> Rusty OLD FOOL, you should not blame Confucius for your ignorance. You
> should blame your chop suey parents keeping you in their chop suey
> restaurant kitchen too long that made you a chop suey idiot. Now, here
> is another Confucianism for you to learn, let's see if you can be less
> chop suey idiot!
>
> Your Confucius
>
> 'Confucius' notions of individual freedom and societal harmony are
> universal.'
>
> In all the discussion about the hand-over of Hong Kong, the majority
> of commentators have only taken sides: whether the communist Chinese
> way is right or not. In this final instalment before July 1, 1997, CAP
> explores the only way for China to govern Hong Kong and itself: the
> principles of Confucius - the same ones that brought prosperity to
> Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and, to a lesser extent, Japan
>
> A L L O W   U S to get a common misconception out of the way: first,
> Confucianism is not a religion, but a philosophy. And it's very likely
> the only lasting solution for good government in China. Most readers
> not versed with the history of China may be asking at this point, 'How
> can a Chinese who lived 2,500 years ago have any relevance for
> today?'
>    The examples of Singapore - where Confucius is acknowledged as the
> one who has provided them with their economic and social policies,
> even by Senior Minister and former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew - and
> Taiwan serve to remind us how sometimes ancient philosophies still
> work to bring economic success and a peaceful society. Even more
> importantly, Confucianism is a philosophy about free wills, not about
> state control, which is compatible with the western notion that a
> person should determine his or her own destiny.
>
> The ideas behind Confucianism
> Confucius himself lived in the "war nation" era in China. Born in 551
> B.C., he was a contemporary of Buddha but his ideas were quite
> different. While Buddha spoke of the after-life, Confucius was a down-
> to-earth visionary who tried to find the best way for a society to be
> run.
>    Faced with an unstable China run by feudal lords, Confucius tried
> to find a "hook" that everyone would understand. His solution:
> harmony. The concept was familiar with all Chinese, epitomized in the
> Ying and the Yang, that everything has its equal opposite for a
> natural balance. Taken to the societal level, he believed that
> societies and nations would be more stable if there were a two-way
> flow of duties: the people's duty to work for the development of the
> state would be balanced by the government's duty to care for the
> people and to provide for their welfare.
>    If the everyday people could see that the government cared, then
> they would in turn be more happy to be under that government. This is
> clearly lacking in some nations who are discontent with the way they
> are governed, and it can be usually traced to their anger with
> corruption in high places, or an irresponsible president or prime
> minister.
>    Then what about each person's free will? Doesn't this mean that
> every person has his place, with government and commoners? No,
> believed Confucius, introducing the second principle of morality. If
> everyone had morality, he reasoned, they would not need to be
> governed. The government would not need to regulate, impose fines or
> use the law to punish. State intervention would then be at a minimum,
> leading to efficient government.
>    For instance, Confucius believed formal laws were only used to
> oppress people by régimes, while moral principles depended on each
> person's free will. The use of penal law, reasoned Confucius, would
> lead to people avoiding punishments and lacking a sense of shame.
> Leadership with virtue and morality, practised and preached, would
> have the opposite outcome, leaving people get on with life in an
> orderly fashion and staying within what is accepted as moral and
> decent. Interestingly, the interpretations of morality and decency can
> change with the society and the era.
>    So anyone has the potential to be a leader, as long as that person
> has a strong sense of morality. He must win the confidence of his
> superior and his friends first.
>    Also central is the ability to refrain from committing immoral
> acts. Confucius considered if people left their desires uncontrolled,
> they are no better than animals. Civility is critical.
>    So here is a philosophy that promotes decent human relationships,
> efficient governments, freedom for the individual and morality. It's
> not even sexist - prejudice of any sort was not tolerated.
>
> OK, but even communism works in theory
> Here's the most interesting part about Confucianism: China has
> implemented it over the last 2,500 years and each time it has worked
> for long periods. The times when it fell down was when a corrupt
> emperor came on the scene and used laws to oppress people, for
> instance, during the time of the Mongols in the thirteenth century,
> and in 1585 during the Ming dynasty. Confucian policies during the
> Sung dynasty (the Marco Polo visits came during this time), when China
> was the undoubted global superpower with the world's highest standard
> of living and prosperity, meant that China was a peaceful nation, not
> a threat to any other state.
>    Most recently, variants of Confucianism appear in Singapore and
> Taiwan. While there are strict laws there, one can see they are seldom
> implemented. Singapore, for instance, follows Confucius' ideas of
> minimizing legal formality but having just a sitting judge on cases.
> Laws are not used to oppress people in the Asian tiger economies - and
> that is the most visible difference between them and the traditional
> common and civil law systems in the west. Where there is conflict, the
> Confucian solution is to negotiate, compromise, and find consensus and
> harmony. What can be found is a stronger community feeling in the
> Confucian society.
>    There are giant state-run enterprises, however, in Taiwan, but that
> is seen more as a function of the state looking after the people so
> they can get on with their work, whether that be in the private or
> public sector.
>    What is out of hand in some Asian economies, including Taiwan, is
> corruption - something that would not happen in the orderly Confucian
> society. Indeed, Singapore, a fairly corruption-free city-state, is
> the closest living example of Confucianism and a traditional Chinese
> society at work.
>    What about Singapore's control, say, of the internet? Surely
> Confucius advocated freedom of speech? That is true - he believed in
> free speech as long as it was articulated in a reasonable and
> civilized way. Ideally, Singaporeans would be able to see whatever
> material was on the 'net and make the choice between what is
> acceptable and what is not. Censorship of the internet is, we feel,
> not the way approved by Confucius. We do understand that Singapore
> feels that immoral literature on the 'net or in the press is harmful
> to her brand of national harmony, and has approached the censorship
> from that angle.
>    What is approved by Confucius is democracy which functions through
> participation and not through conflicting claims to rights. Education
> is also key - witness how Taiwanese families sent their children to
> learn high-tech skills in the 1950s, who later returned to build up
> that country's current position in technology and computing. It was an
> initiative supported by the government; in return, the students helped
> build up the nation.
>    Similar forces were at work with Hong Kong families. Although not
> funded by the state, at the least HK citizens could leave the colony
> to get education elsewhere - education which, ultimately, would be
> used to build up the technology and knowledge of the colony's
> professionals. In Hong Kong, Confucian philosophies were at the
> foundation of many of the leading Hong Kong Chinese-owned
> corporations. The freedom of speech in Hong Kong has been successful,
> too - the proliferation of media actually provides citizens with
> information with which they can make up their own minds. China,
> regrettably, sees the media as tools for manipulating the citizenry -
> allegedly the same thing happens in many western nations, although it
> is somewhat better hidden.
>
> Why isn't it in place in mainland China?
> Looking through Chinese history, formal laws and bureaucracy are
> indicative of régimes wanting to seize political control. Confucianism
> was banned in Communist China as the leaders believed it would prove
> harmful to them. Chairman Mao believed that the stability that
> Confucianism provided would be an impediment to his authority,
> according to legal writer Forte. This was, in fact, foolish on the
> part of the Politburo in Beijing: the reality is that Confucianism
> could have potentially made China easier to govern for the Chinese
> leaders. Today, China finds that her Marxism is not compatible with
> the late Deng Xioping's Open Door Policy of 1979, or its promise to
> keep Hong Kong unchanged after 1997.
>    Li Zehou of the Colorado College feels that Confucianism fills the
> void of China's damaged faith in Marxism. Prof Li believes it is the
> philosophy most compatible with Chinese culture.
>    If so, then the Chinese government should take heed of Prof Li's
> viewpoint. In fact, some Chinese government-sponsored scholars have
> set up conferences on Confucianism. Now, if the Beijing administration
> can see to getting to the next stage - acting on the conferences'
> findings and principles - then there is a chance of success for
> preserving the way of life in Hong Kong, but efficient government of
> China herself.
>
> Corporate Confucianism
> How about enterprises? The "family feeling" promoted in Asian
> businesses, from family-owned trading companies in Hong Kong to the
> largest Korean chaebols, is an example of Confucianism at work. If the
> company looks after the welfare of its team, then team members are
> going to be happier working for the good of the company. This family
> orientation also manifests itself in the lifetime employment policies.
> Because the company wanted to look after its staff's welfare (or had
> to, in the case of South Korea), it was ...
>
> read more »