When I began my undergraduate course in PPE at the Queen’s College in 1978, I did not know that I was to be the first student of Chinese descent to read Philosophy, Politics & Economics at the University of Oxford.
Looking back, it was not that surprising. PPE has always been a subject associated with the development of critical and democratic governance. Prior to the reforms brought in by Deng Xiaoping in the 1980s, Communist China was unlikely to be sending any of its young people abroad to study PPE. Of the two Chinese-majority states outside the People’s Republic, Taiwan was ruled under martial law until 1987, and Singapore had been controlled by a single party (the PAP – People’s Action Party) since it gained independence in 1965. As for Hong Kong and Macao, they were British and Portuguese colonies respectively, and were governed with little input from the local Chinese population.
Against that backdrop, I was an odd exception who turned away from the common Chinese parental aspiration for their children to become a ‘professional’ (who’d leave politics to others), and headed instead towards a discipline which certainly at the time looked like the preserve of the white establishment. Guess being the odd one out fitted in with the inclination to question the powerful. What I went on to learn from my PPE experience has played an important part in my subsequent academic research, political writing, policy work in government, and collaboration with civic activists.
It therefore saddens me greatly that in 2020, the centenary year of the launch of PPE at Oxford, the prospects for critical and democratic governance in China and the former colonies now under China’s rule, have fallen under a long shadow. Authoritarian control is intensifying, and any expression of critical views is met with threats and punishment. And as relations between the UK and China become increasingly strained, could we be returning to a time when the likelihood of Chinese youths studying PPE is zero? It would be symptomatic of the widening gulf between an education in political criticism and a ruling ethos that cannot tolerate free political thinking.
I had at one time believed that from the 1980s on, the grip of authoritarian rule over most Chinese people’s lives – be it in its Communist, colonial, or military form – would loosen, and be replaced by a more open and democratic culture. But the trajectory is now clearly going in the opposite direction. Instead of ideas, historical lessons, objective analyses relating to the development and governance of society, being more widely shared and studied, opportunities for learning and open discussion of philosophy, politics and economics are fast dwindling.
Authoritarianism thrives on giving the impression that society cannot be governed in any other way. This impression must not be allowed to take hold. Educators, East and West, have a responsibility for opening minds to diverse ways of thinking. It is when each new generation are able to explore new possibilities and discover alternative paths, that they are most likely to herald the changes needed for a better future.
3 comments:
Thoughtful piece....one nagging question - is authoritarianism also finding new ways to impose itself even in so called mature democracies? How do you interpret recent developments in the US?
Thanks
Jaya
Alas, authoritarianism is raising its ugly head in, as you said, the so-called 'mature democracies' too. In the US in particular, constitutional checks and balance are under severe strain as the entire political system is pushed around by someone with a massive ego and little sense of responsibility. The last chance to rectify this situation is 3 Nov. People must go out to vote to save their democracy.
Well said, Prof. Tam!
I visit China once a year and meet many young and bright people each time. Yes they are proud of their country but they are also open to whatever good they can find wherever in the world it be. Apart from this widening academic curiosity and exploration, there is something else which gives me a sense of hope.
Despite all the sabre rattling, Taiwan did move much if it's manufacturing to Fujian, across the strait, like HK did in Guangdong. That reflects the pragmatic side of the Chinese. Politics is only one of the dimensions and a mighty economy is trying to come to terms with an emerging new world order in a state of flux.
This i believe neither calls for obesience nor confrontation but constructive engagement. The current belligerence is a function of the 'Trumpian' aggression. No young person in an emerging/emerged super power will like it and they are not. If we must get them to the middle ground, we need to deploy both the yin and yang. We must create an environment conducive for PPE rather than suspicious or antagonistic.
Post a Comment