|
Yongyi Defends Record Against Students’ Charges
To the Editor:
I am writing in response to the letter to the Editor of March 9 by
[junior] Jeffery Chan and [sophomore] Erika Cline of Oberlin College.
Harsh though their criticism of my lecture was and much as I wish they
had raised the questions during the lecture, I welcome their comments
and thank your paper for providing a forum for me to share my views with
these two young students and your readers. As one who spent four years
behind the bars during the Cultural Revolution for expressing my own
views and six months recently for my independent research, I appreciate
and, in fact, relish such an opportunity for a meaningful dialogue. And
I cannot help but wish that millions of Chinese college students could
enjoy the same freedom of speech that Chan and Cline take as their
natural right. The last time Chinese students attempted to freely air
their political views in public was 1989, and we all know what happened
— the Chinese government silenced them with the language it knows
best: bullets and tanks.
First, it seems that Chan and Cline are still not convinced that I was
conducting legitimate research when I was arrested in China, as they
wrote in their letter: “Having been arrested in China for
‘researching’ on the Cultural Revolution.” As Chan and Cline may
or may not recall, I indicated in my speech that the Chinese government
released me without any charges. They tried everything but could not
find any evidence to make their case. If these two students have new
information that can help raise suspicion about the legitimacy of my
research, I would like to hear it and forward it to the Chinese
government, as I am sure it is never too late for the Chinese secret
police to prove its infallibility.
Second, Chan and Cline observed that my talk “muddled the
differentiation between Chinese government and people as if the Chinese
government and people were a single evil entity.” However, their
criticism seems to defy logic. I was criticizing the Chinese
government’s egregious abuse of the basic human rights of the Chinese
people. The human rights issue is about a government’s action and
behavior toward its citizens, as I clearly indicated in my opening
remarks during the speech. How Chan and Cline arrived at the conclusion
that I put the abusers and the abused in the same basket and
characterize them as a single evil entity without any substantiation is
simply beyond my ken.
Third, although Chan and Cline reluctantly acknowledged, “China might
not have a commendable human rights record,” they insisted that I
“cannot use these Western paradigms as a model for Asian societies…
Throughout China’s 5000 years of history, the masses lived as farmers
in a society dominated by an agrarian society.” This is familiar
rhetoric often expressed by the Chinese government spokespersons when
forced to defend their human rights record. I am dumbfounded that this
time it came from two Oberlin College students. While Chan and Cline
obviously enjoy many freedoms in this country, they were in fact
suggesting that it is perfectly understandable and acceptable to them
that their Chinese counterparts are denied such basic rights just
because they are from Asian agrarian societies with a long history. Chan
and Cline should know as students of this prestigious college that when
the United States was founded, it was also an agrarian society with a
bunch of farmers considered by the British as unworthy of basic human
rights and dignity. Should the forefathers of this great nation have
accepted their fate as inferior creatures and waited for the “ripe
moment” to expel the British and claim their basic human rights?
In fact, even the Chinese government, realizing that it could no longer
use the feeble argument that China should have different human rights
standards, recently signed and ratified an important United Nations
human rights treaty, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights. Although there is every reason to believe that the
Chinese government will not seriously abide by this treaty, it has at
least recognized that its old copouts for its horrendous human rights
record, the ones that Chan and Cline used in their letter and seemed to
genuinely believe in, have become a lost argument and can no longer be
effectively used to fool people.
Fourth, Chan and Cline noted “noteworthy improvement regarding freedom
of speech” in China. They wrote, “For example, the Chinese feel much
more free to openly critique their leaders.” Unfortunately, Chan and
Cline have confused a dictatorial government’s weakening inability to
control its people with government benevolence. In fact, the very
limited progress people in China have made can only serve as clear
evidence that Chinese people are fighting for their rights. I challenge
Chan and Cline to find one article or television clip from the Chinese
media that critiqued and joked about the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin,
with impunity. And I want Chan and Cline to tell the news of
“noteworthy improvement regarding freedom of speech” to Mr. Qi
Yanchen, Huang Qi, Jiang Shihua and so on who were arrested and
sentenced recently because of posting their displeasure with the Chinese
Communist Party on the Internet, and to the 10,000-plus Fa Lungong
practitioners who have been sent to labor camps without trial. Should
all these be counted as “noteworthy improvement” in China
today?
Fifth, Chan and Cline accused me of basing my judgment on my personal
experience only and lacking in research on human rights. Nothing can be
further from the truth. In point of fact, I based my comments and
lecture on personal experiences as well as over 100 credible sources. I
strongly urge the skeptics of human rights violations in China to read
reports released by independent non-government organizations such as
Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which criticize both the
Chinese government and the U.S. government. I suggest that Chan and
Cline check these organizations’ reports on China’s human rights
record before labeling my observations “biased” and
“opinionated.”
Finally, while Chan and Cline insisted that my views do not “reflect
those of the majority of the Chinese people,” they confidently
proclaimed, “the Chinese people feel much more free to openly critique
their leaders.” Interestingly, while I never claimed I spoke on behalf
the majority of the Chinese people, I do wonder why Chan and Cline felt
they knew what the majority of the Chinese people were thinking. The
fact of the matter is neither Chan and Cline nor I can speak for the
Chinese people. Only the Chinese people can speak for themselves. The
sad truth is that the Chinese people can never speak for themselves
until their basic human rights, the ones that Chan and Cline believe the
Chinese people are not ready for yet, are given back to them.
The enormous difficulties notwithstanding, I am convinced that freedom,
democracy and basic human rights will eventually prevail in China as
they did elsewhere. The day will surely come when every Chinese college
student can speak and write as freely as Chan and Cline can today.
–Yongyi Song
Dickinson College
|
|
Administration
Discusses Assault
Senator:
Review Edit
Right-On
Rethink
Traditional Gender Roles
Oberlin
College's Generosity Must Touch All Children
Oberlin's
History of Liberalism Misleading, Carr Says
Students
Tell of Security Encounter
Review
Continues to Trailblaze
Yongyi
Defends Record Against Student's Charges
Straight
Privilege Just as Pervasive as White Privilege
Miller
Discusses Upcoming Play
Review
Was Negligent Schwemmer
Responds to Cartoon's Reception La
Alianza Latina Demands Action
|