SPEAKING FREELY China through a
Bangladeshi's eyes By Habibul Haque
Khondker
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Please click hereif you are
interested in contributing.
BEIJING -
"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 symbolized 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, organized by the
International Institute of Sociology, many of the papers
by the local sociologists dealt with issues of
unemployment, the cutback of social welfare programs 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 civilizational 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 labor power. An industrious and self-motivated
labor 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.
Habibul Haque Khondker is an associate
professor of sociology at the National University of
Singapore. His views do not reflect those of his
institution. He can be reached at Hkhondker@hotmail.com
.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Please click hereif you are
interested in contributing.
Oct 23, 2004
No
material from Asia Times Online may be republished in any form without written
permission.
Copyright
2003, Asia Times Online, 4305 Far East Finance Centre, 16 Harcourt Rd,
Central, Hong Kong
