As part of the China Blog List project, John asked me to list my top 10 China blogs. It wasn't easy narrowing it down to ten, but 10 I did. Check out the list at China Blog List's Recommended page, and then come back here to tell me why I'm wrong and what I left out.
On a related note, I got the following email today:
Chinese users of the latest version of the popular Firefox [1] extension CustomizeGoogle [2] are happy. A new feature [3] modifies the Google Cache urls so that they are no longer blocked by the Chinese firewall.
Thanks John. Looks like slight progress but nothing earth-shattering. That said it looks like it could be leveraged into a more useful tool, if someone created a similar extension that auto-creates the proxy each time?
It might actually be more useful than I initially thought. I just updated the entry, and I'm now in communication with the makers of the extension, so we'll see...
The American Conservative has an article titled Superpower Showdown, with the frustrating byline America needs a new strategy for dealing with China, a country we can’t contain and can’t afford to fight. Why does it need containing or fighting in the first place?
Toronto's Globe and Mail asks "Are we Missing the Boat?" for its second massive survey on China. Ian has a roundup of the G & M's articles.
If China's West had received a yuan for every word written about the growing income gap between the interior rural poor and their richer coastal urban dwelling cousins, there wouldn't be a gap. The SCMP notes a report that incomes are rising in China's West, just not as quickly as on the coast (chart below the jump):
The wealth gap between the nation's east and west has widened in the five years since an ambitious strategy to close the economic divide was introduced, according to a study by the Xian-based Northwest University.
Although the researchers found the west was growing richer and people were better off, one academic who took part in the study said the push to develop its natural resources had instead profited the east. He suggested that altering the tax system would better address the imbalance..."Some people think it's not reasonable to support the west, because from a purely economic perspective the rewards for investment are higher in the east than in the west," he said. "But developing the west will be beneficial to the stability of the entire nation and could create a big market for east and central China, which will eventually affect their development."
But Professor Zhang, who heads the Shaanxi Academy of Social Sciences' economics institute said it was not fair for the east and west to compete directly in the market. "It's like having men and women competing in the same event, which is not fair," he said. "To develop the west under the market economy system, a pro-west market must be established."
Yes, Communist China's rich are getting richer and poor are getting richer, just not as quickly. I like Professor Zhang's analogy. One could also compare the East-West gap with the East Asia Games, which seems to be a giant waste of time for everybody involved despite grandiose white elephants infrastructure projects, where the talented, skillful, bigger and better athletes are dominating the competition.
A few stories to start off the week on a gentle note:
1. Sales of scotch are going through the roof thanks to a Chinese fad for combining scotch with green tea. I suppose if you combine two digusting potions you could possibly end up with something less vile, but I doubt it.
Mr Tsang said he had done a lot of soul-searching, and put himself in the position of a lawmaker who may oppose the political reform proposals. On reflection he could not find any rational reason why a lawmaker should reject the recommendations of the reform package.
3. The Standard reports (no link) that divorce rates are shooting through the roof in Harbin, even though couples remain living with each other. Why? Because female teachers are being denied heating allowances if married as their husbands already receive it. Who says you can't put a price on love?
4. Bought shares in CCB? Below the jump is The Economist's comprehensive review of China's banking reforms (reg. req'd) and the giant gamble the government is taking. To repeat the conclusions (but read the whole thing):
China is gambling on going it alone. By rushing poorly reformed banks to market and sucking in a bit of money and know-how (not to mention greater scrutiny) from foreign investors, it hopes to improve them sufficiently and sufficiently rapidly before the economy runs into a headwind. The size of that gamble should not be underestimated.
A great big banking gamble
IT IS a staggering thought: communist China now has a bank more valuable than Barclays, American Express or Deutsche Bank, financial institutions at the heart of Western capitalism. At more than $66 billion following its initial public offering in Hong Kong on October 27th, China Construction Bank (CCB) boasts a larger market capitalisation than any of these three. CCB's listing, which raised $8 billion from foreign investors for 12% of its shares, is the largest global flotation for four years, China's biggest and the biggest ever for a bank. CCB garnered another $4 billion ahead of its float by selling stakes of 9% to Bank of America and 5.1% to Temasek, Singapore's investment agency.
This is quite a transformation for a bank that was technically insolvent less than two years ago and which, despite a hastily applied commercial gloss, is still a government agency, plagued by bad debts and corruption so pervasive that just five months ago its then chairman was arrested for bribery. In private, China's leaders must be marvelling that they have pulled off this sale. Yet their ambitions are far greater. Bank of China (BOC), the second of the “Big Four” state banks, with foreign investors already aboard, is planning a $5 billion foreign listing in early 2006. Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), the biggest, is appointing advisers for a $10 billion flotation late next year or in 2007. Many of the smaller joint-stock and city banks now too have foreign investors and are eyeing overseas listings.
Beijing is encouraging this rush to market as the most fundamental step in reforming the economy since Deng Xiaoping opened China to the world in the late 1970s. Since then, the country's banks have been almost wholly responsible for channelling the population's sky-high savings into industry and investment. Given China's failure to develop healthy stock and bond markets, bank assets have ballooned to almost 30 trillion yuan ($3.7 trillion) in 2004, or 210% of gross domestic product (GDP). That is the highest of any big economy, says Nicholas Lardy at the Institute for International Economics in Washington, DC: India is at 170%, Brazil 160% and Mexico 100%.
Sadly the banks have been disastrous middlemen, lending on government instruction without a view to their profits. They have poured money into wasteful infrastructure projects and kept broken state-owned enterprises (SOEs) afloat. Not only has this created huge non-performing loans for the banks themselves, but also because China's investment is so unproductive, it has to shovel ever more money into its economy to maintain its current growth. Already, China needs almost $5 of fresh capital to generate $1 of incremental output, a far worse ratio than Western countries and even India. In the first quarter of 2005, fixed-asset investment reached an incredible 54% of GDP, 10 percentage points above the household savings rate. No country can sustainably invest more than it saves and China must raise the productivity of its economy.
That is why overhauling its banks is so critical to securing the country's future growth. China's political leaders have an iron commitment to bank reform—a commitment backed with cash. Since 1998, Beijing has injected more than $260 billion into its banks via straight handouts and by allowing the Big Four to shift dud loans into separate state-backed companies. This is about twice what South Korea spent to restructure its banks after the 1997-98 Asian crisis and about what America needed to bail out its savings & loans industry. Mindful of the long paralysis of Japan's indebted financial system, China is pumping in funds before a financial meltdown. Weijian Shan, a director at Newbridge Capital, a private-equity firm which owns a controlling 18% stake in Shenzhen Development Bank (SDB), is impressed: “the government is taking the pain before it is too late, showing it understands that China's economic development depends on a healthy banking system.”
Beijing realises too that money alone will not do the trick. Since 1998 it has raised accounting, prudential and regulatory standards. Before then, the banks could book interest income for up to three years even if it was not being paid; now they can do so for only 90 days—the international norm. In 2002, the old lenient system whereby banks provisioned just 1% of their loans regardless of risk, was replaced by a five-tier classification tying the size of the provision to loan quality. Meanwhile, the central bank's decision last October effectively to lift the ceiling on commercial loan rates should, in theory, allow banks to charge more to riskier borrowers.
The biggest change, though, has been the creation of a central regulator, the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC), carved out of the central bank in 2003. Headed by Liu Mingkang, a respected former president of BOC, the regulator is trying to shift the banks' focus from mindless loan and deposit growth to preserving adequate capital and generating decent returns on it. Lenders that do not meet a capital ratio of 8% of risk-weighted assets (as decreed by Basel I, a global standard) by 2007 face sanctions—including the removal of senior management. The regulator's 20,000 staff are trying hard to ensure compliance. “At every board meeting, the CBRC guy is right there taking notes and pounding the table,” says Stephen Harner, a former diplomat who now sits as an independent director at Hangzhou City Commercial Bank.
The rush for reform
All this has given an urgency to reform efforts. Almost all China's 128 commercial banks have introduced better governance, shareholding and incentive structures, and have added independent directors to their boards. Senior managers are investing in new risk systems and trying to change bad old habits such as having the same person make and approve a loan, a practice that encourages corruption.
The restructuring has been helped by a benign environment. China's economic boom fuelled annual loan growth of almost 16% over the past four years and deposit growth of 18% a year. Lending to consumers, which started only in 1997, has exploded, increasing 123 times to more than 2 trillion yuan ($250 billion) in seven years, says Merrill Lynch, an investment bank. Corporate loans still dominate, but mortgages, car and education loans now make up 11% of the total and 26% of new lending, says Mr Lardy (see chart 1).
Strong revenue growth and offloading bad debts on to the government has inflated bank profitability. Last year, China's 13 biggest banks made net profits of 90 billion yuan ($11 billion) and a decent-looking return on equity (ROE) of almost 11%, says Fitch, a credit-ratings agency. Over half came from CCB, the sector's poster child, which expects net profits of 42 billion yuan ($5.2 billion) for 2005. Though it is only the third-largest lender, aggressive management, leadership in mortgages and the number two position in debit and credit cards have helped it achieve an industry-leading ROE of over 25%.
Meanwhile, the headline non-performing-loan ratio reported by the CBRC fell to 8.8% of total loans by this June, down by half since the end of 2003. CCB looks much cleaner, with a ratio of 3.91%. It has stronger reserves, with loan-loss provisions of 64% of its bad loans compared with 15% average for its peers. Its listing prospectus says that loans to “new” customers (acquired since 2000) are one-third as likely to go sour as those to older clients, suggesting regulations are working. On this basis, CCB looks only a bit worse than developed-world banks.
Well, it would, if that were indeed the true picture. Independent estimates put bad debts at 20-25%, far exceeding official figures. The CBRC itself paints an alarming picture. In an internal report leaked to Shenzhen's Securities Times, the CBRC found system-wide bad loans actually rose this year, if a disposal from ICBC was excluded. It expects 30 billion yuan in new bad loans in 2005. And on October 14th having inspected 11 banks, the CBRC concluded that it is “common practice” for banks to ignore regulations and fail to monitor loans, and that bad-loan levels are “not accurately revealed”. Poor accounting means that the banks themselves are unsure of their bad loans. Others do not tell. Lai Xiaomin, head of the CBRC's Beijing office, admits that “when our banks disclose information, they don't always do so in a totally honest manner.”
That bad loans are rising, not falling—Fitch estimates by 8% in the first half of 2005 once government-funded write-offs are excluded—is not surprising. China's banks went on a lending binge between 2003 and 2004, partly to “grow out of” their bad loan problem. Many loans will go sour, as Beijing has moved to curb overheated sectors such as steel, cars and property. If economic growth slows, a new wave of bad loans will hit. In addition, banks carry alarmingly high levels of “special mention” loans, ranked as performing but where a borrower's circumstances have worsened. Even at CCB, these are 14% of the total.
Look at the books
A new surge in bad debts would be bad enough if Chinese banks had the earnings power to absorb them, but they do not. Behind the headline numbers, their basic profitability is very poor. An average net interest margin of 2.36% looks decent compared with the 1.5-2.5% in developed markets. But David Marshall, head of Asian financial institutions at Fitch, argues that Chinese banks need far wider margins to cover the risks typical of an emerging economy. Indonesian banks, for example, boast a 5% net interest margin and Indian banks 3.45%. Meanwhile, Chinese banks are too dependent on loan income. More stable income from commissions and credit-card fees is only 13% of total revenues, half the level at Indian banks and just one-third of Thailand's. And while costs at Chinese banks are low, at 45% of revenues, this reflects poor investment in training and IT, not better efficiency.
Put all of these factors together and the return on assets (ROA) generated by China's banks, at less than 0.5% last year, is the worst in Asia (see chart 2). Granted, they look better measured by ROE, but this too is deceptive. The excellent 25% CCB highlights in its prospectus is really 17% after adjusting for a tax break. More crucially, the sector's 11% reflects inadequate levels of equity (in other words, capital) rather than high returns. The industry has a capital-adequacy ratio of barely 8%. Mr Marshall argues that China's banks should be carrying capital of at least 15-20%, as banks in Indonesia do, to guard against unforeseen risk. If they did, their ROEs would drop to 5% or less—a much truer reflection of their innate level of profitability.
Two sobering conclusions follow. The first is that even a tiny deterioration in business conditions that either reduces margins or increases bad loans would wipe out earnings at China's banks. The second is that even if the economy remains good, the banks cannot generate enough internal capital to support their current levels of loan growth. Ryan Tsang at Standard & Poor's, a credit-ratings agency, estimates that to avoid more capital injections the banks have to generate an average ROA of 2.1%, almost five times current levels.
Clueless lenders
To close that gap will take a fundamental transformation of how Chinese banks operate. The banks simply do not understand how to price risk or spot a dodgy borrower. Neither flexible interest rates nor loan classifications can help if credit officers cannot tell good loans from bad. The current boom has led loan officers to believe the value of collateral always goes up.
The real battle for bank reform will be won or lost in the branches. While reforms have changed much at head offices, they are hard to enforce elsewhere. Guo Shuqing, CCB's new chairman, admitted shortly after he got the job, that “more than 90% of the bank's risk managers are unqualified”—a bold statement from a man wanting to list his company.
These are massive organisations to turn around, after all. CCB alone has 14,250 branches and 304,000 employees. Their historic decentralisation makes them especially hard to control. In a book to be published in November, Wu Jinglian, China's most respected economist, notes that until a decade ago provincial branches of commercial banks borrowed funds directly from provincial offices of the central bank and lent them to local customers. They enjoyed “legal person status” and did not require authorisation from head office. Even today, big branches of ICBC have their own English-language websites—emphasising their independence. “Branch managers are kings in China,” concurs Frank Newman, an American who took over as chairman of SDB on behalf of Newbridge earlier this year.
At all banks there is a struggle between head office, which wants to centralise processes, and local staff who are in thrall to the demands of local officials and industrialists and who disobey their branch managers on whom they depend for their promotions at their peril. Unhelpfully, the branches are being monitored by a regulator that faces the same problems as its charges—too many unqualified staff spread too thinly. Han Mingzhi, head of the CBRC's international department freely admits, “we lack people who understand commercial banking and microeconomics. It is a headache for the CBRC.” The result is that it will take China's banks years to establish proper corporate governance, a genuinely commercial culture and hence decent profitability.
Meanwhile, strategic foreign investors are supposed to bridge the gap—with money, but especially with skills in risk management and advanced financial products. The lure of China's high growth and huge population has triggered an astonishing stampede, attracting some $18 billion in foreign direct investment in China's banks in one year. The first big deal was the $1.7 billion HSBC paid for a 19.9% stake in Bank of Communications (BoCom), the fifth-largest lender. Then came CCB. Since then, a consortium led by the Royal Bank of Scotland has put $3.1 billion into BOC, Temasek another $3.1 billion and Switzerland's UBS $500m, while Goldman Sachs and Germany's Allianz are investing in ICBC. Only Agricultural Bank, the Big Four bank with the deepest problems, has failed to attract a Western investor.
In return, the international banks get a cut-price entry ticket: Bank of America paid 1.15 times book value for its stake in CCB, which has now floated at almost twice book. They also gain access to a branch network and client list they could never afford to replicate, even after World Trade Organisation rules force China to open its domestic banking market fully from end-2006. Every deal is thus accompanied by a joint-venture in savings and insurance products and, of course, credit cards—the Chinese financial market that has every foreign investor salivating.
Only 12m of the 880m bank cards in China are genuine credit cards. So McKinsey, a management consultancy, predicts exponential growth from this segment, and profits of $1.6 billion by 2013. Yet McKinsey also notes that half of existing accounts are unprofitable. Chinese pay their bills in full each month, show little loyalty to brands and are unimpressed by foreign-backed offers. Ron Logan, head of HSBC's credit-card venture with BoCom, says acquisition costs are soaring as competition heats up, with everything from DVD players and holidays used to entice customers, further eroding profits. Jean-Jacques Santini of BNP Paribas, which just bought one-fifth of Nanjing City Bank, warns investors: “expect to lose money on credit cards for the first three or four years.” The only way for investors to make decent returns in the short term is by betting on a big rise in post-IPO share prices. Everything else they take on trust.
A very Chinese welcome
Meanwhile, given limited ownership rules, foreign banks can have only a modest influence on strategy or operations at their Chinese partners. Newbridge is an exception since it has won genuine management control of SDB, which is small and has a widely dispersed ownership. HSBC's vastly greater size compared with BoCom, means it might, in time, have a significant say. The rest are restricted to one or two board members each, while the appointment of senior management remains with the Communist Party. “Can China's banks be fully reformed while staying under government control? I doubt it,” says Mr Marshall.
To reform its banks properly, China must allow foreign takeovers. And its banks must be allowed to merge and fail. Yet even if Beijing raises cumulative foreign-ownership limits above the current 25% next year, as the CBRC expects, it is unlikely to relinquish control of a major bank. Worryingly, the CBRC seems ambivalent about foreign participation. Mr Han says he doubts the wisdom of raising the ceiling on foreign investment “if we don't get something in return”. Yet as banks in Poland and the Czech Republic discovered, preventing foreign takeovers simply delays bank reform and means more costly bail-outs. A stockmarket listing cannot really help while the state remains in charge: minority investors can do little to change poor corporate governance or influence strategy.
Instead, China is gambling on going it alone. By rushing poorly reformed banks to market and sucking in a bit of money and know-how (not to mention greater scrutiny) from foreign investors, it hopes to improve them sufficiently and sufficiently rapidly before the economy runs into a headwind. The size of that gamble should not be underestimated.
Over the weekend, I mused on how unfortunate it was that legalized gambling brokers like Ladbrokes or Paddy Power did not exist in Hong Kong. Because if you follow sports leagues in any European country, one of their favorite bets is which manager in the league will be the next to get sacked. The Hong Kong Jockey Club would never countenance this, of course, but I would love to be able to bet on which 'minister' of Donald Tsang's cabinet under the 'accountability' system will be the next to get fired.
Speaking of fired, let's turn now to the wonderful subject of coal-fired electricity plants in our midst thanks to China Light and Power. My money on the next sacking would be on Sarah Liao (can be re-arranged to spell: ALO ASH AIR), who appears, during her tenure as the environment chief, to have overseen the worst increase in pollution experienced by any developed city, anywhere, ever. Shout it after me: HONG KONG'S AIR IS A DISGRACE AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTER. And despite her attempts to say otherwise, a great deal of it is generated locally.
What is her solution to Hong Kong's smog problem? Hydrogen cell cars, according to this article in the Standard. Unfortunately, hydrogen fuel cell cars are about two decades away from viability. This, by the way, is the same woman that claimed that the pollution would get better this year thanks to new scrubbers installed in Guangdong factories.
It appears that perhaps in her haste to find the culprit in the room, Ms. Liao is ignoring the huge bloody dinosaur in the corner. Given that we, the Hong Kong tax- and bill-payers are spotting the local power companies a guaranteed 15% profit margin, it seems the least they could be compelled to do by the government is to move their electricity generating plants to less polluting fuels. Hong Kong's population is paying their bills, and the power generators are killing them in return.
Methinks in response to that, Ms. Liao might propose some cold fusion plants - still, sadly not expected to make it off the drawing board for the next century.
I've been sent new questions for the "About Me" section. As such I've included it at the bottom of this post and moved this post up to today. Otherwise it is as it was.
This is a new About Me section. And it requires your help. This is going to work on a question and answer basis, a multilogue if you like. Place any question about me you would like either in the comments to this post (they've been re-opened) or by email to simon[at]simonworld[dot]mu[dot] nu titled About Me. I will place the question and answer in this post with a link or mention of the questionner (unless you request anonymity).
***************************************** Jim has lead the way:
Q: Why do you live in Hong Kong?
A: I got here because of a transfer via work. And people say that multinationals are bad! I was happy to move - 15% tax rate instead of Australia's 48%, no sales tax, no capital gains tax, on the doorstep of one of the most interesting places in the world (China), world-class city, more Ferraris than you can poke a stick at, family-friendly, the luxury of a helper...plenty of reasons. It's a great place to visit and an even better place to live. Plus it is thousands of miles from family. I love 'em and all, but a bit of distance is nice. We're making it in the world on our own.
Q: Do you like it better than Australia?
A: Australia will always be "home". This is just our temporary abode. The two places are so different it is hard to compare. But all Aussies I know one day want to go home.
Q: Have you ever played cricket?
A: I challenge you to find any Australian, male or female, who hasn't played cricket at least once. I'd wager even Pixy played once. You actually can't be an Australian citizen unless you have played cricket.
Q: Did you like it?
A: Yes. Because I was good. Still am. Used to beat my brother in the backyard version with monotonous regularity. Of course he'll dispute that, but he cheated anyway.
Q: If you could have 100 readers or 100 dollars which one would you choose?
A: This is obviously a trick question. I'd take the $100 and give $1 to each of those 100 readers. The blogosphere is a cheap place.
Q: Is your wife sexier when she's got a bun in the oven?
A: She's even sexier when she's pregnant! (That's a joke. You see bun in the oven is an idiom...oh, never mind).
Pylorns of the extremely well designed Wetwired asks:
Q: So are there many single women in Hong Kong you could hook me up with if I visited?
A: Strictly speaking, this is not About Me. Nevertheless it is something I know about. The answer is no and yes. There are single women in HK, but the number of single men is greater. However, most of the single men are either morons, ugly, rude or a combination of all three. This means any single man who is reasonably intelligent, reasonably presentable and reasonably polite can make a killing in the HK singles market. It is the origin of the saying "Shooting fish in the barrel."
Q: How long do you expect to be in HK?
A: Either until the tax rate rises above Australia's, the Communists expel me or until my mother and mother-in-law forcibly bring the grandchildren back to Oz. Or a few more years, whichever comes first.
Q: Do you have any concerns about raising your kids there (HK) rather than Australia?
A: When JC starts singing "The Internationale" I'll panic. It's a good experience for the kids to grow up in somewhere like HK, giving them a taste of the wider world early in life. And it'll come in handy when we go to eat Chinese back in Oz.
Q: Would you rather read the book or watch the movie that's based on it?
A: It depends if it's porn.
Pieman asks: Any fave HK restaurants/pubs 'n' clubs?
A: Yes. Lucy's at Stanley is a favourite restaurant but Hong Kong is blessed with many great places to eat, even if the service can be patchy. There is a wide varierty of food to meet every budget...and now I'm sounding like Tourism Hong Kong. Seriously food is one thing Hong Kong does well. Pubs there are also plenty in Soho, the Mid-levels, Happy Valley and the like. Favourites? I'm a married man with 3 kids...any pub I can go to is a favourite.
Ilana asks: Do you know how to read Chinese? How did you prepare for your life in Hong Kong? How easy is it for you to speak Chinese and how socially necessary is fluency when socializing?
A: I cannot read Chinese. It's not an easy task and frankly I'm hopeless when it comes to languages. They've got literally thousands of characters and I have trouble remembering what day it is. I can speak very, very basic Cantonese. In Hong Kong being able to speak it for socialising is not that important...if the crowds you move are expats or overseas educated Hong Kongers. English is commonly spoken in these crowds. If you want to speak to locals some understanding of Cantonese will be vital. Also don't forget there is no "Chinese" but rather many different dialects, the main one being Mandarin. They use the same characters but sound completely different.
Finally how did I prepare for my life in Hong Kong? I made sure I am open to new experiences; I read up on the history of the place; I learnt a little of the language; I came and had a look around for a week before we moved here. There's plenty of things you can do but nothing ever really prepares you for any move, to Hong Kong or anywhere else. You need to be adaptable and open to new things and you'll be just fine.
Q: What movie is the biggest utter waste of time you've ever come across? And what movie still has you thinking about how great it was?
A: To the first part, Farewell My Concubine. It was like listening to fingers on blackboard. It is also the only movie I've walked out on. The second part is harder, but given the current frequency with which I'm viewing it, I'd say Shrek 2. Any movie you can watch 50 times without it turning you into a homicidal maniac must be good.
Q: In your Australian experience, why can't women keep their mouth closed while putting on mascara?
A: They're from a different planet, it says so in the book.
Q: What are you most proud of Australia about?
A: Where to begin? Everything from acacias to vegemite.
Q: What's your favorite childhood memory?
A: She wouldn't want me to say here.
Q: Who is your favourite Napoleonic General?
A: This is a trick question. It is Admiral Nelson. Killer fact: 2005 is the 200th anniversary of the victory (or loss) at Waterloo, yet Nelson's love for Emma Hamilton, whom he asked to be looked after by the country in his will, was and will be ignored. This is how Brits look after their hero's dying request (not to metion Hardy's non-kiss).
Q: Have you ever been to jail? If so, why?
A: Yes, I have. It was a rainy afternoon and in a desperate attempt to prevent two boys from going off the deep end, my mother did the only thing she could and sent us both to jail for a spell. Then she bought both Park Lane and Mayfair, put hotels on both and bankrupted us quick smart.
Q: What, apart from your family, do you miss the most about Oz?
A: Oportos. It's a chain that does Portugese style chicken burgers that are as close to heaven as is possible in a bun.
Q: What is the biggest and funniest misunderstanding you've had in HK? I mean, due to language barriers, a cultural protocol you didn't follow or something like that.
A: It was actually just before we came here, when I said to my wife we were giong to move to Hong Kong. In truth she was great about it, once I picked her up off the floor.
Q: Where else would you like to live?
A: Buckingham Palace.
Q: What is an absolute MUST-SEE or MUST-DO for tourists travelling to HK in your opinion?
A: Certainly the airport would be a good place to start, because you don't get much choice. And you get to see it twice.
Zak has asked where in Oz am I from?
A: Sydney, and more specifically the Eastern Suburbs, and even more specifically Vaucluse and Bondi. Yes, that's right. God's country.
October 25th 2005
Q: Tay Zand says It would be useful if your "about me" page actually contained something substantive about you, like what you do. After all, if you are going to accuse China of fudging its economic data, it would carry significantly more weight if we knew that your opinions and analysis are based on some kind of expertise, rather than just the personal opionion of a random ranter.
A: Not quite a question, but close enough. I work in the finance industry for a multinational investment bank. In particular I am a trader of various financial instruments and derivatives. I have done this for more than 10 years in a variety of financial centres. Prior to that I took both a Bachelors and Masters in Economics, majoring in Actuarial Science, from a major Australian university.
What does this have to do with any of my opinions and arguements? Nothing whatsoever. Quite frankly I'd like each post to stand on its own two feet. My background should be irrelevant to the "weight" or otherwise of my opinions and analysis. But now you know, in case it matters to you.
October 26th, 2005
Q: Pudding asks I notice that you hardly ever link to The Standard anymore. And that in the Kissel trial, you have coverage that did not make it into the final edited version of the The Standard. You also write for The Standard regularly, but I've never seen you openly say that.
Are you preventing anyone from noticing this conflict of interest?
A: I link to articles that I find interesting, want to use as a reference or make a comment on. In general if the SCMP and Standard have similar articles on a topic, I will reference The Standard. There is no deliberate policy of linking to one or the other paper on a regular basis - I link ad hoc.
I had no input into The Standard's coverage of the Kissel trial.
I write op-ed pieces that are published in The Standard. I added the Other Writing link in the left sidebar to a page that lists the articles that have been published. I chose not to make a general announcement out of a combination of modesty and a deliberate decision to not explicitly link the blog with those articles. If people discover the link, that's fine, but I'm not drawing attention to it, which is why I have not mentioned my blog at all in The Standard pieces.
As such I am not preventing anyone from doing anything. I fail to see the perceived "conflict of interest", but with this answer I hope to have dispelled any such perceptions.
Q: Lord Curzon of Coming Anarchy asks what's it like being a banker? Would you recommend it to budding college graduates?
A: I wouldn't recommend anything to budding college graduates. I very much enjoy banking and what I do, which breaks the modern taboo of publicly enjoying your work, but there you go. It's a wide field and in times past people came into the job from all walks of life. These days it seems graduates are coming through very specific finance or business degrees, which gives them a solid theoretical background and demonstrates a keenness on the industry. But to be honest, I learnt more in the first month on the job than I did in four years of university training.
To finally answer your question, it very much depends. If you enjoy finance, economics, stress, living by your wits and mouth, using your brain for long stretches of time and constantly being challenged, then banking is a great career.
Q: Spirit Fingers asks boxers or briefs?
A: I've been "hanging out" since I was 18.
Q: Fumier asks who do you think is the greatest living Australian, apart from Rolf Harris?
A: Me.
Q: Stephen asks what is your real name? What is the most enjoyable part you live in Hong Kong? How do you see Hong Kong's gals?
A: There are enough clues lying around this site as to my full name. I'll leave it as a puzzle for you. The most enjoyable part of living here? There's numerous things - good lifestyle, low tax rate, Asia on your doorstep, great food, good people. As for how I see Hong Kong's gals, that's easy. With my eyes.
Why are you in Hong Kong? Do you like it better than Australia? Have you ever played cricket? Did you like it? If you could have 100 readers or 100 dollars which one would you choose? Is your wife sexier when she's got a bun in the oven?
Let's see...either you are unnaturally intimidating or people already know everything they want to about you or they don't want to know anything about you. Or am I the only person who can take a half a minute to jot down a couple questions.
Maybe you should offer bribes!
Anyway...
How long do you expect to be in HK?
Do you have any concerns about raising your kids there instead of in Australia?
Would you rather read the book or watch the movie that's based on it?
I got it! Somehow you've got two individual archive pages. One is html and one is php. The html one is the one that's fed off the aggregator and it hasn't been updated since my first question post.
Interesting dialogue with Winds of Change. Do you know how to read Chinese? How did you prepare for your life in Hong Kong? How easy is it for you to speak Chinese and how socially necessary is fluency when socializing?
I notice that you hardly ever link to The Standard anymore. And that in the Kissel trial, you have coverage that did not make it into the final edited version of the The Standard. You also write for The Standard regularly, but I've never seen you openly say that.
Are you preventing anyone from noticing this conflict of interest?
I've been looking for a particular watch to buy and it turns out it's not available in Hong Kong. Impossible, I hear you say, that the watch capital of the world doesn't have it. Crazy that a well known watch company would widely advertise a product you can't purchase. You'd be right, but it's an impossibly crazy world.
Being a new age kind of guy, I turned to my friend Google. And sure enough, it turns out the watch is for sale, online, from a place called Orolus, which is based in Malaysia. It seems to have a good reputation, but this is a not-inconsequential amount of money. Any one used them? Any thoughts? Do we trust e-commerce enough these days?
I could do, but most of my travel is within Asia and from what I can gather this watch isn't stocked anywhere in Asia yet. What the world needs is a kind of internet central bank, where I can place funds in escrow, the merchant can deliver the goods and once received I can authorise release of the funds.
So, nu? Which watch is it? You may be able to get it from a source in the US and have it shipped to you. I might be able to either recommend a place or put you in touch with my watch guy here in NY. Let me know if I can be of assistance.
When I was in Hainan, I ordered some stuff (books) from Singapore, charged it to my credit card, and never received it. It was a hassle. After that, I started using Amazon for my book needs. I would actually like to use smaller outlets, if I could know they were more dependable. Anyway, I would get the watch from the source, if I could, like somebody already stated.
Hi Simon, I've bought Seiko watch from reputable reseller via e-bay. For any online purchase, my recommendation is to buy additional insurance for the goods, in case it is lost in transit or damaged. That way, at least you can claim with courier company. I believe normally the price of purchase exclude such liability. Normally, DHL/Fedex don't carry watch with a value over US$100...so if your watch is more than that, i think the reseller will only declared on invoice it as US$100......(fyi)
Some readers of this blog seemed mystified as to why Chinese would want to send Taikonauts into space 40 years after Russia and the US did so, and without the threat of a technology race or a Cold War. This article in the Telegraph seems to show that same tendency mirrored in China's nouveau riche elite. Just look at the self-satisfied smirk of Mr. Zhang Yuchun (via the Telegraph link), who appears to be suffering from some sort of alcohol excess. The French palace Mr. Zhang Yuchun has built for himself in the dusty suburbs of Beijing is modelled on 1642 Chateau Maisons-Lafitte, but he thought the wings were too small and he added two bigger wings based on Fontainebleu, one of the Ancien Regime's summer palaces.
I remember thinking when I visited Versailles and Fontainbleu over a decade ago, that I understood why the French Revolution and the beheadings took place. But now, what is happening in China is completely different. Ever watch one of those movies that happens in reverse, where the baby gets sucked back into the womb, or the messy red paste on the streets miraculously reforms itself into a sack of tomatoes and deposits istelf neatly on a skyscraper window ledge? That seems to be what is happening, in some gross perversion of the Hegelian dialectic - we are going from dictatorship of the proletariat to crass capitalistic binges of the most embarrassing kind.
I can't help but hear Hong Kong's favorite ABBA song in the background: "Money, money, money - it's a rich man's world."
:) unfortuantely, it portrays the most common mistake of understanding evolution, that evolution does not say man comes from monkey, they are just our cousins.
York Chow Yat-ngok, Hong Kong's health minister, was simply following the mainland's lead when he declared that Hong Kong might shut its borders if there were any hints of human-to-human transmission of bird flu. Obviously The Don spat his cereal at whatever fancy hotel he's staying at in Washington when he heard that, judging from today's SCMP report:
The government is set to backpedal on the pledge by health minister York Chow Yat-ngok that the borders will be sealed if a bird flu pandemic knocks on the door of Hong Kong. This follows what a government source said last night was local and international concern about the enormous social and economic effects of such a move.
It also follows a denial by the Ministry of Health of a statement by Vice-Minister of Health Huang Jiefu , who said earlier China would seal its borders if there was even one case of human-to-human transmission of bird flu...
The Hong Kong government source told the South China Morning Post that instead of sealing the borders completely, officials were now thinking about various "border controls" to stop an outbreak. "We need to tone down this matter a bit. The whole government needs a more thorough discussion on this topic because it is a very complicated issue," the source said.
Apparently a possible widespread pandemic isn't a big enough social and economic consequence on its own. "Local and international concern"? That'd be one hotel room in America's capital and Upper Albert Road.
Reading between the lines can be far more interesting than reading the lines.
And so to the first Bird Flu Caption Contest. Below the jump is the photo the SCMP used to accompany the border closing that wasn't story. Random prizes for the best entries.
Here at Wikablog, you can, in just a couple of minutes, create a page about your blog or someone else's with a few words saying what it's about. Then other people can add to it. And you can add links to other similar blogs, and talk about the blog's history, and recount the tale of the great Himalayan Blog Controversy of 2002, and whatever else you like. Soon enough, any blog can have a detailed page on here, telling us all everything we could ever need to know about it short of bothering to read it. If you still can't imagine how valuable this service is, slap yourself.
It's a great idea and has the potential to bring order to the chaos that is the blogosphere. I've already setup a page for Simon World, which you are free to go and add to and edit. Just like the China Blog List, these directories and Wikis benefit bloggers and readers immensely. Singaporean Cowboy Caleb has a much edited and soon to be deleted Wikipedia page. Now you can set up a page on a Wiki solely dedicated to blogs. And you needn't be the blogger. Readers can setup pages on their favourite (or most disliked, I suppose) blogs.
Go check out Wikablog and edit or start a page today. (OK Tim, where's my cheque?)
A 12-year old girl has died from flu-like symptoms in a Hunan village where the mainland's third outbreak of bird flu in a week was confirmed. He Yin and her 10-year-old brother fell ill about a week ago at their home in the village, Wantang, after eating a sick chicken that had died, according to their farmer father, He Tieguang . She died soon after reaching the Children's Hospital in the provincial capital, Changsha .
So far there is no evidence linking her death with the outbreak of bird flu in Wantang.
Moral of that story: don't eat sick chickens. And once you've finished stockpiling your Tamiflu, check the used-by date, says the SCMP:
Doctors and pharmacies in Guangzhou have accused Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche of dumping Tamiflu medicine close to the end of its shelf life on the mainland market.
One doctor said he bought his first batch of the drug in August and the medicine had a January 2006 expiry date. A second batch bought last month was good until May and the last batch bought last week had a January 2007 expiry date. "The normal practice is to give us medicine with at least one year of shelf life remaining, but they told me they had no more stocks. They only have 2006 stocks. I think they are clearing old stocks. This is so unethical," he said.
But before you panic, I implore you to read this piece from The Standard, titled Battling an epidemic of fear. It is not 1918. In the words of a famous book: Don't Panic.
I'd go for the expired medicine as opposed to no medicine since recently expired medicines are usually 90+ per cent effective, so maybe you have to take a little more.
The Supreme Court will no longer permit provincial courts to review death sentences so as to ensure that capital punishment is meted out meticulously and fairly, Chief Justice Xiao Yang, also president of the Supreme People's Court, said Tuesday...China still practices capital punishment as a deterrent to preserve social stability, but "as few executions as possible should be carried out and as cautiously as possible, in order to avoid wrongful executions," the top judge said...
According to the law, executions must be approved by the Supreme Court before being carried out. However, to facilitate swift punishment for criminals captured during the country's 1983 "Strike Hard" anti-crime drives, an exception was made so that violent felons like murderers could be put to death with the approval merely of provincial-level "higher people's courts."
Since 2003, the Supreme Court has rejected 7.21 percent of the death sentences, ordering a retrial for lack of sufficient evidence, and changed 22.03 percent of the death verdicts to deathwith reprieval or life imprisonment, said Xiao, without giving the exact number of such sentences.
Meanwhile, provincial courts have thrown out 4.44 percent of death sentence verdicts for lack of sufficient evidence, and revised 38.14 percent of the verdicts to lesser punishments, he said. But several wrongful death sentences exposed this year has prompted legal professionals to think twice about the death penalty system. Many of them are calling for the Supreme Court to rescind provincial tribunals' right of review. A man convicted of murdering his wife in Hubei Province was very lucky when his "dead" wife emerged. The case prompted a national uproar...
Liu Zuoxiang, an professor with the Law Institute of China Academy of Social Sciences, told Xinhua the major problem with thereviewing system is that different provincial courts have different criteria on what kind of felons should be executed, which is not good for the human rights of the convicted.
While these changes are welcome, the implications are staggering. First and foremost, the implication is there have been potentially many executions in the past that were unjustified. Secondly, the rush to execution of violent criminals has meant the law has been flouted since 1983. So this measure can be seen as a re-assertion of rule of law in China. Or it could be seen as wayward provincial courts being smacked down by the Supreme Court.
Either way, it's a positive step forward. It's a shame so many have had to die to get there.
Suppose you had been married to someone. Then she was whisked off her feet by a Japanese man. She grudgingly came back to you, decades later. But then, only for a couple of years - she then is forcibly taken away by your worst enemy, who happens to be your twin brother. She at first still believes that she will be reunited with you one day, but that belief gradually dissipates and she sometimes now believes that she never had anything to do with you in the first place.
Should you, 60 years later, still celebrate her brief return from that Japanese man 60 years ago? China definitely thinks so in the case of Taiwan. Please go to the link I have just provided, if nothing else for an eye-opening display of girls in banana skirts, bubbleheads and fellows in traditional costumes that go to show that the mainland choreographers seem to understand as much about modern Taiwan as a redneck from Iowa. Nevertheless, this display shows how China intends on keeping up the pressure on Taiwan for a resolution of its sovereignty in a way that is acceptable to the mainland.
As they say, all is fair in love and war...and with China and Taiwan, as always, it 's a schizophrenic mixture of both.
Thanks for the cyber-pat on the back, Simon. High praise from a newspaper columnist!
For some reason, people don't seem to like my analogy much of Hong Kong being the child of a forced union between Britain and China, with Britain being the father of the 1841 assault. The father takes the child away from the mother after its birth, and raises the child as his own. But the previously strong father is brought low by catastrophe (read: WW II), and is eventually forced to return the son to the mother, who in the meantime has become rich and powerful. The custody agreement is signed by the parents without consulting the child himself.
This of course explains why the mother is overjoyed to have the son back, but the son does not return this affection, with part of him preferring to stay with his wealthier father (who had outgrown sowing his wild oats in all corners of the earth). The mother, a rather sensitive character, becomes incredibly offended when her son tells her he wants more independence and freedom...
There is one problem with the wife analogy. The image of a 60+ year old o-ba-san (aunt/nana) is what oen would associate with.
This lady becomes more attractive as she gets more mature.....so, let's shrink the number of the year by a factor of 10, and start 1895 as an early teenager. Now it is all above libido and war.
The beautiful thing about countries, unlike people, though, is that they are blessed with a very long lifespan, and can sometimes grow younger instead of older (I would argue that China today has the energy of someone in their early 20s rather than a 4,000 year old geriatric!).
The problem with this aging system for countries, though, is that some of them never seem to grow up, particularly with regard to their relations with other countries. Just like with our families, our relationships with close relatives can sometimes seem frozen in time...
Another compare and contrast exercise with two articles from today's Sydney Morning Herald (free registration req'd, but full articles reproduced below the jump).
Item 1: The University of NSW plays down fears about Singapore offshoot. After the University of Warwick pulls out of setting up a campus in Singapore over concerns about academic freedom and financial risks, UNSW displays no such fears, partly because the Australian university had closer ties with the region and a more firmly established brand name. It also turns out UNSW will receive about A$80 million in funding from the Singaporean Government.
University plays down fears about Singapore offshoot
The University of NSW has moved to allay fears about academic freedom and human rights at its planned $200 million-plus Singapore campus.
But university management has conceded it cannot guarantee protection of its academic staff in Singapore, given the city-state's harsh laws governing public comment and defamation.
UNSW is one of only two foreign universities granted special status by the Singaporean Government to set up fully fledged independent teaching and research institutions offering undergraduate degrees.
It expects to open the doors of its Changi campus, to be called UNSW Asia, to up to 15,000 students from early 2007.
Yesterday it said its dean of commerce and economics, Professor Greg Whittred would be the Singapore campus's first president (vice-chancellor).
However, the other overseas institution approved by Singapore, the University of Warwick in England, said last week it would not proceed with a full-scale $354 million university campus because of concerns about academic freedom and financial risk.
Advertisement
AdvertisementAccording to the student newspaper, the Warwick Boar, the university also had concerns about Singapore's ban on homosexuality and certain religious practices and about possible legal reprisals against academic-related comments "that might be seen as being outside the boundaries of political debate".
Under Singapore law, foreign institutions are not allowed to criticise local politics.
UNSW has already secured a State Government-endorsed bank loan of $113 million for the Singapore campus. But it will also receive about $80 million in capital works funding from the Singapore Government, a figure the university's deputy vice-chancellor (international and development), John Ingleson, has refused to confirm or deny, on the grounds that it is commercial-in-confidence.
Speaking from Singapore yesterday, Professor Ingleson said he had been assured by the Government there that students and academics would enjoy complete academic freedom on campus. He dismissed concerns raised by the Warwick pull-out, arguing that UNSW had "a more nuanced view of how Singapore and [its] society worked".
He conceded, however, that the university would be powerless to protect its academics should they fall foul of the Government over issues of public comment.
"There is no such thing as absolute freedom of speech in any country … in that sense, our staff and our students will be subject … off-campus to the laws of Singapore like anyone else," he said.
Professor Ingleson believed Warwick's decision was based on financial risk rather than concern about academic freedom.
He said UNSW was not exposed to the same risk as Warwick because the Australian university had closer ties with the region and a more firmly established brand name.
When the credits roll out a person of interest
Martyn See did not make a pornographic film, but the first-time Singapore director says he may as well have. He shot a profile on the country's leading opposition figure, Chee Soon Juan.
Making a party-political film is as serious as making pornography in the island state. The fallout from Singapore Rebel, a 26-minute film that documents Chee's political journey without naming his Social Democratic Party, has highlighted the Government's sensitivity to political debate.
Seven months after See, 36, withdrew his "objectionable" film from the Singapore International Film Festival, he is still under police investigation. Two human rights organisations have raised See's case and what they believe is the misuse of Singapore's laws to punish government opponents and deter people from expressing dissent.
"I decided to explore why political opposition in Singapore was marginalised by the media, the Government and the public. I wanted to zoom in on one person," See says. "I was aware I could run into censorship problems, but not a full-blown investigation. It came as a shock."
Advertisement
AdvertisementFriends of See who are unconnected with the film have been questioned by police in recent weeks. One, the activist blogger Jacob George, reported this on the internet. While the film has been banned, no charges have been laid. It can still be seen in Singapore via Amnesty's Asia-Pacific web portal.
See's problems started with the festival requesting that he withdraw the film because it was "objectionable under the Films Act". Organisers told him that if he withdrew the film, the matter would be dropped. Failing that, the full extent of the law would apply. He withdrew it but submitted it, on request, to festivals in New Zealand, Malaysia and the US.
"I am telling the truth as objectively as I can. I praised the [People's Action Party] Government at the beginning. [The film] is hardly subversive, not seditious, and not defamatory in any way. Singaporeans are mature enough to be able to judge," he says.
In May, he was called in for a "cordial" police interview. Police have confirmed there was an investigation but have given no details. In August, See was called for a second, "more politically skewed", interview. "The police asked me, 'Why did I send the film out knowing it was objectionable?' They asked if I was a member of a political party … did I have continuing contact with Chee Soon Juan? I told them I was not a member, but I did have ongoing contact with Chee."
See surrendered his camera and tapes of Singapore Rebel after the second interview. Then, in mid-September, the same police officer asked two of See's friends to come in for interviews. "Right after that Amnesty and SEAPA [the South East Asian Press Association] spoke out," says See, who is wary about making himself, rather than censorship restrictions under the Films Act, the issue.
Under the act, it is illegal to make or show party-political films. However, a 2002 Hong Kong-made documentary on the state's founding father and long-time prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, has been shown in Singapore.
"It's the equivalent of pornography; the penalties are as harsh," See says. If charged and convicted, he could face up to two years' jail or a fine of up to $US100,000 ($78,700). He calls the act outmoded but concedes few Singaporeans are "clamouring for any change".
In Singapore Rebel, Chee is asked why he pursued politics, knowing the sensitivities. Within months of joining the opposition in 1992, he was accused of misappropriating funds and sacked from the National University of Singapore. He had to sell his house and car to pay for a defamation suit, and has been called a liar by the Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew.
"All it means is the PAP wins and if the PAP wins, Singapore loses," Chee says. "When my children grow up they will know what their father stands for. It doesn't matter what Lee Kuan Yew says."
See's next project will be a short film about Said Zahari, who was detained without trial from 1963 to 1979 under the Preservation of Public Security Ordinance (now the Internal Security Act). "I am glad I hung out with Chee Soon Juan for a couple of years, with people who are less fearful," he says. "It rubs off on you."
Translation of a Chinese blogger's view on "sensitive words":
http://www.danwei.org/archives/002273.html
"Let's suppose you write the following sentence on any blog host that has senstive word controls: "The viewership rating of CCTV's (中央电视台) recent TV series Passing Scenes of Beijing has reached 6.4%". You would not be able to publish this sentence on Blogcn and other such blog hosts because it contains senstive words [i.e. 'central' 中央 which is an abbbreviation for the Central Government]."
Harmonious society, pollution and cross-Straits relations
Another excellent edition of the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief. As usual, the highlights:
1. Willy Lam, one of the better China pundits, looks at the new five year plan and asks if it is a roadmap towards a "harmonious society". The conclusion bears repeating, but the whole article is a great read:
The change- and risk-averse nature of the Hu leadership is also evident from a series of articles recently run by the party journal Guo Feng (“Spirit of the Country”) on the secrets behind the staying power of several evergreen political parties in the world. A piece written by theorist Xiao Feng on the Cuban Communist Party heaped lavish praise on how Fidel Castro has stood up to American pressure. Xiao asserted that Cubans had remained strong and defiant thanks to their “firm faith [in socialism] and unyielding spirit.” Xiao cited the famous Castro axiom: “We won’t change the direction of our ship even if we were to sink into the deep sea.” Indeed, in a now-famous internal talk late last year, Hu had praised the Castro and Kim regimes in Cuba and North Korea for effectively preserving the “purity” of Communist ideals. Moreover, a series of ideological campaigns launched this past year by Hu, including a Maoist movement to “preserve the advanced nature” of party members, has been modeled upon the Cuban experience. It is highly doubtful, however, whether the Chinese leadership’s ambitious blueprint for socio-economic take-off could ever be attained through wallowing in the mire of old-style CCP norms.
Pollution and environmental degradation, not traditionally considered security concerns, should be accounted for in security assessments of China and the region. Social unrest, the potential for large-scale political mobilization, and democratization are increasingly challenging CCP power and legitimacy. These trends, when linked to political change, could lead to outbreaks of violence, possible large-scale emigration, economic instability, and other concerns.
In facing such a serious problem, China would benefit from further foreign assistance and expertise. As the health of China and its economy is inextricably linked to all of the world’s most developed economies, wealthy states and NGOs should consider additional courses of action to help China form a credible environmental movement supported by legal experts, academics and Party officials sympathetic to change. Although not a complete solution, increased foreign assistance may be a step in the right direction. Alternatively, and if left untreated, China’s environment will worsen and threaten stability in one of the most populated and dynamic areas on Earth.
China's environmental regulators and NGOs are growing in power and visibility. But it's not up to the rest of the world to bail China out of its self-made environmental problems. It's up to China's leadership to recognise these problems and the potential constraints they could impose on continued economic growth. As an aside, Reuters reports China is to blacklist and penalise polluting cities, while CSR Asia says there are 400,000 smog-related deaths a year.
3. More Strait talk: 10 years after the Taiwan missile crisis. Recounts the recent history of cross-strait relations and optimisically states peace and stability can unfold in a pragmatic and step-by-step fashion. After a decade of “cold peace,” it is in the best interest of both sides to engage in constructive dialogue on simple, functional, and non-contentious issues.
Just when you think you've heard it all, Japan comes up with a buttock slasher.
Rumours Wikipedia will be unblocked in China this week, and some interesting information on how to get sites unblocked. The other obvious solution - get bought by Google and let them lobby for you!
Howard W. French's review of Mao: The Untold Story. He concludes: Historians will find much to quibble about in this voluminous but jaunty work. Chang and Halliday's word is far from the last, and yet for anyone who reads it there is no way to mistake Mao's smiling countenance for anything like benevolence again.
The Globe and Mail reports on Donald Tsang's visit to Vancouver, the first leg of his junket around America and Europe. Democracy is not around the corner, proclaims The Don. It's not even on the same street map, in fact. In an affront to particle physicists everywhere, he said, "We do not believe in a big bang. We believe in incremental stages to find a solution." Hong Kong's poor, ignorant huddled masses need time to come to grips with this complicated "voting" concept. In a cynical attempt to curry (hmmm, curry) favour with pro-Beijingers, The Don laid into his erstwhile employer, Britain: It was unfair to blame Hong Kong leaders for not bringing in democracy immediately, after more than 140 years of colonial rule when they could not vote. But wait, there's more:
Mr. Tsang dismissed a suggestion that Beijing has been heavy-handed lately in its relations with Hong Kong. The presence of the People's Liberation Army in Hong Kong is not an issue, he added. Some even see advantages over colonial days. The soldiers from mainland China are much better behaved than their British counterparts before 1997.
"Every weekend there were brawls in the bars with the British soldiers. We have had not one single incident involving Chinese soldiers, not even traffic tickets. . . . With the British, it was every week."
Thank God for the PLA. The Don clearly doesn't care for the dozens of bouncers now out of work thanks to the orderly nature of drinking holes sans the best of British infantry. Even better, in his eagerness to burish his pro-Beijing credentials, The Don commits a faux-pas:
Mr. Tsang refused to describe Beijing as a dictatorship.
"Dictatorship to me is something like Hitler or Saddam Hussein. One person in it. Certainly that is not the case in China."
Perhaps our Chief Executive should spend some time on studying the Chinese constitution: the People's Republic is a "people's democratic dictatorship"!
Last week East Asia was declared the hardest place in the world to be a reporter. But let's get more specific. It's not easy even covering the traffic beat in Taizhou, where the police are the vigilantes!
Beijing says it would shut its borders to stop bird flu. No idea of exactly how long after the bird flu is identified before they got around to closing the border, but they'll do it eventually.
The new and improved China Blog List has been launched. John from Sinosplice explains the new features and improvements of this essential tool for English language Chinese blogging.
It's your one-stop China blogging shop. Go check it out.
I sent you the details - the spam block bonged me again - but it must be in there somewhere like the last one. If you don't see it let me know & I'll send it again.
China's policy of occupation and oppression has resulted in no more or less than the destruction of Tibet's national independence, culture and religion, environment, and the universal human rights of its people. China has broken international laws and routinely violates its own constitution by inflicting this destruction, yet time and again goes without punishment.
Saw this article today in Xinhua on how Chinese demand for imported oil fell 18% this year in response to higher energy prices and depressed refining margins due to China's price controls.
I have suspected for some time that oil prices today are artificially high, driven by speculation and government strategic buying programs. The major reason that has been provided by oil price bulls has been that there is a strategic, secular increase in oil prices created by China and that we'll just have to get used to $65 per barrel.
Let's see how much longer that continues with increasing interest rates and slowing demand, and continued decreases in oil imports from China...
The headline reads Naked Nazi porn provokes Hong Kong fury (NSFW), although the article itself points out it has not provoked fury or outrage, yet. Below the jump the article is reproduced sans NSFW photos and it's an entertaining read.
Yet is the outrage from the English language press over the use of Nazi memorabilia as a marketing gimmick unjustified? We've previously looked at Asia's ambivalence to Hitler. While many here wonder what the big deal is, I'll leave it to commenter Joe to pose the problem in a different light:
...ignorance isn't an excuse. I'd imagine that the equivalent of that would be someone standing on the London Tube or the 'A' Train in New York in full Japanese Imperial Army regalia.....but the difference is that wouldn't happen (unless someone knows otherwise of course).
Can you imagine, if that did happen and the Chinese press caught wind of it?
Besides the offensiveness of such trivialising of Nazi-ism and its evils, the double standard, the ignorance, the insensitivity and incomprehension are massive. As Jonah Goldberg wrote in an excellent piece last week, Hitler is suppose to define the outer limits of evil, not the lowest threshold. There's no point in comparing evils - each attrocity is unique. But for a contintent that has endured its fair share of evils, Asia's fascination with Nazi-ism reflects an intolerance that is all too common.
Akasi, a quarterly publication for the discerning Nipponophile, has become the latest convert in Hong Kong’s love affair with Nazi Germany. The October issue of the top-shelf glossy is dominated by pictures of an attractive young lady partially dressed as a tank commander and cavorting with wartime general Heinz Guderian.
But unlike every other local business that naively or cynically cashes in on Nazi notoriety, Akasi has yet to generate a single raised eyebrow. Until this reporter spotted a copy on the top shelf in a Causeway Bay 7-11 last week.
In Hong Kong’s English language media, there are few subjects more likely to generate an outraged print campaign than the use of Nazi memorabilia as a marketing gimmick.
There's nothing a Hong Kong girl loves more than a man in Hugo Boss with a handbag. To many Hong Kongers, Nazis represent the epitome of desirability. Their tanks were made by Mercedes and Porsche; their uniforms were original Hugo Boss. Twenty years after the last British skinhead tired of the joke, it’s still not unusual to see a Hong Kong teen in an Adolph Hitler European Tour t-shirt.
And whether it be a karaoke den with photos of Germans executing prisoners (a strange choice of decoration, admittedly), a fashion store decorated with swastikas, a TV station describing its ad breaks as “the final solution” or a coffee shop picking Hitler for its daily quote, German wartime symbolism is never far from the editor’s outrage button.
Yet somehow, Akasi’s efforts have slipped below the radar. It’s hard to imagine how this could be, since Hong Kong 7-11’s are apparently full of penniless gweilos looking for love these days, and from our experience, at least some of them are likely to be journalists.
More importantly, the magazine pulled out all the stops to ensure someone would be offended: They’ve put the girl on the front and back covers, dressed her in death’s heads, seig-heiling on a swastika backdrop. And just in case anybody missed the connection between the uniform, the tank the swastika and the jackbooted nipple tweaking love interest, the magazine even has a centrespread article about Guderian’s life and works.
With poses like this, it's hard to imagine Asak's publishers were not aiming to offend. Guderian is often credited as an architect of the Blitzkrieg and a vocal proponent of the destruction of Warsaw. He rose to become Hitler’s army chief of staff before conveniently falling out with him a few days before the war ended.
As Guderian has been dead for fifty years, getting him to pose for Akasi would have proved difficult. But the magazine found a cunning way around that little difficulty: They popped down to the shops and bought a plastic replica.
And they did the same thing with the tank.
But we’re digressing. If it was news notoriety Akasi was after, something went badly awry. The directors of the Calvin Group, which publishes Akasi, must be kicking themselves over the acres of scandalised newsprint they’ve failed to inspire. This cynical attempt at media manipulation should have generated a maelstrom of outraged Sunday front pages and inside page follow-ups.
But it hasn’t. All they’ve managed to do so far is inspire this one solitary Web report. How could they have so misjudged the media?
It could be that the strip is simply too silly to horrify anyone. Anyone who can pose a topless babe alongside an Action Man with a moustache must surely possess a sense of humour. And you’d have to be either a satirist or a very disturbed tank nerd to think of Photoshopping topless triplets into a Tamiya Tiger tank.
Or it could just be that the girl is just too cute to cause offence.
At the time of going to press, Netnewsasia had been too lazy to bother contacting Akasi, so we have no informed opinion on the publisher’s motives. All we can offer is speculation. We also noted that the printer’s name is Flying Wind. If that's not significant, we don't know what is.
Pictures on this page have been reproduced in the public interest. As a concession to those readers for whom the sight of an unclothed nipple may cause distress, Netnewsasia would like to point out that we have carefully avoided reproducing any display of muff in this report.
This is a great pity, because it’s an awfully nice one.
Insensitiveness, ignorance, bad taste, I agree. In fact, Hong Kong designers seem to love to borrow from Japanese military flag (red sun and red ray of sunshine).
But that:
"To many Hong Kongers, Nazis represent the epitome of desirability. Their tanks were made by Mercedes and Porsche; their uniforms were original Hugo Boss …… it’s still not unusual to see a Hong Kong teen in an Adolph Hitler European Tour t-shirt."
is simply untrue.
I too condemn the terrible taste of the pictorial. I would also suggest that Hong Kong, like many Asian countries, does not have the benefit of a large, significant or vocal Jewish community that, in Western nations, have played a leading role in educating the public about the horrific deeds of Nazi Germany and to understand that borrowing its imagery for any purpose except appropriate education or remembrance is in incredibly poor taste.
Having said that, Stephen King and Thomas Pynchon (the first, whose real name is Richard Bachman, is a Jew)as examples have both used (some might say exploited) Nazi imagery and associated them with sadomasochistic acts; these can be read on many levels but there is a clear element of titillation. I guess the difference between King/Pynchon/others that use Nazi paraphenalia in novels and the chick in the Nazi outfit in Akasi is that using Nazi imagery for purely titillation alone and for pleasure is an abhorrent act; those other authors in their books remind people in many places of the horrific deeds of the Third Reich.
Came here today from Little Green Footballs in the US. Just wanted to point out that in the US, outside military history buffs like myself, knowledge of history in general in the US is lousy. This is caused by our pathetic, "feeling good aboout self is more important than knowledge" school system. People may know about Pearl Harbor or D-Day, but only because it shows up on network TV or they saw some, usually old, movie about it. Our media does like to beat the drum about the A-bomb attacks on Japan, the Japanese-American internment during WW II, and the Jewish Holocaust. However, few Americans know about the Rape of Nanking, or anything else about the Jap-China war that was going on before Nazi Germany invaded Poland and continued past VG Day. WW II in the Pacfic, for the US, is about aircraft carrier battles and US Marines invading small Jap held islands. Again this is primarily known from old movies. So I find Asian ignorance of non-Asian history unsurprising.
Another point I wish to raise is that the Nazi regime also has it fascination for us in the US. No stores decorate with the "crooked cross", but sales of books about the Nazis, models of their war machines and action figures are good. When faced with a huge tank based Soviet army in Europe during the Cold War the US Army took lessons in defense and offense from WW II Germany writings and from the surviving members of the WW II army. We find the effectiveness and professionalism of the German WW II war machine endlessly interesting. We also find the rise of the Nazis and their methodic, modern industrial way of commiting mass murder endlessly, and grimly, interesting-like rubber necking while driving past a gruesome car crash; "How did that happen? And would you look at that mess..."
KJB43, There's a great difference in using Nazi Chic in ads aimed at the top people and having a lot of magazines, films and video of the Third Reich -which is true in Australia too. That makes sure the new generation are somewhat familiar with this period even if they get no history in school. Chic is what flatters and imitates Nazism consciously.
My beef is that the even worse crimes of Stalin and Mao are not equally known, because they aren't so photogenic or available, I guess. Do Hong Kongers wear Mao caps? Weren't a lot of these people refugees from the evils of Mao just a few decades ago? Have they lost any sense of the evil oppressions of the Beijing communist regime they now live under?
Or are they racists and measure Europeans' evil as worse than their own to increase their national self regard?
Big questions...
Knemon, my mistake. I thought Richard Bachman was his real name and Stephen King the pseudonym. Anyway, Apt Pupil was indeed the story I was referring to. And as for Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow is quite an eye-opener, not least for the coprophilia...
Last week China reported another stunning GDP growth number of 9.4%. But as we've found numerous times before, the numbers underlying the GDP calculation don't add up. Either China's consumers went on strike or fixed asset investment has been over-estimated. Jake van der Kamp is on the case and reaches an unsurprisingly but important conclusion (below the jump).
When the National Bureau of Statistics in Beijing occasionally admits that the figures it publishes are not entirely reliable, I know exactly what it means. We had another case of it last week with the release of third-quarter provisional statistics for gross domestic product. Strong investment and robust private consumption pushed economic growth to 9.4 per cent in the quarter, said the bureau.
Oh yeah? Let us take a closer look at this.
The red line on top of the first chart shows a four-quarter rolling total of reported GDP in dollar-of-the-day terms. For the year to September 30, the mainland's economy registered an output of slightly less than 15 trillion yuan. Now we turn to the components of GDP. The biggest by far is fixed asset investment and firm figures for this were also published last week. Fixed asset investment for the year to September was 8.2 trillion yuan, 24.5 per cent greater than the previous year and the equivalent of 54.8 per cent of total GDP.
These are huge numbers, incidentally. It may be possible to find another country with fixed asset investment of more than half of GDP but I cannot think of any. For contrast try Britain at only 16 per cent or the United States at 19 per cent. In Hong Kong the figure is 21 per cent.
Let us take the fixed asset investment figure out of the mainland's GDP, however, to see what is left. We now have the red line on the chart. The rest of the economy turned out 6.8 trillion yuan in the year to September. The next step is to take out net trade in goods and services. The mainland enjoys a soaring trade surplus at the moment. It is not huge by the benchmark of the overall economy but deduct this component of GDP and you get the green line on the chart. We are now down to 6.1 trillion yuan. Finally the line in the ugly colour. Government consumption spending is another component of GDP and detailed figures are also published. Take it out as well and we are down to 3.4 trillion yuan. Notice here that this final line for what is left now curves distinctly down.
What is left is two items. One, change in inventories, is now an insignificant component of GDP and we shall ignore it. The other is private consumption spending, normally the biggest single component in most economies but certainly not in the mainland, it seems.
It seems, I say. Take that line in the ugly colour, plot it as a year-over-year growth rate and you get the red line in the second chart. It seems from this that in the year to September the man on the street spent 17 per cent less on daily necessities and toys than he did the previous year. But this is not what other official statistics say. They say that retail spending for the year to September was 13.6 per cent greater than it was the previous year (the blue line) and that this retail spending alone was almost twice as great as the remainder number we calculated for all personal consumption spending.
How is it possible?
It is not. The latest GDP figures from the mainland simply do not add up. I hesitate to use the word "rubbish" to describe them but I am starved of a better one.
I think the enormous discrepancy most likely results from an overstatement of fixed asset investment. Capital spending probably is much less than the National Bureau of Statistics says it is. This would imply something else again, however. It would suggest that a vast amount of money earmarked for capital projects was embezzled by corrupt officials and used instead for personal spending on luxury services and toys.
I shall not suggest that this surprises you.
Every second anecdote from the mainland tells you it happens every day. All I have done is put some possible numbers to the scale of it, a very big scale indeed. But I do suggest to the National Bureau of Statistics that it adopt a brand new approach for checking statistics, a new one to the bureau that is. The next time it publishes data it might want to check that the sum of the parts adds up to a given total.
If it does not, and no further work can make it so, then the bureau should not bother to mislead us with grossly and obviously false information. The round bin under the desk is where these sorts of statistics belong.
Determining economic statistics is notoriously difficult at the best of times. But such wildly inaccurate numbers make scary reading. Why? If you're steering the world's fourth largest ship and your navigational data is "rubbish", you're going to end up doing plenty of damage not just to yourself but everyone around you.
Don't forget that what China tells the world, tells its people and tells its officials are three entirely different things. I have no doubt that the Chinese officials know exactly how much they are really spending/growing/stealing/etc... I don't think navigation or bad finacial data is as real a danger as these figures express. The rampant corruption on the other hand, is another story entirely.
Posted by DudeMiester at October 24, 2005 03:47 PM
It is very surprising to me that none have carefully checked the data. The data of the fixed investment used includes private and government investment, and the amount of the government consumption is the government spending, which also includes government investment. The fact is that the government investment has been subtracted twice. How can the remainder be equal to the private consumption, when you subtract government investment twice?!
Your calculation is totally wrong and misleading because you doesn't understand the terminologies used by the Chinese statistical authorities. Investment expenditure you use is so-called the completed investment in fixed assets, which is not gross capital formation in the national accounts. Investment in fixed assets involves double accountings. The difference between the completed investment in fixed assets and capital formation is much bigger than that between retail trade and final consumption. The Chinese statistical authority has never released GDP components quarterly, which are only available in yearly figures several months after the year. The problem with China GDP statistics is not "adding up", which is easy to do, rather is whether they reflect the performance of the Chinese economy. Professor Thomas Rawski from University of Pittsburgh has discussed several issues about China GDP statistics (www.pitt.edu/~tgrawski/papers2001/gdp912f.pdf).
The problem with China GDP statistics is not "adding up", which is easy to do, rather is whether they reflect the performance of the Chinese economy.Either way, there's a big problem.
At the base, China does not have an accounting system that clearly distinguishes between value-added and intermediate consumption at the micro level. So, the problem goes even deeper than the analysis here. Bottom up compilation is not coherent.
A full-size spare, drivetrain warranty, and an ejection seat would have been nice too. I'm not PO'd though, I got my base model at a really great price - end of the model year and all.
I hope you were being sarcastic when citing the People's Daily as giving the "true figure." Forgive my skepticism, but I'm more inclined to believe the DOD, RAND, etc.
I just posted on this whole thing with my take on it all. Thoughts?
Posted by MeiZhongTai at October 22, 2005 12:24 AM
Back in April I had a post about racism in China after the controversial comments made on Sina about Condi Rice. A reader has sent the following thoughts on the issue:
I don't think scientifically justified racism is special to Chinese people but, as I understand it, it is is still taught in schools.
As I understand it the education system in China teaches that the Chinese 'race' evolved from "Peking Man" (Homo Erectus) an ancestral hominid. The overhwelming evidence is that all of us are derived from Homo Sapiens who evolved in Africa and migrated from there around a 100,000 years ago. We may look different but, under the skin (as it were), we are all the same. I guess the Peking Man view taught in China reinforces the racism described. It's a worry and it would help if the syllabi in Chinese schools and universities could be brought up-to-date. The "monkey" taunts probably come from stupid stereotypes but it's likely that these is reinforced by tainted 'science'.
not really, while chinese have an "instinct" to ascribe many good things to chinese inventions, there is nothing in the textbook to hint that chinese is superior to other races.
the discrimination of certain races/countries in china is more based on their economic status, calling that a "racism" is mere ignorance.
a few years ago the AWSJ introduced a book written by a western scientist, in which eastern asians (chinese, japanese, etc) are ranked above whites and blacks in terms of IQ and some other attributes. most of my chinese friends and colleagues regard such a "theory" a bullshit.
that may be true, although i do think China still is widely tolerates discussions based fundamentally on racial Darwinism and social eugenics popular in the West during the 1920s and 1930s. I need not remind anyone of the consequences of the popularity of that movement in Germany.
Of course, I think beliefs about race in China are significantly more mild compared to anything Huxley or Goebbels wrote down. But it is definitely there among the 'lao bai xing', although bingfeng and his friends may be more enlightened.
Next year being a World Cup year, get ready for another tiresome discussion (in China) of why the Brazilians are going to win it because the have the benefit in their gene pool of African athleticism and white intelligence...
Bingfeng, whether there's a sense of racial superiority or not, it seems pretty clear that China officially teaches that they evolved separately from the rest of humanity.
And if you believe you're not even the same species as other people, couldn't that lead you to think they're lesser animals? Just a little?
------------
in history, it's not chinese but some other people that usually "believe you're not even the same species as other people", in that sense, perhaps you are right
bingfeng, I'm not saying no one outside of China has ever made racial slurs against Chinese people. They certainly have. I take issue with you overgeneralizing and saying that it's usually other people treating Chinese people as a different species - blood of the Yellow Emperor ring a bell? China has a rich tradition of believing they come from better stock than the rest of humanity, same as everybody else. So please get out of your glass house and come talk to me in the garden.
We're *were* talking about Chinese textbooks, as the link I gave above indicates, teaching Chinese people they come from an original ancestor different from that of the rest of humanity. That would, in effect, make Chinese people a different species. I just chatted with a friend in Xinjiang who basically said yeah, she kinda believes that (she hadn't thought too much about it before).
i think the sina article on dave's post is pretty accurate.
http://tech.sina.com(dot)cn/d/2005-05-11/1528604616.shtml
(replace dot with a real dot - was censored by simon )
this is a guide for teachers (in chinese)
http://www.xlfd.com/Article_Show.asp?ArticleID=8167
it has made the careful distinction of location vs genetic linkage, with texts such as "ancient human kinds living inside the border of our country"
it also said,
"china is one of the area where human kind originates" -- note the definition of human kind included all homo-xxxx (i.e. homo erectus). the east african valley is now widely regarded as the source of homo sapien. but we have no conclusion on other homo species yet, AFAIK.
that teachers guide link is giving me some kind of Microsoft database error. Let me know if there's another place to read it.
The homo-xxxxx point is well taken. The sina.com article I link to, and your teachers guide presumably, show that there is certainly awareness on the Mainland of competing theories here. And you're right that the most robust theory for single origin, the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis, is only little more than a decade old.
Part of what Simon's reader has raised here, however, is also the social and racial ideas at play in China as well. Social Darwinism had a significant impact on the development of Chinese nationalism, and clearly Peking Man does link to these issues - if not in reality, then certainly in the minds of many Mainlanders, for example my friend I just talked to. As you mentioned, we're all cousins. Chinese are certainly cousins to, say, Ecuadorians. But my friend, who is by no means uneducated, couldn't say whether she thought we are or not, and I suspect that will not be an uncommon reaction among many Chinese mainlanders.
I think there are several things at play with this issue: that the average person in any country is probably going to express a poor understanding of evolution; 20th century China certainly had some less than stellar ideas of race tied to major revolutionary movements (in the US eugenics and social darwinism was tied to standardized testing - remember that the next time you run into the SAT, GRE or MCAT); and as my friend said, the teacher told them what the textbook said - then moved on without discussion.
there seems to be some activex/flash control on that site. i couldn't even do copy/paste. (consider using firefox to view)
here is another site
http://www.eduhelp.com(DOT)cn/history/jxck/c7/
the official tone (as i see from almost all searches) is that they are call "ancient humans living within borders of our country". i think this heading is given by Ministry of Education (listed as Chapter 1 history for 7th grade)
The 'glory' is claimed by the statement that "we have the highest number of such sites found within our countries among all countries in the world" :)
Some older history texts (historians do not understand evolution thoery) were confused to call them 'our ancestors'. I think this incorrect depiction has been replaced in recent years.
There has been a big fuss over Donald Tsang's "privatisation of morals" comment in relation to the government's incredible appeal against the homosexuality age of consent in Hong Kong. Today Stephen Vines in The Standard points out the curious hypocricy (he's too polite to call it that) in A Moral Disconnect:
Leaving aside the dubious notion that any moral view is shared by all of society, Tsang raises a question at the heart of the debate over the extent to which the state should intrude into the lives of its citizens....On the one hand, he believes that society should be able to dictate one particular form of sexual activity between adults who have reached the age of consent, but he has no other stated views on the state's attitude to other forms of sexual activity that may or may not be viewed with distaste by the majority of the population.
So far, so inconsistent, but let us look further into Tsang's views, where more significant inconsistencies are revealed. He is on record as being skeptical of legislation to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race and, even more so, on grounds of sexual orientation. Tsang says he is still pondering racial discrimination laws, but has no interest in the other form of discrimination. One of his arguments is that laws cannot change attitudes and are, anyway, unlikely to be the most effective way of resolving these problems.
Advocates of these laws say that legislation sets a benchmark for what society regards as acceptable in the equal treatment of all citizens, and that the very presence of legislation helps to change attitudes. Tsang fully accepts this argument when it comes to a law that regulates which sexual acts are permissible between consenting adults in private, but maintains that a law which outlaws unequal treatment on grounds of race or sexual orientation is inappropriate. This is so even when this kind of discrimination goes beyond the private activities of adults and can cause real jeopardy to the victims of unequal treatment. Tsang is also reluctant to legislate on matters relating to the establishment of minimum wages for employees or even on matters such as the prohibition of idling engines for waiting vehicles.
In all these cases, he has argued that persuasion is better than law and that the government must be careful not to become too intrusive in the lives of its citizens...
Hong Kong, which self-consciously prides itself on its place among forward- looking world cities, is likely to emerge as a very curious place in this cosmopolitan world if, as Tsang suggests, its government feels the need to spend its time going to court to defend the right of the state to regulate what goes on in the privacy of bedrooms, while adamantly refusing to enact legislation that seeks to create equal treatment for all its citizens and to preserve minimum standards that are of benefit to the least advantaged.
Besides which, peeking into the privacy of the bedroom is rarely a savory activity.
Hong Kong is in danger of going down the American route, where leaders religious values infect their policy making decisions. Last I checked, Catholicism was not the state religion of Hong Kong. Let's keep it that way.
This review of Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday is also the chance to remind the bloody history of the man whose gigantic portrait still overlooks Massacre Square, whose statues still stand in chinese villages, towns and cities, whose political heritage CCP has never repudiated.
Keith Windschuttle starts and ends his piece highlighting the responsibility of western intellectuals and journalists for praising the barbarism of Mao era and for lying against every evidence:
Snow’s book played a major role in converting public opinion in both America and Europe towards a more favorable view of Mao. Its biggest impact, however, was within China itself, where it had a profound influence on radical youth. Red Star over China and the Mao autobiography were quickly translated into Chinese and widely distributed. Many young, urban, middle-class Chinese men and women who read Snow’s books were converted. They cut their long hair short—still a daring and eyebrow-raising gesture in the 1930s—and joined the Communist Party. By 1941, thanks to the reputation Mao had earned from the Long March, party membership had grown to some 700,000.
Edgar Snow was the first, but he was far from being the only Western writer or artist to succumb to Maoism.
Instead, the West was fed a steady diet of propaganda from respectable political leaders and writers who asserted the opposite. The future Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau visited in 1960 and wrote a starry-eyed, aptly titled book, Two Innocents in Red China, which said nothing about the famine. Britain’s Field Marshal Montgomery visited in both 1960 and 1961 and asserted there was “no large-scale famine, only shortages in certain areas.” He did not regard the shortages as Mao’s fault and urged him to hang on to power: “China needs the chairman. You mustn’t abandon this ship.” The United Nations was completely ineffectual. Its Food and Agricultural Organization made an inspection in 1959, declaring that food production had increased by 50 to 100 percent in the past five years: “China seems capable of feeding [its population] well.” When the French socialist leader, François Mitterand, visited in 1961, Mao told him: “I repeat it, in order to be heard: There is no famine in China.” Mitterand dutifully reported this assurance to a credulous world. At the same time, Mao enlisted three writers he knew he could trust—Edgar Snow, Han Suyin, and Felix Greene—to spread his message through articles, books, and a celebrated BBC television interview between a fawning Greene and Chou En-lai.
Among Western intellectuals, Mao’s most enthusiastic supporters came from the French Left. Simone de Beauvoir visited China in 1955 and declared: “The power he [Mao] exercises is no more dictatorial than, for example, Roosevelt’s was. New China’s Constitution renders impossible the concentration of authority in one man’s hands.” She wrote a lengthy book about her visit entitled The Long March. During the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s, her consort Jean-Paul Sartre praised the “revolutionary violence” of Mao as “profoundly moral.”
This was the regime western intellectuals (and politicians) appreciated and excused:
Chang and Halliday calculate that over the course of his political career from 1920 to 1976, Mao was responsible for the deaths of 70 million Chinese. This is more than the total killings attributable to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined. The biggest single number of Chinese dead was the 38 million who perished in the famine of the four years from 1958 to 1961, during the so-called Great Leap Forward. Westerners have known since Jasper Becker’s path-breaking 1996 book Hungry Ghosts: China’s Secret Famine that the famine killed between 30 and 40 million people. Becker attributed this to Mao’s ideological folly of conducting an ambitious but failed experiment in collectivization. Chang and Halliday produce new evidence to show it was more sinister than that.
Mass homicide on the scale of the Great Leap Forward was something that Mao prepared for. He told the 1958 party congress it should not fear but actively welcome people dying as a result of party policy. It was a common theme of his at the time. In Moscow in 1957 he said: “We are prepared to sacrifice 300 million Chinese for the victory of the world revolution.” On the prospect of another world war, he told the party in 1958: “Half the population wiped out—this happened quite a few times in Chinese history. It’s best if half the population is left, next best one-third.” Hence, Mao’s eventual career tally of 70 million deaths was actually much less than he anticipated.
Mao used precisely the same model in the so-called Cultural Revolution of 1966–1968. Party historians and sympathetic Western academics, then and now, rationalize this event as Mao’s attempt to revive the revolutionary spirit and arrest pro-capitalist and anti-socialist tendencies. In reality, Chang and Halliday show, it was yet another purge of Communist officials designed to terrorize the party and secure Mao’s leadership. Indeed, Mao himself thought of it as the Great Purge. Its principal targets were those party leaders who thought Mao’s attempts at collectivization and industrialization during the Great Leap Forward were a disaster.
But what were the main differences between Mao and the other totalitarian mass murderers of the XX century?
What made Mao the greater monster was not just the sheer quantity of his killings. It was because so many of his victims came not only from his real and imagined enemies but also from his own supporters. Chang and Halliday make it clear that Mao built his political power out of a life-long strategy that easily outdid even Stalin in waging murder and terror among his own Communist Party comrades.
Mao’s innovation to the Soviet system was to turn this persecution into public display. Mass rallies, public denunciations by informers, and public confessions of being AB (anti-Bolshevik) became the order of the day. Mao used this accusation to purge the party hierarchy of anyone who disagreed with him or whom he thought potentially disloyal.
Unlike Hitler and Stalin, who used secret police to arrest and interrogate victims, Mao used all those not yet accused to spy on, guard, interrogate, arrest, and punish those already accused. The Yenan settlement became a self-perpetuating totalitarian state. No outside press or radio communication was permitted. No letters could be sent or received from the outside world: Indeed, letters were construed as evidence of spying. Humor, sarcasm, and irony were banned. The regime invented a new catch-all offence, “Speaking Weird Words,” which meant any comment that could be interpreted as a complaint or a wisecrack could have its speaker accused of being a spy or traitor. Two years of this regime transformed the once young and passionate volunteers into robots, capable of enunciating nothing but bland echoes of the party line.
Mao and CCP today:
Chang and Halliday finish their biography with a gloomy reminder. In the face of today’s renewed bout of Western enthusiasm for China and its purported miracle economy, they use their epilogue to emphasize just how little has changed politically. Today, Mao’s portrait and his corpse still dominate Tiananmen Square in the heart of the Chinese capital. The current Communist regime declares itself to be Mao’s heir and fiercely perpetuates his myth.
In the past, books about China have played a major role in altering its politics. Edgar Snow’s Red Star over China was important in winning domestic support for the Chinese Communist Party. Chang and Halliday’s book will be impossible to ignore. It will no doubt be banned in China, but will still circulate secretly and be more sought after for that. The tens of thousands of Chinese students now studying at Western universities will see it in the bookstores. The story its authors tell is so awful it will both shock the Chinese people and confirm many of the private anecdotes and rumors passed down within families. Rather than being the man who made the ancient Middle Kingdom stand up again, Mao was the one who brought it to its knees. This is a powerful story which Mao’s heirs will have great difficulty denying or suppressing. Just as Snow’s book helped install the regime, Chang and Halliday’s could help bring it down. If any single book in our own time has the capacity to change the course of history, this is it.
Dedicated to the CCP (and sometimes Mao) apologists that still today people the world and the blogosphere.
I doubt that arguing Mao is evil is going bring down the system.
The official version is that Mao was a great man for leading the 1949 revolution but led China into disaster in the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. In any case Mao doesn't matter all that much any more.
Yes, statues of Mao really annoy me, but they are no worse than statues of Confederate leaders that you still see in the southern United States, and there really are a lot of parallels between how Southerners think of and attempt to defend Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and the official Chinese history of Mao.
The interesting thing about facts is that people react differently to them. For example, what do we learn from the Cultural Revolution? The thing that I've learned is that basing policy on ideology is a bad thing, looking at details is important, experts can be stupid, bureaucracy can be a good thing, and "revolutionary causes" are a bad thing.
For example, I think it is hideous that one would consider allowing millions of people to die for the "greater good," but sometimes I think detect the same sort of thinking in Chinese democracy activists, who really don't think through or don't care about the consequences of social revolution because it fits in the "greater good."
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 20, 2005 11:37 PM
Joseph,
I think your reasoning is respectable but your historical and political comparisons are silly. Think again, if you want.
The thing that I've learned is that basing policy on ideology is a bad thing, looking at details is important, experts can be stupid, bureaucracy can be a good thing, and "revolutionary causes" are a bad thing.
For example, I think it is hideous that one would consider allowing millions of people to die for the "greater good," but sometimes I think detect the same sort of thinking in Chinese democracy activists, who really don't think through or don't care about the consequences of social revolution because it fits in the "greater good."
------------
excellent points, Jo
"democracy fundamentalists" won't do china any good compared with old guards of the past, because they harbor the same mentality of intolerance and sacrificing individual/minority for the "greater good".
while the dying ideology annoies me from time to time (like the blocking of wikipedia), "democracy fundamentalists" in various forms are more dangerous for china in the coming years.
btw, here is another portrait that might upset some people but is no longer related with any ideology or "national spirit", it only serves to be a symbol of mongolian nationality:
Today in China, Mao is more widely used as a luck-charm (to scare away bad luck/devil) than a 'statue'.
It had been reported (over 10 years ago), there was a miracle survival in a car accident where there was a Mao "charm". Talk to taxi drivers they would tell you different versions of the story.
Enzo: It might help if you point out why my historical analogies are silly.
I don't think that comparing the official Communist view of Mao Zedong to the southern view of Robert E. Lee is silly at all. Both of them were responsible for defending systems that were morally reprehensible and indefensible, yet both have fans today that rely in some part on emphasizing some parts of history and deemphasizing the "bad bits."
I mean pretty much no one can defend chattel slavery and institutional racism just as I don't think anyone can seriously defend the Cultural Revolution. By you can talk about the heroic qualities of Mao and Confederate generals, and how they are good people because they "defended us from outside interference."
States-rights/anti-imperialism, same thing. It lets you have people rally together without really thinking about what they are defending.
Another experiment is to find someone that calls themselves a Maoist and see what they think about the current Chinese government. Pretty much every self-described Maoist I've talked hates the current Chinese government which must mean that they are doing something right.
Also if you think that my worry about "Chinese democracy activists" repeating the Cultural Revolution is overblown, read the last few paragraphs of Wei Jingsheng's the "Fifth Modernization." If forced to choose between the Communist Party's version of democracy and Wei Jingsheng's, I'll take the former. (Yes I realize its not either or, but I'm making a point.)
Fortunately, overseas Chinese democracy activists are like campus Marxist radicals, pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. They've manage to destroy themselves before doing any real harm to anyone else. Sad, in a way. The Tiananmen generation could have done so much more, but oh well......
The current crop of public intellectuals and peasant activists are a different story. They aren't trying to overthrow the system, just put pressure on the system to reform itself, and so my objections don't apply to them at all.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 21, 2005 09:04 AM
Joseph Wang - you never cease to amaze me! Once again, as usual, you bring to these discussions a sober sense of fairness and balance. I won't add anything further, because you have already pretty much summed up my own views.
Enzo, you are right to point out that millions died under Mao, and that given not only what we know today about him, but also what we know he knew about the tragedies he caused, he was a terrible, atrocious leader neck deep in blood.
I think before one totally rips apart outside observers for being sympathetic to him though, one has to remember that during those years, outsiders actually knew very little about what was happening inside China. The CCP was very good at pulling the wool over the eyes of foreign visitors. There was evidence, yes, but the same sort of evidence that, for instance, tells us that there is global warming today.
It was also a time when the Cold War and later, the Vietnam War made intelligent people wary of demonizing another country just because it was Communist. They thought they were open minded by considering Mao without the blinkers of Cold War rhetoric. Sadly, this sort of doubt led people to very incorrect conclusions.
I am not defending Mao at all. I simply think that we must remember that many people's sympathy to Mao came out of a time of little information about China and also of rebellion against 2 decades of anti-Communist rhetoric. They were mistaken, they were misguided, some of them were stupid, but it does not make them evil...
Incidentally, I think Joseph Wang makes a good point, albeit tangetially related to the main thrust of your piece, that what is really necessary in China is not a new ideology per se, but a fundamental appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of the life and welfare of individual citizens.
Jonathan Spence gets it right (excerpt found at The Corner):
"As I was reading this book [Chang and Halliday's], I kept asking myself why historians should feel that they ought to be fair even to pathological monsters, if that is truly what Mao was. The most salient answer is perhaps structural as much as conceptual. Without some attempt at fairness there is no nuance, no sense of light and dark. The monster, acute and deadly, just shambles on down some monstrous path of his own devising. If he has no conscience, no meaningful vision of a different world except one where he is supreme, while his enemies are constantly humiliated and his people starve, then there is nothing we can learn from such a man. And that is a conclusion that, across the ages, historians have always tried to resist."
"I don't think that comparing the official Communist view of Mao Zedong to the southern view of Robert E. Lee is silly at all. Both of them were responsible for defending systems that were morally reprehensible and indefensible, yet both have fans today that rely in some part on emphasizing some parts of history and deemphasizing the "bad bits."
Unless you think that one death is a tragedy, one million deaths is statistics (Stalin docet), unless you have some news for me, Robert E. Lee was not responsible for the death of many millions people in the name of a totalitarian utopy. Is that difference enough or do I have to go on? Let's be serious, these are serious matters.
You wrote:
"Also if you think that my worry about "Chinese democracy activists" repeating the Cultural Revolution is overblown, read the last few paragraphs of Wei Jingsheng's the "Fifth Modernization." If forced to choose between the Communist Party's version of democracy and Wei Jingsheng's, I'll take the former. (Yes I realize its not either or, but I'm making a point.)"
When I read statements like "the Communist Party's version of democracy" I give up. There are some necessary premises to have a consistent debate. "The Communist Party's version of democracy" in the real world is called dictatorship. You are free to think that it's the best for China or that chinese people don't deserve anything else, but stop using the orwellian language, please. Democracy is a serious thing, many democracy activist as well, if you don't like them don't talk about. But, please, don't insult them and the intelligence of your interlocutors. Confusion is not a good companion.
Dave, you wrote:
"I simply think that we must remember that many people's sympathy to Mao came out of a time of little information about China and also of rebellion against 2 decades of anti-Communist rhetoric. They were mistaken, they were misguided, some of them were stupid, but it does not make them evil..."
In the case of journalists and intellectuals, they had cultural background and material possibilities to know the truth. Simply, they weren't interested.
As for the "rebellion against anti-Communist rhetoric", I don't buy it. I'm sure the same excuse wouldn't accepted if we were talking about nazi crimes.
"what is really necessary in China is not a new ideology per se, but a fundamental appreciation for the sanctity and dignity of the life and welfare of individual citizens".
I completely agree. It's for that that China needs democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights and individuals.
Enzo, correct me if I'm reading you wrongly here, but are you trying to say that China ought to adopt something similar to what we have in the West? If so, what makes you think that our system is any more democratic than what China already has?
What is democracy, Enzo? I tell you what it is. Democracy, by definition, is the idea that soceity's public decisions will reflect the collective will of equal citizens rather than those of powerful elites. Now, do you really believe that in countries like Australia or Britain or France or Germany or the United States, that the public decisions which are made by government usually reflect the collective will of their citizens? And are all citizens in these countries really all that equal - in terms not only of their wealth and educational level, but also in terms of their abilities to influence decision-making processes and to impact in any significant way on public opinion?
Surely not?
In the United States, Britain, Australia, and most other developed countries, there operates what is generally known as the "two-party system". Sure, other political parties can exist, like the Greens in Germany and Australia for example, or like independents like Ralph Nader in the U.S. But the rules are rigged in such a way as to ensure that one of only two main political parties will always form government. Sure, this system does provide a certain amount of political stability for a nation state (I'm not necessarily against it), but it also prevents any real form of democracy from being able to emerge - in essence, it works to protect the status quo.
The United States is in fact less democratic than most other parliamentary democracies, because in the United States there exists a "winner-takes-all" electoral system: by giving all representation to the candidate with the most votes by definition shuts the door on political minorities, does it not?
Nearly all European legislatures, as well as in New Zealand, have forms of proportional representation, where 51 per cent of the vote wins ten percent of seats, and in some nations, like Germany and Belgium, candidates can win with far less support. Indeed, new political parties form in European "democracies" in roughly similar numbers as they do in the United States; the difference is that with proportional representation, more than half of these parties ultimately win seats and a chance to bring new voters and issues into politics even as the leading parties (or coalitions) typically function as stable pillars of government.
Still, I would argue that even under a system of proportional representation, parliamentary democracy is a very limited form of democracy. Surely democracy implies much more than the simple right to choose between representatives of political parties every four or five years? The Chartist Movement in the 19th century saw that gaining the right to vote was meaningless unless it could be used to effect "change".
Exercising our democratic right to vote for a conventional political party does not effect change Enzo. No way! It amounts to little more than making a selection between rival representatives of power and class interests whose overarching function is to protect private property and to ensure that profits flow. It is, quite frankly as far as I am concerned, little more than a representative government where all the representatives support obedience to the capitalist system.
Can anybody seriously say that in the United States there is really any fundamental difference between the Democrats and the Republicans? Or in Australia, between the Liberal/National Party Coalition and Labor? Or in Britain, between the Tories and Labour? I don't think so. What differences do exist are grossly exaggerated when you strip away all of the opposing rhetoric.
Not only this, but in all of these societies, both major rivals are more often than not funded by the same corporations. Do you think that Murdoch for example, puts all of his eggs into the one basket? Of course not.
Any political party which in fact challenges the orthodoxy of corporate rule, any party which genuinely seeks a better deal for workers, or whose policies are perceived in any way to threaten the health of the corporate world, will simply not attract any real funding from corporate bodies. How can such alternatives manage to voice their policies in fair competition with the big guns? Such an enequal contest is far from democratic. To get anywhere, a party must be able to attract corporate sponsors. The last presidential race in the U.S. is estimated to have cost at least US$1.2 billion.
And of course, not surprisingly, the corporate media in all of these countries even shut out the smaller fry by staging election "debates" between the two major parties only. And these so-called debates are very limited in their scope, precisely because both parties are essentially the same. They are the "two heads, of the one monster", as Gore Vidal once said - and each one feeds from the same trough.
Just take a good look at how governments throughout the so-called "democratic" world operate. The most important decisions are usually made unilaterally and without any consultation - not even with elected representatives or allies, much less with the ordinary citizen. Most people in both Britain and Australia were opposed to any military involvement in the Iraqi invasion for example, and still are. And yet, the governments of both of these countries made the decision to get involved nevertheless. There was no referendum, no consultation with local representatives even. Both governments ignored all opinion polls as well.
At any rate, for us Westerners to be constantly rattling on about how China needs and should be compelled to introduce "democracy" (whatever that might mean, and I assume usually such people like yourself Enzo are referring to a parliamentary system not unlike the type found in the U.S., etc) is simply unrealistic and naive, not to mention downright ignorant and arrogant. Not every country can suddenly "introduce" this kind of democracy for themselves - for such systems of limited representation always develop best where it develops incrementally - with gradual but consistent reforms in the political and civic landscape - instigated by economic change, and the changes in social mores that flow from this.
Indeed, in the West, electorates were enfranchised gradually. It took the British almost 150 years to develop a middle-class parliament. By contrast, the advent of democracy in the developing world has been telescoped. In relative terms, Asian politics is still where Britain was when rotten boroughs were bought and sold.
You cannot simply implant a "democracy", in the way that certain U.S. cowboys are trying to do in Iraq right now. The idea that you can bomb a country to pieces, occupy it, and then set up a parliamentary system with free elections is foolish nonsense - especially in a country with no real democratic traditions, and where political power has for centuries rested with local tribal affiliations based on religious and ethnic divisions.
In fact, parliamentary democracies do not promote peace and prosperity in such places, but conflict. One of the leading causes of conflict in our world today is the rivalry between peoples of different ethnic and religious groups. A very large number of these conflicts have taken place under so-called "democratic" regimes - like in India for example. According to the noted American lawyer and libertarian scholar, James Ostrowski, 25 out of 29 recent intrastate conflicts were ethnic or religious in nature, and out of those, 23 of the 25 occured in nations that were "democratic" throughout the time of the dispute.
The empirical evidence supports the view that "democracies" can, under certain social conditions, promote ethnic and religious conflict. According to Ostrowski, "an examination of the dynamics of the democratic process explains why this is so: in democracies, people tend to vote along ethinc or religious lines. All experience confirms this: people of one ethnic group tend to vote for candidates of the same ethnic group, or candidates that are known to favour the interest of such a group. The same applies to religion - the recent division of Americans in the last election certainly took on an evangalist verses liberal line to some considerable extent. Not only this, but according to one Gallup Poll, 93 percent of Republicans are white, while 93 percent of blacks voted for Al Gore for President in the 2000 elections."
Why do people vote like this? Simple, says Ostrowski. "It's because parliamentary 'democracy' gives people a virtually meaningless single vote. It allows them to vote for one of the candidates on the ballot, none of whom may represent the views and values of the voter. Since voters implicitly recognise the virtual meaninglessness of their vote, they have little incentive to inform themselves in detail about candidates, issues and policies. It is much easier to vote along ethnic or religious lines. Thus, ethnic/religious voting is a rational response to the problem of rational ignorance about candidates and issues."
"So 'democracies' inherently contain the seeds of ethnic conflict," concludes Ostrowski, "and as history shows us, under certain circumstances, people who are members of ethnic minorities prefer to fight wars of sucession to escape from the control of majority ethnic groups they believe are hostile to their interests."
Just look at all of those countries that once belonged to the former USSR - their experiments with democracy have proven to be dismal, and have resulted in conflicts and wars that have been based around ethnic divisions. Most Chinese will most certainly alert you to the speedy break-up of the former Soviet Union once it began dabbling in "democracy", which is one of the main reasons why they now tread so cautiously.
China is a country with not only a huge population, but also with a diverse range of ethnic minority groups. At least 56 in fact. Trying to rush through with the introduction of a parliamentary "democracy" could be fatal. Most people in China, if given the choice, would have no hesitation in choosing their current system rather than to risk the break-up of the nation state, and all of the violence and conflict this would no doubt entail. In the paper he delivered to the 32nd Sino-American Conference on Contemporary China, Gilbert Rozman noted that influential CCP members as well as influential mainland academic analysts have indeed interpreted the Soviet collapse as "the consequence of moving too quickly toward democracy and thereby losing control," which is something that the British journalist and author, Kevin Sinclair, also discusses in his book, China Culture Shock.
Remember Enzo, every major study to date - both by independent US and Chinese scholars alike, have found that the overwhelming majority of mainlanders DO NOT WANT multi-party elections, and are generally satisfied with the present system and status quo. You can't simply ignore empirical data like that, nor can you try to dismiss it as CCP propaganda.
China has a one-party system. We in the West have also have one-party systems, disguised as two-party systems.
As I've said before, we need some premises to have a consistent debate.
Every time I run into someone trying to explain to me that liberal democracies and one-party dictatorships are the same thing, I give up.
Nothing personal but some points of view and some history and politics interpretations are beyond me.
Well look Enzo, this is why, at heart, I am an empiricist, in the more traditional British sense. The fact that the our Western parliamentary democracies are essentially designed to maintain the status quo is I think, empirically verifiable. And I think this is a good thing, incidentally, because what most rational human beings want is stability - a stable economic, social and political environment. They why the two party system exists, but let's not pretend that it is democratic! It's not - and that too, is empirically verifiable.
If the same interests fund and influence both major parties in a two-party system, then is it not reasonable to conclude that these two parties are merely the two sides of the one coin? Some people, intimately familar with the Western political system, like Gore Vidal, are honest enough to admit this.
The Chinese people, like us Westerners, want stability. The two party system might work well for countries like Britain, Australia, etc., but most Chinese themsleves don't believe that it would work well for China. And I agree with them - as do many other Westerners, journalists and scholars alike.
You disagree - fine! But you should at least be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints, and to examine whether such positions can be supported empirically or not, and if so, by how much weight? It's ultimately a more productive approach to debate than merely drawing a line in the sand, separating the two opposing viewpoints as though they were incapable of coming together to form something new. Sands do shift, and it's always best to think dialectically - both the ancient Greeks and the ancient Chinese appreciated that, and independently of one another too.
Just one final thought. Things are much less complicated than all that. The only way to know what chinese want would be let them express freely. It's so easy. Why so many people are so scared of that?
Enzo, as I pointed out earlier, there have been a number of surveys, some of them on ahuge, national scale, conducted by independent researchers from countries as diverse as the United States, Taiwan, and of course, the mainland itself. All of the them consistently produce the same basic result: most mainlanders do not want multi-party elections at this stage of China's development. They answered these surveys freely, the findings have been discussed widely and accepted - the last one I know of was discussed at the 32nd Sino-American Conference on Contemporary China in Taipei.
O.K. Enzo, I take your point. I mean, I wasn't trying to suggest that national surveys constitute in themselves a form of democracy. As a way of gauging popular sentiments and attitudes, surveys are limited, I admit. We're not talking about a national census here. But every single survey to date has yielded similar results, and this provides some empirical evidence to suggest that most mainlanders do not want multi-party elections, and that most are presently satisfied with the current system. That's all I'm pointing out. It doesn't seem as though most mainlanders are screaming out for a two-party system, as some people like to suggest.
My main arguments here are (1) two-party systems are really one-party systems disguised as two.
(2) Both China's one-party system and the two-party systems that we have in the West are undemocratic, and are designed to maintain the status quo and to provide economic, social and political stability.
(3) Both systems in question are clearly achieving these aims, and that I think, is empirically verifiable fact.
(4) The aims achieved are in fact what most rational human beings desire, so I'm not suggesting that either system is bad - I'm merely saying that both are very undemocratic.
(5) At present, the one-party model is best suited for China,
and (6) if national surveys are anything to go by, most mainlanders themselves are of the opinion that the one-party system is best for them.
Yeah Mark, I guess that is why so much time and effort is put into controlling the media and public opinion, right?
If people really liked the current set-up, what are the authorities so scared of?
Sorry Mark- but to argue that there are no substantive differences between the Democrats and Republicans in the US simply defies reality. Many naive Americans thought so back in 2000- allowing a clown like Ralph Nader to amass millions of votes and allowing the "compassionate conservative" Bush to take the White House.
I actually agree that introducing parliamentary democracy at this stage of China's development would probably be chaotic, but equating China's one-party government with the two-party ones elsewhere in the world undermines your entire argument.
It has finally been reported today that Elsie Leung, Hong Kong's Secretary for Justice, has resigned and has been replaced by Wong Yan-Lung. I know little about Mr. Wong other than the fact that he is a well-respected member of the local legal community and a member of the Article 45 Concern group, but he has got to be better than Ms. Leung, the walking embarrassment to Hong Kong jurisprudence that lurched during her incredibly long 8-year tenure from one fiasco to the next. I find it somewhat amusing to rearrange the letters of her name to spell "Slug in Eel".
Lest we forget: she spearheaded the effort to obviate the need for a Court of (Semi-)Final Appeal early in Tung's tenure to reinterpret a ruling it made on 'Right of Abode' claimants in Hong Kong. She defended her decision not to prosecute Sally Aw, then owner of the Standard, for grossly defrauding the public and potential investors with totally fabricated circulation numbers, by saying that prosecuting the Tung crony would 'run the risk of losing jobs.' There's more but I think those two snippets will refresh your memory and hopefully your outrage. And yes, democracy in Hong Kong might help remove the tumor of incompetence faster and earlier from the local body politic, instead of Mr. Tung's 'ministerial' system.
Go on, Mr. Wong. You can do better. You'll clear that low bar as long as you've got a 2-inch vertical leap.
What are you kidding, name any lawyer who is less competent than the Slug-in-Eel? :D All she had on her resume was handling divorce cases. Harriet Miers has much better credential than the Slug.
Hopefully HK is finally moving toward meritocracy, Singapore style.
Wong is one of the youngest QC (they changed the name after 1997, forgot what it is called now, Senior Council, sth like that) he got the highest number of A's in HKCEE among humanity students, while at the egalitarian school Queen's College. (his father sold icecream in a cart next to the peak tram entrance, a proletariet :) ) He got one of the most prestigeous scholarship to go to Cambridge, and supposed excelled there.
He is far from Lee Kuan Yew. But Secretary for Justice is a much less demanding job that Lee's.
Gents, appreciate your comments. Simon, it will be tough to find someone as obviously in need of replacement.
Sun, thanks for the useful color on Mr. Wong's background. I'll take a technocrat over a divorce lawyer whose gut instinct seemed to lead her in the wrong direction every time any day of the week. In any case, someone that actually has respect for the rule of law seems a rather important prerequisite.
I've managed to save up roughly $17006 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?
The Big Boss briefs the morning meeting, reading from his Government-issued Line-to-Take, which is designed to counter pro-democrats’ claims that the proposals are insultingly lame. “On the subject of a timetable,†our pro-Donald Chairman intones, “it’s basically a matter of timing.†He looks up to survey the bemused faces of his senior management team. What the hell does that mean? “We first have to create favourable conditions and have all the building blocks in place,†he goes on, “like grooming political talent and um…†He looks down at the sheet of paper again and skips a couple of bullet points. “Oh yes – we can’t exclude appointed District Councillors from all of this because they have the same responsibilities as elected ones, and it would be unfair to discriminate against them.†He looks up again, as if to plead for understanding. He didn’t think this stuff up. “And, um, these proposals are firmly grounded on public views,†he reads out, “and represent a major step towards the ultimate aim of universal suffrage.†He shrugs slightly as he puts the paper down. “You’d have though they could come up with better arguments,†he admits.
The problem, it occurs to me, is that the most effective arguments would provoke opposition from the other side of the political spectrum, and maybe even to our north. The logic of the proposals is that the days of the small-circle functional constituencies are drawing to a close. Ship owners, dentists, employers, construction firms and other groups demanding a rotten borough in the legislature were snubbed. The new functional constituencies will be elected – albeit indirectly – by the people, diluting the influence of the corporate electors. Chris Patten would probably approve. But the Government can’t stress this, because it needs a two-thirds majority in Legco – the votes of odious Liberal Party boss James Tien and his cartel representative friends – to get the package through. In order to get the turkeys to vote for Christmas, the Government can’t talk up Christmas, leaving the pro-democrats looking at the gloomy side of the festival.
China's latest economic data (admittedly, take with a grain of salt):
3rd quarter GDP: +9.4% (forecast 9.2%)
Jan-Sep industrial output: +16.3% on year earlier
Jan-Sep fixed asset investment: +26.1% on year earlier
Jan-Sep urban fixed asset investment: +27.7% on year earlier
Jan-Sep retail sales: +13% on year earlier
Jan-Sep CPI: +2% on year earlier
Jan-Sep PPI: +5.4% on year ealier
Low inflationary strong growth continues. It is, quite frankly, amazing.
Trawling around the internet today I came across an item on China Daily/Xinhua which I understand is used for official announcements in the PRC. The Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao announced a doubling of "Per capita GNP" for the period 2000 to 2010 - what exactly does this mean? If straight forward compound interest is used then a growth rate of 7.2% for 10 years means a doubling of GNP during that period of 10 years. If growth rates of 9.5% have been achieved for the first 5 years of the 10 year period what will be the growth rate for the last 5 years? According to my simple arithmetic this is a growth rate of less that 7% p.a.
In view of the figures you have shown
you would think that at least they would try to sing the same tune at the same time. I wonder how many different departments in Beijing are producing different statistics for different officials?
You've also got to allow for population growth in per capital GDP. If it's about 2% a year (a quick search should find the true figure) that's the difference. As population growth slows thanks to the one child policy, then your maths comes into play.
Commonly in business and just like waistlines, you expand when things are going well and contract when they are not. Except in Hong Kong. Forbes reports on the government's latest attempt to throw more bad money after bad at Hong Kong Disneyland:
The government may be asked for funds to finance the proposed expansion of Hong Kong Disneyland if revenues from the theme park's operations and alternative funding sources are insufficient to meet the capital outlay, said Secretary for Economic Development and Labor Stephen Ip.
In a written reply today to a question from Legislative Council (LegCo) member Fred Li, Ip said theme park operator Hongkong International Theme Parks Ltd (HKITP), a joint venture between the government and Walt Disney Co, will generate earnings for use in further developing the park.
'If HKITP cannot finance the park expansion from the operational receipts or other funding sources and requires government equity injection or loans, this will be put to the finance committee of the council for consideration,' he said...Ip said the government and Walt Disney have agreed 'to keep up the momentum to develop the theme park and expand the number of rides and attractions to attract visitors to the theme park.'
The park can't pay for itself, so the government will continue to add funds. If only other businesses could tap into such largesse.
He said that a new attraction, Autopia, will be completed in 2006.
To be followed by the new White Elephant ride, taking in West Kowloon, Tamar and other outstanding examples and ending back at the White Mouse HQ.
'Other attractions will continue to be built, having regard to market demand,' he said. Ip did not say how much is required for the Disneyland expansion projects. He said the government will ensure that the HKITP's resources are properly used through government officials who sit on the joint venture's board.
Even better, the government could publicly release all the documentation related to HKITP so the actual owners of the park, Hong Kong's taxpayers, can see what the government has done on their behalf. Oh, wait, look, there's a flying elephant with floppy ears.
Ip said the development and operation of Disneyland cost some HK$14.1 bln which came from equity contributions from both the government and Walt Disney, as well as loans from the government and various financial institutions.
Of the total HK$14.1 bln development costs of Disneyland, the government injected HK$3.25 bln, while Walt Disney put in HK$2.45 bln. The rest of the funds used for the project came in the form of borrowings of HK$8.4 bln by the joint venture company HKITP, which is held 57 pct by the government, with the rest held by Walt Disney Co. Of the HK$8.4 bln loans, HK$6.1 bln was provided by the government, while the balance came in the form of commercial loans obtained by HKITP.
I've been through the maths of HK Disneyland's financing before. But it's still staggering that the government provided both equity and a large part of the debt to finance the park, not to mention the huge amount spent on reclamation, infrastructure and remedial work.
If I remember correctly, Disneyland also does not have to pay taxes till about the same time that disneyland on the mainland is built, as I reported before.
That's one big mouse! Or a giant elephant with Mickey ears.
Disney must have calculated that even if the park were too small to begin with, after HK had spent their money and realized their new project was too small to be viable, that the government would pony up the rest regardless of the implications to the HK taxpayer.
That's why Hong Kong needs democracy - otherwise there's no way to punish idiots with the ballot box!!
By the way, I hope your trip went well. Mine was great except for the return flight which I go into more detail on my own blog...:)
The trial has ended, and the jury has convicted Nancy Kissel of murder; she has been sentenced to life in prison. Please scroll to the bottom for details and breaking news. A summary of the links and details of the case:
Defence claims that Nancy Kissel had a "meltdown" after she killed her husband had to be considered in light of the manner in which she carried out what the prosecution called her "cover-up" activities, jurors were told in the Court of First Instance yesterday.
Mr Justice Michael Lunn also said the evidence of Kissel's generous contributions to her children's school and the Jewish community was "unchallenged".
The judge, on the second day of his summing up, drew the jury's attention to stills taken from closed-circuit television footage that showed the defendant dragging a large suitcase, carrying a rug and shopping bags on different occasions two days after she allegedly murdered Robert Peter Kissel, a senior Merrill Lynch banker, in their Parkview apartment on Sunday November 2, 2003.
The judge said Suzara Serquina, of Tequila Kola in Aberdeen, described the defendant as "normal" but "a little bit loud" during her visit to the furniture store at 5.30pm on November 3.
The accused, wearing sunglasses inside the store, gave a lavish compliment on a display item.
"[The witness] and another salesperson exchanged glances," the judge said.
The accused bought a chaise lounge, two cushions, and a small carpet, and ordered a tailor-made bedcover, before returning the next day to buy two more large carpets at a total price of $27,000.
The defendant had also on the morning of November 3 ordered 20 cartons from Links Relocation, a removal firm, the judge said.
The police later found bloody items, including the 3.7kg lead ornament Kissel used to attack her husband, in the boxes.
She was also found to have accessed the homepage of Hong Kong Police and its pages on missing and wanted persons on the same day, he added.
Mr Justice Lunn invited the jurors to look at the evidence "in respect of whether or not she had gone into a meltdown" after the killing.
Kissel, 41, has admitted killing the banker but pleaded not guilty to murder.
Alexander King SC, for the defence, argued in his closing submission that Kissel had "melted down" after the killing, and that this had caused her to carry out a number of bizarre acts, such as sleeping with her husband's body for at least two nights and calling her husband's mobile phone.
He urged the jury to acquit her of murder, arguing that she had acted in lawful self-defence.
Kissel told the court that she could not recall much about the incidents in those few days.
But prosecutor Peter Chapman said the acts were carried out to cover up the alleged murder.
The judge reminded the jury that the accused had also ordered her two Filipino maids to buy six boxes of peppermint oil from the Body Shop and two coils of rope in Stanley.
She also arranged for some Parkview workmen to carry the old carpet roll concealing the deceased's body to her storeroom on November 5. When the head workman commented to her that the carpet smelt like "salt fish", she did not react and closed the door.
The judge said Bryna O'Shea, Kissel's best friend in San Francisco, said in her oral evidence that the defendant was not crying on the phone and that she was "forcing herself to sound upset" when she told her that her husband walked out after beating her. This left the witness questioning what was really happening, said the judge.
The prosecution witness also found it strange that Kissel complained to her about being unable to write out cheques and said "f***ing Rob had it all tied up with Merrill Lynch" at a time when she did not know his whereabouts.
Ms O'Shea also recalled asking her friend if she wanted to cancel breast enhancement surgery scheduled for mid-November in San Francisco. To her surprise, the accused replied: "No, don't cancel it. I will be there."
But the judge said various defence witnesses had given "unchallenged evidence" on her generous contributions to the Hong Kong International School, where she had been the vice-president of the Parent Faculty Office (PFO), school photographer, and organiser of a successful annual fund-raising event.
He repeated the remark of her good friend and former president of the PFO, Trudy Samra, in relation to her efforts in creating the popular school calendar: "Nancy is the calendar."
And Mr Justice Lunn reiterated a government scientist's conclusion that he had never encountered the combination of five drugs found in the victim's stomach and liver contents - alleged to come from a sedative-laced milkshake Kissel used to drug him.
The jury is expected to deliberate whether to return a verdict of murder, manslaughter or acquit her after the judge finishes his directions today.
Nancy Kissel was sentenced to life in prison yesterday after seven jurors unanimously found her guilty of murdering her husband after one of Hong Kong's most sensational trials.
The 41-year-old mother of three was expressionless in the dock as guards put her in handcuffs and escorted her to a prison van after Justice Michael Lunn passed sentence. Her mother, Jean McGlothlin, and friends broke down in court.
After eight hours of deliberation, the grave-looking jurors entered the courtroom about 8.30pm, to return a unanimous verdict of murder.
Sentencing Kissel, Mr Justice Lunn thanked the jurors for sitting with patience and care through the "gruesome details of the circumstances in which Robert Kissel met his death" in a trial that almost lasted three months. He exempted them from jury service for the next 15 years and granted them the maximum additional allowance of $280 a day for performing their duty.
Michigan-born Kissel was arrested five days after she drugged Robert Kissel, a senior Merrill Lynch banker, with a milkshake and bludgeoned him to death with a heavy lead ornament in their luxurious Parkview flat on November 2, 2003. She arranged for workmen to carry the victim's body, concealed in an old oriental rug, to her storeroom.
Prosecutor Peter Chapman said during the trial that Kissel killed her husband in a "cold-blooded" murder to escape a "messy, lengthy" divorce and be with Michael Del Priore, her TV-repairman lover who lived in a trailer park in Vermont.
Defence counsel Alexander King SC claimed Kissel had been subjected to five years of forceful anal sex and physical assault by a husband who abused cocaine and searched for gay porn websites. Kissel told the court her husband had threatened to kill her with a baseball bat and that she had almost no memory of the activities she embarked on to cover up her crime.
William Kissel, the victim's 77-year-old father who flew from Florida to attend the trial, said after the verdict: "Justice has been served. Am I sad? Yes, I lost my son. My son is resting in peace now. All the allegations against him have been proven false. The jury, after a three-month trial, in half a day, declared her guilty of murder.
"Rob was a wonderful father. He tried his best to be a wonderful husband and I just wished that his children could go on with their lives knowing the beauty of their father and how much he loved them.
"One doesn't stand up in court and accuse one's husband of all these horrible events because at the same time you do that, you are condemning your own children, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren."
Kissel's mother, Jean McGlothlin, who stood by her daughter every day in court, held back tears as she said to a crowd of journalists: "Mostly I would like to say thank you for the respect you have shown me and my family. Except for photographers, you have all been wonderful. It's helped me enormously ... I am trying to get my feet on the ground."
She refused to say whether an appeal would be lodged. The simmering feud between the camps of Robert and Nancy Kissel boiled over into a public slanging match as they waited for the verdict.
As William Kissel was telling reporters about what he termed the "terrible legacy" his daughter-in-law had left for her children, Nancy Kissel's adviser, former journalist Jim Laurie, said she should be allowed to see her children.
Mr Laurie, a lecturer in journalism at the University of Hong Kong, suggested the children's financial security would be threatened if Robert's brother Andrew, who is facing embezzlement charges in the US, won custody of the children.
Mr Kissel lashed out at the defence's tactic of portraying his son as a sodomist, cocaine addict and alcoholic. "You don't know him [just] because you lived in the same building," he said to Mr Laurie.
"What puts you in a position to judge?" Mr Laurie replied it was "impossible to know what happened" in the relationship.
Mr Kissel shot back: "Are you going to write a book now ... and say Nancy is innocent?"
The judge also ordered transcripts and statements on the withholding of the baseball bat by the defence for 18 months to be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr Justice Lunn said in his summing up yesterday morning that the court had heard nothing about the defence keeping the baseball bat - allegedly used by the deceased to beat his wife - until July 21. He said that Simon Clark, the defence solicitor who was in court throughout the trial, had been keeping the bat since finding it in the bedroom of Kissel's flat in November 9, 2003.
"What became of the baseball bat during the period between November 9, 2003, and July 21, 2005? We knew nothing about it at all."
* SCMP: The 'perfect' marriage that ended in a Parkview bloodbath
Outsiders said Robert and Nancy Kissel had the best marriage in the universe. The husband was a high-flying senior investment banker at Merrill Lynch whose personal estate is worth US$18 million. The wife, an attractive, artistic, and devoted mother of three, had everything that an expat woman could dream of. They lived in a luxurious Parkview apartment and sped about town in a Mercedes and a Porsche. They appeared in public with big smiles, dining with important people such as former US president George Bush.
But the illusion of the beautiful life was shattered on November 2, 2003. On that fateful day, Nancy Kissel killed her husband by hammering his head repeatedly with a heavy lead ornament. The blows were of such force that parts of his skull were pushed into the cerebral cortex and white matter inside the brain. The two figurines sitting atop the 3.7kg ornament flew off during the attack, splattering blood all over the bedroom.
When the 41-year-old stepped into the High Court in late May, her appearance was almost unrecognisable from that two years ago in the days before the killing. The shine in her eyes was gone, blonde hair turned dark brown, colourful outfits had become plain black, her trademark sunglasses replaced by studious, oval, wire-rimmed glasses. She had lost so much weight that she walked like a shadow floating in court.
Her husband, found by police in a rolled-up rug in her Parkview storeroom five days after the killing, was buried in a cemetery in the US state of New Jersey. Their children, in the temporary custody of the estranged wife of her brother-in-law in Greenwich, Connecticut, had not seen or spoken to her since the murder.
Yesterday, after a sensational three-month trial involving more than 500 exhibits and over 100 witnesses, Kissel was found guilty of what prosecutor Peter Chapman called the "cold-blooded" murder of her husband.
When she testified in early August, Kissel gripped the city as she admitted for the first time that she had killed her husband. "Do you accept that you killed Robert Kissel," asked Mr Chapman to open his cross-examination. "Yes," Kissel replied. When the prosecutor accused her of trying to conjure a picture of the victim as an abusive husband, she broke down. "I still love him. Things happened. I stayed with him. I loved him, and I am not sitting here to paint a bad picture about him, because he's my husband," she said.
But the story of a love turned sour did not end there. It was to be followed with allegations of spousal abuse, cocaine addiction, sodomy, extramarital affairs and greed.
Life had seemed to go on as usual for Nancy Kissel on Sunday, November 2, 2003. About 9am, she drove her Mercedes to the Sunday morning service at the United Jewish Congregation on Robinson Road, Mid-Levels. When she was nearing the Parkview taxi rank, she saw Andrew Tanzer and his seven-year-old daughter, Leah, carrying a schoolbag with the logo of the congregation's Sunday school. Kissel offered the pair a ride.
At the congregation, Kissel met her husband, who had taken their three children to the service in his Porsche. She introduced him to their newly met neighbours. Leah, a sociable girl, recognised Kissel's second child, June, was also from Parkview. She urged her father to arrange a play date for her and June in the afternoon.
Shortly before 11am, Kissel left the congregation and drove her eldest child, Elaine, to her friend's birthday junk party. She dropped her daughter at Aberdeen Marina Club and drove back home. Meanwhile, her husband was having lunch at the congregation with June and the youngest child, Reis.
But under the surface of normalcy was a sea of turbulence. By that time, Robert Kissel had lost hope of saving the marriage after realising that his wife remained in frequent contact with Michael Del Priore, with whom she had begun a sexual relationship during her stay with her children in Vermont to escape Sars that summer. He had told close colleague David Noh that he would discuss getting a divorce with his wife that afternoon. Nancy must have discovered his intention because a "stupid" lawyer of his had earlier sent a list of divorce lawyers to the family e-mail account, not his Merrill Lynch one, he told him.
By that time, Kissel had already acquired three hypnotic drugs - Rohypnol, Lorivan and Stilnox - and an anti-depressant - amitriptyline - in a seven-day "shopping spree" for drugs in late October. She had told a doctor and a psychiatrist that she had serious sleeping problems, was assaulted by her husband, and had parents with a history of depression, alcoholism, and violence. The same drugs, plus an additional hypnotic, Axotal, were found in Robert Kissel's stomach and liver contents during an autopsy.
About 2.30pm, the banker returned home with the two children. Tanzer took Leah to see June in the Kissel's flat in Tower 17 at 2.45. The neighbour said it was a bit odd that Kissel never came out to greet him as the two men were talking in the living room. When he was about to leave, Leah and June came out of the kitchen with two identical glasses of pink milkshake that the prosecution argued Kissel had laced with a cocktail of sedatives for their fathers.
Mr Tanzer said he had "never drunk anything like that" and asked Kissel what it was when she popped her head out of the kitchen. "It's a secret recipe," she told him. He returned home at 4pm, shocking his wife by passing out on the couch and, bizarrely, treating himself to three tubs of ice cream at dinner. The next morning, he had almost no recollection of the evening.
Meanwhile, Kissel's husband took his son to the playroom downstairs about 5pm, where he talked for 10 minutes on the phone with David Noh. Noh said the deceased sounded tired, slurry and mellow. Robert was "on a different tangent", talking about export markets when he was asking him about real estate prices, he recalled.
Twenty minutes later, Kissel sent their maid Maximina Macaraeg to tell Robert to return to the flat. The helper met him in the car park as he was on his way home and took his son from him.
That was the last time Robert Kissel was seen alive. The next time his son saw him would be when three days later his body was carried out of the flat by four Parkview workmen in an old, stinking rug.
Back in January 2003, a month after Kissel had walked out on her husband after a fight on a skiing vacation in Whistler, Vancouver, according to her testimony, he installed Eblaster spyware on his wife's laptop and a home computer to monitor her activity. In June, he hired two private investigators to find out if his wife was cheating on him in Vermont.
He would never have imagined that the steps he had taken to confirm his suspicions would one day become crucial evidence for the police and prosecutors to retrace the steps leading to his demise. It was from the spyware reports that the court learned of the diary entries recording Kissel's frustration with her deteriorating marriage and her website searches for the drugs used to dull her husband's senses on the fateful day.
The banker would certainly have had no idea that the sick joke of his confidante, Bryna O'Shea, who said: "If Nancy is going to kill you, put me in your will," would be an omen.
With the effort of a large number of experts in DNA typing, bloodstain pattern analysts, pathologists, police officers, photographers and forensic scientists, the prosecution established that Robert Kissel was walking to his death when he returned to his flat from the car park.
Prosecutors said that his wife silently observed him as he got changed into his sleeping clothes and collapsed at the foot of their bed under the influence of the sedatives in the milkshake. They said she then struck the right side of his head using the lead ornament with what Mr Chapman called "the murderous intention to kill", until the metal base was deformed and the two figurines detached. Rendered defenceless by the drugs, the deceased suffered 10 lacerations to his head, including five fractures, each potentially fatal.
In the prosecution's theory, Michael Del Priore featured largely in the case. Living as he did on a Vermont trailer park, he saw Kissel as a "gold mine", Mr Chapman suggested. The lover could have given "tacit encouragement" to the killing, he said, since phone bill records indicated long-distance phone conversations between the two, including 106 calls in October 2003, and many more in the days following the killing. Some of the calls lasted for hours. Kissel remained expressionless throughout the prosecution case, at times jotting notes in the dock for her lawyers. On the day when a variety of stomach-churning, bloody exhibits - including pillows and bedcovers soaked with the victim's blood - were paraded in court, she lowered her gaze to the floor.
Outside the courtroom, Kissel, often sporting a friendly smile, chatted with expatriates and hugged supporters. In the defence team's makeshift office in court, she sometimes spoke with dramatic gestures, as if she was directing the counsels. She also chatted with guards in the dock using the Cantonese she had mastered during the year she spent in the custody ward of Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre after she was arrested.
"I learnt it from the people in Siu Lam. There was nobody speaking English there. I had to survive. I also taught them English," she told the South China Morning Post.
Her mother, Jean, had been her backbone from the start of the trial, walking with her hand in hand out of the court to brave the crowd of journalists. After the judge revoked Kissel's bail when she finished her testimony early last month, guards exercised their discretion to allow the mother to spend short moments with her daughter on several occasions.
That was not all that went on away from the gaze of jurors. Defence counsel Alexander King SC asked the judge on July 20 to recall the Kissels' maid Maximina Macaraeg, police officers and forensic scientists to testify about a baseball bat. He revealed that his instructing solicitor, Simon Clark, had found the bat in the Kissels' bedroom on November 9, 2003, a day after the police relinquished the crime scene. Mr Clark had since kept the bat in his office, he said.
Mr Chapman, arguing against the application, raised the issue of professional conduct to the judge. He questioned the defence motive in writing a letter to the prosecution in January this year asking if the police had seized a baseball bat in the master bedroom - at a time when the bat was already "sitting safely" in Mr Clark's office. But the defence claimed that it was asking about another baseball bat in the letter.
Mr Justice Lunn said he found it "astonishing" that the bat was not presented to court until then, but granted the recall of witnesses to ensure a fair trial for the defendant, saying the bat could be central to the defence case. Last night he announced that he had informed the Director of Public Prosecutions of his concerns over the matter.
Nancy Kissel would later tell the court, in tears, that it was the bat her husband had used to beat her on the evening of November 2, 2003. She recalled being in the kitchen as her husband called to her. She went out and saw him leaning on a baseball bat at the doorway of their bedroom. "I am filing for divorce and I am taking the kids. It's a done deal," her husband told her. Tapping the bat in his hand, he said it was to protect himself in case she got "mad". She went back to the dining room and grabbed the lead statue, her heirloom, in a fright.
She trembled as she told the court how her husband said to her: "I will f***ing kill you, you bitch". She said her husband smacked her face and grabbed her arm after she waved her finger in his face. She fell, dropping the statue.
"He pulled me into the room, pulled me onto the bed ... and started to have sex with me," she said. "I started kicking him. We ended up on the floor," she said. Kissel said she reached for the statue on the floor and swung her arm back. "I didn't even look and I thought I hit something," she said.
"He came down on me as I was holding the statue in front of my face," she said in a weak voice.
Unable to carry on, Kissel sat, trembling and wordless, for almost a minute, the stares of all in the court fixed on her face. Finally after trembling for almost a minute, she said: "I can't remember."
The defence case turned more intriguing as its computer forensic experts displayed in court alleged homosexual and gay porn website searches by the deceased. In their case, Robert Kissel was a "controlling" and "demanding" man who abused not only his wife, but cocaine, painkillers, alcohol and his children. Above all, he was uncertain about his sexual identity, looking for male and female prostitutes everywhere he travelled and forcing his wife into performing oral and anal sex day after day over a five-year period.
Her "dissociative amnesia" was used to explain away the series of bizarre "cover-up" she undertook after the murder.
Somehow, she managed to get her husband's body into a sleeping bag and roll it neatly in a large, old rug stuffed with towels and plastic bags.
She called her father in Chicago, saying that she had been beaten up badly by her husband. She gave her friends, her father, and a doctor four to five versions of the events of November 2.
She arranged for the delivery of cardboard boxes, some of which she used to pack away the bloody contents of the bedroom. She hired four Parkview workmen to transport the stinking rug to a storeroom. On November 6, she reported to the police an assault by her husband.
Evidence showed that she had even called her husband's mobile phone twice shortly after the killing. Meanwhile, she had not stopped talking to Del Priore until her arrest in the early hours of November 7. In court, she said she had never seen the lover again, but he was the only one in her life to whom she could open her heart.
Jurors, like the prosecution, found her web of lies too hard to believe. After more than eight hours of deliberation, they found her guilty of murder. The sentence was automatic - life in prison.
"The only person whom Nancy Kissel could not deceive is Robert Kissel. He found out, and he is dead," said Mr Chapman.
*SCMP: The popular guy surrounded by girls who met his match on a Club Med cruise
Robert Kissel dropped a chilling hint to his closest childhood friend about five months before he died that his outwardly perfect marriage was in trouble. After tracking down Daniel Williams through the internet, Kissel sent him several happy family pictures. Wife Nancy was in none of them, although Mr Williams had been at their wedding.
"Rob sent pictures of himself on the beach, one of his three kids, as well as one of his daughter on the beach," Mr Williams said. "I suspect he may have known that his marriage was in trouble then as Nancy was in none of the pictures." Friends like Mr Williams and Kissel's first girlfriend, Carol Japngie, have painted a picture of an attractive man who liked girls, displayed leadership qualities and had a tendency to be controlling. He had tried drugs but hated them, to the extent he would react angrily if he saw anyone using them.
They also told of a "fun" couple who met on a Club Med singles cruise to the Caribbean in 1987 and then started to raise a family in New York while enjoying an active social life with friends, giving no hint of the tragedy that was to follow. Nancy was remembered before their marriage as - like many of her friends - a "sexually social, flirtatious" young woman who wore her naturally brown hair in a blonde bob. As the nightmarish sequence of events unfolded in court, Ms Japngie recalled her own relationship with Robert Kissel, saying: "I remember saying to my mum afterwards that if I had married him, he wouldn't be dead now."
Years before, Robert Kissel had made it very clear to her that they would never have married, however. Even after their romance blossomed into a sexual one on the ski slopes of Vermont, he told her: "We can't be serious because you aren't Jewish," which she understood. They met as sophomores at Pascack Hills High School in New Jersey. Her family had just moved from California and it was not long before she caught the attention of one of the most popular boys in school.
"Robbie was a popular boy and all the girls in our class were attracted to him. I was new and didn't know anyone in the school and Rob and I became best friends," Ms Japngie said. So much so that, six months later at Christmas, she was invited to join him on one of his family's ski trips to Vermont. Robert asked her to be his girlfriend.
"I had a great vacation with his family skiing in Vermont. From the first time we met, his sister Jane and I became close like sisters," she said.
They had sex on the ski trip, although it was not planned. She said she got the idea after finding a condom among suitcases belonging to Robert's father. "I initiated it and it was spontaneous. I think the whole day was leading up to that," Ms Japngie said. "There was more a sense of trust that overwhelmed the apprehension. I guess there was also the thrill of getting caught."
During their two-year relationship, she revealed that Robert didn't mind smoking marijuana, although it would make him pass out. Cocaine was another story. "We both tried coke once. He said, `this is the devil'. He could not swallow and my throat choked up," Ms Japngie said. She doesn't recall exactly when or where it happened, but they were both just about 17 and had crashed a party of 19- and 20-year-olds.
They played darts and pool before someone in the room cut 15 to 20 lines of cocaine on a mirror and passed it from person to person. By the time it reached them, there were only two or three lines left. "Some guy handed the coke to us. I remember he was a big black guy and quite intimidating. Rob said no, and I was poking him, urging him to just go and leave," she said.
Fearful of being assaulted or exposed as gatecrashers, he snorted a line of cocaine. She did the same. "About 10 or 15 minutes later, we were freaking out. Our throats closed up. We looked at each other and we turned white. Our hearts were racing," Ms Japngie said.
When someone broke out lines of cocaine as they drove to the beach after their high school prom in 1981, Robert threw a fit, Ms Japngie recalled. "He stopped the car, got out and wanted to go home by bus or train. He was so pissed off. I spent two or three hours fighting with him, trying to coax him into hanging out. If ever anyone mentioned drugs, he was out of there," she said.
She rejected persistent rumours that Kissel had been expelled from Pascack because of drugs. She said his parents believed he could do better academically elsewhere and his father's ink toner business had taken off, making private school possible. He spent his senior year at the Saddle River Country Day School in New Jersey.
Mr Williams agreed his best friend had not been focused on his studies at Pascack. "He was passing his grades but his parents thought he could do better," he said. The two had known each other since they were two years old, growing up in the suburbs of Woodcliff Lake in New Jersey, but had lost touch in the 1990s. Kissel tracked down Mr Williams using www.classmates.com.
The Kissel wedding in 1989 was the last time Mr Williams saw his friend. His first meeting with Nancy Kissel did not leave much of an impression. "She did not have much to say to me," he said.
Mr Williams described Robert Kissel as a "leader type" who set up a hockey team on his street called the Avon Supersonics. At the Woodcliff middle school, he was the running back and defensive guard on the football team, even though he had been diagnosed with a weak kidney and had to wear a protective pad.
"I thought he was shy around girls," Mr Williams said. Be that as it may, Robert had a string of girlfriends after he broke up with Ms Japngie. First he dated his ex-girlfriend's best friend, Kelly Schwake, although only for a month. She was followed by Nancy Landau and then Jill Canin, a medical student he went out with during his first two years at the University of Rochester.
Nancy Keeshin did not enter his life until around September 1987. He had just got a master's degree at New York University. Nancy had dropped out of the Parsons School of Design after two years. At that time, she had already worked as the floor manager of the Caliente Cab Company, a Mexican restaurant on Waverly Place in New York City, and had switched to the El Rio Grande on 38th Street. Two of her colleagues and friends were waitress Elizabeth Cowey and bartender Bryna O'Shea. "We would often go out and bar hop," Ms Cowey said. "Bryna and Nancy shopped together. I wasn't really a shopper."
In 1989, the Kissels tied the knot at the East River Yacht Club in New York. Ms O'Shea and her husband moved to San Francisco the following year and Ms Cowey married John LaCause in March 1994.
During their New York years, the young Kissel and LaCause families would spend time together. The husbands would sometimes go out to play darts while the mothers stayed with the children.
Mr LaCause said he was aware of arguments early on in the Kissel relationship, especially about money and Nancy's spending habits. However, he believes that the tension between the couple escalated after Mr Kissel extended an initial two-year posting in Hong Kong to what would end up being about six years. "He was only supposed to be in Hong Kong for two years and I know in Nancy's mind, she was only thinking two years," he said. "By the third year, I thought there was trouble in paradise."
"We liked Rob and we had a really fun time together. Rob was a bit more aggressive and more controlling. I never saw that in Nancy," said Mrs LaCause, who was communicating with Nancy two days after her husband's death without knowing what had happened. The last time she saw Nancy was in the summer of 2001, in New York City.
Two years later, Nancy and her children and dog, Daisy, went to Vermont to escape the Sars outbreak in Hong Kong. They returned home in September or October but could not take Daisy with them because of immunisation rules.
Mrs LaCause cared for Daisy until November 3, 2003, when the dog was flown back to Hong Kong.
In an e-mail to Mrs LaCause dated November 4, 2003, Nancy wrote: "Daisy will be here by the time the girls get home from school ... [elder daughter] Elaine is the only one who knows!" Nancy also sent T-shirts for the two LaCause children with their names written in Chinese characters as a thank-you.
Mrs LaCause was unaware that Robert Kissel had been killed until Ms O'Shea phoned her. "I didn't call Nancy at the time and I will probably regret that for the rest of my life. I must have been in shock. I wish I had because I was a friend to her," Mrs LaCause said. They eventually spoke but the conversation was tearful and sad.
"She told me that I don't know how bad it is. She was talking about Rob and how horrible money is and what it does to people. And also about anal sex. She was calling from her lawyer's office so she was not totally forthcoming. She also talked about drinking whisky and cocaine a lot," Mrs LaCause said.
Mrs LaCause added: "If I had a husband who beat me, raped me and sodomised me, I would kill him too."
Nancy Kissel may appeal against her murder conviction and life sentence, her lawyer said yesterday.
Alexander King SC said after a post-trial hearing that an appeal was being considered.
Prosecutor Peter Chapman also said he did not expect the case to be over yet.
"It is only chapter one of the Kissel case. Chapter two will start on the third floor of this court building - the Court of Appeal," he said. "The fat lady has not started singing yet."
Kissel, 41, on Thursday was sentenced to life imprisonment for drugging her husband, senior Merrill Lynch banker Robert Peter Kissel, with a sedative-laced milk- shake and bludgeoning him to death with a lead ornament in their Parkview home on November 2, 2003.
Michigan-born Kissel was back in the dock yesterday, looking pale-faced and red-eyed, as counsel discussed the most contentious exhibit in the case, a baseball bat.
Mr Chapman argued that defence should shoulder part of the prosecution's costs as a lot of court time was wasted because Kissel's lawyers did not inform them of the existence of the bat until midway through the trial. A number of witnesses had to be recalled as a result.
During the trial, the defence alleged Robert Kissel had used the bat to beat his wife before the killing.
Mr Justice Michael Lunn ruled out the request for costs, saying the delay in producing the bat had not resulted in a trial adjournment.
The public gallery, which had been packed for weeks, looked bare yesterday as only journalists, Kissel's mother, Jean McGlothlin, and some close friends attended the hearing.
Ms McGlothlin kept looking at her daughter, weeping from time to time. But Kissel smiled after Mr King went to speak to her in the dock before she was taken away by guards.
Prosecution exhibits - including many bloody items - were returned to the Aberdeen Police Station in a van with four masked workmen.
* SCMP: The last days of a man who "had everything"
On Sunday, November 2, 2003, Robert Kissel must have felt the weight of the world on his shoulders. Only those close to the couple knew of the problems in the marriage, of wife Nancy's affair, and Robert's decision to talk to Nancy about getting a divorce that evening.
But on top of this he was preparing a bid for the biggest buyout of bad debt in Asian financial history. Since mid-September Robert had been working 14-hour days preparing to make a bid for $14 billion in non-performing loans from the Bank of China, which involved careful analysis of thousands of non-performing loans.
The competition was hot. This deal was considered a seminal moment in an industry that had blossomed in the wake of Asia's financial crisis in 1997 and 1998. And everyone wanted a slice.
"It was historic. This was truly the moment, and we all wanted to be there," said Joseph Draper, head of Asia Principal Investments with Citigroup.
Robert Kissel was portrayed in court as a debonair banker who loved the power, money and status of his job. But according to his colleagues, he was far more a humble, "jeans and T-shirt guy" who was more of a number cruncher with a sharp brain and an eye for detail than one renowned for long lunches and flashy suits. "Whether you spoke to Rob at 3am or midday, he was always sharp as a nail," one colleague said.
Robert had to be. In his line of work, one bad decision, one small factor of a loan not properly analysed, meant your company could lose millions, leaving your professional reputation in ruins.
At 9.30am that Sunday, Robert was as sharp as ever. The family was at the United Jewish Congregation. Nancy Kissel, far from the dour character slumped in the stand of the High Court during her three-month trial, was, as ever, the picture of blonde glamour and elegance - with her trademark dark sunglasses.
She was, as usual, loud and full of energy, and looking great with a $5,000 cut and colour from the Debut hair salon in the luxury Parkview estate where the family lived.
On the surface, they could have been the perfect family. But beneath the surface was the pressure of a failed marriage, disruptive children and the debt deal that would have cemented Robert at the top of his game.
Rabbi Lee Diamond led a discussion on some anti-Semitic comments made by outgoing Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad at his resignation speech, and Robert Kissel featured prominently in the discussion. His Jewish identity was important and he wanted his children to grow up proud of their heritage.
The United Jewish Congregation in Hong Kong is a powerful organisation, so it was no surprise that some of the key players in the Bank of China deal found themselves talking shop while waiting for their children to finish Sunday school.
Hong Kong's distressed-debt community is largely American, experts who developed their skills around the world and moved to Hong Kong to exploit the Asian financial crisis of 1997 and 1998, as Robert Kissel had done.
Robert and Clifford Chance lawyer Jonathan Zonis, who was working with Merrill Lynch on parts of the deal, found themselves talking to Jonathan Ross, from the Bank of China, and Ian Johnson, of Allen and Overy, who was working for another competitor.
"Rob was saying the field of distressed debt was more competitive than it had ever been and at the same time, he was perhaps more open about the transaction than I thought he would have been," Mr Zonis recalled.
The men were surprised about how frankly Robert, normally the consummate professional, discussed the deal, even outlining some of the financial detail of the bid. He gave Ross a "hard time" about the information the bank had provided him with, outlining some problems with the documentation.
Sunday school ended. Robert, always the family man, stopped talking to hug his children, whom he adored. Those children were described by family and friends as warm and lively, but also "high-maintenance".
One mother close to the family said Nancy was often oblivious to some of their faults - especially son Reis, whose behaviour was concerning teachers at Parkview International Primary School.
In the last week of October 2003, the bid for Bank of China was supposed to take place. But it had been delayed, and many of those working for Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Standard Chartered and Morgan Stanley and various legal teams found themselves in Lan Kwai Fong looking for a quiet beer. They gravitated to Stormy Weather, a bar many now choose not to visit.
It was on this occasion that Robert Kissel chose to tell many that his marriage was over, that his wife was having an affair and he was planning a divorce.
The moment he revealed the end of his marriage was described by one senior banker as "climactic", uttered quietly by a man without colour in his face, who had tried his best against insurmountable odds, but was now finally throwing in the towel.
He would not even challenge for custody of his beloved children as long as he was given access.
However, the pressure of the Bank of China bid put the revelation firmly in the backs of the minds of those who were there.
On the Sunday night, the bidders called each other, wishing the best for the following week.
Robert did not answer his phone or return calls, but they knew he would be dealing with a much more important issue - the end of his marriage.
Then, on the Tuesday of the bid, Robert Kissel was not there - only David Noh, who made excuses for him.
But again, those close knew there were serious problems at home, and accepted Nancy's version - that her husband was "very, very sick".
Nancy had been working on the World's Fair for Hong Kong International School, but e-mailed children's entertainer Scotty to cancel a meeting on the Monday.
On Monday afternoon, she visited her favourite shop, Tequila Kola, to buy rugs to replace the one she would use to wrap her husband's body.
That week, Nancy had also been in charge of preparing invitations to a formal fund-raiser for the synagogue. On Tuesday, close friend Samantha Kriegel phoned to see how the invitations were going. She sensed Nancy was not herself and said she would come over.
But Nancy declined, and said to her: "Listen, don't tell anyone, but Rob is very, very sick, but I haven't told the kids yet."
Ms Kriegel was shaken by Nancy's statements and called Robert Zonis' wife, whom she told what Nancy had said. Mrs Zonis repeated the comments to her husband.
"We were shaken by this news because we had seen Rob on Sunday and he had seemed the picture of health," Mr Zonis said.
"The rumour didn't make sense, but it would have been inappropriate to call Rob as we were right in the middle of a massive deal and I was representing a competing bidder. It might not make sense in hindsight, but that was the last I thought of it until the next day, when I heard he had been killed."
On Friday, November 7, Robert Kissel's colleague and confidant, David Noh, began making a series of phone calls that would devastate a community. "We just want to let you know that Rob is dead and the police suspect that it was a domestic incident," he said in a quavering voice to one member of the elite circle the family moved in.
There had been other hints in the lead-up to November 2 that all was not well.
A husband and wife, who barely knew the Kissels, had been invited over to a family dinner. "At the time, I thought it was really strange, because we didn't even know them," the guest said. "But now, thinking back, maybe Nancy just wanted people around the house." The Kissels spent the dinner openly quarrelling, and the wife said to her husband "if you spoke to me like that, I'd slap you across the face".
When Nancy came back to Hong Kong from Vermont, after the Sars crisis, she liked to "shock" friends by pulling down her shirt and revealing new tattoos, in Chinese characters, of the years her children were born.
"She enjoyed the shock factor. You could tell that Rob was not impressed by this," a friend said. "She said that in Vermont she had wanted to do something a little bit wild."
On Friday, November 7, a small group gathered in the Kriegel living room to try to come to terms with the shocking events. "You can't understand the devastation this has caused," Mr Zonis said.
"It is beyond shock. We were all in our late thirties to early forties, with beautiful young families, at the top of our careers with everything going right in our lives. And then this happens.
"These were people who seemingly had everything. We sat in stunned silence trying to make some sense of this. I'm not sure we have learned any more answers now than we did then."
Update September 5th
* SCMP: A trial and a show
An advertising executive retorted loudly across a Central bar that reading the daily twists, turns and salacious allegations made in the trial of Nancy Ann Kissel for the murder of her husband Robert was "the only thing that got me out of bed in the morning".
While the daily fix is over for this particular high-flyer, Nancy Kissel has now had four days to contemplate a life sentence behind bars, while the fallout from her shocking crime continues in Hong Kong and the US.
Labelled Hong Kong's trial of the decade, the revelations over the past 2-1/2 months in the Court of First Instance have had a firm grip on much of Hong Kong's expat community, with the events that led to Robert Peter Kissel's murder in the couple's luxury apartment on November 2, 2003, leading to endless innuendo, speculation and wild gossip at social gatherings across the city.
But it was a different story for those close to the family. Nancy Kissel's accusations brought a mixture of disgust and disbelief to those who knew the family. "I think many of us realise this defence she was running has never been about what really happened, but about keeping her out of jail," one close family friend said.
Another said there were times when he had to lock himself in a room and scream because he was so angry at the "unfounded" allegations Nancy Kissel was making against her husband. "This woman was clearly a bad, angry person," he said. "I would be frightened to be close to her. Even [her lover Michael] Del Priore must be thanking his lucky stars he got out of there alive."
Another colleague said: "The defence didn't help either. There seemed to be this suggestion that it was `strange' he was talking to his work colleagues about the problems in the marriage. Who else was he going to talk to?"
But most tuned in to see if Robert Kissel, whose hard work had seen him scale a very tall earnings tree with his employer Merrill Lynch, was really a drug and alcohol-fuelled sociopath who battered his wife and forced anal sex upon her. They also tuned in to see whether this sordid defence could keep Nancy Kissel, who had admitted to killing her husband, out of jail - "imagine if she walks?"
It was these grubby details early in the case which saw Nancy Kissel lose sympathy or support from most of those close to the family. They have been furious about the slandering of Robert Kissel's character by his wife - and the terrible legacy that leaves for the children.
"Kissel used cocaine and beat his wife? Well, while no-one can ever see behind closed doors, he was just not like that," said an associate who worked on numerous deals with the banker. "Sure, he was a wild child in his day, but Robert had become the most dedicated family man you would ever meet. The only boozing was maybe one or two beers at Lan Kwai Fong now and then."
Another concern has been the damage done to the Kissels' three children, who are now back in the US and likely to be subjected to a custody battle. One mother, whose children were friends with the Kissels' two daughters and son, saw the children recently and said that while they seemed to be doing well, the psychological scars were likely to be deep.
The murder also forced many parents whose kids knew the popular Kissel children - Elaine, June and Reis - to confront the prickly subject of murder with their children.
One witness in the trial said his daughter had discovered Robert Kissel's brother, Andrew, was facing trial for fraud before he did. "She was right on the ball with the case and followed every twist and turn," the witness said.
Nancy Kissel's supporters and visitors came largely from the Hong Kong International School. One, Geertruida Samra, president of the Parent Faculty Organisation, helped with her bail and regularly visited her in Siu Lam psychiatric centre after the murder.
Some of Robert Kissel's friends were also reportedly behind his wife. Jim Laurie, a distinguished former journalist and University of Hong Kong lecturer, along with a number of his students, stood firmly by Nancy Kissel's mother Jean McGlothlin.
As the tension mounted when the jury was deliberating, Mr Laurie lashed out at the police investigators, claiming the crime scene was not sealed. He became involved in a heated argument with the deceased's father over evidence and questioned whether the children would be cared for.
"What puts you in a position to judge? You are a local Hong Kong guy trying to ride the coattails of some notoriety," William Kissel said, accusing Mr Laurie of wanting to cash in on the murder with a book.
While many observers might have their own theories on whether the 41-year-old housewife was guilty or innocent, it was only the opinions of the five men and two women who made up the jury that mattered. And they had much to consider in the case now called "the milkshake murder" in headlines around the world.
By the fourth day of Nancy Kissel's testimony, the courtroom was packed, as lawyers, students and domestic helpers scrambled for the 60 available seats. They were often joined by "Parkview wives", who had come to see the downfall of one of their own.
The court was forced to impose crowd-control measures, asking the public to queue in an orderly manner before entering the courtroom. Two marshals were used to guard the entrance, and belongings used to reserve seats over lunch were removed.
By August 8, eight weeks after it opened, Nancy Ann Kissel's murder trial was the biggest show in town.
Hong Kong's English-language press, including the South China Morning Post, picked up the early interest in the case and ran extensive reports as the saga unfolded.
Coverage from news wire services has seen the case run in national papers from The Daily Telegraph in London and The Scotsman, to The New York Times, The New York Post, The Washington Times and The Boston Globe in the US.
But apart from the prosecutor's opening, the first day of the defence and some evidence, much of this international interest has not been reflected in the highly competitive Chinese-language press. Reporters from many of the city's top dailies said they were "frustrated" at the lack of interest shown in their work by their editors.
Associate professor of criminal law at the University of Hong Kong, Simon Young Ngai-man, said cultural as well as language barriers were the main reasons the trial had not attracted such a high level of interest among the Chinese community.
However, those same reasons were the prime draw for expatriates in Hong Kong.
The trial featured one of Hong Kong's best prosecutors facing one of its best defence lawyers, in English, without the hindrance of translations.
"We have a female who is accused of murdering her husband, a leading member of Hong Kong's financial community," Mr Young said. "They are members of the elite, upper crust of the expat society in Hong Kong. These are people who do not normally display any form of criminality - at least not in public, anyway.
"The community feels they are getting a glimpse inside the private world of two people, finding out intimate details of their lives, even down to what websites they surfed."
The people who regularly made their way to the packed public gallery formed an eclectic group. Among them were retirees, those with an "unnatural fascination with death", while some claimed to be writing a novel or magazine piece on the case. They are unlikely to be the only ones who will try.
What many spectators shared was a touch of embarrassment that their interest in the trial prompted them to sit through days of evidence over the past two months.
"Perhaps one of the main reasons I'm here is because I have an interest in murder," said one local observer, who asked that his name not be published. "And there has never been a trial like this in Hong Kong, at least not in my lifetime. It's like it has been scripted for a movie, but the story is one you wouldn't believe."
Another spectator, who also wanted anonymity, said her interest lay in the uniqueness of the case. Even when she left Hong Kong for her native India, she closely monitored the daily revelations on the internet. "There has never been a trial like this involving the expat community, at least not in the past 20 years," she said.
But although she watched the trial closely, she admitted that she sometimes felt sorry for the families involved, and wished the court had been closed from public view.
Nevertheless, it did not stop her returning to the court controlled by Mr Justice Michael Lunn to witness the final outcome.
Police have closed investigations into the murder of investment banker Robert Kissel and, contrary to reports, are not pursuing inquiries into his wife's lover, Michael Del Priore. Nancy Ann Kissel, 41, was convicted last week of murdering her husband by drugging him, then bludgeoning him to death. She rolled his body in a carpet and had it stashed in a storeroom on the Parkview estate where the couple lived, the court heard.
Prosecutor Peter Chapman suggested during Kissel's trial that she killed her husband with her lover's "tacit support" and planned to flee into his arms after the crime.
Western District police commander David Madoc-Jones yesterday dismissed as "incorrect rumours" reports that police were investigating Mr Del Priore. But he confirmed police did explore a link between Kissel and Mr Del Priore at the start of their investigation, and found no evidence suggesting any direct link between the Vermont-based TV repairman and the crime.
While police have telephone records showing Kissel talked to Mr Del Priore before and after the November 2003 murder, they have no way of knowing what passed between them.
Immigration records show Mr Del Priore was not in Hong Kong either before or after the murder. "Unless they decide to tell us what was said in those conversations, and in the absence of any direct evidence, there is nothing we can do," Mr Madoc-Jones said.
William Kissel, Robert's father, said there was no doubt in his mind that Mr Del Priore played a role. "It is all there in the evidence and in the interview in the South China Morning Post," Mr Kissel said. Mr Del Priore's brother Lance recalled telling his brother: "You must have had something to do with this."
The killing shocked Hong Kong and many found the trial enthralling.
Kissel's lurid defence - that her husband was addicted to cocaine, drank heavily, beat her and persistently demanded rough sex, and that his actions drove her to kill him - made headlines around the world. She pleaded not guilty to murder but a jury of seven found her guilty at the end of the near three-month-long trial and Mr Justice Michael Lunn imposed a mandatory life sentence.
Kissel's legal team are considering whether to file an appeal against her conviction for murder and life sentence.
Nancy Kissel, jailed for life early this month for the murder of her wealthy banker husband, yesterday lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling.
It is understood the grounds of the appeal are extensive, encompassing a number of the rulings during the course of the three-month trial. It will also challenge the summing up of the evidence and the directions given to the jury by the trial's judge, Mr Justice Michael Lunn.
The High Court confirmed that the papers were yesterday filed by the firm of Kissel's solicitor, Mallesons Stephen Jaques, but there were no further details. The prosecution said Kissel, 41, drugged Robert Peter Kissel, a senior Merrill Lynch banker, with a sedatives-laced milkshake before bludgeoning him with a heavy metal ornament in their luxury Parkview flat in November 2, 2003. His body was found rolled up in an old carpet in a storeroom in the Tai Tam complex. Michigan-born Kissel admitted killing her husband but argued she acted in self-defence after he threatened to kill her and take away their three children.
A jury of seven unanimously found her guilty of murder on September 1. Mr Justice Lunn sentenced her to life, as required by law. Kissel is now imprisoned in the Tai Lam Centre for Women in Tuen Mun.
The hearing of the appeal is expected to begin in about nine months at the Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, the custody hearing over the three Kissel children between Jane Clayton, the victim's sister, and Hayley Kissel, his sister-in-law, will begin later this week in New York City. The children, who are under temporary custody of Hayley Kissel, will inherit up to US$18 million from their father's estate.
October 5th
* SCMP:
Nancy Kissel is to be consulted in her Hong Kong prison cell on the future care of her three young children. This emerged as a judge in the United States denied an application for emergency guardianship by a sister of Kissel's slain husband, Robert.
Judge Eve Preminger urged relatives to try to settle differences over custody of the children in the next two weeks. She said she also wanted input from Kissel, 41, who is serving a life sentence in Tai Lam prison for murdering her husband. Judge Preminger admitted she was likely to give custody to Robert Kissel's sister, Jane Clayton, whose lawyer had sought the emergency guardianship order.
The children - Elaine, Hannah and Reis - are now staying at the Greenwich, Connecticut, home of Ms Clayton's brother Andrew and his estranged wife, Hayley, whose once prosperous household is collapsing under the strain of fraud charges that could leave Mr Kissel unable to provide for the children.
"All things being equal I would like to have a period limited to two weeks to obtain the information from Nancy Kissel and to ensure that there is a professional psychiatric evaluation of the children," Judge Preminger said at a hearing in the Manhattan Surrogate's Court in New York.
Ms Clayton's lawyer Randy Mastro - who had earlier described the children's situation as an emergency - toned down his stance on Monday but called for a swift resolution in his client's favour.
"That household has a lot of problems and these kids have been through a lot," he said.
The input from Kissel will be decisive for the children's future.
"She has a say," said lawyer Nat Dershowitz, who acts for Hayley Kissel. "She is the natural mother - she is the only one who has a say as to who takes care of her children."
The custody battle over the children, aged five, eight and 11 - who stand to inherit their father's fortune, estimated to total US$18 million - is the latest twist in a saga that first saw them shunted from Hong Kong to stay with their maternal grandfather in Illinois.
They moved into the luxury home of Andrew and Hayley Kissel after he won temporary custody.
Eighteen months on, however, the children look set to leave the retreat which shielded them from events in Hong Kong, according to Mr Mastro and Michael Collesano, a lawyer appointed by Judge Preminger to look after the children's interests. Mr Collesano also advocates Ms Clayton be granted custody.
Andrew Kissel is confined to his home after being bailed on the fraud charges. His wife is seeking a divorce.
An American judge who had sought Nancy Kissel's view on the future of her children has declared the convicted murderer's opinion worthless and ordered the two girls and a boy be moved from the custody of one aunt to another. Overruling a strong written plea from Kissel for the children to stay with Hayley Kissel, estranged wife of the brother of slain banker Robert Kissel, Surrogate Judge Eve Preminger awarded guardianship to Jane Clayton, the banker's sister.
The New York judge said Nancy Kissel - serving life in jail for killing her husband - was the "lone voice" opposing the move and "would seem to have forfeited my belief in her good judgment based on the actions she was convicted of".
After the ruling, a tearful Mrs Clayton said she was "thrilled with the result", which was in tune with a request in Robert Kissel's will that his sister be made guardian and custodian of the children. Apart from Nancy Kissel, all parties to the protracted battle for custody of the children - heirs to their father's estimated US$15-$18 million fortune - had agreed they should be cared for by Mrs Clayton.
Hayley Kissel, who had temporary custody and had been fighting to keep the children, agreed to act according to whatever was deemed to be in their best interests. The judge had earlier adjourned the case for two weeks, urging the parties to sort out their differences and asking for Nancy Kissel to be consulted.
In her letter to the court yesterday the woman convicted of drugging her husband, then bludgeoning him to death with a heavy ornament in their Parkview flat, pleaded for the children to be spared the pain of another move. "The fact of the matter is my children are not in harm's way emotionally or physically right now," she wrote. "Children understand love. They don't understand change. Loving families don't turn on each other. They support one another."
Calling the assembled lawyers into her chambers for a 35-minute consultation, Judge Preminger announced that Mrs Clayton was the only one now seeking custody and guardianship and so should be named guardian in the best interests of the children. Mrs Clayton will oversee the financial interests, property holdings and legal matters of the three children: Elaine, 11, June, eight, and Reis, five. However, she will not be able to take physical custody of the children immediately. Background checks are needed first, after which a ruling will be made. A hearing is scheduled for November 2.
Michael Collesano, a court-appointed lawyer looking after the children's interests, said: "We are very pleased with the results, which, in my opinion, are in the children's best interests." Mr Collesano had urged that Mrs Clayton be made guardian, citing the potentially damaging environment in Hayley Kissel's once prosperous household, where husband Andrew has been indicted on multimillion-dollar theft charges and she has sought a divorce.
It will be the third move for the children since their father was murdered in November 2003. They first stayed with their maternal grandfather in Illinois, before Andrew and Hayley Kissel were awarded temporary custody.
Since then, Mr Kissel has been indicted on grand larceny charges claiming that he stole US$3.9 million from the Upper East Side co-operative apartment building where he was treasurer for six years and is under house arrest.
Neither Mrs Clayton nor her lawyer would comment on how the delicate task of telling the children about the latest upheaval in their lives would be handled.
It seems clear enough from the questions being asked by the Defence that the tack it will take is: innocent by reason of technicality. It does not seem plausible that the police were not investigating a murder when they went to the flat the night Kissel was arrested. If this is correct, they should have read Kissel her rights, and told her she was under arrest prior to questioning her.
She obviously killed her husband, but she should get off if the police did not follow procedure. The point of procedure is to prevent abuses. The fact that one or two people who are guilty might get off on technicalities is the price we have to pay for living under a system that balances individuals' rights against the State's interests.
I wonder if you know whether or not in Hong Kong the failure to tell a person that he is under arrest when for all intents and purposes he is, constitutes grounds for acquittal?
The odd thing about not being able to speculate online, is that in Court speculation is what the Prosecution engages in daily. A hypothesis is formed on the basis of their interpretation of the evidence. Hypotheses necessarily involve speculation.
As to the second, that's the prosecution's job. The defence speculates too. They both try and find a set of facts that fit the evidence, and the jury decides if it all matches ti the required degree of certainty. We can't speculate because we don't know the evidence and because if a juror happens to read this it may influence their decisions unduly.
But I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me on any of this.
OK, thanks for both your comments. It would be quite wrong I see for posts to exert undue influence. Do any HK lawyers have an answer to my question?
By the way, I checked on various sites which provide stats. on the killing by women of men in the domestic setting. In many countries, the numbers almost equal sometimes exceed those for men killing women (read: wives/partners). This was a revelation to me. I had assumed that women would be far less likely to commit such acts than men. That assumption partly accounts for my initial interest in the Kissel case. I want to stress that the stats. I checked do not make clear whether self defence or battered wife syndrome were the reasons behind the high numbers re: women committing murderous acts.
Actually it is because Simon is away for a couple of weeks and we guest bloggers have not been updating the case! For your interest though I do recommend that you check out the free online edition of the Standard, which you can find at www.thestandard.com.hk.
Simon should be back by the end of this week, when he will no doubt resume full regular service!
Lyn,
Type in to Google: Nancy Kissel Case, Part 35, and you will receive the latest reports.
The testimony by Nancy Kissel is sad-making. It seems implausible that Robert Kissel's work colleagues knew nothing of drug use and sexual behaviours. Let's hope that if what Nancy Kissel says is true, and if what the internet sites Robert Kiseel was looking at provide insight into his mental world, said colleagues will do the right thing and testify for the defence accordingly. So far, the picture painted of Robert Kissel is one of saintlihood. Unless Nancy Kissel is a pathological liar, that picture would seem to be deeply misleading if not downright erroneous.
All I can say as roberts best friend growing up together and skiing every weekend in vermont w him and his family he was a kind and gentle guy who always stood up for me! and I would do the same for him and his family ANYTIME!!
God Bless You Rob! Ill miss you!!
Dan expresses sentiments doubtless shared by many.
From a drier more distant perspective, the case is interesting for it shows very clearly how the legal profession operates. A reading of the dreadful details, and snippets of the testimony suggests that something went badly wrong in the marriage. People want to know why someone would do such a terrible thing. They are being invited to accept one of two views: Rob Kissel was a decent, loving husband and his wife is a cold blooded, possibly disturbed, murderer; or, Rob Kissel was a not so decent person whose own actions and words contributed in a meaningful legal way to the events that took place.
It would be quite wrong were people to know things about Rob Kissel that are suggestive of the second picture, and not go forward. Murder is wrong. Self defence resulting in a killing is rather different.
Noone who knew Rob Kissel could fail to be saddened and shocked by his death. It seems also that many are saddened by Nancy Kissel's apparent breakdown, and the charges brought against her. There is a truth to this matter. It is not clear, based on how things are going, that we shall ever quite learn what this is.
I have quietly read a lot of comments on this site as well as others and I am finding that the most frequently asked question is who Robert Kissel was as a person. Being that he is not here to defend his integrity and since I haven’t seen a lot of response’s by people who knew him, I feel some what obligated to respond.
I dated Robby in high school for 2 years. We split up during our senior year but always remained friends; he actually took me to my senior prom. We ended up going to different colleges but in the same city of Rochester New York. We continued our close friendship during those years in Rochester.
Rob was probably the most tenacious person I had ever known. He was bright, determined and always followed through with what he put his mind to. He had the grace of a well refined gentleman, even in his younger years and was passionate about his goals. He loved his family and treated his sister Jane and his mother Elaine with the up most respect and love. He was always patient with his sister, who, at the time, was a young little girl that most brothers in most families would not want to have much to do with due to the age difference. But Rob was noticeably different with the women in his family and I was always proud to be his sweet heart because I was also treated with the same respect.
He was always loyal to his friends, and as Dan Williams stated, he stuck up for all of us and stood behind us as if we were cut from the same cloth. In the eyes of my own father, I could never top the quality of person that Robby was. I remember my father saying that to me 10 years after we had broken up. It became a standing joke between us. “Well dad, he’s not Rob Kissel, but I hope you like him anyway”
If you can stop and think about whom you were when you were in your late teens, I think you will agree that your “core” personality hasn’t changed very much. Your career changes, your ideas and values change along with your friends, your sense of fashion, etc. But who you are as a person, your belief in things larger than yourself, your family, and your place in this world as a contributing member of the human race, your deep rooted love doesn’t change very much. (The 2 operative words in this sentence is “deep rooted”)
Rob loved his birth family way to much too ever harm his own family, especially his children. His own moral values would never allow it. Rob was an amazingly compassionate man, so much so that I if he were able to speak today, for only a second, he would probably ask all of you to be compassionate towards his wife who murdered him and understand that she acted in utter sickness.
Although I am not able to see Nancy with a heart of compassion either, I know the heart of Robert Peter Kissel would want that. Although he is gone, his spirit will always remain in those of us who knew and loved him. He was a teacher in his own right and every life his life touched was a mark left with love, respect and honor. I pray that his children will grow to learn that about their father in the years to come.
To Jane, Andrew and Mr. Kissel if you ever come across this, you haven’t lost Rob, he’s right here in his children and in your hearts and dreams.
FYI, Rob Kissel has a 45-year old brother named Andrew M. Kissel who lives in Greenwich, Connecticut. Andrew was arrested by US federal authorities on July 28, 2005 on charges of bank fraud, possibly amounting to more than $20 million. Andrew Kissel faces up to 20 years in federal prison if convicted.
Nydeggan: So, what you're saying is that because Andrew has been arrested that must mean that Rob was a bad person and deserved to be murdered? And are you saying that because Andrew was arrested he is not allowed to have any greif about loosing his brother?
Since when is a person accountable for what their sibling do during the course of their lives?
If you get a traffic ticket does that mean your entire family earns the title of "bad driver"?
I doubt that Nydeggen wished to imply what Carol states.
Instead: Was the brother a real gentleman when he was young? Might he have changed over the years and lost sight of his core values? Rob's brother's lawyer has argued that he lost his grip on the investments because he was upset over the death of his brother. The lawyer also said that his client no longer knows what is fiction and what is reality. I doubt the brother was like this in his youth.
A final question: Do gentleman run around telling colleagues that they are going to tell their wives on a particular night that they have filed for divorce? Do genetlemen intend or even threaten to take away their wives children? Do gentlemen shove their wives in front of vistors? Do gentlemen surf the net for gay porn and prostitution when they are married, and supposedly committed to making things work in the marriage? Do gentlemen consult websites titled "My wife is a bit&%"? All of the preceding are facts about Rob Kissel's behaviour. Nancy Kissel goes further and claims what cannot be substantiated in fact - rape and other extreme violence within the marriage. It is now up to the jury to decide whether someone who does the things which can be substantiated, is capable of going further and inflicting the harms Nancy Kissel says he did. There is no necessary connection, of course, between the two.
No one has come forward to say they found Rob Kissel an agressive person and subject to sharp mood swings, yet I live next door to someone who says exactly this about his dealings with Rob Kissel. This is not to say people who exhibit such behaviours deserve to be killed. Only that there may be something to suggest Kissel's tenacity in youth turned into something different in later life.
If Nancy Kissel did plan to murder her husband, one still has to wonder why. It is very hard to take a woman's children from her, legally, in a divorce, and most divorce settlements involve the woman getting a hefty sum in settlement. So, why bother to murder your husband if you can exit a marriage with your children and a few million in cash? This is why I think the Prosecution's case may be overstated.
There is a tendancy to make out as saints people who are victims, and to paint perpetrators as evil. Life is not often black and white. Part of my purpose in contributing to this forum on this topic is to attempt to inject some balance into consideration of a terrible event which is likely to be viewed in black and white terms. I have no interest in seeing the guilty go free, but it is important to try to understand why bad things happen. Just labeling someone as evil, which many have done of Nancy Kissel, is understandable but it is probably not a balanced view. After all of her volunteer work (not just a few heartless hours but real commitment) is suggestive of a decent woman. So how does she move from that point to sitting in the dock?
As i continue to read the comments of others i wonder if anyone here could help me get in touch with robs sister jane ,who was like a little sister to me..please foward an e-mail to me if possible! God Bless you Rob! Justice will prevail! Miss ya Bro!
Posted by dan williams at August 10, 2005 03:00 PM
Carol:
During the time that I knew Rob in Hong Kong, I never saw any signs of drug use. Nancy was reported to have testified that Rob was expelled from high school for drug-dealing. Do you know whether this is true?
Rob was never suspended or expelled from high school, he was a straight A student, and he certainly never delt drugs! He left public school to go to a private all boys prep school.
I looked again at the report of the testimony (SCMP, August 6). I guess I was a little inaccurate in saying that Nancy testified that Rob was expelled in high school for dealing drugs. More accurately, she testified that she had told a psychiatrist that Rob had been expelled from high school for using drugs.
Nevertheless, it doesn't look like that affects the gist of your response. Thanks.
Rob Kissel was killed by Nancy Kissel. The jury will determine whether the killing was intentional or justified.
The issues surrounding Rob's character, etc. are really not relevant and frankly are unprovable and not corroborated by any evidence, other than the testimony of the accused... the person that leveled a metal ornament to this man's head numerous times while he was in a deep sleep. How freakin' awful for someone not even in the prime of his life, with everything to live for, to be taken by a person who admits of nefarious conduct and adultery. I, who knew the man well, never, ever in my life saw him abuse another person. He had a heart of gold and a smile that traversed continents.
Now would be a good time for me to make a simple request: if members of the media use this archive and/or site to help in their research of the case, I would appreciate an email letting me know of any resulting publication or article.
Secondly a general reminder that these matters are still before the court and therefore we cannot speculate on anything. Everything that is reported is a direct recounting of testimony. Any speculation is possibly contempt of court. After the verdict there will be plenty of time for speculation, but until such time everything is only alleged and not fact unless agreed by both parties to the trial.
I have to disagree with Ole Bud. Character is all important here. The prosecution hopes the jury will find Nancy Kissel guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The defence (such as it is) is attemting to sow seeds of doubt in the jury members' minds. The only way it can succeed is to establish that Rob Kissel was the sort of person capable of swinging at his wife with a baseball bat whilst verbally threatening to kill her. Unless Nancy Kissel's own testimony to that effect, in itself is convincing, the defence needs to show Rob Kissel could have done such a thing based on known prior behaviours. The standard of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is a stringent one. If there is some doubt, even a reasonable doubt, she must be acquitted. That is why Rob Kissel's surfing for gay porn, etc., has been highlighted by the defence.
As for Nancy Kissel's affair, she is not on trial for it, rather she is on trial for murder, which carries a stiff penalty, and that is why the jury can have no reasonable doubt as to her guilt if and when reaches a guilty verdict.
A lot of people appear not to be convinced by Nancy Kissel's testimony. What do they make of searches conducted on a computer in the home of the Kissels when Nancy Kissel was abroad, for gay sex services in countries where Rob Kissel was due to go on business? No one seems to want to talk about this. Why not? Nancy Kissel claims that her husband anally raped her during the marriage, and that he attempted this on the night she killed him. If my own husband tried this on me, after telling me he was leaving our marriage and taking the children, and started swinging at me into the bargain, I too should be tempted to reach for a family heirloom. On the other hand, if he was sleeping soundly (for whatever reason) after telling me he was taking the children, I might allow a swift kick to the nuts to suffice, and go out and hire myself a good divorce lawyer...
the new york times has an article on saturday (august 13) by alison leigh cowan about the three kissel children. it has the details of a set of messy american court hearings that we never heard about in hong hong.
I knew Robert when he was young. We grew up in the same neighborhood for many years and I also ran into him several times in Rochester, NY while we both attended college there. In terms of his character; he was polite, kind, intelligent, modest and somewhat shy. He was a wonderful friend to my brother, Dan. I am sad for the Kissel family and to hear Rob's adult life was so tragic. Let's hope the foreign justice system does the proper thing by putting his crazy wife away.
We knew Rob as an adult and traveled with him and his wife and children. He was kind and gentle to all of them. We never saw him drunk, despte many evenings out (and some in). Far from complaining about being sodomized, Nancy took great pride in their sexual relationship. Obviously their relationship took a sharp turn for the worse. However, only one person is dead. That person is now being portrayed as a horrible father (which he was not) and a worse husband (can't speak to that). If the toxicology reports are correct (and so far there hasn't been a real challenge to them reported in the press), then it appears quite likely he was killed in his sleep. How sad that and how sad that his character is now being desroyed when he is not here to defend himself.
This is truly a baffling case, full of contrariness, and no wonder people are talking so much about it.
1. As to the drug use of the husband, and the anal sex the wife claims - these would be easily verifiable in a USA court. What happened here?
2. The greatest problem for the lawyers of the wife is that half her behaviour is really seeming to planned out - the drugging with that milkshake...and then also crazily careless - asking your servants to help take out the body, phoning your lover on easily traced long distance calls...?????
3. No one really knows what goes on a marriage..so there should be some more hard evidence...
4. Hidden violence and hidden sexual problems are more common in upper class marriages, where people want to rreally maintain a good public image....
5. Her whole story about the husband provoking her takes place after the knock you out milkshake...which seems like she was planning to kill him...and yet her story is so obviously something that could catch her out...it does seem really crazy...as though she was going mad....
I don't intend to provoke anyone here, it just seems really puzzling.
The doctors and lawyers must be a little different in each country?
Let me address a point a couple of commenters have hinted at: that somehow Hong Kong's "foreign" justice system is inferior to the American system.
The Hong Kong system is based on the English common law system. It has some similarities with American courts, but also many differences. There are strict rules on how the cases can be reported and how they are conducted. There is a rigorous appeals process as well. The whole point of the adversarial system is for the truth to emerge through two sides presenting evidence and examining it thoroughly.
There is absolutely no reason to doubt the thoroughness and professionalism of the court and lawyers involved. While we get a feel for what is happening in the court, we do NOT see and hear all the evidence. All that matters at the end of the day is what the jury thinks of it all. If you don't like the final verdict, your issue is with the jurors, not the system.
Just because it isn't American doesn't mean it is inferior. Many would argue the English system is superior to the American. I would just say they are different, each worthy of respect.
As a lawyer in a different jurisdiction to Hong Kong, but one still based on the same common law system I can say without a doubt that it is a superior system to the American one. The evidence of Mr Kissel's behaviour is the defence's effort to prove that Mrs Kissel was provoked by a slow burning slow fuse. This is quite acceptable and admissible.
If Nancy was so perfect, why would the person that knew her best want to beat her?
This question and the one above follow the same logic. They both attempt to shift blame to the victim. By this logic, anyone that is harmed by a loved one must surely have had it coming. But we know that isn't true.
It is as unfair to assume a man that is killed by his wife deserved it as it is to assume a woman that claims abuse deserved the abuse. In this case, one or the other of them acted heinously and irrationally.
The fact that one spouse/parent/loved one acts violently against another should NEVER be the best evidence that the victim deserved it.
hmmmmm. not sure i agree with the comment from the "friend and supporter of nancy". if i read it right then if someone is nasty to you, you have the right to drug them and then beat them over the head with a statue until they are dead.
i find it hard to believe that any legal system would recognise that as a legitimate defence but if it turns out that it is an acceptable defence in HK then it will certainly make discussions with my boss come bonus time a bit more tense than usual.
and to all those americans who are questioning how good a "foreign" justice system can be and whether it is up to american standards, i would just like to ask how, if your system is so good, is Michael Jackson still a free man?
I agree that the logic is skewed in "Friend of Nancy's" comment. What I think "Friend" wants to impart is that typically these kind of events do not happen without good reason. We do of course know of cases in which people murdered with with cold blooded motives. However, I'm inclined, as perhaps "Friend" is, to see this case in shades of grey, and not in black and white.
ok, Justice, so let's examine this statement: "typically these kind of events do not happen without good reason".
For the sake of argument, let's say Rob did try to assault Nancy with a bat. Suppose he had been successful in hitting her in the head, and she was killed by him.
What then would *his* good reason to kill her have been?
There is no good in making the assumption that because someone was murdered, there was good reason for it. It is best to go with the evidence of the case to examine the grey areas, and determine whether or not there was 'good reason'.
Thank you for reinforcing my point. If Rob Kissel was swinging at his wife, what might the reason have been? He was pissed off over her affair? Angry because he could not fix the marriage? She was swinging at him? He had developed a problem with spousal abuse? These are all good reasons (as in, not implausible reasons) for why he might have done this. Of course, he may not have been doing this at all.
Why might Nancy Kissel have killed her husband? She was defending herself against attack? She wanted his money and the children, and a new life with Mr Del Priore? These are also good, in the sense of plausible, reasons for why she might have killed him.
Now, the issue is: which of these reasons is better (sounder)? I don't think the Prosecution's story is the most plausible and neither does "Friend of Nancy." However, this is not say people deserve to be killed - NOONE deserves to be killed, though killing may be warranted in certain circustances. Everyone (who is decent) must surely regret the fact that Rob Kissel was killed. I believe that even Nancy Kissel regrets this and not simply because she is on trial.
Some reasons are better than others. Facts: she killed him, and she tried to cover this up. Is she legally responsible for killing him? Not if it was in self defence. Is she legally responsible for attempting to cover up the killing? Not if she had lost her marbles over the shock of it all. What a few people, like myself, doubt is that Nancy Kissel killed her husband without any provocation. I remain agnostic on the issue of whether what provocation there was, warranted the response she gave it.
This is NOT tantamount to saying Rob Kissel was justified if he did beat Nancy, because she provoked him into doing so. We all know that in marriage there is bickering, argument and plenty of provocation. We do not think this warrants a man beating his wife. We also do not think that someone is warranted in killing someone else except in unusual circumstances like self defence. Question: is anything Nancy Kissel says plausible? Currently, people are testifying that she had visible injuries to her person as early as 1999. Are these people lying? Or is everyone else sticking their head in the sand because Rob is dead and they know she killed him, and they cannot accept that anyone could do this to their friend/colleague and not be guilty of murder?
My grandparents are from the UK and I certainly do not think British justice is less than USA justice.
It seems to me as a layperson that some people get off in the USA that might not get off serious charges in other countries - when they are innocent that would be good, when they are not, that is not good.
Maybe some of the events alluded to happened - if they did happen - so long ago that there can be no proof of them.
With friends of both parties seemingly writing to these sites, we should try to be kind...and think of their feelings.
I can only hope the trial will bring out more objective evidence.
Not to be in the habit of turning questions around, but again...couldn't we just as equally ask if everyone is sticking their head in the sand about what SHE was capable of? That they could not accept that she could do this without it being self defence, that she may be guilty of murder?
So again, friends are forced to believe that one of them did something heinous that night. Either way, it is a horrible thought for friends who are forced to choose which of them was a much, much different person than they imagined. It is really too much to expect any friend to do.
Hopefully, the evidence will point an impartial jury to the right answer.
Does anyone have any information about the jury (if, indeed, such information is available and can be shared)? I recall from early in the summer that there are seven members. All local HK'ers? Male? Female? Because, at the end of the day, they're the ones who will deliver the verdict that counts.
I don't think Nancy kissel did it out of self defense but more out of her prescribed, planned scheme. The reason is that she has DRUGGED him beforehand, as was revealed later by a team of medical doctors..so him swinging a bat at her in that drugged state of his is quite unimaginable.
Also, her claim that he threatened to take away her children stands little chance to the truth as this is a guy who spends 15 hrs a day at work with hardly any time for his family. like she said, he's a "5 minute father" to his children. So unless he's willing to ditch his career and his job to raise his kids, he would never in his right mind demand such.
Since Rob Kissel is deceased and unable to make his defense, the court has to be careful
in taking her words for it, or any of her testimonies, unless they are backed by hard evidences.
Who among us could stand to be abused without sight of an end? Raped, sodomized, intimidated, and defeated. This is the classic tale of an abused woman.
It's easy for us to say what should have happened, but when he turned her friends against her, threatened to take the children away (no doubt to be raised by domestic help), and destroy what was left of her life she finally found the strength to strike back. In a society as sexist as HK, this probably doesn't mean much. The best Nancy can hope for is manslaughter with 15 years hard time.
There are things she could have done, there are things he shouldn't have done. In this case, everyone is guilty and everyone is a victim.
the whole thing just doesnt make sense to me, IF it was premeditated, i.e as proven by the milkshake, what did she hope to achieve??? it wasn't a clever enough murder for her to get away with it, so she gets caught and loses everything, her children, her freedom, just by definition she could not have been rational, any sane and thinking person would have hired the best divorce attorney in town...
Rob was not angry! he was resigned to the fact that the relationship was over! He was sad,depressed and devastated. The situation is tragic, and we have lost 2 beautiful people. I just hope those kids can find peace.
to Friend of Nancy - you may be right to some degree that everyone is guilty and everyone is a victim in this, but only one of them is six feet under, and the other deserves to be punished for committing a premeditated murder when she could have just got on a plane and left.
Battered women don't get on planes and fly away. They endure the nightmare. Even Nancy may not know what her breaking point was, but eventually one of them was going to end up six feet under. In America, battered women syndrome is considered a basis for self defense. I hope that's true in HK.
Had the defense filed motions related to battered women's syndrome or some kind of insanity defense?
Is the jury allowed to consider the veracity of the evidence with respect to Nancy's claims that she was battered and find her not guilty? Not familiar with how it works in the HK.
How much time had they actually spent together in their last 8 months? She was in the US from April through July. Testimony says he was in the US through most of August, having back surgery. She had reservations to fly to the US later in November.
It is interesting to note that deeply divergent views as to Nancy Kissel's guilt are held by people commneting on this site. Two extremes are:"Also" - clearly persuaded of her guilt - and "Friend" - clearly not.
I wonder if the Jury members are likewise inclined to disagree.
AS i continue to read the comments posted it appauls me to think anyone would when realizing they'v been drugged not to somehow try to defend themselves with any object available like a baseball bat which he and i both learned to swing at the age of 7 or so..in his last moments after already fearing for his wifes, threats i too would try to defend myself until the drugs that were laced into my milkshake started to take effect..let us not all forget SHE is the one who murdered him!! whether its self defense, insanity, or any other lame reason the fact is she ws having an affair and when she found out he knew via robs detective he hired she didnt know what else to do but as on TV murder and Rage! it is now time for her to face the piper! GOD and JUSTICE! my only regret is that china doesnt have the death penalty! or sometimes i think that would even be to an easy out for her!!! She will be judged by god and end up in hell! unfortunatly shes so selfish she didnt even c
onsider the poor lives of her and roberts children and how now they all have to grow up without any true blood parents which both nancey and robert did as well as me...."dont worry Rob we, me and your friends will be sure that she lives a missarable life behind bars in a CHINESE prison system where cable is not fu@#ing available! and to you Nancy i hope you live for the rest of your life looking at the nice big fat chinese woman whos gonna be your bitch for life!!!!!Have a good feeling now? your poor children!! I cant think of a worse mother figure over the past 41 yrs of my life than you you c%n&t
Are you OK? Be strong. Do not allow yourself to be consumed by hatred. Outbursts are understandable, but you are no good to any of the Kissel's in this state.
Finally!! Daniel Williams, you spoke for a lot of us who share very much same feelings... And Carol, I admire your courage to come out and speak.
Everyone talks about Nancy's volunteer work at HKIS and keeps praising her for it. Yes, she volunteered a lot of hours and a lot of people benefited from it, but nobody talks about how that took her away from her own children and, most of the times, the children were doing things (play-dates, grocery shopping and after school activities etc.) with their two maids while she was busy doing her own things, photography and school volunteer. I have tons of respect for those who share their time to help others, but there is a point that breaks the balance... If Rob ever asked her not to volunteer for the school any more, I can clearly see why. Instead of volunteering to be near her children as someone on the witness stand testified, she was spending A LOT of time away from her family because of it. It was excess.
Another very important point here (I hope someone will stress this to Mr. Chapman, the prosecutor) is that if any kind of abuse ever did happen for so long, there simply is no possible way for their two maids not to know it. It's not as if they live in another building. The maids have their room right next to the kitchen which is in the middle of their apartment. And they live there for 24 hours a day. Nancy told at the cross examination that by 7 p.m. they were off duty, but that doesn't mean they left the apartment by 7 p.m. They were still in the apartment for the most of time. The maids have got to be the best witnesses. As an expat wife in Hong Kong myself, with the way we live with our maids here, they even know how many times a week we make love!
They have 3 beautiful children. June, the second one, was quite handful and always needed extra attention. I remember Rob coming down to the schoolbus-stop with June whenever he was in town. I still remember every movement he made trying to make sure to have eye contact with June as the bus departed. He was doing what he could to give the extra attention she needed.
A lot of us here asked... Why would she do such a thing? They had everything and they looked so normal. It just doesn't add up... But guess what? It does add up. It WASN'T perfect marriage. Rob did love his family (It seemed that, to him, family and work were all he cared about and all he talked about), but he travelled a lot. It's never easy for the wives when the husbands are away for so long and so often. Some suffer low self-esteem and some suffer depression. Many make it, but many don't. There are loneliness, boredom, blames, anger AND extra marital affairs.
Whatever argument they had that night, only Nancy and Rob know. Nancy was a very likable person, but also known to have a hot temper. Who knows? She might have been giving him drugs, as he suspected, regularly, hoping for his heart attack someday. We all know by now that Rob was going to mention 'divorce' with her that night. It's very easy to imagine him mentioning private detectives, spywares and her affairs during arguments. Can you imagine her rage?
Talking about abuse... Witnesses talked about a couple of isolated incidents with bruises, yet nobody, not even her best friends who bailed her out, could say anything about years of abuse. People talk about her dark sunglasses. She did often wear them... They were small (tinted, or dark) glasses, not those huge ones that could cover your black eyes. Everyone who knows Rob and Nancy knows, if anything, it would be the other way around. Nancy isn't a woman who sits there and takes it. Otherwise, if there was any sign of abuse any of us ever detected, trust me, Hong Kong would have witnessed hundreds of expat wives petitioning for her and I would definitely have been one of them.
Hopefully, this isn't going to be another OJ Simpson trial. People who harm other people have to pay. It has got to be the world that wouldn't permit murderers fool those with good intentions and manipulate the system.
I think the general public who has no idea who Rob was, has a tendency of jumping to some pretty uneducated conclusions from information given solely by Nancy.
Everything that is being said about Rob's “supposed behavior” of abuse is coming from the person who murdered him. Do any of you think this woman is going to stand in court for her own murder trial and say "I murdered my husband because I'm one sandwich short of a picnic, that's why I'm on every anti-depressant known to man"?
Of course not! She is going to lie and say anything she can to get out from under herself. What bothers me the most about this case is that not one of Rob's ex-girl friends was ever called to defend his integrity and serve as a character witness. Not one was asked to talk about their years with him.
Rob was a quiet guy, he never EVER dated casually, ALL his relationship where long term. He didn't take advantage of his good looks ever. God know's the man could have had any woman on a one night stand any time he wanted. He was so handsome and he never knew it.
As one of Rob's ex-girl friends I will say that Nancy was not the only woman who knew Rob behind closed doors. This case has brought some of us ex-girl friends together and we have been talking amongst ourselves. We are ALL in agreement that Rob was a kind gentle man. If he were abusive IN ANY WAY it would have come out prior to his marriage through one of us PERIOD
Excuse my mouth but Nancy is full of shit. She's a pathological liar, she has said things in this trial that are outright lies!
She has gotten away with convincing people that she's a “nice Jewish girl" for most of her life now and figured she could get off easy. Well her acting sucks, she needs to find a day job scrubbing the inside of a toilet while in jail.
The world is round Nancy and it's finally come around to bite you in the ass.
No matter what the out-come of this trial, this woman has to face herself every day and you can count on the fact that she will never see a pretty face in the mirror again.
She's a monster who destroyed the life of her husband, her children, her family, his family and everyone else that knew and loved Rob. This isn't just about the death of one person, it's about the death of one man and three children who have a lot of years ahead of them to face, alone, confused, abandoned, hurt, and god only knows what else.
There is no excuse that can explain this away. She say’s she would never hurt her children. Well hello people, I don’t know what planet she’s living on and for that matter any of you out there who defend her but in my world she has managed to abuse her children in more ways than I care to try and imagine!
Carol, did you and Rob's other old girlfriends ever think about contacting Mr. Chapman, the prosecutor, to help out with Rob's case? As you said, facing life in prison, she will do and say anything for ANY POSSIBILITY of getting off. Rob needs help from his friends and colleagues to defend him from this incredible character distortion and assassination. His friends and family should not let her murder him twice!
I wonder if they will bring Del Priore in to give evidence. Surely he would be able to shed some light on what was going through Nancy's mind in the months prior to, and after the crime. They seem to be receiving evidence from lots of others in Nancy's life, yet the person whom she seemed closest to, has not been put on the stand.
No.The prosecution feels their
case is strong enough without him.The defense certainly does not want to hear from a guy who could only benefit from her inheritance should she go free.If he has not been called in by now it is not gonna happen.It would be
very interesting to know his involvement in this whole thing she talked to him before and immediately after the murder maybe he even instructed her to whack the poor guy a few more times to make sure he was dead.That would explain the vicious beating she gave him.
I agree with catchmeifyoucan. I lived in Parkview and knew Nancy and she was completely self-absorbed. She was always having her amahs take the kids to activities because she was so busy with other things. That poor June was always being dragged about by the amahs and begging for playdates with other kids. The son was at Pips with my boy and he was in the class without moms at age 2 and would cry himself silly missing his mom or maid. In fact the school eventually told Nancy he was not ready to be at preschool by himself and should be in the "Mommy & Me Class". Nancy simply pulled him out as she was too busy with her things to devote any time to him. Rob was great and he was always at the Parkview playground with the kids on weekends, Sundays in particular and Nancy was never with him. Most the mothers I knew at Parkview and HKIS saw right through Nancy and felt she was self-centered and fake. She is now simply telling lies about Rob to save herself. I don not beleive for one minute that Rob ever hurt or abused her.
I am not sure we can say whether or not her bail had been revoked because the final disposition of the continued bail had been decided in closed hearings at end of the week before last, but it would seem that the Judge may not have felt that her bail application had been truthful (that she posed no threat to herself, when herown testimony is that she has been suicidal). What is clear is that she is led into the dock before the jury arrives and then removed after they leave so that it would not have an influence on their decision.
It is good that HK community members like Catchme and Jane have come forward and giving some insight into the kind of parent and person Nancy had been. I suppose I had been like many others and prepared to believe (as I have since the day we heard she had been arrested) that the murder was a horrible accident and occured when they fought over the disposition of the children when he confronted her with the divorce/affair. And I suppose there is still a part of me that wants to believe that. But there are a couple things that don't fit or have not been explained.
If a victim of a violent death is found with "an exotic cocktail of drugs" in them, it suggests to me that the death (or at least the drugging) had been planned. She went about acquiring the separate drugs immediately proceding the death. Her doctors said she did not speak to either physician about the other drugs she had been recently given or the possible effects on her if taken in such close proximity. Nor did it appear that she had used any of them herself for long enough to determine if they had the respective sought-after affects on herself before seeking more and different drugs. Did they work? or would a combination of them have had negative side effects on her? She did not ask. But she did do the research on them and then went about acquiring them. And they all were found in his body.
The defense has said that he may not have ingested a sufficient quantity of the drugs to render him incapacitated, and the amount ingested was ambiguous as determined via forensics, but the neighbor, who is a large man himself, and his wife, both of whom did not know Rob and Nancy, have testified that he had been incoherent after drinking the same milkshake. Was he conscious? Don't know (the neighbor certainly was sufficiently conscious to finish off three tubs of ice cream and soil himself and his living room). Diminished capacity? It would seem likely.
She went to her physician unable to move normally and in "total body pain" after being beaten, but the doctor's initial recollection was that she was "frustrated" and that the pain seemed exaggerated for the injuries presented. Then the security cameras have her carrying carpeting and other heavy items, moving in and out of her apartment many times, all during the period she was in total pain. And her own father mentioned nothing about her pain or being injured when he arrived. Was she injured? maybe. Incapacitated? apparently not.
Her claims of self defense aren't consistent. She told the doctor she used a fork (held upside down-presumes fork tines in palm) to defend herself, and that he used his hands and feet to assault her. The doctor was preparing a document (and giving her a copy) specifically for the use of filing a police report and future divorce procedings, but there is no mention of a baseball bat in that report. Now the testimony is that he was trying to kill her with a bat.
The bat itself was not taken by the police at the crime scene, but was later introduced as evidence by the defense. They took the bat from the apartment and it remained in their custody until they introduced it at the trial. Should the bat not have been given into evidence immediately and subjected to forensic examination? What about chain of custody of a key piece of evidence?
Her father's testimony didn't corroborate Nancy's testimony at all, contradicted what he himself had reported to the police about what he knew and when he knew it, and cast more doubt on what she testified. He said he travelled to HKG for fear for her safety and that of the kids, that he told her to dead bolt the door. Then he testified that he arrived, went to his hotel room, and then went to their apartment and let himself in, that she had told him the door would be open. And he never asked where Rob was, or whether they had spoken since, or where he could speak to him to either hear his side of it, seek them to reconcile or to tell him to sod off.
In my opinion there has not been a convincing parade of her peers, neighbors, friends, parents, co-workers, teachers of their kids, parents of kids' friends, tennis partners, attending doctors who corrobrate that she had been abused. I would be very apt to believe a member of the community, a person who knew her everyday or a family member, who stepped forward and stated unequivocally that they were aware of the abuse, they were concerned for her safety because she and the kids showed signs of abuse. That hasn't happened, nor does it look likely.
The testimony of the domestic helpers has been mentioned, but has not been focused upon. These women were in their home, and they had been with the family for many years. They had travelled with the family on holidays in Asia and to the US. They directly contradict her claims of abuse of the children, alcohol abuse, et c. And they never heard or saw him abuse her. On the day it occurred, if she was fearful for her life, and went to the dining room to get the stature to defend herself, then the helper was a room away. No cry for help? or a scream as the fight happened?
But the biggest problem for me is her claim of not recalling what she had done, and her actions following the murder. She was able to tell her doctor that she had been abused, that version was changed at trial, now fits the self defense argument. She was able to tell her father something and get him to come out. She was able to go to several different locations to replace bloodied houseware items. She was able to carry carpeting. She was able to instruct the helpers to go and purchase ropes and other items, and to instruct them not to enter the bedroom for several days. She was able to instruct and pay the Parkview maintenance workers to move the carpet before her father arrived. There are a lot of parts there, and they all form part of a plan.
Was it a good plan? Obviously not. But a bad plan or a poorly thought-out is a plan nonetheless, and would indicate some degree of pre-meditation. There are other inconsistencies that other people will no doubt highlight. But these are the ones that have struck me as most telling.
So where does this lead me? I am still keeping an open mind, and am hoping the jury is as well, and we will see what other evidence is introduced in the coming days. But it would seem to me that her actions (and the reasons therefor) before and after have not been accounted for, and that her testimony has been less than genuine. I had started the summer thinking that it had been an argument between spouses that escalated out of control, but now my opinion is not so certain.
And I wonder if we should have somehow detected that there was this kind of problem under the surface before we entrusted her with our children.
Just to clarify... When Rob was killed on Sunday, One maid was on a weekly holiday and the other was out with the children. Whether they were sent out, I do not know.
The prosecution showed that Nancy made over 60 calls to her lover in September, and over 100 to him in October before she murdered her husband... Obviously she was either in love with this young guy or infatuated with him. A little attention from a much younger man goes a long way for a woman whose husband is always on the road, therefore feeling neglected, empty, unattractive and depressed. We all know what that can bring... some of us excersize reasons and stay where we are, some of us let go, face the storm, but return to where they used to be, then there are the unfortunate some who end up distroying all before they realize what they were getting into...
This certainly makes us reflect on our own marriages and lives.
Daniel Williams' language (see 8/21/05)has no place in a public forum among civilized people. His use of "God" and the B- and C- words in the same thought is beyond the pale and suggests the need for professional help. I would also like to remind all of us that Rob and Nancy's oldest daughter is 11 and knows how to use a computer. Daniel's feigning of concern for the Kissel children while using them for fodder in his hate-filled screed against women does not do Rob's memory justice. To quote Shakespeare, "me thinks he doth protest too much."
For the record, Nancy's court proceedings have been going on for 12 weeks+. The prosecution has been free to make its case for most of that time, including the year leading up to trial, in public. Apparently the tradition in HK is one where the defense sits quietly until its moment in court. Despite that considerable advantage, the defense has done a stellar job in raising doubts and poking holes in the prosecution's case. It has only been this past week or so that Nancy and the people who believe in her have had their say and it's beginning to appear that the prosecution may have overstated its case. For example, Nancy's black eyes, broken ribs, and deep tissue bruising are facts. Rob's raping and sodomizing of Nancy now seems likely. His effort to force her into early labor for their son's birth so as not to interfere with a business trip to Korea is sick. His surfing gay web sites, drug use and drinking are symptoms of someone whose sadly lost his way. In truth, neither are the people we thought them to be.
Until now, I feared that the best Nan could hope for was manslaughter. Now that her side of the story is emerging, I am hopeful for the possibility of a hung jury. If there is one woman on that jury that's been abused, or one person whose mother was abused, or one man who is guilty of abuse, then maybe one courageous hold out will carry the day.
And please clarify, what does "I would also like to remind all of us that Rob and Nancy's oldest daughter is 11 and knows how to use a computer." mean? That the girl would surf porn? I don't get it.
Catchme: Thank you, that is a good ...er...catch. I stand corrected. And yes, it certainly does.
I also do not condone Mr. Williams' use of language, but I do understand how frustrated and angry he appears to be to have lost a close and life long friend so needlessly.
I knew Rob and Nancy as neighbors in our Co-Op in lower Manhattan. Rob was the treasurer of the Co-Op when I was on the Board. He was terrific--helped the Co-OP refinance--great dad--all of the qualities previously recalled by many bloggers. We missed him when they moved to HK. I also spent 7 years at the New York Legal Aid Society (the Public Defender) where many of our clients, unfortunately , were male abusers.
Additonally, I worked with women offenders who killed their husbands
-women severely abused by their husbands/partners.
It is ridiculous to consider Rob as an abuser--there were no signs then (and there are signs) and from what I gather from his HK friends no sign during the HK period. Women who have been abused do not ocassionally have a black-eye--they are barely able to get out of bed--their kids generally are eye witnesses to the beatings--and as far as the evening of Rob's death even if one of the nanny's was out of the building the nanny's on prior ocassions would have had to see evidence of prior abuse. I once took the older child (when she was 5 or so) out for pizza wiith another child in our building. The only complaint she had then was there was basil on the pizza slice which she made me remove.
Please let us know how the children are doing. Did Ellie go to camp?--are they in Greenwich?
She did, they are. Hayley (Rob's sister-in-law) is doing a great job of caring for the kids, has given much of herself and taken time and resources away from her own two children to make Rob and Nancy's kids feel as safe and settled and part of a family as possible. She's dedicated herself to their welfare: bringing them to their psychologists, speaking to their teachers, parents of schoolmates about the circumstances, attending recitals, fieldtrips, etc. and trying to protect them from the cruelty and curiousity of other people. It may be the only thing that both Rob and Nancy's families agreed on: that Hayley is best possible choice (and chance) for those three kids to resume some kind of normal childhood, education, family life and upbringing. Ideal? Probably not, but much better than anyone had thought possible. We should all hope that the three children continue to stay with her.
We lived with the Kissels in the same complex ever since they had arrived in Hong Kong until this tragedy happened and not on a single occasion I saw her with a black eye. That doesn't mean she never had one. Myself had a pretty bad black eye once by getting hit by a tennis ball and the other time by my own clumsiness, banging my eye on the corner of a chest in darkness.
How about Rob's injured pinky finger... Rob told the doctor at that time that he got it from hitting the wall, and Nancy claims that he aimed to hit her, but she ducted, and he ended up hitting the wall. My own husband hit the wall once when he was really angry and had to go to hospital with a injured pinky too, but he surely didn't try to hit me.
About the broken rib... I do not even know if there is any evidence, but didn't their maid already testify that Nancy told her the injured rib was from playing tennis?
Then there's Rob's forcing early labor... Who is the witness? Nancy, and Nancy only?
Rape and sodomy, COME ON! Do you live in Hong Kong with maids? I do. How can all this happen without getting detected by any of the two maids living with them for 24 hours a day. You know that the maids in Hong Kong hardly leave their employers' home all day. That's their home too. They only get to leave once a week, on Sunday. On Kissel's case, one maid took a Saturday off and the other, Sunday. That means one of them was ALWAYS with them, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, for years.
Let's face it. When this happened 2 years ago, none of us knew what to make of it. Nothing made sense. Confused, we all try to put the puzzles together. The only cause we could think of that made sense was 'abuse'.
But we can't let the innocent get killed twice. The dead man still has a right to remain as who he really was. He still has a right to be remembered by his children as a good man he always was.
Yes, Ellie can certainly use a computer. Apparently that doesn't mean much to Nan who is spewing vicious horrible things about Rob in order to escape responsibility for her actions. All of the terrible things she's said will be available out there in cyberspace for all of her kids to read. When we knew them (well into the period she claimed to be abused), she was pampered, tended to, treated kindly by Rob and waited on by Amahs (without whom she never traveled). She certainly appeared to love her kids then (and Rob), but she certainly lost her way. She loved the glamor and money of the life she lived as a result of Rob's hard work. She had nice clothes, painted nails, expensive highlights and a body toned by tennis. He told her before they moved that if she ever wanted the family to return to the US they would, as the family was more important to him than his work. Rather than ask, she continued to spend the money he made and sleep with the tv repairman in the house that his money paid for while her dear children slept nearby.
Posted by knew em both at August 24, 2005 12:08 AM
I was Rob Kissel’s girlfriend for the first two years of college and I knew him as well as anyone could have. We spent all of our time together during our freshman and sophomore years. These were stressful years as we both had very competitive and difficult majors. A person’s true personality would come out in times of stress and Rob maintained an even keel throughout. He was always a gentle and sweet person who treated people with the utmost respect. He was generous and a very good friend. I spent time with Rob and his family frequently and he with mine. His treatment of the people in his life, particularly the women, was kind and loving. He had the utmost respect for his mother, Elaine, and an endearing love for his sister Jane. Rob was always courteous to my mother and she remembers him as “a wonderful young man” who always had her trust. Rob treated me like a princess and was always compassionate and empathetic. He NEVER hurt me, struck me, and knowing him as I did, I am sure he could never become a violent person.
There are people in one’s life that contribute to their success and growth. Rob Kissel was one of those important people in my life. He helped me to realize my potential and was a calming influence. I frequently wonder if I had not had his companionship during that difficult and transitional part of my life, whether I would have made it to medical school at all. Even 16 years later, when I started working at a hospital near his home town, I would think of him and wonder where he was. I used to fantasize that he’d come into the Emergency Room with acute appendicitis and I’d be the surgeon on call. I wanted him to see how successful I had become and thank him for helping me stay on the straight and narrow and achieve my dreams. That can never happen now.
I am a better person for having known Rob. Simon’s website has connected me with another who is one of the few people in Rob’s life who knew him as I did. Talking with Carol, who has exactly the same feelings as I do about who Robert Kissel was, has helped me realize several things. I wasn’t able to do anything to help him avoid such a violent death. I couldn’t help to put away the monster who has robbed us all. But lastly, I can help his father, brother, sister and children let the world know who this man was and what a difference he made in the lives of others.
I was Rob Kissel’s girlfriend for the first two years of college and I knew him as well as anyone could have. We spent all of our time together during our freshman and sophomore years. These were stressful years as we both had very competitive and difficult majors. A person’s true personality would come out in times of stress and Rob maintained an even keel throughout. He was always a gentle and sweet person who treated people with the utmost respect. He was generous and a very good friend. I spent time with Rob and his family frequently and he with mine. His treatment of the people in his life, particularly the women, was kind and loving. He had the utmost respect for his mother, Elaine, and an endearing love for his sister Jane. Rob was always courteous to my mother and she remembers him as “a wonderful young man” who always had her trust. Rob treated me like a princess and was always compassionate and empathetic. He NEVER hurt me, struck me, and knowing him as I did, I am sure he could never become a violent person.
There are people in one’s life that contribute to their success and growth. Rob Kissel was one of those important people in my life. He helped me to realize my potential and was a calming influence. I frequently wonder if I had not had his companionship during that difficult and transitional part of my life, whether I would have made it to medical school at all. Even 16 years later, when I started working at a hospital near his home town, I would think of him and wonder where he was. I used to fantasize that he’d come into the Emergency Room with acute appendicitis and I’d be the surgeon on call. I wanted him to see how successful I had become and thank him for helping me stay on the straight and narrow and achieve my dreams. That can never happen now.
I am a better person for having known Rob. Simon’s website has connected me with another who is one of the few people in Rob’s life who knew him as I did. Talking with Carol, who has exactly the same feelings as I do about who Robert Kissel was, has helped me realize several things. I wasn’t able to do anything to help him avoid such a violent death. I couldn’t help to put away the monster who has robbed us all. But lastly, I can help his father, brother, sister and children let the world know who this man was and what a difference he made in the lives of others.
Danny Williams can say whatever he want, whenever he wants! He was Robby's oldest and dearest friend, he knew Rob better than all of put together!
You, on the other hand, support an admitted murderer who can't keep her story straight from one minute to the next. If you are uneducated and can't understand the words you are reading than may be you should consider asking someone to interpret the updated testimony clearly stated at the top of this site!
The mere fact that you support a murder discredits anything you have to say in the first place!
'Abuse' element not being so convincing, it seems that defense is also trying their luck on 'porn site'.
The prosecution already presented the evidence showing that Rob was out of town when the porn site was installed. Besides, from January 2002 until November 2003, it was searched for 3 hours over 2 days, the DEFENSE WITNESS testified. There are a number of people who could have installed it. House guests, maids, maids' friend or their boyfriends... Whoever had an access to their home while the Kissels were in town or out of town. The defense also mentions about porn sites on Rob's laptop. Let's say Rob really did view the porn sites that they claim. Does that make him a wife beater? How many of us never, ever wonder what's going on the other side of our supposedly 'normal' sex lives? And how many of us actally come as close as to actually visiting one of those sites a couple of times before our senses divert us back?
And then, let's say Rob did search for sex services in Taiwan as the defense claims. How many decent men out there may try sex services when their marriages are crumbling and their wives no longer give them the security of love any more? Nancy wrote in her computer diary, "He wants kissing, sex, sex, sex...". It's not hard to imagine that Rob, feeling insecure about Nancy's love toward him, wanted her affection.
I am definitely not condoning neither pornsites nor sex services, but the murdered deserves AT LEAST as much benefit-of-the-doubt as the murderer for none of these should have led him to such a cruel death. Otherwise, we would see thosands of men get killed in front of our very own eyes.
I lived at Parkview also & I remember Nancy's ribs broken. I also lived in the flat underneath theirs & heard Rob's tirades.
Jane, I think you say ugly things about Nancy because she chose not to be your friend & you suffered ego damage. We all know your story so don't point any fingers.
A reminder: so far the comments on this topic have been civil and respectful. I trust we can maintain such an atmosphere and avoid personal attacks. We may all differ on how we view this case and naturally feelings are running high, but please avoid directing personal comments at those commenting here.
Another reminder: I take no responsibility for comments made by others.
The comments here made me want to stress that there are two sides to this story and each party brings its own supporters and sympathizers, all of whom are hurt, saddened and angered by the tragedy of this hideous turn of events. I never knew Nancy, but I did know Rob back in high school (it was a co-ed private school, not an all boys prep school). What baffled me then continues to confuse me as I read the comments on this and other blogs- people either adored Rob and consistently described him as a "great guy" or there were probably as many others who saw instead his aggressiveness and his unpredictable temper. True, he clearly adored his little sister which contradicted the tough guy swagger I think that he otherwise cultivated. Still, I was saddened to hear of his untimely death, and all the more so once I'd heard that it was alleged to have been at the hands of his own wife.
Now that Nancy has admitted to killing him, I also am sad for her family and friends, and most of all for the children. Not everyone who knows Nancy appears to like her (and does that really distinguish her from billions of others?), but her family and devoted friends have to come to terms with the grotesque fact that an otherwise normal person committed a horrible, irreversible crime that leaves many victims in its wake. And her detractors may contend that she'd say anything to stay out of prison, but does anyone really believe that if she could turn back the clock that she would repeat her actions even if she weren't facing a prison sentence now?
There are alot of people in pain because of this tragedy, and Rob's loved ones may suffer the additional withering effects of anger. But to deny the sadness of anyone who loves or once loved Nancy seems unfair. No one will ever see Rob again and that is cruel and foul and ultimately at Nancy's own hand. But I would guess no one who loved Nancy will ever see that person again either. I imagine that the biting pain of Rob's loss sucks more than the dull, disorienting ache of still having access to some incarnation of Nancy, but aren't all these people still suffering, even if to acutely varying degrees? Tragic effects are still tragic, regardless of the cause.
I met Nancy in the mid 80s. We became fast friends and had great fun together as single women in NYC. When we married our husbands became friends, our oldest daughters played together, our bar hopping and late nights were replaced by our children’s birthday parties, quiet dinners together and picnics in the parks. We really, really liked them and now they are forever lost to us.
Despite how well we knew them though, apparently I am at a disadvantage to those many friends of Rob’s whose comments on this blog indicate some sort of behind closed-door access. A witnessing, if you will, of Nancy’s and Rob’s most private moments, an intimate knowledge of their most private thoughts; because it is only this kind of access that can lend the kind of certainty I see here to Rob’s legion of supporters, the kind of certainty that shows little tolerance for the occasional opposing view. Is this why I have been accused of not being very educated? Because of my view that people who truly believe in something aren’t easily shaken, hostile to opposing views, or threatened by my desire to question the conventional wisdom of the herd? Look up the word misology.
My husband and I spoke with both Rob and Nancy the day before he was killed and sensed nothing to indicate the disaster that was about to happen. Sad to say, his girlfriends from high school, and his misogynist “best and oldest” friend, you know, the ones that claim to know every intimate detail of their marriage couldn’t have warned him of his impending doom. Though I always suspected that all wasn’t well in paradise, I, like most of you, didn’t see this coming, and was of no help and failed them as a friend.
Now all I have are my memories, my observations and suspicions and am trying to sort it all out. Oddly, it was at Rob’s funeral where I first began to doubt him. The stories his friends and family endearingly told about his obsessive need to win, his insistence to always be the banker in Monopoly as a child, or the incredible story his father told about an outing to a Yankees game where he brought along his oldest daughter were revealing. How, as she grew restless at the game, as any child would at such a long event, he fed her hot dogs non-stop to keep her quiet until she got sick, then took her to the hotel to the nanny, throwing up and crying, while he left her to have drinks with grandpa dearest. I would like to know from his omniscient friends if he looked deep into her tear-filled eyes that night as he slipped smoothly out the door for more “man’s fun” while the paid help nursed his daughter back to health.
Then there is his family. For example, I haven’t heard much lately from his supporters about Rob’s brother Andrew, the loving uncle who petitioned to take the children from Nancy. You know, the one that is under house arrest with an electronic ankle bracelet because he is accused of stealing multi-millions of dollars from partners, neighbors and friends. That doesn’t include the $100,000 he stole from the funds he raised to help care for his deceased brother’s children. And what about their children so many of you feign such concern for? Well let’s see, the 11-year-old has just spent the summer at a sleepover camp and her brother and sister are living full time with the nanny in Vermont. Safe to say the Kissel’s won’t be writing the definitive book on child-rearing anytime soon. Grandpa dearest? Well, he’s the guy who was estranged from his sons for most of their adult lives because of some of the same insidious actions for which Nancy is now accusing Rob. Guess the apples don’t fall far from the tree. None of us come from perfect families any more than Nancy did with her own set of broken family problems, estrangements, and even suicide in her background, but it’s the Kissel’s that put the “d” in dysfunctional, and that life experience formed Rob.
We all bring our own set of values to this tragic affair. Is it possible that Rob could have amassed just 8 million dollars and put a higher priority on his responsibility to be a loving and attentive husband and father? Sad to say, in Rob’s world, enough is never enough, until it’s too late. When it came to his family he may have talked the talk but I know first hand, close up, he never walked the walk. Children only want one thing, and it’s the hardest thing to give them … your time. In Rob’s world time was something that is never given to the family. Would Rob have been a lesser man had he instead invested the same dedication and energy into his family as he did in his dauntless pursuit of money and power? Had he done so, he could have been the first Kissel to write the book, and in my eyes he would have been a greater man, a true man’s man.
If anyone knew Nancy they would be surprised by her sudden sheepishness at broadcasting any alleged abuse. Nancy had a hot temper, a loud mouth and spoke her mind at any chance. There are a myriad of stories, my own included, of her irrational behavior and response to minor issues and problems in a relationship. This being perhaps the most irrational.
Well said "now what?" (08.23.05 at 03:45 PM above)
You seem to have summarised extremely well all the questions and inconsistencies, most of us have. Let’s hope the courts see through all of Nancy's lies and sum it up the same logical way.
I guess we can't expect more (the lies) from a person who has beaten her husband to death after drugging him, who shops and replies to friends emails chats with her secret lover the very day after, and who is so heartless as to move (well pay others to move! god forbid her getting her hands dirty) her dead husbands body right past their very own son's nose.
And for those of you who tell me I don't know Nancy (as irrelevant as it is) I do, I use work at HKIS and I found her totally up herself.
I cannot believe those who support a cold blooded murderer, what ever the situation. I don't think "real friends" would be reading through forums such as this, I think it's more a matter of being a part of the "action" that they stick by her.
She had all the money in the world to be able to remove herself from a supposedly bad situation. I hope she gets what she deserves and the children are able to recover in a loving environment.
I am appalled by what friend of Nancy writes about the Kissel family. How dare you attack them in this time of need. Who are you to say what you say about Mr. Kissel, Andy and Rob. Which of his friends do you refer to who claim to have had "closed door access". I wasn't at the funeral, but are you suggesting that anyone actually shared the story of his daughter being left with the Nanny, vomiting because of Rob force feeding hot dogs. Or is this a story you heard elsewhere and feel a need to disparage a dead man? You should be ashamed of yourself for what you write, poking fun at Andy and Mr. Kissel. Do you think your comments make anyone believe that anything you say has validity? Do us all a favor and keep your comments to yourself.
'Children only want one thing, and it's the hardest thing to give them... your time.' you wrote. If you were such a good friend of hers, how can you not know that, while Rob was busy working to provide for the family, Nancy, who was a 'stay-at-home-mom' hardly ever stayed with their 3 children? They were ALWAYS with their maids! Ever since they came to Hong Kong, we never saw Nancy at the playground with the children even ONCE! They came down to the playgound EVERYDAY with the maids. Preschool called 'PIPS' is the one the Kissels sent their children to and, despite they lived right next to the school (They lived in Tower 17 and the school was in Tower 18), rarely Nancy brought the children down to the classes in the morning or picked them up in the afternoon. Every single day it was either the maids or Rob, if he was in town.
You blame on Rob for his hard work. My own husband works and travels the way Rob did. Although it hasn't always been easy for me, I never, even for a minute, think his priorities are mixed up. We made the decision together and I have options. That's the same option Nancy had. We are in it together,as a 'husband and wife' team. Majority of the expat husbands here in Hong Kong work and travel the way Rob did and do you really think that all they are after is power and money? Don't you ever think that these men have plans and the plans include their wives and children?
My jaw just dropped at the very minute I saw your comments attacking Rob's family. Nobody managed to so viciously attack either Rob's or Nancy's family so far, knowing, by common sense, the unimaginable seffering both families must be going through. What have the families got to do with this murder? You are not saying that the fact Rob's brother got himself into trouble makes Rob to become a possible wife beater, therefore deserved to be killed, I hope? We have a theory on Nancy's wrecked family background too, but IT'S IRRELAVANT!! She murdered him and she did it alone as a 40 year old adult knowing what she was doing. And I am not going to even discuss on your second paragraph of attacking his friends, for it seems to me as a useless blame game.
'It was at Rob’s funeral where I first began to doubt him.', you wrote. You can doubt as much as you want, but the doubt has to be based on the COMBINED facts! It simply does not make a case when you pick isolated pieces from here and there to force the story to form.
_______________________________________
To Susan (8/24):
Nancy told me her rib was broken and that was from playing tennis as she told her maids. There was no black eye, no bruises any where. Rob had to be so skillful to break just a bone and not to leave any other sign. Were you there when that happened? I don't understand it, if she had a broken bone (To tell the truth, I don't even know if there is any x-ray or any other evidence to support Nancy's claim.), why is Rob automatically responsible for it?
About Rob's tirades... Do you and your husband ever argue? People call my husband 'a big teddy bear' and he sure can raise his voice, but does that make him a possible candidate for a wife beater?
Well you certainly give new meaning to the saying “Birds of the feather all flock together”! You and Nancy are cut from the same blood stained cloth to be sure!
It amazes me that you have the audacity to be as cold hearted as you are. Is that why you don’t have the nerve to reveal your true identity? Are you embarrassed about who you are as a person? Afraid that Mr. Kissel may read this posting and find out who you are?
No one has ever said that they knew what went on between Rob and Nancy behind closed doors. What “I” said about closed doors is that as his girl friend “I” knew that Rob was a gentle, compassionate and kind man. But “I” can come forward and reveal myself by name because “I” don’t have a cruel heart and “I” speak the truth.
You are a poor excuse for a human being, an embarrassment to all of us. Of course you hide your true identity because you, like your dear friend Nancy, are always hiding behind your self serving, narcissistic TRUE identity! You’re a match made in hell and I hope you both rot there.
How does it feel to be a supporter of a murderer? Did you help her plan it? Well you might as well have because what you write about the Kissel family is an attempt to murder what’s left of Rob’s family.
You attempt to display compassion for Rob’s elder daughter but instead you have inflicted more hurt and more damage to an already horrible situation. Did it ever cross your self serving, small mind that she may read this some day? Of course not, you’re to busy defending an evil person, but at least you’re keeping true to your own “lovely” nature!
The reason why you hide behind an alias is because if your husband, children, friends, mother and father were to read your cruel statement they would all be ashamed to admit they have anything to do with you.
You are an ugly human being but I rest assured in knowing that the world is round and you will get what you deserve in life which is a lot of unhappiness and spiritual unrest.
No moral, god serving, compassionate person on this planet supports murder. No moral, god serving, compassionate person on this planet rips into a family that has just endured the violent death of a loved one. You are menus to society! Vermin that doesn’t deserve any of the joy and love that life has to offer.
To friend and supporter of Nancy..You are and always will be a stupid country bumpkin..How disrespectful you are... I still don't understand why you went to the funeral.Some sick curiosity? I agree with everyone elses comments..I would also hate to be you! You never tried to be in touch with Nancy for years, you never even liked her or Rob for that matter..Just took advantage of them having a home in Vermont and inviting you there..then stabbing them in the back after you left...You both do really suck!
I cannot believe this "Friend of Nancy." She obviously has a distorted view of life, which explains her misplaced fidelity for this admitted killer who it seems is futilely attempting to lie her way out of it.
The fact is that Nancy Keeshin (she is not worthy of the Kissel name) decided that she would act out paramount selfishness and punish not only her husband, but her children, Rob's biological family, his friends, his co-workers and everyone that knew him as a decent, selfless soul. I don't want to get into it, but there are more people out there who have remained silent and who know and have experienced the true Nancy Keeshin. Eventually, those people will share their views. May the truth prevail and may justice be done.
I have read these pages everyday (as I am sure many people have) looking for answers to why this terrible thing has happened. I do not think any of us will ever truly know. The one thing I know for sure is that there are 3 great kid's who through no fault of their own have been left with no parents. They are the only ones that can be helped now. I ask that everyone contributing to this forum remember that these children will grow up looking for answers and they will read everything that has been written here. Please remember them when expressing your "opinion".
If I understand the most recent forensic testimony, then her primary self defense claim of him attacking her with a bat doesn't seem to have panned out: No blood or other DNA from him or her on the bat, no impact marks, no lead smears, no wood grain impressions on the lead figurine, and the curves on the base could not have been created by the bat. So if he was not swinging the bat at her, then the statue was not a self defense instrument used to protect herself?
The report says the presentation of evidence is now over. Summations are next. But I feel that the full story has not been told. I just wish there was some objective evidence which would support her story.
I would suggest that as the trial reaches completion that no one should be too harsh here.
While people may be correct in questioning the rationale of Friend and Supporter's steadfast commitment to Nancy, we must be respectful of her right to believe in what she wants, and her motivations therefor. She will, as each of us will, examine the evidence and the testimony in her own/our own time. People will draw conclusions, will judge the fairness of the outcome for themselves, and I suspect that many will engage in some introspection of their own lives. I have been, and will continue to do so.
It is interesting to note that in speaking over the last week with several of her supporting group of friends that several have or have started to back off in their degree of support as the trial has progressed, with one even saying on Saturday that "Boy, she really had me fooled." I suppose it is natural that some would have 'bought-in' irrevocably (they had posted the bond for the bail, no?), but what I wonder now is this: Do those persons who continue their steadfast support of her do so because they entirely believe her testimony ignoring what has been presented as facts to the contrary? or rather that they somehow need to believe some version of it in order to maintain a degree of perspective and acceptance of their own (our own) circumstances (as ex-pats, and as spouses, mothers and fathers)?
Sorry, it's too circumspective a thought. I suppose what I am saying is that Friend and Supporter is entitled to believe what she wants, and for the reasons that she wants, just as Mr. Williams, Carol, and others are. She may change her view over time, and she may not, but I, for one, am not in a position to judge her or her motivations, whether I agree with her or not.
One final word from me:
For what its worth, Mr. Bill Kissel has impressed me in the past several months as a reasonable man who is suffering through not only the loss of his son but also enduring the daily testimony which ultimatly attacks his son's character, values and upbringing. He is not irrational, he poses no threat to anyone. He is a proud grandfather (carries photos of all the grandchildren) and I am pleased to have spent time speaking with him. He certainly does not deserve to be questioned or criticised on his own character or behavior, and I would not condone any such character attacks on him or the other surviving members of the family. He has spoken about steps that he will take to ensure the best possible environment for his granchildren in the future and I hope that he is able to find some measure of peace once the trial is completed.
Ultimately, our opinions don’t mean much, it’s what the High Court decides that counts and when it passes judgment, vengeance, or otherwise will carry the day. Had Nancy been tried in America her chances would be a lot better, but that’s not to be and I don’t hold out much hope for her. She’s being judged on what she did, not why she did it. The truth isn’t hard to defend, but it’s her actions that are being judged.
If Rob’s supporters allowed themselves one moment of objectivity then one could begin to understand that the money and a boyfriend in Vermont by themselves aren’t really enough to bludgeon someone to death over. She had options and resources and could have walked away in pretty good shape. But if, and none of us know for sure, she was abused, raped, and sodomized then what happened begins to make sense. If Rob was a closet homosexual then the self loathing that typically occurs and often leads to the abuse Nancy claims she endured, makes what she says plausible. Then you add in his plan to destroy her, to take her children away, to turn her friends against her and you have a woman who may have thought she had nothing to lose. That’s when you become dangerous. Unlike his supporters, I don’t have a crystal ball, but I now know a lot more about where they came from, the kind of friends they had, and the kind of people they were.
This blog has served a valuable purpose. It’s helping us to come to terms with what’s happened and has given us insight to the personalities that moved in and out of Rob and Nancy’s lives. If there were errors in the facts as I have been stating them, then of course I will stand corrected. Jumping up and down and calling me names only lessens the credibility of the opposing view and makes his supporters seem mean-spirited and vicious. The very traits Nancy attributes to Rob.
Regarding “Friend and Supporter of Nancy” comments earlier, I felt compelled to comment,as some of the things you talked about were taken too far out of context.
I’ve seen different sides to Nancy, including kindness and caring. Something inside her mind combined with a certain set of circumstances pushed her over the edge. Its okay for you to want to continue to support her and be her friend, but the way you take stories about Rob in your writings and twist them around to make him out to be an inconsiderate, uncaring father are way off base.
First of all, I also live in Parkview with a husband that is gone on business trips ALOT, like so many other husbands here. The fact that Rob traveled, which took him away from his family, didn’t make him a lousy father. Many husbands here travel a lot, are bright and work hard, and are financially rewarded for it, but that doesn’t mean they are all money, power hungry jerks. They do what they do FOR their families.
Secondly, you talk about the story of Rob and Elaine going to the baseball game and make him out to be an uncaring father who dumps his sick kid off on the nanny to go out partying. Have you ever been to a baseball game with kids? That’s part of the fun; eating junk food; hotdogs, snowcones ,peanuts, cottoncandy…. So she eats too much and throws up, big deal. Any parent knows the difference between a kid that’s throwing up from a flu and throwing up from junk food. With junk food, they throw up and 5 min later feel better. You make it sound like Elaine was on her deathbed and Rob leaves her to go out partying with his dad. Maybe he knew she’d be okay and wanted to spend some time with his aging father who won’t be around forever.
You’re taking a lot of flack from people here mainly because you’re twisting things around only to fit into your own views. Keep to the facts.
She will be judged on what she did and also in a separate way, on why she did it.
As a lawyer, the evidence against her is very compelling and from what I have seen her story is not credible. What should be kept in mind is that the jury have the ultimate decision, although juries too are falliable and can make mistakes, especially where there is a mountain of conflicting expert evidence
To Susan. If you think my describing Nancy as self-centered was ugly I'll simply describe her by what has been shown in the trial: adulterer, schemer, liar and murderer. I wasn't in her inner circle of friends, never wanted to be, and now I'm feeling especially good about that.
Was wondering if she did kill Rob in self-denfence as she claims, then wouldn't she have realized her hitting him in the head accidentally killed or hurt him and she should then have called 999 for help? Why roll him up in a rug and hide him in the storeroom? Doesn't sound like self-defence.
Does anyone know if she'll move back to US, get the kids and Rob's estate if she gets off?
I also used to live in HK as an expat and I would like to say that it is complete nonsense to say that Nancy would have had no-one to turn to. Also not all expat husbands who travel for work are bad husbands. the fact that the deceased did this is a credit to him as he was working to support his family. clearly the defendant enjoyed the benefits of him doing this
funny thing is that some of us here who knew Nan and Rob as a couple, including those of us who were friendlier with Nan (although we liked Rob very much), when hearing all of this have had a similar reaction: We can believe that Nan was capable of drugging and murdering Rob but can't believe that Rob was capable of abusing or forcibly sodomizing Nan. Wonder why that is? Maybe we saw something in her, something bad, that we never saw in him.
Also, it seems patently unbelievable that Rob would take the kids away from her. Didn't the lawyer he consulted say that Rob told him precisely the opposite? Namely, that Rob wanted to make sure that Nan had enough money so she could live comfortably and stay there so he could be near the kids. As for his threats to take away her friends, again while I've certainly witnessed her doing that to him, it seems unbelievable that he would threaten something like that. I watched her detonate a close friendship with another couple over a trivial disagreement that she had with the female in the couple. Despite how close the male in the couple was to Rob, he too got cut off completely. If anyone bullied anyone in that relationship, from what I saw, it was her bossing him around and never the other way around.
Posted by knew em both at August 26, 2005 02:16 AM
For the Friend of Nancy>
I don't recall if you have cited evidence of abuse or whether Nancy confided to you pre murder of instances of abuse. Could you clarify?
As much as people liked Nancy for her vibrant, charismatic personalities, those who knew her and Rob knew very well that she wouldn't tolerate any kind of unfavorable situation quietly. She spoke her mind and acted her mind.
Whereas Rob, as his old girlfriend discribed, was rather shy. I too saw Nancy boss him around and he just seemed so embarrassed. He would run away and hide somewhere if he hears all the stories going around now.
As much as the stories of abuse, rape, sodomy, power and money all seem to fascinate people, they need to know that this sickening story, possibly, is nothing but a story which was completely fabricated in the sick mind of a person who committed a murder.
This whole thing affected me so much that I already started teaching my young daughter about the importance of picking a right person to date and marry.
Catch me...that was very well said and so true.People tend to invent mind boggling stories when they've fallen into a hole that they can't get out of..Rob would never of stooped so low.. I remember when Rob was all Nancy could talk about in the best possible ways..
To Friend and Supporter of Nancy,
Once again you've managed to misconstrue what Friends of Rob have said in response to your comments. You attacked Mr. Kissel and Andy, completely unnecessary and downright mean. You relay stories of Rob that you clearly got from your dear friend and continue to bash a dead man based on what, Nancy's testimony or can you corroborate what she's said. Did you know of the abuse and if so why weren't you put on the stand? Why do you keep hiding behind your alias?
To Jill...She couldnt of been put on the stand because she knows nothing of the Kissels situation at all in the last years in HK..All she knows is time spent years before...she is full of smoke and sees only the story she wants to believe...She spoke to them a day or so before only becuse she helped Nancy out by taking her care of her dog for a month..That does not give you insight into what had been happening...she should just shut up!
Carol points that Friend and supporter of Nancy and Friend of Nancy's may be two different people. If so, my previous remarks are responding to the wrong person.
To Catchme. If anyone knew Nancy they would come to the same conclusion as you and I. She spoke her mind. She would have been braodcasting the alleged abuse. This is the disconnect for me and it is based on Nancy's personality not Rob's. While I could not believe that Rob could ever commit the acts that she accused him of, I think what is important to note is that if he did Nancy would have announced via magaphone. I find it hard to swallow that she was too embarassed to do so.
Friend of Nancy...I understand you completely. I know what you're saying & feel what you're feeling.
BTW y'all....it would be very, VERY easy to have pushed him off the balcony at Parkview and it would never have looked like murder if that is what she intended to do.
Friend of Nancy...I understand you completely. I know what you're saying & feel what you're feeling.
BTW y'all....it would be very, VERY easy to have pushed him off the balcony at Parkview and it would never have looked like murder if that is what she intended to do.
But that wouldn't have warranted his death, would it? He might have been crippled, but not dead. Five big blows on the head after drugging him was what it needed to finish him off, wasn't it?
When one of my maids told me the news of the tragidy on November 2003, I cried for Nancy asking, "Why, Nancy..." I wanted to believe that there had to be a very good reason for her to do this. So many of us were ready to help her with whatever she needed.
But when the initial shock was over and there simply wasn't any convincing evidence, people started thinking otherwise.
Show us the evidence. Nancy's accusation alone without evidence isn't good enough. You can fool some people sometimes, but you cannot fool everybody all the time.
Careful. That 'wouldn't even look like murder' line of thinking will get you in trouble every time. Kind of like thinking you could drug him and it would look like a heart attack. Or hide his body and make it look like he walked out on you. It never turns out to be quite as easy to get away with it as you thought.
I knew both Rob and Nancy; they lived in my building prior to their move overseas. They seemed to be the ideal couple. In some of my dealings with him he seemed to be very controlling, but that is just my experience, Nancy did adore him very much as he adored her, they were very loving and nice together and it was adorable to watch them be in love. As an observer I would say she seemed to wear the pants but how do we know how it was behind closed doors? We don’t and we won’t. I remember when she was pregnant with her first daughter and then when she was born how attentive he was, and as she grew into a toddler how friendly and sweet that baby was. They loved that baby and were fantastic parents, and a stunning couple. I am sorry to say they do not look like the beautiful people I once knew on the news on the web.
What is even more shocking then when I heard the story about the kissel’s is that Nancy is no dummy, if she was so abused that she could not think straight and if she was so abused that she felt imprisoned in her marriage? If she had to drug him to be free of him, why did she not get on a plain with the kids and head back to the U.S.? Why kill the guy? Why put him in a storage bin? Again…Nancy is no dummy, she had to know that she would get caught; she had to know she can lose the children; she had to know this is not the way. What happened to Nancy, and how could that happen? While it looked like she was wearing the pants, He was always in control. Did he take her pass port away? Did she feel like there is no way out? What happened? We may never know….
ALSO: Those of you who have said things about Robs Brother…who was arrested for defrauding a bank of 25 Million and he is being sued by his partners, that too is understandable judgment, Rob did want the same success his Real Estate Developer brother has had, and while they were both successful, they both put their values and family on the back burner for power and money. The saddest part of all is the Children will have to be moved again, they have been staying with Robs brother since this horrible story started. I am not here to give my opinion… I know less then many of you do, I did know them and it is shocking, but please stop putting all this negative shit on the web about either one of them, it does not help.
Posted by Old Neighbor at August 26, 2005 02:22 PM
Why would she have done all the things that you question? Read the thread and listen to other people, then you will get a better picture. 'Why' stage passed a long time ago.
As a relatively recently arrived ex-pat in HK, I wonder if there is anything redeeming in white ex-pat lifestyles here (excluding Saturday morning breakfast at Flying Fish). Lots of money, lots of maids, karoake dungeons and a general absence of reminders of many moral/ethical taboos seem to lead to very poor behaviour and, on the odd occasion, a milkshake-related murder.
I was in HK last week and became very interested in the trial. At first I felt for Mrs Kissel but as the week has gone by it would appear the Mr Kissel was not such a bad chap after all and I do think she is very, very guilty - as charged. Even though it appears the whole terrible business was premeditated I am sure Mrs Kissel is more than sorry for her actions ever since that horrible night in Nov 2003. I do not think her actions were done in self defence. How can a baseball bat above one come off second best to a lead statue (heavy) which has to be raised from below - she said in her evidence "he was standing over me with a baseball bat"
This is my last entry because I have to let this go.
Back in the late 1900’s any person of wealth and class was never considered to be criminals, let alone murderers. Why? Because if you had money and stature, that meant you were highly educated. Highly educated people don’t commit murder. Well that was the general consensus during that error anyway.
I don’t think that this attitude has changed very much in the last 100 years.
So may be, just may be this woman has some kind of chemical imbalance that has never been properly treated. That would explain all the anti-depressants she was on. May be she just snapped for no logical reason at all.
I think that the reason we are all having such a hard time with this, is that we are trying to rationalize an imbalanced mind coming from our own balanced mind. May be we all have a weird ingrained belief system that says “if you are rich you are also mentally and physically healthy”.
If Nancy and Rob were average Joe’s would this trial be as sensational as it has been? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
When I found out about this murder and got past the initial shock, I actually felt a little sorry for Nancy, but I came to discover from all that I have read, as we all have, that everything she states has no circumstantial evidence to back her up. Think about it, not one person who knew her, including the maids, has come forward to say that they saw her with bruises on a consistent basis.
I cannot believe that any person who is of sound mind could murder their spouse like she did, with no circumstantial evidence to back her story up. I do not believe that any mother (of sound mind) would consciously choose to destroy her children’s life! I’m a mother and what she did to her children is unthinkable. As a parent we all quickly discover that life isn’t about us anymore, it’s about our children.
People say that Rob was money hungry because he traveled all the time due to his job. Well I grew up in Japan for 13 years and my parents were expats for 25 years, and I know, first hand, that part of living over seas as an executive is that you travel.
My father traveled all the time, he made good money and provided for his family just as Rob and other expats living over seas do, but that doesn’t mean they are money hungry and they don’t care about their families!
Because of my father I was able to have a rich, culturally diverse childhood with the best education available, better than any kid growing up in the U.S public school system!
Although it was hard growing up in Asia at the time I am forever thankful for the experience that my parents provide for myself and my siblings.
So, in conclusion, all I can come up with is that Nancy is a mentally sick person, but not sick enough to know right from wrong. If she truly were defending herself she would have called the maids, her father, or her best friend, someone, anyone for help. She would not have taken great pains to conceal her actions as she did.
At this point I’m not even going to try and figure out why she did what she did because I don’t operated from a clinically sick mind. Coming from a healthy mindset there is no way for me to even begin to understand what she did or why.
I just want to know that the justice system works all over the civilized world and that she will pay for her crime in the harshest possible way. But you know, that won’t bring Rob back, and as stupid as it sounds, I just want to know that he is alive and well, but that will never be………..
Carol J Horton
Posted by Carol Horton at August 26, 2005 09:20 PM
Dunno, I think "Friend" is just a wee bit biased. First off, if she were tried in the U.S. she'd still have to prove abuse. The same is true in Hong Kong. Saying something did/did not happen does not make it so.
If I were on the jury and Nancy were the shy retiring type I might give a bit of credence to her abuse story and why SHE. TOLD. NO. ONE. Then there is no record of police being called to the flat or her being seen by a doctor at any point in time for abuse. There is nothing but her word against testimony that she was assertive and demanding and what not.
I don't doubt that it was a crime of passion, and that she brained him with the metal stand after drugging him. I also don't doubt that she's unstable and should be treated for that. I think the thought of losing all of that money in a possible divorce is what pushed her over the edge. It reminds me of that San Diego murder case a few years back where the wife shot her ex- and his new wife and then tried to pin an abuse charge on him.
Actually I take the money comment back. I think it was the LOSS OF FACE that a divorce would entail that pushed her over the edge. Face may be an Asian concept but it's not unique to Asians.
Firstly, don't believe everything that you read and make judgements on people you really don't know.
Secondly, Rob was not rich, it's all point of view.
'Susan' and 'Fraklin' are one in the same person (Check out the email addresses). What does this tell us? Not only the suspect is scheming, but her friend also? As shallow as the plans might be...
It's interesting, because susan's thinking that it would have been very very easy to push him off the balcony is very likely the kind of thinking that caused Nancy's problems.
It seems like it would be easy to push him off the balcony, but how would it be? How do you get him out there? Drug him or lure him? How do you get him close to the edge? How do you get him off balance enough that the force of his weight will pull him down? How do you know he won't scream and someone wouldn't look up and see you? How do you ensure he wouldn't pull you down? If you drug him, they'll find the drugs in his system.
They investigate apparent suicides, and the friends of Rob's that knew, unbeknownst to Nancy, that they were having problems- would still know that. They would tell the police, just like they did this time.
So you can see how she, herself, might have gotten caught in the trap of thinking her way would have been so easy. Maybe she didn't imagine there would be so much blood to clean up. Maybe she didn't think his body would be so heavy to move. Maybe she imagined she could just get him in the trunk of the car and throw him in the ocean, but he was too heavy and then she didn't know what to do with him.
You think things are going to be easy. As I said, that's what gets people in trouble.
I don't know the answer to this, but if she did this as a result of being mentally ill wouldn't the defense have used insanity or temporary insanity rather than the current argument?
Sadly, no one on this blog has pretended that Nancy is innocent until proven guilty, and the people who are hearing this case are no jury of her peers, so guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is her best hope in a country were women are treated as property. Only a miracle will save her. And despite all our personifications we are no closer to understanding why she chose to kill Rob in such a vicious way. In life, you don’t beat someone to death because you’re after his/her money; you beat them to death because you hate them to the very core of your being.
It’s obvious Nancy didn’t have an exit plan and besides, Rob had already confiscated her passport and blocked her access to cash and credit. Arguably, she was already a prisoner, just in better digs. She could have shot him, had him killed, pushed him over the balcony, stabbed him in the heart as he slept; instead he pushed her over the edge and she dug deep into her most base self and struck out with a primal force that ended the life of the person she knew better than all of us put together. And that’s where you begin.
For some, the easy answer is that she’s crazy. But if that’s true, then she’s not responsible for her actions, and I don’t have the impression very many of you want to entertain that line of thinking. Despite the evidence and testimony, there are those here that keep denying there was abuse. There are also serious questions about Rob’s sexual orientation and its ramifications, but no one seems to want to touch that one, either. His supporters want to make him out to be father of the year, when we really all know better. His upbringing, where he was taught the basic values that he carried through life, happened within a deeply troubled family who treated Nancy badly from the first days of their marriage. I’d also like to add that I’ve been maligned for my observations into the Kissel family psyche, while the Keeshin family has been treated in the most abhorrent way. They are decent people who have also lost a child and have feelings, too. Double standard?
Someone described Rob as shy and subordinate to Nancy. But at his level in the corporate jungle there are no shrinking violets. Nancy may have complained, but he pulled all the strings and was always in control. The most obvious fact of all is that no one knows what went on behind their closed door and only Nancy is here to tell that story. From what I know through my years as their friend and from what I’ve learned of his family and friends this past year, I have a very reasonable doubt that Nancy premeditated Rob’s murder. I think the milkshake was used to keep him off her, as had been done in the past and what really happened in that room that night we will never know. Rob was the sum of his parts and Nancy had her problems. To repeat myself from an earlier message, everyone is guilty and everyone is a victim.
To cff: I’d like to say that there is no occasion where it’s ok for children or adults to eat themselves sick and there is never an excuse to leave a sick child. Sounds like a rationalization of your own bad parenting skills.
To Carol, who defended Rob’s woman-hating best and oldest friend’s right to use the “B” and “C” words: I must say that that was one of the saddest examples of low self-esteem I’ve ever witnessed.
But I have a special message for “sickened”, aka the Judas that sold Nancy out for a bag of silver: I will always hold you in contempt in the deepest regions of my being.
When the jury reaches its verdict and the usual suspects circle the fire and bay at the moon, I will count my blessings that I had the good fortune to marry a man that knows the balance between hard work and the priority of family.
I think it truer a fact that it is Friend of Nancys who sold out and put this story on TV in NYC where the people we are most trying to protect will be exposed...Enough mudslinging from someone who knows no facts and has hurt numerous people by she and her husbands actions..
I have a funny feeling that susan/franklyn/Heartbroken are one in the same person. It should be easy for Simon to check that out.
The question is, do these two ('susan' and 'Friend and supporter of Nancy') who are putting up the last struggle before the verdict, deserve any more comment back from us? There is something evil about this team...
Just a few points and my personal theory as the case comes to a close.
Nancy couldn't push him off the balcony and make it look like suicide as life insurance will not pay up if it is suspected suicide and she would have known all of this.
Perhaps she hoped the drug cocktail was enough to give him a heart attack, but perhaps she realised half way through that he wasn't going to die from the drugs, therefore she had to finish him off by battering his scull with 5 precise hits to the head. I am sure this wasn't in the initial plans.
She had to make the drug cocktail and serve it the neighbour as well to avoid Rob's suspicions, as Rob had already admitted he was concerned about the possibility of Nancy drugging his drinks previously.
I think she then intended on saying that he went "missing" after an argument. I don't think she planned on how hard it actually was to remove his body and all the evidence.
Apparently the bat in question doesn't even have either of their DNA on it, and the fact that her lawyers were able to keep hold of it in their office is all very strange thing? If Rob had been swinging it around as she had said he was, it would have DNA on it from him.
I think she may have been very concerned about her ability to take the kids back to US in a divorce situation without Rob stopping her. I myself looked into this when my marriage broke up in HK and spoke with the very same Lawyer as I believe Rob did. I was told very clearly, as I had lived in HK for 5 years and the kids had lived a large portion of their life there, that if I took the kids back home without my ex-husbands permission to Australia, my ex-husband could very easily ask for them to be brought straight back to Hong Kong to him. I think the U.S has the same reciprocal rights with HK as does Australia for custody rights. So perhaps it was Robs wishes to keep the children in HK, meaning it would stop Nancy from going back to the US, to perhaps Del Priore.
I think the rest explains itself. I don't believe any of the abuse happened, it was merely a last ditch effort to try and reduce her sentence and to distract the jury away from the evil murder that took place.
She would have pleaded insanity except for the fact that if she had of early on in the piece she would not have gotten bail, catch 22!
To All,In November of 2003 Robert P. KIssel was murdered by his wife of 14 years. As his best friend from age 2 to 30, i just want to say, we are all so very sorry for roberts children and there great loss, and the long road they have ahead of them. Robert was one of the kindest, most emotionaly balanced persons ive ever met, he WAS my best friend and i am proud to forever call him that.To try to prove that he was not a good person in general, just shows how pathetic nancy's STORY really is! To attack the Kissel family, as friends of nancy did, it also shows how much they dont know about them too!! in all my time going to the kissel house in nj( i was there almost everyday from age 5-18) never once did i see mr. kissel even yelling at mrs. kissel(elaine) who was such a great person! She was like a second mom to me, and always was there if i needed her! If there is justice ( and there is) Nancy will be put away for the rest of her life! as sad as that is, lets all just say a little prayer for robs children! REST IN PEACE ROB! ill miss you so much BRO!!!
Posted by Dan Williams at August 29, 2005 02:59 AM
I am the attorney in Conn. who discovered Andrew Kissel's fraud - would appreciate any information on the Kissel family background, where they grew up, education, etc. I can be contacted at nwalkley@fnf.com.
I have to believe that the system we live in works to reward the good and punish the evil. We all know that it isn't always visible right away, but then again, life is a marathon, not a short distance.
Whatever the outcome the trial might be, if for some reason, Nancy does't get what she deserves, there are the 3 children that will punish her as long as she is alive, for no reason was good enough for her to take away their beloved father from their young lives the way she did, therefore depriving them from a solid, secure rock they once had and forever they will miss.
I have to make a few points to you, 'Friends and supporter of Nancy':
--- 'you beat them to death because you hate them to the very core of your being', you wrote. We all know too many cases where murderers beat, poison, slash, shoot, drown victims to death to get what they want or out of sickness. Victims often being strangers.
---'Rob had already confiscated her passport and blocked her access to cash and credit': After finding out about her affairs, he might have done that for all the right reasons. But the fact the defence didn't bring it up, which would serve as strong evidence for her, says otherwise.
--- 'serious questions about Rob’s sexual orientation and its ramifications, but no one seems to want to touch that one': Did you ever sleep with him? How do you know? Through Nancy only? Two of his former girlfriends who possibly knew him better discribe him other wise. And read my comment on 8/24.
--- 'Someone described Rob as shy and subordinate to Nancy. But at his level in the corporate jungle there are no shrinking violets.': You can't be further from the truth. I have a big circle of friends whose husbands work at the similar as, or higher than, the level Rob was at and many of them, including my own husband, as tenacious as they may be at work or at sports etc., tend to be a bit shy and not as aggressive as people think they would be at the personal level. And as successful as they are, their wives' wishes are regarded in such a way to spoil them endlessly. That includes me and Nancy.
---'I think the milkshake was used to keep him off her, as had been done in the past': Rob was worried as early as August as he told Frank Shea (the detective) of being poisoned. She might have regularly given him drugs by then hoping for his heart attack as she learnt from internet. Obviously drugs weren't strong enough to kill him, so she switched to priscription-only, strong ones. She might have continued the plan until Rob got heart attack, but something snapped during their argument about divorce on that tragic night and ended up killing him.
--- 'I will count my blessings that I had the good fortune to marry a man that knows the balance between hard work and the priority of family': Hope you continue to feel that way. We (not just men) all should know the balance between hard work (or valunteering for the school, etc.) and family, but I'd rather not be a woman who tries to clip the husband' wings to keep him closer to her. I want mine to fly as far as he wants to fly, but I know his love always brings him back to me, not his fear of an angry wife monitoring his movement. I appreciate my husband's hard work emensely, I teach my young children the value of hard work and the fact that you can do it all if you're diligent enough. And never for a single minute we doubt his love toward us, knowing he is doing it for us and for that we have so many options in our lives.
Despite my friends' telling me that I give too much credit to some of the comments posted here to even respond, I have had an unstoppable need to help reveal the truth as a person who have known them.
If I was a part of the jury I would like to know:
1. Was Nancy examined to see if she had been repeatedly raped anally? Personally, if it has happened as she has stated over long period of time wouldn't there be some scarring?
2. Could it have been Nancy who looked at the pornographic sites, not Robert? Not out of pervous interest but to set Robert up a little more.
3. In regard to the passport/s. Do we know for certain that he had hidden them from her? I can understand the symptoms and erratic behaviour both of Robert and her when they are going through such a trying time in their marriage BUT .. THERE IS ALWAYS A WAY OUT!!! and that doesn't mean taking his life!!
4. Like others, I am of the belief that the maids would have heard something or seen something. Whether it was the night or another night. I am also very surprised that she had not confided in someone else. Women talk. Whether it is to one special person or a group we do tend to pour our souls out, unlike men. Hence, another reason I do not believe her.
5. But the one that would catch me, as a jury member, is the research Nancy did on drugs etc. This was not a crime of passion but a pre-meditated murder.
Can anyone give me insight in to the jury. Are they all local Chinese and what age would you place them? Education?
I believe this woman is very sick and very strong! The way she has characterised herself (ie. nun's wardrobe) has been for the sake of the jury - give me your sympathy. No one dresses like that and I believe that she was far from 'nunlike' in her appearance prior to this event.
God bless her children!
I find this whole thing quite intersting. Let us assume for a second that the claims of both side are totally true.
1.) Nancy was cheating
2.) robert was a anal raping coke head; who may have had a flexible sexual orentation.
What does this really tell us beyond what anyone who knows the cliches behind these type of family situations didn't already know before the story even started.
so much of what has been reported in this story has been irrelevent, and the motivies of so many that have commented can so easily be called into question.
To all the friend of Nancy. With all due respect, Nancys problems were in a large part DUE to the gossipy closed expat bubble. That can be a lonly lonly place. I dont trust any of these comments because besides talking about the kissal trial you are all defending your way of life at the same time.
To all the friends of rob. Much the same can be said of you. Besides, someone that high up on the corprate world is farily adapt to maintaining double facaces, so I don't buy any claims that you 'knew him well'. The only person who knew him well was nancy and her comments can be trusted obviously.
So what do we know. She had tried to drug him in the past. She did kill him; in a way that suggests 'spur of the moment' and not necessarly 'calculated'. He probably was a bit of a bastard - quite how much we will probably never know for sure.
What the legal implications of that are is up to the jury to decide... but most of the comments on this blog; and what I have heard more generally don't seem to take much of this into account.
I don't know Nancy's friends, but I do know Hong Kong. And it is not a 'lonly lonly' place. There are wonderful friends available, and people are willing to help anybody- even relative strangers.
If we are to believe Nancy's own story, Rob put her pregnancy in danger, broke her toddler girls' arm, and was violent with the kids. She never told anybody, never sought help for the sake of the kids.
If she kept her kids in harm's way because she was afraid of gossip, it says much more about her than about her friends or the community. Actually, I think it tells the most about the veracity of her story.
Not to say what is been said already, but i would like to add my 2 cents: When i read about what nancy suffered (forced sodomy, beatings, etc.) i felt that maybe she was right after all to defend herself the way she did, but, i came to realize that all the stories she told, are only one version of the facts. A story that was never confirmed by anyone, not even the closest people to the family, the maids, could confirm it.
I find the story of her fending off blows of a baseball bat with a lead figurine as ridiculous, try and see what i mean. Also the "search" for pills the days before the fact are very suspicious.
That's all, i wish the children of the kissel family all the best for the future and i wish that the friends and supporter of both sides come to realize that both people had contribute to escalate an already fragile situatiion. The lack of dialogue might have destroyed what could have still been savaged.
Thank you
this is disgusting she is guilty as sin
and if someone finds me with my skull bashed in
plz realize i am human too.
there is no proof he did anything to her.there is proof this poor guy's skull was crushed.
lord have mercy.
The facts are facts, no-one should be able to get away with murder. It makes me sick to the stomach that she would get anything less than life in prison. Her false stories are a vain attempt to wriggle out of an extremely bad mistake she made two years ago. What loving mother kills her children’s Father?
I ask a few questions:
She supposedly had no access to money to get herself out of a "violent" situation, yet she went out the day after she killed him and purchase a new expensive Persian rug, and other pillows etc, from shops that I personally know as being highly expensive.
She denies drugging him, yet she made the milkshake with her very own hands that had 5 different highly potent drugs in it. Then she gets her very own daughter to serve it to her husband and their neighbour (what if the daughter had drunk the drink… she was prepared to risk this with her own daughter for gods sake it could have killed a child) The drugs were found in his system, and caused the neighbour who also drank the milkshake she served them to become very sick and pass out himself.
She conveniently remembers the "supposed” attack by Rob with a baseball bat, but doesn't remember her shopping trip, her phone calls to her secret lover, her instructions to her maid to purchase string to tie her dead husbands body up with, pack away incriminating evidence into boxes to be stored. She then has no qualms about removing his body from the apartment while her son stands by and watches.
She talks of him swinging a bat at her, yet there is no DNA on the bat from neither Nancy nor Rob. The statue she used to defend herself wasn’t even in the bedroom but in another room… what did she do, ask Rob to “hold it right there while I grab a statue from the other room?”
I just can’t imagine how a man is supposedly swinging a bat and at the same time trying to have anal sex with her??? How does she lean up and swing a statue precisely 5 times in the same part of a mans head, a tall large man, and a petite lady at that. If he wasn't drugged, then he would have been able to sort her out after her first swing at him. The fact was, he was out cold on the floor drugged to the eye balls a sitting target.
No-one hears any yelling, screaming or anything to indicate what is going on. Maids know everything that is going on in your house, they would have seen or heard this going on if it really happened at any time. Everything echo’s through those Hong Kong flats with parquetry floored apartments, ( I have been in her apartment and yes it is parquetry flooring)
Surely if you have accidentally knocked the living daylights out of your own husband and you realize you have killed him accidentally, the first thing you would do is call a friend, and then the police to tell them of the terrible crime, you don’t go about shopping for rugs, emailing friends, speaking with her lover and speaking with security men to move a rug to a store room.
She turns up in court every day in black, when I saw in the years prior her she was always in bright normal clothing, her hair bleach blonde. If you have nothing to hide why would you change your image for the sake of the jurors and judge? I will tell you why, simply because you want to come across as a sad, in mourning wife, who would never commit such an atrocity.
I could go on and on, I can’t believe half of what has be brought up about this poor man, gay sex, violence, drugs… crap crap crap... It’s not enough for this evil women to kill her children’s father, but then to bring up such demeaning, probably untrue statements, which her children will eventually find out about. And all to save her own skin, and at the cost of her children’s own beliefs about their Father. It is so unfair to them.
It is irrelevant, and is being presented as a reason for Nancy to kill her husband.
You know what, lets just imagine for a moment that he was a closet gay, looking for sex in Taiwan, with a facination for anal sex and he was aggressive with the financial side of Nancy’s spending habit, and was never home, as he was out being the high flyer...SO WHAT? this is so meanial in the big picture EVEN IF IT WERE ALL TRUE...
NOTHING gives a human being the right to take another human being’s life, and to so distastefully try to hide it away in a rolled up carpet. The whole thing is disgusting, and even if she gets off with manslaughter, she will pay for the nasty unforgivable thing that she did in other ways, what go’s around comes around.
If you are disgusted now, what will you feel when the verdict is returned?
If she is convicted of premeditated murder, will you feel less so?
If she is aquitted, will you become outraged, angry, acquire an automatic weapon and kill your co-workers? (more likely if you are a US Postal worker).
If a reduced conviction is returned, what then? Say "I told you so but she should have gotten the book thrown at her"?
And what in heavens would you feel if she is aquitted, gets all the money and is restored custody of her children? (Do we all immediately go shopping for drugs and lead statuary?)
Apologies.
I agree with your points: there are far too many inconsistencies in her explanation, seemingly convenient omissions of memory, and uncorroborated accusations and allegations for her version to be credible. (Not too mention holes in her explanation: how did the drugs get in him? She never did say.) But as ridiculous as they may sound, there may be that fractional and infintismal possibility that her version is accurate. Do I think this to be the case? As a mater of fact, I do not; however, what I am ranting about is thatever it is that I (we) say and think does not matter. I am neither a jury member nor a family member, and I would argue that all of us -- whether they had been involved and testified or declined to testify, contributed to her defense fund, or had at one time been family friends -- are now merely curious onlookers.
But, the question remains: what are we to feel when the verdict is returned?
Is there any relief, or closure to be had? And if not for us, then how can any be had for the family members? Will any of them go a single day without thoughts of this?
A blog is just that, a forum that allows people who feel strongly about a certain subject to be able to vent their feelings, thoughts and listen to others with a similar interest or concern. There is obviously an interest there for all people who read this message, as their curiosity, concern or anger about the situation has lead you to source this page out, just as I did many months ago.
To answer your question, none of us can do anything, which ever way the courts decide. All we can do is spare a thought for the poor families and friends who have been dragged unwittingly through a horrendous situation.
I wasn't a friend of Nancy's but I did know Nancy and her children, and I feel for the life changing events that have occurred to those poor innocent children.
It still doesn't stop me however from feeling the need to vent my feelings of frustrations at the way the court case seems to be going, and think how this event in my life, even as an outsider, has consumed many hours of my thoughts. When it's close to home I guess you get like that. It's only human nature after all. It then leads me to thinking of how if you times that by a million, you get some sort of idea of how family members, friends, work colleagues cope with it all. Very sad, all for one moment of extremely bad judgment on Nancy's behalf. I have no sorrow for her. Just the others left behind to sort it all out.
To "seriously doubt it", Yes your right, I am sure they will long be forgotten, but I think the feeling will be mutual as they won't be interested in visiting Nancy in a cold dirty prison in Hong Kong.
We will eventually forget, go on with our lives as if nothing has happened, but I truly hope justice prevails and Rob's family can at least feel some closure to the whole sorry event and THEY feel that justice has been done. That's the LEAST they deserve.
What I seriously doubt right now is that you comprehend my meaning. Allow me to expand:
I suspect it is precisely Nancy's Friend and Supporter who is now quietly praying for a guilty verdict.
What would this Friend and Supporter do if a not guilty verdict is returned? She would have nothing to do and no injustice to rant about. She would no longer have any reason to be so thankful about her own dull existance. And she would certainly be long forgotten by her Friend (oh: I am so sorry to point out that in the real world, the concept of 'friendship' implies reciprocity. What Friend and Supporter is doing is more akin to sponsoring a doomed animal in a petting zoo.)
No, I suspect Friend and Supporter desparately wants a guilty verdict: She will then be able to continue her crusade, extolling herown altruism by taking time away from her family to visit her friend each week, bringing her tissues and crackers and drawing paper. She would be able to continue to transpose all the perceived injustices onto her own meaningless life, while bearing none of the actual pain. And in so doing, giving some twisted meaning to her own pathetic life.
And in her heart of hearts, I wonder: does she really think I am wrong?
To I Seriously doubt it - O.k I understand your meaning. I get the feeling you know this person "quite well" so you are able to come to this conclusion!
On another note, I have read two newspaper articles today that have two comments I am interested in anyone who may be able to shed some more light on.
One being from a Russian newspaper stating:
Lunn (the judge) reminded the jury: "Have regard to the fact that Robert Kissel was well-built ... and the defendant is a relatively slightly built female."
What are your feelings on this, what do you think he is "indicating" here??
Also from another:
When King rested, the judge summarized the arguments and delivered instructions to the jury, explaining that it had the option to find that Nancy Kissel had committed manslaughter "by reason of provocation," instead of murder, killing him during a "temporary and sudden loss of self control."
Does anyone have any ideas on what is meant by this statement?
Also I have read that for either of these charges quote "The maximum penalty on that charge is also life in jail. There is no minimum."
I live overseas now and rely on newspaper reports to keep in touch with what is going on.
To Parquetry is a good word and to Totally disgusted:
One point you are overlooking, and the only reason why you overlook this point is because the prosecution didn’t elaborate on it as they should have.
The prosecutions discovered after further investigation that there was a porn search program that was installed and then uninstalled in Rob’s computer on two different occasions.
On both occasions Rob was out of town and could not have installed this program. Since it was a porn search program that explains the excessive amount of hits the computer got on that two day period.
None of the porn sites were hit again outside of those two dates when Rob was out of town. So what does that tell us? First, that someone came to visit and installed the programs during their stay with Nancy, which is unlikely, or that Nancy had the whole story pre-planned and installed these search programs to back up her story of forced anal sex.
The fact that she claims anal sex is here-say, it’s her word only and that is not backed up by any medical proof!
Why wasn’t she examined for scar tissue? She says he didn’t use any lubricant. If he had in fact forced her, she would have ripped anal tissue and would have been able to prove it through a simple exam, but that never happened either. Why? Because IT NEVER HAPPENED!
There is no evidence to back up anything she has claimed yet the defense attorney still insists that Rob assulted her with a bat, DNA evidence or not. And as we all know, there was no DNA evidence on the bat which, by the way, the defense hid for 2 years!
It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that she is guilty as sin, I just hope the jury is smart enough to figure that out!
And what will we think if she gets off? I have no idea. Shock, dismay, let down by the justice system?
What did we think when OJ got off? Guilty, with a lot of money to pay for his defense? In her case, to get one of the best lawyers in town on Rob’s dime no less.
No matter what happens she will always be guilty in some of our eyes and all we can do is trust that if she gets off, her conscious will eventually do her in.
As I have said before, the world is round!
But not matter what the verdict is, it won’t ease the pain for those of us who have lost someone we loved, respected and cared deeply about. No matter what the verdict, Rob is dead and those of us who knew him and liked him or loved him have to come to terms with that.
Frankly, I still can’t wrap my brain around what happened and I don’t know that I ever will!
Just in from AP: "Hong Kong jury Thursday convicted an American of murdering her wealthy investment banker husband by drugging him with a milkshake laced with sedatives and beating him to death in the couple's luxury apartment.
Nancy Kissel was expressionless as the seven-member jury returned the verdict in the November 2003 death of her husband, Robert, of New York."
It may be over, and it may be a little too early to bring up this topic: we should be helping each other to find peace and closure, but am I the only one to continue to have some serious questions about the conduct, competence and seeming inadequacies of the HK Police Department and their investigative methodology?
May Nancy rot in hell for what she did to her husband, her kids and to her in-laws. Nancy is a true sociopath and her lies have completely disgusted me. As the years go by she will realize that, if she was so unhappy in her marriage she would have been better off leaving with neither the children nor a dime in her pocket. She will realize that a life of poverty, even the trailer with the white trash T.V. repairman would have been better than a Chinese prison.
Unfortunately, the Kissel family members are also prisoners. Imprisoned by their grief and their loss. Please, don't forget that they were also Nancy's victims as were her three children. I pray daily that the Kissel's can eventually heal and find happiness and that Rob's children can find comfort, hope and happiness in their lives despite how they and their father were betrayed and victimized by their "loving" mother.
Justice has been served!, But that will NEVER bring my good friend back to me! Nancy now has the rest of her life to re-live what she has done every day! Her friends and relatives may forget about her after some time, but I will NEVER forget Robert for what he truely was a caring, Intelligent, outgoing, loyal friend and father! I hope you all do too!! God Bless you Rob! Now you can rest in peace! I will miss you so much!
Your friend forever,
Danny
fyi: This is from The Taipei Times -- June 2005
■ Hong Kong
Jails close to breaking point
A prison service boss warned yesterday that riots could break out in Hong Kong's jails because of acute overcrowding and a shortage of guards. The situation is particularly acute in women's prisons, which are filled to more than double their normal capacity, said Sunny Leung, head of the territory's Lai Chi Kok reception center. Leung said overcrowding threatened to set off riots like those seen in Hong Kong's Stanley Prison in 1973. He also warned there were not enough guards to cope with the rapid increase in prisoner numbers. Lai Chi Kok reception center was built for 960 inmates but now holds 1,500, while the Tai Lam women's prison was built for 245 inmates but currently holds 610.
The arguments in this entire web site from those of you who were supporters were outrageous. No one in their right mind could have looked at all the evidence and thought anything other than guilty. Those who supported her obviously were oblivious to much. GET A LIFE NOW, it's over and let justice rein.
Posted by From a far at September 2, 2005 03:44 AM
Truth and justice have prevailed!!!
However, no one should be happy about this, as it is a true human tragedy. Sure, Nancy Keeshin gets to spend the rest of her life in a Chinese prison, and will have plenty of time to relive her miserable past and to deal with the tsunami of destruction that she has caused.
Given that murder was a foregone conclusion, she has further buried herself and whatever reputation she had left by concocting the most bizarre explanation for why she murdered the man to whom she walked down the aisle with and pledged allegiance and fidelity. It appears that she gave no thought to "coming clean" and dealing with her murderous act by properly admitting what she did. Had she done that, she could have avoided this circus and protected her CHILDREN!!!
Instead, to further inflame the fire and to inflict still further damage on her innocent loving children, she chose the coward's way of trying to absolve herself by placing the blame on Robert: THE INNOCENT VICTIM WHO TRUSTED HER WITH HIS LIFE; WHO SUPPORTED HER IN HER MOSTLY FRIVOLOUS, SUPERFICIAL EXISTENCE; WHO FATHERED THREE BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN; WHO SACRIFICED HIS DAYS, NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS TO PROVIDE A SAFE, NURTURING and FRUITFUL HOME; WHO WAS A GOOD AND LOYAL SON, FATHER, BROTHER, COUSIN, UNCLE, FRIEND, CONFIDANTE AND MODEL CITIZEN.
None of this will bring Robert back. None of this will soothe the souls of his bereaved family members, friends, acquaintences and fellow human beings that Rob shone his light on.
Are there any human lessons to be learned? I think so.
1. Know your partner.
2. Know your partner.
3. Know your partner.
Too often, people jump into relationships and are smitten by passion and are blinded to the truth of another person's inner self.
As easy as it is to marry someone, separation and divorce are hard and divorce is a painful, expensive, emotionally exhausting process.
Nancy perpetrated the most venal fraud on her family and society as a whole; but fortunately, the judicial system has prevailed.
REST IN PEACE MY BROTHER ROB. YOU HAVE BEEN TO THE MOUNTAIN TOP and YOU ARE IN THE PROMISED LAND. THOSE OF US STILL ON THIS EARTH WILL INSURE THAT YOUR LEGACY WILL PREVAIL.
The victim’s father, William Kissel, expressed delight. He said: “That’s justice. All the allegations made in the court [about Robert] are false, untrue. And Robert, I pray, can now rest in peace and his children can go on with their lives in peace knowing their father loved them and they are his dear children.”
just a shoutout to all the wonderfull people who bailed her out and gave her a place to stay while she lied and squirmed in the court rm and gave her the nourishment she needed to countinue her crime.and a sorry note to the repairguy that feed the fire to murder.
'Delighted' may not be the right word to describe what Mr. Bill Kissel is feeling at present. I have spoken to him this morning and it was my impression would be more that he is 'relieved' that the trial is over, 'pleased' with the result and that the jury did not believe any of the allegations made about Robert. However, I could hear the edge of 'sadness' in his voice when he said that nothing the court could impose upon Nancy would bring his son back to him, but equally he is now 'hopeful' that the three grandchildren will be able to grow and retain the memory of how much their father loved them.
He has expressed concern and thanks for those here who came forward to tell of what they knew of Robert's charachter, and he also expressed the hope that all could find peace and closure.
I know that I speak for many others here in Hong Kong who will join me when I say that we wish peace for Mr. Kissel and for the families involved, that we offer our prayers for the safety and well-being of all his grandchildren, and that we will remember warmly the happier times that we shared together.
As a lawyer in Hong Kong it is difficult not to follow this tragic circus and my heart goes out to all who are suffering as a result.
Unfortunately I do not think this case has shown the Hong Kong legal system in a very good light. The investigation by the police was a shambles from the initial interview of Nancy onwards. For instance why only conduct a forensic investigation of part of a room. If they had done their job properly from the beginning I doubt there would have been room for debate over her guilt or innocence. Certainly not to the extent of the debate on this site.
Two other points concern me. It seems that Lunn J has adopted a very pro prosecution approach, which is dangerous as it may render a conviction unsafe.
My second concern is that is seems to me the premeditation theory does not stand up. If you plan to murder a person you would also plan to dispose of the body not sleep with it for 2 nights.
I know the jury appear not to have been concerned about this but this may be because the point was not given any degree of prominence in directions which lasted two days.
Almost certainly there will be an appeal but it remains to be seen if it will be partly or wholly successful.
I am not saying nancy is innocent. As far as I am concerned large parts of her case made little or no sense. For instance forced sex while holding or threatening with a baseball bat. I am just concerned that the same could be said for parts of the prosecution case.
Both the victim's and (now) convicted families are entitled to expect the judicial system to provide them with some form of closure. I am just sorry for both of them that the matter will almost certainly be resurrected in the Court of Appeal.
Finally regarding the comments re "a Chinese jail" Hong Kong jails are about the best run in the world. If I had to choose between being incarcarated in a UK or US or HK jail given that unhappy choice I would choose a HK jail by a mile. HK jail overcrowding problems are trifling compared with overcrowding in the UK and US.
I don't have the full transcript of the judge's directions to jury. Perhaps our lawyer friend does.
I agree with his point about the jails in Hong Kong. No picnic, but certainly no worse than those in the US and UK.
For American readers, the judicial system here in Hong Kong is open and transparent, and conducted in this case throughout in the language of the accused, with Tagalog translation into English when required.
The police investigation may have been botched. But the facts were before the court.
Nancy Kissel should have gone with a plea of guilty with diminished responsibilty and this whole hurtful, ugly case would have attracted 20 column inches, and none of the above diatribe I've read this morning would have been written.
I agree with 'troubled'. That is the one point I have concern for - I believe she was intending to kill him but I'm not sure that it was suppose to happen the evening that it did. Something happened to trigger her off as she was ill-prepared for the disposal of the body. She had researched drugs etc but for sure, she wld have had a plan in mind for afterwards. This is the most troubling point and had I been on the jury I probably wld not have been able to find her guilty of murder for that reason (though I would have liked to) but instead wld have suggested manslaughter.
By the way, can anyone tell me what life imprisonment means in Hong Kong - 20 years? 10 years?
As with everyone, it is the children that I am the most sorry for.
She made the milkshake for him with the drugs in probably because she found the email through to Rob with divorce lawyers names on. It would have enraged her and she decided to do the deed and work out the details later I would say. I think she planned to get rid of his body by driving it somewhere, but she didn't plan on it being so hard. The rental of the storeroom was probably just a temporary arrangement in her plans.
About Premediatation....she administered the drugs, did she not? Mixing up the concoction requires both time and presence of mind; it is not the "panic reaction" required by manslaughter. But I take your point if she did, in fact, panic when she saw that the drugs were not going to do the trick. Still, it is unprovoked.
Yes, the problem with saying she would have planned differently assumes that she did not plan differently. We don't know what she planned to do because she didn't say when she testified.
Either case mentioned by 'ex-HK' or 'maybe' here is possible. Perhaps she planned that the drugs would kill him. Perhaps she thought she'd be able to get his body in her car (she did go down to the car park at 2 am), but he was just too heavy.
Or perhaps the person that can hit someone's skull until their brain matter comes out just isn't that grossed out by the thought of his dead body being in the room for a while.
Why assume she would have had a GOOD plan? If she is capable of planning murder, doesn't that prove she's capable of some very bad judgement?
Most criminals are stupid. They don't think through or are incapable of thinking through the ramifications or outcomes of their actions. In this respect, Nancy is no different than a common hood. The fact that Nancy could murder her husband and sleep soundly with Rob's body below her bed, while she planned her next move, demonstrates that she had criminal intent and is a complete sociopath. The fact that she spun lie after lie on the stand shows the same thing. She had absolutely no feeling for her husband or her children. All she cared about were her own selfish needs. That is the text book definition of a sociopath (FYI, sociopaths used to be refered to as psychopaths). Nancy is where she belongs for the rest of her life. She is a danger to everyone around her, not just her immediate family. She will never be a fully functional member of society because there is no cure for a person born without a conscience. She is that kind of person.
Years ago, I spent an evening with Rob and Nancy having drinks at the Plaza Hotel in NYC. They had just started dating. As I look back on that evening and that first meeting, it is hard for me to comprehend that I was sitting across the table from someone capable of such EVIL. I met Rob when I was a teenager. He was always a gentleman and he deserved so much better than this. I will always hurt for his children and his family. I pray that in the years to come that his children find peace and happiness and that they are raised in a stable, loving and nurturing family structure. Rob, may you rest in peace.
R.G you are totally right, the right decision was made to imprison her for life, how she planned or didn't plan, is irrelevant, if it wasn't for her actions Rob would be alive today.
I just hope any talk of appeal does not further affect either families in the future. She is now where she was meant to be a long time ago. She had the luxury that most murderers do not have and that is to walk around freely for a year, after beating someones skull in - unbelievable!
I just wish now that her lies and deceit have been proven, that she actually uses those longs hours of incarceration to do the right thing by her children and Rob’s legacy and tell them the truth. But then again, she had many options to do that right from the start and never did. You can't teach an old dog new tricks can you??!
Nancy will get herself transferred to a US jail to do her time. The lawyers over there will have her case reopened, retried with American lawyers, heard by an American liberal judge and tried by an American liberal Jury! (I don't know how, but I'm sure the lawyers will find a way!)
There will be new expert testimony, new expert evidence from eminent experts explaining how and why it is Nancy who really is the victim. They will explain why the whole handling of the case was botched by incompetent Hongkong police! And how Nancy was victimised again by the incompetent Hongkong justice system! etc etc etc....
Basically it will be the defence case - but this time heard by an American court.
After a few years of appeals and more appeals, Nancy will be found innocent and walk free.
Then she will write a book all about it. It will be titled :-
"Nancy Kissel : My Story. They said I killed my husband."
[Otherwise I'm really sorry for the kids that they will have to go through this.]
Posted by anotherhkguy at September 3, 2005 09:47 AM
"Nancy Kissel : My Story.How aliens invaded my bedroom anally raped me and
did a examination of my hubbys brain.
It is reported that Nancy's lawyers are planning to appeal.
Appeal? If she appeals and keeps repeating her (alleged) lies, she will only destroy what remains of her children's (normal) future.
How can this woman be so horribly selfish? It is really Robert's bad luck that in this whole wide world he would select such a person to be his lifetime partner. "Lifetime," yes, ironically true.
APPEAL....Yes and the sad thing is that I am sure the lawyers will be eating into every last dollar of the rest of what Rob would have left for his children's future.
When will this selfish, nasty woman ever leave what is left of her children's lives alone, for them to finally have a chance to be normal loved children? It's going to be bad enough for them to have to come to terms with what she has done to all their lives already.
It's disgusting, she made her bed, she should now lie in it! Gives us all a bloody break!??
What convinces me that there wouldn't be any closure, and that it is just beginning, is because Nancy hasn't shown even the slightest iota of remorse in anything she has said. It has been : "Me Victim!" all the way.
Maybe if she hadn't drugged Robert, maybe if had called the police immediately after she hit him on the head; it might be believable that they had a fight and that it was somehow accidental. Manslaughter cases are often like that.
King SC called the prosecution case "beyond belief." He was really talking about the defense case!! I wonder if that wasn't a bit of "British style" tongue in cheek for him.
The past two years have just been the tip of the iceberg. Now the "real" saga will start.
................
We all will soon wish we never ever heard of Nancy.....
Posted by anotherhkguy at September 3, 2005 12:59 PM
to John 09.02.05
I think you are transfering the US jail culture to Hongkong. It just isn't like that in jails here. Nancy is rich, has lawyers, and most importantly, is white and an American. Nobody will hurt her, nobody will dare touch her.
Posted by anotherhkguy at September 3, 2005 01:20 PM
Link to the The Standard on the possible appeal:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=754&sid=4401337&con_type=1
Suppose, just suppose, that Nancy Kissel was, in fact, abused as she claimed. Would the people who have been baying for blood on this site, think differently of her? If the appeal were to show actual (not made up) incompetence on the part of the police, would the attitudes expressed above change?
I think it is important to separate out grief over Rob Kissel's demise, and the facts. If the facts are as the Prosecution has argued, then she merits the sentence of life. If they are not, and there were facts inadvertently ignored or deliberately omitted then these should be heard. It is wrong to suggest that an Appeal would be selfish of her, if her conviction is wrongful.
It does seem from everything I have read in the press that no sane jury really could have acquitted her. But, coming from a country (UK) where there have been gross miscarriages of justice I have to say we should respect the right of Nancy Kissel to appeal - just in case. I realise this causes more pain and impedes closure, but it is all the same imperative that we be sure when we send someone to prison for life.
BTW can someone please clarify the issue of the two installations and then deletions of porn search software when Rob Kissel was out of town? I missed this, was it reported?
Also, did the person who says s/he lived beneath the Kissels and heard rows, etc., testify at the trial? If not, why not?
Finally, why did not the Defence ask Del Priore to testify? What she said to him during all of those phone calls, surely was relevant. Did anyone consider charging him for being complicit in the murder? Could they have so charged him?
You claim to be in legal profession yourself (if I remember correctly from your posts above).
And you still harbor an element of doubt? I pity everyone you represent or defend in courts, and that's just my observation from what I seem to remember from your initial comments stating you are interested in this case as you yourself are in legal profession or what have you (forgive me if I am wrong).
I will go one step further to what I think:
I allege that Robert Kissel passed out on the bed, as in unconscious. He was probably (and allegedly) dragged (down) to the foot of the bed. And hit, so that the stains wouldn't be obvious.
Anyway, just a speculative thought.
Now, show me a woman who can avoid a baseball bat in the hands of a man (as fit as Robert) towering on top of her. And then, hit that man five bloody times on the (right side of his face and) head.
I am a man and I challenge you, try to (violently) bring an object near my head or face or body, and if you are a svelte woman (like Nancy), I can assure you that you would be in a hospital with your arm in a sling.
Geddit? Or do you need a coffee before you really wake up?
And to answer your question, it is reported that Michael Del Priore is in hiding since all this happened. His own brother supposedly said that to "The Standard," one of Hong Kong's (tabloid) newspaper.
He can and should be questioned. If it seems that he was involved, he could be charged with "accessory to murder."
And hey, I am not a lawyer, but I am not insane to suggest that an appeal against a unanimous judgment of 7-0 is giving a "chance" to someone who has been lying outright.
And I know that she has a right to appeal, but she should be thinking about her children's future, rather than try to save her sorry a*s.
She has done enough damage already. And she surely doesn't look like an angel if she was bonking (she admitted to that) a trailer-trash handyman, yes?
I feel there is still a mixed bag of questions, and mysteries, and from a neutral perspective, believe this story will be going on a little longer.
I am writing a magazine article, and am in Hong Kong presently, and would like to talk to friends of this marriage for any personal insights into this unhappy marriage.
As I was in the courtroom for a few days sequentially, I would like also to answer questions from North American reader.
1. The jurors were five men, two women - youthful, wholesome looking Chinese people.
2. I felt all the legal professionals were good, and had to work with the information they had, which was insufficient in many areas.
3. The jury had no avenue open to them except to do what they did.
I think life setences in UK law are not flexible for good time off as in the USA. I think it might mean forever and ever.
4. Not one word in court - of real evidence, facts, photos, etc. - could prove that the husband had a malignant thread in him.
5. My own mind was and is confused by the contradictions in this story.
I have never known of such suicidal carelessness in a premeditated murder.
Nancy knew that she was under a detective's scrutiny, the divorce had been hovering about for months, and yet her phone calls
to her lover, her drug purchasing, and her drugging of the husband's friend - right when the kids are around - do all seem to be a different type of Coldly Premeditated Murder than I have ever read about.
It seems as another writer on these blogs has pointed out that, she just wanted to be premeditated enough to kill her husband, and at that point the premeditation stopped.
Nancy may as well have hung out neon signs saying Come And Get Me, if she was thinking for one second that she could walk off with a big fortune and a new husband.
It is just this level of non-intelligence that is hard to accept, unless she was crazy.
I also do not think those commit heinous crimes should walk on the insanity plea.
There were no tests for alleged anal rape.
There were no photos of the alleged violence done to her either.
The pornographic searches on computer only yielded a few days of kinky sex searches.
Not one lover of the husband, either gay or heterosexual, was ever found anywhere, which was remarkable, considering his wealth, status, mobility, and miserable marriage.
The two household servants spoke well of the husband, and mentioned that the wife had declined in mood during the last year of the marriage. Rob had generously aided one of these helpers in purchasing real estate in her home country.
The local police, while not behaving as the police in America, were generous to allow Nancy time to partially repair herself before facing court, and as native Chinese, have to work within two systems, and bridge The Cultural Gap.
Finally, the mother of Nancy too deserves some compassion, for both spouses" families were tragically struck suddenly by destruction of their grandchildren's joy and security, that they did not seem to see coming.
One day I saw several children, only nine or ten, with hairstyles professionally coiffed at an upscale salon, sit unknowingly in the front row of the visitors section beside the mother of Nancy.
The dignified and friendly woman was overcome with emotion, and rose quietly and sat out the rest of that session. Some of us were very sensitive to her suffering.
Nancy and Rob would not have risen so high, and enjoyed a good reputation as a family for some time, had there not been some supportiveness and concern from both sides of their family.
Please contact me if you wish to talk to me about your personal thoughts and memories concerning this marriage.
I am not an abrasive writer, or a much-raker, and don't intend more than a poignant human-interest article.
A.G, there is a simple way of looking at Nancy's apparent "suicidal carelessness" : she planned to do this thing, gave it her best shot, found that it was much harder than it looked; and finally freaked out and made a big mess of it.
This happens when you are doing something you are not good at.
Posted by anotherhkguy at September 3, 2005 05:38 PM
There is an even simpler way of looking at her "suicidal carelesness". She is, like our dear "Nancy supporter", an American woman well schooled in the American "me-victim" school of feminism, the school that inevitably assumes that if a woman does evil a man must have made her do it. That assumption, feminism mixed with misguided chivalry, is enough to get a lot of women off in US courts. Far from being, as Nancy supporter, said, "sexist", Hong Kong's courts don't so easily fall for that claptrap. They expect women to be as responsible for their own actions as men. That's what TRUE feminism means.
I think she's a total sociopath. She has no sense of remorse at all, whether in terms of blackening a dead man's name, harming her children, asking her daughter to serve a drugged milkshake, murdering her husband.
The irony is that part of that attempt to blacken her husband, the "anal sex" searches on the computer, not only exonerate him as he was out of town, but strongly suggest premeditation not only of the crime, but of the defence strategy.
She was going for the "battered wife syndrome" get-out-of-jail free card, but apparently even her defence lawyers didn't think it would wash.
I don't see an appeal getting her off. And I don't see how a crime in Hong Kong jurisdiction can be retried in the US. I do see those who only believe "women are always victims" trying. I do see strings being pulled. That's exactly what she hopes for.
As for the person who spoke of her being a "victim" in prison. No way. A person with no conscience is probably the meanest fish in the whole pool. Even now she's not crying out of anything more than sympathy for herself. No remorse for Robert, none for the children. It's chilling.
Dear "Shocked",
No, I am not a lawyer. And, no it was not me "above". I never said this about myself.
It is as if you are simply hitting out.
Importantly, I am sorry you are so upset by what I posted.
I really wanted to challenge the view that an appeal would be wrong "in principle". This suggestion is not wild. It was also accompanied by caveats (please reread in case they were missed).
Perhaps, Simon wants to insist again on the tone that people posting should adhere to when responding? Why cannot we not have a discussion instead of a slanging match? I felt/feel for people like Danny Williams (to name one among many), but do not wish to be bullied for suggesting that all have a right to appeal, within the law.
In that case Justice, please accept my sincere apologies.
I didn't mean to suggest you were insane or what have you, I think I was writing my thoughts as in the lawyers or Nancy or both are insane to appeal.
Hope that confusion is cleared. I repeat that despite her chance to appeal, and she has every right to do so, I think dragging this any further cannot be good for her children.
Someone asked what does a life sentence in Hong Kong mean - allow me to answer.
It means until you die but after a period of time a lifer can apply to the Chief Executive of Hong Kong for a fixed sentence. They are then eligable to apply for release on license after serving two thirds of the sentence. This is not a guaranteed route.
She can also apply for her sentence to be served in her home country although a Hong Kong prison is probably a lot safer for her.
SCMP reports Ira Keeshin, Nancy's father had to borrow US$1.5 million to pay lawyers and stuff. That shows she wasn't defending herself on Robert's money.
Does anyone know if HK lawyers charge more for an appeal? Will Keeshin have to borrow more? Or would lawyers include appeal charges in earlier fees?
Also, what are the rules for appeal in HK? Can the case be retried without further evidence?
Many questions. Why did the judge send the baseball bat and transcripts to director of public prosecutions? Does that mean there is something fishy?
Whoever said above was right. The "real" saga has just started. No end in sight.
You are of course absolutely right to insist that even if there is additional "evidence" or if there has been "impropriety" on the part of officials, which support an appeal, Nancy Kissel should, from a moral standpoint, think of the effects of an appeal on her children. If she is guilty, and she knows it (she may not know this, even if it is true) then it would be deeply immoral to proceed with an appeal.
The tesimony and court transcripts about the bat were sent to the Director of Prosecutions to address the prospective impropriety of the Defense Attorney removing a piece of critical evidence from the crime scene days after the arrest and not producing it to the police, the court or giving notice of its existance or their possession until the third week of July this summer when it was brought to court and the self-defense testimony was introduced. At the time, the Judge stated to the Defense attorneys that there could be action taken against them. The bat was taken from the apartment when the defense attorneys, accompanied by her father, went to the apartment three/four days after her arrest.
I.e.: Fishy? Like a week old sardine sandwich left in your gym bag. Another oversight by the police? Seemingly so. Will the forensic tests on the bat be a possible topic of the appeal? Probably. But will anything be done to the attorneys?
Those legal costs posted above make me feel so sick.
I read in the papers that Nancy Kissel stood to be the main beneficiary of Robert's estate. She would have automatically lost this legal right on a court verdict of guilty of murder. But she would have retained her inheritance rights if she had gotten off either scot free, which she wanted, or at least manslaughter on account of self defense.
That was why Nancy Kissel had to plead innocent and had to accuse Robert of this and that.
That is why it has cost her father so much in legal fees. How is the poor guy going to pay it off? He's going to lose everything he has.
Here is what I read on the EastSouthWestNorth page. It's a translation of something in the Chinese papers.
"(Apple Daily, September 2, 2005) Robert Kissel was the Managing Director of the global principal investments group at Merrill Lynch. He was receiving HK$ 1.36 million per year with bonuses and incentives. DUring the past three years, he received bonuses and rewards totalling HK$46 million. He had purchased five insurance contracts worth HK$50 million with the Nancy Ann Kissel as the beneficiary. With the conviction of Nancy Ann Kissel, it is believed that she will lose the right of inheritance.
According to barrister Luk Wei-hung, if the accused is convicted of murder or even manslaughter, then no matter whether the deceased had established a will, or whether the accused was designated as an inheritor, she will legally have lost all rights to inherit the estate. Furthermore, if the court accepts that the accused acted in self-defense, then even if she openly admitted to killing her husband, she will be entitled to the estate if there is a will that lists her as a beneficiary. Even if there is no way, she will still be entitled to the estate as the spouse of the deceased. In this case, as of now, the self-defense clause does not operate and that is why it is believed that she will lose the right of inheritance.
As for the insurance money, Luk Wei-hung pointed out that the accused was found guilty of murder and she is the sole beneficiary of the insurance policies and therefore the insurance companies will not pay out. Conversely, if she had been found not guilty, then the insurance companies will have to pay according to what the policies say. Each insurance company has its own unique rules, so the final decision will depend on what the policy says. According to the Chief Executive Officer of the Hong Kong Insurance Industry Association, the rule is that if the insured is murdered by the beneficiary, then the beneficiary shall lose the right to be paid. Ordinarily, the insurance company will still forward the payout to the estate of the insured."
Now note carefully the words "spouse of deceased"
Robert was going to divorce her. She couldn't allow that.
what on earth is the headline on SCMP website "Kissel may have planned to ship husband's body to US" about? As I am not a subscriber to SCMP (and have no intentions to be!) could someone enlighten me on this develoment please!
A bit of interesting official HK data on conversion of mandatory life sentences to determinate length sentences (fixed length sentences). From mid-2000 to mid-2004, 446 mandatory life sentences were reviwed, of which 13 were converted to determinate sentences. This process is undertaken by the Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board. Follow the link to the pdf file from the bottom of the following page for the details.
The SCMP story is about Nancy contacting a relocation company on Nov. 5. It seems she asked for quotes for shipping property back to US. Other reports elsewhere talk about 20 bottles of peppermint oil and some boxes and tape.
Rug, storeroom, peppermint oil, boxes, ship overseas, missing persons report...WHOA! Not premeditated? Don't look like "mental meltdown" anymore.
1. For the most part comments have remained civil, despite the intensity of feelings on all sides. Let's keep it that way.
2. I repeat a request that any mainstream media account that relies on comments or contacts found via this site please make a reference to this site as the location where that source was found.
3. Many places retain a right of appeal in criminal trials. These appeals cannot review facts already determined in the original trial. They can address errors in law or potentially consider new evidence. There may be grounds for appeal over the judge's directions to the jury, for example. We can argue about the quality of the prosecution and defence, but the HK court system has worked exactly as it should. As for the costs of the case, this is a murder tial with big shot lawyers being engaged. I'm not aware of American lawyer costs, but I imagine a top lawyer defending in a similar case would also cost significant amounts of money. Justice ain't cheap, rightly or wrongly.
Well said Simon. I hope you can post the transcript of today's SCMP story like your other transcripts as that provides important info. and angle of premeditation in my opinion.
I think people with "mental meltdown" don't go shopping, talking on phone, writing emails, and canceling or arranging appointments. They would probably be sitting next to the body and dumbfounded. They might not even have the mental presence to stop children or maids coming near the body.
Let Ira Keeshin not get any poorer than he already is.
Dear AncorTV thanks for updating me on the SCMP story regarding Nancy looking into shipping property back to the U.S. Is anyone able to cut and paste it into this site??
This is UNBELIEVABLE, to me (and I have watched and read over every piece of information on the case I can get hold of) this is a big puzzle piece that was missing, FOUND! Why wasn't this reported to the court? Or was it?
For me I always wondered what she thought she was going to do with the body, yet this is BRILLIANT! Take him down to the store room, wrap him up in further plastic, douse him in 20 bottles of peppermint oil, ship him back to the empty garage in Vermount!!!
I guess she had two nights to think this one out, while the poor man rotted at the bottom of her bed.
As an ex expat of HK I know it would be near impossible to hide a body, let alone dump it without being seen, so having someone else back their truck up to the storeroom, send off 10 boxes (or whatever she intended to send along with poor old Rob) and wave goodbye!
O.k we all know there is customs. But I know personally from moving my stuff to HK in 1999 and back to Oz in 2004 that nothing was gone through. There is too much going in and out of HK and US, the chances would have been slim that they would have been checked, and lets face it, her options were limited. Then to make it even better, the nice removals guys would move the "inconvenience" nicely into the empty garage in Vermont, DONE, with no-one the wiser!
The only problem here of course would have been that she would not have been able to claim on the life insurance policy for quite some years (with no "missing" body found), but eventually, she would have it, and there was enough money there for her I am sure to keep her going until such time....not to mention the greedy young toy boy waiting for her and egging her on back in Vermont!
This, and the fact that nothing was said about the bat being held by HER lawyers for so long, is UNBELIEVABLE. How was that even permissible evidence after such a long time, and in the hands of the very same person who was using it to defend their case...
This was SO PREMEDITATED, I must say I always thought that way, and even so, finding that the jury was unanimous in their guilty of murder decision quite shocked me, but perhaps all these pieces of evidence where all given to them, and we didn't hear everything that came out.
The thought of APPEAL now REALLY makes me MAD, but then again as I have always said, any woman that can kill her hubby in cold blood, the father of her own 3 children, who can email friends the very next day, chat with her boyfriend, probably can't do anything more to surprise us! Nancy Kissel is PURE EVIL, and still, able to take our breath away with her antics.
It's a shame she didn't use her plotting, scheming and original ideas for good use, a plot for a "fictitious novel" and make billions, I have no doubt hollywood is working on it right now!
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 4, 2005 05:01 PM
Ex-HK expat:
Two thoughts:
1. Multiple boxes for *separating objects*.
2. Customs.
Think deeper. Are we on same wavelength?
The probable terrifying thought came to me as I read that SCMP story.
Talking about fictitious novel... Check these reports on the newspapers last Friday, Sept. 2nd after verdict:
'During the afternoon, a minor confrontation broke out between well- known former American television reporter, Jim Laurie, whose wife was a potential witness for the defense, and William Kissel.
Laurie wondered aloud whether Kissel thought the children had a right to see their mother, Nancy, again.
"What do you think?" replied Kissel. "She's killed her husband and now she's condemned her children" to an unhappy life.
---------------------------------------
As William Kissel was telling reporters about what he termed the "terrible legacy" his daughter-in-law had left for her children, Nancy Kissel's adviser, former journalist Jim Laurie, said she should be allowed to see her children.
Mr Laurie, a lecturer in journalism at the University of Hong Kong, suggested the children's financial security would be threatened if Robert's brother Andrew, who is facing embezzlement charges in the US, won custody of the children.
Mr Kissel lashed out at the defence's tactic of portraying his son as a sodomist, cocaine addict and alcoholic. "You don't know him [just] because you lived in the same building," he said to Mr Laurie.
"What puts you in a position to judge?" Mr Laurie replied it was "impossible to know what happened" in the relationship.
Mr Kissel shot back: "Are you going to write a book now ... and say Nancy is innocent?" '
---------------------------------------
Jim Laurie used to live in T.15 where Rob and Nancy lived until he lost his job as a reporter. His wife, a former vietnamese refugee, has been glued to Nancy ever since this tragedy happened and there has been a rumor in the Parkview complex that they have been planning to write a book on this case.
There are always vultures where dead bodies are, and hopefully people will not try to cash on other's tragedy, especially when the whole story was created upon dead man's corpse by his very creative wife, Nancy.
It amazes me that he mentioned the children's right to see their mother. What is she going to tell them? That their father was a coke-headed, alchololic, porn-site surfing, anal and oral sex forcing rapist, 5-minute father, wife beater, his own children abuser? Basically, scum of the earth? His family, friends, colleagues and neighbours know otherwise and now the court proved otherwise. It's time for the Kissels to be left alone to pick up the pieces and move on. I wish a long, healthy life for Mr. William Kissel to guide Rob's children in their less-than-perfect lives ahead.
Now to change the topic, check this article:
'Only three days after bludgeoning her husband Robert to death, Kissel contacted Links Relocations to organise a quote for shipping the contents of her Tai Tam flat and the storeroom where she had the body of her husband stashed.'
So, she wasn't just planning to ship the body. She had planned to relocate back! As Ex-HK expat said, this was the missing puzzle piece. This is why she vacuum-packed Rob with bubble wrap and rolled him with a carpet. He was going to be shipped as a carpet together with all their other belongings! And why is her lover in hiding now as his own brother described? Was he a part of this dumb plan? Why is police not looking into this further?
She and the defense team can appeal as many times as they want, but it seems that the more time goes by, the more evidences seem to surface. After all this pain she has caused to so many people around her, there is one thing she can do for her children ... That is to let them move on with their lives.
I feel strongly about the legal costs of the case not because of the fact that good lawyers are expensive but because of Nancy Kissel's motives for pleading not guilty, having done what she did. She just wanted to claim the life insurance and inherit Robert's estate after killing him. And she couldn't do that if she was found guilty of murder nor could she get his money if Robert divorced her, which he was just about to do.
I guess that Ira, as her father, has to believe in her and stand by her. What I feel sick at is what Nancy Kissel has done to her own father. She is so selfish. The trial brought the whole truth of Robert Kissel's death out in the open. Even the kids know she killed their dad. The daughter says she doesn't want to see her anymore. If Nancy had pled guilty, she could have saved both families a whole lot of pain and there wouldn't have been the long trial.
But I wonder if, ironically, a guilty plea might have gained her less than a life sentence? Any HK lawyers here care to comment on what might have happened if Nancy Kissel had pled guilty?
In all the press coverage after the judgment, I find it very curious that there has been nothing on Nancy Kissel's biography, at least nothing of substance. She is almost a complete cipher, despite testimony by Hong Kong friends and the participants on this list. I tend to think she was an ordinary person whose world view became twisted with the extreme of self indulgence afforded the life of a Hong Kong taitai, where it doesn't take a lot of wealth to live roughly like billionaires back home, and where there is virtually no pressure to do anything but party. On behalf of your husband's career, of course. I think many otherwise sane women might flip out on this regime. Be that as it may, I'm still surprised that reporters haven't done more to fill out the blanks in her life.
Posted by Fascinated at September 5, 2005 01:07 AM
Hold on! Think about it!
We really need to thank Alexander King SC for all he has done. Who else could have been so professional in exposing the mired facts?
Doesn't he deserve credit? He does! But wait, was he a defense attorney or attorney for the prosecution? I really don't know. It is all so confusing!
I keep looking through the archived accounts and laughing at some of the stupid comments the defense put forward. Such as King's statement re Nancy's meltdown. The reason she "slept" with his dead body for two days was that she was trying to work out how to get it out of her bedroom without being caught! Then he comments on how she rang Rob's mobile phone twice. Of course she did!! She was trying to leave records to suggest that she was trying to find him when he supposedly "walked out of the apartment and disappeared". The funny thing is King, in giving the jury a lot of this information has again reinforced PREMEDITATION in my mind, rather than making me think she was shaken and remorseful!
P.S Thank you Simon for hosting this website to enable us to work through our thoughts, concerns and frustrations! Long live freedom of speech!
Calling his mobile phone makes me think she was probably just looking for his phone. When most people I know can't find their mobiles, they ring them and then follow the sound of the ringing. She wouldn't want the maids or the kids to come home and see his mobile sitting on the dining room table after he supposedly left.
Someone else asked if she had booked tickets out of Hong Kong. According to testimony, she had tickets booked for Nov 16.
Guess Anchor, catchme and exHKexpat have pretty much hit what nancy kissel was gonna do with Rob but never had the chance to do. Nobody thought to ask her in court what she was going to do if Rob hadn't been found on Nov 5th. She was going to ship him back to the US, maybe in the carpet and bubble wrap or maybe even in 10 or more separate cartons, each body part bubble wrapped and doused with peppermint oil!
Come to think of it, it's a good plan for disposing of the body, if only nancy kissel could get Rob back to the States, nobody would ever be able to trace this. In Hongkong, Robert Kissel would be a missing person nobody ever heard of again. In US, even if his body or body parts were found in some river or landfill some place, his remains would just be an unidentifiable corpse with no clues no leads! Nobody will know that he is the banker who disappered in Hongkong because he is not listed as missing in the States!
And I guess those gay site searches that Nancy did were amongst her preparations for dealing with the police as the "sobbing bereaved wife" whose cheating husband ran off some place. If she can convince the convince the police, she would basically be home free and sitting on Rob's money. She would have been all set!
If true, this was an audacious plan. WHO gave Nancy those ideas?
Posted by Nancy's plan? at September 5, 2005 11:12 AM
I think her original plan was to drug Robert until he got heart attack and dead. Everything would seem natural. Somehow that night, Robert was aware that she attempted to murder him through milkshake/drugs and may tell her that before he went unconscious. Then she panicked and execute the dumb plan, using the status to hit his head.
That is why everything seems to be so badly planned. This evil woman belongs to jail for the rest of her life.
She would have had everything on a container ship for a couple of months.
And then it would have been trucked and delivered to Vermont. But then what would she have done?
Oh: once there she would have had help, wouldn't she?
If this had played out for a couple of more months, I wonder what would have been the fate of the guy in Vermont: Could she afford to have that potential loose end unravel her plan?
(And do you think the guy realizes what he may have avoided?)
I just cant wait to hear whats going to happen to her solicitor who witheld evidence! that is a criminal offence!
Posted by Interested at September 5, 2005 08:02 PM
Such a shame to think she missed out on the breast enhancement surgury she had scheduled.And now they will just sag the rest of her life.
I wonder if she ever will go blonde again?
Posted by suchashame at September 5, 2005 08:09 PM
There are a couple of things to go over on today's SCMP covering this case. This is the part of the article by Barclay Crawford on page A13:
'Nancy Kissel's supporters and visitors came largely from the Hong Kong International School. One, Geertruida Samra, president of the Parent Faculty Organisation, helped with her bail and regularly visited her in Siu Lam psychiatric centre after the murder.
Some of Robert Kissel's friends were also reportedly behind his wife. Jim Laurie, a distinguished former journalist and University of Hong Kong lecturer, along with a number of his students, stood firmly by Nancy Kissel's mother Jean McGlothlin.
As the tension mounted when the jury was deliberating, Mr Laurie lashed out at the police investigators, claiming the crime scene was not sealed. He became involved in a heated argument with the deceased's father over evidence and questioned whether the children would be cared for.
"What puts you in a position to judge? You are a local Hong Kong guy trying to ride the coattails of some notoriety," William Kissel said, accusing Mr Laurie of wanting to cash in on the murder with a book.'
-----------------------------------
1. Nancy's supporters largely came from the HK International School until they realized what was going on. Only the hard core, Geertruida Samra and Renee Tanaka, seems to remain.
2. JIM LAURIE WAS NOT ROB'S FRIEND. They happened to live in the same building and Jim Laurie's wife attatched herself to the case from the beginning. That's all there was. Nobody knows why he is so upset and demanding to know about the children's welfare. I believe that's Mr. William Kissel's business, not his. We haven't heard any of Rob's friends supporting Nancy at any point of this trial, but correct me if I am wrong.
o.k, Am I really playing devils advocate here OR....
I still come back to the question of why Del Priore wasn't brought in as a key witness to be questioned in court? Couldn't they have brought him in as part of Nancy's "Defense" by saying that they were no longer planning to be together?
Or, did Del Priore have something to hide? So much so, that he is now figuratively “in hiding"?
Has anybody checked that this man was not in Hong Kong around November 2003?Bizzare hu?? But Mr. Kissel Senior, seems to be intimating that perhaps there was a lot more to Mr. Del Priore than we originally though.
I am by no means suggesting that Nancy didn't commit the crime, but is she perhaps harbouring, or protecting somebody else? Where is Del Priore now... and is this man even alive today?
I read that Del Priore's brother had a confrontational call from Rob Kissel's brother with the message, quote "your brother killed my brother". What type of connections does this man have? Why hasn't Del Priore surfaced yet?
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 5, 2005 10:45 PM
This case gives me the creeps. Why? I live in Hong Kong and I am married to a woman just like Nancy Kissel. A woman who bled my bank account dry. A woman who spent a fortune on $3000 haircuts (including blonde highlights) at the Ritz, and more designer sunglasses than you could wear in a month. A woman who verbally and physically abused me for years, and whose abuse only increased as the money ran out. A woman who seemed to all the world to be a loving mother and wife, but whose entire identity was based on lies and deceptions.
After she put me in the hospital (with a blow to the head no less....) I finally left, knowing it was worse for my child to witness such a life than to grow up in a broken family. Since then the lies and abuse have only gotten worse. Now that we are in divorce proceedings, the most heinous lies are coming out about me in her deperate attempt to make herself look like the abandoned victim.
Watching this case unfold, I feel incredibly fortunate that I got out before what happened to Robert Kissel happened to me. She certainly had it in her.
If I hadn't been through it myself, I might have believed some of Nancy Kissel's lies. I might have believed that somehow she was the victim. However, having learned the profile of a sociopath and pathological liar, I can now understand how a woman who seems normal one minute can be a ruthless and violent criminal the next, and then justify it all in her own mind, even believing her own fabricated version of history !!
It's a shame that she might be transfered to a US prison and be released in 10 years. This was a cold blooded murder and society needs to be protected from people like her.
ex-HK expat: There are reports about DelPriore in the SCMP, EWSN blog, and even the NYPost. They go over his story in pretty fair detail, including current pictures and his current state of affairs.
I'm sure Andrew Kissel was speaking figuratively. And I think Mr. Kissel meant DelPriore was the reason and perhaps the inspiration for the murder. It is possible he believes DelPriore gave her instruction. But it is an international case, and that complicates matters when it comes to investigation and charges of him.
The defence can't bring someone in to court knowing that they would be commit perjury. Nancy knew what he knew, and one can only assume it wasn't helpful to the current storyline.
Dear Mr Dover
Perhaps our fascination with this case! I too got out of a very emotionally abusive marriage - but it was the other way around. Watching Nancy's case constantly makes me think 'there but the grace of God go I'. I am not a murderess but after years of abuse this person only had to take me a bit further and I would have grabbed the nearest thing, who knows it could have been a knife. I had even thought of 'how I could kill him'. I can be honest, I went a bit mad. But it took a long time of his constant 'put-downs', name calling etc. I cried for years. He was very good at not displaying his put down's in front of friends instead he would make out that I was wonderful. We tried to make it work, not just for the children but also because I truly did love him. After a while, you know there is no possibility and that is when the best thing is to move on. He moved very reluctantly. It took a solicitor's letter. Then a friend told me to go to the drs and I was put on anti-depressants - which I should have done a long time before then.
How sad is it the meltdown of a marriage. Now, I don't know whether I would ever marry again nor if I could trust someone again.
I hope that other's who are looking at this forum will not hesitate and get out before it does go to far .. and this is what can happen .. it doesn't surprise me!
I am going to try and wean myself off this site and "move on". However if someone can submit the court transcripts for us that would be great!
I guess I will be interested to see if Nancy appeals, and if this happens I guess we could all be back on this very same site again, however, I REALLY hope that’s not the case.
I truly wish that she would just see the utter devastation, and pain that she has caused both herself and Rob’s family and friends. She has been totally self absorbed in getting the best for herself for so long now, but now she really needs to think about the fact that she could well send her own mother and father bankrupt in their vain attempt to further assist her. And I don't mean bankrupt, only financially, but also emotionally. It’s time for her to start to realise that as her parents, they will go to the ends of the earth to support her. If she appeals it means so much more heartache for them, that it will no doubt send them to an early grave. Deep in their hearts, they know what she did.
It is so unfortunate that Nancy as a mother obviously didn't have the same "values" in going to the end of the earth to protect and support her own children. Killing their beloved father is very "unsupportive".
I don't have any problems with her appealing that her sentence be in America, her home country, but REALLY, she needs to give everyone a rest now and back off and face the music. All her actions have been totally SELFISH, she needs to try a little "selfless" living for a while.
As for all those that support Nancy in a "fellow abused" sort of way, I guess that’s their prerogative, although please, if you read through the facts, and really be honest with yourselves it is VERY VERY likely that none of it even happened, AND as I repeatedly have said, It doesn't matter if that was the case anyway, NO-ONE deserves DEATH.
To Tory and Benjamin, I am by no means understating what you have gone through, and hope that you move on to true happiness and gain the trust back by having a loving relationship with someone.
The guilty verdict gives the Kissel family some satisfaction in feeling that justice has been done, I hope that is not "undone" by further selfish actions on Nancy’s behalf. To "Justice" you will retort with a "but what if she really was battered" I still say, NO-ONE deserves death. She would have had medical evidence of rape as she suggested, this never appeared as evidence, because nothing would have been found.
The Milkshake was her downfall, no-one else could have placed the drugs in this, she stupidly gave it to another witness, and the facts are undeniable that she did this. This being the case, "PREMEDITATION" was the key to the unanimous guilty of Murder verdict. This is why she could NEVER admit to doing it, it would have been an open and shut case if she had done so. She would never have then been able to “create” a supposed “fight scene” in an attempt to lighten her sentence.
It still amazes me that this women could say such rot about her children’s father, who she has “eradicated” out of their lives forever.
The talk of her being such a helpful citizen with school calendars, school fetes was only for one reason, for her own self image, to “be seen”. She was bored! She had two maids that did everything for her, she had plenty of time on her hands. She was never down Central assisting with preparation of meals for the poor. She was never out assisting the elderly. It was always “appearance” that was important to Nancy. Being handcuffed and in a Prison uniform will no doubt devastate such a person.
Nancy, the game is up, perhaps it is impossible for you to stop thinking of yourself, so perhaps these words of wisdom may be more to your liking “Nancy think of yourself, your number one priority is to stop lying to yourself! You could gain so much more with your life if you stop the lies, and now help whoever you have left in life as support. Give them something back, let them pick up the pieces and move on too.”
Why do I have the feeling I might be talking to deaf ears?
A man without a life, three children without parents to bring them up, a woman with no freedom, a father with no more money, and a whole bunch of friends and family with nothing more than memories. This whole thing is a tragedy with a capital "T".
What a waste of life, love and human potential ...
I detect that people are minded to sign off and move on. This presents an opportunity for a confession of sorts. I have been asking myself why I was so reluctant to condemn Nancy Kissel outright along with the rest of the people on this site. Was it bleeding heart feminism? Was it a determination to disagree with the commonly held view? As the case drew on and the evidence piled up, the conclusion she was guilty was inescapable. Even then I experienced feelings of regret. Even now I find the calling of Nancy Kissel a monster somehow unpleasant. Yet, I accept that the act was premeditated, and that one life has been lost and many have been ruined. I wonder to myself why I feel and think what I do. I am paid to be highly rational/a sound thinker. I can't really get to the bottom of why from the beginning I was secretly "rooting" for Nancy. Perhaps it is better to be skeptical at first, and then brought round by the facts, I'm not sure. On the other hand, one should not start out with a preconceived view as I did.
Finally, on at least two occasions I was deeply mortified by the offence that was taken at my comments. It seemed as if I was adding to the devastation people felt. That's all.
I would like to personally thank you "Justice" for your comments and honesty. I must say I suspected that perhaps this was the case with you anyway! Even so everyone is entitled to their opinions, questions and thoughts, you included!
The human mind processes things differently in all individuals, and there are so many variations in our lives that can dramatically alter our individual view on any situation.
You can always make good out of a bad situation. Perhaps we were all shaken into the fact that anyone can be affected at anytime by a tragedy as such. The lesson is we need to be thankful for what we have, and mindful of the tragedies that can occur through extremely bad decisions.
I wouldn't feel mortified for too long regarding others opinions on your posts, if people can't accept other differing opinions, then they shouldn't subject themselves to a blog that is discussing some real issues!
Being protective, cautious and asking others not to be too judgemental of another human being isn't a crime, however murdering your husband is!
-> " Perhaps it is better to be skeptical at first, and then brought round by the facts"
I agree w/ you. That is my position too, on this case or other matters in general. I never commented on Nancy Kissel's trial to anyone whether on this blog or anywhere else until the trial was over with verdict reached. I felt that would be fair to Nancy.
The fact was that Nancy Kissel was given a fair, open trial and that the court heard all the evidence and was the in best position to judge the case. And the fact was that Nancy Kissel was found guilty based upon the facts heard in court.
Based on that fact, I drew my own conclusions about why Nancy, knowing full well what she herself had done, pleaded not guilty and pleaded the defense she did.
On another note, I was reading about some comments made by local lawyers and barristers about Nancy's defense that were reported in The Standard. Basically, Nancy's defense was an "American style" defense and that local juries just weren't going to buy her story of "self-defense."
But I now wonder if such an outrageous claim, made in light of all the overwhelming evidence seen at the trial, would have gotten Nancy off even in the United States. Maybe we shouldn't underestimate the American justice system. Maybe, the trial would have been much longer, more raucous and more painful for the families on both sides. But the eventual outcome would have been the same. Depending on which state Nancy committed the crime, she might even have received the death penalty.
Of course, if the jury was a bunch of "New York neurotics" or "Connecticut cuckoos" like barrister Egan suggested......
btw, lets all remember that this blog is going to be around in cyberspace for a long time. Robert's kids are going to read what we say here and probably already have.
Catch me if you can. No, Sam D is actually my son and in our household we all share the same email. Sorry to disappoint.
Justice, you asked through my experience, whether I thought NK actions were justifiable. Yes, they could have been had she suffered from all the things she purports to have suffered though I don't believe it all occurred. Particularly the forced sodomy - I would have thought that if this had happened I would be the first one at the drs to get a report to verify. I still wouldn't say she wld have been justified but after many years of abuse anything is possible, the answer there is to get out!!
I read somewhere that a couple had dinner at their home and when they left the wife said to her husband 'if you ever spoke to me like that I would smack you' or something to that effect. Therefore it appears the marriage was at breaking point and you do tend to do and say things that are not a part of your normal nature. An adrenalin sets in as a way of protection.
What I find hard to fathom is that Nancy has hardly anyone coming forth to say a nice word about her. Not even a school friend. I find that hard to believe. Was she really so disliked by all but a very few. I find it hard to believe that no one has come forward in her defence as a person before Nov 2003. It makes me think that she was never a nice person. Rob on the other hand, has many admirers. .. just thoughts and musing.
As a HK ex-pat myself, and having lived with a Filipino amah at close quarters, I too find it very hard to fathom that no-one was aware of Nancy's alleged ill-treatment in the household. Even if it was as she makes out, largely sexual, and one probably would be reluctant to discuss this in a domestic situation, there would have been cries of help, or of pain, surely.
One thing that disturbs me is the evidence found on the pc to indicate that porn searches had been made, especially to mainly gay sites. Someone else's sexuality is their own business, and what has been described here as a "flexible sexual orientation" is nothing particularly unusual. However, it has been alleged that N tried to set up her husband by making it look like he had been searching the web for gay sites, (incidentally, how could she know this, as presumably if he HAD been, he would not have been sharing the info with his wife). And it has also been reported that the pc was used when only Mr Kissel was in HK. I cannot believe that an amah or one of her visiting friends would dare to touch their bosses pc, especially to do a pornsearch, they would have been risking their/their friend's job. It cannot be both ways, either it was him, or it was her. This may seem like a detail, but it does change things, since in my mind, a man who is even partially fascinated by the homosexual side of his nature (let's not be coy, here, we know that it exists) may be more likely to request certain "favours" from his wife. If their marriage was at breaking point, and he was sexually frustrated, it is not possible that his manner of requesting such became more forceful? Just speculation, I have no wish to villify a dead man's reputation, just to understand what happened.
Also, I have a problem with some of the evidence regarding the blows to the head. Was Nancy right-handed? If so, then five heavy blows to the right-hand side of her husbands head (with a large wieldy object) cannot have been delivered from underneath while defending herself as she has alleged. It can only have happened if she was kneeling by his head on the floor, either slightly to the right side or above his head (away from his arms and legs) which would correspond to the theory of him being drugged and lying at the foot of the bed.
I have read extensively on the crime, and I would like to say that this was not a cold-blooded one, to my way of thinking. Pre-meditation is clear, and has been proven (her searches of the web for drugs). However, I believe she was angry and that the force of the blows indicate that she scared of not achieving her aim (killing him completely). I think her justification to herself probably was that there had been some measure of ill-treatment (though as many have said, if it was anywhere near as dramatic as she alleges, others would have been aware of it, due to bruises, etc).
Did this woman have a gynaecologist? Presumably, as having had three children, she would have been on some form of contraception, and would there not have been signs of abuse? Would she not have mentioned it to her doctor?
Just speculation, but I cannot help but feel that this will go to appeal, however much one would like for there to be closure at this point, if nothing else for the sake of the children.
Two points. First, on domestic helpers and lack of evidence. While in HK, I brought charges against a Western male who was exposing himself to the helpers and our children in our estate. The police went door to door and posted signs seeking witnesses, and even brought in special local dialect interpreters to take evidence from the helpers. Only a handful stepped forward and getting them to testify against a Western male was like pulling teeth, to put it mildly. So it does not surprise me in the least that few illimuinating facts emerged from their testimony. This sould not, however, be taken against them as culturally You Just Don't Speak Out.
Secondly, again about helpers, this time re internet porn. A few years ago, before Norton got as good as it is now about filtering, while away I gave out helper access to our computer to check email, send us photos etc. Upon my return, surprise, were porn screensavers. Seems she had been searching for cheap IDD and free email and those pesky pop-ups appearedand glued themselves in. When confronted, the poor girl almost jumped out the window. She saw what came up, but was unable to block it. While I am sure that the computer forensics guy was looking for sites actually searched, buzz words, I just want to point out that there may be an innocent explanation as porn does tend to attach itself to innocent sites.
I agree with ex-HK that in the Filipino culture You Don't Speak Out. However, when pressed, both amahs seem to have come down on the side of their former male employer (Rob) rather than Nancy. This cannot be merely explained away by the fact that he was the breadwinner, or that Mrs Kissler might have been an irascible woman to be around during the day. Mr Kissler helped one of the amahs purchase a small property in her homeland, and the other amah was her sister-in-law. When under questioning, neither women were able to corroborate the allegations against Rob (alcoholism, ill-treatment of Nancy). But reading between the lines, it seems apparent that their respect/affection for him was not matched by their feelings for her.
So be it.
I go back to what I posted above, since re-reading it, I realize I have not been very clear. If the porn trawl were conducted when only Rob was in HK, then it must have been him who was looking for sexual sites. The explanation of porn sites attaching themselves to innocent sites is not satisfactory. Searches were made for "Paris girls" and other specific requests. This is not a problem in itself, but it lends weight to her allegations that his sexual profile was not as clear as his friends/co-workers may have thought. Who cares? It's just that you don't murder your husband for being a closet homosexual (which I doubt that he was) or even for having a bisexual penchant - you just get a divorce. However, if he was "turned off by his wife's body" as she has alleged (he urged her to have her breasts re-done) might he not have turned to a different sexual approach in his relations with her (which she seemingly objected to)? This might lend credence to some of her allegations.
Many men feel alienated from their wives during pregnancy or after the birth of their children. The wife's body undergoes changes that may dismay the husband, and this may lead to a breakdown in sexual relations. However, perhaps a psychologist's insight would be helpful here - if a man was drifting towards an increasing homosexual form of sexuality (seeking anal sex with his wife, and looking for gay porn sites) would he at the same time encourage her to re-shape her body in a more feminine way (by insisting she have larger breasts, for example)?
Again, just speculation, but now the verdict has been given, I guess we're free to turn tis case every which way to try to make sense of it.
P.S. One last thing that has been bugging me - how is it that a police cordon was not properly installed straight away. How were friends able to congregate in the Kissel's living room, potentially destroying evidence. How was a close friend of Nancy's allowed to remove a camera from the appt. ? Did no-one think to look to see what pictures were on film/in memory beforehand? Weird - I can't imagine that happening either in the UK nor in the US.
P.P.S. IHT reported Nancy as having "pummeled" Rob's unconscious body. Bludgeoning someone with a heavy object is not quite the same as "pummeling" them, is it?
The porn site was installed while Rob was away and that was proven at the court.
'he urged her to have her breasts re-done': That is straight from Nancy's mouth. Rob loved her! There was not a single doubt about that for people who knew them. She flipped for Michael, the trailer, and the new breasts were going to be for him!
----------------------------------
At some point, people will have to stop talking about the things that were all discussed over and over, proved over and over. I guess it's okay to bring up something new, but what's the point of revisiting the whole thing we all went through over and over, again and again?
Just to put the cat among the pigeons.... it is interesting to note that there have been no additions to this page from Nancy's "Friends and supporters" for quite some time. In fact I have to wonder to myself if they have stopped since a certain person went to prison, no longer having access to a computer herself??!!?
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 8, 2005 01:17 PM
I have been reading the comments on this blog for quite sometime now and have been troubled by much of the stuff said on it. So here goes ...
Friend and supporter or Nancy said at some point early in the proceedings that Nancy was not being judged by her peers. What did she mean by that? Was it the race issue or the fact that the jury may not have been as well educated as Nancy Kissel. I have no idea who the jury were but I agree on one point. Nancy was not being judged by her peers because those would be murderers. She was being judged by her superiors and I have to say they did a wonderful job.
I was a psychology major in college, and let me tell you that battered women syndrome has pretty much been discredited. It appears it is nothing more than a defence strategy for getting people off charges. If a woman is abused, there is nothing stopping her from leaving especially in this case where we are dealing with well-to-do, educated people. Some comments seem to suggest that HK is some third-world country where there are not avenues to deal with these issues. It is not! And worse case scenario, Nancy could have gone to her own consulate ... especially, as she claims, if Rob had taken her passport. They could have probably issued her another one.
Ira Keershin said in the SCMP that the battering only had to happen once. I feel sorry for the man. It must be very hard to have a murderess for a daughter but I have to say, he is wrong. If a woman is battered, she should go straight to the police, file an assault charge and get her injuries documented for evidence in the divorce trial that should immediately follow.
Also in answer to "will it ever end." People don't change sexual orientations. If Rob was turned off my Nancy's post pregnancy body, he was more likely to get himself a young girlfriend on the side,(a very easy thing to do in HK especially for rich men with Porsches) than to start demanding anal sex as part of a supposed new or suppressed interest in homosexuality.
The press keeps commenting that the interest in this trial is because of the lifestyle it is exposing. To some degree this is true, but I think more importantly, interest has been phenomenal because of the evil it exposed. What Nancy did was evil ... pure and simple. She killed a man. A man who loved her(at least in the beginning), who had children with her, who supported her and who shared almost 20 years of life with her. And though motivations are hard to pin point, she seems to have done it for the money. Again, pure and simple. She could have divorced him and gotten a reasonable settlement and had custody or at worst access to her children. She could have lived with her lover and had a happy life. But she didn't. She killed him instead so she could have all the money, and no inconvenience with the children issue.
What is chilling also, is the fact that she hit him so hard and furiously that his brain came out of his skull. True, she probably did want to make sure he was dead but this was one of the aspects of the crime that made my blood run cold. Because it also seems to indicate that she really hated him.
The terms narcissist and sociopath/psychopath have surfaced on this blog. The main difference between the 2 seems to be that the sociopath will hurt others to get what they want. For all those people wondering how Nancy could do this, I suggest you google narcissist and have a good read. Rob called Nancy a dark narcissist. Sadly, he seems to have got that right. And sadder still, she then crossed over into sociopath. Narcissists are frightening people ... in some ways they are the wickedest people in the world because they can justify whatever they are doing to themselves. They want their way at all costs and they have no empathy for others or consideration for their interests. Killing a husband, bankrupting your parents ... all par for the course because they are getting Nancy what Nancy wants. And in her world that is all that matters.
This has been a terrible case because it is so inhumane. My heart goes out to the children and the parents of both Rob and Nancy. I hope they will one day find peace.
Thank you for your additions. We needs some real answers here!!
Personally, I feel that most of us may have felt that this was the case, but could not so to speak, "verbalise it" we felt it, but didn't understand it.
What you say about the current discreditation re battered women is very interesting. I hate the thought of this being able to be used at the whim of any woman should circumstances not going well.
I personally feel the same way, and in reading all that there is on this case, I feel no guilt in suggesting that this was just a poor excuse to try and get yourself out of a difficult situation. By the way I am a fellow female!
This woman walked the streets for almost two years, I think that she has been able to fool the authorities into feeling that she is not a concern to Society.
As part of Society, I don't want that appeal to work in her favour, I don't want her walking the streets with the people that I love!
I don't want the people around her that have been forced into her support network to have to continue down this track when they know in their hearts that it's a bunch of lies..but as her parents, they have no options...
I am starting to feel more sorrow for Nancy's parents than for Robs, at least it has reached a unanimous verdict in their minds, for Nancy's parents.. the pain has only just begun. She is a selfish piece of work...
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 8, 2005 07:43 PM
Thank you 'horrified' for your enlightening comments.
An interesting point .. her stepbrother, a medical student who also works for a 'battered women's shelter' (or so I believe by this blog). I feel for him and wonder what he thinks by all of this. He was the person who encouraged her father to go to her when she called him after the murder citing that she had been abused by Rob.
Once again, still amazed at the little to none friends, past and present, coming forth with favorable comments regarding Nancy .. very sad.
I meant to add something to comments made by “Horrified” regarding the press and their hype regarding expat lifestyle in Hong Kong.
Anyone who says that it is bad, and makes inferences that the loneliness can lead people to do strange things, is crazy themselves.
The expat lifestyle for a wife, particularly in Hong Kong is fantastic.
I must admit my husband wasn't away from me when I was there, but the fact of the matter is, we all had amah's (live-in maids who do EVERYTHING, wash your cars, drop your kids to school, cook, clean etc) leaving you a lot of free time.
In some ways it can be wonderful for a your relationship as you have much more time for each other. Lets face it, besides the loneliness when a partner goes away on business, it's the handling of the house chores, and looking after the kids by yourself that is a strain. This is not the case for expat wives, they have that undivided assistance on tap.
So it only leaves the problem of loneliness for company. This too in Hong Kong is not true, as live in maids allow you to be able to go out and visit with girlfriends, go out to dinner to the many fantastic restaurants and events there. O.k nothing makes up for missing cuddles from your partner, but hey, there are worse things to have to put up with from time to time. He’s out there building the families future, sacrifices are necessary at some stages in life to “bring the bacon home”. Most wives I spoke to thought it was great, they got a break and were able to rekindle and have romantic dinners on his return!
I think any accusations that the expat lifestyle has helped lead Nancy down this path is so untrue.
You do not have the regular strains for worries about money, or trying to do a million things in one day that you do have in normal life.
I would say without question the average working mother in normal every day suburbia has more strains and pressures than an expat wife by far.
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 9, 2005 08:41 AM
After I posted the link to proposed appeal, not many discussed the future possibilities. Just the same merry-go-around, as catchme pointed out, about what happened in the past.
Forget past, we all know and have our own assumptions from what the jury seems to have surmised/concluded.
What about what is yet to come?
More evidence that wasn't, for some strange reasons, brought forward to the court? Judge's directions to the jury? Jury being unanimous therefore they are biased? Or whatever one can *imagine*?
In my opinion, in case of an appeal, Michael del Priore should be a part of the appeal case. I believe that US and HK have an agreement of extradictions or whatever they call it, sorry I am not a lawyer. Or at least, they could invite him as a state witness, etc. His brother, reportedly, did know about all this and so I think it shouldn't be tough inviting Michael to Hong Kong.
Let's see how it goes then. Really. However at this stage, apart from that Reuters piece, no other newspaper is discussing the possible appeal. Strange.
It's unbearably sad to know that my best friend of 18 years, Nan, who had so much to give, in so many ways, did such an awful thing. I did love her with all my heart.
Who really knows what made this happen. I thought I knew her well, she was closer to me then some of my own family.
There is always help available, there is always someone to listen, to lend an ear. I tried, she was closed. It's something else to take matters into your own hands, and take away a good man, a good father and a good husband. No marriage is perfect, behind closed doors..thank god we all don't take care of things the way Nancy did.
Nancy was my closest friend, a sweet, beautiful, sparkling, fun to be with caring person that I shared many laughs with and had much joy with. I miss my friend terribly, every second of the day, the Nan that I knew years ago is in my thoughts. I really have no idea how to move on and put this in a place that doesn't hurt so much.
A couple of people feel that Robs death was justified. MURDER IS NEVER JUSTIFIED. There was never a thought of the next day, what will it bring, what will this do to my children, my parents, my friends..
When I gave the deposition for the prosecution, it wasn't about attacking nancy (as some might think) it was about telling the truth and presenting facts. Most of what I gave was not spoken, they were facts.
This tragedy had also taken another life that could have been spared. Stevek Kenney didnt have to die 2 years ago...he had so much on his mind due to the loss of his dear friend Rob that he wasn't really paying attention when he was hit by a car that night. That was another death that didn't have to happen. This was a crime of such enormity I can't really to this day grasp it. All I do know is, that there were other options and other solutions...Murder was not one of them!
In the months before the incident, Rob was desparate, he believed his wife was being unfaithful, found out it was true, forgave her, only wanting to have his wife back the way it was, have his family together.
His heartstrings were pulled up and down one day to the next, all according to Nancys whims. He approached me in April and asked if I would allow him to call me. I was apprehensive at first (being Nancys friend) but he was part of Nancy and my friendship, he was her husband. He was so down so sad, I couldn't say no. I believe he felt closer to Nan talking to me and I felt closer to her speaking to him...
From April on through the summer, Nancy was not available...we spent our few days together in NYC as we always did in the summer, which she had to cut short to take care of a kid's camp issue back in Vermont. I know now ,that wasn't the case, she was running back to be with Mike. She was very preoccupied,troubled, very stressed out, our conversaions minimal, superficial.
People have said that Rob was an absentee father, that he was always traveling. His work did take him away occasionally, but the truth is that Nancy didn't want him home alot, she was used to having her way, the easy way, her own routine with the kids and he would interrupt it. I don't call a father coming home at the end of the day wanting to spend time with his children reason enough to get rid of him.
I believe Mike led Nan into believing that he really needed her, that he was in the middle of a divorce, he might loose his child. I think Nan could control him. She also bought his story. How high she must have been on this new relationship. So high, to be able to forget everything near and dear.
I spoke to Rob 2-3 times a day from early in the morning to late at night from April until October 28th. Never was his speech impaired, never drunk never wired on cocaine. Just sad, concerned, concerned for his wife who he believed was ill. She wouldn't accept any help even when offered. I keep hearing his voice saying "if anything ever happens to me, make sure my children are taken care of."
That is why I gave my deposition...
The abuse that she so easily spoke of, never happened. This was a well thought out plan, one that would kill Rob a second time, in the eyes of family and friends. Thank you to the jurors who saw through all the bullshit. Thats why the defense gets the big bucks..They create incredible scenerios. A much as I loved Nan, this was not right!
My heart goes out to The McGlothlin family, Jean and Michael I can't imagine how you are dealing with this, to the Keeshin family , Ryan and Laura their lives as my own will never be the same again. As hard as this is for me to think about and relive day to day I can't imagine standing in any of the family's shoes.
To the Kissel family ,Robs dad who has fought so hard that justice be served and so it has..to Robs brother and sister in law and to Janie and Rich ,my heart breaks that such a precious life has been taken away from you all.
I says thanks everyday to Connie, that she has stayed by the childrens side to hold their hands and to soothe them when a warm heart is needed. She is a godsend, I only hope that she can stay on as long as possible to help with the healing process.
My dear friend Nan as I knew her is long gone. I just don't know how she can live with what shes done.
Posted by Bryna O'Shea at September 9, 2005 12:41 PM
Thanks Bryna.
Newspapers tend to report "a glimpse into expat life". Is that a sick joke?
We have been here since British administration, and really, nothing has changed (much) since China tookover Hong Kong.
Like someone said above, expat life in Hong Kong is not all shit and sadness. In fact it is a privilige to live here and enjoy.
I reiterate what I said (long) above: Nancy has a known and admitted adultery (that her spouse didn't allow or felt sad about) with a philanderer guy.
Being a mother, did she even for a single moment realize how she was insulting her kids' feelings and heritage, and the womb that gave birth to them by bonking with a known philanderer (as Michael's own brother admits)?
Especially when she was bonking while her kids slept in nearby rooms? I believe she admitted she had sex with Michael for (at least) three times.
And then the claims of Robert Kissel being abusive, drug addict, porn-surfer, etc.? Get out of here, yes?
And yes, what about the baseball bat? I am still awaiting more news on that. I hope Hong Kong justice doesn't get intimidated just because she is/was an American with some ultra-smart law support.
I have a feeling, reading Bryna's post above, that if Bryna could so sincerely love Nancy for so many years, Nancy must have had some real good personal qualities of her own.
I'm also amazed at the outpouring of warm, positive testimonies to Robert's character by everybody who knew him or knew both him and Nancy. The only bad things said about him are by his murderer who was trying to get herself off or by people who don't know either him or Nancy and were just speculating for the sake of speculation.
I wouldn't call Nancy "a monster" despite her terrible crime. She fell for the insincere flattery of a philanderer, whose own brother rejects him, and she abandoned a guy, who with his wealth and power, could just take any woman he wanted but chose to stay faithful to her. The defence lawyers just couldn't dig up any dirt on Robert's life or even any adulterous lover of his and that is remarkable for a guy in his position. All that Nancy's lawyers had to work with were Nancy's own lies. Of course they had to make up an "incredible scenario", they simply had no case to defend Nancy with!
But if Robert could be so devoted to his wife and try so hard to save their marriage even after he found out about her unfaithfulness to him, that fact, other than saying a lot about him as a person, indirectly seems to say that he also thought there was something good and worthwhile in her.
The Court may have surmised the facts of the case based on the evidence, but only Nancy know what she truly did. If she could show remorse for her crime, freely admit what she did, and that she lied about, give up her appeal, and quietly serve her sentence, that would all go a long way towards rehabilitation of her as a human being, even though she must accept the consequences of what she did. I really hope that Nancy can see that it is still not too late for her in that respect.
But as someone said above, Nancy will just get herself transferred to a US jail, serve 10 (or even less) years and be out.
I think that Bryna really put it quite beautifully. And, for the years I was friends with Nan, she spoke very lovingly of Bryna. Indeed, Bryna was really the one friend that nan spoke about from the US (at least to me) during her time in Hong Kong. There were good things in Nancy. For me, the thing that stood out was how much she loved her children. She was incredibly proud of them and thoguhtful towards them. She also treated my children with love and kindness. She was the kind of mom who thought ahead and when going on a long car trip, for example, packed a personalized box with our children's names on each, filled with markers and stickers and activites for the long ride. She was also incredibly generous. When she came back to nyc in the summer or to our house in Fire Island, she always brought tons of stuff -- for us, for the kids, etc... For us, that is a large part of why this is so shocking. The first thought I had when I heard the news was how could she do something that would result in her children being taken away? It is hard to remember any of the good things because she did something so horrible. Like many others, we are filled with anger. Rob was a beautiful, kind, gentle man. He too loved those kids. I thought he was a very good father to them -- patient, warm, and loving. She took him away so that no one, not his family or his friends or, most important, his children, could have him. And, the effects on those kids. I can't even imagine. So, yes, there was good. But it is so very greatly outweighed by the horrible horrible thing that she did. And then did again at the trial.
Sorry FC, I hadn't realized that this was a private forum where only people who personally knew either Nancy, or Rob (or both) were allowed to comment. I thought the whole point was that this is a place where collectively, we can all examine the facts, report on hearsay, and generally try to reach some kind of understanding about what happened. I feel close to this case for a number of reasons, not all of which I am able to discuss, but let's say that as a married woman and an ex-HK expat, I can identify with a certain number of the issues at stake here. I too have 3 young children, and I like to think I consider their future above my own. I would hate to think that after 10 years Nancy could be free again and walking the streets, because my gut feeling, and I imagine the jurors all felt the same, is that she is guilty as hell. Even if she convinced herself in some sick way that Rob had it coming to him, cause he didn't treat her like the princess she obviously thinks she is, NOTHING JUSTIFIES MURDER.
Get on a plane, get a good lawyer, go stay with a girlfriend, go to a hotel, she could have done one of a number of things. And yet she chose to trawl the net, research a way of killing Rob silently, and then lost the plot and bludgeoned him to death. I think she was angry as only a crazy woman can be.
Bryna's touching testimony above, proves that she had love and esteem from people around her, that perhaps she didn't deserve. But the things she has dragged in front of the court and the press, if indeed she has made them all up, are truly scandalous. Why rake up all that muck just to fling it all over her children, friends and family. It didn't get her off during the main trial, and I hope to God she doesn't get off on appeal, especially due to some daft technicality like not having her rights read to her.
Bryna-
Do you ever wonder what you would think if Rob hadn't been confiding in you?
I think it is fascinating that Rob had actually told people of his worries, problems, and plans and Nancy told no one. She didn't tell them about the supposed abuse, didn't tell them about her affair, her slipping stillnox in his whiskey, her doctors visits. His friends knew they were breaking up, most of her friends believed they were very happy.
Yet many of her friends believe her still because they 'trust her'.
What if Rob had confided in another friend? Do you ever imagine that it would be one of them in your position now and that friend would be the one writing a deposition used by the prosecution?
"Sorry FC, I hadn't realized that this was a private forum where only people who personally knew either Nancy, or Rob (or both) were allowed to comment."
I wish that I was never in the middle of these two people....That I listened to my husband when he said enough was enough, hearing Robs voice days before this happened and hearing Nans voice days after is a nightmare that I have to deal with....I learned a huge lesson from this. I wish it had been someone else that was a confidente... These last two years have not been pleasant in any way... I just hope that time heals all wounds
Posted by Bryna OShea at September 10, 2005 10:45 AM
Bryna,
What you did was unbearably hard, incredibly brave, showed more integrity than anyone I have ever met in my life, and I know it broke your heart and left a hole that will take a long time to heal. At this point I think that there are a lot of us out there that are walking around with gaping holes in our hearts with no real way to fix it.
It’s really important that you understand that your contribution in this case helped to console a lot of broken hearts. You reached out through the either, out of no-where and gave all of Rob’s family, friends, and children a breath of fresh air. I don’t think people realize what an important roll you played in the healing process of Rob’s murder!
You and I have spoken personally and I know that I could e-mail you or even call you, but I wanted to post this to let everyone know what an amazingly special person you are. You gave Rob his voice from beyond and for that I, as I am sure I speak for all of us who loved Rob, am truly thankful. Hell, “thankful” just doesn’t cut it, but I don’t think there is a word to describe my/our gratitude to you.
God bless you Bryna and may you always see Rob smiling at you when you close your eyes.
Carol Horton
Posted by Carol Horton at September 10, 2005 10:50 AM
There were those who didn't step forward, only because they didn't want to be inconvenienced, knowing the information they were holding was hugely crucial to the case... Cowards.
Bryna, the world needs more brave souls like you who are not afraid to speak the truth regardless of the consequences. Thank you!
I really thank the few people that have spoken a bit on my behalf..I am very surprised.. I know there is alot of negative as well that hasnt come forward... All I know is that it was a tough tough time for alot of people close to this case. I am trying to move on in whatever way I can find... This has been very cathartic, voicing an honest opinion, I hope only positive things can come as a result. This was the most sad of circumstances for all involved. I wish there was a way to put this to rest .
Posted by Bryna Oshea at September 10, 2005 03:35 PM
Bryna:
What I meant by 'regardless of the consequences' is that all the inconveniences you had to go through as a result... Being attacked negatively by your (ex)friend, having to go public to give deposition etc.
Those who hide from the justice shall remain in the dark hole of guilt that they dug for themselves, but those who stand up for the truth, such as you, shall be able to walk tall in the bright light.
Since many of you appear to be concerned about the “fate” of the Kissel children and have expressed views of their current situation, here is an attempt to clarify things.
Yes the three children have been through a tremendous amount of trauma but they are doing well, all things considered. They have made many new friends in the community, participate in soccer, tennis, softball, take cello and violin lessons, have sleepovers with their friends, go skiing on the weekends (where they get “kidnapped by their {new} grandparents) and taken for waffles and ice cream sundaes. They are in a wonderful academic environment, attend Hebrew school, observe the Jewish holidays, and have forged a beautiful relationship with their cousins. They have been embraced by friends of the family and extended family. They get assistance at night with their homework and get constructive help dealing with the overwhelming sadness and anger that they must now carry around for the rest of their lives. They wake up to a full breakfast (cooked not by a maid), lunches for five are packed in the morning, and we sit down to a family dinner almost every night.
It is far from a perfect situation, but the children feel secure and loved. The logistics of organizing the lives of five kids is difficult on a good day (Friday’s schedule included two school parties, two birthday parties, two play dates and a sleepover). So yes, there may be some continued criticism for employing the help of maids and babysitters and I am certain that, at times, somebody is jealous and feels they are getting treated unfairly. In an effort to portray a balanced view, I get impatient, stressed, frenzied and am prone the occasional rant. It is heads and tails the most difficult challenge that has ever come my way and my children’s way, but also the most gratifying and important. I respect my children for opening their home, hearts, sharing their parents, their dog, their childhood, giving up their bedrooms to try and help right a humongous wrong. May these lessons of compassion stay with them for eternity.
We recognize that there are many challenges ahead for Rob and Nancy’s children and it will be a Herculean task to overcome the trauma they have suffered and secure their mental health and well being. They are very angry, shocked and feel as if the rug can be pulled out from them instantly. We can only encourage them to draw strength from their awful experiences, grow into the young adults that would have made their parents proud and, most importantly, feel good about themselves.
And to the person posting the comments about Elaine at the Yankees game and at camp, I offer the following: Being at summer camp while the family is in Vermont for the summer? Elaine has been attending summer camp for three years and looks forward to it every year. Rather than being perceived as being cast off, it truly is a wonderful experience. She is missed greatly by her siblings and her cousins (and me). The other four that were stuck home (two of whom are begging to go to sleep away camp next summer), well, we swam in fresh mountain springs, jumped off rocks into beautiful lakes, learned how to knit (sort of), made macramé necklaces and went blazing down the Alpine Slide. There also were days when they hung out at home complaining of boredom and I wasn’t very sensitive. (Admittedly, I did leave them and play some golf and tennis and have some adult sanity time.) Also, there was no $100,000 taken from the kids as was alluded to. And lastly, I am surprised by the debate over the “ill-fated” Yankee game (pun intended). Please, any parent who has taken their child to a game must realize that the dining experience transcends the actual viewing of the game. Elaine fondly recounts the story of stuffing herself with hot dogs while at the Yankee game with her father and getting sick; we laugh about it almost every time we watch a game. In fact, she attended a Yankee game the other night with her sister and cousin and she was reminded no to eat too many hot dogs. Actually, in all of my conversations, there appear to be only the warmest and most loving thoughts about their father. In June’s words, “I had the best daddy in the world.”
Be well all. It gets a bit frustrating occasionally reading the various blogs. I recognize that, by participating, I am opening myself up to a world of criticism and opinions. I hope I have satisfied the curiosity of many of you as it relates to the children. And to the person who warned that someday the children will see what has been written, I applaud you for your sensitivity because that time is sooner rather than later. It is now time to reflect on our own lives to understand how we can become better citizens, parents, and friends, so as to prevent such tragedies from happening. To those reading this who knew Steve Kenney, you will know exactly what I am talking about.
Just picked up on this case on my arrival to HK...I am not and never have been an expat, but given the time I spend in HK, I might as well be one...I have been always intrigued by a sense that expats see themselves as better and therefore above the law of just not HK but wherever they may be for that matter. In one way I envy their lavish lifestyle...as one client once said to me...I can sometimes be a prince...and ask the maid to get me a glass of water while she is washing the floor...just because I can. It seems to me that this superiority attitude often prevails in all manners of daily life..both for males and females, and I am just wondering if that attitude sometimes can lead the person to think that there is nothing they can do that they cannot get away with. I for one am very interested in a book...I will be the first one in line to buy it.
This is my first posting to a blog...adn I am not sure of the procedures...so please just bear with me if I do not do it right.
Just a suggestion : H's post above about how the kids are starting a new life is the best ending to this current thread, which has been fairly constructive; but I think has run it's course for the topic. I am definitely turning over the page.
We are a Cantonese-English writing team researching the Kissel Marriage for an article on a larger Hong Kong theme: women in Hong Kong of all types.
Variety of lifestyle of women in comtemporary Hong Kong: servants, teachers, bar hostesses, corporate wives, school administrators, beauticians, and retail store owners.
We would like to talk to those who knew this couple in any capacity whatsoever, and we can conduct interviews in either Cantonese or English.
We are unemotional and unbiased, and believe the jury had no other choice than to convict on the case presented.
Thanks for any help. Our email is: toplineconsulting@yahoo.ca.
Bryna-
Thank you.
I wish I could offer you some answers, but I do believe that in the end, you will find peace that you were honest. The most we can ask of ourselves, I think, is to do our part and be truthful about it. It may be of little consolation now, but perhaps in the future you will know that you did what you were supposed to do, and you will be able to live with yourself and the choice you've made. Sometimes, that is the best reward.
H-
Thank you. You, too, are someone who has made wonderful, selfless, and difficult choices. If we all took such good care in a horrible situation, the world would have very few problems.
I think the fact that you were both so honest in your opinions and feelings, this blog has almost come to a standstill for the first time in months! You have stopped us in our tracks!!
We were all grappling for answers for so long. Why? being the number one question, but then the concerns we had as to the safety and wellbeing of the Kissel children.
Bryna your accounts of who Nancy and Rob were helped us to understand the past,
and H, your accounts have helped us most importantly…. to understand the future..…and that is that it appears that the Kissel kids have a wonderful future in a loving and caring environment!
May Rob finally rest in piece in the knowledge that two, strong and courageous ladies have stepped forward and made a huge difference to the possible outcome for all concerned.
Its times like these that actually make up for the pain and disbelief that people felt, and hopefully bring, love, understanding and hope for the future....
Posted by Ex-HK expat at September 12, 2005 08:57 PM
Bryna, you are trying to absolve your guilt because you sold Nan down the river! Stevek didn't die because Rob died, he was hit by a wacko driver in NYC. The place is full of them. I had another friend killed by a driver in the city, it happens all too often. You may need strangers to tell you that you did a good thing, but you know in your heart of hearts exactly what you did.
Min, who condones murder!!! -your'e not clever and its obvious to some of us exactly who you are. You know the facts and so does the rest of the world and yet you still insist on harrassing. My thoughts are that this is about something else. OBVIOUSLY! go find some help and GIVE IT A REST!!!
This should be good. The People's Daily reports a new white paper from the Information Office of China's State Council, titled Building of Political Democracy in China. With a straight face, we're told about the virtues of "socialist political democracy":
In building socialist political democracy, China has always adhered to the basic principle that the Marxist theory of democracy be combined with the reality of China...In the process, China has also borrowed from the useful achievements of the political civilization of mankind, including Western democracy, and assimilated the democratic elements of from China's traditional culture and institutional civilization.
Therefore, China's socialist political democracy shows distinctive Chinese characteristics.
It certainly is distinctive. Let's have a look at some of the characteristics of this distinctive democracy:
-- China's democracy is a people's democracy under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC).
-- China's democracy is a democracy in which the overwhelming majority of the people act as masters of State affairs.
-- China's democracy is a democracy guaranteed by the people's democratic dictatorship.
-- China's democracy is a democracy with democratic centralism as the basic organizational principle and mode of operation.
The white paper says the CPC's leading status was established gradually in the protracted struggle and practice of the Chinese people in pursuing national independence, prosperity and a happy life.
It was a choice made by history and by the people.
If you're still with me, there's also the white paper's plan for the future improvement of this wonderful system:
improve the socialist democratic system, strengthen and improve the socialist legal system, reform and improve the methods of leadership and rule of the CPC, reform and improve the government's decision-making mechanism.
The white paper also stresses the importance of the reform of the system of administrative management, the reform of the judicial system, the reform of the cadre and personnel system, and the restraint and supervision over the power.
Does it make sense? Is it self-contradictory? Is it worth the price of the paper it's written on?
-------
Despite the tremendous achievements scored in building a socialist political democracy, the CPC and the Chinese people are clearly aware of the many problems yet to be overcome. The major ones include: The democratic system is not yet perfect; the people's right to manage state and social affairs, economic and cultural undertakings as masters of the country in a socialist market economy are not yet fully realized; laws that have already been enacted are sometimes not fully observed or enforced, and violations of the law sometimes go unpunished; bureaucracy and corruption still exist and spread in some departments and localities; the mechanism of restraint and supervision over the use of power needs further improvement; the concept of democracy and legal awareness of the whole society needs to be further enhanced; and the political participation of citizens in an orderly way should be expanded. There is still a long way to go in China's building of political democracy, which will be a historical process of continuous improvement and development.
------
The most interesting thing about the report is that it doesn't mention Mao at all, and only mentions Marx very briefly in historical terms. The Communist Party of China is no longer even nominally Communist. The interesting thing is to compare this document with one written ten years ago or twenty years ago (i.e. the premable to the PRC constitution).
Also, the report envisions a one-party democracy. Most people would argue that this is impossible. The time that bothers me about this argument is that most people in 1990 predicted that the CCP would have collapsed shortly, and it didn't.
One other interesting point is it actually addresses that point. The argument that the CCP can't do what this report is trying to do is based on the saying look at country X. The whole first section of the report is saying "China is different and so you can't take country X's experience and apply it to China."
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 19, 2005 10:11 PM
Exactly, which is the news in this concentrated of communist propaganda and sovietic language?
Communist dictatorships always used to include the term "democracy" in their official denominations or documents. DPRK (Noth Korea) is "Democratic", DDR (East Germany) was "Democratic" and so on. Of course they had (and have)nothing to do with democracy.
In this document there's the whole ideological arsenal: One-Party State, proletarian dictatorship, democratic centralism, and so on.
So, which is the news?
P.S. Simon, I know the tone of your post was sarcastic but, as usual, "serious" and "rationale" debate is starting...
Enzo: There are more than two types of governments in the world. Not everything can be neatly classified into "communist dictatorship" and "Western democracy."
Right now, if I'd have to categorize the PRC, I'd say that it is trying to make transition from Soviet-style communist totalitarian dictatorship to Singapore-style capitalist authoritarian dictatorship.
Curiously, my political outlook is very similar to Reagan-era cold warriors as far as political classification. Reagan supporters (like Jean Kirkpatrick) tried to make a distinction between capitalist authoritarian regimes and communist totalitarian ones, arguing that the latter were worse and that the United States should support the former despite the fact that they often had bad human rights records.
I agree with this point of view, I just classify China as a capitalist authoritarian dictatorship. China-2005 looks a lot more like South Korea-1975 than Soviet Union-1975.
Part of the Kirkpatrick Doctrine was that capitalist authoritarian regimes would gradually become democratic. Maybe. Maybe not. There's no sign that Singapore is becoming democratic.
Actually, I'm not a fan of historical determinism. What happens next depends on the decisions people make. However, one must consider the *possibility* that the Communist Party of China could indeed create a stable one-party capitalist dictatorship.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 19, 2005 11:44 PM
Joseph,I don't understand how your comment applies to mine.
The point I've made before is that the document you were trying to interpret was the same old, breathless, ideological, dead rethoric as ever. It was a perfect example of old days communism language (and contents).
Lately (in expat-chinese blogosphere above all), we witness a peculiar and widespread trend: every burp coming from CCP circle is dissected as if it meant a revolutionary change in China history and politics. In reality, nothing happens or things go worse.
The fact that even a Politburo-style document like that were for someone the chance to infer something "new" for the political future of China confirmed my sensation.
I usually find this trend useless, sometimes ridiculous, in this case grotesque.
I love the (oxy)moronic phrase "democratic dictatorship." You are free to do what we tell you. When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you. And so forth.
Richard W from The Three Ts made an interesting comment over at TPD saying that his former students in Dalian genuinely believed that they were living in a democracy in China. Saying that there were village and town elections and many CCP inner-party posts and policies are subject to democratic votes within the party etc.
Pretty frightening to most Westerners I think that Chinese citizens could think this, but some of them do.
From a Westerner's perspective, this is all obviously blatant propaganda. The CCP can explain why black is white and vica versa. They can put a positive spin on anything, and usually do.
Dalian student: they may be hopeful, but they may well be right.
I don't think we are hailing a baby-step as a fundamental change or we are satisfied at the current speed of change, far from it.
However, any baby step is better than frozen feet. Some encouragement of these baby steps, especially some help to solve the problem arises during these baby-steps, may well help to speed up the change.
It ideological rhetoric, but it is not the same old ideological rhetoric. There is quite a lot new in it. Part of what you have to keep in mind is that any politica party (not just the CCP) has to make believe to some extent that it hasn't deviated from its old principles, and so the really eyepopping parts of the document are carefully hidden.
For example, "Chinese Communist Party Formally Drops Maoism, Willing To Learn From Western Democracy" would be a reasonable headline for this document.....
1) I don't know about anyone else but I think it's pretty significant when you have Communist Party of China issue a very long document with a historical review and not mention Mao Zedong or Maoism even once, while at the same time saying nice things about Sun Yat-Sen.
2) As far as the "willing to learn from Western democracy" part, there is this pretty extraordinary paragraph.....
---------------
In building socialist political democracy, China has always adhered to the basic principle that the Marxist theory of democracy be combined with the reality of China, borrowed from the useful achievements of the political civilization of mankind, including Western democracy, and assimilated the democratic elements of China's traditional culture and institutional civilization. Therefore, China's socialist political democracy shows distinctive Chinese characteristics
----------------.
The thing about watching political reform is that it is like watching ice melt or paint dry. Each little step is rather unnoticable, but over time, stuff happens.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 20, 2005 09:05 AM
The most telling point is what I think is the crux of the issue: somewhere in the back of the CCP's leadership's mind is the Singaporean model of semi-authoritarian capitalist dictatorship, albeit of the "benevolent" kind. Can the CCP morph into the PAP? Maybe, but they need to shrug off history, which as Joseph demonstrates and we all know they continue to do even without formally admitting it. They also need to figure out how Singapore's model can apply to a country as vast and diverse as China. I'm not sure it can. But you have to give the CCP credit for recognising the flaws of the old model and their political savvy in trying to construct a new one.
I agree with those politcal scientists who analyse China's political system as being a form of federalism: market-preserving federalism with Chinese characteristics (by which they mean paternal authoritarianism in the Confucian tradition). I have discussed this is some detail in my article titled "The myth of CCP totalitarianism" in the China Articles section of my blog, for those of you who might be interested.
China's unique form of federalism, incidentally, is seen by many political scientists as being the secret behind China's economic success, and its ability to lift over 400 million people out of poverty. It's a model that is clearly working - no other country on earth is climbing the UN Human Development Index rankings list at a faster rate than China. No other country even comes close! Some commentators in the China blogsphere have argued that China's economic success has come in spite of the CCP - but as I said, most political scientists (especially those in the US) say the opposite. They say that it is because of the switch from a centralised planned economy to a decentralised market-preserving federalism, with its Chinese characteristics, which has been the key to its successes to date.
Now, why should we assume that a Western-style two-party system (which is also fundamentally undemocratic) be a magical panacea for any of China's ills? ZBoth independent US studies and Chinese studies consistently show that the majority of mainlanders do not want multi-party elections - that's something else you need to consider. They are generally satisfied at present with the current system, with the status quo. This isn't CCP propaganda - this is what the majority of those surveyed have said, and in numerous studies. Every study, some of them have been vast and on a national scale, have shown the same results - whether carried out by US researchers or Chinese researchers.
There are many problems for China to overcome (the same can be said for most countries) but I don't see why the Chinese can't continue to enjoy their increasing amounts of personal freedom and civil liberties without having to adopt a two-party system like what we have in the West. As Gore Vidal has quite rightly said, in my opinion, the two-party system is really a one party system anyway - the same organisations fund both, the two parties are simply two heads, each belonging to the one monstor, each feeding from the same trough.
Alot of it is dead rhetoric, but I think lying underneath are some actual, erm, ideas. I wish someone would put together a dictionary of CCP terminology. For instance, in Chinese the word "propaganda" doesn't appear to mean the same thing it does in English. That isn't simply because the CCP has brainwashed people to think propaganda is good - as a concept it really doesn't seem to be the same thing as what we mean in English. Alot of this gibberish is, in a sense, code. Someone should write a lexicon.
MAJ: the problem is the CCP is also the same party that got China into the centralised planning mess that they then magically released when they were forced to de-collectivise farms. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
I think the problem of making a PAP is bigger than the problem of ruling a vast country. IMO PAP is difficult to reproduce, almost as difficult as it is to find another Lee Kaun Yew in this world and that this person can rise to power. (well, they are almost synonymmous) It is pure luck that LKY/PAP fall on Singapore (and misfortune that they didn't fall on Malaysia, or China, or India).
I believe LKY/PAP would do just as great had it been given Malaysis, and perhaps even China.
Simon, I'm sorry, but I don't quite follow your logic here. So what if the CCP introduced central planning when it first came to power? The fact is, like all political parties, the CCP is constantly reforming itself. Surely you cannot deny that it has reformed its own system of governance by introducing not only a market economy, but also a decentralised form of market-preserving federalism in order to facilitate economic growth and rising prosperity. You have to give some credit where it is due. Or are you fixed into thinking that the CCP is a stagnant anarchronism?
I agree with you that the CCP have been able to reform themselves, indeed they're Communist only in name these days. But my point may be best explained by analogy: if I set fire to a house, then run in and rescue the occupants, am I the hero or the villian?
I see your point, but most historians argue that the Mao years enabled China to unify itself and to bring about the stability necessary for his successors to have been able to introduce market reforms, political decentralisation, etc. In other words, the revolution has, on the whole, left a positive legacy. The Nationalists may have been able to achieve the same thing, though many historians doubt it - they were fiercely corrupt, and relied too heavily on regional war lords for support.
And you cannot blame today's leaders for what past leaders have done, can you? The CCP that you claim "set fore to the house" is not the same CCP of today, is it?
I see your point, but most historians argue that the Mao years enabled China to unify itself and to bring about the stability necessary for his successors to have been able to introduce market reforms, political decentralisation, etc. In other words, the revolution has, on the whole, left a positive legacy. The Nationalists may have been able to achieve the same thing, though many historians doubt it - they were fiercely corrupt, and relied too heavily on regional war lords for support.
And you cannot blame today's leaders for what past leaders have done, can you? The CCP that you claim "set fire to the house" is not the same CCP of today, is it?
The sins of the fathers and all that? Today's CCP may be far removed from that of Mao's, but they make no effort to distance themselves, in fact much to the contrary, the cult of Mao still thrives.
The Cultural revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the famines, the entire crazed rule of Mao may have unified the country, but at an incredible cost. Was it worth it? You are saying yes, I would say no. And yes, kudos to the "new" leadership of Deng and co. for changing the CCP, but did they have much choise? No, they didn't if they intended to survive in power post-Mao. The shame of it is the incredible waste of the Mao years. Imagine how far more advanced China's economy could be if the country wasn't subject to Mao's despotism.
Simon, I see little evidence of the cult of Mao still thriving! Only in a commodified form, as Mao kitsch, and more often then not in the form of religious kitsch: Mao trinkets and things to hang from rear-view car mirrors, etc - trinkets that are supposed to bring good luck, etc.
The CCP rarely appeal to the ideas of Mao. Politically he is long dead, and the CCP have indeed distanced themselves from his ideas. You are wrong when you say otherwise.
Imagine how far more advanced China might be had the revolution not succeeded? Well, historians are divided: some say China may have ended up looking more like India or Indonesia, others imagine something more like Taiwan. The Mao years weren't completely wasted if they achieved the stability needed to allow his successors to introduce market liberalisation and political decentralisation (the two go hand in hand). At any rate, today's leaders cannot be held responsible for the Mao years, and once again, the point is, the CCP today is not the CCP of yester years, nor will today's CCP be the CCP of the future.
I am ambivalent towards the CCP - I neither love it nor hate it. Like all political entities that have governed, its legacies have been mixed, and always will be. But on the whole, I think it is today, generally speaking, steering China in the right direction.
"I believe LKY/PAP would do just as great had it been given Malaysis, and perhaps even China."
I disagree with that statement. Singapore is a one-of-kind case, if nothing else, simply because of the small geographical area and its demographics. Not to mention its colonial legacy. Malaysia would've been harder for the PAP to consolidate and govern.
And if there was a PAP in China, it most probably would done something similar to what the CCP had done, with all the requisite bloodshed and upheaval. Any speculation otherwise is pure wishful thinking.
Thanks for your comment. (and your critique + intro to Yadav's critique on Kaplan).
Ruling Malaysia is definitely more challenging than ruling Singapore. However, it is only 6 times larger in terms of population, while 450 times in terms of area and hence natural resources.
I think the challenge to rule Malaysia lies in the more complicated racial mix (no one predominant race).
I do sincerely believe LKY had a good chance had he got the job.
---
For China's size, it may be my 'wishful' fantasy. My general problem is, there is really no scientific evidence for the correlation between difficulty/complexity and size.
In other word, I believe LKY can rule something larger than Singapore. Although I am not sure how large is too large for him, I am not convinced of the size proportional to difficulty argument. They may be correlated, but it is definitely not a linear relation, esp for leader with good organizational skill nad has been good at setting up processes and systems
Malaysia does not only have a more complicated racial mix, but also soco-economic groups that Singapore did not have to handle, or in some cases were more easily and earlier managed - again partly because of geographical and population size, and, to point out what you mentioned - natural resources. For example, how many farmers, miners, fishermen, rubber plantation workers, steelworkers etc. did Singapore have compared to Malaysia? Or even China?
If LKY had a 'good chance', I would emphasise just the 'chance'.
And on China - I never implied that there is some sort of 'linear relation' as to how well a leader can govern a country given its size, or the 'size proportional to difficulty argument'. You brought it up.
But human societies are to a large extent dynamic, and this includes factors other than size. For example, the fact that Singapore was a British colony and China wasn't, was a factor as to how Singapore turned out differently from China.
I also stated that the PAP would probably have gone the way of the CCP, because in spite of human dynamism, both parties and their leaders had characteristcs that disturb me.
Let's start with all other things being equal - ceterus paribus: WW2 just ended in China; the Nationlists and warlords had to be dealt with; the country has few or no modern political institutions brought by Westerners, much less the rule of law or a democratic culture. Then, consider the following:
Mao was an ethnic Chinese autocrat. LKY was...an ethnic Chinese autocrat. The Chinese Communist Party was...Communist. The PAP started out as a 'centre-left' party...with Socialist-Leninist characteristics (there is at least one analysis of that floating around on the 'Net, if not published in print).
It has been officially documented that LKY had initially been a 'defender' of democracy, advocating a free press and at one time even in the defence team representing labour union (or student) strikers in the 1950s/60s. And look at Singapore now. Given this turnaround after he came to power, what makes you think that he would have governed any more fairly or better in China?
The only difference is that he probably could've articulated and justified any atrocities more eloquently and much better than Mao ever could. After all, LKY was a Cambridge-educated lawyer, and Mao wasn't.
Excuse me for the long reply. But I have one last thing to say here: I find your statements lauding LKY so much especially interesting - and disturbing.
Ok...it is about LKY. We can agree to disagree. I am an admirer of LKY, despite all the criticism he might attract.
There is not much to debate actually. It boils down to opinion and sbjective faith. (yours and mine).
I think PAP was central-left, they aligned with communist at the beginning until they were threatened. I see nothing wrong with being central left though - but you can disagree.
Yes, the difference, as you stated, LKY is Cambridde educated lawyer, which not only helped him to become, but also to think and act logically and rationally. THIS IS IMPORTANT. LKY also was exposed to all the western ideas which Mao (of Jiang or Hu) weren't. These are FUNDAMENTAL differences.
You do have a point about British influence though. But again, neither of us have solid reason to believe what we believe. I was just telling my "guestimate".
The China Economic Quarterly, always a good read, has several interesting articles in its latest edition. Over the next few days I'll post some excerpts of some of the more interesting pieces. One makes some telling points on the recent strategic investments in some of the big state owned banks:
The three biggest Chinese banks now all have their foreign dance partners. Herewith a few random thoughts inspired by this orgy of risk-taking:
• It is noteworthy that the banks with the widest experience of and exposure to China – HSBC, Citibank, Standard Chartered, and the French banks – are nowhere to be found on the list of investors.
• The government of Singapore (via its vehicle Temasek Holdings) is now the biggest overseas investor in the Chinese financial sector, with commitments of US$4.6bn.
• HSBC’s acquisition last year of 19.9 percent of the Bank of Communications is looking better and better. HSBC paid a lower price (US$1.7bn) for a bigger take in a better bank. Bocom is a smaller institution with a more commercial management and a heavy concentration of assets in the most dynamic part of China (the east coast). HSBC got two seats on the Bocom board, compared to the one that the new set of strategic investors will get in their respective institutions.
• The three deals effectively assign the same value to all three Chinese banks – about US$30bn. Perversely, this means that the worst bank – Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) – is valued at the biggest premium, 50 percent above end-2004 book value of US$20bn.
• In ICBC’s case, the implicit value of US$30bn exactly equals the amount of new capital it received from the government this year. In the case of Bank of China (BOC) and China Construction Bank (CCB), the price tag is only slightly more than the total value of government assistance received in the past two years.
• Large investments by Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Allianz are predicated on those institutions offloading most of the risk on to private equity and hedge fund investors who will be expected to buy into China bank funds. This should produce some interesting road shows between now and the BoC and ICBC IPOs.
Clearly, none of these investments makes sense in a plain commercial way. What are the ways in which they do make sense? First of all, the investments are in essence capital-guaranteed. All three banks are linchpins of China’s financial system, and thus “too big to fail” and beneficiaries of an implicit sovereign guarantee. Even this was not enough, however, and Royal Bank of Scotland received warranties that would effectively prevent the value of its position falling below the purchase price even if Bank of China’s net asset position deteriorates. Bank of America is believed to received something similar for its CCB stake.
Second, it is just conceivable that plunking down a fat wad for a stake in a big stateowned bank will prove a more cost-effective way to enter China’s banking market than laboriously building up a branch network. Each new branch requires minimum capital of Rmb400m (US$49m). With the number of branches effectively limited by this high capital requirement and the slow rate of new-branch approval, foreign banks find it almost impossible to raise enough renminbi funds. They must therefore buy funds from Chinese banks (on a bilateral basis, since the interbank market is in its infancy). This means that foreign banks face an effective cost of funds of over 4 percent, about two percentage points higher than Chinese banks’ cost. A strategic investor, however, might be able to source funds at a lower rate from its partner, and try to run its China business from two or three branches in major markets.
As far as I'm aware, retail investors in CCB's IPO don't qualify for these puts.
Very simple. Remember during the internet boom when pre-IPO internet companies signed on "prestigious" names to sit on their boards, in return for options? Looks like the same deal to me. Western banks prostitute their reputations in return for a piece of the IPO proceeds, and bolster investor confidence in Chinese banking institutions that have done nothing to deserve investor confidence. Some saps in these Western banks may actually believe they'll access some sort of long term benefit and guarantee their guanxi status forever by shacking up with all the key princelings, etc. In any case, somebody will be left holding the bag - Chinese depositors, taxpayers, and probably foreign investors too. Real estate agents in America/Canda/Australia probably can't wait to sell mansions to the soon-to-be Chinese Bank IPO millionaires looking for a safe place to stash their cash.
In the Coming Collapse of China, he argued that WTO regulations would cause money to flow out of the Chinese banking system into Western banks. The money is clearly flowing in the opposite direction.
Also, it's not "guanxi" or "princelings" that the Western banks are after. Western companies are perfectly able to develop guanxi on their own. Also, the princelings were pretty much wiped out in the late-1990's.
It's the branch network that Western banks are after. A western bank can conceivably create its own branch in the really big cities, but try opening up a branch in a small town in the middle of nowhere where there are more chickens than people. $49 million to start a branch there????
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 19, 2005 10:43 PM
Rummy questions China's intentions and is upset about China's secret budgets for its military. It's not like the USA hides some of its military and intelligence budget, is it?
An amusing piece on a potential Chinese pre-Olympic Taiwan invasion. I'm ready to bet money that there will be no Chinese invasion of Taiwan before the Opening Ceremony of the 2008 Olympics. Any takers?
Summer saw cool biz, so winter begets warm biz. This has potential in Hong Kong - it gives everyone an excuse to wear their winter outfits for longer than the 15 seconds it stays cold here.
Mark Thoma links to a paper on the effect of communism on people's preferences. The context is East German, but it has interesting implications for post-Communist China and the recent push from Beijing's leadership for redistribution towards rural areas.
Whether it is directly related to the recent events in Taishi or not, at least there is the appearance of something good coming out of the whole thing. The SCMP:
Guangdong authorities have pledged to comb through the accounts of every town, village and village group in the province to clear up financial irregularities at the grassroots level...Villagers and farmers lodged about 150,000 petitions with provincial authorities in the first eight months of this year, most relating to alleged corruption over rural land acquisition, problems in village committee elections, and land and forest ownership disputes, the News Express reported.
"These problems have encroached on the interests of the masses, sharpened social inequities, damaged the stability of grass-roots regimes and undermined the reputation of the party and the government," the newspaper quoted the inspection committee as saying.
Guangdong has also promised to improve the way towns and villages are managed, particularly in terms of finances and cadre supervision. The changes mean party and government officials will not be allowed to have part-time jobs or receive payments from state-owned, collective or private enterprises..."Chinese villages lack professional accounting personnel and a standardised financial management system," Professor Xu said.
Dang Guoying , a rural affairs analyst, said the root of rural financial corruption was the village committees' excessive power over finances.
The SCMP's got substantial coverage of the Taishi incident, including a good summary by Leu Siew Ying, a fawning piece on Lu Banglie, an op-ed by Peter Goff on the dangers for Chinese citizens working with foreigners, a point already well made by ESWN last week and a piece by Simon Parry also on the constraints of mainland reporting and the flaws of the international press, starring Jonathan Joffe-Walt and Lu Banglie. While I often have a go at the SCMP, this time they are doing a good job of covering an important story. The articles are reproduced below the jump.
From village protest to national flashpoint
The scourge of corruption has turned Taishi's experiment in grass-roots democracy into a display of people power.
Taishi is a tiny village in the richest and seemingly most open province on the mainland and yet a legitimate attempt by its residents to oust their chief for corruption has been crushed with the help of gangsters.
The crackdown exposes the ambiguity of the central government's stance on democracy and underscores its fear that Taishi might have a domino effect in a region riddled with land-related corruption.
But Taishi is, at most, a localised corruption scandal that permeated the township government and is unlikely to implicate anyone in Guangzhou, much less in Guangdong or far away Beijing.
With a population of 2,000, Taishi is a 45-minute drive south of Guangzhou. Once a model village, its inhabitants complain of poverty, even though bustling shops, busy factories, thriving sugar cane farms and banana plantations stand on land they used to farm.
Elderly women have been the hardest hit. They are unable to support themselves from the dividend income from leased properties and farmland, and have been forced to eke out a living by scavenging.
The villagers blame their plight on Chen Jinsheng , who was re-elected as village chief in April. Mr Chen garnered 60 per cent of the votes, but the poll came before allegations that he had embezzled funds from the village collective.
On July 29 they launched a campaign to remove him from office by popular vote. During a three-month stand-off that followed, local authorities, using more than 1,000 police and water cannon, threw villagers in jail, seized ledger books and paid thugs to beat activists, lawyers and foreign reporters.
They rejected the recall petition, then announced it had been accepted, only to announce soon afterwards that the villagers had given up their action. The people are now being held hostage in their own village.
Sources with close contacts with villagers say groups of cadres fanned out to visit each of the 500 households to make them sign the withdrawal document.
"Every household has somebody who has been arrested. They were promised that their family members would be released if they signed, if not, they would go to jail for three to 10 years. The villagers are realistic, so they signed," one source said.
The family of Feng Weinan , one of the leaders arrested, received a notice saying power and water supplies to their apartment would be cut off. Other villagers were told they would lose their jobs, their children would not be able to go to school or they would be harassed by thugs.
"Their wives were crying, so the men had to sign," said Lu Banglie , an activist who advised the villagers on recall procedures.
Mr Lu said cadres promised a household of four or five voters about half a hectare of land if they would spy for the village committee and help keep Mr Chen in power.
The villagers were also told that lawyers and reporters had wrecked their economy and they would get no dividends this year. Previously, the committee that manages village assets paid each villager 1,000 yuan a year and claimed that Taishi was in debt.
A propaganda official from Yuwotou, the town that administers Taishi, told two foreign journalists that 396 villagers signed the withdrawal statement voluntarily after an audit of village accounts cleared Mr Chen. Only 188 refused to sign.
Giving the reporters a copy of the Guangzhou Daily, he said: "Everything we want to say is here. You can also read about it in the Southern Metropolis News and other newspapers. There is no need to report on this any more. We will not give any more interviews."
The official statement said the recall petition was legal, a move that analysts said gave the authorities justification to break the blockade of the village office and seize account books allegedly incriminating Mr Chen on the grounds that the villagers had broken the law and obstructed village government.
The next move was to identify the "black hands" behind the unrest: Mr Lu, Yang Maodong - a prolific writer and activist better known as Guo Feixiong - and Ai Xiaoming , a gender studies expert at Sun Yat-sen University, who was interested in the involvement of women in the Taishi struggle.
Mr Yang has been taken into custody and Mr Lu was beaten up, but Professor Ai is still free, though her website has been shut down.
The village itself is guarded by mercenaries who are paid 100 yuan a day to beat up any foreign visitors, while the local media has been muzzled.
Analysts believe that Taishi started off as a test case for grass-roots democracy because Premier Wen Jiabao said last month that if people could manage a village, they could manage a township in several years and that would be "an evolving system".
Pro-government scholar Fan Yafeng drew attention to Taishi's significance, strengthening the argument, and yet a local government source said there had been no directive to push for grass-roots democracy.
Cheng Li, professor of government at New York-based Hamilton College, said the central government had called for an experiment and so could not crack down on it.
"I don't think we can put it down as a crackdown, but they think there is something wrong with the experiment. I don't go as far as to say that they are ready for democracy," he said. "They want to push for democracy but they want to be their own monitor."
In the first eight months of this year, the Guangdong discipline commission received 150,000 complaints about corruption, cadre misconduct or election irregularities, an average of seven per village in the province.
"I've heard that many villagers went to Taishi to learn from their experience," one mainland expert in grass-roots democracy said. "If Taishi succeeded, they would do the same."
Mr Yang, on the lookout for opportunities in the Pearl River Delta, saw the legal issues in the land deals and was able to persuade villagers they had a problem.
Taishi captured international interest because Mr Yang had an action plan to use passive resistance, hunger strikes and the foreign media to raise the profile of the dispute.
The timing was opportune because the director of Yuwotou, which administers the village, had just been reassigned to another town, leaving a young deputy to hold the fort.
From a run-of-the-mill attempt to recall a village headman, the situation in Taishi deteriorated to such an extent that Beijing stepped in and designated it an important political incident.
"It has acquired the same status as the Sars outbreak in 2003 and the Falun Gong," one scholar said.
But Guangdong, living up to its reputation as a renegade province, chose to maintain a degree of independence, which might help explain the handling of Taishi.
Despite the crackdown, Mr Lu described Taishi as a success.
"Taishi shows the world the ugly side of local government and teaches villagers the value of their votes," he said. "In the past, they thought that whoever you vote for, it makes no difference. They sold their votes for 100 yuan or a pack of cigarettes."
Mr Lu believes that the Taishi villagers will prevail against their village chief in the next election in three years' time. And he predicts that if the party is supportive, grass-roots democracy could be a reality in three to five years. "If not, it will take 20 years."
Dangers of working with foreigners
Beyond the daily drill of research, press conferences and interviews, foreign journalists in the mainland are inadvertently mired in a menacing world of intrigue and espionage. But the danger is, for the most part, not directed at them, but rather at the people who co-operate with them as they gather news.
The mainland is not the world's greatest fan of media scrutiny, to say the least. The foreign press corps have always had to deal with the likes of none-too-secret agents on their tail, phone taps, bugged offices and local employees who are encouraged to operate as government spies.
All that is still in place. But the methods of surveillance have become more sophisticated - if not always more subtle. A European journalist on a recent reporting trip to the central provinces was using her mobile phone to try to track down a local activist. While she was talking, a voice broke into the conversation and scolded her for sticking her nose into local affairs.
Another journalist tells of how she interviewed a source in a noisy local restaurant one evening. The next day her mobile rang and she heard the last voice she expected: her own. The call was a recording of her conversation in the restaurant. She has no idea if it was some kind of bounce-back blip in the hi-tech spying game, or whether it was spooks wanting to let her know they were on her case. Either way, it was a jolting reminder of the system's invisible eyes and ears.
The latest technology that is pleasing spies and jealous spouses alike is a chip that can secretly turn a mobile phone into a microphone. Security experts say the phone's software is adjusted so that when the phone is called from a certain number, it will answer automatically without ringing, vibrating or lighting up - essentially turning it into a bugging device.
All this, and the many other hi-tech eavesdropping and tracking devices now available, can spell danger for the sources who talk to journalists and the Chinese people who work with them. Foreign reporters here are sometimes hassled, impeded from doing their work, forced to sign self-criticisms and, in some cases, threatened or even roughed up.
But it is very rare that their lives are endangered or their freedom jeopardised. For Chinese it is a very different matter. On any kind of sensitive issue sources, news assistants, photographers, support staff and the like run a far greater risk of being beaten, imprisoned or worse, for helping foreign reporters. Their attackers are often thugs who have been hired to do the dirty work.
This reality places a "huge burden" on journalists based on the mainland, according to Melinda Liu, Newsweek magazine's Beijing bureau chief and president of the Foreign Correspondents' Club of China. "It is a very big issue for us," she said, as before doing any story they must first evaluate who is going to be involved and assess what danger they might be exposed to.
"We have to figure out if it's worth taking the risk," she said. "There are some stories we just won't do because we feel it's too dangerous. But if we were to be 100 per cent careful in every case, we would simply not be able to do our jobs."
In many cases, the Chinese involved are prompted to take risks by a desire to get the information out, knowing it would never be published in China. The call could only be made on a "gut feeling, on a case-by-case basis", Ms Liu said, and no one could predict how situations would develop. "Sometimes you are going to make the wrong call. It is a huge dilemma."
And if it all means some controversial stories go unreported, it is a dilemma that seems to suit the more opaque elements of the state perfectly well.
Life's been tough for injured activist from the very start
Activist Lu Banglie's savage beating in Taishi village was not the first time he found himself in a life-threatening situation.
Threats to Mr Lu's life started even before he was born, with his impoverished mother trying repeatedly to end her pregnancy.
"My mother was 48 or 49 when she conceived me and she tried several times to abort me but she was stopped. We were very poor and she didn't think that at her age she could raise another child," Mr Lu said.
"When she delivered me, she let me fall to the ground. She just sat in her chair and refused to pick me up. It was her sister-in-law who picked me up."
Mr Lu, a boyish-looking 34-year-old divorcee with a seven-year-old daughter he hardly ever sees, has been threatened on many occasions but remains unfazed. He has been hacked and beaten unconscious, but his experience in Taishi was the worst because he was knocked out for a day.
"If I was afraid, I wouldn't be doing this," he said. "I bought insurance before I became an activist because I knew it would be dangerous. I pay 444 yuan a year for a policy amounting to 180,000 yuan. In the event of my death, the money will go to my daughter and my mother," he said.
He says he limits his time with his daughter to shield her from the dangers of his mission.
His own mother came to love her youngest child and found enough money to put him through two years of senior middle school.
Growing up, he saw how hard the peasants' lot was and became a victim of fraud himself when he tried to secure a contract to mine sand.
"I was very angry. Peasants lead a hard life and cadres not only do not care but lie about the real situation," he said. "My anger burned inside me and I wanted to do something for the laobaixing [ordinary people] so I started going to Beijing to petition, to give them feedback about the reality and to ask them to lighten peasants' burden."
A year or so later he returned empty handed and frustrated to Hubei , but the people he met while in Beijing made him realise that petitions were not the way to go.
He later met people from China Reform Magazine and attended training courses organised by the magazine and began to consider running for election so that he could better serve the peasants.
"I thought I could use the Villages' Organisation Law to push for democracy and economic development," he said. "With this in mind, I ran for election but I was unsuccessful because the election was rigged."
Mr Lu changed tack again and organised the ousting of the headman of his native village, Baoyuesi, in 2003.
He succeeded, and took over as village chief. A few months later, overwhelmed by the village's debts, he stepped down.
He went to Beijing again this spring to consult experts on ways to push forward rural development, but after again coming up empty handed moved south to Huizhou , where he found a job in a packaging factory.
In July, he was again unsuccessful in another attempt to seek inspiration in Beijing and returned to Guangzhou to find a job.
It was in Guangzhou that he ran into Yang Maodong , an activist better known as Guo Feixiong , whom he had met in Beijing, at a dinner and was told about the problems of Taishi.
"We talked about Taishi and decided to recall the headman," he said. Mr Lu said he would not return to Taishi in the near future, but would take time to recuperate from his injuries and reconsider his strategy.
Here lies the truth
With only a bruise on his right elbow to show for the beating he was given by thugs in Guangdong, pro-democracy activist Lu Banglie is in a forgiving mood towards the British journalist who told the world he had been mutilated and left for dead.
"He seemed young and I don't think he was very experienced," said Mr Lu, 34, as he recovered from his ordeal with friends in Hubei province . "He was caught up in a very frightening situation. In those circumstances it is understandable that he got it wrong."
Benjamin Joffe-Walt's report - splashed on the front page of Britain's The Guardian newspaper on Monday last week - described in graphic detail how Mr Lu was apparently killed by a group of five to six men in Taishi, Guangdong, the scene of rural unrest.
Mr Lu had been accompanying Joffe-Walt and his translator when they were stopped and Mr Lu, a legislator from Hubei who has helped villagers try to fight for their legal rights, was dragged out of the taxi after being recognised by the mob.
In a shocking report, the 25-year-old reporter said he saw Mr Lu lying on the ground "his eye out of its socket, his tongue cut, a stream of blood dropping from his mouth, his body limp, twisted ... the ligaments in his neck were broken". It seemed a brutal indictment of the abuses of power in rural China - until Mr Lu appeared in his home province, very much alive and without any serious injuries, on the same day the sensational report in The Guardian was published.
He had been beaten unconscious, and bundled into a car and driven back to his home province, hundreds of kilometres away. Mr Lu has since undergone medical examinations and internal scans that reveal no lasting injuries.
So how could the journalist have misjudged the situation so gravely? Looking at copies of the newspaper's reports, Mr Lu said: "I was wearing a red shirt and it was dark. Maybe he saw the colour of my shirt and thought it was blood. As for my eye popping out, perhaps he just saw the reflection of the torches being shone in my eyes.
"His report is obviously false, but I believe it is the government's fault that things like this happen. If the government allowed journalists to report what is going on in these villages, these kind of false reports wouldn't appear. If they let people go freely into these places, people would know the truth."
Joffe-Walt's employers have been less generous in their appraisal of the report filed by the American former high school teacher who began working as the newspaper's Shanghai correspondent last month.
In a blunt article by the newspaper's own ombudsman on Monday, the newspaper said Joffe-Walt had been recalled to London and examined by a psychotherapist, who had concluded that at the time of writing, he had "lost touch with reality".
The article spoke of the reporter's "grave flaws" and "gross errors and exaggerations" and said his report had "threatened the credibility and integrity of The Guardian's reporting in China".
It emphasised Joffe-Walt's relative inexperience, saying: "His main experience has been gained in six months working for a South Africa newspaper ... and an overlapping period as a stringer [for] a British newspaper, The Sunday Telegraph."
The story of how the paths of two idealistic young men from hugely different backgrounds - one a western journalist and the other a Chinese activist - came to cross with dramatic results in the south of China is an intriguing and unlikely one.
As recently as 2003, Joffe-Walt was working as a high school teacher in Canada. He went to Baghdad as a human shield, one of a group of anti-war activists who tried to put themselves in danger's way to stop a US invasion.
Afterwards, he told his hometown paper in the US, the Philadelphia Daily News, that the experience was "very stressful" but that he would be prepared to go back and put himself in harm's way for the anti-war cause.
Joffe-Walt chose not to return, it seems, but instead headed for Africa, where he began a new career as a newspaper reporter, working first for South Africa's This Day newspaper and then as a stringer across Africa for The Sunday Telegraph.
He filed harrowing stories from across the continent, visiting flashpoints including Darfur and picking up an impressive brace of awards in the process - young journalist of the year from the Foreign Press Association in London and CNN African print journalist of the year in June this year.
Joffe-Walt's transformation from high school teacher to frontline war reporter took place at the same time as a sea change in Mr Lu's life. A farmer in Hubei, Mr Lu became increasingly disillusioned with the abuses of power in rural China and decided to fight for the reduction of taxes on poor farmers.
As his marriage broke down and his wife took their daughter, now seven, to live in a new home more than 20km away, Mr Lu became increasingly involved in his political activity, taking advantage of rural reforms to win a seat in 2003 as a provincial legislator.
"I got involved in politics because I saw how the lives of farmers are so hard and so bitter, and the local governments and village committees are so unreasonable," he said. "I wanted to change it."
He had been immersed in the fight for villager rights in Taishi for weeks before he met Joffe-Walt, two Saturdays ago. Standing in for The Guardian's China correspondent, Jonathan Watts, the young reporter went to Guangdong to report on the unrest.
They spent only a few hours together before the drama on a roadside near Taishi.
Joffe-Walt claims he asked Mr Lu to get out of the car three times before they stopped at a security roadblock, but Mr Lu said: "I reassured the reporter I would be OK. I told him I have a big life inside me ... I told him he didn't need to worry about my safety."
Reflecting on what happened to him, Mr Lu said: "I don't believe they were trying to kill me, because if I had died it would have caused a big controversy. They just wanted to scare me so I wouldn't go back again. But I will go back. I am not afraid."
Joffe-Walt returned to Shanghai the day after the attack, arriving just in time to catch the end of an opening party for his office - set up with a group of other reporters working for newspapers overseas and nicknamed "the writers' commune" by fellow journalists.
It would appear that he filed the report late on that Sunday night, Shanghai time. The Guardian said it arrived "only an hour before deadline, which left little time for interaction" and described his original copy as "3,500 words in a graphic stream-of-consciousness narrative".
After the story broke, events moved quickly. Joffe-Walt was summoned to a meeting in Hong Kong with The Guardian's diplomatic editor, Ewan MacAskill, who was flown out from London to interview him. Watts was meanwhile recalled from holiday and sent to interview Mr Lu and arrange for a medical examination.
Joffe-Walt was then flown back to London where The Guardian said he "expressed repeated apologies for what he had done and its implications for The Guardian, and indeed for the pro-democracy movement in China".
Journalists in Shanghai were meanwhile bemused at the saga of the young journalist who had only just arrived in the country and now appeared to be making one of the quickest exits on record, a day after his welcoming party.
One senior Shanghai-based journalist, who asked not to be named, said: "One of his colleagues said he had a flair for the dramatic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing for a journalist. But it seems that in this case he may have gone a bit too far."
Whether Joffe-Walt has a future with The Guardian remains to be seen. Monday's article announced that the British newspaper, which prides itself on its high standard of journalism, has to protect its own reputation but also has a "duty of care" for its young reporter.
What becomes of Joffe-Walt is a matter of relative indifference for Mr Lu. Although Joffe-Walt has been under a psychotherapist in London and suffered from what The Guardian describes as "traumatic distress", Mr Lu is facing up to much more real day-to-day dangers on the mainland.
After evading the security police who have him under surveillance to drive three hours to a meeting for this interview, Mr Lu said of his ordeal: "I am angry at what happened to me, but not surprised. It is something that cannot be avoided in the struggle for democracy in China. It is a price I have to pay."
I wish I had a reference to the paper, but I distinctly remember reading that Guangdong has actually been fairly conservative about political reform.
It was a paper that tried to find the coorelation between how widespead village elections were versus other factors particularly income. The conclusion was that the two were not coorelated at all, and that the effectiveness of village elections depended on large part on what the provincial government wanted to do with them.
I'll try to find the paper.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 19, 2005 11:05 AM
Here's one paper by the United Nations that mentions that Guangdong is notably reluctant to implement village elections.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 19, 2005 11:11 AM
One of the SCMP articles implies the same, calling Guangdong a "renegade" province.
The correlation between political will at the provincial level and effectiveness of village elections certainly makes sense. What it shows is how little control Beijing exercises over Guangdong province. They're so busy with the Beijing-Shanghai battles they don't have time to worry about their richest province.
A good read: Paul Wolfowitz speaks to the China Daily on poverty, how China fits in the World Bank's strategy, Chinese students, democracy and development and more.
Novellist and former Red Guard punching bag Ba Jin passed away, aged 101. The saying's right: what doesn't kill obviously makes you stronger, or at least live longer.
Donald Rumsfeld is in China today and the Christian Sciene Monitor has a great article on the visit and China's secretive military. I was going to cut and paste some key parts and found myself with the whole article, it's that good. Go read it and come back.
There are several interesting points in the article. Firstly this: "The US is no longer willing to trade high-tech military briefings ... for a dog and pony show," says one US official. "I think the Chinese now acknowledge that message." This is a sign of growing maturity and even potentially trust between the two sides. But the key remains "transparency", that is a greater understanding to avoid potentially massive problems later:
Many US strategists, including Admiral Fallon, argue that a military clash with China is not inevitable, despite the fact that the two forces are eyeing each other with greater wariness. But "transparency" has grown in importance for US generals and admirals, as well as pilots and submarine commanders, because the margin for mistakes in a "Taiwan scenario" - the hottest flashpoint - is getting smaller. China's main military modernization is designed to fight an offensive battle to capture Taiwan.
Without transparency, some military operations chiefs say, it is harder to know when one side or the other is bluffing, especially amid tensions. "Western forces have a hard time understanding Asian forces, how they think and act," says Michael Boera, the wing commander of the 36th Air Expeditionary Wing in Guam. "It is a different culture, and we need to guard against misunderstandings that we aren't ready for."
But trust is a two-way street and the article's (natural) implication is it is time for the Chinese to put in the hard yards in this trust and understanding game. And a game it is, as the concluding paragraphs demonstrate:
A central reason China has not always been willing to be transparent or reciprocal is that many of their capabilities and operations have been crude, analysts say. At one point, an elderly Admiral Rickover, father of the nuclear submarine, visited a Chinese base and made disparaging comments, deeply hurting the feelings of his host.
Not showing under-par bases or military hardware may be a strategic choice by China, some analysts say, as it can mislead an opponent as to strengths and weaknesses.
Donald Rumsfeld will be subjected to a Chinese shock and awe program during his visit. The Americans are rightly worried mostly about the potential for a Taiwan invasion and China's deliberate ambiguity in its intentions.
The heartening thing is the two sides are still engaged and talking. On the American side there are many both in and out of the military who do not think a military confrontation is inevitable, and the same is likely true of the Chinese side (although their thinking is obviously not publised or reported). The world has a vested interest in making sure these "moderates" are the sides that win their respective internal "wars" on their views of their potential partner or adversary.
Simon said: "This is a sign of growing maturity and even potentially trust between the two sides."
It means nothing or very little.
Simon said: "Donald Rumsfeld will be subjected to a Chinese shock and awe program during his visit."
"Shock," perhaps - who knows what Mr. Rumsfeld will think; he'll be courteous no matter what he thinks (as long as the Chinese don't mistreat their guest)? But "Awe"? I seriously doubt they could really inspire, let alone overwhelm, the American military's 2nd in Command.
Simon said: "The Americans are rightly worried mostly about the potential for a Taiwan invasion and China's deliberate ambiguity in its intentions."
A) There is nothing ambiguous about their intentions.
B) Regardless of their intentions, they lack the capability to match their aspirations. "Don't want to Because we Can't."
Simon said: "The heartening thing is the two sides are still engaged and talking."
I call it "going through the motions." Nothing heartening nor disheartening about it. Again, this CSM article is specious.
Simon said: "On the American side there are many both in and out of the military who do not think a military confrontation is inevitable, and the same is likely true of the Chinese side (although their thinking is obviously not publised or reported)." The world has a vested interest in making sure these "moderates" are the sides that win their respective internal "wars" on their views of their potential partner or adversary."
Be advised, the vast majority of American naval officers don't believe it's inevitable either. However (and this is key to the CSM's and your misunderstanding), those who don't believe in a foregone conflict in the Formosa DO NOT take the Chicoms for friends, potential or otherwise. The reason we don't believe it's "inevitable" is because we know, and the Chinese know (and we know that they know), that we'd clean their clock in any "confrontation". The call for "transparency" is simply an effort by the US to gain intel (the type you want your enemy to have) and ensure the Chinese don't miscalculate. If some people want to sensationalize these events as the triumph of "moderates" in the US Military, so be it - though it's obvious that they can't gauge the situation with any accuracy. This is strictly "Business", not "overtures of Friendship". We did the same thing with the Soviet Union (and, yes, the MSM tried to pretend that those Communists were friends too). Most of the officers I talked to are far more worried about China's infernal politics (and their relationship with their OWN military). To the extent that we give them briefings about our military, it's to make sure they can't play dumb, make excuses, or act stupidly in the future.
So in short, you're saying China wouldn't dare invade Taiwan because they're scared of the American response and know they'll get soundly beaten. These visits aren't exercises in friendship but in showing-off and trying to put the fear of God (or at least America's military) into the Chinese. It's based on the construct that the Chinese are the enemy and are the new Soviets.
The USSR did not own a significant amount of the US Treasury market, nor did they have a massive trade with America. There were not reams of Russian students studying in America or vice versa. The USSR was an industrialised economy with a reasonable standard of living, not a massive developing country with literally hundreds of millions of poor farmers. The two are nothing alike and the chance remains for America and China to find points of common interest and to work on points of contention constructively rather than through animosity.
You call the article and my commentary specious but each of your points fails to demonstrate where I am wrong. There is always an element of going through the motions on official visits - more important is the visit is happening at all. It's taken Rummy 4 years to get to China, despite some very big ups and downs in the relationship in that time.
I agree China won't invade Taiwan in the foreseeable future, barring any moves from Taiwan's independence movement to deliberate provoke such an attack. We just disagree as to why.
The world's second largest cigarette company British American Tobacco has been operating a secret factory in North Korea for the last four years, the U.K.’s Guardian daily reported Monday...With an initial investment of US$7.1 million, BAT owns 60 percent of the joint venture. BAT-Taesong employs around 200 North Koreans.
No word on the status of the Guardian's reporter on this story.
That aside, this has brilliant potential. Given North Korea's pariah status, why doesn't KJI turn into a centre of excellence...for sin. Casinos, alcohol, cigarettes, prostitution, drugs and any of the world's ills, all produced free of guilt.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but they might make a country.
When the Martians land, I will put the British in charge of the welcoming ceremony, the Chinese in charge of the banqueting, the Nigerians in charge of administration and the North Koreans in charge of supplying everyone with fags, booze, drugs, dykes, donks, bonks, betting slips, and Martian bank notes.
In other words, situation normal world-widely-wise.
Hong Kong is beloved by libertarian groups around the world for its apparent flat tax structure and its apparent laissez-faire economy. While that's mostly fallacy, it helps Asia's World City score highly on various surveys, so it keeps the mutual appreciation society going. But there are some things Chief Executive Donald Tsang can't contemplate privatising. From the SCMP:
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen has waded into the controversy over the age of consent for homosexuals, warning against what he called the "privatisation" of moral standards. Mr Tsang said that while he was a devout Catholic, his work had not clashed with his conscience during his 30 years in the civil service.
During a question-and-answer session yesterday on his policy address with more than 1,000 young people, Mr Tsang was asked whether he would defend moral standards in Hong Kong. The question was referring to an August High Court ruling which overturned a law that criminalised buggery for men under 21 on the grounds that it was discriminatory. "Everyone has moral values, especially over the issue of sexual discrimination," Mr Tsang said. "But there are things I feel strongly about. I believe the privatisation of morals has become a danger in society. Some people say `since what I do does not affect others and it has nothing to do with other people, why should I be constrained?' I have reservations about this because a moral is a value shared by the entire society.
Now that's a question. Is a moral a value shared by the entire society? I would contend the very opposite - morals are personal values. Societies often have morals in common (e.g. incest) but others they disagree about (e.g. abortion). Donald Tsang hit the nail on the head with his question - why should what happens behind closed doors between consenting people be anyone else's business? Clearly it shouldn't so long as it does not affect others. It's a basic principle of a free society. Legislating morality, which is effectively the opposite of its "privatisation", is a throwback to the bad old days when the government knew best. Morals are privatised because they are private.
Mr Tsang stressed that while he respected the court's ruling, it was also important to protect young people. "I think it is a bit too much if we allow people as young as 14 or 16 to have this; from a state of no choice to overturning the law."
The government has already filed an appeal against the High Court ruling.
The principle is simple. There should be no distinction in the age of consent between homo- and hetro-sexual sex. If you're old enough for one, you're old enough for the other. Instead of paying lip service to ideas of equality and anti-discrimination, Donald Tsang needs to stop preaching and start acting like a man of principles. Here's hoping Hong Kong's High Court agrees.
At least Mr Tsang finished on a funny note:
Mr Tsang also weighed into the controversy over claims Disneyland Hong Kong is exploiting workers. "I believe the [Disney] management are smart people and it will be improved if we give them time and room," he said.
From what I'm told, Disney people have had plenty of room at their park, even during the national day holiday week at the start of October.
Updated (10/18)
Jake van der Kamp from the SCMP on the same issue:
Donald should stick to his day job and stop trying to play God
"I believe the privatisation of morals has become a danger in society. Some people say `since what I do does not affect others and it has nothing to do with other people, why should I be constrained?' I have reservations about this because a moral is a value shared by the entire society."
Donald Tsang Yam-kuen
Chief Executive
How revealing. Mr Tsang is a political man but this was not a political observation. It was a religious one and it poses the question of how far it colours his thinking as our Chief Executive.
The context in which he made it was a question and answer session on Saturday with more than 1,000 young people following his policy address. He was specifically responding to a question about a judicial ruling that a law which criminalised buggery for men under 21 was discriminatory.
Let us leave the specific context aside, however, as Mr Tsang's response was a more general comment on manners and morals in society anyway. The difficulty I see is that he did make a crucial distinction he really ought to have made. Here is the question for him:
To what extent, sir, is a sin a crime?
If I deliberately mislead my wife about where I have been this afternoon, I tell a lie. If I deliberately mislead shareholders of a company of which I am director, I also tell a lie.
In the first instance, a government official may tell me that I have acted immorally but that is as far as his authority carries. In the second instance, he may again tell me I have acted immorally but in this case he may also legitimately bring charges against me in a court of law.
It comes down to a question of the limitations of government and enough has been written about it to fill any number of libraries. Over time, however, most societies have drawn a line between moral offences that endanger the social fabric and those that do not.
Telling a lie to my wife may endanger my marriage but society can carry on quite well if I do so. Telling a lie in a prospectus is fraud and carries a distinct risk to the social fabric. It may not be as great a risk as permitting murder or robbery but we would all find it much more difficult to deal with each other if we permitted fraud.
Both offences may be equally heinous sins to God, to put it in the classic terms of the Roman Catholic faith to which Mr Tsang subscribes, but government is not God and a sin is not necessarily a crime. By long established convention we make it a crime only if it threatens the social fabric.
I wonder if Mr Tsang is not at risk of blurring this distinction. He speaks as if private morals were something new. They are not. He recognises this himself when he goes to the confessional. He confesses to a priest, not to the commissioner of police. Are we to think this something new?
The sad fact is that public interference in matters of private morals has throughout history invariably led to horrendous religious wars or brutal oppressions.
Western societies in particular have learned through bitter experience that there is good reason to keep God and government in separate spheres. China may consider itself blessed that it rarely made this mistake.
It may be true, as Mr Tsang says, that moral values in any society are shared by that entire society. It may be equally true that government is common to that entire society. This does not, however, automatically mean that moral values are a government matter. Water is wet. So is oil. Is water therefore oil? I fail to see the crucial step of logic in his implied thinking here.
It is no more than implied, I know. He did not come right out and say that certain homosexual activity under the age of 21, leaving aside any question of whether it endangers the fabric of society, is morally repugnant and that he therefore has the right to bring the full weight of government against it.
It was a fairly strong implication, nonetheless, and I think it worth noting because there are many people in this town who are a little worried about the emphasis that Mr Tsang places on strong governance.
Just how far does he intend to carry it? Do his reservations about the "privatisation of morals" mean that he would like to adopt a Singapore-style Big Daddy government in which matters of personal and private conduct are subject to government scrutiny for common codes of moral rectitude?
Constrain yourself from constraining others in these matters, sir. My sins I shall take up with God. My crimes alone are your business.
Andrew J. Volstead (1860-1947), was the author of the American National Prohibition Enforcement Act (1919) which banned not just the sale but use of alcohol by human beings including blacks.
He died still firmly believing that "the law regulates morality" - the basis of Prohibition.
To moralise for a tick, it is a truth universally acknowledged that the Human Economy is essentially based on sex, drugs and slavery; so we get DTs from time to time.
Jodi and Richard TPD posted contrasting, yet reinforcing, confessions about that elusive entity, East Asian Man. Wimp or Macho? Can Busan Man kick China Guy's ass? Has Jodi ruined her man? I never wear a suit without some stress-reducing feature, like wearing no boxers or a black t-shirt.
MR's Tyler Cowen cautions against allowing Indian, and possibly Taiwanese, firms from abandoning patent rights law and Roche, to speed up production of Tamiflu stocks. The worst-case scenario looks something like this.
I suggest a different approach. Let's offer Roche a large prize for speeding up the construction of the U.S. plant. This can include legal and regulatory waivers (Bush already has suggested this idea). We also make it clear upfront that if a pandemic comes, the U.S. government will purchase Tamiflu doses at a relatively high price. This latter round of payments can be made upfront, with a refund to the government if no pandemic arrives. Ex post, the government distributes the doses for free, with medical workers and key individuals in the supply chain (food, transportation, Typepad) given priority.
Right now, we should do all we can to accelerate the difficult process for a vaccine, but that may take too long and production of sufficient vaccine is often a logistical nightmare. The second best option is mass distribution of Tamiflu and similar drugs that can ameliorate symptoms and could cut the death rate.
I'm worried this debate is focusing on prophylactics, like Tamiflu, when H5N1 could already have overcome it, or quickly could. Then, there's persons, like the last caller on the NPR program last post, who are skeptical of the threat from this pandemic, and at best would be incapable of following instructions from government agencies, if not openly hostile.
Thank you to all the guest posters during my break. As usual, a wide variety of posts that will likely result in top billing for some strange Google searches. I particularly like this blog being referred to as "semi-formal". I was aiming for "black tie", but whatever.
As I left for holiday the now infamous Guardian article had just hit the press. In short, the journalist in question went to Taishi with a human rights advocate, thought he saw the human rights advocate bashed to death, wrote about it only for the same advocate turn up with some minor injuries in his home village very much alive and well and reading up on Mark Twain. Bingfeng has summarised the resulting uproar, with accusations that this reporting has damaged the cause of democracy in China and far more besides. As one commenter noted, the split has seemingly come down to those who are reflex anti-CCP and those reflex anti-mainstream media (MSM), this being one of those rare cases where it is not the same thing.
And yet all this debate is missing the major point.
For all the pretence that China's "new" leadership was all about grass-roots change, about closing the rural economic gap, about weeding out corruption, about making government responsive to people, Taishi has clearly demonstrated how far from reality this vision remains. There is no doubt that China's leadership in Beijing, even while occupied with the recent smackdown plenum, know about Taishi. This could have been a chance for a genuine, citizen driven democratic experiment. It was sufficiently small-scale, the mitigating circumstances in place. It was completely controllable and scalable should it have proved a success. While some of us have been blogging about it for months, finally some mainstream media sources cottoned onto the potential story and chased it. And then came the (pardon the pun) road smash. And now the collective energies of various sources of China-related information have been focussed on what a bumbling journo did or didn't do and what it does or doesn't mean. There are 1.3 billion people in China who have no idea about this debate. It's meaningless to them. But the potential result of the Taishi experiment, if it had gone another way, could have greatly affected many millions of those people, including the leadership.
So let's refocus on the real villians of the piece: who decided to stop the Taishi experiment before it could start? Why? And why do forked tongues remain so fashionable?
Related reading
Running Dog on Taishi and the woes of Government explains why Beijing prefers vested interests and corrupt local governments retain control.
Will Chinese netizens be successfully manipulated into foreigner-bashing as an acceptable alternative to communist party-bashing?
Her next post is even better, noting that most of the Western media isn't interested in the Taishi story now that Lu Banglie turned up OK. Sadly the same is mostly true of the wider blogosphere as well. The crucial issue is what Taishi represents, but most media cannot seemingly view its impact without the frame of "authoritarian government beats human rights advocate and journalist". Forget about the "authoritarian government quashes constitutionally valid recall process to preserve vested interests" angle. And why does that matter? Because like it or not, if it's not in the media, it's not in the forefront of (Western) politicians' and most voters' minds. It's forests and trees again.
Sun Bin reports that there have been 52 village recall elections, like Taishi tried. He's more optimistic about the potential outcome for the future.
The Guardian's readers' editor (what does the regular editor do then?) defends Mr. Joffe-Walt's actions, saying he's been given a good talking to and packed off to a therapist until the heat dies down (pardon the pun). One could ask what kind of training the Guardian gives its 25 year-old journalists when dispatched to places such as China, where media freedom isn't quite what it is elsewhere. One could ask why the Guardian published a clearly potentially inflammatory article when there was little time for interaction with the [news] desk. One could ask if the Guardian staff know abuot the Stockholm Syndrome when we are told they have all developed some sympathy for Joffe-Walt, despite the fact that his report had threatened the credibility and integrity of the Guardian's reporting in China. Mr Joffe-Walt has expressed repeated apologies for what he had done and its implications for the Guardian, and indeed for the pro-democracy movement in China, and he had lost touch with reality when he filed his report.
Ian Mayes concludes The Guardian clearly has to protect its reputation. It also recognises a duty of care to Mr Joffe-Walt. The two things are not incompatible. No, they're not incompatible at all. Where the Guardian has fallen down was throwing a 25 year old novice into one of the more dangerous reporting assignments without adequate care or supervision. If we're sharing out blame, it's the Guardian itself that needs to shoulder a significant part of the responsibility. Don't hold your breath.
Sunbin has pointed out that over the last five years there are dozens of examples of successful rural impeachments, and no one ever talks about those. Village mayor gets kicked out, and no one notices at all.
I think that is likely that had the township government not stepped in, no one would have ever heard or cared about Tashi. It's also likely that if the township government made it clear from the beginning that dissent would be treated harshly, no one would have ever challenged them and again we never would have heard of Taishi.
This is why generalization is very dangerous. Looking at Tashi by itself tells us very little about the situation in rural China or about the likelihood of success of the Wen-Hu reforms.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 17, 2005 12:59 AM
In late august, the Panyu Civil Affairs Bureau rejected the petition on the grounds that it was a copy and not an original.
Over the next several days, villagers went and sat down outside the Panyu government building to demonstrate and some got arrested. But they got publicity and made the government look bad. The action led nowhere, though.
Finally, the villagers decided to file a new petition in an original document.
Question: What if the villagers skipped the demonstration part and stuck to the literal legal process (you want an original document, i'll give you an original)? Would the Panyu government have defined this is as a disruptive event manipulated by black hands?
Joseph - you're right, and I've linked Sun Bin above. What's important about Taishi is a well-established legal process has been deliberately contravened by local authorities without any repurcussions from those higher up. With the attention it is getting, it is becoming a key test of the Beijing leadership's determination to deliver on their promises. So far they've not followed through with action.
I don't know if they are lying through their teeth or not, but the simple fact that they feel compelled to hold a press conference and present their version of events is progress.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 17, 2005 01:26 PM
I agree with Joseph Wang's comment above, and I would caution against arguing that the central government is directly responsible for the situation in Taishi. China's political system is a form of federalism, and the central government really has little control over what happens at the local level - and often they receive misleading or false information from local level governments who don't welcome any interference from beijing. I have discussed this in detail in my article, "The Myth of CCP Totalitarianism" (see the "China Artices" section of my blog) if anybody is interested. Essentially, I argue that what is happening in Taishi is a positive phenomenon for China.
Curiously the way that the Central Government gets a lot of its information is through "internal reports" issued by People's Daily and Xinhua reporters.
The other question is do you really want the Politburo routinely intervening in local affairs? In this case, it may be a good thing, but I can think of situations in the past where the ability of local and provincial officials to ignore Beijing was a good thing.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 17, 2005 05:27 PM
Excellent point Joseph - as I point out in my article though, decentralisation has had BOTH positive and negative effects. Many political scientists (even from the West) argue that China's current form of federalism is the secret behind its incredible economic success - a success which has lifted over 400 million people out of poverty! The type of problems we are witnessing in villages like Taishi represent the downside, but such villages are hardly representative.
It's always amazing to see how one of the most repressive dictatorships of the world, one of the last redoubts of One-Party State, one of the worst places for individual freedoms and rights is treated by some "China-watchers" as a reign of rule of law, federalism (sic!) and forthcoming reforms. So, Taishi is a good thing, the wonderful Hu-Wen ticket isn't well informed ("Stalin will save us", USSR people used to say when Stalin thugs took them: detsination GULAG), they can't intervene in local affairs (first case of authoritarian country powerless in local issues, wow) and so on...
If one thing the Taishi-case demonstrates once aagain is that the so called "grass roots reforms" are a fiction (I should say a farce) and that when someone really exceeds the Party line there's no room for hope.
It's time to stop dreaming and to learn history's lessons: where Communist Party in power, no real reforms; where real reforms, no Communist Party in power. China's freedom and democracy won't come frome the same who today suppress them so effectively. We should support real democracy and real freedom fighters, not the despots, the violence and the tricks to avert it and silence them.
"mentality or certain ways of observing the world, such mentality leads to distortion, ignorance or a vicious circle from prejudice to more prejudice"
Absolutely right. As the Taishi example demonstrates, the varying degrees of generalization based off Taishi, are not representative of China's reality, delima, and choices.
When it comes to our own problems and malfesence, it's complicated, so why should it by any different when it comes to China?
One factor that hasn't been mentioned in why the Chinese press has been very active despite press censorship......
Money. Money. Money.
During the 1980's, the government cut off funding to all but a few newspapers, and most newspapers have been forced to survive based on sales and ad revenue. You don't get readers by repeating the party line. You get readers by talking about scandal, sensational events, and pressing the limits of censorship.
The same goes true with most blogs and chat rooms which are sponsored by for-profit ICP's.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 18, 2005 07:36 AM
I have updated my post (simon has link above), to include a few other case studies (thanks to bobby for the links), where village mayors were successfully fired. Many involve long and difficult struggles, a few went through very smoothly. There are also set backs like Taishi.
There is an amusing picture of a mayor waiting for his verdict.
The current procedure has many flaws, one of them being a subjective ruling of "validity of complain", which was questioned by many legal experts inside China.
Almost all cases involve corruption, in particular selling of land rights.
We can debate on whether there would be fundamental change, or that small baby-steps would help to improve efficiency and curb corruption before there is fundamental change at the top (throught whatever process). IMHO quick conclusion based on subjective assumptions and opinions does not contribute to a rational debate.
Joseph - once again, you bring some sober intelligence to this conversation. What you say about the Chinese media is spot-on! Most Westerners who blog on these sorts of sites prefer instead to peddle the myth that all Chinese media merely serve as voices for the CCP. They couldn't be more wrong, and fort he reasons that you mentioned above.
And as for Enzo - well, he or she sounds as though they're still trapped in time, like they're still living out the Cold War during the Reagan administration perhaps.
It is true that if you publish a newspaper that is explicit anti-Party and if you come out explicit challenging the authority of the Party, your newspaper gets shut down and you get sent to jail.
However....
It's also the case that there are many issues about which there are multiple opinions within the Party and it is also the case that there are issues about which the Party has no opinion.
For example, take village protests. If you explicit say that you are challenging the Party, you are going to get sent to jail very quickly. However, if you make your demonstration *pro-CCP* by stating that you are trying to exercise the laws that the CCP has passed and are trying to implement measures supported by Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, then the authorities become much more limited as to what they can do to you.
If the authorities really thought that the Taishi demonstrations were a threat to the authority of the CCP, they would have lasted for about five minutes and you would have never heard of the village.
As far as newspapers. It is true that they are either state or party-owned. It's also true that this actually gives newspapers some political protection. If a newspaper owned by the Guangdong party branch has no reason not to report on local corruption in Hubei to sell newspapers. Above a certain level, stories get squashed. I doubt that any Chinese newspaper would be able to report on a scandal that happened at the provincial or national level. However, corruption and scandal at the village and township level is fair game.
Posted by Joseph Wang at October 18, 2005 11:42 AM
You know, there are people like me trapped in the past (freedom, democracy, rights? naaah... Cold War remnants...) and people like chinese ruling class, enlightened and projected into the future.
It's so clear. How could anyone doubt it?
Have a good time with your "rational debate". Sorry but I can't help in it.
If Taishi is not indicative of the problems with democracy in China, why is Chinadaily responding with a long, very suspect report stating that it is a "A true story about Taishi village incident"? Is it because a foreigner was involved? And yet, despite his involvement the situation received very little outside press. So why would they bother making such a fuss about it in English?
Update: He did it in a gray suit. But, who's lamer, Koizumi or the ROK government for protesting?
With his postal privatization reform bill firmly in hand, I guess we all hoped Japan PM Koizumi would take a hint, but in 15 minutes he will visit Yasukuni Shrine. So much for the theory, that visits were taken to placate conservatives opposed to reform.
If only the Democrats had won, we could have had both a postal privatization plan and none of this nonsense.
Administration officials say the plan is part of an effort to put the yuan into a broader debate over China's lopsided reliance on exports as the main source of economic growth. The plan, to be discussed in two days of talks here and in Beijing, calls for China to speed up the privatization of state-owned companies, including banks; to develop a Chicago-style futures market for currency trading; to establish an independent credit-rating agency; and to crack down on bailouts for banks left holding bad loans.
David Barboza offers an illustration of what revaluation means for Chinese companies.
Led by such trade gains, China's economy has been sizzling hot, bringing in so much money that Fitch Ratings said on Friday that China could in 2007 become the first country with more than $1 billion in foreign reserves; as of the end of last month they totaled $769 billion, the central bank said on Friday. Beijing is worried that strengthening the currency rapidly and sharply could be too much of a shock for the economy, perhaps even forcing companies to lay off workers.
Some economists say China's golden years are already coming to an end. And foreign manufacturers will not have it so easy. "The big question is what will happen over the next few years," said Jonathan Anderson, chief economist in Asia for UBS. "Wages and costs are going up in China. The economy is already past its peak. This is no longer the easy money you had in 2002 and 2003." There are fears that if China's currency appreciates sharply, some manufacturers will be forced to raise prices or shift their production to other low-cost regions, like India or Southeast Asia. Multinational companies that manufacture in China are already drawing up contingency plans.
According to Bloomberg, FDI trends are already mixed. In short, China's economy has already reached a point of maturity, but just as in previous periods of growth in its history, economic development is uneven.
Furthermore, as William Pesek, Jr. points out, the Bush administration is just wrong about comparing China to Japan or the former Soviet Union.
China is considerably less wealthy than Japan, and far more reliant on trade. So if Snow thinks his trip to China this month will result in a further strengthening of the yuan, he is mistaken.
Yet China is already more intertwined with the global economy than the Soviets ever were and its embrace of capitalism is more progressive. China's economy also is more stable and growing much faster than the Soviet Union's ever did.
Unlike the Soviet Union, which used fear to bend others to its will, China is using economic diplomacy. It has chosen integration and the promise of robust demand for trading partners' goods, rather than confrontation.
China, in part by buying so many U.S. Treasury bonds, also has made its relationship with the world's biggest economy symbiotic, a step the Soviets never took.
So, stop calling the Bush administration bullies. They're idiots!
On October 6 Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense during the Carter Administration, came to UCSD to give a talk at an IR/PS Dean's Roundtable. His topic was "Managing Change: China and the U.S. in 2025". I attended his talk and following are the notes I took. Any errors are mine alone.
1. Earlier spoke at Rand China Forum
Last month spent a week in China (informed somewhat his view of the path of US/China relations)
2. Clear major new force is rise of China
Civil War in Islam may be a close 2nd
3. In 2025, what will US and China look like?
GDP: US: 3% growth will yield a 2 trillion USD economy: with a population of 350-370 million will yield 65,000USD per capita GDP
GDP: China: 8% growth will yield 7 trillion USD economy: with a population of 1.4 billion will yield 5,000USD per capita GDP (but 12,000-15,000 at PPP)
Both estimates perhaps over-optimistic because of:
US: effects of War on Terror, monetary/fiscal policy, energy shortages
China: urban/rural divide, no social safety net, demography (1-child policy), local differences
China will be the world’s manufacturing center (today it’s the US: it produces 2x China’s output)
Rising wage rates will push some jobs from China to India
4. Will pass over military balance question. Just says if US defense spending is level US will continue to be the biggest power in the world and the West Pacific
However, China is expanding its military
Conflict on Mainland would be to China’s advantage but Taiwan Straits conflict to the US’ advantage
5. China’s foreign policy is global
Unlike Japan’s, it’s not only economic, it has strategic political and military components
6. China is a rising power: historically leading power/rising power changes have yielded conflicts: this isn’t encouraging
One exception: UK to US change
20th Century: particularly noxious: 1900-1945: attempt by Germany/Japan to replace powers, USSR tried 1945-1990
And China?
Positives
Nuclear weapons: worked well with USSR, tamping down US/USSR conflict
Unlike USSR, Germany, Japan: China doesn’t have an ideology it wants to spread
US has this Wilsonian Impuse, this will damp down in next 10-15 years
China wants to be Asia’s greatest power
Brazil wants to be Latin America’s premier power and this doesn’t bother US too much
Both US and China have common interest in world trading system and we have “balanced” economies
Though this leads to some frictions: China’s intellectual property laws, contract enforcement
Possible problems
Protectionism in US, competition for energy, China already has ½ of US’ oil consumption and 3x US’ coal consumption
7. Energy consumption effects
Increasingly import oil from the Middle East, sea lanes are vulnerable to interdiction by US Navy
But China unlikely to challenge US Navy
Global climate change
By 2025 China and India will produce more CO2 than US
Will industrialized countries pay to clean up the mess?
8. Sensitivity
China military expansion makes its neighbors nervous
Some pressure may build for US to withdraw from Asia: he thinks this would destabilize East Asia
US/Japan cooperation especially makes China sensitive
Any Japanese military capability worries China
9. Managing US/China relations
a. DPRK, Taiwan, internal PRC developments: key points
DPRK: we’ve had a good start
6-party talks may be a start to Northeast Asia security architecture
Taiwan: things currently damped down
Internal PRC developments
Will PRC become a democracy? Not likely
Question is how authoritarian will PRC be?
There is a lack of transparency in PRC
How will CCP try to stay in control?
Through greater social controls?
If faced with major threats to CCP control then perhaps they will use populism/nationalism to stay in power
10. He’s fundamentally optimistic: common threats and concerns will trump genuine differences and conflicts of interest
Question and Answer Session
1. China Navy: submarine fleet? Local San Diego naval leaders worry about it
Fundamentally, China military was a land force
Recently made a move to joint land/air/sea operations and make navy/air force less subordinate to army
US Navy is especially worried because it will have the primary role in the Taiwan Straits
US Navy also trying to hype the China threat to get a better budget (especially since Iraq and Afghanistan have focused monies on US Army)
It’s a legitimate worry: US Navy should focus on anti-submarine warfare
2. US Navy is smaller than before, so how to be optimistic?
During Brown years, US Navy was 2x as big, but USSR naval threat was much larger than Chinese Navy
China has no aircraft carriers (save for in amusement parks)
How to measure US Navy to its tasks? On this level it’s pretty good
China Navy lower power projection ability than UK or France
To improve US Navy better to improve current ships than increase their number: communications, intelligence
3. Higher education: is it in US long-term interests to educated Chinese in US universities and thus help China to catch up to US?
Especially in science and technology this is a problem
Helps with making sensible decisions to deal with global climate change or pandemics
Helps improve productivity
So US should continue to be open to foreign students
Many of these students will stay
Some will return to their home countries: this cuts both ways
They will improve their own economies which isn’t necessarily bad
If they develop positive opinion of US then that’s good
Will foreign Ph.Ds swamp US?
If economic system isn’t good it doesn’t matter how many Ph.Ds you have (social and political systems are important too)
USSR and Japan produced many engineers and they didn’t overtake US
In China the problem is management skill level, also there’s the question of China’s political development
4. Pros/Cons of Chinese buying US companies?
If we’re an open economy we should allow this to happen
Will we require reciprocity? There should be some
Outside of classified/strategic technology we should be open to China buying US companies
5. Chinese leadership has many scientists and engineers. What’s the effect?
Partly this is because there have been no business/law schools
Key is not to be a scientist, it’s to understand science
6. Oil in South China Sea: is this a source of conflict in that area?
Yes, but fortunately haven’t found much oil there
Energy conflicts have so far been worked out
Another reason China is increasing its navy
7. What will Chinese leadership look like in 2025?
Will be people born after Cultural Revolution but parents/grandparents will have suffered
Will they have the vision to solve PRC’s problems? Don’t know, but their style will be much different than the Founding Fathers
8. Robert Barnett just wrote a book separating world in the connected and unconnected worlds. US trying to make an enemy of China to justify their budgets. What do you think of the book?
Hasn’t actually read the book
China clearly joining the industrial world
Mistake to make China an enemy and it will be a mistake if we actively do that
Risk in both nations: leadership will excite the public to believe the other is an enemy
But we should also not let provocative actions go unchallenged (for either side)
9. Doesn’t believe USSR is an apt comparison to China: thinks Korea is a better comparison. Big concern is their legal system and protection of intellectual property
That’s why he also made comparisons to Japan
China might compete on entrepreneurial level (which USSR never did)
Perhaps when China has its own intellectual property it will more vigorously protect intellectual property
Chinese enforcement of contracts is quite weak
Importance of connections leads to corruption and is a real risk for doing business there and for Chinese themselves
Recall further that the weapons package is one of a score of bills that needs passing, all stalled by the pan-blues. The US needs more than just an armed Taiwan; it needs a well-run government with a stable economy if Taiwan is to support the US policy of containing China. Any US response to the arms package should also focus on the fact that it is just one aspect, albeit the most public, of a multi-pronged campaign by the two pro-China parties to bring the nation's government to a halt. Effective governance, after all, furthers Taiwan's autonomy.
Turton's advice to "thump KMT and PFP heads" might not be Rumsfeld's intent, if this skittish, unnamed Defense official is any indication:
On the roadblocks in the Legislative Yuan to passage of the arms sales funding, the defense official, who briefed on the condition that he not be named, denied that Washington was trying to "force" Taiwan to fund the sale.
"It isn't our obligation [under the Taiwan Relations Act] to force anything on Taiwan," he said.
The decision is up to the Taiwan people, the official said. "So we are not attempting to interfere, as we are so often accused. We're simply saying that however it is budgeted, this is an issue for the people of Taiwan. If the people of Taiwan decide not to budget for it, then that's their business," he said.
Admiral William Fallon, US Pacific Commander, seems to be towing the party line, too. if this is all for Beijing's benefit, it's unlikely to persuade the KMT and PFP to play ball.
Meanwhile, Canada is angry about Beijing's "bullying" over bill C-357, The Taiwan Affairs Act. Handling Taiwanese relations, with all these side-plays and domestic distractions, isn't a job for the military. Sending Rumsfeld just doesn't seem to be the right US cabinet official to send.
Marty Lederman and CT's Henry Farrell are putting out the alarm over Senator Ted Stevens' attempted "augmentation" of the McCain Amendment, concerning US military and government policy on the legality of torture. featuring a carve-out for the CIA.
A recent Congressional Quarterly article, reprinted here, reports Stevens -- who would "lead the Senate's conferees" -- as saying that "he can support McCain's language if it's augmented with guidance that enables certain classified interrogations to proceed under different terms." "'I'm talking about people who aren't in uniform, may or may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us in very difficult circumstances,' Stevens said. 'And sometimes interrogation and intimidation is part of the system.'"
What this barely veiled statement means is that Senator Stevens will support inclusion of the McCain Amendment in the final bill only once it has been "augmented" to exempt the CIA from the prohibition on cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. (Stevens's reference to persons who "may not be citizens of the United States, but are working for us" suggests that he also intends to include a carve-out for foreign nationals acting as agents of the CIA, such as the team of the CIA-sponsored Iraqi paramilitary squads code-named Scorpions.) If Stevens (read: Cheney) is successful in this endeavor, and if the Congress enacts the Amendment as so limited, it will be a major step backwards from where the law currently stands. This can't be overemphasized: If Stevens is successful at adding his seemingly innocuous "augment[ation]," it would make the law worse than it currently is.
Those wishing to learn all the details of why this is so are encouraged to read my previous posts (particularly those of January 8, 12, 18 and 25, and May 11) about how the Administration has construed numerous federal laws to make certain that the CIA is permitted to engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment -- i.e., to engage in all forms of coercive interrogation short of the small category of conduct denominated "torture." Here's a quick synposis of why the Stevens "CIA carve-out" would make matters worse, the basic gist of which is this: Although the McCain Amendment would helpfully clarify and reaffirm some of the law applicable to military interrogations, it would not impose any substantive limitations on the Armed Forces that are not already in current law. The McCain Amendment would, however, emphatically reject the Administration's view that the CIA may engage in cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in certain locations outside the U.S. -- a very significant development, but one that the Stevens "augmentation" would eviscerate.
Farrell goes on to pound his fist into the table: "It’s quite disgusting that the US mainstream press isn’t paying any real attention to what’s happening here. The US is on the verge of a momentous choice, between turning away (at least in part) from some of the vicious abuses of the last couple of years, or giving them the green flag. It shouldn’t be left up to a blogging law professor to tell us what’s going on."
For what it's worth, Andrew Sullivan railed against this measure on Real Time with Bill Maher. But, neither that cable show, nor Sullivan, a Republican blogger and currently an editor at TNR, are mainstream.
Abiola Lapite and Bill Poser gush over the linguistic value of Hangul, the Korean alphabet. I'm willing to give King Sejong, and his scholarly team, all the credit they deserve for both creating the alphabet and defending it against aristocratic reaction.
In 15th century Korea, as almost everywhere else in the world, literacy was restricted to a small elite - most people were illiterate. Furthermore, Korean society was extremely hierarchical. It consisted of three tiers, nobles, commoners, and slaves. It was almost impossible for a slave to become free, or for a commoner to become a noble. Until 1444, when King Sejong forbade the practice, a slave's owner had the right to kill him at whim.
The dominant ideology was Confucianism, a philosophy based on the relationships between ruler and subject, parent and child, older and younger, man and woman, and friend and friend, the first four of which are conceived as inherently unequal. Women could not inherit property. In short, 15th century Korea was a highly stratified society rigidly controlled by a small elite in which those who were not elite and not male had few rights.
Indeed, there was strong opposition to the introduction of Hangul on the part of King Sejong's court, so strong that they presented a memorial in opposition and debated with him verbally. The reasons they gave were in part that it was wrong to deviate from the Chinese way of doing things, and in part that such a simple writing system would lead to the loss of aristocratic privilege. Their motives may have been wrong, but they understood the effects of mass literacy all too well. After King Sejong's death, Hangul was very nearly suppressed. It took much longer to come into wide use than he had intended due to the opposition of the aristocracy.
I wouldn't call him a humanitarian, though. More like Machiavelli's legislator, King Sejong deserves ample credit for being a nationalist. His lead was not followed until the 20th Century, when the Korean language freed itself from Japan's colonial education policies. Also, Hangul is useless without Korean grammar and ocabulary, which is at least 50% Chinese. Despite documentaries played for local reinforcement where South Korean scholars teach indigenous people in some exotic location the magic of Hangul, Hangul is not Esperanto. Korean study still requires Chinese, and the grammar and regional dialects frustrate proficiency. But, Hangul has facilitated astoundingly widespread basic literacy in South Korea.
My wife and I watched a South Korean horror flick, Pink Shoes (Bunhongshin), last night. It's nothing to tout for a film festival award, but it did show how consistent South Korean movies have become technically. Moreover, what impressed me most was the strong female lead, a single mother, although a murderer, whose husband cheated on her, and who is, at least until the plot twists, divorced. Another feature is the inclusion of a Japanese villainess, which I suppose will be a stock feature of South Korean movies for decades to come.
The best way to find out about South Korean society, its gossipy details and controversies, in the same way science fiction and horror movies reveal western society's underbelly, is to watch these B horror movies. Although, like Japanese ones, South Korean horror movies employ stock features, like ghosts with long, face-obscuring hair floating over the ground, it's more common to see strong, unconventional female characters and controversial topics, like divorce, infidelity, and single parenthood, in these flicks than in mainstream romantic comedies. And, there's the therapeutic benefits of a good shock.
Thanks for all your guest posting over the past week. I'm back up and running at full speed now but I'll be sure to let you know when I next take a break. There's been some interesting posts...to say the least!
Speeding toward the ground
Through the air without a sound
So gracefully
Twelve flights down, nearly naked on the ground Skin and tragedy always attract a crowd
Well, considering that SimonWorld's quality has doubtless been speeding toward the ground without our Captain, and we've had plenty of skin (and commentary), it's time to throw some tragedy into the mix. Let's attract a crowd.
And what's more tragic than two bloggers who don't agree? Nothing.
So, without knowing anything else than Peking Duck is on Sinophile Simon's regular rotation, and that TM Lutas is on Sinophile TPMB's regular rotation, so both are extremely intelligent, well-spoken, and accomplished bloggers, I present
Peking Duck: Peaceable Poultry or Communist Collaborator?
I picked up The Peking Duck into my regular blog reading because I think I should get more information about the PRC in my news diet. The header of the comments page was really optimistic:
Note to commenters: All viewpoints are tolerated. Comments will never be deleted or edited except in cases of blatant disrespect or maliciousness as determined by the site owner. Thank you for commenting.
Unfortunately, the actual policy doesn't follow the header. I'm banned. I still read the thing and occasionally try to comment on the odd chance that the ban might be lifted. Sigh, to no avail so far. Anyway, this article on Afghanistan got my fire up. Under the Taliban, articles critical of sharia were a quick way to commit suicide. Now, they're an entry into a slow, deliberate judicial process to determine whether a crime against the state religion was committed, something you might have easily seen in 19th century England.
My rejected comment below:
A US that were imperialist, colonialist, would be a miserable failure if this is the result of our imposed government in Afghanistan. A US that is trying to set up a process whereby real governments, chosen by Afghans, start the long process of reconciliation with the modern world would view the Karzai government as a success.
Ultimately, the lash punishments will fall if the people want them to in a free Afghanistan. The forces that support such punishments would have already killed the author and possibly the publisher of the magazine in question. Today, they're submitting the article for the government to decide whether charges should be filed. If you can hardly see a difference between the two, get better glasses
Was TM Lutas' comment out of bounds? Peking Duck too strict in censorship?
I got the impression from what Lutas said that he wasn't banned for that comment, he was banned a while ago but tried commenting again just recently to no avail.
In any case though, it's puzzling. TM is usually quite polite in his comments, so I don't know why anybody would ban him.
Posted by Matt McIntosh at October 16, 2005 12:42 PM
Bingfeng was accused of "CCP minion" in the debate on the Guardian Taishi report:
http://www.pekingduck.org/archives/002996.php
Someone else was recently banned for the Duck for posting, trolling as some people call it, long arguements. Really the Duck has seriously declined in quality and its been a slow slide to the bottom for the last couple of months now.
Jing, why not try reading my new China blog then? I have a very clear Guest Book policy, and if you go to the China Articles section, you will see that I write about the bigger issues - which I am interested in exploring with those among you who are interested enough to engage in discussion by leaving intelligent comments.
My site is at:
f r e e w e b . c o m / f l o w i n g w a t e r s
or try the mirror site, which allows longer comments to be posted, at:
I know, I know, I have a really bad blog and an evil comments policy. I ban everyone and delete all the comments. Go there now and see how few comments I have on my blog.
Jing, you and I disagree all the time - have I ever banned you? Deleted you? Have I ever banned Bingfeng? I do not ban people for posting long arguments; go see some of Sun Bing's and everlasting's comments - very long and very good.
Simon, you nad I have bitter fights about politics. Have I ever deleted or banned your comments, ever?
LFC, I just went back to the thread you cited, and no where, ever did I call bingfeng a "minion" and I don't think he is. Please don't misrepresent the truth; it only makes you look bad.
Lutas is being less than truthful about why I banned him and he knows it. But this was a shrewd move on his part, and an even shrewder move on Simon's part. :-)
Look, if you have a problem with my blog, there are plenty of others. Those who comment there regularly know I will not delete comments that disagree with me. You have to work for it.
By the way, it's nice to see an active comment thread over here.
I do apologize to LFC - I did say this to Bingfeng: "The minions are people like you, bright and decent and well-intentioned, but conditioned to believe the Pary line and ever ready to respond in a Pavlovian manner to any sign of an outsider criticizing or questioning the Party." While that isn't quite calling him a minion, it's close enough, and I forgot that I said it. Sorry for questioning your integrity.
I posted this a minute ago but it didn't show up so I'll try once more:
I did say this to BF in my comments: "The minions are people like you, bright and decent and well-intentioned, but conditioned to believe the Pary line and ever ready to respond in a Pavlovian manner to any sign of an outsider criticizing or questioning the Party."
While I didn't call him a minion per se, what I said was close enough to that, so I apologize for calling into question your integrity; I was wrong, and forgot that I wrote that. Sincerely sorry about that.
Don't bring me into this - this was all driven by a guest poster.
The golden rule is simple - each blog/site owner can do as they like. If anyone's got a problem with it, start their own blog. Richard runs his site how he likes, and he still gets more comments that the rest of us put together. That tells us all something.
And Simon, sorry for getting snarky - I was just surprised to see another thread about my blog over here. Hope you had a good trip, and that's a great post you did on Taishi today.
Richard,
Never mind. I appreciate that you have made two unequivocal and prompt corrections.
Simon is of course right to say that "[Richard] still gets more comments that the rest of us put together." A single open thread in TPD can attract more than a hundred comments, more than the total of my 2.5 month old blog. But that is exactly the reason why some bloggers take issue with the way you blog / your comment policy.
Your Taishi posts / responses to commentators disappointed me. Because I had and still have expectations.
LFC, I wish I could be all things to all people. I speak/write what I feel, and my coverage of the Taishi story was totally sincere and comes to the exact same conclusions as Rebecca MacKinnon and Simon, to the letter. That doesn't mean my assesment was right, but it does mean I'm not the only one who sees it that way. Anyway, I write about lots of stuff. If I can be the same as Mao - 70 percent good, 30 percent not-so-god - I'll be satisfied.
I am not disappointed by your STANCE. Disagreement, perhaps. But not disappointment. In fact, I criticised Mr Joffe-Walt for creating the red herring – I think on the "red herring" point (that the grassroots democracy is the core issue), we (Rebecca, you, Simon and me and many other bloggers) are in agreement.
In the Taishi post in question, I really cannot see why Bingfeng deserved the label. To me this is not tolerance.
"Those who disagree with you are not necessarily stupid or insane. Nobody needs to be described as silly: let your analysis prove that he is" (The Economist Style Guide).
LFC, I like Bingfeng and didn't mean to label him as anything. If I was harsh on him, I'm sorry about that. I thought that in this episode he was, perhaps without knowing it, parroting the Party line, but I know he has the brains to do his own thinking. Again, I can't please everyone all the time, and I hope you don't judge one hastily written comment, one of many, as representativce of my entire site. (I wrote it so quickly I didn't even remember writing it; sometimes my site is like that.)
If anyone was upset by this post I apologize. This post was by me, not Simon. I enjoy reading TM and PD, and enjoy reading to sites that link to TM (like TPMB) and PD (like SW), so this interested me. Again, I apologize.
On a slightly happier note, another cross-blog conversation is going very well. See Thomas P.M. Barnett and John Robb on the Iraq War.
I am going to break with tradition and comment. I do not comment on this site because it is a whore forum for Mark Jones and he is a mentalist.
I have had comments edited on Peking Duck because I referred to my dislike of Other Lisa's posts and comments. She ruins the site for me, not the deletion policy. After she told everyone to mourn after Katrina, I am still waiting for similar words from her after 54,000 dead in the earthquake. I will not hold my breathe.
As I read it, Dan txpqrt is just a little blogger using the big blogger Peking Duck name to drum up comments for his little post. Nothing more than that.
Grow up and learn to blog about a real subject Dan twqipfgkhldpoekizxeqi. That is my advice.
Simon will accept anyone (Mark Jones) and anything (this post) on this site to try and drum up comments. Shame, because that is exactly why I do not comment here.
Brian, as I told you, I appreciate your comments and - so everyone here is clear - I have never deleted them; I did, openly, edit your personal snipe at Lisa, which I said was inappropriate. As for her asking people to pray for Katrina victims and not mentioning the earthquake - she knew New Orleans and had a personal attachment to it, like blogger Joseph Bosco, who can be accused of the same offense. To wish the people of New Orleans well but to not blog about catastrophes in other places is no crime. I haven't blogged a word about the earthquake or many other global issues because I don't have time and I have to prioritize with the items that are closest to me. So this is an unfair criticisms, I believe.
Not to be nosy, but I notice Richard never did bother to explain why he banned TM. I've searched his site and I can't find a single comment by TM that's even remotely offensive. Enquiring minds what to know.
Posted by Matt McIntosh at October 18, 2005 12:22 PM
I don't wanna sound like an asshole here, but I guess I will anyway. Here's the definition of minion.
minion: a servile dependent, follower, or underling.
This will sound rude, but I think it fits bingfeng ok. He's never exactly "suprised" me with any of his comments. He's like an interactive version of the People's Daily. Additionally, he's always quite happy to engage in similar name calling and personal attacks.
Kevin, why unnecessarily insult Bingfeng? Does it give you a thrill?
Besides, if you bother to read Bingfeng's posts about the Taishi issue, you might end up quite impressed - he asks searching and pertinent questions, all the right questions in fact.
I wouldn't say that was an unnecessary insult. I just stated my opinion, without even pretending I was someone else, as some of us do.
I have read bingfeng's posts on taishi, and was far from impressed. I would not hesitate to call him a minion. Sorry if that offends you.
Feel free to visit http://tinyurl.com/7qbvj
for my opinion on "questions."
Fair enough then Kevin. I will visit your site to find out your opinion. You can read my two articles on the topic too if you want to know mine - "The myth of CCP totalitarianism" and "A few thoughts on peasant activism" - in the "China Articles" section of my blog. My blog also has a mirror site at:
f r e e w e b s . c o m / f l o a t i n g w a t e r s
I still think you are being very unfair on Bingfeng though. Perhaps you are reading too much into him.
Simon said, "The golden rule is simple - each blog/site owner can do as they like. "
1. No one has any right to comment on Simon's discretion to what is allowed on his site (and what not). This applies to TPD as well.
2. Whoever this Lutas guy claimed, was a complaint on the discrepany about the 'welcome comment note' of TPD and how it was excecuted.
But banning is a subjective action, since one can always ask why certain predictable minions are cheered while other "minions" were banned.
But the solution is easy, just change (or add to) that note saying there is exception, and such exception is entirely up to the discretion of the owner. No one can call anyone a hypocrite then.
I checked the Lutas quote again above.
It said, "...as determined by the site owner"
So there were disclaimers. We really should not be blaming TPD. He was just applying the sole discretion of the site owner. He can choose to tolerate some "blatantly disrepect and malicious comment" while not others, because he determines what it is and what it is not.
Brian - thanks for breaking your rule and commenting here to tell us why you don't comment here. You are absolutely free to comment or not as you like. Likewise, each blog owner is able to accept, edit or delete comments as they like. Each has their own policy and way of running comments. Richard has made his clear, I've made mine clear.
I'm also sorry that you think this is a "whore forum" and these debates are about generating visits. As it happens there have been a neglible number of hits from this or any of the other Maj-related posts. If you really can't find any other posts here that you deem worthy of comment, that's up to you. Petty slander only serves to make you look foolish, not those you are throwing mud at.
Quite frankly, Brian, your comment has come the closest to getting an edit or ban here, far more so than anything anything MAJ or anyone else has ever written in these pages. So far this thread has teetered above a slanging match, managing to remain relatively civil even while people are vehmently disagreeing. Please let's keep it that way.
And Brian, if you don't like how Richard or I run our blogs, start your own.
SFGate's Jeff Yang (via Foreign Dispatches' Abiola Lapite) puts as fair and humorous a spin on the East Asian penchant for dog cuisine as I've seen outside the blogosphere. Instead of indulge in relativistic discourse about boshintang and PETA protesters, a story from my wife during her morning hike up the mountain:
Old Woman: Where's your dog?
Wife: He's relaxing at home.
Old Woman (faltering voice): You didn't eat him, did you?
Wife: No! He's asleep!
Old Woman: Oh, good!
Going back to the previous post about South Koreans' supposedly xenophobic attitudes, the dog issue (and the plastic surgery shtick) would be reparable if South Koreans embraced globalization instead of resenting foreigners. If South Koreans tried to market their culture, say cuisine, the way the Chinese and Japanese industries have, perhaps Americans would have something more than bad, stock jokes to inflict upon South Koreans. I tell my students it's amazing how "sushi" and "sashimi" (and, I think, Korean-style sashimi, or "hwae", is superior) is so recognizable, but Koreans cannot even monopolize kimchi. When you can get a foreign culture to use your words instead of a translated word, you know you have done the job right.
Update: I just knew Marmot would have something to say about it, too.
According to TNR's Joshua Kurlantzick (Subscription-Required), there's closet militarists in Japan PM Koizumi's entourage. Amid the cheering as Japan's Upper House approved a postal privatization bill on Friday lurks the fear that amending Japan's pacifist constitution to permit remilitarization could be on Koizumi's agenda. East Asian neighbors didn't ry to hide how much they would have preferred the opposition, a pro-pacifist, Democratic party, with its own postal privatization plan, to win the September 11 election. Now, Kurlantzick is get America on the bandwagon.
A more powerful Japanese military may be inevitable, even necessary, if Washington's relations with other countries in the region, such as South Korea and China, continue to deteriorate. And Japan today is a democracy with strong civilian control over the armed forces, which have participated effectively in international peacekeeping. But many American officials don't recognize the potential damage Japanese remilitarization will do to America's already shaky image in Asia. Americans may have forgotten about Japanese abuses in the Pacific Theater during World War II, but the populations of countries in the region have not, and these abuses are often magnified by nationalist governments in China and other Asian nations eager to deflect attention from their own shortcomings and to justify increases in defense spending.
(...)
If the United States openly backs Japan's rearming, it could find itself and Tokyo ostracized by vital allies like Korea and Thailand, moving it even further from China. Many Japanese hawks don't seem to care. "What's the solution to North Korea?" Okazaki asked me when I visited his office. "A closer U.S.-Japan alliance." "What's the solution to China? A closer U.S.-Japan alliance." He pauses. "What's the solution to South Korea?" You can guess the rest. But, in the long run, America might not like the answer.
Putting aside the good reform legislation the Upper House just passed, though, is progressive dread about a remilitarized Japan warranted? The part about China's and South Korea's "shortcomings" is a huge speed pump in the argument to ignore. According to a Joong-ang Daily poll---mind you, ROK newspaper polls are like editorials with a few more quotes than usual, because the polling samples as a percentage of population are smaller than the margin of error---67% favored a ROK nuke. Even more depressing are some of the xenophobic attitudes justifying that opinion. North Korea has also aroused Japanese voters' ire, and, as Kurlantzick argues, Beijing incited more than rhetoric after anti-japanese riots earlier this year:
Beijing also seems to be playing into Japanese hawks' hands. Japan provides China with roughly $1 billion in annual direct development assistance, but a rash of anti-Japanese riots in China this spring reinforced the positions of Japanese politicians like Abe, who have questioned this assistance, as well as the broader Japan-China relationship. After the riots, The New York Times reported, a poll by Japan's trade agency showed that the percentage of Japanese companies planning to expand in China fell by more than 30 points.
These are the choices! Sentimental favorites aside, the choice between which horse to back is like choosing between a crack-backed cripple (DPRK), a slick-looking gelding with a temper (ROK), an obese, oat-slurping manure machine (PRC), and a winner owned by a criminal syndicate (Japan). Let's not even discuss Taiwan! The only aspect of the choice facing Washington, when it considers an East Asian policy, completely in its control is its own reputaion. Whomever Washington favors assumes Washington's faults, too. One choice is not good enough, so Washington needs to buy two, China and Japan. How Washington puts two blood enemies into the same stable is the foreign policy progressive Democrats need to devise.
The long-term dynamic in East Asia is the generations' old rivalry between China and Japan that could erupt into war at any time. Korean unification looms over the horizon. The question of Taiwan's status requires attention. But none of these questions, including economic liberalization and democratization, can proceed until Japan and China are yoked together like Germany and France into a mutual defense community.
So, let's stop making Japan into the bogeyman, or China, North Korea, etc. All choices are bad. Secretary of State Acheson put diplomatic capital on the line, including East Asia's, to bang Western Europe into the Coal and Steel Community, so now Washington owes the region. Or, watch the region go up in flames.
great post.
and asia in flames hurts US interests and may even security in its Pacific coast.
Japan has the ability (i.e. Plutonium) get nuke overnight. In fact, at least 4500 nukes! And it has ICBM capability after sending satellites to the sky.
When Korea re-unites, it is likely to get the Uranium/Plutonium from the North. It can be nuclearize overnnight as well. US needs to prevent this from happening. It can only do so if it denuclearizes Japan. Otherwise, Korea will use Japan as a reason to get nuke. (and Japan use NK as an excuse)
US needs to take full control of the enrichment plant in Rokkasho-Mura. Maybe that should be the price for Japan to get UN-SC seat.
(see below and the link to Asiatimes about Japanese nuke)
http://sun-bin.blogspot.com/2005/09/two-birds-with-one-stone-how-to-solve.html
Totally agree with Sun Bin. Very insightful post.
However remilitarization of Japan and a future war between Japan and China may be American's interests. US has benefited from two world wars and gained its current monopoly position from its clever strategy in both Wars.
I would agree with you, lin, except that now more than ever, East Asia is a very important part of the global economy. The political gains from a confrontation are trounced by the fiscal and corporate losses. That's why this is such a problematic time in the region. Both rivals are on the verge of complementing each other perfectly. On that account, the current tension could be a sign of strength. But then, Japan and ROK have been nearly economically complementary for decades, but looming unification could exacerbate resentments. Having played this game in Europe, the world might have to watch it happen again in Asia.
The Republic of T. warns about another potential leadership fiasco, this time involving another influenza pandemic, ready to break.
Tommy Thompson’s lawyer sidekick — who’s followed him from one job to another — is in charge of dealing an avian flu outbreak, should one occur on these shores. Nevermind that he doesn’t have, as far as anyone knows, a day’s worth of experience in dealing with public health emergencies.
This, on top of two pieces of disconcerting news from Silviu Dochia, is enough to send me to the hospital (and, I hate hospitals). First, avian flu has reached eastern Europe. Second, when Tamiflu is regarded as the best prophylactic measure against a pandemic and stockpiling it is the one measure most countries doing anything are doing, could be ineffective already.
Update: Michael Osterholm on NPR explains how a pandemic diffrs from the usual infections seen in most cold/flu seasons and why Tamiflu is no panacea.
Recent posts by infidel and me have sparked quite a discussion here at SimonWorld. In particular, what displays of female forms are appropriate for semi-formal blogs such as Simon's? By my count there are around twenty comments under two or three posts on the subject. No less erudite commentators than Curzon of Coming Anarchy, Jing of Those Who Dare, Phil of Flying Chair, Li Liwei, and many others have weighed in.
But what is the history of feminine forms in foreign policy circles?
In another way, countries and places themselves can be feminized. Nanjing is portrayed as a woman during the Rape of Nanking episode. In Europe, Finland is often called a kneeling maiden, with the south being her blouse and her arms and head reaching northwards.
Maiden of Finland
In nationalist artwork, the Maiden of Finland is often combined with an evil representing the monstrosity of Russia
In Art
In Life
World leaders try to exploit femininity to their own advantage. Memorably, Secretary of State Dr. Condi Rice attendend an official funciton in garb that reminded many of dominatrices. Alternatively, matronly qualities might be emphasized, as with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright
As I've said before, I'm sceptical of the blogosphere's claims to perform journalism. "Cyber-Journalist" sounds less Stalinist than "Citizen-Journalist", but then both sound like something Wiley Coyote would say. Perhaps blogging reminds me too much of three old ladies playing bridge. Or, that I knew the most about anything when I had a security clearance, and I'm glad not to have it anymore. There's just no joy in knowing everything. I just like to see everyone talking, not just the suits.
Just a quick note that I apologize for any problems clicking on the links I put up. Somethingw is wrong company-wide at blogspirit, which hosts tdaxp and many other good sites.
10/14/2005, 07:40 (GMT). blogSpirit.com platform was attacked last night. We decided to suspend the service in order to identify precisely the origin of the attack and to reboot the platform. This might take a few hours. Please accept our apologies for the inconvenience. Be sure that we are doing everything to make your service available without delay.
We are still working on a few blogs and this shoud take again hours. I published on my french blog a long post about and didn't take time to write it in english.
Attacks are poor things. Everything should be ok tomorrow evening. I do really hope that tdaxp will stay.
According to an NPR report, the dispute concerning the first region of the world, China, Italy, or the Middle East, to feature noodles on the menu, is settled. According to archaeological remains from present-day northwest China, the Lajia site is the winner by thousands of years. The noodles, made from millet, disintegrated into dust upon contact with the air. If only those annoying little morsels of noodle too small to pick up did that.
Yknow, when I saw this story, the two words that stuck out for me were "northwest" and "neolithic". These noodles are from the Lajia site in Qinghai, and date to the Xia/Shang dynasties - which never reached as far as Qinghai, except perhaps in limited trade. The Lajia site was part of Qijia culture, which seems to have had as many links west as they did east. They had jade from Xinjiang and lived a semi-nomadic life like other Central Asian cultures.
I'm trying to get material together to post on just how "Chinese" the Qijia were. The concept of "China" didn't exist at the time, so that limits it right there. Just like some white dude from Boston claiming Lakota artifacts as "American".
The article in the New Scientist doesn't cover this either. I should have said present-day China, of course. The interesting part is that the noodles were made of millet, establishing links with other cultures using that grain.
What you say also goes to explaining why Middle Easterners claim the noodle, too. Perhaps this story is more appropriate in a central asian blog.
if memory serves me right. it is the middle east that first grew wheat. so it is not at all unlikely that noodle was invented while wheat was passing from ME to the yellow river area.
in any case, it seems unlikely that noodle is invented by the italians. :)
about qijia, people moved a lot in 4000 years. the miao/yao used to occupy the yellow river as well, but were driven to the mountains after defeated by the han.
so i am not sure if we can establish solid link between geography and the people who live here in present days. the only evidence that might shed some light on the issue, is probably from the artifact connections.
Millet noodles, according to the BBC article, are still eaten by the poorer farmers in the region, wheat obviously being preferable. It also says the types millet used are oxtail millet (Setaria italica) and broomcorn millet (Panicum miliaceum), and those are indigeneous.
Sunbin, the fact that they moved around a bit is kind of the point. They were nomadic. I just think it's inaccurate to say that these noodles are Chinese. That's like saying totem poles are American. Either statement is only true in the sense that the artifacts are found within modern day borders of states created by other cultures. There was no such thing as "China" back then and the Qijia aren't really part of the ancestry. They were the neighbors of the Xia dynasty, not part of it.
Dave, I am not if you are right. "Qijia didn't belong to Xia" doesn't mean people at Qijia were related to Chinese. It's actually depending on how you define "Chinese".
If Chinese was already an established concept long before Qijia culture, probably you are right. However if Chinese is only an aggregate of many different tribes and itself was a forming concept at that time, then Qijia people probably belong to one of the ancestor tribe of Chinese. It also should be noted that ancient people at that time were mobile. This culture might migrate from the East or West.
I say it's a very advanced development in Chinese history, if you could prove your argument below
“Qijia aren't really part of the ancestry”
Points taken. I guess it is better to understand "China" as a geographic concept in today's definition, rather than as a ethnic definition. this applies to all archeological cases. That is how I read it.
example: early homonoid(?) in ZhouKoudian near Beijing, or homo erectus in Kenya - their genetic relationship to present day chinese, africans, americans are probably the same.
OTOH, the descendents of Qijia, might well have moved and mixed with the Han people during the 3-5th century grand migration or later.
---
i missed the millet part. if that is the case, there is a strong case against the ME/Persian theory.
Qijia and other Yangshao tribes probably did enter the gene pool of modern day Chinese to some extent. It was Longshan culture, however, that was sedentary and inhabited the Eastern regions. The Yongshao were nomadic and lived in the north and east. Many aspects of their culture were far closer to that of Central Asian nomads. And I'd love to see what their DNA looks like... there's a distinct possibility they're genetically closer to steppe peoples.
My main point is not that Qijia did not have some influence or connection to modern Chinese (Chinese did not exist as a concept back then Lin). My point is that the Lajia camp was not Chinese. It was Qijia. A woman named Fitzgerald-Huber has apparently written about how the Qijia were a link between the Longshan and Eurasians like, presumably, the Persians. I just don't like the fact that if it's within China's borders, it automatically culturally belongs to China. Just like I don't like modern Americans co-opting totem poles and tomahawks. When you think about it, it's just silly to credit a modern culture with the achievements of an extinct one. And yes, I extend this to modern day Italians and Greeks as well.
Oh, and millet doesn't count against the ME/Persian theory. Someone invented how to make noodles out of some kind of plant. These guys made it with the local plants available. Remember, the poorer farmers in Qinghai still eat millet noodles, presumably because its cheaper and easier to grow there. Millet may simply have been a substitute they used because they didn't have anything else to use.
Also, Lin, my point of ancestry was not about genetics. It was about the fact that the earliest dynasties started in the east, not the west, of China, and they were sedentary, not nomadic. As far as cultural ancestry, there is a more direct line from the Longshan to the Xia and Shang. And let's not forget, the Qinghai region was for foreign barbarians for most of Chinese history. The previous dynasties usually considered this area non-Chinese.
And Sun Bin, if we are saying China is strictly a geographic concept in archaeology... then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China).
Also, Lin, my point of ancestry was not about genetics. It was about the fact that the earliest dynasties started in the east, not the west, of China, and they were sedentary, not nomadic. As far as cultural ancestry, there is a more direct line from the Longshan to the Xia and Shang. And let's not forget, the Qinghai region was for foreign barbarians for most of Chinese history. The previous dynasties usually considered this area non-Chinese (or at least foreign).
And Sun Bin, if we are saying China is strictly a geographic concept in archaeology... then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China).
"then really all we're talking about is shallow nationalism, aren't we? (I mean when people write things about who gets credit for noodles, Italy or China)."
yes, it is. the truth is more important than national pride, esp in these cases where what difference does it make? you are not going to get a patent for it.
i am only interested in the scientific implication. who among present people gets the credit, is something i really don't care.
that is my point when i raised the homo erectus issue. genetically, we all are just as close as, and as distant from, those bones in east african rift valley.
how the skill move and get transferred? how these people moved or assimilated, why did they do that? did noodle got invented after pottery bowls (hence soup) was invented? is there any implication/relation to the chopsticks (or the forks?)
these are more interesting questions to ask, and to answer.
"I just don't like the fact that if it's within China's borders, it automatically culturally belongs to China. Just like I don't like modern Americans co-opting totem poles and tomahawks."
if this helps to raise fund and attract attention to academic research, why not use it?
there is really no harm done.
critically minded people are able to separate facts from interpretations.
theoretically, it is possible that Qijia taught the Han (before other) of this technology given the geographic proximity, either by teaching or mixing with them. It is also possible that people in the geographic proximity (Han or people in Yunnan or Tibet) invented the tech and passed to Qijia.
your hypothesis of persian is also possible, though less likely given the difficulty in travelling techonologies.
as i said before, i believe they need to examine the artifact styles to establish the connections.
you said, "millet doesn't count against the ME/Persian theory." could you elaborate?
the noodle found we made on indigeneous millets. if we assume we cannot find noodle earlier than this. that means noodle was first made from millet, near the qinghai/gansu area.
so it is very unlikely than persian invented it?
btw, since the noodle were found inside a pottery bowl. it is very likely it is 'soup noodle'. since we do not have soup spaghetti, maybe we can say it is not favorable for the italian theory?
dave, another question (since you seem to be studying archeology)
if you can read chinese, check this out about qijia
http://www.lx.gansu.gov.cn/printpage.asp?ArticleID=129
it said,
they are agricultural people (you are right that some believe they are a branch of yangshao culture), they grow millet and rear pigs. what was the interpretation that they are nomadic and relate to persian?
-- btw, i read they found a lot of links between qijia and lajia and it is quite sure about the connection. + that lajia site was a result of a major earthquake.
i googles Qijia + Fitzgerald-Huber,
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/earlychina/publications/ecjournal/ec20/fitzgerald-huber.html
Found her 1995 article abstract:
"This paper investigates the relationships between the Early Metal Age cultures of the Inner Mongolia and Gansu-Qinghai area with the Erlitou culture of the Central Plains region, and addresses the issue whether specific metal objects characteristic of these cultures may have their source of inspiration in areas as remote as southern Siberia and presentday Afghanistan and southern Turkmenistan. The proposal that China at the very beginning of its Bronze Age may have been affected by longdistance cultural transmissions depends upon recent re-evaluations of the early history of the Eurasian steppe, in particular the advent of nomadic pastoralism and horse riding, and upon newly re-calibrated carbon dates ascertained for specific Siberian sites and for the Bactrian-Margiana complex."
So she said the steppe nomad probably influenced (maybe settled as?) Qijia culture. But there is no evidence that Qijia people become/influence the nomad (after settleing). Once Qijia settled in agriculture, I presume it is very unlike they would move West again?
all of that looks extremely interesting, thanks for finding it all. That's the discussion I'd much rather hear than the one in the press about Chinese vs. Italians. I'm going to go over the stuff you linked to and try and do a post on it. I'd like to pursue this further and get more of your input - I just happen to be a bit busy this week.
I'm not saying the Qijia didn't invent it first, or that they have no connections to East China. I'm just saying I don't like the way its framed in the media, and that I think there's too much emphasis in both Western and Chinese popular thinking that China is somehow discretely separate from the world. I think more emphasis should be put on grey areas where the two blur together, and I think this is an example where that emphasis is missing when there could be more.
As for your comment about "why not let it be spun that way if it gets money for academic research", I hear that kinda of rationale in the academic community all the time. Don't you find that kind of a cynical and implicitly elitist way of thinking about it? It implies that you do the research only to enlighten some tiny minority. It seems unsavory to me; it may be what academics have to resort to, but I don't think they should accept it as unalterable, which I think some do. That seems a bit hypocritical and, well, suggests the rest of the world is stupid and always will be. I'm not saying that's what you think, just that I get that impression from academia quite often.
academic funding: i am just a pragmatist and 'black cat/white cat' believer.
let me first admit i am a sympathizer of "elitists", literally. even though i don't understand what you mean by "tiny minority", were you refering to the academics, the sponsors or the audience?
yes, i sympathesize with the tiny group academic/elite, assuming that they pursue truth and knowledge and that benefits all of mankind. we can agree to disagree there.
(was off-topic comment from me originally)
---
We have some common grounds now, I hope you don't mind me venturing into somewhere we may not agree. to continue my pragmatism:
let's assume (HYPOTHEICALLY) there are present day descendents of Qijia, who are "DIFFFERENT" from Hans, and hence discriminated by "Han chauvinism", and people cannot have equal opportunity in finding jobs. now due to this publicity, the "chauvanistic" portion of the Han people become proud of Qijia and they convince themselves they are also Qijia and that Qijia are part of their extended family. they become happy to provide good jobs to them.
As a pragmatist I welcome such outcome and do not mind taking such path to achieve equality.
Don't we all believe in that everybody is equal, and that there should not be your race vs our race? Isn't this the celebrated dream and ideals such as that in American constitution? To me the broader concept of 'chinese'ness is helping this cause.
I know you prefer to equate "Chinese" to "Han", and view the broader definition of "Chinese" to include everybody living inside the current border as CCP conspiracy. My take is rather different. I view this distinction in semantics in a more benign way. It can be turned into something promoting ethnic/racial harmony. Just in the way that native/african/hispanic/white/asian americans are all americans. they are equal.
you may argue for a more neutral name instead of the word 'chinese'/'china', because of historic association and historic Han dominance. e.g. why not "singaporean" or 'east asian'? if that is what you care, i really do not disagree with you, except that as a pragmatist i do not really care. and i view that the benefit far outweighs the downside which bothers you.
because, i worry that being too rigorous on semantics will lead to ethnic distinction and hence ethnic conflict. in such case it would be the minorities who suffer.
yes, i sympathesize with the tiny group academic/elite, assuming that they pursue truth and knowledge and that benefits all of mankind.
Yeah, I agree. It's just that if the truth your pursuing is historical truth, and your funding comes from something that obscures historical truth, then your being funded by something that actually prevents you from sharing the knowledge you discover with mankind, doesn't it?
I don't see the definition of "Chinese" as being a CCP conspiracy. I see nothing wrong with Tibetans or Hui or Miao or whomever being considered "Chinese" as in belonging to the PRC. That's fine, and true. But when talking about history, "China" becomes a more complicated concept - as you pointed out yourself. And there is this pesky habit both within China and without to make things black and white: there's China, and there's everybody else. With Central Asia, particularly, there's this idea - found in Western, Central Asian and Chinese thinking - that as you move east you see, to put it in grossly oversimplified terms, white people, white people, white people BAM Chinese people. The Tarim Mummies in Xinjiang were presented on the Discovery Channel with the emphasis on "How in God's name did a Caucasian end up within the borders of Modern China?!!!??!! This is impossible!!!", when it's not such a sudden shift in genetics or culture at all - there are far more ties and gradations. But common thinking is that Chinese people and Central Asian people (and therefore by association Europe, the Middle East and radiating outward to the rest of humanity) are two completely different people separated forever by a big wall.
I think that this misconception contributes negatively to China's relationship with the world. Too often China is portrayed as "different" from the rest of Eurasia, when China is really part of a continuity. Emphasizing that continuity, I think, is especially necessary as the PRC continues to open up and reform. My experience in China was that Han Chinese students and teachers tended to think of different races and cultures almost as if we were entirely different species. Likewise alot of popular Western notions of China and Asia in general is that, well, they're inscrutable and alien. Saying that historical links and transitional peoples, like the Qijia, are "Chinese" is to miss an opportunity to emphasize that continuity. To reframe Chinese history within world history as one of belonging to a spectrum of the worlds people, rather than a special case, would be of benefit to China and everybody else.
I'm having difficulty expressing this clearly, so I hope that made some sense.
Just to confuse my point further, from my point of view minorities such as the Uyghurs, Mongols or Kazakhs and regions such as Xinjiang or Qinghai become a way of emphasizing inner China's links to the rest of the world and other cultures. But rather than emphasize just how different these minorities are, the PRC goes to ludicrous lengths to emphasize their oneness with the East of China and what is primarily Han history. This is a terrible loss, and actually fails to achieve what they want it to; instead of making minorities feel closer to the center, they recoil instead.
i think we achieve a lot of common grounds. ;)i do agree with what you said, and i think i got your points, esp the "continuity", which is easy to see if one thinks in the context of genetic theory and why i said when i read it, the only assocaition is the geographical context of (present day) china.
p.s. research: my premise is that the funder does not interfere with truth. they can make their own interpretation of the results, but they cannot ask the academic to distort the facts.
otherwise, it is called not academical result, and is no different from those publications commissioned by lobby group
Central Asian blog? Lajia culture is in Minhe County, which is in Eastern Qinghai. Qijia culture itself centers around Eastern Gansu, Ningxia and Western Qinghai. These are not "Central Asian". At most, Xinjiang could be considered related to Central Asia, along with the part of Gansu west of the Jade Gate Pass.
As Lin mentioned, "Chinese" is an aggregate identity, as are many modern ethnic and national identities. It cannot be limited to the tiny patch of purported prehistorical Huaxia territory along the Yellow River. If Qijia is not Chinese, then neither are Longshan, Yangshao, Dawenkou, Peiligang, Liangzhu, Hemudu, Hongshan and every other neolithic culture across China. Then we'd be left to wonder where on Earth all those Chinese came from.
It's amazing how two girly pic posts garner 11 commnents, but the rest receive stony silence. Between blogging and the grad school intra-net/studying, it's clear studying is the more productive use of my time. I just had to prove it for myself!
Infidel - I think you are taking this too personally (especially judging by the comment on my site). A site such as Simon's which is actually an intellectually stimulating read is an unexpected venue for the girlie pics, hence the reaction.
Of course it is now an all round stimulating read.
I thought it was funny. The unexpectedness of it is certainly a source for some sarcasm fueled trackbacks and you should have expected that and indeed I am grateful you gave me the material.
Lighten up my friend. Porn blogging is an infinately better use of your time than studying.
Now, if someone had remarked how much plastic surgery some of these girls needed, I'd have been forgiving. One of Flickr virtues is that you can see some of these models in less than a airbrushed light.
I still beleive that if you're given a chance to discuss for free one should take it.
Besides, I already have a wife who likes the proceeds from porn without having to compare herself with it. I don't need a blogosphere full of old windbags...oh, sorry, honey!
Heh..You did it again!
Now that's soft porn blogging:)
After reading people's complaints here, I decide to give up for this round, I am afraid of the beating by flyingchair as well:p
It's easy these days to feel despondent about US-ROK relations. Although the Roh administration cooled with ordinary tap water rhetoric surfacing from a left-right confrontation over MacArthur's statue at Incheon, it has returned to form with a request for operational command of ROK military forces from the USFK. It's not the idea, but the timing I find suspect. So soon after the 60th Anniversary of the DPRK, this looks like the Blue House is trying to give Pyongyang an appeasing gift. South Korean conservatives, too, appear particularly lame in rebuttal:
Taking back operational command may sound splendid, but the price we would pay is a fatal security risk. If the defense reform budget of W289 trillion (US$289 billion), is premised on the retrieval of operational control, the country will shoulder far greater costs than it needs, to pay for the phrase "independent armed force." If not, we have to be prepared for huge additional costs for the sake of retrieving operational control. Does the government feel that our national security and public finances are capacious enough to permit us to get drunk on a phrase?
According to Richard Halloran, USFK's relationship with South Korea is changing regardless of Seoul's perspective.
In addition, the headquarters of the Army in the Pacific is preparing to assume command of Army forces in South Korea, which are gradually being reduced and may eventually be largely withdrawn. Plans call for dismantling or shrinking the United Nations Command in Seoul that dates back to the Korean War that ended in 1953.
The Army also plans to transfer the Eighth Army headquarters from Seoul to Hawaii and to turn back to the South Koreans control of their forces commanded today by a joint U.S.-South Korea headquarters. The four-star American general's post in Seoul would move to Hawaii.
Military officers say this could happen by 2008 or any time after. The official line is that the threat from North Korea must lessen and stability come to the peninsula first. The unofficial betting is that rising anti-Americanism in Seoul will cause that move to be made more sooner than later.
Proving why economics is not the exact science it purports to be (and, shouldn't be), OFK scoops the Scoop Jackson Bill, a year-old US House relic having more to do with protectionist backlash against Beijing than sincere wishes for the human rights situation in North Korea. It will probably be folded into another trade bill.
Amid all this seriousness, is a cumulative accretion of shoulder-shrugging, head-shaking weirdness.
4. The Traitor (both Marmot and Lost Nomad express their disbelief)
Joshua at OFK also reports on the US House International Relations Committee hearings featuring Amabassador Christopher Hill. Aside from what is purported to be his stand on verification, the US Congress' perceptions of South Korea could lead to a collision with the White House. KJ also chimes in, about the Democrats:
If you start out with a discussion of key issues by saying simply the "depth of NK commitment" to denuclearization rather than concrete tangible far reaching steps toward such a denuclearization, you have so lowered the bar North Korea has to jump over to get significant amounts of what it wants, you are actually making future progress more difficult.
Fortunately, the House does not approve treaties. But, as with the afore-mentioned trade bill, it can cause problems elsewhere.
Finally, though, a slice of good news with the huge dollop of bile. Without reading (via Lost Nomad) the JoongAng Ilbo and the East Asia Institute poll questions, these results seem to indicate, that there are significant numbers of far-sighted South Koreans, even if elite opinion is pro-unification.
Views on North Korea have changed significantly, the survey said. In the past, South Koreans considered the North as temporarily off-limits national territory that should be reintegrated as soon as possible, the group studying the poll results said, and considered reunification the nation's major task. But this poll said that longing for unification is weakening; 78 percent of those surveyed said that the two Koreas are separate countries.
Two things leap to mind here. First, with ROK President Roh Moo-hyun's approval ratings so low, and North Korea such a prominent crutch in the progressives' dismal ruling performance, the poll could indicate support for other parties. Second, the Bush administration, as it has done admirably on the recent Islamic radicalism speech, needs to reframe the debate over North Korea, for South Koreans' benefit.
Gawd. I'd rather amputate a finger than read that garbage
So in the interest of equality, in the interest of moving SimonWorld from #2 to #1 for the Korean Babes search, increasing SW traffic, engaging in type type of post I'm apparently known for, and self-promoting, and promoting peace throughout the Continent, I present
Dan, I can only defend you for the top photo. I still think that album (true color) is the best among what I have seen from Taiwan. It's pity that you didn't post the my favorites from the album, 1, 2, 3
Lin Chiling in the same folder is just a village girl compared with the Guo Jingchun.
encouraged by you, I am posting best one I think from the mainland China...You can safely click the link with your boss, and your boss will forgive you once he sees the photos and the title of my post.
Ah, Curzon,
You are wrong about 13 being the legal age in Japan. Also, did you know that Japan has (statistically, at least) the highest proportion of paedophiles in the world? Also, I am interested to know how you have become an expert on the size of 13 year olds' breasts. Finally, I do work with children and women who have been victimised by the sex trade in Asia, and their experiences are no joking matter.
As for posting pictures of scantily clad women, well, if these are personal statements about freedom of expression, I suggest investigation other causes more worthy.
On the aesthetics front, they all look pretty nice to me. But so what?
Feminists, by the way, both have done and do good work for the world, and really are not concerned about teenager's wanting to advertise their fantasies on the net, or about other catogories of sexually frustrated bloggers, or about bloggers who think they are being terribly provocative by posting photos of nude females, so long as those men remember, especially in the Asian context, that girls and women are worthy of respect for more than how they look or their virginal status.
Moves between Japan and China over the development of the Mekong River basin show signs of intensifying as Tokyo is trying to regain some ground lost in recent years to Beijing in the economic backwater of East Asia…
The Mekong region has huge potential for economic growth. In the late 1980s, then Thai prime minister Chatichai Choonhavan advocated turning Indochina “from a battlefield into a market”. Now that Cold War conflicts are a thing of the past and the CLMV countries are accelerating free-market reforms launched in the late 1980s, Chatichai”s slogan is no longer a mere pipe dream, it is a reality, although it will still take some years for private-sector investment in the Mekong region to become a flood, not just a trickle…
Remote and once dirt-poor Mongla has been reborn as a tourist destination, a process that started in 1989, when Myanmar's army reached a ceasefire and autonomy deal with the Shan. The local warlord, a Shan Chinese named Sai Leun (also known as Lin Mingxian), built Mongla with an unorthodox mixture of opium profits and technical aid from China's neighbouring province of Yunnan.
Around 350,000 Chinese tourists visit every year to gamble, frequent the massage parlours, and perhaps take in a Thai transvestite show. Lin Mingxian, as he was born, has clearly come a long way from his days as a Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. Mongla's authorities earned $9.6m from tourism in 2002—and it is entirely possible that they concealed some of their income.
Although it is more and more regularly cited as a credible source - nearly one third of the news reports on China selected by Google News originate from the agency - Xinhua, the head of which has the rank of minister, is the linchpin of control of the Chinese media.
Successor to the agency, Red China that was founded by Mao Zedong, Xinhua adopted its current name in January 1937. Since October 1949, this state-run news agency has been completely subordinate to the CCP.
The Reporters Without Borders’ report includes accounts from several Xinhua journalists who agreed, on condition of anonymity, to explain how the control imposed by the CCP’s Propaganda Department operates on a daily basis.
The fact that Xinhua is so often ending up high in the Google ranks has very little to do with the validity of its news. Google selects according to the number of links to a source, and since a zillion media in China link to Xinhua, they get a high ranking. I do not believe it says anything about trustworthiness.
Posted by Fons Tuinstra at October 12, 2005 05:12 AM
After a recent cover picture in Time Asia, a wildly successful concert in Shanghai, and bestowed the honor of "Iconoclast" Li Yuchun and her underling Super Girls held their most recent concert of their mainland tour in Beijing on Sunday to a loud and seriously excited crowd. It seems there is little that can stop them now. Hell, Li Yuchun might get an island in Antarctica named after her.
Indeed the Super Girls are showing real sophistication. Not to be labelled mere teeny boppers, the Super Girls held an auction last week to sell some of their clothes they wore on their show and front row tickets for the Beijing gig. The auction raised over 300,000 RMB for a local charity to send underprivileged kids to university. Certainly these girls know how to please their constituents.
All decked out in white on Sunday night, the Super Girls showed they weren't all innocent baring a lot of Super skin for their debut in the capital. Li Yuchun, often ridiculed for looking and sounding confusingly androgynous even hopped in on the scandalous action, wearing and then taking off a short black skirt mid performance. Alas, all of you 'Chun Chun' fans, the skirt was worn over her pants. Glow sticks were the hot accessory and there was a spontaneous demonstration of future Olympic javelin hopefuls as the show neared its end and thousands of fans launched their 2 kuai sticks onto the hundreds of police officers standing shoulder to shoulder on the field making sure no one got out of line.
Is this the first wiff of democratic reform in China? Most competent people would say no, but that hasn't stopped plenty of journalists from speculating. The TV station that produced Super Girls was so nervous of this implication that they called the SMS votes "messages of support". On the other hand, does Li Yuchun's gender bending, confident persona empower young girls all over the provinces? This blogger thinks this theory is a more likely thesis and a fresh break from the pointless daintiness of most Chinese pop stars today that is outdated in the new China.
On September 27 Kang Cheol Hwan gave a talk and question and answer session at the Graduate School of International Relations and Pacific Studies at UCSD. He spent 10 years in a concentration camp in North Korea and after escaping North Korea eventually became a journalist for the Chosun Ilbo. He is on a speaking tour of the United States talking about conditions in North Korea as well as promoting his book, The Aquariums of Pyongyang. His speaking tour is sponsered by LiNK (blog)and Freedom House. I attended his talk and following are the notes I took. Any errors are mine alone.
1. Escaped so as to reveal the concentration camps of DPRK 2. When 1st went to China was surprised by its freedom
Even more surprised by ROK’s level of freedom
3. DPRK government continues to educate its people that USA is a terrible country 4. Has thought how to reveal truth of the outside world to North Koreans, to explain USA protects human rights 5. Speaking tour is to explain how human rights are violated in DPRK 6. “How come North Koreans don’t protest their conditions”: most common question he hears 7. When visited Holocaust Museum in DC realized similarities between Holocaust and DPRK
Hitler, Stalin, DPRK: all had concentration camps
Kim Il Sung’s death: DPRK was supposed to change afterwards but it actually got worse under Kim Jung Il
8. There are 6 concentration camps in DPRK 9. His grandfather lived in Japan and returned: that is why his family was incarcerated 10. Those who helped USA in Korean War and Christians imprisoned, even their grandchildren 11. After 3 months in camp he nearly died of starvation 12. Korea has good environment: people shouldn’t starve to death 13. 3 steps in malnourishment
1st: skin around eyes peels off, belly gets big, becomes difficult to go to the bathroom
2nd: try to eat anything: bugs, worms, snakes, mice
14. Ate meat once in concentration camp: it was a mouse. Children roasted it, it was the best food he’s ever had
Children would eat anything, adults didn’t and so starved
15. In winter ground is frozen so graves are shallow. In spring the bodies reemerge: thought if there is a hell then this is the place 16. 1966: DPRK went to World Cup quarterfinal
The day before the game they went to a bar and didn’t perform well the next day and lost. When they returned to DPRK they were disappeared. A famous player was sent to concentration camp. In order to survive he ate all the bugs he could find. He especially like cockroaches, hence his name “cockroach”.
17. Public executions
DPRK still has them
1998: Agriculture Secretary was executed: blamed for the mid-1990s famine: accused of collaborating with USA to make the famine
Executions happen every day in DPRK
In DPRK day before execution they are beaten
Before execution mouth is stuffed with cotton to prevent yelling, now rocks are stuffed in their mouths, breaking their teeth, because they still yelled against Kim Jong Il
North Koreans who always see this can’t think of protesting
18. South Koreans who protested for freedom would not be able to do that in DPRK 19. DPRK is not unique: Nazi Germany and USSR did the same
When totalitarianism and a single ruler exist then mass executions occur
But DPRK is currently the only country that kills masses of people
20. ROK and international community don’t care about this problem 21. No one saved Jews from Hitler’s concentration camps 22. As a journalist, he still hears from DPRK but now it’s different then when he was there
Now the economy is totally collapsed
DPRK has no electricity: only one dot at night can be seen from space
23. “Why is DPRK starving?”: he wants to answer that if North Koreans were given freedom they would find food 24. International food didn’t save any North Koreans
Commoners get no food, only army
Army is approximately 1.5 million
Even with economic prosperity it would be hard to support so many soldiers
25. Given current government, there is no way food aid will go to the common people
Even after 8 years of food aid: DPRK is just trying to rebuild the old system so people still die
26. Instead should pressure for human rights instead of giving food aid 27. Korean Peninsula and USA have special relationship 28. 38,000 US soldiers died in Korean War: This debt helped build up ROK economy 29. He hopes DPRK soon gets freedom and good relationship with USA and human rights 30. If American people get interested in human rights then their government will also be interested
Questions and Answers: translator: Adrian Hong: Executive Director of LiNK
1. Comment on defectors’ lives in South Korea: jobs, discrimination?
Even for educated people adjustment is difficult because educational systems are so different
Now so many defectors in ROK so that South Koreans are no longer interested
2. Are there no uprisings?
In fact there are many
Last year’s train explosion was anti-Kim Jung Il
Believes Kim’s power is waning: cannot move freely around country: 30,000 troops always around him
3. How supportive are South Koreans of Kang?
Before 1998 ROK worked hard to reveal DPRK human rights abuse. Since then and Sunshine Policy ROK no longer says much
Ask young South Koreans now and they would know nothing about DPRK
ROK government media paint a rosy picture of DPRK
3,000,000 died, 200,000 in concentration camps, but no South Koreans protest that. Instead they protest the 2 girls killed in US military accident
1992 attended South Korean university, saw students protesting and singing, listened and discovered they were singing a Kim Jong Il 10-min propaganda song. When asked the South Korean students didn’t know what the song was. Went to student government and found all books were DPRK propaganda
This explains growth of anti-Americanism in South Korean students
Believes this is due to DPRK agents: how else could South Koreans learn North Korean songs?
4. Why would ROK act as they do (since it makes no sense)?
He doesn’t get it either
386 generation: many see DPRK favorably and now they’re in power
386 believes you change DPRK by sending food and saying nice things and that’s it
ROK has a strong protest culture for democracy and this has transferred to protesting for DPRK
5. What suggestions for US and international policy and contents of his Bush conversation?
Talked for 40 mins
Most important: human rights should be ahead of nuclear issue
Kim Jong Il will never up his weapons
This will only increase anti-Americanism in DPRK
Human Rights: be direct and specific about concentration camps: only this way will DPRK change
First priority is undermining anti-Americanism by pressing for human rights
Defectors relieved when Bush called DPRK evil
Because ROK protestors and DPRK protested ROK dictators so ROK protestors think DPRK is also for democracy
6. Can China help solve this problem?
Can defectors escape China: big issue: China now repatriates refugees
Because of Beijing Olympics China wants this problem to go away: so repatriates refugees
Repatriation causes bigger future problems
Would like China to pressure DPRK on human rights
7. Role of big ROK corporations in this issue?
Hyundai and Samsung
Hyundai runs tourist deals to DPRK
Samsung has few contacts still
Believes recent Hyundai suicide was related to his work with DPRK
Hyundai had been reconsidering its deals until ROK Unification Minister criticized ROK companies for not working more with DPRK
8. Does Kim Jong Il have children or is there a military hierarchy to take over after his death?
After Kim Jong Il’s death there’s no way it won’t change
No heir yet named
Some speculation centers on his sons
Expect something big to happen at the transition
9. How should/will reunification happen? In past, liberation was by foreigners, so can reunification happen just by/through Koreans?
Any reunification through DPRK’s collapse would be bad
There should be a transitional government, like current-day China’s, before reunification
However, ROK’s Sunshine Policy is pushing North Korean people away just to curry current favor with the DPRK government
This is throwing away the chance of not having foreigners interfere in the reunification
Has ROK helped refugees in China? No, they’ve helped Chinese to prevent refugees to flee. How do you think North Koreans feel about ROK because of this? This makes it impossible for only Koreans to be involved in their reunification and foreigners will be involved.
10. Does Korean proximity to DPRK military explain why they don’t focus on human rights?
DPRK does not have the ability to win war so doesn’t believe it is genuinely interested in war
War = Kim Jong Il over
ROK is looking at this wrong: Kim Jong Il is richest man on the peninsula: do you think he wants to give this up?
Biggest ROK security risk is not nuclear, it is the artillery and troops just north of the DMZ
If ROK is truly interested in welfare of DPRK troops then ask them to move away from the DMZ
Talk about how this is the best period in inter-Korean relationship, but in fact this is the most dangerous period
11. US troops in ROK
Highest ranking DPRK defector says Kim Il Sung was so beaten by US in Korean War that he only feared US forces
DPRK military thinks ROK army is a joke since it was such a pushover in the Korean War
Day US leaves is day DPRK invades
12. Kim Jong Il or Communist Party structure center of power?
Kim Jong Il is center of DPRK
13. How can ROK have direct communication/talks with DPRK?
Many South Koreans travel to DPRK but no a single person has escaped their minders to talk freely with a North Korean
DPRK had dilemma for Koreans in Japan to get them to send money: solution: make a façade and give yourself a good image: similar things now happening to ROK tourists
ROK tourists: get very sanitized version of DPRK. Doesn’t understand why South Koreans don’t complain about this
Tourism is just donating money to the DPRK government
We had a quiz on world events, and one of the "easy" questions was members of which political party in China joined with peasants in a recent political demonstration in a certain province. Many intelligent students had a problem with this -- typically choosing instead the "Chinese Nationalist" party from a multiple choice list. Many did not choice the correct answer -- the Communist Party.
To me, this is hopeful. China is not recognized as a Communist country. I'm not that much older, but I remember Pravda, the Berlin Wall, and President Bush announcing the reduction of some nuclear missiles in Europe. As American neoisolationists like Nancy Pelosi (on the Left) and Pat Buchanan (on the Right), it's heartening to see their most powerful weapon ("But they're Communist!") will not fire.
The Guardian has now confirmed that the stories of Representative Lu Banglie's death were greatly exaggerated. Lu was severely beaten and then carried to a nearby hospital before being driven back to his home city of Zhijiang in Hubei Province. This occurred some time after Benjamin Joffe-Walt, the Guardian's man on the scene, had already been taken away, and was apparently in some panic.
Chinese journalists are already criticizing Joffe-Walt, accusing him of naivete, wilful exaggeration and even outright lies. One blogger/journalist says that "lies cannot create justice", and that the Guardian newspaper is "continuing to back up the fantasies of Benjamin Joffe-Walt".
Actually, at least one of the most outspoken critics is a pro-democracy blogger who correctly points out that inaccurate or exaggerated or fabricated reporting by western media sources only hurts the democracy movement in China. Here's a translation of part of his post courtesy of eastwestnorthsouth.
''Enough already, The Guardian. You are really earning the contempt of your colleagues. For a long time, Xinhua and CCTV were the representatives of shameless media. But your lies today are even more damaging to the Chinese. In most foreign news coverage of China, the professional standard requires two independent sources of information to establish veracity. But when The Guardian reported on China this time, you only used the unverified "first-person" account of a liar. Furthermore, after this has been exposed, you attempted to hide your mistake.
''The Guardian's error obviously has severely affected the Taishi village case and even other rights cases. Whenever a reader hears about another rights activist being beaten, they will automatically think about Joffe-Walt's fantasy. Lies cannot promote fairness; they can only impede fairness.
''I am a democrat and I support the democratic movement in China. But I will express my anger in a professional manner against any exaggerated or fabricated reporting of the pursuit of democracy. I will not permit a crazy reporter, who once was a Baghdad human shield, to destroy the common ideals of media workers in China.''
"At the same time, I hope this question of a foreign correspondent's responsibility will not become a convenient way of distracting people from the core issue: one of human rights and the suppression of a democracy movement in Taishi.
Will Chinese netizens be successfully manipulated into foreigner-bashing as an acceptable alternative to communist party-bashing?"
It's exactly my position.
The point here is that facts like that one - and worse - happen every day in China. The difference is that this time a foreign witness was present. So the instructions are: fire the witness, not the Party thughs. Déjà vu.
It's this overturning that won't help democracy movements in China, not a reporter's "exaggerated" story. Fire the thugs, not the witness.
No one should be surprised to hear that the "truth" is not so important as the "story" for these so-called journalists and the companies they work for. It has been this way for many many years and it is a common trait shared by Main Stream Media throughout the world - and especially so at the Guardian.
The Guardian and the reporter got what they wanted - a headline grabbing story.
They do not accept any responsbility for the consequences that their shoddy reports will have on others.
If the reporter really wanted to prove something he would have stayed in Iraq and completed the task of being a human shield for those he professed to support.
One good thing that might come out of this is that more Chinese people will think twice before believing what they read in foreign newspapers or hear on foreign television.
I wouldn't dream of calling Benjamin Joffe-Walt a liar. Like all foreign journalists, he is human, and in this case he was naively pursuing a story and panicked when he realized he was in over his head. To accuse him of malicious fabrication seems quite inappropriate, and to suggest that he has somehow damaged the cause of Taishi seems to me to be a bad-faith argument.
Posted by Running Dog at October 11, 2005 09:26 PM
Go to Google and enter a search for Benjamin Joffe-Walt.
Read some of the links but take time to read the link to Michelle Malkin.
Now you will begin to have an understanding of the man.
Go a little deeper into his background. How old is he? What is his background? How long has he been a "journalist"? Who has he worked for? What has he done in the past to distinguish himself or discredit himself?
I cannot think of one way this man has helped the "cause" of Taishi. I can think of many ways he has brought discredit to himself and to his employer。 I can also see how his actions are a setback to all those he sought to help. But then I think this is really not any concern of his since he got what he wanted - the story.
There is no question that the journalist made a mistake (if we believe in Anti, but he only talked to the guy, not visited him). The mistake is hurting the cause of Taishi. I also do not like the fact that he didn't try to help poor Mr Lu at the scene (which he regretted in his 1st report).
Precisely because of the importance and sensitivity of this event, we want to hold the Guardian at the highest standard of all media. We demand more from them than from Xinhua.
Everybody makes mistake some time. The fact that they did not admit the mistake and apologize is more detrimental than the original mistake.
They should at least point out the fact that new info contradicts previous reports by BJ-W, and that they are ready to apologize once they have confirmed first hand info from Mr Lu.
All the previous reports on Taishi were credible. In this particular incidence the facts that a mob gang attacked reported with the support of local gov't is not changed.
However, the Guardian should not give the local gov't an excuse to attack the credibility of all external media in the future. To re-establish this credibility it is important to be honest and brave with themselves.
I have written quite a bit about Taishi on my blog, and I suspect that Joffe-Walt really assumed Lu was dead, or likely to die, and so he consciously added a few embellishments to sensationalise his story. I have discussed this already on my blog, as a postscript to my article on "peasant activism".
What really matters more is how we analyse what is happening in Taishi more generally. I have written in detail about this too, in both my "peasant activism" article (in which I name the university in Guangzhou that I visited which has allegedly stolen land from local farmers) and in my latest article, in which I analyse the nature of the Chinese political system. I think it is wrong, as many Western observers claim, to judge the CCP as "totalitarian". Chinese politics is far more complex than that, and what is happening now in Taishi needs to be seen in a wider context. When one broadens the scope of one's analysis, it becomes clear that what is happening in Taishi is positive for China.
Sorry, if anybody is interested in reading my articles, then the site is at:
f r e e w e b s . c o m / f l o w i n g w a t e r s
I found that the articles translated into English by East South West North, which I discovered via this site, proved to be very very useful in helping me to formulate my own analysis, incidentally. What a valuable resource ESWN has proven to be, time and time again!
Joffe-Walt has now made a name for himself among Guardian readers who don't live in China and, in the process, has made his name mud for many others. He's young, clearly ambitious...and now he's had a baptism of fire. He wasn't ready - but who is ready for anything until they learn from experience?
One of the big criticisms has been the accusation of exaggeration and invention. Lu Banglie clearly is not dead. The ligaments in his neck are clearly not broken. The reference to his neck was probably misguided - but it was one sentence...and we were not there. Joffe-Walt's account leads us to believe that Lu's attackers repeatedly stamped on his head. This does not appear to be consistent with Lu's actual injuries. Another apparent inaccuracy.
But let's remember one fundamental fact - Lu Banglie certainly was attacked. That is not an invention. Joffe-Walt was not the only person in Taishi who believed that Lu might well be dead.
And what about the degradation - the spitting, nose-blowing and urination on his unconscious body. If that is proved to be false, then I will reconsider my opinion, but so far I haven't seen any contradiction of this part of Joffe-Walt's account.
Did he report everything that happened perfectly? No. But how many people ever do - especially in an extremely violent and frightening situation.
Think back just a few months to the South Asian "suspected suicide bomber" who was shot dead on the London Underground. He was wearing a thick winter coat in the middle of summer and behaving suspiciously. He was challenged by the police at the entrance to the station, and promptly ran away - jumping the station turnstiles. He was chased down onto the platform and onto the train where he looked like a terrified animal before being shot five times.
Well, that was the initial account, written by all the experienced journalists based on eye-witness accounts and statements by the police.
Then, finally, the real story came out. The "terrorist" was a Brazilian electrician on his way to work. He was wearing a light-weight denim jacket - entirely normal for the weather in London. He walked casually into the station and passed through the turnstiles using his travel pass, picking up a free newspaper to read during his journey.
He then continued to make his way slowly down the escalator until he saw that his train had already arrived - so he sped up to catch it before it left the station - just like any other normal passenger. On the train, he looked for a free seat, saw one and sat down.
Seconds later he was shot seven or eight times in the head and once in the shoulder. Several other shots were fired, but missed him.
Despite the claims attributed to the police, they did not challenge him at any point until seconds before he was shot dead.
Compare these two stories.
Joffe-Walt was wrong about the extent of Lu Banglie's injuries - and Lu did not die. But he seems to have looked pretty dead at the time and extreme violence did take place. And Joffe-Walt was not the only person in Taishi who believe that Lu was probably dead.
The only thing the reporters in Britain got right about Jean Charles de Menezes was that he really did die. Oh...and they were right about where he died. Everything else, they all got so wrong we may as well be talking about two utterly different events.
Joffe-Walt needs to learn from this experience. But his account of the situation was just as accurate as most reports we read about anything. Despite his mistakes, the people who should be blamed and held to account are the people who committed the violence - and those who sanctioned it.
One final comment on the extent of Lu Banglie's visible injuries. On one occasion, I was repeatedly kicked in the head with steel toe-capped boots and there were very few marks to be seen afterwards because I don't visibly bruise. That didn't stop the pain.
Well put Cat. I pretty much agree, although I suspect that Mr Joffe-Walt quite consciously added embellishments to sensationalise - the eye hanging out of its socket being the most obvious and vivid of these.
I guess what we should be focussing on is the bigger picture though. Many observers blame the violence and the lack of both accountability and law enforcement on "the" CCP, as if the CCP is some kind of monolithic totalitarian form of governance. It isn't. The policies and behaviours of those officials from local village-township, city district and provincial levels of government are not always supported all the way to the top at all. Those who think so obviously do not understand how China is governed - China is a decentralised federalism, and more often than not, you will find that the central government itself is locked in power struggles with the various other, more local levels of government. Local-level governments operate with huge amounts of autonomy, and this is a problem. They often subvert national laws, and prevent reliable and accurate information from filtering up the chain.
How can the central government enforce its progressive labour laws, village election laws and governance laws, etc., at the local level? This is the real problem, and until that's solved, there will be many more Taishis to come.
I share Macam-Macam"s indignation concerning the Muzaffarabad earthquake. The death toll is conservatively estimated to be around 20,000, but there is overheated rhetoric about a "dead city" and a "lost generation" already. As if hurricanes, typhoons, floods, and tsunamis were not enough, now one of the world's most troubled regions is buried under rubble.
This harrowing disaster is made even more bitter, considering that most of the victims are reported to be children crushed under debris while studying in urban schools. The CSM has advocated the least costly solution, earthquake-proof schools. Any hope of a Greek-Turkish reconciliation between Pakistan and India, which both claim the disputed Kashmir region where the earthquake took place, have also been flattened. Both sides of the disputed border suffered casualties, but Pakistan received the largest shock by far.
As aid begins to flow into the stricken region, and more requests go out, though, I have to ask again, as I did in the aftermath of the December, 2004 tsunami and Hurricane Katrina, if this disaster in Kashmir is not a man-made disaster? Donor fatigue is certain to rise, as the number of disasters increases, with hurricane/typhoon season still dragging on. Can we not at least evaluate the local governments involved in all these disaster operations, from Louisiana to FEMA, from Colombo to Jakarta, and New Dehli to Islamabad, to both prevent a disaster and to react to them? After all, none of these regions affected are strangers to their respective menaces. I have to ask, too, if these governments are not culpable. Is there not a better policy than to wait for disaster to strike, and then beg the international community for assistance that is always promised, yet seldom materializes? Why would anyone want to live in a disaster zone? Why would a government let these people do so?
Hurricane damage is covered by private property insurance, but since 1968 flood insurance has been provided by the government, through the National Flood Insurance Programme.
Although this insurance is both subsidised and obligatory for anyone with a federally-insured mortgage, remarkably few people in the Gulf Coast seemed to have it. In Mississippi's coastal countries, less than one in five households have flood insurance; even in New Orleans it is under half. In Mississippi, Richard Scruggs, a lawyer famous for taking on the tobacco industry, has already asked the state's attorney-general to challenge private insurance firms' ability to exclude flood insurance on the grounds that this exclusion is “unconscionable”.
So far, Congress has focused on giving the flood-insurance programme more money. The likely pay-outs to those who have flood insurance are around $10 billion but the federal plan has only about $1 billion of reserves. On September 12th, Congress raised the amount the flood plan could borrow to $3.5 billion. That figure will surely go higher still; and there is also the potential cost of helping both the uninsured and the underinsured—through subsidised loans and the like—to rebuild their homes and businesses.
In theory, Mr Bush could use this opportunity to reform the system and reduce the extent to which Uncle Sam subsidises people living in disaster-prone areas. But raising premiums and making insurance mandatory are both unpopular.
One of the aspects I like about Robert Kaplan's, Benjamin Barber's, and Michael Klare's work is the role they allot for ecological factors in their respective International relations theories. The confluence of poverty, globalization, ethnicity, and religion overlaps with hostile ecosystems. Ideally, there are few desirable places where humans can live, and human hubris and technological ingenuity seem daily to limit even that narrow space even more. In return for settling marginal areas, governments should make certain those areas are safe and at least return to the nation's coffers what others have to donate in taxes and charity to make them habitable. Insurance, sane zoning, controlling population growth, and tax policies are good starts. Humans continue to settle in areas unfavorable for the species' survival, and governments keep ignoring them. It's better to encourage individuals to better themselves, than to support marginalized people having producing dead statistics while the fortunate have babies.
We are mourning for people who died dead, the unfortunate statistics of human pride and misgovernance, surplus labor and prejudice. It's not enough to ask how money could have been better allocated. We have to ask why we all are content just to throw away money not to consider that.
Lu Banglie is probably dead (in front of a foreign correspondent):
The last time I saw Lu Banglie, he was lying in a ditch on the side of the street - placid, numb and lifeless - the spit, snot and urine of about 20 men mixing with his blood, and running all over his body.
The last words of Mr Lu I wrote down were: "The police cover their arses. They employ all these thugs whose lives mean nothing to them to kill you. That's why once we are in this we can't go out."
Let's see how this time Hu and company will shake this stuff off. No doubt they'll do.
Update.CDT reports that Lu is alive and has been sent back to his home (his condition unknown). Good news for Lu's life but the substance doesn't change.
michael anti (spac3s.m5n.com/members/mranti/) said Lu is safe and fine. He fainted and was hurted, but otherwise he is fine. he was able to visit his friends and tell them about what happened.
(apparently Guangdong govt send a car to "escorted" him to his Hubei home)
Anti continued his criticism of guardian reporter benjamin joffe-walt, alleging that exaggerating facts does not help with the Taishi cause...
Michael Turton and David Thailand both report on Paul Monk's controversial suggestions on China-Taiwan relations. On the surface, Monk's argument doesn't seem worth noticing, until one gets past the safe rhetoric to the bottom of the transcripts and editorials. At first, Monk reads like a good realist, with his talk of calculating costs of war and maintaining balance. It's when he talks about doing politics like economics, that I had to clear my throat. There's no intuitively suspect notion, then the realist pipedream, that power is calculable. It doesn't always work in economics, either, but politics is never tidy.
The pivotal moment in China's modern history was not October 1949, when Mao established a dictatorship that was to bring suffering and death on a staggering scale to China and keep it impoverished for a generation. It was in December 1912, when national legislative elections were held in China for the first and, so far, the only time. Forty million people voted and they elected 596 representatives, of whom only 269 belonged to the Guomindang, Sun Yat-sen's party. (There was no Communist Party at that point, of course, and it has never subjected its mandate to a popular vote.)
From this point, it's possible to talk about the real problem in Sino-Taiwan relations, or why Beijing needs to have Taiwan. By defanging the dragon, the threat to Taiwan is neutralized while the mainland is consumed in its own political problems. But, Monk then puts his realist-cum-government hat back on, and starts talking like a very Australian realist:
Well Australia is an unusual country. Australia has very good access in the, let's say, the culturally and geo-politically dominant Anglo-American part of the global economy and the sort of geo-strategic environment. So we're an advanced English-speaking country with very good access in Washington, better than ever now, and we're a major trading partner of China. We're an unusual country in the Asian region. We're the oldest democracy in the Asian region. And we're non-threatening because we're not a major power with military ambitions, despite the paranoia of some people in Indonesia from time to time. So there are very good reasons why thoughtful people in China might think we can sound out ideas in Australia.
II seriously doubt a foreign country can convince the Chinese Communist party to cede control, to downgrade the 1949 revolution, or to give Taiwan any share in the historical credit for China's world role. Monk wants to compare Britain to China, and Australia (or Hong Kong) to Taiwan, to set a precedent for a peaceful devolution of power. But, like Britain and America, China and Taiwan are part of an international contest between China and Japan, as the Anglo-French wars of the 17th-19th Centuries gave the American colonists a chance to break from London. In this sense, Australia's courtship with Beijing doesn't make sense, because Australia would lose economically if it had to choose between Japan and China. Monk's vision of Australia's mission to reform China is the most ridiculous part of his re-think.
Rethinking realism is a good part, but only if Monk realizes that the zero-sum game Beijing sees is not related to economics, but to Taiwan's place as a pawn in its contest with Japan. Australia does have an interest in delaying armageddon, so it can keep getting rich off both antagonists for as long as possible. Tokyo and Japan will have to come to the end of that path by themselves, and no country that didn't have to bleed for its independence will convince the two blood enemies to put down swords.
The magnificent ESWN has has translated an article about the "centrifugal" and "centripetal" pressures now tearing China apart, and suggests that local authorities are now in a position to defy the leadership of Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao. After years of jockeying and alliance-building by the power-hungry Jiang Zemin, the local authorities hold considerable positions of influence, and the new boys are still dealing, among other things, with entrenched Jiang supporters in both Shanghai and Guangdong.
Meanwhile, another website, erm, particularly dear to my heart notes that the leadership are increasingly reluctant to throw their full force against the various protection rackets that pass for local governments these days, lest the entire edifice of power come crashing down. These are parlous moments for the Party.
Simon does a wonderful, and incredibly painstaking, job of linking to all blogs Asian. I have always thought, though, that he didn't report enough from the dark side of the moon, the lunatic fringe, the countries too poor and censored to have blogs. So little information comes from these places, that it's just bound to lead to misperceptions, slick generalizations, and outright abuse. In short, perfect material for the blogosphere!
Fortunately, The New Republic's T.A.Frank, and his Today in Despotism column (subscription-required), is not bound by the blogoshere's rigid, majoritarian code of conduct. North Korea and Burma are such wacky places, and since I can't access the KCNA in South Korea, I appreciate the chance to subvert the censors, with and without a proxy.
First of all, the 15th volume of the Dear Leader's Collected Works is due soon. God, Kim is a phenom, ain't he? Why doesn't he just blog? Oh well, some of us get Blogger and others become despots!
This week's KCNA bashed Japan and its pretensions to world-leader status. According to a column quote,
Japan's attempt to buy a responsible position at the UN is little short of a clumsy bid of an illiterate country peddler bereft of any reason and people's mindset. Japan would be well advised to properly know where it stands and liquidate its crime-woven past as early as possible so as to be trusted by the international community.
the KCNA's version of legal behavior stops at ofensive militarism, as opposed to the nukes, drugs, and counterfeiting Pyongyang markets. No mealy-mouthed diplomatic-speak about imperialism and expansionism; Japan is a crook! Speaking of Allied revanchist policies at Versailles, J.M. Keynes, in "The Capacity of Germany to Repay Reparations" (1919), argued, "In the great events of man's history, in the unwinding of the complex fates of nations Justice is not so simple. And, if it were, nations are not authorized, by religion or natural morals, to visit on the children of their enemies the misdoings of parents or of rulers." It's a long time past just to get over the Japan WW2 reparations issue. Millions of North Koreans will be thankful for the precedent when, after unification, vengeful South Koreans, hunt down ideological foes and property-holders to settle generations-old scores.
In Burma (Myanmar, whatever), there's a real need for spare parts and poets. And, just to punctuate how some governments feel about the IAEA's new Peace Prize, there's this ditty by Byan Hlwar:
The bestowing of the Peace Prize
Is not the granting of licence
To scheme to interfere
In enclaves and communities of others
Or to act untowardly.
The possession of that Nobel Peace Prize
Is not to be interpreted
As whatever the receipient does
To be accepted by the world as all fair.
If receipients of the Nobel Peace Prize
Are discovered as working to destroy a
nation
And clearly discerned by Alfred
He surely will turn in his grave
Remorseful that what he had
Initiated and established
Had gone wrong
He would only lament regretfully.
What happened in Taishi was incredibly significant but it has not been widely reported in the Western media. Why? Because the Western media are effectively barred from reporting it, through violence and threats. Welcome to media management, CCP style.
Update (10/10)
Today's SCMP has Leu Siew Ying's first hand report of her visit and beating last Friday at Taishi and another report on a similar incident on Saturday: the detention of legislator Lu Banglie, a deputy to the Zhijiang People's Congress in Hubei province, on a visit to Taishi with Guardian newspaper reporter Benjamin Joffe-Walt. I had spoken to Mr. Joffe-Walt on Saturday afternoon, before the incident had occurred. He was seeking to do an article on the real story behind Taishi.
When government thugs start detaining legislators and beating Western journalists, the alarms should be ringing at maximum volume. Kudos to Abel Segretin from RFI, Mr Joffe-Walt and Leu Siew Ying for persuing the story. As the saying goes, when there's beatings, there's a story.
* Link is to a newly established category containing all my Taishi related posts
"They were working themselves into a frenzy"
Radio France Internationale reporter Abel Segretin and I went to Taishi last Friday to find out why residents suddenly abandoned a bid to recall their village chief. During previous visits I had been detained twice - the windscreens and windows of my taxi were smashed by paid thugs. A lecturer and two lawyers had the same harrowing experience three weeks later, so I knew I had to be careful.
Segretin and I agreed that we would not resist if caught, but we did not get any further than a roadblock set up by the local authorities. A few men with red armbands marked "security" forced us off our motorbikes. Straight away, another 20 people closed in on us - some wearing army camouflage - and asked for our identity papers. We asked them who they were and a well-dressed man said "villagers".
I told him I was not obliged to identify myself to anyone but the police. He said if we did not show him our identity papers he would leave and would not be able to control the others. He also revealed that he knew we had got out of a taxi in Shiqi to continue our journey by motorcycle.
The man then called police while Segretin asked why we could not enter the village. People started shouting, saying we had caused trouble for them and cost them their livelihoods. One tried to force us to sit down, while two others grabbed Segretin's forearms. When he pulled himself free, I could see red marks they had left. One man punched him in the waist and another whacked me across the head with a blow that sent me tumbling forward. Fortunately, I was wearing a broad-brimmed peasant's straw hat that cushioned the blow, so I was more shocked than hurt.
I was trembling and kept telling my colleague we had to leave. We tried to, but the men stopped us. I told him not to talk to them because the mood had turned very ugly and I could see that they were working themselves into a frenzy. I felt they were waiting for us to provoke them, and I was terrified that my companion would get badly beaten - and that I would be next.
I have reported on China for seven years and this was the first time I have been beaten, although I have been detained numerous times.
Legislator missing after being beaten near Taishi
A mainland legislator has disappeared after being dragged from his car and beaten on Saturday while travelling to Guangdong's strife-torn Taishi village with a journalist working for a British newspaper. The fate of Lu Banglie , deputy to the Zhijiang People's Congress in Hubei province , was last night unknown. Mr Lu had been advising Taishi residents on ways to oust unpopular village chief Chen Jinsheng , who has been accused of corruption, through electoral procedures.
Mr Lu had been travelling to Taishi with journalist Benjamin Joffe-Walt, who writes for The Guardian newspaper, and Joffe-Walt's mainland assistant when they were stopped at a roadblock. According to Jonathan Watts, Beijing correspondent for The Guardian, Joffe-Walt saw about five men in police uniforms and another five in army uniforms at the roadblock. However, the uniformed men soon left the area, leaving 20 to 30 men in civilian dress.
Watts said the men dragged Mr Lu from the car and started beating and kicking him, leaving the journalist and his assistant in the car. The 34-year-old activist was beaten unconscious, but the assault continued for another 10 minutes. "He was extremely badly beaten and we don't know if he is alive or dead. When Benjamin last saw him, he was lying unconscious by the side of the road," Watts said.
He believed the "thugs" were aware of Mr Lu's identity.
Joffe-Walt received "a few slaps" after he was removed from the car and had his mobile phone smashed. He was taken to a government office in Yuwoutou township and later released, Watts said. One internet report said Mr Lu was taken to Datong Hospital in Yuwoutou at about 11pm on Saturday, four hours after the beating. However, the hospital denied Mr Lu had been admitted. His mobile phone had been turned off.
Guo Yan - a lawyer representing activist Yang Maodong , who was detained for helping Taishi villagers in their struggle to remove Mr Chen - said: "Nobody has any news about [Mr Lu]."
Another lawyer representing Mr Yang, Gao Zhisheng , said he believed local authorities were collaborating with gangsters, and the violence was backed by city and even provincial authorities.
A journalist from the South China Morning Post and a French reporter were pushed around when they attempted to enter the village on Friday.
There have been several previous incidents in which reporters' cars were attacked and activists and lawyers detained and harassed when they tried to enter Taishi - making the village almost inaccessible to outsiders. Mr Lu is divorced and living with his 83-year-old mother. He was elected as chief of Baoyuesi village in Hubei after he ousted his predecessor in 2003.
the Chinese media (ming pao) also reported this. It was said that Mr. Lu himself was elected in an event similar to Taishi, after a corrupted village mayor was ousted by a vote.
Dating a Chinese used to be frowned upon because it was controversial, but dating experts and commentators say locals are now avoiding cross-cultural relationships because they are no longer "fashionable".
Spurred by the media frenzy over [an] actress being seen with a Chinese, a prominent media commentator recently devoted his column to the lack of appeal in dating Chinese.
In a controversial and often scathing indictment of today's expatriates, the former BBC journalist and regular television pundit Chip Smith said in his column: "In this day and age hanging out with a Chinese is `out'..." Writing in Easyfinder magazine, Smith said the pre-colonial population of rich Chinese sailed off into the sunset with the ex-governor and the Hong Kong Shanghai Banking Corporation after the handover.
"The ones who stayed behind were left to fend for themselves. They had no choice but to move to dorms on Lamma Island or to rent stone houses that people in Sai Kung use to house pigs," his column said.
"Clad in T-shirts, shorts and a pair of flip-flops, nowadays you see them buying beer from 7-Eleven so they can get the free gifts. They even try bargaining with the new mainland immigrant cashier to try to get a 10 per cent discount." Smith warned local girls not to hang out with Chinese in Lan Kwai Fong unless they wanted to have a one-night stand in a small flat with "a guy who was muscular but did not last long in bed".
He concluded: "In this day and age you have to be careful when choosing a gweilo. They no longer have cars or property. You might end up stepping on a penniless landmine. It's too much to sacrifice for a passport."
Asked to reflect on his column, Smith told the Sunday Morning Post it reflected his personal observations and those of his friends. "Hong Kong used to be an international city and English was important. But now we are just like the mainland. We talk about loving the motherland. In today's atmosphere dating a Chinese is like selling out your country."
Today's SCMP, with one exception - I changed the word "westerner" to "Chinese". The headline is even more offensive: Have HK girls stopped looking for Mr White? How does it read now? On with the tripe:
However, Mak Hoi-wah, assistant professor in the Department of Applied Social Studies at City University, believes that the trend has to do less with racism than with the fact that westerners and locals are now much closer. "The difference in social status has decreased and the lines of racial division have softened," he said. "Also westerners today feel there is no need to put up a front. People just don't feel that westerners are anything special anymore."
Anne Chow, owner of dating service Diamond Single Club, said that members used to admire westerners but clients rarely requested to meet westerners now. "We have 5,000 members but there is only one girl who always requests to meet westerners. It is not discrimination but people just don't think it's a talking point any more."
Mr Hon of Match Maker dating service said cultural differences were too much to handle for most people. He said that since it was now so easy to emigrate, westerners were even less appealing because Hong Kong people were no longer willing to put up with differences in return for a passport.
"Most people find cross-cultural relationships difficult. Usually in the beginning they are happy. But once they start to understand each other they realise they cannot accept the differences. There's not much magic left when you watch him cut his toenails," he said. "The clients who ask for westerners mostly want to emigrate to places like North America. But now it is very easy to do it on your own - through business connections or relatives. As a result only about 3 to 4 per cent of our clients now request to meet westerners."
The main question this raises is the one no-one talks about: why is racism considered acceptable when it's done by non-Westerners? Even the SCMP editorial staff miss the point entirely:
It is not so long ago that many Hongkongers faced a future armed with passports issued by the British government. Now the wheel has turned. Few have gone anywhere. The new Hong Kong SAR passports in use now outnumber the others. Expatriates who have stayed and the many thousands who have made their home here since then prize permanent resident status. But while some things may have stayed pretty much the same, others have changed. The end of colonial rule redefined the relationship between locals and westerners.
The anachronism of life under a foreign power was swept away in the legal moment of the handover. The social landscape has also changed, apparently - though not as dramatically. As we report today, evidence of changing social attitudes is to be found in one of our more humble living archives - the files of dating agencies and singles clubs. They tell the story more succinctly than any formal research or social commentary. Many clients of one singles club once admired westerners and were keen to meet them.
Now, only one girl out of 5,000 consistently asks to meet westerners. A dating agency says only 3 or 4 per cent of clients ask to meet westerners, and then only with an eye to emigration to places like North America.
This trend cannot have happened overnight. But interest has been excited by the media frenzy over actress Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi's new relationship with a westerner. Whereas once this would have been seen as upwardly mobile though controversial, now it is regarded as "unfashionable".
One Chinese commentator was frank. According to television pundit Chip Tsao, the fact that an expatriate is now less likely to be a well-heeled catch makes dating one harder to justify. He says dating a westerner now is like selling out your country. Dating agencies focus on difficulties in relationships arising from cultural differences and point out that easier emigration makes westerners even less appealing.
It would be good to think that a more positive view of the trend taken by social studies professor Mak Hoi-wah is on the right track. Far from reflecting racism, he thinks it has more to do with the division between westerners and locals having been blurred in the past eight years. Westerners no longer feel the same pressure to put up a social "front" and locals do not see them as special any more.
This can be seen as a natural redressig [sic] of social distinctions of colonialism that have long since ceased to have any place in modern Hong Kong. As such it is to be welcomed as a healthy sign of the growing maturity of a harmonious multiracial society. That is Hong Kong's strength, and one that should be allowed to evolve naturally.
A healthy sign of a mature, mutliracial society is where the colour of the skin of a local starlet's boyfriend isn't newsworthy. Idiocy like this story are the sign of a society still grappling with a massive inferiority complex.
There was just an article the other day in the New York Times that said that many Chinese women were divorcing their Chinese husbands because they were too ''traditional'' when they kept mistresses and the like. They were leaving their Chinese husbands for Western males.
So, spin? What do you think the spin on this is? I think it's another angle of the increasing nationalism rising in Hong Kong.
Ironically, I'd say my wife (chinese) and I (white American) have encountered way more racism in the US from other Chinese (tons) than from Americans (approaching zero). And forget about within China -- long way to go on that front.
My Australian born/Cantonese parents fiance has nothing but scorn for Canto men. It probably doesn't help that her calcium and wheat-rich Australian diet has made her taller and more muscular than most of them. Even at the gym, they tremble before her stature as she warns "Back off, fragile boned Canto mamma's boy. I have calcium!"
I dont think its the Asians who suffer from inferior complex. If its anything, its the other way around. Why do we always see Asian females after white guys in movies? Because they are made for the "white majority" who could take tha pain of losing wars in Korea, Vietnam and the constant bombardment of how Japan and China is taking jobs away from America.
Controlling the internet is one thing. Controlling spam is another. But China's going to try:
China has ordered telcos to purge spam SMSes of smut and other "unhealthy" influences, including "superstitious content" like fortune telling. The Ministry of Information Industry made the pronouncement today on its website which declared: "Recently, there has been a lot of dirt hidden in the telecommunication networks. The situation is serious."
If China really wanted to make its 30,000 internet cesnors do good works for mankind, the government could set the censors loose on China's rampant spam industry. Given everything else has failed to stop spam, let's give authoritarianism a go.
While we're at it, does anyone regulate Hong Kong's random mobile calls or message at any hour of the day or night? If not, can we ask China to do it? Please.
I will be in a blissfully communication-free locale from Monday for a week. Next week sees a selection of excellent guest bloggers for your edification and reading pleasure. Enjoy.
Time puts Super Girl on the cover and stirs up a hornet's nest. But that's the point. You can understand the fuss: if the cover was "America's heroes" and had Brittney or the latest Idol winner on it, you'd never hear the end of it.
While on official irony, the same paper reports on the internet being part of Chinese people's life. That's the official filtered and sanitised internet with Chinese characteristics version (or what I like to call Web 0.1)
Starting today I will try to mark with a * any blog likely to be blocked in China.
Thanks for alerting me to this Simon - I must be sure to visit Macau's "Fisherman's Wharf" theme park when it opens, as I have a keen interest in mass culture studies, and I have written already on similar theme parks here in Shenzhen - the Windows of the World, Folk Culture Villages, Splendid China, etc.
I think this kind of kitsch (the commodity aesthetic) is, for good or bad, China's new face. Hong Kong Disneyland is another example.
For those who are interested, incidentally, I have written at length about Shenzhen's theme parks in the "Shenzhen Life" section of my blog, at:
f r e e w e b s . c o m / f l o w i n g w a t e r s
I am also conducting an online readers' poll on these theme parks, if anybody would care to participate.
China Construction Bank, known by local jokers as "China Corruption Bank" in honour of its jailed former Chairman Wang Xuebing (who's offences were actually committed at Bank of China), is heading for listing. If they get this one away, then we shall know that the market has truly reached a top. We haven't seen such excitement since the property and red chip market peaked simultaneously in 1997.
Sure, they've taken the bad loans out of the bank, but what about the bad lenders? Do you really believe that thousands of semi-autonomous branches have suddenly discovered the art of credit analysis and that the local communist party cadres and bribe-waving wannabe tycoons will leave them alone to make good lending decisions? The unseemly scramble of foreign banks to become minority shareholders in the mainland "big-four" is puzzling given that the foreigners have been promised full market access from 2007 under China's WTO commitments. As any investor in HK will tell you, being a minority shareholder doesn't buy you much say in how a firm is run.
Our allegation of Apr-04 against CNOOC Ltd has been proven right. The Listing Committee of the Stock Exchange today issued a public censure of CNOOC for failing to seek shareholders' approval before lending money to its parent's finance company. We look back at the case, and call on the Exchange and SFC to increase transparency over their secret, closed-door disciplinary proceedings.
Remember Hong Kong's claim to being the gateway to China through offering transparent markets, strict regulations and rule of law?
We examine HK legislators' calls for a statutory minimum wage and maximum working hours, and the Government's move to put public bodies on this path resulting from a pact between Donald Tsang and the unions during his nomination campaign. He was making promises with your money. We also look at the proposed "1+1" labour importation scheme - a sop to politically-connected textile families, the job-for-life labour contracts of the civil service, statutory Severance and Long Service Payments, and the Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund.
Minimum wages and working hour limits have worked out well for France (unemployment rate 9.9%) and will help Hong Kong's (unemployment rate 5.7%) flexible labour markets go rigid.
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority's Joseph Yam today's receives a prestigious award: I am declaring his Viewpoint series is the world's first central bank blog (it just needs some RSS feeds). This week's edition is on financial stability and the property bubble, a self-congratulatory romp on how Hong Kong "survived" the bursting of its property bubble from 1998-2003. Mr. Yam puts it down to six factors:
1. Low interest rates - he concedes Hong Kong was "lucky" interest rates were falling during the period. For that he can thank Alan Greenspan.
2. 70% loan-to-value ratio - thanks to the HKMA's oversight, banks had low-ish LVRs, slowing the decline in negative equity loans. But when prices fall by 60%, that's not going to help you. And in the current market you have to be a chump not to be able to get LVRs of 90%+, even via vendor financing.
3. Two-income households - thanks to Hong Kong's army of domestic helpers, both partners in a family can work, which cuts the odds of unemployment hurting a family because at least one still has a job. Of course two people usually have to work because the city is so expensive, especially property, and those two people endured 6 years of stagnant wages offset by deflation. So thank your helper today. She saved Hong Kong.
4. High savings rate - people are thrifty, so they can afford more debt. It's a crazy world.
5. Highly capitalised banks - you say conservatively run, I say lazy balance sheet. While people scraped together their last few cents to repay their mortgages, banks didn't need to draw down on their capital reserves. It simply proves the adage that people would rather go hungry than default on their home loan.
6. The Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation - the USA has been actively discussing their versions of the HKMC (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are the two biggest), with their implicit government guarantees meaning the US taxpayer effectively subsides mortgage rates for home owners at the expense of non-home owners. Mr. Yam says: we established the Hong Kong Mortgage Corporation to which banks could sell their mortgages if they wished to reduce their exposure to the residential housing market to a comfortable level. This implies the HKMC is simply the mortgage dustbin for Hong Kong banks. If the market wanted a way to dispose of mortgages through securitisation, it would have created it.
But Mr. Yam finishes with a prescient warning:
falling housing prices have a debilitating effect on consumption. The feeling of your property going deeper and deeper into negative equity is painful, particularly when your home is your only asset. Those who have been financing consumption by borrowing against rising housing prices are particularly vulnerable. Thankfully the community of Hong Kong is quite conservative in this respect.
As opposed to some other communities we could name. Thankfully America has no real estate bubble, according to dis-interested and independent realtors, and Hong Kong has no bubble at all...just a slump.
1. Hong Kong isn't in a slump....yet.
2. That's what the boys and girls at the HKMA get the big bucks for. If they want me to join them, my consultancy fees are reasonable.
Taiwan-China currency exchange services that began Monday on Kinmen and Matsu islands on a trial basis have gained warm public response and the government will further study the issue to better service the people, Taiwan Premier Frank Hsieh said Wednesday...The government will move ahead with the service and gauge the possibility of establishing a currency settlement system between the new Taiwan dollar and the renminbi, the premier said...
Taiwan passengers highly praised the service, saying that the measure helps them save a lot of trouble in exchanging renminbi and provides them with a legal channel to get rid of fake Chinese currency despite the fact that the exchange rate is a little higher on Kinmen and Matsu than on Chinese black markets. In the past, Taiwan visitors had to approach local tourist agencies on Kinmen and Matsu or black markets in China to exchange new Taiwan dollars to renminbi -- a practice that made many of them suffer monetary losses when taking in fake notes.
Taiwan is one of the biggest investors in the Mainland. Full scale convertibility is an inevitability. More interestingly this is just the latest small step in the warming relations between the Communists and the DPP. Clearly being enemies isn't what it used to be.
Hong Kong's PCCW is leading the world with its Now Broadband TV service. Chris notes IPTV may be teleco dinosaurs' saviours and why content providers prefer the broadband TV service over cable or satellite.
Guangdong police have formally arrested a rights activist after holding him in custody for three weeks for advising Taishi villagers during their fight to oust the village chief, according to a lawyer who visited him recently...Mr Yang was detained for "disturbing social stability by mass gathering" on September 13 - a day after more than 1,000 armed police stormed the Taishi government office and took away dozens of villagers. The villagers were demanding the removal of village head Chen Jinshen after alleging that he had misused village funds.
Villagers in Taishi have also lost their freedom since the riot on September 12. They are not allowed to talk with outsiders and the number of villagers still detained by the police remains unclear.
Meanwhile a social call by a professor and a lawyer on a noted activist finished up with knuckle sandwiches. Again the SCMP:
A Beijing law lecturer and a lawyer paying a social visit to a blind activist under house arrest in Shandong were escorted back to the capital after being beaten by thugs on Tuesday and interrogated until early yesterday. But Xu Zhiyong , 32, from the Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications, and Li Fangping , 30, a lawyer in a private practice, said they would not be deterred by the attack, which came as they attempted to visit Chen Guangcheng , an opponent of violent, government-backed birth-control measures in Linyi city.
"It was a government-planned action, but the barbarous act will not intimidate us," Mr Xu said from Beijing yesterday...On Tuesday morning, the pair - along with dozens of villagers - arrived outside Mr Chen's home but were denied access. Mr Chen hurried from his house and suffered injuries to his mouth and legs when he clashed with guards. He met the pair for a minute before being pushed back into his house.
Mr Xu and Mr Li were invited to lunch on Tuesday by county officials. They told the officials Mr Chen would "talk less" about local abuses if he was released, but they refused to listen. A few hours later, when the pair were on the way back to Mr Chen's home, they were attacked by up to 30 thugs.
The men tried to report the assault to nearby policemen, who turned their backs on them. Mr Xu and Mr Li were kicked and pushed into a gutter before police arrived and took them - but not the attackers - to a police station, where they were accused of "attacking people". They were interrogated until 3am and escorted back to Beijing by three county policemen yesterday afternoon, after they again tried to visit Mr Chen in the morning.
Mr Chen, who has helped several villagers fighting forced abortion and sterilisation take their cases to court, was "kidnapped" by Shandong police in Beijing last month and put under house arrest.
Linyi city made international headlines in July when Mr Chen helped Washington Post journalists report on the local birth-control programme. Last month, National Population and Family Planning Commission spokesman Yu Xuejun told Xinhua it would investigate the "reported illegal family planning practices" in Shandong.
But the final sucker punch is the most subtle. I am a great believer that consistent, open and honest rule of law is a key to freedom. Rule of law has three important aspects: legislation (by a parliament with elected representatives), enforcement (by police that are not corrupt and closely monitored) and the justice system (again sans corruption, with timely and fair decisions and clear checks and balances). However China's court system is buckling under the strain of an explosion in lawsuits, increased workloads and a falling number of lowly paid judges. We can prattle on about freedom and democracy all we like, but the details matter as much as the broad brushstrokes. The SCMP on China's rickety court system:
Beijing's Chaoyang District Court is one of the busiest lower-level courts in the capital. Last year it took on a record 46,000 lawsuits, but that record looks certain to be overtaken this year, with the court having accepted about 31,000 cases in the first half of the year alone.
The court has 177 judges who each preside over an average of seven hearings a day, according to the People's Court Daily, which quoted one of the court's judges as saying that she still had more than 100 cases to assess and her court roster was fully booked for the coming month.
Chaoyang judges routinely work overtime and their caseload is climbing year by year, according to Mao Li , director of the court's research office.
A People's Court Daily reporter says the load on the legal system is obvious inside the court. "You can immediately feel the tense atmosphere when you step inside the court building," the reporter said. "There are always long queues in the registration hall. Parties in the suits have to wait outside the courtrooms for a long time for their turn because each courtroom has about five different cases every day on average."
Further south, in Guangzhou, the situation has become so acute that the city has had to "borrow" judges from other areas to cope with the "crazy" caseload, the Guangzhou Daily reports. In the past decade and a half, the number of lawsuits accepted by the city's system has risen from about 23,400 in 1990 to more than 160,000 last year.
But the number of judges has declined slightly over the past few years. "The mad increase in lawsuit cases and decline in the number of judges has led to a severe deficiency in judicial power," a Guangzhou judge said. "Working overtime is a common practice for Guangzhou judges."
In the relatively prosperous city of Shenzhen, the intermediate court has sought to counter the increase in cases by implementing a collective overtime plan for its arbitrators since 2000, a move that could be defined as illegal under national law.
From last month, city judges have had to work overtime every Tuesday and Thursday night, and should work every Saturday. According to the "Shenzhen 2004 Court Work Report", the workload of Shenzhen judges has doubled in the past five years.
The report also said 75 judges had asked to quit during that period because of the "extraordinary work pressure". At the national level, the number of cases accepted has risen steadily every year while the country's judicial ranks have thinned. Mainland courts accepted 7.87 million lawsuits last year, compared with 5.68 million in 2003 and 5.35 million in 2000.
Supreme People's Court president Xiao Yang told a meeting of the National People's Congress Standing Committee that the number of judges had declined by 13 per cent between 2000 and last year.
The state does not release data on the number of judges, but there were thought to be about 280,000 in early 2000.
Wang Xuetang , a judge and researcher from Shandong , has been studying China's court system for more than 10 years and says economic development and social change have been the critical factors behind the shortage. Judge Wang said there had been an explosion in the number of disputes because respect for social institutions was not well established in Chinese society. He said members of the public were also more aware of their legal rights - and therefore more willing to file cases - and judges were now expected to meet higher standard.
In the past, China's judges were mainly either retired army personnel or court cadres who had worked their way up to judicial positions. But for the past three years, the mainland has had unified judicial exams which all judges, prosecutors and lawyers have to pass in order to practice.
"The unified examination became a barrier for judge recruitment in underdeveloped areas where the quality of judicial personnel is relatively low," Judge Wang said, while admitting the exams were a significant step forward in terms of national reform.
For example, about 340 judicial staff from Qinghai sat the exams in 2002 when the system was implemented, but only eight passed. Poor pay had also made work on the bench less attractive. Judge Wang said his annual income was only about 30,000 yuan, which is about the same as an ordinary government worker and much less than a lawyer. "Judges should be better paid because they engage in creative work and face heavy workloads and great pressure," he said.
But Peking University Law School professor He Weifang disputed the claims that China did not have enough judges, saying the "shortage" was an illusion created by defects in the judicial system. "The proportion of judges in terms of population numbers in China is much higher than in many western countries," Professor He said.
He said one of the main problems was that many judges were doing work that should be outside their range of responsibilities. "Many basic-level courts are required by the local government to oversee investment invitations, family planning, tax collection and so on," Professor He said. Professor He said an ambiguous division of labour inside the courts forced judges to waste time on paperwork that would be done by assistants in other countries.
"Only about two-thirds of existing judges are really doing judges' work," he said. "The judges also have to spend much energy and time balancing different interest groups who can exert pressure on justice. It is useless to increase the number of judges in this case."
Professor He said corruption had dragged down the reputation of the country's judges and turned people away from the profession. "Prestige and independence are more important than salary for a judge," he said, adding that it would be a more popular career choice if judges' authority and reputation could be guaranteed.
Through a monumental co-incidence, both my excellent co-blogger Dave and I will be unable to post to the blog from this coming Monday for the next week. If you are interested in taking on a guest blogging slot from next Monday until next Sunday, please send me an email or leave a comment here. You've got until noon Friday Hong Kong time.
The last time I tried this it was extremely successful, and if any of the previous guest bloggers would like to take up the reigns, let me know.
I've been waiting for an excuse to get back into the game, so this looks as good of an opportunity as I'll get in this world. I've been stuck in grad school IR coursework, and I've got a midterm break coming next week from my day job.
I don't know if a lowly 22 year old blogger in Beijing can muster enough intellectual might to be a guest on your site, but perhaps you could browse a few seconds on my turf to see if I've got the "Right Stuff"?
One incredible part of the Kissel case post is the varied comments received from those who are intimately involved with it. While there have been disagreements and accusations, for the most part the discourse has been civilised. Having an open forum for people to express their feelings and comment on the case has added a new dimension to the coverage of the case and it demonstrates the potential of blogs as a new medium.
During the case I made a simple request to the mainstream media who were making use of the site, especially in chasing interviews from commenters on the post. Firstly on August 12th I said the following:
Now would be a good time for me to make a simple request: if members of the media use this archive and/or site to help in their research of the case, I would appreciate an email letting me know of any resulting publication or article.
I followed this up on September 4th with the following:
I repeat a request that any mainstream media account that relies on comments or contacts found via this site please make a reference to this site as the location where that source was found.
It was a simple request for attribution. I was and remain happy for mainstream media to use the site as a reference point on the case. All I ask is the simple courtesy of recognising where these contacts were gathered from, just as the media in question would expect proper attribution and acknowledgement when I or others commented on their articles. I am please to say that some newspapers followed my request, including The Standard. The SCMP obviously obtained interviews and material via this site without attribution, but I let that slide given I was cutting-and-pasting their inaccessable articles into the archive - effectively I called us even.
Just today a friend and reader mentioned that this site was obliquely referenced the the New York Times in an article on September 24th. The full article appears below the jump, but here is the key part:
Lawyers and family members say they believe she is the author of an item posted on the Web earlier this month by an author identified only as H who described seeing to it that her three young charges had the same fun-filled year as her two children: a year packed with sleepovers with friends, music lessons and weekend ski trips. Although it is ''far from a perfect situation,'' the writer wrote, ''they are doing well, all things considered.''
''They wake up to a full breakfast (cooked not by a maid), lunches for five are packed in the morning and we sit down to a family dinner almost every night,'' the writer continued.
The elder niece, according to the posting, went to sleepaway camp this summer, as has been her custom, and the younger two children ''swam in fresh mountain springs, jumped off rocks into beautiful lakes, learned how to knit (sort of), made macramé necklaces and went blazing down the Alpine Slide.''
The NYT article is referring to this September 11th comment by "H". Clearly the NYT reporter, Alison Leigh Cowan, googled the case, came across my post and read through the comments. It is impossible that she did not see the two seperate requests for notifcation and attribution.
I will be sending have sent (see bottom of this post) an email to the NYT editor asking for attribution as was clearly stated. I will be publishing all the correspondence here. I am not asking for money or anything other than recognition. Let's see if it's too much to ask of the New York Times.
Update 17:08: Further to this, all work on this site is protected by a Creative Commons licence: attribution-non commercial-share alike 1.0. The NYT has proken the attribution aspect (You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor); they've breached noncommercial (You may not use this work for commercial purposes.). Finally under share alike (If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under a license identical to this one.) we are theoretically free to now at least use this article and perhaps the entire NYT under a similar licence.
For 3 Little Millionaires, a Series of Painful Events
By ALISON LEIGH COWAN (NYT) 1384 words
Published: September 24, 2005
Even in Greenwich, the $15 million to $18 million fortune they stand to inherit stands out as serious money. And yet few would trade places with them. They are 11-, 8- and 5-year-old siblings who have endured nearly as much tragedy in their short lives as the waifs of the Lemony Snicket stories who lurch from crisis to crisis.
Last month, their mother was convicted of killing their father in 2003 at their luxurious Hong Kong home, after he learned of her affair with a television repairman. Their maternal grandfather moved them to Illinois to live with him but changed his mind after two weeks.
Then the rich uncle who gave them refuge at his picture-perfect home in Greenwich was charged with orchestrating a fraud that is punishable by years in prison and could leave him penniless. His wife, the person primarily in charge of taking care of the children in the last year and a half, is seeking a divorce. She has said she would like to keep custody, but must battle creditors to preserve any semblance of the life she has led.
The question, then, of who will raise the three Kissel children, and, not coincidentally, what happens to the money their father left behind, will now be left to the American judicial system. Stamford Superior Court has begun revisiting the issue of temporary custody, and Surrogate's Court in Manhattan, which probated their father's will, is scheduled to take up the larger question of guardianship next Friday.
In the meantime, the squabbling continues, extending a spectacle that began overseas in late 2003 when Nancy Ann Kissel was accused of giving her husband, Robert P. Kissel, a Merrill Lynch executive, a sedative-laced milkshake before clubbing him to death. It spread here with this summer's news that Robert's brother, Andrew M. Kissel, had criminal and marital problems of his own.
Squaring off over custody and guardianship of the children are Andrew's estranged wife, Hayley Wolff Kissel, a former stock analyst on Wall Street, and his sister, Jane Kissel Clayton of Mercer Island, Wash.
Ms. Clayton has criticized the children's current living arrangement as ''bleak and problematic'' and accused her sister-in-law in court of using the children as pawns to solve her own deepening financial woes.
Court records show that the Kissels of Greenwich received $170,000 from Robert P. Kissel's estate last year and are operating under an agreement in which the estate allots $8,000 a month toward the children's food, clothing, travel, sports, gifts and baby sitter, an amount that can rise or fall on the basis of actual expenses. Major outlays like tuition and medical bills are not expected to come from that but are paid directly by the estate.
''Hayley has represented to me that her and Andrew's legal problems have left her in a desperate financial situation and that she intends to fight for custody of Robbie's children -- even though she admits that it is not in their best interests to remain with her -- in order to benefit from their considerable assets,'' Ms. Clayton wrote in an affidavit.
Though Hayley Kissel petitioned for divorce earlier this year and is now embroiled in civil litigation stemming from Andrew's ill-fated deals, she seems prepared to do battle over the three children, Elaine, June and Reis, as well.
She notified Stamford Superior Court last month that she was interested in remaining responsible for the children despite her own changed circumstances. Without disclosing much detail about the tumult in her life, she wrote, ''I take my role as custodian very seriously, care deeply for the welfare of the Kissel children and am happy to continue as temporary custodian.''
Lawyers and family members say they believe she is the author of an item posted on the Web earlier this month by an author identified only as H who described seeing to it that her three young charges had the same fun-filled year as her two children: a year packed with sleepovers with friends, music lessons and weekend ski trips. Although it is ''far from a perfect situation,'' the writer wrote, ''they are doing well, all things considered.''
''They wake up to a full breakfast (cooked not by a maid), lunches for five are packed in the morning and we sit down to a family dinner almost every night,'' the writer continued.
The elder niece, according to the posting, went to sleepaway camp this summer, as has been her custom, and the younger two children ''swam in fresh mountain springs, jumped off rocks into beautiful lakes, learned how to knit (sort of), made macramé necklaces and went blazing down the Alpine Slide.''
Asked about the latest developments, Hayley Kissel's lawyer, Joseph W. Martini, said neither he nor his client would have any further comment.
In an interview, William J. Kissel, the children's paternal grandfather, said that he found the Web posting inappropriate and that he supported his daughter's application for custody and guardianship, citing many of the assertions in Jane Clayton's filings that question Hayley Kissel's motives. ''Better now than later,'' he said.
''Andrew is in deep trouble,'' he said, ''and it wouldn't be appropriate to have the children in a house without a mother and a father, where the wife needs the children to support her lifestyle.''
In her court filings, Ms. Clayton has said that trouble arose in Andrew and Hayley's marriage in July 2004, when Hayley Kissel learned that her husband was having an affair. Ms. Clayton recounted conversations from that period that left her ''deeply worried,'' in which her sister-in-law told her that Andrew's business was a ''Ponzi scheme'' and that one of the reasons they moved to Connecticut was that he ''stole money from their New York City condo'' when they lived in Manhattan.
Though the couple later reconciled, Ms. Clayton stated that she remained concerned about the children's welfare. Those concerns, she wrote, flared anew in the winter, when her sister-in-law resolved to get a divorce and left town without waiting for her elder niece to return from a school trip. Ultimately, a family friend picked the girl up, according to Ms. Clayton.
Ms. Clayton said in court filings that her sister-in-law made it clear at that time she did not need the ''extra stress'' of the additional children, and the two agreed that the children would remain in Connecticut through the school year, and then join Ms. Clayton and her husband, Richard, an executive at Microsoft.
Pressing personal problems are now causing her sister-in-law to renege, Ms. Clayton said. ''Hayley told me that Andrew had leveraged everything, including their house in Vermont, and that he had left her with nothing,'' she wrote.
Citing a conversation she said they had on July 7, Ms. Clayton quoted her sister-in-law as saying: ''I am going to do what is best for myself. If I keep the children, it may not be the best thing for them, but at least I won't be out on the street. I have nothing left.''
Ms. Clayton's lawyer, Randy M. Mastro of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, said in an interview that his client's recollections were based on contemporaneous notes she took of conversations she had with her sister-in-law.
An item in the probate court's files suggests one reason it may be hard to leave the children where they are: the possibility that the estate may have to join a lawsuit against Andrew M. Kissel.
Back in June, Ms. Clayton, a co-executor of her brother's estate, testified during the murder trial that the estate was worth $18 million. That estimate has now been lowered to $15.5 million. Some of that gap can be attributed to investments that Robert Kissel had made in apartment buildings in New Jersey, which Andrew Kissel is now accused of having secretly sold out from under his own partners. That money may now be hard to recover, according to Mr. Mastro.
My letter to the NYT public editor
To whom it may concern:
I write to you regarding an article that appeared in the NYT on September 24th, 2005, by Alison Leigh Cowan, under the headline "For 3 Little Millionaires, a Series of Painful Events". The said article relates to the custody battle for 3 children left parentless after their mother was found guilty of murdering their father in Hong Kong.
I run a Hong Kong weblog called Simon World (http://simonworld.mu.nu). I have been following the murder case throughout its trial and my site has become the number 1 rank in Google for searches for Nancy Kissel, the convicted murderer. As such my site has also become an open forum on the case, with many people intimately related or involved in the case commenting on my site.
During the case I made a simple request to the mainstream media who were making use of the site, especially in chasing interviews from commenters on the post. Firstly on August 12th (http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/054193.php#397346) I said the following:
"Now would be a good time for me to make a simple request: if members of the media use this archive and/or site to help in their research of the case, I would appreciate an email letting me know of any resulting publication or article."
I followed this up on September 4th (http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/054193.php#426176) with the following:
"I repeat a request that any mainstream media account that relies on comments or contacts found via this site please make a reference to this site as the location where that source was found."
It was a simple request for attribution. I was and remain happy for mainstream media to use the site as a reference point on the case. All I ask is the simple courtesy of recognising where these contacts were gathered from, just as the media in question would expect proper attribution and acknowledgement when I or others commented on their articles. Several newspapers have conducted interviews or gathered leads for stories via my site and have attributed as requested. However I received no notification from the NYT or your reporter of your use of my site in a story.
Ms. Cowan's story clearly references my site in the following excerpt:
"Lawyers and family members say they believe she is the author of an item posted on the Web earlier this month by an author identified only as H who described seeing to it that her three young charges had the same fun-filled year as her two children: a year packed with sleepovers with friends, music lessons and weekend ski trips. Although it is ''far from a perfect situation,'' the writer wrote, ''they are doing well, all things considered.''
''They wake up to a full breakfast (cooked not by a maid), lunches for five are packed in the morning and we sit down to a family dinner almost every night,'' the writer continued.
The elder niece, according to the posting, went to sleepaway camp this summer, as has been her custom, and the younger two children ''swam in fresh mountain springs, jumped off rocks into beautiful lakes, learned how to knit (sort of), made macramé necklaces and went blazing down the Alpine Slide."
The article is referring to a September 11th comment by "H" (http://simonworld.mu.nu/archives/054193.php#434080).
I would ask that your newspaper respect the clearly stated request for attribution. I imagine your paper zealously enforces attribution for those articles used and referenced by others. I am asking your paper does the same for the sources it uses in its articles.
It is my policy that all correspondence is publishable on my site.
If you are not the appropriate area for this correspondence can you please pass it to the relevant parties within the NYT.
Doug - it is a complicated case, and a tragedy to boot.
Martyn - did you get my email? I'll wait for any response from NYT before going wider with this. As for the BB link, well deserved and I hope this does get wider publicity. Maybe the NYT could write about it?
Fumier and I discussed this last night in the FCC and we don't think you have much of a case here. You claim in your disclaimer that the comments made by other people come under the creative coments license and then in the same paragraph say you take no responsibility for them at all. You cannot take copyright because you want to then take no culpability for the content.
If they had quoted something you wrote you would be in the right but in fact they quoted H and attributed the person who actually wrote it which fulfills any arguable copyright requirement.
This is only my opinion but from what I can see, the Time stole nothing. You did not own it because you did not write it.
I had thought about that. However the disclaimer is really quite clear. The comments still fall under the CC licence. I do not take responsibility for the content of the comment, but I do claim the CC licence operates. It's exactly like opinion pieces in a newspaper like, say, the New York Times. When someone publishes an opinion piece it is clearly the NYT's copyright but the contents are the responsibility of the writer. I can absolutely claim copyright over something without having culpability over the content. Another example is the letters to the editor page. I cede my copyright when I send in the letter, but it's my opinion, not the paper's.
Further I reserve the right to change the rules as I go along in my disclaimer. In the case of that Kissel thread I clearly twice asked for notification and attribution for any stories that resulted, and that clearly covers the comments thread as well.
I think your comparison with the letters and opinions page of a newspaper has one problem. The letters are edited and screened as are opinion pieces. The publisher may decry the opinion but they make a decision to publish or not and almost all letters (comments) are edited for content, grammar, etc. Indeed a publisher IS liable to defamation suit for something they choose to publish regardless of who owns the opinion.
There is a difference from ownership of the opinion and legal liabiity for the publishing of the opinion. It is untested ground legally when it comes to blogs.
You do not assume that liability and indeed have no active control (nor want any, if you remember what nearly happened to me) over a comment except to take it down after it is published when it may already be in an internet archive and remains retrievable. With this in mind, I think my original point stands. Because you can differentiate a blog comment from a published letter you cannot therefore use it as an example or case precedent.
In fact, re reading your creative commons license..
--All content, including comments, on this site operates under a Creative Commons Licence.--
..does not say you assume copyright to anything anyone leaves as a comment. It could just as well be protecting the rights of your commenters.
Which could mean nothing has been stolen from you.
Arguably.
This is an issue worthy of more exploration beyond this case.
It is a legal gray area. My disclaimer also says I may, at my sole discretion, moderate, alter or remove comments.
Anyway, my point remains that it was simple friggin' courtesy for the NYT to recognise the site where the comment was found. If I cut and paste a bit from say the NYT, even under fair use rights I need to acknowledge the source.
I agree this needs more exploration. I'm away next week, so let's explore over a pint or three once I'm back. In the interim, if anyone is actually qualified enough to talk about this, chime in.
I know very little about the legal side, but can point out that the NYTimes does include both references and links to blogs it uses in articles. So the NYTimes was also acting against its own precedent in neglecting to reference its source.
1) The problem for Simon is this: the Kissel relatives could have supplied Cowan with the quoted material from Simon World. If this is true, then Simon does not have a leg to stand on. It is not necessary when citing material to cite the original source. It is only necessary to cite A source of the material.
2) But, since it is probably the case that Cowan directly lifted the quote from Simon World:
Suppose that H had spoken to the NYT reporter herself, who then quoted H in print. Suppose further that I then lifted that quote and put it on Simon's Blog without saying where it had come from. Could the NYT object in principle? Yes.
Have we not all learnt that if something can be argued, it has a chance of success in a court room? There is indeed scope for Simon to argue his op-ed analogy to good effect. The fact that Simon is not a heavy-handed editor (as we imagine an editor at the NYT to be) does not mean he couldn't be, hence he could still be regarded as comparable to an NYT editor, which would help to generate a claim on Simon World's part to "ownership" of sorts.
If I lift all of my own contributions to Simon World and give them over to a writer like Cowan without saying I posted them on Simon World originally, do I commit a wrong? I think so. In the academic setting, anytime I want to make the same point I have already made in print, I have to write something like: "I first made this point in this way in..." to avoid copyright problems. Not many people realise it, but a person can be easily guilty of breaching copyright even when the material emanates from him/her.
Consider a scenario in which Simon put a book together of all of the postings on the Kissel case, without asking me et al if we agreed to our own being included. I doubt we could sue him because posting on his site would be regarded as a transfer of sorts from us to him.
4) Sources should be attributed as a matter of courtesy. The NYT should not have a problem doing so in this case. Probably Alison Cowan just did not think about doing so because most people still tend to see Blogs as free-for-alls on many fronts: copyright, IP, etc. I will be surprised if the NYT does not respond positively to Simon. Of course, the NYT can always say: "Cowan got the quoted info. from the Kissel relatives."
Just a few weeks ago, China said death tolls from natural disasters were no longer state secrets. Which makes the press clampdown over the recent typhoon in Fujian, sweeping away a military base, curious to say the least.
China and Japan are tussling over potential gas deposits in the East China Sea. Asia Times also looks at the China/Japan tussle in Indochina.
These stories, all from today, are related. You join the dots.
1. The SCMP:
The number of hours with reduced visibility at Hong Kong International Airport hit 237 last month, the highest figure for September since 1997.
2. The SCMP:
The number of people who watched the $7.7 million video showing highlights of the controversial Harbour Fest will never be known, InvestHK said yesterday. Harbour Fest organisers InvestHK and the American Chamber of Commerce had promised that the 45-minute video - aimed at promoting Hong Kong after the Sars outbreak in 2003 - could reach 500 million households worldwide.
But the government's investment promotion arm now says the final viewing figure will not be available because many overseas stations did not have ratings...since February last year, the report said, the video had been shown on two MTV networks, the international and Indian channels of Star World, on TVB Pearl and Phoenix TV, which is shown on the mainland, Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines.
The report says Phoenix alone may have accounted for up to 300,000 viewers. (Ed. - that's still a little short of 500 million.)
InvestHK said there were no further plans to broadcast the video because of TV rights restrictions and the long time lapse since the music festival was held.
Harbour Fest was held in 2003. An official inquiry into the role of InvestHK director-general Mike Rowse in the public-relations fiasco is continuing.
3. The Standard: five prosecuted in swoop on "Rat Alley" restaurants. Lan Kwai Fong's best strip of cheap restaurants, vibrant with al fresco eating, chaotic waiters and that Indian guy with the Elvis sideburns. Not any more.
4. The SCMP:
The Asia-Pacific region boasts some of the world's most liveable cities but also a number of the most wretched capitals on Earth, according to survey results released yesterday...Tokyo was ranked 16th and Auckland 20th along with Osaka, Kobe and Wellington. Hong Kong was ranked 41st, while Seoul and Singapore tied for 54th place.
What knocked Hong Kong's score? The survey says...
...cities in Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and Taiwan all offer a good standard of living, with a humid climate bringing scores down slightly.
I think the bigger news is Melbourne slipped from first to second place... can they still market themselves as The Most Livable City, which is signed everywhere around Melbourne?
This is a tale of a vending machine, Kate Moss and irrationality.
Important update at the end of this post
We have a vending machine at work. It has proven extremely popular with the staff, especially as the drinks are provided gratis. This has provided material for an interesting experiment. Now that price has been removed from the demand equation, it can be safely assumed that other factors will come into play. Taste is one, packaging another, familiarity (i.e. advertising and experience) yet another. The machine has two rows of 8 selections. The selections were:
(Top): Coke x2, Lemon Diet Coke (why?), Diet Coke x3, Aloe Vera Tea (again, why?), Lemon tea.
(Bottom): Bonactive (I think it's water in a can), Soda Water, Soda Water, Bonactive, Orange Juice and three variations of iced coffee.
Bear with me here. Inevitably the first drinks to run out are Coke and regular Diet Coke (there's always lemon Diet Coke left, even when everything else has run out, as you would expect). Naturally you would expect the bottler to realise that Coke and Diet Coke are the most popular drinks and some of the lesser variations should be dropped to make more space for these drinks.
You would be wrong.
In a decision that can only be described as incredible, the machine has had its two lines of Diet Coke cut (insert Kate Moss joke here) and replaced with Bonactive and Soda water. Why? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
Yes, I think I work in the Twilight Zone.
Update (10/5 @ 17:08)
The machine has been refilled and restored to its natural order, with 3 lines of Diet Coke back in place.
Obviously either someone complained, someone came to their senses or the evil conspiracy unravelled thanks to this blog post.
"The company that stocks the machine is sold out of the popular products and has no choice but to stick you with left-over inventory no one wants."
Which raises the question of why said company hasn't yet managed to figure out that its stocks of certain products are always the ones which are last to sell out. There's no excuse for this, it's simply poor inventory management.
What makes you think they didn't do it on purpose to save money, precisely because those ones were so popular? You're not paying for them, but obviously someone is.
Matt, a good point, but if that was the worry they'd start charging for all the drinks, not just pull the popular lines.
Fumier is right, this has happened before. Last time I actually complained and within a couple of weeks all was restored. This time I'm going to wait to see if anyone else can be bothered doing something about it. In the interim, my secret stash of Diet Coke is secure.
Maybe you are overlooking a more obvious answer. The drinks are provided to you for free, but cost the company money. The more you drink, the more it costs the company. By stocking unpopular drinks, the company can boast it provides free amenities while reducing costs by providing amenities nobody wants....
Tim Clissold's Mr China is an entertaining read about the perils of doing business in China. Today's Sydney Morning Herald follows a similar case, of Alex Liu and the Dandong International Hotel (sub req'd, full article below the jump). The story has everything: corruption, kleptocracy, ineffective courts, shifty dealings, useless and mythical guanxi and more besides. A rollicking good read:
Only a few months ago the $US7.8 million ($10.25 million) that Alex Liu and a group of ex-Hong Kong investors, including two Australians, had put into a high-rise hotel here looked like dead money, an expensive case study in what can go wrong with foreign investment in China.
Their local government partner had loaded the hotel with extraneous debts, seized the official seals and expelled the managers, put the enterprise into receivership, then handed it to cronies who milked it of cash.
This week the investment was back from the dead. The leading crony was under arrest, city officials were running scared and grovelling, and Alex Liu was back walking the lobby, directing staff in a physical and financial clean-up to salvage the business.
Still, it's a hair-raising story.
Liu, a 60-year-old building engineer with a well-regarded firm in Hong Kong and a family home in Toronto, Canada, and his partners are pillars of respectability.
But they had to act as street activists to gain attention in China and keep protesting to get judicial, party and state officials to override powerful and corrupt local vested interests.
Advertisement
Advertisement"Over the last three years we carried out demonstrations 13 times," says Liu, who unfurled protest banners outside Communist Party offices next to Beijing's Tiananmen Square and the Liaoning provincial equivalents in the north-eastern city Shenyang, under which Dandong falls.
Fellow investor Patrick Choi, an environmental engineer with the NSW State Government, and his brother Nelson would take leave and fly from Sydney to join Liu on the streets.
The demos would be timed for the most embarrassing moments, like the annual meeting of China's National People's Congress, when authorities normally clear the capital of known petitioners and other usual suspects.
Chinese police would quickly intervene, fold up their banners and hustle them off the streets. But each time the partners would get a new meeting with high-up officials to put their case.
The partners agree they were naive in 1991 when they first heard about a business opportunity in Dandong, the city that is the main Chinese transit point into North Korea which it faces across the narrow estuary of the Yalu River.
Dandong's city government had started building the city's first modern hotel but had run out of money with just the 23-story shell completed. Alex Liu had the expertise and, with his friends, the cash to complete the project.
It seemed a safe investment. Their joint venture partner was a branch of the Chinese government. They were Chinese, able to speak and read the language, and more likely to forge the unspoken understandings of "guangxi", or connections said to underpin business deals here, better than written agreements. Their foreign passports gave them tax and other privileges.
The hotel duly opened in mid-1994, ready to cash in on a prospective boom when North Korea's isolationist regime eventually succumbed to globalisation - something the world is still waiting for, though a trickle of barter trade across Dandong's steel girder bridge is steadily picking up.
But in the meantime, the investors found their local partners practising a version of capitalism they must have learnt from the 19th century robber barons.
The manager provided by the city-owned Dandong Tourist Corp got the hotel to take over several large debts incurred by the local government before it entered the joint venture.
By the time Liu and partners caught up with this, banks were foreclosing on interest-swollen debt. In April 2002 the Dandong People's Intermediate Court put the hotel into receivership, under a local company close to city officials called Fu Wah Management Co. Deprived of the official seals, Liu and partners were denied all access to the hotel and its accounts.
Little or no help came from the Australian, Canadian and US embassies. The investment had been made through Liu's Hong Kong firm, Fam Engineering, and was therefore no concern of theirs. For local officials, the investors were not quite foreign, and not Chinese either, and thus easy game.
So the long campaign of political embarrassment started and, finally in May this year came a breakthrough. The Liaoning provincial high court formed a special panel which ordered the lower court's receivership order revoked and the hotel handed back to its board of directors.
But court orders are one thing in China, enforcement another.
Alex Liu, who had been chairman on the board of directors in April 2002 and still was according to all legal forms, drove down immediately to Dandong along with an enforcement officer from the provincial court to receive the hotel.
"Instead we were met by three new faces, from a new company called Nine Continent Tourism Co, who claimed they were the board of directors appointed by the local partner," Liu recalls.
Once again, all the partners flew into China to mount further picketing attempts outside the offices of Liaoning's top communists. But there it seemed to rest, a not untypical case of local power cliques resisting directions from above.
But somehow - Liaoning officials this week refused to discuss the mechanics - the challenge was taken up. In recent weeks Liu Tinyao, a key figure in the Fu Wah Management Co, was taken in by the Liaoning anti-corruption agency for questioning.
As well as being asked about 5 million yuan ($811,000) missing from the hotel accounts, he is also said to be linked to some 10 million yuan embezzled from the Liaoning Securities Co, a provincial investment bank that recently had to be rescued with a 500 million yuan cash infusion from the central government.
Resistance in Dandong collapsed, with several high-ranking officials said to be nervous about their futures. Alex Liu walked back into the hotel on September 20. "There wasn't a single fen [penny] left in the till," he said - and an accrued debt of 72 million yuan.
Most of the podium and lower floors have been taken as collateral by banks and an asset management company, so the hotel has ownership of only the top 10 floors, including its revolving restaurant which allows diners to dine while gazing out over starving North Korea, and pays rent on the rest.
Luckily Mad Minerva went along and took copious notes, which you'll find at the above link. As a teaser, here are the six factors to consider:
1. Historical Pattern: China’s historical propensity to use force to solve geopolitical problems.
2. China’s New Security Agenda
3. High-Level Power Struggles Within Chinese Government Elite
4. Cross-Strait Economic Engagement
5. Taiwanese Democracy
6. The United States
There are some great snippets within the notes themselves, and MM has a constructive conclusion on the talk. Well worth a read.
Stumbling around Xinhua, I came across a forum titled Mao Zedong, a forever warm memory. The page holds 15 comments, all in praise of the Great Helmsman. One that stands out:
jjg: My father and grandfather were wronged and persecuted for 5 and 20 years, respectively. But I still think that Mao's merits outweigh his demerits….We can never forget that he helped lay the foundation for the growth of the People’s Republic of China.
And another links past with present:
Dhgsk: Mao Zedong is remembered not for the mistakes he made, but for the work style of "serving the people wholeheartedly"pursued by the Chinese Communist Party under his leadership….People have longed for a government that does its utmost to improve their well-beings. Fortunately, the current central leadership gives us that hope.
According to the book "Mao Tse-tung, who for decades held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world's population, was responsible for well over 70 million deaths in peacetime, more than any other twentieth century leader" and claimed that he was willing for half of China to die to achieve military-nuclear superpowerdom.
Chang and Halliday argue that despite being born into a peasant family, Mao had little concern for the welfare of the Chinese peasantry. They hold Mao responsible for the famine resulting from the Great Leap Forward and claim that he exacerbated the famine by allowing the export of grain to continue even when it became clear that China did not have sufficient grain to feed its population. They also claim that Mao had many political opponents arrested and murdered, including some of his personal friends, and argue that he was a more tyrannical leader than had previously been thought.
The entry also has links to various reviews of the book and some of the disputed points in the book.
I imagine this book won't be available in China, nor will it get it's own Xinhua page.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the cost of obtaining a dog license in Guangzhou? It's 700. Renminbi? No. British Pounds. That's over RMB10,000. And then you pay another 400 pounds (RMB 5,727) a year for the privilege.
This article in the Independent from its Beijing correspondent David Eimer talks about how the Guangzhou authorities are rounding up unlicensed dogs and butchering them on the streets, sometimes in front of their owners, who cannot afford to pay for this bourgeois luxury.
Desperate owners afraid of a summary execution of their best friend are having their vocal cords removed so they won't be found out.
It's all very shocking to me, even when I know China is tough on rabies. I guess Guangzhou must not have a very strong chapter of the SPCA... any bloggers out there happen to know what country kills the most dogs per annum?
You're right Dave. Last week my girlfriend came in (I live in Guangzhou) and told me that government-sent peasants were going to f*****g vets and rounding up sick dogs and taking them away to be killed. Owners then turned up afterwards and were told that their dogs had been taken away by the govt and killed.
The Guangzhou govt are f*****g scum. Any country that can do this is a f*****g shit-hole.
The article is correct about the licenses, 10,000 yuan then 6,000 yuan every year afterwards. This is because the Guangzhou govt do not want anyone to raise dogs in Guangzhou. COmpare that to Chongqng that, I've heard, have scrapped license fees altogether.
As you might be able to tell, I have three dogs and I would commit murder with my bare hands if any peasant tried to take one of them away. I would happily beat them to death with their own shoes and even more happily accept the consequences.
The Guangzhou govt should sort this out and soon if it wants to become a semi-civilized city.
It is almost certainly the United States that culls the most animals in the world. According to one MSNBC article I read, there are over 70 million domesticated dogs in the US, it is likely that tens of thousands of dogs are put down each year. A google search turned up a 1999 reuters article which says that 22,000 dogs were put down each year in Bitain, a more recent one from the Beeb said 20+ were being put down each day. The independant article you listed to estimated that there were only 60,000 dogs in Guangzhou, which is a very low rate of dog ownership considering the city has a population of over 10 million.
i am not sure if scrapping the license fee is a good thing. (it surely has its downside, and putting down any life is not to be endorsed)
i know this is a capitalistic view, but with the license fee as a threshold it ensures the responsibility of the owners: that they can afford to take their pets to the vet and take good care of the dog/etc. (whether it should be 700Yuan or 700 quid is another question)
you need to know the alternative when you oppose the license deal. in the past (even now in rural areas) dogs were kept as door-guards, and some owners would kill them for food when they get old. at least that won't happen if they are paying 10k yuan to keep them.
the renewal fee perhaps should be reduced to a nominal number, e.g. RMB20. because owners may abandon the pet when you cannot afford to keep it. stray dog can really spread rabies.
Thanks Jing, that was why I asked the question the way I did, because I suspect (but don't have hard evidence) that China does not cull more dogs each year than other countries, at least not as a percentage of the population.
However, I suspect that the methods of culling dogs appear to be different from country to country. While you mention a high number of cullings in Britain and the USA, my understanding is that they are done quite humanely, more often than not because they are old and dying, and with lethal injections that induce sleep rather than brutally with clubs and knives. Regardless of the reason (rabies) for the culls, they do not need to be so brutal.
I suppose that given that in Guangzhou (as opposed to some other parts of China) dogs make it on the dinner table, the authorities there wouldn't treat dogs any differently from chickens or pigs. Overall, also, Chinese more generally from my experience (not just the Cantonese) appear to have a much more limited view of animal rights compared to the West.
Sun Bin, I admire your blog and usually we agree, but I think this time I am more in Martyn's camp. Even as a non-dog owner, I have to agree with the points he makes on Peking Duck that actually many other animals carry rabies, not just dogs, and that they are subject to a much higher hurdle than the others. I would also look favorably on his suggestion to make mandatory rabies innoculations.
The most convincing argument, pro or con, would be to find out whether these measures by the Guangzhou authorities result in a much lower rabies infection rate than that of Shenzhen, where I believe there are no dog licensing fees...anyone know this?
yes, i agree with you the best solution should be determined by comparing data on guangzhou and Shenzhen. that would show us which way is more effective in controlling rabies. i don't have the data, so i do know what the answer is. but i am all for a scientific study.
what i am suggesting is that, there should be a process, and implementing the license is part of such process, some threshold fee will help to ensure responsibility of the owner (and pay for the inoculation, and as an insurance to the "SPCA" fund).
this is exactly what you need to put in place in order to implement "mandatory rabies innoculation". if you have seen irresponsible owners abandoning their dogs in Taiwan and HK (perhaps china as well) you will know what i mean by "ensuring responsibility".
such situation is rare in US, because the space is much larger and pet owners much more wealthier (8-10X even in PPP measure - this is what the thresold try to achieve).
as to what to do with the violation (keeping dog without license, or refusing to inoculatie), there are many ways other than putting the healthy dogs down. e.g. an SPCA like body to maintain a dog center, and adoption service, etc.
i think there are enough animal lovers in China and people like martyn who would be happy to contribute time or fund.
---
other animals: i miss that 'other animal argument'.
but i know there are other animals that carry rabies. there is no reason they should be treated under different principle. (but i suppose among these animals, dogs have the closest contact with human). if you are keeping a racoon as pet, it should be the same deal.
Simon, those images are shocking. And the commentary after the pictures are also disturbing.
I thought it was also interesting that purebreds are respected as pets while mutts, despite their wider exposure to a global gene pool, are treated cruelly and are only good for food. Where does that leave Eurasians like me?
Also, I wonder why dog licenses have to be so incredibly expensive in the first place. If they were not, then there wouldn't be a black market in illegal dogs, owners would be under greater obligation than unlicensed ones, and presumably the knock-on effect of having more licensed dogs as a percentage of the total dog population would means less strays, and less rabies.
I guess I don't buy the argument that the expensive dog licenses are helping the situation, or even helping to control the problem. I do agree forming SPCA organizations around China would be a very good start.
i think the license and restrictions are only for the cities, but i am not entirely certain. in rural areas there is no such regulation. (but they might come if there is rabies case nearby)
for some unknown reason they tend to believe dogs in rural areas are not as susceptible to rabies, even thought they roam freely. this is something i don't quite understand. maybe it is too costly to patrol the villages.
however, there are a few related problems for this 'adoption' scenario
1. who is going to pay for the inoculation of this rural dog? the village boy has no money.
2. if the family is so poor, how can they feed the dog? or take it to the vet when needed?
3. where would that dog come from? a stray dog?
... perhaps the license threshold for adopting unwanted or stray dogs should be much lower than first time license for keeping pedigree puppies.
Jonathan Dresner is calling up for submissions and hosts of a Carnvial of Asian History. An excellent idea and I'm looking forward to the first edition. Please help spread the word.
Pundita takes issue with Spengler's piece on demographics and Chinese democracy.
Before I get to the numbers for September, a few important announcements.
1. With the help of my good buddy Jim, I have registered and steup the website http://www.simonworld.net as a secondary adress for this blog. Both sites will have exactly the same information and format, and either can be read, linked, or referenced in the usual manner. There is no need to adjust your bookmarks or links, but this should make it easier for those who find the .mu.nu domain too difficult to deal with while providing a potential backup site...just in case.
2. I have had the pleasure of using Phin from apothegm design to do some maintenance work around the site. The response was quick, the cost modest and the results perfect. If you need any site work or design help, give 'em a call.
Thank you to everyone else who also linked and visited.
For those interested, some stats for September:
* 28,178 unique visitors made 61,508 unique visits, reading a total of 166,466 pages,and drawing 13.23 GB of bandwidth.
* This equals 2,050 visitors per day reading 5,548 pages each day. In other words each visitor reads 2.7 pages on average. Each visitor returned on average 2.18 times during the month.
* 1,959 visited this site via their favourites/bookmarks. 217 subscribe via Bloglines and 178 via Feedburner.
* 65.6% of you use IE, 16.2% Firefox, 3.1% Safari, 1.4% Mozilla, 1.3% Opera and 1% Netscape to browse this site. 82.4% of you use Windows, 5.6% Mac, 1.1% Linux.
* 15.1% of visits were via search engines, of which Google was 74.4% and Yahoo 17.6%. The top search phrases were "Nancy Kissel", "Robert Kissel", "Simon World" (still no. 1 for that one!) and "Icered".
* The most visited individual page remains the "Nancy Kissel trial archive".
It would have made more sense all round to have the Friday and Monday off. The travel industry would have preferred that as well. Still, can't expect sense from the SAR govt.
Might be accepting gainful employment in your neck of the woods soon.
China's economic statistics are notoriously unreliable but most agree that China has been the recipient of huge amounts of foreign direct investment (FDI). Not according to UNCTAD:
China claims FDI of $5.42 bn from US in 2002 while US says $924 mn, a variation of 83%. Adding a new twist to the debate over China’s awesome FDI figures, a recent Unctad report has said the numbers claimed by the country are far in excess of those reported by investors.
China claims that it got FDI worth $5.42 billion from the US in 2002. But the US says it has invested a meagre $924 million during the period, Unctad’s World Investment Report 2005, says.
The discrepancy is visible in case of other investors as well. China says Hong Kong invested $17.86 billion in 2002. But Hong Kong says the amount is $15.93 billion. Again, Chinese data show that Japan pumped in $4.19 billion during the year, while Japan claims it invested $2.60 billion a discrepancy of 38 per cent.
Interestingly, an OECD report titled “China: Progress and Policy review” points out that FDI flow into China from OECD countries during 1995-2000 was $39.3 billion, while the Chinese commerce ministry shows $77 billion. The OECD report states, “MOFCOM (ministry of commerce of the People’s Republic of China) FDI statistics are not based on the internationally recognised standards that are generally applied by OECD countries.
Even allowing for different calculation methods, these are huge differences. Has the China boom been more hype than reality? If FDI has been lower than typically believed, there is even more "hot money" and less stable forms of investment in China and the trade/captial account problems between America and China are even more worrying.
I read a bleeding-heart article, penned by Peter Mandelson in the Guardian newspaper today, about how European agricultural subsidies have helped developing countries. What rubbish. Mandelson's argument is that there are countries in the West Indies that depend on preferential treatment from Europe to sell their bananas.
But that totally misses the point that so many aspects of the liberalized world economy have seen revolutions in pricing benefiting both producers and consumers everywhere - but the Third World outside of China, Southeast Asia and India has been mostly missing out. Why? Because the simple economic theory of comparative advantage has been grossly perverted to make it cheaper for American farmers to make many products than farmers in Africa or South America. Let us hope that the Hong Kong meeting of the Doha round will finally bring this miscarriage of justice to an end. This one move, more than any other, may be the proverbial fishing rod for the developing world.
The European countries have always crowed about the high percentage of their GDP they donate to the developing world. But if they cancelled all that aid and just got rid of their agricultural subsidies instead, those countries (not to mention the European consumers) would be a lot better off.
Effectively the EU robs Peter to pay Paul - and at the expense of the European consumer. Their preferential subsidies and market access for ex-colonies is just guilt money for past misdeeds under colonalisation. Not only is it unfair, it has no logical justification. As a counter example, South Korea (an ex-Japanese colony) has prospered immensely without preferential access to Japan's markets.
Of course the dirty little secret is that countries like China (always happy to criticise the West for shafting the developed world) have begun directly subsidising their farmers as well to the tune of billions of yuan. The refrain inevitably is similar "we need to protect our farmers and our food security, we can't rely on the global market for food, but must be self sufficient".
I could not agree more. Agricultural subsidies (by Europe, Us, and all others) hurt all but a very small agricultural minority. And, most sadly, much of this damage falls upon the heads of third world people throughout Asia and the world.
Sorry Simon, Dylan and Steve, but I did a blogging no-no - I added to the original post. I did so because I was late catching the bus this morning and had to leave out a few of my thoughts in the rush.
Having said that, I totally agree with Simon that liberal, bleeding-heart sentiments make Europe keep up with sanctimonious donations while screwing both their own consumers and developing countries. Justifying agricultural subsidies by saying that it helps a few developing countries that wouldn't be able to compete against other developing countries on a level playing field is just silly.
Dylan, that's really interesting about China upping their own agricultural subsidies. It seems to be in the fine tradition of other East Asian countries. Of course, it will be many years, I think, before China is able to brainwash its own people into believing, as Koreans and Japanese or Taiwan's people do, that their fruit, vegetables and water are the best...
That's not a blogging no-no, that's a time honoured tradition. Typically I mark any updates with a bolded "Update" and a time/date stamp. For example:
Update (16:05)
That way people know what's been changed. You can even edit the original post (I do if I find typos) without the update, but if you change the content of the original post, I'd make an update to let people know that, so they can re-read it.
The Economist writes about the growing number of "mass incidents" in China (no sub. req'd.). The article charts the explosion (pardon the pun) in riots and unrest in recent times on the back of growing wealth. It supports the thesis that as people have more personal possessions to defend, they will demand a greater say in how their lives are governed. The article is so good (dare I use the words must read? Yes, I dare) I've reproduce the whole thing below the jump, with some key parts highlighted:
THE Chinese government is getting increasingly twitchy about what officials say is a rapid growth in the number and scale of public protests. In its latest bid to quash them, this week it announced a sweeping ban on internet material that incites “illegal demonstrations”. Does China face serious instability? Probably not, for now at least. But in the longer term there are reasons to worry.
Quashing unrest has ever been a priority for the Communist Party. But over the past year or so it has put even more emphasis on tackling “mass incidents” as it calls the protests. These include a wide range of activity, from quiet sit-ins by a handful of people to all-in riots involving thousands. Almost always, they are sparked by local grievances, rather than antipathy to the party's rule. Yet China's most senior police official, Zhou Yongkang, has said that “actively preventing and properly handling” mass incidents was the main task for his Ministry of Public Security this year.
According to Mr Zhou, there were some 74,000 protests last year, involving more than 3.7m people; up from 10,000 in 1994 and 58,000 in 2003. Sun Liping, a Chinese academic, has calculated that demonstrations involving more than 100 people occurred in 337 cities and 1,955 counties in the first 10 months of last year. This amounted to between 120 and 250 such protests daily in urban areas, and 90 to 160 in villages. These figures are likely to be conservative. Chinese officials often try to cover up disturbances in their areas to avoid trouble with their superiors.
Under Mr Zhou's orders, police forces around the country this year have been merging existing anti-riot and counter-terrorist units into new “special police” tasked with responding rapidly to any mass protests that turn “highly confrontational”. Police officials say the existing units were too sluggish, too poorly trained and ill-coordinated to handle the upsurge in disturbances. The special police are to form small “assault squads” to tackle incidents involving violence or terrorism.
Only a few years ago, news of specific incidents seldom filtered out to foreign journalists. Now, thanks partly to a freer flow of information helped by the internet, by mobile telephony and, more rarely, by a slightly less constrained domestic press, hardly a week goes by without some protest coming to light. In June, thousands of people rioted in the town of Chizhou, in the eastern province of Anhui, after an altercation between a wealthy businessman and a cyclist over a minor traffic accident. In August, hundreds clashed with police in a land-related dispute that still simmers in the village of Taishi, in the southern province of Guangdong. Last month, the police in Shanghai detained dozens of people protesting against being evicted from their homes.
In some ways, this unrest makes China look a lot more like a normal developing country than the rigidly controlled system it was until the early 1990s. It is becoming increasingly common to encounter small-scale protests in Chinese cities that only a few years ago would have horrified order-obsessed cadres. An apartment block near your correspondent's home in Beijing has for weeks been scrawled with slogans protesting against the adjacent construction of a petrol station. “We want human rights,” says one. Residents say the police have not interfered, save to warn them not to protest during a big political gathering in the city.
Chinese officials often say that greater social unrest is normal in developing countries with a per capita GDP between $1,000 and $3,000. China's GDP per head surpassed $1,000 in 2003. But this appears to be little consolation. In August last year, President Hu Jintao appointed a high-level team, headed by Mr Zhou, to supervise the handling of protests and petitions. Official sources say Mr Hu dwelt on protests in a speech to party leaders in September 2004 and at the party's annual economic planning meeting in December. Late last year the party issued a document to senior officials telling them how to deal with unrest.
According to these sources, Mr Zhou's speeches are laced with warnings that political dissidents might try to manipulate local protests to put pressure on the party itself. This fear explains why the party has further squeezed non-governmental groups and dissidents in recent months. China Development Brief, a newsletter on Chinese civil society developments, reported that in recent weeks China's secret police had been interviewing staff of Chinese NGOs that receive foreign funding, as well as Chinese staff of foreign NGOs in China, about the purpose of their work. The government has suspended the registration of new international NGOs pending the outcome of these inquiries.
The party's dilemma is that much of the unrest is a product of the rapid economic growth that it is so keen to maintain. The outlook of many urban Chinese has changed profoundly since the 1990s as a result of the privatisation of hitherto heavily state-subsidised housing. Anxious to protect their new assets, property owners have increasingly clashed with developers, and their government backers, who have been trying to cash in on the resulting boom by erecting shopping malls and luxury housing. The expansion of cities has fuelled clashes with peasants whose land is needed for construction.
Some argue that these mostly isolated protests, if handled sensitively, could help China maintain overall stability by providing people with a way of venting frustrations. But Mao Shoulong, at Renmin University of China in Beijing, says the unrest is a sign that China lacks channels for people to air discontent in a more orderly fashion. Widespread corruption and an increasingly conspicuous wealth gap fuel a contempt for officialdom that can easily erupt into the kind of class-based rioting that occurred in Anhui in June.
And should the economy falter, urban China could be faced with the twin dangers of an angry middle class saddled with big mortgage commitments and declining property prices (a problem China has not yet had to face), as well as a big increase in the number of unemployed, who, along with unpaid pensioners, are the main participants in protests in those parts of the country left behind by the current boom. Widespread middle-class discontent, combined with blue-collar dissatisfaction, would be a much bigger threat to stability than China now faces.
It's an interesting theory, this "unrest threshold" but I doubt that it holds much water. I think they've got two choices: develop a legal system capable of adjudicating disputes with some modicum of fairness or; reinstigate an ideology of community and harmony, probably under the guise of foreign war. I don't like the odds on that one, come to think of it...
To get around the block put on Blog-City by Chinese censors, which has made Angry Chinese Blogger inaccessible in China without the use of a proxy, I am happy to announce that an unblocked mirror sites http://www.20six.co.uk/angrychineseblogger is now up and running, spreading the news that Beijing doesn’t want you to hear.
Angry Chinese Blogger’s entire back archive, along with all new articles will still be available at http://angrychineseblogger.blog-city.com/
I would be grateful if you would add a link to the mirror alongside the master link to Angry Chinese Blogger.
A few days back the SCMP reported that the hoped for democratic revolution in the village of Taishi was quashed. Today's SCMP fleshes out the details of how effectively and comprehensively the authorities have won in stamping out this potential change:
Authorities in Panyu, Guangdong, have officially declared an end to the three-month struggle by Taishi villagers to exercise their civil rights and unseat their village chief. Both the Guangzhou Daily and the Panyu Daily published official statements yesterday saying that the villagers had withdrawn their application to remove village chief Chen Jinsheng .
The statement said 396 of the 584 villagers who had earlier signed a removal motion had withdrawn their signatures. It said the villagers now believed Mr Chen was not corrupt and that a township government investigation had found no evidence of misconduct by him. The Panyu Daily said "some irresponsible media" had "stirred up" the dispute, and that district officials had found no truth to the allegations against Mr Chen, and made "no discovery of any officials who have harmed the interests of the public for personal gain".
Villagers in Taishi began their efforts to remove Mr Chen in July. They alleged that he had misused village funds, and that evidence was contained in account books kept in the village office. However, officials seized the account books last month during a confrontation between villagers who opposed Mr Chen and police. About 16 people, including lawyer Yang Maodong - better known as Guo Feixiong - were still in police custody, Guangzhou lawyer Tang Jingling said.
Village leaders who took part in the protests against Mr Chen were not available for comment yesterday, and the few villagers contacted either said they had no knowledge of the latest development or declined to comment.
Discussions of the Taishi incident were deleted yesterday on at least two online forums. Zhang Yaojie , a Beijing scholar who has kept a close watch on the incident, said that when vested local interests felt threatened, they would do everything they could to silence their opponents. "It once again proves that all so-called `grass-roots democracies' are just a hoax. Villagers obey the law, and what awaits them is punishment," he said referring to the villagers still in detention. "If a village can't achieve democracy, how can a country? If public power can't be checked, what can we do? There is nothing we can do."
But Mr Zhang, who had already foreseen Taishi's failure, said the authorities could not prevent similar disputes emerging. "There will be a second and a third Taishi village and one by one they will fail. But one day they will succeed - when there is institutional change to the system," he said.
Sun Yat-sen University professor Ai Xiaoming , who has published an open letter urging Premier Wen Jiabao to intervene, said she was neither surprised, nor disappointed. "Democracy cannot be achieved in just days. And we shouldn't put all our hopes for democracy on the villagers of Taishi and expect them to do it for us. The villagers have done what they could do. Besides being respectful, we ought to show a degree of understanding about the difficulties they faced."
Calling on the authorities to release the detained villagers, Professor Ai said the villagers' efforts would not go to waste. "People will continue to think about and discuss these issues," she said.
Chalk this up as another victory for authoritarianism, corruption, business as usual, suppresion of free speech and everything that's wrong with "New China". And lest you think Hong Kong is immune, a brief example of the more subtle suppression of free speech in the Big Lychee today, also courtesy the SCMP:
A hotel's last-minute cancellation yesterday of a conference room booking for a forum on mainland politics was condemned by the event's organiser, which accused the venue of giving in to political pressure from Beijing. A spokeswoman for the Epoch Times newspaper, Amy Chu Tung-pan, said the Conrad Hotel in Admiralty refused to rent out the conference room yesterday morning, citing a water leak.
"The hotel said they could not rent out the room to us lest it have a negative impact on its image," Ms Chu said. The newspaper said it made the booking a month ago. The Conrad Hotel declined to comment. Rob Anders, a member of parliament in Canada and one of the speakers at the forum, said he did not believe the hotel's explanation. He said he saw the forum was on the list of events in the hotel lobby at 7am yesterday, but it was taken down two hours later.
"By giving in to the intimidation from mainland China, the Conrad Hotel is helping to jeopardise prosperity and freedom in Hong Kong," Mr Anders said.
The newspaper switched the venue of the forum, entitled "The Future of China", to Hong Kong Park. About 50 people, many of them Falun Gong supporters, took part in the event.
Szeto Wah, chairman of the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China and another of the speakers at the event, said Hong Kong's competitiveness would be hampered if the city's companies continued to succumb to political pressure. Another speaker at the forum, Ming Chu-cheng, professor of political science at the National Taiwan University, said he was interrogated by immigration officers when he arrived at Chek Lap Kok airport on Thursday evening.
I'm no fan of the Epoch Times nor the Falun Gong, but having 50 people turn up for a well-advertised chin wag only to cancel at the last minute demonstrates the power of fear in enforcing self-censorship.
The flipside is kudos should go to the SCMP, which bravely ran the Epoch Times' advertisements for two days running and dared to report on the cancellation of the meeting. Very brave indeed.
![[boomerang]](http://simonworld.mu.nu/boomerang2.gif){kind=small}
Posted by 
by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday is also the chance to remind the bloody history of the man whose gigantic portrait still overlooks Massacre Square, whose statues still stand in chinese villages, towns and cities, whose political heritage CCP has never repudiated. 
