Blackmailing

Dad: “If you promise not to beat others up in the school, I’ll buy you a PS3.”
Son: “That’s blunt blackmailing!”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come to the conclusion that 1, the son probably behaved violently in the school in the past; and 2, the son is not likely or willing to behave in the future.

Now look at the following conversation:
The French owner of the two pieces of Chinese treasure from the Forbidden City: “If China promise to respect the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans, I would consider giving them back to China.”
Some Chinese media (and probably the government): “This is blunt blackmailing!”

I have no idea why the Chinese government is ignoring logic recently, such as the Obama speech censorship issue. This reaction seems very much like a tacit admission to me. If China really strongly believes that it liberated Tibet and never violated or has no future intention to violate human rights and freedom in that so-called self-autonomous region, why does it call this blackmailing? If China did nothing wrong, then it has already met the requirement in this “contract.” China can happily say: “Deal! We have already met your requirement. Now hand them over.”

Calling it blackmailing simply proves that China did not or will not guarantee the freedom and human rights of the Tibetans.

It’s OK. All He Needs is A Little Education.

Some Chinese media said that the Chinese premier, who was the target of a shoe attack at Cambridge, hoped that Cambridge would not expel that German student who threw his shoe. “Education is the best treatment for this student.” said the premier.

Education? Maybe he means “brainwashing.” I don’t see why the student would become an avid pro China activist even if he spends his whole life studying in Cambridge. Throwing a shoe at a foreign leader is illegal for sure; but just because someone didn’t do it doesn’t mean that he/she is pro China. Clearly, the education at Cambridge might only touch the part about the law, but never the part about which country or which government one should support. Amnesty International even doubted that the student has apologized. If Cambridge and the British government have to lie to appease China, then they should be ashamed of themselves.

What’s funny is that Chinese leaders go abroad with the assumption that they will get the same treatment that they enjoy in China: welcoming faces, zero protest on the way, pre-scripted questions, and so on. If anything goes wrong on their foreign trips, the perpetrator should also get the CHinese treatment, as they assume. Therefore, it’s not surprising that the premier can think of nothing but the word “education.” Don’t forget that the word education in China doesn’t always mean going to the classrooms and being brainwashed peacefully. There is something called “re-education through labor,” a treatment that the government never hesitates to give to both the juveniles and the elderly. A Chinese person who throws a shoe at a Chinese leader in China would definitely receive the abovementioned “education.” But if Cambridge is willing to give that kind of “education” to a German student, the world must have entered a much more gloomy stage.

I believe that the REAL education doesn’t tell people which side to root for; it opens up people’s mind that makes them more tolerant to different opinions. Therefore, the people who need some REAL education is those Chinese students who take the whole incident as a direct insult at themselves personally. An insult at a Chinese leader is not an insult at China; it is more so when the leader is not even elected by the Chinese people; it is even more so when the leader is part of a regime that, 20 years ago, would shoot at the students like the Chinese students today just because they had been on the street for too long.