Hong Kong’s 11 best Lunar New Year poon chois – from Michelin-starred or traditional to Indian or vegetarian – as restaurants go big for the Year of the Tiger 香港 11 家最佳農曆新年盆菜 – 從米其林星級或傳統到印度或素食 – 餐廳在虎年大放異彩
Chinese Americans still seen as foreigners, says New York based Committee of 100 president 駐紐約的百人委員會主席說，華裔美國人仍然被視為外國人 by Chen Qingqing and Zhao Yusha Jan 21 2022
Even though Chinese Americans have been living in the US for more than 175 years, “we are still seen as perpetual foreigners,” said the president of an elite group promoting China-US ties, who called for the federal state, local government and communities to do more to defy long-held stereotypes.
Commenting on the death of Michelle Go, who was shoved in front of a New York subway train last weekend, Committee of 100 President Huang Zhengyu 黄征宇 told the Global Times on Friday that even though there has been a campaign against hate and violence toward the Asian community, the number of anti-Asian hatred and violence-related incidents has not decreased.
Asian American and Chinese American women have been badly affected, and “we think this is very unfortunate,” he said, adding that the federal state, local government and communities need to do more.
Go, who was attacked by a homeless man, Simon Martial, had been waiting for a train at the Times Square station when she was pushed from behind. Though the incident is not being investigated as a hate crime, it has angered the community.
Nancy Chen, one of Go’s former coworkers who has been living in New York for 10 years, told the Global Times that it’s very sad that she lost such a great colleague and a role model in life.
“I was shocked and saddened by this news. It’s so sad that Go died in such an accident,” she said, adding that her ex-colleague had inspired many others.
Since the epidemic began, there has been a growing number of incidents targeting Asian Americans, exposing safety issues in the city, Chen said.
Steve, an American who grew up in the Bronx, New York and lives in Asia now, told the Global Times that the Trump administration had put back race relations in the US by 50 years.
“It’s really sad. I grew up in NYC in the 1960s and 70s and there was little room for hate. We had a mixed neighborhood and many different races lived there. But since 2016, politicians split the country into white against black, and there’s a huge amount of hate toward the Asian community,” he said, noting that Trump had fueled such divisions.
The Biden administration is built on love and trust and the deep desire to fix what the Republicans broke, Steve said, while conceding that it’s been a slow process. “You cannot turn the Titanic fast enough to not hit that iceberg, because of it’s sheer size,” he said.
Huang also said that Biden has made certain efforts in dealing with the problem since taking office, such as signing a Hate Crime Bill. But it is far from enough so far.
For example, law enforcers need to win trust from the public. That requires them to take language training, so they can serve the victims accordingly.
Huang said lots of finance and training support is needed to make improvements, which also requires participation by the federal government. And the change will take time.
Huang said that besides the racist words of some politicians toward the Asian American community, there are long-held stereotypes against Asian Americans in the US. “If we take a look at history, we can see that a stereotype of Asian Americans and Chinese Americans being perpetual foreigners can be traced back hundreds of years,” he said.
This is despite the fact that Chinese Americans have been in the US for more than 175 years, and have contributed to all aspects of life across almost two centuries. “This is something that we believe we must be active in fighting against.”
On Friday, the organization also issued a statement regarding the US Justice Department on Thursday dropping all charges against Chen Gang, an MIT professor accused of concealing his ties to China when seeking federal grant money.
“Even when cases are dismissed, many Chinese and Asian Americans have their lives, careers and health greatly affected. Our support and sympathies go to Professor Chen and his family as they work to rebuild their lives,” said Huang in a statement.
“For too long, Chinese Americans have been seen as perpetual foreigners, strangers in our own homeland. Today, we are all Gang Chen and stand united,” he said.
Huang told the Global Times that Trump’s policy of cracking down on Chinese scientists has backfired. According to the research of the Committee of 100 on over 2,000 scientists, including Chinese scientists in the US, many elite scientists are reluctant to apply for federal funding and decided to stop cooperation with China. Some are even considering leaving the US.
The US has been a bellwether of the world’s economy because it attracted talent from all over the world, and it has the world’s leading hi-tech industry. Yet science is a global thing and needs interaction. From this perspective, the US is harming itself.
Video: COVID19 found in mail packages from 5-eyes alliance desperately trying to disrupt Beijing Winter Olympics 五眼聯盟在拼命試圖擾亂北京冬奧會在郵件包裹中發現了新冠病毒
https://vimeo.com/669276088
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/644383133451682/?d=n
Video: Martin Jacques: Chinese Civilization and the Chinese Communist Party 中華文明與中國共產黨共存
https://vimeo.com/669266858
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/644366263453369/?d=n
China is first and foremost a civilization-state. In contrast Western societies are nation-states. It is impossible to understand China through a Western prism. The consequences of China’s civilizational roots are far-reaching in every aspect of society, not least in governance. A Western-style political party would find governing China impossible. The skill-set is quite different. The success of the CPC has been its ability to express, reflect, and articulate Chinese civilization. 中國首先是一個文明國家。 相比之下，西方社會是民族國家。 用西方的棱鏡來了解中國是不可能的。 中國文明根源的影響在社會的各個方面都影響深遠，尤其是在治理方面。 一個西方式的政黨會發現治理中國是不可能的。 技能組合完全不同。 中國共產黨的成功在於它能夠表達、反映和闡釋中華文明.
Chinese Civilization uniting all 56 races worldwide verses Western Nation States many forcefully put together solely based on geographic boundaries.
中華文明將全球56個民族與西方國家不同. 不少西方國家僅基於地理界限而強行拼湊在一起.
US will have to chose where to regain strength. However, Biden-Trump China initiative is an obstacle..Also, 60% of PhD’s in Engineering, CS, and math are non-US born Americans 美國將不得不選擇在哪裡恢復實力。 然而，拜登-特朗普的中國倡議是一個障礙。此外，60% 的工程、計算機和數學博士是非美國出生的美國人
https://www.science.org/content/article/u-s-science-no-longer-leads-world-here-s-how-top-advisers-say-nation-should-respond
https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20221
A new data-rich report by the National Science Foundation (NSF) confirms China has overtaken the United States as the world’s leader in several key scientific metrics, including the overall number of papers published and patents awarded. U.S. scientists also have serious competition from foreign researchers in certain fields, it finds.
That loss of hegemony raises an important question for U.S. policymakers and the country’s research community, according to NSF’s oversight body, the National Science Board (NSB). “Since across-the-board leadership in [science and engineering] is no longer a possibility, what then should our goals be?”
The US, left to its own devices, is unlikely to be world-class scientific or intellectual power.
To begin with, not only does it not invest in education, it doesn’t even teach basic thinking.
For example, this writer for a major newspaper says that “Wordle is not a game, but the creative process in a nutshell”.
Wordle is a simple 5 variable guessing game that is easily cracked through heuristic* and algorithmic search. The search is radically constrained by certain clusters of letters, the restricted number of vowels, and letter frequency. All thinking uses elements of both algorithmic and heuristic search at certain phases, but the creative component is when you go outside the search tree to discover something truly original. (Juxtaposition and lateral thinking stimulate this creative “leap”).
*Starting heuristics: If you start with a vowel-rich word with no letter repetitions (like bayou, audio, adieu, ouija, miaou), or a vowel-rich word using the most common consonants (roate, raise, stear, stare) you are halfway finished.
Harvard University Ash Center research team unveils findings from long-term public opinion survey – 95.5% of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing Gov’t by Dan Harsha July 9, 2020
Understanding what Chinese citizens think about their own government has proven elusive to scholars, policymakers, and businesspeople alike outside of the country. Opinion polling in China is heavily scrutinized by the government, with foreign polling firms prohibited from directly conducting surveys.
Given China’s global rise in the economic, military, and diplomatic spheres, understanding public opinion there has arguably never been more important.
A new study from the Ash Center fills in this gap for the first time, providing a long-term view of how Chinese citizens view their government at the national, as well as the regional and local levels. What started as an exercise in building a set of teaching tools for an executive education class eventually transformed into the longest academic survey of Chinese public opinion conducted by a research institution outside of China.
“Gathering reliable, long-term opinion survey data from across the country is a real obstacle,” said Ash Center China Programs Director Edward Cunningham. “Rigorous and objective opinion polling is something that we take for granted in the U.S.”
While important work in this area has been accomplished by previous scholars — and their work shaped the analysis of the survey data collected — those other surveys were often short-term or infrequent.
For Tony Saich, Daewoo Professor of International Affairs and director of the Ash Center, the quest to build a firmer understanding of Chinese public opinion has taken the better part of 15 years. It began with an attempt to develop a suite of curricular materials to inform a course on local government in China.
“We thought it would be helpful to know how satisfied citizens were with different levels of government, and in particular how satisfied they were with different kinds of government services,” said Saich.
The work began in 2003, and together with a leading private research and polling company in China, the team developed a series of questionnaires for in-person interviews. The surveys were conducted in eight waves from 2003 through 2016, and captured opinion data from 32,000 individual respondents.
“There’s nothing comparable done on this scale, over such a long period of time, and over a large geographic area,” said Jesse Turiel, a China public policy postdoctoral fellow and co-author who worked closely with Saich and Cunningham on the project’s analysis and subsequent publications.
The survey team set out to assess overall satisfaction levels with government among respondents from across the socioeconomic and geographic strata of China. “It is always a challenge to obtain a representative sample of the Chinese population, particularly from interior provinces,” said Turiel. “Our survey does not include migrant laborers, for example. But given the fact that the survey conducted in-person interviews with over 3,000 respondents per year in a purposive stratified sample, we are happy that the results include not just the coastal elites or large urban areas, but also poorer and less developed inland provinces.”
Levels of government and public opinion
The survey team found that compared to public opinion patterns in the U.S., in China there was very high satisfaction with the central government. In 2016, the last year the survey was conducted, 95.5 percent of respondents were either “relatively satisfied” or “highly satisfied” with Beijing. In contrast to these findings, Gallup reported in January of this year that their latest polling on U.S. citizen satisfaction with the American federal government revealed only 38 percent of respondents were satisfied with the federal government.
For the survey team, there are a number of possible explanations for why Chinese respondents view the central government in Beijing so favorably. According to Saich, a few factors include the proximity of central government from rural citizens, as well as highly positive news proliferated throughout the country.
This result supports the findings of more recent shorter-term surveys in China, and reinforces long-held patterns of citizens reporting local grievances to Beijing in hopes of central government action. “I think citizens often hear that the central government has introduced a raft of new policies, then get frustrated when they don’t always see the results of such policy proclamations, but they think it must be because of malfeasance or foot-dragging by the local government,” said Saich.
Tony Saich, Daewoo Professor of International Affairs and director of the Ash Center.
Compared to the relatively high satisfaction rates with Beijing, respondents held considerably less favorable views toward local government. At the township level, the lowest level of government surveyed, only 11.3 percent of respondents reported that they were “very satisfied.”
Again, the U.S. reveals quite a different story. “American trust surveys over time show a clear distinction between low levels of trust towards the federal government, but a strong belief and faith in the power of local government — at the most local level, those positions may be filled by part-time volunteers who are a part of your everyday life,” said Cunningham. This dichotomy is highlighted by a 2017 Gallup poll, where 70 percent of U.S. respondents had a “great” or “fair” amount of trust in local government.
Saich contends that the lack of trust in local governments in China is due to the fact that they provide the vast majority of services to the Chinese people. This trust deficit was compounded by the 1994 tax reforms, which garnered a substantially larger share of total national tax revenues for the central government. Local governments, despite being faced with declining revenues, were still on the hook for providing the bulk of public services throughout China.
“Local governments were caught between dropping tax revenue and rising expenditures,” Cunningham said. “Many local governments then had to turn to ad-hoc extra budgetary fees to close the budget gap. I think that has consistently undermined trust at the local level.”
Regional disparities
The research team was also keen to examine disparities in the responses of wealthy, predominantly urban and coastal areas of China and those of less developed interior provinces. “It didn’t surprise us that the wealthy coastal citizens who were the winners of globalization in many ways, and the winners of China’s domestic reform program, had a very high favorability rate of government overall, regardless of level of government examined,” said Cunningham.
The responses from survey participants in rural areas, however, surprised the researchers, particularly over time. “We did not anticipate how quickly both low-income citizens and people from less-developed regions in China closed the satisfaction gap with high-income citizens and people from the coastal areas,” Cunningham added.
The surveys found that rural residents, generally poorer than those in cities, had more optimistic attitudes about inequality than their wealthier urban counterparts. The team’s analysis ties the closing of this satisfaction gap between rich and poor, as well as coastal and hinterland populations, to several policies including local budget spent on healthcare, welfare and education, and paved roads per capita.
“We tend to forget that for many in China, and in their lived experience of the past four decades, each day was better than the next.” — Tony Saich, Daewoo Professor of International Affairs and director of the Ash Center
Saich added that the findings “run counter to the general idea that these people are marginalized and disfavored by policies,” and therefore undermine the persistent notion that rising inequality, and dissatisfaction with corruption and local government, have created the potential for widespread unrest in China.
Observers have long predicted that China’s slowing economic growth coupled with a complacent, ineffective government bureaucracy could ultimately lead to the crumbling of Beijing’s political authority. While frustration with corruption and the quality of public services at the local level clearly exists, the Ash research team’s work has shown that the current political system in China appears remarkably resilient.
Inequality remains a key concern for policymakers and citizens alike in China, but the survey project found little to support the argument that those concerns among ordinary Chinese are translating into broader dissatisfaction with government. The final round of the survey in 2016 revealed that about one-third of respondents were much more likely to lodge complaints with the government or protest if they felt that air pollution had negatively impacted their own health or the health of their immediate family members.
Professor John V Walsh, MD in San Francisco: People Trust government :
China increase from 82% to 91%
US decrease from 42% to 39%
Which country is the Real democracy?
There are 28 countries in the survey:
From the country’s starting point, Difference between US & Western Democracy verses China’s Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Individualism verses Common Goods, Selfishness verses Shared Prosperity.
從國家的出發點, 美國和西方民主與中國特色社會主義的分別: 個人主義與共同利益之分別; 自私自利與共同繁榮之分別.
The DOJ’s China Initiative is a xenophobic threat to America’s economy and our core ideals 美國司法部的中國倡議是對美國經濟和我們的核心理想的仇外威脅. by Judge Julie Tang in SF and John V. Walsh, MD in SF Jan. 22, 2022
Federal prosecutors accused MIT Professor Gang Chen of concealing his ties to China but now want to drop the charges against him.
Federal prosecutors accused MIT Professor Gang Chen of concealing his ties to China but now want to drop the charges against him.
Last week, prosecutors recommended that the U.S. Department of Justice drop charges against Gang Chen, an MIT professor accused of concealing his ties to China while seeking federal grant money. Chen was charged in January 2021 as part of the department’s “China Initiative,” a program launched during the Trump administration and presented as an effort to combat economic espionage and spying by China.
But far from keeping America safe, the China Initiative threatens our economy and our core ideals.
Since launching in 2018, the China Initiative has become a top priority for U.S. law enforcement and domestic counterintelligence. Yet, as a recent report from MIT Technology Review points out, details of the program are vague. The first country-specific program of its kind, the report explains that “the DOJ has not publicly defined the initiative or answered many basic questions about it.” And although the secrecy surrounding the program makes it difficult to assess, its negative effects over the past few years are very apparent.
Critics have long accused the program of racial profiling — and for good reason. According to the same MIT Technology Review report, nearly 90% of the known defendants charged under the initiative are of Chinese descent. Rep. Judy Chu called the China Initiative an “instrument for racial profiling.”
This kind of racial profiling feeds into a long history of anti-Asian and specifically anti-Chinese sentiment, going back to at least the late 19th century, and only serves to stoke the latest wave of violence and hatred against the Asian American and Pacific Islander community. According to survey by the organization Stop AAPI Hate, 1 in 5 Asian American and Pacific Islanders experienced a hate incident last year.
Although the initiative claims to focus on economic espionage, the MIT Technology Review report found that of the 77 cases they could identify as being under the China Initiative, only a quarter of them included charges of violating the Economic Espionage Act. Over the years, prosecutors have increasingly moved their attention to questions of “research integrity,” bringing charges against academics for failing to disclose all ties to China on grant-related forms rather than any intent to spy. As the prosecutor in the recent case against Harvard professor Charles Lieber explained, “The case is about false statements, false tax returns, and an unreported bank account in China.” But such disclosure obligations are a minefield for the unwary and busy scientist. Even the new director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Eric Lander, conceded this point, saying, “It’s very hard to figure out what you’re supposed to be disclosing. Agencies have different rules, and their definitions also vary.”
In other words, what is a bureaucratic nightmare for scientists is a gold mine for prosecutors with an agenda.
That prosecutors have not charged any scientists with espionage is not surprising in the academic community. As an open letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland from 177 Stanford University faculty members explained, the openness of scientific research in academia makes acts of espionage unlikely.
The negative effects of the China Initiative go far beyond the lives of the individuals charged. A recent survey of nearly 2,000 scientists at 83 research institutions found that the U.S. government’s search for spies among scientists has had a chilling effect, leading to about half of the scientists of Chinese descent surveyed feeling fear or anxiety about U.S. government surveillance, as opposed to just under 12% of non-Chinese scientists indicating similar concerns.
The culture of fear that the U.S. government has created among scientists is stifling innovation. The same survey found that many scientists, and disproportionately scientists of Chinese descent, are limiting their communication with collaborators in China and deciding not to involve China or work with collaborators in China in future projects. Moreover, 42% of non-U.S. citizen scientists of Chinese descent indicated that FBI investigations and/or the China Initiative have affected their plans to stay in the United States.
Much like other xenophobic initiatives initiated during the Trump administration, including the Muslim travel ban, the China Initiative is contributing to fewer international students and researchers wanting to come to the U.S.
The case brought against Lieber, who recently became the first scientist targeted by the initiative to be found guilty, marks a further step in the effort to deter all scientists from collaboration or association with China. That Lieber is neither Chinese nor of Chinese descent but was still convicted for failing to disclose research ties, sends a very clear message: Anyone conducting research in collaboration with researchers in China is suspect. FBI Director Christopher Wray, a strong advocate of the China Initiative, has spoken of a need for a “whole-of-society” approach to the China “threat,” encouraging other fields and industries to be suspicious of any connections in their workflow connected to the country.
To be sure, espionage against the U.S. is a genuine problem that needs to be addressed. But the China Initiative has veered from that task and done significant damage. If allowed to persist, the program will continue to threaten the fabric of our democracy as well as our ability to be a leader in innovation, ultimately affecting our economy.
The Justice Department says that one of the goals of the China Initiative is to “educate colleges and universities about potential threats to academic freedom.” Unfortunately, by instilling fear across academia, the China Initiative is that threat.
Julie Tang is a retired San Francisco Superior Court judge. Dr. John V. Walsh is a retired professor of physiology and neuroscience at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School.
About Opinion
.
Guest opinions in Open Forum and Insight are produced by writers with expertise, personal experience or original insights on a subject of interest to our readers. Their views do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Chronicle editorial board, which is committed to providing a diversity of ideas to our readership.
Written By Julie Tang and John V. Walsh
AngloSaxon’s Native Americans land grabs with aggressive population reduction program from 10 millions to 300,000 by 1900. With that kind of record still want to talk about human rights and Xinjiang? 歐洲白人對美洲原住民通過激進的人口減少計劃從1000萬減少到30萬, 美國有這樣的記錄還想談論新疆嗎?
In the Jan. 19 OPEN FORUM, Mr. Beydoun condemned American firms for conducting business in Xinjiang despite China’s “genocide” against the Uyghurs. This “genocide” is a fabrication.
Mr. Beydoun cited reports of up to 2 million Muslims in China’s detention camps. Typically such eye popping numbers are arrived at by extrapolating from a small number of incidences provided by unreliable witnesses, or based on misleading interpretations of coarse satellite images.
If captured with today’s advanced satellite imaging technology, it should be easy to capture in fine detail the Xinjiang detention camps for housing 2 million detainees, which is about three times San Francisco’s population. Yet such satellite images are nowhere to be found.
Xinjiang has loose, open borders with 8 countries, 5 of which are Muslim Majority. If there were mass oppression of Muslims, why is there no evidence of mass flight/exodus or refugees?
More than 158 million tourists visited Xinjiang in 2020 and no one reported any sign of genocide or mass internment camps. Uyghur population has grown from 3.61 million in 1953 to 11.62 million in 2020. This shows a rapidly growing Uyghur community, not a genocide.
Video: Nazi drove top Jewish scientists overseas, US is driving top Chinese scientists away. The US DOJ Dropped the Case Against Chinese American Prof. Chen Gang from MIT 納粹把頂尖的猶太科學家趕到海外，美國正在要把頂尖的中國科學家趕走。 美國司法部撤銷對麻省理工學院華裔教授陳鋼的起訴.
https://vimeo.com/668947453
https://www.facebook.com/100036400039778/posts/643560853533910/?d=n
Chen Gang is neither the first nor the last to be wrong by the racially motivated witch hunting “China Initiative”, and behind each Chinese student and Scholar, there are a pair of eyes watching. 陳鋼不是第一個，也不會是最後一個被種族主義獵巫的“中國倡議”搞錯的，每個中國學生和學者的背後，都有一雙眼睛在註視著, 找機會弄到你雞毛鴨血.
Johnson Choi Biz