木兰栏

版权声明：转载时请以超链接形式标明文章原始出处和作者信息及本声明
http://magnoliacolumn.blogbus.com/logs/47251521.html

The course instructed by my supervisor is Deliberative Democracy and Framing. I didn't take this course but two of my seniors are taking it. Then we realized that Chinese students and American student substantially differ with regard to the democracy-related issues. They are keen on talking about how to improve deliberation hopefully to achieve the real democracy, while we are always criticizing it with skepticism. Or saying, we utterly and totally unbelieve in the root argument of the so-called democracy which does serve as their deep-seated belief. Indeed, on the topic of democracy, we Chinese people are always indifferent as we are used to asking a question: Is it really essential for our daily life?

It's not hard to imagine why we ask such a question. Taking each political institution as a single political trial from myriads of sampling trials over the history, they might have proved to be the best trial in the history, although it's still disputable, while we have undoubtedly evidenced to be the most durable one, indicating that from the perspective of probability theory, our sampling variance is smaller than theirs.  Microcosmically, we all have been cultivated as a pragmaticist never having interests in becoming a “cannon-fodder ”of the so-called democracy. Since it means in vain in our daily life, at least at this stage, why do we bother to investigate its potence. I overtly expressed my apathy towards this issue and my advisor probably cannot help.

One-party dictatorship is tolerable, without voting-rights does still work, even saying, imposing limitations on free-speech is somehow understandable in some particular situations. In nature, I'm cognitively and mentally open to authoritarian, which sounds like I'm not deserving the name as a journalist. However, without special preference to democracy over other political instituions does not mean I like being fooled by stupid, irrational and conruptive authorities.   

Yesterday, I re-read Luxun's《娜拉走后怎样》coz we chatted about this article with my supervisor who said a question arised with the foundation of PRC, "娜拉走后怎样？" Upon reading it, I cannot help wondering why we need political critics in modern time! Who can override Luxun in terms of astuteness or incisiveness? Who can surpass Luxun in their fairness or selflessness? Then I cannot help abstracting some of his words to my mini-blog. Tragedy did happen! The system reminded me of my post being censored due to some sensitive words exisiting. Come on! I just abstracted some words from my secondary school textbook.

Even if it's under censorship, I still held a good wish that the censorship system could be finally aware that my posts were just abstract from Luxun's article without any intentions to challenge anything. I had such experience before when I posted, the system indicating some sensitive words being censored, but after a while, the posts appeared if they found the content was harmless. For example, once my posts contained a word "练*功", they reminded me of the sensitivity, but a few minutes later, the posts appeared as I was just talking about martial arts. But this time seemed different. The system sent me an in-site message ten minutes later, notifying me that my posts contained sensitive information not allowed.

Then I tried again using 自*由 to replace the Chinese character of freedom, finding it did work, with posts appearing instantly after submission, which means the Chinese character of freedom is potentially harmful for my dear authorities and the general public. Isn't it ridiculous though?

At this time, I'm thinking that perhaps democracy has its righteousness. At least it can keep someone from acting nonsense. And the most disgusting is that the damned stupid authority never admits its nature as autharitarian, never admists we are lack of free-speech and always treats those having complaining words as "minority rebles", which makes me somehow admire and respect Singapore government.

Compared to China's reign who always sneaks covertly, Singapore government likes putting everything on table, implementing their control in the framework of its effective and professional legal system. Their protection of itself from the Western democracy is a proactive strategy by which they frankly admit their current situations of strong state control, limitations of freedom to some extent, and smartly explain why they prioritize this approach over the Western democracy, rather than a passive and resistant one operated by our state. Just like what Han Sanping said, we are used to acting as a 怨妇, never enjoying our status quo no matter in terms of daily life or the big environment.

Without doubt, Singapore government's self-confidence to admit its situation and political principles is deeply rooted in their internal efficacy in working as a Good Government. Its professionalism, incorruptness and high efficiency incredibly distinguishes its aurhorities from any other one-party state. At least they hardly execute covert trials. One-party institution can certainly find its legitimacy from its blood or origin, its history or culture. We accept and tolerate or even enjoy its sovereign power. However, pardon me, such action like putting the word "freedom" in the sensitive word filtering system is really challenging my IQ.

I think maybe we don't even have any qualifications to come up with the question asked at the very beginning: Domocracy, is it really essential for our daily life? Our problem is neither domocracy nor dictatorship, neither one-party nor mass voting; our problem is how to embark on a great exodus from becoming an idiot.

P.S. You cannot imagine how I hate writing English in my weblog which makes me feel sneaking. But is there any other way in which I can bypass the awfully rigid censorship? Simplified-Chinese is the most dangerous and fragile language in the world.