Furthermore, according to a senior Beijing government official, Chinese government has privately reached a consensus with Microsoft. As long as Microsoft’s search engine Bing abides by Chinese law, China will support Bing to replace Google in China.
If the above editorial report is correct, it shows Microsoft is willing to do anything for a few bucks. Borrowing the sentiment of the author of the Apple Daily editorial 蘋論, I want to say “草泥馬 “Grass Mud Horse”” to Microsoft.
The 2010 Sundance & SXSW screened and award-winning documentary “Last Train Home” is starting its screenings at Calgary Globe theatre tomorrow Friday March 19, 2010. The film will also be screened in the HKIFF on March 26th & 29th.
To me, Last Train Home indirectly exposed to us the heart, soul & meaning of those inexpensive “Made in China” goods and the human cost/impact of these goods through the eyes of one Chinese migrant family. Last Train Home is a film that I greatly enjoyed and found extremely touching and insightful.
In the beginning of the film, the viewers are informed that,
“There are over 130 million migrant workers in China. They go home only once a year, during Chinese New Year. This is the world’s largest human migration.“
Last Train Home is the debut film by Chinese-Canadian director Lixin Fan and he has done a wonderful job in telling an emotionally engaging story and the film was beautifully shot. As a documentary filmmaker myself, I watched the film three times over different days before I write this review. And I enjoyed the film more as I watched it.
I came away with the intense feeling that it is the Chinese migrant workers’ rights to improve their living standards, no matter how harsh it may seem to us Westerners. Yes, it came with a price, sometimes the prices can be very high. But, as I get older, I am reluctant to be judgemental and pronounce the western ways are the “best” for Chinese or other citizens of the world. There isn’t a single way to pursue a better life.
A great documentary makes us think and want to talk about the various issues discussed or not discussed in the film and it will make us care about the people in the film. Using these yardsticks, Last Train Home has succeeded and is definitely a great documentary. By chance, the film included one of the worst winters in recent Chinese New Years where train and bus services were seriously disrupted. And that added some urgency into the film.
There is one scene (when the parents had an argument with their child) in the film that shaken and touched me at the same time. As a documentary filmmaker, I kept asking myself, what would I have done if I were filming in the same situation? I finally came to the “uneasy” but “responsible” rationale that supported my instinct. I would have done the same thing and kept filming like Lixin. There was a story to be told and because of the trusting relationship that was built over months, it was ok to keep shooting.
By the way, please see the bottom of this blog entry where you can read an excerpted analysis/discussion by my economist friend Dr. Zhaofeng Xue (薛兆丰) about the problems associated with the Chinese New Year transportation nightmares (“春运综合症”).
Here is an excerpt from the synopsis of the film,
Every spring, China’s cities are plunged into chaos, as all at once, a tidal wave of humanity attempts to return home by train. It is the Chinese New Year. The wave is made up of millions of migrant factory workers. The homes they seek are the rural villages and families they left behind to seek work in the booming coastal cities. It is an epic spectacle that tells us much about China, a country discarding traditional ways as it hurtles towards modernity and global economic dominance.
Last Train Home, an emotionally engaging and visually beautiful debut film from Chinese-Canadian director Lixin Fan, draws us into the fractured lives of a single migrant family caught up in this desperate annual migration.
Here is a trailer of the film for the famous SXSW,
***
Economics analysis/discussion re chaos with train transportations around the Chinese New Years (“春运综合症”)
My friend Dr. Zhaofeng Xue (薛兆丰) has written for more than 10 years about the problems associated with the Chinese New Year transportation nightmares. In Feb 2010, he wrote about this topic again in this Chinese blog entry, “火车票低价造成了举国浪费“. Very insightful stuff if you read Chinese. Here is an excerpt,
Zhaofeng received his Phd from George Mason University and is currently a post-doctoral fellow at the Northwestern University School of Law. Here is a link to my congratulatory message to Zhaofeng when his book about antitrust was published in 2008.
“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.” – Lao Zi (老子) (???)
I love good quotes and I have posted a collection of quotes I love to share and new quotes are being added to it constantly.
I was going to add the above quote to my collection. But before I add it and since I can read and understand Chinese, I decided to check and do a bit of research to confirm.
Well, I found this translation and its cited source (Ch 27) at Wikiquote. After reading the Chinese source reference (Ch 27.01 “善行 無轍跡。”), I am starting to doubt if the translator got the translation right. In short, the translator may have gone too far so I am reluctant to go on a stretch with him.
So while
“A good traveler has no fixed plans, and is not intent on arriving.”
sounds deep, cute, and even fit my temperament, I don’t think Lao Zi (老子) ever said it. And I am more incline to go with the translation of
China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province was nominated for Oscar Documentary Short and should win, if nothing other than allowing humanity a chance to bare witness of the pain the Sichuan parents suffered and still suffer in this unnatural disaster. The suffering is ongoing because all levels of Chinese governments have refused to conduct proper investigations and punish the government officials and business people who were responsible for “the deaths of many children, often due to the collapse of their shoddily constructed schools“.
As all over Sichuan Province, schools filled with students collapsed while other buildings remained standing, grief-stricken parents demanded help from the government, help that never came. First emergency teams were routed away from smaller towns and villages where parents could hear children crying for help from beneath the debris. A fortunate few were able to actually dig their children out, others eventually found the corpses of their children (and were told to bury them themselves) but many were left with only the heaps of brick and dust to serve as a mass grave.
In life, there are horrific events that happened and it was too late or we are too remote to have anything influence, but if we are to progress as a human race, we have to at least bare witness to what had happened. To me, what I saw in the documentary counted as one of those moment.
To me, it is well-made and insightful documentaries like China’s Unnatural Disaster that give me the energy and inspiration to tell stories that are interesting/important to me.
By the way, someone has posted the program up. And I hope HBO will not take it down.
P.S. For people who think China has rule of law and their court cases can be adjudicated fairly, I want to remind them their protection under the law is as thin as how their cases are viewed by the “powerful” and if their cases are remotely related to any sensitive topics (including corrupt acts by government officials and business people).
As a steering committee member of the Calgarians Against Proroguing Parliament Facebook group and organizer of the Calgary anit-prorogation rally, and a Canadian with the ability to communicate in Chinese, I felt it was my responsibility to explain to my fellow Chinese-Canadians the danger of an unjust and partisan prorogation (shutdown) of Parliament.
Now, allow me to first sink to mr stephen harper‘s calculating and manipulating level for a moment. stephen harper is a good strategist that has been courting the Chinese votes for years. So it is extremely important to let Chinese-Canadians understand the danger and seriousness of a prime minister that is willing to shutdown Parliament to avoid being held accountable by the Parliament.
The prime minister is accountable to the Parliament, NOT the other way around. harper may be the prime minister, but WE are his BOSS!
It breaks the hearts of many Canadians with Hong Kong and Chinese connections to see our beloved Canada, thanks to stephen harper, is now even LESS democratic than Hong Kong.
The following is a video of the OMNI news report of Jan 23rd, 2010, rally in Calgary (more blog entries about the Calgary and other protests here, here, here, here, and here).
For the record, I will list the China’s Foreign Ministry response to David Drummond, Google Chief Legal Officer in Chinese and then English, both from Xinhua, the Chinese government officially approved, sanctioned, and mandated news source for all internal Chinese websites re the Google.cn decision (yes, it is illegal to quote or use any other news sources).
China’s Internet is open and welcomes international companies, a Foreign Ministry spokesperson said Thursday, just two days after Google issued a statement saying it might quit China.
Spokeswoman Jiang Yu told a regular news briefing that China encouraged development of the Internet.
“China’s Internet is open,” said Jiang. “China has tried creating a favorable environment for Internet,” said Jiang while responding to a question on Google’s possible retreat.
“China welcomes international Internet companies to conduct business within the country according to law,” she said. “China’s law prohibits cyber crimes including hacker attacks.”
Here is the thing, China’s constitution is supposed to guarantee freedom of speech too but that hasn’t exactly done Prof. Liu Xiaobo (劉曉波) any good, has it? A sentence of 11 years imprisonment right on Christmas 2009 for signing Charter 08 along a few hundred other Chinese intellectuals and human rights activists.
So the bottom line is that we will need to see what the discussion between Google and the Chinese government comes down to.
Now Google has made a strong stand, I hope Google will make the right decision to be transparent and make the right choice between “good” and “profit”.
P.S. What the Chinese based companies are saying now have little creditability in my eyes as the only way for them to survive is to obey the Chinese government.
In fact, I will go one step further and treat all Chinese companies’ spokespeople and senior executives as mouthpieces of the Chinese government. I will be very surprised if they suddenly decided to grow some political spine right at the time when spinelessness is the best way to stay profitable in China and be friends of the Chinese government.
After a day of silence, the Foreign Ministry said that China welcomed foreign Internet companies but that those offering online services must do so “in accordance with the law.” Speaking at a scheduled news conference, Jiang Yu, a ministry spokeswoman, did not address Google’s complaints about censorship and cyberattacks and simply stated that “China’s Internet is open.”
The remarks, and those of another high-ranking official who called for even tighter Internet restrictions, may speed Google’s departure and increase friction between Beijing and the Obama administration, which has made priorities of Internet freedom and online security.
For the last few years, I have little respect for Google’s way of operating in China. Today, Google has regained a portion of my lost respect. It is probably to early to draw a conclusion. Lets see what happen in the next few days.
First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.
Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. Based on our investigation to date we believe their attack did not achieve that objective. Only two Gmail accounts appear to have been accessed, and that activity was limited to account information (such as the date the account was created) and subject line, rather than the content of emails themselves.
Third, as part of this investigation but independent of the attack on Google, we have discovered that the accounts of dozens of U.S.-, China- and Europe-based Gmail users who are advocates of human rights in China appear to have been routinely accessed by third parties. These accounts have not been accessed through any security breach at Google, but most likely via phishing scams or malware placed on the users’ computers.
[…] We launched Google.cn in January 2006 in the belief that the benefits of increased access to information for people in China and a more open Internet outweighed our discomfort in agreeing to censor some results. At the time we made clear that “we will carefully monitor conditions in China, including new laws and other restrictions on our services. If we determine that we are unable to achieve the objectives outlined we will not hesitate to reconsider our approach to China.”
These attacks and the surveillance they have uncovered–combined with the attempts over the past year to further limit free speech on the web–have led us to conclude that we should review the feasibility of our business operations in China. We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. [*****] We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China. [*****]
The decision to review our business operations in China has been incredibly hard, and we know that it will have potentially far-reaching consequences. We want to make clear that this move was driven by our executives in the United States, without the knowledge or involvement of our employees in China [k-note: I read this as a message to Chinese government, don’t blame the Chinese employees] who have worked incredibly hard to make Google.cn the success it is today. We are committed to working responsibly to resolve the very difficult issues raised.
“For Google to withdraw from China would be an extremely rare repudiation by a Western company of what is almost universally seen in business circles as one of the world’s most important markets. The country has 338 million Internet users as of June, more than any other country. Even the public suggestion that it is considering such a move is likely to infuriate Chinese authorities. Google’s statement could complicate matters for other tech companies sensitive to being seen as [****] accomplices of the Chinese government. [****]“
Rights groups suspect the date of the verdict, Christmas day, was chosen to reduce international attention to the case.
Diplomats from the United States, Canada, Australia and several European countries were among those who stood outside during Liu’s trial Wednesday, after they were denied entry to the court house.
China has denounced the foreign diplomats for what it calls “meddling.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Jiang Yu told reporters Thursday that Liu is a Chinese citizen and, as a result, his case is an “internal” affair.
Liu has been in detention for more than a year for his role in writing the pro-democracy manifesto called “Charter 08.”
The U.S. State Department said Wednesday that China’s prosecution of Liu is an action “uncharacteristic of a great country.” A State Department spokesman, P.J. Crowley, said the U.S. will continue to have frank discussions with China about human rights and China’s future.
Prof. Liu Xiaobo YouTube video at PEN American Center,
P.S. It should be noted that the word “隨” took me a long time to write without success in the above demo. Since it would be rather boring for you and me to see me write the word “隨” for much of the demo, I eventually gave up after trying for about 38 seconds. As for the rather simple word “生”, I got stuck again. It proves that sometimes simple words also tricks me.
I think sometimes it was my pen stroke and other problems that lead to the system missing the words.
P.P.S. For the record, in this demo, I used Snow Leopard 10.6.1. This video is shown in real time, only two edits were made for the words “隨” and “生” to make it fit into the YouTube 10 minute per video limitation.
P.P.P.S. By the way, here are the words I typed in the demo.
Just watched Miao Miao. It is one of the best 2009 Calgary International Film Festival films that I have seen. It will be screening again this Sunday Oct 4.
P.S. In our global village, the ability to speak more than one language is certainly a big plus. Good for these super cute girls to be able to speak Swedish and Cantonese.
I have four more episodes to record and then I’ll have finished the voice over (and VO translation) work of the Cantonese edition of “The Most Amazing“, a “top 10 countdown” entertainment show.
Here is a sample of the first aired Cantonese episode. (note: I think my voicing actually get better in later episodes.)
P.S. After recording the last four episodes, I will have done 52 episodes and thats a wonderful learning experience to have. It was a ton of fun working with the many audio-engineers and the people at the TV production company are great to work with.
For someone new to vocing, I am voicing like a “pro” now. :)
1 Mist-clad, the coldish water! Moon-filled, the riverside sand!
2 I moor for the night on the Qinhuai, where wining houses stand.
3 O simple song-girls know not, the shame of a kingdom demised,
4 Still sing from o’er the river, that song by the merry king’s hand.
It is wonderful to read Mr. Andrew Wong’s (黃宏發)English translation of some classical chinese poems. To me, a self-proclaimed translation geek (translating English TV shows to Cantonese), I am even more amazed of the scholarly and insightful notes accompanying all the translations. Andrew’s choices of words are also careful and well thought out.
Last Tuesday (Apr 14th, 2009), Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, came and delivered a speech at the Calgary Chamber of Commerce and answered some media questions afterwards.
Before I go into the details of two of Minister Kenney’s misguided policies, I like to point out two things minister Kenney is doing right. For example, I commend his effort in trying to work with various federal or provincial licensing and governing entities to try to get valid foreign credentials recognized promptly in Canada so these immigrants can fully utilize their skills and knowledge in their fields of expertise. And the minister’s willingness to stand by Canada’s long term objective and goal of having more immigrants to help solving employment problems (filling vacant jobs that no Canadians want to fill, e.g. in remote locations) should be commended and praised.
Now let me talk about what I disagree with Minister Kenney.
It puzzles me why the minister’s original intend of helping immigrants has now been twisted and turned into a “big stick” that punishes immigrants by denying them the most fundamental step of being integrated into Canada.
Instead of helping immigrants, the minister’s action of emphasizing the language requirement is the same as creating obstacles for these hard working immigrants. I don’t know if Minister Kenney realizes that many Indian-Canadians, Chinese-Canadians, and others can and are following Canadian local and national news plus International news development in their native languages newspapers and TV programs? Is it because these news are not delivered in either of the official languages (or from CTV), then these Canadians are somehow “less qualified” to be Canadians and to fully participate in the effort to create a better Canada?
It is true that the Citizenship Act, in particular section 27 (d) (i) & (ii), requires perspective Canadians to have an “adequate knowledge of one of the official languages of Canada” and have an “adequate knowledge of Canada and of the responsibilities and privileges of citizenship“. But we all know the devils are in the details and what is “adequate knowledge” are up to interpretation. And more rules means there are more rooms for these rules to be misused, misinterpreted, and, in the rare case, abused by Citizenship officers.
Limiting citizenship by descent to one generation outside Canada
While this new law may have been passed by all parties in the Parliament of Canada, wise Canadians will remember that a few unjust and unconstitutional laws have been passed by federal and provincial legislators over the years. And our elected politicians are well aware that is why we have an independent court system to review laws created by legislators. If laws created by legislators are always “right” and always applied “justly”, then why do we need an independent judicial system in Canada?
Concluding Thoughts: The need for full and principled debate before further citizenship laws are passed
While I usually support government ministers to gain insights in how things actually are done in the “real world”. At the same time, I am concerned that Minister Kenney may have overdone this by having too many of his policies or views shaped too quickly by what he saw in the field and what he and his officials quickly came up with as “solutions” to these problems without proper and principled debates. This is why I agree with Natalie Brender when she wrote in The Globe and Mail that,
“Citizenship has both instrumental and intrinsic value for Canada and its people. That’s why debates about citizenship law should be fraught with complexity – and why they do need to take place. When the government introduces further changes, it owes Canadians an account of the goals and values it aims to advance. Federal legislators must ensure that a full and principled debate on these topics happens before further citizenship laws are passed.“
I hope the essence of my question has reminded with Jason as it is important to focus on the contributions of these Canadians (I would say valued and treasured Canadians) instead of the narrow focus of their existing language skills in either official languages. Helping is good. Putting up obstacles and creating a big stick to punish is not.
*******
Some news and video clips about citizenship and immigration policies and Minister Jason Kenney:
Posted by kempton 
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Subscribe by email
Kempton - ideas Revolutionary 