Home Is Where The Heart Dwells

October 8, 2010

A Nobel Prize for a Chinese Dissident(哈维尔为晓波写的诺贝尔和平奖推荐辞)

Filed under: in Chinese,In English,reading,中文 — Rui Guo @ 9:39 pm

哈维尔是民主战士、作家、捷克前总统,他撰写的77宪章曾经改变了捷克的历史,为受压迫的人获得了自由。他为晓波写的诺贝尔奖推荐辞《给中国政治异见者的诺贝尔奖》值得一读。

A Nobel Prize for a Chinese Dissident

PRAGUE — It is hard to believe that it was more than 30 years ago that we, a group of 242 private citizens concerned about human rights in Czechoslovakia, came together to sign a manifesto called Charter 77. That document called on the Communist Party to respect human rights, and said clearly that we no longer wanted to live in fear of state repression.

Our disparate group included ex-Communists, Catholics, Protestants, workers, liberal intellectuals, artists and writers who came together to speak with one voice. We were united by our dissatisfaction with a regime that demanded acts of obedience on an almost daily basis: Shopkeepers were pressured to put up propaganda signs that read “Workers of the world, unite!” Schoolchildren, students and workers were compelled to march in May Day parades. Office workers had to denounce American imperialism at the start of the workday. Citizens had to “vote” in elections in which the only choice was the ruling party.

Communist parties, then as now, prefer to divide and conquer. After Charter 77 was released, the government did its best to try and break us up. We were detained, and four of us eventually went to jail for several years. The authorities also got back at us in petty ways (including the suspension of driver’s licenses and confiscation of typewriters). Surveillance was stepped up, our homes and offices were searched, and a barrage of press attacks based on malicious lies sought to discredit us and our movement. This onslaught only strengthened our bonds. Charter 77 also reminded many of our fellow citizens who were silently suffering that they were not alone. In time, many of the ideas set forth in Charter 77 prevailed in Czechoslovakia. A wave of similar democratic reforms swept Eastern Europe in 1989.

We never would have guessed that our short manifesto would find an echo in China some 30 years later. In December 2008, a group of 303 Chinese activists, lawyers, intellectuals, academics, retired government officials, workers and peasants put forward their own manifesto titled Charter 08, calling for constitutional government, respect for human rights and other democratic reforms. It was published to mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Despite the best efforts of government officials to keep it off of Chinese computer screens, Charter 08 reached a nationwide audience via the Internet, and new signatories eventually reached more than 10,000.

As in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, the response of the Chinese government was swift and brutal. Dozens if not hundreds of signatories were called in for questioning. A handful of perceived ringleaders were detained. Professional promotions were held up, research grants denied and applications to travel abroad rejected. Newspapers and publishing houses were ordered to blacklist anyone who had signed Charter 08. Most seriously, the prominent writer and dissident Liu Xiaobo, a key drafter of Charter 08, was arrested. Liu had already spent five years in prison for his support of peaceful Tiananmen Square protests in 1989. Held for more than a year with limited access to his wife or his lawyer, Liu was put on trial for subversion. In December 2009, he was sentenced to 11 years in prison.

Despite Liu’s imprisonment, his ideas cannot be shackled. Charter 08 has articulated an alternative vision of China, challenging the official line that any decisions on reforms are the exclusive province of the state. It has encouraged younger Chinese to become politically active, and boldly made the case for the rule of law and constitutional multiparty democracy. And it has served as a jumping-off point for a series of conversations and essays on how to get there.

Perhaps most important, as in Czechoslovakia in the 1970s, Charter 08 has forged connections among different groups that did not exist before. Before Charter 08, “we had to live in a certain kind of separate and solitary state,” one signatory wrote. “We were not good at expressing our own personal experiences to those around us.”

Liu Xiaobo and Charter 08 are changing that, for the better.

Of course, Charter 08 addresses a political milieu very different from 1970s Czechoslovakia. In its quest for economic growth, China has seemed to embrace some features far removed from traditional Communism. Especially for young, urban, educated white-collar workers, China can seem like a post-Communist country. And yet, China’s Communist Party still has lines that cannot be crossed. In spearheading the creation of Charter 08, Liu Xiaobo crossed the starkest line of all: Do not challenge the Communist Party’s monopoly on political power, and do not suggest that China’s problems — including widespread corruption, labor unrest, and rampant environmental degradation — might be connected to the lack of progress on political reform.

For making that very connection in an all too public way, Liu got more than a decade in prison. In an especially spiteful move, the authorities, perhaps fearful that his prison cell would become a political rallying point, have forced him to serve his sentence in the northeastern province of Liaoning, far from his wife Liu Xia and friends in Beijing.

Liu may be isolated, but he is not forgotten. Next month, the Nobel Peace Prize Committee will announce the recipient of the 2010 prize. We ask the Nobel Committee to honor Liu Xiaobo’s more than two decades of unflinching and peaceful advocacy for reform, and to make him the first Chinese recipient of that prestigious award. In doing so, the Nobel Committee would signal both to Liu and to the Chinese government that many inside China and around the world stand in solidarity with him, and his unwavering vision of freedom and human rights for the 1. 3 billion people of China.

Vaclav Havel

October 4, 2010

Coats教授谈Citizens United案对股东价值的影响

Filed under: In English,reading — Rui Guo @ 7:19 pm

美国最高法院近期判决的Citizens United案引起了法学界对公司政治言论(或政治行为)和股东价值之间关系的讨论。Coats教授的文章Corporate Governance and Corporate Political Activity: What Effect Will Citizens United Have on Shareholder Wealth?通过对S&P 500公司样本的研究,发现1998-2004年期间公司政治言论与股东价值呈现反相关的关系。Coats教授的研究表明公司政治行为损害公司价值,故而最高法院Citizens United案件判决非但对改善公司治理无助,且对其有损。

文章在这里。here

September 30, 2010

NYTimes on Hanhan: A Message Too Powerful to Stop

Filed under: In English,news — Rui Guo @ 11:10 am

A Message Too Powerful to Stop

By PERRY LINK

Until recently, it has been very hard in China to say in public that the government, which calls itself the People’s Republic of China, in fact is something quite different from the people of China. No medium would carry such a message. But now, with the slippery Internet, such messages do get out, and do spread. They get partly blocked, but not stopped.

This month, Han Han, aged 28, a master of Aesopian wit and probably China’s most widely read blogger, wrote this:

The world over, a country is like a woman and the government is like the man who possesses her. Some couples live happily and feel satisfied. Some get along smoothly. Some have tense relations, some see domestic violence. In some cases the woman can divorce the guy and marry someone else, and in other cases she’s not allowed to. But whatever the case, when you love a woman you shouldn’t have to crank “loving her man” into the bargain.

Han Han is somewhat different from the “dissidents” in China. He writes in elusive, acerbic terms — the “cool” language of younger people, who are his main readership — and gets away with statements that are at least as devastating as anything dissidents say. He differs, too, in the numbers of his readers. An intellectual dissident feels lucky if an Internet essay draws 20,000 hits. Han Han’s essays often get more than a million, as well as strings of comments in the tens of thousands. Since its inception in November 2006, Han Han’s blog has had 421 mllion visits. His huge following protects him, too, because China’s rulers can imagine the size of the rebellion that a shut-down of his blog might trigger.

On Sept. 18, the anniversary of Japan’s invasion of China’s northeastern provinces in 1931, Han Han wrote a razor-sharp commentary on the protests against Japan that are taking place in China. On Sept. 8, a Chinese fishing boat collided with two Japanese coast guard vessels off barren rocks known as the Diaoyu Islands that are claimed as national territory by both China and Japan. Japanese officers arrested the Chinese boat captain and brought him to Japan, after which people took to the streets in many Chinese cities to defend China’s national pride and territorial integrity.

Anti-Japanese protests happen from time to time in China, and China’s rulers generally welcome them as ways to mobilize popular opinion behind the Communist Party leadership and to distract attention from domestic problems like corruption, inequality and environmental degradation. But such protests are a double-edged sword because they underscore the legitimacy of protest itself.

In Han Han’s view, the anti-Japan protesters of the past month have been used. His blog post addresses his fellow citizens this way:

There are three roles on China’s stage today: master, lackey, and dog. Most of us switch between two of the three. (Which two? Well, you can hardly expect yourself to be the master, can you?) Normally what the master wants from the lackeys is craven docility, but right now he needs some yipping dogs. No problem! Because in a dog’s mind, no matter how the master treats you, when an outsider shows up it’s your job to guard the homestead. …Deep inside, our leaders aren’t really angry. They just feel emasculated. And so, in their view, we are supposed to feel emasculated, too. But who ever took to the streets shouting “I’ve been emasculated!”? That only makes things worse. During times when the leaders’ face is intact, they smack us in the mouth; when they lose face, we’re supposed to earn it back for them. How do we take this?

Han Han then addresses the government, this way:

Don’t tell me that you and I are equally hurt by these “motherland” issues. … In our country the common people do not own one inch of the land; all the land, as you know, is rented from you. So from where I sit this issue resembles a tiff between my landlord and my neighbor over a tile that is lying on the ground. I know that the tile was blown off my landlord’s roof during a high wind, and also know that the landlord, who is afraid to fight the neighbor, has never dared to go fetch the tile. But what does that have to do with me, the tenant? Why should somebody with no land fight to get somebody else’s land back? Why should a tenant with no dignity fight for his landlord’s dignity? How much are people like that worth, per pound? How many would it take to add up to one pound?

At the end of his essays Han Han drops the allegorical mode and states plainly that “Protests against foreigners by people who are not allowed to protest at home are utterly worthless. They are nothing but a group dance.”

The authorities apparently do not dare to shut Han Han’s blog down. But they did erase this particular item, about 50 minutes after he posted it. Those 50 minutes, though, were enough to get it onto Chinese Twitter, where it was a hit all last week and from where it has spread around the world.

Perry Link is chairman of Teaching Across Disciplines at the University of California, Riverside, and author of “Evening Chats in Beijing,” as well as co-editor of “The Tiananmen Papers.”

Perry Link

When Commission Amounts to Bribery: Toyota Faces Sanctions in China

Filed under: China,In English — Rui Guo @ 11:06 am

When Commission Amounts to Bribery: Toyota Faces Sanctions in China

September 29, 2010

McDermott Will & Emery has a strategic alliance with MWE China Law Offices, a separate law firm based in Shanghai.  This China Law Alert was authored by MWE China Law Offices lawyers Henry (Litong) Chen.

When an enterprise provides incentives to intermediaries for signing customers up to certain schemes so that they can purchase goods and services, considerable care needs to be taken in order to avoid accusations of ‘commercial bribery’.  Another case has recently arisen in Hongzhou, China, which should put businesses on guard.


Toyota is reportedly being investigated by the Chinese government for conducting commercial bribery in China.  According to the Xinhua News Agency on 21 September 2010 a subsidiary of Toyota in China is under investigation by the Administration for Industry and Commerce (AIC) in Jianggan District, Hongzhou City, for paying financing or service fees that allegedly amounted to ‘commercial bribery’.  Although the conduct is not corrupt in nature, it nevertheless may trigger administrative sanctions.  The AIC has commenced the investigation under the Anti-Unfair Competition Law (AUCL), which was introduced in 1993.

According to reports, Toyota Motor Finance (China) Co. Ltd. provides loans to consumers who buy Toyota cars.  Typical interest rates for a one-year term consumer loan with Toyota Finance is 10 per cent to 13 per cent.  This is reportedly much higher than the interest rates of loans offered by state-owned banks, which are less than 7 per cent.  For a loan of RMB 100,000, a consumer reportedly pays RMB 7,000 per year in interest to a state-owned bank.  If the same amount is borrowed from Toyota Finance, the interest would reportedly be RMB 10,000 to 13,000 per year.

If a car dealer signs a customer up for a Toyota Finance loan as part of the purchase of a Toyota car, Toyota Finance reportedly pays a fee to the car dealer.  This is called a processing fee or service fee.  Certain distributors of Toyota cars in Hongzhou, the 4S motor shops, reportedly had been recommending Toyota Finance loans to buyers of Toyota cars.  Once the consumer took out the loan with Toyota Finance, the 4S motor shops reportedly received a processing or service fee from Toyota Finance.

According to the notice issued by the AIC to Toyota Finance, a total sum of RMB 70,640.99 in processing or service fees was paid from August 2008 to April 2010 by Toyota Finance to three 4S motor shops.  During this period, Toyota Finance earned interest of RMB 757,609.23 by the extension of consumer loans to 49 customers.  The net profit, after the deduction of tax, was RMB 426,352.33.  As a result, the AIC is considering fining Toyota Finance RMB 140,000, with the profit obtained (RMB 426.352.33) potentially being forfeited to the state.

The AUCL poses substantial compliance risks for foreign (as well as domestic) businesses.  It seeks to regulate an array of practices that would impede competition in the market.  These range from passing off and misappropriating trade secrets to competition law provisions governing predatory pricing and tie-ins, and from administrative law provisions governing the abuse of administrative powers to provisions against bribery and unlawful discounts.  They also cover consumer protection provisions on misleading advertising and the organization of lotteries.

As for provisions against bribery, the AUCL provides a blanket prohibition on a wide range of ‘commercial bribery’ activities, which is when a company or enterprise uses something of value or employs other methods to induce its counterpart to buy or sell goods.  Commercial bribery is thus, from the perspective of the AIC, an impairment or distortion of competition in the market.

The Toyota Finance case is not an isolated one.  The dangers for a business in China are significant, as illustrated by the approach of a local AIC and the State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC) in Henan, China.  Around 1997 some insurance companies paid processing fees (or commissions) to their insurance agents at a higher rate than that set by the state.  Henan Provincial AIC asked the SAIC if such commissions constituted commercial bribery.  The SAIC found that the commissions distorted competition in the insurance market and constituted commercial bribery.  It instructed the AIC to investigate and sanction this conduct in accordance with the AUCL and the Interim Regulations on Prohibiting Commercial Bribery.

This kind of commercial bribery is often difficult for non-Chinese lawyers to understand.  In the United States for example, commercial bribery is commonly viewed as a breach of fiduciary duty owed to a principal by its agent.  However, the above-mentioned commercial bribery under China’s AUCL involves no breach of fiduciary duty owed by an agent to his or her principal.

The conduct described above of an insurer, retailer or finance house might be referred to as ‘anti-competitive commercial bribery’.  It will be noted that this anti-competitive commercial bribery can occur between two businesses and does not necessarily need to be a payment or giving something of value to an individual for personal gain (as is normally the case with bribery), it can be a payment or transfer of value between two businesses that have no fiduciary or other duty owed between them or any duty owed to their respective customers.  It should also be noted that while the conduct might result in a simple fine or other administrative sanction, it nonetheless is classified as bribery with almost inevitable damage to the reputation of the business under investigation—this event in particular has been covered in almost all of the major paper and wire media in China.

The cases of Toyota Finance and others shows that considerable care needs to be taken in China when paying fees to intermediaries or when giving rebates or discounts.  Not only can they amount to abuse of a dominant position, but they can also be considered commercial bribery within the meaning of the Anti-Unfair Competition Law.

美众议院压倒性多数票通过中国汇率法案

Filed under: China,in Chinese — Rui Guo @ 12:35 am

美国众议院周三(29日)以压倒性多数通过人民币汇率法案,威胁对中国产品征收惩罚性关税。

美国众议院经过辩论后,以325票赞成、79票反对通过了这项法案。

这是近年来美国对中国采取的最强硬行动之一,预料此举将导致美国与中国之间的贸易战。

该法案认定中国的汇率政策是一种补贴形式。法案的通过,将为美国对自中国进口商品徵收额外关税打开大门,其中部分中国输美产品已经被徵收特别关税。

游戏规则

众议院议长裴洛西在法案交付表决之前表示,众议院之所以这么做,是因为如果北京政府允许人民币升值,将可以为美国创造100万个工作机会。 她指出,国会了解,无论是在政治、外交、经济、商业或文化等领域,美国与中国之间的关系都是非常重要的。但是,美国必须促使北京遵守游戏规则。

稍早,美国总统奥巴马在衣阿华州访问时表示,中国人民币被低估导致美国与中国贸易不平衡。

奥巴马表示,“我之所以向中国施加压力,是因为人民币被低估了。”

虽然美国国会议员过去曾数次表示要实施贸易制裁,以惩罚中国故意操纵人民币汇率,以便获得不公平竞争优势的做法,但国会从未送交任何相关法案给总统签署。

白宫官员透露,奥巴马和中国总理温家宝上周出席联合国大会时,双方曾谈论人民币汇率和中国对美国享有庞大贸易顺差的问题,但两人会后都拒绝对媒体发表意见。

中国表态

在众院表决前夕,中国人民银行再次保证提高人民币汇率弹性,并承诺调整执行汇率政策的脚步。

另一方面,美国几个主要贸易协会却对国会的大动作感到非常担忧,警告国会打算通过立法惩罚中国操纵汇率,可能只会“适得其反”引发贸易纠纷,进而伤害美国就业。

美国商会和其它35个贸易协会29日联名致函数名重量级国会议员,他们表示虽然支持对当局对北京施压、要求人民币汇率回归市场机制,但国会提出反制北京的法案,对创造就业和促进经济成长而言,反而可能弊多于利。

众议院通过的这项法案尚需经过参议院通过,才能成为法律。

但是美国国会将在11月局部改选,也就是所谓的中期选举。因此现在尚不清楚是否会在中期选举之前完成立法程序。
美众议院压倒性多数票通过中国汇率法案
2010年9月 29日 22:51

September 28, 2010

How to reduce debts and deficits: what approach?

Filed under: China,news — Rui Guo @ 12:58 pm

cut government debt

RMB goes global

Filed under: China,in Chinese,In English — Rui Guo @ 12:54 pm

September 20, 2010

Economist: A new global comparison of standards of living

Filed under: China,In English,reading — Rui Guo @ 9:53 pm

[China is close to the bottom.]

A new global comparison of standards of living

Sep 20th 2010

MANY people complain that conventional measures of GDP fail to capture a country’s true standard of living. But their attempts to improve on these conventional metrics are ad hoc. In a new paper* Charles Jones and Peter Klenow of Stanford University propose a new measure of standards of living based on a simple thought experiment: if you were reborn as a random member of another country, how much could you expect to consume, in goods and leisure, over the course of your life? America, for example, has a higher GDP per person than France. But Americans also tend to work longer hours and live shorter lives. They also belong to a less equal society. If you assume that people do not know what position in society they will occupy, and that they dislike being poor more than they like being rich, they should prefer more egalitarian societies, everything else equal. For these reasons, the authors calculate that France and America have about the same standard of living.

“Beyond GDP? Welfare across Countries and Time”, by Charles Jones and Peter Klenow, NBER Working Paper No. 16352

September 19, 2010

人民日报评宜黄拆迁自焚:避免制造拆迁”火药桶”

Filed under: in Chinese,news,中文 — Rui Guo @ 11:31 pm

人民日报评宜黄拆迁自焚:避免制造拆迁”火药桶”

范正伟

2010年09月20日08:15  来源:人民网-《人民日报》

如何避免制造拆迁的“火药桶”,从根本而言,还需尽快在法治轨道上,理顺拆迁各方利益关系,明确政府职能和治理机制

在舆论的密集关注下,江西抚州宜黄“9·10”拆迁自焚事件有了最新进展。9月17日,宜黄县委书记、县长被立案调查,率队拆迁的常务副县长被免职。

在“最近三年八起拆迁悲剧中无一名地方一把手受追究”的背景下,这一处理结果让人看到了决心。然而,此前一天发生的“围堵”事件,依旧让人无法释然。9 月16日,自焚事件伤者的两个女儿上访,却被当地组织的数十位干部围堵在南昌机场,最后不得不躲进女厕所,用手机向媒体求救。

当女厕充当起公民讨要说法的最后屏障,我们既惊讶于一些地方干部法制观念的淡薄及其对公民人身自由的漠视,也不禁感叹当地有关部门的“快速反应能力”——倘若在“9·10”事件之前,也能如此“给力”防范自焚,悲剧也许就不会发生了。

就在几个月前,国务院办公厅曾下发紧急通知,要求城镇房屋拆迁立项前要广泛征求社会各界特别是被拆迁人的意见,进行社会稳定风险评估;国土资源部更是一 再发文,严禁各地方政府直接插手土地开发、拆迁。遗憾的是,中央的三令五申,部委的明确禁令,都没能化作一些地方的执行力、改变某些领导干部的“土霸王思 维”。 就在宜黄“9·10”拆迁自焚事件余波未了之际,不签字就停薪停职的“株连式拆迁”又在山东鄄城重出江湖。

《物权法》颁布数 年后,许多“风能进,雨能进,国王不能进”的私人领域,却阻挡不了推土机。纵观多起拆迁悲剧,本该保持中立的地方政府,却一次次在商业拆迁中冲锋陷阵。 “谁影响嘉禾发展一阵子,我就影响他一辈子”、“我只懂拆迁法,不知道什么物权法”,这些出自地方干部的蛮横言语,不仅把自己摆在群众利益的对立面,也损 害着政府依法治国的权威,加大了基层治理的难度和风险。

从“野蛮拆迁”到“暴力反抗”,由此引发的社会矛盾、上访和群体性事件,已成 为影响社会稳定的导火索。对地方政府而言,要完成维护社会稳定的责任使命,必须能够正确处理和应对这一矛盾冲突。一方面,要恪守职责本分,把坚持以人为 本、维护公平正义放在首要位置,彻底切断官商瓜葛的“强拆利益链”;另一方面,在处理拆迁纠纷时要时刻省察:对被拆迁人的利益考虑是否周详,是否为其提供 了公平顺畅的利益诉求通道?决不能把民众当对手,把维稳大局“地方化”乃至“个人化”,并以此排斥司法救济、干预媒体监督。

“在21 世纪初期,影响世界最大的两件事,一是新技术革命,二是中国的城市化。”诺贝尔奖获得者斯蒂格利茨曾如此判断。在我国城市建设的持续进程中,如何避免制造 拆迁的“火药桶”,从根本而言,还需尽快在法治轨道上,理顺拆迁各方利益关系,明确政府职能和治理机制。日前,国务院法制办在京召开《国有土地上房屋征收 与拆迁补偿条例》草案专家研讨座谈会,我们希望这一条例早日出台,实现拆迁思路的“根本性变化”,扼制“拼命抢拆”,为拆迁注入法治文明的基因,并促进社 会的稳定和谐。

责任编辑:乔雪峰

《华尔街日报》:雇主口碑最好的25所美国大学

Filed under: in Chinese,news,中文 — Rui Guo @ 11:30 pm

 http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20100915/BUS123436….

今年的《华尔街日报》“雇主口碑最好的25所美国大学”排名名单中,州立大学成为最大亮点,其中宾夕法尼亚州立大学等三所州立大学位列前三甲,它们的毕业生最受雇主好评。

《华尔街日报》记者詹妮弗·莫瑞特(Jennifer Merritt )评说本报评选的“雇主口碑最好的25所美国大学”排名。

以下是被招聘人员誉为培养出最优秀毕业生的25所名校。

在 每所学校下方是公司对于学校里一些专业的排名,以及学校的一些相关信息,包括学校位置、申请截止日期和学生构成等。点击每所学校的名字即可进入学校官方网 站。我们也尽可能地从各个学校的网站上搜集学校的相关数据,包括学生人数、学费、申请截止日期、本科生人数和招生联系信息等。

一些学校的数据通过collegeboard.com.的学校概况收集而来,学校标志由学校提供。

1. 宾夕法尼亚州立大学 (Pennsylvania State University)

宾州州立大学的主校区位于宾夕法尼亚州大学城,拥有超过160个本科专业。该校有20所在校生校区,其中有10所提供学校公寓。该校在校生来自50个州和131个国家,男女生比例分别为54%和46%,师生比例平均为1:17。

专业排名
• 会计 (5)
• 商学/经济学 (11)
• 计算机科学 (7)
• 工程学 (9)
• 金融 (6)
• 管理信息系统学 (2)

2010申请截止日期:11月30日
学费(2010-2011):本州15,250美元;非本州27,114美元
本科生人数:38,630
招生电话:814-856-5471
招生邮件:admissions@psu.edu

(more…)

« Previous PageNext Page »