Blogs » Politics » China’s Next First Lady a Challenge for Image Makers
Blogs » Politics » China’s Next First Lady a Challenge for Image Makers |
- China’s Next First Lady a Challenge for Image Makers
- Chinese Netizens and U.S. Election Journamalism
- China Web Users Push Out Official
- Report: Proposed Amendment Would Strengthen CCP Rule
- Japanese art student creates mind-bending body modification art
- Photo: Dafen Art Village, from the BBC World Service
- Jiang Zemin Emerges Ahead of Party Congress
- U.S. Presidential “Foreign Policy” Debate: China Fatigue?
- China, U.S.A: Five Lifestyle Differences
- The Daily Twit – 10/22/12: Had Enough U.S.-China News Yet?
- Review: ‘From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia’ By Pankaj Mishra
- China Questions for Third Obama-Romney Debate
- Translation: A Humorous Guide To Faking It ‘Till You Make It In China
- CDT Money: Time to Call the Bottom?
- China: Gangnam Style by Beijing Foreigners
| China’s Next First Lady a Challenge for Image Makers Posted: 22 Oct 2012 11:24 PM PDT As a famous singer and goodwill ambassador for the World Health Organisation, Peng Liyuan might seem a perfect first lady to China's next president Xi Jinping. But this picture is complicated by an AIDS scandal involving incoming prime minister Li Keqiang and a tradition of women, from Daji through Jiang Qing to Gu Kailai, being seen as a corrupting influence over powerful men. From Julie Makinen at The Los Angeles Times:
John Garnaut dug into Xi's own background and career at Foreign Policy (via CDT) last week, while on Sunday CDT's Mengyu Dong examined women's standing in college admissions, at state-owned enterprises and soon, perhaps, on the Politburo Standing Committee. For a glimpse of Peng's star power, see her rendition of the classic Red Song, Laundry Song, via High Peaks Pure Earth: © Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Chinese Netizens and U.S. Election Journamalism Posted: 22 Oct 2012 10:20 PM PDT
I usually don't point fingers in specific directions on this complaint, since this is a widespread problem, but I think having a real life example helps to show exactly what the problem is. Moreover, I happened to see this headline today at CNN and couldn't keep quiet: Obama, Romney's 'China bashing' grates Chinese netizens This is ridiculous on its face. A great deal can be written about China bashing (I should know), but this article isn't really about that. It's about reaction to anti-China rhetoric. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a possible interesting angle to write about. I could see, for example, having a reporter go and interview Chinese nationals living in the U.S. You know, you send your D.C. reporter over to Rockville and talk to some of the Chinese PhDs about what it's like living in the U.S. when American politicians attack their native land. Not exactly Pulitzer material, I grant you, but a hell of a lot better than cutting and pasting weibo posts. But no, that would require too much time/effort. It's much easier to see what Chinese folks over here are saying on weibo. Gee, I wonder what they think about anti-China statements from the U.S. presidential candidates? It's a mystery to me. After all, if you get a bunch of young Chinese netizens who seem to have plenty of nationalists in their midst, well, you never know how they might react to this sort of thing. Maybe some of them are Mormons and are cheering on Mitt Romney no matter what he says? Perhaps they're so cool and hipsterish that even a foreigner repeatedly calling China a "cheater" elicits nothing more than a shrug and a "whatever"? Yeah, I don't think so either. But don't take my word for it. Here's an excerpt:
{facepalm} That's what CNN thinks is going to drive people to its web site? It's almost a caricature of real news reporting. And I'm not really blaming the author here; she was probably told by some editor somewhere to do this. I know that these organizations have no money and are struggling with a declining viewership, but this is not the way to dig yourselves out of a hole. I am glad CNN gave Kristie Lu Stout a China show, and they do have Jaime FlorCruz, but after reading that lame netizen article, I'm not so sure anyone on the website side of things is trying all that hard. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| China Web Users Push Out Official Posted: 22 Oct 2012 10:23 PM PDT Chinese netizens expressed outrage when it was exposed that Cai Bin, a local official in Guangzhou, and his family owned more than 20 homes. Cai has now been detained and is under investigation. From the Wall Street Journal:
Cai is the second local official to be ousted in the past month following online anger over their excessive wealth. In Shaanxi, a local official, Yang Dacai, was photographed wearing numerous luxury watches, which he would not have been able to afford on his salary alone. Netizens began questioning the source of his wealth, and he was later removed from his position. © Sophie Beach for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Report: Proposed Amendment Would Strengthen CCP Rule Posted: 22 Oct 2012 09:55 PM PDT The Communist Party may discuss an amendment to its constitution at next month's 18th Party Congress that would strengthen one-party rule, according to state mouthpiece Xinhua News. From Reuters:
While vague about its contents, Xinhua reported that president Hu Jintao presided over a Monday meeting of the Communist Party's Politburo and heard comments about the amendment as well as a discussion on the draft report that will be made to the congress by the 17th Central Committee. BBC News has more on the draft report: Regional and local papers like the Beijing Times and Guangzhou's Southern Metropolis Daily also carry the Xinhua report, while highlighting in their headlines that some "important theories" set out in the report will be written into the party constitution.
See also additional CDT coverage of the 18th Party Congress and China's upcoming leadership transition. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Japanese art student creates mind-bending body modification art Posted: 22 Oct 2012 01:02 PM PDT
A new gruesome series of incredible illusionary makeup art created by Japanese art student Chooo-San have caught so much attention. The hyper-realistic illusions used no digital image enhancement or manipulation technology, but the acrylic paints only. The 19-year-old student from Musashino Art University in Tokyo said that she discovered her talent when she was was studying for university admission exams. She would draw eyes and other objects on her hands while taking breaks from her studies. Choo-San first came to the public attention in June when she painted extra eyes, mouths and even batteries to human body with mind-bending results. She's now back with her new works.
|
| Photo: Dafen Art Village, from the BBC World Service Posted: 22 Oct 2012 09:21 PM PDT  Dafen Art Village © Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Jiang Zemin Emerges Ahead of Party Congress Posted: 22 Oct 2012 09:13 PM PDT Bloomberg News calls attention to former Chinese president Jiang Zemin, the party elder who in 2011 was declared dead by a Hong Kong television station but is now back in the headlines of the Chinese press ahead of next month's 18th Party Congress:
Late last week, sources close to the top leadership told Reuters that Jiang had forged a consensus with current president Hu Jintao and his expected successor, Xi Jinping, on the candidates to fill openings on the Politburo Standing Committee. The South China Morning Post also reported on Sunday that Jiang's appearance "coincides with reports of his renewed involvement in key party decisions". See also additional CDT coverage of the 18th Party Congress and China's upcoming leadership transition. © Scott Greene for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| U.S. Presidential “Foreign Policy” Debate: China Fatigue? Posted: 22 Oct 2012 08:48 PM PDT
I love teachers too (I am one), but that really didn't seem like an appropriate thing to bring up during the "foreign policy" debate. Romney did go off on IP infringement for a few seconds, talking about some valve company whose products were copied. Not really sure what the point was since he was referring to imports into the U.S. If the products were covered by a patent or design, then the valve guys could go to court, the ITC or Customs. If there was no real IP protection, then there's a technical legal term we lawyers like to use when referring to that kind of activity: not illegal. {sigh} Maybe the candidates simply ran out of China bashing rhetoric? After you complain about trade, currency and IP infringement 12,395 times, what more can be said? Sure, there's always China's leadership change, tensions with Japan and Southeast Asia, the slowing Chinese economy, environmental issues, etc. But let's face it, Jon Huntsman wasn't on the stage tonight, and this was the result. There was simply no interest in talking about real China issues, and the moderator didn't seem to give a shit one way or the other. I'm going to reach for a little bit of positive news here and call this debate the beginning of the end of all the campaign China bashing. For what it's worth, the whole debate sucked big time. It was supposed to be about substantive foreign policy issues but much of it was about domestic policy and how much everyone loves Israel. Oy. No mention of real China issues that might have an effect on bilateral relations, no discussion of Asia regional problems that directly effect U.S. national security, no talk about some of the recent Chinese investment and cybersecurity issues. Shit, no mention of Europe, Africa, Mexico, India — pretty much most of the world. I think about 80% of the thing covered the Middle East and how super cool Israel is. Both of them said they support illegal assassinations from the sky (i.e. drones), though, so there is that bit of testosterone-generated murderous clarity which, like the cheerleading for Israel, is super cool. My suggestion for any future debate that is supposed to involve China is to frame all questions in a way that is sure to attract the attention of the moderator and the candidates. Here are a few suggestions: Question 1: If China agreed to sign off on a multilateral plan to reduce carbon emissions and Israel signed on, would the United States support its staunch Middle East ally in this endeavor? Question 2: China has complained that the U.S. "Asia pivot" is really a containment policy. Contrast and compare this with the situation of the Arab states surrounding Israel. Question 3: What can and should the U.S. do to support political reform in China such that the PRC adopts many of the same institutions as, say, Israel? Question 4: (Hypothetical) If the President of China called you at 3:00am to inform you of an imminent conflict with Japan, would you immediately call Israel to give their leader Bibi Netanyahu the news or would you conference him in on the call? Question 5: (Hypothetical) You are in a lifeboat out at sea with only four seats, all of which are full. You happen across Bibi treading water and in need of help. Who do you kick out of the lifeboat to save Bibi? Choices: the leaders of China, India or Russia. Makes me proud to be an American Jew, I can tell you that. My chest is swelling with pride as I write this. Check that; could be bile. I'll get back to you on that. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| China, U.S.A: Five Lifestyle Differences Posted: 22 Oct 2012 07:10 PM PDT Charlie from Chengdu Living listed five major differences in lifestyle and inter-personal interaction between China and the U.S.A, including: traffic laws, table menu, taste (of chicken), use of diapers and weight's comment. Written by Oiwan Lam · comments (0) |
| The Daily Twit – 10/22/12: Had Enough U.S.-China News Yet? Posted: 22 Oct 2012 05:38 PM PDT I had an Intertube emergency last night, so this is coming out about 12 hours later than usual. Just as well. After an extremely long day/night, I was so tired after finally getting home that I would have been an easy choice for an extra on The Walking Dead. I took my Net outage as fate's way of telling me to go to sleep early. It's important to pick up on the few little signals life throws our way now and again. So anyway, that means that I'm writing this just a short time before the last U.S. presidential debate, which is about foreign policy. Everyone expects that Obamney will be engaging in some serious China bashing, so I figure I'll be putting together a post on the subject later today once I get ahold of the transcript. You don't want me to actually watch those losers live, do you? That would be cruel and unusual punishment. Then again, I'm not so sure there is anything either of them have to say that will warrant commentary, since they've covered China bashing fairly well during the campaign thus far. I guess we'll have to wait and see what hijinks ensue. Aren't you excited? Nauseated? Bored? It will all be over in a couple weeks. Let me start off with some U.S.-China news, then we'll move on to other flotsam and jetsam from yesterday: NPR: Five Debate-Worthy Facts About China — Decent introduction to some of the top issues, mostly for folks who don't usually pay attention to this stuff. Certainly not appropriate for my high-end readership! Fox News: Obama, Romney talk tough on China — but could it hurt the US economy? — Yeah, I linked to something from Fox. You got a problem with that? The article throws out some U.S.-China trade stories, reminding everyone what it means when we say that these two economies are intertwined. China Daily: Investment from China in US reaches record high — Despite all the campaign rhetoric, business still goes on. That's somehow comforting, I think. Interesting, though, that at the same time we see these numbers, the flip side isn't so encouraging: China Daily: FDI drops 'due to rising costs'. New York Times: Obama Could Be Buoyed by Latest W.T.O. Victory Over China — Could the recent victory in the steel anti-dumping case help Obama in the election? Uh, I rather doubt it. Yes, some of the union folks who instigated the dispute in the first place are happy, but I assume they are already working on Obama's behalf in places like Ohio and Pennsylvania. Will this make a difference to your average voter, who doesn't exactly pay attention to WTO disputes? Not likely. Business Insider: Once Again, The US Has Become China's #1 Export Market — Not a headline anyone in Washington or Beijing wants to see. So much for that whole decoupling thing. Economist: Currency manipulation - The plan worked — If you agree that the value of the RMB is not really much of a problem anymore, what does this say about U.S. strategy in this area? That's a discussion worth having. Forbes: Hawker Beechcraft's failed sale latest victim — More problems with Chinese inward investment and national security concerns. Have you noticed a trend yet? I'm not so sure this sort of thing will end with the election. OK, a few additional items for you to read as you watch the presidential debate. Because, you know, it'll be really boring. The Diplomat: Tensions in the East China Sea: Here To Stay — Just in case you thought this issue had gone away. Guess again. If that's too depressing, stay with the same publication and try this one: Sorry World: What Happens in Beijing, WON'T Stay in Beijing, a discussion of how China's domestic problems will effect it's foreign policy. Associated Press: China's new leaders facing tough economic choices — Speaking of domestic policy, here's a look at the near-term situation on the eve of leadership change. Not exactly happy news. Seeking Alpha: China's Slowdown: Why The Analysts Keep Getting It Wrong — And we can't avoid some econ commentary either, like this one whose thesis seems to be that China's slowdown is the result of/will be worse because of China's reliance on the State. Not exactly a revelation there, chief. BBC: What kind of superpower could China be? — I missed this Martin Jacques column from over the weekend. Jacques sees a future China as powerful, but not as aggressive as one might think, a superpower throwing its weight around economically and culturally as opposed to militarily. He doesn't really account for China's military buildup, but other than that, a good read. Forbes: Go Public, Take Private, Make A Deal: The Big Debate in China — The problem with Chinese listed companies in the U.S. and what it means for exit strategies. This is indeed a big debate in some circles, with a great deal of hand wringing by many in the VC/PE/China startup crowd. Guardian: Chinese protesters clash with police over power plant — Yet another enviromental NIMBY protest in China? Yeah, you heard me. This one's down in the tropical paradise of Hainan, and it involves the construction of a coal-fired power plant. Considering that China opens one of these things every picosecond, NIMBY protests are a potential problem. We'll keep our eyes on this one. © Stan for China Hearsay, 2012. | Permalink | One comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| Review: ‘From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia’ By Pankaj Mishra Posted: 22 Oct 2012 01:58 PM PDT  As Western economies continue to struggle, while China and many other large developing nations are now being looked to as potential saviors of indebted European nations, the idea that the twenty-first century will be dominated by the "rise of the rest" —i.e., non-Western nations, most of them in Asia —has only become more powerful. Indeed, from Goldman Sachs' first landmark report predicting the emergence of the so-called "BRICs" (Brazil, Russia, India and China) to, more recently, the originator of the famous term "Washington Consensus" publicly wondering whether the Washington Consensus had been replaced by a Beijing Consensus, the "rest" already seem to have risen quite far, while the West has nowhere to go but down. Yet in all the discussion of these dramatic global shifts, few people have examined the roots of Asia's resurgence. Few have looked any farther back than the changes of the past twenty years, during which the Cold War ended and many developing nations democratized, new communications and shipping technologies allowed Asian nations to dominate manufacturing and build global companies, and the spread of free trade agreements has leveled the economic playing field. In his ambitious new book From the Ruins of Empire: The Intellectuals Who Remade Asia, Pankaj Mishra, a globally renowned Indian writer known for his work in the New Yorker and the New York Times Magazine, reveals how the intellectual roots of the "rise of the rest," including China, actually go far deeper. To Mishra, the roots go back to the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and to a small group of reformist thinkers in China, Japan, India, Turkey, and other countries, who, confronted with Western nations' domination of Asia, struggled to find a coherent alternative. Mishra's book is novel in its attempts to link the tumultuous early twentieth century to today's "rise of the rest." He weaves his themes around the life stories of three key intellectuals, several of whom had interactions with each other, presaging the globalization of today —Chinese reformist writer Liang Qichao, Nobel-winning Indian poet Rabindrath Tagore, and political activist Jamal al-Din al-Afghani, who operated throughout South Asia and much of the former Ottoman Empire. He also examines two critical years. First, 1919, when at the post-World War I peace conference the Western powers, led by the supposedly forward-thinking Woodrow Wilson, could have brokered a more globalized and equitable international system, but instead chose to retain their empires and not even seat China at the table of great powers. The sour nationalism and quick aggrievedness apparent in today's China, even as China becomes a dominant power again, stems directly, he argues, from the snub of 1919. At the time, even some Western politicians realized that snubbing China was a major mistake: the 1919 refusal to listen to the Chinese delegation would "dishonor and degrade any people," said American senator William Booth, according to Mishra. (A young activist named Mao Zedong paid close attention to the 1919 snub, and he and others formed the Chinese Communist Party two years after the 1919 disgrace.) Second, 1942, when Japan's forces rapidly took over much of East Asia and the Pacific. Mishra suggests, somewhat controversially, that though they are loath to admit it, because of Japan's wartime abuses, Asia's post-war leaders and people owed a debt to Japan for forever puncturing the idea of Western invincibility. Though the anecdote-driven style of the writing can be circuitous, Mishra tells the story with authority and rich color, and weaves a staggering amount of historical information to create coherent narratives. Mishra identifies several key themes that his early reformers shared —themes that Mishra says will be central to the world today, as Asia becomes economically dominant. All the reformers struggled to find a way to economically and politically modernize without completely Westernizing, with some admiring Japan's Meiji Restoration, since Japan had been the only non-Western nation to industrialize before World War II. For al-Afghani, the challenge was to envision an Islam that would be compatible with economic and political openness, an antecedent to today's Turkey or Malaysia. But he ultimately turned to a different path, deciding instead, like many Muslims today alienated from the West and from highly materialistic societies, that the only way to prevent total assimilation was to embrace a more radical, all-consuming faith, one which echoed Islamist movements today. For Liang, Mishra writes, the challenge was to maintain China's traditional strengths —social cohesion in a massive country, emphasis on education, centralized rule— while also opening up to outside ideas, not easy to do in a nation that had long enjoyed a higher standard of living than the West and had considered itself the center of the world for millennia. All of the reformers also questioned the economic values central to globalization in that era, and today as well. Though Britain and the United States promoted free trade in international forums, Asian activists argued that this was not truly free trade, since the rules were created by Western-led institutions, and allowed Western nations to protect certain industries of their own. Instead, they believed, Asian nations should protect their most important nascent industries, invest in domestic handicrafts, and only agree to freer trade when they were on more equal political and military terms with the West. This was an argument that can be fast forwarded to today's state capitalism, the dominant new economic force in the post-Cold War world —not a return to communism but rather a blending of state control and acceptance of market forces that has come to dominate government thinking not only in Beijing but also in other emerging market capitals like Brasilia, Bangkok, and even Delhi. Finally, all of Mishra's reformers questioned how Asia could catch up to the United States and Europe without sparking a confrontation with Western states wary of giving up their predominance. In the past two years, China seems to have abandoned its strategy of restraining its strategic ambitions, at least in Asia, and has loudly claimed nearly all of the South China Sea, a body of water shared by China and several Southeast Asian nations. Though Beijing's claims are aggressive, and have led to angry responses from its neighbors and the United States, how different is China's stance from the Monroe Doctrine of the young United States, an earlier emerging power that also gravely offended established states? But while analyzing the roots of Asia's reforms, Mishra too easily overlooks or purposely ignores the changes many emerging Asian giants —most notably, China—have not made, changes that his reformers often also bypassed. Several of them, like generations of Asian autocrats who would follow them, came to believe that Asian societies, more organized around community than in the West, and needing a central hand to guide rapid modernization, are somehow not suited for democracy. "Autocracy was a necessity," Liang decided, a decision Mishra does not seem to contradict; he questions whether the economic and political development in Asia over the past thirty years has even been a net positive, because of its impact on the region's environment, resources, and income inequality. Mishra only grudgingly admits that "China and India's new middle classes have done very well out of two decades of capitalism" —a drastic understatement of the fact that, in China alone, three decades of post-Mao development has lifted over 300 million people out of poverty. Yet even as Mishra draws too sharp a distinction between communal Asia and the individualistic West —surely, there are Western societies, as in Scandinavia, that would muddle such comparisons— he also overlooks the fact that today, some of the parties, organizations, and movements founded by these reformers look strikingly like the archaic and inflexible rulers who, in the early twentieth century, proved easy prey for outside powers and domestic revolutionaries. Writing of the last Chinese imperial court, Mishra notes that the "smallest move" to change the system provoked a backlash, that the imperial rulers "worried about the loss of their judicial and moral authority over citizens." Sounds quite like a group of entrenched, paranoid (mostly) late-middle-aged men in Beijing today. |
| China Questions for Third Obama-Romney Debate Posted: 22 Oct 2012 11:09 AM PDT Though China has already featured in the U.S. presidential debates, the focus on foreign policy in Monday's performance is set to bring the most direct discussion yet. David Sanger posted a field guide to the debate at The New York Times' Caucus blog:
South China Morning Post's John Kennedy also looked at what the candidates would have to say about China, while The Guardian's Tania Branigan examined Chinese reactions to getting caught in the American crossfire. (For some responses to the first debate, see our earlier post on CDT.) At the Council on Foreign Relations, Elizabeth Economy proposed four China-focused questions for the candidates, on China's "fair share" in addressing global challenges, the effects of its expected rise to become the world's largest economy, Obama's pivot towards the Asia-Pacific and the existence or otherwise of a credible "China Model" for other developing countries. She concludes:
Foreign Policy's list of fifty questions from contributors, readers and outside experts naturally included several on China. Among them:
If moderator Bob Schieffer does add these to the script, however, there may not be time to get through them all. Also at Foreign Policy, Daniel Drezner notes that China has been allocated a mere 15 minutes of the 90 minute debate, to be shared with the vague catch-all "Tomorrow's World".
But the Middle East-focused Andrew Exum of the Center for a New American Security offered some advice:
© Samuel Wade for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | 2 comments | Add to del.icio.us |
| Translation: A Humorous Guide To Faking It ‘Till You Make It In China Posted: 22 Oct 2012 09:03 AM PDT  (Toltek/iStockphoto) He Jiangbing (@贺江兵), editor-in-chief of the finance section of Hua Xia Times, recently published a long post entitled "Guide to Faking Your Expertise" on Sina Weibo, China's twitter. The post explores various ways that experts, and especially economists, can act to mark their connection with the Chinese government and advance their own careers. This isn't just idle chatter. As He himself confessed, real life material was so abundant that he spent two hours discussing with a media worker how various "experts" applied the first rule in the following guide. Tea Leaf Nation translates. We hope other strivers and wanna-bes find it useful. Guide to Faking Your Expertise By He Jiangbin 1. A title is always needed, though ones like "professor," "research center chief," and "division chief" are so common they are no longer highly regarded. You need something unique, a title that'll stay on people's minds after they see it. For example, you can ask your students to brag you up as the "father of start-ups" or "father of stock division reform" [a stock division, or a 股权分置, is a corporate structure unique to China]. You can even do the bragging yourself under a pen name. Anyway, "father of…" is the best kind of title. No worries if you've not found a mother for that thing yet. 2. Pretend you are always busy, and don't say yes easily to odd jobs. You can say, "I have to take a look at my schedule," "I'll have my assistant check my availability," and if the compensation seems like enough, you can feign reluctant acceptance: "Oh well, I'll cancel that thing with the minister. Each time I give lectures at his ministry, they are actually quite attentive. The notes they take aren't bad either. But they never put what I teach them in to practice, which really disappoints me! So I'll just take this opportunity to show them my disapproval. I'm agreeing to this just for you (or whoever has the highest rank above), but make sure you contact my assistant three months in advance next time. Don't put me in this awkward situation again!" 3. Demand to speak first almost every time you're at a meeting. After you speak, claim you have an appointment with the Prime Minister or the Vice Prime Minister, then leave. 4. When making a speech, let it be heard casually that "I actually mentioned this problem last time I lectured at the Sea [a nickname for Zhongnanhai, the fortified compound housing China's top leadership], and the leaders thought it important. But the reason it's still not addressed is the lack of theoretical backing. Some commission has been working on a practical proposal, but they're always so inefficient!" 5. There'll always be questions to which you simply don't know the answer. What do you do? Admitting your ignorance is the last thing you want to do. Say this: "I can't discuss this question publicly. In fact, they already made me write on this for a high-level consultation that was sent through to the highest decision makers. We keep our secrets, so if I spill it, it's spilling a top secret, which, by the way, won't hurt me but will make YOU suffer. It's better that you don't know the answer." 6. Go around and tell people often, "The last time they lifted interest rates was on my advice. It was also my idea to lift the reserve ratio this time. Remember that one time we cut down on our stamp tax? They asked for my opinion [on that] many times." … 7. Guide on how to make phone calls: When you receive a call from a journalist or a minor or mid-level government official, lower your voice and say: "I'm sorry but I think I just got call from the provincial party secretary/minister." Move the phone away from you as you say this. Most times, simply use your other cell phone to call your landline, and apologize to the guy on your first cell phone: "Sorry, got a secret call from the Sea." After you say this, hang up. 8. Guide on how to attend restaurant banquets: Casually tell someone, "That meal at the Sea yesterday was really so-so. Their dishes were not so special after all. Tasted bad though full of nutrition. The drinks were hardly better than today's, and I ended up eating a lot back home after that. Well to tell you the truth, I never want to go to those places, but there's no other way…" 9. Check your watch constantly. People will usually ask if you're busy, or compliment you on the nice timepiece. To the first reaction: "A VP needs me to edit an article of his and it has to be right now, since he needs it tomorrow." To the second reaction: "This watch is really quite ordinary, but it was a gift from a CEO two years ago and I can't replace it, in case the CEO gets mad when he sees me without it." |
| CDT Money: Time to Call the Bottom? Posted: 22 Oct 2012 08:51 AM PDT A breeze of cautious optimism wafted into the Chinese economy this week despite a seventh consecutive quarter of slowing GDP growth, as better-than-expected September data signaled that the world's second largest economy may have begun to stabilize heading into next month's 18th Party Congress. Overseas shipments for the month rose nearly twice as much as expected, the money supply grew at its fastest pace since mid-2011, and inflation cooled to its lowest level in two years. Steel and oil output also increased in September. More importantly, as The Economist points out, consumption (55%) topped investment as the country's biggest driver of growth during the first three quarters of 2012. While it remains to be seen whether such a trend is sustainable, The Financial Times' Simon Rabinovitch puts that data point into perspective:
Nevermind that September's manufacturing purchasing managers index (PMI) remained in contractionary territory, or that non-manufacturing PMI fell nearly 3 points, or that growth in electricity consumption slowed for a second consecutive month. The balance of positive news boosted Asian stocks, according to Bloomberg, and Reuters reports that Hong Kong's benchmark index neared its 2012 high. Chinese stocks extended their rally into today, rising to a six week high, and even the much-maligned cohort of U.S.-listed Chinese companies saw their longest stretch of gains since April. Today, ratings firm Fitch issued a report claiming that China's economy would avoid a hard landing. The People's Bank of China also reversed course during the past week, according to The Wall Street Journal, withdrawing approximately US$35 billion from the banking system after injecting funds for three straight weeks. The move suggests that the central bank sees a smoother road ahead, one paved with sufficient liquidity and a more stable growth trajectory. The China Daily reported that premier Wen Jiabao took part in economic talks last weekend and similarly expressed confidence that China would achieve its full-year economic goals, but he also warned that the effects of the global financial crisis had yet to subside and reiterated his call for reforms to facilitate balanced growth. As The Wall Street Journal's Tom Orlik and Bob Davis write, however, China's incoming leaders face a dilemma over whether to "take a risky political bet on reforms" that may create more pain in the short term:
Despite the risks, will the new leaders heed Wen's advice? Reuters reports that the State Council has tasked policy think-tanks to draft "their most ambitious economic reform proposals in decades" and spoke to five policy advisers involved in the process. According to their sources, policy priorities include curbing the privileges of state-owned enterprises, overhauling China's tax code, and moving towards a more market-based system of lending and resource allocation. Domestic companies have long felt squeezed out by massive state-owned enterprises, but lately foreign companies have also grown increasingly frustrated with their lack of fair access to the Chinese market. Earlier this month, The Economist explored the foreign pressure mounting on the Chinese government to level the playing field:
A broad consensus for reform may exist within the Chinese government, but it remains to be seen who will push any such changes through after China's next generation of leaders takes the helm following the 18th Party Congress. And while the Party's power brokers may have agreed on the expected promotions for vice-president Xi Jinping and vice-premier Li Keqiang, the other members of the Politburo Standing Committee will have a large say about what shape any reforms will take. The New York Times reported today that Wang Qishan, a favorite of the international community and the man probably most qualified to have day-to-day control over China's economy, may have to settle for a lesser role on the Standing Committee and cede the reins of economic policy to the younger and less experienced Li. Capital Flight – Fact or Fiction? China does not report on capital inflows and outflows, but that has not stopped some analysts from trying to piece together a picture of its fund flows from available information. A closer look at the investment data, both into China from abroad and by the Chinese elsewhere, seems to support claims that China is suffering from capital flight. The China Daily reported on Saturday that foreign direct investment dropped in September for the 10th time in the last 11 months, declining nearly 7 percent year-on-year as investors shied away from rising costs and a shrinking number of opportunities. On the flipside, The China Daily also reported that investment from China into the United States reached a record high through the first nine months of this year:
The Wall Street Journal also looked at the case of Yan Shuling, who was convicted of money laundering in 2009 and later exonerated, as an example of how Hong Kong has become the gateway for Chinese looking to dance around the mainland's capital restrictions and move their money abroad. One data trend that does not mesh with the theory of capital flight, however is the recent performance of the yuan against the dollar. The Financial Times' David Keohane notes that China's currency has nearly completely rebounded from its summertime plunge, and questions whether any perceived capital outflow has already reversed. Other News
© CDT Money for China Digital Times (CDT), 2012. | Permalink | No comment | Add to del.icio.us |
| China: Gangnam Style by Beijing Foreigners Posted: 22 Oct 2012 01:55 AM PDT Jesse Appell a a Fulbright research fellow studying Chinese comedy made a video, "Laowai Style", another fantastic parody of the Korean pop "Gangnam Style". Written by Oiwan Lam · comments (0) |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Update » Blogs » Politics To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Comments