Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8273)	3/12/1999 1:49:00 PM
From: Bosco	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Larry - I am not here to defend China. Quite on the contrary, as many of you know, the tibetan cause is near and dear to me. However, FWIW, if you know contemporary Chinese history, or, as several ethnic aisan americans pointed out here in this very thread - such as between Singapore and Indonesia, they would choose the former - there were progress. It may be a three steps forward and two and half back. Just as William has argued for the US citizenry should aim for its national interest, it is fair to say others will too. Regarding McCarthyism. Once upon a time, there were scholars with intellectual independence willing to do scholarly work unfettered by worldly vision. Unfortunately, even saints got enemies and thus got painted as sympathizers. They lost the only thing they knew how to do - being intellectuals in Ivory Tower. Larry, the 50s is not a whole lot difference from the 90s, no job means no health insurance, no health insurance means one better prepares to live a healthy life in spite of constant poverty constraints. I respect your courage to defend "tailgun joe." Maybe you really believe in "better dead than red." The truth is that most of the people got hauled in front of the Unamerican Subcommittee were apolitical sort. Again, at this point, no outsider [like us] knows the truth or falsehood of 'Wen Ho Lee' case. It may be true; it may be false. The problem is that these spy cases suddenly mushroom [metaphor intended.] The great Orson Welles has once demonstrate the frailty of the human psyche. I hope you don't take any offense, but the way he responded to Ron, granted that everyone of us will take a position to get a conversation going [without ending up to be "me too,"] your implicit assumption is that "this guy did something [bad]" McCarthyism means "whether this guy did or didn't do something, this guy is guilty until proven otherwise, irrespective of facts." It is a superb vehicle for old enemies to settle score or advance one's position. In that respect, it is no difference from Stalin's purge or that of the Cultural Revolution. As I ve said earlier, being a rather cynical apolitical person, I ve no comment regarding President Clinton's China policy. I don't care how politicians backstab one another, but they should leave the simple folks out of it. best, Bosco

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8273)	3/12/1999 7:15:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

I wonder which side you were on during this century's titanic struggle between the forces of slavery and freedom. I wonder how you'd feel about this struggle if you'd seen it from one of the countries in which it was actually fought, particularly in one of the ones where the defenders of freedom were manipulated into subsidizing tyranny. I did, and the lines don't seem quite as clear as they might have from an American vantage point. I've no doubt that we were "right", in the abstract. But I think a lot of the methods were way wrong, that the evidence that they were wrong was easily available, and that the evidence was ignored for reasons that were stupid at best, self-serving at worst. Our continued denial of the human cost of these errors is a bit of a disgrace, IMO.

To: Liatris Spicata who wrote (8273)	3/13/1999 10:59:00 AM
From: Ron Bower	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 9980

Larry, Others have responded to your comments much better than I can. I know less about China than many others on this thread, but your comments indicate that you do not realize the changes in China. >"I'd be interested in knowing to what "progress" you refer (in China)" The Chinese people now the right to own property, the right to have their own business, to profit from their own endeavors. The right to seek redress for wrongs in the courts. The government is privatizing state owned companies. Officals that take bribes or abuse power are being severely punished. They are allowing foreign companies to invest. There's child labor laws. The list of changes gets pretty long. One big item is the change to China's Constitution that protects the rights to own property. Zhu Rongi's 'State of the Union' speech last week would not have been acceptable 15 years ago. Part of his speech included, "Under no circumstances should we intensify problems by handling them in an oversimplified or crude way. Still less should we use dictatorial means against the people.'' This isn't just rhetoric. I recently read of a man winning monetary damages from the local government for being wrongfully detained - the official responsible was removed from his position. (One of the fastest growing companies (name escapes me) is similar to Home Depot in the US. The Beijing outlet did $US30M in sales in 1997 as people able to BUY their own homes were wanting to make improvements on THEIR property. I recently read of some home owners suing a developer for not repairing shoddy workmanship - China has sent judges to the US to learn how to create the laws necessary for individual property rights.) >"The butchers of Tienamen- or their heirs- are still in power" Those involved are out. The bios on the current leadership indicates a completely different philosophy. Particularly interesting were the years Premier Zhu Rongi spent 'down on the farm' being 're-educated'. They've put an age limit on certain public offices that eliminates many of the hard liners. >"[Hint: that means not trading with the thugs]" When you say 'thugs', do you include Batista, Shah of Iran, Marcos, Hussein, and the others that the US has not only traded with, but supported. The US definition of 'thugs' has historically meant 'their thugs' and we turn a blind eye towards the abuses of 'our thugs'. I agree that China has a long way to go on human rights, as do many other countries that the US Senate hasn't singled out for sanction. Since Nixon, relations with China have steadily improved and, while this administration lacks the diplomatic ability of prior administrations, I support efforts to maintain a working relationship with China. You call it 'kowtowing', but I call it diplomacy when we're trying force changes in their internal policy. Condemnation of human rights violations and other concerns should be put forth, but they should not foster alienation. We can tender more influence is we are in a position to take something away than to refuse something never given. China must attain some prosperity before societal changes. They may be wrong in their methods, but they've seen what happened in Russia when the changes come too quickly. On National Security I'm somewhat familiar with our nations security restrictions as I'm ex Navy Special Forces with a Top Secret Crypto clearance. Suspicions are not evidence, but do warrant investigation. The current publicity says that secrets were transferred to the Chinese and Wen Ho Lee's firing 'implies' that he's guilty of treason, yet no evidence has been made public to support these implications. Probably not 'McCarthyism', but there are similarities. One must also wonder if he would have been removed if he were caucasion, black, or hispanic. My experience would indicate that security is not lax with just one person, but a situation prevalent to the entire facility and all working there. Human and Civil Rights "But I wonder which side you were on during this century's titanic struggle between the forces of slavery and freedom." I hope you don't mean to be as insulting as the comment indicates. I can't say I did much in the first 60 years of this century. Perhaps my family's efforts in the Pacific, Europe, and Korea would apply? For myself, 1960-1963 - University of Illinois - Active in Civil Rights movement. Jan 64 to Sep 68- Uncle Sam decided he needed me to protect South Vietnamese human rights and communism. A company I own has helped three minority businesses get started and has been involved in numerous minority training programs. Regretably all of the businesses failed in the late '70s and early '80s after getting involved with government programs and expert advisors telling them how to run (ruin) their business. Should I detail the awards and letters of commendation I've received from Equal Opportunity organizations, the NAACP, and others? Would Dr. Tsien have been ousted if he were caucasion? In the early '50s there were many involved in the aerospace and nuclear programs that had 'extremist ideologies' according to Hoover's standards, but the non-caucasion was removed - a black or hispanic would never have been accepted in the program. FWIW, Ron