My last column commented on some people's arguments for safeguarding passengers' privacy in their opposition to surveillance cameras being installed in taxis. After its publication in China Daily's web edition, quite a number of readers wrote online comments.
Interestingly, the numbers of those for and against were nearly equal. While the comments in favor included a couple by Chinese nationals, those opposing the cameras appeared to be exclusively made by expats, judging by their IDs and language style.
I seldom respond to online comments, especially critical ones, attached to my column. But I would like to say a few words this time, because I feel the mindsets behind these comments show the stark differences between Chinese and Western thinking.
Most of the foreign commentators expressed the concern that installing surveillance cameras inside taxis would herald more government intrusion into people's private lives. This worry is understandable, because Westerners treasure personal privacy and freedom of expression as the most essential part of human rights.
"Is the use of video cameras inside taxis to monitor morals or conversations?" commented one.
"How can we be sure the technology will be used for crime-prevention and not for some other nefarious purpose? The answer is - we can't," wrote another.
I believe, and appreciate, the sincerity of these commentators in their concern for Chinese people's human rights. I fully respect these friends for their concern. But I have to point out that this typically reflects a prejudiced understanding of China, which stems from a stereotyped Cold War image of the country.
My study of history has been too limited for me to conclude whether a ubiquitous monitoring of citizens' conversations and behavior ever existed, or to what extent it was practiced in China in the times before I became an adult in the early 1960s. However, during the period from my early adulthood till the end of the 1970s when China embarked on the reform drive, I have memories of being required to report my thoughts to "organizations" and of my schoolmates or work unit colleagues having their "wrong-doings" exposed by their pals.
In those days, people were cautious indeed if they wanted to voice opinions contradicting the dominant ideology. There were definitely restrictions on "freedom of speech". But even then, I never saw or knew of any technological means being used to monitor people's private lives.
Things have changed dramatically during the past three decades and the practice of "reporting to the organizations" has been abandoned forever. Citizens now enjoy considerably more freedom in saying what they want.
Log on to any Chinese website and you will see all sorts of remarks posted in chat rooms, forums and blogs, ranging from criticism of the government to discussions of sexual experiences. Even printed media frequently carry articles criticizing government decisions. Though, it should be said, such freedom of speech is still different with that defined in the West.
Ordinary Chinese citizens do harbor a number of grievances against the government at different levels on certain issues. But if somebody told them that the government is taking technological measures to peep into their private lives, they would not believe it.
So, let's return to the taxi camera controversy; our foreign friends, such as those mentioned above, may find it hard to believe that most Chinese readers supported the decision to install surveillance cameras in taxis. No doubt they are puzzled as to why so many Chinese people would willingly surrender their privacy in such a situation.
But such is the case.
There are two reasons that account for this:
First, sacrificing individual interests for the sake of the public, or communal, interests is still inherent in Chinese culture. People do not find it particularly irksome to be exposed before a gazing lens during a relatively short ride, when doing so is part of one's duty to society. Second, the current social conditions are not orderly and safe enough for people to disregard what has proven to be an effective means of protection from possible dangers or crimes.
The right to privacy is certainly valuable, but in China there are things that need to be more urgently protected, for instance, the right to enjoy a safe life.
上一篇: At large?
下一篇: Racial profiling
有哪些水果对健康有益?
害怕社交、隐藏情绪、怕被拒绝?14道题测测你是不是D型人格
国内英语资讯:Top legislature to inspect TCM law enforcement
This Is Me 这就是我
娱乐英语资讯:Feature: Cuban concert band shows audience how to get up and dance
你在家中是老大还是老幺?这对职业道路有影响
国际英语资讯:Trump says ready to meet with Iranian president without preconditions
国内英语资讯:Typhoon Jongdari likely to make landfall in Shanghai
国内英语资讯:China calls for joint efforts to continue developing Sino-Japanese ties along right path
体坛英语资讯:Berlins Selke to miss Bundesliga kickoff
体坛英语资讯:Real Madrid present Brazilian teenager Vinicius Jr at Bernabeu
国内英语资讯:Xi says China to boost closer development partnership with India
体坛英语资讯:Russia winner of Day 4 at FINA junior artistic swimming worlds
国内英语资讯:China Focus: Chinese scientists perform genetic surgery to create first single-chromosome ye
体坛英语资讯:Feature: Football passion overwhelms politics in Damascus in World Cup final
国际英语资讯:UN envoy for Yemen invites warring parties to pre-negotiation consultations next month
今年中国学生海外游学规模将达100万人次
津巴布韦选民参加穆加贝辞职后首次总统大选
Offer the Seat to Others 让座
国际英语资讯:Feature: South Africa seeks greater tourism growth through BRICS summit
《破产姐妹》主演大婚,女神终于找到了白马王子
国内英语资讯:Xi, Putin exchange views on current intl situation
飓风和台风的区别是什么?
国内英语资讯:Chinese Vice Premier stresses safety of venue construction for Beijing 2022
国际英语资讯:Economic expectations in euro area drop to lowest level since 2017: think tank
体坛英语资讯:Foreign martial arts fans celebrate their Kung Fu roots at Shaolin Temple
国际英语资讯:Delays continue at Munich airport after security breach
塔利班称上周与美国高官会谈
体坛英语资讯:AC Milan elects new board of directors
猫与狗有哪些区别?