Zenme Ban?

November 1, 2005 11:34 PM

David Ji, a Chinese-American electronics entrepreneur, spent two months in custody enduring all-night interrogation sessions, but his stubbornness and occasional flashes of sarcasm infuriated his Chinese captors...guards emptied his pockets, removed his shoes and socks, and ripped the buttons off his oxford shirt. He was ushered disheveled and barefoot into the office of Zhao Yong, the chief executive of Sichuan Changhong Electric, Mr. Ji's onetime business partner and, more recently, his warden.
posted by taschenrechner (34 comments total)

Interesting read on a situation that hopefully gets rectified properly.
posted by Dean Keaton at 12:43 AM on November 2, 2005

Holy crap. A dark, sordid and global tale behind the $40 DVD player that sits out in the living room this very moment.

Apex makes (made?) some nice, affordable gear. I've been frequently surprised at the features that little box has. I've often thought "Damn, I wish Apex made laptops. They'd be like $150 bucks and have twice the features of any laptop out there, they'd run forever, and never crash."

But, eh, now I know a little about why they were so cheap, and how, and I don't really wish that anymore. I feel bad, actually. And even more resolved to never set foot in a Wal-Mart ever again, despite how infrequent that already was.
posted by loquacious at 1:06 AM on November 2, 2005

"Them's as read newspapers..."

Funny. I always thought this type of thing should be happening here.
posted by dsword at 1:41 AM on November 2, 2005

What kind of country holds people for over a year without charges?
posted by srboisvert at 2:09 AM on November 2, 2005

What kind of country holds people for over a year without charges?

Indeed, what a crazy world we live in. Thank God freedom is spreading, it would never have happened in a democracy ;-)
posted by twistedonion at 2:38 AM on November 2, 2005

"come play with us"

Maybe I'll apply. Sounds like a fun, crazy place to work.
posted by twistedonion at 2:42 AM on November 2, 2005

What kind of country holds people for over a year without charges?
America
posted by adamvasco at 5:08 AM on November 2, 2005

Hey, someone had a humourectomy! Get that man a sarcasm detector, stat.
posted by wilberforce at 5:40 AM on November 2, 2005

Well since it has been pointed out now, lets not care about what will happen to this guy.
posted by Dean Keaton at 6:05 AM on November 2, 2005

That's frigging terrifying. China is set to become one of the worst capitalist dystopias one could possibly imagine -- I'd really prefer they NOT dominate the global economy, thank you very much.

The saddest bit is the number of conservatives who seem to think that the free market will somehow engender political liberation in China, or that the horrendous corruption and ties between the government and business will somehow create a hard limit for how far the economy can grow. Guess what -- there's no way the Chinese government will EVER allow anything resembling a free market to touch their country, and when you've got 1 billion people who are perfectly happy to remain servile in return for a shot at the brass ring of the middle class, the sky's the limit.

Anyone remember Tiananmen? We think of it as a glorious stand against tyranny. Your average Chinese person thinks of it as an object lesson in what happens to troublemakers, regardless of whether or not they sympathize.
posted by xthlc at 6:20 AM on November 2, 2005

(Sorry, that was directed at adamvasco, who seemed to miss srboisvert's point. I think what's happening to David Ji is terrible.)
posted by wilberforce at 6:39 AM on November 2, 2005

What, besides disorganized lifestyle boycotting, can be done to STOP China from dominating?
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:42 AM on November 2, 2005

Social freedom has nothing to do with economic freedom. For instance, you could adhere to every single capitalist rule and still practice slavery.
posted by j-urb at 6:51 AM on November 2, 2005

What, besides disorganized lifestyle boycotting, can be done to STOP China from dominating?

Nothing.

Oh, and what is disorganized lifestyle boycotting? If you are talking about Joe bloggs down the road not buying Chinese... that ain't going to work. It's a free market, baby! Bed is made, now go lie down.
posted by twistedonion at 6:53 AM on November 2, 2005

For instance, you could adhere to every single capitalist rule and still practice slavery.

It could be argued that if you adhere to every capitalist rule you do indeed practice slavery. Take a look at what Nike etc get away with in the developing world.
posted by twistedonion at 6:55 AM on November 2, 2005

I'd really prefer they NOT dominate the global economy, thank you very much.

There are millions of dead people who would say the same about the U.S., except they can't, because they're dead, because we killed them.
posted by dsword at 6:59 AM on November 2, 2005

Eh, my dad worked for Nike for a while as a production manager. At first I was appalled at the mere thought, but my dad is pretty much a life-long surfer and dirt-hippy. I've seen pictures of the plants he worked with overseas, and they were so clean you could literally eat off of the floors.

The local workers by all accounts were pounding at the door trying to get in, not out.

Granted, there's a huge disparity between what Nike would charge you for a pair of shoes or a sweatshirt here in the United States and what they'd pay the local workers, but what they did pay the local workers was often orders of magnitude or multiples greater than any other local employer - along with the training, education and social services (like day care) that Nike offered.

Nike as the readily-available "evil sweatshop owner/operator" is often overblown and/or erroneous. You'd be better off looking at the Disney Co. and the swill they sell in their parks and stores.

This is, of course, anecdotal. And doesn't even begin to address the problem of globalization of economies versus localized economies. Or the problems of capitalism in general. But there's far, far worse companies out there, like Dow. ExxonMobile. Nestle'. Coca Cola. Halliburton. Etc.
posted by loquacious at 7:09 AM on November 2, 2005

This seems like a not uncommon way of doing business in China - essentially hold capital, managers, land, contracts, etc. hostage until the partner (generally backed by the state) gets their way.

There's a great book I would encourage anyone to read before trying to tackle China as an emerging market: Mr. China. The book is full of similair tales as the Forbes piece.
posted by photoslob at 7:19 AM on November 2, 2005

loquacious: Nike pledged to have 'humane' working conditions in all their factories by a certan date several years ago, and I suppose they may have followed through on their promise. Still, the fact that they had to make the pledge in the first place (and give themselves a 2 or 3 month window to do it) means they'll never get any of my money.
posted by delmoi at 7:21 AM on November 2, 2005

China holds prisoners for more that a year without trial. So does America. ( I will try not to upset sensibilities by typing Amerika). Neither is commendable or good democratic practise. China is not a democracy; but it is extemely important to US Capitalism and its low wage labor force is now taking employment from other third world countries.
loquacious rightly points out that many (though not all) of the "evil" overseas manufactures are actually good employers.
China has a history of abusive labor practices which is being covertly, even actively encouraged by first world demand for low cost quasi-essentials and all the tat which equals souvenirs and momentos - pile it high - sell it cheap. Quality is a commodity going out of style.
And yes, I will stick it to you if the gap is wide enough.
posted by adamvasco at 7:34 AM on November 2, 2005

...the free market will somehow engender political liberation in China...

unfortunately it's much more likely that "the China model" of political/social control is going to be exported along with their economic success... brutal corporate dictatorships 'r' us...
posted by dinsdale at 7:39 AM on November 2, 2005

I don't think David Ji is entirely innocent here. I've never heard of a Chinese business practice of writing checks and holding them until later. Perhaps at best he was misinformed about the supplier's intentions and thought only the best would happen.

That said, this level of abuse for fraud is unacceptable anywhere. This is the unfortunate consequence of state-owned enterprises, when capitalism and commnism meet. The Chinese desperately need to redo their court system before they can be taken seriously as an economic threat. Beyond manufacturing cheap goods, what company wants to send their product lines to a country with such a crappy court system? Color me optimistic but with China's entrance into the WTO I have a feeling they'll be forced to adopt modern courts sooner rather than later.
posted by geoff. at 7:51 AM on November 2, 2005

Nike pledged to have 'humane' working conditions in all their factories by a certan date several years ago, and I suppose they may have followed through on their promise. Still, the fact that they had to make the pledge in the first place (and give themselves a 2 or 3 month window to do it) means they'll never get any of my money.

So what you are saying is that a company shouldn't even bother to try and improve on these issues because the boycotting types, such as yourself, simply cannot be pleased. Is that really the message you want to send?
posted by srboisvert at 8:04 AM on November 2, 2005

So what you are saying is that a company shouldn't even bother to try and improve on these issues because the boycotting types, such as yourself, simply cannot be pleased. Is that really the message you want to send?

I don't care what message it sends, I'm not buying their shit.
posted by delmoi at 8:11 AM on November 2, 2005

I saw this yesterday in the NYT and kept thinking "where is the US government on this?" I guess the guy supported Kerry instead of Bush.
posted by caddis at 8:13 AM on November 2, 2005

adamdevasco - i hate to rain on your sorry euro ass, but in spain you can legally wait 2 years before being brought to trial - 4 years with extension from a judge.
posted by andrew cooke at 9:11 AM on November 2, 2005

Thank you for ?participating? in the conversation, delmoi. Sheesh.

Note to self -- Chinese goods are so cheap because the Chinese Govt subsidizes the manufacture costs. So that's how!
posted by cavalier at 11:18 AM on November 2, 2005

Thank you for ?participating? in the conversation, delmoi. Sheesh.

Huh? Someone asked me a direct question and I answered.
posted by delmoi at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2005

Re: adamdevasco - i hate to rain on your sorry euro ass, but in spain you can legally wait 2 years before being brought to trial - 4 years with extension from a judge. Nice to know they are getting better.
I believe a suspect has to be brought before a judge first though. I don't have a vote in Spain, not being a spanish national. Sorry if this jars with your preconceived ideas andrew von cooke.
posted by adamvasco at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2005

Huh? Someone asked me a direct question and I answered.

[derail] Alright, I'm sorry, maybe I should have phrased it better --

If I wanted to stay snarky I could say --
"Thank you for contributing to the dialog in a constructive manner that will help further the ideals and causes your statement seems to support."

But let me try another way --

My issue with your response was it was classic rah rah nihilistopinkoanarchy who gives a fuck corporation bad arrrr!

It was brought up that this isn't necessarily an attitude that would be conducive towards being part of the conversation -- i.e., the greater conversation of Nike & Cosumer/Potential Consumer. In effect you are covering your ears and going 'LA LA LA Corporation bad LA LA LA' -- so when you were asked rhetorically if that was the message you wanted to send -- ie you were asked "Hey, that isn't really constructive towards anything, is it? you responded with "LA LA LA Corporation bad".

That was my point. You're not exactly adding anything meaningful or even participating in the process, you're just standing up and saying I'm Cool and Nike is Not. I'm sorry I was not more clear.
posted by cavalier at 12:10 PM on November 2, 2005

When was the last successful boycott? Also, it is any surprise that so many more people jump to respond passively to things like this...?
posted by setanor at 1:28 PM on November 2, 2005

Cavalier, I'd disagree with you on your anti-hippy rant there. As a consumer, it is perfectly fine to say Nike was evil before, and no reform will ever convince me to support them again. By taking your money to a company that never was evil in the first place, you avoid any reward to one who did knowingly do 'evil', Nike. Nike is NOT the entire shoemaking market.
posted by nomisxid at 4:34 PM on November 2, 2005

Well I think that sort of makes the point -- though, that in effect it's anti-anti-hippy rant, because the idea there says that there's no way for Nike ever to redeem itself. No matter what efforts they make they will always be evil. Doesn't that break the circle? And in the larger sense that circle is the conversation/participation.
posted by cavalier at 7:43 AM on November 3, 2005

I think there's so many reasons to think Nike is both good *and* evil that we'll never sort it out.

(I, for instance, play soccer on a field made out of recycled Nike shoes. The field was donated to the University that it's at by Nike, since they can't resell the post-consumer shoes -- at the same time, they don't want them to end up in landfills. So they made something out of them, and gave it away for free. That's pretty fuckin' cool. And the fact that they DID change their labor practices when people did say they needed to change. At first they were just doing what everyone else was doing, then they were the first to go, "You know, yeah, that ain't right. Let's fix it." That's progress. And there's a lot of stories like that. Nike is a pretty cool company that does good shit. I think if you look into any other company, you'll find lots of skeletons in the closet -- Nike is one of the companies that actually accepted responsibility and did something proactive about their skeletons.

OTOH, they create a product that they charge $200 for and market it to people who don't have $200 to spend on it so intensely that they'll do anything to have the $200 product. That kinda sucks.)
posted by SpecialK at 2:30 PM on November 3, 2005