Mo Yan, the recent Nobel Prize Literature Winner from China, was blamed for defending Chinese media censorship during the Q&A session after his speech at Stockholm University. I didn't watch the live, but read the news from internet. Most critics focused on his response to a question about Chinese government putting some writers behind bars. To me, his answer barely defended Chinese government, but was try to avoid answering this question: he mentioned that writers can commit crimes such as theft and burglary, and therefore it shouldn't be surprising to have writers in prison, which obviously wandered off what the question was about. Mo Yan was not further challenged on the same subject at Stockholm University, but described not only as a coward who was afraid to confront the notorious media censorship, but a sycophant to Beijing.
If you've ever read Mo Yan's books, he is not a communist sycophant for sure, otherwise his books would never be rewarded from Nobel Committee. Mo Yan has kept a good balance between criticizing communist history and complimenting the government, which offers him the opportunity of publishing his satires as well as enjoying a decent life in China. He probably would lead this peaceful life until he dies hadn't he accepted the Nobel Prize this fall. As the first Chinese Nobel Prize Winner who also receives official congratulations from Chinese government, Mo Yan is no longer allowed - by either the government or the public - to keep his attitudes towards Chinese government and the CCP ambiguous. The government, who was furious at the Nobel Committee's decision to award dissidents such as Dalai Lama and Liu Xiaobo, wouldn't allow Mo Yan to act as an anti-government activist and speak against the government. The public (I'm talking about Weibo users here), with strong sympathy for dissidents and inspired by Mo Yan's books, would love to see Mo Yan expressing his dissatisfaction (in books) in the real world. In other words, Mo Yan has to make a choice to please either his bosses or his readers.
Mo Yan is a very thoughtful guy. But no matter how thoughtful he is, when he no longer belongs to himself, he can't express his thoughts freely. That's why we heard the ridiculous answer during his visit to Stockholm University. Some people, at least the one who asked him that question, were hoping that Mo Yan could be another Liu Xiaobo who can use his prestige and influence as a Nobel Prize Winner to fight against the censorship in China. Sure Mo Yan could choose to cater these audiences and condemned Chinese government on its inhumanity, which would cost his career, family and probably freedom. But Mo Yan made it very clear in his answer that he is not a dissident, and he has no intention to confront Chinese government. He's just a writer, and his job is to tell stories.
We live in societies. In social networks, people have different expectations for us, which may not always be consistent with our own plans. Especially when you become a public figure, for most of your life, you don't belong to yourself, but to the public, who has developed certain expectations for you. Then it will be very courageous for you to deviate from their expectations and lead your own life. As a writer, Mo Yan has achieved great success in his career. But as a person, he loses the freedom and privacy. If he asks for the freedom to choose his life, we shouldn't deny it; at least we shouldn't take it for granted that he will sacrifice his life for us.
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Showing posts with label China. Show all posts
Monday, December 10, 2012
Saturday, December 1, 2012
Young Heroes
The blog yesterday triggered my memories about The Three Kingdoms. After bragging my knowledge about the history to Gang, we watched two episodes (from '95 TV) together, both were about the battle of red cliffs. It's amazing to imagine what happened two thousand years ago, when a group of young people, mostly of my age, led thousands of hundreds of people crusading across the country, cleverly using all sorts of plots and schemes, and finally founding their own states.
Heroes in The Three Kingdoms are amazingly young. Sun Ce occupied 6 counties (80 states in all) when he was 24 and founded Kingdom Wu; his younger brother Quan succeeded at 18 at Ce's death; Zhuge Liang decided to assisted Liu Bei as his chief minister when he was 27; one year later, he facilitated Zhou Yu in defeating Cao Cao and his troops of 800,000. Most generals and advisers made their names during their teenagers, and became well known by 30. This is hard to imagine nowadays - most people barely make any achievement until they graduate from college at around 22, and it will take another few years for them to build up their reputations and move forward in their career path. Luckily one can make breakthrough in his field, and get awarded with a world-class prize by retirement. But most young people, receive little compliment except "youth is beautiful." Especially in China, when aged people are much respected, it's hard for young people to gain acclaim.
One reason that contributes to the emergence of these young heroes is the short life expectancy in ancient China. Confucius called people who are 70 and above to be "rare". During warring times like the Three Kingdoms Period, it was even rare to die in mid-50s, which is considered as "natural death" in The Three Kingdoms. Much more people died earlier, like mid-30s or 40s, usually of wounds or diseases. Given such short lifespans, people had to work hard during their early ages to accomplish as much as they can.
Another reason, I'd assume, was the short educational system in ancient China. Confucianism was made the state mainstream ideology since Han, therefore I'd imagine that children were required to study Confucius books. Other than this, they were not obliged to take extra courses - no foreign language, maths, physics, chemistry, etc. Smart kids could probably finish his coursework in a few years and started to explore the real world as knowledgeable persons. Some generals in the Three Kingdom Period were not even educated, which didn't demean their reputation as most people at that time were illiterate.
The last reason, probably was the lack of child labor protection. It's impossible nowadays to recruit teenagers in armies or hire kids in stores. But in The Three Kingdoms, there were stories about people leading a troop, killing enemies at the age of fourteen; and an eight-year old boy attending policy discussion. Maybe people at that time had a stronger belief in "learning by doing".
I'm 27 now. In The Three Kingdoms, I should either lead an army or at least governed a state for years. Now I'm still looking for jobs. What a progress we've made over the last two thousand years.
Heroes in The Three Kingdoms are amazingly young. Sun Ce occupied 6 counties (80 states in all) when he was 24 and founded Kingdom Wu; his younger brother Quan succeeded at 18 at Ce's death; Zhuge Liang decided to assisted Liu Bei as his chief minister when he was 27; one year later, he facilitated Zhou Yu in defeating Cao Cao and his troops of 800,000. Most generals and advisers made their names during their teenagers, and became well known by 30. This is hard to imagine nowadays - most people barely make any achievement until they graduate from college at around 22, and it will take another few years for them to build up their reputations and move forward in their career path. Luckily one can make breakthrough in his field, and get awarded with a world-class prize by retirement. But most young people, receive little compliment except "youth is beautiful." Especially in China, when aged people are much respected, it's hard for young people to gain acclaim.
One reason that contributes to the emergence of these young heroes is the short life expectancy in ancient China. Confucius called people who are 70 and above to be "rare". During warring times like the Three Kingdoms Period, it was even rare to die in mid-50s, which is considered as "natural death" in The Three Kingdoms. Much more people died earlier, like mid-30s or 40s, usually of wounds or diseases. Given such short lifespans, people had to work hard during their early ages to accomplish as much as they can.
Another reason, I'd assume, was the short educational system in ancient China. Confucianism was made the state mainstream ideology since Han, therefore I'd imagine that children were required to study Confucius books. Other than this, they were not obliged to take extra courses - no foreign language, maths, physics, chemistry, etc. Smart kids could probably finish his coursework in a few years and started to explore the real world as knowledgeable persons. Some generals in the Three Kingdom Period were not even educated, which didn't demean their reputation as most people at that time were illiterate.
The last reason, probably was the lack of child labor protection. It's impossible nowadays to recruit teenagers in armies or hire kids in stores. But in The Three Kingdoms, there were stories about people leading a troop, killing enemies at the age of fourteen; and an eight-year old boy attending policy discussion. Maybe people at that time had a stronger belief in "learning by doing".
I'm 27 now. In The Three Kingdoms, I should either lead an army or at least governed a state for years. Now I'm still looking for jobs. What a progress we've made over the last two thousand years.
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Study Chinese Politics
I made fun of The Economist for its gossiping methodology in Chinese studies in one of my previous blogs (The Gossips in the Economist). And it's absolutely not alone. Since the new politburo standing committee members met the press conference last night, all sorts of guesses, predictions and gossips about Chinese leadership in the next decade can be found on major newspapers, bold in headlines. Leaving all the bureaucratic jargon aside in newspapers such as People's Daily, the "studies" on Chinese politics have a wide variety of tools, ranging from committee members' resume to their tie colors. Here I will do what The Economist and its peers do: list a few citations/briefs from internet.
Most comments focused on Xi's speech, which followed his appearance as the top leader of the CCP. Weibo posts praised him as the first CCP leader who speaks mandarin. Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping are both famous for their strong accents when speaking Mandarin, which also creates a lot of difficulties for their actors in TV and movies. Jiang and Hu did a better job, but their tones still sound weird. In Comparison, Xi Jinping speaks much better Mandarin. People joked about the last Chinese leader who spoke such good Mandarin was back to Xuantong, the last Qing Emperor. Eulogy for Xi's good mandarin also has another implication: compared to his predecessors who filled their accession speeches (as well as most other speeches) with political jargon and empty talks, Xi seems to be better at talking in a language that ordinary people can understand. We don't know yet whether Xi can make government documents easier to read or the policy better to understand (probably not), but hopefully his speech will be less hypnotic.
The media also paid close attention to Xi's accession as the president of the central military committee. In China the CCP controls the army, and therefore the default is that the CCP president should also be the CMC president. However, ten years ago, Jiang refused to abdicate from the CMC president even though he was supposed to do so after resigning from the standing committee, and it took Hu another two years to get full control of the military power. This time, Hu seems to be less addictive to power than his predecessor, and turned over all his positions to Xi.
Not many people are surprised at the shrinking size of the standing committee as the previous nine-member one was abnormal itself. After Bo's removal from the Party, people no longer doubt that extreme leftists are removed from leading body as well. Pivotal members in the gamble is Wang Yang and Li Yuanchao, both of whom are viewed as relatively liberal and young CCP leaders. They gave their way to some mid-60s, but are expected to join the standing committee in the next term, when five out of the current seven members are to retire.
Other "studies", such as why Wang Qishan's tie color differed from other committee members; how summer birth months affect people's political future (it turned out four members were born in June/July); and what their wives and children are doing, etc, are trying to find some clues in the new Chinese leading group. This is how people study China, even so-called experts are not likely to have better ideas about understanding real political scenes. Let's continue having fun with Xi's standard Mandarin and Wang's blue tie. Maybe mysticism will be the best way to study Chinese politics.
Most comments focused on Xi's speech, which followed his appearance as the top leader of the CCP. Weibo posts praised him as the first CCP leader who speaks mandarin. Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping are both famous for their strong accents when speaking Mandarin, which also creates a lot of difficulties for their actors in TV and movies. Jiang and Hu did a better job, but their tones still sound weird. In Comparison, Xi Jinping speaks much better Mandarin. People joked about the last Chinese leader who spoke such good Mandarin was back to Xuantong, the last Qing Emperor. Eulogy for Xi's good mandarin also has another implication: compared to his predecessors who filled their accession speeches (as well as most other speeches) with political jargon and empty talks, Xi seems to be better at talking in a language that ordinary people can understand. We don't know yet whether Xi can make government documents easier to read or the policy better to understand (probably not), but hopefully his speech will be less hypnotic.
The media also paid close attention to Xi's accession as the president of the central military committee. In China the CCP controls the army, and therefore the default is that the CCP president should also be the CMC president. However, ten years ago, Jiang refused to abdicate from the CMC president even though he was supposed to do so after resigning from the standing committee, and it took Hu another two years to get full control of the military power. This time, Hu seems to be less addictive to power than his predecessor, and turned over all his positions to Xi.
Not many people are surprised at the shrinking size of the standing committee as the previous nine-member one was abnormal itself. After Bo's removal from the Party, people no longer doubt that extreme leftists are removed from leading body as well. Pivotal members in the gamble is Wang Yang and Li Yuanchao, both of whom are viewed as relatively liberal and young CCP leaders. They gave their way to some mid-60s, but are expected to join the standing committee in the next term, when five out of the current seven members are to retire.
Other "studies", such as why Wang Qishan's tie color differed from other committee members; how summer birth months affect people's political future (it turned out four members were born in June/July); and what their wives and children are doing, etc, are trying to find some clues in the new Chinese leading group. This is how people study China, even so-called experts are not likely to have better ideas about understanding real political scenes. Let's continue having fun with Xi's standard Mandarin and Wang's blue tie. Maybe mysticism will be the best way to study Chinese politics.
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Patriotism
A recent news in the US is widely reported in China as an evidence of a gloomy prospect for capitalism: citizens from 37 states petitioned to secede from the Union. Similarly, Scottish people will decide whether they will won independence from the Great Britain by 2014. Many Chinese readers took this as a result of the failure of patriotism education in both countries, as well as the public's depressing faith in the future. To most Chinese audience, it's shocking to see people want independence from the country, which is considered both as a felony and immorality in China. I don't know how many US people are disappointed at the presidential result or how much the Scottish dislike their fellow countrymen in the south, but here I want to focus on the discussion of patriotism education.
In China, patriotic courses make up an important section in primary education. Children were brought up to "love the Communist Party, love the socialism, love the people and love the country." As Chinese citizens, we are told to serve the people and fight against enemies. Textbooks have a broad definition for "enemy", which include those who want to challenge the dominant position of the CCP (e.g. democrats), change the political regime (from dictatorship to democracy)or intend to split the country (e.g. Dalai Lama), etc. It explains why issues like the independence of Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan are considered out of question, because they're "questions of principle". People have been educated to defend sovereignty and territorial integrity since they were not even able to fully understand the meaning of these concepts, and as a result, they rarely challenge it when they grow up, just like the Americans won't doubt freedom and democracy as basic values.
Patriotism becomes tricky when it's very difficult to separate the government from the country, such as in a dictatorship. In the US, you can keep your love for the country while hating the government, and all you need to do is to wait for four years to change it. But in China, the public can't do anything to change the government no matter how poor the performance is, therefore the government and the country (and the party) are bound closely together. So what can you do if you love the country but not the government? Some government dissidents are suppressed by the government and spend the rest of their lives in prison, and some choose to migrate to other countries to escape from the suppression. These people are fighting for better futures for the country and its people in their own ways. But in the public propaganda, they don't love their countries because they don't love the governments.
Government aside, patriotism itself is doubtful. Though it sounds bad to say I don't love my country, I still believe patriotism should be left for each individual to decide, rather than an issue of" principle". Love derives from connection and feelings, not birth place or parents' nationalities. Here is an example. I was born in Jiangxi, a central province in China, and moved to Zhejiang eight years later, which is an eastern province. But I spent most of my time in Beijing, going to college and graduate school, and building my connection there. So which place should I love most? According to patriotism textbooks, I should love Jiangxi the most, as it "gave my life and brought me up". It's true that I might have died without doctors in Jiangxi because of my malposition in my mom's uterus, but I need better reasons to choose my favorite place. And unfortunately I don't feel the same way as textbooks suggest - I love the place that best fits my value. I never thought of going back to Jiangxi, but decided to settle down in Beijing after graduation. Well people may say this example is only about provinces, while here we're talking about countries. But about 2,000 years ago, these provinces did belong to different countries, and even today they're still very different in culture, tradition and even language. Now in the age of globalization, people know more about the world than their neighbors, and they should have the rights to choose the place they love.
A truly strong country don't need to teach its citizen to love the country, it simply attracts them by its value and lifestyle. But if you can't establish legitimacy for your governance, you do need to educate people to love you. It's just like international trade - when you have production advantages, you claim free trade; but when you're disadvantaged in the supply chain, you want tariff protectionism.
In China, patriotic courses make up an important section in primary education. Children were brought up to "love the Communist Party, love the socialism, love the people and love the country." As Chinese citizens, we are told to serve the people and fight against enemies. Textbooks have a broad definition for "enemy", which include those who want to challenge the dominant position of the CCP (e.g. democrats), change the political regime (from dictatorship to democracy)or intend to split the country (e.g. Dalai Lama), etc. It explains why issues like the independence of Xinjiang, Tibet and Taiwan are considered out of question, because they're "questions of principle". People have been educated to defend sovereignty and territorial integrity since they were not even able to fully understand the meaning of these concepts, and as a result, they rarely challenge it when they grow up, just like the Americans won't doubt freedom and democracy as basic values.
Patriotism becomes tricky when it's very difficult to separate the government from the country, such as in a dictatorship. In the US, you can keep your love for the country while hating the government, and all you need to do is to wait for four years to change it. But in China, the public can't do anything to change the government no matter how poor the performance is, therefore the government and the country (and the party) are bound closely together. So what can you do if you love the country but not the government? Some government dissidents are suppressed by the government and spend the rest of their lives in prison, and some choose to migrate to other countries to escape from the suppression. These people are fighting for better futures for the country and its people in their own ways. But in the public propaganda, they don't love their countries because they don't love the governments.
Government aside, patriotism itself is doubtful. Though it sounds bad to say I don't love my country, I still believe patriotism should be left for each individual to decide, rather than an issue of" principle". Love derives from connection and feelings, not birth place or parents' nationalities. Here is an example. I was born in Jiangxi, a central province in China, and moved to Zhejiang eight years later, which is an eastern province. But I spent most of my time in Beijing, going to college and graduate school, and building my connection there. So which place should I love most? According to patriotism textbooks, I should love Jiangxi the most, as it "gave my life and brought me up". It's true that I might have died without doctors in Jiangxi because of my malposition in my mom's uterus, but I need better reasons to choose my favorite place. And unfortunately I don't feel the same way as textbooks suggest - I love the place that best fits my value. I never thought of going back to Jiangxi, but decided to settle down in Beijing after graduation. Well people may say this example is only about provinces, while here we're talking about countries. But about 2,000 years ago, these provinces did belong to different countries, and even today they're still very different in culture, tradition and even language. Now in the age of globalization, people know more about the world than their neighbors, and they should have the rights to choose the place they love.
A truly strong country don't need to teach its citizen to love the country, it simply attracts them by its value and lifestyle. But if you can't establish legitimacy for your governance, you do need to educate people to love you. It's just like international trade - when you have production advantages, you claim free trade; but when you're disadvantaged in the supply chain, you want tariff protectionism.
 |
| http://goo.gl/1P0br |
Monday, November 12, 2012
Gossips in The Economist
The Economist has become one of my major information sources in the US. I was excited when it started a special column on China this summer. Though the new section on China is only a page long, but it covers a wide range of topics, introducing social, economic and business issues in China. Some reports, like the one on Inner Mongolia, even surprised native Chinese like me. A few months have passed, and I've noticed an interesting trend when The Economist digs hotspots in China, which is to quote posts on Sina Weibo, the most popular social media in China as both Facebook and Twitter are blocked in the continent.
I agree that surfing online is a good way to observe what some Chinese people are concerned about. And Weibo, thanks to its huge usergroup, does include many interesting stories in China. However it's problematic to rely so heavily on Weibo as an information source. For example, in the latest Economist, there is a small piece called "Congress Watching" with a subtitle "Heard in the Hutong". As the title indicates, it's a gossiping piece, most of overhearings are posted by Weibo users. Among them is a taxi passenger who complains about the removal of all taxi window handles in Beijing according to a government directive in the name of security. The passenger wrote on his Weibo that the he was suffering from the driver's fart during the ride because of the closed window. It was a funny post on Weibo and went viral soon. I had a big laugh when reading it on my Weibo, however I found it weird that The Economist chose to re-post it in its newspaper. Given a more than $100 subscription fee per year, I guess I'm probably expecting more than gossips from The Economist.
In The Economist, pieces on China and other developing countries are very different from those on OECDs. When it talks about the US and EU, it does a good job in integrating small stories into big ideas with analytical statements. But when it talks about China, articles are most detail-oriented, filled with micro-observations rather than analysis. If I think about how Chinese media report foreign news, I think The Economist does a great job in reporting China; but if we raise the standard a little bit, let's say there is still room for improvement.
First comes the question of research methodology. When you want to introduce a country where the information is opaque, the data is always wrong and interviewees don't tell the truth, what should be a possible approach? Even in academia, most scholars working on China have problems in applying the same methodologies used by their OECD-focused counterparts due to the lack of public information, and have to rely more heavily on informal channels, such as personal connection with insiders and social media like Weibo. The difficulties of conveying timely information are foreseeable for journalists in China. However the piece on Wen's hidden wealth in NYTimes shows that in spite of the above difficulties, valuable discoveries can be found in publicly available information sources. David Barboza, the reporter, claimed to the gather all the data in his piece from public sources, but it took him more than a year to process all the information and finally find out the truth. When the information is half disclosed and mixes truths and lies, it's not easy to ferret out the facts. But isn't that journalists' job?
Then comes the concern about accuracy. When you can't get a full picture of facts, but fragmented pieces from a jigsaw puzzle, it's vital for the journalist to infer like a detective. And that's when mistakes can happen. It's crucial to have the news correct, therefore it is a natural choice for journalists to play conservative and report "unbiased" fragments only. However it always makes sense to add some analysis, no matter how accurate it can be, the reasoning will help the audience think and understand better. I once worked with an archaeologist, and most of his work is trying to put pieces together in a puzzle to depict history, which includes a lot of assumptions and deductions. He can make mistakes, but that never undermines his reputation as a great archaeologist. Journalists who make up news to attract eyes are despicable, but a few reasoning that help audience build up the full picture should be awarded.
I still like The Economist, just don't feel that happy paying for Weibo Briefs every week.
I agree that surfing online is a good way to observe what some Chinese people are concerned about. And Weibo, thanks to its huge usergroup, does include many interesting stories in China. However it's problematic to rely so heavily on Weibo as an information source. For example, in the latest Economist, there is a small piece called "Congress Watching" with a subtitle "Heard in the Hutong". As the title indicates, it's a gossiping piece, most of overhearings are posted by Weibo users. Among them is a taxi passenger who complains about the removal of all taxi window handles in Beijing according to a government directive in the name of security. The passenger wrote on his Weibo that the he was suffering from the driver's fart during the ride because of the closed window. It was a funny post on Weibo and went viral soon. I had a big laugh when reading it on my Weibo, however I found it weird that The Economist chose to re-post it in its newspaper. Given a more than $100 subscription fee per year, I guess I'm probably expecting more than gossips from The Economist.
In The Economist, pieces on China and other developing countries are very different from those on OECDs. When it talks about the US and EU, it does a good job in integrating small stories into big ideas with analytical statements. But when it talks about China, articles are most detail-oriented, filled with micro-observations rather than analysis. If I think about how Chinese media report foreign news, I think The Economist does a great job in reporting China; but if we raise the standard a little bit, let's say there is still room for improvement.
First comes the question of research methodology. When you want to introduce a country where the information is opaque, the data is always wrong and interviewees don't tell the truth, what should be a possible approach? Even in academia, most scholars working on China have problems in applying the same methodologies used by their OECD-focused counterparts due to the lack of public information, and have to rely more heavily on informal channels, such as personal connection with insiders and social media like Weibo. The difficulties of conveying timely information are foreseeable for journalists in China. However the piece on Wen's hidden wealth in NYTimes shows that in spite of the above difficulties, valuable discoveries can be found in publicly available information sources. David Barboza, the reporter, claimed to the gather all the data in his piece from public sources, but it took him more than a year to process all the information and finally find out the truth. When the information is half disclosed and mixes truths and lies, it's not easy to ferret out the facts. But isn't that journalists' job?
Then comes the concern about accuracy. When you can't get a full picture of facts, but fragmented pieces from a jigsaw puzzle, it's vital for the journalist to infer like a detective. And that's when mistakes can happen. It's crucial to have the news correct, therefore it is a natural choice for journalists to play conservative and report "unbiased" fragments only. However it always makes sense to add some analysis, no matter how accurate it can be, the reasoning will help the audience think and understand better. I once worked with an archaeologist, and most of his work is trying to put pieces together in a puzzle to depict history, which includes a lot of assumptions and deductions. He can make mistakes, but that never undermines his reputation as a great archaeologist. Journalists who make up news to attract eyes are despicable, but a few reasoning that help audience build up the full picture should be awarded.
I still like The Economist, just don't feel that happy paying for Weibo Briefs every week.
 |
| http://goo.gl/5n4W9 |
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Delegates
The ongoing 18th CCP Congress gathered more than 2,000 CCP delegates across China, who will vote for the leading group in China for the next decade. The CCP members count for 5% of the Chinese population, but the 2,000 CCP delegates are to decide the future of 1.4 billion people. These delegates go to Beijing every five years, dawdling for a week at the cost of tax payers' money, doing anything but their job. In the end, a few old people make final choices, and these delegates act as rubber stamps and hooray their decisions.
In theory, these delegates represent all the 80 million CCP members and are entitled with the power to determine the next leading group of China. But we all know they're hand picked. In general, the CCP delegates are considered as "elites", including CEO of state-owned companies, presidents of academic institutions or high-level government officials. They go to Beijing, fully informed of how little they can affect the conference outcome, but always enjoy this great networking opportunity which can build up their "guanxi" with the central committee. Not surprisingly, some recent released stories show that these delegates care little about policy, but are more keen to show their loyalty to the Party. Instead of making comments on Hu's 100-min speech or the Party's Constitution Amendment, delegates from Ningxia Province talked about how frequently they were thrilled into crying during the congress when they found the Party is "so clean and pure"; and another old delegate proudly told the journalist that she supported the CCP's policy by never voting against it - as most other delegates did in the past half a century.
To many people's surprise, even these rubber stamps are carefully selected. I worked for a small non-communist party before, and never had the opportunity of getting involved into CCP's issues. But I once worked with some colleagues to interview National People's Congress (NPC) delegates, who by law are the counterparts to the US Congressmen, but are powerless in China. Just like their peers in CCP, the NPC delegates meet every five years to elect the national leaders, which of course are determined by the same group of old guys. But to guarantee the NPC delegates will "behave well" and pass every personnel decision, bill or amendment, it's vital for the central government to screen all the NPC candidates and make sure invitation only goes to those they like. To demonstrate the participation of non-communist parties in state affairs, non-CCP members are always invited to help select NPC delegates. I once worked as the representative of my party in the selection committee, and interviewed 20 candidates. I followed the selection criteria, talking not only to the candidate, but also his colleagues and supervisors - a typical way of collecting comprehensive information about a candidate in the CCP. After quite intense interview, my group reported our final recommendations, which were presented to NPC central committee for their final decisions. Usually 92% of the recommended candidates will get a one-week vacation and a free trip to Beijing.
My friends at Princeton can be very excited at meeting or working with a Congressmen/Senator, while I find it ridiculous that I actually did interview some "Congressmen" in my country, which unfortunately shows how powerless the NPC is in China. No one can confidently say what policy will be like in China in the next decade, and all we know so far is that Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang will announce themselves the next CCP President and vice-president in four days, Bo Xilai and his allies won't have any chance in the game, and tax payers will continue paying the bill.
In theory, these delegates represent all the 80 million CCP members and are entitled with the power to determine the next leading group of China. But we all know they're hand picked. In general, the CCP delegates are considered as "elites", including CEO of state-owned companies, presidents of academic institutions or high-level government officials. They go to Beijing, fully informed of how little they can affect the conference outcome, but always enjoy this great networking opportunity which can build up their "guanxi" with the central committee. Not surprisingly, some recent released stories show that these delegates care little about policy, but are more keen to show their loyalty to the Party. Instead of making comments on Hu's 100-min speech or the Party's Constitution Amendment, delegates from Ningxia Province talked about how frequently they were thrilled into crying during the congress when they found the Party is "so clean and pure"; and another old delegate proudly told the journalist that she supported the CCP's policy by never voting against it - as most other delegates did in the past half a century.
To many people's surprise, even these rubber stamps are carefully selected. I worked for a small non-communist party before, and never had the opportunity of getting involved into CCP's issues. But I once worked with some colleagues to interview National People's Congress (NPC) delegates, who by law are the counterparts to the US Congressmen, but are powerless in China. Just like their peers in CCP, the NPC delegates meet every five years to elect the national leaders, which of course are determined by the same group of old guys. But to guarantee the NPC delegates will "behave well" and pass every personnel decision, bill or amendment, it's vital for the central government to screen all the NPC candidates and make sure invitation only goes to those they like. To demonstrate the participation of non-communist parties in state affairs, non-CCP members are always invited to help select NPC delegates. I once worked as the representative of my party in the selection committee, and interviewed 20 candidates. I followed the selection criteria, talking not only to the candidate, but also his colleagues and supervisors - a typical way of collecting comprehensive information about a candidate in the CCP. After quite intense interview, my group reported our final recommendations, which were presented to NPC central committee for their final decisions. Usually 92% of the recommended candidates will get a one-week vacation and a free trip to Beijing.
My friends at Princeton can be very excited at meeting or working with a Congressmen/Senator, while I find it ridiculous that I actually did interview some "Congressmen" in my country, which unfortunately shows how powerless the NPC is in China. No one can confidently say what policy will be like in China in the next decade, and all we know so far is that Xi Jinping and Li Keqiang will announce themselves the next CCP President and vice-president in four days, Bo Xilai and his allies won't have any chance in the game, and tax payers will continue paying the bill.
Friday, October 26, 2012
Hidden Wealth
Gini coefficient is so far the most popular indicator to evaluate inequality in a country. The higher the Gini Coefficient, the less equal the country is. Since the coefficient is respected by most countries, economists always use it to rank the level of inequality in a country. It always looks less decent if a country tops the list of Gini coefficient with a low GDP per capita.
Therefore some countries use their own way of calculating Gini coefficient. For example, India calculates Gini by consumption instead of income to lower its Gini coefficient. How does this work? For example, one family owns $1 million a year, but consumes $100K; while another family owns $1000 a year and consumes all of it. The difference between their consumption is much less than the difference between their income. The trick that the Chinese Statistical Bureau is playing with Gini coefficient is equally cunning. Instead of calculating Gini coefficient for the entire country, they calculate two separate Ginis, one for urban area and the other for the rural area. Because of the big income gap between cities and countrysides, both Ginis are considered not reflecting the true inequality in China.
In addition to these obvious tricks of lowering Gini coefficient, it is widely believed that some assets of rich people's are not reported as government officials trade power for money in the grey area, which make the money unspeakable. Though the central government looks determined in addressing corruption and driving its bureaucrats to publish their salaries and assets, very few are willing to do that. And those who have to put the information online usually choose to understate their wealth. It's not surprising. In almost every corruption case that has been disclosed recently, the asset of each official can be counted in billions - millions of cash and dozens of mansions. Even that is not the whole story. Headlines of NY Times yesterday seemed to reveal that in China large assets can be acquired by seniors in the government and their relatives in a legal way. These assets, no matter taken legitimately or illegally, are usually not included in the calculation of Gini coefficient, and they are seeking global investment opportunities with a significant ratio of them already transferred overseas.
Meanwhile, the Gini coefficient can be overestimated as well because of non-monetary assets in a family. When we look at household income, we usually assume that's what people live on; while actually they may live on things other than monetary income. Farmers grow food in their fields and decide to eat half of them instead of selling all; and tailors make clothes for their family members and relatives. Poor people do not always receive paychecks and live on commodities, and complexity of the market makes Gini coefficient even more confusing. But in comparison to the large hidden wealth, this slight overestimation can be ignored.
Data don't lie, but the people who develop and interpret it can lie. That's the world of “闷声发大财" (make money, not noises).
Therefore some countries use their own way of calculating Gini coefficient. For example, India calculates Gini by consumption instead of income to lower its Gini coefficient. How does this work? For example, one family owns $1 million a year, but consumes $100K; while another family owns $1000 a year and consumes all of it. The difference between their consumption is much less than the difference between their income. The trick that the Chinese Statistical Bureau is playing with Gini coefficient is equally cunning. Instead of calculating Gini coefficient for the entire country, they calculate two separate Ginis, one for urban area and the other for the rural area. Because of the big income gap between cities and countrysides, both Ginis are considered not reflecting the true inequality in China.
In addition to these obvious tricks of lowering Gini coefficient, it is widely believed that some assets of rich people's are not reported as government officials trade power for money in the grey area, which make the money unspeakable. Though the central government looks determined in addressing corruption and driving its bureaucrats to publish their salaries and assets, very few are willing to do that. And those who have to put the information online usually choose to understate their wealth. It's not surprising. In almost every corruption case that has been disclosed recently, the asset of each official can be counted in billions - millions of cash and dozens of mansions. Even that is not the whole story. Headlines of NY Times yesterday seemed to reveal that in China large assets can be acquired by seniors in the government and their relatives in a legal way. These assets, no matter taken legitimately or illegally, are usually not included in the calculation of Gini coefficient, and they are seeking global investment opportunities with a significant ratio of them already transferred overseas.
Meanwhile, the Gini coefficient can be overestimated as well because of non-monetary assets in a family. When we look at household income, we usually assume that's what people live on; while actually they may live on things other than monetary income. Farmers grow food in their fields and decide to eat half of them instead of selling all; and tailors make clothes for their family members and relatives. Poor people do not always receive paychecks and live on commodities, and complexity of the market makes Gini coefficient even more confusing. But in comparison to the large hidden wealth, this slight overestimation can be ignored.
Data don't lie, but the people who develop and interpret it can lie. That's the world of “闷声发大财" (make money, not noises).
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Gambling
I went to watch the final presidential debate with a binder full of ERGies. Gang's friend Jimmy invited us over to watch the debate on foreign policy at his place. The debate was completely off the topic, but it didn't prevent us from enjoying the debate drinking game.
The biggest gain from last night was not seeing how politicians do Taichi to each other during the debate by avoiding questions, twisting facts and changing topics, but a website mentioned by Chris. Intrade.com provides a market in which people can predict who will win the election, such as who will be elected the next president, who will lead in each swing state, and who will control the Senate/House, and therefore own money from right predictions. The price of each share changes as the campaign goes on. For example, after Obama got drowsy during his first debate, the price of share for "Obama will win" dropped from almost $8 to less than $6. His next two debates reversed the trend and pushed the price above $6 now, but never back to its peak. We found this market very interesting and tried to buy a few shares just for fun. But as we registered and logged in, we found the procedures cumbersome: we needed to scan and send over our ID cards for confirmation, and the money couldn't be paid by either credit card or debit card. Also, Intrade.com requires a monthly transaction fee of around $5.
I learned about futures markets in my financial class, and how agency make money from both sides by taking the risks of insolvency. The business is no longer new, but Intrade.com is much easier: it only focuses on policy issues, and to each question there are only two options, yes or no. For example, there is a bet on whether a cap and trade system for emissions trading to be established before midnight ET on 31 Dec 2013, and another on whether the US and/or Israel are to execute an overt air strike against Iran before midnight ET 31 Dec 2013. About a hundred market is listed on its website, from the change of global temperature, terrorist attack, income tax rates, to the time for World Trade Center's reopening, etc. Where there is uncertainty, there is a market for gambling. In comparison to guessing the change of oil price in the following months and years, it's much easier to guess "Yes" or "No". However the risk is higher: once you lose, you lose everything.
I don't think a similar business model exists in China, and one obstacle I can think of to replicating the model in China is the opaque government policy-making process. Two weeks before the US election, no one knows who will be the next US president (though I think Obama has a better chance); but two years ago we already knew who will be the next Chinese president. However only people close to the core know what happens and have more information to predict the result, but majority remains uninformed - yes we know the result, but we don't know what leads to the result. However it may be interesting to try a bet on something like whether China and Japan will fight over Diaoyu Island or when will be Liaoning Hao's first voyage.
The biggest gain from last night was not seeing how politicians do Taichi to each other during the debate by avoiding questions, twisting facts and changing topics, but a website mentioned by Chris. Intrade.com provides a market in which people can predict who will win the election, such as who will be elected the next president, who will lead in each swing state, and who will control the Senate/House, and therefore own money from right predictions. The price of each share changes as the campaign goes on. For example, after Obama got drowsy during his first debate, the price of share for "Obama will win" dropped from almost $8 to less than $6. His next two debates reversed the trend and pushed the price above $6 now, but never back to its peak. We found this market very interesting and tried to buy a few shares just for fun. But as we registered and logged in, we found the procedures cumbersome: we needed to scan and send over our ID cards for confirmation, and the money couldn't be paid by either credit card or debit card. Also, Intrade.com requires a monthly transaction fee of around $5.
I learned about futures markets in my financial class, and how agency make money from both sides by taking the risks of insolvency. The business is no longer new, but Intrade.com is much easier: it only focuses on policy issues, and to each question there are only two options, yes or no. For example, there is a bet on whether a cap and trade system for emissions trading to be established before midnight ET on 31 Dec 2013, and another on whether the US and/or Israel are to execute an overt air strike against Iran before midnight ET 31 Dec 2013. About a hundred market is listed on its website, from the change of global temperature, terrorist attack, income tax rates, to the time for World Trade Center's reopening, etc. Where there is uncertainty, there is a market for gambling. In comparison to guessing the change of oil price in the following months and years, it's much easier to guess "Yes" or "No". However the risk is higher: once you lose, you lose everything.
I don't think a similar business model exists in China, and one obstacle I can think of to replicating the model in China is the opaque government policy-making process. Two weeks before the US election, no one knows who will be the next US president (though I think Obama has a better chance); but two years ago we already knew who will be the next Chinese president. However only people close to the core know what happens and have more information to predict the result, but majority remains uninformed - yes we know the result, but we don't know what leads to the result. However it may be interesting to try a bet on something like whether China and Japan will fight over Diaoyu Island or when will be Liaoning Hao's first voyage.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
A Career Fair
Berkeley becomes sunny again when I'm NOT seeing Carol in San Francisco. I went to a career fair in downtown Berkeley hosted by Zhejiang Recruitment Group. As the name suggests, the Group consists of representatives from the government, enterprises and universities in Zhejiang Province to recruit recent graduates from UC Berkeley and surrounding universities. In recent years, Chinese recruitment groups come to the US several times a year to find qualified candidates for their job openings back home. But most recruitment is conducted at the national level, and very few provinces can organize their recruitment teams but Zhejiang is an exception. I met a few CEOs from private companies, professors in universities and governors from the CCP departments. Even though the government is not recruiting for itself, the presence of government officials imply that this is a government-organized activities.
I didn't talk much there, but I must say some salary packages are really tempting. Zhejiang seems to be rich enough to offer international pay in a lot of positions. But concerns still remain regarding to whether these promises will be carried out, and how many additional provisions they may have. Some people also worry about the non-standard and opaque performance evaluation and promotion system back in China, which can turn a high starting point into a dim future. Most people at the career fair were talking - to the recruiter, organizer and other students, but I don't know how many of them are keen on starting a career in China.
With a background in social science, sometimes I do find it difficult to get a job here. After talking to the Zhejiang recruiters, I realize it may be the same in China. It looks like that they don't find the US education has advantages in liberal arts, but believe the science education is much better. (It's funny to think about that Americans believe that Chinese are good at math and science, while Chinese have the same perception on Americans.) They want to recruit people with US science degrees because they believe these degree receivers are sure to bring new technologies and ideas back to China, but they are less interested in recruiting students in social science as they may not find people majoring in social science will make a big difference.
It is fascinating to see how much people value knowledge, and almost for sure overseas degree recipients will help Chinese companies improve their performance in both domestic and international markets. With a less developed legal system and market, Chinese market is more likely to help shrewd businessmen accumulate wealth quickly. And when they are trying to expand to overseas markets, it's important to have someone who knows the world better. Zhejiang has been playing a leading role in encouraging small business and export-oriented industry since 1980s, and it's a smart move to distinguish itself from other similar industries by investing on human resources.
I didn't talk much there, but I must say some salary packages are really tempting. Zhejiang seems to be rich enough to offer international pay in a lot of positions. But concerns still remain regarding to whether these promises will be carried out, and how many additional provisions they may have. Some people also worry about the non-standard and opaque performance evaluation and promotion system back in China, which can turn a high starting point into a dim future. Most people at the career fair were talking - to the recruiter, organizer and other students, but I don't know how many of them are keen on starting a career in China.
With a background in social science, sometimes I do find it difficult to get a job here. After talking to the Zhejiang recruiters, I realize it may be the same in China. It looks like that they don't find the US education has advantages in liberal arts, but believe the science education is much better. (It's funny to think about that Americans believe that Chinese are good at math and science, while Chinese have the same perception on Americans.) They want to recruit people with US science degrees because they believe these degree receivers are sure to bring new technologies and ideas back to China, but they are less interested in recruiting students in social science as they may not find people majoring in social science will make a big difference.
It is fascinating to see how much people value knowledge, and almost for sure overseas degree recipients will help Chinese companies improve their performance in both domestic and international markets. With a less developed legal system and market, Chinese market is more likely to help shrewd businessmen accumulate wealth quickly. And when they are trying to expand to overseas markets, it's important to have someone who knows the world better. Zhejiang has been playing a leading role in encouraging small business and export-oriented industry since 1980s, and it's a smart move to distinguish itself from other similar industries by investing on human resources.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Leadership Reshuffle
2012 is a year for change. People everywhere (literally) are expecting new leaders or another term of old ones. EU talks more about bail-out and possible breakups more than the political show, and Japan is swinging between finding an economic titan or a political hawk. The US takes the incoming election as a possible solution for current economic crisis. Romney attacked Obama furiously on the poor performance in the campaign, taking it as his lethal weapon against the incumbent. Obama kept implying that the economy had already gone bad during Bush's reign, and it could be worse under Romney's government. Presidential candidates debated on policy as well as attacked each other's personalities. Media busily interviewed and commented on the candidates, and updated polls one after the other. Profits were made, jobs were created and everyone was like having a party.
Leadership reshuffle is quite different in China, where things are processed quietly. The central government is trying their best to avoid stiring up the public in prevention of any unexpected situation. Since Bo Xilai was removed from his position and therefore lost the competitiveness for joining the CCP Central Politburo, power competition between other factions seemed even more opaque. Though even taxi drivers in Beijing seem to know the list of the next Central Politburo standing committee members, the public won't be informed of any personnel change or new policiy until Nov 8th, when the eighteenth congress of CCP representatives will be held.
People talk about the disadvantages of democracy - its inefficiency, nepotism with interest groups and the big waste of money on campaigns. I bet most of these critics haven't been to China or other dictatorship, otherwise they must be paid to say so. It turns out that if the money is spent on elections, it will be squandered in other ways - just think of the billions of dollars embezzled by government officials in China. It's too easy to put the public's money into one's own pocket in lack of transparency and responsibility. Also, in China, interests groups have no election to affect, but they find other ways of making policies in favor of them. And what's worse, the public won't even have a say during the process. People today praise China for its efficiency in building infrastructure and taking actions against climate change, etc, but seem to forget how efficient China was in impoverishing its people in 1950s and slaughtering its people in 1960-1970s. Ridiculous things can happen in a country who does not respect its people.
Obviously most of the 1.4 billion Chinese people won't have a say in the coming election, which is fully taken care of by a few old men. In sharp contrast to the media calling on people to vote, the media in China tries to keep the public away from hotspots. I sadly see my country leaders continue consolidating their dictatorship and reinforcing their alliance with economic giants, getting complacent by comparing China to countries like North Korea. The international community cares about China's economic growth slowing down and carbon emissions growing up, but what we should care more is that the true trouble lies much deeper in the bone.
Leadership reshuffle is quite different in China, where things are processed quietly. The central government is trying their best to avoid stiring up the public in prevention of any unexpected situation. Since Bo Xilai was removed from his position and therefore lost the competitiveness for joining the CCP Central Politburo, power competition between other factions seemed even more opaque. Though even taxi drivers in Beijing seem to know the list of the next Central Politburo standing committee members, the public won't be informed of any personnel change or new policiy until Nov 8th, when the eighteenth congress of CCP representatives will be held.
People talk about the disadvantages of democracy - its inefficiency, nepotism with interest groups and the big waste of money on campaigns. I bet most of these critics haven't been to China or other dictatorship, otherwise they must be paid to say so. It turns out that if the money is spent on elections, it will be squandered in other ways - just think of the billions of dollars embezzled by government officials in China. It's too easy to put the public's money into one's own pocket in lack of transparency and responsibility. Also, in China, interests groups have no election to affect, but they find other ways of making policies in favor of them. And what's worse, the public won't even have a say during the process. People today praise China for its efficiency in building infrastructure and taking actions against climate change, etc, but seem to forget how efficient China was in impoverishing its people in 1950s and slaughtering its people in 1960-1970s. Ridiculous things can happen in a country who does not respect its people.
Obviously most of the 1.4 billion Chinese people won't have a say in the coming election, which is fully taken care of by a few old men. In sharp contrast to the media calling on people to vote, the media in China tries to keep the public away from hotspots. I sadly see my country leaders continue consolidating their dictatorship and reinforcing their alliance with economic giants, getting complacent by comparing China to countries like North Korea. The international community cares about China's economic growth slowing down and carbon emissions growing up, but what we should care more is that the true trouble lies much deeper in the bone.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
My Teeth
Two years ago, one of my teeth ached for a few days. I didn't pay much attention at the beginning but it finally came to the point of unbearable. Therefore I went to see my dentist for the first time in the US and had that naughty baby extracted. My dentist is a nice gentleman, he did my first deep teeth cleaning and suggested me to use floss, which helped me maintain the health of both teeth and gum a lot. Also for the first time of my life, I got an X-ray of my teeth, and found out I actually have 32 teeth (well, 31 half an hour later), four of which are wisdom teeth. Later I had other two teeth extracted even though they were not infected for the sake of prevention. The last wisdom tooth was troublesome: it's deeply buried in the bone and then firmly covered by gum. So my dentist explained to me that he was not able to extract that one, but if I'd like he could refer me to a specialist.
I did go to see the specialist, who checked my X-ray and mouth, and told me he could do it. I made the appointment, and finally cancelled it because of the lack of courage to have my bone cut. The fourth wisdom tooth had no idea its life was changed in a minute, and still stayed quietly in the past two years as it did before. Recently I read articles about how hormones might affect oral health and made wisdom teeth brisker than usual. Not surprisingly I thought of getting rid of this last potential trouble. Again, I got a referral from my dentist (a new one), and went to see the specialist this afternoon. This was my best dental experience ever: the doctor explained to me the pros and cons of extracting such a deeply imbedded tooth, how the infection happens and why I didn't need to worry about the tooth which has no opportunity of touching either saliva or air. After so many dentists pushing me to extract this obedient tooth, I finally heard something different. And it looks like Dr. Krey did care a lot about patients rather than charging for another surgery.
I remember when I was a little kid, my mother once brought to a dentist for tooth decay (yes I liked candies). The dentist extracted my decayed tooth and told my mom to buy my an ice-cream to help stop bleeding. I was scared to see the dentist and have the surgery, but was delighted to know that I could be awarded with an ice-cream for my brave behavior. Later that day I got an expensive ice-cream with raisin in it. That ice-cream changed all my impression of dental surgery ever since. After that, my teeth have been growing neatly and healthily, therefore I stopped visiting dentists anymore. In China the oral health care is in general much less developed. Very few use floss or clean teeth regularly, and most people have no X-ray pic of teeth through their whole lives. In recent years, people start to understand more about the importance of oral health, and start to clean teeth or wear braces if needed. These hidden babies are taken better care of.
I did go to see the specialist, who checked my X-ray and mouth, and told me he could do it. I made the appointment, and finally cancelled it because of the lack of courage to have my bone cut. The fourth wisdom tooth had no idea its life was changed in a minute, and still stayed quietly in the past two years as it did before. Recently I read articles about how hormones might affect oral health and made wisdom teeth brisker than usual. Not surprisingly I thought of getting rid of this last potential trouble. Again, I got a referral from my dentist (a new one), and went to see the specialist this afternoon. This was my best dental experience ever: the doctor explained to me the pros and cons of extracting such a deeply imbedded tooth, how the infection happens and why I didn't need to worry about the tooth which has no opportunity of touching either saliva or air. After so many dentists pushing me to extract this obedient tooth, I finally heard something different. And it looks like Dr. Krey did care a lot about patients rather than charging for another surgery.
I remember when I was a little kid, my mother once brought to a dentist for tooth decay (yes I liked candies). The dentist extracted my decayed tooth and told my mom to buy my an ice-cream to help stop bleeding. I was scared to see the dentist and have the surgery, but was delighted to know that I could be awarded with an ice-cream for my brave behavior. Later that day I got an expensive ice-cream with raisin in it. That ice-cream changed all my impression of dental surgery ever since. After that, my teeth have been growing neatly and healthily, therefore I stopped visiting dentists anymore. In China the oral health care is in general much less developed. Very few use floss or clean teeth regularly, and most people have no X-ray pic of teeth through their whole lives. In recent years, people start to understand more about the importance of oral health, and start to clean teeth or wear braces if needed. These hidden babies are taken better care of.
.JPG) |
Friday, October 12, 2012
Unprofessional Interview
Congrats to Mo Yan, the first Chinese government-recognized Chinese Nobel Prize Winner in Literature. He is not the first Chinese Nobel laureate, but he is for sure the first Chinese Nobel laureate who only speaks Chinese. I guess the committee must haven't expected this new situation, and therefore had difficulties in finding a capable person to inform Mo Yan of the news, which explained the terrible 8-min call that Shang Yan made to Mo Yan to congratulate him on his success.
Shang Yan is from China, and works in an association of local Chinese community in Sweden. But it looks like she has no experience in interviewing people. During the 8-min phone call, whose record was posted Nobel official site later, she failed to say a single complete sentence, but paused again and again after every four to five words. Compared to her dramatic tones and fragmented questions, Mo Yan seemed very calm and eloquent, patiently answering all the stupid questions, but finally hang up when she started to introduce herself - her name and interests. Geez, who cares about that? I don't know how Mo Yan felt when he received such an unprofessional interview, I would doubt if I'd received a fraud call or a prank if I were him.
Unprofessional interviews can undermine interviewee's impression of the interviewer, and more importantly, the group that he/she represents. I once interviewed an entrepreneur when I just started my first job. Though I prepared for a long time, I couldn't help get nervous when seeing him, and got terribly stammers during the interview. The entrepreneur skillfully started to ask me a few questions about myself to help me calm down and we finally finished the interview. In the end, he smiled and shook my hands, saying I've done a good job, but I couldn't help thinking that he must have expected a better interviewer from my organization. Similarly, last year I went on a field trip to Africa for a workshop on regional trade integration. During a meeting with a high-level official in South Africa, I asked a question about their monetary policy. However the governor was so diplomatic that he did not provide any useful information during the interview. I was disappointed, but I did reveal my disappointment as one of my colleagues, who chipped in and answered half of my questions in a different way, including "correcting" the governor. We stayed in silence for a while before another colleague broke the ice and changed the topic.
It's probably difficult to balance courtesy and acuity in interviewing people, and it may requires some experience to stick to the topic and keep the interviewee involved during the entire process. However the Nobel Committee embarrassed itself by hiring a garrulous and unintelligible lady to notify Mo Yan of the big moment of his life and throw dumb interview questions on him.
Shang Yan is from China, and works in an association of local Chinese community in Sweden. But it looks like she has no experience in interviewing people. During the 8-min phone call, whose record was posted Nobel official site later, she failed to say a single complete sentence, but paused again and again after every four to five words. Compared to her dramatic tones and fragmented questions, Mo Yan seemed very calm and eloquent, patiently answering all the stupid questions, but finally hang up when she started to introduce herself - her name and interests. Geez, who cares about that? I don't know how Mo Yan felt when he received such an unprofessional interview, I would doubt if I'd received a fraud call or a prank if I were him.
Unprofessional interviews can undermine interviewee's impression of the interviewer, and more importantly, the group that he/she represents. I once interviewed an entrepreneur when I just started my first job. Though I prepared for a long time, I couldn't help get nervous when seeing him, and got terribly stammers during the interview. The entrepreneur skillfully started to ask me a few questions about myself to help me calm down and we finally finished the interview. In the end, he smiled and shook my hands, saying I've done a good job, but I couldn't help thinking that he must have expected a better interviewer from my organization. Similarly, last year I went on a field trip to Africa for a workshop on regional trade integration. During a meeting with a high-level official in South Africa, I asked a question about their monetary policy. However the governor was so diplomatic that he did not provide any useful information during the interview. I was disappointed, but I did reveal my disappointment as one of my colleagues, who chipped in and answered half of my questions in a different way, including "correcting" the governor. We stayed in silence for a while before another colleague broke the ice and changed the topic.
It's probably difficult to balance courtesy and acuity in interviewing people, and it may requires some experience to stick to the topic and keep the interviewee involved during the entire process. However the Nobel Committee embarrassed itself by hiring a garrulous and unintelligible lady to notify Mo Yan of the big moment of his life and throw dumb interview questions on him.
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Getaway to A New Market
There is a challenge for almost every multi-national, regardless how powerful it is, and so far no satisfying solution has been provided: how to adjust itself to an oversea market? It's no longer novel to see foreign companies adopting new corporate culture for their branches in a foreign country. Walmart, Carrefour and their western peers have to establish Communist Party Committees in their Chinese branches to meet requirements of local laws; and Google faced challenges from the government news censorship and security issues when providing search engines to its Chinese customers.
Just as western companies feel unacclimatized to Chinese markets, Chinese companies also come across troubles when trying to enter western markets. Huawei and ZTE were challenged with security concerns when they were applying for US market entry permission. I watched the hearing before the Congress on Youtube, which lasted for more than three hours and raised many interesting questions.
One question that challenged both companies was the role of Party Committee in their companies. The CCP Committee is an interesting organization in the sense that there isn't a clear definition of its role but its impact is everywhere. On the face of it, it does not interfere the operations or decision-making process of companies, but you absolutely don't want to go against it. The existence of Party Committee doesn't imply that the Party has direct control over it - almost every organization has a Party Committee; but it also doesn't mean that the company can be independent of the influence from the Party. The Party Committee system has been firmly established as a legacy from 1989, and is one of the most silly systems in China. Obviously the US Congress found it ridiculous to have a Party Committee in a company while keeping its independence and was very concerned about the components of the Committee. If I were the US Congress, I would not worry that much about this Party Committee thing, but might want to investigate further on their connection with PLA.
Another question also reflects the deep distrust of the US on Chinese companies. Huawei and ZTE were questioned if they would provide information to the Chinese government at the cost of their clients' benefits. Both companies promised not to do so. But the chairman sniffed at it and said, "even if that will put you in jail?" Even I can't buy their answers. Yahoo!, an American company, had to sell its clients' information to Chinese government to legitimize its operations in China, let alone Chinese companies: how can their US branch continue to work when the parent company gets in trouble? Not every company can be Google, and it's simply too costly for Huawei and ZTE to give up their Chinese market share.
This is my first time to watch Chinese companies receiving hearings in the US Congress, and I think this will provide a big lesson for their Chinese fellows. The difference in market and corporate-government relations between the US and China can produce huge barriers for companies on each side. Now the security concerns stopped Huawei and ZTE from expanding into the US market, and next time other issues may be raised against Chinese companies. To overcome the obstacles, fundamental internal reforms will be required to adapt Chinese companies to free markets; and the relationship between government and market in China has to be reformed as well.
Before any big change takes place, there is one thing that Chinese companies can do to assuage the conflicts between different systems: find better spokesmen. Both the hearing looked so miserable partly because of the deep-rooted difference between China and the US, but partly due to the way these two spokesmen handled the questions. Both of them, I believe, are high-level officials in the company, and they are too familiar with dealing with Chinese officials, and are very good at empty talks. However it doesn't work in the US: the Congress kept urging them to answer questions, providing details instead of talking "principles". Also, they may want to improve their English and know more about the US culture, which will help them better answer the questions as well.
Anyway, I'm proud to see Chinese companies making progress in exploring international markets. Learning by doing, and the growing pains will be beneficial in the future. This hearing will be historical.
Just as western companies feel unacclimatized to Chinese markets, Chinese companies also come across troubles when trying to enter western markets. Huawei and ZTE were challenged with security concerns when they were applying for US market entry permission. I watched the hearing before the Congress on Youtube, which lasted for more than three hours and raised many interesting questions.
One question that challenged both companies was the role of Party Committee in their companies. The CCP Committee is an interesting organization in the sense that there isn't a clear definition of its role but its impact is everywhere. On the face of it, it does not interfere the operations or decision-making process of companies, but you absolutely don't want to go against it. The existence of Party Committee doesn't imply that the Party has direct control over it - almost every organization has a Party Committee; but it also doesn't mean that the company can be independent of the influence from the Party. The Party Committee system has been firmly established as a legacy from 1989, and is one of the most silly systems in China. Obviously the US Congress found it ridiculous to have a Party Committee in a company while keeping its independence and was very concerned about the components of the Committee. If I were the US Congress, I would not worry that much about this Party Committee thing, but might want to investigate further on their connection with PLA.
Another question also reflects the deep distrust of the US on Chinese companies. Huawei and ZTE were questioned if they would provide information to the Chinese government at the cost of their clients' benefits. Both companies promised not to do so. But the chairman sniffed at it and said, "even if that will put you in jail?" Even I can't buy their answers. Yahoo!, an American company, had to sell its clients' information to Chinese government to legitimize its operations in China, let alone Chinese companies: how can their US branch continue to work when the parent company gets in trouble? Not every company can be Google, and it's simply too costly for Huawei and ZTE to give up their Chinese market share.
This is my first time to watch Chinese companies receiving hearings in the US Congress, and I think this will provide a big lesson for their Chinese fellows. The difference in market and corporate-government relations between the US and China can produce huge barriers for companies on each side. Now the security concerns stopped Huawei and ZTE from expanding into the US market, and next time other issues may be raised against Chinese companies. To overcome the obstacles, fundamental internal reforms will be required to adapt Chinese companies to free markets; and the relationship between government and market in China has to be reformed as well.
Before any big change takes place, there is one thing that Chinese companies can do to assuage the conflicts between different systems: find better spokesmen. Both the hearing looked so miserable partly because of the deep-rooted difference between China and the US, but partly due to the way these two spokesmen handled the questions. Both of them, I believe, are high-level officials in the company, and they are too familiar with dealing with Chinese officials, and are very good at empty talks. However it doesn't work in the US: the Congress kept urging them to answer questions, providing details instead of talking "principles". Also, they may want to improve their English and know more about the US culture, which will help them better answer the questions as well.
Anyway, I'm proud to see Chinese companies making progress in exploring international markets. Learning by doing, and the growing pains will be beneficial in the future. This hearing will be historical.
Monday, October 8, 2012
Columbus Day
I accidently found on my calendar that today is Columbus Day. The US has so many holidays that it's very easy to miss a few every year. And yes this is my first time to notice the Columbus Day, in memory of the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the America in 1492. Columbus actually arrived on Oct 12, but Columbus Day is set at the second Monday in October, and its date varies by years. Native Americans may not want to thank him for his "discovery", but all the immigrants here should be grateful to him - for bringing a virgin land to civilization, a rich land to modernization, and a big land for residence. Some states have parades to celebrate the Columbus Day but some don't even acknowledge it. Anyway I checked on internet but didn't find any typical food for this holiday, and obviously neither companies nor schools allow their employees or students to take a day off. So the conclusion is: it's not a popular holiday in the US.
Many holidays in the US sound very young: the Veteran's Day, Martin Luther King's Day, Memorial Day, etc. But they do remind people of milestones in the American history and respectable people in the country. So are holidays in China, though they are now a weird mixture of nostalgic traditional holidays, imported Western festivals and Communist ones. Interestingly, Chinese people tend to memorize and celebrate holidays with profound historical implications rather than the modern ones. For example, we are willing to travel thousands of miles to get back to our families during Spring Festival in spite of the expensive tickets, terribly crowded carriages and poor public security; or staying in the long line in grocery stores to buy Zongzi (a Chinese rice dumpling) for Duanwu and mooncake for Zhongqiu. We say "happy holidays" to each other on these days, and call family members even they are not around. When I was a kid, I enjoyed getting together in my big family, meeting cousins that I hadn't seen for a long time and competed with them on reciting poetry related to the holiday. By contrast, very few people take modern holidays, like National Day or Labor Day seriously. The government does hold ceremonies to celebrate modern ones like the Army's Day or Party's Day, but ordinary people seldom feel culturally connected to them. We travel in National Day holidays because we're given a 7-day vacation for it, but we celebrate traditional ones because they are true holidays. In recent days, young generation start to embrace Western holidays in China more than ever before. Valentine's Day and Christmas are the two most popular ones. Actually it's funny to think of their popularity in China, an atheistic country. But they're never listed as official holidays, but more like means to stimulate consumption and encourage businesses.
My connection to these Chinese traditional holidays was more or less cut off as we relocated to the US. I still celebrate the Spring Festival, Zhongqiu and other important Chinese holidays with Gang and Chinese fellows here, but it's so different from celebrating them in China, where everyone else is doing the same thing as we do. Meanwhile to me, the US holidays are only vacations when we can take days off and plan another road trip, but can hardly evoke my empathy. I guess it's easy to give up old knowledge and accept some universal values, but difficult to abandon culture and tradition.
Many holidays in the US sound very young: the Veteran's Day, Martin Luther King's Day, Memorial Day, etc. But they do remind people of milestones in the American history and respectable people in the country. So are holidays in China, though they are now a weird mixture of nostalgic traditional holidays, imported Western festivals and Communist ones. Interestingly, Chinese people tend to memorize and celebrate holidays with profound historical implications rather than the modern ones. For example, we are willing to travel thousands of miles to get back to our families during Spring Festival in spite of the expensive tickets, terribly crowded carriages and poor public security; or staying in the long line in grocery stores to buy Zongzi (a Chinese rice dumpling) for Duanwu and mooncake for Zhongqiu. We say "happy holidays" to each other on these days, and call family members even they are not around. When I was a kid, I enjoyed getting together in my big family, meeting cousins that I hadn't seen for a long time and competed with them on reciting poetry related to the holiday. By contrast, very few people take modern holidays, like National Day or Labor Day seriously. The government does hold ceremonies to celebrate modern ones like the Army's Day or Party's Day, but ordinary people seldom feel culturally connected to them. We travel in National Day holidays because we're given a 7-day vacation for it, but we celebrate traditional ones because they are true holidays. In recent days, young generation start to embrace Western holidays in China more than ever before. Valentine's Day and Christmas are the two most popular ones. Actually it's funny to think of their popularity in China, an atheistic country. But they're never listed as official holidays, but more like means to stimulate consumption and encourage businesses.
My connection to these Chinese traditional holidays was more or less cut off as we relocated to the US. I still celebrate the Spring Festival, Zhongqiu and other important Chinese holidays with Gang and Chinese fellows here, but it's so different from celebrating them in China, where everyone else is doing the same thing as we do. Meanwhile to me, the US holidays are only vacations when we can take days off and plan another road trip, but can hardly evoke my empathy. I guess it's easy to give up old knowledge and accept some universal values, but difficult to abandon culture and tradition.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Lotus Girl
The only news that can distract furious Chinese protesters from their violent anti-Japanese demonstration is the unconfirmed rumor of the death of Lotus Girl (芙蓉姐姐), an internet celebrity who shot to fame with her bold remarks and strange dance in 2005. The rumor says she committed suicide at home, which chimes with her yesterday's world-weary posting on Weibo, Chinese Twitter. Later her agent responded on Weibo, saying "farewell" to her, which seems to reaffirm her death.
The Lotus Girl became famous in summer 2005 (ironically when the last major anti-Japanese demonstration took place in China). She rented an apt near Tsinghua University, and was applying for graduate schools in Beijing. During her leisure time, she took photos around campus with her chubby body twisted in awkward S-shapes. Later she posted her photos on internet with narcissistic descriptions, which was in sharp contrast to traditional values such as modesty, gentleness and obedience. She was rebellious, boastful, and never hesitant to show off - even though her dancing wasn't even average, she seemed to be very proud of it. People were amused at the photos, and this maverick was soon known as "Lotus Girl", as she compared herself to lotus in one of her blogs. Lotus is an emblem for purity and loftiness in Chinese traditional culture, and people gave her this nickname as a sarcasm for her "unlotus" behaviors.
She seemed to become popular overnight in an unprecedented way, demonstrating how powerful internet could be in creating stars. She was invited to many TV/internet shows, talking about her lives and interests; and posted more S-shape photos with better clothes and makeups. Her photos have hardly any artistic values, but always went viral as people re-posted them just to make fun of her. Anyway, these few photos and blogs changed her life: she became an internet celebrity; she didn't need to go to graduate schools, although her name - Lotus Girl became byword for shameless and over-confident in China.
Things changed a little bit in 2010, when a new series of her "S-shape" photos was released. People were surprised to find now she was much thinner, and more beautiful. Another "Lotus Girl Rush" started, and this time people viewed her more as an inspiring example, who did not stop her quest for beauty in spite of all the difficulties. The shock came partly from the great change in her appearance, but also partly from the fact that many people found a girl that they used to despise achieved something that they could not. Later the name of "Lotus Girl" was found in entertainment shows in which she shared her experiences of losing weight. Some companies even offered her roles in stage plays and soap operas. I saw a cosmetic adverts made by her, saying the cosmetics were so magic that even Lotus Girl could look beautiful.
I think that was the last time that I saw her news on internet, and I had no idea what happened in the last two years: it looks like she was approaching her golden days as she started to rid her awkward impression and begin a real career. I used to be one of those who laughed at her, but now I better understand how weak an individual is when confronting internet and all the powerful interest groups, and I wonder if she has ever regretted posting those photos and blogs on internet seven years ago. If the rumor is true, I want to thank her for all the joy that she's brought to us, and wish her rest in peace; if not, I wish her a better life in the future.
The Lotus Girl became famous in summer 2005 (ironically when the last major anti-Japanese demonstration took place in China). She rented an apt near Tsinghua University, and was applying for graduate schools in Beijing. During her leisure time, she took photos around campus with her chubby body twisted in awkward S-shapes. Later she posted her photos on internet with narcissistic descriptions, which was in sharp contrast to traditional values such as modesty, gentleness and obedience. She was rebellious, boastful, and never hesitant to show off - even though her dancing wasn't even average, she seemed to be very proud of it. People were amused at the photos, and this maverick was soon known as "Lotus Girl", as she compared herself to lotus in one of her blogs. Lotus is an emblem for purity and loftiness in Chinese traditional culture, and people gave her this nickname as a sarcasm for her "unlotus" behaviors.She seemed to become popular overnight in an unprecedented way, demonstrating how powerful internet could be in creating stars. She was invited to many TV/internet shows, talking about her lives and interests; and posted more S-shape photos with better clothes and makeups. Her photos have hardly any artistic values, but always went viral as people re-posted them just to make fun of her. Anyway, these few photos and blogs changed her life: she became an internet celebrity; she didn't need to go to graduate schools, although her name - Lotus Girl became byword for shameless and over-confident in China.
Things changed a little bit in 2010, when a new series of her "S-shape" photos was released. People were surprised to find now she was much thinner, and more beautiful. Another "Lotus Girl Rush" started, and this time people viewed her more as an inspiring example, who did not stop her quest for beauty in spite of all the difficulties. The shock came partly from the great change in her appearance, but also partly from the fact that many people found a girl that they used to despise achieved something that they could not. Later the name of "Lotus Girl" was found in entertainment shows in which she shared her experiences of losing weight. Some companies even offered her roles in stage plays and soap operas. I saw a cosmetic adverts made by her, saying the cosmetics were so magic that even Lotus Girl could look beautiful.
I think that was the last time that I saw her news on internet, and I had no idea what happened in the last two years: it looks like she was approaching her golden days as she started to rid her awkward impression and begin a real career. I used to be one of those who laughed at her, but now I better understand how weak an individual is when confronting internet and all the powerful interest groups, and I wonder if she has ever regretted posting those photos and blogs on internet seven years ago. If the rumor is true, I want to thank her for all the joy that she's brought to us, and wish her rest in peace; if not, I wish her a better life in the future.
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Born by Plan, Dead by Random
In contrast to the strict planning of birth, people seem to die in a much easier way in China. Fragile infrastructure, known as "tofu residue" constructions (豆腐渣工程) due to their poor quality (as weak as tofu) have taken hundreds of thousands of people's lives in China. In the 8.0 earthquake in Wenchuan 2008, a multitude of school buildings collapsed in the earthquake, killing thousands of students; while government buildings stood firmly and most government officials survived. Parents cried over bodies of their young children and urged the government to take responsibilities of squandering millions on these tumbledown school buildings. The government refused to respond, banned related documentaries and arrested several attorneys who tried to help the parents. Years later, the newly constructed high-speed rail system, which proudly claimed to be designed and developed by Chinese engineers, witnessed one of the biggest tragedy in the history of railway in China when two trains collided in July 2011. More than one year has passed, the death toll has never been released by the government, and no remediation of the high-speed rail system has been announced either.
Actually in China, you don't need to experience big earthquakes or take fancy trains to die. People in Beijing find they can die in a rain: in July this year, more than 70 people were drown in a rain in Beijing because of the poor drainage system; if they survive in the rain, they can still die by walking: in Aug, a pedestrian fell into the hot water underneath when the pavement suddenly caved and died out of scald. Similarly, people in Harbin find they can die by passing a bridge: in Aug this year, a less-than-one-year old bridge in Harbin collapsed, killing those on the bridge at the moment. In addition to these man-made accidents, people can also die from offending local government officials, coming across emboldened rich drivers, and recently driving Japanese cars. In short, we die randomly.
Chinese government is always viewed as a remorseless but shrewd businessman who is good at cost-benefit analysis. That explains why it controls the birth rate at all costs, even robbing or murdering. But it still doesn't make economic sense to have citizens die so easily: just think how much less tax you can collect when they die young! They don't even start to pay their pension! Of course local government officials have incentives to provide poor service as they can embezzle the price difference between the fiscal allocations and the real cost, and make the public to take risks of using low-quality infrastructures. But it's not a good deal for the country. So watch out for these harms if you still want to do good business.
Sometimes I ask myself the pros and cons of going back to China in the future. I can see better career opportunities, better food (though much lower quality, the flavor is better) and more familiar culture in China. But there are many concerns as well, one of which is safety. I'm not talking about public security, but the unexpected risks in everyday life. I expect the government to provide public service when I pay taxes, but I can't be credulous of the reliability of these public facilities when our government is notorious of its incapacity and corruption. I was lucky enough to be brought to the world even with the strict planning, and I absolutely don't want to die randomly and leave the world behind.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Patriotic Mobs
Why people followed these criminals? I'd assume that when people took to the street, they meant for a peaceful demonstration. However when mobs started to beat people, smash store and set fires, why the crowd didn't stop them? Well a few protesters did stop mobs from beating a young mother and her daughter who were sitting in their Japanese car when the mobs came, but most pictures showed onlookers were just watching numbly.
Why the mainstream media remained silent at the riots? Xi'an was not the only city falling in chaos yesterday, similar riots were found in Guiyang, Beijing and many other cities. The riots were understated as "rational and restrained protests", and more demonstrations were expected to take place in the next few days under the ambiguous attitudes from mainstream media who usually represent intentions from the central government. The entire event became even more intriguing when one of the leading mobs was found to be a local government official.
A comment from Weibo answered the first question very well. It says, as I quote, that the riots are "a brilliant demonstration of the achievement of brainwash by the CCP." After decades of communist propaganda through well-designed history books and strictly censored movies, Chinese anti-Japanese nationalism has been well formed based on stereotypes and misconceptions. People may find it wrong to smash cars made in other countries, but they believe it's patriotic to "fight against Japan" in doing so. Another disastrous result from the brainwash, which is probably much worse than the former, is to deprive people of the capacity of independent thinking. Le Bon may argue that collective irrationality applies to any group in the world, but it has been so perfectly reflected in today's China. Despite the implementation of nine-year compulsory education in the last three decades, people seemed to forget all about laws, justice or morals, but watched atrocities apathetically and sometimes even excitedly.
The answer to the second question is much more puzzling. Rumors say the media couldn't form a unified view due to the power games in the high level; but it could also be an official acquiescence for potential anti-Japanese riots in the future. For whatever reason it is, mainstream medias in China again embarrasses themselves by confounding black and white and abandoning professional ethics. Obviously medias won't claim responsibilities for potential damages produced by their misleading reports, but how much could they benefit by stirring up troubles? We don't know.
Decades ago, a Chinese satirist Lu Xun has vividly pictured some bad habits that are deeply rooted in contemporary countrymen. In one of his books, he created a character called Ah Q who hates but sucks up to the strong and bullies the weak, just like today's "patriotic" mobs who dare not to go to Diaoyu Island or join the army but are very proud to burn down other Chinese citizens' Japanese cars. Lu Xun also described in another fiction about how onlookers indifferently watched an execution of a hero, which is paralleled to the crowd looking at and conniving the outrage. More than half a century has passed since Lu Xun published his books, but his readers are unfortunately repeating their ancestors, at least in yesterday's China.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Overseas
My first visit to Japan was in summer 2005. I applied for a two-month summer program at Kyushu University in Fukuoka and spent the whole summer there. Known to those studying Sino-Japan relationship, the anti-Japanese demonstration in April that year cast a long shadow on the diplomatic ties between these two countries. I could still sense the tension during my visit. My tutor, a law student in Kyudai is a very lovely girl, and we carefully avoided talking too much about politics; and so was my host family, who greeted me warmly. But several professors did point out that due to the increasingly intense relationship between China and Japan, it's more and more difficult for Chinese people to lead normal lives in Japan: local people are reluctant to rent apartments to them; companies don't want to recruit them and even bullies prefer to rob Chinese.
When I was back to Beijing at the end of the summer, I met my Japanese friend in Peking University. He had been learning Chinese in PKU for two years, and was traveling all around China in the summer. When I asked him about his traveling, he didn't seem very happy. "People call me 'Japanese devil' when they found out I'm not Chinese," he said, "they thought I didn't understand what they were talking, but I did!" Then I asked him how he responded to the insults, he said: "I have no choice but to tolerate(忍耐)." The I shared my experiences in Fukuoka, and we both deplored the poor relationship and hatred between two countries for quite a while.
For whatever reason, when a country fails to handle its diplomacy well, its citizens overseas are always the first to be affected. Many Chinese people in the US can't help wonder which side they should take if the US and China are at war. I met a gentleman from Taiwan who migrated to the US in 1960s and have been living here ever since. His family members have all become US citizens but he still keeps his original nationality. And when I asked him why, he said he wasn't sure if he'd be loyal to the US if two countries are at war. It occurs to me very unlikely that the US will be fighting against China in the near future; but when two countries - one is your motherland and the other is your living place - have trouble with each other, the overseas will be suffering deeply inside.
The US is a diversified and individualist country, and therefore quite tolerant with immigrants. By "tolerant", I mean respecting different culture and religion, and able to detach individuals from their nationalities. But in a highly-unified nation-state, e.g. those with one ethnicity, one religion and one cultural tradition, people may view migrants very differently. Native people tend to label foreigners with their home countries first, and the migrants' ethnicity and cultural background may become their main characteristics as individuals. Things can get disastrous when migrants' home countries get into trouble with this kind of nations. As the reputation of overseas' home country is destroyed when in conflict with their resident country, the reputation of overseas are destroyed as well. They are not only suffering psychologically, but facing the threats of xenophobia. Think of the massacre of Chinese overseas in Indonesia and Philippine years ago, what did they do wrong? To the mobs, they were "wrong" only because they were Chinese.
When I was in China, surrounded by other Chinese people, I didn't have direct feeling towards how deterioration of foreign relations could affect my everyday life. But now as my family becomes more international than before, I can't be immune to the results of those stupid politicians messing up diplomatic relations. I just want to tell the high-level government position occupiers: if you can't do good, at least stop doing evil.
When I was back to Beijing at the end of the summer, I met my Japanese friend in Peking University. He had been learning Chinese in PKU for two years, and was traveling all around China in the summer. When I asked him about his traveling, he didn't seem very happy. "People call me 'Japanese devil' when they found out I'm not Chinese," he said, "they thought I didn't understand what they were talking, but I did!" Then I asked him how he responded to the insults, he said: "I have no choice but to tolerate(忍耐)." The I shared my experiences in Fukuoka, and we both deplored the poor relationship and hatred between two countries for quite a while.
For whatever reason, when a country fails to handle its diplomacy well, its citizens overseas are always the first to be affected. Many Chinese people in the US can't help wonder which side they should take if the US and China are at war. I met a gentleman from Taiwan who migrated to the US in 1960s and have been living here ever since. His family members have all become US citizens but he still keeps his original nationality. And when I asked him why, he said he wasn't sure if he'd be loyal to the US if two countries are at war. It occurs to me very unlikely that the US will be fighting against China in the near future; but when two countries - one is your motherland and the other is your living place - have trouble with each other, the overseas will be suffering deeply inside.
The US is a diversified and individualist country, and therefore quite tolerant with immigrants. By "tolerant", I mean respecting different culture and religion, and able to detach individuals from their nationalities. But in a highly-unified nation-state, e.g. those with one ethnicity, one religion and one cultural tradition, people may view migrants very differently. Native people tend to label foreigners with their home countries first, and the migrants' ethnicity and cultural background may become their main characteristics as individuals. Things can get disastrous when migrants' home countries get into trouble with this kind of nations. As the reputation of overseas' home country is destroyed when in conflict with their resident country, the reputation of overseas are destroyed as well. They are not only suffering psychologically, but facing the threats of xenophobia. Think of the massacre of Chinese overseas in Indonesia and Philippine years ago, what did they do wrong? To the mobs, they were "wrong" only because they were Chinese.
When I was in China, surrounded by other Chinese people, I didn't have direct feeling towards how deterioration of foreign relations could affect my everyday life. But now as my family becomes more international than before, I can't be immune to the results of those stupid politicians messing up diplomatic relations. I just want to tell the high-level government position occupiers: if you can't do good, at least stop doing evil.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Accents and Dialects
In our "Asian group" at WWS, some of us speak Chinese, but this doesn't guarantee we can understand each other. For example, my roommate Leslie speaks Taiwan Mandarin, and Simona speaks Beijing Mandarin. What they say sound similar to me, but they have difficulties in understanding each other. Similarly I find it hard to understand those who speak English with accents: when I was in South Africa, my colleagues seemed to be fine with the English local people speak, but I was almost driven crazy by their accents.
For native speakers, it's simple to adapt to accents because you don't need to understand each word to get the idea of his/her talk; but for foreigners, it's substantial to catch the meaning of key words to understand the entire sentence. Therefore, if I come across someone from other parts of China, I may fail to understand some phrases or words, but it won't hurt - I still understand him/her, and not only that, I may learn some interesting new words. But when I'm in class discussions in Princeton, I can get very confused if I miss some words in the speech. That's what we call the difference between fluency and native-fluency.
Back to accents in Chinese. China is big, and populous. Thousands of years ago when transportation was undeveloped, most people stayed where they were born for the whole lives; and within these separate villages, people spoke dialects to their families, neighbors and friends. There was barely any demand for communicating with people outside, and dialects evolved separately over the time. One day, when people left their hometown in carts, they found themselves unable to understand outsiders. That's what we call "Five miles (are long enough to make) different tones, and ten miles (are long enough to make) different languages." In the end Chinese people speak thousands of dialects, each very different from the other, and some even sound like foreign languages, e.g. the pronunciation of one, two, three, etc. in some places in Zhejiang is more similar to Japanese than to Chinese. There is a rumor that in Qing Dynasty, emperors always had problems in understanding top candidates in the triennial imperial exams, most of whom were from south of Yangtze River and spoke dialects which were quite different from Mandarin. (Just think of a Mandarin-speaking emperor who tried to understand his chancellor from Guangdong, a Cantonese-speaking area.)
In 1950s, Beijing dialect was selected as the official language in China, known as Mandarin today. People in south China are required to speak Mandarin too ever since. The pronunciation and grammar of mandarin is tested in national college exam, as a benchmark for university recruitment. However, affected by people around, southern students always have a hard time in getting rid of accents derived from dialects when they are speaking Mandarin. For example, people in Fujian always fail to distinguish "Fu" from "Hu" and you may find them claiming to be from "Hujian"; people in Zhejiang always struggle with "z" and "zh", therefore they may tell you that they are from "Zejiang"; and those in Human can hardly pronounce "n" but always replace it with "l", thus you may find they're from "Hulan" instead of "Hunan". Even those in the north cannot confidently claim to speak good Mandarin and their trouble is more about rhyme, not initials. I know a friend from Liaoning who can't tell the difference between "you" and "yu"; local Beijingers tend to add "er" to the nouns in conversation, Anyway Chinese Mandarin is difficult enough, let alone accents caused by dialects. Poor foreign students in China!
Some people claim Mandarin as a language hegemony in China as it sweeps away all the dialects and made Beijingers dominant the entire China. Old fictions with local tones and accents gradually lost their market share, and local dramas have increasing difficulties in recruiting performers. These may be the cost of honing national unity and breaking down domestic communication barriers, but local languages, as well as other local culture and traditions, may be preserved in better ways.
For native speakers, it's simple to adapt to accents because you don't need to understand each word to get the idea of his/her talk; but for foreigners, it's substantial to catch the meaning of key words to understand the entire sentence. Therefore, if I come across someone from other parts of China, I may fail to understand some phrases or words, but it won't hurt - I still understand him/her, and not only that, I may learn some interesting new words. But when I'm in class discussions in Princeton, I can get very confused if I miss some words in the speech. That's what we call the difference between fluency and native-fluency.
Back to accents in Chinese. China is big, and populous. Thousands of years ago when transportation was undeveloped, most people stayed where they were born for the whole lives; and within these separate villages, people spoke dialects to their families, neighbors and friends. There was barely any demand for communicating with people outside, and dialects evolved separately over the time. One day, when people left their hometown in carts, they found themselves unable to understand outsiders. That's what we call "Five miles (are long enough to make) different tones, and ten miles (are long enough to make) different languages." In the end Chinese people speak thousands of dialects, each very different from the other, and some even sound like foreign languages, e.g. the pronunciation of one, two, three, etc. in some places in Zhejiang is more similar to Japanese than to Chinese. There is a rumor that in Qing Dynasty, emperors always had problems in understanding top candidates in the triennial imperial exams, most of whom were from south of Yangtze River and spoke dialects which were quite different from Mandarin. (Just think of a Mandarin-speaking emperor who tried to understand his chancellor from Guangdong, a Cantonese-speaking area.)
In 1950s, Beijing dialect was selected as the official language in China, known as Mandarin today. People in south China are required to speak Mandarin too ever since. The pronunciation and grammar of mandarin is tested in national college exam, as a benchmark for university recruitment. However, affected by people around, southern students always have a hard time in getting rid of accents derived from dialects when they are speaking Mandarin. For example, people in Fujian always fail to distinguish "Fu" from "Hu" and you may find them claiming to be from "Hujian"; people in Zhejiang always struggle with "z" and "zh", therefore they may tell you that they are from "Zejiang"; and those in Human can hardly pronounce "n" but always replace it with "l", thus you may find they're from "Hulan" instead of "Hunan". Even those in the north cannot confidently claim to speak good Mandarin and their trouble is more about rhyme, not initials. I know a friend from Liaoning who can't tell the difference between "you" and "yu"; local Beijingers tend to add "er" to the nouns in conversation, Anyway Chinese Mandarin is difficult enough, let alone accents caused by dialects. Poor foreign students in China!
Some people claim Mandarin as a language hegemony in China as it sweeps away all the dialects and made Beijingers dominant the entire China. Old fictions with local tones and accents gradually lost their market share, and local dramas have increasing difficulties in recruiting performers. These may be the cost of honing national unity and breaking down domestic communication barriers, but local languages, as well as other local culture and traditions, may be preserved in better ways.
Sunday, September 2, 2012
Single Women
I read an interesting piece in the Economist today about the rise of singletons all over the world. Young generation seems to be less committed to the obligations of starting families and carrying the family line. Several reasons were raised to explain this global trend, as to China, the Economist argues that "selection for male babies promise a generation of bachelors with diminished conjugal prospects." This may explain why so many young men are still single, but it doesn't show the full picture.
The urban-rural difference in China is probably bigger than most people can imagine. When high-speed trains roar across Beijing, Shanghai and other major cities, some villagers in Western China still lack stable access to clean water and other sanitation facilities. Similarly, when most peasants firmly preferred boys to girls, urban population already showed a balanced growth of two genders. Therefore in theory heterosexual young men in rural area do have problems in finding a mate because of the imbalanced gender ratio. Studies on marital status of migrant workers in cities may confirm my assumptions. However diminished conjugal prospects are not only presented to rural young men, but to urban young women as well. These people are usually born and brought up in benign family environments, receive good education and have decent careers, which makes them or their families reluctant to accept guys from significantly inferior background or careers. As a result, in the marriage market, the excess supply of rural males does not quite meet the demand of urban females.
The rise in singleton also reflects the progress in gender equality in the last decades. Women are no longer dependent on men: they receive education, find jobs and become financially independent. Though gender discrimination still exists in companies and governments, senior level-positions in particular, women are encouraged to receive education and get involved in social activities. As Mao said, "Women can hold up half the sky." (妇女能顶半边天.) De facto status boost for women has an internal conflict with some traditional custom which still advocates male chauvinism. The situation is worst in rural area and north China: e.g. in some places women are not allowed to dine with their husbands on the same table during big festivals. Stories about city wives unable to bear domestic violence, which is pretty common in countryside and north, have been revealed by media, and provoke hot discussions. Many women end with singleton in their thirties if they are unable to find someone who truly appreciate their talent and respect their dignity.
Marriage has different meanings for my generation compared to older ones. It's still viewed as an obligation and singletons in their thirties/forties do suffer from extra social pressures for having "something wrong." However my peers realize that they have the choice and capacity to choose either marriage or singleton, and can better avoid marrying someone that they do not love out of financial pressures. All this said, due to the reasons that the Economist has listed, e.g. low carbon footprint, etc, I'm still pro-marriage.
The urban-rural difference in China is probably bigger than most people can imagine. When high-speed trains roar across Beijing, Shanghai and other major cities, some villagers in Western China still lack stable access to clean water and other sanitation facilities. Similarly, when most peasants firmly preferred boys to girls, urban population already showed a balanced growth of two genders. Therefore in theory heterosexual young men in rural area do have problems in finding a mate because of the imbalanced gender ratio. Studies on marital status of migrant workers in cities may confirm my assumptions. However diminished conjugal prospects are not only presented to rural young men, but to urban young women as well. These people are usually born and brought up in benign family environments, receive good education and have decent careers, which makes them or their families reluctant to accept guys from significantly inferior background or careers. As a result, in the marriage market, the excess supply of rural males does not quite meet the demand of urban females.
The rise in singleton also reflects the progress in gender equality in the last decades. Women are no longer dependent on men: they receive education, find jobs and become financially independent. Though gender discrimination still exists in companies and governments, senior level-positions in particular, women are encouraged to receive education and get involved in social activities. As Mao said, "Women can hold up half the sky." (妇女能顶半边天.) De facto status boost for women has an internal conflict with some traditional custom which still advocates male chauvinism. The situation is worst in rural area and north China: e.g. in some places women are not allowed to dine with their husbands on the same table during big festivals. Stories about city wives unable to bear domestic violence, which is pretty common in countryside and north, have been revealed by media, and provoke hot discussions. Many women end with singleton in their thirties if they are unable to find someone who truly appreciate their talent and respect their dignity.
Marriage has different meanings for my generation compared to older ones. It's still viewed as an obligation and singletons in their thirties/forties do suffer from extra social pressures for having "something wrong." However my peers realize that they have the choice and capacity to choose either marriage or singleton, and can better avoid marrying someone that they do not love out of financial pressures. All this said, due to the reasons that the Economist has listed, e.g. low carbon footprint, etc, I'm still pro-marriage.
(http://goo.gl/JfZpP)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)