Change for better or worse - China target post-Bo Xilai fiasco

Viewed with outsider lens and attempting to impose Juedo-Christian tradition, law and political mould, William Pesek presents a more pessimistic and patronising analysis. 

The subtle tussles may not be evident to most China watchers but to the experts who watch every step closely, the horse trading has been going behind the scenes, beneath the relatively calm surface. Hence the explosive scandal came as a shock to many Chinese and foreigners alike. 

Sure, focussing on the gossipy and juicy parts of the scandal would only hamper a deeper understanding of the key issues that would really matter to China's future. 

Corruption and bending rules have long been recognised as potential time bombs and have been addressed delicately by the Chinese central leadership. At times, the most severe penalty have been meted out including death sentences. However, these moves had not been implemented as coherently, quicklyand lawfully as some impatient external observers and idealists hope for. As if it had not been sufficiently drastic and destabilising.  

Even the most cynical China critic must admit that the Chinese economy, human rights record, legal system, political participation and redistribution of power and wealth have undergone immense transformation and bold experimentation. Transparency and accountability have improved despite fledging areas which seem to get undue attention. 

The bottomline is that princelings and ideologues who form part of the stabilising foundation could be removed when they ran foul of the law and commit excesses for self enrichment at the expense of the people's interests. It is a step forward in people's democracy but the road ahead is fraught with dangers. 

Antiquated political structure may be only in form whereas the economics and government has undergone incredible overhaul in essence more than any other country in the world in recent times. 

Here may be something that wealthy bankers and big business who have a stranglehold on politicians through lobbying and interest groups could take a leaf from to sort out their own unique set of problems despite having a well developed democratic and legal system in place.  

Occupy Wall Street - who wishes for color revolution in the faltering economies and social inequalities in developed world. Just wondering?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-17/billionaires-make-killing-amid-china-murder-tale.html

"It’s the rare scandal that involves murder, corruption, Harvard University and comparisons to Jacqueline Kennedy. The Bo Xilai kerfuffle now mesmerizing China offers all this and perhaps more: It could forever change an entire political system.
---   ---  ---

We’re missing the true story here, though. It’s really more evidence that China’s political system is trapped in the past, while its economy races ahead. This dangerous mismatch is often dismissed by pundits and investors, and yet Bo’s ambitious rise and fall, as well as the opacity surrounding it, embodies much of what’s wrong in the fastest-growing major economy.

China is iPad central, with state-of-the-art factories, modern office towers of mirrored glass, six-lane highways, high- speed rail, expanding WiFi networks and state wealth that’s the envy of Washington and Tokyo. China’s nouveau riche are so vital to Prada SpA, Louis Vuitton and Mercedes-Benz that they have been called the “Middle Blingdom.”

Yet China’s political system dates to the days of Mao and Josef Stalin. As democracy takes root from Egypt to Myanmar, China is still mired in closed-door deliberations, backroom deals and purges. This murky world is bumping up against a burgeoning Internet culture that makes it impossible to contain and control the news.

---  ---  ----

In 2011, the richest 70 members of China’s legislature were worth more than the annual gross domestic product of Slovakia. The $90 billion concentrated among them is both emblematic of how China’s model is failing the masses and why Communist Party bigwigs will stonewall any change that crimps their income.

Because the extremely wealthy are often politicians, China may have a truly difficult time retooling its economy and narrowing the rich-poor divide. The hurdles to reform increase the odds of a hard landing in China that breeds social unrest.

We can marvel over Bo’s downfall. We can go on about how China’s leadership refuses to countenance rising political stars who challenge its clubby world. We can engage in whodunit fantasies about the wife and the dead businessman. But more than anything, this tale shows how an antiquated political system imperils a nation’s future.

Ignore China's rise - arrogance and ostrich mentality - the need to understand China

Personally, I sense the fear and hypocrisy are the weighing down heavily on many China watchers.   In fact, many Asian critics do not know better than their economic competitors. Despite having a globalised education and affluent lifestyle (myself included), the high speed at which Third world nationals (not confined to Chinese) are acquiring knowledge and skills could frighten many laid back workers in the developed world.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/25/china-rise-ignorance

Quote :

Our ascendancy of the past two centuries – first Europe and then the US – has bred a western-centric mentality: the west is the fount of all wisdom. We think of ourselves as open-minded but our sense of superiority has closed our minds. We never entertained the idea that China could surpass the US. Backward, lacking democracy, bereft of Enlightenment principles,the product of a very different history, it was not western. So how could it? We were the universal model that everyone else had to embrace to succeed. The only form of modernisation that worked was westernisation. China would inevitably fail: the project was unsustainable. By insisting on seeing China through a western prism, we refused to understand China in its own terms. Our arrogance bred ignorance: we were not even curious.

China is, indeed, in so many ways, not like the west. It is not even primarily a nation state but a civilisation state. Whereas the west has primarily been shaped by its experience of nation, China has been moulded by its sense of civilisation. This helps to explain why the Chinese place such a huge emphasis on unity and stability, their reverence for the state and their embrace of ideas such as "one country, two systems" in Hong Kong. Similarly, unlike Europe, China never sought to acquire overseas colonies but established a tribute system in east Asia. The Chinese state bears a fundamentally different relationship to society compared with any western state. The state is seen as an intimate, as a member of the family, rather than, as in western discourse, a problem, a threat, or even the enemy. For the Chinese, the state is the embodiment of its civilisation: as such, it could not be more important, it lies at the heart of the Chinese pysche.

It is impossible to understand or make sense of China through a western prism. As China becomes a great power and, over the next two decades, steadily usurps America as the dominant global power, we will no longer have any alternative but to abandon our western parochialism and seek to understand China on its own terms. But the shift in mindset that faces us is colossal.

What does it mean to be a civilisation state? What was the tributary system and how will it shape China's future behaviour? Why is China's idea and experience of race so different from ours? Just as every non-western country was compelled during the 19th and 20th centuries to understand the west in its own terms, it is now our turn to make sense of a country so different from our own.

It will be a Herculean task: we always look west, hardly ever east. When Bo Xilai, a leading contender for one of China's top positions, was dismissed more than a week ago, it received little attention in our media even though it was the most important event of its kind for more than two decades. Compare, if you will, the attention, devoted by the British media – notably the BBC and quality newspapers – to the Republican primaries with that given to China in the build-up to the Communist party congress in November, when President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao will be replaced by Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang. The latter is of far greater consequence yet the coverage is paltry in comparison.

We have an enormous China deficit that urgently needs addressing. It is replicated throughout our culture; there has been much talk of promoting Mandarin in our schools and yet, in both the state and private sectors, pitifully few offer it as a serious option. Our economy exhibits the same morbid symptoms: Britain exports more to Ireland than it does to China, India, Russia and Brazil combined. Unless we address these questions, we face the prospect of being sidelined by history.

China's remarkable economic growth started in 1978, but as its economy was then only a 20th the size of America's, its global impact was minuscule. By the turn of the century, however, after more than two decades of double-digit growth, the Chinese economy was more like a quarter of the size of America's, with the consequence that its global effect was of an entirely different order. The story, moreover, was no longer simply about China because by then its rise had begun to transform the world. Only with the financial crisis in 2008, however, did the west finally begin to wake up to the implications.

Although countless commentators speak lazily of the global financial crisis, this is a misnomer. A visit to Beijing will soon dispel the illusion. The place is brimming with energy, elan, confidence and brio. While the west is mired in austerity and stagnation, with a psychology to match, China is riding an extraordinary wave of optimism. In 2010, according to a Pew poll, 91% of Chinese felt good about their country's economy compared with 24% in the US and 20% in Britain. While most western economies are still smaller than they were before 2008, the Chinese economy has been growing in the region of 9-10% a year. That is why it will overtake the US almost a decade earlier than previously predicted.

2008 ushered in a new era, the beginning of a Chinese world economic order. Until recently the US largely shaped globalisation but now China is increasingly assuming that role. Its most dramatic expression is trade. China will shortly become the world's largest trading nation. It imports huge amounts of natural resources and exports a massive volume of manufactured goods: in 2011, it overtook the US to become the world's largest producer of manufactured goods, a position America had previously held for 110 years. In 1990, there was hardly a country in the world for which China was its chief trading partner. By 2000, there were a few, but nearly all were in east Asia. By 2010 the list stretched around the world, including Japan, South Africa, Australia, Chile, Brazil, India, Pakistan, the US and Egypt. Imagine how long the list will be in 2020.

China is rapidly emerging as a great financial power. In 2009 and 2010 the China Development Bank and the China Exim Bank – which I would guess the great majority of Observer readers have never even heard of – lent more to the developing world than the World Bank. Just as the Rothschilds funded much of Europe's industrialisation in the 19th century, so these two banks are now doing the same on a far larger canvas, namely the entire developing world, comprising 85% of the world's population. Meanwhile, in late 2008, China began making the renminbi, hitherto a currency that circulated only in China, available for the settlement of trade. The HSBC has predicted that by 2013-15 half of China's trade with the developing world (which constitutes more than half of China's total trade) will be paid for in renminbi. It is the first stage in the process by which the renminbi will replace the dollar as the world's dominant currency.

The centre of gravity of the global economy is remorselessly shifting from the developed to the developing world. China is the main player and the outcome will be the rapidly declining influence of the developed world and the reconstitution of all major global institutions, notably the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, to reflect this.

Pause for a moment and think what it feels like to be in Beijing these days. The place is on fire. It is alive with argument and debate. A country growing at 10% a year is constantly throwing up huge and novel problems that require response and solution. It is a far cry from Britain mired in stagnation, where debate rarely ever breaks new ground and for the most part is backdated. In contrast, China is not only remaking itself with extraordinary speed, but is also remaking the world. Beijing resembles London in 1850 or Washington in 1950, but on an epic scale. It is the most interesting and stimulating city in the world.

I spent much of last autumn as a visiting professor at Tsinghua University in Beijing. My stay was a whirl of talks and discussions. Far from the western image of China being devoid of debate, Beijing is positively throbbing with it. And it is extraordinarily open-minded and open-ended. I was invited to give a lecture at the ministry of foreign affairs to around 100 young diplomats at which I suggested that a foreign policy based on Deng Xiaoping's principles was no longer appropriate: a new approach was required that reflected Chinese growing global interests while also drawing on its history. Far from being taken aback, those present entered into a vigorous discussion. These debates, furthermore, are infused with huge significance. As China becomes a great global power they will shape its future policies and priorities – and thereby the world.

One might think that in such times, and with such glittering prospects, China would be full of hubris, bordering even on arrogance. On the contrary, the opposite is the case. The Chinese are still deeply preoccupied with the colossal problems that confront a still poor and developing country of 1.3 billion people. Inequality has soared, sowing the seeds of growing resentment against the rich; land seizures, as events in Wukan recently demonstrated, provide a continuing threat to social stability; massive corruption is corroding the sense of justice and fairness. While possessed of the kind of inner confidence and experience that comes from being the heirs of a great civilisation, the Chinese have no illusions about where they have got to and the tasks that lie ahead.

In November, the Communist party will hold its 18th congress. It will elect a new leadership for the next 10 years during which time China will undergo profound change. Already, there is a major shift under way in economic priorities from low value-added production and massive exports towards higher-end production and domestic consumption. During the next decade we can expect important political reforms.

In Britain, meanwhile, China will continue to receive scant coverage. But, kicking and screaming, forever looking backwards to the age of the west, we will, nevertheless, be dragged into the age of China. Time waits for no country. Over the next decade, we will increasingly come under China's spell.

It is worth reminding ourselves that last October, when the future of the euro was in grave doubt, European leaders pleaded with China to extend a huge loan. Britain is also broke and needs Chinese money for its infrastructure projects. There will be a growing clamour to learn Mandarin. And, as yet hardly recognised, we will find ourselves coming under the growing influence of Chinese soft power, be it the influence of Chinese parenting or the country's stellar educational performance. China will irresistibly shape our future.

Elections : Chinese direct democracy models have come a long way

It is a step forward for the Chinese government (with overlapping membership of Chinese Communist Party) to public promote direct elections in the country.

http://www.chinastudygroup.org/li-zhaoxing-china-direct-elections-are-there-difficulties.html

Indeed, the People's Congress has a strong foundation build from grassroots elections, unlike the less participatory and representative primaries of US presidential elections.

http://www.world-china.org/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3306

This may come as a surprise to many so-called China watchers who are no experts in the multi level and regional people's government. Way back in the 1980s, just out of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese people have taken the initiative to experiment with democracy from the grassroots upwards. This was enshrined in the 1982 constitutional reform. Village committees have been thriving since then, though these are never captured or picked up in the mainstream western media. Contrary to the impression of an all-powerful central authority and top down directives, local governments (for better or for worse) could formulate suitable policies make independent decisions.

https://www.chinabusinessreview.com/public/0103/horsley.html

http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/es/esy/esy_cn

Mao Zedong's call for people's democracy had been tainted by his personal insecurity, attachment to theories and his henchmen's hunger for power. Ironically though, perhaps Chinese are experimenting participatory politics that suit local conditions to fulfil the aspirations of their "great leader" who liberated them from slavery and colonialisation.

China is even considering holding direct elections in Hong Kong in five years' time due to the close ties between the former British colony and mainland.

http://chinaelectionsblog.net/?p=15493

While China is improving, the West has been on decline with regard to "democracy". The developed world has evolved into a less democratic system, too entrenched in money politics.  Electorate are either disillusioned and apathetic to participate.  At the same time populist single issue politicians and parties in the likes conservative and intolerant Tea Party are exploiting the less educated working class to power.

Instead of vilifying China's democratic models, perhaps those who professed to be practising democracy should reflect, observe others, and look internally for reforms. Who would have expected protests to gather strength among free and contented citizens of democratic countries? Only in poor, deprived and authoritarian systems in the less developed world - but stay tuned, things are changing gradually but surely. For a huge diverse nation like China, economic and social stability should take precedence. Culturally, the self could be sacrificed for common good. A hundred years is not too long to wait.

US information freedom regression - lobbyists could alter constitutional rights through SOPA and PIPA legislation

Why is US joining the ranks of repressive nations?  It is motivated mainly by money and power of lobbyists who could force the hands or entice Congressmen to do wonders including curbing freedoms enshrined in the American constitution.


Guess who are the masterminds behind SOPA?  Hollywood executives spend $91m lobbying for approval of Stop Online Piracy Act. Media moguls in the likes of Rupert Murdoch would be supportive of the move to restrain free flow of information.


Information = Knowledge = Power


Those who control information get richer and they would want to keep the rest of the people ignorant and pay for access and sharing of public information.




In China where majority of the population were uneducated, leaders wanted to ensure stability of government for high economic growth (and ultimately protect their positions. However, slowly and steadily, it has been opening up. 


The revolution against anti-democracy millionaires and their lobbyists should continue from Occupy Wall St to protest against info blackout. 

http://www.theverge.com/2012/1/18/2716516/money-power-and-congress-how-lobbyists-will-determine-the-fate-of-sopa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/15/sopa-bill-congress-online-piracy

China could learn and gain from Nordic Democracy to govern progressive diverse nation - best of both worlds for capitalism and socialism in practice

While many Finnish are knowledgeable, wise and analytical, there are some who do not read widely and become susceptible to hearsay from journalists promoting sensational news and ill disciplined liberalism without regard for history, culture and national sovereignty and international peace.

http://www.eaea.org/index.php?k=12041
The truth about Tibet and Dalai Lama

By Eirik Granqvist (China Daily)

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/opinion/2011-12/21/content_14297105.htm

Most Finns (Swedes and Swiss) are well educated, widely read and well travelled people.

Chinese are pragmatic people. Its government and intellectuals are better off studying the Nordic democratic models which suit China than looking at the elusive and failed American and Greek models of democracy.

In the past, religions such as Buddhism have been imported into China and given a Chinese cultural identity. The same can be said of growing Christian foothold in China which play an important social role while not forgetting practices that are traditionally Chinese.

Some visionary forecasters are placing their bets on a cohesive multicultural Chinese surviving the odds and challenges of globalisation and development than say "democratic" divisive and sectarian  India.

At the end of the tunnel, China will find its way to build a unique model of democracy suited to its own needs. It will not benefit much from a foreign formula that is out of place with Chinese culture.

China keeps fingers cross for a stable nuclear North Korea

What other option does China have but to wish its neighbour well. Good luck to another Kim reign?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/19/kim-jong-il-successor-endorsed-china?newsfeed=true

China unlike US and NATO loathes at military intervention in other countries.

It is not in China's tradition and style to arm twist and force medicine down its friends' throat what it does not want to do. Behind the scenes, China has kept North Korea in line and averted potential conflicts when US/ NATO forced it to the brink.

Armed forces (military and police) are meant for defending its territorial integrity and maintaining domestic stability when forced by circumstances, just like the pre-world war USA until Truman came along and that was when exceptionalism by spreading democracy through military means began.

As the Chinese saying goes, wealth and power will not last beyond the third generation.

Perhaps the Chinese are hoping for a quiet evolution instead of volatile revolution next door.

Global Times' popularity - social outlet, propaganda or conscience of the people - frank and outspoken Hu Xijin demolishes myth of simplistic China - meaning of democracy, human rights, sovereignty

Hu Xijin is the editor-in-chief of Global Times, often regarded as one of the "mouthpieces" of the Chinese government (aka communist party in western press). 


China is a huge multicultural country with wide economic and social disparities which need to be addressed efficiently. It is easy to point fingers especially coming from those who do not know Chinese history and local conditions well. China is more complex than outsider's simplistic viewpoint.  Development takes time - this is nothing compared to the thousands of years of Chinese history. It pays to be patient is the wise message to hot heads. 


This is a frank interview with Hu Xijin. No political rhetoric, just plain words from the heart of a Chinese. 

Quote :


Hu: I respect the voices on weibo, but I don’t think the voices on weibo represent the whole of China. Weibo only gathers people of the same mind. These people are active but they are not the mainstream. If the majority of Chinese society thought I was wrong, then I would think carefully if I should change. The Global Times is doing better and better, and its influence is getting bigger and bigger. People are still buying it even at 1.2 yuan. The circulation is huge. It means people are reading our newspaper, they agree with our position. Most people are still on my side. 

We have been touching sensitive topics in recent years, which laid the groundwork for our prompt comment on the Ai Weiwei case.

There are diverse public opinions in China. Some people try to label everything and everyone. This is not healthy. I think GT has been trying to take an impartial position on sensitive issues. But I have to admit, it’s difficult. Take Ai’s case for example. 

We wrote four editorials about Ai in a row. Maybe not every word was accurate, but the overall message was not wrong. If you have to pick a particular sentence and ask me what it means, then it’s like punishing people for their words. We can’t take things out of context. Any article would be problematic if taken out of context. 

We wrote those editorials out of China’s interest. The articles reflect our overall understanding of the world. I don’t think we should single out the government. The Chinese government is part of China. Under most circumstances, the interest of the government is the same as the interest of the people and the nation. I don’t believe the US government cares more about the well being of the Chinese people than the Chinese government does. I don’t believe that.


 It’s a simple way of putting things. The key is to understand the word “rise.” The authorities do not like this word; they prefer “development.” The foreign media like to say “China rise” and many Chinese people followed suit and grew used to it. It’s a reality for China. There are good things, such as rapid economic development, but there are weaknesses and problems too, such as the income gap. And we haven’t completely solved the theoretical questions; such as how do we connect the superiority of socialism with economic development and the fruits of a market economy. These haven’t yet been solved. The rise of China is complicated.


The China consensus is not mature, neither is the China model. At least we haven’t figured it out ourselves.
But we do walk on a different path than the West. 


We shouldn’t be obsessed with the question of whether this path is unique to China or not. That’s meaningless. No society develops completely isolated from the rest of the world. It’s impossible. In this age of globalization, we most definitely have been influenced by the West. We can’t develop without the West. Our opening up, to a large extent, has been toward the US. All kinds of Western thoughts and good things have had a positive impact on us. China can’t develop in isolation. No doubt about it. 

Yet China can’t simply copy the US or the UK. That can’t be done. China takes all the good things from different countries, puts them together, remixes them in China, and moves on from there. That’s a fact. And that’s the way it should be. What’s the population of most Western countries, tens of millions? That’s just a small province or a city in China. China is a huge truck, and the West is a go-cart. If you put someone who’s used to driving a go-cart behind the wheels of a big truck, they will feel completely different. 


 I agree that there are common universal values; human rights, freedom and democracy. Call them universal values and I agree. But the West has made these words political. The meaning of those words have gone far beyond their original concept. The situation changes when the West uses them as diplomatic tools to pressure China. In fact most Chinese people have the same understanding about whether we should have democracy and freedom. It’s just that we don’t have a consensus on how to get there. 

China is moving forward. You’d be a fool to deny it. But we can’t equate democracy with votes, one person one vote. That’s too narrow an understanding of democracy, and that’s a path designed by the West. Chinese people aren’t that stupid. We should call a spade a spade, and continue to promote democracy. 

I think human rights and sovereignty are consistent. Separating the two is the Western discourse. How can human rights in China be separated from sovereignty? Hasn’t China suffered enough throughout history over issues of sovereignty? How many people were killed by foreigners? In the past, when sovereignty was weak, the country had little say in the world. Today every country is competing to develop. The stronger their sovereignty, the bigger say the country will have. This is directly connected to human rights. Why do we set them up against each other? That’s Western discourse and Chinese intellectuals who believe it are either not thinking for themselves and following the West, or doing so deliberately out of personal interest. 


China’s national strength is still weak when compared to the West, so stressing no interference in the country’s domestic affairs is in line with China’s national interest. It’s also against China’s interest to intrude on other country’s domestic affairs.

There is only one China, there is nothing wrong with loving the country and doing one’s best to help push it forward. A friend of mine told me another story. One of his friends was rich and wanted to go to the US, so my friend said, “You will always be Chinese even in America, and you will always rely on China. If China gets better your status will rise, if not, you will be more miserable, as you won’t be accepted in that society.


The country may not be perfect but why belittle it?

This is how I feel. The US doesn’t need us to defend its interest as other people do. China has finally grabbed the chance to develop and is very likely to succeed. There are people saying online that China is messy, I agree and I have said so in an editorial. Sometimes we don’t know whether to love or hate the country seeing all the problems, but once I see hope and the progress that’s been made, I choose to love it and protect it.


Full report of the interview with Hu Xijin :
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/663853/China-is-complicated.aspx

The fact is that majority of people do not want to rock the boat does not mean that they are ignorant or have been subdued or brainwashed. 


Self-righteous humanists, please give more respect and credit to the intelligence of Chinese people. 

Update on con artist Ai Wei Wei, how about social conscience of the US -

Majority of Chinese people don't care or recognise western Chinese hero Ai Wei Wei who f* his motherland with no end of trouble by knowingly and defiantly breaking the laws. Ai earns his living by creating anarchy and upheavals.  


Perhaps the Chinese government need not pay too much attention to Ai Wei Wei. They don't deserve it. 


Ai Wei Wei's latest publicity stunt is unimpressive. Considering the  mainland and overseas Chinese population, tens of thousands of claimed online supporters and donors are a drop of water in the ocean. Despite the outcry, people get on with their daily lives.  


What a company name Beijing Fake Cultural Development Ltd!!!
Did any investigative journalist try to find out if this is a money-laundering set up that has evaded huge taxes? Social causes are noble. But politicised fund raising coming from one who has not been truthful and clean with his past claims should not be encouraged. 


No, any Chinese dissident's words must be trusted as the gospel truth. 


As expected, search engine results display quotes of Ai Wei Wei and his supporters. 


Ai Wei Wei was even thinking of keeping the donations instead of paying the back taxes and fines for fear that he won't be able to recover them from the authorities!  If you are a legal and tax expert, please explain the reasons given which do not make sense at all whether one pays it directly or not if they imagine the government to be despicable and deplorable.


Disorderly behaviour in public would be sufficient grounds to remove someone from harming himself and others, even in democratic FBI protected America.  This deranged hobo would be nothing without the backing of other dissidents and western financiers behind them. Foreign instigation should not be dismissed as it is a game that has been practised to the highest level. 


Politics aside.  Seriously, I am not an artist but I do appreciate good art. Anyone with an eye for art, please tell me honestly whether the works of self-centred Ai Wei Wei qualifies him as a great "artist". His negative "activism" has probably earned more than he deserves.  


The free wheeling western media (mainstream and tabloid alike) has chosen to sensationalise anti-Chinese heroes than getting their facts right. 


http://www.bearcanada.com/china/aiaiai.html


Would we show the same level of support for freedom of speech and compassion to Julian Assange of Wikileak fame and conscience representation?  


What about the Wall Street protestors? Does China or other authoritarian states play up or give moral and financial support to disrupt  capitalist / democratic governments? 


Some things have not changed, since my previous post on Ai Wei Wei.


http://chinainformzen.blogspot.com/2011/04/anxiety-about-ai-weiwei-who-is-he.html

General Liu Yuan says : read Zhang Musheng's "Changing our cultural history perspective"

Critics who alleged that Liu Yuan is sabre rattling obviously did not bother to read his "preface" to the book published by his social commentator friend Zhang Musheng some four years ago. Nor do they have any knowledge, understanding or appreciation of Chinese history.

Liu has certainly caught international attention though not in a favourable light. Bold imagery indeed but it is meant to wake the Chinese people from their slumber, not to alarm the insecure countries that are always on the lookout for pretext to brand China as expansionist.

Interestingly, a few pages penned by Liu whose main intention was to encourage readers to "savour" Zhang's collection of essays by Chinese thinkers could send shockwaves worldwide and spin wild speculations of China's rising militarism and leadership split!

A quick preview and gist of Liu Yuan's comments :

Liu rejects transplanting western democratic model into China as it will backfire. China should grow and embrace its unique and indigenous form of new democracy(similar to what his father Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping promoted).

History has shown that American, Japanese and Soviet systems were detrimental and could egulf China. The examples of Yugoslavia, Singapore and Hungary are only quick-fix potions. China should continue evolving and reforming itself with courage.

Indeed, people of China or the world for that matter, should not forget thousands of years of history. The reasons why the communist revolution took place was to unify the country, get rid of inequality, corrupt officials and foreign invasion and plunder. Life for the poor Chinese masses was difficult and untenable.

China has succeeded in feeding and clothing the starving millions and poor. However, economic growth based on the capitalist model has also contributed to the widening gap between the wealthy and poor, the coastal cities and remote provinces. Lest the Chinese forget and throw away all the hardwon gains from bloodshed and sacrifices through the revolutionary and reform years, the book is a timely reminder and stimulus for positive national action.  


Zhang is also known to be critical of corruption and ill discipline of some Chinese communist cadres. Does this mean that Liu implicitly or tacitly favours eradicating self-serving and bribe taking officials?

General Liu is a nationalist, like many Chinese. However, his outspoken style is not typical of Chinese leaders who are too polite and submissive. 

So, before anyone gives their two cents worth, go read the originals.

I'll be back with the full translation and informed analysis.

Anxiety about Ai Weiwei? Who is he?

Who is Ai Weiwei?

The Truths about Ai Wei Wei

1. He did not design the bird's nest Olympic Stadium. Claims somehow become truths after the media report and repeat them

2. He is an eccentric bum / hobo / illegal / gambler / beggar. His integrity and credibility are questionable.

3. He has an axe to grind with the Chinese authorities and would rather whip up a storm than to compromise. He only told half truths about the episode of his studio's demolition among others.

4. His support base is outside China. He has no regard for the Chinese motherland.

To the majority of the Chinese population, Ai Weiwei is not well known. Nor is he representative of their aspirations. Least of all, Chinese people would even regard him as a hero or a leader of their destiny. Certainly the media attention and frenzy have been disportionate and uncalled for.

Ai Weiwei may have some abstract artistic talents. His antics have thus far been tolerated by the authorities. While we await the investigations on Ai's economic crimes, shouldn't we civilised folks be patient and respectful.

China Blooms, warding off Jasmine Revolution

Plum flowers which thrive in harsh winter conditions are blossoming during the spring festival which coincides with the celebration of the lunar new year.

There is no sign or potential for a Jasmine Revlution. The bottomline is that China is not Egypt, or any of the self-enriching and uncaring Middle Eastern autocratic regimes.

While China continues to be plague by social problems of the old as well as effects from economic development, the leadership is making effort albeit with mixed success in resolving them. Not many countries in the advanced economies could claim credit for good economic management.  The Chinese leadership is disciplined in esnsuring a balanced budge and keep unemployment and inflation down. Corrupt officials are investigated and meted with harsh penalties if found guilty. Policies have been geared towards institutionisation and legal framework that is clear and consistent.  Of course, like most developing countries, China is still finding its way to leapfrog in the least painful means possible.

The bottomline is : the vast majority of the Chinese people do not want to see turbulent, turmoil and bloodshed. Personal and community interests rank higher than democratic ideals. Most of the complaints involve land disputes, unequal contracts, corrupt provincial officials, labour compensation and environmental issues.  The Chinese people know too well from past revolutions that they could first and foremost be empowered with economic wealth and education.

Say what you may about information restrictions. Control of the internet, checks on dissidents, university students and workers have stemmed the sparks of discontent from turning into flames. The Chinese media including private organisations are self discipline and impose self censorship to avoid getting into trouble with the law, but more importantly, to exercise discretion, objectivity and responsibility in reporting. Chinese people know too well that political instability will return them to the dark ages, living in fear of political extremism, stagnation and decline.

The Tiananmen generation are now middle age and have become part of the bourgeois class. Many are living overseas, not precluding those who remain, have successful businesses, careers or earning good royalty incomes from publications. Some among the Tiananmen heroes are disillusioned and circumspect with politics.

Gone are the days of a single dictator or all mighty party.  The Chinese Communist Party is a collective leadership and consolidating grassroots support is the key to the party's legitimacy. As long as it endeavours to ensure food security, respect for laws, implement social reforms and safety net, address environmental issues, and work towards equal opportunities and equity, revolutions are probably a thing of the past. Sorry to disappoint democracy advocates and fighters.

China's Confucius Peace Prize versus Nobel Piss Price

Zeng Yuhan accepted China's first peace prize today. There was not much fanfare and probably not as "prestigious" as the better known Nobel peace prize.  Nevertheless, it has certainly caused quite a stir and challenges the existing order. Should the western influenced Nobel committee continue to determine and impose its values and aspirations on less developed countries?  Apparently, China's economic power allows it to reject ideas that has passed through the western prism.

Quote :

" Zeng was chosen to accept the award on behalf of Lien Chan, the real winner and Taiwan's former vice president, because "children symbolize peace and future."

Members of the prize jury said Lien, who they deemed had made major contributions to bridging the gap between Taiwan and mainland China, could not attend the event for "reasons known to everyone" -- but apparently not to the recipient himself. "

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/12/09/china.confucius.peace/?hpt=T1


The Nobel Peace Prize is not like before. It has even been called a "piss" price by some commentators. This may be attributed to the inclination to subscribe strictly to standards set by liberal democrats, yet tarnished by hypocrisy and inconsistency.

Mahatma Gandhi did not win an international peace prize though he was nominated five times. But we are aware of his opposition to British colonial rule over India.

Deng Xiaoping deserves to win a human peace award for opening up China to the world, business, capitalism and freed a billion Chinese people from poverty and hunger.

If Tiananmen was a blemish for Deng, why wasn't Guantánamo a hindrance to President Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? 

 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/12/opinion/12iht-edmahbubani.html?_r=1&ref=liu_xiaobo

Stop arresting terrorist suspects and rioters in the name of freedom!  Must one only gain respect by following the rules and path dictated by those who have dominated and set the rules in the last two centuries? 

Unless there is mutual respect and level playing field, it looks like the Nobel Committee must review the conduct of affairs and decisions or else other contenders will give them a good run for its money.

The heroic Liu Xiaobo portrayed in the western media probably has more supporters outside mainland China than among the people he supposedly championed for.  Even a generous estimate of a million Chinese supporters represent barely 0.1 per cent of the total Chinese population.  The reality is probably much less. 

The People's Republic of China is made up of ethnically diverse communities and huge land mass with disparity in development.  China must bide time for an educated middle class to develop and evolve into a broad based democratic system that suits local context.  A free for all and complacent sort of democracy that has failed many developed countries would unravel all the economic gains and nation building efforts achieved  in the last 30 years.