Canadian Election 2006 (7): My decision of “limited participation”

In this section, I will try to re-count how I arrived at my eventual decision of “limited participation”, which took place mostly towards the end of the campaign. Obviously, it is impossible for me to remember what went on in my mind on each particular day during the campaign. This description is thus only a rough, streamlined version of my thought process at the time. Also, my understanding of those events now is obviously different from my understanding then, largely because of the recent development across Taiwan Strait.

As you can imagine, I was almost constantly torn by two competing desires during the campaign. On one hand, my desire to join in the fray was very strong because I felt my long journey was finally about to come to an end and justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself would finally be done. Specifically, I wanted to achieve a number of objectives with varying degrees of importance to me, such as (I did not have such a list on paper at the time, but they should be all somewhere in my mind.):

• Martin Liberals should be punished in the polls for the murder cover-up.
  
• Bush administration’s role in the murder cover-up and the utter deceitful campaign rhetoric by Paul Martin and David Wilkins should be exposed.
  
• Criminals should be brought to justice. In particular, there were, I believe, more than one suspects involved in Cecilia Zhang crime.
  
• Underlying issues should be discussed.
  
• I should get compensated and get my life back.

The ideal way for me to achieve all my objectives was to join in the campaign and get my story out in the open. If I failed to get my story out, I might have to compromise or postpone some of the objectives.

On the other hand, I also saw that both United States and Chinese governments were eager to battle it out over my story in the context of Canadian election. My instinct to de-escalate conflicts told me that I should keep one side away because, as a Chinese saying goes, one hand cannot clap. I could not do much about the Americans, so my only choice was to keep the Chinese from making any news during the election period. Waiting and seeing in the first couple of weeks, I gradually arrived at my decision of “limited participation” aimed toward the end of the campaign period as I figured my story would have a lesser chance of developing into a full-blown spat between U.S. and China during Canadian election.

My other two considerations against participating in the campaign were (1) the appearance of a conflict of interest; (2) my legal situation.

The appearance of a conflict-of-interest

As I wrote in the background section, Martin and Bush were on the same (wrong) side of the lineup around the issues of my story, while the Chinese government was on the right side. Still, I was surprised to see the apparent eagerness of Paul Martin to draw the Chinese government into the fray at the beginning of the election campaign. What’s more, Bush administration appeared to be ready to take on the Chinese government too, as reflected in Rice’s repeated emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in her article.

I dismissed Martin’s apparent eagerness (and Bush administration’s readiness) to bring China into the election as Martin Liberals’ campaign ploy. Indeed, I could imagine that China would become another punch bag for Paul Martin in that scenario. And if the campaign were to turn into an international spat, or, a “phony war”, between United States and China, the spat would necessarily take voters’ attention away from the real issues that mattered to them, i.e., Martin Liberals’ shameful record in Cecilia Zhang crime. At the same time, Martin could don the role of an international statesman because political theaters were his strength. (But remember, it was Paul Martin himself who made my story international by seeking help from Bush administration to prop himself up in the first place.) Finally, the deterioration of Canada-U.S. relations – real or not – could be blamed on me or China.

As for Rice’s implied suggestion that I was doing China’s bidding, my conclusion was that although there was not much substance in it, there was nevertheless an appearance of a conflict of interest on my part. The little “substance” they had against me appeared to have come from two sources: (1) Chinese government was very likely backing me; and (2) I wrote in late September a Chinese article Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. But to me, the appearance of a conflict of interest came about fundamentally because I wanted to be honest about my affection for China if it were to become an issue. (And it looked like it would become an issue if I joined the campaign fray.)

In my journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang and myself, I had always viewed myself as an immigrant trying to right a wrong. (I still do.) Canada’s interest was first and foremost in my mind. (It still is.) Actually, China never entered my mind until last summer. In fact, because of the verbal threat by Li Peng’s son, I had been afraid of going back to China for quite some time. (Note that only a month after my sister and her family landed in Canada I was harassed by New Westminster police. The defendants, in particular, Matthew Li, had to put pressure on me here in Canada once they realized that they could not easily carry out their threat – delivered by Li Peng’s son - against me or my family in China.)

When I realized Chinese government was backing me last summer, my feeling was mixed. On one hand, I was of course glad because I desperately needed support, even just moral support. On the other hand, I knew Chinese government’s backing of me was mostly based on a desire in my service and I had no interest in a career in politics. (I still don’t.)

Bush and Martin governments knew that Chinese government was backing me and at times sending me messages through Li Yang’s articles. They then suggested that I would do Chinese government’s bidding. It’s obviously that there was a gap in that reasoning. I did not point out their flawed reasoning until the rising tension across Taiwan Strait and the looming prospect of a real conflict because of legal considerations, which I will get to later in this section.

As for Rice’s suggestion that national interests were at play in this Canadian election, my interpretation was that Bush administration was trying to change the subject, from a political scandal of a murder cover-up by themselves to the grand topic of national interests. To me, Rice’s suggestion might not be as idiotic as Martin’s accusation that I – who else could it be? – would “split up” Pacific Gateway from the rest of Canada, it still was quite unsubstantiated.

Judging from the words of Paul Martin, Matthew Li and the mysterious figure “No.7” as I described in Chapter 5 of my previous report, the little evidence – or, 把柄, to use Matthew Li’s words – Bush and Martin government had against me seemed to have come from the Chinese article I published in late September, Media bias in covering Pacific Gateway. So let’s examine this article carefully as I had done many times myself.

I started writing that article in mid-September, after my email to the New York Times reporter did not solicit any response. As I mentioned before, my primary objective of writing this Chinese article was to try to establish some credibility for myself in the overseas Chinese community as I felt there was not much chance for my story to get onto the mainstream media directly. Actually, I had at least half a dozen potential topics in mind (or as computer notes). It’s just that I wrote too slowly that I only ended up with one and a half finished articles before the election campaign started.

Bush administration and Martin government knew my real purpose. As I noted in my previous report, the first time Mr. Matthew Li called in the interactive talk show on Channel-M in Vancouver in October, he bragged about his access to the Office of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, in an apparent attempt to sound more credible and respectable in the Chinese community than me.

My article was about media bias, a topic I felt pretty heavy about. (Imagine if the media were truly free and unbiased, I would have been in the news in summer 2004!) In it, I guess I revealed two things that were “offensive” to Bush and Martin people. One was that I appeared to be rooting for the Conservatives. That was pretty serious because, to them, it was “oxymoronic” for me to do that. But I guess my real “crime” was that I was positive towards the idea of increased trade and better relations between Canada and Asian countries. (But as immigrants from these countries, who wouldn’t?) And that became their so-called 把柄 against me. They then extrapolated it to the limit and essentially accused me of either doing China’s bidding or splitting-up Canada. This is just, well, too far-fetched.

However, with Martin Liberals’ inflammatory campaign rhetoric, I could conceivably be asked to confirm my affections towards China. Therefore, although I could honestly say that there was no conflict of interest on my part if I joined in the campaign, I had to conclude that there was an appearance of it.

Legal considerations

My attempting to get on the news by climbing the Pattullo Bridge had nothing to do with the Chinese government. The major reason that I had left out Chinese government in my writings until February 27 was that I did not want to unnecessarily complicate my legal situation, considering that (1) I have been without a lawyer since the end of November and (2) I had a hostile media trying to put me down at every opportunity.

The idea of climbing the bridge came from a Caucasian, who, I believe, has absolutely no connection to China. This person gave me the idea – solicited, I might add – on at least two occasions and during one of which there were at least two other witnesses.

The first time I got the idea from that person was, I believe, in September. If I had been doing the bidding for the Chinese government, I would have done it much sooner than October 31 because, as I said, from reading Li Yang’s articles, my feeling was that the Chinese government had wanted to see my story break as soon as possible.

October 31 was one of the last few days when I could do it without causing an “unwanted” winter election for Canadian public. It was very unfortunate that the police at the scene locked down my cell phone during my protest because I had established communication with a news outlet at one time. – If my story had broke before the election was called, there would not be an appearance of conflict of interest problem surfacing during the campaign. (But what more could I have done to get on the news? Haven’t I protested and fasted in minus 20 temperatures on the Hill? Haven’t I written (too) enough so that people could find a couple of 把柄 in my writings? )

Canadian Election 2006 (6): Events that changed my perspective

Li Yang’s article the next day

Incredibly, the day after Ms. Rice’s article, Li Yang published an old article entitled A brief analysis of American’s strategic direction in Iraq on the usual Chinese website (creaders.net). The article basically argued that the Americans were in trouble in Iraq, thus read like an encouragement to me.

This was another key moment when I was totally in odd with the Chinese government. Maybe they thought they were helping me by sending me encouragement because, as is well-known, I have depression. But in actual effect, not only did I find their apparent eagerness to join in the fray extremely foolish, I also felt that, instead of helping me, they only succeeded in making my life even more difficult.

• Memo to the Chinese leadership: United States may be able to meddle with other country’s affairs (and get away with it). Not China. If China wants to become any kind of power at all in this century, it should be careful to stay clear of the image of an American-style power.
  

Apparently, Chinese government has no idea about the sacredness and intricacies of elections in a democracy. But they should know that I am an “immigrant without privacy”, “living in a virtual solitary confinement”. Indeed, it did not completely surprise me that, right after this old article of Li Yang’s re-appeared, some people “in the loop” knew about his identity - a politically motivated leak by Bush and/or Martin government. So you can see the Chinese government achieved nothing but making me more determined to keep them away from doing anything during Canadian election.

Update 20060417:

On Iraq War, I am obviously against it. But now that the Americans are in it, I wish them speedy success. In fact, the sooner they can stabilize the situation there, the better.

Because of Bush administration’s role in Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up, they were my opponents in my struggle to seek justice for Cecilia. So when Li Yang said that they were in trouble, I saw it as an encouragement to me. Just like earlier when Li Yang said “China should strive to be American’s friend”, I interpreted it as a reminder that “I should strive to be American’s friend”. It was like an analogy.

Am I making myself clear? Gee, do I hate writing! It looks like the more I write, I more I need to write.

Canadian Election 2006 (5): Events that changed my perspective

Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post

In the second week of the eight-week campaign, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrote an article, The Promise of Democratic Peace, for Washington Post on December 11, 2005. On the surface, Ms. Rice’s article had nothing to do with the Canadian election. So why did I call it Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election in my last blog?

Because there are several instances of nut-cracking contained in her article.

“Fundamental character”

As I said before, my guiding principle is to do the right thing. That’s the primary motive behind my unrelenting efforts to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang. Therefore people could conclude that I have a strong character. I also believe that, if the perception that Mr. Warren Buffett has been paying attention to me turns out to be true, it would also be due to my character.

However, when Ms. Rice used the word as part of the phrase “fundamental character of regimes”, the connotation suddenly became political. It revealed Bush administration’s plan to put emphasis on the connection between Chinese government and me in the coming battle in the context of Canadian election.

“Conservative temperament”

In my email to the reporter at the New York Times in late August 2005, I used words such as “cautious” and “conservative” to describe the conclusions I made about Cecilia Zhang case. Therefore, people might say that I have a conservative temperament. (Depends on the circumstance!)

What Ms. Rice was trying to convey in this nut-cracking, especially to Canadian Conservatives, was that I may be conservative, but I am not a Conservative. (Again, I won’t feel comfortable to be granted any simplistic ideological label.) It was essentially an attack on both the Conservatives and me because of the perception that we were working together. It was also a jab at my poor English as I had earlier made the (embarrassing) mistake of not be able to distinguish between “liberal” and “Liberal”.

(But does it really matter what my political views are when all I want is to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang? For such a basic right-and-wrong issue, anybody with a conscience should be supportive of me.)

This was exactly the same kind of attack as their earlier one on my blog entry Summer hibernation where the key word was “oxymoronic”, meaning that the Left and the Right should work together to defeat the Liberals. Wrong on the issue, Bush administration resorted to ideological wrangling. This is the kind of politics that turns people off.

“Strategic logic”

I write about this nut-cracking last because it had the most impact on my decision of “limited participation” towards the end of the campaign.

I emphasized many times that, when I drew my conclusions about Liberal government’s involvement in Cecilia Zhang abduction and murder and the implications on Paul Martin personally, I relied upon facts and logic. My logical thinking is plainly reflected in my (too) many writings. As I wrote in the introduction of my previous report, it is precisely because of my sound logic in arriving at the truth of Cecilia Zhang murder that I was attacked on other fronts, such as attack on the format of my writing, personal and political attacks, etc.

In this instance of nut-cracking, Ms. Rice again appeared to be emphasizing the connection between Chinese government and me. What’s more, she seemed to suggest that national interests were at play here in Canadian election. This latter point came as a surprise to me because I had always thought that Cecilia Zhang murder cover-up was a scandal for Bush administration. (I still do.) I’ll talk about the role it played in my decision of “limited participation” later.

Canadian Election 2006 (4): Events that changed my perspective

Paul Martin’s speech at UN conference

In the initial phase of election campaign, while the opposition parties talked about policies, Paul Martin resorted to patriotic rhetoric. On the surface, Martin seemed to just focus on bashing the Americans. But that was only part of Martin’ plan.

On December 7, just a week into the election campaign, Paul Martin had this to say at a news conference at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal: “To the reticent nations, including the United States, I’d say there is such a thing as a global conscience …”

Martin’s words revealed that he had more than United States in mind. Curious audience must have been wondering: What were the other nations that Martin was trying to bring in for a spat? The answer was China.

(Incredibly, US ambassador David Wilkins repeatedly fell into Martin’s trap and willingly became his punch bag. Even the White House reacted by scolding Martin with “cheap electioneering”.)

Martin’s words were widely reported during the campaign. The reason, I guess, is that a lot of people found Martin’s choice of words "striking". But I knew he was cracking nuts.

• “Conscience” was a word I repeatedly emphasized in my “private” emails soliciting help at the grassroots level in early 2005.
• Another word “reticent” also struck me because I first learned it when my English teacher during my SFU days used it in the written assessment of my classroom performance.
  

Canadian Election 2006 (3): Events that changed my perspective

Paul Martin’s interview on CKNW

Please refer to Chapter 5 of my previous report.

Canadian Election 2006 (2): Background

As I wrote in the introduction of my last report during the election, the campaign strategy of Martin Liberals “was to wait for my story to break so that they could turn the campaign into a nasty spitting match”. Martin Liberals knew that the issues contained in my story would be the deciding ones of the election.

My other assumption was that opposition parties also knew about my story and were prepared to deal with it once it broke. Looking back, it indeed looked like the election was going to be largely decided on the issues of my story.

Personally, right at the start of the campaign, through some very unusual - but to me, not surprising anymore – circumstances, I was suddenly left without a lawyer to represent me in dealing with the mischief charges associated with my protest on Pattullo Bridge. Because the strict and unfair bail conditions - which were mostly a result of my lack of legal access at the initial court appearance - brought me considerable hardship, which lasted till this day, I had to take the two court appearances on my own in the middle of the campaign very seriously. My legal problem took away some of my time and energy in the first week of the campaign and also in early January.

Despite these and other personal difficulties, at the beginning of the campaign, I felt my long journey to seek justice for Cecilia Zhang was about to finally come to an end. In fact, despite my tough financial situation, I bought a new computer and signed up for two Internet Service Providers so that I would not encounter those wired “technical difficulties” like I had done before. I was prepared to join the campaign fray.

Of course, I was aware that both United States and Chinese governments had fought at the background of my story in the summer, but I was not too concerned about it. Even for their throwing nuclear bombs at each other over my head – figuratively speaking - I had always thought, despite my initial surprise, that it was just a “phony war”, to use a catch phrase of the time.

To me, what my story is about has always been quite straightforward – it’s about right and wrong. On the wrong side were Martin government, Bush administration and Matthew Li. It was a huge scandal and embarrassment for these two governments. On the right side Canadian people would, once my story broke, undoubtedly join the opposition parties and me.

As for the Chinese government, they were naturally on the right side. From reading Li Yang’s articles – many of which, I believe, contained Chinese government’s messages to me - since last July, my feeling was that they had always been eager to see my story break, in stark contrast with the cover-up by Martin government and Bush administration. This was understandable as they could then gain some diplomatic or moral points over the Bush administration from the fallout of this scandal. They could also, maybe, in a way, get back to Bush administration for their attempt to “parachute” Mr. Matthew Li into Beijing.

However, several events in the early goings of the campaign together changed my perspective and resulted in my eventual “limited participation” which took place mostly at the end of the campaign. These included Paul Martin’s interview on Vancouver radio station CKNW on December 5; his speech at UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal on December 7; US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s article on Washington Post on December 11; and Li Yang’s re-publishing of an old article on December 12.

Canadian Election 2006: What happened? (1)

I did not really want to write this article for two reasons. First, I am typically a "reticent" person and I find it unnatural to write a story of which I was at the very center. I had always hoped that a journalist would interview me. Secondly, I have never wanted to get involved in politics and still don’t. Writing about my experience with politics therefore creates the appearance of a contradiction.

However, in my zeal to disperse the “crazy speculation” in my last blog entry, I unwittingly made a promise. So I felt a certain obligation.

Originally, the title of this article was Bush administration’s “action plan” for Canadian election. Then I found that just focusing on Condoleezza Rice’s article along would not be sufficient to show what happened in the last election campaign. So I ended up with a more ambitious title. Sigh.

I nevertheless hope this exercise may not turn out to be a bad thing. I always feel it’s important to let people have the truth. In particular, Canadian public deserves to have the truth. Also, given the recent rising tension across Taiwan Strait - which was related to my story - I feel it is important to put everything on the table so that there will be no international misunderstandings, intentional or otherwise. So, after some hesitation, I decided that I would broadly outline my part of the story in the context of last Canadian election and hope others will fill in the rest.