Skip to main content

Tianjin (Beijing) is not Beijing. Hangzhou (Shanghai) is not Shanghai. Can we get the fact right?


Strange in Singapore, we allow budget airlines and travel agents to promote such misleading information. Tianjin is not part of Beijing and so does Hangzhou not part of Shanghai. Continuing doing so will prove that how ignorance we are in the understanding of China. And the authority allows it and CASE sees nothing wrong about the protection and right ‘to know the fact’ for consumers.

No wonder our tourism board’s Chinese website continues to make mistakes even after few months of ‘repairs’. The latest problem seems to arise from the English-Chinese translation. Now, the Board is considering applying ‘Chinese thinking’ to write the contents rather than based on the translation of their English site.     

Perhaps, they are also thinking Tianjin (Beijing) = Beijing and Hangzhou (Shanghai) = Shanghai is acceptable and there is nothing wrong. So, they choose ‘to close one eye’ and allow budget airlines and travel agents to continue to promote such travels and tours to China.

Tianjin and Beijing are two different autonomous cities in China. (The other two are Shanghai and Chongqing). Hangzhou is the provincial capital of Zhejiang province and is not under the administration of Shanghai. Even in term of distance, in Singapore standard, these cities are far apart, more than one hundred or two hundred kilometres from each other. Landed in different cities is like landed in another country – the way people behave, work attitude and even the application of law.  

Buying a property or doing business in Tianjin or Hangzhou is different from doing the same thing in Beijing or Shanghai.  Shanghai has something like our COE system for cars and Beijing has odd-even number car plates on the road on different days.  No to mention the privilege of residence permits (户口) of Beijing and Shanghai, that some foreign countries give preference to residences of these two cities.   In fact, to many Chinese getting a residence permit in Singapore is easier than getting a 户口 in Beijing and Shanghai.

However, Tianjin and Hangzhou are not small or unknown cities in China. They are among the top 10 most competitive cities in the Greater China. According to a People Daily’s report:
The 10 most competitive Chinese cities last year were in descending order, Hong Kong,Taipei, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Tianjin, Hangzhou, Qingdao, andChangsha. 
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90882/7825098.html

Duty to provide right information? Or judge yourself

The government and the tourism board have the duty to provide correct information to Singapore travellers to China. Tianjin is Tianjin not Beijing and Hangzhou is Hangzhou not Shanghai.

Perhaps, in promoting business activities, the government can allow budget airlines and travel agents to provide ‘partially’ correct information. In the opinion of the government, anyway there are transports (or by your own arrangement) to bring you to Beijing or Shanghai even you land in Tianjin or Hangzhou.  But is this the right behavior of a responsible government?  Are we giving the right education and information about China to our people?   

So, the next time, when you read the main stream media and government reports, you must also remind yourself you are likely to read the ‘partially’ correct and ‘partially’ incorrect news and information. For commercial, or even for political reasons, ‘partially’ correct information are given to reflect the whole picture just like many budget airlines, travel agents, money managers, insurance or property brokers do.  

However, the most difficult and challenging task is to differentiate the correct and incorrect information.  Just like what you should prepare yourself when in China – expected the unexpected.  Singaporeans should also prepare for the ‘unexpected’ – so far we already had MRT breakdown, sex corruption, down of a GRC, sorry from PM, etc.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Sub-standard PAP and the Singapore education system

I make a 'policy shift' when I hear the debate of right politics, constructive politics and sub-standard opposition. My original aim is to discuss about “Su Dongbo, Zhang Juzheng and Singapore education system”. The discussion will end with a sub-standard PAP, in particular from the assessment of the quality of PAP potential candidates. Another policy shift is to discuss it like a play, a drama and make it more entertainment rather than a sub-standard political discussion. Act 1 Gangster’s demand Imagine a sense in the Hong Kong's gangster movie (or a godfather movie), the gangsters' master is shouting at his poor opponent and demand him to give a price for his wrong act. The poor guy without any resources can only offer his body or his service to work for the master. Back in his own chamber, the master is still not satisfied and continues to shout 'don't play, play, you think you are hero, you think you are tiger, or superstar or acting ...

EBRC objectives: Stop “Out of Aljunied”, Stop SDP Breakthrough and “Negative-Asset” Ministers.

First of all, we have to congratulate the Electoral Boundaries Review Committee for creating more competitions, especially, multi-cornered competitions in the East. When making changes, EBRC aims to achieve 3 goals: To prevent “Out of Aljunied” for Workers’ Party.  This is the most important objective. To prevent Singapore Democratic Party making any breakthrough in the North and Central.   To look for a solution to retire “negative-asset” ministers or reduce PAP damages. From the reported claims from different political parties, we will expect multi-cornered contests not only in single constituencies but also in group representative constituencies. The PAP hopes to have a repeat of 2011 Presidential Election. Then Tony Tan won the Presidency when he got only 35% of the votes, a narrow win.However, a win is still a win. He did in even in the very last minute, after recounts of votes.    How to achieve multi-cornered contests? By i...

Is Prism Project Another Central Planning of the PAP?

There are 3 scenarios under the Prism Project#1 of Institute of Public Policy.  However, it looks more like the central scenario planning of the People’s Action Party. From the instructional menu of Prism Project Primer #2, participants were guided to a situation in 2022 and they have to imagine, within the Primer framework, to come out with 3 possible scenarios in Jun-Aug 2012.  2022. What a coincidence! Not long ago, PM Lee declared that he would like to hold the prime minister post for another 10 years. The other coincidence is the similarity between the 3 scenarios and the candidates of PE2011. How competitive and sustainable are the 3 scenarios to the people of Singapore and to the PAP?   Will the scenarios produce competitive and sustainable Singapore, Singaporeans or the PAP?  Perhaps, as what the Chinese say: planning cannot always catch up with changes.   And planning sometimes turns out the wrong, bad and unexpected results, espec...