It is interesting to watch G20 leaders giving speeches at the conference.
For one thing, they all speak a different language and they have to pretend they know what others are saying despite minor delays of the interpretation in their own language. For another, is that you can see how different languages express differently. This showed the characteristics of different nations.
For example, US president Obama used rather straight forward language. He simply explained his thoughts about Syria, without any vague expressions. I mean, at least he told his concern and consideration in a straightforward way. It was easy to understand.
On the other hand, the Chairman of China Xi said something like ‘ensure balanced development’, ‘against anyone who uses chemical weapon’, ‘hoping US’s actions being objective’. I actually laughed when I was watching the news.
I mean, what is this?
However, this allowed us to understand why different countries have different development pattern from how leaders express their opinions. Different cultures reflected in leaders’ way of speaking. And from this we can see the politics of US comes much more straightforward than China, which is fact.
I remember a Chinese joke, saying that the governor asks his secretary to transcribe after he give a speech. He demanded the secretary to get rid of the vague expressions in his speech and only draw out the conclusions. In the end, the secretary got one sentence: ‘Now everyone, it’s time for lunch.’
That’s why I am telling you who is reading this right now, if you want to know what a Chinese is thinking, you don’t ask him, and you don’t listen to him, you watch. Statistics showing that China’s industrial productions is now exceeding the amount of the US.
Why the world was surprised when China appear strong in economics, and scared by this country? It is because this country, doesn’t express issues in words. It is not enough just listen to CCTV news to understand China. You should see it by yourself.
And when comes to media, which I always mention it whatever I talked about in this blog, one same language could mean different when interpreted by media.
President Obama literately said ‘I am not trying to persuade anyone.’ and BBC commented ‘President Obama trying to persuade G20 leaders.’
Well, maybe, what Obama really meant was ‘trying to persuade’ also. But I found it sophisticated in circumstances like G20, how each leader’s language is reflecting each of their political characteristics. And how should media interpret what they say to public’s ears?
At this point, I found the Chinese Leader being passive in this. Just to think, he basically said nothing, and the media could interpret nothing from him, therefore seemingly not provoking any issues, therefore no matter what the publics think, it has nothing to do with the Chairman. So there’s no one to blame in the end.
Or, should I say this sounds like a smart move?
Yet still, I would say the best way to understand a country’s politics and development, is to know why they speak such language, and why they live such way.