美 Mei - Zhong 中 關 Guan - Xi 系

What Is the Point of This Kind of Research? (这样的研究有何意义?)

By Jing Kaixuan (景凯旋)

Original Publication:

南方都市报 (The Southern Metropolis Daily)

Link to Original Article

Translated by Anton Lee Wishik II for Mei-Zhong Guanxi

The Chinese Academy of Sciences recently released the world’s first ‘National Health Report’ (国家健康报告). In its ‘National Responsibility Index’ (国家责任指数) ranking, China was ranked first out of the 45 countries from around the world which were sampled.  The US was ranked last, and other developed nations were also generally ranked near the bottom.  This so-called ‘national responsibility’ is, of course, referring to internal and external issues.  Apparently, all along we have been living in a paradise on earth, while two-thirds of the world’s population is still living in an abyss of suffering.  If the results of this research hadn’t been published after the melamine scandal, they would have caused pleasant dreams which brought smiles and speechless admiration.

Forgive me for being asinine, but as for this great news, I’m going to go so far as to say that it’s unavoidable to remain somewhat unconvinced because the results are so inconsistent with common sense.  Take the US for example; perhaps its government is irresponsible to the world, but it takes responsibility for its own citizens.  In addition, for determining whether a country’s government is responsible, one should look at the corresponding situation concerning its rights and duties.  Different countries have different systems, and the governments’ responsibilities are also different.  China has big government and small society.  It has implemented a concentration of power.  Naturally the government manages more, and its responsibilities are also greater.  The US has small government and big society.  It has implemented a dispersion of power.  Naturally, the government manages less, and also has less responsibility.  Even if it wanted to undertake more responsibility, its citizens would not agree.  By using how much a government manages to decide whether it acts responsibly, of course developing countries will be ranked near the top.  But again, what does this show?

Logically, the planned economy of the past would actually count as the greatest undertaking of responsibility.  As soon as a person was born, the state would take charge of their whole life including free education, public health care, cheap housing, retirement pensions, equal compensation, the iron rice bowl, the centralized issuance of meal and clothing coupons, and even marriages approved by work units, guarding against encountering any inhumanity.  Yet the opening and reform which came later was done precisely for discarding all of this.  Which is also to say that the substance of reform was for the state to gradually give up these parts of its responsibility and for society to assume them.  For example, both the former contract system of Xiaogang Village (小岗村的承包制) as well as the hope today that a policy decision could come out regarding land being able to be freely exchanged are part of this process.  To use the terms of the task force report, only this is the approach for a country to take regarding the ‘responsibility that should be undertaken and fulfilled for citizen’s existence, development, safety, health, happiness, and sustainable development.’

Competition among countries is not like sports competition for a gold medal for which a satisfactory result requires there to be one side declared number one.  Even if they are to be compared, it should be done with scientific and technical contents.  Exactly what kind of concept is ‘national health’?  I’m afraid that other than health task forces, no one is clear on this.  If this kind of research is done where the country is shown to be rich and prosperous and opponents surrender, then social development is extremely easy.  All that is needed is to mobilize the imaginative power of scholars and experts, and that is enough.  It’s not necessary to do a research project under a scientific pretense while spending taxpayers’ money because the results of this kind of research are obvious before they come out.  We will definitely be positioned first, and the US will definitely be positioned last.  Proof is not at all necessary.

This is not to say that one shouldn’t praise.  The results of reform and opening are obvious to all, but this is not nearly enough to make us euphoric.  There was a consensus in the 80’s called ‘consciousness of hardship’ (忧患意识) which said that a nation should often reflect on its own inadequacies, and only upon seeing others’ positive aspects can society progress.  In today’s world, perhaps China is the country most willing to take responsibility, and this is great progress.  However, it still can’t be said that it is the most responsible country.  Moreover, following the intensification of reform, numerous social abuses have continuously occurred.  Instances of corruption in education, medical treatment, and the judiciary can often be seen in the newspaper.  Some officials abuse power, take bribes and pervert justice, treat human life as if it is not worth a straw, give false reports on accidents, and things are more and more just hanging by a thread.  Also, government officials’ accountability often comes about after accidents happen, compelled by media exposure.  A long-term mechanism for automatic accountability has not yet been established.  If it is still considered normal for a person to always see their own strong points and other people’s deficiencies, then taking one’s own deficiencies and seeing them as strong points cannot be considered normal.

China is prosperous, but it is not prosperous to the point where it could never run out of money.  If there is that much effort and the expenditure of that many taxpayers’ dollars, it still would be better to spend them on research on the three rural issues, social injustice, corruption, medical treatment and education reform rather than spending it on this kind of meaningless research project.  Today, as citizens’ consciousness is strengthened more and more, other than making the public think it’s a big joke and making them feel sorry for the reckless use of tax money, this research is useless.  It’s just like the stones for the monument on Yang Mountain in the suburbs of Nanjing.  This monument was erected by the son of Zhu Yuanzhang (朱元璋) for his father during the Ming dynasty.  Because it was too tall and too big, it was eventually discarded on the mountain and became a historic symbol of all the great undertakings in China which had nothing to do with the people’s welfare: great meaninglessness.

(The author is a professor at Nanjing University)

For another translated editorial on the report by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, please see this excellent post by the China Media Project.

Note: This site has no relation to the author or original publication. This translation was done for informational purposes only and not for commercial gain or to express any personal views. To contact the author or original publication, please check the details listed above.

Related Posts

• Why is America energetically researching China?
• Translation: New Article by the Author of ‘Democracy Is A Good Thing’