The first part of the phrase “礼义廉耻” (lǐ yì lián chǐ) reflects core Confucian moral values.
- 礼 (lǐ) — ritual propriety; respect for social norms and order
- 义 (yì) — righteousness; moral duty and justice
- 廉
(lián) — integrity; honesty and rejection of corruption
- 耻
(chǐ) — a sense of shame; avoidance of disgraceful behaviour
Together, these four virtues form the foundation of personal and social ethics in traditional East Asian thought, emphasising self-discipline, moral accountability, and social harmony.
The second parrt “光明正大” (guāng míng zhèng dà) means “open and upright” — acting with transparency, fairness, and without hidden motives.
The philosophy behind the entire phrase is that a virtuous person or ruler must cultivate inner moral qualities (礼义廉耻) while outwardly conducting himself with honesty and justice (光明正大). It rejects selfishness, deceit, and corruption, advocating instead a society built on ethical clarity and mutual respect.
The phrase first appeared in Guanzi (《管子》), a foundational text attributed to the school of thought of Guan Zhong (管仲), the legendary reformist statesman who served as prime minister of the State of Qi during the Spring and Autumn Period (c. 725–645 BCE).
In one chapter, it states: “礼义廉耻，国之四维；四维不张，国乃灭亡” – Propriety, righteousness, integrity, and shame are the four cardinal pillars of the state. If these four pillars are not upheld, the state will collapse.
Guan Zhong regarded these virtues not merely as personal qualities, but as the essential foundations of stable governance.
From the Han Dynasty onward, “礼义廉耻” became a standard phrase in imperial edicts, legal codes, and moral textbooks. It was used both to train officials and to educate the public.
Later Confucian scholars, especially during the Song and Ming dynasties, deepened and popularised the concept. Each virtue acquired a more defined moral significance. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, military codes often included these four virtues as essential qualities for soldiers and officers.
The phrase remains widely recognised in China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan. Even today, it is still taught as a foundation of civic virtue and anti-corruption ethics.
As for the philosophy behind “光明正大” (guāng míng zhèng dà), the term first appeared in the writings of the Southern Song Neo-Confucian scholar Zhu Xi (朱熹, 1130–1200).
Zhu
Xi used the expression to describe the character of a true sage — someone whose
thoughts and actions are transparent, morally clear, and free from deception or
selfishness.
Perhaps the most iconic physical representation of this principle is the “正大光明” plaque hanging inside one of the palaces of Beijing’s Forbidden City.
The plaque was inscribed by the Shunzhi Emperor (顺治皇帝, reigned 1643–1661), the first Qing emperor to rule over China proper. It reinforced a succession system formalised earlier by the Yongzheng Emperor (雍正皇帝, reigned 1722–1735) to pre-empt brutal struggles among imperial princes for the throne.
(Yongzheng decreed that the emperor would write the name of his chosen heir on two copies of a will. One copy would remain on his person, while the other would be sealed and hidden behind the “正大光明” plaque. Upon the emperor’s death, the two copies would be compared to verify the legitimate successor.)
The process was intended to symbolise fairness, transparency, and upright governance — literally “open and upright.” In short, “光明正大” represents both a personal virtue — transparent integrity — and a principle of governance: conduct that is public, fair, and aboveboard.
Out of these virtues, 礼 (lǐ) — propriety and civility — appears, at times, to be absent in the behaviour of some mainland Chinese. One often reads reports of uncouth conduct on airplanes, in public spaces, and in other social settings.
I believe the Cultural Revolution played a major role in disrupting the transmission of traditional social norms in mainland China.
During that period, many aspects of traditional Chinese culture associated with Confucius — respect for hierarchy, ritual propriety (礼), restraint, civility, and moral self-cultivation — were denounced as “feudal.” Teachers, intellectuals, elders, and traditional authority figures were publicly humiliated or persecuted. For roughly a decade, social trust and continuity between generations were severely damaged.
Concepts such as self-cultivation and family order, which had long sustained Confucian ethics, were no longer systematically taught in public life. In many families, survival and political caution became more important than moral refinement or classical etiquette.
Several other factors also contributed.
The speed of economic transformation after the reforms of Deng Xiaoping moved hundreds of millions from rural areas into cities within one or two generations. Rapid urbanisation often weakens traditional etiquette in any society.
The trauma of poverty and scarcity before the 1980s also left a deep psychological imprint. Societies emerging from prolonged hardship can become more transactional and competitive in behaviour.
Ironically, many overseas Chinese communities — in Singapore, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Malaysia — preserved certain behavioural norms more continuously because they did not experience the Cultural Revolution. As a result, some observers perceive overseas Chinese societies as retaining stronger traditions of courtesy and public discipline.
That said, I should also be careful not to generalise too broadly about “many mainland Chinese.” China today contains both highly refined and rough social behaviour, often existing side by side. Younger urban Chinese are frequently well educated, internationally exposed, and increasingly conscious of civility and public etiquette.
It should also be noted that the mainland Chinese leadership itself has, in recent years, attempted to revive Confucian language and traditional values. President Xi Jinping often speaks about traditional culture, social harmony, civility, and “中华优秀传统文化” (“excellent traditional Chinese culture”). Schools today also teach more classical texts than they did several decades ago.
Another related phenomenon is the weak queue culture sometimes observed in China.
Part of this behaviour may stem from historical insecurity formed during periods of hardship — the final years of the Qing dynasty, the civil war era, the Japanese invasion, and later the famine and shortages during the Maoist campaigns.
Decades of scarcity fostered what might be called a “scarcity psychology.” In overcrowded environments, people learned that hesitation could mean losing access, and that waiting politely might allow others to seize opportunities first. Systems did not always guarantee fairness reliably.
However, there are also practical explanations unrelated to historical trauma.
For many years, China’s transport infrastructure lagged badly behind demand. Public transport systems were often extremely crowded, with very limited boarding and exiting time. Many migrants also came from rural areas where orderly queue norms were less emphasised.
Singaporeans, Japanese, and Taiwanese often notice the contrast because those societies invested heavily in public-order campaigns and queue discipline over many decades.
Postwar Japan, for example, developed a strong civic culture centred on public consideration and collective order, while Singapore consciously shaped public behaviour through education, law, and social campaigns.
Be that as it may, two months ago, I took the Aeroline coach service from Singapore to Kuala Lumpur. After clearing Singapore Immigration, I was astonished to see a large crowd suddenly rushing towards the buses. Instinct dies hard.
Nevertheless, it should also be recognised that China has changed enormously over the past 15 to 20 years. In many cities, queueing behaviour and public etiquette are often far better than foreign stereotypes suggest. Subway systems now employ barriers, lane markings, announcements, and social messaging to encourage orderly boarding.
I personally believe that unless some Chinese can overcome this lingering “lack of common courtesy” mindset, reservations will continue to exist about the greatness of Chinese civilisation, regardless of its long and distinguished history.
Yet it would also be unfair to judge an entire civilisation by the worst behaviour of some of its people. China today is still evolving socially, just as it has transformed economically. The enduring ideals of 礼义廉耻 and 光明正大 may yet regain their fuller place in Chinese public life.
End
The present Vibe Hotel Rushcutters Bay Sydney was once known as the Rushcutters Harbourside Hotel, then owned by Malaysia’s Low Yat Group. It was developed in anticipation of the boom expected from the 2000 Summer Olympics. Unfortunately, the good times did not fully materialise, and the hotel had to rely heavily on lunch bookings from tour groups from China and Japan to supplement its revenue. At the time, I was the regional director of the group in Australia.
We particularly enjoyed handling the Japanese tour groups. They would arrive punctually, alight from their coaches quietly, walk into the restaurant almost like a line of penguins, and queue patiently for their buffet lunch. After the meal, they would return to their coaches in the same orderly manner. Their discipline, consideration for others, and collective sense of order left a deep impression on me.
No comments:
Post a Comment