Just one week after the Chinese government accused foreign media outlets, especially from the US, of creating unreasonable fear about the safety of the country's food and drug exports, CNN's John Vause did a story called "Ordering food in Beijing makes me nervous." Vause began by saying that he used to enjoy eating out in China's capital city, but now uneasy questions pop into his mind that spoil the experience.
"When ordering at restaurants," he said, "I wonder: Is that drug-tainted fish and shrimp? Did that pork come from a pig that was force-fed wastewater? Any melamine added to those noodles?"
The Chinese food safety scandal has created a flood of media coverage, and not surprisingly, the word "trust" has popped up in more than a few stories and headlines. The BBC ran a story called "Do you trust Chinese goods?" (July 10). The Minneapolis Star Tribune published "Food from China: Can you trust it?" (July 19). And a Seattle Times editorial was very straightforward with a piece called "China must earn back consumer trust" (July 13).
The bureaucrats in Beijing are busy doing damage control, appropriately concerned that the media reports are creating a public frenzy.
The China Daily quoted Li Changjiang (
But the "problem" I would like to bring up here is not just food safety -- it's a broader issue that many people are uncomfortable addressing: The Chinese have a serious problem with gaining trust ? not just from the Taiwanese or from the outside world at large, but from each other.
The controversial philosopher and author Francis Fukuyama argues in his book Trust: The Social Virtues and The Creation of Prosperity that the most important cultural trait influencing a country's prosperity is its level of trust. High levels of trust spark collaboration and shared norms, he says. Chinese society, he asserts, has a very low level of trust -- relative to Japanese, German and US societies -- and that this distrust essentially "taxes" the economy.
Zhang Weiying (張維迎) and Ke Rongzhu (柯榮住) of Guanghua School of Management and the Institute of Business Research at Peking University tackled this issue in their paper "Trust in China: A Cross-Regional Analysis." Considering the department in which this research was done, the concerns these academics had when conducting their research are obvious.
The paper addresses Fukuyama's claims early on, saying "While we do not agree with Fukuyama in his explanation of the cultural origin of "low trust" in the Chinese communities, we have to accept the fact that lack of trust is common and serious in today's China. It not only reduces the economic efficiency, but it's even threatening the existence of market and transaction [sic]. What's the underlying reason of low trust? How can trust be built (or rebuilt in our view) in China?"
Good question.
They suggest establishing strong private property rights, efficient transaction facilities and information systems and a "`normalization' of government behavior -- or a consistent government.
Traditional wisdom says that trust is something that can take years to create and a day to destroy. The Chinese government, lacking trust in its own people, is not helping to create an environment of trust. And its people and the world respond accordingly.
Li's remark that "One company's problem doesn't make it a country's problem" is in fact correct. It's a much deeper problem than that.
But as Fukuyama might say, this is all very taxing to think about.
P.D. Bailey is a writer based in Taipei.
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
Every day since Oct. 7 last year, the world has watched an unprecedented wave of violence rain down on Israel and the occupied Palestinian Territories — more than 200 days of constant suffering and death in Gaza with just a seven-day pause. Many of us in the American expatriate community in Taiwan have been watching this tragedy unfold in horror. We know we are implicated with every US-made “dumb” bomb dropped on a civilian target and by the diplomatic cover our government gives to the Israeli government, which has only gotten more extreme with such impunity. Meantime, multicultural coalitions of US