Westerners worldwide will wake up tomorrow with gifts under their Christmas trees. Liu Xia will wake up tomorrow — for her, December 26th — with the knowledge that Christmas brought her an empty home for the next eleven years. On December 25th, Liu Xiaobo (Liu Xia’s husband) was sentenced to eleven years in prison for “inciting to subvert state power,” or in other words, writing this.
Liu probably foresaw this outcome when he was writing the document in question — called Charter 08 — for he wrote within it, “we should end the practice of viewing words as crimes.” Liu will also be denied his political rights for an additional two years after his release in 2020. One suspects the dark irony of this is not lost on him, though it may be lost on his captors.
Liu’s conviction was a foregone conclusion — having indicted him, it would have been internationally embarrassing for him to be found innocent — but his sentence was not. While his crime can be punished with up to fifteen years in prison, he could have been sentenced more lightly. Eleven years is a slap in the face to the other co-signers of Charter 08, and a warning shot across their bow. Liu’s lawyers plan to appeal, but there isn’t a lot of optimism about Liu’s prospects for an early release.
The government has also taken steps to stop people from discussing the case online, reportedly ordering all Chinese search engines to block the search term “11 years”. Nevertheless, netizens are discussing the issue and showing their support. They are even — as is their wont in times like these — using puns to express implicit support for Liu Xiaobo:
For example, there are many posts in this forum that include or consist solely of the phrase: “随波逐刘”. This is a pun on the Chinese expression “随波逐流” which literally means “follow the waves, pursue the flow”, or figuratively: “drifting with the tide.” But flow (流 liu2) sounds like Liu Xiaobo’s surname (刘 Liu2) and the Chinese word for “waves” (波 bo1) is also part of Liu Xiaobo’s given name. So, when written as “随波逐刘”, it might be loosely translated as “Follow Xiaobo, Pursue Liu” or “Drift with Liu Xiaobo”.
One netizen writes:
In the West, today is the day of the coming of Christ, and we are pacing outside heaven’s gate, unsure of whether we should go in, whether we can go in. If there is a God, I don’t understand why you never extend your favor to the the deeply distressed people of the earth…
Where is the hope, where is the window? I can’t see it, can’t hear it.
Eleven years later, at the crossroads of fate, I choose to ‘drift with Liu Xiaobo’ [随波逐刘]
Shortly after that post was made, the forum was closed. Attempting to load it prompts this message:
Sorry, in accordance with the relevant legal regulations and policies, this forum has been temporarily closed.
Twitter, though, is unblockable, in the sense that it is already blocked but a growing community of netizens uses it anyway. Expressions of support have also been growing there, where users have added yellow ribbons to their pictures in solidarity with Liu Xiaobo, and have begun tagging tweets with #freeliuxiaobo. Other tweets on the subject can be found by searching for the judge’s first name.Facebook groups and the like also exist, and are likely to grow in membership in the coming days.
That the case is a travesty of justice is undeniable. It may not be unconstitutional, though. The Chinese Constitution states:
Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.
Article 35
Unfortunately, it also states:
Citizens of the People’s Republic of China, in exercising their freedoms and rights, may not infringe upon the interests of the state, of society or of the collective, or upon the lawful freedoms and rights of other citizens.
Article 51
It is the duty of citizens of the People’s Republic of China to safeguard the security, honour and interests of the motherland; they must not commit acts detrimental to the security, honour and interests of the motherland.
Article 54
In any event, the results of the case are deeply discouraging. The tactical announcement of the verdict on Christmas — the time when foreigners are least likely to be paying attention — proves that the government is at least a bit shameful about it, too, or at least fearful of international meddling. There will still be meddling, of course — US officials have already denounced the verdict and called for Liu Xiaobo’s freedom — but the Chinese government has never before buckled under this kind of pressure, and is not likely to start now. And the outcry will certainly be muted by the impending holiday in the West.
For those interested in the outcrying — and know that I count myself among you — I urge a modicum of caution. Let us recall that it was not China that arrested and sentenced Liu Xiaobo, but people, and that it is not China that we oppose, but the cowardly actions of these people. Whatever systemic evils exist, they exist because people put them there, and we must not judge or condemn en masse, else we risk violating justice just as Liu Xiaobo’s captors have.
Let us also remember that beyond the political posturing, there are smaller tragedies here. This Christmas, we think of Liu Xia in her home, alone. She has barely seen her husband for a year, and will see him less, if at all, in the next eleven. China has robbed itself of a patriot, but it has also robbed a man of eleven years of freedom, and a wife of her husband. Liu Xia may not be the biggest story here, but she more than anyone — perhaps more than Liu himself — will bear the weight of this eleven year sentence.
(Many of the links in this story came from the China Digital Times, which is also probably your best source for up-to-the-minute information on the case).
Very good post on the topic. You are absolutley right when demanding not to judge whole China, but rather as you stated it “people.”
随波逐刘
Great post, Custer. I’m tempted to play Devil’s Advocate on your last bit, just to see who’d enter the rabbit hole with me.
“Whatever systemic evils exist, they exist because people put them there, and we must not judge or condemn en masse, else we risk violating justice just as Liu Xiaobo’s captors have. ”
Beautifully said. The only highlight in what otherwise is a heartbreaking story.
There has been progress made, no thanks to the West. Regardless, if you actually expect even 1% of white people to give a shit you’re being way, way too optimistic.
A majority of American whites can’t even find China on a map.
[...] Update: Visit ChinaGeeks and read this post for more on Liu Xiaobo:Liu Xiaobo, Drifting With the Tide [...]
[...] are cowardly and despicable. I’d go on at length, but I will instead urge you to read this erudite and powerful commentary by C. Custer at ChinaGeeks. Go there [...]
This basically is the culmination of almost seven years of tightening of the press, publication and the Internet that marks Hu Jintao’s reign. So it’s not going to be better for the remainder of his presidency. But I don’t know what Xi will do.
“White people?” Wow.
Westerners love to take out a single case to prove their point, which is pointless in a country of 1.3 billion people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Street_children_in_the_Philippines
Solve it.
Devil’s advocate ? am I talking to someones like Imelda Macus who asked “why dont those hungry people eat chicken ?”
http://www.upiasia.com/Human_Rig … ows_No_Bounds/5495/
India’s police violence knows no bounds
There are no independent agencies that can investigate a complaint against
law enforcement agencies, even if a person wished to file a complaint.
Investigations of complaints against the police have proven time and again
to be insufficient.
In India, the police are considered one of the most corrupt government
agencies. No government at any level has made any attempt to rein them in.
In fact, politicians want law enforcement agencies to remain corrupt so they
can escape prosecution for crimes they commit. The politicians also want
the public to believe that law enforcement agencies are not to be trusted.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.c … t?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
The Politics of Police Violence in Democratic Brazil
More than a decade after Latin America’s most recent turn to democracy,
unchecked police violence and torture continue and in some cases have
increased. This study examines police killings in 19 Brazilian states from
1994 to 2001 and finds that democracy has not substantially reduced these
types of human rights violations, for two reasons. First, underlying social
conflict has continued to exert a significant impact on the lethal use of
force by police officers. Second, pro-order political coalitions, generally
represented by right-wing politicians, have blocked effective measures to
control police violence and have implemented public safety measures that
stress the use of force. The analysis emphasizes the nonteleological nature
of democratization processes and demonstrates the strength of political
forces working to maintain “illiberal democracy.”
ＴＨＡＩＬＡＮＤ
The government has continued to interfere in the media. A news talk radio
program hosted by former senator Jermsak Pinthong was taken off the air on
February 13, 2008, after he claimed that Prime Minister Samak distorted the
truth about a massacre of students at Thammasat University on October 6,
1976. On April 19, Jakrapob Penkair-who was then in charge of the government
’s Public Relations Department-ordered some 500 community radio operators to
allocate three hours a day to promote the government or risk closure.
Prime Minister Samak attempted to use the NBT broadcast to counter daily
attacks by PAD-controlled media outlets, ASTV, and Manager Radio. On July 21
, the time slot for the political talk show “Page Four News” on NBT TV
Channel 11 was reassigned to commentators affiliated with the ruling People’
s Power Party (PPP) to host a pro-government program called “Truth Today.”
…..
There has been little progress in official investigations into the cases of
20 human rights defenders killed during the Thaksin administration. This
includes the “disappearance” and presumed murder of well-known Muslim lawyer
Somchai Neelapaijit.
Thai authorities have threatened to revoke the registration of international
NGOs in order to deter them from speaking up about government abuses in
southern border provinces.
Custer,
kindly tell me why on earth Chinese should go after such a system that not only wouldnt solve the problems you were talking about but also leave hundreds of millions of people in poverty.
Regards,
@ Wahaha: First of all, China already has hundreds of millions of people in poverty, so what’s the difference?
Secondly, you have no idea whether or not what Liu proposed would solve any problems or not, just as he didn’t. It was just suggestions, a guess based on ideas and the experience of some other nations. Perhaps you think he was wrong, and that’s fine. But should the price of making a suggestion SOME people think is wrong really be eleven years in prison?
Wahaha,
ni shi ge nao can
ni shi ge nao can
______________________
Are you a handsome boy?
Not sure if you know what I mean.
First of all, China already has hundreds of millions of people in poverty, so what’s the difference?
_________________________________________________
Custer,
You have no idea how poor China was 30 years ago.
and I KNOW Liu’s way wouldnt help the poor in China, like those children in Phillipine: 10 years, no change.
Yes, things were bad thirty years ago. That doesn’t mean things can’t be improved. And why on earth would you assume things would go exactly the same in China as in the Phillipines (or anywhere else)?
Don’t answer that, it’s off-topic, just something to consider. But stop trying to draw people into that idiotic whose-government-is-better argument. That’s not what this post is about.
As with others before him, there is simply no justification for Liu’s incarceration. The insecurity of the world’s rulers-in-waiting is truly staggering. Their actions are a rebuke to civilised behaviour and is deserving of exposure.
Good job, Custer.
[...] An article by Custer at ChinaGeeks has summarised things very well. It is both sad and typical that so many of the comments on this piece seek to distract from the debate by pointing fingers anywhere but Zhongnanhai. Hat tip to Jeremiah for pointing the way. [...]
Custer,
Ha,
Remember, the #1 reason for the misery of people in this world is poverty, not the right of voting, or the right of free speech.
It is idiotic paying attention to hundreds of people crying cuz they cant protest agasint government while millions of people suffering cuz of poverty.
Democracy is designed to prevent government abusing power, it is not designed to solve problem, as former prime minister of Britain Attlee said :
Democracy means discussion, but it works only when no one talks.
If government cant function properly, it cant help the poor, WHO USUALLY NEED THE HELP MOST.
Enjoy.
Remember, the #1 reason for the misery of people in this world is poverty.
Westerners take good life for granted.
Think of that before talking about human rights.
@ Wahaha: And how, exactly, did locking up Liu Xiaobo for eleven years help poor people? I suppose it increases their taxes a little, having to subsidize prisons full of political prisoners…
Custer and Mr.Scheidenbeisser,
Let us talk about freedom of speech :
It means PEOPLE have the freedom to express their opinions, right ?
So there are two categories here : People and opinions.
First categories , People can be
1) people mistreated by government.
2) people needs government help because of accidents.
3) people lost all of his savings cuz of their stupidity
4) people didnt get what they wanted (the amount of money) from government.
5) people who are lazy but want to enjoy the benefits of govenrment.
6) people who want all kinds of benefits, no matter how unreasaonable their requests are.
7) people who mislead other peoples.
8) people who dont like the government so they nickpick the problems of government everywhere
9) people who only show people the facts that can sell their agenda but hide other facts.
10) people who are lawyers (you know what I mean)
and SO ON.
Second categories, opinions :
1) complains towards the government cuz of being mistreated.
2) complains towards the government cuz government ignores his misforture.
3) blame government for his loss in his investment.
4) blaime goverment for not giving him what he asked.
5) bash government cuz he didnt have the benefits.
6) bash government for his misery (cuz of his own laziness.)
7) bash government cuz he spent more than he earned.
8) bash government cuz government doesnt make the plan like he wants.(or his boss wants)
9) bash government cuz he wants to make this government look bad.
10) bash government cuz he wants to make himself look good, hence more political influence for him.
and SO ON.
Do you consider every COMBINATION from these two categories part of “freedom of speech”?
Let me know the answer, please.
Custer,
I never said Liu should be locked behind bar for 11 years, I just dont feel sorry for him.
A person with Liu’s intelligence should know :
CCP doesnt enjoy die-hard support from chinese people, its legitmacy is built on economic development. Actually, CCP would be lucky if 5% of CCP members believe communism.
But Chinese people dont want China becoming another Russia; dont want China becoming another India; dont want China being chaotic like CR ( there is funny quote : you dont know what rich is until you go to Hongkong; you dont know what fashion is until you go to Shanghai; you dont know CR is still going on until you go to Taiwan.)
All of above, very unfortunately, are associated with democracy. What idiots like Ai Weiwei and HuJia have done just make Chinese believe ” CCP is bad, but if we change, everything will be even worse.” This, is what has hold Chinese people back.
So what has Liu been doing ? surely he and his comrades dont give a damn about what chinese people care, My guess is that All he and his comrades care is getting rid of CCP, so come the stupidities like finding excuse for a notorious traitor, proving KMT was not that bad in 1949, etc.
@ Wahaha: (first post): Yes.
@ Wahaha: (second post): You have some pretty strong assumptions about Liu’s motives that I think are based on your own biases, not anything he’s actually said or done.
I agree with Wahaha. I don’t see what’s the big deal with Liu Xiaobo getting arrested. There are political prisoners here in the US from the Puerto Rican Independtistas, fighters for Black Liberations to members of the American Indian Movement. Yet most Americans seem mostly nonchalant about these organizations.
I respectfully refer #27 to #20 for guidance.
@ #25
“I just dont feel sorry for him.”
Why not? He’s a decent, compassionate, well-meaning human being who wants a better deal for the Chinese people and whose existence has been treated with contempt.
Wahaha, the point of freedom of speech is, that regardless what crap people might say, they should be allowed to say it. Most of the time its easy to say, what is crap and what is not, right? Like all the points you have listed. However, sometimes its not so easy to say it. For one person the opinion is crap, for the other its not. How do you deal with this then?
Stuart,
Why not? He’s a decent, compassionate, well-meaning human being who wants a better deal for the Chinese people and whose existence has been treated with contempt.
According to article 35 in Chinese constitution “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” Ask an average Westerner, within the last year, I wonder how many westerners use ALL those very same rights you don’t see many. Maybe what happened during the months leading before the TS crackdown in 1989 and many people did protested freely. But too much protests can be counterproductive. Perhaps that’s why many Westerners don’t understand why Jack Chan says “Too much freedom can lead to Chaos.”
There seem to be two arguments at work here. One is over whether Liu Xiaobo should be arrested. No one seems to be arguing that he should, though some are arguing that it’s not a big deal. If it’s not a big deal, then one wonders why it’s worth making apologies for the government over his arrest.
Then, there’s a second argument about democracy and whether it helps solve poverty. Obviously, there are both rich and poor democracies, just as there are rich and poor authoritarian countries (though less rich authoritarian ones, interestingly). And democracies also commit human rights abuses. Do they commit more human rights abuses than authoritarian countries? Hard to argue that. But they do commit them, of course.
A third line of inquiry might be: would obeying its own laws help China become a better place? I would argue that it already has. For example, companies in the P.R.C. are arguably abusing workers less, in part because they are afraid that workers will take them to arbitration and court and make them lose money—as sure a form of poverty alleviation (for the workers) as any trickle down, get rich first, liberal, crap plan that we get lectured about. The state hasn’t locked up everyone who signed Charter 08 yet. In part, I imagine this is because it would be a legal hassle.
But pushing the state to obey its own laws isn’t enough. As Wahaha said, “rights,” at least civil and political ones, tend to be negative in that they just outlaw some action by the state, without demanding any positive action by the people. And, of course, you can always write laws with loopholes. Or decide that the constitution cannot be cited in court, as China decided (with the exception, now overturned, of the Qi Yuling case). Going to jail for your beliefs is horrible, but it’s how things will change.
OTR
Actually, liu xiaobo’s is being jailed for subversion. While many here would argue that he is practicing his freedom of speech, he is trying to destablize the government that way.
Oh on the last comment I shouldve said jackie chan says that too much freedom in china can lead to chaos.
OTR is back! Happy New Decade~
Wahaha tried to say the West focuses on the wrong things and Liu’s cause is not the best way to better this country. But like OTR said, that has nothing to do with Liu’s sentence, which is indeed much opposed even at anti-cnn (I do recommend that place if for nothing but their translations of French and German news articles, languages I don’t speak). I see a lot of people there too expressing disbelief or outrage.
[...] a touching commentary on the topic, check out C. Custer’s post from ChinaGeeks. Filed under: China, Culture, Politics, Shanghai, Travels | Leave a [...]
the point of freedom of speech is, that regardless what crap people might say, they should be allowed to say it.
__________________________________
Mr.Scheidenbeisser (and Custer)
You live in a country that enjoys great harmony politically, and people are well educated, highly self-disciplined, and enjoy all kinds of benefits ( so people can think, talk and negotiate reasonably). hence few activitists can stir the pot.
That is simply not the case in China, in Taiwan, in India, in Thailand, in Phillipines, in Brazil, not even in America. THE CRAP CAN HURT PEOPLE, though indirectly. Like in Hongkong, the construction of an important railway of only 26 kilos has been postponed for 10 years and now it will cost more money to build than the railroad in Tibet did, why? cuz there are couple hundreds of people think differently; like in Taiwan, 20 years ago, Taiwan was on the same level with South Korea, now it lags behind South Korea almost in every category, why ? cuz of the “culture revolution” in Taiwan; the free speech in india has prevented India building SEZ along its coast like ShenZhen in China, result? capitalists from democratic countries rather invested their money in authoritarian china than democratic india, who have suffered ? the poor in India.
Now America, America has been seriously damaged by this ABSOLUTE freedom, as so many parasites use the right to save their lazy @$$. In companys, most technical works are done by people from China, India and other countries, why ? cuz children are free to do whatever they want, in the name of freedom, how can you expect children to study voluteerily? so schools produce millions of youngster each year who have no necessary skills to compete in a competitive society. Who suffer ? the people, everyone.
One great American saw this problem :
If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife. 17
With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems
FDR, First Inaugural Address,1933
Custer and Stuart, (about Liu)
Liu, with his intelligence, should know clearly what have bothered lot of chinese on the issue of democracy, namely, another Russia, another India and another CR.
While he and his comrades have relentlessly pushed the idea of WESTERN democracy, they never try to ease the worries. What explanation can you have for such strange behaviors ?
They dont give a damn what people worry about.
They want to overthrow CCP AT ANY COST.
They live in their own dreams (as they often use incidents in China to prove their points, if they have points, this one is unlikely)
Unless you can give me some reasonable excuses, I wont feel sorry for him. BTW, Liu at least has a brain, Ai Weiwei is an idiot.
@Wahaha – I’m pretty sure the railway delay was more related to property rights and not so much to freedom of speech. I guess you would think differently if you would own property and they suddenly start building a railway next to it, effectively cutting the value of your property in half. Or worse, they just dispossess you. Would you be willing to give up your property for the good of the people?
Regarding your point of investing money in China vs. India. I’ve invested in both countries and the return rates were quite similar, therefore I can’t directly follow your argument there, I don’t see a big difference, the driver here are just the low salaries in both India and China. This is also a reason much tech work is outsourced from the US into India/China, not so much because American people are unwilling to learn. There are a lot of laid off people who can tell you other stories.
However, I don’t understand your argument that people in the US are lazy/parasites because of freedom of speech. I actually can not follow that at all, comparing e.g. the Chinese and the American welfare system – from a health insurance perspective you are far better off in China than in the US. Additionally, the US has virtually no noteworthy unemployment benefits, therefore I really don’t see where parasites would have a big chance in the US.
And as far as your quote is concerned, I can tell you that the military was never a great example for freedom of speech or democracy, but as I said in my earlier posts, there are always people who find it easier if their “general” thinks for them…
pug_ster,
why do you think Americans don’t care about these movements, like AIM, or FALN (the Puerto Rican movement)? I am not disagreeing with you, I agree 100% that Americans are disinterested in their own political prisoners. Of course I have my own ideas, but I like to hear the thoughts of others.
I don’t fault C Custer for posting about where his heart has led him, and I agree with what he says in his post, but I do find it very, very perplexingthat Americans continue to ignore our own actions on curtailing of “freedom” and grotesque miscarriages of “justice” while pining away for those in far away places where we have waning influence. In my home state, more people have been exonerated OFF of death row (which requires a near Herculean legal process) than have been sentenced to death in the last 20 years or so. Yet we continue to cry for blood. Texas has executed innocent men, this is documented with amazing amounts of empirical evidence, yet more people know about the gentleman in China than the wrongly executed in Texas. Of this I am certain.
What causes this, I wonder? The comforts of an entrenched middle-class? Apathy? A two party system centuries in the making that seems insurmountable? What is it????
For the one billionth time, this blog posts about things like “the gentlemen in China” because it’s A BLOG ABOUT CHINA.
EVERYONE knows Texas has executed innocent men, and if they worked back on ALL their old cases with DNA there would be even more, but that is (1) old news and (2) not at all connected to the focus of this blog. There are TONS of Americans who do literally nothing with their time BUT try to fix the American system. Lord knows there are multiple 24-hour cable TV news networks dedicated to arguing about domestic issues like the curtailing of freedom or injustice more or less 24-7.
There are, in short, too many worthwhile issues to focus on all of them. EVERYONE — you, me, the rest of the US, Chinese people, EVERYONE — picks and chooses the things they really care about/focus on. This is a blog about China, and I do get pretty annoyed that people continually imply I am “ignoring” some American domestic issue just because I don’t post about it on my China blog.
@ Pug_ster,
I suppose my point is that speech is a legitimate means of trying to destabilize a government. Violence may or may not sometimes be needed—think of the French revolution or, for that matter, the Cuban revolution—but it should be illegitimate legally-speaking. Those that practice violence cross a line and the state has a right to react with whatever legal remedies it has available. The same is not true for speech and that’s why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such documents do not make exceptions for “subversive” speech.
In fact, speech is a good test: if a government can’t withstand some essays or some demonstrations, then it is fundamentally flawed on some level.
@ Wahaha,
Some good points. We just don’t agree. I don’t see attracting capitalists as the be all and end all of development, for example. And I’m not sure big development project should be exempted from public review (which, in essence, is what you’re saying with your HK / Tibet example). But I get where you’re coming from.
@ Woodoo,
Happy New Year to you, too!
I’m pretty sure the railway delay was more related to property rights and not so much to freedom of speech. I guess you would think differently if you would own property and they suddenly start building a railway next to it, effectively cutting the value of your property in half.
________________________________________________
Mr. Scheidenbeisser
The project has been postponed for 10 years, and the estimated cost has been doubled and tripled. You think the offers by government were not reasonable ? Very unlikely, actually, I think the offers have been over the property values. Well, if one out of 100 families is greedy, all the other 99 families will be greedy too.
So the issue becomes that if the greedy, unreasonable family has the right to demcand unreasonable amount of the money and MOST IMPORTANTLT if those so called activitists have the right to stir the pot here.
Let me give you another example :
http://ia.rediff.com/money/2006/may/08spec1.htm
“20-day fast to protest the government’s failure to come to the aid of an estimated 500,000 villagers ”
Do you think that an elected government, after 20 years, had NOT offered reasonable compensation for those people ? Very very unlikely, more likely just a few dozens or a few hundreds wanted, NOT 500,000.
But how come there were 500,000 people joining in the protest? You know, I know, everyone knows, the activitists who want political influence, and they stirred the pot in the name of free speech. So the problems of couple dozens of people become problems of 500,000 people. and Government simple cant do anything.
I don’t see attracting capitalists as the be all and end all of development,
________________________________
OTR,
When ShenZhen was first set by Chinese government, there were people who claimed that it was set by government for the the rich, … to exploit chinese people. That was the slogans used in India by those activitists when their government tried to build SEZ along the coast line.
The irony part is this :
Suppose in a city with lot of poor people, Government wants to help the poor (Assume they have the corporation from the poor, THIS IS A HUGE ASSUMPTION.) Where does the government get money from ? middle class or the rich.
You cant allocate money from middle class to the poor, otherwise, your political career is over; so government must get money from the rich. Well, the rich are not saint, they wont invest money unless you give them good incentives. …. (you can imagine what the remaining story is like ..)
If you have trouble, the following blog will tell you the story.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/20/beck.cities/index.html
In fact, speech is a good test: if a government can’t withstand some essays or some demonstrations, then it is fundamentally flawed on some level.
__________________________________________________________
Actually, not many chinese doubt that the government is fundamentally flawed.
It is those who try to take over this government are MORE seriously flawed.
@ Wahaha,
I share your worries about those that would take over for the Chinese government. It seems that if a person is basically supportive of the status quo—and this is as true abroad as it is in China—they end up spending all of their time either defending the government or offering oblique “advice” that is so oblique that it ends up reinforcing things (I admit that I have found myself in this position in regards to the Obama administration at times). But if they’re critical of the status quo, they let their thinking stop at the level of criticism and put off the real nuts and bolts of defining what better governance would look like—at least until the distant time when they will “have power.”
Charter 08 was an attempt to get into those nuts and bolts at last. It was flawed. I think the Charter’s suggestion that the SOEs be broken up was very foolish, for example. But at least it was a try at beginning the conversation on where China should go, not just where it is right now.
As to your point about capitalists, I basically agree with those early critics of the Shenzhen SEZ that you cited. Much more poverty alleviation wealth was accomplished during the early days of reform and opening than was accomplished in the 1990s and 2000s. It is simply very difficult to redistribute wealth from a new middle class, particularly one whose allegiance the government craves desperately, to the rural and urban poor. Trickle-down Deng Xiaoping / Reganite economics can build new cities quickly and show a flashy face to the world, but it can’t create healthy, sustained development.
Brazil offers more hope in this regard: its Gini coefficient is falling even as its economy grows. This has been accomplished through massive wealth transfers to the poor and loans to small, family-sized enterprises. And targeted protectionism, I imagine.
OTR,
http://www.tulane.edu/~rouxbee/kids99/brazil.html
@ Wahaha,
Right. Brazil’s got terrible poverty. I could send you an article from the New Yorker on crime in Brazil, too, that’s pretty chilling. But that’s not the point. I’m not trying to restart the discussion on who’s got the worst slums. I’m talking about modes of development. In other words, how do we get out of these bad situations?
In this regard, I think Brazil is finally, after decades of right wing dictatorship and then do-nothing liberalism, starting to turn around. Its growth rate is impressive, but then, GDP growth isn’t everything; what’s equally or more important is that Brazil’s Gini coefficient is falling as its economy grows, meaning that the country’s wealth is shared increasingly equitably, leading to broad-based, not narrow development.
You seem to imply that letting foreign capitalists run roughshod over workers (and using the power of the state to suppress any pushback by working people) is the only way to go, that China must, essentially, hurt its weakest to save its weakest. I’m not holding Brazil up as some Scandinavian paradise. I’m just saying that there’s more than one path to development. Brazil’s giving a different path a try. Seems interesting.
Of course, we can always go back to slinging around statistics of badness, if you want. And making wild assumptions.
I’m just saying that there’s more than one path to development. Brazil’s giving a different path a try. Seems interesting.
________________________________________________________
30 years ago, China didnt have any money, so the weakest had to sacrifice something to get something.
Other there is a way : let government have income, so the government doesnt have to beg the rich. The bad things come with it is, you know, I know, government has too much power.
I cant think of other ways, and I deeply believe that who control the flow of money, who have the power and who control the country.
BTW, Brazil average income, I believe, is over $7,500, China $3,100, India $1,100.
The only thing that can overthrow CCP is the collapse of economy, otherwise I think the only thing that can effectively weaken the control of CCP is enforcing law.
Charter 08 is a meaningless political show, it wont even harm Chinese government as much as govenment’s arresting Liu Xiaopo which, in my opinion, is another political game, maybe in exchange for something with West, or forcing him out of China.
@ Wahaha,
You’re probably right about the game around Liu Xiaobo. Makes sense.
As to taxing the rich, if a state uses its power to direct the economy to equitable ends, then it will get no criticism from me. Tax them as much as you want! Nationalize their companies if it makes sense! My problem isn’t with a strong government per se, but with a government that uses its strength to put itself beyond popular oversight and to hurt the weak.
The conservative argument that economic freedom for the rich is equivalent to or a precondition for political freedom for everyone just doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Was Bolivia better and freer when elites got to decide what to do with its oil revenues and indigenous people were effectively shut out of the political process? Nope. Or, rather, it was better for the elites only. Now, it is more democratic, not less so, and, arguably, in a better position to contribute to humanity.
I’d say the same is true for China.
Also, on your point about incomes in different countries: you can’t have it both ways. You seem to argue that because authoritarian China is better off than democratic India, China should stick with authoritarianism since it’s delivering such great results. Then, because democratic Brazil is better off than China, Brazil is not a good comparison for poor China and China should stick with authoritarianism to catch up. Which is it?
Democratic oversight of government is, probably, not something that lends itself to these kinds of simple comparisons at all. It is just one factor in the mix. And should, perhaps, be taken on its own terms.
[...] of course, just as with Liu Xiaobo a clever pun emerged to show support ["随波逐刘"], so too has a pun emerged for Tan Zuoren. [...]