This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
The Standard: "Beijing gave a warm welcome to a leader of Taiwan's opposition Kuomintang...Chiang Pin-kung, vice-chairman of the KMT, arrived in Beijing Wednesday on the third leg of an official visit, the KMT's first since 1949." What would Chiang Kai-Shek say? Hemlock:
Muttering âmy enemyâs enemy is my friendâ, a senior Kuomintang delegation visits the Mainland for the first time since 1949. Given the Chinese Communist Party banditsâ origins within the KMT, the two sides have much in common to discuss. The ditching of Leninist principles. Dictatorship. Corruption. Massacres. The co-option of business and gangsters. Being on the losing side of history...
More than 19 million people, mostly Chinese, are reported to have signed internet petitions opposing Japan's campaign to join the ranks of permanent members of the world's great power club, the United Nations Security Council. Launched only a week ago, the petitions are being carried on the three main Chinese internet portals - sina.com, 163.com and sohu.com - with the blessing of Chinese authorities.
The internet campaign also risks charges of hypocrisy, given that China's 80 million web users are unlikely to be given a chance to express opinions on other questions, such as China's support for North Korea.
But not a word about it in the South China Morning Post.
(16:32) Thanks to Publius Pundit for marking me at number 10 in his top 20 bloggers list. And thank you to Bill for letting me know.
Usually the p0rn industry leads the way in new technology. So the outsourcing trend was only a matter of time.
Results as at 17:20 on March 31st, 2005. Check out the link for an explanation of what the indicies mean.
Total sentences 834
Total words 8,284
Average words per Sentence 9.93
Words with 1 Syllable 5,403
Words with 2 Syllables 1,843
Words with 3 Syllables 731
Words with 4 or more Syllables 307
Percentage of word with three or more syllables 12.53%
Average Syllables per Word 1.51%
Gunning Fog Index 8.99
Flesch Reading Ease 69.00
Flesch-Kincaid Grade 6.10
FYI Please be advised that Dareecha.com aka dareecha.blogspot.com is reported to the internet domain registry for domain name theft(www.icann.org) for the domain name that is a registered entity in U.S. and Pakistan. Mr Malik Aqdas Malik of HANKEN (Swedish School of Economics and Business Administration) in Helsinki, Finland is the occupant.
No action is expected/required from you. Display of this message demonstrates your impartiality to this case.
The confusion over Hong Kong's Basic Law and what it means for the new Chief Executive (CE) continues. I'm not a lawyer (thank God). But the Basic Law is written in plain English. The key article for this discussion is Article 46:
The term of office of the Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be five years. He or she may serve for not more than two consecutive terms.
It seems so simple. The previous CE resigned. The new one should take his place with a 5 year term, with the possibility of another 5 year term. But that doesn't suit Beijing. So out came the "guardians" of the Basic Law to torture it (pun intended) to suit, quickly followed by the previously misguided Hong Kong flip floppers, to determine the new CE will only serve the remaining 2 years of Tung's term. If need be China's NPC will "re-interpret" the Basic Law to make it so and prevent possible legal challenges.
Now Beijing is changing its mind on how long the next CE, The Don, can serve. Basic Law "guardian" Wang Zhenmin has joined the flip-flopping crowd. On March 11 Wang had said if the CE served less than half of the full term in office that should not be counted as a term of office under Article 46. Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung has said the same. But now the pro-Beijing camp are clearly opposed to The Don but have to live with it. But they are not going to put up with him for 12 years. So Beijing is back-tracking as a quid pro quo for their supporting The Don now.
The SCMP has reprinted three letters from Basic Law "experts" Xu Chongde and Lian Xisheng to Elsie Leung detailing the rationale for a two-year term for the new CE. As an episode in convoluted legal reasoning it is difficult to beat. However it misses a couple of key things, namely logic and any reference to the clear meaning of the original Basic Law.
Now it might be me. But if there was so much thought, discussion and intention for the Basic Law, why not write the Article to reflect it? Article 46 as written is clear and seemingly plain. Why write one thing but mean another? Sometimes laws are ambiguous and their applications unclear; in those cases they need interpretation. That's why courts exist. In this case it is the NPC not courts that will do the interpretation - another perversion of the rule of law. But here the Article is clear. The only people making it ambiguous are Beijing for their own political ends. And Hong Kong's leadership are jumping in to anticipate and repeat Beijing's view. Why don't they have a conference call and sort out the message once and for, so at least they can avoid these embarrassing flip-flops?
I'd clearly welcome any input from those better versed in legal and constitution issues. But for this layman these justifications seem like hogwash. The comparisons with the American constitution border on insulting.
Call me old fashioned but instead of trying to get inside the mind of the drafters, I prefer to look at what they wrote on the page.
The Hong Kong government was originally of the view that Tung Chee-hwa's successor should serve a five-year term, but later determined that the successor should serve only the remainder of the chief executive's term. Here are the complete versions of three letters written by mainland Basic Law experts Xu Chongde and Lian Xisheng to Secretary for Justice Elsie Leung Oi-sie laying out the rationale for a two-year term. In the letters, released by the Department of Justice, the experts list their recollection of the period during the drafting of the Basic Law, discussions that were held and the legal and constitutional basis for their opinion.
MARCH 7: Question of vacancy answered with 5-year term for electors
Dear Ms Leung,
I refer to your call on March 7 in which you inquired about the legislative process and the legislative intent of the provisions related to the term of the chief executive in the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). My recollections of the relevant events are set out below.
Between 1985 and 1990, I was a member of the group on the political structure and participated in drafting the Basic Law of Hong Kong. I recall that in the course of drafting Article 53 of the Basic Law which provides that "In the event that the office of chief executive becomes vacant, a new chief executive shall be selected within six months in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of this Law", there were changes back and forth in respect of the wording of ("the new chief executive"). Initially it was written in the form of the current provision. However, it was changed into ("the chief executive of the new term") in the course of drafting. Later, the words ("term") were deleted. The above changes were made mainly because members had different understanding towards the term of the new chief executive when the office of the chief executive was left vacant. Some members considered that it should be the residue of the unexpired term, while some others thought that it should be a new term. Why were the words ("term") eventually deleted? I remember that at that time it was mainly based on the following understanding:
(1) The chief executive could certainly mean an individual holding that office. However, in the Basic Law, the chief executive is primarily a state organ and an integral part of the political structure of the SAR. The chief executive, the executive authorities, the legislature and the judiciary together form the political structure of the HKSAR. Therefore, "the term of office of the chief executive shall be five years" as referred to by us means, to a very great extent, that each term of office of that organ is five years. In practice, the same chief executive would normally serve throughout the five-year term of office of the chief executive. However, the possibility that two or more persons holding the office in succession within the same term could not be ruled out. And the five-year term of office of the chief executive as a state organ would not be affected.
(2) If we were to look at the practice in the mainland, it will show that irrespective of whether it is the National People's Congress, its Standing Committee, the president of the People's Republic of China, the State Council, a local People's Congress or a local government, the term of office of these organs is not determined by the appointment or departure of a particular individual but rather by the term of office of the respective organs as provided for in the Constitution. For instance, the governors of provinces and the mayors of municipalities in the mainland change frequently but this does not mean that the respective governments have to be changed as well. Instead, the new governors and the new mayors will continue to serve out the unexpired term of their predecessors. The People's Congress system is not practised in the HKSAR. Nevertheless, it is specified that the chief executive shall be elected by an election committee and that the term of office of the election committee shall be five years. This was drawn up with reference to the practice adopted in the mainland regarding the term of office.
(3) The situation of the United States was also taken into account at that time. A president of the United States shall hold office for four years in each term. When President [John F.] Kennedy was assassinated after assuming the presidency for two years and 10 months, Vice-President [Lyndon] Johnson succeeded as president for the remaining unexpired term of his predecessor. After one year and six-and-a-half months on his second term of presidency, [Richard] Nixon resigned from office as a result of the Watergate incident. His unexpired term was served by his successor, Vice-President [Gerald] Ford. The practice adopted by the United States to elect both president and vice-president at the same time is to resolve the issue of serving the remainder of the unexpired term of a president in case the office fell vacant prematurely.
In the course of drafting the Basic Law, it was suggested by some members that a deputy post be created so that in the event the office of chief executive became vacant, the deputy could fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. This view, however, was not adopted.
Instead, it was decided that the issue of filling the chief executive's vacancy in the event that his office became vacant be resolved by providing that the term of the election committee shall be five years. This means that in the event that the office of chief executive becomes vacant, a new chief executive shall be returned in a by-election of the election committee to serve the remainder of the unexpired term.
I recall that in the course of drafting Annex I to the Basic Law, there was a provision stating that "the election committee shall be dissolved after the appointment of the chief executive by the Central People's Government", but it was subsequently amended as "the term of office of the election committee shall be five years". The amendment was made to resolve the issue of remaining term and it is clear that it is not for the election committee of the current term to elect a chief executive of a new term.
This also serves to confirm that the purpose of deleting the words ("term") in ("the chief executive of the new term") mentioned earlier was to underline the fact that where a chief executive is returned in a by-election of the five-year-term election committee, he shall only be the new chief executive instead of the chief executive of a new term.
The above account is just some of my personal recollection for your reference.
Yours sincerely,
XU CHONGDE
Professor of the Law School of the Renmin University and Member of the Hong Kong Basic Law Drafting Committee
MARCH 8: Wording changed to clarify length of term
Dear Ms Leung,
With regard to the questions you raised in our telephone conversation, apart from my comments made on the phone, I have checked the information on hand as requested. At the time in question, I was a member of the Basic Law Drafting Committee secretariat and participated throughout the drafting process of the Basic Law in the capacity of the committee's legal expert. I participated in the work of the Special Group Concerned with the Political Structure, which was one of the special working groups. My recollections of what happened during the drafting process of the Basic Law in relation to the issue of the term of a chief executive returned in a by-election after his predecessor had vacated office were roughly as follows:
(1) This issue was not discussed as a very key issue at the meetings of the Special Group Concerned with the Political Structure and the plenary session of the Basic Law Drafting Committee. It was only discussed in general terms at the secretariat meetings. It was because [on] this question, though raised by someone during the process, the viewpoint of members from the mainland and Hong Kong did not diverge widely and the divergence was not substantive.
According to the legal concept of mainland members, the new chief executive returned in a by-election by an election committee with a term of office, should be the successor of the original chief executive. Hence, his term of office should be the residue of his predecessor's term. This was very clear-cut in the political and legal systems of the mainland and it seemed that discussion was not necessary.
I remember that some members from Hong Kong also shared the same understanding regarding this issue. There were some other members from Hong Kong who expressed different opinions and views during the discussion process. For instance, some suggested that there should be a post of deputy chief executive to act as the chief executive when the office fell vacant and some suggested that the practice of common law countries, making reference to the stipulations of Amendment XXII of the United States Constitution, should be adopted, etc. However, as these were not mainstream views, they were unable to draw sufficient attention and hence were not adopted.
(2) The legislative intent of this issue was already manifested in the related provisions of the Basic Law. In this regard, we should note that in order to manifest clearly the legislative intent of the related issue, the wording of the provisions had been adjusted.
Example 1: At the Eighth Plenary Session of the Basic Law Drafting Committee held on January 11, 1989, the chairman's committee amended Article 53(2) of the Draft Basic Law (for Solicitation of Opinions) which stipulated that "in the event that the office of chief executive becomes vacant, a chief executive of the new term shall be selected within six months" to "in the event that the office of chief executive becomes vacant, a new chief executive shall be selected within six months in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of this Law".
Although this amendment only involved a change in the wording, it indicated on one hand that the provision was tightened and became more complete, while it manifested on the other hand that the chief executive returned in a by-election would only be a new chief executive. It would not mark the beginning of a new term of the chief executive.
Example 2: Article 1 of Annex I to the Draft Basic Law released by the National People's Congress Standing Committee (NPCSC) on February 21, 1989, provided that "The chief executive shall be elected by a broadly representative election committee and appointed by the Central People's Government", while Article 7 provided that "The election committee shall be dissolved after the appointment of the chief executive by the Central People's Government". It was later considered that the office of the chief executive might fall vacant during his term of office for whatever reasons and that as a result, a by-election might be required and specific provisions were made in the Basic Law. In order to provide a safeguard in the mechanism for the by-election arrangements that might become necessary subsequent to the vacation of the office of the chief executive and to give effect to the connection between the provisions, the provision was amended to read as "the term of office of the election committee shall be five years" in the final draft endorsed for submission to the NPCSC by the drafting committee at its 9th meeting on February 16, 1990. The fact that the term of the election committee is the same as that of the chief executive proves that the office of the chief executive is designed on a term basis. While the chief executive is an individual, he is also an important part of the political structure of Hong Kong and is provided for in the first part of the chapter on political structure in the Basic Law. Each and every organ in the political structure is subject to a term of office as a general rule. While there may be some differences in the wording, their nature and meaning remain the same.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 7 of Annex I to the Basic Law, the chief executive for the third term is to be selected in 2007. Similarly, this illustrates the fact that the term of the chief executive is designed as a five-year one. Therefore, if the term of the substitute chief executive is to run afresh for a full term of five years, this will no doubt be in contravention of the existing provisions in Annex I to the Basic law.
The above is some of my recollection of the related issues for your reference.
Yours sincerely,
LIAN XISHENG
Professor, China University of Politics and Law
MARCH 10: Grasp relationship between concepts
Dear Ms Leung,
On the question of why a legal provision has to be read in conjunction with related legal provisions in understanding or construing the meaning of that legal provision, I would like to present my views for your reference.
(1) From the perspective of legal theory, it is necessary to have a clear grasp of the relationship between "legal norms" and "legal provisions" in order to ensure that a piece of legislation is in harmony and consistent within itself, and is coherent, cohesive and complete. In terms of legislative theory, legal norms refer to the content of legal provisions, while legal provisions are the textual expression of such norms. These two concepts are connected and yet should be differentiated.
In actual legislative practice, generally speaking, a legal norm may be expressed with the use of one legal provision, but there are many cases in which a legal norm can only be given full expression through a number of legal provisions. There are even instances where various component parts of one legal norm are found scattered among several legal documents. The connection and differences between these two concepts must be duly noted and properly handled in the legislative process so that a coherent logical relationship is accurately expressed in the text through a number of related legal provisions which are used to express a particular legal norm. Only in this way can we guarantee that the enacted legislation will be fault-proof and easily enforceable.
(2) It is precisely for this reason that there is a key concept underlying the rule of understanding and construing a law in the mainland, namely that consideration has to be given to the overall structure of the legislation, the internal connection among provisions and the logical relationship in the arrangement of content. This is a point of great importance in statutory interpretation, for it is the basis on which the legislative intent may be correctly revealed and the meaning of certain provisions determined. Under this rule, ascertaining the meaning of a provision from the full text of the law in which it is found is a prerequisite for achieving a correct understanding and interpretation of the provision in question. The full text of a law refers to all the constituents of that piece of legislation. It does not only include its legal provisions, but also encompasses such other contents as its preamble and annexes that are closely associated with those provisions.
(3) In the legislative practice in the mainland, sometimes the legislators, based on the consideration of structural arrangement, after taking into account the legislative intent, may use another provision to further define the meaning of a provision that seems to be clear on its face with a view to filling a gap in the latter provision. Under such circumstances, there is a need to make reference to the relevant provisions so as to define the meaning of a provision that seems to be clear on its face. Theories about legal interpretation in the mainland consider that if the literal meaning of the law is narrower than its legislative intent, an interpretation broader than its literal meaning can be made by making reference to other relevant provisions. Thus, it is absolutely necessary to understand and interpret a legal term from the full text of the law, even though the term seems clear and unmistakable, and its meaning can be interpreted literally without the need to make reference to other provisions.
(4) In interpreting the law, the court follows the rule of interpretation with reference to the full text and reconciles the relevant provisions so as to accurately confirm the correct meaning of a provision that may give rise to ambiguity and to reveal the relevance of other legal provisions. By doing so, the courts are not restrained by the literal meaning of the wording, so as to avoid making an interpretation out of context or arriving at a partial understanding that may lead to a wrong judgment. This may also be the underlying principle of legal interpretation adopted in the common law jurisdictions.
It is because even under the "golden rule" of statutory interpretation in the common law (the judges may vary the literal meaning of a legal term by reading in some implied meaning or omitting part of the literal meaning of the wording), the legislative intent and purpose as contained in the full text of the law should be ascertained.
Each fortnight the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief has several well written, though provoking articles of interest. The most recent edition has four, all of which are great reading. I've excerpted a taste of each but read them all:
How China handles itself in its foreign relations will affect how the world views it, either as an obstacle to peace, or a status quo nation that has a vested interest in supporting international systems and global good governance. China's quest for energy to fuel its domestic economic growth is not inherently a detrimental event for other major oil importers. However, developed nations should reconcile different approaches to international partnerships and encourage China to promote transparency, good governance and responsible behavior with its partner nations. As a nation with a growing stake in globalization, China will increasingly see that its core interests extend beyond its domestic economy and are largely aligned with developed nations. As such, China's strong relationships with nations such as Iran and Sudan present an opportunity for the U.S. and Europe to work with China to bring about behavior change in difficult and marginalized nations and bring them into the world community.
Taiwan, therefore, seems destined to be caught between the Sino-Japanese power struggles over Asian dominance. Strategic, historical, cultural and economic determinants make Taiwan a crucial factor in a number of contentious issues, not least of which is the future of America's role in the Asia-Pacific.
People often overlook the key role Japan has to play in the Taiwan issue. Slowly Japan will take more of the "load" from America over Taiwan, perhaps as a quid pro quo for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
...these consequences have great significance for Russia, and will also undoubtedly add to the complexities of Japanese and Indian defense decision making. If Moscow loses its best source of leverage on China, how will that affect the future of Sino-Russian relations as well as the status of Russia's defense industrial complex? What will the end of the embargo mean for Indo-American, Indo-European, and Indo-Russian relations or for the future of the relationship between Taiwan and America? How will Japan react to this development? At this stage none of those questions can be answered with any reliability or certainty. But these are among the real and critical issues which will emerge once the EU makes its decision.
It's an important part of the arms embargo decision that I for one hadn't given much thought to.
“China would ultimately not be able to veto Japan's candidature outright (and publicly), but it could try to "dampen" Tokyo's regional and international ambitions by tying its endorsement to some concessions from Japan.”
Are you kidding me? This thing has totally spiraled out of the government's hands: there is no way that China can NOT veto a Japanese bid if it comes down to such action.
James Tien's been put back in his box by his fellow Liberals and Beijing. His idea of running against The Don has been clobbered amid reports the central government was discouraging possible rivals to Mr Tsang according to the SCMP. The Liberal's Selina Chow said Beijing's role in the election could not be ignored and Ma Lik from the DAB agreed. James has been a naughty boy and his Beijing masters are not pleased.
Richard points to Lisa who points to an Asia Times article titled Too Much for Mother Earth. The message is simple: if China emulates America's current consumption patterns it could result in "an earth sucked dry", according to Richard. Lisa wants "a Manhattan Project to rid ourselves of fossil fuel depedency" (does she appreciate the fully irony of that statement?). Being a good blogger I go to the original article and sure enough by paragraph two we come across our favourite alarmist: Lester Brown.
It's time for a good ol' fashioned fisking.
Too much for Mother Earth
By Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON - Even if per capita income in China grows at only 8% per year - lower than the red-hot pace of 9.5% at which it has grown since 1978 - it will still overtake the current per capita US income in just over 25 years, according to the latest analysis by the Earth Policy Institute (EPI).
Wrong. Even China itself believes it will make developed economy status by 2080 at best. It is projected to join the top 10 by 2100. So in 100 years it still won't be the biggest. China's GDP per person is around US$1,000. America's is around US$38,000. Even with China's stunning growth rates, it is far more than 25 years before China catches up to America. If you want some basic maths homework, try working out how many years China has to outgrow the US by 5% to catch up (I make it 74 years).
And if those increased incomes translate into the kind of lifestyle currently enjoyed by most US citizens, Chinese demands will overwhelm what the planet can provide, according to the analysis, "Learning from China: Why the Western Economic Model Will Not Work for the World". While geopoliticians worry whether China will integrate itself into the current Western-dominated international system, Lester Brown, EPI's founder, is far more worried about the impact of a wealthy China on the Earth's diminishing resource base.
"If it does not work for China," he notes, "it will not work for India, which has an economy growing at 7% per year and a population projected to surpass China's by 2030." China's demands on basic raw materials to feed its galloping economy have become increasingly clear in just the past few months as successive trade delegations, including one headed by President Hu Jintao himself, have made their way to Latin America to sign long-term supply contracts for commodities from agriculture to mining. On a 12-day, four-country trip in November, Hu announced more than US$30 billion in new Chinese investments in Latin America in basic industries and infrastructure designed to facilitate exports of raw materials from the region across the Pacific over the next generation.
India is even behind China in per capita GDP.
China's economic boom is the biggest single factor in the steady rise of commodity prices worldwide over the past years, a factor that - coupled with its investments and shrewd diplomacy - is buying it considerable goodwill in much of the developing world, but especially in South and Southeast Asia, as well as Latin America. A survey of 22 countries commissioned by the British Broadcasting Corp (BBC) and released recently found that China is now viewed as playing a significantly more positive role in the world than either the US or Russia and that majorities in 17 of the countries surveyed are particularly positive about China's growing economic clout. The poll, of nearly 23,000 people, was conducted by GlobeScan and the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes in late 2004.
Which shows not much at all. China is making a massive difference...at the margin. In economics the marginal (or extra) demand is what pushes prices up, even though in aggregate that marginal player is only buying a small amount compared to others. That is China's impact - it is increasing demand for resources. But there is a mechanism for dealing with this extra demand. It's called the price mechanism. More demand = higher prices until demand equals supply. It's called equilibrium. If there's extra demand the price keeps going up. Then suppliers realise the price is going up and supply more (or explore more to find more to supply). At the same time the higher price reduces demand. Prices are powerful things - they tell you a lot.
But Brown, a founder and former director of the Worldwatch Institute who has long warned about limits to the Earth's ability to sustain wealthy lifestyles - at least as they exist in the United States - now argues that, to the extent China's growth is aimed at replicating such lifestyles, its efforts will ultimately prove futile. Chinese consumption of each of the "five basic commodities - grain, meat, coal, oil and steel - has already overtaken that of the US in all but oil", he writes. "Now the question is, what if consumption per person of these resources in China one day reaches the current US level?"
Lester's been predicting the end of resources for 30 years. He's been wrong so far. He will be wrong again. Technology means we get better at finding the stuff, better at supplementing and replacing the stuff, better at using it better. Thomas Malthus worried about this stuff too. Yet you're reading this with a fully belly, consuming plenty of resources and enjoying a good life. Don't feel guilty about it. Enjoy it. Mankind are pretty smart.
China's current per capita income is estimated at about $5,300 a year, only about 14% of US per capita annual income of about $38,000. If its economy's annual growth rate slows to 8% per year, China would reach the current US income by 2031; if it grows at a mere 6% a year, it would reach current US levels by 2040.
These numbers are based on Purchasing Power Parity, an economic theory that adjusts GDP figures for relative prices between countries. In other words US$1 buys you more in China than it does in America. The exact factor for PPP is difficult to calculate. It is also not static. If China grows quickly its PPP relative to America will decline, especially if its current bout of inflation continues. For PPP what matters more is what the real (ie post inflation) growth rates are. On that basis the growth gap between America and China is smaller than between the nominal rates i.e. it will take longer to catch up than the article suggests. There's an interesting look at some regional Chinese PPP which finds even Shanghai on PPP basis is at best US$12,000, or less than 1/3 of America. Shanghai represents 1.5% of China and is its richest area by far. For further proof, go to any city or rural area in China and walk around. Is that where America was even 50 years ago? 100? OK then.
Assuming the 8% growth rate and that Chinese consumption habits will be similar to those of the US today, per capita grain consumption would climb from 291 kilograms today to 935kg for a US-style diet, according to Brown. That would bring total Chinese grain consumption in 2031 to 1.352 billion tonnes from only 382 million tonnes in 2004 - equal to two-thirds of the entire 2004 world grain harvest.
"Given the limited potential for further raising the productivity of the world's existing cropland, producing an additional 1 billion tonnes of grain for consumption in China would require converting a large part of Brazil's remaining rainforests to grain production," according to Brown, who notes that if Chinese per capita meat consumption alone were to rise to today's US levels, about 80% of the world's current meat production would be consumed by Chinese.
Why is there only limited potential for further raising agricultural productivity? Has everyone stopped researching improvements? Even if they have, all of China's and India's farmers could use modern techniques and see massive jumps in productivity. The technology is there. As it gets cheaper it will spread ore widely and so will the benefits.
Even more daunting are similar estimates for energy production. If by 2031 the Chinese use oil at the same rate as the US does today, it would need 99 million barrels of oil a day, or 20 million barrels per day more than the entire world currently produces. Similarly, if China's coal burning were to reach current US levels of two tonnes per person per year, the country would use nearly 3 billion tonnes annually by 2031. Current annual global production stands at 2.5 billion tonnes. As fossil fuels, more use of oil and natural gas will also mean unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases - blamed by scientists on climate change and global warming - released into the atmosphere.
The effects of global warming are in dispute. Nevertheless China is also using hydro-electric power (Three Gorges Dam being the largest example) and nuclear power. The incentives to use other fuel replacements are rising with the oil price. All of these numbers are based on the same fallacy: multiply China's population by America's current stats. Ask a Chinese farmer if he thinks he'll have the standard of living of a rural American in 30 years. Then wait for him to stop laughing.
If steel production per person in China were to climb to US levels, it would mean that China's aggregate steel use would double by 2031 to a level equal to the current consumption of the entire Western world. If China were to reach current levels of automobile ownership in the US (three cars for every four people), it alone would have a fleet of 1.1 billion cars by 2031, compared with the current global fleet of nearly 800 million. "The paving of land for roads, highways, and parking lots for such a fleet would approach the area now planted for rice in China," according to Brown.
Similarly, if China were to ape current US consumption of paper products, which are reliant on forests and recycled paper today, it would need nearly twice the amount of paper produced worldwide last year to satisfy its needs just for 2031.
Has your farmer stopped laughing yet?
"The point of this exercise of projections," writes Brown, "is not to blame China for consuming so much, but rather to learn what happens when a large segment of humanity moves quickly up the global economic ladder ... Plan A, business as usual, is no longer a viable option. We need to turn quickly to Plan B before the geopolitics of oil, grain and raw-material scarcity lead to economic instability, political conflict, and disruption of the social order on which economic progress depends."
Actually, Lester, many have already rapidly moved up the global economic ladder. The Western World has seen 100 years or more of incredible growth in living standards. In fact the West is now rich enough to deal with and address environmental problems. In the meantime don't patronise those that want a similar standard. This racist stance of "it's good enough for me but if they have it the world is doomed" is exactly what's wrong with the green movement in general. It's based on the fallacy that global supply of resource is fixed and declining. History and technology both argue otherwise.
Did you learn something? I did. Lester Brown is a potential source of hot air, a perfect replacement for fossil fuels. Most of us have been lulled into this sense of general panic over the environment and rapid growth in the developing world. But it doesn't stack up. There's plenty to go around. Indeed China and other developing nations' demand will drive increases in supply to match.
Don't panic. Instead enjoy watching the rest of humanity catch up to your standard of living. And next time you see the name Lester Brown, panic.
I enjoyed your fisking. But you seem to have (hopefully not willfully) misread one of the original article's assertions. That is, the article refers to China catching up to *current* US GDP per capita in 25 years NOT the future presumably much larger US GDP per capita as you analyse. So the article does not deal with when China might catch up to the US (as did the CAS study you link to), but rather when Chinese might consume as much as present-day Americans.
You're right. Regardless I still find the general premise neither scary nor credible. Indeed I don't even believe that China's per capita GDP will have caught up to current American GDP levels in 25 years. Any visit to China can demonstrate the absurdity of the idea, no matter how fast the place is growing.
Fossil fuels - there's nothing to worry about. That's a point of view often heard.
Another view comes from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Back in the 1970's, some wealthy nations (OECD) were so worried about the security of their energy supplies in the then oil crisis that they set up the International Energy Agency. The latest thoughts from the IEA?
Later this month they are expected to report the need for "dramatic measures, such as reducing motorway speed limits by 25 per cent, shortening the working week, imposing driving bans on certain days, providing free public transport and promoting car pooling schemes." http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d5213f46-a21a-11d9-8483-00000e2511c8.html
Perhaps the United Nations should organise "a Manhatten Project" for energy for the future.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Hungry Chinese countrysiders are moving for better food sources. It's not easy being a panda.
I don't want to say I told you so back in June last year, but Cathay Pacific limits the number of trips its staff makes direct from Hong Kong to New York. Do you think they'll get around to warning passengers sometime soon?
Hong Kong's public broadcaster, RTHK, is under fire from the Oriental Group in a Hong Kong media war. ESWN says the war is a distraction. My problem is broader and something I've discussed before: why is Government involved in public broadacasting at all, at least in places with a free and open press?
(16:46) My Olive Tree seems to be a blog covernig all things Macau.
simon, good point about the cathay pacific flights, but it seems to me that a lot of people knew this already as common knowledge.
they should make some kind of statement, although the last time I took that flight, i do seem to remember I wrote about the cosmic radiation thing on my blog.
of course, the SCMP doesn't read my blog, and my blog no longer exists, but... still.
seems, also, the flight attendants were very aware of it, and were talking to people openly about it in the cabin.
The thing with memes is they infect without fear or favour. They are not necessarily facts but become part of the conventional wisdom because of a simple human flaw: if many people say it, it must be true. Put another way, enough noise can obscure the truth.
On the weekend Taiwan staged a march against China and the anti-secession law (follow that link for plenty of coverage and photos). It moved such sensible people as Roger Simon to this:
No one ever knows the accuracy of the stats in these things, but these are Beirut-like numbers. No doubt these demonstrators are getting the attention of the "Communist" rulers in Beijing, not to mention the citizens of Hong Kong. Who knows where this will lead? Is it possible that in its own way Taiwan will conquer the mainland through people power? I guess I'm a dreamer, but I remember Tienanmen. I wonder what the response to a democracy movement in China would be now. As we have learned in the last few years, anything is possible.
Since there is no definitive number here, this will remain a point of contention for some time. The smart thing to do is to be wishy-washy and use an ambiguous description. For example, BBC reported: "Hundreds of thousands of people have marched through the Taiwanese capital, Taipei, protesting against China's anti-secession law." So everybody is pleased and nobody is offended. You may think that statistics is an objective science, but it is really a subjective art in real life.
It is a known unknown. So inevitably the number will settle at "a million" because that was the aim, that's the easiest to remember and that's the most dramatic. The march has been lumped with other happenings around the world as part of a rolling triumph of democracy (charted with zeal and zest by Publius Pundit). In some places that is happening and is to be celebrated. In others it is not. For example, Zimbabwe. Nor in China.
To answer Mr. Simon: Taiwan will not conquer China through people power for two reasons. Firstly China's media is well controlled and censored. They dutifully stuck to the party line on the anti-seccession law demonstration, covering Taiwanese critics of the march and focussing on the visit to the Mainland of an official from erstwhile opponent but new found friend KMT (a beautiful proof of "my enemy's enemy is my friend"). Secondly, if anything most Mainland Chinese are even more hawkish than the Chinese Government on the Taiwan issue. What also was missed by much of the blogosphere commentary was the partisan nature of the event in a Taiwan very evenly split down the middle on the issue. As for the comment "I guess I'm a dreamer, but I remember Tienanmen," the lesson of 1989 was the brutal repression and raw power the CCP uses when its rule is threatened. It was a trampling of the beginnings of a people power movement that elsewhere and more recently has been successful in overturning regimes. The response to a Chinese democracy movement now would be the same as it was then.
Did the "326" march* have much impact? A sympathy march organised in Hong Kong managed perhaps 100 people. ESWN pointed out in the same link that not one of Hong Kong's papers covered the march. Most people in Mainland China would not have heard about it, or if they had it would be in only negative terms. China's Communist leadership is firmly entrenched and with no sign of moving. There is little effective opposition. So the answer has to be no.
We are fortunate to be witnessing the march of democracy in many places around the world. At this point China is one place where it is not. It's great to feel the winds of change. Just be careful what you sniff or you end up getting carried away.
* What's with all this branding date numbering of events? From 911 onwards, any major event is designated by its American date form. Which means dates are fast disappearing. If you're planning your march/protest/invasion/event, find a date now. Otherwise you could end up with the "326 PM" March, or the "508 early morning but not too early thanks" protest. Has the media been overrun by historians forcing dates on us? Or is it laziness, much like "-gate" is affixed to any scandal? Let's call it "Dategate".
Simon, a minor correction: Taiwan is *not* evenly split down the middle on the issue of the anti-secession law. Almost every Blue or Green politician has denounced it. What I think you mean is that Taiwan is evenly split over whether to move closer or further away from China - but they are united in their wish that they should be allowed to decide without threat of war. (Of course the anti-secession law is aimed at the pan-Greens, so it was mainly them on the streets on Saturday)
Incidentally, the date thing (326) is a custom that predates 911 in Taiwan ... probably to do with how you write months/days in Chinese.
And it's nice to see that Mr. Simon (silently) re-wrote this entry to remove the nonsense about the march being in favour of independence.
Though it is interesting to note that those who reserve the right for themselves to settle international disputes with force still won't acknowledge that the march was simply against the use of force to settle international disputes. (and treaty agreements make this dispute international even if you believe in one china and not one china on either side of the straits.)
I have not altered this post at all since I first wrote it. Indeed I never change a post without noting it as an update or otherwise highlighting the change.
Some observations from our Easter holiday in Singapore.
1. There are not enough taxis. A hot and humid city needs plenty of taxis.
2. People are polite, often disturbingly so. It borders on insincerity. The place is eerily clean and ordered. Wandering around Clarke Quay it all felt a touch sterile and planned. Or maybe I've been in Hong Kong too long.
3. Of the major tourist attactions, the zoo and night safari are worth it while the Jurong bird park is not.
4. Despite advertising a closing time of 6pm, in fact everything at Jurong bird park closes at 5pm. If you arrive at 5pm do not expect the lady on the front desk to inform you that most of the park is shut.
5. The Singapore Duck, a bus/boat contraption that potters around for an hour, is a waste of money.
6. A good place for to find queues of tourists are taxi stands at major tourist attractions.
7. Eating out is cheap.
8. Every retailer will tell tourists the GST is refundable. What they don't tell you is the ridiculously complicated process you need to go through to obtain the refund. Obviously it's designed like this to prevent tourists foolishly attempting to get their money.
Some think Singapore pathetic. I disagree. It's hard to feel anything about Singapore. A couple of days is enough to see and do everything a tourist would want. The word that springs to mind are sterile. The word that does NOT spring to mind is spontaneous.
In short: Singapore might be a great place to live but wouldn't want to visit for too long.
Well, one win does not a footy season make but clearly the Swans win over a gutless Hawk outfit on the weekend has gone to Simons' head. Desperate to get away from smelly HK harbour for Easter (whats going on there anyway?) he decides to visit, of all places, Singapore for a family holiday!! Not Disneyland, not some exotic beach resort in Thailand or the like. Even Singaporeans dont stay in Singapore on weekends let alone a long one! Why not pack the family in a car and go for a leisurely 57hr drive across the Nullabor next time Simon? I think the last line in point 2 may well be correct....
Agreed, it is a nice place to live - but getting out of the country is necessary at every opportunity. Non-sterile locations can be found, but the Tourism Board doesn't care to promote them. You should have got Miyagi to take you on a tour of the underbelly.
Your observation that SG is " eerily clean and ordered" is spot on. And you're not staying in HK for too long :)
Initally, when I went to Macau & HongKong, I was thinking to myself, why are these building so run down? I didn't realise that no one is concerned on the exterior if just maintained your own house. There is actually beauty in this chaos. Compared to the orderly facade of Singapore HDB well-maintained, pristine and thou-shall-not touch appearance. It feel more real. HDB too hollow for my liking (after my enlightenment)
My experience of Singapore was of catching pneumonia, then being given a speed-like medication that made me work but sweat mountains, then of working like a maniac in a hot office and longing for the bubble gum I had but not daring to eat it.
I will be visiting the home of some of the world's sexiest bloggers over the Easter break. Regular transmission will commence next Wednesday. In the interim there are plenty of interesting links in the latest Asia by Blog.
One small admin thing: Marginal Revolution have got a favicon. This site also has one but I've found IE often doesn't display it...unless you follow MR's advice: If you are using IE and don't see it, grab the current icon and drag it a couple of millimetres - do this a couple of times and the MR SW favicon will appear (no, I don't know why IE works this way either.) You need do this only once. A better implemented feature in IE is that if you drag the MR SW favicon to the desktop it will appear as a larger image linking to MR SW.
Here's something to chew on. Are countries, such as China, too big?
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Disaster: Hong Kong can expect fewer typhoons than normal this year. Remember typhoon = day off work. I hope the Government will create some new public holidays to compensate.
Asia by Blog is a regular feature providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
**Note: The Daily Linklets posts will also contain links to interesting China, Asia and other news and views./Note**
Lester Brown panicked the Chinese Government with his "Who will feed China?" book of 1994. It predicted a typically Malthusian scenario that an emerging China will gobble all the world's food resources and cause famine. Lester has now been officially rehabilitated by the China Academy of Sciences. It's 11 years after Lester's book. While hunger is a problem in the world, it is a matter of distribution, not supply. The world has enough food to feed everyone and better technology and techniques plus slowing population growth means the future of food is secure. If anything growing obesity rates points to an excess of food in more parts of the world, including China.
So bully for Mr. Brown for being embraced by China. It is doing so because he was wrong. That's not something to be proud of. If you are truly interested in better methods and priorities for global development, try the Copenhagen Consensus project. They went to the trouble of weighing both the costs and benefits of various development projects and prioritised them. The answers may surprise you. It's far more interesting reading than anything Lester Brown has written.
Hong Kong's two major pro-Beijing parties find themselves in a curious muddle. Beijing has made it clear that Donald Tsang is the preferred candidate for Chief Exceutive (CE). So both the DAB and the Liberal Party hung their hopes on Financial Secretary Henry Tang, but he declined to run...this time. Now they find themselves teaming up with the pro-democracy camp in trying to field a candidate against The Don and make this election more than a rubber stamp.
The Standard has a thorough analysis with this line: A Beijing source said the central government is not particularly in favor of Tsang but so far there is no candidate who has proved more competent. Meanwhile James Tien of the Liberals is considering a run, according to the SCMP. China will not let another businessman become CE, either now or in 2007. It's all a desperate scramble by these parties for relevance and leverage over The Don, plus positioning for the real race in 2007. In the meantime we get to watch both the DAB and the Liberals fight two diametrically opposite forces: their desire to please Beijing and their desire for relevance. They despise The Don but they desire a claim on power and Beijing is the source of both.
It's a pleasure to watch. It hints at the beginnings of a truly party political system in this city. It's a shame that inevitably the pro-Beijing parties will bow to their master's will.
Well it's hard to say that the Liberal Party is really pro-Beijing.
After watching them, I'd say that the DAB is pro-Beijing as a policy. The Liberals are pro-Liberals and are willing to kiss CCP ass as long as it provides them an avenue to more power.
By the way did you see the letter to the editor in SCMP on Monday or Tuesday from the policy guru for the Liberals? Clearly laid out that they Liberals are anti-competition and are the party of the monopolists and not Hong Kong business as a whole.
There was also a letter to the editor yesterday responding asking the question... if these Hong Kong companies are so competitive worldwide, then why do they need to be protected from competition from other companies in Hong Kong?
Singapore has rejected an application for a concert by a local Veitnamese group, citing concern over its performers following a spike in bird flu cases.
Vietnamese pop musicians Jason and deMarco were the planned feature performers for the April 3 Action for Bird Flu event organised by Christian group Safehaven.
"Based on the duo's website and reports of their performances in the United States, it is assessed that their performance will promote a lifestyle which would be against the public interest," said the Media Authority of Singapore in a statement...
Safehaven said the concert had aimed to raise funds for bird flu programmes and increase awareness about bird flu among people.
Singapore's Vietnamese community has only recently enjoyed greater freedoms and after former premier Goh Chok Tong announced in 2003 that Vietnamese were now employed in the civil service, a low-key policy shift aimed in part at fostering a creative class.
He said Vietnamese could hold key positions without fear of discrimination..."It is unfortunate that the authorities rejected the license. These people had good intentions, they wanted to do something for its community and help us as well to give funds to our prevention efforts," said Brenton Wong.
Actually, not quite. Replace the words "Vietnamese" with "gay" and "bird flu" with "AIDS". The article Singapore bans AIDS concert includes this revealing section:
The ban follows comments this month by a Singapore government minister who said a gay and lesbian festival in August last year may have led to a surge in the number of local AIDS cases, a remark that outraged gay activists.
Although Singapore has one of Asia's lowest levels of HIV infection, the number of new infections hit a record high of 311 cases in 2004, up 28 percent from 2003. A third of the newly diagnosed cases were gay men.
Gay activists say many the remaining two-thirds appeared to be heterosexual men who caught the illness from prostitutes in nearby Southeast Asian regions such as Indonesia's Batam island just an hour's boat ride from Singapore.
So we can expect Singapore will soon ban boat trips to Batam as well.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Strategypage comments on Chinese blogs, saying: It's estimated that about a million Chinese are now running blogs (web logs.) This, for Chinese security officials, is worse than chat rooms and bulletin boards. That would explain why there have been days of protests over the crackdown on university BBS, whereas the crackdown on Chinese blogs passed relatively quietly. Chinese security officials are worried about free expression online. But all this blog boosterism gets in the way of the reality - in China it is the chat rooms and bulliten boards are most worried about. Glenn Reynolds needs help with the tricks of Chinese bloggers, just in case. Let's get a bunch of mainland bloggers together and put out a book.
It's nice to have friends. China and North Korea's Premiers got together and China offered help in promoting North Korea's economy and improving living standards "in terms of both spirit and material". Curiously there was no mention of nuclear weapons.
(10:16) It seems Danwei has been co-opted by Xinhua, China's official news outlet. While most of the blogosphere is over up in arms over Google's news sources it's good to see the monolithic Chinese media machine using bloggers. Even if they didn't ask permission. It looked like China was cracking down on journalists and threatening severe penalties for those impersonating them. Now it looks like they are outsourcing to blogs.
So this whole affair should not be considered as a one-dimensional crackdown on democratic aspirations for political freedom. According to the first excerpt, free speech was never really there before. According to the second excerpt, some people don't really care about democracy or any such, but only wanted a public forum to interact with the outside world on academic research. There must surely be other points of view as well. So what was the whole crackdown about? It was more about the idea that the BBS's pose a potential problem, and it was better to nip in the bud. This is counterproductive because the BBS's had been serving productive functions and the information flow will continue through other channels anyway.
He also notes a similar situation happening in downtown Yonkers, as reported by the NYT, and the disgusting racist postings on one popular Chinese BBS after Condi Rice's visit. As ESWN, where's the great net nanny when you need it?
The SCMP reports the Hong Kong Government is going to ask the NPC to interpret the Basic Law on the Chief Executive's term to prevent chaos and a constitutional crisis. James Tien manages to contradict himself in a single breath: "On the face of it, Beijing has not yet indicated her preference, although I agree they want Donald Tsang to do the job." The Government is rushing through ammendments to make the new shortened Chief Executive's term legal. Beijing is making it clear the new CE can serve for up to 12 years despite the Basic Law saying otherwise. And some are saying there will come a time when we will miss Tung Che-hwa. Beijing has engineered the situation so they can look like they are reluctantly but happily helping Hong Kong through a difficult situation. Funny, because Beijing created the problem in the first place. Frank Ching pens an interesting op-ed piece in the SCMP. Some key excerpts:
It is clear that the Hong Kong government is unlikely to be much of a force for the preservation of this autonomy. The issue of the tenure of the chief executive to be elected in July reflects how the guardians of our vaunted legal system can collapse once Beijing applies a little pressure...The danger is that the Hong Kong government's view on legal issues may become increasingly irrelevant...There is little detectable will on the part of senior Hong Kong officials to stand up for the rights of the city and its people. Rather, the tendency seems to be to second-guess Beijing and do what it wants.
...it is more realistic to hope that the mainland will be careful not to encroach too much on the city's autonomy. If Beijing does, the "one country, two systems" policy will not work, and the world will see the central government reneging on its promises. Moreover, there is still Taiwan, which Beijing hopes can be induced to rejoin the motherland using the Hong Kong model.
"One country, two systems", after all, was Beijing's brainchild and so it is really up to the central government to see that it works. And what is required more than anything else is the exercise of restraint. Such restraint was evident in the first years after the handover. It was less in evidence last year, when the central authorities decided to rule out universal suffrage for Hong Kong in the near future.
Hopefully, Beijing now realises that the job of the chief executive is first and foremost to serve the people of Hong Kong and not to do the bidding of the central government. If this is the thinking in Zhongnanhai, then there may be hope for Hong Kong's autonomy, after all.
There have been few signs of restraint lately. One of the purposes of the two year CE term is to keep Donald Tsang on a short leash and test his loyalty. It doesn't bode well. The "one country, two systems" principle has been seen as a potential solution to the question of the Taiwan issue. This assertion of Beijing's control over Hong Kong and the fuss over the anti-secession law are two sides of the same coin.
Taiwan is planning a million person protest on Saturday and is asking Hong Kong to join in sympathy with a similar march. The two situations are more similar than many think.
how many people will show up in hong kong?
if the issue is the hegemonic manner in which china introduced the anti-seccessionist manner, there may be a few dozen or even a few hundred.
if the issue is support of taiwan independence, then it would be emily lau and a few personal friends.
just kidding, of course.i only intend to highlight the fact that showing up does not mean that you are opposing anti-seccessionist law -- everyone will take it that you are supporting taiwan independence, which is actually a slap in your face considering the fact that the taiwanese independence advocate wants to think that they are non-chinese whereas the hong kong person has an essentially chinese identity (mainland or local).there is nothing to gain and everything to lose for any hong kong person to support chen shuibian's call.
That's true. I don't seriously think anyone will turn up and march in Hong Kong. My point is that the situation with Taiwan and the situation with Hong Kong are now bearing similarities as China asserts itself.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
The New Blog Carnival is up at Jim's place. It's a great way to find new and interesting voices.
Rich Kuslan continues his look at Chinese management style. If you thought your boss was bad, read this.
In his typically lucid style, David Webb explains the tangled world of IPOs in Hong Kong, including what to watch for and when to invest in the IPOs. David Webb is truly one of Hong Kong's greatest resources. If only the media could learn from him.
From Philip Bowring in the IHT on Condi Rice's trip to Asia: The proposed appointment of Paul Wolfowitz to the World Bank also irritates developing Asia as much as Europe. You see Philip knows the minds of every Asian government without having to provide proof. It is because he says it is.
Meanwhile, the epic term-of-office charade slowly unfolds, as pro-Beijing dinosaurs spit out threats of Basic Law interpretation should any treacherous wretch have the audacity to prompt Hong Kong courts to challenge the will of the Central Peopleâs Government. Out of seven million people, thereâs bound to be a treacherous wretch. Maybe two.
As part of the team planning to prepare public opinion for this eventuality, Winky is having a slight crisis of conscience. âLooks like reinterpretation of the Basic Law is a done deal,â she says, trying to sound relaxed and positive. âThe community will have to understand â“ the only alternative is potential chaos.â But first, I suspect, she needs to understand it herself. I gently point out other alternatives. The Government could simply obey the law as written. Or the part of the Basic Law that Beijing wonât obey could be amended. She rolls her eyes and tells me Iâm not being funny.
It gets worse. She leans forward and lowers her voice. âThereâs a feeling that a third interpretation will help make the procedure seem more ânormalâ. So when it happens the fourth time and a fifth time, people will just acceptâ¦â I bang my chopstick against her bowl and cut in. What fourth time? She winces slightly. âThereâs a court case⦠A certain, um, class of people are claiming permanent residency.â I whip out my ID card and point to the wording saying I have right of abode. âDonât be silly,â she snaps. âIt doesnât affect gwailos.â Maybe theyâre saving that for the fifth time.
(15:57) A key difference between China and Japan. In China, they steal manhole covers and sell them for scrap. In Japan, they have manhole cover websites.
The SCMP group have won the contract for China's version of In Style magazine. This could be a win-win situation. Just shift half their staff from the newspaper and viola.
(17:07) BD reports the EU is postponing plans to lift is arms embargo on China. I understand that American pressure has helped. But I'm puzzled by this: European nations have been shaken by the recent adoption of legislation by the Chinese National People's Congress authorizing the use of force to stop Taiwan from seceding. The Chinese action, they said, jolted France and undercut its moves to end the embargo before June. The anti-secession law had been flagged for months before its enactment. The drafting was announced in December 2004. The final text contained no surprises and if anything was slightly milder than feared. If the EU has been surprised by the very predictable reaction their diplomats are oblivious to the world around them. It begs the question - what is the EU actually for? Or in clearer terms - does its benefits outweigh its costs (and not just monetary)?
It's so easy to get excited about China. The rapid growth, the growing affluence, the seemingly sudden transformation from backwater to dynamo. It induces a hypnotic effect on many. Indeed it helps otherwise rational people detach their faculty for critical thinking. It's the China hype disease.
China is expected to grow 28% this year to 120 mln, according to Xinhua news agency, which quotes an official with China's Ministry of Information Industry. In 2004 the number of Internet users grew 16% to 94 mln. IDC reports that China is the world's #2 PC market - it shipped nearly 16 mln units last year. That number is expected to grow by 13% in 2005. China is the world's biggest telecom market by number of subscribers, with 316 mln fixed-line users, and 340 mln mobile users as of January, according to Xinhua. China will have 402 mln mobile subscribers by the end of 2005.
Exciting, especially from a site called "IT Facts" and a post titled "China facts". But often China's predictions aren't worth the paper they are written on. The rate of China's internet useage has been slowing since 1999. From 1999 to 2000 there was 323% growth in internet users; from 2003 to 2004 it was down to 35% and from 2004 to 2005 down to 18%. That's a natural consequence of the growing numbers of users - it's exponential growth approaching its limit. It is hard to see how or why growth will buck this trend. Especially as the numbers for both come from the same report by the official CNNIC.
It's not a new phenomena. Back in 2001 the prediction was China would break the 100 million internet user barrier during 2004. Remember in January 2005 the number was still 94 million. If (and it's a big one) the growth rate continues at 18% for this year, the 100 million user mark will be passed around May 2005...a minimum of 6 months "late" or a roughly 10% miss. Prediction is difficult at the best of times. But casually applying growth rates without looking at past trends or having good reasons to expect differently just leads to overestimates and hype. It happens all the time with Chinese data.
China often boggles the mind with its possibilities and potential. It also seems to boggle many minds.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Now it's Hong Kong asking Beijing for a re-interpretation of the Basic Law. The entire transition from Tung to Donald Tsang has been a complete mess. It doesn't bode well and shows just how hasty the whole process has been. The NYT looks at the longer term impact the undermining of law in Hong Kong will have.
Hong Kong's newest pro-Beijing party, the People's Party, which ESWN analyses in depth. It isn't obvious there is a gap for this party to fill. What does constantly amaze me is how much talk about "class" there is in Hong Kong politics. Is this osmosis from Communist China? Classes exist as convenient labels, nothing more or less.
The support continues to pour in for China's anti-secession law. Cuba and Tajikistan (thanks MM) have joined in.
Hong Kong's boys in blue have nabbed the park trail robbers. ESWN points out two very different versions of how the cops got their men.
On Friday Ocean Park, Hong Kong's other Government owned theme park, released details of its revamp to compete against the Government's other park. At a mere HK$5.5 billion, it's a fraction of the cost of Hong Kong Disneyland. OP Chairman Allan Zeman: "We are not trying to 'outdo Disney' but compliment it. Disney doesn't have animals." Someone tell Mickey.
(10:51) Currently if you search for Hong Kong Disneyland on Google my post "Build it and they will come", which details the costs and expenses to HK taxpayers of this park, is around 12th, on the second page. If others link it may help boost the post's ranking and push it onto the front page, so when people search for Hong Kong Disneyland they can know something of the true costs of the project. Please use the words "Hong Kong Disneyland" in the link.
Here's your chance to tell the People's Daily what you really think. Do they honestly want to know what people think of their content?
The Singaporean ST Interactive is going to a paid subscription model. At the moment less than 1% of registered users have paid up. Their first article could be titled: how to lose 99% of your readers in one easy step.
As per your note, I have just blogged a bit about Disneyland with a link back to your article. And while I normally title all my posts with song names, in this case the title is "Hong Kong Disneyland." I share your feeling that this needs to be more widely publicized and hope my tiny contribution helps.
Hong Kong's Government is being too narrow in pursuing re-interpretation of just the Basic Law. There are justifiable fears of a repeat of the Link REIT, where a massive sharemarket listing was derailed by last minute legal challenges. But a solution is at hand.
While the NPC is busy re-interpreting to allow The Don's 2 year term, they could also insert a clause legalising the Link REIT and make all challenges null and void. But why stop there? The possibilities are endless.
Bush officials have always been eager to pose as the tough guys willing to make the tough decisions. On Iraq and Afghanistan, they did. But when it comes to China, the Bush administration is engaged in one of the greatest acts of unilateral disarmament ever seen in U.S. foreign policy.
National security is about so much more than just military deployments. It is also about tax, energy and competitiveness policies. And if you look at all these areas, the Bush team has not only been steadily eroding America's leverage and room for maneuver vis-à-vis its biggest long-term competitor - China - but it has actually been making us more dependent than ever on Beijing. Indeed, if the Bush policies were wrapped into a single legislative bill it could be called "The U.S.-China Dependency Act."
This is all predicated on an important assumption: that China is America's "biggest long-term competitor". But why? What's the basis for that? There are plenty of reasons to see China as a rival, but just as many to see it as a partner. Replace the word China with the word Europe in that paragraph. Just as absurd.
The excessive tax cuts for the rich, combined with a total lack of discipline on spending, have helped China become the second-largest holder of U.S. debt, with a little under $200 billion. No, I don't think China will start dumping its T-bills on a whim. But don't tell me that as China buys up more and more American debt - and that is the only way we can finance the tax holiday the Bush team wants to make permanent - it won't limit our room to maneuver with Beijing, should it take aggressive steps toward Taiwan.
For an economist Friedman is edging on embarrassment here. China isn't buying US T-bills as part of a sinister plot to wield influence over America. It buys as a consequence of its fixed exchange rate. Japan buys more than China- is that part of a sinister plot? Taiwan is also a large holder of US dollar assets. There's a fallacy at play here. Why would the USA's military freedom be hampered even if China decided, somewhat suicidedly for itself, to dump its US dollar assets? American soldiers are paid in US dollars. American equipment is primarily built in America and paid for in US dollars. America to some extent is immune from currency problems because of its dominance in the world economy and the dollar's position as the world's reserve currency. Having the world's biggest military doesn't hurt either. China has far less leverage over America than Friedman supposes.
What China might do with all its U.S. T-bills in the event of a clash over Taiwan is a total wild card that we have put in Beijing's hands. On energy, the Bush team's obsession with drilling in the Alaskan wilderness to increase supply is mind-boggling. "I am sure China will be thrilled with the Bush decision to drill in Alaska," said the noted energy economist Philip Verleger Jr. "Oil in Alaska cannot easily or efficiently be shipped to our Gulf Coast refineries. The logical markets are on the West Coast of the United States and in Asia. Consumers in China and Japan, not the U.S., will be the real beneficiaries of any big Alaska find.
Hang on. Last paragraph China was the great big threat. Now it's the great big customer. Good business means not treating customers like potential rivals.
"With a big find, China and Japan will be able to increase imports from a dependable supplier - the U.S. - while consumers in the U.S. will still be at the mercy of unreliable suppliers, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. It is simple geography. Also, a big find will lead to lower prices in the short term, promoting more emissions and more warming."
Reducing record high oil prices is a bad thing? Does Friedman drive? This all implies that China would become more dependant on the USA for its most important commodity. Doesn't that offset the alleged potential threat of China owning so many T-bills?
Moreover, focusing exclusively on squeezing out a little more supply will only discourage conservation, Verleger added, setting the stage for higher prices again in three or four years - "when exhausting oil reserves and burgeoning demand from China and India will drive the price of oil to well above $100 a barrel." That will put even more money in the pockets of some of the world's worst governments.
He did it again! Contradicted himself in the space of a paragraph. The oil price falls because of greater supply, but it goes up becuase conservation is discouraged. The only thing missing from this article is logic.
That's why America urgently needs what I call a "geo-green" strategy, which combines geopolitics with environmentalism. Geo-greenism starts with a $1-per-gallon gasoline tax, which would help close the U.S. budget gap and force the U.S. auto industry to convert more of its fleet to hybrid and ethanol technology, thereby reducing the amount of money going to Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Iran for oil. It would also reduce U.S. dependence on China to finance its debt and the chances that America will end up in a global struggle with China for energy.
It would also cause the collapse of the American car industry and manufacturing sector, a drop in the economy, massive job losses and possibly bankrupt one of the Big 3. Not to mention the inflationary impact putting pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates faster.
Finally, on competition policy, the Bush team and Congress cut the budget of the National Science Foundation for this fiscal year by $105 million. I could not put it better than Congressman Vernon Ehlers of Michigan, one of the few dissenting Republicans, who said: "This decision shows dangerous disregard for our nation's future at a time when other nations continue to surpass our students in math and science and consistently increase their funding of basic research. We cannot hope to fight jobs lost to international competition without a well-trained and educated work force."
A massive petrol tax closes the deficit and is a good thing despite the massive economic dislocation it causes; but a budget cut to close the deficit is the end of the world as we know it. Spending on research and science is important. Should it be Government funded? That's a whole different topic. In the interim the majority of American voters decided to have George W. Bush run things, and that includes lower taxes and tat has required spending cuts. It's called democracy.
Moreover, at a time when China is encouraging its new companies to offer employees stock options to get Chinese innovators to stay at home and start new firms, the Bush team has been mutely going along with a change in accounting standards that will force U.S. companies to expense stock options by June 2005. This is likely to dampen the growth of our own high-tech companies and encourage U.S.-educated Indian and Chinese techies to go back home.
A fundamental accounting change like expensing stock options has become a geopolitical error? Stock options was a major factor in the late 90s stock bubble. They are a clear benefit to the employees and thus are a clear expense. Would Friedman rather company accounts remain opaque and stock options not be expensed? That simply inflates profits that don't really exist. What does encourage US-educated Indian and Chinese techies to go home? Better opportunities, booming economies, family, standards of living. They return and make their extremely poor countries more prosperous, thus helping lift the standard of living of literally millions in two countries where GDP per capita is less than US$1,000 p.a. It's an effective anti-poverty measure and in the longer term a likely moderating influence on China. It encourages ties between China and America. These are all what we in the business call "good things".
I am not a China basher.
It's like someone saying "I'm not a racist". It's the clearest sign you are.
We need to engage China and help accommodate its rising power in the world system, but the only way to do that is from a position of strength. But everything the Bush team is doing is ensuring that it will be from a position of weakness.
There's plenty of weakness, but it's all in Friedman's piece. This is a piece of rubbish. What's worse is Mr Friedman is wasting precious natural resources in generating this cr@p. There should be a US$1 tax on every Friedman article. Now that could have major benefits.
I like this word "fisking". Fisking is basically a game of rhetorical chess with only two moves, his (sometimes hers) first and then mate.
This is something I've been doing all the time except I didn't know there was a name for it. A tool of the trade. Thanks.
i had the fortune of attending a meeting at the new york times buildnig this week.in order to reach the conference room, we had to walk down the pullitzer corridor where photos of past prize winners are posted on the walls.the fact that thomas friedman has won two of these things diminishes the value.someone one described him as a 'silly' man.i have two general problems with me: one, he is often so very wrong but he ploughs on ignoring his record.two, he writes not a newspaper op-ed writer but as someone who holds the truth and if only the rest of the world would follow his prescriptions ...
article unnecesserily raises fear of china. china has a long way to go for posing any real threat, economic or military,to u.s.
btw can anyone explain mechanism of off-loading u.s t bills held by a foreign country in a conflict with u.s. and can us stop it.
I wrote this entry in my blog about a month ago on what I think a good R&D policy would be. This relates to your part about spending on the National Science Foundation. I'd be honored if you told me what you think.
What should the policy be for national energy? The NYT article argues that the US administration should be striving for security of supply and conservation - at least until some other form of energy turns up.
But how the nation achieves security of supply is causing some unrest internationally: "The tension [of Venezuela's weapons procurement programme] threatens to put strain on the relationship between Washington and one of its top oil suppliers. The United States is the biggest consumer of oil from Venezuela, the world's fifth largest oil exporter." http://news.ft.com/cms/s/eb93d94a-9bcc-11d9-815d-00000e2511c8.html
And conservation of energy? Unfortunately the global marketplace gives people whatever they want. The UN hasn't really been allowed to intervene in the past - perhaps in the future?
The NYT stresses today the difficulty in planning for life without fossil fuel. And, if a new unlimited energy source is discovered by someone eventually, as is prayed, bridges will be needed between the end of the fossil fuel era and its replacement. "On the demand side, this means huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency - two areas that policy makers and consumers have sadly neglected."
Power plants will be expected to run on fossil fuel that does not pollute. "The marriage of gasified coal plants and geologic storage could allow us to build power plants that produce vast amounts of energy with virtually no carbon dioxide emissions in the air. The [US] Department of Energy is pursuing plans to build such a zero-emission power plant and is encouraging energy companies to come up with proposals of their own. The United States, Britain and Germany are also collaborating to build such plants in China and India as part of an effort by the Group of 8." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/25/opinion/25homer-dixon.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
All very iffy. Some formality in the arrangements seems necessary. The UN?
The absence of UN supervision seems to be leading to a national stalemate in the research into energy for the future. A competition to host the 'International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor' for fusion energy (ITER) has come down to candidates France and Japan. There is much to research, so the project is forecast to take 30 years. France has the support of China, the European Union and Russia. Japan is backed by South Korea and the United States. http://fire.pppl.gov/iter_reuters_032705.pdf
The European Union is getting anxious about the delay: "European Union leaders want an international agreement to build the world's first nuclear fusion reactor in France by July, a document said on Wednesday, adding pressure on Japan to give up its bid to host the site. . . The EU has called for high-level political talks with Japan to resolve the issue. But Japan refused, saying they would only lead to deadlock." http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/30071/story.htm
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Yesterday I discussed the proposed increase in demerit points and fines for running red lights in Hong Kong. Today the SCMP reports bus drivers are threatening industrial action, claiming the move will cause them stress and increase risks to pedestrians. The risk is from those that run red lights, not from stressed bus drivers. Here's a handy stress-reduction technique for bus drivers: obey the law. Let's hope the Government has enough backbone to stand up to them.
The Government is considering nationalising the two privately owned cross-Harbour tunnels. That's right, in the world's "free-est" economy. The idea would be if the Government owned them all it would magically free up congestion at the Central tunnel. As I said on Monday, Hong Kong doesn't need another price fixing cartel. The cost of buying both tunnels is HK$11 billion, at which rate the tolls wouldn't even cover the interest. Luckily the major shareholder in both the Eastern and Western tunnels has said they are not for sale. However Citic Pacific did offer to take the Central tunnel off the Government's hands instead. Congestion occurs because the Central tunnel is cheaper and in the best location. It's just a different cost of using it.
The Hong Kong Tourism Board is getting HK$9 million to rework its website, says the SCMP. Sure it could use sprucing up, but $9 million? I'm going to apply for Government funds to revamp this site.
More support for China's anti-secession law: Jordan and Palestine (some interesting parallels there).
Heh. There are two solutions to the current fuss over a 2 year term for the next Chief Executive. Either the NPC re-interprets the Basic Law, which has the beauty of eliminating any possible legal challenge and constitutional crisis; or each candidate declares they will only serve for 2 years. The latter saves face for China and removes the legal threat, all while earning massive brownie points for the candidate. In fact China is having a great demonstration that democracy and its trappings are NOT a threat. Despite Hong Kong's free press, limited autonomy and partial elections, China is still in control. The new doctrine of legislative intent means that even the written word need not mean what it appears - it is the interntion of the law's framers that matter, not what they wrote. Friends, this is legal history in the making.
(14:49) How deals get done. China releases a key dissident, America drops its traditional censure of China's human rights. Realpolitik in action.
A troubling story about bullying in Hong Kong schools. Almost as troubling is the poor job the English language press does in this town. There exists a major market gap for a group effort to translate and post articles such as this reported in the Chinese language media in English. Any interest?
That is indeed a sad story regarding the victim of school bullies; what is especially troubling is that the bullies were able to exploit the educational system to further torment the poor kid.
I believe that cases like this are more widespread in Hong Kong. For example, recorded footage of such blatant and apalling classroom bullying has been posted on the internet.
It seems that these students lack the confidence to stand up to their tormentors and become targets of opportunity for the more ruthless among them. Maybe these are just typical childhood experiences of growing up in the school of hard knocks. Or is there something else going on in Hong Kong's school system?
see "Asian Prep School Thugs",
http://www.fugly.com/frameset.html?http://www.fugly.com/media/view.php?cat=MOVIES&id=2528~mainFrame
or
http://www.muchosucko.com/link1334.html
Plethora of overseas visitors. Check.
Hotels full. Check.
Lots of bigwigs in the office. Check.
LKF and Wan Chai full. Check.
Bleary eyed gweilos wondering the streets of Central lost each morning. Check. Apartments turned into flophouses. Check.
Ex-British Prime Minister walking around. Check.
Unusually high gweilo to local ratio. Check. Strange apparel. Check.
Forget using GDP to measure the return of boom times to Hong Kong's economy. The only index that matters, the Rugby Sevens index, is at a post-SARS high.
Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) outlets in China have stopped selling their New Orleans roast chicken wings and chicken hamburgers after a cancer-causing food coloring, Sudan I, was found in the sauce, state media said..."We feel deep sorry for this food safety accident and promise it will never happen again," Xinhua quoted the statement as saying.
Sudan I is a red dye traditionally used for coloring solvents, oils, waxes, petrol and shoe and floor polishes. It cannot safely be used in food as it can increase the risk of cancer.
Sudan 1 is a genotoxic carcinogen, which means that it can permanently alter the DNA in, say, a human liver cell. The study that links Sudan 1 to cancerous tumours was done in America 20 years ago. It found that when rats and mice were fed 30mg of Sudan 1 for each kilogram of their bodyweight every day for two years, the rats underwent changes that indicated they were on the way to getting tumours. The mice were okay. The study was peer reviewed, but was never replicated. When the International Agency for Research on Cancer looked at the data, it decided it was not robust enough to categorise Sudan 1 as a likely cause of cancer, says Alan Boobis, a toxicologist at Imperial College, London. He likens the risk of getting cancer from the affected food products to that from smoking one cigarette in a lifetime.
If an average-sized man, who weighed 80kg (12½ stone), volunteered to test the effects of Sudan 1 on humans, he would have to consume 2.4 grams of the dye a day to match the dose given to the rats. According to the Food Standards Agency (FSA), there are 3mg of Sudan 1 in every litre of the contaminated Worcester sauce. So our man would have to drink around 800 litres of Worcester sauce every day for two years. That's an awful lot of Bloody Marys.
Or chilli powder, or pepper sauce. There's enough going between China and the real Sudan already.
Classic. The whole red dye causes cancer thing was such a big thing back in the day that they stopped making red m&m candies. Glad to hear the rumor tree is still alive and well.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Hong Kong Disneyland, a partly state funded venture, and Ocean Park are to receive a free boost to their marketing efforts, thanks to the Hong Kong taxpayer. I propose all Hong Kong taxpayers get free tickets to both parks. Interestingly HK Disneyland came in for questioning over its option on adjacent land to its current site.
Hong Kong is proposing raising demerit points for jumping red lights. The Government proposed raising the penalty from 3 to 8 points (a total of 15 costs your licence). Professional drivers were outraged, saying it will cause them stress and loss of livelihood. The Transport Department backed down, reducing it to 5. WTF? If red lights cause professional drivers stress, that's good. They should be careful about running red lights. It's illegal for a good reason. And there are plenty of relatives and loved ones of those killed by runners of red lights who have far better claim on stress and outrage. Why does Hong Kong's Government always pander to special interests? Oh, that's right, because it's made up of them.
It's been somewhat topical here in the last few days. Bill Roggio has an indepth look at what prevents China invading Taiwan (via WoC), continuing the themes I started on yesterday. Good article. Go read. I'll wait.
It has already started. While most of Hong Kong's budget was drawn up well before the coup d'etat of recent weeks, it reflects one thing: Henry Tang's desire to be as uncontroversial as possible. This is despite Mr Tang having little chance of actually becoming Chief Executive in 2 years time, as is pointed out by Willy Lam's excellent Jamestown Foundation article. Tang is from Shanghai, which would have helped if Jiang Zemin remained in power but is a problem now President Hu and Premier Wen are trying to break up the Shanghai faction. The race for 2007 is for The Don to lose, although he's under notice the civil service unions.
So to the budget itself. Estate duty is abolished (but won't someone think of the lawyers and accountants?), but it was a costly and ineffective tax. No change to the punishingly high alcohol duty, but given Mr Tang's well-known overseas wine collection that's prudent politics and learning the lessons of his predecessor's fall. An increase in allowances for those caring for parents and those with kids will benefit a few while appearing to "do something". Booming receipts from land sales and taxes will bring the budget back into balance faster than originally expected. A couple of spending schemes to boost tourism and improve old buildings.
So to the problems. This was "an opportunity missed". The difficult issue of a sales tax has been pushed out until after 2007 and the next CE election. Instead the budget signals a return to the bad old days of relying on the property market. Land sales revenue is predicted to slowly rise over the next 5 years, even though this year it was 2.5 times higher than the original estimate. Property prices in this city are volatile. Basing Government expenditure on it is dangerous and why the deficit opened up in the first place. A rebounding economy is the best time to introduce a reshuffling of the tax base, with a broad-based GST along with increased welfare assistance and income tax cuts. But fear, timidity and a desire to be CE in 2007 put paid to that. Philip Bowring in today's SCMP is clearly not a fan of a GST and contradicts himself withing three paragraphs, lamenting the increase in property rates while suggesting further increases as an alternative to a GST. Jake van der Kamp laments the reliance on land sales income and the continued addiction to big infrastructure projects that pander to the functional constituencies.
But Henry Tang is just responding to the incentives presented to him. He wants to be CE, so no controversial GST. He wants to be CE, so continue to butter up potential electors who are also functional consituency representatives. He wants to be CE, so he tinkers at the edges and presents a business as usual approach.
Asia by Blog is a regular feature providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
**Notes:
1. The new Daily Linklets posts will also contain links to interesting China, Asia and other news and views.
2. Today I've put the entire post on the main page, rather than pushing the body into the extended entry. Any feedback on preferred formats or any other feedback or comments (such as what style of links/stories/information you find most useful or interesting) is greatly appreciated. /Note**
This edition contains China's anti-secession law, South Korea/Japan tensions, gays and AIDS in Singapore, the Dictator and the SecState, re-emerging China, pandas making a comeback, the Dalai Lama and Tibet, the realities of China's net censorship, the South Indian Diet plus much more...
The death of schoolchildren in the Philippines was not due to natural cyanide in the cassava they ate: it was pesticide. Doc Emer explains cassava poisoning.
simon, you got tawian all wrong. it is not texas, it does not want to secede from the union. it was never a province of China. you are obviosuly paid by your commie handlers. sad. before you start blogging , learn your history first.
the reason why blogosphere doesn't quite cut it -- any disagreement is automatically taken as proof that the other side is in the pay of the commie handlers and/or CIA paymasters.this just totally destroys any intellectual content that might have been there.
Dan, your reading comprehension skills need work. 1) Simon was quoting a phrase found in the entry he linked to, and in most media outlets, for that matter. 2) The piece he linked to actually seems to have a mildly pro-Taiwan slant.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
Brian Dunn states the Chinese will invade Taiwan. (via IP). His proof? China's military modernisation program, the newly passed anti-secession law and an article in the Taipei Times. Pretty flimsy. China's been preparing to invade Taiwan since the split in the 1940s. The PLA's military modernisation program has been going on for years. They make no secret that their main intention is to prepare for a Taiwan invasion. It's why the PLA couldn't offer much logistical help after the tsunami. The anti-secession law codifies what has been policy for 50 years. In some respects it shows restraint from previous policy positions. Mr Dunn says I would really like it if the Chinese evolved some sanity and became a normal, civilize [sic] country without territorial objectives to be achieved at others [sic]expense. You'd think China would recognize it has enough problems 360 degrees without driving us [the USA] into the enemy camp. The American Civil War was fought over a bunch of territories trying to secede from the Union. In a more modern context if California announced it was going Communist and leaving the USA, would the rest of America accept that blindly? Before shooting from the hip it pays to know at least a little about what you speak. Where's Thomas Barnett? Update: Is this reader of IP delusional? On one hand China's the baddy because they have such a large trade balance with the USA; on the other its part of an evil plot to distract the US and flood the world with US dollars? China holds US$600 billion in reserves and America is its largest trading partner. China wants Taiwan but fears America's reaction. They're not stupid. Nor need they be America's rivals...unless Americans want them to be. Second update: Giving Taiwan nukes as an answer? Maybe the good Professor is also losing the plot. At a time when the world is trying to de-nuclearise North Korea and Iran, adding more nukes to the Taiwan question is a recipie for disaster. Update 3: From the Jamestown Foundation (see below): The PRC's defense industry: reform without improvement. They're running to stand still. That's why I'm sceptical about China's "military modernisation program".
Could Collins be returning to blogging? Will it fill the void left by Bill formerly of BV?
Dan Drezner picks up on The Epoch Times story saying 200,000 Chinese have quit the CCP. As many of the commenters hint, The Epoch Times is owned and bankrolled by the Falun Gong movement. Along the Journey noted the same story and found a website listing those supposedly quitting the CCP. This likely isn't getting wider airing because it hasn't been corroborated by independent sources.
The SCMP reports a planned three way merger between Dragonair, Cathay Pacific and Air China. What a great test for Hong Kong's new Government. Would they prefer a national champion that dominates or even monopolises key routes? Or will they stick to their current policy of aviation competition? I'll wager the former.
China's economy is still booming, despite the central Government's best efforts. Industrial output is up 17% and fixed asset investment up 24.5% on a year earlier. The inflation genie is also creeping out of its bottle. The world might be relying on China to be the economic growth engine, but it is close to being out of control.
(12:17) How to beat Wal-Mart and its "Always low prices".
I'm not an iPod fanatic. But if you have been claimed by the iPod cult, here's the loo for you.
I don't think it's really the same with Taiwan and California. California has been a part of the US for over 160 years. Taiwan was an official part of China for 8 years in the 19th century (1887-1895) and 4 years in the 20th century (1945-1949). That's 12 years total. In contrast, Taiwan was a part of Japan for 50 (1895-1945) years and Okinawa was part of the United States for 28 years (1945-1973).
The argument is more that Taiwan's people are chinese and that the Taiwanese government was the Chinese government, right? The claim is more political than territorial I think. I'd be like if US democrats ran to Cuba and the main Republican US started saying that Cuba is a part of the US. Well, it once was in the late 19th century, and the government would be founded by Americans...
Andrew is spot on. Another valid point is that the People's Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, so the US Civil War analogy is quite mistaken, no matter how hard the CPC tries to make it fit.
Andrew Mcmanama-smith is playing with his facts. Taiwan "province" existed for those 8 years during Qing China. However prior to that, Taiwan province did not exist and was a prefectural level entity that was part of Fujian province. To say that Taiwan was only part of China for 8 years by the 19th century is beyond a misinterpretation but rather what I would qualify as a deliberate and disingenous attempt to manipulate history to support separatism. Taiwan prefecture was incorporated into Fujian province in 1683. In 1875 Taiwan prefecture was further subdivided into a north and south administrative regions. In 1887, the date that China "allegedly" acquired Taiwan was in reality the date of another bureaucratic shuffle when Taiwan prefecture(s) were administratively removed from Fujian province and made a province in and of itself.
As for the anology comparing the Taiwan situation to a theoretical seccession by California from the Union, this is of course a rather limited relationship that is only superficially similar. However, this kind of reasoning would be missing the point entirely. The position of the mainland vis-a-vis Taiwan is that Taiwan is part of China, thus any attempts to declare an independent polity from either the PRC or ROC would be regarded as separatism. This is where the analogy holds true, the United States would in the same vein not look favourably upon states entertaining the idea of seccession and would in likelyhood use force to oppose it. Whether or not China can correctly regard Taiwan as part of China, is of course up to interpretation.
Well, Jing is completely wrong: It wasn't until 1684 that Taiwan was made part of Fujian :)
Of course, this date is at the other extreme to Andrew's; it's equally dubious to say Taiwan suddenly became a fundamental part of China then. Qing attitudes to Taiwan were pretty ambivalent at first (Han Chinese were forcibly repatriated from Taiwan to China, immigration to Taiwan was illegal for a long time, and only the Western parts of Taiwan were under Qing control). However, my rule of thumb is that about the start of the 19th century you could say Taiwan was fully part of China (by then Han outnumbered aborigine, there was more effort to develop and expand control on the island, and immigration was allowed).
That aside, I agree that Simon's analogies are waaay of the mark (I'd have though a better one for Simon would be Australia getting rid of the Queen).
The original article of course contains a lot of opinion; I wouldn't agree with it's conclusion, but only a fool would discount the possibility of war. I would also agree with its main conclusion that Taiwan needs to take its own defense a bit more seriously ...
My analogies are only to highlight a point - why does China feel so strongly about Taiwan? It's historically difficult to argue that Taiwan was only a part of China for a short period. Beside the reasons above, also note that the Nationalists and the CCP fought the civil war over who would rule all of China, including Taiwan.
David is right - Taiwan does need to look more closely at their defense. But a Chinese invasion of Taiwan is not viable in the near future.
I noticed the extra word you added to your arguement that was not part of my original response David. I never claimed that Taiwan was a "fundamental" part of China (mileage may vary depending on PRC propaganda). I merely stated that contrary to what Mr. Mcnanama-smith wrote, Taiwan was officially a part of China in 1683 no matter how one may slice the facts. Another analogy with America I believe would be appropriate in this case. Taiwan in some ways parallels the developement of the American frontier. Although technically claimed by the government, presence of settlers was sporadic and the extent of central authority was limited. That however did not stop the government from claiming those territories nor does it signify that those territories which would eventually become states were somehow not part of the Union even at that time.
If you'll forgive me for being so anal retentive about this issue, but it has become quite formulaic for fabrications and distortions to be repeated ad-infinitum and unchallenged by pro-separatist forces in the Taiwan debate. (framing them as separatists is admittedly an open bias on my part).
One final comment not related to Taiwan, at least not directly. In response to your update regarding Instapundit readers, many Instapundit readers might be delusional and most commenters certainly are. They keep good company with the chief puppy himself. I know you are a conservative blogger but you appear to be the exception to the rule(perhaps because you are a Kiwi), but I have found that the conservative blogging circuit to be generally obnoxious, borderline paranoid, detached from reality, and pitifully ignorant when it concerns asia-pacific affairs. Prone to leaps in logic and judgement and erratic to the extreme. Perhaps I am reciting simply an indictment of the fallacies of man, but after reading so much worthless commentary from quite a number of blogs and not to mention the Free Republic I feel rather compelled to get it all out in the open. Case in point, Instapundits solution to this perceived dastardly machiavellian Chinese plan is to simply nuclearize the crisis.
Ironically my father earned his doctoral degree from UTK (The university where Reynold's teaches)and I have memories of his colleagues who seemed to be very rational people, but then again, they were biologists not law professors.
Oh p.s. I find your blog quite an enjoyable read and broad in scope. I'm sure you get a lot of this but keep up the good work.
Thanks Jing. Minor point - I'm an Aussie. It's almost like calling a mainlander a Taiwanese!
Unfortunately you're right when it comes to Asia-Pacific issues and the response from many in the USA. Nuclearising Taiwan would make a bad situation worse, and is ironic given the efforts to denuclearise both NK and Iran.
I would contend it's not just on the right. Ignorance of the region and its issues is widespread but not surprising. That's our job - to demystify and hopefully shed a little light.
Jing - I wasn't trying to put words into your mouth; apologies if you felt i was. I was merely trying to add a clarification. After all, you might notice that fabrications and distortions are not limited to one side of this argument (again, not directed at you) :)
Personally, I don't think the 'instapundit crowd' does subtlety or nuance particularly well, and that is something which is required in this area. Also, there's a tendency to look at things primarily from a military perspective.
Simon the Kiwi - heh. How do we make that name stick?
In my defense... I guess I was wrong about the dates there. I wasn't intentionally distorting facts, those are just the facts as they were taught to me. And I am not pro-separationist or a China-basher. I believe that Taiwan will eventually be part of China and that's the way it should be. I just wasn't sure about the analogy.
Oh and those IP readers are delusional and more than a little bit scary.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
The New Blog Carnival is up at Multiple Mentality, where they're done a great job. Check it out.
The SCMP reports Zhang Enzhao, chairman of China Construction Bank, has been sacked and is being investigated for corruption. He was the head of one of the Big Four, a bank the received $22.5 billion in capital back in late 2003 to help prepare it for a stockmarket listing. No word on the state of the listing now.
First there was the Little Red Book. Now it's the Little Red Pencil (via SCMP).
ESWN looks at group polarisation in the blogosphere, with contrasting examples from America and Hong Kong. His thoughts on HK's blogosphere are exactly right:
At this time, all that exists in the political blogosphere of Hong Kong is a bunch of commentators (including the person who is typing these words) who are marginalized and have no meaningful impact on the flow of events.
In time that will change, but there are significant differences between blogging in the US and in Asia. It's something I will soon look at in more detail.
(11:43) An example of the power of blogs in marketing. Shaky doesn't like the Motorola V3 RAZR; I respect Shaky's opinion on all things tech; ergo I won't be buying one even though I was considering it.
(18:00) Joel looks at three key WW2 events of 60 years ago: the Tokyo and Dresden fire-bombings and the battle of Iwo Jima. Sean looks in much more detail at the Tokyo fire bombing.
All this fuss plus a post by Spike got me thinking about the rather lame SCMP online site. The paper makes a point of pushing its online portal, with print ads advertising SCMP.com for intra-day updates. The articles on the website are only accessible to subscribers, despite a proliferation of annoying flash advertisements all over the screen. But print subscribers cannot access the site - you have to pay an extra fee for the access. In other words you pay twice for access to the same content. The articles are unlinkable, meaning the SCMP misses out on potential traffic driven to their site by bloggers and others. There are few updates each day - today I can count exactly two new articles on the main page. Worse the page is not updated at all on sunday and only infrequently on Saturday. Even if you subscribe to the site, not all of the newspaper articles are put online. As Spike points out often the online articles have the wrong pictures attached. The "Totally HK" lifestyle guide is a pale imitation of several better (free) newspapers and sites. The "On the Spot" online forum could be a great forum for interacting with reporters and columnists, except it seems to only ever feature food/wine critic Kevin Sinclair and film editor Mathew Scott. I don't know the SCMP online traffic numbers, but I am sure they are a small fraction of what they could be.
Newspapers face a problem in dealing with the internet. They need to find a business model that is appropriate for the internet but that does not completely cannibalise their traditional offerings. Approaches differ. The NYT is considering charging for access to its content. As Joi Ito pointed out the NYT these days offers little that cannot be found for free elsewhere. That said the NYT at least recognised the value of links with its link generator, which avoids the problem of stale links. The Economist manages to strike a good balance: some content for free with the rest reserved for print and online subscribers. There is no additional charge for print subscribers to get access to the Economist online. At the same time the Economist online offers new and different content to the print magazine. On top of all this now traditional media are dealing with the emergence of "citizens' media" as well. Are they potential rivals or allies? Do they boost audiences or steal them?
What it boils down to is a simple proposition: value. Is the content provided worth it, in terms of not just advertising but also traffic and viewing time? What is a newspaper's online site for? Is it an extension of the traditional paper or a glorified piece of advertising? Do print subscribers actually subsidise online content? I doubt that. The traditional newspaper model is to gain revenue through advertising with a small cover charge to pay for distribution. Online there are neglible distribution costs. These lower barriers to entry are partly why papers are feeling threatened by the internet. But they hold advantages in terms of brand and revenue that should give them a competitive advantage online. It is to their detriment (and others' benefit) if they squander these opportunities.
There are many better qualified than I to address these issues. What I do know is the SCMP is an example of an online media offering that does not get it. They seem to have no discernable online strategy other than putting up a site for the sake of it. With minor changes the site could be a significant source of both new readers and greater revenue. For a small fee I'd be happy to oblige. It is a small price to pay compared to the alternatives.
Tomorrow is Budget Day in Hong Kong. Overshadowed by recent events, it is expected to be a non-event with few surprises despite the rapidly improving budgetary situation. That hasn't stopped the ongoing bleating opposing a potential sales tax. While such a tax will broaden the tax base, allow for reductions in other taxes and prove a more stable source of revenue than relying on property sales and investment returns, a not suprising 90% plus of retailers oppose it. They commission a survey which found a majority of tourists will "mar Hong Kong's reputation as a top shopping destination" and many retailers fearing a big drop in sales if such a tax were introduced. Half of the 205 tourists surveyed said they would spend less if they were charged sales tax.
It is like asking turkeys their views on Thanksgiving. Will people really stop buying goods because of a 5% sales tax? Perhaps at the margin. But it would spark a sales boom before it was introduced. Indeed the Australian experience saw a spike in pre-GST sales, a brief drop and then strong retail sales growth as the benefits of lower income taxes meant consumers had higher disposable incomes. As for the tourism aspect, Hong Kong has stopped competing on price as a shopping destination a long time ago. Now it offers a wide variety of top stores within a compact, first world setting. This combined with Hong Kong's many other charms will mean a sales tax will have very limited impact on tourism. More important is good service and products. If the difference between a tourist coming to HK or not is 5% of the price, they aren't the kind of tourists HK wants or needs. What the retailers also forget to mention is most sales tax regimes refund sales tax to travellers.
There are legitimate reasons to oppose a sales tax. It is regressive so it needs to be have some compensation for the poor. Administration can be an issue. The Government will need to decide if prices are displayed pre- or post-GST and their will be confusion and fraud during the changeover period. What the retailers have proved is surveys can be made to say anything. Have you ever seen a special interest group with a survey that didn't bolster their case? The surveys aren't worth the paper they are written on.
In reality has a government ever instituted a new tax and then reduced existing taxes, because now their revenue base is steadier and more secure?
The HK government will institute a sales tax and they will keep the existing taxes as they are. The revenue increases will be wasted on ever more dodgy boondoggles or increased pay for the government and civil service workers. Therefore the government will eat up more of HK's income with nothing substantial to really show for it (unless you were thrilled with Harbourfest etc).
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
To fight piracy Warner Brothers is selling DVDs cheaply in China. They are selling DVDs such as Harry Potter for 22-28 yuan when the going rate for pirate DVDs is 5 - 8 yuan. Of course this also exposes what a rip-off DVDs and CDs are in the first place.
China is preparing to release a genetically modified rice to help boost yields and rural incomes. Don't expect many Chinese farmers to join in anti-GM rallies.
China's banking system has seen more than 4,000 officials steal US$50 billion in cash. This exceeds the US$45 billion injected into BoC and CCB to recapitalise them in 2003. It's an extra-ordinary amount of money to take out of a developing economy's banking system. It also highlights why China's banking reform is so urgent.
The WaPo reports on two books on China's leaders, one by American investment banker which is being heavily promoted and the other by a CCP member that is banned. The first book is The Man Who Changed China, a biography of Jiang Zemi; the other "Political Struggles in China's Reform Era" is a new look at the era of the late Zhao Ziyang.
(14:15) Long-time favourite blog ESWN in undergoing a revamp after suffering from Simon's First Law of Blogging: the more popular the blog, the more it costs the blogger (in both time and money). It is a real shame as ESWN is a superb and unique blog. I only hope he continues to post regularly as promised. If you're not reading ESWN, you should.
(16:09) While mostly symbolic, America's planned Advance Democracy bill does little but antagonise countries such as China. The aim of advancing democracy is laudable but this isn't the way to do it. If anything it sets the cause back by giving opposing Governments propaganda opportunities. Talk softly and carry a big stick.
Regarding your tidbit on WB DVDs in China and the line "Of course this also exposes what a rip-off DVDs and CDs are in the first place." Um, no. This price is only possible because all associated costs are at a "China level". That includes staff salaries, local replication, warehousing and logistics, marketing and merchandising, special arrangements made on royalties, and a business plan that assume operating at a loss for 5 years.
Fair points but I thought the major cost of such products was the "intellectual capital" i.e. the cost of producing the content. Harry Potter isn't a Chinese boy.
Well, it's certainly one component, but far from the only one. You have the cost of digital mastering of the DVD, preparation of the bonus materials, the box and artwork, dubbing and subtitling, marketing and merchandising and promotion, the entire supply chain of getting the disc from the replicator to the warehouse to the store, assorted overhead (financial accounting, MIS systems, legal, etc.), taxes, royalties to the owner of the DVD copyright, royalties to Dolby labs and some profit too, of course. Probably the biggest chunk of change goes to the retailer, who on average adds a 20-30% mark-up to the wholesale cost. (HMV in HK marks up everything 35% across the board.)
DVD prices probably could come down in places like the US and UK but it is impossible to replicate the kind of pricing you get in China throughout the entire supply chain.
On the other hand - in the U.S., you can generally buy a 2 disc DVD set of a current hot movie for under $20 - a movie that on average cost $100 million to make (the creative element) and a similar amount to market. And you pay almost the exact same price for a single music CD, something that usually costs under $10 million to make and $10 million to market.
Many of us in the home video business also shake our heads in disbelieve at CD pricing.
Over the weekend the NPC declared "legislative intent" of the Basic Law was for a 2 year term for Hong Kong's new Chief Executive, Donald Tsang. This has forced some of the great and good into some verbal gymnastics to reverse their ealier declaration that a 5 year term is clear in the Basic Law. The SCMP reports Dr Raymond Wu said:
Perhaps my memory is wrong or my understanding of the views of other drafters is incorrect...I can't say I am right while others are wrong. It doesn't matter to me whether the new chief executive serves a two-year or five-year term.
It might not matter to him, but it does to a lot of others. Another flip-flopper:
Former solicitor-general Daniel Fung Wah-kin, who also originally backed a five-year term, said he, too, was convinced by Beijing's rationale. "Courts in countries [with] common-law systems also consider legislative intent when they interpret constitutional provisions."
Beijing can be awfully persuasive. This idea of "legislative intent" is great. Now instead of relying what's written in plain language on paper, we get to guess what the drafters were actually thinking when they wrote those words. And if we guess wrong, Beijing will help us to get the "right" answer. Why not just junk the Basic Law entirely? That's effectively what's happening piece by piece. Forget about re-interpretation, now the law is all about guessing games.
Laurence Brahm has interviews with both the Dalai and Panchen Lamas in today's SCMP. The brief bio at the end of the articles:
Laurence Brahm, filmmaker, author, lawyer-economist and [SCMP] columnist, is the only person known to have met both the Dalai and the Panchen lamas. His inderpendent neutral capacity has given him unprecedented access to both sides
Clearly the modesty and humility of both Lamas rubbed off on Laurence.
Fun Fact: Did you know that the preceding Panchen Lama had a daughter? I think it happened during a period in which he was in disagreement with the Beijing authorities.
The girl lives in California and has a large following in Tibet, which makes her an asset to Beijing--she could *prove* whether or not the new Panchen Lama is legitimate because it should be her father reincarnated as a child.
Anyway, the best part of all this is that her Godfather/Spiritual Protector is a famous Hollywood actor: STEVEN SEAGAL.
Hong Kong island has three tunnels to Kowloon. There is now a fuss because the Eastern tunnel toll will rise by HK$10 to HK$25 from May. This has seen the usual hand-wringing over the "problem" of the differential pricing of each tunnel. The Western tunnel costs HK$40 each way, the Central tunnel $20 and now the Eastern $25. The media are full of those who suggest the Government should "do something" and force all the tunnels to charge the some toll. This would, or so the theory goes, reduce the massive congestion at the Central tunnel and is "fairer" to everyone.
Baloney. While not perfect substitutes, the 3 tunnels are competitors. On the weekend I drove through both the Western and Eastern tunnels, where there was little traffic, while the Central tunnel was jam-packed. Those sitting in the traffic jam are all well aware of the two alternatives. Many rule out the Western tunnel as too expensive and the Eastern tunnel as too far away. That is their choice and their cost is sitting in the traffic jam. They are weighing the benefits of paying a lower toll against the extra time it takes to go through the tunnel against the convenience of the tunnel's location. In other words they are putting a price on their time (QED). There are solutions to the congestion at the Central tunnel, such as variable road pricing. But forcing the three tunnels to offer the same toll isn't the answer. Hong Kong has enough price-fixing cartels already.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
The Dalai Lama again says Tibet is part of China. That must make it awkward for the 'Free Tibet' crowd.
I've been remiss in not linking to this earlier: Asia Business Intelligence has been reborn. A great site for anyone interested in Chinese and Asian business affairs.
(15:06) Bloggers are making onto the op-ed page of the SCMP. Todd Crowell of the interesting Asia Cable (for example, his take on Taiwan's need to wake up to reality) has written the most sensible and best of three reflections on Tung's resignation.
It may be that he [Tung] was a little too decent for the position he was thrust into...In his governing style Mr Tung never could strike the happy balance between being a Mandarin, which was probably his natural bent, and a western-style politician...In the longer term, Mr Tung will not be judged on how he handled bird flu, SARS or the civil service, or whether he was too beholden to local property tycoons. His historic mission was to guide Hong Kong through the stormy early years of "one country, two systems". Judged from that perspective, he has not done badly.
I would quibble with Tung having the position "thrust" upon him. Mr Crowell has taken the same tone as Jake van der Kamp a few days back in praising Tung's handling of HK in the transition from British to Chinese rule. I think that overstates the case, especially as the Basic Law has been shown to be practically worthless in the face of Chinese "re-interpretations". Tung's record was mixed, as are all politicians' records. But he got more wrong than he got right.
Thomas Barnett on China's Hu Doctrine and its similarity to another. As I explained in an earlier discussion For discussion: what are the similarities and differences in the China/Taiwan situation and the Canda/Quebec one?
There are contests you want to win, and those you don't. Last week the annual Asian corruption table was released. Indonesia edged out India and Vietnam at the top of the table. China levelled with Malaysia and Thailand, which says something about all 3 places. Hong Kong and Japan were virtually level towards the bottom of the ladder, with good ol' Singapore the wooden spooner.
What's most interesting is the lack of correlation between the economic/political systems and perceived corruption. The only correlation that matters appears to be GDP - the richer the country the lower the corruption. But which leads which?
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
The BBC's "breakthrough" broadcast of the political show Question Time from Shanghai today has generated a lot of excitement. It will be widely watched everywhere, except in China where it naturally has been banned.
A nice site covering everything you wanted to know about the proposed Pearl River bridge.
(10:42) Hong Kong Disneyland already has over 10,000 hotel bookings. The SCMP reports Disney may even invite charity groups to be amongst the first to attend the park during its soft opening in August before the official opening in September. Could this be the answer the Poverty Commission has been searching for - renting out HK's masses? It could even prove a clever way to recoup some of the massive investment Government investment in Hong Kong Disneyland.
(12:54) Jim has finally had his talent recognised and had a story published online. Read it - it's a good one.
(13:14) Thankfully the anti-climax today reaches its peak (if such a thing can happen) and Tung Che-hwa will finally resign, allowing Donald Tsang to assume the caretaker Government role and carry on exactly as before. Never has so much fuss been made over so little change. The SCMP reports James Tien of the Liberals would prefer CFO Henry Tang in the job. A delightful prospect awaits Hong Kong: we get to watch "The Donald" and "The Henry" try and out-do each other in getting furthest up Beijing's posterior.
AN EMAIL from Hong Kongâs favourite corporate governance activist corrects me. Longhair, he points out, is not the only member of LegCo who can say âwhen I was in prisonâ¦â There is also the esteemed representative of our selfless stockbrokers, the Honourable Chim Pui Chung. This means one in 30 of our lawmakers has done time in the slammer. So much for the USAâs claim to have the worldâs highest incarceration rate, with a measly one in 37.
Sir David Akers-Jones, erstwhile Chief Secretary and friend of Discovery Bay, has a proposal for a bicameral (two chamber) Legislative Council in today's SCMP. The full article is in the extended entry. The idea is the lower chamber would consist of only directly elected members (ie those with a mandate from the public). The upper chamber would consist of those from functional constituencies (ie those with a mandate from special interests). Sir David has some ideas on how to deal with differences between the two chambers and notes it is not suggested that the second chamber should unequivocally be given a right of veto. Instead he proposes the (Beijing appointed) Chief Executive have the right to break deadlocks and (this is my suggestion) if he gets it wrong we always know Beijing can set things right.
In fact the idea has merit. It wouldn't take long for the second chamber, much like the House of Lords in the UK, to lose much of its power. It would take a gutsy Chief Executive to continually reject proposals from the democratically elected chamber, especially when the CE is an appointee with no popular mandate of his own. China would find it harder to over-rule and re-interpret laws passed by this chamber. It would be overruling the expressed will of duly elected representatives of Hong Kong pubilc. As a halfway house on the road to a democratic Hong Kong it should be enough to appease those represented by functional constituencies. It could also be a good excuse to re-examine the Basic Law and would subvert Beijing's strong hand in Hong Kong affairs.
For all those reasons Beijing would never let it happen.
Can the conflict between a fully directly elected Legislative Council and the steady progress required by the Basic Law be avoided? The message conveyed by the National People's Congress was that any changes made in 2008 must comply with a requirement to protect the equal balance between the directly elected seats and functional constituency seats, and to maintain Legco's separate voting system.
This indicates a clear desire, for the time being, for the continued role of vocational or functional representatives. Is there a middle way, a means to compromise between the popular demand and the need for restraint, for the gradual and orderly progress called for by our national leaders?
When developing their democracies, many countries had to face a similar dilemma, to find a balance between a directly elected council and the interests of the community as a whole. The answer lay in having a representative system consisting of two chambers, which has been adopted by more than 50 nations.
There is no unanimity in the composition of the second chamber - there are representatives of federated states, appointed and vocational members, or even a mixed system. Each has been adapted to suit particular circumstances.
The response to the popular demand to have a fully directly elected Legco, we believe, lies in giving the directly elected members a separate status with a separate chamber, and to create a second chamber, a senate of the vocational representatives - the functional constituencies. To get through the work, the directly elected first chamber might need to be larger than the second and would be the first to consider government business and legislation.
Bills and motions passed in the first chamber would travel to the second for further and wider deliberation and, if necessary, to put forward amendments. The question would arise, undoubtedly, of how to deal with a lack of agreement between the two chambers.
It can be done, for example, by giving the second chamber the power to impose a delay, by appointing a joint committee of both chambers, or by providing for bills to pass between both chambers until agreement is reached. It is not suggested that the second chamber should unequivocally be given a right of veto.
In the event of a deadlock after thorough debate in both, reserve powers to make a final decision could be given to the chief executive in conjunction with the Executive Council. This question of the power that the second chamber would exercise is important, but it is not an insoluble problem. It should not detract from the general thrust and desirability of the two-chamber concept.
A second chamber would preserve the checks and balances of the existing system, and in separating the two components, would reduce the tensions created by the present arrangements and go some way to meet popular demand.
The proposal will require changes to the Basic Law, but we should put that question aside and think about what is best for Hong Kong. Some may also argue that there are countries with a bicameral system changing to a single-chamber model. However, many mature democracies still maintain two chambers, and the merits of the system should be recognised.
Hong Kong's democratic development is at an early stage, and adoption of a bicameral system would amount to gradual and orderly progress towards greater democracy, while continuing to maintain a legislative body which is representative of all sectors. The year 2012 should not be the end of this evolution of our constitution, but the changes proposed represent a significant step forward.
Sir David Akers-Jones, a former chief secretary, is president of the Business and Professionals Federation of Hong Kong. This is an edited excerpt from the federation's proposal on a bicameral system.
Corruption in China's judicial system has been so bad that at the rubber-stamp NPC session the reports on it always attract the highest number of votes against the report - as much as 20%. To give you an idea of the scale of the problem almost 17,000 court rulings were later "corrected", more than 17,000 paroles were unwarranted and worryingly only 1,247 of those erroneous parloees were re-arrested. Of the 30,788 public officials prosecuted for corruption last year, almost one third were from the law enforcement or judicial systems. A mid-ranking judge earns abuot 40,000 yuan a year; the lawyers in front of them earn as much as 500,000 yuan. Unsurprisingly, most bribes are offered by lawyers to judges and clients search for lawyers with the best connections.
"Openness vow after Cyberport 'lesson'" proclaims the SCMP.
The government yesterday admitted its inexperience showed in its handling of the Cyberport development, and vowed to step up efforts to promote greater transparency.
The administration would adopt four standards to "uphold a level playing field", commerce secretary John Tsang Chun-wah told the Legislative Council. It will disclose relevant information to the public; supply details of business models and cost analysis; promote an open and fair bidding process; and allow large and small firms equal chance to take part in projects.
An excellent place to start would be Cyberport itself. Throw open the previously closed books on the project. Alas:
"Let bygones be bygones," Mr Tsang said. "It's not necessary to look at past inadequacies. We should be working towards enhancing the transparency of future projects."
The Standard also details the history of covering up Cyberport and the dealings between PCCW and the Government.
Ask someone if they prefer cheaper clothes prices for the same quality product and the answer is obvious. Likewise the manufacturer who can produce the clothes at a cheaper price but still turn a profit. Especially happy should be the Governments of the manufacturing nation (all those extras jobs) and the consuming nations (all those happy voters/consumers). Alas, not always.
On January 1st this year the world abolished quotas on textiles. China was expected to rapidly claim market share from other producers who had previously benefited from favourable quotas. And so it has been. In the extended entry is a chart from today's SCMP detailing China's textile exports to America and the EU. Some of the figures are stunning. From January 2004 to January 2005 China's exports of cotton trousers to the USA increased by 1,332% and of cotton knit shirts by 1,836%. Over the same period to the EU exports of jerseys expanded by 735% and blouses by 301%. At the same time the average unit cost of those jerseys and blouses fell by 36%. People are buying more for less. But it's not that simple. China is rightly petrified of protectionist action by the EU and America, with both domestic and international competitors wailing. The option exists for these countries to impose "safe-guard actions" to protect their domestic industries, which will re-impose quotas. But from the SCMP:
Some industry executives, however, disputed that much had changed. They argue that with the scrapping of quota controls, firms that once disguised their China-made goods as Hong Kong, Macau or Taiwan exports are simply reporting the real country of origin.
"A large part of this increase is just a switch from declared `Hong Kong origin' to `China origin', rather than an actual increase in China manufacturing," said one French textile trader. "China quotas used to be more expensive than Hong Kong quotas, so people used Hong Kong quotas for goods made in China. What you see is just the reality that used to be the case for many years." As evidence, the trader argues that mainland logistics firms have not seen any large rises in textile shipments from China in recent months.
China has responded by introducing a new licensing system to track textile exports. The Government is alo considering imposing minimum prices on textile exports and a crackdown on textile exporters' violations of labour law. This last action should happen regardless, but that's for another post.
It's a race to see who can impose the restrictions first: China or the EU/USA. So if you are wondering why your clothes were cheaper for a couple of months before they became more expensive again, this is the answer: because countries are competing over trade barriers, not on products and price.
From the SCMP, EU and USA imports of Chinese made apparel.
Over the past few years more than two million jobs were lost in the Chinese textile industry. Cause? Rising productivity. Chinese employment could however increase again if output were to grow more than productivity. So exporting more textiles goods would help to stop job loss in the Chinese textile industry. But what about jobs over here then? Well, we are richer than China. We have a better working labor markets. We have unemployment insurance and we can retrain workers so that they can get other jobs. And of course there is the global economic effect of cheaper imports of textiles. Free trade here really is win-win. For Western consumers, and for Chinese workers.
...we get a dip in electricity growth in 1998 to far below the GDP growth figures. This ties in exactly with the experience in the rest of Asia and suggests that the mainland was not really quite as immune from the 1997 Asian financial crisis as the official figures indicate.
Then electricity consumption rocketed back up with the 12 months to December last year registering a growth rate of 15.2 per cent...Now take that 15.2 per cent, assume that electricity consumption growth is normally 2 per cent greater than GDP growth (about the average for the rest of Asia) and what you get is a mainland GDP growth rate last year of 13.2 per cent, almost bang in line with the supposedly suspect provincial numbers. Who is right now?
And in both 1997-98 and today there were sound political reasons for the central numbers to be fiddled. In 98 Zhu Rongji had staked his reputation on growth, while today Wen Jiabao has staked his reputation on slowing growth. It is therefore little wonder that in both cases the published figures bear little relation to reality.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
A Hong Kong company is suing Apple over patent violations over the iPod and iTunes digital rights management system. They're aiming for 12% of gross revenues from both.
The fuss continues over China's new anti-secsssion law. The problem is, as was mentioned yesterday in the linklets, the law is a fig-leaf that means nothing. Geo-politics doesn't work based on laws. This law is just formalising what has been policy for years.
China is sending its spies into Hong Kong to work out who leaked details of Tung's resignation. Cue the next uproar.
Donald Tsang has been told to keep the same team in power, firmly putting in place his role as only a caretaker rather than a true new Chief Executive, says the SCMP. Just what the city needs - a lame duck for 2 years.
Isn't it great that Hong Kong calls it top political official the Chief Executive. Why not go all the way and make Donald Tsang the CEO, with Henry Tang as CFO.
The SCMP also reports Tung will officially resign in Hong Kong before leaving tomorrow for Beijing and his appointment as vice-chairman of the CPPCC.
Yesterday I looked at the legal gamble Beijing is taking in not "interpreting" the Basic Law over the new CE's term. Today there are more Beijing scholars on the offensive. The SCMP reports Professor Rao Geping of the Insitute of HK and Macau Affairs says Hong Kong's courts are not empowered to consider how long Tung Chee-hwa's successor should serve, since the power to interpret Basic Law provisions on the political structure is vested in the central authorities. Reassuringly NPC Standing Committee deputy secretary-general Qiao Xiaoyang said the Standing Committee had been very cautious in exercising its power to interpret the Basic Law, and would only do so when the mini-constitution "was not correctly implemented or the situation could not be rectified by other means. Get it right or Beijing will get it right for you. Hong Kong's legal experts see the issue clearly, too. Bar Association chairman Philip Dykes said it was plain the new CE should have a 5 year term according to the Basic Law. The democrats in HK cannot decide if they should launch a legal challenge to the 2 year term, weighing up the constitutional crisis against standing up for rule of law. Luckily a bunch of pro-Beijing barristers may do the job for them. Yes, we have finally hit farce.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
**Notes:
1. The new Daily Linklets posts will also contain links to interesting China, Asia and other news and views. Some of the below links come from the Daily Linklets series.
2. Today I've put the entire post on the main page, rather than pushing the body into the extended entry. Any feedback on preferred formats or any other feedback or comments (such as what style of links/stories/information you find most useful or interesting) is greatly appreciated. /Note**
This edition contains America's rising standing in Indonesia, the LA Times as North Korea's newest mouthpiece, Hong Kong's change of leadership, loggerheads between Malaysia and Indonesia, anti lip-syncing laws, North Korea versus Boing Boing plus much more...
A NPC deputy wants to "draft a culture law with Chinese socialist characteristics, to out-law lip-syncing." China would never go in for mouthpieces shouting lines off a pre-recorded track...unless they are politicians. More quirky lawmaking.
China is enacting its anti-succession law. The best comment on the law goes to Johnny Lau Yui-sui of Hong Kong: "In the case of wars, laws are just 'wrappings'. Laws are usually put aside and it's the political situations that decide [whether to resort to force]."
US Navy reforms helped in the tsunami relief effort and the favourable impact of the US efforts in bolstering its image in Indonesia. Arthur Chrenkoff has more on the improved standing of America in Indonesia, as does OTB, Macam-Macam and Peaktalk. Alturism pays.
With all due respect to, Chinese people get worked up over the smallest symbols, so don't completely rule out the anti-secssion as a point of major contention.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
(9:47) China is enacting its anti-seccession law. The law will be a "domestic" one, reports the SCMP to allay fears in Hong Kong that it would be used to muzzle dissenting voices in the city. Which means Hong Kong can seccede but Taiwan can't. The best comment on the law goes to Johnny Lau Yui-sui of Hong Kong: "In the case of wars, laws are just 'wrappings'. Laws are usually put aside and it's the political situations that decide [whether to resort to force]."
(11:24) Bill from Dawn's Early Light and I have been emailing on US-China relations. Join in! Also thanks to Publius Pundit for the kind words. If blogging wasn't such an egotistical pursuit, I'd blush.
(16:25) BBC News gears up for it's China Week with a central site with lots of interesting links and background. For example an article looking at the intolerance to political dissent.
(19:01) The next edition of the New Blog Showcase Carnival is up at Fistful of Fortnights. Lots of good new blogs up there.
The BBC this week will broadcast a political show with live input from Shanghai. But a far more interesting debate will occur in Tokyo this month. The SCMP:
Heated exchanges are expected when mainland nationalists and Japanese right-wing activists clash in a public debate in Tokyo this month. Tong Zeng , chairman of the China Federation for Defending the Diaoyu Islands, will head the mainland's three-member non-governmental debate team.
The key topics for the discussion, which has been set up by a Japanese magazine, will range from the disputed Diaoyu Islands to Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's controversial visits to the Yasukuni Shrine, where Japan's war dead are honoured...It is not known if the debate will be televised.
We can only hope for Taiwan parliament style fisty-cuffs. Will Japan have a couple of sumo wrestlers out the back, stepping in Jerry Springer style to seperate the parties? Will they spring a surprise guest such as Taiwan's President? Will a North Korea minister be waiting in the green room? How can this not be televised. It could be the best show on TV this year.
Yesterday I looked at China's annual economic report delivered by Premier Wen Jiabao. A major problem, mentioned in that post, for the Premier and the central Government is the lack of reliable economic data. Today's SCMP reports:
Statistics chief Li Deshui yesterday lashed out at local authorities for inflating their GDP growth, noting that the sum of figures submitted by the 31 provinces was 3.9% higher than the national figure compiled by his bureau last year...Yesterday Xinhua also attributed the inflated local figures to the common practice of auhtorities setting unrealistic targets at the start of the year. To meet their projections, authorities then had to inflate their GDP figures...
Some local statistics bureaus were under pressure, Xinhua said, as economic figures were often used as a benchmark for evaluating cadres and local leaders. It is often recognised that "officials creat figures and figures create officials".
In economics the rule is simple. People respond to the rewards and incentives on offer. If the same people generate the benchmarks by which they are evaluated and promoted there is a clear incentive to cheat. The solution is simple: make the benchmarks independent of those they measure. It's time for China to live up to its Communist ideals and nationalise its statistics. Its ironic that reliable economic data can only come from a nationalised Government enterprise. That said even capitalist America has at its heart an interest rate fixed by a small group of unelected Government technocrats (sometimes called the Federal Reserve Open Markets Committee). There's a little central planning in all of us.
Good info on Chinese economic data and the incentive for cheating. With respect to the Federal Reserve Board, while centralized it is still a part of America's democratic process requiring a Presidential appointment and confirmation by the Senate.
From the Wiki Encyclopedia:
"The Federal Reserve is comprised of a board of governors. The 7 members of the board are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Members are elected to terms of 14 years, with the ability to serve for no more than one term. A governor may serve the remainder of another governor's term in addition to their own full term. The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) comprises the 7 members of the board of governors and 5 representatives selected from the Federal Reserve Banks. The representative from the 2nd District, New York, is a permanent member, while the rest of the banks rotate on two and three year intervals"
Not quite the same as the Soviet or Chinese system, though federal, it still represents the regional Banks and is subject to regular Congressional scrutiny. Like Judges, it is best if the "politics" is as much removed from the decision making as possible.
Bill, China also appoints its top leaders. It doesn't make it democratic. The main point is the same: the Fed sets the rate, not the market. It's pure Government intervention.
The market sets the interest rate, not the Fed. The Fed tries to influence the rate by buying and selling government securities. As long as the government doesn't do anything too crazy, and under normal conditions, it is such a big player it can do that successfully (like OPEC and oil prices). Under President Carter I do not think the Fed was aiming to have 17 per cent interest rates! The Fed and Alan Greenspan have done a magnificent job of marketing themselves as the fount of macroeconomic control. But whether it is the US or China, at the end of the day the market rules.
These days the Fed has de facto control of the overnight rate. It is not a market controlled rate. The Fed sets the target and conducts open market operations to reach the target. The market has learnt not to screw with the target. So the Fed has a monopoly on setting that rate. As I said, de facto control.
China has made much of its latest crackdown of gambling, especially on cadres (although it hasn't hurt Macau). But the gambling culture runs strong in China so Beijing has instead to try a new wager: the Hong Kong legal gamble. Beijing does not want to look like it is interfering in Hong Kong affairs, even though it plainly is. Having to re-interpret the Basic Law again so the replacement Chief Executive (CE) serves only the remainder of Tung Che-hwa's term instead of the 5 years the Basic Law mandates is being avoided for fear of a backlash over mainland intervention. Various heavyweight Government and legal types from Beijing have been trotted out to tell Hong Kong that it is "clear" the new CE's term should only be two years. In fact it is an amazing skill that China has prefected: being able to re-understand words and meanings to suit their cause.
China is hoping that is enough. But the door remains open to a legal challenge in Hong Kong. Should Hong Kong's highest courts rule the new CE should serve a 5 year term the situation returns to the same as in the famous "right of abode" case. Beijing will be forced into a re-interpretation of the Basic Law causing an even greater backlash. If Beijing are determined to force a 2 year term on the new CE, they should get it over and done with now. It's a bet with very poor odds and a mis-step by the usually politically astute Chinese leadership. As the saying goes, a backlash now is better than a bigger backlash later.
The CE term length question and the Right to Abode fiasco both goes to show that the central government really still hasn't grown out of rule over law (versus rule by law). A few extra sentences in the Basic Law would've made both problems moot.
I suppose you can argue that the Basic Law's ambiguity is deliberate, so that NPC can re-interpret 'til the cows come home. But that doesn't explain the RtA loophole, which the centre should've been eager to close, had they been able to foresee it.
Death and taxes in Hong Kong TCS discusses the potential abolition of Hong Kong's estate duty. A few problems with the article. Firstly Hong Kong does not have a pure flat tax. Secondly today's SCMP reports the Government will keep the duty for the time being. That aside, the article is correct - estate taxes are easily avoided by the rich and is a form of double taxation, as the "estate" was created with income that has already been taxed. It is not worth the samll amount of revenue it raises. Back to the SCMP:
Estate duty is levied on assets based in Hong Kong, including property, bank accounts and equity. Exempting accounts and equity from the duty would allay foreign investors' concerns, Mr Lui said, and would cost the government only $550 million, which is "not too big a giveaway".
The flipside of the argument is that removing the duty may adversely affect those employed in the tax advisory and trust industry.
I'd put that flipside firmly in the advantages column.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
One quarter of Hong Kong's mobile phone owners are under 13. The Sunday Morning Post reports the number of Hong Kongers being treated for brain cancer has tripled over the past decade. The link hasn't been proved and advances in detection may explain the rise. But it's an interesting correlation.
A deputy at the current NPC session, Ma Bomin, wants to "draft a culture law with Chinese socialist characteristics, to out-law lip-syncing." China would never go in for mouthpieces shouting lines off a pre-recorded track...unless they are politicians.
The BBC's political programme Question Time is due to brodcast from Shanghai on Thursday night. The BBC has let the Foreign Ministry select 25 of the audience members. The panel will inlcude former HK Governor Chris Patten, Shanghai Tang owner David Tang, China expert Isabel Hilten, Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao and Long Yongtu, China's Goodwill ambassador to the UN. The show will be broadcast in English.
One of the world's oldest taxes, the China farm tax, is due to be scrapped in 2006.
(15:55) Why are all movie tickets the same price? I'd like to see movies priced like discount airlines do it: the earlier you book, the cheaper the seat with seats allocated by queueing.
The New York Times Magazine has a major piece ("A Rebel in the Emperor's Court") on Leung Kwok-hung, better known in Hong Kong as Cheung Mo, or ''Long Hair" , a member of Hong Kong's Legislative Council, or Legco, since September 2004.
Wen Jiabao delivered his annual economic report for China on Saturday and announced this year's growth target at 8%. Last year Wen had a growth target of 7% but the final number was 9.5%, and this was believed to be an underestimate and many are sceptical of this year's target. Jake van der Kamp in today's SCMP notes something I've discussed previously: China's economic numbers don't add up. The weighted average of the provinces' GDP far exceeds the national number. The Government announced a revamp of China's statistics law (yes, they have a statistics law, rather than laws of statistics) to correc the problem. Until the revision happens, the incentives remain far stronger for provincial governors to exaggerate and beat the national average. While logic dictates that not everyone can beat the average, this is China and logic doesn't always play a part.
Along the same lines is another Chinese conundrum: why does such a booming economy have such a poorly performing sharemarket? The Standard has some advice today: sell the market short each year when the NPC meets and talk of reform gets hopes up. The Economist (reg. req'd) also addressed reform of China's stock market, seeing hope in the latest measures but not convinced they will work. The main problems remain: poor corporate governance; a huge overhang of Government held stock; fraud and worse. "Decent" companies strive to list in Hong Kong, London or New York, knowing the stricter listing rules and regulatory environment gives investors confidence in the company. Perhaps China is able to finally reform its own stock markets in responding to this competition. But unless other parts of the framework such as rule of law, consistent and independent courts and elimination of graft are part of the reform China's stockmarkets will remain backwaters, even with a huge pool of domestic money waiting in the wings.
It is now semi-official. Tung Chee-hwa is expected to announce his resignation after his appointment to a vice-chairman position with the CPPCC on Saturday. It would be appropriate he annoucne the resignation in Beijing, Hong Kong's capital. The week long delay is being blamed on mainland officals holding up the process. Tung returned to the Big Lychee yesterday, this time with the praise and warmth of China's leadership ringing in his ears. This time President Hu was complimentary of Tung and his Government, in stark contrast to the public criticism he delivered in December. The remaining issue is the length of the replacement Chief Executive's (CE) term. The Basic Law makes it clear it should be 5 years. However Beijing is believed to want Donald Tsang, the likely successor, to serve only the remaining 2 years in Tung's term for reasons discussed previously. This will involve another "re-interpretation" of the Basic Law by the NPC. With a straight face China Premier Wen Jiabao said the central government will resolutely uphold the "one country, two systems" principle and adhere to the Basic Law.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
If the America ends up regulating blogs (via CT), I can humbly offer Hong Kong as a haven for hosting. Alternatively if the FEC needs some help in cracking down on the internet, China can lend a hand. Ed Morrissey (via IP) points out that finally this a political issue all sides of the blogosphere can agree upon. Michelle Malkin has plenty more links. Jeff Jarvis wonders about the slippery slope. More on the China crackdown below (15:59 update)
(15:59) Howard French looks at the China internet clampdown ahead of the NPC. Fons points out that those arrested in China already a reputation for getting into trouble now include the internet in the ways to tell about their viewpoint.
The NYT is now looking at the Goldman Sachs joint venture in investment banking. I looked at this last August, in a post called The Money Box. To get the JV going, it turns out GS didn't just bail out Hainan Securities but also agreed to lend US$100 million to banker Fang Feng Lei. Mr Fang will now become chairman of Goldman's new Beijing based investment bank. The NYT article looks at Fang's background.
"The [Securities and Exchange Commission] claimed it [the GS deal] wasn't a bribe, but it does leave a bad taste in your mouth," said one close observer of the deal, who also didn't want to be named.
"This is how business is done here," said a China-based banker who also requested anonymity. "Some would say it looks like a bribe. Others, just a price to play the main game."
Jake van der Kamp in today's SCMP on Tung's legacy:
The fact is that, in the run-up to the handover of sovereignty in 1997, the world's press was full of speculation that Hong Kong's civil liberties would vanish when we came under Beijing's thumb.
It never happened. Thus if foreign journalists are now to issue a report card on Mr Tung's administration, the first thing they should say is that in one key area of particular interest to them, he fully lived up to the high hopes vested in him. They owe him that much, at least, after all the doubts they cast on him in 1997. We have our civil liberties as fully as we ever had them under British administration and this is a very good record.
Whether by design or accident, that much is true, with one major exception. The "right of abode" saw Hong Kong's Basic Law overriden by a "re-interpretation" by Beijing. This overruled not just the Basic Law but decisions by the highest courts in Hong Kong. Now it is happening again. ESWN has covered the relevant Basic Law articles. Article 46 clearly states:
The term of office of the Chief Executive (CE) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be five years. He or she may serve for not more than two consecutive terms.
The newly elected CE should have a 5 year term. But that doesn't suit Beijing for a number of reasons. China would rather give the new CE a two year probation period to test his loyalty and competence. It's a recipie for paralysis. The other potential CE candidates aren't going to do anything rash, so there goes any chance of tax reform or a revamp of the West Kowloon Cultural District. Chris Yeung in the SCMP discusses Donald Tsang:
Beijing would be able to test the leadership qualities and loyalty of Mr Tsang while keeping other aspirants for the top post in 2007. This could be vital, as resistance and suspicion towards Mr Tsang remains strong in business and political quarters, particularly in the pro-Beijnig camp. [my emphasis]
The qualities that potentially make Donald Tsang an effective CE are the ones that make China wary. At the same time they don't want to see en masse resignations from the other CE contenders who miss out. So Hong Kong is going to get another Basic Law interpretation, stating the replacement will serve out only the remainder of Tung's term. It's ironic that Tung's resignation should be the cause of the second de facto change in the Basic Law by Beijing. They will also need to clear up if the new CE could stand for a second term if he or she was reappointed in 2007.
If this is confusing, you're not alone. Democratic Party leader Martin Lee flip-flopped over the need for a Beijing interpretation on the CE's term. Another example: one potential candidate is Leung Chun-ying, says The Standard. Interesting, because page 3 of the SCMP has a headline reading "Leung Chun-ying rules himself out".
A two year term is a political expediency, albeit a short-sighted one. While the probationary CE will be elected by the 800 strong Election Committee, the door remains open for democrats to push for a broader committee for 2007/8 or even universal suffrage. The democrats are quixotically considering putting a candidate forward to advance their cause. It is irrelevant. The experiment of having a tycoon run Hong Kong didn't work out, so China is reverting to the pattern the British used so successfully. Civil servants and technocrats will run the place, answerable to the capital of the motherland. Hong Kong's Chief Executive has only one master thousands of miles away, rather than 6.7 million masters living in the city. The CE rules at Beijing's pleasure and can be dismissed at their pleasure. The message is clear to any potential candidates and the people of Hong Kong.
Reaction and updates
* Tom has a good overview of the state of play and suggests take Ma Lik's advice and chill for a bit... because the theater in the next few weeks have little to do with democracy and will have little bearing on the facade of "one country, two systems", but it might be as entertaining as "War and Beauty".
* Stephen Vines discusses Beijing pulling the strings.
(14:10) * Simon Parker at Asia Times recaps events.
(17:23) * Tom covers more reaction and prepares to enjoy the show.
* Yan is ambivalent about the next CE given she and the rest of Hong Kong have no say in the matter.
(21:41) * Spike also isn't impressed by Tung nor his successor, and contemplates potential Tung nostalgia in the future.
re: the sacrificial candidate.
according to singtao, the pan-democratic camp is seeking anson chan to run.she turned them down last time already.their idea is that this candidate will run and lose badly in order to show how broken the system is.why would anson chan throw herself away like that?not to fear, albert cheng said: "if nobody else wants to do this,i'll volunteer myself."what a show!
Soon-to-be Chief Executive Donald Tsang implored Hong Kongers to have 3 children each to cope with an aging population. Unfortunately Hong Kongers are ignoring him. The Standard reports a survey has found more than 90% of parents think money problems and insufficient government benefits making it impossible to have three children. But the answer is at hand. Elsewhere in the same paper is a report on a medical milestone for Hong Kong: the birth of triplets using genetic manipulation.
Join the dots. Donald Tsang wants 3 kids for each Hong Kong family. Tung Che-hwa unexpectedly resigns. First birth of GM triplets in Hong Kong. Donald Tsang as Tung's successor. You heard it here first: the triplet boom is coming to Hong Kong, sooner than you think.
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here.
This edition contains Hong Kong's changing of the guard, China's internet crackdown, bird flu, Koera's independence day, North Korean nukes, Malacca Straits pirates, Japan in space plus much more...
Taiwan's media: check on authority or embodiment of chaos?
The December WTO meeting in Hong Kong will bring the usual gang of trouble makers together, all under the simple slogan of "no care, no responsibility." Meanwhile Hong Kong played host to the USS Kitty Hawk.
Ari Sharp travelled through North Korea recently and has made plenty of observations. Danwei has an interview with Nicholas Bonner, who organises tours to North Korea.
More fall-out over the Singapore Times paid online content. Singapore Ink wonders how blogs will be affected by the change and if they can fill the gap. The Police State takes a broader look at the Straits Times and has suggestions on coping with the change. Singapore Angle also contemplates the effects on bloggers and if blogs could rival MSM.
Do Singaporeans suffer from a colonial mentality? The same question could be asked of Hong Kong.
Simon, if you're interested, I've started up a weblog about Taiwan at http://jujuflop.yule.org/ which might have stuff relevent to your weekly roundups.
The Economist hits the nail on the head: The reported resignation of Hong Kong’s leader, Tung Chee-hwa, will be welcome news for the territory’s pro-democracy groups. But the timing of his departure shows how masterfully Beijing is controlling political events in Hong Kong. Yesterday in Beijing Tung refused to comment on the story to reporters, saying "I know you are concerned about many questions. I will give an account at an appropriate time." It really doesn't matter - it is a done deal. The immediate problem is determining the length of the replacement Chief Executive's term. Should he (Donald Tsang, the likely replacement) simply serve out the remainder of Tung's term or should he stay for 5 full years? The Basic Law is not clear on the issue. Inevitably Beijing will resolve it. The Standard opines Beijing prefers a two year term to give other candidates for the post a chance, in effect leaving Donald Tsang as an interim leader for 2 years. They are missing an opportunity. If they say the new Chief Executive will serve a full 5 year term they can postpone any debate over universal suffrage or election reform to 2010. Indeed Beijing may have stumbled upon the perfect method for indefinitely stalling democratic reform in Hong Kong. C. K. Lau points out in the SCMP the resignation is a double blow for the democrats - they lose their main villian as well. The IHT points out this is not a victory for democracy.
The Standard also looks at Tung's legacy and unsurprisingly finds it wanting. More worryingly Philip Bowring writes a sensible op-ed piece in the SCMP. The gist is Donald Tsang is not going to be a good choice as the next CE because he is overly loyal and eager to please his masters, he is a career civil servant lacking wider experience and his track record is patchy. The final paragraph repeats my thoughts from yesterday:
Hong Kong would be better off with a strong-willed mainlander with political clout in Beijing and a desire to make a success of Hong Kong than with a local who is forever looking over his shoulder to the backseat driver. Mr Tsang is just that subservient local.
The SCMP editorial is more optimistic, saying if the new CE serves until 2010 this could bring forward a proper democratic election from 2012. Not likely.
My observations from yesterday still stand. The resignation has been handled ineptly. While democracy is breaking out in the Middle East, Hong Kong is taking a backwards step. And who will get Tung's office furniture? Another issue some are starting to canvass is what else will Tung do in retirement? Will he return to his shipping company OCCL (if so, sell)? I'm hoping he'll take the time to write a tell-all autobiography about his time at the top. It might be self-serving but it would be interesting to hear his version of events.
Reactions and updates
* Peaktalk is also not optimistic Donald Tsang would be any different from Tung.
* At Chatter Garden they are getting a bad feeling over the resignation, seeing it more as a clampdown that bowing to public pressure.
(10:40) * Most of HK's papers ran with this story yesterday, with the notable exceptions of Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao, the two pro-Beijing papers. No articles in Xinhua, China Daily or People's Daily either.
(11:54) * Hemlock notes HK is swapping the tycoons for the public servants, which cuts the rest of us out of the action:
“The most important thing,” I go on, “is that we’re not going to be run by a tycoon anymore.” Winky’s ears prick up. Absolutely right, she agrees with a broad smile. “Putting a tycoon in charge of Hong Kong is like giving a timid seven-year-old kid the keys to a candy store,” I explain. “Within minutes, his ‘friends’ are rushing in, opening all the jars and stuffing their faces.” ...Now, our dedicated public servants will have the keys to the candy store. No wonder Winky looks so smug. At least when the private sector is ravaging our common fortune you can buy stock and get a slice of the action in dividends. But you can’t buy shares in the civil service. You’re cut out.
Life really must be hell for all the poor oppressed people down there in Hong Kong, having to accept that "while democracy is breaking out in the Middle East, Hong Kong is taking a backwards step."
Hong Kongers must be devastated to live in one of the safest places on Earth, with economic growth of 7.5% and unemployment down to 6.4%, predicted to fall further.
How they must wish they had the freedoms of the Palestinians to be bombed, shot and beaten on a daily basis by an occupying army, while watching more of their land being stolen every week.
Why can't Hong Kong be like Iraq where "democracy is breaking out" and the rate of malnutrition among children has now risen to the level of Burundi; where unemployment might be 30%, 40%, 50% or 60%, but no one knows because it's too dangerous to find out; and where the economy is now such a basket case that the IMF doesn't even try to give an estimate of growth, positive or negative.
Why can't Hong Kong be like democratic and liberated Baghdad, where women now need male bodyguards simply to walk down the street to buy vegetables - for fear of being kidnapped by criminal gangs or religious fundamentalists?
Why does the evil and oppressive PLA insist on staying in its barracks - when everyone knows that the people of Hong Kong want it to round them up en masse, put them in prison and then submit them to sexual and physical abuse - as the US liberators do in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Doesn't the insensitive Chinese government know that Hong Kongers want to be killed - as more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since their country was liberated?
Surely everyone knows that Hong Kongers want the PLA to carry out extrajudicial executions, smash their homes and offices and then urinate on their possessions - so that they can be more like those lucky Palestinians.
Isn't it obvious that Hong Kong's elections were patently unfair? No election can be free without suicide bombers. And surely it should be obvious that international observers shouldn't be present at the place where the elections are taking place - the only way observers can establish whether a poll is free, fair and valid is for them to be in another country.
Can't the evil government in Hong Kong see the mass movement of democracy spreading through the world? Haven't they noticed the protestors in Beirut who are saying that no elections in Lebanon can be valid while they're under occupation by a foreign army? Everyone knows that the Lebanese and the people of Hong Kong want to be free like the Iraqis with no foreign occupation - just 130,000 or so US troops who couldn't possibly count as foreigners or occupiers.
All Hong Kongers want is to be bombed, liberated, protected and killed by the United States who would give them real democracy - just like Iraq. All Hongers want is to become homeless, live in squalor and have their land stolen by foreign immigrants like the Palestinians. Is that too much to ask?
Simon...get...a...grip!
As for the evil plot to subvert the will of the Hong Kong people by having Tung resign now (it really is devilishly devious to do what the opposition has been demanding all along) thereby ensuring that his temporary successor is chosen by the same committee that chose him...what, exactly is your point? If Tung doesn't resign now, he will stay in office for the next two years. If he does resign, that same committee will choose someone else to take over for the next two years. How, exactly, is this a step backwards, forwards or any direction at all?
Simon, I would like to make you an offer. I am willing to give you my entire life savings and everything I own. My only condition is that you prove you have done one of two things:
1) Go travelling alone and without bodyguards to Iraq for a month - living with ordinary Iraqi citizens in the cities of Baiji, Tikrit, Fallujah and Ramadi.
or:
2) Renounce your Australian citizenship and Hong Kong residency, become a Palestinian and live in a refugee camp in Gaza or Ramallah.
Then tell us how much you are enjoying the democracy that is breaking out around you, and how bad life was for you when were living under that oppressive dictatorship in Hong Kong.
Let's work from your challenge backwards. I'm Jewish with stamps from Israel in my passport. I respectfully decline your challenge, which is spurious.
Your main point mixes two different issues. Hong Kong is an economically successful place, whereas countries in the Middle East are not. The reasons why are many and not within the scope of this post. On the other hand, Hong Kong is not a democracy, indeed is retreating from it, whereas Palestine and Iraq have just held elections under universal suffrage. I completely disagree with your spin on the events in Iraq - for example how many Iraqis would like a return to rule under Sadaam or Afghans rule by the Taleban? - but that is not what this post is about. I have not asked for Hong Kong to be "liberated". I do not expect the United States to give Hong Kong "real democracy". There's no need. The Basic Law clearly lays out the road to full democracy.
You ask with regards to Tung How, exactly, is this a step backwards, forwards or any direction at all? Now that's a good question. Maybe I wasn't clear enough in the posts on the matter. Tung is leaving because his masters in Beijing are making him. His replacement will be appointed by 800 hand picked people, who will anoint Beijing's candidate. Whereas previously there was talk of expanding the Election Committee or even universal suffrage for 2007, now the next CE will be appointed under the old rules. That constitutes a clear step backwards because instead of progress the rules are remaining unchanged.
If time permits I will address your skewed opinion on Iraq.
I respectfully - and gratefully - accept your refusal of my offer. I have to say that I did get slightly worried that just *maybe* you might be insane enough to take me up on it. I don't particularly want to give you everything I own. And I also wouldn't want to find out that I don't have pay up after all because you've just played the lead role in the latest al-Zarqawi snuff video.
You are right that I muddied the waters by mixing arguments about democracy and economic conditions. But I don't consider this, or my challenge, to be spurious.
Democracy has many aspects and many purposes. One of its main purposes is to enable the people of a community or a nation to live a life in dignity that they choose without fear of persecution or death.
Given a choice, most people would not choose poverty. Most people would not choose to be unemployed. Most people would not choose to see their children die from preventable diseases. Most people would not choose to have a couple of hours of electricity each day, or go for up to a week at a time without running water. Most people would not choose to be killed by a car bomb or a missile launched by a foreign occupying army.
Before the Iraqi elections, Zogby carried out an opinion poll. The vast majority of respondents said they wanted all foreign troops to leave the country "now, or very soon". If there were to be a democratic referendum on that issue now, a month later, would they be saying something different?
When Iraqis were questioned by journalists at polling centres, most of them said the same thing - they were delighted to be able to vote... and they wanted the foreign troops to leave *now*. Many of them said that getting the foreign troops out was the main reason they were voting in the first place. But the foreign armies are not going to go away. We could argue about this for as long as we like and we would probably never agree. So we will have to wait and see. In one/two/three/ten...etc years time, let's see what the situation is then. Let's see if the occupation forces have left. And let's see what the Iraqis are thinking and doing about it.
As I've already said, you would be insane to accept my challenge. But not because you are Jewish, or because you have an Israeli stamp in your passport. My old passport had an Israeli stamp in it. My current one doesn't. But I would still have to have a death wish to do go travelling to the places I listed yesterday.
Margaret Hussain devoted a sizeable part of her life to helping Iraqis and won an enormous amount of gratitude and respect in that country. She was against sanctions. She was against the invasion. She was against the occupation. Even so, she was brutally murdered.
Iraq is now so dangerous for foreigners that most western journalists hardly venture out of their hotels unless they are accompanied by armed "contractors" or embedded with the US military.
All too often, those who do go out without this protection end up wishing they hadn't. Giuliana Sgrena of the Italian communist newspaper Il Manifesto was clearly not a supporter of the invasion. But, as a hostage, her life is now in serious danger.
Christian Chesnot (Radio France International) and Georges Malbrunot (Le Figaro) already knew how dangerous things were - but chose to drive to Najaf anyway because they wanted to do their job. They were kidnapped and their lives hung in the balance for four months.
When they were finally released, Chesnot said: "Don't go to Iraq...You will be killed. No story is worth your life."
This had nothing to do with being Jewish or having Israeli stamps in passports. It was simply a reflection of what life is now like in Iraq.
It might be incredibly dangerous for foreigners in Iraq now, but it's also dangerous for Iraqis. So far, only one serious study has been done on how many Iraqis have died since the invasion. It was published in the Lancet late last year after extensive peer review. It shows that about 100,000 Iraqis have been killed since Spring 2003. The report was dismissed by unscrupulous politicians and incompetent journalists - the same people who assured us that Iraq had massive stockpiles of WMD - but not by anyone who can be taken seriously.
If I mixed my arguments about democracy and the economy, it's because it makes me angry to hear people prophesying doom in a place that is so safe, free and prosperous on every single day of the year - Hong Kong - while championing a semi-farce of an election that took place on one day of one year in one of the most dangerous places on Earth, with virtually none of the candidates even identified beforehand. Personally, I like to at least know someone's name before I vote for him or her.
Hong Kong was never a democracy under the British - if democracy is defined as the politicians being directly elected under universal suffrage. But it did have other aspects that we consider to be part of a democratic society - freedom of speech, freedom to organize and the right to demonstrate, for example. The CE wasn't elected by the people when the British ran Hong Kong. The CE still isn't elected by the people now. But those rights are still firmly in place.
Each time I go back to Hong Kong, the same freedoms that are part of a democratic society are still there. I am still able to go to Victoria Park to mourn the victims of the June 4th massacre along with tens of thousands of others. I am still able to publicly debate issues with people on all points of the political spectrum. And I can still see ordinary people making a real impact and effecting real change in society without any fear of arrest or persecution by the authorities. I can see no change at all in these aspects of democracy.
Popular political action in Hong Kong often has greater impact than it does in places that are considered to be fully democratic.
When hundreds of thousands of people in Hong Kong demonstrated against the proposed security legislation - that the government is obliged to enact under Article 23 of the Basic Law - the legislation was shelved. When a million people demonstrated in London against the invasion of Iraq, the British government ignored them.
The legal process needs to be defended, and I support anyone who defends it. But I simply don't accept that it is under any serious threat.
I have a friend who was a judge in Hong Kong when the British were still in control there. Every now and then, he would sentence someone to death. But because the death penalty had been virtually eliminated in Britain, London would always commute those sentences to life imprisonment. I'm glad they did, but wasn't that interference in the legal process of Hong Kong?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the House of Lords was always the final legal arbiter during the days of British rule. Now, the final arbiter is the National People's Congress. Back then, it was foreigners who decided. Now, it's the Chinese - and Hong Kong is Chinese.
There's an implied racism in those who argue that the Chinese, Arabs and others are not ready for democracy. But there's also an implied racism in those who constantly think they know better than "the natives" how their nation should rule itself. When we're looking for truth and justice, we need to be careful that we are not falling into one or the other of these two opposite but almost equal traps.
You are absolutely right when you say that "the Basic Law clearly lays out the road to full democracy". But it does not lay out a precise timetable for when that must be implemented. That is for the people and government of Hong Kong...and the central government in Beijing to decide. You are privileged, as a foreigner, to be given the right to take part in that decision-making process.
As for my "skewed view" about Iraq, I look forward to hearing your arguments. You are an intelligent person, so I know you will be able to come up with something less spurious and shallow than "how many Iraqis would like a return to rule under Saddam".
I'm glad you will not take up my challenge to go to Iraq, because I don't want you to run the risk of being murdered. But this time, I have a more serious challenge - one that carries no risk at all to your life. Read Riverbend's blog and see what one young Iraqi women's life is like and what she thinks about everything that is going on there:
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com
Go right back to the beginning of her blog when she started it in 2003 and read as far as you can. She is just one person and one person does not represent all the views of a nation. But read what she has to say - it's worth it.
The rumours started as soon as knowledge of Tung's appointment to the CPPCC. Now the momentum is unstoppable. The FT started the ball rolling. Tung resigns says the Standard. The unlinkable SCMP screams "Tung 'will stand down early'". Curiously the front and back page are all Tung, but the editorial page doesn't discuss it at all. The only questions remainng are when will he officially go and who will succeed him? The answers: very soon and Sir Donald Tsang Yam-kuen, the current Secretary for West Kowloon Boondoogles Chief Secretary. It almost seems besides the point that he hasn't actually resigned yet. Once the frenzy starts it cannot be stopped without the use of tanks...and let's not delude ourselves that Tung is worth sending the PLA out of the barracks. Just as his rule has been inept, so has the handling of his resignation.
What's interesting is this has all happened when the pressure on Tung has eased up a little. China can now look like they haven't given in to people power or the democrats while getting rid of a man who clearly found the job beyond his capabilities. And what of Sir Donald? If he gets the nod it will be a clear understanding of what is expected. His bosses remain in Beijing, not walking the streets of the Big Lychee.
Reactions and Updates
* The Dustless Workshop commenting yesterday on the speculation makes some telling points.
* Chris says the writing was on the wall once the CPPCC appointment was made.
(10:46) * Chatter Garden has scanned the SCMP.
* Fumier's not so sure about Donald Tsang's English.
* Tom almost feels sorry for both James Tien and Long Hair.
* The Hong Kong stock market is expected to like the news.
(11:20) * Apparently not...Hang Seng is down around 90 points at the moment. Finished the day down 210. Tung leaving isn't so good for the cartels.
(12:38) * Hemlock is not so sure Tung's going, but finds himself in a win-win situation regardless.
* Ron says goodbye.
* Andrea wonders how long Tung's successor will serve for.
It's curious...it's now the middle of the day and no-one's quite sure if Tung's actually resigned or not. Or is this just a test to see if we notice the difference?
(13:35) * Democracy is breaking out all over the Middle East, most recently in Egypt and Lebanon (full Lebanon news roundup via I/P). Today's assignment: compare and contrast Hong Kong's democracy with Iraq's. Bonus credit: which will become truly democratic first, Hong Kong or Iran?
(15:18) * ESWN examines the Hong Kong Basic Law and the details of the succession.
(18:19) * Chatting with Giles, we've decided it's time to move to the more serious matters. While Tung is in Beijing will the fight be on for his office supplies? Who gets the snazzy chair? Who gets the oak desk? The chesterfield? The brandy?
Let's make it a contest - what would you take from Tung's office?
For those interested, some stats. 15,152 unique visitors (of whom 506 added the site to their favourites/bookmarks) made 39,012 unique visits, reading 75,061 pages and drawing 4.9 GB of bandwidth. This averages out to 1,393 visits per day with 2,681 pages being read per day or 1.92 pages per visit. Each unique visitor on average made 2.57 visits to the site over the month. 64.1% of visitors use IE, 17.6% Firefox, 3.5% Safari, 2.4% Netscape, 2.3% Mozilla and 2% Opera. In addition 103 people are subscribed to the site via Bloglines (an RSS reader). Visitors from search engines were 10.1% of the total, with 62% from Google and 28% from Yahoo. Top search phrases were "North Korea", "China's population" and "Hong Kong Disneyland".
The Sydney Morning Herald talks about a potential China - Australia free trade deal. An economic study has, to no-one's surprise, found big gains likely from an agreement. However the study is not yet public:
Chinese officials have blocked the publication of a joint economic study showing that big gains would be made from a trade deal with Australia, in a move that signals a hard negotiating line against Australian farm interests...Chinese negotiators have blocked an Australian move to release the study because of a section showing that China would gain most from eliminating its own agricultural barriers.
One source involved in the study said China was "amazingly sensitive" about its agricultural barriers: "Every word on agriculture is being scrutinised."
That's worth repeating: China would have the most to gain from eliminating its own agricultural barriers. You won't read that in the China Daily.
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Scroll down for today's other posts.
* Did anyone stop to think why something so fun is always followed by 9 month later consequences?
* American Idol is being shown on Star World here in HK on a slight delay...but why wait? Ann Althouse is in on the act as well.
Just stumbled across a blog called Lai See. Written by Ben Kwok, it seemingly comprises some of his Lai See column from the back page of the SCMP's business section. Infrequently updated but it seems to contain some of Ben's favoured Lai See articles. Saving them for something? If the SCMP are looking to get serious about working out this blogging caper, I charge very reasonable rates.
Two items on China's internet censorship efforts. The leadup to the NPC and CPPCC sessions is also crackdown on internet season. First the SCMP reports:
China on Tuesday said it would toughen its already rigid censorship of the Internet during its annual parliamentary session to keep at bay those with "ulterior motives". The Xinhua news agency said there would be strict 24-hour monitoring of internet chat rooms and forums of major Chinese portals by "security guards".
Secondly:
Shanghai authorities are threatening to revoke the licence of a lawyer who has defended a number of activists in high-profile cases after he posted essays critical of the mainland's legal system on overseas websites...The Shanghai Bureau of Justice will hold a disciplinary hearing on Friday to determine how to punish Guo Guoting after accusing him of "defiling and slandering" the Communist Party and state government.
It is incredibly difficult to go when you find yourself standing at the urinal next to not your boss, not your boss's boss, not even your boss's boss's boss, but the big kahuna who runs the entire business unit worldwide.
Made a few changes to the layout of the site. Any feedback or comments would be gratefully received.
The changes:
1. Added a Recent Posts section on the top right sidebar, listing the last 15 posts for easier navigation (i.e. it lists all the posts on the main page).
2. I've shifted some parts of the Dollars and Sense section around. I moved my Amazon Wishlist (gifts available in all price ranges) to the Information section at the top of the left sidebar. Next comes the Paypal button and Google ads, then the Amazon search function.
3. I shifted the icons for the site into the Other Stuff section on the left sidebar.
4. I shifted the Praise section to the bottom of the left sidebar.
5. The Top Referrers got promoted the second from top on the right sidebar. After all, if they send the traffic they deserve good billing.
6. The "Open links in new windows" box remains top of the right sidebar.
7. The "Stick Around" section was deleted.
Still working on adding an "Email this post" button to each of the entries so they can be sent easily. If anyone can help with how to do this I'd be most grateful. Any other feedback or comments are also very welcome.
For the recent posts section, reduce to 10 so it won't take up so much space. Also put a unique character (asterisk or something) at the start of each line. It's very difficult to see what's what at the moment because some titles go to multiple lines.
I'd left justify everything in the sidebar unless it really needs to be centered. It's difficult to read lists of items of variable length when they're centered.
Run your email address through an encoder and just post the link instead of the anti-spam detailed version.
Protesters gearing up for the December World Trade Organization meeting in Hong Kong, a lightning rod for violent protest in other cities across the globe, say they cannot guarantee that demonstrations will go off without incident. Elizabeth Tang, a spokeswoman for the Hong Kong People's Alliance (HKPA) said Monday the group intends to ask the police later this week to appoint special officers to mediate between protesters and security forces in the event of clashes...
Tang said the "unfriendly attitude'' displayed by Hong Kong police to date has made activists feel "uncomfortable.''
The police liason officer need practice only one phrase: "Sod off, swampy". The misnamed Hong Kong People's Alliance, the umbrella group organising the protest, have one aim: to cause chaos. They want arrests, they want riot police, they want the graphic TV pictures. Why? Because their message lacks merit so they need to draw attention to their cause. They rachet up the rhetoric. They wash their hands of potential violence by "calling for a non-violent, peaceful approach" but saying they cannot be held accountable for the actions of protesters. That's the lie. Make this umbrella group directly liable for the costs and damage as a result of any violence. The onus should be on them to live up to their words.
Does anyone else find it interesting how these anti-globalisation groups are great examples of globalisation at work?
"Does anyone else find it interesting how these anti-globalisation groups are great examples of globalisation at work?"
No, maybe it's because, as Wikipedia sez ...
"Many regard the term "anti-globalization" as a misnomer, and see this as a tag meant to discredit the movement; in fact, many of those involved in the anti-globalization movement do support closer ties between the various peoples and cultures of the world — in particular, they often show solidarity with peoples they consider to be oppressed and campaign for asylum and immigration rights — and are opposed only to capitalist globalization. This is why they tend to use more nuanced terms to describe their movement, such as anti-capitalist, anti-corporate or positive terms as alternative globalization (see Alter-globalization) global justice or fair-trade movement, Global Justice and Solidarity Movement (GJ&SM), Movement of Movements or simply The Movement, and use slogans like "globalize justice" and "globalize liberation.""
This is a daily collection of links, some with commentary, to news stories and interesting blog posts. It will be updated throughout the day with a new timestamp for the updates.
Hong Kong has no sales tax, no GST, no VAT. That means all stores in Hong Kong are "duty free". No need to schlep to a Kowloon Bay industrial estate, nor to shop for whisky at the Airport "duty free".
Can anyone explain to me why Hong Kong has no consumer protection or competition laws?