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.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers