More often than not unsolicited comments and suggestions are considered
inappropriate. If we leave aside the deference aspect of the rule, and
therefore the sheer respect for authority in a pyramidal organization,
there are many reasons that can justify this widely shared custom, among
which the “communication” dimension is for me the most important.
To
put it simply, communication is about relating to individuals in
society, and in order for the communicational transaction to take place,
one individual must speak and the other one has to listen and
understand, and usually alternatively speak or reply and be listened to
and understood. When the word “communications” appeared in Europe at the
end of the thirteenth century, it referred to “ways of being together.”
By
that token, an unsolicited comment is deemed inappropriate because the
interlocutor (in linguistics, the person to whom speech is directed) is
not willing or simply ready to listen — and here, I am not even
considering the answering back or amending process of one’s point of
view.
Reading about recent comments made in June by “Mainland
scholars,” as they are characterized in the press, I found myself in the
very awkward position where everything was right and yet everything
felt wrong. These two scholars, Zhu Shiha, from the Central Socialism
Institute in Beijing, and Chen Xin, from the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences, were basically voicing the idea that the central authorities
in Beijing were quite likely to allow more democracy in Macao in the
future.
Chinese culture does put much emphasis on etiquette — “saving
face” has become an everyday reference — and it is therefore not
surprising that these comments were of course solicited ones, made at
the invitation of a local institution, the Macau Polytechnic Institute,
that has made a specialty of exploring the “one-country-two-systems” as a
singular object of investigation, dedicating a whole research center
with a fully-fledged academic journal to it.
What is less right
though is that the Central Socialism Institute created in 1946 is a
typical United Front institution that although staffed with
non-communist members has a mission to bring unity under the leadership
of the Communist Party of China. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
in itself seems a bit less political, but Mr Chen, despite his doctorate
in law, is from the Institute of European Studies and speaks very good
Hungarian, if his online bio is to trusted, but has indeed a very
limited knowledge of the ins and outs of political reform in Macao under
the “one country, two systems” formula. Mr Zhu, the expert, went as far
as saying that the central government, being more satisfied with the
political conditions in Macao, “would likely allow more room for
democratic development in Macao than in Hong Kong.”
Is Mr Zhu aware
that the political reform package has already been passed for Hong Kong,
and that the Chief Executive and the Legco members in the former
British colony will be returned through universal suffrage starting
respectively in 2017 and 2020? Is he aware than the very discreet Bureau
for Political Studies created by Chui Sai On in 2010 made it public in
early April that an agenda for the implementation of universal suffrage
was, as of now, not relevant to consider for Macao?
Ultimately,
should we be mad at Mr Lao Pun Lap, coordinator of the above-mentioned
bureau for not disclosing the “scientific rationale” behind his
statement, contrary to the very foundation of his office? Should we be
worried for Hong Kong considering that what really matters for the
central authorities appears to be who is allowed to run for elections
and not how the candidates are elected? And when does an unsolicited
opinion cease to be inappropriate?
Published in Macau Daily Times, June 22 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment