Before we dive in, two things. Firstly I've added a section to the left sidebar with a link to the Daily Linklets category, so you can trawl your way back through past links. Secondly, last night the Sitemeter ticked over 300,000. Thank you.
Last year ESWN did detailed analysis of the number of July 1st marchers in Hong Kong, yet the accepted wisdom is still much higher. He intends to repeat the exercise this year. The numbers will be well down, given even Bishop Zen is 'tired' of the marches. As usual, Hemlock neatly sums it up:
“What did we shout two years ago?†I ask her. “‘Tung Chee-hwa stand down’. What did we shout last year? ‘Tung Chee-hwa stand down’. What are we supposed to shout this year? ‘Thanks and bye-bye’?â€
China's top blogger at the moment is Furong Jiejie, a sex blogger following the path of Mu Zimei. Jeremy also lists the top 10 personalities searched for on Baidu.
While on pop culture, one band has 44 singles in the Japanese top 100 at the moment. And I'm not talking about women.
Hemlock gets to the heart of the CNOOC/Unocal takeover:
CNOOC wants to buy Unocal, and the Beijing-owned parent has obtained low-cost financing, courtesy of the Chinese taxpayer, to trump rival bidder Chevron. That’s not an even fight. But who’s subsidizing whom? Who wins and who loses?
From Chevron’s point of view, it’s not fair. But assuming CNOOC’s bid passes muster with regulatory and legal authorities, that’s too bad. Chevron has ‘lost’ one potential opportunity but still has its money and the possibilities it offers. Unocal’s owners are clear winners, getting a juicy price for their asset. We CNOOC owners gain an overpriced acquisition at subsidized financing costs – let’s say it nets out. So does that leave the Chinese taxpayer as the main possible loser? Or are the sneaky commie hordes the ultimate winners?
Is Beijing being clever in spending public money on securing long-term, overseas sources of essential commodities – copper in Chile, coal in Australia, oil in especially odious bits of Africa and so on? Does it contribute to long-term national security or simply the leaders’ sense of autarkic, centrally planned well-being? Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest the funds in the domestic economy today, in order to create the wealth to buy raw materials at their global market prices in decades ahead? Like countries not run by paranoid cliques do.
So, I am stuck with this conundrum – will ultimate control by a paranoid clique make CNOOC a more or less profitable investment in the long run? Paranoid cliques make bad decisions. But bad decisions have unintended beneficiaries.
Other Reading
Lots of other commentary on the attempted takeover, the geopolitics and what it all means...
Plenty of debate China focusses on the Communist Party (CCP) and its (mis)-rule. The question is not if the CCP will fall, but when. But that question implies another which is seldom addressed by the China punditry - what next? Should the CCP fall, what kind of Government will emerge? While most hope for a democracy, is that likely? Is that even desirable? What kind of support will a post-CCP China need and will it get it?
One clear lesson from the Iraq war, regardless of its merits, is the need to look beyond the change you desire to what comes after. That is the debate we need to start today. I welcome your thougts on the topic. Naturally I have mine...
The key to the answer is how the transition happens. What comes next depends on what happened before. If the CCP implodes under the weight of its own contradictions the evolution to a new system of government will differ significantly from that which comes about through a popular uprising. If a popular uprising is violent or peaceful is another key difference. China's changes of government have tended to come about through violent overthrow. A peaceful transition will be a novelty. The influence of other countries, in particular China's significant neighbours (Japan, Korea) and America, will be crucial in the transition. It is impossible to say how each country would re-act, but here's hoping they have each at least considered the possibilities.
Can democracy work for China? It has been often cited that China (excluding Taiwan) has never had universal suffrage. On the other hand India provides an example of a massive and diverse country that successfully runs election after election. Yet many argue that India's democracy has hampered it in its race for growth compared to China. To some extent that must be true, because totalitarian governments can make decisions without heed to the short term interests of the voters (although that assumes such dictatorships are enlightened enough to have their population's longer term interests at heart).
A lack of democratic tradition can mean a country that rapidly changes to a market liberal democracy can just as quickly slide back into a more murky and bastardised version of the same. To wit, Russia. The countries of Eastern Europe have more successfully made the transition. But Russia is the closest, albeit imperfect, forerunner of China's past and future. A vast country nominally ruled from a dominating centre but with strong regions, Russia and China have both historically been "top-down" rather than "bottom-up" countries.
How do you ensure a democratic China emerges? There has to be external support for the crucial elements such as rule of law and universal suffrage. But far more importantly there has to be popular legitimacy. The people of China have to want a democratic system. It is not clear to me that that is the case. A crucial part of the longer term planning for a democratic China needs to be direct communication with the Chinese people to explain and re-enforce the democratic ideal.
But the planning cannot stop there. The reality is any successor democracy in China will be an imperfect one. The key becomes prioritising. Which parts of a liberal democracy are more important to get right? Should it be getting the economy in order? Installing a government elected by universal suffrage? Implementing and consistently enforcing laws and regulations? Eliminating corruption and graft? In an ideal world all of these and more would be addressed simultaneously. But that's not going to happen in practice. Who decides the priorities and how?
This is the dilemma of the Bush Doctrine of bringing democracy to the world. What happens when democracies elect your enemies, such as in Iran? Such a scenario isn't difficult to imagine for China. Should the CCP be toppled, a nationalist party would be expected to dominate any successor government (and I'm not talking about the KMT marching trimuphantly back across the straits...necessarily). The result could be a more nationalist, insular and beligerent China rather than a more benign one most expect. In short, democracy is a double edged sword.
Turning to another issue: if not democracy, then what are the alternatives? Unfortunately the most likely is the CCP gets replaced with a similar entity. Perhaps not the same ideology (although what does ideology matter to today's CCP), but the same format: central government that is nominally kow-towed to by the regions but in reality is largely subservient to them. Much of China's history has been one of pledging alliegence to a distant emperor, paying the usual tributes but otherwise running the place how you like. Without significant action the same is likely to be true in the future.
My conclusion is simple: as much as the China punditry wishes for it, an eventual Chinese democracy is no sure thing. Far from it. It is one thing to document the evils of the CCP and hope for its demise. It is quite another to plan for a post-CCP future. But it is an urgent task that needs to begin now.
Any ideas?
Other reading
Naturally Joe Katzman (if you're not reading Winds of Change, what's wrong with you?) has several important additional links and thoughts. His final question:
Once the problem is framed in terms of requisite variety, could it be possible to have a non-Democratic China Post-CPC, that nonetheless takes steps in the right direction and so sets the stage for coping now and positive change later? What could that look like?
An interesting "what if" would be to ask what if the KMT survived the civil war and war against Japan and was still ruling the Mainland? Would something along the lines of modern Taiwan have evolved across the entire country, not to mention the 70-odd million lives that would have been spared Mao's meglomania? Joe's question suggests a kind of Pinochet Chile writ large. David's comments also makes sense to me: that China will require "a corporatist authoritarian structure rather than a pluralistic democracy".
To repeat my main theme: most China pundits hope for a fall of the CCP and a liberal democracy for China. My question is whether that is realilstic or even feasible? And most importantly, how do we make it realistic and feasible?
Pundita replies
Pundita replies with What China can learn from India. She discusses the grassroots attempts at democracy already going on in Chinese villages and expects China to modernise via democracy. The problem with the village democracy experiment is it is largely meaningless - most local village chiefs hold next to no real power, answering to township or county cadres. The experiment smacks of token-ism. However her point on a Chinese style democracy is a telling one. There's no monopoly on a democratic model. I'm just not sure China will get to that point.
Daily Demarche
Dr. Demarche takes the idea one step further, asking how would the US and the world react should the CCP be overthrown.
That's an oft-made point, but I'm not convinced by it. Why are 800 million Indians able to cope with 50 years of it with no obvious ill-effects, yet China be considered unready? Again it circles back to my point in the main post, that perhaps it is the historical and cultural legacy that matters more. In which case the Indians owe the Brits a mighty big thank you.
Enjoyed your post very much. Democracy has been bandied about for many years now in reference to China, and I'd agree with you, the country is not yet ready. Back in my grad school days, when I was studying comparative politics, the most convincing theory about democracy I'd read and when and how it takes hold was modernization theory (Larry Diamond is its greatest active exponent). Bascially, economic progress brings about the creation of a middle class, which then in turn creates a clamor for democracy from below. This leads to popular unrest which then in turn generally leads to democracy.
Sounds easy no? The reason it rarely happens is the economic development bit. There is an excellent book called "The Future of Freedom" by Fareed Zakaria (editor of Newsweek and Foreign Affairs), that makes the point that democracies need a certain minimum level of development (GDP per capita as a rough proxy) for the likelihood of democratic change to be successful. (The exceptions are the oil rich countries, which have achieved their developed through wealth in natural resources, rather than the creation of a pluralistic middle class). There is an extremely high level of correlation between economic development and successful democracy.
Given current conditions in China, it does not seem that the country is there yet. Shanghai may be there, but most of the rest of the country is not. It is definitely not clear to me that China has a large and vociferous middle class that is clamoring for democracy from below. So it's likely going to have to wait. Your point is well taken that democracy imposed from outside generally fails - you are right, empirical evidence entirely backs that up. Any look at the last half century of decolonization without the proper economics in place makes it obvious.
A point relating to a previous debate on this page about inequality - if democracy is what you are aiming for, then indeed it is important that there not be such urban/rural income inequality, because then you'll have cities that are ready for democracy whereas the countryside is not. But that seems to be putting the cart before the horse, as per your Russian example, instead of proceeding with economic growth and well-being first.
Overall, democracy to me is simply a necessary tool that legitimizes regime change. Legimitacy is what is needed to rule. In a democratic country, you simply vote out the bums and get in a new crew. In authoritarian regimes that is a lot tougher. But as long as China's economy continues to tick along at a rapid rate of growth, it's hard to see desire for change or democracy emerge. And as Hong Kong has shown us in recent history, legitimacy can be restored without democracy. Simply look at the paltry numbers that will march tomorrow - simply put, Donald Tsang's emplacement by China has restored legitimacy to the government (the ICAC did the same thing for the colonial government in the 1970s). The big test will be when China hits its first crisis...but I don't see a middle class in China seizing control effectively for another two decades.
I'll add that book to my ever-growing Amazon wishlist immediately. Good point about the income inequality gap also being a key tension to resolve before democracy can take root.
I completely agree with David's conclusion. You could argue that June 1989 was the CCP's first exogenous crisis, and we all saw how they handled that. It gives credence to the lack of middle class and its ability to carry the early momentum of those events into a toppling of the CCP. Even today I don't think the outcome would be too different. Nevertheless to ensure democracy can take root (rather than other paths to legitimacy) the process needs to start now.
"Nevertheless to ensure democracy can take root (rather than other paths to legitimacy) the process needs to start now."
Great point Simon, I feel the same way, albeit uncomfortably, because I know that for now, as with Taiwan or Korea historically, China may be better off near-term with a corporatist authoritarian structure rather than a pluralistic democracy. And I have to admit it is because China is undeniably becoming a world power, and to think of a country with the future clout and stature of China wielding its power internationally and shaping global international norms of behavior without believing or practicing democracy is disturbing to someone like myself that takes liberty for granted.
Exactly right. What we need is some idea of the road map(s) of how to get from here to there. the examples of Taiwan and South Korea do both represent successful, relatively peaceful transitions to democracies from autocracies without economic penalty. On the flipside, Japan managed a similar or even more successful economic growth path (until the start of the 90s) while remaining relatively democratic throughout. Although now I think about it, the LDP was/is effectively a form of benign elected dictatorship that is only slowly changing after years of economic depression.
One possibility is that international business will take the lead from national politics in the long-term. The move to professionalise the economy would start in developed countries first. This is scenario two in an article from 'The Globalist'; democracy is not a priority.(http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=4429)
"Confronted with tight budgets and growing obligations to care for their aging populations, governments turn to corporations to handle a number of formerly public sector services."
I have two quick thoughts (and I'm sure I'll have more later). To the commenter who said that Sun Yatsen proposed a period of tutelage and military rule, and that China might not be ready for democracy.... look at what Taiwan has accomplished in the last forty years. It took longer than Sun suggested (the civil war didn't help) but the process has come to a remarkably satisfactory point (not a conclusion, never a conclusion), both politically and economically. It's possible (though I'm not sure how wise) to view the last quarter century of mainland China as the military dictatorship period, which would be followed (not without struggle, mind you) by a one-party pseudo-republic tutelage period which would morph into something like democracy.
Second, regarding Simon's "if this happens then this" scenarios: it's entirely possible that it won't be that simple. Take the fall of the Qing: there was an armed uprising, but that wasn't where power passed; there was an organized opposition, but they didn't end up with power, either. The collapse of the CCP, if it comes, is likely to be a slow, not quick process, and it will really be a transformation in the guise of a power struggle rather than an outright collapse. More thoughts later...
(David - thanks for the tip about Zakaria's book David--I've already ordered it)
I consider the possiblity of liberal democracy only one option, and an outside chance at that.
Traditional Chinese authoritarianism goes back several thousands of years of course and China has repeatedly resisted many historical trends in modern world history.
It would be nice to hope that the Chinese might one day clamour for democracy but I can't see it. The unusual cultural quirk in favour of stability above all and fear of chaos will ensure that anyone coming into political power in China and promising only stability will be enough to satisfy the masses.
Whatever follows the CCP will very much depend on how CCP rule ends.
I can't imagine the CCP simply moving aside as this so-called communist party has proved adept at transforming itself into whatever it thinks will prolong its rule.
Therefore, economic collapse or political revolution seem the most likely scenarios for ending CCP rule.
China is presently way overdue an economic downturn, even more so as more of the economy lies in private hands, China is ever more integrated into the global financial system and dependent on imported commodities like oil and iron ore.
Bread riots have been the bane of govts throughout history and an economic collapse and subsequent run on the banks might well threaten CCP rule.
Simon's statement about China collapsing under the weight of it's own contradictions is a great quote and anyone familiar with China will understand exactly what he means. As we've seen with recent riots, it only needs a spark and whole towns light up like a tinderbox. It's entirely possible that one of these incidents could spread and unseat the govt.
My only concern with all of these scenarios is that there is no effective opposition within China. All officals and anyone in authority belong to the CCP. If the entire CCP were overthrown, who on earth could step in and assume power?
The army.
The army are the only alternative power structure within China and it just so happens that they have the means to enforce political power.
If China suddenly collapsed and the CCP lay in discredited ruins, only the army could take the reins of power and prevent China fragmenting. They could also enforce martial law and restore stability.
The PLA is not the CCP so I believe they could rise to power without being too closely connected with any descredited CCP.
While the rest of the world looked on in despair the army could justify its power grab by talking of stability and an ending to chaos and they's nowt the world could do about it.
Simon, very interesting post and debate. Just one thing. You write: "What happens when democracies elect your enemies, such as in Iran?".
Iran is not a democracy (in no way): the whole political and religious power is hold by a group of unelected people. A flawed electoral process is only the fig leaf the regime uses to try to legitimate itself. But none of the carachteristics of a real democracy can be found in Iran.
As above, I consider that the army would take power in any doomsday scenario of a near-total economic collapse or in a sutuation where the people rose up against the entire CCP power structure.
However, in the event of a partial/regional collapse or partial rejection of the CCP, which is perhaps more likely, I consider that a new faction within the CCP would assert itself.
As we all know, the CCP is a myriad of factions and political and regional power bases. This has consequently led to speculation that the current Hu/Wen faction cannot properly assert its power until it has replaced Jiang Zemin's allies from their positions of power with their own supporters.
Therefore, I'm thinking that any major events that occur under Hu/Wen's watch might well pave the way to an internal power struggle and China being led by a new faction. Perhaps under a new party name even.
Whether the faction that finally asserts control is made of reformers, New Left (!) or a thousand other possible groupings may well depend on the situation of the day as well as the various strengths of the factions/personalities involved.
However, I'll reinterate that the army is the only entity capable of holding such a fracious "country" together. Although that statement is arguably another of China's contradictions.
Any leading faction within the CCP will have to have the support of the army.
I would recommend looking at the biographies of the members of the Central Military Commission:
http://english.people. com .cn/data/organs/militarycommission.html
The only reason that they are there is because they are proven loyal members of the Chinese Communist Party for their whole lives. Many of them are also members of the Central Committee of the Party. There is no local warlordism because the regional commanders are rotated.
You're right eswn and as I said, all those in postitions of power (including the armed forces) are members of the CCP.
What I'm arguing is that the army have the means to grab poitical and restore order and the PLA, despite the rock-solid connections of the officer class to the CCP, could assert that the military PLA is not the political CCP and therefore avoid being tarred with the same brush.
In the event of a total collapse, what would happen?
Would the army just sit back and watch the country descend into chaos? Would the army stay in their barracks if the monks in Lhasa rose up and the Xinjang freedom fighters established an Islamic Republic of East Turkistan?
My conclusion is simple: as much as the China punditry wishes for it, an eventual Chinese democracy is no sure thing. Far from it. It is one thing to document the evils of the CCP and hope for its demise. It is quite another to plan for a post-CCP future. But it is an urgent task that needs to begin now.
I really wonder about this exercise. As pundits (if that's what we bloggers really are), we write about what we see happening and what we see reported in the media. I don't really think most pundits are capable of architecting a model for the post-Communist government, especially since there are so, so many variables involved. If it's an overnight collapse, there's going to be bloodshed and anarchy before order is restored; if it's a slow but steady transition to a more judicious and democratic system, it will be a relative bed of roses. While the exercise of a bunch of expats mapping China's political future might be fun, I see it as a fairly futile effort. You say the time to begin planning is nown and I couldn't agree more. But who should be doing this planning? Certainly not us bloggers, though we can toss some ideas into the ring. The responsibility is on the shoulders of China's leaders, and they're so busy trying to hold the mess together I'm not sure they'll bother with such esoteric fantasies(that's how they would see it.)
All of that said, my quick take is that the only acceptable path is one of steady reform. And for all of Hu's faults, we may actually be on that path now. I see mixed signals, but there is no denying there are elements of reform at work. For all the continuing horrors, things have become much better than they were, at least for most.
For one brief moment I believed, as did so many China pundits, that things were on the right track to real and rapid change. Hopes were highest on the day of that amazing 2002 SARS press conference, where heads rolled, apologies were made and the CCP finally took responsibility for its gross deception.
The heady sense of progress was short lived. Hu rapidly swung back into censorship mode, proving even more ruthless than his predecessor in this regard. Transparency evaporated as more journalists were jailed and more embarrassing stories blacked out.
Still, I believe that Hu and Wen realize they must continue with reforms, including reining in the rampant corruption and showing increased sensitivty to the disenfranchised. Eventually, step by step, and with the help of the Internet and pressure from us wiseass pundits, there will be reform. And that's the key to China becoming more democratic.
That's the best I can do, but as I said, it's a volatile situation and the slightest upset -- a banking crisis, an earthquake, a death in the Party leadership -- could make all of our plans irrelevant. (Or more irrelevant, I should say.) And remember, there's absolouetly no one waiting in the wings. Give the CCP credit for its efficiency in wiping out all meaningful political opposition. It has a true monopoly. I want to see it replaced more than anyone -- but with what? For now, I think they need to stay in power until reform brings about the possibility for more politicl voices to be heard. I am not optimistic.
Firstly my Iran example. I am not saying the election their was perfect. But it does seem to broadly reflect the popular will of the Iranian people, whether we like it or not. It is an instructive example in more ways than one. The key point is what happens when democracies elect those vigorously opposed to other democracies and perhaps even their own? That could very easily happen in a democratic China.
Secondly on Joe's contention the PLA would be the only viable alternative power structure once the CCP falls. My first reaction was the same as ESWN's. The PLA is very much an organ of the CCP, not of the state. It has political commissars, its officers are senior CCP members. As an organisation it is completely and utterly part of the CCP machinery. But Joe's final comment is likely correct - the military would be the ones to fill the gap should the CCP fall, given the lack of any viable opposition or alternative. Except one, which prima facie seems outlandish - that Taiwan's Government could re-assert control over the mainland and introduce its democracy to the whole country.
I do not suppose to speak on or behalf of the Chinese people. From from it. But this debate is necessary to both contemplate likely future scenarios and plan for it. As you would agree, a lack of planning post-invasion in Iraq has significantly hampered efforts there. I'm suggesting the same kind of foresight is necessary for China's future. China's leadership won't be planning for this. There is no doubt in their minds the CCP will rule forever. After all, that is what they spend every waking moment doing - planning the survival of the CCP at all costs. So others need to take the burden. Given the inability of those within China to take that on, as you so accurately said given the CCP's monopoly, it is up to others, including us pundits, to speculate and ponder.
As for Hu and Wen, they do seem to be creepingly move towards "reform". But there is little doubt their idea of reform is to avoid the "mistakes" of Gorbachev and his reforms of the Soviet Union.
Your key point is the last one - that it's a volatile situation, easily triggered and with no viable opposition or alternative. That's exactly why we need to comtemplate alternatives. I don't share your pessimism. As I said previously, the CCP is Communist in name only. It is a party of nationalism and self-preservation. But hoping they stay in power until other political voices can be heard is putting the cart before the horse. It's not going to happen that way around.
Simon, as you surely know much better than I, China is a vast and diverse country. Consequently, IMO, if there's a China, it's likely to be an authoritarian one. Liberal democratic China will be Chinas.
Dave, you could argue that's already the case. Taiwan and the Mainland.
I saw your point on WoC that a breakup of China is also a likely consequence of the fall of the CCP. That's certainly true although I imagine nationalist pressure would mean the majority would not want that to happen. After all, the interior needs the coastal regions to provide economic growth (even if it's via trickle down effects) while the coast needs the vast reservoir of resources, both human and otherwise, the interior provides.
Look, every man and his dog Misti knows that the PLA is an organ of the CCP and the political connections are rock solid between the two. We all agree on that.
Ok, my argument is that you don't hear of any displaced farmers, petitioners travelling to Beijing or disgruntled Chinese people unhappy at the high levels of corruption complaining about the PLA. Those complaints are directed at the CCP.
While the PLA are the military wing of the communist party, THEY DO NOT RULE CHINA.
Therefore, any backlash against the CCP would not necessarily be directed at the armed forces, who, let's not forget, the people are brought up to love and respect.
(1) The army is the only alternative power structure within China.
(2) The army could still assert itself even after a huge backlash against the CCP because they have never held the strings of political power.
While I agree that the PLA represents *an* alternative power structure, it is quite incorrect to say people are not protesting against the PLA. In fact, protests outside PLA HQ in Beijing are becoming more common because disgruntled ex-servicepersons and their families find they get no justice elsewhere in the system. They rail against the high levels of corruption in the PLA hierarchy, and all the other problems common in the PLA as elsewhere in the party-state.
Maybe more likely than the PLA per se taking over is a move by an officer (or officers) to take power and not in the name of the PLA but reconstituting those parts of the PLA loyal to him as a new army.
Regarding the point, what if the KMT had survived the Civil War? I think its an interesting question. Some things to consider though are that the KMT did not really learn its lesson on how to guide economic development until they were so badly defeated on the mainland and forced to reevaluate for survival, specifically how hyperinflation seriously compromised their ability to rule. Yergin's excellent Commanding Heights does a good job detailing how the KMT on Taiwan made the right choices re: economic development by exploiting exports and leaving policy to actual economist rather then economic "geniuses" like H.H. Kung. Furthermore how much foreign capital would have been available. In a lot of ways it was the cutting off of aid payments by the US that forced the KMT to move away from nationalized industries. Just some thoughts.
Many cited Taiwan and Korea as examples of a peaceful transition. My thought on this is that size does matter. The relatively small population and area makes it more manageable for opposition ideas to spread, germinate, and acted. In addition, transition happened when per capita GNP at the time was near or above 10,000 USD. With thousands of social unrests last year, CCP is still fairly effective in blocking the news, though technology will make it harder in time.
China has not always been a unified country in its long history. Each province has traditional suspicion toward outsiders. The more prospered area, like Guandong and Shanghai, would probably not want to be tied up with less developed part of China given the chance. In the last two decades, Guandong has always taken the most liberal interpretation of any economic national policy until Beijing comes down hard. Southern China is exposed to outside ideas the earliest, and therefore has a slightly different worldview. Difference between individual provinces or regions does exist. The tie will be weakened during crisis. Even Mao wanted to establish an independent nation of Hunan in his early days. The idea of a unified China can certainly face challenge in chaos.
I quite agree with Joe that PLA will be a principle/central actor when China descents into a political power vacuum. What I am not sure is that will PLA carry the mandate of upholding a unified China. Ming and Qing courts also rotate officials to prevent corruption and favoritism. The result is definitely questionable. I don’t know how PLA structure is distributed in term of locality. But remember in 89, CCP had to go through a few different brigades to find the right one to carry out the killing. Given the tendency of Chinese brokering deals behind the scene, I am sure a compromise can be made between local powers and PLA.
So I think a fragmented China is likely to emerge. Will it take form of a collection of independent nations? May be, but not necessarily. A weak, barely-stitched-together central government may take CCP’s place. Will it be democratic? It would please me if it is. Would it matter to 800 million peasants? Probably not as long as the CCP replacement can deliver a minimum standard of living.
Simon,
1)About Iran. You wrote: "I am not saying the election their was perfect. But it does seem to broadly reflect the popular will of the Iranian people, whether we like it or not".
Again I have to fully disagree. The problem isn't that their election wasn't "perfect". The problem is that it was a fiction. Real power doesn't reside in "elected" people. "Elected" people are those the Guardian of the Revolution decide can be "elected": of 1.000 candidates only 7, the loyalists, were admitted. To say that this "broadly reflect the popular will of the Iranian people" is completely wrong. There are many doubts about real participation, there are many explanations about the reasons of people who decide to vote. But don't confuse that fiction with an electoral process and, above all, don't confuse iranian theocracy with some sort of democracy.
2)About China. I already posted my two cents on the subject (more or less).
http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/077779.php
I completely agree with you here: no real reform with CCP, no CCP with real reform. To hope CCP will allow its demise is, to say the least, a naivety.
I am new to your blog. Although it's really hard to remember the name of this blog,the contents are exceptional! (actually last time when I wanted to come back here, I had to go to Pekingduck, then got the link. why is the domain name so strange?)
Simon,
Great post and wonderful discussion but might I urge caution in any planning. Military people love the quote that no plan survives contact with the enemy. Your enemy here is history. Planning for a post-CCP China is going to be near impossible because there are so many influences which will come into play as the CCP collapses. This is not to say we should not prepare, but planning requires predictions that cannot be made with the data at hand.
Where is the correct balance between a too rigid plan that will fail unless all its assumptions are correct and a too flexible one that is meaningless because it has no assumptions at all? I don't know and without that balance this will all be pure speculation.
Mrs M is visiting Shenzhen today on her regular shopping adventure. Ringing from our usual DVD lady, she reports they are only selling TV series today because of recent crackdowns on movies.
Is nothing sacred?
Not to worry. It should be business as usual in a few weeks.
Naturally ESWN has plenty of photos and reports from the riots in Chizhou, Anhui. While the growing unrest is a sign of the tensions rapidly developing China, ESWN's article reveals two interesting pieces of information: why the police took so long to respond, and that the rioters themselves are no angels. His final sentence is a telling one.
(13:04) If you've got nothing better to do, on July 7th a Kiwi Law professor is going to explain everything that's wrong with free trade at HK Poly. Please don't ask why a law professor is the NZ expert on free trade and economics - clearly the anti-globalisation groupies don't want expertise to get in the way of a good rant.
While everyone's focussing on the anniversary of Trafalgar, this week sees a far more important British naval anniversary: the first contact between Britain and China. Amongst other things, this was the first time a Brit tried tea. It lead to the expression "not for all the tea in China".
Glad to hear you enjoy the post Simon! You'll be interested to know the reason the British subsequently called tea "tea" instead of "cha" like everyone else up to the gates of Constantinople. As Austin Coates writes in "Macao and the British", "...when tea-drinking was first introduced to Europe, in the second half of the seventeenth century, the French and the British were in touch with the great tea-producing province of Fukien, where the same Chinese word cha is pronounced teh... The French thus introduced the into Europe, the English their own native version, tea, originally pronounced much the same as in French."
Huge cooling fans spread along a shorter cross-country course will ensure horses do not suffer in the heat and humidity if the equestrian events at the 2008 Beijing Olympics are held in Hong Kong, a senior Jockey Club official said yesterday.
Executive director Winfried Engelbrecht-Bresges said the Jockey Club's comprehensive plan to bring the equestrian events to Hong Kong - estimated to cost $1.2 billion - was primarily built around the safety of the horses. They would also arrive early to acclimatise to the conditions.
And from the same paper, one section over:
The government has proposed compulsory energy-efficiency labelling for power-hungry electrical appliances, hoping to save up to $135 million in electricity a year.
Does the idea of setting up giant fans over a 6 kilometre open air course sound like a good use of electricity to you?
The big risks of China's looming power shortages. The relevant point is when energy, like any good, is allocated by fiat rather than by markets, you get a literal mis-allocation of resources. Howard French links an IHT article that points out that both China and US need to deal with cheap money to ensure the commercial entente's survival.
Imagethief tells everyone to get over CNOOC's bid and includes a helpful "yellow peril" scorecard, with a few solutions to American worries about shadowy Chinese bureaucrats controlling the US economy. China Hand notes this is America's chance to turn China away from dealing with rogue states in its quest for energy security...something for the anti-China crowd to keep in mind.
The second in their series on US-China relations, In Defense of Ambiguity, is up at LGM. This post looks into the Taiwan problem and the likelihood of conflict. The proposed solution is both the best and most likely one.
Well, thanks for the heavy linkage today. On the Xinhua penis item I was disappointed that Jeremy didn't realize that it was well behind the curve. XiaXue did that ages ago.
The Don began his governorship of Hong Kong with a speech to Legco. After the predictable rantings of Hong Kong's last Marxist, Sir Bowtie faced the only group in Hong Kong that don't like him: lawmakers. He said democracy was a low priority for his government, which is clearly true. The most popular politician is in the job anyway, even if the process for getting him there is a travesty. In other words, right result but wrong method. It also means the turn out for Friday's march is likely to be on the low side, not helped by the organisers mixing the issues with a gay rights campaign.
Naturally the first thing The Don did was commisssion a survey of 1,200 Hong Kongers to see what they really do want. The list is below the fold. If it's to be believed, Hong Kong people are more worried about the HK-Macau-Zhuhai bridge and poultry slaughtering than democracy, but rank "encouraging people to give birth" below Article 23 legislation and the Container Terminal 10! Will The Don accept such low priorities on his pet projects? More interestingly, is Hong Kong entering an era of rule by opinion poll?
The Don has clearly set out a list by which he can be judged. Accountability; responding to public opinion; sharing government priorities. My God, it's democracy by stealth! Let's hope Beijing doesn't find out.
Just wondering what is entailed by "governance" as the No 2 concern. Does its definition in any way incorporate item No 12? The Standard item doesn't really make that clear, but I would assume 'governance' implies that Hong Kongers do want an accountable government. That would imply democracy is a pretty high priority (even if 'universal sufferage' does rank low).
I think governance is meant to mean competent administration, rather than universal suffrage.
My point is we've achieve the same ends of a democracy would have delivered but without the voting. That said, I'm a believer in the journey as much as the destination.
And what about some of those other priorities? Who the hell actually knows about Container Terminal 10? Who did these people interview?
"My God, it's democracy by stealth! Let's hope Beijing doesn't find out."
Haha, how the hell do you think up stuff like that?
Yes, Container No 10, had me wondering who the hell they interviewed. Maybe they asked all the questions in Kwai Chung.
I hate to say this but after just reading your post, I'm wondering just much truth there is in Beijing's previous statement that HK-ers don't want democracy, they only want a healthy economy.
You think the democracy marchers will be out in force again as soon as the next economic downturn kicks in?
I think Friday's march will be comparitively small and a non-event. Donald Tsang has to really screw up to get the same numbers Tung Che-hwa got after his botched Article 23 attempt.
Way back when ESWN posted an anecdote on a dinner party he attended with some Hong Kongers, where the general view was people weren't too worried about democracy. So long as The Don looks like he has people's interests at heart and the economy ticks along nicely, there won't be any trouble. People only want the right to vote if they want to change how things are.
Hmm, I'll try and search for that HK dinner party post.
"People only want the right to vote if they want to change how things are."
I think you've banged the nail on the head there. Unless the people are dissatisfied with the leader (Tung is a good example) and the economy is in a downward spiral, I think the silent majority in HK aren't too worried about having the right to vote.
Sad but true that, for most people in HK, a strong economy and a competant CE are higher up the list of priorites than democracy. However, who can really blame 'em, we've all got families to feed and educate.
The only exception I can think of would be if Beijing tried to impose Article 23-style legislation again. They'd be bloody stupid to do so but you never quite know with China.
The fuss over Hong Kong's attempt to stage Olympic equestrian events continues. Compare and contrast these two articles:
Firstly the SCMP reports "Olympic horses 'could die in HK heat':
Equestrian expert Tang Pui-tat has warned that horses could die in the heat if Hong Kong hosts the sport during the Beijing Olympics..."Will horses which come from cooler climes like Europe be able to cope in the hot and humid weather conditions we experience in August? Some horses could die, especially during the gruelling eventing which combines jumping hurdles and cross-country," Mr Tang said.
Organisers want to move equestrian events to Hong Kong because they cannot guarantee an equine disease-free zone in Beijing.
Fair point...let's turn to Xinhua from last week:
A heatwave gripped 13 provinces and regions across the country yesterday with the mercury hitting 42 C in some parts, meteorolical officials said...In Beijing, some parts registered 39.4 C - and the ground temperature was a scorching 50 C.
It's no cooler in Beijing. Those European horses better start some serious sauna work.
I dunno-Summer Olympics including equestrian events have also been hosted in Athens, which is prety searingly hot in August, and LA. It's not like the horses haven't seen the heat, they just maybe haven't seen the Beijing heat.
The humidity thing is a valid point, but it's been 10 degrees hotter in Beijing last week. Helen's right - if the horses aren't ready for the heat, they don't deserve to be in the Olympics. In fact there's a few glue factories near Beijing...
The field notes from a reporter on the violence at Shengyou Village have been put on the internet, offering a glimpse (likely soon to be slammed shut) of how the reporter gathered his information.
"Not sure how I stumbled across it, but a content analysis of Xinhua should prove an interesting project" - I suspect it may have been me; I linked to it again on Saturday, interesting site.
I'd like to get in on the Pundita-Simon dialogue here. I enjoyed Eric T. Miller's article. If his perspective pans out, then there's no cause for concern. Both China and America will grow their economies into higher levels of symbiosis and efficiency, and China's rise will be smooth.
But, what about Japan? As the #2 economy, will it just get better, too? Somewhere between nw and the happy ending are military considerations due to rivalry and resources.
Which leads me to conservatives' fear of the Chinese military. Obviously someone at Defense wants to heat up the debate over China, but:
1. Is this overreacting
2. Does America really do need to get stoked about its economy, and maybe a little fear is good for it across the board?
3. Does Japan need a little of the same constructive fear?
The Asianosphere has really improved since my hiatus. Thanks, Simon!
Re Infidel's question - Please don't get me started on talking about what America needs to be doing to re-tool for the 21st Century, or we'll be here for two days! Yes, a little fear would probably be a help -- but politics, politics -- Dems & GOP going round and round. The joys of a two-party democratic system.
Simon, a special thanks for the link you gave to Pundita essay about rural democracy and technology. Simedh Mungee's points merit serious consideration.
Well, there so many interesting links on your site I better leave now before I spend the rest of the afternoon reading! Thanks for all the great info and leads. Now I go to peek at Japan blogs you mentioned....
Richard has done that before, and I suspect will do it again. He operates under the legitimate mantra that it is his site and he can moderate comments as he likes. I do find it interesting he continually deletes comments but at the same time declares them open and free. Can't have it both ways. Having read the relevant comments I'm not sure why Richard deleted them. I'm sure he has his reasons.
Welcome back, Infidel. As to your questions, there is room for Japan, but both the US and Japanese are working out how to deal with the new Chinese economic and geopolitical power. It won't be an easy process, but Japan and US have made it clear they are firm allies...for now. Eventually I can see their interests diverging over China.
Simon, please... next time you know someone travelling to NK to talk about food, tell him there's an italian guy who wants to buy his ticket (no matter the cost). Ah, of course, I don't think I would describe the wonderful NK restaurants. Sorry.
1. Spam is a constant problem. But naturally Hong Kong has taken the problem to a new level, merging it with the city's obsession with mobile phones. From the SCMP:
Most mobile phone users want the government to regulate uninvited advertising on mobile phones, a survey by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong showed. The party will put forward a Legislative Council motion on Wednesday after 93 per cent of 1,018 people questioned demanded government regulations.
Only 93%? That implies 7% of phone users are happy with phone spam. No wonder it keeps happening.
For those unaware of the phenomena, at random times of the day and night your phone will ring before you are subjected to a blast of Cantonese hawking anything from phone plans to phone deals.
But the solution is obvious. You allow mobile users to "opt-in" for phone spam. Why would they? Simple - those who opt in get lower call or plan charges. The mobile operator then collects a fee from the phone spammers. In other words, pay for the pleasure of spamming.
2. Friends of the Earth released a Sunday space filler lamenting the artic air conditioning that dominates Hong Kong. I don't see the problem. What's the point of accumulating great wealth if you can't fritter it away? Please see USA, gas guzzlers road beasts for another example.
More seriously this proposal to raise air con temperatures in Hong Kong could have dangerous long term economic effects. The fashion retailers of this city rely on the freezing interiors to entice the punters to spend on winter outfits for a place that would otherwise never need them. And the tai tais would have nowhere to flounce around in their latest designer gear. Won't someone think of the tai tais?
3. Visited Cityplaza at Tai Koo Shing with the family yesterday to see the exhibition of dinosaur skeletons. But far more impressive than the bones themselves was the sea of humanity squeezed into the place. A heaving mass of confusion and cameras amid the chaos, it was so typically Hong Kong. As I pointed out to Mrs M, would even a quarter of those people have turned up if the bones were at a museum? Not likely.
Hong Kong should immediately change its museums into shopping centres, immediately. Greater attendance and plenty more money for exhibitions. A win-win solution. If they run the air con at 16 degrees Celcius, they'll really be onto something.
Sing Pao has more on the mobile phone user survey. It is one thing to be annoyed. It is worse to actually have to personally pay for those calls. 45% of the respondents said that they have received such calls while they were away from hong kong and therefore liable for the roaming charges. one person ended up paying in excess of HK$1,000.
Naturally under my system you could opt-in for calls while you were overseas and receive an even bigger discount. Alternatively I've always thought I should send an invoice to the spammers for the roaming charges when I get those calls overseas but they tend to cut out after 30 seconds.
In the village of Maxinzhuang in Shunyi, one of Beijing's rural districts, hundreds of peasants have been protesting for the past month over compensation for the requisition of their land to build a water-sports complex for the Beijing Olympic Games in 2008. “There are no human rights,” muttered one protester, after local police ordered your correspondent to stop interviewing them. Several Chinese journalists have visited the village, but their reports have not been published. The authorities are clearly anxious to avoid tarnishing the image of Beijing's Olympics preparations.
Maxinzhuang's villagers are clearly aware of the high value of their land. Early last year Shunyi's Olympics venue supervisory body agreed to give the village nearly 95m yuan ($11.5m) for its 90 hectares (222 acres) of land, much of which had been used for growing maize and wheat. This is around twice as much per hectare as was offered to Shengyou village. But in both cases, peasants worry that only a small fraction of the cash will trickle down to them through the greedy grasp of corrupt officials.
Do you think the IOC has a policy on this? Here's hoping this gets broader mainstream media attention. Part of the IOC's decision to award Beijing the Olympics was on the basis of improving China's human rights record as the world's spotlight falls on Beijing.
Time for the IOC to put its mouth where its money is.
As I expected my piece on China's new left (deliberately not capitalised) provoked mixed reactions. I hope to compose a rebuttal of the comments made both here and at Richard's either today or tomorrow. My full response is below the fold.
I recommend this collection of other reading on the same topic:
Your thoughts and comments are welcome. Now read on for my response...
The first part of my response is to cover the ground the vast majority share. None of us are fans of the CCP in its totality. We all want to see a successful and vibrant China will the spoils widely shared. Today's China is a far from perfect place, economically and politically. On that we can all agree.
Amongst all the critiques I've still yet to have anyone spell out precisely what new left thinking actually is. Richard agrees with Martyn on this:
The ideas of the New Left are a natural and welcome consequence of, and progression from today's system where the political and economic elite pillage the nation's wealth, while tightly controlling society with an iron grip, fire rockets up into the air and allow anti-Japan riots in the name of patriotism and social stability.
That implies the new left is a guise for socialism as a successor to the current system. It is just a touch ironic that the successor to the failure of central planning and Communism is socialism. Marx would be turning in his grave at this inversion in the progression of revolutionary change. If my characterization of the new left is wrong, please direct me to a clear and lucid exposition of their philosophy. Until then it very much seems the new left is the old left reheated, like those supermarket products proclaiming themselves "new and improved".
Let's be honest. No country or economic system truly afford equality. Richard compares me to Ayn Rand when I say that people are different. Guilty as charged. Again if anyone can point me to research showing we are all exactly the same, I'd be much obliged. Until clones walk the Earth, we are blessed in our vast diversity. As an aside, it is ironic that those most devoted to the concept of diversity and celebrating differences also work so actively to minimize those differences. Equality is a chimera, an impossible dream that is dangerous to pursue. Why dangerous? Because the sacrifices made in its name do not justify the result. The ends do not justify the means. Very simply, unequal does not mean unfair.
Some took exception to my pie analogy. Martyn laments China's share of world GDP has gone from 1% to 5% in the last 30 years. During a period of unprecedented global economic prosperity, China outpaced the world to such an extent it has increased its share of world GDP by 5 times! I'm not a shill for the CCP but whether it was because or in spite of them (more on that soon), since Deng took the helm the country and its people have been the beneficiaries of what can only be described as a miracle. Martyn, forgive me but I'm popping the bubbly and thankfully there's several hundred million people just over the border able to afford the same. Martyn also falls into a common trap:
According to the IMF figures 2003, out of 179 countries, China's annual GDP was US$1,087 per person or 110th in the world. That's less than half the average per capita global GDP.
In economics there is a concept called purchasing power parity. In English it means a dollar in one country is not the same as a dollar in another. Quite simply you get more bang for your buck in China than you do in the United States. The latest estimate is China's PPP per capita GDP is US$5,600 (from the CIA's China factbook). I've written extensively about this and other China's economic issues elsewhere on the site.
Richard's turn. Let me quote from his comment:
If you think this [his agreement with the new left] makes me a communist sympathizer, what can I say? Their argument resonates with me, meaning I agree that many of the impoverished and exploited Chinese deserve better and need help.
I always suspected, but now we have proof! Richard is, at least in this case, a Commie! Even worse, he compares me to Ayn Rand and then agrees with my sentiment! Richard, you're one confused fellow.
More seriously, Richard's original post was honest is seeing through the empty rhetoric of the new left. If I did not make that clear in my original post, I will do so now. But it doesn't wash. In the very same comment Richard excerpts Martyn's thoughts that the new left are the natural progression and great white hope. For a group that don't stand for anything, that's quite a statement.
Who's responsible for the China economic boom? I will read the book Richard recommends. But even if you say that all Deng did was undo the excesses of Maoism (and he did far more than that), it was a crucial and massive step for the country at that time. Deng's famous Southern tour is the second biggest travel event in modern Chinese history. I don't have the time or energy to devote to this topic, but either by providence or good planning (or both) the CCP have been the stewards of China's economic miracle. I highly recommend a read of ZenPundit's short piece on this topic:
the " correct line" on China's economy was decided in the contest for power between Hu Yaobang and Deng Xiaoping after the fall of the Gang of Four. Then subsequently reaffirmed in the adoption of Deng's " Four Modernizations" and the aftermath of Tiannamen in 1989 when elderly Maoist senior statesmen limited their crackdown to political dissent and did not try to reverse economic liberalization.
I will look into this more in a future post.
Naturally there are valid points being made. China's current system is not perfect. There is plenty of corruption, nepotism, guanxi, onerous government officials and more. Richard hits the nail on the head:
in China there needs to be protection against corrupt and venal officials who know that the poor and disenfranchised are easy targets for highway robbery. And in this regard, I believe the New Leftists are correct. Sometimes people with no representation need help.
If only he had omitted that middle sentence, I'd agree. The problem with China's system is the lack of participation, of redress, of protection of property rights - in sum, a lack of rule of law. This is the point Chris drove at in suggesting the new leftists look to de Soto. But the new leftists don't offer any solution to this.
While on the badness of the corruption of China's system, David's incisive comment bears repeating in spades:
Jean Oi had made some interesting arguments about the kleptocracy, corruption and nepotism in China. She raised the possibility that far from impeding growth in China, the initiative of well-placed cadres sitting astraddle both quasi-state, quasi-private assets appropriating them for their own needs may actually have assisted GDP growth.
The argument is this: corruption, or 'bureaucratic deviance' provided the requisite level of fixed capital formation to create enterprises with economies of scale. Without high levels of fixed capital investment, China would still be a backwards agrarian nation...it seems that the United States in the late 19th century, in the age of the robber Railway barons, corruption, insider trading, nepotism and 'guanxi networks' were also indeed the way America got enough capital together to generate sufficient 'steam' for the economic locomotive of the American economy to really get going.
Obviously, in large developing nations depending largely upon domestic capital investment (i.e. including Korea, Taiwan and Japan but ruling out Singapore and Hong Kong) this perhaps may be a necessary but insufficient condition. Nigeria, Burma ad the Philippines are examples of this. It requires that the government have some limits on the scale of the corruption, enough to maintain a self-sustaining mechanism...
While it is true that China today is seeing a rising inequality between rich and poor, much like America did in the late 19th century (and as your interlocutors say, since the Reagan-Bush era), overall the country is becoming a more prosperous place...that overall the growth that China has undertaken over the past quarter century has benefited the largest number of people and has taken more people out of poverty than any other regime in history, and we should be lauding this achievement rather than denigrating the scale of difference between the village hut and the millionaire's skyscraper.
Smart fellow. Do his tour. Tom notes the growing inequality in America since the Reagan era. A quick reminder: Bill Clinton was President for 8 years between the two Bushes (and I dare say that's not the only time Bill's been between two bushes).
The other Richard suggests the new left is using European social democrats as a model. He's right which is why the new left are wrong. The formerly great social democratic economies of Europe are now laggards. It is no co-incidence that when Eastern Europe was faced with a choice between social democrats or a more Anglo-Saxon model, they chose and have had great success with the latter. I fully agree with his conclusions:
I don't think that China's New Left are in any way insincere about their project of bringing social justice to China. But I think they're misguided and possibly naive about the organization they are members of. Unfortunately I think their efforts only go to provide window dressing for the Party leadership - it enables them to say 'Look! We have open debate inside the Party! No need for dissidents! Don't you see how wrong Wei Jingsheng and all those other foreign agents were? China is marching straight down the road to democracy all by itself and we don't need any advice or criticism from outside!'
The new left are fig-leaves for more sinister forces who seek to reverse the gains made by China's market based economy in the past 25 years. They represent a dangerous combination of nostalgia and social engineering. Think that's overly dramatic? Any system that strives for equality must forcibly take from some to give to others. It is one thing to provide support for the poor and destitute (a point Hayek makes). It is quite another to go from a safety net to a blanket. ZenPundit notes the political dimension:
But these inchoate anticapitalist forces may try to outflank Party centrists on issues of nationalism, particularly on Taiwan and Sino-American relations and thus acquire a larger constituency for their economic policies while driving the centrists toward a harder line. They bear watching.
So the new left are both empty and dangerous. The last word goes to Adam Morris in commenting on Imagethief's important additional point:
I appreciated Simon's point that (paraphrasing) "it doesn't matter who has the bigger pie as long as it's getting bigger" but thought that there was something missing in that equation. I'm glad you pointed out it was unequal opportunity.
That is a telling point that was missing from my original post. I'm glad it was made. The same point applies in America and elsewhere. A governments' role is in creating and giving access to opportunity and then letting people get on with it on their own.
Let me conclude on a positive note. The path for continued economic success for China is based on two simple truths:
1. Strengthening of rule of law and property rights.
2. The expansion of and increased access to opportunities.
Simon, I tend to agree with you with some specifications.
It's pretty obvious that some sort of capitalist development is the best thing happened in China in the last 20-25 years. China is the umpteenth - and in this case still living - proof of the failure of communism: it grows and creates hopes when and where abandons ideology, it is bent and produces fear and oppression where keeps it.
At the same time what we're seeing in China is not a free-market economy western style. It's more a State-capitalism, an economic "boom" run by the State, driven by the State. A power so worried about mantaining and tightening control can't allow a real free economy. This is the point. And this is also the irremediable contradiction of chinese system and the greatest challenge to CCP rule: one day we're (likely) going to see a break-point, a final challenge between capitalist development and political despotism. It's all about politics, once again.
Simon is right because he gets the big picture. Some of his critics are right because they underline distorsions. But the problem is not capitalism. The problem is the regime.
I guess one of the things one has to watch out for is that words like "left or right" (political), "liberal or conservative" can have vastly different meanings from one country to the next and across different cultures.
A general economic history of China, titled "From Stone Age to Mao's Age", by Dr. Edward H. Kaplan, was on the www not long ago. He, I believe has just passed away, taught at Western Washington university at Bellingham. His history is excellent, well worth reading. These were his lecture notes for a class in Chinese economic history.
Well said. I'll happily call myself a New Rightist. 'Classical liberal' just confuses the yanks, while 'libertarian' makes people think I live in a log cabin, smoking pot and shooting at tax collectors (hmmm, actually that doesn't sound too bad as a retirement option).
If local governments in the US can now forcibly seize people's homes to build malls and hotels for tax revenue, where will the patrons and employees all live? (Plenty Kelo reaction).
I'm a big fan of Wikipedia, and I edit it quite often, but the more you use it the more you are aware of its possible faults. I think it's fine for browsing and stuff, and there's a lot of interesting things in there that would be hard to find otherwise, but there's no way I'd cite it in any academic setting.
But edit wars happen mostly either on something controversial, or when someone gets anal about a topic. In either case it's likely that someone will step in and slap a 'disputed' label, and an admin would freeze editing if it got out of hand. It's not perfect, but at least it's honest.
But then one should always be skeptical on pretty much anything one reads nowadays.
The 380 yen ($3.50) slice of fried minke whale in a bun went on sale Thursday at Lucky Pierrot, a restaurant chain in the port city of Hakodate on Japan's northernmost island of Hokkaido.
"The taste and texture are somewhere between beef and fish," said Lucky Pierrot manager Miku Oh.
And the contender for statement of the year goes to the very same Ms. Oh:
"e have decided to add a whale burger to our menu due to strong demand from our customers and feel very thankful to the whales for allowing us to make the burgers.
If only the whales could thank her back.
Sinoeye says "the Japanese are too sophisticated to waste whale meat on burgers." Apparently not. We'll wait for Yobbo's first hand report as to the taste.
Daniel Starr on the best elections money can buy in China, an optimistic view of the chances for democracy in the Middle Kingdom. The point I diverge with Daniel is in the comparison with Russia. If anything the recent Russian experience (flirtation with democracy before rapidly sliding into elected dictatorship) seems more likely for China, partly because both countries have little democratic tradition and a long authoritarian one.
HONG KONG University Medical School alumni are still whining about the proposed re-naming of their alma mater to recognize tycoon Li Ka-shing’s offer to donate a billion Hong Kong dollars to the institution. It is surely a measure of how vastly overpaid our city’s doctors are that they see this sum of money as a gift horse to be subjected to a contemptuous oral examination and turned away. If Li offered me that sort of money, I’d change my name by deed poll to The Barbarella Queen of the Fairies Genito-Urinary Diseases Clinic – in a second. If that’s what he wanted. No problem. I’ll give him a call.
The other day Richard had a post titled China's New Left seeks to rein in market reforms. It links to an article called China's inequities energize New Left, which is a more balanced view of this group. I've posted a comment on his thread (reproduced below the fold) which has some additional ideas not mentioned in this main post. Let's look at this in greater depth and please feel free to join in.
When looking at an issue, it's important to look at what the terms mean. So what does New Left mean?
...a loose coalition of academics who challenge China's market reforms with a simple message: China's failed 20th century experiment with communism cannot be undone in the 21st century by embracing 19th century-style laissez-faire capitalism....the New Left's adherents don't offer a coherent set of alternate policies.
The group is defined by what they oppose rather than what they stand for, the death knell of any political group.
The 'New Left' are worried about China's growing income gap but without any solutions. Is the income gap worth worrying about? No, with a but. If you think of an economy as a pie, it doesn't matter if the allocation of the pie is uneven, so long as the pie itself is growing. Is that true in China's case? Clearly the answer is yes. Witness the massive rise in living standards for literally hundreds of millions of Chinese citizens. It is the most rapid poverty allieviation in history. Yes, there is still plenty of crushing poverty in China. But it is decreasing at a rapid rate, not thanks to trendy pop concerts or dollops of foreign aid, but thanks to a quasi-capitalist economic system.
China's system is far from perfect. Cronyism and nepotism are rife. Government interference and direction in enterprise is rampant. Rule of law (in both enforcement and courts) is patchy at best. Unsurprisingly this has been China's economic way for much of its history (by the way, has there been any definitive economic history of China - if so can someone point me to it). But in terms of results, the current one is working, and working in spades. The 'New Left' alternative isn't even an alternative:
critics of the New Left, such as Professor Shi Yinhong, director of the Center for American Studies at the People's University in Beijing, say the group has no real alternative to the current global economic system.
Richard cannot help but have a go at America's economic system while he's citing this article.
What the New Left is saying resonates with me. Jiang is most responsible for today's wasteland of corruption that fouls so much of the country, resulting in a nation of obscenely rich cowboys riding roughshod over the people. Now, we have this situation in America, too, especially under our current regime, where might (i.e., money) makes right. But we do have controls for reining it in, as we saw when some of the more repellent aspects of the "Patriot Act" were rejected last week. And we're sending the Tyco robber barons to jail where they belong. I think wherever you have capitalism, you're going to have this situation to some extent; the owner-worker model lies at the heart of capitalism, making it, as they say, the world's worst economic system except for every other system.
America is the world's largest, richest and most successful economy of all time. There are plenty of Chinese citizens who would gladly have American style income equality in return for something like American living standards. Richard's right in one respect: inequality is a key part of the capitalist system. That's because people are all different. Shocking, I know. Just like we cannot all be gold medal hurdlers, we cannot all be wealthy tycoons.
To Richard's credit he notes the vacuousness of the 'New Left':
If the New Left's strategy and tactics were a bit less amorphous I'd be more optimistic. Right now, it sounds like a lot of ideas without much of an action plan.
Let's do a simple comparison. China's swing from Communism to its current quasi-capitalism has seen several hundred million people lifted out of poverty in the space of a few decades, the fastest rise in history and far more effective than any number of trendy pop concerts. The current system is being compared to "19th century laissez-faire economics" but with no basis in fact. A consequence of capitalism is some do better than others. Here's a newsflash for you: that's because some people ARE better than others...some in art, some in music, some in tennis, some in commerce. It's called being human. The problem with Communism is it doesn't work because we are not all the same. Likewise efforts at artificially dealing with income inequality. If you force equality you simply drag 50% of the population down to the average in order to drag the other 50% up to it. Is that fair? I suppose it depends which side of average you fancy yourself. And if forcing equality sounds like a good idea, I suggest you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom and come back to me.
What are we talking about here? The article Richard sites says:
the New Left's adherents don't offer a coherent set of alternate policies. Some are hard-liners, who say they rue the violence of the Maoist years, but remain enchanted with the sociopolitical initiatives of that period, such as collectivization.
This is what you're all praising and lionising? A slogan in search of an ideology? A yearning for collectivization, the system that lead to massive famine?
If someone can define New Left for me, we can start a proper debate. In the meantime let's call these people what they really are: reheated nostalgic Communists. Or from the article:
The degree to which the New Left's rhetoric meshes with that of the government's indicates that President Hu Jintao and his team are tacitly supporting the New Left.
I posted an article on the same subject, mostly focussing on the New Left in relation to the Party. I think you and I probably disagree quite a lot in relation to China and the rest of the world!
I think it's interesting that Hu Jintao and especially Wen Jiabao are in some ways keen to be associated with this kind of thinking. It's a credibility exercise for them, I think; and it's flattering for the leadership if people, especially abroad, think that they are part of a common project which has as its goal Social Justice. But ultimately what this comes down to is theory, and not what the Party does and stands for in practice. Maybe a few scattered projects will spring up around the country, but what's on offer is not fundamental change.
Ultimately I think this agenda is so unfocussed and watered down; all that may result is a rebranding exercise for the CCP, whatever about the sincerity and good intentions of a lot of people interviewed as representatives of the 'New Left'.
And let's not forget, as people pointed out at the time of 'New' Labour in the UK, that 'New' is the oldest word in politics!
Okay, Simon, so you don't like the bleeding heart equality sentiments of Richards - but he brings up an important point - that democracy is, to an important extent, based upon the perception of equality, and that while we make sacrifices in equality to push a capitalist economy, if the split got too obscene and the perception of second-class citizenship of the poor too obvious, there would probably be a push for more socialist reforms within any democracy.
I don't disagree with what you are saying: that people in China basically feel that the "Pie getting bigger" is better than anything else. However, it should be noted that although China is not a democracy, perceived equality is still a tremendous issue, and the "????“?doesn't alleviate the issue, any. china needs desperately to reach rule of law and sort the rest out from there.
You think China's current road is a good one because the 'pie is getting bigger' and millions of people are being lifted out of poverty?
30 years ago the entire country was below the standard poverty level and, as Richard has said many times on Peking Duck, the government haven't acutally 'done' anything at all, apart from dismantle the worst excesses of Maoist insane economic theories and 'allow' the people to crack on by allowing basic freedoms of choosing where they work and what they do for a living.
The opening up of foreign investment, prohibited under Mao with his almost paranoid ideal of self-sufficency also contributed hugely to China's recent quantum leap in modernizing the country.
The 'pie' to which you refer, is divided up amongst the political elite and the crumbs that remain mean that the majority of people living in China are existing on 1,000 yuan or less in the cities and less in the country and that's a fact.
The ideas of the New Left are a natural and welcome consequence of, and progression from today's system where the political and economic elite pillage the nation's wealth, while tightly controlling society with an iron grip, fire rockets up into the air and allow anti-Japan riots in the name of patriotism and social stability.
The next time I hear someone here in China complaining about having to work damn hard for subsistence wages, facing a crap present and a crap future, I'll be sure and say to them "We cannot all be gold medal hurdlers, we cannot all be wealthy tycoons." A guy I know know who lives in Hong Kong told me so.
What Martyn said, and everyone else (especially Martyn).
This is one heck of a post Simon. I am immensely surprised to see you give the CCP so much credit for the economic boom. It happened on their watch, so we do need to give them some credit, certainly. But I urge you to read Joe Studwell's China Dream to understand how the boom started -- despite, rather than because of, the CCP. The launchpad for the boom was simple: the industrious workers simply ignored CCP edicts and did things their own way. When they were successful beyond anyone's dreams, the CCP simply stole all the credit (no surprises there).
You quote a sentence from the article indicating some of the New Leftists believe in collectivazation, and you write, "This is what you're all praising and lionising? A slogan in search of an ideology? A yearning for collectivization, the system that lead to massive famine?" This is bullshit. Simon, if you read my post carefully and truly concluded that I am in support of collectivization, then something is seriously wrong. Do you really see any "lionising" whatever? If so, where do I lionise and what do I lionize? Look me in the eye look into your heart and tell me, do you think my post is about lionising collectivization, one of the most atrocious experiments ever conducted?
Where do I once say I support anything the New Leftists advocate? I wrote:
What the New Left is saying resonates with me. Jiang is most responsible for today's wasteland of corruption that fouls so much of the country, resulting in a nation of obscenely rich cowboys riding roughshod over the people.
If you think this makes me a communist sympathizer, what can I say? Their argument resonates with me, meaning I agree that many of the impoverished and expolited Chinese deserve better and need help. It's not blanket agreement - and I think you know it. This single phrase is the only positive thing I said about them, and then I said they had no plan or strategy and were basically hot air.
About my throwing in criticism of America: No matter how great and successful America is, it is not beyond criticism. Especially now, when obscene tax cuts are being lavished on the super-duper-ultra rich whilst working people are being deprived of even the traditional right to declare bankruptcy. Especially now, when our leaders are virtually at one with super-big business, with a revolving door leading from the White House to either K Street or the corporate board room. It's the best system in the world, but it can be better. I would be unpatriotic not to demand the best, and right now we are seeing the very worst. To imply that because poor Chinese still want to come to America we should therefore leave it alone and not strive to bring the corrupt to justice and hold our own officials to acount -- well, I just don't get it.
Just to make sure no one forgets, let me quote from Martyn's superb coment above, which is infinitely more articulate than my own:
The ideas of the New Left are a natural and welcome consequence of, and progression from today's system where the political and economic elite pillage the nation's wealth, while tightly controlling society with an iron grip, fire rockets up into the air and allow anti-Japan riots in the name of patriotism and social stability.
The next time I hear someone here in China complaining about having to work damn hard for subsistence wages, facing a crap present and a crap future, I'll be sure and say to them "We cannot all be gold medal hurdlers, we cannot all be wealthy tycoons." A guy I know know who lives in Hong Kong told me so.
Amen to that. Last point I want to address is from your comment above:
Here's a newsflash for you: that's because some people ARE better than others...some in art, some in music, some in tennis, some in commerce. It's called being human. The problem with Communism is it doesn't work because we are not all the same.
Thank you, Ayn Rand. I don't disagree. But this is implying that those who have made it to the top in China did so on the basis of rugged individualism and talent and hard work. As opposed to buckets of guanxi, stolen tax dollars from the working poor, dirty deals, under-the-table payments in plain brown envelopes and, in some instances, outright violence. Many have made it the old fashioned way, true enough. But go through my site or Conrad's old site and see the number of times the CCP took everything away from its people on a whim. My favorite example was the loving old man who created an orphanage for AIDS children. He had a vision and a dream and he made it happen, giving these children a better life. A charity in the West found out and made a large donation to the orphanage. What did our ingenious local leaders do? They immediately closed the orphanage, seized all the money and sent the terrified children off to state-run orphanages, where I'm sure they'll get state-of-the-art treatment for their disease. This is to make the simple point that in China there needs to be protection against corrupt and venal officials who know that the poor and disenfranchised are easy targets for highway robbery. And in this regard, I believe the New Leftists are correct. Sometimes people with no repreentation need help. I know that seems an odd concept to some, but I believe it with all my heart and it's the main reason I run my own blog, to shed light on the plight of those who are torn apart by the cruel version of capitalism that is both rescuing and damning China.
I would also add, that with the dismantling of the "Iron Rice Bowl," as inefficient as that state-owned system was, many Chinese people now lack access to medical care, to education and to any kind of support in their old age.
That's okay Lisa. The tough will rise to the top and thrive, stepping on the backs of the weak and the miserable, who will fall to the bottom and drown.
Look, I'm all for progress and competition. I just happen to believe that the vulnerable need some protections, lest you end up with a slave-master society, with your status determined at birth.
Richard's right when he talks about the CCP taking all the credit. Taking all the credit for what exactly?
China's GDP in 1949 (as a percentage of global economic output) was 1%. Fair play, civil war, Japan's invasion and WW2 etc.
Nearly 30 years later, in 1978, China's global GDP share was STILL 1%. (In the late 1700's China share was approximately 40%).
Since the 'pie has been increasing in size' for the last few decades, it's present share is approximately 5%. Not quite time to pop open the Champagne and blow up the balloons just yet.
Consequently, people's lives haven't improved as much as you seem to think.
The last figure I read suggested that 45% of the nations farmers had not seen their incomes significantly rise since 1990. As a consequence, millions of kids around the country, particularly girls, do not go to school as their parents simply can't afford it.
Even though elementary school is supposed to be free and compulsory, the average school charges Rmb2-300 per year. Average annual income for farmers is around Rmb4-500 per year---before local taxes of course.
That pie is certainly getting bigger.
Effectively, huge amounts of the population remain only partially-educated and therefore fit to do nothing except either toil in the fields or hit the jackpot and become an unskilled migrant worker for Rmb4-500 per month.
Should a child be lucky enough to receive a full high-school education, university fees are approximately Rmb3,000-5,000 per year which effectively prohibits the majority of the population from even dreaming of going to university.
Love that big pie.
According to the IMF figures 2003, out of 179 countries, China's annual GDP was US$1,087 per person or 110th in the world. That's less than half the average per capita global GDP.
Next time I travel to the poorer areas of Guangzhou City or anywhere in the Chinese countryside, I'll be sure and tell the good folks there about that pie of yours that just keeps getting bigger. They could do with some real good news.
For a scholarly look at China's actual progress in poverty reduction do a google search on China's (Uneven) Progress Against Poverty by Martin Ravallion and Shaohua Chen of the World Bank. Some of their key conclusions:
1. China has made huge progress against poverty, but it has been uneven progress. Half of the decline in poverty achieved since reform and opening up came in the first few years of the 1980s. Poverty reduction stalled in the 1990s.
2. Inequality has been rising. In marked contrast to most developing countries, relative inequality is higher in China's rural areas than in urban areas. Absolute inequality has increased appreciably over time between and within both rural and urban areas.
3. The pattern of growth matters. Growth in the primary sector (mainly agriculture) did more to reduce poverty and inequality than either the manufacturing or service sectors. Rural economic growth reduced inequality in both the urban and rural areas, as well as between them.
4. Inequality is a concern both for economic growth and poverty reduction. With the same historical economic growth rates and no rise in inequality in rural areas alone, the number of poor in China would have been less than 1/4 of its actual value today. Rising inequality is not a "price" of high growth: statistics show that the periods of more rapid growth did not bring more rapid increases in inequality. The statistics suggest that more uneual provinces will face a double handicap in future poverty reduction: they will have lower growth and poverty will respond less to that growth.
I know a lot of farmers and children of farmers who'd be happy to tell you that, if not fabulously wealthy, they can afford to send their kids to college now. I know a lot of non party members who've raised their standard of living immensely in the last ten years.
I wouldn't be surprised if the average person lives on 1000 kuai a month, but that's a hefty jump from the 200 of five years ago. and when you consider that housing costs as little as 100 kuai a month outside the big cities, with usually more than one working individual per household, that thousand kuai starts looking a little more comfortable.
of course, a lot of cadres are getting filthy rich. but it's not only them who is seeing some benefit.
I think there are a lot of extremes in the above conversation. simon looks at the inherent inequality (true) while others focus on the ideal of equality (lovely idea). the reality should perhaps lie in the middle. the chance to rise as far as you can should exist, but those working two jobs should at least be able to affford basic standards of living. it shouldn't be about making everyone the same, but about making sure even those who might not be 'qualified' don't fall through the cracks.
nepotism, etc, can't last in a fully free market system. if the genes are good it really doesn't matter, but when unqualified people lead businesses the business fails. if/when china stops bailing out companies I think it's possible that the 'making money' portion of the equation might outdo the 'but he's my nephew' argument.
I've always suspected that Simon was really a closet neo-mercantilist.
Long live the tycoons! Long live connections over competition! Long live cronyism!
As long as the pie gets bigger, the British East India Company should be allowed to keep its monopoly on trade!
As for the US economy, Simon fails to take in to account the MASSIVE income inequality the economic policies of the Reagan/Bush administrations have put in to place. But it's nice to note that Simon prefers arguments put forth by the likes of HindRocket, who argue economics via anecdotes, over Krugman, who argues using actual data and facts.
When I was a graduate student some years ago, a professor of mine called Jean Oi had made some interesting arguments about the kleptocracy, corruption and nepotism in China. She raised the possibility that far from impeding growth in China, the initiative of well-placed cadres sitting astraddle both quasi-state, quasi-private assets appropriating them for their own needs may actually have assisted GDP growth.
The argument is this: corruption, or 'bureaucratic deviance' provided the requisite level of fixed capital formation to create enterprises with economies of scale. Without high levels of fixed capital investment, China would still be a backwards agrarian nation.
As you know, I love history. To tie two strands of your debate together, it seems that the United States in the late 19th century, in the age of the robber Railway barons, corruption, insider trading, nepotism and 'guanxi networks' were also indeed the way America got enough capital together to generate sufficient 'steam' for the economic locomotive of the American economy to really get going.
Obviously, in large developing nations depending largely upon domestic capital investment (i.e. including Korea, Taiwan and Japan but ruling out Singapore and Hong Kong) this perhaps may be a necessary but insufficient condition. Nigeria, Burma ad the Philippines are examples of this (hope you had a good trip by the way). It requires that the government have some limits on the scale of the corruption, enough to maintain a self-sustaining mechanism.
What does all this have to do with your debate? A lot, I feel. While it is true that China today is seeing a rising inequality between rich and poor, much like America did in the late 19th century (and as your interlocutors say, since the Reagan-Bush era), overall the country is becoming a more prosperous place. It seems you have tried to say, and I certainly agree with this, that overall the growth that China has undertaken over the past quarter century has benefited the largest number of people and has taken more people out of poverty than any other regime in history, and we should be lauding this achievement rather than denigrating the scale of difference between the village hut and the millionaire's skyscraper.
I am not entirely sure about the corruption being beneficial to growth, certainly it is not true in more mature economies as it leads to dangerous misallocations of resources. But I do think that it may have had actually an early beneficial effect to growth in the first two decades of Deng's reforms. While the CCP is not to be commended for this corruption or the individual initiative that brought it about, they have kept enough of a lid on it to prevent the Chinese economy from spiralling out of control as a result.
Best of luck for your rebuttal! I do sympathize with some aspects of the other side's views, but ultimately find your argument more compelling.
Income inequality is a dangerous idea. As Simon notes, as long as the pie is growing and large numbers of people are getting ahead in life, what does it matter if some are gettign ahead faster. If GDP were 1% in the past and is now 5% that is a 500% advance. An astronomical leap for the masses.
When are people going to realize that we did a 100 year experiment and every time capitalism allevaited poverty better and faster than other systems. Whether it was Marxist Socialism, Fascist Socialism, National Socialism, or the socialism du jour Democratic Socialism, they did all fail (the jury is still out on the last but with 10% plus unemployment Euroland is about to confirm the trend as they have ate their rich already).
Have any of you excoriating Simon actually read Hayek's Road to Serfdom. If so, I would like to hear your critique of where Hayek is wrong. Every one of his predictions has been proven true in the real world. Every faux New Left experiment since Marx wrote his idiotic book has failed.
btw China is now a classic Fascist state, not capitalist. But stepping back from totalitarianism to mere fascism, allowing private property plus the CCP's increasing difficulty in maintaining control has led to the latest gains. Imagine if they would let go and really try capitalism instead of allowing it to floursih in pockets because they can no longer maintain control...
Mao, the false god, a call to drop the diefication of Mao from the CCP's legacy. It won't happen any time soon, but it should. It will take a senior leader of the CCP to publicly renounce Mao and his true history, and that isn't going to happen.
One of the biggest lies taught in university finance courses is discounted cashflow valuations. It's great because it means there are opportunities for investors with a firmer grip on reality. It turns out even in the stock market the long term is 5 years.
Pun of the day: Skinhua by Jeremy on the one Chinese news agency allowed to display pictures like this Carmen Electra portfolio (not safe for work or marriages).
Let me elaborate a little more on my problem with discounted cashflows. The theory is there is a time value of money...you can think of this as how much would that money earn if it was stuck in the bank instead of that investment. The problem with it is the discounting is such that cash flows further into the future are virtually worthless (the exact point depends upon the interest rate used). Now if you're planning to drill an oil well that will last for 50 years, it is plainly ridiculous that the cash generated by the field in the last ten years is valued at very little. Discounted cashflow valuations work well on projects that have a short-ish life span (say less than ten years) and/or a comparitively low discounting rate. There's actually plenty of other problems with the method, such as determining an appropriate discount rate and dealing with changing inflation.
But so long as it's the dominant method taught in finance, that' what the vast majority are stuck with. Like all models it may give a good first cut but then you need to use your noodle. And people who do that are in short supply.
Today's must reads: the Jamestown Foundation's regular China Brief. The two highlights are Frank Ching's look at Hong Kong's leadership shuffle (nothing new but a good summary of the issues at hand) and especially Drew Thompson's The "People's war" against drugs and HIV/AIDS, which disucsses the intersection of China's acknowledgement and clampdown on illicit drugs with its AIDS control campaign. Here's the conclusion but the whole article is worth a read:
As anti-drug efforts intersect with the HIV/AIDS control agenda, the nexus can potentially lead to greater provision of comprehensive drug addiction treatment and temper uncompromising approaches towards drug users and harm reduction within the security and justice apparatuses. The threat of an HIV/AIDS epidemic has made the government and the public more sensitive to the issues of intravenous drug use. Preventing and harm reduction may ultimately require more services to both rural and urban drug users, as well as inmates within the detention system, including treatment, counseling, education, and even skills training to help drug abusers reintegrate into society upon their release. The urgency with which the Chinese government is addressing HIV/AIDS raises the potential for international or multisectoral cooperation within the detention system which would likely lead to incremental reforms and increased transparency.
At the same time the SCMP reports on promising drug rehab efforts in Yunnan province. Article reproduced below the fold. It's promising when countries approach the drugs issue as a health issue rather than a police one.
Yunnan province is to launch a pilot programme designed to put all drug addicts into rehabilitation centres in the latest effort to fight narcotics abuse. Authorities conducted three surveys last year to verify official records and found there were 68,000 drug addicts in the province.
Sun Dahong, vice-director of Yunnan's Public Security Bureau, said the province hoped to expand the capacity of its rehabilitation centres to accommodate 68,000 people in three years so that each addict could spend three months to two years in a centre. The present capacity is 36,000.
He said many addicts discharged from rehabilitation centres returned to their old habits because they did not stay in the centres long enough. "Three months should be enough for them to get rid of the addiction physically, but not psychologically," he said.
Yunnan will also promulgate laws to penalise local officials who do not report cases of drug addiction and there will also be new regulations to isolate HIV-positive drug addicts from other addicts.
The government will also provide funding to help addicts with drug rehabilitation fees. Drug addiction is a criminal offence on the mainland, with addicts sent to mandatory rehabilitation programmes, but they have to pay for their stays in the centres. If they are caught again after being discharged, police can send them to labour re-education centres for up to three years.
Li Yuanzheng , a deputy director of the Ministry of Public Security's narcotics control bureau, said the government had started experiments in five provinces to estimate the number of drug addicts through epidemiological methods.
Only recorded cases are shown in official statistics. Mr Li said the estimates derived from epidemiological methods ranged from 1.6 to 2.2 times the official numbers.
A total of 56,056 addicts were admitted to rehabilitation centres in Yunnan last year, compared with 35,913 in 2003. Just over 6,000 re-offending addicts were sent to re-education centres last year, up from 4,209 in 2003. In the first five months this year, 24,446 people were sent to mandatory rehabilitation centres while 3,877 addicts were sent to re-education centres.
Mr Sun said 10.68 tonnes of drugs were seized in Yunnan last year, including more than eight tonnes of heroin.
He also sounded the alarm over rapidly rising methamphetamine seizures, up 62 per cent in the first five months of the year compared to the same period last year. He said large methamphetamine plants had emerged in the Golden Triangle, where Myanmar, Thailand and Laos share a border, making the fight against the influx of the drug more complex.
Yunnan arrested 585 foreign traffickers last year, up 18 per cent from 2003, while 5,900 traffickers from other provinces were arrested, up 24.5 per cent. Figures for Yunnan-based traffickers were unavailable.
Mr Sun said drug traffickers were increasingly armed and organised, with 28 armed trafficking cases recorded last year and 446.9kg of drugs seized.
"Since the spreading trend of drugs has not been put under control, drug problems in some areas are quite outstanding," a report by the provincial narcotics control bureau said. "Drug problems have intertwined with Aids, ethnic and poverty problems, and seriously affected the stability, ethnic unity and development of the province."
Mr Sun said inspections by Chinese officials had confirmed that 65,864 hectares of poppy farms in northern Myanmar had been turned to ordinary farmland over the past 15 years through a mainland-funded programme.
But the vice-director said it was important that measures were in place to ensure the farms did not revert to poppy growing in the future.
Asiapundit is reporting that Typepad blogs are blocked again in China. Gordon is reporting that this site is blocked in Chengdu, but Chris says it is viewable in Shanghai and others report it viewable in Beijing, Shenzhen and Guangzhou. These sites are doing an audit of where they are blocked, but it appears Typepad is blocked nationally. Please let me know if this site or other sites are blocked or viewable in China.
I've done a short roundup at AP, your site is still fine in Shanghai, though imagethief is noting that it has been blocked elsewhere (and that Horse's Mouth is also being blocked) and ESWN is being filtered more rigorously (though that uses Chinese characters and would be more likely to be filtered) Ironically, the filtered post was an argument "for" censorship.
Ko Wang, a professor of business at California State University, Fullerton, who studies Disney's corporate strategies, told The Standard that Hong Kong shouldn't expect too much from Disney at first, since the company had also flubbed its entrance into Paris and Tokyo, largely through cultural mistakes.
"As a shareholder, there is not much that a government can do,'' said Wang.
More proof of the value of Hong Kong's investment in the park. You would have thought Disney would have learnt some lessons from its previously experiences. But apparently it's not elephants we are dealing with here.
Moreover a company as PR aware as Disney has scored another resounding shot in the foot. From today's SCMP letters page:
Here's to you Mr Robinson, Disney loves you more than we all do...
Tell me why, Mr Robinson [Disneyland Hong Kong group managing director Don Robinson], you and your public relations team refuse any contact with a polite, environmentally aware group of Year Nine students from West Island School, who wish to hand in a petition expressing concern over the inclusion of shark's fin soup on the menu.
I wish to voice my horror at your company's discourtesy, unhelpfulness and lack of sensitivity. Is it really necessary to block phone calls from a 13-year-old, who wants to make an appointment to hand in a petition?
Are you really that afraid of a group of secondary school students?
JULIA BLOIS-BROOKE, Discovery Bay
Now you know what mice are scared of. Disney's head-in-the-sand approach to this issue has been a PR disaster...except with the market they care about the most: the Mainland tourism market.
ESWN discusses income inequality in China. He echoes my point: The trickle-down theory will work as long as everyone is doing better, even if some people do better than others. The big bomb will come on the day when some people do a lot of better while others do a lot worse. China's Premier is very aware of the rural problem, but what are they doing about it?
I'm going to come back to this one: Richard notes and sides with the rise of China's new left. It seems Communism didn't work, but whereas capitalism has lead to hundreds of millions experiencing rising living standards and leaving poverty behind, some Chinese intellectuals are lamenting a reversion to 19th Century laissez-faire style capitalism and plead for "a third way". There is so much wrong with this it will have to be a new post some time later this week.
Note: this post has several updates below, not to mention an interesting discussion with Tom.
Pundita is a recent well deserved addition to the Top Shelf blogroll. An American foreign policy insider, she clearly and lucidly explains this most complex of policy areas. I've been fortunate enough to have been in an email dialogue with her, which has blossomed into two posts (so far) on China. The first is China: ducking reality, where she answers my questions on the direction of American policy towards China. She then follows up with China and the rascal rabbit of life's surprises, which covers Henry Kissinger, the Bush doctrine, bird flu and democracy, by way of Elmer Fudd.
Allow me one comment on today's post. I agree with the thrust of it but I fear you define democracy too tightly. Democracy is not just about voting; it also requires checks and balances; independent, free and strong institutions (courts, press etc); rule of law (in both enforcement and legislation by popular acclaim rather than decree); and respect of private property rights. If we were to chart countries on these yardsticks you'll find China is currently a mess, with the CCP trying to restrict the first two while implementing the second two. Are they compatible? No. That's the true contradiction at the heart of China. But is it sustainable? I fear it is for far longer than most would suspect.
In terms of the US, the vast majority are likely very complacent about democracy but thankfully the system has enough people concerned about it, and enough checks on it, that it can be sustained with only minority interest. I've long thought the vast majority are mostly interested in the basics - food, shelter, rising living standards and a good education for their kids. It's only the few who care about the rest of "that freedom thing". Once China's been democratic for 200 years, I'll forgive some complacency.
Pundita's point about China's "enclavers" is a telling one. Likewise I fully agree with her contention:
China's ruling party says they have a way to beat the devil: Planning. First get the peasants educated, then teach them English, then put them through university where they will study nanotechnology, then gradually introduce more government reforms at the local levels....
Clearly the stepwise process assumes that dolts can't manage democracy. But look at America. First of all, we had a long tradition of only sending dolts to Washington because we couldn't spare the smart ones from their jobs. Second of all, America was a bunch of illiterates as late as....well, the IRS still writes tax forms for people with only a twelfth grade education, and still takes wall-to-wall calls around tax filing time from Americans who can't understand the forms.
Pundita suspects that the way democracy has been presented by advanced Western democracies helped create the perception in the developing world that one has to reach a certain IQ and level of character development before democracy can breed anything more than anarchy.
It's all about the marketing, and the marketing of the "democracy" brand has been pretty poor at times. Or in the words of Glenn Reynolds, democracy is a process, not an end in itself. As Pundita says:
Democracy is a form of government; it's a gizmo for managing decisions and tax money in a large complex society...It [democratic government] furthers human rights and many other wonderful things. But the system itself is just that--a tool. The anarchy comes when you don't know how to work the tool.
Tom, I'm ready to discuss if you've actually got some substance to debate.
Update June 16th
Pundita replies to my email: Never Assume. It clarifies many of the issues and re-inforces the democracy as a process idea. Another good read.
19:45 6/16 And now the next instalment - China and the world: Yes, and back again. This time I take issue with some of the points...email to be reproduced below.
You say Governments better listen, but in cases such as China there are two problems: they don't want to listen and they don't have the mechanisms for listenening. China has never had a system of feedback from "the people" - if there was an issue, the only form of redress would be to take a petition to Beijing and try and see the right person (and this continues today). That's what I was getting at - central planning doesn't work but China (and others) have long had a top-down model of governance. Human history tells us that's been the more common model. Call it tyranny, call it dictatorship...even today it is the "preferred" governance model for a lot of places. Even those trying to transition to democracy are finding the path bumpy to say the least. Look at Russia for an example of one that is now rapidly backsliding into its preferred model. How does the Bush Doctrine deal with this?
Secondly I (being from an economics background) disagree on your analysis of world trade. I get your drift - that world trade meant making deals with the devil. But the fundamental argument comes down to whether living standards can influence politics or is it vice versa? By that I mean if a country's population has rising living standards, people start to have something worth saving, fighting for, protecting and defending. That means they want a voice in how things are run, especially when they are run contrary to their interests. Globalisation and free trade encourage that trend. From my reading of your post you see it the other way around. You actually hit on a key difference - today trade is much "freer", thanks to the WTO. The managed trade of the Cold War was an artifice to support political ideologies. Now trade is a way to raise living standards and encourage understanding across nations and cultures.
I'm not convinced by the co-operation amongst nations argument either. Even Bush and co. attempted multilateralism for Iraq via the UN, even though it was rebuffed. The Iraq war can even be cast as Bush's attempt to strengthen the UN or at least multilateral institutions, by giving force to resolutions. Also witness his putting Wolfowitz into the World Bank. Multilateral institutions matter - what they face is how to recast themselves now the Cold War is over...something they should have done 15 years ago but are only getting around to now. And where you quote Belmont, he notes the EU as one of Chirac's great institutions. And indeed it is - it can be argued the EU has helped solidify the transitions of Eastern Europe, as far afield as Ukraine, and helped human rights and freedoms in Turkey and the Balkans. Like it or not, you've got to give it to the EU. It has been one of the best institutions for spreading freedom and democracy in modern times.
I think the problem with your argument is it mixes up notions of multilateralism with notions of a multipolar world. I'm all for the former and against the latter. That's not a contradiction. A world lead by the US, with the support of the Anglosphere and like minded nations is the best defence (and if needed, offense) against tyranny and dictatorship. That's what we're seeing now.
Update June 17th
The latest instalment, Clairol joins with the barbarian hordes plotting China's overthrow, has an interesting perspective on the relationship between China's peasantry and government. Keep an eye out for the next exciting episode...and if you've got some thoughts, feel free to jump in. The water's warm!
Update June 21st
Pundita concludes the dialogue on America's China policy with US policy on China: Quo vadis? Read the whole thing, but the conclusion:
China's present situation is very complex, and present US policy has ignored the complexity. This had led the US to a passive-aggressive relationship with China.
This in turn helped Beijing (and numerous Western policy analysts) avoid confronting a stark reality: to the extent that China has become successful, they have been carried to success on the back of Western democracies.
So it is now time for American policymakers to gain a clear-eyed view of China -- one that avoids the extremes of demonizing Beijing on the one hand and overlooking the threat that a dictatorship ruling over a large nation poses to civilization, on the other.
There is a summary of all the links on this topic at Pundita's China Dialogues file.
I'm not even sure where to start on these monstrosities.
There is a lot of wrong information {like the bit about Jiang Zemin and the Shanghai Gang} and a lot more disinformation {like the tripe about Clinton and how past military assessments of China were wrong, but the new one is more accurate. check discussions at Peking Duck on that subject, but I've got a few more thoughts that involve the foolishness of the whole Bush Doctrine} involved in these.
This isn't surprising given the track record of the Busheviks to create a political goal and then concoct a story line and details to sell that goal.
But many of the Clinton military assessments were wrong. That's not because of politics, it's because it's ten years later and there's that much more information available.
As for the Bush Doctrine, it might surprise you but really it's not so far removed from Clintonism. Both are about spreading democracy and supporting human rights. They don't even differ that greatly in the means to achieve it - please see Serbia for one example.
This isn't surprising given the track record of the Busheviks to create a political goal and then concoct a story line and details to sell that goal.
Tom, I think you'll find that's what all of politics is about. It's not exclusive to any side of politics.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to do far better than that to convince anyone that Pundita's arguments have no merit.
Thanks for the tip, Simon. I will be sure to check her out as soon as I get a moment. The exchange here on the comment board has only increased my interest!
But many of the Clinton military assessments were wrong. That's not because of politics, it's because it's ten years later and there's that much more information available.
As for the Bush Doctrine, it might surprise you but really it's not so far removed from Clintonism. Both are about spreading democracy and supporting human rights. They don't even differ that greatly in the means to achieve it - please see Serbia for one example.
Actually it is all about politics and not about better intelligence.
And if you actually believe that the Bush Doctrine uses "democracy" as anything but a buzzword as marketing to distract from the initially stated goal of undisputed US hegemony, there isn't enough tea in China to convince you otherwise.
Just don't tell the folks in Uzbekistan or Kazakhstan or Burma or Equitoreal Guinea that the US has any interest but the control of global oil supplies for friends of George and Dick and Condi.
Remember torture is a-okay with the Bush administration and with Glenn as long as it's "our guys" doing it. Remember that rigged elections are a-okay with this administration and with Glenn as long as it's "our guys or gal" that is rigging the elections. Remember that democratically elected governments, such as Chavez in Venezuela, are not okay as long as they do not jump high when George and Dick and Condi say jump.
This IS the Bush Doctrine and democracy is a buzzword to be sprinkled around generously to distract from destruction of liberties at home and mass extrajudicial imprisonment and torture abroad.
Let's take a few examples: Iraq, Ukraine, Lebanon. Lybia giving up its nuclear weapons program. If US hegemony means a spreading of liberal capitalist democracy, then bring it on. I'm not saying the execution of this strategy has been perfect, far from it. But it is a continuation of what Clinton was trying to achieve. You can't have one without the other.
You do have a valid point on the line to be drawn between restrictions of civil liberties in the fight against terror. That's a very seperate argument. I'm with you in thinking Gitmo is a travesty and indefensible.
No, Simon, the connection to Clinton is a f*ckin' radical right cannard to try and make the PNAC agenda seem less radical.
Clinton went in to Bosnia after the racial cleansing camps made the front cover of Time. Bush decided to go in to Iraq BEFORE 9/11 and would find the excuses to do so later. In fact Bush and company fabricated the evidence to go in to Iraq, which is starting to lead for calls of impeachment.
Lebanon: elections were already scheduled there before Bush got involved. It was already a stable, though obviously "compromised" democracy. Unfortunately for GW and company, the election didn't produce an anti-Syrian government. We'll watch with interest.
Ukraine: Same situation. Don't like the election results, use "people power" to change the rules for the election to bias for your guys to win.
Afghanistan: Same situation. What's the latest count on Karzai delaying elections?
Iraq: US cancelled local elections within a month of the invasion, because it would have produced anti-US governments. Change the rules for the elections {proportional representation with lists that are nation-wide only} to produce results more favourable {which meant in this Allawi the puppet and Chalabi the con artist} having some swing in the final government despite little local appeal.
P.S. check today's The Standard on the Iraqi Kurds and extrajudicial kidnappings and relocations with the support of the US Army in the command city for Iraq's northern oil.
These aren't "liberal capitalist democracy", but they are attempts at installing pro-US governments in countries with leadership that previously opposed the US hegemony.
In fact Tom you've hit the nail on the head without realising it. Clinton went into Bosnia...and Bush went into Iraq, premedidated or not. Iraq had also grossly abused its citizens' human rights as well as defied numerous UN resolutions and the ceasefire agreement after Kuwait. Yes, Iraq also sits on 10% of the world's oil. Which makes it significant not just for the reasons Clinton went into Bosnia, but also because the economic future of the world was potentially at stake.
I'm puzzled by your other counter-examples. Are you saying when "people power", an expression of popular will, overthrows elites then that's a bad thing? the elections in both Lebanon and Ukraine were far cleaner than anything they've had for a long time. Each are complicated situations with their own nuances, but in each case Bush doesn't determine the result. Hell he didn't even have that much impact in either case. Rather his doctrine has set the conditions in place for such "revolutions" to occur...a domino effect.
George W certainly isn't a fan of Chavez but they voted for the guy and Bush puts up with it.
I don't see a conspiracy to install pro-US Governments around the world. On that we'll have to agree to disagree.
Sorry Tom you are dead wrong on Bush. Prior to 9/11 he was isolationist and had no desire for any entanglement in any foreign adventures. In fact he wanted removal from foreign affairs even more than Bill Clinton did, to focus on his domestic agenda, in the 00 election.
Clinton wanted to spend as little time, energy, and political capital on foreign affairs as possible. This is why he consistently turned away from any hard choices with bin Laden (turning down extradition from Sudan in 96; chances to use military force to kill him in 98, 99, and 00). Clinton chose the minimal risk strategy in Bosnia and Kosovo, and chose missile and bomb strikes against Iraq and Saddam in 98-99 (Operation Desert Fox). Bush during the campaign didn't even want THAT much involvement, citing Haiti as an example of what not to do. Nation building. He meant it and during his early Presidency his big issue in foreign affairs was ... closer ties to Vincente Fox and Mexico.
9/11 changed EVERYTHING, most notably the perception of risk. If an attack could be launched on NYC and DC from Afghanistan of all places, the need for strong action to kick ass as much as it could be kicked, to send a strong message, was seen as needed in a bipartisan way. If ANYTHING Bush has been too restrictive by far, refusing to go to war with Iran and Pakistan over their sheltering bin Laden (one of them has him) and Al Qaeda elements. If we had a SERIOUS War President like FDR we'd have had a five million man military, and simply CRUSHED both those regimes. Then gone the hell home with a promise we'd come back if someone was stupid enough to poke the giant awake again.
Don't let your anti-Americanism and Bush hatred delude you. If anything Bush has been a godsend to the Islamic world, because he's held back America's awesome power. He resisted attempts to use strategic nuclear weapons in response to 9/11. He didn't invade Syria, or Saudi, or any other country but Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which were done deals after 9/11 even if Gore had won in 00. Despite later Partisan wrangling, Dems as well as Reps supported getting rid of Saddam as unfinished business and a demonstration ass-kicking for the world on why it's a bad idea to provoke the US post-9/11.
Far too much of the world seems to think that "9/11 taught America a lesson." Which it did but not the one they think. Most Americans feel that the lesson was not that people around the world didn't love them (which is what the Press and Dems think, and has about as much relation to the American populace as Billionaire Bill Gates does); but rather that nasty terrorists and their appeasers and partners did not FEAR AMERICA ENOUGH. We were not tough and feared enough and so were attacked. THAT is the lesson, not that "hey America it's your turn and you deserve it" which much of the foreign press seems to think was the lesson. It is the height of stupidity to attack a nation with a fleet of nuclear attack submarines.
The real danger is post-Bush there is no one with the credibility and political strength to hold back the American people sadly WHEN another mass-casualty terrorist atrocity kills thousands if not more Americans. Given that we as a nation flattened most of Japan and Germany in WWII, and Curtis LeMay was busy planning 10,000 plane raids to kill half of Japan from the air before Hirohito's surrender, provoking Americans with mass terrorism is a stupid idea the stupidity of which has been lost in the post-Saddam Iraqi mess and general idiotic press chatter. Bush has been yelling stop! and when he exits in 08 there will be no one to brake the inevitable American Anger and real WWII style mobilization after the next attack.
Mr Rockford, it's you who are dead wrong. And I'm sure you know it. Bush's team, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Bolton, and company had written it all out before. As I'm sure you are quite aware.
But it is so cute when you say I'm anti-American. Another wingnut buzzword futilely thrown out to try and discredit the PNAC crap.
As for Furious George holding back the US... *snort* Furious George has been doing his best to ride the political advantage of the corpses of 9/11 as far as he can and he'll do the same after another attack. If there was to be one, and there won't, unless it's a wingnut like McVeigh again.
As for the Ukraine, Bush and company pushed very hard that election methods would change between the first and second election there. Not just closer scrutiny to ensure free and fair elections, but changed the basic procedures on how campaigning is done and how ballots could be cast.
As for Lebanon, the Busheviks pushed hard that their would be only one source of political funding from outside Lebanon allowed in. That would be from the Busheviks and not from Syria.
The Busheviks don't want fairness, in the sense that equals compete. They want their side to win and democracy, freedom, and fairness have nothing to do with it.
That's why the Busheviks continue to support torture and dictators around the world, which the wingnuts don't want to talk about, because it shows that "freedom on the march" isn't a doctrine, it's merely a rationalisation to cover up their crimes against humanity.
Some observations from the capital of the Philippines:
1. I have never seen semi-public, bright pink male urinals lining major streets until now. What do the women do?
2. On the subject of women, Filipinas must have the highest bust to waist ratio in the world.
3. Everyone will warn you that Manila's traffic is terrible and you need leave leave plenty of time between appointments. That's a lie.
4. When the hotel has chains, sniffer dogs, metal detectors, a bomb sweep and a bag check before you walk in the front door, you know you're not in Kansas anymore.
5. When the lady at check-in gives you a five minute lecture of the dangers of walking around the city, the typical scams and ways to avoid being mugged, you know you're not in Kansas anymore.
6. If you enjoy living in cliches such as a couple of ales in a major hotel cocktail bar, complete with slightly out of tune senior citizens band belting out numbers from the "good old days", secluded couples engaging in the oldest form of commerce and dated furniture, I highly recommend the Shangri La Makati.
China's income gap widened in the first quarter of the year, with 10 percent of the nation's richest people enjoying 45 percent of the country's wealth, state press reports said.
China's poorest 10 percent had only 1.4 percent of the nation's wealth, the Xinhua news agency reported...The income gap has become increasingly worrisome for the government of once-egalitarian China, especially as low- and middle-income earners are increasingly quick to accuse officials of pilfering state assets in the country's dash toward market capitalism.
"There are two gaps that need to be addressed," Li Xiaoxi, head of the economic and resource management institute of Beijing Normal University, was quoted as saying. "The first is the very wide gap between different social groups. The other is the astonishing economic development gap between regions."
China's ruling party is a misnomer. Dealing with the tensions that arise from this growing gap is and will remain the Chinese leadership's greatest task. So long as even the poorest feel their living standards are rising (albeit not as quickly as their richer coastal cousins), the tensions are bearable. Whenever the CCP feels pressured, they are quick to whip out the nationalism card as a distraction, the most obvious examples being Taiwan and Japan. But the undercurrent of ethnic and class tensions remain.
I'll be travelling to a potentially coup-ridden South East Asian archipelago on Monday. Civil strife permitting posting should resume on Tuesday afternoon.
The weekly summary of my most popular links...
1. Sarong Party Girl. Not surprising given the fuss. Like in days of old, I only read her site for the posts...and she's a damn good writer.
2. Sarong Party Frens. Lesson - having 'Sarong' and 'Party' in your blog name works.
3. Xiaxue. Singapore's top blogger with her top on.
6. Pundita. You can keep following the fascinating China and Bush Doctrine discussion, summarised and linked via Pundita does China. The latest instalment, Clairol joins with the barbarian hordes plotting China's overthrow, has an interesting perspective on the relationship between China's peasantry and government. If you want to understand Bush administration thinking on China and the world, read it.
ESWN discusses Donald Rumsfeld, what China's media does not (or cannot) report and ponders the choices "free media" makes. The potential of blogging is it makes the choices of a mainstream media editor irrelevant. Information wants to be free and the internet is the (too?) perfect medium for it.
Wretchard says the lack of public demonstrations in the Philippines is out of respect for the constitutional process...but they will be forced to because Philippine institutions cannot remove venal officials, [so] people take to the streets to oust them directly thereby weakening the institutions still further.
You knew McDonalds was bad for you, but did you know a Big Mac can strangle, at least in Japan (Note: don't tell me about differences about correlation and causation. It ruins quirky jokes).
Today's Chutzpah Award winner: the Hong Kong Jockey Club. Today's Standard reports the HKJC is warning the slide in betting revenue will soon affect operations and its charity and tax contributions. Naturally they are pressuring the Government as it contemplates reforms to tax gross profits rather than betting turnover, allowing the HKJC to pay better odds. The club thinks it can grab HK$24 billion of the estimated HK$60 billion in illegal gambling in the city. The club's race betting turnover is around HK$62 billion. If turnover falls below HK$50 billion, the city's biggest taxpayer and charity will dip into loss, affecting the Government's budget and the many philanthropic works the club sponsors.
So far, so dire.
Yet the HKJC is proposing to spend a staggering HK$1.2 billion to build the facilities to host equestrian events for the 2008 Olympics, according to the SCMP. To do so they will force all the athletes currently training at the Sports Institute in Sha Tin to relocate. At the same time the international body governing equestrian events wants it to be held in Beijing, not Hong Kong. But Beijing isn't sure if they can guarantee the disease free conditions needed.
Let's repeat. The down-on-their-luck HKJC is prepared to spend HK$1.2 billion on a 2 week, low rating parade of prancing ponies and show jumpers and they want a tax break to compete against illegal gambling.
Why doesn't the HKJC save itself the money, and instead spend the saved money on something that will last longer than 2 weeks...say a hospital? Or just write a cheque to every Hong Kong resident for HK$170. I know which one most Hong Kongers would prefer.
Two examples of how technology is outpacing attempts to deal with it:
1. China is recruiting more internet censors and commentators. Today's unlinkable SCMP reports Beijing is hiring up to 4,000 new censors to watch over the city's cybercafes and ISPs. Can China's rapidly growing censor army hope to monitor the dealings of an estimated (and rapidly growing) 100 million Chinese internet users? Clearly the answer is no. Even with the help of software, China's fighting a losing battle for control. The sooner the CCP get their head out the sand and face that fact the better their chances of dealing it. Update: CDT links to another story on the censor recruitment drive.
2. The alleged vote-rigging phrase is the Philippines top ringtone, despite a Government ban and attempts to clamp down. The alleged voice of President Arroyo says "Hello, hello Garci [Electoral Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano]? So will I still lead by more than one M?," all to the tune of In the Club by rapper 50 Cent. The "one M" allegedly refers to a conspiracy to win last year's Presidential election by more than one million votes.
That's why these are called disruptive technologies. And now you know why Kim Il-Jong is scared of mobile phones.
The more things change...The Standard reports the IPO of China's Bank of Communications is likely to be the sixth most popular IPO ever in Hong Kong. Retail orders were HK$110 billion, making the issue 150 times over subscribed. Clearly retail investors aren't worried by bad loans, a murky regulatory environment, credit and risk controls and all those other pesky things.
Now read the following passage from the excellent Mr. China by Tim Clissold, talking about the previous China bubble:
But the excitement in the domestic economy was nothing in comparison to the delirium sparked off outside China. Chief executives from all over the world stampeded into China in a cavalry charge waving checkbooks under the noses of their smiling but slightly bemused hosts. For a time, it looked as though many of them had abandoned conventional business logic in the search for the mythical "billion-plus market" while money poured into the country. The investment frenzy soon gained a self-sustaining momentum that probaby even surprised [paramount leader] Deng, its hoary old instigator.
The real detonation, however, occured in the financial markets. with the China investment frenzy at its height, in early 1993 an obscure Hong Kong registered car company with assets on the mainland applied to list on the stock exchange. It wanted to raise about eight million dollars, but it received application monies for just under four billion! Encouraged by these wild successes, the Chinese government authorised nine domestic companies to list in Hong Kong....
At the end of the previous year [i.e. late 1992], a small bus company called Jinbei had gone public in New York and raised millions of dollars; it was the first listing of a Chinese company on the NYSE, but now investors wanted more.
Amazingly Hong Kong is witnessing not just one but two simultaneous frenzies: the China frenzy and the Macau frenzy.
Thomas Barnett thinks China will become a world leader in pollution control and abatement within a generation and is desperately racing not against America, but itself in order to convert its "literate peasants" into an urban middle class. That's the problem with the "China threat" theory - China's got far too many domestic issues to deal with to worry too much about the rest of the world...with the always important exception of Taiwan.
To find latest news stories about Nancy Kissel or anything else (like chocolate couture) through google, use news-dot-google-dot-com (comments section doesn't let me type out the address)
Hong Kong is considered one of the best places to work in Asia for helpers, partly because of the strict contract and labour laws that govern their employment. But the theory does not translate to practice. There has been a massive shift towards employment of Indonesian helpers instead of Filipinas, partly because employers can get away with paying Indonesians far less than the minimum wage without fear. Now let's contrast two articles in today's newspapers.
The Standard says cheated employees 'will have to blow the whistle' if they've been cheated on salaries by their employers, and testify if they want redress, otherwise the Government won't help them. The article is concerned with Government contractors but the same applies for domestic helpers. For proof, let's turn to a staggering case reported in the SCMP:
A Labour Department suggestion that a domestic helper who complained about harassment, death threats and abuse by her employer should be less sensitive and focus on her work has been described as "hopeless" by a judge... Under discussion was a Labour Department reply to a five-page hand-written letter sent by Ms Aquino detailing the extensive abuse she said she was suffering at the hands of her employers, Betty So Mei-ngor and her husband, Leung To-kwong.
In the letter, dated December 7, 2003, Ms Aquino alleged Mr Leung wanted to kill her, that he and his daughters had tortured her, and that he was demanding $40,000 from her because their dog had got onto the sofa. She claimed Ms So constantly yelled at and belittled her, fined her, withheld money and threatened her with violence.
Project officer Kwok Fu-ming from the department's Tuen Mun branch office replied on Christmas Eve that year. "Do you think you should be so sensitive to the insulting words exhibited by the employers," he wrote after saying the contents of the letter had been noted. Focus on your job and reflect your feeling toward your employers' temperament. Should you need further service, approach Family Services Centres of Social Welfare Department or other non-governmental services at your district."
Discussing whether or not to call Mr Kwok as a witness with Ms Aquino's representative, David MacKenzie-Ross, Judge To said the response was "hopeless"...Ms Aquino alleges she was sacked after the family discovered she had three deformed fingers. It is alleged that, knowing she could not sack her for having a deformity, Ms So instituted a campaign of harassment to try to get her to quit.
Ms Aquino documented the haranguings she said she received from Ms So as well as the items for which she was fined and forced to replace or pay for out of her own pocket. These included being fined $5 for eating a piece of bread and $50 for not closing the refrigerator properly.
Ms So has denied she dismissed Ms Aquino because of her disability. The hearing continues next week.
You would think the Labour Department's job is to intervene in cases like this to protect employees. You'd be wrong. Is it because of the undercurrent of racism in this city, where helpers are often considered slaves and sub-human? Is it because this city is based on protecting the big over the little in commerce? Is it because a poor city rapidly became a rich one? Is it simply incompetence from Hong Kong's "underpaid" civil servants?
Domestic helpers are taxpayers in this city, despite their low wages. They pay and average tax rate that is higher than what a person earning HK$1 million pays. There is something very, very wrong with the system.
(13:56) Three years ago, I received the most outlandish of all corporate grants: for three months I would get paid to live in Beijing and play punk rock. My benefactor was a stationery corporation that manufactured address labels, file dividers... (via Shanghai Slide)
I'm not a fan of chain emails - they are the modern equivalent of junk mail. Well, were. Now the blogging world has caught up with memes. If not for Fabian being amongst my favourite bloggers, I would have ignored the latest one. But he has tagged me, so...
How many books I've owned
You don't own books, as the ad goes, you merely look after them for the next generation. Usually they're pupled and turned into cardboard. As Shakespeare said in another context, in the end we are all but food for worms. Books are the same. Yet that doesn't explain why Mrs M and I have a compulsion to keep almost every book we've ever read. Given we're both bookaholics, it is a substantial number.
A perfect afternoon is one spent browsing a bookstore. I like to dream one day I'll own a small bookshop but I fear with Borders et al, the small bookstore will be going the way of books.
If "The Turtle Cannot Fly" book I read to JC last night doesn't count, it would be My Life as a Quant by Emanuel Derman. Prior to that was Freakonomics, which I highly recommend.
Five books that meant a lot to me
Perfume by Patrick Suskind. This was the first I read that had a memorable impact. Brilliantly written (and translated).
American Psycho">American Pschyco and Bonfire of the Vanities. Two books that tackle essentially the same subject (the dysfunction of yuppie-ism) in very, very different ways.
Liar's Poker. The legendary book of Wall Street legends. A bible of the "old days" of finance.
I could go on but in reality almost every book I read has some kind of influence on me. I have a rule: if I don't enjoy the book after 50 pages, I give up. As my Da so wisely told me (albeit in relation to wine): there are so many good books in the world, and our time on this planet is limited, so why waste your precious time with a bad one? Mrs M, on the other hand, insists on readnig through a book even if she hates it.
I'm not passing this meme to anyone in particular. If you're interested, post about it or leave a comment here.
Colossus: The Rise and Fall of the American Empire, by Niall Ferguson
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1594200130/qid=1118879007/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-4477264-4543134?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
The last book I read (other than that)
The Sling and the Stone, by T. X. Hammes
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0760320594/ref=pd_ir_imp/104-4477264-4543134
Five books that meant a lot to me
Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Defense of ambition property, and non-violence.
"Who is John Galt?"
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0451191145/ref=pd_sxp_f/104-4477264-4543134?v=glance&s=books
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert Pirsig
Quality, teaching, and right thinking.
"What the hell is Quality?"
http://www.virtualschool.edu/mon/Quality/PirsigZen/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060958324/qid=1118879435/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-4477264-4543134?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
The Good Earth, Sons, A House Divided, by Pearl Buck
Understanding extended families
"Secretly he was pleased that his son had invited guests, but he felt it would not do to give out anything but complaints before his new daughter-in-law lest she be set from the first in ways of extravagance."
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0743272935/qid=1118879469/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-4477264-4543134?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
To me it is indisputable that those democratic demands raised, possibly naively and with not much understanding of the costs they would entail, in Tiananmen Square in 1989 relate to real inalienable democratic rights that are currently enjoyed by real people all over the world, and which do not exist in China. The most important of those right now is the right to a genuinely independent free press. Only in this way can the Chinese people learn from the mistakes of the past and learn from them who not to trust. Is it ethnocentric and culturally insensitive to demand a free press? Only if we believe that countries such as China, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea have some deep cultural connection which means that their people, unlike ourselves, must be permanently kept in the dark about what has happened, what is happening and what could happen in their own and in other countries.
Keep an eye on this site.
* (16:47) Oxblog takes on Kissinger's China op-ed and as an alternative offers China is the one that's going to decide what kind of relationship we have with it. We should speak out on behalf of democracy and human rights but never pretend that our expressions of interest can change the course of Chinese politics...Strengthen our alliance with Japan and other allies in the Pacific. And, if at all possible, avoid indulging ourselves in the willful naivete of the realists. I'm puzzled as to why being realistic is being willfully naive about China. It seems a contradiction in terms.
simon - i think you missed the big story of the day - the thrashing of the australian cricket team last night back in blighty. i'm sure it was just an oversight and look forward to your thoughts on the result in the no doubt imminent update to this post.
Hi Simon, I'm a relative newcomer to the China blogging scene but I've now built up quite a few things on my site. Would you be interested in providing a reciprocal link?
First of all, thank you very much for linking my blog, I am most honoured, as most englishmen would say.
However, there are a few amendments on the title I think you should make, regarding to your description of my blog I wrote:
1) I'm applying British law of copyright on this matter, although it can be said that British laws and HK laws are very similar in essence, I don't want to take any bet on it, because I know nothing of law ad probably make a mickey out of myself by doing so already.
2) It's not really 'thorough', because I have only been reading those acts for half a day, and with no case studies to work on. However, I will try to update that blog whenever I managed to get some information out of those acts, or even consulted some lawyers.
That's it really, and thanks again for linking my blog! It's nice to see that you've done a good job providing nutritious reads. Thank you again.
One last thing - can I link your blog to mine as well? :)
"I'm puzzled as to why being realistic is being willfully naive about China. It seems a contradiction in terms".
There's no contradiction. Kissinger description of China doesn't match with reality.
"Realist" school of thinking today is realist only in name.
Very bad article and very good fisking by Oxblog.
Hong Kong's civil servants are outraged at the consultant chosen to review their pay, says the SCMP:
Civil servants say they have no confidence in the government's salary review after learning that it is being carried out by a consultancy that helped a business group lobby for a civil service pay cut two years ago. Unionists were infuriated to discover yesterday that the project to compare their pay levels with the private sector had been awarded to Watson Wyatt Worldwide.
The firm conducted a survey for the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce in 2003, which found some civil servants' salaries exceeded those of private-sector counterparts by more than 200 per cent.
The union complaints is the first hint the Governmetn has found the right people for the job. But Hong Kong's civil servants are amongst the world's best, they will argue. They certainly get a lot of practice, says another SCMP article on the Hong Kong nanny state:
The announcement begins innocuously with a pleasant ditty before getting down to the nitty gritty. "Show your parents how much you care," the cheery voice says. "Take them to the dentist."
No, it is not a hospital radio spot, nor is it an announcement in an orthodontist's waiting room. And it certainly isn't a joke. This odd snippet of neighbourly advice is, in fact, a public announcement broadcast across the state-run RTHK radio, slipped between an hourly news bulletin and the latest pop hits.
Instead of encouraging a flood of elderlies to the dentist, it caused widespread hilarity. "I guess the days of a good old bunch of flowers have gone," quipped radio DJ Phil Whelan, one of the station's presenters required by law to play such announcements of public interest (API) each hour.
The dentist API is among a multitude of announcements and notices stating what can seem blindingly obvious that have flourished in Hong Kong in recent years, baffling visitors and earning the city a reputation as a nannying state.
For a territory that claims to have the world's freest economy, Hong Kong's 6.9 million people live under a tyranny of petty rules and regulations, say critics. "They are in the rise, undoubtedly," says Chinese University sociologist Chan Kim-mun. "Residents tend to tune them out, but visitors certainly notice them."
From codes preventing schoolboys from having curly hair to TV ads telling them how to carry textbooks; from "no sitting" signs in malls to "no spitting" notices on ferries; and from warnings on entering manholes to laws against loud music at concerts, almost every aspect of life is covered by a regulation. Among RTHK's incongruous spots are those that offered advice on buying a licence for your pet whale shark and donating blood to make you look younger. "I once got a small reprimand for saying on air that I was embarrassed to be a broadcaster after playing a particularly moronic one of these," admits Whelan. "An apology did not pass my lips."
The proliferation of banal notices and warnings have left many feeling Hong Kong is giving its rival Singapore - whose laws against chewing gum, oral sex and leaving toilets unflushed earned it the nickname Singa-bore - a run for its money. The tendency to over-regulate appears to have grown out of the panic brought about by the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (Sars) outbreak in 2003 - which killed 299 people here - produced a baffling array of contradictory warnings. "During Sars, there were two announcements that ran constantly in Hong Kong on TV," says commentator Nury Vittachi, who has written several books of observations on Hong Kong's mangled public signage. "One said 'Join hands to fight Sars' and the other said [to avoid transmitting disease] 'Don't shake people's hands - wave hello and good bye instead'.
"In other words, it was: Hold hands. Don't hold hands." Another pair of hygiene-promotional ads at the same time said "Wash vegetables under running water", while the next one said "Don't let taps run: save water".
The need for stringent social guidelines is contrary to the Confucian philosophy prevalent in China. Confucius taught that civilisations maintained order through understanding and education, not through laws and regulations. However, according to Chinese University's Chan, Hong Kong's obsession with rules has little to do with Chinese cultural beliefs and more to do with the territory's British colonial past. "It is partly a hangover from the days of British rule and British bureaucracy," Chan said. "Our legal system and bureaucratic system was handed to us by the British." A culture of overloaded regulation was also born of the city's status as a huge immigrant melting pot.
"Those signs are there to inform the foreigners - the immigrants," Chan adds. "This is a city of outsiders and the feeling has always been that they need to be educated in our ways of behaviour." According to Chan, most Hong Kongers simply ignore the signs. Mainland Chinese visitors, on the other hand, admire them. "China is a country of Draconian laws but they are not really enforced," says Chan. "When mainland Chinese see those signs and hear those announcements they imagine that the laws are upheld all the time."
With some 25 million tourists expected this year alone, the chances of Hong Kong's obsession with keeping visitors in order is unlikely to diminish soon, leaving RTHK's Whelan relishing future announcements. "Watch out for those all time classics: 'When walking, remember to put one foot in front of the other', 'When sleeping remember to close your eyes'," jokes Whelan.
Good old Nury, always ready to help out on the mangled English signs. And nice to blame the British for the trouble. I have previously noted such paternalistic notices on water bills as well as the APIs on TV.
STROLLING ALONG Lower Albert Road, I find the knife-sharpening noise actually becoming louder. It is emanating from deep inside the Civil Service Bureau, which has had the uncharacteristic presence of mind to appoint Watson Wyatt to compare salaries in our bloated, overpaid, parasitic public sector with those in our clean-living, wealth-creating, self-reliant and parsimonious private one. The very mention of the consultant’s name sets civil service union leaders frothing at the mouth. It was Watson Wyatt who, in a 2003 survey for the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, uncovered the enormity of the civil service’s over-remuneration. It was a time of pestilence and simmering popular rebellion in the Big Lychee, and the wimps of the General Chamber swept the shocking material under the carpet out of horror. But the basic truth was out – insulated from deflation, competition, market forces, outsourcing and accountability to taxpayers, members of the world’s most arrogant civil service were being paid 200 percent in excess of (that’s in excess of) private-sector counterparts.
The spoilt, bed-wetting brats of the civil service unions will shriek that Woodrow Wyatt are drug-addled, devil-worshipping, child-molesting goat-fellators, when all the world knows they are mind-numbingly tedious accountants and actuaries, devoid of personalities, who have been performing dull but worthy tasks for the Hong Kong Government for years. The tragedy is that Donald Tsang, the ultimate civil servant, will soon be in the kitchen, instructing his underlings to put the knives away. The dogs of bureaucracy need to be slit at the throat, hung up to bleed dry, eviscerated and butchered – but it won’t happen. By how much would our taxes fall if the Government sent 100,000 back-office and paper-shuffling jobs to Shenzhen or Wuhan? Or Urumqi? Meanwhile, overstaffed, overpaid functionaries in need of empires to build, markets to interfere in, and projects to squander my money on decide to start running the Hong Kong computer game industry.
Note the link to the original Watson Wyatt report.
Why doesn't the Hong Kong civil service do what their counterparts around the world do? Instead of fleecing the innocent taxpayer, allow their pay and conditions to be cut and instead be funded by those who most need their services. So the police could be funded by triads, lands department by property developers and so on. Some call that graft and corruption. I call it user pays. And it saves us all a fortune! Talk about win-win.
Are we going to get APIs telling us to be nice to our underpaid and overworked civil servants?
The police have little to say on the matter because, as Nelson Ng, chief information officer for the police public relations branch, said, "We haven't actually got the plan put together.''
Ng said police have yet to receive any notice from protesters, and so security preparations have been delayed...Commissioner of Police Dick Lee said Monday the police have no idea how many demonstrators to expect, or what will happen. ``We do not have sufficient information,'' he said.
Normally I'd be worried. But in fact the Hong Kong taxpayer has been funding both sides of this cause. As I said before, the police should make it clear to the protesters they are personally and directly liable for the costs and damage they cause. And the police could outsource the crowd control the various bouncers from nearby Wan Chai. They're very effective at dealing with the irrational and incoherent.
Now it's time to update the index. In a joint effort with CSR Asia we're calling on volunteers around the world to help.
What does it take? We need three things:
1. Your location (city and country).
2. The price of a Big Mac at your local McDonalds.
3. The hourly wage (in local currency) of a worker at that McDonalds.
Please send the data to simon[at]simonworld[dot]mu[dot]nu and please help spread the word. The more data the better. Once compiled we'll publish the results.
In return feel free to eat the burger once you've got the data. Have fries with it to really complete the experience.
Hi, Simon.
The article on NK restaurants is an insult to the intelligence, common sense and NK starving people (without considering all the inaccuracies and absurdities it presents). A proof that not everything is blogged is worth our time.
Do you remember when European and American intellectuals visited Stalin Gulag and everything they were able to describe was the happiness of sovietic farmers? Now, we have Kim Jong Il restaurants.
I think that when one day we'll look at the eyes of NK people we'll have a lot to explain to them.
Mark Steyn's piece on China is, typically, a mix of the sensible with the incendiary. Steyn divines sees two Chinas:
On the one hand, there's the China the world gushes over - the economic powerhouse that makes just about everything in your house. On the other, there's the largely unreconstructed official China - a regime that, while no longer as zealously ideological as it once was, nevertheless clings to the old techniques beloved of paranoid totalitarianism: lie and bluster in public, arrest and torture in private.
He goes on to say that inevitably the two systems will collide:
If the People's Republic is now the workshop of the world, the Communist Party is the bull in its own China shop.
So far the CCP have proved incredibly adept at dealing with the forces their economic reforms have released. The CCP is not even Communist but nationalist. In other words, we might not like it but the CCP has "form".
Steyn divines the problem of the current economic setup:
But Maoists with stock options are still Maoists - especially when they owe their robust portfolios to a privileged position within the state apparatus.
Here I take issue: even in the United States being in a priveleged position helps with success. The difference is in China it's a matter of being a Government official rather than a company director. Indeed even being the relative of an American Government official or politician can confer massive advantages. We're talking matters of degree, not type. And can you really call these people today "Mao-ists"? What does that mean? I find it difficult to see what that statement means other than a trite soundbite.
Moving onto the latest hot topic, intellectual property rights:
...new China's contempt for the concept of intellectual property arises from the old China's contempt for the concept of all private property: because most big Chinese businesses are (in one form or another) government-controlled, they've failed to understand the link between property rights and economic development.
Yet this is changing rapidly. The push to listing the big state-owned banks on the stockmarket, the growing private sector and torrent of foreign investment are all forcing China to codify and enforce property rights. Furthermore "old" China's contempt for property rights only extends back to the Communist takeover. Prior to that private property rights did exist in various forms. Finally China's theft of intellectual property is actually simply following a well-worn economic development model: that so successfully used by South Korea and Japan to name but two examples. Here's where Steyn comes off the rails:
China hasn't invented or discovered anything of significance in half a millennium, but the careless assumption that intellectual property is something to be stolen rather than protected shows why.
That's one hell of a statement. Besides being unprovable it is also meaningless. For the past 500 years China was mostly a relatively poor country that wasn't accused of intellectual property theft until the last few years as it has rapidly developed. Steyn's point is a valid one - China's advance will eventually rely as much as its capacity for creativity and intellectual value-add as manufacturing. But in aggregate that day is not here, yet.
The article compares China with India:
India, by contrast, with much less ballyhoo, is advancing faster than China toward a fully-developed economy - one that creates its own ideas...The return on investment capital is already much better in India than in China.
That's news to anyone who's followed both countries. Indeed Indian politicians lament how far behind China the Indian economy remains and discussions continue whether India's democracy hinders its economic development (for mine it doesn't, but that's another matter). If India's return on investment exceeded China's, India would be drowning in a wave of foreign investment and China receiving a trickle. That is not the case, partly because India's economy remains largely rule-bound and restrictive compared to China. And don't mention that Communists effectively hold the balance of power in India at the moment.
Steyn's conclusion:
China won't advance to the First World with its present borders intact. In a billion-strong state with an 80 per cent rural population cut off from the coastal boom and prevented from participating in it, "One country, two systems" will lead to two or three countries, three or four systems. The 21st century will be an Anglosphere century, with America, India and Australia leading the way. Anti-Americans betting on Beijing will find the China shop is in the end mostly a lot of bull.
There is very little danger of China splitting as its economy advances. A major concern of the CCP leadership is ensuring the peasantry enjoy some of the economic gains of the coast. While rural incomes lag those of the coast, they are rising. Indeed it could be argued it is a true case of trickle-down economics. The paranoia of the final sentence belies the rest of the article. Believing this could be China's century does not exclude it being an "Anglosphere" century. Nor is it anti-American to bet on Beijing.
The world isn't binary, black or white, a zero sum game. It is fair to say the Communists may have sown the seed of their own destruction with economic reform. It is not fair or even true that China's emergence will come at a cost to the rest of the world.
Australia!?!? Who knew Oceania was going to be setting any geopolitical trends?
In all seriousness though, I agree with your assessment over this article but I feel you are being too charitable. That this was opinion/editorial is duely noted, that it is also pretty stupid should be given more attention. Mark Steyn's article, whoever the hell he is, is essentially a summation of Angry American (though I understand he is British, someone ought to inform him that his empire is dead and gone and living through it's surrogate, the US, is unbecoming) Conservative talking points. Essentially a slew of bravado mixed with contempt with a generous dashing of ignorance.
Forgoeing the obvious problems with establishing Chinese cultural norms by quoteing from an early 20th century American popular fiction writer. The article only continues from there to pile idiocy upon idiocy.
His noting of jail journalists is admirable, his contrast of it to Chinese economic developement is nonsensical. There is no coorelation between the two and China can and has continued to develop irrespective of any number of jailed journalists.
The author obviouslly hasn't a clue about the complexities of PRC-DPRK history that governs the relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang but covers his gross ignorance by using a gangster metaphor, subtle.
Calling present day CCP members "maoists" is a non-sequitor, but is an insult (at least for his regular readership) to denote an even more radical brand of communists. Of course it that neither Steyn nor his readers even know the definition of the word and maoist doesn't even begin to describe China's present communists. When was the last time you saw Hu Jintao advocating militant agrarian based revolution aimed at the destruction of capitalist order and the total restructuring of society.
Honestly theres so much more wrong with this article I hardly know where to continue and this simple comment has already gone far longer than I intended. I have to hand it to you Simon that you've done an admirable job of debunking this sorry excuse of an "informed" opinion.
You're right re Maoists - that's a particularly silly part of the article.
The shame of it is the underlying message is a valid one: that China needs to allow more intellectual freedom to benefit fully from its economic growth and that all the China hype does not necessarily mean this will be China's century. As I said in the post, it's not an either/or situation. Unfortunately too many see it as such.
"For the past 500 years China was mostly a relatively poor country that wasn't accused of intellectual property theft until the last few years as it has rapidly developed."
Actually, as late as the 1700s (and later), China (and India) accounted for the bulk of the world's economy.
Huichieh, you would have to do better than that if you want to refute the assertions.
For instance, your statement that China and India accounted for the 'bulk of the world's economy' in the 1700s is pretty ambiguous. It doesn't mean that China was rich, does it? Where is your supporting evidence?
Huichieh is referring to gross manufacturing output and economic activity Rick. Prior to the Industrial Revolution. India and China with their respective massive populations, were indeed the largest economies in the world. Even then however, China was not rich persay, as the average Chinese peasant was still poorer than the average European peasant, possibly due to the smaller land plots. Considering both societies were pre-industrial at the time, the differences in income were not very appreciable.
like I said in another blog: this article is complete bollocks. The only proof one needs to realize tis guy doesn't have the faintest idea of what he's talking about is when he brings out that tired neo-con fantasy that China will break apart into several independent states. Sorry people, it ain't gonna happen. But you play right into China's hands when you keep up that pipe dream.
It's stuff I learned in a course on Late Imperial China when in college, so you will have to forgive me if the references are not necessarily on the internet. And considering that I don't specialise in the period (I do early--really early, like 3rd Century B.C. early--China), the references are not exactly at the top of my head.
I do remember that there are some figures in Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers (e.g., about world steel production as an indication of economic power) if anyone is interested to look it up. And I also remember reading in an article that as late as the 1800s, one Chinese province of Canton (Guangzhou) imports more cotton from India in one year than England in a decade (!). It's all about sheer size. Keep in mind that by mid-Qing, China already had a population of 450 million.
Can't vouch as much for per capita income though--assuming that reliable figures are available for any part of the world. But if memory serves, what evidence available would suggest that China wasn't poor by those standards either well into the 1700s, if not the early 1800s (after the Industrial Revolution really took off). Fabulously rich, but more and more decadant by the year. (Incidentally, that was the cliche in European discourse in the period.)
And I definitely can't vouch for anything about "intellectual property"--assuming that the Late Imperial Chinese operated with any such concept in the first place. (There is an infamous saying: tou shu bu suan tou--to steal a book, i.e., to plagarise, does not count as stealing; there's a book about this entitled To Steal a Books is an elegant offence by Alford, William; Stanford University Press, 1995).
Another bit of historical information about the economy that might be relevant. It wasn't really until the later 1800s that China imported a lot of stuff--but for the notorious exception of opium--from the rest of the world. Not counting the very specialised trinkets and scientific toys that the Imperial Court always have had an interest in. And it wasn't because China was too poor to import, but there weren't really a lot that they were interested in that they did not already have, more cheaply and in better quality. (Remembered a case study on cotton clothing--the market simply found the local product cheaper--because labor is so cheap--more resilent and better suited to the climate than the British machine made import.) Conversely, the 'West' imported massive quantities of tea, silk, porcelain, etc., from China. If not for opium, the trade imbalance in hard silver would have been staggering. In fact, it was staggering at one point. In the 1600s, silver taken from Peru by the Spanish were paid to the financial houses that bankrolled the Habsburgs as fast as they can make the journey from New to Old World. From there, much of it pass, via many middlemen, into China in exchange for, you guessed it, tea, silk, porcelain... Right now, the only reference I can recall is Paul Kennedy's book.
Found a relevant web source here. It references many of the scholar works I read when I was reading the course on Late Imperial China. The writer is a reader in Economic History at LSE. Some highlights:
"Perhaps the most spectacular market phenomenon was China’s persistent importation of foreign silver from the fifteenth to nineteenth centuries during the Ming-Qing Period. It has been estimated that a total of one-third of silver output from the New World ended up in China, not to mention the amount imported from neighboring Japan (Flynn and Giráldez 1995)."
"The sheer quantities of China’s handicrafts were impressive. It has been estimated that in the early nineteenth century, as much as one-third of the world’s total manufactures were produced by China (Kennedy 1987: 149; Huntington 1996: 86). In terms of ceramics and silk, China was able to supply the outside world almost single-handedly at times. Asia was traditionally China’s selling market for paper, stationary and cooking pots. All these are highly consistent with China’s intake of silver during the same period."
"In the context of China’s high yield agriculture (hence surpluses in the economy which were translated into leisure time for other pursuits) and Confucian meritocracy (hence a continued over-supply of the literate vis-à-vis the openings in officialdom and persistent record keeping by the premodern standards) (Chang 1962: ch. 1; Deng 1993: Appendix 1), China became one of the hotbeds of scientific discoveries and technological development of the premodern world (Needham 1954–95). It is commonly agreed that China led the world in science and technology from about the tenth century to about the fifteenth century.
The Chinese sciences and technologies were concentrated in several fields, mainly material production, transport, weaponry and medicine. A common feature of all Chinese discoveries was their trial-and-error basis and incremental improvement. Here, China’s continued history and large population became an advantage. However, this trial-and-error approach had its developmental ceiling. And, incremental improvement faced diminishing returns (Elvin 1973: ch. 17). So, although China once led the world, it was unable to realize what is known as the "Scientific Revolution" whose origin may well have been oriental/Chinese (Hobson 2004)."
"It has been argued that in the Ming-Qing Period the standards of living reached and stayed at a high level, comparable with the most wealthy parts of Western Europe by 1800 in material terms (Pomeranz 2000) and perhaps in education as well (Rawski 1979). Although the evidence is not conclusive, the claims certainly are compatible with China’s wealth in the context of (1) the rationality of private property rights-led growth, (2) total factor productivity growth associated with China’s green revolutions from the Han to the Ming-Qing and the economic revolution under the Song, and (3) China’s export capacity (hence China’s surplus output) and China’s silver imports (hence the purchasing power of China’s surplus)."
The House the Mouse Built (with more than a little help from Hong Kong's taxpayer) is in all sorts of bother as the grand opening approaches in September.
As mentioned in my analysis of the economics of Hong Kong Disneyland, this site is by far the smallest park in the Disney stable. Yet the ticket prices are practically the same. Disney employees and their families had a trial run visit through the park on the weekend...and what was their impression?
The SCMP reports:
Hong Kong Disneyland opened its doors to 2,000 staff members and their families in a special trial yesterday, with some saying the park is too small...Some staff members said only 60 to 70 per cent of the park was opened yesterday as many attractions were still being built. The two hotels, the Hollywood Hotel and Hong Kong Disneyland Hotel, 11 rides and some shows were open.
David Holts, a staff interior decorator, said he was satisfied with the facilities and decoration but thought there were too few attractions. "Compared with other Disneylands, it is much smaller," said Mr Holts who has worked in the Tokyo and Florida theme parks.
Ms Lam, another worker's relative, said she had been to Disney parks in Los Angeles and Paris and Hong Kong's park was as good, even if it was a little smaller.
Remember, these are the family and friends of Disney employees calling it small. Well at least they've learnt the lessons of Ocean Park and made it more child friendly, avoiding hills? Umm....
Michael Warzocha, the park's graphic designer, said the hilly terrain made the Hong Kong theme park unique.
It's half-built on reclaimed land! Did they create hills for it?
The I've got 3 hours in an airport lounge version:
Jamestown Foundation's China Brief is up: the regular good articles such as Hu's political crackdown; the struggle between China and Vietnam for Laos; China's new Taiwan predicament; and growing problems in Xinjiang. Go. Read.
New twists in China's censorship regime, including restrictions on celebrity endorsements. The silver lining in China's censorship: no infomercials. Let's hope reality TV is next.
Traveller's Tales: Quoting taxi drivers is the standard fall-back of the lazy journalist. Please see the top left corner of page 2 of SCMP's City section for a daily example. And keep this handy journo language translator handy.
Of course Hemlock's got another angle on the Kissel case:
As the elevator in Perpetual Opulence Mansions slows to a halt on the 12th floor. I make two predictions. Brian the British stock analyst will walk in. And he will mention the trial of Nancy Kissel, who is charged with bludgeoning her Merrill Lynch investment banker husband Robert to death, in time-honoured, crazed-expat-housewife style. And I am right. “Everyone’s talking about it in the office,†he tells me as he adjusts his puce tie in the mirror. “What do you think?†I can’t help but shrug. I am following it as much as I would any other alleged killing of a man by his wife in Hong Kong – as an instructive example of the dangers of marriage. The fact that the key players have white skin means relatively little to me, I admit to Brian. I didn’t know them. As we leave the elevator and stroll through the lobby out onto the street, I sense he is disappointed with my response. I think of two noteworthy points about the case that go beyond standard gwailo tittle-tattle.
“First of all,†I say, “the prosecutor suggests Nancy Kissel was a traitor to her social class, discarding her successful, high-earning spouse in favour of a bit of ‘rough’ – a horny handed, blue-collared TV repairman. Normally in Hong Kong it would be the Filipino driver, or a trainee hairdresser called Andre. You can see how this strikes fear in the heart of every high-flying career man’s sense of self-worth, can’t you?†Brian nods attentively. “Did you ever read Lady Chatterley’s Lover?†I ask him. It appears not. “Second,†I continue, “there is something extremely mysterious about the way they say she drugged him. Something that raises all sorts of murky questions about what was really going on, deep down under the surface.†Brian waves a slowing taxi away and looks at me in anticipation. “Think about it,†I urge him. “What sort of grown man drinks milkshake?â€
Don't miss the Bolivia/Peak connection to the case as well.
In the traditional Japanese way, I was told I must leave for the airport 4 hours before my flight left Narita because it is a 2 hour plus drive. 45 minutes later I'm standing at the check-in counter listening to why the flight has been delayed by an hour, meaning I now have approximately 3 hours to kill.
Some brief observations from the land of the warm toilet seat:
1. What gives with the toilet seats? When I say warm, I mean toasty. I've never seen toilets with an instruction sheet until this trip.
2. Had breakfast with Lord Curzon and Gaijin Biker. Turns out GB and I have a mutual friend, again proving it is not six degrees of seperation, merely two.
3. Rappongi.
4. What is it about the interaction of grease, fat and alcohol? Nothing cures a hangover quite like eggs benedict and a kebab.
5. I've travelled to Tokyo several times in the past few years and it seems there is a creeping understanding of English. The hegemony continues.
6. Is there a difference between bidet and wide spray? Not according to my research.
7. It might cost the GDP of a small African nation, but goddamn the beef is good. Hand massaging cows clearly works.
8. Can any sociologists explain why the bouncers of Rappongi are primarily African (I'm guessing Nigerian)?
Hangovers require copious amounts of hot sauce added to grease and fat.
Also, I think I would prefer not to have the toilet seat heated. I prefer the illusion that mine is the first butt ever to touch said seat. That illusion cannot co-exist with the heated seat.
Sometimes it can take 2 hours, but usually that's from Yokohama or elsewhere in Kanagawa. The only way to know exactly when you will get to Narita is to take the train. I have had the opposite experience of arriving with very little time to spare.
Unless you're visiting somewhere I've never heard of, it's "Roppongi" and the answer is probably that [gross generalization alert!] the Japanese are more afraid of being touched by black people than by any other race on this planet but are nonetheless infatuate with the visual distinctiveness of Africans. Just a theory, which is to say, an informed conclusion based on personal observation, experience and substantial scholarship....
What lessons can Africa learn from Asia's experience in rising living standards and poverty alleviation?
A group of prominent American bloggers had a conference call with Sir Bob Geldof to discuss his Live8 project. It is a clever use of blogs by Geldof as part of his marketing effort. Nothing flatters a blogger like being included.
The Live8 project site discusses its aims:
By doubling aid, fully cancelling debt, and delivering trade justice for Africa, the G8 could change the future for millions of men, women and children.
A laudable aim. But Dinocrat points out the problems of the exercise. Read the whole post, but I'll repeat the conclusion:
The two excerpts from the Scotsman raise for us the following points: (1) there has been plenty of aid, and it has gone down a rathole; (2) the idea of an African Common Market seems very interesting and sound: so why can’t a continent with several dozen countries and 885 million people figure that out for themselves, rather than having a Scottish newspaperman raise it? And how did a country of 1.4 billion — twenty years ago as poor as Africa — raise itself up without massive World Bank loans and foreign aid? The answer is that China chose to permit and cultivate capitalism (and its supporting institutions) on the one hand, and that Africa continues to be ruled by kleptocracies on the other other hand. Until there are serious political solutions first in place, we agree with the Scotsman that “gesture politics will just not fix it.”
The issue in Africa in every one of its crises - from economic liberty to Aids - is government. Until the do-gooders get serious about that, their efforts will remain a silly distraction.
Almost all of Asia can act as an economic role model for relieving poverty on a massive scale, without the help of huge amounts of aid or much foreign intervention at all. Neither China nor India's models are perfect, but these two countries have achieved poverty eradication on an unprecedented scale. The fundamental reforms required to create and sustain a successful model can only come from home. They cannot be imposed from outside, either from well-meaning donors or multilateral organisations. But from the smorgasbord of choices, which are the right ones to take?
Kevin from Wizbang says While Geldof, et. all may not have all the answers, they're at least highlighting the right question, "What should the industrialized world do about Africa?" Outside of lowering trade barriers there isn't much the world should do about Africa. There is an implicit condensention in the idea that the West must do something to help Africans because they cannot help themselves. Aid can be seen as analoguous to social security. Welfare reform is about removing a sense of dependency and entitlement and creating an environment where people can help themselves. There is no difference with aid.
Let's have on open and honest debate about what lessons Africa can learn from Asia's experience, both the positive and negative. For example while much of Asia has risen out of poverty and achieved a degree of economic freedom, political freedom is lagging far behind. That applies even to places such as South Korea and Japan, leaders of Asia's economic "miracle". Some topics and guidelines:
* Given finite resources what are the priorities to lifting living standards and relieving poverty?
* What are the key ingredients in succesful sotries such as China?
* Does geography matter?
* What is the place of property rights, the rule of law, the institutions of state?
* What price progress? What about environmental standards, equality, income distribution?
* Is there a place for democracy in poverty alleviation? Is political reform compatible with economic reform?
* Is it preferable to use export driven growth or encourage domestic demand?
* Should aid be spent on removing "first world" protectionists measures such as subsidies and tariffs?
* Does debt relief work? How and under what conditions? How do you avoid the pitfalls of moral hazard and a repeat of the current debt problems in the future?
* What are the best and worst parts of the Asian example? Of the various Asian models, which is the best?
These are suggestions. I'd very interested in your thoughts and ideas, either via comments or via a post at your site (make sure you trackback to here). It should prove a useful addition to the Live8 project.
I will be out of blogging range for the next few days but look forward to reading your responses.
I'll spell out some of more of my views. Quite simply China and India have succeeded by basically getting Government out of the way of enterprise, large or small. Let people's "animal spirits" roam and they turn out to generally be pretty enterprising. The cliche runs "trade not aid", but again that's a variation of the theme - Government distortions of markets hold economic progress back. It certainly is not about different nationalities having better propensities to work...witness the many differing cultures within Asia that have achieved economic success.
Certainly there are problems with the China model. I'm not a fan of the trickle down effect, but a rising general standard of living can hide massive inequalities. That is the problem the CCP now faces, but it's a hell of a better problem than how to feed 1.3 billion people.
I'm also unsure about the rule of law aspect, given China's patchy respect of it. It's tied up with respect of property rights, and again here China's record is mixed.
The basic lessons would be:
1. Get the Government out of the way. That includes not running massive deficits, reforming tax systems, cutting subsidies to special interests, having a flexible foreign exchange system.
2. Have known and enforced rules and laws and truly clampdown on corruption.
3. Encourage trade and the free movement of goods and services, both internally and exports.
Note there's no mention of aid. As should be clear from my main post, I see little benefit in most aid with the obvious exception of humanitarian relief efforts.
My late father, who worked in public health in (south) Asia and (west) Africa in the period 1950-70, believed that the greatest difference between the two regions was that Asian societies were much better organized at the local level.
It's also clear that the most successful Asian economies have been in places where literacy was widespread before development (which has now, at a different level, become the Irish model as well).
These are fundamental matters of social development, and have very little to do with issues such as international debt and trade. I am not aware of any shortcuts ("soviet power plus electrification"?) that have worked on anything like a continental scale.
Today is the Trial of Nancy Kissel. The SCMP has started and will cover it. Also they have given the exact facts of what happened. For example it was Nancy Kissel who had an affair and not Robert Kissel. Get the facts straight and research and little more on it. But nice try...
Today is the Trial of Nancy Kissel. The SCMP has started and will cover it. Also they have given the exact facts of what happened. For example it was Nancy Kissel who had an affair and not Robert Kissel. Get the facts straight and research a little more on it. But nice try...
I am against giving aid to Africa. The rest of the world should leave them alone and let natural selection do it's work. The Africans who cannot help themselves don't deserve my tax money.
There were long discussions about this in our house. Both of us feel that regarding the majority of African charities, not enough of the donation money actually makes a difference to the situation there. I would happily donate £5 a week/month if I knew my £5 was actually going to aid Africa, as opposed to paying the rent on a prestigious London office that the charity feels it must have. Show me a charity that is run out of a shed in Bracknell and in which £4.99 of my £5 is going to build water treatment plants and schools in Africa, and I will be signing up.
But I support Bob Geldoff's idea-it's not about throwing money into the rent of a swish London pad. It's about the world figuring out that there is a problem and we can't all sit around and expect someone else to fix it. I texted in for tickets. I won't get any. But at least I can hope I won't be paying money towards a charity that has forgotten who it needs to be charitable to.
Andre got it right when he pointed out the difference between China and Africa on the social level. Many of the African people sitll live in the rural areas, where aid or development is hard to reach. Social mobility is also very different in Africa. The other important difference is one of geography.
Of course, African countries can follow various Asian countries as a model for battling poverty. However, there are countries in extreme poverty that they can hardly implement the reforms that China has implemented in the past.
The people in the poorest nations in Africa are stuck in a poverty trap and these are the people we should give a helping hand.
All I'm saying is that we should not expect the same methods to work in Africa just because it worked in Asia. Even Asia has its own different models from the West in its struggle to fight poverty.
On your comment that financial aid should not be given anymore, I would like to ask if you would agree that if the West cut aid, they should just drop their debts as well - so as to give them a fresh start?
Would you also agree that without aid, developed nations should also cut all susbsidies to their agricultural products and allow true fair trade with African countries?
The wife of a top US banker murdered her husband by drugging his milkshake with sedatives before repeatedly striking his head with a heavy metal ornament, a court heard yesterday.
Nancy Ann Kissel, 40, faced the first day of an eight-week jury trial in front of a packed public gallery. Kissel is charged with murdering her husband, Robert Peter Kissel, 40, on or about November 3, 2003 - the day after prosecutors allege he intended to tell her he was filing for divorce in the belief she had an affair with a television repairman while in the United States.
Kissel has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
Government prosecutor Peter Chapman SC told the jury in his opening address that Kissel drugged her husband by "lacing a milkshake with a cocktail of sedative drugs while he drank it on that fateful Sunday afternoon".
When her husband was under the influence of the drugs, Kissel struck with a heavy metal ornament in "a series of powerful and fatal blows" to the right side of his head, Mr Chapman told the Court of First Instance.
The day after killing her husband, Kissel embarked on a cover-up to disguise her premeditated act, the court was told.
She wrote an e-mail to cancel a meeting with a friend she was supposed to see. "My husband is not well. I need to take care of something ... Sorry, I will be in touch soon," Kissel allegedly wrote on November 4, 2003.
Robert Kissel, whose body was found near their luxury apartment in Parkview, Tai Tam, on November 6, 2003, was the Asia-Pacific managing director of global principal products for banking giant Merrill Lynch. The couple came to Hong Kong in 1997.
Mr Chapman said Nancy Kissel met TV repairman Michael del Priore in early 2003 after she left Hong Kong with her three children because of the Sars outbreak and stayed in Vermont for four months. Mr del Priore had "become the man in her life in place of her husband".
Mr Chapman said the deceased hired retired New York detective Frank Shea in June 2003 to confirm his wife's relationship with Mr del Priore.
Two months before his death, Robert Kissel told the detective he was concerned about his own safety and believed his wife might have been drugging him.
Mr Shea advised him to contact the police and to have his blood and urine tested. "He had not gone to have the tests because he felt guilty about his suspicion."
Nancy Kissel was the beneficiary or primary beneficiary of three life insurance policies worth a total of US$5 million her husband held with a New York-based insurance company and two Merrill Lynch life insurance policies with a total value of US$1.75 million.
About four months before his death, realising the "deteriorating state" of their marriage, Robert Kissel also sought advice from lawyers Sharon Ser and Robin Egerton about divorce, jurisdiction, custody of children and financial matters. He did not make a new will although he was advised by Ms Ser to do so.
The jury was also told that in early 2003 the deceased installed a spyware programme to record activity - including e-mails - on a notebook computer used by his wife and a desktop computer at their home.
Copies of love messages allegedly written by Mr del Priore to Nancy Kissel were also retrieved from the deceased's office drawers. One said: "I love you when you call my name. It makes me melt."
The hearing continues today before Mr Justice Michael Lunn.
Update: I'm pleased to report the original writer of this, Danny Katz of The Age newspaper, has been in touch. Let us all don a snag in his direction to recognise his genius.
The Aussie Bar-B-Q "Tong Master"
Macca was at the barbecue and Jonesy was at the barbecue and I was at the barbecue; three men standing around a barbecue, sipping beer, staring at sausages, rolling them backwards and forwards, never leaving them alone.
We didn't know why we were at the barbecue; we were just drawn there like moths to a flame. The barbecue was a powerful gravitational force, a man-magnet.
Jonesy said the thin ones could use a turn, I said yeah I reckon the thin ones could use a turn, Macca said yeah they really need a turn - it was a unanimous turning decision.
Macca was the "Tong-Master", a true artist, he gave a couple of practice snaps of his long silver tongs, "SNAP SNAP", before moving in, prodding, teasing, and with an elegant flick of his wrist, rolling them onto their little backs.
A lesser tong-man would've flicked too hard; the sausages would've gone full circle, back to where they started.
Nice, I said. The others went yeah.
Kevin was passing us, he heard the siren-song - sizzle of the snags, the barbecue was calling, beckoning, "Kevinnnnn ...Kevinnnnnn......come".
He stuck his head in and said any room? We said yeah and began the barbecue shuffle; Macca shuffled to the left, Jonesy shuffled to the left, I shuffled to the left, Kevin slipped in beside me, we sipped our beer.
Now there were four of us staring at sausages, and Macca gave me the nod, my cue. I was second-in-command, and I had to take the raw sausages out of the plastic bag and lay them on the barbecue; not too close together, not too far apart, curl them into each other's bodies like lovers - fat ones, thin ones, herbed and continental. The chipolatas were tiny; they could easily slip down between the grill, falling into the molten coals & heat-bead netherworld below.
Carefully I laid them sideways ACROSS the grill, clever thinking. Macca snapped his tongs with approval, there was no greater barbecue honour.
P.J. came along, He said "looking good, looking good maaaaaaaaate" - the irresistible lure of the barbecue had pulled him in too. We said yeah and did the shuffle, left, left, left, left, he slipped in beside Kevin, we sipped our beer.
Five men, lots of sausages. Jonesy was the Fork-pronger; he had the fork that pronged the tough hides of the Bavarian bratwursts and he showed lots of promise. Stabbing away eagerly, leaving perfect little vampire holes up and down the casing.
P.J. was shaking his head; he said "I reckon they cook better if you don't poke them". There was a long silence, you could have heard a chipolata drop; this new-comer was a rabble-rouser, bringing in his crazy ideas from outside. He didn't understand the hierarchy; first the "Tong-Master", Then the "Sausage-Layer", then the "Fork-Pronger" –and everyone below was just a watcher.
Maybe eventually they'll move up the ladder, but for now - don't rock the Weber.
Dianne popped her head in; hmmm, smells good, she said. She was trying to jostle into the circle; we closed ranks, pulling our heads down and our shoulders in, mumbling yeah yeah yeah, but making no room for her. She was keen, going round to the far side of the barbecue, heading for the only available space.... "THE GAP" in the circle where all the smoke and ashes blew. Nobody could survive "THE GAP"; Dianne was going to try.
She stood there stubbornly, smoke blinding her eyes, ashes filling her nostrils, sausage fat spattering all over her arms and face. Until she couldn't take it anymore, she gave up, backed off.
Kevin waited till she was gone and sipped his beer. We sipped our beer; yeah.
Macca handed me his tongs. I looked at him and he nodded. I knew what was happening, I'd waited a long time for this moment - the abdication.
The tongs weighed heavy in my hands, firm in my grip - was I ready for the responsibility?
Yes, I was. I held them up high and they glinted in the sun. Don't forget to turn the thin ones Macca said as he walked away from the barbecue, disappearing toward the house. Yeah I called back, I will, I will. I snapped them twice, SNAP SNAP, before moving in, prodding, teasing, and with an elegant flick of my wrist, rolling them back onto their little bellies.
I was a natural, I was the "TONG-MASTER"...
Until Macca got back from the toilet....
Thanks, Tim. I've got a tear in my eye at the thought.
jared - that's cos it's bloody freezing in nz and you all insist on wearing shorts at all times as far as i can see. no wonder the bbq is a magnet for you let - it's the only way of staying alive.
It called to me here in NY, somewhere deep inside of me it resonated. That was a thing of beauty. And as Keats said, a thing of beauty is a joy forever.
Aussies hardly have the best of reputations in Asia, and the aftermath of the Schapelle Corby case is a good indication of why. Eric Ellis sent us this priceless exchange between radio host Malcolm T. Elliott and a caller. No comment is necessary:
Elliott: The judges don't even speak English, mate, they're straight out of the trees if you excuse my expression.
Caller: Don't you think that disrespects the whole of our neighbouring nation?
Elliott: I have total disrespect for our neighbouring nation my friend. Total disrespect.... Whoa, give them a banana and away they go.
While of course that comment is completely out of line, it would be remiss to point out that racism is not exclusively an Australian trait.
That's not to excuse racism. But it exists in all sorts of places. The idea of labelling all Australians ugly based on rantings of a radio shock jock is as stupid as labelling all Chinese people racist based on the rantings of a few online netizens. Should we be labelling them "The Ugly Chinese" and use an isolated example to tar a whole nation?
The conventional wisdom has long held Australia to an impossible standard in Asia. Some (Dr. Mahatir) have made a political career based on Australia-bashing. While I have my opinions on the Corby case, I cannot see why popular opinion in Australia on the case has any bearing on Australia's reputation in Asia. The only way is because Australia is expected to be fawning of Asia, perfectly forgiving and without opinion, happy to kowtow to whichever Government is trying to bully its way.
Here's an idea: start looking at Australia as an example of a successful and confident multicultural liberal market democracy rather than a pariah. And stop relying on conventional wisdom.
Do people really judge a country based solely on the racist comments made by 1 unpopular right wing radio announcer? Doesn't exactly sound like a well researched opinion....
[A] former "king of property,'' who speculated aggressively in the luxury market before suffering huge losses when the market crashed in 1997, was told he was wasting a court's time by claiming he was too depressed to answer an Inland Revenue claim for more than HK$23 million in outstanding taxes.
Chun Kam-chiu, former chairman of Keen Lloyd Group, sought an adjournment of the case Monday, because he thinks it is unfair that he should have to face trial even though he notified the Correctional Services Department that he was suffering from depression.
Justice William Waung replied: "I am depressed - to see you wasting the court's time. "Of course you are depressed - someone's suing you for HK$23 million. Depression is a common disease for a lot of Hong Kong people in trouble.''
Forget about rule of law...Hong Kong has rule of comedy. Not only was Mr Chun depressed, he had more problems.
Chun also said it was unfair that he should have to contest the case in English, a language unfamiliar to him, without legal representation.
Waung reminded him that he had filed to represent himself, and that there was a young woman next to him, interpreting for him.
Strike 2. Talk about entertainment. But for the grand finale:
Before he left court Monday, Chun implored reporters to return today "for a great show." Proceedings are expected to last two more days.
It hasn't disappointed so far. When you're in the hole for HK$23 million, it doesn't hurt to keep digging.
China is moving to stop the trading of human organs. But why stop it? If a consenting adult agrees then why restrict their rights to trade? In many ways the same arguements apply to prostitution.
1. Now that NASA is no longer putting men on the moon, it is clear those scientists are working as TV installation people instead. Why is all this technology still connected by a jungle of cables with no logical manner of connection?
2. Men have a far lower shopping tolerance level than women. And when a man hits the wall during a shopping trip, the results aren't pretty. The formula:
Male shopping tolerance = {Air conditioning / (Temperature + Humidity)} * (1 / Female walking pace) * (1 / Population density at shopping area) * (Shop contents# / Amount already spent) * Whatever sport is on TV * (1 / Cost of whatever female is holding in her hand)
Ladies - memorise this formula.
# Where shop contents is 0 if electronics up to 10 if female clothes.
A useful formula, though I think a separate one needs to be formed when shopping involves computer equipment, xbox games, comic books or CDs/DVDs. In my experience this eeems to reverse the male/female toleration levels. Bookstores seem to be a relatively neutral experience for either gender.
It's a tough problem. I fear there's a simultaneous equation in the offing, involving the difficult but related properties between the male and female versions of the formula.
Democratic Chief Executive candidate Lee Wing-tat is whinging that The Don is "running a PR show rather than an election campaign", says the SCMP.
He criticised him for holding closed-door meetings with Election Committee members and failing to reach out to the public...Mr Tsang did not take part in the first public forum with his election rivals on Saturday, although he was invited. While Mr Lee and the third contender, legislator Chim Pui-chung, were at the forum in Wan Chai, Mr Tsang was meeting members of the Election Committee.
In fact The Don is doing exactly what he should. He is only chasing the votes of 800 people, not the Hong Kong public. Why should he bother turning up at public forums when no-one else can vote? And the Democrats are effectively just running a PR campaign themselves, given they've got no realistic chance of winning the race.
Indeed the democratic camp have missed a major opportunity to expose everything that's wrong with Hong Kong's current electoral system. Refer to this chart from the SCMP:
The 800 member Election Committee is the formalisation of special interest groups. The above, albeit rather meaningless, graphic demonstrates that all each sector wants is for its interests to be looked after. Yet do you see any part of that graphic representing what is best for Hong Kong's public? It's consumers? No, of course not. This system institutionalises special interest groups while in places such as the US the influence of special interest groups is an ongoing issue being grappled with. Would you feel well represented if you knew the Chief Executive was elected thanks to promises to each of these special interest groups to advance their various causes? That's the big problem with Hong Kong's democratic deficit. If only the "democrats" would talk about it.
Almost nothing is known of the man's identity. Shortly after the incident, British tabloid the Sunday Express named him as Wang Weilin, a 19-year-old student; however, the veracity of this claim is dubious. What has happened to Wang following the demonstration is equally obscure. In a speech to the President's Club in 1999, Bruce Herschensohn — former deputy special assistant to President of the United States Richard Nixon and a member of the President Ronald Reagan transition team — reported that he was executed 14 days later; other sources say he was killed by firing squad a few months after the Tiananmen Square protests. In Red China Blues: My Long March from Mao to Now, Jan Wong writes that the man is still in hiding in mainland China.
The People's Republic of China government, if it knows, isn't saying much. In a 1992 interview with Barbara Walters, then-Communist Party General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang replied "I think never killed [sic]."
When the Chinese Army began their bloody crackdown on Beijing student democracy demonstrations in June 1989, Stuart Franklin was sent by Magnum photographic agency to cover it. “I was in a hotel on the corner of Tiananmen Square. Those tanks were shooting up at us because all the foreign journalists were there. I was crouching down on the balcony, with my lens stuck through the gap between the metalwork and the concrete floor. It was impossible to leave because the hotel was surrounded by security. People were confiscating film. They were searching every room, but for some reason they didn’t come into mine. I hid my films in a box of China teas and a kind French journalist carried it to the Magnum Paris office for me”.
Initially a line of students blocked the path of the tanks and only when they started shooting did the students move. Then a young man defied the first tank and climbed on to it until his friends carried him away. “After that he disappeared”, says Franklin. “No one knows what happened to him” At the time I was more interested in what had happened the night before. It turned out a lot of students had been killed and they’d shoved the injured into children’s hospitals so the press wouldn’t see them. I was thinking, ‘why am I standing here? That guy just looks like a matchstick’. I left soon after, but that picture was published very widely”.
****************************************************************
Often we cling to this event as a sign of hope. A hope that democracy and freedom will one day prevail over the Communist party. The reality is while many of us like to think of June 4th as a turning point, the past 16 years have proved us wrong. The Communists have turned themselves into a party of nationalists who have created a new social contract with the Chinese people - economic prosperity and rising living standards in return for continued unquestioned rule by the CCP. And while it is difficult to be certain it seems the large part of China's population is (for now) happy with the deal.
There's plenty that could change. The CCP plays a delicate balancing game between socio-economic tensions and its grip on power. What's worse is it is good at it. But without the effective feedback mechanisms that democracy provides the powers-that-be need to hope they remain good at the game. It will only take one slip for the edifice to come crashing down. Which is why in situations like June 4th, 1989, the CCP is likely to err on the side of crackdown and confrontation. There's no upside in compromise and they hold the guns.
That's the problem. Firstly it seems almost inconcievable for another 1989 protest to happen as things stand. Secondly if it should happen the question to ask is how would the CCP leadership respond today? The answer is clear - in the same way. The CCP are good at learning the lessons of history.
The CCP has a clear desire to remain in power at all costs. Democracy and freedom is not an inevitability for China. That's the legacy of Tiananmen Square.
I have a poster of that photo on the wall of my office. It was part of a large format promotional piece from a stock photography company.
I remember watching this happen on the news - though I don't recall if I saw it live or on tape.
It was one of the most amazing things I have ever seen and it still moves me today.
I had a slight problem with the stock agency though over their choice of captions for the image. They wrote "Beijing citizen pausing in front of tanks." I cannot imagine a more inadequate and inept description.
Over the years, a lot of people have said a lot of things that (correctly, to some extent) move the 1989 protestors from their gleaming pedestal of moral superiority, and even I too don't really think some of them were all that noble or bright. But at the end of it all, there was one side that decided to embrace indiscriminate deadly violence, and that was the state that was supposed to protect the people from harm, and for that the CCPers that orchestrated 6/4 can never be forgiven.
Tiananmen is white, beautiful. So big that you don't know where to begin to look at it. So plain in its stateliness, almost frightening. Since 1949 it's the symbol of the power of the new Chinese emperors. Since 1989 also of something else that can't be said.
If you come from south the square appears like that. But before opening out, it must remind you in which country you are and which kind of history you're living: Mao's Mausoleum bars the way. Chairman Mao (so it's called by Chinese) is under glass in the middle of a hall that regular lines of people cross for some seconds staring at the corpse covered with a communist flag. But the scene you'll never forget happens some instants before: in turn three or four people - men, women, children - pull ahead of the line to lay flowers and curtsey to the statue of one of the bloodiest tyrants of the 20th century. It would be sufficient this forbidden picture to show how strong and corrupting lies and ideology still are in 21st century China.
The Monument to the People's Heroes - standing outside - is 36 metres high. Obviously the People's Heroes are regime's heroes whose revolutionary feats are carved as bas-reliefs on the obelisk's surface. Sixteen years ago for forty-seven days the People took it back, sat around, hung placards claiming democracy and built nearby something that looked a lot like the Statue of Liberty. Today the Monument is enclosed and surrounded by guards.
One night the tanks got into Tiananmen. They came from here. It was late spring, between 3-4 June. The first clashes between soldiers and civilians began at dusk opposite thisbridge along Fuxingmenwai avenue. People's troops were arriving from western suburbs but the People had no intention of letting them pass. So they started firing. Against the People. Two hours and a few kilometers after, the first tank entered the square coming from Chang'an avenue (Fuxingmenwai's prosecution) under the vigilant look of the mandants gathered in Zhongnanhai and of the Great Helmsman, very proud. At 1 a.m. all the martial law troops were in Tiananmen in conformity with the orders. Most of the job was already done. At 4 a.m. the lights were turned off. At 5.40 a.m. everything ended.
Last year China was celebrating the 100th anniversary of the man who in fact decided the massacre. At the National Museum "a great man of the 20th century" was praised. At the National People's Congress the children were rehearsing the performance in his honour.
The regime shows its most craven face. Tiananmen repression of course never happened. What happened was the restoration of order upset by a "counter-revolutionary riot". Students and citizens that, not only in Beijing but also in every main town of the country, rallied against the dictatorship seem by now erased from the collective memory. Everything suggests that the masters of mind have achieved their aim. But - you know - sometimes the ghosts come back. And every celebration has its day: let time pass. Tiananmen is white, beautiful. Kites.
Thank you Enzo. I am Cuban, and sadly, I understand every word you posted. Now they want to disguise China as a great advance in world economics and how there is a "new wealth." I guarantee they must all be party sympathisers. The others earn .97 per hour in China's sweatshops.
Thank you for your comment. I really appreciate it because I'm sure you know very well what you're talking about.
On the contrary when I read some expat bloggers writing about the massacre I feel depressed: sentences like "It is a very un-black-and white event" or "how difficult it is to make definitive statements of Good or Evil when it comes to Tiananmen Square" are simply shameful and they only show how dangerous and insulting - for the victims and for the truth - moral relativism can be. If some people aren't able to recognize and distinguish between good and evil even when the subject is the slaughter of many hundreds by the death-machine of a dictatorial power, I wonder if they are able to recognize the difference at all.
As a person who believe in human rights freedom and democracy, I feel offended every time I read the mean versions of some declared or hidden apologists, above all when disguised as "consideration for every viewpoint". When you have on the scale pan a tiranny and a struggle against tiranny, supposed impartiality become connivance with the despot and proclaimed distance an excuse for the murderer. It's really a shame that so many people don't get it or, worse, get it and persist. I'm sure they wouldn't be so indulgent if they were talking about some western democracy.
I don't now what to say about the expats that make excuses. I thank that come from many years of communist brain washing. Please stay in touch and check out babalublog.com you will find many freinds there.
An American in Singapore reflects on liberty and democracy in the Lion City. Once George Bush has finished bringing democracy to the Middle East, do you think he could have a go at Asia?
Nokia and Motorola are fighting back against Chinese mobile phone makers. While so many are worried about Chinese firms dominating the world, the truth remains world-beating companies can effectively compete in China.
China is abandoning its Go West program and Chris sees it as another step in Hu Jintao's dismantling of Jiang Zemin's legacy.
It's the hallmarks of a policestate. It's why June 4, 1989 needs to be remembered.
Update (June 3rd)
Reuters is reporting these arrests are linked to the arrests of Ching Cheong, along with some more interesting information from Cheong's wife. Full article below the fold.
Richard says the arrests are based on the mauscripts of a book about Zhao Ziyang by an old friend of his, Zong Fengming. Not surprising. What is surprising is China's ongoing attempts in dealing with Ziyang's legacy. Too important to completely dismiss and too troublesome to ignore. Excellent to watch.
The wife of a Hong Kong-based reporter China has accused of spying said he had worked with an academic at a government think-tank held on suspicion of leaking state secrets, but denied her husband had done anything wrong.
The connection was revealed in an open letter to Chinese President and Communist Party boss Hu Jintao, in which Mary Lau said scholar Lu Jianhua and her husband, Ching Cheong, were innocent and called for their release.
Lu had often sought Ching's views while researching Hong Kong's political situation and Taiwan, said Lau's letter, published in several Hong Kong newspapers on Friday. Ching helped Lu arrange meetings with top government officials, various politicians and academics.
"Whatever Ching Cheong and Mr Lu Jianhua did, they were resolutely on the side of Chinese people and they acted for the interests of China," she wrote. Ching, 55, the chief China correspondent for Singapore's Straits Times newspaper, was detained by Chinese security agents in the southern city of Guangzhou on April 22.
China accused him on Tuesday of spying for unnamed foreign intelligence agencies, but his wife was adamant he was set up while trying to obtain sensitive, unpublished interviews with the late Zhao Ziyang, toppled as Communist Party chief in 1989 for opposing the Tiananmen massacre.
If charged and convicted, Ching could face the death penalty. Lu, a sociologist with the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the government's top think-tank, was also taken into custody by security agents in April on suspicion of leaking state secrets, sources familiar with the case told Reuters.
Chen Hui, an assistant to the director of the Academy's General Office, was detained around May, a source said, adding that Chen had had access to classified documents.
HEAVY CRITICISM
Ching's detention has drawn heavy criticism from the United States and media groups around the world. Lau said Beijing's recent moves to reconcile with Taiwan's opposition parties, culminating in historic visits by two key opposition leaders to mainland China in April and May, were a result of Ching's recommendations.
Beijing regards self-governed Taiwan as a wayward Chinese province to be brought back to the fold, by force if necessary. "In order to communicate better, and to secure Ching Cheong's views on Hong Kong's sovereignty handover and the reunification of China, Mr Lu Jianhua often related to Ching Cheong the words of Chinese leaders -- including the sayings of yourself and other Chinese leaders," Lau wrote in her open letter to Hu. "This should be regarded as a necessity of work, and not the leaking of secrets," she wrote.
Ching had also helped Lu arrange meetings with top government officials, various politicians and academics, Lau said. Hong Kong, a former British colony that reverted to Chinese rule in 1997, has seen huge pro-democracy demonstrations in recent years.
News of the detentions broke ahead of the sensitive anniversary of June 4, 1989, when Chinese troops crushed pro-democracy protests centred on Beijing's Tiananmen Square killing hundreds, perhaps thousands.
We always hear about the exploitation of third world workers, of sweat shops, of child labour, prison labour and worse. But it cuts both ways.
The SCMP today tells the sorry tale of explotation of foreign English teachers by heartless Chinese employers:
Like many young foreigners in China, 28-year-old Briton Gareth Thomas decided teaching English was an easy way to see the world and get paid for it...He signed a contract for 15 teaching hours a week, 8,000 yuan a month, insurance cover and passage home. But when he arrived in Guangzhou seven weeks ago, he found that his workload was far greater. Now he's quitting.
"They brought me from Shanghai and promised to pay for the ticket [to Guangzhou] after one month. But they won't, and they changed my contract without my permission to make me work 20 to 25 hours a week," he said. The agency put pressure on teachers to work extra hours, and called him every other day to get him to teach more classes, said Mr Thomas, who holds a certificate in Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL). "If I was five minutes late, they fined me two days of pay. I feel cheated. They exploited me."
Dreadful stuff, followed by the usual warnings of going through reputable agencies etc. But there's a kicker in this tale:
But while teachers complain of exploitation, students are also short-changed because most teachers have no experience. Some are not even native speakers but are hired for their Caucasian looks.
Hong Kong is one of the only places in the world where the civil servants earn far more than their private sector counterparts, especially once you add in all the lurks and perks. The SCMP reports on the group that brought you "Hong Kong: Take you breath away" during the middle of SARS:
:
Lawmakers are demanding greater scrutiny of the Hong Kong Tourism Board's accounts and operations amid growing concerns that taxpayers are funding an overpaid and spendthrift government agency despite record visitor numbers...
In the 2004-05 year, the [Hong Kong Tourism] Board had eight employees in its head office earning between $120,980 and $252,730 a month. This number is dropping to seven this fiscal year. The 41 staff with monthly salaries of between $41,038 and $90,192 in 2004-05 will rise to 43 this year.
Offering those kind of salaries is one way to draw people in, that's for sure. I want to get in on the act. So I am humbly prepapred to offer the services of my kids as tourist drawcards (for a fee) - if the number of photos mainland tourists have taken of them is anything to go by, the Tourism Board's targets will be easily met. Alternatively I'm prepared to lead tours of mainlanders to see gweilos in their natural habitats: Lan Kwai Fong and Wan Chai. Just give me a flag and a cheque.
The Don's election campaign was officially launched yesterday with much fanfare and the obligatory bow tie logo. Each campaign is limited to spending HK$9.5 million each and The Don will avoid "money politics" by limiting donations to HK$100,000 per person. He won't have any trouble getting to the limit. The limit backs up my assertion this will be the most expensive election in history. With only 800 voters the limit allows The Don to spend HK$11,875 (about US$1,500) per voter! Now that's money politics.
With the two other candidates proving ineffective, it's time for Plan B. Back on Friday, May 14th 2004 Hemlock declared himself a candidate for Legco in 2008. Eagerly assisted byJohn Swaine he even had stickers designed for the purpose. But surely now is Hemlock's time. He even has a platform of sorts:
First, tough policies to eradicate some of Hong Kong’s serious mental health problems, including Hello Kitty mobile phones, Nicholas Tse, the skin-whitening mania, the Liberal Party and the small white carpets placed at odd angles in office doorways to hinder bad influences in S-Meg Tower. Second, repatriation incentives for expats who don’t belong, including more roadworks, faster-closing elevator doors, a TV ban on the European Tiddlywinks championships, louder TVs on buses, demolition of Discovery Bay and introduction of huge taxes on such delicacies as cornflakes, BacoBits and Cheez Whiz, faster than you can say “world city”.
And I'll bet he could do with HK$9.5 million from Hong Kong's tycoons while he's at it.
Hong Kong’s hard-working, tax-paying middle class eagerly debates the differences between the democratic systems of European countries and Hong Kong. “So let’s get this straight,” Mr Chiu the lawyer asks me. “In France and Holland they vote first, then the next day they find out the result?” I assure him that this is exactly how they do it. He shakes his head doubtfully. “I prefer our system. Announce the result first, then have the election. That way, everyone knows who to support.”
That's the thing with free trade - it can increase the pie for everyone. Why? Because cheaper prices mean more people are prepared to buy (in economics speak, the supply curve is shifted to the right resulting in lower prices but more demand). Now you can scrap the guilt card from the protectionist playbook too.
If only Schapelle Corby read blogs. ESWN takes a fascinating trip through an undercover drugs bust. As a bonus he has free advice for those in the drugs trade, why Schapelle Corby wouldn't have stood a chance if she was caught in the US and what a bad Chinese restaurant really means.
Go. Read. Now.
Update: CC notes the Corby apologists have started a blog. Talk about making an industry out of one woman's suffering.
Hong Kong has no competition law. The business scene is dominated by tycoons in cosy cartels with a compliant Government*. With that in mind, today's SCMP:
Christopher Cheng Wai-chee, a clothing and real estate tycoon, has been appointed to head a committee that will review Hong Kong's competition policies.
This is no reflection on Mr Cheng's abilities. But it seems strange to put a tycoon in charge of such a review. Or it would anywhere else but Hong Kong, the tycoon's paradise.
* For proof, try Michael Suen's folding under pressure from property developers in today's SCMP:
Property developers will not face new regulations to prevent them from selling most of their flats through internal sales, the housing chief said yesterday. Michael Suen Ming-yeung told legislators the property market was still vulnerable and "it is essential to let it grow healthily".
The same property market that has doubled since SARS. The only vulnerability is rising interest rates and developers' profits.
While urging legislators to be patient to wait for developers' self-regulation to take effect, he also reminded the public not to make hasty decisions on property purchases. Price lists are often not released before internal sales, depriving potential buyers of key market information.
For example a record price for the Arch penthouse was announced, but it was only discovered later the same buyer got discounts on 3 other apartments purchased in the same development. This smoke and mirrors approach naturally emphasises the high prices and obscures the discounts. That way the developer hopes to set a benchmark price for the development to sell the other apartments.
(16:22) Rebecca MacKinnon thoroughly summarises the Digital Silk Road conference on the internet in China. It asks how is the net changing in China and how is China changing the net. Worth a read.
* 20,230 unique visitors made 47,448 unique visits, reading a total of 91,742 pages and drawing 5.73 GB of bandwidth.
* This equals 1,531 visits per day reading 2,959 pages each day. In other words each visitor read 1.93 pages on average. Each visitor returned on average 2.34 times during the month.
* 731 added this site their to favourites. 182 subscribe via Bloglines and 107 via Feedburner.
* 64.7% of you use IE, 20.2% Firefox, 3.2% Safari, 2.2% Mozilla, 1.9% Opera and 1.1% Netscape to browse this site. 86% of you use Windows, 6.3% Mac, 1.6% Linux.
* 15.3% of visits were via search engines, of which Google was 67.1% and Yahoo 25.8%. The top search phrases were "Hong Kong Disneyland", "Nancy Kissel" and "China's Population". And thanks to my guest blogger I'm getting a good number of hits for "Korean babes".
* The most visited individual pages were the "Everything you wanted to know about blogging but were afraid to ask" (thanks to a Times article linking it), "Korean babes by blog" (told you) and "Google and the Great Firewall".
Update
At Bingfeng's request, some geographical data although it isn't that reliable (especially given the use of proxy servers):
US = 52%
Australia = 8.6%
China = 5.1%
Singapore = 4.75%
Hong Kong = 4.45%
EU = 3%
Alternatively a time zone share study via Sitemeter says about 40% are from Asia Pacific, 15% from Europe and 39% from the Americas, which totals only 94%. The other 6% must be aliens.
But the good news is, I like to think that I cover the area of the world that you don't-you're the serious Asian-located business and local politics-regaling blogger, and I do mental, sentimental, and the occasional raunch.
So put us together and we get....what? A peanut butter and vegemite sandwich, or just a less wealthy Hugh Hefner? Hmm....
An honour to be reader of the month! Despite all the comments of how I have abused your credit card, you must admit that Misti is looking good, even though your kids can no longer afford school!
In return of this honour I will offer an "on the house" anal sac squeeze for your next visit- for Misti only!
Tim Worstall caught out the EU in a lie over stats related to the looming textile quotas on China. Today Jake van der Kamp in the SCMP follows through with the next part of the lie.
Quota restrictions on garment exports, which were imposed by the developed world on developing countries 30 years ago as a route (supposedly) to gradual adoption of worldwide free trade in garments and textiles, were finally abolished on January 1.
That's right. America and Europe have had decades to prepare for this liberalisation of trade. Decades.
...mainland knitwear exports to the EU account for only 0.2 per cent of the EU's imports and we are talking here of EU imports after eliminating trade between EU countries. Of course, knitwear exports also account for barely 25 per cent of the mainland's exports of garments and textiles to the EU. They are the most egregious examples of the garment export boom to the EU.
But I am only following the example of European trade negotiators in being selective in choosing my example. When they complain about China's rag trade exports they invariably pick on women's white silk ballroom gloves or floral handkerchiefs or similar minute categories. Very well, fellas, we will let you say what enormous increases in import growth you have seen in your own selective choices so long as you also tell us how tiny a proportion each of them constitutes of your import bill.
But let us look at the bigger picture here. The red line in the second chart shows you what really irks Europeans in their trade with the mainland. It is that the mainland's trade surplus with them has shot up to a level US$5 billion a month and it has all happened very recently. The figure three years ago was barely 10 per cent of what it is at present.
And now look at the blue line. It represents a four-month average of the mainland's trade surplus with the EU in textiles and garments. Up to 2002 this accounted for most of the overall surplus but now, even after having risen with the abolition of quotas, it accounts for barely 20 per cent. If the EU wants a culprit for its sudden trade imbalance, that culprit is not textiles and garments.
Try the light green line on the chart instead. It represents the mainland's trade surplus with the EU in machinery and electrical equipment. In deficit until 2003, this category is now running at a surplus of US$2 billion a month in the mainland's favour. Yet I have not heard a peep from the EU about this one. The rag trade is an easier target.
But let us be grateful that the attention of Europe's politicians has now been focused inwards with France's rejection of an EU constitution. They will have to start looking for their villains in their own countries again, which, fortunately, means less attention to pseudo-villains abroad.
I wonder if the numbers are the same for the US? I imagine they are.
You see, even the EU and USA believe in the bogeyman...even if he doesn't really exist.
Why don't we hear anything from organizations supposed to defend consumer interests? Consumer interests are hurt here by the lies of our European leaders.
It's pretty simple. The interests of consumers are diverse and the price improvements (relatively) small - the benefits are difuse. On the flipside the costs are concerntrated and have a large impact (loss of job, bankruptcy). So naturally the small special interests make a huge amount of noise.
It's a variation on the tragedy of the commons. You're right - the answer is to get consumers to band together to overcome the special interests...but that's true in far more situations than just this.
The world has three Chinese political entities: China, Taiwan and Singapore. Hong Kong, while firmly within the PRC's grasp, is rapidly moving towards Singapore's political system.
To wit: Tsang bent on one-man race, with 701 votes win says The Standard. That's 701 votes out of 800. If he secures that many nominations it locks out any other candidate. And it's starting to happen. The SCMP:
Democratic Party chairman Lee Wing-tat suffered a severe blow in his campaign for chief executive yesterday when the strong support he had been counting on from the social welfare sector failed to materialise...The 36 Election Committee members in the sector originally said they would use their votes as a block after polling social workers on their views. But now only 14 members say they will follow the result of the poll.
No prizes for guessing who's got to those electors. Also from the SCMP, a report the pro-Beijing electors are rapidly falling into line:
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen hasn't formally launched his campaign for chief executive yet, but already more than a quarter of the Election Committee - representing pro-Beijing interests - looks like nominating him for the top job...Last night the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong decided to urge its 103 electors on the 800-member committee to back Mr Tsang's candidacy.
Speaking after a meeting of the DAB's central committee, party chairman Ma Lik praised Mr Tsang for his rich experience in public administration and said he was someone who "loves China, loves Hong Kong"...As well as the DAB representatives, nearly 100 Election Committee members - representing farmers and fishermen, the Heung Yee Kuk and district councils in the New Territories - have agreed to support Mr Tsang.
The DAB can't stand The Don. They see him as a vestiage of colonial rule (witness his knighthood, which he refuses to give up), a toff who's "patriotism" (read toadying to Beijing) is questionable. But Ma Lik and his DAB have been given their orders and they are loyal foot soldiers.
How is this like Singapore? Simply because while there is the machinery of an election the result is pre-ordained. There is no real choice in the matter. The PAP have the added benefit of a decent track record to back up their cajoling and implicit consequences of voting against them. Beijing doesn't have the track record (Tung Che-hwa, anyone?) but certainly have a nice line in cajoling and threats.
However there is some good news. Whereas in Singapore defamation laws are an effective tool of controlling speech and opposition, in Hong Kong defamation actions don't always work.
But this slow motion farce of democracy is painful to watch. If Beijing are going to subvert the Basic Law, why not put us all out of our misery and simply appoint The Don. That's what they are doing by other means already.
The ministry's spokesman, Kong Quan, denied that Ching was apprehended as part of a crackdown against the circulation of a manuscript containing remarks from deposed leader Zhao.
When asked about the case, Kong said: "I can make this very clear to you, Ching's case is totally unrelated to Zhao Ziyang. We are a country with rule of law. We only act on evidence. He has confessed to it.''
You can imagine how he was made to confess. What is most incredible is Ching was once the deputy editor-in-chief of the pro-Beijing Wen Wei Po paper. He quit with a brace of others in response to Tiananmen in 1989. The repercussions of those events are still being felt today.
Co-incidentally (or not) the SCMP reports all non-official media reporters must attend a week long brain-washing course to retain their licence:
Beijing has launched a nationwide ideological indoctrination campaign for journalists to tighten its grip on the media. Most of the tens of thousands of journalists not working for official media organisations have been asked to attend week-long courses in order to qualify for a reporter's licence, sources revealed....
In Beijing, many journalists have been required to pay more than 1,400 yuan for the week-long course. The two-part course includes theoretical study of Marxism, Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory and Jiang Zemin's Theory of the Three Represents and lectures on ethics and regulations.
Journalists are required to produce a paper on the theoretical content and sit a two-hour written test on ethics and the regulatory environment. "The paper is like the one we did for our university's compulsory political course," a Beijing-based journalist said. "The second part is more like the written test for a driver's licence. The key is to remember the main points of the state regulations and rules."
But double standards are at play.
Shanghai journalists said they were only charged a few hundred yuan for their course and did not have to write a theoretical paper.
Expect even more journos to move to Shanghai in the months ahead.
![[boomerang]](http://simonworld.mu.nu/boomerang2.gif){kind=small}
Posted by 
. Other relevant readings are 
