==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, April 27, 1994 (Issue No. 9420) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Rule of the Cane: Singapore and the West Express Different Views on Civil Liberties....................Kangcong Zhang 103 2. Michael Fay Case and National Sovereignty.............Changqing Yang 59 3. A Call to Nationalism?......................................Ning Luo 99 4. We Have to Make Overstatement Sometime?...................Cheng Ming 23 5. Editor's Reply: Open China-Nt?...........................Yungui Ding 30 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- The caning sentence of an American teenager, Michael Fay, accused of vandalism in Singapore has stormed emotional debates in the States. The debates on whether or not Singaporean should use caning as a means of punishment also ignite the outcry of combating against rampant lawlessness in the State. How do our fellow CSS see through this case and the ongoing debates? We carry two articles on such case in this issue. We hope more people will join in the discussions. There has been some publicity that Chinese nationalism is rising among the Chinese intellectuals. What are the cause and basis of such phenomenon? How does it affect China's politics and its future? Mr. Luo Ning provides his thought on this issue. In the Letter to the Editor column, we publish a reader's letter to the editor regarding one article on Americans' understanding of outside world (cf: CCF #9417). Also included in this column is an editor's reply to a previously published letter (cf: CCF #9418) about open China-nt. We welcome readers send us your comment on the functionality of China-nt and CCF. The coming issue of CCF will be the special edition on China-nt and CCF. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Rule of the Cane: Singapore and the West Express Different Views on Civil Liberties....................Kangcong Zhang 103 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The third edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (AHD) defines a victim as one who suffers, or is made to suffer, injury, loss, or death. According to the AHD's definition, Michael Fay, the 18-year-old American who stands to receive a caning in Singapore later this month for spray-painting more than a dozen cars, is a victim. There is no question about that. Questions arise, however, over the causes of Fay's victimhood. In other words, to what or whom did Fay fall victim? Some point to Singapore's barbarian penal code, arguing that no modern civilized nation would punish a human being who erred in his formative years by administering to him six flesh-splitting whacks with a rattan cane. At the forefront of groups attacking Singapore's 1966 Vandalism Act, which stipulated the controversial punishment, is the Amnesty International U.S.A., a New York-based organization that has been championing the causes of universal human rights since 1961. But universal human rights are hardly a concept accepted universally. Not that they should not be, but they just are not. Until it comes the time they are, human rights advocacy groups like the Amnesty International will have to be content to play a marginal role on the periphery of international politics. And until that time comes, varying degrees of disguised barbarianism will continue to be around and, depending on how well it is disguised, more or less tolerated. Viewed from the Western perspective, Singapore is certainly one of the better actors in disguising barbarianism. Since it gained its independence from Malaysia in 1965, Singapore has successfully disguised most of its national development programs that took away individual freedoms in the name of building an affluent and crime-free society. Enjoying a per capita gross national product estimated at $15,000 in 1993, affluent today's Singapore most surely is. And in the campaign of combating crime, few other governments in the entire world could claim to have more success than Singapore's under the helmsmanship of long-time Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew. Only when the price at which Singapore's achievements have been obtained is called to question, one might have some second thoughts. For instance, Singapore has been known for installing monitoring cameras in public lavatories to catch less-than-socially-acceptable behavior like not flushing the facilities after using them. Those who get caught are not only fined but also subjected to public humiliation by having their likenesses published in the newspaper. Those second thoughts, however, are more likely to come from an outsider, especially one from a Western democracy, rather than a Singaporean. In all likelihood, the policies pursued by the Singapore government are endorsed by the Singaporeans, who sent 78 members of the ruling People's Action Party to their 81-member Parliament in the last general election. So, don't expect the Singaporeans to fault their government for victimizing the American teenager. Meanwhile, the Singapore government claims its decision is justified, directing the debate in another direction -- towards responsibility and discipline. In a part of the world where corporal punishment is often regarded as an integral part of one's righteous upbringing, upholding discipline even to the extent of inflicting bodily injury can be popular. Now, who says politicians in Southeast Asia don't know how to read public sentiment? Considering that generations of Singapore's leaders have received higher education in the West, have been exposed to Western human rights concepts yet still have chosen to pursue their ideal society the Singapore style, what this city-state about three and a half times the size of Washington, D.C., has been aiming at all these years might be as lofty as to prove to the rest of the world there is a different way of running a country. If that reasoning holds, Fay in a sense has fallen victim to cross-cultural conflict of values. But values change as times change, too. Against a backdrop of skyrocketing crime rates brought on by failing socialization institutions, feelings are running high here in the United States over crime issues, and the American public seems ready to yield a factual if not moral victory to Singapore. Ever since the controversial Singapore court decision was publicized, a series of opinion polls have returned results invariably showing a great majority of the American people think the Singapore court decision justified and appropriate. With crime legislation high on the Clinton administration's legislative agenda, even President Clinton, who early on took a stand over the controversy by calling the caning punishment "excessive" and "extreme," seems to be losing ground. In his latest weekly radio address, President Clinton directly linked fighting crime to preserving freedoms, asserting that "the overwhelming force of crime is reducing the sense of freedom that Americans have." Amid talks of putting more police officers on the streets, of passing the so-called three-strikes-and-you-are-out legislation, and of setting up boot- camp-style disciplinary programs for young first-time offenders, a tendency is emerging that stray youngsters like Fay will soon have to answer for their criminal conduct, in a traditionally un-American way. If, despite diplomatic pressure from the U.S. government, Fay fails to win over Singapore President Ong Teng Cheong in his anticipated appeal for clemency and has to take the painful lashes, he may rest (and recuperate) assured: His moving to Singapore did not make him a victim; his moving there after living his first 16 years in the United States did. (From: The Badger Herald, April 14, 1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Michael Fay Case and National Sovereignty.............Changqing Yang 59 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fay, an 18-year-old American boy, is sentenced to four months in prison and six strokes of ratan caning for the vandalism he committed in Singapore. Not surprisingly, this has stirred up quite a controversy. Even the president of the United States openly expressed his dismay and criticized the punishment as cruel, close to torture and barbarianism. The human rights groups, such as Amnesty International, Asia Watch and American Civil Liberty Union have launched massive campaign in order to revise the apathy of American public on this poor guy. In fact, this kind of "barbarian" punishment was not anything new. Singaporean inherited "caning" from the legal code of colonial British rule when they gained their independence. If it is anything, it was from the West originally. Two years ago, a Saudi Arabian woman was slashed more than 200 times for accused infidelity, yet we hardly heard any outcry from those human rights fighters, not to mention the U.S. government and Congress. Apparently, she was not "one of us" and human rights did not apply. If I were the president of the United States, I would not only curse the barbarian system, the dictatorships in Singapore and Saudi Arabia, but I would launch a formal protest for the mistreatment of American citizen in Singapore. I would threaten to cut the MFN status unless they abandon caning totally. I would even send Pacific Fleet to the seashore of Singapore until my Michael Fay boy was released. Too bad that I were not the president. But who am I anyway? Am I some kind of holly man that I should go around the world to tell the others what is right, what is moral, what is human and what is immoral, inhumane, cruel, barbarian, etc.? Or am I the international policeman to enforce the law I have at my home? What troubles me the most is the willingness of some people in this country to force the people in other country to accept their consensus, their moral value and their idea of human decency. Not to mention Singapore is one of the, if not THE, cleanest, safest, most beautiful cities in the world, not to mention that the majority Singapore people are happy and in support of the government, the law and legal code there. As long as it contradicts what I believe, it must be dictatorship, barbarian. No wonder the Chinese government always complains that the American human rights groups only care about a few "trouble makers" rather than the mass public. Remember one and half years ago, a Japanese boy was killed only because he stepped into a wrong house and failed to understand an American slang? Remember the killer was sent free? I guess according to Japanese law, the guy would be sent to jail, at least, for unlawfully possessing hand gun. Remember the CIA "moles"? I guess Ames couple should be sent free since according to Swiss law, espionage is a political crime and should not be persecuted. Gee, what a chaotic world it would be if everybody is trying to export his own law to the other countries. Those human rights radicals always proclaim that they are the fighters for human rights, for democracy, for self-determination. Yet, they do not even respect the right of a sovereign nation to enforce their own law, or to have their own legal system. What kind of human rights is this? (Received: 17-APR-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. A Call to Nationalism?......................................Ning Luo 99 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Chinese nationalism" has become a hot topic again indeed. The Chinese journal The Twenty-First Century has devoted two recent issues to this theme. There is no doubt that nationalist thoughts have been a major driving force for the modern Chinese revolutionaries, whether they are "Nationalists (KMT)", communists, or otherwise. It is also reported by China Times Weekly (CTW) that there has been a hidden surge of nationalism among Chinese intellectuals lately. There have been a lot of events which could arouse such a mode. The US Congress's pressure on the selection of Olympic 2000 site and the "Yinhe Incident" are just two easy examples. In the long run, the protectionism among Western countries will surely provide ample fuel for driving the temperature up. The mode has not surfaced much so far is because many intellectuals do not want to be viewed as taking the Chinese Government's side, according to CTW. What is the prospect of China if it would resort to nationalism again? This is a very complex subject. There is even no consensus about the effects of nationalism on China in the last 150 years yet. However, this is a subject with such an importance that we could not ignore or wait. It is about time that China has to face this problem, no matter how sensitive it is. It is necessary for the sake of discussion to clarify the term "nationalism" more carefully, since it often provokes controversies not only because it arouses the emotions deep within people quickly, but also it is like "democracy", "freedom", and many other terms used in politics which have mixed up a lot of different meanings in them. I tend to define nationalism in a more strict sense. Of course human beings are inclined to identify with those alike and associate with such identities some passions. However, I would rather call the mere special feelings about national heritage as national sentiments. "Ism" is for a kind of ideology, not just some sentiments. Otherwise, passions for a specific sex would become sexism and desires for material things would be called materialism. Nationalism is a kind of ideology which gives "nation" some supreme priority. There are "absolute nationalisms" such as Hitler's Nazism which place nations according to some absolute order of supremacy, while what Napoleon believed could be called "relative nationalism" which considered a nation was great only when it was strong. Nationalisms are almost invariably egocentric. A ready example is that when Han Chinese talk about Chinese nationalism, we tend to think it is good for keeping the status quo of the State of China, and forget that China encompasses over 50 nationalities. Explicitly resorting to nationalism might generate more disintegrating forces than the other way around. It would be simple-minded to think that nationalism should be resorted only to enhance rather than disrupt the power of a multinational state like China. It would also be naive to think that nationalism, when it's released from the bottle, could be contained within the range of "healthy dose" easily. The lessons of Dr. Sun Yat-Sen of China and Nehru of India should not forgotten. They had used nationalism as a tool of their revolution or national construction at the beginning, but fell to the victim of it eventually. In fact, many great empires have been aware of the danger of calling on nationalism. Russian nationalists now call on nationalism only because the Soviet Empire is no more. Before its collapse, it called upon patriotism more than nationalism. Americans are more clever: They even avoid using the term "nationality". "Ethniticity" is their invention for substituting this sensitive word. A friend said that "the development of China cannot be based on nationalism ALONE". I would put a stronger statement than that. Not for the sake of maintaining the China state, but for its peaceful evolution and fruitful structural transition, we must be extremely cautious about whether to evoke nationalism AT ALL. It is for sure, as another friend said, that there must be something to those things like nationalism which cannot be suppressed. For example, sex drive cannot be suppressed because its physiological root in human being. Nationalism is a cultural manifestation of the drive which rooted deeply back to the territorial behaviors of social animals. There is nothing wrong that we all have these drives which are part of the reason for us to be human beings. However, there is also another part of "being human". A culture or system could guide these primary human drives into utility, or suppress them in order to gain the reactions to drive themselves. A human being should not become a slave of the civilization that he or she lives in, but that does not necessarily mean that he or she has to become a slave of his/her own primary drives in turn. The same can be said to a nation. If we reflect our past history with a cool mind, it is not easy to argue that what the nationalism had brought to China are so positive. As for the post-cold war world, in which the success in international trade is the key for the development of a country, it would be pity that a state has to call upon nationalism for rescue because that is often the last resort. The day that China has to resort to nationalism is the day that its leadership has lost its confidence in other resources. As far as I can tell, Deng has been quite confident in his economic program, more confident than many younger contemporaries who are considering to call the help from nationalism. As for China, it would be hardly farther away from the truth to attribute the economic achievements of Deng's era to nationalism --- if Deng is a nationalist, where would Mao be? While people have talked a lot about the achievements of Deng in China's economic development, I would think one of the greatest POLITICAL achievements of Deng is to help China to overcome the xenophobia deeply rooted in the modern Chinese --- without this other achievements including the economic "miracles" of China in the last 15 years would be unthinkable. The challenge is now upon us, the younger generations. Are we so desperate that we have to call up the old genie out of the bottle again? (Received: 22-APR-1994) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 4. We Have to Make Overstatement Sometime?...................Cheng Ming 23 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- The subhead in previous issue "American have far less understanding of the outside" has drawn my attention. I have read the article to see how the author can make such strong statement. I believe that all examples in the article are author's true experiences, and anyone may replenish so many same examples that CCF will have no place to put. But I still feel the author reached his conclusion too fast, and make too strong statement as I pointed out above. Who know others better? American or Chinese? I have to say that I can not find the answer upon the author's argument. In the village I went to be re-educated for eight years, many people did not even know there is other country beside China and first time met a boy from city, an "outsider". We all know how many Chinese live in such area, I always think about them when someone said Chinese this and that, I asked myself: have they been counted in as Chinese? My point is that I have witnessed many debates among us about many issues. Some debates even developed into physical fight, but finally I found what they said were true and what they argued were same thing except that they just made a little bit of overstatement on something there is no "yes-or-no" answer. Unfortunately, there are so many such things. Finally, I would like to thank the author for letting us share his good stories and the editor's attention to my letter, from view of this angle, we may have to make overstatement sometime. (Received: 13-APR-1994) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Editor's Reply: Open China-Nt?...........................Yungui Ding 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Qing Lu, Thank you for sending your message to China-nt. China-nt has a long history as an unmoderated net, as you may know. After several years in service and of good/bad experience, and after some intensive discussions, China-nt was reformed to become the current moderated net. Since almost messages sent to China-nt or ccf-editors, except those which are irrelevant (e.g. "looking for friend") or unsanitary (e.g. with personal attacks or dirty words), are published on or forwarded to China-nt, it seems to me that the real difference here is not "open" vs. "closed", but how long the delay for publication is and whether or not an improved environment is worth of short waiting of a few days. I understand that there are still many friends who favor open net over moderated one. We would like to hear more of your thought or analysis in this regard. As for the topics you mentioned in your message, we see they fit very well to the scope of Chinese Community Forum (CCF). We appreciate your past contributions to CCF and are looking forward to your continuing support. In addition to the topics concerning the Chinese community which includes IFCSS-related discussions, we also welcome many other topics that our readers are interested in, such as Sino-US relations, life in this foreign land, Change back in China, Chinese culture and tradition, and so on. We will also appreciate your comment on how we can have a better CCF to serve the community. Again, thank you for contacting us. We look forward to receiving more of your contributions. Yungui Ding for CCF/China-NT (Received: 9-Apr-1994) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Huang Tang Executive Moderator: Will Yang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 13. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++