Food safety cannot be removed from media oversight

A second translation I've done about government controlling of the media during this incident. Also here.

By Zhang Qianfan (a professor of constitutional law at Peking University), translated by Jennifer Haskell

Recently the Shijiazhuang municipal government publicly apologized for the Sanlu powdered milk incident. The city received a report from Sanlu at the beginning of August about the problem, but "did not entirely comprehend," "did not fully estimate the consequences," and "dealt with it inadequately." Once again, in order to protect local enterprise and control "negative influences," the city government allowed more than a month to go by without reporting it, causing the state of affairs to creep towards a stage where it could not be managed. The entire powdered milk crisis demonstrates that food safety is obviously the moral responsibility of the company and it is the government's duty to supervise. However, this incident also proves that when we cannot rely on local governments and enterprises, on whom can we rely? Why, when the cases of infant kidney stones appeared before August, did we not hear a single media report? Just think, if the Sanlu milk powder problem had been reported at the time it first appeared, would it still have caused so many infants to become sick and even die? Would the Shijiazhuang government still "not entirely comprehend" and "not fully estimate the consequences"? Would city leaders, because they "seriously affected the party's and the city's image," have lost their posts? Based on the reasons revealed by the city government spokesperson, there were no media reports about the problem because Sanlu "asked the city government to strengthen its control and coordination of the media," so the city government obviously complied. Because all over the country people did not realize the problem with powdered milk, finally today everyone has seen or experienced an episode of the problem themselves.

The Sanlu incident demonstrates that we cannot trust the companies and cannot necessarily trust local government. Under the premise of revenue being basically stable, enterprises will do anything possible to lower production costs. As long as it does not cause problems, like the powdered milk incident, which are serious and obviously harmful, or to say it more precisely, as long as such harm does not lead to extra costs, profit maximization by any method is the "rational choice" of enterprises. In the local government's point of view, a company like Sanlu – one of the top 500 Chinese companies – not only means local taxes but also represents the local "government achievement," bearing the image of the local government itself. Because of this, when its products had problems, the local government's first reaction was to help the company control the negative social effects, then hope they pass, managing themselves and reducing harmful effects, calming the situation and deceiving. Finally, the local government and companies get through the situation unscathed, to everyone's satisfaction. The problem is, because of a lack of media oversight, the general public knows nothing about this entire process, cannot do anything to guard against it, and therefore faces a huge health and security risk. One day, the local government fails to manage the crisis, delaying controlling it until the last moment, so that a local risk becomes a national disaster. In the end, for the local government and company's "image," they now have to pay the costs for consumers scattered across the entire country; in the powdered milk incident, this is first and foremost hundreds of thousands of kidney stones in infants.

Actually, the Shijiazhuang government does not need to excessively reproach itself, because from its perspective, after the Sanlu incident occurred, the measures taken within the government could not be called "inadequate." The government and Sanlu miscalculated, actually "not fully estimating the consequences." They did not realize that melamine would become such a big force all over the country, causing such a mortal disaster, even causing human casualties. If this had been known earlier, at the beginning, the information should not have been concealed and the media should not have been "managed and coordinated" by the government. However, in this case, the Shijiazhuang city government's comprehension is seemingly still lacking; the government should apologize to the entire country not for "dealing with it inadequately," and definitely not for "lacking political sensitivity," but for delaying reporting the incident. Furthermore, the government should not help companies by "controlling and coordinating" the media, leaving everyone in the dark and not realizing that they are bearing a huge security risk and harm.

As the general public, the thing we care about most is not that the powdered milk incident damaged some famous brands' business prospects or the careers of some of the people responsible. Instead, we care about the flaws that were exposed in the system that caused public harm and the lessons that can be drawn from the crisis. Since the government and companies certainly cannot always be trusted and since they even sometimes intentionally create falsehoods, have mistaken judgment, or supervision is not adequate, we cannot put our entire fate in their hands, and eventually pay the price for their various mistakes. A safe and secure society most have the ability to save itself, and the premise for saving oneself is information. May we ask if the public is entirely ignorant of safety risks, how can we protect ourselves against them? In fact, in terms of what the governments to do, this is easier – it just needs to guarantee the free flow of information. At the very least it cannot fail to bring to light public information that it has and cannot intentionally suppress important information relevant to public health and safety. In other words, the government, during this type of incident, can just let go and not manage, and the country will be better for it.

Of course, some people may ask, what if the information is not true? What if it damages the company's name? The answer is very simple: the constitution stipulates that China should be a country with the rule of law, so we can resolve this type of problem through legal means. If the media reports of melamine in Sanlu's powdered milk were proven in a courthouse to be simply untrue, and the rumors affected sales of Sanlu's powdered milk, then the media that reported the false stories would be responsible for paying for the company's economic losses. Just as Sanlu should pick up the tab for the kidney stones caused by its powdered milk. China's laws and courts specialize in resolving this type of problem; even if media reports are not entirely true, what do we have to fear?

Simple common sense says that media supervision will not unnecessarily disturb the government but will instead help the government and society together realize and resolve problems. Not only is the media the eyes and ears of society, helping the public to discover and avoid risk in a timely fashion, but it is also an informant for the government. Although high levels of government can go through internal channels to understand issues at lower levels, internal information will inevitably have limits. The higher the level, the farther away it is from the grassroots. Direct information from society is very limited, so higher levels must go through the media to hear from society. These past few years from the 2003 case of Sun Zhigang to this year's Weng'an mass incident, high levels of government learned of these public incidents through media reports in a timely manner and managed the national effects they produced. These reports produced "negative effects," reflecting local societies' inharmonious components, but at the same time, through the media exposing the inharmoniousness, our society has the possibility of moving towards harmony. On the contrary, if actions like the Shijiazhuang government's "managing and coordinating" of the media until hidden security problems become real crises occurs, how can we possibly realize harmony? After all, harmony is not just peace on the surface, it is internal peace and stability. If we want to observe the people's condition, resolve contradictions, and realize harmony, all of this cannot be removed from a responsible and pluralistic media.

The Sanlu powdered milk incident proves that food safety definitely requires administrative supervision and company guarantees, but even more, it requires oversight by the media.

Original Chinese article: http://www.chinaelections.org/NewsInfo.asp?NewsID=135452

“If the people are allowed to oversee the government, the government will not dare relax”

I'm posting two translations that I did for our website. Both are at least somewhat related to the milk crisis. This one can also be found here.

By Liao Yimin, translated by Jennifer Haskell

This article's title came from Mao Zedong's 1945 famous "talks in the cave" with Huang Yanpei at Yanan. Today, its use is that it could act as a panacea to solve the "crisis of the ruling."

Calling it a "crisis of the ruling" is not at all excessive. The current poisoned milk incident is the same as the 2003 SARS crisis, as it has caused the whole world to receive a disastrous shock, as thousands upon thousands of children have become sick and thousands upon thousands of households are suffering grief and indignation. Everywhere, without exception, people sigh as they discuss it, and global public opinion is once again focused on China. If it is said that the SARS incident had an element of "natural disaster" (in reality it was a man-made disaster), then the contaminated milk incident is entirely man-made. The reason it is man-made is as Hu Jintao said: some cadres' work style is superficial, management is lax, and they have turned a blind eye to the cries and suffering of the people. They have become apathetic and unresponsive to huge problems related to the safety of people's lives. In short, public authority is lacking; administration doesn't act.

As the people discuss the problem of corruption, they pay more attention to graft and bribery, not realizing that administrative inaction is becoming a more serious and more common image of corruption. Chinese cadres often say that they "represent the people," but in reality: those with "public power" do not administer the law in the people's interests, and they do not act for the people. The people say of the cadres: "In the morning, they have meetings in which they only speak empty words, at lunch they drink Remy Martin, in the afternoon they muddle-headedly do not accomplish anything, and at night they meet bosses and chase women." Because the law is not administered fully, forgery and counterfeiting is increasing, as advertisements for false products are prevalent across the country; it could be called a spectacle. How could officials have missed them? They have seen it but are uncaring and unresponsive. We are not strangers to melamine as last year it was found in dog food exported to the US. Did officials not think to defend against it? They lazily thought about it but did not take responsibility.

In facing cadre apathy, government sluggishness, the people's dissatisfaction, and a crisis of the ruling, what can be done? Education and raising awareness of course are necessary, but neither addresses the root of the problem. In order to resolve the fundamental issue, China only needs to look to the title of this essay and Mao Zedong's "highest directive": "If the people are allowed to oversee the government, the government will not dare relax." How can this "highest directive" be implemented? Li Junru wrote in explanation, we are constantly working hard, but working hard is not enough! Is the contaminated milk incident not enough to proof that our hard work still falls very short of addressing the people's needs? Zhang Chunxian said in Hunan, emancipating the mind means that power needs to be given back to the people. This is exactly the point! Only if you genuinely give power to the people, then the people can sufficiently and effectively oversee the government, and the government will not relax. As Party members take part in activities to study the ideas of scientific development, will we discuss this issue?

To read the article in Chinese, click here.

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.

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.

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.