Was Hong Kong Lawmakers Missing an Important Vote Really an Accident?

Hong Kong's Legislative Council has spoken and did not pass a Beijing-backed government reform package which would have given Hongkongers the ability to choose their leader from a set of Beijing-approved candidates. The Chinese government has already indicated it will simply disregard the results and expects its plan to be implemented nonetheless. In other words, it appears China will force Hong Kong to have a "democratic" vote that Hong Kong's legislative council has now voted against due to the successful efforts of the pro-democracy camp. Yes, these are special times.

Making the times extra special was a walkout which lead to a number of lawmakers who were expected to support the reform package missing the historic vote, which did not effect the outcome except for causing the numbers for the defeat to appear all the worse. The Hong Kong based South China Morning Post described it as a "botched" effort resulting from a "miscommunication". The Wall Street Journal reported a similar story while providing other details. The New York Times called it an "embarrassing political misstep". None of these accounts question whether the lawmakers truly intended to vote. The same holds true for much of the other reporting and commentary I have seen, including on Twitter.

However, it is easy to think of plausible reasons why these lawmakers may not have wanted to vote for the bill but also not have wanted to displease the Chinese government with an explicit "no" vote or abstention. Perhaps the event was staged so the lawmakers had an excuse to miss the vote, and everything went as planned. On this note, James Pomfret and Clare Baldwin reported some intriguing details for Reuters:

Political analyst Johnny Lau, who has close ties with several pro-Beijing politicians, said a few had expressed privately to him they were considering abstaining to bolster their prospects in the next city-wide legislative polls.

"Some of them told me that they planned this before. They were thinking about the legislative elections next year," Lau said in a telephone interview. "If they voted for the plan, then the democrats could use this as a reason to attack them, so they didn't want to leave a record."

So at the very least, at this point I don't think it can be said with great confidence that the missed voted was indeed an accident. Instead, it is possible the lawmakers felt it was the best move they could make, even if they felt no truly attractive options existed.

More Yellow in Hong Kong

Umbrella Movement supporter posing for a photograph outside Hong Kong's Legislative Council Complex

Today in Hong Kong I spent some time observing the relatively small but lively demonstrations either supporting or protesting a Beijing-backed bill that would allow Hongkongers to vote for their city's leader with the catch that candidates would need to be approved by the Chinese government. The Legislative Council began debate on the bill today, and it appears headed for defeat.

I will have more related photos to share later. And at some point I hope to also say something deeper about today's and previous protests in Hong Kong.

A Temporary Tiananmen Memorial in Hong Kong

Hong Kong's Kowloon Public Pier offers a stunning view of Hong Kong Island and is a popular destination for tourists, including many from mainland China. When I walked by this past Sunday afternoon on a traditional Chinese holiday, Qingming (Ching Ming) Festival, otherwise known in English as Tomb-Sweeping Day, I saw displays about the violent crackdown which occurred around Beijing's Tiananmen Square nearly 26 years ago. There was also a monument for those who died and posters advertising the yearly June 4 Tiananmen candlelight vigil held in Hong Kong. It was organized by The Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China. Their website at www.alliance.org.hk does not appear to be accessible at the moment, but a Wikipedia entry describes their goals as:

. . . supporting patriotic democratic movements in China, putting an end to the current one-party dictatorship established by the Communist Party of China, and building a democratic China. It has become the largest grassroots pro-democracy advocacy group in Hong Kong, comprising over 200 base-level members from labour, councillor offices, religious, students, women and political commentary interest groups.

While I was at the pier, the displays caught the eyes of numerous passersby, some possibly from mainland China where such information is heavily censored. Here is a bit of what could be seen:

A Yellow Christmas in Hong Kong

When I spent some time in Hong Kong near the end of December, I saw many signs of the Christmas holiday throughout the city.

East Point City shopping mall in Hang Hau

Promotion in Tsim Sha Tsui

Cityplaza shopping mall in Taikoo Shing

Like the signs of Christmas I had seen in Fujian province, most were indicative of how the holiday has been embraced by many Chinese in a non-religious fashion.

A few other signs of the holiday in Hong Kong included an unusual theme though. Instead of the usual red and white Christmas colors, they often incorporated yellow, a color commonly used by those seeking fuller democratic rights in Hong Kong and who associate themselves with the Umbrella Movement or Umbrella Revolution. Although some uses of yellow may not have implied a political message, such as in the first photo above, some clearly did.

For example, on a shopping street in Mong Kok I was given a postcard expressing holiday cheer and the desire for "true universal suffrage".

Elsewhere, #UmbrellaRevolution stickers with the message "We are everywhere" were handed out.

And on Christmas Eve, some supporters of the Umbrella Movement were able to take advantage of Hong Kong closing several streets in Tsim Sha Tsui for the holiday, and they brought out the yellow.

So while Hong Kong's streets are no longer shut down by protests and the commercial side of the holidays predominated, Christmas still offered an opportunity for people to openly express that they have not given up the quest for universal suffrage—a special type of Hong Kong holiday spirit.

The New York Times Responds to Xi Jinping With a Less-Than-Full Account of Its Own Actions

In the past, The New York Times has allowed government requests to impact what and when they publish. For example:

In an unusual note, [The New York Times] said in its story that it held off publishing the 3,600-word article for a year after the newspaper's representatives met with White House officials. It said the White House had asked the paper not to publish the story at all, "arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny."

The Times said it agreed to remove information that administration officials said could be "useful" to terrorists and delayed publication for a year "to conduct additional reporting."

And the Times has itself acknowledged that it "has come under fire in the past for agreeing to government requests to hold back sensitive stories or information".

Yet in a recent response to President Xi Jinping's comments regarding some foreign journalists' inability to obtain visas, the Times' editorial board wrote:

The Times has no intention of altering its coverage to meet the demands of any government — be it that of China, the United States or any other nation. Nor would any credible news organization.

Technically speaking, the White House's requests may not count as "demands", and the Times carefully writes "has no intention". At the very least though, as Bill Bishop wrote, their claim is "a bit disingenuous".

The Times has indeed altered its coverage in the name of U.S. national security — something surely not lost on the Chinese government. Both the U.S. government and the Chinese government desire to limit the spread of information that could negatively impact national security. Yet they differ significantly in how they try to achieve this goal and how they define "national security" — no small matter in the Times' predicament in China.

In painting a misleading picture of its own willingness to alter coverage, the Times does not provide "the fullest, most truthful discussion of events and people shaping the world" but does provide an easy excuse to dismiss their argument or question their intentions. And in doing so, the Times misses an opportunity to make more nuanced points useful for discussing how foreign journalists operating with greater freedom could be to China's genuine benefit, including its national security.

A Taiwanese Politician Wants People to "Lean on Me"

While no other political signs in Taiwan have caught my attention as much as Lin Jinjie's (林金結) Barack Obama signs, one set comes in a clear second for their use of a familiar-to-many phrase.

Like Lin Jinjie (林金結), Ye Linchuan (葉林傳) is a member of Taiwan's Kuomintang party and he has his own page on Facebook. Unlike Lin, Ye is a council member in Taipei City and his signs do not include Barack Obama. Instead, at least some include the title of a song from the 70s by American singer-songwriter Bill Withers. Lest there be any doubt about the source of the phrase, the lyrics to the song "Lean On Me" appear in light lettering on the sign as well.

Not only did I see Ye employing this theme on several signs in Taipei, but I also saw it on the tissue boxes at a restaurant where I sometimes eat Taiwanese-style cold sesame noodles for breakfast.



As I am not familiar enough with Ye or local Taipei politics, I will refrain from commenting on the effectiveness of Ye's campaign tactics.

I will say, though, that the noodles were tasty.

A Taiwanese Politician and Barack Obama Want Change

In the Tucheng District of New Taipei City I recently saw a small part of Taiwan's democracy in action. At one location people busily worked for an election campaign.

Lin Jinjie (林金結), a member of Taiwan's Kuomintang party, is running for the position of councilor in the New Taipei City Council.

As I walked around Tucheng, I saw some of Lin's campaign signs. Most seemed run-of-the-mill.

One sign campaign sign stood out though.

Yes, that is Lin with U.S. President Barack Obama. And the sign makes it clear both of them are full of hope for change.

During earlier primary elections some questioned Lin's use of Barack Obama's image and suggested it improperly implied Obama supported Lin or may raise copyright issues (see articles in Chinese here and here). Others commented on the prominent use of English on the sign. Despite the criticism, at least the above sign remains and an image of the sign posted on what appears to be Lin's Facebook page remains as well. Whatever its merits, that a Taiwanese political campaign believes it could be helpful to reference Obama says something about Taiwan and speaks to America's potential soft power as well.

On a related note, I have seen Barack Obama's image used for commercial purposes in mainland China. But due to differences in political systems and cultures, I doubt I will be seeing any similar Obama-themed political-campaign signs there anytime soon.

"Let's Talk" and "Avatars of Nonviolence" in Hong Kong

While in Hong Kong earlier this year during January, I saw the following signs posted publicly in several locations by Hong Kong's government:

One sign said the closing date to "express your views" about "methods for selecting the chief executive in 2017" was May 3rd. After yesterday's announcement that Beijing will "filter" the possible candidates for the position of Hong Kong's top leader, some Hong Kong citizens still want to "talk and achieve universal suffrage", but they are "facing tough choices":

In the near future, the protests will achieve nothing, said Brian Fong Chi-hang, a political science scholar at the Hong Kong Institute of Education and a supporter of the democracy movement.

“The most important challenge is that even if they succeed in mobilizing a large-scale Occupy Central movement in a peaceful and orderly manner, they will finally get nothing,” he said. “We cannot change anything.”

But leaders of the movement expect to wage a protracted struggle nonetheless.

“This is a long, long cause,” said Chan Kin-man, an associate professor of sociology at the Chinese University of Hong Kong and co-founder of the movement, known in full as Occupy Central With Love and Peace. “Civil disobedience is the starting point. Look at what happened in Martin Luther King’s case.”

The mention of Martin Luther King Jr. is a sign of how some will "look to avatars of nonviolence":

[T]housands of people gathered in intermittent rain to protest a decision by China’s legislature to put firm restrictions on a plan to expand the franchise to allow all adults in the territory to vote for their leader, the chief executive.

The demonstrators, many of whom wore headbands emblazoned with the Chinese characters for “civil disobedience,” said they drew inspiration from thinkers and practitioners of nonviolent protest, including Henry David Thoreau, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and Dr. King.

And this reminds me of something else I saw this past January: shirts for sale at Hong Kong's Lunar New Year Fair pro-democracy booths.

It wouldn't surprise me if the shirts are available again at next year's fairs.

A Decision in Beijing, A Response in Hong Kong

As part of upcoming voting reforms for Hong Kong, today Beijing announced it will maintain tight control over the selection of candidates for Hong Kong's chief executive. As The New York Times reports, although most Hongkongers desire more freedom in choosing their leader, much of the response will be guided by multiple concerns:

Opinion polls show that most Hong Kong citizens support the demand for “unfiltered” electoral choice, but also that many have qualms about possible disruption from protests.

The Chinese government and the Hong Kong political establishment have accused Occupy Central and allied groups of recklessly imperiling the city’s reputation for political stability and support for business. And many ordinary Hong Kong residents have voiced worry about any political conflict that could hurt their livelihoods.

But Occupy Central says it will engage in nonviolent civil disobedience calibrated to avoid major disruption. Its organizers have said that they do not plan to plunge immediately into any protests after the Chinese authorities announce their plans.

Beijing's decision was not surprising. What happens next, though, seems harder to predict.

See "Live blog: Occupy Central leader declares 'era of civil disobedience' for Hong Kong" on the South China Morning Post for some of tonight's initial response in Hong Kong.

Assorted Links: Internet Cafes, Johnny Cash, Needing Google, and Discouraging Protests for Democracy

Now seems like a good time for some assorted links. Here we go:

1. One man dreams of a salaried job. Another man never wants one again. They both live in a Japanese Internet cafe as featured in a video by MediaStorm.

2. On a musical note, one man:

had never been a huge music lover. His musical taste was broad, covering Dutch-language songs, the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, with a preference for the last named. While music did not occupy an important position in his live, his taste in music had always been very fixed and his preferences stayed the same throughout decades.

But as described in a Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience paper, with a bit of technology he "developed a sudden and distinct musical preference for Johnny Cash following deep brain stimulation".

3. Several years ago I spoke to a student in Guiyang, Guizhou, who was concerned if Google "left China" that her academic research would suffer. With most of Google's services now blocked in China, Offbeat China shares that others in China are expressing similar pragmatic concerns.

4. Finally, but definitely not least . . .

Many Hong Kongers seek a level of democracy that Beijing has indicated it won't allow, regardless of any past promises. In response to plans for large-scale protests in support of more democracy, the international Big Four accounting firms decided to pay a leading role and placed public ads in Hong Kong.

They basically say, "please don't protest for democracy, it could hurt business".

Good to know where Ernst & Young, KPMG, Deloitte Kwan Wong Tan & Fong (Deloitte's Hong Kong unit), and PricewaterhouseCoopers stand.

Seven Tiananmen Tweets

Much has been recently expressed and shared regarding the events at Tiananmen Square 25 years ago and their lasting impact in China today. Below are seven people's tweets I retweeted (shared) last week during my moments on Twitter (if no images automatically appear, viewing this post on the blog (not in a reader) and / or enabling javascript may do the trick). The tweets are brief and only a small piece of the picture, but they say much.

Priceless. Mandatory 'enrichment' trip away from Beijing on June 3-4, via @ComradeWong MT@lee91741: pic.twitter.com/KP6rpOYHpL
— James Fallows (@JamesFallows) June 2, 2014

June 4 official souvenir, given by Beijing Gov to each soldier who took part in the crackdown. #64 #89 #memory pic.twitter.com/nbIrA2UtwN
— gilles sabrie (@GillSabrie) June 3, 2014

Wish the tanks had some LV logos. http://t.co/OaatIW4XNS #TAM25 pic.twitter.com/Hm7nVijYZj
— FAN Wenxin (@xinwenfan) June 4, 2014

Today, June 4, 2014, Sina Weibo began censoring searches for "Today." #Tiananmen pic.twitter.com/lUm6rQQ9E0
— William Farris (@wafarris) June 4, 2014

A beautiful night in HK as crowd at Tiananmen vigil fills six soccer fields -- and more keep arriving. pic.twitter.com/JsW3OkJi4T
— Philip Pan (@panphil) June 4, 2014

Always loved this picture of #TiananmenSquare protesters, from the college text that intro'd me to #China pic.twitter.com/sH8iVvgqOF
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 4, 2014

This was among the images deleted on #weibo yesterday ... pic.twitter.com/1gHatSGG8H
— Rohit Mahajan (@heresrohit) June 5, 2014

An Expiring Deal with a Changing Chinese People

In "For Tiananmen leader, a permanent exile" Ananth Krishnan's interview of Chinese dissident Wu’er Kaixi touches on a deal the Chinese government made decades ago:

Despite the two decades of unprecedented growth in China since 1989, [Wu’er Kaixi] believes the Party will face growing calls for political reform and anger against rising corruption — the same two demands that propelled protests 25 years ago.

“They struck a deal with the Chinese people in 1992 to give people a certain degree of economic freedom in exchange for political submission. That was a lousy deal because both economic freedom and political freedom is something that, to begin with, the Chinese people are entitled to. But this deal is also expiring. Once you give people economic freedom, they will become a little bit more powerful and they want more freedom. Because they want to be able to protect the money they made, they want rule of law, fair competition.”

In "Tiananmen, Forgotten" Helen Gao shares what it has been like for some to grow up under that deal:

[In] the post-Tiananmen years, life was like a cruise on a smooth highway lined with beautiful scenery. We studied hard and crammed for exams. On weekends, we roamed shopping malls to try on jeans and sneakers, or hit karaoke parlors, bellowing out Chinese and Western hits.

This alternation between exertion and ennui slowly becomes a habit and, later, an attitude. Both, if well-endured, are rewarded by a series of concrete symbols of success: a college diploma, a prestigious job, a car, an apartment. The rules are simple, though the competition never gets easier; therefore we look ahead, focusing on our personal well-being, rather than the larger issues that bedevil the society.

And in "The economic backdrop to Tian'anmen" Rob Schmitz highlights how even though people may want a new deal, whether because they feel "left behind" or a "little bit more powerful", people whose life has been more "like a cruise on a smooth highway" can have concerns about possible changes:

University of California’s Jeffrey Wasserstrom says 25 years later, with China’s economy now slowing down, there are signs the Chinese people want to renegotiate this deal – it’s no longer clear that making more money is an option. "Now I think there’s a sense that if you’ve been left behind, maybe you’ll be permanently left behind," says Wasserstrom. "And also, with the rising concern with issues like food safety, and heavy polluted air and water, I think it’s not so clear to people anymore that they can assume their children will live better lives than they did."

"People are angry, but people are worried that if something changes, would anything get better?" asks University of Michigan's Mary Gallagher. "I don’t think people in China have much confidence in democracy right now, and looking around them they may feel particularly people in the cities and people in the middle class may feel that democracy could end up even worse. It’s a much more segmented society, and people who are wealthy and who are middle class have much more to protect. And when they think about democracy, they think about majority rule. And I think majority rule is scary to them."

These excerpts together tell a story which resonates with what I have learned in China. In the future, I will share some thoughts on some of the seeming contradictions and important issues they raise. But for now, I simply recommend reading the pieces by Krishnan, Gao, and Schmitz. They each have their own story to tell about China 25 years after June 4, 1989.

Voices for Change and Democracy at a Hong Kong Fair

Booths selling flowers, food, stuffed toys, creatively designed bags, spices, and other items filled Hong Kong's Lunar New Year Fairs last month. The fairs I visited shared some similarities with one I visited 3 years ago in nearby Guangzhou. But one category of booths at Hong Kong's Victoria Park left no doubt that I could not be in mainland China.

At many of these booths, people used microphones to loudly express themselves and attract attention.

And volunteers handed out informational literature.

The booths' messages varied in some respects and the people running them ranged from student groups to political parties, but they held in common a belief that a select few unfairly controlled too much power and money in Hong Kong and that democracy could greatly benefit the Hong Kong people. With details for planned elections in 2017 soon to be announced, several weeks earlier people marched in support of full democracy for selecting Hong Kong's leader.

The booths sold items expressing messages in different manners and with varying degrees of explicitness. One notable item was toilet paper with current Hong Kong Chief Executive Leung Chun-ying's face printed on it.

The alpaca-like grass-mud horse--a symbol of protest against censorship in mainland China--was a popular offering, even at booths which overall did not appear political in nature.

Shirts with a variety of designs were also available.

For example, a large "Z" in one design represented the idea that people needed to "wake up" if they wanted democracy to take hold in Hong Kong.

One university student explained that the less explicit designs took into consideration the discomfort some in Hong Kong feel expressing themselves directly on such issues. On a related note, as I stood talking to one group of students, I observed a number of older passersby discreetly slipping money into donation boxes without saying a word, stopping, or making direct eye contact. The students made no effort to interact with these people, and there was no sign any acknowledgement was expected.

All of the organizations lead broader efforts, and they don't expect it will be easy. A few people told me they expect a substantial struggle will be required.

Much of what was occurring at these booths would not have been allowed at the Lunar New Year fair I saw in Guangzhou due to greater restrictions on expression, especially when organized, in mainland China. For me, the contrast was unmistakable. But many Hongkongers are not content with the additional freedoms they enjoy, some of which are deteriorating or are threatened. The 2017 election presents a dilemma for China's Communist Party: "shackling the territory’s democracy could pose as much risk to Beijing as agreeing to a truly free vote". It's not just about Hong Kong. People elsewhere are watching as well.

The people I met at Victoria Park face imposing obstacles. It's not clear whether they'll be able to rally the type of support and action that may be required to achieve their goals, if possible at all. It would be easy to bet against them.

But even though they may be unsure of what the future holds, they aren't saying, "I don't know a way to make it happen." They have hope, and they are trying.

A Chinese View on America's Hoary President

The beginning of Barack Obama's second term is newsworthy in many regions around the world. But I wonder if anyone captured it quite like Chen Zhi did for Xinhua (H/T Aaron Black). The title for the article almost says it all: "Barack Obama -- from handsome young to hoary old". And the article's beginning holds true to the title's theme:

Barack Obama, a personable middle-aged man, inaugurated as the first African-American president of the United States four years ago with an ambitious oath -- "Yes, we can."

However, when Obama swore in for a second term as the country's top leader on Monday, a man with eyebags, black spots and white hair stepped on the stage.

Chen's focus on (and description of) Obama's appearance raises two issues (among many others):

• It isn't clear whether or not the change in a US president's visual appearance over the period of time during their term would have been any different if had they not been president.
• One study found that being president had no impact on life expectancy: something one wouldn't expect to find if there was such a thing as "presidential aging".

For more on these two points, see a post on the Harvard Health Blog.

If you think Obama could make a rebound in his second term, Chen tempers such hope by closing the article with:

Whether the next four years could be easier for him remains a mystery, but it is for sure that Obama, buried in unstopping affairs at home and abroad, could never be any younger.

I suppose it is hard to argue with that point. Though, I am surprised Chen didn't conclude with a pitch for Just For Men.

On that note, for more insights about why Chen might be so concerned about Obama's hoary hair, it might not hurt to read Jason Leow's article on The Wall Street Journal: "Chinese Bigwigs Are Quick to Reach For the Hair Color".


UPDATE: Michele Obama may not have liked it, but how would have Chen's story differed if Obama had gone with this look?

Thankfulness and Hope, An Election Epilogue

I am not aware of having earned the location of my birth. And I believe that humanity matters more than nationality. Nevertheless, recents days are symbolic of several reasons why I am proud to be a citizen of the United States of America.

The debate over America's next president was not always constructive. And even between friends discussions could sometimes prove frustrating. But I find it all to be a small cost for the immense benefits of free expression and democracy.

At his re-election victory celebration, President Barack Obama captured some of my feelings (full transcription here):

Democracy in a nation of 300 million can be noisy and messy and complicated. We have our own opinions. Each of us has deeply held beliefs. And when we go through tough times, when we make big decisions as a country, it necessarily stirs passions, stirs up controversy.

That won’t change after tonight, and it shouldn’t. These arguments we have are a mark of our liberty. We can never forget that as we speak people in distant nations are risking their lives right now just for a chance to argue about the issues that matter, the chance to cast their ballots like we did today.

"People in distant nations" who desire a similar liberty yet see no obvious path to obtain it might hear a message for themselves in Obama's later words for Americans:

...I ask you to sustain that hope. I’m not talking about blind optimism, the kind of hope that just ignores the enormity of the tasks ahead or the roadblocks that stand in our path. I’m not talking about the wishful idealism that allows us to just sit on the sidelines or shirk from a fight.

I have always believed that hope is that stubborn thing inside us that insists, despite all the evidence to the contrary, that something better awaits us so long as we have the courage to keep reaching, to keep working, to keep fighting.

Today I am especially thankful for what requires no hope--Americans possessing the rights to engage in debate and to choose their own leaders.

I hope Americans work better together in achieving their common goals. I hope America meets the many challenges it faces. I hope Obama plays a positive role in improving America and the world. I hope I contribute.

And I hope people all around the world who seek liberty continue to hope.

Pundits and Teepees

I typically only post about U.S. politics here if it relates to China or one of my other "big" interests. Like many other people, the topic has attracted an unusually large amount of my online attention over the past few days due to the upcoming presidential election. My mind has been flooded with news reports, analyses, polls, pundits, polls of pundits, pundits on polls, pundits on pundits, and so on. I have also been occasionally distracted by other topics friends send my way such as $88 cat teepees. Although I have no plans to buy a cat teepee, it made me more aware of the benefits brief diversions can have in the midst of an information overload.

So in that spirit, during the next day or two I will do a series of very brief but more frequent China-related posts. They can serve as moments for some readers to flex their eyes on something different while allowing me to share with everyone more of what I have seen in China.

Soon, I will return to earlier themes here, such as college dormitories, and also reply to some readers' questions. In the meantime, though, I will keep things relatively simple.

More soon.

Mitt Romney and Counterfeit Valves from China

I previously shared this quote of Romney from the second U.S. presidential debate (full transcript here):

We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China's been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that's number one.

I argued that even under a generous interpretation of his comment about the Apple store, it was not particularly relevant to whether the "playing field is level" for the U.S. and China. In short, most accounts and my own many experiences do not support a belief that many "fake" Apples stores in China are selling counterfeit Apple products (more about Romney's earlier comment and the many "fake" Apple stores I have seen in China here).

In the third and final U.S. presidential debate both candidates made a few comments about China. Romney again raised the issue of counterfeit products (full transcript here):

We have to say to our friend in China, look, you guys are playing aggressively. We understand it. But this can't keep on going. You can't keep on holding down the value of your currency, stealing our intellectual property, counterfeiting our products, selling them around the world, even to the United States.

I was with one company that makes valves and - and process industries and they said, look, we were - we were having some valves coming in that - that were broken and we had to repair them under warranty and we looked them and - and they had our serial number on them. And then we noticed that there was more than one with that same serial number. They were counterfeit products being made overseas with the same serial number as a U.S. company, the same packaging, these were being sold into our market and around the world as if they were made by the U.S. competitor. This can't go on.

It is notable that Romney mentioned counterfeits, but did not mention any counterfeit Apple stores this time. I'll admit, I am pleased to know that Romney must have read this blog. It is worth noting that he did not use the tech-related examples involving either Google or Microsoft that I thought could be useful for his uneven playing field claim. As I mentioned before, this may be because it would not be beneficial for such companies to be publicly mentioned by a leading political figure in the U.S. If they were, it could increase perceptions in China that they are arms of the U.S. government.

Instead, Romney used an example of counterfeit valves. I have no familiarity with the valve trade nor do I have any experience with fake valve stores in China. I will just say there is nothing in his account that strikes me as peculiar or especially unlikely. In fact, it reminded me of a wholesale counterfeit toy store I saw in Guangzhou which had several customers in the U.S. I can only assume Romney chose an example of valves instead of my example of cuddly stuffed toys because most of the toys in the store I highlighted were of animated characters from Japanese games, TV shows, and movies. If only the store had sold counterfeit stuffed Disney toys my post might have made it into a presidential debate. Oh well.

That's all for U.S. politics here for now. Like before, I doubt this particular comment in the debate will be what matters most to American voters as they consider their vote in the upcoming election. But I assume many Americans would agree that China selling counterfeit goods is not good for the U.S.

After all, someone could seriously hurt themselves using a counterfeit bayonet.

Mitt Romney and Counterfeit Apple Stores in China

The most recent U.S. presidential debate touched on some China-related issues, and I would like to comment on at least one of them.

No, this post will not be about the single question from a Shanghainese female I know:

Binders of women. What does 'binders' mean here?

Nor will it be about the many creative answers she received from friends.

Instead, I want to focus on this statement by Mitt Romney (copied from a debate transcript here):

We can compete with anyone in the world as long as the playing field is level. China's been cheating over the years. One by holding down the value of their currency. Number two, by stealing our intellectual property; our designs, our patents, our technology. There's even an Apple store in China that's a counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods. They hack into our computers. We will have to have people play on a fair basis, that's number one.

When listening to the debate live, Romney's reference of the "counterfeit Apple store, selling counterfeit goods" struck me as peculiar. I had assumed he was talking about the widely-reported "fake Apple Store" in Kunming. But that situation has long since been resolved, and I am not aware of any evidence that the Apple products it sold were counterfeits. However, it would be easy for me to believe there exists at least one store somewhere in China that could be reasonably called a "counterfeit" Apple store and that sells counterfeit goods of some sort (even if they aren't Apple products but instead are accessories designed by other companies). Since it is not clear which exact store Romney is referencing and he does not specify which type of goods are being counterfeited, I would not consider Romney's Apple store claim to be necessarily untrue. But whether he was referencing the store in Kunming or another store in China that has somehow caught his attention, I am not convinced the example was relevant in regards to arguing that the playing field is not level in China.

As I have detailed before, what counts as a "fake" Apple store can be fuzzy. And since so many potential offenders can still be found, at least at the moment Apple may only be taking action against those that go to extremes in imitating a real Apple Store. Furthermore there exist many Apple-authorized retail stores in China that are not Apple Stores, and it is not illegal for unauthorized stores to resell genuine Apple merchandise in China (see previous two links for more about these topics and examples of both fake and authorized Apple stores in China). Although I have seen mobile phones for sale in China that appear to inappropriately use Apple's trademarks (see here and here for two of my favorite examples), I have never seen such phones for sale in what I think could reasonably be called a "counterfeit Apple store". Also, I am not aware of any evidence that many fake Apple stores are selling counterfeit products that look and function like genuine Apple products. Instead, most reports and my own experience suggest that the Apple products being sold at such stores are purchased from authorized Apple stores. The Apple Store in Hong Kong has been a particularly popular source due to differences in prices and availability of products, and it plays a role in China's extensive grey market (for other examples of grey market activities see here and here). See here for some examples of stores in Guangzhou who earlier this year openly stated that their iPhones come from Hong Kong (also includes many examples of stores in Hunan province and elsewhere in Guangzhou province). See here for a more recent example in a Reuters report from nearby Shenzhen.

So, although Apple certainly faces challenges in China, I don't think the "counterfeit stores" are effective for the point Romney was making. After all, those stores mostly appear to be selling genuine products purchased from Apple.

If Romney had his heart set on using a tech example to make his case, I think there would have been more suitable options. For example, an online service that is blocked by China's Great Firewall, such as Google's YouTube, could touch on the issue of fairness while also touching on another issue that can stir up American voters. Mentioning YouTube's situation could show Romney is concerned about the restrictions on free speech in China. It is also an example of where China's censorship leads to a playing field that is not level. After all, YouTube cannot expect to make much profit in China if it is blocked. China's Great Firewall is even helping Chinese companies get business from American companies (see here for one example related to YouTube). And if you think services such as YouTube are only blocked due to reasons of censorship, read here about a Chinese woman in Guizhou who thinks there are also economic reasons for Google's "problems" in China. Regardless of the reasons for the blocking, though, I think it is fair to assume that most American voters could be easily convinced (if they aren't already) that YouTube is not on a level playing field with its potential competitors in China.

However, some would largue that all is indeed fair in regards to YouTube and that Google just has to observe China's censorship laws. Well... if Romney is sensitive to such concerns, then he can mention another well known tech company. Microsoft could make a kadzillion* dollars if all the copies of its software in China were used under proper licenses and not pirated versions. The problem is so extreme that Microsoft has reportedly even had to make a formal request in China that several state-owned companies stop using pirated copies of Microsoft software (see here). And although there may be disagreements over the severity of the problem (at least in public statements), the Chinese government has openly stated it wishes to reduce software piracy. So even they appear to acknowledge (at least in their words) that there is a problem. Again, I think American voters would readily view Microsoft's situation as not fair. The only caveat that now comes to mind is any Chinese software company probably also faces issues with piracy in China. So I suppose one could say there is a level playing field in that regards. However, the problem has a much larger financial effect on American companies such as Microsoft, and no Chinese company faces a similar problem succeeding in the US.

So why did Romney mention Apple's situation instead of Google's or Microsoft's? I could speculate about reasons that relate to either Romney's interests (for example, he might think Apple is "sexier" to voters or he might have a very specific definition of "level playing field") or Google's and Microsoft's interests (for example, they may not consider it to be beneficial to resolving their China-related problems for them be publicly stated by a prominent U.S. politician) but... I think it is best to just say I really don't know.

Finally, I don't expect this critique to pose a significant setback for Romney. Although I was puzzled by his statement about a counterfeit Apple store and wanted to comment on it, American voters will likely be far more concerned about many other statements made during the debate.

Even those about binders.


*"Kadzillion" equals whatever amount Microsoft would make under such conditions.

UPDATE: Paul Mozur in the China Real Time Report writes that Jessica Angelson, the blogger who brought attention to the fake Apple Store in Kunming, "didn’t feel her find was being used properly" by Romney. Again, even though it was my first interpretation as well, at the moment I don't think it can be said that Romney's words definitely refer to the Kunming store. But even if they don't, the example would not seem to be highly relevant to his point. Maybe Romney will shed more light on this issue.


Disclosure: I previously worked as a user experience researcher at Microsoft China. All of the information and claims about Microsoft in this post are based solely on public sources (except for my newly-created word "kadzillion") and in no way represent "inside knowledge" on my part. The rampant pirating of Microsoft's products in China is well-known and easy to see.

Managed Protests, Restricted Speech, Counting Silently, Japanese Records, and Self-Medicating

I have read a number of pieces regarding the Diaoyu/Senkaku islands dispute and the related anti-Japan protests in China. I do not plan to comment on all of them, but I would like to recommend a few (in addition to those I mentioned before) simply because I think they add intriguing details or perspectives worth considering.

1. One of the often-discussed issues surrounding the recent anti-Japan demonstrations is the degree to which they were supported or organized by the Chinese government. In her piece on NPR "China Ratchets Up The Rhetoric In Island Spat With Japan", Louisa Lim touches on this topic and shares an intriguing discussion she had at a protest last week:

Almost all the demonstrators say they came out spontaneously to protest. But an onlooker who gave his name as Mr. Luo lets slip that he'd like to march, but today isn't his day to do so.

"I haven't been organized to demonstrate," the man says. "I'm having the day off. The government controls and organizes the demonstrations. You can't just go if you like. At the very least, there's organization among the universities. There are half a million college students in Beijing. If they all came here at once, it'd be unimaginable."

I would not argue with that last statement. See (and hear) more of what Lim found here.

2. William Farris, a lawyer for an Internet company in Beijing, in a blogpost "What Protesters Could and Could Not Say During Demonstrations In Front of Japanese Embassy" shared an excerpt from Caixin Online which provides a bit of evidence supporting the idea that the protests were examples not of free speech, but of government-permitted speech. He also shared photos of a number of strongly-worded signs that were permitted at a protest in Beijing. He provides English translations for the signs so more people can understand their messages. See and ponder the signs here.

3. Previously, a reader commented:

As a Chinese, I'm sad to see all the violence that's been going on, even in a modern city like Shanghai. I know that most Chinese don't agree with this, but 60+ years of anti-Japan brainwashing propaganda is hard to simply ignore.

The topic of brainwashing also appeared in Qi Ge's article "China's Brainwashed Youth" on Foreign Policy:

Ever since the 1970s, I have known that the Chinese people are the freest and most democratic people in the world. Each year at my elementary school in Shanghai, the teachers mentioned this fact repeatedly in ethics and politics classes. Our textbooks, feigning innocence, asked us if freedom and democracy in capitalist countries could really be what they proclaimed it to be. Then there would be all kinds of strange logic and unsourced examples, but because I always counted silently to myself in those classes instead of paying attention, the government's project was basically wasted on me. By secondary school and college, my mind was unusually hard to brainwash.

Even so, during my college years, I still hated Japan.

See what else this Chinese writer in Shanghai had to say here.

4. Regardless of any protests, many are focused on applying research to better determine who has a stronger claim to the disputed islands. Nicholas Kristof in his blog on The New York Times shared an article by Han-Yi Shaw, a scholar from Taiwan. In "The Inconvenient Truth Behind the Diaoyu/Senkaku Islands" Shaw shares some "new" evidence:

My research of over 40 official Meiji period documents unearthed from the Japanese National Archives, Diplomatic Records Office, and National Institute for Defense Studies Library clearly demonstrates that the Meiji government acknowledged Chinese ownership of the islands back in 1885.

See Shaw's review of the evidence here.

5. In his post "Seriously Hooked on Nationalism" Jeremiah Jenne shared his theory for why the island dispute has recently received so much attention in China:

Yes, I know thar’s oil and gas under them thar rocks, but the real concern is that the current storm of violent knucklehead patriotism no longer has anything to do with national interests and has become all about national pride and transition politics.

China’s leadership swap is in a few weeks and it’s fair to say that things have not gone according to plan. A little bumptious distraction like, say, everybody hating on Japan for a week or two might seem like the perfect remedy.

But basically it’s just the Party self-medicating.

See Jenne's argument for his claim here.

That is all for now. I am not sure how much more I will focus on this topic, but other topics are definitely on the way.

The Impact of China's Anti-Japan Protests on a Japanese Mother in Shanghai

There has been a growing clamor in China about some small islands in the East China Sea -- in China they are named Diaoyu and in Japan they are named Senkaku. Strong feelings pervade in China that it, and not Japan, is the righteous owner of these islands. If you are not familiar with the competing claims see an overview of the dispute's history by Scott Neuman on NPR.

There have been numerous protests in China during recent days, seemingly in response to the Japanese government purchasing the islands from a private owner. As summed up by Richard Burger:

We always knew the Diaoyu islands were a tinder box; now it’s exploded.

Disputes over land are one thing, but the anti-Japanese sentiment now being expressed in China is disturbing to say the least. One sign held by people proclaimed (as translated by Charlie Custer):

Even if China becomes nothing but tombstones, we must exterminate the Japanese; even if we have to destroy our own country, we must take back the Diaoyu Islands.

For more about the protests I recommend several recent pieces for an assortment of perspectives: "The Anti-Japanese Eruptions" by James Fallows, "Anti-Japan Protests Erupt In China Over Disputed Islands" by Louisa Lim, "On Beijing’s Anti-Japan Protests" by Eric Fish, "China’s Anti-Japan Riots Are State-Sponsored. Period." by Charlie Custer, and "Anti-Japan protests a double-edged sword" by Ko Hirano. Some of the titles on their own say so much.

Although the dispute has received attention in Western media, earlier I noticed a relative silence about one key aspect. Emily Parker summed it up in a tweet:

We keep hearing about Chinese "public opinion" (namely via weibo) in island dispute. Hear nothing about Japanese public opinion
— Emily Parker (@emilydparker) August 20, 2012

So before sharing one Chinese perspective and some of my own, I first want to share the thoughts and experiences of a female Japanese acquaintance who is now living in Shanghai, China. They highlight some of the protests' effects, intended or not, on Japanese in China.

Today I asked her if she had been impacted by the recent demonstrations in any way. She has (italics for emphasis are mine):

Things have been a bit tense... Yesterday I could see "the Red People" marching right through the street in front of our apartment. Hearing the news and actually seeing them was quite different. I actually felt fear, though I've heard some of those people are getting paid to participate in the march, without really knowing what for.

My daughter's soccer team's practice was cancelled and my husband was refused by 2 taxi drivers. I intend not to go out except to pick up my kids from the school bus for the next few days or however long it may take to calm down. Tomorrow there's supposed to be another big one.

In the Japanese news, they tell about many small clashes that have happened in towns, such as a Japanese civilian getting soup noodles thrown into his face, another had his glasses taken away and broken, etc., none of which is told in the Chinese news. Obviously the Western world doesn't care much about the situation.

I personally don't care to whom the island belongs, I just want everyday security. A lot of the educated, wealthy Chinese people don't care either, they know it's just another camouflage. They're probably bummed that their shopping trip to Japan on October holiday week may be cancelled. :(

This is all just too frustrating...

I followed up with some questions. Her reply:

Many of the weekend events are cancelled among the Japanese community, because the protesting and demonstration marching get really big on weekends. We think we need to be extra cautious and keep a low profile. The Japanese school in Shanghai decided to cancel all classes for at least next two days, and depending on how the situation turns out after the 18th (supposed to be the big anti-Japan day for Chinese people). There was supposed to be a big sporting event held this weekend, where all the parents and friends get to go watch, but it got postponed 'till next Tuesday, for the time being. There's a big chance it may get cancelled altogether.

Shanghai has quite a few soccer teams which are coached in Japanese by Japanese coaches, where naturally most kids are Japanese, though my daughter's team actually has a few Chinese kids and a Chinese coach, too. The practice was cancelled over the weekend for the same reason as above. The team uses the field that belongs to a Chinese school and there are many other people using the track, the basketball court, and other facilities. We want to avoid any kind of situation that may cause "clashes" between Chinese and Japanese.

I don't think the kids have had first hand experience of such anti-Japanese sentiments yet. In a way they are the least exposed to the real Chinese community, as they take the school bus to and from the Japanese school and don't get a chance to mingle with local kids much, which I personally feel that they are missing out on an opportunity, but living in a country like China, it can't be helped. (Americans or Europeans who send their kids to American, British, or International schools may think they're a bit more "Internationally" exposed, but I don't see much difference in terms of being cut off from the Chinese community.)

Today I had to go to the shop across the street to get enough groceries to last for the next few days. I was quite nervous just to cross the street and was hoping people woudn't be able to tell that I was Japanese (though I think they could).

I felt the same as I was walking back with my kids from the school bus stop back to our building. I figured as long as we stay withing the compound, there shouldn't be a big problem since most people living here are wealthy, educated Chinese along with other foreigners. But as I was entering the door, I heard a voice coming out of the doorman's walkie-talkie, and it completely freaked me out. It supposedly was a voice of another doorman who could see us from a distance saying, "Are they Japanese?". I know my Chinese isn't perfect, but I heard it clearly. I couldn't believe my ears. I just pretended I didn't hear it and walked right into the building, saying "Xie xie" ["Thank you"] to the doorman as usual. This doorman usually says "Bu yong xie" ["You're welcome"] back to me, but today he didn't. Believe it or not, this little incident gave me the biggest FEAR in these past few days. Much more so than seeing the protest marching outside my window.

Having lived in the US as a minority, I've had people say discriminatory words towards me, or look down on me. But this is nothing of that sort. This is a simple, but very strong FEAR towards the unknown, something completely irrational.

As for my husband, he was told to get off after he got onto the taxi once. I think they could tell from his accent.

3 Panasonic factories have been severely destroyed and also a Toyota dealer was burned down, as well as many Japan-related shops and restaurants having been attacked and plundered. The thing is that most of the workers at these factories are Chinese, and they'll be without jobs for the next however many weeks or months until these factories are restored. Also, most of the shops and restaurants are owned by Chinese.

OK, I still have to cook dinner. We still get hungry.

Based on earlier conversations, I know she appreciates much about her life in China and has found living there to be a special experience. She is someone who could potentially be a positive voice for China in Japan. But now, despite not caring who owns some small islands, doing her best to avoid any potential "clashes", and recognizing that in some ways the protests have hurt Chinese people more than herself, she is living in China with her husband and children in fear.

To the Chinese people who have been expressing anti-Japanese sentiment, whether through words or actions, I have one question:

Mission accomplished?