What was Zhan Qixiong plan when he was intercepted by Yonakuni?

This is the video taken by Yonakuni on the collision when it tried to intecept Minjinyu 5179.


First, let's note a few facts (see previous post for background and screenshots)

1. Yonakuni has taken a long circle to come in front of Minjinyu, starting from about 8 O'clock direction (of Minjinyu 5179) to reach 2 O'clock in the begining of the video, and was at around 11:30 O'clock when its end collided with Minjinyu 5179
2. At around 8'30", you can see another JCG ship, probably Hateruma (Let call it H), behind Yonakuni and to the right of Minjinyu 5179. Since we did not see it before earlier while Yonakuni was circling in front of Minjinyu 5179, we can conclude that  H was probably either at 7-8 O'clock direction for Minjinyu 5179, or some distance from the 3 O'clock direction
3. The track thickened a lot right behind Yonakuni at the moment of the collision, most likely indicating it has slowed down and parked (confirmed by the relative motion of Yonakuni with the sea wave track in the video)
4. You can see an island right behind Minjinyu 5179 (wiki said it is Huangwei Yu, also called Kubashima by Japan), indicating that Minjinyu was trying to sail away from the island and halted when being cut in front by Yonakuni

The situation is illustrated in this diagram below (click to enlarge)

What would you do if you wre captain Zhan at this moment?

• Your boat is much slower than Yonakuni (10 knots vs 30-40 knots), so it is useless to go anywhere in front of it. 12-9 O'clock directions are ruled out. It takes some time for Yonakuni to make a u-turn so your best chance is go behind it.
• You cannot go backward. You probably arrived at this position and were planning to move forward. But you had to stop your engine because Yonakuni is cutting in front of you. Going backward will bring you closer to Huangwei Yu and bring you more trouble. You want to be as far away from Huangwei Yu as you can now.
• You should also see JCG H coming from behind and trying to round you up on the other side, so you should try to get as far away from Huangwei Yu as possible. You hope if you can get out of the 24 nm radius you would be free and avoid being caught and result in financial losses
• You options are anywhere from 3-12 O'Oclock. 12 O'clock (proceeding directly ahead) offer you the best chance to escape, because JCG H is behind you and may intercept you from behind on your right hand side Another reason to avoid your right hand side is that H probably is already at your 3 O'clock now.
• You see Yonakuni is moving, there are some 100-200m between you and Yonakuni, so by the time you reached its current position (Y0), it should have moved to Y1 already.

So you took the short path, charging directly ahead to break the trap. M0 to M1.

Yonakuni knew that and saw that. It braked/backpedaled and stayed at Y2 instead. You tried to avoid it but you still got to its tail.

Should you have taken 1 O'clock or 2 O'clock instead to be safe (even if H is at 3 O'clcok coming to you)? You probably should, and you probably had done all those earlier that morning. This is one of the many interceptions since early morning and the ordeal would take at least another 2-6 hours that day. Maybe they have videos for you trying hard to avoid collision as well. They are not going to show the public if all the other videos. If not for that over-zealous and over-confident sengoku38 san, no one in the public will be able to even see this video.

Maybe you should have made your own recording. But you cannot afford such gadgets, and were not prepared to bring a video-camera to this trip, After all, you are a poor fisherman trying to make some bugs. You are not coming here for eco-tour.

Which ship has made a change in direction before the collision of Mizuki and Minjinyu 5179 (UPDATED)

Update (Nov 17): upon a few more viewing, I have come to the conclusion that Minjinyu also made a turn of about 20-30 degree and at some point was not exactly facing left. I have updated my graph accordingly. Note also that I am not trying to prove that Minjinyu bears no responsibility at the collision. I believe both sides need to share the responsibility, since Mizuki also made a significant turn of some 240-270 degrees, and made its direction very unpredictable -- might have caused the seemingly erratic turn of Minjinyu. (But we really do not have solid evidence to say either way)

But before you go on I want you to first judge this picture, that if the boat has turned

Then you can find out the answer in this picture below (where the picture above is cropped from), taken from the end credit of the movie Suspect X (a great movie btw). I do not claim the situations are the same, but this just shows us how a partial picture is far from being a conclusive evidence. That is why I hope Japan would release all the 10 hours of videos it has taken.

===

In my previous post an anomymous commentator suggested that Minjinyu 5179 made a change of direction and hence ram into Mizuki. What he saw was the video taken from on board Mizuki, all it shows is the relative velocity. Fortunately, we are able to see another video taken by Hateruma during the exact same moment from a different angle. Here it is.


This is a screenshot taken by Japanprobe, from the video taken by Hateruma, observing the collision between Mizuki and 5178. You can see the trace behind Mizuki, when it just completed a 300 degree turn right in front of 5179. It is quite clear that it is Mizuki which had made a large angle turn just before the collision, towards the area blocking the path of 5179

A path with time scale based on the video, and the speed indicated by the intervals between the 10 second gaps is shown approximately here. Looking at the time scale you can also see that Mizuki has more or less parked (stationary speed) for the 30 seconds before the collision, while Minjinyu had actually slowed down a bit. You can view the video again to verify my chart.

1A) Mizuki speeding towards 5179 (0:47)

1B) Mizuki turned 90 degrees (1:10). Note that Minjinyu 5179 has already made its turn of 20-30 degree by then. So Minjinyu's turn was made most likely while Mizuki formed a T in front of it. Perhaps it was expecting Mizuki to continue sailing towards its right, so that turning left would avoid the much faster Mizuki.

 1C) Mizuki completed the turn (1:08)

Since Mizuki is almost stationary while making the turn, we can estimate the speed of Minjinyu during the moments to be around its own length during 10 seconds. which is approximately 40m/10s or 4m/s=15km/hr.

If you compare the location of Mizuki between 0:26 and 0:29,  in less than 3 seconds it traveled the length of its own of 46 meters (type びざん型巡視船 (2代))(marked by the white wave). So its speed is about 50m/3s = 60km/hr, 4 times the speed of fishing boat 5170. So even adjusting for it slower speed right after the turn, it must be able to avoid the crash it wanted to.

If this is still not conclusive, in the Mizuki video we can see two other JCG staff were taking videos, they should release those videos as well as additional data points.

---
 Now back to the video taken from Mizuki.

A second JCG ship can be seen on the right of 5170, trying to encircle it from left behind

 In 15 seconds, the 2nd JCG ship has moved to the left side of 5179, leaving a long white trace behind it, this shows the significant difference in relative speed of JCG boats and Minjinyu 5179

The encircling tactic is not uncommon from JCG. This is an aerial photo from another act by JCG, probably taken in 1998 in the same area. This may be the plan of the JCG ships.

See also a different view in this NBR thread, there are some problem with the poster's observation though, e.g. he claimed there were 2 JCG ships, in fact there were at least 3, the Yonakuni, the Mizuki, and the Kateruma.

The Diaoyu Collision Videos

Update 3:
More analysis of the collisions
1) Which ship has made a change in direction before the collision of Mizuki and Minjinyu 5179
2) What was Zhan Qixiong plan when he was intercepted by Yonakuni?

Update 2:
Some discussion in the comment. I would recap here.

How the collision happened, and the routing of the JCG ships and the Chinese boat are pretty clear after viewing these videos.

This is actually quite similar to the case of the Hainan flight collision between a Chinese fighter and American spy plane in April 2001.

Now the issues (and comparison) really are:
1) From Japan's perspective, the JCG is 'enforcing' its law in its water. The question is comparable to whether a police boat should block the course of a civilian when it disobeyed order. And whether the enforcement should be as aggressive in certain disputed area with a foreign boat.

2) From Chinese perspective, Japan simply has no right to enforce its law in this area.

3) From a third party's view. The issues are
a) shall enforcement be this aggressive, assuming even if this area belong to Japan (as many Japanese would say, the Russian were much more aggressive, and opened fire in South Kuriles)?
b) shall the fishing boat change course (or is it possible for it to do so technically, given it is much slowed to control the speed and direction of a boat than a car)?
c) has the captain been avoiding such collision for the whole 4-5 hours of hide and chase game, and eventually lose either concentration or patience and gave up on steering control?
d) the area seems to be within 12 nm of the island (as you can see the islands in the background in Yonakuni video). so this is not the high sea. but again, it is disputed area and enforcement should be more scrupulous.

Related links
1) ESWN: Hong Kong Media Reaction To Diaoyuatai Collision Video
2)  日艦故意讓「閩晉漁」撞上 操弄錄影片段枉費心機
3) 釣島撞船片外洩 中日矛盾惡化
4) 故意不播周旋過程
5)  專家：日艦違慣例強攔漁船

---


Update 1:
1) 282 DVDs discovered in JR Station, with leaflet of "This shows the truth about DPJ. Please help yourself for free"
2) Asahi's speculation of the rationale for the leak.

---

The two collision videos are finally viewable -- just as I suspected before, Kan government clearly has every reason to keep the videos to themselves, But LDP will not let go of this opportunity to discredit its political rival. I suspect the leak is from DPJ's political enemies. (The leak's youtube ID is Sengoku38. While Sankei tried to explain the connotation of 38 as gossip women in Chinese. 38 are also good fortune number is South China. So it might as well be Chinese hacker who leaked the video)

1) This is taken by crew on Yonakuni. You can see Yonakuni started from the right flank of Minjinyu 5179, cut in front of it (and obviously doing this very slowly or even 'parked' in order to intercept the fishing boat). Minjinyu's direction did not change much throughout the video and its velocity was not fast and didn't change much. When the boats collide you can see the white wave track left behind by Yonakuni, showing that it had just crossed in front of Minjinyu. From the track you can see Yonakuni's speed was much faster than Minjinyu. It makes one wonders why it slowed down (instead of sped up) while parked in front of Minjinyu.


See the white track behind Minjinyu. Yonakuni had came from behind Minjinyu and circled it from its left aft, right aft, right flank, then cross in front of it. See all that Minjinyu left no visible track, showing that its speed was much much slower than Yonakuni. The fact that Minjinyu did not crossed the white track behind also indicated that the amount of time Yonakuni has to circle Minjinyu was less than the amount of time Minjinyu has taken to go across the circle (for a perfect circle, the speed ratio will be at least pi/2=1.57 times)

1A) White track behind Minjinyu

 1B)White track to the right of Minjinyu

1C) Right before collision, white track behind Yonakuni. Yonakuni has just made an almost 90 degree turn in front of Minjinyu.

 1D) After collision, no more white track as Minjinyu broke out of the "white circle".

Compare this with earlier CGI released by Japan you will understand why CGI is preferred over the real thing for Japan.

2) This one was taken by another JCG ship, Hateruma. In the first second of the video, it shows that Mizuki has just sped past Minjinyu and turned around in front of Minjinyu (see the semi-circle white wave track). Mizuki then sailed toward the Chinese fishing boat, then did a quick turn around right in front of Minjinyu, slowed down and parked and got hit by the Chinese boat which apparently could not brake nor turn (or reluctant/slow to turn).(for English subtitle version see here)



2A) Mizuki Turn around in front of Minjinyu to intercept

 2B) Mizuki speed toward Minjinyu after first turn

2C) Mizuki, reach in front of Minjinyu, turned again to block Minjinyu from its front, the next video starts here, filming the left side of Minjinyu. You can see that Minjinyu did not change direction, while Mizuki turned into its way. It is not clear whether Minjinyu would have enough time to change course, or if it did, Mizuki would not move again to block it.

This is taken on Mizuki. It very clearly shows the JCG ship Mizuki sped up to intercept the Chinese Fishing Boat. In the beginning of the video, the two boats almost sailed side by side. Note also that a lot of black smoke came out from Mizuki a few seconds BEFORE the collision, similar to what you see when one pushes the pedal suddenly on a truck uphill.



This is taken a second before the collision, Note the thick black smoke from Mizuki.

The JCG boats seem determined to intercept the Chinese fishing boat. The Chinese fishing boat (Minjinyu 5179) seems determined to get out of the encirclement. The JCG boats are 3 times in length (translates into 27 times in size/volume/tonnage - Yonakuni is 89 meter long, 1300 ton displacement, vs Minjinyu 5179's 30 meter length and about 40 tons in displacement) and much faster than the fishing boat. As I had earlier speculated, it is extremely unlikely that any sane skipper will want to run into ships 27 times its size with much stronger steel body, nor that a much slower fishing boat would be fast enough to chase up the JCG ship. This looks like a replay of the 2008 Lien Ho Incident.

Relative size of A JCG ship and Minjinyu

• Hateruma: 89m, 1300 ton (speed about 60km/hr or 30-40 knots)
• Yonakuni: 89m, 1300 ton (speed about 60km/hr or 30-40 knots)
• Mizuki: 46m, 197 ton (speed about 45-45 knots)
• Minjinyu5179: 30m, 40 ton (speed about 15km/hr or 10-15knots)

In short, these videos do not help with JCG's case against skipper Zhan. It explain why Japan had to release the captain.

The Chinese MoFA spokesman Cui Tian Kai is now very adamant, "[Regarding what actually happened], The facts are very clear..."

ZT: 保 內 地 經 濟 增 長 ， 遠 遠 重 要 過 參 與 國 際 救 市

I am not a big fan of the Apple Daily editorial, not for the HK verion, or frankly not a fan at all. When one has to slip so much political agenda into every editorial it is hard to be fair and objective.

However, partisan as it is one as a reader should not lose his rationality, especially when it got things right despite all the prejudice. I agree 100% with today's column, only that, the politicised title is not helping it push its message to the intended ears, and I replaced its title with the conclusion: it is far more important to preserve domestic economic growth than participate in international rescue efforts. Because, (1) the ability to maintain economic growth inside China has a much larger impact to global economy than any money China can throw to IMF or the like, (2) It is uncertain how effective or efficient any of these US/Europe-led efforts are, we have seen the track record of IMF 10 years ago, and what it had done to Indonesia.

---

金 融 海 嘯 不 是 機 遇 　 胡 溫 不 宜 貪 功

面 對 席 捲 全 球 的 金 融 海 嘯 ， 中 國 人 民 銀 行 在 兩 個 月 內 三 度 減 息 ， 儘 管 對 內 地 股 市 的 刺 激 作 用 有 限 ， 但 表 明 了 中 國 領 導 人 胡 錦 濤 、 溫 家 寶 參 與 國 際 社 會 穩 定 市 場 、 穩 定 經 濟 合 作 的 意 向 。 不 過 ， 對 於 美 國 總 統 喬 治 布 殊 呼 籲 中 國 增 購 美 債 、 英 國 首 相 白 高 敦 敦 促 中 國 注 資 國 際 貨 幣 基 金 組 織 （ IMF ） ， 胡 、 溫 的 反 應 相 當 冷 淡 ， 中 國 外 交 部 昨 日 僅 表 示 ， 願 在 力 所 能 及 的 範 圍 內 ， 積 極 考 慮 參 與 救 援 計 劃 。
對 於 今 次 百 年 一 遇 的 金 融 海 嘯 ， 內 地 傳 媒 不 時 有 意 無 意 提 出 陰 謀 論 ， 反 對 動 用 外匯儲 備 參 與 國 際 救 市 行 動 ， 特 別 是 反 對 增 購 美 債 、 反 對 注 資 IMF 籌 設 的 一 萬 億 美 元 救 市 基 金 ， 中 國 持 有 大 量 美 債 更 頻 遭 炮 轟 。 根 據 美 國 財 政 部 10 月 16 日 公 佈 的 數 據 ， 中 國 至 今 年 8 月 持 有 美 國 國 債 5,410 億 美 元 ， 居 第 二 位 ， 僅 次 於 日 本 的 5,859 億 美 元 。
中 國 官 方 新 華 社 旗 下 《 瞭 望 東 方 周 刊 》 也 質 疑 「 金 融 危 機 是 一 次 合 謀 」 ， 並 引 述 金 融 界 人 士 說 ： 「 無 論 美 國 怎 麼 救 市 ， 它 的 根 本 目 的 是 發 動 一 次 貨 幣 戰 爭 ， 通 過 美 元 貶 值 、 國 債 估 值 下 降 ， 到 時 候 由 日 本 、 中 國 這 些 與 它 金 融 聯 繫 比 較 多 的 國 家 買 單 。 」
這 種 以 貨 幣 戰 爭 看 待 金 融 海 嘯 的 陰 謀 論 ， 顯 然 深 受 去 年 6 月 出 版 的 暢 銷 書 《 貨 幣 戰 爭 》 影 響 。 這 本 書 以 陰 謀 論 分 析 國 際 財 團 透 過 搶 奪 貨 幣 發 行 權 ， 操 縱 國 際 金 融 、 經 濟 、 政 治 運 作 ， 在 內 地 引 起 廣 泛 關 注 。 據 稱 ， 主 管 金 融 工 作 的 副 總 理 王 岐 山 讀 後 還 批 示 ， 要 求 所 有 財 金 官 員 研 讀 。
與 陰 謀 論 同 時 大 行 其 道 的 是 機 遇 論 。 一 些 學 者 、 官 員 認 為 ， 金 融 海 嘯 是 中 國 參 與 重 整 國 際 金 融 秩 序 的 機 遇 ， 對 胡 溫 裹 足 不 前 甚 為 不 滿 ， 呼 籲 政 府 採 取 更 具 力 度 和 規 模 的 救 市 行 動 ， 大 有 取 美 國 而 代 之 、 趁 其 病 （手羅） 其 命 的 氣 概 。 《 貨 幣 戰 爭 》 的 作 者 宋 鴻 兵 更 明 言 ： 「 中 國 應 該 考 慮 如 何 在 即 將 到 來 的 國 際 金 融 戰 爭 中 贏 得 戰 略 主 動 權 ， 最 終 實 現 在 一 個 國 際 『 後 美 元 體 系 』 中 的 貨 幣 霸 主 地 位 。 」
在 華 爾 街 五 大 投 資 銀 行 同 時 受 損 之 際 ， 金 融 海 嘯 的 陰 謀 論 難 有 說 服 力 ， 機 遇 論 則 未 免 太 過 自 大 。 陰 謀 論 、 機 遇 論 對 是 否 參 與 國 際 救 市 的 主 張 不 同 ， 但 又 是 一 脈 相 承 ， 都 是 基 於 中 國 龐 大 的 外 匯 儲 備 而 引 發 的 民 族 主 義 情 緒 ， 都 是 要 求 胡 溫 向 美 國 說 不 。 截 至 今 年 9 月 底 ， 中 國 外匯儲 備 達 1.9 萬 億 美 元 ， 雄 居 世 界 首 位 ， 在 金 融 海 嘯 襲 擊 環 球 之 際 顯 得 格 外 耀 眼 ， 也 為 胡 錦 濤 、 溫 家 寶 在 任 期 屆 滿 前 建 功 立 業 創 造 了 條 件 。
但 是 ， 以 中 國 現 行 一 黨 專 政 的 政 治 制 度 ， 注 定 中 國 不 可 能 取 代 美 國 成 為 世 界 領 袖 。 何 況 ， 論 經 濟 實 力 、 科 技 實 力 、 軍 事 實 力 ， 中 國 現 時 都 不 足 以 充 當 世 界 領 袖 。 由 於 參 與 國 際 救 市 的 策 略 ， 涉 及 中 國 外 交 戰 略 、 貨 幣 戰 略 的 調 整 ， 貪 功 、 貪 快 ， 並 不 足 取 ， 保 內 地 經 濟 增 長 ， 遠 遠 重 要 過 參 與 國 際 救 市 。
中 共 元 老 鄧 小 平 在 1989 年 六 四 事 件 後 提 出 24 字 外 交 戰 略 「 冷 靜 觀 察 ， 穩 住 陣 腳 ， 沉 著 應 付 ， 韜 光 養 晦 ， 善 於 守 拙 ， 決 不 當 頭 」 ， 放 諸 今 日 金 融 海 嘯 的 局 勢 ， 顯 然 並 未 過 時 。

The demise of the HK Alliance

Wang Xizhe is a prominent (pro-democracy) dissident from China. He has spent more than 10 years in jail in China. He had a history of not singing with the crowd.

He has a prediction, that the life of the "HK Alliance" (in support for patriotic democracy movement of China) is numbered, due to a series of strategic mistakes. (HT and English translation). For the most recent example, he argued, The HKA has not been entirely tactful in its joining the protest against the Olympic Torch Relay in HK. Because this alienates its supporters (most of them, are "patriotic" and at the same time pro-democratic). He suggested by this year's date of 8x8 the turn-out number will reduce significantly.

I agree with his conclusion. But I am skeptical about the 'test' he suggested. Because
1) What can be alienated has been alienated, many times, and long ago. e.g. by the infamous statement Martin Lee made after the Belgrade Emabssy Fiasco. Lee defended the US bombing and faulted the Chinese within hours of the protests, acting as if he had more information than anyone else (quite unscrupulous for a successful barrister). So there is really no incremental difference that can be observed this year.
2) The "HKA" is not really a political party as Wang said (or wanted it to be). It is more of an idealist group than some organization that was established to achieve a clear political agenda. But Wang was right that its most recent action did not show clear alignment with its proclaimed ideal "patriotic democracy movement of China"

Perhaps Wang is right. That the "reminder" effect may still be significant. We will see in less than a month.

Spiegel vs Adidas

This is the best debate for the past few month, or shall I say, "ever"?

Well, it is supposed to be an interview. But the Spielgel reporter turned it into a debate, perhaps subconsciously (I highlighted some of these in bold type, short note in italic and blue fonts). But we thank the reporter for giving a chance for Mr Hainer to retort and defend, and we thank Spiegel for publishing it.

Transparency is good for the world, and it worked for China when Mao's decision to publish Synopsis for Project 571 has led to the awakening of the Chinese people from the Cultural Revolution 'brainwash'. This is probably what Spiegel (or RSF for that matter) should really be focusing in.

---

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH ADIDAS CEO HERBERT HAINER

SPIEGEL: Mr. Hainer, the Olympic torch is being guarded by Chinese security officers (more...) who are part of a known paramilitary group. The group is normally used to protect Chinese government buildings or to stifle unrest in places like Tibet. When these people acted against demonstrators here in Europe, they were wearing Adidas tracksuits and shoes. That isn't exactly nice, is it?
Hainer: Nice? To be perfectly honest, I wasn't thinking about the word "nice" when I saw the images of the clashes in Istanbul. In the media, we constantly see people wearing our products. What I fear is that these games are now only about politics.

SPIEGEL: So it isn't a problem that these paramilitary thugs were wearing Adidas?
Hainer: It's a challenge for us to be providing equipment for the Olympic Games, for 100,000 helpers, athletes and officials, all of whom are doing their part to ensure that the games will be a peaceful and successful event. We did the same thing in Athens in 2004, and we'll be doing it again in London in 2012. The torch runners are just as much a part of it all as those who make sure that the torch relay can take place without disturbances. In fact, they are simply doing their…
SPIEGEL: …job?
Hainer: Do you think it's OK to violently disrupt the torch relay? It's OK that people use these events to publicize their political beliefs, but, in my opinion, that doesn't give them the right to violently disrupt the torch relay or extinguish the flame.

SPIEGEL: The torch relay has turned into a farce. The longer it lasts, the more professional are the attempts to exclude the public from this event.
Hainer: And the more professional are the attempts to disrupt it. Let's talk about the significance of the torch relay. The torch is a symbol of the Olympic Games, of peace and togetherness. It's a good idea. And this idea is now being misused. I believe in the Olympic ideal and in the torch that symbolizes this ideal. We should be condemning not those who have this ideal, but those who try to destroy it.

SPIEGEL: But the politicization of the games and the torch relay is a result of China's policies in Tibet. And don't you think it's questionable for these people to be attacking demonstrators on foreign territory? (Spiegel again used lie to bait Hainer. We may have see the blue tracksuits pushing the the torch grabbers away, but what the hell was he talking about they going out to "attack" the demonstrators? This is really unprofessional for Spiegel)
Hainer: You can't exactly expect us to resolve these sovereignty issues. Our job is to support sports and the athletes, and we will continue to do so -- just as we've been doing for the past 80 years. When (Adidas founder) Adi Dassler provided the equipment for the black sprinter Jesse Owens in 1936, it certainly wasn't a welcome move in Germany. We provided the gear for nations in the Soviet bloc at the 1980 Moscow games, and that too was no political statement. It would be wrong for everyone to simply capitulate now. I continue to be firmly convinced that sports bring together the peoples of this world like almost nothing else -- certainly more than many political movements. For instance, the 2006 football World Cup played an enormous role in improving Germany's image in the world.

SPIEGEL: Can't you say to the Chinese: We don't want these people wearing our tracksuits any more?
Hainer: Why should I do that? If we wanted to conceal something, we wouldn't sponsor anything at all. I don't have a guilty conscience. But please understand me correctly: Our commitment to the Olympics is not a political commitment. It's not a commitment to any particular social system or cultural idea. It is a commitment to sport.

SPIEGEL: Major international sponsors of the International Olympic Committee (IOC), as well as Volkswagen, which, like Adidas, is sponsoring the Chinese organizing committee, are deeply concerned.
Hainer: Nowadays, anyone who supports such major events must expect that they will be used as a platform. In fact, there is no better platform. Let's be honest: The Tibet conflict has been around for more than 50 years, and now the months leading up the games are being used to market this conflict politically.

SPIEGEL: That sounds as if you are criticizing the human rights groups, Tibetans and non-governmental organizations. The games are also a platform for Adidas. You hope to position yourself as a sporting goods maker on the Chinese market.
Hainer: It's not a criticism of these groups. But I am astonished when I read in the papers that sponsors like Adidas and Volkswagen were supposedly surprised by the events. No one in our company is surprised when there are demonstrations surrounding the games. They will not be the last.
SPIEGEL: China and human rights violations (more...) -- this isn't exactly a new issue.
Hainer: Look back in history to see what boycotts have achieved: absolutely nothing. Try talking to athletes who were prevented from taking part in the games for political reasons. I'm opposed to any boycott. I read a survey that said 88 percent of Germans are opposed to a boycott. Even the Dalai Lama doesn't want a boycott. One of the purposes of the Olympic Games is to bring the nations of the world closer together, so that they can conduct an open dialogue. We should be careful about constantly imposing our values on others.
SPIEGEL: Before the games were awarded in 2001, the Chinese made human rights commitments which they have not upheld.
Hainer: It's the IOC's job to sit down with the Beijing organizing committee afterwards to discuss how it went. I've been to many Olympic Games. More than 10,000 athletes will be living together in the Olympic village like in a giant youth camp. Chinese people will come together with athletes from around the world, which will lead to a gradual improvement in communication and the establishment of a more open society. I am convinced of that. It's an evolutionary process, not a revolution.
SPIEGEL: But isn't it possible that the protests against the torch relay are also part of this change process, and therefore necessary?
Hainer: I'm completely in favor of people expressing their views in connection with such events. But using force to take the torch away from someone -- that goes beyond the limits of freedom of expression.


SPIEGEL: The Olympic "youth camp" is of great commercial importance to you. In addition to the Chinese team, Adidas is providing the equipment for 15 other national teams, and you are involved in 27 of the 28 Olympic disciplines. You have reportedly paid the Beijing organizing committee a total of €70 million ($112 million) for your sponsorship.

Hainer: We are not investing in an event that lasts only 17 days and at which we hope to make as much money as possible. Rather, the Olympics have been part of our brand for decades. That's why we provide equipment for more disciplines than any other company. We have sponsored events and campaigns in China for the past four years, and we have communicated to the Chinese that we support the Olympics and sports in general, and that we are looking forward to a fantastic games. We want to develop an emotional connection with consumers in China. Our goal is to reach more than €1 billion ($1.6 billion) in sales in China by 2010.

SPIEGEL: In that case, taking a political stance probably doesn't make much sense?
Hainer: You will not hear me making any political statements, neither on China nor on any other topic.

SPIEGEL: Do you have a personal opinion?
Hainer: Yes. If you want to bring the people of this world together, you have to be willing to engage with countries that do not share our democratic values.

SPIEGEL: Organizations like Human Rights Watch want you to make statements on human rights issues, on China's dialogue with the Dalai Lama and on freedom of the press in Tibet.
Hainer: It's an attempt to drag us into politics, and we won't allow it. Politics is the responsibility of the United Nations and individual governments. It isn't right to fight out these disputes at the expense of the athletes -- or at the expense of the sponsors.

SPIEGEL: But don't companies like McDonald's, Coca-Cola, Volkswagen and Adidas allow themselves to be used for political ends?
Hainer: Then we couldn't do anything any more. No World Cup, nothing. We would have to speak out against (the Basque separatist group) ETA in Spain, and in the United States we'd have to tell the government how we feel about Guantanamo.

SPIEGEL: China still carries out a massive number of executions each year. (on a per capita basis I am not sure if China is in the first tier these days)
Hainer: Unfortunately, executions are even carried out in democratic nations. But, once again, Adidas is not a political operation, and I am not a politician. Or would you prefer to see me in charge of the government instead of (German Chancellor) Angela Merkel?

SPIEGEL: Jürgen Hambrecht, the head of BASF, recently said that the Germans would be well advised to stay out of the conflict (more...).
Hainer: He also said that in an interview with (German news show) "Heute Journal," in his role as the chairman of the Asia Pacific Committee of German Business. And he's right. For Germany, as an exporting nation, the Chinese market is tremendously important. We should be careful not to rush to judge, and we should look at things from both sides.

SPIEGEL: Don't you have to weigh the damage you inflict on your image in the West for not taking a position on China, against the losses you would incur in the Chinese market if you did speak out?
Hainer: No. The criticism is especially loud in Germany and France, but it's significantly quieter in many other countries. And in Asia, not just in China, people are looking forward to the games with great anticipation. I also believe that Western consumers -- unlike some in politics and the media -- understand our role correctly. We are involved in the Olympics because we make equipment for athletes. In any event, we have received more emailed complaints in the past about issues like the use of kangaroo leather in our shoe production than we have recently had about China. We have not noticed any damage to our image so far.

SPIEGEL: What would be the consequences if you were to suddenly take a political stance on China?
Hainer: It would certainly not make the world a better place. We, as a company, do what we can within the confines of our capabilities and our scope of responsibility, especially when it comes to working with our suppliers and factories in China. We insist on setting social standards in our agreements. In China, 300,000 people work indirectly for us. Wages are rising there, and more and more people can now afford a better life. That's our contribution.

SPIEGEL: Two weeks ago, non-governmental organizations published a report in Brussels on the athletic wear industry. Adidas was accused of exploitation in that report.
Hainer: At the same time, we are praised for having been the impetus for many positive changes. For years, we have repeatedly been attacked at our shareholder meetings, even though we are in fact a model company. We send out our own inspectors and allow the NGOs' inspectors into our factories. Those who violate our standards can expect their contracts to be cancelled. We publish an extensive social and environmental report each year. Of course, someone always comes along and tells us what we ought to improve. Just like everyone else, we're not perfect.

SPIEGEL: Do you feel hounded?
Hainer: Not hounded, but sometimes used. Attacking successful companies like Adidas generates a lot more attention than criticizing some no-name company.

SPIEGEL: In China, Adidas products are made in a total of 264 factories. Can you rule out corruption there?
Hainer: We try to crack down on every kind of criminality. I have been with Adidas for 20 years now, and we have been cheated many times. A few months ago, we fired the head of our factory outlet here in (the Bavarian town of) Herzogenaurach. We don't have to go to China to find corruption.

SPIEGEL: How often do you travel to China?
Hainer: Four times a year.

SPIEGEL: Are you in contact with Chinese party functionaries?
Hainer: I had a lot a contact with the organizers of the games. For instance, I had two meetings with the Chinese sports minister. These are intelligent people, demanding, but also extremely reliable. Of course, they too have figured out that they have an enormous market, one that everyone wants to tap, and they've become more careful as a result. It takes time to gain their confidence. But they are fulfilling all our agreements and contracts. Naturally there have also been critical moments when mistakes have happened.

SPIEGEL: For example?
Hainer: We made a bag with a Chinese flag on it, but instead of the stars, we inserted the Adidas three-leaf logo into the flag. A designer was being a little too creative. The Chinese complained, and we pulled the bags from stores immediately.

SPIEGEL: Is it is more stressful for an executive to deal with a Western democracy than a communist dictatorship?
Hainer: I don't deal with political structures, just with consumers. And they react differently, depending on the kinds of social and political conditions in which they were brought up. With some consumers, it just happens to take a little longer for us to help them realize how happy our products can make them.

SPIEGEL: You cancelled a press trip to China in late April. Is it too risky for you to reschedule the trip?
Hainer: Well, the main reason we canceled the trip was that our big new Adidas store in Beijing wasn't finished yet.

SPIEGEL: Isn't that just an excuse? You weren't exactly planning to spend days examining shelves in some store with the journalists, were you?
Hainer: Some store? You're going to make me fall off my chair. It's the biggest Adidas store in the world.

SPIEGEL: There were no political reasons?
Hainer: No. The delays in opening the store also have nothing to do with claims of reprisals by the Chinese. There were construction delays. We now plan to open in mid-June, and you are cordially invited to visit it at any time.

SPIEGEL: Are you traveling to Beijing for the Olympic Games' opening ceremony on Aug. 8?
Hainer: Of course.

SPIEGEL: During the games, the German water polo team plans to wear orange bathrobes to protest China's Tibet policy. You are the team's official outfitter. Will they be Adidas bathrobes?
Hainer: Certainly not. That's the athletes' business. We will neither stand in their way nor support them in this effort.

SPIEGEL: Would you have any objection to the Dalai Lama wearing Adidas?
Hainer: Not at all. Actually it's always been my goal to one day see the pope wearing our three stripes. With a German pope, the chances of that happening have never been as good.
SPIEGEL: After his operations, former Cuban President Fidel Castro appeared in an Adidas tracksuit several times.

Hainer: We don't have a problem with that, either.
SPIEGEL: Mr. Hainer, thank you for this interview.

Taiwan election: the game is over, Ma wins

票數拉大到80萬 雙邊總部兩樣情 藍HIGH 綠低迷

• 2008年 03月 22日 17:39 ╱ 壹蘋果網絡
  根據中選會最新統計，馬蕭配得票數為2,851,495，長昌配的2,052,158，馬蕭領先長昌近80萬票，由於票數差距逐漸拉大，雙方競選總部也呈現兩樣情，長昌氣勢低迷，馬蕭則HIGH到不行，支持民眾頻頻歡呼，馬蕭也決定提前於7點召開記者會。

As of this moment, the announce vote is 2,851,495 vs 2,052,158 , with Ma Ying Jeou in the lead (as predicted). Unlike 4 years ago, this is the data from the Central Election Committee, not some pro-Blue media. The game is already over for Hsieh. The Blue can celebrate. So will Taiwan's economy and peace across the strait for the next 4 years.

Viva democracy! Taiwan has set a model to the the rest of Asia that democratic transition from a dictatorship is possible, such that even after ceding power to the opposition for a total length of 8 years, the incumbent could regain power -- as long as it is able to win back the people.

p.s. Too busy for blogging recently, but I have been updating the reading list on the top of the right column.

p.s.2. The NYT prophet Keith Bradsher wrote, "The suppression of Tibet protests by Chinese security forces, as well as missteps by the Nationalist Party, which Beijing favors, have nearly erased what had seemed like an insuperable lead for Ma Ying-jeou, the Harvard-educated lawyer who has been the front-runner in the race." -- this has to be the most hilarious prediction of the year. :) Note that he did not bother to clarify what he referred to as 'missteps', and how he measured 'nearly erased'. But this is how our supposed unbiased and free media try to sway our opinion.

The cossack analogy for Hong Kong

In WWII, the soldiers and weapons manufactured in Siberia have replenished the loss in tghe battlefield for Soviet Russia. This seeminly unlimited supply of new resources has shifted the balance and finally led to the defeat of Nazi Germany.

Applying this in 'democratic politics', the young generation is the "cossack" for the candidate who can appeal to the young generation. Every 4 years, some 3% of the populations cross the age of 21 and become eligible to vote. Given the voter base is only around 70-75% of the total population (excluding the under-age), about 4% of the voters are first time voters. Moreover, the newly eligibles are more likely to vote because it is a new right for them. (All these are my rough estimates. I would appreciate if someone knows the actual stats, I am sure such research has been done somewhere).

I have discussed in another post that this has been fuelling the success of DPP in Taiwan, though the trend might have been reversed recently.

In Hong Kong, this is something which has been long ignored as well, especially by the "pan-Dem" and the Nextmedia clan of "old pigeon". It has been more than 10 years since the old colonial masters have left, and more than 20 years since the British government had announced HK residents belong to the second class colonial type. What amused me is that the Nextmedia propaganda machine continue to use the colonial nostalgia reminder to tell us how bad the current government is, and how good the old colonial masters were. It seems that these writers, including the infamous writing hand (写手 aka "才子") and the various editors of Next and AD, are in the belief that such comparison could prove their points that the current bureaucrats are inferior and help them win supporters for pan-Dem. But the more likely case, in my view, is that they are really talking about what they believe and how they feel. What they do not know, or fail to realize, is that the younger generation do not share any of such experience or emotion with them (i.e. even if their ideals are mostly agreeable). Not only are they not the beneficaries of the old colonial masters, they do not have the vaguest idea what they are (well, except for a few). The Nextmedia way is just going to turn people away even if some (or many) of the ideals they preach are agreeable to this generation.

What does this new generation believe? I do not know. What I know is what would not work on them. e.g,

• The anti-mainland card does not work. They grow up in an environment where the HK economy is suported by the growth in China. Many of them are new immigrants from the mainland
• To another extreme, the new voters were too young to remember what happened 19 years ago. The radical approaches by many of the AD preachers do not resonate with them
• They do not know what the hell you are talking about when you tell them what the Brits would have done. (Frankly, in my opinion, many AD articles committed the crime of lying or exaggeration when they made the pre-colonial comparision)

As a result, the defeat of pan-Dem is inevitable, if they are still toeing this party line (i.e. the Martin Lee/Jimmy Lai) line. Because, simply, they are turning away the army of cossacks to their opponents.

Professor Cheung on China's New Labor Law

Professor has been a big fan of China's reform policy, because it is pragmatic and cautious; more importantly, it is the freeest of all free economy, and more 'capitalistic' than the US.

So it is worth our attention when he rings the bell.

• 很不幸，因为新劳动法的推出，我不能不在该文补加一个脚注。九十七岁的高斯不会高兴：他坚持该文要以中国大凯旋的姿态收笔。
• Very unfortunately, because of the launch of this New Labour Law, I had no choice but to add a footnote/caveat to my essay. Professor Coarse, at the age of 97, will not be happy about this caveat, he wanted me to end my essay with the full success of China's economic progress.

Cheung suggested a face-saving remedy for Beijing

• 前思后想，我认为如下的治方值得北京考虑。那是新法不改，但容许工商业机构选择（甲）、采用新劳动法，或（乙）、劳工合约完全自由。劳动市场于是有甲、乙两种机构或公司的选择存在。如果员工认为新法对他们有利，可选执行新法的机构，否则会选合约自由的。倒过来，如果老板采用自由合约的公司，不同意的员工可以另谋高就。这样分两种合约性质不同的机构或公司处理，员工的自由选择可以说清楚很多有争议性的问题。适者生存，不适者淘汰，哪种公司胜出是市场竞争的结果。如果两种公司一起存在，我敢赌身家，自由合约公司的员工的收入一定比选择新法的上升得快！
• I think Beijing needs to consider the following option. i.e., keep the New Law [to save face], while allowing the companies [in fact the employee] two options: the New Law and a "free contract"....... I am willing to place my bet, when there are two types of companies, the worker will choose to work for the second type.

IMO, to go one step further, Beijing can even let different provinces choose different laws (and perhaps force a few provinces to choose the new law), after a couple years, it will know which provinces win. This is fully consistent with the great helmsman Deng's Feeling the Stone to Cross the River doctrine.

Links below. Please use babelfish/google translator for a rough translation.

（2007.12.11）新劳动法的困扰

（2008.01.08）再谈新劳动法

（2008.01.15）灾难的先兆——三论新劳动法

（2008.01.22）新劳动法的启示

Taiwan discretization - 1.4:1 not (3:1)

The voting result in Taiwan is KMT 53.5%:DPP 38.17%.

This is approximately 1.4:1 or 7:5. A mighty accomplishment for KMT. But it is not as absolute as the magic numbers 81:27 (i.e. 3:1) in terms of seats.

DPP only has itself to blame for such a strategic mistake, and incompetence in governing. Chen stepped down not because he has failed the voters with the corruption and governing fiasco, but because he has agreed to the rule of game that would magnify 7:5 into 3:1. As to how this magnification works, I will refer you to twofish, a great blog unfortunately also blocked by our GFW nanny.

"所有選民眼睛都是雪亮的"

所有選民眼睛都是雪亮的 via ESWN

十多年下來，真想不到能讓數字說話的竟然是曾，也想不到指鹿為馬的竟然是部分泛民份子，
更想不到貶低選民和貶低民主恰恰就是高喊普選的泛民，反而是曾（金玉）成畫龍點睛地證明了他比泛民更懂甚麼是“民主”，
“假如這個社會有許多「盲票」，普選不是很危險嗎？”

related
1）so called 140,000 iron votes
2）Pan-dem Viagra

可以休矣

陳太終于，不出所料，淫了葉太。就如王佳芝的自述，“老是輸，就淫過她”

經濟日報社評 （via 這雙手雖然小)

“這種反鐵票的告急策略雖有催動支持陳太、反葉太的選民出來投票的效果，但卻低貶了選民，此包括低貶了投票予葉太的選民，認為他們沒有獨立思考能力，亦低貶了支持民主的選民的行動選擇權，認為不告急便不能催谷他們投票予陳太。”

去周在家媽媽說她會第一次去投票，選陳太。我很高興，即使我心里不想她投陳太。我從來沒有想過要去貶低我媽媽。我可以面對曾仲榮先生。

媽媽只看蘋果和壹周。不過我知道她的想法，即使沒有蘋果那些骯臟低招她也是會支持泛民的。其實，泛民這一次和臺灣的DPP沒啥分別，因為投兩太的人們分別大都是鐵票。花盡心思，只用在鐵票里，同時使得中間游離派離心離德。為了招攬一朵昨日黃花，送上一個最輕易的席位，未來還將賠上更多。

葉過去的名聲太差了，因此左派只把這必輸的盤作個順水人情，算是給她一個體面的臺階，以后也不要再作非份妄想。

泛民贏了一場本來就必贏的無關痛癢的戰役。代價卻是一周前那場較大的戰役，和將來的全盤戰爭。香港的泛民可以休矣，期待新勢力的崛起代之。

不投陳皮老太的幾個理由

1） 陳皮代表泛民當權派，可泛民當權派不代表‘泛民’，泛民也不一定就代表“民主”
2） ‘泛民’當權派已淪落為只求目的，不擇手段的黨棍。支持泛民當權派只會助長大佬文化，扼殺泛民新生代的機會
3） 壹傳媒已淪落為當派工具，不惜蓄意誤導讀者。陳老太的支持率竟然能在幾天之內有比葉劉高10%以上掉到“不足1%”。不是撒謊是甚麼？華爾街日報只是社論胡來，報道可從不馬虎。蘋果竟然淪為連其他新聞都不放過的高喊”狼來了“的牧羊郎。
4） 陳老太當選，對于香港民主、或者直選的來臨，沒有任何正面的意義。

（I made no consideration of her alleged mortgage scandal, as I believe scandal should not change one's view on competence)

因此，為了香港的民主，也為了加速直選的來臨。我們不能投陳老太一票。

p.s. @賭徒
No. I am not misled by anyone. You can call me 無間道 or whatever you like as well. I had come to this view long before Wong Onyin said anything.
Please do not "insult the intelligence" of other people. Read AD again to spot its shameless biase.
We are not to be misled so easily. Apple Daily tried to mislead the mass and myself. I am frustrated and angry. AD is "insulting our intelligence" by trying to manipulate us like idiot. Jimmy Lai has now turned one of the best media in HK into a propaganda machine, which will bear no credibility. To me it has cried wolf too many times, and bears the same credibility as Oriental Daily.
I honestly believe it is better that he migrates to Taiwan (than staying here in HK), since his AD was much more truthful over there.
I can list a few "product placement" reports from AD almost every single day. e.g. When it talked about new technology and blog, it listed Mrs Chen as an example and throw a few random political propaganda sh_ts at an otherwise totally apolitical news thread.

Uncritical reporting

I have read so many reporting and 'insider information' from so called China observers and experts, such as those about "all corruptors are caught as a result of Jiang-Hu power struggle". Such nonsense gradually faded when the notorious SFDA head Zheng was executed, as these observers could no longer trace the link to the alleged Jiang-Hu struggle.

A few days ago, there was another about the Minsiter of Treasury, Jin Renqing, alleging his demotion to be related to a careless leak about some casual remark form Wen. This, again, is absolute nonsense to anyone with a critical mind. The "Human Right Information Centre" really needs to be more scrupulous about its sources. Anyone with a sane mind would know the Chinese leadership are not primary school children as those informers to the "HRIC", who are into such kind of game.

Now, as the story unfolds, it confirms my theory of the story.

This is what I have speculated. There was a grace period given by the CCP to the corruptors, to admit their wrong-doing within a certain deadline. In return, they will be demoted or waived of prosecution according to the degree of their crimes. Most likely, Jin was one of those who confessed voluntarily. That was why he was only demoted. (yes, he moved from the head of a major ministry to become the deputy of a secondary ministry, DRC, the think tank. His new position was where the current head of Statistic Bureau Xie Fuzhan sat before he got promoted, and the Statistic Bureau is a less important ministry compared with the Ministry of Treasury)

The fact that he was "detained", was more likely a process for him to coooperate with the anti-corruption department, to provide evidence to prosecute the other corruptors. Chances are that, he would be released soon and be on his new position.

中国的绿色GDP

有关中国的绿色GDP，外界一直兴趣颇高。所以到最近统计局确定不会推行绿色GDP时，外界媒体的极度失望是很自然的了。如外界媒体所报道，地方的压力当然是部分的因素。可是，最主要的问题还是绿色GDP计算方法。

先要说明一点，为什么会产生绿色GDP的问题。中国官员（从省到市到县）的考核升迁，其中最主要的因素，就是GDP的增长。中国过去27年GDP的高速成长，跟考核方式脱不了关系。也正正因为如此，世界上只有中国的GDP里水分特多。县虚报一点，到了市级又来个四舍五入或干脆增加几个点，然后是省。到了中央，才可以勉强往下压一点，因为国家级干部考核的指标不完全相同了，不过通常也只是因为GDP增长率高得不可信了。别的国家地区，并没有这种考核制度，因此也没人去花这种心思虚报。谣传上一任的统计局长邱的下台，就与他收受贿赂，窜同虚报GDP有关。上海的陈良宇是其中一个行贿者。由是统计局虽名为局，却是一个部级的机构。因为其责任重大。绿色GDP的用途，就是要在官员考核的方程式里扣减绿色GDP的损失。

GDP的计算，是经济学家的范畴，笔者并不懂。据说绿色GDP本来要采取类似的框架。于是，就产生了每吨煤该扣减多少绿色GDP的难题。如何量化环境污染的难题先按下不表。GDP是每年计算的，单位是“元/年”，环境污染是长期的，单位是“元”。要把两个不同单位的量相比（或相减）在数学上是不可能的。当然我们还是可以研究一个学术上的绿色GDP，不过这参数难以简单地转变为考核指标，因此达不成原先构想的目标。此为中国绿色GDP推行不了的最主要原因。其次，据说统计局参考了北欧国家和各方学者的研究，计划中绿色GDP的统计算法把煤的污染都算到采矿者的头上。实际上，产煤者只该负责生产过程中所产生的污染，而用那种燃煤发电机，如何过滤燃烧产生的废气，该是用煤者的责任。目前国家的统计法和资料收集，没法考虑上述因素，因此也不能支持较真实的计算。这是目前国家统计局暂时停止了绿色GDP项目的最主要原因。

至于环境问题如何解决，且听下回分解。

Miss HK Will Hung 香江小姐孔慶翔

香江小姐選美，選出一個女版孔慶翔。

黑幕內定各有其論，不過最一針見血的莫過于把前任落選港姐的評語斷章取義來讀，“ 好多網友淨係睇樣同身材，我審美係會睇埋邊，最初睇佢個個人履歷，知道佢加拿大返，識英文已經對佢有好感，睇佢寫文字仲知佢係有內涵 ”

噢，原來這一次選的是絕對內在美。去年選的可能也是內在美。1988年選的絕對是外在。前年呢？明年呢？反正每年有新的評判，自然選的標準不一樣。務必讓你們這些蟻民無可適從。內定又如何，又不是你們在選，各位看官，你們只有看的份兒。“吹咩！”

我們特區還有一個八百人的評判團，成員與各次選美多少有重疊之處。都是名流仕紳，達官貴人，社會精英是也，且大都身懷絕技，掌握某些能人所不能的特異“功能”。選出來的特區代表如出一（車撤），都是傾城之貨色。

有好事者，謂來年香港選美必重現1988之輝，以應本年成為郭隗之 千里馬頭骨蓋之典，戲言矣！由來唯客觀不變難以爭辯之基準能成長久之計，比如一號一票之SMS公投。只有公平、公開的規則標準，才能保證最有實力競爭者的勝利，也因而能鼓勵最有實力的競爭者來參賽。胡主席也理解只有社會公平才能持續發展。

不能把800個傀儡拉下馬，未來我們這些蟻民也免不了再遭建華之殃，者我們無能為力。可是，讓大家一起決定甚麼是美總可以吧？

連內地都可以一號一票選出超女快男，而這邊廂欣賞的美卻被牽著鼻子內外亂晃，難道這就是一國兩制？

泛民諸公，該是給三色臺施加壓力的時候了。

The problem of Ma Ying jeou

闾丘露薇一語中的

• 至于陈水扁，他批评马英九，当年在美国读书的时候，编辑“波士顿通讯”，批评美丽岛事件的当事者，还批评解严，站在了历史错误的一边，而他和谢长廷当年站在了历史正确的一边。但是问题是，当年站在历史正确一边，并不意味着之后就不会犯错，而曾经站在错误一边，并不意味着现在所站的地方是正确的。只可惜马英九缺乏反省的精神，其实承认自己过去的错误，并不会因此付出代价，不敢面对历史的领导者，才会更让台湾民众担忧，这样的领导人会带领台湾怎样走向未来。

Even though DPP look wrecked these day, I am veyr skeptical of Ma Ying-jeou's ability to win the election in 2008. The reason couldn't be better put by what Luqiuluwei said in her blog.

• Chen Shui Bian accused Ma was on the wrong side with history while he studied at Boston, when Ma was the editor for a (Chinese) journal called Boston Communication. The journal accused those involved with the Formosa incident, and criticized the lifting of martial law. While Chen himself was on the "right side" with history.
• But the problem is, making a mistake in the past does not neccessarily mean one is wrong today. On the contrary, making it right is the past does neccessarily mean one is right today. The shame for Ma is he does not have the courage to reflect. As a matter of fact, admitting a mistake in the past, does not neccessarily mean that one has to pay for it now. The political leaders who cannot face his own history will be cause of concern for the people in Taiwan. How can a leader as such lead Taiwan to the future?

Well, Ma has a lot of baggages to disown. Not just those of himself. His own mistake can be explained, but the consequence is that he would have opened a whole can of "worms", i.e., there are a lot more he needs to explain and that might put off the old guards in KMT.

Ma is carrying the baggages of Soong, Lien, KMT, and even that of Chiang Kai-shek. He needs to disown them one by one. He should not have the illusion that defending the wrongs of the old Chiang dynasty will help with his political career or increase a single vote for him, or distanting or even disowning the traditional KMT values will cost him a single vote. Precisely the opposite, the old guards in KMT ("deeo Blue") have no better choice than voting for him, even if he is courageous enough to criticize Chiang.

Unless Ma does that, DPP may win the next election again in 2008. Because DPP is right, that the alternative is not to be trusted. Moving to the middle (between Blue and Green) is the right strategy. But that is not enough.

Ma Ying-jeou needs to listen to Luqiu, and do the right thing. Let the old guards go to PFP, they will not vote for DPP because you denounce the wrong's of the Chiang dynasty.

America's fear of China:

Another great report from the Economist below.

In parallel I would recommend James Kynge's book: China Shakes the World, which has some interesting anecdotes on how China stumbled upon the its road to success "by accident" in the past 25 years, in which Kynge understated Deng's role in the reform. Deng's wisdom is precisely what Kynge did not see, that the success is not by plan, but by a carefully crafted incentive system. The fact that all the local officials were so much incentived to get rich is because of one simple KPI (key performance metric) set by Deng, GDP growth. like TSR (total shareholders' return) in the corporate world, China used its own KPI (mainly GDP growth) to promote its bureaucrats. And it worked, so far.

---

America's fear of China

May 17th 2007From The Economist print edition

China is a far-from-cuddly beast; but bashing it is a bad idea

IF THE guest list determined a meeting's value, the Strategic Economic Dialogue between China and America on May 22nd would be a roaring success. Almost half the Chinese cabinet is trooping to Washington, DC, for the second of the twice-yearly discussions, conceived by Hank Paulson, America's treasury secretary, between the world's largest economy and its fastest-growing one. The process was designed, in large part, as an antidote to the latest case of Asiaphobia among America's politicians. It is not working.
The itch to get tough with Beijing is urgent in Congress. Brandishing China's growing bilateral trade surplus as proof, congressmen from both parties have denounced the country as a currency manipulator, an illegal export-subsidiser, a violator of rights to intellectual property and all-round trade scoff-law. China-bashers have introduced a dozen bills in the new Congress. Some are bound to languish, but others may be passed—though there would then be further hurdles to jump, not least the president's power of veto (George Bush has other conflicts on his mind). The most threatening include proposals that would declare China's cheap currency an illegal subsidy and allow American firms to seek compensatory tariffs.

Politics in Beijing is less open, but the circumstances are similarly unhelpful. Because they have no electoral legitimacy, China's Communist leaders need to deliver the economic goods even more than most congressmen do. Worried about unemployment, the Chinese are loth to let their currency, the yuan, appreciate much faster than at today's snail's pace. And as with all dictatorships, there is the need to seem tough. With the five-yearly Communist Party congress only months away, China's president, Hu Jintao, cannot be seen to be bowing to American pressure on the yuan or anything else.

Japanese lessons

Thankfully, an all-out trade war remains unlikely. Congressional leaders seem inclined to act within the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which limit the scope and scale of any barriers that America can unilaterally impose. And some friction is to be expected in a trading relationship worth well over $300 billion a year. But although today's tensions are not cause for panic, they are a costly and unnecessary distraction—and potentially worse than that.
One worrying parallel is the Japanophobia of the 1980s and early 1990s. Back then, Japan's rising bilateral trade surplus and its mounting foreign-exchange reserves were seen as “proof” of its manipulated currency and mercantilist attitude. America's paranoia deepened as its jobless rate climbed—especially when the Japanese started buying landmarks like the Rockefeller Centre. In fact, Japan's bubble economy ended up bursting; but not before an outbreak of foolish protectionism. The economic tension even undermined support in both countries for America's security alliance with Japan.
The case against China is even weaker than the one against Japan was. Its economy is far more open. Though much poorer than Japan was then, China is already America's fastest-growing export market. And in contrast to the 1980s, the WTO now exists as an umpire for trade disputes. But logic, alas, may count for less than political grievance. America's low unemployment rate looks set to rise in the wake of the housing bust. To American voters, the Chinese are likely to become more prominent rivals, whether it be displacing America at the top of some economic league tables, winning Olympic medals or buying big American firms (the Chinese are rightly keen to diversify from treasury bonds). Most worrying, though, are the strategic risks. Japan was an ally in Asia: China is potentially a military competitor. Trade tensions could make it easier to see China as a rival and harder to enlist it as a partner.
Running such geopolitical risks would be understandable if China's policies posed a true threat to America's economic health. But they do not. China's intellectual-property violations cost American firms far less than many would have you believe: pirated DVDs may sell for peanuts in the markets of Shanghai, but if Hollywood tried to sell the genuine articles at full price, it would quickly discover that most Chinese could not afford them. Similarly, a stronger yuan would do little to dent America's trade deficit (see article).
So much to lose, so little to gain
The bilateral trade imbalance, the target of so many American politicians' anger, is an economic red herring. Its rise reflects changing supply patterns in Asia: America now imports more stuff that has passed through China—and correspondingly fewer goods from South Korea and Taiwan. China's overall surplus and America's overall deficit have less to do with the value of the yuan than with Chinese saving and American profligacy. True, a stronger, more flexible yuan makes sense for China, because it would help shift spending towards imports and would give Beijing's policymakers greater control over interest rates, making it easier to prevent the economy from overheating. But the effect on America would be small.
Rather than picking fights over the currency, Congress should step back and ask why Americans are so upset with China in the first place. The answer is that China is a scapegoat for broader economic anxieties to do with stagnant wages, rising income-inequality and dwindling health and pension benefits. These insecurities, which also lie behind the bad idea of introducing labour standards in trade agreements (see article), are much better tackled head on—at home.
Comprehensive health-care reform to create a system where all Americans have access to portable health insurance would do a lot to reduce workers' anxiety and equip them for an economy that these days demands frequent job shifts. Reform of the payroll tax, a regressive levy that hits the less affluent hardest, would be a good way to shift resources to needier Americans. By contrast, raising barriers to cheap Chinese imports would disproportionately hit the wallets of poor and middle-income American consumers—the very people the Democrats in particular claim to be protecting.
By scaling back its China-bashing, Congress could avoid such blunders. It would also leave more room to engage Chinese officials on subjects that actually matter. Top of the trade agenda ought to be the successful conclusion of the Doha round of global talks. No country has more at stake in a vibrant WTO than China, yet Beijing has been scandalously unwilling to help push for a Doha deal.
But the greatest prizes of Sino-American diplomacy are nothing to do with trade. Avoiding war and conflict, naturally, comes top of the list, whether by co-operation over North Korean and Iranian nukes or by building the trust that minimises the odds of a clash in the Taiwan Strait. Then there is China's expansion into Africa, particularly its cosy relations with genocidal Sudan. Global warming, too, ought to be centre-stage. China is building a new coal-fired power plant every week and is set to surpass America as the biggest source of greenhouse gases within a year. If the world is to contain its carbon emissions, America must not only clean up its own act but also help China to green its economic growth.
Mr Paulson wants the strategic dialogue to address some of these broader issues. Congress should stop distracting him.

Wen Jiabao's essay

No time to blog, but I still would try to update my reading list on the top of the column on the right. This seem cannot be subscribed through RSS.

---

Busy work schedule caused me to have missed the very important essay by Wen Jianbao (see the reading list panel for a couple related discussion links): 关于社会主义初级阶段的历史任务和我国对外政策的几个问题, "A few issues about the historic mission during the initial stage of socialism development and our foreigh policy" (I suppose by now there might already have been some English translation?)

It is significant, not because it offers any new breakthrough in political theory, socialism theology, or China's foreign policy, but because it is the first time that Wen has spoken out to steer China back to Dengism, and make it explicit that China needs to get thing right (and what he means by "getting it right"). To some observers (who believes Hu Jintao has veered away from Deng's "Lay low" (TGYH) policy, this may mean a public show down of disagreement between Hu and Wen. (For those who have read this blog, you would know I tend to agree more with Deng and Wen)

The key points IMO is basically, as Professor Zheng Yongnian of Nottingham University said, "Back to Dengism"

• "A fair environment is required to enhance productivity" (不随着生产力的发展而相应地逐步推进社会公平与正义，就不可能愈益充分地调动全社会的积极性和创造活力，因而也就不可能持久地实现生产力的大发展) This is the foundation of modern capitalism. Wen went on to say such mechanism is not the monopoly of modern capitalism, to adapt it into the "socialistic theory of Chinese characteristic". Well, he actually has a good point, uncorrupted and fair play is exactly the reason for the success of Scandivanian countries, and they are really a hybrid of true socialism and capitalism.
• There is a long way to go for China -- i.e. China still needs to lay low and avoid any potential conflict for the next 100 years (TGYH!)

The appreciation (and the public declaration) of a need for a fair system is profound. It means China is finally ready to reform its legal and political system. It realized that the unfairness (and the corruption that it has so sincerely be fighting recently) has started to drag the feet of its development. If the system is not fair, the rules in the market are distorted. When the rules are distorted, the most competitive and more efficient company will not win in the market. This means Chinese development will stall or be capped at certain level. This has already been demonstrated by the fact that the expansion of Chinese companies to the world has so far met with extremely limited success. (TCL is one example. Even the calabrated Haier's path has not been exactly smooth)

Application of Sun Zi (ii): Lee Tenghui's brilliant coup

Those who had played 2-dimensional strategy games versus a computer will know, the computer player A.I. is often badly programmed, such that you can trick it into following you to a dead end, trap it, and take its territory. (the software had not improved since Pacman and Load Runner, you can still do these tricks with Civilization, and Sangokushi)

Lee Tenghui is perhaps such a great game player, for he has successfully tricked his competitor, the DPP and Chen Shui-bian, into such a corner, and has now emerged to take DPP's vast territory, from the empty space the DPP has already given up -- the light green. (See 1, 2, 3, HT ESWN)

Despite all the controversy about his character or political foxiness, you have to admit that he is good, indeed very good.

When Lee was forced out of KMT, the Green camp has already been taken by CSB and his DPP. Lee has to settle for a niche of "deep green" called TSU. For years he has been trying to re-take his territory, the central light green area which supports status quo (instead of aggressive independence), but in vain, because that area was already taken.

As CSB and DPP under SK Yu (a puppet of CSB) are trying to defend their position amid various scandals by moving toward fundamentalism, Leng Tenghui started a race to fundamentalism with them, accusing them of not being aggressive enough. Now that DPP has fallen into his trap, Lee suddenly emerged on the other end of the map and shut the door behind him.

People accused Lee of flip-flopping. I tend to believe Lee has planned for this for a very long time. Expect TSU taking the middle ground and emerge to replace DPP as the leader in the green camp, and expect this new TSU to be more or less a replicate of the KMT under Lee era, sans the light Blue members -- in fact, Wang Jingpin might jump ship soon. 2008 may belong to Ma Yingjiou as the Green will be split, but soon afterward TSU will dominate the Green camp and DPP marginalized. TSU and DPP will switch chairs. By 2010 perhaps Lee may be able to defeat KMT!

The only question that remains is, why does CSB, who used to be such a smart politician, behaves like a player on badly programmed A.I. algorithm?