There is a group of people in this country who regard themselves as the "elites of society". They take themselves to be the most advanced part of society in China's progress toward modernity. They always try to distinguish themselves from the public by saying something special. Their most favorite tactic is to publish an opinion that challenges the masses' common sense. They are best at exaggerating a situation to produce a sensational effect.
A recent event gave them such a chance.
Fan Meizhong, a middle school teacher in Sichuan, ran away from a soon-to-collapse classroom when the earthquake struck, leaving his students behind. His act provoked widespread criticism on the Internet and in the media. Most critics remarked that he had violated the professional ethics of a teacher though his involuntary dodging of danger was understandable as a human being.
Meanwhile, quite a number of people expressed their sympathy for Fan. They placed more emphasis on the need to forgive the weaker side of human nature. They surely have reasons to hold this opinion. And it is reassuring to hear a different voice in the unanimous criticism against Fan, for it represents an effort to create a democratic atmosphere in the circle of critics.
Some people, however, went too far in defying the public sentiment. They challenged the mainstream opinion by accusing it of "moral autocracy". One of them published a commentary titled "Can we become more noble by defaming Fan"?
The commentator, who gave his surname as Cao, said the critical remarks on the Internet forums "generally demonstrated an excessively excited sentiment of moral trial". He debunked the online criticism as a "moral campaign the pseudo moralists and young radicals have waged in order to erect a chastity arch (to honor themselves)".
These words show that Cao was targeting at the whole community of Fan's critics.
He based his argument on the assumption that everybody has the same "weakness" in his/her innermost soul as Fan displayed. Therefore, he said, people should not blame Fan but should instead regard him as an excusable pal and "reflect on the human weakness together with Fan". He urged Fan's critics to "approach him rather than abandon him; understand him rather than wantonly vilify him".
Cao was wrong in his argument at least on three points. First, not everybody will behave the same way Fan did, as suggested by Cao. This has been proved by thousands of people who bravely saved others in the quake risking their own lives.
Second, the fact that most people have the same human weakness does not mean that they are not eligible to criticize Fan. People condemned him out of their understanding of what is morally right and wrong. Do they need to do something heroic before they start criticizing Fan?
Third, Fan's critics did not blame him for being afraid of death but for ignoring his students' safety and claiming that he would even abandon his mother in the same situation.
An ugly behavior was made known to the public and the public expressed their disapproval, or even anger, at the behavior. This is only too natural. What traces of "autocracy" can one find in the critical remarks? It is true that some of the critics used harsh words in denouncing Fan. But such unwanted expressions are understandable, given Fan's shameless showing off of his behavior. They are far from "brandishing a moral club" to "kill" Fan, as Cao alleged them to be in his commentary.
Like other "social elites", Cao "imagines himself as a safeguard of justice" - to quote Cao's own words in his criticism of Fan's critics - and tries to teach the public a lesson about democracy and human rights. Regrettably, the public do not want to hear their garrulous preaching; they have seen through the hypocrites.
E-mail: [email protected]
(China Daily 06/18/2008 page8)
