When even the Chinese liberals keep silent
MANILA: When a government is known to censor truth and suppress freedom of speech, why do its citizens easily take to the streets in protest against their Asian neighbors? The Chinese liberals and pro-democracy groups have kept their silence on China’s territorial encroachment in Asia long enough.
In an ethics symposium I attended in Washington, D.C. six years ago, the Tiananmen massacre of 1989 was discussed as an example of a government’s attempt to suppress democracy. A Chinese national reasoned that the People’s Republic’s military only responded in self-defense. He said doreign powers instigated and backed the revolution to destabilize the government. The death tolls were exaggerated and the government blameless. The participants which had representatives from at least 15 countries was in an uproar. Everyone knew that those students died for democracy and were silenced by the iron hand of Deng Xiaoping.
Even up to now, the Tiananmen massacre is banned from textbooks and the media, and is essentially removed from China’s history. Internet searches and social media discussions about the event from June 4, 1989 are blocked and policed by the government. Freedom fighters, democratic-leaning citizens and humanitarians use codes to mask messages over the Internet about this event, such as “65-1”, “63+1” and “May 35th.” Yet the voices of freedom from China’s pro-democracy citizens, particularly in Hong Kong, still find a way to commemorate the sacrifices of the students.
Historical revisionism and media content policing still continue in China and goes beyond its borders. With its economic and military supremacy in the Asian region, China has increasingly become more aggressive and less diplomatic in its dealings. China has actively sought to expand its territories both east and west of its borders. In the west, China mobilized its military in a territorial dispute with India’s Ladakh region. In the east, China has claimed the entire South China Sea and the islands in it as its own: territories previously enjoyed as Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Japan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS).
China has used its state media to justify its actions to its citizens. Private media channels, including the Internet, are still heavily regulated and censored by the Chinese government. The media has been used to discredit any diplomatic means employed by other countries to resolve territorial disputes. Last year, the Chinese state media published accusations against the Philippines of instigating the Association of South East Asian Nations (Asean) as accomplices in disputing China’s takeover of territories. It has condemned any arbitration at the United Nations and warned of a “counterstrike” – taken as a military warning.
It is therefore not surprising that there is misdirected anger, coupled with national pride, from the Chinese against their Asian neighbors. The media has been misused in history by many autocratic countries to misinform and cause dissent; this is true even in democratic ones. The Chinese government continues to be one of the worst offenders.
China uses its state media to deploy its “9-Dash Line” map that states, in all absurdity, that anything further than a stone’s throw away from the shores of Japan, Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, belong to China. It has completely disregarded the 200-nautical mile EEZ provided by UNCLOS. Under this map, Chinese warships can dock visibly across the Philippine or Vietnamese shores and should not be taken as a threat!
Ironically, the same Chinese pro-democracy, humanitarians and freedom fighters have kept mum about these territorial issues. Even the liberal Chinese from Hong Kong have kept their silence on their government’s military conquest of the South China Sea. Perhaps because there is much to be had in the claim for the South China Sea: it contains 3% of the world’s known oil reserves and 8% of natural gas. Trade routes shared by Asian countries will be monopolized by China. The region is part of the famed Coral Triangle which has one of the richest coral life and marine stock.
The voice of democracy does not speak out only when individual freedoms are suppressed. It requires its citizens to speak out when others countries’ freedoms are threatened. There is no middle ground: defend the freedom encroached upon by your government within and outside your country; otherwise, it just becomes hypocritical.
Speak out when your government antagonizes the same Asian neighbors that have sympathized with your quest for freedom of speech and democracy. The same neighboring countries have welcomed your refugees and taken them as their own. To our Chinese brothers who have democracy on your lips, prove your resolve: it is time for your voices to be heard once again.
Can PH face up to the AEC challenge?
A plethora of explanations has been advanced as to why the Philippines falls well behind the other four Asean originals (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia). These range from the protectionist policies for “infant industries,” political instability particularly in the 1980s that practically shooed Japanese FDIs (foreign direct investments) to our neighbors, weak governance and dysfunctional institutions, to poor infrastructure, rapid population growth, brain and skills drain from massive emigration, etc. While all these likely mattered one way or another, little is said about the underinvestment in education in general and in science and technology (S&T) in particular. Being a public good, education and S&T create positive externalities and, hence, tend to be privately underconsumed and undersupplied especially in terms of quality.
usaping tsina
painit nang painit ang usapin. patindi nang patindi ang mga banat ng tsina sa west philippine sea; itinataboy ang ating mga mangingisda (tinira ng watercannon noong enero) at nanghaharang ng supply boats to ph outposts like the sierra madre wreck sa ayungin shoal.
recently, mula nang i-file ng DFA ang ating 4,000-page memo sa arbitration tribunal, sa media naman tayo binabanatan, panay ang press release ng mga intsik, ipinipilit, idinidiin, iginigiit, na pag-aari ng tsina ang ayungin atbp., as if saying it over and over like a mantra would make it come true. pinapalabas na tayo pa ang wala sa lugar, tayo pa ang naghahanap ng away, hindi sila. *sarcastic lol*
nakakagalit at nakakabahala, and yet parang hirap na hirap tayo na i-articulate ang ating niloloob at aminin na nakakabuwisit na (sobra na, ano ba) ang pambubully ng tsina. baka kasi magalit ang mga intsik at balikan tayo – bigyan tayo ng problema sa koryente, pauwiin ang pinoy OFWs, magtampo ang mga tsinoy nating bossing, o kapamilya o kabarkada? na oo naman, nakaka-tense, but it’s not as if tayo lang ang mawawalan; ang china rin, mawawalan. maraming hassle for both sides, at the level of nation and individual both, kung sakaling magkagulo. i suppose it seems wiser to not say anything, huwag nang dumagdag sa balitaktakan, huwag nang gatungan pa, let’s just leave it to the prez, united we stand divided we fall and all that.
ang problema, not saying anything means consenting to the deal that the prez is working out with the americans behind the scenes, a deal that is said to provide for u.s. jurisdiction pa rin over criminally erring american soldiers (as in, let’s forget the nicole-smith rape case ever happened), a deal that is also said to provide for enhanced american-troop presence practically everywhere, including metro manila and metro cebu. argh. what’s going on. O.A. naman, kahit pa magkaroon ng automatic retailiation clause, eh wala pa rin naman,
samantala, sagutin natin ang mga patutsada ng tsina. sa kanilang kultura daw, bringing someone to court is an assault? eh sa ating kultura, bullying is an assault, bullying is harassment. so quits-quits na lang, as far as that goes. and what about those alleged promises made by erap and gloria, what’s our official version of the story, what was going on at the time? what exactly did they promise, in exchange for what? may dokumento ba?
or is this statement of DFA sec del rosario now the official policy:
“Countries should be judged by their actions, not by their words.”
by our actions, like filing the memo with the arbitral tribunal, that met with the international community’s approval. actions, like negotiating the parameters of an enhanced u.s. military presence, that meets with the ASEAN community’s approval (wise guys, better us than them). and not by our words. hmm, especially those spoken by previous presidents, unless written down and properly signed and witnessed and notarized? but really? forget palabra de honor? um, kung sabagay, sa pulitika, matagal nang nangingibabaw ang spin at propaganda.
does the same statement explain too why there is no reaction, as in dedma, deadma, patay malisya, to this recent gem from the US state department?
“As a treaty ally of the Republic of the Philippines, the United States urges China to refrain from further provocative behavior by allowing the Philippines to continue to maintain its presence at Second Thomas Shoal (Ayungin Shoal),” she said. State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf told reporters.
the u.s. asks china to ALLOW us to maintain our presence in ayungin. ALLOW. as in, PAYAGAN. as if it were settled already, and we were needing china’s permission to stay in ayungin, never mind that it’s ours, it’s always been ours, and well within our territorial boundaries. it would seem that the u.s. concedes, or gives weight, to china’s claim over ayungin. ALLOW the philippines. as if to humor us, sige na, hayaan na natin, it’s just for show anyway? and this is okay with us? judge america not by its words but by its actions?
and now lee kuan yew, no less, has weighed in, and he thinks china is seriously wanting to change the rules of the seas.
A resurgent China isn’t going to allow its sea boundaries to once again be decided by external parties. Therefore, I don’t believe the Chinese will submit their claims, which are based primarily on China’s historical presence in these waters, to be decided by rules that were defined at a time when China was weak. And China has judged that the U.S. won’t risk its present good relations with China over a dispute between the Philippines and China.
historical presence, all the way back to ancient times. and lee kuan yew seems to think it has merit, sort of. something to look into. let’s compare historical presences, or something like that. meanwhile, via facebook i asked china expert chito sta. romana what he thought of lee kuan yew’s take. this is what he said.
Lee is a veteran in reading & interpreting China’s thinking. Hopefully the arbitral tribunal can provide legal clarity on the validity (or lack of it) of China’s so-called “historical rights” in light of UNCLOS.
I don’t think China is at a point of no return if you mean all-out war. China faces the bigger task of developing from a middle-income to a high-income economy, a war will only upset their economic plan. But China will not yield on what it considers as its “core issue” of sovereignty & territorial integrity. Unfortunately that is how they look at the Spratly & Scarborough issues (rightly or wrongly). Face partly explains why China is opposed to int’l arbitration, it wants quiet diplomacy to arrive (at) a negotiated settlement. But there is still a struggle going on within China between its Confucian face & its globalized face, and everyone hopes China will take the path of a responsible regional & global power.
sana nga.
but these are testy times astrologically (cardinal grand cross, mid- to late april), signifying dynamic changes for both the collective and the individual. there’ll be an excess of energy all around that would need to be constructively channeled, in our case perhaps by engaging the nation, especially the media, mainstream and online, in a national conversation. pagusapan natin sa tagalog, sa bisaya, sa ilokano, atbp. itong ginagawa sa atin ng china sa west ph sea. pagusapan natin sa tv, sa radyo, sa dyaryo, sa internet, over lunch or dinner, sa opisina kahit over the watercooler or coffee man lang, sa mga pabrika kahit pabulong lang, at sa mga tagayan sa kanto at tunggaan sa beergarden, sabay cheers to our fishermen and soldiers in our fishing grounds and outposts in the west ph sea.
dapat makarating sa ordinaryong mamamayan na sa dramang nagaganap between china and the philippines, hindi tayo ang nambubully, hindi tayo ang nagmamalaki, hindi tayo ang nagkakalat.
pag-usapan natin. alamin natin kung ano talaga ang nangyayari at bakit. only when we understand the matter fully, or even just adequately, can we creatively contribute to the discourse. only when we can discuss it openly and credibly can we hope to participate in policy- and decision-making. and who knows, once we have a handle on the situation, we might come up with media campaigns reaching out to the chinese, people to people, convincing them that bullying and reef-shoal-island-grabbing is just soooo uncool and uncivilized.