A day before China marked its first annual Disaster Prevention and Reduction Day — declared to mark the anniversary of last year’s catastrophic Sichuan earthquake — the country confirmed its first case of the A(H1N1) swine flu outside Hong Kong. Chinese authorities were quick to respond by quarantining the patient, a man who returned from the US last week, and seeking contact with hundreds of passengers who traveled on the same Tokyo-St Paul, Minnesota, and Beijing-Chengdu flights.
Unlike China’s infamous mishandling of the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003, no attempt was made to hide the case — a small victory for transparency. The promptness with which it was reported is appreciated in Taiwan, where authorities lost no time in tracking down travelers who had boarded the cross-Pacific flight with the Chinese man. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health was able to locate most of the 23 Taiwanese passengers to inform them of their possible exposure to the virus.
This exercise in Chinese transparency came the same day that Beijing released a white paper on disaster relief efforts. On the eve of the first anniversary of the May 12 temblor that left tens of thousands dead or missing, the paper, entitled China’s Actions for Disaster Prevention and Reduction, was another show of transparency, but one less likely to win praise.
Although it recognizes the potential for increased frequency and severity of natural disasters and the need for effective safety measures, the paper is largely show. Beijing pats itself on the back, listing legislation and other action over the past decades to address various aspects of natural calamities. Its lavish self-praise would read as a cruel joke to the thousands of parents whose children died in shoddily built schools: “Always placing people first, the Chinese government has all along put the security of people’s lives and property on the top of its work.”
Conspicuously absent from the paper, which lists strategies for reducing the financial and human toll of disasters, is any mention of corruption. A key lesson learned from the devastation in Sichuan was the role that fighting graft must play in reducing the casualties of future disasters. Chinese authorities remain tight-lipped on the greed that led to hundreds of schools referred to as “tofu-dreg constructions” crumbling in the quake.
The topic has the potential to drag down scores of local officials in criminal liability and compensation suits, increase domestic discontent and international embarrassment over unscrupulous administration, and highlight jerry-built public construction that is ubiquitous in China.
Side-stepping this elephant in the room, the paper says only that the government spent 9 billion yuan (US$1.32 billion) between 2001 and 2005 to renovate 40,000 schools. It also mentions a new program to ensure that schools meet earthquake safety standards.
The paper is also silent on the rights of victims to seek compensation in disasters where official incompetence or corruption results in loss of life. The omission is a slap in the face of the grieving parents. More than just ignoring them, authorities including police have punished those who seek redress with physical and psychological threats and harassed the lawyers who try to help them.
If Beijing has learned something of the value of government accountability and openness from the Sichuan disaster, it has refrained from sharing it in its white paper. Instead, it indulges in self-congratulation while continuing to silence bereaved parents. Rather than illustrating transparency, the only thing China has highlighted is the utter lack of it.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they