 These considerations should hold some weight for Confucians, but so do some other considerations that support protections for individuals. Confucianism can recognize that individuals do not always accurately perceive or act on the fundamental compatibility between individual and group interests. Rights might be necessary in case relationships irretrievably break down and individuals need to be protected. Joseph Chan (1999, 2014) has made this very point for rights as “fallback” mechanisms. One might go further than Chan does and give rights a more prominent place if one expects regular misfiring on attempts to reconcile individual and group interests (e.g., see Fan 2010, Wong 2004). If in fact it can be a difficult matter to tell how to promote fundamental harmony between people’s interests, and if political leaders tend to have their judgment about this matter compromised by the influence of some of their own personal interests and by the sheer fact of holding power (there is evidence that one becomes less sensitive to other people’s interests the longer one holds power over them), there may be good reason to recognize rights to free speech that can be used by citizens to call office holders to account and to make their own interests more salient. Providing these protections under the heading of rights may help to protect citizens when the content of their speech concerns the wrongful or misconceived conduct and policies of an office holder. (Wong, 2004). 