What to learn from China?

  The Chinese miracle is no longer something that can be ignored or willed away. The hillbillies can no longer condemn or laugh at Chinese products as cheap plastics, copies, and easily broken. The new awakening, Chinese products are the best, though still cheap but very good. This admission is coming from western scholars, market leaders and serious analysts, especially EVs.

China is not setting itself as an example to emulate and copy. China knows that it is not easy as the conditions in China are very different and unique compare to other countries. This does not stop developing countries from wanting to study and learn from the Chinese success story, not unreliable or fake data. From being dead poor to becoming the second largest economy, from being deep in debt to become the biggest creditor to the Americans, with the largest national reserves in several trillions, cannot be fake. No amount of lies, demonisation, fake news etc can change this painful truth from the Americans and the West. The big queue outside Zhongnanhai is the proof. And they are not just from Africa or developing countries, they the leaders of European states.

What can developing countries learn from China? The Chinese story is not a pleasant journey to enjoy like a movie. China started by eating the humble pie, exploited for its cheap labour and manufacturing costs, polluting its environment, and earning pittance while the foreign investments made the big bucks. An item that costs $5 to make, the Chinese may make a dollar for providing cheap labour and maybe another dollar for the facilities. The foreign investors stitched on their brands and sell the item for a couple of hundred dollars, laughing all the way to the banks. Some luxury brands could earn tens of thousands for a product made by Chinese labour with the workers making a few dollars each.

China did not complain and went along, welcoming all the foreign investors in a win win formula, with China earning $1 and the foreign investor earning $1000. All is fair as both sides agreed and signed on the dotted line. China knows that no one is going to invest in China if they cannot make money, cannot have a good deal. The investors did not invest in China for charity, to feed the poor Chinese peasants for free. They did not owe China a living. And China did not cheat them with fabricated charges, lawsuits and multi million dollar fines. China did not take over successful investors' companies by force.

What China did was to learn and learn and learn as much as they can, as fast as they can from the foreign investors. At the same time, China sent its best talents overseas to study from the best universities, to learn the hard sciences, to produce STEM graduates by the millions. China did not send the substandard students to learn arts or religious studies. It is hard business decisions. There was the fear of the students not returning. The famous reply from Deng Xiaoping, if they didn't return, we would send more to make sure some would return. A lot of state funds were spent to educate the new Chinese generations to shoulder the tasks and responsibilities of rebuilding a new China, not for ego and cosmetics.

There were many problems then and now, wastages, corruptions, trial and error, but with committed and dedicated leadership, and a belief in their own people, and math, many Chinese talents returned to the Motherland after their studies, to contribute to what China is today. Many stayed behind in the West, but there were more that returned... and over the years, even those that stayed behind are starting to return to the Motherland to do their share. They shared a common mission, to rebuild China. They were committed and dedicated patriots, scientists, engineers, technicians, etc etc, all willing to sacrifice personal interests, comfort, financial success, recognition and honour in the West, their youths, and their lives, to work for their Motherland.

This is China's story, not a bed or roses, not an easy and cheap path. Many worked day and night even dying on the job without complaints. Many countries are learning and trying to pick whatever that is good for them for their countries' developments. Many went to China to learn. Oops, I forgot, China in its formative years, also sent many delegations out to learn, like in Singapore. They did not learn blindly and copy everything. They picked the best and discarded whatever that were not applicable to their own culture and political systems.

There are countries that are still thinking of getting free lunches without wanting to pay the price. Some think that foreign investors owe them a living, and if not, they just cheat the foreign investors and take whatever by all kinds of shortsighted and cunning ways. The way forward is rough and tough, and in a way easier for China because of the continuity of its political system. China could plan years ahead and can expect the subsequent leaders to continue with what they set out to do in the long term. This is not easy for countries with democratic systems that changed their political leadership every few years, like changing underwear, and needing to seek new mandates, meaning having to promise short term gains and short term results.

The musical chair game of everchanging leadership is something that many countries would find it difficult to match the Chinese way of central leadership and continuity in state planning for the long term. The USA is a very good example of a failed system relying on constant short term leadership, and worse, when the political leaders have no guarantee of being in office for more than 4 years. Under such a system, they can forget about long term planning or projects that need years for fruition. They simply don't care, no need to care, cannot afford to care. Their concerns are the immediate four years in office. Actually two or three years. By the four year, nothing matters except hoping for reelection.

Singapore is an exceptional democracy that seems to beat the musical chair game and could plan long term. India surprisingly has a Modi leadership of more than 10 years and should be doing well in planning long term. But India seems more interested in short term gains, and thinking that foreign investors owe them a living. And what is invested in India belongs to India and free for the Indians to take, legally or cunningly, with no consequences.

What is there to learn from China? Plenty But how to apply them in different political systems and cultures, and the mindset of political leaders? China improvised all the way, others too can do the same, caveat, with continuity in pursuing a planned course over years, decades.