Pro-Cantonese campaign

GUANGZHOU saw people take to the streetsto defend Cantonese on two Sundays in arow. The campaign has begun withoutrhyme or reason reason. Pro . Pro--Cantonese protesters have nowell well--defined objectives. The authorities have switchedto a tough line. Conceivably, the affair will calm downsoon. However, its cause is worth discussion, as is theway the authorities have handled it. It shows that, nowthe mainland is affluent affluent, mainlanders, especially, young mainlanders, no longer regard certain intangiblecore values as unessential. Now they are prepared totake action to defend them.

An Asiad opens in Guangzhou next November.The People's Political Consultative Conference'sGuangzhou committee had seventeen groups studymatters concerning the Asiad's "soft environment".One of the reports those groups have produced is titled"Proposal that Guangzhou Television IncreasePutonghua Airtime on Its General Channel". Theproposal is aimed at making it easier for Asiad athletesand spectators from other parts of China or other partsof the world to get information on the Games and thecity.

However, netizens have soon raised the matter tothe high plane of principle. They say it is aimed at"promoting putonghua and handicapping Cantonese".The twist is quite surprising.

We do not remember any similar massmovements have taken place since June 4 (twenty oneyears ago). Four aspects of the pro pro--Cantonesecampaign are worth discussion.

(1) The affair has not been adequately discussedin the conventional media, which the authoritiescontrol. It is thanks to the Internet that a generalhubbub has arisen. Deputy secretary of theGuangzhou Party committee Su Zhijie and director ofthe Guangzhou municipal government OuyangYongsheng have in interviews and press conferencesvowed in all sincerity allegations about marginalisingCantonese are utterly unfounded. What they have saidhas been reported in detail in Guangdong'smainstream media. What has happened shows whatthey have said, regarded as governmentpronouncements, has gained no credence. It is thusclear that mainland officials are no longer asauthoritative in common eyes as they were.

(2) It is of course on government instructions thatGuangdong's mainstream media have played downthe affair. The authorities thought that would help calmthings down. As a result, netizens have had much say.Su and Ouyang have had no option but to comment onwhat has been posted on the Internet. They have beenhard put to find explanations. That shows theauthorities have been thrown into passivity. Theauthorities of the mainland control its mainstreammedia, which invariably support their measures. Theyused to be ever successful. However, the advent of theInternet has changed the situation.

(3) Mainlanders are aware how sensitive "politics"is, and they know what the government's bottom lineis. Pro Pro--Cantonese activists call their campaign"cultural". Their call for protecting the dialect is notpolitical. They have tried not to give the authorities anypretext. By calling their gatherings illegal, theGuangzhou authorities have only thrown themselvesinto passivity. Furthermore, the affair showsGuangdong's civil society has matured. People born inthe 1980s or 1990s act on just grounds and withrestraint, and they know when and where to stop. Theymay well become a force conducive to Guangdong'ssocial development.

(4) The day before yesterday, large numbers ofpolice officers coped with people who gathered orstrolled in a park in Guangzhou. Given the impressionthe mainland police had made, what they did was notexactly brutal. However, what has happened showsthe authorities still blindly believe suppression is apanacea for popular unrest.

Guangdong is no longer what it was. It hasprogressed and changed. To adapt themselves to thenew situation, the authorities must adopt a newmindset. The first thing they ought to do is to disabusethemselves of their blind faith in the machine ofdictatorship. They ought to allow people to vent theirgrievances. Unless they do so, trifles will snowball, andthey will bring trouble upon themselves. That wouldmake it hard to bring about social harmony.

「撐粵語」為何演變成群衆運動，值得深思

廣州人「撐粵語」，連續兩個周日都有群衆上街，由於此事之緣起有點「無厘頭」，在缺乏明確目標情况下，加上當局應對手段轉趨強硬，相信事態很快會平息。不過，此事由無到有的成因和當局的處理，值得探究，因為它反映在物質趨向豐腴、生活水平提高之下，內地人民（特別是年輕一代）對一些虛無的核心價值，不再視為可有可無之物，願意挺身以行動捍衛。

廣州亞運11 月舉行，廣州市政協組成17 個調研組，探討亞運軟環境的有關問題，形成的調研報告，其中一份是《關於廣州電視台綜合頻道應增加普通話節目播出時段的建議》，藉此希望方便來廣州參加亞運會比賽和旅遊的國內外賓客，了解亞運和廣州新聞資訊。

但是，這個建議很快就被網民上綱上線為「推普廢粵」，事態的演變使人感到意外。

記憶中， ，21 21 年前六四事件之後，未見過類似性質的群衆運動，箇中緣由，有四方面值得討論。

(1) 此事在官方控制的傳統媒體，未見有足夠討論，而事態鬧得沸沸揚揚，完全是互聯網世界顯示其威力。廣州市委副書記蘇志佳和廣州市政府辦公廳主任歐陽永晟分別透過專訪、記者會，信誓旦旦說打壓粵語乃子虛烏有，絕無其事，廣東主流媒體詳細報道了兩人的說法內容，事態說明，他們的說話，顯然被視為官話，未能取信於民。此情况說明內地官員的權威地位，在民衆心目中已經今非昔比。

(2) 廣東主流媒體低調處理此事，當然是官方授意，以為可淡化事態。話語權由網民掌握，蘇志佳和歐陽永晟只能順着網上說法，窮於解釋，正好說明其被動一面。內地官方掌握全部主流媒體，配合管治，以往可謂無往而不利，但是隨着互聯網興起，情况改變了。(3) 內地民衆知道「政治」的敏感性，也知道政府的底線，這次「撐粵語」行動，他們將之界定為文化事件，所提出保護粵語的口號，也並非政治訴求，使當局難有辦人的口實。廣州當局自行把集會定性為非法，是自陷被動而已。另外， 此事反映廣東省公民社會已逐漸成熟，特別是80 後、90 後的年輕一代，做事有理有節，也懂得適可而止，發展下去，對於推進廣東社會發展，將是一股積極推動力。

(4) 前日大批公安人員對付在公園集會和「散步」民衆的表現，相對於公安一貫予人的印象，已經不算太粗暴，但是事態說明當局仍然迷信鎮壓是對付群衆性運動的萬靈丹。

廣東已經不一樣了。面對這個進步和轉變，當局必須以新思維適應，而疏導民情、不再迷信專政機器鎮壓，應該是首要的思維轉變，否則只會小事化大，自討苦吃，倒過來不利於和諧社會的建設。

Glossary

without rhyme or reasonhout If something happens without rhyme or reason,it happens in a way that cannot be easilyexpl explained or understood.

afflu affluent ent //''aafl fl ʊ? ʊ?nt/ nt/havi having wealth and a good standard of living.

masss

invo involving large numbers of people.lving bott bottom lineom A person's bottom line is the lowest price or thegrea greatest change he is prepared to accept.test