Comments on Ron Huisken “Relations with China: Can the imperfect deal with the ideal?” 12/07/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/07/12/relations-with-china-can-the-imperfect-deal-with-the-ideal/
China is different from western democracy and there is no question about it.
On the other hand, China has also been reforming, even though the pace of political reforms has been much slower compared to its economic reforms.
The fixed maximum of two 5 year terms for the top national leader position now seemingly well entrenched is a very important step politically that significantly constrains the behaviours of any top leader.
It is likely that China will move to some kind of more democratic governance than the current form, even though it is uncertain what that will be and how long it will take for it to achieve it.
While the western democracy is prized here, some of the poor policies and wastes by the Rudd government in the past two and a half years suggest that there may be significant room to improve.
One way may be to strengthen public institutions and restrict or limit politicians' power or the processes they have to go through to make policies and implement policies.
Showing posts with label West. Show all posts
Showing posts with label West. Show all posts
2010-07-13
2010-05-27
Different referencing styles
Comments on Peter Friedman “Plagiarism and China’s future economic development”, 26/05/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/05/26/plagiarism-and-chinas-future-economic-development/
I acknowledge that there are fundamental differences in values placed on community/country relative to individuals between China and East Asian countries as compared to West countries and that has been embedded in the education system.
There is no doubt about it in my mind and I interpret that as part of the differences in values between the two societies. I also expect that difference may play a role in shaping the future average of the “value” system for human beings.
In that sense, Peter Friedman has made an important contribution by pointing that out and highlighted.
However, that does not mean the whole education system in East Asia and China in particular is based on plagiarism and non-acknowledgement of inventions and ideas. That would be a gross over simplistic presentation and highly misleading.
I can just use two or three most famous and well known examples to show why that presentation is problematic and wrong. I guess most people with enough knowledge of China are likely to know Confucius, Marxism, Mao Zedong thought, including historical, foreign and indigenous ideas.
Few Chinese would dare not to acknowledge them and do plagiarism on them.
They show that the Chinese, even under communism, acknowledge property rights.
Some high profile plagiarism cases in the Chinese academic circle or at large are roundly firmly condemned in China, especially by many academic staff and intellectuals including students that can be seen from internet social or academic websites.
They are a disgrace, abnormal and represent a tiny element in Chinese intellectuals. They are equated to crime equivalent, in my view.
Having said that, I would like to argue that there is also a difference in the emphasis of referencing. While there is a tendance of insufficient referencing in some or most papers by Chinese authors, there is an equal tendance of “over” referencing by some western authors, in my view. Some of the references are unhelpful and probably irrelevant.
Referencing is seen as very important, especially for less well known authors so they “have” to show they have done enough research and are on top of the materials and the topics. So many publications may not have enough own real materials but use referencing to strengthen their reputation. That can be a potential problem for research, development and advance.
Of course, there is an equal danger in insufficient referencing on the other hand.
In short, I am not saying that Peter Friedman is completely wrong and as I said he made a useful contribution in understanding. But it should perhaps need to be pointed out what he presented is a small part of a whole and a partial story, although some difference in referencing is likely to firstly and strongly felt by people from the west or who are used to western style referencing, if one is observing enough.
I acknowledge that there are fundamental differences in values placed on community/country relative to individuals between China and East Asian countries as compared to West countries and that has been embedded in the education system.
There is no doubt about it in my mind and I interpret that as part of the differences in values between the two societies. I also expect that difference may play a role in shaping the future average of the “value” system for human beings.
In that sense, Peter Friedman has made an important contribution by pointing that out and highlighted.
However, that does not mean the whole education system in East Asia and China in particular is based on plagiarism and non-acknowledgement of inventions and ideas. That would be a gross over simplistic presentation and highly misleading.
I can just use two or three most famous and well known examples to show why that presentation is problematic and wrong. I guess most people with enough knowledge of China are likely to know Confucius, Marxism, Mao Zedong thought, including historical, foreign and indigenous ideas.
Few Chinese would dare not to acknowledge them and do plagiarism on them.
They show that the Chinese, even under communism, acknowledge property rights.
Some high profile plagiarism cases in the Chinese academic circle or at large are roundly firmly condemned in China, especially by many academic staff and intellectuals including students that can be seen from internet social or academic websites.
They are a disgrace, abnormal and represent a tiny element in Chinese intellectuals. They are equated to crime equivalent, in my view.
Having said that, I would like to argue that there is also a difference in the emphasis of referencing. While there is a tendance of insufficient referencing in some or most papers by Chinese authors, there is an equal tendance of “over” referencing by some western authors, in my view. Some of the references are unhelpful and probably irrelevant.
Referencing is seen as very important, especially for less well known authors so they “have” to show they have done enough research and are on top of the materials and the topics. So many publications may not have enough own real materials but use referencing to strengthen their reputation. That can be a potential problem for research, development and advance.
Of course, there is an equal danger in insufficient referencing on the other hand.
In short, I am not saying that Peter Friedman is completely wrong and as I said he made a useful contribution in understanding. But it should perhaps need to be pointed out what he presented is a small part of a whole and a partial story, although some difference in referencing is likely to firstly and strongly felt by people from the west or who are used to western style referencing, if one is observing enough.
2010-03-30
The case of Stern Hu and different legal systems
Comments on Stanley Lubman “Rio Tinto trial shines harsh spotlight on Chinese criminal justice”, 29/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/29/rio-tinto-trial-shines-harsh-spotlight-on-chinese-criminal-justice/
Although I share some of the concerns of Stanley Lubman, it can hardly be said that the case is markedly different from most cases involving Chinese nationals only.
So in that respect, the international implications argued by some people in terms of doing business in China may not have strong foundation.
China does not appear to have targeted foreign investors.
While some people in western countries may think the sentence of Stern Hu is harsh by western standard, by Chinese standard it may not be so, bearing in mind the sum of money involved reported was substantial by Chinese standard in terms of income, or for that matter in Australian standard. The death sentence can be involved for very large sums of money in China.
Even in Australia, I remember a former judge in NSW, former Federal Court Justice Marcus Einfeld, was sentenced extremely severely to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, for an evasion of a speeding fine, how many years for $A 75.
Which was harsh, or harsher in comparison?
Although I share some of the concerns of Stanley Lubman, it can hardly be said that the case is markedly different from most cases involving Chinese nationals only.
So in that respect, the international implications argued by some people in terms of doing business in China may not have strong foundation.
China does not appear to have targeted foreign investors.
While some people in western countries may think the sentence of Stern Hu is harsh by western standard, by Chinese standard it may not be so, bearing in mind the sum of money involved reported was substantial by Chinese standard in terms of income, or for that matter in Australian standard. The death sentence can be involved for very large sums of money in China.
Even in Australia, I remember a former judge in NSW, former Federal Court Justice Marcus Einfeld, was sentenced extremely severely to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years, for an evasion of a speeding fine, how many years for $A 75.
Which was harsh, or harsher in comparison?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
