Curious. One will certainly have to keep tabs on that for further developments. Thanks for posting the link, richard.

September 19, 2008 @ 12:58 am | Comment

It was a good post, so too Imagethief’s dip into the same pool.

Honest business practices are not the forte of Chinese entrepreneurs and corporations. Broadly speaking I see two reasons for this:

First, no rule of law to enforce standards; and second, there is too little inclination in the individual to accept moral responsibility. The overriding philosophy is ‘the ends justify the means’.

September 19, 2008 @ 10:47 am | Comment

Honest business practices are not the forte of Chinese entrepreneurs and corporations for larger reason that there is seldom penalty and little reward; 偷工減料 is common practice. The only caveat is to avoid scandal that attracts the central authority’s public attention, because that attention necessarily invites punishment.

September 19, 2008 @ 6:03 pm | Comment

“The only caveat is to avoid scandal that attracts the central authority’s public attention, because that attention necessarily invites punishment.”

Not because the central government is focus of the rule of law. Instead, the central government hates to have attention drawn to itself in its obvious failings to govern. The punishment incurred is not for the original crime, it is for bringing undue attention to the failings of the central government. That is why imprisoning or executing a few figureheads (as will undoubtedly happen with the milk issue) will not actually fix problem. It will just make it look like the central government is actually doing something. (Similar to attacking Iraq after 9/11 or blaming pregnant teens for pregnancy without providing adequate sex education or contraception.)

September 19, 2008 @ 8:53 pm | Comment

“The punishment incurred is not for the original crime, it is for bringing undue attention to the failings of the central government.”

We disagree. You say that the central authority in China does not bother with crime unless it reveals “its obvious failings to govern.” It is true that anything that embarrasses or challenges or impinges upon perogatives of the central authority (you say “government” but again, we disagree) brings retribution but to say “punishment incurred is not for the original crime” is just not true. Crime is defined and identified by the central and local authorities and crime is severely punished. That should be obvious to anyone who lives in China.

“Imprisoning or executing a few figureheads” in this instance is not a fix but is intended as a deterrent.

Also, your US analogies don’t fit this situtation even though it is an election year.

September 19, 2008 @ 10:11 pm | Comment

I do live in China. I divide my time between there and the US. Crime (as defined and enforced consistently by a body of law) is not punished in China. More often, than not, the police flex their ignorant, thuggish personalities to 1) maintain their own cushy position, or 2) do the bidding of some local “authority.” When “authorities” do not behave in a manner consistent with the rule of law, crimes are not punished, only what challenges the status quo are punished. Are murders and rapes and thefts punished? Sure. Consistently, according to the rule of law with a fair judicial system? Hardly.

The legal system in China is a joke. From the lowliest “authority” to Hu Jin Tao, the participants are corrupt, incompetent, ignorant or opportunistic (or come combination of all four!).

Scott,
I pushed the analogies about 9/11, etc….in anticipation of being flamed by die hard China supporters.

September 19, 2008 @ 10:36 pm | Comment