Re: "Won't pay" not wise
- From: ltlee1 <ltlee1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 10:06:53 -0800 (PST)
On Mar 5, 9:34 am, ltlee1 <ltl...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-03/05/content_10951727.htm
------------------------
"Won't pay" not wise
BEIJING, March 5 -- His "act of patriotism" has stopped a Christie's
auction which ignited indignation among Chinese people. But it is not
a wise move to make at the loss of both his reputation and China's
image abroad. That said, many Chinese believe that Christie's move
went far beyond international norm and ethics against auctioning
looted relics.
The mysterious buyer who successfully bid for two looted Chinese
relics has been revealed. As many anticipated, he is a Chinese. This
bidder, Cai Mingchao is a consultant of National Treasure Funds of
China (NTFC), a non-governmental organization. The bid for two Qing
Dynasty bronzes at a Christie's auction on February 25 amounted to
31.49 million Euro.
Bidder Cai, however, did not reveal that he was the bidder and
that he won't pay for the items until a March 2nd press conference, at
which he declared his bid was an act of patriotism. The reason for not
paying, as he cited later, was an order issued by the State
Administration of Cultural Heritage (SACH) the day after the auction,
which clearly requires detailed documentation proving all artefacts
the Christie's shipped into and out of China are from legal sources.
Cai argued that since the two items had been officially deemed to
have been illegally looted, the Christie's would not be able to
deliver them to him even if he paid.
It sounds like good news to some. But Cai's bid and refusal to pay
still shocked many others who believe his act was in some way not only
a recognition of Christie's auction of looted items, but also a damage
to his own credibility and China's long-standing image of being a
nation of 5000 years of civilization.
Critics added that using such an extraordinary method in this
situation was not a wise solution. "Won't pay", although seen by some
as an act of patriotism, is on the other hand an unlawful act, one
without honesty, too.
Ever since the Christie's announced its plan to auction the bronze
rat and rabbit heads, Chinese people have paid close attention to the
fate of the two cultural relics.
In 1860, the Anglo-French forces sacked the Old Summer Palace in
Beijing and took the two bronzes away during the Second Opium War. For
this reason, the Chinese see the artefacts as evidence of their crime
committed during the invasion, and to them the two bronzes have
special historical value, although some antique specialists may not
think the relics are as valuable.
As Chinese, we should stand up and voice our anger at that moment,
said Cai Mingchao when explaining why he placed the bid at March 2nd
press conference.
Yes, many Chinese have stood up and expressed their opposition. A
group of Chinese lawyers lodged a motion in a French court, trying to
block Christie's auction. Unfortunately, their appeal was rejected.
China's State Administration of Cultural Heritage voiced its strong
opposition to the Christie's and demanded that the auction be
cancelled.
All these efforts did not stop Christie's, which held its auction
as scheduled.
Some people still hail Cai's behavior as a witty move in a fine
how-d'ye-do because he successfully stopped the auction and fulfilled
millions of Chinese' wish. In their opinions, Chinese need not to
restrain themselves with credibility or law at all when retaliating
against the Christie's move that has badly hurt the feelings of
Chinese people.
But we are living in the modern civilized society. As is known to
all, the lack of law-abiding and honest citizens will lead to chaos
and disorder. We have to always play the game especially in the
international exchange so as to help build up China's new image. In
today's world, business is business. You have the right not to buy
things, but you have to pay if you bid or get an item.
---Based on an article from The Beijing News
---------------------------
Patriotism cannot be the reason for not paying. However, given the
publicity surround the two items, the transaction naturally cannot
proceed until the seller cannot provide adequate proof that they are
not stolen goods.
The last sentence should be "However, given the publicity surrounding
the two items, the transaction naturally cannot proceed until the sell
cann provide adequate proof that they are not stolen goods."
.
- References:
- "Won't pay" not wise
- From: ltlee1
- "Won't pay" not wise
- Prev by Date: Re: "Won't pay" not wise
- Next by Date: Chinese lawyers abroad form alliance for return of lost cultural relics
- Previous by thread: Re: "Won't pay" not wise
- Next by thread: Chinese lawyers abroad form alliance for return of lost cultural relics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
