The Annals of Hard Despotism

Withering on the Vine

We use the term “soft-despotism” to refer to the smothering embrace of the Western nanny state, driven by the demands of perverted consciences, riven by pseudo-guilt and self-righteous pity.  The alternative to soft-despotism is hard-despotism.  China is a nation with a hard-despotic system.  China is attempting to change, we are told, and we are sure there is truth in it.  But the social consequences of decades of hard despotism will take generations to work through and out.

Many of those consequences arise out of China’s hard despotic attempt to control its population growth–something which the current leaders are now starting deeply to regret we suspect.  It is a startling lesson in what happens when a culture institutionalises and enforces atheistic rebellion against the Living God.  The curses of God’s covenant fall–and they are exacting, hard, and remorseless.  Deep remorse, turning away from Unbelief, returning to the Creator and Redeemer and walking along a new road, His road, are the only ways of genuine escape.  Traditional Chinese pragmatism will not suffice.  The societal damage is too severe.

A recent article in the Telegraph succinctly presents just some aspects of the burgeoning social dislocation and economic disruption facing China as a result of the One-Child Policy.

Some economists fear the double-digit growth China has enjoyed for the past decade may rapidly unwind – and the one child policy is to blame. The 1979 policy was introduced to curb China’s booming population, with families heavily fined for breaching strict birth control limits.

The policy has left China short of 50m women…

A preference for boys – not least because they can earn more to support their parents – means endemic illegal sex-selective abortions and the abandonment of baby girls. The sex ratio is estimated at 120 boys for every 100 girls, far above the global average and leaving the country with 50m fewer women than men.

…a generation of ‘little emperors’…

The one-child cohort became known as the ‘spoilt generation’. Scientists claim it has fundamentally changed the psychology of a generation, leaving them less altruistic, trusting and competitive. And all that pampering has left China with one of the fastest growing rates of childhood obesity.

…and a booming lonely hearts industry. 

Competition for brides is fierce, particularly in the countryside. Love hunters – agents who find brides for China’s army of wealthy but lonely young bachelors – are big business, as is internet dating.

Now it’s inflating China’s housing market

Many mothers will only accept a son-in-law who can provide a spacious home. Economists reckon competition for large homes is driving China’s rampant property boom. A small two-bedroom Beijing flat now costs the average of 32-years’ salary, or $330,000 dollars. China’s property moguls are uneasy – and fear the boom has become a bubble at risk of bursting.  

Researchers Zhang and Wei reckon between 30 and 48 per cent in the rise in house prices between 2003 and 2009 was down to gender imbalances, with strong correlations between sex ratios in different towns and house price increases.

Meanwhile, the army of grandparents is growing… 

The Mao generation of big families is hitting retirement, and the birth rate has been below replacement level since the mid-1990s. China is rapidly ageing, and by 2050 a third of the population will be over 60. By then there will be just two workers to support every elderly person.

 The result: the world’s biggest care homes, and the rise of 4-2-1 families: four frail grandparents, two parents and one grandchild to support them all.

China’s stonking growth has been built on cheap exports and plentiful industrial labour, as tens of millions of people were willing to move to the cities and work long hours for low wages.  But the country is approaching what is known as the Lewis Turning Point – where the glut of cheap labour dries up, and businesses have to invest in expensive technology to keep expanding.

…and that will hit everyone.

Policy makers are alarmed. The one child policy is leaving the economy short of 140m workers. That will drive up wages, hit profits and push away investment. Citigroup economists warn it could cut 3 per cent off China’s GDP – a slowdown that would be felt around the world.

And many countries in Africa and Latin America have got stuck at a relatively low level of development after a spate of rapid growth after failing to make it over the Turning Point. That fate could befall China – dashing its hopes of becoming a superpower.

What is the Lewis turning point?
It is based on a development model created by Nobel prize winning economist Arthur Lewis, who looked at the dual aspect of a developing economy.

The first is represented by its agricultural sector, which engages a major part of the labour force, and the second by the modern market-oriented sector, which is primarily engaged in industrial production.  The growth of the economy is driven by the modern sector with the support of unlimited supplies of labour, which is mainly drawn from the agricultural sector. This migrant labour force accepts low wages corresponding to the living standards prevalent in farming.

The modern sector (also called the capitalist sector) is able to reap profits and—helped by low labour costs—generate savings. The growing savings finance the capital formation for expansion.  However, a point is reached when no more labour is forthcoming from the underdeveloped, or agricultural, sector and wages begin to rise. This is known as the Lewis turning point. [http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/news/32942096_1_labour-agricultural-sector-china]

 
 

Not so Fast

Tweaks to China’s One-Child Monstrosity

The Chinese government announced some changes to their one-child policy and to labour camps.  Everyone in the West was excited–well, sort of.  Things might be looking up.  Firstly, the changes to the one-child policy.

Far from sweeping away all family planning rules, the party is now providing a new, limited exemption: It said families in which at least one parent was an only child would be allowed to have a second child. Previously, both parents had to be an only child to qualify for this exemption. Rural couples also are allowed two children if their first-born child is a girl, an exemption allowed in 1984 as part of the last substantive changes to the policy. [NZ Herald]

The Herald article is right on the nose.  This represents just a minor tweak to an horrendous policy.  Wendy Wright reports how the Chinese government itself quickly rushed to qualify and downplay the change.

Today – one day after the announcement – Chinese officials quickly downplayed the tweak, saying changing the one-child policy would be too disruptive.  “The basic policy of family planning will need to be upheld over the long term and we cannot rest up on this,” Wang Peian posted on China’s health ministry website.

So, the policy change is a technical tweak, leaving in place the harsh penalties for those who breach the rules.

Population Research Institute has conducted illuminating investigations in China. Note this report that the second-child restriction is more broad than the new policy change addresses:

2. Those who meet the requirements for having a second child, but fail to meet the required waiting period (between births) and where the woman has not yet reached the age of 28 years of age when giving birth, both parties involved will be individually assessed a “social compensation fee” based on an unit calculated from a year’s salary for urban dwellers and based on a year’s income after expenses for rural dwellers. For each year early (that they have given birth) they will be assessed a CSRC Fee equal to 25% of their annual salary or income. A partial year shall be calculated as if it is a full year.

In the ancient Roman Empire, tax gatherers were hated by local populations because they were allowed to cream off all sorts of financial benefits for themselves, as long as the Roman levies were paid to the state.  But, behind these corrupt tax officials stood the full weight of imperial oppression.  In other words, the tax collectors could steal and the Imperial authorities would support them.  In a similar way, the local Chinese “birth officials” benefit from levying the state’s penalty taxes.

Wang would not say when the new policy would begin, and each province will decide. Since the enforcers in each province benefit from the one-child policy, financially and with the ability to exert brute power over others, there is little hope that this change is not mere words to ease international embarrassment.

We’ll know China makes a serious change when the government abolishes all fines for any pregnancies/births and harshly punishes kidnapping/baby selling. This would dry up billions of dollars in incentives for the enforcers. (In just 19 provinces, some in the poorest parts of the country, an estimated $2.7 billion was collected in fines.)  Along with that, eliminating all punishments/penalties for any child, and discarding the family planning regime, which is so rife with corruption and abuse it cannot be redeemed.

The abolition of labour camps might be more promising, insofar as it will limit the oppressive activities of local government officials, who, hitherto could toss anyone they liked into a labour camp for up to four years without trial.  

The party also announced it would abolish a labour camp system that allowed police to lock up government critics and other defendants for up to four years without trial. It confirmed a development that had been reportedly announced by the country’s top law enforcement official earlier this year but was later retracted.  Also known as “re-education through labour,” the system was established to punish early critics of the Communist Party but has been used by local officials to deal with people challenging their authority on issues including land rights and corruption.

Pu Zhiqiang, a prominent Beijing lawyer who has represented several former labour camp detainees in seeking compensation, welcomed the abolition of the extra-legal system.

“There have been many methods used recently by this government that are against the rule of law, and do not respect human rights, or freedom of speech,” Pu said. “But by abolishing the labour camps … it makes it much harder for the police to put these people they clamp down on into labour camps.”

We will see how that goes.