CHINA, JOURNALISM AND THE STATE SERIES: Don’t Sacrifice Any Excellent Life
[See Series Introduction -- the Editors.]
By Christina Liang
When I first heard of the "Zhao Yan" case in class, I felt quite surprised. I was not surprised at the case itself, however; I was surprised at the passion in my foreign professor's voice and on his face as he spoke of it. To tell the truth, I don't see Mr. Zhao's case as anything special. Neither is the case about Mr. Yu, or Mr. Liu, or Mr. Zhang. They are just more examples of the authoritarian, press-restrained system in China. Also, they are about Chinese politics.
First of all, I should say that I sincerely respect Mr. Zhao's bravery. Just as his former colleague Mr. Kristof wrote in his column: He was a valiant man in such an environment. I suppose that any individual who knows a little about the Chinese government and its policies could have predicted the result Mr. Zhao received. And so could he. But still he took aim at the authoritarian system.
In this society, we are not lacking ideas--many of us have great ideas, or say, illusions, about real democracy and freedom of the press. However, we always choose to speak about them only among a few intimate friends, on the Internet, or in our diaries. With a common understanding, most of us are "clever" enough to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble. But the truth is, we are getting used to the authoritarian system and gradually becoming its guards. What we are lacking is "Zhao-type" courage. We need such people to challenge the authoritarian system. What's more, we need them to wake us up.
However, I don't encourage such doings. I mean, I don't encourage all of the excellent journalists or "leading intellectuals" to follow such examples. It is too dangerous and isolated.
In China, it is not hard to understand the danger. Actually, we have heard of several such cases before. Once, a Chinese journalist gave a file leaked to him by an organizer of the 1997 People's Congress to a Hong Kong newspaper three days before the congress convened. Consequently, the agenda of the meeting was first reported in the foreign press. Later, the journalist was arrested. Only three days.
We can say that it wasn't really about that file, or in Zhao's case, the news of Mr. Jiang's resignation. The party, the government, must protect its authority, its face. That's so important for a ruling party, especially in China. Regardless of the politics, that is an important psychological reason. Although it is announced that we are democratic, there is an unwritten rule, rooted in the rulers' hearts, that no one can "intrude" upon their authority of power. They should be the first to announce what they are going to do next.
Born in a country with a two-thousand-year-old tradition of feudalism, most of us have gotten used to this reasoning and have unconsciously accepted it. Besides, I don't think there is any need to go into the details to check whether it was Mr. Zhao who "leaked national secrets." In my opinion, he was destined to be arrested--as long as there was someone in authority who thought he should be, even if only as a scapegoat.
Maybe from my words many foreigners won't understand our acceptance of unbridled power, and even blame us for lacking rebellious spirits and democratic ideas. But I should say that our government is not like Saddam Hussein's regime. People here don't want to overthrow the Party because, in general, we are benefiting from it, for example, the great economic growth.
I have to mention the psychological aspect again. The Chinese nation by tradition is a practical nation. What most people care about is whether the governors can improve their living conditions. And there are other psychological characteristics, such as circumspection and toleration. Chinese people try to avoid trouble as long as the intrusion upon their rights is not beyond their tolerance; most of us are likely to be satisfied with current conditions.
In a word, it's very unlikely that a few "intellectuals" can instigate reform among Chinese people unless the people feel they can't keep their contented conditions. This is the root of the intellectuals' isolation.
Therefore, I don't advocate such brave doings. In consideration of the powerful government, no one should sacrifice themselves. We must have other ways to protect the freedom of our voice. In such an environment, we should be wise enough to speak against unfair policy in a pragmatic, responsible way. We need the ability to gradually change the situation while protecting ourselves. In consideration of its supporters, the Zhao Yan type courage is of too high a price to ever be popular. Maybe it suits western culture, but in China, we need practical and efficient ways to implement change with "Chinese characteristics" so that most of the people will give it their support.
Moreover, the corrupt system isn't worth even one excellent life.
By Christina Liang
When I first heard of the "Zhao Yan" case in class, I felt quite surprised. I was not surprised at the case itself, however; I was surprised at the passion in my foreign professor's voice and on his face as he spoke of it. To tell the truth, I don't see Mr. Zhao's case as anything special. Neither is the case about Mr. Yu, or Mr. Liu, or Mr. Zhang. They are just more examples of the authoritarian, press-restrained system in China. Also, they are about Chinese politics.
First of all, I should say that I sincerely respect Mr. Zhao's bravery. Just as his former colleague Mr. Kristof wrote in his column: He was a valiant man in such an environment. I suppose that any individual who knows a little about the Chinese government and its policies could have predicted the result Mr. Zhao received. And so could he. But still he took aim at the authoritarian system.
In this society, we are not lacking ideas--many of us have great ideas, or say, illusions, about real democracy and freedom of the press. However, we always choose to speak about them only among a few intimate friends, on the Internet, or in our diaries. With a common understanding, most of us are "clever" enough to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble. But the truth is, we are getting used to the authoritarian system and gradually becoming its guards. What we are lacking is "Zhao-type" courage. We need such people to challenge the authoritarian system. What's more, we need them to wake us up.
However, I don't encourage such doings. I mean, I don't encourage all of the excellent journalists or "leading intellectuals" to follow such examples. It is too dangerous and isolated.
In China, it is not hard to understand the danger. Actually, we have heard of several such cases before. Once, a Chinese journalist gave a file leaked to him by an organizer of the 1997 People's Congress to a Hong Kong newspaper three days before the congress convened. Consequently, the agenda of the meeting was first reported in the foreign press. Later, the journalist was arrested. Only three days.
We can say that it wasn't really about that file, or in Zhao's case, the news of Mr. Jiang's resignation. The party, the government, must protect its authority, its face. That's so important for a ruling party, especially in China. Regardless of the politics, that is an important psychological reason. Although it is announced that we are democratic, there is an unwritten rule, rooted in the rulers' hearts, that no one can "intrude" upon their authority of power. They should be the first to announce what they are going to do next.
Born in a country with a two-thousand-year-old tradition of feudalism, most of us have gotten used to this reasoning and have unconsciously accepted it. Besides, I don't think there is any need to go into the details to check whether it was Mr. Zhao who "leaked national secrets." In my opinion, he was destined to be arrested--as long as there was someone in authority who thought he should be, even if only as a scapegoat.
Maybe from my words many foreigners won't understand our acceptance of unbridled power, and even blame us for lacking rebellious spirits and democratic ideas. But I should say that our government is not like Saddam Hussein's regime. People here don't want to overthrow the Party because, in general, we are benefiting from it, for example, the great economic growth.
I have to mention the psychological aspect again. The Chinese nation by tradition is a practical nation. What most people care about is whether the governors can improve their living conditions. And there are other psychological characteristics, such as circumspection and toleration. Chinese people try to avoid trouble as long as the intrusion upon their rights is not beyond their tolerance; most of us are likely to be satisfied with current conditions.
In a word, it's very unlikely that a few "intellectuals" can instigate reform among Chinese people unless the people feel they can't keep their contented conditions. This is the root of the intellectuals' isolation.
Therefore, I don't advocate such brave doings. In consideration of the powerful government, no one should sacrifice themselves. We must have other ways to protect the freedom of our voice. In such an environment, we should be wise enough to speak against unfair policy in a pragmatic, responsible way. We need the ability to gradually change the situation while protecting ourselves. In consideration of its supporters, the Zhao Yan type courage is of too high a price to ever be popular. Maybe it suits western culture, but in China, we need practical and efficient ways to implement change with "Chinese characteristics" so that most of the people will give it their support.
Moreover, the corrupt system isn't worth even one excellent life.
1 Comments:
At 1:25 AM , Anonymous said...
WoW! This was a great essay. As an American, I don't agree with the sentiments expressed, but the essay was very clear and illustrated the reasons for the Chinese people's tolerance of their situation. I wonder how this writer feels about the movie "Hero" by Zhang Yimou ... wasn't that movie also about brave deeds and sacrifice?
Post a Comment
<< Home