TR EMERITUS

From The China Bureau Though the term "Chinese" is used loosely to describe the ethnic Chinese, the more appropriate term should be "Han Chinese". China is a multi-racial country with 56 ethnic groups of which the Han Chinese constitutes more than 90% of the population. The other chief ethnic groups are the Uighurs in Xinjang autonomous region, Tibetans in the Tibet autonomous region, Hui Chinese in the Ningxia autonomous region and the surrounding provinces of Gansu and Shaanxi, the Mongols inhabiting the deserts of the north, the Manchus and Koreans in the three northeastern provinces of Liaoning, Jilin and Heilongjian and the Tai, Miao and Zhuang people in Yunnan province. Most ethnic groups are distinctive from one another, but there are some that are very similar to the Han majority group. For example, most Hui Chinese are indistinguishable from Han Chinese except for the fact that they practice Islam. The multi-ethnic nature of China is a result of many centuries of assimilation, expansion and modern consolidation of territories incorporated during the Qing Dynasty, whose emperors were themselves Manchu and not members of the Han majority. Even amongst the "Han Chinese" themselves, they are usually mixed blood with lineages traced back to that of ancient ethnic groups such as the Tufan, Xianbei and Qiang people. The Northern Han Chinese are descendents of inter-marriages between the Han and ethnic minorities over several generations which explain their different features from their Southern brethen. The Yangtze river is usually used to demarcate the boundary between Northern and Southern China. Northern China was ruled by "barbarians" for many centuries. The cradle of Chinese civilization lies in the fertile plains around the Yellow river in present day Henan and Shanxi provinces. During the Spring and Autumn period, the feudal states of Qin and Chu which occupied the southwestern and southern parts of today's China are considered "Wai4 Bang1" or states foreign to the Chinese civilization. They were soon assimilated and accepted as part of the Han Chinese people. The first Emperor of China, Qin Shihuang probably had "barbarian" blood flowing in him as did the second emperor of the Tang dynasty Li Shiming whose mother belonged to Yuwen clan of the Xianbei ethnic group which ruled Northern China for 300 years. In AD 308 with the fall of the Western Jin dynasty, the territory north of the Yangtze river was ruled by ethnic minorities till AD 589 in what was known as the "Northern and Southern dynasty" period. In order to stabilize and legitimatize their rule, these "barbarian" Emperors adopted the Chinese language and culture and they soon become sinicized in time to come. The same sinicization process can be seen in Northeastern China where the Manchu ethnic group has now become virtually indistinguisable from the Han Chinese. In short, the diverse group of people we now see in mainland China is the result of 5,000 years of inter-ethnic interactions and marriages as well as the sinicization of ethnic minorities to become "Han Chinese".  Read More →

Written by Scholarboy of the Brotherhood / When I read this over breakfast today; I promptly puked over the cat – yes, the art of hype and spin is truly alive in Singapore - Suzhou the dead rojak rat like Frankenstein has been brought back to life again by the spin doctors - only this time instead of being the sorry case of the shattered dreams it was; its now showcased as a resounding case of state inspired - foresight! Here check it out, if you dont believe me. “One example of foresight that he cited: How Singapore, seeing that China was rising, had gone out of its way to be helpful, such as with the Suzhou industrial park. The experience has given us “an entree into all the cities of China”. “They are sending their mayors, about 111 of them, to NTU (Nanyang Technological University), learning how to manage a city. So everybody in China at the city level knows of Singapore, and businesses from Singapore will find open doors.” MM Lee Kuan Yew, as reported by Today (CNA video) Well, to be fair, this is certainly not the first time that misadventures has been embellished with such selective colorings of "truths' – but its certainly the most provocative; when you consider how far your mind has to really go to wrap your head around the idea - Suzhuo = great foresight or state wisdom on a stellar scale - if nothing else, it's a fitting adornment of the naked truth; as on this occasion I suspect, even the spin doctors may have run off the page when they posit the idea. Only one minor problem here – the accounts don't seem to square off very nicely with the facts – truth it seems is even stranger than fiction; as Suzhuo was once upon a time none other than some Byzantine plan to clone a thousand fold orchids of balmy Singapore within China – in short, it was some grand plan to McDonalized the industrial heartland under the logic of some self replicating code – the long and short of this story was the Chinese weren’t dumb; they promptly checkmated that caper by building a plan B which happened to be a mirror version of Suzhuo next door; which incidentally was cheaper and in some cases even better; all the while siphoning off the goodies - despite numerous warnings of a Singaporean pull out, if things didn't improve – the communist just continue to drain it right down to the bone - while despite the set backs, the Singapore government keep to its excruitingly painful challenge of bringing the whole deal to a face saving end - prognosis: Suzhuo was a dismal failure - no doubt about it. Contrary to what LKY recently referred to Shuzuo as “foresight,” it rings hollow as what the Suzhou industrial project really demonstrates is how easily the government can be blindsided in it's overseas investment escapades, suggesting it has as much foresight as a lumbering cyclops when it comes to craving out competitive advantage in the world market. There lies the shattered dreams of Suzhuo; apart from highlighting how the government were once outclassed, outflanked and even out gunned by the communist – how incidentally in circa 1984 had probably as much capitalist teeth as the gummy bear Salvation Army – what’s even more distressing is the Suzhou episode harbors an even deeper fault line that runs within the government hegemony - what can go wrong when a roomful of delusional elites grow so complacent that they even begin to get high on their own products (believing their own mythology) - to even nurture their own sense of invincibility – and this should prompt us all to ask whether what tragically transpired in Suzhuo could only have been something like slow acting poison – where a hegemony that’s so stepped in its own sense of false security, so ballooned even in its self-illusory infallibility that it even believed it could do anything and everyone would even listen to them as they are somehow masters of the known universe. That’s palpably true of course, but sadly the truth bears out ONLY within the borders of a small island at the tip of a peninsula called Singapore, it seems – out in the open blue waters of the big bad world – reality suggest given the recent debacle of failed foreign investments – they’re just prime cuts for the real elites; who will always be lean and hungry only because they have neither the time or inclination to nurse such valedictory affectations. We should just all learn to call a spade a spade and if we can do that; all our problems, will melt away like lemon drops – as if nothing else; at least it offers us all a basis to learn from our mistakes and move on – as the sages testify to those who do not seem to learn from history and can only run the risk of repeating them – the only failure in failure; is when we fail to learn anything from our own failures and instead whitewash it as a glorious success – there’s absolutely no "foresight" in trying to rewrite history. The case is clear - a dog will always be a dog - now the record is straight and level again - everything is the way it should be. I am happy Scholarboy You are reading the Brotherhood Press 2009 The Suzhou industrial park project (1994-2001): The failure of a development strategy Alexius A. Pereira / Asian Journal of Political Science, Volume 10, Issue 2 December 2002 , pages 122 - 142        Read More →

By Darth Vader, Guest Columnist   Reverend Ming Yi, the founder and former CEO of the Ren Ci Charity, is currently on trial for serious abuses of authority and mismanagement of funds. This is the latest scandal to hit the local charity sector, after the Youth Challenge scandal in 2007, and the NKF scandal in 2005. In all three instances, a capable, charismatic leader became so powerful that they became a law unto themselves, with each individual charity’s Board of Directors simply rubberstamping their decisions instead of keeping a watchful vigilance on their activities.   During Rev. Ming Yi’s trial, a key witness, Mrs. Chan Ching Oi, a member of the Ren Ci Charity Hospital management committee, said that the committee members weren’t aware of how much Rev. Ming was paid. Instead, he was allowed to set his own salary and run the foundation any way he felt like. In short, the hospital management committee and the Ren Ci Charity foundation’s Board of Directors were guilty of gross dereliction of duty. When asked why, Mrs. Chan replied that Rev. Ming was a highly respected Buddhist monk, so there was no reason not to trust him; especially since he had worked very hard to make the charity what it is today, the second largest charity foundation in the country after the National Kidney Foundation. What is strange about this of course is that Buddhist monks have taken a vow of poverty, so why Rev. Ming Yi was paid a salary instead of having it all donated to charity is a question that the Board has to answer for.   This is not the first instance of a charity CEO being allowed to do as he pleased with the tacit compliance of the Board of Directors. T. T. Durai also ran the NKF on the basis of trust from its board. And look where it got them. Vincent Lam ran Youth Challenge on the basis of trust from its board as well. And look where it got them too. So did other charities such as SATA. And look at what happened each and every single time. Isn't this ample proof that a leader who was once capable and responsible may eventually become corrupted and lose sight of his original mission when given unlimited power without any mechanisms of checks-and-balances?   Following the NKF scandal, Dr. Vivian Balakrishnan, the Minister of Community, Youth and Sports said that the lack of transparency in the foundation was unacceptable, and said that it should never happen again. This, of course, came after Durai dropped his defamation suit against Singapore Press Holdings. It should be noted that before the facts surrounding Durai’s abuses became public knowledge, both the NKF’s former patron, Mrs. Goh Chok Tong, and the Minister for Health, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, had openly showed support for him. Mrs. Goh even said that Durai’s $600,000/- annual salary was “peanuts” for a capable CEO who had done as much for the foundation as he had. Yet despite Dr. Balakrishnan’s statement that such similar incidents “should never happen again”, such incidents did happen again. And again. And again.   Haven't the authorities learnt anything by now? Don’t these repeated failures of governances prove that the existing system in Singapore has failed to prevent such abuses? Don’t they prove that a fresh approach towards enforcement of governance is required, and that not only is a system of checks and balances necessary to prevent abuses of authority by CEOs, but that whistleblower protection is absolutely vital to ensure that executives aren't able to misuse their authority with impunity? The government's reassurances that they have only appointed the best holds no water: T. T. Durai, Rev. Ming Yi, Vincent Lam and others were all proven capable leaders; the real problem wasn't that they were incompetent, the real problem was that they became intoxicated with power and lost sight of their original objectives. Had whistleblower protection been part of Singapore law, it is highly unlikely that these problems would have gone on for as long as they have or grew as large as they did; the whistleblowers would have surfaced these problems into the public’s attention, and the problems themselves nipped in the bud.   Before the NKF scandal became public knowledge, then-Prime Minister Mr. Goh Chok Tong said that the failures of governances in the Enron saga and World.Com proved that the American system had its weaknesses, and that Singapore’s “Asian-values” based system was better suited for us. Yet was the American system truly a failure, at least in the Enron case? A closer examination of the facts would seem to indicate otherwise. It is true that the auditors in the Enron and World.com scandals failed to uncover serious abuses by the CEOs of these countries, but that was only the first level of safeguarding. The second level, whistleblower protection, worked very well in the Enron scandal, as it enabled Enron CEO Kenneth Lay’s Executive Secretary Ms. Sharron Watkins to expose his crimes publicly, putting an end to his abuses. And certainly the NKF, Youth Challenge and Ren Ci scandals all proved the failures of their respective auditors to detect managerial abuses. The possibility that a whistleblower protection program could have resulted in the emergences of local answers to Ms. Watkins, who courageously jeopardized her own career to expose Mr. Lay’s abuses, and that the actions of such individuals could have prevented these scandals from escalating out of control the way they did,  cannot be ruled out. So how then is Singapore’s “Asian-values” based governance enforcement system superior, when not only did local auditors fail to uncover abuses, just as in the Enron case, but its lack of whistleblower protection in turn meant that staffs who are aware of such abuses cannot safely report them without fear of reprisals?   So what is the excuse that the government gives for not protecting whistleblowers then? That it is to prevent employees with an ax to grind from sabotaging their superiors? And how often do good, capable superiors get sabotaged by disgruntled staffs? After all, good capable leaders are usually highly-respected, if not well-liked by their staffs. On the contrary, the leaders that tend to be loathed by their staffs tend to be incompetent, even corrupted. Isn't exposing high level corruption far more important than the risk of an occasional low-ranking troublemaker trying to sabotage a fair, capable leader? If Boards of Directors prefer to trust their management instead of monitoring their performances, let alone protecting whistleblowers who risk their careers to expose corruption and abuse by these managers, then would they not have failed in their duty to ensure their managements’ accountabilities for their actions? Or are they afraid that whistleblowers may reveal facts that could be very embarrassing for them, even if nothing illegal was done?   This is a question that appears to answer itself: it was a whistleblower that revealed that two employees of the North-West CDC had received 8 months bonus payments. Since then, Dr. Teo Ho Pin, mayor of the North-West precinct, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, MP for Woodlands GRC, and Mr. Lim Boon Heng, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, have all repeatedly stumbled over themselves trying to justify the payments. Or to avoid having to answer for the payments, as the case may be. Whatever the case may be, having such extravagances made public during a recession proved to be most embarrassing for the authorities, who seem unable to account for their “ignorance” of the matter, and to even appear foolish in public by their repeated claims of “I don’t know.” It is very likely that they privately wish that the whistleblower would simply crawl under a rock and die instead of publicly exposing this matter instead.   On the question of accountability, who do the CEOs of GIC or Temasek Holdings answer to? The people? Parliament? The President? The Finance Minister? Having lost millions in failed investments, who are they supposed to explain these debacles to? And more importantly, why are no answers forthcoming? If Singapore society functions on the basis of "trust", then clearly the CEOs of GIC and Temasek Holdings have failed in delivering on the "trust" invested in them, as can be seen by their failures to invest the country's monies wisely, to take responsibility for their failings, and to answer for their mistakes. Of course, there is no known indication or even suggestion of illegal actions on the part of anyone in the loss of monies in these organizations; nonetheless, even if everything done was entirely above-board, whistleblower protection may still have caused the bad investments made to surface earlier, allowing for swift action to stem losses. Had such whistleblower protection systems been in place, the amounts lost may have been far less, possibly even negligible.   The abuses by Durai, Ming Yi and Vincent Lam could very easily have been nipped in the bud by whistleblower protection. According to Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, several independent investigations had been conducted by MoH into allegations against the NKF, and nothing untoward was ever found. Yet it was obvious that things were very wrong there, as was eventually revealed. Were there no witnesses that the investigators could have spoken to? It would certainly seem that way, based upon Mr. Khaw’s claims, and yet several whistleblowers who tried to report Durai's excesses were sued by him, some into bankruptcy, because their identities were known to him. How this could possibly happen remains unknown, unless of course their identities were revealed to him for him to conduct internal investigations into his own misdeeds. If this was indeed the case, then why Durai and the NKF board were entrusted to investigate allegations of their own misdeeds instead of an impartial, external third-party investigation conducted should be publicly queried. Regardless of the reasons for this, the lack of whistleblower protection meant that they knew who were reporting their abuses, and they made sure that these well-intentioned people pay for their courageous acts dearly. Anyone who has done nothing wrong has nothing to fear from whistleblowing. This commonsense adage should make everyone wonder why the authorities are so afraid of whistleblowers that they refuse to protect them.  Read More →