Turning back China's reforms

By LIU JUNNING, BEIJING, China

February 28, 2008

Two incidents have attracted much attention in China of late. One was a pronouncement by the authorities that their medical reforms are a failure. The other was a trial in late January at which Gu Chu-jun, former president of the Kelon Group, was sentenced to a 10-year prison term for embezzling the company's property. Kelon is a former state-owned enterprise that was sold to Gu, a private entrepreneur.

These two events lend themselves to a judgment concerning two long-term disputes over the marketization of education and healthcare, and the privatization of state-owned enterprises.

There are two sharply divided camps over the issue of China's reforms. One is lead by conventional economists who advocate market reforms and reformists who are within the system -- this group can be considered official and mainstream. The other camp, lead by Hong Kong financier Larry Hsien Ping Lang, includes unconventional economists, victims of state-owned enterprise reforms, angry youth and cyber activists -- this group can be considered outside the mainstream.

Although the mainstream camp has not admitted its loss, the outsider group has claimed a complete moral victory through these recent events. The officials have lost the battle of public opinion due to the distorted, unfair and ineffective reforms they have advocated, and their practice of adjusting the yardstick to fit their reforms.

The mainstream economists who defended Gu appear to be collectively speechless. The admitted failure of the medical reforms and Gu's imprisonment have tipped the balance of public opinion away from the official, mainstream line.

Those in the mainstream camp have viewed themselves as realists whose positions were based on the actual situation in China. Their judgment was that reforming China was impossible to accomplish all at once by introducing a complete and just system. Thus, in order to continue the reforms, the corresponding distortions, injustice and negative effects should be endured, they reasoned.

These people have tended to allow big compromises with the old systems, interests and ideologies. They believed that even distorted reforms were better than no reforms.

The outsiders, on the other hand, have consisted of various groups that were sometimes in conflict with each other. Those in this camp have been good at criticism, but could not come up with solutions; or their solutions have been odd and contradictory.

It was the distorted reforms promoted by the mainstream camp that brought the opposite camp together. Those in the opposition blamed the officials for introducing all kinds of corruption in the name of reforms, causing huge losses of state property and damaging the interests of many common people.

This group preferred to completely terminate the reforms rather than suffer from their distortions and unfairness. Larry Hsien Ping Lang kept urging that the reform of state-owned enterprises be stopped; he even claimed it would be better to retain them under state ownership and under the old system.

Many people thought that the choice facing China lay in whether or not to undertake reforms, not in the choice between fair or unfair reforms. In this context, the outsider camp preferred no reforms.

Now, the objective of this camp has basically been achieved -- the large-scale reforms of state-owned enterprises have been called off. Besides, it has been a long time since the authorities released any new substantial reform measures.

As for the moral judgments made by this camp -- that the reforms were distorted, unjust and even caused the disintegration of state properties -- the mainstream camp seems not to disagree. They merely believe there was no other choice.

Based on these observations, the two camps are not as different as they appeared. They belong to the same camp, in fact -- which is rooted in nationalism.

The mainstream represents today's bigwigs, while the other group longs for the abandoned old ways. The approach of the former is to pursue strong state power politically and promote the economy of the powerful -- to their own benefit and at the sacrifice of the ordinary citizens.

The solution of the latter camp is to try to pull China back to its old path, which was actually a path of death, as proved by the high cost in loss of life among the Chinese people. The latter camp wants to go back to the previous politics of strong state power.

China's path of reform should aim to get rid of the strong concentration of power, whether it is new or old.

It can be concluded that China's reforms now face a dead end. The reforms themselves were a slapdash job that cannot be easily corrected. Now the choice seems to be between continuing these ill-devised reforms and calling them off altogether.

Ironically, social pressure for reforms is rising while the pace of reforms has slowed, almost grinding to a halt.

--

(Liu Junning is a researcher on social issues at the Institute of Chinese Culture under China's Ministry of Culture. He was formerly a political researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and a visiting scholar at the Fairbank Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Liu Junning.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2008/02/28/turning_back_chinas_reforms/6450/

China economist unfit for World Bank post

By FANG JUE
February 26, 2008

NEW YORK, N.Y.,United States, The World Bank has named Chinese economist Justin Yifu Lin its senior vice president and chief economist. This has excited and delighted many Chinese, but I personally consider it inappropriate. The appointment was made earlier this month and Lin will officially take up the post at the end of May.

Lin currently belongs to a think tank that advises the Chinese government in a critical sector, the economy. He is also the founder and director of the China Center for Economic Research and a professor of economics at Beijing University.

Lin has tried to keep a low profile regarding his background -- he held a Republic of China passport until May 1979, when he was 27 years old and serving as an up-and-coming captain in the Taiwanese army. In that month he swam to mainland China, betraying the army and government in Taiwan. He changed his name and obtained citizenship in mainland China.

There has been much discussion as to why the World Bank chose Lin for this position. Personally, I don't think Lin deserves to lead the World Bank, for the following reasons:

China does not contribute capital to the World Bank, despite the fact that China has become the third largest economy in the world. Furthermore, China is still benefitting from low-interest loans and endowments from the World Bank. This kind of unreasonable continuous aid to China has aroused a lot of criticism among developed and developing countries. Then, why would the World Bank once again behave unfairly in appointing a senior vice president from China?

The World Bank indicated it selected Lin because he is an expert in China's economic development. Nevertheless, China's economic development in the past 30 years should not be regarded as a model for the bank to be appreciated and imitated by other developing countries.

The priority objective behind China's economic development is to ensure the continuation of its communist political system and prevent its transformation to democracy. China's economic development has not built a real free market economy, but an economic system controlled by the government, based on collusion between officials and businessmen, on common corruption and ruthless exploitation.

Also, China's economic development has been utilized by the Chinese Communist Party to expand its military without restraint, to contest for hegemony in Asia and to augment its global strategic influence.

This is why the China development model is not a good one; it is opposite to the worldwide trend toward free democracy after the Cold War, and it is not in step with global stability. Therefore, an "expert" raised within and advocating such a "model" is not a proper choice to serve as chief economist of the World Bank.

In the light of professional standards, Lin is not qualified for this post. China's level in the field of economics is still quite low; there are no Chinese economists at the top of the international economics field, and Lin is no exception.

The rural reforms that Lin is credited with helping to implement are very shallow. They include basic concepts, like a contract system with pay linked to output. Moreover, the economic analysis of China he was later engaged in was in fact very vague and lacked specifics, due to his lack of practical experience.

Lin's views on the world economy remain at the elementary school level. Those who do not view Lin as a major and outstanding economist in China are not few. Allowing such an unqualified person to take responsibility as chief economist at the World Bank is irresponsible and diminishes the credibility of the United Nations, which oversees the bank.

Finally, it is ridiculous for the World Bank, which is not privately operated and receives capital from many democratic countries, to choose a person like Lin, who defected to mainland China in 1979 at the peak of the Cold War, from Taiwan, which was in the democratic camp and has been fighting against Chinese communism.

Lin left the army, his whole family and the government that valued him as an army officer and swam to China in the night, bringing with him secret defense documents. Lin's desertion was not only completely wrong in terms of political orientation, violating the law and discipline of the army, but also morally selfish and despicable. Is not his appointment a mockery to democratic governments and countries and an irony to the principle of rule by law?

Some major international organizations and institutions seem to fawn on the rising communist China in recent years, and are intentionally giving leadership roles to Chinese personnel. This approach will also expand the influence of communist China in international affairs, however.
--

(Fang Jue is a political activist and freelance writer living in the United States. He was a former government official in China and worked at the Politics Research Institute of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. He was a visiting scholar at the Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research at Harvard University in 2003. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Fang Jue.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Economics/2008/02/26/china_economist_unfit_for_world_bank_post/7532/

Wei Jingsheng decries US' PNTR trade treatment for Communist China

An open letter to Democratic presidential candidates
(Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama)

Source: Wei Jingsheng Foundation

February, 2008

I am grateful to the two candidates of the Democratic Party of the USA. Finally, you have included the important issues of millions of American workers' jobs in your campaign agenda.

Seven years ago, during the hot debate over whether to give China Permanent Normal Trade Relationship (PNTR) or not, it was the then US representatives David Bonior (D, MI), Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Marcy Kaptur (D, OH), Sherrod Brown (D, OH), Frank Wolf (R, VA) and Chris Smith (R, NJ) who stood on the frontline against offering the dictatorial Communist China PNTR and entrance into the World Trade Organizations (WTO). They were defending human rights, as well as protecting American workers' interests and Chinese workers' rights. Most of democratic politicians were on their side, but the majority of American politicians stood on the side of the dictatorial Chinese government. We failed in this battle.

The result of this failure is that not only did Chinese workers lose their opportunity of striving for their legitimate rights and reasonable treatment, but also millions of Americans lost their job opportunities and their fight for reasonable treatment as well. Eight years ago, we had already warned Americans that giving PNTR to the Chinese Communists would damage the rights and interests of the American workers and the Chinese workers, as well as damage the interests of the small and middle sized business enterprises in America, further damaging America's market and America's national interest. At that time, 70% of Americans already realized this problem, but less than half of American politicians admitted this problem.

For 7 years now, this problem has rapidly developed in the form of economic recession and the way that millions lost their jobs. If we include Europe and Japan, it is an unemployment of tens of millions of people and global economic recession. From an international political view, it is the global recession of human rights and democratic politics, and the new rise of an "evil axis". While American soldiers are risking their lives for democracy and human rights, American politicians and big business enterprises are raising money to help the evil axis that has the behind-the-scenes backing of the Chinese Communist government. This irrational state has come to the point that it must be corrected.

I am grateful to the candidates of the Democratic Party who raised this grave problem to a point of urgency. On the most important timetable for the US president to work, this problem is the one that should have the first priority. It is the root problem behind all the other important problems. Regardless of who will be elected for the next term as the US president, if he/she is sincere in defending the interests of the Americans, as well as the free and democratic countries, he/she must solve this problem first, to correct the root mistakes that the past American government had made.

WEI Jingsheng

Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition

What We Lack Are Not Material Goods, But a Kind Heart. (Reflections on the Blizzard)

By Xiao Shu


Before dawn on January 31st, at a friend's invitation, I traveled to the Guangzhou Train Station to look around for a few hours. According to reports there was an extremely anxious crowd there during the day, but the situation had settled down a bit now that the gathering points such as Guangzhou Export Commodities Convention Center had heat turned on; food and medical aid were get on the right track. Although all of this came too late, at least as far as I could see it was nothing like the scene of freezing, starving travelers from the previous day. There had at least been some progress, for this we could be grateful.

But looking down from an overpass in front of the station I still could not avoid being apprehensive. You could not see where the black mass of people ended, there was the occasional intermittent screaming pointing out to those of us onlookers that this was a not an okay spot to linger. It is hard to say in which instant, because when the limit of endurance is reached and one person's hysteria can bring the whole crowd to hysterics, at that time, what use are these ever so solid iron railings in the face of a sudden outbreak of an irrational mob of hundreds of thousands of people?

It is as if the arrow is ready on the bow and the string is taut, ready to release, there is no turning back, fortunately, up to now the situation has been threatening, but not dangerous. In the area where food was being distributed I approached a migrant worker who was taking his child to get some crackers and asked him about his situation, he mistook me for a government employee; a smile filled his simple yet honest face: "It is no problem for us to wait a few extra days. The government has arranged things very well, our thanks to the government." At that moment I could not help but sigh with emotion, how strong my fellow countrymen are, what an enormous ability to endure suffering. Yet, the more ability of enduring of these countrymen, the greater is suffering they are enduring. It is evident that they are absorbing more and more the loss of these suffering, paying the price of their live. They have pretty much no request of the those providing this public service, provide just a little warmth and they are already immeasurably grateful. Thus the cost of providing such a service is suppressed, the socially controlled cost is kept low.

This once again confirmed a prior judgment: our people really are great. With this sort of people, what is there not to trust, what reason is there not to place your confidence in them? The police forces standing at the periphery of the train station ought to be extremely strong, the line of defense layer upon layer, as if to confront a deadly enemy. But in my opinion, this is unavoidably exaggerated, no one denies the need for the police to be prepared, but what is the need for overspend such an enormous amount in defense? Why not use the police to direct and organize travelers to fend for themselves, to guide and organize volunteers to help others? These are what should be seen as a top priority task.

The main thing I noticed while I was on site was the lack of organization. While I was on the main floor of the Guangzhou Export Commodities Convention Center I was surrounded by a bunch of young workers from Dongwan who anxiously told me of their helplessness. They were asked to come here to the Convention Center to wait for their transportation, but after they were here no one paid them any heed or was in charge of the situation. You could ask the police, but they knew nothing; the responsibility of the police was to maintain order, to make sure no great disturbance erupted. As for anything else, such as how to obtain related information, how to make announcements, how travelers would be identified, how to organize, how to help out, well, the police officers never went through that sort of training. On site the police were without any official authority, so even the police
themselves were unable to give definitive information. The entire handling of this crisis was not at a professional level, how could they have resources and the capacity to organize and direct all of these
travelers?

The police were this, not to mention everyone else. Disorder and ignorance became the basic characteristics of this great crowd as each tried to head back to home villages. It looked like a huge community, but actually each person was just an isolated island. Each had to
depend on himself, trust in his luck. If, with just your own abilities, you could get past the layer upon layer of blockade and enter the train station, there would be hope of making it home. But if you could not make it into the train station and just waited passively at the temporary gathering points, then no one would pay you any heed and you pretty much had no hope. This great crowd of people became like a primitive jungle, everyone had to depend on their own courage and strength makes it.

Disorder and ignorance were not only the basic characteristics of the crowd heading home. The related government departments ought to be the best organized, but you couldn't tell how much organization was going on. Within the structure of the entire command system there was quite a bit of confusion. It was obvious that every day hundreds of thousands of people rushed to get to the train station, and yet by no means did the station have the capacity to provide transportation these people. This sort of situation is without doubt a most dangerous situation, one that should be avoided at all costs. Some friends discussed this and they all felt that the travelers should be divided up by the direction they are heading and the time of their departure and sent off to large public facilities to wait for their transportations. Then let the passengers board the train in an organized fashion according to the actual schedule of departure. Using many of Guangzhou's sports arena's and convention facilities, as well as universities and high schools, which were all on vacation, it should not be impossible to divide up the people and settle them temporarily as they waited for their trains. But it seems that from the beginning the parties responsible never thought of this idea, so it seemed that all the travelers, unaware of the state of things all rushed to the train station, only to discover they could not enter, and only after ran out of choice, to head to the gathering points upon hearing the broadcast announcement. Those who held on to any shred of hope that they could make it all remained in the vicinity of the train station, prepared to charge at any moment. As for those who left the train station and went to the gathering points, after being unable to obtain any useful information or get in contact with the organizers, they often lost patience and then leaving things to luck they would head back to the vicinity of the train station. This caused the high tension and crisis situation at the public area near the train station to continue without being resolved.

Disorder and ignorance were also evident among different government departments, as they each went about things their own way, failing to coordinate. Because actual transportation capacity was limited the local government spent enormous energy and resources to prevent all those who could not depart from Guangzhou on a train to get them to settle down where they were (in the vicinity of their workplace) and ring in the New Year right there. But the Ministry of Transportation did not comprehend their efforts on this front. The Ministry of Transportation was likely trying to follow the pledge it had already made to get the transportation system and transport capacity back online within a limited amount of time. Thus, in a cheery tone they would report good news, everyday telling about how the transportation situation had improved so much, and good news about how the capacity to transport more people was also growing. This gave all those who had already lost hope of going home for the holiday a false renewed hope, leading all of them to make their way to Guangzhou and leading them to the vicinity of the train station. That night I encountered a number of passengers at the Guangzhou Export Commodities Convention Center who had all rushed to Guangzhou full of enthusiasm after hearing the Ministry of Transportation's report of the good news. The Ministry of Transportation was actually more of a hindrance than help, yet the local government could do nothing to prevent it.

Disorder and ignorance was also evident in the relationship between the government and the city dwellers. It should be said that the resources of public welfare stored up within the community are considerable. The day before yesterday I went to the office for work, when I got off the bus I discovered that at there was a young man from the commentary department of Southern Urban News carrying a very heavy sack walking in front of me. I thought that he was carrying his luggage to take home, only after asking him did I find out that the sack was full of daily use items to give to those waiting for trains. Among the Chinese people there is no lack of people so giving as this man. But their warmth and enthusiasm only rarely plays an actual functional role. On site, I saw that many material gifts had been given, in a number of places they were stacked to the ceiling. But they were all wrapped up in bags and had not been opened, and right on the side of all of these unopened gifts, there were many women and elderly sleeping on the ground with just thin bed sheets for covers. The material donations of such giving people were so rarely distributed into the hands of those who needed them. What is the reason? Those responsible for distributing the donated goods are often government workers, and they often have no interest in taking the initiative. They take helping people in a crisis and consider it as only a duty of their job, if they can get away with not troubling themselves, then they won't bother to take the trouble. So they often become watch guards of the donated goods rather than distributors. Online many volunteers posted comments complaining that
when they wanted to distribute some of the donated goods to the travelers they were refused and even berated. It is obvious that a government run humanitarian effort is the most wasteful and the least efficient, if one could fully harness the resources within the community, the situation would have a completely different outlook. But the spontaneous forces of the people, even at a time of crisis, are isolated because of colored glasses and layers and layers of misinterpretation, the money and goods donated can not actually get involved in any large scale fashion. The entire aid effort is basically a government operated one-man show.

Actually, this blizzard that halt Spring Festival traffic, is really a social dysfunction, but anything else. Thus, even though from beginning to end there was no obvious improvement in the situation, but from beginning to end no riots or chaos erupted, society was basically stable. One should allow all of society to fully participate in incidents that have such social ramifications. What you need most is to
intervene for the sanity of those going through the crisis. At this point, either no problems emerge, or if problems do emerge, it is definitely of a psychological nature. On site, the greatest crisis is of those having a mental breakdown from the high-tension atmosphere. This means that on site what is needed most is not a team of police officers closely guarding the facility, but rather a team of social
workers who are good at treating psychological problems. A team of such social workers, if NGOs were ordinarily allowed to develop naturally and freely, then it would not be difficult for them to step right up in a time of crisis. Social workers could come ready to help, and would be far more useful than the know-nothing police who are decked out in full gear, and the cost to society would also be lower. But up until now, a strong contrast to the endless police troops on site, is that there is no single appearance of the social workers. The cutoff between government forces and community forces in ordinary times led to a cutoff at the critical moment, which meant that at the key moment they were unable to join forces.

So what problem do these describe? Actually, this problem is pretty simple, it is a problem of the software in our society. Because of continued economic growth it is not as if we lack the proper hardware, on the matter of hardware we can even compete with some advanced countries. But if we follow other countries in only the development of this infrastructure hardware, what is the use? For example, take this Spring Festival's rescue effort for stranded travelers, there was certainly no lack of donated goods: food, cloths and blankets. The people donated more than enough goods, and the government had plenty of funding, you could say that financial resources poured in continuously. But how to take these donations and distribute them to the people, how, when these travelers are in the greatest need, to distribute these goods into their hands, and how to alleviate, to the greatest extent
possible, the suffering of these travelers caught in the storm, especially psychological suffering. Through this you also ease the pressure on society, yet this is not something that well-developed infrastructure hardware can resolve, this mainly relies on the software, on people's enthusiasm and kindness; and the organization of the community and the organization of the government. It is exactly these aspects that we often pay little attention to and coincidentally are wasted most. Thus when that critical moment comes, we are at a loss, we are overwhelmed with problems. This is actually the most fatal crisis of our society. Because of this most critical crisis in society other crises are not restrained in a timely manner and resolved, so they end up maximized the problem. When I saw Premier Wen Jiabao on TV after he rushed to the train station, seeing his recognition of the
severity of the situation, as well as the other provincial leaders of Guangdong, I became emotional at his obvious exhaustion from overwork and I sighed that things could be in such a state! How could it be like this! If one does not live life such that in general you only see stuff and not people, if one regularly uses a little effort on these software matters, especially matters of the heart, how could it be so fragile that something like a snowfall could reach the point of upsetting the entire country?

Without a doubt, our government has always been formidable, but a government should not only be strong and powerful, it is even more important that it be effective. Whether or not a government is
effective, the key indicator is its ability to administer and govern the public, especially its ability in handling public crises. If one can have a soft heart, and sympathy for the suffering of one's fellow man, and if you can treat the community-based forces of the people with a broad mind and with warmth, and you can allow them to freely grow to the greatest extent possible and to participate in administering to the public, this sort of amiable government, this sort of human government can definitely solidify the entire society, it can definitely be a powerful government, and it can definitely be an effective government, one that in the end can govern with benevolence. With this sort of government it is not difficult to have a vibrant society of community- based organizations, the software problem of our society would then not be so difficult to actually solve.

This of course is a big task over a long period of time, but it is also something we should do without a moments delay, it requires us to start over from the beginning, to start from just one little drop. First,
lets start by improving the mechanism of providing assistance during this blizzard.


(The author authorizes Tian Yi to publish, when republished elsewhere please notes the source: www.tecn.cn. The Wei Jingsheng Foundation is responsible for the English translation of this essay.)

Kosovo is not Taiwan

By WU JIAXIANG, BEIJING, China

Published: February 21, 2008

World history was made on Feb. 17 as one country lost a province and one more sovereign state was created on Earth, through Kosovo's declaration of independence from the Republic of Serbia. The newborn nation has a population of only 2 million, living on 10,000 square kilometers (around 4,000 square miles) of land.

Like an inflamed appendix in the body of the former Yugoslavia and Serbia, Kosovo has been a painful issue for 20 years. This time, it decided that strong, short-term pain is better than long suffering, and cut itself off from the main body.

While communism was fading away in the Soviet Union and Europe, in 1989 the Republic of Serbia, struggling for survival, revised its Constitution and partially repealed Kosovo's autonomy in order to maintain its sacred sense of identity. This upset the Albanian population, and was the beginning of the "appendicitis." (Ethnic tension has endured in this region since the 14th century. Kosovo was the scene of a significant battle against the Ottoman Empire, which drove Christian Serbs from the region and allowed Muslim Albanians to occupy it.)

Major nations have conflicting views on Kosovo's independence; as for the Chinese living on this planet, they are certainly not of one accord on this issue. Almost all Chinese have strong views about it -- not because Kosovo affects their immediate interests, but because of the inevitable association of this case with Taiwan's call for independence. The "green camp" followers in Taiwan are inspired, the "blue camp" supporters are hesitant and the "reds" are worried.

However, there is not much reason to associate Kosovo with Taiwan. There is little similarity between Kosovo's independence and Taiwan's attempts to separate from mainland China, in terms of logic, legality or international politics.

First of all, the issue of Kosovo is rooted in race; the Taiwan issue is not. Kosovo's population is 90 percent Albanian; the majority of the population in both Taiwan and mainland China is of the Han race, despite the fact that Taiwan's current authority under the Democratic Progressive Party has been purposely sowing discord, conflict and confrontation between people it has labeled "islanders" and those it calls "mainlanders," although both groups have long lived on Taiwan island.

The impulse for independence among those of a minority race within a country has long existed, even in major democratic countries such as Canada and the United Kingdom. But within one race, despite large-scale migration of the population, there is only the issue of power or authority, not the issue of self-determination.

Secondly, the Kosovo issue is the legacy of imperialism and totalitarianism; the Taiwan issue is not. Simply put, before 1911 Taiwan was within the domain of the Qing Dynasty of China, while Kosovo belonged to the Ottoman Empire. After 1949, Kosovo was brought under the control of a totalitarian regime, while Taiwan was left outside a new regime.

Taiwan's history as part of mainland China can be traced. But Kosovo's history as part of Serbia was broken off for 400 years, due to shifts in the body of the nation. Another factor is that calls for independence were part of the wave that swept Eastern Europe during the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union; Kosovo is the embers left from this fire. Taiwan wasn't affected by such a force, however.

Finally, Kosovo is of considerable geopolitical significance for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the United States. Taiwan is significant to Japan in this light.

Kosovo is located in the heartland between Eastern and Western Europe; it is part of the historical competition over the Slavic nations between these two groups. Thus Western Europe and the United States are willing to accept Kosovo's independence.

Taiwan is outside the European system; Europe and the United States could not easily reach the same opinion were Taiwan to separate from mainland China. If Taiwan broke away from China, the international political balance would incline toward Japan and the United States, which would not necessarily serve the interests of Europe.

Kosovo is not Taiwan. The inappropriate association of these two issues should not be allowed to harm either Taiwan or mainland China.

--

(Wu Jiaxiang is a renowned economic and political scholar and a former visiting scholar at Harvard University's Fairbanks Center for East Asian Research. His research covers economics, domestic and international politics, business strategy, and Chinese traditional strategy and thought. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Wu Jiaxiang.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/02/21/kosovo_is_not_taiwan/3553/

Bureaucratic standards and steamed buns

By QI GE

February 06, 2008

CHENGDU, China, On Jan. 1 China issued national standards for the preparation of steamed wheat buns, a popular food item throughout the country. The standards, which took effect the same day, stipulated the shape, quantities of flour and water, and even the packaging required in the production of these buns. However, the rules did not apply to buns made of buckwheat or other grains -- a fact that the public found confusing and odd.

Heading up the drafting of these national standards was a local enterprise in Henan province. According to this enterprise, it took two years to come up with the standards, and steamed buns are the only product among similar wheat products -- such as dumplings, meat buns and vegetable buns -- to have their own national standards.

Many people involved in the production and sales of steamed buns feel it is not only unnecessary, but ridiculous, to have uniform standards for such a common food. Steamed buns have been a staple food for thousands of years in China, and are mainly produced in workshops or by families. Making them has been considered an art, not an industry. Yet the authorities have defined this ancient art of cooking as an industry, and made an ill-conceived effort to standardize it.

In addition, to introduce standards without informing and consulting the professionals involved in the industry violates the definition and principles of setting standards. Furthermore, the question of whether making buns is an art or an industry is still unresolved. This should not go so far that people fear making buns at home just because they cannot comply with so-called national standards.

The purpose of setting national standards is to unify or regulate production or processes within a certain range. Standards are based on the combined input of science, technique and practical experience; they aim at obtaining the best order and social benefit, and are generally negotiated among relevant parties. Then they are approved by a governing body, issued in a specific form and followed as the common criteria. It can be inferred from regulations issued by the International Organization for Standardization that a standard is designed for an industry that mass produces items -- not for cooking.

An industry requires standardization, whereas the art of cooking is the opposite. Cooking places value on uniqueness and specialty. Will the government, after making this standard for buns, go so far as to set up standards for other common dishes like sliced cold radishes, fried Chinese cabbage, fried bread sticks, rice porridge and steamed corn bread?

If one argues that these standards for buns are for hygienic purposes, they should cover a much wider variety of products and be issued as food safety standards, not applied only to buns.

If such a common and tiny thing as a steamed bun requires national standards, what about the serious and big things such as national laws? What about, for example, the long-awaited News Law that has not yet been released? Does it make sense that these absurd standards for buns could be issued, whereas clear laws governing news reporting, which are required in a modern society, could not be produced? There are many similar situations in which issues requiring urgent government attention and early resolution were simply put aside.

Can the government embody and justify its slogan of taking a "scientific outlook on development" by simply generating bun standards? Is this scientific development? By contrast, why does not the government apply the scientific approach to development to the critical issue of the News Law?

Liu Binjie, head of the General Administration of Press and Publication, has encouraged the people to "use their wisdom"; why then does not the government sector use its wisdom and come up with the laws on reporting the news? Why does the government merely focus on a negative approach by restricting, suppressing and punishing people, rather than investing energy in a positive approach, by developing and constructing?

It is not only the issue of "standardization;" many other normal international practices have their color changed or their essence transformed when they come to China. The government seems to be good at making such surprising transformations and "innovations" -- yet it is inert in the face of urgent and necessary standards or norms that it should be quite capable of handling.

Even in something as fundamental as creating a legal system, the government has been able to diverge from original principles and take an opposite way. For example, the Constitution is supposed to restrict the power of the government and protect the rights of the citizens. Yet the government has turned it into a tool for the Chinese Communist Party to hold and monopolize political power.

The media is another example. The media should serve as a platform to deliver wide-ranging information to the public, as well as a useful weapon to protect the rights of the people and monitor the government. In reality, the government has made the media the voice of the authorities and a tool to fool the people and praise itself.

How can the government feel no shame in talking about system innovations? In fact, as long as they do not affect the autocratic rule of the CCP, standards or norms will mean nothing to the government, which will do whatever it likes. It can innovate on meaningless things like steamed buns, but not on serious issues. Its so-called political reforms may also turn out to be nothing but farce.

--

(Qi Ge is the pen name of a freelance writer based in Chengdu, in China's Sichuan province. This article is translated and edited from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online. The original may be found at www.ncn.org. ©Copyright Qi Ge.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/02/06/bureaucratic_standards_and_steamed_buns/7903/

The burden of the Chiang legacy (2)

By DEMOS CHIANG, TAIPEI, Taiwan

Published: January 24, 2008

As the grandson of Taiwan's former President Chiang Kai-shek, I have been wondering why my grandfather instituted such open policies as allowing ordinary people to visit their relatives in mainland China, terminating martial law and lifting bans on political parties and media. If he was truly an authoritarian dictator, why did he abandon that role in the final moment and take measures that directly or indirectly contributed to today's democratic system in Taiwan?

Looking back to the last century, we recall several famous dictators in various corners of the world. They include Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in Iran, Anastasio Somoza in Nicaragua, Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Juan Manuel de Rosas in Argentina, Park Chung-Hee in South Korea, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Suharto in Indonesia.

Nowadays, Taiwan has embarked on an era of democracy; economically, it has also become a developed country. Taiwan has been the most successful in political and economic development among the formerly autocratic nations. Taiwan can be proud of this, and sets an example for the Third World.

Looking at such achievements today, as a descendent of Chiang Kai-shek and Chiang Ching-kuo, I must in all fairness ask the question: Have the two President Chiangs done nothing to contribute to Taiwan's great achievements?

The two Chiangs were just ordinary human beings, not gods. Since they were human, how is it possible that they would never make mistakes? It is not necessary to lift them high and praise them with epithets like the "greatest man of all time" or "savior of the people."

On the other hand, as their offspring, I earnestly request those who were hurt during the Chiangs' rule to stop unleashing their resentment by using such terms as "autocratic killers" and "devils" to describe my ancestors.

As long as people keep worshipping the two Chiangs, it will continue to hurt the feelings of those who suffered under their dictatorship. By contrast, if people keep lashing out at the two Chiangs, it will pain those who were their loyal followers and also their offspring. We have to face the fact that these two conflicting views exist as a result of our history.

Unfortunately, both the blue and green camps have adopted the strategy of "recalling history" in their election campaigns in recent years. Both have blurred the distinction between right and wrong. They have distorted the legacy of the two Chiangs and diluted the value of the name Chiang as a political totem. This approach serves no good purpose; it will merely pass resentment on to the next generation.

The political parties have manipulated the people to serve their own interests, rather than encouraging open and rational debate on the mistakes of the past. They have cast dark shadows from the past into the minds of the voters, as if they are haunted by evil powers. Untruths can never become truths, but painting them as such is confusing for the good people of this land.

I would like to reiterate that evaluating the merits of the two Chiangs is a task best left to history, and should be tackled with an objective, disinterested, impartial and academic approach.

Now the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall has been renamed the National Taiwan Democracy Memorial Hall. It has been redecorated and reopened. It is therefore time to leave behind the outdated, emotional, 20th century issue of labeling the two Chiangs either gods or devils. Let us wish Taiwan a future where such hatred and conflict no longer exist.

I dream of a day when Taiwan's elections will no longer include candidates who revile one another and play on people's fears, when candidates will address the real issues and explain their positions on the economy, foreign affairs, national defense, cutting government expenditures and improving social welfare. This will allow the people to truly become owners of their country, to choose the good and select the capable for public posts.

I dream that this period of confusion, of reviling and accusing one another, will be no more than a brief, temporary but unavoidable process on the way toward a mature democracy.

--

(Demos Chiang is chairman of DEM Inc., an advertising design studio in Taiwan, which he founded after returning from the United States where he graduated from New York University. He is noted as the first member of Chiang Kai-Shek's family to apologize for the wrongdoings of the KMT government under the two Chiangs' leadership. He began a personal blog in January 2008 to explain his views. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org and www.yubou.tw . ©Copyright Demos Chiang.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/01/24/the_burden_of_the_chiang_legacy_2/7171/

The burden of the Chiang legacy (1)

By DEMOS CHIANG, TAIPEI, Taiwan

Published: January 23, 2008

Some netizens have described me as an undutiful descendant of the Chiang family in Taiwan. They have accused me -- the great-grandson of President Chiang Kai-shek and grandson of President Chiang Ching-kuo -- of trying to please the opposing camp by criticizing my two ancestors. They have emphasized that the great historical achievements of the two President Chiangs cannot be erased.

On the other hand, other netizens have claimed that the two President Chiangs were killers, responsible for ending many people's lives. They say I cannot wipe out their evils by simply posting my articles online.

To me this is a fearful thing. As long as there is still a group of people in Taiwan wanting to hold up the two Chiangs as gods, and another group holding deep hatred for these two even though they passed away a long time ago, both the blue and green camps can utilize the two Chiangs as totems of fear to manipulate elections. But whenever the two parties manipulate the two Chiangs as a cheap and easy way of winning votes, it is a torment to my family and it is harmful to all of Taiwan.

Did the two Chiangs do things wrong? Certainly.

Unless your heart is locked up tight, even though you cover your eyes and ears and do not search for the information below, it will invade your awareness involuntarily in this era of Web 2.0.

If some people still doubt the facts regarding the February 28th Massacre (of 1947) despite the research done by many people, we may put it aside temporarily. But what about the documents that have been released in which many death penalties were approved by my great-grandfather?

Moreover, the book titled "Death by Government," written by Professor R. J. Rummel from the University of Hawaii, a foreigner who has no relations with our people, listed my great-grandfather Chiang Kai-shek as the fourth biggest killer of the 20th century, after Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Adolf Hitler. Rummel reports that the Kuomintang government killed about 10 million Chinese from 1921 to 1948, among the top 10 governments in killing people.

One may say that the statistics are incomplete or incorrect, but even if we discount all but 10 percent it will still be 1 million lives. Again, one may attribute this to the situation at the time, or claim that the killings were necessary. However, it cannot be denied that my great-grandfather was head of the government that carried out these killings, even though he himself did not pull the trigger.

Under the leadership of my grandfather, President Chiang Ching-kuo, there were also several scandals possibly related to the government.

For example, in 1984 Chiang Nan, the American Chinese author of the "Biography of Chiang Ching-kuo," was assassinated in his own garage in the United States by Taiwanese intelligence agents. His wife then accused the KMT government and received US$145 million in compensation. Furthermore, under pressure from the U.S. government, the head of the Special Military Intelligence Office of the Republic of China at that time, Wang Hsi-ling, was tried in Taiwan and sentenced to life in prison for this murder.

The television program "Wang Hsi-ling's Special Room" shown in the recently opened Taiwan Human Rights Memorial shows that Wang's prison quarters included a suite with a reception room, a study and even a kitchen. People said that his family could freely visit him and stay there with him. If the KMT government had nothing to do with Chiang Nan's assassination, why was Wang granted such privileges in prison and why was the victim's wife given so much money as a compromise after she brought the matter to a U.S. court? (Editor's note: Wang was released after being in prison for more than 6 years.)

Besides the Chiang Nan case, there are several other unresolved crimes that are suspected of connections with the KMT government of that time.

The Chen Wen-cheng incident occurred in 1981, in which Chen, an associate professor from Carnegie Mellon University in the United States, died mysteriously during a short visit to his family in Taiwan. Before his death, Chen had been interrogated by the Intelligence Bureau and the Special Military Intelligence Office over his financial support for "Formosa Magazine," an independent pro-democracy publication in Taiwan. In 1980, the Lin Bloody Incident occurred, in which family members of dissident Lin I-Hsiung, a victim of the Kaohsiung Incident, were crazily killed in their home.

Certainly, the Kaohsiung Incident of 1979 (also known as the Formosa Incident), in which pro-democracy demonstrations were put down by police and their leaders jailed, was also a scandal for the KMT government under my grandfather's leadership.

Do you think I am happy to know all of this? Looking at all the evidence, as a descendant of the two Chiangs, my first instinct was to reject all these facts. But after digesting all the objective information and reports, I gradually formed the conclusion that the two Chiangs did some things wrong, which dramatically uprooted the value system implanted in my mind. Even after adjusting to this, it took a long time before I could discuss this topic frankly with others.

The truth is out there, whether you deny it or not. Stubborn denial will not make these incidents disappear. The best way to deal with the facts of history is to accept them with a healthy attitude and try to make up for them as much as possible. Unfortunately, with my limited capability, I can do nothing but offer verbal apologies generations after these events occurred.

(To be continued.)

--

(Demos Chiang is chairman of DEM Inc., an advertising design studio in Taiwan, which he founded after returning from the United States where he graduated from New York University. He is noted as the first member of Chiang Kai-Shek's family to apologize for the wrongdoings of the KMT government under the two Chiangs' leadership. He began a personal blog in January 2008 to explain his views. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org and www.yubou.tw . ©Copyright Demos Chiang.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Politics/2008/01/23/the_burden_of_the_chiang_legacy_1/6556/

No legal recourse for poor Chinese workers

By MU CHUANHENG

January 31, 200

QINGDAO, China, Authorities have informed a group of 204 former employees of the Shixian Taibai Group in China's southwestern city of Chongqing that they will have to pay 350,000 yuan (US$48,500) for arbitration in a dispute over unpaid wages, the official Xinhua news agency reported last week.

This leaves the laborers with nowhere to turn; the price is unaffordable. This high price represents protection of labor rights with Chinese characteristics. Procedures for handling industrial disputes have been loudly criticized in society, described as "first, one mediation; second, one arbitration; third, two lawsuits."

The 204 workers were laid off after the Chongqing Light Textile Holding Company took over the Shixian Taibai Group in September last year. Those who were full-time employees were compensated 1,293 yuan (US$179) for each year they had worked for the company, while temporary, contract workers were simply dismissed.

This was not acceptable to the workers, however. The formal employees complained that they had had 7 percent of their salaries deducted each month, as a so-called "management fee," for more than 10 years, whereas the temporary workers had 4 yuan (US$0.60) deducted monthly for the same reason. Moreover, none had received promised overtime payments.

"The enterprises have completely ignored the laws and regulations all these years. As long as there is a need for production, the laborers have to work overtime unconditionally. And during the busy seasons, employees work from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. They are not allowed personal leave, have no days off and no overtime pay," stated the workers' representative. Thus, the 204 workers could not accept their termination and decided to seek legal redress.

Nevertheless, all industrial disputes must go through "arbitration" before a lawsuit will be accepted in court. This regulation lays out a single, compulsory path in labor disputes; it effectively digs a systematic trap for Chinese workers who seek to protect their rights.

The workers had no choice but to request arbitration from the local authority, the Industrial Dispute Committee. So they filed a claim against the company for unpaid overtime wages, unlawful deductions from their salaries, housing allowances and unemployment insurance benefits, totaling more than 30 million yuan (US$416,000).

The committee responded by issuing a fee note to the workers, charging 350,000 yuan (US$ 48,500) for accepting and working on this case.

The actual payment the laborers had been receiving was merely 500 to 600 yuan (US$70 to $84) per month. Now that they had lost their jobs, how could they possibly afford such an expensive fee? Chinese workers are no longer willing to simply accept their fate as a disadvantaged minority. They are increasingly taking action to defend their legal rights.

In this case, the 204 workers tried to apply to have the fee exempted, reduced or delayed, based on certain regulations; the Industrial Dispute Committee flatly refused. The head of the City Labor Bureau excused this by saying that the workers had failed to submit required documents issued by the local labor union in order to have the fee exempted, reduced or postponed. He said the fee would be refunded if it turned out it was in excess of what was required for the case.

"We did go to the labor union to request the required document, but the labor union turned us down since we could not submit proof of low insurance payments. How could we get such proof after losing our jobs?" the workers asked angrily.

In fact, if the labor union wished to act on behalf of the workers, it would have been easy to clarify the situation and issue the document based on the reality. However, the labor union pitilessly stood by with folded arms in front of the powerless workers.

This is to say that official labor unions only recognize official documents, rather than genuinely concerning themselves with workers' rights. This is an indirect way of allowing capitalists to illegally deprive workers of their rights. Further, it fully demonstrates that China's labor unions are bureaucratic organizations that cannot protect workers.

There have been growing numbers of industrial disputes since 1987, when China resumed its practice of arbitration. According to statistics from the Ministry of Labor and Social Security, cases increase by 27.3 percent each year. The number of such disputes in 2006 was 447,000. If cases that were rejected by the system are included, the actual number could be much higher.

One study showed that a Chinese worker from the countryside, seeking less than 1,000 yuan (US$139) in unpaid wages, will need to spend at least 920 yuan (US$128) to complete all the required procedures, which will take 11 to 21 days, a delay that costs the worker 550 to 1,050 yuan (US$77 to 146) in lost pay.

Many workers in China who face unpaid wages and unfair lay-offs are unable to afford the high costs of the legal system, and have no choice but to try the endless "letters and visits" system of appealing to higher authorities for help. Originally, the law is supposed to serve as the strongest safeguard of fairness and justice; under the social system with Chinese characteristics, however, the "letters and visits" system has becomes the usual practice.

Under an effective system, workers would organize their own labor unions, and could sit down at the table to negotiate with capitalists to resolve industrial disputes. But since labor unions in China do not fight for workers' rights, to whom can workers turn for help when their rights are violated?

--

(Mu Chuanheng is a freelance writer and former lawyer. He has published a number of books on trade negotiations and democratic politics. He is included in the book "World Celebrities [China Vol. 2], published in Hong Kong, for his new theory of culture. This article is edited and translated from the Chinese by UPI Asia Online; the original can be found at www.ncn.org . ©Copyright Mu Chuanheng.)

http://www.upiasiaonline.com/Society_Culture/2008/01/31/no_legal_recourse_for_poor_chinese_workers/3942/