China and Taiwan: The Anti-secession Law

Recently I linked to the Web site of writer and meditation master Walter Stimson. I thought you might enjoy his essay on China’s controversial Anti-secession Law.

“A Big Step For China”
by William R. Stimson

The central standing committee of the People’s Republic of China’s National Congress on December 26, 2004 approved a draft bill for what has come to be known as the “Anti-Secession Law.” This is a big step for China. Unfortunately it’s in the wrong direction.

Evolutionary biologists have long known that the fastest evolution, the quickest development in a line of organisms, doesn’t occur on continents but in archipelagos of many close but separate islands, where it’s possible for populations to make local experiments. The successes spread like lightning through the region. The failures remain local or fizzle out.

Not China, but Europe, with its many separate and distinct nations, cultures and languages, spawned modern civilization. It’s no accident. We think of China as a country, but it’s not. China isn’t analogous to, say, Germany, Italy or England. It’s the Asian equivalent of Europe and, like Europe, China is, in fact, composed of many separate regions, each having its own individual history, language and nationality. This truth has been obscured by China’s historical fixation on empire. If this “Anti-Secession Law” is intended to pave the way for a move against Taiwan, it only shows how firmly entrenched China still is in its dysfunctional past.

For China to gobble up Taiwan would, admittedly, not be good for Taiwan, which is much better off as it is. But the point I would like to make here is that neither would it be good for China. The “One China” policy never benefited China. It has all but defeated everything that’s splendidly and vibrantly Chinese. Consider this one fact: it’s the little specks of vast China, those tiny particles of territory historically unconnected to the corrupt power center, that have moved forward with such singular verve into the modern world — Taiwan, Singapore, and, until recently, Hong Kong. What China needs is to follow the example of its success stories, not strangle them one by one. The “archipelago effect” works, the “continental scenario” doesn’t. This is the message that should be getting through to China’s leaders.

What China needs isn’t an “Anti-Secession Law” but a program for the orderly secession of its different constituent nationalities so that, one by one, each may set out like Taiwan on its own amazing adventure, forging its own unique way of being Chinese. Only in this way can China, so long stymied, break out and finally achieve its proper place of leadership in the civilized world.

China should forget about competing with the United States. It can do better than displacing the world’s dinosaur. The European example is clearly the one China needs to follow. Living here in Taiwan as I do, I see on a daily basis the miracle that can happen in a place that is small and free. The young people Taiwan is now producing are amazing. I only wish all the other regions of China could gain their independence too and experience the same miracle.

The Discussion: 92 Comments

Let a hundred flowers bloom, eh?

But what happens to the poor inland states? I could imagine areas around Guangdong, Shanghai, Beijing would do rather well out of this – but wouldn’t this just mean the poor farmers would be left to rot?

January 4, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

armchair politician.

does the US need to let each state become an “independent country” in order to keep the US prosper?

true, more independence in the regional level stimulates creatity, but it’s not necessarily means china has to be divided.

i’d like to see china learn sth from germany’s regionalism, but for sure, this kind of “dividing china mentality” is not only unrealistic, but also inimical to china.

January 4, 2005 @ 9:09 pm | Comment

i am waiting for richard to drop another “bomb” to china. (just kidding, no offense here)

lunch time!

January 4, 2005 @ 9:24 pm | Comment

As a Californian, I have some sympathy for this argument – after the election, secession seemed like the way to go to me. If all those Red Staters hate our values so much, let’s take our 6th largest economy in the world and go…who’d have thought that a bunch of liberals would start arguing in favor of states’ rights?

January 4, 2005 @ 10:11 pm | Comment

Foreigners lecture Chinese on how to be Chinese and how to interpret Chinese history. It reminds me of Republicans advising Democrats on who should be their leaders in the House and the Senate.

January 4, 2005 @ 10:15 pm | Comment


I wonder how American liberals really feel about the blue states getting independent.

I know as a fact that right wingers will adamantly oppose to the idea, even though they said they wanted to give California to China.

January 4, 2005 @ 10:22 pm | Comment

Dear JR,

Well, a lot of us Blue staters were pretty bitter (and still are) – there were a lot of T-shirts and graphics going around the internet that had the blue state/red state map, with the blue states part of Canada, called “United States of Canada,” and the red states called “Jesusland” (another variation was Blue=America and Red=Dumbf*%ckistan). Give that Blue states pay out far more in federal taxes than we get back in revenue and Red states pay far LESS and are dependent on blue state money, I doubt that the Republicans would really want to let us go…

Excuse my vast oversimplification here re: Red/Blue; of course there are lots of blue areas in Red states and vice-versa.

But this has engendered a discussion about state’s rights, traditionally a conservative issue (it was often used as a tool to maintain segregation and other forms of institutionalized racism). Now a lot of progressive types are thinking that states’ rights aren’t such a bad idea – if the US Federal Government won’t support stem cell research, the state of California will, advancing the cause of science and enriching California’s economy if all goes well…

BTW, I recall that Mao Zedong himself supported the cause of Hunan independence, early on in his career as an activist. Apparently he thought that China’s problems were too huge and that Hunan had a better chance of standing on its own. Obviously he changed his mind somewhere along the way…

January 5, 2005 @ 12:36 am | Comment

p.s. I’m not sure Mr. Stimson’s argument really flies, actually. I’m sure there are a few parts of China where there are separatist sentiments, but I doubt this holds in general. Taiwan IMO is a different issue – there have been so many years of separate development (and I won’t even try to make the historical argument, because I don’t know enough about it), that Taiwan has become something quite different from China, shared cultural heritage aside. I think if you polled Taiwanese and asked them if they wanted to be a part of greater China, you would have a majority that would say, no thanks, at least not until China’s political and economic system have evolved into something more compatible with what Taiwan has become. I think actually that this is the defensible basis of the “One China” argument, that eventually, the differences in the two systems will become less distinct.

Personally, I have a great admiration for the EU. It seems to me that they are managing to create a confederation that sets certain baseline standards while still respecting cultural differences.

January 5, 2005 @ 12:58 am | Comment

the true essence of democracy is “rule by the majority”, in which the minority should make compromise to the majority for the well being of the whole.

i understand that there is always hot debate on “the tyranny of the majority”, and various theories were proposed as how to protect the rights of the minority. but obviously there is no way to make everybody satisfied.

this is the trade-off you have to make.

i think many chinese realize that to some extents, de-centeralization stimulates regional vigor and creativity, but how much power should the provinces (in american case, the state) have? this is the issue.

i believe that in the future, europe, china and perhaps the u.s., will follow different paths to get to the same place, a well balance between a central government and regional governments.

if you look at the case of EU, the upward centeralization trend will continue for a while until the EU nations feel uncomfortable to give up more national powers. and while china is on the way to de-centeraliz, any idea of dividing china into a number of small nations sounds just stupid to me.

in the future, for anyone who don’t like the place he stays, he should have the right to choose another place as the alternative. in fact, that is the case with red-blue issue in the states, people just move to canada.

January 5, 2005 @ 1:58 am | Comment

“BTW, I recall that Mao Zedong himself supported the cause of Hunan independence, early on in his career as an activist.”

maybe i am wrong, but i think it is “hunan autonomy”.

January 5, 2005 @ 2:15 am | Comment

Simple out and out sedition. While the motivations of writing such an article are certainly suspect, what he advocates is simply ludicrous. The comparisons of mainland China to Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan are flat out insipid. Neither the creation of ethnic enclaves of insignificant minority populations or the distintegration of China along provincial lines will do much to address China’s core systemic problems. All it simply will do is relieve the Taidu dogs of the threat of a unified China able to exercise overwhelming force against them. The only certainty would be a complete restructuring of the entire Asian security arrangement, perhaps to the pleasure of some of China’s more panicky neighbors.

January 5, 2005 @ 2:19 am | Comment

I think Mr Stimson should just stick to his meditation. That seems to be about all he understands.

January 5, 2005 @ 2:35 am | Comment


Hu Nan Du Li = Hunan autonomy?

Looks like ‘One China’ advocators have a unique version of Chinese-English dictionary.

Sorry if I haven’t made your life a bit easier.

January 5, 2005 @ 4:08 am | Comment


“No vision for the threat on horizon.”

What threat are you talking about??? my “Chinese” friend

January 5, 2005 @ 4:32 am | Comment

There is but one China, communist China. And there is but one Taiwan, free independent democratic Taiwan. One China, yes. One Taiwan, yes.

Someday soon, just like the old former USSR, communist China will stop functionging and become a free country, full of freedom and freedom of speech. And religion. Falun Gong that, you commies!

Mr Stimson’s article is 100000000% correct. China is wrong.

January 5, 2005 @ 4:32 am | Comment

Looks like this blog has successfully attracted another CHINA-BASHER.

January 5, 2005 @ 4:38 am | Comment

“Mr Stimson’s article is 100000000% correct. China is wrong.”

Oh yea, do you feel better now?
Go masturbate somewhere else.
Go to little green cesspool

January 5, 2005 @ 4:41 am | Comment


Hu Nan Du Li = Hunan autonomy?

Looks like ‘One China’ advocators have a unique version of Chinese-English dictionary.

Sorry if I haven’t made your life a bit easier.

Posted by bellevue at January 5, 2005 04:08 AM






the true meaning of Mao Zedong’s Huan Autonomy Movement is totally different from independence, bellevue is somewhat DAO-JIANG-HU here.

January 5, 2005 @ 4:47 am | Comment

David Hume,

are you the owner of your racist “YELLOW-SKIN PEOPLE” blog???
Who is Jay Weiner?

January 5, 2005 @ 4:48 am | Comment

It is interesting how almost every comment reflects the writers’ viewpoint about Chinese power politics without actually reflecting anything about what Stimson wrote!
His point was not that China’s power should be reduced, that China should be politically crippled, etc. What he says is, that a huge centrally controlled monolith cannot foster the kind of creative innovation that can arise from an equal sized union of associated but largely autonomous regions. Insistence on central control can only harm China and slow down the progress she has made. There is essentially a direct correlation between the freedom Chinese people have had to try new experiments in business, science and the arts, and the rapid development to excellence. A single viewpoint, rigidly designed by a very small group of elderly ideologues, is not the best way to allow 1.4 billion flowers to bloom.

January 5, 2005 @ 4:55 am | Comment


Hu Nan Du Li = Hunan autonomy?

Looks like ‘One China’ advocators have a unique version of Chinese-English dictionary.

Sorry if I haven’t made your life a bit easier.

Posted by bellevue at January 5, 2005 04:08 AM











January 5, 2005 @ 4:59 am | Comment

Y Wong,

agree with you. but does it mean china should divide into 50 independent countries in order to gain that new vigor?

January 5, 2005 @ 5:02 am | Comment


….net ±à¼­:lgl ÓÐ6λ¶ÁÕ߶Á¹ý´ËÎÄ ¡¾×ÖÌå:´óÖÐС¡¿ ºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯ ÁªÊ¡
²ãÈËÃñѸËÙÏÆÆðºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯µÄ¸ß³±¡£ËûÃÇÔÚÖ÷ÕÅ¡°ÃñÖΡ±µÄ»ù´¡… 14K 2004-11-1 – °Ù¶È¿ìÕÕ

Î÷ìôºúͬ – ¸ÒΪÌìÏÂÏÈ:ºþÄÏÈ˵ľ«Éñ
ÒÔÄÚ¡£¡±Ã«Ô󶫵ÈÈËÔÚºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯ÖÐÌá³öµÄ½¨Á¢¡°ºþÄϹ²ºÍ… 9K 2004-7-30 – °Ù¶È¿ìÕÕ

se7en – Íá¿á²©¿Í Ycul Blog – ¼Ç¼ÎÒÃǵÄʱ´ú
…ÖÐÑëÕßΪ֮Ô׸î,²»ÔçÒѳÉÁËÒ»¸öкþÄÏÂð?¡¹ ¡¶¡¸ºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯¡¹Ó¦¸Ã·¢
ÆðÁË¡·(1920.9.26) ½ÚÑ¡:¡¸ºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯ÊÇÓ¦¸ÃÓÉ¡ºÃñ¡»À´·¢Æð¡£¼ÙÈçÕâÒ»
»ØºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÕæ¸ö°ì³ÉÁË,¶ø³ÉµÄÔ­Òò²»ÔÚ춡ºÃñ¡»,ÄËÔÚ춅 46K 2004-12-24 – °Ù¶È¿ìÕÕ

…Ö®ÏÈ,ʹÎÞËùνÖÐÑëÕßΪ֮Ô׸î,²»ÔçÒѳÉÁËÒ»¸öкþÄÏÂð?¡¹ ¡¶¡¸ºþÄÏ×Ô
ÖÎÔ˶¯¡¹Ó¦¸Ã·¢ÆðÁË¡·(1920.9.26) ½ÚÑ¡:¡¸ºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎÔ˶¯ÊÇÓ¦¸ÃÓÉ¡ºÃñ¡»À´
·¢Æð¡£¼ÙÈçÕâÒ»»ØºþÄÏ×ÔÖÎ Õæ¸ö°ì³ÉÁË,¶ø³ÉµÄÔ­Òò²»ÔÚ춡º… 6K 2004-6-2 – °Ù¶È¿ìÕÕ


Mao also used “HUNAN COUNTRY” to refer to the autonomy movement

January 5, 2005 @ 5:13 am | Comment


no need to get anger with that kind of personality

January 5, 2005 @ 5:15 am | Comment


Do you believe Bellevue is Chinese or Taiwanese or Cantonese??? Read his latest post below…

“Hundred of posts crowded Chinese BBS in just a few hours, calling for nuclear proliferation to Iran and other pariah states to counter US:

They are responding to US 2-year sanction against Norinco and 7 other China company/individuals for their proliferation involvement effective this year. One post read:

“USA is a rogue state founded by a bunch of European rebels, so bandit habit to the bone.”

Others are asking for suicidal attacks on US soil.

Posted by bellevue at January 5, 2005 04:51 AM ”

January 5, 2005 @ 5:20 am | Comment


Bellevue, David Hume, Thomas…all show up at the same time. Are they related?

January 5, 2005 @ 5:26 am | Comment


It’s rather futile to re-write history, again and again.

Mao suggested ‘Hunan Republic’ (ŒÎ“실˜a?‘) and call their cause ?eŒÎ“ì“Æ—§?f?Cnot autonomous.

You have to argue that at early 1920s, “Æ—§ meant autonomous, not independence.

January 5, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment


“No vision for the threat on horizon.”

What threat are you talking about??? my “Chinese” friend

January 5, 2005 @ 5:31 am | Comment


Just out of curiosity, what motivated you to twist a simple fact, of which the truth is not hard to be found at all?

It’s perfectly OK for Mao to change his mind later. His youthful years dedicated to ‘Hunan Independence’ do not make him a great spliter of China. Why worry about it to such an extent that you opt to distort the historical fact?

Nothing, not that I want to embarass you or discredit you. Just wondering what mindset makes you, well, choose the alternative of truth.

January 5, 2005 @ 5:41 am | Comment


I guess you can’t tell me what you meant huh?

“No vision for the threat on horizon.”

What threat are you talking about??? my “Chinese” friend

January 5, 2005 @ 5:47 am | Comment


i don’t know what nationality bellevue has. but I am pretty sure, and i believe everyone without bias can strongly feels it – bellevue just hate china.

i am not saying so because he attacked china’s political system, i myself sometime are critical to the mistakes of chinese government, but what bellevue shows is MUCH MORE THAN just hating chinese political systems.

from the post you provide, i am sure his hate is towards the whole chinese nation.

January 5, 2005 @ 5:53 am | Comment


why there are so many “hunan autonomy movement” talked by Mao Zedong at that time?

which one do you think Mao was talking about at that time – secession of hunan province from china, or, more autonomy of hunan province?

just remind you that “republic” was used in several occasions during that period of history, for example, Mao’s “soviet republic of Jiangxi”, in that “republic”, Mao was busy to gain the control of whole china.

January 5, 2005 @ 5:58 am | Comment


Not only does Bellevue hate China, he also DEEPLY HATES CHINESE PEOPLE. Read what he wrote yesterday…

“…those Chinese will take it as an honor. Just one anecdote: once some Chinese Americans had an argue with Indian Americans (Asian) on queue line trivial, I heard a Chinese yelling in Mandarin: what was the last time Indians had an upper hand? They never ! (referring to Indian defeat by Chinese in 1960s border skirmish)…

Posted by bellevue at January 4, 2005 07:15 AM”

Can anyone with common sense believe Bellevue is Chinese himself???

January 5, 2005 @ 6:04 am | Comment

it was me

January 5, 2005 @ 6:05 am | Comment

sorry to offend, but since bellevue called me “clueless” in a previous post, i think this is fair.

i find he is a little childish in trying to find this word “republic” in china’s history

this is not debating, this is mere defending oneself no matter what.

i learned from the “other sides” a lot, for example, power should be more balanced in order to stimulate regional creativity, chinese should find a better and effective way to protest to japanese right wing….. i doubt bellevue learned anything here. perhaps he just enjoys bashing china.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:06 am | Comment


i guess he is a TAIDU.

he posted a few words in mandarin in my blog and asked me “is it a japanese that are responding you?”, something like that.

but anyway, no need to waste time with a person only harboring hatred

January 5, 2005 @ 6:11 am | Comment

FACTS on the shady poster Bellevue

Bellevue is a right wing Japanese in China.

Bellevue can read Chinese and speak Mandarin and probably live in Mainland China for long time.

Bellevue hates China and Chinese people with a passion.

Bellevue complained that Bush is not right wing enough to nuke China.

Bellevue masquerades as Chinese in this message board who can speak 3 dialects including Cantonese.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:15 am | Comment

correction on the last point, bellevue claims only he can speak 3 Chinese dialects including Cantonese.

I have facts to prove each point.

Conclusion, he reminds me of another anonymous Japanese blogger in China AKA Angry Chinese Blogger.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:18 am | Comment

JR, bingfeng:

Before you try to fanthom my utmost feeling about China, would you please explain if I tell the truth by pointing to the sina BBS link? Are those hate messages posted by Chinese, or by Americans?

It’s an interesting tactic to avoid the fact but attack the presenter. No one told you that you should dispute the fact to make your point?

January 5, 2005 @ 6:20 am | Comment


I believe Bellevue is Angry Chinese blogger, an anonymous Japanese blogger in China. He may post here as Bellevue in any internet cafe in China.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:23 am | Comment

“bellevue claims only he can speak 3 Chinese dialects including Cantonese.”

Wrong. I said not many people can, but some southerners do.

“Bellevue is a right wing Japanese in China.”

Proof? Or you are just as every fenqing that make childish claims without any proof?

January 5, 2005 @ 6:24 am | Comment


So do you speak 3 Chinese dialects or not?? yes or no?

January 5, 2005 @ 6:26 am | Comment

Guys, can you please grow up and stop the attacks? (That’s not a question, it’s an order.) I’m going to start deleting if this keeps up. Stick to the topic or get out. Thanks.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:32 am | Comment


I confess that it’s abuse. Please delete. We’ll move to Bingfeng’s Chinese Blog and have fun there.

Is ‘grow up’ also part of the order? Then …

January 5, 2005 @ 6:38 am | Comment


bellevue left a message in my blog in mandarin

from the mandarin he wrote, i am 100% – MANDARIN IS NOT HIS NATIVE LANGUAGE!


January 5, 2005 @ 6:41 am | Comment

Off topic. This kind of defamation is outrageous.

My Mandarin is as good as any Beijing Hu Tong Chuan Zi.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:49 am | Comment


Don’t allow bellevue to ruin your reputation. Don’t associate with him. Read what he wrote in these two days.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:49 am | Comment

No one’s comments can ruin my reputation. Only I can do that. Meanwhile, stop the back-and-forth name-calling NOW.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:51 am | Comment

Just to nudge this discussion a bit on topic but wasn’t the whole debate over whether or not power and authority in China should be decentralized. Not over whether one poster is Japanese or not.

In response to Mr. Wong I would argue that you are only half correct. The author does postulate that a “China” with a decentralized regional oriented structure would foster more diversity a growth, a theory I don’t particularly believe holds much merit. However, Stimson directly stated the scenario in which this situation should manifest itself to be a China that parallels Europe (read European Union). This would mean a China of sovereign independent nations under what is mostly a single economic market that is only spuriously united by an inefficient and relatively powerless supra-bureaucracy. Although likely bound by a common mutual defense arrangement, such a decentralization of decision making would weaken China and politically cripple it for all intents and purposes, as is the case for Europe. For all the gushing paens that are sung about the European Union, in the realm of machtpolitik, it is singularly useless as it is almost impossible to to acheive the concensus neccessary to either project force or influence due to competing diodes of power. With Europe as the example as mr. Stimson would have it, a decentralized China would be a crippled China with various states jocking for position or even seeking outside powers to gain advantage over its closer competitors. If there is one thing I believe in, it is that unity equals strength.

Whether mr. Stimson’s ideas are altruistic or fostered by some hidden machinations I couldn’t say. (Though me being the skeptic I am, I am inclined to believe he has an alternative agenda) However what I can say, and what you should have seen mr. Wong, is that his idea is a mere self-wishing fiction. It has been in vogue recently in the western press to chronicle China’s growth in nationalism that has arrived with its economic developement. Such a “decentralization” (I would call disintegration) of China would no more easily be accepted by the people of China than authority be voluntarily relinquished by the party that wields it. Stimson’s “Big Step for China” is little more than a big unrealistic pipe dream. It is all good and well to speak of decentralization, but how does one go about deconstructing a massive leninist party bureaucracy overnight that has for nearly six decades governed a nation of 1.3 billion? What new locus should regional authority center around? Who would begin instrumenting such a collosal change? What are the possible ramifications of such a dramatic social upheaval that can possibly rival the cultural revolution in magnitude? Decentralization in the contemporary Chinese political environment is unlikely and impractical; in Stimson’s version, undesireable as well.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:58 am | Comment


This kind of practice is outrageous. Everyone can check my post on your Blog and have their own judgment. You are only *further* damaging your own credibility.

I’ll keep on exposing the real faces of China’s netters but not respond to personal attacks.

January 5, 2005 @ 7:00 am | Comment

from mere an economic perspective, i agree with Jing

here is a small case in shanghai- you know the sino-german volkswagen factory in shanghai is the pet project of the municipal government, if you have ever visited shanghai, you will find that 99% of the cars running on the streets are these chinese-version volkswagens.

i recall that the excuse that shanghai government found for this regional protectionism is “other cars looks so shady that is not coresponding to shanghai’s image”!

with more powers in the regional level, such problems also mushroomed

you have to admit that certain centralization does make sense in elevating economic efficiency

January 5, 2005 @ 7:25 am | Comment

JR, i beg you take a look of this, shameful:

January 5, 2005 @ 8:06 am | Comment

As I recall, Mao supported Hunan’s INDEPENDENCE, not autonomy, but I’m not going to bet on it. I’ll try to find the reference.

In any case, he changed his mind, as we are all allowed to do, no?

January 5, 2005 @ 1:17 pm | Comment

Mao changed his mind on nearly all of his promises to those who helped him attain power. I’d say that in all history he’s just about my least favorite person, along with the other big two, and maybe Ceaucescu (sp?).

January 5, 2005 @ 1:24 pm | Comment


Have your comments been hijacked or something? Pekind Duck is starting to read suspiciously like the China Daily forum, and that’s no exactly a good thing. 🙂

I tend to tune out of discussions fast when “China-basher” and “China hater” start getting thrown around as responses to interesting questions, ideas and comments.

I think some of the points raised in this article (and in some of the more intelligent comments) are definitely worth pondering…but I’ll have to refrain from posting some of my more controversial thoughts as I can imagine the responses I will get.

But here’s some food for thought: what gives anyone the “inalienable” right to any land? State borders aren’t set by some higher force- they are just lines on a map. They can, and do, change.

Nation-states are imagined communities more than anything else, especially nation-states that span continents and comprise multiple “nations”.

The Chinese education system has just done a really good job of “convincing” many people (at least the ones I’ve met) that the imagined nation-state and imagined national culture fit perfectly with the actual state borders. My travels there, especially in places like Xinjiang, showed me a situation that was somewhat different.

But then again, is the solution extremely high regional autonomy? In Canada, the provinces are in charge of education- and will each push a version of national history that benefits them/makes them look good (or victimized!), especially in my home province of Quebec.

But what is Canada anyways? Most of my generalizations concerning my home country are in fact based on life in a very small and specific part of it- Montreal. And anyone who knows Canada somewhat could tell you that Montreal is probably not very representative of “typical” Canada.

In fact, I feel more comfortable talking about China because I’ve travelled much more extensively through that country than I ever have in Canada! 🙂

January 5, 2005 @ 2:28 pm | Comment

Thanks for the great comment, Patrick. Yes, it does seem like the China Daily crowd has made its way into my comments. Some of their comments have been truly interesting, but then it always seems to deteriorate into a food-fight (China hater! Japan lover! Traitor!).

January 5, 2005 @ 2:33 pm | Comment

“Have your comments been hijacked or something? Pekind Duck is starting to read suspiciously like the China Daily forum, and that’s no exactly a good thing. :)”


i can understand you, if any of you go to the peoples daily forum, those super nationalists will say their “place” is occupied by “china-haters”.

anyway, people are just no difference, especially those with a closed-mind.

January 5, 2005 @ 6:08 pm | Comment

Decentralized China, more like the European Union ? Seems like a move in the good direction, China has a severe case of centralisation, worse than France’s.

However the *current* European Union shouldn’t be a goal, but rather what it’s moving up to. Jing’s criticism of the idea mainly rely on features of the current European Union. However te EU is still young and working hard to overcome these problems. Don’t confuse growth pains with flaws of the system.

January 5, 2005 @ 8:57 pm | Comment

I found the argument of decentralizing rather interesting in theory… However in practice it wouldn’t do much good considering the current state of chinese politics. The major problem of china is not the central government itself, but rather local authorities who are acting in their own selfish(and corrupt) interest. Decentralization cannot take place before this local power structure is broken down, something that can only be done by a stronger central government.

btw by “strong” I don’t mean dictatorial.

Did that make sense outside my own head?

January 5, 2005 @ 10:18 pm | Comment

If those China-lovers got a little bit quiet on their ridiculous ‘he-is-a-Japanese’ claim, let me tell you why: I taugh them a lesson last night in bingfeng’s Chinese blog, applied dirty words in Mandarin that foreigner would not possibly know. A payback to my communist education.

It’s funny that the China-lover is living in Shanghai and can’t speak a local word. Closed mind people, huh?

January 5, 2005 @ 10:32 pm | Comment


i don’t think the problem you mentioned should attributed to the “local authorities acting in their own selfish interest”.

on the controary, much of the problem still traced back to the central government.

take shanghai for an example, the municipal government blow the real estate bubble, forbid cars manufactured in other provinces, built a lot of “showcase projects”… what do you think they want to say, to whom do you think they want to say.

the evaluation is based on annual GDP growth, and the evaluators, are from the central.

the central has recently revised and improved the evaluation criteria to reflect a longter-term and sustainable view of development, but at the same time, a more balanced power sharing between central and provincial governments is part of the solution

January 5, 2005 @ 10:53 pm | Comment

Lisa: I’m referring to your previous post (no, forget Hunan, but California voters).

I understand your bitterness, as I understand that of many of my friends; a good part of them voted against Bush in 2000 and 2004, and I share their sense of loss at various degree in those 2 elections. One of my friends, Mr. Goldstein, who had been a veteran Reagan-basher, seriously considered emmigration.

However, I can’t help laughing until choke myself evertime I hear the media is talking about a ‘deeply devided’ US or 2 Americas. How deep can that be? (I guess Beijing is laughing, too – how different can those US imperialists, those Barbarians be from each other?)

How different can we be? We all respect each other’s rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, we all cherish freedom of speech, we all enshrine rule of law, we all love to quote Thomas Jefferson, and we all mourn the loss of 911. If you can remember, China’s BBS was all-time joyful following September 11, 2001 attack. I don’t see many differences that matter so great, between blue and red states, or even between us and Canada – how many Americans know Peter Jennins was Canadian-born, was and is a Canadian national? (he is now dual national)

Take one example. I have been telling ‘pro-lifers’ and pro-choicers for many times: you think you have a bitterly contestant arguement, and can never find anything in common? Well, look at China. You can’t imagine that in China, pro-life also means pro-choice? Chinese women choose life, and their government chooses infantcide! Note, I’m not talking about abortion, I’m not even talking about forced abortion, I have talking about after-birth destroy of life, of the baby that Beijing seems un-licensed. (I have personal testimony at hand, and I had helped translate and distribute to US media, the latter keeps deafening silent)

Nothing can illustrate more clearly that the division is not between the red and the blue, it’s between life and death, between good and evil. No pro-choicer would tolerate Beijing’s genocidal-like practice in birth control.

China now is the backer of all the pariah regimes you could possibly name: Burma’s military junta, the dear leader Kim Jung-Il, and Sudanese genocidal machine. Moreover, it’s a gamble of the China experiment. If CCP succeeds, that means a brutal regime can be seen as a normal trading partner with the US. As long as Corporate America can make a profit there, China’s thugish behavior can be tolerated by Washington.

In history, IBM thought the Third Reich was a normal trading partner, and worked with them to streamline ‘final resultion’. Now the media is portraiting China as another normal trading partner. It is not. This issue is not a Democratic issue or Republican issue; it’s an American issue. If I somehow provoked you to think 2004 election in a new way, I would be very happy.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:15 pm | Comment


I wanted to ignore your sneaky comments and behaviors. You came here to attack and lie, when confronted with facts, you weaseled out and disappeared and refused to answer emails. And then you reappear again and play the same game again and again, act as innocent victim, lying about others and declaring victory…

This is what I emailed you earlier, please for one time explain to us here….

Under the blind rage thread, bellevue wrote post 1 and post 2;



I speak 3 Chinese dialects besides Mandarin. What pronunciation? I could have typo, but I have confidence in my accent.

Posted by bellevue at January 4, 2005 07:53 AM

( I asked him)
which 3 Chinese dialects do you speak?

Posted by JR at January 4, 2005 08:14 AM


I have some doubts on naming the 3 publicly or disclose to you. It’s a little bit personal.

Let me put it this way: one from father’s side, one from mother’s side, and the last one: Cantonese.

Posted by bellevue at January 4, 2005 08:33 AM

In this same thread earlier today, he quoted and wrote

“bellevue claims only he can speak 3 Chinese dialects including Cantonese.”

Wrong. I said not many people can, but some southerners do.

Posted by bellevue at January 5, 2005 06:24 AM

So I want to ask you one last time here…do you speak 3 Chinese dialects or not???

January 5, 2005 @ 11:22 pm | Comment

JR: Do you really believe you deserve a reply?

I kicked bingfeng’s ass in his own blog. And after reading Hua Dong Shi Da’s research, do you still have any valid arguement in textbook issue?

Deplorable souls like you are not uncommon in China. Thank you for letting us know and embarrassing yourselves. Keep going.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:27 pm | Comment


You may speak perfect Mandarin, but so does Dashan. Early on when you use “we” to refer to Japan and “their” as Chinese. You gave away your own identity.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:28 pm | Comment


Because I caught you lying again. Go away bellevue, you are a nuisance here.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:33 pm | Comment


Sorry for being out of topic. I was trying to email bellevue instead of posting here, but he refused to reply. So I need to post my email here to see his response.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:38 pm | Comment


Sorry for not ‘growing up’. I never received any e-mail from JR, and even if I do, I won’t reply.

I may have used ‘we’ referring to American (my allegians and I pay tax), and sometimes referring to Chinese (my ethnicity), but never intended to refer to Japan.

January 5, 2005 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Dear Bellevue,

“…those Chinese will take it as an honor. Just one anecdote: once some Chinese Americans had an argue with Indian Americans (Asian) on queue line trivial, I heard a Chinese yelling in Mandarin: what was the last time Indians had an upper hand? They never ! (referring to Indian defeat by Chinese in 1960s border skirmish)…

Posted by bellevue at January 4, 2005 07:15 AM”

So now you want us to believe you are a Chinese American???
not in a million year…

I am not playing your childish game anymore bellevue, this is my last response to you my fellow Chinese American

January 5, 2005 @ 11:55 pm | Comment

“Anyone who doesn’t take TRUTH seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either. ”

January 6, 2005 @ 12:03 am | Comment

Lisa, Richard, and others:

JR just disclosed that he is a Chinese American. That is actually very telling.

Not that I want to engage in personal attack, but I’d like to offer my observation in general: his mindset represents quite a lot his fellow Chinese-Americans. Most of them immigrated from China to US after June 4, 1989, and granted expressway residency thanks to Nancy Pelosi (one of my favorite Dems)’s effort to protect Chinese students, then granted citizenship in flock before 2000.

A typical of those people hates everything America stands for (not dollar sign, of course), loves everything Chinese, worships Mao and Deng, watches China TV soap opera, believes everything CCP told them, and cheats as much as they can for personal gain. That’s what our politically correct media will never tell you. Thanks to Blogs like this. It’s high time to let American public know the truth.

January 6, 2005 @ 1:14 am | Comment

this is what bellevue left in my blog, read the last word:

1/5/2005 11:49 PM by bellevue
¾ÍƾJRÄǹ·Æ¨²»Í¨µÄÓ¢ÓﻹÔÚÃÀ¹ú»ì£¿ÔÚÖв͹Ý×ö×¥Â뻹ÊÇbusboy?ÓÖ¸øÀÏ°åÂîÁË°É£¿ Chink

January 6, 2005 @ 1:23 am | Comment

I don’t know for richard, but I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RIDICULOUS GAMES !

Go pollute somewhere else. If bellevue won’t answer emails, it’s his right. This place isn’t a fucking COURTROOM.

January 6, 2005 @ 2:56 am | Comment

I don’t know for richard, but I DON’T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT YOUR RIDICULOUS GAMES !

Go pollute somewhere else. If bellevue won’t answer emails, it’s his right. This place isn’t a fucking COURTROOM.

Posted by emile at January 6, 2005 02:56 AM


this is something ridiculous!

who is polluting this placce? he put all the shits here and sent me 40 dirty emails last night!!!

i am just going to shut up, then he put more shits into my face!!!

January 6, 2005 @ 3:51 am | Comment


i want to send you an emil to tell you this but seems you didn’t leave your mail account here.

pls shut up and just ignore that person. keeping silence in such a situation is a respect to the blog host and everyone else here.

he continues sending me stinky emails and comments in my blog and i will just keep them there and let others see what a taiwan separatist could degenerate to. just ignore him in my blog, too.

thanks and best regards,

January 6, 2005 @ 5:59 am | Comment

I am afraid that I will not be able to help in this situation. There
are simply too many unfortunate kids in the world. I know Shanghai
Children’s Medical Center is one of the best hospitals in China but they
will not treat any patient for free. I do not treat this tumor. I plan
to help some Chinese patients with leukemia in the near future but only
very limited number in Shanghai and Beijing because of the very limited
resources that are available. I hope you understand it.
Ching-Hon Pui, MD
Director, Leukemia/Lymphoma Division
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital
American Cancer Society – FM Kirby Clin Res

January 8, 2005 @ 9:39 pm | Comment

Now that is one strange comment, Tom.

January 8, 2005 @ 9:51 pm | Comment


not sure you have ever read this, but might be helpful to you in the future.

JR gives me this link.

January 8, 2005 @ 11:10 pm | Comment

Asia by Blog

Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, usually posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here. For tsunami relief information, please see the Ts…

January 9, 2005 @ 8:01 am | Comment

Who do you think is a troll, Bingfeng?

January 9, 2005 @ 10:44 am | Comment

richard, no need to ask this question, everybody here clearly knows who is a troll, if s/he is not biased

if you are not quite sure, here is a clue:

January 9, 2005 @ 5:46 pm | Comment

I understand your unhappiness with bellvue, but I certianbly don;t see him as a troll, at least not on my blog. What he is doing on your blog could meet the definition.

January 9, 2005 @ 8:01 pm | Comment

Richard: I don’t mean to drag you to the judge seat, but just a a few afterwords about what happened.

For my posts here about the Japanese textbook issue and others, I have been quickly labeled ‘Japanese’, ‘Taiwan separatist’ and even ACB (another blogger). The scheme is clear: I’m not a Chinese as I claimed, so my credibilty in my posts are doubtful. This plot has been employed in many Chinese BBS, and seems all too familiar to me.

After I told them that Mandarin is just one the 4 Chinese dialects I have proficiency, I actually left a few comments over bingfengs blog. They are friendly and I even thanked him as a non-Shanghaiese to relocate there and help upgrade Shanghai’s brain power.

His response: attacking me in Peking Duck comments, claiming that I don’t speak authentic Mandarin (those posts are still here). He lost last bit of honesty. I have been called many things, but no one have ever had a second guessing of my spoken Mandarin.

So I saw a need to teach him a lesson, not only in Mandarin, but also in other dialects (I used 2 of them). Peking Duck is not teribly good for posting in Chinese, and you certainly would kick me out of here, so those street slangs went over there.

That’s it, your honor. Thank you for your time. Actually, posts and comments hold water for their own merit. Even if I’m not a Chinese, my posts about China can still be judged per se. Sadly, many Chinese don’t see that way, and I was simply annoyed.

January 10, 2005 @ 5:28 am | Comment

“I’m holding a PRC passport. Not being able to be as clueless as you doesn’t mean I’m not.” – bellevue

January 10, 2005 @ 6:04 am | Comment


I have no problem with your dislike of Mao, i don’t like him either because i am for a democratic, constitutional republic for China and Mao actually ruined Dr Sun’s vision of a modern, civilised, democratic China when he overthrew the Manchus in 1911. Mao reverted to the “Old” feudal China of 5000 years with his autocratic ways despite his claims of a “New” China.

Having said that, my hatred for Chinese communism does not mean that i would always disagree with Beijing’s leaders. At least on the Taiwan issue, they are right about restraining the separatist forces led by Lee and Chen, as a Chinese democrat, its about the sovereignty of the Chinese nation, not any political forces.

I not only dislike communist and fascist dictators like Stalin, Mao and Hitler, I also dislike RIGHT WING dictators like the Shah, the House of Saud, Macros, Ngo Dinh Diem, Batista, Pinochet. As long as they are dictators, i hate them all. Thats my difference with the pretentious hypocrisy of Washington.

January 10, 2005 @ 7:12 am | Comment

bellevue ,

I beg you not to insult the Democrats and their supporters in the blue states by saying that there are no obvious differences with those die-hard medieval conservatives in that Grand Old Party.

After Bush’s hijack of the 2000 elections, they no longer respect the liberty of Americans. What the Bush administration had done was to sabotage the democartic regime put in place by washington, Hamilton, Jefferson. Pursuit of happiness? How can people pursuit happiness and liberty when their president oppose protecting our one and only planet Earth? Where is liberty when stem cell research to find cures for terrible diseases were effectively blocked by him? Where are civil liberties when the republicans are building a police state through the US Patriotic Acts? By labelling those who oppose his style in fighting terrorism as unpatriotic, he reminds me of the Stalinist show trials and the Maoist cultural revolution. He did not even respect Congress and the people when he suspiciously mislead America into war through doggy intelligence and the crap talk of WMDs which were never found. To say that the Democrats are not very different from them is a great insult indeed.

January 10, 2005 @ 7:28 am | Comment


Again, in the arena of realpolitik, you try to be a saintly yet hypocratical judge in international affairs.

China did support other rogue states, but Washington proved to be the guru as a dictator-propping nation around the globe. From the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Suharto, Ngo Dinh Diem, Syngman Rhee, Batista, Saddam, Pol Pot, Ferdinand Macros, General Mobutu and the Apartheid regime in the Cold war years. Presently, the “friends and allies” of the US include the military regime of Musharraf, the defunct-communist but still despotic rulers of Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, and autocratic monarchies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and authoritarian govts like Egypt and Jordan. The US has never been stingy in terms of money, arms and secret police training to these blood thirsty regimes around the world. Shah’s secret police, the SAVAK was trained by the CIA.

The real fact is every nation is driven by national interests in international affairs, no state would ever let some high saintly ideals to override its own interests, not China, not the US, not France nor India. For one to single out China as the only guilty nation in supporting pariah states exposes your inherent hatred for the Chinese nation. Why are you so silent on the US and other powers’s guilt if you are so concerned about human rights? In the case of Pol Pot, the US was China’s partner in crime. You are not a humanitarian, human rights was only your tool of attack, now tear off that ugly mask to show your hidden agenda.

January 10, 2005 @ 7:46 am | Comment

Well, as this thread has shown, the Taiwan issue is extremely complex and there is no simple solution, aside from keeping things as they have been for the past several years. Personally, I think it would be a disaster for Taiwan to come under the rule of the CCP, a momentous step backward, but we’ll never agree on this.

January 10, 2005 @ 9:21 am | Comment


I certainly did not intend to insult my fellow liberals when I said I saw some common ground between them and, well, moderate GOPs, to be more accurate. And I do believe people like you are fighting a just cause, and because of your vigilance, there is still democracy left in this land. So far this is all I want to say.

January 10, 2005 @ 9:20 pm | Comment

Anti-Succession instead?

A perculiar take on China’s recent Anti-Secession Law. Personally, I’m not all for the regions to part ways. I would like to see, however, a loose, democratic federation where Taiwan would be comfortable…

January 12, 2005 @ 3:56 am | Comment

To those who wish to DIVIDE and CONQUER,

So you feel a divided China would do better? eh?

Why don’t we first divide your country?
Hey, let the United States divide into 4 zones, the Pacific, Central, South, and the Atantic? How’s that? They’re all different anyways, in terms of culture, political orientation, and even in terms of race. Gosh, just the other day, I was driving through Los Angeles, and guess what? In a country of Anglo-Saxons, I didn’t even see one !!! I guess we can parcel out Los Angeles, or major parts of it anyways, and make it into an independent separate republic pretty soon in the near future. That way, it’ll further ENHANCE the people’s CREATIVE spirit!!! Hey, most Hispanics here I talk to think it’s a burden learning all this White culture and history stuff that aren’t even related to them. They’d rather speak Spanish than English!. Give them the right to self-determination!!!

August 27, 2005 @ 9:06 am | Comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.