China Esquire » Society

is there a better way to become a china expert?

Thomas Chow — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 23:37:51 +0000

Got an email some time ago that’s been sitting in my email box, and another email recently came that made me go back to it and think about it some more. Someone wrote to me with a link that includes 50 online courses about China, language, history, business, and more. And of course, the blog post is entitled “50 Open Courses to Make You an Expert on China”.

Now I am all for good education and online courses, even better. But is it really that simple to become a “China expert”? My answer is simply: no.

I don’t even consider myself a China expert. I just happen to be interested in the country because 1) I am Chinese, 2) I am an attorney, 3) I am a sociologist, and 4) I follow globalization. I have some experience in the arena. But these things hardly make me an expert. Will classes change that? Simply put: no. Not to knock on the author of the post–I think these are good background things that anyone can do to be better able to deal with Chinese business/society/etc.–but there is something to be said about trying to be a “China expert”. Ultimately, I’m not sure there is even such a thing. There is a big difference between being a subject matter expert (SME) that is functional, but to know a whole country is a different beast.

It’s ironic because China Esquire recently was named one of the “ 30 Best Blogs to Follow China Business News“. (the email that made me look back to the online course email) Is it really one of the best blogs? I don’t know, though I would certainly like to think so. I would hope that this blog is worthy of such a compliment. But even if it is, I would still hesitate to call myself a China expert. (Thank you to OnlineCollege.org for such praise by the way)

recap: dr. wang zhenyao’s visit to give2asia

Thomas Chow — Thu, 22 Apr 2010 05:19:10 +0000

Need to take a break from watching the Yushu earthquake death toll and the relief effort, and I thought I should post a quick recap and thoughts about Dr. Wang Zhenyao’s visit to the San Francisco Bay Area to discuss the development of NGOs with American non-profit leaders. Dr. Wang is Director-General of the Department of Disaster and Social Relief of the Ministry of Civil Affairs, and also a professor at Beijing Normal University.

He had plenty to share about the China NGO sector with us, with some of my thoughts interwoven. (often in parenthetical statements) My apologies for taking a week to get this posted.

After sharing about his personal background regarding grassroots democracy as a way to protect communism, Dr. Wang noted that it is a “crucial time” in China. He said that while economic construction is good and rapid, social construction lags well behind and is a “challenge”. (perhaps a slight understatement) He said that China needs to provide social policies, such as welfare and support to the disabled–but that the government underestimated its abilities to provide social services. Indeed, they (naively) thought if they threw money and goods for social benefit, that would be it. They were (badly) mistaken.

Now the government knows it cannot provide strong social services and needs NGOs–this was apparent after the Sichuan Wenchuan earthquake 2 years ago. He said the Chinese government wants to pay NGOs to do the work it cannot do, but there’s a dilemma: there are almost no good NGOs. The largest NGO in China today was founded by Americans from Berkeley, CA! This despite the fact that there are 1700 NGOs and 600 are private.

He did relate a funny story that shows government’s continued misunderstanding about its influence over the NGO sector. A provincial official “ordered” every NGO to pick up an additional sponsor that year, which prompted push back from the NGOs. (Note: NGOs, not GONGOs, which are independent… again, talk about government meddling into the sector)

So the government’s solution is to help NGOs develop, like growing professionalism in providing services. They looked first to Taiwan and Hong Kong’s NGO/civil society sectors for guidance, but they didn’t find what they wanted: not just NGO skills, but also how to build up a social construction/policy as well. So they are being forced to look outside to international NGOs, such as American charities. They are looking to American NGOs to provide knowledge exchanges and share management tips, expertise, and best practices. Unless that happens, the Chinese NGO sector will be stuck without strong expertise.

The Q&A session was very poignant, as my colleague Sheila Warren and I pressed Dr. Wang on the role of international NGOs in China. Another Hong Kong banker was also pressing on a similar theme, asking Dr. Wang about how easy it is to set up an NGO in China for foreigners and what steps they needed to take. Sheila asked about the role of international NGOs in setting up shop in China, and it appeared our moderator liked this topic. After Dr. Wang dodged this question, I shared that TechSoup was having trouble going into China because our donors are wary due to not only the regulatory climate, but also the need to find a good sourcing partner that is reliable, tech savvy, and strong, and which is a pure NGO (not a GONGO). Because China appears to have something against international NGOs setting up shop, while saying they need to learn from them, I noted the contradiction. At that point, Dr. Wang admitted: (1) the Chinese government ministries were certainly not on the same page regarding international NGOs, and that certain sectors would be slow to change and embrace outside NGOs setting up shop, but also fired back (2) too many NGOs end up with controversial anti-government messages that make the Party wary. He advised that if NGOs played the PR game correctly like MNCs and the private sector, there wouldn’t be as many problems.

Sadly, while we were all hopeful to see Dr. Wang’s contribution to the Chinese NGO sector, it also left a very unfortunate taste in many people’s mouths that the government (and parts of its citizenry) care more about nationalism and their image/face/reputation (whatever you want to call it) than actually allowing the needy in the country to get the services they need from international NGOs. And until Chinese NGOs are ready to mobilize and serve at international capacity levels, the needy will just suffer. Still, I applaud Dr. Wang for his openness and willingness to dialog, and hope that we can provide whatever assistance we can to him and others who support openness of the NGO sector.

examining china’s expert defense of the uk execution

Thomas Chow — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 10:31:41 +0000

Looks like Xinhua published its defense of the execution of a British mentally ill man in an article entitled “Experts defend China’s execution of British drug smuggler”. I’m actually glad they did–it makes it a lot easier to dissect. And for the poor professors (Mingliang Wang and Jinzhan Xue), I’m sorry, you lose and that’s just how the game is played.

Again, caveat: I normally don’t just go into attack mode like this anymore. (I don’t litigate on a regular basis anymore and I try to turn off this gear that’s internal to my brain) But if you want to read on, feel free.

Let’s just get right into each argument, one by one. It’s easier to do it that way. And for me to call out each of these alleged “experts” as a bunch of people manufacturing lame arguments for the sake of their national pride.

China’s Criminal Law stipulates that the trafficking of more than 50 grams of heroin is punishable by death.

“According to China’s Criminal Law, the death sentence given to him is legitimate and it has nothing to do with human rights concerns,” said Wang Mingliang, professor of criminal law at Shanghai-based Fudan University.

Sure, that’s true… absent any context. The criminal law says you cannot do certain things. But the law isn’t blind. Law is applied to factual scenarios. And in this case, if you are going to appeal to the law to justify your conduct, then please read my last post where I call this out as the Nuremberg style appeal.

“Some Western countries also retain capital punishment, and its existence does not equate to a lack of human rights,” Wang said.

IRRELEVANT. Yes, some western countries retain capital punishment for particular offenses. But capital punishment’s existence isn’t the issue. It’s the use and/or implementation of capital punishment in this situation: on someone who is incoherent and mentally ill/disturbed. The fact of the matter is that China executed a man who had a very valid defense/mitigating factor. And they did it in a way that mocked any notion of judicial due process and fairness. That’s the human rights issue, not the existence of capital punishment itself. Sorry Professor Mingliang Wang, this argument is a loser.

Xue Jinzhan, professor of criminal law at the East China University of Political Science and Law, also in Shanghai, said the administration of the death penalty related to a country’s history, culture and other conditions.

China strictly enforced the law without discrimination in handling the case, Chinese legal experts told Xinhua.

Again, irrelevant. Agreed, the death penalty is not uniform. However, the issue isn’t the fact that the death penalty is or is not administered. It’s how. The “discrimination” language is a red herring here. The Chinese courts didn’t discriminate. They just exercised massive incompetence to the point of leaving justice at the doors of their courtroom. They didn’t allow a man to get a mental examination and wanted him to prove up his own mental condition. How? Did you leave your common sense at the door when you became a judge? It’s idiocy in action. This is not about discrimination, unless you mean the Chinese courts decided really to discriminate against a mentally ill person.

“It’s human nature to plead for a criminal who is from the same country or the same family, but judicial independence should be fully respected and everyone should be equal before the law,” Xue said.

I disagree. Judicial independence is not to be fully respected if its frankly bad and/or incompetent. This case was probably a little of both. Judicial independence is a trait that we value, but that does not mean we cannot criticize the obvious failings of another country’s judicial system. That’s not independence. That’s turning a blind eye to someone blatant.

Everyone should be equal before the law. Actually, not always. The law is applied to factual scenarios and circumstances. That’s why there are mitigating circumstances, defenses, etc. That is a misapplication of that phrase. Everyone has to obey the law, that’s for sure. But the application of the law, particularly punishments, are not “equal”. They are often specifically tailored. (That’s why people hate mandatory sentencing guidelines in the U.S. now) Or at least, they should be. Guilty/not guilty, yes everyone is equal. Sentencing/retribution/punishment, no, not everyone is equal. Do thieves who steal $25 and $25 million get equal sentences? No. You are supposed to tailor the sentence for a mentally ill person.

Wang said it could be understood that British media ran emotional stories and local people reacted with sorrow or anger as Britain did not retain the death penalty.

“But one country should respect judicial independence of another country, without any interference in internal affairs,” Wang said.

“Shaikh’s case serves as a testimony to China’s judicial justice, which deserves full respect from other countries.”

Here is China pullings its, “we’re handling internal affairs, look away now” card. Come on. Or better yet, just shut up. Countries meddle in each other’s affairs all the time. That’s the point of diplomacy. I don’t believe for a second that China doesn’t the do the same with other nations. Because they don’t.

And sadly Professor Wang, if you really think the Chinese judicial system deserves respect for this case handling, you are badly mistaken. It deserves disrespect in every way, shape, and form. And I don’t think you even believe your own words on this one.

Western reports said British Prime Minister Gordon Brown condemned Shaikh’s execution in a statement issued on Tuesday and that Brown had even personally spoken to a senior Chinese leader about the case.

“It would have interfered with China’s judicial authority if the senior leader had accepted Brown’s request. How could a criminal be exempted from the death penalty only because he was British?” Wang said.

Red herring again. No one said he was exempt because he was British. Why make the argument if you know its a loser?

Experts said courts in China had the right to decide whether a psychiatric assessment was necessary.

“The court, based on available evidence, decided not to do the assessment, and it was strictly in line with the law,” Wang said.

China’s Supreme People’s Court on Tuesday issued a statement, saying it had reviewed and approved the death sentence against Akmal Shaikh and there was no reason to cast doubt on Shaikh’s mental state.

Again, I call Nuremberg. Sure it was in line with the law… at least, that’s what you’re saying. (But as Professors Cohen and Clarke note, actually, it’s not in line with the law because even the Chinese codes afford mentally disturbed people a defense) But was it in line with real justice, fairness, due process? No. (Again, see my last post if you need details) The court, based on available evidence, conducted judicial error by refusing to proceed. If this happened with a trial judge here, the appeals court would have no problem calling that judge out for this.

The Supreme People’s Court here was a rubber stamp if you ask me.

So ultimately, you have two “educated” law professors going on the record in Chinese media to say that the execution was legitimate. So what? So you can force more Kool Aid on the populace? To save face for the nation? To be the expert propaganda? Whatever the reason is, these two law professors lost their credibility with me.

execution of mentally ill man is two steps back for china

Thomas Chow — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 09:56:48 +0000

CNN just published an article, “China executes British citizen for drug smuggling”. I normally don’t try to weigh in and blatantly criticize the Chinese justice system despite certain corrupt documented incidents and obvious issues because it’s been improving over the years, and I have been hopeful that the rule of law has a chance to survive there. I am, however, severely disturbed about the recent execution of the mentally ill British man when there were obvious due process issues, despite The Global Times insisting that “the trial process was extremely careful”.

The CNN article reads:

Akmal Shaikh was convicted of carrying up to 4 kilograms (8.8 pounds) of heroin at the Urumqi Airport in September 2007. China says he received due process under its laws, and he exhausted his appeals last week.

The British Foreign Office confirmed Tuesday’s execution, however, there was no immediate comment from China.

Ahead of carrying out the death sentence, China said it had followed the law.

“This case has always been handled according to law. During the trial, the defendant has been guaranteed his legal rights,” Jiang Yu, spokeswoman for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, said last week. “Everyone knows that international drug smuggling is a grave crime.”

Oh yes, I agree that it’s a grave crime. I am not minimizing what happened because it is serious. But frankly speaking, so is murder. The fact that China has to go back to the defense of “we followed the law” attests to the fact that (1) this really is an atrocious situation, (2) they probably know better but are unwilling to do anything about it, and (3) care more about saving their face (as usual) than about actual justice. In fact, these words remind of one thing: the Nuremberg trials. The Germans insisted that they followed the laws in annihilating the Jewish people during the Holocaust too. No, this situation isn’t quite as atrocious as that, but there is something chilling when this is your fall back excuse.

For those of you who haven’t been following this case, just how much due process has there been here? I will let Professor Jerome Cohen speak to this, courtesy of Professor Donald Clarke’s blog:

Chinese legislation exempts from criminal responsibility someone unable to recognise or control his misconduct, and provides for reduction of punishment in cases of partial mental capacity. But Shaikh’s 30-minute first instance trial ignored this major aspect of justice.

By the time of Shaikh’s second instance trial, on May 26, the London-based rights organisation, Reprieve, had sent British forensic psychiatrist, Dr Peter Schaapveld, to Urumqi in the hope of conducting an examination that would confirm Shaikh’s condition and inform the court’s review. Unfortunately, without explanation, Schaapveld was denied an interview with Shaikh. He was also not permitted to attend the judicial hearing.

Moreover, the authorities, which had initially indicated that they would allow a local doctor to evaluate Shaikh, changed their mind. The reviewing court thus had the benefit of no expert opinion on this crucial issue. It did, however, apparently allow the defendant the opportunity, against the advice of his lawyers, to deliver a rambling, often incoherent, statement that caused the judges to openly laugh at him.

The second instance court affirmed Shaikh’s death sentence and, although both his fitness to stand trial and his mental state at the time of the offence were in doubt, the Supreme People’s Court has now agreed.

Yet there has been no indication that the mental condition of the condemned has ever been professionally evaluated, despite concerns expressed by the British government and the EU, as well as Reprieve and other organisations that have compiled massive evidence that Shaikh has long suffered from a serious bipolar disorder.

I don’t think I need to comment at length about this. Even an elementary school (primary school) student could probably tell you that something is seriously wrong about this. 30 minute trial? Judges laughing at someone who is obviously mentally disturbed? Denying a local professional evaluation? Need I say more? This is a miscarriage of justice… though the Chinese adamantly claim that they followed proper procedures, thereby implying that justice was done. It wasn’t.

On a tangent, people often wonder why Americans stay on death row for so long and criticize that fact. (Don’t get me wrong, I’m not a strong supporter of this practice, but then again, I’m still on the fence about capital punishment outside of very extreme circumstances) The positive effect: repeated appeals and an long habeas can sometimes lead to revelations of procedural mishaps, ineffective counsel, etc., which gets them out of their death sentences. Maybe China could learn something from America and at least allow some time before executing a person–particularly in a case like this that has attracted international attention.

This is one step back for the development of the Chinese judicial system. So why do I say two steps back? It’s the fact that China has lashed out against the criticism in its usual hear-no-evil-see-no-evil-do-no-evil sort of delusion, intentional blindness, or whatever you want to call it. Professor Clarke blogged this:

As I was getting on a plane in Beijing on Dec. 23rd, I picked up a copy of the nationalistic ???? (Global Times), which saw the UK government’s protest as a hypocritical plea for special treatment for foreigners. “?????????????????‘??” (Don’t the Westerners most emphasize “all are equal before the law”?), asked the reporter (this wasn’t even an op-ed piece!) sarcastically.

Apparently China’s government feels that national honor depends on executing this pathetic and deluded man.

Special treatment? Please. All are equal before the law, but the law isn’t blind. The law looks at facts and circumstances, including mental illness. I also find it ironic that if this happened to a Chinese person in a western nation, the public outcry of the Chinese would be out of control and probably be much nastier, far more rabid, and more widespread on the internet. This is not a hypocrisy issue. And I think Professor Clarke nails it on the head: China, as always, thinks that their national honor and face is at stake. It is. Sadly, the nation got it wrong this time. Dead wrong. For someone to admit there is a problem is not saving face. It’s being stupid and then deluded about it too.

This is two steps back for China because now China will: (1) have to continue to justify itself for at least some period of time, leading to an adamancy that does not help judicial progress and change; (2) act like nothing is wrong, and set a precedent for the future… in a bad way. How can the nation ever admit that it screwed up in the past? Especially a nation so proud and so concerned about its image as China? It will be near impossible. (3) Continue to try to message to its people using its state owned propaganda… I mean media… and end up forcing its people to drink the Kool Aid a little longer. Which will harm your nation if your people don’t know how to be critical, how to properly dissent, etc.

I know my posts normally don’t contain this sort of tone. Again, I try to not criticize as harshly on a normal basis. But in this case, I had to because I found this so startling a situation. The second to last paragraph of the CNN article states:

Before the execution, Philip Alston, the U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, said it would be a “major step backwards for China” to execute a mentally ill man.

I couldn’t agree more. What do others think?

standard defense lawyer tactics

Thomas Chow — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:38:41 +0000

Apparently, there is a crackdown on corrupt officials and organized crime in Chongqing. Others caught up in the sting? Defense lawyers. It’s like the tuna nets that end up picking up a few dolphins along the way. The only problem is this: the defense lawyer here is just doing his job. At least, he’s doing his job, in my opinion, as any normal defense advocate would do here.

The details after the jump.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

On Sunday, Chongqing police detained a defense lawyer on suspicion of providing false evidence and obstruction of justice, Xinhua reports.

The lawyer, Li Zhuang, of the Beijing Kangda law firm, is one of several high-profile criminal defense lawyers brought in to represent some of the alleged top gangsters in the Chongqing crackdown, which to date has resulted in the arrests of more than 800 people. Li was representing Gong Gangmo, who faces a long list of charges including murder, leading a criminal organization, drug dealing and gun-running.

According to Xinhua, Li and several other unnamed people encouraged Gong to say that he had been tortured by police during his interrogation. Gong said that Li, who was reportedly paid 2.45 million yuan ($360,000) by Gong’s family, had instructed him to say things like, “I was strung up for eight days and nights and tortured to incontinence” during their three face-to-face meetings, according to the report.

Of course, if you read the other accounts, you can tell that the views are skeptical of the lawyering that’s happening here. ESWN (h/t CDT) translated an article, which reads in part:

In Jiangbei District, the police noted that the suspected gang leader Gong Gangmo appeared seriously vexed and taciturn after he met with his defense lawyers including Li Zhuang. On December 4, after his third meeting with Li Zhuang, Gong Gangmo was especially troubled as he sat still all day refusing food and water.

The police spoke to him many times and asked him to face the court hearings with a proper frame of mind.

After much pondering, Gong Gangmo finally could not stand the pressure within himself and pressed the bell to summon the police: “I have something important to say!”

Gong Gangmo told the case investigators about the secret that has been tormenting him for days: His wife had just hired the lawyers Li Zhuang and Ma Xiaojun from the Kangda Law Firm in Beijing. During three meetings between Gong and the lawyers, Li Zhuang taught him five tricks to “overturn the case”: The first trick was to corroborate the false testimony of his wife so that he turned from “gang boss” to “victim” and “charitable citizen.” The second trick was to claim falsely to the court that his confession had been extracted by torture and therefore he was recanting his previous statements. The third trick was to provide false testimony to the court so that his case can be reversed. The fourth trick was for the lawyers to read to him the statements made by his co-defendants so that he would know what to say. The fifth trick was to disrupt the court proceedings by insisting on a medical examination of his injuries so that the trial had to be postponed until a later date.

So basically, we have a gang boss saying that he can’t override his conscience because of the wicked and terrible things that his lawyers are trying to do. I call BS on this. This is garbage propaganda that will make defense lawyers unable to do their jobs effectively if you ask me. Why? Because these are standard things.

The first “trick” of trying to pain the defendant as a charitable citizen instead of a crime boss? Standard fare. You always do this. It’s not a matter of lying–it’s a matter of humanizing someone who is viewed upon with suspicion. And if you ask me, there’s nothing wrong with it. So you call the wife to the stand and have her say good things about her husband. What’s wrong with that? Nothing. A competent judge or jury will be able to weigh the credibility of such testimony. Usually it doesn’t work since people aren’t stupid, but you know what? If you’re a defense lawyer and you are not trying to gain sympathy for your client, you aren’t doing your job.

The second “trick” of trying to call any confession something that was given under duress/torture/whatever you want to call this process of abuse of power? Also fairly standard fare. At least it is in America… because if you’re the police, you aren’t supposed to try to pull this sort of abuse. And if you are in China and the police, I’m dead sure you’re pulling these tricks on a regular basis. The article implicitly paints the police in a positive light… and the writer of the article would probably say that the police gained a confession without any coercion and didn’t abuse anyone. Yeah right. So what’s a good defense lawyer to do? Call a confession one that was obtained under duress. And if you didn’t, again, you aren’t doing your job.

The third “trick”? Okay, this is going a bit far… and yet, I wonder what the nature of this “false” evidence is. Is it really false evidence? Or is it evidence that’s meant to counter certain claims or paint the same facts in a different light? Not really a big deal if you ask me. I’m not advocating the falsification of evidence. But I am saying that any defense lawyer worth his salt is going to (1) go after the evidence like a shark and (2) try to introduce evidence that appears to go the other way in favor of the defendant.

The fourth “trick” is not all that out of the norm either. Know what your co-defendants are going to say so you know what to say? Standard. Any good lawyer will try to work with co-defendants to make a case as air tight as possible. At least, collaborate in a way that you aren’t selling your own client down the river.

And the last “trick” of trying to delay trial? Everyone does this. Not just criminal attorneys. Even in civil litigation, everyone is trying to buy more time and avoid trial. Any good attorney should be doing this to some degree to buy more time and wear out the other side. Or you aren’t doing your job.

So of these five “tricks”, only one is truly questionable. The rest? It’s anti-lawyer propaganda meant to discourage real lawyering. Who is the judge and jury? It’s not the public. It’s the judge and jury. Simple. So while everyone acts like this stuff is such a big deal, let me just say that it isn’t. That’s the point of an adversarial trial process.

lack of brand innovation in china?

Thomas Chow — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:18:59 +0000

Was reading China Law Blog’s treatment of Chinese branding and trademarks here where Dan Harris takes issue with a Newsweek article, which states in part:

The simplest explanation for China’s failure to build global brands is cutthroat domestic competition. In most product categories, hundreds or thousands of firms compete for domestic market share, leaving profit margins razor thin. . . . And because foreign brands have taken much of the market’s high end, most companies are forced to compete on cost, leaving little room for investment in R&D or marketing. . . . Finally, the recent string of product recalls—including poisonous pet food and faulty tires—has left consumers wary of made-in-China goods.

Of course, I would take issue with this article as Dan does. His thoughts, and mine, after the jump.

First off, China’s intellectual property protection for most companies is just not that bad. Yes it is horrible for companies requiring copyright protection, like software companies that sell their product on CDs and movie companies . . . . But, China’s trademark protections are actually pretty good and there are a whole slew of foreign consumer and industrial companies making money head over fist in China . . . . China’s IP protection may explain the lack of international brands in some product categories, but it does not even begin to explain the lack of Chinese brand power across the board.

The same is true of the alleged cutthroat competition. Yes, China has cutthroat competition (what country doesn’t?) and yes price is central to the Chinese consumer. But many foreign and domestic brands are thriving.

My explanation is more elemental. Most Chinese companies just do not value brands as highly as Western companies. At least not yet. For the most part, they do not understand the value in spending massive amounts of money to create positive brand name recognition in places like the United States.

I would agree with most of his statements here. TM protection isn’t all that bad, and to me, what comes to mind is Starbucks being able to enforce its trademark. Companies do okay here with trademarks. Sure, there will always be knock-offs and stuff, but every developing nation has to deal with it. Even Korea back in the days had a gray market that thrived because people tried to sell “export quality” and pirated stuff in country to ignorant tourists. But I hardly think that’s the case. Also, if this is about global brands, then Chinese companies are free to register their trademarks (and service marks for that matter) in the U.S. as well. (heck, the EU even has 1 form application that covers twenty some countries in one fell swoop) No, I don’t think the issue is IP.

And I don’t think Newsweek got it right about saying foreign brands have taken the high end. I think that’s true, but at the same time, Chinese manufacturing/sourcing has relied on the fact that it would do the low margin production work for those high end brands. And many people haven’t broken away from the sourcing mentality just yet. If and when they do, that will be downright scary. Imagine thousands of Chinese factory owners getting the bright idea that they can do better by trying to become the next Dell Computer or Mattel, etc., rather than just sourcing for large MNCs. It can happen. It’ll take time (and frankly, culture/society is a big part of it), but give some time and watch what happens.

I also don’t think its an issue of consumers being wary of Chinese safety issues. While that exists, how many people are actually affected by this? Not many. Like it or not, Made in China is here to stay. And people know that. I really don’t think its that big of a deal. (except for when the rather annoying media outlets keep saying things like “ Chinese drywall” when plenty of the stuff made in China is just fine) Unless consumers can afford to be wary (most can’t, especially in this economy), its just rhetoric and fire drills.

I like Dan’s last point a lot. Case in point: Lenovo. Who in their right mind would discontinue use of a global trademark license for what was considered the premier business/corporate laptop brand? But somehow, Lenovo opted to move away from IBM Thinkpad to Lenovo Thinkpad early. This got enough coverage, so I won’t beat a dead horse, but I think this is dead on. No one values branding, marketing, and trademarking enough there… yet. And again, it’ll take time. But it’s only a matter of time before some companies figure it out. It’s funny because trademarking is one of the simplest things and yet, companies don’t think about it because of the “expense” which isn’t much of an expense if you do the math. Seriously. It’s just not worth it… yet. But they’ll get it sooner or later I think. At least, I hope they do–blogging about their economy won’t be fun if they don’t get it sooner or later.

the need for a moral compass

Thomas Chow — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:07:58 +0000

I haven’t done too many posts responsive to other bloggers recently, but I really felt the need to emphasize something I read at Silicon Hutong today. David published a post today entitled, “ Whose Moral Relativism?“ I found it definitely worth the read because there’s a lot of food for thought… both for China, and just in general as well. Yes, this post might sound sort of preachy and hit on moral values, but I think its useful to think about such issues because so much of business is predicated on this.

Wolf writes:

What I found most intriguing about the article was the conclusion (proving, once again, that it does occasionally pay to read long essays all the way through,) where he explains that the West is in the throes of a crisis of morals as much (or arguably more) that a crisis of finance. When he first started this bit of his rant I shook my head. “Yes,” I thought. “We’ve all heard this before – the old Wall Street is an Ethical Wasteland argument, with Bernie Madoff, Allen Stanford, Alan Greenspan, Wall Street traders, and subprime mortgage brokers all trotted out as poster children.”

But then Zakaria pointed out that Wall Street was not alone.

“Most of what happened over the past decade across the world was legal. Bankers did what they were allowed to do under the law. Politicians did what they thought the system asked of them. Bureaucrats were not exchanging cash for favors. But very few people acted responsibly, honorably or nobly (the very word sounds odd today). This might sound like a small point, but it is not. No system—capitalism, socialism, whatever—can work without a sense of ethics and values at its core. No matter what reforms we put in place, without common sense, judgment and an ethical standard, they will prove inadequate. We will never know where the next bubble will form, what the next innovations will look like and where excesses will build up. But we can ask that people steer themselves and their institutions with a greater reliance on a moral compass.”

(Italics mine)

I highly highly agree with this statement. In fact, I don’t think its an issue of ethics (which are situational) per se. Instead, I think its an issue of values/morality, which is more about absolutes and principles. Capitalism, if you read Weber, is heavily based upon morality. Though many will disagree and call it corrupt, etc. etc., the actual trappings and ideas behind capitalism is based on strong values and moral obligations. Where else would you have something like a piece of paper (a.k.a. a contract) govern actual behavior? Only when the books mean something that coincides with a person’s morality. I believe that you cannot have a truly effective government, institution, etc. that will be sustainable for the long haul without values. Otherwise, it will fall apart one way or another.

The first is one I have discussed and heard from other China hands over the past year. Anyone who thinks that Chinese leaders and the Chinese people are blind to the malfunctioning moral compass in the West – especially in the wake of current events – is wrong. If we ever were in a position to preach, either at a systemic, enterprise, or personal level, we have lost that position.

And that means that any American who excoriates corruption in China will be dismissed as a hypocrite; any foreigner who tries to explain to a factory owner why it is better to make products safer will be held to a higher burden of proof; and any executive trying to preach the importance of integrity and ethics to a recent recruit will face annoyed skepticism.

Much agreed. While we may often disagree with the morality of China and the Party (and I do), I do give them a lot of credit: they impose a strong set of very good, positive values on their people. A bit heavy handed perhaps, but it does it well. I think I meet more Chinese people with greater personal morality than an average American, short of someone who has strong religious ideals. (And even then…)

But the larger point – the one I do not think Zakaria makes plain enough – is that rule of law is not all that we have made it to be. As we talk about China’s development, we attach to the concept of “rule of law” a Holy Grail-like quality, as if the quest for the rule of law, as much as finally attaining it, will be the answers to many of China’s major social challenges.

In pointing out that in America, the paragon of societies living under a fully developed body of law, legislative process, and criminal and civil court systems, is deeply socially flawed in spite of the rule of law, Zakaria sends us a warning about China, one that will discomfort many of us. Rule of law, as important a goal as that may be for China, is inadequate to ensure that leaders, enterprises, and people behave in ways that are not sociopathic.

A rule of law must be paired with what I would call a Law of Rules, a detailed code of behavior that is rigid enough to withstand relativism, is adaptable enough to stand despite massive social change, and is set forth by a body or entity that operates at a level removed from our own unlimited ability to rationalize almost any behavior. Law of Rules is more than just a moral compass. It is a clear description of how to live, so that the rule of law – the nation-specific constitutional, criminal, and civil codes standards of behavior – need only come into play in exceptional cases. The rest of the time, it is our fear of doing wrong and our desire to do right that guide us, not the fear of the cop, the lawsuit, the jury.

Maoism was battered by almost continuous challenge and upheaval, until finally its precepts of egalitarianism, service, self-sacrifice, and patriotism were abandoned in the 1990s. What replaced them were two simple maxims: “To Get Rich is Glorious,” and “It doesn’t matter if the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice.”

Now, we are told, all that we need to lay upon this highly practical foundation is a legal system backed with apolitical courts, and everything will be fine. Not bloody likely. If the fear of prison and death are not enough to keep the chief executive of a dairy from making decisions that will kill babies, no rule of law can hope to end such behavior.

Yes, the rule of law is not a holy grail. And actually, if you read the founding fathers at all (sadly, most Americans do not), there is a lot of interesting statements. To them, the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land. Actually, there was a bedrock that was more foundational than the constitution: virtues, morality, religion, whatever you want to call it. Without an internal governance on the part of each citizen, the Constitution cannot rule properly and govern behavior. And you see this happening in America today. The Constitutional law developments in America, while having some positive, have also attributed to great scorn of morality and a degraded society. Anyways, I don’t want to beat a dead horse–thats not the point.

So I think its a stern call to China. You can have a rule of law, but you need much more than that. Morality is important. Very important. If Maoism is dead, what other religion can there be? If not religion, whence the source? (As Bob Dylan would pose, you gotta serve somebody.) China needs to choose… and from the top, it needs to choose lest it watch its version of socialist capitalism crumble in the long haul.

social entrepreneurism in china: the qifang story

Thomas Chow — Mon, 24 Aug 2009 16:51:45 +0000

Last month, I was invited to a lunch seminar (invitation only) hosted by Give2Asia where they discussed the challenges facing Chinese education, and more specifically, the problem of funding Chinese higher education. Scott Sugiara with Give2Asia gave us some of the statistics: since 2001, their organization has given over $100 million to Asia, and about 35% of that has been in the forms of grants/scholarships to individuals. (focused mostly on Jiaotong Daxue and other Shanghai university students) One thing he also noted was that education is not cheaper at the top universities because there are often scholarships for those students. Ironically, its the students who go to regional and vocational schools who have a harder time affording their higher education.

One solution, after the jump.

Enter Qifang, a social enterprise headed up by Calvin Chin. (I promised Calvin that I would post on this) Qifang is a company that is trying to close this educational funding gap by providing loans via microfinancing. (think Kiva for Chinese students) And so what one does is logs into the Qifang site, views profiles of students who need money, and can choose to make a loan of a small amount that will be aggregated with other funders to that student. That student agrees to pay a particular interest rate on repayment, and bingo, you have microfinancing for needy students.

So why the need for Qifang anyways? Apparently only 10% of the people can borrow from the China Development Bank, which often will leave out the poorest of people who have little access. Because of this, only 22% of the Chinese population can get higher education, compared to 45% like in the U.S. (of course, the downside is that there is degree inflation here, but I’ll save that rant for another time) Using web2.0, they came up with a microfinancing site because the need was so large. Ironically, the very barrier to entry on Qifang is the method of delivery: internet access. Not enoguh people in the poorest areas have internet connections so that they can login and create a Qifang profile. So while the service helps people, it still is figuring out how to reach the most needy.

On the whole, I found the presentation interesting. Calvin also talked about his (and the Qifang) story, which is basically a small group of expats were in business. (Calvin was at SMIC, along with some other folks I know there) And instead of wanting to start another business, they wanted to start an enterprise what was profitable and community impacting–not profitable to rake in money, but so that it could be sustainable. Social enterprise. Which I am quite familiar with since TechSoup Global is one as well.

Okay, so now you’re thinking that I’ve gotten a bleeding heart with no legal writing anymore. I’ll quell that as well, since my first question was about the structure of his organization. Qifang is run through two foreign holding companies, and if I recall correctly, one is based in Bermuda. The parent is in Bermuda, that is a holding company for another foreign entity, which I believe is U.S. That U.S. based entity formed a WFOE in Shanghai. (if you want to read about WFOEs, go to China Law Blog and do a search–you will see a lot of stuff by Dan Harris which is excellent reference material) Using that WFOE, they formed a joint venture with their local Chinese staff.

Qifang is at 6 employees, down from about a dozen. The Chinese staff who run the joint venture is 2 of their employees. The foreign holding companies layered well, check. That’s a good thing. A WFOE as the proper form of incorporation in China (instead of as a Representative Office), another good call. Check. And then the JV. Red flag. I asked Calvin point blank, “you really trust your staff, right?” Of course he did. But as you can see if you search multiple blogs, JVs can turn sour very quickly. And this is a risk that Qifang is willing to take because he does trust his team. If you are ever planning to use a JV legal form in China, you must trust your team–do your due diligence with them, work with them, supervise them. You cannot mess up at this point, or you are asking for trouble.

This company is doing cool stuff, but its also doing it right. Calvin told me they had a good lawyer, and I was happy to hear that. (no, I am not fishing for business) I can only hope that others, particularly my readers, are well situated too.

human rights attorneys in china compilation

Thomas Chow — Mon, 10 Aug 2009 20:16:41 +0000

I was speaking to a friend a few months back, and he wants to shift into human rights law in China. I looked at him with a certain tinge of sadness in my eyes, and could only ask him one question, “You do know what you’re getting into right? It’s a hard life. It’s hard… and you may be asking for persecution, trouble, and a lot of pain and suffering from your own government.” There was nothing else I could say. And when he responded in the affirmative resolutely, I could only stare a little and say, “Okay.” And it’s ironic that since then, I feel like I’ve only seen a slew of articles talking about the troubles of human rights attorneys.

I wish my friend the best in his new endeavor. It’s hard to be fully supportive when you know that this is the pathway of suffering, but at the same time, it is encouraging to know that there are still people out there who don’t want to be uber-corporate lawyers at King & Wood or some other major Chinese law firm and make a boatload of money. But as I mentioned, I keep seeing articles about the suffering of human rights attorneys. Here are some.

From the AFP back in June ( h/t CDT):

A human rights group has condemned Chinese police for allegedly stripping and beating a prominent Shanghai lawyer during a nine-hour detention last week.

Police summoned Zheng Enchong, who has advised residents claiming to have been forcibly evicted, on Wednesday as part of an “economic investigation”, the Hong Kong-based China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group said.

Calls to the Shanghai police went unanswered and Zheng was not immediately available for comment on Tuesday.

The Washington Post got into the act ( h/t CDT):

Since the beginning of 2009 — a sensitive year filled with anniversaries of uprisings — the Chinese government has been forcing human rights law firms such as Yitong to shut down.

Formally, there is no crackdown; no police are swooping in to seize files or send attorneys en masse to labor camps. Instead, Beijing is simply using its administrative procedures for licensing lawyers and law firms, declining to renew the annual registrations, which expired May 31, of those it deems troublemakers. Human rights groups say dozens of China’s best defense attorneys have effectively been disbarred.

“It’s a collective strike,” said Cheung Yiuleung, a leader of the China Human Rights Lawyers Concern Group, an advocacy organization based in Hong Kong. “Compared with individual warnings, the annual check of licenses is more effective. . . . It has had a frightening effect on all lawyers on the mainland.”

A few weeks ago, a Beijing legal services service was shuttered according to the China Daily. ( h/t CDT) There’s even video interviews about the opposition. FYI, Gongmeng is one of the few groups that dared to represent the parents of the nearly 300,000 children sickened and the six who died last year as a result of dangerous milk additives.

More than a dozen officials of Beijing’s civil affairs bureau, which oversees civil groups in the capital, visited the center’s office in west Beijing on Friday morning and ordered it to shut down. The officials, carrying a legal closure notice, seized some files and computers, too, the center said.

The move comes two days after the Beijing tax authorities sent a formal notice to the center, imposing a hefty fine of 1.42 million yuan ($207,847) for having evaded taxes on funds received from overseas.

Xu Zhiyong, the center’s legal representative and an outspoken lawyer, said: “The bureau has no legal right to order a closure The research center has always been a division of the company that is registered with the authorities. There is no legal proof to show our group has not been registered properly.”

Beijing’s civil affairs and taxation bureaus, and the municipal office of the State taxation administration refused to provide information on the center on Friday.

Too many newspaper outlets are jumping on this story, including the New York Times and Los Angeles Times. I really don’t have much to add other than to say, it seems in China that you don’t do well by doing good. And that’s a sad thing in my eyes.

NERA seminar part 2: nationalism’s intersection with antitrust

Thomas Chow — Mon, 18 May 2009 08:34:00 +0000

And so this brings me to part 2 of my NERA notes—the part presented by Fei Deng, who talked about the role of nationalism in this deal. Unfortunately, she decided to start with imperialistic times and talked about things like the Summer Palace, and Chinese humiliation. Not any of my favorite of topics.

But then she went back to Coke-Huiyuan. More after the jump.
Apparently 80% of the public opposed the deal. (Actually, I am surprised it was only 80%–I was expecting something more in the 90s frankly speaking) And so she said that this was a major motivation in the deal getting killed.

Of course, MOFCOM denied that. (wouldn’t you?) MOFCOM said that public opposition wasn’t influential in their decision. So what did MOFCOM use? It claimed as part of the basis of its decision Article 27, items 5-6 and Article 28… which is about nationalism. (surprise surprise)

I’ve already blogged about nationalism, and frankly, it really shouldn’t be surprising for anyone who follows China. What was surprising is that there are articles in the antitrust law that actually cover this. That was quite a shock to me. I am not an antitrust junkie, so just hearing that these provisions existed was an interesting thing to hear. I guess it could be worse—it didn’t have to be codified at all. But my question is: how can you really just something that subjective? It’s really hard to quantify how much MOFCOM can rely on this as a basis for their decision.

Deng presented on other things such as focusing on regionalized, local markets, but frankly, I didn’t find it all that compelling compared to nationalism.

Practitioners, you need to know the Antitrust Law by heart. I know many of you do, but for those you interested in this area, you have to read it over and over again. (I confess I haven’t) How many of you even know about Article 27, items 5-6 and Article 28? Know it cold. And know that yes, nationalism will rear its ugly head in–even if MOFCOM doesn’t say it will.

nytimes not appearing china… what did you expect?

Thomas Chow — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:21:26 +0000

A long overdue weekend review. So it seems like the great firewall is working again, and this time, its the New York Times that has some sort of technical glitches that won’t allow it to show up in China again. From CNET yesterday:

Chinese authorities have begun blocking access from mainland China to the Web site of The New York Times even while lifting some of the restrictions they had recently imposed on the Web sites of other media outlets.

When computer users in cities like Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou tried to connect on Friday morning local time to NYTimes.com, they received a message that the site was not available; some users were cut off on Thursday as early as 8 p.m. The blocking was still in effect on Saturday morning.

Chinese officials had few explanations for the restriction on the Times site. “Concerning your particular question, we’re not really familiar with the details,” said a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing, who declined to give his name. “Web site maintenance is not within the job purview of the Foreign Ministry.”

Tang Rui, an official with the government’s International Press Center in Beijing, said he also had no specific information. “It might be a technical problem,” he said, declining to elaborate.

In the months leading up to the Olympics in Beijing, during the Games and immediately after, the Chinese government temporarily unblocked access to some Web sites and eased curbs on the ability of foreign correspondents to travel within China. It has not tightened the travel restrictions since then.

So China is cracking down on “free” internet usage again. To be honest, I am actually surprised it lasted this long… I thought it would be may be 2 months or so, and then that’s it, the clamp comes down. Well, it went a little longer than I expected, so I am willing to count this as a good thing overall.

I’m pretty darn certain its not a technical glitch. The NY Times site seems to work for me just fine. (and probably all over the world too except for one rather significant “outage”) But honestly, what did you expect? I don’t think anyone figured that the Olympics would mean that China would allow free and unfettered piping in of western propaganda and media… and it was only a matter of time before it happened again. So pardon me if I don’t run around and act like its a big deal… and yawn instead. My thought: just get used to it because it was bound to happen.

conference: global economics and immigration policy, 10/24

Thomas Chow — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 16:34:04 +0000

Just got this email on the late side, so I apologize for the lack of notice. My alma mater, UC Hastings, is sponsoring a conference entitled “ Cities and Counties in the Global Economy: Local Immigration and Economic Policies under a Microscope“. Time and location:

October 24, 2008
8:30 am to 4:00 pm, Reception to Follow

UC Hastings College of the Law
198 McAllister Street, San Francisco, CA 94102

And here is some more information on the topics to be covered:

Cities and counties respond to the global economy in creative and sometimes controversial ways. On the economic side, cities flex their economic muscle through community development agreements, project labor agreements, living wage ordinances and the like. On the immigration side, day laborer ordinances, sanctuary and non-cooperation policies, and state and federal preemption dominate council rooms and courtrooms.

Do these policies work? What legal issues do they raise? What challenges do they pose for the basic legal, political and economic framework of local government?

Should be intriguing, though I don’t think I can make it on such sort notice personally. The more detailed brochure can be found here, and registration link is here.

annual meeting of the american society of comparative law

Thomas Chow — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 15:46:58 +0000

I should have posted this one earlier, like some other interesting conferences/symposiums that are happening around here. Anyways, the ACSL is having their annual meeting from 10/2/08 – 10/4/08 at my alma mater, UC Hastings College of the Law. (198 McAllister St., San Francisco, CA 94102 USA) The title of this year’s meeting is “The West and the Rest in Comparative Law”.

This conference aims at unveiling the “master narrative” of the Western Legal Tradition as reflected in the comparative study of law. In particular, we will explore how we perceive ourselves in relation to “the other”, i.e. what once was known as the radically different legal cultures. Very often our description of the other is deeply revealing of our own “self portraits”, something that we need to better understand. To be sure, in order to properly compare, we should get rid of as many stereotypes as possible both about our own Western identity and about that of the rest. Only by doing so may we avoid comparing actual legal entities with imaginary ones.

The program is here. It looks interesting enough from a theoretical perspective, so those who are into comparative law might want to attend this one.

More information can be found here. And registration is here.

customer service or lack thereof…

Thomas Chow — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 22:51:20 +0000

I had spent about 3 weeks in China, traveling from Beijing to Shanghai, with a number of stops in between. After that, my wife and I headed to Hong Kong and Macau.

After spending this much time in China, Hong Kong reminded me much of the west when it came to one important aspect: customer service. ( Silicon Hutong wrote up something about service in Hong Kong a few months back) Imagine the difference where a waiter actually comes to serve you, as opposed to a restaurant or cafe where you need to call the waiter for anything. (Practice calling “fuyuan” in a loud voice) After finding service even at higher end Beijing and Shanghai establishments to be disappointing, Hong Kong was a breath of fresh air.

What surprised me was the level of customer service in Macau (a.k.a. Vegas in China). I expected the same. I was wrong. I spent some time at the Grand Lisboa, a fairly new hotel and casino run by SJM. I was fairly impressed by the multi-level casino there, as well as the fact that they had a separate Texas Hold ‘Em room. Other casinos only have mostly Bacarrat. (Caveat: I do not gamble at all) It’s very Vegas-like, and they even have Stanley Ho’s large 218 carat diamond on display there. Overall, I thought the place was very nice inside. (The outside reminds me of the Rio in Vegas and leaves something to be desired–the Sands and the Wynn were much more understated and classy)

We were eating a meal at the Noodle House at the Grand Lisboa. And apparently the restaurant has a policy: do not allow customers to keep bottled water on the tables. Even the water bottles that are provided by the Grand Lisboa hotel. Rationale? It doesn’t look nice and they want to keep an upscale image. (I also note that the restaurant isn’t really all that upscale and that it is a complete delusion) So what happened? The staff offered us hot water… or you pay for tea. Everyone opted for hot water except me. I preferred colder water. I was kindly poured a cup of hot water and asked to remove my bottle. Which I refused to do because I would have nothing to drink then.

As the meal came closer to an end and the water in my bottle was slowly diminishing, one of the staff had the bright idea that they could just take the bottle and throw it away. Right in front of me. Even after I glared at her a little for taking it. No apology. Nothing. Just the standard line, “you aren’t allowed to use a water bottle”.

I decided to do the American thing instead of the Chinese thing in response: I asked for the manager instead of allowing them to save face. And I told him that this was unacceptable customer service. He told me that everyone who didn’t want hot water could have opted for cold water. Funny, this wasn’t offered to me. And I let him know that. He said that it was my responsibility to request it. It wasn’t. That was something that should have been offered instead of bottle thievery. Lesson #1: do not blame your customers for poor customer service.

Once I pointed that out, he apologized and blamed the staff. It’s summer and the staff there are a lot of temporary workers–college students looking to earn money. And he attempted to distance himself from their error. I noted that it didn’t matter–this is supposed to be a first rate casino in Macau and that they were responsible for training all employees properly. Lesson #2: do not blame your staff for poor customer service, particularly if you didn’t train them properly.

The manager must’ve known that was a lame excuse. So he laid down what was the bottom line for him: the boss said no water bottles allowed. That’s why it was taken from me. And because the boss said no water bottles allowed, that’s why none were allowed. It didn’t matter that the staff didn’t offer any alternative. (Bill Dodson has done some posts on the lack of Chinese innovation, as well as other blogs–many note that there is a Chinese stubborn adherence to the orders of a superior without any desire to question or improve) He might as well have said, “this is the Chinese way.”

And so I told him, “you tell your supervisor that you either need to train people to offer cold water instead of taking water bottles away or tell him that they need to learn customer service–which is that the customer is always right.” I hope this manager told his boss my comments. I doubt he did.

Overall, I was pretty shocked at the lack of customer service in Macau. I expected this in China, but not in Macau. Sure, it was better than the mainland. But that’s not saying much frankly. If Macau wants to attract more foreigners, the casinos better learn to shape up.

Anyways, enough ranting…

quick travel update and chinese nationalism

Thomas Chow — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:34:50 +0000

I just wanted to write a quick post as I’ve been traveling. We were in Beijing last week, and met with the blogger behind A Modern Lei Feng and Stan Abrams of China Hearsay. I also had the chance to have lunch with a pair of Chinese lawyers from King & Wood, which is so large in Beijing that it needs floors in two office buildings here. I attach a photo of myself and Zhang Yongliang, corporate partner at King & Wood.

Nearly everyone concurred that the legal market in China has slowed to some degree–but for those dealing with foreign clients, their work has slowed considerably. Those dealing with Chinese clients, while slower, still are keeping themselves busy enough. Of course, it’s hard to say whether my sampling is fair considering that I talked with only a few people. Still, it’s something to keep in mind–especially with Kinney Recruiting and Above the Law saying that things are “booming” here in China. Many here on the ground say its not as booming as you would suspect.

One thing I note is the amount of nationalism I’ve seen here so far. None of it is blatantly anti-western. In fact, much of the nationalism is based around the Olympics. I’ve received a fair number of Olympics related souvenirs this past year while in America… and coming to China, I’ve only received more. I now have a 1 and a half feet tall stuffed Jingjing doll (which is cute, I must admit) among other new Olympics related souvenirs. Sometimes I wonder if the Chinese ever buy Olympics gear for themselves.

Another time, I observed nationalism in a dinner with some relatives. We were talking about the Olympics, and many of them noted that there weren’t many foreigners around in town. (Stan Abrams told us the hotel industry is taking a beating right now) And I thought to myself “visas”. What was their reasoning? They were “informed” that many Americans and westerners were boycotting the Olympics over the whole T***t issue. To which I thought, “you’ve got to be kidding me.” Sounds like no one here on the ground even knows that the government has tightened down the visa situation so much that much of summer tourism is griding to a slow halt. If I had a nickel for everytime I read or heard that someone couldn’t get themselves a visa in China, I wouldn’t need to be blogging right now. But that being said, no one here knows. And I think the default Chinese viewpoint is to take a nationalist approach: it must be some boycott or anti-western sentiment against China.

While the necessity of a siege mentality for Chinese is debatable, I see more and more of it happening… and even when the Olympics goes away, I still see the nationalist siege mentality staying a little longer. Let’s just hope that it doesn’t stay too long or things could get ugly.