April 30, 2007
Fearing fear

The SCMP entertains us on its front page with all the reasons that Beijing thinks the deadline for universal suffrage in Hong Kong should slip from the promised 2012 to, ummm, well, kind of, like, about 2104567 years from now:

Beijing has become more fearful about the early introduction of universal suffrage in the wake of the chief executive election, a well-informed pro-Beijing source said. The source revealed Beijing's post-mortem of the March 25 election was largely negative, although state leaders have indicated otherwise publicly...

"The lessons Beijing has drawn from the election are mostly negative," the source said. "It is not possible for them to agree to universal suffrage in 2012. The earliest possible date is 2017." He said the mainland authorities were surprised that Alan Leong Kah-kit secured entry to the election.

"Beijing is concerned the Election Committee mechanism has been unable to screen out people like Alan Leong, who are not acceptable to them, in the nomination period," the source said. "To them, the implication is that the democrats would be able to stand for universal suffrage when the Election Committee is transformed into a nominating committee for the popular vote.

"In a sense, Beijing feels fortunate that they have a popular candidate like Donald Tsang. There will be a degree of uncertainty if the candidate is not Donald Tsang."

Are we getting set for El Presidente for Life Donald Tsang. The logic (and it's a stretch calling it that) is Beijing isn't happy the democrats managed to get someone up, even though he didn't have a chance, so this election was a close shave for them. And The Don shot his mouth off by promising universal suffrage (he actually has only promised a resolution to the "problem", which isn't the same thing). So now The Don has actually displeased his masters in Beijing and when they say they're happy with things what they mean is they are not. With me so far?
The source said Beijing had also expressed unease with some of Mr Tsang's key election pledges. "If it were not for a contested election, Donald Tsang would not have made a firm commitment on issues like universal suffrage."

Mr Tsang has promised a "complete solution" on universal suffrage in the next five years and that a green paper will be issued for public consultation. "The idea of a green paper has come as a surprise to the Executive Council members," the source said, as had other pledges such as those on small-class teaching, health spending and a tax cut.

So by offering pledges that were popular because he was in a contested election, The Don has annoyed Beijing. Things would have been much better if there was no pesky challanger in this election...but the one fly in the ointment is that this convoluted system was contrived and approved by Beijing and enshrined in the Basic Law. They only have themselves to blame.
He said mainland officials were also concerned about the profound change that had taken place in the election process, whereby a candidate must perform well in forums to win public support. "This is a new ball game. It will make it more difficult for Beijing to find potential candidates."
Shockingly, Hong Kong people don't take too kindly to having unpopular candidates for Chief foisted upon them, and Beijing doesn't have a clue how to find popular people who will do its bidding. Luckily they've got 5 years until The Don moves on. Don't worry, Anson Chan, your phone isn't going to ring.

And finally, to make sure the paranoia is complete:

The source also said that "Chinese officials have kept asking whether there are any foreign forces behind the Civic Party".
Yes, lots of foreigners are bankrolling the Civic Party as a beachhead into Communist China.

This source had a little too much sauce, methinks.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 13:08
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 21, 2007
The real Chinachem mystery

The Economist profiles the late Nina Wang...the whole thing is a good summary of the Chinachem saga, but with a couple of highlights:

...The origin of Nina's and Teddy's fortune has always been mysterious and became more so as it grew. The Wang fortune originated in Shanghai, where the two met as children. They migrated to Hong Kong in the 1950s after the communist takeover, when getting out was hard and shifting wealth even harder. (Many Hong Kong fortunes are hard to explain, and it is considered bad manners to ask questions about their origins.) By the 1970s, the Wangs' company, Chinachem, owned vast swathes of the New Territories, the stretch of land between Kowloon and the Chinese border. The firm eventually erected more than 300 buildings, many of which were controversial because they circumvented zoning laws or were said to skimp on quality.

But the oddest aspect of Chinachem's management was not how tough it was on costs and quality or how it finessed local building authorities—familiar complaints, justified or not, about many landlords—but rather how lax it was on revenues. Hong Kong tycoons are known for working their assets—erecting buildings, filling them up, raising rents, then knocking them to rubble when demand allows for bigger replacements. In contrast, Chinachem had empty buildings, none more bewildering than a project Nina launched in 1997 when she spent more than $1 billion to build a curious funnel-shaped apartment block in Hong Kong's lovely Repulse Bay. Not a single one of its 184 units has ever been rented or sold, notwithstanding a booming market for flats. She subsequently built a 42-storey “Nina Tower” and at her death was building an adjoining 88-storey “Teddy Tower” in a depressed area of Kowloon, where typical corporate-tower clients are unlikely to want to work...

Speculation abounds about who might be the heir to Ms Wang's fortune. [Note: not any more, it's not so-badly off property developer and ex-feng shui guru Tony Chan Chun- chuen. Now we're in for a repeat of the last battle of wills, much to the lawyers' delight, and already the rumours are starting]. Reports first suggested it would go to charity, then to family members. More quietly, many people wonder how much of a fortune there is to inherit. Property empires rarely lack debt. Projects have partners. And Chinachem's cavalier attitude towards management suggests it was operating outside the world of disciplined, credit-scarred bankers. Just because it was never clear who Ms Wang's backers were does not mean they do not exist. Pigtails and pets were always a wonderful distraction. The question that remains is: from what?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 22:49
Permalink | Speak Up (1) | TrackBack (0)





April 19, 2007
Chinese bloggers, free speech and Hong Kong's election

Highlights from the latest China Brief from the Jamestown Foundation:

1. China's media controls: could bloggers make a difference?...the answer is largely no, but it has this great line: "China's leaders judge the news based upon whether it supports or undermines their power."

2. In a related article, Thomas Kellog on the anti-sedition speech debate and media law reform, although it's kind of tautalogical to debate free speech.

3. Civic Exchange's Christine Loh on Hong Kong's pretend election.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 17:02
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





Roads to nowhere

It's always amusing to read about those various roads and bridges to nowhere: pieces of pork-barrel politics, make work schemes and worse. Japan was a particular victim as its government took the Keynesian attitude of spending to prime the economy to ridiculous lengths and lead to (amongst other things) corruption and waste. But it's not so amusing when it's your own tax dollars going to waste, and over at Asia Sentinel they take a look at Hong Kong's useless Stonecutter's Bridge, which you can see on any trip to the airport and wonder what the hell they were thinking.

The scarier question is once the bridge is built, what will they do next?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 14:44
Permalink | Speak Up (1) | TrackBack (0)





Bubble watch

More proof of the eventual disaster that is China's stock market. From The Standard, 1.142 million new A-share accounts opened in just 5 days. The Shanghai index has tripled in the past 18 months. And Hong Kong isn't immune, as the IPO games continue:

Mainland property developer Country Garden Holdings, which will make its trading debut tomorrow, priced its shares at HK$5.38 - the top end of the indicative price range - after it tied up HK$329 billion in its retail tranche during its public offering, the second largest lock-up in history...China Moly locked up HK$296 billion, the third-highest total after Country Garden.
THe game is simple: people apply for far more shares than they actually want, in order to get a better allocations. The punters will often borrow on margin to get the financing needed, and it all works well so long as the IPO is "hot" and the shares trade at a premium once they list.

But if they don't...these merry-go-rounds don't last forever.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 12:18
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 17, 2007
The ties that don't bind

Say what you like about David Tang, he's got a knack for marketing. His latest effort is the absurd Mandarin Collar Society (see below the jump for a Reuters article on this new group). That link will take you the the MCS "Manifesto", which is long on why ties are bad for you and very short on why the mandarin collar (not a Mao collar, apparently) is the obvious replacement....unless you happen to be the owner of a clothing chain that specialises in a Westernised take on Chinese fashion.

It's all done with tie-in-cheek. The only problem for Mr Tang is the most people in my office already don't wear ties...or did he miss the whole "casual dress" revolution? Better yet, how can I get shares in Shanghai Tang?

16:35 17Apr2007 RTRS-Chic HK group aims to liberate world from neckties

By James Pomfret
HONG KONG, April 17 (Reuters Life!) - Dismissing neckties as antiquated soup bibs and fancy choke collars, a Hong Kong group of power dressers wants to promote the Chinese mandarin collar as a stylish alternative for the modern man.
Launched on Tuesday, the Mandarin Collar Society, which includes prominent businessmen and socialites, urged men the world over to "reorient" and "liberate" themselves from ties and embrace the short, stand-up collar worn loosely around the neck.
"I'm not declaring war against the tie, we're just trying to find an alternative to Western elegance by bringing a style that belongs to the Orient," said society visionary Raphael le Masne de Chermont, executive chairman of luxury retailer Shanghai Tang.
The society's tongue-in-cheek manifesto describes the necktie as "antiquated", "something for adversaries to grab in a fight" and an accessory inviting "enslavement" by reminding the wearer that his bosses have him by the neck.
"I've always felt comfortable in a mandarin collar, it's a very practical costume," said Andrew Yuen, a Hong Kong Chinese socialite and founding member of the society. "One would always feel more comfortable with one's own ethnic costume."
Fans of the mandarin collar aren't exclusively Chinese. Shanghai Tang has enlisted the support of former British sprinting great Linford Christie and Michelin starred French chef Pierre Gagnaire to spread the gospel with Western men.
"We're in China here, and China has to reinvent its own code of conduct and elegance and we're trying to contribute to that," said Le Masne, a Frenchman who now only wears mandarin collars.
"You will see that in four or five years it will be perfectly acceptable to wear a mandarin collar at business meetings."

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 16:49
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





The China circle of economics

Two good Bloomberg articles on some of the economic problems facing China, one macro and one micro:

1. William Pesek looks at the explosive growth of China's foreign exchange reserves. China is rapidly attracting capital inflows, it's stock market has tripled in 12 months and is clearly in a bubble and despite the PBoC's efforts it keeps getting worse. The answers? Well the yuan has already started appreciating (albeit slowly) and things have only gotten worse. China is awash with money and liquidity. There's one way out of the mess: the PBoC could stage a massive bonfire of all those US dollars in their vaults (even though in reality they're just bits and bytes, but that's not anywhere as near as enticing an image). Sure it's destruction of wealth accumulated through the hard work of millions of citizens, but it eliminates the liquidity problem with a puff of smoke.

2. Two reports look at Dongguan's South China Mall and find in it's emptyness a microcosm (if the world's biggest shopping centre can be a microcosm of anything!) of another Chinese economic problem: too much investment in non-productive assets (i.e. real estate) and not enough domestic consumption to take over the export-driven economic growth engine. Without increased spending by Chinese citizens, the country will continue to rely on its exports to grow, which will increase all the pressures and problems outlined in the first article above.

While you contemplate all that, bear in mind China has managed to grow at an amazing rate for a lengthy period of time. In the long term China will continue to grow and amaze, but it's going to be a bumpy ride.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 11:03
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





The air up there

Things you don't want to hear in the lift in the morning at work:

"We had environmental consultants come in yesterday to measure the various pollutants in the building and discovered that we're between 10 and 20 times worse than WHO standards."

This is why they say ignorance is bliss.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 09:12
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 13, 2007
Nailing nail houses

nailhousesz.jpg

The SCMP reports on the latest craze in China:

Developers wanting to turn a Shenzhen site into the city's tallest building are being blocked by an obstinate Hong Kong man whose building has become the mainland's latest "nail house" holdout. Choi Chu-cheung's six-floor villa in the booming central business district stands isolated in the middle of a huge construction site and the 57-year-old says it will stay until he gets more compensation. Mr Choi and his wife, Zhang Lianhao, are standing firm despite an order by the Shenzhen land resources and housing management bureau last month ordering his family to move out by yesterday.

He admits he has been inspired by a Chongqing couple who held out for 11 days, while their house stood on a mound in the middle of 10-metre-deep pit, until the developers paid up. "The couple is my model. I'm sure I will win this battle as they did," Mr Choi said of the pair, whose home was dubbed the "coolest nail house" - slang for holdouts who refuse to be hammered down while their houses stand erect like nails after those around are demolished.

Mr Choi and his wife have repeatedly rejected a cash compensation offer from the developers, who want to turn the Caiwuwei site into an 88-storey financial centre. The other 389 households accepted the developers' compensation and moved out earlier this year.

The couple have demanded that the developers offer them a new block of land of similar size near the financial centre so they could rebuild or increase the offer from 5.06 million yuan to 14 million yuan.

"According to my property rights certificate, I own more than 779 square metres," said Mr Choi, who lived in a village on the site before moving to Hong Kong. "They only offered to pay us 6,500 yuan per square metre but housing prices in this area have reached more than 18,000 yuan per square metre. I want to be paid the current market value. If not, I won't let them redevelop my land. This is our choice, the choice of the property owner."

An administrator from the Caiwuwei redevelopment office said the demands were unreasonable. "Mr Choi's land was actually Caiwuwei village collective rural land when he was one of the villagers. After 1992, the land became state-owned," the administrator said. "His land belongs to the state. He has no right to ask the government to give him new land." He said the developers had offered very good compensation and, if the couple refused to move out, the village would ask the courts for a forced eviction...

Mainland homeowners forced off their properties have repeatedly fought developers and local government to protect their assets.

This article nicely encapsulates many of the issues involved here. Firstly this kind of thing panders to a general perception that in China it's the mean property developers and greedy governments railroading poor, harmless people fighting for their property rights. In many cases that's probably true. In this case, it doesn't seem to be. 389 others all thought the developer's compensation was enough. In a classic case of economics, the "price" for holding out gets higher the fewer people that accept the compensation package. Basically this "nail house" becomes able to blackmail or extort money from the developer, especially if it's a large project and everyone else has already taken the package. There are some remedies to this, for example by making the compensation package contingent on 100% acceptance (which brings peer pressure to bear). But in this case the solo holdout is now able to extract an out-sized settlement for their obstinancy. Some might say congratulations to them for holding out and screwing more money out of the developer. But where does this leave the other 389 landholders who accepted the first, lower offer?

The next issue the article highlights is the murky world of Chinese property title. It is usually very difficult to decide who has clear title, and this is going to be an ongoing problem. However in this case the government spokesman on one hand says it's state land, but in the next breath practically concedes it is not the state's land.

Many capitalist countries have a concept of eminent domain, where the state has the power to force property owners to sell without their consent, albeit in return for just compensation. This is used when the interests of the many override the interests of the few individual property owners. Of course much hinges on the concept of "just compensation", but in this case 389 property owners clearly felt it was good enough. And while it makes for dramatic photos, the city of Shenzhen will be much better off with its new office tower brining in tax revenues, businesses, workers and the like than keeping some rundown villa. If these existing properties have heritage value (e.g. like the hutongs of Beijing) then the government can and should set up ways to protect those heritage buildings...something that even theoretically advanced Hong Kong struggles with.

So let's call this nail house what it really is: blackmail.

For more on the previous nail house incident, please read Tenement Palm's excellent summary of the story behind the story and follow that up with an absolute must-read where Dave considers Howard French's IHT piece on the nail house where he discusses the faults with Western media's coverage of China and common misperceptions the media fuels. As usual, there's far more to the story than you might first think.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 11:18
Permalink | Speak Up (6) | TrackBack (0)





Duty bound

As China makes its way from basket-case to some kind of neo-capitalist free-for-all, there's always going to be speed bumps. Typically the Chinese are sticklers for rules - lateral thinking and the ability to see the forest for the trees is not usually a strong point. For example, Reuters reports on a ridiculous situation in the commodities futures market:

The Shanghai Futures Exchange has refused to accept Chilean copper as good delivery because the metal no longer carries a duty-paid certificate, merchants said on Friday.

"This is a typically ridiculous Chinese procedure. When you deliver into Shanghai, they ask for a paper showing that you have paid the duty. But because Chilean material is duty-exempt, we don't have those certificates," a London-based merchant said. Since October last year, copper sourced from producers in Chile such as Codelco is exempt from paying China's 2 percent copper import duty, and therefore no duty-paid certificates can be issued.

"The exchange is discussing the problem, and the policy may be changed but at the moment there is nothing we can do," a dealer in Shanghai said..."The situation came up three weeks ago, when the spot premiums for copper fell in Shanghai, prompting merchants to move copper into the exchange's warehouses," the source said. "The exchange is investigating and will make some adjustments soon, but now, it can only abide by recent regulations on delivery."

In recent weeks, copper supplies in China have risen sharply, lifted by record imports and merchants now want to put metal they cannot otherwise sell onto the Shanghai Futures Exchange. The London-based merchant said that holders of Chilean copper were swapping their material for South Korean and Japanese metal in order make good delivery.

China abolishes duty on Chilean copper as part of a free trade agreement, so now that copper is not good for delivery on futures contracts. The obvious solution (waive the requirement for a duty certificate on Chilean copper) is impossible because that would require circumventing existing regulations.

Which goes to prove the rule that regulation will always be slower than markets. This will continue to be a big issue for China as it's economy evolves.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 09:49
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





Horizontal folk dancing in Beijing

There's one golden rule in life: don't get caught:

A FORMER senior discipline inspection official in Hunan Province has been expelled from the Communist Party of China after being caught with a prostitute, one of many officials brought down in a campaign against corruption carried out across the central province. Du Xiangcheng, formerly deputy Party secretary of the provincial discipline inspection commission, was found to have made a sexual trade with a prostitute from Belarus at a five-star hotel room in Beijing in December 2005 while on a business trip, the China News Service said yesterday, citing Hunan's discipline watchdog.

Du was caught red-handed when police broke into the room after receiving a tipoff, an earlier media report said...Du made a reputation for himself for his stance against corruption and led the probe against Peng Jinyong, former secretary of the Changde City Committee for Discipline Inspection, in Hunan. Peng was alleged to have acquired more than 770,000 yuan (US$99,670) through corruption in 2004. Du was then quoted as saying, "Cadres are only human and they have desires, so we should all be tested."

Are there people staking out Beijing's 5 star hotels to catch cadres out? Are people like Mr Du really that stupid as to think they can bring a hooker (and all the articles note she is Belarussian, implying I'm not sure what) to their room in a fancy Beijing hotel without being noticed?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 09:17
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 12, 2007
Up in arms

Below the jump there's a rather graphic image, with a lesson in why you keep crocodailes at arm's length...

Croc bit off part of vet's arm.

crocarm.jpg



show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 12:14
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 11, 2007
China's middle class

Philip Bowring over at Asia Sentinel has a go at measuring the size of China's middle class and comes to a much smaller number than you may think. One point is whether "class" is a relative or absolute measure: China's "middle class" according to the Chinese themselves may vastly differ to those who would be "middle class" on a global basis.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 14:15
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





Courses for horses

Way back in July 2005 we first looked at the Hong Kong Jockey Club's plans (and not-so-hidden agendas) for the staging of the equestrian events for the 2008 Olympics. Remebering the Jockey Club is not just the city's biggest taxpaer but it's de-facto welfare body as well, it isn't much of a surprise they get their way. The SCMP reports:

The Jockey Club looks set to keep 44,000 square metres of government land in Sha Tin after the equestrian events for the Beijing Olympics...The site has been proposed as home for the Games' stables and training facilities. The club is set to spend HK$800 million hosting the event.

It also needs the site as part of a plan to replace stable blocks that have been damaged because of "settlement" problems. The club's facilities were built on reclaimed land 30 years ago. The Home Affairs Bureau had expressed its intention to let the club claim the extra land after the event "to meet needs of the Sha Tin racecourse, to provide a legacy value to co-hosting an Olympic event and to avoid wastage, which would be the case if these brand new facilities were to be demolished", the government paper said.

The paper also said that the equestrian facilities would be welcomed by the international sports community. It said key stakeholders, including the Sports Institute's board and national sports associations, had no objection to the plan.

The deal is simple: the Jockey Club pays to run the Olympics event and in return gets chunks of land without having to go to public auction or pay a land premium.

Everyone's a winner, except the city's taxpayers.

The same HKJC this week is also dealing with a massive outbreak of horse herpes. Let's not forget Beijing chose Hong Kong to host the equestrian events because it is better set up to deal with quarantine issues. And what were all those horses doing to get herpes?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 08:49
Permalink | Speak Up (1) | TrackBack (0)





April 10, 2007
Who's faking who?

Last week I mentioned an anecdote from The Economist which says that firms often use the billboards on the road from Beijing airport to show their boss how well their firms are doing in China. At the time I posed the question whether this was true or just a good yarn (the full article is below the jump)? After emailing with Will I suspect it is the latter...which begs a couple of questions:

1. Why is the article by-lined Hong Kong instead of Beijing?
2. Has the reporter actually been to Beijing to research the article?
3. Has The Economist editors fallen for a different kind of signalling trick - if our journo says it's true and it sounds plausible, it must be true? Do they fact-check these things?
4. As Will asks, aren't their cheaper ways to "trick" the boss than using some of the most expensive advertising space in China?

Anyone else got more on this?

All mouth and no trousers Mar 29th 2007 | HONG KONG From The Economist print edition

Are foreign firms as keen on Asia as they claim to be?


THE announcements come in bold headlines. On March 26th Intel trumpeted plans to build a $2.5 billion chip plant in China. This follows deals in various other industries, including pharmaceuticals and aviation. With $6 billion of foreign direct investment pouring into China alone each month, and other Asian countries growing at a feverish pace, it seems that foreign firms are racing to build up their operations.

But are the headlines and the big numbers misleading? The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) analysed several large western firms and found that, although an estimated 34% of the potential market for their goods is in Asia, the region accounted for only 14% of sales, 7% of employees, 5% of assets, 3% of research and development and 2% of their top 200 people. And these disparities are growing larger, not smaller. “When most corporate groups see this analysis, they say ‘That's our company, too’,” notes David Michael of BCG.

Several explanations spring to mind for the discrepancy between perceived opportunities and actual behaviour. Going into new markets is risky; Asia's boom is still young, so big firms lack the hard data they need to commit; and of course there are currency and foreign-ownership restrictions to worry about (China, South Korea, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, India), the threat of expropriation (South Korea, Thailand), subtle legal changes aimed at foreign firms (Japan) and corruption (everywhere).

Staffing is also a problem. For top executives, moving to Asia requires a leap of faith. A senior manager at one global firm says that, with rare exceptions, Asia is a “career killer”—at the end of a successful tenure there is nowhere to return to at head office. Putting locals in charge can result in embattled regional offices without strong links to headquarters, and headquarters without strong local knowledge.

Some bosses think that a lot of travel in Asia signals their commitment to the region, says BCG. Aircraft to China and India are packed with executives trying to inhale whatever it is that produces rapid growth. The trouble with this approach is that in regions where efficient execution is paramount far too much time is spent ensuring that visitors from head office have a successful trip. And as local managers go overboard to display their success, they weaken the case for more resources.

One example has become a well-understood signalling device for who is visiting China: the rental of a huge billboard on the road between Beijing airport and the city to advertise a firm's products. The idea is that a visiting boss will see it on the drive into town and remark on the company's prominence in China. The sign is changed a few days later as the next boss, from another firm, touches down.



show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 15:02
Permalink | Speak Up (1) | TrackBack (0)





April 09, 2007
China statistics, Chinachem and searching for smut

One of this site's ongoing interests is the lack of reliable statistical data, economic or otherwise, on China. Tim Johnson of McClatchy* points to a FEER article asking have all China scholars been bought? The article in FEER posits that China academics are largely complicit with the CCP in ignoring controversial topics, which Tim Johnson takes issue with. The reality is if you study China you have to get along with the government to get that data, although that data may not be worth much. China's National Bureau of Statistics admits to the problem of dodgy data, largely because those collecting the data are also evaluated on the results. Are we just waiting for those canny researchers who can find alternative ways to measure China? Can China's political system, as it stands, ever really allow for such measurement in a society where control of information remains a principle raison d'etre of the CCP?

Two other articles worth checking out: one on the Chinachem code, asking where did the Wangs' wealth come from, especially post-Teddy's kidnapping? Could it actually be that Nina Wang was a good businesswoman, alebit one with strange taste in hair styles and clothing? Also Justin Mitchell looks at Baidu's launch of a Japanese version of its search engine, and finds China is discovering what the rest of the world has long known: the internet is for p0rn.

* As an aside, why has there been an explosion in the number of China journalists that are now keeping blogs in the past 6 - 12 months? Along with Tim Johnson there's the Telegraph's Richard Spencer, Time magazine's stable, Mary-Anne Toy's from the SMH (although 2 entries a blog does not make) plus likely more that I've missed. They vary in quality but generally add useful voices to the English-speaking China blogosphere. Are they playing catch-up with Roland or are they meant to be "slice of life" pieces that wouldn't make the grade in their papers/magazines? Is everyone now so busy blogging no-one has time to actually read other blogs to find ideas or stories they may not have come across otherwise?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 13:14
Permalink | Speak Up (3) | TrackBack (0)





April 05, 2007
A brief history of China

It's not easy to summarise 5 million years of history, but the Sinocidal history of China manages to get most of the main points in.

Update: the link has been fixed.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 14:25
Permalink | Speak Up (3) | TrackBack (0)





Nina Wang's billions

A tale of two papers.

The (unlinkable) SCMP: Nina Wang dies leaving HK$32b - but to whom?*

The Standard: Wang's billions split three ways

* Who uses "whom" anymore without sounding pompous, except Harry?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 09:29
Permalink | Speak Up (0) | TrackBack (0)





April 04, 2007
Retreat

French train sets land speed record: now they can run away faster than ever.

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 12:13
Permalink | Speak Up (2) | TrackBack (0)





April 03, 2007
Lijiang

We're thinking of visiting world-famous Lijiang sometime soon, but we might take our time with finding a tour guide. The (very brown these days) SCMP reports:

A 15-year-old Anhui youth who was visiting the world-renowned ancient town of Lijiang, in Yunnan province, was still in serious condition yesterday after sustaining brain damage in an attack on Sunday by his knife-wielding tour guide. The tour guide, identified as Xu Minchao from Jilin's Rime Travel agency, wounded 15 tourists and five city residents in the attack - two of them seriously - but the motive for the violence was unclear.
But in a second article, the motive is already made clear (mind the terrible pun at the start of the article):
Cutthroat competition in the travel industry led to Sunday's attack in Lijiang, according to industry insiders. Lijiang tour guide Li Ge said most tour guides in the city received no salaries or benefits from their employers and relied solely on commissions from shops.

"Normally the tourist shops offer guides good commissions based on the number of tourists the guides bring in," Mr Li said. But he said the commissions had been eroded as agencies took a bigger cut of the shop proceeds and more guides competed for money...Mr Li said Lijiang was a well-known travel destination with few other industries and fights frequently broke out between guides over their share of the commissions...Lu Yuzhen , from GZL International Travel Service, said competition was so tight that a six-day package tour to Lijiang from Guangdong cost just 2,500 yuan.

The same tour trick often happens in Hong Kong, with groups locked into shops and forced to buy shoddy goods at inflated prices. But if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Tour guides can be tricky to deal with. On our recent trip to Harbin, the clueless Helen was completely flummoxed when we heard her planned itinerary and decided to make some changes. That we were the paying customers didn't seem to be a consideration. Helen eventually came around to our revised plan, but then she had to battle with the driver, who was mightily put out that we were going to be crossing the river not ocne but twice under our revised plan.

So does anyone know of reputable tour guides in Lijiang?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 11:59
Permalink | Speak Up (3) | TrackBack (0)





Roads of gold

One for the bosses to note next time they visit their China outpost, from this week's Economist:

...Aircraft to China and India are packed with executives trying to inhale whatever it is that produces rapid growth. The trouble with this approach is that in regions where efficient execution is paramount far too much time is spent ensuring that visitors from head office have a successful trip. And as local managers go overboard to display their success, they weaken their case for more resources.

One example has become a well-understood signalling device for who is visiting China: the rental of a huge billboard on the road between Beijing airport and the cuty to advertise a firm's products. The idea is that a visiting boss will see it on the drive into town and remark on the company's prominence in China. The sign is changed a few days later as the next boss, from another firm, touches down.

My question: is this just some "it sounds like it could happen so we'll turn it into fact" kind of anecdote, or does it happen for real? Any Beijing readers who can attest this either way?

show comments right here »

[boomerang] Posted by Simon at 09:08
Permalink | Speak Up (1) | TrackBack (0)