August 16 2008: Red Sympathiser
Filed under Asian-ness & Politics
Just because I’m aware that I’m being labelled by certain parties as a brain-washed Communist/Red China sympathiser (you are so subtle), a short list of some of the many things the Chinese central government does that I don’t agree with:
- State-controlled media. I support a free media (rather than the monopoly on news by the People’s Daily), a breaking-down of internet censorship and the elimination of firewalls prohibiting access to certain sites, etc. I spit on Google for censoring the search results you get when doing a search within China.
- Labour laws and official unions. While both technically exist in China, the former is hard to enforce on ground level, especially when considering the official workers unions are often staffed by those who are comfortable taking bribes from factory workers to overlook violations of the aforementioned laws. Independent unions need to be established, and the laws themselves need to be revised to include:
- Minimum wage of at least 5RMB an hour, rather than the 50 jiao (50 Chinese cents) which is the current average. It only comes to $1USD an hour which doesn’t sound like much, but which is ample when compared to the Chinese standard of living where you can get an excellent meal for 3RMB.
- Regulation of the hours that a single person is allowed to work over a seven day period. No more than eleven hours a day over six days - they must be granted a day of rest on the seventh.
- Government-regulated inspections of factory dormitory living conditions to ensure they meet standards to be specified by the WHO.
- Government-regulated inspections of working conditions (within the factories themselves) to ensure they meet workplace health and safety standards.
Among other workplace laws and regulations of course, but the above would be what I consider to be the most urgent issues for the Chinese workforce.
- Relaxation of the hukou system. This is the system whereby every single person in China has an identity card which is linked to a residence permit in a certain part of China. They are only able to access healthcare and education in the area that they are assigned to, so for the millions of migrant workers who make up the seasonal floating population of China, they have no access to what should be two guarantees in anyone’s lives.
While the identity card should remain, the system needs to be revised so that healthcare and education can be accessed no matter where the person is in China. Residence should still be restricted (if everyone who wanted to buy a residence in the city did, there simply wouldn’t be enough resources {water, electricity, etc.} to support the population), but healthcare and education should not.
- Revision of the one-child policy. While I support the one-child policy on environmental and sustainability principles, the repercussions of such a policy in a patriarchal Chinese society horrify me. Parents choosing to abort foetuses in the third trimester because they’ve found out that it’s female? The huge discrepancy in the male to female ratio that now exists (something like 135 men to every 100 women) as a result of this? Disgusting.
Having a law passed which would restrict doctors from revealing the sex of the child prior to birth would help somewhat, as would a system set up to monitor every infant for the first six months of their life to ensure that there’s no “throw our female child in the river so we can try again for a male child” scenarios.
- The complete lack of a just, egalitarian, and standardised legal system. As there’s never been the one truly standardised legal system in Chinese history, it’s been an uphill battle for the few lawyers around since Deng Xiaoping introduced “socialism with Chinese characteristics” in the eighties, thus ushering in a new era of lawsuit-happy capitalist Chinese. By virtue of the fact that there’s no precedent for the large majority of cases tried (I’m no lawyer, but I understand the importance of having a precedent in arguing a case), the practice of law in China is literally the practice of law. It’s still an evolving field.
The CCP needs to standardise a legal system across the whole country, as well as set up legal aid agencies that work pro bono, so that justice can’t be bought simply by those who can afford to pay a lawyer (which is unfortunately what happens now).
And finally, a grey area where I sit on the fence: Chinese involvement in Tibet and Africa. I certainly don’t agree with the Free Tibet fanatics who proclaim “OMG GTFO of the country”, as these people generally haven’t considered what would actually happen if China did GTFO of the respective countries.
To place the focus on Tibet instead of Africa, if China was to completely withdraw from the territory, the Tibetan population would be left with nothing. Absolutely nothing. They have no transport infrastructure, no standardised or complete education system, no legal system, no healthy economy, no professionals with training to bring about concrete social changes, no anything of contemporary value. A Tibetan reversion back to nomadic tribalism is almost guaranteed if the Chinese were to withdraw, and in the modern world, it’s simple an unsustainable way of life.
The Chinese presence in Tibet means that things are being completed. The Chinese are building transportation networks, they’re supporting Tibetan education (Tibetans get special consideration for places in Chinese universities, just like in Australia where Aboriginal students get special consideration), they’re training native Tibetans in trades to support local economy, they’re doing things to help the region in a concrete and long-lasting way, things that will allow eventual independence and self-sufficiency by the Tibetans.
What’s required I think, is a compromise between what the fanatics are demanding, and the current hard-handed, military-centric situation. Economically, the Chinese would do well to continue developing their interests in these two regions. However, what they do as ‘repayment’ should be changed dramatically. Rather than providing military aid and equipment to dictatorships in Africa, they should be reinvesting in the country on a more basic and humane level (e.g. pledging certain amounts to go towards famine relief, etc.). Rather than assuming a “we’re coming into your region to do this, suffer bitches” militant role in Tibet, they should assume a more ‘benevolent father figure’ role, continuing their support from a distance with money, technical knowledge and training, and humanitarian goodwill.
Of course, after having said all this, I’ve no doubt that I’m going to be labelled as more Red than ever. You know what? I really don’t care. I’m proud to be ethnically Chinese. I’m proud to be Australian. I’m proud to be part of two differing cultures that allows me to connect with both on two different levels, to be able to pick up nuances of behaviour, to understand things that Chinese-critics who don’t speak the language and who’ve never set foot in the country could never grasp.
Am I calling the parties who have accused me of being a ‘Red sympathiser’ ignorant and affected by the biases of Western media who are afraid of the ‘menace’ of a growing Chinese power? Am I comparing them to the brain-washed masses who became afraid of the ‘Soviet threat’ as a result of media hype during the Cold War? You betcha.
ilu.
Jenny on August 16 2008 #
RE: Legal system
China is a civil law country (like most of Europe and many other Asian nations) and they don’t use a system of precedent. Look up “inquisitorial system” for more info. However the bad thing about China’s legal system is that the Communist Party is involved in many (all?) proceedings and I was told has a say in how each verdict is decided. If this is true that would make their legal system way too politicised which would definitely impinge on the ideals of justice and fairness.
Reply: Ah, see I didn’t know that. Thanks for the information!
Belinda on August 16 2008 #
See, you’re doing that thing where you make sense, and some people just can’t understand that the world is not black and white/good and evil.
Jack on August 16 2008 #
One child policy - adding to what you’ve said, the only male child they’re allowed to have are more likely to be ridiculous spoiled! I was watching TV the other day talking about how this kid’s parents are just spoiling him, and he’s treated like an emperor. So in China there’s probably an entire generation of males who are spoiled brats.
Reply: Yeah, they’re called ‘little emperors’. :S I hate it, I see the same behaviour in my one-child cousins in China, and it’s the most disgusting behaviour I’ve ever seen. Every time I’m there, I spend half my time lecturing them (hindered by language barriers) about learning to do things for themselves - walking to school, making their own breakfast, not demanding spending money every day, etc.
kat on August 16 2008 #
I agree with most of what you’ve said here (and, I think, the sentiment behind it). It’s silly to look at things in black and white. There are reasons behind everything. When we have debates at school I tend to “defend” the side that I disagree with, purely because everyone else seems to go too far in disagreeing with them, and I want to point out that the “bad” side has reasons behind what they do, too.
That said, compulsory monitoring of all parents of female children seems wrong. I understand the intention behind it, but it seems like the kind of heavy-handed interference you’ve otherwise opposed. Perhaps instead, infanticide should be punished with life sentences… but for all I know, that already is how it works and the authorities just fail at enforcing it. In that case, they should be forced to enforce it. Educating parents about the joys of female children may help (if only weakly), or trying to alter Chinese society so that it’s less patriarchal (although this also seems heavy-handed!)… I don’t know, really. Another side of me thinks that the parents who do these things should just suffer when they realise their son can’t find a wife, and they won’t be able to become grandparents. Maybe it’ll be a deterrent. Probably not, though. :/
Reply: See, I considered the other options (e.g. educating about benefits of female children, current sentences for infanticide,e tc.), but dismissed them as ineffective, or if effective, something that would take too long to come to fruition, by which time, countless female lives would already have been lost. It’s not to say that education about gender shouldn’t be carried out, but that it’s merely an addition to what would be a more effective method.
As far as I can see, the monitoring of all infants in China would really be an extension of what we already do here in Australia through the Family Health Service, and what the French do with their post-natal checkup visits. For the benefit of the child.
Jessica on August 16 2008 #
…and it’s what makes the world still go round and round and round.
xoxo.
monkee on August 16 2008 #
I don’t understand why people would call you a red sympathiser, especially after they would carefully read the above entry you wrote.
It even makes sense to me what you wrote about Tibet. I’m certainly not saying that what is going on in Tibet right now is OK. But things aren’t as black and white as people think. You can’t expect China to go away from Tibet because that would leave the people there empty handed, literally. There, of course, should be changes in the way things are handled down there but it’s a big grey area..
Chans on August 16 2008 #
Oh man, I really hope this wasn’t about the fun I was poking at you. I’m pretty sure it’s not, but just in case, I’m sorry.
Mike Haddad on August 17 2008 #