From owner-china-nt@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Wed Aug 31 01:15:20 1994 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 1994 23:55:36 -0400 Reply-To: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Sender: China-Net From: ccf-editor@ifcss.org Subject: Chinese Community Forum (CCF), Issue #9446. Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu To: Multiple recipients of list CHINA-NT ==+==+==+== C h i n e s e C o m m u n i t y F o r u m ==+==+==+=== Wednesday, August 31, 1994 (Issue No. 9446) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= Chinese Community Forum (CCF) is an e-journal published on China-Net. CCF is dedicated to the discussion on the issues related to the Chinese community. The opinions expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of the Editorial Board of CCF. Contributions to the discussions and suggestions of new topics are very much appreciated. +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+= # of Table of Contents Author | Lines ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== --*-- China Watch --*-- 1. The Great Helmsman and the Chief Architect .......... Xingchu Wang 47 2. On the Problems of China's Economy ........ Excerpt from Economist 101 --*-- Meet The Press (Follow-up)--*-- 3. On Objectivity of CND Coverage of IFCSS Convention ........ Sen Hu 37 --*-- China And Democracy --*-- 4. What I Know About Democracy ........................... Andrew Lei 133 5. Are Ordinary Folks Ready for Democracy? ............ Newton X. Liu 109 --*-- Letters To Editors --*-- 6. PPP, PPP, PPPPPPP ........................................ Bo Peng 25 7. Salting the Jellyfish ................................... Liao Kan 69 ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== -- From The Editor -- In this last issue of August, we present you an article by Xingchu Wang comparing two phenomenal figures in the modern history of China, Mao Zedong and Deng Xaioping, who passed his 90th birthday recently. While this article talks about these two leaders, the next excerpted from Economist discusses the problems with China's economy, which in a large sense is still under the influence of the will of China's leaders. We believe that China is at the turning point of great changes, and hope these two articles will inspire our readers' thoughts such that more discussion will be on the way. Following the previous issue, Sen Hu shares with us his observations on CND's coverage of the IFCSS' 6th Convention. By presenting different opinions on controversial issues, we are convinced that our readers will be better off in making judgements on matters concerning our community. Well, controversies never end. The next two articles argue about democracy in China. With sharp contrast in tone, one is of more "theoretical" and the other "practical". Maybe, they'll generate more controversies, which by no means is bad at all. Now, the ball is in your hand: are you concerned? Again, we present our readers two letters to editors to finish this issue, which is our way to encourage more communication between you, our readers as well as authors, and us. Dear readers, a hot summer is turning to a cool fall. You are heading back to school for another busy academic year, or thinking about new plans for your personal/family's well-being. Of course we are not forgetting to send you our best wishes for another year. At the same time, we hope you won't forget to continue your support to us in any possible ways. In the coming fall, we'll again meet Labor Day, Middle Fall Festival, China's National Day, and so on. Does any of these inspire you? Write to us and share with the others. Mother Nature rotates year out and year in, and our life goes on and on. ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 1. The Great Helmsman and the Chief Architect ........... Xingchu Wang* 47 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Deng of Beijing recently celebrated his 90th birthday thus both those who wish him longevity and those who wish him not need to hold their breath no longer. Clamors large and small, in the forms of shouts or whispers, all point to the question as how to evaluate this Mr. Deng. A sober mind sees that both Deng and Mao have made their contributions and also done their share of harms so the comparison is a difficult one, if at all possible. Both of them had been the commander of the Party, the nation and the army, the leader of leaders, and neither had really washed their bone marrow clean from the the ghostly desire for personality cult. There was no difference between people's shouting "Long Live! Long Live! and Long long Live" to Mao and to any one of the Chinese emperors in the more distant past. Only in Deng's turn, the greetings become "Hello!" The true irony is that the "Long Live" receiver ended up with a shorter life than the "Hello" man. In terms of titles, Mao and Deng are called differently, one being the Great Helmsman, and the other the Chief Architect. A great helmsman of course feared no winds nor storms of any magnitude. Fear no turmoil. Sailing through fierce winds and storms was definitely more exciting than taking a stroll in a garden. Only the rough water in the high seas can testify who is hero and who is not. In this line of logic, Mao enjoyed chaos, his famous words are "the more turmoil the better; turmoil ruffles the enemy and trains the masses." To continue the revolution was to create more chaos. Only when the world under heaven is in turmoil, Mao had ways to maintain his highest authority of the world. And chaos aided Mao in eliminating the physical existence of his political enemies one by one. It was this great helmsman who capsized millions of lives into the ocean to feed the sharks. Meanwhile, the Chief Architect does not like chaos a bit. How can you do any design work amidst chaos? Even if the design work is done, you can't put it into construction when the world is in turmoil, can you? Logically Mr. Deng prefers stability, and his famous words are "stability is above everything." For the sake of stability, it's okay to open up the country for economic reform or capitalism in another word; still it seems that the key ingredient is the blessings of Maoist politics and the continuation of the Proletarian Dictatorship. In the name of stability even gunshot and bloodshed became necessary. Well, call him the Great Helmsman or the Chief Architect, what's the difference? They both had a strong hold to the power. Because Mr. Deng's hand appears less bloody than Mao's, Mr. Deng lives longer than Mao. This is the good fortune which really means anything to the Chief Architect. (The text is translated from Chinese by Newton X. Liu.) * Xingchu Wang, a poet from Fuzhou, now lives in San Francisco and writes a column for Sing Tao Daily (Xing Dao Ribao) under the name of Xin Ge. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. On the Problems of China's Economy .......... Excerpt from Economist 101 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CHINA'S rulers have made a promise that most governments could keep without any trouble - to slow their country's economic growth. They have said they want output this year to grow by a mere 9%, rather than the 13% a year achieved in 1992 and 1993. Their reason is inflation, officially estimated (ie, underestimated) at 25%. This must fall, the government says, and it will, it says, to 10%. The difficulty is that China, now in some ways a market economy, still lacks most of the instruments for managing aggregate demand that are taken for granted in other market economies. Although the government does seem to be getting more of a grip on money supply, it is also being forced to cool the economy by decree. Its administrative controls are many: restrictions on companies' use of foreign exchange, credit rationing by the People's Bank of China (the central bank), price caps on goods (some grain, industrial raw commodities, energy) over which the government still has direct control, and tighter rules over markets where its influence is indirect. In the past few weeks the government has announced new price controls on farm produce. It has renewed its promise to starve cash-strapped companies of credit. It has ordered companies to stop investing in fixed assets, such as property. And it has prohibited futures trading in steel and refined oil. New trade figures suggest that demand may be slowing. Last year, as consumer goods, capital equipment and raw materials surged in, China's merchandise trade balance moved from a small surplus in 1992 to a $12B deficit. Provisional figures for the first quarter of 1994 suggest a deficit of $1.5B, roughly consistent with an official forecast of $8B for the year. The government's dilemma is plain. If it maintains or tightens its monetary squeeze, refusing companies' demands for new credit, it may send many enterprises - good and bad, private and public - to the wall. This could jeopardies the social stability the anti-inflation policies aim to promote. If, on the other hand, the government caves in by extending new credit to firms, and pays for that by printing RMB, the result will be accelerating inflation and a bigger bust later. Assuming the government can bring inflation under control, what lies ahead? Economists are divided about the prospects, not least because they are still quarreling about where China stands now. Based on the official exchange rate, the World Bank estimated China's income per head in 1990 to be $370. Taking account of the Bank's estimate of the RMB's purchasing power, that figure rises to $2,000, making the Chinese economy (in 1990) about as big as Japan's. However, calculating purchasing power is difficult. One estimate put income at $2,600. Other methods, based on the consumption of meat, poultry, and other expensive foods, suggest much lower numbers. Reviewing the evidence, a new book by Nicholas Lardy, a well-regarded China-watcher, opts for an income per head of just over $1,000, putting total output in 1990 at $1.25 trillions. On any measure, China, though big, remains very poor. That is one reason to expect that its rapid growth can continue. However, Mr. Lardy doubts that a growth rate of 9% per year can be maintained beyond the end of the decade, and achieving such a rate in the meantime will require that both macroeconomic management and the succession to Deng Xiaoping go smoothly. Compared with East Asia's miracle economies, China suffers several disadvantages: o Its arable land per farm worker is low, lower, even, than Bangladesh. As a result, rapid growth in China's farm output has already come to an end - earlier in the country's development than was the case elsewhere in East Asia. o China's state-owned enterprises still require huge subsidies; these are channeled through a state-owned banking system which is "for all practical purposes bankrupt". Recapitalizing this system will be a huge financial burden. o China's exporters, especially of manufactures, are much more dependent on foreign capital (ed: including Taiwanese) than their counterparts in other East Asian economies. In 1992 inflows of direct investment were more than $11B. While it lasts, this is a good thing: it injects foreign technologies and management methods. The risk is that it may not last. In the past two years, the recipients of foreign direct investment (foreign-owned firms and joint ventures) accounted for less than 5% of China's output, but they were the source of two-thirds of its exports. This underlines the economy's vulnerability. And it shows that the bulk if Chinese industry is at best only loosely coupled to the growth-through-trade mechanism that has been the hallmark of (the rest of) East Asia's success. o "Communist" China- paradoxical as it may seem - has greater inequality of income than Taiwan or South Korea. This is mainly because of the huge gap between urban and rural incomes. If corruption gets the blame for this, opposition to further economic liberalization may mount. That much more liberalization is needed, even in foreign trade, which is growing so quickly, is not in doubt. A new World Bank report is unusually blunt about it. It complains about strict controls over exporters' use of their foreign currency, and about high import tariff, complicated non-tariff controls, currency rationing and import cartels. In our issue of November 28, 1992, we asked whether China might be the world's biggest economy by 2010. Assuming GDP of $2,600 per capita in 1990, and growth of 9% a year thereafter, we said it could be. On Mr. Lardy's more cautious numbers (income of around $1,000 in 1990; growth slowing to roughly 5% a year after 2000) China's output would not overtake America's (assuming growth of 2.5%/year) until 2040. And even then China would be a relatively poor country. Extrapolating these trends indefinitely (purely as a theoretical exercise), its standard of living would overtake America's around the end of the 22nd century. (Forwarded by Greg Kemnitz) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 3. On Objectivity of CND Coverage of IFCSS Convention ........... Sen Hu 37 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recently there have been some messages expressing concern about CND's objectivity regarding its coverage of the IFCSS convention. I myself have been a CND reader for a long time and care about CND's reputation. I also went to the IFCSS convention and read CND's report later and found it covered the convention well, with objectivity and professionalism. It must be the case that a reporter cannot report every detail. The reporter has to select what s/he has heard and seen. If the reporter tells what readers are really concerned about with great care s/he has put together an excellent report. CND's reporter, Ms. Lu Shuping, told us about the controversies of Wang Ruowang's guest speech, the hot debates on IFCSS' president's report, the debates about the financial inspection and above all the debates for President/Vice President election and the controversial membership registration etc. very clearly in a rather short space. I can imagine even I were not there I can sense what had happened. Some were concerned that the reporter was elected to the IFCSS Council so it might affect the objectivity of her report. I was in the same region as the reporter and served as secretary for the regional meeting. I found that her status as CND reporter was asked but not related in her election. She was elected because of her performance in the election and nothing else. I cannot see how this would affect her report. There was also a complaint from Luo Lishi about the financial inspection. I found the report accurately recorded what had happened. If people involved in the financial inspection were as objective as the reporter, there would be no controversy at all. It's good to have concerns about CND's professionism. This would certainly be helpful to its reputation. However the concern must be based on facts and nothing else. I find all accusations of bias of CND's coverage of IFCSS convention groudless and would like to contribute my comments above. (From: shu@math.ias.edu) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 4. What I Know About Democracy ............................. Andrew Lei 133 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is democracy? In my knowledge, democracy means making decision and act upon the will or influence of a majority. I have to first state that I am talking about democracy largely in the frame of a country. As far as I can see, roughly, there are three types of democracies: 1. Direct democracy (Zhi2 Jie2 Min2 Zhu3) 2. Representative democracy (Dai4 Yi4 Min2 Zhu3) 3. Consultative democracy (Xie2 Shang1 Min2 Zhu3) Direct democracy is the purest democracy. It is bottom-up. All the constituents participate in decision making processes by casting their votes, and it is their votes that dictate the policy of a country. However, except in the very early times of some European countries, direct democracy never fully functioned as the sole mechanism of governing a country because of its impracticality. Representative democracy is characterized by the representatives of the constituents. It is these representatives that participate in decision making by casting their votes. However, the origin of legitimacy of a representative democracy must come from direct democracy (this point is very very important). Representative democracy is the type in most democratic countries because it is operable, although it is already very time consuming and sometimes very inefficient, and yet preserves the core of democracy. Consultative democracy is characterized by institutionalized consultation process. The decision making basically is not by votes of either representatives or constituents, but by a core body after strictly following the consultation process, which mostly reflects the influence of the majority of the parties in the consultation process. This kind of democracy is largely reflected in the administration branch of a government. There are some controversies regarding whether this should be counted as a "democracy". But it appears that more and more scholars tend to accept it, especially after the concept of "new authoritarianism" emerged. All these types of democracies can be affected strongly by public lobbying. Now, let's come back to China. Do we have a direct democracy? Of course not. Do we have a representative democracy? Nominally we do because we have People's Representatives all the way up to the top. However, this is just a superficial one. As stated before, the intial legitimacy of a representative democracy must come from direct democracy. It means that the representatives must be chosen by a process of direct democracy; for example, the US Senators and House Representatives are all from such a direct democracy. We obviously do not have a direct democracy to select those People's Representatives. (when I was in college back in China, there was such a one-time experiment on direct election of People's Representatives up to county level, I did not know if it continued and whether was increased to higher levels). Do we have consultative democracy? My answer is YES to a very low level and NO in a strict sense. I'll have to put more effort on this point. We all know that the CCP has been "advocating" "socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics". I do not know what exactly it is talking about. In my opinion, since the beginning of the PRC, whatever democracy the CCP has been talking about can only be, at best, stated as limited consultative democracy (LCD). Why? Because the "constitutionalized" CCP leadership puts a theoretical limit that prevents direct/representative democracy from happening. On the other hand, in the past decades, what the main stream Chinese intellectuals have pushed for is also no more than this consultative democracy. In recent years, the "new authoritarianism" has been advocated by many as a means of transition of a communist system to a democratic system. One of the keys of this "new authoritarianism" is just making decision after institutionalized consultation processes, which is usually accompanied by the so-called "think-tank" (otherwise, I do not see the difference between the "new" and the "old" authoritarian). In the history of the CCP, I am not sure if there was any of such "institutionalized" consultations when the CCP made it decisions. We could only observe from "outside" and probably see clues of such (or somewhat similar) processes. As far as I know, at the beginning of the PRC, the CCP has a rule to circulate its intended decisions on big issues among relevant non-CCP individuals/parties/institutions before a final revision. As a matter of fact, it usually did this with a few rounds. This was abandoned as soon as Mao Zedong came up with the idea of "collectivization". In the period after the failure of Three Red Flag Movement until the beginning of the Cultural Revolution (CR), the CCP more or less did the same thing. The best examples were probably the policy making process reflected in a few important documents, related to the then industrial and agricultural recovery after the period of the "three year natural disasters". The father of one of my best friends was one of the key workers in drafting the one for industrial recovery (if I remember correctly, it was called something like Industrial 60 Point Guidelines, of which one key issue was managing by experts), because of which, he committed suicide in the CR for "being" a Liu Shaoqi's running dog. According to him, this document, which played a fatally important role in China's industrial recovery back then, was really an effort of several rounds of up-and-down's after consultations with thousands of individuals, including experts, factory chiefs, and even ordinary workers. Of course, its final implementation was after Mao nodded his head. All these do not mean that we did have a consultative democracy because we do not know whether all these were results of "institutionalized" consultations. They appeared more of random type. Nevertheless, these events showed some characteristics of consultative democracy, and that was what I called LCD. Still, I believe that those relatively "good" periods in the history of the PRC did have a lot to do with these nominal "consultative democracy", and this could be counted as my basis for my belief that democracy will work in China and we should struggle for democracy. As to the future of China, what kind of democracy do we need? Of course I hope to see a representative democracy. But at this stage, it does not seem to be realistic to jump two steps. By any means, even if we accept the notion that the CCP must be the leading force in China, which should not be challenged for the sake of China's stability, should we push for more consultative democracy? We should, in my opinion, and that was my bottom line when I claimed "democracy is now a goal for China" before. By the way, my emphasis is on "institutionalized". Does representative democracy fit China's situation? I believe it does, but I really hope to see at least a consultative democracy in China soon. I have to say that we see more color of a consultative democracy in China now than the Mao times, which is giving people certain degree of liberty, is generating some resonable laws, and is in some extent improving China's human rights. These are probably the good aspects that made many prefer leave China alone as it is now. I would prefer the same attitudes if I had the evidence that all these good aspects were results of institutionalized process, which will eventually lead to a representative democracy. Judging from the history of the CCP, I more tend to regard that all these are still results of iron-man politics, and just by luck, this iron-man is a little more open-minded at the moment than Mao of couple of decades ago. We are still in a very unstable state, which will be potentially disastrous after the death of the iron-man without a minimum LCD established by then. (From: andrew@vtinte.phys.vt.edu) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Are Ordinary Folks Ready for Democracy? ............. Newton X. Liu 109 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I know many of you don't really care about what I think. But I think, not therefore I am but therefore I wonder whether ordinary folks in China are ready for democracy if we are, indeed, to have a democratic China. I know some of us already believe in its inevitability and others are fighting hard for it. Their intentions are not my concern here; instead, I want to make sure that ordinary folks are not lost in the shuffle, because I believe it will be a grave mistake if any attempt to install an ideology, as democracy is, leaves the masses out of the equation. To take my point one step further, I feel that there are some limited minds who are, in the name of loving their motherland, ignoring the existence and wishes of the ordinary folks, once grannies of everyone of us. I have to admit that my concern is more linguistic than conceptual though I know misconception can kill in a culture like ours. To make a long digression short, I fear that some people might mistake democracy as total freedom, the anarchist kind or I-can-do-whatever-I-please type. And I fear democracy may create chaos and lawlessness in the townships, villages and city streets, if we are not careful with it. Before I go on into my lengthy explanation, I want to make it clear that everyone understands that I have no intention to assert that democracy will definitely bring lawlessness but have every intention to emphasize the importance of lawfulness in a democratic China. China does not have a tradition of law. We haven't had one since the days when Han Feizi argued fervently to make law the guidance of the state but lost to Kong Fuzi, and the Chinese code of behavior becomes: gentlemen take care of their own manners and the emperor, son of the Heaven (who says Heaven ain't no bitch?), spits jade words from his gold mouth (jinkou yuyan). Everyone knows that China had had a long succession of brutal emperors who treated their subordinates, ordinary folks, like dirt, and most of the time evil elements of disloyalty and revolt. The ways which rulers torture the common folks can be and have been written into books of multiple volumes. Like it or not, this is also part of the legacy of the glorious Chinese civilization. So it's painfully clear that China has had a serious human rights problem long before the term was coined. From the beginning of its existence the Middle Kingdom treated its ordinary folks like ants, like mud, like harmful insects. If this is not human rights abuse, I don't know what is. Then we Chinese have this acute sense of class and status. Gentlemen love to show off their wealth and social status. Jealousy was the black goat in the family of Chinese virtues. Emperor's bloody repression and his neighbors' showing-offs had forced a great many folks into underground operation, to save some face, human dignity if you allow. Ordinary folks in China haven't been allowed any dignity for ages. So, you can see the simply Chinese logic: If I can't get this under the sun, I sure will seek it in the darkness or anywhere you name it. Otherwise, what the hack should I be? Am I a wo/man. In light of our historical brutality, I am surprised that it is still news that the countryside has no order when the iron fist takes a rest and engages in money grabbing or economic development. Peasants rob, rape, murder each other under broad daylight. Organized crimes, ranging from kidnapping women to sell, to drug trafficking, to treasure and rare animal smuggling, to highway robbery, are rampant in our once suffocatingly quiet country. Our motherland has become a den of bandits because you have just blinked your eyes. Facing this underground culture out of the primitive impulse of human dignity and pride, we, in order to survive as a nation, have no other choice but to emphasize the importance of lawfulness, this means not only drafting a series of law, that's the easier part, but also projecting the sense of law into the heads of ordinary folks, including ourselves, I may add. The tough task for a democratic or liberal government in China, I reckon, is to convince those underground forces to come out of their dark caves. In China, the government hasn't represented the people since the first sun downed the yellow earth. We simply can't expect people to believe otherwise in a matter of days or months. We must figure out ways to ensure that a few folks do not take democracy as their right to violate others'. A workable democracy must be accompanied by a well established legal system that in turn will ensure the democratic process in every facet of the society. This is the point I want to make here: there is extra work for every Chinese to do or to think if we really want democracy. That is, we must balance a delicate budget between individual's rights and the rights of the state. In other words, it is too naive to think that democratization involves only replacing the autocratic government with the one the U.S. has. This is strictly personal observation, one weakness of the U.S. democracy lies in its inability to reinforce its laws. I don't mean that the United States of America should execute its convicted criminals the way People's Republic of China does. But we must learn from the American experience: law by essence is to protect the innocent by punishing the guilty. Of course, the other side of the coin is that guiltiness cannot be assumed or alleged. In short, a meaningful legal system must be a complete one. As one who grows up in the Chinese countryside, I am not advocating harsher treatment of the peasants. If we do that, we are not democratic. We must treat every member of the society with equal rights, be he or she a high cadre's child or a countryside orphan. Whoever breaks the law or violates others' rights must be punished with no discrimination whatsoever. And of course those who use the legal system to violate others' rights, which is also part of the Chinese legacy, must be severely punished. Now I must apologize for promoting something so commonsensical here without proposing anything concrete. If I have called your attention to the compatibility of law and democracy, I'm rewarded enough. Next time I will talk about environmental issues during dinner time just to make you stand up from your chair cursing me or vomiting. (From: nxliu@well.sf.ca.us) ===========***==========***==========**==========***==========***=========== 6. PPP, PPP, PPPPPPP .......................................... Bo Peng 25 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editors, I'm not writing to jump into the battle field around this PPP thing. I never paid attention to the figures as I took it as a mildly amusing joke. However, I must admit that the brick lured out many pieces of jade. Many good jokes resulted afterwards, in the form of celebrating China's officially becoming a major economic power in today's world. But I was perplexed why this sudden new discovery of hidden treasury then. For Mao's sake, an army of journalists have been sneaking around China for more than a decade now and it should be pretty damn hard to miss how 1.2 billion people live. It all made sense to me when I learned that the US has been insisting on admitting China into GATT as a developED country. This, is the mother of all jokes. Best regards, Bo (From: bo@saavik.Stanford.EDU) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Salting the Jellyfish ..................................... Liao Kan 69 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Editor: Something gets into my head as I was reading the recent CCF (issue ???). Perhaps I have sent too many pieces of my writing to you thus feel guilty for creating too much work for you. Of course I always hope that my writing is well liked. Oh, boy. It seems that these days no one can say anything nice about the Chinese government without getting chewed up and spit out. The hack, I am here volunteering myself to be your chewing gum. But I must warn you that pure chewing satisfaction may not come from this gum. I may contain some hard stuff. My sincere advice to you is try to get some dental insurance first, because you may experience madness, anger, high blood pressure, vertigo, etc. after having your first mouth-full. And it's solely your responsibility to take care of the consequent affects. We, the writer and the publisher, promise not to foot any dental bills for anybody. However, here is a hint: PROPER doses of tranquilizer may come handy. There are people who always apologize, expressing regret instead of defending, for what China has done for the past 40 or so years. They seem to be ashamed of what their country has achieved under the current government. Given a chance, they probably will apologize for those American GI's killed in the Korean war. And they may even want to apologize to Americans for the deaths of Chinese soldiers during the war, because those bloody soldiers shelled the American bullets off their intended and more important target. I have no idea since when jellyfish becomes those people's Zodiac signs. I always thought that backbone is a good thing to have. What China has achieved in the past 40 years is remarkable. Sure, there was a nationwide madness in the late 1950s and a collective insanity in the late 60s and early 70s. Nations, like individuals, make mistakes. We should work together to prevent mistakes from repeating themselves in the future, instead of throwing the babe out with the bath water. A violent revolution can only change a government but the state of a nation can only improve gradually over time. A few months ago, the United Nations released an evaluation of all nations on their overall progresses of the development of human (?) and society for the past several decades. You probably want to know the position of China? Well, it finished in the top 10 list. I have no idea how nations are compared horizontally. But to be in the top 10 in terms of progress is as good as one can get. I know the jellyfishes will be quick to point out that it is easier for an undeveloped nation to make a greater progress. That is when they give out the horizontal comparison. If you show how far we have gone from our past, they will point out to you have far we have to go to catch others. Difficult to satisfy, aren't they? Now you can see why I like to salt jellyfish whenever I get a chance. I always wonder how you should compare each nation and by what standard they should be compared. The comparison of per capita is as irrelevant as the gross national. For example, Haiti's per capita income was $370 in 1991 and China's $370 (See Britannica's 1994 Year Book). What else can we compare? Right, of course, the rightness of human rights or the freeness of the freedom of speech is a very good index to compare. I have heard a story, or maybe I made it up myself. During the Culture Revolution, Mr. A followed the party line as well as anyone could at his time. To showcase his loyalty to the party, whenever he needed to make a right turn, he made 3 left turns in a row to get where he wanted to go. Years late, Mr. A came to America and makes 3 right turns in a row to get where he wants to be, and winter flounder, which is of course a right-eyed fish, becomes his favorite protein source. (From: liao@fcrfv1.ncifcrf.gov) +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++ + Executive Editor: Anzhi Lai + + Executive Moderator: Huang Tang + +--------------------------------------------------------------------------+ + For subscription: mail "SUB CHINA-NT Your-First-Name Your-Last-Name" + + to LISTSERV@UGA (bitnet) or listserv@uga.cc.uga.edu (internet) + + For unsubscription: mail "UNSUB CHINA-NT" to the above e-address + + For back issues of CCF: + + anonymous ftp to: cnd.org[132.249.229.100]: pub/community/CCF + + gopher to cnd.org: 2. English Menu --> 14. Community --> 1. ccf + + For contribution and inquiry: mail to ccf-editor@ifcss.org + +=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=++