You don't say ...

The train issue in China is deeply distressing. It is fast becoming a symbol of some of the fundamental problems with the country and the Party today.

China Imposes Blackout on Train Wreck Coverage
After days of growing public fury over last month’s crash and the government’s reaction, Chinese authorities have enacted a virtual news blackout on the disaster.

Beijing imposes media ban on rail crash coverage
Chinese newspapers, which last week defied government censors, were forced to scrap pages of coverage of the Wenzhou rail crash at the last minute on Friday night, after the Communist party’s propaganda organ issued an order restricting crash coverage that was not “positive”.

How can you not give people time to mourn and memorialize those who have been lost? Why would you shut off coverage instead of allowing the public to grieve together? Moreover, shedding light on problems and harnessing public outrage can help force changes in a corruption-riddled rail system. Do you want to solve fundamental problems or not?

This quote struck me as an articulation of one of the basic problems in China, and it's something I've discussed with many friends over the years. Yet so many years later, it's still the same issue:

The host of the television program asked: “If nobody can be safe, do we still want this speed? Can we drink a glass of milk that’s safe? Can we stay in an apartment that will not collapse? China, please slow down. If you’re too fast, you may leave the souls of your people behind.”

It's just so frustrating and tragic. When 76 people in Norway are killed, it is a time for deep mourning and for national reflection. People talk about how this could have come to pass in Norwegian society -- what the implications are, how to respond so that Norway's values are maintained, while also improving security. The government's response will be scrutinized deeply so that such an incident will not happen again.

In China, when 40 people are killed, the media is told to play up positive coverage and make it a "feel-good" event to bolster the Party. Aside from the crassness, where is the introspection? It's not only the Railway Ministry that has to respond, because it wasn't just a technical hiccup. People have to ask themselves, what kind of society, what kind of incentive structure, what kind of system gave rise to the conditions that resulted in this tragedy? Should we accept things on those terms, or what needs to change? But none of these questions will be asked.

The attitude is cavalier: "Just mop up. Hey folks, shows over, get back in line." No time for mourning ... I can't even fathom the idea of pretending that everything is okay, everything is all right. Sanitize history, sanitize news, sanitize life. Blot it all out, because everything has always been all right.

---

Good for the Economic Observer. They're willing to speak what is. From the WSJ:

China’s Economic Observer decided this weekend to publish a hard-hitting special report on the previous week’s high-speed train collision near the city of Wenzhou, defying strict orders from propaganda authorities in Beijing to play down coverage of the accident.


While many other newspapers obediently killed reports and took the train collision off their front pages in response to Friday night’s order, the Economic Observer devoted eight pages to its special report, entitled “No Miracles in Wenzhou,” and promoted it on its front page with a striking illustration showing the logo for the Ministry of Railways superimposed over a black-and-white photo of one of the ruined trains.


Beneath that image was an equally striking commentary on the accident titled “Yiyi, When You’re Older.” The commentary, which takes the government to task for its opaque handling of the accident, it written as a letter to Xiang Weiyi, a 2-year-old girl whose “miraculous” rescue has been widely trumpeted in state media.


Excerpts from that essay, translated by China Real Time:


Yiyi, when you’ve grown up and started to understand this world, how should we explain to you everything that happened on July 23, 2011? That train that would never arrive, it took away 40 lives that loved and were loved, including your parents. When you’re grown, will we and this country we live in be able to honestly tell you about all the love and suffering, anger and doubts around us?


How do we tell you that, even as they’d declared there were no more signs of life in the wreckage and had started cleaning up the site, you were still there struggling in the crushed darkness. Do we tell you that, with the truth still far off in the distance, they buried the engine; that before any conclusions had been reached, the line that had given birth to this tragedy was declared open. They called your survival a miracle, but how do we explain it to you: When respect for life had been trampled, caring forgotten, responsibility cast aside, the fact that you fought to survive – what kind of miracle is this?


Yiyi, one day you might pass by this place again. When the train whistle once again startles this silent land, will we reluctantly tell you about all the hypocrisy, arrogance, rashness and cruelty behind this tragic story?


Yiyi, we should tell you the truth, our country has been this way before. We want to tell you, those adults you see have wondered countless times whether in this era we’ve forgotten love, caring and basic trust. We’re full of complaints, but our anger is only that. We believe without doubt that life will continue on this way.
…
Yiyi, how do we explain to you that, at that time, there were two completely different images of China: one blossoming in the midst of the people, the other hidden in officialdom. We hope that when you’ve grown up and understand things, when you’ve learned to see with your own eyes, think with your own mind and encounter this world through your own actions, you will find this has changed.
…
Now, Yiyi, on behalf of you lying there on that sickbed and those lives buried in the ground, people are refusing to give up on finding the truth. Truth cannot be buried – no one plans to give up the inquiry. We know that anything we take lightly today might lead to our rights being violated and our lives being ignored again tomorrow. We reap what we sow. If every fact we seek becomes a secret, we’ll never know the truth. If we keep giving up half way in our pursuit of dignity, we will never be treated with dignity.


To live – to live with dignity – is that rainbow you get to see only after suffering through the wind and the rain. Yiyi, when you’re older maybe you’ll realize that dark night of July 23 was when things started to change. After that day, we won’t simply complain, but instead learn how to advocate and act. We understand that we have rights, we respect these rights and are will spare no effort to protect them.


Yiyi, if we’re going to promise you and other regular children like you a future, the journey must start from the wreckage of the train collision. That is the best way to remember your parents, and all the others who perished there.


– Josh Chin. Follow him on Twitter @joshchin

You can't buy ...

Article from The New York Times on recent unrest in Inner Mongolia.

“The Mongolian situation is very worrying for the Chinese leadership because you can’t just throw money at an issue like ethnic identity,” said Minxin Pei, a China expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and professor of political science at Claremont McKenna College in California.

@CCP:Like ... hello! Really?

Sigh, this is what you get when you mix Communist historical materialism with a sheen of capitalist greed. No respect or understanding for the importance of culture, or the depth of feeling regarding issues of identity. They don't even care about their own culture, much less that of other peoples.

You think you can buy your way out of this mess? Or just put up a perfunctory "museum"? Culture is something to be cherished and lived on an everyday basis. People have the right to shape their lives according to their traditions. Money doesn't make people forget.

Well, maybe it makes post-Communist Chinese people forget. But other peoples don't.

The High Price of the New Beijing

“Fifty years from now, someone will regret this.” -- 梁思成

This article and the sentiments it expresses are moving ... and desperately sad.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/jun/23/high-price-new-beijing/?pagination=false

ABC's, Represent!

Gary Locke (駱家輝) will be nominated as the new U.S. Ambassador to China! He's an ABC, so this is a first for an American of Chinese heritage (美籍華裔). Woot! He was the first Chinese-American governor -- of Washington State -- and currently serves as Secretary of Commerce in the Obama Administration (also a first).

接駐華大使　歐巴馬提名華裔駱家輝

By Amy Lee

台灣英文新聞 記者
2011-03-08 11:20 AM

美國政府一名高級官員說，美國總統歐巴馬計劃提名華裔商務部長駱家輝成為下一個中國大使。 預計星期二會正式公佈。 駱家輝將取代洪博培，而後者將於下個月辭職。

據悉，洪博培可能會爭取共和黨總統候選人提名。 駱家輝是第一個出任商務部長的美籍華裔，他的父親和祖父都出生在中國。

駱家輝擔任了兩屆華盛頓州的州長。 他是第一個美籍華裔美國州長。 在他任職期間，他大力提倡與中國的貿易，促使一些貿易代表團前往中國。 他的任命需經美國參議院的確認。2011/03/08

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/etn/news_content.php?id=1536358

English article here =P

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/08/world/asia/08diplomacy.html

Facebook in China, Part 2: Facebook's Draw

Some additional commentary on the subject:

The way Facebook would spread in China is through "your friends having it." It's exactly the same way it spread in the US: your friends at another university have Facebook. They talk about using it, and you want to stay connected, too. When Facebook opens up at your school, you quickly get an account so you can be in the loop along with them.

In 2007, we saw this effect happening at Peking University and at Tsinghua University (and probably elsewhere) among Chinese students who had made friends with international students -- virtually all of whom were Facebook users. (We definitely saw this happening among FACES delegates. =D)

This highlights one (really important) thing that Facebook has going for it, which Renren et al. don't have: that connection to international users. At the point Facebook re-enters the China market, given how things go in the next few years, that might even be a connection to the rest of the world's users.

Maybe it's only a small subset of the population in China that would be interested in this -- the educated elite at the top universities who have the opportunity to even know international folks. But that's how Facebook started out, too. If the option to use Facebook were available, that elite demographic is going to stay engaged. They eagerly read foreign news and have discussions with their friends abroad. Facebook would be the perfect tool to complement and strengthen those connections; and once they're on board, their more inland-oriented friends may follow suit. (After all, many tides in Chinese history are led by students and intellectuals.)

Now as many folks have pointed out, there are a host of local competitors already filling the "social" niche. Maybe these services will be so deeply integrated into Chinese users' lives that people won't want to leave those other ecosystems. "I've achieved level 499 on Happy Poodle Farm ... I have a prize-winning pack of canines ... I can't leave Fluffy behind, I just can't!!!" Or you might have regional networks that are deeply embedded in a certain social networking site. (I assume geography matters because your "friends" are more likely to be in your town, at least initially, though maybe that correlation will erode a little as mobility increases). Some of this represents only inertia (not to be underestimated) and some of it represents actual integration -- ganglions you'll have to carefully prise apart and free up, or move wholesale as a group.

So perhaps you'll end up with what you have today: because China is a big enough market, with many (and still growing) numbers of Internet users, many different social networks can live and coexist there, serving different demographics, depending on their level of international connection, and customized to the different experiences they want.

Now a caveat: a reverse flow is going on, too. Your Chinese friends use "Xiaonei", so why wouldn't Facebook users migrate to (ahem) indigenous Chinese sites? I did sign up for a Xiaonei account back then, primarily just to "see the other side."

But the only reason that I use it now is to keep in touch with a handful of students in the Tsinghua Symphony. They aren't on Facebook because they claim that it's kind of a hassle to regularly leap over the Great Firewall (繙墻). I kind of grumble about it every time I go on Renren -- using Facebook to connect with my friends in most of the world, and then having to sign on separately to Renren to stay connected to those few Chinese friends. I'll do it, but I'm not happy about it.

[This brings up a related point: overseas Chinese students -- people from the PRC who go abroad to study -- maintain their presence on Renren when they're in the US. They regularly roam the site and post photos to it, and perhaps they may not have the same qualms about using both. (To be honest, I don't know if it's by choice or by necessity for them, but I shall ask around). But again, that's because everyone at home has no option other than a domestic Chinese site, like Renren. If Facebook were available in China, then the dynamic could be different: might other people sign up for Facebook to stay in touch with them?]

I also have to duplicate my posts, first posting in Facebook, then translating into Chinese and posting on Renren. To be sure, half the stuff I post on Facebook I don't even think about posting on Renren -- cultural sensitivities, you know. =P And when I do post things on Renren, half the time it gets summarily deleted anyway, probably because I've used words on the sensitive list. (Nobel Prize/諾貝爾獎, anyone?)

But here's another factor that could work in Facebook's favor: if Chinese users were to have both Renren accounts and Facebook accounts, they could see the censorship happening right in front of them, side-by-side. Facebook comes off looking way better in that comparison. (I admit, this point is moot if Chinese users never even think about posting on political topics because they don't find it interesting, unlike entertainment news and pop star gossip. That might be a somewhat different problem).

Still, if Facebook ever entered China on its own terms (i.e. not censored), some kind of integration would probably happen in the end. We all love having choices, but we also prefer having an integrated service, unless there's a good reason to keep spheres of our lives separate. ("Corporate" vs. "Personal" networks, "Work" vs. "Play" -- though I guess Facebook is trying to work around that, too.) I doubt Renren would willingly allow you to take your data elsewhere, but I'm sure some enterprising app developer could make a "Profile Transitioning App" that would bundle up your data from Renren and help you port it to Facebook. That could substantially lower the barrier for transitioning. And independent app developers would probably be happy to release your data, because they'd want to jump on to as many platforms as possible while retaining users.

Maybe you can save Fluffy after all.

Facebook in China, Part 1: Facebook's Mission

My friend Kai Lukoff notes on Quora:

A Facebook that appeases the Chinese government might be a net positive for Chinese netizens, but I think it'd be a disaster for Facebook. It'd piss off far more than just 'rights groups.'

(Kai is also quoted in a Christian Science Monitor article about Facebook's prospects in China, a topic which is being floated because Mark Zuckerberg is currently on a trip to that country.)

It'd probably also go against one of the fundamental missions of Facebook (as stated by Zuckerberg during our CS106A guest lecture): Facebook lets users share more of our lives, allowing us to better understand each other. That enables us to have a greater sense of sympathy for others.

If you trim away a whole set of topics, i.e. if you censor political, religious, or civil society issues, then you may be shearing away a significant part of a person's identity.

Furthermore, Facebook is also an intentioned platform for activism, not only a passive glimpse into someone's life. We spread news among friends, post commentaries, sometimes even issue explicit invitations to take action. A Facebook persona isn't a whole person, but it's definitely a closer glimpse of some of the things one believes in and chooses to make public. Editorial choices about what to post, and what we write, help us form a greater impression of our friends -- to recognize some of the things they care about that one might not get a chance to chat about on a daily basis.

You do wonder if Facebook will start going through the well-China-is-a-big-market/we'll-do-more-good-than-harm rationalizations that Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google adopted. Or just sidestep concerns and become enablers, like Cisco. (Props to Google for trying to realign its actions with its ideals. Given the ethos of Silicon Valley, it's important to those companies from there that they live up to and propagate their ideals. Corporations aren't formed only to make money, but to build and create, and maybe, if they believe in it strongly enough, to change lives).

Yet Facebook doesn't seem to lack for users ... if the "citizens" of Facebook formed a country, it'd be like #3 in the world in terms of population, right? So perhaps they're not rushing to beat down the door to the "China market." (They were accessible until they were unceremoniously blocked a couple years ago.

So maybe it's better that they create the right experience for most of the planet -- for the communities of users who are willing to engage in that (necessarily collective) enterprise of mutual understanding and the consideration of others' viewpoints. Then, until China is ready to "play nice" and connect with the world, they'll simply have to live with a segregated, sanitized, "harmonized," somewhat crippled intranet.

Crippled in terms of lacking whole worlds of ideas and open discussion, though maybe not crippled in terms of functionality. After all, even if there's no YouTube, there are plenty of video-sharing substitutes like Youku or Tudou, right? On the other hand, some might call the open exchange of ideas one of the Web's most important functions.

In the end, I'd vote for Facebook staying true to its mission. No capitulation: Companies like Facebook and Google can win.

Confucius Peace Prize (?!?!!)

As reported in the New York Times:

"Beijing has pressed for a boycott of the Nobel Peace Prize Ceremony, which will recognize the imprisoned Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo... At the same time, China announced that it would create its own prize for peace named for the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius."

Hm ... peacefully remonstrating with the government. Seeking an end to corruption, a greater respect for basic rights, and just outcomes for all citizens. Speaking truth to power. Who's acting in a Confucian manner again?

Sigh, this is why prizes should be awarded by independent institutes and NGOs. They may as well call this the CCP's-Favorite-Foreigner-of-the-Year Award. I wonder who future recipients will be? It's just shameless -- his misappropriation of Confucius's title in an attempt to render harm to others and silence criticism (in other words, to settle a political score).

However, it's very, very interesting that the PRC is using the name of Confucius, if not actually his ethical teachings, as a form of international legitimation. How the fortunes of Confucianism have changed! Naming a national prize after the great teacher and philosopher? This implicitly recognizes the timeless and universal character of his teachings, insofar as they can appeal to the whole world (天下, right?), as well as the kind of hold his school of thought has on the public imagination. (Though in this case, the moniker is being blatantly abused as a political tool).

At the very least, the deliberations should be carried out by scholars, not politicians*, though I doubt Confucians would smile upon such ostentation in the first place. Moreover, it's all well and good to reward people for acting in a benevolent manner -- but perhaps this could be more effectively accomplished by having awards for specific virtues that should be cultivated, rather than lauding public figures "in the name of Confucius"? That way it would be more focused on matters of substance. For instance, you can issue proclamations for acts of great filial piety, or laud people who demonstrate perseverance and chastity. Maybe build a couple of 牌樓 (memorial archways) to commemorate them. =D

P.S. To be more Confucian, the award recipient should use this as a teaching moment -- a lectern from which to exhort the ruler of the state and the common people to live virtuously. He/she ought to write a good speech or publish an essay for the occasion. (Maybe even in the eight-legged style, ha ha? Just kidding).

The theme of the talk could also change from year to year, to be relevant to the nation's spiritual and social needs. It might also be important for the teaching to be made applicable to daily life. After all, we don't need more perfunctory talk about "peaceful relations" year after year, filled with diplomatic platitudes and geopolitical blather. (Unless you're actually going to chat about the ethical basis for foreign policy. Some governments could use that lesson.)

But if we focus back on domestic issues, instead of an annual prize, perhaps this sort of moral discourse could be even more valuable if it came on a daily or weekly basis. Society can always benefit from time spent considering ethical issues; and hopefully an increasing number of teachers, scholars and public intellectuals will arise to fill that need.
________________________________


*UPDATE:
Tan Changliu, the leader of the Confucius prize committee "told the Associated Press that his group was not a government organization, though it worked closely with the Ministry of Culture."

According to The Guardian, the people who handed out the award claimed "they had worked closely with the ministry of culture" but then "they later said it was nothing to do with the government." Hm ... doubtful that you could make this big fuss and also hand out an award to a former Taiwanese president without government approval. So the claim is that it's NGO-based ... but somehow it still smacks of political leaders shaping the agenda, especially when the "invitation to the award ceremony was apparently issued by a section of the culture ministry." Ah well.

What irony.

If you haven't, you might want to take a look at this op-ed in the IHT today.

A Color Revolution in China? Keep It Red
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/opinion/07iht-edli.html

My God. It sounds like the defense of a right-wing authoritarian regime. "Only El Caudillo can maintain stability and prevent this country from falling to the radicals."

But in this case, we're worried about China turning toward ... toward what? Chaos? Toward extreme nationalism? (I doubt we are actually worried the country will be falling into the Communist camp again? Or are we actually scared of a society more distributionally equal -- where plutocrats and governments don't get to exploit people with impunity and make unbelievable profits? This is just ... so ... ironic ... )

I intend to post an in-line critique of this paper soon, but I just wanted to put the URL out there now. I read the article with a rising sense of irony and horror and disappointment, because this is what we've come to: the fear that democracy will bring us evil, and dictatorship is the only way to maintain stability and guarantee freedom. CCP hook, line and sinker. (It's almost like the 1970s redux, and how America justified support for right-wing military juntas in South America and the Mediterranean).

We're not arguing for multi-party elections tomorrow; no one is so naive. But elements of a more just system can be put into place, including most fundamentally, protections of basic rights. Liberalism is a bulwark for individuals and communities against abuse and government malfeasance -- and that really does have to start at the local level. (We can talk about national-level representative government later, as that will probably take more of a transition). But the jailings, beatings, confinements, executions, evictions, and political prosecutions need to stop now. Period.

I am highly concerned at the distorted view of history that this fellow has -- that somehow the Chinese Communist Party must be credited with *everything* good in Modern Chinese history. It completely eschews the fact that it also imposed some of the *worst* atrocities in history on the Chinese people. And the fact that the CCP is taking this direction now? It's really a belated resumption of the modernizing path that China was already undertaking in the 1920s and 1930s.

Ah well. We so easily forget? No, we so willfully ignore! That's why it's important to remember the past, to give credit where credit is due, and even more importantly, to assign historical responsibility. We ought to study the conditions, events, and decisions that led to these crimes against humanity, so they are not visited on the world again. Sometimes achieving this requires institutional corrections. Sometimes it requires system-wide reform. And sometimes it requires changing norms. But we've got to have the ability to speak freely, to have an open discussion about these very issues, so we can seek out the root causes and prevent such tragedies from happening in the future.

What's most frustrating about pieces like this is that they completely buy into and perpetuate the CCP line -- a narrative that monopolizes the future and the past, and that patently excludes all other possibilities. The contention that "this way is the only way" is absolutely false. There are many paths forward, and it is deeply inappropriate for one clique, one party, one junta to impose its vision on society without more careful deliberation, without greater public discussion and participation, without securing the consent of the governed.

It is not true that we must accept bloodletting with economic growth, that we must endure the poisoning of our children as the price of development. (Even the Singapore model that some observers use to argue for the rightness of authoritarianism in China has real laws with real teeth to punish corrupt officials. The Singaporean government would never tolerate such depraved and predatory behavior as that happening in places in China today).

The talk of development notwithstanding, no one has a right to deprive any one of us of our human dignity. It is sad that in our haste to compete in the marketplace, we freely give it up ourselves. For isn't that the real battle Chinese intellectuals, reformists and nationalists have been waging for the last century and a half? The search for dignity, be it the standing of a nation, or the right of an individual to live decently? For a society to persist and flourish with its core values and mores intact, yet still find ways to improve upon them? For communities to cherish their culture heritage and live out, on a daily basis, their traditions, while simultaneously enjoying the fruits of modernity?

Dialogue is key to answering these questions. Too bad those voices would be quashed in China today.

Intimations of 0481

Hilarious. But somehow not so funny.

Friedman's column today hypothesized what China's diplomatic cables might say if they were Wikileaked. The Chinese appear mostly gleeful that America is doing itself in, and not waking up to the need for national renewal. A sample:

the Americans are oblivious. They travel abroad so rarely that they don’t see how far they are falling behind. Which is why we at the embassy find it funny that Americans are now fighting over how “exceptional” they are. Once again, we are not making this up. On the front page of The Washington Post on Monday there was an article noting that Republicans Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee are denouncing Obama for denying “American exceptionalism.” The Americans have replaced working to be exceptional with talking about how exceptional they still are. They don’t seem to understand that you can’t declare yourself “exceptional,” only others can bestow that adjective upon you.

Also:

Most of the Republicans just elected to Congress do not believe what their scientists tell them about man-made climate change. America’s politicians are mostly lawyers — not engineers or scientists like ours — so they’ll just say crazy things about science and nobody calls them on it. It’s good. It means they will not support any bill to spur clean energy innovation, which is central to our next five-year plan. And this ensures that our efforts to dominate the wind, solar, nuclear and electric car industries will not be challenged by America.

So actually, in China "nobody calls them on it" either. Because, you know, there are things like censorship and state control of media there. In fact, plenty of bad projects go forward for political and ideological reasons, scientific advice be dammed. Pun intended. "Oh details, details," Friedman seems to think, as he glosses over such issues to fit his "China v. U.S., China-is-winning" narrative.

But overall, the message is still pretty stark. We are falling behind, and the most depressing thing is our refusal to acknowledge it. If you cannot even make note of the problem (and it's unclear to me whether it's actual blindness or just willful ignorance), then how can you possibly fix it? Yet we continue to delude ourselves, and our leaders refuse to call out the problem in clear terms, in order to focus the energy and talent of this nation. And so we will remain in this downward spiral, never rising to meet the challenge.

It means America will do nothing serious to fix its structural problems: a ballooning deficit, declining educational performance, crumbling infrastructure and diminished immigration of new talent.

Sigh... I wonder if the tone of this cable qualifies as 幸災樂禍. I title this post 0481 because that is the year 1840 in reverse -- for instead of the West's ascendancy over the Middle Kingdom (kicking down the doors to sell opium, baby!), now we see China rising as America decays, oblivious to its faltering position. I don't mean to be melodramatic, but some of the parallels are clear. And I'm a little apprehensive that America's refusal to reform, its insistence that it is the best-most-superlative everything, even as the world changes around us, could signal the beginning of a decline. I dearly hope not -- but to avert that outcome, we need to get our act together and start moving again.

UPDATE (12/5/2010)
Here's a round-up of a few other folks who take issue with Friedman and his PRC worshipfulness, lol.

When will it be so?

Daw Aung San Suu Kyi was released today.

After years of imprisonment and house arrest, she has finally been freed by the military junta. (At least for now.) A daunting situation faces her and her countrymen, who are still ruled by a repressive dictatorship that canceled the results of the last truly free election in 1990.

It's moments like this when I wish China would be a force for good in the world and do the right thing.

Support Suu Kyi, the elected leader of Burma, with a popular mandate and immense following. Support Suu Kyi, who is moderate and humble, patient and kind, who is willing to do what is good for the people of her nation. Support Suu Kyi, and not the junta, who continue to enrich themselves, while leaving most of society in abject poverty and at risk of malnutrition; who crush dissent with an iron hand; who throw ordinary people in jail over the slightest opposition.

The article talks about the jubilation of crowds all over Burma at Suu Kyi's release, and the warnings Western nations have issued to the dictatorial leaders that foreign governments are paying attention. But one senses the junta will pay little heed to such statements. What leverage do these countries have? The West has been happily ignored for the past several years -- when the crackdown on monks occurred in 2007, when aid was delayed or outright refused in the aftermath of Cyclone Nargis.

It comes down to this: who cares about the West and its admonitions? Whatever the posture of Western governments or the UN, the regime, flush with money from natural gas, can choose to deal with regional neighbors instead.

China, Thailand and India -- three countries who now have the leverage to make a difference. China has been one of the largest sellers of weapons to Burma/Myanmar, and a major investor in oil and gas pipelines, as well as numerous other infrastructure projects. Beijing provides both financial support to the regime and diplomatic cover in the international arena: "Sovereignty, sovereignty, sovereignty ... Non-interference ... Internal affairs, internal affairs, internal affairs."

That China has been gaining influence in Myanmar is a major reason the other two countries have felt the need to compete for the junta's favor and drop their moral qualms. If China were to choose virtue over indifferent, amoral interest; if it were to care about people and principles; then others would have to follow suit -- no more excuses.*

The world would be a very different place.

__________________

*Some might argue that it is up to democratic India and Thailand to take the lead on this issue, and I don't dispute their responsibility. But my point is that structurally, if India and Thailand consign themselves to the role of "concerned outsiders," as they did for a while (and the West continues to do), the situation won't change. China could simply step into that vacuum, while further enabling the military junta.

This is why China makes a difference: it is the primary -- sometimes even exclusive -- counterweight to the West for many of these pariah regimes. If the country took a stand, then given the balance of power in the world today, this could decisively shift outcomes, and change minds for the better.

Influencing governments can still be done in a sensitive way, not in a shrill or combative voice. And surely this sentiment is idealistic -- I know that China is not this way now. But it isn't wrong to dream if it can inform of us of how and why things are in their current state and show ways they could be improved. And so the wish is for China to be, out-and-out, a positive force in the world.

Perhaps it is because I believe too much in China's ethical tradition, and its potential to be relevant in our world. And yes, I am laying on China an additional moral responsibility, asking for a higher standard. (The only other country I have that expectation for is the United States.) But I don't think that's unfair; we can ask of ourselves that which we do not yet expect of others. In fact, we ought to. Leading by moral example is the only way forward.

URLs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/world/asia/14myanmar.html
http://www.hindustantimes.com/No-moral-compass/Article1-625878.aspx
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/india/101105/myanmar-burma-relations

Happy Double Ten Day! 雙十節快樂！

October 10 is the National Day of the Republic of China (Taiwan).

On this day, we commemorate the 1911 Revolution, which began with the Wuchang Uprising, and ultimately led to the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty and the founding of the Republic of China. It was a momentous occasion in Chinese history -- and the dream is still alive!

Let us celebrate the valor and determination of the revolutionaries, and join hands to continue putting into practice the principles the ROC stands for: Liberty (自由)、Equality (平等)、Democracy (民主)、and the Rule of Law (法治).

Today, despite the travails of the twentieth century, the ROC survives on the democratic island of Taiwan. For people of Chinese heritage all over the world, this is our legacy and the gift of our forebears. We willl never forget it!

Dr. Sun Yat-sen, the leader of the Republican Revolution and Father of the Nation.
《共和革命領導者、國父孫中山先生的畫像》

十月十日是中華民國的國慶日！

這一天，我們紀念1911年的辛亥革命。那一年的十月十日，發動了具有劃時代意義的武昌起義。 起義的勝利導致清政府的推翻和皇帝專政統治的滅亡，以及中華民國的建立。 這是中華歷史的璀璨事跡，夢想依然延續至今。讓我們繼續攜手實踐中華民國所代表的信念：自由、平等、民主、法治。

這是祖先們留下來的寶貴資產。身為炎黄子孫的後代，我們決不輕言放棄！

Scouts and the ROC Flag: Blue sky, white sun, red earth. (Image source)

中華民國國旗：青天、白雲、滿地紅

There's nationalism everywhere ...

I just had a very enlightening conversation with a couple of Chinese students at Ray's Bar and Grill on campus. We were standing in line to order, and all three of us noticed the following fliers pinned to the message board:

The two Chinese students were actually quite dismayed by this, and expressed surprise that this sort of nationalistic rant would crop up here at Stanford. According to them, the 愤青 "angry youth" phenomenon is really more of a domestic Chinese phenomenon, which takes hold among the "... er ... less well-educated students in China." They have some level of educational attainment, but are not the top students in the country. (Those ones usually end up going overseas). What concerned my fellow diners the most was that these "angry youth" only know a little bit about the issues, and then with this limited, often inaccurate understanding of history and world affairs, they go off on a rampage. "It's just not logical or rational," one sighed. He felt that most well-informed people wouldn't undertake such acts.

I realized suddenly that they were as embarrassed by these ultra-nationalists (so-called 爱国主义者), as we Americans are distressed by our Muslim-hating/Koran-burning/refudiating Tea Party brethren who wave American flags in the name of "patriotism," while they eviscerate the principles of pluralism and religious toleration that our Founding Fathers stood for. It turns out that rabid nationalism, ethnically-motivated anger, hate-filled invective, and poisonous political rhetoric are cause for concern to decent people everywhere who worry about extremist views taking root in their societies.

Now I don't know if this realization should assuage anybody. I cannot, for instance, ascertain how prevalent the view of these two Chinese students really is. And part of me is a little bit apprehensive about asking around, as this could be a really touchy subject. (People have been roundly criticized, even beaten for less). We must recognize that these (so-called) nationalists are a real force. Their discourse impacts society, and as they agitate for discriminatory policies or outright war, we cannot assume their voices will be diminished by other more logical actors. Still, it's encouraging to know that not everybody falls to their knees when someone waves the flag.

Personally, I still want to reiterate a question I raised in an earlier post: When claiming to be patriotic, why do we care about islands, but not about people?

---

Anyhow, the three of us conversed over dinner, which also included some interesting discussion about Mongolia (i.e. the country of Outer Mongolia, which one of them had visited during the summer), and how the economy there is largely based on the extraction of mineral resources. ("Developing countries are definitely not all in the same category," he sighed. "Mongolia is not well developed.") According to him, many products like socks and cups are still largely imported -- largely from Russia, Japan and Korea, as the Mongolians don't appear to like the Chinese much. (Many fruits and vegetables do have to be imported from China, however reluctantly).

"Why don't they like the Chinese?" the other fellow at our table inquired.

"There's a historical narrative that paints China as wanting to take over and dominate its neighbours," the first guy said. "It's in their textbooks. You know the way our textbooks portray Japan and its rapaciousness? Well, that's the way Mongolian textbooks depict the Chinese."

Sometimes tables turn.

---

I don't mean to suggest that all history is simply constructed -- good textbooks should be based in historical truth, though of course there are judgements on what is to be emphasized. But the history on which we can rely should be less of a propaganda tool and more of an educational aid to create thoughtful and discerning citizens.

Indeed, a history based in truth can inoculate a population against discrimination and tyranny, because it strives to uncover cause and effect, while leaving room for ethical understanding. Such texts make it more difficult for demagogues to appeal to the masses, because their tired tropes are recognized for what they are: ideological propositions that radically over-simplify problems.

The text must take a look at the hard parts of history, but need not delve into victim-hood. (For instance, a "century of humiliation.") I do not believe this characterization of China's modern history is healthy. It is a recipe for entitlement and seems to excuse all the petulant and bullying behavior that comes eafter.

Instead, an inspirational story of perseverance and magnanimity under unfair circumstances could ultimately be a healthier and more appropriate reflection of what happened. But then again, that's only if you want balanced, free-thinking citizens who are proud of who they are and what their country stands for -- and who care about humanistic and universal norms -- rather than subjects who are simply grateful for being "rescued" and angry/resentful at the intrusion of outsiders.

In the end, a lot of it comes down to education and the kind of national narrative that is crafted. I'll post more about this topic some other time, but the implications of the different versions of history in textbooks are sometimes pretty worrisome.


BONUS: Video of ninjas and pandas clashing. Via WSJ.

The icing on the cake

On Saturday, "sirens wailed to mark the 79th anniversary of Japan's invasion" and "hundreds of Chinese gathered outside Japanese diplomatic residences across the country" to "protest Japan's seizure of a Chinese fishing boat." Some choice quotes about the 9-18 九一八 protests, via Xinhua:

• In Beijing, dozens of protestors gathered outside the Japanese embassy, unfurling banners and shouting "Japan, get out of the Diaoyu Islands," "Boycott Japanese goods," "Don't forget national humiliation, don't forget Sept. 18" and other slogans. 

• During the protest, a man held a cake -- the icing of which formed the image of the Diaoyu Islands, China's national flag and the message "Japan, get out of the Diaoyu Islands." "As a cake maker, I make such a cake to express my patriotism," said the protester surnamed Wu. "I think every Chinese in every industry should take action."

• "An outstanding nation must be a nation that respects history," said Wang Jinsi, a member with the Chinese Society for Anti-Japanese War History. "To remember history is not to remember hatred, but to prevent the tragedy from recurring," he said. [Really, huh? I would very much agree.]

• In Shenyang, "TV and radio programs will be paused during the three minutes. Drivers on nine main roads and 18 main streets, which symbolize Sept. 18, will stop their vehicles and sound their horns, said the officials."

So as this 九一八 situation unfolds with flags waving, voices hollering, tempers rising, one observation strikes me as to what is so misguided and sad about the situation: We fight over islands, but not for people's lives. Because we just don't give a damn about people.

In the United States, Martin Peretz's recent quote that "frankly, Muslim life is cheap, most notably to Muslims" caused a huge uproar. That statement naturally engenders another question for our discussion: How precious are Chinese lives to Chinese people? Apparently, not very much. In China, individuals act in ways that are completely unethical because they don't value the lives of others. That's why you end up with poisoned milk, and shoddily constructed schools that crush children and teachers. (Furthermore, if you ask for investigations into such things, you are detained).

This state of affairs is simply abhorrent, because the life of a Chinese person is worth as much as the life of any other human being. Each Chinese person should be accorded a basic respect and dignity. After all, isn't that really the "equality" we are seeking? The quest for equal respect that so often motivates China's development mindset ("demanding" respect from the West) is misguided. If pursued in its current form, it will fail.

Real respect is not something that can be demanded; it is inspired. It comes not from fear, but from love or admiration. It comes from the recognition of one's virtue.

If you do not respect yourself and your fellow citizens, how can you ask anyone else to respect you? If you are not proud of who you are, and seek to tear down your heritage (and replace it with somebody else's notions of modernity), how can you expect anyone else to cherish your culture? Conversely, if you are cruel to your own people, for whom you have the greatest responsibility in the world, how can we expect you to be kind to anyone else?

It is urgent that we start behaving with humanity, treating people as living beings instead of as expendable resources to be exploited, manipulated and thrown away in the search for wealth/development/growth i.e. greed. When will people instead of things start to matter?

Indeed, one does not need to "demand" respect from anybody. One should simply strive to act in a virtuous manner, and this merit will be recognized in the natural course of things. If others want to remain ignorant or brutal, that is their problem; as long as we can face ourselves (对得起自己), then that is the right direction in which to travel.

Finally, I shall make one more observation: a quote from today's piece says that "an outstanding nation must be a nation that respects history." The double standard of investigating the history of Japan's atrocities, but ignoring other later crimes, is sorely problematic. After all, in addition to valuing history, an outstanding nation must also be a nation that respects the lives of its people -- not as a political tool, but as an end in itself. When we move toward these more universal notions of justice and affirm the value of life, we become more civilized. Isn't being "civilized" something we ought to strive for?

Two Sights

Two interesting sights today.

In the subway this morning, on the way to 沃爾瑪, I sat down on the bench across from a Chinese family -- parents with children. A brother and a sister were playing a lively game of ro-sham-bo (rock, paper, scissors / 剪刀、石頭、 布) and giggling wildly. I didn't think much of it, though I noted that the boy seemed rather 調皮 and the parents weren't saying too much to reprimand him.

As I was watching the little boy and his younger sister rhyming line by line, thrusting out two fingers, or splaying a hand out into an open palm, or raising a clenched fist (all the while giggling uproariously at the results), it suddenly hit me: this is not a sight that is common in China anymore. What would be a normal scene on the DC Metro or the Taipei MRT is really something special.

Elsewhere, one would think nothing of this exchange -- two cute and lively kids messing about while their parents beam at them. But with the One Child Policy in force, fewer and fewer children here will have this kind of experience as they grow up -- the chance to play and laugh and interact and have fun with a sibling. I was privy to something special and walked away with a newfound sense of delight.

The second sight that was rather novel: In the subway on the way to 五道口, I saw a familiar face and a familiar name on a large poster: Demos Chiang's biography was being advertised in the station. Now, for students of Chinese history, I shall simply point out that he is indeed of that Chiang family, and you will understand how different a place China is today than even a couple decades ago.

Demos (蔣友柏) is a great-grandson of Chiang Kai-shek -- the leader of the Nationalists who was president of the Republic of China, who fought Mao Zedong and the Communists, and who fled to Taiwan and ruled there until 1975. During the Cultural Revolution through the 1970s, a simple mention of a Chiang could be disastrous for you and your family. People were dragged into the streets and beaten for having "bourgeois" books, to say nothing of documents with the villain "Chiang" stamped on them.

It's a bit jarring to see his descendant's name splashed across the subway wall. But perhaps it reflects warming cross-Strait ties and the beginnings of a re-evaluation by Mainland China of Chiang's role in Chinese history. One point for historical change, one point for capitalism. (Gotta sell those books you know!) Zero for Maoist persecution.

More on the new biography here and on Demos here and here.

Humanism in China

There may be hope yet. The ideas and language of humanism are slowly gaining purchase in Chinese society today. (Again. The first time was in the early 20th century.)

It seems like this mode of thought ought to be a natural fit -- after all, Confucianism has at its roots a deep sense of humanity. Not all aspects of it are the same as in "Western-style humanism," but there are elements that seem compatible. (However, it may be problematic to claim that China remains "Confucian" today. sigh)

According to an article in the New York Times:

"Western-style humanism flourished in China a century ago, brought over by the Chinese students of Irving Babbitt, a professor of French at Harvard University," who advocated "retaining the good things from the past. He insisted on the importance of the individual, and the study of the humanities."

"Humanism’s gentle, evolutionary approach clashed with the make-it-new passion of many students, intellectuals and politicians grouped around China’s early 20th-century May Fourth Movement. [If only they had known what was coming -- they might have chosen differently.] In 1949, the revolutionaries won the argument when the Communist Party founded the People’s Republic of China. For over three decades, humanism vanished from Chinese thinking. 

And no wonder. Humanism directly challenged the Communist system by valuing the individual over the collective. It rejected blind obedience to authority, whether religious or political. 

Secular, it opposed deification of any kind, including of a leader like Mao Zedong. Its emphasis on human well-being, freedom and dignity threatened the party’s control over its citizens. It was, orthodox Communists said, a bourgeois theory of human nature. 

Today, it’s back, spreading among intellectuals, writers and ordinary people alike in a process that began 30 years ago, following Mao’s death in 1976. Still controversial, it is periodically subject to attacks from a state that fears that it may become the basis of an alternative ethical system that will challenge Communist Party rule. The bumpiness of humanism’s road reflects the challenge in bringing about intellectual and political change in China."

-- "In Search of Modern Humanism in China" (May 14, 2010)

In the article, Gloria Davies, a scholar of Chinese intellectual history at Monash University, observes that “Humanism has quite a lot of purchase now. It’s used in public culture as a way of maintaining some form of integrity in relation to corruption and censorship.” She pointed to [Chinese blogger and public intellectual Han] Han’s declaration “I am just a humanist,” circulating widely on the Internet. “That’s key. Amid tightened censorship, people are looking for more inventive ways to try and keep the public sphere and civil society alive, so they are resorting to words like humanism. They can always use this as some form of criticism.”

The article also notes that "how to live according to core human values like respect, kindness and care for others has deep roots in Chinese thought, written about widely by Confucius and other philosophers." Furthermore, at an event on "Humanism in China" hosted at Harvard this year, Tsinghua Professor Wang Hui expressed a new, urgent concern for what some might call more old-fashioned humanistic values.

The article classifies Wang as part of the "New Left", calling him a "sophisticated theoretician and critic of China’s present model of capitalist development." One thing I really like about this piece and Prof. Wang is his exploration of the writer Lu Xun. He looks at the kinder, deeply human side of Lu Xun -- the one who exists underneath the pointed criticism and mordant satire:

"To make his point, he turned to a little-known 1908 text by Lu Xun, arguably China’s greatest writer of the 20th century, who was appropriated by the Communists. Lu Xun, said Mr. Wang, was actually a humanist. In “Refuting Malevolent Voices,” his major concern was to find “new voices” that spoke from the heart, and spoke the truth. 

A healthy society needs truthful voices. And truthful voices come from truthful people. China sorely lacks that [Wang says.] To solve its problems, it needs more open discussion and more self-critical thinking. “A lot of people say a lot of things, but they don’t believe these things, they are just echoing other people. China is full of noise, but it’s silent. You don’t hear real voices.”

Along with a sense of humanity, this Lu Xun was also dedicated to the truth. Two meaningful things: truth and humanity. They are worth searching for. They are also necessary.

Teach Chinese. In Oklahoma.

An article in the New York Times about Chinese teachers coming to the United States to be language instructors in American classrooms. The headline is, "Guest-Teaching Chinese, and Learning America" which already hints at how the issue is framed.

There are some funny points that contrast the American education system and the Chinese one. For example: “In China,” she said after class, “if you teach the students and they don’t get it, that’s their problem. Here if they don’t get it, you teach it again.”

In theory, America has a more open education system that teaches critical thinking and makes space for personal expression and creativity. These are excellent qualities for an education system that I fully support, and hope can be emulated by others. However, the reality of the American classroom is also starkly in focus in this article. With rude students who aren't serious about learning (and sometimes blatantly disrespectful), the impression of America doesn't always come off well.

Some choice lines from the article:

"In interviews, several other Chinese teachers said they had some difficulties adjusting to the informality of American schools after working in a country where students leap to attention when a teacher enters the room."

"One Chinese teacher who has built a successful language program in Wisconsin, Hongmei Zhao, said a few students sometimes disrupted classes by speaking English so rapidly that she cannot understand them. “Then the whole class laughs, maybe because of my accent,” Ms. Zhao said."

My first reaction was, "Wow, screw you, idiotic kids! If you're going to be rude, just don't take the class. No one is forcing you to be there, learning Chinese." But then I thought, maybe if we don't continue to engage and give them an opportunity to change, then they're just going to be left behind. Teachers really are important in the lives of their students, and maybe they can help change minds by being more patient and understanding -- by treating their students with love.

There is a question of streamlining though: should we put the best, most serious students on one track, while nominal students are on another? It doesn't seem fair to hold back a few talented and serious students, to make them suffer in an inhospitable context not conducive to learning, when they could be excelling in a classroom with motivated peers. But we should also not ignore or 忽略 those students who are not as quick at picking up new skills.

But part of the problem may also be a lack of a culture of learning and studying in the U.S. What is happening in our schools if not this? It is a little problematic. [See blog post on schools in S. Korea and Finland.]

Ms. Zheng said none of her students had been disagreeable ... [but] she believed that teachers got little respect in America. “This country doesn’t value teachers, and that upsets me,” she said. “Teachers don’t earn much, and this country worships making money. In China, teachers don’t earn a lot either, but it’s a very honorable career.”

Here's a rather interesting quote:

Barry Beauchamp, the Lawton superintendent, said he was thrilled to have Ms. Zheng and two other Chinese instructors working in the district. But he said he believed that the guest teachers were learning the most from the cultural exchange. “Part of them coming here is us indoctrinating them about our great country and our freedoms,” he said. “We’ve seen them go to church and to family reunions, country music concerts, rodeos. So it’s been interesting to see them soak up our culture.”

Erk ... this is just so ... culturally problematic urgh ... There are almost intimations of cultural imperialism, a missionary attitude -- "We'll bring them over and Christianize and democratize them." I don't have a problem with inculcating new norms and ideas and introducing people to our way of life -- but it should be founded on an idea of mutual respect, of tolerance and pluralism. It should not be about waving *our awesomeness" in their faces and trying to shove it down their throats -- that feels very threatening, makes them defensive, and is the quickest road to rejection. Instead, people should observe and make their own judgments about the positive qualities and desirableness of certain traits. We shouldn't just assume everything about our system is superior -- there are things we can learn from each other -- even basic issues like respect for elders and teachers. The phrase "our great country and our freedoms" is what really pushes my buttons.

I love this country -- the ideals it embodies and the opportunities it represents. But I don't like the moralizing and lecturing; it feels very self-satisfied and complacent, rather than expressing concern for the well-being of others.

Some more hilarious aspects of America featured in the article:

Our fat-ness:

After her morning classes, Ms. Zheng drove west through Lawton in search of lunch, passing a seed elevator. The Buick fought a stiff wind that had kicked up a vast khaki-colored dust cloud. Pulling into a Burger King, she ordered a fish sandwich. “I’ve gained 10 pounds in Oklahoma,” she said.

Our inefficient vehicles:

Some districts pay more, but Lawton is one of the few that lends their guest teachers a car — in Ms. Zheng’s case, a lumbering blue Buick Century once used for drivers’ education.

Our ignorance of the world -- always looking in:

That afternoon, Ms. Zheng taught classes at Central Middle School, drilling 22 eighth graders on how to count to 100 in Chinese and explaining some Chinese holidays before turning her back to write a Chinese tongue twister on the board. Out of the blue, a girl with long brown hair asked her classmates loudly: “Where’s France at?” “In Europe,” a boy with baggy jeans called out from across the room. “France is not in Europe,” another boy said. Ms. Zheng just kept writing Chinese characters on the board. “American students don’t know a lot about the outside world,” she said later. “Mostly just what they see here.”

It's possible the students knew exactly what they were doing -- they were just being sarcastic (and random) in an attempt to disrupt class. Simply juvenile. And what a waste of space. I know I should be more patient, but it's pretty frustrating to see people behave this way in the classroom, when there's actual teaching going on. There are lots of other kids out there who would love to be in your seat studying. Teachers can command respect if they live up to their duty and do things properly. But students should also behave in a proper fashion, too. Doesn't require obsequiousness, just an attempt to do your part.

The Revival Begins ...

I saw this piece in the NY Times, and I was absolutely stunned by the beauty and the sense of what might be.

"Music Bridges the Political Divide Between China and Taiwan"

When a Taiwan music ensemble performed its reconstruction of Chinese imperial court music last year in Beijing, it marked not just a cultural milestone, but a political one.

The concert provided a rare opportunity to hear ancient sounds salvaged from a nearly vanished musical tradition. The 3,000-year-old genre known as yayue, or “elegant music,” faded with the collapse of dynastic rule in 1911, and nearly succumbed to the later Maoist assault on “feudalistic” elements of China’s past. [e.g. the Cultural Revolution].

But it was also a chance for people from both sides of the long-divided Taiwan Strait to compare notes on which parts of their joint Chinese heritage have been preserved, or not.

“The audience response was quite strong. Many were hearing this music for the first time,” said Xie Jiaxing, director of the China Conservatory in Beijing, which had invited the Yayue Ensemble of Nanhua University to perform in the capital.

“For political reasons, we haven’t done enough to research yayue,” Mr. Xie said. “Taiwan’s Nanhua University has done a really good job in this respect. Afterwards, our students wrote to the school saying how happy they were to discover such a great treasure in ancient Chinese culture, even though they don’t really understand it.”

I am suffused with joy and pride and a deeply emotional sense of possibility ... despite the horrific harm and damage that it suffered on the Mainland in the 20th century, maybe Chinese culture can make a comeback. Taiwan is a treasury of Traditional Chinese Culture, and now it has a chance to share it with the Mainland.

We have cultural elements that have been preserved and are continuing to be lived all over the Sinic world -- Hong Kong, Macau, Singapore, other Overseas Communities in SE Asia. 希望可以讓他傳回中國.

Chen Huei-ying, director-general of the cultural and education affairs department of the Mainland Affairs Council, the Taiwan government body in charge of policies toward China, sees benefits. “Cultural exchanges are helpful to peaceful development of cross-strait relations,” he said. “They increase understanding and appreciation for each other and especially feelings people on each side have for one another.”

They are also allowing mainland Chinese visitors to see how their culture evolved on Taiwan, shielded from the Communist campaigns against many traditional practices.

Some folk customs — such as the worship of Mazu, the sea goddess — thrive here in ways they no longer do on the mainland. Chinese temples are seeking help from their Taiwanese counterparts on how to revive Mazu festivals.

These kinds of folk practices and traditional customs, which were discarded or forgotten on the Mainland -- now there's a way they can start to be explored, and maybe become relevant to people's lives again. Because there is meaning there, in the past and in traditions that have been passed down for generations -- an inheritance which we have not only the responsibility, but also the wonderful privilege to explore.

URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/21/arts/21iht-music.html

Pedal Power! Electric two-wheelers in China

There was a nifty article in The New York Times today on electric bikes:

An Electric Boost for Bicyclists
By J. David Goodman (Jan 31, 2010)

"Detroit may be introducing electric car designs and China may be pushing forward with a big expansion of its highways and trains." But millions more are "taking part in a more accidental transportation upheaval."

In China, "an estimated 120 million electric bicycles now hum along the roads, up from a few thousand in the 1990s. They are replacing traditional bikes and motorcycles at a rapid clip and, in many cases, allowing people to put off the switch to cars.  In turn, the booming Chinese electric-bike industry is spurring worldwide interest and impressive sales in India, Europe and the United States. China is exporting many bikes, and Western manufacturers are also copying the Chinese trend to produce models of their own. From virtually nothing a decade ago, electric bikes have become an $11 billion global industry."

Electric bicycle riders in China, where about 120 million such bikes
are used, with some going up to 30 miles an hour. (NY Times)

More perspective on e-bikes from other publications:

E-Yikes! Electric Bikes Terrorize the Streets of China (WSJ)
“Electric bicycles, or e-bikes, have taken off in China. But some people say they are dangerous, and may not be so green after all." (Jan 17, 2010)

China’s E-Bikes: Less-Than-Perfect Pioneers (WSJ)
Blog entry from WSJ's Shai Oster. With video! (Jan 19, 2010)

Putting the brakes on pedal power (Washington Post)
"Bicycles give way to automobiles, but e-bikes keep two-wheel tradition alive." Alex Wang of NRDC is quoted in this piece! He rides an e-bike to work in Beijing. (Dec 14, 2009)

As a bonus, here is an academic paper I came across last quarter doing research for the solar cells class. (Published in Energy Policy)

The future of electric two-wheelers and electric vehicles in China
J. Weinert, J. Ogden, D. Sperling and A. Burke (2008)


URLs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/01/business/global/01ebike.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703657604575005140241751852.html
http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/01/19/china%E2%80%99s-e-bikes-less-than-perfect-pioneers/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/14/AR2009121403411.html
http://pubs.its.ucdavis.edu/download_pdf.php?id=1168

Where Chan Chan comes from

Hong Kong, you make me sad sometimes. But according to this piece by Philip Bowring in the IHT, at least you haven't given up completely...

"This city is normally associated with money making, not radical politics. But activism has been stirring, creating unease in Beijing and among local oligarch business interests. However puny Hong Kong’s voices of dissent may seem, they are a reminder of the catalytic role the territory has played in politics in the past — as a source of new ideas for China and refuge for dissenters like Sun Yat-sen, Ho Chi Minh and Emilio Aguinaldo of the Philippines."

This week, "five members of two pro-democracy political parties are due to resign from the Legislative Council, Hong Kong’s lawmaking body. Their objective is to spark a special election that they want to use as a referendum on universal suffrage for the next elections in 2012. At present, Hong Kong is on track for democratic reforms at a snail’s pace. The local administration, pressured by Beijing, which associates democratic development with dissent, remains reluctant to submit to greater public accountability. All democrats, whether or not they support the move by legislators planning to resign, want more directly elected seats to the Legislature in 2012 and a timetable for the full democratic election of the legislature and chief executive."

In recent years, Hong Kong has been seen as rather compliant with Beijing's demands. Yet Bowring notes several strains of dissent that have been growing, in addition to the continuing calls for greater self-rule from the democratic parties:

1. People on the bottom end of a growing income gap, who are getting the impression that "government is simply an accomplice of big business"
2. Middle class people, who want stability, but want the government to be more responsive to their needs.
3. Students, who care about things like human rights and the environment, which are often subsumed to the interests of powerful polluters

As Bowring points out, "the rise in anti-government and anti-Beijing sentiment may seem surprising given the recent improvement in Hong Kong’s economy and its increasing dependence on the mainland’s surging economic growth. Patriotism and pride in Chinese achievements have also been on the rise. [And I can tell you, some Hong Kongers are very pro-China.] Yet here's the crux of it:

"But Hong Kong has always separated its Chinese identity from Communist Party rule. Beijing’s unholy alliance with local vested interests offsets much of its patriotic appeal. Recent mainland crackdowns on dissent and the Internet have added to Hong Kong’s fears."

Indeed "Beijing’s recent moves may have strengthened Hong Kong’s role as a refuge for future Sun Yat-sens." So thus, Bowring notes, it may turn out that the resignation of members of democratic parties on the Legislative Council won't work. "But as an assertion of commitment to values other than money-making, they will make an impression not just on Hong Kong but on China, where the intertwining of political power and money-making is germinating a new radicalism."

I hope Hong Kong will stand up for values. Show the world there is something more than money! It goes far beyond making waves in the West -- you must demonstrate this idea to the Sinic world. Google can do it. So can you.

URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8473486.stm
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/opinion/27iht-edbowring.html

文革. I still want to cry.

I can hardly write these lines. I still feel a sense of tremendous sorrow, a terrible chill, when reading works about the Cultural Revolution and examine this period and its impacts on society and on human lives.

As the New York Times reports, in 2009, China "quietly opened the archives of selected declassified government files from that era, in Beijing, Shanghai and Xi’an" and lifted a little the veil on that period, revealing some of the prosaic stories of the Cultural Revolution. These are not the worst excesses, only some of the pedestrian issues of the time -- though there are still hints of the revolutionary fervor and the cruelty and inhumanity of the period.

Stitching the Narrative of a Revolution
By Xiyun YANG and Michael WINES
The New York Times / January 25, 2010

Peasants recited quotations from Mao's “Little Red Book” before toiling in the fields in a village near Beijing in July of 1967. (Agence France-Presse — Getty Images)

The files of the Cultural Revolution, which raged from 1966 until Mao’s death in 1976, make up a mere 16 of the 21,568 volumes that the Beijing Municipal Archives has made public in four separate releases — in 1996, 1997, 2001 and 2009. (The other files cover periods of Chinese history from 1906.)

The yellowing files give scant insight into those days’ atrocities: the denunciations of parents by children; the humiliation of intellectuals; the millions of lives ruined by Red Guards ordered to remake society through upheaval. Mao’s personality cult made him a living god, and armed violence broke out over his affections. Everything was politicized. Many committed suicide.

Today, that era has been all but obliterated from the official history of the People’s Republic, its horrors glossed over in history books. While many younger Chinese know that the country passed through a period of turmoil, scholars say, few have any idea of its wild extremes. Events that were “earth shattering have now turned into words with vague and sketchy meanings,” Chen Xiaojing, a Communist Party official from the time, wrote in a carefully hedged account of his experiences, “My Cultural Revolution Years.”

... The files apparently have been filtered for anything dealing with deaths and imprisonment, and they describe a country still fervently Communist, and unrecognizable today. They narrate the story of a country in the throes of madness, when 'Mao Zedong thought'" was supposed to cure "everything from truancy to traffic jams to agricultural chemistry to illegal pigeon sales."

... In a handwritten series of 1972 speeches, many of them heavily edited in pen, a teacher from Beijing’s outskirts recalled how his comrades “patiently and delicately” sought to reform a teacher who was not a worker, but a member of the wealthy class. Rounds of criticism had little effect, so the group chose to help him realize his mistakes through physical labor, by weeding farmland. “He pulled grass,” the speech read. “At first, he was squatting, but he couldn’t handle it after two days. Then he pulled the grass while kneeling. Finally, he did it while crawling.”

-----

What a horrific era; yet even today, a real societal discussion and full accounting of the past has not taken place. How can healing occur, and give rise to a greater sense of national understanding (and a commitment to never allow such violence to take place against a people or its heritage) when such a pivotal and destructive period in Chinese history remains hidden? Intentionally blocked by the government. How many lives were ended or irreparably harmed? How many cultural artifacts were destroyed, how many ideas, customs and practices lost? How many innocents were persecuted under the name of "revolution"? Without facing its history, how can China look to the future?