Comments on: Learning to Live with China http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/06/learning-to-live-with-china/ Economics, Politics and Public Policy in East Asia and the Pacific Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:28:35 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2 By: Mobo Gaohttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/06/learning-to-live-with-china/comment-page-1/#comment-56398 Mobo Gao Tue, 08 Sep 2009 00:59:56 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=6858#comment-56398 I read Stephen FitzGerald's contribution with great interest. I must say I agree with almost all he says. Can I add one thing though. One would assume that with a PM who speaks fluent Mandarin Australia posesses an advantage over her relationship with China. I think the Mandarin speaking PM so far has been proved to be the problem. This can be outlined by the following points: 1. The fact that he can speak Mandarin gives him a false sense of assuance that he knows China better. This may be one of the reasons for what FizGerald calls "one man China policy". But the most important point is that the fact that one can speak the Chinese official language does not mean one understands China. Apparently the PM did a thesis on Wei Jingsheng and was a student of "Simon Leys". If the PM's understanding of China remains at the level of anti-communist Cold War narrative then he is horribly out of date. China has changed dramatically since the 1980s and is changing fast. Wei Jingsheng is as relevent or as irrelevant to the majority of the Chinese as Ned Kelly is to most Australians 2. The fact that the PM can speak Mandarin has become a political football. If Australia gets on well with China the PM is being accsued of China's Mandarin and if Australia does not get on well with China the PM is being accused of not using his skills for the benefit of Australia. I felt immediately sympathetic when I heard the news that the PM declined to sit next to Mm Fu Ying the former PRC ambassador to Australia. What do you expect him to do? 3. One constantly hears claim that the PM is a friend of China. What a political red herring! History shows that no leader of a government deals with other governments on a personal friend basis, with the exception of Anglo-Saxon countries, occasionally perhaps. This kind of friendliness is based more on ideological or political culture affinity between the two countries than on a personal ability to speak a language. Finally, a piece of information that may be relevant to the issue. Mao Zedong liked to deal with anti-communist politicians like Nixon because Mao knew only the anti-communist warrior like Nixon could afford to deal with a "communsit" country without having his political life slauighterd domestically. I read Stephen FitzGerald’s contribution with great interest. I must say I agree with almost all he says.

Can I add one thing though. One would assume that with a PM who speaks fluent Mandarin Australia posesses an advantage over her relationship with China. I think the Mandarin speaking PM so far has been proved to be the problem. This can be outlined by the following points:

1. The fact that he can speak Mandarin gives him a false sense of assuance that he knows China better. This may be one of the reasons for what FizGerald calls “one man China policy”. But the most important point is that the fact that one can speak the Chinese official language does not mean one understands China. Apparently the PM did a thesis on Wei Jingsheng and was a student of “Simon Leys”. If the PM’s understanding of China remains at the level of anti-communist Cold War narrative then he is horribly out of date. China has changed dramatically since the 1980s and is changing fast. Wei Jingsheng is as relevent or as irrelevant to the majority of the Chinese as Ned Kelly is to most Australians

2. The fact that the PM can speak Mandarin has become a political football. If Australia gets on well with China the PM is being accsued of China’s Mandarin and if Australia does not get on well with China the PM is being accused of not using his skills for the benefit of Australia. I felt immediately sympathetic when I heard the news that the PM declined to sit next to Mm Fu Ying the former PRC ambassador to Australia. What do you expect him to do?

3. One constantly hears claim that the PM is a friend of China. What a political red herring! History shows that no leader of a government deals with other governments on a personal friend basis, with the exception of Anglo-Saxon countries, occasionally perhaps. This kind of friendliness is based more on ideological or political culture affinity between the two countries than on a personal ability to speak a language.

Finally, a piece of information that may be relevant to the issue. Mao Zedong liked to deal with anti-communist politicians like Nixon because Mao knew only the anti-communist warrior like Nixon could afford to deal with a “communsit” country without having his political life slauighterd domestically.

]]> By: Lincoln Funghttp://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/09/06/learning-to-live-with-china/comment-page-1/#comment-56223 Lincoln Fung Mon, 07 Sep 2009 04:28:20 +0000 http://www.eastasiaforum.org/?p=6858#comment-56223 It appears that the Prime Minister's tight control and micro managing approach to his government is not only affecting foreign policy but also other areas of governance to an adverse effect. In the foreign affairs area, it is not only reflected in the relations with China, but also in the likes of the appointment of ambassador to Germany etc. His personal likeness overruled the advice of the foreign minister and the department. In the climate change area, his approach of no effective negotiations and engagement with the opposition as well as the independent senators severely damaged the government’s credibility in its climate change policies. In the national broadband network area, his like of grandeur technology has led to the most silly government policy involving tens of billions for a project that did not have a business case study. For the stimulus packages as responses to what he called a tsunami, cash handouts were done not only once but twice with the second done even knowing that a significant part of the first handouts had been saved rather than spent to stimulate the economy. What about the building education revolution spending on schools to build a hall or library for each and every school? Was that done properly? While not all the above were completely the fault of the Prime Minister, his tight control of the government and micromanaging approach obviously played a significant part. Everywhere bears the hallmark of the one man micromanaging and tight control. Micromanaging and tight control may be good for political spins, but it is rarely good for a government to develop good policies and apply good governance. Perhaps it is time for Rudd to consider the effects of his approach and empower his ministers and the bureaucrats to do their work so his government can be more effective in all the main areas of governance including foreign policies and relations with important partners. It appears that the Prime Minister’s tight control and micro managing approach to his government is not only affecting foreign policy but also other areas of governance to an adverse effect.
In the foreign affairs area, it is not only reflected in the relations with China, but also in the likes of the appointment of ambassador to Germany etc. His personal likeness overruled the advice of the foreign minister and the department.
In the climate change area, his approach of no effective negotiations and engagement with the opposition as well as the independent senators severely damaged the government’s credibility in its climate change policies.
In the national broadband network area, his like of grandeur technology has led to the most silly government policy involving tens of billions for a project that did not have a business case study.
For the stimulus packages as responses to what he called a tsunami, cash handouts were done not only once but twice with the second done even knowing that a significant part of the first handouts had been saved rather than spent to stimulate the economy.
What about the building education revolution spending on schools to build a hall or library for each and every school? Was that done properly?
While not all the above were completely the fault of the Prime Minister, his tight control of the government and micromanaging approach obviously played a significant part. Everywhere bears the hallmark of the one man micromanaging and tight control.
Micromanaging and tight control may be good for political spins, but it is rarely good for a government to develop good policies and apply good governance.
Perhaps it is time for Rudd to consider the effects of his approach and empower his ministers and the bureaucrats to do their work so his government can be more effective in all the main areas of governance including foreign policies and relations with important partners.

]]>