Modernizing Chinese villages or a robbery?

In the name of “socialist new village” movement, China’s provinces, such as Jiangsu, have been confiscating peasants’ houses and lands without giving them reasonable compensation since 2006. In these provinces, peasants were mandated to move to the concentrated residence, assigned a unit of the government-built apartment building, and given a pathetic amount of monthly stipend in exchange of their old houses, lands and traditional life style.

Many peasants refused to leave their homes. The local governments, in return, played all kinds of dirty tricks on them. Mr. Chou Lin, for example, experienced man-made black-outs, water supply cut off, and noisy fireworks outside of his window during night, because he rejected the government’s notice to move. Mrs. Jin, a 60 year-old lady from Nantong, was beaten up by the gangsters hired by a government-supported developer, and they broke her ribs.

For those who moved the “concentrated residence,” they were disappointed. Mrs. Zhao Meilan, a homeowner of a 200-square-meter house and a 0.4 acre land, was reallocated to a transitional apartment less than half the size of her old house. She was given a 25$ monthly stipend, which covered less than a fraction of her living expenses.

Here is more.

A Chinese blogger uploaded detailed descriptions and photos on some cases. Please see here.

美国2008大选观察(四):圆谎的尴尬

希拉里不久前在演讲中描述自己在某国遇险经历,后被媒体指撒谎。电视台调出当时拍摄的录像,结果所谓遇险–根据希拉里的描述,自己和女儿不得不在枪林弹雨中逃脱–根本是子虚乌有。希拉里近来领先优势消失,这次又损失公信力,可谓是雪上加霜。

Clinton under fire

Continue reading

美国2008大选观察(三):不确定的奥巴马和希拉里之争

纽约书评最近发表的一篇文章分析了民主党在决定奥巴马还是希拉里的过程里可能存在的不确定因素。除了不久前评论过的超级代表(super delegates)问题之外,还有密歇根和佛罗里达两州是否计票的问题 。(之前的评论,请点击这里。)

民主党全国委员会(Democratic National Committee)曾经因为密歇根和佛罗里达违反其规则而取消了两州的代表选票,希拉里阵营先前支持这一决定,后来发现两州选票支持希拉里居多,自己的选票又已经大大落后于奥巴马,于是提出反对民主党全国委员会的决定,要求把选票记入自己名下。两州选票可能会产生120票的差异,显然可能影响将来是奥巴马还是希拉里出任民主党候选人(奥巴马的选票1520,希拉里1424)。民主党全国委员会主席Howard Dean正在处理这一棘手问题。

纽约书评的分析清楚明白,有兴趣可以去读。

The Scheduled Administration Reform in China: Nonsense or Meaningful?

Hu Shuli, the chief editor of Caijing Magazine and a prominent political commentator, recently published an article on the scheduled administration reform of China. Citing the recent newsletter from the People’s Congress and Political Consultative Conference, she noticed that the newsletter coined a new term of “holding higher the banner of people’s democracy” (“更高地举起人民民主的旗帜”), and unprecedentedly emphasized the institutionalization of socialist democracy. She therefore understood that the core of this reform as essentially democratization.

Deutsche Welle‘s comment, however, was not as positive. It pointed out that the current government was trying to use administration reform to obscure the emergency of the needed political reform, such as breaking the Party’s monopoly of political power. Administration reform could do little good, and would not lead to democratization, concluded Deutsche Welle author Xiaoyang.

Is the reform nonsense or meaningful? I guess it depends on context, and it should not be viewed as a one-or-the-other question. The two views are held by insiders and outsiders respectively. Insiders, when facing the reform, would like to make it meaningful, for it could help create some disruption of the current system, and hence some opportunities for meaningful change. Outsiders who are facing the same reform, however, needs to resist hollow promises from the Party and push for more concrete promises of change, and therefore have to claim it nonsense. The reform indeed is both nonsense and meaningful, which is typical of many other Chinese reforms.

Evaluating Anti-trust Law’s Impact in Chinese M&A

[The following article from China Briefing suggest that Chinese anti-trust law, scheduled to take effect in August,  has implications far more significant than curbing foreign investment interests, although it doesn’t clearly say why and how.]

 

Will the Anti-monopoly Law assist central regional development?

Additional M&A activity anticipated if China can banish SOE cartels

  Continue reading

关于Tor和网络监控

下文发表于<高教纪事>(The Chronicle of Higher Education),作者是美国一所大学的教授. 看来凡是想要控制网络的人–无论出于好心还是恶意–都不喜欢Tor这样的软件.高教纪事的按语里是这样介绍的: “A professor’s use of software to protect his privacy as he surfs the Web does not go unnoticed. Paul Cesarini, an assistant professor of visual communication and technology education at Bowling Green State University, describes his experience.”这倒让我对Tor好奇起来,看来该下载试用以下这个软件. 只是之前还真没注意过学校的使用协议,希望哈佛不会像Bowling Green State University对Paul Cesarini教授一样因此而找我的麻烦. Continue reading