看世界 Seeing the world

New York Times foreign correspondent in Shanghai, Howard French, wrote a "going away" (or "going home") article in the International Herald Tribune, as he is returning to the US after 3 decades of reporting from abroad. The last paragraph really struck me:

"Three decades ago, I set out on a journey desiring the world, and though one is humbled to know how much there is to be seen, and how little any one person can understand, there is little room for disappointment."

I also have a desire to see and, more importantly, understand the world. While my chosen career path means that I probably will not see as many places as French has, I will always be tempted to set off one day to wonder around the world. But more importantly, I desire that understanding of how people from vastly different backgrounds think about and view important issues and the world around them.

Re-organization

I'm in the mood for re-organizing, maybe because I've been re-organizing my life a bit recently. I just moved all of my things across town and am officially living with Zi. My visa situation seems to be working itself out, as I should have one until the end of July and then another visa beginning in September (yes that does mean I will be spending August back in the states). I'm working full time at BCPR until the end of July and then beginning in the fall, I will be working there as well as teaching at a new university.

Recently, a lot of what I've written on here has been politics and/or China related, and really that's what I enjoy writing about. I will continue to throw in personal stories and/or anecdotes whenever I feel like it. Because I have both articles and translations that have gone up on the NGO's website, I will also post those on here (both ones that are already up and ones that I write in the future). I also plan to post really, really good/interesting/relevant things that are written on the same topics either by my colleagues or by others (if you're looking for things to read online that are just good or really good, get google reader and add me as a friend. I share lots of news articles on there. Or ask me for blog recommendations). I've already added a bunch of posts in chronological order (meaning that the earliest ones are father down on the page...or see the list on the side).

To deal with all of this craziness, I now have labels for the types of posts (on blogspot), and they should be self-explanatory. As of right now, I'm not sure how much of this I will be cross-posting on facebook, and blogspot seems to be on the good side of the great-almighty censor (knock on wood). As always, I welcome any and all comments~

In defense of Ding Gang

One of my colleagues in the US (really) takes on a Washington Post commentator. It's a very harsh critique, though much of it is deserved. also here.

What is wrong with Edward Cody's article?

By Joseph Miller

Directly following the international community’s coverage of the Tibetan protests and the skirmishes following the Olympic torch, a bellicose and unexpected surge of protest arose from the Chinese people. On the web and on the pavement, citizens of the People’s Republic of China and overseas Chinese decried the western media for being biased and distorted. The most commonly entertained explanation for this fierce outpouring was twofold: a warped vision of the West and Tibet by Chinese government propaganda and a rising irrational nationalist feeling. But after reading the Washington Post’s, “In China, Fascination With Obama's Skin Color”, an analysis by Edward Cody of a Chinese article on the U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, I think its time we considered that the Chinese might be right about the Western Media, or at least Mr. Cody.

The Chinese article in question is called “The Obama Phenomenon” by Ding Gang (to read the English version, click here; to read the Chinese version, click here), and was printed after Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton to become the Democratic nominee. As for The Post’s bias, it is so pervasive in the article that one is at a loss over where to begin, as if surveying a totaled car of an article. But why not start with the title, “In China, Fascination with Obama's Skin Color”. Fascination? Ding Gang refers to Obama’s skin color in a purely academic manner, analyzing its likely affect on Americans. If one has read a multitude of Chinese articles on Barack Obama (this article only cites one) and consistently found that skin color was mentioned out of context of a larger American societal debate, one might begin to claim China was indeed fascinated by Obama’s skin. Mr. Cody seems to think it is ample to make this claim for 1.3 billion people based on the first sentence of Ding Gang’s article, which (according to Mr. Cody’s article) states that Obama’s skin color was the biggest focal point of the primary. Never mind the fact that this is an awfully strong translation of Ding Gang’s opening sentence, which can be read as saying, “Obama’s skin color has been one of the most observed aspects of this year’s American presidential race.”. The very next paragraph talks about Obama’s promise of change. “The Obama Phenomenon” extols how this presidential candidate is hugely talented and a representation of the American dream. Fascinated with skin color? It certainly doesn’t appear that way; multiple reasons are given for Obama’s appeal.

This is not to say that Ding Gang’s article doesn’t have a bias of its own. It is an extremely critical and cynical article, with what is very blunt and racially driven rhetoric. Chinese society may indeed have a rather blunt approach to the discussion of race, but the accusation that the U.S. is a nation in the Anglo-Saxon Protestant mold is an oversimplification to say the least. America is a multicultural and religiously pluralistic society; Anglo-Saxons make up only a small section of the white population (there are large Asian, Hispanic, as well as African American minorities) and Catholics outnumber any single Protestant denomination. In terms of Ding Gang’s analysis of Obama’s promise of change, he seems to be making the case that elections in the U.S. do not have a large influence. He states that Obama may represent change, but actually is in line with mainstream U.S. values and can do very little when he enters office. In addition, he compares the election between John McCain and Barack Obama as changing actors on a stage, reinforcing the idea that U.S. elections are a sham. Of course, because Ding Gang is a writer for the People’s Daily (a government supported newspaper) it might be in his interests to state that elections fail to change the government’s situation. To be as cynical as Ding Gang is a bit ridiculous. Hardly a mere actor, the U.S. president is a legislative, executive, and symbolic force. Barack Obama, with a Democratic Party-controlled Congress in tow, could make many real changes to U.S. military, economic, and trade policies. As a head of state, he could be a powerful, transformative symbol of a multicultural society. If he manages to have a successful presidency, he might forever dispel the notions of racial inferiority. This being said, Edward Cody’s critique of Ding Gang is simply flawed.

Perhaps one of the most mirthfully ridiculous claims Cody makes is in his first paragraph. He states: “America may be discussing whether Barack Obama is tough enough to field a 3 a.m. phone call, but for the Chinese Communist Party's official newspaper, the real issue is his race.” Having read Ding Gang’s article, it is baffling that Cody would write such a sentence considering that Ding Gang does discuss whether American’s think Obama is tough enough to answer the infamous 3 A.M. phone call. Ding Gang writes, “To borrow from the Hillary and Obama campaign’s advertisements, perhaps what may in the end decide people’s vote is the frame of mind, “Imagine its 3:00 A.M. at the White House and the red phone is answered; if the person answering is McCain, it would be more reassuring.”

It’s clear that Mr. Cody has no grasp of “The Obama Phenomenon” or the Chinese view in general. In any translation of a Chinese article that discusses skin color one is immediately struck by how the Chinese language uses the terms “black people”, “white people”, and skin color. The Chinese are not delicate about racial features, and as of yet haven’t taken on the politically correct language that many in the U.S. expect. Ding Gang’s article is no exception. He is blunt about the issue of race and gives a very straightforward argument on how Obama relates to American society and African Americans in general. However, can one truly say that the WASP driven culture, assimilation, and Obama’s relation to the African American community are settled issues? It likewise seems ridiculous to use Ding Gang’s article to paint him and the entire Chinese people as “fascinated” with skin color.

Mr. Cody uses a broad brush indeed. It’s quite clear by the third paragraph that he is using Ding Gang’s article to attack China on its treatment of Tibetans, Uighurs, and minorities in general. In a particularly snide remark, he states, “The editorial sought to explain that Obama's breakthrough should not be understood as a demonstration that race relations have crossed a threshold in the United States that China has yet to approach.” While it is true Ding Gang posited that one of the biggest factors in the primary was Obama’s skin color, Mr. Cody never really made an argument against that idea. Instead, he decided to use the painfully weak method of arguing against a foreign reporter by attacking him for the policies of a government in which he had no say, and have nothing to do with Ding Gangs article.

Perhaps more foul is Cody’s implication that Ding Gang is not a real person: “Ding Gang, a name frequently assigned to important analyses in a publication that plays the role of party bulletin board. Chinese journalists said they believe it is a pen name used by senior editors or other party propaganda officials conveying an official point of view.” In actuality, Ding Gang is the associate director of the International Department of The People’s Daily and “The Obama Phenomenon” appeared in its overseas edition. That Mr. Cody would make such an egregious error as calling the author’s existence into question is shocking, but as it appears he failed to do so much as read Ding Gang’s article it’s hard to imagine Mr. Cody thoroughly inquiring into fallacious hearsay regarding the Chinese writer.

In the West we tend to believe that we are privy to the most accurate press in the world; free of bias and factually accurate. But with China bashing inaccurate articles like, “In China, Fascination with Obama's Skin Color”, it is time we had a look at what newspapers and 24 hour news/entertainment channels are calling news. For an article that so distorts a Chinese author’s message (as well as claiming he isn’t real) to lash out against the Chinese government is reprehensible, especially since the original is not readily readable by the average Washington Post consumer. The blatant inability to have a coherent argument, accurately represent a foreign article, do basic fact checking, and leave out anti-Chinese sentiment makes Edward Cody and the Washington Post resemble a ridiculous screed. How ridiculous do the claims that China’s media is censored and useless appear when the Washington Post uses their freedom of speech to run a tabloid and call it news?

True Pride

“Personally, I have always thought of myself as trying to understand China and explain what the Chinese point of view might be.” Good article in Time about something that is important to understand. also here.

By Jiajia Liu

Just a few weeks ago, the west's view of china was dominated by thuggish torch guards, hypersensitive nationalists and a repressive government. But since the earthquake in Sichuan, the immense state-led rescue effort and the outpouring of charity from the Chinese people has taken center stage. Has the country really changed that much? Not really. The two phenomena on display — nationalism and compassion — are related facets of the vast, multidimensional nation that China is. When it comes to my homeland, I feel them both.

I left China in 1989, just after Tiananmen, when I was 7. My mother and I traveled to London to join my father, a Ph.D. student sponsored by the Chinese government. I grew up in London, and studied as an undergrad in the U.S. before going to Paris for a master's degree. My international education was a product of curiosity and restlessness. I am essentially a Westerner. Yet China has a special place in my identity — and in my heart.

When I first came to London, even the most pro-China overseas students denounced the Chinese government. I quickly swapped my faith in Chairman Mao for a conviction that the West would help the Chinese people advance to liberation and happiness. In school, I was taught to critically examine everything I was told. But I became perplexed by the behavior of the supposedly neutral media. No report of China was ever complete without a mention of Tiananmen; no Chinese interviewee ever had anything positive to say about his or her life. It seemed to me that Western media were exclusively highlighting the worst side of China.

My Western compatriots, normally so skeptical of the media, seemed to buy this depiction of China. Friends would tell me in low, excited tones that they were going to China. Would they be arrested? No, I would say: Chinese criticize the government all the time.

In the case of the protests against the Olympic torch relay, which were sparked by the Tibet crackdown, the angry response of ordinary Chinese was automatically presumed to be stoked by propaganda. The reality is that Chinese people are not a brainwashed bunch. While they may rely more heavily on domestic news sources, they do realize that the information is censored, and many who read English seek Western news. My Western compatriots, in contrast, trust solely in a market-driven Western press that caters to the popular mood and plays on public fears about a rising power culturally different from their own.

China is proud of its culture but also curious about other ones. Chinese people genuinely regard the Olympics as a wonderful way to introduce the world to their home. Opening your doors only to have them flung back in your face with misinformed and misguided moral disdain is deeply insulting. The Western press and public opinion are filled with condescension toward China, and the attitude that the West alone knows what is best for all peoples.

Why do I, a Western-educated Chinese, defend a country in which I don't live, and whose values are quite different from the ones I was raised with? To me, it is a question of simple mathematics. Twenty years ago, my parents could barely afford to buy me a $1 toy horse for my first Christmas present in London. Today, Chinese tourists flock to Louis Vuitton on the Champs Elysées. Life in China has gotten vastly better, and, wherever they are, Chinese can feel proud about being Chinese.

As for democracy, it remains to be seen what kind is suitable for China and when it can be introduced. Democracy is effective only when supported by the appropriate institutions and by cultural maturity. China is a vast country accustomed to imperial rule, where preserving overall harmony by suppressing individual freedoms is accepted. The current government is autocratic, but it is also adept at keeping the nation together by fast-tracking reforms. As an autocracy, moreover, Beijing can act with unparalleled efficiency for good, as shown in the massive rescue operation after the recent earthquake.

Perhaps my views qualify me as a nationalist. Personally, I have always thought of myself as trying to understand China and explain what the Chinese point of view might be. I have loved my international upbringing precisely because understanding — and appreciating — diverse cultural perspectives helps me overcome misconceptions, respect others and settle differences. The Sichuan earthquake, tragic as it was, has shown the world the compassionate face of Chinese nationalism. The human spirit underpins it and connects us all.

Jiajia Liu is a communications professional working for the WPP Group in London. She last visited China late last year

Who will maintain peaceful cross-Strait relations?

I usually find the Taiwan issue horribly boring, but this article translated by some of my colleagues in the US is rather interesting. also here.

An apology from Yan Xuetong

By Yan Xuetong, translated by Sean Ding and Heather Saul

[Yan Xuetong is the Director of International Studies at Tsinghua University]

Since 1999, when Lee Teng-hui put forward the “two nations” theory, I began to predict a possible military conflict in the Taiwan Strait. When Chen Shui-bian took office in 2000, I predicted that such a conflict would take place at some point before 2008. However, following this year’s election of the Taiwanese regional leadership and the failed UN referendum, relations are more stable than ever and there seems to be even greater prospects for peace. Thus, I would like to apologize to my readers for my false predictions. Secondly, I would like to engage in a mutual discussion concerning who is maintaining peace across the Taiwan Strait.

Some people believe that the present peaceful relationship between Taiwan and the Mainland is because the KMT is in power and Ma Ying-jeou has accepted the “1992 consensus.” Yet since 1979 there has been no war in the Taiwan Strait. So, who has been upholding peaceful relations?

The foundations of peace in the Taiwan Strait

Peace in the Taiwan Strait began in 1979 when the PRC decided to adopt a policy of peaceful reunification with Taiwan; it did not begin when Ma Ying-jeou won the general election in 2008. Contrary to popular belief, the civil war between the KMT and the Communist Party did not end in 1949, but continued until the end of 1978 with both sides conducting military attacks on each other for nearly three decades.

Peace is the absence of large-scale military violence. On January 1, 1979 an official letter entitled, “The Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress informs our Taiwan compatriots” declared: “The Chinese government has ordered that from today onwards, the bombardment of Kinmen and other islands will cease.” Indeed, since that day the Taiwan Strait has not witnessed any military clashes and has enjoyed 30 years of continuous peace.

The long-term peace in the Taiwan Strait is the direct result of the peaceful reunification policy adopted by the Mainland. After the KMT retreated to Taiwan, it never had the military strength to initiate a counterattack against the mainland. Likewise, the Korean War, which lasted from 1950-1953, showed that the U.S military could not overcome the People’s Liberation Army. The KMT was even less able to launch counterattacks on the mainland. Thus, the United States encouraged Taiwan to adopt a “two-China” policy or a “one China, one Taiwan” policy. In 1964, when China conducted nuclear tests (showing itself to be a nuclear power), the KMT government could only use the slogan “counterattack the mainland” as a piece of political propaganda, not as a realistic policy solution. In 1971, the PRC secured a legitimate seat in the United Nations, and in 1979 the United States normalized relations with the Mainland. This means that the desire by the US and Taiwan to initiate a attack disappeared and that as long as the mainland did not carry out military attacks against Taiwan, there was peace in the Taiwan Strait. This proves that the peaceful reunification policy that began in 1979 brought peace to the Taiwan Strait.

The underlying cause of long-term peace in the Taiwan Strait is based on the Mainland government’s principles concerning economic development. Since 1978 when the “reform and opening up” policy began, economic development has been the overriding mission of the Chinese government. Therefore, China’s policy priority has been to pursue relations as conducive to economic development. Reunification is just a political goal for the future. Beginning in the 1980’s, many Mainlanders believed that forceful reunification with Taiwan was not good for economic development on the Mainland. During the 1990’s, this understanding developed into the idea that military prevention of “Taiwan independence” was also not good for the Mainland’s economic development. In 1993, after Lee Teng-hui initiated the “Taiwan independence” policy, the “Taiwan Independence” forces blossomed. As these forces blossomed, the Mainland’s peaceful reunification policy was prevented from developing, leaving a more pressing issue: how to prevent “Taiwan independence.” As part of a military deterrence strategy against Taiwan independence, the Mainland practiced military exercises in the Taiwan Strait in 1996. However, this had no real effect on the Taiwan independence movement. Although many are suspicious that conducting military strikes could prevent “de jure independence,” the basic fact remains that as economic construction is the principle of the Mainland government, Beijing has never initiated military strikes in response to “Taiwan independence.”

New cross-Strait stability

The advent of 2008 has signified a new stable period of the Taiwan Strait. The Strait experienced both turbulence and stability in the past three decades: from 1979 to 1992, stability was achieved because the ruling parties on both sides opposed Taiwan independence, yet neither expected an immediate reunification. The 14 years between 1993 and 2007 was an unstable period, in which Taipei enthusiastically promoted independence, while the mainland could not tolerate such a policy. From 2008 onward, the Strait situation has again returned to stability, with no immediate danger of military conflict.

The current stability of the Taiwan Strait is based on two factors. First, Taipei’s authorities no longer use the “Taiwan independence” rhetoric in pursuit of national sovereignty, and second, the mainland would not react to a “Taiwan independence” challenge with force. As president Hu Jintao said on March 4, 2008 in his Taiwan policy speech, “We are always committed to our pledges to the Taiwan compatriots. We will never sway upon temporary fluctuations of the situation, or change upon a few individuals' deliberate disturbances”.

The presumption of the current stability of the Strait is that the two sides have agreed to shelve their controversies over the 1992 Consensus. Indeed, Beijing differs drastically from Taipei in terms of its interpretation of the 1992 Consensus. While the mainland insists that the essence of the Consensus is “one China”, Ma Ying-jeou’s administration believes that the two sides should agree to differ on the definition of such a concept. Ma suggests that while Taiwan and the mainland share a common Chinese culture, the two sides of the Strait should be two sovereign states. For instance, as recorded in the English edition of his inaugural address, Ma translates his original Chinese statement which suggests “both sides of the Strait belong to the same Chinese nation” into “In light of our common Chinese heritage”, reducing the externality of the “one China” concept to its minimum; also, after his electoral victory Ma introduced the policy of “mutual non-denial” for relations, indicating his unwillingness of being constrained by Beijing’s “one China” concept. In addition, Ma used both “Taiwan” and “Republic of China” as subjective in his inaugural speech, implying that “Republic of China” equals Taiwan. At the end of his speech, Ma even clearly defined Taiwan’s territory as including Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu.

Due to the two sides’ conflicting interpretations of the 1992 Consensus, shelving such disagreements has become an underlying presumption for peace. During the meetings between President Hu Jintao and the newly elected Taiwanese vice president Hsiao Wan-chang on April 7, 2008, Hsiao expressed his objections against the phrase “one China principle” printed on the official media report of his meetings with Hu. After this incident, Beijing’s official statements on Taiwan replaced the “one China principle” phrase with “1992 Consensus”. Such change represents the principle of “shelving controversies” in Beijing’s Taiwan policy, and indicates that mutual recognition of the 1992 Consensus is not sufficient for stability without shelving controversies over the Consensus.

Shelving controversies over the 1992 Consensus means that the both sides need to bring their disputes over sovereignty to an end. Since 1993 when Taiwan initiated its independence project, the nature of relations has transformed from power struggle to sovereignty dispute. As Ma Ying-jeou says in his inaugural address, “in resolving issues, what matters is not sovereignty but core values and way of life”. Ma also states that “Taiwan doesn't just want security and prosperity. It wants dignity. Only when Taiwan is no longer being isolated in the international arena can relations move forward with confidence”. Clearly, the presumption of relations pictured by Ma Ying-jeou resembles the separation of sovereignty between North and South Korea.

The future trend of peace

No military conflict will break out in the Taiwan Strait before 2016 if as long as both sides do not deny each other’s sovereignty. It is highly likely that Ma Ying-jeou will serve two terms. Beijing will not penalize Taiwan by military force for its attempts of expanding “international space”, as long as Ma keeps his commitment in “conducting dialogues based on the 1992 Consensus”. Under these circumstances, peace will be warranted. Ma Ying-jeou has proposed Taiwan’s participation in international organizations under the name “Chinese Taipei”: currently, Taiwan will participate in the Olympic Games as “Chinese Taipei”, and in the WTO as TPKM (Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, and Matsu). Hence, it is possible that Taiwan will join most of the international organizations under the name “Chinese Taipei” in or before 2016. If this is the case, relations in 2016 will be significantly more amicable than the relations between the two Koreas, because there is no nuclear issue between the two sides.

If the two sides can reach a peace agreement, it is likely that the two sides will establish a mechanism for military exchange. President Hu Jintao states in his March 4^th speech that “the negotiation will be conducted on an equal footing with completely open topics -- there is nothing we can't talk about. We should seek to address important issues such as politics, economy, military, culture and foreign relations through negotiations, and plan for the future development of relations”. Ma Ying-jeou responded to Hu’s proposal in his May 20^th inaugural address by calling upon the two sides to “pursue reconciliation and truce in both and international arenas”. Ma also suggests: “We should help and respect each other in international organizations and activities”. If the two sides construct a mutual assistance relationship in international organizations, there will be no obstacles for military exchange. Once the two sides conduct military exchange, the prospect of peace will be much more optimistic than peace on the Korean peninsula, where a military exchange mechanism is absent.

If the two sides maintain political dialogue, the development of the U.S.-Taiwan military cooperation will not trigger tension in the Strait. The military foundations of Taiwan independence rely on America’s military protection. Since a strengthened U.S.-Taiwan military cooperation will inevitably encourage the pro-independence forces on the Island, U.S. arms sales to Taiwan have always been a destabilizing factor. relations should remain peaceful, and Beijing will not deter Taipei for its arms deals with Washington, if the two sides take advantage of the current harmony and establish a military exchange mechanism that is capable of neutralizing the negative effects caused by U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. For instance, the U.S. government informed China on March 25^th that it mistakenly shipped four fuses for nuclear missiles to Taiwan in 2006. Although Beijing demanded Washington to conduct a thorough investigation, such an incident did not impact the development of relations. The fact that Ma Ying-jeou’s government will inevitably purchase arms from the U.S. will become a serious trouble for China; however, Beijing’s policymakers do not necessarily have to pressure their counterparts across the Strait in order to resolve the problem.

The stable trend of peace beginning from 2008 will undoubtedly promote peace and development in the Taiwan Strait, although no one can foresee if such a trend will effectively prevent Taiwan independence and further reunification. During the past 30 years, the Taiwan Strait has remained peaceful; reunification has yet to be achieved; and Taiwan independence forces have been strengthened. I hope that my forecasts on relations in the coming 8 years will not be proven wrong, as were the false predictions about a military conflict in the Strait that I previously made.

Morality check: the “running teacher” and public values in China

I really like this article. And I don't usually say that about things I like. Really! here.

By Jennifer Haskell

The May 12 Wenchuan earthquake acted as a mirror in which China saw a reflection of itself. And for the most part, the Chinese people liked what they saw. Sure, corruption is rampant among local governments, as embodied by collapsed school buildings, but the central government seems to genuinely care about the common people, as represented by the tears of Premier Wen Jiabao. The Chinese people also saw in their fellow citizens a willingness to selflessly help others in times of distress, a quality that was not immediately evident before the disaster. In the weeks following the earthquake, people found hope in the generosity of the millions who donated, in the bravery of the volunteers and soldiers, and in the stories of heroism, of parents and teachers who sacrificed their lives.

Ten days later a story of a different nature appeared online. Fan Meizhong, a high school teacher in Dujiangyan, a hard-hit town, wrote a post on the widely popular Tianya forum detailing his experience during the earthquake. When the disaster hit, he yelled, “Earthquake!” and then immediately ran from the room, giving his students no instructions. While his school was not damaged and no students were harmed, his students had remained in their classroom; not a single one had followed their teacher out of the room. He justified his actions by saying that there is no specific legal regulation that gives instructions on how a teacher should behave in an emergency, and those who expect him to act heroically are imposing their own expectations and sense of morality. According to Fan, his belief in liberalism allows him to be selfish and value his own life first; he would only be willing to sacrifice himself in order to save his daughter and would even leave his mother to die, a direct assault on the importance Chinese tradition puts on filial piety.

Obviously, his post caused an uproar among Chinese netizens, leading to his nickname “Running Fan” or the “Running Teacher” (Fan Paopao), and even to his firing. His actions were criticized as disgraceful, and people wondered why on earth he would publicize his cowardice. Yet, Fan Meizhong's story has also elicited a debate about morality in China, and provided an opportunity to re-examine the country's collective moral values.

Like other targets of netizens' outrage before him (see: Grace Wang), criticism of Teacher Fan quickly crossed the line of common courtesy. As Si Wenhan, the pen name for a member of the Standing Committee of Dadukou District People’s Congress in Chongqing, points out, no officials at any level of government, no matter how responsible they may have been for the collapse of “tofu dregs” school buildings, have been on the receiving end of such harsh censure. This all came to a head on June 7, when Fan Meizhong and Guo Songmin, one of his critics, met in a head to head debate on Phoenix TV, during which Mr. Guo, who seemed to see himself as the upholder of morality, had a string of harsh words for Teacher Fan. He called him “shameless,” “a beast,” and “a half-breed,” and showed no concern for common courtesies of debate, often interrupting his opponent. Because of Mr. Guo's behavior, Chinese netizens have named him “Guo the Clown” (Guo Tiaotiao), indicating that he had made a fool of himself. Since the TV broadcast, they have also generally been more sympathetic to Fan Meizhong than the moralizing Guo Songmin.

As numerous commentators have pointed out, one reason we should all hesitate before lashing out at Teacher Fan is that, in truth, we are all like him. As Cao Lin pointed out in the Oriental Morning Post, Fan Meizhong had the courage to tell his story, and “Who dares assert that they do not have a part of Fan Meizhong in them? Who dares say that in the far reaches of their minds, they have never had a flash of thinking like Fan Meizhong's?” Chinese netizens and “morality police” have taken their own fantastical, idealistic notions of morality and tried to enforce them among the general population. They forget that they, like Teacher Fan, are human and have the same human flaws of hypocrisy, conceit and insecurity, all of which came out during Guo Songmin's tirade.

Yet, the controversy surrounding Fan Meizhong has provoked more than nasty insults. His story and especially his rationale for running have stimulated a debate about what common moral values we can expect others to hold. Teacher Fan used aspects of liberalism and his right to pursue the safety of his own life over saving others as justification for his actions. Shao Jian, a teacher in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature at Nanjing Xiaozhuang College, however, believes that his understanding of liberalism is flawed. While liberalism grants people certain rights, it also requires certain duties, and in leaving his students behind, Fan Meizhong abandoned his duty as a teacher.

Additionally, while the liberal market system and liberal governmental systems often presume that all individuals will act selfishly in their own interests, only extreme believers in liberalism – like Ayn Rand – actually view selfishness and lack of charity towards others as praiseworthy. Heroism and even cooperation cannot be counted on but that does not mean they are not virtuous, as a belief in liberalism is most certainly not equivalent to valuing selfishness. Because there were no regulations instructing otherwise, it can be assumed that most liberals would see Teacher Fan's behavior as lawful but definitely not admirable. Had the same situation occurred in the United States, Americans would probably harbor similar feelings of disgust towards the “Running Teacher,” (Americans craved stories of heroism after 9/11 just as Chinese did after the earthquake) though there would also likely be more questioning of why the school or education system as a whole had no regulations governing teacher and student behavior during emergencies.

Teacher Fan's run – and especially his public account of his actions – certainly challenged the status quo of traditional thinking about morality in China. But where does that leave us in constructing new ideas about public values? Li Zhongqin, a writer and former member of the Shandong Writers Association, argues that the Chinese need to stop advocating ideas of morality that correspond more closely with the morality of a sage* or the morality of a hero. It is unrealistic to expect people to put others' interests before or even on the same level as their own. The morality police who self-righteously expect others like Teacher Fan to sacrifice their own interests and even possibly their lives for others are also acting selfishly and unfairly by putting a higher value on the lives of some over others (as Li points out, Fan Meizhong's students were all in their second year of high school – almost adults – not young children). While attempting to uphold such unattainable standards of morality, the idea of citizen's morality has still not truly emerged in China; such an idea makes use of the liberal assumption of innate selfishness, yet as Li explains, from this assumption can come win-win outcomes and mutual benefit. Such a moral system would still give praise and credit to those who act heroically but would not depend upon each person to do so.

Is China ready to adopt such a citizen's idea of morality? That is not entirely clear. By invoking the word “citizen,” in addition to requiring people in China to respect individual choices of others, Li Zhongqin also implies that people should also begin to engage and question the government, as per the duty of a citizen. Instead of dwelling on Fan Meizhong's personal failings, they should worry more about systemic problems, such as the collapse of schools and the lack of regulations regarding classroom behavior in the case of disaster. The firing of Teacher Fan indicates that China might have a long way to go, but at least the conversation has begun.

*In Chinese history, the sage is looked up to as someone who embodies the highest level of morality, with Confucius being the most famous and revered. In Li Zhongqin's article, the morality of a sage is higher than that of a hero, as the sage puts others' interests first, while a hero puts others on an equal plane.

How the earthquake can change China

here

By Jennifer Haskell

The Wenchuan earthquake, in addition to causing horrific damage and loss of life, has also elicited reflection on where China should go from here. Many Chinese have personally changed their attitudes towards life because of the quake, while others have sought direction for the government and country as a whole.

Wang Liping sees the aftermath of the earthquake as an opportunity for systemic government reform. He says that when the earthquake occurred, the government was drunk on the “Chinese economic miracle,” and the entire country was happily welcoming the Olympic torch. But the disaster changed everything.

After the May 12 earthquake, as the entire country came together, rushing to provide relief and rebuild, people realized the significance of “the disadvantage of late development,”* and couldn't help but ask, in a country that has created an economic miracle, how could the government ignore the warnings of the experts? How could so many primary and middle school buildings collapse? While natural disasters cannot be prevented, if effective systemic preparation takes place (including freedom of the press, freedom of association, democratic elections, etc), the government, in order to win the trust of the people, will take precautions before it is too late. The people can also organize their social power in order to further take precautionary measures, so when disasters occur, losses are limited. Because of the stagnation of political system reform, the earthquake's most horrifying damages occurred in front of the eyes of the world, and the government's rush to provide disaster relief cannot make up for the heavy losses (including loss of life). As illustrated by human experience, natural disasters often aggravate societal risks, as they have even caused the overthrow of dynasties. Because of this, the government and the party, in facing “the disadvantage of late development,” cannot put off this opportunity and instead must advance political system reform with urgency. The May 12 earthquake was a wake up call for the government on the need for reform. It also prompted the government and civil society to work together. A new opportunity for political system reform has come, can we take advantage of it?

Hu Shuli of Caijing Magazine also called for using the earthquake response as a motivating force for reform, more specifically the building of an effective disaster relief system. In recent years, China has faced many huge disasters, ranging from SARS, to this year's snowstorm, to the Wenchuan earthquake. And while these disasters bring to mind the phrase “difficulties strengthen a nation,” (duo nan xing bang) – a phrase that Premier Wen Jiabao famously wrote on the blackboard at a Wenchuan middle school – actions need to be taken to improve disaster prevention and response in the future.

The disaster management system should be built on a legal framework, with clear authority and responsibility, specialized organization, and a clear separation of duties between the central government and localities. The system must be able to analyze risks ahead of time in all areas and assess possible economic and infrastructure damage. Similarly, the disaster response system should take measures to limit losses in the case of disaster, ensuring that not just schools but all public buildings meet strict standards. Japan's work to ensure the safety of its school children after its devastating 1923 Kanto earthquake can provide lessons for China.

Additionally, such a disaster management system must be able to respond rapidly and effectively when disasters strike, as time equals lives. The response must be comprehensive and coordinated among the government, the military, as well as social organizations, in order to take advantage of the specializations that each party brings as well as make full use of all resources. The public also needs to be informed about how to respond in the case of disaster, and channels for donating to the relief efforts need to be set up, even though the main funding should still come from the government. The government should make every effort to be open and transparent with how it allocates money in disaster relief.

After the Wenchuan quake, people's attitudes have become very positive, and China must grasp this opportunity to build an effective disaster management system. While the government has focused a lot of attention recently on disaster relief, the response to the snowstorm in January as well as the earthquake in May prove that there is still much room for improvement. Additionally, we need to make sure not to confuse a strong and powerful government for a “great government.”

While the wounds from this earthquake will heal over time, it will certainly not be the last huge disaster that hits China. From this tragedy, we should build a comprehensive system for effectively managing disasters. This has become China's historic responsibility.

Zhang Lifan sees the outpouring of volunteerism brought about by the earthquake as an opportunity for reform, as the quake caused an awakening of the consciousness of Chinese citizens. Since 1949, even after Reform and Opening, civil society in China has been basically non-existent, and the corruption and bureaucratization of the system have left most Chinese indifferent towards politics and civic life. Hu Jintao's and Wen Jiabao's philosophy of “putting the people first” has attempted to build a “harmonious society,” but there is still much systemic inertia to overcome. While Chinese people have praised their premier's rapid response to the quake, they have also questioned the use of funds and resources by the government and government-run charity organizations, preferring to donate to NGOs that they trust.

The government has always been suspicious of civil society, but the relief efforts represented a huge achievement for social organizations in China, who were able to prove their usefulness to the government. Similarly, the calls to oversee relief funds also represent progress. In 1945, Mao Zedong spoke of the importance of oversight in keeping the government in check, but this has yet to be realized. Requiring government organizations to make public how they spend donations has the same reasoning as taxpayers being able to oversee how the government spends their money.

The large number of people who volunteered to help with disaster relief signals that the Chinese people are gaining a sense of social responsibility. How should the party respond to this awakening of the consciousness of the people? This is an intractable problem, as the current accumulation of populist power, expressed through yelling “Go China!” (jia you) at the Olympic torch relay, can lead to patriotism and nationalism in their traditional, formulaic shapes . As the process of modernization has produced populist sentiments, these often reflect dissatisfaction, anti-elitism, and resentment of the government, and they could also easily foster xenophobia, isolationism, or class warfare. Without government reform, including the elimination of corruption, playing with the fire of populism creates huge risks for the government.

As huge earthquakes reorganize the structure of the earth, they also have the potential to reorganize society. Two years after the 1976 Tangshan earthquake, China embarked on the path of Reform and Opening – a huge reorganization. Can the Wenchuan earthquake inspire a return to our human condition, boost people's morale, inspire awe and re-double our appreciation for being Chinese citizens? How will it affect Chinese society? There is no way of knowing today.

China needs to build a healthy, harmonious society of citizens, as under this idea, we are all volunteers.

Even before the earthquake relief effort died down, commentary in both the Chinese and foreign press turned to how this disaster will change China. Obviously, it is too soon to tell if and how the country will transform because of the quake. The openness with which the government conducted the relief effort could be a sign of change or it could be a false hope. Still, the hope is there that out of such a tragedy will come progress, in the form of democratic reform, building an effective system for disaster management, and/or a renewed sense of civic responsibility. The earthquake has already caused the government to re-evaluate the utility of NGOs and other social organizations, and although we do not know what will come of this re-thinking, the hope remains that such organizations as well as private citizens will continue to press for the positive changes that these and other Chinese commentators see as necessary for Chinese society.

*theory that asserts that late developing countries have the disadvantage of imitating and not innovating and thus lack the motivation for system reform.

A new kind of Chinese nationalism

I have one slight issue with this article I wrote. But I still more or less like it. here

Chinese nationalism: from May 4th to recent anti-foreign sentiment to disaster relief

By Jennifer Haskell

This year’s anniversary of the May 4^th Movement coincidentally fell at a time of resurgent Chinese nationalism in the face of widespread protests of the Olympic torch relay and allegations of anti-Chinese bias in the Western media. Thinking back 89 years, it becomes obvious that Chinese nationalism is nothing new and has deep roots in modern Chinese history. Many commentators have compared the recent events to the 1999 protests after the United States accidentally bombed the Chinese Belgrade embassy and 2005 protests of Japanese textbooks that gloss over history. Yet, today’s “angry youth” (fen qing) who have demonstrated in front of and called for a boycott of Carrefour also have forbearers in the early twentieth century, though unlike their May 4^th predecessors, they lack much of a motivating ideology that goes beyond love of country.

On May 4, 1919, students protested in Tiananmen Square against the Treaty of Versailles, which had been completed in April and gave Germany’s concession in Shandong to the Japanese instead of back to China. The students undoubtedly thought of themselves as patriots. They were indignant at foreign countries for taking advantage of and ignoring China’s interests and also at the new Chinese government for not daring to stand up to such encroachments. In anger, demonstrators burnt down the house of Cao Rulin, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and part of the Chinese delegation at the Paris Peace Conference. Growing support for the student-led movement forced the government to release arrested students, refuse to sign the Treaty of Versailles, and fire three targeted officials including Cao Rulin. The May 4^th demonstrations also promoted a rather effective boycott of Japanese goods in protest of Japan’s aggression against China.

Today’s nationalism has certainly taken a different, more modern face; much of it is expressed online in BBS forums and by attaching “[heart] China” to MSN screennames, and it has also spread to overseas Chinese who have demonstrated against the West’s treatment of their homeland. Different in form, much of the general sentiment is the same as the May 4 protesters’ almost 90 years ago. Chinese patriots again have a sense of being wronged by foreign countries, both in the biased and outright incorrect reporting on the March riots in Lhasa and the disruption of the torch relay by “Free Tibet” protesters in Western countries. Similar to other anti-foreign protests in the past – including the May 4^th movement – today’s nationalists have called for boycotts of foreign businesses, focusing on the French supermarket chain Carrefour, which has alleged but unsubstantiated ties to the Dalai Lama. Unlike in 1919, enthusiasm for the boycott died down quickly as some small protests occurred at stores throughout the country, but most people continued to shop.

Recent nationalism has focused more on wrongdoings by foreign countries, but it has also taken on Chinese citizens who are seen as “traitors” to the nation. Nationalist netizens have targeted Duke University student, Grace Wang, who urged dialogue with “Free Tibet” protesters and former heroine and handicapped torchbearer Jin Jing who opposed the Carrefour boycott. Wang, especially, has become an object of netizens’ anger, as the lives of her and her family members have been threatened, their home vandalized, and her high school diploma revoked. Today’s nationalists, unlike their 1919 predecessors, for the most part, have not targeted the government. The CCP has become rather adept at allowing Chinese citizens to vent through nationalism while not letting it get out of hand, both for the sake of foreign relations and the stability of the government. Xinhua and other media published a slew of articles condemning biased reporting in the West and the inflammatory remarks made by CNN’s Jack Cafferty, thereby proving the government's nationalist credentials. Yet when calls for a boycott strengthened, the government quickly attempted to dampen anti-foreign sentiment for fear it would become uncontrollable. The May 4^th Movement was a clear demonstration of dissatisfaction with the Nationalist government's handling of foreign affairs, and today, the CCP is quite attune to how quickly nationalism could turn against the Party.

Yet, the May 4^th Movement represents much more than pure anti-foreign, nationalist sentiment. It is inextricably intertwined with the New Culture Movement of the same period. The New Culture Movement, led by Chinese intellectuals including Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, advocated the adoption of Western ideas – the most iconic of which were Science and Democracy – in order to modernize and compete with the West. On the anniversary in 2006, while speaking at Beijing Normal University, Premier Wen Jiabao emphasized Science and Democracy as the main themes of the May 4th Movement, which should continue to be applied today, even going so far as to say that democracy includes criticism and oversight of government.

Still, the meaning of May 4^th, the New Culture Movement, and the ties between the two are up for debate. While some claim that the New Culture Movement represented not a revival of culture as Hu Shi claimed but a total destruction of traditional Chinese culture, while others assert that it was not a renunciation of all traditional culture but was more of a search for ideas that worked. Others argue that May 4^th and the New Culture Movement should not be conflated, and Hu Shi himself saw the two as very separate. Instead, the CCP created the idea of a close connection between the two, utilizing the legacy of May 4 for its own purposes and defining the movement in a way that has set up the Party as the movement's natural successor. Still, even if one sees the May 4^th Movement in isolation from the New Culture Movement, there is no doubt that May 4 and the spirit it represented helped push forward new intellectual thought in the early twentieth century and that it remains a symbol of “Science and Democracy” in the consciousness of the PRC. An article in the Beijing Daily described the May 4th Movement as a search for a new direction, something which definitely applies to the New Culture Movement as well. At the time, China was in a state of flux and seeking the appropriate response to changes thrust upon the country as well as its own place in the world.

There is no doubt that contemporary China is also in the midst of great change, as the Chinese people once again are trying to figure out where they stand. The paradox of both standing up to the West while at the same time utilizing Western ideas was certainly not reconciled in 1919, and today's young nationalists represent a similar paradox. Despite resentment towards the West, it is unlikely that many Chinese today would wish to return to the isolation of the Cultural Revolution. Their lifestyles demonstrate that they have benefited from Reform and Opening, but they do not see Western ideas, least of all democracy, as a panacea. In fact, the “angry youth” come across as distinctly undemocratic, as their treatment of dissenting opinions makes clear. In addition to vilifying Grace Wang, they have also attacked Chang Ping, former deputy editor in chief at Southern Weekend, for arguing for a freer media to counter Western media bias as well as a re-thinking of the Dalai Lama, likely causing him to be demoted. So, other than doubt of the West, what do today's young nationalists stand for? An article in the Southern Metropolis Daily asked this question and concluded that today's youth, unlike previous generations of nationalists, do not have any unifying ideology. While today's “angry youth” are definitely searching for a new direction for China, just as their May 4^th predecessors were, they have not provided many answers as to what that direction could be. If not “Democracy and Science,” then what? To stand for nothing, beyond support for one's country right or wrong, is dangerous and could justify Western worries about the future nature of China's rise.

In a recent op-ed in the International Herald Tribune, David Shambaugh discussed the existence of two types of nationalism in China – “aggrieved, defensive nationalism” and “confident and proud nationalism.” The violence that occurred on May 4 certainly exemplified defensive nationalism, as did the branding of traitors during this year's controversy. In 1919, patriotic Chinese had good reason to be angry after years of exploitation and abuse by foreign powers. However, China today, after many years of stunning economic growth and increasing international influence, has many more reasons to be confident in its nationalism. Furthermore, it is more likely that proud, not defensive, nationalism will achieve the international respect that is sought. After the recent devastating earthquake in Sichuan, the Chinese people are displaying such proud, confident nationalism. The outpouring of support and grief for those affected by the disaster, in the form of volunteering, donations, and expressions of solidarity, from Chinese all over the country – especially from students – has been impressive. The response to the disaster has done nothing if not demonstrate how nationalism, in its proud, confident form, can help a country come together to overcome adversity in a constructive, positive way.

Lack of public oversight, wealth inequality: worrisome signs in 2008

This is the first major translation I did. After it first went up, I read it again and decided it sucked but oh well. here

By Zhong Peizhang, translated by Jennifer Haskell

(The author of this article is the former Chief of the News Bureau at the Central Publicity Department of the CPC. Chinese version)

"I am the type of person who fully recognizes suffering; I fear that this year will be the most difficult for the Chinese economy." Wen Jiabao

After the 17^th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, the eleventh session of the National People's Congress opened. Both meetings focused on the topics of democracy and the people's livelihood, and both paid great attention to improving the situation for China's rural residents and improving the well-being of the people. As an element of political system reform, administrative reform also took a step forward. This demonstrates that China is continuing to move forward with reform, and that the tide of history is in the hearts of the people and the party.

In its thirty years of reform and opening up, China has achieved huge successes, which have been praised by both Chinese and non-Chinese alike. There are even those outside of China that summarize China's experience as "the Beijing Consensus," which is praise enough to make one drunk with happiness. Open a Chinese newspaper and the "main themes" all sing the country's praise, while other voices are rarely or never heard. Turn on the television and on each channel you can see performances that extravagantly and luxuriously sing a song of peace and prosperity as well as spectacular feats of engineering. Because of this, people cannot help but adopt the mindset of those passengers aboard the Titanic, entirely unaware that they could hit an iceberg or suffer the surprise attack of a storm. According to a study by the American Pew Research Center on the degree of optimism in seventeen countries, 76% of Chinese respondents believe that the future is bright, more than in any other country.

In fact, the gaps between the rich and poor and between the city and the countryside have widened and corruption has not been contained. The weak state of education, healthcare, and social security systems has not changed, as it remains difficult to afford schooling, housing, and doctors' visits. We are destroying our ecological environment and the problems worsen each day. In facing this reality, people have differing opinions. Currently in China there are two debates: move forward or go back? Move gradually or move radically?

There is no road back.. The Party's 17^th National Congress already gave a clear and resounding answer to that question. However, as long as the situation described above does not change, there will be cries to return, and even cries to "make class struggle the guiding principle', a return to the rhetoric of the Cultural Revolution.

Based on historical experience and China's current situation, the NPC and CPPCC have taken to follow the correct sequence to gradually institute reform as their main tune. Furthermore, gradualness has become the consensus of more and more people. At the same time, if the problems outlined above are not resolved or if reform comes to a standstill as bureaucracy, vested interests, and monopoly groups use "stability first" and other such slogans to cover, obstruct or even submerge reform, radical conflict could break out at any time. We still need to watch out for repeated mass incidents that could one day become furious enough to threaten governance by the CPC.

So should we move forward or go back? Should we move gradually or move radically? These two debates will continue in China for a long time.

Where does the worry come from?

As the year 2008 began, China experienced a disastrous snowstorm that froze half the country and left many southern locations paralyzed. The electric power network collapsed in many areas, food shortages arose, and many workers returning home for the Spring Festival ran into difficulties. The crisis brought to light the deficiencies in China's preparation for dealing with such disasters and its emergency response system. It also exposed China's coal reserves and energy crisis as well as the negative consequences of corruption, as monopoly companies had used inferior materials, which weakened the nation's power network.

Thanks to global warming, this type of extreme weather condition could easily become a common occurrence instead of a once in a lifetime phenomenon. A March 19 article on the Christian Science Monitor's website by Jacques Leslie highlighted some of the environmental problems that have resulted from China's rapid economic development, including deforestation and desertification. Leslie asserts, "Of course, what the Chinese are chiefly guilty of is emulating the American economic model, in promoting the development of the automobile industry as a centerpiece of growth, which worsens traffic as well as pollution."

China needs to be on its guard against multinational corporations that take advantage of the deficiencies of the country's environmental protection management, and more and more people are attuned to the actions of these corporations. Beijing officials are taking temporary measures to cut down on pollution for the Olympic Games, but no one knows whether this will continue to be a focus after the event concludes.

Other worries include the possibility of American economic woes affecting China, as prices in the mainland are already facing large inflationary pressure. And as Beijing prepares to host the Olympics, the Lhasa riots have woken people up to the possibility of other attacks. We all must be attuned to the possibility of facing a huge disaster. In today's circumstances, how can China's 1.3 billion people only rely on our prime minister's "full recognition of suffering"? When do we make our officials at all levels wake up from their focus on creating GDP growth and constructing their own image and earnestly bear responsibility to the people for the success of future generations?

Who will monitor the spending of the people's money?

During the past 30 years of rapid economic development, China has accumulated a large amount of wealth. Wen Jiabao's report on the work of the government listed a series of dazzling figures: China's GDP in 2007 reached 24.66 trillion RMB, the fourth largest in the world. Total government revenue reached 5.13 trillion RMB, increasing by a factor of 1.71. Foreign currency reserves surpassed 1.52 trillion RMB, the largest in the world. Speaking at the NPC, Hu Jintao said that China's success is owed to the people. Under the leadership of the CCP, all of the Chinese people have made concerted efforts and struggled tenaciously for this result.

China has begun to accumulate wealth, but who is actually wealthy? How much benefit have the people actually received during reform and opening up?

According to the analysis of Professor Chen Zhiwu, after accounting for inflation, from 1995 to 2007, government revenues increased 5.7 times. At the same time, the per capita disposable income for city and town residents' only increased by a factor of 1.4, while farmers' per capita disposable income increased by a factor of 1.2. Tax revenue is only the most obvious parts of government revenue. In reality, the government is China's largest holder of assets, so as the country's economy has developed, the increase in value of government owned enterprises, public land, and mineral resources is greater than that of tax revenue. The speed of increase is also faster. More than 76% of assets in China are owned by the state, leaving the people with less than 25%. Counting allocable revenue from assets along with the 5.1 trillion RMB in tax revenue, last year the government's total allocable revenue was 15.7 trillion RMB.

As the above situation demonstrates, the reality of China today is that the country is rich while the people are poor. As Professor Chen Zhiwu points out, the biggest gap between the rich and poor in China today is between the state and society, not among the majority of the people.

Government officials are also public servants, and in their hands, they have a large amount of the people's money. How is that money spent? This is a question that people in all modern countries have the right to ask. In a country governed by law, the most important thing is that the money is governed by law. When government exercises the right to do good things for the people, the most basic thing is managing money well. In modern nations, as taxpayers, the people strictly monitor how the government spends their money. At this meeting of the NPC and CPPCC a strong voice should call to account: 5 trillion in state revenue, plus 0.7 trillion of excess revenue, how is it spent?

Who is monitoring how the government spends the money? China has not implemented a separation of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government in a system of mutual restraint, as it is said that this is a capitalist concept, while China is implementing the socialist people's congress system. The people can entrust essential oversight to the National People's Congress. However, the NPC has so far not sincerely carried out its work of overseeing public finances, which is appalling. According to an official in the Ministry of Finance, Jia Kang (Director of the Ministry of Finance's Research Institute of Fiscal Science), each year during the time the NPC is in session, the Ministry of Finance sends a group of mid-level cadres to each small meeting to explain the ministry's actions and answer questions raised by the NPC. For the past few years he has not had any opportunity to speak at these meetings because no deputies have raised questions. What people further do not understand is that the NPC has taken this sacred responsibility, bestowed on it by the people, and given it to the government itself. When there is no system of oversight, government inevitably begins to operate in a "black box" and abuse its power, especially when it comes to excess revenue. Some provinces and cities use any means possible to persuade central government offices and leaders to approve their plans and allocate money to them. How does this prevent corruption?

Without a strict oversight system, there is no transparency in public finance. People again put their hopes in the "Sunshine Act," which namely oversees officials' assets. As early as 1766, Swedish citizens had the right to examine a list of how much everyone from ordinary to top officials paid in taxes. This system, which has been used as a reference by many countries around the world, became a very effective anti-corruption mechanism, so it became known as the "Sunshine Act." Currently, more than ninety countries around the globe have systems where officials must report their assets, including the Asian countries of Singapore and South Korea, and China's SARs of Hong Kong and Macao. These systems play a vital role in fighting corruption. In October 2005, the NPC approved China's ascension to the "UN Convention against Corruption." As the convention stipulated, "Each State Party shall consider establishing, in accordance with its domestic law, an effective financial disclosure system for appropriate public officials and shall provide for appropriate sanctions for non-compliance." In the past few years, there have already been many deputies, such as Wang Jinjie from Yantai, Shandong and Han Deyun from Shanghai, who have continuously proposed bills and suggestions related to a system for reporting officials' assets at the meeting of the NPC. Chinese people from all walks of life are also very interested in this topic. In January 2008, more than fifty retired high level officials and scholars signed a letter to the NPC and CPPCC requesting that they quickly formulate and implement a "Law for the Public Reporting of Officials' Assets at the County Level or Above", but many officials resisted on technical grounds. So, to this day, we still have not seen this vital aspect of the legal system formulated or implemented.

Only with a strict, effective system of oversight can we effectively prevent corruption. This is not only important in managing the people's money but also in cultivating people's talents to become good cadres and officials.

In answering a reporter's question at the NPC press conference, Premier Wen Jiabao said, "In the next five years, we will resolutely advance the reform of the public finance system so that the people's money will be better spent in pursuit of the people's interests." The people hope that they will not have to wait five more years before they can see an open and transparent financial system.

"Only if you put the people in your heart can the people allow you to govern"

These words were said at a press conference by Wen Jiabao. People can see that as a country's economic situation improves, officials consider how to bring that benefit to the people. Not only Singapore, but also China's Hong Kong and Macao have acted in this way. Russia is also a great example. After the collapse of the USSR and the disaster of "shock therapy," Putin's powerful measures have helped the country's economy recover, as last year's growth rate reached 8.1%. At a news release conference, a Western reporter asked about Russia's presidential elections, "Why is there no competition in the Russian politics?" Putin answered, "Wages have gone up by 16%, that is my answer for you." His answer reflects the idea of putting the people in your heart. With people at the center of Russia's economic growth, they can earnestly benefit, and Putin and his officials can safely retain the leadership positions given to them by the people.

Another question worth thinking about is why China continues to rely on cheap exports and does not call on its own great purchasing power. Why is America's purchasing power the highest in the world? In the US, the government owns virtually no productive assets, while in China the government owns 76% of all assets. Americans' have a savings rate of –1%, while at the same time they invest in stocks and mutual funds, and they can rely on the rising value of their assets to make money. We cannot believe that the state-owned economy will make us rich. "There has never been a country that got rich while maintaining a large state-owned economy, and there has never been a country that truly relied on the state system for wealth." (Chen Zhiwu, The Driving Force for the Future of the Chinese Economy). Besides in "returning the wealth to the people", the country should also "hide the wealth within the people," thus, the private economy must be actively encouraged to develop for the benefit of the people.

How can we still reform gradually?

Gradual reform has already become the consensus of more and more Chinese people.

There are many historical arguments for gradual reform. Right before his death, Engels changed his thoughts on how to create a socialist society, saying that the old capitalist system could be changed peacefully via the democratic and constitutional processes. Additionally, in the 20^th century, many European countries used gradual reform to put democratic socialism into effect. Within the capitalist structure, countries like Sweden, via the development of production capability and regulating allocation, have basically eliminated the gaps between city and countryside, between workers and farmers, and between laborers and management. They have also prevented the rise of a privileged class and put an end to official corruption.

The United States also used gradual reform to achieve its success. Despite experiencing economic crises, social crises, racial conflict, and cold and hot wars over the past hundred years, the US not only avoided violent revolution, coup-de-tat, or other forms of government overthrow but also became the lone superpower. The US's success can be credited to its gradual reform, as its defining characteristic is gradual improvement and compromise, both of which work to neutralize conflicts and crises. Additionally, one can learn from the failure of Russia's radical reform in the 1990s and the mistake of copying Western models without regard for the local situation.

China's thirty years of gradual reform prove that this road is the correct one to lead the country towards success. The Chinese people have survived long periods of chaos and disaster and suffered much harm. How can we continue to advance? Deng Xiaoping's deep and wise words, "crossing the river by feeling the stones," means that China's reality must be clearly recognized and policies must be based on it. However, this is not to say that we can unswervingly hold onto the notion of "stability before everything else." Our goal is still to "cross the river," and follow the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and this means continuing with reform and opening up in order to advance.

The three essential points of gradual reform

How can we ensure that gradual reform continues?

1. Emancipate our minds

Hu Jintao said, "emancipating our minds is precious," while Wen Jiabao added that emancipating our minds can never stop. Both are correct. Only by emancipating our minds can we take all of humanity's creation and use it towards civilized achievements to enrich our thinking. Only by emancipating our minds can we cultivate our own skill to the level of mastery and enrich our creative talent. Only by emancipating our minds can China stop acting as the "factory of the world," and become a country with high levels of intellectual property creation, with the Chinese people contributing to modern human civilization.

In order to emancipate our minds, we first need to thoroughly destroy "capitalist phobia". We believe what the Communist Manifesto, the bible of Marxism, clearly points out, that capitalist creation of wealth creates much more wealth than what was created in any other period of human history. Even today, in many areas, capitalism creates the vanguard of production capability. Only if you have the ability to climb to the peak of capitalist creation can you then create a new peak of socialism. Why do we want to bind ourselves by Mao Zedong's "Two All" or the slogans of other leaders, but dare not take the clearly useful experience of the past hundreds of years of capitalist creation for our own use?

2. Earnestly advance government system reform

If we sincerely want to resolve the issues pointed out at an early time by Deng Xiaoping, the excessive accumulation of power and the separation of party and state, we must earnestly make the legislature and judiciary independent. In its many years, the NPC has passed many laws, but it has not conscientiously done work towards its oversight function. At many levels of government, the heads of the people's congresses are often also the head of the government. Many governors or mayors are also people's deputies, both athlete and referee. How can someone oversee himself? The NPC should earnestly oversee the government's finances and quickly formulate and put into practice a system to report on officials' assets. Hong Kong set up the Independent Commission Against Corruption, which effectively monitors all of the region's officials, so why can't the mainland do it too?　

3. Guarantee free speech and set up community oversight

It is impossible to imagine a country on earth or a type of society that is perfect and without fault, where everything is harmonious and without contraction. The issue lies in choosing to expose weakness and resolving contradictions or choosing to shut the lid, allowing problems to intensify and moving towards corruption and break down. One could say, since its birth, capitalism has matured by listening to those who expose its weaknesses and provide criticism. Even today, the Western world still thinks of Marx, the 19th century philosopher who proffered the most severe criticism of capitalism, as the world's greatest thinker. In the US, from politicians to ordinary citizens, most believe that spiritedly blowing the horn of criticism is a "main theme" of society and provides lubricant for societal advancement and a catalyst for government reform.

As forces continue to move China forward, along with the wise leaders at all levels who make decisions, China also depends upon the initiatives of members of society at all levels as well as on the oversight of public opinion. In past Chinese dynasties, wise leaders always utilized criticism and oversight for the advancement of governance. For example, Tang Taizong regarded Wei Zheng's criticism as necessary and valuable. Today, however, some Chinese officials do not hear opposing views, and some county party secretaries have jailed those who disagree with them. Why is the positive power of loving one's country and one's people regarded as a scary, hostile power? We need to sincerely safeguard the right to free speech. The United Nations passed the "International Convention on the Rights of Citizens and Governments." As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, China signed the convention ten years ago, but we are still waiting for the NPC to approve implementation of the agreement. The people also hope that the NPC can formulate and implement laws to safeguard freedom of the press that have been discussed for the past twenty to thirty years.

As the author of Cold Eyes Towards the West, Zi Zhongyun points out, "in one word, the separation of powers, supervision of public opinion, and the critical spirit of intellectuals, can these special American good luck charms continue to effectively restrict the power of money and the market? This is America's biggest test as it enters the 21^st century." We have definitely not reached the end of history, as the advancement of development has always come from struggling with contradiction. All countries have endured these types of tests. Let our country face these tests and advance without fear.

Chinese leaders have already said the words that many people hope to hear. A thousand miles begins with a single step. Now people hope to see sincere action. Taking education as an example, the quality of education determines the quality of a people and the people's destiny and future. Chinese leaders say they want to prioritize education, but for many years, the amount of money put into education is still not more than what is spent on state-owned cars and food and drink at the public's expense. The UN standard for education spending is 6% of GDP. The average level worldwide is 4.9%, while the average for developing countries is 4.1%. China's education spending has fluctuated between 2-3%, with the set goal being to reach 4% by 2010. Although many NPC and CPPCC deputies have appealed for action, education spending still did not reach 4% in 2007. We say we want universal compulsory education, but today in China more than 80% of primary schools and more than 64% of middle schools are in rural areas. Furthermore, many county governments have large debts, so how can they guarantee the quality of compulsory education? Leaders say that education must be fully supported in spite of financial constraints and that they want to make China into a country of creation. Now our country has money. Can we resolutely study the high levels of investment that countries like Sweden and Holland put into education and become a world leader in creation? The people are waiting.

麻烦 My day of annoyances

There is no English word like 麻烦. It basically means annoying or to annoy, but really those words do not live up to how great the word 麻烦 (ma fan) is. And really, today has all been about 麻烦.

First there was the 事情 that began yesterday. In trying to get a visa for the summer, I've been working though connections of connections, which means I need to go to 无锡 Wuxi, a city in Jiangsu, China. It also means the people who are helping me with this don't give a damn about me or my schedule. After I called them, they told me I need to go to Wuxi this Sunday. Which is great except that I have final exams scheduled for students this Monday. And apparently the time they schedule to process this visa cannot be changed. So now I need to change exam times for 50 students from about 5 different classes, some of which I don't have contact information for.

Then there's the little things: the student who called me this morning saying he can't make his exam time on Thursday and therefore he needs to take it on Monday (I think I forgot to tell him i'll be in Wuxi...). Another student just called, asking where I was. This is a student who I think may have come to class once before the final exam. Maybe. She's the only English major student who I did not recognize. Which means she never gave a speech, which means she needed to give one this Thursday. Apparently when I said Thursday she heard Wednesday. I would feel sorry for her but she never came to class.

Then there's the random person who had added me on MSN awhile ago. I said yes cuz I figured I must know this guy from somewhere. So he ims me today asking who I am. He thought I was Joseph Haskell, a common mistake with my email address. Everyone thinks i'm someone else. He keeps bothering me asking for Joseph's email address. Obviously I have absolutely no idea who Joseph is. It turns out this guy is a 12 year old from Canada. Before I found that out, he had asked my age and if I was married.

挺麻烦·

美国选举 Presidential Politics

So the primary is finally over, and as we have known for awhile, Obama emerged the victor. Ever since Bill Richardson (hands down the most qualified candidate) dropped out of the race, I have been a Clinton supporter. Her policy positions are so similar to Obama's, and on policy, I am split between the two, but I honestly believe that Clinton would be a better leader and president than Obama would, and I greatly admire her perseverance.

Still, I am not an avid Clinton supporter. I did not request an absentee ballot and vote in the Pennsylvania primaries (even though I see it as my civic duty to do so) because I was tired of the long horse race, as well as some of the tactics her campaign used. I admire Obama and understand how he inspires so many people. And I will happily vote for him in November.

And yes I think there was an implicit element of gender in the race, and as a feminist I find this disappointing and insulting. And yes I think Hillary should have addressed this, as Obama addressed the racial element. Women still have a long way to go to actually achieve equality, and I will forever look up to Clinton as a model for what strong women can achieve, as well as a symbol for the barriers women face.

Still, I do not think Obama is sexist. If he is, he is still much less so than McCain is, plus his policies are obviously more progressive and in the interest of the common people than McCain's. That's why I find it disappointing that some Clinton supporters are saying that they will not support Obama in the fall. I hope that they take the time to consider the policies and histories of the two candidates and realize that Obama is the smarter choice. Yes, women often lost opportunities to others, but we should also be able to celebrate Obama's historic achievement as well. Let bygones be bygones and support the Democratic Party's chance to take back the White House.

纪念日 Anniversaries

Chinese remember anniversaries with dates.

5/4 is the May 4^th Movement

10/1 is the founding of the PRC,

8/1 is the founding of the PLA (the CCP's/China's army)

Of course there are dates that aren't remembered publicly. For decades, people in Taiwan could not speak of 2/28, when KMT forces crushed pro-native Taiwanese protesters. And of course there is today: 6/4.

The beginning of the disconnect between Chinese and Westerners about this date is the name. If you refer to “Tiananmen” to a Chinese person, he or she will think of the Gate of Heavenly Peace and Tiananmen Square – symbols of national pride. If you refer to the “Tiananmen Square Massacre,” he or she will might not know what you are talking about. If you refer to the “Tiananmen Square protests,” he or she will probably wonder which protests you are referring to (there were protests in front of the gate in 1919 and in the square in 1976 and 1987 as well...and i'm probably forgetting some). However, if you say 6/4, he or she will (probably) know exactly what you are talking about.

Similarly, while today's Chinese students may not recognize the “guy in front of a tank” picture, which to the West is symbolic of 6/4, they still talk about and care about this event, even if they were not born at the time. I've talked to Chinese students from the high school camp this past summer about it as well as current college students. They've told me their parents' experiences and are interested in the ideas that 6/4 brings up, even if they realize that such a movement would not be possible today.

While I will readily admit that the Western media over uses this incident as proof of the Chinese government's brutality, etc, I also firmly belief in the right to peaceful protest and am firmly against the covering up of history. So...

永远不要忘记 – Never forget.