China Doesn’t Like How Gen Z Is Spending Its Time

A crackdown on boy-band celebrities signals a wider dissatisfaction with the next generation of would-be revolutionaries.

Last week, China’s top media regulators rolled out a directive prohibiting sissy idols and other deformed aesthetics.” Their targets were the highly stylized, gender-bending young men who’ve defined Chinese pop culture for more than a decade. In the eyes of President Xi Jinping, these celebrities pose a threat to the masculine revitalization of the Chinese nation. Like cram schools, celebrity fan clubs and video games — all banned or restricted in recent months — they’ve become another victim of Xi’s push to build a patriotic younger generation in his image.

Such a cold-blooded cultural cull creates a dilemma, however. What are China’s teenagers to do with their time now that they can’t follow their favorite celebrities, play video games or grind away in nightly tutoring sessions? The government hopes that they’ll use that extra time to engage in physical activity and indulge in the study of “Xi Jinping thought” (now part of primary-school curriculums). Yet it’s unlikely that these aspirations will be realized even in part. China’s teenagers, like those everywhere, have their own ideas.

Forty years ago, the very idea of a “youth culture” was alien to a hard-working, mostly agrarian society. It was only with affluence that free time emerged, and even that was circumscribed by ambitious families who viewed rigorous academic study as sacrosanct. In urban China, a typical secondary-school day runs nine hours, plus another two for private tutoring. After time for dinner and family, it’s on to homework, which can take hours more. Unsurprisingly, researchers have often found that Chinese children are severely sleep-deprived.

Added to these pressures are some newer ones, including the demands that global consumer culture places on young people. As state media likes to note, Generation Z, the cohort born between 1995 and 2010, is the most affluent in Chinese history. In fact, China’s Gen Z kids outspend their counterparts in other parts of the world — according to one survey, they account for a larger share of total household spending (at 13%) than their peers in the U.S. (4%) and Britain (3%).

This newfound spending power has collided with another emergent cultural force: social media. After midnight, Chinese platforms hum with posts about teen idols. Interest in their songs and shows and personal lives is overwhelming. By far the most popular figures are the “little fresh meat” — delicate-featured, makeup-wearing young men who not only inspire endless gossip but strongly influence how urban Chinese present themselves (the booming male cosmetics industry is just one outcome). Their fans are so loyal that they’ve been known to buy up multiple copies of a new music release to drive it up the charts (often successfully).

In the context of affluent global youth culture, in which forming identity and community are priorities, such gestures aren’t unusual. The problem is that the Chinese Communist Party does not share these priorities. It views youth culture as an ideological battleground. Video games and fan clubs aren’t harmless diversions but competition for the affections of China’s next revolutionary generation. One result is that the authorities are increasingly curtailing or canceling any youth-oriented entertainment they view as threatening.

So far, the impact has been limited. Teenagers who want to play games easily circumvent the government’s anti-addiction measures. Fans of South Korea’s wildly popular, androgynous K-Pop acts continue to follow them (and emulate them), despite years of disapproval and occasional censorship by the authorities. Unlike previous generations, Gen Z has often found clever technical means of evading the government’s control.

But Xi’s effort to shape how Gen Z uses its spare time is undoubtedly the most aggressive in the country’s recent history. With his personal backing, the measures have had a political gravitas that previous crackdowns didn’t. The challenge for the government is presenting a compelling alternative to the high-end shopping, video games and androgynous boy bands that young Chinese have long embraced. Patriotic exercise and ideological education are well and good, but not exactly what most teens think of as a good time.

In fact, China’s regulators might soon learn what parents everywhere have long understood: The surest way to make a teenager want something is to forbid it.

Original link: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-09-07/china-doesn-t-like-how-gen-z-is-spending-its-time?utm_content=asia&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&fbclid=IwAR0biQ0uCxRmipk94r9PY_lEwhvDGABt3XabQ41OUlf16D2wZv5va2vQ9ok

Congress stuck in shutdown stalemate

Both sides dug in on Saturday, signaling they were prepared for a longer impasse.

Updated 

Republicans and Democrats spent the first day of the government shutdown Saturday trading partisan shots and making little headway on a compromise to quickly break the impasse.

Returning to the Capitol for a rare Saturday session, Republicans accused Democrats of prioritizing “illegal immigrants” over American citizens by insisting that protections for young immigrants facing deportation be included in any spending deal. Legislation that the House passed but that the Senate blocked early Saturday included six years of funding for health care for poor children.

Democrats countered that the situation is a product of President Donald Trump’s constantly shifting positions and embrace of the most hard-line stance on immigration. They took aim as much at Trump as their GOP congressional counterparts, betting that the public would be inclined to believe that the president’s chaotic leadership style caused the shutdown.

“Negotiating with President Trump is like negotiating with Jell-O,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) quipped on the Senate floor Saturday, the one-year anniversary of Trump’s inauguration.

Both sides dug in on Saturday, signaling they were prepared for a longer impasse. Both sides tried to hammer each other on their political messaging. And it was clear that the respective party leaders believed the other had badly misjudged the mood of the country.

Republican leaders are now contemplating a stopgap funding measure that runs through Feb. 8, which top Democrats still oppose without a commitment to ensure an immigration deal can get through both the House and the Senate. Democrats objected to the GOP’s request to hold the vote on Saturday, prompting Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to threaten to foist another late-night vote on the weary chamber.

“I assure you, we will have a cloture vote at 1 a.m. on Monday unless there is a desire to have it sooner,” McConnell warned on the floor early Saturday evening.

Schumer and Trump, who had met for an Oval Office lunch just one day prior to try and broker a deal, did not communicate all day Saturday. And further complicating a potential breakthrough: Republicans say they won’t negotiate on immigration while the government is shut down.

“I think it’s more difficult to get any agreement on DACA in a shutdown,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy heading into a meeting with GOP leaders Saturday. He was referring to the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, shielding hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children from deportation, known as Dreamers.

White House Legislative Director Marc Short, who attended a closed-door meeting of House Republicans, echoed that stance.

“I think the administration’s position is that as soon as they reopen the government, we’ll resume negotiations on DACA,” Short told reporters. “It’s hard to negotiate on that when they’re keeping our border agents unpaid, our troops unpaid, not paying for American services.”

Trump, who canceled a weekend trip to Florida to celebrate his first anniversary in office, spoke with Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Saturday morning, aides said.

House Republicans scoffed at a tentative framework to reopen the government being discussed by a bipartisan group of senators.

Under the proposal — conceived by GOP Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake — Senate Democrats would agree to re-open the government and fund agencies until Feb. 8. In exchange, they would secure a vote on a bipartisan Dreamers bill. While McConnell signaled that he might go along, Senate Democrats also wanted a commitment from Ryan to include the bill in must-pass legislation in the House.

But McConnell would not agree to that demand, senators said, because he cannot bind the House to a Senate deal. Graham and Flake have started meeting quietly with well over a dozen fellow senators, both Democrats and Republicans, to hammer out a compromise.

“My hope is that this bipartisan group will go back to the leaders of both parties and try to find a way to move forward,” Graham said as he left Saturday’s meeting, held in the office of Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine).

But all along, Ryan has insisted the Senate needs to approve the House bill to fund the government until Feb. 16 as a starting point for any broader agreement.

“We were not party to any negotiations, and our only message to the Senate all day yesterday was pass our bill to keep the government open,” AshLee Strong, Ryan’s spokeswoman, said in a statement. “The government shut down because Senate Democrats decided to hold the entire federal government and children’s health insurance hostage. It’s pretty straight forward.”

During a House GOP conference Saturday morning, Ryan told Republicans that they were doing the right thing in refusing to negotiate beyond accepting a three-week stopgap spending plan. He noted that headlines in national publications said Democrats — not Republicans — had shut down the government.

Ryan also predicted that Democrats would soon recognize that they’d overplayed their hand and were already looking for a way out. House members applauded his stand. Rep. Drew Ferguson (R-Ga.) at one point stood up to say that Schumer was acting to help “illegal immigrants” at the detriment of his daughter, who serves in the military. Defense hawks argue that shutdowns cripple the nation’s readiness and the troops.

While Trump and Republicans blamed Senate Democrats for the shutdown, Democrats claimed it was Ryan’s unwillingness to let the House vote on any Dreamers’ package that led to the first government closure since 2013.

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who attended a meeting of House Democrats on Saturday, told them it was Ryan’s resistance to a DACA fix that caused Democrats to block a bill that would have kept the government open until Feb. 16, triggering the shutdown. Republican aides refuted Durbin’s account.

“We have received mixed signals from Speaker Ryan,” Durbin said. “We just want the assurance that if we do reach a bipartisan compromise on the floor of the Senate, that it won’t have the fate of the comprehensive immigration bill [in 2013] which was never even considered by the House.”

Democrats also slammed Trump for failing to force Ryan and McConnell to make a deal.

“Durbin says [Schumer] and [McConnell] negotiated off floor last night. Mitch stepped out to take a call from Paul Ryan. Came back and said, ‘Bet’s off,'” one House Democrat told POLITICO.

“The main takeaway: There are lots of paths in the House and Senate that the Republican [House] leadership is thwarting. They don’t want a deal,” added Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.). “The Trump White House is missing in action.”

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the dispute was over much more than just Dreamers. Fairness in spending allocations between defense and non-defense programs is also at stake, she said.

“I have said, and I will say it again, that we are willing to go to a short-term [continuing resolution] if in fact we have come to a conclusion and agreement on [spending] parity, which is important to us,” Pelosi said at a news conference. Such a deal could include more money for defense and border security, she added.

In the Senate, leaders remained stalled Saturday on the issue of when a DACA vote would take place, and it appeared later Saturday that a vote was not likely to occur. Schumer continues to oppose a plan to fund the government through early February unless there is a commitment to an immigration vote in both chambers, several sources in both parties say.

Trump took to Twitter on Saturday to blast Democrats for the shutdown.

“Democrats are holding our military hostage over their desire to have unchecked illegal immigration,” Trump tweeted Saturday morning. “Can’t let that happen!”

He added: “#AMERICA FIRST!”

Cable car plan for cave kingdom a stark reminder of Vietnam’s development mania

By Dien Luong   August 27, 2017 | 07:56 pm GMT+7

original article

There are serious questions about who benefits – the company which operates the cable car or the local community.’

Plans for another cable car in Vietnam’s UNESCO-listed Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park have raised more questions than answers in a country where economic interests all too often eclipse limited environmental safeguards.

The most troubling question is, according to experts, whether the masses stand to benefit from a project that is being promoted in the name of economic development.

Authorities in the central province of Quang Binh proposed the cable car system across Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park, which UNESCO recognized as a global heritage site in 2003, at a meeting with Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc on Friday.

Phuc said that although the idea has raised widespread eyebrows, he and government agencies “agree in principle” with the plan. He said the project must “not interfere with the heritage site nor be overexploited”, asking the culture and tourism ministry to assess the project’s possible impacts and consult UNESCO on the matter.

The cable car system is set to run 5.2 kilometers (3.2 miles) from a section of the Ho Chi Minh Highway to En (Swallow) Cave, which was catapulted into global fame when it was aired live on U.S. talk show Good Morning America in May 2015.

En Cave, a feeder to the world’s largest cave Son Doong, stretches 1,645 meters into the mountain and has been named one of the most captivating caves on earth by National Geographic. It is also believed to be the world’s third largest cave, according to CNN.

Phong Nha – Ke Bang is home to over 300 caves and grottoes that date back some 400 million years. Around 30 caves are now open to visitors, which has created a tourism boom and lifted the poor, war-torn province.

Supporters of the cable car say it will make it easier for tourists to explore the cave, giving local tourism a much-needed boost that would increase revenues and create jobs. They also say it affords opportunities for the elderly and disabled, and not just able-bodied people, to visit more remote beauty spots.

But those in the opposing camp say that the proposal’s much-touted benefits could pale in comparison to its possible drawbacks.

“The construction of large cable car base stations, towers, café-souvenir shops and parking lots will destroy the view,” said Tim Doling, a British author who has studied Vietnam’s history and tourism extensively. “The noise and disturbance associated with a heavy throughput of tourists can cause permanent damage to the natural landscape, wildlife and ecology.”

More importantly, “there are also serious questions to be answered about who ultimately benefits – the company which built and operates the cable car or the local community,” Doling said.

In Vietnam, the idea of building a huge infrastructure project designed to draw as many visitors as possible to a carefully protected ecological wonder has not gone down well with conservationists.

“Over the past 20 years, Vietnam’s tourism sector seems to have been led by a simple mantra – ‘big is beautiful’. But it rarely is,” said Mark Bowyer, a tourism expert in Vietnam who runs the website rustycompass.com. “Huge investments have been the prize most provinces have sought. Most other priorities have been neglected.”

In a country where local leaders are judged chiefly by how much their cities have grown, regardless of whether it is sustainable, local media have reported story after story in which cities and provinces often compete with each other by building airports, seaports or golf courses. This leads to a glut of infrastructure projects that only help to boost local gross domestic product thanks to construction, infrastructure, money flowing through banks and new employment in the short term.

Instead of focusing on projects that add value in the long term, local authorities are fixated on boosting GDP figures, analysts say. As a result, they ignore the environment and long-term planning.

“But worst of all is the systematic destruction of the country’s unique natural sites, the very reasons many foreigners visit the country, in the name of modernization and economic development,” Doling said.

“A slew of natural wonders are constantly destroyed or threatened across the country where local leaders are too preoccupied with short- sighted economic performance.”

Cable car-obsessed

It is not the first time Quang Binh has been caught up in the cable car controversy. Local authorities first suggested the construction of a similar system in 2014 when it unveiled plans to build a $212-million gondola lift into Son Doong, the world’s largest cave, inside Phong Nha-Ke Bang National Park.

Widespread opposition, including an online petition signed by thousands and concerns from UNESCO, eventually prompted the government to ask the province to scrap the project. The government has also guaranteed that no construction will take place in the entire cave system until at least 2030.

But it’s not just Quang Binh that is raising public hackles. Elsewhere in Vietnam conservationists lament that the country is sacrificing nature for tourism. Many Vietnamese tourist sites, including the world-famous Ha Long Bay and the country’s highest peak Fansipan, are already crisscrossed by cable cars.

Elsewhere in the world, such as Hong Kong and Singapore, it is standard practice to carry out a full environmental assessment before the construction of a cable car can start at a natural heritage site.

This ensures that they are built only in the least ecologically vulnerable areas with a design that is sensitive to the environment. It also imposes strict regulations about wastewater during both construction and operation.

“As there is so little transparency here about the way in which these cable cars are built and operated, it’s very difficult to know if such procedures are applied in Vietnam,” Doling said.

A 2015 report by Pact, an international environmental group, pointed to a raft of loopholes that have plagued Vietnam’s environmental assessment, marginalizing the masses in the decision-making process for public projects that otherwise directly affect their lives.

Although consultation requirements relate to contact with local governments, “there is no requirement for open public involvement and no requirement or guidance provided on more effective consultation methods,” the report said.

“While these bodies are considered by the government to be representative of communities, the hierarchical political system in Vietnam ensures they are often under pressure from higher levels of government to give their approval for the projects,” it said.

“They do not always accurately reflect the opinions and concerns of local communities, particularly disadvantaged or voiceless groups in Vietnamese society such as landless households or ethnic minority groups that can be the most significantly affected by projects.”

Conservationists say every country in the world faces trade-offs between conservation and development, but Vietnam has no safeguards in place against the most damaging actions.

Vietnam neither allows class-action suits nor enables non-affected parties to file public interest lawsuits. The laws also prevent public interest movements like environmental groups from intervening on behalf of the people affected.

“All too often, it seems the voices who are heard with regard to the trade-offs only seem to be the well-connected, politically powerful or rich people, and the benefits of the trade-offs seem to accrue to those powerful and wealthy people as well,” said Pamela McElwee, an assistant professor of human ecology at Rutgers University who has conducted extensive research on Vietnam’s protected areas.

A report by the World Bank and the Ministry of Planning and Investment acknowledged last year that in Vietnam, growth has to a large extent come at the expense of the environment.

“Growth in the past 25 years has imposed significant environmental costs,” the report said. “Rapid depletion of natural resources is a particular concern. Vietnam’s greenhouse gas emissions have grown the fastest in the region, while the environmental quality of its air, land and water has deteriorated considerably.”

Experts say conservation victories will remain scarce in Vietnam unless radical changes are made. Without a major shakeup, ordinary people will continue to bear the brunt of economic development.

“Up to now,” Doling said, “sadly it is certainly the case that economic interests in the exploitation of both natural and built heritage sites has tended to be given precedence over conservation concerns.”

 

Why monotheists quarrelAbraham’s children fight because they have so much in common

Original article

Monotheists love the same people, texts and places and still can’t get along

IT WAS a good weekend to reflect on why monotheists quarrel, despite (or more likely, because of) having lots of common reference points. As so many inter-faith meetings optimistically recall, there is a huge overlap between the people, places and stories revered by Christians, Jews and Muslims. Not just Abrahim/Ibrahim, but Noah/Nuh, Moses/Moshe/Musa, and so on. But commonality doesn’t always make for friendship; in fact it can give people something to argue over.

On November 21st (or on December 4th on the old calendar, used in Russia), Christians of the east remember a haunting, mysterious story set in ancient Jerusalem. It describes how Mary, who would later give birth to Jesus, spent her childhood in the holiest part of the temple, a place that would normally be entered only by adult male priests. As the prayers prescribed for the feast day make plain, the symbolic meaning is that Mary, by bearing the son of God, becomes the temple or locus of holiness herself, carrying divinity within her body: something that all believers, male and female, are ultimately called on to do, albeit not in such a physical sense.

This narrative does not occur in the New Testament, but (as I mentioned briefly in one of our more unusual cover stories), a version of it clearly features in the Koran. It describes how Mary’s parents, having dedicated their future child to God, were initially surprised to find that their offspring was a girl. But “the Lord accepted her graciously and made her to grow into a fine child” who was entrusted to the priest Zachariah, who later visited the young girl “in the sanctuary” and discovered that God was providing her with everything she needed.

Not many Christians, even learned ones, know about the Koranic story. For them, the narrative of Mary’s childhood is rooted in a text called the Proto-Evangelium, ascribed to James, the first Christian bishop of Jerusalem, whose followers were mainly of Jewish origin. In reality the text we now have may not be that old, but the perceived link with Bishop James and his Christian-Jewish flock is significant. Early Christians saw the story of Mary’s early years as a way of understanding both the connection and the disconnect between their faith and the older religion of ancient Israel. To most Jews however, the idea of Mary’s body replacing the temple would make little sense; it is supercessionist, which has become a dirty word in Jewish-Christian dialogue.

Then consider one of the readings laid down for the weekend’s Christian feast: a passage from the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel, an exiled temple priest who had a vision of God’s glory leaving, and ultimately returning to, the holiest site in Jerusalem. Ezekiel was told that the holy place’s eastern gate “shall be shut, shall not be opened, and no man shall go in by it; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.” Many Christian teachers, from Augustine to Martin Luther, saw this passage as describing the virginity of Mary, both before and after the birth of Jesus. Her womb was the place that God had visited, but no earthly man had ever entered.

Other monotheists strongly disagree. For some Jews and some Protestantsof a millenarian turn of mind, the passage has a more literal meaning. It foresees an apocalyptic time when the Messiah will come in glory, using an identifiable location in Jerusalem: the eastern entrance which is often known as the Golden Gate. The gate which now stands has had a chequered history since its construction in early medieval times. It was sealed by the Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent in 1541 in what Jews saw as a hostile act, designed to stymie their prophecies. Meanwhile, some Muslims have eschatological traditions of their own concerning that entrance; they link it with the advent of the Mahdi, the end-time prophet who will join a returning Jesus in proclaiming the truth of Islam.

Compared with all that, the Christian tradition which links the shuttered gate to Mary’s body seems less contentious, and indeed less likely to trigger a world war. But it all goes to show how a common love of the same people, places and texts has never been enough to make people love one another. Often, the opposite happens.

In Russian, one way of saying “the two of us have no reason to quarrel” is “U nas nechevo delit‘” which could be translated “We have nothing to divide up” or “We have nothing to share out.” For better or worse, Abrahamic monotheists do have much to share. So too, much to bicker about.

The Economist explains How America’s courts can keep the government in check

The Economist explains: How America’s courts can keep the government in check

original link

The judiciary’s power to strike down laws and executive actions as unconstitutional dates from 1803

OVER the weekend, Stephen Miller, a White House adviser, lashed out at the federal judges who have put the brakes on Donald Trump’s travel and immigration bans. On ABC’s “This Week”, Mr Miller told George Stephanopoulos that “the judiciary is not supreme”. On “Fox News Sunday”, he called the recent decisions by district and circuit court judges “a judicial usurpation of power”. Mr Trump’s authority to limit immigration, he said, is “beyond question”. This sweeping view of executive power is quite at odds with the judges’ view. In its ruling upholding the district court’s freeze on the executive order, the three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals depicted Mr Trump’s lawyer’s claims as out of bounds: “[T]he Supreme Court has repeatedly and explicitly rejected the notion that the political branches have unreviewable authority over immigration or are not subject to the Constitution when policymaking in that context”. It is “beyond question that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action”.

Each branch of government telling the other that its position is “beyond question” presents an impasse. Surprisingly, a glance at America’s constitution does not suggest a way out: while Article VI declares that the constitution “shall be the supreme law of the land” and every “thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary” must bow before it, there is no provision granting the final word to any particular institution. What, then, is the basis for the judiciary’s power to serve as a check on a president’s executive actions?

The answer lies in Marbury v Madison, a case from 1803 in which John Marshall (pictured above), America’s fourth chief justice, brilliantly salvaged—and expanded—the power of the Supreme Court. Facing a case that pit Federalists against their bitter rivals, the Democratic-Republican party of President Thomas Jefferson, Marshall worried that a ruling in favour of the administration would look like capitulation but that deciding against it might lead Jefferson to defy the Supreme Court. In Marbury, Marshall managed to defang his political opponents with a nominal win while arming the court with a startling new power: judicial review. “It is emphatically the duty and province of the judicial department”, he wrote, “to say what the law is”.

Presidents generally respect this principle but not all—including Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt—have always hewed to the Supreme Court’s line. Jackson, whose portrait Mr Trump hung in the oval office days after assuming the presidency, believed that “the Supreme Court must not…be permitted to control the Congress or the executive”. Scholars continue to debate the soundness of Marshall’s reasoning in Marbury, but the power of the judiciary to strike down laws and executive actions as unconstitutional has become a universal and long-lasting norm. Even Justice Clarence Thomas, who often shows little compunction about abandoning age-old precedents when they depart from his view of a constitutional rule, believes the courts are “the final arbiter” of the constitution’s meaning. In the words of Justice Joseph Story, in a book of legal commentary from 1833, the judiciary’s “interpretation…becomes obligatory and conclusive upon all the departments of the federal government”. For all of Mr Trump’s talk about “so-called judges” and the “political” ruling by the Ninth Circuit, he has not attempted to circumvent the judges’ decisions. For now, Mr Trump is permitting courts to check his power.

 

Red v green in Vietnam

original text

Red v green in Vietnam

The Communist Party’s inability to control pollution is corroding its authority

FISHING boats in Dong Hoi, a tranquil provincial capital on the central coast of Vietnam, are decorated with bits of cactus. These prickly charms are said to protect seafarers from storms and other perils, but they did not ward off the misfortune that struck the town last spring. In April the tides spewed thousands of dead fish onto Dong Hoi’s beaches. Authorities dithered for months before naming the culprit: a new steel mill up the coast which had flushed its pipes with toxic bilge.

Nearly a year later, Dong Hoi—like all the settlements on a 125-mile stretch of affected coastline—is still tallying the cost of that calamity. Worst affected are its fishermen, whose red and blue skiffs cluster serenely on the town’s wide river. Some locals refuse to eat their catch, for fear of lingering toxins; others pledge to eat only fish caught far out to sea, or at depths thought to have escaped the poison. Freezers in many seafood restaurants are now stocked with chicken and pork.

The disaster has sapped tourism, too. The town was flattened during the war with America (except for a charred church facade, now preserved as a memorial), but has profited from gargantuan caves discovered on its doorstep. These include Son Doong, said to be the world’s largest, which only opened to visitors in 2013. But last summer hordes of people cancelled their holidays, fearful of splaying out on tainted sand. Half-built hotels and condos dot the outskirts of town, left orphaned by twitchy investors.

Pollution mars many of Vietnam’s stunning landscapes. Dam-building, well-digging and intensive farming are corroding the Mekong Delta, where roughly half the country’s rice is grown. Each year its soil becomes saltier as seawater washes up its weakening streams. Pungent smog smothers Hanoi, the capital. By some counts nearly two-thirds of Vietnam’s industrial wastewater flows into lakes and rivers. In 2015 the authorities identified a score of villages with unusually high cancer rates, perhaps the result of water supplies laced with lead.

A category of environmental trouble not entirely of Vietnam’s making will soon add to this list. With 2,000 miles of coastline, Vietnam is especially vulnerable to climate change. Some estimates suggest that one-fifth of Ho Chi Minh City, its swiftly expanding southern metropolis, could be underwater by the end of the century. Harsher weather and flooding could batter settlements up and down the long seaboard.

Such worries are increasingly seeping into Vietnam’s politics, posing challenges to the repressive rule of the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV). A government report says that at least 200,000 people were directly affected by last year’s disaster. Some of them have dared to protest at the mill responsible—owned by Formosa, a Taiwanese company—or in front of a local courthouse. They say that the $500m the firm has coughed up in compensation is paltry, and demand the right to sue. Even more striking is the rage among Vietnamese who have not suffered from the poisoning themselves. Shortly after the disaster, a spokesperson for Formosa implied that industry and fishing were incompatible. Demonstrators in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City retorted: “I choose fish.”

Nationalism amplifies anger about the environment. In 2014 Formosa’s steel mill was set ablaze by rioters protesting against China’s decision to move an oil rig into contested waters not far from Vietnam’s coast (never mind that Formosa is Taiwanese). Most Vietnamese think their leaders are soft on China, the country’s biggest trading partner but also an old enemy and rival claimant to several islets in the South China Sea. That the party has allowed a (sort of) Chinese firm to poison the coast is particularly galling.

All this is frightening to the CPV, which saw how environmental movements in Eastern Europe buffeted communists there, and which has dealt thuggishly with leaders of the protests. Labelling civil-rights campaigners as stooges for foreign governments is trickier when the party itself is accused of protecting polluters from abroad. In search of new friends to help reduce its reliance on trade with China, the cadres in Hanoi also fret about Vietnam’s reputation. The CPV wants foreigners to see the country as a reliable partner on global issues such as climate change, not as a throwback that reveres a dead leader in a glass box.

So Vietnam’s lawmakers are becoming greener. The country has fairly comprehensive green regulations, reckons Stephan Ortmann, author of a new book on the subject—stricter than those scribbled by China’s rulers, and produced at a faster clip. It has pledged to cull carbon from its economy (though how this squares with plans to build dozens of coal-fired power stations is anybody’s guess). In November the government hosted a big pow-wow on wildlife conservation, obliterating tonnes of confiscated ivory in a satisfying fireball.

A smog of confusion

Yet there is more talk than action, and the government’s shallow coffers are only partly to blame. Economic growth—which in the absence of meaningful elections is the party’s only claim to legitimacy—trumps everything else. Powerful officials in the provinces ignore rules made in Hanoi, and powerful state-owned firms often seem untouchable. A justice system that deals swiftly and ruthlessly with dissidents fails dismally at enforcing quotidian regulation. Whereas smog-fighters in Beijing have begun closing factories and restricting car usage, bigwigs in Hanoi still struggle to prevent scooter-riders from parking on the pavements. Smouldering ire over pollution will make it harder for the party to cope with political or economic shocks.

Dong Hoi’s prospects, meanwhile, hinge on whether the tourists return this summer. The authorities say that the sea is safe for swimming again, but not everyone believes them. A fisherman says he has been back at work for a while, but would not feed his catch to small children for another five or ten years.

 

Vietnam’s Quiet Human Rights Crisis

Original article

Nguyen Chi Tuyen, a 43-year-old from Hanoi, was driving home after dropping his son off at school when he was attacked by thugs. 

Tuyen, a dissident blogger who makes his living translating books into Vietnamese at a local publishing house, said around half a dozen men in plainclothes forced him off his motorbike before beating him to the ground. He didn’t know the attackers, nor did they rob him.

“At least two motorbikes stopped me on the way, one just before and one behind my back, and I heard one man say, ‘Ah! It’s him!’” said Tuyen, whose pen name is Anh Chi, describing the May 2015 incident.

While Tuyen was never able to confirm the attackers’ identity, he has no doubt that they were working for the government.

“We know they were organized by the security forces,” he said. 

Rights monitors say Tuyen’s story is par the course within Vietnam’s secretive single party communist state. According to most metrics commonly used to measure level of human rights abuses, Vietnam boasts one of the world’s most authoritarian police states. But activists say that far too little attention is paid to Vietnam even as other Southeast Asian countries are routinely condemned by the international community.

“It’s quite clear that Vietnam is getting much more of a free pass on human rights than their poor record deserves, partly because of the government’s resilience and willingness to push back on international criticism,” said Phil Robertson, deputy director of Human Rights Watch’s Asia division.

Amnesty International counted 91 prisoners of conscience in Vietnam in its 2016 yearly report, the highest number in Southeast Asia, while eight of the 13 journalists imprisoned in the region are in Vietnam, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The local press and civil society, which virtually never strays from the party line, brands dissidents as “reactionaries.” Foreign correspondents, who are required by law to be based in Hanoi, have their movements and reporting closely tracked.

“Vietnam makes it hard to follow cases of dissidents facing repression, keeps its proceedings in courts and treatment in prisons as secret as possible, and restricts its media,” said Robertson.

“So it’s not surprising that there is comparatively less news of such abuses than bodies turning up every day on the streets in Duterte’s Philippines,” he said, referring to referring to Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s bloody war on drugs.

Systematically Snubbed

Dao Thi Huong, 30, lives the cosmopolitan white collar lifestyle unheard of in northern Vietnam before the 1990s. A financial modeler for a Singaporean firm, she was of the first generation of Hanoians to have a shot at a middle-class existence following centuries of dynastic cycles, French colonialism, and hardline Marxist-Leninism.

Although a beneficiary of the recent economic boom fostered by the Communist Party, Huong has decided that multiparty democracy is the way forward.

“Five years ago, I believed in communism, I believed in the government, and Uncle Ho,” said Huong, referring to modern Vietnam’s revolutionary founder Ho Chi Minh, at an upscale coffee shop near Hanoi’s Hoan Kiem lake. 

The arrest of dissident lawyer Le Quoc Quan in 2012, who served 30 months in prison on a tax evasion conviction that his supporters argue was politically motivated, changed her mind.

“People kept talking about him, and I realized he was not as bad as what the newspapers said about him, and I started thinking about why the government hides the information from the citizens?”

Huong calls herself as a “half activist,” a fellow traveler of the dissident cause who shows up at Hanoi’s rare public demonstrations, which get quickly shut down by police.

Despite her small role in the movement, police were quick to make a house call to her parents as she started to become a familiar face at protests.

“They came to my family and said something was wrong about me,” she said, adding that such methods were often effective at convincing even the smallest activists to get back in line.

Had her employer not been based in Singapore, Huong said the police would have likely put pressure on her boss to discipline her at work.

When harassment doesn’t approve effective, authorities use penal code provisions that broadly criminalize “conducting propaganda” against the state and “abusing democratic freedoms.” Blogger Nguyen Huu Vinh, better known as Anh Ba Sam, is serving five years in prison for his dissident website, while Nguyen Ngoc Nhu Quynh, who blogged under the pen name Mother Mushroom, awaits trial following her October arrest.

Can Thi Theu, a farmer who since 2008 has been fighting forced evictions in her neighborhood on the outskirts of Hanoi, is serving a 20 month prison sentence for “disrupting public order” at protests. It is her second prison sentence for activism. Her husband, Trinh Ba Tu, has also served time.

“The government used all of the police, the court, anything they have, and they accuse my mother of any crime they want,” said Trinh Ba Phuong, Theu’s 32-year-old son.

“I’m not afraid of anything, because I have support from many villagers, and my parents suffer from the hard verdict from the court, and I’m ready to sacrifice to anything that can help my community, my neighbors, the farmers who lost the land to the government,” he said. 

Why the Apathy?

Vietnam’s recent history has catapulted the nation from international pariah fighting against the United States to an important strategic partner of the West. Economic opportunities abound in one of the world’s fastest growing economies, while politicians from Washington to Tokyo also see Hanoi as a potential ally in the South China Sea disputes.

U.S. President Donald Trump has apparently been friendly with Hanoi. According to the Vietnamese government, he had an amiable phone conversation with Vietnamese Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc in December. In a letter dated February 23, Trump also wrote to President Tran Dai Quang urging cooperation to “ensure peace and prosperity in Asia-Pacific on the basis of international law.”

“Now with Trump in charge, our worry is human rights concerns in Vietnam will be diminished even further,” said Roberston.

Yet concerns of American apathy toward the Vietnamese dissident movement predate the Trump administration. Musician and activist Mai Khoi said her May 2016 meeting with President Barack Obama in Hanoi left her with mixed impressions.

Once one of Vietnam’s most famous pop stars – she was the 2010 winner of Vietnam Television’s Album of the Year award – her quashed attempt to run for parliament in 2016 as an independent candidate rendered her a pariah in the Vietnamese entertainment industry. 

“I think the fact that President Obama met me was symbolically very important,” she said, adding that the former president extended a planned 20-minute meeting to a full hour. “Unfortunately, promoting human rights never seems to be the top priority of foreign governments engaging with Vietnam,” she added.

Four police officers came to her house the day after the meeting in what she said was an attempt to intimidate her. “It was then I realized that I have no guaranteed rights in Vietnam, not even after meeting with the most powerful person in the world.”

Foreign governments, said Robertson, only provide a limited amount of support as they pursue their national interests. 

“Various governments say that they conduct private, behind closed doors, advocacy on rights with Hanoi, but what we hear time and time again from dissidents is the people of Vietnam really want stronger public affirmations by other governments that Vietnam must respect rights,” he said.

The European Union concluded a free trade agreement with the government with Vietnam in 2015. However, the chair of European Parliament‘s human rights subcommittee, Pier Antonio Panzeri, said at a February press conference in Hanoi that it will be “extremely hard” for the treaty to be ratified without improvements in human rights.

The local United Nations offices, say local dissidents, are even less helpful.

“I would say that the UN in Vietnam is very active when it comes to the less sensitive issues, for example HIV prevention, but when it comes to political rights, for example freedom of expressions, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, they are less active,” said Nguyen Anh Tuan, a 27-year-old Hanoi activist.

Tuan’s unregistered NGO, Voice, aims to indirectly challenge the party by educating youth in the ways of independent civil society. But under Vietnamese law, all social organizations, from sports teams to churches, must be member groups of the Vietnamese Fatherland Front (VFF), an umbrella organization controlled by the party. As non-communist controlled organizations are effectively outlawed, UN regulations prevent its agencies from working with dissident groups.

Sunita Giri, head of the UN Resident Coordinator’s Office in Hanoi, acknowledged that their operations must be in line with Vietnamese law.

“The UN does work with registered civil society organizations, and for any financial transactions or partnerships ensures that a beneficiary organization is registered and is in compliance with national law,” she said, adding that the UN “works with all stakeholders in Vietnam”. 

But the legal limitations, according to dissidents, renders the U.N. ineffective in tackling human rights.

The blogger Tuyen said that while he has met with visiting officials from the Bangkok branch of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (it has no Hanoi office), the local UN agencies are of no help.

“The offices in Hanoi, they have another mission, they don’t pay attention to human rights or democracy,” said Tuyen.

On Their Own

With the Vietnamese government’s single party rule effectively normalized in the global arena, activists agree that they are on their own to bring about a multi-party democracy.

“I always tell my colleagues, we appreciate the support of the outside, but we cannot rely on the support of the international [community],” said Nguyen Quang A.

A retired businessman turned dissident, Quang A, 71, is among Vietnam’s most prolific activists. In 2016, he was a finalist for the Netherland’s Human Rights Tulip award. Like the singer Mai Khoi, he also attempted to run for parliament in the 2016 elections. While he welcomes support from abroad, Quang A said he understands the complicated geopolitics that prevent a full-scale endorsement of his cause.

“It depends on the political mood of the big guy over there,” he said, jokingly referring to Trump.

Quang A said he was understanding of Trump’s “America first” stance. “You can see a network in the West of so many interests, and they have to serve their interests first, and that is understandable,” he said.

Yun Sun, a senior associate with the East Asia Program at the Stimson Center think tank in Washington D.C., said that it’s inaccurate to say that America hasn’t exerted any pressure. To some extent, she said, Hanoi has been responsive. 

“This is a case where Vietnam’s strategic interests and national security vis-a-vis China in the South China Sea runs into conflict with the CPV’s [Communist Party of Vietnam’s] political interests to maintain the one-party authoritarian government in the country,” she said.

Vietnam has granted some human rights concessions in recent years. LGBT rights are increasingly recognized by the state, and a 2016 law affirmed freedom of religion. The government even agreed to independent labor unions when it signed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, although the the treaty’s rejection by the Trump administration makes the reforms unlikely in the near future.

Tuan, the civil society organizer, said the future of Vietnamese activism would come from within.

“I know [foreign governments] try to put the pressure on the Vietnamese government, but it’s not easy to deal with the Vietnamese government and they are good at dealing with the international actors,” he said.

But any logistical or technical help for civil society organizers, he said, would be much appreciated. 

“They should focus on domestic pressure, civil society underground on the grass root level. At first they can’t provide support directly, but they can provide more training, more events, seminars, and workshops to make Vietnam more international,” he said.

Representatives from the Vietnamese government didn’t comment in time for publication. 

Bennett Murray is Deutsche Presse-Agentur’s Hanoi bureau chief. Follow him on Twitter @BDMurray.

Vocabulary

Political terms about disagreement with the authority:

  1. nonconformist (n): someone who does not accept the ways of thinking or behaving accepted by most other people in their society or group
  2. dissenter (n): a person or organization that disagrees with an official decision or accepted opinion
  3. dissident (n): someone who publicly criticizes the government in a country where this is punished
  4. insurgent (n): one of a group of people fighting against the government of their own country, or against authority
  5. rebel (n): someone who opposes or fights against people in authority
  6. partisan (adj): strongly supporting a particular political party, plan, or leader, usually without considering the other choices carefully
  7. reaction ( n) uncountable: strong and unreasonable opposition to all social and political changes -> reactionary (n) countable: opposition force

  1. Pecking order: hierarchical system among a group of people or animal

Episode 1.1: Introduction to Critical Thinking

1.1 Intro to Critical Thinking

Definition of critical thinking:

“The careful application of reason in the determination of whether the claim is true”

“Judicious reasoning about what to believe and, therefore, what to believe”

Requirements of critical thinking:

  1. Careful and intentional thinking (= judiciousness) :
    • purposeful & deliberate in you evaluation)
    • not passive (not only accepting or rejecting the arguments)
    • fully evaluate FALL  parts of a claim
    • “I agree because…” / “I disagree because… and I offer this alternative argument:…” (alternatives: involved and strengthen and clarify the view/ position)
  2. Use of logic or reason:
    • develop yard sticks for assessing an argument: good? thoughtful?
    • Compare reason with other judging and reacting to claims (e.g: pure emotion, intuition, religion, common sense -> consider these judgements judiciously: whether these emotion or common sense is the product of a reasonable assessment.
  3. Judgement about believes
  4. Application to real world problems

3&4 => serves as purposes of the critical thinking: take a position, pass a judgement and take action -> what to do on the subjects of strong disagreement and provide ownership of our believes. => true freedom of thought and opinions that come from what we know, what we believe and why.

Inherited opinion: believing sth because s.o told you so