What’s happening to China’s trade surplus?

Published January 11, 2010 China Hating , Economics , Foreign Affairs Leave a Comment
Tags: , ,

With media focusing primarily on China surpassing Germany as the world’s largest exporter, the real news in recent trade data is China’s soaring appetite for imports, which saw 59% growth in 2009. Expanding consumer demand and government-driven investment programs have revitalized international commodity markets and given some credence to the idea that China could drive the world out the global recession in 2010.

And here is where it gets interesting. China’s trade surplus last year plummeted 34% to US$196 billion, less than 9% of the country’s total trade value of US$2.2 trillion. In addition, Merrill Lynch predicts that the trade surplus will fall another 19% in 2010, to US$160 billion, on surging domestic demand and a 16% rise in imports.

Wait – I’m confused. Does this mean that the undervalued Yuan is suddenly a good thing? And will US politicians still complain about China’s currency practices if China runs an account deficit in 2011?

Let he who is without debt cast the first stone…

GM Criticized for Success in China

Published January 5, 2010 China Hating , Economics , Foreign Affairs 1 Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

I could not have scripted more appropriate news than this as a follow-up to my last post on senseless protectionism. GM announced Monday that its sales in China surged 67% in 2009, as revenues in the US continue to decline. Based on the graph pictured right, and the fact that only 35 out of every 1,000 Chinese people own vehicles, it seems probable that China will surpass the US as the company’s largest market within a few years. Not to mention, GM apparently has a fair share of the mianbaoche (bread-loaf-shaped van) market, which I can assure you is substantial. By all accounts this should be good news for the ailing Detroit giant and its principle investor — US taxpayers. Apparently not everyone agrees…

Because the U.S. government invested $50 billion to rescue GM from bankruptcy last year, the company has had to deal with complaints that its focus is too international, and that it should try to grow the size of its U.S. business and factories.”

That’s rich. Not only do people want GM to survive, they want it to survive by selling cars only to the people who are paying to keep the company out of bankruptcy. Why doesn’t the US government just buy every taxpayer a Chevy Volt? At least Rebecca Lindland, an analyst with IHS Global Insight, was there to add some sense to the conversation:

Regardless of where they make the money or make the vehicles, the profits come back to the U.S.”

Krugman: Why doesn’t China just be uncompetitive?

Published January 2, 2010 China Hating , Economics , Foreign Affairs 9 Comments
Tags: , , , , , ,

Paul Krugman knows he should be concerned about China’s growing competitiveness — but he throws his Nobel credibility behind a number of worn-out political arguments frequently regurgitated by China-bashing masses, without contributing much clarity or insight. On New Years Eve, in a piece titled Chinese New Year, Krugman begins with a tired prediction: “…2010 will be the year of China. And not in a good way.” He writes that the biggest problems with China are related to climate change, but that he would rather focus on currency policy.

Two paragraphs wasted and we are still waiting for an argument. He has however assured the reader that China is responsible for the woes of the world, that there are plenty of reasons he could knock-out-of-the-park one by one, but today he is going to focus on one of the most pathetically over-flogged topics in modern economic history: China’s currency policies. The broken record continues:

Here’s how it works: Unlike the dollar, the euro or the yen, whose values fluctuate freely, China’s currency is pegged by official policy at about 6.8 yuan to the dollar. At this exchange rate, Chinese manufacturing has a large cost advantage over its rivals, leading to huge trade surpluses…This policy is good for China’s export-oriented state-industrial complex, not so good for Chinese consumers. But what about the rest of us?”

To start with, there is no official policy that pegs the currency at 6.8 yuan to the dollar as there was no policy in 2005 that pegged the currency at 8.28 yuan to the dollar. However, China’s central bank has and continues to make strategic FOREX purchases to control and stabilize the value of the country’s currency. Recognizing that an excessively undervalued currency creates domestic and global economic instability, manifest in inflation and asset bubbles, Chinese banks have gradually relaxed currency controls, up until the World Financial Crisis, and permitted a steady, 18% valuation of the yuan between 2005 and 2009 (see graph). That is a remarkably aggressive transition in a relatively short period of time.

If Krugman is right in that a stable, unchanging currency peg “is good for China’s export-oriented” economy, then an 18% appreciation of the yuan should negatively impact China’s exporting industries and perforce its economy, right? China’s economic activity (GDP) grew by 11% in 2006, 12% in 2007, and 9% in 2008, as China’s exports nearly doubled in the same period. The decision to raise the currency’s value seems to have been a pretty good one for China’s economy. Why? Because China’s economy is not nearly as export-dependent as Krugman believes. Which brings us to the most poorly researched and most politically loaded-line of Krugman’s argument:

My back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that for the next couple of years Chinese mercantilism may end up reducing U.S. employment by around 1.4 million jobs.”

This is the danger of back-of-the-envelope calculations. Krugman should have taken a second napkin to figure out how sales of the iPhone would be impacted if the product’s price rose by 50% because Apple could no longer assemble the device in China. Then he should have pulled out a third napkin to determine how many well-paying US-based creative service jobs would be lost in such a transition. Then he should have worked out on the glove-box how much more money US taxpayers would have to pump in to GM, whose largest growing market is China. But GM is not even the tip of the iceberg, as protectionism could severely damage other major US employers like Coca-Cola and Intel who are doing very well in the world’s largest-growing market. But he doesn’t — and that’s why we can’t take this argument seriously. Krugman finishes with a note of self-pity and senseless confrontation:

The bottom line is that Chinese mercantilism is a growing problem, and the victims of that mercantilism have little to lose from a trade confrontation. So I’d urge China’s government to reconsider its stubbornness. Otherwise, the very mild protectionism it’s currently complaining about will be the start of something much bigger.”

The US has to stop thinking of itself as a victim in this trade relationship. China didn’t tell the US to accumulate record federal deficits while spending US$1 trillion per year to fight two wars in the Middle East. China didn’t tell the US to spend billions of taxpayer dollars sustaining failing corporations. China didn’t tell the US to cut funding for poorly performing schools. China really doesn’t want to keep buying US debt — but now they have to if there is anything to this whole “credit crisis.” So who is the victim here?

The bottom line is that excessive consumerism, failing education systems, irresponsible banking practices, and senseless federal spending — particularly on military expenditures — in the US are growing problems. So I’d urge Krugman to reconsider his holier-than-thou schpeel. Otherwise, the not-so-mild endemic plaguing US competitiveness will be the start of something much bigger.

How do I know China wrecked the Copenhagen deal?

Published December 24, 2009 China Hating 2 Comments
Tags: , , , ,

Reports that China single-handedly torpedoed Copenhagen have caused great distress among those who believe that the conference’s failures spell doom for our planet. Mark Lynas of the Guardian, who witnessed the train-wreck first-hand, provides this insightful and engaging account of conference events. He concludes the article with a passionate indictment of China’s role in the international community:

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.”

I have a hard time casting China as the villain in this pathetic tragedy. In fact, it’s a good thing that China doesn’t have a decent full-time PR firm, less they would put cracks in the West’s moral haughtiness like an ice shelf in Greenland. But China doesn’t really care all that much, especially when they can control the conversation at home.

Here’s the thing: not all countries are made equal. Although China and Russia’s tiny friend Nauru are both generally classified as “countries” in the English language, we should not deduce that they have the same responsibilities and that – in a just world – they would be permitted to produce the same carbon emissions. Why? Because the entity known as “China” represents about 100,000 times more people than the entity known as “Nauru.”

To flip this on its head, we would never agree to permit Nauru the same carbon emissions as, say, the United States. That’s absurd! But, for some reason many believe that China, which represents about 1/5th of world’s population, should not be allowed to emit more carbon than the United States, which represents less than 1/20th of the world’s population. If only there was a way to figure out carbon emissions as a function of a country’s population…

Based on this data from the International Energy Agency, I present my top 20 carbon culprits (of 1990 to 2006):

China is nowhere to be found – they rank 96th with carbon emissions of 4.6 metric tons per capita, on par with the global average. However, Russia’s friends in Nauru are really killing our environment! Though not nearly as much as the United States, the world’s wealthiest country.

The irony is that China is nearly leading the world in green investments as a percentage of GDP. In other words, they are working harder than anyone else to create the solutions to a problem that they didn’t cause – and the West is still bitching.

China wrecked the Copenhagen deal because they arn’t suckers. If I were in Wen Jiabao’s shoes – which I’m glad I’m not – I would have done the exact same thing. Actually, I would have upped the stakes with something like this:

I’ll tell you what. We promise to keep our per capita carbon emissions permanently below 75% of the United States’ per capita emissions. The ball is in your court – put up or shut up.”

Zhongguo Gexin – Chinese Innovation

Published December 19, 2009 Uncategorized Leave a Comment

It was the week before Christmas, and all through Shanghai,
The scent of my baking could be smelled far and nigh’…

The move to Shanghai is over, but even as we are approaching Christmas, Walker is still making overnight trips to Wuxi. At my house, Christmas has always been celebrated with a huge brunch, and so I have spent the last week in the kitchen, preparing one make-ahead dish each day.

Yesterday, it was crab mini-quiches, and the recipe I was using called for mayonnaise. I had bought a small jar of Kewpie mayo, a very common and inexpensive Chinese brand.

…The veggies were prepped by the stove top with care,
In hopes that the mayo soon would be there.
The quiche crusts were nestled all snug in their tin,
While my dreams of mini-quiches were dumped in the bin.
Walker in Wuxi and I with quiches to make,
Had just settled in for a long winter’s bake…

But this Christmas tale is about to come to a pause. I have tiny hands, but with the aid of a kitchen towel, I can usually avoid calling in reinforcements. I struggled for fifteen minutes, using every trick I could conjure up to try to work the stubborn top off of the jar, but it hadn’t budged a bit.

I had to admit defeat. I ran downstairs to see Shu Shu. He runs a store down stairs in my three story building. We live on the top floor, he and his wife live on the second, and they run a little shop selling drinks and cigarettes on the first. He was busy preparing their dinner, but was more than happy to help me with China’s most annoying jar of mayonnaise.

Even with his big hands, he was unable to make any progress. And just when I thought I was going to have to give up on my quiches for the night and get a new jar of mayonnaise in the morning, Shu Shu did something ingenious.

Opening the Mayonnaise Jar, Shu Shu Style.

He went to the door with the jar of mayonaise, put the metal top inside thedoor jamb, on the hinge side, between the jamb and the door itself. He pulled the door shut as hard as he could with his left hand, and with his right, twisted the glass jar.

Pop. The jar was open.

Now, mayonaise! Now, mustard! Now, paprika, start mixin’!
On peppers! On shallots! Those quiches I’m fixin’!

It’s such a small thing, but I’ve never seen anyone do that. So next time you come upon a difficult jar and you have a silly attachment to the skin on the inside of your palms, try Shu Shu’s trick! Chinese Innovation, what Walker and I usually make fun of relentlessly, is alive and well at Shu Shu’s house!

… Shu Shu exclaimed as he walked off in the night,
May all jars be opened, even ones that are on really tight!

Roll On CRH

Published December 12, 2009 Economics Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

I never expected to receive a full refund. After missing my 4:58pm train from Wuxi to Shanghai, I casually meandered to the station’s ticket office around 6pm to buy a new ticket and hopefully get home before midnight. After waiting in line for no more than three minutes, a polite and professional, middle-aged women looked carefully at my tian piao (unused ticket), skillfully examined the schedule, and quickly responded, “I’m sorry, your ticket class is not available for the next train. However, we do have a second class ticket available — would that work?”

“Absolutely,” I replied. I usually take second class anyway. “How much is the change fee?”

“We will refund the fare difference.” She passed a second-class ticket, leaving at 6:18pm, along with 8RMB. What service! Not only did they place me without penalty on the next available train, but they paid me back for having to accept a downgrade.

“You better hurry,” she said. “You might miss the train.”

For all of the archaic, bureaucratic systems in China plaguing industries from banking to telecommunications, the heavily-nationalized rail network seems to really be designed with the consumer in mind. At a distance of 120km, Wuxi and Shanghai are only a bit farther apart than Philadelphia and New York City (150km). A one-way, second-class ticket on a China High-speed Rail (CRH) train between Wuxi and Shanghai costs RMB39 (US$5.50). Not only are the cars clean and well kept, but the passage takes less than an hour as the train exceeds speeds of 200 kilometers per hour. Compare this to Amtrak’s Acela Express, the fastest running passenger train in the United States, which operates regularly between Philadelphia and New York City. A one-way ticket costs between US$45 and US$87, depending on when its booked, and the passage takes about an hour and a half.

Not only is China home to the fastest train in the world, which runs south from Wuhan at top speeds exceeding 380 kilometers per hour, but the country has committed to laying 13,000km of high-speed rail by 2012.  I have every reason to believe that China’s rail network will soon compete directly with the country’s airline industry — in speed, convenience, and price. Lets not forget, this is a country wtih a per capita income that is one-eighth of that in the US.

I am probably comparing apples to oranges. With 1.4 billion people, China needs reliable public transportation like a train needs tracks — its a developmental imperative. (Just imagine if they all had two cars!) But, for such projects, the US has a decisive resource advantage with one notable hindrance: strong rule of law that prohibits powerful people from tearing through thousands of miles of private property.

Regardless, China’s success in developing a world-leading rail system — that is remarkably consumer-focused — while managing extreme population distress is beyond impressive. In this case, I’ll take the product Made in China.

China’s Hopenburnin’

Published November 10, 2009 China Hating , Economics , Foreign Affairs Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , ,

In anticipation of the Copenhagen (Hopenhagen) Climate Change Conference on December 7th, advocates of mandatory carbon targets are again flogging China, given the country’s position as the world’s leading carbon emitter. There are those who dismiss China’s green efforts to-date and those who demand more action. Perhaps the most disconcerting argument i’ve encountered on the matter comes from Steve Forbes of Forbes Magazine:

Last year, China surpassed the U.S. in carbon dioxide production, even though China’s economy is less than one-third the size of ours. By 2020, China’s emissions will be twice ours… Our CO2 emissions increased only 1.3% from 2006 to 2007–proof that we are already more efficiently pursuing economic growth. Even if the U.S. drastically cut back on its CO2 output, its impact on global temperatures would be barely noticeable. It could be three-tenths of a degree Fahrenheit at best.”

If i’m reading this right, Forbes is arguing that high existing economic activity perforce justifies high continued carbon emissions. In other words, those who have managed to get out there early and accumulate wealth, largely by burning carbon, should be allowed to continue to burn the most carbon. What if, for example, the UK had three times more economic activity than the US — would they then be permitted three times the quantity of carbon warrants? Any equitable and democratic assignment of obligation regarding the costs of carbon must first consider per capita emissions. See how long it takes you to find China on this list.

At the same time, it should be comforting to know that the government responsible for the world’s largest population is arguably making the most concerted efforts to develop the most efficient technologies to reduce their economy’s dependence on heavy-carbon productivity. Consider this from The Climate Group:

China ranked second for the absolute Dollar amount invested in renewable energy in 2007 with approximately US$12 billion, trailing the leader Germany which invested US$14 billion. The nominal sizes of the Chinese and German economies were almost equal at US$3.3 trillion in 2007, meaning that China trails leader Germany only slightly in renewable energy investment as a percentage of GDP.”

The energy-intensive economic growth model acutely seen in China and throughout the Asia Pacific region has brought more people out of poverty than any other system in human history. Evidence suggests that global warming is a very real and nasty problem — but as far as I can tell it is not nearly as dangerous as the non-linear pains of poverty and destitution. Despite the doomsday rhetoric surrounding global warming, or perhaps because of it, we should at least take Jim Manzi’s lead and simply consider the costs and benefits of carbon taxes that could accompany binding carbon targets.

There is hopenburnin’.

The Default China Explanation

Published September 24, 2009 Economics Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , ,

This strident excerpt from The Default Power, an essay by Josef Jesse published last month by the Council on Foreign Relations, casually dismisses modern China as “a place where the rest of the world essentially rents workers and workspace at deflated prices.”

If, as the article suggests, China’s “miraculous growth is foreign made,” how could the country withstand a 26% decline in exports and a similar drop in inbound foreign investment to achieve 7% economic growth in the first half of 2009? And who is so pessimistic to believe “that China’s economy will [only] grow by 6 percent in 2009?” The article is right that the U.S. is renting from China – capital, not labor, to keep its banks from defaulting.

I would not question the historical resilience of the United States. But I hope that making a case for buying American doesn’t require belittling the recent success of developing countries by regurgitating outdated myths and misinformation about export-dependence. Our political science students deserve better.

Playing Chicken with the Chinese Government

Published September 18, 2009 Economics , Foreign Affairs Leave a Comment
Tags: ,

For American expats living in Beijing, there will obviously be large ramifications from Obama’s tire tariff that will be put in to effect this month. For one, many cab drivers will love questioning us about what we personally think about the tariffs, and whether or not we agree with our President. For its part, the Chinese government’s reaction has been to appeal to the WTO, and to announce that they will enact their own retaliatory tariffs on American car parts and chicken.

But I imagine that Chinese cab driver are chatty no matter who they pick up, and I can just imagine the conversation about this new set of tariffs that might take place between two Chinese locals. After the initial bashing of protectionist trade policy and maybe some unprintable comments about our President’s race, I imagine that the biggest complaint will be that the new tariff against American chicken will severely curtail their access to higher quality American chicken feet.

Because the Chinese don’t differentiate between white and dark chicken meat and don’t prefer white meat, they haven’t started feeding their chickens hormones to increase the size of the chicken breasts – at least, not as part of company policies. By comparison, we love our boneless skinless chicken breasts, and therefore produce enormously fat, force-fed birds whose legs have become more muscled in an attempt to support their unnaturally engorged bodies.

According to Tyson, selling chicken feet in the Chinese market is more than twenty seven times more profitable than selling them at home. A chicken foot can only fetch 2 cents in the U.S., but in China, where it is considered part delicacy, part tasty pre-packaged snack, the American chicken production companies can ear up to 55 cents. According to Beijing-based China Meat Association, the country’s per capita urban meat consumption increased by 87% from 17 kg in 1979 to 31.8 kg in 2007. Not to mention, as wealth reaches more and more Chinese, they will begin to shy away from buying meat in traditional wet markets and towards packaged meats in grocery stores.

So this tariff is clearly a huge loss for the American chicken industry. But it will also mean less chewy goodness for Chinese citizens with joint problems who believe that the extra minerals and gelatin in chicken feet will alleviate their arthritis and minor joint aches alike. They’ll just have to make due with the chicken with smaller breasts and smaller legs if the Chinese government goes through with its plan.

But don’t worry. In my office, we have enough pre-packaged, spicy chicken feet to build a very creepy fort or to sustain ourselves in the case we get locked in our office for the next month due to military parade practices.

While we wait for the paramilitary to let us out of the diplomatic compound,  I can only hope that the American and Chinese governments will stop engaging in protectionist one-up-manship, and that cab drivers can go back to lecturing about harmonious societies and cursing Beijing traffic under their breath.

Abortion Statistics Show Chinese Sex-Ed to be Lacking

Published September 17, 2009 Social Behavior 1 Comment

Like many laowai, when I came to China, I brought a stash of Western medications, afraid that I wouldn’t be able to get Pepto-Bismol, Tylenol, Sudafed or my oral contraceptives in the land of Eastern (read: herbal, and for me, completely ineffectual) medicine and fake prescription drugs.  However, after a while it becomes unsustainable to keep flying back and forth with my own in-suitcase pharmacy. Not to mention bringing a year’s supply of medication is risky as the expiration dates on pills sold in the States are likely to lapse while you’re waiting to use them in China. The situation lead me to finding alternative tummy settlers, depending on different decongestants, and more notably, scheduling my first OBGYN appointment in China.

Prescriptions for oral contraceptives in the States are only written after a doctor has given the patient an exam that must be repeated annually. Pap smears, breast exams and basic questions regarding a woman’s risk for contracting STDs are a minimum for any yearly gynecological exam. While vaguely unpleasant, almost of us accept that that putting our feet in metal stirrups for twenty minutes every year is an uncomfortable yet necessary evil and keeps us healthy and safe.

My trip to the Beijing clinic was completely different. Even though it was a very professional foreign-run clinic, staffed by foreign doctors, when I walked in and started addressing my concerns about switching over to Chinese methods of contraception, I felt more knowledgeable than the staff about my options for birth control. There were no questions about my medical history, no conversation about self-screening every month for lumps in my breasts, no encouragement to engage in safer sex practices, and certainly no encounter with a speculum – and yet I still left with a new pack of pills, which, though different from what I had previously taken, was still a brand name I recognize and trust.

As I was telling my usually very-westernized Chinese friend about the experience at the clinic, she acted surprised that I would want pills that would alter my body chemistry when there were other methods of contraception available. She pointed to the withdrawal and rhythm methods of family planning, which she believes are the methods most commonly used by women in China (an opinion seconded by a different Chinese friend). Somewhat ironically, I was getting this advice from a woman who was four months into a surprise pregnancy.

A second conversation with my matronly neighbor about family planning in a post-Mao era revealed an extremely common attitude towards abortion: if it helps maintain the one child policy then who are we to question? As someone accustomed to a steady stream of differing views on abortion from all sides of the political and social spectrum, this docile perspective was shocking. Here in China, state suppression of any group that organizes outside of state sponsored channels – from the breaking up student groups in Tiananmen Square in 1989 to the banning of Falun Gong in 2001 and 2002 – extends to include any anti-abortion groups that might arise. This is not really in fear that a group will undermine the one child policy, but is instead based on a larger fear of any non-government sponsored group that might gain a significant following.

I myself am unapologetically pro-choice, but the idea that abortion is just another method of birth control scares me. Consequently, when I saw that the state-run China Daily had published an article detailing Chinese abortion statistics, I was surprised that the Party would allow something so sensitive to be published so close to the nation’s 60th anniversary, even in their laowai-placation publication.

According to the China Daily, and the data on which it based its article, there are over 13 million abortions performed on the Mainland each year, the highest proportion of those procedures (62%) being performed on unmarried women in their twenties. The report also revealed that the number of women under 18 who are undergoing the procedure is increasing.

It is important to keep these numbers in perspective though instead of engaging in pointless China-bashing: China’s abortion rate is high, but it is less than half of Russia’s. Between the ages of 15 and 44, 2.4% of Chinese women have an abortion whereas 5.37% of Russian women undergo the procedure. On the other hand, in the same age range, the abortion rates in Western countries are significantly lower than China’s. In the UK the rate is only 1.8% and in the U.S. estimates based on national trends put it at approximately 2%.

The article in the China Daily quoted Wu Shangchun, a division director of the National Population and Family Planning Commission’s technology research center, as saying that research shows nearly half of the women who received abortions had not used any form of contraception. This is very disturbing, but what more, a study done in 2004 and published in the International Journal of Gynecology Obstetrics  summarized their findings as follows:

Of 4547 unmarried young women seeking an abortion, 33.0% reported having had one previous induced abortion. Of those who had had more than one abortion, only 29.7% used a contraceptive method at their first sexual intercourse after the procedure; and of the 446 women who chose contraception, 41.3% used the traditional methods of withdrawal or rhythm. Although 65.0% of the young women had used condoms at least once, only 9.6% did so consistently and correctly; 47.7% of the current pregnancies were associated with nonuse of any contraceptive, and 52.3% were related to contraceptive failure.

So not only are Chinese women not using protection, but even after they discover the consequences of unprotected sex in the form of an unwanted pregnancy ending in termination, only 9.6% of those women reported that they were using condoms regularly.

If these numbers seem large, notice that even the pro-government China Daily admits that these numbers are much lower than the real number of abortions being performed in China. The only abortions which were considered in this study were official procedures carried out in state-registered facilities, despite the fact that unofficial, unregistered clinics all over the country perform the procedure for less money and with less stigma attached.

The China Daily also pointed out that the figures included in the study also did not include pregnancies terminated through use of the morning after pill, which has been sold in China since 1998. According to that same study, approximately 10 million doses of the morning after pill are sold in China every year.

But even if we agree that those numbers underestimate the real abortion rates in China, there is no information about the reasons behind these abortions. More specifically, are these abortions carried out to ensure that a family’s sole child be a son?

Translation: “if there are equal numbers of girls and boys, only then will there be a harmonious society.”

Translation: “if there are equal numbers of girls and boys, only then will there be a harmonious society.”

Figures for sex-selection abortions vary widely, but while the government may allow the China Daily to report on the basic breakdown of abortions had on the Mainland, the topic of gender selection abortions remains unmentionable. The PRC recognized the population imbalance created by the one child policy, in combination with the Chinese emphasis on the importance of sons, and so the central government has been discouraging sex selection with an extensive PR campaign declaring “男女平等” – that men and women are equal.  To this end, the Chinese government has taken it one step further, by disallowing pregnant women to know the sex of their baby before birth. Women in Hong Kong on the other hand, can know the sex of their children, and that has my coworker dreaming of a little girl dressed in pink, searching for affordable air fare so she can get a reading from an ultrasound.

So, why have the Chinese been depending so heavily on abortions instead of taking methods to protect themselves from an unwanted pregnancy? The China Daily cited a lack of knowledge regarding sex and contraception, misinformation about sex and contraception, and lingering cultural taboos.

If abortion is one product of a hush-hush attitude towards sex in Chinese culture, it is not the only one. A survey done by a Shanghai hospital “found that less than 30 percent of callers to a hotline knew how to avoid pregnancy,” but that only 17 percent of callers were aware that venereal diseases exist, much less how they are transmitted. Even more troubling, more than 70 percent did not know that HIV is spread through unprotected sex.

Among women my age, sex certainly seems to be an unfit topic of conversation. When I broached the subject with a Chinese friend, she blushed while asking why I would want to know such things before quickly trying to change the subject. A far cry from the Carrie Bradshaws of New York, sex in this city, from my experience,  is not something that is discussed openly. If women are too timid to talk about sex among themselves, then it is hard to imagine that when a woman’s partner tries to beg-out of using a condom, she will have the strength to prioritize her own sexual health by telling him to get a condom or get out.

It’s not like the Chinese are completely bereft of sex education, but most Chinese schools offer only a basic introduction to sex and contraception, one that focuses on the biology of the act. One first-grader came home and showed his uncle his text books, only for his uncle to discover what exactly sex-ed looks like at that age. Colorful illustrations of testicles and condoms wearing sunglasses and graphic diagrams of both a penis and a vulva. It’s very detailed – aside from neglecting to label the clitoris, which perhaps reflects the seriousness of the culture’s gender bias – but it seems like it would be overload for children that age. Starting early is a very good thing, but it does need to be age appropriate. When a four year old asks his Mommy where babies come from, she doesn’t need to launch into a diatribe describing a woman’s fallopian tubes. A six or seven year old deserves more details, but I still think a full blown examination of the inner workings of both male and female bodies is a little sophisticated for a child of that age. Reading about human biology at age seven could certainly never replace a conversation about loving, consensual relationships or safer sex practices, both of which can be made appropriate for any age.

In many cases, Mainland students receive education about the emotional elements of sex only after they reach college. In a world where (according to a study compiled by Durex in 2007, “The Global Face of Sex”) we are losing our virginities at an average age of 19, starting proper sex education then can only spawn emotionally damaging and unhealthy sexual experiences. Even in China, where that average is 22 years old, many people come into this information too late to put it to good use.

When the adults in their lives shirk away from talking about sex with their children, many Mainland teens turn to the internet as their primary point of reference. However, due to Beijing’s anti-pornography campaign, sites are often blocked indiscriminately, whether the content is entertainment or education. As the experts who edit Wikipedia pages demonstrate, misinformation is often indiscernible from the truth to an unknowledgeable reader. Not to mention, as I found out from my trip to the Beijing clinic, it seems that many women are not getting the information they need from their doctors, either.

After looking at this data, the Chinese agree that China’s sex education needs to undergo some changes, but many Mainlanders remain concerned that continuing sex education programs would encourage children to experiment with sex at even younger ages. Parents are afraid that encouraging conversation about the way to protect yourself both physically and emotionally would in essence condone the act. Ever heard that argument before? If we are fully disclosing the consequences of engaging in sexual activity in age appropriate increments, raging hormones can at least be tempered by information.

However the only way we could expect parents to have these conversations with their children is if we can start having these conversations amongst ourselves. If we can’t talk about the methods of birth control we’re using or that funny rash with our closest friends, how are we ever meant to educate our children? Because these numbers clearly demonstrate that old wives tales and knowledge garnered from sketchy internet sites are hardly helping women and men make informed decisions about their sexual wellbeing. Only when we can stop giggling like schoolgirls at the mention of condoms can parents pass down information that will help their children avoid unnecessarily poor sexual experiences and unwanted pregnancies.

Next Page »

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.