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.
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase