I am a big fan of ESWN. Amongst other things tt constantly has thought-provoking, well written and cosmopolitan posts on Hong Kong and China. Allow me to take a leaf from Roland's book and link his dinner party with a post on HK's income tax and mix it all in with a dose of democracy and a pinch of blogging.
This was the annual shareholders' meeting for my cooperative apartment building in Hong Kong. There were about 10 people present, and we dealt with the business issues quickly and then we sat down for the meal. As we ate dinner, we had a chance to talk about other matters.
Who are these people? There was a doctor, an English-language teacher, a financial advisor, a retired elderly lady, a restaurant owner and three factory owners. Their ages range between fifty to eighty-three. Given that they own apartments in one of the most exclusive neighborhoods in Hong Kong (note: Jackie Chen just bought a house down the street), they are presumed to be among the upper class elite here.
What did they talk about? Read the post. But here's the conclusion:
I am thinking about the Hong Kong political blogosphere. I must say that those who write about politics are predominantly oriented towards the so-called pan-democratic 'grass roots' mindset. Who would speak up consistently on behalf of people like my fellow shareholders? Nobody I know. This creates a skewed representation of public opinion in the manner of the "Spiral of Silence" of Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann -- a small self-selected group dominates the share of voice among those who speak out, thus creating the impression that they represent the majority.
So why won't they speak on their own behalf? These people are too busy looking after their businesses to blog!
So there you have it. A sliver of the upper class elite are more interested in the status quo but are too busy to do much about it. To be fair the group were equally unhappy with the HK Government. On the other hand, a couple of hundred thousand Hong Kongers care enough each year to march for democracy. It would be great to have more views and voices in HK blogging so this could be debated in greater depth. The barriers to entry in blogging are extremely low and it needn't take much time. If they want to join the debate, let them. Otherwise they forfeit their right to be a part of the decision.
ESWN also links to a Media Matters fact-check on HK's flat tax regime (a related MM post on the issue is here). The MM people are correct. HK's flat tax is paid by only a tiny minority of all taxpayers. But it also highlights one of the failures of HK's governance. Firstly the numbers:
In the assessment year of 2002-03, among the 3 million or so working population, only 1.2 million people are subject to salaries tax. And among these taxpayers, only 13,000 are subject to the standard rate...According to government figures, the total number of people paying the standard rate of tax will rise to 27,000 in 2003-04 and 44,000 by 2005.
With roughly 3 million workers in Hong Kong, the 44,000 expected to pay the standard rate of tax this year is less than 1.5 percent of the total.
HK's standard rate of tax is 16% of income after allowances. Otherwise people are taxed on a sliding scale, with a person earning the equivalent of US$33,000 paying US$75 income tax. While this is a boon for the vast majority of HK workers, it means HK's Government receives little in income tax. Instead the Government relies on other sources of income and especially land sales and profits tax. What does that do? Let's make a heroic assumption that Governments are rational economic actors. Government looks to maximise its revenue. So it is catering to those who keep it in power and pay it revenue. In Hong Kong this means the Government has incentives to pander to property developers and business tycoons at the expense of the vast majority. There are no elections and most pay little tax. So the Government follows its incentives. If more Hong Kong workers were paying more income tax, you can be sure Government would be even more responsive to their views. Instead the Government is contemplating a regressive flat sales tax to provide a steadier revenue stream that is not at the whim of the property and business cycles. I am not talking about raising income tax rates in Hong Kong. I am talking about broadening the income taxpaying base by reducing allowances and/or lowering thresholds. Anywhere else in the world someone earning US$33,000 is paying far more that US$75 in income tax.
A bargain in the making: an increase in income tax payments in return for democracy. If the Government took the advice of Roland's dinner guests and allowed more economic migrants they'd be laying the groundwork for improved revenue, make the factory owners happy and maybe even advance the cause of democracy in HK. They might even be moved to blog about it.
alas, the real barrier is not technological in nature; it is their perception that blogging has no material significance with respect to changing things in the real world at this moment in time. to put it bluntly, blogging is a just a small circular jerk-off that will not affect public opinion or government policy significantly. and I am afraid that they are right -- at this moment in time. we will have to wait to see what the future brings.
and it isn't even just about blogging either; they don't bother writing to newspapers or calling radio talk show programs either, because that too is a waste of time when there is a government too timid to act on anything because they are afraid of volatile citizens.
if this was the united states, they might have form a lobby group of factory owners, donate tons of money to re-elect senators and congressmen and then get their preferred legislation passed. here, they don't have the time to deal that mind of stuff.
they are economic opportunists. they will take whatever is out there, and go with it. that is why they are talking about moving to macau; and if they have to move to cambodia, they would too.
yes, we can just write them off because they don't bother to engage. but if we are talking about hong kong's prosperity and competitiveness, then these are the key people who are available for the taking. why send them away?
professionally, i am known to have an elephantine memory.
i will lead you back to a comment of yours in july 2004 about a post of mine on the Hong Kong Legco functional constituency positions.
let me ask you now: given what was said about my dinner with the factory owners at the dinner, do you think that they would be fairly represented in a completely directly elected Legco? or would they need a functional constituency representative?
incidentally, i suspect that they don't care one way or the other, because they will simply accept what happens and look for the best opportunity.
this question is really from the perspective of what is best for Hong Kong as a whole.
I remember that comment. My position hasn't changed. Those factory owners should not have a disproportionate representation via functional constituencies. The main principle of a democracy is "one person, one vote". Factory owners don't deserve, even if they don't care, to have a disproportionate share of the vote. If there was universal suffrage, everyone would be fairly represented. I suppose it depends upon what you classify as "best for HK". Churchill said democracy is the worst system of government we have except for all the others.
One other point. The apathy of these people, for mine, means they forfeit any rights to complain. I understand your point. Instead of doing something about it they just go to where the next opportunity is. To me that seems almost cowardly. Clearly they have, in the past, been good for HK. But if they have such a mercanary attitude, then HK will be the better for their decision. It has the added bonus of forcing HK to become more competitive to retain their interest as well. It's just that our unrepresentative Government is doing an appalling job of it. On that we can all agree.
it is odd that i find myself sometimes speaking on their behalf. my values could not be more different from their 'amoral individualism.' yet it saddens to me to see these opportunities for Hong Kong slip away so quietly.
The World Economic Forum at Davos gathers the great and good to discuss the pressing issues of the day. It acts as a headline grabber for a week and allow "networking" opportunities between various elites. Bill Gates has used the platform to perform a Rupert Murdoch, lavishing praise on China's leadership. Naturally part of his motive will be to advance the interests of his company. But I suspect Bill has mixed his message. Gates said:
They have this mericratic way of picking people for these government posts where you rotate into the university and really think about state allocation of resources and the welfare of the country and then you rotate back into some bureaucratic position."
China has historically had meritocratic methods of selecting public servants. The CCP have continued that tradition, albeit with large dollops of nepotism and corruption. But again that is just as it has always been throughout China's history.
His praise for the leadership:
This generation of leaders is so smart, so capable, from the top down, particularly from the top down.
Again, there is an element of truth in this. This generation of leaders is the first in generations to consist of technocrats rather than despots and autocrats. Whether they deserve the lavish praise Gates has lauded upon them is a different matter. Gates also partially got something else right:
[Gates] says [China] has created a brand-new form of capitalism that benefits consumers more than anything has in the past. "It is a brand-new form of capitalism, and as a consumer its the best thing that ever happened."
China is, to some extent, a more "capitalist" economy than many realise. That's partially because regulation and law lags the rapid changes in China's economy. There are some true "laissez-faire" aspects in modern China. At the same time, however, the state owns the largest banks and biggest manufacturers. The state plays a key role in allocating contracts and capital. Bill's right: it's capitalism but not as we know it. He's right on one other aspect, with one small omission. It's great for American consumers. But wait, there's more:
He characterised the Chinese model in terms of "willingness to work hard and not having quite the same medical overhead or legal overhead"
To some extent he's right. China's lack of basic safeguards for workers mean labour costs are low. It also means China loses a horrendous number of lives to industrial accidents, has an army of labour with no protection if they get sick, when they retire or if there wages aren't paid. But that's the price you pay if you want cheap t-shirts.
Of all the people in China who I got to know well - from itinerant artists to farmers to students to intellectuals to government officials - I never met anybody who didn't believe that "democracy" is something China needs more of. The problem is they want to get from here to there without revolution, violence, or risks to their jobs. Most Chinese now have enough to lose after 25 years of reform. They don't like foreigners lecturing them about how they should run their country even if they don't like the way the current leadership runs it - it's called pride. But some Chinese will also admit that the embarrassment of outside media scrutiny and diplomatic pressure is also helping to change some less-than-democratic government behaviors.
For mine this is only part of the answer. As people have more to lose, especially materially, they demand a greater say in how things are run to preserve and continue their prosperity. China's current leadership have gained legitimacy by engineering the current boom. So long as they remain competent economic managers their reign is likely to continue. Things such as human rights and democracy aren't on most people's radars. They're too busy making money. It's when the merry-go-round stops the leadership will find itself in trouble. The current tensions in the country come from inequality, discrimination against minorities and poor working conditions. Keeping a lid on these requires redistribution of wealth. In order to stay "Gatesian" capitalist, China needs to become more Communist. Ironic, isn't it?
Update: Lest you think the title of this post is sarcastic, I put to you that Beijing runs Boeing.
Hong Kong consistently wins the label of "World's Free-est Economy." It is richly undeserved. Hong Kong's economy is free in the sense that business has few rules. But freedom does not mean a competitive economy. This excellent article summarises some of the main problems in Hong Kong: a lack of a competition law or authority; the lack of a level playing field; anti-competitive cartels; and collusion between firms and between business and government. The best analogy is from Baptist University Professor Tsang Shu-ki: "It's like playing football. Even if the players are civilised, does that mean we don't need a referee? Of course not." If judged from a corporate point of view, Hong Kong is the world's free-est economy. If judged from an economic welfare or a consumer point of view, it is far from it.
Update: Hell, even capitalist China is beating Honkers on this one.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, usually posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains a Korean drinking guide, the controversy over "Tsunami Song", HK's pliant press, Zhao Ziyang's funeral, North Korean's Pakistani purchases and plenty more...
China files less than 1% of the patents in the US and Europe. Not a surprise - China's advatnage (at the moment) is its ability to marry cheap labour with capital rather than to innovate. But in 20 years or so...
Apparently the Chinese hostages (now home) in Iraq suffered a case of mistaken identity.
Korea and Japan
Joi Ito has a case of a South Korean national being banned from taking a managerial promotion civil service exam in Japan due to her nationality. He's not impressed. Sean looks into the same issue in greater detail.
There are reports NK bought a nuke from Pakistan. I've always wondered how that happens. Does someone from NK ring up the Pakistan Government and request a transfer to the "Nuclear Arms for Sale" Department?
It's in no way a state funeral. It's an invitation-only ceremony with no government cadres, no public and, of course, no foreign reporters. As expected, a very low-profile body-farewell. In the dark.
A 15 year old boy wakes up in a remote Chinese province. He has breakfast with his parents then bustles off for some English lessons and scripture. He finds some time to play with his favourite toy: his laptop computer. In the afternoon he chats and argues, spends an evening in front of the TV and doing his home work before heading to bed. Pretty unremarkable stuff. Except this is a day in the life of the 11th Panchen Lama, China's officially approved re-incarnation of Buddha. Amongst the article's gems:
Now Panchen Lama has a desktop computer and a portable computer, which he is so fond of and will not let them out of his hands. He does his Chinese and English homework on the computer.
The servant monks say that the Living Buddha likes something of high-tech, such as computer, camera and videocassette recorder. But it is limited for his spare time. Being a Buddhist monk, the Living Buddha has strong self-discipline over himself though he is still very young. Therefore, he cannot touch all these high-tech things so often.
Let that be a lesson to all you techno-obsessed freaks. If you were the Living Buddha you'd have to control your urges with strong self-discipline. But wait, there's more:
After watching CCTV news, Panchen Lama studies Tibetan, practises calligraphy, goes over Chinese and English.
Good, patriotic Lama. Who said being a living god was fun?
There is a dispute over the legitimacy of the Panchen Lama. This account is of the "officially approved" by the CCP Lama. The dispute isn't over his divinity, but rather the method of his education and selection. I'm sure there are those better versed in the details of the ins and outs of Tibetan Buddhist politics, but that's my understanding.
There was a boy who was identified as the Panchen Lama by the Tibetans about ten years ago. The Chinese "rejected" him after they found out the Dalai Lama was consulted about the selection. The boy and his family were secretely relocated (or something like that) and the CCP selected their own Panchen Lama. That's who this story was about. This is a pretty big deal from a Tibetan Buddhist stand point because one of the Panchen Lama's most important roles is to help identify the reincarnated Dalai Lama after Tenzin Gyatso (current DL) dies. The selection process is a very important and sacred process that relies on many "signs." In essence, there is only one true reincarnation of both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas.
This person you are referring to in your post is not the Panchen Lama at all, just someone picked out by a group of politicians. It's as ridiculous if the British government had their own religon and the Queen [also the Australian head of state, I believe] appointed the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Yesterday John Tsang, Hong Kong's Collusion Commerce Secretary penned an an article in 6 HK papers defending the Government from charges of collusion over Cyberport. Let's leave the ethics of papers printing verbatim articles aside. This part of Tung Che-hwa's new found anti-collusion drive, which began with his policy address a couple of weeks back. The Tsang article is in the extended entry for those who want to read it. But the basic premise is simple. The Government deliberately rushed the job through because it knew the dot com boom wouldn't last and time was of the essence. To compensate PCCW for being lumbered with constructing a high-tech industrial park that would never attract enough tennants, the Government permitted PCCW to build a residential project at the same time. Funnily enough, the residential project, called Bel-Air on the Peak (in reality, in the Peak's shadow), is where the money has been made. David Webb took a critical look at the project back in October.
The reality is if we judge Cyberport by its original intention, it has been an unmitigated flop. Ex-post justifications for awarding the project to PCCW without tender don't wash. As was expected, the whole project is a residential property project in which the Government shares a small amount of the upside and in return granted a private, albeit well-connected*, company public land at bargain rates. Ah, I hear you say, but at least the lessons have been learnt and it won't happen again.
Update: Firstly read Hemlock's Thursday entry (reproduced at the bottom of this post). The Standard's article that Hemlock refers to, headlined "We are no mouthpiece", is reproduced in full. It is a must read:
On Tuesday evening, The Standard was visited by what, in another democracy, would be considered an extraordinary request: Print, unedited and uncut, 1,800 words of the government's rationalisation for its 1998 decision to bypass the legislature and hand over 24 hectares of some of the most valuable land on Earth to the son of Hong Kong's biggest tycoon in a bid to belatedly drag the SAR into the cyber revolution.
By all accounts, except the government's, this experiment has not been a notable success for anybody but Richard Li and his company, now known as PCCW. In exchange for luring 33 companies, many of them merely from other parts of Hong Kong, to Telegraph Bay, Li was allowed to develop a major portion of Cyberport into an extremely lucrative housing scheme.
Seven years after that decision, with public irritation rising over a new scheme to hand over even more valuable land in West Kowloon to a single developer, the government has now chosen to try to defend its decision to give Cyberport to Richard Li.
The Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, John Tsang, was to defend that decision on Wednesday. But before doing so, Tsang sought to prime the press and the public with the government's version of how Cyberport came about. As can be imagined, in Tsang's prose, it was a solid decision, exhaustively thought out and executed, that ``transformed disused land at Telegraph Bay into a lively modern community, enhancing the value of its neighborhood and enriching the quality of life in Hong Kong'' while turning the territory into a regional information technology powerhouse.
This is the second time in two months the government has sought to deliver its version of questionable property decisions designed to put enormously valuable land into the hands of Hong Kong's oligarchs. The first came in early December, when top-level government officials including Chief Secretary for Administration Donald Tsang and home affairs chief Patrick Ho delivered an equally extraordinary six-part series justifying the government's potential decision to grant the West Kowloon development to a single developer.
As with Tsang's article, the government laid down conditions for Hong Kong's newspapers. They were told to run that six-part series without abridgement or comment or not run a single word of it. The Standard refused to run those articles, just as it refused to run Tsang's.
The government apparently does not understand that the very foundation of a free press, which is so essential to democracy, makes it inimical to even make such a request.
In a democracy, a free press stands as an interpreter of the government's decisions, not as a conduit for their justifications. It is crucial the press stand aside from government and report what government does and how it does it.
Society's voters cannot be present at the creation of their government's laws and decisions. It is the press' responsibility to report what is actually happening in the halls of power to which the individual has no access. That is vital for the security of the community itself.
Printing wholesale government justifications of momentous decisions on land use in Hong Kong, without soliciting reasoned and fair analysis of at the same time, is an abdication of a newspaper's responsibility. Hong Kong's may be an imperfect democracy, but it is a democracy nonetheless, and its press remains free. That is why The Standard refused to print John Tsang's 1,800 words of justification for Cyberport, and it is why we will refuse to the next time as well.
The government has enormous resources to get its message across, ranging from its army of civil servants to public service announcements on government-owned RTHK. But the government is crossing a dangerous line when it tries to dictate to Hong Kong's media what and under what conditions it can print government statements - statements, we should remind John Tsang and his staff, that are written using our and our readers's tax dollars.
If we get copies of similar articles from other sources besides the government, we analyze their justifications, ask knowledgeable sources for their opinions, and print them as news for our readers to consider, on our news pages, as we do every other story.
We would be happy to consider any pieces that the government submits as op-ed pieces, subject to normal editing procedures. Or we will be happy to print them as advertisements, clearly labeled as such, and paid for by the government. But we will not print them in our news pages, lest our readers get the impression that these ideas are presented as fact.
We would also request that other newspapers, having given the matter thought, join us in boycotting the government's attempts to insert its rationalizations into their news pages while squelching public comment.
It's time to switch my paper subscription over to The Standard.
The full article by John Tsang:
If there is one project that has attracted continued attack from selected sectors of the community, it is Cyberport. Six years after the government launched the project, criticism and cynicism persist.
Critics allege the government bypassed the legislature to transfer benefits to PCCW. Some even cite Cyberport as the prime example of "collusion between government and business". Is there any truth to these outrageous allegations? I would like to set the record straight and let the people of Hong Kong make a judgment based on facts, not slogans.
The Cyberport project was conceived at the height of the dot.com boom when many of our regional neighbours had already built or were in the process of building their own infrastructure to foster and support the development of information technology (IT).
Against this background in mid-1998, the Pacific Century Group (PCG), now called PCCW, presented to government the Cyberport concept, suggesting the government should construct Cyberport as a public works project with PCG as one of the anchor tenants. Naturally, without any upfront commitment from leading IT companies that they would move into Cyberport, the government was unwilling to commit from public coffers the substantial capital cost necessary to develop the project. Also, it has always been the government's intention to have the private sector take a lead in the development of projects of this nature.
Later in 1998, PCG put forward a revised proposal that included an ancillary residential development to provide revenue to finance the project. PCG would also be responsible for constructing the Cyberport portion, which comprised offices and supporting facilities, and would hand them over to government upon completion. In other words, the government would be the sole owner of the Cyberport portion, in addition to sharing the surplus sales proceeds from the residential portion.
To ascertain the benefits of Cyberport to Hong Kong, the government engaged an international consultant - Arthur Andersen Business Consulting - to conduct a strategic assessment of the proposal. The consultant concluded that a development such as Cyberport would be an important element of Hong Kong's economic infrastructure, that it could assist IT companies by providing state-of-the-art facilities at shared cost, and that it could give Hong Kong an international marketing advantage in enhancing its image and competitiveness as an international information services centre. The government's decision to proceed with the Cyberport project was thus in line with the global trend of creating IT clusters and nurturing professional talent in strategic information infrastructure.
Further studies by the consultant confirmed that there was across-the-board support from the local IT sector for the Cyberport concept. By the end of 2001, more than 70 applications for office tenancy had been received, but the subsequent bursting of the dot.com bubble shattered many dreams. By the time the Cyberport portion was completed in mid-2004, more than one-third of the first batch of applicant companies had disappeared and others had dramatically altered their business plans.
Public criticism has all along focused on the way the government awarded PCCW the development rights at Cyberport. The government's decision to enter into partnership with PCCW to build Cyberport was made in view of the special nature, circumstances and requirements of the project, including:
(a) the need to complete Cyberport within the shortest possible timeframe to sustain Hong Kong's competitiveness in the region;
(b) the need for heavy upfront investment in Cyberport (estimated to be around $5 billion on top of the costs of providing essential infrastructure facilities); and
(c) the benefits of a public-private partnership (PPP) model that could enable the government to bring forward completion of Cyberport by a couple of years, reduce its capital contribution and transfer the public risk to the private sector partner.
At that time, other than the specific offer PCG had made to build Cyberport for the government, the real estate sector had also put forward a proposal that suggested the excision of the residential portion from the project and the open tendering of the land to provide government with the necessary funds to construct the Cyberport portion.
This was actually considered and rejected by the Legislative Council. It is interesting to note this proposal is strikingly similar to the one some developers have suggested for the handling of the West Kowloon cultural district.
The financial analyses of the two proposals were submitted by government to Legco's Planning, Land and Works (PLW) Panel in April 1999. Under the developers' proposal, it was assumed that the land for the residential portion could fetch around $8 billion if it were put out to tender. Deducting from it the $5 billion construction costs for the Cyberport portion, the government would get $3 billion upfront cash. As usual, the profits, if any, through sales of the residential units, would be reaped by the developers.
On the other hand, under the PPP model, in addition to full ownership of the Cyberport portion, the government would be able to share the surplus sales proceeds from the residential portion with PCCW, and it was estimated that government could get about $4.2 billion cash (compared with $3 billion under the other proposal) if the residential units were sold at a conservatively estimated average price of $4,000 per square foot. This was one of the scenarios set out in the panel paper. In retrospect, we note that the sale price went on a roller-coaster ride from then until the actual sale dates. But the fact remains that when we compared the two proposals, the PPP model would yield a higher return and, at the same time, result in lower risk for the government.
Based on these analyses, the government concluded the PPP model would ensure that the Cyberport portion could be completed in the shortest possible time and that government would receive a reasonable return while its risks in the project development would be minimised. This was clearly the preferred option and the logical public policy decision.
Following the announcement of the Cyberport project in the 1999-2000 Budget, we briefed the Information Technology and Broadcasting (ITB) Panel on March 8, 1999. Further consultations with the ITB Panel on the financial terms and analyses of the project and with the PLW Panel on the infrastructure works were held on April 29 and May 4, 1999, respectively.
After reaching consensus with PCCW on the project agreement for the Cyberport project in May 2000, the government briefed Legco on the main terms of the agreement and the granting of the development rights to PCCW in June 2000.
The Public Works Subcommittee and the Finance Committee were also consulted a number of times between May 1999 and December 2000 on the funding applications for a total of $1.1 billion to construct the essential infrastructure, such as roads and water supplies; and the funding applications were approved by the Finance Committee.
All in all, the government actively consulted relevant Legco committees and panels on more than 20 occasions from March 1999 to January 2005. The legislature was fully aware of the different aspects of the project as well as the responsibilities and benefits that the Cyberport project could bring to government and PCCW.
Legco members have, indeed, been vigilant in monitoring not only the progress made, but also the extent to which Cyberport has achieved its objectives. There is absolutely no truth to the allegation that Legco has been bypassed or hoodwinked.
John Tsang Chun-wah is Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology.
Hemlock's Thursday entry:
A little before 6.30 in the morning, and RTHK Radio 3 decides to rouse Hong Kong’s English-speaking community with a friendly public-service message. “The Chief Executive in his policy address explained how the Government is working for a vibrant economy,” says an irritatingly cheerful and enthusiastic male announcer. “And it is creating jobs! It is also working to bring about a caring community with social harmony.” I miss the next few sentences, owing to my futile but instinctive habit of hurling abuse at helpless electronic equipment conveying offensive broadcasts. “…bringing you people-based government!” gushes the sickening voice in conclusion. This comes just two days after officials asked newspapers to print a 1,800-word article by pitiful Technology and Industry Secretary John Tsang, laboriously claiming that Cyberport – Tung Chee-hwa’s gift of billions in public wealth to Li Ka-shing’s son – was not cronyism. The newspapers were required to print it unedited and without comment, orders with which the South China Morning Post droolingly complied, to the disgust of The Standard.
Delectable Administrative Officer Winky Ip squirms when I tackle her about all this over breakfast at Yuet Yuen Restaurant. What on earth, I beg her, is going on? She takes a deep breath. The situation is complex, she says, shaking pepper onto her congee. “Some people imagine this sort of thing is effective and persuasive – so it pleases them when we show them this stuff. ‘Great communication’, they think.” I nod wearily. Tofu-for-brains is the obvious example. Say something is true – and it becomes true. “Other people,” Winky continues somewhat awkwardly, “um… Well, they know this heavy-handed propaganda doesn’t work. In fact, has the opposite effect. Makes certain people look bad.” I nod some more. “And, um, that’s what they want,” she says. “So they’re happy too.” I see. So how much does a civil servant’s soul go for these days? I wonder. Winky shakes her head defensively and puts her teacup down next to the newspaper with its story marking the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. “We’re only implementing policy,” she asserts.
I know the feeling. I remember that short period of time before iMail became a sensationalist tabloid (and then later a total rag) when I had hope for the Hong Kong press.
It's nice to know that one paper has journalistic ethics.
This sort of stuff wouldn't happen in Singapore, lah! For a start, it'd be a CyberHUB, not a Cyberport. And the usual suspect's family name is spelt Lee, not Li. According to Mr Brown, the letter D stands for Despot. (Hope you can penetrate the Singlish - it's a key article.)
Seriously though, I'm Very Impressed by The Standards' standards.
E@L
Posted by expat@large at February 17, 2005 07:24 PM
Today is Australia Day, a celebration of a great nation. Australian of the Year Dr. Fiona Wood said in her mercifully short speech:
The realisation that we can all choose to make a difference to others remote and in need is growing as the Australian Spirit shines through. I am proud to be an Australian and will work towards a society dependent on the integrity of each and everyone of us - because every drop in the ocean does make a difference.
Jingoism is often confused for patriotism. But Australia and Australians have so much to be proud of. So to show you care, I insist you do the honourable thing. The first Australian you meet today, you buy them a beer. It doesn't matter what time of day.
Update: It's also India Republic Day. Nitin insists you buy an Indian a beer too. As for Indian Australians, I guess it's their lucky day.
I've done my bit - I just cleared Starbucks of their supply of lamingtons.
Everything about the flag and the image are from here.
This great nation? I'm not sure how I feel about being Australian anymore. It's like Leyton Hewitt. We're winning, but I can't take any pride in the player.
The approach of Chinese New Year sees humanity's biggest annual migration of people. China expects to transport 1.97 bilion people over the next month. Which leaves one puzzle. China's population is 1.3 billion. Where have the 670 million extras come from?
Some other news brief-lets:
* Chinese are amongst the top 5 countries for consuming fast food. A disappointing 3% are not eating fast food, thus leaving China adrift of the Filipinos, Taiwanese and Malays.
* The People's Daily has a touching story of Anna, a student in Beijing who doesn't like being called laowai. The patronising pieces finishes with She now plans to find a job in Beijing, to settle down in the city and to become a real Beijinger. If someone can find the manual on how to become a "real Beijinger", please let me know.
* China's plan to slow its economy to prevent overheating in 2004 hasn't quite work out. It's a nice problem for the Government to have, but it seems their efforts to control the economy to date haven't borne much fruit. But any change in the yuan is a long time off.
* Almost 2,000 Chinese bankers are being investigated by the regulator. When state-owned financial institutions are exposed to scrutiny, it's no surprise there are plenty of skeletons in the closet.
* China and India are in a "strategic dialogue" this week. This event isn't getting much attention, even though it has profound consequences for the region.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, usually posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
Is China's economy overvalued? Tyler Cowen also points out China's looming pension crisis but misses a vital point: China hasn't really ever had a pension system. That said China's never had so a demographic imbalance between young and old, not to mention between male and female. Perhaps these numbers explain China's high private savings rates.
China did have a pension system in the past, Simon. Very short after the liberation that started to work. When the Cultural Revolution broke out, fighting factions in the trade union movement seemed to agree about one thing: China would never need any pension fund anymore, and they divided the money up.
Posted by Fons Tuinstra at January 25, 2005 07:13 PM
[Notices location of story on betel nuts in Taiwan]
Since when did Taiwan belong in the category "Korea and Japan?"
Rise up, countrymen, against the White Devil known as Simon! Rah! ;)
(Actually, the answer to the above rhetorical question is "1895—1945," but I digress.)
A small story to illustrate just how economically liberal China can be. China halved duty on share trades in order to lift the market. With Chinese share markets at 5 year lows the markets in Shanghai and Shenzhen have been the worst performing in the world. Problems such as poor disclosure, non-existant corporate governance, poor auditing, patchy data, fraud, an overhang of state shares don't help. Stock duty has been cut to 0.1% from 0.2%, lower than the UK's 0.5% levy. Tax competition: it sounds almost capitalist.
But if China is enjoying such a boom, why is its share market at 5 year lows?
You'd think those shares would be higher, wouldn't you? Especially with all the money supposedly being made. My guess is that the public knows that very little of the money will actually make it to the shareholders.
Thanks again for hosting the Asia Blogs awards. I think it got more attention for all of us!
That is a really fascinating question you just posed. I never focused on the stock market performance in China. I agree, you'd think that with such a huge economic expansion, people would be buying Chinese equities hand over fist. But that's not happening. I put it down as a total vote of no confidence. On the other hand, US companies and I bet Australian companies with significant revenues from China are doing pretty well on their respective exchanges.
They couldn't offer much material support for the tsunami victims, but China's able to do what the Russians and Americans did fifty years ago: they're going back into space, again. In terms of wasting money to satiate a vague nationalistic urge, this has to be in the top 10.
Meanwhile on Planet Earth, China and India's rapprochement continues apace. These two rivals clearly see many areas of mutual interest and have plenty in common.
While I don't deny that it is an exercise in nationalism but I do think that people who are doing it are in there for the long run. If China can make these space systems cheaper then it is good for the rest of us. NASA can revitalize its space programs in spite of all those budget cuts by outsourcing it.
Posted by Preetam Rai at January 24, 2005 07:22 PM
The trouble with working as a reporter in China is you have to be able to come up with sentences like this:
China will exert more efforts to crack down on pornography and illegal publications in 2005, aiming to create a favorable cultural environment for its reform and opening up and socialist modernization drive.
The hardest part is keeping a straight face while you do it. The good news is the crackdown is paying off:
China has seized 229 million copies of illegal publications, closed down 2,966 illegal publishing houses and more than 40,000 stalls and shops that sell illegal publications.
Unfortunately due to time constraints there has been no Asia by Blog edition this week but expect regular service to resume next week. In the meantime some links to keep you going:
ESWN is on a roll at the moment. While I may not agree with some of his politics he certainly digs up some of the most varied and interesting China/HK related stories going and plenty more to boot. Extensive coverage of the Chinese hostages in Iraq; how some enterprising Hong Kongers can make 10 times their money in 2 weeks by giving away trees; and two pieces from Roland's recent trip to Yunnan: the economics of travel agencies and the tourism cult of personality.
Andres continues his profile series with an interview with Pieter from Peaktalk.
If you want to know everything, and I mean everything, about China's Three Gorges project, read this site (via PD). Richard also points out that ex-wonder analyst Henry Blodget is admitting he's clueless...about China.
China is building up military forces and setting up bases along sea lanes from the Middle East to project its power overseas and protect its oil shipments, according to a previously undisclosed internal report prepared for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.
The "coming conflict with Beijing" will not be a fight over scarce oil resources. The only possible scenario where conflict could emerge would be over Taiwan. Even then China's entire strategy is based on taking over the island before the Americans could intervene. In other words, it is based on avoiding conflict with the superior American forces. Likewise China is deliberately avoiding getting involved in the Mid-East, despite its keen interest in the region. It doesn't want to antgonise its Mid-East oil suppliers, nor does it want to antgonise the Americans. The recent tsunami saw the PLA do almost nothing when America and Australia's military was offering assistance because they couldn't. America's military has an enormous technological advantage over China's and the Chinese know it. That's not a gap that will be closed, even in 50 years.
Brain Shavings also notes a couple of more angles stemming from all this, including the growing influence of Christianity and market economics in China. Both also mean China is more likely to emulate rather than fight America in the future.
Good points and good articles. A couple of comments, though; I don't think "emulate" is the proper word, but I can't think of another right now. China is already adopting some western capitalist principles, but they're transmogrified by the "Chinese way". They'll compete with the US without BEING LIKE the US, which brings me to the next point...
The "conflict" the US is likely to have with China won't be military, per se (on a hunch, I'm pretty sure they would prefer to maintain the status quo with Taiwan). I anticipate a lot of future friction over "legitimate" trade, i.e., commercial competition with low-priced goods, and possibly even more friction over WHO they sell certain things to. They are eager to sell anything; armaments for example, to anyone who will buy them.
"...won't catch up with the US even in 50 years"? That's a bold prediction for a country that just took over IBM's laptop business. [And which 50 years ago fought the US to a standstill in Korea using bugles and burp guns. ]
China doesn't need to surpass the US technologically. It will regain Taiwan by biding its time and enforcing a trade blockade when the US is preoccupied elsewhere - possibly when the US attacks Iran, Syria or Cuba.
As for the Christian influence on China, I think that's wishful thinking on behalf of American evangelists. Just look at the Taiping rebellion and the Cultural Revoultion to see what the Chinese do with western beliefs like Christianity and Marxism.
Preoccupied? The US has over a dozen carrier fleets. Based on current estimates it would need 2 to repel a Chinese invasion of Taiwan given China's current military capabilities and the US's technological overreach.
The US Armed Forces are keeping peace in Bosnia, holding together Iraq, patrolling Afghanistan, bottling up North Korea dishing out massive post-Tsunami aid packages and about a dozen other tasks as we speak and they has several carrier fleets still in Asian waters capable of intercepting an attack by the PRC.
I don't even think a full scale invasion of Iran will over-stretch the US sufficiently to allow China a free grab at Taiwan. Perhaps if China _and_ North Korea were to take a grab at their respective targets the US might be hard pressed to cope with the preliminary battles but even so the resulting wars would be won swiftly (neither South Korea nor Taiwan are 'soft targets' at the moment either).
Personally I think China will only make a military grab for Taiwan if the CCP is under severe domestic pressure or needs to kill off a potential military coup. Even those who lurk in the politburo behind Hu aren't stupid enough.
Hong Kong bills itself as "Asia's World City". To prove it, the Government went as far as to build the world's first publicly owned Disneyland. And the Government's love affair with property developers is well known. But now it's time to put up or shut up. Is Hong Kong really the cosmopolitan, global city it purports to be? Is it a place where business can be done, no matter what it takes?
A group have proposed to open HK's and Asia's first official nudist colony. The development would include houses fronting on to the nudist beach, thus combining HK's love of property and tourism with another bow in the quiver that Singapore will never have. But even if the project is approved, one question remains?
Will Tung Che-hwa open the development and what (if anything) will he wear?
I'm struggling with how estate agents can market the houses. Is it a room with a view? And if so, is it a view of what saggy bits you'll have in 30 years? What you'd look like if you went on the McDonald's diet? What you'd look like if you actually got your arse moving on a treadmill?
It just seems like a lose-lose sitch to me, but maybe I need to wake my inner voyeur up.
In some countries the right to remain silent is a constitutional guarantee, not to mention TV cliche. But in Hong Kong the right to remain silent is considered subversive, unruly and potentially unconstitutional. Personally anything that can get Leung "Long Hair" Kwok-hung to shut up for 60 seconds should become a weapon of choice.
China has long maintained its distance from Iraq for many reasons, inlcuding its reliance on Middle Eastern oil and its reluctance to pro-actively engage in world geopolitics. So the kidnapping of eight Chinese nationals in Iraq, with the aim of China "clarifying its role in Iraq", achieves two things. It forces China to engage with Iraq and push it towards supporting the anti-insurgency efforts; and it proves once again the total stupidity of Iraqi hostage takers. Why in God's name would you engage and enrage the sleeping dragon? One that has effectively been neutral in the conflict? And just for the sake of "clarification"? Wouldn't it be easier just to ring the Chinese Foreign Ministry in Beijing? Or are lives now cheaper than telephone calls in Iraq? Our hostage taking morons will soon find out.
Zhao Ziyang's passing has lead to the typical what-if analysis, all under the premise that if only Zhao had remained at the top China would be a very different place. It may even be true. But his visit on May 19, 1989, when Zhao visited Tiananmen Square to ask the protesters to leave, turned a mildly reformist cadre into something (for the West, at least) approaching a diety. He was a part of the early market reforms under Deng Xiapong, but prior to Tiananmen inflation was soaring and many were unhappy with his stewardship of the economy. To some extent China's current prosperity is based on his work, but otherwise would China be much different if he had remained Secretary-General of the CCP? Not really. All he was doing when he turned up at the Square was warning the protesters of the looming crackdown - he didn't declare his fealty to their cause.
So before too much more gets read into his passing and what might have been, let's also remember what actually was. Clearly the CCP saw what he represented as a threat, hence his lengthy house arrest. But do you judge the man on one action or his life and deeads? The man himself was no saint and his firing from the CCP left China neither better nor worse off.
While it is certainly true that Zhao's overall administrative record has its ups and downs, what can be said is that he certainly is a decent human being that treated the populace with a whole lot more respect than those who would think that quelling a demonstration requires tanks to run over civilians.
Zhao might not be a saint overall, but at the very least I think my reaction to the eventual death of, say, Li Peng would be very different than my current reaction.
Simon, I basically agree with you. He was a an apparatchik, clearly not a democrat. However - in that situation - he put his own face at risk and paid for it. This is something worth to be remembered. That said, his importance in China's destiny is being overestimated by western media.
Gotta agree with Enzo there: in the big political picture, I must say that this news amounts to jack squat. Whatever democratization that may happen in China in the next 50 yrs will probably be almost totally independent of 89/6/4. "Ping fan liu si" will probably be more an afterthought after some sort of political reform than an explicit objective.
Kelvin,
I think 89/6/4 will matter a lot.
My thoughts were basically about Zhao's political figure: perhaps not so prominent as reported in western media obituaries.
I agree that the west may be overplaying his passing. But I think China's also underplaying it. As for Secretary General of the Communist Party and a large influence on China's economic path, he certainly deserves 'some' state recognition of his passing.
Muslim cleric and suspected terrorist Abu Bakar Ba'asyir's trial is generating a lot of interest. Fred Burks, an ex-US State Department employee, has been a witness...for the defence. Besides sticking up for terrorists Mr. Burk may have revealed the identity of a CIA agent during the trial. Follow both the links for more.
Xinhua is proud to announce former CCP leader Zhao Ziyang is in perfect health and will live forever. "After reports surfaced that Mr. Zhao was 'clinging to life' and 'in a coma', we had to do something. With our world-leading embalming and preservation technologies, it was simple to put the two together and declare Zhao Ziyang China's newest "Eternal Citizen"." Zhao is resting comfortably at his new Government villa in the Gobi desert.
Heh, I find perverse humor in the last word on the release here:
Comrade Zhao had long suffered from multiple diseases affecting his respiratory and cardiovascular systems, and had been hospitalized for medical treatment for several times. His conditions worsened recently, and he passed away Monday after failing to respond to all emergency treatment. Enditem
Just in case you weren't sure about China's intentions on its currency, another official re-iterated the impossibility of revaluing the renminbi this year. Along with predictions the US dollar will continue to weaken this year, it means these will only get more expensive. Which means they will likely sell even more.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, usually posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains first hand reports on the tsunami recovery efforts, exams, tax and tipping in China, Mao's grandkids, train riding Smurfs, bulls in Japan, curbing malaria without DDT plus plenty more...
Is Zhao Ziyang dead? Officially not. The former protege of Deng Xiapong was outsted after the events of June 1989. Since then he's been under house arrest while the CCP tries to figure out what to do when Zhao dies in order to prevent another repeat.
India's legal system isn't working, so the people revert to alternatives. The post includes this great line: If ‘there are no atheists in foxholes,’ I’d add that there are no pure libertarians in developing nations. (via Sepia Mutiny)
We have a launched ThaiTsunamiFund.com to match donors with victims so those affected can get help as quickly as is practicable. It is a small step, but worth the effort if we can all do our bit to get help to where it is needed, when it is needed. The situation is critical for some and aid is just taking too long to trickle down to urgent cases.
Please take a look at the site and refer others if you feel we can help in some way.
Thank you for your time.
Best regards,
Admin Desk
TTF Direct Relief
info@thaitsunamifund.com
Somewhat lost after Tung Che-hwa's speech was another far more interesting piece of testimony. It was Sir David Aker-Jones' turn to testify to Legco over the Discovery Bay debacle (you can read some background here). It was quite some testimony. The zoning changes that lead to massive windfall gains to the property developers without them having to pay any land premium to the Government was due to a fear of Disco Bay turning into a Russian listening post. This fear cost precisely HK$160 million in foregone revenue. We can be generous and say there may have been security concerns. One can't help but feel there were better ways to deal with the problem than letting developers change the nature of the project. Except in Sir David's eyes the project didn't change:
Akers-Jones contended that, even today, there has been no fundamental change in the nature of Discovery Bay. "It follows principally a resort development,'' he said, adding that even though resorts such as Miami and Cannes also contain substantial residential components, they can still be considered as resorts.
As to the decision in 1985 to allow the developer to build residential instead of hotel and commercial buildings, Akers-Jones said: "A discussion between reasonable men would not require a developer to build hotels if no one was going to stay at the hotels.'' Similarly, decisions to allow the developer to drop the construction of a promised public golf course in 1982, and a cable car system in 1985, were driven by the need for flexibility and pragmatism.
Discovery Bay is many things, but it is not a resort. It never has been. Clinging to this notion would be quaint if it hadn't cost HK taxpayers so much money. At least we now know the key to making money in HK property. Plan to create a resort, borrow the money from the Russians, actually build a residential community and stir. Easy.
Only a couple of weeks ago, President Hu told Tung Che-hwa to shape up or ship out. Hu said and Tung learnt:
[Hu]:"Hong Kong has to draw conclusions from experience and find out what's been insufficient."
[Tung at press conference]: "President Hu reminds us to look at our deficiencies and continue to raise our governance."
Say what you like about HK's Chief Executive, he knows how to listen to Beijing. In yesterday's policy address Tung accepted his Government had failed to listen to the public and said
"we were indecisive when dealing with emergencies. These shortcomings and inadquacies have underminded the credibility of our policy-making capability and our ability to govern...In formulating policies, we fell short of thinking what people think and addressing people’s pressing needs."
Stunning. It only took 7 years and a ticking off by the President of China to open Tung's eyes to the concept of public opinion. As an aside, it's interesting the Tung, leader of the world's free-est economy, is publicly engaging in that most Communist of sessions: a self-criticism. But Tung had even more surprises in store. Much to the vexation of his public service and HK's public, he said:
"We are resolutely against collusion between business and the government and will strictly enforce our monitoring systems to eliminate any transfer of benefits."
.The cartels' Legco representative, James Tien, was not impressed:
"A proactive denial will be seen by the pan-democrats as Tung's self-confession,'' Tien said. "[Policy unit head and speech writer] Lau should have written this thorny issue positively, saying that the government, in facilitating the business environment, would not favor anyone. It is stupid to repeat slogans chanted by protestors and give the democrats bullets to fire at Tung.''
If Tien's upset you know it's on the right track.
The reaction to the speech has been mixed. Generally everyone on planet Earth has been unimpressed with the exception of the above-mentioned Collusion-gate. The Chinese press gave it a ringingendorsement, although rumours the articles were pre-written or written in their sleep were denied.
Will anything come of it? Could the final few years of Tung's Chief Executive-ship turn the tables on the collusion between Government and business? Could he turn himself from unresponsive lame-duck into champion of HK's poor? Will the aerodynamics of porcine products defy the laws of nature?
Let's give a warm welcome to 100 sq foot each (Update: while we're at it, let's also say hi to Amy Gu). Reidon adds his thoughts on a voucher system for HK school kids. Chris mentioned that vouchers are not an easy solution. True, but that is not a reason to shy away from the idea. Students at local public schools already effectively receive vouchers, just the Government doesn't physically pass the money to the parents - instead it provides the schooling. Via the subvention the Government somewhat subsidises the ESF schools for those HK taxpayers who have children that do not speak Cantonese fluently. The other international schools, despite still being children of HK taxpayers, receive nothing. It is inequitable. I'm not saying the ESF subvention should be cut. I am saying the Government either needs to restate subsidies to all international schools or provide vouchers to compensate those taxpaying parents who do not have children at local public schools, irrespective if they are locals or expats.
I wrote last week about China's limited official response to the earthquake/tsunami recovery efforts. This article summarises the same points and puts the response in the context of China's geopolitical aspirations.
1. China's foreign exchange reserves rose by 51.3% in 2004. China's reserves now total US$610 billion, excluding the US$45 billion injected into Bank of China and CCB.
2. China's exports rose 33% in December, with a trade surplus of US$11.1 billion for the month. An increased trade surplus is likely if China's domestic economy continues to slow into 2005. Which means China's demand for US dollars will only increase going forward. Shanghai has overtaken Rotterdam as the world's biggest port in cargo throughput.
3. China's tax revenue rose by 25.7% in 2004 to 2.572 trillion yuan (US$310 billion). Tax revenue is approximately 19% of GDP. Interesting that a so-called Communist country should have such a low percentage.
What does it all mean? For the year China's trade surplus was only US$32 billion out of total exports of US$594 billion. While the surplus with the US is much larger, China is actually in deficit with many countries, especially those that provide raw materials and energy. China is, on a massive scale, becoming America's workshop. In theory, that US$32 billion surplus would be exactly the amount China's reserves increase by for the year. It represents the extra money countries have paid for China's exports as opposed to the money China has paid the world for its imports. Instead reserves rose by more than US$200 billion. The difference is from those speculating on an appreciation on the yuan, the so-called "hot money". It explains the Chinese dilemma in allowing an appreciation in the yuan: it could lead to a massive and rapid outflow of funds with potentially devastating effects on the domestic economy. Success comes at a price.
The English Schools Foundation is continuing to pull out all stops to protect its Government subsidy, a topic I've covered previously. Yesterday in a Legco committee meeting Education Secretary Arthur Li continued the pressure, saying he was open-minded on continuing the subvention (subsidy). He also said the ESF's preferential treatment over other international schools and the historical reasons behind the subsidy should be revisited.
This lead to a full-court press by the ESF. On radio and in the press various members of the Foundation have responded with the usual litany of reasons to maintain the ESF's subsidy. With one exception. From the SCMP:
Sarah Rigby, chairwoman of the foundation's joint council of parent teacher associations, argued that parents of English-speaking children had a right to subsidised education, but conceded that it was unfair that parents with children in other international schools did not receive such support. "I would ask you to look at a voucher system as a way forward," she said.
And there you have it. The truth has been uttered. A voucher system would re-establish equity for all HK residents'/taxpayers' children. The ESF is a Government subsidised competitor in the international schools sector in HK. The justifications for the continuation of the subsidy apply to all international schools that compete in this sector.
HK's Government is often lauded for presiding over the free-est economy in the world. Subsidising one group to the exclusion of competitors in the same sector is not is the hallmark of a free economy. Are Arthur Li and the SAR Government up to the challenge of introducing a voucher system? Here's hoping.
Yes, but the problem with a voucher scheme is that it would cost more money (assuming they offered a similar level of subsidy for each child).
Should vouchers be available for all children or only those who are not native Cantonese speakers? If they were available for all children then that would represent a major shift in policy away from the state system. If they were only available for "non-local" children then a substantial number of children at ESF schools would lose their subsidy.
Ping is of no merit. I somehow received a ping meant for this post, so used your trackback link on a non-related post to see if there was some munu thingie goin' on that caused me to get a ping from 100 sq foot each, as well. Feel free to delete my ping as well as this explanatory comment. Mystery unsolved. May be forwardin' to be the topic on a future show in "Unsolved Mysteries."
An idea that's been brewing for a while...inspired by the success of the Global Voices Online Conference at Harvard last year, I am starting to wonder if there is enough critical mass for some kind of Asia Blogging Convention? Besides being an excuse to meet, learn and discuss topics of mutual interest it would be a great way to further solidify the growing links between blogs across Asia.
At this stage I'm just looking at expressions of interest and thoughts as to how the conference would work.
1. It would need an organising committee. Depending where the conference would be held, there would need to be a few people from the host city and then at least one rep to act as country co-ordinator.
2. Around October 2005 would be a good target for the timing. Long enough to get some speakers, get sponsors and publicity, and organise something decent.
3. The idea would be to run it as breakeven...although should it be run for profit we can discuss what to do with any leftover money that should result. However the main aim would be to make sure no-one is left "holding the bag" with a loss.
4. Ideally we could tie this in with the Global Voices people and leverage of their experience in organising this.
5. If there is enough interest I may approach some sponsors, particularly some universities that could tie it in with their programs. We could also approach Governments for some funding...
I'll add more as I think through it all.
Update
6. While calling it an Asian blogging conference, it would not be exclusive to Asia bloggers. Attendees from Australasia, America, Europe and anywhere else would be most welcome.
7. I've mentioned a few potential topics in the comments. Some others spring to mind, such as language and blogging, blogs as a political and social force, blogging outside the USA. As I said in the comment, the committee could work on topics using a combination of lectures, workshops and panels.
Not to sure what we should do at such a conference, Simon.
I have been pondering with the idea of getting Shanghai in the picture for a BloggerCon in 2006. The feature is still so new and evolving that anything beyond an educational angle seems too far fetched at this stage. But always happen to go for the better plan.
Posted by Fons Tuinstra at January 11, 2005 04:55 PM
I can think of several topics off the top of my head: blogs and the law; ethics; the media and blogs; blogging technology. Coming up with topics of discussion shouldn't be too hard. I'd imagine it would be a combination of lectures, workshops and panel style discussions. Precise themes and topics would be up to the committee.
The only reservation I'd have about Shanghai would be the Government's attitude to such a conference. Venue will be a key issue.
Law, ethics, hehe, those are not really subjects I would think of in the Chinese context. I would not worry about the government: as long as you do not ask permission for such a meeting, I do not see a lot of problems.
The blogosphere is very young and still in a very early phase of its development, that would be a bigger problem. That makes it also very hard to get sponsors together, as we discovered a few months ago when we organized a visit of Dan Gillmor.
1. I've always thought that the beauty of blogging is the ease of communication ~ without the expense and waste of actually moving. Think ecologically.
2. Any 'lectures' could (should?) be delivered online; there are several programmes, such as Moodle, which can serve as 'lecture rooms', although a basic website would probably do just as well. (Have a look at World Changing ~ http://worldchanging.com)
3. Is there really a need for a Regional Conference?
Much as I would love to put faces to pseudonyms, several countries, such as Indonesia, need to first generate greater localised activity.
4. Of course, if such a conference could be held in Indonesia ......
If only!
5. As for topics, should such a conference be all-inclusive, including e.g. personal diaries and vanity sites, advertorial (albeit for private collections of Dinky toys) etc., or should it be devoted to those 'challenging' the established media, censorship etc. as you've largely suggested? This would be my preference
Such a focus would, however, be somewhat against the whole ethos of blogging which is to enable 'free speech'.
To conclude, though I'll no doubt have further thoughts, I like the notion of an Asian conference because the local blogosphere is in need of expansion and promotion. However it will primarily benefit those with the freedom to travel unless there is a parallel online event.
when i first saw this i assumed you meant like the last blogging meeting - i.e. a piss-up in lan kwai fong. that i'm all for.
but it seems i misundxerstood and you really mean a convention.
why on earth would people get together to discuss blogging seriously?
i'm afraid guys a lot of you take yourselves way too seriously. i know some people make some good points, but these are little websites with even the biggest boys getting a paltry number of hits when compared with readership of say newspapers or news agency websites. and most bloggers do little more than rehash news stories filched from elsewhere anyway.
so from me there is no interest in a convention, unless it's held in LKF or "East Central", preferably during the hours of darkness,
well said, giles. with all due respect Simon, but i must say that some bloggers have had already huge ego's to begin with, to have a convention is to inflate their own pathetic sense of importance.
anyways i don't mind taking the next flight out to HK for a massive tank-up if you take up giles' idea :D
Posted by the letter b at January 13, 2005 02:22 PM
Hmm. As someone who has been doing this for a little while and who, notwithstanding my absence (which has just come to an end) is one of the more serious bloggers this does sound a little OTT to me.
I believe blogs have a future in Asia (but the realisation will be a long time) as they have proved they do in the west but they are a long way from it yet. Blogging is exploding but the real growth is and needs to be at a local level. The growth that produces blogs with the impact of Sullivan or Reynolds will be in Korean or Chinese, not in English. In other words at grass roots and with all due respect grass roots in Asia is not you or me, no matter how in tune you might be or how long you have lived here or even if you speak the lingo as I do.
While in many ways I would support anything that encourages growth of blogs as a counterweight to the media a convention with a heavily expatriate bias (I fear this would be) would not be the way to do it.
Is there any connection between this and this? Sure Latham lost the election, but is Kim Jong-il the right person to take advice for next time? Given Kim's winning record, perhaps.
Acupuncture is a 2,000 year old Chinese medical practice involving 361 precise points on the body. Each exact spot "controls" some body function or organ and can be used to heal. Now the WHO is getting involved. Why? Because over time some of the pressure points have diverged. So now the three countries have agreed "standardise" acupuncture points with a total of 92 points to be standardised in two stages this year. This is part of a WHO project to formally determine all 361 points by 2006 in order to help spread Oriental medicine.
It doesn't bode well that 92 of the points differed enough that they need standardising. Maybe there are subtle differences in the nature of each country's citizens, requiring slight variations in pressure points. Maybe the pressure point areas are large enough to allow for variation. Or just maybe acupuncture isn't all its cracked up to be.
The parents of China's 1.3 billionth baby are understandly being deluged with offers from companies looking to use their boy in advertising and promotional campaigns. But the family are saying no. By turning their back on all of this commercialism they are actually using their baby as a perfect antidote to the materialism and commercialism that is washing over China (and the world). I wonder if the boy will be thanking his parents for all the wealth and fame that could have been his.
The demise of Conrad and his Gweilo Diaries has inevitably lead to conspiracy theories and idle speculation. Thankfully Hemlock (Sunday entry) has discovered the truth.
The site's domain registration lapsed and has since been snapped up by someone else. Some think his workplace got wind of the site. Hemlock's entry:I count them – 29, 30, 31... A total of 32 emails in the last 10 days asking if I know the whereabouts of Conrad, writer of The Gweilo Diaries. I’m not surprised so many people miss the hilarious parody of American neo-conservative blogs, with its ranting about the satanic United Nations and barbarous Mohammedans, its glorification of George W Bush and praise of the contentment of post-Saddam Iraq – all spiced up with imaginative, salacious tales of Wanchai at night and tasteful pictorial appreciations of the Asian female form. Being reluctant to divulge the distressing truth, I deny any knowledge of the matter. Nor do I mention these emails when I see ‘Conrad’ this afternoon, outside a jeweller’s store in a back street in Causeway Bay. He is begging Formica, his 19-year-old, seven-months-pregnant Filipino fiancée, to accept a HK$350 gold-plate and zirconium wedding ring, arguing that her friends will never know the difference, and that they need the money for more important things. “How will she take to life in that trailer park in Jonesboro?” I ask him, as the sulking girl teeters back to the shop window on her platform shoes. “She’s never been to Arkansas has she?” He shrugs and mumbles about how they won’t be staying with his sister Becky-Mae and her six kids for long – just until they sort something out. I nod reassuringly. After an awkward silence, I glance at my watch and feign alarm at my lateness for an urgent appointment. We shake hands and agree to keep in touch. “Everything will turn out fine,” I tell him, as Formica stomps back up to us, hatred burning behind her tear-filled eyes.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, usually posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains earthquake and tsunami links, the new Communists, leaked war plans, unwanted refugees, casinos in strange places, the end of the Boom Boom Room, skimpy models plus plenty more...
Many of the links in this section are to blogs, not posts. Just scroll through each blog as they all have plenty on the Tsunami and the relief efforts.
Agam's Gecko has plenty of on-the-ground reports on and about the disaster and especially Aceh.
The Diplomad, by some members of the US Foreign Service, has a critical look at the efforts of the UN compared to others in providing relief.
Prince Roy, a US diplomat in India, has been dealing first-hand with the aftermath and relief efforts.
Ran makes it into the newspaper (full article here) - not for his photos, but for his harrowing first-hand experience in the tsunami.
From Indonesia Jakartass has plenty of links and posts and points to the Indonesia Help blog.
China's official clampdown on online smut has missed a big target: the state-owned media. NOTE: this link will connect you with many examples of skimply clad models and stars.
Frances links to a new blog, In the Footsteps of Joseph Rock, and explains the writing is superb but the genius is in the photography, placing side-by-side Rock's photos with Michael's own equivalents taken 70 years later.
Andrea points to Socialbrain.org, who's mission is the advancement of collective wisdom in Chinese society through the projects it runs and the tools it builds.
The Chinese Community in the United Kingdom have been urged to show solidarity with Chinese Americans in New York and protest at the cruel and racist 'Tsunami Song' aired on Hot 97, the hip hop radio station in New York.
Chinese Americans have been demonstrating outside the Hot 97 radio station in New York after the racist song attacked the tsunami affected countries. Chinese American councillors of New York City Council have also joined in the demonstrations.
People in the wider wider Asian Community in the United Kingdom have been appalled by the song and they have been denouncing the cruel and racist Tsunami Song by Miss Jones and Todd Lynn aired over Hot 97, the hip hop radio station in New York.
The news of Hot 97's racist tsunami song is filtering through to the tsunami hit countries of Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Thailand, South India. People are incensed at the song which goes beyond human decency. The governments of the tsunami hit region have been urged to take the matter up with the US Government as it insults the deaths of so many tsunami victims.
Chinese Americans and other Asian Communities have joined hundreds of Asians in the demonstrations in New York supported by New York City Councillors.
Here are the lyrics:
TSUNAMI SONG
Date aired: Morning of January 18TH-27TH 2005 (multiple airings)
Station call letters: WQHT-New York (Hot 97)
Offending DJs: Miss Jones and Todd Lynn
Offending lyrics:
“There was a time, when the sun was shining bright
So I went down to the beach to catch me a tan
Then the next thing I knew
A wave 20 feet high came and wash your country away
And all at once, you can hear the screaming chinks.
And then no one was save from the wave.
There was Africans drowning, little Chinaman swept away
You can heard god laughing, swim you bitches swim.
So now you're screwed, it's the tsunami,
You better run and kiss your ass awake, go find your mommy
I just saw her float by, a tree right through her head.
And now your children will be sold in child slavery.
(Imitating Micheal Jackson)
"Oh on, please not the kids. I'll pay for all the kids.
all the little Indonesian kid, the little Asian kids, the Chinese kids.
the black, oh well, not the Black kids.
the White kids, the Puerto Rican kids.
I love them all. I'll pay for everything.
I promise I won't touch them."
Chinese Communities all over the world wishing to protest are requested to write to their local American Embassy and to -
I didn't even realise I'd been nominated, but yours truly is in some fine company in the 2005 Australian Blog Awards. In the best Overseas Australian Blog category I've got tough competition, including fellow HK-er Spirit Fingers and Chinese blog Supernaut. In fact geographically greater China dominates this category.
Update: Just before Award fatigue sets in, the 2005 Bloggies are in the nomination stage. This one has actual prizes and it includes an Asian category.
The official results are in. Please click on the links below to see the results in each category.
Thank you to everyone who participated. While the awards themselves are competitive, the main point is to create greater exposure for blogs right across Asia. A total of 27,200 votes were cast and there has been interest from mainstream media as well as around the world. The diversity and quality of Asian blogs is astounding and something that will only grow in the future.
In each category I have listed the three top vote-winners and then the other finalists. For many of the country categories I have added links to blog directories covering that country. I have left space for other blogs that also fit each category to be added in time. Alternatively you can look at the Best Blogs in Asia directory.
Thanks again and enjoy the many Asian blogs on display.
Update: Thanks to IZ, new special logos are available at the bottom of this post.
It was always a bit of a stretch to put Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in the same category, but it's a bit odd not to Sri Lanka in the group title now that the results are in.
On an admin note, I've had to shut off comments on all posts that are older than 30 days old. Most comments on those posts were from members of the pharmacetical or adult entertainment industries. This being a digital age I cannot use these comments to wipe my bottom after certain movements. Their value thus another victim of digitisation, I have decided to experiment with not having to deal with them at all.
And if you're wondering who those three handsome men wondering around Wanchai Computer Centre tomorrow afternoon, that'd be me, him and him. Autographs to those that recognise us.
Update: Two more admin things. I've corrected the link for my Amazon wishlist (gifts in all price ranges!). Secondly I've changed my excerpts to only capture the first 100 words of each post. While I recognise RSS readers are becoming more popular, at the same time I want people to come to my site rather than all of my site just going to them. If you want to read the post you should visit the site - that way I can track it and if I so choose monetise it in the form of ads. Not that we've reached that point, yet. 100 words should be enough to give a taste of most posts. If the RSS crowd are unhappy please feel free to tell me why I should revert to displaying full posts. But I need better reasons than "that's how I read blogs". The only reward I get for doing this is readership and RSS readers don't show up as readers. Consider these excerpts teasers to draw you back to the site, rather than letting you read the posts for "free". It's a very small price to pay: precisely one mouse click. [see the comments]
I don't mind clickin ya off of the newsfeed. I did have a problem with getting here though. The url reported through your RSS is wrong for the post so I ended up 404. Fix that and I'll be happy as a pig in poop.
Well, I'm afraid that for me RSS readers offer a lot more than just the ability to read blogs. I use a service called bloglines, which allow s me to not only quickly read blogs (and I monitor 200 of them) but also to classify interesting posts, put the best ones on my clip blog, save other posts for later, etc. That's real value added for me, and if you are only going to publish 100 word summaries, I'm afraid that the inconvenience factor (especially since your blog pages are sometimes unavailable and not infrequently slow) I'm going to unsubscribe. I do it with some disappointment (because I do enjoy reading your blog).
I must furthe admit being a little surprised by your decision. It is easy to track RSS readers (for example, just include a fetched image in each entry and count the number of times it is requested) and you don't currently have advertising. Should you choose to add it in the future, you could face the decision then of whether to support RSS readers or not.
Thanks so much for your blog up until now, and I wish you all the best in the future.
Thanks for that. I have to say I actually forgot that those trapped behind the great Firewall often use readers to access blogs. On tracking RSS readers, the image idea will only slow page loads even more, so I'm not sure that's a solution.
I've reset the excerpts to show full posts again. My point remains that it is difficult for bloggers to track their full readership if many are using RSS readers...and readership is the lifeblood of a blog.
One comment about your RSS feed: The feed reader I use (Feed on feeds) can't parse your feed. I don't have any problem with other feeds - but yours seems to cause it problems.
The feed validator also complains:
http://feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsimonworld.mu.nu%2Findex.rdf
I've had that problem before. It seems to occur because certain Trackback URLs don't agree with the parsers; so when I do an Asia by Blog, for example, it tends to happen. In this case it's stuck on a trackback to Dai Tou Laam. The only solution is to delete links to those posts, but I don't want to do that. I'm not sure what other solutions exist.
Yesterday China had its 1.3 billionth baby, unsurprisingly a boy. China has 120 boys for every 100 girlsand in some provinces 130:100 - the average worldwide is 105 boys to 100 girls. Indeed the PR gurus who managed yesterday's media event were disappointed the baby was a boy, according to the SCMP. They were hoping a girl would act as another reminder of the growing gender imbalance. China has 40 million more men than women as a result of the interaction of the one child policy and cultural preferences. The Government has tightened bans against gender detection and sex-selective abortions, although policing such bans are almost impossible. One wonders why it has taken so long.
However the future isn't all gloomy. What Government policy and culture distorts can be corrected by an extremely efficient mechanism - the market. Without wanting to be too crude, the "price" of women will continue to rise in the years ahead. More men will compete for the favour of fewer women. Women can become more selective about their mates. In time the value of having a baby girl will start to outweigh the perceived negatives. But this will take decades. In the meantime you literally have an army of Chinese men who are unlikely to find wives. That's a social problem beyond even the social engineering efforts of the CCP.
When I was researching the Chinese gender imbalance phenomenon over a year ago I learned that it is already illegal for a doctor administering ultrasound to even reveal the sex of a fetus, this to prevent sex selective abortions. So much for Chinese law, which a propaganda tool most of the time.
My HSK-textbook - yes, a strange source indeed - says that the whole gender imbalance isn't a problem at all: The figures look gloomy at first, but as the mortality rate for males is much higher than for girls, the problems has basically all but vanished by the time those kiddies will start thinking about marriage.
It is now official: the HK property market has fully recovered from the SARS crisis. The flat across the hall from mine, which has been empty since we moved in at the start of 2004, is currently being renovated and is expecting tenants at the start of February.
Good news for Hong Kong but a disaster for us. We've taken to using the common area as a handy storage space for strollers and pool toys. Still, I look forward to an amusing conversation regarding rents when I meet the new tenants.
Could this article be the most bad taste and flimsiest article yet on the tsunami? Who the hell bases a newspaper article on the semi-articulate gibberings of an expat in Wanchai? Except for AFP, that is. I'll grant Mark Tyler, if he exists, that he probably either (a) didn't realise he was speaking to a reporter and/or (b) was joking. The non-accredited AFP reporter, on the other hand, has no excuse.
How come the SMH takes 11 days to realise there are conspiracy theories going around? If they read any papers, other apparently than their own, they would have been aware of these over a week ago.
And who is this "Doctor" Bart Bautisda who weighs energy by the ounce?
For all those in Hong Kong, this Monday night, January 10th, Delaneys in Wanchai is showing the Asia v. Rest of the World charity cricket match. All bar takings on the night are being donated by Delaneys to the tsunami relief effort.
I will be there and I strongly encourage everyone to attend. After all, how many times in your life can you drink and say it's for a good cause?
As the internet becomes more pervasive it can act as a mirror to the society that uses it. John has compiled a sample of the top 10 searches on China's most popular search engine, Baidu. The Top 10 How Tos start with how to kiss and include how to get pregnant. The Whys include Why join the Party?, the puzzling Why can't I get online (how are they searching, by telepathy?) and disturbingly Why live?.
These lists must keep sociologists busy for months.
Update: The People's Daily has also listed the top 10 domestic and international stories in Chinese media. The top domestic story covered a Government report on farmer's incomes and rights; Hu Jintao's assumption of the top job only ranked 8th.
At 12:02pm last night, Lan Hui gave birth to a baby boy at the Beijing Hospital of Gynaecology and Obstectrics. Proud father Zhang Tong didn't have to worry about the normal juggling of cameras and videos to capture the moment, because this little boy is China's 1.3 billionth person. At a intensely emotion and stressful time, the lucky couple had most of China's media crammed into the delivery room watching, videoing and photographing the event.
Do these people get special treatment? Or is it a fleeting flame - one minute you're the star and the next you're just another little emperor? Has anyone heard from the 1.2 billionth baby lately?
My thoughts on the Chinese Government's inadequate response to the tsunami crisis has generated some debate. One commenter said my comments are an insult to the Chinese people. That's a common comeback when anyone makes a comment on China. The problem is it confuses two very different entities: the Chinese people and the Chinese Government. The Chinese people have been very generous in donating to tsunami relief. The Chinese Government, while starting to catch up, has been slow in offering aid and assistance and have squandered a chance to lead the way in responding to the disaster and assert its role as a regional power.
This is an important point and I'm going to repeat it. The Chinese people are not the same thing as the Chinese Government. Attacking the Government is not a sleight on the Chinese people. While the CCP says it is the sole representative of all Chinese, the truth is that it is not. It's a crucial distinction.
Very important distinction. Governments may or may not worry about geo-political image/fallout/roles/whatever but the pizza delivery guy, the hardware clerk, and the office receptionist who are writing checks for any amount they can are not concerned with that crap in the least. They just want to help. And for all the right reasons.
Of course we can all agree that this is a very important distinction. The Chinese government is not the same as the Chinese people and doesn't necessarily speak for all of them at the same time or even promote their interests in the best ways. The same can be said of all governments everywhere in all time periods.
But the statistics I posted on my website listed money pledged by the government. Just glancing at the statistics you posted in your "Smoke on the Water" piece, it seems that in China the government contributions are more substantial than those coming from individuals (save Hong Kong of course).
So I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree here, Simon. I see no point in lambasting the government about this, especially when all of us--realistically--do not feel comfortable with Chinese influence in the region growing anyway.
I still think that after all this initial grandstanding dies down, and the people of the affected regions begin the long process of recovery (I've seen reports saying this will take many years), they'll need to figure out where to spend this huge pile of money everyone from all over the world has donated. How do you think it will be spent? Personally I think China will be supplying the relief effort in the years to come and that only then will we be able to see the full picture of their contribution.
simon, thks for making the clarification. i fully understand the difference between the people and the government, especially in country like china. that's the reason i only refer "part of your post" to as an "insult". in this case, chinese people (including many firms and non-profit organizations) took the initiatives, therefore i see it more like an aid from chinese people rather than from the government.
simon, thks for making the clarification. i fully understand the difference between the people and the government, especially in country like china. that's the reason i only refer "part of your post" as an "insult". in this case, chinese people (including many firms and non-profit organizations) took the initiatives, therefore i see it more like an aid from chinese people rather than from the government.
99% of all this "money" has only been PLEDGED. Not donated, PLEDGED. That means that most of it will never actually change hands. Easy to pledge, hard to give.
Today's SCMP headline: HK leads the world in tsunami relief. As Shaky notes, it isn't a competition. The headline is also misleading. The chart below also shows the contributions per capita by Governments as well as by private donors. HK's people lead the way; the Government is, by contrast, stingy beyond belief. Compared to the other rich countries listed, HK's Government is at least half of the others. Hong Kong's fiscal reserves were HK$311 billion (US$40 billion) in March 2003. To date the Government has donated HK$30 million. Pathetic.
Hong Kong also kept top spot in the Heritage Foundation's economic freedom index. Quick trivia check: which Government bought huge quantities of shares on its own stock exchange in 1998?
HK waste no time in rearing it's ugly head. If Hong Konger somehow identified with smcp's headline, then you're a bunch of churlish foible self-absorbed snubs. Why not print that side-by-side with your highest per capita ROLLS-ROYCE ownership in the world proclamation. You're hopeless.
I was going to write today about China's lamentable efforts in the wake of the tsunami disaster but Michael Moran of MSNBC beat me to it. His article, China fails the tsunami test, is worth a read. China's pretentions to being a world or even regional power are found wanting at times like this. Some excerpts:
At a time when tens of thousands in its neighborhood were at risk of starvation, dehydration and disease, China’s focus was right where it has been for centuries: China...With the exception of the American 7th Fleet, based in Japan, China maintains the largest amphibious force in the region, a force with precisely the kind of ships desperately needed in parts of the region rendered inaccessible by the battering waves...So why are the Chinese still at their moorings?
The answer is complicated by China’s historic policy of “non-interfere” in the internal affairs of its neighbors, and in some places — India, in particular — by historic suspicions and resentments built up over centuries of rivalry. But China's low profile also speaks volumes about the gap between its rhetoric, which stresses it’s coming of age as a great power in Asia, and the reality of China’s inward-oriented foreign policy...More seriously for China, it casts light at an inconvenient time on a somewhat cynical game the Chinese government has been playing for years: soaking up billions in aid and interest free development loans from the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and other NGOs, even as it has grown into the seventh largest economy in the world...
Within hours of the disaster, India – China’s near equal in terms of population and economic growth – told the world it did not need disaster relief for the time being, suggesting such money be diverted to poorer nations. What’s more, India dispatched navy ships and cargo aircraft to its devastated cousins in Sri Lanka, immediately staking a claim for itself in the “core” group of donor nations...
But coaxing China out of the somewhat paranoid shell through which it has viewed the world for centuries is in the longer term interest of the United States and Asia. Had China, on Dec. 27, announced that its naval transports planned joint relief operations with Japan or the U.S. fleet instead of war games with Russia, an important line would have been crossed. Unfortunately, for China, Asia and the world, Beijing just can’t see the logic – yet.
Exactly right. Here was an opportunity for China to show the world it is ready to take its seat at the top table of nations, to be a true world power. But instead of accepting the responsabilities that come with it, China would rather engage the world on its own terms. But the world doesn't work like that - you can't cherry-pick being a world power, such as attending G8 meetings, without accepting the burdens that go with it. But further than that, China missed an opportunity to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. Until China can learn the meaning of altruism, it will never be the power it aspires to being.
For a contrast, Joe has a summary of the current US effort. These efforts along with the NGOs such as the Red Cross are stunning in their efficiency. By contrast, the UN's effortsto date seem almost a parody. Why is it whenever the UN gets a chance to show the good it can to, it squanders it?
Update 2: It appears China has sent some aid to the affected countries. It seems to have come out of the Foreign Affairs Department with limited involvement of the PLA so far. China could and should be doing more, but it's a start.
China bashing is a full-time occupation, where there are always opportunities no matter what China does. So here, they are condemned for not sending the fleet out. What if they did? Remember that when the Chinese fleet showed upon in Hong Kong (a part of China) last year, New York Times and the US Congress denounced this as interference. So if the Chinese fleet showed up offshore from Aceh, what would the wackos from the American Enterprises Institute say? Definitive proof of imperial aspirations because this is a departure from historial non-interference? Time for pre-emptive nuclear strikes against against the Red Menace?
That doesn't wash. The Indonesians were no fans of either Australians nor Americans, yet they are happily accepting military and other help from both. In circumstances such as this I don't think anyone would consider it a Red Menace. It would be considered China doing the right thing, helping its neighbours and acting like the power it wants to be.
Are you seriously saying that China's inaction is excusable? China bashing is a full time job because often its actions (or inaction) open itself to criticism. America bashing is also a full time profession. No country is perfect. But China has fallen far short this time.
I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out--to see if indeed China's contributions are very small. I may be completely mistaken, but I don't think China has ever had really comfortable relations with Indonesia.
That aside, what are the macroeconomic numbers like these days? What could China really afford per capita? I guess the US pledge would be something like $1.50 per capita, but that's really not a stretch for Americans. I think it would be wrong to expect that kind of scale from China where the average income per capita in US dollars is far, far lower.
I don't know much about the Chinese navy, but I do know it's pretty crummy. Maybe it's second after the US, but it's a very distant second.
Also, there are probably political reasons that Japan is spending so much money on this, and I don't just mean because they have a history in the region. Couldn't their pledge be seen as just an effort to knock China off its stride in the region--to make China lose face? They're still the ones who are rich, and China is the one just starting to get off the developmental aid.
I'm not sure if I've been clear and concise here, but I see little good in criticizing China for not doing enough. Geopolitically, I think it's obvious that they'd want to do more, but they probably just can't match the scale of the developed world.
On balance, I think it is better for China not to send troops. In fact, India is already grumbing about US sending troops to its influence zone. US may be thinking it is doing a good thing. I am not sure whether locals will like it.
I disagree, Matt. As the article says, look at the contrast between India's reaction and China's. Even though India was hit they offered help to others and rejected aid, saying other countries needed it more. India is far less wealthy than China. Even if the Chinese navy isn't that great, some kind of effort needs to be made. Yes China has donated money despite its limited capacity to donate. But otherwise they've done nothing.
Sure Japan is spending money for political reasons. That should be an even greater incentive for China to act. China can help with airlifting, transport, setting up infrastructure. Sometimes grumbles about "spheres of influence" have to be set aside while the humanitarian disaster is sorted. No-one from Turkey seemed worried about Greek help during their earthquake, nor vice-versa. Sometimes help is simply that.
As I said in the post, that's where China has failed. In failing the altruism test, China has failed its ambitions. The historical and geopolitical reasons are irrelevant. China had a chance to act, to do some good and enhance its standing. By their inactions they've condemned themselves.
I find the comparison with India misleading, though it's obviously written by a very clever author.
I also don't clearly understand your point. India is less wealthy and sent ships (no money). China is richer and sent money (no ships). It doesn't make sense to draw an argument about not committing ships from the fact that they have more money.
China didn't have the "opportunity" to turn down aid "for the time-being" and it has sent support, just not the same kind.
Certainly India will send hard support to Sri Lanka. And if something happened like this in Taiwan, China would do the same. My point is that the respective pairs of countries have a shared sense of identity.
There's not enough detail here to come down so hard on China even if--as you say--it's warranted.
What are the ships that are "precisely needed" mentioned here? I know that China's navy doesn't have the proper ships to launch a ground invasion of Taiwan--those used for transport--so it's obviously not "that kind."
Also, how about some numbers?
Here we are criticizing people in the midst of a disaster. That's not so selfless, especially if one acknowleges that geopolotics are playing a role, is it?
Transport ships are precicely what are needed at the moment, as well as helicopters and other methods of transporting aid and providing relief. The India example is just to demonstrate that even poor countries that have been directly hit are doing more to help their neighbours than China.
My main point is this: China wants to be and be seen as a regional and global power. Sending some money is a good start. Sending military and logistical support would be even more useful in the short term. America, Australia, Singapore and others are doing that. China is noticably absent in this side of the relief effort. There's not even a token precence.
Geopolitics is a factor. It always is. Certainly Australian and American generosity and help isn't just out of humantiarian reasons but also for geopolitical ones. That's the chance that China is squandering.
I am criticising people in the midsts of this disaster...those that refuse to help how they can. They deserve criticism - if they get enough it might even spur them into action.
It's so "moving" to see so many people worrying about despotic China "bashing". They are the same who don't forgive anything when the subjects are United States or other western democracies. Not surprising after all. Funny world.
if china doesn't want to give a hand, why she donated money? the tv here in shanghai just "bombed" people with such news report of what is happening in that area, and a lot of people, including those old and poor, donated some money, if you have time, read a post in my blog (http://blog.bcchinese.net/bingfeng/archive/2005/01/04/6871.aspx)
the reason why china didn't send ships is pretty self-evident to me - either china doesn't have that ability, or, china feels that sending navy ships just irritate countries like US, japan....
another reason is probably the news reports about the coverage and level of damage of this tradegy comes late, i am pretty quick in knowing international news, but my first reaction is - wow, 1000 people dead.
your logic has no base, china just want to show to the whole world that she is a responsible member of the international community, no reason for her not sending ships if she can without making others uncomfortable.
btw, some part of your post is merely an insult to many chinese people including my wife.
bingfeng - it's called social norms. A ship full of chineese nationals who knew the local dialect would have been welcomed, I am certain. BTW, my wife is chinese too but not offended.
RE: "It's so "moving" to see so many people worrying about despotic China "bashing". They are the same who don't forgive anything when the subjects are United States or other western democracies. Not surprising after all. Funny world."
It seems you are talking about me here. Could you maybe be more clear and point to an instance when I've failed to "forgive the United States or other western dmocracies?" All I am saying is that I think a little humility is in order. I wasn't happy when people criticized the US right away for not doing enough and it makes me unhappy when folks do the same thing to China. Let's just try to keep our eye on the ball.
as i know, the US donated very few money at first and GW didn't show up to say a few words to those victims and encourage americans to do something until very late. this is sharp contrast with some other nations including china. should i say that US FAILED THE TSUNAMI TEST?
i agree that many nations including china didn't do a perfect job, either for lack of experiences or lack of accurate information or for purely geopolitical reasons, i won't say any nation FAILED the test.
charity money is not a test, tax money is.
to be honest, i just smell a strong confrontational attitute towards china and chinese people in the articial above.
many chinese clearly know how the ethnic chinese are treated in indonesia, even though, they donated money to that country. my wife told me that "we shouldn't sit down doing nothing because people are dying", i am just very curious why somebody is trying to tell china what is the meaning of altruism.
This article is loopy. India is in no way an 'aid' nation, and the author completely misses India's true motives in sending ships to Sri Lanka: entirely political reasons regarding 'face'.
Many Indians here believe that by refusing international assistance, India effectively sealed the fates of hundreds, if not thousands, of its citizens in Tamil Nadu, just so it could look more important and self-sufficent to the world than it really is.
Aid has still not reached parts of Tamil Nadu in sufficient measure, so people here are angry that India is devoting its resources to Sri Lanka when there is still much suffering here.
My point is that China's Government could be doing far more than it has to date. Slowly it seems the Government is ramping up its aid, but it has been woefully slow and could still provide more logistical support. Any potential Taiwan invasion could go on hold for a few weeks while the PLA sends some planes and ships to help.
As to my perceived "insult", you need to remember one thing: the Chinese people and the Chinese Government are not the same thing. The Chinese people have been exceedingly generous and in some part that has put pressure on the CCP to follow with more and more aid. My attack is on the Chinese Government.
Roy: you have far better knowledge of India than I. I cannot accept or deny your assertion, but it would seem exceedingly calluous for a Government to refuse aid for the sake of face and political reasons. Perhaps that has happened in this case, but I have no prima facie evidence that's the case. Until such time as I see otherwise, it would seem that India's actions are noble rather than machiavellian.
how much is enough and how much is not enough, this is rather a matter of subjectivity. Matt has given us his index to compare china's contribution with that of the US, however, i won't be convinced by his index and believe that the US didn't contribute enough. vice versa, if the US sent ships and china didn't, does it mean china didn't contributed enough? i won't say so either.
the assertion of "some country could do far more than it has done" could be applied to any country involved into the aid.
people and government are different, but the donation here was, to a great extent, initiated by the people and at a later time coordinated by the government. in the first few days, those old guys and women just called local media asking why there is no action to help the victims, and on the web some young people critized government for slow reaction and lack of coordination.
china is not experienced in this kind of international relief action, and no doubt there are many improvement opportunities there. but to say china FAILED the test, this is obviously unfair and, to many chinese, offensive.
so next time, perhaps you should just raise your hand and ask china: "could you send a few ships please", instead of pointing to china when she was busy sending the 4th batch of aid materials and her people saved their slender money to donate to indonesia.
Failed the Tsunami test? More bollocks from Washington Know-Nothings.
China doesn't have a blue water navy.
Its ships are based in the wrong ocean - Pacific, not Indian.
China has no tradition or experience of humanitarian interventions. Live Aid was only eight years after Mao and his Cultural Revolution died.
The Chinese have to tread very carefully in Indonesia and Malaysia because of longstanding and often viruent anti Chinese prejudice.
Stand by for more Chinese "failures" brought to you by the scriptwriters of success stories like Fallujah.
Simon, I think you are in desperate need of a major reality adjustment. You criticize China's contribution, while lauding the achievements of the West. Well, how much of the money that these Western governments have promised will actually be given? For a clue, try reading this: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/01/05/tsunami.aid.promises/index.html
And how much of that "aid" is really aid? How much of it will help and how much of it will harm? Try working your way through the links here: http://www.friendsoftheheroes.co.uk/page5/index.html#3
Bearing all this in mind, I read the other day a promise made by Wen Jiabao. He said that every last bit of the aid that China has promised will be given. The proof is in the pudding, and I'll be watching to see if he actually spoke the truth, but my guess is that China will follow through. Can the same be said of our governments?
And by the way, China was one of the first countries to respond to the tsunami victims' needs - and despite being a developing country, so far China has been one of the biggest *givers* - as opposed to *promisers*.
If you read that CNN link, you'll know that the earthquake victims of Bam know from experience just how useless those promises can be.
I agree, Cat, that it will be important to see if money actually follows the pledges made. With so much attention the likelihood is high Governments will follow through...China, Australia, America - all Governments.
It leads me to another point - China is a "developing country" that spends extraordinary amounts of moeny putting men into space for nationalist reasons alone. Let's not keep using that as an excuse.
China's joining of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was seen as a way to open its economy to further international trade and to force China to play within the rules. One common measure are "anti-dumping" actions, where businesses in (say) America can allege a country (say) China is dumping goods at well below "fair" cost, thus causing damage to those local businesses that cannot compete. Such measures have a place but are often abused for protectionist reasons. Typically anti-dumping actions are brought against very low cost producers who can sell at a far cheaper rate than local competitors can match. If the case if found proved special tariffs are applied to level out the playing field. More often than not the low cost producer is a country such as China.
But not always. China is imposing antidumping tariffs on optical fiber from the US, Japan, S. Korea. What a splendid turnaround on typical dumping actions. Last week a US judge also lifted import restrictions on Chinese textiles. Textiles were made quota-free around the world on January 1st and many expect China to rapidly claim a far larger market share in the absence of quotas, although it hasn't happened yet. But it will. If you're in retailing you want to find the cheapest supplier, not the one your Government forces you to buy from due to restrictions or quotas.
Voting has closed in the Asian Blog Awards. Results should be posted by January 8th.
I have removed the link to the poll itself. If you retained the link you will find you can still vote. However I have printed the official master list of results. All votes after this time will be disregarded. Once results are posted I will close the poll link down completely.
Thanks again to all who participated. Stay tuned for results...
Simon. Thanks for running the contest. I discovered quite a new reads through it. Actually, I would appreciate it if you could keep a list of the nominees open for a bit longer so I can blogroll before it vanishes. The hate mail Mia and Spirit Fingers received is unforgivable. On a more positive note, in S'pore we were actually inspired enough organize brunch.
Blogs are proving a great tool in covering the tsunami story. Aggregating news, punditry, thoughts on relief efforts, first hand accounts, all far more interesting than most major media reporting.
Tim Blair says the confirmed death toll is almost 145,000 and climbing. The Diplomad has a first-hand look at the comparitive relief efforts of the UN and the Aussie/US-lead ad hoc team, with the WFP team making sure the kitchen is working 24 hours a day...for them. NZ Bear follows the trade not aid argument with a practical suggestion: buy something from the affected countries. An even better idea: start planning your next holiday in Phuket or Galle. What these places need is the tourism that was often their lifeblood. India Uncut is full of interesting dispatches, for example this one looking at levels of public aid. Ann Althouse has looked at the logistics of the aid effort. Arthur Chrenkoff has a roundup with plenty of good links too.
There is great potential for a bigger combined blogosphere effort to help in the longer term. Something like Spirit of America or Operation Give for the worse hit countries. This is something bloggers, particularly Asia-based ones, to get pro-active in helping. Anyone prepared to join me?
Disasters like the Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami happen quickly but the effects last lifetimes. The horror of the events, a respect for the power of nature and a tinge of morbid curiosity pervade the coverage and reaction. These events serve to remind us all that we are still, despite our ocassional delusions otherwise, at the whim of our planet and not the other way around.
Certain truths also need to be recognised. The setting up of an early warning system is to be commended. But until now most of the tsunami risk was considered concertrated in the Pacific rather than Indian Ocean, where an early warning system is in place. If warnings were given it is also difficult to see how effective they would have been. Certainly lives would have been saved. But in many areas communications are poor; there is no high land to evacuate to; and there are too many people and not enough roads and ways to transport them out. More importantly these Acts of God are unpredictable. That is the horror of these disasters. Humans strive for predictability in our constant attempt to understand and control nature. It doesn't always work out that way. The widespread nature of the destruction is certainly playing a part in the display of charity by Government, business and people. While earthquakes and tsunamis are known events, they are outside the frame of reference for most. Thankfully many of us have never had to confront these natural disasters. When they happen part of the horror is that something so quick can cause so much damage and loss. First hand accounts can give us a taste of what is otherwise unimagineable.
Each of the impacted countries are having different responses to both the disaster and the flood of help. Burma has absurdly claimed less than one hundred deaths and refused all help. Indonesia and Sri Lanka are open in seeking assistance. Just as important as this immediate aid is the longer-term assistance offered, especially once the tragedy fades from the front and even back pages of the papers.
I always wonder about "First World" reaction to natural disasters when they strike predominately developing or poor nations. Often the disaster lasts a news cycle or two before fading, leaving behind the wreckage but not the attention. Much attention in both Australia and Hong Kong has been focussed on the resort of Phuket in Thailand because that is a common holiday spot. It is natural that countries will look at places where their nationals have been taken. At the time of writing 14 Australians and 11 Hong Kongers have been confirmed dead out of a total death toll of 100,000+, with more missing. This time is different. The huge amounts of money and aid flowing in prove that. It might be "over there" but it is being felt everywhere.
What good can be found in all this chaos? The outpouring of charity is clearly one. Both Aceh in Indonesia and in Sri Lanka the affected areas were also areas troubled by civil war. If this disaster can have a similar thawing of relations between two sides as the Greek/Turkish earthquakes did a few years ago, then at least these many deaths may not have been entirely in vain. The main agencies involved in providing help, such as UNICEF and the Red Cross, are being stretched by the geographical and logistical challenges. That such agencies exist and are able to rapidly respond is a blessing for all of humanity. Once again we've all been reminded there are more powerful forces on this planet than us. But these same forces touch and unite the basic humanity in us all.
An excellent site to start for offering assistance is Tsunami Help.
"Much attention in both Australia and Hong Kong has been focussed on the resort of Phuket in Thailand because that is a common holiday spot. It is natural that countries will look at places where their nationals have been taken."
That being said, I would like to learn why Burma has less than 100 deaths while thousands just over their borders have been snuffed out. Restricted Access my butt.
Running these Asian Blog Awards has been an interesting experience, to say the least. This post combines several announcements:
1. Voting concludes tonight HK time in the Asia Blog Awards. No-one was forewarned of the extension in voting and I don't believe it favours anyone.
2. I am extremely dissapointed to have learned of nominees being harassed. Inevitably awards bring out competitive instincts. But the idea of these awards is to promote Asian blogs. The blog affected requested to be removed from the awards. However I was out of email contact and unable to do that. I will leave the nomination up given the voting is about to shut but I am very sorry this episode sullied an otherwise trouble-free awards. Update: Mia has also been abused. WTF, people?
3. I hope to reply to individual emails from those interested in the awards today.
4. Results should be up by the end of the week. Once they are up I'll start listing all nominees and other blog for each category - please wait until the results are up before making suggestions.
5. I've received many emails asking why Gongkapas wasn't amongst the finalists in the Malaysia section. The simple answer is I made a mistake. There were some severe time constraints in getting these awards up and running and I apologise for overlooking what is obviously a popular site.
6. It seems Gweilo Diaries has shuffled off this mortal coil. At the time of nominations its status was uncertain so I included it. Here's hoping Conrad returns soon.
Asian blogging is coming under renewed focus due to the tsunami disaster. There is some great work being done and I hope to talk more about it soon. Yan has suggested some kind of combined Asian blogger fundraising effort; perhaps through a gathering, or some other way. It's a great idea. Once I get the awards and results finalised this will be my next project.
Finally the Asia by Blog series will restart shortly.
Good work, Simon-you've put a lot of effort into running this and I think you did a lovely job. Too bad some serious losers had to go and try to destroy other bloggers in order to get "their" blog to win.
To those who hate some of the blogs nominated, I think their simple advice should be: See that red "X" at the top right hand corner of the internet explorer window? Click it. Works wonders.
![[boomerang]](http://simonworld.mu.nu/boomerang2.gif){kind=small}
Posted by 
