Can Chinese Societies Be Civil Societies?
-
Can Chinese Societies Be Civil Societies?
More than 60 Chinese are serving prison sentences for expressing their views over the Internet. Just last Friday, the government shut down the popular online Yannan forum, which had posted details of a rural campaign to remove a corrupt village chief in the southern province of Guangdong.
by Kathleen Hwang
Hong Kong (UPI) Oct 04, 2005
China is a long way from establishing a civil society and Taiwan, though considerably ahead of the mainland, also has a long way to go, media experts said Tuesday.
Among Chinese-speaking societies, a panel of experts said, Hong Kong came closest to enjoying the benefits of a modern, civil society.
In a nutshell, they said, Hong Kong had freedom without democracy, Singapore had democracy without freedom, Taiwan had both but without the rule of law, and mainland China had none of the above.
The appraisals were part of a forum titled "Civil Society on the Move?" organized by Hong Kong University's Journalism and Media Studies Center, and featuring prominent media representatives from Beijing, Taipei and Hong Kong.
James Jin, chairman of the Cite Publishing Holding Group and publisher of Business Weekly in Taiwan, pointed out the forum's English title reflected a positive, progressive outlook, implying the three societies were in fact moving toward Western-style democracy. He said Western media often took that view in their analyses, even of China. However, it could be wishful thinking.
A more accurate translation of the Chinese title would be, "How far are we from a civil society?" Jin's conclusion, speaking primarily for Taiwan, was -- very far.
Taiwan, which emerged from authoritarian rule just a decade ago, is still in transition with the outcome uncertain, Jin said. He said it was questionable whether Taiwanese were happier or more secure under the current elected leadership than 10 years ago, under the leadership of the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party.
"Having freedoms is like chasing a dream lover -- it's a little disappointing when you get up close," he said.
While Taiwan's media is free, he said there was an explosion of ideas, but no focus, and an entertainment-oriented media that did not help people formulate intelligent views. Taiwan's people are confused about their identity, he said.
In Jin's analysis, democracy and the rule of law are better than authoritarianism, but "good authoritarianism" is better than chaos and confusion.
His prognosis for the future: "Taiwan could become the only free, democratic, diverse society in the Chinese-speaking world. Or, it could lose its vitality and beg for help from other Chinese-speaking societies."
Fellow Taiwanese Wang Chien-chuang, publisher and founding editor of the respected newsweekly Journalist, pointed out Taiwan has made steady progress in that it has become a multiparty democracy with a variety of media and some 33,000 diverse civic organizations, up from less than 4,000 in 1980. The number and nature of these groups, he said, are an indicator of the progress toward civil society.
He agreed with Jin, however, that Taiwan is unsettled and faces an uncertain future.
Neither speaker mentioned pressure from Beijing as a destabilizing factor in Taiwanese society, perhaps in deference to their mainland co-panelist. The omission has become a trend in Hong Kong -- it is no longer politically correct to criticize Beijing in a public forum, and self-censorship is the norm.
Well-known Hong Kong columnist and TV commentator Leung Man Tao said though Hong Kong enjoyed basic freedoms, its people still suffered from a colonial mentality -- though even this outspoken critic was careful to point out that he was not comparing Beijing to Britain.
Leung said Hong Kong had reached a plateau in its economic development, and it was time for social and political development. He called on local media to provide the public with "civic literacy" so they would understand their society and have the necessary tools to respond to and shape it.
Considerably younger and less candid than his fellow panelists, Yang Daming represented mainland China, where he said the media was helping to provide checks and balances to government power. Yang is managing editor of the Beijing-based Caijing magazine, described as the most respected financial news magazine in mainland China.
As an example of what he described as growing media effectiveness, Yang described a Web site set up to serve residents in the new, upscale community where he lives. Residents had used the site to voice objections to the late-night noisy behavior of drivers in residential parking areas, and to increasing pollution in a nearby stream. He didn't say what the ultimate outcome of this community activism was.
Unfortunately, the history of online activism does not support Yang's optimism. More than 60 Chinese are serving prison sentences for expressing their views over the Internet. Just last Friday, the government shut down the popular online Yannan forum, which had posted details of a rural campaign to remove a corrupt village chief in the southern province of Guangdong.
Radio Free Asia quoted Beijing-based rights activist Hou Wenzhuo as saying of the forum: "It really was one of the last resources left to us -- one of the last bastions of justice and social conscience for academics and rights activists alike. A forum like that is really very rare in China."
China also revised regulations on Internet news content last week, requiring that news reports must serve socialism, uphold the interests of the state, and "correctly" guide public opinion. The rules forbid content "inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations and gatherings that disturb social order" or promoting "activities in the name of an illegal civil organization."
Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, issued a statement criticizing the move, saying: "China's leaders claim to be modernizers and that they are leading the country towards greater freedom and democracy. Yet they still remain afraid of their own citizens and the healthy diversity of news and views which defines a modern society."
Though China cannot apply its rules to Taiwan, or even to Hong Kong where press freedom is still ostensibly guaranteed, Beijing's ceaseless assertion of its authority over both societies casts an ever-threatening shadow.
Asked how Chinese-speaking peoples can create civil societies, given the political, social and cultural pressures they still face, Jin quipped: "They can try eugenics. Also responsible parenting, good nutrition, education, and good reading materials."
In other words: there is still a long way to go. -
is there any civil society in this world ? each has its own dark side.
-
wish they wouldn't lump us together with china, it makes me fear that china will start saying we are a rebel state also..............Originally posted by LazerLordz:Can Chinese Societies Be Civil Societies?
Can Chinese Societies Be Civil Societies?
More than 60 Chinese are serving prison sentences for expressing their views over the Internet. Just last Friday, the government shut down the popular online Yannan forum, which had posted details of a rural campaign to remove a corrupt village chief in the southern province of Guangdong.
by Kathleen Hwang
Hong Kong (UPI) Oct 04, 2005
China is a long way from establishing a civil society and Taiwan, though considerably ahead of the mainland, also has a long way to go, media experts said Tuesday.
Among Chinese-speaking societies, a panel of experts said, Hong Kong came closest to enjoying the benefits of a modern, civil society.
In a nutshell, they said, Hong Kong had freedom without democracy, Singapore had democracy without freedom, Taiwan had both but without the rule of law, and mainland China had none of the above.
The appraisals were part of a forum titled "Civil Society on the Move?" organized by Hong Kong University's Journalism and Media Studies Center, and featuring prominent media representatives from Beijing, Taipei and Hong Kong.
James Jin, chairman of the Cite Publishing Holding Group and publisher of Business Weekly in Taiwan, pointed out the forum's English title reflected a positive, progressive outlook, implying the three societies were in fact moving toward Western-style democracy. He said Western media often took that view in their analyses, even of China. However, it could be wishful thinking.
A more accurate translation of the Chinese title would be, "How far are we from a civil society?" Jin's conclusion, speaking primarily for Taiwan, was -- very far.
Taiwan, which emerged from authoritarian rule just a decade ago, is still in transition with the outcome uncertain, Jin said. He said it was questionable whether Taiwanese were happier or more secure under the current elected leadership than 10 years ago, under the leadership of the Kuomintang, or Nationalist Party.
"Having freedoms is like chasing a dream lover -- it's a little disappointing when you get up close," he said.
While Taiwan's media is free, he said there was an explosion of ideas, but no focus, and an entertainment-oriented media that did not help people formulate intelligent views. Taiwan's people are confused about their identity, he said.
In Jin's analysis, democracy and the rule of law are better than authoritarianism, but "good authoritarianism" is better than chaos and confusion.
His prognosis for the future: "Taiwan could become the only free, democratic, diverse society in the Chinese-speaking world. Or, it could lose its vitality and beg for help from other Chinese-speaking societies."
Fellow Taiwanese Wang Chien-chuang, publisher and founding editor of the respected newsweekly Journalist, pointed out Taiwan has made steady progress in that it has become a multiparty democracy with a variety of media and some 33,000 diverse civic organizations, up from less than 4,000 in 1980. The number and nature of these groups, he said, are an indicator of the progress toward civil society.
He agreed with Jin, however, that Taiwan is unsettled and faces an uncertain future.
Neither speaker mentioned pressure from Beijing as a destabilizing factor in Taiwanese society, perhaps in deference to their mainland co-panelist. The omission has become a trend in Hong Kong -- it is no longer politically correct to criticize Beijing in a public forum, and self-censorship is the norm.
Well-known Hong Kong columnist and TV commentator Leung Man Tao said though Hong Kong enjoyed basic freedoms, its people still suffered from a colonial mentality -- though even this outspoken critic was careful to point out that he was not comparing Beijing to Britain.
Leung said Hong Kong had reached a plateau in its economic development, and it was time for social and political development. He called on local media to provide the public with "civic literacy" so they would understand their society and have the necessary tools to respond to and shape it.
Considerably younger and less candid than his fellow panelists, Yang Daming represented mainland China, where he said the media was helping to provide checks and balances to government power. Yang is managing editor of the Beijing-based Caijing magazine, described as the most respected financial news magazine in mainland China.
As an example of what he described as growing media effectiveness, Yang described a Web site set up to serve residents in the new, upscale community where he lives. Residents had used the site to voice objections to the late-night noisy behavior of drivers in residential parking areas, and to increasing pollution in a nearby stream. He didn't say what the ultimate outcome of this community activism was.
Unfortunately, the history of online activism does not support Yang's optimism. More than 60 Chinese are serving prison sentences for expressing their views over the Internet. Just last Friday, the government shut down the popular online Yannan forum, which had posted details of a rural campaign to remove a corrupt village chief in the southern province of Guangdong.
Radio Free Asia quoted Beijing-based rights activist Hou Wenzhuo as saying of the forum: "It really was one of the last resources left to us -- one of the last bastions of justice and social conscience for academics and rights activists alike. A forum like that is really very rare in China."
China also revised regulations on Internet news content last week, requiring that news reports must serve socialism, uphold the interests of the state, and "correctly" guide public opinion. The rules forbid content "inciting illegal assemblies, associations, marches, demonstrations and gatherings that disturb social order" or promoting "activities in the name of an illegal civil organization."
Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, issued a statement criticizing the move, saying: "China's leaders claim to be modernizers and that they are leading the country towards greater freedom and democracy. Yet they still remain afraid of their own citizens and the healthy diversity of news and views which defines a modern society."
Though China cannot apply its rules to Taiwan, or even to Hong Kong where press freedom is still ostensibly guaranteed, Beijing's ceaseless assertion of its authority over both societies casts an ever-threatening shadow.
Asked how Chinese-speaking peoples can create civil societies, given the political, social and cultural pressures they still face, Jin quipped: "They can try eugenics. Also responsible parenting, good nutrition, education, and good reading materials."
In other words: there is still a long way to go. -
The Chinese as a race never had any liberal democratic tradition, to begin with.
-
liberal democratic = civil ?Originally posted by iveco:The Chinese as a race never had any liberal democratic tradition, to begin with. -
Does it mean we cannot inculcate it into them?Originally posted by iveco:The Chinese as a race never had any liberal democratic tradition, to begin with. -
no way man.
we chinese crave too much for power -
err.. generally understood; HUMANS crave power.... of all kinds.
-
It's amazing come to think of it;
China is so steep in history, has thousands of years to learn and advance, but yet to date, they have just only begun. -
It is in the biology or culture of the people. They cannot take criticism and advice from loyal citizens speaking the truths and finally the country would be managed on praises of people surrounding them believing they were the central empire of great civilization. This is still in the blood and will be for another thousand years.
-
They have started 5000 years ago.
it's just that they have started making progress in this century -
Which is why I feel it is the call of duty for the Overseas Chinese to reform the mainland in anyway possible.Originally posted by robertteh:It is in the biology or culture of the people. They cannot take criticism and advice from loyal citizens speaking the truths and finally the country would be managed on praises of people surrounding them believing they were the central empire of great civilization. This is still in the blood and will be for another thousand years. -
Hello Lazerlordz,
A network on political views can be a good start. Any portal for overseas to share views?