07.13.08
Posted in Law and Order, Politics, USA at 17:37 by Nator
I just read a post on the Oriental-List (a highly recommended mailing list about travel in China) from an “APEC Business Travel Card” holder asking if he would need to apply for a visa before coming into China. According to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation website, the ABTC acts as one’s visa for China and many other countries:
Fast and efficient travel for business people within the APEC region contributes to APEC’s goal of free and open trade and investment. To this end APEC has created an APEC Business Travel Card (ABTC). The ABTC allows business travelers pre-cleared, facilitated short-term entry to participating member economies. The ABTC removes the need to individually apply for visas or entry permits, saving valuable time, and allows multiple entries into participating economies during the three years the card is valid. Card holders also benefit from faster immigration processing on arrival via access to fast-track entry and exit through special APEC lanes at major airports in participating economies.
We Americans can’t get one yet, however:
When can U.S. citizens apply for an ABTC? Where do I apply? How much does it cost?
- We are still exploring options on how U.S. citizens may be issued the ABTC and hope to have more information for you soon. The ABTC is not yet being issued to U.S. citizens.
Permalink
06.17.08
Posted in Industry, Law and Order, Media/Internet at 13:31 by ODB
I just finished reading a fantastic piece in BusinessWeek - Inside the War Against China’s Blogs.
The article describes how a new market has emerged for companies who help monitor China’s blogosphere and help fight negative and potentially brand damaging remarks before they turn into a PR crisis. These services cost anywhere between USD 500 and USD 25,000 a month, as the article quotes, and major clients of such firms include Toyota, Nike, Carrefour, McDonald’s, and many others.
What caught my eye was this :
Plenty of companies are willing to pay for positive spin. PR outfits hire students to write postings that boost certain brands and criticize the competition, says a staffer at a Western PR firm in Beijing.
Chinese Web Union is candid about doing this. It pays thousands of people to write nice things about clients, and it compensates forum leaders who spread positive information and quash bad publicity.
So basically, some companies are paying for a positive spin… and I wouldn’t be surprised if there are companies paying for a negative spin…
Heck, for USD 25,000 a month, I wouldn’t be surprised if there are some “PR companies” that are doing both at the very same time…
“War is good for business” — The 34th rule of acquisition.
Permalink
06.16.08
Posted in Beijing, Law and Order, Olympics, Rumors at 14:35 by Nator
I haven’t seen this anywhere in English yet, but it’s a pretty hot topic among many university students in Beijing. On June 12, announcements similar to the one below were posted at dormitories in several universities (my sources have asked me to delete information that indicates which university this announcment came from):
It says that all students in certain areas of the school have to move out by July 5. (It’s “for the safety of the dormitories”, of course.) Certain areas will be cleared out completely to make way for various Olympic teams and officials, and all students will need written permission with the seal of various school bodies in order to stay on campus. The application process to stay on campus is detailed for students who have work related to the Olympics (most likely as volunteers), as well as for any other students with “special reasons”. No one who does not have special permission will be allowed to stay on campus.
This has come as a surprise to many students. Although many were notified months ago that facilities at their schools would be used for the Olympics, it was not stated that students would not be allowed to stay in the dormitories over the summer. Even though many students will in fact be doing volunteer work for the Olympics, and even though many others will choose to go home for the summer break, there are surely tens of thousands of others who want to stay around: graduate students writing dissertations, science majors doing labratory research, and students doing summer work internships, to name a few. Most of these students would have difficulty renting an apartment in Beijing during normal times, and rents will likely be unusally high this summer as landlords look for wealthy visitors coming in for the Games.
I looked around for links online, but most had already by blocked, so here is a screen capture from the ChinaRen online forums instead (click for full size):
Quick summary (Again, I don’t have time for the full translation right now): The author pasts part of an IM chat with a friend who is attending graduate school in Beijing. The friend mentions that all the students in his school are being kicked out to make way for a team of Olympics “representatives” from the US. The author complains about the forced evictions (rough translation):
This is going too far. . . We’ve already done so much — building the Olympic village, all the stadiums and gymnasiums, and all the infrastructure improvements. What else do you want from us?
My sources tell me that that only certain schools have made such announcements, but that others are likely to do so soon. Notably, nothing yet has been heard from Peking University and Tsinghua University, but if students there are asked to leave, you can be sure that there will a lot more talk about this. And if no more students are asked to leave, those who have been asked to leave are likely to be even more angry that some of their peers at other schools that will get to stick around in their inexpensive dorm rooms all summer.
Permalink
06.12.08
Posted in Beijing, Law and Order, Media/Internet, Olympics at 17:00 by Nator
The Times of London reports that Time Out Beijing is being shut down for the Olympics:
The June issue of Time Out Beijing has been banned from distribution by China’s censors, The Times has learnt. But the decision seems to have been taken not because of any racy or politically incorrect content. Time Out Beijing has fallen victim to the accelerating imposition of restrictions on any aspect of life in the capital deemed to pose a potential threat to a smooth Olympics. . . .
The ostensible reason given by the General Administration of Press and Publications for pulping the June issue was that the magazine lacked a proper licence. But Time Out Beijing has published ever since its launch without completing the proper paperwork and this had never raised eyebrows among the censors who were well aware of one of the most prominent of the tiny number of English-language publications in the capital.
The English edition was at first distributed effectively as an insert to the Chinese-language magazine — which does possess the proper licence. Gaining a publishing licence in a country where all publications are carefully monitored by cultural commissars is a long and tortuous process. For a foreign title, the procedures are doubly difficult and involve publication under the title of a usually defunct local magazine.
Meanwhile, the latest chapter in the That’s Beijing/ The Beijinger saga hints that the current editors of TBJ, which has long been the best of Beijing’s expat magazines, are leaving over an ownership dispute and starting a TBJ clone:
Our publisher, who controls the official publishing license of “that’s,” has abruptly ended our long-term cooperation mid-negotiation and behind our back hired someone else to produce “that’s Beijing” magazine from now on.
Our company, however, will be soldiering on with a magazine you’ll find to be quite similar to that’s Beijing — a magazine to be called “the Beijinger” which will make its debut with the July 2008 issue.
It features the same layout, the same content, the same distribution, and most importantly, the same team that has brought you that’s Beijing since we created its debut issue in October 2001.
There is chatter about the move on the TBJ website, which used to be at thatsbj.com but has mostly been moved to thebeijinger.com, surely in anticipation of the most recent split. (thatsbeijing.com redirects to the spam kings at asiaxpat.com).
No word on any changes to City Weekend (yet).
Permalink
06.02.08
Posted in Environment, Food, Law and Order at 17:45 by SHTig
Ever think you blogged about something, then went back to find your old post, only to see that you never wrote it? Well, a few months back, a regulation was issued in China that stores could no longer give out plastic bags for free. I was looking for my write up about it then, but it appears that was done in my imagination, or in one of my private love notes to nator. Anyway, the reason is because the cheap flimsy bags clog landfills and drains, etc. So now stores must charge for plastic bags, and they may not bundle the price into other merchandise, i.e. there must be a line item on the receipt. It went into effect on June 1, and sure enough, I had to drop 0.2 yuan (US 2.9 cents) for a bag. I think this is a good measure and support it.
NATOR ADDS: If they’re going to force a policy onto merchants, I’d rather they require that the bags be biodegradable.
Permalink
05.28.08
Posted in Environment, Industry, Law and Order, Politics, USA at 10:01 by SHTig
Everyone knows that China has been under pressure for years, led by the US Congress, to allow the value of its currency, the RMB or yuan, to appreciate. But the “weak” RMB that hurts American exporters is not likely to be the main issue of concern to American voters. They’ll be more worried about $4/gallon (or higher!) gasoline. And this (Chinese article) is a big reason why. China has price controls on diesel and other fuels, such that there is now an RMB6000 (US$870) disparity between what a ton of diesel goes for in China and what it goes for abroad. Chinese oil refiners like Sinopec are getting slammed, since their costs are rising but the sale price of fuel is controlled by the Chinese government. The government is responding with measures to import more oil to help ease pressures.
Why does China control prices? Well, it’s obviously a good way to spur growth, and it’s been working as the country has been growing at 10%+ for over a decade. It’s also a way to over pollute the country and congest the roads. And it’s contributing to the skyrocketing oil prices worldwide, since 25% of the world’s population, the Chinese, are paying a lot less for the oil they use than everyone else.
SHTig adds (5/28 6:50pm PRC time): Mul called to ask what this means, and nator commented below also asking for clarity. To answer - yes, China buys oil on world markets at prevailing prices. But then, when that oil is sold domestically it is done so at a price lower than the prevailing world price. The government forces Sinopec and others to sell it on the cheap, and makes up for this by subsidizing Sinopec with the difference. This process allows everyone in China to get oil in all forms for less than the ‘true’ price, which results in more oil being consumed in China than what should be. We expect consumption to be inversely proportional to price - and when prices are kept artificially low, consumption is artificially high. With oil consumption artificially high in China, China demands more oil from the world markets than it should from an economic prospective and this is what adds to the upward pricing pressure on oil.
If your taxi driver had to pay the prevailing market price for gasoline, your taxi flagfall would be higher than RMB 11 (as it is in Shanghai), and you’d pay more per kilometer. The ride might cost you 50% or 100% more, and at the margins, some people would opt to take a bus instead. Multiply this behavior by 1,300,000,000 and remember that China is the world’s workshop, and we’re talking about a lot less oil being used, if only they - the end users - paid the prevailing price. That would reduce global demand and thus the price of oil as well, ceteris paribus.
Wonder if John McCain and Barack Obama will talk about this when asked what they plan to do about $4/gallon gasoline? If Chinese consumers paid the same price for fuel as everyone else, it might serve to put them on the same competitive playing field as other countries, and it might also serve to increase efficiencies within China.
Permalink
05.26.08
Posted in Law and Order, Media/Internet, Rumors, The Wenchuan Earthquake at 11:17 by SHTig
The allegations of dishonesty by Chinese Red Cross societies are rampant. Last week Truth from Facts reported on a QQ rumor alleging that Red Cross officials were feasting on donation money. Subsequently there have been stories alleging that a Red Cross society in Hainan, China, was demanding a 5% “management fee”. That story apparently had legs, as the local vice director of that chapter was trying to find an official-sounding way to pilfer funds, and she has since faced administrative sanction. Perhaps stories like that are what is leading to the spate of rumors of dishonesty by the Red Cross, like this one I received this morning from a colleague (English translation and original Chinese below):
Please help pass this around! Two people from the Zhongjiang Red Cross came to my pharmacy today to buy RMB10,000 worth of medicines, but demanded that we issue an invoice for RMB50,000. We (First Pharmaecuticals Manufacturer of Chengdu) did not comply, resulting in the management of the neighboring Tonghua Yijia Pharmacy giving it (a receipt) to them. These people are terrible! According to State regulations, all donations go into a fund, and they can legally take 10% of this fund for administrative expenditures. Under the current law this is considered legal! Therefore, of the several billion in RMB already raised, several hundred million has already been taking out. If you don’t believe it, you can ask the fund official right here. Now of the 90% remaining of donation money, are the materials being purchased done so at the lowest market price? Are they being bought at bulk price? Is the purchase receipt showing 50 RMB or 500 RMB? Who knows? Our media and great people should now demand that that the purchase receipts from each day should be made public! Don’t just make public the receipts of donations collected, we want to see the purchase receipts! Where are these trillions of RMB going each day!! It’s Chinese people, please forward this! If the people won’t take pains to investigate the government, then the government will tend towards rot!
SHTig adds (5/26 5:00pm PRC time): This rumor led the Red Cross chapter in question to issue this formal statement on the Zhongjiang government website, saying this rumor is bunk and beckoning people to report names of those who are damaging the reputation of the Red Cross without warrant. Also, since I first posted this article, I learned that Tonghua (the location of the factory that was supposedly next door to the Chenghua store that refused to give out the inflated invoice) — is in Jilin province, some 3 hours away by plane! But none of this stops the non-thinking hoards to pass along dumb messages like this…
Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
05.20.08
Posted in Law and Order, The Second Tier, The Wenchuan Earthquake at 13:46 by SHTig
There has been regular information online and television about how to adopt an earthquake orphan. According to this explanation, the Adoption Law of the PRC (收养法) clearly stipulates 4 conditions: the adopter must not have any children, must be able to raise and educate the adoptee, must not be ill or deemed medically unfit to adopt a child and must be at least 30 years of age. An additional stipulation is that if an unmarried man wants to adopt a female orphan, the age difference between the two must be 40 years or greater. (Go ahead, imagine all the dirty-old-men scenarios that could exist around this loophole.)
Orphans are Like Puppies
As for the the comments to this explanation, I’m sure they are well intentioned, but to me they read like requests for a free puppy. Post after post there is a similar theme - ‘I think the law should be amended because I already have a child but want another child of his/her age. , or ‘I want to raise a baby, under 2 years old (the same age as my son/daughter, the same/opposite sex as my son/daughter). Here is my email, please contact me”. Many, many of these comments are confessions from mothers saying that Read the rest of this entry »
Permalink
05.13.08
Posted in Beijing, Law and Order at 12:48 by ODB
I saw Nator’s post on the Wisdom of Crowds in China, and have a few things to add.
Nator understates how dangerous it actually was. There was a constant push of people who were trying to enter the under-passage from four different entrances. Nobody outside could actually see what was going on underground (there were no cameras then, there are now, however). It was very dangerous and very crowded as more and more people were trying to get in, making it very difficult to get out. Although we got out safely, it could have ended just like it did on that bridge in Miyun.
Chinese police, true to their form, were less interested in the potential danger and seemed to be more worried about me taking pictures of the situation, that’s why the officer there is charging me…
Permalink
05.11.08
Posted in Law and Order, Olympics at 19:20 by Nator
A troubling incident yesterday on a plane at Beijing’s airport:
Three passengers were injured in an emergency evacuation from a China Eastern jet at Beijing’s main airport on Saturday, after controls warned of a fire while the plane was taxiing to the runway, Chinese media reported. . . .
After the controls indicated a possible fire, the crew ordered all passengers to exit the plane, during which three passengers were injured, including one who suffered a bone fracture, CCTV reported.
Fortunately, it wasn’t as bad as what happened in Miyun, a town just outside Beijing, in 2004. But it does help show why security is getting so tight in the run-up to the Olympics–in crowded Chinese cities, panic alone is enough to cause a disaster.
The pictures are from National Day (October 1) 2003. We were in Tiananmen Square and trying to leave, but the wave of other sightseers coming into the square kept pushing us back. Things got a bit hairy for a while, and it was scary to feel how little control one had against the ebb and flow of the crowd. It took us nearly twenty minutes, but we got out unharmed.
Permalink
« Previous entries
