1、Dear Professor:
Thank you for your calm and reasoned comments. I have been following
this debate, in both English and Chinese (I have lived half of my
four-plus decades in China and half in the U.S., so am equally
comfortable in both languages), with great interest. Regarding
"double standards," what I am experiencing is cognitive dissonance
because of the dramatically divergent coverage of this incident in
the Chinese and English-language media and on Chinese and
English-language listservs.
As a reporter with long experience in China, I am hesitant to state
anything with strong conviction because I have not investigated this
case first-hand (nor, I assume, has anyone else writing on this
list). So the only point I will highlight is the one that has been
most emphasized in the English-language media, specifically that
there was a legitimate question of this man's mental health--as
evidenced by the court officers' reported laughing at his bizarre
initial court appearances, consistent with his stated condition of
bipolar disorder--and that Chinese law provides for mental evaluation
in such circumstances but the court denied this motion.
I cannot for the life of me understand why so many
commentators--including Sun Yan and this Chinese-American
professor--profess certainty of this man's mental competence and
portray his motives as if they can read his mind. I trust you will
concede that since none of us is on the scene and independent
observers have not been allowed into the courtroom our conclusions
are pure speculation. I do not state knowledge of the man's mental
competence because that is impossible to possess from this remove.
All I state is that Chinese law provides for a medical expert's
psychological evaluation, but for some reason it was denied in this
case.
Why declare Deng Yujiao not guilty by reason of insanity but not
allow this man to be psychologically evaluated? Is this not a double
standard?
If we must rehash the history of the Opium Wars, so be it. I praise
the Chinese-American professor for pointing out that it was Chinese
smoking opium, but remind him that it was also Chinese selling opium
to the Chinese smoking it, and there is much distortion and
disingenuity regarding the recounting of the historical circumstances
surrounding the Opium Wars in China. But this is neither here nor
there. All I can say is that one cannot pick and choose what history
is legitimate to rehash and what is not. So you cannot, for example,
simultaneously reserve the right to cite the Opium Wars when
convenient and then chastise any mention of more recent, less
favorable examples of exploitation and double standards in China that
do not involve foreigners.
I will also stick my neck out and state that I do not think that this
man would have been denied mental evaluation and executed so
precipitously if he had been Caucasian and not of Pakistani-descent.
This is another double standard that I wish were not true but my long
experience persuades me otherwise.
Double standards are to be denounced wherever they occur, not picked
and chosen for political and patriotic expediency.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
Duo bao zhong.
2、Dear Sir/Madam,
Thanks for responding to my message, which was based on my personal
opinions. My response to yours may sound argumentative or even bit
sarcastic, and that is my style when I offer a prompt response. I
respect the spirit and style of your message. Otherwise I would not
respond. I doubt that I will respond any more given the time limitation.
It seems that you questioned two of my points. First is about the Opium
War. You praised me for saying that the Chinese used the opium, but
chided me for not mentioning that the Chinese sold it. Why should I
state the obvious? Foreigners were not allowed to sell things in China
before the war. Which was true? The Chinese went all the way to India or
the British took opium to places in or near China? Who owned the opium
and who were wholesalers? What angered the Chinese today was less that
some smugglers tried to sell opium to China, rather that the British
government added insult to injury, encouraging illegal activities and
launching a war against China in the name of civilization. This time,
the British government did again. Nobody said that this guy was not
guilty, and he was a criminal. London used human rights to seek
privilege for its own citizen. So the Chinese human rights can be
compromised, but a convicted British criminal should be protected? I do
not think this is fair.
I am not an expert on mental problems. It seems a common practice to
take a criminal’s mental situation into account now. Let me summarize
what I have learned from the BBC readers’ comments, and most were made
by the British. First, if he had mental problem, why did not he have a
medical record? He was 53-year-old. Many said that his caring and
grieving family should not allow him to travel if they knew his mental
problem. Second, bipolar disorder may make people feel up and down, but
barely affects people’s judgment of right and wrong. Some commentators
with such disease called the excuse an insult to them. One even
shuddered at the prospect that people would not want to be associated
with them in the future. Many thought that it is unlikely for a person
with such a disease to manage to travel all the way to Urumuchi. Third,
have been staying in a prison for many months, and facing an almost
certain prospect of capital punishment, most normal person might go
crazy before the execution. Finally, the Chinese did evaluate him but
did not think that he was mentally ill. British requested to test him
themselves, but were denied.
Here is my addition to this issue. You mentioned that the Chinese
laughed at his style in the court. Well, a while ago, when one American
professor said, "excuse me," after he sneezed in China, my classmates
and I found this amusing, and even laughingly imitated the high level of
civilization in our dorm. I do not think that our silly laugh should be
used to prove that the American professor suffered mental problems.
If Freud has a point, we are all crazy in different forms or to
different degrees. While writing this response, I am crazy. I should
spend more time on my teaching, research, or just relaxing. When people
commit crime, it is rather safe to define their mental situations as
abnormal, if not crazy.
Finally, I will get even more controversial here. Why should mental
problems allow people to get away with many things? We humans are equal.
Why should a person with a mental problem enjoy privileges, especially
when he violates other’s rights? It is very easy to fake a mental
problem, is not it? Should not we go to see a doctor and leave a medical
record there and then use our mental problems to seek leniency or
exoneration in the future?
All humans had treated people with mental problems very nastily up until
very recently. Even today, I would say it is very much same in most
countries. Now some countries can congratulate themselves that they
become civilized. Does that imply that their ancestors were uncivilized?
I think that is harsh and ungrateful. Can we really afford to respect
human rights as we wish? The rich countries can do so to a certain
degree, but for how long? Do you think that this world is so nice that
the afterworld is so nasty? How many billions of people are living in
miserable situations? Why should we spend so much time and energy on
human rights of a criminal? Do you genuinely think that a criminal would
enjoy human rights in a jail? Should not we cherish freedom?
There are two types of errors in all judicial systems. One is to err on
the side of harshness. A handful people may be innocent but are wrongly
convicted. The other is to err on the side of leniency. Many
perpetrators are set free for all kinds of reasons. Neither system is
better, since each has its own advantages and disadvantage. It depends
on personal preference. I prefer to live in the first system, as long as
the law is not arbitrary and all are equal before it. I cherish a safe
environment, and take responsibly for all my actions. If I am wrongly
implicated and convicted, I would say “bad luck.” It is far more likely
that we will be killed in a car accident than that we will wrongly
receive capital punishment. Many British readers bemoaned that their
system is too lenient and costly. The society becomes too chaotic and
even dangerous. Several speculated that Brown tried to use this incident
to win votes for the next election, and pointed that on this issue the
government actually was not in agreement with public opinions in Britain.
Let me stop rambling here. Have a nice weekend!
(转载本文请注明“中国选举与治理网”首发)