Apparently Taiwan, which just held its first “gay pride” celebration, is light years ahead of its Asian neighbors when it comes to gay rights:

Gay pride parades are commonplace in Vancouver or Boston or Berlin. But for Taipei, Taiwan, capital of a supposedly conservative, Confucian society, last weekend’s demonstration broke new ground. Mayor Ma Ying-jeou called it “the first such parade in Taipei, the first in Taiwan, even the first in the Chinese world.” It was more than that, too. The emergence of an open gay culture in a non-Western society is yet another sign that modern societies around the world are becoming more and more alike — homogenizing, if you like.

Legalizing gay marriage is next on Taiwan’s agenda, a move that is so astonishing I can scarcely believe it. Even if the initiative fails, there’s a huge lesson here about just how quickly a society’s culture can grow more tolerant.

Remember, Chiang Kai Shek and his Nationalists 80 years ago were just as brutal and murderous as their successors, Mao and the CCP. And look at how far they have progressed in Taiwan. Why not China? Do we really have to keep saying, “No, that’s impossible. China has its own unique culture”? Taiwan had its own unique culture as well. But look at how, with a little bit of freedom and education, a culture can shake off the chains of ignorance and intolerance. Why not China?

Related Post: Gays in China

Dazzled by the promise of increased demand for electricity in China, investors are rushing to scoop up their share of the upcoming IPO of the company financing the Three Gorges dam. The initial subscription is already 84 times oversubscribed (somewhat reminiscent of the hysteria for shares of Webvan and Dr. Koop back in the late 90s).

There’s also another story receiving way less coverage, namely the recommended closing of another Chinese dam plagued by a problem that many say will inevitably afflict Three Gorges:

Celebrated water engineer Zhang Guangdou has for the first time publicly called for the disastrous Sanmenxia dam on the Yellow River, which he helped design in the 1950s, to be shut down.

The project has been plagued since its completion in 1960 by the rapid accumulation of sediment in its reservoir, a worry that also surrounds the Three Gorges dam. (The seriousness of that concern was apparent in a report last week in The Times of London: “Engineers have given warning that a silt build-up could cripple the [Three Gorges] turbines, allegedly leading Siemens, one of the main suppliers, to turn down the offer from Beijing of a contract for maintenance work that would make it responsible for running the turbines.”)

I know, I know, enough of the bad news! Sorry, but I am in many ways a product of the late 90s, and I remember what happened when people made a choice, en masse, to abandon their critical faculties in favor of a pipe dream. I was one of them, and it taught me to look beyond the glitter. There’s a lot that is stunning about China’s growth. But don’t ignore the silt or you may get stuck in it.

As mentioned earlier, the new message about AIDS in China is that, if left unchecked, it will create a financial nightmare for the developing country and have a direct effect on business. Now, international business leaders are urging China to allow private businesses to take on the menace:

International business leaders are urging China’s government to head off what some fear may be an explosion of AIDS cases in the world’s most populous country. Participants at the World Economic Forum in Beijing say China’s government should allow private businesses to lead the fight against the spread of HIV, the virus that causes AIDS.

[….]

Dr. Peter Piot, the head of the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS, warns that a rising infection rate would have grave economic consequences for China. “The choice is very clear. It’s either act now or pay later,” he says. “Act now and prevent millions of Chinese from being infected or deal with it five or 10 years from now, when the cost of treatment, the cost for business and for individuals will be much higher. That’s why this is such an important issue for the government and for business to tackle now, before there is a big problem.”

The experts are urging the Chinese government to allow businesses to do more to educate people, especially in the impoverished rural areas of western and central China where infection rates are higher.

The article notes that with even less than one percent of the Chinese population now infected, the country’s infection rate is now where South Africa’s was in 1990; now, the infection rate has soared to above 25 percent.

As the business leaders are urging Beijing to allow businesses to take up the battle, one can only wonder why they should have to “urge” the CCP to allow such an obviously pressing need. Wouldn’t the government do whatever is necessary to save the lives of tens of millions of its citizens? But never mind. Let’s hope the new argument, based on dollar signs, has some results.

I just read a comment that someone left today to one of my most heartfelt posts. It made me feel that maybe all the work that goes into keeping this thing going just may be worth it.

An article in today’s International Herald Tribune strongly defends China against charges from the US that it is failing to adhere to WTO free trade practices, and charges that, “Whole armies of lobbyists and special interest groups are working themselves – and the American public – into a China-bashing frenzy.”

In fact, he says, it is China that is the victim of unfair trade practices, not the US:

China is the victim of unparalleled violations of the principle of nondiscrimination upon which the entire WTO system is built. They threaten literally millions of jobs in China’s manufacturing sector.

The story in agriculture is even more shocking. Having received a large increase in farm subsidies in 2002, U.S. farmers demand that China open up national agricultural markets. According to U.N. figures, government support to U.S. agriculture amounts to around $50 billion a year. China is being asked to expose its farmers to competition from subsidized U.S. agricultural surpluses sold at a fraction of their cost of production. Rapid liberalization would compound rural poverty and exacerbate China’s already extreme rural-urban inequalities.

I’m no expert, but judging from everything I’ve read there is probably plenty of blame to go around. The US has always protected certain industries (cotton, grain) with unfair subsidies, and this really does make a joke of free trade and threaten the livelihood of farmers in poor countries.

On the other hand, China’s no angel of free trade either. Its failure to come up to speed on WTO commitments is legendary, and they seem to be constantly stalling.

Where I definitely take issue with the writer is this bold pronouncement toward the end of the article:

Over the past two decades, China has lifted more people out of poverty more quickly than any country in recorded history. Trade has played a vital role. The danger now is that unfair trade rules will stall China’s progress.

First, it was the Chinese people who lifted themselves out of a poverty that was virtually guaranteed by the backward-looking policies of Mao, that made competition and free trade with the outside world impossible. This great awakening should not be credited to the current government, whose policies of taxes and fees and graft only make free trade more difficult. Deng loosened the reins, and the ever-productive, creative and hard-working people of China ran furiously forward, usually despite Deng, not because of him. So let’s be sure to give credit where it is truly due.

Second, for China to shout out about unfair trade practices toward it is definitely a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. Ask any Western company trying to do business in China about unfair practices! Ask them about the process for getting a business license. Ask them about the fees and the different bureaucrats along the line whose palms must be greased.

So I’m not about to call China the victim and the US the perpetrator. I’m afraid that both are on equally weak footing when it comes to calling foul on the field of fair trade.

That’s the banner headline splashed across Matt Drudge’s news site at the moment (no separate link to the story) and this is the text that follows:

Jessica Lynch criticized military for exaggerating accounts of her rescue and recasting her ordeal as patriotic fable…. MORE.. Asked by ABCNEWS anchor Diane Sawyer if military’s portrayal of rescue bothered her, Lynch said: ‘Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it’s wrong’ … Asked how she felt about reports of her heroism: ‘It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that, because the other four people on my vehicle aren’t here to tell the story. So I would have been the only one able to say, Yeah, I went down shooting. But I didn’t’ … Asked about claims the military exaggerated danger of the rescue mission: ‘Yeah, I don’t think it happened quite like that’…

Tri-dots are Drudge’s. Lynch’s story as told by the military, with its made-for-TV action and heroism, defied belief from the very beginning, and I congratulate Lynch for having the courage to speak out about it. (After all, the BS from the Army only made her look good.) It only underscores why so many Americans have a hard time believing anything their government tells them.

Update: More here.

An update:

A Chinese court on Thursday sentenced a veteran pro-democracy activist to eight years in prison on subversion charges, including accusations that he posted anti-government articles on overseas Web sites, a human rights organisation said.

He Depu, who was tried last month at the Beijing No 1 Intermediate People’s Court, is one of five Internet activists accused of subversive activities for signing an open letter calling for political reform posted on the Internet ahead of the landmark Communist Party congress in November 2002.

The others – Jiang Lijun, Zhao Changqing, Ouyang Yi and Dai Xuezhong – have all reportedly been tried or sentenced on subversion charges.

For whatever reason, the AIDS crisis in China seems to be yet another calamity to which many, inside China and outside, turn a blind eye. The UN is now warning that the epidemic may soon threaten China’s economy:

Peter Piot, head of the United Nations AIDS program, says he has warned the Chinese government that the epidemic could lead to social instability and political paralysis. Yet the highest-ranking government leaders have failed to make any strong statements on the issue, making it easy for business leaders and local officials to ignore the crisis, he said yesterday.

Indeed, half of the Chinese population doesn’t know what AIDS is, Mr. Piot said. “The first thing we have to do is to break the silence about AIDS,” he said. “A lot of work needs to be done with the provinces.”

Because of China’s deteriorating public health system, Beijing doesn’t even have any basic statistics on the number of cases in each province, he said. In some parts of the country, AIDS activists have been arrested, harassed and jailed.

Well, a few days ago the government declared November to be AIDS Awareness Month, so they can’t be accused of doing nothing. But pretty close. What will it take to force the leaders to see this crisis for what it truly is?

Related post: The indescribable tragedy of AIDS in China

Here’s a very intelligent article on Singapore’s recent history and possible future. It looks at how Singapore rose to be a regional giant, how it then lost much of its lustre under the great shadow of China, and how in the wake of this it is now reshaping itself to once again attain its place in the sun.

In some ways, Singapore’s demise was beyond its control and inevitable:

Truth is, nothing that Singapore did was ill conceived, just that rest of Asia has caught up with them. Today global companies wanting to set up in Asia ex-Japan, be it a representative, sales or manufacturing entity, has a choice. It could be Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia (maybe) or Singapore in South East Asia or Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea and the inevitable China in North Asia. They all now offer an acceptable set of infrastructure and a reasonable enabling environment, which for many years was almost a monopoly of Singapore.

When cost becomes an overriding consideration, China wins hands down. China is responsible, for hollowing out a large proportion of existing manufacturing operations of global companies from other Asian countries. The shift of manufacturing from Singapore to China has been relentless and is partly responsible for the current high unemployment and low growth. But all is not lost. When it comes to a decision of spreading the risk that is not putting all your eggs in one basket, in this case China, Singapore features well.

Despite huge advances in China, it still remains unpredictable, multinationals prefer to cover this risk by considering stable Singapore as a regional headquarter or sometime even establish a manufacturing unit irrespective of its high cost base. High productivity also favours Singapore compared to China. Notwithstanding, Singapore has suffered badly from the advent of China as a global manufacturing base.

The one point I have to disagree with, very sadly, is Singapore’s lingering appeal as a regional headquarters. That was true some years ago, when the SE Asian “tigers” were still hot and it looked like Malaysia would arise as the great high-tech manufacturing hub.

Now, I am afraid that Hong Kong is a smarter choice for the Western firm seeking entree to China. Just look at a map and you’ll see why. And, sadly for both HK and Singapore, many of these Western firms are simply skipping the traditional “stepping stone” and setting up headquarters right in Shanghai.

Meanwhile, Singapore is now in a frenzy to position itself as a regional hub for all kinds of industries. From biotech to semiconductors to nanotechnology, Singapore is claiming this is where it is all happening:

Singapore has accepted that it can no longer be a serious contender for manufacturing. It now wants to be a knowledge based society. So at the high end they are building infrastructure and an enabling environment for creating a hub for research and design. Biotech and Infocom are a major focus.

As before, the state is providing the initial impetus by investing in physical infrastructure and seeding some of these projects. Multinationals have gradually begun to follow in its footsteps. Business cost has been reduced, through tax breaks, reduction in mandatory pension contributions and depressed market condition has also seen to a fall in office rentals.

It sounds good, but I can safely say that so far there has been little measurable response.

It is an eerie time in Singapore, a time of anxiety and confusion. We all hear the government’s grandiose intentions, the talk of turning the city-state into “a hub,” but there have been no results. Obviously that will take time, but they’ve been at it now for years.

The article ends on a note of cautious optimism based on the government’s efforts to encourage entrepreneurship and to get out of the people’s way. But many in Singapore right now are worried as the comforts and security they had taken for granted are being whittled away. As in every other country in the region, many businesses are turning to China, hoping that some of its prosperity will rub off on them.

That’s definitely a gamble, but what’s the choice? With every other economy flat, where else is there to turn? As some may know, I’m a bit pessimistic about this strategy, at least in the long term, but I completely understand it. Let’s hope it keeps Singapore afloat, at least until the country gets back on its feet and actually becomes the hub city the government wants it to be.

This is going to be a difficult and painful transition, but at the moment it seems to be Singapore’s only hope.

An article in today’s New York Times points out that credit agencies fear China’s government-owned banks may require a major bailout thanks to overdue loans.

Responding to hints in recent weeks from senior Chinese financial regulators that another bailout of the country’s biggest banks might be needed, two credit rating agencies issued separate reports on Wednesday suggesting that China’s previous efforts had not solved the banking system’s troubles.

The ratings agencies, Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s Investors Service, said that the banks’ troubles had not been resolved by an attempt in 1999 and early 2000 to shift $170 billion in nonperforming loans into asset management companies. The companies resemble the Resolution Trust Corporation that the United States used successfully to dispose of bad loans after the collapse of much of the American savings and loan industry in the late 1980’s.

Gordon Chang, author of The Coming Collapse of China, always maintained that China’s banks are hopelessly insolvent and would prove to be China’s Achilles heel. Things still look okay, but if the slowdown feared by so many materializes, a serious problem, starting with the banks, could escalate into a catastrophe.

I’m not trying to be an alarmist, spreading hysteria about China’s imminent collapse. (It may not be imminent at all.) It’s just that China’s banks seem to be an elephant in the corner of the room that everyone wants to ignore. It’s a big elephant.

[Update, 7:35 am Nov. 7.]