Reform the hukou system in China

Comments on Kam Wing Chan “Making real hukou reform in China”, 3/03/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/03/03/making-real-hukou-reform-in-china/

While the author's suggestions are interesting and have merits, I think it is important not to introduce new inequality in the process of remedying existing inequality in any hukou system reform.

The proposal to allow more skilled migrant workers to have more privileges over other unskilled migrant workers would introduce new inequality between those two groups. Rather than one group get all the benefit and the other get nothing, both groups should be provided equal opportunities to benefit.

In light of that, a gradual reform of the hukou system is preferred. Such reform would include some important elements that will benefit all migrant workers and are affordable by a city authority's budget:

For any real migrant workers
1. create acceptable living environment for them to ensure their basic living conditions and security
2. allow their children to go to local schools with no discriminations for those real migrant workers
3. gradually increase their entitlement for social securities for every migrant worker and their families who live and work in cities over time
4. relevant governments and urban authorities develop long term plans for urbanisation for whole regions that include both planned growth of existing cities and the transformation of some current rural centres into new urban townships and cities

But there should be a timeframe for the end goal of the reform to be achieved in the whole country, say in 10, 15 or 20 years by that time there should be no discrimination between urban and rural people in terms of movement and social securities.

This means the reform is unlikely to be uniform across all urban areas. Some may proceed with a faster pace if they have greater capacities to do so.

The equal voting right should be introduced immediately, and there is no excuse for any delay. Migrant workers and their family members should be allowed to vote where they work and live for most of the time.

Let's be "first things first" on the Ruddnet please, Mr Colless

Comments on “Ruddnet divides a nation” by Malcolm Colless, The Australian, 5/05/2009, on http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25429083-7583,00.html

Your statement that "Who will be able to tap into this upgraded communications delivery pipe is clearly a key component of the Government's $43 billion broadband strategy" and the whole article seem to miss even a big point, that is, how many users will be able to afford to use at a reasonably expected rate of commercial return to investment. The political economy of cities versus rural is important and the government has to consider its implications carefully. But it has to be premised on the commercial feasibility of the whole project, unless the government is so fool-headed that it ignores the commercial reality of the project.

While it might be very attempting to build and have a grandeurs, “state-of-the-art, world's-best, communications platform for Australia”, one has to be realistic and rational using sound economic and business analysis, and resist the urge to instinctively go for the best technologically but very poorly economically, no matter how uncomforting it may be. The issue of the nation’s “affordability” is far more important than the secondary political economy consideration of city versus rural divide. And it is even more pointing at a time of great recession and ever ballooning government budget deficit.