Let's chat about political topics.

The table tennis incident has been quite a hot topic today, and I've been following it through various channels. Overall, it's still a battle between the people and the government, and I've gained some insights from it. I'd like to offer my presumptuous thoughts on political topics.

First of all, I didn't understand the situation. It wasn't that I didn't want to understand, but I knew how complicated it was. Official media certainly wouldn't tell the truth, and individual media outlets tend to parrot emotions. But the simple essence of the event itself is clear: Liu Guoliang was "dismissed," and his disciples (the public, the participants) were very unhappy, even resorting to boycotting matches to express their dissatisfaction.

Two things are certain: First, Liu Guoliang is a truly admirable person; the athletes risked their futures to support him, and such recognition is well-deserved. Second, the players definitely do not agree with the idea of him being dismissed.

This raises the question: why are things that aren't initially accepted being forcibly pushed out? This reminds me of a few related events:

1. At the beginning of the year, Qin Sheng's stampede incident, although intentional, resulted in a six-month suspension without any basis. Rumors circulated that leaders from the General Administration of Sport conveyed their intentions, and the Chinese Football Association later offered no explanation. Qin Sheng also withdrew his appeal. This suggests that high-ranking officials were exerting pressure (or he was summoned for questioning, or even received compensation; after all, the reputation of high-ranking officials and the Football Association is at stake—a six-month suspension followed by a successful appeal would be incredibly humiliating).
2. The recent U23 and salary cap policies in the Chinese Super League (CSL) are likely the result of a leader trying to guess the intentions of another leader. The U23 policy probably aims to give young players more opportunities in Chinese football; while the salary cap policy likely reflects the leadership's view that some state-owned enterprises are spending money excessively and need to be controlled. It's important to understand that the CSL is managed by the so-called CSL Company, and these policies clearly infringe on the interests of the clubs. The fact that no one dares to oppose them strongly suggests something is wrong.
3. In recent days, the Oscars incident has been making headlines. The People's Daily even published an article saying that he must be severely punished. However, the Oscars' situation isn't particularly serious, and there's no definitive conclusion yet. Isn't it strange that a Party newspaper with little to do with football would stir up such a controversy?

The main point I'm trying to make is this: if the orders from above are so important, and those below can only obey without question, is this a good political system? This naturally brings to mind Director Gou, who took office in the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television last October.

While watching "In the Name of the People," I remember writing an article that raised a question: The provincial party secretary is the top leader, and the provincial party committee and the discipline inspection commission are at the same level, but the secretary controls all the resources, while the discipline inspection commission does not. In this situation, how can the discipline inspection commission investigate the secretary? The TV series implied that the investigation would come from the central government. But then the question arises: who is above the central government? In the same situation, who would investigate?

The only solution is checks and balances and the belief that the leader is the right authority.

This is very similar to what happened today. The Director of the General Administration of Sport issues a single sentence, a few stakeholders endorse it, neutrals remain silent, and opponents dare not speak out; then the decree is issued, and the decree becomes synonymous with the Director's thinking. On the surface, everyone appears harmonious and partisan, but in reality, everyone is powerless. Today's incident likely stemmed from going too far.

In this system, the real participants have no voice. The table tennis team, besides expressing their dissatisfaction through a strike, has no other recourse. The General Administration of Sport has already issued a statement condemning it, which is just a statement and will likely be suppressed in a couple of days. Players might even face repercussions or retirement, since there are so many players; they'll just have to train a new batch. The only solution is for a higher-level leader, even one above the General Administration of Sport, to issue a statement. The same pattern can be seen in football; even when Chinese Super League teams suffer losses, they'll still say: "We firmly support it!"

This model of being accountable to superiors but not subordinates can lead to rapid development under the leadership of professionals, but it becomes difficult to navigate political struggles. Professionals are not necessarily able to overcome political forces, and problems arise as the number of talented individuals increases. It's perfectly normal for inexperienced leaders to emerge.

A single-faction system isn't necessarily a bad thing; after all, even a single-faction system will have differing viewpoints and checks and balances. The key difference lies in whether the "participants" have the right to decide which approach should lead. A single-faction system, if chosen correctly, is far superior to the infighting among multiple factions. But how can a single faction ensure that one side decides on another?

Although I haven't thought of a solution in detail, the problem is quite obvious. It's a huge gap between officials and ordinary citizens. Officials have their own path, and ordinary citizens have theirs, with very little overlap. Those who pass the civil service exam and enter the officialdom must climb the ranks; those who rise don't fall, and those who fail face no risk. But no matter how powerful or capable an ordinary citizen is, they cannot enter the officialdom. This creates a significant problem: experts in a field have worked among ordinary citizens for a very long time. If they can't be given opportunities, how can experts lead other experts? The superiority of Western systems lies in the fact that ordinary citizens and officials are not separated, only their positions differ. If an ordinary citizen wants to switch to an official position, they can simply apply.

Okay, that's all for now. Time for bed.