hooray!

I hope he continues to talk, now that he’s embarrassed everyone involved. I’d really like to know if anything he has to say is credible. Although I guess for his sake he has a nice happy life in melbourne. I miss melbourne….

June 9, 2005 @ 12:57 pm | Comment

Very encouraging and we have the third defector now. Maybe the fourth tomorrw and the fifth …

That is really fasinating and I wouldn’t be surprised if there would be an exponential increase of Chinese defectors to Australia, say 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, …, 1024, …

I really appreciate the sacrifice and hospatality shown by the Australian Government to those wheelers, traitors and zealots, though it makes itself somehow a litter bin.

And the one thousand spies, don’t miss the chance, give youselves up for a perminant residence and help increase the Chinese minority in Australia.

June 9, 2005 @ 5:30 pm | Comment

Maybe it’s a conspiracy – If too many defectors come out, they’ll be able to vote a in a Chinese spy into the Australian PM position!

Come on – give the guy a break. Until he’s been shown to be a lying, cheating oppressor of the disenfranchised, let’s take him at his word. Why is this so offensive?

June 9, 2005 @ 5:39 pm | Comment

“If too many defectors come out, they’ll be able to vote a in a Chinese spy into the Australian PM position!”

I didn’t realize that! Very good point.

But don’t let them know please.

June 9, 2005 @ 5:55 pm | Comment

Hey, it’s perfectly fair for them to do so, if they’re citizens! no point hiding it from them.

Bing – are you hostile towards this defector? Has he hurt you or your ideals in some way?

June 9, 2005 @ 5:59 pm | Comment

When my colleagues joked about Chinese spy (commercial or not) with my boss standing aside, I realized why this is “so” offensive.

June 9, 2005 @ 6:00 pm | Comment

? please explain!

June 9, 2005 @ 6:02 pm | Comment

Would you hire somebody who has, say, a 10% possibility to be a spy?

June 9, 2005 @ 6:14 pm | Comment

Bing, everything your supervisor is doing is in academia, and therefore in the open field – it gets published. Therefore it’s a non-issue. If you think your supervisor is embarrassed or is losing face, reassure him with that. furthermore – if it were a government job, they’d do backup checks. It’s a non-issue. Don’t hate the guy who defected, argue with the people in your department who might discriminate against you and your boss. It’s them who is at fault. The defector isn’t responsible for your saving-face, nor is he responsible for any racist bullsh*t that you get from stupid people as a result.

June 9, 2005 @ 6:26 pm | Comment

and so you know, yes I would hire someone if they had a chance – because in the academy, it doesn’t matter since it’s published, and in the government, they do background checks. It’s not up to me to be a discriminating.

June 9, 2005 @ 6:27 pm | Comment

And this doesn’t mean Chen Yonglin can stay in Australia permanently. It just means that they haven’t sent him back yet.

A year later and Yuan Hongbing is still in limbo living in Australia awaiting a decision from the Australian government on his asylum plea.

It’s better than being sent back, but to live your life in limbo day to day not knowing your status must not be very comforting.

June 9, 2005 @ 6:38 pm | Comment

Bing I entirely agree. Traitors and idiots like Sun Yixian (Sun Yatsen to the west) should never have been harboured in foreign territories. They should have been returned to China for the legitimate Qing authorities to execute them according to Chinese law. Yes, you’re absolutely right. All these people are traitors and zealots. I take it, you’ll be visiting the shrine to Sun Yixian in China when you get back in order to point out to all Chinese people the error of their ways in continuing to show respect to this wheeler, traitor and zealot.

June 10, 2005 @ 1:05 am | Comment

Laowai,

I’m working too, not entirely academic.

June 10, 2005 @ 1:40 am | Comment

Filthy Stinking No.9,

I wasn’t quibbling about the sacrifice and hospitality of Australian. I really mean it.

Social scums like wheelers and various separatists will do no good in China, they’d better all go to somewhere else and Australia functions very well as a litter bin just like some other western countries to accommodate them.

And this guy is not comparable to Sun Yixian who was against Manchu Qing not Han Chinese. At the time, Manchu ethnic group was still regarded conqueror.

When this guy bluffs publicly about the 1000 Chinese spies and degrades himself to a supporter and protege of the wheelers, he is not a pure defector of the CCP but a selfish speculator and betrayer of the Chinese.

June 10, 2005 @ 1:59 am | Comment

FSNo9:

Ha ha, how can you think of things like that to say?

Your point is valid nevertheless.

I honestly never thought Aus would do it so I was wrong and I’m happy to admit it.

I really expected Chen to end up at the US embassy at some point.

Somewhat embarrassing for China anyway, and we should all cut bingfeng a bit of slack because of it. Just a bit as it is his country.

June 10, 2005 @ 2:12 am | Comment

“Somewhat embarrassing for China anyway, and we should all cut bingfeng a bit of slack because of it. Just a bit as it is his country. ”

Embarrassing China is something it often needs and deserves. No problem with that.

BTW, I’m Bing not bingfeng

June 10, 2005 @ 2:27 am | Comment

Apologies Bing and apologies bingfeng, I see you point. I was just making the point that Chinese and foreigners both look at China but for Chinese it’s their country if you know what I mean. Chinese have a bit of emotional and cultural baggage that foreigners do not.

June 10, 2005 @ 2:49 am | Comment

Brilliant news. Thanks for breaking that news as I hadn’t heard.

So this means he’s totally in the clear then does it? I mean to say, he’s 100% sure of not being sent back to China?

June 10, 2005 @ 3:45 am | Comment

Hi Bing –

well, I stick by my guns, so to speak – I’d still hire chinese in a private company, because they sign contracts agreeing not to hand over company secrets. The point is that it isn’t the job of the company, or an academic institution to decide on matters of national affairs.

so again, I understand that you dislike him and what you think are his exaggerations, but he’s not responsible for your feelings of integrety. He’s living his life – is he selfish? Yes. But wait a bit – he might actually be telling the truth. And if not, well, can’t you wish him well?

This is something that I’ve seen a few times, and it greatly confuses me. Chinese dissidents often represent many of the opposing view points in the discussion over China – and to some extent, one might say, the most legitimate opposing viewpoints (as opposed to people like me who didn’t grow up there and so can’t really take it in context). And yet often times they are totally dismissed by the Chinese populace for being traitors and selfish and evil. And so there is no debate, and no dialogue. They are discredited and that is that.

June 10, 2005 @ 3:51 am | Comment

Of course they have to keep him. Even though the Chinese government let him go, he wouldn’t live a peaceful life if he returned to China for his spectacular celebrity traitor show.

June 10, 2005 @ 3:52 am | Comment

Laowai,

I have particular feeling for this guy just because everything he got came from the CCP. As I mentioned in other thread, he knew much better than most Chinese what colour the CCP is and what exactly the wheelers do. If he were true dissident who cares more about the good of China and ordinary Chinese, he shouldn’t have been there as a consul in the first place.

And ask any Chinese overseas about those Chinese in embassaies or other high level government institutions, what kind of people they are. Most of them come from “SPECIAL” backgrounds and get to their positions via nepotism. Many of them are elite cadres of the CCP rule but ready to defect anytime for their own good like those three.

They don’t represent ordinary Chinese. They are just as bad as those wheelers and actually make much more damage to China.

Think about this guy. After the crackdown of bloody TS, he could be re-educated and re-trusted by the CCP. Tell me, what kind of person do you think he is?

June 10, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment

today,i noticed that news on sina.com.cn(one of the largest news site in china) said US and australia are advocating the spy threat of china. and made the conclusion without mention Chen Yonglin at all.
here is link (in chinese)http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2005-06-10/10546902353.shtml

June 10, 2005 @ 5:10 am | Comment

They are actually protecting him. Just imagine what will happen if all the patriotic Chinese youths know who exactly the traitor is.

June 10, 2005 @ 5:19 am | Comment

Bing said:

And this guy is not comparable to Sun Yixian who was against Manchu Qing not Han Chinese. At the time, Manchu ethnic group was still regarded conqueror.

Let me get this straight: it’s ok for Sun Yixian to run off to another country to resist the Manchus because they weren’t Han but it’s not ok to run off and resist the CCP because then you set yourself against Han people?

If he were true dissident who cares more about the good of China and ordinary Chinese, he shouldn’t have been there as a consul in the first place.

So Chinese embassy officials are by definition people who don’t care about the good of China and ordinary Chinese? I’m confused.

June 10, 2005 @ 5:50 am | Comment

Bing, sometimes your sense of patriotism can unfortunately be somewhat misguided I feel.

Is that really as far as you can think about Chen? Traitor?

However, I agree totally with your view that Chen is part of th epolitical elite and your other points about nepotism etc.

To me, that makes Chen story even more interesting.

I still strongly feel that there is more to this Chen business than meets the eye and that’s why I’m holding back slightly until everything unfolds.

June 10, 2005 @ 5:53 am | Comment

davesgoneschina> I tried to post a comment on your site yesterday about Schnell (sp?) but couldn’t do it. Do you click on where it says ‘say it!’? I did that but nothing happened.

By theway, if you haven’t seen it already, check out http://jamestown.org for a great new article re XJ/oil.
Thanks.

June 10, 2005 @ 5:58 am | Comment

“Let me get this straight: it’s ok for Sun Yixian to run off to another country to resist the Manchus because they weren’t Han but it’s not ok to run off and resist the CCP because then you set yourself against Han people?”

At the time, Manchu was regarded as invader and conqueror and not legitimate part of the China kingdom. Sun was against an invader rather than his own government because he and many other Chinese (non Machu) didn’t regard Manchu as Chinese at all.

In Chen’s case, he is not just against the CCP but the interest of Chinese. When he claims PUBLICLY and SPECTACULARLY the stuff of those 1000 spies who could be student, businessman or whatever.

Every country has spies and there is a proper way to handle this issue between governments. Pushing it to media and public will make difficult situations for many innocent Chinese.

“So Chinese embassy officials are by definition people who don’t care about the good of China and ordinary Chinese? I’m confused.”

He was a protestor in TS and also a cadre of CCP. He knew much better than most of us what the CCP and the dissidents are. With fully awareness of what he claims (which I don’t care), “he” shouldn’t have been there as consul if he was not successfully reeducated and retrusted by CCP, unless he was in the beginning planning to be a mole to help those dissidents, which I very much doubt.

So think about what a person he is. Someone that can do anything for his own benefit.

June 10, 2005 @ 6:14 am | Comment

Martyn, you should be able to post – I ran a test on the Schell page and it worked.

As for the Jamestown Foundation article, I have alot of disagreements with that kind of article. You can’t do much more to exacerbate Uyghur hatred of Chinese – people have said for years “oh man, here’s the straw that breaks the camels back – the Uyghurs are gonna go nuclear”. But we never see a credible resistance. Whether that’s because of Chinese police action, Uyghur fatalism or both, I don’t know. As for Central Asian democracy and brotherhood, the Uyghurs hate the Kyrgyz who hate Uzbeks who hate the Kazakhs who hate the Uyghurs who hate… pan-Turkic nationalism still hasn’t caught on. And economic dependency on China is growing in Central Asia.

Sorry for the tangent, but I’m getting tired of reading articles that always frame Xinjiang in terms of “it’s gonna blow any day now”. It ain’t happening.

June 10, 2005 @ 6:16 am | Comment

In a word, he knew beforehand what he was going to do before appointed, he knew what he was doing as a consul and he knows what he is looking for now.

June 10, 2005 @ 6:18 am | Comment

The next time the spy number will just ballon to 2000, 4000, … . Whatever the next guy want to stay in Australia.

June 10, 2005 @ 6:49 am | Comment

here is a quick test.

assume chen gets asylum and he shows up at the FLG office and says that he wants to work and help them.

question: should they trust him?

what is your vote? yes or no?

June 10, 2005 @ 7:35 am | Comment

Ha.

No. I don’t think so although he is very high-profile,that would be a bonus for them anyway.

June 10, 2005 @ 7:40 am | Comment

Ok, thanks dave. I’ll try again tonight.

If you blog the above comment, I’ll comment on that as well. XJ seems to be the poor cousin of TB so I take the view that any coverage is better than none I suppose. Still, some of the ignorance generally, re China, in the world’s press can be astounding sometimes.

June 10, 2005 @ 7:44 am | Comment

eswn: Yes, but that vote could change as we learn more.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:03 am | Comment

Every defector from Sadam`s Iraq have told us there were MDW. I totally believed them. I just hadn’t thought that Sadam would bury that f*cking stuff so deep!

June 10, 2005 @ 8:27 am | Comment

Every defector from Sadam`s Iraq have told us there were MDW

I know Chalabi said this. What others said this?

June 10, 2005 @ 8:29 am | Comment

Australia isn’t so gullible as to take every defector who pleas with the “1000 spies” reason. It’ll get looked into, and something will come of it. Let’s be patient. He could be a total wanker, or he could be for real.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:42 am | Comment

Quite a few. And several were even scientists who claimed to have been involved in some projects. I remember someone in a TV reportage decribed an nuclear test vividly and explainted to us how this made a several hundred square kilometer lake disappear (with satelite photos). I have never made a dig into this issue. Just heard a political commentator in an afterwar TV debate make a sum-up for this phenomenon.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:51 am | Comment

There are always going to be liars, I guess. We can make a better judgement after we learn more about Chen. Chalabi, for example, had a long track record of deceit and lies. I don’t know about Chen, but if he does I’m sure it’ll come out.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:05 am | Comment

It may come out, but it may more probably come out of our sight, I am afraid.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Exactly…I think people who want to call him a liar only because 1,000 seems like an excessive number to them….as well as people who are immediately willing to take him at his word….should all take a step back. Stop calling him a traitor, stop calling him “evidence” of some evil CPP plot. He has made claims, and they must be investigated. Until they are, any declarations are premature.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:13 am | Comment

Yes, agree with thomas 100%.

I don’t think 1,000 spies (open to definition of what a spy is course) is a big number when you consider that Aus is the only western country in Asia, is a solid US ally and more technically advanced than most of the rest of Asia.

Still, we’ll wait and see what comes out.

Chen “outing” has been so high-profile that that I’m sure the media will stick with this story.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:19 am | Comment

It’s not about if he lied.

He is a traitor and did damage to Chinese in Australia or even other countries.

It’s like the Corby case. It seems everyone in Australia was blaming Indonasia and talking about canceling aid. That’s simply not right. People with conscience should not link the two together. But with the media hype and loud voice from some individuals, few wanted to be conscious.

What chen did is exactly the same.

What’s more, people tend to remember sensational bad news. Even later it’s found not true, it’s difficult to erase the fallout.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:28 am | Comment

bing, how about your terracotta soldier site? after “those who dare”, we have “terracotta soldier”, maybe the next site should be named as “a thousand spies” 🙂

June 10, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Bing, I don’t hear many others taking this viewpoint. That doesn’t mean it’s right or wrong, but I do think you are being too extreme. Defectors frok North Korea, China and the USSR have fled to the West many times over the past half century. Most are considered heroes who took serious risks. To be considered a traitor by Kim Jong-il, Stalin or even Hu is, to me, an honor.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

Then what for the people left behind? Dishonor, timidness, cowardice, retardedness?

June 10, 2005 @ 9:51 am | Comment

bingfeng,

Haven’t got time to put anything on it. Toooooooo busy. And if I got some time, I’d rather spend it here on other blogs to be honest.

Richard,

Maybe I’m a bit too extreme. But that’s my feeling, at least for the moment.

And I can’t disagree with you on those defectors from Kim Jong-il or Stalin, or even some from Hu.

But definitely I don’t think this guy deserves a Hero honor for his background and what he said and did (protege of wheelers, what a sh*t).

June 10, 2005 @ 9:53 am | Comment

how do you ‘check’ someone to see if they are chinese spies?

what he has done so far is the joe mccarthy approach: “I hold in my hand
the names of 57 card-carrying Communists working in the State Department!” and daring you to deny it.

next, he will be pressed to name them. wow, that’s easy: he’ll just reel off a list of names — the guy who owns the chinatown restaurant, the travel agency operator, and … oh, yes, the treasurer of the australian chapter of FLG, etc. he’ll say, “i swear i saw these names on a master list of spies in that secret room at the embassy.”

how is anyone so named supposed to prove that they are NOT spying for china? if you ask them, they’ll all say NO and will call the media to complain. so you can’t even ask them. what will you do? run long-term surveillance on 1,000 chinese-australians?

there can’t be 1,000 individuals ‘of interest’. Chen will be validated if he can name only one significant spy (e.g. in signals or intelligence analysis) and prove it.

if chen had the smarts, he would have swiped some major evidence (e.g. a copy of a top secret australian intelligence analysis report) and ran to the aussies immediately, and they would have taken him in immediately. he has apparently not done so because the aussies did not bite immediately.

so maybe he can name someone in an important position now, but what spy will continue to operate knowing full well that chen knows his/her identify? long-term surveillance will yield nothing.

if you llike, the horse is out the barn already and all that remains is australian domestic politics.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:53 am | Comment

Bing, I think that the Corby drug case (for good or for bad) whipped a lot of Australia into a total frenzy. The Chen case is not having anywhere near the same kind of impact.

I understand that many Chinese people’s first reaction would be to call him a traitor, which is exactly why I wouldn’t want him to go back to China.

Where you see traitor, I see courage. He’s taking a big risk by defecting in such a public way. As I say, I’m sure other stuff will come out later and I do agree that people tend to remember sensational bad news even it’s found not true afterwards.

If you look at it from a different angle, the CCP are not necessarily “China”. Chen might be being more patriotic, by his actions, than his supposedly “loyal” ex-colleagues at the Aus Chinese Embassy…..

June 10, 2005 @ 9:59 am | Comment

ESWN, that’s half the reason why I’m so keen to wait for what comes out in the next few weeks.

If Chen has planned his defection for a long time (I’m assuming he has) then he probably would have pulled out some evidence to support his claims (at least as much as he could get his hands on).

Otherwise, he’s going to treated (justifiably) with a great deal of suspicion.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:02 am | Comment

>>>>It’s not about if he lied.
He is a traitor and did damage to Chinese in Australia or even other countries.
It’s like the Corby case. It seems everyone in Australia was blaming Indonasia and talking about canceling aid. That’s simply not right. People with conscience should not link the two together. But with the media hype and loud voice from some individuals, few wanted to be conscious.
What chen did is exactly the same.
What’s more, people tend to remember sensational bad news. Even later it’s found not true, it’s difficult to erase the fallout.
>>>>

Bing, that’s not a reason for blaming him, that’s a good reason for giving greater voice to fairminded press. If someone does something that isn’t inherently wrong, but ‘the system’ makes it wrong, then change the system.

Like I said, I think more come out of this. I don’t think it’s over.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:08 am | Comment

Martyn

Two things that make him nuisance are:

1. He told something publicly that will affect many Chinese.

You mentioned courage. Yes it looks like very couragous for him to publicly bluff all that stuff. But he only did that after being refused political asylum. He wanted to get noticed by doing that. It’s not courage.

2. He partners with wheelers.

No matter what you think, I, maybe many others, despise anyone supporting or being supported by wheelers.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:09 am | Comment

To back up what Martyn is saying with a little example from back home – there are quite a few rabidly conservative evangelicals that would probably call me a traitor to my country. But I honestly feel as though I am working towards bettering the life of Joe Average. If I came out with news that might damage the reputation of the U.S. and it was credible, I’d get called a traitor too. But it would, in the long run, raise awareness and open a discussion on the matter, and lead to ending something bad.

I know this is a sensitive matter because it has to do with the supposed prevalence of spies, but Bing, were you ever asked to transfer technology that you found over in the UK to China? Gordon’s chinese colleagues in the States had been asked.

This issue may help to shed a little light on a practice which may or may not be prevalent. I think the dialogue is a good thing.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:21 am | Comment

¹«Ëµ¹«ÓÐÀí£¬ÆÅ˵ÆÅÓÐÀý£¬µ½µ×Ë­ÓÐÀí£¬¿´ÄãÕ¾ÄÄÀï

June 10, 2005 @ 10:41 am | Comment

Bing,

Wheelers? What does that mean?

June 10, 2005 @ 10:49 am | Comment

Martyn, I was going to ask the same thing. Never heard the word before until this thread.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:51 am | Comment

Fa Lun Gong means the excercise of magic wheel when translated literally.

June 10, 2005 @ 10:55 am | Comment

“gong shuo gong you li, po shuo po you li

dao di shuo you li, kan ni zhan na li”

—————–

a chinese “farmer’s” saying. translation as follows:

for the same issue, the gentleman says his points are justified, the lady says her points are justified, whose points are justified depends on which position you stand

—————————–

if you are chinese, probably bing is right, if you are non-chinese, probably laowai is right

if you see it from a short-term view, probably bing is right, if you see it in the long run, probably laowai is right

June 10, 2005 @ 11:01 am | Comment

Ok , thanks for that. First time I’ve heard that word wheelers.

Regarding the courage of Chen, I think I wasn’t very clear above. I say he is courageous only for deciding to do what he did so publically. He knew how the Chinese govt would react, with absolute fury.

Regardless of what he’s said so far, he’s taking a huge all-or-nothing gamble. Perhaps he thinks that by going so public will further his cause, in fact that what I suspect.

You sure he sympathises with FLG/wheelers?

I not sure. I’m convinced that there’s a lot we don’t yet know about all this business. I hope Peking Duck will continue to follow the story.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:04 am | Comment

LOL, that’s one of the fundatinos of Guru lee’s falun dafa “theory” –

guru lee says there is a wheel in everybody’s belly, and it’s the wheel that generate energy for your life

can you feel that wheel running in your belly, richard?

June 10, 2005 @ 11:05 am | Comment

The husband says he’s right,
The wife says she’s right,
To say who exactly is right depends on where you stand.
but the Chinese rhymes nicely. I’ve heard this country maxim before, can’t remember where though.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:09 am | Comment

I have a feeling this is going to be the next endless thread, going in every conceivable direction….

June 10, 2005 @ 11:15 am | Comment

And yes, Martyn, I will certainly keep following this story.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:22 am | Comment

That’s why people come here. It’s party, sucker.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:24 am | Comment

It may be a party, but it can also get pretty intense. Well, no matter why people come, I’m glad I can provide the venue. Usually, at least. 🙂

June 10, 2005 @ 11:27 am | Comment

By the way, here’s what the FLG are saying about our spy.

As a matter of principle, I’ve never linked to this publication before because I find it untrustworthy and a bit deranged. In this instance, it’s relevant to our discussion.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:31 am | Comment

if there is a wheel that is spinning in one direction, then there can be a reverse wheel spinning in the other direction.

i mentioned the name ‘sima nan’ as the professional debunker of cults and fakes. for his troubles, the grand master of the flg had promised that he would invoke his supernatural powers and spin the reverse wheel inside sima nan and that man will get an terminal diseases within a year and be run over by a car. this was not very tolerant of the master, nor was he interested in truth or goodness. oh, btw, that promise was made several years ago and sima nan is alive and well.

June 10, 2005 @ 11:31 am | Comment

As you know, that particluar site has always been blocked in China.

Any chance of a two-sentence summary?

June 10, 2005 @ 11:39 am | Comment

Were the Guru still in China, His prophesy might well be fulfilled! That reminds me of Shoko Asahara, the Aum Shinrikyo guy. I heard that he’s also got a lot of oversea centers. Were they all peaceful? BTW, Shoko Asahara was initiated by the His Holiness. See:http://www.religio.de/dialog/295/295s42.html

June 10, 2005 @ 11:53 am | Comment

If you cannot read the last link, the alternative:http://www.american-buddha.com/shokoasahara.htm

June 10, 2005 @ 12:03 pm | Comment

I forgot about that, Martyn. Here’s the whole thing:
————————————-

On June 4, in Martin Square in central Sydney, at an activity commemorating the 16th anniversary for the “1989 Tiananmen Democratic Movement,” the top secretary of the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, Australia, Chen Yonglin, unexpectedly announced his resignation from the Chinese Communist Party. This comes at a time when an “International Judicial Committee for Bringing the Chinese Communist Party to Trial” is in the process of being established.
Chen expressed his resolution for quitting the CCP to the media. “My main job was to carry out the Chinese government’s policy, to persecute Falun Gong practitioners in New Brunswick, and to keep their activities under surveillance, including hiring people to collect information regarding the whereabouts of Falun Gong practitioners’ activities. The CCP’s policy towards Falun Gong in Sydney is as follows: to sharply oppose, to deliberatly attack, to strive for support (of the Australian government), and to win sympathy (of the public in Australia).”

At present, consulate security personnel are seeking Chento to apprehend him.

The World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong (WOIPFG) is aware that the CCP authorities are using one-quarter of China’s financial resources in the persecution of Falun Gong. A great deal of these resources are used overseas. The ambassadors from the Chinese Embassies and the diplomatic officials of Chinese Consulates in every country are employed to spread propaganda to create ill-sentiment in China, to bribe overseas Chinese organizations, and to carry out the CCP’s policy of persecution using all kinds of means.

Persecuting Falun Gong has become the CCP’s diplomatic officials daily job. They collect overseas Falun Gong practitioners’ personal information and compile blacklists. Large-scale “economic diplomacy” is used to threaten and seduce overseas organizations and companies. They set about destroying the media that Falun Gong practitioners participate in. They waste the money of taxpayers in China. WOIPFG has been recording the criminal activities of the Chinese embassies and consulates during the six year persecution of Falun Gong. After the “Special International Criminal Court to Try the Crimes of the CCP’s Persecution against Falun Gong” is established, it will sue the guilty in turn, investigate individual responsibility, and punish criminals accordingly.

WOIPFG hereby claims that we welcome Chen’s actions in declaring his resignation from the CCP and in opposing the CCP’s policy of persecuting Falun Gong. We also would remind the Chinese Ambassador in Australia, Fu Ying, and the officials, Qiu Shaofang and others in the Chinese Consulate in Sydney, that they are responsible for the security of Chen and his family members. At the same time, we also appeal to all Chinese Ambassadors and officials in Chinese Consulates to stop helping the CCP to persecute overseas Falun Gong practitioners as Chen has done, as the CCP is bound to collapse and will soon be judged by history. We will continue to closely monitor the actions of the Chinese Embassy in the United States, such as the Chinese Consulates in New York, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, San Francisco and so on, which have actively participated in persecuting Falun Gong for six years.

Presently, we are witnessing an important turning point in history. For the sake of yourselves and your families, we hope that you can follow the main historical current in withdrawing from the CCP, thereby giving up the way of evil and following the way of goodness. There will be rewards for good and repayments for evil. The choice you make will have resounding results beyond this life!

June 10, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

Has anybody mentioned before some wheelers in China got lunatic and dissected themselves to look for their wheels?

June 10, 2005 @ 1:56 pm | Comment

Why is there so much of an issue and surprise over “1000” Chinese spies in OZ?
From my experiences I have found Chinese people inquisitive about and controlling of others by their nature. Note the neighborhood committees in China (they have been in every place I have lived in China) that observe and report on the events in their small jurisdictions). Project that phenomenon out to the top of the Chinese power chain, it would seem natural for it to inquire (SPY) into the the activities of Chinese compatriots in OZ (ande other places) with good or evil intent and into the affairs of the host governments.

In the aftermath of 6/4 I became involve in the States with mainland Chinese students and other Chinese who were very upset and opposed to the Chinese government’s 6/4 actions in BJ. These mainland student groups were rife with rumors of student spies among them doing BJ’s bidding, such as reporting on these opposition groups’ activities, acting to disrupt the groups through “plants” causing trouble in the groups and such. I was told that personnel from the Chinese Consulate in San Francisco would go out to meet with students around the West Coast at this time to stifle the protesting and I presume gather information on the activities and identities of the mainland students who participated.

Actually, the way the Chinese seem to operate 1000 people is a small number in my way of thinking, unless Chen was talking about trained, professional spies. The Chinese who leave China for greener pastures want better lives for their families, but don’t necessarily give up their affinity for the motherland and its overall betterment. Just look at how much money overseas Chinese send back to China for their left behind families, to invest in China, and to improve China, by gifts of whole schools for example.

A few years ago I had a conversation with an intimate Chinese female friend who was trying to get a visa to study in the US. She did get it and intended to stay in America. I asked her if she became a US citizen and the US had a war with China and she had to be in the America military, would she be willing to fight against China. I got an outraged NO.

If Chen was talking about “observe and report” people, there could be literally thousands of spies in OZ.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:41 pm | Comment

Pete, are you saying the CCP would send out spies to watch over other Chinese citizens?? Don’t be stupid. Perish the thought.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:45 pm | Comment

Pete, I’ve got one to add along those lines – a good friend of mine at my undergrad institution was third generation Chinese, and more mainstream american than I am (I grew up in New Hampshire. We have cows and trees and mountains. I like it that way.)

She would sometimes talk about how she felt obligated to learn chinese and somehow help china.

I respect her for her views, although I certainly would not expect my grandchildren to hold such views about the U.S. if I end up living abroad permanently and my grandchildren were third generation in their countries. I well might – China or Japan or Australia or Spain or Canada or.. well, you get the picture.

I envy her, in some ways. It must confer a great sense of identity with the sense of obligation and duty along with your family history and ethnicity. At the same time I really don’t envy her.

June 10, 2005 @ 8:51 pm | Comment

Christ, Richard, there are only 2 comments on that post! what was wrong back then 😛

June 10, 2005 @ 8:52 pm | Comment

in your criteria, there are too many US spies in china. the american guys who travelled a lot in china to peddle his consulting services also collects economic information for US firms and academic institutions.

i just wonder if we should call a person “spy” if s/he collects informaiton from non-restricted sources, and if s/he collects her/his countryman’s information for admin purpose

what the hell they want to admin MOST chinese in asutrali? i never heard my friends in australia were somehow interacted with the local chinese one way or the other

June 10, 2005 @ 9:08 pm | Comment

Christ, Richard, there are only 2 comments on that post! what was wrong back then 😛

I was much smaller potatoes back then. When I left Beijing and arrived in Singapore, my average daily readership was 75 unique visitors. Quite different from today.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Bing … I’d never realised that you were a supporter of Taiwan independence. You see, it’s a logical conclusion on the basis of your argument about why Sun Yixian was not a traitor. After all, the Manchu were an occupying race, and not Chinese … which means that when they conquered Taiwan and incorporated it into their administration, it wasn’t a Chinese acquisition at all. It means that Taiwan has only been ruled for a couple of decades a the end of the Ming, and again for a brief few years after WWII. Seems to be that 20 to 30 years of occupation by Chinese authorities in the last 500 years can never be said to constitute a reasonable claim to the territory.

Manchu are Chinese when it suits China’s claims to territory. They’re not Chinese when it suits to condemn people who oppose the CCP? Come off it Bing.

And … if a non-Chinese occupation of a territory by a power that happens to be ruling China at the time … well then, everything the Mongols every conquered belongs to China too. Don’t forget to tell the Persians that they’re an integral part of China and that Iranian splittist activities are threatening China’s integrity.

June 10, 2005 @ 9:31 pm | Comment

hold the f***up,he is a traitor

http://anshan.blog.com/219972/

June 10, 2005 @ 11:31 pm | Comment

Filthy Stinking No.9

Don’t mix the history and the presence.

Manchu was not regarded as Chinese one hundred years ago, but they are now. This is not an excuse but reality. You can’t tell the difference between Manchu and Han Chinese nowadays.

Just to argue your arguments, yes we claim Taiwan part of China partly based on one evidence of Manchu Qing occupation. That claim, as you said, might not be legitimate by Han Chinese 100 years ago, but certainly is by nowadays Chinese including Manchu and Han.

June 11, 2005 @ 12:42 am | Comment

Richard, it just got away from me. HA.

Bingfeng. Let’s say all countries spy on each other. The point of concern is that if one government uses its ethnic brothers and sisters (in the case of China) to report restricted or unrestricted information about the host country to their native country to that host country’s political, economic or military disadvantage, the host country has to do something about it. In America we would question the loyalty of such reporters/spies and jail them if they were breaking the law, whether citizens or permanent residents, or put out of business and send home and bar from returning if just so to speak – travelers. We have called those types of disloyal residents of the US part of the “5th column,” i.e., disloyal people, nationals or citizens, who help an enemy or hostile country injury the interests of the US.

Bing
You can say the Man people are now Chinese, but that is only nationality, but ethnically. But when the Manchu ruled as the Qing dynasty, they were not claimed as “Chinese” by themselves or by Han people. The Manchu’s were foreigners in China ruling as foreigners the Chinese people. Are you with me? Am I right so far?

The Qing Dynasty was defeated, terminated, swept away, and destroyed. Although I do not know if there were any papers signed that formalized the end of the Qing, I kind of doubt formal transfer of any Qing claims to Taiwan (then dominated and governed by Japan under its sovereignty as a consequence of the Qing formally giving up sovereignty to those islands to Japan) would have been signed.

Now the Manchu, still a distinct ethnic group, are not a government and can lay no credible sovereign claim to Taiwan. If you are arguing that the Chinese/Han can legally now claim Taiwan through a defeated enemy, the Qing dynasty, because some of its ethnic people, the Man people live in China, I think your are dreaming. BTW, I have met some Man people while in China, actual one was a student of mine. They do not claim to be Han as if they were not proud to be Man. Are they Chinese; hard to say what they think, but in my thoughts part of the national minorities’ beliefs and actions are a reflection of the power of the gun in the Hans’ hands.

9 has stated a good position for denying present day China any claim of sovereignty of Taiwan based on history. The Chinese have only had a marginal physical or sovereign relationship with Taiwan, but the aboriginal peoples of Taiwan are still there through hundreds if not thousands of years of occupation. I would suggest that they trump any claim of the Chinese mainlanders and their government have to the islands directly or through the so called Manchu connection. My thoughts, not expert by any means, but from a devil’s advocate point of view.

June 11, 2005 @ 3:26 am | Comment

Of course the Manchus claimed to be “Chinese”. You can check all the original diplomatic documents in London, Paris, and Washington, all of them referring to the “Chinese Empire”, “Chinese Emperor”, “Chinese administration”. There was no such thing like “Ching” in any official documents, which was a coinage by the people outside the government circle.

June 11, 2005 @ 6:37 am | Comment

This “Ching/China” issue is just like “Holland/the Netherlands/Dutch”.

June 11, 2005 @ 6:41 am | Comment

I’m not entirely sure what point you’re making but the Manchus ruled as Manchus not Han. They conquered China.

Chinese history has always been at the behest of politics. Never mind the CCP, each and every dynasty re-wrote the history books to suit its own political ends.

The Mongols, Manchus etc. weren’t Chinese then but they are classed as such now.

It’s all partially to do with the 5,000 years of single history bollocks that the CCP pedal these days and which all the mainlanders actually believe. Suckers.

Ha ha.

June 11, 2005 @ 7:48 am | Comment

Bing –

I think there’s a distinction to be made here, regarding your comment about American spies in China.

First, because of the Laowai syndrome, I hesitate to say that any foreigners in China are in the same positions as they are in Australia or the States. The states is still grappling with issues of race, etc. but you’ve still got Chinese mayors, etc. and Chinese in the armed forces and intelligence agencies.

I don’t at all distrust these people, and I’m not accusing them of being spies. I am, however, pointing out that the U.S. and Australia, being more heterogeneous than China, allows other ethnicities into tremendous governmental positions of power. In China, excepting DaShan of course, foreigners are still kept at arms length. Thus, having 1000 spies in australia is potentially more damaging to australia than having 1000 american spies in China.

Secondly, and honestly, more importantly, there is a tremendous difference between the repurcussions of if an american businessman finds a new idea that he can steal, compared to a chinese businessman in Australia – China has in the past and assumably is still now – more aggressive about recruiting information about other countries from Chinese nationals. America is not. The American businessman in China might bring get some idea, or in the process of doing economic research might update the firm’s database, but he is only contributing to the firm. An American firm is not America’s firm. It is a firm, and not really beholden to supply the American government with information. The assumption that every american doing business in China is an American spy is wrong in the sense that they won’t be called on by the U.S. government to testify.

The U.S. doesn’t use it’s civilian (like businessmen, students etc.) citizens as some sort of informant network. I’m not convinced that the Chinese government does either, but if you believe what democracy advocates in Hong Kong say, or Chinese dissidents, or Gordon at The Horse’s Mouth (anecdotal evidence) then one might be inclined to change one’s opinion. And this is the point. That because Western governments don’t do this (at least to my knowledge) it is a big shock to Joe Average in Australia to think that some of these Chinese citizens might be informants. Informants are a scary, scary thing if you are outside of the organization, and probably a very patriotic, worthwhile thing if you are in the organization. But it’s a foreign concept to Westerners, to be a civilian and serve your government like that.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:13 am | Comment

Actually, to edit my last comment – the McCarthy era saw informants like this – where people ratted on each other when being suspected of being communist. I’m sure during the Cold War there was more of this too. But most people my parents age (60) and younger wouldn’t really have experienced this, so it’s a foreign concept now.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:20 am | Comment

Pete

First of all, my last post is to answer that of Filthy Stinking No.9:
“Manchu are Chinese when it suits China’s claims to territory. They’re not Chinese when it suits to condemn people who oppose the CCP? Come off it Bing.”

Of course, if you are interested in Taiwan, let’s have a look.

“You can say the Man people are now Chinese, but that is only nationality, but ethnically.”

A new ethnic identity, “Hua”, has taken shape over the last hundred years, which is derived from but beyond traditional Han dominated ethnic groups in China, just like the creation of ethnic “Han” identity in history. Not all the 56 ethnic groups of China would like to be regarded as Hua, but Machu definitely would.

“But when the Manchu ruled as the Qing dynasty, they were not claimed as “Chinese” by themselves or by Han people. The Manchu’s were foreigners in China ruling as foreigners the Chinese people. Are you with me? Am I right so far?”

There was no one in China at the time regarding himself/herself as “Chinese” which is a word used by foreigners. Han was Han, and Manchu was Manchu. They were two different ethnic groups with different social status. For Han people, Manchu was foreigner at the time.

“The Qing Dynasty was defeated, terminated, swept away, and destroyed. Although I do not know if there were any papers signed that formalized the end of the Qing, I kind of doubt formal transfer of any Qing claims to Taiwan (then dominated and governed by Japan under its sovereignty as a consequence of the Qing formally giving up sovereignty to those islands to Japan) would have been signed.”

Yes, you are right. There was probably no paper signed for that. But there are papers signed for the sovereignty of Taiwan, the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. And yes there are disputes about those papers but is there any treaty or paper involving sovereignty having no dispute at all?

It really makes me laugh for you to say something like “Manchu, still a distinct ethnic group”, “They do not claim to be Han as if they were not proud to be Man”, ” Are they Chinese; hard to say what they think, but in my thoughts part of the national minorities’ beliefs and actions are a reflection of the power of the gun in the Hans’ hands.”

I’m sorry for your lack of common sense in the issue of ethnic group in China, especially the Manchu. I tell you what, I didn’t know until several years ago that my grandmother is Manchu (which means my father could be if he’d like to and so could I according to China’s ethnic policy). My wife is Manchu and her whole family is Manchu too. Neither her family (a very large family) nor I feel any difference between us in terms of ethnic identity. And this is not a rare case for nowadays China and absolutely not limited to Manchu ethnic group.

“If you are arguing that the Chinese/Han can legally now claim Taiwan through a defeated enemy, the Qing dynasty, because some of its ethnic people, the Man people live in China, I think your are dreaming.”

We definitely do not expect to unite Taiwan by merely claiming a legal right through a defeated enemy. That is your dream, not mine or any other Chinese. Do you think the hundreds of missiles are just placed there for a showcase? Do you think all of the Han Chinese (they’d rather called as Hua or Han instead of Chinese like 20 years ago) in Taiwan would want an eternal independence? The issue of Chinese and Taiwanese is not that of English and Irish, or Canadian and Quebecker, or Serbs and Albanian. We basically belong to one native and will come together one day.

“9 has stated a good position for denying present day China any claim of sovereignty of Taiwan based on history. The Chinese have only had a marginal physical or sovereign relationship with Taiwan, but the aboriginal peoples of Taiwan are still there through hundreds if not thousands of years of occupation. I would suggest that they trump any claim of the Chinese mainlanders and their government have to the islands directly or through the so called Manchu connection. My thoughts, not expert by any means, but from a devil’s advocate point of view.”

I’m terribly sorry for your thought, for politicians with your thoughts simply don’t exist. Arguably they may have a right to control their island, so do any aboriginals in any other countries, Australia and the whole America. I don’t want to have a lengthy tirade with you from ethic to history on the righteous fate of Taiwan. It’s too complicated and no one can convince anyone. And too many injustices in this world, the righteousness only exists in utopia, let strength decide in reality.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:25 am | Comment

Laowai

“I think there’s a distinction to be made here, regarding your comment about American spies in China.”

What comment I made?

June 11, 2005 @ 8:26 am | Comment

The Manchus spoke to the rest of the world as “Chinese” because the geographic entity called China was more or less the same and the Manchus used more or less the same governmental structure. The difference, however, is that the Manchus then and now don’t consider themselves ethnically the same as Han, and back then they didn’t consider themselves “Chinese” either. Chinese were the people they ruled – they were Manchus! (cue battle cry)

June 11, 2005 @ 8:37 am | Comment

My point is that, whatsever the terminology for “China” was or is, when the Manchu rulers came into contact with the outside world, they chose “China” to represent the territory unter their rule, and this title was consequently inherited by the RoC and then the PRC, which is most widely accepted by the international community.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:39 am | Comment

Oh, and Bing, I’d like to hear more on the exact definition and origin of hua (you mean 华, right?)

June 11, 2005 @ 8:44 am | Comment

Also Bing:

We definitely do not expect to unite Taiwan by merely claiming a legal right through a defeated enemy. That is your dream, not mine or any other Chinese. Do you think the hundreds of missiles are just placed there for a showcase?

That’s exactly what everybody is worried about! Without a firm legal right to the island, simply letting “strength decide in reality” is called invasion. Reminds me of the infamous quote from a Bush staffer about “reality based communities”, the one Richard gets his tagline from.

You also say “The issue of Chinese and Taiwanese is not that of English and Irish, or Canadian and Quebecker, or Serbs and Albanian. We basically belong to one native and will come together one day.” The strong, of course, being the ones to decide who belongs to what “native” group and who doesn’t. And why can’t people of one ethnicity have separate nations? Thinking that way, the American revolution would’ve never gotten off the ground and we’d still be colonies.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:49 am | Comment

Manchu would not frequently call themselves “Chinese”. Nor would the Han Chinese. It was simply because “Chinese” is English. No normal Chinese would and will do that on daily basis. But since the diplomatic contact established, the Manchu ruler really referred themselves as “wo chunghwa/Zhonghua”, “chungkuozen/Zhongguoren” regularly.

Taiwan was given up by the imperial China and taken by the RoC. After 1949, the sovereignty over China was contested by Beijing and Tapei. The recognisation of the Souvereignty over the whole territory (minus Outer Mongolia) of the former RoC is the principle condition to establish any diplomatic relation with the PRC, the U.S. administration accepted it in 1979, the British government did it already 1951, and the French 1964.
You can argue it. Because you are not one enpowered to sign a governmental pact. Even W won’t waste that time and rather stick to the “One China” policy.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:58 am | Comment

Dave,

I don’t actually want to delve into this issue. As I said it’s too comprehensive and complicated and no one will convince anyone.

The only thing I can say, I’m sorry for the reality of Taiwan that it is so close to China mainland and most of its residents are Chinese (or Han), otherwise it might well be another singapore.

And about the legal right vs invasion, come on, you know what I’m thinking.

And isn’t invaion a neutral word? “The invasion led by coalition force” was heard from all main media here in UK.

June 11, 2005 @ 9:03 am | Comment

Sure, during Iraq the word “invasion” was used in a more or less neutral way – because it means to enter a country to occupy or conquer it. That would make Taiwan… a separate country?

I’m sorry you think the issue is too complicated for anyone to convince anyone. The consequence of such a belief is that dialogue isn’t going to get us anywhere… which makes me wonder: why are you even here?

June 11, 2005 @ 9:15 am | Comment

crap, sorry – bingfeng, I meant
many apologies. skimmed the name

June 11, 2005 @ 9:41 am | Comment

“Sure, during Iraq the word “invasion” was used in a more or less neutral way – because it means to enter a country to occupy or conquer it. That would make Taiwan… a separate country?”

You mentioned invasion, not me. For sure, we will not invade but reunite Taiwan.

“I’m sorry you think the issue is too complicated for anyone to convince anyone. The consequence of such a belief is that dialogue isn’t going to get us anywhere… which makes me wonder: why are you even here?”

For the Taiwan issue, too many have been talked. I have debated that with a lot of others. Have I ever been convinced by any of them? No.

You must have debated that with many Chinese too, have you been convinced by any of them? I don’t think so. I believe you have known all I could provide, and I don’t expect to convince you and thus I’m not going to wast my time on it.

I said the Taiwan issue is too comprehensive and complicated and didn’t say that is the case for any other issues.

June 11, 2005 @ 9:52 am | Comment

I think there’s still something of merit to discuss about the Taiwan issue, Bingfeng. You seem to be saying that “might makes right” in this instance – so you don’t believe that Taiwanese people and Chinese people are inseparable by ethnicity, as I’ve heard others argue, but rather its an inevitability due to realpolitik? In that sense, I’d agree with you – those missiles, I agree, are not only for show. It’s just that many people argue that Taiwan will be reunified because all Chinese people will always be one, can never be divided, and “luo ye gui gan”. I find that saddening, because it means that “being Chinese” becomes something imposed, rather than individually defined – there is only one definition of Chinese, in which nationality, ethnicity and politics are fused together without any room for interpretation.

If someone says “Taiwan will be reunified because China’s geopolitical and economic strength makes it inevitable”, then I find it hard to disagree – that’s where everything is trending. On the other hand, if someone says “Taiwan will be reunified because they are Chinese and therefore they cannot have a unique and separate identity”, then I think they’re deluded.

You sound more like the first group, but you did say that Chinese and Taiwanese people belong to “one native”, which I interpret as meaning “one ethnicity”. So what? My ancestors were all Irish, but no Irishman has or would ever consider me “Irish” – though I’m pure in blood (well, almost – a German snuck in two generations ago), I have no real connection to the “motherland” and those who live in the motherland (I’ve been there) don’t think I do either. How far back do we go? Does mean the roots I should return to are in Gaellic France?

June 11, 2005 @ 11:15 am | Comment

I’m going to act as sh!t stirrer here – but what about Tibet? They’re definitely not chinese, Hua or otherwise.

A labmate of mine, from Beijing, said he thought Tibet should be given its freedom if they wanted it. Taiwan couldn’t be given freedom, however, because it’s too politically important. I thought that was interesting.

June 11, 2005 @ 11:43 am | Comment

Laowai

I was going to give some explanation on Hua but stopped to think why I am even here.

Tibetans don’t think themselves Hua, nor do uighurs.

They speak different languages, have different customs and religions and they instinctly want to be independent.

Your labmate didn’t say they should be given independence, did he?

June 11, 2005 @ 12:10 pm | Comment

I like davesgonechina, he’s makes a mean mf of an argument.

June 11, 2005 @ 12:14 pm | Comment

Daversgonechina is on a super-roll. Bing, the ball is in your court.

June 11, 2005 @ 8:34 pm | Comment

i never said “might makes right”

just a few quick notes:

1) some raised the question as why “taiwanese people are chinese” could justify the claim of reunification between taiwan and mainland, i think you need to put it into a broader context to understand why, i.e. chinese history, culture, etc.

it deals with the value judgement and sometimes people living in different value systems don’t talk in the same language. your question is in some way similar to these question raised by many chinese, “why english people live in different countries?” or “why american people don’t care their family?”

you might argue that there is a core value system that is shared by all people, but who decide what should belong to the core system and whether “independence” is more a core value than “national integrity” is still controversial, like what we see in discussing the taiwan issue

2) richard and many others have misunderstood my point about “reality-based” approach towards taiwan issue.

when i said something is a “reality”, i mean it is a fact that involves no value judgement and that we can not change in short time, any discussion or solution should be started from that.

those who chanted “taiwan independence” failed to realize the “reality” that it is mostly not possible since mainland china wouldn’t allow that to happen. this said, i don’t suggest that i support the use of force to reunify taiwan, but it is a fact that we can not change over night. i don’t believe one billion mainland chinese could be convinced by people like richard by “education, dialogue or communication” on taiwan issue in 50 years, richard can not convince people like bing!

similarly, mainland china should realize the “fact” that
intimidating taiwan secessionists don’t make taiwan people closer to the mainland.

a “reality-based approach” should start from these basic “facts”, let’s forget about those hyprocrisy that wrap the interest-based intentions and work out a compromise acceptable to parties involved and benefit the people in general

to summarize, taiwan debate is complicated by the cultural, historial and political context involved, and a lot of the controversy are in fact conflicts of different values and cultural experiences, you can’t say which one is the universal truth over the other and, in stead of talking in an armchair politician style, a reality-based approach makes the debate advance

i am bingfeng NOT Bing

June 11, 2005 @ 9:31 pm | Comment

In my last comment, I was addressing Bing, not you, Bingfeng.

i don’t believe one billion mainland chinese could be convinced by people like richard by “education, dialogue or communication” on taiwan issue in 50 years

Well, you never know, so I’ll keep trying. By the way, I never chanted “Taiwan independence,” and very few (if any) here have done so. I don’t really care so much about the independence issue — but I don’t want to see Taiwan smashed into subservience to the CCP. Personally, I’m in favor of continuing the status quo.

June 11, 2005 @ 9:41 pm | Comment

Right!! My two cents, then I’m off for a nice morning 5:30 am walk!

>>when i said something is a “reality”, i mean it is a fact that involves no value judgement and that we can not change in short time, any discussion or solution should be started from that.

Bingfeng, I greatly appreciate this effort – I’m totally being serious and not sarcastic in the least. However, many people who live in Taiwan that I’ve met are reacting to this claim of similarity by distancing themselves from any identity of culturally bing “Hua” – my friends from Taiwan call themselves “Taiwanese” – it’s a different ethnic group and a different dialect, that if it were in Europe could be considered a different language, as it is kind of like French and Catalan, for instance.

This isn’t to say “all” Taiwan-livers are like this, but we should recognise that identity is somewhat relative, that we can’t easily force people’s concept of their own identities, and that the identities of Taiwan-livers has changed and may change again.

Bing –

Yes he thought there was no real reason why China should be in Tibet. He basically thinks if they don’t want China to rule them, that’s fine and they should have their independence. He talks of Taiwan not in terms of shared ethnicity etc. but in terms of strategy and power. see my post:

http://publicenemy1.blog-city.com/china_on_taiwan.htm

June 11, 2005 @ 10:34 pm | Comment

“However, many people who live in Taiwan that I’ve met are reacting to this claim of similarity by distancing themselves from any identity of culturally bing “Hua” – my friends from Taiwan call themselves “Taiwanese” – it’s a different ethnic group and a different dialect, that if it were in Europe could be considered a different language, as it is kind of like French and Catalan, for instance.”

certainly, laowai, when we have fun in karaokai, those from fujian province and taiwan like to order songs in min-nan-hua (so-called taiwan dialect), and those from guangdong province like to order songs in cantonese (perhaps you would like to name it as cantonese language of a different ethnic group?), and those migrant workers from nowhere speak languages nobody here understand.

yeah, china should have 200 independent countries, but that’s the reality of 3000 years ago

in your theory, how many independent countries should india have? do you know one of the most important history burden that hinders india’s progress?

June 12, 2005 @ 12:18 am | Comment

Hi Bingfeng – quick reply – I’m gonna be a bit of an ass on this one and say that because India has a democracy, they can be a full country. Spain has separtist regions, and maybe they can be compared to Taiwan – there is a sizeable portion that want independence, and a sizeable portion that don’t want independence. Spain may not have dealt with it perfectly, but pretty well, I guess – they give considerable independence to the Catalan region.

Language has two aspects to it – which you’ve pointed out – yes, we call Catalan a ‘dialect’ of spanish, except I think in Catalalonia, they call it a language. It’s kind of an identity thing. I guess I’m just pointing out that you’ve said reality, when there are people that disagree.

Reality is easier to define in physical terms – gravity etc. Cultural realities differ. I wanted to point out that. I think if put to a popular vote where each region could choose to be in China or not, only Taiwan would get a ‘not in china’ majority (or at least a ‘status quo – de facto independence’ majority). Tibet might. But every other region wouldn’t. So China wouldn’t be 200 countries. Maybe three. As economic development continues, dissident regions will probably stop being dissident, bringing china to an even more united situation.

A good situation to look at (although unfortunate) is serbia/croatia – the languages are the same, but because of political differences, they’re called different things – therefore, for political reasons they are different languages – and they’ve started to use different alphabets to highlight the differences.

We can choose our identity, our culture, our definitions, to some extent. I would offer up that there are people in Taiwan doing this exact thing. I would offer up that each of us does this actively, every day.

June 12, 2005 @ 3:53 am | Comment

Oh – and look at Switzerland – where they have 3 or 4 official languages (all from different language groups I think) – countries don’t have to just be one language – so it’s not like China should be split up due to having 5 major language dialects, which, if in Europe would be considered separate languages.

But, like in Europe, it does give the opportunity to choose a means to differentiate oneself from something if need be. So it’s kind of mean in a way to always tell someone from Taiwan that they are Chinese, if they want to be called Taiwanese. I have a feeling this will open a can of worms, but I think it’s relevant when there are groups of people asking the same thing. A social movement, so to speak.

June 12, 2005 @ 3:57 am | Comment

Laowai:

One of Annete Lu’s most famous comments is:

“We are Chinese but not China”.

However, quote that to your average mainlander and they won’t have a clue as to it’s meaning.

Annette Lu (Lu Xiulian) is, by the way, one of my fav people. As early as the 70’s she talked about the kind of social issues which are taken for granted today, like women’s rights and equality, when the rest of Asia could even spell those words let alone advocate them.

June 12, 2005 @ 6:24 am | Comment

Bingfeng said: some raised the question as why “taiwanese people are chinese” could justify the claim of reunification between taiwan and mainland, i think you need to put it into a broader context to understand why, i.e. chinese history, culture, etc.

So let’s be clear: the broader context you’re talking about is that the mainland and Taiwan are linked historically, culturally, linguisitically, etc. Sort of like being siblings.

it deals with the value judgement and sometimes people living in different value systems don’t talk in the same language. your question is in some way similar to these question raised by many chinese, “why english people live in different countries?” or “why american people don’t care their family?”

You’re right, an equivalent question would be “why are English speaking nations separate independent nations?” Maybe we’re the ones who look at other members of our ethnic group as siblings, whereas the Chinese value system sees them more as limbs of one singular entity?

you might argue that there is a core value system that is shared by all people, but who decide what should belong to the core system and whether “independence” is more a core value than “national integrity” is still controversial, like what we see in discussing the taiwan issue

Bingfeng, you said all that and you never said exactly what that value judgment is. This is how I interpret this value judgment that says “the cultural tie between the mainland and Taiwan justifies reunification”. The cultural and historical links between the mainland and Taiwan mean that Taiwan can’t go deciding what to do with their own lives, government or community. Through these links Chinese people are 1.3 billion components of an indivisible whole, and the whole cannot be divided. It doesn’t matter what any individual Chinese person thinks or wants, because the Chinese Gestalt wants something else.

To me, as a westerner, this value judgment is invalid. There is no Chinese Gestalt, there never was. There are 1.3 billion Chinese individuals with their own desires and beliefs, like any other human beings. Then there’s this belief that they can’t have differing desires and beliefs because then the world would end. A great deal of Taiwanese, Southerners, overseas Chinese, even my students on the mainland, have their own ideas, things they want to do independently of their family, their school, their government. But this fear, which to me seems irrational, looms over them that if they were to break from the pack, leave the Gestalt, then all hell would break loose.

I think I understand why people feel this way; Chinese history, especially the past couple of centuries, has repeatedly shown disasters due to people trying some new idea, having different beliefs, speaking their mind or generally disagreeing with the wrong people. I sympathize, but I still see it as a logical fallacy.

Where does this Gestalt idea come from? Well, the CCP certainly contributes to it (as well as encouraging the idea that the CCP is at the core), but also I think fears of the outside world (again, somewhat understandable given the 20th century) contribute. I think a long history of agrarian poverty may have had an effect – for a long time, for the vast majority of Chinese people, it was all about subsistence living (still is) and that meant everybody had to be using the same playbook if they were to survive.

But now China is powerful; individual Chinese people are more powerful than ever before. It seems to me too many Chinese people think the world will disintegrate if someone starts calling different plays – which is what many Taiwanese and overseas have done. That if one strays from the Gestalt, like Chen Yonglin, then he must be punished, stopped, killed – never mind that maybe, just maybe he’s telling the truth and something bad happened. There can be no criticism, because if the Gestalt falls the Chinese people do. That, my friends, is the biggest mistake the Chinese people will ever make – believing that to disagree, to differ, to do their own thing, to break up into smaller groups, to actually recognize who they really are in all its diversity and creativity – that mistake will keep China down far better than any US or Japanese weapons.

June 12, 2005 @ 7:44 am | Comment

i am going to use analogies since philosophical languages are so confusing

all agree that smoking is bad, this is “core value”, some consider chinese tea is better than french coffee, some believe french coffee is better than chinese tea, but not matter what criteria you take, there is no way to compare them and conclude one is better than the other in all circumstances, tea or coffee? this is “sub value”

in some cultures, family members are expected to make sacrifice for the well being of the big family, i.e. every member of the family; but in some other cultures, it’s always the individual that comes first, above everything. in most cases, you can’t argue the other is wrong with your own value as the judgeing criteria. it would be stupid to say that you should drink tea because everyone around me drinks tea. it would be strange to ask chinese to sacrifice the interests of 1.3 billion for the well being of a few million.

i sometimes wonder why indians don’t care so much about money, and think their way of living is somewhat “wrong”. if you ever have a chance to talk with an indian and ask this question, s/he probably will ask this question to you, “why you care so much about money, i think your way of living is somewhat wrong”

unlike democracy, freedom is a foreign concept in chinese culture, you could point out that hegel thinks freedom is the ultimate purpose/pursuit of human being, but perhaps indians or chinese don’t think so, perhaps that will change in the next century for westerners too. so when you talk about the importance of independence to taiwanese, i will tell you how important for chinese to keep the national integraty and to pursue the long-term interests of a reunified china instead of keeping some taiwanese satisfied.

June 12, 2005 @ 9:35 am | Comment

One of Annete Lu’s most famous comments is:

“We are Chinese but not China”.

_________________

as a former dissenter of KMT, Lv has always habour some desire for rebellion. as for taiwanese sentiment towards mainland, one thing you need to keep in mind is how much “re-education” taiwanese have been fed by KMT and taiwan secessionists against mainland china (“china” for taiwanese).

June 12, 2005 @ 9:42 am | Comment

you could point out that hegel thinks freedom is the ultimate purpose/pursuit of human being, but perhaps indians or chinese don’t think so

Some might disagree with you.

June 12, 2005 @ 10:19 am | Comment

Nicely done Richard, nicely done.

June 12, 2005 @ 10:31 am | Comment

Bing and Leo are both categorically wrong in their arguments claimed Manchu as China, in the Qing era.

Firstly, Leo. I don’t know where you get your history, but it’s totally incorrect. The Manchu made a very clear and distinct division between themselves as NOT Chinese, and all Chinese. They continued to maintain records in Manchu script, using Chinese text only for their administration of the Chinese. They banned inter-marriage. They banned Han immigration into Manchu territories (though this one faded with time). They had strict racial rules on who could hold administrative power in each province, in order to maintain a balance of Chinese – Manchu. Just go and read ANYTHING about the racial divisions. As I said, I’ve no idea where you get your history from.

Bing – you’ve defeated yourself with your own reasoning. You’re right, today most people regard the Manchu as just another ethnic minority of the Chinese. So what? It doesn’t have any impact whatsoever on what they did when they were NOT regarded as part of the Chinese. It’s like saying that I was adopted as age 10, but that everything I did before I turned 10 was actually an action of the family I was adopted into. Come off it. You remind me of Christians I’ve argued religion with. They don’t actually have a reason to believe what they believe. They only have a conclusion. They’ll shift rationale and directly contradict themselves … simply because they’ll use any line of argument, no matter how reasonable or unreasonable, to justify their belief. Since, as you maintain, the Han and the Manchu saw a clear division between themselves in Qing times (Leo – just go and read anything Sun Zhongshen / Sun Yixian / Sun Yatsen wrote or said on the subject of Chinese nationalism), then you cannot claim that actions the Manchu took during that time were Chinese actions. I became an Australian citizen a few years ago. Your logic says that everything I did in my teenage years were the actions of an Australian … even though I’d never even been to Australia at that time.

I find it difficult to believe that you could believe this stuff, if you cared to spend 5 minutes to think about it. But, as someone once said, “thought takes effort, and 5 minutes is a long time.”

June 12, 2005 @ 7:33 pm | Comment

9

I wish I had a deeper knowledge on this subject. I do admire yours. I think it would be interesting to look at the real historical record of Taiwan and the various claims of sovereignty, rights of control and population development.

I am beginning to think that the CCP claims to much of the lands such as Taiwan, Xinjian, Tibet and the South China Sea could be specious. I imagine for the most part the records that are said to substantiate those claims are made by the dynasties to support their claims, not made by the victims of the expansion or neutral observers.

Why is China’s leadership so paranoid about these controverted land disputes anyway. Jeez, Russia (USSR) buckled under to much of its land grabs being take back by their native peoples without wars or chest pounding and threatened wars. Of course, there was Yugoslavia and its ethnic massacres and 3 wars to hold together land that was created as a nation I believe at the end of WWII, from several different religious and ethnic peoples,but then you had beasts conducting those wars and what did it get them. 3 new countries and most of the leaders charged with crimes against humanity.

June 12, 2005 @ 11:20 pm | Comment

Bing could be either a communst official or a young Chinese student born in 1980s who has never experienced he Cultural revolution (1966-1976) and the Tiananmen Square Massacre in 1989. The Chinese born in 1980s are usually called “Angry Youth” (or “a Shit Generation”) for their ignorance of the truth of the history and no experience about the Communist Party’s brutality, and of course being brainwashed by the CCP.

Chen’s defection is against the CCP. He said he loved his country. I saw no citizen from the democratic nations who has defected to a Communist nation.

The CCP deceived the Chinese peasants by preaching the Communism and took the power in 1949. It continued to kill businessmen, landlords and take away their properties. Then Mao Zedong used the tactic of “luring the snake out of the hole” to kill millions of intellectuals when they tried to air different political views. In a series of political campaigns (more than 10 ), the CCP has killed over 80 million innocent lives (40 million in “Great Leap Forward” period, 30 million during the Proletarian Cultural Revolution). It is still killing. In recent years, about 2000 Falun Gong practitioners were killed.

Recently, a dancer with the Sydney Dance Company was expelled from China because he brought a book called “Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party” into China. It must be a powerful book which the CCP fears.

October 11, 2005 @ 7:30 pm | Comment