Yongyi Defends Record Against Students’ Charges

To the Editor:

I am writing in response to the letter to the Editor of March 9 by [junior] Jeffery Chan and [sophomore] Erika Cline of Oberlin College. Harsh though their criticism of my lecture was and much as I wish they had raised the questions during the lecture, I welcome their comments and thank your paper for providing a forum for me to share my views with these two young students and your readers. As one who spent four years behind the bars during the Cultural Revolution for expressing my own views and six months recently for my independent research, I appreciate and, in fact, relish such an opportunity for a meaningful dialogue. And I cannot help but wish that millions of Chinese college students could enjoy the same freedom of speech that Chan and Cline take as their natural right. The last time Chinese students attempted to freely air their political views in public was 1989, and we all know what happened — the Chinese government silenced them with the language it knows best: bullets and tanks.

First, it seems that Chan and Cline are still not convinced that I was conducting legitimate research when I was arrested in China, as they wrote in their letter: “Having been arrested in China for ‘researching’ on the Cultural Revolution.” As Chan and Cline may or may not recall, I indicated in my speech that the Chinese government released me without any charges. They tried everything but could not find any evidence to make their case. If these two students have new information that can help raise suspicion about the legitimacy of my research, I would like to hear it and forward it to the Chinese government, as I am sure it is never too late for the Chinese secret police to prove its infallibility. 
Second, Chan and Cline observed that my talk “muddled the differentiation between Chinese government and people as if the Chinese government and people were a single evil entity.” However, their criticism seems to defy logic. I was criticizing the Chinese government’s egregious abuse of the basic human rights of the Chinese people. The human rights issue is about a government’s action and behavior toward its citizens, as I clearly indicated in my opening remarks during the speech. How Chan and Cline arrived at the conclusion that I put the abusers and the abused in the same basket and characterize them as a single evil entity without any substantiation is simply beyond my ken.
Third, although Chan and Cline reluctantly acknowledged, “China might not have a commendable human rights record,” they insisted that I “cannot use these Western paradigms as a model for Asian societies… Throughout China’s 5000 years of history, the masses lived as farmers in a society dominated by an agrarian society.” This is familiar rhetoric often expressed by the Chinese government spokespersons when forced to defend their human rights record. I am dumbfounded that this time it came from two Oberlin College students. While Chan and Cline obviously enjoy many freedoms in this country, they were in fact suggesting that it is perfectly understandable and acceptable to them that their Chinese counterparts are denied such basic rights just because they are from Asian agrarian societies with a long history. Chan and Cline should know as students of this prestigious college that when the United States was founded, it was also an agrarian society with a bunch of farmers considered by the British as unworthy of basic human rights and dignity. Should the forefathers of this great nation have accepted their fate as inferior creatures and waited for the “ripe moment” to expel the British and claim their basic human rights? 
In fact, even the Chinese government, realizing that it could no longer use the feeble argument that China should have different human rights standards, recently signed and ratified an important United Nations human rights treaty, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Although there is every reason to believe that the Chinese government will not seriously abide by this treaty, it has at least recognized that its old copouts for its horrendous human rights record, the ones that Chan and Cline used in their letter and seemed to genuinely believe in, have become a lost argument and can no longer be effectively used to fool people. 
Fourth, Chan and Cline noted “noteworthy improvement regarding freedom of speech” in China. They wrote, “For example, the Chinese feel much more free to openly critique their leaders.” Unfortunately, Chan and Cline have confused a dictatorial government’s weakening inability to control its people with government benevolence. In fact, the very limited progress people in China have made can only serve as clear evidence that Chinese people are fighting for their rights. I challenge Chan and Cline to find one article or television clip from the Chinese media that critiqued and joked about the Chinese President, Jiang Zemin, with impunity. And I want Chan and Cline to tell the news of “noteworthy improvement regarding freedom of speech” to Mr. Qi Yanchen, Huang Qi, Jiang Shihua and so on who were arrested and sentenced recently because of posting their displeasure with the Chinese Communist Party on the Internet, and to the 10,000-plus Fa Lungong practitioners who have been sent to labor camps without trial. Should all these be counted as “noteworthy improvement” in China today? 
Fifth, Chan and Cline accused me of basing my judgment on my personal experience only and lacking in research on human rights. Nothing can be further from the truth. In point of fact, I based my comments and lecture on personal experiences as well as over 100 credible sources. I strongly urge the skeptics of human rights violations in China to read reports released by independent non-government organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which criticize both the Chinese government and the U.S. government. I suggest that Chan and Cline check these organizations’ reports on China’s human rights record before labeling my observations “biased” and “opinionated.” 

Finally, while Chan and Cline insisted that my views do not “reflect those of the majority of the Chinese people,” they confidently proclaimed, “the Chinese people feel much more free to openly critique their leaders.” Interestingly, while I never claimed I spoke on behalf the majority of the Chinese people, I do wonder why Chan and Cline felt they knew what the majority of the Chinese people were thinking. The fact of the matter is neither Chan and Cline nor I can speak for the Chinese people. Only the Chinese people can speak for themselves. The sad truth is that the Chinese people can never speak for themselves until their basic human rights, the ones that Chan and Cline believe the Chinese people are not ready for yet, are given back to them. 
The enormous difficulties notwithstanding, I am convinced that freedom, democracy and basic human rights will eventually prevail in China as they did elsewhere. The day will surely come when every Chinese college student can speak and write as freely as Chan and Cline can today.

–Yongyi Song
Dickinson College