|
|
Browse by Tags
All Tags » Politics
Sorry, but there are no more tags available to filter with.
-
By Julien Bertrand:
 On his first official visit to China, French President Nicolas Sarkozy must have been dizzy, witnessing the signing of contracts worth 20 billion euros in total, comprising of 160 Airbus aircrafts, two EPR nuclear reactors (to be built in Taishan, Guangdong, by 2014) and signal equipment for Shanghai???s future 36-kilometer metro line #10, a long-awaited deal between Alstom and Shanghai Metro that will link New Jiangwan Town to Hongqiao Airport.
In an interview with Xinhua, the President deftly used nice friendly terms such as ???harmony,??? ???economic advances,??? and ???world security.??? However, his declarations that ???Tibet belongs to China??? and that ???Taiwan does not need a referendum to decide of its future??? lend a strange taste to his trip when we learn that a month ago, two Chinese lawyers, Mo Shaoping and Li Jinsong, were two of the five recipients of the French Prize for Human Rights (this year???s themes were ???freedom of opinion, freedom of expression and freedom of information???)???
 On a lighter note, we hear that Yang Erche Namu, a famous Chinese female writer and singer, made a marriage proposal to recently-divorced President Sarkozy, claiming that he ???must be a good kisser??? and that he needs new things in his life, the same way Paris should be ???renewed??? because it is one of those ???old things??? France is stuck with. So much for the Eiffel tower and the Butte Montmartre. Watch her make her declaration of love here.
Sarkozy wrapped up his tour of China by dining at the Sens & Bund (voila) and strolling down the Bund under a suspiciously nice weather (see picture here) and amidst a crowd of admirers.
Last but not least, what French expatriates see, when their President is abroad, is the cost of his private personal security staff, and of the 52 deputies and French company CEOs, all flown in with taxpayers??? money to private airports all around the world (not counting family members such as the President???s mother, which is the subject of many an indecent joke). We think Chinese people miss the grandeur and allure of former President Jacques Chirac who, with his big nose and low-pitched voice, talked about Chinese antiques and did not stand next to Terra Cotta Warriors ??? something the current President did, reminding us all once more of how small he is (another popular joke among leftists).
|
-
Despite the fact that Kevin Rudd - the fluent Mandarin speaking leader of the Australian Labor Party - is widely predicted to romp it in at the Australian Federal election this coming Saturday, it seems he's not taking any chances. The latest salvo in Rudd's "earnestness offensive" according to the Sydney Morning Herald, takes form in a seven-metre billboard of The Great Rudd (see right) that has been suspended above Cameron Road in Hong Kong for the past two weeks.
At $HK80,000 a month, the billboard is a key part of the Labor Party's aggressive campaign to lure overseas Australians to the polling booths. As the Herald points out: In 2004 there were 68,544 votes cast by Australians overseas, according to Sasha Nimmo, of the Australian Electoral Commission. More than 20,000 of these came from the Australian High Commission in London. The next biggest number - 7768 - came from the Australian Consulate-General in Hong Kong.
Rudd, otherwise known as Liu Kewen (陆克文), has been taking full advantage of his Mandarin skills and China connections during the election campaign. Only two weeks ago, he was yammering away about, amongst other things, his Chinese son-in-law, in a 40-minute interview on CCTV 9 conducted in Mandarin and English (see video link below). Most analysts agree that this was a deliberate move by Rudd to reach Chinese Australian voters in Prime Minister John Howard's own electorate. Almost 10% of electors in Howard's seat were born in Hong Kong or mainland China.
Rudd has been derided as a "media tart" in the past. Indeed, his management of the press since taking over as Labor leader has been quite deft. But not even the slickest of spin-doctors can keep a lid on everything. While Rudd has been waxing lyrical in Mandarin on Chinese TV, the attention of Chinese netizens has been on a different type of wax. Ear wax. To be even more precise, the kind of ear wax that a school-boyish looking Rudd used to covertly sample as a bored backbencher sitting in parliament. China Daily's blow-by-blow account of this scene, which is now immortalized on Youtube (see video below), ranks fourth on a Baidu search for "陆克文". Let's hope this China Hand keeps his own hands where they should be in future.
Friendly reminder to Aussie Shanghaiists
Please get down to the Australian Consulate General to vote. Voting will continue to take place every day from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm including on Election Day Saturday, 24 November 2007.
Related Links
Sydney Morning Herald: Kevin's above, he's even big in Hong Kong
Video of Rudd on CCTV 9: Kevin Rudd, Leader of Australian Labor Party & Prime Ministerial candidate
Youtube: Kevin Rudd eating ear wax during Question Time
China Daily: 澳总理候选人吃耳垢被拍 视频上网形象受损
Shanghaiist: Kevin Rudd as Chairman Mao
Shanghaiist: A new dawn in Sino-Australian relations?
|
-
PLUS LEE KUAN YEW AND HIS ROLE IN SINO-SINGAPORE RELATIONS
The last week has seen top leaders zipping between China and Singapore to cement ties and sign new deals. Let's take you through the high-profile visits one by one before diving deeper into more detail (Warning: Long article!):
 Goh Chok Tong visits new Shanghai party chief and the Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park
Last week, Singapore's Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong swung by Shanghai to visit her two-week old Party chief Yu Zhengsheng. This was not the first time they had met though. The two first met seven years ago when Yu was visiting Singapore as part of former premier Zhu Rongji's delegation. At that time, Yu was Minister of Construction and Goh was the prime minister of Singapore. This time, Goh was on his way to the Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park — a development that has often been held out as the centrepiece of Sino-Singapore relations (but also one that caused a minor scandal to erupt in Singapore, more details later).
Wen Jiabao on his first trip to Singapore
On Sunday, Premier Wen Jiabao began a 5-day visit to Singapore at the invitation of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong. This is Wen's first visit to Singapore as premier, and the last time a Chinese premier had visited the city-state was in 2000. Wen's whirlwind of activities included a speech at the National University of Singapore, a call on President S.R. Nathan, the formal launch of the Singapore-China Foundation and the signing of a new agreement on the Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city project.
Lee Kuan Yew in Beijing
Prior to Wen's visit though, Ministor Mentor Lee Kuan Yew (Singapore's first premier and father of the current Prime Minister) managed to squeeze in a trip to Beijing to do his share of the networking. He met up with President Hu Jintao, the Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi, and Xi Jinping, the former Shanghai Party chief who has just been elevated to the elite nine-member Politburo Standing Committee and is now China's sixth most powerful politician. Lee Senior noted that the Chinese are studying Singapore very seriously - including "how its civil servants are trained and how the members of Parliament conduct Meet The People sessions". He also had unusually high praise for Xi:
"I would put him in the Nelson Mandela's class of persons. A person with enormous emotional stability who does not allow his personal misfortunes or sufferings affect his judgement. In other words, he is impressive."
Lee is, as TIME's Simon Elegant notes, a "shrewd judge of character", and while his judgement of Xi appears to be a little far-fetched, Lee may have had Xi's experiences during the Cultural Revolution in mind. Xi had spent some seven years working on a farm in the countryside. His own father was imprisoned by Mao in the early 1940s and purged again during the Cultural Revolution.
Lee Kuan Yew, his China insight and Sino-Singapore relations
Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of modern Singapore and the man widely credited for bringing the city-state from third-world to first-world in the space of three decades, is revered by many as some sort of a modern day Confucius of pan-Asian politics. Although he has often been criticised for many of his hardline approaches, there is probably no one as eloquent or able as he is in interpreting Asia to the western world, and as such, many western leaders have often sought to tap into his brains in formulating their China and India policies, for instance.
This interview conducted by TIME Magazine in 2005 offers a glimpse into Lee's China insight and the early foundations of Sino-Singapore relations that resulted from his initial dealings with Deng Xiaoping: TIME: Who's the most impressive person you've met in your public life?
LEE: Deng Xiaoping.
TIME: We knew you'd say that. But tell us why.
LEE: I met this small man when he came to Singapore in November 1978. This small four-foot-eleven man, but a giant of a leader. He gave me a long spiel�the Russian bear, Vietnam was his Cuba in the Far East, danger for you. I had provided him with a Ming vase spittoon, and I put an ashtray in front of him. He neither smoked nor used the spittoon. The same arrangements at dinner. He did not use either. At dinner he said, "I must congratulate you, you've done a good job in Singapore." I said, "Oh, how's that?" He says, "I came to Singapore on my way to Marseilles in 1920. It was a lousy place. You have made it a different place." I said, "Thank you. Whatever we can do, you can do better. We are the descendants of the landless peasants of south China. You have the mandarins, the writers, the thinkers and all the bright people. You can do better." He looked at me, but said nothing. In November 1992, during his famous tour of the southern provinces, he said, "Learn from Singapore," and "Do better than them." I thought, oh, he never forgot what I said to him.
But what impressed me was, the next day in our talks in Singapore, I said, "You spent all this time to convince me why we should fight the Russian bear. Let me tell you that my neighbors want me to join them to fight you, you're the man who's giving us trouble. All this communist insurgency and your broadcasts urging them on and so on." He screwed up his eyes, peered at me, and asked, "What do you want me to do?" I said, "Stop it." One young man telling one old grizzly, guerrilla fighter: "Stop it." He said, "Give me time." Eighteen months later he stopped it. That man faced reality. I'm convinced that his visit to Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, that journey, in November '78, was a shock to him. He expected three third-world cities; he saw three second-world cities, better than Shanghai or Beijing. As his aircraft door closed, I turned around to my colleagues, I said, [his aides] are getting a shellacking. They gave him the wrong brief. Within weeks, the People's Daily switched lines, that Singapore is no longer a running dog of the Americans, it's a very nice city, a garden city, good public housing, very clean place. They changed their line. And he changed to the "open door" policy. After a lifetime as a communist, at the age of 74, he persuaded his Long March contemporaries to return to a market economy.
Singapore's unique position
It has been said that Singapore, as the only predominantly ethnic-Chinese country which China cannot claim as its own, has often played the role of a middle-man between Beijing and Taipei, though that role has been widely denied on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. In 1993, for instance, Singapore's deft diplomatic juggling led Chinese and Taiwanese negotiators to meet in the city-state, cleverly positioned as neutral ground for both parties. Nevertheless, the official line toed by both PRC and ROC officials has been somewhere along the lines of "This is a family matter. We don't need the intervention of any foreigners, thank you".
For a long time, land-scarce Singapore has also been sending its army to train in Taiwan, developing deep ties with the Taiwanese military — with nary an objection raised by the Chinese. Singapore ministers had also often made "private" visits to Taipei — moves that were undoubtedly noticed by the Chinese. The challenge came in 2004, when Lee Hsien Loong, prior to his appointment as the new premier, made a private visit to Taiwan, as he had done before. President Hu Jintao had just come to power in China and the new leadership lodged a severe protest, perhaps with a view to reining in Singapore. Overnight, Singaporean businesses reported of lost business deals all across China. Subsequent efforts by Lee (and his father) to salvage the situation ended up provoking the Taiwanese side, with Taipei's then foreign minister Mark Chen hitting the headlines with very colourful language, accusing Singapore of "fondling China's balls" and criticising it for being "a country smaller than a piece of snot".
The earlier-mentioned Singapore-Suzhou Industrial Park also represented a small blip in Sino-Singapore relations and major embarrassment on the part of Singapore officials. As the Suzhou municipal government only held a minority stake (35%) in the park, they focused their efforts on the promotion of another competing industrial park. After five years of subsequent losses, the Singaporeans eventually lowered their own stake to 35% and raised the Chinese stake to 65%, and within a year the park made its first profit of US$3.8 million.
Going forward
Fresh from its Suzhou experience, Singapore is helping China to build an eco-city in Tianjin that will be ready in 10 to 15 years. Though Sino-Singapore ties will no doubt be deepened over the next few years, that has come at a cost to the Singapore side, which has been made painfully cognisant by recent events of the fact that it stands to lose out much more than China does if it fails to engage China on its terms.
Related links
Straits Times: Shanghai leader hopes for better links with S'pore [Subscription required]
Channel News Asia: SM Goh visits SIP, opens science hub
Straits Times: PM Wen to begin visit to Singapore on Sunday [Subscription required]
Straits Times: Whirlwind of activities on Day 1 of China PM's visit [Subscription required]
Channel News Asia: China sees itself moving in Singapore's direction: MM Lee
TIME China Blog: China's Nelson Mandela?
Spiegel: "It's Stupid to be Afraid"
Asia Times: Behind the Taiwan-Singapore spat
Photo of Premier Wen Jiabao and Ministor Mentor Lee Kuan Yew from Channel News Asia
|
-
 The propaganda department is definitely going into overdrive this week. First, if you still didn't know that China has political parties other than the CCP, the People's Daily has an interesting backgrounder of the eight parties, with short descriptions of the history of the parties and their membership size and make-up. These parties are namely: the Revolutionary Committee of the Chinese Kuomintang (RCCK), China Democratic League (CDL), China National Democratic Construction Association (CNDCA), China Association for Promoting Democracy (CAPD), Chinese Peasants and Workers Democratic Party (CPWDP), China Zhi Gong Dang (CZGD), Jiu San Society, Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League (TSL). Also there is a group of mostly intellectuals under the "Personages Without Party Affiliation" which includes people like Guo Moruo, Ma Yinchu, Ba Jin, Miao Yuntai and Cheng Siyuan. Not all the parties, it seems were founded on the mainland. The Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League, for instance, was founded in Hong Kong and the Zhi Gong Dang in San Francisco.
These parties, while limited in what they can do, have been invited to play a greater role in advising the government, without challenging its authoritarian rule, says the Associated Press:
While stressing the advisory and supervisory roles played by the small, powerless parties, the policy paper said plainly that the Communist Party "holds the leading and ruling position."
The Communist Party's leadership position "is the choice of history and the people," the paper said.
The AP story goes on to give a bit more background on the eight parties and touches on the Communist Party's willingness to co-opt non communists into their fold: The eight minor parties are holdovers from the early days of the revolution. De-fanged and co-opted by the party over the decades, they have served mainly to rubber stamp decisions taken by the leadership. Many of the parties' individual members remain influential in business and academic circles, providing a key conduit of communication for Chinese leaders.
Though the Communist Party has the final say, it has shown a willingness to go outside for expertise. Earlier this year, China appointed two non-communists to the Cabinet-level posts of minister of health and minister of science and technology.
Chen Zhu and Wang Gang, both of whom were educated in Europe, were the first nonparty members appointed to the Cabinet since the 1970s.
In fact, 31,000 non-communists are said to have taken leadership positions at or above the county level, says another People's Daily report: 18 served as deputy leaders in the Supreme People's Court, the Supreme People's Procuratorate, and various ministries, commissions, offices and bureaus directly under the State Council; 24 served as deputy provincial governors, vice-chairpersons and deputy mayors in the 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities directly under the central government; 356 served as deputy mayors or deputy governors of the people's governments of 397 cities (prefectures, leagues, districts); 35 served as vice-presidents of provincial courts or deputy attorneys-general of provincial procuratorates; and 141 serve as vice-presidents of courts and deputy attorneys-general of procuratorates at the prefecture/city level.
This style of co-opting non party members into the fold and placing them in leadership positions even has a wonderfully democratic-sounding name: the "multi-party cooperation system". Just what is this curious multi-party thing all about? It is, in essence, "democracy without the mess". Most of Asia is governed by one-party states to varying degrees, including Japan, India, Singapore and Malaysia — and China has been said to be learning from the history of these countries to see what it glean from their experience. In addition, Singapore's People's Action Party (PAP) which has held a virtually complete hold on government since the tiny city-state gained independence, has been said to be the case study most of interest to the CCP. In words that look like it could be lifted straight out of a PAP paper, the white paper explains what this "multi-party cooperation system" is all about: ..."[It] replaces confrontation and contention with cooperation and consultation, effectively avoiding political instability and frequent changes of regime resulting from discord among political parties, thus reducing internal frictions of the society to the maximum, and safeguarding social and political stability and solidarity."
Like it or not, China can be expected become more and more adept in playing the "multi-party cooperation system" game to keep up with the image of improving democratisation that it wants to project for a great many more years to come.
Related links
People's Daily: Backgrounder: China's democratic parties and personages without party affiliation
People's Daily: White paper: 31,000 non-communists take official positions in China
People's Daily: White paper: China's multi-party cooperation system is major manifestation of socialist democracy
Associated Press: Minor parties advise China's communists
Photo from KatieKellert
|
-
 This a rough translation of Fan Gui's response to Sun Liping's essay (which we wrote about here):
1. Regarding Sun's first point, I believe that he has ignored a very crucial fact—the growing gap between rich and poor. 20% of the population controls 80% of the wealth, how can you say that such a status quo has "flexibility"? While Professor Sun divides the population into urban and rural, does he mean that the urban poor ought to shoulder the burden of the rural poor? They [the urban poor] think of themselves as victims! Can we really continue to ignore them? The greater the income inequality, the less "elasticity" the society has.
2. Regarding Sun's second point, I believe that he ignores two problems:
Firstly, is there really a fully functioning market economy? The current market is ruled by the powerful — must we continue to ignore this fact, even while it increases social tension and conflict?
Secondly, is it really true that social discontent is not directed against the government? Is there no relation between social problems and the government? Ask those that have been laid off from state-owned enterprises, or those peasants that have been forced to relocate their homes, ask them who they blame. The problem cannot be reduced into a small conflict between labor and capital in some small area. We have to squarely face the problems and tension that exists between the government and the people, because the government's legitimacy rests on how well it solves or deals with these problems. This applies both to the central as well as provincial and local governments. If the government's interest continues to clash with that of the people, the crisis will only deepen.
3. Does Professor Sun really believe that economic development has solved a lot of problems? Then how come the reforms of education and medical care seem only to get worse? On what issues have there been actual, substantial improvements that have increased social stability? Are there really many new opportunities for people? If so, why does it seems as if only the stock market and the housing prices are rising? How come there don't seem to be opportunities in other fields? It seems a bit simplistic to believe that economic growth can somehow magically solve other problems.
4. The government does, as Professor Sun suggests, control enough resources. However, it's a pity that some of the resources they control go to things other than public expenses, such as "face projects" or the use of public funds for travel and dining. In fact, these resources are now being abused as the government uses them towards its advantage, against the interests of the people. Rather than being a tool for reducing social strife, it has in fact created and increased the amount of social strife. Obviously, the less you are able to supervise or control the government's use of resources,the more likely it is that you will infringe on the rights of individuals, thus increasing social tensions. Without any mechanism to control or limit the government'spower, it is quite likely that the government will lose the trust of the people, and once that happens, and things slip out of control, you can bet that large-scale unrest could very easily become a possibility. This isn't meant to scare anyone, but as a statement of fact. Is not Professor Sun's point here a bit lacking in analysis?
5. That society has become more stratified and segmented is a fact, but that does not make the formation of an oppositional group impossible. If the present gap between rich and poor continues to grow, then society will be divided into haves and have-nots, and although the have-nots are economically disadvantaged, those that find themselves in a similar lot will eventually band and speak out together, and ultimately will attempt to use their numerical advantage to wrest political control from the govenrment — at that point, it is entirely possible that there will be mass action.
6. Regarding Sun's sixth point: it is true, many social elites have been bought off. However, mass action doesn't necessarily require the participation of social elites. Large-scale social unrest often happens because social tension reaches a certain degree that cannot be solved through normal means, and when the boiling point is reached, the tension will erupt into the open and do great damage to society.
7. Regarding Sun's seventh point, it's true that while many people do buy the rhetoric of the market, there are still greater numbers of people that believe that "you have to have a good father if you want a good job" or "if you want to make it rich you have to curry favor with important officials." Those that know that you need a "good father" or connections to officials are not going to believe that there lot in life is due to their lack of ability. Their discontent will naturally be aimed at society.
8. Regarding Sun's eight point: I'm not sure what "experience" Professor Sun is pointing to here. Perhaps those laid-off workers and workers are most clear about what kind of treatment they've received.
9. Professor Sun believes that nowadays, most conflicts are just purely non-ideological and apolitical conflicts of interest. I believe this is an overly reductive way of looking at things. Most of the problems in contemporary China result from political inequality; the most serious problems come about because the undue concentration of power leads to the abuse of that power. Of course we can't really blame Professor Sun; he spends most of his time on campus teaching where he can't see these things happening.
I believe that Professor Sun wants to separate economic and political problems and let the government deal with economic problem while not letting these become politicized. I am sure this wish comes from a good place, but is really possible to cleanly separate the economic and political?
I believe that social unrest arises from a combination of political, economic, and cultural factors. To forcibly separate them will no doubt lead to serious misjudgment and even error. My intention, in criticizing Sun Liping's essay, is not to exaggerate the threat of instability in China. I believe that there is the possibility of large-scale unrest, but this is not to say with Professor Sun that "we should scare ourselves" but rather that we ought to bravely take a look at the problems that we face.
Professor Sun hopes that society can peacefully and incrementally advance, without major social disturbances—which is quite understandable. However to purposefully avoid the threat of instability won't make the problem go away. The question is not, as Sun says, the relative slowness political reform, but rather the complete impasse or even retrogression in this process. This is a reality that we cannot avoid.
I hope that intellectuals with as much influence as Professor Sun can call for more political reform, rather than turning a blind eye to problems, saying things that are not critical or that even echo the position of those in power. If it's going to be like, that I would rather see them [i.e. intellectuals like Sun] remain silent, rather than misleading the masses so that they are as lost in fantasy and wishful-thinking as you are, because if a crisis really does come, we might get caught completely off-guard and therefore be prone to making even greater errors.
Fan Gui, 7 November 2007.
The original essay, in Chinese, is here.
Note: The photo above is not Fan Gui. We couldn't find a picture of him online.
Also on Shanghaiist: Sun Liping discusses social stability in China
|
-
 Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao on Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper's meeting with the Dalai Lama [Reuters]:
"It's gross interference in China's internal affairs. The Chinese side expresses its strong dissatisfaction and resolute opposition... This disgusting conduct has seriously hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and undermined Sino-Canadian relations... The Chinese side demands the Canadian side ... correct its mistaken conduct, immediately adopt effective measures to eliminate adverse impact (from the meeting) and stop winking at or supporting anti-Chinese activities by Tibetan forces."
The Dalai Lama quotes Mao [The Canadian Press]: The Dalai Lama pointed out that modern-day China is ruled by a one-party system and said the father of Chinese communism, Mao Zedong, insisted on criticism from both inside and outside the Communist Party. He called Chairman Mao's philosophy “very wise” but added that domestic criticism of the Chinese regime has been “wiped out.
Photo from China Rises
|
-
 So, like we told you, the word "democracy" (民主) was mentioned 60 times in President Hu's report to the 17th Party Congress. The China Media Project fills us in on other top buzzwords. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” (中国特色社会主义) was mentioned 52 times, “scientific development” (科学发展) was a distant second at 38 times, “opening and reform” (改革开放) was mentioned 34 times, just edging out “harmony” (和谐) at 33. “Deng Xiaoping Theory” (邓小平理论) made 10 appearances and former President Jiang Zemin's pet phrase “Three Represents” (三个代表) racked up 9 appearances. See how the occurence of these phrases have risen/fallen over the past Party Congresses (totally useless information that you can try to use to impress your date with).
Meanwhile, Liu Xiaoyuan (刘晓原), yes, the blogger that's fighting a lost cause taking Sohu.com to court for censoring his posts, questioned why Chinese journalists are so interested in the number of times delegates clapped during President Hu's speech.
A post apparently has been widely circulated around the internet entitled 《大会现场鼓掌40次表达党心民意》("Delegates clapped 40 times, showing the heart of the party is in alignment with the desire of the people"). According to that post, journalists had observed: - Delegates had clapped a grand total of 40 times throughout President Hu's 2.5 hour speech
- They clapped a total of 10 times during the President's recap of the "great milestones in the history of reform and opening up"
- The 1,000-word segment on he Taiwan issue was interrupted by applause 5 times. In particular, there was loud applause when Hu mentioned “任何涉及中国主权和领土完整的问题，必须由包括台湾同胞在内的全中国人民共同决定” (All issues related to China's sovereignty and territorial integrity must be solved by the people of China, and that includes the Taiwanese compatriots). And when the President said “绝不允许任何人以任何名义任何方式把台湾从祖国分割出去” (We will not allow anyone or any cause to use any method to separate Taiwan from the motherland), the applause lasted for over 30 seconds.
Apparently, Liu's post at Sina was deleted, but his post at Sohu remained (h/t to Oiwan Lam of Global Voices). Maybe Liu should take Sina to court next?
Photo from Telegraph Blogs: President Hu's speech sent out ripples of excitement, says Richard Spencer of The Telegraph
|
-
The Chinese Communist Party, the world's largest political party with some 64 million members opened its 17th Party Congress yesterday. With over 2,200 delegates from all over the nation, the congress was opened by parliament chief Wu Bangguo with the national anthem, followed by a moment of silence marked for Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Liu Shaoqi, Zhu De, Deng Xiaoping, Chen Yun and other "martyrs of the revolution" before President Hu Jintao began addressing the party. A great sense of expectation there as you can see on the video now that the party has just begun, but as the days go by, we will no doubt see more and more of these scenes instead.
A whole load of stories have appeared on the internet within just one day, but fear not, Shanghaiist has scoured the internet to save you time. Here are some of the more interesting headlines that caught our attention:
Hu Jintao mentions "democracy" more than 60 times in landmark report [Xinhua]
Hu sets goal of quadrupling per capita GDP [Xinhua]
Hu Jintao advocates 'conservation culture' for 1st time [Xinhua]
China's Congressional Congress Heralds a Generational Shift [WSJ]
China's Communist Party to Allow More Local Elections [Bloomberg]
China parliament chief Wu Bangguo shaped by Shanghai [Reuters]
|
-
 With the 17th National Congress just days away, the rumor-mill is running in overdrive. Recent reports suggest that Shanghai Party Chief Xi Jinping's (习近平) recent entry into the race - apparently at senior leader Zeng Qinghong's (曾庆红) insistence - has shaken things up; forcing Hu Jintao to make some last-minute maneuvering.
The Jiang Zemin and the Hu Jintao camps both want their own guy to take over the top-job in 2012, and each are doing their best to make it happen. The latest inside dope can be found over at the Elite Chinese Politics and Political Economy blog, where Victor Shih points to report at the "semi-official" China News Service that Hu Jintao will not unilaterally appoint a successor. Instead, generational change will be decided in a "scientific manner".
Just a week ago, Joseph Kahn at The New York Times was warning that if the Party elite did not find a way through the succession impasse: "Chinese politics could become more volatile in coming years, as interest groups form around rival contenders." Now it seems that, at the eleventh hour, Hu is trying to work out a way to avoid any such unnecessary volatility. Of course, there is also something in it for him. As Victor Shih notes: I think Hu is doing this out of political necessity. Essentially, since Xi Jinping is now the favorite to win the successor seat, Hu would rather enlarge the selectorate (i.e. "scientific") and the pool of candidates. This way, at least Li Keqiang will have a fighting chance.
Li Datong, the former editor of Freezing Point foresaw the need for such a process in a piece for openDemocracy.net , just over a week ago. In that article, Li also laid out the possibility that such a process could turn out to be the "start of the democratisation of the Chinese Communist Party." Combine that with the fact that leadership contenders Li and Xi both have some liberal cred in their respective backgrounds and the next 5 years could be very interesting indeed.
Or is it that when reading the tea-leaves, we only see what we want to see?
Photo of Great Hall of the People ceiling from Flickr user dunvegen's photostream
|
-
 So in the meanwhile, it's become kind of fashionable to blame Beijing for the mess in "Myanmar". Sure, Russia and India have gotten some of the blame for failing to rein in Burma's ruthless junta. ASEAN has also been put to shame for its impotence in handling Burma, and even Singapore's conservative Straits Times (subscription required) has begun to wonder aloud if it's not the right time to suspend Burma's membership in ASEAN, admitting that the "1997 Asean decision to admit Myanmar under the current military leadership without any conditionality was a mistake".
But none of those players are getting it like China is. Ralph Peters of the New York Post says the argument that "Western corporations flying under the radar screen do more to prop up the junta than Beijing does" is "absolute bull". Christopher Hitchens of Slate.com says "Burma's foul regime depends on Beijing". (Right we haven't chosen the most heavyweight opinion leaders around, but you will find those views everywhere in the media and on the blogosphere.)
Is China really to blame for the mess that Burma's military rulers have made of it? Okay, Shanghaiist is no political pundit but allow us to play devil's advocate in asking the following questions that have lingered for a while in our little minds: - Can and should China be expected to intervene in other states to spread freedom and democratic ideals with the same evangelistic fervour that the United States, for instance, possesses?
- So China's quiet string-pulling behind the scenes haven't accomplished much, but what have sanctions accomplished apart from prolonging the pain of the longsuffering Burmese people?
- If China were expected to peddle its power and influence NOW to intervene in Burma, would it not be accused of bullying its way across Asia and the rest of the world when it finally did start to exert that same power and influence elsewhere (as it already has)?
Now, don't get us wrong, we're not saying that China doesn't/shouldn't have a part to play in resolving the crisis. But really people, are we alone in thinking that China would do a greater service to the world if it paid more attention to its own internal problems such as food safety and product quality? Blaming any one party is really just taking the easy (and lazy) way out.
China has many times sought to reassure its worried neighbours that it pursued a policy of harmonious development and peaceful rising. Should we not be a bit more thankful that the giant has not been totally made aware of the power that it possesses for now? In this instance, we might do well to exercise more care in what we wish for because we may just get it.
P.S.: In case you're wondering, we've decided to drop "Myanmar" for "Burma" from now.
Previously on Shanghaiist
Bashing the China-bashing
Related links
NYPost: Myanmar mess: Blame Beijing
Slate.com: Maintained in China: Burma's foul regime depends on Beijing
IHT: Myanmar: What next?
Telegraph Blogs: China and the Burmese regime
James Fallows: For once, I'm with Bush on a language issue: it's Burma, not Myanmar
Beijing Newspeak: What the Chinese are reading about Burma
Guardian Unlimited: The Burmese blame game
Straits Times: Suspend Myanmar from ASEAN
Picture from renodiscontent.com
|
-
Fresh off the press: A video of the secret police who watched over AIDS, environmental and democracy activist Hu Jia (胡嘉) day and night while they were under house arrest from July last year to March this year has just been released (h/t to CDT).
Who is Hu Jia and why are the powers-that-be watching over him? Perhaps the best summary of Hu's trouble-making activities is found in a report by Jonathan Watts of the Guardian Unlimited when the 34 year old activist was barred from visiting the UK in a "pre-Olympic crackdown" earlier this year: Three years ago, he was detained as he attempted to lay a wreath on Tiananmen square in memory of the victims of the 1989 massacre. In Henan province, he helped to expose the blood-selling scandal that left tens - possibly hundreds - of thousands of villagers with HIV/Aids.
He is an unabashed admirer of the Dalai Lama, who Beijing accuses of "splittism". Last year, he joined a hunger-strike relay by Chinese rights activists that was the first nationally coordinated protest since 1989.
In 2000, Hu Jia was actively involved in Aizhixing (爱之行), founded by another AIDS activist Wan Yanhai (万延海). Wan is another interesting character that this correspondent has had the pleasure of meeting in researching for another story we wrote on China's HIV/AIDS situation. Hu and Wan were both instrumental in exposing the blood-selling scandal that left many villagers with HIV/AIDS in Henan Province. Read Finnish paper Helsingin Sanomat's interesting diary of Hu Jia's 168 days under house arrest in 2006.
In other (not so good) activist news, rights lawyer Gao Zhisheng (高智晟) has once again been detained after writing a letter to U.S. lawmakers asking them to help expose what he called China's "ongoing human rights disaster". We told you last year about the Fangzhou house church in Beijing last year (of which Gao is a member) that was accused of illegal assembly. He was also actively involved in rights issues in the Taishi incident.
Related links
Wikipedia: Hu Jia
Helsingin Sanomat: The Year of the Dog - A Chinese activist's story
Guardian Unlimited: China bars activist from UK visit in pre-Olympic crackdown
Guardian Unlimited: Outspoken Chinese Lawyer Arrested
Gao Zhisheng: Open Letter to the United States Congress
Shanghaiist: Going to church on Sundays is a drag, but this is ridiculous ...
|
-
 Shanghai is back in Beijing's good books. Or so an article published by the People's Daily two weeks ago indicates, claims the Associated Press. The article, titled "Glad to hear the new good tidings from Shanghai", lavished praise on Shanghai for it's recent successes. "A golden breeze refreshes Shanghai; one important, auspicious event after another" gushed the lead article. It is a sign, claims AP, that the fallout from last year's pension scandal has started to settle. As AP points out:
...such propaganda is a cue that top communist leaders have come to a consensus that the scandal was confined to a few "bad elements" and that China's biggest and richest city has Beijing's support.
Shanghai's political rehabilitation might not stop there, if reports of party chief Xi Jinping's (习近平) imminent promotion to the Politburo are to be believed. Reuters is calling Xi a "dark horse" in the race, but earlier reporting presented Xi's eventual promotion as a fait accompli - a promotion that need only be rubber-stamped at the National Congress in October. There are also rumours circulating that Xi, along with other prominent front-runner Li Keqiang, might both be promoted to the Standing Committee - a step above the politburo. If that were the case, Mr Xi might have to leave his position as Shanghai party chief.
When former Zhejiang party secretary and "Princeling" Xi Jinping was parachuted in as new Shanghai party chief following Chen Liangyu's ignominious departure 6 months ago, some saw the appointment as being the perfect compromise that would please both Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin's rivaling factions. Mr Xi was perfect for the job, claimed one family friend because -
He is a very neutral person who has always avoided showing any strong political opinions, neither supporting or opposing people and their policies openly. He is not someone with great charisma, neither will he cause any harm. He is the perfect compromise candidate who would be acceptable to Jiang's 'Shanghai gang'. (via Times Online)
But is Mr Xi as bland and middle-of-the-road as he sounds? A cursory look at his particular pedigree shows we shouldn't be too quick to judge. For one thing, his wife of twenty years - Peng Liyuan (彭丽媛) - is one of China's leading folksingers; and as a "Princeling" taizi (太子), Xi is the closest thing the Communist Party has to royalty.
Xi's father - Xi Zhongxuan (习仲勋) - was not only a revolutionary back before it was cool; he was also a chief architect of China's Special Economic Zones (SEZ's), and perhaps most interestingly, he was the only top official official to stand up for political reformer Hu Yaobang when he came under attack in 1986-87.
Is it possible that Xi junior might have inherited some of his father's panache? Could this "dark horse" turn out to be a trojan horse for fresh and interesting elite Chinese politicking? Shanghaiist is waiting expectantly for the 17th National Congress to reveal all.
Photo of Xi Jinping from gov.ce.cn
|
-
With the dust now settled on last week's APEC summit in Australia, we came on a juicy tidbit of news that either didn't get much mileage in the Chinese press or escaped the news that we read. Shanghaiist reader Fergus Ryan filled us in:
Last weekend's APEC summit in Sydney had one success that the host, Australian Prime Minister John Howard, may not have foreseen. Opposition leader, Kevin Rudd (Labor Party), effectively gate-crashed the event and upstaged Howard by addressing Chinese President Hu Jintao in fluent Mandarin. As Howard grimly watched on, Rudd welcomed Hu to Australia and spoke of his time in Beijing as a diplomat in the 1980s and of his family's personal links to China and Chinese culture, to great diplomatic and popular effect.
The following day, Hu and Rudd sat down for a 30-minute discussion conducted entirely in Mandarin. Clearly impressed by Rudd's performance, Hu invited him and his family to the 2008 Beijing Olympics and commented "You speak perfect Chinese and you know China inside and out".
A short soundbyte is included in the SkyNews video clip that you see here and what can we say?! Shanghaiist thinks Rudd's Chinese puts us to shame! His full remarks translated from Chinese are available here. Apparently, Kevin Rudd's Labour Party wants to put back an Asian Languages Scheme that the Howard government scrapped if they win the upcoming election.
Friendly reminder to Aussie Shanghaiists
If you intend to vote, check to see if you're on the electoral roll of the Federal Election NOW because your current Prime Minister has changed the laws so that once the election is called, Australians will have only a small window of opportunity to register. The Australian Electoral Commission homepage is here. (Useless piece of information: In past years, more Australians have voted in Shanghai compared to Beijing. Last year, 1242 ppl voted in Shanghai whilst 938 ppl voted in Beijing.) Also, if any Shanghaiist readers would like to help out with the Australian Labor Party's get-out-the-vote campaign, please contact alpabroadbeijing@gmail.com.
|
-
 Just a few days ago, the New York Times researcher Zhao Yan (赵岩) was freed after three years in prison. Today, we hear Li Yuanlong (李元龙), 47, a journalist who was jailed in 2005 for posting subversive essays on the Internet, has also been freed. Li, who wrote under the pseudonym Ye Lang (夜狼) or "Night Wolf," used to work for Guizhou Province's Bijie Daily《毕节日报》which we understand to be a paper with a really tiny circulation, and was picked up by state security agents at his office and subsequently charged for "inciting subversion of state sovereignty". One of the offending articles was the one entitled "On Becoming an American in Spirit". Wanna see what's so subversive about it? Read ESWN's translation of the article here. We include one juicy snippet here:
... There are no great or small rights but only democracy and totalitarianism. I say that in my vocabulary, there is no China versus outside but only justice versus injustice; there is no Chinese versus foreigners but only good versus evil. There is no inside or outside, no east or west. I will dedicate myself to pursue truth, goodness and beauty; I will oppose all that is false, evil and ugly. I will never compromise.
And while the underground Bishop Han Dingxiang, 71, of Hebei's Yongnian diocese, has died in custody, it looks like another underground pastor (a Protestant one), Cai Zhuohua, has been freed. And his charge? The "illegal possession of thousands of Bibles". You see, while Bibles are not illegal in China per se, only one publisher is licensed by the government to print and distribute the Bibles, and that is the Amity Printing Press in our neighbouring city of Nanjing. The US-based China Aid Association said Cai was in good health altough he lost 20 kilogrammes.
Photo of dove statue at the Cheng'an Protestant Church from BowenLiu
|
-
 In his latest article on the recent spate of sex scandals and mistress revolts in China, Michael Sheridan of the Sunday Times (UK) dishes out the latest political gossip in Shanghai and has us wondering who his sources are! He reveals:
Every Shanghai official above a certain rank has been required in recent weeks to watch tearful video confessions by 11 of their comrades at the centre of a £200m corruption inquiry, Communist party members say.
Of course, with recent news that even letters of remorse can be plagiarised by corrupt officials facing death sentences, we're all now wondering if those eleven chaps wrote the confession scripts themselves. Sheridan has the answer:
In the video confessions Chen’s accomplices cry on cue and apologise to the people, the party and the state, all “spontaneously” reciting an ancient saying: “One mistake and sorrow for a thousand years.”
Apart from giving some good background information on why the so-called "Shanghai faction" of the party -- which was spearheaded by former mayor Chen Liangyu and "stood for unbridled globalisation and capitalism" -- had to be brought down, Sheridan also tells the interesting story of a woman by the name of Lu Jiali, whose modelling agency provided girls to entertain city officials. "Like many Chinese," the story goes, "Lu was fascinated by new technology. In her case this meant miniature video cameras.":
Nobody seems to know why Lu risked making videos of the powerful men who succumbed to the charms of her employees... Connoisseurs of Chinese intrigue are likely to conclude that spies for their political rivals must have engineered the whole thing.
If there are any Party insiders among the great readership of this blog (and no we're not referring to this or this kinda party), please send us a copy of that video! But for now, please make do with the picture above taken at Changle Lu, no less!
Related links
The Sunday Times: China set for sex scandal show trials
Shanghaiist: Corrupt officials plagiarize each other's self-criticisms
ESWN: A case of plagiarism
Photo by Swiss James of Ispyshanghai.com taken at the Toy And Clothing Market at 190 Changle Lu / Chengdu Nan Lu.
|
|
|
|