(Contributed)
Jan, 28.
One veads from time to time of the possibility of new treaties being negotiated in the near future between the Western countries and China, Representatives from China have gone abroad and are even now taking the matter up, and the question naturally occurs, whom do the "representatives" from China represent? Not the Chi people, that we know. The tionalist party? The Chihli-Shantung party? The Canton Nationalist party? The Hankow party? The Kiukiang party? The Wuhu party? The Changsha party? The above-Hankow party? The Big Sword party? The last named, which operates only in Manchuria at the moment would, probably, appeal most strongly to the Chinese people. By its aid the heads of the other parties might fall, and the Chinese people be allowed to live in peace for ever after. How big a percentage of the total population of China does any one of these parties represent—not by force of arms, but by the people recorded?
The great idea of the politicians of the Western countries seems to be that, like their own countries, China should be made. "safe for democracy"—that all peoples on earth have the right of "self-determination." Do these people of the Western nations, generally, Know, approximately, what democracy is? Do they know that under the autocracy of the Manchus, the people of China lived far more happily than is the lot of the people, under the flimsy fabric called' democracy in their own countries? One saw in those days the children of the rich play happily with the children of the poor, and they went to the same schools. They competed for the same offices, with the same chances of success. But, there is one outstanding fact which, to the politician of the West, will appear flaw in this, otherwise happy existence—there were no party politics. Also the politician of Cina has discovered the happy hunting ground of party polities; only to him it means far more than the mere existence which his colleague of the West ekes out of his career. Turn, for a moment, to polities as conducted in the democracies of the West. "How does the State treat its citizens? And, what ought the principles of this treatment to be? These were two questions which the leading luminary of the highest court of one of these countries recently took up in a lecture before a society of political economy. The lecturer commenced by eaying that when he mentioned names and gave conerete examples, it was not the persons he wanted to hit at, but the mentality which now obtained in the state. The citizens were no longer treated fairly and both the lawmaking and the administrative powers had got into deep water. The law administration was acting on the principle that, "We have got the power, and we Know how to use it." The pris ciples of justice which are laid down in the constitution, are often misconstrued by the government which has little left of the old ideas of decency. Under the mask of "social fairness," the law administration absolves itself in the act of perpetrating individual injustice.
The lawyer threw light on the actions of the State in conces sion and taxation policies, in which it acted in a pure horse-dealing manner, and has acted in the most self-interested way against its citizens.' Also in the state administration thi same spirit has begun to spree and there it is more dangerous because it is not so easy to put finger on it—it goes by devious ways, taking advantage according to the letter of the law, but in opposition to its spirit. On the whole, within the state, it has become more and more usual to look at the individuals as opponents and not as citizens. Altogether, the actions of the state are such, that the taxpayers are becoming distrustful and feel compelled to adopt a defensive attitude. The state must once again learn the meaning of fair play.
The above criticism was not made by a political opponent, but in order to warn the state that its citizens were becoming aware of tendencies on the part of its officials, against the spirit of the constitution, It is not only in one country, but in every country in the world that those tendencies are taking a serious hold. The governments are not any longer governing institutions in the sense which we have been taught to look upon them, but have become party political representations, [rst and foremost. One can not, fairly, tax the individuals of any one government now in existence this state of affairs, which has -developed gradually through a span of time, and for which the citizens themselves must carry part of the blame. At least, it can be said that it is a step in the right direction, when the people beg to take this very serious matter up for analysis. Yet, it is to be feared that many winters will pass, before the governments of the world once again become purged, and imbued with the dea of fair play towards thei citizens. In the meantime, o1 must take the governments they are and as we ourselves are—niscrable sinners.
Bot, if the politicians can get away" with their sins in the Western countries, what may the Chinese people hope for, unknown and friendless, in ' the back of beyond? China, as represented by the Chinese people, every right to self-determi ation, but that it will not obtain through the medium of the self-appointed politicians now serambling for power. That can only be had through evolution. None of the many so called " party leaders have made the slightest attempt to rally the people, for whose sovereign rights they stand out so boldly, to something constructive.
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.