五都選舉國民黨恐將策反南二都

自從蔡英文宣布競選新北市之後，國民黨一時之間陣腳大亂。接下來的操作，我感覺有一個趨勢，是他們正採取「北三都全力競選，南二都全力策反」的佈局。亦即，南二都國民黨將以策反為主要戰略。

以南台灣的政治生態而言，國民黨競選勝選的機會微乎極微。以日前剛舉辦的低層地方選舉來看，很多國民黨籍參選人甚至不敢用國民黨的招牌，而選擇以無黨籍的身份參選。

亦即，國民黨的招牌在南部有如瘟疫一般大家避之唯恐不及。在這種民眾對國民黨普遍反感的情況下，如果國民黨投入在南部競選，不但是浪費資源，更可能刺激民眾而反而越競越差。

這種未戰已敗的惡劣局勢下，國民黨唯一可能的有效戰略，就是「佯攻」，亦即「表面上看起來有在跟對手競，但實際操作上卻放空攻擊，而採迂迴的藉綠打綠」。

可能的實際操作步驟上的要點，則是 ：

1. 避免跟對手硬幹，用一分實力虛晃一招稍微批評一下就好；

2. 用兩分實力來誇大自己的好處；

3. 剩下七分實力，則全部用在挑撥離間，譬如：

• 不斷讚美許添財、楊秋興兩人是人才，甚至不惜說兩人「比國民黨候選人還優秀」；
• 以正義者之姿替兩人抱不平，既可藉此栽贓民進黨，又可將敗者的不甘慢慢烹煮加熱使其不會退溫；
• 還必須不時透過媒體製造失敗者欲「脫黨參選」的謠言；

不管當事人公開或私底下有沒有講過什麼，未來這幾個月應該會有更多這種挑撥離間的新聞出來。

在國民黨這種佈局下，許、楊兩人的公開表態，以及什麼時候公開表態，對泛綠的團結就變得很重要。如果放著這種挑撥言論繼續燒，燒到成為某種「勢」的時候，那時再澄清恐怕為時已晚。

許、楊是政治老手，對國民黨這個局的走向，以及這個時間點的關鍵性應該很清楚。

至於民進黨以及其他泛綠支持者的態度，也會有決定性的影響。不管國民黨把許、楊兩人捧得多高，把不甘誇到多大，把謠言造得滿天飛，那也只能算是把局佈好。他們能操作的也只到這裡。

接下來，國民黨需要泛綠的幫忙來把佈好的局演成一個「勢」，那就是泛綠將不加思考地跳進這個局裡，順著這個局的戲碼來演，直覺地對當事人產生憤怒、不滿、甚至發動言論圍剿來臭罵、追殺。

這是泛綠的慣性作為，而一旦發生，就會跟滾雪球一樣越越大，滾到成為如山倒海般的「反對當事人的勢」。一旦這個「勢」形成，被攻擊的當事人將會感覺到：泛綠已經將自己逼到絕路，除了「反」以外別無選擇。

歷史上應該有不少這樣的例子：利用敵人的慣性佈一個局，讓敵人自己跳進去炒作，炒到敵人把自己人逼反。

國民黨能把阿扁當神主牌，主要還是泛綠這個「跟局的慣性」，就好像哪裡癢很自然的就會去抓癢一樣無法克制。所以國民黨每有急難時就拆開這個多年來就佈好的扁局，按一下按鈕，泛綠自己就會跳出來解救國民黨。

因此，我有充分的信心，國民黨南二都這個策反的局，至少「搧動泛綠」這一部份，一定會成功。

也就是說，許、楊必須克服的，除了心理上對敗戰的調適以及國民黨的吹捧之外，最關鍵的還必須忍受、克服泛綠自己人的殘酷無情的攻擊。

這將使得他們的處境更加艱辛，畢竟泛綠高人栽在類似的局中的不在少數，而期望泛綠能克制「跟局的衝動」是遙不可及的。因此如果兩人能夠克服這些而破除國民黨南二都策反泛綠的局，那將真的是非常難能可貴。

Ma to Send More Military Instructors to Campus -- Elementary Schools Included

When I was educated decades ago back in Taiwan, military instructors (MIs) stationed in campus represented the potential terror of KMT's political persecution. They monitored not only the behaviors but also the thoughts and the words of students'. A summon by the MIs to their offices was the most fearful in the mind of many students. Some of us had the shocking experiences of realizing that MIs in the campus held your file of loyalty records -- records of loyalty not only to the country but also to the KMT, even if you were not KMT members.

As Taiwan went on to a speedy march toward democracy, during which the KMT government stepped down in 2000, the new government led by DPP worked hard to remove campus MIs with a policy "military instructors out of the campus" (軍訓教官退出校園). The plan was to stop adding new position and stop refilling opening ones, thus reduces the total amount of MIs gradually until there's none.

Unfortunately, after Ma Ying-jeou took power in 2008, Ma government turned that policy 180 degrees around. Not only the opening of old positions are re-filled, but also the number of positions will be largely increased.

Last year (2009) I talked about the intention of Ma Ying-jeou's regime in this regard (Ma Govt to Extend Thought Control to Elementary Schools):

in the name of "defense education," Ma Ying-jeou government's Ministry of Education's Department of Students' Military Training (DSMT, 軍訓處) is amending a "Plan of Improvement and Adjustment of Military Training Officers Missions in High Schools" (my translation of 高級中等學校軍訓教官工作精進與調整方案) to include junior high and elementary schools into the radar of their thought control ((員額不減 教官擬轉進國中小).

DSMT denied such a plan, despite it is clearly written in their web document, which was removed in 24 hrs after its announcement invited rage from the public (see my previous article mentioned above for links). But at the same time Minister of Education admitted that military instructors will be sent to elementary schools for nothing more than "teaching Taiwanese kids lessons" of "national defense."

The subject seems to quiet down since then. However, behind the spot light, the turned-around policy proceeds as planned. This year, Ma regime will station 303 more military instructors, increasing the total number by ~ 10% (全民國防教育將起跑 教官暴增).

If you think that Ma Ying-jeou is bringing Taiwan back to the era of white terror when Chiang KS was in power, take a deep breath --- in the Chiang KS era, the campus MIs didn't go to the elementary schools to bother kids. Only senior high schools and colleges were subjected to the monitor of MIs.

Thus, Ma Ying-jeou didn't stop at turning the policy of reducing campus MIs around. He took a step further to make sure that the military control on Taiwanese students starts from the elementary level.

蔡英文的宏觀視野與台灣全民的新出路

民進黨主席蔡英文在過去這兩年的異常低調與謹言慎行，常被泛綠支持者視為軟弱無能，因此不免令人懷疑她到底想把民進黨帶到哪裡。

但她近幾天卻一反常態，開始大膽挑戰中華民國外來政權（『蔡英文：中華民國 是流亡政府』），大膽碰觸敏感的族群議題（見『蔡英文：認真面對外省族群認同』）。

為什麼會有這麼大的轉變？

而這些都是在她以高達九成多的黨員支持度連任民進黨主席之後才突然一一出現的。也就是說，在她確定了握有超過九成民進黨黨員的支持之後。

前後兩相對照，應該不難看出，原來，她前兩年的低調與外表上的軟弱並不一定能代表她的本質，而是一個新出現的領導者所必須經歷的權力整合過程。她必須確定能保有領導者的聲望與權力，才有辦法做她想做的事。

任何理想，也只有在有實力的前提下，才有實現的可能。這在任何團體都一樣，應該可算是「政治101」。

於是，她的整個佈局突然變得清晰明朗。她的夢想、她的視野，她對台灣該往哪裡去，以及更重要的，「該如何走到目標」，突然像一張地圖一樣整個攤開在眼前。從她當初排除萬難勇敢接任民進黨主席的爛攤子開始之後的作戰策略，也一步一步展開實現中：


1. 泛綠團結 ─

她必須先把面臨崩盤的泛綠糊起來。這一步做得到，那即使她沒有辦法再當黨主席，至少台灣派勢力不至於泡沫化。這已經在經過幾次選舉勝選後達成。


2. 權力整合 ─

接下來她必須確保這個已經糊起來的泛綠能夠全力支持她，讓她有落實理想的本錢。這已經由九成的黨員投票達成。

這個九成的支持度，代表泛綠從以前比較偏向對抗的、「以反擊國民黨策略為主」的被動游擊戰權力結構，轉型到合作的、「以團結所有共同命運的民眾為主」的主動謀略戰權力結構，是泛綠政治史上的一個非常關鍵的轉捩點。

這個「九成多支持度」讓她確信民進黨舊勢力不會再把民進黨拉回強烈排他的舊途徑。若沒有這個支持度，蔡英文的佈局將無法開展，她也必須繼續再保持低調不知多久。

我們從蔡英文決定參選的說明也可以看出來，她已經瞭解這個轉捩點的時機比她預期的提早到來。她已經有足夠的支持，可以提前開始實現她的理想。所以才會說「提早實現十年政綱」並毅然投入選戰。

她已經達成了 1 與 2。從現在開始，她的一切動作，應該可以放在 3，4，5 的架構上來看：


3. 分清「親中特權」與「所有台灣人民」

親中特權積極在運作的，是以所有台灣民眾的成就與資源，換取他們與中國統一的夢想。就跟 228 時的外省權貴將台灣所有的糖米礦等全部拿去服侍中國，導致台灣以稻米生產國竟然鬧糧荒一樣，現在的親中特權，正竭盡所能將台灣數十年努力成果拱手讓中國來接收。

在這個「台灣存在的目的就是服侍中國」的最高指導原則下，台灣數十年經濟成果將迅速被中國吞食，不管你省籍藍綠，所有台灣人民將是受害者。

要達到這個目的，親中特權必須確保台灣全民不會團結起來。

但他們無須發明什麼招數來分化台灣人，因為泛綠長久以來對部分台灣人民的對抗與排他心態，已經幫他們把台灣人切割好。

泛綠這種堅持抗拒、排他的路線，帶給台灣民眾恐懼或厭惡，使得多數台灣人即使有強烈的台灣意識也不願意支持民進黨。我曾在去年的一篇文章『台派知識份子的責任：建構一個「屬於所有台灣住民」的全民台灣』(在我的部落格、Taiwan Online ) 中提到：

絕大多數台灣人民要建自己的國（用台派偏好的詞彙，就是人民已經「覺醒」），但是不敢也不願把「建國」的事情託付給台灣派的人選。

不管國民黨多爛，也不管多數人民都已經知道獨立的必要性，人民對台灣派候選人的疑慮與不安，恐怕要超過他們對「國民黨無能」的失望與苛責。

於是，泛綠這種切割將自己與這些台灣民眾一分為二，不但強化對手弱化自己，更模糊了這些民眾與親中特權之間的對立本質，等於確保了台灣人民永遠無法團結對外。

從蔡英文最近的言論，可以看出來她不但有足夠的智慧能夠看到泛綠這個大罩門，也有足夠的自信能夠解決這個問題。

譬如說，重新提醒民眾「中華民國為外來政權」，正是把「親中特權」跟「台灣全民」分清楚，有助於讓民眾更清楚前述的對立本質；

而「認真面對外省族群的情感」是展現對所有在台灣住民的「命運共同體」的認知，是拉攏台灣民眾、拓展民進黨票源的不二法門。

這一推一拉，將可幫助 4 跟 5 的達成：

4. 團結「台灣民眾」拒絕「親中特權」
5. 以「團結的台灣」防止中國接收台灣

我相信這些步驟都將在未來一一實現。

另外，她在這時候提到「省籍」，可能還有另一個戰略上的重要意義：在提名五都候選人時，北市、新北市、大台中，國民黨派出的人選郝龍彬、朱立倫、胡志強，都是外省籍。

國民黨是否意圖藉此來防堵台灣資源由台灣人掌控，無須批判，因為一批判，就落入省籍對立的陷阱中。

蔡英文這一推外來政權，二拉所有省籍台灣全民，卻是對國民黨的可能意圖提供了許多想像的空間 ── 台灣籍政治人物，真的只能揀國民黨親中特權吃剩下的殘渣充飢嗎？

但她沒有下結論，只是把事實與現況擺開。這種方式的陳述，給人民空間自己下判斷，其影響將會自然而然地深植人心，與泛綠菁英向來堅持的灌輸式、教導式、批判式的權威方式有天壤之別。


蔡英文的路線

李登輝當年的「特殊兩國論」，在台灣政治發展史上扮演了相當關鍵的角色 ── 將「在台灣的政府」跟「中國那塊地」切割開來變成兩國，使得台灣意識的發展，在「中國境外」有一個立足點。

而蔡英文正是這個「特殊兩國論」論述的起草人。亦即，她對台灣「與中國劃清界線」的民主化過程的貢獻，是早在民進黨執政之前就已經明白地寫在台灣的歷史上。

如果把當初特殊兩國論的論述當作蔡英文思維的出發點，來觀察蔡英文這兩年來的言論與作為，應該不難看出蔡英文的風格 ：一步一步踏實往地前走，每一步都經過審慎策劃與思考，每一步都不浪費。既不像許多泛綠菁英幻想的一步到位，更不像馬氏政權一樣瘋狂燥進。

蔡英文決定參選新北市的公開信裡的一段，可以借來印證我的看法：

如果這個決定只是關於我個人的政治生涯規劃，那我絕對不會讓大家等到現在。正是因為我身為民進黨的主席，我清楚知道，我的下一步絕對跟民進黨的改革，以及整個台灣民主政治的未來有關。所以，我的確需要多一 點時間來嚴肅思考。思考的重點，從來都不在於我個人的意願或政治前途，我思考的重點只有一個：參選或不參選，到底哪一個可以把「民進黨的改革」、「對執政 黨的監督」、「新北市民未來的幸福」，以及「台灣整體的利益」，這四者緊緊結合在一起，然後發揮到最大。這中間沒有甚麼轉彎，也沒有甚麼猶豫不決，這是一 個結合全黨上下追求答案，然後把黨的資源妥善安頓，帶著整個黨上戰場的過程。

目前，民進黨已經在蔡英文的整理下重新站起來。不管多少綠營反蔡人士仍堅稱蔡英文沒有貢獻，她在民進黨崩盤的情形下接下重擔，將民進黨帶到這個局勢，已經是功不可沒。

不但如此，她的風格與理念，更已經將民進黨提升到另一個層次，讓民進黨可以在短期內迅速地脫胎換骨。依這個道路， 民進黨可以以合作與理想來爭取為所有台灣人民服務的機會（也就是說，不必靠國民黨做爛來得票），而台灣全民將有機會走向「所有台灣住民命運息息相關」的整體意識，這應是達到「團結全台灣對抗外來勢力」的最佳途徑。

如今，她的佈局已經明朗化，她的整軍也已經到位備戰，現在才剛剛是她出手的開始，往後還有很艱困的路要走。泛綠菁英是否能瞭解她的眼界、理想與整體戰略佈局，並跟著轉型以做為助力，而不是自己困在傳統的對抗模式中而反成為拖力，對台灣的未來，恐將有決定性的影響。

Pan Green's Mentality Behind the CSB Case -- And a Replay in Kaoshiung

The CSB's case - either what he did or didn't do, or the way the Taipei judiciary system fixed the case - has been haunting Taiwan in the past whole year. People with justice in mind couldn't stop asking why it could be possible, or wondering how the KMT could pull out the conspiracy so successfully to persecute the officials (and their families) of previous government in such a blatant way (see J. Michael Cole's Mobilize Now!).

From my understanding, one of the answers - a very critical one - lies in nowhere else but the green camp itself.

We Taiwanese haven't quite get to know how to be masters of own fates yet. Most still think like servants in the old time, that we go to the voting booth to "pick the Savior." Hoping that the Savior alone can right every wrong for us, we all go back home to wait for out dream to come true, without paying much attention to watch if the Savior does follow the promises he made.

Or even some do pay attention, they keep silent because they insist on "solidifying the leadership," based on the belief that not criticizing the Savior is the only means for the Savior to lead us to the promised land (I pointed this out in a post (in Chinese) when discussing the case of DPP's controversial pick of Tainan County candidate back in April, 台灣派的枷鎖：鞏固領導中心).

So, in contrary to the continuous attacks coming from the blue camp on very single policy our the Savior made, we keep very low profile, making it look like that we can take it whichever way it goes. As a result, the leader will only see and feel mounting pressure from the blue camp.

It won't be hard to picture what a person in the position of the Savior will do under that situation.

It thus drifts, step by step, farther away from our dream, until one day the situation is rotten to a point of no return.

Even at that point, we fail to recognize that the failure is the result of aggressive attacks from the blue camp, of our silence in response to those attacks, and of our ignorance thinking that the fate of a country relies solely on the shoulders of a single the Savior.

One man rises, the country is saved; one man goes down, we are all dead. So we all rush out to blame the Savior for all the fall. We claim that the so-called Saviorlied to us, that the Savior is not a savior at all. We forget that when one goes to the public announcing that he was lied to, he is announcing that something goes wrong in his intelligence.

As such, by laying all blames upon the falling guy, we wipe out the guilt of choosing a wrong leader (which in wrong), and free ourselves from the responsibility of letting the situation go worse and worse without intervening with the mind of masters.

This is probably the primary mentality of all those "anti-Bian" hatrid in the green camp -- coming from people ranging from general populate to highly educated elites, including some pronounced scholars and professors, domestic or overseas.

Very very few Taiwanese realize that, when things go wrong in a democracy, people -- the masters -- are those who are responsible. Because Taiwanese are unwilling or unaware of the need to play the role of a responsible master, that we have no courage to carry the burden, upon failure we blame everyone -- the non-green voters, the KMT, and their own falling leader -- but ourselves. That mentality is the key reason KMT is able to play the CSB card so well --- they must have known that if they pull CSB's legs to an extent, the green camp will follow up with much harsher attack against our own leader all by ourselves. In that sense, I would argue that we somehow conspire with KMT to allow the judiciary operation to go down so quickly.

Wandering around forums/blogs of both Chinese and English, I witness how much effort the English circle put on the judiciary injustice on CSB's case in the past year -- analysis, criticisms, open letters, endorsements ... one after one. In contrary, the attention of green camp on CSB's human right is almost none -- most major players or elites were dwelling in the anger of "we are cheated; we are hurt; it's all his fault." The attention from the green camp to care about the justice in CSB's case didn't show up until early May this year, when DPP politicians suddenly woke up and went to visit CSB in jail one by one during the week before DPP's 517 protest. It is at least 6 month of total negligence on the judiciary unfairness that will definitely hurt all Taiwanese in the future. Even after then, the hatred and anger keep coming from the green elites (hey, I just got one email of this sort today). It is so intense that it looks like wiping out CSB from our memories is the only thing pan green cares in the world, and as long as we do this but nothing else, we will reach our wonderland automatically.

The unbelievable ignorance toward the immediate danger right in front of us, and the shocking contrast between the Taiwanese and English circles lead me to a painful realization that the real source of major failure of green camp is most probably embedded deep in the green camp itself, not in the blue camp. Without fixing those internal problems, pan green will not gain any advantage even Ma government and the KMT fare much worse then what have done now.

But how? I am not quite sure, yet.

Taiwanese retested in Kaoshiung

But, the way Kaoshiung City handles Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer's documentary "The 10 Conditions of Love" in the Kaoshiung Film Festival is a "CSB government in a smaller scale" that provides us a real chance to relive what happened before, as well as to rehearse what is to come in the future. (See Kaoshiung Folds under China's Pressure to Kick Rebiya's Film out of the Festival)

Every single administration head has to face public opinions, and act accordingly. There's no doubt that pro-China power will be very aggressive to give pressure to stop the screening of Kadeer's movie. If we don't play the role of asking what should have been done with at least the same caliber of pressure the pro-china voices asking Chen Chu （陳菊, Mayor of Kaoshiung City, who approves the decision to exclude the screening of the film from the Festival) to stop filming it, then Chen Chu will only face one-sided pressure from the pro-China camp. She will have no choice but follow what "the louder voices" wants. The compromising on the free speech issue will encroach further step by step, as what happened during CSB's era.

Some argue that although it's not an ideal solution by rescheduling the film to a date 3 weeks ahead of the Festival, we won a little by filming it anyway. To me that argument makes absolutely no sense.

If the case happens in a blue district, we could argue that because the administrative power is in blue's hand, we expect that Kadeer's film be prohibited, so we will "win a little" if we get it screened, even it's not screened during the Festival.

But this is in a green district !!! Screening Kadeer's film DURING the Festival is the rightful state we should have been in. Any other approach is a "loss", thus can only be a question of "losing small" or "losing big." It will never be a "win."

Mistaking a "small loss" as a "small win," simply because what the blue camp wants is a "big loss" from us. This sort of forgetting where we should be has been happening again and again in the past.

That's why I emphasize that it is a "fold" to pro-China's power. We all understand that Chen Chu is taking huge pressure from pro-China camp. But, we will go toward very different directions by choosing from the following two choices: trying to explain away the losing move as a winning one, or trying to build up the pressure from the green side to balance the pressure and help Chen Chu make a real winning move.

Kaoshiung Folds under China's Pressure to Kick Rebiya's Film out of the Festival

Kaohsiung City surrenders to China's pressure and removes Uighor leader Rebiya's film "Ten Conditions of Love" from the upcoming Kaohsiung Film Festival starting from Oct, 16th.

They claim that it is rescheduled to 9/22, 9/23 -- 3 weeks ahead of the Festival program. That is, people who attend the Festival will NOT be able to watch it.

In the mean time, Kaoshiung City still tries to convince people that, by screening it anyway, they show their respect and support to the freedom and independent spirit of art. The Director-General of Kaoshiung City's Department of Information, Li-Ming Hsu (新聞處長許立明) claims in the rescheduling announcement that the decision of rejecting Rebiya's film was made based on the principles of (1) protecting the freedom of creativity, (2) upholding the independence of Festival operation and (3)respecting the right of movie viewers (保障創作自由、策展獨立與民眾觀影權利).

I have hard time following his logic, for that if they are based on those principles, shouldn't Rebiya's film be screened in the Festival as originally scheduled ?

He also claims that Rebiya's film is just one of the 79 films they will screen, so they decide to remove the film in order to protect the creative values of the rest 78 films.

For what I know so far, there's nothing at all indicates that any of the other 78 films is in any way jeopardized by this wave of protest against Rebiya's film.

The next day after the rescheduling was announced, the Festival organizer, which is taking order from the Kaoshiung City, issued an apology, claiming that it's determined by Kaoshiung City government so it's out of their hands. Mayor Chen Chu (陳菊), who gained wide support and approval with her successful management in the World Games earlier, emphasizes that the rescheduling is "not to please China, but to cease conflicts."

Haven't we heard this kind of arguments - repeatedly - before, from the blue camp ? Which act of "pleasing China" from the blue camp wasn't coated with one sort of something else one way or anyther ? Did Chen Chu forget that the green camp has been criticizing Ma Ying-jeou and KMT for pleasing China?

So it's OK to please China only if it comes from the green camp ?

The hard lesson to learn by all Taiwanese is that the hypocrisy doesn't have boundary.

What more pathetic is, Kaoshiung City reschedules the screening time to prevent Rebiya's film from showing in the Festival in the hope to "cease the conflict." But those who protested are still protesting and requesting that Kaoshiung to surrender completely by not filming it at all (高市府：放映熱比婭 勿政治詮釋).

Being a city that has been the historical sources of democratic development in Taiwan, Kaoshiung city behaves with unbelievably naiveness by thinking that the pressure from pro-china power can be handled by partial compromise.

Ma Ying-jeou becomes the gustiest by wooing China

Regarding the issue of Ma Ying-jeou being selected as one of 5 gustiest world leaders in the Mental Floss (MF) magazine, I found the Q&A in MF's website here:

1. Who are the five leaders profiled for the “5 Gutsiest World Leaders” cover story?
Lula da Silva, Angela Merkel, Yoweri Museveni, Michelle Bachelet, Ma Ying-jeou.

It is presented as the cover story of the current issue, which requires a subscription to access. But the MF outlines the reasons these people are picked in an abstract here:

The World's Gutsiest Leaders
By Jennifer Drapkin

Whether they're healing a tortured nation, conquering AIDS, uniting Europe, galvanizing Latin America, or wooing China, these heads of state are proving that they have what it takes to change the world.

Ma Ying-jeou is among the gustiest because he is "wooing China."


Update:

The Mental Floss article about Ma can be found here. I saw it from this site: Mental_Floss 有關馬英九的報導全文

The article is full of bullshits. Just one example among many: it argues that because of CSB, the trades between China and Taiwan waned, that caused Taiwan's economics to go down, and that caused the Taiwan-USA relationship to go bad. With that kind of nonsense, MF reaches a conclusion that everything is settled after Ma, against all odds, arranged a very difficult marriage between China and Taiwan.

Is it expressed in a sarcastic manner? I don't think so. It is more like a regurgitation of bias against Taiwan we often see in western journalist circle, which only shows how poor the author's knowledge is.

Privilege - the core spirit of Chinese society

J. Michael Cole's article (as usual, worth readying) regarding the critics of China Post on the democracy inspires some discussion about the democracy (or the lack of it) in Chinese society. I am putting my thoughts here (with netters' questions), with the argument that the democracy is impossible in the privilege-based Chinese society.

Chinese society is based on privileges

The most important ingredient in Chinese culture is "privilege." People do whatever they can to get privileged, and the authority uses the privilege to buy loyalty. The entire social structure is built on the give and take of privileges.

That's why the true justice is impossible in Chinese society, because it requires that everybody is equal before the law.

That's why the democracy is denounced by Chinese, especially Chinese intellectuals, because in a democratic society the non-educated share the same political right as the educated.

If you were a member of any of most of Chinese organizations, you would find that they work as much as possible to avoid "rules," because existence of rules means everyone should follow.

Chinese don't like rules, don't like laws, and reject the democracy, because there is no room for privileges.

Understanding this, it won't be hard to see the source of the chaos in Taiwan.

Anonymous: "Any idea of whether such opinion pieces are sincerely based on the author's commitments, or paid advertising for the CCP?"

I can't say if it is paid for, but it doesn't need CCP to pay for this. That's in Chinese culture so they will say it for their own benefits, for free. We will continue to see Chinese intellectuals saying how bad a democracy is.

A democracy comes with laws

Anonymous: "@ Taiwan Echo. you make some interesting points. but if chinese hate rules, wouldn't they like 'chaotic' democracy? if democracy seems to have less structure, then it would allow you more freedom from rules...?"

First of all, "democracy is chaotic" is something deserves review. A democracy comes with laws to ensure that the democracy spirit is established. Without the fair and effective enforcement of laws, the justice cannot prevail, then the democracy will fail. The idea "democracy is chaotic" is thus a distortion. A democracy would turn chaotic only when people want the "freedom" part but disregard the "law" part. When that happens, the apparent democracy is just a formality. Paying attention to the "law" part of a democracy, it won't be hard to observe how often Chinese intellectuals (in Taiwan) undermine the law, and use that to get privileges. That's what brings chaos into the society. The question "won't Chinese love democracy because it's chaotic" is false.

The Confucianism in China is just a facade

Anonymous: "in a way, you seem to be arguing what the CCP has often argued. democracy is a western idea that is necessarily in conflict with chinese (confucian?) culture. Partly relevant is Bell's book 'China's New Confucianism. He argues that chinese will probably prefer some form of confucian rule, may be not democracy. (He also gives an interesting argument why, according to the confucian view on just war, China couldn't attack Taiwan if the latter declares independence.)"

I didn't read the book by Bell, so I can't comment. But I agree that there probably won't be wars if China does follow the Confucianism. I do appreciate the values presented in the teachings of Confucius. However, here is the situation that most westerners fail to see: in Chinese society, the teaching is one thing, the behaviors in the real world is totally different. Powerful people use the Confucianism to teach people (so the students can behave), but their own behaviors violate the teachings in many aspects. Somewhere along the line of Chinese history, Chinese developed hypocrisy as the "living principle" in conjunction with the "teaching principle" of Confucianism. People who learn the Confucianism in their early ages have to grow up behaving the opposite way otherwise they will continue to get suppressed by those who "get privileged by violating the teachings."

Just review the history of foreign encounters of Chinese. There are so many examples that Chinese gain upper hands by breaking their promises. Failing to keep promises is something Confucius criticized heavily. See how Ma Ying-jeou presents himself in a polite and soft-spoken manner. This part fits the teaching. But how many laws has he violated yet he still claims that following laws is his living standard ? How many promises have he broken, which is in complete opposite direction of Confucianism ? Until this time, the western world is still naively believing this biggest hypocrite. The western world just don't get that in Chinese society, "talking sense" is just a tool to gain upper hands.

Again, it all comes down to the privilege. No matter it's law, democracy, or Confucianism (hey, Confucianism is some sort of rules, too), in Chinese-based society, it will be bent and shaped into a tool to ensure that some class of people will hold their privileges. Newer generations will have no choice but become part of it.

Yes, I am arguing - like the CCP is - that the democracy is impossible in Chinese-based society, but obviously based on very different reasons.

vin: "But Chinese and Taiwanese prize stability above all else -- and stability has for so many Chinese centuries has been based on orthodoxy built on privilege."

Right on! That's how Chinese "use" Confucianism, as a tool to ensure privileges. IMO it's not what Confucius really meant.