October 2007 Archives

I'm sure we've all come to realize that a certain amount of paranoia runs rampant within the government and the state-run system as a whole. I mean, it can't hold a candle to the freak show that lies just below China's border in the northeast, but the years of Mao and the Cultural Revolution still seem to be influencing the state system. And one recent revelation about the state-run media really brings this point home to roost.

This past weekend a friend and colleague of mine revealed just how afraid China is of Falun Gong. I was told that before she was able to be considered for employment that she must put forward a letter from her university professors explaining to the management of the radio station that she has never been involved or associated with anyone who was part of the Falun Gong movement. It was also explained to me that this is common practice before anyone is allowed to take a position in the state-run broadcast media. Apparently, as the story goes, the State Administration for Radio, Film and Television, or SARFT, instituted this no-FG rule a few years back after -- as the story goes -- a Falun Gong member penetrated one of the broadcasting outlets here in China (can't be sure which one, but I think it may have been China Radio International) and put out anti-government messages for about 4 hours until they were discovered and, presumably, yanked off the air (and likely taken for a healthy dose of 'reeducation' forthwith)

Now I'm no fan of Falun Gong. Having been involved in the media in Canada for a number of years where the Falun Gong, or Falun Dafa, as they call themselves, have complete freedom, I have dealt with many of them, and truly believe that their movement -- however spiritual in nature that it may have been when it first started -- is now run by fanatics and zealots. But still, this revelation by my colleague brings home the fact that this government is scared of these people. So the question is why? Is it the fact that they organize well? Is the idea of a spiritual movement in a Communist-run society too unappealing?

Under Jiang Zemin, the line was that the government outlawed Falun Gong because the sect was telling its members to hurt themselves. But why, with a population of 1.3 billion people, would -- and not to sound too crass -- this government give a rats ass if dozens, or even hundreds of people decided to take a dip in the Kool-aid? That theory just doesn't wash. So what is it? Why is there so much concern about this movement that the state-run broadcasting organs are making their employees pledge not to be F.G.? I'm afraid it's an answer we shall never hear directly from the horse's mouth.

CNN is reporting tonight that Drepung Monastery in Lhasa remains surrounded after monks celebrated President George W. Bush honoring the Dalai Lama with the US Congressional Gold Medal. The International Campaign for Tibet (ICT), which opposes Chinese rule in Tibet, has been following developments:

The monastery was sealed off after "police stopped an attempt by monks to peacefully mark the honor to the Dalai Lama last week," ICT reported.

"Another significant monastery in the city, Nechung, is also apparently closed," the ICT added. The group described "a tense atmosphere in Lhasa (that) has been described as similar to 'martial law,' with increased numbers of troops on the streets."

"Tibetan sources report a buildup of armed police in the city, checkpoints on roads out of Lhasa, and an order to Lhasa citizens not to carry out any religious or celebratory activities," the ICT reported.

When asked about the report, a staff member at the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson's office told CNN he was unaware.

Other reports say the monks began the protest in the morning by tossing white paint against the walls of Drepung Monastery. After being broken up, they returned in the afternoon, this time to face a more severe crackdown. From the Globe and Mail:

Internet connections in Lhasa were severed, but reports filtering out of Tibet - a country long subject to ruthless Chinese occupation - say thousands of policemen then sealed off Drepung and Nechung monasteries, preventing interaction between the monks and the Tibetan people. Tibetan exile groups in India report that scores of monks and activists have been arrested.

China's war may be with technology, as formerly isolated Tibetans now receive radio signals (it was reported they learned of the award through the Voice of America) and the Internet. Now, it's possible to watch videos of the Dalai Lama on video sharing sites, even inside Tibet.

That likely won't stop China from doing whatever it can to ensure the Tibetan "Autonomous" Region remains anything but. I'll leave the final word to the Globe and Mail:

China's Communist rulers have a long tradition of religious suppression. More than a few monks in China have had their skulls cracked along the way. In fact, they're having their skulls cracked still. Just weeks after the bloody attacks against the monks in Myanmar (formerly Burma), it was China's People's Armed Police who were again wielding the truncheons.

Beijing's efforts to cover its tracks in Tibet and to cow the world into submission over its human-rights abuses have by and large failed abroad. On the ground in Tibet, however, China's brutal methods appear once again to be working. Bloody crackdowns are a true and tried method of the Communist rulers.

I have looked in the China-based media and blogosphere, but haven't come across anything linking to this story yet. It's bizarre, in a very Japanese way (h/t to Japundit):

Tokyo's controversial Yasukuni Shrine has found itself with an unexpected hit on its hands -- a rap song dedicated to kamikaze pilots and using lyrics from their farewell letters written immediately before their suicide missions, according to Shukan Shincho (10/25).

"Kyoji" is a CD released this year on Aug. 15 -- the anniversary of Japan's World War II defeat -- by a group called Arei Raise (the first word a play on the words for "Heroic Spirits," the term ultranationalists use to describe the kamikaze).

There's no doubt that Japan still has a strong conservative movement (perhaps "right wing" would better describe the faction I am referring to) that maintains a strong Japanese nationalism and militarism. I actually don't find anything wrong with that, per se. It's not like nationalism is only on the rise in Japan (right, China?). Although I'm curious to know what people in China think of the song, if anything, especially knowing how controversial the Yasukuni Shrine is to people in the Koreas and China.

Supporters of Yasukuni, where the souls of Japan's war dead are enshrined, including -- to the eternal ire of many neighboring countries -- its convicted war criminals, have welcomed the kamikaze rap song.

"When the CD was completed, the group came here to dedicate it to the shrine, which led to talk of it being sold at the kiosks here," says a spokesman for a group that helps with the running of the shrine. "We played a couple of songs from the CD during a youth seminar we held here on Sept. 30. We've been doing all sorts of activities recently to try and get youth actively involved in the shrine and that was one of them."

Arei Raise can trace its origins to a song contest Yasukuni Shrine held two years ago to mark the 60th anniversary of the end of the war. Yasukuni was looking for a song that would get people to love Japan and the patriotic young rappers responded.

Anybody have any thoughts on this? You can listen to the song here.

In a city and country where politics permeates through virtually every aspect of society, it's nice to hear that occasionally business and political machinations can be separated.

Zhongnanhai sat down today with Annette Antoniak, President and CEO of the British Columbia Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games Secretariat, for an exclusive interview. Ms. Antoniak is in Beijing as part of a fact-finding and coordination mission, given that British Columbia is playing host to the 2010 Winter Olympics. Now, granted, Ms. Antoniak has to be somewhat diplomatic, given that this particular tour is an intergovernmental affair. However, in past dealings with Ms. Antoniak in her previous role as the person in charge of the Pacific National Exhibition in Vancouver, I seem to recall her being a somewhat straight shooter when it came to dealing with the media.

With that in mind, during our interview with Ms. Antoniak, she was very complimentary toward both the Beijing Organizing Committee and the Beijing Municipal Government. "Anything that we have asked, they have been completely transparent and helpful to us." Admittedly, Ms. Antoniuk did concede that this transparency doesn't extend to monetary issues surrounding the games, but also pointed out that it was really none of Vancouver's concern.

So kudos to BOCOG and the Beijing Municipal Government for being a part of the 'Olympic family.' One might have assumed that given the secretive nature of Chinese officials that there may have been roadblocks. But from our chat with Ms. Antoniak, it doesn't appear to be an issue.

And an FYI for all our Canadian and Beijing readers. Expect in the next couple of weeks to see a good chunk of Canadiana opening up near Mao's bloated corpse with a definite Olympic theme.

First he shows up in a public appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Then, forcing media attention to shift, mid-stream, from the Party Congress in Beijing to Washington, Dubya welcomes his Holiness. Now, it looks like Canada is set to roll out the red carpet for the Dalai Lama:

Although the arrangements have not been finalized, Mr. (Conservative Senator Consiglio) Di Nino said the Dalai Lama will meet with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, opposition leaders and cabinet ministers. He will also make public addresses in Ottawa and Toronto.

There has been a hesitancy on the part of previous prime ministers to appear with the Dalai Lama in public because doing so could inflame the Chinese.

But Mr. Di Nino said: "Not with this Prime Minister."

I've written before about how Stephen Harper, the current Canadian Prime Minister, seems to do as he pleases despite roars of protest from the Chinese. And now, the government admits it doesn't even take the Chinese complaints seriously. Conservative Senator Consiglio De Nino said:

"The Chinese are going to huff and puff as they usually do. And that's fine. We understand that. It's not going to impact on business. China does business with Canada because it benefits China. Canada does business with China because it benefits Canada," he told reporters.

"What we're asking for is to continue the relationships. We don't want people to stop doing business with China. But to make sure that you let the Chinese friends and colleagues know that some of the issues about China have been raised as issues of concern in our country."

Strong words. The article says the Chinese embassy in Ottawa did not give a formal reply when asked if China would jeopardize its trading relationship with Canada over the issue. I have to agree with the government on this point: there is a lot of bluster from the Chinese side when the Dalai Lama visits foreign leaders, but not much action. We'll see if this is any different.

Yes, it's true, according to Brietbart. Serial offender GuGu has attacked again at the Beijing zoo; this time the victim was a 15-year old boy:

Eight-year-old Gu Gu, who weighs 110-kilogrammes (242-pounds), attacked the boy after he jumped into the animal's enclosure, the Beijing News reported on Tuesday.

The boy, Li Xitao, had both his legs gnawed to the bone, the paper said.

Monday's attack was not the first time Gu Gu has tasted human flesh.

In September last year, the panda bit a chunk out of a leg of a drunken man who had jumped into the enclosure to "hug" the cuddly animal, according to reports at the time.

Pandas have long been known to have a wild streak and are capable of attacking humans, especially if they feel threatened, experts said after the 2006 attack.

However authorities appeared to lay the blame for Monday's mauling on the boy, rather than Gu Gu.

Police reportedly said the boy was an itinerant worker with a mental illness, who not only illegally jumped into the panda's enclosure, but also climbed over the zoo wall to avoid buying an entry ticket.

Okay, the boy is excused from jumping into the cage (he had a mental illness, afterall). But why did that guy jump in in 2006? What was he thinking?

This reminds me of a panda attack video I saw on one of those home-movie shows. It was a man who was attacked by a panda in Sichuan province; the man wasn't even in the cage, just sitting outside with his back turned. The panda walked over and began attacking his back, eventually ripping the man's jacket from his body.

I had never seen a panda so active before. Most of the time they don't even look like they're alive.

This is an article written by your correspondent in the Victoria Times Colonist in Canada. Keep in mind, it's targeted at readers who are overseas and might not have the same intense level of interest in Chinese affairs as those who read this and other blogs.

Nonetheless, I thought I'd post it anyway. The actual version can be found here (or here in China, as I've had a hard time bringing it up without a proxy).

Who's really calling the shots in China?
Times Colonist
Published: Sunday October 21, 2007
By: Cam MacMurchy

This past week was about as close as China comes to election time. Delegates from around the country descended on Beijing for "The Big 17," as it's known in Chinese. Every five years Communist party members descend on Tiananmen Square and meet inside the Great Hall of the People to choose the party's next generation of leaders. It's known, in Communist-speak, as the 17th Communist Party of China National Congress.

People living in Beijing felt the ramifications of the congress weeks before it even started. Blogs and Internet sites were shut down, online forums were heavily scrutinized, police stepped up their presence on city streets and known political muckrakers were thrown in jail. Judging by the rare clear blue skies we experienced, it seems the party even shut down factories to literally ensure there was no rain on this parade.

Not much actual work gets done in the event itself, despite the fact it was dubbed the "biggest political event of this autumn" by Will Hutton in the Guardian. The "event" actually occurs in the lead-up to the congress, when party leaders huddle and decide who should retire and who should be promoted to the Politburo and its prestigious Standing Committee.

Although it's not formally enshrined in the constitution, it is generally agreed that the president of China and general secretary of the Communist party -- both titles currently belong to Hu Jintao -- should only rule for a maximum of 10 years. This marks the halfway point for Hu, and many analysts expect this congress to give us some insight into who might succeed Hu in 2012, and what direction that leader might take.

But what's becoming increasingly clear is that each successive leader in China seems to be weaker than the previous one, meaning they don't have much say in which direction the country goes anyway.

Mao Zedong had nearly absolute rule over China until his death in 1976, which led to disasters such as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. Deng Xiaoping stepped up in 1978 and began the opening up and reform period, which resulted in today's capitalist society. But since Deng, successive leaders seem to be little more than figureheads.

According to The Tiananmen Papers, an inside look at government deliberations during the Tiananmen Square crackdown, then-general secretary Zhao Ziyang was subject to decisions made by the "elders" -- a group of old comrades who worked behind the scenes and influenced the leaders of the day. In fact, according to the book, Zhao opposed the crackdown on protesters and was put under house arrest until he died in January 2005. The final decision to roll the tanks into Tiananmen Square was made by the elders, and them alone. Nearly 20 years later, despite China's rapid modernization and promises of more democracy (a term the Chinese are completely redefining), it seems that those holding real power in China stand in the shadows behind President Hu Jintao.

Most of the media attention over the past week has surrounded who will sit on the nine-member standing committee of the Politburo, also known as the "Nine Who Rule China." The future president and general secretary will come out of this group in 2012, so any personnel changes in this small clique are put under a microscope.

It's been widely speculated that Hu would use this opportunity to appoint his chosen successor to the standing committee -- or even a couple of comrades he considers close allies. But as of this writing, it appears only Li Keqiang, an old friend from Hu's days as head of the Communist Youth League, will make the cut. The other new appointee will likely be Xi Jinping, known as a "princeling" because his father, Xi Zhongxun, was a high-profile vice-premier under Mao. Many of the children of the first-generation cadres are known as "princelings" for their wealth and political status.

The point is that Hu Jintao, despite being president and general secretary, lacks the authority to unilaterally make decisions on who joins the Politburo, and who will succeed him in 2012. In the past, Mao chose his own successor (Hua Guofeng, who only lasted two years) and Deng directly appointed Jiang Zemin.

Since then, it's been a bit of a mish-mash with the president having a bit less influence each time decision time rolls around. Those gaining in influence appear to be the party elders, who are currently led by former president Jiang Zemin (a rival of Hu, and a man who favored Xi on the standing committee) and Zeng Qinghong, China's very own Karl Rove.

It's too early to say what will happen in 2012, although it's widely believed that Xi Jinping is the early frontrunner to become China's new president. So what do we know about him? Will he continue with China's free-market approach? Bring back Marxism-Leninism? Tighten the reigns on the news media? We don't really know, and even if we did, it probably doesn't matter.

That's because despite promises to govern in a more transparent fashion, decisions are still made behind closed doors among a tight clique of leaders who control the world's most populous country and fourth-largest economy.

Like George W. Bush, Hu Jintao heads into his second term as a lame-duck president. But maybe he's been that way all along.

I know this has been an ongoing issue for quite some time now. However, I wanted to posit a theory out there for folks to chew on. I preface this post by saying that I have no hard or fast evidence to prove any of this. This is not a journalistic entry...just the musings of an international affairs analyst.

I find the timing of all the recent hype around the Chinese product recalls a bit suspicious. First of all, I am not for a moment going to tell you that the toy recalls in the United States right now aren't justified. I wouldn't want my kid playing with toys splattered with lead-based paint. However, I do sort of wonder why this issue all of a sudden began to rear its head again.

For years there have been recalls because of Chinese produced products. I mean, when, as a country, you're pumping out the vast majority of toys for domestic US consumption, odds are, you're going to be the main focus of recalls. But still, this year, the media seems particularly interested in this ongoing saga. So why?

Since the summer of 2005 when China loosened - but didn't fully eliminate - the peg of the Chinese currency, the Renminbi, to the US dollar, lawmakers in the United States have been on China's case about allowing the Yuan to revalue more quickly. The main reason is that China has a massive trade surplus with the United States, and lawmakers don't like the imbalance. They figure a higher Yuan will reduce imports, help balance out the trade surplus, and create more manufacturing jobs domestically. No big revelations here. But it was this year that the Bush Administration began playing hardball. Just this week the US filed its 4th WTO complaint against China this year. These complaints started coming around the same time as US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson began the second round of 'strategic economic dialogue' with China. And, coincidentally, the product recalls because of lead paint began shortly thereafter. So is there a connection here? On the surface, one might not think so.

Before the 'strategic economic dialogue,' Treasury Secretary Paulson was not outwardly keen to press China on the issue of revaluation. I have to admit, when I heard that, I was a bit surprised, given the pressure lawmakers in Washington were putting on him to do something about the Renminbi, given their individual pressures at home because of manufacturing job losses. And when the toy recall issue started popping up in the States, I really didn't think twice about making a connection. However, it did get me to thinking recently...

Was Mr. Paulson was putting up a smoke screen in May? Were there plans already afoot to try to put increased pressure on China and reduce the trade surplus?

Unlike China, of course, the US government does not control what the media can and can't report. However, that's not to say that the government can't find a way to influence what 'revelations' are made in the media. It happens all the time. As a western journalist myself, I was constantly trying to groom contacts in the government. And when doing this, often times it turns into a game of give and take. Sometimes you will be given a 'tip,' that you know is merely a 'trial balloon.' Still, you run with it, because it's legitimate, and you have to - as we say in the media - 'feed the beast,' or get stories on the air for consumption. You do this as a journalist so that when you do uncover something that isn't fed to you, the odds of getting better information to round out your story increases.

So, with this knowledge, I posit this suggestion: Did the Bush Administration point the media in the right direction when it comes to Chinese recalls? Now, I'm not saying that - if this was the case - the Administration is still pushing the issue with journalists. There's no need. Once the media gets its teeth into an ongoing issue, it will stick with it and look for new angles on the existing issue. Some might call it lazy journalism, but it's still the way the system works. And for the Bush Administration, why not just sit back and hope that these recalls will start to fuel other stories about the safety of Chinese products (which, it has). What better way to stimulate spending on domestically-manufactured products than to put fear into the hearts of your consumers about products from overseas. You do that, then fewer and fewer bad Chinese products hit the shelves and the trade balance is reduced without having to continue beating on China over the revaluation of the Renminbi.

As I said before, there's no proof I can conjure up to add any credibility to this theory. But if you do the math on the timelines, it does make for curious speculation.

I have to claim laziness for not uploading a photo (loyal followers of this blog -- all six of them -- will already expect this from me), however I was startled today with a small trinket I found inside Jenny Lou's next to Chaoyang Park's west gate.

I was doing some shopping in the area prior to a dinner engagement, and I went into one of the side rooms (where they stock laundry detergent and such) to buy some nail clippers. I couldn't seem to find them, so I asked for help. The kind woman came over and took me to what looked like several key chains with flags on them. I explained they were key chains, not nail clippers, but she assured me that this is what I was looking for.

I saw the British flag, the Chinese flag, the American flag, and then the national flag of Taiwan. I stood looking at it for a moment, making sure that this was indeed what I thought it was. In my best Chinese, I explained to the girl that this was the flag of Taiwan. She didn't seem to recognize it, or care even after I told her.

Needless to say, that's the one I bought (and they are, despite their appearance, nail clippers). Somebody was asleep at the switch when that crossed the border. If anybody stops by that particular Jenny Lou's in the future, see if there are others still around.

Working for the largest state-run radio outlet in China, hosting a political current affairs program, I knew this week was going to be trying. In fact, the headaches began even before the CPC's 17th Congress even opened up!

The tension and pomp and circumstance a couple of weeks before the Congress began became increasingly palpable. From the increased meetings of the station leadership, to the inclusion of a second set of PLA guards in the entrance to our offices, to the 'gussying up' of the office itself with banners and the like, one could tell that we were going to have an interesting time of it.

When the CPC took over government here in China in 1949, it decided to copy the media design laid out by its socialist sponsor, the Soviet Union. As such, propaganda replaced opinion and actual journalism. It was that same propaganda that helped cultivate and nurture Mao's cult of personality and the Cultural Revolution. Unfortunately, even after Mao's death and the realization within the party leadership that personality cults and the Cultural Revolution were disasters, the propaganda continues. Now granted, some days it doesn't seem so bad. This government has come to the realization that in order for it to show the outward appearance of increased transparency, it can't all be sunshine and roses about the Chinese government. As such, you are seeing more and more examples of this government being critical of its own problems. Even on my program, which is heavily scrutinized and vetted, I'm sometimes surprised at what I can talk about. Maybe five years ago, the idea of even talking about corruption within the CPC was unheard of. But these days, you can get away with it (within certain limits, of course). And in actual fact, there are days when I will do an interview and walk away afterward feeling that the questions and responses that were brought forth weren't that far off from actual journalism. But throw all that out the window this month!!

Rarely am I told what I can or can't ask. I'm not so naive as to believe that I have free reign. But I know, for the most part, where the line is, and I will rarely step over it. It's not as though I don't want to sometimes, but there's really no point, because the program will just be edited afterward anyway, and I don't get a say in that. But the past few days have been particularly annoying. Because of the uber-political environment this week, the leadership within the state-run media organs is on high alert, because they don't want to be seen as making a mistake. As such, the daily directives that come down from the government about what we are or aren't allowed to talk about are being interpreted by the management to the strictest of levels. The one that really sticks out for me was before the Party Congress even began!

We were preparing to do a program about French President Nicholas Sarkozy meeting for the first time in Moscow with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Pretty tame stuff when it comes to controversy. In fact, the trip turned out to be so boring that it barely made a splash on the international headlines. It was a non-starter, and seemed pretty safe for us to tackle...or so we thought. After conducting one interview with an academic in Europe, I ventured out for a bite to eat while I waited for my second interview to be lined up. Upon my return, I could see the disturbed look on my steadfast producer's face. Something tells me I wish I wouldn't have asked what was wrong, though it really does provide some insight into the mindset of the media organs in China at present.

As it was explained to me, we were going to have to rebroadcast an old edition of the program (given the fact there wasn't enough time left to set up new interviews) because the Sarkozy-Putin meeting was deemed to be too politically sensitive. No, not because it may offend either the Russian or French Embassies (which is actually a major concern at this radio station). No, the reason we couldn't broadcast this particular story was because of Chechnya. During Sarkozy's visit, there may have been brief mention of the would-be break-away Russian republic between himself and Putin. As such, this topic was to be a non-starter on Chinese radio at this point, because it might remind someone in the CPC about -- wait for it --Taiwan! The structural engineers who built the Golden Gate Bridge had an easier time making that connection than I did to this particular line of reasoning.

All I could do was shake my head, try to console my producer with a quick joke, and go home. And the ironic footnote to the whole story came when we got in the next day and were told that the former edition -- which was perfectly acceptable in the spring -- was also not a good choice at this time because it focused on food safety.

This Party Congress can not be over fast enough!!!

In my earlier incarnation, I used to work as a staff member with the Public Affairs Bureau with the Province of British Columbia government, the department responsible for all media/public relations. I have written political speeches, issues notes, communication plans, and event plans... but my most favorite task was drawing up issues notes. These were one-to-two page documents outlining a specific problem or program, with a "recommended response" segments in bullets for politicians to read from. Obviously the more serious the crisis, the more fun it was to come up with the recommended response. Once approved, the issues notes were widely circulated among elected officials to ensure everyone was on the same page.

I enjoyed the job, because prior to it I worked as a legislative radio reporter. So I had the benefits of seeing both sides, and never before had I understood how thoroughly legislative reporters were influenced by the Public Affairs Bureau.

There's no doubt that political messages are now instant: reporters will ask a minister a question on a specific topic, and minister's must be ready with an answer. As a PAB employee with the Ministry of Transportation, we kept tabs on every minor and major issue in the province, and had to be ready if the minister was questioned. If he was, and we hadn't briefed him, there'd be hell to pay (luckily, that never happened). We had issues notes drawn up for some of the most mundane issues, such as a man who was late to work to start a little commuter ferry. Somebody may have complained about that (they did) to the local constituency office, and lo and behold we have an issue.

The sophistication of 24-hour news radio (where I used to work), television, the internet, blogging, and the PR that powers it came to mind when I read an interview with Corky Evans, a long time MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly) in British Columbia. He was not an MLA when I worked there (he served before and after), however I had run into him in Vancouver when I was a reporter there. He is a convivial character and I always found him rather likable. He is trying to determine whether he will run in the next election, and one of the things holding him back is the vast array of communications people:

I no longer fit with the technology of the times. I came into public life when it was an oral job. And when the written word was required it was the written word and I wrote it and I said it. And, for 20 years off and on, I've come here and never spoken words written by somebody else. I have tremendous pride in that although it's nothing anybody else would give a damn about. But anyway, it's no longer an oral job. And it's no longer a written job. It is now an electronic job. And discourse is irrelevant and your words are assumed to be written by somebody else and they're assumed to be sterile so that you can't get anybody in trouble. And it's immediate.

It used to be that a problem would come to you - as MLA or as a minister or something. And you'd talk to all the people and try to figure out what was right and see if you could sort it out and put some things together and go try something. Now it's electronic and people think that you should know the correct answer to an issue in ten seconds of it being put before them. And your profession is equally guilty. You figure out something that I don't know anything about and never heard of, put a microphone in front of my face and say, "What you going to do about x?" And if I say, "Never heard of it" you just look stupid. And if you give an answer, you're committed to that answer forever. And I don't want to sound like I think there was a good ol' days. But I am part of a generation that pre-dates electronic communication. And I'm not sure if I continue to serve that I won't fall even further behind in acceptable behaviour.

If he decides not to run, B.C. politics will lose a real character. And even though many of our livelihoods depend on the constant stream of PR writers, staffers, and advisors, the way he describes the old days sounds pretty sweet, too. Unfortunately for Corky, I'm afraid those days are gone forever.

A h/t to Raj over at the Peking Duck for drawing my attention to a story in the Earth Times.

Hu Jintao made a rather lengthy speech at the opening of the party congress yesterday, and mentioned his strategy for reunifying the mainland with Taiwan. While in the past, strong rhetoric has been used in these sessions, this time Hu used much calmer and more reasoned words:

"We would like to make a solemn appeal: on the basis of the one- China principle, let us discuss a formal end on the state of hostility between the two sides and reach a peace agreement," he said in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing.

I think Hu's choice of words was positive, and I think dropping the threat of force or invasion is a strong move towards reaching his goal.

Many in China are unaware of how a democracy works, as the country has not lived under it in its entire history. It must be made very clear that Taiwan's government can not unilaterally agree to return to the "motherland" without the support of the Taiwanese people through a free and fair election. In this case, power actually does lie with the people.

If China wishes for Taiwan to return to the fold, its propaganda efforts must be targeted at the Taiwanese people. However, China needs to avoid heartfelt and patriotic overtures, such as National Day celebrations or celebrations of Chinese history and culture, which I highly doubt will work in Taiwan. Instead, China needs a sustained effort at explaining how being part of China will benefit the daily lives of the people living in Taiwan, in practical terms.

If Taiwan were to return, what would the political and economic systems be? How would taxation work? What benefits would business have on the mainland? Would Taiwan be able to maintain its democracy as a Special Administrative Region? Would China increase investment in roads, schools, and infrastructure? How could the Chinese government do a better job than the Taiwanese government?

Perhaps these items are too specific. However the idea of returning to mainland China must be sold to the people of Taiwan. If they can make the case irresistible, a pro-unification party may emerge. But even if China decides to go down this route, it will take many, many years of sustained propaganda for this to work.

Based on Hu's measured words from the party congress, it looks like China may be heading in the right direction.

I was drawn into the age old debate surrounding America's Electoral College system thanks to this article on Slate. I am not an American and have never participated in America's voting process, however I've come to believe that, generally, the Electoral College is a system that equalizes rural residents with urban ones, and smaller states with larger ones.

Garrett Epps argues the opposite, however, and believes that the President should be elected by popular vote:

First, electing the president by popular vote would not make the United States into a direct democracy. It would simply assure to each president the legitimacy that the Framers were eager to grant to each member of the House, the certainty that he or she had received more votes than any other candidate.

This, in itself, makes sense. But we must first get some perspective. Many western countries undergo different styles of democracy. In Canada, we have a system called first-past-the-post, where Members of Parliament are elected in each individual constituency. The party with the majority of MPs will form a majority government. As it stands now, our Conservative government failed to achieve a majority, resulting in a weakened central government operating as a minority.

But even in Canada, with a completely different system, our Prime Minister usually hails from a party which receives much less than a majority popular vote. In fact, in some cases (I am thinking back to British Columbia's provincial election in 1996), our Premier's party lost the popular vote but was able to form a majority government thanks to the first-past-the-post system.

Canada has toyed with the idea of election reform, and the Ontario election recently featured a referendum question on this topic (more information on that can be found on this post on the Humanaught). B.C. also had a referendum question on this previously, however it was voted down.

The main concern with a simple popular vote election is that it gives urban areas a substantial advantage over rural communities. If politics are run by money and special interests now, imagine how it would be if simply targeting wealthy urbanites in Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and Miami could result in being elected President. Like it or not, the electoral college results in many more voices being heard.

I'm open to electoral reform in the United States, but a simple popular vote is not the answer. I am non-partisan when it comes to US politics, however I get the sneaking suspicion that the Democrats may be behind the push to abolish the Electoral College. After all, I think they would have the most to gain.

My current main occupation in China is as a Senior Consultant at a boutique public relations firm. Prior to that, I was involved heavily in China's state-run media apparatus and I continue to serve as a columnist and radio guest on stations in Canada. I still consider myself a journalist somewhat, even though it is no longer my full-time job. And while I don't have connections like certified, foreign correspondents in China, I have gathered a few contacts during my tenures in state-run radio and television.

I preface this just to cover my own tracks, mainly. This blog should never be taken as a "hard news" source (in fact, very few blogs - if any - should be taken in this context). When I come across information on this site or my other site, I have to balance how much I can write with how much I can confirm and write just enough that contacts will keep me in the loop in the future. It's a perpetual balancing act.

Anyway, I had an interesting meeting tonight with a person who shed a bit of light on the party congress, which kicks off this week. Much of it, unfortunately, I can't share here. But I was particularly interested in this person's comments on Bo Xilai, the current Minister of Commerce. As I wrote earlier, Bo is expected to move from the Commerce portfolio to take the position of Party Chief in Chongqing. This hasn't been confirmed, however, and at first glance strikes many (myself included) as a demotion.

Bo Xilai has been rumored as a potential leader for many years. His father was Bo Yibo, who served loyally to Mao Zedong and was part of the first generation of leaders. His son, Bo Xilai, is known as a very "competent" individual. However according to my contact, that's what may keep him out of the General Secretary job:

Bo Xilai is too capable. He is very smart and strong. But the party leader must be someone who knows when not to speak, and when to take orders. Xi (Jingping, who is expected to succeed Hu Jintao as General Secretary and President in 2012) is a weak leader, which is why he is being promoted. He can be controlled by others.

This person also confirmed what we speculated earlier, which is Jiang Zemin still holds most of the cards. It's strange after being President and General Secretary for a full five years, Hu basically continues to play second fiddle to Jiang. One must wonder how Hu will cement his legacy, and whether he will ever have a free-hand before he steps down in 2012.

He may finish his 10 year tenure as the weakest Chinese leader to date.

It's an oft-repeated line in many international media: as China's middle class grows, so too will their political clout and education, and they won't continue to tolerate an authoritarian political system.

It was recently said, yet again, in this article by Howard W. French in the International Herald Tribune:

Eventually, some theorize, the middle class in China will grow so large as to make this proposition untenable. People endowed with good education, property and experience of the outside world will begin to insist on being part of the conversation, of knowing about decisions that affect their families and fortunes in real time, and on having a say.

Yes, that is one theory. But considering China's expansive growth and the increase in the size of the country's middle class over the last 30 years, we can actually test this theory. It seems, from this correspondent's point of view, that the government seems as firmly entrenched now as ever. What this theory doesn't address is that people getting "rich" become stakeholders in the current government. None of these people constituting the "middle class" want to kill their golden goose, so become the biggest supporters of the current regime and system.

This is no different than western governments. If a party has just governed over a period of large economic expansion, it's highly unlikely that it would get replaced at election time. In fact, it's likely that voter turnout would be very low. As we all know, it's the economy, stupid, and China's economy is humming along just fine.

As more people get rich, and as the middle class grows, the party will become even more firmly entrenched.

The government will be safe as long as the economic expansion continues. The problem, as we are aware, is no economy has expanded infinitum in history. Once China's middle class starts to feel a financial pinch in a recession, a decrease in property prices, a stock market crash, or heaven forbid, all of the above, we'll start to see some real calls for increased involvement in political and economic decisions.

I've been very busy in the last couple of weeks, which is why blogging has been reduced to practically nothing. First it was my week-long trip through China over the National Week holiday, which I've already summarized in this space. While that kept me away from the computer, nothing did it quite like a major show did this past week.

Out of respect for my employers (and in the interest of hopefully working with this company again in the future) I will keep its name private. Although for you extra curious people, I imagine you can piece together this story and find out the details through Google.

A technology exhibit was held this past week in Beijing, and I was tapped to host an exhibit belonging to one of Japan's largest companies. As I studied Japanese language in high school (and one year in college), I was eager to test my remedial Japanese language skills and work with the Japanese. Since I was young, I'd always wanted to visit Japan. When I decided I'd make the move to Asia, my first choice was Japan; however people working in Japan's media industry told me that there were far more media-related jobs in China due to its growing economy. Thus, I ended up in Beijing.

I've done a fair amount of hosting jobs with Chinese companies. In comparison to these experiences, working for this particular Japanese enterprise was the equivalent of flying first class rather than riding on the hard seats on Shanghai-Beijing express. Unlike several cases in China, I had received my script nearly two months in advance, complete with diagrams showing where on the set I was to speak my lines. Studios were booked a month in advance so rehearsals could begin.

During the performance, executives surrounded the display and paid close attention to every minor detail. We had a large buffet dinner to celebrate the closing of the exhibit, and executives put on the nicest spread I had seen since arriving in China. Also, a mere few hours earlier, it was determined that one of the girls at the exhibit was celebrating her 21st birthday. In only a few hours, at the dinner, organizers planned a surprise which included dimming the lights, rolling out a birthday cake with candles and sparklers, and a spontaneous singing of "Happy Birthday". It was impressive that the Japanese company had put so much effort into celebrating the birthday of such a low-level, temporary staffer.

From beginning to end, I was impressed by the company's attention to detail, military-like organization, and over-the-top politeness.

Now, the flip side...

In one of the more bizarre moments at the dinner, the senior manager of the Japanese company hand-picked the prettiest Chinese girls to sit at his table. The manager was probably in his late 50s or early 60s, while the girls were aged between 19 and 22. As we were all seated, the manager sent one of his staffers to pick the prettiest girls, two of whom were sitting at my table. Once they were all seated with the man, he proceeded to repeat, in a fashion which was so slimy that it was almost caricature, that "you are the prettiest girls. You are all so pretty. You are beautiful," etc.

There's nothing particularly wrong with complimenting a girl on her appearance, generally-speaking. But this was a bit more than that. It got worse when the birthday girl, who (I must admit) was quite pretty, was brought up on stage to cut her cake. The manager demanded she kiss him... and the Japanese crowd began chanting "Kiss! Kiss! Kiss!" Sure enough, she did. Then we all bowed and said arigatoo gozaimasu and bailed out of there shortly thereafter.

Maybe I'm reading way too much into things, but I couldn't help think of Japan's military history in China during the dinner. Maybe the manager didn't intend any wrongdoing, and maybe if it were an American or Spanish manager I wouldn't have thought anything wrong. But the manager wasn't American or Spanish... he was the head of a company from a country that has a brutal history, and he's speaking in a country that suffered from the sexual deviance of Japanese soldiers. Perhaps executives from Japan have to be more careful -- and maybe a little less forward -- than managers from other countries.

Joseph Kahn has written an excellent story in the International Herald Tribune (also run, I assume, in the New York Times) that sheds some light on some final decisions and speculation surrounding the CPC's personnel changes. Here is what Kahn has noted, in summary:

• Xi Jinping takes up a role on the Standing Committee of the Politburo (as was speculated on this blog) and is tapped as the front-runner to succeed Hu Jintao in 2012. In fact, Kahn cites one party source saying, "The party is too concerned about stability to leave the issue undecided."


• Zeng Qinghong retires from the Standing Committee of the Politburo.


• Li Keqiang, a close Hu ally, will be promoted to the Standing Committee of the Politburo and will succeed Wen Jiabao as Prime Minister in 2012.


• Wu Yi, responsible for international trade, will retire and be replaced by Zhang Dejiang, the current party chief for Guangdong Province. (It's speculated that Madame Wu must retire due to health concerns.)


• Commerce Minister Bo Xilai will become the Party Chief for Chongqing.


• Current Chongqing party chief Wang Yang will become party chief for Guangdong.


• Yu Zhengsheng will assume Xi Jinping's role as Shanghai Party Chief (a role Xi only had for a few months).

The Kahn article also mentions that Jiang wanted the politburo standing committee reduced to only seven members, which had also previously been speculated on this blog.

If this is indeed the final lineup, it's hard to conclude this is anything less than a loss of face for Hu (which Kahn also noted). Xi Jinping is a compromise candidate who was chosen to replace Chen Liangyu because he was suitable to both Jiang and Hu. The only Hu loyalist who received a high-level promotion is Li Keqiang, who was part of the party's youth wing which Hu once led.

The moves also demonstrate Jiang Zemin's continuing influence in high-level party politics. It's clear he's still consulted on the major decisions and his influence may be just less than, or equal to, Hu's own influence.

I have talked with a few people who have told me this may not be fully decided. One move that doesn't make much sense is Bo Xilai's move from Commerce Minister to Chongqing Party Chief, which some people have argued is a demotion. Bo has a strong and loyal following in the party, and may be a darkhorse for the role of President or Prime Minister in 2012. His father was the famed Bo Yibo, who was on Mao's long march and died earlier this year.

In addition, senior party leaders held a late night meeting last night. There may be a few more tweaks and changes before everything comes to light during the congress.

Some state-run media were called to a 3am meeting over the holidays to discuss coverage of the upcoming party congress. I'm not sure what to expect from the upcoming shindig, but it seems clear some power-struggles continue. So, I decided I'd make my best guess at what might be happening. Remember, I am in no way credible. But here goes:

• Shanghai party chief Xi Jinping is a lock to be on the Politburo Standing Committee.
• Jiang Zemin's team is asking that the Standing Committee of the Politburo be decreased from 9 to 7 people. Hu Jintao strongly disagrees.
• Hu Jintao will be elected to a second term.

On another note, my trip through China over the holidays was quite a success. We managed to hit perfect weather in every city we visited, allowing my guests to get a perfect view from the Peak in Hong Kong and the Jin Mao Tower in Shanghai. Speaking of Shanghai, my friend Paul, who contributes to this blog, actually ran into an old friend who now manages the Big Bamboo. He was delirious in explaining how great it was to live in Shanghai, pointing out he'd left the city twice in two years, and once was on a day-trip to a rural area near the city. I could see his enthusiasm, as Shanghai was in the midst of hosting the Special Olympics and the Formula One race. Concerts coming up include Beyonce and Linkin Park. Plus international tennis and golf events are on the way. All of this must certainly cement Shanghai as the mainland's entertainment capital.

We also managed to catch a river cruise along the scenic Pearl River in Guangzhou. It was well worth it, and became one of many highlights of the trip. In my nearly one year in the city, I never managed to do it, and now realize I was missing out.

And one final thought.... I've worked at CCTV 9, China Radio International, Beijing Radio, and at News1130 radio in Vancouver. Never once have I been recognized and stopped in public -- until I went to Guangzhou. Twice in a single day, I was surprisingly recognized by viewers of Guangzhou's fledgling English Channel. As I was ordering a green tea latte (well recommended -- I will be drinking this until the chai lattes make it into mainland China) at the Starbucks on Shamian Island, the woman asked if I was visiting. "Yes," I replied, before quickly pointing out that I used to live in Guangzhou. "I know," she said. "I've seen you on the TV."

A similar situation happened at the airport, as we were tired and frustrated by not being able to locate the cTrip counter. One man in a tie kept looking at us, and we assumed he must've worked at the airport. We asked him where we could check in for Air China, and he said, "I don't know... maybe E... maybe C." Well, this made us even more frustrated, as we expected the customer service people to know where we could check in. After some intense back-and-forth, it turned out that he, too, was a regular viewer of Guangzhou EC and didn't work at the airport at all.

Consider me surprised, as I didn't expect people in GZ (which gets TVB Pearl among other channels from Hong Kong) to watch English language-state run television (believe me, you aren't missing much). Plus, I haven't lived or worked in Guangzhou for over seven months. Now I mustn't let this go to my head.