Translations of the best commentaries that appeared in this (and last) week's issue of the paper
 

Bo Xilai & Wang Yang: Dividing the Cake or Making the Cake Bigger
By Cao Xin (曹辛), a media commentator
Nation, page 16
Issue No. 529, Jul 25, 2011
Original article: [Chinese] 

Recently Wang Yang (汪洋), the party secretary of Guangdong and Bo Xilai (薄熙来), the secretary of the party committee in Chongqing, both of whom are also members of the CPC Central Committee, have made been making speeches about cakes recently. The two provincial leaders seem to have different priorities when it comes to cakes - with Wang focused on making the (economic) cake bigger and Bo more concerned with how to cut the cake, reflecting their differing attitudes to economic development and the distribution of wealth.

Bo has stated that in recent years, Chongqing's approach has been to first divide the cake, then make it bigger. Wang, on the other hand, has said, "In order to make the cake bigger, we still need to focus on economic construction. That means dividing the cake should not be the focus of our work, we should instead focus on making the cake." The differing views have attracted much discussion in the domestic press and online.  

First, it's very natural that they hold different opinions on these important issues of economic development and wealth distribution. They come from different backgrounds, and lead different lifes. Moreover, there's a large gap between the levels of economic development level in Guangdong and Chongqing.

Even though they hold different views, this is not a bad thing. Different views, debate and different approaches to governance can provide more options for the central government and the public, which is a good thing for the entire nation. In addition, both of them are putting their thoughts into practice in different regions, meaning that the country can gain useful lessons for future development. 

They have openly expressed their own views on the best path to take and this is an important sign of democracy within the party. This is in line with the Communist Party Congress's goal of "using inner-party democracy to drive people's democracy" ("以党内民主带动人民民主").

Yao Ming's Contribution
By Zhu Chong (朱冲), a reporter with the EO's Lifestyle section 
Nation, page 15
Issue No. 529, Jul 25, 2011
Original article: [Chinese] 

Yao Ming is the only Chinese athlete who has had an influence on the world.  Foreigners do not know the table tennis champions Deng Yaping or Kong Linghui, no matter how many gold medals they've won. But Yao has been the focus of the media all the time. His retirement press conference generated almost as much media attention as the "two sessions".

Why is Yao Ming so special? Firstly, the sport in which he excelled enjoys global popularity. Yao said he would like to thank this age of openness for giving him an opportunity.

A few years earlier, he wouldn't have had such influence. Yao's appearance coincided with the rise of China and he became an ambassador for the country.Yao is tall and has a strong personality – he's not afraid of confrontation with European and American giants on the basketball court. His shooting technique and smart turns are full of oriental style. He is smart, diligent and approachable; he is a team player with a spirit of tolerance and leadership. His character traits shaped a positive and strong image of his homeland, which let the world feel that China is powerful, but safe, and that its people, like Yao, are intelligent, open and tolerant.  

Yao said that going abroad widened his mind, and transformed him. He knows how to communicate with people, how to handle stress and deal with various crises both on and off the court. That's different from our sportsmen who are subject to strict and rigid training that creates basketball-playing machines, not players.

Since China returned to the Olympic family in 1979 [Editor - The All-China Sports Federation announced a stop to all relations with the IOC in 1958 due to IOC recognition of Taiwan and reestablished links with the organization in 1979], we have won more than 100 Olympic gold medals, but why we only have produced one Yao Ming?  

He is not an Olympic champion. Why are we always good at those sports that are not watched by many people, have no commercial value, and other countries don't even bother to play?

The NPC Should Force Government Departments to Release Spending 
By Hua Ti (华提), a media commentator  
Nation, page 16
Issue No. 529, Jul 25, 2011
Original article: [Chinese] 

Recently the disclosure of "Three Public Consumptions," - the expenditures on overseas trips, receptions and purchase and maintenance of official vehicles - by almost all of the myriad central government departments, ministries, institutions under the control of China's State Council has been pushed forward with pressure from the medai.

The public too have generally supported the move to greater transparency, though there have still been some concerns. Many people are still upset by the fact that not all central departments have disclosed their spending. Some people also argue that those institutions that have already disclosed their "three public consumptions" should provide more details. 

Some departments simply announced a total figure without providing any details to explain the spending. Many people are concerned that the push to continue publishing data on the "three public consumptions" cannot be sustained and will eventually peter out. 

The National People's Congress (NPC) should do something about these concerns. According to the constitution, the NPC has the right to supervise and monitor the work of the State Council. Firstly, the NPC could carry out an inquiry into those central departments that are reluctant to disclose the details of their spending and also disclose the results of any such inquiry to the public. Secondly, the NPC should also initiate audits into those institutions that have already published their spending. 

Debt Crisis Offers a Glimpse into the Schizophrenia of the US Political System
By Xie Tao (谢韬), a professor at Beijing Foreign Studies University
News, page 8
Issue No. 530, Aug 1, 2011
Original article: [Chinese] 

The present debt crisis is the inevitable consequence of the United States' political system. Separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers has been the first cause of schizophrenia, partisan politics the second and congressional elections and legislative system a third.

Due to the different ways of electing the President and members of Congress and also because of the difference in constituents and also the terms of office, it's often the case that the president might belong to one party while the Congress is dominated the other party, what we've come to know as "divided government."

Currently, the Democratic Party controls the White House and the Senate and the Republican Party controls the House of Representatives. The result is that there is not only divisions within the Congress, but also between the White House and the Congress.

The US is suffering from serious schizophrenia. Its "left brain" is controlled by the Democratic Party, which opposes cutting government spending and advocates raising the debt ceiling to $2.7 trillion to ensure Obama's run for president in 2012  won't be affected by the next round of debt crisis negotiations. Its "right brain" is controlled by the Republican Party, which advocates raising the debt limit in steps, in order to make better use of the debt issue as a tool to criticize the "big government" proposals of the Democrats and hopefully win back the White House.

In order to win the election, congress members try every means to please voters. And the most important means is through pork barreling. Although money spent this way only accounts for small part of the total fiscal budget, accumulated over a long period, the number becomes bigger and bigger and worsens the debt situation of the US government.

In addition, the legislative system in Congress, especially the committee system, has fundamentally weakened the US government's ability to limit debt. For instance, today they vote to approve the bill on raising agricultural subsidies proposed by the agricultural committee, tomorrow they vote to approve the bill on raising Medicare insurance proposed by the veteran affairs committee, the result would be, they will vote for each other and reap the interests together, but it is the tax payers who in the end have to pick up the bill.