More Malaysian groups slam MM's remarks on Muslims

Jan 27, 2011

KUALA LUMPUR: More Muslim groups in Malaysia have hit out at remarks by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew that the progress of integration in Singapore has been affected because Muslims in the Republic tend to be 'distinct and separate'.

Abim, a major Muslim youth organisation, asked MM Lee to apologise to Muslims throughout the world, while the Utusan Malaysia newspaper said in an editorial that Mr Lee had 'excessive suspicions' towards Islam.

But former Malaysian information minister Zainuddin Maidin differed in his view of Mr Lee's remarks. He said Mr Lee was merely challenging Singapore Muslims not to choose a path that would lead them to isolation, and one should not blurt out knee-jerk angry reactions.

Mr Lee's remarks, published in a new book, Lee Kuan Yew: Hard Truths To Keep Singapore Going, were reported on Sunday by several Malaysian and Indonesian newspapers and news websites, after they were reported by a news agency.

In the book, Mr Lee, when asked to assess the progress of multiracialism in Singapore, said: 'I have to speak candidly to be of value, but I do not want to offend the Muslim community.

'I think we were progressing very nicely until the surge of Islam came, and if you asked me for my observations, the other communities have easier integration - friends, intermarriages and so on, Indians with Chinese, Chinese with Indians - than Muslims. That's the result of the surge from the Arab states.'

[MM Lee realises that the influence of the Arab states ("petro-dictators" as Thomas Friedman calls them in "Hot, Flat & Crowded") is creating perhaps an Islamic Hegemony that unbalances the traditional vibrant diversity of views and philosophy in Islam, and this undue influence is shaping the community in a way that hinders rather than foster integration.]

He added: 'I would say, today, we can integrate all religions and races except Islam.'

He also said: 'I think the Muslims socially do not cause any trouble, but they are distinct and separate.'

The secretary-general of the Malaysian Islamic Youth Movement (Abim), Mr Mohamad Raimi Abdul Rahim, said in a statement that Mr Lee's remarks 'have clearly hurt the sensitivities of Muslims not only in Singapore, but also throughout the region including Malaysia'.

Mr Lee should issue an 'open apology' to Muslims in Singapore and the world for what he had said, Mr Mohamad Raimi said in a statement posted on Abim's website.

Utusan in an editorial yesterday claimed that, once Singapore Muslims had backed the Singapore Government to separate from Malaysia, the Malays 'disappeared from the dictionary of Mr Lee' and the People's Action Party.

But Tan Sri Zainuddin took a different tack, saying Mr Lee only wanted the Muslim community in Singapore to be progressive and dynamic by making the remarks.

Mr Lee's views 'should be seen from a positive angle' as he does not want the Malay community in the Republic to blindly accept Islamic teachings, Utusan quoted him as saying.

[Tan Sri Zainuddin seems to recognise it as well.]

India and China gaining on US, Obama warns

Jan 27, 2011

US President urges Americans to rise to challenge in new world

By Chua Chin Hon, US Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON: Flagging the competition from new economic powerhouses like China and India as a big challenge to United States primacy, President Barack Obama yesterday called on Americans to out-educate, out-innovate and out-build the rest of the world to 'win the future'.

In his annual State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Mr Obama repeatedly cited gains that the two countries - and others - have made at the expense of the US.

To compete in this new world, 'they started educating their children earlier and longer, with greater emphasis on maths and science', he said.

'They're investing in research and new technologies. Just recently, China became home to the world's largest private solar research facility, and the world's fastest computer,' he told a joint session of Congress.

The nation that built the transcontinental railroad, brought electricity to rural communities, and constructed the interstate highway system has been bested in many areas in recent years by these rising Asian countries, he said.

'Our infrastructure used to be the best - but our lead has slipped. South Korean homes now have greater Internet access than we do. Countries in Europe and Russia invest more in their roads and railways than we do. China is building faster trains and newer airports. Meanwhile, when our own engineers graded our nation's infrastructure, they gave us a 'D',' said Mr Obama.

'We have to do better.'

While the world has changed, he said, the competition should not discourage Americans, but challenge them.

'Remember, for all the hits we've taken these last few years, for all the naysayers predicting our decline, America still has the largest, most prosperous economy in the world,' he said.

'No workers are more productive than ours. No country has more successful companies, or grants more patents to inventors and entrepreneurs. We're the home to the world's best colleges and universities.'

It is now up to this generation of Americans to meet the demands of a new age.

'We need to out-innovate, out-educate and out-build the rest of the world. We have to make America the best place on Earth to do business. We need to take responsibility for our deficit, and reform our government. That's how our people will prosper. That's how we'll win the future,' Mr Obama said.

[This sounds so much like a speech our PM would give to Singaporeans.]

He plans to propose in his upcoming budget new investments in areas like biomedical research, information technology and clean energy technology, he said.

He outlined some major goals:

# Enable clean energy sources to supply 80 per cent of America's electricity by 2035.

# Provide 80 per cent of Americans with access to high-speed rail within 25 years.

# Expand coverage of high-speed wireless Internet to reach nearly all Americans by 2016.

# A 'Race to the Top' school reform programme to promote science and learning.

The President did not put a price tag on the package of proposed investments, but suggested that Washington could help pay for these initiatives by eliminating tax breaks to oil companies and streamlining the government bureaucracy.

In a nod to Republican concerns about the unsustainable levels of government debt, he proposed a five-year freeze in spending on some domestic programmes that would cut spending by more than US$400 billion (S$512 billion) over the next 10 years. But he warned that the cuts should be judicious and not end up hurting long-term US competitiveness.

'Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine,' he said. 'It may feel like you're flying high at first, but it won't take long before you'll feel the impact.'

But the opposition Republicans poured cold water on Mr Obama's vision and proposals. Republican lawmaker Paul Ryan, tasked with delivering a formal response, called attention to the runaway fiscal deficit and the need to return to limited government.

'Our debt is out of control. What was a fiscal challenge is now a fiscal crisis... Just take a look at what's happening to Greece, Ireland and other nations in Europe. Their day of reckoning has arrived. Ours is around the corner,' he said.

The contrasting visions of the two speeches will probably become a key theme for the 2012 presidential campaign. Many regard Mr Obama's remarks as the opening speech of his re-election campaign.

Striking a centrist tone that has helped revive some of his political fortunes in recent months, the President reminded the divided Congress that the economic challenges before the country are bigger than their political differences.

'This is our generation's Sputnik moment,' he said, referring to the launch of the first Earth-orbiting satellite in 1957 by the former Soviet Union. The event shocked the US into embarking on a major wave of space research and development.

The President said relatively little about US foreign policy goals and objectives. He made perfunctory references to Iraq, Pakistan and the fighting in Afghanistan, but gave no new assessment on the progress in these key hot spots.

'Foreign policy will play second fiddle to domestic policy when the administration talks about its agenda in the year to come,' wrote Mr James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'The mantra going forward will be opportunities, jobs and growth, not threats, war and diplomacy.'

chinhon@sph.com.sg

CHINA-U.S. SUMMIT

Jan 25, 2011

A balancing act between two powers

By Ching Cheong

THE United States is willing to accommodate the rise of China - politically, economically and militarily - provided the process is peaceful and conducive to the US maintaining world leadership status.

This is the most salient conclusion from the White House meeting between the presidents of China and the US last week. In other words, China will continue to accept US supremacy, in exchange for a more amicable global environment for its rise.

At a joint press conference with his visiting Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao after their summit meeting, US President Barack Obama reminded China that it also has the US to thank for its rise.

'China's extraordinary economic growth... is a tribute to the Chinese people. But it's also thanks to decades of stability in Asia, made possible by America's forward presence in the region, by strong trade with America, and by an open international economic system championed by the United States of America,' he said.

By stating this at the beginning of the press conference, Mr Obama made it clear that US policies can affect China's rise.

In the US-China joint statement, the US reiterated that 'it welcomes a strong, prosperous and successful China playing a greater role in world affairs'.

Mr Obama touched on this theme twice at the joint press conference. He defined two conditions for China's rise.

First, it has to be peaceful. He said: 'We just want to make sure that the rise... occurs in a way that reinforces international norms and international rules, and enhances security and peace, as opposed to it being a source of conflict either in the region or around the world.'

Second, it should tie in with US foreign objectives: The kind of partnership that Washington seeks with Beijing, according to Mr Obama, is one where China is a responsible actor on the world stage - a partner that ensures weapons of mass destruction do not fall into the wrong hands; a partner that helps deal with regional hot spots or issues like climate change.

If China can accept these two conditions, the US would make life easier for its rival in every respect.

Politically, China's core interests would be observed. The joint statement did not mention the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA), one of the cornerstones of Washington's One China policy. Though Mr Obama referred to it at the press conference, the TRA has obviously been relegated to a less formal position.

Similarly on human rights, a sensitive issue for China, the US is willing to accept, if not embrace, the Chinese position.

'China has a different political system than we do. China is at a different stage of development than we are. We come from very different cultures with very different histories,' Mr Obama noted.

'We believe part of human rights is people being able to make a living and having enough to eat and having shelter and having electricity,' he said.

Observers pointed out that since China published its first White Paper on Human Rights in 1991, it has cited the ability to feed and clothe its people as its top contribution to human rights. It has also given reasons why freedom and democracy, as espoused by the West, are not for China. Two decades later, the US President seems to be echoing the same Chinese view of human rights.

Economically, the US is willing to give China what it wants: recognition of its market economy, as well as a commensurate position in the world financial framework.

In the joint statement, China 'welcomed the US' commitment to work towards China's market economy status (MES) in an expeditious manner'.

Such efforts will go a long way towards removing trade impediments, and will greatly enhance the entry of Chinese products into the US market, as well as US high-tech imports into China.

If the US takes the lead in granting MES to China, other Western developed countries will be compelled to follow suit.

The joint statement also said the US 'supports China's efforts over time to promote inclusion of the renminbi in the Special Drawing Rights basket'. This satisfies China's quest to be accorded a position in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) commensurate with its economic might. China's voting rights in the IMF were raised recently.

Militarily, the US is not going to edge China out. Both countries agreed to strengthen their military-to-military relationship and enhance cooperation on nuclear security, as well as deepen exchanges in the field of space, provided both sides establish mechanisms at all levels to avoid 'misunderstanding, misperception and miscalculation'.

Bilateral relations aside, the US-China joint statement read like a laundry list of world issues, from saving the earth to space cooperation, from fighting global security threats like terrorism and nuclear proliferation to defusing regional and local disputes such as those in North-east Asia and Sudan.

All this shows that the US, after setting conditions for China's rise, is prepared psychologically to give China a greater presence on the world stage.

Viewed this way, the presidential summit represented a delicate balancing act, showing how the two powers can achieve substantial benefits through cooperation.

chingcheong@gmail.com

[Historical. Maybe in future, students of history will look to this moment as the point where US & China define their roles in the world for decades to come. ]

Both sides must dispel mistrust

By Goh Sui Noi, Senior Writer

THE summit last week between the leaders of the world's two most powerful nations, the United States and China, has been declared a modest success.

Chinese President Hu Jintao got the respect he wanted in the pomp and circumstance of a state visit, something he was denied on his last official visit to the US during the presidency of Mr George W. Bush.

US President Barack Obama made the points he wanted to make and received the right noises in response from the Chinese leader. One of these was an admission on Mr Hu's part that a lot needed to be done in China with regards to human rights. The US$45 billion (S$58 billion) in business deals, supporting 235,000 American jobs, that the Chinese inked did not hurt either.

The determined fence-mending of the leaders gave some needed momentum for the two sides to work on their differences after more than a year of acrimony. Much remains to be done to dispel the distrust between the two sides.

Part of that distrust is due to America's anxiety over the rise of China even as it faces a less than certain future if not decline. This anxiety has grown particularly since the 2008-09 global financial crisis, which the world's largest economy is slowly recovering from even as the Chinese economy has surged ahead.

In a Pew Research Centre survey conducted earlier this month, 43 per cent of Americans saw China as a serious problem, though only 20 per cent saw it as an adversary. So the American politician has found a convenient scapegoat in China, what with its undervalued currency and its huge trade surpluses with the US, not to mention a system of government that is different from the West. Thus, Senate majority leader Harry Reid called Mr Hu a 'dictator' in an interview.

With 53 per cent of Americans wanting the government to get tougher with the Chinese on trade and economic issues, it is no wonder that American lawmakers are considering a Bill that would punish China for keeping the yuan undervalued.

The Chinese, on their part, have in the past year given cause for not only Americans but also many in Asia to worry about their intentions.

Among Beijing's actions that were seen to be more assertive than usual: scuttling a deal at the 2009 Copenhagen climate change talks; threatening sanctions against US firms in response to a US arms sales deal with Taiwan; and telling American officials in closed-door meetings that China considered its claim of sovereignty over the South China Sea a 'core interest', putting it on a par with Taiwan and Tibet and spooking countries in the region.

One reason for China's new assertiveness is its sense that with its growing national strength, it need not take things lying down. Another is its insecurity about US intentions - whether the superpower will contain its rise by strengthening its alliances in the region and building new partnerships with countries like India and Indonesia.

A third reason, according to the Americans, is Chinese hubris. In the run-up to and immediately after the summit, American analysts were mainly negative about Sino-US ties. This probably stems in part from the initial optimism they felt when Mr Obama took office and the subsequent disappointment as relations deteriorated.

Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University warned in an article that appeared during Mr Hu's visit that while the visit would help improve matters, 'the relationship will remain difficult as long as the Chinese suffer from hubris based on a mistaken belief in American decline'.

An even more pessimistic Professor Aaron Friedberg of Princeton University wrote: 'Rather than signalling the start of a new interval of cooperation and stability, Mr Hu's visit may actually mark the end of an era of relatively smooth relations between the US and China.'

He based his assessment on what he saw as a view in China that it was time for it to stand up - 'to right some of the wrongs suffered when the country was relatively weak, and to reclaim its rightful role in Asia and the world'.

Such pessimistic thinking is dangerous, because it could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. US and Chinese policy-makers should listen to their people. They are less pessimistic.

Ms Annie Lyerly of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, who sends her child to Chinese classes, told the BBC how she viewed China: 'There's a little bit of fear and a lot of awe, and also a lot of interest.'

A Chinese netizen wrote about news of Mr Hu's reception at the White House: 'Just because the Americans treat us as a great power, do we need to go wild with joy?'

Another wrote: 'Only when China is strong will the Chinese live with dignity.'

Some netizens warned against American motives, but there were several who declared: 'Long Live Sino-American friendship!'

A majority of Americans, 58 per cent in the Pew survey, want their country to build a stronger relationship with China.

Both sides must act now to dispel the mistrust between them if they are to avoid a collision in the near future.

suinoi@sph.com.sg

America's new 'Sputnik moment'

Jan 26, 2011

By Nayan Chanda
THE recent shootings at an Arizona shopping mall have ignited an impassioned debate in America about political responsibility. Did overheated Tea Party rhetoric inspire the gunman or was the carnage merely the product of a twisted individual mind?
President Barack Obama has called for calm and a return to civility in debate. However, the anger over the economic crisis that underpins much of the political blame game continues to smoulder. The fact that politicians from both parties are unwilling or unable to accept a painful overhaul to adapt to a globalised world does not, however, bode well for a return to civility.
Some figures reveal the challenges ahead. Corporations in the United States earned profits at an annual rate of US$1.659 trillion (S$2.13 trillion) in the third quarter of last year, the highest in 60 years. Most of these gains were derived from overseas operations. In addition, according to the Federal Reserve, US companies are sitting on cash reserves of nearly US$2 trillion. Despite this, about 15 million Americans remain unemployed, for corporations refuse to hire new workers for fear that there may not be a market for their products in the country.
The bitter debate between Republicans and Democrats has centred on how to kick-start the economy and create jobs. Republicans call for lowering taxes and cutting government spending, while Democrats argue for further stimulus and protectionist trade policies. That the facts defy both of these prescriptions does not seem to matter in a partisan debate over ideology. The tax cuts initiated by Republican administrations increased government debt without reducing unemployment.
Survey after survey has shown that companies have been holding back on expansion out of fear that unemployed and debt-ridden consumers will not buy their products. Even those who do expand their operations invest in machines rather than in their workers. At current rates of job creation, Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke admitted it might take 'another four to five years for the job market to normalise fully'.
Democratic calls for greater government stimulus to create jobs hold appeal in the short term, but these run the risk of adding to an explosive accumulation of debt. With public debt rising to dizzying heights, wary investors will demand higher bond yields, which will force an end to the near-zero interest rate policy that has propelled the economy so far.
Calls to subsidise domestic industry will similarly produce minor short-term gains, while risking igniting a trade war. And demanding a revaluation of China's yuan is a double-edged sword: It could reduce the US trade deficit but would also eat into the profits of US corporations that use Chinese production facilities to export their goods. It will certainly end up costing American consumers more: The country's shopping malls are largely stocked with made-in-China goods.
The unpleasant fact is that over the past three decades, most manufacturing jobs have left the US for lower-cost countries. It is thus no surprise that the manufacturing sector earns most of its profits from overseas operations, and the major part of corporate profits in America is derived from the financial sector, which has global operations.
What the data shows is that while the globalisation of finance and manufacturing and the technological revolution have been a boon to nimble American corporations and individuals, most other Americans have been left behind by globalisation, facing a crumbling infrastructure and a failing education system.
With income concentrated in the top 1 per cent of the population - and the recent Supreme Court ruling giving rich corporations unprecedented power to spend on political campaigns - the debate is now focused on narrower topics like lowering taxes and cutting the deficit rather than the general direction of the US economy.
Not that ideas are lacking. In a speech last month, Mr Obama said the US cannot go back to its old ways and needs to wake up to a changed world, as it did to the Russian space challenge in 1957.
'Our generation's Sputnik moment is back,' he said. 'Once we put our minds to it, once we got focused, once we got unified, not only did we surpass the Soviets, we developed new American technologies, industries and jobs.'
In the growing rancour as a result of the economic crisis, big ideas have fallen by the wayside. Unless politicians wake up to the challenges of globalisation, mere civility in debate, however welcome, will not address the causes of the anger raging in America.

The writer is director of publications at the Yale Centre for the Study of Globalisation, and Editor of YaleGlobal Online.

Foolproof security at airports? Impossible, say experts

Jan 26, 2011

NEW YORK: It is impossible to fully secure something as big and sprawling as an international airport against a terrorist bombing like the one at Domodedovo Airport in Moscow, security experts said.
Airports are, by definition, public places requiring relatively free access.
The experts have long contended that serious holes in security at airports have gone unfixed, while most of the effort and money go into looking for weapons on passengers waiting at checkpoints.
But they have also warned that a sensational incident in one place can lead to widespread overreaction and demands for quick fixes.
'It always does,' said Mr Bruce Schneier, a security technology consultant and author who has long argued that there is no such thing as perfect security, and that pretending otherwise is foolish.
Mr Douglas Laird, a former Secret Service agent and one-time head of security for Northwest Airlines, made much the same case.
'At some point, it needs to be made clear that nothing is 100 per cent secure,' said Mr Laird, who now runs an aviation security consulting firm.
'We're talking about public areas. It doesn't matter if it's an airline terminal, a train station or the front of Macy's - as long as you have free access, you're going to have these potential issues.'
One measure already in place that could address threats like the terrorist attack in Moscow is what the United States Transportation Security Administration (TSA) refers to as a behavioural detection officer programme.
In the programme, plainclothes officers trained in what the agency calls 'non-intrusive behaviour observation and analysis' mingle with crowds, looking for signs of potential trouble in physical behaviour.
The TSA has more than 3,000 behavioural detection officers deployed, usually near checkpoints, which see more than 1.5 million people pass through each day.
Airport terminals have two zones: the already secure areas and the public areas. As many news reports since the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have shown, there are problems even in the already secure areas, with poorly supervised access points, as well as inadequate credentialing and monitoring of some airport employees and delivery people.
In the public areas, experts said, behavioural detection could be useful as part of a protection programme that also included sophisticated intelligence-gathering.
Behavioural profiling is 'a good idea, assuming it's done right', said Mr Schneier, who nevertheless has serious reservations about how it is being done.
'You can go around looking for people who look suspicious, which works great if you actually know what suspicious looks like, rather than just deciding, this guy dresses funny and his food doesn't smell right.'
Mr Laird said the quality of training needed to be emphasised as well as the great difficulty of securing any big public place against terrorists, who could simply choose another site.
'Nothing in public is ever going to be anything near 100 per cent secure in a free society,' he said.
On the other hand, he added, 'good, well-trained cops are a little like good lifeguards. You need to have the ability, but what you look for is, what stands out.'
NEW YORK TIMES

MAJOR TERRORIST ATTACKS IN RUSSIA SINCE 2000

• Aug 8, 2000: A bomb explodes in an underpass at Pushkinskaya Station in the centre of Moscow, killing 13 and injuring more than 90.
• July 5, 2003: Several explosions occur one after another at a rock concert at Tushino Airport, north-west of Moscow, killing at least 16 and injuring 100.
• Feb 6, 2004: A male suicide bomber blows himself up in a running subway train on the Zamoskvoretskaya line in Moscow, killing 41 and leaving over 100 injured.
• Aug 31, 2004: A woman blows herself up near Rizhskaya subway station, causing more than 60 casualties.
• Aug 21, 2006: A homemade bomb explodes at Moscow's Cherkizovsky Market, killing 11 and injuring 55.
• Aug 13, 2007: A luxury Nevsky Express train travelling between Moscow and St Petersburg is blown up by a homemade bomb planted under the rails. At least 60 people are injured.
• Nov 27, 2009: Four cars of the same train derail as a result of a bomb blast, killing 27 and injuring more than 100.
• March 29, 2010: Two blasts go off in the Moscow subway stations - Lubyanka and Park Kultury - killing 40 and injuring more than over 90.

REUTERS

Rights group says democracies ignore abuses

Jan 25, 2011

BRUSSELS - DEMOCRACIES around the world are turning a blind eye to abuses by repressive regimes, opting for improved relations rather than condemning rights violations and curtailing aid, Human Rights Watch says.

The international watchdog decried in its annual review published on Monday the increasing use of dialogue and cooperation to urge reforms - but without any teeth to ensure that change occurs.

'Dialogue and cooperation have their place, but the burden should be on the abusive government to show a genuine willingness to improve,' Kenneth Roth, executive director of the group, said in a statement accompanying the report.

'In the absence of the demonstrated political will by abusive governments to make change, governments of good will need to apply pressure to end repression.'

But many democracies are abandoning political pressure, accepting instead the rationalisation of authoritarian governments, the report said.

It criticised UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton in that regard. -- AP

[Idealistic. Chauvinistic. Evangelistic. And unrealistic. The pariah nations have sanctions against them, and the effect in terms of human rights improvements are as useless. Sanctions against N. Korea hurt the people more than the leaders that are abusive. Countries are sovereign nations. Sanctions are considered hostile and offensive. If you want to make the lives of the people better, the friendly approach is better. The alternative is to be prepared to go all the way, and that includes war. Going to war for human rights?

Well, there is the Iraq war. Not strictly for human rights, but one of the intents was to bring democracy there. Great how that worked out, eh?

What sort of "teeth" do they proposed?

A remarkably unhelpful and useless observation.

See also comments at Lessons for US in Tunisian Revolt]

US-China

Jan 25, 2011

America's biggest creditor
By Chua Chin Hon, US Bureau Chief

WASHINGTON: If you tune in to the news here and notice China being mentioned, chances are the words 'America's banker' won't be far behind.

No doubt, the usual cliches about the mainland - the bicycle kingdom, the birthplace of gongfu, the home of pandas, and of late, Tiger Mums - are still prevalent.

But increasingly, American perception of China is being shaped by the dawning of a new reality: that of the Asian power's rising economic might and its status as the United States' No. 1 foreign creditor.

China holds about US$1 trillion (S$1.3 trillion) worth of US government debt, a point that news anchors, alarmist television pundits, and even comedians love to remind their audiences of.

When Chinese President Hu Jintao visited Washington last week for a lavish state dinner, for instance, every late-night talk show host had a joke about the irony of holding a grand party for someone whom you owe so much money.

'We're playing this just right,' popular comedian Jon Stewart deadpanned. 'When a country owes you a billion dollars, they've got a problem. When a country owes you a trillion dollars, you've got a problem. We're too big to fail!'

The impact of this new economic reality on public opinion, however, has been no joke.

According to two recent polls by the Pew Research Centre and Allstate-National Journal, nearly one in two Americans think - incorrectly - that China is already the world's strongest economy. The US economy is in fact 21/2 times bigger than China's US$5.9 trillion gross domestic product, which has only recently overtaken Japan's as the second largest in the world.

It could take years, if not decades, before China catches up with America's US$14.6 trillion economy.

Still, 47 per cent of 1,200 Americans told the Allstate-National Journal poll late last year that they thought China had the strongest economy, while only 20 per cent picked the US.

The survey by Pew earlier this month arrived at an almost identical result: 47 per cent of the 1,503 Americans polled said China had the world's leading economy, while just 31 per cent thought the US was at the top.

The results of the Pew survey are all the more striking when compared to the responses to the same question three years ago. In January 2008, before the global financial crisis struck, 41 per cent of respondents thought the US economy was the strongest while only 30 per cent picked China.

'Public opinion in this country turns on a dime, but I think the long recession really sapped the confidence of a lot of Americans,' said Mr Joe Mandel, a retired teacher in Chicago, when asked to comment on the poll results.

'People feel as if it is no longer just a case of the grass being greener on the other side. It is sadly a case where things are withering here day by day while the Chinese just seem to keep growing and growing.'

Many US politicians are adamant, however, that China's growth is the result of its unfair currency and trade policies - a problem that they want to fix with retaliatory tariffs and duties.

During Mr Hu's visit, a group of 84 legislators from both the Democratic and Republican parties sent an open letter to US President Barack Obama urging him to take a tougher stance on the trade issue.

'America's patience is near an end,' the letter said. 'Ensuring that China abides by international trade laws is imperative for the vitality of our nation's economy and for the viability of American businesses.'

Most Americans surveyed by Pew (53 per cent) agreed with this call for tougher US action on economic and trade issues. But anyone assuming that there's broad public support for a confrontational approach towards China would be mistaken. For one thing, a higher percentage of respondents (58 per cent) said that it is 'very important' to build stronger ties with China. Most Americans also regard China as 'a serious problem, but not an adversary', according to Pew.

And while familiar criticisms about China's human rights record and environmental policies continue to cast a pall over its image in the US media, the poll found that Americans regard these problems as being less important than the economic issues.

Overall, American views of China also appear to be pretty middle-of-the-road when compared with how people of other nationalities view the Asian giant. About 36 per cent of Americans have an unfavourable view of China, compared with 69 per cent among Japanese and 61 per cent among Germans, Pew's research found.

'Sure, I sometimes see stories about human rights abuses in China, but there are so many other stories in the media about China that it doesn't affect the way I see the country,' said Mr Brad Stevens, an American video editor based in Washington DC.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal recently, Mr Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Centre, added: 'The bottom line is that Americans don't want to demonise China, but they have deep reservations about the effects of US-China trade.

'Worries notwithstanding, most Americans for now continue to hold a favourable view of the rising Asian giant.'

But many observers here also point out that China's image in the US, while relatively benign, is also a superficial one. Beyond household names like Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Yao Ming, few Chinese personalities are widely known here.

The country's politics, fears, hopes, and aspirations are a complete mystery, except to the small community of China watchers. Beijing is well aware of the problem, and in response launched a major self-promotional advertisement ahead of Mr Hu's recent visit.

The ad, featuring quick snapshots of successful Chinese nationals like astronaut Yang Liwei, ran in several American cities to mixed reviews. Many questioned the wisdom of running the ad 300 times a day over four consecutive weeks in New York's busy Times Square.

Like most experts here, Dr Michael Green of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies said the best thing that China can do to improve its image in the US is to carry out genuine political and economic reforms at home, and be more forthright about its military affairs. As for public relations and advertising blitzes, he noted: 'Americans can smell propaganda.'

chinhon@sph.com.sg

----------

Land of free spenders
By Grace Ng, China Correspondent

BEIJING: In a skit aired by China's state-owned CCTV last September, four children - each wearing a national flag representing China, the United States, India and Brazil - were lined up for a race.

The American child, Anthony, swore he would win 'because I always win' as he took the lead. But he soon toppled over, suffering from cramps. This prompted his Chinese competitor to cheer: 'Now is our chance to overtake him for the first time!'

'What's wrong with Anthony?' another child asked, to which the fourth kid said: 'He is overweight and flabby. He ate too many hamburgers.'

This skit, aired during the World Economic Forum, was a pointed commentary on how the Chinese viewed America, observed New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. He had attended the gathering, along with hundreds of top businessmen and political leaders, in China's Tianjin city.

For many Chinese, this picture of a bloated America ceding the lead to the rising dragon economy surely resonated as they witnessed their president's visit to the US last week.

President Hu Jintao brought with him US$45 billion (S$58 billion) worth of business deals that are expected to translate into 235,000 jobs for a struggling American economy.

The notion of China coming to America's rescue has prompted many Chinese to look anew at their perceptions of the US.

'When we were growing up, the US was the world's superpower that was far ahead of China,' said Ms Ding Lihua, 35, a human resource manager in Beijing. 'But watching the Americans give Mr Hu the VVIP treatment last week made me realise the US is on the decline, and China is becoming its equal,' she said.

This shift has also prompted them to reconsider what they admired and disliked about the Land of the Free.

Or rather, the land of the free spenders - which dragged China and the world into crisis - as a poll on Chinese perceptions of the US last month showed.

The US was blamed for the global economic crisis as well as the tensions in US-China ties, according to the survey of 1,400 people partly organised by the state newspaper China Daily.

Seven in 10 among those polled also saw the two countries as both allies and competitors. 'The US and China should be friends, but they cannot avoid being rivals in all spheres,' said translation company manager Michael Zhang, 43.

One area where the two may clash is foreign policy, said several Chinese nationals interviewed by The Straits Times. In their view, the Americans were 'too interventionist'.

Said corporate relations manager Wang Xingzi, 27: 'The US foreign policy is to bring democracy to countries, even those that don't necessarily want it. It said it would free people in Iraq, but it seems to have made their lives worse.'

Meanwhile, the US education system may be starting to lose its shine.

It did not escape notice that Shanghai schoolchildren recently beat those in 65 other countries in international standardised tests in mathematics, science and reading. American children came in between the 15th and 31st places in the three categories.

'I think more Chinese students are questioning if it is worthwhile to study at a not-so-good US school,' said Tsinghua graduate student Yang Jingjing, 27, who at one time studied in the US.

Still, if Chinese people were asked to name today's creative geniuses, Americans like Mr Bill Gates and Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg would first come to mind, she added. 'Silicon Valley, Harvard and Wall Street are still powerful emblems of US superiority. The huge talent and creativity there are hard to beat.'

It was its tech prowess that made the US pavilion at the World Expo in Shanghai the most anticipated among the Chinese in Internet polls last year. And even though it turned out to have no futuristic gadgets and was disappointingly full of corporate sponsors' displays, one visitor, Mr Jun Caifeng, was still stirred by 'the US' branding power'.

'Americans know how to package and show the best side of themselves,' said the retiree in his 70s, citing the example of his 10-year-old grandson whose hero is National Basketball Association (NBA) star Kobe Bryant. 'I asked him why he likes an American more than Yao Ming, and he said, 'Kobe has more style and does magical dunks.' Americans really know how to impress.'

High school student Jordan Zhang, 14, echoed this: 'American culture, sports and pop music are cooler than China's.' That was why he chose to have an American college student, rather than a British researcher, teach him English. Both are volunteers at a non-profit Beijing tuition centre.

'We found most kids would rather have a Texan accent than speak the Queen's English,' said the centre's manager, who declined to be named. 'They watch too many American shows.'

Indeed, NBA games and Hollywood movies are the most-watched foreign content on CCTV as well as top video websites like Youku.com.

Even Vice-Premier Xi Jinping, tipped to be Mr Hu's successor, is said to be a fan of Hollywood's World War II movies such as Steven Spielberg's war epic, Saving Private Ryan.

For some, like Ms Qin Ping, a 36-year-old clothes shop owner, the values that come across, such as their quest for greater freedom and their greater participation in matters that affect their lives, are appealing.

Despite its recent setbacks, America was still ranked the 'best-liked country' in the world in a Global Times poll of 1,350 Chinese a year ago, beating France, Australia and Singapore, which was ranked fourth.

What is becoming clear to the Chinese is that one way to view the US is to see it as an ever-changing kaleidoscope, where you are as likely to find Nobel Prize winners as Wall Street crooks, Lady Gaga as well as hamburger-stuffed overweight children.

Said accountant Maggie Sun, 28: 'As Chinese people interact more with America, we are finding out that the US is too big and complex to be put into a box like what we used to do. I think Americans are learning the same about China.'

graceng@sph.com.sg

Additional reporting by Lina Miao