| Yawning
Bread. 12 April 2008
Lee Hsien Loong calls on world to kowtow to China
|
|
||||
|
The story reported that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told a forum organised by the London School of Economics (LSE) and the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies that protestors disrupting the Olympic torch relay have aroused intense anti-foreigner feelings in young Chinese, leaving them feeling humiliated. "The outrage in China, especially among the young, can be read on the flooded Internet bulletin boards, all carrying virulent anti-foreign sentiments." [1] It's a pity, he said, that they're in Chinese, and thus largely "unintelligible" to the rest of the world. "Were they in the English language, young Americans and Europeans would realise that these displays of contempt for China and things Chinese will have consequences in their lifetime, well beyond the Olympic Games," he warned.
This last week, the Olympic torch runs through London, Paris and San Francisco have been much interrupted by Free Tibet and various other protestors. More trouble is expected as the event moves to other cities before reaching China. Seeing scenes of such disruption on television, hundreds of thousands of netizens in China have signed online petitions pledging to "protect" the flame, together with calls to boycott French products such as L'Oreal and Louis Vuitton. The Straits Times quoted a Beijing-based events manager, Zhao Guofu, 29, who said, "To us, the Olympics is a grand, historic event for China. These people spoiling the torch relay are just trying to beat China down.... Even ordinary Chinese who wouldn't usually be interested in politics are now asking, 'Why is China being treated like this?' '' Such protests will change nothing, Lee suggested: "No government can give ground on any core issue under such public duress, whatever the merits of the argument."
Lee's observation may be valid, but his implied prescription -- stop protesting against China -- is not only wrong, but downright laughable. No passionate believer in freedom is going to self-censor. No democratic government is going to stop people from protesting. To its credit, the Straits Times reported in the same story a strong rebuttal from LSE professor of human rights Conor Gearty. Describing protests as part of the guarantee for human rights, he argued, "I am proud of the chaos that surrounds the flame because protest is, to use the Prime Minister's own terms, the way we challenge great minds. It is a new way of revealing basic truths." He is right. If there were not these protests, by Tibetans themselves and their friends abroad, the Beijing government and their information-restricted citizenry would never learn how serious international opinion is about Chinese dictatorship. That is the "basic truth" that needs to be revealed. Lee's prescription, on the other hand, is to allow the Chinese government to carry on ruling with their accustomed heavy hand, secure in their ignorance of others' moral concerns. Do not criticise them, says Lee in effect, because it will hurt the feelings of a billion people. The rest of the world's economic and strategic self-interest must dictate that we hold our tongue lest we antagonise a rising industrial power. In saying that, Lee is displaying all the conditioned reflexes of Singapore's own little dictatorship: Censor anything "offensive"; always let economics trump freedom and morality. * * * * * It forgot that no country can win the accolade of free minds around the world -- as opposed to self-serving tributes by sundry fellow autocrats like Singapore's leaders -- without first becoming a polity worthy of respect. Now that people are pointing out that China falls short of being true great power and refusing to accord them the expected praise, it seems a bit disingenuous to say let's not politicise the Olympics. * * * * *
What these propaganda blasts failed to cover up was the fact that China's Tibet policy is broken. Economic growth, rising living standards, massive Han migration and tight control by the Communist Party have not eliminated Tibetan grievances.
In fact, as Sim wrote, the rhetoric conflating the Dalai Lama with the more radical exile groups as one amorphous 'Dalai clique' may be making things worse. The undifferentiated treatment and the ongoing bashing of the 'clique' grates on Tibetans' ears and makes it harder for Beijing to restart dialogue with the Dalai Lama. But why does the central government respond in this hamfisted way? Quoting Zheng Yongnian, head of research at Nottingham University's China Policy Institute: "Fundamentally, the intransigence on Tibet policy comes down to the very nature of the Chinese political system. If it were a multi-party state, there would be rigorous policy debate and pressure to change. Right now, when China is in a crisis situation, it is very often the hardline advocates who win." Single-party polities tend to get prickly and defensive whenever criticised and their response is usually to circle the wagons, especially if criticism comes from abroad. This type of response occurs not just within government, but also among the country's citizens, when they have been fed a steady diet of nationalist propaganda as the Chinese have. Insecure in their hold on power, the Beijing government has for the last 2 decades relied on nationalism to keep the people behind them, but nationalism is a dangerously untamed beast. The Chinese government got a taste of the risks when, a few years ago, the riff with Japan over the Yasukuni shrine visits by former Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro escalated into large scale demonstrations, attacks on Japanese investments and even rioting at a football match, threatening to derail the two countries' growing economic relationship. Now fanned by the recent high-decibel attacks on the "Dalai clique" just after the first riots broke out in Tibet, Beijing seems to have unleashed a new xenophobia. Calling on people outside China to stop protesting and give way to Chinese hypersensitivities, as Lee Hsien Loong is doing, is not going to solve the Tibet problem, for that is a problem that requires the Chinese -- both the government and the people -- to engage in some fresh thinking and soul searching. This cannot be done unless the Chinese are free to think, to debate and to question, not just among themselves, but also with the rest of the world. China needs to be free in order to be
truly part of the greater world, in order to be a force for peace. That's what we should be working
towards, not deference to dictators'
fears and to uninformed, nationalistic xenophobes' pride. Enforced quiescence on the streets is not peace. Not in Tibet,
not anywhere. © Yawning Bread
|
|||||
|
Footnotes
Addenda None
|
|
Front page headline of the Straits Times today: Why torch protests are a
bad move.
