- “ 同性恋结婚”是西方文明没落的象征 [2013/03]
- 留医院记一（兼谈澳洲的医疗系统） [2012/11]
- 留医院记三（兼谈澳洲的医疗系统） [2012/12]
- 向村里的医生请教 [2012/09]
- 村里最近热谈“奴性”，我来凑热闹 [2012/02]
- 读报有感--60岁中国男子美国送外卖 被6名黑人青年劫杀 [2012/06]
- 【昶庐日记】我给救护车送进了医院 [2011/01]
- 留医院记二（兼谈澳洲的医疗系统） [2012/12]
- 【昶庐感言】人生七十古来稀 [2011/11]
- 从祖国带来的亲情，我看到了希望 [2012/02]
- 我也是维权人士 [2011/04]
- 西方文化的缺陷 [2010/11]
- 今天是个好日子 [2012/06]
- 住医院记 [2012/11]
- 隔岸观火，我对美国共和党挑选总统候选人的疑惑 [2012/03]
- 感受“中国制造” [2011/06]
- 我的新年愿望 [2013/02]
- 发表日志 出问题 [2012/11]
Commenting on the award of The Nobel Peace Prize to an imprisoned dissident, Liu Xiaobo, Jeremy Wong Fischer wrote on 8/10/10 in The Economist:
This is a bad decision by the Nobel committee.
This is a multilayered issue that represents the failure of due diligence on the part of the Nobel Committee and "bandwagon" supporters of Liu. Firstly, for those who have bothered to read Liu's writings (in the Chinese language), you will see that he has an inherently derogatory attitude towards his own people. As a believer of universal values, I certainly don't think the best way to bring about social change is to label your own people as "serfs", "Pre-modern", and "inferior". After all, this is the same guy who said that China needs to be colonized by the West for it to modernize. Of course, his supporters abroad have selective ears. They translate the writings that embrace liberal democratic values into English for wider consumption but they 'censor' writings that are prejudiced. Western leaders then jump on these liberal democratic values as evidence of the West's superiority. Why is it that Liu Xiaobo does not have the same support amongst the general population of Singapore, South Korea, and Japan? Why only Western countries? That is something for us to ponder.
There are many Chinese activists who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize above Liu. One prominent example is Ai Weiwei, whose vulgar critique of the Chinese government strikes a much more pragmatic tone to Liu's ideological esotericism. Liu's message is to topple the Chinese government. Ai's message is to stop corruption amongst officials to prevent the poor construction of schools. The Chinese government jailed Liu, but they took Ai's message to heart. The Chinese people disdain Liu, but love Ai. Both are staunch critics of the Chinese government. So why the difference? When ordinary people listen to Ai, they see how they can act to change things for the better. When ordinary people listen to Liu, all they hear is ideological rants that have no practical substance.
In his illustrious career as a pro-democracy activist in China, Liu's message to the Chinese people is one of "Look at all you idiots, submitting to the will of a totalitarian state. All of you idiots! I am the only enlightened one who can see that multi-party democracy is the only solution." His ideological opponents argue that it is perfectly fine to rationally accept China's political system as a viable form of government, but also recognize that it has serious flaws. Liu does not deserve the Nobel Peace prize because he has done nothing to advance the cause of peace, but also because in his patronizing romanticism he has lost touch with the needs of the ordinary Chinese citizen.
This is a bad decision by the Nobel committee.
This is a multilayered issue that represents the failure of due diligence on the part of the Nobel Committee and "bandwagon" supporters of Liu. Firstly, for those who have bothered to read Liu's writings (in the Chinese language), you will see that he has an inherently derogatory attitude towards his own people. As a believer of universal values, I certainly don't think the best way to bring about social change is to label your own people as "serfs", "Pre-modern", and "inferior". After all, this is the same guy who said that China needs to be colonized by the West for it to modernize. Of course, his supporters abroad have selective ears. They translate the writings that embrace liberal democratic values into English for wider consumption but they 'censor' writings that are prejudiced. Western leaders then jump on these liberal democratic values as evidence of the West's superiority. Why is it that Liu Xiaobo does not have the same support amongst the general population of Singapore, South Korea, and Japan? Why only Western countries? That is something for us to ponder.
There are many Chinese activists who deserve the Nobel Peace Prize above Liu. One prominent example is Ai Weiwei, whose vulgar critique of the Chinese government strikes a much more pragmatic tone to Liu's ideological esotericism. Liu's message is to topple the Chinese government. Ai's message is to stop corruption amongst officials to prevent the poor construction of schools. The Chinese government jailed Liu, but they took Ai's message to heart. The Chinese people disdain Liu, but love Ai. Both are staunch critics of the Chinese government. So why the difference? When ordinary people listen to Ai, they see how they can act to change things for the better. When ordinary people listen to Liu, all they hear is ideological rants that have no practical substance.
In his illustrious career as a pro-democracy activist in China, Liu's message to the Chinese people is one of "Look at all you idiots, submitting to the will of a totalitarian state. All of you idiots! I am the only enlightened one who can see that multi-party democracy is the only solution." His ideological opponents argue that it is perfectly fine to rationally accept China's political system as a viable form of government, but also recognize that it has serious flaws. Liu does not deserve the Nobel Peace prize because he has done nothing to advance the cause of peace, but also because in his patronizing romanticism he has lost touch with the needs of the ordinary Chinese citizen.