The SCMP published another essay by Regina Ip today. Some excerpts:

Why does the west find it so hard to stomach China’s Olympian ambition? A major source of the conflict must be China’s radically different government system.

Why “must” it be? If you’re waiting for her to offer proof or examples, don’t bother. Instead the rest of this is a defense for the continuation of government by tyranny.

Western liberal democracy, to use Yale political scientist Robert Dahl’s polyarchy concept, is marked by political participation, opposition and contestation, and buttressed by such political rights as universal suffrage and access to sources of information free of official bias. Against this benchmark, a communist oligarchy lacks legitimacy. By western standards, such a system is bound to be detested by its people. Yet, by historical Chinese standards, and viewed in the context of China’s traditional values, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the way its government is organised today.

According to Wikipedia’s article on Polyarchy, “the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his or her interests be given equal consideration. A polyarchy is a nation-state that has certain procedures that are necessary conditions for following the democratic principle.” These procedures boil down to everyone having a vote, voting results are final and laws passed by elected officials are enforced. Apparently this system would not work for China.

In Ms. Ip’s view, things like “universal sufferage” (which she deems a political right and not a human one) or “access to sources of information free of official bias” are Western concepts and not Chinese and so there is nothing wrong with dictatorship, censorship and all that go with them.

… from early days, the Chinese people had always accepted the emperor, “the son of heaven”, as the natural ruler. The business of government was left to the ruling elite of scholar-officials.

(Presumably Ms. Ip sees herself as one of the “ruling elite.”)

Embedded in the Taoist ideal is the notion of life free from meddling by, and knowledge of, government. Until the west started gatecrashing China in the 19th century, the masses had preferred “to live and let live” in blissful ignorance of state affairs, except when life became intolerable. The low rate of Chinese political participation in the west is an indication of this mentality.

Did they prefer this? Or was it that anyone who didn’t prefer it led a revolution, toppled a dynasty or was executed? And where are the statistics about “low rate of Chinese political participation in the west”?

Another important distinction is the fact that western liberal democracy revolves around the rights of the individual, while China’s political system has, from early times, been built on the family as the basic unit. That is why modern political scientists never tire of talking about freedom as the first criterion of democratic quality, followed by others such as human rights, pluralism and transparency. In the case of China, Confucianism, with its heavy emphasis on family values, unity and social harmony, has been adopted as the state ideology since the time of Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty (157-87BC). The Chinese have always accepted government by “guardians”, not dissimilar to Plato in ancient Athens, who are supposedly endowed with a superior art of government. Such a system might seem nightmarish to the west, but can you blame an apple for not being an orange?

Just another dingbat kowtowing to Beijing and offering up phony excuses for a non-elected non-representative government that oppresses and murders its own people. Ms. Ip likes running for elected office and having access to media to publish her views but she doesn’t care if other people don’t enjoy the same freedoms because she is a member of the elite and you’re not.

Also in the SCMP letters section today, a Mr. Richard Wright, presumably not the keyboard player from Pink Floyd, writes in to complain about height restrictions for new buildings in Mid Levels. Apparently he doesn’t grasp the concept that filling a district of single lane streets with huge towers will result in increased traffic, noise, pollution and decreased quality of life for residents. More important is that he receive a decent return on his investment.

Many owners in Mid-Levels purchased their flat because of redevelopment potential. Owners have the right to benefit from future redevelopment of old buildings.

The new proposed building height restrictions will negatively affect the value of many sites in Mid-Levels. The broad brush approach which imposes arbitrary height limits should be dropped and studied in detail so a fair and balanced plan can take shape. Hong Kong’s reputation as a centre of investment depends on it.

Yes, right, Hong Kong’s reputation depends on peoples’ ability to replace 20 story buildings with 70 story ones? No, apparently it’s Mr. Wright’s investment portfolio that depends on this.

Well, it’s Monday, you expect me to not be grumpy on a Monday?