My letter was run in full in today's South China Morning Post.
As long as the Post keeps running letters like this, critical of China, my heart is at ease about freedom of speech in Hong Kong.
Well, somewhat at ease. It may be, of course, that our dear motherland sees an English language daily as no threat all so... let those silly gweilos play in their little sandpit if they must.
Whatever, it's a good relief valve, at least for we gweilos and the Chinese English-speaking readers — which I believe is the majority of the Post's readership. That's to say, English-lliterate ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong and elsewhere in the region like Singapore and Malaysia.
********
Would you rather be Meng in Canada or a Canadian held in China?
[Text below the line]
I’m sick of the incessant “whataboutery” in these pages. For example: China may steal technology, sure, but what about the US? Yes, China may unfairly subsidise its exports, but what about Europe? China may improperly hinder imports, but what about Japan? I refer to columns by David Dodwell and Robert Delaney.
[Text below the line]
I’m sick of the incessant “whataboutery” in these pages. For example: China may steal technology, sure, but what about the US? Yes, China may unfairly subsidise its exports, but what about Europe? China may improperly hinder imports, but what about Japan? I refer to columns by David Dodwell and Robert Delaney.
Then there’s the thrust of Alex Lo’s column, “Sabrina Meng Wanzhou case exposes the worst of East and West” (January 22): yes, China may jail random expat Canadians, but what about the US? The latter, according to Lo, is wielding the so-called rule of law to arrest Huawei’s Meng Wanzhou.
I encourage Lo to do a thought experiment: where would he prefer to be jailed, China or the US? Would he rather criticise Chinese President Xi Jinping on Beijing’s Wangfujing or harangue US President Donald Trump on New York’s Broadway? He could try it to find out just how “so-called” the US legal system is. China jails people arbitrarily; a “what about the US” argument doesn’t work here. There’s no equivalence in the law nor in the treatment of dissent.A final bit of whataboutery: the US is run by lawyers; China is run by engineers, and it shows. What about both countries getting a bit more in balance – more lawyers in China and more engineers in the US? Isn’t that something we could all get behind? In the meantime, enough of the tu quoque.
Peter Forsythe, Discovery Bay
