I have just read a very interesting article about an attempt to parachute soldiers into Mao County, one of the areas stricken by the Sichuan earthquake. Ever since it became clear that the roads to the epicentre were blocked, the government and military have been suggesting that they will parachute troops into the inaccessible areas. Unfortunately, it seems that the attempt described in this article was a failure. According to the article, a total of 15 paratroops jumped from the aircraft, but reported back to command that the ground conditions are complex and are not suitable for the parachuting operation. The original plan was to airdrop 100 paratroopers into the area, but after receiving the initial report from the 15 paratroopers, command cancelled the operation. The article also mentions that the weather conditions changed and that the remaining 85 paratroopers had a different style of parachute from the first 15 paratroopers, which was not suitable to the weather conditions.
The article goes on to say that the 15 paratroopers have successfully made contact with the officials of Mao County. According to the article, the 15 parachuting heroes are in excellent physical and mental condition and are actively fighting on the frontline of disaster relief. The article then summons us to remember the names of these heroes and goes on to name the 15 paratroopers.
The last paragraph makes me worried. Firstly, Chinese soldiers are usually referred to as heroes after they die. Secondly, it seems unusual to name the soldiers when they are carrying out an operation. If the 15 paratroopers were able to land successfully despite the complex terrain, why couldn’t the remaining 85 paratroopers? My personal feeling is that the first 15 paratroopers were either seriously injured or killed, and this caused the operation to be aborted. The Chinese media cannot openly say that an operation was a failure, but the mentioning of the paratroopers’ names is probably a form of condolence to their relatives, who already know that they are dead. Of course, this is all speculation – according to the article, the paratroopers are fine, but the information between the lines does not bode well for them.
The other day when I was perusing the Netease online bulletin boards, I came across the following pictures which were under a discussion with this introduction:
I saw a man and a woman passionately kiss at Wangfujing’s snack food street. The man was a laowai (colloquial term for foreigner) and judging from her appearance, the woman seemed to be a Chinese-made MM. The man and woman filmed themselves kissing, with the woman looking into the lens and letting out a happy smile. I personally don’t like this kind of method – it is a public place after all.
The comments to this post were mixed, with some people saying that the sight of couples kissing at Wangfujing is quite normal, while others wrote negative comments directed at the woman, seemingly because she was with a laowai. Setting aside the obvious racist undertones and prudish nature of the post, I am interested in the definition of the term MM. It is my understanding that MM is an abbreviation of the Chinese word mei mei, with the first mei being the character for beautiful and the second mei being the character for eyebrow. As a compound, the two characters mean beautiful woman. As a type of internet jargon, it seems that MM is quite liberally used when it comes to describing women. Judging from the photos below, the woman pictured is definitely not an MM. This is not the first time that I have noticed that nearly every woman whose photo is posted on Chinese online bulletin boards is described as an MM. It somewhat reminds me of my time in Nanjing, when nearly everyone in my workplace answered to the nickname shuai ge (handsome bloke) or mei nu (beautiful woman).
I was certainly not surprised when I learnt that Jingwei, a host of CCTV 6’s nightly movie report, was being criticised because the outline of her nipple was shown on national television. I have maintained a healthy dose of loathing for Jingwei and her co-host Miaomiao for a long time, mostly because of the lightweight content that their show offers. The show pretty much provides blanket positive reviews for any blockbuster Chinese film, and the two hosts never fail to suck up to the big names. Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Zhang Ziyi and Gong Li are all readily adored. I will never forgive the show for not preparing me for the wreckage that was Chen Kaige’s Wu Ji – Jingwei and Miaomiao’s constant praise failed to mention that it was the worst movie of all time.
There is a fair chance that Jingwei has been sacked for her misdemeanour. After finding out the news on ESWN, I tuned into the show last night and tonight, finding that Miaomiao is now the solo host. The demise of her co-host must be very satisfying for Miaomiao as there always seemed to be an enormous amount of bitchy friction between the two. Perhaps, Miaomiao can now afford to eat and stop looking like a ghost.
As a shallow man, I can admit that one of the few pleasures the movie report gave me was having a perv on Jingwei’s giant knockers. I have always been rather curious about the story behind these knockers – judging by the slenderness of Jingwei’s legs, she is skinny like her co-host. I wonder whether some plastic surgery may have come into play. Being well aware of Jingwei’s assets, I am bewildered about why she decided not to wear a bra before going on air. In a report by Wen Wei Po, the producer of the movie report Zhang Wei gave a rather strange explanation of the incident. Zhang says that it wasn’t really Jingwei’s nipple, but rather it was an optical illusion caused by studio lights and the wiring beneath the shirt. Nevertheless, it sure looks like a nipple to me, and I think Jingwei’s absence from the last two shows confirms it.
A screen shot of the nipple incident. Jingwei is on the left and her co-host Miaomiao is on the right.
I have translated the following article from the Global Times because I think it demonstrates the depth of thinking that some Chinese people have when it comes to Western calls for democracy. It is not that I am saying the following article is right, but it shows that democracy is not a black and white issue in China. Translating this article also demonstrated that the Chinese language really struggles to differentiate the concepts of nationality and ethnicity, which ensures that Chinese people have a very different understanding of the two concepts. The article below has three main points: The concepts of race, nation and sovereignty are inseparable, that Western nations have double standards when dealing with the issue of national (ethnic?) separatism, and that the Western media should not criticise the Chinese people’s support for the games.
Who is practising irrational nationalism?
Wang Dasan (Beijing academic), published in the Global Times on 24 April 2008
In response to the Western media’s untrue reports about the Tibet March 14 incident and the discussions that have insulted China, Chinese people at home and abroad have recently organised a series of activities, including the MSN red heart petition that supports the Olympics and criticises CNN. Faced with the anger of the Chinese people, instead of some Western media organisations analysing their own ‘pride and prejudice’, they believe that the Chinese people cannot understand and accept the common values of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. Therefore, the only way of solving China’s ‘international image crisis’ is by appealing to ‘irrational nationalistic urges’. The Western media organisations are using the ethical superiority complex contained in the ‘common values’ to constantly warn Chinese people to keep calm, analyse the ‘common values’ and solve the problem.
Let me ask you – which citizens of a country can remain ignorant when their motherland has been insulted? Chinese people hope that the world, through the confusion of the above discussion, can recognise the following simple facts and logic:
Firstly, the awareness of nationality is the naturally inherited and deeply-rooted political ideology of a modern nationality-centred nation. Its basic premise is that in support of sovereignty, the inseparable nature of race, nation and territory needs to be guaranteed. In regards to this, even the ethnic melting pot of the US, which has ‘no American ethnicity, but only American beliefs’ (quote from George W Bush) is no exception. Due to this, the President needs to pray that ‘God protects America’ at his inauguration, students need to assemble and recite their allegiance every morning, and the national flag is hoisted above every street and alley. If this is not resolute US nationalism, then what is it? In order to please Mexican consumers, a Swedish wine company recently used a picture of the US-Mexican border prior to the 1848 US-Mexico War as the background of an advertisement. This aroused the anger and protests of many US netizens and even some politicians, thus demonstrating Americans’ awareness of nationality and their sensitivity to territory and sovereignty.
Secondly, when some Western countries deal with their own problems of national separatism, they focus on their own national interests. However, they see the national separatism problems of developing countries as political problems of ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’. This clearly demonstrates double standards. The Chinese people’s resolute opposition to Tibetan Independence is not because they lack knowledge and interest in freedom and democracy, but because they resolutely oppose any country using ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ to interfere with domestic Chinese politics, break up China’s territory, and damage China’s national interests. In regards to this point, ensnared with the honeyed words of ‘freedom’ and democracy’, the indignant actions of the Chinese people are also being framed as Boxer Rebellion-style immaturity.
Thirdly, every political value has its own conditions and limitations. As soon as the political value moves towards the extreme, it will become contrary to its original meaning, especially if it requires violent promotion. Even if you acknowledge that ‘common values’ exist in the world, you need to accept that different nationalities and cultures have different understandings of these ‘common values.’ This then is the true meaning of freedom and democracy. Western people usually view Western media reports and discussions, protests by Tibetan Independence separatists, and even discussions about boycotting the Olympics as ‘freedom of speech’ and as a ‘basic right’. According to this theory, isn’t the Chinese people’s opposition to Tibetan Independence and support of the Olympics also ‘freedom of speech’ and a ‘basic right’? Shouldn’t there also be understanding and respect for this? Why does the Western media change this ‘basic right’ into an irrational nationalistic urge, and even a Boxer Rebellion-style reaction?
Facts demonstrate that when those Western people that do not care about the basic rights of the Chinese people take their own nationalism and take it to the extreme, they are actually wanting to take ‘One World One Dream’ and split it into ‘Two Worlds Two Dreams’. This is something that the world cannot accept.
After living in Beijing for nearly five years, I recently welcomed some special foreign guests – my family. Their trip was a real eye-opener for me because after living in China for such a long time, there are a lot of things that I have become used to. Their trip also alerted me to the fact that the Chinese way of handling foreign tourists can often give a bad impression of China. For starters, some of the hotel staff treated my parents terribly. My parents stayed at the Howard Johnson Paragon Hotel near Beijing Station. Through their travel agent, my parents had booked a three-bed room (my sister also came to China). However, the hotel staff had yet to add the extra bed before my parents arrived. Due to tiredness after a long trip and poor communication, the bed was taken away and the three-bed room was cancelled. This meant that my sister lost her free breakfast for the following two days. I think that this problem was mostly caused by a rude and uncooperative staff member who seemed to hold a grudge against my parents for protesting about the inconvenience of having an extra bed brought to their room at 10pm at night.
The Howard Johnson Paragon Hotel.
Another problem was the stinginess encountered by my parents at the restaurants that their tour guide took them to. Not only was some of the food terrible, but the waiting staff were very quick to take away beer and coke bottles, thus preventing my parents and sister from having a second glass. This gives a bad and false impression of China. Chinese people are actually very generous hosts, and are always willing to give as much food and drink as the guest’s stomach is able to handle.
Perhaps the biggest problem was the pushiness that my parents encountered at the Silk Market and other places that sell stuff to foreign tourists. My parents were actually surprised when I took them to Xinjiekou and they discovered that not everyone is so pushy. At the Pearl Market, I actually had to prise the hand of one shop assistant off my mother’s wrist. This kind of pushiness did not give my parents a good impression of China.
I also do not think that it is a good idea to put foreign tourists in a room full of domestic tourists to watch an acrobatic show. Yes, I know that 80 per cent of Chinese people are peasants, but for the sake of foreigners not thinking that Chinese are savages, it is probably not a good idea for domestic and foreign tourists to mix. My mum was shocked that she and my sister were forced to squeeze past the unmoved legs of Chinese tourists to get to their seats in the middle of the aisle. My parents also noticed the juvenile fascination that the domestic tourists gave the acrobatic show.
In this post, I have suggested ways of improving foreign impressions of China. That is not to suggest that these impressions are completely false. Bad service, stinginess, pushiness and lack of manners abound in China, so perhaps it is good that foreign tourists are getting these impressions. However, I would not be surprised if some sections of the Chinese population have no awareness of such impressions, and if they did, they would work quickly to make tourism better.
For those who don’t yet know, Lù Kèwén is the Chinese name of Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It has been astounding to watch the speed at which the Chinese media have adapted to the first Mandarin-speaking Western leader. Leaders of other countries are usually referred to by their last name, e.g. George W Bush is known as Bù shí, Vladimir Putin is known as Pŭ jīng, and John Howard was known as Huò huá dé. However, within days of Labor winning the federal election, the Chinese media were using Rudd’s Chinese name. This change of naming system was just the first sign that Kevin Rudd would be a totally different type of leader when it comes to China.
Last Wednesday, Kevin Rudd became the first leader of a Western government to deliver a speech entirely in Mandarin at Peking University. Rudd’s level of fluency impresses everyone and no one knows how he can maintain such a high level while being an influential politician. The speech was originally written in English by one of Rudd’s political advisors, but the translation contained some uniquely Chinese concepts, especially the world zheng you, which greatly impressed the Chinese media. According to my Chinese dictionary, the word zheng you is a formal reference to a friend who will give forthright admonition. Quite obviously, there is no simple way to describe this concept in English, especially in a way that the Chinese can quickly understand. I am not sure whether it was Rudd himself, his speechwriter or the speech translator who thought of using the word zheng you, but it was quite simply a masterstroke.
The beauty of Rudd is that he has given the Chinese government and media some very complex fat to chew. For the Chinese media, zheng you is a very worthwhile concept. Rudd’s dismissal of calls to boycott the Olympics was also welcomed. However, Rudd’s speech at Peking University was a case of sugar and spice – Rudd may well be the first person to speak Mandarin at the university and call for the Chinese government to stage open dialogue with the Dalai Lama. Usually Western leaders who call for such things are usually dismissed as being unable to understand China. In the case of Rudd, however, this stock-standard criticism cannot be used because Rudd is a fluent Mandarin speaker who understands a concept like zheng you, therefore he must understand China. When questioned about Rudd’s Tibet remarks, the Spokeswoman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Jiang Yu could only say that Rudd had no right to interfere with China’s internal affairs. The report about the Peking University speech on Xinhua’s English website chose to ignore his Tibet remarks and focused on his dismissal of possible Olympic boycotts. I think that this is an indication that the Chinese government is unsure of how to deal with Rudd.
In fact, Rudd’s Mandarin and his balanced position may be the tonic that China needs. The Chinese government may begin to feel confident enough to engage in real dialogue and do away with the tired rhetoric. In future years, Rudd may become an emissary between China and the West, especially if the Sino-US relationship becomes heated. At the moment, Rudd’s popularity is approaching rock star status, especially among Chinese people who always love a laowai who speaks Mandarin and understands China. Through China and Rudd, Australia may have a chance of becoming a constructive ‘middle power’ that understands Asia.
Rudd meets Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing. Picture taken from Huaxia.
At first glance, it seems that the Beijing Olympics has been ruined even before the opening ceremony. The torch relay legs in London, Paris and San Francisco have all been met with fierce protests about the Chinese ‘crackdown’ in Tibet. However, I believe that one thing needs to be remembered – the Chinese government doesn’t care if the entire world supports the Dalai Lama, just as long as the majority of Chinese citizens still believe the aging monk is a diabolical separatist.
I believe Andrew Fischer in The Guardian is pretty much spot on – the demonstrations that have dogged the torch relay are actually of benefit to the Chinese government. Very much like the US government’s War on Terrorism, the Chinese government also thrives on conflict, except a lot of its conflict are being directed at the West. The Chinese government and the Chinese media are using the protests to further isolate Chinese citizens. Olympic tourists may now be greeted with the sentence, ‘why are you ruining our Games’, instead of the Olympic song ‘We are ready’.
Basically, the Chinese government wants to manufacture a world where it is Chinese people against the rest of the world. The protests have not ruined the Games, but they provided proof that the world is trying to crush Chinese people – and only the Chinese government is fit for the task of protecting them. Jin Jing, the disabled woman who nearly had the torch snatched from her grasp, has become another Lei Feng, a tale of strength against adversity.
According to the Chinese government, overseas Chinese are uniting and trying to protect the Olympic torch against all odds. If you ask me, the Chinese government’s depiction of overseas Chinese blatantly disrespects national boundaries and should be stopped. It is using the citizens of another country to promote racist and nationalistic policies. I am sure that not all overseas Chinese support the Chinese government and the Beijing Olympics, but if you watch the Chinese media, you would believe that overseas Chinese are still loyal to the Chinese government. The protests have attempted to ruin the Olympic torch relay, but they have proved useful to the Chinese government. Divisions between Chinese people and the rest of the world have widened.
In late December 2007, the Chinese and Indian armies held their first joint training in Kunming. I have already shown you the Chinese side of the training - a soldier smashing bricks on his head. Now it is time to show you the Indian side - soldiers stripped down to their underpants and performing yoga moves with a pole. After seeing both sides, I am very much looking forward to seeing the next joint exercise that will be held in India in 2009. The photos were published in the March A edition of Military Digest.
There’s something very silly about the constant complaints about Western media bias and US domination of public opinion. Sure, I think that the Western media was very quick to use the words ‘bloody crackdown’ when writing about the problems in Tibet, while it was equally quick to compare it with Tiananmen in 1989. However, all this whinging through Youtube and the China Daily about Western media bias seems like absolute rubbish.
For one, China is doing a great job perpetuating the domination of the Western media. Two of its most popular newspapers, the Global Times and Information Reference, derive most of their content from foreign media reports. How can you complain about Western media bias when it is one of your main sources of information? I think Chinese journalists spend most of their time hiding behind the words of the Western media, e.g. so and so said this about the PLA and this US professor said that China has many economic problems. The problem with the Chinese media is that hardly anybody voices their own personal opinion about anything, so the whole world relies on foreign reports.
Take the US shooting down an out-of-control satellite for example. The Chinese media compared the world’s reaction with the furore that followed the Chinese anti-satellite test. I think the Global Times described the muted reaction to the US shoot-down as a demonstration of US power over world public opinion. This is such a ridiculous thing to say – the US Defence Department held a press conference and let the world’s media decide whether the US government was telling the truth. On the other hand, the Chinese anti-satellite was conducted in secret and was not reported in the Chinese media for at least a week. How can the Chinese media compete with Western media domination when it isn’t allowed to report on the most important happenings in China?
If the Western media dominates world opinion, then it is because the Chinese media isn’t allowed to innovate and create articles from firsthand sources. I am sure an independent investigative report into the Tibetan riots by a Chinese journalist would quickly be translated and published throughout the world, thus giving the Chinese media a chance to provide a unique Chinese view. However, such investigative reports do not exist and the world’s media must rely on a motley crew of journos who are being guided through Tibet by the government. If Chinese people really want to break the domination of the Western media, then they need to interview and investigate, writing the detailed stories that everyone wants to hear about China.
Well, it is now only two days until one of the biggest sporting fixtures in history between China and Australia. China has been training in Kunming since the start of the month and the pressure is nearly all-encompassing. After China lost to Japan at the East Asia Cup in Chongqing, the players quickly told the public that they would play better in the match against Australia. China’s keen desire to win the match could work both ways. Certainly they will be well-prepared and well-adjusted to the conditions. However, the Chinese team seems to suffer from serious psychological problems – the players often give up too easily and their tactics can be chaotic. This total focus on the match against Australia may lead the players to feel too much pressure, and if Australia gets an early goal, then China may crumble.
Australia, on the other hand, has some key men out through injury, Tim Cahill and Josh Kennedy in particular. Australia drew its practice match against lowly-ranked Singapore. However, I don’t think that the Australian players will be feeling much pressure – they’ll probably approach the game against China like any other, which should help them seize upon China’s mistakes. The only problem will be if Australia is complacent, but this shouldn’t be a factor because Australia has a new coach and some new players vying for a place in the team. I predict Australia to win 2-0.
Tim Cahill will miss the match against China. Picture from Last Kick.
I have recently been thinking about the problems that are happening in Tibet, and comparing them with the situation in Taiwan. Of course, I am not the only one who is comparing the two – the Kuomintang presidential candidate Ma Ying-jeou has said that Taiwan is different from Tibet because it is a sovereign nation. This may be true, but I don’t think that’s where the core difference lies. I think the core problem with Tibet is a cultural one – Tibet has its own culture and language, and when two cultures are in close-proximity, they tend to butt heads. Of course, there are political dimensions to the Tibetan problem, but they aren’t the core problem.
The core problem at the heart of the Taiwan issue, however, is political. Taiwan is a product of the Cold War, when two different political ideologies butted heads against each. Taiwan and China have the same language and culture, but they have different political systems. I think the good thing about politics is that a lot of it is bullshit – leaders can compromise and renege, which means conflict can be avoided. Cultural differences though, are a different kettle of fish. You can’t compromise on what you believe in.
It is for this reason that Tibet is a problem that will never go away. Imagethief recently wrote a good post about how the Chinese government has been getting its message across in regards to the Tibetan riots, pointing out that recent Chinese media coverage has actually inflamed ethnic tensions. The gap in cultures is there, and it is not going to be solved by vilifying the Dalai Lama, who is a spiritual leader to a large number of Tibetans. A more understanding and conciliatory tone may have been better, e.g. we know you are angry, but we are working together to make a more prosperous China and Tibet.
A similar thing happened with the attempted Xinjiang plane hijacking – the Chinese media clearly pointed the finger at the Uyghur ethnicity and a few days later I received a text message that warned of Uyghur people having bombs strapped to their bodies. This is a clear case of fear mongering against a particular ethnicity and reminded me of the Cronulla riots in Sydney, where text messages played a major part.
Ethnic tension is something that is not easy to solve – ask Israel and Palestine. It also might be worth asking East Timor what it thinks about the Tibetan issue. Like China in Tibet, Indonesia was heavy-handed in East Timor and the East Timorese were very keen to realise independence. However, where is East Timor now? It is one of the poorest countries in the world and its President was nearly assassinated. The world must think about whether Tibet is really better off without China. China though, must find a way to treat its ethnic groups better. It needs to stop being so superficial and dressing minority groups in traditional clothing and sending them off to the CPPCC. It needs to engage, understand and then engage some more.
Today I attended a talk that was part of the Bookworm’s Festival of Writing, or whatever it is called. The speakers were four foreign journalists, including Jonathan Watts from The Guardian and Melinda Liu from Newsweek. I thought that the topics discussed were wide-ranging and interesting, but it was hard to avoid the flawed nature of journalism. Journalists say they strive for objectivity, but it is impossible to deliver because every media organisation has its own messages to deliver. People talk about self-censorship in the Chinese media, but who really believes that Western journalists do not self-censor? News Limited journalists cannot write negative stories about Rupert Murdoch, and certain newspapers probably cannot write negative stories about Israel. It is almost impossible to criticise China without sounding like a hypocrite.
When the journalists were talking about how difficult it is to interview people in China, it made me think about something new – about how China reminds me of a giant company or organisation. When you are employed by an organisation, it is extremely bad sport to air criticisms about your own organisation to the media. In China, it is extremely bad sport for Chinese citizens to speak to journalists and criticise the media. In fact, the Chinese government prefers that all foreign journalistic inquiries be handled by its public relations arm, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The whole set-up is similar to a well-run organisation – employees will be punished for speaking out to the media, instead they are encouraged to refer enquires to their company’s public relations office.
The situation in China is different when compared to the situation in Australia. I think a lot of Australians would be quite happy to complain about the government, but they would be more cautious when criticising their own company. This is because companies own their employees – you work for your company and not the other way around. Of course, unions and unfair dismissal laws can even up the balance, so that companies have to do some work for their employees. However, you do not work for your country, i.e. your country cannot fire you for criticising it. A resident belongs to their country FOREVER.
Using this logic, it seems that Chinese people belong to the Chinese government. The Chinese government can punish its citizens for criticising the government, and it can even fire them. This is what effectively happens to Chinese dissidents, they are told to leave China and never come back. This must be what freedom of speech really means. In a company, employees are not usually afforded freedom of speech, but in a country-citizen relationship, freedom of speech should be allowed. Taxes are the government’s salary, so the people paying the taxes should have the right to dismiss the government if it is not performing. Unfortunately, the reverse seems to be happening in China.
I just watched this shocking video at The Opposite End of China. On February 18, the Chinese women's football team won the match against South Korea 3-2, but it suffered terrible damage to its reputation through the unsportsmanlike behaviour. It reminds me of the Trevor Chappell underarm incident of the 1970s. A Xinhua report (which mentions nothing about the end of the game) can be found here.
A lot has been written about how if the Australian cricket team cancels its tour of Pakistan, the players will be free to play in the Indian Premier League (IPL) and earn big bucks. Obviously the security situation in Pakistan is always going to be a concern, but the whole affair looks a bit suspicious. So far, no one has directly voiced their concerns over the players’ true motivations, but I have no hesitation to write about my concerns on this blog. I believe that the players are probably exaggerating their concerns about touring Pakistan, so that they will be available for the IPL.
Cricket has now got to a point where the players can no longer be bothered to play for their country. Even worst than that, the players seem more willing to play Twenty20 than play test matches for their country. This seems very hypocritical on the part of Australian captain Ricky Ponting, who in the past has been very dismissive of the Twenty20 concept. However, he now seems very keen to play in the IPL, especially since he has been named as one of the five most sought after players.
Then again, perhaps the IPL is the first sign of a brand of professionalism that cricket sorely needs. Cricket is pretty boring at the moment because no country can compete with Australia. If cricket teams become companies, and cricket players are paid according to their talent, then some real competitive juices will start flowing. It will be really interesting to see talented Australian players come up against each other – Brett Lee bowling bouncers at Ricky Ponting, or Shane Warne trying to bowl Andrew Symonds around his legs. International cricket can be free to concentrate on the most pure version of the game, test cricket.
I really can't be bothered writing anymore, but here's a funny photo:
The photo was taken at the opening ceremony of the joint counter-terrorism training between China and India on 21 December 2007. The accompanying article can be found here.
Australia trounce Qatar, China squeezes out a Spring Festival draw
The first round of World Cup qualifiers for the Asian division was held on the eve of Chinese New Year on February 6. Australia hosted Qatar in Melbourne and gave them a thorough thrashing, with tall Josh Kennedy and Tim Cahill the stars. China, on the other hand, managed to squeeze out a draw against Iraq in Dubai. China was greatly aided when one of the Iraqi players was sent off in the second half, helping Zheng Zhi head home a goal. Australia and China will play each other in Kunming on March 26, a venue that may have been chosen because of its high altitude.
I have always wanted to post this scene from The Painted Veil. I reckon that it is China in a nutshell. The Chinese actor is Anthony Wong (Huang Qiusheng) from Hong Kong and the other actor is Edward Norton of Fight Club fame.
I am often tempted to start up a blog exclusively about cricket, but that would definitely be to the detriment of this blog. Being a cricket journo must be the easiest job in the world – there is always something happening on and off the field and this summer has been no exception. The series between Australia and India has been full of controversy, with India accusing Australia of not playing in the spirit of the game. A lot has been written about how India positions itself in the cricket world – both India and Pakistan often portray themselves as the victim of white bullying, while the white world (England and Australia) conversely see India as the cashed-up bully who wields television rights as a bargaining chip.
Ricky Ponting, Australia's number one diplomat
Like China, India is on the rise and I think countries are still adjusting to this change. After India’s controversial loss in Sydney, cricket journalist Peter Roebuck said that Australian captain Ricky Ponting should be sacked. That’s a pretty harsh call on someone who has captained a team that won 16 successive games and averages a very high 58 with the bat. I think Roebuck was mostly influenced by Ponting’s bad attitude in the Sydney test – he became grumpy when Australia was in a dangerous position and placed the umpires under pressure. Most of all, Roebuck doesn’t think that Ponting is a good statesman for Australia, especially within the important context of Australian-Indian relations. Roebuck believes that Australia needs to be more aware of Indian sensitivities. That’s a big call, especially when you consider that India has some very complex feelings towards the Western world. Like China, this massive country of over one billion people wants to prove that it is as good as the West, a sentiment which surely poses a minefield for opposition sporting teams to traverse.
Diplomatically and economically, I think that Australia’s relationship with China is more developed than the one with India, which is surprising since Australia and India are both members of the Commonwealth. However, Australia’s sporting relationship with China will be tested this year in World Cup qualifiers. The captain of the Socceroos can learn a lot from Ricky Ponting’s experience with India – you’re welcome to beat the rising power, but always play fair and don’t be overly exuberant when you win.
Despite trying to ignore it, I couldn’t help but to be drawn into the affair about the Melbourne ‘party boy’ that has been big news in Australia. After watching the Youtube video below, I started to feel sorry for 16-year-old Corey Delaney. He is being hounded by the media, the police and his parents because a party at his house got out of hand. For those who aren’t familiar with the story, the kid was meant to go with his parents for a holiday to Queensland. However, he pulled out of the holiday at the last moment, saying that he needed to work. In actual fact, the kid held a party at his house while his parents were away, and some of the 500 people who turned up damaged property and attacked police.
For sure, the kid was irresponsible. But does his self-esteem and image need to be beaten to a pulp because he made a mistake? The whole affair reminds me of a good blog post written by Sam at All Men Are Liars. Sam deduced that the major motive for journalists covering the Ben Cousins saga (a drug-addicted Australian footballer) was to make a seemingly unrepentant Cousins apologise. Never mind that the drugs were not performance enhancing and are probably Cousins’ own private problem. Think about it – if the media never reported about Cousins’ drug use, then probably most of Australia wouldn’t know about it and his image as a role model would not be tarnished.
But still the media hounded Cousins, in very much the same way as they are hounding the Melbourne party boy. In both cases, the media wants its target to say sorry and be ground to dust. For a great example, have a look at the video below. The TV host wants to know whether the party boy is sorry for causing his parents trouble. Quite rightly, the party boy initially backs away from making a public apology on air, instead stating that he will say sorry to his parents when he sees them. But that’s not good enough for this righteous host - she wants the boy to say sorry to the police and the whole of Australia. She even wants him to take off his sunglasses, something that has become an obsession for the Australian media. The interview resembles an exasperated teacher telling off her naughty student. Authority, in this case represented by the media (despite the media seemingly having no respect for the law), is trying to discipline one of society’s ‘wild members’.
I feel sorry for the kid because everyone is playing the part of authority and ganging up on him. The Victorian Police obviously sees it as a rare opportunity to get public opinion behind them, while the media loves its role as a disciplinarian. However, the saddest thing for the kid is that his parents have also sided with authority. Yes, his parents have the right to be very angry – he lied to them and was responsible for $20,000 worth of damage. Despite this, I believe that his parents should have not aired their grievances through the media and acted as an arm of authority. I believe that no matter what happens, parents should always be on the side of their child Parents should teach their children how to be good people, but they do not need to act like police. Policing should be left to the police themselves, as well as high school teachers and managers, etc. The most important job of parents is to provide unconditional love and understanding. The party boy’s parents have left him very isolated, and I reckon that they should be held partially responsible for the damages that were inflicted on their neighbourhood.
Free Xin Bao a hit with Beijing’s subway commuters
This year I have noticed that there is a new king of newspapers among Beijing’s subway commuters. No longer are people reading Information Reference or Global Times. Instead, they are reading the Beijing Daily Messenger (Xin Bao), an old newspaper that has repositioned itself as the ‘subway’s only newspaper’. Xin Bao’s repositioning obviously trumps the crappy free magazines that have been and gone. I haven’t gotten my hands on a copy of Xin Bao yet, but I have glanced at its front-page and it seems to be free.
Xin Bao’s reemergence as a subway newspaper follows the wide-ranging adjustments in the Beijing print media industry that occurred after the cardboard baozi scandal. On 1 August 2007, Danwei reported that Xin Bao had suddenly changed into an entertainment-oriented newspaper. Obviously that wasn’t a popular move, so Xin Bao has moved to the subway to improve its popularity. I am not sure whether a newspaper can make money while be given away for free to subway commuters, but it certainly seems very popular at the moment, thus it is an attractive option for advertisers.
A screen shot of the nipple incident. Jingwei is on the left and her co-host Miaomiao is on the right. 
The Howard Johnson Paragon Hotel. 
Rudd meets Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao in Beijing. Picture taken from 
Tim Cahill will miss the match against China. Picture from 
Ricky Ponting, Australia's number one diplomat