August 8, 2020. Drawing on an article by Seki Hei published in WiLL magazine, this essay revisits observations made by the American missionary Arthur H. Smith about Chinese society in the late nineteenth century. It examines Smith’s discussion of truth, sincerity and the preservation of “face,” and Seki Hei’s attempt to relate those observations to the Chinese government’s conduct during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2020-08-08
The following is based on a special September issue of the monthly magazine WiLL.
It featured an article presenting the views of Seki Hei and drawing on the writings of Arthur H. Smith, an American missionary who observed Chinese society in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
The article had previously appeared in the June 2020 issue of WiLL.
Using Smith’s writings as its starting point, Seki Hei examined what he regarded as enduring characteristics of political and social behavior in China.
The original Japanese article referred to the novel coronavirus using the expression “Wuhan virus.”
The argument is reproduced here as a historical record of that commentary.
【Article】
One of the central themes of Seki Hei’s essay is the importance attached to “face.”
Smith wrote, in substance, that during his experience and observation in China, he found little evidence of what he regarded as sincerity.
He then posed a striking question:
“Can there be sincerity among a people who do not respect the truth?”
Drawing on Smith’s observation, Seki Hei argues that a society in which the preservation of face takes precedence over sincerity, and in which deception and political maneuvering are widespread, is extremely difficult to trust.
He further argues that when wrongdoing is exposed, the instinct may be not to acknowledge the error but to assume that someone has informed against the offender or that the offender has simply been misunderstood.
Seki Hei applies this analysis to the Chinese government’s conduct during the early spread of COVID-19 in 2020.
He argues that despite international criticism concerning the initial handling of the outbreak and the disclosure of information, neither the Chinese government nor the Xi Jinping leadership offered the kind of explicit apology that critics were demanding.
He also points to claims or suggestions made at the time that the virus might have been introduced by the U.S. military or that its origin might have been elsewhere, including Italy.
Seki Hei interprets such arguments as attempts to shift responsibility.
Smith had argued that being accused of wrongdoing meant “losing face,” and that preserving face could therefore lead people to deny facts regardless of the evidence presented against them.
For Seki Hei, that nineteenth-century observation appeared remarkably similar to the conduct he saw in contemporary China.
Modern international society operates through rules and accepted procedures.
Such rules are intended to preserve fairness and sustain a workable international order.
Seki Hei argues, however, that China sometimes takes advantage of the very fact that Western countries attempt to operate within such rules.
One example cited in the article is the so-called “mask diplomacy” of 2020.
China supplied large quantities of masks and other medical products to countries including Japan and Italy, and Seki Hei argues that these supplies were also used to generate diplomatic influence and goodwill.
At the same time, questions were raised in several European countries about the quality of some medical products imported from China.
The article cites Finland, where government officials expressed disappointment after approximately two million emergency-imported medical masks from China reportedly failed to meet required quality standards.
It also refers to similar complaints reported in the Netherlands, Spain and the Czech Republic.
According to the article, Chinese responses acknowledged that some Chinese products might have had problems but argued that responsibility could not necessarily be placed entirely on China, that the issue should be judged fairly, and that China should not be singled out for criticism.
Seki Hei interprets this persistent use of argument and counterargument to justify one’s own position as one of the recurring behavioral patterns he sees in both the Chinese Communist Party government and Chinese society.
The central purpose of the essay is therefore to place Arthur H. Smith’s nineteenth-century observations beside the conduct of the Chinese government in the twenty-first century.
“Can there be sincerity among a people who do not respect the truth?”
Seki Hei presents that century-old question as one that, in his view, remains relevant when examining contemporary China.
To be continued.