Category: China

Lining up

Shelton Bumgarner at the Marmot’s Hole blog quotes from a recent NYT article about how Disneyland Hong Kong has been redesigned to accomodate Chinese culture’s lack of waiting online.

There are, in fact, cultural differences in how people behave while in line, according to social scientists and park designers. Those differences have even led to physical changes in so-called queuing areas at some parks.

Rongrong Zhou, an assistant professor of marketing at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said the differences went beyond a Hong Kong-mainland split. Ms. Zhou, who has studied the psychology of queuing in Hong Kong, although not at theme parks, said there was a tendency among Asians and others in more collective cultures to compare their situation with those around them. This may make it more likely that they will remain in a line even if it is excessively long.

(The NYT article is old enough to only be avaliable to Times Select subscribers, which I am not, hence no link.)

When I was traveling in China, my fellow backpacker stumbled across a book, written in English by a Chinese man for a presumably Chinese audience, entitled something like “An introduction to English culture.” This book contained a sentence, now forever emblazoned across my mind, that almost perfectly defined the experience of being a foreigner in China, and perhaps of being a Chinese abroad.

“In England there is a phenomenon known as queueing.”

What more needs to be said?

Shelton also notes that Koreans seem to have no trouble with waiting on line. I can attest that the same is true of Taiwan, one of the many cultural differences between this island state and its parent continental nation. Perhaps waiting on line is, like removing ones shoes when entering a private home, a habit picked up from the Japanese during the 50 year rule?

As if good taste wasn’t enough of a reason to avoid cosmetic surgery

The Guardian reports that an investigation by their reporters has discovered evidence that tissue from executed Chinese convicts is being harvested for use in collagen (injected into lips to make them puffier) and other biological products used in cosmetic surgery.

Agents for the firm have told would-be customers it is developing collagen for lip and wrinkle treatments from skin taken from prisoners after they have been shot. The agents say some of the company’s products have been exported to the UK, and that the use of skin from condemned convicts is “traditional” and nothing to “make such a big fuss about”.

Of course, this may seem like a horrific and inhumane practice, reminiscent of the most profane and perverted practices of the Nazis, and yet there is probably a small segment of the population who would actually be more likely to buy implant tissue harvested without permission from executed Chinese prisoners.

International jockying across the Taiwan Strait reach a new level of silliness


The cartoon figure of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) has finally been granted permission to appear in the exhibition to celebrate the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Busan, South Korea, thanks to the efforts of officials from the Taipei Mission in South Korea and the Busan Cartoon Club.

The cartoon figure of Chen was put on display yesterday at the APEC Summit Cartoon Figure Exhibition in Busan City — the venue of this year’s annual event — along with those of other heads of state slated to attend the APEC summit in November.

Media Executives Court China, but Still Run Into Obstacles

August 29, 2005
Media Executives Court China, but Still Run Into Obstacles
By GERALDINE FABRIKANT

In June, Yu Youjun, the executive deputy governor of Hunan Province, came to lunch accompanied by 16 dignitaries at the home in Beverly Hills of Sumner M. Redstone, the Viacom chairman.

Viacom, like many other American media companies, is already active in China. Its MTV network is carried in 10 million homes in Guangdong Province. Two-hour blocks of Nickelodeon programming like “CatDog” and “Wild Thornberries” are beamed on the government-run CCTV to more than 120 million homes.
Continue reading Media Executives Court China, but Still Run Into Obstacles

Tibet in exile

Following my post yesterday about the Dalai Lama’s upcoming visit to my former university of Rutgers, I thought this very recent Time Asia article describing his government in exile.

Around me, matrons from Lhasa are buying bread from vendors outside the temple, and walking their children to the Tibetan school down Temple Road. Recent escapees from Tibet are setting up tables and preparing lattes and chocolate cakes at the sleek Moonpeak Café and at Chonor House, the elegant guesthouse run by Tibet’s government-in-exile. Everywhere are monks in red, reciting sutras, sweeping their temple grounds, streaming into Internet cafés, and just whiling away their day in the shadow of Himalayan foothills, almost as if they were at home. What I’m seeing, improbably, is a vision of Tibet that you can never see these days in Tibet itself.

Also see a brief post I did earlier about Tibetans in Taiwan.

Taiwan protests to UN for `misinforming’ exhibit

From the Taipei Times:

DPA , NEW YORK
Sunday, Aug 14, 2005,Page 3

Taiwan on Friday protested to the UN for naming the People’s Republic of China (PRC) as one of the world body’s founding members in a 60th anniversary exhibit.

Taipei’s representative in New York, Andrew Hsia (夏立言), wrote to Shashi Tharoor, the undersecretary-general for public information, accusing the UN of “blatantly deviating from history and misinforming the world.”

The Republic of China (ROC) — later known as Taiwan — was the government in power in China at the end of World War II and one of five powers that began the process of creating the UN, which was founded in 1945.

Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) communist forces forced the government to flee to the island of Taiwan in 1949, and communist China was awarded the Chinese seat at the UN in 1971.

Hsia protested because an exhibition at UN headquarters on its 60th anniversary includes a poster with names of the 51 countries that signed the UN Charter on June 26, 1945. The People’s Republic of China was named one of them.

“I hope that this mistake has been unintentional and ask for your prompt attention and action to have it corrected,” Hsia said.

The other UN founders were the US, the Soviet Union, France and the UK.

Notice that the article says “The Republic of China (ROC) — later known as Taiwan .” Despite a recent movement to change the name, this country is in fact still officially known as the Republic of China. It is known as Taiwan almost universally in informal circumstances, but the article’s wording implies that an official name change has taken place.

This article is apparently a product of the German wire service, Deutsche Press-Agentur. Unfortunately, unlike similar American services, it is subscriber only, and there is no way for me to check and see if the original article contains this statement or if it is a result of editing by the customer (the Taipei Times).

The Taipei Times, as the English language sister newspaper to the pro-independence Chinese language daily Liberty Times, is itself unabashedly pro-independence. While I generally sympathize with their politics, they do seem to have a history of playing a bit loose with the facts when it serves their political ends-a tendency that leaves me less than 100% trusting of their coverage. Bias may be appropriate in the editorial pages of a newspaper, and even in choice and manner of events covered, but I simply don’t believe that publishing genuinely misleading copy is helpful in the long run.

Does anybody out there have access to the DPA news feed, who could find the original unedited version of this article?

I should of course mention that the factual basis of the article would be pro-Taiwan enough without this manipulative phrase. It is absolutely true that it was the Republic of China, and not the People’s Republic of China, that was a founding member of the UN, and it is irresponsible of the UN to put out such incorrect information.

Arms sales to China

From SFgate via Google News:

The Pentagon estimates that China could be spending as much as $90 billion annually on its military, three times the publicly released defense budget, making China the world’s third-largest defense spender and the largest in Asia. A large portion of the secret budget is spent on buying weaponry from nations such as Russia and Israel, the report concludes.

As we all know, the US recently succeeded in persuading Europe to extend a ban on selling weapons to China. How on Earth does Israel, a country who pretty much relies on continued US military aid for its very existence manage to avoid criticism for doing the same thing? Has there been any outrage about this in Congress?While some news sources covering this mention arms sales by Russia and Israel, some of them mention only Russia.

Associated Press (via WaPo):

The Chinese military is buying new weapon systems _ including important purchases from Russia _ while developing new doctrine for modern warfare and improving training standards, the report released Tuesday says.

This this article from an India based news web site stresses

Chinese military build-up is not only targeted at India, but also at Taiwan, Japan and Russia.

Russia and China have a history of border disputes and are increasing competition for resources. Israel’s national defence relies on the US, whose potential interference in a China/Taiwan war is a primary for China’s military buildup. Why on earth do either of these two countries feel it is in their best interests to help arm China?

The article on the Malaysia Star website provides the most meaty information out of those that I’ve seen.

Continue reading Arms sales to China

Give and take

The NYT reports on a little known industry that has been outsourced to China.

Own Original Chinese Copies of Real Western Art!

At 26, Mr. Zhang estimates that he has painted up to 20,000 copies of van Gogh’s works in a paint-spattered third-floor garret here where freshly washed socks and freshly painted canvases dry side-by-side on the balcony.

A block away, Ye Xiaodong, 25, is completing 200 paintings of a landscape of pink and white flowers in another third-floor garret. And down the street, Huang Yihong, also 25, stands in an art-packed store and paints a waterfall tumbling gracefully into a pool, mixing the paints on an oval palette.

China’s low wages and hunger for exports have already changed many industries, from furniture to underwear. The art world, at least art for the masses, seems to be next, and is emerging as a miniature case study of China’s successful expansion in a long list of small and obscure industries that when taken together represent a sizable chunk of economic activity.

I was a little but shocked and amused to get to the middle of the article and find out that the seat of production had formerly been near my hometown.

Northern New Jersey used to have a small but thriving cluster of businesses with artists churning out inexpensive paintings for restaurants, hotels and homes across the country. But these enterprises have been switching to imports, like the Dae Ryung Company, which had seven painters two decades ago at a studio attached to its offices in Hackensack, N.J., and let the last one leave four years ago without finding a replacement.

“In the beginning it was better here, because we were able to tell them exactly what we wanted,” said Helen Cho, the company’s purchasing and accounting manager. “But after a while, the Chinese caught on.”

Should New Jersey residents be upset that outsourcing has moved yet more crappy, pointless jobs out of our state to a faraway land where people will appreciate them more?

Two days later, the Times printed another article on another industry that is now just beginning to boom in New Jersey.

TEN years ago, New Jersey had 14 wineries. Today it has 27, and within the next year or so the number is expected to reach 40.

Ten years ago, New Jersey made 873,000 gallons of wine (about 360,000 cases). Now it makes almost twice that much, more than 1.5 million gallons. In 1995, it was eighth in the nation in wine production; now it is fifth, behind only California, New York, Washington and Oregon.

But one thing hasn’t changed in that decade of extraordinary growth for New Jersey wine: hardly anyone knows a thing about it. Less than 1 percent of the wine consumed in New Jersey was made in New Jersey – not surprising, considering that few restaurants serve it and few liquor stores carry it. Even experts like John Foy, a consultant who writes a wine column for The Star-Ledger of Newark and assembled the world-class wine list at Restaurant Latour in Hardyston, confess ignorance.

Amazing. Is there really still room for vineyards in the nations most populous state amidst the chemical factories and urban sprawl? Will The Garden State earn its name?

Addendum: A second newspaper reports on a long established Newark, New Jersey based manufacturer whose entire production has been outsourced.