Category: Miscellany

Some of my friends wrote in about a previous post, ‘Biased Broadcasting Corporation’ saying that I was ignoring the fact of inferior Chinese quality.

I think they missed the point of that post. I was not denying that many Chinese products are very shoddy in quality. What I was trying to show was the one-sidedness of a telecast from a news corporation that has, or at least had, a reputation for balanced reporting. To devote 19 minutes of an approximately 25-minute news program to problems with Chinese-made toys in the U.S., when there were so many news stories of equal or more importance,  seemed like a misplaced sense of priority. Or was it bias? Considering the spate in the number of recent reports on product quality from China, one could be forgiven for thinking that there is more to it than meets the eye.

Anyway, while there is no denying that many products coming out of China are of very poor quality, in some cases other people, not just the manufacturer, must share the blame for this.

While there are factories producing the ‘thirty-day wonder’ – if it lasts 30 days it’s a wonder – there are also factories producing top-of-the-range quality. Products coming out of these units are at par with anything elsewhere in the world. Even within the same factory the quality offered will depend on the price paid.

This is a fact ignored, or covered up, by China bashers and ignorant or biased journalists.

Many years ago when I was in business I made a trip to Australia to meet various buyers for my leather products. At one meeting with a big importer in Melbourne I was shown the product line that they were sourcing from China. The quality ranged from adequate to awful. Each item had ‘genuine leather’, or for additional snob value, vrai cuir or cuoio reale, embossed on it. The only genuine leather in each item was that particular part which carried the stamp. In most cases this was the most visible external component, while the rest of the product was made of imitation or synthetic leather. Often too, the leather portion was made from split, that part of the hide which is of poorest quality.

When I showed them samples of bags and small leather goods manufactured at my factory there was no reaction from some of the people in the room, while others remarked on the excellent quality. Then I gave them my prices and they were taken aback. I knew my products were being retailed at 10-15 times of what I was wholesaling them at.

They gave me sketches of a range that they would be running during Christmas that year and asked for samples and quotations. Weeks later we met again and they were very impressed both with quality and price. We waited for the boss, one of the persons who had shown no reaction at our first meeting, to arrive. When he came into the room he examined the goods and looked slyly at one of his assistants. He asked the prices and then told me that they were much too high. I knew that the price I was offering was at least a tenth of what they would eventually be retailed at but asked him what he thought the bags should cost.

He quoted prices that were 30% to 50% lower. I didn’t even bother to negotiate. I stood up, collected my samples and told him that he couldn’t afford my quality.

He tried to get back at me by saying that my prices were acceptable only for Italian products. I told him that I realised why quality manufacturers in India thought Australia, and the U.S., were the bottom end of the business.

That incident comes to mind nowadays when I read reports on ‘inferior’ Chinese quality.

The quality of products made in China depends on the prices that foreign buyers pay to the Chinese manufacturer.

Airbus and Boeing supposedly have Chinese suppliers for some aircraft parts. Surely they would not put passenger safety at risk by buying sub-standard components. I’ve just purchased an expensive iPod made in China. I’m sure Apple didn’t pay peanuts for that quality.

When many manufacturers closed down their factories in other countries and moved production to China, they did so to cut costs. Did they pass on those lower costs to the consumer? And in cutting costs did they turn a blind eye to cutting corners?

And what of the others who are culpable for the poor quality coming out of some Chinese factories. Most foreign buyers maintain well-to-highly paid quality control inspectors on site. In most cases to avoid compromise and corruption these inspectors are non-locals. Why weren’t they doing their job?

There are also other reasons when buyers accuse manufacturers of poor quality. Some of them are: products ordered have not clicked in the marketplace; competitors have similar products at lower prices; and the worst of all, trying to squeeze extra discounts from desperate suppliers with cash flow problems who are already operating on wafer-thin margins.

COMMENTS

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:04 pm

Once again Aaron..you have hit the nail on the head!
The buzz words in industry and commerce are now “downsizing”, “shareholder value”, profit maximizing”, just to name a few. The consumer / end-user does not even feature in this equation, except as a stupid consumer, tricked via “clever” marketing and “swanky” advertising into buying sub-standard products at a premium price.
China is currently in “focus” because of basic US fear that their entire manufacturing industry has slowly but steadily been relocated abroad – Mexico, China, India and even an erstwhile “enemy”…Vietnam.
As ABBA sang money, money, money….
PS Let’s just hope that these sub-standard Boeing parts aren’t installed in any planes that I board!
PPS Well argued and written…keep up the good work!

Jansan

Peter

June 15, 2011 at 9:05 pm

I agree Percy. People like Apple for example are producing all their products in China because it’s cheaper, but, they also insist the best top quality. I guess Mr. Job’s is paying the Chinese for their experience at making quality goods???? He makes a point of telling the press this when he is being bashed by the press for getting Apple’s products made in China. I must say that the Chinese can produce top quality goods if they are paid good money. It is a human fact of life – if you are paid well you produce better quality.

Good posting Percy. Keep it up.

Peter Markham

Peter

June 15, 2011 at 9:06 pm

For all your readers out there, a “must read” book…
The State of the American Empire – How the USA Shapes the World, by Stephen Burman
(University of California Press, Myriad Editions, 2007)
Deals basically with “the militarisation and economic subjugation of the global community and its commodification by corporate governance and by the American government.”

Jansan

© Percy Aaron

When people die suddenly, especially if they are young, we generally tend to speak well of them. Maybe that is how it should be.

However, the eulogies to Benazir Bhutto have been quite over the top. Fact is being mixed with large dollops of fiction.

The West says that she was a democrat. I think that their understanding of the term is rather different from mine. Benazir Bhutto wouldn’t have recognized democracy if it had gone up to her and introduced itself.

As prime minister of Pakistan she was as allergic to democracy as most Pakistani rulers have been, before and after her. She showed no respect for the country’s democratic institutions undermining even the judiciary. She treated members of the Pakistani People’s Party like servants in a feudal household and allowed her husband to get away with even greater excesses. As prime minister she was an expert in playing both sides against the middle and all sides against everybody. She encouraged fundamentalism when it suited her and rubbished it when it didn’t. She made deals with Musharraf, her devil, because of her lust for power and her belief in her ability to eventually outsmart him. That she thought she was the destiny of her country was supreme arrogance.

They say she was a modern woman. She was modern when travelling abroad, feudal back in Pakistan.

They say she was intelligent. But she wasn’t intelligent enough to realize, that in her country at least, being close to the U.S. was the kiss of death.

For a ‘democrat’ there were too many allegations of culpability in some murders, including those of her brothers.

And then there was the matter of the corruption; mountains and mountains of it.

In an impoverished country with foreign currency restrictions how did she get the money to afford the lavish lifestyle of holidays in the South of France, Switzerland and other snob destinations?

When she was investigated for corruption she often claimed that these were politically motivated. What did she say when these investigations were conducted by government agencies in the West?

She could hardly have been married to Mr. Ten-per-cent without being, at least, Mrs. Something-per-cent. When she insisted to reporters that her husband was clean, she was probably talking about his hygiene.

Press reports say that in her will, drawn up a few days before she returned to Pakistan, she wrote that if anything happened to her, her husband was to lead the PPP. Obviously, this ‘democrat’ hadn’t heard the term ‘party elections’.

This act – assuming the will wasn’t another fraud by Mr. Ten-per-cent – was one more indication of the contempt she had for her party, her people and her country.

© Percy Aaron

The BBC program ‘Bloody Cartoons’ made interesting watching, not least for the double standards it exposed on both sides of the divide.

Some time ago the Danish newspaper, Jyllands Posten, carried some cartoons featuring a bearded person. To me he looked like Ali Baba’s father-in-law having a bad day. But bigots on both sides chose to assume that the character portrayed there was the Prophet Mohammed. Each side had its own agenda for such an interpretation.

The cartoons went unnoticed outside of Denmark until a Muslim cleric brought it to the notice of the Muslim world. About half a year later the manufactured ‘outrage over the insult’ resulted in widespread destruction of Danish and other western property in some Islamic countries.

None of the leaders, or any of their followers being exhorted to kill westerners, had even seen the cartoons. But that was irrelevant. The prejudices of one side were being matched by the ignorance of the other.

The presenter of the program interviewed a number of people on both sides including the Danish prime minister. Some of the Muslims interviewed were emphatic that insults to their religion, and especially blasphemy against the Prophet, would not be tolerated.

There was no mention of the blasphemy, intolerance and persecution that some Muslims practise against people of other faiths. There was no mention of the daily risks to life and limb, often institutionalised in many Islamic countries, for people belonging to other religions. There was no mention of the fact that some Muslims would willingly deny to other religions those rights that they demand for themselves. And there was no mention of the fact that in their adopted countries some of them seek to impose the very restrictions that they have fled from. They are oblivious to their distortions of Islam and the shame they bring upon their co-religionists.

On the other hand, the resolve to defend the freedom of speech sounded equally hypocritical.

The cartoonist and other people interviewed, mainly Danish and French, talked of the need to defend freedom of expression. But would such a claim stand up to scrutiny?

The western media has a long history of ignoring, glossing over or biased reporting on issues that are not part of their agenda. There have been instances galore in the western press where stories critical of Israel and her illegal occupation of Palestinian lands have been suppressed. In the United States, that so-called bastion of free speech, reporters, columnists and academics have seen their careers destroyed for daring to have a balanced view of the situation in the Middle East.

In the BBC program one of the Muslims interviewed tendentiously wondered why, if freedom of expression was so sacrosanct, did some countries have laws to prevent any questioning of the Holocaust? The line of reasoning was sick but correct.

The Danish premier who had earlier defended the right of freedom of expression suddenly lost his ardour for free speech when there was talk of boycotting Danish products in the Middle East. His principles, it turned out, weren’t in his heart or his head, but in his wallet.

Liberalism is very often a point of view we take when our vested interests are not at stake. Similarly, freedom of the press is often freedom for the owners and editors to publish what does not affect their profits.

So much cant about cartoons.

COMMENTS

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:10 pm

For the reading pleasure of all who visit this site:
Link from the Atlantic Magazine
http://www.theatlantic.com/…
enjoy….

Jansan52

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:13 pm

Or for that matter Christopher Hitchens’ “GOD is not GREAT”…

Jansan52

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 9:14 pm

“If your GOD is WEAK he (definitely a HE) needs all the help he can get….”
Monotheism amongst all the “isms” is the most dangerous and intolerant “ism”. Simply because the fight always starts with “my god is the ONLY true GOD”…and the rest of you are infidels, goyim or unbelievers.
I recommend all your esteemed readers to beg, borrow, steal or buy (last resort) Prof. Richard Dawkin’s last book “The God Delusion”.
And may YOUR god go with you…

Jansan

© Percy Aaron

Mahmud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, appears to be a thoroughly odious man, and it is a pity that he ‘won’ the election. But it’s fair to say that if there are more poor Iranians than rich ones, and that they were his electoral base, then he actually did win the elections. While it can be argued that not all the poor voted for him, it can also be said that not all the rich or middle-classes or westernized Iranians voted against him. Any alleged rigging only increased the margins.

So, no matter how unpleasant the victor is, he is still the winner.

The situation is somewhat similar to that which exists in Thailand; though the big difference is that in one of these countries the army is behind the incumbent.

The coverage in the international media has been so one-sided that it disregards this. Images on TV have been so manipulative focusing only on opposition supporters with little or no coverage of the other side.

Sadly, it will appear, the Iranians are in for a long period of turmoil which is neither good for them, or for the region.

The people of this troubled nation will continue to pay the price for the long history of outside meddling in their internal affairs. Another country cursed by its oil wealth.

(Published in the Bangkok Post, Monday 29 June 2009)

The BBC’s Panorama had an excellent program on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PSTD).

The presenter, Alan Little, started by recounting his career as a war correspondent, which he found exciting. Later, he discovered that he had all the symptoms of PSTD, lived with its nightmares, allowed it to wear off, and then went back to his career, even back to covering wars.

Mr. Little then tells of people, encouraged by lawyers, who claimed financial compensation for stress suffered: a teacher in a ‘stressful’ school situation; a sailor on a fishing trawler forced to abandon ship during a storm – the other members of the crew ridiculed his claim; a fireman who injured his knee when he took the full force of the water hose during a fire; etc.

Mr. Little wondered whether the above experiences could be put in the same category as those suffered by combatants and non-combatants in a war situation.

Trauma in itself is difficult to detect, and even more, to measure. When lawyers, not the most reputable of people, get involved in drawing up agreements on compensation sharing, claims become suspect.

Mr. Little interviewed a number of medical experts. Naturally, those working with the lawyers differed in opinion from those who felt that compensation claims accentuated, exaggerated and prolonged any feelings of ‘trauma’. When claims are contested, as they usually are, lawyers for the defence subject ‘victims’ to accusations of cheating, malingering, etc. Then, in order not to compromise their legal positions ‘victims’ are forced to ‘wallow’ in emotional or mental situations that are best put behind them.

Interestingly, some of the claimants even suggested that they had made a mistake in seeking compensation.

Some experts believe that PSTD could be the effect of accumulated negative experiences in the past that are triggered off by a ‘traumatic’ experience. Mr. Little asked a very pertinent question. He wanted to know if he caused somebody to have an accident, was he guilty for all the accumulated negative experiences in that person’s past?

I have often wondered when victims of abuse are awarded large compensation, if their trauma disappears once the money is deposited into their accounts.

For example, Catholic priests guilty of sexual abuse should be punished. But penal payback for penile transgressions is fairer than awarding large sums of money in compensation. This cash comes from donations that were made for some better cause and not for the personal use of the priest. This would also preclude the possibility of false accusations.

March 2009

© Percy Aaron

The referee’s blunder in awarding a penalty to Chelsea in their recent Premiership match against Liverpool and this week’s interview with ex-Premier League official, Graham Poll, emphasized the need for introducing TV replays to clean up the game.

With the increasing pace of football matches referees not only have to keep up with players 10-20 years younger than them, but must also be able to make split-second interpretations of the rules correctly. To add to their difficulties, they have to handle blatant cheating, on-the-field histrionics, abuse and intimidation by players, managers and supporters, and subtle pressure from clubs. Sometimes they are even criticized for ‘killing the game’ by interpreting the rules too strictly!

It is humanly impossible, under these conditions, not to make mistakes from time to time, i.e. assuming there are no ‘illegal’ reasons for these errors.

Why would anyone in the world want such a thankless job!

Most other sports use TV replays to assist officials. The principal argument against introducing it into football is that it will affect the flow of the game. This is absolute nonsense. Every time the ball goes out of play, the flow is interrupted. Every time there is an injury, the flow is interrupted. Every time players waste time, the flow is interrupted. In fact, each time the referee blows his whistle the continuity of the game is disturbed.

Given his opposition to such state-of-the-art practices, Michel Platini’s election to the top job at UEFA, European football’s governing body, is a set back to the introduction of electronic refereeing.

But TV replays must be used to control at least some aspects of the game, such as cheating and boorish behaviour.

Despite a few protestations to the contrary it is well-known how mercenary today’s footballers are. The best way to punish them then is to hit them financially. Thus in routine post-match analyses players who have cheated must be banned for a number of games, and fined heavily too. If the match result has gone the way of their team then the club or country must be fined too. The fines must be severe enough to hurt the guilty parties.

Referees and linesmen should also be wired up so that every exchange between them and the players is recorded. Players using abusive language on match officials should also be fined.

And sponsors, who are concerned about corporate image, should help clean up the game by insisting on sponsorship deductions for every red or yellow card received and for all behaviour not punished by the referee.

COMMENTS

Devinder

June 15, 2011 at 9:08 pm

I totally agree with you. It’s time TV replays are used. If rugby and tennis can use it why can’t football use it.

Devinder

© Percy Aaron

BBC World news (GMT 14.00, Tuesday 14 August 2007) covered the issue of Chinese-made toys in the U.S for a total of 19 minutes. Yes, 19 minutes! If this does not suggest an anti-Chinese bias, what does?

As the countdown to the Beijing Olympics starts there are daily BBC reports from China that are extremely critical. The other day the reporter covering the festivities talked about, among other things, the limits on expressing opinions that went against the official viewpoint. And all around him there were tens of hundreds of performers. Why didn’t officials stop that telecast?

If sub-standard and unsafe products are being dumped on the rest of the world by Chinese manufacturers, it is happening with the connivance of their western buyers who turn a blind eye to such practices. Foreign buyers source from China to cut costs. If corners also get cut, so be it.

So why does the BBC and other international media not expose the other side too?

While undoubtedly free speech does not exist in China, the western media is no paragon of honest reporting either. In totalitarian societies, governments control the media. In the West the ‘free’ press is controlled by big business and other special interests groups. Freedom of the press is the freedom of the owners to publish or broadcast what they want.

In days gone by when the BBC did not conduct surveys or ask for viewer feedback, its reputation was impeccable. What has gone wrong?

And back to the issue of unsafe Chinese-made toys in the U.S. The average American child is at greater risk on U.S streets and schools than from toys made in China.

COMMENTS

Peter Markham

June 15, 2011 at 8:47 pm

Up ‘the anti’ mate. I totally agree with you.

Peter,

Teresa

June 15, 2011 at 8:48 pm

Need more of this …….the other side of the effects of globalisation!!!!

Teresa

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm

“Globalisation” is just another name for BIG BUSINESS to make even more PROFITS at the expense of the less fortunate…be it Chinese, Indian or Bangladeshi (underpaid and overworked) labour.
Maybe MATTELL have no money to pay for the toys they ordered?? And are rejecting them this way….
Besides, I do know for a fact, that all MNCs have QC reps on site wherever they produce their junk. So, were these overpaid US employees sleeping on the job, or what?
And what freedom of the press if Murdoch owns all the media!
BBC = Blair/Bush Broadcasting Co.

Jansan

Jan

June 15, 2011 at 8:50 pm

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

Jansan

Minnie

June 15, 2011 at 8:51 pm

It’s all about SPIN with the media in the west..and Britain and the US have mastered it well.

Minnie

Juhi

June 15, 2011 at 8:52 pm

Great article !! Very well written…maybe we should consider entering it in the Washington Post here.

Juhi

JanSan

June 23, 2011 at 6:32 am

Hallo Percy,
Nice Web Blog. Keep up the good work educating us idiots!
JanSan

© Percy Aaron

A clutch of US politicians, pastors and other assorted Bible thumpers have shown us, again and again, that Christian fundamentalists are fundamentally unchristian in their attitudes. But not all fundamentalists, Christian, Muslim or Jewish, condone violence.

However, the tragic events in Norway last week once again raise the issue of freedom of expression. The extremism in one man’s word can very easily be translated into extremism in another man’s deed. When does one person’s right to express himself freely, impinge on another person’s right not to be insulted or assaulted by such outpourings.

The advent of the Internet and the ease and speed with which hate is disseminated means that this issue needs to be addressed urgently. Laws of the 19^th and 20^th centuries cannot be used to regulate technologies of the 21^st century.

The right to unlimited free speech must be balanced with the duty to speak and act responsibly. A person who incites hatred should be considered as culpable as the fanatic who pulls the trigger, or detonates the bomb. In today’s stressed out world there are too many crazed people out there, with too many weapons, for this kind of catastrophe not to occur again and again.

Let us start by condemning all violence unequivocally: whether it is by a lone lunatic or by states against their people.

We cannot have one standard for the Syrian and another for the Bahraini.

(Published in The Independent, U.K., 28 July 2011)