 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
|
Through a Bangladeshi's eyes Asia Times, Oct 23, 2004 "To get rich is glorious." The Chinese people at all levels have heeded this famous slogan of reformist leader Deng Xiaoping. Even the Beijing Airport's tourist information center, an official looking set-up, quoted me an outrageous taxi fare (500 yuan or about US$60) to go to a hotel. Finally, after managing to get a cab outside and then paying him more than usual, thanks to his "broken" fare-meter, we had a taste of market competition in China. The experience of being swindled and cheated is not uncommon in Beijing - or any big city for that matter - yet there is no evidence of a social collapse at a time of break-neck economic growth, moving at a rate of 9.2%. The roads and highways are bustling with traffic - not bicycles but automobiles. With economic prosperity came more automobiles and traffic congestion. Compared to my 1996 visit to Beijing, there were fewer bicycles on the road, yet there was a separate lane for bikes and other muscle-powered vehicles. As we were stuck in traffic, I saw a motorist driving a smart European car who was negotiating with traffic police for the use of the bike lane. I am sure he was in a hurry and rich. The police officer did not budge. The driver had to abandon his plan. This pedestrian incident symbolised what is going on in today's China. The socialist government in creating a market economy has created a bourgeoisie, but it is not completely beholden to the new class and the government still cares for the working class and the poor, whose rank are swelling due to rising unemployment. At the international sociology meeting I attended in Beijing, organised by the International Institute of Sociology, many of the papers by the local sociologists dealt with issues of unemployment, the cutback of social welfare programmes in the villages, regional disparity and so on. The intellectuals are alive to the problems - the price of progress - and are ready to discuss them openly in Mandarin with instantaneous English translation. The Russian participant painted the bleakest of pictures of Russian society after the end of socialism. Such images of blight and social collapse are not evident in reformist China unless you are a puritan who is offended by the sights of so-called streetwalkers in the hotel districts and karaoke joints in some back lanes. But the fact that you can walk the streets of Beijing in the late hours without being mugged is a legacy of the socialist order and proof that China remains an orderly society and a well-governed polity. The rise of the market economy has not become a runaway monster crushing everything in its path. The continuity in China has a civilisational dimension. A visitor to the Forbidden City will first notice the portrait of Mao Zedong adorning its main entrance, as if a tribute to the "last emperor". I asked Lili, my interpreter turned friend back in 1996, "how about replacing that portrait [with] Deng Xiaoping's?" She was praising the leadership qualities of Deng and his contributions to modern China. It was at that opportune point I fielded my question. Lili replied almost instinctively, "No, that place is for Mao." I had by then a compromise plan. "How about putting Deng's portrait next to Mao's?" I asked. "Deng is a great leader but that place is for Mao," was Lili's reply. We did not continue that discussion on that frosty evening in 1996. CCTV channel 5, which is an English-language channel, was showing a place of tourist interest, an idyllic hamlet with fountain and rural bliss. Domestic tourism is big in China. The tourist promotion story ended with a side story that it was in that village in Jiangxi province where Mao started his long march in 1934. A hut where Mao spent some nights has been converted into a modest museum, which tourists are urged to visit. In the Ming Tombs, a tourist attraction on the way to and from the Great Wall, there is a modest exhibit of a small pavilion where Mao once read a newspaper. The champions of capitalism have not forgotten the leaders of socialism. The fact that the Great Wall was built by successive generations of monarchs over a period of nearly 2,000 years is further proof of that continuity. It was started in the Qin dynasty (221 BC) and ended during the Ming dynasty in the 17th century. James Jesudason, a sociologist from the Colorado School of Mines, pointed out that the real reason for the Great Wall was not security but state power. The emperors of various dynasties were showing off their prowess by building this mammoth structure. His hypothesis had a basis in the mountainous terrain on which part of the wall was built. We had to take the cable car to reach the wall. "The mountain was deterrence enough, why build a wall on top?" asked Jesudason. I agreed. However, there could be more to adding glory and symbolic power. It was, I thought, Keynesian before Keynes. Chinese rulers had to solve the problem of unemployment. Too many young, able-bodied men hanging around in the cities were not being a good idea. So if you could send them to build a public works project in a remote area where they would be doing a patriotic duty, a kind of "food for work" project, everyone would be happy. The unemployed men would have food to eat and meaningful work to keep them busy, and the royalty would be safe in the city. Employment creation remains the main focus of the present day rulers of China as well. Unlike the subway system in Singapore, Beijing's subway is filled with working women. Some selling tickets, others standing at the gate checking tickets and answering questions (in Mandarin). Giovanni Arrighi, a renowned historical sociologist made similar points in his keynote address at the sociology meeting. The main difference between the East (Japan and China) and the West (Europe and later the United States) was that there was an "industrial revolution" in the West; while in the East there was an "industrious revolution". Here Arrighi was quoting Japanese economic historian Kaoru Sugihara. The key to Asian success from the late 19th century starting in Japan and later in China was the ability to harness labour power. An industrious and self-motivated labour force cut the cost of supervision and fueled economic growth. The worker-manager ratio in China stood at 15 managers per 5,000 workers whereas in the US, management was not only top heavy but also there was often an army of mid-management cadres that helped balloon production costs. Our taxi driver on the way to the Great Wall was very knowledgeable and my colleagues engaged him in a lively conversation. Ai Yun, a Marxist at heart, was doing the translation. James asked how things during the communist days compared to the present. Although Ai Yun was filtering some of the translations, it came out that things were not all that great. But our translator was excited to find out that in those good old days people did not even have to lock their doors. "Maybe they did not have any valuable thing that needed protection," I quipped. Now theft has increased because people have more things of interest to thieves. Socialist frugality is deterrence for pilfery. The comparison between China and India often came up in discussions and small talk over breakfasts at the hotel. India has democracy; China has accountability and so on. One thing struck me. India is nationalistic; China is patriotic. Indian nationalism is often manifested in its anti-foreign postures. The root of nationalism lies in anti-foreignness. China believes in opening its door to foreign capital and technology (unless it is labor displacing). Chinese are more disciplined. Pragmatism defines China. One does not have to go to China to see that. A visit to the Chinese Embassy and Indian High Commission is enough. I have been a resident of Singapore for the past 18 years, with permanent resident status in Singapore and a respectable job at the National University of Singapore. I blow my own trumpet for a reason. The Indian High Commission could not give me a visa to go to New Delhi to meet my friends without a clearance from the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. Actually, I have been away from Bangladesh for the past 25 years so the Indian High Commission must have extraordinary intelligence gathering capabilities to keep track of my activities in Canada, the US and Singapore. Incidentally, I have no problem getting visas to go to the United States or Canada. Yes, in Singapore I was the president of the Bangla Language and Literary Society, which has Bangladeshis, Indians, and Singaporeans as members. Okay, that probably was the reason for the lengthy procedure of my visa. I reasoned with the officer: what about my daughter who was born in Singapore and has seen Bangladesh only as an occasional visitor. "Does Indian High Commission in Dhaka have a file on my daughter as well?" I got no answer to that question. The consular section in the Chinese Embassy was exactly the opposite. They did not want to get clearance from their Dhaka office. Their questions were whether I needed it urgently or after four days, not four weeks, which was the normal processing time. For an urgent visa, I needed to pay an extra $S35 (US$21). The fees are different for different speeds. With an extra US$50 I could get my visa the same day. I am sure many business people would appreciate this speedy process. No wonder, China attracted foreign investment of US$52.7 billion in 2002 compared to India's US$3.5 billion. China provides a good example of good governance. Good governance is good, old-fashioned common sense. There must be intrigues in high places in China. The handing over of the top military position to Hu Jintao (already president and party chief) is a recent case in point. But a collective responsibility toward the country helps tide over such difficulties. The root of all this is patriotism. India's strong point is nationalism, China's patriotism. India's nationalism helps keep tourists as well as foreign investments away. A colleague of mine and I were giving a briefing at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences to a group of prospective graduate students and researchers. At one point, one of them asked if we had any Chinese post-doctoral researchers. I answered matter of factly, "We have a post-doctoral fellow from China." Honestly, I did not know where our post-doctoral fellow was from. My colleague corrected me by saying Dr Chan was from Taiwan. No sooner had he finished his statement than, a Chinese student retorted: "But Taiwan is China." It came out almost instinctively from my mouth, "That's what I said." A potential diplomatic crisis was thus overcome. Yet the sense of patriotism on the part of the Chinese students was unmistakable. You have to love your country first, if you want to improve its socio-economic conditions. This is the lesson we can all learn from China. ================ The author is an associate professor of department of Sociology at National University of Singapore.
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
||
|
|
||||
|
|
 |
 |
 |