, I would likely be forced to take psychiatric medication as well.

And I believe I am still under surveillance even inside my apartment. The latest confirmation was the big drop in market indices on Wednesday, May 13. I believe the sequence of events is as follows: (1) I read on Tuesday night on Bloomberg website that a respected Australian scientist claimed that the A(H1N1) virus could come from a lab; (2) I could not fall sleep and got up in the middle of the night; and (3) Information about me was relayed to market insiders.

As such, right after North Korea's nuclear test, I got the feeling that it was targeted at me. But I was out of politics then and I was determined not to be bothered by it. I even tried to get my mind away from politics by developing a hobby to break my daily routine. I contemplated taking up photography. I visited electronic stores to compare-shop camera; gathered information on photography classes from at least two institutions and investigated funding requirements. I was really serious about it. But I could not get away from the news on North Korea -- it was headline everywhere. And soon I realized that I would be personally targeted if I did not respond. I also knew Chinese government had another plan to bring me out on June 1, the last day of Wu's visit to mainland. Naturally Chinese government wanted me to act and to act promptly.

However, I realized these a little too late, as my mind had been deliberately taken elsewhere. When I decided to write my response, I wrote it too slowly, as I always did. As you can see, I was only able to finish this update in the evening of June 2 local time.

It was in this context of my failing to meeting the June 1 (Beijing time) deadline that Air France Flight 447 disaster occurred on June 1 (local time). I highly suspect it was a foul-play to pin terrorism blame on China. Besides the timing of the incident, the following are the facts that support my assertion.

1. France's Sarkozy government is well-known for its anti-China stand. Indeed, French government had tried to take a lead in the recovery of wreckage and investigation of the accident in the beginning.
2. Brazil is an important developing country who has a generally good relationship with China. This would be a good opportunity to instigate problems and create frictions between Brazil and China. If successful, China would be considerably isolated internationally.
3. Media coverage, especially those in France, had put a cloud of mystery on the disaster from the beginning. A French minister openly said that terrorism could not be ruled out.
4. Just three days later, Mr. Obama called on the whole world to turn on China in his Cairo speech.

After I missed the June 1 deadline, Beijing suggested to me that I could get back to politics on June 4, as my sentiment on the event of June 4, 1989 was well known. I knew Beijing was eager to bring me out. But I was still reluctant to get back to politics. As a result, Beijing could not get out the truth about North Korea's nuclear test.

When I first read Mr. Obama's Cairo speech on June 4, frankly, I was a little shocked that he openly called for China's dissolution with the number 7 in his speech. But my initial shock soon gave away to the reality: Russia was starting to turn against China. France had been onboard for some time. With the power of Western media in his palms, Mr. Obama must have felt that the prospect of pinning down China with terrorism was within his reach by connecting the Air France 447 disaster with China. No wonder he was bolstered to call on the whole world to turn on China.

It was in the morning of June 5 that I started collecting and saving information on Air France disaster story. Perhaps because of this computer activity of mine which "told" the world that I was watching the development of this story, the media frenzy surrounding this story started to die down a little bit. It was after the first two bodies were found that I felt much more relieved. I really hope that truth will be found in this tragic disaster.

The effect of Mr. Obama's speech was immediate. There were certain benefits to be the world's only superpower, after all. Great Britain and Australia were the two countries whose governments had been receptive to my idea of G2. In Great Britain, Gordon Brown's government went into a deeper crisis with additional minister resigning. In Australia, RioTinto suddenly scrapped a huge business deal with Chinalco. It was clearly a political decision. So much for not meddling in other people's affairs.

What do I have to say to Mr. Obama's speech in Cairo? Frankly, not much. I suppose that if Mr. Obama succeeds in turning the whole world against China through his Machiavellian ways, that would be the end of China as we know it. But like Warren Buffett says, you always have to ask yourself the question, "And then what?" And I have already provided the answer in my analysis of Sino-U.S. relations and elsewhere in my blogs: A chaotic China is not in the world's interest. Just think of the perhaps hundreds of millions of refugees coming out of a disintegrating and chaotic China. Where would they go? How many will U.S. take? How many will France take? How many will Russia take?

Even with that awful scenario, China - in the cultural sense - will still survive. In fact, the power of China lies not in its military, nor in its growing economy. I believe China's real power lies in its culture. Indeed, if you study Chinese history, you'll find that there have been periods when China was conquered by "outsiders". And then what? The conquerors invariably became Chinese. That's just how irresistible Chinese culture is. (Another feature of Chinese culture is that it is incredibly open.) Think of Chinese culture as chocolate. As one of my favourite movie illustrated, you can not fight chocolate with a knife. You just can't.

But I took my other realization from reading Mr. Obama's speech seriously. I did not want to see myself become a source of tension, even unintentionally. That's why on Friday evening, June 5, I posted a blog, grudgingly signalled that I would consider trying to be a politician, as this was the only way to diffuse the tension between China and U.S as Mr. Obama saw it. The Chinese government's plan was to bring me out on June 8, again in a celebrating atmosphere in connection to the first of a series of parties for the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic. In effect, Chinese government planned to bring me out as the 3rd generation. However, I did not feel comfortable with their plan, even if this time their bestowing me the 3rd generation status did not depend on my establishing myself here. On Saturday evening, I took down my blog.

Conclusion

Just four weeks ago I sum up my experience with politics this way: "I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. I was bothered by the fact that politics had complicated my situation and made my primary goal - which was to get my life back - seem harder to reach. Despite the complications, however, I had always used 'doing the right thing' as my guiding principle along the way - usually with great personal costs. When I found out that I could not untangle myself from politics, I played along, hoping that I would be taken out politically."

But, as I said, the only honest way now to bring me out is to treat me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership. I am little sad about it. But I am resigned to my fate. Hopefully my story will shed some light on the North Korea situation and help to resolve the crisis peacefully. Politically, I will still try to lead China on the path of democratization with that "nice" philosophy of mine. I will also try my best to make my idea of G2 work between China and U.S. This may just be too naive. But I'll try nevertheless, because it is the only way I know. With President Hu Jintao traveling outside of China, I think there is an opportunity now to do this with minimum disruption. My only hope is that Canadian government will cooperate with my plan and compensate me as soon as possible for the serious wrongs inflicted upon me.


Update (20090620):

It appears that I don't have enough support in China to be the 4th generation at this time. That leaves me with the only option to be the 5th generation.

Still, I believe my strength is in my ideas - my idea for China's democratization as well as my idea for international relations. These ideas could potentially change China and impact the world. That's fundamentally why people take me so seriously.

Assaulted in prison, tortured in mental hospital

Before I take on politics again, I post here my oral submission to BC Provincial Court on December 4th, 2007, to provide some context on the torture and assault I personally endured during incarceration:

At the core of the 13-page documents I submitted to the Court last Wednesday, November 28th, in support of my application to stay the proceedings was a 2-page letter I wrote to U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, on October 23, 2007. In it, I disclosed for the first time that President Bush personally knew my telephone activities at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (FPH) and therefore likely knew that I was being tortured there as well.

In this current submission, I intended to establish that, in order to protect the Bush administration from this damaging information about President Bush, the federal government, mostly through its influence on North Fraser Pre-Trial Center (NFPC), repeatedly obstructed the delivery of my letter to Senator Reid, in various formats.

One. On October 23, 2007, I submitted the 2-page letter, attaching the 6-page FPH update, to NFPC for faxing to Sen. Harry Reid at around 1:00PM. Mr. Fraser, the Living Unit Officer (LUO), signed my request "fwd for action" and later told me that his supervisor had promised to "make it happen". However, at around 10:30AM the following day, Mr. Fraser told me that my fax request had been rejected. I asked him why. He said that he was told it was too long. But I knew it was an excuse because I had earlier requested sending even longer faxes and they were granted. And I noticed that the "Supervisor Remarks" section of my request was left blank. I asked Mr. Fraser to ask whoever was responsible to provide a formal reason for rejecting my fax request. Later a Supervisor signed the section: "Please send this document via regular mail." Merely pointing out an alternative but slower means of delivery was apparently not a solid reason for rejecting my fax. The real reason was, of course, the federal Conservative government intended to protect the Bush administration from the damaging information in my letter.

Two. After my fax request was rejected, I did put a copy of my letter to Sen. Reid in mail on October 24, 2007. At the mean time, I wrote a letter to MLA Jenny Kwan. There were two purposes in my writing to MLA Kwan. One was to ask her to fax my letter to Sen. Reid on my behalf so that Sen. Reid would receive my letter sooner than the regular mail. That's why I sent my letter to MLA Kwan to her constituent office in Vancouver, rather than to her legislative office in Victoria. Two was to convince her, as an opposition MLA in BC Legislature, to intervene in the BC government-run NFPC's treatment of me, especially in light of their rejection of my fax request.

The response I got from MLA Kwan's offices was very confusing at best. For more than a week, I was told that they had not received my letter, which was quite unusual for a letter from Port Coquitlam to Vancouver. It was not until Wednesday, November 14th when a staffer, Stewart, in her office told me that he had in fact received my letter on October 26 and turned it over to MLA Kwan on that same day, without the knowledge of any other staff members in her offices, and that he had subsequently been out of office for quite some time. He also promised that he would fax my letter to Sen. Reid later that day, November 14th.

Three. On October 30, 2007, I decided to re-send my letter to MLA Kwan, together with a one-page note I wrote her on that day, this time by making another fax request to NFPC. This was essentially how my 13-page submission last time came about. Again, having counted the number of pages, LUO Mr. Fraser signed my fax request: "fwd to Programs for possible consideration for faxing."

Two days later, a supervisor from the Programs Department told me that my fax request had been rejected with the ridiculous reason: "There is no letter attached." I guess they ran out of excuses for turning down my fax request.

Four. On November 1st, 2007, in protest of the repeated obstructions of my written communications with Sen. Reid by federal government and NFPC, I started another hunger strike. On November 8th, 2007, in desperation to get the letter to Sen. Reid, I called a relative of mine and asked him to record my letter - as I read it - as a voice mail and send it to Sen. Reid's office via email. However, my telephone conversations with this relative of mine were repeatedly interrupted by either the federal government or NFPC. For several times, whenever I read the part of the letter on President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, the telephone line was disconnected. As I said before, President Bush's activities on Thursday evening, September 13th, which revealed his personal knowledge of my telephone activities earlier that day at the FPH, was the information that the federal government did not want me to get out to Sen. Reid.

Finally, I would like to emphasize that my 6-page FPH update article was finished on October 10, 2007 and had been sent out to other politicians without much difficulty before October 23, 2007 when my letter to Sen. Reid provided new information that was damaging to President Bush. So it would appear that this new information was the reason why I had so many problems in getting this letter out.

Also, this new information, together with my FPH update provided the reasonable and logical conclusion that President Bush knew my telephone activities from the Harper government almost instantaneously on September 13, 2007. This is because (1) all of my calls made prior to President Bush's televised speech were local calls; (2) I did not tell anyone about those calls; and (3) I had established in my FPH update article that my calls made at the hospital were monitored by the federal government. (Of course, the federal government has been monitoring my personal and/or legal telephone communications for at least 6 years. That's why I could not find a lawyer. Please see my websites jyu1.blogspot.com and www.sfu.ca/~jyu1 for details.)

Lastly, NFPC, being a correctional facility, is an apolitical organization. It, by itself, should not or would not obstruct my personal communications. It likely was taking orders from the federal government who had been working hand-in-hand with the Bush administration against my cause for a long time.

PM update:

I started running technical difficulties again when I tried to post the 13-page documents, mostly with the website Zamzar, since yesterday. I have just been able to post it on tuzulo.com.

The 13-page documents, consisting of letters I wrote to various law makers while in prison, was submitted to the Court on November 28, 2009, to support my application to stay the proceeding. Later, I found out by phoning Court Registry that Judge Steinberg had essentially kept those documents in his pocket. I complained and the Registry had to track down him to get hold of these documents. Till this day, I am not sure if these documents are in my Court File (New Westminster No. 68600).


Update (20090812):

This blog was originally published on June 6. I took it down on June 16. I re-published it today.


Update (20140124):

I visited New Westminster Court Registry on Tuesday January 21, 2014. I did find the said 13-page documents in my file with a yellow post-it note on the top page. The note, which essentially says that those documents were obtained from the judge or judge's (I paraphrase), was hand-written by someone with the initial "D.M.". This was consistent with my own personal notes from my hospital days. My notes indicated that the clerk I spoke to over the phone was Diane.

I have requested a copy of my whole file.

Okay, all right. I'll try to be a politician

But I can only be a nice politician.

I can never be a politician

After announcing in my last blog that I would return all my books, I did go to the library with all the six books. But I hesitated in returning them. I felt I owe people an explanation.

As I said before, I was dragged into politics without my prior consent. I was bothered by the fact that politics had complicated my situation and made my primary goal - which was to get my life back - seem harder to reach. Despite the complications, however, I had always used "doing the right thing" as my guiding principle along the way - usually with great personal costs. When I found out that I could not untangle myself from politics, I played along, hoping that I would be taken out politically. That's why I borrowed books to send out political messages.

However, in the past few weeks, with the realization that my depression had gotten markedly worse, I became increasingly convinced that this was all a mistake. To be taken out politically, I need to win politically. However, I could not possibly win this game, not only because I do not have the necessary experience and skills, but more crucially because I am just too nice. I can never be a politician. That's the reason why I wanted to return all the books and stop such activities in the future.

No, this is not a clever way of praising myself. I know very well from my own miserable experience that "nice guys finish last". Indeed, I did not even hide the fact that I had tried to change myself by, say, reading Machiavelli stuff. But I failed. I guess niceness is in my genes. Of course, everyone knew I am a nice guy already, including people who were not so friendly to me, such as Dick Cheney or Niall Ferguson.

Besides having the tendency to shy away from conflicts, I am also a sympathetic person - another trait of a nice guy. As I said elsewhere, I think that we needed more sympathy in our societies. I still maintain that view because I firmly believe the lack of sympathy is the root cause of moral decline in our societies. Besides, being a nice/sympathetic guy, I naturally subscribe to the social and political philosophy I have been advocating, a philosophy that requires "extensive sympathy" to work.

In my dealings with President Obama, I have always had extraordinary amount of sympathy toward him because I had great hope for him. (After all, I risked my life in electing him.) Note that this was in addition to the unusually large amount of sympathy I had towards an average person by simply being who I am. Understand this part of me, then you will understand why I hesitated for four days before posting my first blog that was critical of him; and why, while I had attached great importance to the integrity in documenting my journey of almost 5 years, I lied in two of my recent blogs during the G20 Summit in order not to embarrass him.

I should note that in each of those two instances, Mr. Obama did not take my critical revelations of truth well. In the first instance, Mr. Obama responded emotionally as reflected in his inauguration address that contained countless nuts, putting the entire Sino-U.S. relations in jeopardy. In the second, Mr. Obama could not give a coherent response to the unflattering truth I revealed about him, as reflected in the changing themes of his speeches during his post-G20 European tour. One of the themes, as BBC acutely put it, was "Yes, we can" again. Mr. Obama was, in effect, resorting to punching below the waistline again on that day.

Soon after he came back from Europe, the biggest news across all major media was the hijacking of a U.S. freighter and the taking hostage of its captain by Somali pirates. As a maritime expert pointed out on BBC, this was highly unusual. Very soon, multiple U.S. navy vessels were dispatched to the area, making people wonder why so many military assets would have to be deployed to deal with a few pirates on a small life boat. President Obama was reportedly on top of the situation but refused to answer questions from the media.

I was doing further research on China's planned war with India at the time. (Indeed, I had just determined that it was on or around February 2 that I first realized China's war plan. ) When the words "Indian Ocean" were mentioned by the media in connection to the hostage situation, I realized that those piracy activities were not that far from India. Of course, I knew China had earlier sent its navy vessels to the Gulf of Aden to protect its merchant ships from Somali pirates. All these made me realize that (1) the Chinese vessels very likely had a secret mission as part of the planned war with India; and (2) the hostage situation was very likely engineered by the Obama administration so as to send war ships to the area to counter the Chinese vessels.

As I probed deeper, I found that the Chinese vessels were dispatched on December 26, 2008, the birthday of Mao Zedong. I do not usually remember Mao's birthday. I remembered it this year because, while composing this blog - which was still to be titled then - on Christmas Day, I noticed Mao's birthday while browsing the Internet. Indeed, it was because I regarded Mao's birthday as a good date that I hurried up with my writing and posted the finished blog in the evening, which would still have been Mao's birthday in China. That's also why I gave this blog an unusual title, A Christmas Update, with an apparent emphasis on time. (I should add that I started writing that part of my story on Christmas morning because I felt particularly depressed, it being a holiday of all. -- One thing I learned about coping with my depression was to break my routine, or to do something fresh or unusual.)

I did not overtly make the connection to Mao's birthday in that blog because I knew what the impression of an average Westerner had on Mao and I knew I could not possibly change that perception in short order. Indeed in all my writings, I had tried to avoid the subject if I could.

(Perhaps a few words on Mao is in order. I know that Mao had been portrayed as a horrible person in western media for ideological reasons. I agree that he was a brutal dictator. People here should realize, though, that to the Chinese people, he will always be regarded as the undisputed founder of the new China. And because of that, I admire him greatly. Without a strong, independent China he founded, Chinese people would still live in destitute. That said, I should point out that any comparison between Mao and me is unfortunate because the only similarity I could think of is that both of us are true advocates for the less advantaged in society. Yet the differences between Mao and me are huge. For one thing, Mao was a strong man and a revolutionary but I am only a modest person by nature. I subscribe to Confucianism - in its modern sense - but Mao disdained Confucius. Mao was a brutal political leader adept at the power game. I am a nice guy hopelessly stuck with my life. And finally, Mao was a dictator at his core. Because I had lived both in China and in Canada and saw these two political systems up close and personal, I am a firm believer of democracy.)

Back at the situation at hand, I first wondered: given all these coincidences, did I give people the impression that I had known China's war plan as early as on December 25, and that I was in support of this mission? This was the first question that came to my mind because I was researching on the question of when I first realized China's war plan. Frankly on that early a date, I did not have a whiff of impression of China's war plan.

I also wondered: Why did the Chinese navy send out its war ships on Mao's birthday on an apparent anti-piracy mission? Was it just a coincidence, or did it have a political significance? I knew that both Mao and I had been compared to the sun. The constant headline of "Captain Phillips Held Hostage" also reminded me that Mao had been called the "Great Captain". I wondered if the Chinese navy mission was initially conceived to cross the Pacific Ocean to rescue me (or to be seen to rescue me in order to put pressure on the U.S. and Canadian governments), as I had said many times that I was in a virtual prison here; and by posting my blog A Christmas Update on that same day, if I had created the impression that I had "sent off" these ships to the Indian Ocean.

If that's the case, I could even be regarded as the real person behind China's planned war with India. This scenario was highly plausible because under this scenario, a message from the whole "Captain Phillips Held Hostage" episode was that the Obama administration would take hostage of me if China-India war did break out. Indeed, helicopters were hovering above my head again to perhaps reinforce the message.

But I knew I had nothing to do with China's planned war with India. That's also part of the reason why I had so resisted accepting Mr. Osama's "endorsement" of me for the 5th generation of Chinese leadership in his Georgetown speech on April 14.

Probably because of my resistance, Mr. Obama must have gone back to all the intelligence reports he had on me and concluded that I had done nothing wrong and he himself had broken the law by deliberately putting the lives of American citizens in danger. That's why he gave a speech at CIA on Monday April 20 in which he talked about "hard/easy" while looking away from the camera - an extremely rare occurrence for him. I knew he was afraid that I would blow the whistle on him and he was apologizing to me for punching below the waistline. That's actually how my blog title, "It's not easy to be a politician", came about. Note that the markets dropped heavily on that day, too.

Being a nice guy, I readily accepted his apology, and with a reading of Norman Spector's column on Tuesday April 21, I again sympathized with Mr. Obama and hid the damaging information about him from my blog posted on April 23. Mr. Obama responded by assuring me that he would come to my side in his weekly address on Saturday April 25. He not only made 4 points, signaling his "improved endorsement" of me, but also used Mao's famous "serve the people" in his speech.

Not wanting to compete with Hu Jintao, I proposed on April 28 to stay here so that I would also have a chance to learn from Mr. Warren Buffett in person. It had always been a dream of mine, as Mr. Obama must have surely known. However, I do not know whether all of Mr. Obama's nice gestures were just meant to appease me so that he could get through his 100 day celebration on April 29 without a hitch, or he just particularly disliked my idea of working alongside Mr. Buffett. In the end, he did not come along to my side at all.

Note that he was visibly more relaxed in the morning of April 29, probably knowing that, even if I wanted to blow the whistle on him, it would be too late now. In his town hall meeting that day, he made 5 points again. At the beginning of the town hall speech, he remarked that "it's good to be in the middle of America", or something along the line. -- One reason I was drawn to Mr. Buffett and regarded him as my hero was precisely because of the American heartland values that Mr. Buffett embodies. I believe Mr. Obama was again borrowing ideas from me to help himself look good politically. (Even worse, a TV reporter from BBC later in the evening borrowed my words "lest I offended anyone" from my blog to apply on Mr. Obama. In effect, she knew what Mr. Obama wanted and she was doing the job for him already.)

I do not know how to describe my feelings that night. Please, folks! I didn't write my blogs to seek office, even after the realization that politics had intruded into my life. I wrote them because they were the truth, they were what happened along my journey, they were a reflection of me - a true me, a "what-you-see-is-what-you-get" me. You all know it is not easy for me to write. Faking a likeliness of me in words while keeping the real me away from the public is both shameful and cruel. (Of course, I would not mind people subscribing to my philosophy, as long as they are genuine in their efforts. And genuine Mr. Obama was not. Eventually, I believe people will see through all his rhetoric and oratory and realize that he is just another politician driven by personal ambitions.)

The next day, I could see that Mr. Obama was still a little nervous. I thought about blowing the whistle, but I was so depressed that I just did not have the energy or motivation to do it. Instead, I retreated again, borrowing one more book in the evening and hoping that by giving up the idea of working for Warren Buffett, Mr. Obama would not think that I was going to compete with him for the spotlight.

Instead of coming to my side, Mr. Obama made four points on countering the A(H1N1) virus in his weekly address on May 2, as if I was the virus. If I had any doubt on Mr. Obama's underlying hostile tone, it was quelled by CBC Radio's interpretation with the phrase "barely understood" in its reporting of the speech that morning. Feeling that I had had enough of Mr. Obama's about-faces, I brought my total number of books on loan to six that day, signaling that I just wanted to be out.

Even with that clear signal that I wanted to get out of politics, Mr. Obama would not let me go. On Wednesday, May 6th, Mr. Obama and Mr. Hu Jintao had a telephone conversation. They talked about cooperation in dealing with the virus, of course.

I did not know what else I could do, until May 14 when I thought about returning all the books once for all, signaling that I was out of politics, instead of waiting to be taken out politically.

And that is what I am going to do today, for sure.


Update (20090518):

If you read my above blog carefully, you could raise a legitimate question: "Since everyone knew that you were a nice guy and nice guy could not succeed in politics, why did you have to blow the whistle on Mr. Obama to explain your reason for stopping your 'political activities', i.e., borrowing books?" Indeed, that is a valid question, even with my worsening depression. And the answer is that I left out something more alarming.

What really pushed me to blow the whistle on Obama was a piece of news I read on Bloomberg website last Tuesday night, May 12, about the possibility raised by a respected Australian scientist that the A(H1N1) virus was man-made. I had some suspicion already that the flu outbreak was another work by the Obama administration to put further strain on other countries still coping from the global economic downtown, especially those populous ones such as China. This news seemed to have backed up my suspicion scientifically.

Indeed, I was so alarmed by it that I could not fall sleep. -- Putting the lives of a few American citizens in danger in the hostage story was one thing. The so-called swine flu outbreak was something totally different. A potential flu pandemic could put the whole world population in danger. -- I got up in the middle of the night and stayed up for several hours, changing my recent sleep pattern. Since, as I said before, there was video surveillance inside my apartment, the Obama administration must have sensed that I would become more likely to blow the whistle on him now. Not surprisingly, the Down Jones Index dropped 184 points the next day. (I should say that U.S. stock markets under the Obama administration are still driven by insiders, just like in their Bush years. This is not surprising given that Mr. Obama surrounds himself with so many people with close ties to Wall Street.)

And Mr. Obama quickly adjusted his domestic politics in anticipation of my revelations. On Wednesday May 13, he reversed his earlier commitment to allowing the release of torture photos. On Thursday May 14, he did another about-face by retaining the Bush-era military commission for terrorism suspects. Both decisions were meant to appease the opposition so that he could get away with breaking the law. I don’t know if it will work.

Of course, I noticed that a high-ranking WHO official had contradicted the claim of the Australian scientist since the initial report. I believe in science and hope that it will eventually help to pinpoint the origin of the virus. At the mean time, I think the world deserves to know my strong suspicion.


Update (20090602):

Like I said, I am out of politics now. I don’t really want to write any more. However, the development in the past week made feel that I had to speak out.

Let me start on the North Korea situation, considering that I disclosed just a few weeks ago that their rocket launch in April had the implicit backing from the Chinese government.

Essentially, the rocket launch was meant to create a phony war situation in northeast Asia so that China could concentrate its war efforts on India. It would not lead to a real war, as, just like China’s planned war with India itself, was known to the Obama administration. That’s why U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said on a Sunday morning talk show before the launch that he was not concerned. That’s also why I hesitated a little bit in urging North Korea not to do it.

Last Monday, North Korea conducted a underground nuclear test, to the surprise of a lot of countries, including China, as Mr. Gates observed. China’s stand has always been a “nuclear-free Korea peninsula”. If North Korea becomes a nuclear state, it will undoubtedly trigger an arms race in the region to the detriment of China’s own security. Therefore, unlike the rocket launch, the North Korea nuclear test could not have the backing of the Chinese government. Indeed, the nuclear test last week caused the greatest security damage to China among all the countries concerned.

While the North Korea regime had its own reasons to develop nuclear weapon, such as ensuring the continuation of their family dictatorship or exacting a higher price in the ensuring denuclearization negotiations, they could not have made such a move without a major backer. Indeed, judging from their war-mongering after the test, one had to conclude they did have a backer, unless the regime was suicidal.

And that backer could only be Russia, its other traditional ally in the region. Indeed, the whole history of North Korea after the Korean War has been a history of maintaining good relations with these two countries and, in periods of animosity between China and Russia (or former Soviet Union), maintaining a delicate balance in their dealings with these two allies.

And I can see that Russia had an incentive to back North Korea’s nuclear test. For a long time, it has not been happy with my G2 proposal of China-U.S. cooperation. And I left out some critical information in my above update regarding the spread of A(H1N1) virus by the Obama administration.

The truth of the matter is, while the Obama administration did not oppose China’s planned war with India, it did not support the war either. Far from support, it wanted to ensure China bear maximum cost for its war efforts. The spreading of A(H1N1) virus was aimed at exactly putting more cost on China’s war efforts. Knowing this aim of the Obama administration, one then can easily understand why the virus targeted mostly young to mid-aged adults, besides being highly contagious; and why the Obama administration appeared to take a rather leisurely approach to the public health emergency created by the new virus and made U.S. one of the most affected countries despite its high quality health care system; and why many of China’s confirmed cases came from the United States; and why Keiji Fukuda, the high-ranking WHO official from America, immediately contradicted the scientific claim made by the respected Australia scientist Adrian Gibbs that the virus could come from a lab.

I should add that the reason that I withheld those information was that I wanted a trouble-free post-politics life here. Indeed, I feared being tortured again by the governments as retaliation. Don’t believe Mr. Obama has changed much from Mr. Bush. Yes, he closed Guantanamo Prison. But what about the so-called Afghan Gitmo? What Mr. Obama is good at is political theater. He closed Gitmo because that was the symbol of the previous administration’s torture policy. It was for the same reason that he scheduled his speech on this subject on the same morning as that made by former Vice-President Dick Cheney. In my case, I believe the incident where he or his spokesman “misspoke” on torture was intended to send me a message. (More research needed to find the details.)

As for my G2 proposal that Russians were so unhappy about, I do not have a formal training in international relations and it is very hard for me to write about my ideas. But I believe the essentials could be found from what I have already written. (G2 being an embryonic concept, it did not elicit an official response from the Russian government. But I saw a Russian researcher reportedly spoke vehemently against it.) I did not envision G2 as U.S. and China working together to dominate the world. Rather, I see China’s role as a counter-weight against U.S.’s hegemonic tendencies. Through China, it will give voice to the many developing countries who are traditionally underrepresented in international affairs.

Actually, I don’t know what the letter G entails. As I said, I learned of the name G2 from the media. Initially, I focused much attention on Sino-U.S. relation because, from my own experience, it was a relation fraught with potential conflicts, (of which I had foiled a few.) As I learned more from my own experience, I found that the Sino-U.S. relation was much more complicated than I originally thought. The first two “political” books I borrowed from SFU library last August perhaps summarized my feelings about the relationship. -- If these two countries cooperate well, the relationship will benefit both sides. If not, both sides could get hurt.

Later, in my search for China’s democratic future, I found the philosophy that could underpin China’s democratization as well as Sino-U.S. relationship. In U.S., it’s called Pragmatism. In China, it’s called Confucianism. (In deference to the Americans, I had always used pragmatism up until this blog.) Indeed, as Joseph Grange’s book illustrated, this common philosophy has the potential to become a global philosophy.

As such, the cooperation I proposed was really a global cooperation in the end. But it has to work between U.S. and China first. (I think the current North Korea nuclear crisis presented just such an opportunity for U.S. and China, as Mr. Gates acknowledged.) It doesn’t exclude anyone. Actually, I am glad to see that some European politicial leaders had called on Europe to join G2, in which case it will become a G3.

Of course, maybe this was all some naive idea from a nice guy who could never be a politician. But here are some more explanations in response to Russia’s unhappiness. Now, if you would all excuse me, I really don’t want to have anything to do with politics any more.

That's it

My depression is getting worse lately. Without my first realizing it, I had not wanted to get out of my apartment for days in a row.

To motivate myself to get out daily, I have been finding all sorts of excuses. Today's excuse? Library.

I have decided that I shall return all the books today. I am not going to finish the democratization series any time soon. But I got the feeling that I would feel much better after returning the books.

Oh, if you are interested, these six books are:

1. Confucianism for the Modern World, edited by Daniel A. Bell and Hahm Chaibong
2. East Meets West: Human Rights and Democracy in East Asia, by Daniel A. Bell
3. Globalization and Culture, by John Tomlinson
4. Communitarianism: A New Agenda for Politics and Citizenship, by Henry Tam
5. Democratic Hope: Pragmatism and the Politics of Truth, by Robert B. Westbrook
6. The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society, by Amitai Etzioni

It’s not easy to be a politician

Having tried, but failed, to stop North Korea from launching its rocket, I prayed that the China-India war would not break out as there was nothing more I could do. Fortunately, my prayer was answered. If I had to guess, the Obama administration must have applied some pressure on President Hu Jintao. And if they did so, it must have been because I had spilled the beans on China's war plan.

On Tuesday April 14, President Obama gave another economic speech at Georgetown University. He made five points in his speech, signaling that he would back me as the 5th generation of Chinese leadership.

Frankly, I was very much unimpressed with his speech at the time. David Brook's column on April 21 probably best summarized my feelings. Yes, Mr. Obama said many words that resonated with me in his speech. But his recent actions did not match his words, as I alluded to before. And his support of Hu made me doubt his sincerity even more.

Politically, to be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership is the least favorable option for me. (Personally, of course, to be the 5th generation of Chinese leadership gives me room to seek readdress from the governments on some of wrongs inflicted on me.) Throughout its history, China has never been a democracy. To be the leader-in-waiting is perhaps to be in the most dangerous position in authoritarian China. Here, if you lose a democratic election, you merely lose an office. Whilst in China, if you lose a power struggle, you could lose your life. (But I have to say that Chinese politics has become much less brutal in recent decades. Still, the fundamentals remain the same.) And I know that I do not have the necessary skills to succeed in politics. -- That's probably why my father urged me to stay away from politics in his dying wishes. -- This is especially true when I am compared to Hu Jintao, who is a particularly formidable opponent. The mere facts that he had come out of years of leader-in-waiting with a strong faction and then succeeded in gradually wrestling power away from his predecessor are the obvious proofs.

My only political strength is in my desire for China's democratization. If I could be successful in leading China in that direction, it could potentially change the game. And it appeared that my proposal (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 so far) for China's democratization had been well received in China, at least in some corners. I genuinely believe that China's democratization is not only good for China, but also for the world.

I decided that I should try first to be considered for the 4th generation of Chinese leadership. That's why I returned two books on Thursday April 16, signaling my challenge to Hu Jintao. (Because I did not want to completely lose my personal cause, and with the B.C. provincial election under way, I sent an email to a local newspaper on Wednesday night in a desperate attempt to get on the news here. I checked my email many times the next day before I left for the library.)

Unfortunately, nothing happened. I was resigned to borrowing one more book to bring the total number to five. However, a CBC documentary on Saturday morning changed my mind.

Now, I know that CBC has never been friendly to me ever since before I became a "public" figure. If my memories are correct, CBC Radio sent me "personal" bullying messages even before I finished writing my first report. (Indeed, in the morning of Friday April 17, CBC Radio's hourly news had a piece from China about its potential social instability. It was obviously intended to influence the Canadian public to put the blame on me if something disorderly did happen as a result of my changing the number of books on loan to 4 the day before.) However, this documentary was particularly biased, distasteful, and indeed, dishonest.

The documentary is centered around the aftermath of last year's Sichuan earthquake. Throughout, it cast the Chinese government in a negative light. Surprisingly, Hu Jintao, who is the head of CCP and who wants to continue the authoritarian regime, was nowhere to be seen in the whole film, not even in a picture frame. (Correction after watching the documentary again online: Hu did appear in the film, just in a flash moment of Olympic-related pageantry.) At the mean time, it called Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao a "communist dictator". This after I had written before that Mr. Wen was the first to open to democratization among top leaders in China. (I should add that it took tremendous courage to do so for someone inside the present system. And CBC may not have known this: Premier Wen is one of the few top leaders without his own faction.) Other biases were too many to list. I'll just give an example of subtle distortion: A resident in the quake zone was filmed to say in Chinese that the government told them to "start anew" or "start over" with their lives. Yet on the TV screen, the translation became "to get on with your lives".

Apparently, CBC had already decided which side to support, Hu Jintao or me. Why? The only reason I could think of was that CBC figured that that was Mr. Obama's position. (I would suggest that this had nothing to do with President Obama's personal popularity, given its consistent position with respect to my file throughout the Bush years.) And CBC saw that I would be brought out by the Chinese government because of the latest "endorsement" by Mr. Obama, they wanted to tell the Canadian public in advance that I was merely a product of "communist propaganda", as the central theme of documentary itself suggested.

As I said, my only political strength is my advocacy for China's democratization and the accompanying proposal. Even with whatever support I could garner from within China, my strength depends heavily on the support of Canadian and American public. For that to happen, the media here can not intentionally be against me. Without public support, it would be foolish of me to venture into Chinese politics. And if the Canadian media, which, as I learned over the years, is essentially liberal like the CBC, thought that Mr. Obama was not genuinely in support of me, I doubted even more of my choice.

That's why I borrowed two more books to bring the total number to 6 later that day. I was quite relieved after I came back from the library in the afternoon, certain that I had made the right decision. I even took a walk in the park nearby. It was in the evening that I realized that others had seen number 3 in the 6 books due to the fact that three of the books were written by the same author, Amitai Etzioni. (As I said before, "if I want to signal numbers within a total number, I would go to different libraries".) Bothered by the perception, I decided to go to the library again to fix the "problem". My plan was to switch one of the Etzioni books with a new one.

Carnegie reading room was the only VPL branch that opened on Saturday night. In order to avoid creating the perception of another number within the 6 books, I decided to limit my borrowing choice to social science books. Carnegie is a very small branch and I found that I did not have many books to choose from. In the end, just to be safe, I picked The Unconscious Civilization by John Ralston Saul, a book I had mentioned in my blogs before. It was after I had come back from the library that I realized that I had unwittingly created an even stronger perception of number 3: The six books on loan now consisted of 3 books by American authors and 3 by Canadian authors. (Looking back, I can see that the chance that I would escape from this perception was very slim that night because Carnegie not only has a limited collection of social science books, it also has a very high concentration of Canadian contents. Indeed, the four or five books I chose to replace one of Etzioni's books were all written by Canadians.)

Needless to say, I was extremely frustrated. Believe me, it took deliberate and conscious efforts to avoid such perceptions because there were so many unexpected ways you could separate a bunch of books into different groups. Overall, I found my book borrowing activities had become less and less enjoyable. For one thing, I needed to be careful lest I offended anyone with my reading list. And I had hoped that my reading list would help me to send out my political and philosophical messages, given my poor writing skills. Yet, judging by the almost non-existent response I got, it often appeared to me that I was all alone in my endeavor.

That's why I decided to return all the books the next day and instead borrowed 6 movie DVDs. (I needed some entertainment.) I spent a good hour or so in choosing the 6 DVDs, again to make sure nobody could see any numbers there other than the number 6. It was during the checkout, however, that I was told that I could only borrow 5 DVDs at a maximum. Feeling a profound sense of irony, I returned the 5 DVDs a few minutes later and got a copy of VPL's Loan Periods, Limits, Fines and Charges from library staff. With this piece of paper in hand, I borrowed 6 book CDs, again with careful selection.

It was Norman Spector's column on the Globe on Tuesday April 21 that changed my mind again. Reading his column, I realized that even though I was very sure that the common philosophy I advocated for both China and America was the right one, it took tremendous political courage for Mr. Obama to even try to bring the American public along. Obviously he, like every other politician, was not immune to political expediency. But I hope his backing of me and my political philosophy is genuine. Besides, I am really tired now.

With these considerations, I returned one CD to the library yesterday, signaling my candidacy for the 5th generation of Chinese leadership.

Indeed, it's not easy to be a politician. And I can only hope that everyone will throw their support to make me a strong 5th generation of Chinese leadership.



Update (20090428):

I got a glimpse of President Obama’s weekly radio address on TV on Saturday. Frankly, I had not expected a significant change of attitude from him after my above blog. That’s why I switched the 5 books CDs to 5 books without even watching his address in its entirety. It was only after I had watched the entire video and read the text of his address on Saturday night that I realized that he was now backing me as the 4th generation of Chinese leadership.

An improvement, certainly. Perhaps even what I had hoped for subconsciously. -- The next day, I went to VPL to make the total number of books on loan 4.

Yesterday, as I sat down and looked at the situation, I asked myself: “Is this what it boils down to, a contest between Hu Jintao and me for the top job in China?” Frankly, I do not even know what the job entails on a daily basis. I accepted President Obama’s “improved endorsement” probably more to get out of my miserable situation than anything else.

If I had an agenda, it was to democratize China with a political philosophy that could simultaneously serve as an ideal platform for dialogue and cooperation between China and United States. I know that my democratization proposal (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 so far) had been well received in China, at least at some corners. Mr. Obama’s “improved endorsement” of me in his Saturday address was made after I had posted my above blog. It probably should be viewed as an endorsement of the common philosophy I advocated more than anything else.

If that’s the case, I don’t need to go back to China as long as both peoples are informed of this common philosophy. China can start the preparation for political reform now. At the same time, both countries can start laying the foundation for a stable and durable partnership.

These two things - proposing democratization in China and bringing a pair of potential rivals to the path of dialogue and cooperation - would be my contributions to the world. Considering that, precisely because of these back in February, I was regarded to potentially be the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership by my supporters in China with the acknowledgement of the Obama administration, I returned one book to VPL last night.

President Hu can keep his job in China. I just wish he will grow a spine for the rest of his term. At the mean time, I could seek my readdress here and if I am lucky, I could probably have a chance to work for Mr. Warren Buffett - even if it’s just for a short period of time - before I go back to China.

That would be something, eh?


Update (20090501):

Apparently, not everyone was happy with my above proposal. I borrowed one more book yesterday to bring the total back to four.

But if am going to replace Hu Jintao, shouldn’t I at least get compensated for the atrocious wrongs inflicted upon me first?


Update (20090502):

That's it. I've had enough. I'm out.

Six books on loan today.

China’s democratization and its impact on the world (4)

When I first realized that the Chinese government was very likely considering me for a leadership position back in the summer of 2005, the first impression of the Chinese government that came to my mind was the rampant corruption, as reflected in my blogs. Indeed, to eradicate corruption has been my primary consideration to advocate political reform in China.

When President Barack Obama decided to confront China on his first day in office, he also implied - in his inauguration speech - that corruption in Chinese government was one of his justifications. Mr. Obama must have known that "power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely" and that the surest way to tackle corruption in a government like China's is to change its current authoritarian regime and build a democratic system.

So why does Mr. Obama favor Hu Jintao instead of me for leadership in China, as can be seen as lately as in the G20 Summit in London? Alas, Mr. Obama's real intent is not at all China's democratization, or even its improved governance. What Mr. Obama, just like his predecessor George W. Bush, really wants is a poodle in Mr. Hu to serve his political interest. By mentioning corruption in his inauguration speech, Mr. Obama dived into Chinese politics and signaled his support for Mr. Hu.

(As I revealed in my previous blogs, one way Mr. Hu has been able to wrestle political power away from his predecessor was to wage anti-corruption campaigns as many people in the previous administration were more or less corrupt in a political system without effective check-and-balance. -- Another way for Mr. Hu to grow his political power was to gradually gain control over the military. One military exercise in early fall of 2006 was conducted for this purpose, I believe.)

And here comes a counter-intuitive point about China's democratization: The country that will be most impacted from China's democratization is not going to be one of its neighbors in East Asia. It's going to be United States of America. A democratic government in Beijing will necessarily reflect the central-left character of the whole population. The chances are that such a government will not blindly follow Washington's marching orders.

Of course, implicit in this point is the recognition that U.S. and China are the two most important countries in this century. Already, there have been talks of a G2 in the media. So, how will a G2 work in the context of a democratizing China?

I am disappointed

Having spilled the beans about China's plan to start an imminent war with India just before the G20 Summit in London, I borrowed one book from VPL later that day because I did not want to lose my personal cause. And I had hoped that I would be heard this time.

In the evening of Friday April 3, I again returned a book to VPL, signaling my willingness to be considered to replace Hu Jintao. I did so because I wanted to stop North Korea from launching its rocket. For North Korea, launching such a powerful rocket had to have the backing of Beijing, its traditional ally in the region. In fact, I believe that allowing North Korea to launch such a rocket at this time was connected to Beijing's plan to start a war with India.

I believe the North Korea knew me as a potential leader for China. That they did not launch its rocket on Saturday had given me hope initially.

As such, I was extremely disappointed at hearing the news of the launch last night. Not that the launch itself was not successful technically, it apparently was. I am disappointed that North Korea went ahead anyways. Apparently, Hu Jintao is still in charge in Beijing.

I borrowed two more books from VPL today.

To North Korea

Stop the launch now.

The beans

Mea culpa. I screwed up my blogs.

I have been writing about my journey since July 2004. So it is for almost 5 years that I had been able to maintain that "every word I ever put on these blogs is true to the best of my knowledge at the time of posting."

Yet the last two blogs were mostly lies.

I should have known better about myself. These two blogs came out with so much difficulty it's just not worth it.

I lied in those blogs because I wanted to be heard. My thinking was that If I am successful, with my new-found authority perhaps I could stop Chinese government's war plan without having to embarrass anyone. And I knew G20 was my last chance.

Yes, the dame war plan. I believe China has plan to attack India in connection to my debut. It may be in China's interest to do so, but I believe it's wrong.

The Obama administration knew it. The Harper government knew it. They knew everything about me, everything that I knew.

If there are rumors in Canadian or U.S. media circles about the war, they are true.

As of now, I believe Hu Jintao will still be in power post-G20. Judging by the article his writer posted on the Internet yesterday, he will definitely carry out the war plan.

That's why I am spilling all the beans now, hoping the international community will put pressure on him.

I have said many times that I do not like the situation I am in.

Part of my situation is this: I stumbled upon the truth about China's nuclear force by accident. And my debut is most likely connected to some kind of political change in China. Chinese government wanted to use such a crisis as an opportunity.

As I said, I don't like this. I think nuclear weapon should be used as a deterrence, not as something to facilitate aggression.

I stopped such plans by Chinese government before, with great great personal cost.

For example, there was a plan to take Taiwan by force around September or October 2007. I was incarcerated in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital for a court-ordered psychiatric assessment. I believe that, if I had been a little more confrontational in court at the end of my assessment, Judge Angelomatis would have surely ordered me back to the hospital for treatment. Chinese government would then intervened. Political change would follow in China. During the crisis, China would take Taiwan by force.

It was because of my non-cooperation with the Chinese government that saved Taiwan Strait from another war in 2007. However, as everyone can see, I am still in a virtual prison.

As always, I believe both the U.S. and Canadian governments knew the whole story.

Most recently, there was a similar plan with respect to Taiwan right after U.S. presidential election in early November 2008. Again, I saved Taiwan Strait from another war.

I do not remember exactly when the Chinese government decided to attack India. I probably can give a better date if I have more time to do some research. The rough time when I first realized it was probably back in January or February.

The new Obama administration came to office very hostile towards China. This was evident in Obama's inauguration speech where there were countless "nuts", despite Mr. Obama's many attempts later to try to give alternative interpretations of his words. That's why the stock markets dropped heavily that day.

When Mr. Obama leads, Canadian politicians follow. It was on the day after the inauguration that Mr. Ignatiff famously said that Canadians needed an election like needing "a hole in the head".

That's why Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to Asia as her first foreign trip. She visited Japan, South Korea and Indonesia before she went to China. Mr. Obama apparently wanted to confront China.

Here in Canada, helicopters were used again to monitor me, among other things, as I touched upon in my February 20 blog.

When Obama took the aggressive stand, China was of course hardened. However, I did not believe in confrontation between these two countries. It's just not rational. I again ignored many "orders" from China to act.

All my actions during this period were meant to build trust.

My strategy worked, culminating in my February 20 blog. In Beijing, Secretary Clinton talked about China and U.S. being in the same boat, quoting ancient Chinese text. President Obama completely changed his strategy toward China, both militarily and economically.

Frankly, I had wanted to be taken out on that day to replace Hu Jintao. That's why I borrowed those 3 disc sets in the morning to make the total number of items on loan 8. (I in fact knew that number 8 was used to refer to the 4th generation as well in Chinese politics.)

However, Chinese government apparently had another idea. Perhaps because I had foiled Obama's confrontation with China and I had some great ideas on China's democratization, Beijing decided that I should be the 3rd generation of Chinese leadership. (I should note that I had no such intention at all when I borrowed those 3 disc sets.)

I realized this on Feb 21 or 22 when I read an article describing 6 commonalities between Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. 6 was used in the article because Beijing wanted to maintain in public that they only considered me as the 6th generation of Chinese leadership so that I could be free to establish myself here in Canada.

Initially, whether to allow me to establish myself here in Canada was a sticking point between China and U.S.A. That's why Mr. Obama made several references to ancestors in his inauguration speech. As for myself, as I said, I only tried to pursue relationship here after I had realized that I had been drugged by the governments.

After February 20, however, there apparently are some kind of deal between China and U.S.A. I believe India was part of the deal, even if it's unspoken.

That's why Mr. Obama made 3 points in his speech to congress on Feb 24 and sang the praise for China. Note he had mentioned communism in his inauguration speech.

I posted an update on Feb 28 after reading Mr. Harper's interview with Wall Street Journal that day. He used "troublesome" to describe Russians. It was a word I originally used in my update to describe my experience in VPL on September 24, 2008. (I had to change it to "frustrating" for lack of a better word.) Apparently Mr. Harper was able to read my files in my local disc. The update was written partly in response to Mr. Obama's inauguration speech. It had been sitting in my disc for a while.

Beijing and Washington waited for me to finish my blogs on China's democratization. The plan was that, if and when I finished the writing, they would bring me out as the sixth generation. China would soon start a war with India.

I did not like the idea of a war with India. I wanted to sabotage it, but I did not want to irritate anyone. That's why I gave hint to the war in the 3rd paragraph of my second installment on China's democratization, published March 6. The reaction from Beijing was predictably very angry, essentially saying that I was playing with fire.

Mr. Obama was not happy either. But his unhappiness was most from the economic part of my blog. Using his weekly radio address the next day, he signaled that I should modify my economic writing, perhaps say that the economic tasks I mentioned for China were long-term projects. He also implied India by saying "to discover great opportunity in the midst of great crisis". He also signaled that he would modify his budget by saying "we will prove ourselves worthy of the sacrifice of those who came before us, and the promise of those who will come after."

But I hesitated, unhappy with Obama's budget proposal. (I believe the problem is philosophical. Pragmatism works only when both sides take a pragmatic view.) It will cost China too much. By Sunday, seeing no actions from me, the Obama administration turned hostile, as can be seen from an interview given to Financial Times by his economic advisor, Larry Summers.

It was in this environment, I believe, that a confrontation took place involving U.S. navy ship Impeccable on the South China Sea. -- Updated hours later.

In the evening of Monday, March 9, I was told that the next day was a sensitive date for Tibet, which, I believe, was part of the reason for China's war plan with India. However, despite the warning, I published my third installment at 11:59PM, thus leaving another clue to China's war plan.

The next day, during a speech Mr. Harper purposely read a Chinese proverb from a piece of paper: "A great crisis is also a great opportunity." Or something along the line. Mr. Harper was essentially following Mr. Obama.

Other clues about India that I left:

On March 13, I went to a department store and picked 3 jackets and asked the sales counter to hold for me. Again, Beijing was furious with me, telling me there would be no deal with Washington if such incident happened again.

On March 17, even after I had definitely signaled my intention of being the 6th generation with the publication of my acknowledgement, I still kept the 3 disc sets whiling returning two books later that day. (I should have mentioned that When Deng Xiaoping came to power in late 1970s, he started a war with Vietnam.)

I am not sure if this had anything to do with U.S. Fed's decision the next day of "quantitative easing", essentially printing money.

I did notice that Mr. Obama, after being quiet for a while about those costly long-term projects in his budget, talked about them again on the south lawn of the White House that day. -- Updated hours later.

And Mr. Obama appeared to have been favoring Hu Jintao since. Two days later, it was announced that they would meet at G20 Summit in London.

I believe the number three in Treasury secretary Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan was to boost confidence in the stock markets because he knew that the markets believed in me. Essentially, Obama administration was playing both Hu and me. But he favors Hu, I believe.

Wow. I hope this is no April Fool’s joke

I read Norman's Spectator almost everyday. This morning, Mr. Spector seemed to suggest that I should look into the 3 disc sets - which I called "items" in my blog yesterday - I borrowed from SFU and perhaps treat them separately from the rest of the books.

--How can you be sure the second item you've just read is no April Fool's joke?

In effect, he appeared to suggest that those 6 items I had on loan before the switch on March 18 should be regarded 3 and 3, rather than 4 and 2 as I had thought.

For those of you who do not already know, the 6 items from SFU were:

1. The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [book]
2. The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set one
3. The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set two
4. The malaise of modernity by Charles Taylor [sound recording], disc set three
5. Art: a world history
6. On the enjoyment of modern art

To me, the above 6 items, if looked upon carefully, consisted of 4 and 2. Even if the first 4 items were not of the same title, I would have kept them separately from art books when I brought them home.

That's why, sensing potential ambiguity, I returned the above 6 items and borrowed another 6 art books later that day.

But why did Mr. Spector suggest 3? Was I being considered for the 3rd generation? To replace Mr. Jiang Zemin? That couldn't be. IF I was being considered as the 3rd generation, it could only be in the sense of next to Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. As is widely known, Mao's policies influenced China in the first 30 years and Deng's the next 30.

Wow.

I have to ask: Is this an April Fool's joke? Mr. Spector seemed to say no.

The only article or speech I could remember that contained three points was U.S. Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner's bank rescue plan released last Monday. He said that his program had "three essential design features".

Mr. Geithner's article rang a bell in my memory because the word "design" was one of the reasons I borrowed Jerry Z. Muller's book on Adam Smith last fall. This book was listed in my acknowledgment.

Also, when I wrote about China's democratic future, I was trying to envision what kind of society China should be. In a sense, there was an element of design in my overall efforts.

If my above reasoning is correct, the Obama administration must have thought of my series on China's democratization very positively. That could help to explain the almost 500 point climb in Dow Jones index that day. And it was also consistent with Mr. Obama's speech on March 12.

Wow. If the Obama administration regarded me as the 3rd generation, I probably overreacted to Mr. Obama's speech.

And is that why Mr. Harper said in London today that the G20 nation should "overreact" to the recession?


Quick Update:

I also found that Mr. Obama's speech before the joint session of the congress also contained three points. That speech was delivered on February 24, just fours days after I first borrowed the 3 disc sets.