Many believe Communism is close to dead. North Korea and Cuba, the last two hold-outs, are both basket cases. Otherwise the ideology has been superceded, even in China. Except for one place, close to the heart of even the biggest capitalist multinational.
We here at the Traktor factory put up with a lot. We are rapidly approaching one of the worst times of the year: the appraisal process. In the very best touchy-feely HR way, this requires employees to sit down with their bosses and fill in boxes on a form that will be filed away and never looked at again. Words such as "objective", "team", "potential", "diversity", "accomplishments" and "development" are bandied about. Bewildered employees and their put-upon bosses go through the motions because hell hath no fury than an HR staffer scorned. Employees fill out a self-appraisal form and then sit down with the boss to discuss both that and the boss's view of the employee. Once each employee's many shortcomings and few achievements are duly recorded, with immeasurable objectives set in ink, it is time to turn the tables. The employee, in a "360 degree review process", gets to evaluate a boss. While ever assurance is given that this is open and their are no repurcussions the reality is you work with your boss every day (and let's note it here that mine is great and really is a role model) whereas some HR flunky will see your form as a chore to be entered into a database so management can have a report on the what employees think: all 300,000 of us.
There has only ever been one similar ideology in history: Marxist criticism and self-criticism. Forget about Reds under the bed. They're all alive and well in your Human Resources department. Think about that next time the company launches a "cultural revolution" or "5 year plan".
Hah, I oughta run that by the Trotskyites at the university I slum at from time to time. Bet I could trigger a couple party splits and purges by comparing their methods to dirty, dirty capitalists!
(Me? Wave the black flag and pie the prez, and the Party can get stuffed. Hey, think I can get permabanned from China for merely posting something along those lines?)
In May I had an About Me post, but instead of me listing useless trivia about myself I asked readers to ask questions that I would respond to in turn. Originally Jim and Pylorns obliged and there it stayed until yesterday. Pieman and more recently Ilana has asked some questions to which I've now responded.
With plenty of new readers since then, you are all cordially invited to join in and ask questions in the comments of the About Me post, and I'll post the question and answer in the main post.
Hong Kong's media had a bad day yesterday. The esteemed Far Eastern Economic Review has effectively folded, going from a weekly to a monthly cut and paste job with op-eds instead. The world has its global weeklies such as Time and The Economist against which a regional mag like the FEER was always going to struggle. It's done well to last as long as it has.
Far worse for the local newspapers is the news that Hong Kong's police will move in December to new digitally encrypted radios for communications. Instead of reporters being able to listen in to the police network they will have to rely on police internet bullitens instead. The papers make a habit of arrving at the scenes of accidents before police to take graphic photos they can splash across the front page or to expose whichever celebrity has had a car accident. This will no longer be possible as the police will only give out surnames and the broad nature of the incident.
You can expect Hong Kong's papers will protest about freedom of the press and the pubilc's right to know. It's not. And it should make looking at a news-stand a lot easier in the mornings from December onwards.
Politicians often get a bad rap, commonly putting up with the cliche "they're all crooks." Turns out in India it's well deserved. Almost a quarter of India's 545 national MPs face criminal charges including rape, murder and extortion. That's only national MPs and only criminal cases. It must make the police's job easy, knowing where to find the usual suspects.
Bloomberg has reported that China has raised its interest rates by 0.27%, taking the lending rate to 5.58% and the deposit rate to 2.25%. This is the first time rates have risen in China for 9 years and is a stepping up in the Government's efforts to control China's economic growth and inflation. The flipside is this will increase pressure on China's currency to appreciate/revalue as even more foreign money is sucked in to chase these higher yields. This was a difficult choice facing China and they've opted for domestic economic control at the possible expense of their control over the currency. China has also removed the ceiling on bank lending rates, a small deregulatory step in freeing up the financial system.
The announcements are in Chinese on the PBoC website: here and here.
Developing...
Update: the reaction so far? The US dollar has strengthened against all the major currencies, commodities are getting hit e.g. copper's down 1.6%, gold's down, US Treasuries down in price, commodity company shares down e.g. BHP down 3.3%, Rio and Anglo American 2% and likely more Chinese rate rises to come. This is going to have a far bigger economic impact on the world than whatever happens in America next Tuesday.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains changing Chinese newspaper terms, football, New York Times lies, killer tomatoes, Koreans defecting both ways, death in Singapore, the curious case of the dictator's son and Maria Sharapova's underpants, plus plenty more...
Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Look through this fascinating list of changing terms used in Chinese papers over the past 50 years. It tells you a lot about the changes the country has gone through in that time.
We Observe the World is a project by Chinese journalism students, bringing to the world first hand opinions by China's next generation. Joe Bosco is behind the project.
China is a partner in Europe's Galileo satellite network, a rival to America's GPS. ACB looks at the issues.
This could be huge: North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's son, who may or may not have been living outside of the North since 2001, may have deliberately left a memo attacking the North Korean regime. Perhaps the start of a struggle for succession?
what's all this anti death penalty drivel? the guy knew the rules. everyone in asia knows the rules. singapore executes people found with drugs above certain limits. if you can't do the time, don't commit the crime. if he didn't want to run the risk he should have flown via hong kong.
and what do you mean it doesn't work? i'd like to see him offend again once he's had his neck stretched. bleeding heart countries like the uk, where people seem to be free to reoffend at will and make other peoples lives hell, and people are released because the jails are too full, instead of either a - cramming them in, or b - building new jails - could learn a thing or two from the singapore approach.
It's not really a good deterant if people keep attempting to bring in drugs anyway, is it? And there's not much hope of rehabilitating an offender if he's six feet under.
i have no access to any stats, and they'd be meaningless anyway as by definition they are only going to be guesses at the level of undetected smuggling, but i would bet my house that fewer people, in both an aboslute number and as a proportion of visitors, are taking drugs into singapore than are coming in to hk.
and a quick google reveals that rates of reoffending are as high in some places such as NZ (which has no death penalty) as 86%. hardly says a great deal for "rehabilitation" does it.
besides why would i want him rehabilitated. he's a drug smuggler. at the risk of sounding like a london cabby, string him up i say - it's the only language they understand.
giles: Nobody is defending the crime. But rather the punishment for it. Taking the life of a man just for prosessing a small amount of banned substance goes the very grain of humanity. And what happens after the fact the world decides the War on Drugs is a stupid waste of time and resources, similar to the American Prohibition? Or that new evidence show that he was innocent?
i'm so glad to know that at least there's someone else who sees the logic in the death penalty - in the form of giles. i don't quite understand what rights that Nguyen twit has when he obviously knows what he get himself into by bringing in the drugs over.
some daft foreign amoeba is sent to his death for drugs - a *mere* small amount no doubt - and almost everybody whinges about singapore's record of hanging people. how come when singaporeans got hanged, there's barely a whimper? yet there is so much hoo-ha - and really loud ones at that - for a foreigner? without fail?
btw, does anyone residing outside the islet hear or see of any drug pushers peddling their wares at every turn at the corner of the street? or even coming across used contaminated syringes left at playgrounds? no isn't it? with drugs, comes triads and gangs. with triads/gangs, come territories and petty squabblings. with petty squabblings, come gunfights where some unlucky git would be caught in the crossfire. or lives lost causing utter misery to their families.
i'm very sure some of you's would have heard of that poor lass in nottingham who lost her life whilst bystanding and some twit of a drug gangster shot her through an open window of a car. mistook her for someone or somesuch. ok, so you's don't. or those jamaican yardies in bristol having an open quibbling in the city centre. not even giving a fig about civility and respecting the law of the land. i bet none of you's would ever want to even come here for holidays/business/setting up shop if any of the above scenarios replicated over here.
btw, singapore is a *sovereign* state. regardless if the amount of drug is a mere 15 gms, one has to respect its law. if one has a problem about its judiciary system like death by hanging, it has a choice, ie: stay away from the islet.
likewise i'd be told to bunk off by yanks if i were to live in the states, and then grumble about the blatant sexual permissiveness in certain cities and its liberal gun laws.
Posted by the letter b at October 28, 2004 11:21 PM
well said b. i agree with evey word.
and rajan - no it doesn't go against the very grain of humanity, it goes against the very grain of bleeding hearts who view criminals as victims not perpetrators.
the guy committed a crime. he got caught. he faces the penalty. i agree where there is an element of doubt you should always err on the side of caution, but as i understand it he had the stuff strapped to his body, concealed in his luggage and probalby stuffed up his ar5e too. he can hardly claim it all got there without him knowing! if it was just the luggage then i agree he may have a case for avoiding the death penalty, but strapped to his body???
criminals are not victims. they are people who have chosen to break the law, and should be prepared to face the consequences.
There are two issues here. Firstly should drugs be criminalised? Personally I think not, given drug abuse is a health problem being solved by jailing (or worse) addicts, and that criminalisation has caused far more damage without being effective in controlling drugs.
Secondly when it comes to the death penalty it is aquestion of whether the punishment fits the crime. Sneaking 15 grams of heroin is not worth hanging someone from the gallows. It is an irreversible punishment so the burden of proof has to move from beyond reasonable doubt to beyond all doubt to justify it. Should criminals be punished? Absolutely. Is an "eye for an eye" justified? No. The only cases where I can understand the death penalty as a legitmate punishment would be high treason and terrorists.
Bre, I can respect that Singapore is sovereign with its own laws. So is China, and it doesn't stop me criticising them often about the choices they make. I'm not sure the death penalty is the only, or even the major, reason that Singapore doesn't have such trouble with drugs. And I hate to say this, but if you think there isn't drugs and triads in Singapore, you're being very nieve.
the issue of whether drugs should be decriminalised is totally irrelevant.
at the time he smuggled them in they were illegal, and the punishment is death. what happens in the future is not relevant. he committed a crime. he knew the consequences.
the limits that singapore decides to impose before the death sentence becomes mandatory are for singapore alone to decide.
who are australia, or the uk, or the u.s. to tell another sovereign nation what level the limits should be set at.
you are effectively trying to impose your view of the right way to run a country on another sovereign nation.
and lastly, he wasn't "sneaking 15 grams in" - he had 396 grams strapped to his body and in his luggage. that's 26.4 times the mandatory death sentence limit. that's like driving at 2,640km/h in a 100 km/h zone - a bit over the top i think you'd agree, and plenty to potentially kill plenty of people back home in australia.
his guilt in irrefutable. it was strapped to him for god's sake. as i said earlier if it was i his luggage alone then i may be persuaded that it could have been put there by someone else and he should not be executed, but strapped to him is a very different thing.
i'm sure there are drugs and triads in singapore, as no doubt the editor of singapore tatler will agree, but they are much further underground and are not openly challenging police authority like they do here in good old hongkers every friday night in Yau Ma Tei.
I certainly can tell Singapore what I think - just like I can tell North Korea I don't like the idea of locking up people at random, nor that I like Sudan's genocide. Countries can't hide behind "sovereignty" when they breach human rights.
You're right that he's done the crime and will be punished as the law says. But I disagree with capital punishment and will continue to criticise places that use it, like China, the US and Singapore.
it's not you personally criticising it that bothers me (it's a free(ish) country and we supposedly have a right to free speech here (unless beijing "reinterprets" that of course), so it is certainly your right to comment, as it is mine), it's the australian government getting involved. i'm sure the aussies would expect singapore to respect their right to govern their own country as they see fit, and should show singapore the same courtesy.
and we're not talking about human rights abuses, genocide, or detention without trial, or all the other things that north korea, sudan etc etc are being criticised for - and which are, most importantly, STATE SPONSORED. this makes the state is the legitimate target of complaint for illegal activity and the subject of legal consequences should any of the perpetrators and/or leaders ever be brought to justice, but heroin smuggling by a private individual.
totally different.
it is illegal in every country in the world
every country has their own way of dealing with it.
let singapore deal with it their way, and australia, and everywhere else, can deal with it as they see fit.
that's an interesting idea shaky but i'm afraid has been proved to be nothing but a way of encouraging people to attempt to take over the world.
if you remember your history lessons, both Davros, the leader of the Daleks, and the three evil kryptonians from Superman II, General Zod, Ursa and Non, were effectively trapped in a similar manner, with their minds free and their bodies disabled, and in both cases they attempted to take over the world.
Only the timely interventions of Doctor Who (frequently) and Superman saved us from total destruction.
Sucks to be that guy. Drug abuse is a health problem??? Wow! What fcuking insurance company gives you coverage in case you become a pothead? I think the war on drugs is a waste because it targets the users(read unhealthy) instead of the source. This dude was a source. I say tie a porkchop around his neck and stick him in the tiger pen at the Singapore zoo, just because he is so frickin stupid. I wouldn't bring aspirin into Singapore.
Don't forget Zod, Ursa and Non were freed by a nuclear bomb. There's a message there somewhere. I think that Nuclear bombs can not only create freakish monsters that destroy cities, they can also set free those who would subjugate all mankind. The only thing I agreed with was letting Lex Luthor rule Australia.
Was it clear to him that drug smuggling crimes were a capital offense? Was the man given due process ie a fair trial? Hang em high.
Although I am not for the death penalty for drug smuggling this is not a human rights issue. In the case of the PRC, where it is a human rights issue, it is because capital crimes are not defined, arbitrarily enforced and right to due process are non-existent.
* Germaine is the weirdest American I've ever met. Why would and self-respecting man adopt a female Australian as a nom de plume?
* Giles is to facism what hand is to glove.
* Shaky is a space cadet.
* If we ever go visit Bre, we're not taking a couple of hundred grams of heroin with us.
so simon thinks i'm a fascist, while attila and genghis think i'm a dangerous liberal.....
hmmmmmmmm.....
and if bre ever contacts me asking me to get her a couple of hundred grams of heroin, i shall be slipping it into simons luggage on his next trip there.
oh my goodness i'm being mentioned not once but many times over without even having to counter what Simon originally said about triads and gangs in singapore. i'll talk more about it later as i'm taking a breather from the sheer madness here, but i must say that:
1. i can't believe myself for agreeing with what GG said about offering that Nguyen twit as tiger food
2. i'm not alone in believing that hanging criminals of all sorts is for the greater good of the society, most importantly for my safety and well-being
3. if you's would ever visit moi, please help me sneak in some playboy mags
4. oh i'd prefer cannabis to heroin really if you's must - not that i did try that stuff before, but heroin is oh so commonplace
oh Giles, how about slipping the drugs thingy into Simon's, erm, "knickers" when he isn't looking.
erm, that's about all for the moment.
Posted by the letter b at October 29, 2004 06:48 PM
Agreeing with Ghengis/Germaine is the first sign of madness.
oh dearie me. but having worked with tossers for 4.5 years, i'm not surprised that i'm veering towards that direction.
help me god.
Posted by the letter b at October 29, 2004 09:48 PM
Please help me to defect this the torture I am experiencing in the United States of America. My ex is an ex- military general and he is responsible for the War in the middle east. He and his family began this war because of his greed for financial wealth. The United States of america is holding and torturing my children as prisoners of war. Please help to send me information regarding "DEFECTING". I am very proud of my GIBSON name, while the USA allows my 4th removed cousins to misuse my family's name. They have no moral values or respect and are tyrants to the country. However, this american behavior is typical. Please help.
Could Colin Powell's controversial statement on Taiwan yesterday, which didn't go down so well, actually be part of a greater bargain with China? US efforts to get North Korea talking again and China more involved in the process require a quid pro quo, says this article. China is extracting its price from the US in order to get Kim Jong-Il to the table again. The article says the payoff may include concessions on Taiwan, the US backing off selling advanced weapons to Taiwan, a lifting of the US arms embargo and improved engagement with East Asia by the White House. Some of this is unlikely regadless if the Bush administration is re-elected, except perhaps the change in stance on Taiwan.
However if Kerry is elected things could become a lot more interesting. Kerry has a more bilateral approach to North Korea rather than the current administration's multilateral one. The article thinks Kerry may be more open to a deal with China and North Korea on the basis of pragmatism and national interests than Bush, whose ideological preoccupation has been seen as a major obstacle for the past four years by friends and foes alike. That makes absolutely no sense at all. Kerry's North Korea policy emphasises bilateral talks concurrently with the 6 party talks. His op-ed piece from August 2003 in the WaPo makes no mention of China at all. So this talk of a bargain with China over North Korea doesn't stand up if Kerry's elected. Yes he's pragmatic, but he's not going to make bargains with an emerging world power over North Korea. At least I hope not.
It's interesting that on this issue Kerry has the more hawkish position. Whether his approach could get results remains to be seen. He's got to get elected first.
Not discounts. But after you´ve paid in Hong Kong it is completely free. You don´t have to pay for the flight, the hotel, the restaurants, the trips, nothing.
Posted by Harry Hutton at October 29, 2004 05:18 AM
First, thanks for the links and the occasional response.
Second, your color scheme is hard to read, especially for someone with tinted glasses reading the newspapers in the pre-dawn morning.
Third, I disagree with your assessment of the Bush and Kerry foreign policy stances. Bush is the pragmatist, who jusges alliances based on shifting, provisional criteria. Kerry wants to return to the bedrock of post-war alliances with Europe. What this means for E>Asia, where there is no clear precedent for an ally, except Japan, spells disaster for 4 more years. I prefer Bush\'s approach, even if I disagree with his specific choices. In the end, I am not voting on foreign policy, but domestic policy, but Kerry worries me, because I agree that the old alliances are dead.
Infidel: the colour scheme shouldn't be too hard to read as I deliberately have the text in plain black against a white background. If you could tell me exactly what makes it hard to read I'll see what I can do about fixing it.
Re the candidate's stances and alliances. We clearly disagree because I don't see the "old" alliances as dead, otherwise NATO wouldn't exist. Alliances are always shifting, they are rarely static. The world is going through a re-jigging of these alliances and the results on Tuesday will have a large baring on that. Kerry's position is to continue with the 6 party talks and engage directly with the North as well, which I see as a practical way to move forward given the North has made it clear they don't see the 6 party talks giong anywhere anytime soon. Kerry's approach allows the East Asian parties involved to continue to engage on the issue while actually achieving results whereas Bush's position seems stuck as it stands.
It must be Unipeak (I still need to use Unipeak or an RSS aggregator) to read the site or some strange interaction with two separate SK PC systems, one at home and one at Dong-A University. Your background has always been royal blue against dark blue, with black text and light blue links.
Perhaps I have to set Unipeak or something, but this situation has persisted ever since you introduced this new blogging scheme. I flirted with light text on a dark background years ago, but it hurt even my eyes. So, I just found a shade of off-white I could handle, and I have been happy since.
I will check preferences on the XP program and on Unipeak, but its happening on two different computers.
Re Alliances: Alliances are always temporary. NATO is exactly the prime example of an organization so diluted in its function, diplomats probably need a history briefing just to remember what they are doing. The EU is a grand alliance losing its cohesion. Hell, even Washington had to resort to force to keep the Union together, and the only thing keeping the country together is the memory of all that bloodshed. Permanent alliances lead to coercion by minorities. There is both a normative and factual component to Bush\'s pragmatism.
RE 6-Party talks: 6-party negotiations are breaking dow, because for more than one reason. First, Beijing is trying to flex its diplomatic with Pyongyang, Washington, and Seoul, to improve its image. Second, Seoul and Moscow are trying to unite the peninsula to ensure economic gains and energy maximization, something Beijing and Tokyo each are resisting. Thirdly, Washington and the rest of the other parties have a fundamental difference of opinion over approach. Washington takes a legalistic approach and is trying to salvage non-proliferation. The other parties take an historical approach and do not want to lose the chance to arm at their discretion, because they resent American double standards on non-proliferation. The way each of the 6 parties cannot reach agreement, paradoxically, proves the virtue of the 6-party approach. Direct negotiation removes Washington\'s unique approach from the table, and strengthen\'s Beijing most of all.
I would even predict that without some sort of continuing 6-party diplomatic process, east asia will witness an international war within two generations.
Finally, Kerry and the Dems are creating an issue just to distinquish themselves from the GOP. It will take a stronger mandate than any president will get now to reverse course now. Unless, of course, the Dems have a bedrock core of ideologues waiting to pin Kerry to a script, as the conservatives did with Bush. But the Dems have never been cohesive, and the without another 9-11 disaster, even the American population will never tolerate another flouting of the minority\'s will again.
"I mean, look at the Dalai Lama who I've spent some time with and who is absolutely intriguing. Extraordinary person."
Did you put up with someone like this in grade school? Someone who just WOULD NOT QUIT spinning fantasies while looking you straight in the eye?
I did a google search on "John Kerry" and "Dalai Lama". This one doesn't count (http://www.cooperforpresident.com/id270.html):
Sarah: God, you are a genius! It makes me happy to be a Democrap. So apart from winning the 'tard vote, and getting soccer moms all hot and moist, what other advantages does putting John Edwards on the ticket create?
JFK: I'm glad you asked. Are you familiar with the hundreds of thousands of cretins who believe in Deepak Chopra, the Dalai Lama, healing auras, and feng shui?
Sarah: Am I? Hell, I've got a picture of the Dalai Lama on my dresser!
The 10th google hit is one for his astrological chart at www.astrodatabank.com ... next page!!!
11: cyclingplatypus.modblog.com: ModBlog - What is a CyclingPlatypus?
12: www.libertyoutlet.com - LibertyOutlet.com - The Dalia Lama "Famous Gun Nut" T-Shirt
13: www.japantoday.com - no joy
14: http://www.therightchristians.org - no joy
15: http://www.freerepublic.com - reprint of the American Windsurfer article
16: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15043_5.html - John Kerry's Spiritual Biography: an advertising link on page 5 of the article to "Daily Offerings", including The Dalai Lama ...
17: www.thehurricaneonline.com/news/2004/09/24: Official website of the Miami Hurricanes - ... The Dalai Lama's visit was not perfect: Having a translator was not ideal, and His
Holiness sometimes spoke slowly and went off on tangents, which ... John Kerry. ...
18: http://www.faithandvalues.com/tx/IA-19/1/: Senator Kerry "I've met with the Dalai Lama and other faiths many times." You know, John, I think I read that somewhere else ...
19: http://www.e-church.com/blog-detail.asp?EntryID=407&BloggerID=1: nope
20: http://blog.veggiedude.com/2004/08/john-kerry-hero.html
21: http://asia.news.designerz.com/major-differences-between-dalai-lama-and-china-envoys.html
22: www.worldmagblog.com/archives/009179.html: "I mean, look at the Dalai
Lama who I've spent some time with and who is absolutely intriguing. ... Yes, John, but ...
23: www.interfaithalliance.org/ news/NewsPrint.cfm?ID=5179&c=91: "I mean, I've met with the Dalai Lama and other faiths many times. ...
24: www.wjla.com/news/stories/1004/177832.html
25: www.worldlinktv.org/schedule/ wschedule.php4?date=20041024: 2:00 am, Brothers and Others, Ethics and the World Crisis: A Dialogue with the Dalai
Lama, The US Presidential Election ... Spotlight: Forbidden Films About John Kerry ...
26: http://latelinenews.com/ps/english/30789.shtml
27: and counting ... still nothing on when JF*ingK and The Dalai Lama ever ... oh, never mind LMAO!!!
The Heritage Foundation has an article on China's Orwellian Internet. It summaries the history of China and its internet, including the jailing of cyberdissidents, the army of censors the police the internet, the current anti-porn crusade, tracking of mobile phone messages and the "aid of US firms" in the clampdown (on which Tom has more and more). The article correctly argues that if democracy in China is a US policy goal then the internet is a key part of bringing about that change. The author proposes three strategies to help break down the Great Firewall:
1. Designate Internet censorship and monitoring systems as “police equipment" so they become regulated under Export Administration Regulations.
2. Renew research into anti-censorship technologies, although Chinese bloggers have found plenty of ways around it already.
3. Establish an Office of Global Internet Freedom to co-ordinate and monitor these efforts, although personally I'm not sure another Government office is going to help matters much.
China understands the power of the internet to undermine its rule and usher in democracy. That's why it watches and controls it so closely. While these suggestions will help, the firewall itself will likely eventually fall because it is an unsustainable model for controlling information and the net.
An interesting piece you link to, Simon, of one of the more conservative institutions in the US. I think their perception of the internet is wrong, they get the facts wrong. But that is rampant nowadays with American conservatives.
What strikes me is that you still believe in the old ideology that the internet is going to bring about democracy. What I see in China is that is facilitates the emergence of a civil society. It allows people to exchange information. Those are great and important changes, although I do not see how it would bring about democracy - depending of course on how you define that.
Posted by Fons Tuinstra at October 28, 2004 11:40 AM
I don't believe the internet on its own will bring democracy to China. But I do believe it is a key tool in bringing about that change. The internet certainly allows for information exchange, but should the firewall fall it will allow for full information exchange. At the moment the conversation is limited and restricted. The internet can act as a tool to help individuals realise there are others that are like minded, around which the beginnings of democratic change can begin. That means allowing people to have more say over their lives, express their thoughts openly and be able to criticise the Government without fear. The internet already provides the means for that, but China restricts it. It won't last.
The emergence of a civil society in a political context that doesn't allow it is a big achievement on the road to democracy. That's why communist rulers are so scared.
I do think there is on a central level a roadpath towards a civil society, as I try to explain here:
http://www.chinaherald.net/2004/10/law-testing-emerging-civil-society.html
You cannot just dissolve a planned economy, announce a market economy without have a systematic way in place to negotiate between different stakeholders. But it is going to be a rocky way.
On the firewall: thanks to new proxies I have downgraded it from a minor nuisance to virtually none existing. The emperor is wearing no clothes anymore, at least for the overwhelming majority of internet users.
Posted by Fons Tuinstra at October 29, 2004 12:57 PM
China's rapidly imploding Chinese Football Association (to catch up, try here and here) has now docked another major club points and levied a fine after the team walked off due to a disputed refereeing decision. The CFA now has seven of its top teams threatening to boycott the rest of the season until the proposed reforms are carried out. However the CFA refuses to postpone the games and insists that reform happens within the existing CFA structure.
To make matters worse the CFA proposed adding an extra game to decide who goes in the final eight World Cup qualifiers for the Asian zone. FIFA rejected this outright. China proposed this because they now face an uphill battle to qualify, having lost to Kuwait and now needing to beat Hong Kong by at least 2 more goals than the margin in the Kuwait/Malaysia match. More on that here, here and here.
The good news for Chinese sport is they won in the Asian Rugby Tournament against India last night, winning 50-15. No walkouts, no controversy.
Before diving into the meat of this post, I'd like to mention a new blog focussed on China matters: Fabian's Hammer. On the Asian blogroll and interesting posts such as questioning Chinese nationalism and its implications.
Which segues nicely into the thought-provoking post by Joe at Winds of Change on the same question: China's growing nationalist movement. This is a follow up from Joe's post on neo-fascism and China's future and was sparked by the same Globe and Mail article that Fabian discussed above: China Nationalist Fervour Runs Amok. As an aside, kudos to the Globe and Mail for such an extensive and intelligent series of articles on China.
Joe poses a set of questions about the potential for nationalism and fascism to overrun China and what that might mean. I strongly recommend you read the post and follow the interesting set of links Joe has compiled.
Before I add my $0.02 to the pile I'd note it is important to keep China's history and culture in mind, rather than viewing it through a "Western" mindset. China for literally hundreds or even thousands of years was a feudal kingdom but with key differences to what would be viewed as fascist today. For example the national civil service examination system usually prevented wealthy and powerful families from cementing their influence and allowed for a merit based system of promotion, regardless of wealth and station. Also while it may not seem like it, in fact the current rulers of China are similar in format and nature to China's historical political structure. It was the unsettled years at the end of the Qing dynasty and the establishment of the Nationalist Government that were the aberration in Chinese history, not the current system. Another mitigating factor against the rise of fascism is China's vastness. While reasonably (albeit not totally) homogenous in race, China is a massive country with wide differences between regions. What appears to be strong central rule is actually more like an overall co-ordinating body that the various provinces report and pay tribute to, again like China of old. China's provincial and local governments remain strong and tolerant of central rule only so long as it benefits the regions in turn. The imposition of a structure akin to World War 2 fascist states such as Germany or Italy would simply not work in China.
China is a proud country with a long history. Like many countries with a great deal of homogeniety, racism and nationalism is commonplace. This is because there is little sense of "other". For example Hong Kong recently introduced anti-discrimination laws that are discriminatory. Indeed even that law is progress compared to the blatant and open racism that occurs in mainland China against non-Han Chinese. In fact there have been articles in Chinese papers arguing racism can be legitimate. This naturally leads to a fierce nationalism that explains, for example, why China's population is firmly behind in the leadership in aggressively dealing with Taiwan. The same fierce nationalism true of other Asian countries, for example Japan. Combined with Asia's difficult history (not just modern, either) you can begin to understand the competing forces at play in the region, as shown lately in the Japanese push for a UN Security Council seat. Nationalism is nothing new, especially in China. It is, in fact, a thousand year old force that has been vital in seeing China become a nation despite a turbulent history. Is it growing worse? Not as far as I can tell. So long as the Taiwan issue burns so brightly that will remain the main outlet for Chinese nationalist fervour. If (when?) Taiwan and China reach a settlement under some kind of reunion, then it may be time to worry about China's further nationalist aims. But in such a huge country that is safely content with its existing boundaries, the only extension of further nationalism will be to turn China into another superpower.
The China as superpower debate is often bandied about without reliance on the facts. Jacques Chirac as recently as a few weeks ago was in China, showing French arms and quietly bandying the idea of Europe and China emerging as counterweights to US "hegemony" (I hate that word). It may one day happen that China will rival the USA. But that day is a long way into the future. Militarily and economically China is a long way from catching up to anything near the USA's levels. China's leadership knows it, even if they don't actively talk the idea down. It flatters China's place in the world, but it is an emerging global power, but nothing more. The recent G8 meeting and China's attendance are testimony to that.
There are good reasons to think that China's populace would not put up with damaging nationalism. For example the growing middle class know their future is tied to greater integration and trade with the world, not retreat from it. China's deliberate merchantilism ties China's fate intimiately with the USA's, at least economically. China holds the second highest amount of US dollars as reserves in the world, after Japan: something like US$450 billion. This is invested in US Treasuries and the like; China has no interest in seeing this money being blown away by its own moves. The only issue that has the potential to force China beyond its own economic interests is Taiwan, which can be viewed as an internal Chinese issue. As an extension of nationalism it would come at great economic cost - a price the country might be prepared to pay, but a cost nonetheless.
The difference between Chinese nationalism and those of European countries in the leadup to WW2 is whereas those countries were trying to recapture past political and economic glories, China is attaining this glory in a global sense for the first time. It is coming off a much lower base and has a huge amount to go before it ever rivals Western levels.
China has constraints on its growth that Joe alludes to in his posting. The potential remains for China to become more assertive on the global stage, especially to defend its energy security and economic growth. Already the world is seeing some of the results of China's growth in higher commodity and oil prices. China's environment is a mess and the rapid depletion of water tables, droughts and over-cultivation are all problems the country is dealing with. The rapid migration from country to city and the large and growing gaps in wealth between these two are large factors in China's future. But again all of these are internal domestic issues, not factors that will drive a sense of nationalism. Now that China has adopted a path of market economics (after a fashion) it will continue to grow and catch up to the rest of the world, even though as Joe mentiosn there are no doubt going to be hiccups on the way. But to put the gap into perspective, even if China outgrows America by 6% on average every year, it will take 176 years to catch up in terms of GDP. At the same time America will not stand still, waiting for China to catch up in military and political terms. That will continue to remain a check on any growing Chinese ambitions.
Joe also asks if the CCP is keeping the nationalist movement on a leash to use to its own ends. To me this is muddled thinking (with all due respect). China's Communist Party is a nationalist movement and has been since its founding. Now that to a large extent Communism has been dismantled in China you can argue that it is only a nationalist movement that serves to unify a wide and varying country.
Originally Joe postulated:
...I was asked about threats to the future peace and stability of the world. Islamofascism was #1, of course, but I also spent a bit of time explaining my worries about one possible future for China: a future of state capitalism under dictatorial control, a strong need for external resources to fuel that economy, carefully fostered xenophobia, a legacy of belief in the racial superiority of Chinese peoples, a major demographic problem in an excess of young males, and the meme that China is being cheated of its rightful place in the world. Germany's history in the 20th century teaches us what this combination portends.
Until his final sentence he hits the key issues facing China in the years ahead. Where I disagree is that the lessons of Germany can tell us what is in store for China. China is unlike any Western country and its future will not be an imitation of modern Western history. I for one don't see Chinese nationalism as a dangerous element in the world in the years ahead, with the notable exception of Taiwan. But Joe has posted a set of interesting questions that deserve consideration and debate.
I don't even know where to begin in describing all the things wrong with this article. Let's start with the idea that, as you put, "it will take 176 years to catch up in terms of GDP". This is nonsense. 30 seconds in Excel should disprove it for anyone. If the US grows at 3% annually while China grows 9% annually, using CIA Factbook GDP numbers (By PPP), with the US having roughly $11 trillion and China roughly $6 trillion in GDP for 2004, you will have China outweighing the US in just _11_ YEARS. Perhaps you are referring to GDP per capita? That would be a mistake as well. Germany was far poorer than the US in 1939, but still managed to put together a world-class fighting machine and industrial economy. It doesn't matter what the individual wealth of a Chinese person is, what matters is China's aggregrate wealth used for military/industrial purposes.
China is now the #1 producer of steel and coal in the world, among many other industrial products. It is already one of the largest car markets (from nothing in less than 10 years). The only thing that China lacks is technology, and that is rapidly being siphoned off from Japan, South Korea and the US through deceptive joint partnerships. Constraints on military technology transfer are the only thing that can hamper China's rise to a military superpower, and those constraints are being worn away by countries such as France. Putting your hope in commercial interests to reign in Chinese fascism is also foolhardy. Germany and France conducted a lot of trade before WW1. Wars are often fuelled by emotion, so no amount of reason regarding commercial interests will hold them back, regardless of how many US Treasury notes the Chinese government holds.
I'm not happy about it either, but face facts here. China doesn't have to look like Orange County in order to be a huge threat. It can still be a vastly poor country and yet become the most powerful nation on Earth. If Chinese fascists start a fight with the US in 2020, it will not be a fight the US can win. Mind you, probably neither side could win, given nuclear weapons, but Americans are far more constrained by their morality and political system in the use of weapons than the Chinese.
Pray for a slow democratic revolution like in South Korea, because the numbers are not pretty otherwise.
Posted by Mat Krepicz at October 30, 2004 01:02 AM
Mat:
I wonder if you've ever actually been to China? You are right that total wealth matters more than per capita GDP in terms of military might. China is hugely behind the developed world, even with its current rapid growth. It is coming of an extremely low base. It is also nothing like Germany in the lead up to WW2. Firstly there is no Treaty of Versailles. Secondly the world is a very different places, far more linked both economically and militarily. Thirdly you assume China has expansionary aims. Chinese nationalism, such that it exists, is about keeping the country together. The country has no expressed desire to expand its borders, or for a "greater" China outside of the Taiwan question. Your idea that "Chinese fascists start a fight with the US in 2020" is difficult to fathom. On what basis would China seek to do this? China holds literally hundreds of billions of dollars of US dollars and Treasuries...and when it comes to money Chinese aren't stupid.
China will become a powerful nation by dint of its huge population and economic growth, as will its neighbour India. But the world doesn't stand still waiting for them to catch up. China's military is huge but bloated and lacking massively in military technology. Numerically China will become the biggest market in various products, but it still has 700 million peasants earning barely enough to live. Its leadership is more interested in raising living standards than military adventurism.
Personally I think China's political system will have to evolve given the pressures that growing living standards will exert. I agree that military technology should be controlled when it comes to China, partly to retain the security balance and partly because China has been suspect in proliferation in the past.
What I don't see is any sign of Chinese fascism. I also don't see anything in your comments that actually takes issue with my original post. You can either fear China or engage with it; I don't see anything to fear.
The China Daily takes a look at China's middle stratum, noting that "middle class" is considered politically incorrect in China and middle stratum is more acceptable.
A report from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences says the middle class was 19% of China's 1.3 billion population. With projected income and economic growth, this should reach 40% of the total by 2020, according to the report. The definition is a family with assets between Yuan 150,000 - 300,000 (about US$18,000 to US$36,000).
Regardless of the exact number China is rapidly gaining a class of people who are increasing in affluence and disposable income. If they can overcome their natural inclination to save (Chinese private savings are as much as 25% of income, compared to low single figures in many Western countries) China's consumers will become a factor in global consumption. But they will not become the solution to all companies' growth questions in the years to come. Look at those numbers again. We're talking about families with total assets of about US$25,000 on average. Sure the cost of goods is lower in China and on a purchasing parity basis this amount gets you more bang for your buck. But it does not mean that suddenly Chinese consumers will imitate Western ones in both the quantum and pattern of consumption. The rapid growth in Chinese wealth is great but there is still a massive gap to catch up to Western consumption and wealth levels. China's GDP is just over US$1,000 per person; Hong Kong's is over US$27,000 per persno.
This leads to the next problem: the growing inequality in wealth distribution in China. I've talked previously of the growing differences between the rich urban coast and poor rural interior in China. In Communist China the Gini coefficient has now risen to 0.39 against the international average of 0.40*. China's farmers earn on average US$317 per year, which has risen 4% in 2003 despite boom times for rural China. So in fact the urban rich have average incomes far higher than the per capita GDP suggests. As my pervious post put it, there are two Chinas: a wealthy coastal urban China that is rapidly becoming like the West and a poor rural army of peasants struggling to divine any benefits from China's new wealth.
This presents the Chinese leadership with two challenges. Firstly they need to ensure that this second, poor China gathers at least some of the benefits of this new golden age of Chinese economic expansion. The Communists based themselves and their legitimacy on representing the peasantry and advancing their interests. At the same time the leadership need to deal with a growing group that have something worth protecting in terms of assets and lifestyle. While the emergence of China's middle class is at an early stage, it is going to pose a growing challenge to China's governance.
* 0 means perfect equality; 1 means all wealth is in the hands of only one person
China have very nicely asked foreign embassies in Beijing to stop sheltering North Korean refugees. Why? Because they are really "illegal migrants led by activists with 'ulterior motives.'" Those motives being freedom from oppression, food, shelter; you know little things like that.
If China had not flooded soldiers into North Korea during the Korean War, America may have followed MacArthur's advice and drove the communists completely off of the peninsula. As a result, Truman was forced to "contain" the communists above the 38th parallel, thus creating the prison that is North Korea. China is responsible, in large part, and now unwilling to help? Could those "ulterior motives" of the activists be the strained conscience of China?
As usual Rusty has the details; a Japanese national is being held hostage in Iraq, threatened with beheading unless Japan withdraws troops from Iraq. Apparently the hostage is a "drifter" who hasn't spoken to his family in months. His family didn't even know he was in Iraq. The kidnapping is part of these terrorists strategy to test each country's resolve in Iraq.
Thankfully Japan's Prime Minister Koizumi has categorically stated his forces will not withdraw from Iraq. Japan has already successfully faced down these kidnappers once, when in April 3 aid workers and 2 journalists were taken but released unharmed. Those hostages faced a torrent of abuse when they returned to Japan for putting themselves in harm way. The same fate awaits this young man if, and I pray he does, returns to Japan unharmed. These terrorists have picked the wrong country to try and force a withdrawal. A quick perusal of modern history shows Japan does not easily surrender.
Ziyi says, "I think Hong Kong - they are just snobbish. I don't know, they live in such a small...' The actress was then interrupted by the manager LING LUCAS, who interjected, "Oh honey, I don't think you should go there. We live in a little island."
Ziyi quickly altered her opinion about Hong Kong, and said, "I love Hong Kong. The food is so great."
That's what happens when you're "too busy and famous" because you're a Hollywood star now. Thank God her publicist was at the interview; otherwise we might have heard what she really thinks.
Wait, you mean American actresses aren't the only ones who suffer from Moron Syndrome? If you had replaced Zhang Ziyi's name with Julia Roberts', I never would have noticed.
With a week to go to the US elections, suddenly it seems Colin Powell has altered US policy on Taiwan. After meeting with Chinese officials, where the usual exchanges took place, Powell said in an interview "there is only one China. Taiwan is not independent. It does not enjoy sovereignty as a nation, and that remains our policy, our firm policy," a marked difference from the previous ambigious policy of the US. Suffice to say Taiwan is pissed off and the State Department is scrambling. Even China isn't sure what this all means, suspicious of the motives behind the move and have rejected Powell's call for talks with Taiwan.
Not a good time to be making gaffes.
UPDATE:David's right, I've missed the big story: FOOD FIGHT! If you've seen the Cat in the Hat (which I have, several times, thanks to the kids), you'll appreciate the drama and entertainment Taiwan's Parliament provides for all of us.
He does seem to have put his foot in it - not so much with the sovereignty issue (after all, the US has never recognised Taiwan), but with his comments about working towards 'a reunification that all parties are seeking.'
I think Powell is a smart guy, but it's easy to underestimate how much is read (by China and Taiwan) into every word the US says about this issue. One incorrect word, and everyone's running around thinking the world has changed (replace 'reunification' with 'peaceful resolution' in his quote, and he's back in line with the standard policy).
By the way - you've missed the biggest Taiwan news story of the day: Food fights in the parliament http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3954847.stm
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Mondays and Thursdays (the latest edition is here). You can be notified by email when it is updated, just drop me an email at simon-[at]-simonworld-[dot]-mu-[dot]-nu. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains a summary of the previous month's editions of Asia by Blog...
America is send a naval battle group to patrol the Sea of Japan - close to both Taiwan and North Korea.
Hong Kongers are both smarter and more patriotic than TV gives them credit for. ESWN looks at the issue of anthems and sums up: If this national anthem thing bothers you, you just hold it against them and don't let them get the satisfaction. Just remember who these people are and make sure they don't get what they want. Ever.
Tom discusses the possibility that China might start dumping their US dollar investments, with the inevitable "blame Bush" angle. Problem is where else will they go? The yuan is pegged only against the US dollar - it would be taking a hell of a gamble to start investing in Euros or even (perish the thought) Yen instead. China and Japan are hostages of their large US dollar holdings. Dumping them only hurts themselves.
Property is all the rage in Hong Kong again. ESWN explains why those in 40 square foot units are living in relative luxury. I looked at the growing demand but lack of supply of bigger units in HK and why property in HK is forming a new bubble.
Driving on China's roads can be murder. And even worse the WHO says Beijing is underestimating the numbers by more than 100,000 deaths a year. Phil looks at solutions.
Chris looks at the huge value of Hong Kong's helper army.
All is not well in Chinese football with more developments and what this means for broader China here.
China takes their lion statues seriously. Very seriously.
John comments on a repulsive TV ad on Chinese TV for an abortion clinic. On the other hand Jeremy has ads we'd like to see.
The CIA have released a set of documents analysing China's leadership and the CCP back in the days of Mao. They're generating a lot of interest.
Information
Google responds to the China news censorship story, although many, including Fons and Andres, are unconvinced. Adam has an open letter to Google. Would you rather not have Google News in China at all? (Jeremy agrees, as does the WSJ.)
Korea and Japan
A memo to North Koreans: if you're going to invade an embassy, don't make it a Canadian one.
In order for Japan to get its permanent seat on the UN Security Council, China has helpfully laid out the barriers it sees, which Chinese Suburbia has helpfully scored.
Even ex-Kamikaze pilots don't like being compared to suicide bombers. Gordon has no sympathy for them.
Sean looks at the massive task of reforming Japan's Postal Service (even if it doesn't interest voters much), which is actually the world's largest financial institution amongst other things. As he points out, the Government should heed the lessons of California's energy crisis and learn the difference between privatisation and deregulation.
For an interesting contrary view on living in North Korea, try Part 1 and Part 2. Plus more on why North Korea's rulers have popular support of North Koreans, although perhaps it is because the populace don't know much about the wider world.
South Korea has laid claim to a chunk of Chinese territory but didn't want anyone to know, so they buried it in a Parliamentary report, which a newspaper then exposed. Oops. On the same topic Tom Plate says China should waive its territorial claims in the Koguryo controversy for its own sake and that it is not yet time to lift the arms embargo..
Brad DeLong eloquently fisks a stupid article pleading for a boycott of products made by Indian labour; as Richard points out you could easily substitute China for India.
India can teach the US a thing or two about voting.
It's not strictly Asia, but Jodi has the details and thoughts on the rape trials starting on Pitcairn Island.
Single men, you might consider Kemukus mountain for your next holiday.
Love often is the victim of tortured analogies. But this could be a first for cabbage. While on love, looking for a Hong Kong wife? Mr B is here to help. Otherwise you can try this way instead.
"WOW: We Observe the World," will be a combination blog and online news magazine produced by the Journalism Department of Beijing Foreign Studies University. The site will not be a place for lyrical prose from wistful Chinese college students. It will be a real news entity written by young adults majoring in journalism. Many of them already have experience working in media.
From the perspective of young Chinese adults, WOW will cover international, national and local news. Real news. It will also feature sections on LifeStyle, Sports, Books, Movies, Music and the Fine Arts. While I am the faculty supervisor for the project, student journalists will produce the content.
I wish them every success with the endevour and it has already been added to the featured Asian blogroll. As a taste there is an interesting survey of almost 700 students at various Chinese universities and their attitudes to the American elections and on the war in Iraq. Here's hoping this portal into the minds of China's next generation of leaders goes from strength to strength.
Hong Kong's judges are writing their own code of conduct, including detailing judicial behaviour outside of court:
Among other things, it says judges "should exercise care'' if they visit clubs and other social places "run by or for members of organisations such as the police, the ICAC and Customs and Excise Department...It would be undesirable for him or her to frequent or become a member of such clubs or to be a regular user of such facilities.''
And it offers advice on gambling and visiting karaoke bars. "Discretion should be exercised. Judges should consider how such visits are likely to be perceived ... in the light ... of the reputation of the place visited.''
I expect a mass of resignations from the FCC, LRC, HKCC, AMC and other clubs as judges immediately remove themselves from such perverse places. Even worse, the takings at the Captain's Bar at the Mandarin are going to take a nose dive and I pity the clubs of Wan Chai.
Hong Kong's known for being a convention city: each week thousands come to wander through Government subsidised halls to gawk at various trade shows and sponge off friends living in Hong Kong. But it's time for HK to branch out for the usual round of toy, electronics, fashion and jewllery fairs. Somehow an ass and donkey fair seems like a good start.
The always interesting Webb-site takes a look at one of Hong Kong's many Government money tips: Cyberport. Despite the law clearly requiring the development to submit annual reports, the company managing the white elephant has not yet done so and doesn't intend to anytime soon. Hong Kong's Government has made these property projects something of a habit: look at Disneyland or the new West Kowloon project as two further examples. In return for huge dollops of Government money the same old developers get their hands on great chunks of taxpayer money with no accountability. Cyberport, for example, is a residential property project dressed up with a few (empty) office buildings and a shopping mall. It will end up working because the Government will force it to. What is staggering in Hong Kong is the Government can waste so much taxpayer money and still tax its citizens so little.
I shudder to think what the SAR Government would do if they got their hands on ever-more dollars the handful of people who actually pay income tax in this city earn.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains Korea's worst season, China's mines, Hooters, which US Presidential candidate is best for China, Japan's earthquake system, could China annex North Korea, pissed off Pakistanis and plenty more...
Asia Times takes a look at the pressure to revalue the yuan and calls it a folly. Instead the article takes an anti-US dollar line, complaining about the primacy of the US dollar in world finance and Asian central banks' willingness to support the dollar come what may. It also says that revaluing the yuan won't help solve the current trade imbalance. I've not yet had time to look through the article thoroughly, but it looks like it has kernels of truth wrapped within lashings of dogma. I'll update once I've gone through it.
The Jamestown Foundation have posted an article looking at China's energy security question (via Kolya). Between China's rapidly expanding industrial base and its rapid replacement of bikes for cars its demand for energy will continue increasing quickly. So China is worried where it will get its energy from. It continues to expand its domestic power generation through increased oil exploration, greater use of nuclear and natural gas power, developing strategic reserves and energy conservation. But it will continue to become a greater consideration in China's geopolitical planning in the years to come; for example the great efforts exerted by China to capture the new Russian oil pipeline and its opposition to sanctions on Sudan. The final question is this: will China eventually go to war to secure its energy supplies?
Likewise the SCMP reports on a conference held last week in Taiwan on China's likely modes of attack on the island. Held jointly with American think-tanks, the consensus was that China would aim to quickly force Taiwan to negotiate with Beijing under a one-China principle rather than trying to completely conquer the island. The strike would be limited in scope, only trying to eliminate Taiwan's will to fight and to prevent the US entering the conflict. It would do this by targetting the island's leadership and communication infrastructure and forcing a Taiwan negotiation without a US presence. In being quick and launching such a "decapitation" strike the PLA sees it can reduce or eliminate any chance of the US being able to respond. Taiwan's answer will be a need to hold off long enough for the US to join the fray and escalate the war. It all sounds about right.
The drama in Chinese soccer continues (to get up to speed, check here). The latest move is for the clubs to demand the Chinese Football Association (CFA) to let the clubs, manage, operate and own their own clubs. Seven of the clubs have asked for the championship to be suspended until various reforms are implemented. In the interim the clubs will play "friendlies" with the proceeds going to charity. The CFA is planning to respond on Tuesday.
This saga is a small example of the changes gripping China. Suddenly the old command-and-control style represented by the CFA is being overturned by clubs with significant financial interests in appropriate outcomes. When people have something to defend and protect, they become a lot more interested in those that govern them. That is the challenge faced by both the CFA and in a much broader sense by the Communist Party itself.
Funnily enough at the same time China is implementing in law private property rights. While these have existed in theory via the constitution, this law is the first real step to making property rights facts on the ground.
It's time to collate the links from across the blogosphere for another week:
* Bill's back but jobless. If you can spare some change don't waste it on a beggar, give it to Bill - the best source of trash talk in blogging today. Jim's further along the road with his second interview. And if Paul continues to outsource his blogging to me I'm going to have to start charging.
* Dean looks at what blogging life will be like AE (after elections). Less than 2 weeks to go and the whole thing is rapidly approaching farce (via Dean), which is a shame when Americans are voting for the leader of the free world. For those interested in the issues, check out the Toast-O-Meter. Otherwise check out some of the real differences between red and blue states. And finally someone's come up with a Florida voting machine that cannot fail...unless you're older than 6.
* Mike and Tim have been having fun this week. Makes me miss being in Australia. There was the storming of the Mill Hill, inspired firstly by Tim things with the faces of silliness forgiveness and the sequel and Mike took it to a whole new level. Never have the people of the Mill Hill been so sorry. Hell, the Mill Hill was my local. I'll be back at Christmas, gents. Let's take the Bellevue next time...they do great bangers and mash.
NOW IT'S YOUR TURN: Got a post you consider your best of the past week? Link it back to here so everyone can read it too. If you send a trackback (here's how), it will appear below and let readers follow your link. Alternatively nominate someone else's in the comments or with your own post linking both to here and the nomination. This post always remains at the top of the site until Monday, giving everyone a full weekend of exposure to your brilliance.
Interpol is warning that buying fake bags/clothes/watches may channel money to terrorists. Except the officials didn't name specific groups. And despite many of the fakes being manufactured in places like China, where terror groups aren't a factor. Talk about drawing a long bow. If that's the best these companies can do to protect their products from fakes then they should just give up.
just a scare tactic given today's unstable climate globalwide, and they can't be really specific can they? especially the "may" bit.
Posted by the letter b at October 22, 2004 02:34 PM
Right, yeah. I did some looking into pirate CDs etc a while back and found almost no conections between terror and pirate goods. I did find problems of drugs gangs running out of places like eastern Europe using funny fags and booze to raise money for drug deals, but nothing about terrorists.
The truth is that your bogus san migel is nore likely to fuel somebody's crack deal than Al quida. Still if you want to bring down America, you're better off using music sharing networks to hit its industry in the bank rather using RPGs to hit its airports in the props.
As you said, a lot of pirate goods come out of Hong Kong and Taiwan, which have no real terrorist connections. The rest seems to be comming from eastern Europe, and that is fueling the drugs trade not terrorism.
However, terrorists are using drugs to make money, so next time you get high, you might be paying for the dirty bomb that blows up Washington.
Moral, listen to fake abba CDs and don't take drugs.
The WWF (no, not the wrestlers) have released their annual scare report on the state of the world's environment. The inevitable conclusion? The world is using its resources too quickly and it is all unsustainable. You can even measure your personal "ecological footprint" - mine came in at 14.3 global hectares and I got the admonishment that "If everyone lived like you, we would need 7.9 planets". I think Mars is free.
These reports are great for the press: they allow every local paper to tell their readers how greedy Western imperialists like themselves are surely ruining the planet. For example here is Hong Kong's and here is Australia's.
The problem? It's baloney. Firstly of course those us living in developed economies consume more than the average. The millions of Africans and Asians living in poverty use less than the average; that's what makes such averages meaningless. In fact a far more useful comparison would be to look at what environmental impact each country has compared to its per capita GDP. In other words, what kind of return on does each country get from its use of its environmental resources? Secondly aims such as environmental protection, clean air, lower energy consumption and the like are laudable and worthy causes. But if you ask someone whether they are prepared to sacrifice their standard of living to improve these, you will get some very mixed answers. There are costs to protecting the environment just as there are benefits, and these need to be weighed against each other. Some improvements are not worth the money, just like any other investment. Thirdly is the WWF proposing that the world stop trying to alleviate poverty through economic growth? China's ecological footprint is rapidly expanding, but at the same time its population is experiencing a rapid rise in living standards. Fourthly as long ago as Thomas Malthus there have been scares that the world will "run out of resources" based on the fallacy that the supply of resources stays constant while demand constantly rises. The supply of resources reacts to demand as shown through price signals. At the moment, for example, the rapid rise in the oil price will entice greater production and exploration for the stuff. Additionally technology and science are constantly advancing our ability to make the most of our natural resources. Agricultural yields have improved, our ability to extract minerals have improved. Progress brings its own rewards.
Some previous postings on this topic are here on global warming and here on why to be sceptical of green claims.
Hmm, I wonder when the big red baloon will go 'POP'. Right before they invade Tiawan, or after. Probably in conjunction with the Norks rumbling down into South Korea.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains Afghan's President at 30, questions over control North Korea if it collapses, China's lack of progress in fighting poverty, is OBL in China and plenty on Indonesia's new President, just for starters...
Simon, thanks again for the linkage. I am resistant on using the name Myanmar for the country, but I do accept it as the dominant international practice.
While the name Myanmar was chosen by thugs, the name Burma is part of a colonial legacy that also wasn't pretty (though it was still, no doubt, better to be ruled by gin-drinking poms than murderous narco-generals). As well, only 65% of the country is Burmese, so the name doesn't completely reflect the composition of the nation.
I'd be happier if a representative government in the country were responsible for the change of the name. However, if I were to disregard every name change introduced by murderous thugs I'd still be referring to the Chinese capital as Peking.
Hey, just wanted to let you know your link to the story on the 8th century toilet goes to the Asahi Japanese news site. My translation of it is here for those who don't read Japanese. Great site you've got here, by the way.
Myrick: I agree with you on the name game, but it's a point worth making - I wasn't having a go at you, just at the new convention of naming the country Myanmar.
Not a problem, it wasn't taken personally. And I also prefer Burma. For the record, I have to force myself to use some of the 'new' names chosen by democratically elected governments (i.e., Bombay and Pusan come more naturally to me than Mumbai or Busan). I just try to be a stylebook junkie. It pays the bills.
My spam is getting worse and worse. The latest are "free offers" - click this for a free X-Box/Dell/Car, just so long as you play some online poker.
So it's nice to see that bots are now being used to fight back. Computers playing computers at poker: just when Ben Affleck finds his calling, computers supercede him. That guy just can't catch a break.
Elsewhere, the words doggy and style spring to mind (seperately, of course).
Way back in February my brother Paul guest-blogged here for a couple of weeks. One of his posts was If I was a rich man...., where he recounted the good fortune he had in "winning" millions in the Spanish lottery...despite not even buying a ticket to enter.
My father received one today, October 20, 2004. Thanks God, he does not speek English, he would have sent all his bank account information to that "Spanish company".I told him it's a fraud but he wouldn't listen, until we found this page.Thank you for putting this on the Internet!
Thanks to the power of Google and blogs, a man's life savings have been kept out the clutches of those diabolical scammers. Paul's tempted to ask for a reward: perhaps a real ticket in the Spanish lottery? And people say blogs have no power.
i'm sorry but there is a bit of evolutionary darwinism going on here....
you know how lions target the weak, the crippled, the old and/or the frail as easy targets, and so keep raising the genetic bar of the herd by removing the duds, well this is the same.
anyone who is so stupid as to believe that they have won a foreigh lottery they have entered, and to be informed of the winning in an email from someone they've never heard of, deserves to lose everything!
it's natures way of ensuring that stupid people sink to the bottom
they work at olivers super sandwiches in citigroup plaza, where it takes 3 people to take your order, 2 to make the sandwich, and 4 to work out how much you owe!
France, as part of its China charm offensive, have sent some of their air force to Hong Kong. They put on a display yesterday of their very best, the pride of one of the world's best air forces. Unfortunately the gyroscope wasn't working properly*...
* Yes it's a cheap shot at the French; no it's not justified. Sue me. The French have replaced the Irish as European laughing stock. Deal with it. Oh, and some of my best friends are French.
Yup... Everything this side of the equator is upside down, back to front and generally backwards- I mean having Christmas in the middle of winter, for crying out loud! Puts a bit of a damper on the barbeque, and it's kinda hard to go surfing when the ocean's frozen. For once the French have got it right and he's flying right-side-up by the true (Southern Hemisphere) standard.
Posted by chriswaugh_bj at October 21, 2004 07:16 PM
Just hope they let us use more of their freedom vaccine!
It all started with a lady crossing the road in Wanzhou, Chongqing and being hit with a pole carried by a delivery man. When the pole carrier refused to apologise, the lady slapped him. Then her husband joined in and that's when things got really bad. The husband pretended he was a Government official, seized the pole and beat the carrier. That turned into a brawl, which drew a crowd. The cops came and carted the 3 away. But the crowd wouldn't budge, accusing the police of bullying and abusing their powers. By the night the crowd had grown to 20,000, police were attacked and cars torched. The leadership order a clampdown, arrests were made and the crowd dispersed.
It was an interesting explosion in anger by the populace against the police and by extension the ruling party. What's even more interesting is that news got out about the riot. The incident was reported in the Chinese press, but with the number of rioters placed at "a few hundred" and with the incident downplayed. So much so that I cannot find a link to it on Xinhua's or People Daily's sites (admittedly they basically are the same thing). But Reuters and the SCMP both have the story. A slip in the net?
Harbour Fest has been comprehensively covered previously in these pages: here, here and here for starters. Hong Kong's public service may be world class (at least judging by what they are paid) but their investigative skills are either extremely thorough or those of a snail. Nevertheless finally Mike Rowse, the public servant who signed the cheques for Harbour Fest, is facing "disciplinary action". This is a scant 4 months after the Public Accounts Committee recommended such action be taken. In the best tradition of public service "inquiries", however, Mr. Rowse is likely to get nothing worse than a slap on the wrist:
Two civil servants of higher rank than Rowse have been appointed in an inquiry committee, which may subject him to a hearing. A civil servant found guilty of misconduct faces penalties ranging from a reprimand to sacking. But it is believed that Rowse will keep his job.
His bosses will sit in judgement on him, even though if they reprimand him (or worse, fire him) they implicitly condemn their peers as well.
While on things Hong Kong, it turns out the newly re-elected legislator Chim Pui-chung is in trouble with the Securities and Futres Commission for breaching the law. It appears Mr. Chim and his son control 95% of the stock of a publicly listed company called Kanstar, breaching the 75% limit set by the Ordinance. The SFC warned "Shareholders and the public are advised to exercise extreme caution when dealing in the shares [of Kanstar].'' Mr. Chim previously spent one year in jail for forgery.
Mr. Chim represents the financial services sector in the LegCo.
Last night John Zogby of the eponymous polling firm gave a talk in Hong Kong on the state of the current election. His speech covered a wide number of topics and thoughts on the election. Zogby himself is a Democrat but takes pains to eliminate bias from his surveys. He also had a few words about his polling rivals, especially Gallup.
Topics covered:
The 4 million Christian Conservatives.
"The Armageddon Election"
Differences between red and blue states and the key predictor of voting intention (it's not what you think)
The missing centre of American politics
Mistakes in the Kerry and Bush campaigns
The Nader impact
The impact of blogs and the internet on elections and politics.
Update: Welcome to the many new readers to this site. Please have a look around at the rest of the blog, which concerntrates mostly on Asian and especially China related news and views. I also have a twice weekly Asian blogging roundup, the most recent edition of which can be found here and previous editions here.
NOTE: these are the views of John Zogby, with my occasional $0.02 thrown in. For the most part they are in the order he spoke, with some cutting and pasting where similar topics were discussed.
Undecideds
* The undecided vote is down to about 6% of voters. If the undecideds vote, they'll vote for Kerry. But the question is if they vote. This number has been unchanged since March 2004. In past elections in March the number of undecideds is around 20-25%.
* He is actively tracking the undecideds in focus groups in key states such as Florida. He takes care to maintain the same proportion of political affiliations in these groups to keep consistency.
* Both candidates get 47% each just for showing up. The election is bigger than the two personalities involved. The 5 or 6% of undecideds are a very fluid group.
* Those that move from (say) the Kerry camp to undecided do NOT move to Bush. Zogby was very clear that once they move out of a camp, a voter then tosses up between not voting or voting for "their" candidate. Very few are prepared to jump across the gap to the other candidate.
* Bush cannot do anything to persuade these undecideds. All he can do is keep challenging Kerry and raising enough questions about him that it keeps the undecideds at home. He's done a good job of this. He's made it hard for people to support Kerry because the US cannot pull out of Iraq so there's little Kerry can do; it's unlikely multilateral support will stream in for Iraq regardless; and there's little Kerry can do to fund his education and health plans given the big deficits, even with his tax hike on the wealthy.
* A key question on the minds of undecideds is "Can Kerry deliver his promises?"
Tactics
* He cannot understand why the Democrats have pulled out of Arizona, Colorado and Missouri, among others. His polling is showing those states as close enough to at least force the Republicans onto the back foot. He also thinks the Democrats lost momentum in the South after appointing John Edwards, especially in potentially winnable Virginia and North Carolina.
* The Presidential debates shored up Kerry's base, dragging back some Democrat voters whom may not otherwise have voted at all. That was the only impact of the debates.
The Christian Conservative Myth
* The 4 million Christian Conservatives (CCs) that Karl Rove obsesses about are a myth. He has done extensive polling and found no evidence that there were large numbers of CCs who chose to stay at home in 2000. As Zogby put it, why would these people choose not to vote knowing that could land Al Gore in the White House? His polling shows these are highly motivated voters.
Red vs. Blue
* This election is a repeat of 2000 in many ways, and Florida and Ohio are the key states this time.
* The "Armageddon Election": the US has 2 equal sized warring factions divided ideologically, demographically and culturally. Cicero at Winds of Change has an interesting post on the same lines.
* Poll done back in December 2003:
- Percentage whom worship at least once a week: Red 54%, Blue 32%
- Percentage orientated to God: Red 75%, Blue 51%
- Red define God in moral absolutes; Blue in moral relativity
- Percentage owning guns: Red 58%, Blue 38%
* The key difference: married vs. singles whom have never married. On every poll this is the key predictor of voting intention, even when broken down by sex and age.
The Missing Centre
* In the past the candidates tend to move to the centre in the last few weeks of the campaign and sound similar as they fight over the middle ground. This time each candidate is talking to their bases as if the centre doesn't exist - because it doesn't.
* Why is the centre missing? Bush won in 2000 with 48% of the popular vote but rather than reaching for the centre, he started out from the right (Zogby though this was a squandered opportunity). The 4 million Christian Conservative "myth" of Karl Rove meant Bush wanted to pander to them to shore his support up and push his numbers up over 50% and hold them there for 4 years, rather than reach across to conservative Al Gore voters. This explains why Bush quickly rescinded Clinton's environmental orders and decision on Government money for family planning groups that support abortion - he was chasing the CCs. On September 1, 2001 Bush was at 49%.
* The "rubber ball" analogy: Bush had three poll bounces since 2001, but each one has been shallower and shorter than the next.
* Post 9/11 he went to 85% and Bush started by responding. Zogby notes the Sept 20th speech to Congress and the incident when Bush was talking to a group of iron workers, police and firefighters at Ground Zero (when some called out "We can't hear you", Bush responded "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear from of all us soon," as two key attempts to connect with the entire population.
* However with 10 days of 9/11 Zogby did a poll, asking do you support the War on Terror (WoT)? 91% said yes. When asked would the support the WoT if it lasted one year, it went down to 77%; for 2 years, down to 67% and more than 2 years 55%. Zogby took this to mean the US still suffered from a post-Vietnam syndrome of wanting wars won quickly and troops out of harms way as quickly as possible.
* Fast forward to March 2003, just prior to the bombing of Baghdad. Bush's approval is at 53%. Post bombing bounces to 67% but the bounce didn't last long: by mid-May he was back to 50% and it didn't budge. Over the (northern) Summer of 2003 the opposition to the war on Iraq turned angry, and that is the first time that talk of the "stolen" 2000 election emerged.
* The final bounce. In December 2003, when Sadaam was captured, Bush went to 56% but within 2 weeks was back to 50% again.
The Democrats
* Before the primaries started 66 - 73% of registered Democrats in key states thought they couldn't beat Bush. When asked, they stated in 2:1 ratio they wanted someone they believed in rather than someone who could beat Bush. This explains the rise of Howard Dean. By December Dean was up 7% in Iowa, 36% in New Hampshire and a couple of points in South Carolina. Dean's problem was the primaries happened too late. Zogby cannot explain why but he didn't poll between Christmas and New Year. When polling restarted in January 2004 suddenly things shifted. The new polls had 85% of Democrats thought a Democrat could beat Bush and now in 3:1 ratio they wanted someone who could win.
* John Kerry was the last man standing in Iowa, despite until then running a woeful (my notes say shit, but I don't think Zogby used that word) campaign. There had been too much "nuance" and explanations that would fit trains, not bumper stickers. Zogby said "Presidential candidates need bumper stickers, not trains." Suddenly in January 2004 his message was simplified to three points: I can win, I'm a veteran and I'm experienced. He gained a point a day while Gephardt and Dean lost a point a day each and so once Kerry won Iowa the momentum was unstoppable. On Jan 10th Kerry was at 10% in Iowa; once his numbers crossed Dean's then Kerry's numbers took off and didn't look back.
* A key quote from a Kerry staffer: "John always knows when his homework is due." The Presidential debate was another example of this, getting the message right at the right time (although hopefully not too late).
Key States
* Penn., Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Wisconsin and Florida. Each one is very close. His latest numbers are showing 46 Kerry 45 Bush but no clues on the undecideds still.
* The potential surprise states are Bush in Iowa and Wisconsin and Kerry in Virginia, New Hampshire and Colorado.
Money
* It is unusual but at this stage of the race Kerry has more money than Bush to spend.
* Kerry's fundraising efforts were greatly assisted by a motivated base and by good use of the internet, learning from Howard Dean.
The Running
* The race is Kerry's to lose, barring unforeseen events. If he loses, it is only his fault.
* Why? Because Bush's numbers have not gone above 48%. Three other key polling indicators are all terrible for Bush amongst undecideds:
- Presidential job performance: 35% positive versus 60% negative
- Is the country headed in the right direction? net negative
- Does the President deserve re-election? 15% yes versus 40% no.
These numbers have always been net negative for Bush amongst undecideds. The last 3 Presidents with those numbers were Carter, Ford and Bush snr. None won.
* Another reason: undecideds tend to break for the challenger. Zogby sees them going like in Reagan in 1980, so that the margin is 2% but it is the same in each key state and it is in favour of Kerry, thus the Electoral Vote ends in a decisive victory.
* A higher turnout favours Kerry. 2000 election had 105 million voters. Anything over 107 million this time and Kerry will win.
* The youth vote: always heavily Democrat, this time the youth vote are unusually motivated and may turn out in bigger numbers than expected, tipping the race to Kerry.
* If the focus of the final two weeks is the War on Terror ---> Bush wins
If the focus of the final two weeks is Iraq and/or domestic issues ---> Kerry wins.
* If the result is like in 2000 there will be masses and months of litigation. Neither side will back down and it will be complete chaos, far worse than 2000.
Nader
* Nader is a spent force and irrelevant to the campaign. He does not take votes from Kerry.
* Voters for Nader would otherwise have not voted at all, so no loss to either side.
The mobile phone question
* What is the impact of the increased use of mobile phones on the accuracy of polling?
* 6% of all adults and 15% of under 30s have only mobiles, with no land line phone. Does this introduce a bias in polling?
* Zogby has tested this and seen no reason to expect these mobile-only adults will be any different (i.e. there is no anti-liberal bias).
* On a slightly different question, young voters are always under-represented in polling and Zogby weights to increase their representation. He is using higher weights this time compared to 2000 due to increased activism.
Differences between polls
* While being diplomatic, Zogby basically said Gallup's numbers are junk. They use different methodologies but Gallup's variations from poll to poll are too big to be creditable. In Zogby's polling Kerry and Bush both bounce between 44 an 48, and haven't deviated from that range.
* Zogby maintains the same proportions of party affiliations in each poll as he doesn't think that number changes much, which cuts the variability down.
* He was emphatic there is no bias in his or any other polling organisation he knows. To have bias would be the death of any polling firm.
Asia in the election
* There are three Asian issues in this election: North Korea, the Chinese currency, Taiwan. [Ed. - there's also a fourth, outsourcing, but that was overlooked despite it perhaps being the most prominent issue of the four.]
* Of the three, only North Korea is figuring in people's minds. 37% say North Korea is the US's number 1 military threat.
* There is an ironic difference on this issue: it is the only one where Kerry is a unilateralist whereas Bush prefers a multilateral approach.
Internet, blogs and the election
[Ed. - I'll note that I asked Zogby about the impact of the internet and blogs on the election, so this was a prompted answer rather than part of his speech.]
* The impact of the internet has been huge. In 1996 about 4% of voters got most of their political information from the net. In 2000 it was 31%. For 2004 it will be in excess of 50%.
* The second key impact has been in fundraising. Firstly Howard Dean, then John Kerry have used the internet to balance out and neutralise the fundraising power of Bush and the Republicans. Ironically Al Gore, the "father" of the net, didn't capture this avenue in 2000.
* Blogs: Zogby saw these as important, with each having its own constituency. However they are unlikely to change minds; instead "they serve to stoke the fires of anger." In other words, blogs are preaching to the converted.
* Zogby reads Real Clear Politics daily but I didn't get a chance to find out if he follows any others.
Zogby: "Polling is 80% science and 20% art."
And finally:
Zogby: "The race is Kerry's to lose" (although others see it the other way around).
My thoughts: Zogby has an obvious personal bias to Democrats but I take him at face value when he says his research is impartial. His speculation that the race is Kerry's to lose didn't convince me, but nor do I buy that it is Bush's to lose either. I think the struggle for both candidates now is to go and win the race. Otherwise his thoughts on the missing centre certainly make sense and gel with my impressions of American politics (admittedly from afar). The small amount of undecideds are the key battleground, but I'm not sure they will break for Kerry in the numbers Zogby expects, especially given the reluctance of many to change Presidents during times of war. What is clear is unless the margin is reasonable, which is unlikely, there's going to be one hell of a mess.
I can't argue with most of his points and his polling had been excellent before this year, when he changed his process. However, this is is downfall:
"* Zogby maintains the same proportions of party affiliations in each poll as he doesn't think that number changes much, which cuts the variability down."
Many poll watchers believe that Zogby is way off here, and have observed a significant shift to the right in party affiliation over the years. That means that Zogby is overweighting Democrats.
Posted by Steve Lance at October 21, 2004 04:55 AM
Did Zogby call Kerry unilateralist here, or did you?
Anywho, I know why the Dean machine died, and it did happen right in the Christmas/New Year's week.
I don't think Zogby understands the net. At least _I_ read all sides on the internet, including the fringes, which helps.
It's a lot harder to lie to all the people, all the time, now.
Nice effort.
Posted by Josh Narins at October 21, 2004 06:03 AM
I also question Zogby's methodology in the area of party affiliations. If he is to maintain his magical balance between Republican and Democrat percentages, how does he do it exactly? If you truly contact people randomly, you won't know the percentages until you are done. You would then have to exclude certain responses to maintain the ratio you want. How do you pick who to exclude?
I've been involved in alot of volunteer organizations and the one thing that makes people show up is ANGER. Voting is a voluntary activity and my gut feeling is that people are more angry at Bush than they are at Kerry.
The key fault in polling is that its much easier to pick up the phone and answer a few questions then say you're going to vote than it is to actually go vote.
In the end my gut feeling is that if this is a negative election, then Kerry will win because I've never seen an incumbent that so many people literally despise.
When was the last time this bozo was correct? When will he be right the first time? If he can keep a straight face while claiming twice his margin of error doesn't matter, he needs to be on comdy central. My old stats professor made a point of saying that stats is for random events, not people. People have motives and they will lie to pollsters. Very little is random when humans are involved. And there is no way to correct for that. The entire point of polling is to make money for pollsters. Mr Zogby is very sucessful at that, despite never being correct.
I forget, which President was Dewey? Modale was gonna win by 4 points, IIRC.
1. Zogby was the one who made the observation on Kerry/Bush positions on North Korea. I made the observation that this is the one time the two sides have switched approaches.
2. Zogby's assumption on party affiliation makes some sense to me: why would the number of voters identifying themselves as (say) Democrats fluctuate widely from poll to poll? It's different to whom they intend to vote for and it's a valid assumption to make; I can't see that people would switch sides so quickly or constantly.
3. Zogby's comments on blogs was in response to my question. I agree that it is a superficial view of bloggers; while some such as (say) Daily Kos may stoke the fires of hate (his words), others act as news sources, reasoned opinions or civilised discource. I know on some issues discussions have changed or influenced my views on matters. I think it was Keynes who said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
A good job by Simon, however Zogby's numbers have been much more pro Kerry this year than the other major US polsters, although admitedly Zogby was one of the best in past elections. Like Dick Morris I believe EVENTS will be the key - will there be an attack in the US or will there be another DUI type news smear in the days before the vote? Time will tell!
i respect zogby a great deal. in 2000 all the polls had gore 4 - 8 points behind. not mr. zogby. his numbers were much closer and he got the popular vote for gore right. he can't be dismissed.
Ableiter writes: "When was the last time this bozo was correct? When will he be right the first time?"
Well, actually, Zogby's numbers for both the 1996 and 2000 elections were more accurate than those from any other major pollster. So to dismiss him is to whistle past the graveyard. I also note that, in recent days, more and more of the national polls seem to be converging on Zogby's numbers, so he's hardly a voice in the wilderness here.
Additionally, as I recall, Zogby is a Republican.
Zogby's track record is very good, and as I look at state polls, as opposed to national numbers, I increasingly think Zogby is correct and that Kerry has an edge in this election. I say this, incidentally, as someone who will vote (albeit reluctantly) for Bush.
Perhaps it is not relevantbut Zogby's brother is the head of an Arab-American Activists group. Perhaps that is why his poll consistently is the most favorable for Kerry in its results.
Well, it's well past 10/20/04 when this article was written. Today, 10/29/04 and the various polls are all over the place and Zogby is out of the variance of most.
I respect Zogby, and today there was an article in which he pronounced that Kerry would win the election. However, these are not the "same old times" as compared to past elections. And I agree with a former post, in regards, to the impact of new registered voters and their decisions. It can't be assumed that these new voters will follow the path he envisions. There are people out there that have decided to vote to make a statement on one of the issues....And no one knows how big the group is or what their issues are.
I do not like everything Bush has done, but I also do not like the behavior of his opponents..the dirty tricks and diversions from the real issues. These are having an impact. If you don't believe me, look at the senatorial races! The Republicans are currently beating the pants off Democratic incumbents. Why? There is a backlash. And I don't think it's happening because of Bush's so-called coattail effect. There is something else going on. I don't think any pollster out their can be sure exactly what will happen.
Chinese soccer is a mess. There's the difficult task of qualifying for the 2006 World Cup against Hong Kong with the dirty "collusion" allegations still floating around; but even more interesting is the implosion of China's top soccer league following a protest by one of the major clubs, Beijing Hyundai.
Now that saga has reached a tentative conclusion. Firstly the club played their League match on the weekend despite previous threats to withdraw. The official line is the club has made peace with the CFA now that the referee at the centre of the storm has been suspended for the rest of the season and a session adressing the future of the CFA is to be held. Additionally the CFA has been forced to open its books to scrutiny by the Premier League clubs after allegations of corruption and botched commercial deals. More pressure is emerging in China, for example this opinion piece in the China Daily or this from Xinhua, on the CFA.
What is most interesting in this whole debacle is the pressure of free markets is having on an official body. In times past the CFA would never have come under such pressure for corruption and incompetence but with so much money now at stake, the clubs involved have started to defend their rights and push for greater disclosure and a more open CFA. It is a clear example where incompetence and corruption was having such an impact that the people involve announced they weren't going to take it any more, and staretd to fight back.
Where soccer leads, could the rest of China one day follow?
China rejects Dalai Lama's statement The Chinese Foreign Ministry accused him of being insincere, saying ‘‘We believe the Dalai Lama should genuinely abandon his position of advocating Tibet independence and make public statement acknowledging that Tibet and Taiwan are inseparable parts of China. He should also stop all his splittist activities abroad. Only this way, we can make further contact or initiate discussion with him."
While I understand the domestic pressures in Chinese politics that make such statements necessary, if China continues to insist on such dogmatic statements both over Tibet and in the Taiwan dispute, then neither will be solved any time soon. Should China start showing some degree of flexibility, as is the norm in diplomacy, there are great gains to be had. In the past week both Taiwan and Tibet are reaching for dialogue with China. China's refusals to engage are to its own detriment.
It's curious that since the Presidential debates Kerry's Vietnam record seems to have taken a distant back seat to the actual issues in the election. It wasn't before time, either. What amazes me is it took the Democrats so long to realise that the 'nam thing was not helping their candidate. The shame of it is there will now only be a few weeks where the issues will be debated, and more than 90% of the electorate have already made up their mind.
If Kerry loses, that was his fatal error. He spent too long on Vietnam and not long enough on current issues. If Bush loses it's because his poor performance in the first debate slowed him down just as the election turned serious.
I think the nam thing only helped in the abstract. That is, Americans just aren't willing to believe that any mand who served in Vietnam could really be a liberal. Had Kerry not served in Vietnam, he would be down 15 points rather than the tie we have now.
The Australian journalist kidnapped and then released by Iraqi terrorists has Google to thank for his release. The company who's motto is "do no evil" will be pleased to know that the Iraqi kidnappers Googled the journalist's name, realised he wasn't an American "informer" and released him.
Mr. Martinkus needs to buy some Google shares and a lottery ticket.
Morgan Stanley is saying Hong Kong's strong property market will not last due to pressue on the region's wages and population growth, especially from Guandong. Which might be true in the long run, but as the saying goes, in the long run we're all dead. The economist has overlooked just a couple of important factors, namely supply and demand. Supply is tight at the moment because the Government restricted sales in the post-1997 property crash. Property supply takes time to come online, because building blocks takes years. Only now is the Government starting to release land parcels for redevelopment again. Against that Hong Kong's economy is recovering strongly from the slump due to SARS. Hong Kong property has large amounts of untapped demand thanks to ample liquidity courtesy of the US's easy monetary conditions.
Guandong will exert only limited pressure on Hong Kong in the years ahead. Even as China's richest mainland city, Guandong has only a fraction of Hong Kong's wealth, productivity, capital and resources. If Hong Kong was still an economy reliant on cheap labour, I'd be worried about Guandong and China. However Hong Kong isn't. It is a port, a logistics centre, a legal and financial centre, a first world city with a first world legal system. There is no city in China, not even Shanghai, that is close to challenging Hong Kong's status or economy at this stage. Like all markets, Hong Kong's property market will continue to move according to the only forces that really matter: supply and demand. Everything else is irrelevant.
At the same time I'm going to make a bold prediction. With the SCMP running an oil price scare headline on the weekend trumpetting the potential for US$60/barrel oil, I am pleased to say I have seen no better sign that the bull run in oil is almost over.
Time has an interview with the Dalia Lama. He is rapidly adapting to current realities in Tibet and moderating his views in a pragmatic way. How this leaves those in the "Free Tibet" movement remains to be seen. Some key parts of the interview:
TIME: You've faced some criticism for giving up Tibet's fight for independence.
Dalai Lama: Some Tibetans now accuse me of selling out their right to independence. Even my eldest brother is for complete independence and he always accuses me [of this]. But my approach is actually in our own interest. Tibet is backward, it's a big land, quite rich in natural resources, but we completely lack the technology or expertise [to exploit them]. So if we remain within China, we might get a greater benefit, provided it respects our culture and beautiful environment and gives us some kind of guarantee. For us [it would mean] more modernization.
...
TIME: was the international Free Tibet movement a fad, like saving the whales?
Dalai Lama: I don't think so. I think interest worldwide in Tibet and support groups are active still. Sometimes concerts happen, sometimes they don't. Another factor may be Afghanistan and Iraq; they make Tibet a secondary issue.
TIME: if international interest and pressure are not maintained, does China win?
Dalai Lama: China is already in a win-win situation in any case. It already controls Tibet...We're not suggesting separation, [but] that Tibet becomes more prosperous within China—and that it is also in the interests of the people of China to preserve our cultural heritage. Only if you seek independence or separation is it a question of win or lose.
The question unasked: will common sense survive the Dalai Lama's death? China should seize this opportunity to quickly achieve some kind of compromise that it can live with. If it is endorsed by the current Dalai Lama it will take much of the sting out of international criticism of China's position in Tibet, regardless of whether it is justified or not.
You're not going to read about this in any of the mainland media outlets, but a Chinese court has just cleared China Reform magazine of libel. The court in Guangzhou ruled against a property developer that had been suing for libel over an article saying the company had been stripped of its assets, posted losses and laid off workers after several changes of ownership. Normally in China libel suits are used to bully media outlets.
This time, however, the court saw things differently. They ruled that journalists have immunity if reports are backed by "reasonable and believable" sources. China's constitution, in Article 35, says citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration. Obviously that's not always the case. But this case could represent the start of something big. Then again, it might not. No doubt the judgement will be appealed. But it's a start.
Welfare is a big issue in Hong Kong, with further cuts proposed to the welfare budget after pensions were cut by over 5% last month. This is despite record land prices, a budget that is rapidly approaching surplus again thanks to a booming economy and a misguided view of basing welfare payments on the past deflation rather than the approaching inflation.
But the poor of Hong Kong needn't despair. A 10 year old has shown them the way. From the SCMP:
A 10-year-old schoolboy spent $10 to buy a rice box, got free water from a McDonald's restaurant and slept rough in a park each day after running away from his Tuen Mun home nine days ago.
Primary Six student Pang Kap-lun, who wore a vest and shorts when he left home with about $100, also bought himself a $10 shirt to keep warm during the chilly nights, according to his father.
If you assume an average month has 30 days, then pensions need only pay HK$333 for Hong Kong's poor to live comforatbly. It's nice to see the youth of this city taking a lead on such a difficult problem.
Dan Washburn's travel diary of his journey through China is rivetting for what it reveals about the country and its people, not to mention being exceedingly well-written. His latest addition about Chengdu's "human market" and Dan's brush with the law is an absolute must read. A taste:
If you've ever been to China, you have likely been to an open market before. And you've likely seen the rows and rows of stalls selling fruits, vegetables and about 1,001 kinds of animals and their respective parts (all of them). The stalls are always overflowing with produce. Well, in your mind, substitute the produce with people.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains Asian "tigers", an unreported incident in Beijing, teaching China about Michael Moore, map games, the "Anwar" thing and plenty more.
Tibet's government in exile is p!ssed off...because of a beauty contest.
Kevin (when are you going to add me to that blogroll?) pointed me to this little known incident in Beijing recently, with international implications. Read it...very funny.
A critical look at both candidates' comments on Korea in the US Presidential election.
Marmot keeps track of Korea's favourite game: map-changing. And China's getting in on the act too, this time with Japan.
In Japan, reading magazines in stores can be deadly.
,li>South Korea has given up catching North Korean spies.
If North Korea is such a paradise, why are groups of people scaling barbed wire to seek asylum? Rebecca wants to know what's happened to the unlucky group that were turned over to the Chinese by the Shanghai American School.
Hey my story might have been confusing, but the guy who was killed was actually the one who told the reader that he was in the way. So the moral of the story is: don't come between an unemployed man and his magazines.
Aha! I see that your "Kevin" permalink actually leads directly to Reverend Jim (a blog by a Canadian friend of mine). I assume this is revenge for my not having blogrolled you. I'll get right on that.
Kevin
PS: For whatever reason, it's still taking forever to access your page. Again, this might be a Korea-related problem, but just FYI.
China and Russia have solved their border dispute after President Putin's visit last week. The Oz talks about the results on the ground and how the visit was a complete victory for Russia with nothing in it for China. Russia gets China's backing for WTO entry, solves the border dispute and more and all China gets is a likely no to a crucialoilpipeline.
The resolution of the border dispute is the result is being downplayed by both countries, despite it resolving a 40 year issue over which the two countries nearly went to war in 1969. There have been press releases but the details of the key dispute, over 3 islands (two on the Ussuri River in Heiloongjiang Province, the other on the Ergan River in Inner Mongolia), have been downplayed. The sovereignty will pass to China under the doctrine of thalweg but with "joint use" for the islands, allowing the current Russia residents to remain on the islands. The agreement is being downplayed to prevent nationalists on both sides of the border from opposing the deal.
That's real estate for you. Even when you get a good deal you can't tell anyone about it.
I've got access to a soon-to-be-released press release from Associated Press:
AP - (October 18th, Hong Kong) - A survey by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, as reported in today's South China Morning Post, has found that only 45 per cent of school students had ever seen fireflies, 41 per cent had stepped on grass in their bare feet, 40 per cent had heard the breeze in a bamboo forest, 36 per cent had hugged a tree, 29 per cent had gone camping and 18 per cent had seen the spikes of a porcupine.
In response to this Sarah Liao, Secretary for the Environment, Transport and Works, has announced a new Government program to "give Hong Kong's children the feeling of nature without them having to leave their own homes." Under the program the Government will start sending either a one foot square patch of grass, a piece of bamboo with electric fan, a plastic Christmas tree with hugging instructions, a tent or the spikes of a porcupine. Should the program prove successful it will be expanded to include leeches, mosquitos, various animals' excreta and stagnant water with a choice of fungal infestations. The program is expected to cost HK$19 million in the first year, to be funded by cutting school excursions to Country Parks.
The ruckus over the November 17th Hong Kong vs China World Cup (soccer) qualifier continues. The Asian Football Confederation has warned against collusion, to which the HK Federation has responded angrily. What they have actually done is turned an interesting match into an absolute must-see. It will be a ratings bonanza. Hats off to some brilliant marketing.
In other football news, Beijing Hyundai have backed off their threats to quit the Chinese soccer league. Hit with a fine and deduction of three League points for pulling out of a game, on Friday the club had appeared to back away from its threats. However once the punishment was announced, the club again threatened to withdraw from its upcoming game unless the punishment was revoked. The club is now being supported by Dalian Shide, another top flight Chinese club. What's even more bizarre is the referee at the original match was suspended for 8 matches by the Chinese Football Federation for the making the wrong decision that has resulted in all this chaos. In the end Beijing Hyundai played on Sautrday and won 2-0 against Qingdao but the club is still appealing the punishment.
Football is quickly becoming a fascinating game in China for all the wrong reasons.
Never again should anyone doubt the ability of mainland Chinese labour to get the job done, no matter what. From the SCMP:
Police and welfare groups expressed alarm yesterday over the death of a man whose body lay undiscovered for up to five months in his New Territories home.
The death of Au Yeung Wan-shing, 74, was only discovered when his remains were thrown out with the rubbish by a labourer hired to clean out his apparently empty two-room home in Sha Kok Mei so a new tenant could move in...Au Yeung's death was only discovered when the landlord, a distant relative, found the home seemingly abandoned last week and hired a mainland labourer to clear it out for a new tenant.
The labourer, who police are trying to trace, threw the home's entire contents, including the body, down a wooded bank outside.
Pesky dead bodies can making cleaning such a chore.
Time to give you the links that have been lingering in the inbox for this week, and fellow bloggers please check the note at the bottom:
*She's one of the best blogging writers (bliters?) around. Read Dawn's story about Michael: Part 1 and Part 2. She also has the best "100 things about me" you'll ever read.
ANNOUNCEMENT: Got a post you consider your best of the past week? Link it back to here so everyone can read it too. If you send a trackback (here's how), it will appear below and let readers follow your link. This post always remains at the top of the site until Monday, giving everyone a full weekend of exposure to your brilliance.
These ultimate racing pocket bikes are today's fastest growing products in the motor sport vehicle industry, aside from electrics scooters and gas scooters.
Posted by pocket bikes at October 29, 2004 06:26 AM
Italian blogger Enzo has several interesting links today*. The first two deal with Jacques Chirac's visit to China. In the IHT is an opinion piece worth reading in full, but I'll reproduce the conclusion here:
Was Chirac's eagerness to sell $4 billion worth of French products to China so great that he forgot that France's own revolution, about which Zhou Enlai was so cautious, called above all else for liberty?
That reminds me of this. Perhaps I should write for the IHT too? Next article is from Liberation, which also isn't impressed**.
Finally a look at China's crackdown on internet p0rn, questioning if p0rn is the real target (an elusive one at that). The crackdown actually hits two birds with one stone: it gets rid of p0rn sights that offend officialdom's morality and it can be used to sweep away other sites that offend officialdom in other ways.
* I should note that I do not speak or understand Italian, althoug my mother-in-law is an Italiaphile and fluent in the language. Enzo kindly sent these links by email. He also promises to start blogging in English one day - that day cannot come soon enough.
** My French sucks as well, but I think I got the gist.
Also from the IHT
Chirac's performance of what might be called the head of state China visit ritual earned him a front-page cartoon in Le Monde in which he is shown telling the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, that his dictionary contains no translation for words like "Gulag," "corruption" and human rights." Hu replies: "That shows that you speak Chinese fluently." link to story
Posted by Ellen Sander at October 15, 2004 04:04 PM
For once China has found itself at the mercy of Hong Kong, rather than vice versa.
It all started when China lost 0-1 to Kuwait in the World Cup Asian group qualifying match. That now means China needs to win its next match by two goals more than Kuwait's score against Malaysia. And who is China playing in its final match? The Big Lychee's best.
It took all of a day for a Chinese newspaper, the Oriental Sport Daily, to suggest the Chinese Football Association ring their Hong Kong associates and ask them to "do their patriotic duty", and throw the match. To his credit, China's coach Arie Hann, dismissed the idea immediately. Nevertheless the paper eloquently rapped its plea in rhetoric:
"When the cat asks the mouse not to eat him, then this is a real football revolution. What he (CFA vice-president Yan) must do is use that thick magnetic voice of his to recite to his beloved Hong Kong compatriots the saying that 'blood is thicker than water'. Of course he must shed tears in order to show them how moved he is. (translation via SCMP)
Now you know why China scares the sh!t out of Hong Kongers. Hong Kong needs to grab this opportunity and trash their Chinese opponents on November 17. And what better time to play that video, to really get the patriotic fevour going.
On Monday Hemlock broke the story of LegCo member Philip "The Finger" Wong's interesting educational background. With a couple of dodgy degrees from such well-known institutions as Southland University and California Coast University, "Doctor" Wong isn't looking so smart.
But an investigation by The Standard has uncovered evidence that suggests the quality of the degrees issued by both CCU and SU is questionable.
It is an interesting report but begs two questions:
1. Do reporters read blogs? If so why wasn't Hemlock's journalism acknowledged?
2. Is Hemlock actually Colum Murphy, the reporter for The Standard who broke the news? It would certainly help explain this.
I don't think Hemlock is Colum Murphy. Unless it is a piece of subterfuge (admittedly very possible), Hemlock seems to be a member of the FCC, while Murphy is not.
Pakistan commandos raided the al-Qaeda militants holding Chinese hostages in Pakistan after hearing gunfire from the compound. Unfortunately Wang Peng, a surveyor on the hydro-electric dam project, was killed in the raid.
Quick note to al-Qaeda: you've now pissed off the Chinese. Not a good move on your part. They are not as "constrained" in their freedom of action should they fully join the war on terror.
UPDATE: China is send a team to investigate and express condolences. Dare I suggest there may be other "teams" on the way?
I don't think so. of-course there will be some face saving "investigations". china is always very very pragmatic with these things. Remember the embassy bombing in Serbia or the fighter pilot who hit the American spy plane. They will probably get more security from the Pakistanis and continue doing what they are doing. I doubt they would want to embarrass Pakistan - a terrorist today will be a freedom fighter tomorrow if he heads to Kashmir.
And talking about Al-Qaeda, China was very happy once negotiating mining contracts with the Taliban.
Posted by preetam rai at October 18, 2004 03:26 AM
Oh uh looks like al quedas got the dragon pissed off and ho boy look out al queda this could be their comeupants holy blunders batman it looks like the dragons going be eating terrorists tonight
After 40 years, China and Russia have finally settled on where their border is. The bad news is it looks like China's going to miss out on the Russian oil pipeline it was hoping for (past entries on this here and here).
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Hong Kongers are both smarter and more patriotic than TV gives them credit for. ESWN looks at the issue of anthems and sums up: If this national anthem thing bothers you, you just hold it against them and don't let them get the satisfaction. Just remember who these people are and make sure they don't get what they want. Ever.
Dan Washburn's latest installment of his excellent travel series is online. When will he get the book deal he so clearly deserves?
The Chinese Peasants Study has really made it now: it's being used in a computer virus.
The always-thoughtful Andres has set-off an interesting debate in the comments to Adam's post on a book by Ethan Gutmann about the American expat community in China. Gutmann responds to Adam's thoughts in the comments as well. But back to Andres' question: do China bloggers suffer from a sort of schizophrenia? After the first few comments the thread falls foul of an ongoing unrelated dispute between two other bloggers. The new thread has begun here Dave has some interesting thoughts worth reading through on the topic as well. This is a good discussion China bloggers need to have.
South Korea has laid claim to a chunk of Chinese territory but didn't want anyone to know, so they buried it in a Parliamentary report, which a newspaper then exposed. Oops. On the same topic Tom Plate says China should waive its territorial claims in the Koguryo controversy for its own sake and that it is not yet time to lift the arms embargo..
The Bali was two years ago: Rajan points to this Mark Steyn piece and has his own thoughts; The Swanker also reflects on what happened and what it means: There can be no dialogue with terrorists. Unconditional surrender should be the only peace terms we seek.
If only someone could point Leung Kwok-hung, newest member of HK's Legco and wearer of the indy world's logo of choice, a Che Guevara t-shirt, to this fascinating bit of history from Che's life. It seems like such an apt metaphor.
It was good to see Long Hair taking the moral high ground yesterday by telling those obnoxious school kids in the LegCo spectators' gallery to shut up. And they did!
The approaches of Germany and Japan in dealing with their history are markedly different. Germany faced and has largely dealt with its legacy and has become a prosperous nation that is slowly assuming its place in the world. Japan, on the other hand, has not properly faced up to its actions in and before WW2 and it continues to act as a brake on Japan's recent baby steps to become more active in the world.
The previous edition of Asia by Blog noted a Japanese cartoonist under fire for portraying the Rape of Nanjing. Now the cartoonist has found his cartoon has been blocked due to political pressure. It represents a double failure: both of facing up to Japan's history and of freedom of the press. It is why Japan does not yet deserve a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
UPDATE: Someone else is also unimpressed, with a far better title to boot.
This incident says nothing of the freedom of the press in Japan. Shueisha backed out of publishing the comic after several episodes had already been published. Just because they're a pansy company doesn't say anything about the Japanese government.
Anyway, if freedom of the press is a prerequisite to Security Council membership, how the hell did China get there?
You're right; that last part isn't clear. The freedom of the press issue is seperate but it is an issue: politicians influencing publications is clearly stepping over the bounds. What I mean is that unless Japan can face up to its past it cannot move forward.
Don't believe everything that you read in Chinese and American newspapers. I'm a little bit more aqauinted with the culture in question as you should well know, and Japan has accepted its history, only in a different way from Germany.
Japanese culture has a higher respect for ancestors and to openly debase them is shameful, even if they are murderers. Germany has no such cultural tie and has gone above and beyond what it needed to do.
The particular comic was actually rather violent and sensationalised, it wasn't an acurate depiction of what went on from anybodies perspective, even China wouldn't say that it was acurate. I would like to see your country even begin to publish a comic about how your national forebears commited genocide against the aboriginal people or the British publish a comic about how they slaughtered the Zula. How about an American comic about the oppression of blacks and Mexicans. When will Bagdad the comic book come out, not soon that's for certain.
Don't take Germany as a good example, Germany went to far in accepting guilt, natinoalists, racists and lunatics have been using war guilt as a rallying cry for many years. Behind many anti semitic attacks these days is somebody who is angry about their ancestors and country being labeled, and about being continuously reminded about what happened. When you degrade somebody, it often send them off on an extreme vent.
Japan has a long long memory, this shame will be remembered and will haunt people for many generations to come, just don't expect any public outpouring of guilt, Japan doen't do this, it is a western idea. Japan doesn't behave the same way as you would, don't think that this means that it isn't accepting what went on during the war.
Many people seem to have as little understanding of how other countries deal with their past as George Bush does of how to deal with the present day.
I accept that cultural differences are at play here, ACB, but that does not change that Japan will struggle to advance both regionally and globally until it can reform this part of its national character. I haven't seen the comic in question, but it besides the point. Politicians pressured the publisher to remove the comic - that is not something that happens in other so-called modern democracies.
I also disagree that Germany went too far; rather I think that Germany has faced up to its past whereas Japan finds it shameful and refuses to confront it. This is the issue the rest of Asia has with Japan and its history. Cultural differences such as respect for ancestors does not mean a country should not deal with its past. That is why (most) societies evolve with time, and why most have changing values. Japan's failure so far to deal with this represents part of its problem and its current stagnation. Pleading cultural differences and foreign ignorance is hiding from the real issue.
Finally, my ancestors, like I, are Jewish. There are "comics" such as Maus about what my family went through only 60 years ago.
Asia Times reports on a new way for Indian housewives to supplement their income: clicking internet ads. Contracted to companies that promise to deliver a set number of clicks to online ads, these women can earn up to US$1,000 a month by simply sitting and clicking. No doubt those mean advertisers aer working on getting tracknig software to clamp down on the practice at the cost of these poor Indian housewives. Damn globalisation.
What does Mickey Mouse, American tax law, pollution, America's standing in Asia and Feng Shui all have in common? They are crammed into this NYT article on HongKong Disneyland. They can't help themselves:
As Disney prepares to open the park with the broadcast on Thursday of the first television ads in Shanghai, there are some signs of growing anti-American sentiment here. A survey of nine Asian countries and territories released on Monday found that 47 percent of residents here held a negative opinion of the United States, second only to Indonesia. Gallup and TNS, a market information company, conducted the survey.
The survey found that the poor opinion here had been shaped mainly by American foreign policy, however, with residents still holding a much higher opinion of the American economy. Eden Woon, the chief executive of the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, which played host to Mr. Iger's speech, said that he saw very little chance of any anti-American protests here and doubted that any such sentiments here would hurt Hong Kong Disneyland. "China always is conflicted between accepting foreign things and trying to maintain its own culture," he said.
Many prosperous residents here pursued various stratagems to obtain American passports before Britain returned Hong Kong to China in 1997. Jeffrey K. F. Lam, a member of the Legislative Council here who attended Mr. Iger's speech, said that some were now renouncing their American citizenship.
Interesting how turning in passports is framed as Hong Kongers being digusted with America, when the truth is actually very different.
But he said this was mostly to avoid paying American taxes in addition to Hong Kong taxes, and because of renewed confidence in Hong Kong's future, not because of hostility to the United States.
What does annoy HKers is that the Government has subsidised Disney to the tune of more than US$4 billion. The article mentions US$2.88 billion but that excludes the various transportation and infrastructure works the Governmetn is also subsidising. And Mike Rowse, who negotiated the contract, forgot a tiny little detail: that Disney might also want to open another in mainland China, likely Shanghai. Incredibly they did not include a clause restricting Disney from opening another park within greater China.
It's good to know that Disney changed the orientation of the park a few degrees to enhance the feng shui. It is also good to know the site was chosen to take advantage of the HK vista...except now pollution from Guandong is going to obscure that view. Perhaps if the HK Government ploughed some of their money into working towards cleaner air, they'd be doing something that both Disney and the people of Hong Kong can benefit from.
John Hawkins: Speaking of which -- take a look at the following numbers. This is how much money the following bloggers are making per week off of Blogads if you take how much money they charge for a weekly ad and multiply times the number of ads they have. Keep in mind that these numbers will be a bit high because rates longer than a week are a bit cheaper...
Frank J.: Instapundit is making more than my salary as an engineer.
John Hawkins: Daily Kos $14,500, Talking Points Memo $8500, Eschaton $6000, Instapundit $3250, Andrew Sullivan $5200...
Ace: John, You're killing me. Crushing me.
Bill: Jesus.
John Hawkins: Hugh Hewitt $3000...
Michele Catalano: A week?
John Hawkins: MyDD $6200 , Wonkette $4000
....
John Hawkins: So is money changing the blogosphere in your opinion? As far as I can tell, it's only changing it for the better.
Frank J.: I know I wouldn't post as much if I weren't trying to improve my traffic so I can charge more for ads.
Michele Catalano: I think it shows in how much people post.
Ace: I've gotten no money thus far (save from donations), but I know I'm tempted to cool down my rhetoric in exchange for a little jack. (my emphasis)
There's more. Blogging is going the way of the internet before it: it is going from the hobby of amateurs to the domain of professionals. But Mammon is a funny old God to worship and there are serious questions that need to be considered. Ace's comment is the key: it would be natural for bloggers to "adjust" their message to persue advertising dollars. In this bloggers would simply be following in the footsteps of mainstream media. Despite journalists protestations to the contrary, most media are aware who pays the bills. That's natural and that's capitalism. Now it's blogging's turn.
Much has been made in recent months of blogging as a new medium and its impact on mainstream media. Yet it seems to me that at the same time money from advertising is luring some blogs into a spiral: a blog serves a niche and thus delivers particular readers to advertisers and so that blog continues to specialise and specialise in that niche to attract more ads. Perhaps it is inevitable. Blogging is strange in that the more popular you get, the more expensive it becomes. There are reverse or dis-economies of scale.
I don't begrudge bloggers trying to earn money from their sights. Hell, the idea that at least some might follow in the steps of Andrew Sullivan or TPM and become almost full-timers is an exciting prospect. What I would like to see is that each blog that accepts money via Blogads (or similar schemes) has a post somewhere prominent clearly explaining the blogger has considered the issues that come with accepting money from advitisers. Issues such as how potential conflicts-of-interest will be dealt with. What ads will and won't be accepted. Any explicit influences advertising has over content. In other words, I'd like to see bloggers facing up to the same issues that other media have dealt with on this issue.
It is great to see blogging rapidly change from a hobby to something far greater. The arrival of money is a part of the evolution of this new field. It brings both risks and rewards for bloggers and their readers and it important that both are considered, rather than just rushing for the money. And while I accept that bloggers are fully justified to recoup their costs and be repaid for their time and effort, I also feel an ambivalence. One of the great aspects of blogging in its earlier guise was that it was the work of amateurs and that it wasn't done for money, but only for the hell of it. Just as the Olympics seemed to lose a special something once professionals were admitted (and Rugby Union while we're at it), so blogging to seems to be losing a certain something about it just as it is gaining credibility and respect. Call it nostalgia.
I've been turning down ads for months. It's not that I couldn't use the money...it's just that...I don't know...I don't look at blogging as a profit center. I guess it would be worth the headache to make big bucks, but I'm happy where I am. Small, obscure and off the beaten path. I had the opportunity to make a large jump recently and decided against it. My blog is just an outlet for writing that I don't sell to print.
I have no problem with bloggers who sell ads...none at all, although I have noticed some bloggers have no shame regarding tip jars. And I mean NO shame.
I certainly understand and feel your nostalgia, but parctically speaking I don't see a problem. When any particular blogger sells his/her soul to the Ad Mammon, the readers will figure it out very quickly. They'll point their browsers elsewhere, taking the Ad Mammon with them.
I couldn't care less about the ads, so long as it doesn't degenerate into pop-ups and flash ads that assault the center of your screen, which seems to the new, next things for many websites. And there's no need to make some declaration, since it's very obvious that BlogAds and Google Sense are now on all the more popular blogs. The biggest threat is that some bloggers will adjust their content or political views to improve their financial position.
Paul: I'm with you. If that Murdoch fellow rings me again, I'm taking out a restaining order! But I do agree I don't see blogging as a profit maknig venture, but I can understand those that do.
Alisa/FD: What worries me are two things: Firstly that a single person doing a blog is not going to be as able to police against conflicts of interest, either conscious or more importantly those subtle ways that having advertisers can influence you. Secondly its the point FD makes; that certain bloggers may be tempted to adjust their views to draw more advertising. Tail wagging the dog and all that.
I am not sure that you have to change your message just to reach a wider audience. In fact in blogging I think the opposite is happening. The MSM has benn unwilling to change their message, so bloggers have been reaching wider and wider audiences by filling the market need. Like Fox news, they see an audience that was untapped and are now reaping the rewards.
In fact, if they do start changing their message to get "wider appeal" they are making the same exact mistake the MSM was doing. Ignoring what their audience is telling them. Their biases will still be obvious but their attempts to be "balanced" will end up being bland and no one will think they are balanced anyway. Readership will drop and ad revenue will drop. Look at CBS and see what they've done to the "Tiffany" network as an example.
Capitalism means filling a public need and you profit from it. Don't fill it, don't profit. Do I know whether Glenn Reynolds, Bill Quick, Charles Johnson ever really believed what they write. Actually I can't be sure they are even real at this point. But another take on current events and call outs on the BS is what I am looking for to balance blatant forgery I see on the airwaves and they are fulfilling that role.
An interesting thing: The discussion around blogging for profit currently centers around political blogs. It makes sense - that's the current focus of blogging hype, and it's unclear how (or even why) people who blog outside of the political sphere should be renumerated for their work. Will people pay for a tongue-in-cheek parenting blog, e.g.? Or are the political blogs tapping into a unique market of die-hard wonks with cash to burn?
Personally, I use my blog as a writing showcase. I've already sold pieces to editors based on the strength of my blog pieces. Whether I'll ever net anything for the blog itself is an open question.
Posted by The Zero Boss at October 18, 2004 08:18 AM
An article by Ted Naganawa on the future of Hong Kong amazingly combines some keen insights with superficial cliches. The gist is that Hong Kong's focus on democracy should be secondary to improving itself economically. In the introduction there is the usual comparison of HK with its "rivals" in Asia, namely Singapore and Shanghai, although the author already hits upon HK's key advantage: the future is based on China's development and Singapore is too far away (not to mention not Chinese) and Shanghai lacks HK's infrastructure, legal system and collective expertise.
Next the author asks if full democracy in HK is an end in itself and thinks it is not. Here is the one key insight the author reaches and something I've been thinking about lately myself:
Election reform is only one step in a process to achieve an ultimate objective, not an end itself. What really matters politically—and economically—is not immediate democracy, but the preservation of Hong Kong’s special status after 2047, when the “one country, two systems” stipulation of the Basic Law, Hong Kong’s mini-constitution, expires...No matter how much democracy Hong Kong enjoys internally for another 43 years, once the Basic Law expires and Hong Kong becomes another big—however democratic—city in Southern China, then democracy in Hong Kong probably will not mean a whole lot. Instead, what will matter is how much China itself would be democratized by then. However, if Hong Kong attains, by 2047, the position of an unparalleled financial/business center in Asia and the world, the approaches of the Beijing government and the entire world, including that of the United States, when dealing with the city, would be different.
Regardless of the democratization of China itself, whether the Beijing government wants to maintain Hong Kong as a democratic free economy after 2047, or do something else about it, depends on three key factors: the economic advantage for the mainland economy in keeping Hong Kong democratic, the international recognition of Hong Kong’s importance to the global economy, which would force a political calculation by the Beijing government, and the democratic will of the people of Hong Kong.
The "one country, two systems" formula is a good enough fig leaf and at the time of negotiation I am sure 50 years seemed an ample amount of time to sort out how HK would be properly integrated into China proper. Indeed the massive changes in both China and HK since the 1997 handover show that speculating on what will be happening in 2047 impossible. But it is not an issue that can be put off indefinitely. Within the next 10 years there will need to be at least some progress towards the final settlement of HK's status. Why? Because any proposition involving a long term committment of capital, for example property purchases or factories, needs to know what the rules of the game will be. Any hint of uncertainty would be the certain death of HK.
The article in question makes one other good point. For Hong Kong to have a better hand in determining its own future, democracy is not the only factor at play. Gaining greater links with the USA, in the author's opinion, is crucial to act as a counterweight to China. That isn't true: Hong Kong's status is and will be an itnernal Chinese issue. But keeping its economy vibrant and remaining a key gateway to China (dare I use the words "world city"?) will be crucial in determining the city's future post-2047. Most likely is Hong Kong's "special" status will be retained post-2047; while China's growth is rapid, it is a long way short of HK in living standards. Why would China ever give up its golden goose? In other words, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The FT prints an article by the China Economic Quarterly team on the the economics of education in China. There has been rapid growth in the number of children attending school and the study attributes this to the jump in the average increase in annual income expected for each extra year of schooling. The rate was around 4% in the late 80s, but is now averaging closer to 10%. There are even higher gains for technical school education and college education. So China now has an army of smarter workers and it is growing: there are now 132 million students in senior high school, up from 51 million in 1995. The number of university graduates has doubled to 1.9 million a year, and is expected to double again by 2008.
The article explores the economic consequences of this smarter workforce. No doubt it is a major reason that China is experiencing such rapid economic growth and it will be a factor underpinning that growth for years to come. The article links this improved education with the labour shortages now hitting the Pearl River Delta and other regions (although The Economist (sub req'd) notes other factors such as higher rural incomes, lack of social security and health-care). Another extremely important factor is China's tradition of a national university examination system. This has been a part of China's education system for literally hundreds of years and has helped balance out social inequities by giving the best and brightest a chance regardless of income. Compared to many other developed and developing countries, this system allows for far greater social mobility and acts to reduce stratification of social classes.
What the article overlooks is the political implications of these changes. A more educated and richer workforce has more to protect and aspire to. This is the great challenge that faces the CCP: to remain in power they need to work on retaining legitimacy. In times past they may have been the party of the peasantry, but with the changes in Chinese society that is no longer relevant nor enough. It is a problem that Hu Jintao has recognised and is tackling and it is the biggest challenge facing the CCP since it claimed power. Because as China's population gets smarter they will also start asking questions abot the way they are governed and the CCP will need to have answers.
In these days of spam and emails from Nigeria promising riches, it amazes me that Ponzi (pyramid) schemes still occur. The biggest example in modern times was in Albania, where such a scheme lead to the collapse of the Government and near civil war. But that was dismissed as ignorant, backwards Eastern Europeans out for a fast buck. However there is currently a court case in modern, prosperous Hong Kong prosecuting a similar scheme.
From the SCMP:
A transport worker said yesterday he had parted with almost two months' pay to join a pyramid investment scheme after he saw people waiting in a queue that stretched 18 floors...He was giving evidence on the second day of the trial of four men accused of fraud in what has been described as Hong Kong's biggest pyramid-selling case. The court has heard that it involved $7 billion and 14,000 victims, and returns of up to 3,300 per cent were promised.
Mr Au said that he was told he only needed to contribute $11,000 to reap net returns of about $140,000 14 months later. He bought two shares in the company's Plan D, paying $7,188 on September 5, 2000 and $7,000 two days later. At the time he was earning $9,500 a month. He said he was told to pay an extra $2,000 on October 9 the same year to complete all payments due, in the hope that the money would automatically accumulate without any further action on his part.
If it's too good to be true, then it usually is. Obviously greed is a trait that can overrule even the most "sophisticated" people.
As China is getting richer it is fast emulating the Western world in many ways...including obesity. To get rich might be glorious, but it also packs on the pounds.
As I write this I am watching the Cable TV broadcast of Hong Kong's latest land auction. Under the system the HK Government lists various blocks of land available for development and a minimum reserve price. Once a developer is prepared to at least pay the reserve it sets off an auction which is open to all comers for that property. In times past this was a major revenue generator for the HK Government, but since the property crash this source has dried up.
Until today. The bidding for the block at Ho Man Tin, expected to go for around HK$7.22 billion, is currently bid at HK$8.42 billion with no end in sight. The main bidders are a company gweilo, a lawyer looking type and some dodgy looking guy with a cap pulled low over his face. I'm guessing Tung Che-hwa is watching and having a jolly good time watch property developers quickly eroding what's left of HK's budget deficit. Clearly Hong Kong is on the rebound.
UPDATE: $8.54 billion with the dodgy cap guy and still going. UPDATE 2: $8.92 billion while I went for coffee and still going. When does Tung announce tax cuts? UPDATE 3: Dodgy cap guy for Chief Exec! Bidding at $9.06 billion or almost $2 billion above expections. UPDATE 4: The gweilo's back, bidding $9.28 billion, but the shadowy lawyer type keeps coming back. $9.3 billion bid...it must be a good price because now the whole office is watching, not just the gweilos. Final UPDATE: The gweilo won at $9.42 billion or US$1.2 billion. That's a hell of a lot of schools, police, doctors...
I've just returned from the photo shop where young (7.5 weeks old) BL posed for his passport photos. Under the strict new requirements for an Australian passport, the following was required: white background; mouth closed; eyes open; looking straight at the camera; no other people visible in the photo. It only took 4 attempts, which apparently is good going for a baby. Why don't they ask us to herd cats while we're at it?
Best of all is this passport will be valid for 5 years. Just like his sisters before him, BL will have a baby photo in his passport until he's age 5, at which point he'll look completely unlike his passport photo. Perhaps the biometric systems being put in place can allow for the rapid changes in a child's face in their early years, but I doubt it. As to how the world is safer because a baby's mouth is closed in a photo, I do not know.
Apparently in England now they are stating that you cannot smile in the passport photos anymore.
No smiling. Which would be terribly realistic, don't you think? Generally by the time you get to the immigration desk off a flight you look and feel like hell and the last thing you feel like doing is smiling.
It's a weird policy though...I guess the new thinking is that only the dodgy potential terrorist types smile, I guess.
I had the same experience when my son was 6 months old, while traveling from the US and back. It was not any easier: he kept sticking his tongue out for some unexplained reason.
Facial expressions aside, I'd like to think that children are given passports for their own protection from things like kidnapping, not for the protection of the rest of society.
I agree Alisa, but I don't see the point of such precision for baby photos, especially for kids of such a young age when they change so much. Still, the system is the system.
I really shouldn't be surprised by the innovations that Hong Kong's world beating financial services industry come up with to stay ahead of the game. In terms of co-branding, this has to be the ultimate...
The ongoing saga of the ICAC newspaper raids has reached a farcial stage. The Court of Appeal handed down what can only be considered a perplexing judgement. The Court decided it had no jurisdtiction because the case should have been lodged in the Court of Final Appeal instead, as it was a civil matter nota criminal one. Normally that would have been the end of the judgement. But not this time. Instead they then went on to actual deliver what their judgement would have been:
...the judges added: "Had this court possessed the necessary jurisdiction, the appeal would have been allowed with costs.''
Speaking on behalf of the three, Justice Geoffrey Ma said: "I am satisfied that the ICAC acted entirely lawfully in seeking the search warrants in this case. The freedom of the press in the present case must be seen against the fact that serious crimes may well have been committed.''
So the Court saw fit to waste a week of its own time, allow the ICAC (funded by HK's taxpayers) and Sing Tao to pay their armies of lawyers for a wasted few weeks of work, and take time away for other pending cases. If it was clear the court had no jurisdiction the judges should have stopped the matter and delivered that judgement immediately and without an additional commentary on the merits of the case. It is absurd for the judges to say they can't rule but then making a non-binding ruling regardless.
ICAC now has the option of appealing to the Court of Final Appeal and no dobut they will, being emboldened by the pat on the back by the Court of Appeal. That means even more HK taxpayer money wasted. Before they did they need to ask their legal team some serious questions. The first one should be why the hell they launched the first appeal in the wrong court. I'd be interested in the answer.
Two Chinese engineers were kidnapped in Pakistan on the weekend and are being held hostage. The terrorists have now strapped explosives to the bodies of their hostages and are threatening to kill at least one unless they get safe passage to their leader, although they've already "spared" them once. The terrorists are now in talks to free their victims and are demanding the release of 6 of their fellow Taleban/Al-Qaeda operatives. It begs the question of why in the hell would Al-Qaeda want to goad China into becoming more active on the war on terror?
Pakistan officials said the kidnappers were taking orders from [Abdullah] Mehsud, a former inmate of the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, who now heads tribesmen fighting alongside al Qaeda fighters in South Waziristan...
Abdullah, who is in his 20s, was among 26 inmates freed from Guantanamo Bay in March after the Pentagon said they were no longer a threat to the United States and had no intelligence value.
maybe the pentagon's mistake was imprisoning him in the first place, rather than releasing him. i wouldn't be surprised if the experience of being unjustly imprisoned+tortured, without any evidence, has created a terrorist out of a previously upstanding member of the afghan community ...
then again perhaps the pentagon was right, he is no longer a threat to americans. No one ever told them that he might be pissed at the chinese. Thought one has to wonder about his intelligence. Why the hell does he want to piss of the chinese. These people have shown no qualms about shooting their own unarmed students. I'm not even sure I want to konw what they would do to foreigners.
Note to Pacific Coffee in Cheung Kong Centre: "Nothing will come of nothing" is by William Shakespeare. It's bad enough to have trite blackboard slogans to deal with each morning, let alone incorrect ones.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Driving on China's roads can be murder. And even worse the WHO says Beijing is underestimating the numbers by more than 100,000 deaths a year. Phil looks at solutions.
Chris looks at the huge value of Hong Kong's helper army.
China is taking concrete steps in its fight against AIDS, on the subways and in the pubs.
Hemlock notes (Monday, Oct 11 entry) the dubious qualifications of HK's famous finger waver and the gweilo population of Hong Kong will be gone, by 2193.
Jodi explains why the arms embargo against China should remain in place. She also thinks China has been remarkably tolerant with Taiwan.
A fascinating piece of Hong Kong's history: the events of October 10th 1953 left some with a disdainful view of Anglo-American ideas of "freedom" and of the Republic of China.
Why hasn't North Korea collapsed? The original article by Nicholas Eberstadt has plenty of food for thought. Andy takes issue with some of the points raised, particularly on the political side while the Infidel says the main question is not how the North persists but why it should? Also take a look at a thorough analysis of the USA's North Korean Human Rights Act and policy on North Korea. Clearly China's worried about an influx of more North Korean refugees.
A Japanese cartoonist is coming under fire for portraying the Rape of Nanjing.
John Howard's thumping win on the weekend was always the most likely result. Labor's inept final week and especially its unnecessary deal with the Greens which cost it two seats in Tasmania, not to mention Mark Latham's limited time at the helm, all cost them. What is interesting is the solid position Howard now finds himself in, with control of the Senate to boot. For the first time in living memory an Australian leader actually as a solid mandate to push through with reforms without having them diluted by fringe parties in the Senate (goodbye, Democrats). When Democrat leader Andrew Bartlett calls this "a disaster for democracy", what he actually means is it is a disaster for his now impotent party. What it actually means is a party elected by the majority of the country can actually implement its program without a tiny minority forcing changes. Not since the 1970s has an Australian leader had such control over Parliament. That could be both a blessing and a curse, but now Howard has no excuses to avoid fulfilling the rest of his agenda.
Some are already saying that the war on terror didn't have much to do with the result, although some disagreed. The reality is the war on terror was an issue, but by no means a major one. This was partly because Australia was blessedly devoid of any terror in the lead up to the war, with the notable exception of the Jakarta bombings. This is a blessing that seems to have been missed in the aftermath of the election, and it helped keep the war on terror far from most voters' minds. What did influence people? Well perhaps that Australia has now had an unprecedented 15 year uninterrupted economic boom with no signs of it ending; that this Government has delivered a solid fiscal position by repaying debt and not dipping into deficit; that interest rates have been low and memories of the "recession we had to have" and its 18% mortgage rates still scare the bejeesus out of this nation of mortgage and credit-card holders; Howard's party had a solid track record and had done nothing particularly wrong on the domestic front since assuming power; that Howard still has policies and reforms to implement; and even that Australia's winning ways continue in more ways than one. Against one of Australia's most formidable politicians Labor fielded a leader whom did not have enough time to shake of his past reputation and mould himself into a potential Prime Minister nor to acquaint people with his policies. They compounded their errors by downplaying legitimate criticisms and policies and instead pandering. And therein lies the lesson of those in America: the incumbent holds far more advantages than is often given credit for, and the issues that influence the voter in the booth may differ greatly from those that dominate the headlines and amongst the politicos. In other words this result tells you that as things stand Bush has a far stronger chance of being re-elected should the polls appear to be even on polling day.
So what is the rest of the blogosphere saying about all of this?
* For an excellent and detailed look at the results, go to the excellent Poll Bludger and just keep scrolling.
* Tim Blair has rediscovered his love for his country. He links to two decent pieces of media punditry.
* The Currency Lad has a comprehensive look at the issues and where the election was won and lost.
* Ken Parish wonders if Howard and his team can exercise wisdom and restraint in victory. Which begs the question whether Latham and co. would have managed the same? As I said above, Howard has a complete mandate for the first time in 25 years; why should he "restrain" himself? The voters have just given him a solid mandate to implement his policies. He doesn't need to hold back.
* Tony has found another winner on the night.
* Tim Dunlop cops it sweet and also notes that despite his expectations, the undecideds tended to break for the incumbent.
* There's already a plan for Labor's next campaign.
* John Quiggin's post-mortem begins with this gem: First, I have to concede immediately that the betting markets got this one right. Unlike polls and pundits, including me, they consistently predicted the return of the government. People who put their money up tend to put their emotions aside and concentrate more on the likely result. He then puts Howard's victory down to luck, conceding Howard's luck has lasted longer than most. The old adage says "you make your own luck", but for some on the left admitting that Howard is a good politician who beat them fair and square is going to prove impossible. And that's why the Liberals will start favourites the next time as well - because Labor has not yet had the necessary reckoning in facing up to its failures.
* Mike points out in the comments to Vodkapundit this gem from Steven den Beste: They didn't let us down. Let's hope we don't let them down.
* John Ray maintains Labor lost because they remain too far to the left of Australia's mainstream. The Gnu Hunter also lists the reasons why Labor blew it.
* There's a new superhero in town.
* How can Labor get it so wrong, so often? asks the cabbie that knows.
* Slatts has a collection of letters celebrating the win in the pages of the press.
* The Swanker echoes what is no doubt true for many Labor supporters: For my own part, I am disappointed that Labor had such a poor showing, but in all honesty I have not done too badly under a Howard Government. In other words it's the Claytons win: the win you have when you're not having a win.
* Yobbo's got a Death Pool tip.
* Arthur had a long and interesting look at the result, including his view from "on the ground".
* The Raw Prawn also rounds-up the results.
* Kev Gillett's happy and the Professor is channeling rock 'n roll.
* Whacking Day has more reactions from the politicians and some who aren't taking the news well.
* The Silent Running crew are not rubbing it in...too much. Tom Paine prepares for the left's bloodletting.
* On the international front: Wretchard reflects on the lessons Labor can learn and why a "common man" like Howard (or Bush) resonates with voters; Joe Katzman sees Australia remaining a steadfast US ally; Glenn on the spin that might have been; B5 rubbishes the notion the election was about Iraq, but hopes it's the start of a roll as does Powerline and Roger L Simon.
The entire family had the pleasure of taking in the Gaelic Football Sevens yesterday afternoon in Aberdeen. As could only be expected when several hundred Irishmen and women gather in a celebration of their national sport, the Guinness flowed and the "to be sure's" where thick and fast. The Korean team proved victorous in the mens, despite being widely despised for their victory at all costs mentality. However I am pleased to report the Hong Kong women's team did the Big Lychee proud.
The day included a male stripper, whom in time honoured tradition managed to wear himself out by running the length of the field twice. Not to be outdone young PB, now in the second week of her toilet training, decided after the final game that the half-way line was a perfect place to practice her number ones. Thus disrobed she proceeded to spend a merry hour with her sister JC chasing her Daddy all over the park, running after the ball and showing extremely good form to boot (pun intended). Just trying to balance out the sexism in streakers.
Nothing in the world is funnier than when Irishmen say "To be sure." A vendor I work with is Irish, and I ask him to say it all the time. Since I am the customer (and since we get on well anyway), he has to give in and do it.
In a much heralded speech, Taiwan's President Chen Shui-bian used his National Day speech to call for peace talks with China (the full speech is here). These National Day celebrations where a break with the past. Chen proposed moving forward based on the 1992 Hong Kong consensus, which says both sides accept there is only "one China" but differ in their understanding of what that means. He pushed for a code of conduct to control the arms race and prevent future conflict over Taiwan. At the same time, however, he re-iterated support for Taiwan's massive arms purchase from the US. Naturally the opposition KMT were accusing Chen of gimmickery and trying to attract voters in year-end legislative elections in Taiwan.
China's natural reaction has been to reject the speech, saying it was "more symbolic than substantial". The official response has been that there is nothing new in Chen's speech and that he is still determined to push forward on Taiwan's independence. Interestingly though, the China Daily quotes a Chinese expert on Taiwan, Li Jiaquan:
"His call for bilateral talks suggested even the Taiwanese leader himself has come to realize the significance of improving cross-Straits ties to the stability and economic development of Taiwan...But he has apparently failed to find a correct way of breaking the stalemate in cross-Straits ties by sticking to his pro-independence stance."
That's as close to an admission of progress as you're likely to hear from the China side. It's early days but this could signal the first progress in China-Taiwan relations since Chen's election back in 1999.
It might seem a trivial point, but Chen did *not* talk about the '1992 consensus', but about using the 1992 meetings as a basis for talks. Chen is a lawyer and is careful to say what he means: using the term '1992 consensus' would imply he accepts a version of the 'One China' principle ... which ain't going to happen.
I don't expect any sort of positive response from China in the near term ... after all there are elections in Taiwan in December, and the PRC wouldn't want to give the DPP a helping hand by agreeing to talks of any sort before then!
Fair point, but perhaps I've missed the subtly here. What is the difference between using the 1992 talks as a "basis" or talking about the consensus (admittedly, a misleading word) itself? The basis was clear - that there is one China but that the two parties differ on what that means. That is the only way China will come to the table at all....
The whole history of the 1992 talks is pretty murky - there was certainly never anything written down about an agreement on 'One China' (and no preconditions about this for the meeting). I've read comments that China wanted a written agreement on this, but in the end the two sides just verbally reported what there position was. Since then the '1992 consensus' has been interpreted to mean that the two sides had a differing opinion about the legitimate rulers of China, but both agreed that Taiwan was part of China. Whether there was any real consensus is open to debate ...
So, what did Chen mean? It's possible that Chen could claim that there is no such thing as the '1992 consensus' (Lee Deng Hui who was president back then takes this line), but the two sides managed to talk and make deals despite this.
The bottom line is, unfortunately, that China demands acceptance of 'One China' as a precondition to talks. This is something that Chen cannot and would not do. He's being as concilliatory as he can be within this constraint, but I suspect that is nowhere near enough for China.
Here's a quick lesson in realpolitik for you: President Jacques Chirac spends time finding broad consensus with his Chinese counterparts on many issues, including lifting the EU arms embargo. Not co-incidentally China Air orders a massive 26 Airbus airplanes, Airbus at the same time announced its intention to increase its purchasing in China, and Alstom of France announces contracts worth 1 billion Euros for trains to China.
That's a good investment, at the small cost of ignoring China's appalling human rights record. Liberty, equality, fraternity stops at the border.
Could you clarify "trains to China?" Are they going to build a swift rail between France and China? Right now you have to take a train acrosss Russia and through eastern Europe to get to western Europe. It can take weeks. I was wondering if an improvement might be in the works with this.
And more to your point:
Ever since NAFTA, no nation to my knowledge has made any humanitarian requirements for trade partnership. It might have been the case before as well, but that's when I began to pay attention to it. Money speaks.
Posted by Ellen Sander at October 11, 2004 02:41 PM
After a sabbatical (and just in time for Shabbat) I've resurrected the weekly linkefst to various interesting links from the wider blogosphere, as promised. Enjoy your weekend...
* Where's Bill? As Paul says, it's like a ghost town in there.
* There was great excitement at the success of SpaceshipOne's winning of the ANSARI X-prize and Richard Branson is already setting up Virgin Galactic (which reminds me of Pan Am in 2001: A Space Odyssey and how quickly that proved to be an anachronism, but I digress). But no-one seems to have focussed on the main game: when will the budget space airlines start? Will the hub and spoke model prove as bad for space as it has for Earth-bound airlines? Will the International Space Station become the Denver airport of the skies? And why wasn't anyone watching Area 51?
* Some things are so good they are worth linking to twice: Michele's take on the current state of blogging, not some new kind of journalism. If there's one thing bloggers like talking about, it's themselves and their medium. Michele is one who's taking stock is worth the pixels it's written with.
* You don't even need to know Pete to help compose his biography. Just read what other people have written already in the comments and join in the fun.
* When Andrew Sullivan fisks Wretchard, he doesn't get mad, he just fisks back.
* Kim Jong Il is about to star in a blockbuster American movie. And there's a sequel coming from the famous JibJab "Our Land" team. Like most sequels, it's likely to follow the path of the first but not quite hit the same highs. I hope I'm wrong.
* John Zogby is coming to Hong Kong in a couple of weeks and I have the pleasure of attending a talk of his. It will be interesting to hear from this prominent pollster, who has a great record and is currently out on a limb compared to most polls on the US election.
There are more than 100,000 weddings in Shanghai every year. That means 100,000 neurotic brides, panickying mothers, over-paid planners and ambivalent grooms. One of the chief sources of anxiety is the dreaded "something going wrong", which could be anything from the wrong photo being displayed to a massive bout of food poisoning. Thankfully China's enterprising insurers are here to help: wedding accident insruance is here:
The insurance, which caters to the city's booming wedding market, covers mishaps such as food poisoning. The bride and groomcan get compensation of up to 180,000 yuan (21,770 US dollars) while guests can be compensated up to 20,000 yuan (2420 dollars) and have 5,000 yuan (605 dollars) of their medical costs covered.
According to China Ping'an, the newly married couple pays 29 yuan (3.5 dollars) for themselves and individual guests pay 1.5 yuan (18 cents) to have their wedding insured.
No word yet if the insurers will develop honeymoon insurance or even rest of married life insurance.
There was this TV show (Wild Cards) on a insurance investigator - investigating a wedding accident claim. So it isn't limited to Shanghai, it probably is common. Do a Google search on it..
President Bush rings President Hu Jintao to chew the fat over the yuan, Taiwan and North Korea. I've always wondered about these phone calls - I imagine they are stiffly formal affairs, completely pre-arranged where both read a script on a conference call with 200 people listening in. Completely useless, in other words. But the timing cannot be co-incidental. This week President Chirac of France is in Asia, partly to push the EU to lift its arms embargo on China. Again it isn't a co-incidence that France has Europe's biggest arms industry. The Americans are firmly against lifting the arms embargo, fearing (correctly) it will upset the strategic balance between Taiwan and China and hurt efforts to improve human rights. The flow-on is if the EU lifts its arms embargo, the USA could withhold defense co-operation with the Europeans. While that could well suit the French, the more Atlantist members of the EU, such as the UK and Poland, will no doubt veto the lifting of the arms embargo.
So the end result is France looks good in the eyes of China while it knows that even if it loses in attempting to overturn the embargo, it wins in other favourable concessions from China. Say what you like about Chirac, he's a canny politician and diplomat.
Kuwait, which only a little over a decade ago was invaded itself, is now planning to stake a claim in China. There's a flip-side to all the foreign investment pouring into China. Sometimes it means more competition for local companies from well funded and international experts. And the Kuwaitis are playing a smart game. They are promising to invest huge amounts to create new refining capacity in China, something the coutnry desperately needs to continue supply its rapidly growing energy needs. But the Kuwaitis will only invest if they can also open up retail outlets in direct competition with China's own PetroChina and Sinopec. China will have to weigh up the benefits of securing another large investment in its energy sector with exposing its partially state owned oil retailers.
It's a no-brainer: China is constantly trying to diversify and secure its oil supply. The Chinese oil retailing industry is about to get a massive shake-up thanks to those invading Kuwaitis.
This is good news. Especially the last paragraph. I do hope the Chinese are able to get some reciprocal concessions on the Kuwaiti fields. The nationalized Kuwaiti oil industry is in quite poor shape technologically and dearly needs foreign investment (or at least the technology that comes with it). There is a lot of untapped product that could be brought to market if they allowed other, more advanced, companies to drill.
While most of China is on holidays this week, China has just announced that the third week of October will be a "national anti-pain week". That will be a relief for both prisoners and torturers right across China - they all get a week off too.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Property is all the rage in Hong Kong again. ESWN explains why those in 40 square foot units are living in relative luxury. I looked at the growing demand but lack of supply of bigger units in HK and why property in HK is forming a new bubble.
For once, everyone stayed home in HK on a Saturday night.
There's an interesting set of connections between a WaPo story on Chinese land seizures, the arrest of NYT researcher Zhao Yan and outspoken Fuzhou city party boss Huang Jingao.
Marmot comprehensively covers reports that China would send up to 400,000 troops to support North Korea in a war, including the US plan that called for almost 700,000 American troops within 90 days in the event of a conflict. America has agreed to delay its troop withdrawal by 3 years, to give Seoul more time to prepare. Perhaps because the latest reports are that Seoul would fall to North Korea within 15 days without US troops. Ironically at the same time there is a report on a secret South Korean plan for dealing with the collapse of North Korea, including accommodating 200,000 defectors.
Also, find out what really pisses Marmot off and his follow-up as well: ...while it might give one a warm, fuzzy feeling to see Old Glory being waived around at a mass demonstration (beats the hell out of seeing it burnt), a look at the figures and groups involved might make one think twice about whether seeing the symbols of the U.S. invoked at an occasion like Monday’s is such a great thing.
Tokyo's Governor is a colourful character, with statements like If Japanese hadn't fought the white people, we would still be slaves of the white people. It would be colonization. We changed that. Read Jodi's take.
More on why North Korea's rulers have popular support of North Koreans, although perhaps it is because the populace don't know much about the wider world.
Andy has more on why the 6 party talks with North Korea are the only game in town.
Wang Xiangwei at the SCMP is on a roll. Today's article represents a major shift in China's Asian diplomacy as it steps up pressure on Taiwan:
Beijing is planning steps to overcome diplomatic differences with Japan, South Korea, Singapore and other Southeast Asian countries in return for their support for increased pressure on Taiwan.
The move signals a significant shift in foreign-policy priorities, with the so-called Taiwan issue now one of the most important factors, according to mainland diplomatic sources...
Beijing (is) ready to make the necessary concessions and overtures to set aside its differences...the Taiwan issue had become one of the most important facing President Hu Jintao. The mainland leadership believed Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian was leading the island towards independence and therefore they should seek more international support from neighbours that would suffer should a war break out across the Taiwan Strait, the sources said.
As part of the effort to improve relations, the leadership is also ready to take measures to curb strong expressions of anti-Japanese sentiment by nationalist elements. Zhao Qizheng , the minister in charge of the State Council's Information Office, told Japanese journalists last week that Beijing had decided to ban anti-Japanese articles from mainstream media. The sources said the Information Office had also shut down several anti-Japanese websites, including one calling for a boycott of Japanese-made goods.
They said Premier Wen Jiabao's current visit to Vietnam would see both countries set aside their differences over the Spratly Islands and focus on boosting trade links.
Beijing is also taking steps to defuse the row with South Korea over Koguryo, the ancient kingdom straddling the Korean Peninsula and northeast China. The Koreans claim Koguryo was a precursor of the Korean nation, but mainland scholars recently asserted that it was a local government under central Chinese rule.
This is a serious move on China's part, laying the diplomatic groundwork for a more decisive move on the Taiwan issue. If China's prepared to make compromises on so many of the sensitive issues that are outstanding with its other Asian neighbours the quid pro quo of pressuring Taiwan will be a small price to pay. It's a canny move on China's part and a massive worry for Taiwan.
I'm not sure I follow the logic here ... China has already successfully isolated Taiwan diplomatically, so what do they gain by this? The only thing that happens when one of these nations takes an anti-Taiwan independence view is that it annoys the Taiwan government (as seen in the latest spat with Singapore ... I must admit, I'm looking forward to seeing the Taiwanese foreign minister accusing Japan of hugging China's balls - but how will that affect things?)
As for what these nations would do if China did invade Taiwan: they'd scream and shout. I'm sure they'll do this whether China was pressing the Spratley's/Koyogoru claims or not.
Perhaps we should just be pleased that China is trying to be nice to its neighbours for a change, and not look too hard for an ulterior motive?
With respect I disagree. It seems to me that China is taking its diplomatic efforts up a notch to further isolate Taiwan. Japan in particular has a very mixed history with Taiwan, being a former coloniser. China would not make these efforts without an ulterior motive - why should it be "nice" when there are justifiable historical grievances?
Yeah - but what does "further isolate Taiwan" mean? There ain't much more you can do politically (of course, economically there's plenty of scope, but you don't have to involve other countries in that ...). The only thing I can think of was the verbal support Japan gave to Taiwan's WHO bid ... is that worth forgiving Nanjing for?
Sure, there are historical links between Japan and Taiwan - but even with those, Japanese politicians are already very careful not to upset China by getting involved in Taiwan.
As for reasons to be 'nice' - perhaps someone has noticed that the levels of nationalism in China are unhealthy, will cause problems in the future, and are possibly affecting trade today.
I take this to mean that China is laying the ground work so that if it did decide to invade the fallout from its neighbours would be far more muted than it would be at the moment. There would still be lines in the sand, such as a Japanese apology, but it does seem that China is finally preparing to give some ground in order to pave the way for increasing even mroe pressure on Taiwan.
You're right Taiwan is already isolated, but if China can drive an even greater wedge between Taiwan and the rest of the major Asian powers, it only leaves an over-stretched USA to deal with. It's a canny political and diplomatic move.
At times the CCP can be stunning in its hypocracy. The lead item at Xinhua's website, the official mouthpiece of the CCP, is titled Government for the interest of the people and proceeds to details various efforts taken by the Government to help workers claim unpaid wages, improve peasants' health, deal with AIDS, help the unemployed and the move from "Serve the People" to "Exercising Government Power in the Interest of the People".
At the same time the SCMP reports that all media editors have been told not to report on economist Mao Yushi or his Unirule Institue of Economics. The Propaganda Ministry has blacklisted the professor and banned a book he has written, as well as banning some conferences his Institute has tried to organise. Why? Because he reports on cases of farmland acquisition by local cadres, a common source of local protest and corruption. Even better the news blackout also covers websites specialising in exposing corruption and irregularities by local officials. They are not allowed to follow up on land-seizure cases they have been covering.
"Exercising Government Power in the Interest of the People" indeed.
China is passionate about soccer but its top league is currently undergoing massive convulsions all due to that typical Chinese problem: corruption. Major club Beijing Hyundai is quitting the league in protest at a series of events in a major dispute with the Chinese Football Association (CFA). On the weekend Beijing Hyundai was playing in a match when at a crucial point a penalty was awarded against them. In protest they went on strike - they literally left the field and did not return. The referee announced the match abondoned and declared a 3-0 win for Shenyang Ginde (the score was 1-1 at the time of the walkout).
The problem was the Beijing club felt that it was again victim to corrupt referees ("black whistles"), officials and players. The club alleges that matches are ficed and that referees and players bet on games. The CFA has been ridiculed for not maintaining a grip on its Super League and seems powerless to control the current situation. Even worse, three Beijing Hyundai players are in the Chinese national team now playing a World Cup qualifier against Kuwait. Under the rules, players must belong to a CFA club to play for the national team, so these three may be forced to withdraw from the squad.
Normally in case like this when a coach and team have a hissy fit after a refereeing decision they don't like I have no sympathy for them at all. The rules are the rules and that shuold be the end of the matter. But in this case the team is alleging there are massive levels of corruption right through the ranks of football in China and it is sadly believable. The reality likely lies somewhere in the middle between Beijing Hyundai's allegations and the inevitable CFA defence. Over 1 billion yuan has been invested in the Super League in the past decade and the coach of Beijing Hyundai is saying that much of it has been wasted. He's likely right.
The cancer of corruption reaches deeply in China: it even touches such holy grails as football.
While the antics of the Long Haired Lout dominated the headlines, there was something far more interesting going on yesterday at the first day of the new LegCo in Hong Kong. During the election of chairs of various committees, pro-democracy lawmaker Emily Lau won chair of the key Finance Committee in a surprise victory. How did this come about when the democrats are supposedly a minority? Because suddenly the Breakfast Group, a loose alliance of 6 legislators, have realised they now hold the balance of power. While Mr. Huff and Puff will have his fans, the main game has certainly changed and will pass him and his slogans by. Even pro-Beijing business business is getting in on the act: the SCMP reports the HK Chamber of Commerce wants an explicit timetable to full democracy and wants the Government to acknowledge that 2012 is the target date for universal suffrage.
Could it be that despite Beijing's best efforts Hong Kong could actually have a LegCo with a majority of democrats after all?
Cable TV is reporting that DBS, the bank that robbed itself, is going to offer a minimum of HK$100,000 compensation for each box holder. Now I think about it, I had a safety deposit box there. Yep, that's right. It had lots of old and hard to value jewellery in it, and mounds of cash to boot. This is better than the lottery...
In even better news, Long Hair Leung lost his stupid attempt to use his own oath of office in being sworn into LegCo. Justice Hartmann of the High Court was to the point, according to the SCMP:
"(Mr Leung) has not been able to demonstrate an arguable case ... the intended oath, no matter how laudable, will be unlawful and will have no effect."
No doubt he will have still attempted some kind of grandstanding gesture at the ceremony today. As expected, he has gone from making a mockery of LegCo to making a mockery of himself. I still stand by my prediction that he won't be a LegCo member within 6 months. It's looking conservative. UPDATE Having just watched the footage of Leung taking the oath, perhaps I was wrong. He dutifully read the correct oath before screaming his own addition. So perhaps his slow metamorphasis has begun.
my (unscientific) assumption was that his votes came from people who wanted to watch the media freakshow.
at this rate, the act is getting tiresome in a hurry. yelling out slogans before and after taking the oath exactly according to script just does not equate to an important fight for democracy in any sense.
i for one have reached saturation and am automatically tuning off all references to him.
I've been reading the round-up of reaction to the Vice Presidential debate at The Moderate Voice (via Dean) and Allah's, both impressive efforts. Knowing how much work goes into link-fests, it is even more impressive and a great way to quickly summarise the general reaction (which in this case appears to be mixed) to the debate. But it has lead me to formalise something I've been thinking about for a while, which I now dub the Law of Linkage:
The value of any one link in a post is inversely proportional to the total number of links in that post.
For example, if there is only one link in a post, then that link is extremely likely to be followed by interested readers. If there are 10 posts, the chances of jumping to the links are significantly decreased, because if you start following the links you're going to lose the gist of the original post. I admit that on occasion you can find yourself jumping from link to link in random fashion, but usually you're at a particular site because you want to read that site, not others. Obviously if the link is a key part of that post (e.g. an entry reaction to a post at another blog) the chance is that link will be followed; but again the chances are that will be the only link in the post.
When it comes to link-fests there's a second law as well:
The likelihood of any one link being clicked in a post decreases with each additional link that precedes it.
In other words you may even follow the first few links in such a post, but you're not going to be spend hours following them all. In that case the ones at the start are far more likely to be followed than those below (with the possible exception of links at the very end of a post).
These are issues I've been conscious of in constructing the regular Asia by Blog series. It comes down to weighing up being comprehensive to being practical. Going forward I am going to restrict the number of links in each edition in order to make each link more "valuable", albeit not at the expense of providing appropriate coverage. Thoughts welcomed.
Your law of linkage is a rework of Masnick's law of communication wnich was first published in 1973. That law states that a listerner's understanding is inversely proportional to the number of words used. Now this is the general law derived after much experimentation. If I remember the original research it was thought that it varied as the square root of the number of words used but many case studies later it was realised that this was too conservative. An 87% correlation to the direct inverse was found for educated humans.
There's another sign that property is hot again in HK: this is my second entry on the topic in two days (the first was on the new bubble). Jake van der Kamp in the SCMP notes an interesting discrepency opening up in Hong Kong's property market. Prices of larger flats (those over 1700 sq feet) have seen outsized gains compared to smaller ones. The chart is in the extended entry for your perusal. In 1990 the prices of all flats moved approximately in tandem. Since then and particularly in the past year or so the gap between the bigger and smaller flats has grown - they still move up and down together, but the spread between them grows ever larger. Larger flats are now 3 times the per square foot price of the smallest ones, a massive gap. As van der Kamp points out, these are average figures. He dismisses the value of premium flats because of this, however especially in a rising market, the top end of the premium market is going to drag the average of that class higher still. Nevertheless his main point remains valid.
More interestingly is his question as to why this should be so. The second chart shows that Hong Kong has become a much wealthier place in the past 20 years; real per capita GDP has doubled in that time to US$24,000 per person. At the same time the average usable size of new private flats has actually declined slightly. Today the average size of new flats sold in HK is 370 sq feet of usable area. People with US$24,000 each of economic value do not want to live in flats no bigger than a closet.
Who is to blame? I would have thought it was the property developers whom insist on building such tiny places. But apparently not. It is the planning regulators that decide the size of units in each approved development. So civil servants, many of whom no doubt live in substantially larger units than this 370 sq foot average, determine that Hong Kongers must continue to live in tiny flats. Because that's how things have always been done. Perhaps if these civil servants were made to actually live in the apartments they approve, things would be different. In the interim the market has found its own solution: the price of bigger flats is going up faster than those of smaller ones. With the long lead times on new property developments, the planners need to start approving larger flats fast, or they'll have a middle-class riot on there hands when the price of bigger places becomes completely out of reach.
Jake has comemnted on this before, and predicted about 2 years ago that demand for larger flats would drive the prices of these flats proportionately more than for the normal rabbit hutch apartments.
My recent exploration of the rental market bears this out - the price for a 1765 sq. ft. flat in the development I have been focussing on (and I have looked at 20 or more flats in the development) is about two thirds higher than for a 1350 sq. ft. flat in the same development though it less than one third larger.
China's rapid economic growth is putting a squeeze on resources, including water. At the same time as it grows wealthier there has been an explosion of car ownsership. So naturally combnie the two and you get the very best of Chinese ingenuity: the 300mL car wash. If they could only figure how to make the cars run on 300mL of petrol, everyone would be happy. Well, except some Middle East despots.
There's plenty of interesting Korea news at the moment and it can't wait for the next Asia by Blog.
Marmot comprehensively covers reports that China would send up to 400,000 troops to support North Korea in a war, including the US plan that called for almost 700,000 American troops within 90 days in the event of a conflict. I'm tipping that now wouldn't be such a good time then. Interestingly America has agreed to delay its troop withdrawal by 3 years, to give Seoul more time to prepare. Perhaps because the latest reports are that Seoul would fall to North Korea within 15 days without US troops. Ironically at the same time there is a report on a secret South Korean plan for dealing with the collapse of North Korea, including accomodating 200,000 defectors. While I'm writing this I'm watching the end of the US Vice Presidential debate. Asia, home to one third of the Axis of Evil, has not been mentioned.
Technically speaking, Asia contains *all* the members of the Axis of Evil. But that's another story.
I think the explanation is pretty simple:
Cheney didn't mention East Asia because there's no oil there.
Edwards didn't mention East Asia because (a) Cheney didn't mention it and (b) there are no Democratic voters there.
Once you realize that American politicians operate through a narrow set of policy blinders, you start to realize why our government misses so much that's going on in the world...
Add Joe Jones to the long list of American apologists. They fall over themselves to be the first to denigrate their country to some third world mongrel who shits where he/she eats. It's like badmouthing sex to a celibate goat, hoping to get laid. Pathetic.
Movies get re-made all the time, with adaptions to their new audiences. Personally I'd like to see Green Card redone with Chinese characteristics. Casting suggestions welcomed.
China has made a great deal of noise about clamping down on corruption amongst the ranks. One of the steps was to publish the report of the State Audit Office, which exposed upward of 4 billion yuan of embezzled funds and caused 600 cadres to lose their jobs. Now China News Weekly reports only 12 of 41 central government units and 5 of 21 provincial ones have done anything about it. In other words, a few have been punished and now it's business as usual. Another example of lip service. Until China publicly and systematically goes about uprooting corruption, all the public pronouncements aren't worth the paper they're written on.
China has been desperately trying to engineer a "soft landing" for its economy after growth approached unsustainable levels in the past year or so. At first they used market based mechanisms to achieve this, for example by increasing bank reserve requirements (which should have restricted lending). This didn't work. So they moved onto more direct tools, for example the Government started restricting lending to particular sectors by diktat.
But now there are fears the efforts have been overdone and in fact will backfire. The Standard quotes economist Andy Xie:
"The world is sitting atop the biggest property bubble in history, with the biggest exposure in China and the US, in my view,'' he said.
If the bubble's origin is super-loose United States monetary policy, which has sent waves of cheap cash sloshing round world markets, China has made matters worse by refusing to raise interest rates in line with inflation, he said.
Deposits pay 1.98 per cent a year, well below inflation of 5.3 per cent, spurring more people to put savings into property as a hedge against inflation, which is already being fuelled by speculative real estate purchases from overseas Chinese.
The SCMP also reports the Chinese authorities are now scapping the previous restrictions. While still keeping tight control over money and land supply, the administrative restrictions on lending to certain sectors will be removed. Why? Because the measures were too effective: lending completely stopped for the most part in sectors such as steel, aliminium, cement, property development and car manufacturing. That's the problem with regulations rather than price based mechanisms in an economy.
Even more interesting is the role of black market financing in China. From the same article mentioned above:
Informal financing is a staple in entrepreneurial corners of China where many resort to banks only for large sums. Citigroup's Huang Yiping puts the size of the informal capital market in Wenzhou at 200 billion yuan (HK$188.46 billion), exceeding the 180 billion yuan in deposits lodged with commercial banks.
Economists say interest rates on the kerb market in places like Wenzhou has risen to around 15 per cent.
So where price based mechanisms work, interest rates are high. Real (ie after inflation) interest rates are negative based on the official figures. This means depositing money in the bank actually penalises you, because your deposits lose value in real terms. So inevitably the money flows to other asset classes, which in China basically means property. That is the basis of the fears of a property bubble, much the same as in Hong Kong.
In any economy the key in monetary policy is not the nominal interest rate level, but real interest rates. Negative real rates are appropriate when an economy is in recession and needs a monetary stimulus. They are not appropriate when the economy is growing at 9.6% per annum and investment is growing at 15% per annum. Yet China's authorities still refuse to raise official interest rates. With China's households being massive net savers, the wall of money will continue to flow to more speculative sectors until such time as they feel they can get an appropriate return on their money. It's a disaster in the making and it needn't be that way. But China's authorities need to gain confidence in price based economic tools, and raising rates would be a good start.
A question for the smart people out there. I understand that although China has a huge trade surplus vis-a-vis the US plus healthy FDI, their overall trade balance is flat.
Why should their reserves in US$ be growing so rapidly. Shouldn't most, if not all, of those $ be needed to buy the raw materials (mostly quoted in USD) or the currencies of those nations in which they have a trade deficit?
Ken, I think it's because while Wal Mart buys Chinese product in bulk, China in turn buys huge amounts of raw materials and thus runs deficits with those countries that supply it with raw materials.
In answer to why their net reserves build up, it's a function of having a fixed exchange rate. If there is net surplus demand for yuan, which there is at the moment, then the Central Bank has to print extra yuan and gets to buy US dollars with the new money. This continues until the demand changes and then they need to start selling the US dollars back to buy yuan. It's why China faces inflation - all that extra yuan chasing the same amount of goods.
Perhaps I am seeing it now - if they have excess USD coming in because they sell the US more than they buy, then USD would build up in their system. If the US were their only trade partner, then they would have an overall trade surplus. But they have a balanced trade ledger. Which means that some other country, let's say Germany, is selling them more than Germany buys from China. China would then need to buy net Euros.
You are saying that instead of selling USD to buy Euros, they "print" RMB and buy Euros.
Makes sense as this is why their reserves are growing, their trade balance is flat and they have high domestic money growth.
Hong Kong's papers are all covering the biggest story to hit the town since a rogue crocodile: the demolition of 83 safe deposit boxes at a branch of DBS Bank in Mei Foo. The SCMP attempted to reach the contractor renovating the branch, end(ing) with an office staff member refusing to accept calls and hanging up the phone. Now the problems really start. By their nature the contents of those boxes is private. So how will DBS go about compensating the aggrieved box holders? Does it simply take their claims at face value? It's one hell of a mess.
I imagine HK's Inland Revenue Department will be helping the aggrieved box holders with their claims.
UPDATE:Hemlock (Wed, Oct 6 entry) sees even more sinister undertones:
For decades, Singapore’s proprietor Lee Kwan-yew has plundered his subjects’ wealth by diverting their savings into a provident fund that invests in state-owned losers – sunset industries and cosseted corporations, like Deposit Box Scrapper itself. Could it be that the Lion City is now ransacking the Big Lychee’s private hoards in a desperate attempt to maintain its despotic regime, with its elaborate and costly security apparatus of public speaking permits, chewing gum detection devices and rattan canes? No other explanation makes sense. How despicable.
Michele eloquently and accurately pops the latest blogging bubble. Her premise is simple: that the very moment blogging is getting wide exposure, blogging is also reaching a low point. While I agree with her sentiments I can see a silver lining in the current clouds.
At least some blogs are mutating into quasi-journalists, hunting for scoops and trying to break news as a direct result of the success of the Rathergate (what a horrid name; it's such a cliché to add "-gate" to any controversy. Surely the blogosphere could have come up with some better?) and the large spike in traffic that resulted. The emergence of advertising on blogs and the rush of such exposure has turned some blogs into "scoop junkies".. This inevitably leads to pressure to break the next big story. But just like Big Media, news isn't like that. There are occasional big stories separate by the more humdrum and mundane. Sometimes several big stories break at once, but then there are periods of relative "quiet".
Some bloggers whom have hit upon the idea they may be journalists may be right. As is so common, whereas initially the blogging medium was composed mostly of generalists, we are now seeing the rapid specialisation by some blogs. This narrowed focus creates blog experts in particular fields and allows readers to jump immediately to certain nodal blogs for information on particular subjects. This is, I think, what Michele is lamenting. But specialists are following their interests and their traffic. The rewards (either financial, in readership or otherwise) are there for those that follow their focus. Yet there is still room for generalist blogs, although their popularity may suffer. Every day there are more blogs, there is more to read and yet God dictates there are only 24 hours in each day. You could compare the changes in the blogosphere to the general pattern of evolution - a combination of survival of the fittest and the best adapted. Generalists retain their niche and specialists find theirs, all coming together in a "blogosystem".
However at times the output of the blogosystem as a whole can disappoint readers, particularly long time ones. Blogs change over time as the interests of the author(s); some blogs that are now branching into journalism are a case in point. Along the way they will lose some readers and gain others. It is part of the constant process of change in the evolving life of each blog within the blogosystem. Just as the blogosystem as a whole evolves, so do the blogs within it. I share Michele's disappointment that some previously favourite sites have changed for ways I consider less interesting. But thankfully there are plenty of others out there to take up the slack. Another analogy is a marketplace. Stores change their wares to capture new or different customers or enhance their profits. Some older customers don't like the changes and have to find new stores to replace them. It's a pain in the backside, especially after finding a set that you like and can rely on. But eventually you find others to take their place. The stores (blogs) follow their self-interest and the shoppers (readers) follow theirs, and Adam Smith's Invisible Hand creates something greater. It's laissez-faire capitalism in action.
Longer time readers will note that the weekly "Enemablog" feature, where I summarised some of my favourite links of the week from around the blogosphere. It was for a simple reason: each week there was less and less I thought interesting or worthy enough to link to. I understand the intensity of the coverage of the US election; the importance of breaking the Rather story; and the other top stories floating around at the moment. They bore me to tears. The constant incestual linking between certain blogs is danger of becoming a constant cycle of mutual admiration to the exclusion of anything interesting. There seems to be so many more important things in the world worth talking about: Darfur, Iraq, events all over Asia. But if my previously favourite blogs choose to focus on things that no longer interest me, then that is fine. I'll simply move on to those that do. Like Michele. Or Joe. Or Dean. Or Helen. Or any one of the other blogs on my blogrolls. Time and content permitting, I'll bring that weekly feature back once I start seeing links again worth hanging on to.
We bloggers and blog readers have a choice. Thank God for the blogosystem's diversity.
That's the beauty of the RSS reader, no? I can plug all of the blogs I like into it and, in one place, see what everyone is writing about. And if they happen to be focusing on the color (sorry, colour) pen John Kerry pulls from his pocket, well, I can move on to something more interesting. I'd say, once again, you've nailed it.
I've noticed a lot of blogs changing, and quite a number dropping off. I too have started reading fewer and fewer blogs, other than my die-hard favorites which I have linked in a certain place.
Your blog has also changed a lot-I read more of an edge to your posts, more of a strident political nature than perhaps you had even 6 months ago. But it's the way you write things that brings me here, and it's the fact that I really like you and your writing that keeps me here.
You self aggrandizing pinheads crack me up. "Rathergate" was not broken by a blogger. it was done by a dude named Buckhead on a website called "FreeRepublic.com". FreeRebublic is not a blog but a message board. I love how your sad little community is lamenting the fact that any idiot can put up his own webpage and post a bunch of links to a bunch of other sad dorks' websites. Face facts, there is little difference between most of you. You offer nothing different than countless other attention starved children. As for being journalists, why would you want to go from being an amateur idiot to being a professional one? If you are starting to worry that your voice will be lost amongst the cacophony of sad sacks, take off your pajamas, buy a megaphone and a soapbox and take your show on the road...
Suddenly property in Hong Kong is hot again. The number of transactions jumped by 26% in September from the previous month, and the value of transactions jumped by 34% from August. Year on year the jump in value is a massive 75%. Suddenly all the usual suspects, from real estate agents to property developers, are signalling the boom times are here again. The SCMP reports on a record price for a Mid Levels apartment of more than US$3,500 per square foot. Factors driving this include improved economic outlook, new development launches and the 95 per cent mortgage introduced by the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation in July and of course speculation. Indeed analysts generally believe that in the mass housing market prices will rise by 10 to 30 per cent next year.
There's one problem. Rents are not rising anywhere near as fast, if at all. What does that matter? Well just like a share reflects the present value of all future dividends so a property price should represent the present value of its rental income (either real or implied). If these rents are unchanged, and that is what the economic data is saying, then rising property prices indicate one of two things. Either investors are prepared to accept a lower return on their investment - this could be possible, but unlikely; or a this is a typical case of excess liquidity spilling over into asset price inflation.
You would have thought Hong Kong learnt the lessons of the 1997 Asia crisis and the subsequent property bust that caused years of economic malaise and deflation. But when a city's financial system is built on speculation, you can only keep animal spirits repressed for so long. In other words, here we go again.
Typically as the inflation accelerates, rents are the next to move up. Although US rates are rising they are lagging accelerating inflation. China's inflation is raging as well and they have not raised rates yet either. Hence HK rates have lagged US rates in rising, even as deflation turns to inflation in HK. So locals and PRC nationals have all been pushing prices higher. However, on the margin, people looking to come to HK to work and live (expats and PRC nationals) or just looking to move out of their parents 900 sq ft apt, and now priced out of the buyers mkt, look to rent.
This lagging of rents has serious implications on US inflation indexes going forward. One of the reasons US CPI was low these past few years was that the availability of low mortgage rates encouraged people to buy rather than rent. So rents, which are the measured component in the US CPI for both rent and house prices, were pushing inflation DOWN even with house prices rising. Now that rents are beginning to rise, the downward influence is about to reverse, sending CPI higher even as interest rates rise. Henry Kaufman, in his autobio. notes how Paul Volcker was shocked when he kept raising rates ever more aggressively but the CPI kept climbing, non-plussed. Volcker had to really hit the brakes hard to get inflation under control.
And once again, real rates almost everywhere are neutral to negative ie short term rates are BELOW the inflation rate. Could we see Greenspan more aggressive after the election in the US?
speaking impartially, i think everyone should rush out and buy property immediately, in particular i think flats of about 500 sq ft in or around kennedy town are excellent value.
This morning I went to the Australian Consulate here in Hong Kong and voted. The whole process took less than 5 minutes; there were no hoardes of desperate politico types shoving wads of waste paper ("how to vote" leaflets) into my hands and exorting me to vote for Labor/Liberal/Democrats/Greens/No GST/Fishing/Lower Beer Excise/Family First (all real parties); no waiting in lines and all during work time.
Hong Kong is missing a massive tourism opportunity.
Manchester United is being taken over by an American. What hasn't been reported is Malcolm Glazer's plans for the future of the club. I have it on good authority he plans to suggest a few changes to increase the appeal of English Premier League and soccer in general.
Firstly Man U will be renamed the Manchester Cowboys. There will now be an offensive and defensive teams, with numerous breaks so they can all run on and off the field at random times. Body armour will become compulsary for all players. In what will no doubt be a popular innovation, the Manchester Cowgirls will form a new cheer squad with the finest lasses the Mersey Irwell (see below) has to offer. Cigars will be handed out for free at all games but due to no-smoking rules they must only be chomped, not smoked.
But most excitingly will be a new method of starting the game. In fact we have a photo of a helpful demonstration of this innovation:
Senator Kerry demonstrates the new starting method of English Soccer:
oh yes but of course manyooo will then be known as the man united *SOCCER* club. and then that malcolm geezer (glazer, geezer what's the diff?) will make sure the following insidious transformation of the game beyond utter recognition like:
1. calling it INTERMISSION instead of half-time
2. calling it FIRST/SECOND PERIOD instead of first or second half
3. replace the current crop of english commentators with droning american types
oh and counting down the match from 00:90:00 instead of starting from 00:00:00.
i'll switch my loyalty to, erm, arsenal if the deal goes through. at least 'em frogs call it le *FOOTBALL*.
Posted by the letter b at October 5, 2004 12:04 PM
The Mersey? I think you need a geography lesson. No one from Merseyside is going to support a team that is not Liverpool, Everton or Tranmere Rovers.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Please send me an email if you would like to be notified of new editions. Previous editions can be found here.
Reminding you there's more to the world than two old white guys debating...
Hong Kong, China and Taiwan
Tom discusses the possibility that China might start dumping their US dollar investments, with the inevitable "blame Bush" angle. Problem is where else will they go? The yuan is pegged only against the US dollar - it would be taking a hell of a gamble to start investing in Euros or even (perish the thought) Yen instead. China and Japan are hostages of their large US dollar holdings. Dumping them only hurts themselves.
Marmot has more reactions on the passing of the North Korean Human Rights Act in the US. And Matthew Stinsons' Hollywood analogy of North Korea exposes the futility of the South's Sunshine Policy. For an interesting contrary view on living in North Korea, try Part 1 and Part 2 at Dog Stew.
Following up on his earlier post on what to do about North Korea, Power Politics addresses some other proposals.
The Bank of Japan has quietly bought out the private sector banks' share portfolios. So now the BoJ are punting shares, rather than the banks. Doesn't really solve the problem, does it? Also Joe has a wrap-up of stories from Japan over the weekend.
I fully understand there are people who don't care about the outcome of the presidential election in the United States. Or are bored with it all.
However, from all indications, more people worldwide are following this American election than any other in U.S. political history. For those of us who feel it important that we address it now, knowing full well that folks wanting to read about China and East Asia will stay away from our sites posthaste, I want to just politely nudge ya and say, hey, why pick on us publicly? We're just doing what comes natural. In 30 days we'll be writing about China and every other thing Asian again.
Of course, some visiters may never come back to read it. But that's what makes things go 'round and 'round and keeps us sharp.
All the best,
Joseph
Posted by Joseph Bosco at October 5, 2004 01:35 AM
"China and Japan are hostages of their large US dollar holdings."
Very accurate judgment! Many entrepreneurs believe that the peg is *hurting*.
History reminds us that all great empires couldn't believe they failed.
Joseph: I understand the intense interest in the election campaign. My point is in the interim there's plenty else going on in the world. Secondly and more likely to upset you, there is in fact little difference in the policy substance between Bush and Kerry; the differences are one of style.
If only that were true, Simon. Kerry has been a long time deficit hawk (he's my Senator) and Bush promised 4 years ago that his tax cuts wouldn't create a deficit. I knew Bush was lying through his teeth and in 4 years he's taken a public surplus and turned it in to a half-trillion dollar yearly deficit.
Move a half-trillion dollars a year from the private investment zone to the public treasuries and it will create substantial differences...
Tom: do you really think Kerry can make all his promises and hope to reign in the deficit. It will come down to reducing the deficit OR fulfilling his promises, as it will for Bush. So again, they are effectively the same, it's just that Bush has already shown his preference for spending whereas Kerry might actually do something about the deficit. Then again, he might not.
I am an American and the election of Kerry will have grave implications for Taiwan, a nation I have come to care about. Kerry is insane enough to actually promote the "one country two systems" method, where as George W. Bush at least wants to maintain the status quo.
I am neither Democrat nor Republican and usually do not care much for politics, but this time around, the stakes are just too high to ignore.
The British have much to answer for. It seems they don't even understand the basics of property, such as giving land back to the people you took it from, rather than someone else. Now the good people of Sulu in the southern Philippines are again pushing their territorial claims to Sabah, now a province of Malaysia. But even worse was the deal the British negotiated. Malaysia's Government pays annual rent of RM5,000 (about US$1,300) to the Sultan of Sulu as compensation. The payment of rent implies the land is still properly belonging to the Sultan of Sulu, even if the land itself is rented in perpetuity. What exactly have the British done for the world?
i am not going to rise too far to the bait, but i would point out that we gave the world australia, where you claim to hail from, hong kong, where you are happily paying 15% tax so can go "home" to australia and lord it over all the poor suckers who have been paying 50%+ while you've been away, and of Britain - which is what it says on your passport i believe
again, without rising to the bait too much....can anyone name one famous australian inventor?
what have great britains given the world? cricket, rugby, darts, televison and radio broadcasting, the telephone, the hoover, penicilin, the clockwork radio, monty python and the office.
i once heard an australian boast that the man who gave the world the rotating washing line came from his home town. impressive stuff.
jonny wilkinson comes from my home town - and you can rest assured i've told a few aussies about that one.
Mick, while the history of Australia's land titles is a long and interesting one, I'll point out it was again the British who "took" the land, and there was no rent negotiated. It was simply taken. However I'd be happy to discuss the merits of native land title and the Australian system whenever you like.
Aaron and Giles, you have to weigh up that against the other little things you gave the world, like a hotchpotch of random borders, whinging, Lady Di and, well, you two.
just my two penneth's worth: the brits also took singapore from the johoreans (that southernmost state of johore of peninsular malaysia) by paying a pittance to the so-called rightful sultan of johor. i said so-called 'cos there was this power struggle between said sultan and another rightful heir that the johoreans recognised.
till this day, said sultan's descendants are still compensated by by the singapore government. also, till this day, to the johoreans - and some malaysian malays - singapore belongs to them. just take a peek at the KLIA, flights to singapore are considered as domestic, just like the rest of the country.
yet i don't hear any whimper from the present sultan of johor demanding singapore to be returned to them. nor whingeing that the brits are cheats. like that sad self-styled filipino sultan.
Posted by the letter b at October 4, 2004 06:05 PM
There is truth in this, B. While I will be the first to admit that several borders changed or were created by the British to the long term annoyayance of us all, by the same logic we should remove Pakistan from the map, Kuwait as well, and Dissassemble Singapore and turn the Malayan penisula back into a swamp.
Actually, there is another island that gives the Brits and the Americans something to answer for-a tiny little island called Chago island, which the Brits owned, forced the natives out, and then leased to the Americans. It's a little island called Chago, in the Indian Ocean. There are no natives left there.
It's the oldest story in the world, and has been happening for centuries, will keep on happening, and p*sses us all off, frankly. I'm not pointing fingers, saying who's right or wrong, or proposing a solution. It just happens.
At least there are no more stores of Marmite on Chago, anyway. Progress. :)
The question I always wonder about is, "so how did the fellers the [pick one: British, Americans, French, Spanish] took the land from get the land in the first place?"
In many/most/all cases, I think they or their tribe took it by force from some less powerful fellers who were there before them.
For some time now, I've been working hard on a secret plan to restore peace to the Middle East - by taking the land from both the Israelis and Palestinians and giving it back to its rightful prededing owner - the Philistines !
I'm still looking for my first Philistine, however.
A common law jurisprudence beyond compare. A (relative to every other) streamlined, efficient and fair civil service and a great many other advancements that we consider essential for the machinations of a fair and free state.
Ahh, you blogged about it. Anyway, I must point out that the British North Borneo Charted Company didn't lease what was once Sulu Borneo - they bought the sovereignity of the land at 5,000 Mexican dollars a year.
Just because there is no time limit to the payments, doesn't mean that the Sulu Sultanate has any claims left to Sabah.
I blogged about it: http://blog.rajanr.com/?itemid=450
John, would that be the same civil service that provided such good advice to Tony Blair over Iraq? The same country that bases its constitution on unwritten and ambiguous rules? Common law, being law decided by unelected officials? Yep, plenty to be thankful for there.
What the UK does offer is the Royal Family. A wonderfully anachronistic institution that fills so many newspages and magazines, boosting tourism and being a great experiment in in-breeding.
what was done in the past was at the time considered enlightened thought. it was an attempt to expand "civilised" british influence and bring order, chaos and "civilisation" to all parts of the globe. in aprticualr africa which was viewed by all westerners at the time as a lawless and feudal place where western laws and customs would improve the lot of the natives. and the invasions were not exactly difficult - they weren't wars as we know them now - in the immortal words of edmund blackadder, in the late 1800's and early 1900s "if you saw someone in a skirt you shot him and nicked his country". with the exception of chaka zula and his infamous impis (don't point those bloody spears at me!) most places didn't put up a fight and we just walked into and imposed rule on chaos - a bit like australia walking into the solomon islands say!
it is easy to now look back and view imperialism and the random drawing of borders and partition of countries with horror, but no doubt in 100 yrs time people will be looking at todays decisions and wondering what the hell everyone was doing.
certainly with hindsight mistakes were made but at the time the decisions were in line with the accepted thinking and policies of the age.
let's hope your blogf stands the test of time eh simon. i'd hate to think people would look at it in the future and think you were an idiot too.
The Brits gave HK back to the natives. Maybe the Queen should do the same with Australia. She is still the Australian head of state isn't she?
Next Christmas broadcast: "My Australian subjects have been living the good life for the last 200 years. Now it is time to for me give the lucky country back to the not-so-lucky original owners."
Cough up some rent you bastards.
Do you ever look at your workmate Giles and wonder if you beat him senselessly with a can of Vanilla Coke and stuffed him in the desk cupboard, if anyone would object?
thanks for that constructive criticism Helen. i haven't ever read your blog, and based on those comments never will either. As Simon is aware most of my comments are tongue-in-cheek, tho it does annoy me when people apply todays standards to things done in the past. i was just trying to make the point that sometime in the future people will judge todays actions, which may seem logical and rational now (unless you are talking about Iraq obviously), by their standards, which may easily be wildly different to ours, and wonder what the hell we were doing.
and no he can't beat me to death with a can of vaniulla coke and stuff me in a work cupboard because
a) our coke machine here doesn't have vanilla coke, and i can't believe he'd bother to go and get some from outside to do it
b) our work cupboards are non-existent
and c) i'm bigger than him
if it makes you feel better he does regularly thrash me at squash though.
The SCMP reports on a plan that only Hong Kong can love:
Hundreds of trees near the Stanley waterfront will be chopped down to make way for Hong Kong's first garden park in a bid to boost tourism. The 48,477-square-metre site, bordered by historic Murray House, Ma Hang Estate and Cape Road, will be cleared under the Housing Authority plan...
The park will have two sections. Two-thirds of the site will be turned into a public park, with a hiking trail, nature education path and playgrounds. The rest of the site will become the horticultural park, which will feature different types of Chinese-style plantings. Visitors will be charged to enter.
Knocking down trees to make a park. It's actually quite funny, but inevitable all the same.
China has taken to imitating Groucho Marx in expressing a complete lack of interest in joining the G7 anytime soon. Why would they bother? Sure it's nice to sit and chew the fat with some of the big boys, and sure China is now the seventh biggest economy in the world (and growing rapidly to boot), but to go and listen to everyone lecturing you that you need to loosen your exchange rate every year is a bit much. The G7 has ceased to be an effective talking shop years ago.
The Hong Kong Jockey Club has taken a leaf out of the Big Tobacco school of addiction and had a family day out at Sha Tin yesterday. Typically anti-gambling groups have protested the day, criticising the Jockey Club's excuse that it was a day for families to celebrate China's National Day by correctly pointing out the races were held 2 days after the said day.
Nevertheless I wholeheartedly endorse the HK Jockey Club's move. Firstly it's great for the kids to see where Mummy and especially Daddy are pissing their hard-earned dollars instead of investing in their children's education and future. Secondly given the HK Jockey Club is effectively also Hong Kong's social welfare agency and white elephant creator, the little 'uns may as well give something back to to Hong Kong. Can't be selfish and all. Thirdly it could be worse: they could be forced to go watch executions instead (thanks Enzo for the tip). Lastly I'd much rather they were out at Sha Tin rather than swarming over Ocean Park with the millions of Mainlanders whom descended upon the place yesterday. Why you would build a huge fun park on the side of a mountain without ramps for, say, strollers, beats me. But it was built with a kind donation from the Jockey Club*.
Thanks kids.
* As compared to HK Disneyland, which has chewed up over US$4 billion of HK Government money.
Hong Kongers have great experience with Mother Britain turning its back on its erstwhile colonials. In the lead-up to 1997 and with overblown fears of hoardes of wealthy Hong Kongers fleeing to London and Liverpool, the UK came up with a wheeze to deny HKers British citizenship. Instead they offered ersatz passports called British National Overseas, which are passports without citizenship. It was a disgusting episode by the British and a funny way to say thank you to one of its more successful colonies.
And now they are doing it again. The Nepalese Ghurkas, considered good enough to join the British army and risk life and limb for the Queen, have until now been denied citizenship by the British. Tony Blair has given in to immense pressure and now allowed Ghurkas whom have served in the British armed forces the right to citizenship. With a catch. The law will apply only to those demobilised after July 1, 1997. Not co-incidently, this is the day that Hong Kong was handed back to China. To see why, we need to go over some history:
The Gurkhas have served in the British army since 1815 when they impressed officers with their valiant defence against British invasion.
The brigade was transferred to Hong Kong from Malaysia in the 1970s to help quell Chinese-communist fomented political unrest. Some 7,500 were stationed here in 1997, but ahead of the handover Britain trimmed to brigade's numbers by some 5,000, the rest being redeployed around the world.
About half those demobbed remained in the city, taking advantage of the Beijing-backed government's offer of right of abode.
A far more comprehensive history is here. At the time of the handover many had been demobilised. It is an exact repeat of the short-sightedness that clouded the Home Office's vision in the lead up to the handover with Hong Kongers. There will not be hoardes of Ghurkas suddenly upping sticks and moving to England. And even if they did, the UK should welcome them with open arms and say thank you for everything you did for us. Instead we have another example of British xenophobia masked as a "prudent" decision. It is disgusting and demeans the UK.
Have to agree that the government has got it wrong on this one and the earlier decision not to grant HK people the right to British citizenship. Unfortunately immigration is such a sensitive subject in the UK that they always tend to be over-cautious.
On which subject, perhaps you can remind which country it was that denied access to a boatload of refugees and prevented anyone seeing what was happening.
The national anthem and a video featuring diving star Guo Jingjing and astronaut Yang Liwei will be broadcast on Hong Kong's Chinese-language television stations every night from today in an attempt to boost people's patriotism.
I hadn't realised that CCTV had taken over Pearl and Jade - missed that one in the business pages. It might be a slight improvement over the inane Announcements of Public Interest (APIs) that dominate the airwaves, but only just.
It is a great irony that while Hong Kong is home to some of the best and cheapest TVs in the world, there's absolutely nothing to watch on them at all.
Actually it's just Home and Jade. No national anthem before the Pearl News last night. I guess they don't care to instill "patriotism" and love of the motherland in English-speakers.
I get a unique cable package here at my university that includes programming from Taiwan, Japan, the US and Hong Kong.
It's really horrible what they beam in sometimes. You often hear that globalization is just a means of exporting America's trash all over the world. As a case in point, last night my girlfriend insisted we watch "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire?" that terrible FOX show from at least 2 years ago.
Maybe. I don't know why bird flu hasn't been getting much attention yet. Thankfully Thailand is taking the threat seriously and China and others are stepping up their prevention methods. Perhaps some of the lessons of SARS have been learnt after all.
After my detailed and careful reasoning on how I'm going to vote in Australia's election, Kolya sends me a good reason to reconsider:
Right wing Australian Christian political party Family First wants an annual levy of $7 to $10 on all internet users in Australia to fund a $45 million mandatory national internet filtering scheme aimed at blocking pornographic and offensive content at server level...Great firewall of Australia, here we come!
The good people from the China firewall department would love to help, I'm sure.
Due to a contractual dispute, they've just stopped publishing the Alex cartoon in the business section. On the plus side Jake van der Kamp nicely fisks James Tien of the Liberal Party today. He is now the only reason to buy that paper.