Some words to say

Regarding the recent protests in China, the very first question is not yet clarified: what do we really want? Vagueness is the reason I’m against the idea of white paper. The answers are not “blowing in the wind” and automatically written on the white papers. People should be clear, thoughtful and rigorous about what they ask the government for. Stop Covid test? Make Xi resign? These are the slogans that shout out people’s mind right now. But we dare to think of a step further. What structural problems does these slogans suggest? What are the actions afterwards?

These days I’m repeating a sentence to friends who care: Chinese would not go for a protest unless their most basic needs, such as food and sleep, can not even be guaranteed. We’d rather live in an “uninteresting time” when we follow each rule in schools, corporates or institutions, and we exchange our tolerance for money to make ourselves a good dinner. We all know the authorities have some “controlling issues”, meanwhile we live a quite good life——the daily things, such as cheap nice food and high-speed public transportation, are organized and satisfying. Sometimes we consider the “controlling issues” as the necessary expense of living a good life——for example, only governmental control can resolve the miserable conditions in poor villages. Believe it or not, this is a “metastability” that have worked for years in China.

But as we all know, this is a risky “metastability”. The 2020 outbreak of coronavirus in China proved that. People realize “controlling issues” are not the expense of good life, but life becomes the expense of “controlling issues”. The key here is that both people and authorities fudge the concept of control. We definitely need external control to have a good life, but the only legitimate external control is the law orders that we agree with the authorities. The progressive concept “rule of law” already says that once law orders come into being, legislative control should be independent of any governmental control. We do what we has agreed, so that we get out of the binary that someone controls while others are controlled. 

Yesterday I discussed with my friend: what is so-called “human dignity”? Is that we show our political passion, rebel against the systematic control again and again, like the revolution never ends? No, if “human dignity” ever exists, it must refer to that we all have our own orders of life. We eat appropriate food at the right time, we sleep well in a decent room. To achieve that, we always need consenting control. The necessary control of law orders are here to guarantee the orders of life.

So now we can answer what is the structural problem in China: “rule of law”, which is the basis of civic life, is being destroyed by our great president Xi. He arbitrarily amended the Constitution without any limit. Following that, law enforcement officers no longer have the law orders to enforce. They do whatever they want, they share Xi’s desire for power. The chaotic Covid control this year proved that. And the result is also obvious: people lose their orders of life, and that’s why they have “enough time” to occupy the street.

Remember what 2019 Hong Kong protest resists? “Anti-Extradition Law Amendment Bill Movement”. But in 2019, Hong Kong was already on the edge. Their rage was for mourning the irreversible situation that Chinese authorities are already able to transcend the law orders. It was too late. So is now. In this sense, I have one cruel thing to say: We should never forgive our own permissive ignorance towards how Xi gradually destroy the “rule of law” and make all orders ineffective. It is ultimately our law. Not his. We are responsible for our law to protect our own life.

The other structural problem is that the evidence-based science is no longer what policies rely on. I know someone claim that science is taken for granted as somewhat “modern religion”, so we should reflect on the socio-cultural contexts of scientific practices. And usually the public address inquiries to scientific reports, even if their inquiries are based on conspiracy theories. Questioning is always free. No one can stop people’s thinking. But administrative decisions should rely on the information sources that professionals have rigorously validated. Historically, this systematic alliance between science and administration is proved as how a political entity work. Otherwise a country cannot afford the orders of life of such a great number of people. 

But Chinese authorities are disrespectful to this common knowledge base. That is the real danger. Daily Covid test continues, whereas it is useless for scientific virus control. Vaccine is not at the top of the agenda, though it is scientifically proved as the effective way of virus control. And the real result is: the burden of trivial things, such as doing Covid test everyday, exhausts people‘s curiosity to research scientific process of virus control, even if it is all available online. They just want to get rid of everything with the word “Covid”. Being imposed by unscientific control exhausts their desire to know, to search, to understand. I would say it is the most unwanted outcome.

In the past three years, people urge other people to go for a protest. But no one did. Someone even evilly wait for a complete chaos that forces people to occupy the street. Now it comes. Lacking the recognition of law orders and scientific rules, daily life can not even proceed now. But to be honest, China don’t have to reach this overwhelming boiling point. I was listening to a lot of shit these days such as “I’m happy that Chinese people finally wake up and go for a protest”, “Only this time I feel there is still hope in Chinese people”. I can’t help asking them: so you are the only one “awake” all the time? If so, why your “awakening” excludes the necessary hesitation that protests does not make life better but more disorganized? I’m also angry that they truly feel happy about other people’s rage.

Then we come back to the first question: what do we really want? In 1919, student protesters said: China warmly welcomed “democracy” and “science”. Now is a different world, but as I analyze above, “democracy” and “science” are still the key structural problems. “Democracy” urges people to negotiate with the authorities. In the process of negotiation, we are ready to implement what we agreed, namely, the law orders. “Science” refers to the transparent processes that we rigorously examine the evidence. I never see “democracy” and “science” as somewhat westernized concepts because they are never just concepts. “Democracy” and “science” show us how a society works, with clear orders and transparent processes, which are proved helpful to arrange our orders of life. The emphasis of orders coincides with Chinese common wish: we’d rather live in an “uninteresting time”.

With that, now we can make it clearer what we want. We want rule of law and scientific approaches. They are the solid ground of whatever demand we speak to the government. For example, here are 4 demands proposed by A4 revolution fellows:

1. Allow Public Mourning. Public mourning is to assemble people for protests. Article 35 in Constitution says: “Citizens of the People’s Republic of China shall enjoy freedom of speech, the press, assembly, association, procession and demonstration”. 
2. End Brutal Zero-covid Lockdowns. Zero-Covid lockdown is not scientifically effective to protect people from the virus, let alone China's exit from global market leads to massive economic recession. If the authorities fear the outbreak of Omicron brought from foreign countries, a more effective way is to increase vaccination rate and prepare the medical system. 
3. Release Human Rights Defenders. Protesters are arrested by law enforcement officers. Officers are themselves in a mess because they don’t have the clear law orders to enforce. Try to argue with them with the relevant articles. We probably win.
4. Guarantee people’s constitutional rights. Just respect “rule of law”.

Last words to my friends who are humanity students, researchers or artists. We are unable to help. We have to admit that. We are lying when we talk about the immediate social impact of our works. We can hardly influence even a single person because our jobs are far away from social relations of production. What we have is our abstract thoughts based on what we have read and experienced. What we have is the conceptual debates torturing our minds every day. Speak our confusions carefully. Time will prove.