News Stories

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I think the article is heavily opinionated...

Precisely. More importantly, it quickly becomes clear that the author effectively assumes that the Chinese government is fundamentally "evil", and that everything it does is meant to oppress the people and ensure that it stays in power.

That is a half-truth at best. There's no doubt of course that the Communist government pervades all levels of Chinese society. But the relationship between people and government is much more complex than American journalists tend to assume.

And to understand the difference, I'm afraid that a more intimate knowledge of Chinese history, philosophy and culture is necessary.

That's why you'll find the frequent references to China's lengthy history. It's extremely important to recognise that the Chinese approach political legitimacy differently from the West. There's a tendency in the West to assume that any government that's dominated by a single party is automatically corrupt and abusive. This stems from a democratic tradition that goes back to Classical Greece, with its emphasis on free speech and the spirit of inquiry.

But the Chinese have a millennia-old cultural memory that draws from a very different intellectual tradition. At the height of various imperial dynasties, the Chinese are known to be politically pragmatic rulers who aren't shy about taking actions that the West would consider abhorrently Machiavellian. But such actions are justified by a Chinese preference for order and stability over individual liberties.

The Americans are fond of saying that those who sacrifice essential liberties deserve none. If you ask me, I'd say what's the point of "liberty" if I can't even enjoy the fundamental freedoms that come from having a stable job that allows me to put food on the table for my family, keep a roof over my head and ensures that my children will enjoy a better life than the one I've had?

The Chinese have a very deep awareness of the antiquity of their intellectual tradition that is rare to find in other nations. The Americans like to quote their founding fathers from 200-plus years ago. Well, top Chinese leaders do the same, except that their references can go as far back as a few thousand years.

For example, I recently covered the opening address of a Politburo member at the recent Singapore-China Forum. And I tell you, the whole experience was extremely humbling. I felt like a virtual Philistine, as the official recited passages from classical Chinese philosophy, history and novels — as well as Marxist theory — to illustrate his extremely lofty points about the importance of integrity among leaders.

The point is not that he was showing off his erudition, but rather that he could very clearly demonstrate how the lessons learnt by the ancients are still surprisingly applicable today.

I learnt an extremely important lesson that morning: It must take extraordinary effort be regarded an intellectual in China.

===================

Returning to the relationship between social harmony and economic prosperity, I'd say that social harmony order is the most fundamental requirement for a prosperous economy. Get the bread-and-butter issues right first, then we can afford to talk about loftier aspirations.

And that's precisely what the Chinese government has done over the past 20 or so years. The author appears to make light of Beijing's contributions to the people's rising prosperity. Yes, he's partially correct in saying that the people literally pulled themselves out of poverty through their own hard work.

But it's also important not to dismiss the huge government investments in public infrastructure that has facilitated these individual efforts to improve one's lot.

I visited Kunming, a second-tier city, in January last year. And I arrived in a spanking-new airport that could easily rival my own country's Changi Airport, ranked one of the best in the world. And in Lijiang, the historic town I stayed in, a brand-new highway connects the city to the airport and dramatically cuts short the travelling time from hours to just over 30 minutes.

In very practical, pragmatic terms, such massive improvements to infrastructure open up huge economic opportunities for the people in the province, many of whom are ethnic minorities, by the way. And I can tell you that most of the locals I met are filled with almost-exuberant optimism for the future.

The lady driver of the "bread van" who ferried me from the airport to the hotel spoke proudly of how she saved up for the vehicle, allowing her to earn an independent income and support her family. Up in the hills, a relatively impoverished potato farmer of the Yi tribe explained his enteprising plans to turn his tiny village into a lodge for eco-tourists.

Yes, it's true that it's up to individual entrepreneurial talents to make the most of the opportunities now available to them. But never, ever, forget that if it weren't for the government investments, they wouldn't even be able to dream of such opportunities today.

So, yes, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for reputable newspapers to claim that the Chinese government has "lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty". Because that is quite simply true. I would qualify, though, that it's also true that much of the resulting wealth has not been spread as equitably as it should be. But that's another story altogether, a story that the author pointedly ignored.

[Fireminer]

Then, what is freedom?

And no, even so, I don't like politician quoting from old scriptures. Uncle Ho's style: straight, simple but still a basket of knowledge and sensation. Quoting could be a nice little song for the ears, but it also a paint to the politician's bare ideal.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

And no, even so, I don't like politician quoting from old scriptures. Uncle Ho's style: straight, simple but still a basket of knowledge and sensation. Quoting could be a nice little song for the ears, but it also a paint to the politician's bare ideal.

Nope, you're completely missing the point. The point is that the only the Chinese — as far as I know — can legitimately quote from millennia-old national traditions and use them as examples of what their ancestors have learnt through practical, hands-on experience.

In the same way that political leaders today read biographies of other leaders to draw inspiration, Chinese leaders refer to political and social philosophies shaped by centuries of trial-and-error to shape the policies of the future.

History is fundamentally important to Chinese identity. That's why you'll find so many references to it in day-to-day bureaucratic speech.

The Chinese, more so than any nation I know, puts a tremendous amount of faith in historical tradition. A legitimate leader, in Chinese eyes, must be able to incorporate such intellectual traditions to prosaic, modern-day problems.

The inability to do so would potentially make him a political lightweight unworthy of respect, let alone national power.

[Fireminer]

Ok, sorry for a bit of out topic.

Nintendo executives take pay cuts after profits tumble

Who have any idea who will win the 8th Generation Consoles War?

[SaintessHeart]

@ TRL : I find it ironic though, that the main topic of the CN-SG forum core topic is integrity when both sides have questionable ones.

But I agree that the underlying motive of Chinese governance theory tends to lean heavily towards stability rather than freedom. The real problem with freedom is that people don't automatically use their freedom of thought before the freedom of speech. Stability grants something called "peace of mind" to the masses, but it inhibits radical innovation and in the long term, makes people un-competitive becuase they are too comfortable.

It is a game of "pick your poison". Then again, what else can expect from politics?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

The real problem with freedom is that people don't automatically use their freedom of thought before the freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is over-rated. It's freedom of access to information that we should hanker for instead.

With better information comes better speech that I'd be more inclined to listen to.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

@ TRL : I find it ironic though, that the main topic of the CN-SG forum core topic is integrity when both sides have questionable ones.

Care to explain why you think Singapore leaders have questionable integrity?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Fireminer

Then, what is freedom?

i forgot who said it but someone once said

Freedom means Freedom to starve.

how much good does freedom of speech do for you if the economy is crap and your children goes to bed hungry?

[ganbaru]

Highlights from Obama's State of the Union address
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-29-09-57-47

Cruise ship due in NJ port after illness outbreak
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...01-29-11-06-27
It started early this year ...

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

i forgot who said it but someone once said

Freedom means Freedom to starve.

how much good does freedom of speech do for you if the economy is crap and your children goes to bed hungry?

People love quoting this all the time and I will always say back that you are going to be poor and hungry in a gulag anyway....

Or put it another way...how much is a society that stifles its own people, capable of growing and flourishing?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

People love quoting this all the time and I will always say back that you are going to be poor and hungry in a gulag anyway....

Or put it another way...how much is a society that stifles its own people, capable of growing and flourishing?

just looking at China and singapore, quite a bit.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Freedom of speech is over-rated. It's freedom of access to information that we should hanker for instead.

With better information comes better speech that I'd be more inclined to listen to.

Generally speaking, governments that deny its people the freedom of speech aren’t known for freedom of access to information either. Besides, free access to information is generally considered part of the freedom of speech/expression.

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Nope, you're completely missing the point. The point is that the only the Chinese — as far as I know — can legitimately quote from millennia-old national traditions and use them as examples of what their ancestors have learnt through practical, hands-on experience.

In the same way that political leaders today read biographies of other leaders to draw inspiration, Chinese leaders refer to political and social philosophies shaped by centuries of trial-and-error to shape the policies of the future.

And I ask you, what exactly is the inherent benefit, or rather superiority as you seem to be implying here that exists in older traditions/philosophical that cannot be found in more recent ones?

There are principles that are indeed timeless, but I have to wonder just how applicable the teaching of Confucius is on modern issues such as information/technology, environment, or globalization etc. Not to say that there aren’t good lessons to be learned there, but to me claiming superiority based on that alone is little more than prideful boasting.

We still read Sun Tzu’s Art of War today, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t any sections in there that deals with UAV strikes.

History is fundamentally important to Chinese identity. That's why you'll find so many references to it in day-to-day bureaucratic speech.

As an ethnic Chinese, I very much agree with that statement, what I don’t necessary agree with however, is the wisdom of doing so.

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just looking at China and singapore, quite a bit.

How much of that growing in China took place after the government finally changed its policies? I’m pretty sure there wasn’t much “growing”, say, during the Great leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Other than the body count, that is.

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

How much of that growing in China took place after the government finally changed its policies? I’m pretty sure there wasn’t much “growing”, say, during the Great leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution.

Other than the body count, that is.

The Growth took place in the 80s onward.

What i am pointing out is that you don't need a Free and open society to get economic growth.

you can stick Freedom of speech where the sun don't shine and still maintain a 10% gdp growth a year for 10 straight years.

While it is nice to have, you can have economic freedom and not need political freedom.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The Growth took place in the 80s onward.

What i am pointing out is that you don't need a Free and open society to get economic growth.

you can stick Freedom of speech where the sun don't shine and still maintain a 10% gdp growth a year for 10 straight years.

While it is nice to have, you can have economic freedom and not need political freedom.

Need? no. After all, good economic policies doesn't care whether it was put in place by a president or dear leader.

What political freedom can prevent however, is terrible policies being put forward by dear leader that would destroy the economy with no one to stop him, because he just killed/purged them all, aka China in the 60s.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Freedom of speech is over-rated. It's freedom of access to raw data that we should hanker for instead.

With better information comes better speech that I'd be more inclined to listen to.

Fixed. Information can be skewed. Raw data can be intepreted freely.

Care to explain why you think Singapore leaders have questionable integrity?

We wouldn't need this if they have integrity right?

And given the headlines in the past 2 years (including the one from the graft watchdog of CPIB) it seems that integrity is no longer in the watchword of the revered government.

And what is with the new law with regards to publications? Trying to prevent ugly news from spreading too quickly?

Originally Posted by kyp275

Need? no. After all, good economic policies doesn't care whether it was put in place by a president or dear leader.

What political freedom can prevent however, is terrible policies being put forward by dear leader that would destroy the economy with no one to stop him, because he just killed/purged them all, aka China in the 60s.

Think of it, it was for the good of whole China! And Taiwan! And the rest of Southeast Asia!

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by kyp275

What political freedom can prevent however, is terrible policies being put forward by dear leader that would destroy the economy with no one to stop him, because he just killed/purged them all, aka China in the 60s.

and i don't disagree.

[maplehurry]

Originally Posted by kyp275

And I ask you, what exactly is the inherent benefit, or rather superiority as you seem to be implying here that exists in older traditions/philosophical that cannot be found in more recent ones?

There are principles that are indeed timeless, but I have to wonder just how applicable the teaching of Confucius is on modern issues such as information/technology, environment, or globalization etc. Not to say that there aren’t good lessons to be learned there, but to me claiming superiority based on that alone is little more than prideful boasting.

We still read Sun Tzu’s Art of War today, but I’m pretty sure there aren’t any sections in there that deals with UAV strikes.

Reminds me of Bible, and how Christians study it regularly.

On a side note, I thought Sun Tzu's Art of War deals more with the "abstract" side of war. I don't think it even talks about bows and swords and armors specifically.

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

just looking at China and singapore, quite a bit.

Please....Singapore isn't flourishing.

It isn't reaching its full potential really. Between the usual backscratching and general shut up and follow culture pervasive here, we can really do much much better.

Of course people argue that small nation/industry/organization = no big margin for error but I'll say brainstorming and idea generation =/= implement everything that gets thrown out



Oh and for one thing SG isn't a totalitarian state yet. You can say anything you like in private verbal conversations with trusted people and no one will be eavesdropping....So using it as an example of Machiavellian rule is a bit off.

[LeoXiao]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Precisely. More importantly, it quickly becomes clear that the author effectively assumes that the Chinese government is fundamentally "evil", and that everything it does is meant to oppress the people and ensure that it stays in power.

While it's obvious the writer doesn't like the Chinese government, I'd say it's wrong to make his position out to be that simplistic. We can't assume his actual attitude toward the CCP, be it "modern day Hitler" or "run-of-the-mill authoritarian state". His description of the five phrases are clearly a reflection of his generally poor opinion, but we don't know how much he knows or understands, and frankly it's not all that relevant insofar his article itself is concerned.

It seems the two biggest hangups we might have are with the article's understanding of the importance of Chinese history to the Chinese and the understanding of the government's role in economic prosperity, as you thoroughly detailed above. It is true that non-Chinese often do not understand the enormous relevance history holds to the Chinese, and the phenomenon of the market reform in China is often oversimplified.

Regarding the latter, I think the article, despite admittedly oversimplifying the matter, does a fair enough job in getting a general point across: that non-Chinese media do often give the situation as "the CCP made the economic boom", as if the masses simply waited around for it to happen and took on a fundamentally passive role.

So, yes, I don't think it's necessarily wrong for reputable newspapers to claim that the Chinese government has "lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty". Because that is quite simply true. I would qualify, though, that it's also true that much of the resulting wealth has not been spread as equitably as it should be. But that's another story altogether, a story that the author pointedly ignored.

Insofar the sin of oversimplification is concerned, both "the CCP did nothing" and "the CCP led the people on a glorious path of prosperity" would IMO be unqualified if left unexplained, which is what the article indeed does do in its "Here's an opinion concisely expressed in five examples" format. The argument is essentially given as an introductory abstract but not as a study. As a relatively short, simple piece, I'd say that's fair.

-------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

The Growth took place in the 80s onward.

What i am pointing out is that you don't need a Free and open society to get economic growth.

you can stick Freedom of speech where the sun don't shine and still maintain a 10% gdp growth a year for 10 straight years.

While it is nice to have, you can have economic freedom and not need political freedom.

Sorry to use your post as an example, but this is another common oversimplification. People often assume that China being run by the CCP means that nothing has changed politically. While the state is still quite authoritarian and does lots of nasty things, it would be wholly incorrect to say that no human rights progress has been made in the last 30 years. Before, if you even dared suggest anything that might be used as an excuse to purge you, you would get purged. Things aren't quite that extreme anymore though the culture of oppression still remains.

In my view, the modicum of increased political/individual freedom now available to most Chinese (unless you're religious or a major campaigner for some social ill, but the rights of those people are "lofty aspirations", apparently) came about because complete repression of the sort Mao was fond of is inimical to economic progress.

You need some freedom to get the economy up and running (or to do anything, really); what the CCP has been concerning itself with the last twenty years is the question of just how much and of what sort.

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

We wouldn't need this if they have integrity right?

And given the headlines in the past 2 years (including the one from the graft watchdog of CPIB) it seems that integrity is no longer in the watchword of the revered government.

There's no denying that 2012 was a "colourful" year.

But there's a very important difference between saying Singapore leaders have questionable integrity and some Singapore leaders may have questionable integrity.

Loose use of language is what gets you invited to a friendly chat over a cup of tea at a cosy New Bridge Road office.

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

And what is with the new law with regards to publications? Trying to prevent ugly news from spreading too quickly?

By new law with regard to publications, I presume you're referring to registration requirements for online news sites? If so, first of all, the regulations for websites aren't new — all Singapore-registered websites had been covered under the Broadcasting Act for more than 10 years.

The only two new requirements are for news sites that hit a stable size in terms of reach and readership to put up a $50,000 performance bond — which doesn't need to be in cash, a banker's guarantee would suffice — and to comply with requests to take down content within 24 hours. And the kind of content is defined as those deemed objectionable to public order and morality, the kind of stuff that any reasonable news editor would most likely agree not to publish in the first place, for example, pornography, sex advertisements, racial-hate speech, and graphic violence.

How can anyone prevent "ugly news" from spreading too quickly nowadays? Our leaders aren't anywhere near that foolish. I'd agree that most of them aren't adept with social media — neither am I, and I'm only half a generation younger than them. But to suggest that they're trying to suppress bad news is a naive over-statement. The bad news will circulate, and SGAG or Mr Brown will continue to have field days spoofing any number of government gaffes, and our leaders will just have to accept it as part-and-parcel of public life.

What must be addressed robustly at all times is misinformation based on factual error. To report, for example, that the recent unrest in Little India is a race riot when it most clearly is not. When such mis-reporting is not confronted as swiftly and as sternly as possible, the "news" will spread, and pretty soon, everyone will assume it's true. If the authorities don't challenge the story, what else can it imply?

Originally Posted by Cosmic Eagle

Please....Singapore isn't flourishing.

It isn't reaching its full potential really. Between the usual backscratching and general shut up and follow culture pervasive here, we can really do much much better.

Of course people argue that small nation/industry/organization = no big margin for error but I'll say brainstorming and idea generation =/= implement everything that gets thrown out

I'll say that it really depends on who you ask. And to me, it's sad if younger Singaporeans feel that Singapore isn't flourishing when you guys have so many more opportunities than I had when I was your age, be it in terms of education or jobs.

But at the same time, I can also understand the frustration, in terms of the higher cost of living, the crowded trains, the congested roads, the pervasiveness of foreigners who seem to be squeezing us out of our own country.

As for your anger at the shut-up-and-follow culture, all I can say is that it's really for your generation to change it. The future is for you to inherit and shape according to your view. It already is changing. The attendance of the Pink Dot Festival last year exceeded 20,000. Meanwhile, the law has been changed to give judges more discretion when adjudicating capital offences that provide for death penalties. As a country, we are loosening up.

Can it be faster? Well, if this week's Institute of Policy Studies report is anything to go by, I'm afraid not. Most Singaporeans are still conservative.

Sure, you could legislate change. Force it down people's throats. Decriminalise homosexuality. Pass a law tomorrow making same-sex marriage legal. Do all these, because you feel that it's the "right" thing to do.

But if an elected government does all of that against the wishes of the majority, how is it any different from a real dictatorship?

You want change? Well, you must then speak up for it, and speak persuasively enough to carry the ground. Don't blame people for not siding with you. The fault lies instead with you for not coming up with a sufficiently persuasive argument to make them change.

That, I'm afraid, is how democracy works.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Generally speaking, governments that deny its people the freedom of speech aren’t known for freedom of access to information either. Besides, free access to information is generally considered part of the freedom of speech/expression.

That's a valid point. I won't dispute it.

Originally Posted by kyp275

And I ask you, what exactly is the inherent benefit, or rather superiority as you seem to be implying here that exists in older traditions/philosophical that cannot be found in more recent ones?

I never implied that the Chinese socio-political tradition is superior.

But I am saying, as strongly as I can, that it is fundamentally different from that of the ancient Greeks.

Ultimately, both societies wanted what was best for their people. The Greeks felt that individual liberties must come first. The Chinese felt that peace and stability take priority. Either way, they wanted a prosperous nation, and whichever direction they took was merely another means to an end.

Any American journalist who starts straight away with the automatic assumption that Communism=bad, no free election = illegitimate government when he reports on China badly needs to brush up on his studies of Chinese social, political and philosophical thought before he makes further judgments.

Otherwise, he'll end up committing the same, highly annoying fault that so many Americans seem to be guilty of: Judging the rest of the world through their own, narrowly defined cultural lenses.

Originally Posted by kyp275

There are principles that are indeed timeless, but I have to wonder just how applicable the teaching of Confucius is on modern issues such as information/technology, environment, or globalization etc. Not to say that there aren’t good lessons to be learned there, but to me claiming superiority based on that alone is little more than prideful boasting.

There's no way I can convince you that it's not prideful boasting, without you having heard or read the speeches yourself, in Mandarin.

The speech by the Politburo member I wrote about earlier? I listened to it while scanning the professionally translated, English transcript for accuracy.

The English translation completely failed to capture the nuances of the original Mandarin speech.

Mind you, it's not wrong, the translation. It was highly accurate. But it's just that, when translated into English, many of the phrases just sounded wrong. They sounded, as you say, boastful. But in Mandarin, they were highly evocative. Even poetic, in certain passages.

That, is the ultimate barrier for any American journalist aspiring to report on China. He must learn Mandarin. And he must try to appreciate the amount of study that went into producing that level of Mandarin used by the very top officials in Beijing. A huge amount will get lost in translation, if he's going to rely just on English transcripts alone.

Most importantly, he will not be doing his readers or his profession any profession by failing to report accurately because he relied on dodgy translation.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

The Chinese, more so than any nation I know, puts a tremendous amount of faith in historical tradition. A legitimate leader, in Chinese eyes, must be able to incorporate such intellectual traditions to prosaic, modern-day problems.

The inability to do so would potentially make him a political lightweight unworthy of respect, let alone national power.

And they have every right to, considering the Chinese culture is one of the very few remaining continuous tradition since the ancient times. Greece and Egypt couldn't claim the same, with its segmented disjoints in hereditary and tradition.

Then again, the current PRC, founded by massive destruction of its own culture, would be kinda hypocritical to cite them IMO.