A Cup of Tea

First of all, his name is Yang Jiechi, not Yan Jiechi.

Second, it is true if you shout loudly "human rights are more important than Olympics on the street alone, on one will give you a dam. But, if you try to organize lots of people, you are put yourself in trouble.

So, what is basic human rights? Do you think the freedoms to travel, to work, to go shopping, to visit fried, to complain, to sue, to speak publicly against to your officials ..... are not basic enough human rights? It is absurd to say there is no basic human rights in China. It is also absurd to not observe great improvements in Chinese society.

Believe me, everyone in China realized that China's human rights are not as much as USA. But, at the same time, don't think Chinese need someone to shout at them "they need this,need that," everyday. Anybody here can give a easy solution to Chinese political system?? If any, please put forward. Don't point fingers and exaggerate anything any more. PLease....... It will never work.

Believe me, Chinese are more eager than anyone else to surpass USA in every aspects of their lives, including Human Rights. But, it takes time and lots of pain.

Russia is a good example how so called democratic reform turns a country into a trash can. Do you think that is really you want for China?

It only makes people distrust these kinds of

So it is tea in Beijing and coffee in Hong Kong.

Would that be oolong or Pu Er ? I prefer oolong - it is so Chinese.

As tea is different from coffee, China has her own way of defining various levels of human rights and the process to seek the ultimum level. I adimit China still has a long way to go. However, there is also no denial that there are continuted improvments, considering not long ago men in China can marry multipe wifes.

Since China is a country with a huge population, it takes more time and resources to be as much modern and civilized as the western country. To achieve this, the least China needs right now is social tumult and rabble-rousers like WangGuiLan. She is FaLun Gung practitioner. I guess in her opinion the FaLun Dafa might be a panacea to all problems in China. Unfortunately, it won't be as simple as that.

By the way, it is much easier being cynical about a commonly known problem than providing a solution. I wish to see more Times bloggers take the more challege task instead in the future.

Thank you very much for your article, I hope you will write more on human rights in China in the future.

Improving human rights does take time, but let's not excuse the Chinese government. There are many concrete things the Chinese government could do to improve its human rights record. If you are interested, you could take a look at Chinese Human Rights Defenders' (CHRD) website. CHRD is a network of human rights defenders inside and outside of China, which documents human rights abuses in China and proposes concrete changes to the Chinese government that could promote human rights. For example, they just recently published a letter, based on another letter drafted by prominent Chinese citizens, calling for the interpretation and amendments to Article 105(2) of the Chinese Criminal Law. This article, also known as "inciting subversion of state power", has been used to imprison many human rights defenders, including as recently as Lu Gengsong.

I think we, whether Chinese or foreign, have a responsibility to call a human rights abuse when we see one, and not to shy away from it. Calling it a human rights abuse is the first step, acting on it is the next. We are all responsible for how slowly or quickly the Chinese government moves to protect human rights. Let's not excuse the Chinese government, or any government, for human rights abuses.

@Songlian - I think your lot is simply a hateful bunch. Btw, "inciting subversion of state power" is also known as "treason" - a crime punishable by death in the USA.

What have you done that had any positive material impact on the well-being of the Chinese people?

You need some hint? True human rights believers:
1. They donate to China Hope.
2. They work with local governments on water reclamation projects.
3. They advice the Chinese on how to codify their laws.
4. They go to poor areas of China to heal those who are sick.
5. They invest in China to create jobs for those who are poor.

"Let's not excuse the Chinese government, or any government, for human rights abuses."

So, in your opinion, what human rights violations has other countries made? Which country do you think has the perfect human rights conditions?

Dear Huaren,

I suggest you read CHRD's report, '"Inciting Subversion of State Power”: A Legal Tool for Prosecuting Free Speech in China' available here:

http://www.crd-net.org/Article/Class9/Class11/200801/20080108225721_7032.html

It provides many cases of indviduals charged under the crime and a brief introduction explaning it has frequently been used for punishing activsts and writers for exercising their right to freedom of expression. The kind of "evidence" the government uses to convict these individuals for "inciting subversion" includes articles they had written, which often says something like this: the Chinese government is "dictatorial, violent, cruel, unfair and corrupt" (an excerpt from an article by one of the writers convicted). If an American who says the US government is "dictatorial, violent, cruel, unfair and corrupt" in an article, he/she surely wouldn't be charged and sentenced for "treason".

As to what human rights violations other countries have made, you could visit the websites of Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (Unfortunately, these websites are blocked in China by the government, a violation of the right to access information).

@Sonliang

Few more observations about your lot:

o You are altruistic. Freedom of speech does not allow one to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. Freedom of speech doesn't protect a U.S. citizen from helping Al Quida's cause.

o You are too ignorant (and choose to be) about the truly horrendous human rights violations carried out by other coutries. For the 1.3 billion, this is very simple proof to them that you do not care about human rights.

o Your types also cannot show genuin concerns for the wellbeing of the Chinese people - I have given you 5 examples for improving China. You are such a coward and cannot offer anything of this kind.

@Songlian

Regarding my first point - let me elaborate a bit more.

"If an American who says the US government is "dictatorial, violent, cruel, unfair and corrupt" in an article, he/she surely wouldn't be charged and sentenced for "treason". "

I agree with that point.

But that same American providing data and arguments so Al Quida can recuit more suicide bombers against U.S. possesions - that's treason.

The unfortunate part for your lot is - the Chinese government/judicial system gets to decide who is hostile to the 1.3 billion within their borders.

Huaren,

You know, I have read your posts in many articles here in the China Blog and you go on and on about how great the Chinese people have it, and love to lecture any Human Rights advocates about what they would do if they were really "Human Rights defenders", but I wonder what YOU DO to help people, society, and anything positive in general.

Be interesting to hear that you can put your money where you mouth is.

Also it makes me wonder just how much you really know about what is going on in China.

Its one thing to talk talk talk, it is another to do something that really makes a difference

Out of your 5 "hints" about what human rights people SHOULD be doing how many of them do you actually do?

Your theory on going in to areas and working with sick people, well there are amazing people who do that right now in China for example Dr Gao Yaojie and Dr.Jiang Yanyong? For all their great work and effort the lovely CCP puts them under House Arrest any time they speak up or get the attention they truly deserve.

Maybe it would help you if you spent some time "doing" instead of criticizing others.

Thanks, ablogger. Yang's surname is fixed.

"Huaren" (means: "Chinese people", in a racial way) and "ablogger" contend to be speaking for all the 1.3 billion Chinese.

Just to clarify this: They are NOT speaking for me or my friends.

For one, I would not generalize and talk about "your lot" when what is important are individual voices that show a way out (thanks, "Songlian", for your considered contribution).

Also, I would not want to rely on rhetorical tricks to avert attention from China's responsibilities in preventing open discussion by silencing dissent.

This is not a competition between the U.S. or other governments and China's party-state about who is better in silencing dissent or torturing human beings. Global human rights include freedom of movement and information. Anyone who is inhibiting these rights should be, and sooner or later will be, held responsible for it, by the court of global and local public opinion.

For me, it seems as if "Huaren" and "ablogger" have been indoctrinated too long by nationalist thinking that only allows for one specific version of the truth. Whenever I hear such talk I am immediately reminded of the propaganda I'm hearing here in Beijing all the time.

I would expect more from free thinking individuals, and am left disappointed at the uncritical minds of many people here in China.

@courage 89

I was reading your response in ernest - what, nothing at all from you either? So typical of you "human rights" defenders.

In answer to your question:
1. I have been donating to China Hope.
2. I invest in China.
3. I have been sponsoring a scholarship in the USA giving opportunities to Chinese students to study in the US.
4. I have saved my clients in US and Germany USD800,000 in the last 5 years and hired on average 6 software engineers in Shanghai.

Since you've brought up Dr. Gao Yaojie and Dr. Jiang Yanyong - let me tell you what the 1.3 billion people think.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Jiang were true heroes of China. They deeply cared about their Chinese citizens. Yes, China's CCTV honored Dr. Gao.

The China Haters really doesn't give a damn about Chinese - so they use the likes of Dr. Gao to help vilify the Chinese government.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Jiang crossed the line when they decided to continue their cause by giving ammunition to those out to harm China.

Here is a secret - Simon and Times doesn't care about you - but if your story is interesting and allows the magazine to make few bucks from some China Haters, he will USE you.

@ "huaren":

Speak for yourself, not for me or my friends. The world is more complex than your divide into "China Haters" and people-who-are-like-you.

Simplifications won't help this world to evolve.

@Wu Di

lol! I certainly don't speak for you.

In case you are lost - you belong to the same lot as "courage 89" and "Songlian". Your lot speak in truisms and are hateful of Chinese.

Easy give-away.

You sure I am simplifying things and not your lot?

The problem with opening up too quickly and allowing protesters to organise support for their concerns (however valid) is that it creates a very destabilizing precedent. Once you allow the people, and not the party, the power to make big decisions about public policy, incidents like mass strikes, protests, and riots may escalate, which would be to the detriment of all.

I think it's important to understand how the CCP sees itself and the Chinese people. Westerners are used to Hobbes' idea of a social contract, whereby the people agree to be led by a government for their own good. Later philosophers like Locke and Jefferson elaborated on the point and made arguments to the effect that the people had the right to overthrow or change governments if the governments abused the authority given to them by the people. Ideas like these are totally foreign to the Chinese way of thinking. Their political theories really haven't changed since Kong Zi (Confucious). The party sees itself as the parents, and the people are the children. The people no more have the right to disagree with the party than children can disobey their parents. Not only that, but the people do not have the mental capacity to do so, in the same way that children do not. People do not have the power to make public policy, for themselves, because they do not possess the knowledge, training, experience, maturity, benevolence, etc, to do so, whereas the party does.

So when the party prevents protestors from organising support, they are doing it in the same way that a loving parent spanks their child for running in the streets. And when the US and others come around saying that's wrong, they view it as another person being a nosy busy-body and interfering with their rights to raise their children as they see fit.

I'm not saying I adhere to this view by the way; but I do think it's important to understand it, and also to recognize its own validity. The Chinese government is not elected; it takes all of its legitimacy from the assumption that it is simply the best thing to do the job of governing the Chinese nation. The Chinese people do not have the right to contradict the party because they lack the maturity, expertise, etc, to do so. And if they seize that power through weakness in the government, then all hell could break loose, as it has done in most countries where central authority broke down and the people were divided into rival factions all selfishly acting towards their own well being and against the well being of their neighbours.

It should be common sense for any student of history to realise that any powerful central government, no matter how tyrranical or oppressive, has almost always led to a better quality of life for the average person than a complete lack of central authority and the anarchy, civil war, and chaos that ensues. The most dictarial and backward regime in the world, North Korea, still provides a better quality of life for the average person than African nations that are embroiled in brutal civil war.

Just as children eventually grow up though, I believe that the Chinese government also tends to slowly relax controls and increase personal freedoms as it believes that the Chinese people are 'ready' for it. That last though is purely my own conjecture and I don't really have anything to back it up. Who knows what China will be like in another 10 years? What I do know is that it's hard for me to imagine how mass strikes, protests, and riots would be of benefit to China at this time.

Also I think that the idea of the importance of personal freedoms is greatly exagerated and blown out of proportion by most westerners. I'd say that other quality of life indicators are far more important; things like disposable income, literacy levels, daily calorie intake, health care, clean water, electricity, heating, and so on are a lot more important than the right to criticize the government. I'd much rather be a person with nothing to complain about and no right to do so than a person with plenty to complain about and the right to do so.

A lot of the protesters in China are protesting what happens to them personally. For example the people who protest about a garbage dump being built next to their homes. But the garbage dump needs to be built. If it's not next to their homes, it'll be next to somebody else's. Or else what little remains of China's natural areas will have to be bulldozed. So what's the solution? Most of the problems that ordinary people are analogous situations. Situations whereby something has to be done for the good of all, but a small group of people are negatively effected. Of course those people will want to protest, but it would not be for the general good if every time a new power plant, rail line, garbage dump, or whatever had to be built it was delayed by local protestors protecting their own limited interests at the expense of all. That kind of thing happens in the west very often, but it's different in Canada and America. We have the wealth and the land area to make suitable compromises a lot of the time. China rarely does.

China has 5000 years of history with the human rights they have now. They seems to have survived.

Chinese people must have food on the table. Human rights with no food won't help them. China must choose one or the other, food or human rights. Furthermore, the human rights they should have are human rights with Chinese characteristics, not the US styled ones.

Chinese are not ready for human rights yet. We must have patiences. They have 5000 years of history, and it will take similar period for them to evolve.

Huaren has expressed very clearly of what Chinese understand as human rights and Chinese want. We should just let them get what they want and wish for.

Human rights is like pearl. It is not for everyone.

You can see here that only stupid Americans would ever want to push for human rights in China:
http://news.boxun.com/news/gb/taiwan/2008/03/200803010755.shtml

wow, I've been gone for so long, I think I missed a lot of good comments here in Times China blog. I still see some familiar names and their comments so let me start mine.

Huaren,

You are as ignorant and severely brainwashed as your other chinese propagandist buddies are here in Times China blog. Not all 1.3 billion chinese shares your opinion and they are not as brainwashed as you.

Here are the 3 things I think China should do

1) stop skinning dogs alive for their furs.

2) stop pirating dvds, cds, ipods, designer bags, rolex, tag huer, cell phones, iphones, paintings, medical drugs, clothes, foods and many many more!

3) Stop killing your women and people who voices their frustration against the government!

Your Government is CORRUPT AND HYPOCRITE period!

And last but not the least, stop charging me too much for Dinner Buffets!!!!

@"huaren": Would you please stop putting people into drawers and begin respecting them for their individual contributions?

I respect you and your views too, even though I can read/hear virtually the same views every day in the government-controlled mouthpieces also known as China's mainstream media/press.

@Huaren:

I feel quite disturbed by your comments. Based on what you said to Songlian and Wu Di, I am probably also one of those China-haters in your eyes. But, I do not agree with such a label or categorization as I, as well as those human rights advocates and critics DO NOT HATE CHINA and DO NOT WANT TO SEE CHINA FAIL.

The things that you have been doing for China and Chinese people are laudable. In fact, this shows that you and I actually share similar goals and ideals even though we seem to have differences on the surface. We, you and I, as well as many other people, including the critical voices LOVE CHINA, WANT TO SEE CHINA PROSPER and WANT THE BEST FOR THE CHINESE PEOPLE. WE ALL BELIEVE THAT THE CHINESE PEOPLE DESERVE BETTER. WE SHARE THE SAME GOALS AND IDEALS.

It is because we wish the best for China and believe that the Chinese people deserve better lives that we point out the weaknesses and urge the authorities to do something. It is also because of these reasons that we want to raise awareness and do advocacy.

Criticisms help the authorities be more aware of the flaws, evaluate their policies and make
improvements. Criticisms make things more perfect. And of course, compliments are essential too. If the Chinese government has done things the right way for the people, we would applaud and support them. But if criticisms are not allowed, then improvements will be very slow to come by.

There are many ways of helping a country or society develop. For you, what you have been doing and proposing is one way. For others, expressing their dissatisfaction, making suggestions, helping people protect their rights through legal means and doing advocacy work are also effective methods of making China into a better country.

Not everybody who is arrested by the Chinese government or speaks out against the Chinese government is definitely a China-hater or a traitor. We all have the interests of China at heart.

We have to see beyond our differences and based on our shared ideals and goals and also on a mutual understanding, RESPECT each other. Belittling and calling each other names or putting others into drawers won't lead us anywhere.

Every society needs people who dare to speak the truth. Every society needs whistleblowers.

A leadership that can't tolerate criticisms and only wants to hear praises is ultimately digging its own grave.

It is really not easy to rule a vast and heavily populated country like China. Hence, China needs critics that can point out what went wrong and so the government can make admendments.

Societies that continue to muddle through and become self-conceited will experience instabilities. No one wants to see China become unstable.

@Hautamaki
You are a wise person and has the ability to see "outside the box." Keep it up.

@Safod
Based on what you said, we wouldn't group you with the "lot". Don't misread my comments.

But, if your advocacy in actual practice invovles banding together in harming Chinese people with the "haters" - well - then you are with the "lot".

@"huaren": After your comment on March 2, 12:36am, I do no longer respect you.

You are putting others into your own fixed categories, friend vs. foe, and are telling others what to do and what not to do -- instead of engaging with what they actually say.

Respect is for those that deserve it. And whoever is not willing to critically re-evaluate their own convictions based on different opinions doesn't.

This said, I'm sure you can go on living beautifully without my respect. For you, I'm just one of the "haters." Keep up your mental blinders.

@huaren:
How do you define 'China-haters?

If I change your last sentence into this:
"But, if your work in actual practice invovles banding together in harming Chinese people with the Chinese government, especially those corrupted and selfish officials - well - then you are with the "lot"." and really see things in this way, does it help to achieve mutual understanding and trust and eventually bring the society together?

We don't have to see the critics, including foreigners as China-haters or enemies.

The best way to silence the so-called China-haters out there is to act upon the criticisms and take concrete steps to improve the lives of the people in China. I know this is not easy and requires a lot of time and resources but silencing and even imprisoning critics or sweeping things under the carpet don't help!

@Hautamaki:

If one or more of my rights to have a decent quality of life, to receive education, to be able to have a minimum daily calorie intake, to have access to health care, to have clean water, electricity and heating and other basic life necessities are taken away from me, and the authorities are clearly one of the violators, and if I also don't have the right to express my need, complain and seek help, then what should I do? If human rights advocates or lawyers end up in jail for helping me and others or for talking to a foreigner about these problems or for some other obscure reasons, how should we solve the problem of human rights violations? Continue to suffer in silence? This is a situation that many people here and also elsewhere are facing now.

In any society, the right to a decent standard of living is intricately linked to the right to freedom of speech as well as to other fundamental human rights.

The idea that Chinese people are not ready for more freedoms or have the capacity to make decisions at the policy level is not right. The quote below may help to explain why:
http://en.chinaelections.org/newsinfo.asp?newsid=15441
"Last February [in 2007], Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao wrote in People's Daily that "democracy, the rule of law, freedom, human rights, equality and mutual respect are not exclusively capitalist values. They have come about as the result of the gradual advance of history. They are common human values."

If one's basic rights are threatened, of course one will resist and protest. Should a group sacrifice their well-being or even put their lives at stake in the name of common good? If it is really and truly common good, then no one's basic rights should be taken away. Imagine if a village has to live next to a garbage dump, breath in polluted air, drink dirty water and next thing is fall sick, and they are told that they have to go through this for the sake of economic growth or other common goals, is this socially just? Imagine if you are one of them.

That's why the right to information, the right to have press freedom and the right to have public discussions are so important. When the society has access to information through the help of media and intellectuals and be able to have public discussions, then the society can establish shared values and find the best solutions to shared problems. It will also curtail corruption and collusion between politicians and businessmen, some of whom negelct the basic interests of the common people.

Street demonstrations or mass strikes do not destabilize China especially if people know that the government does listen to their opinions and is willing to engage the people in open, sincere and non-violent manners. With access to information, channels to express their opinions and platforms for public discussions, people don't act irrationally. The recent PX incident in Xiamen is a great example. Google it and you know what I mean.

Safod, Wu Di,

You guys shouldn't be too hard on hauren. He is just making a living. He really didn't mean any harm to anybody. Live and let live.

Its pretty interesting thus far to see all of your comments. How about we take a poll. Or, better yet, Time, how about a poll of your readers?

As I said before, an observant reader had previously commented, the commenters here have already divided into "home teams."

For example, in 2006, 70% of Taiwan's outbound investment went to China - US$50 billion - I'd said that's a healthy dosage of China loyalists in Taiwan. The Taiwan independence camp obviously like that to be 0%.

Don't feel there's a morality angle to this survey - simply pick the position you stand for.

1. Taiwan
a. Unification
b. Independence
c. Status Quo

2. Beijing Olympics
a. Boycott
b. Embrace
c. Don't care

3. US Invasion of Iraq
a. a criminal act
b. brings freedom and democracy to Iraqi's
c. Don't care

4. Hu and Ten
a. Chinese Criminals
b. Human Rights Defenders
c. _____ (specify your own position)

So, my position and bulk of the 1.3 billion's are plenty obvious.

1. Taiwan
a. Unification

2. Beijing Olympics
b. Embrace

3. US Invasion of Iraq
a. a criminal act

4. Hu and Ten
c. Chinese Criminals + unfortunate victims for venting their frustration through collaborating with the China haters.

Lets here yous!

1d (ask the Taiwanese people what they want, and if they want a) then yes -- otherwise a) should be labeled "invasion"
2b
3a (invasion)
4b + two of the very few Chinese people who care about the sick and disadvantaged people in Chinese society.

Needless to say, but there you go:

1) Biased surveys won't get us anywhere.
2) Divisions into "home teams" are man-made and only if we overcome our mental inflexibilities can we engage with each other and imagine solutions.
3) The task is not to simply imagine the outcome and hop on the government's band wagon, it's about imagining the path to get there, and then engaging with each other and walk on it together.

One thing people seem to be forgetting is that the Central government doesn't have as much power as we like to think it has. There real problem in China is two-fold: corruption in provincial and local governments, and a lack of oversight throughout the government apparatus.

Corruption is a very real problem in China, and the Central government has attempted to thwart this by carrying out very serious punishments, including expulsion from the Communist Party and even execution. Nevertheless, local officials and even provincial ones still work in collusion with factory bosses, mine owners and anyone else who has serious money to screw over the common people. So far, the Central government has found no cure for this disease.

Why not crack down more seriously? It's a matter of the relationship between respective provinces and the nation. The ties that bind are not as solid as people would like to think--binds that we in the US take for granted. The Central government doesn't crack down too harshly on provincial and local officials because they don't want to upset said provinces, which currently enjoy great autonomy in how they run things. Take that autonomy away, and some of the provinces, especially those that already have extremely weak ties, might rise up, risking national unity. The Central government can't afford to have that happen, so they are forced to exercise a rather weak hand in the fight for human rights.

The lack of oversight is I would say the underlying problem here. There is no system of oversight built in to the Chinese system of government. Leadership is very top-down and command-based, meaning the underlings get told what to do, but have no idea how to do it. Why aren't they told how? So the higher-ups don't have to be held responsible, is my guess, when things go horribly wrong. Consider a recent case in Beijing, where police raided a night club looking for drug dealers from Nigeria. Did they actually have any idea who was dealing drugs? No, of course not. So they went in and started beating and arresting anyone who was black. (And China doesn't have racism...)

Any competent senior official would have never ordered his officers to do this; it's insanely stupid. Far more likely is that the police involved were hired thugs ("chengguan", perhaps) who only knew what they were hired to do, and had to figure out their own way to get it done. In the end it might have been no big deal, except that one of those black men beaten an detained was the son of a diplomatic official from the Caribbean. I'm sure there have been no reports on what happened to the officers involved, but very likely they were fired, and nothing happened to those higher up in command. Oversight at all levels of government and law enforcement are necessary before any real changes to said agencies can occur.

@Genghiskhan: You ask "Why aren't they told how?"

Another guess: Because a significant fraction of those "higher-ups" (Beijing's political elite) don't want oversight. It would interfere with their scheme, colluding with the economic elite, to take away the people's money.

It is an open secret that the offspring of some of the highest political leaders have accumulated wealth that, once investigated, would require serious/capital punishment.

Only if oversight is established (by law) -- and enforced (by police and media) -- at all levels of government then it is possible to re-build trust in government. For now, the hands of those competent senior officials you mention are tied.

Great posts, especially Safok and Genghis Khan.

Safok; I really can't disagree with anything you say, and it's an eloquent and thorough response to me. I'd say that the main differences between us are where our sympathies will lie in the case of the hypothetical you posited. In the case of a small village being bulldozed or whatever in the name of necessity, your sympathies lie with the villagers themselves and their right to protest their disappearing homes. My sympathies lie with the OTHER villagers who will have their homes bulldozed instead if the first group gets their way, and with the time, money, and effort that was wasted in the meantime.

I'd say that those who are deprived of the necessities of life because of circumstances beyond their control, be it a corrupt local government official or whatever, have to make their own individual choices based on their own individual circumstances. There are certainly plenty of cases when ordinary people have gotten royally screwed just because of selfishness or imcompetence in the government, and for those people, I have a hard time condemning them for protesting. But I also think that it's futile, both for the general good, and for their own good as well. They'd obviously be better off working to improve their own situation than protesting. And as for the government and the common good: as long as the government views the Chinese people as children, than any protesting will only be looked upon as a child throwing a temper tantrum. Right now the government is very much afraid that if it caves into protesters it will set off a dangerous precedent, and so all dissidents will be silenced as ruthlessly as the government thinks it can get away with, no matter how just their cause.

As for whether they're right to adopt that attitude, it's obviously impossible to say. But historically speaking, I think the government isn't on too shaky of a ground.

Oh forgot to mention, Genghis Khan also made a lot of great points about the realism of the situation with regard to the central government's ability to control what happens in various provinces.

Huaren's poll:

1: Support the right of the Taiwanese people to decide their own fate based on their own best interests, regardless of what that decision may be.

2: Bei Jing olympics: don't care, think the whole thing is blown WAY out of proportion. It's only sports, and it only lasts for 2 weeks.

3: US Invasion of Iraq: possibly criminal and certainly stupid and immoral. Can't say any more without any solid proof of course.

4: not enough info to make a judgement

@Wu Di
You sure the survey is biased? Now that you've responded and Hautamaki - isn't it clearer where we stand.

Losen up - your brain is so constipated.

To overcome differences, people need to be honest about where they stand on issues.

So, for both of you, regarding #1, your take the position of letting the people on taiwan decide.

Are you guys willing to consider the following. Should the Eskimos in Alaska be allowed to go independent if they have a referendum to do so? Many of them wouldn't mind, because all that oil makes them instant milliionaires. Why wouldn't they do it?

Also consider this - where does the 'self determination' becomes impractical? I mean, can the anti-establishment all move into a suburb and decide to have a referendum and then become independent?

Further, can you declare yourself independent with your apartment from the country you live in?

@"huaren": You bring up the Eskimos in Alaska... very funny. Where's all the oil in Taiwan? Hidden beneath the mountains? All some kind of huge state secret? lol. It's more complex than that but many Taiwanese want to be independent because they are afraid to loose their freedoms and human rights. Of course economic prosperity is a great pull to 'reunite' but if Taiwanese could see some progress in terms of individual freedoms and the human rights situation in China many more would start believing in the 'one country' thing.

You ask: Can you declare yourself independent with your apartment from the country you live in?

Yes, I am free in my thinking. Nobody can ever control what I think, nobody can ever have the right to do so. At the same time, I am aware of rights and responsibilities that come with being part of a larger societal system. If that system cuts down my rights then I don't feel so many responsibilities, but I do feel that I need to make an effort to re-create the balance between those rights and responsibilities, and tell those responsible that they shouldn't abuse their powers.

So now my question: Why do you believe that any talk of human rights is just a way to hurt China's current regime?

@"huaren": You bring up the Eskimos in Alaska... very funny. Where's all the oil in Taiwan? Hidden beneath the mountains? All some kind of huge state secret? lol. It's more complex than that but many Taiwanese want to be independent because they are afraid to loose their freedoms and human rights. Of course economic prosperity is a great pull to 'reunite' but if Taiwanese could see some progress in terms of individual freedoms and the human rights situation in China many more would start believing in the 'one country' thing.

You ask: Can you declare yourself independent with your apartment from the country you live in?

Yes, I am free in my thinking. Nobody can ever control what I think, nobody can ever have the right to do so. At the same time, I am aware of rights and responsibilities that come with being part of a larger societal system. If that system cuts down my rights then I don't feel so many responsibilities, but I do feel that I need to make an effort to re-create the balance between those rights and responsibilities, and tell those responsible that they shouldn't abuse their powers.

So now my question: Why do you believe that any talk of human rights is just a way to hurt China's current regime?

@Hataumaki:

Thank you for engaging in my comments.

The example that you used - deciding where the garbage dump should be - is indeed a big dilemma and it poses a great challenge for any society in the world. Such an issue requires deliberation and open discussions in the society and there is no easy solution. It also requires us to reexamine our ways of living (consumption-oriented and little regard for the environment) but this is a big issue that requires a lengthy discussion which we are not able to do here.

Yes, time, money and efforts are wasted in the process but these could be cut down if the authorities have engaged with the affected communities right from the beginning. And also, which is more valuable and expensive, loss of health and lives as well as (possibly irreversible) environmental destruction OR the loss of time, money and efforts that you mentioned? Very often, our assessments are based on quantifiable measurements and overlook elements that are not easy to quantify. Or worse, if we see the lives of the poor and powerless people as irrelevant, we don't take them into consideration when we make our policies. Of course, this is very WRONG!

My sympathies actually lie with any village or community whose qualities of life suffer if they have to live next to a garbage dump, irregardless of whether they are the first or the last group to face this issue.

Another point: not all protests, whether in China or other parts of the world, have the 'Not-In-My-Backyard'(NIMB) mentality. There are several such examples which I don't think I need to bring them up here.

I agree with you to some extent that complaining and protesting can be futile and that taking pragmatic steps to improve our lives may be a better option. Many people in China are doing so. However, they (especially those that are poor and powerless with very few options left) sometimes have no way out but to protest so as to raise public's awareness and also to make the authorities take their problems more seriously. This also applies in situations when top-down decisions are often made without people's participation and the decisions clearly have adverse effects on the population.

Protest does work in some situations. Of course, the protests should be non-violent and have clear specific goals with the willingness to make compromises.

Since you suggest the way of using alternatives to improves one's situation, I must mention a Chinese-language publication that features stories of common people working hard and using creative, innovative, and/or entrepreneurial means/ideas to overcome physical and mental obstacles so as to create better lives for themselves, families and communities. Instead of being passive and waiting for the government to solve their problems, the quarterly publication encourages people (by featuring real people and stories) to act and strive for better lives and abide by laws as well. Their mission statement is "Action Changes Our Existence/Lives". Common people like farmers and workers that subscribed to this magazine said that it gives them hope reading it. But, last summer, it was forced to shut down by the government who up till now, still can't give a very good reason for doing so. The former senior editor (Xie Tao) of People's Daily had criticised the government for doing so, saying that it is a big mistake to shut it down.

What you said about the government treating people like children is very true. We are in a vicious cycle. It is only when both parties start to trust each other through openess (it includes access to information), sincere engagement (with common goals to make it into a win-win situation), and most importantly, ACTIONS (it includes enforcement of law and policies) then both sides will grow up together (again, the Xiamen PX incident is one example). It is only then that the society can develop further and become more socially just and truly harmonious.

A parent that doesn't adjust his/her parenting skills to suit the different developmental phases of the child will either cause alienation between the parent and the child, which may result in rebellion or cause the child to be overly dependent on the parent who can't look after the child forever. The kid in the latter situation will be in a crisis-mode very often as he/she is ill-equipped to face dififculties. Both consequences are undesirable to the family and also the society.
Hence, both the parent (central and local governments) and the child (citizens) have to learn and grow up together.

Genghiskhan has indeed made a good point there. Criticsims are not always made against the central government as we know that the local governments are responsible for many of the wrongdoings in the localities that they are in charge of.

If the media is given more freedom to do investigative journalism and acts as whistleblowers, it can help to curtail corruption and collusion between political and economic interests.

If the legislative and judicial systems are more independent and given more powers, then it can also reduce those problems.

It also requires the government to have more political will to resolve the problems.

I would like to end my sharing with a quote from Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor and outspoken opponent of Hitler, (1892-1984):

“In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

@Austin,

Yang Jiechi's comment was technically correct. It's OK to express your opinions on the street. Anybody can do that.

The counter-example you cited involved organizing petitions. That, on the other hand, ventures into the political realm, which -- you guessed it -- is not OK.

The Communists still want their monopoly in power, after all.

I don't think you are doing a good job analyzing. Sorry.

As easy as it is to take the pacifist approach, 'china has come a long way', and to not acknowledge the mockery purposely taking place is shameful. It is explained that a person can be fired from their job for 'any' reason with no responsibility taken by the employer. One must look hard to find the 'rights' available there. With such a bias, the 'keep the peace' approach of arbitration toward 2 parties is useless unless parties are made to accept responsibility toward the law. A man who is wrongfully accused of violating the law is instructed to speak to the people who are guilty and blaming him. This is not the 19th century where people argue over how much food is being shared within a group; yet this mentality is applied today in the most developing economy in the world, hosting the Olympics. And, lets not forget how people are forced out of their homes for the need of development in roads and buildings. The look to the heavens would describe the facade being created; the censorship of the truth, avoidance of enforcement, and neglect of just thinking, measures the gap from reality to the heavens. So in this regard 'china has come a long way' from its pedestal of image to the dregs of its reality. The test is how a society deals with a problem, any other comparisons is rhetoric to save face.