|
EDITORIAL: Kong
Qingdong’s ignorance not bliss
Peking University professor Kong Qingdong (孔慶東) is often allowed to spread his
gospel on Chinese TV. However, his ideas are not the ideas you would expect from
a university professor, and they would likely have caused his ancestor Confucius
(孔子) to spin in his grave — after calling Hong Kongers “dogs,” he called
Taiwan’s democracy a “pseudo-democracy.” These absurd ejaculations are clear
proof that his understanding of law and democracy lags far behind anyone living
in the 21st century.
Kong is clearly not qualified to teach at a university. When commenting on the
“civil war between Hong Kong and the mainland,” he only saw the negative aspects
of Hong Kong and vilified Hong Kong residents, with the result being that the
rift between the two areas was deepened. He ignored the Chinese tourists who
broke the rules of Hong Kong’s MTR subway network and refused to heed
admonitions from fellow travelers that they were not allowed to eat on the
trains. The negative impression this has created in Hong Kong will only deepen
Hong Kongers’ resentment toward Chinese.
Kong caricatured Taiwan’s presidential election as a “soap opera,” adding that
the number of votes for President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) “didn’t even add up to half
the number of Beijing residents.” This makes it clear that he does not have the
first clue about Taiwan and that his understanding of democratic fundamentals
are not even up to the standard of a sixth-grader. Most international observers
of the recent elections praised Taiwan’s democracy, calling it a benchmark for
the Chinese-speaking world. Many people in China also believe the smooth and
mature implementation of democracy in the election will serve as a good example
for China and increase pressure there for democratic reforms.
Talking about democracy, a joke circulating on the Internet compares democracy
in Taiwan, China and Hong Kong. It says that in Taiwan, you know the result
after an election, in China you know it before the election, while in Hong Kong,
elections are only held after the desired result has been decided. It might be a
joke, but it rings true.
If Kong wants to comment on democracy, he should first take a look at the sad
state of the elections for China’s local people’s congresses last year. “Voting”
in Beijing produced more than 4,000 representatives to the local people’s
congress — approximately equivalent to Taiwan’s township councils — but Chinese
officials place strict controls even at this basic level, banning candidacies of
non-Chinese Communist Party members. There is a universe of difference between
this situation and Taiwan’s open, fair and free presidential elections.
When Kong ridiculed Ma’s vote total, he highlighted both his ignorance of what
democracy is and Beijing’s overbearing attitudes. Kong believes democracy is
only about comparing the number of votes received since victory can be achieved
by a single vote and that the process means nothing, ignoring the importance of
voters freely expressing their opinions when casting their ballots. China’s
arrogance is evident in the view that gaining 6 million or 7 million votes means
nothing. While that might be true in China, with more than 1 billion people, one
still wonders when the Chinese will be able to elect their national leaders in
direct popular elections.
China and Taiwan might have deregulated cross-strait exchanges, but many
systemic, social and mental barriers remain. The stereotypes and prejudices of
people such as Kong only serve to highlight the gap between the two sides of the
Taiwan Strait and how difficult it will be to bridge that gap. Cross-strait
development will not be achieved overnight and a lot more time will be necessary
to build mutual trust and understanding through exchanges and interaction if we
want to truly relax tensions.
|
