Professor Ling-chi Wang of UC Berkeley: Hi, Julie: Johnson is right. So is John. The worst is yet to come. If the DOJ were to apply the same criteria it used on Sing Tao, the World Journal (世界日报) should likewise receive the same treatment because it is a propaganda mouthpiece for the Taiwan government since the DPP seized control of the government. I believe the Chinese Press (桥报), the third Chinese-language newspaper in the U.S.,has long been subjected to the same treatment Sing Tao now gets from the U.S. government.
In the early 1950s, Chung Sai (中西日报), was forced to close because its new owner was suspected of being pro-PRC. The Gold Gate Daily (金门日报), an openly pro-PRC paper, printed in red rather than black ink, was shut down within weeks. The most celebrated case was the China Daily News (华侨日报), owned by members of the Chinese Hand Laundry Association (CHLA), a business organization made up of owners of hundreds of Chinese hand laundrymen across New York City. The paper celebrated the founding of the PRC and reported news of New China. The paper steadfastly resisted government repression and continued publication until the 1990s. Both the publisher and editor were prosecuted and convicted by some ridiculous charges, too complicated to explain in this email. They both served time. Subscribers of the paper across the U.S. were investigated investigated and intimidated by the FBI and newspaper stands in Chinatowns refused to carry the paper. By 1960s, the paper, operated on shoe-strings, was was able to print only twice a week and in two sheets and had only about 200 die-hard supporters.
Since Sing Tao also runs a Chinese-language radio programs, I am sure the license-holder of the radio station will be pressured to drop its Chinese programming or face the revocation of its FCC license. I would not be surprised if the staff are already subject to HLS and IRS investigations, a standard government tool of harassment and intimidation.
The 90,000 foreign agents, foreign governments collaborators and Western moon lover left HK has created opportunities for patriotic expats to return. 90,000名外國代理人、外國政府合作者和西方月亮崇拜者離開香港為愛國香港國外居民創造了返回的機會.
US Vice-President Kamala Harris selling China containment to Vietnam during the visit said Vietnam can trust US, failed to mention US got defeated badly in Afghanistan, abandoned US allies and friends, left in a hurry. She also failed to mention chemical warfare (Agent Orange) being used during the Vietnam War left millions of Vietnamese disabled still living in pain today. 美國副總統卡瑪拉·哈里斯訪問期間向越南兜售中國遏制政策，稱越南可以信任美國，卻沒有提到美國在阿富汗慘敗，拋棄美國盟友和朋友，匆匆離去。 在越南戰爭期間，她也沒有提到化學戰導致數百萬越南人今天仍然生活在痛苦中. World Journal Newspaper San Francisco on August 25 2021 美國加州舊金山世界日報.
A slap at US face before it’s VP visit selling China containment – Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh told China his country would not enter an alliance to confront Beijing, before he met US Vice-President Kamala Harris on Wednesday. 在副總統訪問中國之前，給美國一記耳光 – 越南總理在周三會見美國副總統卡馬拉哈里斯之前告訴中國，他的國家不會結盟對抗北京.
China Peaceful Unification Western America USA change of Officers and Directors attended by Chinese Consul General in San Francisco – Singtao Newspaper San Francisco – August 23 2021
In the 60-70s how sex predators in HK using goldfish as bates to lure young girls to have sex. In the 21st century, US adopted HK goldfish sex predators tactics luring countries. We are afraid these countries will ends up like the young girls in HK. Look at what has happened to Afghanistan! 在 60-70 年代，香港的性掠奪者如何引誘年輕女孩發生性行為. 21世紀, 美國採用香港金魚性掠奪者策略引誘各國. 我們擔心這些國家最終會像香港的年輕女孩一樣. 看看阿富汗發生了什麼 – 就像那些可憐的香港無知少女一樣!
Let me share with you the inquiry by a rich Chinese friend considering to send her daughter to attend Stanford University or UC Berkeley and the suggestions I have just provided to him.
Stanford University has very little chance of entering the school by relationship, and it depends on student academic standing and other non-academic requirements. Some people have already been sentenced to jail for using illegal relationship and bribery. Another possibility is donation, but Stanford has too much money, unless it is a donation of ten millions or more, otherwise you don’t have to think about it. I have a lot of China Friends’ children enter prestigious schools but do some useless undergraduate studies. Of course, if they are a rich second-generation, that degree is just for showing off. Many of these people come to the United States to take illegal drugs every day, make boyfriend and girlfriend and parties, etc. They don’t even graduate for ten years. These professional students never graduate and don’t want to return to China.
UC Berkeley is a state university, so there is little chance of going through the back door.
Today the United States is so anti-Asians especially Chinese, the risk of living dangerously in the United States is high.
U.S. is rapidly going downhill. In case your daughter settles in the U.S., if you don’t worry about your daughter, but you need to worry about the future of your grandkids, there is little future for them!
Today the United States has not been the United States twenty years ago. It only looks strong from the outside. When the US dollar is no longer the world currency, it is the beginning of the steep decline of the United States like the Roman Empire. It will happen in 15 years at the earliest and 30 years at the latest. By then, your daughter will be 48 years old. She will be stuck. There will be no way for her to return to China.
You have to think twice, think twice.
Professor Ling-chi Wang of UC Berkeley: Hi, Johnson: Since some of the newly rich and inexperienced celebrities got caught trying to buy or game their ways into the better universities and colleges a few years ago, universities, both private and public, are more cautious and discreet in the ways they admit students from the rich, famous, and powerful families. Since Harvard, the very first college in North America, was founded in 1636. the game has always been and will continue to be in favor of the rich, famous, and powerful because that was how the system was built: to clone and reproduce themselves. To be sure, they will continue to admit outstanding students who will make important scientific discoveries and outstanding intellectual breakthroughs and help gain reputation for these institutions. But, these will be exceptions. The vast majority of students will continue to be the privileged ones from the rich, famous, and the powerful.
Aboishing the SAT tests will neither help achieve greater equality nor select “better qualified” students. For more than one hundred years, contrary to popular beliefs SAT tests were not used to help select better qualified applicants. Instead, they were used to turn away students from the poor and the working class and students deemed incapable of making contributions to the institutions. Universities know SAT tests are race and class bias and above all, they don’t help pick the best students. But, they are the most expedient and efficient schemes to justify rejection of thousands of students each year.
The admission scandals in the last few years exposed the corruption and unfairness in the meritocracy used by universities and colleges. It was embarrassing, but they did nothing to move the universities away from the use of biased criteria and procedures of admission to reproduce themselves. For example, legacy and athletic, the two larges cohorts admitted in the freshman class each year, remain unchanged and may even be expanding because both are important for generating revenues for the universities.
In short, don’t expect Stanford and Berkeley to rollback their commitment to these two revenue-generating schemes and the class and race bias built into these two programs.
Frank Mah in San Francisco: Hi, Johnson, Ling-chi, If the child of your friend has an interest to attend Stanford or Cal Berkeley, he or she should apply. Both universities are outstanding and can offer a quality education that few other universities can match. I had the opportunity to work for both universities and learned to compare the educational philosophy of both schools. Stanford is a top-down university with a strong administration. UC Berkeley is a relatively flat university with strong academic departments; their students are ultra competitive and keen to compete with their peers. Stanford views that getting a top quality education is only half of its objective. The other half is its residential education program, Stanford students tend to be more collegial, seeking to form friendships globally for life. Important to note that these are generalizations, as there are exceptions.
Currently AAPI students make up 34% of Berkeley’s student body. Around 27% for Stanford. The former is a more hostile campus due to the competitiveness of its students. Both universities seek to diversity its student body. Both seek to integrate its campuses, matching students base on what they can contribute to campus life. Less then 15% of Stanford’s student body can be deemed geniuses, but over 95% must meet high standards for admission. Donors and legacies, i.e., children of alumni, staff employees, and billionaires can make up 15-20% of its student body. Other factors include geographic location, i.e., urban vs rural; domestic vs foreign. These factors offers to make a rich environment for its students. More significantly, it’s the students aptitude to complete four years of high quality study in their respective field, which is what academics is all about. If a student wants to party, they should consider another school. It is a factor for Stanford to seek students from potential donors and rich families abroad. It’s also is a factor for them to consider legacies of important leaders, personalities, etc. to enrich the student campus experience. Imagine a poor farm boy/girl from Iowa hobnobbing with Madonna’s child, or a billionaires child from Burma. Of course, most people, for one reason or another, will consider this unfair. In the past, test scores and GPA were found to be reliable due to race, family income, and education; this has now been eliminated or reduced in weighing a student’s application compared to other significant factors, such as skills, accomplishments, leadership, diversity etc.
Chances are that your friend’s child will not make it into either school due to the vast number off applications it receives. I often will counsel family and friends on the admissions process and also help steer them to also seek alternatives that may better fit the academic objectives/aspirations of the student. Sometimes a local community college is a better fit for a student with low grades or lacking vision of his or her aspirations. Sometimes a school like Cal Tech or may offer a better choice for those who are research oriented in a particular field. It’s a little known fact that only half of college students complete their course of study w/o graduating. When I was matriculating at San Jose State University, I also had the opportunity to be an EOP (Educational Opportunity Program) Recruiter seeking educationally & economically disadvantaged students for college study.
Johnson Choi: Why did Ronnie Chan gave almost US$400 millions to US Universities when made his money in Hong Kong and China? 蔡永強: 陳啟宗在香港和中國賺大錢，為什麼要捐近4億美元給美國大學？
Professor Ling-chi Wang of UC Berkeley: Hi, Johnson, Most wealthy Chinese make spectacular donations universities to achieve national or international visibility and/or personal glory and immortality. Unfortunately, very few donate for altruistic reasons. Even fewer make strategic donations toward specific intellectual or political purposes. 加州大學伯克利分校的王靈智教授：嗨, 蔡永強, 大多數富有的中國人都會向大學捐款，以實現國內或國際知名度和/或個人榮耀和不朽。 不幸的是，很少有人出於利他的原因捐款。 為特定的知識或政治目的做出戰略性捐贈的就更少了。
If you take a look at how wealthy Jewish donors in the past made their donations at a time when there was willful, pervasive anti-Semitism, you will find many of them made very strategic donations specifically for the advancement of better knowledge and understanding of Jewish people, their history and culture, meaning, use of their money to combat prejudice and ignorance. For example, the Ivy League universities were notoriously anti-Semitic. They were the ones that invented “Jewish Quota” and refused to admit qualified and superior students of Jewish origin. What did the wealthyJewish donors do? They donated money to these same universities for the Jewish studies to promote the production, proliferation, and appreciation of Jewish knowledge and understanding. They also established endowments for the appointments for great Jewish scholars in all fields. This way, knowledge and appreciation of Jewish intellectual achievements spread across the nation and throughout the world. Guess what? Slowly but surely, Jewish history, language, culture, religion, philosophy, etc., permeated the Western civilization, the curricula of great universities, and the teaching and research. Jewish quota was finally abolished in the mid-1950s. That was how important aspects of my old field of study, Semitic language and literature, flourished and got well entrenched among all the research universities throughout the world and how media became more sensitive about anti-Semitism.
In spite of China’s fame and claim as one of the greatest languages, cultures, religions, and philosophies of the world, China remains, to this date, the least understood and most feared. For centuries, Chinese studies was called Sinology, relegated to something rather exotic and mysterious, reserved only for very few willing to spend their lives to such an intellectual exotica. For those who don’t even know the world Sinology, the field was known as Oriental studies, also an exclusive exotica. Orientals were regarded popularly as a subhuman species. (Lt. Calley’s defense characterized the My Lai deaths from the massacre as “mere Oriental).” Sinology was devoted exclusively to the study of ancient, not current Chinese language, literature, religion, and philosophy. There was little or no interest in the study of real and living Chinese history, society, spoken languages, folk arts and cultures, politics, etc. Such study did not enter university research and curricula, if you can believe it, until the Cold War, better known as the International and Area Studies (IAS), driven mostly by the needs of the Cold Warriors, Western governments, intelligence, and corporations, whose primary interests were the East-West ideological and political conflicts and better military and economic domination of areas vital to the interests of the West or the Empire.
That is why to this date, China remains relatively unknown or worse, misunderstood, suspected, and feared. This is not an accident in history: it is done on purpose to enhance the interests of the Empire.
Johnson, in answer to your question, What is wrong with billionaires, like Ronnie C. Chan, who has been giving hundreds of millions to wealthy Euro-American universities, by donating money to the same universities with the same biased objectives of keeping the West ignorant and misled, these Chinese donors are perpetuating the same prejudice against and ignorance about China and its people. This is willful ignorance and stupidity. It is complicity of the worst kind. They need to donate money to advance true knowledge and understanding of China, its people and culture.
Universities in China and India are the leading feeder universities for the research universities in the U.S. Between the two, China is the most important feeder of graduate students in science and technology. I think many top American universities consider Beijing University and Qinghua Universities to be the top feeder universities for the best universities in the U.S. They are like community colleges transferring annually the better students to four-year colleges and universities.
As you said, many top students do not return to China upon completion of their graduate training. Chinese government considers this to be a serious brain-drain, depriving China the benefits of its best and brightest. I personally do not think so for several reasons. First and foremost, China has an abundance of bright and well-trained brains. That supply of bright and well-training students has been increasing quite sharply since Deng Xiaoping’s reform and opening up because of China’s massive investment in colleges and universities. That increase, in fact, reminds me of the massive post-war investment and expansion of higher education in the U.S., not just at the top, but also at the bottom, the feeder, community college level. Within California, for example, the UC system, the premiere research institution, had five campuses in 1960. By the end of the decade, UC had nine campuses, adding, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz, and Riverside. It was not until 2005 that a 10th campus – UC Merced – was added. In fact, the U.S. has been divesting in higher education since the 1980s. Between 1970 and 2005, UC system added only one campus, Merced, even though the California population doubled its population. The fight over affirmative action policy is a reflection of the divestment and the ensuing competition for admission. In the same period, China vastly expanded its high education and the trends has not led up. China, as you all know, has about 370,000 students studying in U.S. coll eges and universities.
Secondly, China sees education abroad as an investment in human resources. Since Europe and North America have the most developed systems of higher education and their systems excel in science and technology, China, for the time being, still sees benefits for its students in getting the kind of education China lacks at the present. In spite of brain-drain, I do not see the government interfering with the tread toward education abroad. China may talk about brain-drain, it also see benefits in the long run, at least for the time being. I do see China expanding is research and development. This, in the long run, will attract more and more its students to return to China upon completion of their education in Europe and N. America. In fact, as the conflict between China and U.S. intensify and anti-Chinese sentiment rises, more an more Chinese students will see better opportunity and support in China rather than the U.S. I think this trend is inevitable and it will be a loss to the U.S. in the competition for the best and the brightest and its competition with China.
Johnson Choi Biz 