The One Where I Fisk Shaun Rein

Forbes not being a magazine I read much of, I first found out about Shaun Rein's Forbes column about a year or so ago via this post on (veteran Sinoblogger) Richard Burger's excellent Peking Duck blog. At that time Shaun's pieces were laden with pro-CCP rhetoric, factual inaccuracies ("real poverty in China is pretty much gone"), and shameless plugs for his marketing company.

Nowadays, thankfully, most of the plugs have gone, but the error-laden hackery continues, Shaun's latest piece being a prime example.

First Shaun sets the scene:

"Tension between China and the West has been inching up over the past year. There have been disputes over everything from Google's stand against censorship and protectionism to China's trade surplus, the valuation of the yuan and the problem of North Korea's thuggery. Bad relations do not help anyone, and they certainly don't solve any of the very real economic problems the world faces. We need to have the West and China working together. Otherwise we could collapse into another Cold War."

Here he introduces something you see throughout this piece: the lazy use of the words "the west" to basically refer to the United States - home of Google, critic of the valuation of the Yuan, and chief ally of South Korea. His characterisation of Google as standing against "censorship and protectionism" is an odd one though. Let's see what he previously said about Google's decision to exit the China market:

"Has Google really thought through the implications of its actions, beyond just giving up the world’s fastest growing digital advertising market and the welfare of its employees and legal representatives in China? Or is this the impulsive move of an arrogant and immature leadership team used to getting its way?

Looking beyond the implications of what is, in effect, a new mode of statecraft, we should ask whether Google isn’t using censorship and cyber terrorism as an excuse to get out of China because of business failings there. If Google were making more money in China, would it necessarily have taken this stand?"

What was, in Rein's view "impulsive and arrogant" and an "act of war" is now a stand for freedom of speech, but I guess time heals all. Or perhaps Rein found the severe criticism he received for his Google hit-piece just a little to hot to handle.

We then get on to Rein's central premise - that "the west" should "fix" relations with China by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Deng Xiaoping and Mohandas K. Gandhi:

"I have an idea that could help get Western-Chinese relations back on track, improve human rights in China and make the Chinese government and people less suspicious about Western intentions. Next year the Nobel Prize committee should confer a special one-time-only double posthumous Nobel Peace Prize, on both Deng Xiaoping, the former Chinese paramount leader, and Mohandas Gandhi. Doing so would properly give due respect to Deng and Gandhi, both of whom helped billions of people, would right the wrong that Gandhi never won the Nobel and would rally Chinese support for continued reform."

This suffers from a definite problem - both Deng and Gandhi are dead, have been for a long time, and the Nobel Peace Prize can only be awarded posthumously. Shaun probably noticed this a bit too late and so put in the caveat that this would be "a special one-time-only double posthumous Nobel Peace Prize", but the problem still exists and is not properly recognised. However, even with this you are still left with a conceptual problem - "the west" does not award the Nobel Peace Prize, a small committee of Norwegians does. Rein seems to be following the line of Chinese government propaganda - that the Nobel Peace Prize is an instrument of "western" (i.e., US) foreign policy, rather than a prize selected by a few elderly Norwegians.

Put simply, the idea that giving the Nobel Prize, an award that the Chinese Communist Party and it's various organs, apologists, and paid-for shills have spent months now castigating, to Deng Xiaoping would "...rally Chinese support for continued reform." is simply laughable. Shaun's protests to the contrary aside, no meaningful political reform has been introduced for at least ten years, but this is not where his real error lies, for that you should look to the next paragraph:

"Many Westerners see Deng as someone who ushered in economic reforms and got companies like Coca-Cola, Nike and Motorola to invest in China, but he did far more that gets scant attention in the West. If the Tiananmen incident in 1989 hadn't happened, Deng probably would have won the Nobel and would be viewed in the West with the kind of respect and love Gandhi enjoys around the world. That's how much he is appreciated in China."

Let me break this one down for you:

1) Deng is known in "the west" for his definitely praise-worthy "Reform and Opening" policies.

2) Deng did more, but his other achievements get scant attention in "the west".

3) If the Tiananmen "incident" hadn't "happened" (translation from apologistese: if thousands of innocent pro-democracy demonstrators hadn't been shot to death on the streets of Beijing on Deng's orders) Deng would have won the Nobel prize and would be as popular as Gandhi.

The logical fallacies here are so stark, so obvious, and so numerous as to be almost mind-boggling:

- Deng's greatest achievement was reform and opening - if he did not win the prize for this, then nothing else he did would have won the prize.

- Why would awarding the prize to Deng make him as popular as Gandhi when Gandhi himself never won the prize? Surely it was Gandhi's actions that made him so revered, and if Deng is not a hero on a par with Gandhi it is because he did not do the great works for peace that Gandhi did? Why then would further debasing the prize (if this is still possible) by awarding it to Deng make Deng more popular?

- Given the people who have won the prize (Begin, Arafat, Kissinger, Le Duc Tho etc.) why is Rein so sure that it was the Tiananmen "incident" which stopped Deng from winning the prize? What about Deng's unsuccessful 1979 strafexpedition against Vietnam? What about his surely justified, but certainly violent crushing of the Gang of Four and their supporters?

- If Deng really had done other things which made him deserving of the prize and these were not recognised in the west in the eight or so years during which Deng ruled China before Tiananmen, then why does he think that they would have been recognised had Tiananmen not "happened"?

And just what were these things that Deng did, other than "Reform and Opening" that, in Rein's opinion, make him so deserving of the prize?

"Here are reasons why Deng deserves to win next year's Nobel Prize, despite what happened in 1989.

First, by the time Deng passed away in 1997, he had a total grip on power--not in the manic way of Mao Zedong, but rather from the respect he commanded because he had restored calm to the country."

So Deng should receive the prize because he wasn't Mao and "restored calm" through things like the Tiananmen "incident" and his suppression of the Gang of Four? Strict standards indeed.

"I remember walking the streets when he died and seeing shopkeepers put out small empty bottles in their windows in mourning (in Chinese, Deng's name sounds like" little bottle.") Instead of hoarding power for himself and his family, like the Kims in North Korea, Deng had the great foresight to push through policies to prevent the offspring of cadres of the highest-ranking from rising above a certain level in government. The offspring of the most influential members of the Standing Committee of the Politburo may be influential, but they have never made it onto that Standing Committee."

Oh, I get it, so Deng should also receive the award for not being Kim Il Sung. Of course, there is the alternate interpretation that the Crown Prince Party clique of apparatchik offspring lost out to the Shanghai Clique in the behind-the-scenes power struggle at the 1997 National Congress, but why let facts like that get in the way? Especially now that Xi Jinping, son of first-generation leadership member Xi Zhongxun, is so close to becoming president, with Deng Xiaoping's son Deng Pufang, vice chair of the CPPCC national committee, in tow.

"How many times have you seen anyone with such absolute power put into law that his children could not maintain a generational grip on power?"

Answer: never. I have searched the internet and read every bio of Deng Xiaoping I could find, but as far as I can see, he did not enact any such law. Maybe someone can correct me on this?

"Deng effectively created a healthy diffusion of power throughout the country. There may still be too much cronyism in China, but the situation is far better than if he had pushed his children into leadership positions. Today most offspring of government leaders go into business. Few grandchildren of the most powerful leaders from the late 1970s and '80s are in government service."

Strangely enough this "healthy diffusion of power" is not obvious to anybody outside the communist party, and, as pointed out above, the children of the first generation CCP leadership are staging a come-back.

"Deng's foresight also brought about China's first peaceful transitions of power in the past century, from himself to Jiang Zemin and on to Hu Jintao and most likely next to Xi Jinping. Such peaceful transfers of power were unthinkable not very long before, when President Liu Shaoqi was tortured and died in prison, or when Mao's heir apparent, Lin Biao, died in a mysterious plane crash."

Once again, Deng's main accomplishment in Rein's eyes appears to be "not being Mao", whose Red Guards murdered Liu Shaoqi and who was probably behind Lin Biao's death as well. Moreover, the 20th century did see a peaceful transition of power within the territories claimed by China's rulers - the democratisation of Taiwan after decades of KMT dictatorship, but perhaps Rein doesn't think this is worthy of recognition.

"Finally, Deng pushed for greater academic exchange and economic interdependence. In so doing he not only created a more stable and vibrant economy and way of life for ordinary Chinese ..."

This appears in the main to be just another way of referring to Deng's greatest achievement - the "Reform and Opening" policy.

"... but also diminished the threat of military disputes spiraling out of control ..."

Whilst Deng also deserves credit for his "Don't claim the leadership" policy of reducing China's assertiveness on the world stage, this is hardly Nobel-worthy stuff.

"... More than a million Chinese have studied in the West in the last three decades. When they come back to China they bring back positive feelings for America..."

Actually, according to the latest figures available (i.e., those from 1978 to the end of 2008) the total number of Chinese students who went to any country is about 1.2 million, of whom a large proportion went to 'non-western' countries like Japan, South Korea, and Russia, and fewer than 400,000 of whom returned to China. The total of students who studied in 'the west' is therefore probably less than 1 million, and the number of people currently living in the PRC who have studied in "the west" much less.

This, however, is a minor quibble. Much more objectionable is Rein's seeming inability, noted above, to distinguish between 'the west' and the United States. Or does he think that Chinese students studying in, say, Germany come back much the wiser about the US?

"... Perhaps surprising to many Americans, most of China's leadership actually likes the American way of life. They are often exasperated at the way China, and they personally, are portrayed in the West.

A couple of years ago I went fishing with a very senior official who the Western press liked to attack for being evil and a thug. He seemed pained by the criticism, because he liked America and didn't understand why reporters jumped to conclusions about him as he tried to do what was best for the Chinese people. Many of China's up-and-coming leaders were educated in the U.S., for instance, Zhu Min, former vice governor of the People's Bank of China, who studied at Princeton and Johns Hopkins."

Here we get to Rein's real motives for writing this piece: his livelihood relies on his cosy relationship with the CCP leadership. Never mind that the 'western' media should not care a fig if the CCP leadership likes the US or not when reporting on CCP wrong-doing (especially if they are not US-based) - the important thing is that Shaun's friends in the CCP dictatorship have had their feelings hurt. Shaun then gets CCP kudos for firing back in his Forbes column, his business prospers, and everybody wins - right?

"Deng kept China from turning inward like North Korea or Myanmar and got it instead to push outward, to learn from the rest of the world and to minimize tensions and misunderstandings. Not only did he thereby create a more peaceful world, he also eroded some of the apprehension within China about the motives of the West."

Once again, Deng's main achievement, in Rein's eyes, is not having been a dictator in the vein of Kim Il Sung or Mao although he could have been - laudable, but not Nobel-worthy.

2010 should have been a great year for China's relations with the West ...

2010 was different from any other year how? This isn't a reference to the Expo is it?

"... but it has instead been marked with tension and misunderstanding. The Nobel Prize committee should step up to help diffuse the situation by giving Deng and Gandhi the recognition they both deserve for doing so much for the Chinese and Indian people. That is something that Chinese would rally behind, and it would be a fitting tribute to two great leaders who did more for peace than anyone else in the last century."

It's odd that Shaun should end on this note. Here's a quick question that maybe he should ask his CCP chums next time they go on a fishing trip together: just why is it that we do not see nearly the kind of tension between India and its fellow democratic nations that we see between China and the free world? Where does this tension come from? Just why does he believe that it's necessary for "the west" (which in Rein's mind clearly means America) to extend an olive branch? What has "the west" got to apologise for? A group of Norwegians awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo?

Hu Jintao declared "World's Most Powerful Person"

Hu Jintao has been declared "world's most powerful person" by Forbes Magazine. If Tory grandee Malcolm Rifkind had not already got there with this brilliant article on the premature nature of much of the hyperbolae over China's assent to world-power status (although this is undoubtedly what is gradually taking place), this award would have sparked an attempt by myself to cover the same ground. Happily, Malcolm Rifkind's piece is far better than anything I might produce. Money quote:

" . . . focusing on China’s overall GDP is deceptive. The day at which China’s overall goods and services eclipse those of the United States will see no sudden and remarkable realignment of the world order. The Allies’ victory in World War II, which created the bipolar world overseen by the US and USSR, and the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which elevated the United States to a position of unipolarity, aren’t suitable comparisons.

For all its progress, per capita GDP in China remains low. Last year, when spread across its gigantic population, China’s GDP amounted to just $6,600 per person compared with the $46,400 for the average American. Such figures highlight an important point—while China’s overall GDP is fast approaching that of the US, the level of disposable income in the country remains low. It will be decades before China is able to introduce the tax rates that would be necessary to fund a global presence akin to that adopted by the US military."

In reality, despite the dictatorial powers that Hu Jintao wields in comparison to Barack Obama, Obama remains the president of the world's largest national economy, commander-in-chief of the world's most powerful military, and leader of a country which, despite the great loss of credibility inflicted by revelations of human rights abuses during the war against terror, retains a great cultural attraction to the rest of the world. It will take more even than the surpassing of the United States in nominal GDP terms (which is scheduled to take place sometime around 2030 according to current predictions) to turn China's leaders into more powerful men (and, like the US elite, they are overwhelmingly made up of men) than the freely elected president of the United States.

A Slew of Stories

A lot going on in the news at the moment, but it's not too clear what all of it means:

• The video of the collision between a Japanese coastguard vessel and a Chinese fishing boat has been leaked. Although the film on CNN does appear to show the fishing boat ramming the coastguard, without seeing the whole video (and I haven't been able to find it online) it is impossible to know what actually happened. Even more confusing is why this video has been leaked now, weeks after the Chinese captain was released.
• Ai Wei Wei, whose display at the turbine hall of the Tate Modern Art Gallery I saw during a visit to London a couple of weeks ago, is under arrest, in an apparent effort to stop him attending a party. Why this would be done now is beyond me, except that it may be part of a crackdown on dissent and dissidents following the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo.
• More evidence of a crackdown can be found in this story of an engineer from Guangzhou who is under arrest on charges of inciting subversion of state power. His crime? Handing out leaflets saying that people should be "proud" of Liu Xiaobo. How much more evidence is needed to counter the claims of crazed nationalists that Liu's imprisonment is justified by his foreign links, and not merely related to the content of his various works?

Match-making days for Taiwan officials?

Because, apparently, Taiwan needs more bureaucrats.

A Tale Of Two Dissidents

So the beat goes on. From one side we are assured that Liu Xiaobo is a traitor, an American agent (despite the fact that even the PRC authorities have not made this claim) based on allegations that he received support from organisations like PEN and the US-funded National Endowment for Democracy. From the other side we hear that awarding the Nobel Prize to him was counter-productive. As Nick Young, whose article making this claim in last week's Guardian I criticised, explained to me in an email:

Over the years I came to understand that, alongside the many tensions inherent in China's fast-forward change processes, state-society relations were on the whole adversely affected by the conceited self-righteousness of foreign China-bashers in general, and, in particular, of some internatioal human rights 'advocacy' organisations that busied themselves looking for disaffected Chinese citizens and turning them into prison fodder. That remains my view.

This, of course, from a man who was thrown out of China for writing on political issues.

The main position on both sides appears to be that foreign involvement with Chinese dissidents serves only to dirty them in the eyes of the Chinese public and put them in danger of government reprisals. The supposition appears to be that, had Liu Xiaobo not received support from foreign organisations, then he would perhaps have avoided prison. Unfortunately we cannot go back in time and see what might have happened had he never been associated with foreign organisations.

Or can we? Liu Xiaobo is far from the only dissident held by the Chinese authorities on charges of 'subversion'. We have also the example of former Nanjing Normal University professor, Guo Quan. Unlike Liu Xiaobo, Guo Quan has publicly eschewed association with foreign human rights organisations, and his writings have struck a decidedly nationalistic tone.

Did this save Guo? Clearly not. In fact it is remarkable that, whilst Liu, who cultivated links overseas, is now the subject of high-profile international appeals for his release, Guo Quan remains virtually forgotten even in his own country. Even were there a domestic campaign for Guo's release this would be unlikely to achieve anything, since it would be nigh-on impossible for it to make head-way against government censorship.

Whilst I disagree with Nick Young's characterisation of people like Guo and Liu as merely disaffected individuals, we must admit that they exist in every society, and would exist with or without foreign assistance. The decision, then, is not whether they should be 'created' (in Nick Young's parlance "[turned] into prison fodder"), but whether to support people who will work to improve their society whatever foreign observers do.

Liu Xiaobo and the "Gunpowder Prize"

Hello after a long, work induced, hiatus. Of course yesterday's news of the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is still very much in my mind. Here's a few thoughts -

• Beijing-based talking head and Baidu exec. Kaiser Kuo tweets:
  

  I predict they wait slightly longer than Japan did with the trawler captain, then Beijing releases Liu for "medical reasons"

  
  
  Me, I'm less hopeful. The previous cases in which someone has been released (such as Wan Yanhai) due to noise made in the outside world mainly involved activists who had been detained but not actually been charged. Given the high international profile of Liu's case, the severe nature of his sentence, and the threat to the CCP's rule represented by Charter '08, it seems unlikely that the Beijing government will wish to risk showing weakness in this case. Moreover, Liu is unlikely to take the option of going into exile, as he has previously eschewed doing so when previously detained.

• Liu Xiaobo and Charter '08 will remain largely unknown inside China because government censorship (which now appears to extend even to text-messaging of Liu's name in pinyin) will prevent the people ever hearing about it. The only ones who will learn about it will consist mainly of the radicalised Fenqing who populate ultranationalist websites like Anti-CNN.com and tie xue. These people will undoubtedly be out in full force to condemn the perceived 'meddling' of western nations in Chinese affairs. Amongst those who are aware of the prize and wish to discuss it, in an effort to avoid automated censorship the Nobel prize (诺奖) has already been renamed the "gunpowder prize" (炸药奖), a reference to Alfred Nobel's invention of dynamite.

• It seems the totalitarianism's useful idiots in the west are also out in force. In this execrable piece in today's Guardian, after paying lip-service to the idea that Liu's imprisonment might be a bad thing (but "not irrational"), Nick Young hails the "unsung heroes" of the CCP (because the CCP's achievements in China are 'unsung'?) whose quiet behind-the-scenes efforts may be jeopardised by the award. The fact that no meaningful results can be seen for such "incremental reform", despite years in which such reform might have gone forward does not appear to register with Mr. Young. The results he touts (the attendance of Chinese NGO's at the Tianjin climate talks) are, quite simply, paltry, and do not seem to have led to a fresh approach to this issue on the part of the CCP. The only part of this piece I can even partly agree with is this:
  
  

  The Nobel award will embolden those in China who are most inclined to confrontational tactics

  
  
  Whilst Nick Young appears to think this is a bad thing, I do not. Mr. Young apparently believes that the CCP will at some point gradually reform itself out of power. What we have seen, however, is that the CCP has learned the lessons of the fall of communism in the USSR and Eastern Europe and is committed to never allowing a centre of power outside its control to form in China. The CCP will therefore never bring about meaningful political reform without open and undeniable pressure to do so. As long as the CCP and its "heroic" members control the dialogue, power will only remain in the hands of its corrupt leadership, only pressure of the kind which this prize will encourage can change this.

Foxconn makes the news again

With the latest round of suicides making the news, it seems that Foxconn and Hon Hai are irrevocably marked as especially poor, oppressive and exploitative employers, despite efforts to combat the wave of depression that has hit the company including bringing in Buddhist monks.

Such a reputation would, in my opinion, and despite my previous criticism of the company, be unjust. Foxconn is in no way any worse than any employer in mainland China and by many measures a lot better.

Yes, hours are long, but overtime is not compulsory and is not badly paid by mainland Chinese standards. The company places a firm emphasis on training of mainland Chinese staff as part of its policy of localisation. It is true that some of the Taiwanese managers display an almost colonial level of contempt for the mainland workers, but the central policy of the company is to replace the highly paid non-mainland Chinese staff with cheaper but equally skilled mainland employees. This is mandated by Terry Guo, not out of the goodness of his heart, but for strict business reasons of profit.

The Aftermath

A few points:

1) Talk of a Lib-Lab coalition government is vacuous - to deliver a majority it would also have to include the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Northern Irish parties like the DUP, an extremely unlikely scenario, whilst still making concessions to the Lib Dems on vote reform - which would not be universally popular in the Labour ranks.

2) Gordon Brown has lost this election, and must go for the Labour party to stand any chance in the next election, which will probably not be delayed by more than a year or so.

3) A Conservative-Liberal coalition is also somewhat unseemly, but the fact is that a government of some kind must come from some where, and this is the only viable configuration (whether through a simple deal or a full-blown coalition) which will not create a British government held hostage to the whims of the smaller parties.

4) This election demonstrates very well exactly why a proportional representation voting system would be so undesirable - it would guarantee that almost every election would end in the kind of horse-trading that we have seen over the last 24 hours.

5) Final thought - it cannot be emphasised enough that the Liberal Democrats would be taking a substantial risk in engaging in a full-blown coalition with either of the other main parties. The Liberal Democrats have built their narrow wedge of support on being an alternative to the big two, the moment they enter into a coalition this rational will wither away.

Election 2010

I have little to say that hasn't already been said about tomorrow's general election except this - barring some unforeseen last-gasp break-out for one of the parties it's likely to be followed by another in short order. A Conservative majority is not likely to be big enough to get everything the Conservatives want, and any Lib-Lab pact is likely to be very unstable, especially given Nick Clegg's obvious dislike for Gordon Brown.

My prediction: a Conservative minority government, followed by another election later this year or early in the next.

[ELECTION NIGHT THOUGHT - If the Conservatives squeak a majority in coalition with the current 8-seat DUP, will they still condemn the idea of a Lib-Lab pact? And what of the Tories' previous condemnation of Lib-Labery?]

Damage to ROK ship consistent with torpedo hit

Here's some more pure wonky awesomeness from the Arms Control Wonk: IDing the likely cause of the sinking of ROK Navy Ship Cheonan a day before the ROK government.

You have much to learn young grasshopper . . .

Awesome quote from the Arms Control Wonk:

"The value of any briefing on China is inversely proportional to the number of Sun Tzu quotes in the briefing."

It's high time that people realised that quoting Sun Tzu is not a replacement for knowing how things are done in modern-day China.

Hong Kong has no referendums, so don't vote in the referendums we are having in Hong Kong . . .

Or such seems to be the basic message coming from Beijing's men in Hong Kong at the moment, at least according to the excellent Big Lychee Blog. The only problem with the HK government's position on the by-elections which have been called to as a "defacto referendum on democracy" is that it doesn't make that much sense:

After encouraging people for years to take part in, and therefore legitimize, our rigged election system, it would look odd for Sir Bow-Tie and his colleagues to implicitly urge us all to stay away. It would raise concerns that civil servants of all levels, who are sworn to implement government policy, could be pressurized into not voting or penalized if they exercise their right to do so. Most of all, how many of us will be tempted to go along to the polling station if Donald indicates that he would prefer us not to?

China's Military Growth to Slow

Amidst all the talk there has been lately about the growth of China into a world-bestriding superpower, signs are appearing that even China has limits. Money quote:

Mr. Li said that the government has always tried to limit military spending and had “set the defense spending at a reasonable level to ensure the balance between national defense and economic development.”

The legislature must approve the government’s 2010 budget at its session this month, but the vote is a formality.

A budget report submitted to the legislature said the government had earmarked about $77.9 billion for the military in 2010, an increase of about $5.4 billion from actual spending last year.

Basically, even if you buy the narrative of the Chinese stimulus package rescuing the Chinese economy, rather than perhaps merely creating more capacity in industries which are already in over-capacity, you cannot deny that the Chinese government's spending means cuts in other places. Growth in Chinese military spending has been in double digits since 1989, outstripping economic growth most years. The reasoning behind this is simple - since the CCP no longer exercises the kind of thought-control over the population that it was able to pre-1979, it now relies on the military as its guarantor of power should the populace turn against them as it did in the year of the Tiananmen protests. For this reason the needs of the military became paramount.

Of course, Chinese military spending still lags that of the US, China's most powerful potential adversary, by a considerable amount - even by the most exaggerated estimates it is still less than a quarter of American spending. This was less assuring when China's military spending was roughly doubling every 4-5 years, but if this trend continue perhaps China's potential adversaries can rest easy. China, of course, maintains its threat of invading Taiwan, and at various times over the last few years has rattled sabres on its borders in the Himalayas, in the South China Sea, and in the East China sea. Nor is Chinese military supremacy in the region anything more than delayed by this announcement. All the same, it does give breathing space.

Just a quick heads-up: Global Times to speak truth to power?

A reporter on the English-language version of the Global Times (the sister paper of the ultra-nationalist Chinese-language paper of the same name, both of which are printed under the auspices of CCP-mouthpiece People's Daily) has been tweeting about a new editorial stance for the paper's coverage of the "two meetings" being introduced tomorrow, with almost every subject being opened up for discussion, in fact . .

"老总提到报道唯一的禁区是国家领导人的私生活。"

"The boss said that the only subject on which we cannot report is the personal issues of the leadership.

There's been a lot of false dawns in the progress of freedom of speech in China To my mind the freeing up of freedom of speech in a government-operated English-language newspaper may not actually add up to much, but then I may be wrong . . . .