UPDATE: A friend of Yang Hengjun’s is suggesting that he’s now free. Where he’s been is unclear, but I expect we’ll hear in detail from Yang himself sooner or later.
The following is a translation of this post from journalist Zhang Wen’s popular blog.
Yang Hengjun disappeared on March 27, and there has been no news from him since ((Actually, he called a relative and told her that he was “chatting with old friends,” which she says is a code for “arrested.”)) According to his blog manager, that night he received a call from Yang saying that three people were following him. After that he never got back in touch.
On March 28, when I saw this news on the net, I was shocked; I truly couldn’t believe my eyes. On the 26th, I had met up with him and had a chat. In the past, I recommended his book “Jiaguo Tianxia”, and he had agreed to give me a signed copy and present it to me when he got to Beijing this trip.
During the meal [on the 26th], Dr. Xu Zhiyong, mentioned lawyer Teng Biao had been taken away [by police], and everyone felt very sad. Only brother [Yang] Hengjun was still smiling and trying to console us. Who could have known that just the next day, it would be his turn to “have an accident.”
Thinking about that now, it’s really hard to focus. After the lunch ended, we all went our separate ways. I went to Houhai to meet up with some family and have a little fun. In the warm afternoon sun and spring breeze, I flipped idly through “Jiaguo Tianxia,” and I was moved again by the warm, loving, sincere, and powerful words.
Honestly, I didn’t understand brother [Yang] Hengjun’s complex background until now; I first learned that he had become an Australian citizen from the BBC News report. But that’s not important to me, I could feel his love for his homeland even years ago, reading his doctoral thesis. His complaints and criticisms aren’t “griping without cause”, they’re not “willfully stirring up trouble”, they’re always very pointedly looking forward to reforms and the end of officials’ malpractice.
What was Brother Hengjun’s crime? At the moment, we do not know, and no one is coming forward to explain it. But I think that if a person disappears, whether they’re a foreigner or they’re Chinese, there should at least be an explanation provided. I’ve heard that Yang Hengjun’s friends and family have filed a report with the police station at the Guangzhou airport, and are asking us all to pay attention to this case.
Note: As the situation is not yet clear, please exercise restraint in your comments. We already enjoy our socialist rule of law, we must trust that our nation’s legal system is a shield to protect its citizens.
If there is time, I may come back to this post later today and add some translated comments from Zhang Wen’s post
I have to start this post off with a whole bunch of disclaimers. First of all, I have nothing but respect for Yang Hengjun, whose work we have translated many times on this site. Moreover, I myself have expressed doubts about the value of the Shanghai Expo and I haven’t visited it myself. Still, I was a bit surprised to see this hit-piece by Yang Hengjun in the Epoch Times.
OK, maybe I should rephrase that. I’m not surprised at all that the place I saw it was in the Epoch Times, but I am surprised that it exists.
Here’s the basic idea behind the piece, which is also published on Yang’s blog:
Absent are halls filled with advanced technologies of previous World Fairs. Instead, scalpers, long lines, empty buildings, and videos are waiting for you at the World Expo in Shanghai.
All arguably true, I suppose. But when you actually read the article, it’s pretty petty. The entire thing is based on Yang’s tour (he spent only four hours there) with a single, anonymous Expo worker, who reveals shocking secrets like the fact that ticket scalping is happening and that the authorities don’t want people to die on Expo grounds. He also suggests that some of the exhibits are faked, but gives only one example, and says the Macao pavilion downplays Macao’s status as a gambler’s paradise (can’t imagine why).
And yet the entire state-run media apparatus has been involved in an all-out marketing campaign promoting the Expo, turning it into a gigantic deal about the country’s image. I think the World Expo in China, just as the Olympic Games, have been politicized by authorities, and ordinary Chinese are made to pay for it.
The World Expo is a place where the world meets China. What does the world see about China, and what do Chinese people see about the world at this World Expo? Our guide had told me, “This place is full of deception and lies.”
Here’s where he loses me. I get that the Expo has been made into a political issue and a source of national pride to an extent, but I’m not sure I see where ordinary Chinese are being forced to pay for it. Obviously, it’s been constructed in part with government money, so in that sense Chinese people have paid for parts of it, but again, the national pavilions he is complaining about (with the exception of Macao) were all paid for by foreign countries. Yes, there are long lines and scalped tickets, and some of the exhibits are underwhelming (since each country made their own pavilion, though, I fail to see how that’s the government’s fault). But long lines, scalped tickets, and disappointing rides are an issue at Disney World, too. Is the Epoch Times going to “expose” that?
Mr. Yang is, of course, entitled to his opinion. It’s just a shame that he didn’t spend more time or talk to more than one person, and that the Epoch Times saw fit to run the piece as-is. One gets the impression from it that the Expo is some elaborately crafted Communist ruse, but in actuality, a lot of people — experts, even — are really enjoying it.
Visiting the major national pavilions is, by all accounts, lame. But it’s a shame Yang Hengjun didn’t go deeper than that, as many reviews like the one linked above have suggested that the Expo has all of the things Yang claims it doesn’t — future technology, creative exhibits, and short lines — you just have to do more than scratch the surface.
I am not, frequent readers of this site know, adverse to attacking the Chinese government. But if you’re going to do that, it should be about something real. From what I can tell, lots of people — foreign and Chinese — are genuinely enjoying the Shanghai Expo, and they might just be learning something about other cultures, even if all they’re doing is watching videos. Yang’s article reads a bit too much like Yang Hengjun and the Epoch Times went to Shanghai looking for something to complain about.
In this article, Yang Hengjun outlines his “70-year limit on autocratic rule theory”, which suggests that since the beginning of the 20th century when dynastic rule came to an end in China, history has moved “man” toward democracy. Yang uses examples of the fall of the Soviet Union and Taiwan’s democratic elections in the 1990s to explain how although historical determinism does tend to move toward democracy, it is ultimately up to “man” to create his own history.
Chinese people today are equally curious about the past and the future, but seem to be disinterested in the present, as if they already understood very clearly today’s world. In order to cater to the interests of people, Chinese scholars seemingly present ideas as though we lived somewhere else, as if the present were nothing more than a link between a mysterious past and an even more mysterious future.
I’ve always thought that understanding where we stand in the historical context of the present is perhaps more important than understanding the past or the future. Without such an understanding, it is easy to see ourselves as merely the products of our past and/or becoming casualties of the future. The past is certainly very important, but it does not determine the present, nor does it determine our future. Indeed, although there is no way of predicting the future, there is certainly a way of shaping it.
And if we’re going to talk about history, we have to first talk about historical determinism, which, simply, is the course along which history develops [….] However, the fact that this theory has no way of explaining many phenomenon has made it the subject of criticism for many scholars.
For example, we see that since the establishment of America as the first democratic government 230 years ago, over 60% of the countries on the planet have become democratic countries. The theory of historical determinism, then, would say that history has traditionally tended to move in the direction of democracy. It does not, however, explain how it is that that the other countries which should be democratic are still living under autocratic regimes.
And those calling into question [the theory of historical determinism] have their reasons. But they should also consider this: It is understandable that some countries will, for a short time, stray from the course history has set. However, looking at the larger trends taking place, does the absence of primitive societies, and lack of modern-day feudal and slave societies, not prove in itself that history has developed along a certain path? That history occasionally creates detours is unavoidable, but such detours in the long run cannot help from being swept up in the larger tides of history.
We shouldn’t over-analyze the affects that believing in historical determinism could have on our pursuit for free democracy. For example, some may use historical determinism as an excuse for inaction. Such believers may think that as history progresses it will naturally bring with it democracy, and as such fighting for it would be useless. But this constitutes just a small portion of believers. It is also possible that some, because of their belief, will emphatically stand on the correct side of history [and fight for what they believe in].
As for the non-believers, some believe that autocracy will reign for ages, that history has determined eternal authoritarian rule. But there are also some believers with lofty ideals and aspirations who believe that as long as they endeavor to that they can bring democracy to us today. So, although you can negate the existence of historical determinism, history most certainly has its own trajectory. Believe in and learn from history, but don’t follow it blindly. We create our own history.
And since we are discussing history, we need to discuss an even more important element to history, which is “man” [….]
“Man” is historical determinism’s most perplexing element. As everyone who has read a history book knows, behind every crucial juncture in history, behind every moment viewed as being an “inevitable” product of history’s trajectory, stood men and women who rewrote the course of history. This “man” [those who rewrote history, are those which] I speak about.
It would not be the slightest bit of an overstatement to say that the study of humanities at its very core is man. The research of any society or historical phenomenon uncovers the decisions and development of man, because if it were not for man and his decisions then the world would be forever unchanged.
Let’s look at a few examples which illustrate both history’s trajectory as well as how man is its most important element. According to a theory which I’ve tentatively titled as the “70-year limit on autocratic rule theory”, since the end of dynastic rule [in the early 20th century], most countries formally ruled by a autocratic regime have moved away from an autocratic government and toward democracy.
Twenty years ago, an enormous change took place: Seemingly overnight, the collapse of the Soviet Union befuddled not only America and other western countries, but also the Soviet Union itself. How was it that such a gigantic shift occurred?
The key reason why the Soviet Union dissolved after 70 years, but North Korea and Cuba continued [as Communist states] past 1989, is because of the individuals involved. Seventy years after the establishment of the USSR, the founders and the founders’ predecessors had long exited the political stage. The [slogans for change and revolution] that legitimized the original founders’ rule no longer held the same weight with rulers of the 80s.
It is natural for a country’s citizens to call into question the authority of new rulers. Such leaders must legitimize their rule and power through some means, with many prompting economic growth or establishing a democratic government. How long can an authoritarian government rule without a legitimate ruler? History has told us that such countries do not last any longer than 70 years, with the only exception being China’s feudal dynasties.
And what was it about these dynasties which allowed them to perpetuate their rule for tens or in some cases hundreds of years? Aside from being without advanced technology, the most important contributor to the perpetuation of their reign was the legitimacy behind a ruler handing down power to his son. This process of a ruler directly bestowing power to their chosen heir was autocracy’s only stable model for passing on power. The blood ties existing between the old and new solidified the link between past and present [….]
And this idea is something very familiar to Chinese and other Asians. We’ve seen a recent example of this when Chiang Ching-kuo (who received power directly from his father, Chiang Kai-shek) handed down power to Li Teng-hui, but purposely did not appoint an heir to succeed Li Teng-hui. And it was obvious [to many] that Li Teng-hui had no legitimate power. As a result [of Li Teng-hui and the Kuomintang’s weakening power], Li Teng-hui had no choice but to find a way to bring new legitimacy to his power.
At that time, there were few options. One was to continue fighting the mainland, with whom Taiwan was evenly matched militarily. It seemed at that stage that the mainland could have reintegrated the small island with relative ease. However, the mainland’s economic development was leagues ahead of Taiwan’s, and as such resistance seemed a far-fetched way to legitimize Li Teng-hui’s rule.
The second choice was to bolster the economy. Creating a prosperous country which could provide basic needs for its citizens, restoring their happiness and dignity, would be a much stronger way to legitimize power than staring down the barrel of a gun. But Taiwan had already used slogans of “economic development” in the past, as is known with the period of the Four Asian Tigers.
So, [without much of a choice] Li Teng-hui used momentum which had already begun growing for democracy to push for democratic elections, and as a result became one of the founding fathers of Taiwanese democracy. Go look in the history books: it took just about 70 years from the time Chiang Kai-shek took power in the 20s to the time when the first democratic election took place in the 90s. Remember this number [….]
And now let’s look back to 20 years ago to when Eastern Europe began to have enough of Soviet rule. Why was it that the Eastern Europeans had had enough? The answer is simple, really: the rulers of Eastern Europe were not the men and women who originally founded those countries—they were Soviet lackeys whose legitimacy was established and perpetuated by Soviet tanks. Under such circumstances, would it really be possible [for anyone] to maintain peace for long?
At the time, the sudden dissolution of the USSR made many people’s head spin. But history knows better [….] Those who were truly surprised by the demise of the Soviet Union were obviously not thinking clearly. The ultimate difference between countries which can and cannot weather moments of tumultuous political turmoil lies in the legitimacy of their rulers.
And what are the third-, fourth-, fifth-and-so-on-generation successors to do when those who originally legitimized their rule have long left the political stage? I’m afraid that the only method of legitimizing and holding on to power is by staring down the barrel of a gun. [And it’s typical for rulers in such a position] to say, “We are powerful.” Such an approach to legitimizing and holding power is very dangerous.
Read the history books and you’ll see that in 1979, when the Soviet Union was only 60 years old, that its military might and foreign diplomacy was second only to America’s. America and the Soviet Union were two superpowers sharing the world stage. Since then, what other country throughout history has come close to matching America’s might? [….]
Those who have read this far are probably thinking that this “70-year limit on autocratic rule theory” is absolutely the product of historical determinism. And, actually, it’s not, because in all of these changes we’ve seen a number of instances [where “man” has changed the course of history]. And these instances [of historical change] were not anticipated by contemporaries of the time.
If throughout the Soviet Union’s 70-year history its citizens had acted as slaves, then everything would still be the same. If 70 years ago the Soviet Union did not have Gorbachev, then nothing would have changed. If after 70-years of rule, Taiwan’s single-party dictatorship had not used democracy to resolve the political issues which were arising, it is very possible that the Kuomintang would never again have bounced back as they have, to the extent that they are still in power today.
I think that young people [reading] should understand what I’m saying here. The issue is not whether or not history is already determined, or whether or not it follows a pre-determined course. The issue lies with “man”. The past was created by man, the present is created by man, and the future will be created by man.
And don’t you tell me that while other countries are created by man, that we Chinese are created by history. Don’t you feed me the clichés that “special interest groups” are bad, that they create history, that they will never led power slip from their tightly clinched fists, that those around you are too ignorant. This is all nonsense. Are you not also “man”?
So, I leave you with these words of encouragement: the future is not for speculating, or waiting to see what will happen, the future is waiting to be created. As long as everyone works hard together, as long as each individual does their utmost, then we can certainly walk into the future we hope for.
In this article, Yang Hengjun discusses China’s (lack of a) system of values. He believes that despite its bloody past, Europe’s system of universal values serves as a model for China. He believes that if China does not develop a modern system of values soon, the post-80’s generation will only plunge deeper into corruption, taking with it the future of the country
When asked what most worries me about China, I always respond with two issues: the environment and our core system of values. It’s difficult to imagine what would ensue if the 1.3 billion people within China’s 9.6 million square kilometers of land had no common values to hold them together. Such a situation is unfathomable.
Some students believe that democracy in China could very possibly tear the country apart, and it is this “possibility” that many use as an excuse to impede the development of democracy here.
Why is it that democracy would tear us apart? Take Europe, for example. Is its bloody past with its two world wars that much more serious than our own? Such a question is moot, really, as today not only is there no longer any fighting in Europe, but they are also unified.
The last time I was in Europe, I fell asleep on a tour bus after a big meal. I awoke several hours later to discover that during my nap we had passed through three countries. I ask you, could such a thing occur in China? That is, that you could pass between the mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong without having to pay “highway taxes”, or without someone suspicious that you were involved in human trafficking, or without some other nonsense trouble taking place? In particular, look closely at the border present at Luohu Bridge [between Hong Kong and the mainland], with its armed police, customs barricade, and every other thing imaginable necessary [to divide Hong Kong from the mainland]. How could any European see such a thing and believe that we, China, are a unified country?
The gradual process of Europe’s unification has enlightened us. It has taught us that collectively embracing a system of core values and ideals is a crucial element to unifying a long-lasting and harmonious country.
The issue we currently face is that there are some who are impeding the Chinese people’s exposure and acceptance of universal values. These people, incapable of coming up with their own system or philosophy of values, tote old clichés of “values with Chinese characteristics”. But these individuals are incapable of persuading even their own wives and children.
The Chinese people of today have already wasted away the next generation’s resources. Are they also to hold on to the decrepit and draconian values of those who lived 2,000 years ago?
When I speak about this problem, reporters from previous generations say that the post-80’s generation is not the slightest bit interested in politics, democracy, freedom or a system of universal values. They say that the current generation is only interested in their own futures.
I believe that young people’s disinterest in politics is not a bad thing. Western youth living under mature, democratic systems of government often do not follow politics. And indeed young people naturally should focus more on their own lives. A political system which does not warrant the attention of young people is “politics”.
In addition, although these youths do not follow politics on a regular basis, should their government one day begin to affect their lives negatively, such as a case where housing prices skyrocket, or rampant political corruption begins to infect their everyday lives, these youths will no longer not follow politics.
China has recently emerged from a tumultuous era in which Mao Zedong had all people, especially young people, forget their own identity and whole-heartedly dedicate themselves to “politics”. This resulted in an enormous disaster for our people and country.
But I am willing to go one step further with this. Regardless of whether or not you care, universal values and the post-80’s generation are inextricably linked, as China’s acceptance of universal values will ultimately decide the fate of this and proceeding generations.
Let’s go back to the question some students asked so much about before: to leave China, or to stay on the mainland? Frankly, any society, regardless of which values it embraces, or which system it abides by, can provide a considerable amount of opportunities for elite students. In other words, if you believe you can be successful in America, know you can be successful in China.
Notice here, though, that I am talking about the elite students. As for the average young worker, to be straight forward, you are much better off illegally immigrating to America. Due to its high level of economic development, and the assurance of human rights, you are many times over better of going to America than hiding away in Shanghai. Moreover, think back to those Fujian peasants who illegally immigrated to America, accumulated millions of renminbi in personal property, and, after ten years, were able to become naturalized citizens of America. They were even issued a driver’s license, identify card and passport. If, after working yourself to death over many years in Shanghai, could you ever become a “naturalized” Shanghai person?
So, and I want to emphasize this point, here I am talking about the elite, those that, both in America and China, are considered the elite. For these people, China’s rapid development provides vast opportunities to establish new enterprises. It would be no exaggeration to say that those who moved to America would have no worse life here on the mainland.
But I want to ask everyone, where would two people [one who stayed on the Chinese mainland versus the one who went to America], who had the same level of success, differ?
Here, I’ll just state things as they are. The difference between these two people is not in the money they earn, or the size of their house. It is not in the extent of their rights, or whether or not their career has a future. The difference lies in their universal system of values.
Whenever I say “universal system of values”, there are sure to be plenty of people who plant their faces in their hands, or turn up their noses, because they do not believe that this has the slightest relevance to their careers or lives. But this could not be farther from the truth.
Not only is a universal system of values relevant to your career and lives, but it directly affects whether or not you prosper here on earth, whether or not your life has any self worth, and whether or not, long from now, when you die, your soul recognizes your twisted self.
Not only does the system of values a country embraces determine its political system, but it also permeates into every aspect of society. It becomes the primary guiding principle which sets standards for law, morals and ideology. To put it simply, our lives, careers and everything we are associated with is directly derived from and supported by our system of values.
The primary difference between a successful American and a successful Chinese is the price they pay for their success. I am not talking about the cash or time value, but instead about a difference as stark as night and day.
Can you tell me that it is possible for a Chinese public official, who wants to advance in his career, to not overtly disregard his conscience by giving and accepting bribes, and bowing and scraping on his hands and knees for the favor of those above him? Is it possible for one who does not follow in the foot steps of others in this way to “advance”? Could you feel secure as a business man in China if you did not collude with bigwigs? Could you succeed if you did not heed to their every word and laugh at their jokes?
Undoubtedly people will respond to this by saying, “Well, after all, they are successful [so what does it matter?].” But, what is the meaning of “success”? If one really thought, [after they had committed such immoral acts], that they were successful, then they would not send their child abroad as soon as they had the money to do so. If such an individual were really that successful, why wouldn’t they want their child to follow in their steps?
Don’t think that it’s because they think they’ll get caught. Trust me, the amount of corrupt officials who are caught and locked away is smaller than the amount of people you pass on the road who are hit and killed by cars each day. Such people are fully aware of the price they have paid for “success”, and they do not want their own children to be exposed to such corruption. And even the most corrupt have enough conscience to do this [to send their children away].
But, of course, none of the elite here [the readers] have progressed to this level. However, once an individual is amidst the reality of Chinese society, where there are no restrictions on values, everything they do will be at the over-reaching mercy of their bosses and the organization for which they work. Only those who were born with a slave mentality, and are willing to suffer in silence, will hold onto their character, happiness and dignity—but only for a short time. These individuals, in order to advance, will slowly grind dull their conscience and innate character. This is the price you must pay to “advance”. And if you innately do not have these things, character, happiness and dignity, then you are much more fortunate than those who do, as you will not have to endure the pain of losing them.
If the only path to success were through back doors, ass-kissing and corruption, then there’s nothing more that we could say. However, the thought of a healthy system which embraces rich, common, universal human values, a system which does not predicate the destruction of our character and dignity, a place where we can be successful, is a system worth considering.
So, the system of values a country embraces is inextricably linked to the fate of that country’s youth.
As for going abroad or staying on the mainland, I feel that if you have no interest in politics whatsoever, and want to succeed without having to pay the price of sacrificing your soul, go abroad. But if you feel that no matter what career you follow, be it business or becoming a public official, that you can hold on to your soul, if you believe that in the near future China will have a system of values that will benefit the masses, and that you can contribute your talents to such a system, stay in China. We need you here. Here, you have a bright future.
In this post, Yang Hengjun discusses his experience with a group of University of Hong Kong students during a recent lecture titled “Peddler of Democracy Looks Ahead to China’s Future”. Yang Hengjun discusses how his initial focus on raising issues of China’s future led instead to an exploration of the importance democracy will play in lives of post-80’s generation youths.
Discussing the Post-80’s Generation
Every year before and after the Spring Festival and at the start or end of a school semester, standing at the Guangzhou train station you will see red-eyed parents sobbing inside train cars. Separated from their children by the glass of the window, parents weep, not wanting to leave them. Such scenes are unbearable even to strangers. However, what makes such situations more difficult to bear is the thought that the departing parents leave behind children whose faces are filled with indifference, as if the departing parents were not the child’s parents at all.
This, perhaps, aside from being something unique to the high traffic time of the Spring Festival, is a uniquely Chinese characteristic. Though I’m not sure if there is any relevant department keeping statistics of exactly how many parents have no choice but to leave their children behind in their former home towns and villages as they head out to work elsewhere, I’d have to guess that the number reaches well over 10 million.
Train stations are certainly not the only area where loved ones depart from one another’s arms. At the airport, for example, you will witness another sight: parents, heart broken at having to let their sons and daughters go, stare at the customs gate, behind which their children disappear as they leave to study abroad. The difference between these two scenes is that the parents at the train station belong to the society’s lower class of peasants, whereas the airport parents are society’s upper-class elite. The similarity: both groups of parents, for the betterment of their children, are willing to endure the pain of separating.
The two paragraphs above come from a recent discussion I had with students at the University of Hong Kong’s News Media Research Center. Perhaps only on the Chinese mainland can one witness with such frequency the scenes described above.
Amidst turbulent change, Chinese people are pursuing a better life in hopes that they can achieve their ideals. In such pursuit, they leave their wives and children, their young and old, in villages far behind. To leave, or to stay? Although this question does not carry the same life or death consequences as Hamlet’s “to be or not to be”, it does, very often, change one’s fate. This is the question I proposed to HKU’s post-80’s generation during a recent lecture.
On the tenth of this month, the lecture I held at HKU was titled, “Peddler of Democracy Looks Ahead to China’s Future”. (Terrifying, isn’ it? The content was more so, and as such this post may not be up for long.) As most of those that had been invited to attend were academic scholars and experts, I was understandably quite shocked to see that the lecture had attracted mostly young people. Due to such a turn out, I chose to emphasize China’s growth and future in the lecture.
After the lecture, I was asked more questions than I could answer. What was more intriguing, however, than the amount of questions asked, was that although my lecture was focused on discussing China’s future, the students in attendance were more concerned about discussing their own futures. Professors Chen Wanjing and Gang Qian both suggested we arrange an additional discussion, but on a smaller scale, where interested students could gather in order to continue discussing the issue at hand.
The day of the second discussion, around twenty undergraduate and graduate students came to participate. Most of these students were mainland exchange students who had come to HKU to study. In every respect, they could all be labeled post-80’s generation students of good fortune. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to hear their opinions and to offer my own advice. On that day, our discussion prompted me to write a series of blog posts centered around our “post-80’s generation discussions”.
Although this series of blog posts will indeed touch upon the issues that arose in those discussions, I will not limit myself to just those discussions. As everyone knows, most of my readers, as well as those who frequently leave comments on the blog, are young people. Of the thousands of emails I receive each year from these readers, many of them surprisingly do not raise the issue of democracy, or ask questions relevant to the content of the blog, but instead many ask questions about their lives, work and future, and hope to hear my advice.
I have to admit that at first I was a little depressed. I thought to myself, little brothers and sisters, you have chosen me to act as your adviser and confidant? I am trying to discuss with you the future of our country and the fate of our people, and instead you tell me your plans for the future and ask for my suggestions. I am a peddler of democracy not a psychic; or would you so easily have me help you mastermind some scheme for your future?
Eventually, a friend pointed something out to me: I should not at all be depressed with this situation, but instead be amused. He said, “What country’s future is so far divorced from the fate of its people that it escapes the minds of its youth? That young people are not making this connection is bullshit. The reason that your declarations of democracy and universal values attract the attention of many young people is not because your words simply move them to look upward to the stars, but because your words awaken within them a sense of self. It is precisely because your thoughts on democracy are not bullshit that they turn to you for advice about their futures. The idea of democracy is something very close to them. It keeps their feet on the ground….”
And that makes sense. As long as discussions of democracy are not simply for the purposes of academic exploration, an individual whose thoughts on democracy disinterest young people obviously has a deep flaw in his or her presentation. A young person’s disinterest in democracy cannot be blamed on brainwashing. Thinking this, I was as elated as Ah Q. But then I realized, since it was my ideas of democracy that were responsible for enticing others so that they now desired to participate in such discussions, I was now responsible for answering their questions.
The problem with this is that throughout this time I have found these questions difficult to answer. I had originally thought I saw clearly the future of our country and people. However, I don’t believe now that I have a clearer vision of this than any one else.
There is no issue more important to a country than that of the future of a country’s people. Such an issue is more important than the sum total of any one person’s personal problems. And as such, we should not be the least bit casual or hasty in discussing these issues. Especially for those young people who have fostered a fondness and respect for me, I should be more prudent in progressing with these issues. Starting today, let these posts stand as an answer and explanation to the questions and inquiries I never clearly answered in the past.
I want to thank the HKU post-80’s generation students who attended the lecture for giving me the opportunity to sit and speak together with them. I also want to thank those who were in attendance who I did not have the opportunity to sit down and speak with. I’m sure I could have learned a great deal from you as well. I especially want to thank my readers. In the following posts, I will discuss issues faced by our country’s youth during this time of turbulent change; issues which touch upon democracy and universal values.
However, before this, we cannot avoid the question asked by many of the lecture’s audience members on that day. This question, for them, is a very practical question, for they, at this very moment, are stepping on the country’s doorstep. They are the mainland students facing the first question discussed above: to go abroad and continue advancing studies, or stay on the Chinese mainland?
As a peddler of democracy, I have failed. Free democracy has not come to China. Instead, the thought of crossing Luohu Bridge in search of freedom, or crossing the Atlantic in the pursuit of democracy, has entranced the hearts of masses of youth. Instead of ideas of free democracy importing youth, it is causing them to leave.
Actually, going home or going abroad, this question can only be answered by looking at one’s personal situation. When you ask me, the only thing I can do is talk about my personal experience, and help you understand the situation abroad and at home. For example, going abroad has what disadvantages, staying in China has what advantages. And these disadvantages and advantages will differ from person to person. However, there is one point that is very similar for all, and that is that a superior person, an upward bound and hard-working person, under any circumstances, domestic or abroad, can find their own place in the world.
I hope that we can, throughout the course of these posts, find our place in the world together.
This is part one in a series. Look for part two coming soon!