<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Democracy is good and all other systems are bad? That is a myth
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with interest Mr Ching Cheong's commentary on Tuesday, 'Mr Science is here, where's Mr Democracy?'. His interpretation of modern Chinese history does not appear to accord well with historical facts.
First, it is dubious to describe the May Fourth Movement as the harbinger of democracy, however the latter is defined. More true to the spirit of the times, the May Fourth Movement ushered in greater political and social pluralism and experimentation, rather than democracy per se, at a time when the political centre did not hold.
Second, Mr Ching claims that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 'fed on democracy and eventually defeated the ruling Kuomintang' (KMT). Both the CCP and the KMT fed on democracy, yet their version of democracy was that of democratic centralism in their Leninist structures. Clearly, we must not conflate the contemporary notion of democracy as used loosely in the press, as Mr Ching has done, with a specific understanding of democracy as practised by the Chinese political parties.
Third, it is rather simplistic and even absurd to suggest, as Mr Ching did, that 'the change of mind (from democracy to dictatorship of the CCP) resulted in great tragedy (like the high number of unnatural deaths in China between 1949 and 1976, and human rights abuses)'. Does this mean no great tragedy and injustice occur in democratic Third World countries? While one may agree that unchecked absolute power corrupts, there are many more complex reasons why tragedies can happen with the best-intentioned political conscience. Really, we need to move away from the simple myth that democracy is good and all other political regimes bad.
My own observation of contemporary China is that, although the CCP maintains tight rein over its power, there is a tremendous amount of political pluralism in China. There is a wide spectrum of political perspectives among the intellectuals. The middle classes are exercising their feet in protesting against the encroachment of the state. Even the most disenfranchised segment of the Chinese population, the peasants, is now using legal channels to express its discontent and seek redress.
Instead of harping on a particular notion of democracy that must be universally applied, we should see progress in the less-than-perfect ways in which the Chinese people are forging ahead with their emancipatory ideals. They do so against a tortuous historical background which they, not others, have to contend with.
Finally, I question Mr Ching's assumption that Mr Science is here. While the scientific hardware may be in place, the spirit of Science in not cheating and having the integrity to face up to contrary empirical realities is certainly not here. Dr Tam Chen Hee
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ with interest Mr Ching Cheong's commentary on Tuesday, 'Mr Science is here, where's Mr Democracy?'. His interpretation of modern Chinese history does not appear to accord well with historical facts.
First, it is dubious to describe the May Fourth Movement as the harbinger of democracy, however the latter is defined. More true to the spirit of the times, the May Fourth Movement ushered in greater political and social pluralism and experimentation, rather than democracy per se, at a time when the political centre did not hold.
Second, Mr Ching claims that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 'fed on democracy and eventually defeated the ruling Kuomintang' (KMT). Both the CCP and the KMT fed on democracy, yet their version of democracy was that of democratic centralism in their Leninist structures. Clearly, we must not conflate the contemporary notion of democracy as used loosely in the press, as Mr Ching has done, with a specific understanding of democracy as practised by the Chinese political parties.
Third, it is rather simplistic and even absurd to suggest, as Mr Ching did, that 'the change of mind (from democracy to dictatorship of the CCP) resulted in great tragedy (like the high number of unnatural deaths in China between 1949 and 1976, and human rights abuses)'. Does this mean no great tragedy and injustice occur in democratic Third World countries? While one may agree that unchecked absolute power corrupts, there are many more complex reasons why tragedies can happen with the best-intentioned political conscience. Really, we need to move away from the simple myth that democracy is good and all other political regimes bad.
My own observation of contemporary China is that, although the CCP maintains tight rein over its power, there is a tremendous amount of political pluralism in China. There is a wide spectrum of political perspectives among the intellectuals. The middle classes are exercising their feet in protesting against the encroachment of the state. Even the most disenfranchised segment of the Chinese population, the peasants, is now using legal channels to express its discontent and seek redress.
Instead of harping on a particular notion of democracy that must be universally applied, we should see progress in the less-than-perfect ways in which the Chinese people are forging ahead with their emancipatory ideals. They do so against a tortuous historical background which they, not others, have to contend with.
Finally, I question Mr Ching's assumption that Mr Science is here. While the scientific hardware may be in place, the spirit of Science in not cheating and having the integrity to face up to contrary empirical realities is certainly not here. Dr Tam Chen Hee
