Philosopher has been hijacked by autocratic rulers
Professor Nailene Chou Wiest of the University of Hong Kong in her letter headlined, 'Confucius confounded' (Sunday Morning Post, September 3), said that my column on the 'culture of subservience' (Sunday Morning Post, August 27), reminded her of the 'Criticise Lin, Criticise Confucius' campaign during which Lin Biao was accused of being a 'closet Confucian'.
The 'Confucius' attacked in that campaign had nothing to do with Lin Biao or Confucius. The target was somebody else.
Professor Wiest further claimed the 'feudal values' in Hong Kong I deplored were a product of British colonialism, not of the Chinese tradition. Perhaps she may be forgiven her ignorance about the SAR, since she was educated and has worked mostly abroad.
Hong Kong Chinese are well aware of the inequity of British colonialism.
The reason they did not rebel, as the Algerians or the Vietnamese did against the French, or as the Chinese against the Japanese imperialists, is elementary.
If Professor Wiest could understand why there was a '1997 confidence crisis' in the 1980s, then she would begin to understand why Hong Kong Chinese did not dislike the British as much as they otherwise would have.
Another of your correspondents responding to my article, Alex Woo (letter headlined, 'Misguided', Sunday Morning Post, September 10), made a most welcome point: democracy and Confucius' teachings are not diametrically in opposition. Unfortunately, he went too far in suggesting that a democracy will naturally emerge by the practising of Confucian principles.
Mr Woo conveniently ignores many other sayings of Confucius, such as, 'Let emperor be emperor, minister be minister; father, father, son, son', that are clearly anti-democratic.
Confucius was not a simple thinker. Any great philosopher whose thinking has lasted for more than 2,000 years must be complex and subtle. The simple fact is Confucius said a great many things, not all of them are logically consistent with one another. What is unfortunate for the Chinese nation is that only the authoritarian part of Confucius has been tagged as the essence of what he said. In recent years, some scholars (Western and Eastern-educated) have preferred to think that Confucianism, as it is commonly understood, is the 'hijacked' version of what he taught. That twisted version has been used over the centuries by rulers, to justify their autocratic style of ruling.
Mr Woo was off-base when he suggested only 'Western-educated' Chinese believed democracy and Confucianism are diametrically opposed to each other. Many Chinese intellectuals, not educated abroad, have considered Confucius an obstacle to democracy. It is unfortunate most failed to differentiate between the 'feudal' and the 'liberal' Confucius.
I fully endorse Mr Woo's implicit point that democracy is not necessarily inconsistent with Confucius' teachings. Confucius, the man, was a rebel in his own time, always standing up to tyrants and political bullies who abused their positions while in public office. If he was alive today, he, like Karl Marx, would abhor what has been done in his name. Both Marx and Confucius would have protested loudly and would surely be attacked by the pro-Communist, pro-government press in Hong Kong as being anti-Tung, anti-party and anti-China troublemakers.
SIN-MING SHAW
Sheung Wan
