Ms Weng heckles President Hu Jintau
By: Ali Ismail
0778-842 5262 (United Kingdom)
aliismail_uk@yahoo.co.uk
THE USA APOLOGIES TO CHINA OVER DISSIDENT OUTBURST
In the third world ranges of thought and conduct are unacceptable
This morning I was surprised to learn on BBC Radio 3 that the American government has humbly apologised to the government of the People’s Republic of China about an untoward incident on the lawn of the White House when the President of China, Hu Jintau, was heckled by a protester.
My argument is that the series of events which lead to the protest and the subsequent apology are symptoms of some of the psychological travails which torment all our Asian nations, including Bangladesh and China, and, generally, the third world.
I believe that an apparent unwillingness to tolerate diverse belief systems and behaviours are endemic in almost all the third world countries and explain, in great measure, why they are lagging behind the West and that, in this regard, China for all its technological progress, can be lumped together with us.
Specifically, what seems to have happened is that on April 21, while President Hu and President Bush (Junior) were posing for photographers and film crews on the lawn, a member of a cult called Falun Gong which is also known as Falun Dafa shouted abuse at President Hu.
It turns out that the aforesaid protester was a journalist for The Epoch Times newspaper which is associated with Falun Gong and had used her press card to enter the White House lawn as an accredited journalist who had attended previous press events at the White House grounds without any untoward incident. She is Weng Weng Yi, 47, and a practitioner of Falun Gong.
Ms Weng had shouted: “President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong!” in English and in Chinese: “President Hu, your days are numbered!”
Despite the apology from the Americans, this incident no doubt had the desired effect of embarrassing the visiting Chinese president and publicising the state of civil freedoms (or lack of them) in the People’s Republic which is anxious to present itself as a fully paid up member of the modern world and a leading nation among the nations.
Since the outburst on the White House lawn is not exactly how the authorities over here or in China for that matter want that country to be perceived I did some elementary research to seek to discover what characteristics the Falun Gong possessed to attract the ire of the Chinese government.
It seems that this cult, which has been illegal in the People’s Republic since 1999, is just another Far Eastern group which advocates the gaining of wisdom and health through a combination of meditations and exercises. The ancient Japanese adage “movement is non-movement and non-movement is movement” comes to mind. By the way, that teaching underpins the philosophy of judo and karate.
Delving deeper, I discovered that Falun Dafa (the extended form of Falun Gong) is part and parcel of Qigong which is an umbrella term encompassing the various schools of Tai Chi and some of the “soft” Chinese martial arts. It seems that “qi” (chi) means “energy” and gong means “skill” so that Qigong means “exercises to embrace (strengthen) the immune system.”
The Falun Gong worldwide association states, in such a way that I am inclined to believe it, that it teaches such virtues as truthfulness and benevolence. There are Falun Gong groups operating all over the Western world without attracting hostility from the authorities and at this time it is only in the People’s Republic – an Asiatic country – that the authorities have deemed fit to outlaw it.
Since Falun Gong is non-political and could be described as a school of meditation this is surprising when seen from the West. It becomes even more surprising when one considers that every morning in public parks all over China people can be seen practising various forms of Qigong, particularly Tai Chi, with the approval of the people in charge.
Falun Gong does not seek to overthrow any system of government or to remove anybody from his position of power. It does not advocate a system of public administration as Confucianism does, nor does it have aspirations to make laws or rules and regulations to control the behaviour of anybody who is not one of them.
My argument is that outside the West, in other words outside the liberal democracies, all over the third world where the vast majority of the world’s poor people live, the people in charge know that major things are wrong on their home turf and are extremely defensive. It is probable that at the backs of their minds they realise that the burdens of responsibilities on them, the authorities, are greater than for those over whom they rule and that whatever is wrong is attributable more to them than to the suffering millions.
Furthermore, it has to be said that while the aforesaid suffering is going on on a grand scale among the “masses”, the rulers by and large do not share their distresses. In Marxist terms, this could be called “the internal contradiction of the third world.” Classical Marxism teaches that the internal contradiction of capitalism is that those who operate the means of production do not own the means of production – the crane driver does not own the crane. I submit that the internal contradiction of the third world is that the few who bear most responsibility for the suffering of the many do not participate in that suffering themselves.
Almost any professional psychologist or psychiatrist who works in the field, that is to say, outside the groves of academia, will agree that those who are involved in harming the interests of others are always highly defensive and highly aggressive. People who are genuinely open and sit loose to external examination and external criticism are always persons who do not fear the consequences of daylight revealing their activities.
For example, one can be as curious as one wants about Diana Dors the 1950s pin-up or Sir Mick Jagger the singer. Neither of those two has been responsible for the misery of others.
By way of contrast it is fairly well known that in the criminal underworld secrecy and tight control of the behaviour of third parties is central dogma. The Mafia (they call themselves “the Cosa Nostra”) issues grim warnings to those from whom it extorts money that there will be dire consequences if they report what is happening to others. Muggers give their victims spine-chilling threats of what will happen if they, the muggers, get punished by the law for what they have done. Crooked businessmen do whatever they can to frighten accountants, both their own staff and external auditors, with horrible pictures of the aftermath of a court case which convicts them.
Even on the right side of the law it is nearly always the case that the employer who imposes a strict code of secrecy on his employees, particularly the junior ones who are in weak positions, is a bully and a tyrant mainly because he knows that there is much to hide.
Turning aside from China we notice that all over the third world the people in charge are desperate to enforce rigid “approved” codes of conduct on those over whom they rule. This applies to political, religious, cultural and even sporting matters.
When I was studying business subjects at a London college in the 1970s I spoke to a young African man who explained that in his country the ruling politicians “do not like opposition.” This can partly accounted for by the all to human desire to have one’s own way. But I think there are deeper causations.
One of these causations is that most people in the developing world tend to see dealings between individuals in terms of unilateral relationships. In other words when, say, two of them are together one has to be a “superior” and the other has to be his “inferior.” The “superior” tells the “inferior” what to do and the latter obeys. Naturally, people do not like being treated as subordinates and, as a result, discontent is born.
Almost nowhere in the world’s really poor countries – South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia – do we find dynamic two-way communications and relationships. That seems to be a virtual monopoly of places where those of European and Japanese stock are the majority.
Another factor, which is of relevance to the incident involving Ms Weng’s outbursts, is that in the developing world the people in charge frown at anything going on that has not received their explicit or implicit approval. Any such going on could, they reckon, perhaps not unreasonably, be the thin edge of the wedge to future substantial opposition. Big things usually have small beginnings, so they look for small infractions and stamp on them.
Which brings us back to Falun Gong in China. Because it has not been given the official state blessing as in the case of Tai Chi which is related to it, the practice of Falun Gong is perceived as an act of insubordination and proto-revolutionary.
My final submission is that none of us are going to escape our present misery until and unless we alter our social command and control mechanism.
In the third world ranges of thought and conduct are unacceptable
This morning I was surprised to learn on BBC Radio 3 that the American government has humbly apologised to the government of the People’s Republic of China about an untoward incident on the lawn of the White House when the President of China, Hu Jintau, was heckled by a protester.
My argument is that the series of events which lead to the protest and the subsequent apology are symptoms of some of the psychological travails which torment all our Asian nations, including Bangladesh and China, and, generally, the third world.
I believe that an apparent unwillingness to tolerate diverse belief systems and behaviours are endemic in almost all the third world countries and explain, in great measure, why they are lagging behind the West and that, in this regard, China for all its technological progress, can be lumped together with us.
Specifically, what seems to have happened is that on April 21, while President Hu and President Bush (Junior) were posing for photographers and film crews on the lawn, a member of a cult called Falun Gong which is also known as Falun Dafa shouted abuse at President Hu.
It turns out that the aforesaid protester was a journalist for The Epoch Times newspaper which is associated with Falun Gong and had used her press card to enter the White House lawn as an accredited journalist who had attended previous press events at the White House grounds without any untoward incident. She is Weng Weng Yi, 47, and a practitioner of Falun Gong.
Ms Weng had shouted: “President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong!” in English and in Chinese: “President Hu, your days are numbered!”
Despite the apology from the Americans, this incident no doubt had the desired effect of embarrassing the visiting Chinese president and publicising the state of civil freedoms (or lack of them) in the People’s Republic which is anxious to present itself as a fully paid up member of the modern world and a leading nation among the nations.
Since the outburst on the White House lawn is not exactly how the authorities over here or in China for that matter want that country to be perceived I did some elementary research to seek to discover what characteristics the Falun Gong possessed to attract the ire of the Chinese government.
It seems that this cult, which has been illegal in the People’s Republic since 1999, is just another Far Eastern group which advocates the gaining of wisdom and health through a combination of meditations and exercises. The ancient Japanese adage “movement is non-movement and non-movement is movement” comes to mind. By the way, that teaching underpins the philosophy of judo and karate.
Delving deeper, I discovered that Falun Dafa (the extended form of Falun Gong) is part and parcel of Qigong which is an umbrella term encompassing the various schools of Tai Chi and some of the “soft” Chinese martial arts. It seems that “qi” (chi) means “energy” and gong means “skill” so that Qigong means “exercises to embrace (strengthen) the immune system.”
The Falun Gong worldwide association states, in such a way that I am inclined to believe it, that it teaches such virtues as truthfulness and benevolence. There are Falun Gong groups operating all over the Western world without attracting hostility from the authorities and at this time it is only in the People’s Republic – an Asiatic country – that the authorities have deemed fit to outlaw it.
Since Falun Gong is non-political and could be described as a school of meditation this is surprising when seen from the West. It becomes even more surprising when one considers that every morning in public parks all over China people can be seen practising various forms of Qigong, particularly Tai Chi, with the approval of the people in charge.
Falun Gong does not seek to overthrow any system of government or to remove anybody from his position of power. It does not advocate a system of public administration as Confucianism does, nor does it have aspirations to make laws or rules and regulations to control the behaviour of anybody who is not one of them.
My argument is that outside the West, in other words outside the liberal democracies, all over the third world where the vast majority of the world’s poor people live, the people in charge know that major things are wrong on their home turf and are extremely defensive. It is probable that at the backs of their minds they realise that the burdens of responsibilities on them, the authorities, are greater than for those over whom they rule and that whatever is wrong is attributable more to them than to the suffering millions.
Furthermore, it has to be said that while the aforesaid suffering is going on on a grand scale among the “masses”, the rulers by and large do not share their distresses. In Marxist terms, this could be called “the internal contradiction of the third world.” Classical Marxism teaches that the internal contradiction of capitalism is that those who operate the means of production do not own the means of production – the crane driver does not own the crane. I submit that the internal contradiction of the third world is that the few who bear most responsibility for the suffering of the many do not participate in that suffering themselves.
Almost any professional psychologist or psychiatrist who works in the field, that is to say, outside the groves of academia, will agree that those who are involved in harming the interests of others are always highly defensive and highly aggressive. People who are genuinely open and sit loose to external examination and external criticism are always persons who do not fear the consequences of daylight revealing their activities.
For example, one can be as curious as one wants about Diana Dors the 1950s pin-up or Sir Mick Jagger the singer. Neither of those two has been responsible for the misery of others.
By way of contrast it is fairly well known that in the criminal underworld secrecy and tight control of the behaviour of third parties is central dogma. The Mafia (they call themselves “the Cosa Nostra”) issues grim warnings to those from whom it extorts money that there will be dire consequences if they report what is happening to others. Muggers give their victims spine-chilling threats of what will happen if they, the muggers, get punished by the law for what they have done. Crooked businessmen do whatever they can to frighten accountants, both their own staff and external auditors, with horrible pictures of the aftermath of a court case which convicts them.
Even on the right side of the law it is nearly always the case that the employer who imposes a strict code of secrecy on his employees, particularly the junior ones who are in weak positions, is a bully and a tyrant mainly because he knows that there is much to hide.
Turning aside from China we notice that all over the third world the people in charge are desperate to enforce rigid “approved” codes of conduct on those over whom they rule. This applies to political, religious, cultural and even sporting matters.
When I was studying business subjects at a London college in the 1970s I spoke to a young African man who explained that in his country the ruling politicians “do not like opposition.” This can partly accounted for by the all to human desire to have one’s own way. But I think there are deeper causations.
One of these causations is that most people in the developing world tend to see dealings between individuals in terms of unilateral relationships. In other words when, say, two of them are together one has to be a “superior” and the other has to be his “inferior.” The “superior” tells the “inferior” what to do and the latter obeys. Naturally, people do not like being treated as subordinates and, as a result, discontent is born.
Almost nowhere in the world’s really poor countries – South America, Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia – do we find dynamic two-way communications and relationships. That seems to be a virtual monopoly of places where those of European and Japanese stock are the majority.
Another factor, which is of relevance to the incident involving Ms Weng’s outbursts, is that in the developing world the people in charge frown at anything going on that has not received their explicit or implicit approval. Any such going on could, they reckon, perhaps not unreasonably, be the thin edge of the wedge to future substantial opposition. Big things usually have small beginnings, so they look for small infractions and stamp on them.
Which brings us back to Falun Gong in China. Because it has not been given the official state blessing as in the case of Tai Chi which is related to it, the practice of Falun Gong is perceived as an act of insubordination and proto-revolutionary.
My final submission is that none of us are going to escape our present misery until and unless we alter our social command and control mechanism.
THE END
This article was first published in the Bangla Mirror newspaper, the first English language weekly for the United Kingdom's Bangladeshis - read all over the world, from the Arctic to the Antarctic
posted by Ali at 1:09 PM
|
0 comments
