Given the subtly anti-Asian U.S. media, there arises eager Asian news professionals who would malign Asians in a bid for career fast-track or job promotion. In colleges and on the job there are also Asians who take perverse delight in abusing their Asian colleagues and Asian subordinates, but miss no opportunity to fawn on their non-Asian supervisors.

There are obsequious Chinese news professionals who feel "honored", rather than indignant, when assigned by their employer the task of smearing their own people. They poach the good image and reputation of the Chinese so as to please, tickle and entertain their non-Chinese media masters, in the hope that they'll be thrown a dry bone as reward.

There is the old Chinese saying: "When the rabbits are gone, the running dog is roasted for dinner." Apparently there are Asian journalists and politicians who would rather be running dogs on a non-Asian leash than be independent, self-respecting Asian beings.

Thinking of the highly educated, but nonetheless despicable, Chinese news professionals who betray and bait their own people, one is instantly reminded of Connie Chung, the former co-anchor of CBS TV now out of a job.

Not too long ago, Chung eagerly spearheaded a CBS smearing campaign to manufacture and foster anti-Chinese sentiment, by broadcasting nationwide and worldwide on CBS, the outrageous lie that the American Chinese community in the U.S. teems with spies.

Instead of a promotion, and apparently over-rating her importance in the eyes of her CBS masters, Chung discovered that she was nowhere nearly as important to CBS as Dan Rather, and was merely a very dispensable minion at CBS.

The message to other Chinese news professionals of Chung's opportunism and character should be amply clear: When you are of no further utility to your media masters, after you've done all the hatchet job you can on your own people, be ready for the masters' purge.

There have been periodic debates on what being "Chinese" means. Based on practical experience, we all know that one whose outward appearance is Chinese can nonetheless be very anti-Chinese. A Chinese-looking anti-Chinese can do far more damage and harm than a non-Chinese. His/her Chinese appearance instantly gives him/her, in the eyes of non-Chinese, an implied qualification or credibility on Chinese matters.

Thus, when Connie Chung deliberately aired on CBS, malicious lies calculated to malign Chinese, it was easily a thousand times more believable and credible in the eyes of other non-Chinese viewers than if M. Povich, her white, Jewish husband, did the dirty work.

Likewise, in the O.J. Simpson trial, it is psychologically much more effective and persuasive, other things being equal, to have a Black prosecutor (in this case, Chris Darden, a very articulate Black litigator) to argue to a predominantly Black jury that O.J. is guilty of the crime alleged. For the same reason and psychological principle, if the jury were predominantly white, the persuasiveness would be even more amplified. The subliminal message is this: "Look, I'm Black, and am inclined to give O.J. the benefit of doubt, as you would expect. But, even after giving the maximum leeway to a fellow Black, and one as famous and popular as O.J., I am compelled by the evidence and by my conscience and sense of justice to ask that you find O.J., guilty as charged!"

That's why Connie Chung's defamation of Chinese was so extremely and insidiously harmful. As a celebrity, her high profile only served to dramatically amplify the injury she intentionally and wrongfully caused the Chinese community.

A person who is anti-Chinese should never be regarded, or treated, as a friend, by other Chinese, especially when that person is biologically Chinese and has high rank, power, authority, publicity, visibility or profile. Unless one is a masochist, to befriend or support such a person is to further empower and encourage a tormentor to contemptuously aggravate the injury to yourself and your fellows.

That's also why I believe that people like Ignatius Ding, who actively and routinely proliferate Chinese- baiting material should stop and think. Does he or does he not know that he has become a tool, wittingly or not, of anti-Chinese opinion makers --- those who seek every opportunity to demonize and demoralize every aspect of Chinese people, culture or condition?

A thousand such foreign anti-Chinese journalists cannot hope to replace one Chung or Ding in terms of causing irreparable harm to the international reputation and image of the Chinese people, its culture and other aspects.

What Chung and Ding have done is to generate contempt and ridicule for Chinese and things Chinese -- culture, tradition, history, society, etc., amongst the non- Chinese, and indeed amongst even a significant and increasing number of diffident and self-doubting and self-deprecating Chinese themselves.

One can see the harmful impact of such propaganda, indoctrination and mind control in a new generation of young Chinese, many of whom feel that rejecting their Chineseness and embracing and worshiping the latest Western fad are essential for their sense of "self- worth". A few even feel "ashamed" of being Chinese, speaking Chinese, or even associating with other Chinese, thanks to the bombardment of Chinese-baiting materials and propaganda.

The high public profile of Chung and Ding only serves to foster, validate, and magnify the very harmful effects and damaging consequences intended by the Chinese-baiting material they disseminate. Ding should not routinely and eagerly propagate, electronically and by other means, Chinese-baiting material served up by anti-Chinese Western journalists.

There are Western journalists who take sadistic delight in sensationalizing anything Chinese that might be construed in a negative light, even to the point of fabricating stories. When such second-, third- and who -knows-what-hand rumor or half-truths about China, its people or culture, is then avidly and unquestioningly disseminated by a Chinese public figure of high visibility, it immediately takes on special aura of legitimacy and importance.

It is distasteful and unseemly for Chinese celebrities to fawn on those who have a political and racist anti- Chinese agenda. It is even worse, when the same celebrities eagerly and unquestioningly volunteer to be the tireless media parrots of anti-Chinese interests.

If a high-profile Chinese public figure such as Chung or Ding avidly passes on and widely broadcasts and disseminates inflammatory Chinese-baiting material to the rest of the world, she/he thereby vouches for the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the material, (as well as the slanted opinions, innuendo and loaded conclusions that are usually also presented, and that are the true aims of the material), in the eyes of other non-Chinese, and magnifies the resultant damage and harm a thousand fold more, upon Chinese image and and non-Chinese's misunderstanding and misperception.

It is quite easy for a Chinese scholar or public figure to criticize a growing but somewhat fragile system in order to justify throwing stones at it. I've yet to find from among these critics and stone-throwers one who knows how to pick up the broken pieces they caused, much less build a better structure. But then, that's perhaps too much to expect of such individuals who enjoy vandalism and destruction too much to be capable of valuing or caring about useful, constructive, plans and solutions that produce steady societal progress and social advancement.

What one would like to see in the self-styled "Chinese- statesmen-to-be" are concrete, detailed, proposals and practical solutions to problems that face the Chinese society and people. Shouting slogans and going to demonstrations, embracing heavy metal, Malboro and Bud, or worshiping the latest fad and fashion in Western lifestyle and outlook, hardly makes a person qualified to teach or guide the younger generation, much less run a small banana republic, and far, far less lead a nation of 1.2 billion people.

While I support and commend Ignatius Ding's efforts to seek redress and justice for the countless millions of innocent Chinese who were butchered and murdered during the Sino-Japanese War, I think he has also been doing a significant disservice and caused irreparable harm to Chinese interests by spreading Chinese-baiting material.

Ding should realize that, like Connie Chung, in smearing and recklessly trashing the image of Chinese before the world, he is also trashing himself, unless he thinks the same way as Connie Chung but I'm not sure that he does. I very much like to think that Ding did not purposely damage Chinese image, but he's an intelligent man and ought to know better than doing it for so long. It is high time that he stop hurting and costing other Chinese who caused him no harm whatsoever.

My feelings towards Ding are very mixed. Like other Chinese, I'm at the receiving end of the negative public impact of his demonization of Chinese things, conditions and people through proliferation of Chinese- baiting articles from Western journalists. Only Ding can come to his senses and decide whether to be a true asset or also a liability to the rest of us who like to see constructive, concrete, proposals and solutions, to Chinese problems, and not merely his forwarding and re-posting, ad nauseam, of blind, endless, and venomous diatribe on Chinese matters. I understand from Ding's friends that he is apparently headstrong.

The Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA) has just written Peter Lund, President of CBS Broadcasting Group, to protest CBS's removal of Connie Chung. AAJA President, Dinah Eng (Chinese), complained in her letter to CBS that Chung's removal "sadden" many Asian- Americans who were "proud" to see Chung each night and on the evening news. Eng claimed that Asian-American community can "ill afford to lose" Chung and that she was a "role model" for Asian-Americans aspiring for jobs in broadcasting. (See Editor & Publisher, June 17, 1995 issue at p.3)

Well, one presumes that AAJA is comprised of educated, intelligent, and hopefully thinking, Asian men and women. If that's the case, one wonders whether they represent the interests of the Asian-American community, their own career interests, or something else. I cringe to think that there are more Asian- Americans who regard Chung as a "role model". Does that mean that they aspire to model Chung's past assiduous efforts to shamelessly malign her own people in a desperate bid for illusory career benefits? I hope not!

It is not only irrational, but also foolish, for any self-respecting Chinese to consider an anti-Chinese person a "fellow Chinese", simply because the latter is Chinese biologically or in appearance. Substance, not form, should always be the decisive determining factor. An anti-Chinese Chinese not only does not deserve the support or sympathy of other thinking Chinese in his/ her destructive behavior but should be opposed if he/ she persists.

On the other hand, very occasionally, you may find a non-Chinese who genuinely (I mean genuinely, not feignedly) loves Chinese culture and people, as shown by important deeds, rather than mere words or flattery. Such a person may be non-Chinese in appearance or biologically, but a true Chinese in substance. He/she should therefore be treated by other Chinese with mutual courtesy, respect, friendship, and assistance. An example is Dr. Norman Bethune, the Canadian medical doctor who so selflessly served the Chinese sick and wounded. Dr. Bethune is a true, 100%, Chinese, in my view.

It is utter foolishness for Chinese, particularly educated Chinese, to support those who are Chinese in looks or biologically, but anti-Chinese at heart or in deeds. To do so would be unworthy of our intelligence, education, self-respect and dignity. To do so will only invite and encourage future anti-Chinese behavior and conduct by others, and indeed may even render such anti-Chinese conduct fashionable. To do so will only invite the disdain and contempt of third-party observers and of the very anti-Chinese whom we fail to oppose. Charity begins at home. Chinese cannot expect others to safeguard their interests and self-esteem when they themselves or their "representatives" so readily and routinely trash their own.

Now many Asian organizations, including AAJA, claim to represent Asian interests, mind you, and claim to speak on your behalf. Non-Asians, of course, wouldn't know any better to doubt the claim. Does AAJA reflect your views, speak for the Asian American community and for you?

When compared to Blacks, and other minorities, Asians in general, and Chinese in particular, need to dramatically boost their political IQ. Otherwise, a non-Chinese, looking at Connie Chung, may wrongly conclude that an excellent way to gain Chinese support and admiration is to shit and pee on them as much as possible, as Connie Chung did. Aren't Dinah Eng and AAJA doing Asians and Chinese a disservice? Aren't they sending the wrong signals to Chung and the U.S. media, particularly CBS? Eng's letter, impliedly commending or approving Chung's earlier Chinese- baiting conduct at CBS, cannot purport to speak on behalf of the Chinese or Asian community, no matter how hard she tried to so portray her letter.

American Blacks know well who are for them, and who are against them, and did not hesitate to vigorously oppose Clarence Thomas, a Black, for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court, once they determined that Thomas was anti-Black. It is high time that we learn something from American Blacks. Remember, Civil Rights Laws in this country were hard won by Blacks, not by Chinese or other Asians. As long as our average Chinese political IQ hovers around 30, there will be no end to our second- class citizen status in America, and our status as the political laughing stock, manipulatee and pawn in America and elsewhere.

If the highly-educated Chinese either cannot or don't bother to improve their political IQ, don't expect the less-educated and less-fortunate in the slums of Chinatown to do better. Some say that, politically, Chinese are masochists. I hope these non-Chinese observers are wrong, and that they are mistaken. I hope that we only suffer from a very low political IQ of 30, and improving, even if only glacially. But a low political IQ or low self-esteem is very insidiously costly. American Blacks have a political IQ of at least 120, a cause for admiration by Whites and other non-Blacks, even if sometimes grudgingly. Let's aim for a "dramatic" 200% improvement of our own political IQ, to a "towering" 90 or better before long, we should hope, and certainly not one second too soon.