Politics of feudal capitali$t

China: Arrogant, uncooperative or just misunderstood?

By Maria Siow

With recent accusations coming thick and fast at China, it is no wonder that Beijing sometimes feels that it is under siege.

Many in the country are adamant that China has tried to do its best, whether in working with the global community on climate change, undertaking currency reform, or reducing barriers to free trade.

Beijing maintains that it is the more developed Western countries that have not only dragged their feet on climate change, but have also increasingly resorted to protectionist measures.

As if to add salt to wound, the Middle Kingdom has also been accused of arrogance and harbouring a smug sense of triumphalism.

So much so that at a press conference marking the closing ceremony of China's legislature - the National People's Congress - on Sunday, Premier Wen Jiabao (picture) had to emphasise that no, the Chinese currency is not undervalued, and yes, China will continue to be a proponent of free trade.

As for China's "arrogance" at not attending a key meeting in Copenhagen, Mr Wen gave a detailed - almost blow-by-blow - account on how his country had not received any invitation to do so.

On China's triumphalism, Mr Wen argued that despite China's economic advances, it is still a developing country with "weak economic foundations and uneven regional and urban-rural development".

The Premier's indignation was evident when he said: "It still baffles me why some people keep trying to make an issue about China."

Some of the accusations hurled at China are not totally without grounds, such as those against China's undervalued currency.

International opinions fluctuate from arguing that the yuan is "substantially undervalued" to pointing out that there is no strong need to appreciate the currency.

On other occasions, China's puzzlement at being misunderstood has stemmed from how it is perceived - wrongly, according to China - by the Western world.

For instance, China's involvement in Africa has sometimes been described as a new form of colonialism. But Beijing has maintained that it places due emphasis on the economic and social development of the countries on that continent.

In Premier Wen's words, China has "provided assistance with no strings attached to the underdeveloped countries".

"No strings attached" could mean, from a benign point of view, that African countries do not need to improve on their human right records or ensure government transparency and accountability to receive China's aid and assistance.

From a less benign, more contentious point of view, it could also mean that the West might increasingly lose its influence over the African continent.

(Incidentally, "no strings attached" may not necessarily be good for China in the long run. If some of these despotic authoritarian regimes - not just in Africa but elsewhere, too - were to become democratic one day, the new powers-that-be are unlikely to forget that it was Beijing that had been responsible for keeping the earlier regimes in power in the first place.)

As for Premier Wen's concern as to why many "make an issue about China", it is simply because growing power brings with it increasing expectations, mounting responsibility and definitely greater scrutiny.

Growing power also means that it is necessary to communicate more effectively with the outside world.

As China's forefront proponent of public diplomacy Zhao Qizheng noted, China needs a bigger public diplomacy campaign "to better present the country to the world".

These include international exchanges involving scholars, opinion leaders, social activists, non-government organisations and even members of the public.

As authors Li Xing and Huang Qing argued in the inaugural issue of Public Diplomacy Quarterly, published on March 1, the climate change summit at Copenhagen highlighted China's inadequacy in putting across the country's point of view.

The authors noted that China's official tardiness in issuing any comment on the last day of the summit (Dec 18) had cost the country dearly in global public opinion.

"It was only on Dec 24 that Xinhua News Agency issued an article rebutting Western criticism. By then it was way too late as negative impressions about China had already been formed within the international community," they wrote.

"It will be hard for us to occupy the moral high ground within the short term."

Agreeing, Australian scholar Ross Grainger said that China needs to "sell itself better".

Even though Beijing appeared more willing than other countries to strike a climate accord, China was made a scapegoat when an accord failed to materialise.

Certainly, greater effort at public diplomacy is only one of a number of major initiatives that will lead to a better global understanding of China.

But the greater interaction that will invariably be generated will also increasingly allow China to understand and hopefully bridge Western perceptions of China.

Then perhaps China can have fewer complaints and better understanding as to why the world always seems to be coming down hard on it.

24 March 2010

An Obscene Arithmetic

by Catherine Lim

Recently, many of us must have read about the wedding of the century, costing nearly US$80 million, of the daughter of one of the world’s richest men, a multibillionaire business tycoon in India. It was held over weeks, in different countries, with an opulence comparable only to some fabled wedding from the Arabian Nights. We must have gasped at the sheer scale of it all.

Some of us must also have been tempted to do some arithmetic: in a country where poverty continues to be appalling, the US$80 million would have been the total income of all the farmers, the street vendors, the garbage collectors, the rickshaw pedallers, etc for many years; it would have been sufficient to provide housing for hundreds of thousands of slum dwellers; it could have gone to prevent hundreds of thousands of children dying of hunger and disease.

I once saw a picture in a magazine of a group of elderly Indian widows, squatting on their thin haunches in a dusty courtyard of some building, their cotton saris draped over their heads, waiting to hear news of whether they would be granted an increase in some widows’ allowance, which would be exactly a dollar or thereabouts.

Equally indelible is the memory of something I saw with my own eyes when I was on a brief tour of Mumbai (then still Bombay) while on a cruise of the Queen Elizabeth 2. In a red light district, I saw a row of squalid houses in the doorways of which stood young prostitutes, some of them probably no more than fourteen or fifteen, calling shyly to the men around. I was told that many of them had been kidnapped from their homes in Nepal. I was also told that their asking price was US$2.

On the way to a hotel for lunch, as our taxi stopped at the traffic lights, a little beggar boy with one of his arms hacked off at the elbow, managed to wriggle his way through the dense traffic to knock on the rolled up window of my side of the taxi. I remember the small peaked face with its shock of hair. Contrary to prior advice about ignoring beggars, I quickly rolled down the window, and passed to him some notes from my handbag. Immediately a swarm of beggar children appeared from nowhere and surrounded the taxi. The taxi-driver got down, cuffed their heads and shooed them off, but not before giving me a reproachful look for causing all the inconvenience.

On a tour of the Philippines years ago, we were taken, as part of the tour of Manila, to the home of the one of the richest Filipinos. I remember magnificent chandeliers and drapes and antique European furniture, but the object that has stayed vividly in my memory is a statue of the Child Jesus wearing a mantle encrusted with real rubies. We could only look at it from a respectful distance, and were told it cost many million pesos—enough to feed all the beggars in the city for years.

The tour also included a visit to the famous cemeteries of the rich Chinese, where the tombs were in fact huge mansions. In one I saw an air-conditioned marble chamber containing the tomb, in rarest marble, of the patriarch of one of the city’s richest families. When I returned from the tour, I wrote a short story about how a slum family living near a tomb-mansion would wait every year for the rich food offered to the dead during the Chinese Festival of the Hungry Ghosts, to be thrown away by the caretaker after he had ascertained that the ghosts had indeed returned to partake of the feast. The proof was in the handprints or footprints left in a large tray of ash left near the banquet table. One year the ghosts were late in coming, and the food was already spoilt when it was at last thrown away, but the slum family fell eagerly upon it.

Years ago, I read an article on mother love, with examples from various countries in Asia. The example from Thailand was a report of an eighty-year-old woman supporting her mentally handicapped fifty-year-old daughter, on whatever she could earn from the only skill she had—picking coconuts. There was a picture of the old woman, her sarong hiked up between her legs, climbing a tall palm. She was paid a few dollars for her work. In my mind, her picture stands beside that of the jewel-bedecked wife of one of the Thai ministers. That single diamond ring on her little finger could take care of the old woman and her daughter for life.

It is an obscene arithmetic that continues to haunt many of us, for much of the world lives on less than US$1 a day. The obscenity lies less with the mega spenders than with the society that has allowed such a grotesque disparity to have gone on for so long.

28 February 2010

Political Ethos of Modern China

By Pritam Singh

Making right choices in Singapore: From Adelman to Asian values

David Adelman’s remarks last week to a Senate Foreign Affairs Committee hearing over his appointment as ambassador to Singapore ruffled more than a few feathers in the Lion City. ‘Insensitive’ words and all the ‘wrong’ insinuations employed by the ambassador – “greater press freedoms, greater freedom of assembly and ultimately more political space for opposition parties in Singapore” – largely account for this chagrin. Allegations of interference in domestic affairs and the like began to circulate on local Internet forums even as some Singaporeans welcomed the remarks.

Pondering about US president Barack Obama’s choice of ambassador does warrant a look back at Singapore’s stance during the 2008 US presidential campaign. First, it was Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, no less, who allegedly labelled Obama as a “flash in the pan” at a local conference in early February 2008. He continued to exhibit public disdain and lack of enthusiasm for the then-Democratic candidate, right until when the financial crisis hit corporate America sometime early September 2008.

In contrast, the Minister Mentor spoke about John McCain in effusive terms, publicly complimenting the Arizona senator’s record and experience in government and all but endorsing him as Singapore’s choice for US president, until around September 2008. Even the Straits Times got in on the act, hosting a commentary written by McCain and fellow senator Joe Lieberman with regards to the US’ commitment to Asia on the opening day of the 2008 Shangri-La dialogue – an annual gathering of defence ministers held in Singapore. The Lieberman connection notwithstanding, this strategically timed commentary was published to ensure targeted readership.

For a small state heavily dependent on diplomacy to preserve its strategic interests, it was poor form to publicly back any candidate – an observation that need not have been afforded by hindsight. Furthermore, could Singapore through the Minister Mentor and the Straits Times be construed as having interfered in the domestic affairs of the US by virtue of their conduct in 2008?

As luck would have it, the Republican horse did not win the race. But it would be one-sided to suggest that this was nothing more than a shocking faux pas by Singapore’s founding prime minister. Singaporeans in support of McCain and conservatives in general are likely to argue that Republican leaders have traditionally made for better foreign policy allies for Singapore. More pertinently, it may have been in a People’s Action Party government’s national interest to back a Republican presidential candidate, since the Republican Party’s political ethos is closely linked with big business interests, which in turn is seen as beneficial for Singapore’s economic growth – a political selling-point that the PAP markets every election.

In contrast, Democrats tend to have a prickly habit of trying to politically better an imperfect world, putting democratic ideals on the table as one variable of its foreign policy calculus, or so it is perceived. Not that the Democrats abhor business, trade and economic growth. But between business and democracy, the PAP’s perception of national interest dictates that business ought to be the way to go.

Would the Adelman episode last week have unfolded differently had MM Lee not shown Singapore’s hand in the run up to the 2008 elections? Probably not. As one steadfast permanent secretary of the Foreign Affairs ministry remarked in a different context some years ago, in the game of international relations, Singapore is a price-taker, not a price-setter. Quite simply, there was no need to publicly choose between Obama or McCain.

Fortunately, the misplaced bet against America’s choice for their 44th President is unlikely to cause any serious long-term damage to Singapore and Singaporeans, the Adelman hiccup aside. Singapore needs the US for its geo-strategic purposes just as much as the US regards Singapore as its anchor in the region. And unlike the face that the US presents to the Middle East, the face it presents to Singapore and the post-Cold War Southeast Asia is a largely benevolent one. The maelstrom of Vietnam has been replaced by a normalisation of US-Vietnam relations, and the US enjoys a positive relationship with many Asean countries, bar Myanmar.

But there is another bet being wagered by some Singaporeans that may ruin the country should the political masters of the day decide to call it out at the gambling table – that of choosing between the US and China.

The pressure to place this bet is not as far fetched as imagined. In view of the large number (a figure this writer is unaware of) of recent immigrants turned citizens from China now living in Singapore, one disastrous scenario foretells of a bet on China on purely ethnocentric grounds. Given the doubts surrounding conceptions of loyalty among new citizens from any country, not just China, the growing confidence and assertiveness of China in the context of the US-China relationship may well mirror the popular opinion of some Chinese Singaporeans. The strong wave of support for the Confucian ethics discourse back in the 1980s and 1990s among culturally conservative ethnic Chinese suggests that these numbers may well constitute a significant minority.

In Washington late October 2009, MM Lee was conferred a lifetime achievement award for fostering US-Asean ties. Acknowledging that China was rapidly gaining economic and geopolitical clout, he observed that Beijing was neither willing nor ready to take on equal responsibility for managing the international system and therefore, the US should remain engaged with East Asia.

The Chinese were up in arms. Some argued that as an ethnic Chinese, MM Lee should have stood shoulder to shoulder with China. This prompted a riposte from the Minister Mentor, quoting Lianhe Zaobao, at a BusinessChina meeting in Singapore in December 2009: “Your leaders say you are not cheng ba (seeking hegemony) but the way you are talking, you are already cheng ba.”

Beijing continues to stress its ‘peaceful rise’, but there is an emerging consensus emerging that China will occasionally choose to flex its new-found power in potentially destructive ways, just like superpowers have always done. Many fear China’s rise is precisely because of its lack of democracy, media freedom and absence of civil society, amongst others. The unsuccessful climate talks in Copenhagen portend the potentially obstructionist role China can play should it determine that global flavour of the day is not in its favour.

In this regard at least, Singapore leaders have learnt from the events surrounding Obama’s election. At the aforementioned BusinessChina meeting, MM Lee stressed that Singapore will never do the biding of any country, be it China or the US. This may well staunch the rah-rah over China for the moment. But the Chinese genie is already out of its bottle. Given Singapore’s demographic realities, it may well tempt the political leadership to make a Hobson’s choice at great cost to Singapore’s multi-racial heritage and gradual political maturity in future.

A second phenomenon fuelling this choice between China and the US is the reincarnation of the Asian values debate – something that looks to be fusing itself with the shift of power from West to East thesis. Worryingly, Singapore appears to indirectly champion this debate because of the nature of its one-party dominant political landscape.

The intellectual snobbery emerging from the East today is better understood in light of the 1997 financial crisis when the West allegedly castigated Asians over governmental excess and mismanagement. Today, the financial meltdown in the US is used as a haughty riposte along the lines of “see, so much for your democracy!” even if democracy had little, if anything, to do with that episode.

One cannot help but notice a childish and palpable sense of ridiculousness to this apparently intellectual jousting. The greatest shortcoming of any attempt to describe human societies is the lack of analytical rigour and practical difficulty of encapsulating the essence of human civilisation within the walls of general theory. Almost akin to a tit-for-tat fight in a schoolyard, some Asians have traditionally spoken of Asian values as if the West has no values. Equally, some elements in the West, hardly an innocent party at this game, fare no better with much of their academic discourse providing poor disguises for a blunt cultural superiority complex.

Unfortunately, some of Asia’s most foremost intellectuals have mistakenly dismissed democracy as a Western construct – a political philosophy unsuitable for Asian or, more specifically, Chinese culture. The intellectually honest among them, however, recognise that every society will have to deal with forces clamouring for a democratic tradition after a period of sustained growth. In their heart of hearts, these same intellectuals acknowledge that concepts of equality, justice and fairness have a universal appeal and that these values are best expressed within a political and legal system that jealously guards them, not one that determines their contours every now and then from above.

Even the most enthusiastic proponents postulating a shift of power from West to East agree that any shift is destined to be more elegant in theory than reality. The best minds in the world still go to America – it remains a hotbed of creativity, research and development where the virtues of justice, equality and fairness resonate more deeply as compared with China’s experience in modern times. The latter values may not explain the neo-conservative Republican aberration of Guantanamo and extraordinary renditions in the wake of 9/11, but the intense soul-searching over the use of torture and the reinstatement of due process evince the existence of a self-correcting mechanism that is evident in many democratic political systems.

Economic power may well have shifted in some capacity to Asia in general and China specifically, but soft power remains firmly in the clutches of the West, even if they make no effort at claiming its mantle. This should not surprise anyone. The combination of a democratic process, free press and a capacity for the individual to air grievances and take ownership of the democratic process may partly explain the regeneration, bottom-up pride and economic success seen in many democracies throughout the world, including those with remarkably Confucian characteristics, such as Taiwan and others that are quintessentially Asian, such as India.

The challenge of accommodating modern China’s political ethos – one that is found wanting in light of mankind’s universal and millenarian struggle against arbitrary and oppressive rule – remains a difficult proposition. The informal Chinese relationship concept of guanxi, while extremely useful in spreading wealth and prosperity among the selected, is ultimately underpinned by a non-democratic allegiance to a superior – somewhat akin to many patron-client relationships. If the patron is malevolent, the entire system breaks down and society pays a high price through the breakdown of law and order.

To a large extent, guanxi explains one of the fundamental tenets of Singapore’s economic growth. The patron, in the shape of the PAP has been largely benevolent, lifting an entire generation out of poverty through between the 1970s and 80s in particular, something the Chinese government to its credit, is also underwriting today, albeit, to a different extent. However, guanxi is also very unforgiving to individuals who believe in ensuring that the patron is subject to the rule of law. In the short-run, tangible signs of progress and economic growth also relegate and obscure demands of accountability and transparency.

But going forward, good governance in context of a more complex and layered global city may well have to be managed by a greater appreciation for a democratic tradition, such as a free press and respect for fundamental liberties within the framework of a multi-racial society. For a young nation like Singapore, whose only real resource is its human capital, the government is likely to be more successful at unlocking this wealth through substantive democratic reform and encouraging the citizenry to be more vocal and pro-active in taking ownership of their lives and country. With immigration and citizenship becoming such hot-button issues, a de-politicised allegiance to the fundamental liberties as outlined in our constitution may well kill two birds with one stone.

While no political system is perfect, and some democracies do fail spectacularly at different points in history, the capacity of a broadly democratic system to unleash inclusive and creative forces critical for economic growth whilst facilitating good governance ought to be attractive for a small and vulnerable country like Singapore. This is especially relevant at present, when growth is expected to plateau in concert with the current evolutionary stage of our economic development.

Instead of turning blue over accusations of a lack of democracy and freedom of expression and castigating Western commentators over their alleged imposition of a gold standard for democracy and human rights, Singaporeans would be better served by a flexible, ideologically neutral and ultimately syncretic political ideology. One that acknowledges the cultural peculiarities and norms required to manage a multi-racial polity on the one hand, whilst reaping the economic advantage of a substantively democratic society on the other.

Like the false dilemma of choosing between Obama and McCain, the even more misplaced discourse pitting Asian values against Western democracy does nothing for Singapore except to miss the woods for the trees. While the PAP has done admirably in guiding Singapore through its first forty years since independence, even the party’s staunchest loyalists would agree that a new generation of Singaporeans expect and demand greater accountability from their political leaders. Rather than dismiss democracy as a Trojan horse of Western machination, the party would be better placed, in concert with its pragmatism, to embrace democratic traditions such as freedom of expression and the press in order to unlock the wealth of talent within each and every Singaporean.

Pritam can be reached at pritam@opinionasia.com

11 February 2010

The rise of Feudal Capitali$m

Single-Party Democracy

By Roger Cohan (NYT)

BEIJING — I’m bullish on China after a couple of weeks here and perhaps that sentiment begins with the little emperors and empresses. In upscale city parks and rundown urban sprawls, I’ve seen China’s children pampered by grandparents, coddled by fathers, cared for by extended families.

Scarcity may explain the doting: China’s one-child policy makes children special. But there are deeper forces at work. The race for modernity has not blown apart the family unit, whatever the strains. After witnessing the atomization of American society, where the old are often left to fend for themselves, China feels cohesive.

It’s seeing that most natural of conspiracies — between grandparents and children — flourishing. It’s listening to young women in coastal factories talking about sending half their salaries home to some village in Guangxi where perhaps it goes to build a second floor on a parental house. It’s hearing young couples agonize over whether they can afford a child because “affording” means school, possible graduate education abroad, and a deposit on the first apartment.

The family is at once emotional bedrock and social insurance. “My” money equals my family’s money. All the parental investment reaps a return in the form of care later in life. “Children are a retirement fund,” a Chinese-American friend living here told me. “If you don’t have children, what do you do in old age?”

The Chinese, in other words, might be lining up to play karaoke after long factory shifts, but they’re not bowling alone American-style. They’re not stressing because they’re all alone. That’s critical. There so much heaving change here — China’s planning to open 97 new airports and 83 subway systems in the next five years — the family strikes me as the great stabilizer (even more than the regime’s iron fist).

As Arthur Kroeber, an economist, said, “High-growth stories are not pretty. If you’re growing at 10 percent a year, a lot of stuff gets knocked down.” It sure does: China looms through the dust. But the family has proved resilient, cushioning life for the have-nots, offering a moral compass for the haves (rampant corruption notwithstanding).

After the emperors and empresses, in my bullish assessment, comes the undistracted forward focus. After a while in Asia, you notice the absence of a certain background noise. It’s as if you’ve removed a negative drone from your life, like the slightly startled relief you feel when the hum of an air conditioner ceases.

What’s in that American drone? Oh, the wars of course, the cost of them, and debate around them, and the chatter surrounding terror and fear.

There’s also the resentment-infused aftermath of the great financial meltdown, navigated by China with an adroitness that helped salvage the world economy from oblivion. In the place of all that Western angst, there’s growth, growth, growth, which tends (through whatever ambivalence) to inspire awe rather than dread. The world’s center of gravity is shifting with a seismic inevitability.

I know, China has kept its foot on the gas of its stimulus package too long and there are bubble signs in housing and labor is no longer limitless, with resultant inflationary pressure. I also know there are tensions between state economic direction and market forces, with resultant waste. But my third bullish element is nonetheless an economy entering a 15-year sweet spot where rising disposable income will drive the domestic market.

Think of what Japan, Taiwan and South Korea went through decades ago, but with a population of 1.3 billion. Think of the 10 to 15 million new urban residents a year and the homes and infrastructure they will need. Think of all the stuff the world demands and can’t get elsewhere with the same quality, quantity and price. Think underlying drivers. They remain powerful.

Of course, political upheaval could unhinge all the above. Given that China’s open-closed experiment is unique in history, nobody can say how this society will be governed in 2050. Immense tensions, not least between the rage that corruption inspires and the difficulty of tackling it without a free press, exist. Still, my fourth reason for running with the Chinese bulls is perhaps the most surprising: single-party democracy.

It doesn’t exist. It’s an oxymoron (although a U.S. primary is a vote within one party). It can easily be the semantic disguise for outrage and oppression. But it just may be the most important political idea of the 21st century.

Rightful resistance is growing in China. Citizens are asserting their rights, not in organizing against the state (dangerous) but in using laws to have a say. Nongovernmental organizations are multiplying to advance agendas from the environment to labor rights. This is happening with the acquiescence of smart rulers.

“They know they cannot manage in the old way,” Ma Jun, a leading environmentalist, told me. “They cannot dam the water, but they can go with the flow and divert it to the places they want.”

Whether that place will ever resemble one-party democracy, I don’t know. But I no longer laugh at the idea. Harmonious discord is an old Chinese idea. The extended Chinese family is a daily exercise in just that.

Some comments from readers:

Xiao Ling Tong
Tianjin

I am an American male who has made China his home for the last 12 years. I can say with absolute certainty that everything Roger Cohen has written is true to the letter. I am glad that someone in the West can see it.

The country changes at the speed of late and yet it remains eternally China. Friendship and family and personal relations can often overcome even the most obdurate problems. Yes, indeed, there are limitations but in in each passing year that I have been here they have decreased. Four subjects remain tabu, not more than that, and they are collectively referred to as the four T's. The social net exists in different ways than in the United States -- there are no food stamps, social security is still in its exception, but there is an abundant end of demand for labor and the retirement age is only 55. People retire and then go to a second job.

Mortgages are made freely available to all and any, under orders from Beijing, and if one purchases an apartment valued at less than $100,000.00 USD, it is not at all uncommon that the monthly mortgage payment is less than $25.00 USD per month. The United States loves to criticize China for its record on human rights but there is one right here still available to all and that is the right to work and to find a job without a problem. An 11% unemployment rate like you have in the States now would case the Central Committee apoplexy.

Another example -- two years ago a major earthquake destroyed most of a major Western province in the city and killed 100,000 persons. The country went into high gear, Beijing sent in the People's Army to rebuild an entire area and 18 months later, the entire province was rebuilt...and I say that to ask you WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN NEW ORLEANS? Last time I was there it still looked like Hiroshima.

Where I live, within five minutes of my house, there is a huge new Protestant church, a new mosque, and an old Catholic church all open and functioning daily. I have ample social benefits on my job, like 4 months paid vacation every year, subsidized housing, subsidized water, gas and electricity, a food allowance, a travel allowance, etc., etc., and I am only a medium-ranking employee.

Yes, the system is highly controlled but it works so well. I have no fear for my person at all and go out at night at all hours. Crime and criminals are dealt with harshly and rapidly and endless appeals for convicted murders just do not exist. When I travel, I rarely take the plane anymore -- I simply go to the nearest train station and get on one of the 300 kilometer per hour bullet trains that link the entire country. They are fast, new, clean and efficient. Etc., etc. Wake up, America, you are starting to look more and more like Argentina if you know what that means.

Dan
London

This article seems to be caught in the same (orientalist?) trap as those of other well-regarded columnists who visit China for a couple of weeks and return to inform us that the way they are doing things is better than us while blithely glossing over the negatives (for other examples, see Thomas Friedman's collected works).

It's akin to understanding the communist era by visiting the Dazhai model village. This is not to deny that China's economic 'miracle' has not been remarkable (although this serves to highlight how bad it's economic performance had been prior to that) nor that we can learn things from it about our political and economic systems but that there is a distinct danger of people losing their perspective on what lessons to take away.

The stuff about family is a prime example. The family unit is a core feature of most societies but it seems that the author's view of the Chinese family is informed more by a lament at what has happened to the Western, or more precisely the Anglo-American, family unit than by an understanding of what is happening in the Chinese family unit. Yes, there is intergenerational living and a sharing of wealth but this is driven, in large part, by economic forces i.e. the lack of a social security system a lack of care homes. It used to be that way in the UK/USA too before the welfare state was created and we were all required to increase our working hours.

Moreover, this phenomenon is already taking place in China - nursing homes are springing up in economically advanced areas, such as Beijing and Shanghai, because people don't have the time to look after their parents they have the money to outsource the care. There have been huge changes that have taken place within family relationships during the period of reform and opening up, such as parents working in different parts of the country to earn money while the children are raised by family relatives, the effect of the one-child policy, the preference for boys over girls in rural areas.

In the main, I share the author's sentiment that strong family relationships are a good thing but it would be better if he could remember that the economic reforms in China are causing changes to the family than are less beneficial.

chenliang

hunan china

I wonder what is personal liberty? I really don't understand why so many people in the world in this 21 century always arguing about those tired topics talked long long ago! No body can give a meaning of liberty accepted by all.We need people who value actions more than words, rather than those always focus on the meaning of a single word!

Catrina Wang
Shanghai, China
The ironic thing is that democracy is written into the Chinese constitution: it states that citizens may exercise their right to vote in a general election every year. For the past 60 years however, this provision of the constitution has gone largely unenforced, like so many other laws. I think the close-knit nature of Chinese families has something to do with the poor rule of law in this country, where, as Mr. Cohen noted, "corruption is rampant" and money regularly buys complicity. If society-wide standards of justice and reciprocity are unreliable, then it makes sense to invest in a strong family unit.



SP
New York, NY
"One party democracy" does not and will never exist. What is in China is an oligarchy composed of corrupted, but yet talented and capable bureaucrats. In essence it is not very different from periods in China's long history when it was ruled by talented and capable emperors. Hopefully China is now on the same trajectory as Taiwan and South Korea some 30 years ago, when economic growth led to the end of one-party rule.

i save the best for last :-) ...

Dong Liu
USA
It is interesting to compare China and US. Both have a single-party democracy that is; both are ruled by a single group of elites. The difference is that in China these elites join the Chinese Communist Party, but in US these elites all work for Wall Street.

30 january 2010

Lim Peh

YPAP member: “Blame on your karma or your forefathers…”

Screenshot from YPAP Network Facebook

In case you can’t see it, here is what was posted by Eric How:

Kojat and Friends,

I am not mocking you guys on being banned on your own home ground. In fact, do not think that you can hide behind the keyboard doing all those weird stunts like posting pics of our members etc. I will be monitoring you guys and just be careful if you did infringe any copyrights materials.

Do not be bitter and go on slapping on the Government senselessly because you did not get any fruits or benefits from your forefather. You will have to blame on your karma or your forefathers for not getting all the paths right for their off springs. My folks did the right thing by getting all the stuffs ready for us and we will never ever need to nag about the Government giving jobs to foreigners instead of locals. In fact, we create jobs for others. Our folks even make sure that we guys do not need to squeeze into public transport by getting each of us a personal car.

The job market is an open competition whereby the best person gets the job and not because of nationalities. Buck up and do something right for you’re off springs so that they will be thankful to you and not turn up to be like you guys nagging senselessly.

From: The Online Citizen.

05 january 2010

Up Up And Away...

High HDB prices driven by speculators, hurting genuine home seekers

From: The Online Citizen

The following is a letter to the Today newspaper by Mr See Leong Kit which was “rejected for publication.”

Your report “Asset that keeps growing” (TODAY Dec 30) highlighted Minister Mah Bow Tan’s simplistic and optimistic view that HDB flat values will always go up.

Home prices in Singapore have become “ridiculously-high” for private property and “sky-high” for HDB flats.

Is it financially prudent for our young couples to start their marriage saddled with huge housing debts for something as basic as a roof over their heads?

The broader issue is that land-scarce Singapore must have proper policies to promote an “orderly” property market that is sustainable by economic growth, real demand and especially rising incomes. Such a market with gradual capital appreciation will benefit many Singaporeans from successive generations.

Whereas a “speculative” property market of sky-high prices is largely driven by speculators out to make a quick buck by “flipping a property”. But when the Property Bubble finally burst, both speculators and genuine home owners will be hurt by rapidly falling property values.

During our 1994 Property Bull Run, prices of both private and HDB properties were rising at 30% per annum for three years in a row. But since when has our economy as well as our salaries grow at such a phenomenal rate?

Our 2007 Property Bull Run lasted only nine months, cut short by the US sub-prime housing bubble turning into a Global Financial Crisis that brought recession and job losses to Singapore. But during that nine months, average freehold property value in our East Coast area doubled from $700 psf to $1400 psf.

A property may be “an asset that can be monetised”, but it can also end up as a millstone around one’s neck. High property prices will affect the average Singaporean as follows:

> As a home-buyer. Is it wise to sink so much of your hard-earned monies in a brick-and-cement house with little left over for your children’s upbringing, your own healthcare and retirement needs in old age?

> As an employee. If your employer has to pay high office rent out of its operating budget, can it afford to pay you a better salary,increment and bonus?

> As a consumer. If a shopkeeper or supermarket operator has to pay high commercial rent, will it not charge you higher prices for goods and services?

Finally, two pertinent questions for HDB flat-owners:

Are there not more important things in life, such as good health, close family ties and well brought-up children than this materialistic addiction to “HDB Upgrading Carrots” and “my HDB flat is worth a lot”?

Should you die suddenly from an accident or heart attack, can you take your high-valuation upgraded HDB flat along with you to the next world?

05 January 2010

The begining of a new reality

From the Online Citizen: From political party member to homelessness

Some interesting responds from the TOC readers. There were 48 comments (and counting) at the time of this writing. I have extracted a few salient ones, un-edited from two respondants which, best summaried my thought on the subject of "...the begining of a new reality."

First, comment by Akazukin

#07

Hi all, I strongly wish to share my ideas across, my lack of English command might cause this to be anti-read proof.

First off, the government’s money is the people’s money. The money is to be used on Singapore’s growth – from police, firefighters to foreign relations. I don’t think anyone have to right to take the money to buy a house for themselves, or to donate it to someone they love. To donate some to neighbour countries when they are facing disaster, yes, that makes sense. It ensure our country’s reputation and growth in the long run. Should we face disaster, the other country donate to us in return.

The bank, similiary, is also the people’s money. We could take a loan, but we must pay it back with interest. If we cannot expect the bank to donate and buy a house for us, How can we then expect to use the government’s money for ourselves? Is building a one-room flat considered a good progress for Singapore?

There are millions of Signaporeans. How many are actually willing to donate $10 to support the homeless? Truth is, not more than 20%. Everyone equally needs money. It is basic human rights. If they have $50 more today, they want to entertain themselves, get a new shoe, or buy a lottery. We cannot say that everyone is ‘bad’ by not donating. We will definately feel something when someone stole $10 or $50 from us. If we feel nothing, we can donate.

How would you feel when your money was taken by the government to buy KFC or McDonald to mr tan XX who is jobless? Won’t you feel pissed off? How about your money was being used to cover the expense of civil defence, development, and building the trust of foreign countries? won’t you feel proud?

It is very simple. The government tax the people so that they will have savings for development. They don’t tax the jobless. And they certaonly don’t tax everyone in order to give it to the poor. If they do, it is robbery.

The people’s money have a much more important usage. Stop looking at those giant figures and wonder why nobody give them to you. If you’re homeless and jobless, it is nobody to blame but yourself. If you think Singaporeans should support each other, You should work on getting donations for yourself, You should try to ask for money from door to door, and not looking and complaining about the collected tax paid by the people. It makes no sense.

#09

I suggest you all stop acting noble and upright. Imagine your 2% GST or income tax was all given to the old man to buy a house.

You’ll be pissed off.

And that old man was aiming at government’s money. It is your tax money.

#16

The problem is, many people are jealous of minister-level incomes. They then feel very discouraged in life. I work so hard to earn 800 hundred dollars, I must pay income tax, pay those people to get high salary.

And also about the giant savings the government had.

Like my argument above, it is to blame on yourself if you’re homeless. In this story, the old man chosed to work as a security guard, and when facing physical problems, he lost his job. What happened to simple McDonald counter service? what happened to the free old folks home offered to him? he refused.

Because why? throughout his life, he is aiming at the big money the government has. He lost respect to small incomes.

There are lots of 1-room flat, and the monthly bill to support it was only <200. But that guy wants the government to build FREE flats for the homeless.

And that money is our tax money.

It makes no sense to me.

I understand how everyone will hate my arguments, but I chose to write in this approach. Because I strongly believe that this "talking" is just a strong piece of white lie. In relaity, if you say Singaporeans should help each other, why don't you let the homeless move in and live with you? why don't you give $400 to the homless every month?

I feel that everyone is jealous of other people's money, which have led to a big mistake. Thus I strongly want to get my idea across. the government's savings is the people's tax for the country's growth. If you go to other country, you have to pay tax as their citizen as well. This ensure economy defense, if we have no savings, how are we going to compete with other countries in the long run?

He is homeless because he chose to be. He can give tuition , given his good level of English, he can do McDonalds, he can go old folks and play chinese chess, but he chose to be homeless, and he kept on dreaming about free houses, just because the government have some savings. Are we stupid enough to support this loser?

And here, in my view, is the respond that best expressed the sentiments of the majority of commentators:

Second, comment by Shan

#46

Hey Akazukin, you have garnered a lot of attention with what you’ve said. You have the right to voice out your views, no matter how heartless it may sound. There’s democracy within the people here and we still respect you.

You are still a human being like the rest of us and must have suffered much in your life. The fact that you say your salary is $800 a month means that you are struggling too. But $800 today cannot get you much so you must be getting help from somewhere. Do tell please. Is the government helping you? Are your relatives helping you? Where are you staying? What is your job? Do you think your efforts are only worth $800 a month?

The government here wants you to only subsist because if you were paid alot then you will be inclined to take breaks from work to enjoy life. If we all did that then the economy would slow down. Well, there’s nothing wrong with that; there’s always opportunity costs in whatever we do. ‘Breaks’ is a good opportunity cost. But it’s good for the people, not the government. The government want to pay themselves millions so they need you to work everyday till you are unable. Hence, they have policies that would not have you earn more than you need.

As for asking people to pay donations to help the poor, I think it’s not right, for we have done alot. Why is it that when there is a social problem the government directs them to the people on the street for help? We have been paying high prices for everything we buy and need : income taxes, transport fares, HDB prices and fees, rental spaces for businesses, road taxes, property taxes, fines for this and that..etc All these monies have been paid by us, so the government should use the money for uplifting society. Instead, they use it to pay themselves millions, and lose billions in bad investments. Still, no one gets punished for bad judement. If we make bad judgements, we are punished severly.

In short, Akazukin, we are pissed with the government for stealing our every breath. The groups of homeless people in Parks are the begining of a new reality. You just wait, Akazukin, there will be many more to come because people like you believe truly, eventhough you are one of the victims, that the government is doing a wonderful job.

We may become neighbours one day in Sembawang Park. Never know.

02 January 2010

A Happy New Year to one and all.