Propaganda department’s operation or just another effect of trying to “save face” by local officials?

Who is more to blame of the disasters in an authoritarian system? The person/people in power or their underlings who are afraid to report that some things are not going so rosy as the “de jour” political theory predicts?
Or both?

And why do the underlings lie? Because they fear that those in power will kill the messenger who bring the disappointing news, or because it will put their careers in the system in jeopardy?

If then someone complains to the first echelon of power, their complains will be throw away, because they are not interested in reporting problems. You may even the thug out of that idea.

If you complain to the upper echelon you are a scare monger, even a traitor to the cause.. with some unspeakable hidden agenda. Everything is going fine! Don’t you see the reports!

Problem of a top down structure……

And I am not speaking only of political systems.

March 2, 2008 @ 7:35 pm | Comment

I’d say the top down part is only part of the problem. The major issue is that so many of the rewards in the system are based upon social fluffing rather than a search for the truth.

Truthiness is substituted for reality in order to spin the facts in a manner that allows for maximum social fluffing. And as long as people are drawn by their personal motivators towards being socially fluffed, you’ll get spinmeisters playing hide and seek with facts.

And the fluffers and fluffees are happier having their personal motivators being satisfied by this truthiness than any satisfaction they’d get from confronting the bare naked truth, which might get you socially ostracised or fired.

March 3, 2008 @ 10:02 am | Comment

The same thing happens in Hong Kong: for reasons that are not posted — does EVERYTHING have to be posted ? — the hourly environmental report frequently will have some stations missing.

Gosh, could it be a technical fault, rather than a conspiracy?

Nah.

March 3, 2008 @ 11:20 am | Comment

DOR, actually the same thing doesn’t happen in HK. (And I’ve had the HK EPD’s Air Pollution Index in my blogroll for years now.)

The HK EPD would never just disappear a reporting station due to a technical issue as is the case list above. The reporting station would be listed as it is every other day and you’d have a hyphen or star listed with a note somewhere near the table stating the station was off line for technical reasons.

March 3, 2008 @ 3:16 pm | Comment

I’m baffled. Did you folks actually read the article in question? Am I missing something, or did you guys jump on this topic half-cocked as always?

Mr. Du doesn’t reject the claim that stations have indeed been moved. He’s rejecting the claim that they were moved *in order* to report better statistics.

Take a look at the stations that were removed.

– qianmen: very poor pollution results previously (pollution index: 99, very poor). Its removal, in and of itself, would be suspicious.

– chegongzhuang: … average pollution results (pollution index: 57). If the purpose was to hide poor air results… why this station?

And why didn’t the “consultant” in question bring up some of the other numerous monitoring changes made at the same time?

Other removals:
– average performing, generic “shiqu” station.
– average performing, “caoqiao” station.

Additions:
– zhiwuyuan (also in haiding; could this be very close to the removed station at chengongzhuang?)
–

And the best indications that this guy is full of $hit with this “propaganda report”, and that richard deserves a firm smack on the back of the head for reporting this crap without first looking into the details?

The two worst performing monitoring stations in Beijing, according to the most recent report, are:
– yufa (154 on 03/01),
– badaling (151 on 03/01).

Both of these monitoring stations were added on the first of this year.

Now, explain this to me, all of the geniuses so clearly focused on pulling back the veil of duplicitous Communist propaganda… why would “they” add two new monitoring stations at (apparently) the most polluted sites in the Beijing area?

March 3, 2008 @ 3:32 pm | Comment

– chegongzhuang: … average pollution results (pollution index: 57). If the purpose was to hide poor air results… why this station?
Posted by: CCT at March 3, 2008 03:32 PM

If you look at that 1998 report, the Chegongzhuang station reported the highest TSP (particulates) and nitrogen oxides and a close second for SO2 and CO.

And if you poke around dates from last year, Chegongzhuang isn’t the highest from a rough sample of 6 or 7 dates, but it is regularly well above average.

(Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the epb’s website for 2007 and 2008 don’t include average data for the collection points, but opt for flowing prose instead on the wonders of the blue skies of Beijing.)

March 3, 2008 @ 6:51 pm | Comment

If you look at that 1998 report…

To put it mildly, things have changed in Beijing from 1998 to 2008.

And if you poke around dates from last year, Chegongzhuang isn’t the highest from a rough sample of 6 or 7 dates, but it is regularly well above average.

If the purpose is to manipulate performance results, why remove a station which is “above average”? And why replace it with at least two stations which are far, far above average?

(Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the epb’s website for 2007 and 2008 don’t include average data for the collection points, but opt for flowing prose instead on the wonders of the blue skies of Beijing.)

Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the EPB’s website have always taken exactly the same format, starting with their publication (online at least) in 2005. They’ve never included average data for the collection points.
http://tinyurl.com/32tqbx

The 2006 annual report does provide results of CO2/NO2/particulate measurements on an annual basis, broken down on a district by district basis.

http://www.bjepb.gov.cn/bjhb/portals/0/fujian/zwgk/2006.pdf

daxing district, where the new yufu monitoring station is installed, is the worst district in all of Beijing.

By the way, here’s the transcript from the actual press conference:
http://tinyurl.com/2tck35

March 4, 2008 @ 3:14 am | Comment

@CCT

Hi CCT

Offtopic but you may find it interesting.

http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2008/03/whos_afraid_of_vladimir_putin.html

Courtesy of

http://www.chinalawblog.com/

March 4, 2008 @ 4:08 am | Comment

Also interesting for you CCT

http://thechinabeat.blogspot.com/2008/02/prejudice-made-plausible-foreign.html

March 4, 2008 @ 4:28 am | Comment

If you look at that 1998 report…

To put it mildly, things have changed in Beijing from 1998 to 2008.

And if you poke around dates from last year, Chegongzhuang isn’t the highest from a rough sample of 6 or 7 dates, but it is regularly well above average.

If the purpose is to manipulate performance results, why remove a station which is “above average”? And why replace it with at least two stations which are far, far above average?

(Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the epb’s website for 2007 and 2008 don’t include average data for the collection points, but opt for flowing prose instead on the wonders of the blue skies of Beijing.)

Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the EPB’s website have always taken exactly the same format, starting with their publication (online at least) in 2005. They’ve never included average data for the collection points.
http://tinyurl.com/32tqbx

The 2006 annual report does provide results of CO2/NO2/particulate measurements on an annual basis, broken down on a district by district basis.

http://www.bjepb.gov.cn/bjhb/portals/0/fujian/zwgk/2006.pdf

daxing district, where the new yufu monitoring station is installed, is the worst district in all of Beijing.

By the way, here’s the transcript from the actual press conference:
http://tinyurl.com/2tck35

March 4, 2008 @ 5:00 am | Comment

If you look at that 1998 report…

To put it mildly, things have changed in Beijing from 1998 to 2008.

And if you poke around dates from last year, Chegongzhuang isn’t the highest from a rough sample of 6 or 7 dates, but it is regularly well above average.

If the purpose is to manipulate performance results, why remove a station which is “above average”? And why replace it with at least two stations which are far, far above average?

(Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the epb’s website for 2007 and 2008 don’t include average data for the collection points, but opt for flowing prose instead on the wonders of the blue skies of Beijing.)

Interestingly, the monthly air quality reports on the EPB’s website have always taken exactly the same format, starting with their publication (online at least) in 2005. They’ve never included average data for the collection points.
http://tinyurl.com/32tqbx

The 2006 annual report does provide results of CO2/NO2/particulate measurements on an annual basis, broken down on a district by district basis.

http://www.bjepb.gov.cn/bjhb/portals/0/fujian/zwgk/2006.pdf

daxing district, where the new yufu monitoring station is installed, is the worst district in all of Beijing.

By the way, here’s the transcript from the actual press conference:
http://tinyurl.com/2tck35

March 4, 2008 @ 5:01 am | Comment

I agree with CCT, he’s got his priorities right. The most paramount task right now is not to criticize the poor Chinese government for the allegedly bad environment in Beijing. They are doing their best, why should be distrust them? The biggest threat to the Olympics and the environment right now is inaccurate reporting and hostile foreigners who doesn’t get it 110 per cent right. Before you criticize anything in China, you’d better get everything absolutely right or shut up.

March 4, 2008 @ 6:32 am | Comment

Before you criticize anything in China, you’d better get everything absolutely right or shut up. – Amban

It is quite normal that criticizers get criticized, isn’t it? Sorry, I know, you might have forgotten this because in Western media China is the punch bag you can safely hit to train your moralistic pride. But this is the real China, not China the punch bag. So better get prepared for the real match, dude.

March 4, 2008 @ 7:32 am | Comment

@Amban,

Sarcasm? Even weaker than usual. I guess you really have little else to say.

Maybe you think accuracy isn’t very important, as long as it paints Beijing in a negative light. Maybe you think manufacturing allegations of Beijing propaganda helps preserve the environment and forward Western liberalism in some bizarre way. I don’t know… I’ll just let your lack of commentary on the topic speak for itself.

I personally think CCT and CCT’s priorities a less than interesting topic of discussion… and don’t quite understand why you’d focus on that rather than the issue at hand. Feel free to continue if you’d like, but I won’t accommodate.

March 4, 2008 @ 7:37 am | Comment

@ecodelta,

Interesting links.

On the first, I don’t know enough about modern Russia to have much of an opinion on Putin. I heard the recent BBC series on modern Russia… and came away with the distinct feeling I only heard half the story.

I will say that I don’t believe China’s development represents some grand new political theory for all developing countries. I can’t say that I think the solution for, say, sub-Saharan Africa is to turn-over rule to a group of secretive former engineers in their 60s… and everything will automatically work out.

At best, I would say that China’s development only serves to disprove any existing theories. Some insist the Western economic/political formula (focusing on small government + market capitalism + Western liberalism) is the only solution for developing nations. I think China suggests that solutions must be on a case-by-case basis, with an emphasis on practical results and not ideology.

I thought this was a very interesting read:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200803031295.html

On the second link from Jeremiah’s blog entry… I think he makes some excellent points. I agree with his observations that many Chinese are very sensitive to foreign criticism. I think there are cultural factors here.

I’m not sure I can really satisfactorily explain Chinese mindset on these issues, so I won’t try. At least not for now. He’s made me think, so I’ll put some time into it.

March 4, 2008 @ 7:43 am | Comment

You do need to get your priorities right. You don’t give a crap about an environmentalist activist who is being imprisoned by the PRC government, you even insinuate that he is comparable to territorists. He’s just famous because he famous, he hasn’t done anything to you, your family and your country. So why care?

But when someone, misguidedly perhaps, criticizes the Beijing government for doctoring emissions statistics, then you bring our the heavy guns. You could have chosen to have countered the post in a number of different ways, instead you make it an issue of “all of the geniuses so clearly focused on pulling back the veil of duplicitous Communist propaganda”. The dignity of “China” is what elicits the strongest emotions in your contributions, everything else, including the environment is secondary. You rather spend half an hour to refute the possible abuse of statistics that may throw the Beijing government in a negative light, than trying to figure out what has happened to Hu Jia and what that means to the prospects of environmental protection in China. This is exactly the kind of attitude Jeremiah is discussing.

March 4, 2008 @ 8:04 am | Comment

@Tom – Daai Tou Laam,

Have a look at this HK EPA website (http://www.epd.gov.hk/epd/english/resources_pub/envir_info/envir_info.html), open this document (http://www.epd-asg.gov.hk/download/hourly/eng/hr022008.csv) and read for me the data reported in cells L310 to L542. Next, look at M685 to M707.

Oops.

Blank.

No data.

Hmm.

Probably explained somewhere with an asterisk or footnote.

Nope.

Hmm.

Well, if it isn’t a conspiracy then it must be . . . technical reasons!

.

Isn’t that what I said in the first place?

March 4, 2008 @ 10:17 am | Comment

I think this environmental consultant is wasting his time. C’mon, do we really need investigation into statistical data to tell us that the air in Beijing- or most of China, for that matter – is generally horrible by any standard except Xinhua’s? I’ve always found the Disappearing Skyscraper Index (DSI) to be a straightforward layman’s measure of the chemical-to-oxygen ratio.

The debate over Beijing’s air quality is, after all, wearing a bit thin. Let me make some daring predictions:

1) Beijing will have beautiful blue sky during the Olympics
2) China will continue to have serious air quality issues long after the athletes head home

It seems there are some people out their who fret that Beijing will manage to clean itself up for the August event, worried the CCP will hoodwink visitors into thinking they have created a sino-paradise on earth. I say anyone who believes their imagineering deserves to be hoodwinked. Let them be wowed.

But is it really so bad if the CCP works its face-saving magic to clean up the skies for a few weeks? With large swathes of industry in north/central China idle, many millions will be able to breathe easier and recall what colour the sky is supposed to be. Consider it a gift to your average Chinese person for their hard work and sacrifice to ensure “social harmony” or whatever China Daily is calling it these days. They deserve it.

So look on the bright side. When the sky is blue and the sun is shining on the mainland, take your kids and loved ones to the park. Visit that monument that you can’t usually see. Enjoy a romantic sunset. Go for a jog and suck in that sweet fresh air.

And for those who are still cynical and resentful of the CCP looking good, I wouldn’t worry. I have a sinking feeling the smog will be back very shortly after the closing ceremony.

March 4, 2008 @ 11:52 am | Comment

DOR,

Did you read the notes at the top?

2. Empty cells mean that API data are not available for that period.
3.The API information is based on raw data taken directly from EPD’s Air Quality Monitoring Network.

Nope, no note of explanation. None at all, except for that one right there at the top.

And did the HK EPD disappear a station? Nope. All stations present and accounted for, even when the data isn’t being reported.

great jeebus, people, apples and oranges, pandas and grizzlies.

To put it mildly, things have changed in Beijing from 1998 to 2008.
CCT

Well I checked 2 March, 2006 and Chegongzhuang was #1 among the stations tested. So it’s a station that has a long history as an environmental problem spot.

I’ll take some time later to sift through the 2006 annual report to check on your other claims, CCT.

March 4, 2008 @ 12:00 pm | Comment

Tom,

“Empty cells means that API data are not available for that period.”

That’s not an explanation of why underlying API data isn’t available. The term “disappeared” is rather mysterious and all… but hard for me to buy that what happened in Beijing is particularly mysterious.

In the case of Beijing, I have no clue what happened with the “disappeared” reports. Perhaps the website only allows a fixed number of results in the resultset. Perhaps someone made a typo and reused an index or two.

But I’ll tell you what… if we are to believe that this is a government conspiracy to bias the numbers, then we also have to believe that the government is not only evil, but unbelievably stupid. Stupid to the point that it didn’t realize adding multiple heavily polluting stations would be counter-productive.

Of course, that’s not to say some here aren’t perfectly willing to believe that Beijing is both evil and stupid. It helps sooth their ego.

March 4, 2008 @ 2:37 pm | Comment

“…many Chinese are very sensitive to foreign criticism. I think there are cultural factors here.

I’m not sure I can really satisfactorily explain Chinese mindset on these issues, so I won’t try.”

As the Chinese love to say in defence of the indefensible: “It’s complicated.”

On the point of sensitivity to criticism, however, I don’t see much complication. It’s simply the case that the population adopt the sensitivities of the CCP as inculcated through less than objective textbooks and media.

If the CCP respond more maturely to criticism, so will the Chinese people; problem solved.

March 4, 2008 @ 4:56 pm | Comment

@CCT

…that’s not to say some here aren’t perfectly willing to believe that Beijing is both evil and stupid. It helps sooth their ego.

I am not sure who you are referring to, but obviously you have a lot to teach us about how to manage our egos, how to make a distinction between ourselves and our native country and how to make the proper delineation between the private and public spheres of life. Just to quote yourself:

But these activist groups have successfully done precisely the opposite. Rather than raising interest and trigging deep consideration, they’ve incited hostility. Why? Because fact is, the Beijing Olympics are deeply personal for many Chinese.

Spielberg’s actions the Beijing Olympics is somewhat similar to the chaplin interrupting Jenna Bush’s wedding to pull out a political banner protesting the war in Iraq. It’s like the rabbi interrupt Spielberg’s grandson’s bris to lecture him about Beijing.

It’s a disgusting, counter-productive move that will justifiably raise the hackles of those you were hoping to convince.

http://www.globalvoicesonline.org/2008/02/18/china-spielberg-the-olympics-and-oil/

March 4, 2008 @ 11:05 pm | Comment

The CCP will neve admit its crimes. They make this bubble world of propaganda to protet them selves from the truth and they need the Chinese people to be part of the lie for it to work. That is why I dont think the country can work under the ccp, the CCP NEEDS to lie and fool, otherwise people will get wise to the facts and I dont think people with accept the CCP and forgive all the bad. The CCP will carry out its stupidity for as long as it can, until nature sheds light on it and it will be exposed, but it will never willingly be exposed.

March 4, 2008 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

~emphatic roll of the eyes~

This sort of goes back to the earlier thread, about the lack of information processing capability evidenced by the American public.

All the wonders of a free press haven’t helped the American public at large come to grips with Iraq’s involvement in 9/11, ghosts, or even evolution. I wouldn’t dream of changing anyone’s mind about the CCP’s evil nature.

My goals are lower. When it comes to the CCP, I’ll settle for 就事论事. How about all of us put aside the grand-standing declarations of the CCP’s morality? You stop accusing it of being evil, and I won’t trumpet it as the savior of mankind? Deal?

As far as Sudan.. really, are there not enough threads about that topic?

I’ll emphasize again that I’m an uninteresting topic, and I’m not going to respond to your repeated attempts to focus on me as a topic of conversation. If you’re desperately seeking someone who cares about your judgment of them… go make a friend.

March 5, 2008 @ 12:33 am | Comment

CCT is right. We’ve all already decided whether we think the CCP is good, evil, or something in between, and as these are personal opinions and not arguments and shouting them out at one another really doesn’t constitute a discussion. As for the CCP being liars, of course they’re liars and of course they need to lie. I’d be very surprised if even their most enthusiastic supporter tried to deny this.

March 5, 2008 @ 1:51 am | Comment

@Lime,

Fair enough. I for one do think the Communist Party lies, or at *best* is far from forthcoming with the truth.

I don’t think, however, that the Communist Party lies as often as those in the West seem to believe they do. And of course, this particular thread is case in point.

By the way Lime, I hadn’t been checking in on other threads further down the page… but I just added a reply to you on one of them.

March 5, 2008 @ 1:55 am | Comment

I’ll emphasize again that I’m an uninteresting topic, and I’m not going to respond to your repeated attempts to focus on me as a topic of conversation.

I beg your pardon. You are the one making yourself a topic of conversation and making snides about other people’s egos. Just one recent example:

As I said, I don’t really care about Hu Jia. I don’t know much about him beyond what I’ve read online, and I can see little that he’s done that has helped me, my family, or my country.

“I say,” “I don’t,” “I’ve,” “I can,” “me,” “my,” “my.” You managed to use the first person singular seven times in a single sentence that is supposed to deal with a well-known dissident. Is that what you call 就事论事? Or is it 顾左右而言他?

And where on earth did you get the idea I am concerned about what you think of my posts?

March 5, 2008 @ 2:01 am | Comment

CCT,

I didnt come around here looling to make friends and settle on comprimising my stance at all. Whether the CCP is evil is not going to change because you and I agree on this or that. Anyway, I dont have much doubt that you are a CCP member since a large proportion of Chinese poeple are and you defend the party like one…

Anyway, this is depressing…

You think that free media means that everyone will believe in evolution? Actually wouldnt it be the opposite? The more freedom to recognize that it is a theory among theories would probably lead to people recognizing that it is not necessarily true.. It might be true, but theres nothing that says it must be true. Certain partys have certainly propagated it as true…

Lime,

I dont know if you are referring to my comments. I say the party is evil sometimes and refer to their badness because it is relevant to the fact that they are hiding something. I think most people do not know that they are soooo desperate to hide their nature and their crimes.

March 5, 2008 @ 5:06 am | Comment

Whats that about ghosts? Now you want to say that free media would mean that no one would believe in ghosts? MOST people in America would probly say they dont know if ghosts are real.. A lot of people have experienced them in some way. The only reason you are SO SURE that there are no ghosts is cause you are indoctrinated with absolute materialist atheism so you think that it is normal to make those kinds of statements. WHo are you and your party to say whether or not theri are ghosts? Why wouldnt there be exactly???????????????? can you prove it??????

March 5, 2008 @ 5:10 am | Comment

@Snow,

Something like 6% of Chinese are members of the Communist Party. (60-70 million out of 1.3 billion.) The vast majority are not members of the Party. I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the Communist Party.

And if the collected work of mankind hasn’t yet convinced you that humans evolved from monkeys and that there aren’t ghosts…

… well, what hope do we have of coming to a consensus on the Communist Party? Or anything else?

March 5, 2008 @ 5:40 am | Comment

But I’ll tell you what… if we are to believe that this is a government conspiracy to bias the numbers, then we also have to believe that the government is not only evil, but unbelievably stupid. Stupid to the point that it didn’t realize adding multiple heavily polluting stations would be counter-productive.
Posted by: CCT at March 4, 2008 02:37 PM

Not necessarily.

Remember the CCP’s goal isn’t to provide a record of clean air in the present. It’s to provide a goal of air getting cleaner as we move towards the #1 PR event on Beijing’s calendar.

Remove a long-running environmental data point, because it’s clear that the efforts to clean up Beijing won’t help that one.

The following is conjecture, since I don’t have a list of environmental problem sources due to be closed by the Beijing authorities over the next 6 months, and I’m not sure anyone outside the government does.

So you could easily put in a couple of new collection points that are currently high due to nearby identifiable point sources, e.g. a factory. If those identifiable point source was on the non-public list of closures, after the closures and the air is better, you can be hailed as geniuses and proclaim to the foreign media that your efforts to clean the air of Beijing have been extremely successful with data to back it up. And anyone that suggests that athletes or spectators shouldn’t come to Beijing due to air pollution are just spreading the China hate and not accepting this new data put in front of their faces.

March 5, 2008 @ 10:24 am | Comment

@Tom,

Well, I’ll give you points of creativity. You’ve setup a scenario that can only be proven false by actual events. So, keep an eye on the statistics in question.

If, mysteriously, daxing district becomes extremely clean in the months leading up to the Olympics in August, I’ll grant that you have a point. And if it doesn’t?

March 5, 2008 @ 11:40 am | Comment

@CCT

Just as a point of order, isn’t the real question that Beijing is both more polluted and more repressive than it was ten years ago? We may quibble on how to interpret the official environmental statistics in Beijing or whether the CCP is “evil”, but given the state of affairs, it is reasonable to assume that the government is manipulating environmental statistics. The Chinese government has reneged on promises given in 2001 to be more open and it seriously bungled the SARS crisis.

March 5, 2008 @ 1:39 pm | Comment

@Amban,

I’m going to stick with a firm rendition of the facts, with you.

– Beijing is absolutely *more* polluted today than it was 10 years ago. There’s no doubt about that in my mind.

– Beijing is absolutely *not* more repressive than it was 10 years ago, and I don’t know how anyone remotely informed about China can make that argument with a straight face.

The vast majority of the discussions happening in China today, online, offline, within the Party, and outside of the Party… would’ve been impossible 10 years ago.

The logic of your post escapes me.

March 5, 2008 @ 1:59 pm | Comment

Just a thought

Suppose that through exceptional measures like temporally shutting polluting factories production, forbidding most of heavy traffic, etc, etc … during the previous moths to the olympic games, Beijing get a vastly improved air quality ( at least compared to current levels).
Even this issue of a possible manipulation of measuring stations does not deny that shock measures are going to be taken against pollution, either temporally or permanent.

After the Beijiners enjoyed the cleaner atmosphere during the olympic games, would it not be difficult for them to return to the previous high pollution levels?

Could this event produce a greater environment
awareness and give more influence to people and those in government who would like to puss forwards more effective environmental measures? Finally raise awareness against a gun ho development trend that cares little about environment quality and destruction?

Collateral effect of the olympic games….?

If all what the government wants to do is to set up an environmental Potemkin Village, it may happen that people get the following crazy idea.
“Well, is this fake village is so nice, why not make it real?”
Unexpected propaganda side effects….? 😉

Repetition of events in Shanghai for the World Fair?

Hhhmmm…. If results environmental results are OK and permanent in Beijing, maybe the central CCP commitee should consider the celebration of a major world even in each of the major Chinese cities (starting with most polluted ones) each year: olympic games, paraolympic games, world fairs, world championships, winter games, international fashion shows, etc, etc.. take your pick!
No need to thanks for the idea… 😉

March 5, 2008 @ 2:07 pm | Comment

Second thought….

China central government has used foreign companies through joint ventures and/of “controlled” opening its markets to put pressure on their own companies to modernize and become more competitive, to the point that some of them are becoming world players.

Use similar strategy to force improvement in local
governments by putting them in the international spotlight through some world event celebration.

“What? Do you not want to organize this IMPORTANT world event? It is very important for our country! Tsk tsk tsk your are very unpatriotic here! You really should think it twice before rejecting this big opportunity…..”

Nationalism can be put to some good uses sometimes 😉
(If properly handled)

March 5, 2008 @ 2:25 pm | Comment

@CCT

Let’s not quibble over whether 1998 is the best year to start a comparison. But yes, Mr. Rolling-Eyeballs, there is a wide agreement among human rights group that the Chinese government is clamping down on dissent on a scale that has not been seen for some time. Sure, you are not going to be arrested for what you say at a dinner table conversation, but the “Freezing point” affair in 2006 gives you an indication of how far you can go – and that incident had nothing to do with current politics, but discussed the way Chinese history is taught in school. I wonder if you can give me a single example of a newspaper that would dare to carry a report that accused the government of manipulating environmental statistics of the kind we are discussing today. That is the kind of thing you could get away with in 1988. Perhaps 1998. But not in 2008. I’d love to be proven wrong on this point.

March 5, 2008 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

@Amban,

Are you unfamiliar with the South China Tiger? The Xiamen PX plant? Do you read Tianya, where the type of “reactionary” writings that put Liu Di in detention 5 years ago is pretty much standard fare?

How about the Chongqing dingzihu? How about the media uproar (and later apology) involving party secretary Zhang Zhiguo, in Liaoning? How about the SMS poet of Pengshui?

The human rights groups that comment on China are interesting. I’ve yet to see a single report that suggests, in any way shape or form, that the human rights situation in China has improved since 1989. By their rendition, the human rights situation in China should be worse today than it was at Tiananmen… right?

If your knowledge of China is limited to what the human rights groups tell you… my god, talk about brain-washing and propaganda! You’re in desperate need of a walk around China, physically and virtually.

March 6, 2008 @ 1:34 am | Comment

@CCT

Spare me the insults, will you? You know very well what I am talking about and that I am aware of those events.

March 6, 2008 @ 2:51 am | Comment

@Amban,

I absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about. And since I’m not much of a mind-reader, I have no way of knowing whether you are aware of those events.

If you are aware of those events, I have no idea why you believe newspapers would tackle the faking of the South China Tiger in gory detail, but not environmental statistics. Why newspapers would analyze the possible faking of Chang’e photographs, but would be afraid of the environmental bureau in Beijing.

Yea. I’ll have to reiterate the first sentence of this post: I absolutely don’t know what you’re talking about.

March 6, 2008 @ 3:35 am | Comment

@CCT

So you have no idea what I am talking about. Why the environmental standards in the hosting city of the Olympics would be more sensitive than the possible faking of an animal that was believed was to be extinct? That is hard to understand?

March 6, 2008 @ 6:57 am | Comment

@Amban,

I have a hard time believing you really mean what you said above. You’re drawing a distinction between:

– newspapers digging into a provincial government’s public “certification” of forged material (and the vast amount of funds which would be associated with a nature preserve),

– newspapers discussing the potential forgery of results from China’s moon mission,

– and.. newspapers discussing environmental sensors in Beijing.

One of the above three apparently doesn’t belong in the group, and I guess it’s the last one…? No, I have to say, I don’t get it.

Well anyways, look what I’m doing. I’m getting trapped in what I said I wouldn’t do: giving a shit what you think as an individual.

What would I do if you told me you didn’t believe in evolution? Or that the earth circled the sun? Would I get all worked up trying to prove you wrong? No… I’d just have a chuckle at your expense, and move on with my busy day.

March 6, 2008 @ 1:49 pm | Comment

On the right side we have with 84 Kilos weight Mr Amban “Iron Fists Powers”
And ond the left side with 82 Kilos weight Mr CCT “Deadly Kung Fu Master”

Who is going to win this heavy weight shouting post boxing match?

More news at 11pm

😉

March 6, 2008 @ 3:08 pm | Comment

As far as I am concerned CCT already lost. The quality of the air in the PRC’s capital obviously is a far more important, and therefor more sensitive, issue than faking tigers or forging photographs of the moon. CCT is out of touch with the reality in China, because he spends most of his time in the USA where he enjoys fresh and clean air.

March 6, 2008 @ 5:44 pm | Comment

@CCT

What would I do if you told me you didn’t believe in evolution? Or that the earth circled the sun? Would I get all worked up trying to prove you wrong? No… I’d just have a chuckle at your expense, and move on with my busy day.

You’re welcome.

But if you do not understand the distinction I’m trying to make, I can’t really help you, I’m afraid. But I can illustrate my point by quoting the Financial Times, February 28 2008:

Yang Chunlin, a dissident, was tried last week on ­subversion charges after he organised a land rights ­petition entitled “We Want Human Rights, Not the Olympics”. His lawyer said prosecutors had argued that the petition stained China’s image and so amounted to incitement to subvert the government.

March 7, 2008 @ 3:33 am | Comment

Amban,

If you read the Chinese version (from Radio Free Asia even), there are more details in terms of what his lawyers said.

I don’t care about Yang Chunlin is either; I don’t see him as a dissident though… at least, I can’t find any of his writings anywhere online, and there are plenty of opportunities for a dissident voice these days.

Instead, I think he’s just a patsy, a tool of the Falun Gong movement. Digging through the details, looks like his name has come to the forefront exclusively due to his association with 潘晴 (Pan Qing).

Pan Qing participated in something called the Human Rights Torch Relay last year, and mentioned that he carried a petition which Yang Chunlin had gathered for him regarding “we want human rights, not olympics”.

Pan Qing appeared in his capacity as the “全国维权抗暴联机海外发言人” (National Alliance Opposing Violence and Defending Rights – Overseas Spokesman). Pretty fancy title. If you look at their website, and if you google Pan Qing’s name… you find that he’s the actual originator of, and force behind, the “We want human rights, we don’t want the Olympics” movement.

And once you keep digging… you find that every chain ties to the Falun Gong. News videos are coming out of the New Tang Dynasty; coverage comes from the Epoch Times or dajiyuan. You also find the long standing record of calls for the Chinese people to rise up and overthrow the government. Those are fighting words, in any country.

Now, do I think that China’s human rights situation has improved from 10 years ago? Do I believe that we’re seeing some true non-political independence from the media? Do I believe the average netizen has growing impact in terms of monitoring and supervising government action? Yes, yes, and yes.

Do I believe China is at the point where Falun Gong’s nonsense, and calls for open insurrection is tolerated? Uh, no. Absolutely not.

A few interesting links:
http://www.zgwq.org/Article_View.asp?id=3103
http://tinyurl.com/2lyt5t

March 7, 2008 @ 7:48 am | Comment

@CCT

Good digging. I learned a lot. But I do not think that tagging someone with the label “Falungong” means that we can dismiss the statements of that person out of hand. Where did you get the idea that we should stop listening to people because they are from Falungong? And when did you get that idea? Before or after July 20, 1999?

Do I believe China is at the point where Falun Gong’s nonsense, and calls for open insurrection is tolerated? Uh, no. Absolutely not.

Freedom of speech is the right to say nonsense.

March 7, 2008 @ 10:53 am | Comment

@CCT

A follow up.

I don’t care about Yang Chunlin is either; I don’t see him as a dissident though… at least, I can’t find any of his writings anywhere online, and there are plenty of opportunities for a dissident voice these days.

Here we have a guy in Jiamusi, who, according to Amnesty International “has been active in supporting a legal action brought by more than
40,000 local farmers whose land had been confiscated without adequate
compensation.” Now, if we are to believe this, this guy engaged in very real, bread-and-butter issues. But you don’t care. You say: there are plenty of opportunities for a dissident voice these days. Isn’t peacefully collecting names for a practical purpose something that is a pretty straightforward and harmless way of expressing a dissenting voice? If you can’t collect names to protect your livelihood, what do these much-vaunted freedoms on the Internet really mean? Not very much.

Instead, I think he’s just a patsy, a tool of the Falun Gong movement. Digging through the details, looks like his name has come to the forefront exclusively due to his association with 潘晴 (Pan Qing).

Now what you are doing here is usually called “guilt by association.” I’m aware that Yang Chunlin has been defended by lawyer Gao Zhisheng, who has also defended Falun gong practitioners. He legal practice has since been closed down by the authorities. Now in what way does this indirect association with Falun gong change the story? Are you implying that Falun gong practitioners do not have the right to legal counsel?

March 7, 2008 @ 12:08 pm | Comment

@Amban,

First off, I couldn’t care less what Amnesty International has to say about any topic. AI has probably the credibility with me that the People’s Daily has with you. Yang Chunlin’s a good example… what does AI actually know about him? What are their sources? Is it a different source than Pan Qing or Gao Zhisheng?

As far as Yang Chunlin… if all he was doing was acting as a legal aid to 40,000 local farmers, I’d be inclined to agree with you. Hell, the central government would be inclined to agree with you. He wasn’t.

Follow the links I posted above. I didn’t take into account his lawyer. I looked exclusively at the petition that he was explicitly involved with. This particular petition is the brain-child of an organization with obvious ties to the Falun Gong, an organization with an overt, unhidden agenda of overthrowing the Chinese government.

As far as when I started dismissing or opposing anything related to the Falun Gong… it was way after ’01. I knew next to nothing about Falun Gong, and the Party crack-down seemed like typical heavy-handed over-reaction to what I thought was an innocent activity at the time.

I read Dai Qing’s writing on Falun Gong, and frankly I thought she was over-reacting in terms of her very negative assessment of the group.

But the last 3-5 years have erased any doubt about the nature of this supposedly “non-organized” group. Various overseas activities; the tuidang “statistics” tracking; the “spectacular” art exhibitions; allegations of mass-scale organ farming…

Here are a few amusing links:
http://www.ufuture.org/
bbs.futurechinaforum.org/

I find the “future china university” (weilai zhongguo daxue)’s entrance criteria especially amusing.

March 7, 2008 @ 4:09 pm | Comment

Here’s what Falun Gong has in store for China:

δÀ´ÖйúÕþ¸®½«ÓÅÏȼÓÃÎÒУµÄ±ÏÒµÉúºÍ½áÒµÉú¡£´ó½ʦÉúÒÀ¿¿Èí¼þÍ»ÆÆÖй²µÄÍøÂç·âËø£¬¿ªÕ¹Õý³£µÄ½ÌÑнÌѧ»î¶¯£¬°üÀ¨ÔÚÇåÐÄÂÛ̳¿ª·¢µÄרÓýÌÊÒ°²È«µØÉϿΡ£

Read through the forum, read through the class material and homework for the students at the “university”.

March 7, 2008 @ 4:17 pm | Comment

@CCT

I have no idea why you think it is OK to dismiss Amnesty out of hand. And the rest of your argument is a pathetic attempt to discredit this dissident by resorting to guilt-by-association. You don’t have to have a law degree or two degrees in science to realize that correlation is not the same thing as causation. That line of reasoning won’t fly in a court of law. And I don’t give a crap about FLG or what they have in store for China.

March 7, 2008 @ 10:36 pm | Comment

And I don’t give a crap about FLG or what they have in store for China.

See, that’s the spirit.

Now, tell me again why I should give a crap about Hu Jia?

March 8, 2008 @ 12:27 am | Comment

Now, tell me again why I should give a crap about Hu Jia?

Clearly this yet another leap in your flawed reasoning. If you care about human rights in China in any form, then the cases of Hu Jia (and Teng Biao) should matter to you. And you should also be able to make a distinction between the rather sick ideology of the FLG (which I don’t give a crap about) and the fact that people that may or may not associated with FLG have legitimate interests that deserve to be protected.

If you fail to comprehend the above, you do not understand what human rights are, where you subscribe to the US version of human rights, the European version or any version for that matter. Your rants about political correctness only serve to cover up the fact that you have failed to come up with any valid arguments to defend your point of view.

March 8, 2008 @ 12:52 am | Comment

@CCT

I have some time now and I looked more closely at your links, there is not a shred of evidence that Yang is a FLG supporter. Just because someone with ties to FLG takes up the case of a dissident doesn’t mean that that dissident is FLG. I disagree with you on a number of points, but I didn’t realize that you are capable of this kind of muckraking.

Here is a report I found on the case of Yang Chunlin:

http://crd-net.org/Article/Class18/yangchunlin/200710/20071010233045_5953.html

I don’t know and I don’t really care if CRD meets your standards for a legitimate human rights organization, but I’m posting it here for the record. The report here seem to indicate that Yang Chunlin is a bona fide political activist and not a front for any organization.

March 8, 2008 @ 2:23 am | Comment

CCT

First off, I couldn’t care less what Amnesty International has to say about any topic. AI has probably the credibility with me that the People’s Daily has with you.

Then you have a rather skewed view of the world. The former is an independent human rights group that criticises countries regardless of their geo-political orientation; the latter is a propaganda mouthpiece of a political party. The two are completely different.

March 9, 2008 @ 11:17 pm | Comment