Again.

I really liked your comment over at China Hearsay, so I will repeat it here:

"I share your sentiment about this “China has no law…” argument floating out there.

yes, the body of tort law in China may not be as sophisicated (”scary” at times too) in the U.S.

yes, the damages awarded are too low, and punitive damages are hard to come by for plaintiffs.

yes, the courts are not independent.

But, none of them, singularly or combined, means that China has no “body of civil law” or no “good lawyers.” It is downright inaccurate and misleading, to say the least.

Thanks for setting the record straight."

I will note for the record that Brad is in his third year of law school here in the United States, after having secured a law degree in China. I'm guessing Brad knows more than "a few good lawyers" in China.

Thanks. Just Thanks.

Here I was thinking for one foolish moment that the White Man's Burden died with Rudyard Kipling.

Hell, I'm not a lawyer, never studied law, and even I can pick holes in that clown Marler's diatribe big enough to drive a truck through.

Well done Dan and China Hearsay.

You are very welcome.

I don't disagree that all this publicity is leading to increased safety, but are you saying something beyond that. I actually was recently quoted on this in this National Post article here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/printedition/story.html?id=2be71b3e-2268-4c8b-8fe6-8798861386f0

Certainly the Chinese no longer need us as they are able to keep their hutongs clean. Funny thing is that I met with someone today who thinks Marler did actually mean to say Hooters. This guy's argument is that Hooters is clean and bleak, whereas the hutongs are generally neither bleak nor terribly clean.

Have not read much Hutton and what I have read I cannot really remember. Isn't he of the China will fall apart someday crowd?

Why thank you Ben. This means a lot to me, coming as it does from a China lawyer/world class foosball player at Paul Weiss Rifkind, which has been in China as long as anyone.

While Duncan's point about visiting foreigners to China and their views is often accurate whether good or bad, the same can be said for those that have been there too long. Chinese in the US that I've talked too speak of how western people in Asian countries become warped and twisted (along with their views) when they are there too long and don't have a separation between themselves and the local culture around them.

So when an "old hand" states his case (as old hands are generally male...and old), this opinion has been soaking in CCTV, China Daily and local newsletters put out by the neighborhood committee regarding "glorious futures" and "green grass and blue skies".
And typically the hard case old hands had to make themselves "pro China" because they did something back home that made sure they can't go to home or to a country with alot of extradition treaties (corporate fraud, large scale tax evasion, espionage, sex crimes, etc).

And many hutongs aren't clean.

I agree with you that we must listen to more than just "old hands." I am perptually in awe of DeToqueville's ability to see the US better than we ourselves could, and in such a short time.

But, what you say does not apply to what Marler did here, which is to make very strong (even insulting) pronouncments of an entire legal system and its lawyers within that system without any basis in either study or experience. That is not observation, it's unfairness.

Here, I'm not clear who exactly is "a friend of China"?

In my view, perhaps the most injurious action that someone can take against a person is to tell that person exactly what he/she wants to hear. As such, "a friend of China" may not be "a friend of China", depending upon how one defines that term.

There is a considerable debate within the Chinese legal community regarding ethics in the Chinese legal profession, Chinese legal education, and the future development of the Chinese legal profession. There is a very high attrition rate among Chinese lawyers. I consider persons who honestly participate in this debate to be "friends of China".

Thank you.

1. Of course a person has a right to express his view and have that view challenged.

2. Why are we talking about "friend of China?" I have never (until now) even considered whether or not I am a "friend of China" and now that I have, I would say I am not. I am neither a friend nor an enemy; I am a neutral who just tries to call it like he sees it. But, I would agree with you that a friend should not remain silent.

During this trip, I was introduced to an American in Beijing who heads up a very powerful industry group. He told me he thought this blog was "hugely important." I laughed because I did not take it seriously. He pressed on and said that there are essentially two major camps out there. The "we hate China camp" and the "wooly, we love everything about China camp." He said that he put himself and this blog in a third camp, which is that China is made up of individuals who, for the most part, want the same sorts of things Americans want: a nice house, job security, a car, a 60 inch plasma TV (whoops, I'm getting too personal here), etc.... I liked that description.

Chinese lawyer ethics are nowhere near where they should be (I have written on this many times) and the courts are also nowhere near where they should be, particularly in criminal and politically relevant cases. I am not aware of high attrition among Chinese lawyers, but it would not surprise me in the least as there is high attrition among American lawyers and there are a huge number of Chinese lawyers who make almost no money. But so what?

What we are talking about here is someone who appears never to have studied Chinese law or handled a legal matter in China telling the Chinese what they need to do with their legal system and getting the facts all wrong in the process. Do you really think Chinese lawyers will be receptive to this?

I showed this article to two different Chinese lawyer friends with whom I have had countless discussions and arguments regarding legal matters and their response to the article was exactly the same. They asked why did this person write this article. They were convinced he had to have had some economic motive to have strayed so far from the truth. There have been countless critical discussions on Chinese law on this blog and there will be countless many more, but I hope it will be among those who strive to get the facts right.

But to say there are no good lawyers in China and to say it has no legal system and no product liability laws is to lose all credibility. I had dinner last night with the head of our Shanghai affiliated firm, Xian Jun, and we talked about the pros and cons of bringing personal injury lawsuits in China and the only con (which is so huge as to make such lawsuits not feasible for Western lawyers) i the low damages. This law firm recently filed a class action law suit against China's state owned tobacco company, accusing it of misrepresentation by making it seem as though cigarettes are not bad for one's health. I mention this to show that product law suits are being brought every day in China.

I agree with you completely.

The only reason that I mentioned the "friend of China" issue is that I sometimes get scared when China-related discussions become framed as us-versus-them.

I have the greatest respect for the Chinese people, but this respect includes Chinese people in Hong Kong, Taiwan, the US, Malaysia, etc., etc., as well as in China. And it also includes Chinese people who lived long ago, i.e., the ancestors. It would be rude of me not to consider their wishes as well, such as Confucius, Lao Ze, Sun Yat-Sen, etc, etc. since they, in effect, are China. Seriously.... There's a lot of diversity among the Chinese, so why should I favor one group of Chinese over another? Why should I favor Earth over Heaven?

Fortunately, your blog does NOT frame the China-discussion in a Manichean fashion.

Thank you.

It's a reflection of their animosity towards China.

Understood.

No evidence Marler has any animosity towards China, unless ignorance plus patronization equals animosity. Does it? I do not think it does.

Thanks for checking in. Much appreciated.

The funny thing is that China's tort laws are very similar to those in the United States, with the exception of damages.

Believe me, there are plenty of people who believe damage awards in the United States are too high. Then again, there are many (like Mr. Marler) who believe high damage awards are necessary for safety reasons. Though my firm represents businesses, I have no real beef with the US tort system.

The danger with this third group is that this "hands off" neutrality is that they don't pay attention and don't want to pay attention to Beijing's political ambitons. We all know or should know how the CCP sees itself and China, and what Chinese people are taught and to claim "that's just politics" is to feign ignorance of doing business with the devil.

Many of these same big industries sold steel to Germany and Japan, who could forget IBM's tabulating machines to count executed Jews, Neville Chamberlain, chem and bio weapons sold to Saddam Hussein and Switzerland's "neutrality" while acting as banker for the Nazis.
All "just business as usual" and "no need to pay attention to politics".

A Chinese poster at Free Republic on China's territorial ambitions:

I disagree with you on all counts. First and formost, I am not talking about conquest of the Russian Far East. I am talking about persistent negotiations to RETURN the Russian Far East BACK to China. And I believe it will happen without firing a shot. There will be hard feelings to be sure, especially on Russia's side, but I believe it will happen (the return of the Russian Far East).

One only has to look at Macau and Hong Kong. Macau was returned with little or no fanfare. Hong Kong was returned, without much world condemnation. There were those in Britain that took it hard and was resentful, but in the end, everyone accepted it and a shot was not fired.

Right now, there is considerable tension with Taiwan. But eventually, Taiwan will come under China's jurisdiction. And most of the nations of the world acknowlege that Taiwan is part of China.

Once that is achieved, the next is the Russian Far East. Once again, without a shot being fired. And Mongolia may be on the table as well.

I know you feel I have a "blinkered" view of the world one in which I support Chinese "conquests". But the reality is, China had territories TAKEN away from them during a time when they were incredibly weak. Now, they are simply having them returned. Everything they are laying claim to belonged to them at one time.

There are more I'm sure. The Northern Islands of Japan, for example. That may also be on the table someday. Once again, without a shot being fired.

My view does not include ignoring China's political and military ambitions. But, it generally incorporates the idea that engagement is the best policy.

Thanks for checking in.

I agree with you on your point that it is not just Chinese companies with food safety issues. Not at all.

Next time you are going to China, let me know and I will hook you up with both Chinese and foreign lawyers there with whom you should meet regarding your food safety practice.