Archive for the 'Government' Category

economists blogging China 2008: you might want to know

It’s one of the wonderful things about blogs.  You can find really smart people who are blogging their thoughts rather than writing super long, boring reports.  And if those people are economists, how great is that?  If you are NOT someone who likes to spend much time on economic reading, you might enjoy the WorldBank’s East Asia and Pacific Newsletter, which comes every now and then to your email Inbox and delivers the contents of the bank’s’ East Asia and Pacific blog.

Today there’s a piece from the World Bank’s Country Director for China and Mongolia, David Dollar, on possible scenarios for the rest of the year in China.  There are more jobs in places outside of the southeast, which is a good thing; but food costs too much, and a US recession and more expensive yuan could hurt Chinese exports. The Chinese government is trying to channel FDI into non-export-oriented projects.

Dollar’s most recent post is on a meeting he had with a group of economists in which they discussed possible optimist and pessimistic scenarios for what is happening in China right now, particularly the shift from exports to domestic consumption as a form of economic growth.  He writes:

The pessimistic scenario is that there is a sharp drop in investment as 2008 develops as firms and banks become aware that future profits in exports and industry more generally are not so promising.  Banks discover that some of the loans they have made in the boom years are not being serviced.  If these sectoral problems feed into generalized pessimism and consumer caution, then the overall slowdown could be quite sharp.

Another World Bank economist, Luis Kuijs, responds in a long comment with a slightly different opinion:

The expected slowdown of exports later this year will have an impact on domestic demand. I would think this impact will mainly be via an adjustment of investment plans of businesses in the tradable sector. Employment in the export sector will be hit. However, the importance of the export sector for job creation should not be exaggerated. In recent years, the “non tradable” sector (services and the part of industry catering to domestic demand) has created many more jobs than the export sector.

Net nanny’s mysterious ways

In the wake of the clamor over Tibet… BBC News has been unblocked.

Image from BBC News:

BBCNews

I wonder if this move has anything with do with the anti-CNN sentiment* floating around the interweb.

Original BBC News story here.

*In case you haven’t been reading up: CNN has been blamed for their coverage of the recent incidents in Tibet because they a) cropped photos to suit their story, and b) used photos of Nepalese police arrests for their China stories. See ESWN for more details.

the biggest Chinese rights game in town: it’s March 15

315_day_2

Photo: Teaching people to distinguish fake goods from real, Zaozhuang city, Shandong, 3/9/08

As an anthropologist, March 15th has always been one of my favorite holidays in China. It’s International Consumer Rights Day/ 国际消费者权益日, the day when there are tables set up in public for consumers to learn more about their rights, the streets are festooned with red banners encouraging citizens to envision themselves as consumers, and the media is full of gruesome, horrific, tragic stories of consumption gone wrong. For one day everyone in China focuses on the widespread effects of the unregulated greed and economic desperation that fuels shoddy manufacturing, counterfeit products, lies in advertising. All in the name of creating a better kind of Chinese consumption and a Chinese consumer class (if you can call it that) that can exercise rights (if you can call them that) and is actually encouraged to demand that its rights be attended to. These rights are the rights that can be expressed, pressed, and propagated. Meanwhile, other rights are seen as unjustified.

Sina BBS is giving prominent position to a Sina blog post now become open BBS thread, called 315: Let’s stick up for our rights together and speak out. Sina BBS front page is also collecting related posts from blogs and BBS around the country with titles like “Netizen eats nail in Tangyuan cookies,” and “These comfortable sanitary pads had flies inside.”

Sina_bbs_315_day

The 315 post opens with the following (rough translation as always):

As 3.15 draws near, the main subject of 2008 3.15 International Consumer Rights Day has already been set, namely, consumption and responsibility. It is the responsibility of our whole society to protect the rights and benefits of consumers, and all concerned parties should together strive to do the work of standing up for consumer rights, improving the consumption environment, and pushing for faster, better economic and social development.

In the past few years the home furnishing market has been hot and there are many impressive signs and billboards with slogans such as “China’s famous brand furnishings,” or “Furniture products exempt from [tax?],” all of which bedazzle consumers. As another Consumer Rights Day arrives, why don’t we all describe our experiences from remodeling and buying furniture in the past year?

Speak out freely, net-friends, use our own strength to protect our rights and interests.

And yet, consumer rights do spill over into other kinds of rights, especially when they are the only rights game in town. One netizen shared the following experience:

It’s another 3.15, and again one thinks of standing up for the rights of the common people. Actually, standing up for commercial rights is relatively easy but there are some kinds of rights that the common people don’t even have anywhere to go to discuss! For instance, Kunshan, Zhou Village officials and the common people have been playing a cat and mouse game. At present our economies are developing quickly and there’s an endless stream of illegal buildings. Zhou Village called for a halt to all private buildings. But if there’s demand there will be illegal building! You would build, they would take it down, and there wasn’t anything more to say about it. But then it turns out that some are out of the ordinary and can’t be taken down! The reason, officials say, is that before a certain date it didn’t count as an illegal building! Then the people build more and they take them down again but there are always those that don’t get taken down and the officials once again say that before such-and-such a date they don’t count as illegal. It’s made it impossible for the local cadres to know what to say to the people. The work can’t be done and there are all these illegal buildings. The officials up above say: get rid of them! The local officials never agreed with the this way of doing things anyhow so they say they’ve got nobody to do it. The officials say: get rid of them! We have money, we’ll call up a truckful of migrant workers and level a couple of small potatos’ buildings.

Those who are in official positions are really disappointing us these days! Those illegal buildings mostly belong to low-income people, and some of the cadres don’t do things in the interest of the people but just according to their own purposes. How can we establish a harmonious society with these kinds of officials?

If you want more, Baidu has a bunch of related videos.

Shanghai ban on group rentals: “I don’t like this Regulation”

Since September, 2007, Shanghai government released a new regulation about house renting, in which group rentals are considered harmful and have to be got rid of. Lots of apartments were checked and walls were destroyed by government people. Young people living in this kind of apartment were persuaded or even forced to sign a paper and move away in a certain period of time. Let’s take a look at some of the pictures of one task getting rid of a group rental in Shanghai.

Gr1

Gr2

Gr3

I used to be living in a 2-bedroom apartment, similar to the one in the picture above, and it was slightly changed by the landlord and rented to three people including me. Now, the landlord decided to change the apartment back to the original structure and raise the rent. So finally I had to make a decision to move, though it is not easy to find a place for only one person with that price( 1,500 rmb/month) nearby.
I don’t like the Regulation getting rid of group renting. Sometimes I just feel helpless and hopeless since I am not a Shanghainese and if there is no cheap, clean and convenient place to live, how could I work here anymore?

I found WangJianshuo’s blog, in which he discussed about this issue and expressed his pity to people like me. In his blog, he writes:

I don’t like this Regulation

Recently, it seems there are more regulations coming out every month
than before. Every time I see some regulation like this, I just smile
and comment: the government is just getting crazy.

  • There is need for people to share apartments.
    Shanghai’s real estate price just raises to be even as expensive as
    Tokyo, and even people with very good income cannot afford to buy a
    house. Where can those low-income people live? On the street? Maybe not
    a good idea. They have to think of ways to solve this problem.
  • To simple solution to complicated issue.. There are
    many problems brought by group renting, like security, noise, damage of
    house… but the key is solve these problems instead of just kill the
    whole way of living. Policy makers just want to find easy way to
    complicated situation. It is just like this: "How to solve the problem
    that the China’s population is too big?", they may answer: "Easy. Kill
    half of them." It sounds an easy and really working solution, but you
    need to respect the right of everyone, not just the half that survive.
    To ban group renting is the same thing.
  • Not practical. There are so many situation that is not
    covered in it. The media’s attention was draw to the fact that this
    regulation may forbidden unmarried couple to live together, or several
    friends living together. Some media outside China may even mis-read the
    rule as a way to ban Gay Couples (look at here: Shanghai Orders Landlords Not To Rent To Gay Couples). I would say this obviously exaggerated the situation since the regulation didn’t mean it, although it caused similar result.

One day, one of my friends sent me a website, on which some law professors thought this regulation was illegal. In fact, my friend told me, there is no specific law about this issue in China. Well then why should people say we were not allowed to live in that kind of houses? Where shall we go if the rent continued rising and rising?…

“mad that Youtube is BANNED in China” on Facebook

Facebook_youtube_china

Mad that Youtube is BANNED in China Facebook group seems mostly to be expats, although not completely. It has over 700 members at present.   

HK-based research foundation makes flashy research, BBC & SCMP pick it up

I saw this on the BBC Asia page yesterday:

"Mega-city move? Calls for Hong Kong and Shenzhen to merge into one city"

The people behind these "calls" is the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre. Their director, Anthony Wu, is quoted as saying "If you look at the long term competitiveness of Hong
Kong, Hong Kong has only got seven million people, and… Shenzhen has
13 million people. You need to merge the two to create a bigger
metropolis to take advantage of China and the world."

And he continues to argue that "Hong Kong should merge with China… as Hong Kong has the legal system and China the 5,000 years of culture."

The article continues by giving more details of his radical plan, which, as you may have guessed, I have my doubts about. Are these grandiose, sweeping generalizations the best that a "research centre" in Hong Kong can come up with?

Then of course, there’s the local English newspaper, the South China Morning Post, which ran an editorial  supporting Wu’s arguments and (quoting from the same BBC article) "argued that the ‘one country, two systems’ mantra, designed to guarantee Hong Kong’s autonomy under Chinese rule, was a ’straitjacket’, which ‘but for history’ was holding Hong Kong back."

I’m not even going to comment on that one.

Source: See original article on the BBC.

“Fuc* GFW”: coming to a t-shirt near you

Fuck_gfw1

From Chinese IT guru Keso’s Flickr stream, a t-shirt with the latest rallying cry against Chinese Internet censoring, most recently of Flickr itself: Fuck GFW (Great Firewall).  Above, in Chinese, followed by "Please use Tor".  Tor is an anonymity network — a free service that, according to Tor’s website, works like this:

The idea is similar to using a twisty, hard-to-follow route in order to throw off somebody who is tailing you—and then periodically erasing your footprints. Instead of taking a direct route from source to
destination, data packets on the Tor network take a random pathway through several servers that cover your tracks so no observer at any single point can tell where the data came from or where it’s going.

Tor is also where you get taken when you click on a "Fuck GFW!" button on IT blog Herock:

Fuck_gfw2

Herock has apparently been hosting either a FuckGFW proxy or a link to a proxy for awhile now, as you can read here. No doubt the term has a long and glorious history.  But according to a Jeremy Goldkorn June 8 post on Danwei, this latest round was started by Keso’s June 8 response to the blocking of Flickr, Fuck GFW post, which Danwei translates as:

In the global Internet, the better the website, the more likely it
will get GFWed. This is the sorrow of all Internet users in this
country. In the past it has been Google, Blogger, Wikipedia,
Wordpress.com, Vix.com… Now it’s Flick’s turn …

… 

I just have one character to tell those bastards: Fuck!

podcast: on China’s “eco-Potemkin village”

Ethical Corporation is a publisher and conference organizer on corporate ethics–broadly defined.  Their material is fresh and thorough.  You can sign up for a newsletter, and they have short podcasts as well.

Listen to this podcast with Toby Webb, EC’s Editor, and Paul French, their Asia-Pacific Editor (who is also publishing and marketing director at Access Asia), discussing Dongtan, the Chinese eco-village project being built on Chongming Island outside of Shanghai.  The second part of the interview is mostly about the politics of this project at home in the UK, which is a great illustration of how these international development projects always have multiple motivations behind them.  Of interest:

"…now every province in China wants to do one of these.  It’s almost as if, if I build this small green village with a couple of windmills and some solar panels, then we’ve done with the environment and I can go back to my strip mining and my dirty steel mill." 

"Now what they’ve done is scare all the [migratory] birds away by building these environmentally friendly buildings…so in a sense you’re destroying the natural environment in order to create an environmentally friendly environment…"

For more on Dongtan, link via CDT, see the IEEE Spectrum magazine’s excellent article, "How to Build a Green City."

One tiny critical point, a genuine question for those of us who are foreigners and think and write about China: why is it that so many of us continue to use the Cultural Revolution as a reference point for what’s happening today?  Isn’t it kind of like using the San Francisco Summer of Love, 1967, as a common reference point for understanding something about current American culture?  The CR was between thirty and forty years ago–that’s a long time.  Of course it had a massive impact on many levels, but so did the free love/sexual revolution/women’s liberation 1960s movement in the U.S., but we don’t continue to reference it.  Or maybe we should?

Netizens show support via mashup!?

The nail house incident blogged here earlier has made it way into the English blogosphere: BoingBoing linked to Ananova about it (before we caught it actually), ESWN linked to Danwei’s post, and Peering Into The Interior translated an interview with the owner.

Meanwhile, as Global Voices Online points out, it is also picking up steam on the Chinese BBS’s.

The latest item that’s caught my eye: netizens show support by mashing up headshots of the nail house owner’s husband.

20070325_nailhusband2_2

Picture via GVO.

on the BBS: cohabitation and the law

Sina_bbs

One of Sina BBS’s "HOT" threads last week: "People’s Congress Delegate Advocates Repealing Concept of Illegal Cohabitation, Do You Support?" It was posted by "eastinred," who kicks things off with a long response titled, "This People’s Congress delegate’s proposal puts the incidental in front of the fundamental," some of which I translate below. Eastinred reads a bit like a hired Internet commentator trying to influence public opinion.

The main post notes that a People’s Congress delegate, lawyer Han Deyun, recently pointed out that unmarried cohabitation only became seen as illegal in 1989 and is not actually against the Marriage Law.  Since that time, according to Han, people have seen the practice as both immoral and illegal. Eastinred then responds to this news with a long, reasoned, essay.  Selected excerpts:

"eastinred": As seen by the common people (note, I’m not talking about legal experts), cohabitation can be divided in the following ways:  1.  Both parties are single; 2. One party is single, one party is married; 3. Both parties are married, but are not each other’s spouse; 4. Other kinds of unusual situations….Situations 2 and 3 are clearly going against our current law, and are already deemed illegal by the current marriage law because this kind of behavior is harmful to society…My personal opinion is that situations 2 and 3 must be defined as illegal cohabitation! What’s more, it should be cracked down on by the law!…As for situation 1, two single parties, we must focus on whether it’s voluntary.  If one party is being forced it appears to be illegal behavior.  Mostly it is men who force women, and here we must continue to fight against this kind of behavior.

Now I will discuss two single parties who are living together voluntarily. In this situation there is basically no harm to society, in fact it could play a stabilizing role…Some people are even just about to go through the marriage procedures…I think that the People’s Congress delegate was probably talking about these kinds of people when he said we should not label them [as illegal]. But our marriage law also protects common-law marriage, that is to say, although the couple may not have a marriage certificate they are still protected by law in many circumstances. This kind of situation used to be very common in the countryside, and has to do with tradition and educational level, and one thing about this kind of situation is that people surrounding the couple all see the couple as husband and wife, without any suspicion.

Because society is changing too quickly, the intensity of work (mostly the intensity of intellectual labor) is increasing daily for city people, especially in large cities, and there’s a huge volume of information. Marriage becomes a question of choice (people can’t make up their minds), dread increases (the fear of failure); add in the increasing mobility of the population and some pessimists adopt a kind of "having it once is better than never having it at all" 曾经拥有、别无所求 attitude. The two parties don’t care about the past and have no specific plans for the future (actually this is a kind of distrust in society), which naturally means an increase in casual husbands and wives. There’s something we feel sympathy towards in these kinds of people.  At present we should increase safeguards and later lead them in the right direction.  Increasing social safeguards will decrease the numbers of this group and this kind of precarious lifestyle, so that living a true married life will be more than just a dream for them.

Some of the over 200 comments had more to say:

My personal opinion? This kind of delegate is useless.

What a lame delegate, who knows who asked you to be a representative, social morals are falling apart just like that, perhaps it’s you who are living with someone illegally and that’s why you raised the issue.

  I support this strongly.  What is the law protecting in my relationship with my girlfriend, nothing. The law should protect those who are in situations against their will.