Hu 8 points

[quote]

  1. Love, do not harm the motherland.
  2. Serve, don’t disserve the people.
  3. Uphold science; don’t be ignorant and unenlightened.
  4. Work hard; don’t be lazy and hate work.
  5. Be united and help each other; don’t gain benefits at the expense of others.
  6. Be honest and trustworthy, not profit-mongering at the expense of your values.
  7. Be disciplined and law-abiding instead of chaotic and lawless.
  8. Know plain living and hard struggle, do not wallow in luxuries and pleasures.[/quote]

If Hu is serious about transforming China and issuing moral decrees, then I believe Taiwan should take the time to understand mainland jargon so that less conflicts can erupt in the future.

Good start Hu; but we both know the list doesn’t end there. Some further suggestions:

  1. Cover-up an AIDS outbreak in Henan.
  2. Work your guanxi to get your kids educated at American schools.
  3. Become a fire-breathing Chinese academic at the CASS.
  4. Use your position in the military to set-up a toilet factory in Guangzhou.
  5. Out a member of falungong.
  6. Put down a rural uprising driven by illegal land aquisitions.
  7. Encourage a rural uprising to protest Japanese history books.
  8. Get a US passport.

Any more you can think of?

Good comeback Guangtou.

At least HU made some attempt at defining virtues - its a start, but unlikely anyone will listen.

CNN also said HU stated 8 no’s as well. What were they?

The 8 no’s are also incorporated into the above. Notice the “Do… Don’t…” form of the text. Collectively, the 8 are known as “八荣八耻”… which I’d translate as “eight forms of glory, eight forms of shame”.

And guangtou, I’d just note that I find it rather dysfunctional of Western political philosophy as a whole, that governments are made targets of criticism for the actions they have taken, as opposed to being targets of criticisms for the actions they have failed to take. It’s really another reflection of the difference between traditional “Western” and “Eastern” values.

The political traditions of European thinkers generally inspire the feeling that governments are, by their nature, a necessary evil that must be limited as much as possible. A limited government will, of course, free their societies to reach the greatest heights of human achievement.

For example, on any given day, a democratic Indian or Brazillian government leaves millions of their citizens illiterate, dying of easily curable diseases, and begging on the urban streets. Disappointing, perhaps, but not worthy of protest. For that matter, tens of millions live in stone age conditions in sub-saharan Africa every day, but none of that is really news-worthy either. It’s one thing to be left ignorant, infected with disease, and starving… but don’t anyone DARE deny these people the right to vote and a free media!

But, god forbid a government starts to act in dictatorial and anti-democratic ways (Mugabe)… why, if that happens, people might really start suffering in these regions!

In the Eastern tradition, in contrast, government has the direct responsibility to develop and manage her society. Government has been no different than the head of a household or the head of a business. I’d be horrified by a boss who’s only goal in life was to limit his influence on the actions + development of his employees.

I pose a simple observation:

  • no one smuggles himself + his family into democratic India, despite its excellent legal protections + political rights;

  • and yet many smuggle themselves + their families into authoritarian nations where they have no political + legal rights… all for the goals of achieving a higher standard of living.

If Hu’s “8 glories” can deliver China a high standard of living, then all hand-wringing aside, many will be smuggling themselves into China as well.

These eight points don’t seem so appealing, unless you’re interested in starting a cult:

  1. “Love does not harm to a neighbor, therefore Love is the fulfillment of the law” Romans 13:10
  2. “If today you will be a servant to these people and serve them and give them a favorable answer, they will always be your servants.” Kings 12:7
  3. Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called. Timothy 6:20
  4. The one who does the work should be given his food. Matthew 10:10
  5. If a person can help others, he must help others. If a person can teach, he must teach. Romans 12:7
  6. So stop telling lies. Tell the truth to each other. Ephesians 4:25
  7. We show that we love God when we obey his laws. 1 John 5:3
  8. Do not let the love of money control your life. Be satisfied with what you have. Hebrews 13:5

Or from the Tao Te Ching:

  1. Love the world [the motherland] as your own self; then you can truly care for all things.
  2. Therefore the sage takes care of all men and abandons no one. Chapter 27
  3. Knowing ignorance is strength. Ignoring knowledge is sickness. Chapter 71
  4. Retire when the work is done. Chapter 9
  5. The sage never tries to store things up. The more he does for others, the more he has. The more he gives to others, the greater his abundance. Chapter 81
  6. In dealing with others, be gentle and kind. In speech, be true. Chapter 8
  7. Set things in order before there is confusion. Chapter 64
  8. Their food is plain and good, their clothes fine but simple, their homes secure; They are happy in their ways. Chapter 80

You’ve got some good points, cctang. But c’mon, who really believes Hu?!

[quote=“cctang”]The 8 no’s are also incorporated into the above. Notice the “Do… Don’t…” form of the text. Collectively, the 8 are known as “八荣八耻”… which I’d translate as “eight forms of glory, eight forms of shame”.

And guangtou, I’d just note that I find it rather dysfunctional of Western political philosophy as a whole, that governments are made targets of criticism for the actions they have taken, as opposed to being targets of criticisms for the actions they have failed to take. It’s really another reflection of the difference between traditional “Western” and “Eastern” values.

The political traditions of European thinkers generally inspire the feeling that governments are, by their nature, a necessary evil that must be limited as much as possible. A limited government will, of course, free their societies to reach the greatest heights of human achievement.

For example, on any given day, a democratic Indian or Brazillian government leaves millions of their citizens illiterate, dying of easily curable diseases, and begging on the urban streets. Disappointing, perhaps, but not worthy of protest. For that matter, tens of millions live in stone age conditions in sub-saharan Africa every day, but none of that is really news-worthy either. It’s one thing to be left ignorant, infected with disease, and starving… but don’t anyone DARE deny these people the right to vote and a free media!

But, god forbid a government starts to act in dictatorial and anti-democratic ways (Mugabe)… why, if that happens, people might really start suffering in these regions!

In the Eastern tradition, in contrast, government has the direct responsibility to develop and manage her society. Government has been no different than the head of a household or the head of a business. I’d be horrified by a boss who’s only goal in life was to limit his influence on the actions + development of his employees.

I pose a simple observation:

  • no one smuggles himself + his family into democratic India, despite its excellent legal protections + political rights;

  • and yet many smuggle themselves + their families into authoritarian nations where they have no political + legal rights… all for the goals of achieving a higher standard of living.

If Hu’s “8 glories” can deliver China a high standard of living, then all hand-wringing aside, many will be smuggling themselves into China as well.[/quote]

Alas, you forget that sometimes the employees have better ideas than the boss.

That is one of the weaknesses I see in Asian businesses. It’s a complete top-down structure. In my opinion, lateral thinking is far more effective for efficient operations.

I saw this news on CNN last night, and now I see, yes, the 8 yes and the 8 no are all in one package.

I like it. COnfucius writ large. Good for Chinese to think about and practice in daily life. I am sure Time and Newsweek will do a big story about this next issue. Actually, if the entire world followed Hu’s list, it would be a much better place. Good thinking, although I am sure he did not write that list, it was a committee job. Nice though.

Good on Hu! Good on commie China. Maybe they will become free someday…

shawn_c:

I don’t expect a lot to change because of these 8 phrases. The Pope claims to speak for God, but no one in China thinks Hu Jintao speaks for anyone but himself. He’s respected and liked, but he’s not “obeyed”. But even that said, it’s nice to see the conversation turned to a form of morality that’s practical and applicable to the average Chinese individual, as opposed to the emulation of a mythical ‘revolutionary hero’ like Lei Feng.

STOP_Ma:
A smart boss will still listen to ideas from his employees, even as she maintains the responsibility that comes with authority. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

[quote=“cctang”]
STOP_Ma:
A smart boss will still listen to ideas from his employees, even as she maintains the responsibility that comes with authority. These two things aren’t mutually exclusive.[/quote]

And from what I’ve observed, the Asian boss is less likely to listen to her employees than the western boss. And certainly, Asian employees are less likely to provide input. There is more of an authoritarian structure here.

I think you might be underselling me there CCT… In other contexts, I have taken people to task for much the same kind of issue you’re raising. I attended a conference in Japan a while back on “Democracy and Free Markets” - neither or which, frankly, the various participants knew very much about.

Anyway, as everyone was getting carried away glorifying the ballot box, I raised the very simple issue that it would be difficult to choose between a “decent government,” measured in terms of outcomes and irrespective of procedural form, and a democratic one. This, of course, sparked an extended debate about “decency” - but then, the notion is no more difficult to get your head around than “democracy.” We become acutely aware of what both look like in their absence!

Anyway, the point is, there are other yardsticks of good government, and some of us from non-Eastern backgrounds (mouthful that) give them credence. I admire the way China’s economy has performed in the Deng/post Deng period, and I take my hat off to the Chinese people for it. The reduction of absolute poverty from 30% of the population in 1978, to less than 3% now is extraordinary and worthly of praise. You will agree, however, this period of wealth creation was a long time coming…

But praise is only due where it’s earned… IMHO human beings deserve both a full belly and as much political liberty as practicable. China has performed well on the first count, but badly on the second - my chip at comrade Hu was intended as a comment on the sad reality that IS political development in contemporary China. Chinese people DO want more than a full belly. This is to be respected and encouraged.

A final aside, just in case you raise the point: I believe good economics (growth with equity) and good politics (decent and democratic govt) can be achieved TOGETHER. Governments that fail to strive on both fronts are not pulling their weight.

guangtou:

We have subtly different perspectives from the get-go. I believe in the importance of having a government that preserves for me the “right to pursue happiness”. It’s not at all clear to me that this is the same as your definition of “political liberty”. Again, it’s clear that many choose to live in a society and country where they do not have even the most basic of “political liberty”: the right to vote for a representative government… for example, all the European ex-pats who live in Hong Kong or Taiwan.

What’s important to me is a high standard of living economically, intellectually, and socially. I want the “freedom” to live in prosperity, to travel, to explore, to learn, to develop my mind… and I want the “freedom” of not being negatively affected by the “exploration” of others around me. I don’t mind paying taxes in whatever form, but I want government to give me responsible services that will preserve all of the above. I also want the “freedom” to live in a stable society where my focus doesn’t need to be on the existence of politics.

It’s all about balance, in the very Taoist sense of the word. There’s no penultimate state of ecstasy that human society will ever achieve. There’s no meal to end all meals, and no paycheck to end all paychecks. I want a content, satisfied life, protected from the evils and risks of the natural world around me. That’s about it.

Democracy should be a debate about the mechanism of bringing about the above, bringing about the “decent” government that you mention. Democracy is just a tool that human societies might choose to apply to bring us closer to the above state. Democracy should absolutely not be the goal of human development, and I don’t know what twisted view of the world ever caused us to think otherwise.

I will gladly choose life in “authoritarian” Singapore or Shenzhen over life in the slums of India or Mexico. I’m neither shallow nor materialistic for thinking this way; I also know I’m far from being alone.

A thoughtful post CCT. Let me tease out a few threads.

I think we might be might be bumping up against the Rawlsian difference between “freedom from” and “freedom to” here, though I’m not exactly sure. But if that’s the case, then yes, we do differ. I tend to emphasize negative constraints on freedom more than positive empowerment. I like, in a very postmodern sense, the right to tell people in power they are wrong.

This said, I don’t dismiss the “freedom to” perspective, and this indirectly speaks to the substance of my earlier post. I had a reasonably good education, much of it paid for out of the public purse. This has given me the freedom to do things that most people in the world could only dream about (teach English in Taiwan?? well maybe…). In this context, it would be the height of hypocrisy to then suggest, for the sake of some ideal notion of freedom from coercion, that others should pay their way entirely.

But only to an extent. You mentioned the expat choice to live in HK and Taiwan… I can’t speak for others, and you yourself probably share more in common with the motives of many of my colleagues here than I do, but an important part of the reason I live in Taiwan is, most assuredly, the politics.

The promise of political liberty, of one day this place growing up and letting me have a vote, is one part of why I stick around. Occasionally I get glimpses of this maturity and it makes me proud to be a part of the comtemporary experiment that is Taiwan. It’s rarely enough on a day to day basis to keep he happy here, but whenever I look at the lowly paycheck I make, I think about the half dozen friends I have here that really do think of me as Taiwanese. Each one of them would be happy to see me vote in a local election, and this is generally enough to keep me going.

Finally, while I agree there is “no penultimate state of ecstasy that human society will ever achieve” - I like this sentence and may steal it from you at some stage - I do believe in social progress. Take the institution of property, for example. This has deep roots in British political thinking that dates all the way back to the Magna Carta. At one time, not so very long ago, the idea that any commoner could actually own things was unthinkable - even his/here own labor. But now, it’s a foolish government indeed that doesn’t give private property at least some credence.

And why? Property is the basis of any economic system that produces growth and wealth. Sure, it can have multiple forms (Chinese TVEs), but if you don’t have it, you’re fucked. We’ve learnt that lesson very well over the last 200 years with both positive and negative examples - and the last 50 years of Chinese economic history couldn’t be more demonstrative.

“No meal to end all meals”? Maybe, but your chances of obtaining a content, satisfied life CCT is infinitely greater today because someone dreamed-up, fought for and codified the crazy idea that your paycheck is indeed yours alone. That’s social progress in my view (i.e. rather than mere technological development or wealth accumulation), and it also just happens to be a key component of the “freedom from” conception of liberty.

Best
GT.

guangtou,

Appreciate the kind comments, and the chance to discuss at a level we too rarely see on this forum.

I think you’re right: human society does advance and improve over time. You point to the legalized preservation of “property”… I’d probably point to concepts like “law”, “duty”, “filial actions”, and “nation” as abstractions that didn’t exist once… but were eventually adopted by the Chinese people. Clearly, humans are progressing over time.

This progress, however, is far from linear. I’d cynically point out that our forefathers living in caves 500,000 years ago probably already had a well-developed sense of “property”, before other men conspired to redefine this term. Europe’s feudal Middle Ages ended with the Magna Carta. China’s feudal imperial age ended with the Communist revolution. Two very different paths of human progress, and I’m not yet sure which one will be the ultimate solution even on this simple point.

The conflict before the “Modern” Age was between those who owned land, and those who did not. Land was the fundamental productive asset, as critical as water and labor. Those who possessed it could exploit those who did not… and exploit it, they did. In the 21st century, land is no longer critical. I can live in a comfortable rented apartment for the rest of my days without fear anyone will be able to claim an unfair share of my labor. But that might not represent the end of history, as you might suggest. In the new “knowledge economy”, those who possess knowledge and education are the new land-owners. Those with access to consistent, quality education might become the new feudal lords of the 21st century… ruling over the ignorant, and exploiting their labors for their own wealth.

That is to say, the challenges that human society faces changes dramatically with time, as human society itself changes.

Finally, on the issue of you and your own personal liberty in Taiwan, allow me to pose another litmus test. If you were told today that you would never be given citizenship and the right to vote in Taiwan, but all of your other rights would continue to be protected… would you pack up and leave, tomorrow? I think I know how most ex-pats would answer that question.