From @UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU:owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed May 11 00:40:34 1994 Date: Wed, 11 May 1994 00:01:10 -0400 Reply-To: cqyang@chemistry.umass.edu Sender: China-Net From: cqyang@chemistry.umass.edu Subject: Chinese Community Forum (#9423) Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, May 11, 1994 (Issue No. 9423) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= 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. Democracy in South Africa and at Home.....................Gang Chu 206 2. China's Future and Prospects............................Earl Drake 255 3. Comments on Mr. Kan Liao's Article............Daniel A. Rubenstein 57 4. Human Rights and MFN......................................A Reader 57 5. Comments on Michael Fay's Case..........................Dave Sheng 41 6. A Letter to the Editors..................................Lishi Luo 35 7. An Editor's Confession..............................Changqing Yang 53 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- Democracy and human rights are two enduring concerns in overseas Chinese community. In the last few years we have witnessed a resurgence of constructive discussions about the feasibility and risks of democracy in the specific political, social, and cultural context of contemporary China. The age of innocence and unquestioned optimism is over; in its place, without exaggeration, we are experiencing or anticipating a "cognitive crisis." In different ways the articles or letters we carry in this issue reflect such a crisis, which is not an isolated moment, but a period during which we struggle to come to terms with what the quest for democracy and human rights promises, entails or reveals to us as a community and as a human being. The author of the article "Democracy in South Africa and at home" expresses his impatience with the democratic movement led by some "disgruntled elite liberal intellectuals" who seem to have all but lost sight of the real, urgent problems confronting the "masses" in China. On the other hand, a 1991 article by Earl Drake offers a Canadian perspective on China's precarious situation during and after "June Fourth," as well as a critical re-evaluation where the West stood at this historical junction. What is most striking about this is that the author makes no attempt to bridge the abrupt leap from the apprehension at the anti-democratic cloud hanging over China and the optimistic speculation on China's economic rejuvenation. The coverage of and debate about the caning of Michael Fay in the U.S. have triggered a new wave of disguised or unabashed "America bashing." If the HR criteria propagated by the U.S. are not longer universally acceptable, what alternative(s) do we have? How do we determine what is, and what is not, violation of human rights? Following up discussions in the two previous issues of CCF, we have three responses to Kan Liao's article (See CCF.9422), one of which, from Daniel A. Rubenstein, questions the validity of resorting to the dichotomy of majority and minority in absolute terms in discussing human rights related issues. The recent allegations of CCF's limited, selected, or biased representation of the community's voice reflect in an admittedly limited way our community's effort to negotiate with democracy and to deal with the power-relation it defines or re-defines. Perhaps one's private speech will always remain private, therefore "essentially" non-political until one gains access to the economic, technological means of disseminating information. Then the question that has to be asked is, whom can we trust to control and monitor "free speech?" Does "free," i.e. unmoderated (both in the larger cultural sense and in the narrower, technical sense) speech ever exist? We welcome and appreciate contributions and comments from our readers, who have played, and will no doubt continue to play, an increasingly vital role in the growth of CCF, and who have helped to expand, shape and modify CCF's vision. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. Democracy in South Africa and at Home.....................Gang Chu 206 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I watched with great joy on TV that majority South African blacks waited in miles-long lines to cast votes for the first time in their lives. Their votes were expected to put a new government in power. Actually the new government was already there. The expected new president Nelson Mandela has already had many tools of the government. He has his group of people who will form his foreign ministry. He has his group of people who will be his military commanders (one of them became the focal point of Western press recently because he was trained in Russia). But most importantly he has a group of people who have already mapped out a new structure of society for the country. Theirs will be a democratic market economy. Contrary to many concerns of Western press, their new government wouldn't be a racist one. Current president F. W. de Klerk is expected to be the executive vice president in the new government. And there wouldn't be a "spreadsheet balancing after fall" for the crime against blacks by the government remnant of colonial times, as Archbishop Tutu said. It shows the rest of the world how cool-headed he is when Mandela plans to raise taxes of all members of the society, both rich (read white) and poor (read black), to rebuild a national economy, even though whether or not it is a sound policy still remains to be judged. With all the prudent measures and long term planning of the new government of South Africa, the only thing one can read in the West is questions about the maturity of the new government. Can Mandela's government live up to the expectations of the majority blacks? To be fair, this is the very question the new government should ask itself. What strikes me is the difference in the Western press's approach toward the Democratic China movement and toward South Africa. With all the media coverage, the democratic China movement, within and outside of China, is only led by some disgruntled elite liberal intellectuals. Besides insisting that China should have democracy, they never seem to be able to promote anything else. Even the holly grail of their quest --- democracy --- is not well thought out in detail. Is it a direct election of president or a representative vote? I bet they don't want a farmer to be a president, which surely will be the case if there is a direct election. But nobody would discuss this. Would they like to build a carrier to cruise offshore Indonesian, or foster better diplomatic ties with Southeast Asian countries, or simply respect other country's sovereignty and let them deal with it should other killings of ethnic Chinese occur? Nobody would discuss this either. At least I know the South African government will establish diplomatic relation with mainland China soon. Whether that's good or bad I wouldn't comment, but the point is that they seems to know what they are doing. Direct election or not, a carrier or not, these are not important to the lives of a billion people. Agreed? What about infrastructure problems, what about urbanization of the 80% farming population, what about corruption, what about the rising organized crimes, what about unemployment, what about privatization of state-own enterprises, or what about sale of kidnapped women in countryside (which is what my wife would like to hear discussed)? Nobody would discuss these. So there is no substance to this democratic movement. They have no alternative policies on which to build a government like Mandela does. (What alternative policies? They don't have ANY policies). That's why they don't have -- surprised? -- popular support within or outside China. But they are the darlings of the Western press. They appeared on TV, they big-mouthed on radio, they wrote in newspapers. All they focus on is ONLY abstract stuffs like democracy and human rights. I am actually for democracy and human rights in China NOW. But I guess they are intellectuals who are trained to read and talk ONLY about abstract stuffs and really enjoy themselves. I hate to see the cause I support loses credibility especially in the light of the success of the Chinese government's economic reform. Nobody in the press would ask questions like those they are asking Mandela. But HEY, you people out there, make very sure that we do. On a second thought, wasn't it a group of disgruntled elite liberal intellectuals who got us into this communist mess in the first place ? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. China's Future and Prospects............................Earl Drake 255 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- LOOKING BACK In May and June of 1989, Canadians were mesmerized by the drama they saw unfolding on their television screens. It was an extraordinary event with extraordinary coverage. I think everyone in Canada felt involved in that story. No one will ever forget the images we saw, especially the image of the lone man stopping the column of tanks, climbing aboard the tank and trying to persuade the tank commander to turn around. We also remember that he was led away and that the tanks rolled on. Although it was extraordinary television drama, it did not end the way television dramas usually end in Canada. The good guys did not win. The good guys were crushed. So we turned off the China channel. China had betrayed us and emotionally we wrote it off. Before June 1989, China could do no wrong in Canadian eyes. Afterwards, China could do no right. Neither position is the correct one. I confess that I became emotionally involved too. I remember vividly the end of that long and tragic day on June 4th. As we heard the reports that came in throughout the day and watched the ambulances bringing in the wounded and dying to a small hospital a couple of hundred yards away from us, my wife and I gave in to our feelings. We spoke very clearly and precisely to microphones hidden in the ceiling because we wanted every word to be taken down. We voiced what we thought of a government that would order its troops to spray bullets randomly because people were demonstrating peacefully for modest reforms. I share this with you because you had a reason to be emotional in June 1989. THE NEED TO LOOK AHEAD A long time has passed. We should stop being emotional and stop looking backward. We should try to be objective and look to a long-term relationship with that important country and civilization called China. The best way to do that is by analyzing China's strengths and weaknesses and how these may affect its future. We can begin by examining Mr. Deng Xiaoping's record and the conditions leading up to the Tian An Men incident. Deng Xiaoping was the one who made the key decisions in June 1989. He brought modern China to where it is today and he is still the most important man in China. In 1977 he initiated reforms to reverse the effects of the Cultural Revolution. We have to remind ourselves that the Cultural Revolution was a far greater tragedy than Tian An Men Square in June 1989. The Cultural Revolution lasted longer, cut deeper and affected not just people in the cities but all of China. It left China technically backward and economically stagnant. Deng Xiaoping's reform program began with his Four Modernizations in Agriculture, Industry, Science & Technology, and Defence. He used rather radical methods. Investment was shifted from industry to consumer goods, decision-making was decentralized, special economic zones were created and the economy was opened to Western aid, trade and technology. He also introduced a powerful incentive for increased rural productivity. Families were allowed to keep and sell at market prices any surplus produced over and above their assigned quotas. Deng Xiaoping set targets for China. The first goal to double China's GNP by 1990 and to ensure life's basic necessities has been met. Other goals include doubling China's GNP again by the year 2000 and attaining the same per capita GNP as South Korea's by the year 2050. It is doubtful they will achieve this ambitious aim for the next century without changing their economic and political systems, but if they are successful it will mean a transformation of both their living standards and the world economy. ECONOMIC FACTORS In order to be objective we also have to look at problems in the economy. According to the Communist Party's own assessment in 1987, only 15% of industry in the urban sector was making good progress. Even in the rural sector, while productivity has increased enormously it failed to meet government and Party expectations. Grain production remains at an acceptable level but is not increasing because peasants are shifting to cash crops after fulfilling their quota. The official formula is that the state regulates the market and the market guides enterprises. But contradictions have emerged in this marvellous formula. There are flaws, e.g., there is no free market in labour, capital or land. There is some degree of a free market for main commodities but there is a dual price system. Under this system anything within a set quota is kept at an artificially low price while anything outside the quota is offered at a free market price. In a free market economy increased prices become an incentive for increased investment and production, but in China the dual prices send confusing signals to producers. The greatest single need in China is for greater fuel and energy production but, because prices are set artificially low, investment is not going back into it. The dual price system also invites corruption. Communist Party officials decide on prices, import quotas, type of goods that can be imported and where competition is allowed. Consequently, even the Party admits that there is too much corruption. In 1987 the Party found that 150,000 of its members had been guilty of corruption. The economic system was also unable to control inflation which came close to 30% in some of the main cities. Zhao Ziyang, with the Party's acquiescence, tried to reform the system in 1988 by allowing the market to set prices in key areas. Unfortunately the economy was already overheated and inflation was high. The result was that both consumers and the Communist Party panicked. The experiment was cut short and price controls were re-established. The Chinese, lacking any fine-tuning devices to deal with inflation, imposed a drastic credit freeze which brought industry to a standstill and resulted in unemployment. An additional tension was the absence of the Fifth Modernization or the introduction of democracy. No one can accuse Deng Xiaoping of inconsistency because he opposed this modernization during the Democracy Wall movement and the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign. He has been perfectly consistent in his economic goals and in his stance that there will be stability but no political reform. That was the setting at the beginning of 1989. There were tensions in the system. Intellectuals had begun the year with a letter requesting more openness in politics and an amnesty for Wei Jingsheng (a prominent dissident imprisoned for his arguments for democracy). Later, students, buoyed by unexpected public support during their demonstrations after Hu Yaobang's death, decided to hang on until Gorbachev's visit. Their occupation of Tian An Men Square during Gorbachev's visit brought humiliation to Deng and the hardliners. The authorities then declared martial law. When the students defied martial law, Deng Xiaoping and other leaders called in troops and ordered them to shoot their way in to the Square. After the incident the hardliners condemned the protestors as participants in a counter-revolutionary rebellion but reaffirmed the goal of economic reform. In my view both sides tragically mishandled the situation. China frightened Hong Kong and alienated the West and many Chinese intellectuals. Most Western governments, after an initial period of condemnation, have now quietly restored a normal relationship with China. But in truth, they are not very interested in China and have turned their main attention elsewhere. The question I would like to pose is should we do the same? In order to answer this we have to examine China's weaknesses and its strengths. CHINA'S WEAKNESSES Some of China's weaknesses are those it shares with most poor countries in the world. The per capita GNP is still $300. Its people, comprising 22% of the world population, live on 11% of the world's arable land. It lacks resources to build the expensive infrastructure required to link productive areas presently separated by mountains, huge tracts of desert and water. Its financial, legal, information and educational systems are outmoded for a modern commercial world. Due to an economic slowdown in rural industry, it faces the new phenomenon of urban migration along with increased crime and inadequate housing. In addition to these classic underdevelopment problems, there are also things more peculiar to China: central planning, lack of a leadership succession system, and a dual command system comprised of the Communist Party and bureaucracy in the Army and the government. Leaders are isolated not only geographically in Zhongnanhai but also in their communications with urban intellectuals and workers. Nepotism and corruption flourish because Party officials and bureaucrats hold excessive power. The system also exacerbates the struggle between the centre and provinces for power and resources. There is no adequate legal system to protect individuals and contracts. There is no freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to vote or freedom of the media. CHINA'S STRENGTHS Despite these weaknesses China has remarkable strengths. Its regions are united and stable. For the first time in two hundred years, there is no external threat unlike the period when Western powers, Japan, and the Soviet Union, in turn, menaced parts of China. Although there are people who want to reform or eliminate the Communist Party, there is no organized opposition to the Party within China. This makes China quite different from Eastern Europe. Unlike the Soviet Union, China has no serious minority problems. The Tibetans and Uighurs are unhappy but they are really quite peripheral to China and are few in number compared to the Han Chinese. China has a pragmatic and responsible foreign policy, good senior civil servants and an obedient army. China is managing its economy well given the handicaps of a budget deficit (due primarily to subsidies paid to maintain low prices and inefficient state-run enterprises) and the need to reconcile a centrally-planned with a market economy system. Inflation which was close to 30% is now down to about 3%. Economic growth of between 4 and 6% is expected to continue next year and for the rest of the decade. CHINA'S FUTURE Thus far, I have carefully avoided making any predictions about China's future. The record for predictions has been abysmal and I do not expect to be any better. My best guess is that in the short term it will be the status quo both politically and economically. The best evidence of that is the recent Party Plenum which was finally held for form's sake. It was clearly a patching up of differences with words for every faction but with no clear direction for the future. Stability and unity appear to be the order of the day. Everyone waits to see who will replace the current leaders when they die. The encouraging thing is that there is an impressive group of Chinese leaders in their fifties and sixties who if chosen could do an admirable job of running China. They are able, pragmatic, knowledgeable about what is happening in the Western world and would be impressive Chinese "Gorbachevs". But in all candour, there is also a powerful group in the Party hierarchy who are Moscow-trained hard liners and centralists. In the long term, I am confident that China, like other Confucian societies, will modernize its economy. I say this because of the remarkable qualities of the Chinese if they are exposed to stimulating ideas and a system which permits them to use their native entrepreneurial talents. We have seen it in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, South Korea (which has had a long association with China and had many of the same ideas) and in our own country. I am also confident of it because new communications technology will hasten this process. Modern young Chinese want to know what is happening in the outside world and they are finding out through fax machines, radio, television and other means. I believe that Chinese modernization will be quite different from anything we have seen. Chinese managers, similar to their Taiwanese and South Korean counterparts, will want access to objective information and a voice in government policies as they are entrusted with more responsibility for economic decisions. The result of modernization when it comes will not necessarily be a demand for a Western multi-party democracy and pure free enterprise, but for a more open society. Its economy may resemble the Japanese model more than a Western one, while its political system may be inscrutably Chinese. Although it may not appear very democratic to Western eyes, I think that systems will be set up to encourage a freer and more open society. There will be better access to information, more legal rights for the individual, and a decentralization of decision-making to the provinces. CONCLUSION In the short to medium term, there will be no political reform but stability in China. Its economic growth will be undynamic but steady. In foreign affairs, it will be internationally responsible. Before China can experience an economic take-off like the "four dragons" in Asia, it will have to deal with some basic structural problems and answer three key questions: Is economic and technological change possible without political change? How will competing demands for power between the centre and provinces be reconciled? Can a command economy be modified successfully by introducing some market forces or are the two systems basically incompatible? I am confident that China will modernize. I believe that, if you study these matters objectively, you will also conclude that China in the long-term will be an important economic, political and strategic partner for Canada and the West. China deserves our attention. [Earl Drake is an Adjunct Professor of David Lam Centre For International Communication and Simon Fraser University at Harbour Centre] ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 3. Comments on Mr. Kan Liao's Article............Daniel A. Rubenstein 57 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In CCF May 4, 1994 (No. 9422), Kan Liao issued a polemic criticizing, it seems, invocation of human rights by the U.S., in particular, against Asian countries. I am sympathetic towards many of his views, but feel that the way they were presented -- both stylistically and logically -- is counterproductive. Two examples illustrate this. Regarding Michael Fay, Mr. Liao rightly notes that whether one is a "victim" depends upon why one is on the receiving end of some unpleasant action. Logical enough. But he goes on to chastise other foreigners, as well as Chinese, who argue human rights are universal even when no-one can define them and most Chinese don't have any idea what they are. He concludes that imposing the views of a minority on a majority is a REAL violation of human rights. But surely this is wrong. Similar to the first case, it depends what the majority here has "done." E.g., during slavery in the U.S. (and elsewhere) perhaps a minority favored freeing slaves. Would implementation of the slaves' desires (freedom) "violate the human rights" of the slave owning majority? Only if the words "violate" and "human rights" are stripped of all ordinary sense of meaning. Naturally, the Michael Fay case and the human rights situation in China are not equivalent to slavery. The larger point is, as John Stuart Mill argued, a "tyranny of the majority" IS a logical possibility. The question becomes, are specific laws or human rights practices necessary for the larger good of society, whose interests do they serve, do they sacrifice other values the community esteems, etc.? Why, then, does Mr. Liao adopt such an arrogant, superior tone? This is, in his own words, simple logic, "1,2,3." Second, what's with the Dali Lama? Denigrating religious conviction surely won't win Mr. Liao any friends among much of the world's religious population (including Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc.). I suppose Chinese are understandably defensive about Tibet, as Americans are about black civil rights and Native Americans, but two points merit emphasis. One, the Chinese line (implicit in Mr. Liao's rhetoric), that human rights under the indigenous Tibetan social order were worse than now, replicates the hubris of the U.S. foreign human rights policy he rejects. That is, who are the Chinese to say which human rights situation is better? Tyranny by one's own people may be better than a marginally more enlightened rule by foreigners. At any rate, all it takes is some discussion with Tibetans themselves see how repugnant Chinese rule is to them. Two, one can to criticize government policy without repudiating that government. I, like you, delight in pillorying the U.S. government, but I won't defend their policies in Vietnam, Cambodia, and much of Latin America and Africa. Coming full circle, does my ability to criticize my government thusly represent a value in any sense universal or at least worth encouraging? The act of answering that question brings us much closer than did Mr. Liao's rant to the reasoning process that needs to be gone through in addressing the issue of human rights in China, Asia, or the U.S. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Human Rights and MFN......................................A Reader 57 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- This concerns the article entitled " On real politics and human rights" by Kan Liao on CCF of may 4, 1994. I do not think many people understand the fundamental reason why human rights are strived for by many peoples (including those who are being called D-fighters). Kan Liao basically argues against the endeavors of the "fighters" for more human rights enjoyment of the Chinese people based on the fact that China has gained independence and that economically China is getting stronger. Both are true, but not just for China. As a Chinese who worries about his country, I often ask myself questions like: did we gain independence by driving out the Japanese all by ourselves? What would the situation be without the international influence of European war and the American bombs dropped over Japan? How have we as a nation been doing compared with other nations since 1949 -- have we narrowed, or widened the gap, economically and politically, between us and other advanced nations? Why do our brothers and sisters in China run the risk of being swallowed up by the Pacifics to sneak into other countries? Why so many Taiwan or Hong people refuse to be considered Chinese and try to form a separate country? Is Hong Kong the last colony ruled by foreigner in human history? Is China getting less corruptive and morally more civilized (board a bus in the cities before you answer it)? Can a business succeed without bribes and connections? Do you feel comfortable and proud when you answer these questions, Mr/s Kan Liao ? The fact is that almost all the peoples (including the South Africa blacks) regained their country and that all their economies are advancing. It is not OK just to see progress (it would be of some comfort if China is the only country progressing, no matter how slowly). China is so behind the advanced nations that a simple adjustment of policies can result in an economical leap. The whole thing boils down to whether we want to be among the leads or we are willing to trailing behind while being dragged forward. In a non-democratic society like China, the lives of the people are governed by, and in the mercy of, one or a few, and it is the wisdom of the few which determines the future of over one billion people . The whole idea of human rights is to create a democratic society so that the government constructed by the people is capable of gathering the wisdom of the whole people and of mobilizing the potentials of the people. Only with such a government can its people enjoy what they deserve, including dignity. The definition of a democratic society may have limited variation between the East and the West due to cultural differences, but it is definitely not the current China. It is amazingly disappointing to see so many are opposed to linking MFN with human rights. These people are trashing the political resources for a chance to promote the human rights of our families back in China without any gain. MFN status for China will not be off (you really think the Americans are stupid enough to lose a sum of money just for the human rights of the Chinese people?). The arguments reflects the political blindness of ours (it is a game, folks). Human rights >> Democratic society >> generation of a good government >> a society where people live with dignity and like to stay instead of migrate, legally and illegally. Keep going, D-fighters, there are people cheering you guys! ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Comments on Michael Fay's Case..........................Dave Sheng 41 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In addition to the logic side of Michael Fay's case, there is also a perceptive side of this case, especially when it involves two countries with quite different values. Let me use a hypothetical situation to illustrate this point. Suppose a Canadian living in California committed a series of murders and was caught by FBI. He was then convicted in a court and sentenced to death penalty. Imagine Canadian Prime Minister went to TV and asked the U.S. government to forgive this Canadian, because "death penalty is extraordinarily cruel, and is a violation of human rights". After all, there is no death penalty in Canada. Then there came this great fanfare in the Canadian press, first about "how barbaric and outdated death penalty is". "Using extreme violence to punish a human being for whatever purpose by a government is a violation of the U.N. Declaration on Human Rights!" While the case was pending for a Supreme Court decision, more stories came out on the Canadian press, about possible abuses in the U.S. legal system. "There is evidence that the poor Canadian suffered physical abuses in prison." "He may have been coerced into confession by FBI agents." "It's common knowledge that prison guards usually turn a blind eye to the beatings new prisoner suffered in the hands of old prisoners." And "The FBI was under enormous pressure to crack a few big cases, in light of the rising public concern over crimes." And "It is well-known that you have to be rich to hire a famous lawyer to get a fair trial. The poor Canadian didn't stand a chance in the U.S. legal system." I am wondering how Americans would feel in such a hypothetical situation. Well, maybe many of them wouldn't feel anything, since "who knows where Canada is?" But when America is doing this to Singapore, one would expect the Singaporean reaction to be strong. After all, it comes from the most powerful country in the world. Maybe we Asians should ask ourselves whether we are oversensitive, and Americans should ask themselves whether they have shown a lack of sensitivity. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 6. A Letter to the Editors..................................Lishi Luo 35 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editors of CCF, After reading the Editor's Note on CCF.9422 in response to an article by Mr. Jinghong Li, I feel like to correspond with you on an issue I am concerned with. In the Note, the Editor(s) stated that "... CCF is just a journal. ...", and by and large, many articulations in the Note are based upon the quoted statement. I won't have any problem at all with the statement and its derivatives, if CCF were a private enterprise. Unfortunately, such is not the case. Given the very fact that CCF is run on public net, the statement in the Note may not be appropriate and justified. I suspect such issue might just be a tempest in teapot to many, I could only wish the Editors could have a higher sensitivity. I also have a humble request. It might not be a bad idea if you could be so kind as to publish Editor's Note with the name(s) of Editor(s) responsible for the Editor's Note in the future. Thank you very much for your effort in promoting information exchange in our community, and for your attention regarding to this letter. [Editor's Note: As to this reader's request that we disclose the name of the individual editor responsible for drafting the "Note from the Editor", we ask to be excused from complying with. As we work on a collaborative basis as a team, the "Note from the Editor" reflects the consensus or a collective decision of the Editorial Board. We also disagree with the notation that there would not be a journal if it is run on a public net. Not all journals or magazines are private enterprises.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. An Editor's Confession..............................Changqing Yang 53 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- As an off-duty editor of the Chinese Community Forum, I have to confess that I am terribly confused. Why? I have seen the subscription rate of CCF shoot up. I have witnessed a lot of contributions from our readers, from different angles, expressing different opinions. But we are accused to be anti-IFCSS, unbalanced, name-labeling, etc. I am confused. Frankly speaking, I myself have not been a fan of IFCSS. I had been criticizing IFCSS on SCC/TPC all along. When I was invited to join CCF Editorial Board, I was surprised to find that a lot of the Board members had been IFCSS activists and I was amazed by their willingness to let-in some one with entirely different opinions. During my "tenure" on Board and as the Executive Editor, I often found myself "fighting" with the IFCSSers on Board on various issues. I found it helped me to make sure that all the articles that appeared on CCF will not be offensive to any particular group in our community. I still remember vividly the time when I had to massively alter an article about IFCSS VP's testimony in the Congress so that it was not offensive, yet still expressed the author's point of view. It was hard. I am surprised that this Board is still been called "anti-IFCSS". The only thing I can say to this criticism is: you have not seen the real thing, yet. About the question of balance, I have to say that the contributions have not been balanced. Take MFN issue as an example, we hardly received any contribution that was in favor of conditional or revoking MFN. The only thing we could do to make the issue "balanced" was to dig out Mr. Shi Heping's explanation published on another net and carried it. I had no ideas why we did not get any contribution in favor of conditional MFN. But again, wasn't that also reflected in several polls conducted so far? If CCF has to reflect the voice of the community, this is it. Maybe it is unbalanced in some sense, but I would still say it is the reality. One practice on the two main news groups is name calling and labeling. One side calls the other "Han4 Jian1," "Mai4 Guo2 Zei2," etc. The other side labels back: brain washed, Communist running dog, etc. I did not read China-Nt and had no idea how this was accustomed in China-Nt. But in our editorial work, we have been very strict in censoring any labeling and revising any highly emotional charges. I do not know where the accusation of "throwing hats" fired at CCF came from. CCF as a community forum has a lot to do. IFCSS is only a small part of our entire community. There is no way for CCF to be a mouthpiece of any organization. CCF should remain critical to every and all community organizations, including itself. I think some of us, especially some IFCSSers should have learned the lesson from CCP: be ready for and be accustomed to criticism. Only when you have learned to deal with different opinion can you become mature, politically. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Yingyin Xu 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 + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++