China executes about 8,000 people a year, or 22 a day and yet they don't have too many candlelight vigils going on. The judiciary is trying to better regulate executions and bring the system out into the open:
China, which executes more people than any other country, is to hold open hearings for a large number of death penalty appeals in an effort to better regulate executions, a legal scholar said Monday. From the second half of 2006, all death penalty appeals which go to a provincial high court will be heard publicly, a departure from the usual practice of closed reviews and investigations, said Liu Renwen, a scholar at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences...
With the judicial system under scrutiny after a series of widely publicized wrongful convictions, the Supreme Court has also moved to reclaim its right to a final review of death sentences, but Liu said the policy was meeting resistance from lower courts. "When the Supreme Court can take this power back is still a question," Liu told foreign correspondents. "Local governments think it is a good tool to control public security. If they lose such power they think, of course, it would not be good."
This latter part refers to the announcement last October that the Supreme People's Court is struggling to re-assert control over capital punishment in response to widespread outrage at arbitrary sentencing. What is missing from the debate is the pros and cons of capital punishment. The article notes:
Some 68 crimes in China can incur the death penalty, about half of which are non-violent offences, Liu said.
I always think it is quite menaingless to quote the number in absolute values for china
....GDP, #capital punishment, #mobile phone, etc. China is going to top others due to its sheer pop size.
what matters most when one compares China with other countries in the world is 'per capita' measure.
i do not doubt china still ranks among the top group in this case, given that there are 68 crimes that could lead to death penalty. but i would say the "more than any other countries" is pretty meaningless.
what concerns me most is that many innocents were executed (and these are not politically related), because of the incomptence and corruption locally. and this is actually related to your question of whether 'capital punishment' should be abolished. (such cases also happens in even the US, though at a much lower frequency)
p.s. one of the 68 crimes include corruption with bribes over a certain amount of money (1M RMB or so).
of course they don't.
even if you compare it with texas or australia, the rate is higher in china.
but that makes it comparable and helps to set more realistic target for china.
if we are comparing china with iraq, nork or say, italy. we really do not know what those numbers mean.
Liu Kin-ming of The Standard goes to Congress's hearings on American companies and China's internet and comes out angry. So angry as to make no sense. The upshot of the opinion piece is that America's technology firms are evil for obeying China's laws because China isn't the rule of law but rule by law. How defying these laws helps improves matters is left unanswered. Later, there is this:
It's really infuriating to see these companies, which have prospered in an environment only because of the principles enshrined in a constitution adopted in 1787 and the functioning of the greatest democracy, to compare China to the United States. To suggest what they're facing in China is no different than what they may face in their own country, the companies' logic smacks of the kind of moral equivalence which is prevalent in anti-American crowds.
In terms of bows, this is an extremely long one. The tech companies were pointing out that even the United States has laws it expects companies operating there to comply with. Clearly China is no USA, but is ignoring the demands of police in China easier than those in the USA because of that? If a company goes into a country, it must follow that country's laws. And if a company ignores a growing market such as China they are breaching their duty to their shareholders, a legally enforceable fidicuiary duty to manage the company in the best interests of its owners.
The rest of the opinion piece slams the various questioners, such as:
Some Democrats were trying to lessen the guilt of the Internet companies. Adam Smith, from the state where Microsoft is based, asked: "Let's assume for a moment that no US tech company does business in China. Does it get better? Is it less repressive? Does China move forward? I don't think so."
Apparently the views of duly elected representatives from Washington state don't matter as much as those from elsewhere. Yet this is the most crucial question in the debate. It's a shame the article doesn't even try and address it. Will China's home grown internet and technology companies be held to the same standards and criticisms? Is China better or worse off thanks to these companies and their operations in China? Do you see the world in black and white or in shades of gray? Is an absolute ideal better than pragmatism? The problem with doing what's right is that what's right differs between people, cultures and countries.
I wonder if Congress will ever call up some Chinese internet users for their views?
I largely agree, but I have to take issue with this:
"And if a company ignores a growing market such as China they are breaching their duty to their shareholders, a legally enforceable fidicuiary duty to manage the company in the best interests of its owners."
I've heard a few people say this, but it strikes me as, frankly, bullshit. Can someone show me a single example of a company being sued for not expanding into China? Can Ben & Jerry's, The Body Shop et al be sued for not seeking the lowest cost provider of products and ingredients? Surely if they can get it cheaper in China, they are legally required to, right?
I've started companies and served on boards. No one has ever hinted that I could get in trouble for not doing business with a regime I dislike.
Posted by Derek Scruggs at February 28, 2006 10:47 AM
I would also question whether getting involved in the China market as a content or communications company, which is what internet companies are, really makes any sense from the perspective of "fidicuiary duty."
Beyond any question of ethics or free speech, you have an exceptionally murky legal environment, regulators who act out of political motives or idiotic whims (think the cartoon ban), brand-damaging backlash in home markets to enter a market that isn't currently as lucrative as the hype implies. On the hardware side, Cisco should be fine - but risks for content-oriented businesses are severe. And that's not just on the internet side; News Corp, Viacom and Sony have all been humbled here. There are probably more risks in entering the China market than there are avoiding it.
If you own stock in these companies, you expect them to develop the business as best they can. China is a fast growing and potentially large market. Now that's not to say going into any market, let alone China, is an easy decision. But it would be negligent for a company to not expand the business if the opportunity is there and if, in the mind of management, the benefits outweigh the costs. Putting China in the too hard basket is not an excuse.
I'm not sure I agree it's a breach of fiduciary duty. Any management decision involves weighing up a number of options, such as whether to reinvest or return profits to shareholders. With China investments there's a number of risks that can be sensibly argued (damage to reputation, risk of IP theft, competitors' preference for market share over profit etc). If shareholders object to management staying out they can always vote with their feet...
But it would be negligent for a company to not expand the business if the opportunity is there and if, in the mind of management, the benefits outweigh the costs. Putting China in the too hard basket is not an excuse.
Until you can show me an example of someone getting sued over it, it's definitely an (legitimate) excuse. Jeezus - even Rupert Murdoch is cutting back in China. Show me a single cutthroat Western captalist taking someone to court over this - Kirk Kerkorian, Donald Trump, T. Boone Pickens - and I'll buy the "you-have-to-enter-this-market-it's-your fiduciary-duty" argument. Otherwise it's a bullshit justification.
(I speak as someone who is bullish on China and believes Google is doing the right thing. I just don't buy this line of reasoning.)
The letters page of the SCMP can be a dangerous place. Take this rant from today's paper:
I am fed up with hearing the refrain that many people fall outside the direct tax net (82 per cent of the population, says Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce chief executive Eden Woon Yi-teng; 42 per cent of the workforce, says Post columnist Tom Holland).
In fact, most of the workforce pays indirectly by being deprived of decent salaries and because there is no minimum wage. They also indirectly pay rates (if they rent public or private units) as well as tax. Yet they have as much right to a democratic life as Mr Woon. These are people who do not get the huge bonuses paid to company directors, nor do they have very high salaries and benefits, such as the pensions of senior civil servants. They are the poor, who work for little, contribute hugely to the economy and have little to show when they retire without a pension. Their homes are often small, they have to apply for education waivers and may yet face the prospect of applying for charity for health care, if hospital charges rise.
They will not be able to afford health insurance, for which taxpayers may get tax breaks, nor will they get tax allowances for children and housing. Our financial secretary showed much more concern for the "haves", that is, the Liberal Party voters, than the "have nots".
Mr or Mrs Name and Address Supplied manages to get so much wrong in such a short space. Ask a first year economics student about minimum wages and they will tell you that artificial floors on price (wages are the price of labour) can prevent an equilibrium developing. In English that means that a minimum wage means some people who would be prepared to work for less than the minimum will be prevented from doing so, and employers who would employ such people are also prevented from doing so. You have the supply, you have the demand, but the minimum wage prevents the two from getting together. Even stranger is the idea that the poorly paid "contribute hugely to the economy". Whether you like it or not, our society measures contributions to the economy in an extremely effective manner - money. The poor don't get tax breaks for health insurance - they get free access to great public hospitals. They don't get access to allowances for children and housing because they don't pay income tax and live in government subsidised housing. It seems apt to quote new Hospital Authority chief Shane Solomon:
Speaking at an impromptu media gathering at the authority's headquarters Monday, Solomon said one of the things that intrigued him was that Hong Kong has a low tax policy and a highly subsidized health-care system at the same time.
"Of course, my view is superficial at this stage, but from observation it is a country with very low taxation and a highly subsidized health system ... a bit unusual," he said.
The common fallacy is that tax cuts favour the rich. In fact, tax cuts favour those who pay the most tax, which funnily enough happens to be the rich. The poor do it tough - silly stuff like this letter won't make things any better.
Of course, asking a first-year economics student is about as effective as asking your local fairground fourtune teller to gaze into her chrystal ball. Economics, as a science, is at least as credible as astrology.
Well, maybe not quite.
Posted by Argleblaster at February 28, 2006 03:59 PM
The seedy underbelly of globalisation is again exposed. China has granted permission for Avon to recommence direct-selling of its products as part of its market access agreements for joining the WTO. Encyclopedias, life insurers and vacuum cleaner shares all jumped at the news. So did shares in companies selling Mace and flame throwers.
We were not as clever as you, but we also noticed the approval granted to Avon.
http://chinalawblog.typepad.com/chinalawblog/2006/02/ding_dong_the_n.html
This is about the only good news that Avon has gotten lately (as they begin a $500 million restructuring)....
Despite China's sweeping reforms that have transformed a socialist command economy into a somewhat capitalist-style market, socialist ideology continues to manifest itself whenever there's a chance.
Absolutely read the whole article - it nicely skewers one Marxist academic and points out two recent examples of ideology trying to re-assert itself over reality. As the article concludes, concern about China's wealth gap are best addressed by alleviating poverty (i.e. raising the bottom up) rather than redistribution (i.e. dragging the top down). And one point that often gets missed. The rich getting richer doesn't mean the poor are getting poorer - the whole pie is getting bigger. In absolute terms, everyone is getting richer, but in relative terms some are getting richer faster than others.
The criticism of the property developer seems pretty justified to me. If you don't mix up various classes in one zone you get slum areas like the Parisian suburbs - only good for rioting. Sadly when you put the poor where the rest of society can't see them, little tends to be done to resolve their problems. Also the further out the poor go, the harder it is for them to find work, owing to transport costs. That's why any new housing built in London, for example, has to include a certain amount of "social housing" (i.e. low cost). Governments tend to get around to this eventually, but by the time they realise no police/teachers/plumbers can afford to live in the centre of town it takes a mammoth effort to resolve.
The SCMP reports that a start has been made on Hong Kong's equestrian facilities for the 2008 Olympics:
Work on constructing equestrian facilities for the 2008 Olympics has started in Fanling, and the government will this week announce the launch of a company to organise the event.
It is understood the equestrian company was registered with the Company Registry on February 15...A government source said the Beijing Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (Bocog) was expected to inject between $300 million and $500 million for the company's operation. The Hong Kong Jockey Club is to spend another $800 million to construct the games venues in Sha Tin and Fanling.
So how many people does it take to organise the horse-y events of the 2008 Olympics, and more importantly, where do you put them all?
It is understood the equestrian company was registered with the Company Registry on February 15. An office will be set up in Wan Chai and up to 80 full-time staff will be hired to prepare for the Games events. The company will operate until the end of 2008.
For the geographically ignorant, please see the map below the jump. Wouldn't it make more sense, and be far cheaper, to rent space in Fanling for these people?
Spike points out that China is banning a growing menace. Via the BBC:
Cartoons that blend live-action actors with animation are to be banned from TV in China...The move is aimed at promoting Chinese animators and apparently curbing the use of foreign cartoons.
China's State Administration of Radio Film and Television said people who flout the ban will be punished.
Lucky bastards won't have to put up with crap like this or this. Parents of young kids around the world will soon be beating a path to China's door, desperate to escape the inanity that largely is children's animation. Is that China's hidden agenda: attracting migrants? Could that be the solution to the coming demographic crunch thanks to the one-child policy? Isn't it easier just to remove the one-child policy anyway?
But hark, think of what horrendous wonders China's animators will come up with to fill this obvious gap in the market. And marvel at the stupidity of such a ban when any of the banned shows will still be freely available on DVD for a couple of yuan.
Invoking Occam's razor, the real reason for this ban is obvious: the head of the State Administration of Radio Film and Television the father of young kids.
With the new emphasis on Marxism, the kids in China will no doubt have a new father figure called Uncle Mao or some such. Look for characters who speak in cliches and platitudes and describe Uncle Mao in superlatives such as "glorious," etc. The sacharine in their tones will no doubt give a whole generation of kids diabetes. I'll take my sugar in Snickers bars any day.
Tim Johnson at Knight Ridder reports on China's latest modernisation efforts...in Marxism. The article rehashes the new emphasis by China's leadership on Marxism in a desperate search for a new ideology. It seems to be building on the work of the so-called "new leftists". The irony is the it is the Communist Party that is trying to get in touch with the ideology of its founding philosopher. An even greater irony is China has enjoyed boom times only since it ditched the policies of Mao, Lenin and Marx. The implication is that China's leadership is starting to fear that the economic boom that has given the party legitimacy in the past 25 years may not last forever, or that perhaps it isn't enough to retain the confidence of its people. This renewed emphasis on Marxism is quaint at the moment and is being manifested as think-tanks and a push to help the rural poor. But is the leadership desperate enough that such thought could eventually pervade its economic policies? Perhaps not yet, but one day it could be. If that happens the interests of the leadership will sharply diverge from the interests of the lead, with massive consequences.
This week also marks 50 years since Nikita Khrushchev's "secret speech", where he denounced some (but not all) of the evils of Stalin. China has never had such a speech, secret or otherwise. It is a poorer place for it.
From what I read into all this "new marxism" talk is sounds like China's leadership is just trying to justify government intrusion into the economy.
China has never really followed marxism, it has always simply adapted it to whatever needs it had at the moment.
It seems like Hu is laying the ideological groundwork for heavier redistribution policies and greater government regulation against perceived out of control capitalists.
I think exactly the opposite (or at least the intention of HJT is exactly the opposite - that may not be how it ends up once the party hacks get through with it). As another astute observer in the blogoshphere has already pointed out - revisiting marxism was exactly the route Hu Yaobang took before introducing his reforms. Have any of the western artcile writers actually read all the Xinhua domestic and Liaowang reports on this issue? I think not otherwise they would reflect that HJT is talking about "innovation" and "new thinking" not going back to the past.
Today we had the revelation that after years of work, and millions of dollars of feasibility studies, it was decided that the plans for the West Kowloon Cultural District had to go back to the drawing board. The background is well covered by the New York Times and the Standard (for a more local view). In both articles, the journos portray the Hong Kong government, with its overly-amibitious and idealistic plans caught between Scylla (the local property developers) and Charybdis (the Hong Kong people), having to scuttle their ship, or at least come back around for another pass later.
To me, though, it seems to indicate the limits of legitimacy of a Hong Kong government that is not elected by popular mandate. The government's inability to counter both the official and unofficial power of local property developers, and also the skepticism of the public, is because they do not have a strong general mandate of the will of the people to go ahead with their agenda(s).
Many popularly elected governments, it is true, would have the same problems with vested interests, particularly one that makes up as much of the economy as the property tycoons. But if they had been chosen by the people, at least they could brandish that endorsement to get major agenda items like this done.
The process of getting the mandate for a program like this, too, would have forced the government to really explain to the Hong Kong people why they need a cultural centre, and why bringing in the Pompidou or the Guggenheim is making the city more cosmopolitan rather than an example of cultural imperialism. That process would have also highlighted weaknesses in their plan that they would need to address.
The government didn't bother doing it because they didn't have to. And now they are paying the price. They must face the fact that public consultations aren't enough anymore in a complex polity like Hong Kong. The city cannot be run by a civil service on autopilot. Democratic politics is not an inconvenience - it is the fairest way an advanced economy with a highly mature population can sort out what ought to be done.
I would be very surprised if in 10 years the wall of high-rise apartment blocks hasn't simply advanced to cover the new reclamation.
Cultural district? Public open space? Who needs it? And let's get rid of that pesky canopy, while we're at it - it'll only mean a height limit on those lovely luxury supertalls ...
[/cynicism]
Posted by Argleblaster at February 23, 2006 08:05 PM
There's a new buzzword entering the Chinese lexicon: "new socialist countryside". As part of its efforts to help the 800 million Chinese peasants who are seeing their city cousins get richer far faster than they are, the CCP has put out a policy statement that contains enough motherhood statements to last a lifetime. The real test is whether these good intentions of the central government can be translated into facts on the ground once provincial and regional authorities get involved. Beijing, despite appearances, does not have a strong grip over the provinces and those governments are often intimately involved with state owned enterprises. That leads to clashes with peasants over land rights, development, pollution and more. In a democracy, of course, the peasantry can vote the bastards out at the next election. But examples such as Taishi show that even getting rid of corrupt village leaders is a difficult and dangerous task. The government knows about these problems and pledges to "strictly protect interests of land-lost farmers" while cutting the numbers of township-level officials. In short, we're watching a struggle between the central and provincial governments, with 800 million livelihoods in the balance.
It takes quite an effort to not only annoy the citizens of this town, but the property developers as well. The government has gone back to the drawing board on the West Kowloon cultural district, having realised they can't even please some of the people some of the time with the tortured process this development has taken to date. The answer to appoint a "high powered" committee to again assess what facilities are needed, which makes one wonder what the government has been doing until now if it just realised the need for such a body.
Is it mildly embarrassing that a large chunk of reclaimed land sits idle in such a prominent harbourfront position? Will some bright spark now propose that Kai Tak become the new cultural district, the government ditch the Tamar proposal and turn it into the West Kowloon government district? Or will even more dangerous ideas take hold, such as turning West Kowloon into a Central Park style oasis in the middle of a congested and polluted city?
No, Hong Kong quivers in anticipation with how the government will turn West Kowloon into even more of a gift to property developers. The developers have spent an estimated HK$300 million on West Kowloon so far - and they aren't stupid businesses. They spent the money in the hope of far greater returns and that hasn't gone away, even if the structure of the proposals will change. In the interim, the city wonders what is the next white elephant on the government's plate? The government's DNA contains a boondoggle gene and it is a dominant one.
Update
Expressing itself quickly, the boondoggle gene forces to Henry Tang propose a gold warehouse at the airport in today's budget. Fort Knox at Chek Lap Kok.
For the nostalgia buffs, some photos of planes landing at the old Kai Tak airport below the jump. Feel free to share your own white knuckle experiences.
Ah memories... recall vividly as a child when visiting a friend of the family that lived in Lok Fu in Wong Tai Sin district where I would stand on the roof of the 18 floor building and watch 747's fly past after the sharp right turn at the checker board below eye level no more than about 300m away!
Pity that as a pre-teen, I didn't have the foresight to use the family SLR and take some photos for posterity! Likewise on the times my family and I flew in and out of Kai Tak.
I also know that there are a couple DVDs floating about on the Net available, footage shot from the days camcorders weren't banned in the take-off/landing phase of the flight.
Oh... one last thing, .bmp are never very good for serving as images online, might want to use the source .jpg/.jpeg ;)
On one evening flight into Kai Tak in 1996 or 1997, I was allowed to sit in the extra seat in the cockpit (on the left side in the back) during landing. It was very dramatic -- I was gripping the seat very hard during the last minute or so. It was kind of funny, too -- atop one hill in Kowloon, there was a giant flashing yellow arrow pointing to the right, apparently signalling pilots that they should bank hard to the right in order to get to the runway.
wow, i never thought I would long for something I had never seen before.
post modern nostalgia?
i feel that if kai tak were opened again, hong kong would finally have something worth distinguishing itself from other cities. as it is, hong kong has become a bland place.
Many people think the decline of Hong Kong started with either the rise of Shanghai or the return to Chinese control in 1997. But I actually date it to the opening of the personalityless and unfortunately named Chek Lap Kok airport. Hong Kong lost its soul when it lost the Kai Tak tenement-shaker landing. For visitors, it was really the perfect introduction to Hong Kong. I was lucky enough to have window seats a few times for landings there, and you count the roaches in Kowloon kitchens on the way in. I do miss it. Of course I don't miss having to launder my underwear after every landing.
You really have to respect any landing approach that requires a big "don't crash here!" checkerboard to be placed on the side of a sheared-off hill.
I only got the chance to experience Kai Tak in its final years of life: 97-98, but I loved it. Definitely the best flight experiences ever.
Posted by dishuiguanyin at February 23, 2006 11:58 AM
Fantastic photos! The thing that always spooked me about that landing (beyond the crazy banking turn) was the giant Double Happiness cigarette ad to the right of the runway as you were landing from over Kowloon. When you were on the ground for take-off, that ad seemed far down the runway, but almost every time you landed, you passed the Double Happiness ad still noticeably *not* on the ground. A few times, I was convinced we were going to end up in the water.
I remember talking to pilots who said that the standard approach called for a 45 degree bank on the turn. More experienced pilots knew the approach and took the turn a bit wider, but every so often you'd get someone new who followed the landing by the book.
And talk about nostalgia, that Canadian Airlines 747 made me long for the days of a Canadian airline with decent food and relatively pleasant service!
In the past month there have been several examples of the rise of Marxism in places such as China's central bank and a new Marxist think tank. But did you realise that Marxist class analysis pervades even the world's free-est economy, that darling of laissez-faire economics, Hong Kong? Tomorrow sees runner-up Chief Executive Henry Tang deliver the annual budget, where he explains how another year of windfall gains from restricted land sales and a narrow income tax on the top 10% will keep the city sweet for another year. He has carefully leaked his intention to set up a committee to examine a goods and services tax, which will only be safely implemented long after the 2007 Chief Executive elections. Hong Kong is one of the last remaining developed economies to not have such a tax.
But the details of the budget can wait. What always happens in the lead up to the budget is pleas from various interest groups for tax cuts or government hand-outs. This is not unique to Hong Kong. What does seem unique is the extent to which the debate is framed in terms of class. The newspapers and radio constantly refer to the "lower middle class", the "middle class" and even the "sandwich class". It would seem that both the proleteriat (too poor to worry about) and bourgeoisie (the source of all revenue) are not worthy of mention, but this mythical middle class is where the action is. Who are this middle class? Why are they so worthy of the government's attention? Why always this focus on a particular class (or any class at all for that matter) - the very notion seems absurd in a modern economy.
And they don't even get to vote. But perhaps that's the point. If you don't get legitimacy through the ballot box, you need to get it through keeping the populace sweet. In this town the property developers pay up in the land auctions to fund the government to keep the punters sweet. I don't think that's what Karl had in mind.
Hong Kong is an immigrant's city - it has been made great on the back of the efforts of those coming to turn a small fishing village into a world class city. But one of the city's less proclaimed groups face daily discimination despite the massive amounts they contribute to the place: the army of domestic workers. For example, a domestic worker can never claim the permanent residency in Hong Kong, even if they meet all the other criteria. All other visa holders can qualify (basically you have to live in Hong Kong for 7 years). So today's SCMP report proves very interesting indeed:
Immigration officials have been urged to clarify their policy after two children of a long-time Filipino domestic helper were granted right of abode. Hong Kong-born Dariel Domingo, 13, and his sister, Darlene, 11 - who study at local schools, speak Cantonese and read and write Chinese - were granted right of abode on February 3.
The children are due to collect their Hong Kong permanent identity cards tomorrow.
Mark Daly, a human rights lawyer who helped the children, said: "What is unusual is the children being granted [right of abode] and the parents not having it."
Administrative slip-up or breaking change in Hong Kong's immigration policies? What is the status of the parents should they lose their jobs and thus their domestic helper visas? And how does this leave those children denied right of abode by Beijing in the first "interpretation" of the Basic Law? If Immigration now gives the parents right of abode, it seems impossible to deny the right of abode in the opposite direction (i.e. from parents to children).
Great moments in policy progress, brought to you by some flunky in Immigration Tower.
Nobody likes discrimination, but it's quite understandable that HK authorities don't want Indonesians or Filipinos having the right to permanent residency. You start with that and in 100 years time they're the majority.
What kind of point is that? Domestic helpers number perhaps 200,000 in a city of 7 million. Even with Hong Kong's low birth rate it would take centuries for the city to turn from Chinese to something else. And even if it did, so what? Why allow gweilos the right to claim PR but not domestic helpers? Are you not worried about the gweilos taking over (again)?
This book is simply great economic journalism extended into book form. Unlike Freakonomics, which demonstrates economics is a social science, this book start with a basic introduction to some key economic concepts, starting with Ricardo, the value of scarcity and the margin rather than the average.
The genius of the book is the introduction of economic reasoning in a very understandable and easy to read manner, using real world examples. The final chapter on China is worth the price of the book alone, being the most consise and clear outlining of the modern Chinese economic "miracle" out of the depths of Mao's economic destruction. So is the chapter on globalisation, where Harford gives a truly impressive smackdown of all the hogwash that often passes for "debate" in this topic. Today's example is Greenpeace's glee at stopping the stripping of a French aircraft carrier in India, even though it will now place thousands of Indians out of work. The problem for those with an economics background is so much of this stuff is so obvious that it becomes difficult to even acknowledge there are counter-opinions. Another example is the beautiful job Harford does of explaining how protectionism hurts most people but helps a noisy few.
So who should buy this book? Everyone because economics affects us all. If you enjoy Starbucks coffee, think French farmers deserve their subsidies, want to know how to solve traffic congestion, want to understand the stock markets, the best way to run an auction or why poor countries are poor and rich countries are rich, this is the book for you. It is particularly relevant for Hong Kong's civil servants and politicians. Try this from page 78:
...economists believe there's an important difference between being in favor of markets and being in favor of business, especially particular business. A politician who is in favor of markets believes in the importance of competition and wants to prevent businesses from getting too much scarcity power. A politician who's too influenced by corporate lobbyists will do exactly the reverse.
Can someone give me Donald Tsang's mailing address please?
Jamestown Foundation's China Brief this time contains a look by Willy Lam at Beijing's use of Washington to rein in Japan. It is an interesting spin on the usual take that Washington and Tokyo are firm friends in the face of an aggressively rising China. Which kind of realpolitik wins out here? Clearly the Japan-America relationship is strong, but the Japanese are clearly (and rightfull) worried about the prospect of that alliance shifting. Will there come a day when America values its China relationship more than its Japanese one?
Just a minor quibble. "It's" means "it is", while "belonging to it" should be spelt "its". Many people get confused by this, but it always bugs me when I see it done incorrectly.
I have been a bit of a ranter in these pages about the horrible pollution in China, and how much of it does drift south to Hong Kong.
China has just announced that it is building two large new nuclear power plants, one in Shaoguan in northern Guangdong, and the other near the ancient port city of Quanzhou, in Fujian.
China currently has 4 nuclear plants in operation, and plans to build 30 more by 2020 to increase energy supplied from 'nu-cu-lar' power from 2% to 6% over that period. It is meant to deal with power consumption in urban areas and to cut down on pollution from dirty coal-fired plants.
But not so fast. Even in a best case scenario, if nuclear power still only serves 6% of power in 2020 even with 30 new plants, imagine how many more coal-fired plants there'll be. Given Chinese government assumptions about power requirements almost tripling in the next 15 years, it basically means that the number of coal burning stations will more than double, no doubt particularly in the factory-laden Guangdong area.
There's also the question proper maintenance, and of where all those spent radioactive rods are going. Are they all getting shipped to Xinjiang's Taklamakan Desert?
Double the plants, double the smog. Eeech. It's time to get out of Hong Kong. Or start investing in bottled air.
Don't forget the power generated from the 3 Gorges Dams...that will also take away a good portion of coal fired plants in the central part of the country.
I don't think it is only the coal fired plants...there are also a multitude of factories that are powered directly by coal...most notably cement factories in this area. Add to that the millions of homes that are using the coal 'hockey pucks' for heating and cooking.
But...I've got to admit. From 1996 when I first arrived, to today, the pollution is far less/better than it was back then. The amount of construction and the use of leaded gasoline was a huge cause of the most of it.
You have a pount, GZ Expat, although this would merely reduce the increase in the number of coal-fired plants rather than result in any decommissioning. The unfortunate thing about even the new coal-fired plants in China is that many of them are still very 'dirty' by any standard.
I am very surprised that you've found pollution to have gotten better - here in Hong Kong the pollution has gotten much worse since I came back in 1995. The number of bad air days is far more, and pollution median indices much worse, than ten years ago. While about half is internally generated, it seems the highest growth in pollution is coming from north of the border.
The government's plans for expanding power from hydro call for the equivalent of a 3 gorges project every two years, and then they've got the wind power plans (admittedly still a bit pie-in-the-sky). Perhaps the biggest change will be in gas though - currently there are very few gas powered stations, but that's likely to change in the next decade as the gas from these multi-billion dollar deals with places like Australia and Iran starts flowing in. Still, it's not like coal's going to go away, so we'll have to hope that they get serious on the scrubbing technology...
Oh...nobody told you about the giant fans they have installed which blows all the crap to the south then, eh?
My anecdotal observations...
1. We can actually see blue sky more than one day in a row now. In 96, we'd be lucky to get a day of it.
2. Birds...lots of them. When I first moved to GZ, I lived in the city. No birds. None. Lots of bats, though. We moved north of the city in 1997...no birds. When we moved back in 2004 to the same location as we lived from 97...we are awakened in the morning by the songs of birds.
3. Stars. The only stars we would ever see at night was the moon and venus. Today, you can see a handful of stars at night from the city.
Now...if you were to visit me today, you'd think I was totally full of it, because the pollution today is brutal. Rains are coming.
Yes, GZ Expat, I did notice that Guangzhou's pollution yesterday was off the charts. I was not going to comment on just one data point though.
Duncan, I hope you're right about the gas-powered stations - now if we can just keep gas prices low enough we might have a solution. Hydro power is great too although the effects on river traffic, silting, agriculture and the environment may yet prove too problematic.
As you say, wind-turbine generators are not really dependable, and can only be put in a few places that consistently get wind. My office window faces the one on Lamma island. I don't see it turn much, sadly.
Gas, unfortunately, is probably the fossil fuel which will run out first. Nuclear power has the same problem, only more so, due to even more limited stocks of uranium. This can be circumvented through reactors, with the unfortunate side-effect of producing lots of plutonium. Hydro-electricity is not very applicable to HK, and big dams like those in the 3 gorges project tend to silt up rather rapidly and lose much of their capacity.
Solar power is looking better, as it's an improving technology which is likely to become reasonably economical (especially when alternatives become more expensive. Plus, less smog = more sunshine = more solar power.
Realistically, however, coal is it, with all their emission problems (including fallout - 'dirty' coal-burning stations spray out considerable amounts of radioactive material contained in coal). The only way forward is through technological emmission reduction (liquidised bed combustion, emission scrubbing requiring large amounts of processed limestone, deep carbon capture, etc.).
Unfortunately, these all cost more than not using them. No power company in their right mind will reduce their profit margin if not coerced into it by a regulatory body.
BTW - none of this particularly concerns me, because I expect to be long gone by the time the glaciers of Greenland finally slide into the North Atlantic. It would be nice to be able to see across the harbour, though.
Posted by Argleblaster at February 17, 2006 05:36 PM
EDIT: Sorry, fist paragraph should say, "fast breeder reactors".
Posted by Argleblaster at February 17, 2006 05:40 PM
Are there any solutions for this enegy related air pollution problem?
rank in terms of cleanliness:
hydro/wind/tide/solar, nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, gas, oil, coal
the energy generated by class one (natural) is limited, nuclear fusion is still under development (not in the near future).
so that give nuclear fission (U/Pu) the best alternative.
the last 3 classes are fossil fuels. they will last for a few more century, but not forever.
in contrast, the amount of Uranium can support human being for another few milleniums, at least.
I don't dispute that plutonium can, of course, be used as fuel. However, what worries most governments is that it can also be used for nuclear weapons.
As regards uranium reserves, beware of dubious internet referencing. Billions of years? That exceeds even the most optimistic estimates of the nuclear industry. From the International Atomic Energy Agency:
"There are proven reserves of coal sufficient for some 200 years, of natural gas for 60 years and of oil for 40 years. New technologies to increase fossil fuel extraction could be developed, but financing and price volatility could then become leading concerns. Known uranium reserves ensure a sufficient supply for at least 50 years at current levels of usage. Recycling of separated plutonium from spent fuel would increase the energy potential of today's uranium reserves by up to 70 times, enough for more than 3000 years at today's level of use. Uranium used in a complete fuel cycle not only maintains itself but also significantly increases the resource base."
The key is "current levels of usage" - growing energy demand in China, India, South America and (in the future) Africa will considerably reduce these forecasts. There are undoubtedly considerably more reserves of uranium in the Earth's crust, but it is not a naturally-occuring mineral and the energy costs of extraction may outweigh the energy gain from its use. The practicality of fast breeder reactors has not been proven after many decades and millions of dollars spent on research (my old environmental science lecturer admitted this, and he had spent 25 years doing that research).
As regards fossil fuels, there is another problem which outweighs the availability of reserves. Even if no further reserves are discovered, buring all available resrves at today's rates of emmission is very likely to cause an unacceptable rise in CO2 within the atmosphere.
Posted by Argleblaster at February 22, 2006 03:49 PM
There was an AP report last night from Atlanta where an active Fa Lun Gong supporter had his home broken into, got beaten up, and had two laptops taken by three Asian men that apparently spoke both Korean and Mandarin. The Fa Lun Gong supporter seems to have no doubt that the perpetrators were Chinese agents.
The FBI had no comment except that they were looking into it.
The French organization Reporters without Borders claims that Chinese agents have abused Fa Lun Gong supporters in Hong Kong, South Africa and Australia, but that this was the first case reported of such a serious incident in the US.
Is this a case of Agents Chinois Sans Frontieres? Would be very bad PR for China in the US, to put it mildly, when religious freedom is a hot-button issue in the American southern states, not to mention a gross violation of the world hegemon's sovereignty. But let's see how the evidence in the case develops first.
If they spoke Korean...who's to say they weren't North Korean's hired by the Chinese...but, yet they have plausible deniability in knowing about them, because they weren't really Chinese.
Quite. As I said, it would be very disturbing if it is true, but let's wait and see if the FBI can patch together what really happened. China does have several hundred thousand Koreans living in China though. The language on its own is inconclusive.
As harrassed and persecuted on the mainland as the FLG is, I take some of their complaints and claims outside of there with the proverbial grain of salt. Epoch Times isn't exactly a reliable news source.
And as the father of a half-Korean boy I've been less than completely sympathetic since I read a transcript of a talk the founder Li Hongzhi gave in Australia where he stated that mixed race children "are not human beings." They don't believe in "race mixing." Kind of like the KKK or Hitler with a heart, perhaps.
This is also the same guy who also says his followers can stop speeding cars by utilizing his teachings, believes extraterrestrials are everywhere and that Africa is home to a 2-billion-year-old nuclear reactor. He also says he can fly.
i have never met a "spiritual movement" as mad as FLG in trying to convert me to a "believer". they sent people, books (before the crackdown), paper, photos and tons of junk mails. but that is a mission impossible. how can i believe that there is a wheel inside of my belly and that the moon is a God made rubbish collection center?
comparing the attitutes of the west towards Taiping Heavenly Kingdom uprising and FLG could be interesting. the west didn't support the THK uprising even it claimed to be Christian believers and kind of sympathize and support the FLG.
the crackdown might not be the best approach to deal with the FLG heathendom, but it's no doubt that a china with FLG will be much better than a china with such a "spiritual movement"
Justin and Bingfeng, believe me I am no fan of the Falungong. I merely thought it was an interesting development in the story of Chinese agents harassing FLG members outside of China's borders.
And Bingfeng, I think the Western powers were slightly open-minded towards the Taipings until they actually met them in Nanjing - they realized they were all a bunch of Hakka crackpots that were far more violent and unstable than the Qing regime.
Back to the present, I can understand why the CCP would not want to share moral authority with the FLG when they hold some of the wacky beliefs that they do. I just think (and this is unsubstantiated at present) that it would be awfully forward of them to attack FLG supporters in the United States.
It's possible, but I feel it is unfair to attribute above run-ins to the Chinese government while the facts do not support such conclusion.
For example, has any of the mentioned cases confirmed the assailant's connection with the Chinese government? Has there been any warrant issued that's similar to the case where our own CIA operatives were indicted by the Italian court for kidnap and torture?
Also it is not clear if prepondrance of evidence support the accusation made by, groups and individuals with certain agenda. Are you aware that some members of the Falun Gong movement have been responsible for terrorists activities such as hijacking satillite signals and destruction of communication utilities?
One must also considered the possibility of more plausible explanations. Such as Metro Atlanta's high crime rate or Fulton County's notably higher home entry crime number? Statistics show 45% of such types of crime occur in Southern states and Fulton County has twice as many home entry crimes compared to surrounding areas. Here are the numbers:
http://www.cbs46.com/Global/story.asp?S=4069540
Home invasion is so rampant in Atlanta a local television station did a multi-part special on it. Also according to a NIH paper, from June 1st to August 31, 2004, Atlanta Police Department reported nearly 100 cases of home invasion crime:
Without talking about the merits of this case, there would be something awry if China didn't have agents in America, just as it would be incredibly odd to think America doesn't have agents in China.
Admist all the ongoing bashing of American companies that are being labelled traitors and collaborators with the Chinese government in internet censorship efforts, important developments are likely to be missed. For example the IHT reports on an extra-ordinary protest by senior ex-officials of the CCP and scholars against the closure of Beijing magazine Freezing Point. Amongst the protesters is Mao's former secretary and biographer, Liu Rui. Absolutely read the whole article.
Another must read piece is ESWN's translation of an article in Caijing, seen as a veiled warning from the central government to the provinces to avoid obstructing reforms through their collaboration with local businesses.
Hemlock's genius is in his ability to concisely summarise complicated issues with just the right amount of snark. Today's example is a perfect summary of the need for a sales tax in Hong Kong, Nepal, the problems of functional constituencies and the city's economic structure....all in 3 paragraphs:
IMF asks Nepal to restore peace. In a similarly utopian vein, the experts on the global economy urge Hong Kong to implement a goods and services tax. Since we have a Government that can't even push through a long-overdue few dollars' hike in cross-harbour tunnel tolls or hospital outpatients' fees, this is asking rather a lot. Our visionary leaders can't do anything that's in the interests of the community, because we're not a community. We are "various sectors" Can we ban smoking in restaurants? No, because the Catering Functional Constituency (3,900 votes cast at last election) doesn't want it. Can we increase punishments for minibus drivers who run red lights and kill people? No, because the Transport Functional Constituency (seat uncontested at last election) doesn't like it. The bigger the potential public good, the more self-serving interest groups emerge to wield their vetoes. Citizens and consumers might want better schools, cleaner air and decent homes, but providers of goods and services, and their official protectors, come first.
A sales levy that replaced other sources of revenue would benefit the thrifty, the productive and the wealth creators, such as the 17 of us who pay salaries tax. It would hit some of the lower orders; the sort of people on modest pay who will stand in a line for hours on their day off for a free baseball cap. But with their subsidized education, housing and health care, it wouldn't hurt them to contribute a bit. The pain could be considered a form of civic education. A sales tax would also be opposed by the usual tourism and retail industry vermin, who would argue that the sort of idiots who pay $5,000 for a handbag will flee our shores if we slap a few percent onto the price tag. If only life were so good.
The real potential losers, however, would be the big boys. In theory, a broad consumption levy could replace much of the revenue currently raised from sales of land and property development rights. This is the Government's slice of the wealth that is sucked relentlessly from the rest of the economy by the property cartel in the form of inflated house prices and rents, which of course cause the severe, job-destroying economic distortions and poor quality of life many Hongkongers call normal. Add to this the huge power that ownership and tight rationing of land gives to unelected officials and then consider that a universal sales tax would be the ultimate argument for universal suffrage and spreading tranquility the length and breadth of the Himalayas starts to look like a cinch.
Witty, certainly, but I detect a fundamental flaw in Hemlock's understanding of governmental extortionists (did I say that? I meant revenue raisers, of course).
To assume that any new tax "could replace much of the revenue currently raised [by other means]" flies in the face of the accepted wisdom that new taxes are merely a way of muddying the waters and increasing the overall protection racket (sorry, taxation) income of the government. Taxes are created, re-branded, and/or raised. They are NEVER replaced.
Posted by Argleblaster at February 15, 2006 06:24 PM
And Hemlock misses a point when he talks about who will lose. Some of us are small business people/entrepreneurs. The reporting burden this puts on people like us will significantly increase the administrative burden and directly reduce the competitiveness of Hong KOng as a place to set up shop. Not all of us are in Hong Kong on working for big companies with a large accounts department to do all the hard work.
For Big Brother and China's KTVs, that is. A new law that will go into effect March 1st, stipulates that all discos and karaoke lounges must install surveillance equipment at all entrances, exits and public hallways. Copies of the tapes must be kept for 30 days.
In addition, all private rooms, a staple of the KTV industry (which is most often a front for prostitution) must have non-locking doors and a transparent window into the room from the public hallway.
It is ostensibly to address the fire that killed Chinese revellers on New Years' Day, but I don't think any sensible person believes that.
Oh, and it also tosses in as a rule that no officials can any longer have an interest (of the ownership variety, at least) in nightclubs of any kind.
I wonder how far this new rule will be enforced outside of Beijing's city limits (or even within them, for that matter?). The clean-up of the CCP's image appears to be underway. Let's see if they can find the janitors to do the job - on a regular basis.
I read today about some small potato immigration officials in Macau that got caught 'red-handed' with bribes they forced out of an air cargo company. I applaud the effort, but wonder how it is that far more egregious cases of corruption in the former Portuguese enclave seem to always go completely unpunished. For too long have mutual back-scratching between members of the (dubious) private sector and government officials gone unpunished.
When I encounter corruption in China, I find that people accept its existence, but also tend to believe (or are resigned to the fact) that there will be a day in the future when those practices may no longer be possible.
But in Macau, a city that has arguably been in permanent twilight for two centuries, not only the corruption itself but also attitudes have become so institutionalized and entrenched that everyone regards it as inevitable. New arrivals, hoping that the current casino boom will also bring about change in the formerly sleepy backwater, often come to realize how utterly futile their hopes are, given how much local interests quietly despise all these newcomers that want to change old Macau's ancient traditions of quiet corruption.
I never thought I'd say this, but I think that any change in social mores regarding corruption in Macau will have to come from China. And maybe they will, as the mainland starts to belatedly grapple with the social and political dimensions of corruption. If Hong Kong is the laboratory where China can experiment with democracy, Macau can be the lab where China tries out new graft-busting techniques.
Marathons are difficult things...but when 22 runners end up in hospital thanks largely to heavy air pollution, you know there's a problem. The annual Hong Kong marathon has seen at least one man listed as critical. It is impossible to work out how many of the problems were a result of air pollution, but this year's race had double the problem cases of last year.
Yesterday's roadside air pollution reading was "very" high (as high as 142 in Causeway Bay and 136 in Central), a level that the Environmental Protection Department warns caution is required for anyone with heart of respiratory illnesses...perhaps they'll now add marathon runners.
I don't know Donald Tsang realises it yet, but the environmental and air pollution in particular are fast becoming a major issue. A nice big fat park at West Kowloon could work wonders...and cue the jokes about "Hong Kong - take your breath away".
I ran the 10 k yesterday, and can personally attest that the air was absolutely horrible. As soon as I passed the finish line I went into the paroxysms of a massive coughing attack. Everyone I spoke to said that the air was much worse than last year. First off, I recommend they re-schedule the marathon next year to be during Chinese New Year (maybe day 2 or 3) to take advantage of the stoppage in the factories across the border. There's not much traffic to disrupt on HK's roads then anyway.
If they don't do that (and I know they won't), I am going to start a website and will try to get runners of the 10k next year to wear a face mask (which I am sure everyone still has in their drawers from the SARS experience). It is shocking that running or even walking outside has become hazardous to one's health. It's hard to be a world city if you have to spend most of your time underground or indoors.
The bad air has contributed to giving me, and dozens of others I know, a strange sort of cough that does not hurt, does not cause a fever and doe s not go away for the past four months. I feel absolutely healthy, but I ocassionally wke up with a slight rattle in my bronchial tubes. When I went to America it disappeared and I felt lively.
Me too D! I wheeze in the mornings, and just before I go to bed. Believe it or not, my cough got better when I went to Beijing, which is no paragon of environmental virtue, particularly when 15 million people are burning coal to keep warm.
Glad and depressed at the same time that I am not the only one.
And you thought moving to Sai Kung was going to keep you healthy...
I'm concerned about the health of athletes in the upcoming Beijing Olympics as well. If the effects of the pollution in Hong Kong are felt this heavily, imagine what it will be like in Beijing.
I suffered my first ever asthma attack at the end of yesterday's 10K. In retrospect, running was stupid: the 'haze' of pollution was obvious just looking across the street and the smell was unmistakable. HK Dave mentioned a website above... it is http://dyingtorun.blogspot.com
Man, i thought Sai Kung would be good for me, indeed. Well, it has been good in only one aspect. As a single man, it is a powerful attraction to offer a wonderful weekend escape with sea views to friends of the female persuasion who enjoy my company and conversation.
What is ironic, is that a lot of this pollution isn't even from Hong Kong, it's blown in from the mainland. Guangdong is one huge great chimney, and in the winter especially the windws blow it right over Hong Kong.
In today's coals to Newcastle file, The Standard reports that Hong Kong's finest are sharing the valuable head-kicking lessons learnt during the WTO conference with the one group of people you'd think wouldn't need the help at all...China's police:
Hong Kong police are sharing their crime fighting and crowd control skills with their mainland counterparts in an effort to ensure harmony in a country where public demonstrations and police-civilian clashes are on the rise, Police Commissioner Dick Lee said. In a speech to the Lion's Club Thursday, Lee disclosed that 100 junior police staffers were recently sent to Chinese People's Public Security University in Beijing and other law enforcement agencies and police training schools throughout the mainland.
In addition to sharing the experiences they faced during December's World Trade Organization demonstrations and the 2004 tsunami relief efforts, the Hong Kong cops also received some training and observed their mainland counterparts on the job.
Next time there's an uppity little village in China, they can look forward to a good ol' fashioned Hong Kong smack-down, rather than those crude and flimsy Mainland techniques.
A rather interesting article in the Independent about the Chinese 'restaurants' in Kabul. They cater more to the diplomatic and NGO corps, and in addition to serving food, the skimpily-clad Chinese ladies in the restaurants also offer themselves as prostitutes. The Afghan Interior Ministry has arrested 46 of them. Presumably they were deported, shipped north to Afghanistan's very short 76km border with China, or flown back.
There is an uproar, of course, with the blame predictably going to the West. Let us set aside queries of how prostitution can be so widespread in China, a country which is starting to have a significant male-female imbalance. Prostitution, while underground, has always existed in Afghanistan. And allow me to disabuse anyone who believes that a highly religious Islamic society Afghanistan's could not also contain the world's oldest profession. I remember while I was travelling in Iran, there was an article in the Iranian English daily about how in Iran's holiest city, Mashad, two dozen local prostitutes were arrested. One dubious fellow, I remember, in Kerman, actually offered me his sister. I demurred. When I was in Pakistan, one chuffed local gent told me about his exploits with dancing girls in, this instance, the amusingly-named city of Lahore.
But really this is an economic issue. What makes Afghanistan different from Iran or a city like Lahore, is that there are probably far fewer people that can afford such 'luxuries' (and certainly compared to Kabul before the Russian revolution), or, in the case of women, earn a living off of the profession. That there are wealthy men in Kabul is evidenced by the 'steady stream' of local clientele. It's just a shame that asking for the nearest Chinese restaurant in Afghanistan takes on an entirely dodgy new meaning.
FYI, the narrow strip of Afghanistan that borders China is known as the Wakhan corridor. It is a result of 19th century geopolitics when the British established it (only a few miles wide in some places) as a buffer zone between British India and Russian territories to the North.
Amusing article today on a study done by the Chinese Academy of Sciences on how far behind China is in terms of social and economic development. They have concluded that China is still a less developed country that is 80 years behind the US, France, Sweden and Germany. They said economically that there was less of a gap.
Unsurprisingly, there was no mention of the gap in political development.
While it is a welcome respite from Chinese triumphalism and scaremongering Western journalist reports, one hopes this will not serve as a justification for why some things don't work as well as they should (i.e., thousands of miners getting killed each year, and the government subsequently announcing they are shooting for a 3% reduction in deaths this year).
In any case, it would be interesting to note why such a study was commissioned in the first place.
Hi Sun Bin, I do agree with your analysis. But it was actually myself that mentioned that the US in the 1920s had as many coal miner deaths as China or more, proportionate to the population, a few weeks ago.
It appears to me that a few of the cities of China at least are substantially closer to Western levels than the study suggests. I was just expressing the hope that the government will be able to develop without having to / being willing to undergo the same sacrifices in human costs as the US and other countries did 80 years before.
An excellent article by former Princeton professor and now director of the China program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, reprinted in the Korea Herald.
It analyzes how Chen has basically gone from hero to zero in a two-year period, and how instead of being chastened by lack of support for his independence agenda, he is attempting to ratchet up tension further, to the displeasure of Washington, China and, it seems, a significant portion of the voting public.
Pei suggests three reasons for the failure of Chen's once seemingly unstoppable momentum:
Broadly speaking, three seismic changes since President Chen's re-election victory two years ago have greatly altered the short- to medium-term political landscape both in Taiwan and across the Taiwan Strait.
First, alarmed by Chen's thinly disguised ploy to seek de jure independence through the passage of a new Constitution enacted by a plebiscite, Taiwan's voters decided to end the President's gambit by refusing to give the DPP a majority in the island's legislative chamber (a condition which would be necessary to give a new Constitution any realistic chance of passage) in the watershed election of December 2004....
Second, China's new leadership adjusted its Taiwan policy in two dramatic directions. On the one hand, Beijing's new leaders concluded that they must make their threat of military action credible. Consequently, the mainland accelerated military preparations for a conflict with Taiwan in light of Chen's vow to pass a new Constitution.
Chinese leaders also set in motion a legislative process to obtain pre-authorization for the use of force - which culminated in the passage of an "anti-secession law" in March last year.
On the other hand, China's President Hu Jintao coupled the threat of the use of force with a charm offensive, inviting the leaders of Taiwan's main opposition parties to visit the mainland and offering a package of economic benefits and goodwill gestures (a pair of pandas) to Taiwan...
Third, President George W. Bush, perhaps the most pro-Taiwan American president in history, re-adjusted his policy in late 2004. Although the Bush administration approved the largest arms package for sale to Taiwan in 2001 and substantially upgraded ties with Taiwan in the past five years, Washington was greatly alarmed by Chen's apparent strategy of taking advantage of U.S. support and seeking a dangerous confrontation with mainland China.
Sorry, there's so much wrong with that article, I hardly know where to start. It's typical of what happens when you get an expert on China to try and talk about Taiwan. Let's see:
1) His plans for constitutional change are not an attempt to declare independence, would in all likelihood be yet another set of amendments (not a new constitution), are very much needed (from an internal political viewpoint), were a core part of his election platform, and have almost zero chance of happening. He has repeatedly said that the changes wouldn't address sensitive issues like the name of the country or its official borders.
2) Any constitutional change requires 75% support in the legislature - so the failure of the DPP to get a majority in December 2004 is completely irrelevant. That election was not a 'stunning rebuke' to the DPP but a worse than expected performance which nevertheless increased the number of seats for the DPP. There are many reasons for the result, but my personal belief is that Chen went off the rails promising to attack the KMT in the last few weeks (again, nothing to do with China)
3) The 'fall from grace' for Chen has very little to do with China - and everything to do with recent corruption scandals in the DPP, the general incompetence of their government, and their inability to push through any legislation through the pan-Blue controlled legislature.
4) The article completely fails to understand Chen's recent rhetoric - which is aimed purely at building support for him in the DPP (which had fallen dramatically over the last few years because *he's too soft on independence* for most DPP members). He has been completely successful at consolodating his power in the DPP with these moves. The reaction of the rest of Taiwan, China and America are completely incidental to him.
5) The article is full of emotionally charged phrases which show the writer has a deep problem with Chen which stops him being balanced in his criticism: Chen's 'high-stakes gamble', 'recklessly challenged the fragile status quo', 'Chen's thinly disguised ploy'. The article could have been written by a hardcore KMT member - and as such gives a very skewed picture of what's happening.
I don't think Chen's doing a good job currently, but this article is terrible at describing the situation.
Agreed, Minxin Pei is probably not an objective observer of events in Taiwan. They may have a mainland skew, despite his long residence in the US. But then if one is Chinese, it is difficult not to have a strong opinion.
I do not think his points are invalid, actually, although they do represent one point of view. I think he has accurately portrayed how the people of Taiwan have not given his party and his platform the backing he needed to carry out his radical plans for plebiscites and paving the way for full independence.
I think to say that Chen has been lambasted for poor domestic performance is simply to be observing to opposite side of the same coin - he has been so preoccupied with the independence and anti-China agenda of his party that he has proven himself wanting in the task of actually governing the country, engaging in practices similar to his KMT predecessors.
One can use foreign politics to distract from domestic problems for only so long - and it seems, as Pei rightly points out, that his time, and his friends in the United States, are running out.
I do appreciate that the tone of Pei's article may irritate because it sounds triumphant. I do also agree that it would need to be more nuanced for accuracy's sake. I must also confess that I am pleased that the DPP is failing, so I liked the article that much more. Please forgive these prejudices in advance. We are all entitled to seeing the world in our own way.
I still don't buy it: Chen hasn't got "radical plans for plebiscites" - he has a plan to update the constitution again. Did the update to the constitution last year cause a war? No. I don't think China even commented on it. As I said, any change to the constitution needs 75% support in the Legislature before it goes to a referendum: that means it *can't* be a radical change (in terms of cross-strait issues) because the KMT would never go for it. In fact, because Ma Ying-jeou has stuck his head in the sand and said he thinks the constitution is fine as it is, there is zero chance of any constitutional reform - that would be true even if the DPP had won 60% of the legislature.
His poor domestic performance is completely independent of any cross-strait rhetoric. The current DPP administration is both incompetent and blocked by the KMT - it's got nothing to do with focus. Frank Hsieh said very little about China, and was the least successful premier Taiwan's ever had last year.
The article is so busy with the tired old 'Chen the troublemaker' refrain that it doesn't stop to think: Chen spent most of 2004 & 2005 being criticized by his own party for being too soft on China: What was his reaction to the anti-secession law? A speech saying that China are being mean. What was his reaction to the pan-Blue leaders visit to China? An attempt to get one of them to act as an envoy for him. The recent change in tone is an attempt to win back his core supporters - any analysis which doesn't see that is just an exercise in Chen-bashing (a popular sport, I grant you) with no insight.
"His plans for constitutional change are not an attempt to declare independence"
Each step of what CSB does doesn't directly means formal declaration. But it is one step closer. His plan is to continuously test the boundary.
It is quite clear that CSB (also LTH) has an ultimate objective of achieving nominal independence, even though he has made public address of "4 no 3 w/o",etc.
Pei MX is quite right in pointing that out "Chen's thinly disguised ploy to seek de jure independence..."
I also thought that "Chen's recent rhetoric" was targeting DPP internally in New Year.
But when he did it again in Lunar NY, I had some new thoughts. I believe his objective is to rally popular support for DPP, instead of what we have thought previously. How? by baiting and provoking CCP to react. When CCP reacts (overreacts), DPP will get more popular support, as happened in the past.
The only answer the mainland can provide is to keep silent, and endurance (and ask US to calm Chen down). Once CCP reacts, Chen wins. He would get what he wants.
this is amusing.
if wang jingping was telling the truth, then Chen was blaming Ma YJ for his CNY speech. according to wang, chen told wang he was 'provoked' by Ma's talk about ultimate aim as unification, i guess Dubya Bush should get mad at Ma instead......:D
"His plan is to continuously test the boundary. It is quite clear that CSB (also LTH) has an ultimate objective of achieving nominal independence"
That's your whole argument? Anything CSB does must be pushing the envelope because he wants independence - I can therefore blame him for doing anything. Great.
You both seem to be ignoring my two main points:
1) Any constitutional changes needs KMT support. Unless you suspect they are also continually pushing for independence, there is no possibility of creeping independence via this route.
2) Taiwan really needs an update to its constitution. It currently has 5(!) branches of government - one of which currently has no funding, and another of which has had no elected members for over a year. Noone knows whether Taiwan has a presidential system or a parliamentary system. There are constant battles between the legislature and the executive branches over who is responsible for what (not clearly defined in the constitution). All these weren't a problem when Taiwan was a one-party State because the KMT controlled everything. They are a big problem now.
As for the "He's deliberately winding up China to raise support" angle: answer me this. Why now? We're further away from serious elections now than at any time in the last 10 years - who cares if the DPP is unpopular now? Chen has a history of using anti-China rhetoric (generally very successfully) just before major elections - not just after a minor election. I'm sure he'll do it again before the late-2007 legislative and 2008 presidential elections. But it's absolutely pointless now. Meanwhile the DPP is going through some major turmoil and soul-searching (i.e. internal battles for power). You're saying it's coincidence that Chen has come out with stuff that is popular with the DPP faithful (but not really with the general populace) at a time when the DPP is in the middle of a power-struggle, but the country at large couldn't care less?
*****
Pei MX is quite right in pointing that out "Chen's thinly disguised ploy to seek de jure independence..."
What! You mean Chen wants de jure independence for Taiwan? Who would have thought it? Clever of him to disguise it thinly so no one would know..
I was going to rip this, but David beat me to it. It's really an awful article. I think I'll use the positive energy to write to the Carnegie Endowment for Peace instead, and ask them why their senior China people are (a) writing about Taiwan, about which they (b) apparently know little and (c) why they tolerate such bias in their presentations.
a) I would've thought it would be logical for senior China, Taiwan and American people to write about each other, after all, those are the three most relevant powers in the Taiwan straits.
b & c) As for bias and knowing little, thats highly subjective, are you suggesting that alternative views should not be offered on the Taiwan issue?
What! You mean Chen wants de jure independence for Taiwan? Who would have thought it? Clever of him to disguise it thinly so no one would know..>>>
Disguising it thinly means people would know, as it is a poor disguise. I think that comment is fair, it merely suggests that he doesn't even bother disguising his intent.
1) Any constitutional changes needs KMT support. Unless you suspect they are also continually pushing for independence, there is no possibility of creeping independence via this route.
He can effectively change the consituition enough to make reunification an impossibility. He doesn't need to push for independence. If he makes reunification impossible by cutting cultural and economic ties and moving into a strategic alliance with Japan, independence becomes a given. Besides, he doesn't really care whether or not he can make independence happen, he just wants as close as possible.
2) Taiwan really needs an update to its constitution. It currently has 5(!) branches of government - one of which currently has no funding, and another of which has had no elected members for over a year. Noone knows whether Taiwan has a presidential system or a parliamentary system. There are constant battles between the legislature and the executive branches over who is responsible for what (not clearly defined in the constitution). All these weren't a problem when Taiwan was a one-party State because the KMT controlled everything. They are a big problem now.
Well, does anyone really trust Chen to reform the consitution without putting something in there that lessens the "China" aspect of Taiwan?
Boer: "He can effectively change the consituition enough to make reunification an impossibility."
I don't understand. How could he do this? It's as impossible to make reunification impossible in the constitution as it is to make independence impossible. The idea that a change of the constitution could make unficiation impossible makes no sense to me. And of course, why would the KMT agree to such a revision?
And what do you mean by lessening the 'China' aspect of the Constitution? The only things I can think of are:
1) The name of the country
2) How the borders are defined (along with some gumpf about the 'free area' of the ROC)
He has said these won't be part of the reform - and of course there's no way the KMT would allow them to be considered. Did last year's revision lessen the 'China' aspect? Not that I can see. So, yes. Lots of people trust him to reform the constitution without lessening the 'China' aspect.
Oh, and one thing I forgot: for any constitutional change to succeed, as well as the support of all the major political parties, it needs massive support from the people in Taiwan who would have the final vote. The ROC constitution now stipulates a process for constitutional change which is harder than any other process I know - add to that the fact that most Taiwanese are ultimately very pragmatic rather than idealistic and you have the fact that no radical change to the constitution can happen unless there is huge support for it from everyone in Taiwan.
Well, David, let draw upon an example. Taiwan is already called ROC (Taiwan) in some areas of representation, correct?
Its not a far reach to go from that to changing the consituition half-way to something similar. It doesn't have to change borders but it can add things. Something like ROC (Taiwan) in the constitution seems to me to be touch and go, in terms of KMT support.
If the KMT don't support it, Chen can play his Taiwan Patriotism card and the KMT would be slightly screwed.
Therefore I don't believe he will be stupid enough to change the constitution all in one go, but he can do it gradually and slowly. Each step seemingly going nowhere but infact, does go somewhere. It would be hard-pressed for the KMT to oppress such semi-steps, while Chen can still claim that he has not declared independence.
Boer - fair enough. Except:
1) He's promised not to do this
2) There's no way the KMT would support it
3) The Taiwanese public would sigh sadly, say he's being a daft bugger, vote the ammendment down, and then probably vote the DPP out of power.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that Chen isn't pushing for greater independence - he does. What I'm arguing is that he hasn't got the power (as president), inclination (as a politician) or the support (from the public) to do anything like this to either the constitution or the status quo.
There are many good reasons for constitutional change which have nothing to do with China. All the arguments against are basically hot-air and fear-mongering.
Incidentally (I just can't keep away from this post) Sun Bin: I saw the comments about Chen claiming he was countering Ma's views on unification, and I agree it's a joke:
Ma is very clear to say that unification is a long-term goal *of the KMT*, which is perfectly reasonable. If the Taiwanese don't agree with this, then they just avoid voting the KMT into power. KMT policy does not equal national policy - I'm surprised CSB hasn't noticed that :)
i don't think anyone (incling Pei) is saying that CSB ahs the power to change the consitution. but he is testing the boundary, and is trying to push in small baby steps.
he is also doing thing that he know that will not suceed. but he is going to do it anyway, because it helps him get more votes, and help to further divide/antagonize the 2 camps - even if it is just an exercise with known results (similar to the arms procurement agenda push, same proposal for the 45th times).
i was actually puzzled that he chose to do it this time, when there is no imminent poll casting (as David has pointed out). but i don't think he needs the Lunar NY speech to unite DPP internally. the NY speech has already done the job, and he got the Premier, DPP Chairman chosen already. So this left us with only one possibility...would he do it anyway just to counter the MYJ/Panda effect, even if there is no election?
Sun Bin:
Check out this article here, about DPP internal policy reviews on China. I believe the shakedown of power in DPP is still very much ongoing, and will be for some time ...
I agree that Chen is doing this to shore up the support of the Taiwan independence hardcore elements. If Chinese communists get really upset, that's even better.
However, he has failed, as the Chinese communists used the Americans to tell Chen to shut up and make him flip-flop again.
[quote]b & c) As for bias and knowing little, thats highly subjective, are you suggesting that alternative views should not be offered on the Taiwan issue?[/quote]
"bias" and "knowing little" are not "highly subjective" but are obvious from a reading of the piece and knowing something about Taiwan. David has already pointed out the loaded language -- and I should add that calling Su Tseng-chang a "hardliner" is especially rich. David has also demonstrated that the author does not know anything about Taiwan -- constitutional reform has been an ongoing target of both parties for the last 15 years, most recently in the elimination of the National Assembly and the restructuring of the legislature, in 2005. There are many other indications of a serious lack of knowledge.
There isn't any "baby step" that Chen could take as the KMT knee-jerkedkly opposes all moves made by the DPP, even when they were originally KMT moves. Hence no strategy of baby steps could succeed as analysts in the KMT, China, and the US would all have to be fooled -- a slim possibility indeed. Especially the KMT.
Note also that the article is focused on Chen to the exclusion of all else -- this is a prime example of the obsession with Chen among the pro-China crowd. The DPP is more complex than Chen, and the independence movement is more than the DPP.
Finally, let's not forget, Chen is not evil or crazed for wanting independence and democracy in Taiwan (although he certainly didn't handle this latest announcement very well). This whole "fear of Chen" attitude that underlies both the article and this conversation are hugle biased. The evil crazed people in this equation sit in Beijing and plan to maim and murder Taiwanese in order to annex Taiwan. if you want to understand what is going on, start by seeing Chen as a pragmatic politician surrounded by intelligent people who understand where all the lines are drawn, and have great experience drawing them, and who has a complex domestic situation to respond to.
I find it funny that the defenders of CSB on this post find it so difficult to accept outside criticism of their hero. He can only be given a hard time by people within the borders of Taiwan that are qualified to judge him by virtue of the ir knowledge of the island's domestic politics. I bet George Bush would love for that to happen. Look, if he is in the international eye, we all have our right to our own opinions.
I find it even stranger that David and Michael think that he has no responsibility for his clear, strong pursuit of independence for Taiwan simply because there is not sufficient support for such a move in the legislature amongst the people of Taiwan. He is responsible for his own words and actions, and it is his words that ring loudest not only across the Taiwan Strait but also around the South China Seas and the Pacific Ocean.
Michael and David's observations about Chen and his complex domestic political situation are interesting - but he is the official representative of Taiwan, and its legally constituted executive. Of course the world, and outside analysts, are rightly going to focus on what he says, and interpret it at face value.
I think the problem with him along is that despite the rather delicate position of his 'country' he refuses to acknowledge that he has a responsibility not only to his domestic audience, but also in the interests of regional and even global peace and stability, to a foreign one too.
CSB is 'my hero'? Oh dear. Where did you get that idea from? Perhaps it was from when I said I didn't think he was doing a good job. Or maybe it was when I called his administration incompetent. When I start claiming that Hu Jintao is your hero, you'll know that I've lost the plot too :)
I am not defending Chen - I am refuting arguments about his actions which seem to me to be massively ill-informed and plain wrong. Lets see:
The article claims that his planned constitutional reforms are a 'thinly disguised ploy' to independence - I have pointed out that
a) He has promised not to table any independence-related ammendments
b) He couldn't even if he wanted to, and
c) The reforms are badly needed and will help the democratic development of the island. I strongly support them for this reason.
I haven't seen any compelling counter-arguments to any of these points, but you still seem to be accusing Chen of stirring up global tensions with these reforms. Why?
The article claims that Chen's low support rating is due to his pro-independence stance. I have tried to explain why this is not the case. Feel free to ignore it, but I'd suggest having some idea as to why people do what they do may be relevant.
I have been trying to argue specifics: this is what he is doing, this is why he is doing, and this is why I think it is reasonable (or not, as the case may be). All you and the other CSB-detractors have said is "He wants independence, so he's a trouble maker". You all seem to be remarkably reticent to site particular policies which you think are deliberately provocative.
There are many things that Chen has done which I'll agree with criticism on: for example his recent announcements on the NUC were (in my view) assinine. Equally, there are things he has done which I approve of which calm tensions: for example his repeated (futile) attempts at olive-brances to China in 2005.
Finally, your claim that he 'refuses to acknowledge' responsibility for regional peace is just bizarre. This is the man who 15 years ago wrote the 'formal independence' clause into the DPP manifesto - and yet his first act as president was to promise not to pursue this (the '5 noes', which lost him some support from his party). This is the man who tried to negotiate with his sworn enemy last year (a man who was involved in imprisoning him for advocating democracy) to bear a message of peace to the Chinese president. If you want to claim that Chen doesn't get the balancing act right, and doesn't do enough to appease China, then fine - but to claim he doesn't even recognise the need? That's just Xinhua-talk.
Articles like this attempt to reinforce the caricature that Chen is a madman, whose hard-line independence talk is massively unpopular in Taiwan. In fact, his actions on China are pretty popular - he's much softer on it that most of his party and his standard talking points ("Taiwan's future must be decided by the people of Taiwan", "Taiwan is an independent sovereign state whose sovereignty needs to be defended") are pretty much mainstream views in Taiwan.
Firstly, I apologise for mis-labeling you. We are all independent thinkers on this site.
Look David, with all due respect to you, it is entirely up to you if you want to believe the specious sophistry coming from Chen Shui-Bian and his saying on the one hand that he is not moving towards independence, while on the other hand try to institutionalize referenda, the tool that would be ultimately necessary for Taiwan declare independence, or to change the official name of the 'country' from Republic of China to Taiwan, or a litany of other measures that can generally only be interpreted in one way. Personally, I don't think many people outside Taiwan believe he really means it when he says he is not ultimately seeking independence. And the people I know from Taiwan don't buy it either.
I don't think anyone that has observed the CSB administration can conclude that while he says he is not gunning for independence, he is not also doing all he can, in small symbolic but nevertheless meaningful ways, to pave the way for the possibility of independence in the future.
Dave, I'm not arguing with you about whether he want independence or not - he clearly does. The issue is what he is doing, whether it is reasonable, and in particular whether his constitutional plans are linked into this.
Referenda as a tool for independence? Flat out wrong. The constitutional change he effected last year (which requires a referendum for any further changes) has made it *much more difficult* to declare independence. What it has done is made any change subject to direct approval by the people - whether that change is towards unification or towards independence. He has made one of his personal goals (full independence) more difficult so that one of his other goals (only the Taiwanese people can decide any change to Taiwan's status) can be fulfilled.
I don't understand your comment about changing the countries name - this is something that Chen has explicitly promised NOT to do. Again, something he'd personally like to do, but has foresworn to placate China.
So you're left with what as your 'litany of measures' towards independence? Putting Taiwan on people's passport. Not acceding to China's 'One China' demands. Complaining about missiles being pointed at Taiwan. I'd agree with all of those - but none of them are earth-shattering changes.
Again, I come back to my main point: last years constitutional reform was NOT about independence (the previous 6 changes before CSB came to power were also not about it). The next round of changes will not be about independence. The article, and anyone who claims it is are wrong.
I don't find your arguments about referenda convincing. Whereas before independence was an amorphous, hazy idea, now it is possible, provided a high level of support for it comes from the people of Taiwan. Far from obstructing his own goal for independence, Chen has put a mechanism in place that makes independence possible. Whether the majority supports it or not now is in fact totally irrelevant, given the very long-term nature of this contentious issue. We have no idea how the people of Taiwan will vote in ten or even five years' time on such an issue.
All of the promises Chen has made that I have seen regarding the constitution have been with respect to the duration of his term. I believe that the new constitution, if amended, would come into effect on May 20th, 2008, the day after his term in office has expired anyway. Seems like a loophole to his promise to me.
And for the record, his five 'nos' were made conditionally - that China renounce the use of force. Since it hasn't done that, he may elect to see fit not to stick to those pledges he made six years ago.
I am not saying that he will renege on all he has said - but that a lawyer's word is not necessarily his bond, given their inherent conditionality. For that reason I don't find your reasoning that begins with "Chen said" particularly convincing or compelling.
Dave - from before the DPP came to power, they've had a fairly clear position:
1) Taiwan is already a sovereign independent nation (albeit one whose name is kinda confusing, and whose border definition could do with some work)
2) Any change to Taiwan's status should be done through constitutional means.
What that means is that 'formal independence' is basically a change to the constitution which redefines the name and national boundaries of the country. That's been their position since 1999. What that means is that there has always been a clear and well-defined way of declaring independence. However, the defined way of changing the constitution before 2005 was a mess (so much so that less than 20% of the people of Taiwan actually voted for the change).
So while I don't agree that the process was 'fuzzy' before, I would say that the new process has much more 'moral authority' about it - if the people have clearly voted for it, then there is less argument about whether they actually want the change or not (which is important if external recognition matters to you).
It's a bit of a stretch to go from there to 'a step towards independence' given that:
a) It means that a party clearly can't be elected on a promise not to declare independence or unification, and then turn round and change the constitution without the people's consent.
b) As i mentioned, the requirements for constitutional change are much stricter than before - making things harder
c) It's as much a step towards unification as independence.
Personally, I don't see how anyone (apart from the PRC) can complain about something which makes it clearer that no change to the status quo can happen without the strong explicit consent of the Taiwanese people.
As for Chen's pledges - yeah I agree there are loopholes (the 'it happened after I stepped down' one is one I hadn't thought of though!). However, Chen has also said that a name change and border change shouldn't be part of the constitutional reform. I understand you don't put too much faith in what he's said - but it's surely a factor.
Incidentally, is this the longest comment thread on SimonWorld? If not, how much longer do we need to discuss to get to the record? :)
This could very well be the longest thread on Simonworld, David, although we'd have to ask Simon himself. I've only had this gig for the last six months...Simon?
While we are waiting for his answer, I shall continue, out of respect for the 'sturm-und-drang' relationship between Chen and the leaders in Beijing that we seem to be re-enacting on this page. How can I resist the provocative repartee?
I agree that it was not out of reach to declare independence, but that no-one had actually gone out of his way before to show how it could be done, and to create precedent. This is what I meant.
I think there are many people that are not CCP members, or even live in the PRC, that would disagree with your idea that if the Taiwanese people want to be independent, that is their prerogative. It is not so different, as is the oft-cited example, than when Jefferson Davis, finding a clear majority of the (voting, white) population in the Southern states favored secession from the Union, thought it would be alright to declare the Confederate States of America - and the remaining states of the Union fought to stop that secession. There too, the rallying cry for the Confederacy was the right to self-determination because of its own distinctive way of life.
One problem, I suppose, is that the idea of China and a Chinese nationality, has never been about specific borders. It has been about culture, and bloodline. To some extent, it is incompatible with the Western-created notions of citizenship and formal definitions made by holding a passport. In this sense, Taiwan will never be able to convince the billion + Han Chinese on the mainland that they are completely different from the PRC and therefore have a right to independence. This perverse relationship between kinship and ownership of the land in which their 'kin' live is as strong a notion as the 'One Nation, Under God' etc of the United States.
I remember how crestfallen I was when, a decade ago, I met a ten-year-old boy in Changsha that said that when he grew up, he wanted to die taking Taiwan back for China. His classmates mostly felt the same way. And I think that although brainwashing is a factor, it runs deeper than this. Unfortunately for Taiwan, I think that the culturo-historic veneration for unity runs thick in Chinese veins - I am always surprised how many people think of Qin Shi Huang Di as a great hero, when from what I can tell he was a heartless, conniving, bloodthirsty SOB.
So here's to hoping that the hypothetical situation of the large majority of people in Taiwan wanting independence remains just that - hypothetical. Because I don't think the CCP leadership in Beijing could not go to war, even if they didn't want to.
Yeah - we do seem to have drifted away from the initial article into very standard Taiwan vs. China debate.
Arguing self-determination could go on for a long time, but briefly: I don't doubt there are a billion Chinese who don't believe Taiwan should have it, or that there are a large number of Westerners who hope it isn't used. However, clearly Taiwan has had it ever since democracy hit the fair isle. Even the KMT Chairman has said the people can declare independence if they want (although that's been raising a stink).
As to your analogy: it would hold more weight if the PRC had actually been ruling Taiwan for the last 50 years. E/W Germany, N/S Korea, or even Australia leaving the commonwealth would be analogies that I'd feel were more comparable :)
A final point: the Taiwanese people are very pragmatic - and they know that Taiwan is the big loser in any possible war (best case scenario: America rides to Taiwan's defense & China collapses - large parts of Taiwan get flattened and the economy collapses). They have before deserted the DPP when it got too idealogical/radical - and will do so again if that happens (and of course the TSU is hardly a major force in Taiwanese politics for this reason). I trust the Taiwanese people a hell of a lot more than the politicians they elect.
It's with very mixed emotions that I leave today. We have built an extraordinary team here over the past two years, one that includes some of the most talented people I've ever worked with. Through talent, smarts, skill and a lot hard work, we've re-established The Standard as a force to be reckoned with in what's probably the world's most crowded and competitive newspaper market.
We've won numerous prizes, posted circulation gains that would have most other publishers in the world drooling with envy and pushed up advertising revenues even while diversifying our revenue base away from its traditional over-reliance on Notices. We've built a well-regarded and increasingly heavily-trafficked website. And our marketing and circulation team has made sure that people know about us and that we are selling newspapers. We have a wonderful Weekend section that is a refreshing counterpoint to the daily diet of well-regarded Business and Metro news. Our Sports and Opinion sections have numerous and growing numbers of fans.
All this and the much much more that I didn't write about are a reflection of what you do every day. I want to thank all of you, as well as those who have left. It would be unfair to single anyone out but I do want to note the tremendous contributions of Lin and John. Despite great differences in temperament, management style and, most important, the direction the newspaper should go, Lin and John were instrumental in making this a newspaper that matters.
So, too, was Charles Ho. Charles gave me the best thing that a newspaper owner can give an editor and publisher: freedom to run the paper I wanted and the resources to do it.
Finally, I hope you all will give your full support to Ivan Tong as he takes The Standard to the next stage in its long history. The Standard has a great future. It's up to all of you to make it happen.
With best wishes for every continued success,
Mark
Of course, The Standard may have a great future, but Mr Clifford's future will involve impeding it. And from what I can gather, he's made a good start.
List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.
This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.
This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.
Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?
This list cover a period of about 48 years since independence (1957).
List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):
(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays
(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays
(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese
(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays
(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status
(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies.
(7) 5% of all new intake for government police, nurses, army, is non-malays.
(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960
(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%
(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960
(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays
(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Taxi permits, Approved permits, etc
(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers
(14) 100 big companies set up, owned and managed by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. UTC, UMBC, MISC, etc
(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses
(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given
(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)
(18) 8000 billions ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period
(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000
(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000
(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%
(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible
(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays
(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004
(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years
(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"
(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired i.e. Medicine (in 2004)
(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays
(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003
(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957
(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957
(33) 2 millions Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago
(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas
(35) 3 millions Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status.
(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenships compare with the Chinese and Indians
(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is rich or poor
(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget
(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names
(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort
(41) 0 temples/churches were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built
(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No temples, no churches are required to be built in housing estates
(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004
(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)
(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins
(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less
(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969
(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed
(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s
(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960
(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s
(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200
(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record
(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays
(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum
There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.
Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.
Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.
If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.
Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish……….
We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays.
The Standard's website is good for only one reason - you don't have to register or subscribe to use it. That's it's major advantage over the SCMP. It's interesting that some newspapers just don't get how they can turn all their content into an online asset. I think maybe a good example for the Standard and the SCMP to follow would be The Age which (like the Guardian) has built a fairly significant online presence. This is only anecdotal evidence, but when I've seen bloggers linking to an Australian newspaper, it has always been the Age (or it's sister publication the Sydney Morning Herald).
One of the two English-language papers in HK has an opportunity to seize the high ground and become the "paper of linking-to record" - the question is which paper has the guts to go for it?
Maybe the SCMP's new editor could revise subscription-only access policy?
China's Orwellian named Ministry of Public Security last month announced an almost 7% rise in recorded "disturbances to public order", to 87,000 last year. That's more than 200 riots a day. Even in a country as vast and populous as China, that's a lot of disturbances. But the SCMP reports the Ministry isn't worried...it's all just a phase:
Mainland police have played down the growing wave of social unrest sweeping the country, describing it as a phase common to fast-growing economies worldwide. Ministry of Public Security spokesman Wu Heping said in Beijing yesterday that the rural riot was "a concept that does not exist".
"In the phase [of fast economic development], the interests, relations and positions of different parts [of society] are undergoing adjustment. In the process of adjusting, there will accordingly be an increase in [the number of] common people who, in order to defend their own interests, express their pleas to government and relevant departments through various channels," Mr Wu said.
"And I believe every country has had this process and this phase."
They're not riots, although the spokeman declined to give us the "correct" word for pitchfork wielding peasants. Here's a question for the history buffs - did America's Wild West see anything like this number of disputes?
That aside, the number of "disturbances" has risen from 10,000 a decade ago to 87,000 last year. That's one hell of a phase to be going through.
I've been considering this for a while (as has Roland, we exchanged a few e-mails on it a while back). I'm not really sure what we can conclude from the numbers.
For starters, they aren't necessarily refering to riots. "Mass incidents" can include anything from street protests, petitions, sit-ins or picketing. I'm also very suspicious on the accuracy of the numbers (these are Chinese statistics after all). "Mass incident" reports would be prepared by local officials (who would want to under-report) at the request of the central govt (which also has an agenda, you can speculate away as to what that may be - but Hu/Wen have been pushing a more rural/redistributive agenda so they may actually want to see more riots to support that; or perhaps public security just wants more funding).
If the data do reflect a trend, rather than just a political effort, I was also musing whether more 'mass incidents actually equals more discontent. It could. But in theory, it may also mean that people feel more free to protest. It's possible that better reporting of incidents (via the internet, etc...) has pushed the state to alter its statistics accordingly.
All of that said, even if the 87,000 is accurate, do any of us really trust that the number of incidents was 10,000 a decade ago?
This is an interesting issue. I tend to disagree with Roland's view that incidents such as the one between the two villages in Guangdong have no bearing whatsoever on whether China is becoming a more or less stable country. But aside from that, on the statistics, one has to bear in mind when judging their credibility that for a long time (i.e. all the JZM period) they were not reported openly but were instead for internal reference only. They have only been released publicly since HJT came to power. As you point out myrick that suits his agenda, but it also suggests at minimum a growing concern by party leaders that stability is declining. Speeches by party leaders indicate that also. Now their perception may be wrong - but given the nature of the Chinese political system, that hardly matters.
There is an article in the unlinkable SCMP today, entitled History Lessened, which asks why Hong Kong people have not turned out in droves for a major show of artefacts from China's Silk Road at the Hong Kong Cultural Museum:
The three-month show is a world-class event. It cost about $3 million to assemble and includes some of the world's oldest treasures from one of the most inhospitable regions on Earth to represent, under one roof, one of the greatest eras in history: the world's first international trade route which involved the world's greatest civilisations - China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, India and Rome.
But, despite all this, the exhibition has received little publicity.
The problem lies in the promotion, or lack of it. The Hong Kong Heritage Museum insists it has utilised almost every promotional channel available: a TV commercial, billboards in MTR and KCR stations, the Airport Express, Star Ferry, Cross Harbour Tunnel and Eastern Cross Harbour Tunnel. The Hong Kong Tourism Board and Information Services Department are also promoting the exhibition to foreign tourists and journalists.
So why isn't there more buzz?
Claire Hsu, executive director of non-profit research centre Asia Art Archive, believes presentation is the problem.
"Museums in Hong Kong seem to use the same design or packaging when promoting their exhibitions," says Hsu. "I don't see these as a creative way of promoting exhibitions, especially when you compare them with other major museums around the world. It's all very generic."
That's all very well, of course, and true. But let's face it, the government has not been able to sell the Hong Kong people very much lately, be it new rules on chickens, a West Kowloon Cultural development or harbour reclamations.
While cultural options often do get short shrift in Hong Kong, I think one major factor is that people here are very busy and work extremely hard. Frankly, putting such a major show in a Museum in Sha Tin was a mistake as it is perceived as inaccessible for many Hong Kong islanders. Having said that, please do visit, because it is very worthwhile. If you know how to get to Tsim Sha Tsui, it's not too hard from there - just take the KCR to Sha Tin station, and take a cab or a museum shuttle bus just outside the station. Details below the jump.
The Silk Road: Treasures from Xinjiang, Hong Kong Heritage Museum, 1 Man Lam Rd, Sha Tin. Mon, Wed to Sat 10am to 6pm, Sun and public holidays 10am to 7am. From Thur to Mon, $20 for adults, $10 for full-time students, disabled and senior citizens. For Wed, $10 for adult, $5 for full-time students, disabled and senior citizens. Ends Mar 19. Inquiries: 2180 8188 (Via SCMP)
Japan has long been known to be an insular society. But it does not necessarily follow that it should be singularly incapable of producing a foreign minister that calms, rather than agitates, the ocean of discontent between the shores of China and Japan.
It must be difficult to be considered by your neighbors a has-been power. It must make one contemplate the past. How easy it must have been, some right-wing Japanese must think, when to nullify China all one had to do was to manufacture an 'incident' (think Marco Polo Bridge, 1937). But that is hardly any excuse for a Foreign Minister of Japan, Taro Aso (Mr. Potatohead?), in this day an age, to claim credit in a neighbor for colonial policies implemented when Japan was in charge. To wit, I quote from the Japan Times:
Foreign Minister Taro Aso said Saturday that Taiwan's present high educational standards resulted from compulsory education implemented during Japan's colonization of the island and that he believes Japan "did a good thing."
"Thanks to the significant improvement in educational standards and literacy (during colonization), Taiwan is now a country with a very high education level and keeps up with the current era," Aso said in remarks that risk sparking criticism from Taiwan and other Asian countries that suffered from Japanese wartime aggression.
"This is something I was told by an important figure in Taiwan and all the elderly people knew about it," Aso told an audience in Fukuoka. "That was a time when I felt that, as expected, our predecessors did a good thing."
He also for good measure called Taiwan a 'country' and also suggested that the former President Lee Teng-Hui could be invited to come visit Japan.
This as you can imagine has brought out furious reactions from the normally soft-spoken Chinese Foreign Ministry. Aso effectively hit on all three of China's psychohistorical bugbears: 1) Its past as the "Gateaux Chinois", carved up by the imperialist powers a century ago, kicked off by the Sino-Japanese War of 1895 (that made Taiwan a colony of Japan); 2) The ongoing efforts of Taiwan to become an independent country; and 3) the wartime atrocities of Japan in China during World War II.
An astute politician perhaps that knows how to press the buttons of his right-wing audience while conjuring up past demons for China. But this Aso is no diplomat.
Indeed, Sun Bin. Given the deafening silence from Taiwan's official channels about what for most territories or 'countries' would be a real slap in the face, I can only come to 2 conclusions: 1) This is a very dangerous foreign policy gambit by Japan to more clearly and closely align itself with Taiwan (despite the fact that such statements may alienate segments of Taiwan's population) and that 2) the historic view that Japan's colonization of Taiwan was an overall positive experience (one held by substantial numbers of pre-WWII ethnic Taiwanese has prevailed at least in Taiwan's own foreign policy circles.
Not sure if the Taiwanese are likely to be upset though. One of my professors at uni (specialist in Taiwan/Japan) once mentioned that a lot of the guards in Japan's SE Asian POW camps were actually from Taiwan, and that Taiwanese were among the fiercest soldiers fighting on islands like Okinawa against the advancing Americans. Not sure it was many of them, but it's certainly not something I've read anywhere else...
But why would Aso want to be a diplomat? He's a politician first and foremost. He wants to succeed Koizumi, and he feels like he's not going to make it by toeing the line, as heir apparent Shinzo Abe has been doing. Politically, Aso's statement makes total sense; many people in the higher levels of power don't want Japan to suck up to China.
You forgot explanation #3 Dave. That the Taiwan authorities are attempting to align themselves closer to Japan in the vain hope that they can somehow depend on direct Japanese aid in the advent of war. To make this so, they will take any number of slaps to the face.
Hi Duncan, that's right, several of the guards at the Stanley internment camp were actually Taiwanese, some were also Sikh Indians that had collaborated with the Japanese during the War.
Joe, fair enough, but doesn't it mean anything to be "Foreign Minister"? Surely doing something vaguely similar to the job description would be correct.
Jing, I quite agree that this is a mutual thing, hence the silence from Taiwan. Chen Shui-Bian is desperate given his incompetence in actually running the country (as opposed to trying on confrontational China policies), and the experience of having been colonized by Japan is indeed the most important event in the historic experience of Taiwan that has made it even possible for its people to claim that they are different from China. It seems like the right wing nutcases in Japan and the hardcore independence flag-wavers in Taiwan are forming an alliance. A logical, if Quixotic and slightly suicidal, combination. Particularly now as the US is demonstrating how little patience it has with Chen and his furious attempts to drive a wedge between the US and China.
I'd say Aso's comments and the fact that they are even tolerated at the highest levels in Japan is symptomatic of a quiet resurgence of nationalist sentiment that's been going on for some time. There is a disturbing pattern emerging - from the persecution of teachers in places like Fukuoka for talking about Japan's wartime record, to the rhetoric we're hearing over the Okinawa military base discussions, to the Yakasuni visits. Aso's remarks are yet another demonstration of a shift in thinking wrought by 13 very uncomfortable years in economic stagnation as the rest of Asia rises.
I don't think Japan's move toward Taiwan is driven by any alliance between Japanese Rightists and Taiwan Independence supporters, but rather by China's recent military buildup and its projection of power into the seas around it. As a result, Japan is nervous and seeking allies to chain the Dragon, while Taiwan is always seeking allies against China. Alliances between two nations in strategic opposition to China, and occupying adjoining sea spaces, are more or less inevitable.
and the experience of having been colonized by Japan is indeed the most important event in the historic experience of Taiwan that has made it even possible for its people to claim that they are different from China.
That's one interpretation. But a nascent Taiwan consciousness predates that. At the beginning of Japanese rule in 1895 the Japanese offered everyone who wanted free passage back to China. Only a tiny handful of individuals took it. Years of guerilla warfare against the Japanese followed.
What Japanese colonialism did, like colonialisms everywhere, was help foster a sense that the Taiwanese were "Formosans" as opposed to Fukienese, Hakka, Cantonese, etc. Taiwan was always different anyway -- it has a much larger Hakka admixture than China, independent aborigines, a long history of contact with the outside world, and no history of rule by an ethnic Chinese emperor. Taiwan is a pioneer territory, with all that implies. Whether that difference should form the basis for a national polity, though, is ultimately a question of values.
"That's one interpretation. But a nascent Taiwan consciousness predates that. At the beginning of Japanese rule in 1895 the Japanese offered everyone who wanted free passage back to China. Only a tiny handful of individuals took it. Years of guerilla warfare against the Japanese followed."
I disagree Michael, Taiwanese sub-nationalism, "consciousness" if you will, is a direct result of the Japanese occupation and the succeeding KMT one. The example you cite, is unfortunately very problematic. Simply put, even if the island was full of raging Chinese nationalists, unless faced with annihilation, few people are willing to abandon their homes and livelihoods.
Dear Michael, I respect your opinions, and recognize that many of the Taiwan people you live with feel they are indeed very different from Chinese. I do think that the experience of being a citizen of the PRC over the past 60-odd years is very different from that of a ROC/Taiwan resident.
I have to confess up front, though, that I do not support the formal independence of Taiwan, and have little sympathy for the DPP.
I think that while Taiwan has had a unique history, and contact with/experience of Portuguese, Dutch, and Ming rebels (and Japanese pirates), I think one could say that uniqueness also exists for areas like Tibet or Xinjiang (less contact, but more cultural differences). Whether you think those territories should or should not have been annexed to China is also debatable, but then one could similarly examine American claims to California, Australians to Australia, etc etc. My point is simply that a history of having been on the fringe of imperial Chinese rule and dubious claims to ethnic uniqueness from China proper do not seem sufficiently 'unique' in as of itself, when compared to other PRC territories, to warrant exclusive nationality on that reason alone.
The worst thing about the legacy of colonialism in the 21st century is that it has left behind many messy geopolitical situations that remain to this day - Taiwan, Palestine, Lebanon and Sudan come to mind. Some have been managed better (Singapore) than others (Liberia, or the Indian partition). The vacuum left by any colonial power upon withdrawal causes huge national trauma that has usually proved to have been worse than any 'benefits' brought by the colonial experience.
In the case of Taiwan, I believe that the entity from which it was taken in a blatantly imperialistic fashion (Qing China) by Japan still exists in a reconstituted form as the PRC, which in my mind means that the PRC's claims to Taiwan as part of its territory as legitimate, particularly given the way in which the ROC was created in the first place by the previously legally constituted government of China.
I am not one of the nutcases that thinks any kind of military solution is appropriate. But given that Taiwan's entire economic well-being and future depends on China, methinks the people of Taiwan should treat its neighbors across the Strait with a little more consideration and respect, and be satisfied with Taiwan's de facto independence in practice if not in name.
No, this isn't a story about bird flu. Wu Zhong in today's Standard looks at an interesting development in Chinese administration: Beijing's forceful attempts to assert authority over provinces. Definitely worth a full read, but some key excerpts:
Beijing this year is setting out on a major and so far nearly impossible task: reining in local officials who dare to defy central government policies.So in the Year of the Dog, the Communist Party's disciplinary watchdogs and those of the central government are likely to become hounds that not only bark but bite. Their authority flows from China's first Civil Service Law, which went into effect from the start of this year and empowers them to punish and sack any official who disobeys the central government's authority. Given China's huge land mass, the problem of localism has existed throughout history, famously giving rise to the old adage that "the mountains are high and the emperor is far away."
Even Mao Zedong, with all his seeming omnipotence, would hardly have been able to weed out corrupt malpractices that were thousands of years old. In his historic 1972 meeting with US president Richard Nixon in his Zhongnanhai study, Mao said his influence hardly reached beyond Beijing, due to "passive resistance" in other regions.
The past two decades of dramatic economic reform have given the regional governments even greater autonomy to run their economies. Local officials have often simply ignored or eluded Beijing's dicta, in recent years becoming so bold that they have begun to defy Beijing's policies publicly...
China's classic tactic against those whom it wants to intimidate into line has long been known as killing the chicken to scare the monkeys. So it's quite likely that the new year is going to see some quaking bureaucrats in the dock, awaiting punishment, prison terms or even death sentences, to scare the rest of the monkeys back into line.
The estimate of 87,000 protests in 2005 equates to almost 240 incidents every day. These protests are typically about one of two issues: inadequate compensation for land reposession, and corrupt &/or incompetent local rule. Literally millions of people are involved in these protests and they represent the biggest potential threat to the continuing rule of the Communists. Can Beijing overturn history and bring the provinces and local administrations to heel? I doubt it, even for the CCP.
There is one very simple and quick solution to this problem, but unfortunately no one has the political will to carry it out today, not since the days of Mao anyway. A good old fashioned Roman decimation. Arbitrarily choose 1 out of every 10 provincial and local level cadres and have them shot. Fear will keep the rest in line. This would probably be far too destabilizing on the party apparatus to carry out, but on the upside it would streamline bureaucratic efficiency.
The SCMP has poached The Standard's Mark Clifford and David Armstrong is completely gone:
The South China Morning Post has appointed Mark Clifford as editor-in-chief, effective April 1, SCMP Group chairman Kuok Khoon Ean announced yesterday. At the same time, David Armstrong has decided to step down as director, editorial, of the Post from March 1, in order to focus his time on the Bangkok Post, where he has held the position of deputy chief executive officer since May 1 last year.
Mr Clifford joins the Post from The Standard, where he has been publisher and editor-in-chief since January 2004. Previously, he was Asia regional editor at BusinessWeek, where he worked from 1995 to 2003. He started his career in Asia at the Far Eastern Economic Review in 1987 and held a number of posts, including business editor, before leaving the magazine in 1995.
Has Mr Kuok realised how far the SCMP has slipped and what a serious competitor the far smaller Standard is becoming? And what changes will Mr Clifford introduce? Interesting times...
For reasons completely baffling and seemingly entirely spiteful, before he left The Standard Mr Clifford saw fit to sack two of his top deputies: Lin Neumann and John Berthelsen. Both were hugely popular with both the Chinese and Gweilo underlings at The Standard.
Mr Berthelsen received his notice via phone in a California hospital where he'd flown to give a bone marrow transplant to his dying twin brother.
What Clifford did was akin to burning down the house as he left it. A senseless and spiteful act of journalistic vandalism inflicted on two men who were primarily responsible for The Standard's upswing in the last two years.
I've already mentioned that Mrs M is pregnant with our fourth child. Naturally it's a wonderful blessing, but it comes with a dreaded curse: finding a name we can agree upon. Inevitably my favourites are Mrs M's "no ways", and her "must haves" are on my veto list*.
And so, dear reader, this is where you come in. In order to prevent a desperate, last minute brain-storming session en-route to the delivery suite, I am appealing to you to help us in our quest for names. To pre-empt your question, we don't know the sex, so make sure you list both boy and girl names. I already have Simon Junior on the list.
To make it even more interesting, there will be prizes for the best suggestions.
* It is some kind of miracle we've been able to name the first three.
Updated
While on things reproductive, The Economist (full article below the jump) explains my recent weight gain:
THE term “couvade syndrome” has been used to describe men who share the symptoms of their mate's pregnancy. (Couvade is a word derived from the French for “to incubate” or “to hatch”.) Symptoms of the syndrome commonly include indigestion, nausea, headaches and weight gain. By and large, such symptoms—in particular, pain during a partner's labour—have been seen as psychosomatic, so that couvade has been put down to an exhausting list of possible causes ranging from anxiety to pseudo-sibling rivalry, identification with the fetus, ambivalence about fatherhood, a statement of paternity and birth envy. [Psychosomatic my arse - have they ever seen the bills for this thing? - Ed.] However, a new study on monkeys hints that when it comes to weight gain, there might be more to couvade than first meets the eye.
Toni Ziegler and colleagues at the University of Wisconsin-Madison examined the behaviour of fathers-to-be in two species of New World monkey—the common marmoset and the cottontop tamarin. They found that the male's weight in both species increased during their mate's pregnancy. The 14 male marmosets went from around 410g at the time of conception of their offspring to 424g when their partners gave birth five months later. The 11 male tamarins went from 556g at conception to 568g at birth six months on. A further 13 male monkeys (six marmosets and seven tamarins), which were not expecting to father offspring, showed no weight gain. The work has just been published in Biology Letters.
[-68772]
What was particularly useful about this study was that the researchers were able to weigh males and females throughout the pregnancy. It turns out that the males did not follow the same pattern of weight gain as pregnant females did, which is what you would expect if the males were eating sympathetically with their mates. In fact, the male monkeys started to pile on the grams far earlier than their mates, while their pregnant partners tended to put on most of their extra weight in the last few months of gestation.
So if the male weight gain is not simply down to sympathetic eating, what is going on? In mammalian species where both the mother and the father care for infants, the behaviour of the father is crucial for the survival of the offspring. In these New World monkeys, the fathers spend as much or even more time caring for infants than the mothers. They need to be prepared to engage in caring for their offspring immediately after the birth, which involves carrying more than one infant. So perhaps the fathers are gaining weight so as to prepare for the energetic costs of caring for their offspring.
What this means for couvade syndrome in human males is not certain, but it does offer the intriguing possibility that the father-to-be might, in his own modest way, be eating for two.
Yes a happy quandrary to be in, but a quandrary nonetheless. Have you ever seen this list put together by the US Social Security administration on the most popular names in America? Granted, that is not entirely appropriate for an Aussie but there is a great deal of overlap.
Simon I would like to recommend Edmund if he happens to be a boy. I know it sounds obnoxiously British, but I've always had a soft spot for it since reading Eugene O'Neill's "Long days journey into night". Thats not to say I hope your son becomes a dysfunctional alcoholic, but the name has a certain character!
If she happens to be a girl, well I'm not too knowledgeable about this, but the standard Anglo-American fair of Emily, Katherine, or Julia is decent enough. Can't go wrong with any of those, particularly Julia. I will have you know that every woman I have known named Julia since grade school has been beautiful.
I think you should name him Mark, in honor of MAJ. Have you checked out his porn site yet? It's a crack-up, and I've been having a good debate with ACB about MAJ, marriage, MAJ, homosexuality, MAJ, Brokeback Mountain, and MAJ. Check out ACBs thread on "Banned in China". She's quite a prudish one I think but I enjoy our discussions anyway.
I think you should name it after a blogger, since you have posed the question through your blog. May I therefore humbly suggest "fumier" if it's a boy, and "Chakrahongkies" if it is a girl.
Mink is good for a girl, she won't have to worry about there being 5 Minks in first grade. If she decides to become a writer or pole dancer, it will work also.
Tancredi is good for a boy, especially if he becomes a fashion model.
I would stay away from Catriona or Raven, which is just over the top
Hong Kong blogger and almost America's previous top model Elyse Sewell has a new book out, and today's SCMP (which is publishing the book) has an article on Ms. Sewell. Where's my book deal?
Time again for the Jamestown Foundation's China Brief. The two highlights:
1. China and the Iranian nuclear crisis notes China's dilemma with Iran - its policies of energy security of foreign policy are coming into conflict. That's the problem with being a grown up major power...sometimes you have to make difficult choices.
2. Willy Lam takes a look at the 5th generation of the Chinese Communist Party (perhaps they could of titled it: Chinese Communist Party: The Next Generation). It's a who's who of up and comers as Hu and Wen continue to stamp their authority over the party.
A timely comparison by Andrew Leonard in Salon.com about the relative costs of oil price increases versus existing average tariff barriers between countries. He exaggerates, but the quote he lifts from a Canadian investment bank still seems a useful way of thinking about the cost of oil:
"On average," reports the investment bank CIBC World Markets, "a one percent increase in fuel prices leads to a 0.4 percent increase in total freight rates." In terms of a potential impact on world trade, say the authors of the report, Jeffrey Rubin and Benjamin Tal, "the $30 per barrel increase in crude prices since late 2003 is equivalent to an average tariff increase of 5 percentage points -- more than doubling the current average world tariff rate of 4.5 percent."
And what if oil hit a hundred dollars a barrel? That "would be tantamount to an almost tripling of current tariff rates and a de facto elimination of the entire cumulative tariff reduction of the past 45 years."
Tariff reductions = "trade liberalization." Globalization, meet your nemesis: peak oil. As supplies of cheap oil get tight, long-standing global economic trends could be poised for upheaval.
He makes the case, given that the US remains the world's largest consumer, that this may benefit Mexico at the expense of China. But I'm not so sure. China has been the marginal driver in the rising price of oil anyway. Lower export growth would mean less demand for oil, which would in turn improved any competitiveness eroded by high fuel prices. And at the end of the day, compare the border towns of Tijuana and Shenzhen - which one do you think is better set up for capturing the manufacturing business of the American consumer?
Deflation is likely where things are headed here - though there is a quick fix that authorities could use to mitigate it. If they let utility and energy prices rise to market levels, there would be a guaranteed rise in producer and downstream prices, plus a curbing of overproduction. Of course, there would also massive discontent and rioting taxi drivers.
Thank you to everyone else who also linked and visited.
As usual, some site statistics for January:
31,525 unique visitors made 66,395 unique visits, reading a total of 162,811 pages,and drawing 10.46 GB of bandwidth.
This equals 2,142 visitors per day reading 5,252 pages each day. In other words each visitor reads 2.45 pages on average. Each visitor returned on average 2.1 times during the month.
303 subscribe to this site's feed via Bloglines and 357 via Feedburner.
58.4% of you use IE, 25.5% Firefox, 4.1% Safari, 2.3% Mozilla, 1.6% Opera and 0.9% Netscape to browse this site. That's a big jump for Firefox. 83.4% of you use Windows, 6.7% Mac, 1.6% Linux. That's a jump in market share for Macs.
11.6% of visits were via search engines, of which Google was 74.5% and Yahoo 20%. The top search phrases included "Nancy Kissel", "Simon World" (is the URL that hard to remember?), and bizarrely "Klara Smetanova", along with "Chinese New Year wishes" (Kung Hei Fat Choi).
The most visited individual page was "The history of Chinese fakes (updated)", a look at the supposed map showing the Chinese beat Columbus to America. I'm watching George W. Bush's State of the Union right now and they seem to speaking English, not Mandarin.
Hey guys, i see that MAJ fellow has now posted on his freewebs site about half a dozen porn shots of himself with his little Chinese chicky babe! Didn't know he was into home made porn as well as a being a blog prank. Is it common for Chinese chicks to partake in this sorta thing?
Wow! I see ACB has also seen the MAJ porn site at chinaeros.blog.com and she's really prudish about it. He had them up on his freewebs site the other week but deleted them all about an hour after I started alerting the readers of various blogs.
An article in The Standard sees Donald Tsang's recent announcement to cut civil servants' work week to five days (from five and a half) could lead to a baby boom:
Chief Executive Donald Tsang's proposal last month to reduce the work week for civil servants to five days may very well boost productivity - and not just in the work place. "The five-day work week will allow Hong Kong people more time for courtship and more time to make babies," said Paul Yip, senior lecturer with the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science at the University of Hong Kong.
And babies are just what Hong Kong needs, as a host of factors - including a teetering birthrate and a longer lifespan - are wreaking havoc on the city's demographics.
Honey, I don't have to work tomorrow, let's have another kid instead. Back here on Planet Earth, the real factors in Hong Kong's low fertility rate are easily found:
:
Hong Kong residents put in an average of 55 hours of work each week, according to a 2004 study conducted jointly by Hong Kong University's Corporate Environmental Governance Programme and equal opportunity group Community Business. Singaporeans, in contrast, averaged only 50 hours of work a week in 2005, according to the Ministry of Manpower. Furthermore, of the 1,000 Hong Kongers who responded to the study, more than 75 percent said they were suffering from stress and a lack of exercise, and 28 percent said they took sick leave simply to recover from long work hours.
All this time at the office is one reason often cited for why Hong Kong ranks near the bottom in surveys comparing the frequency of sex in various countries.
Hong Kongers aren't doing it enough. But there's more to the problem:
"Who would have three children in Hong Kong's present climate? For starters, it's expensive, and the education system is in a mess." [said Paul Yip]. Even if every family was to have the recommended number of children, Yip argued, Hong Kong simply does not have the educational, health care and housing resources to support such population growth.
But Yip said he has had a hard time persuading people that Hong Kong's population decline is a pressing issue. With a fertility rate of 0.93 in 2004 - which means the average woman will have less than one child in her lifetime - Hong Kong currently has one of the lowest birth rates in the world. In 1988, it was 1.4 percent. The minimum replacement fertility rate is 2.1 children for each couple.
Hong Kong faces the same problem many developed economies face. People are living longer, getting richer and having fewer children. The changing composition of age distribution means more retireees, less kids and less workers to support both. Is that so bad? Not necessarily - it will mean economic growth in aggregate will slow or even decline, but per capita GDP may stay the same or even continue to increase. It means more school closures and more hospital openings (and more fitness corners for seniors, although my kids loving playing on them).
But Hong Kong also faces some unique problems. The average apartment size in this city is 600 square feet. Try having a family of 5 in that space. Pollution is bad and getting worse. People are wealthy enough now they don't need to have kids to support them in old age.
But for all the doom and gloom, there is an easy and obvious solution. Immigration. I've said it before - the easiest way to avoid this demographic crunch is to open the immigration gates to those prepared to come and work, filling in the missing age brackets. It requires massive cultural and government policy changes. But it is easy, pays for itself in the medium term and quick. The same applies to Japan, which is even more advanced in its aging population problem.
Hong Kong's well compensated civil servants could use their compressed work week to contemplate how to make greater immigration happen. Then they can go home and have some more kids.
Gong hei fat choi! I heartily agree with your suggestions on immigration. Historically, Hong Kong has always gotten most of its best people that way (rather than from homegrown talent) since immigrants are always more motivated.
Maybe Hong Kong should try an LBO of Shenzhen and absorb its citizens, giving the other 90% of the city's population immigrant work visas.
![[boomerang]](http://simonworld.mu.nu/boomerang2.gif){kind=small}
Posted by 
