So Tibetan Buddhist monks have debates; at this one there were more tourists than monks. It was unclear if grade inflation occurs; though it seems likely, given that the tests are administered by peers.

This seems to have been lost against the export-rise noise: May CPI and PPI figures came out recently (3.1%, 7.1% respectively) making an interest rate hike by the central bank appear inevitable, probably in late June or early July. This will affect anyone who’s purchased a flat using a mortgage – given property bubble concerns – how this plays out could be interesting. It’s my understanding that local governments are also exposed to interest rate hikes in the form of various types of investment vehicles meant to supplement expenditures (from FT Alphaville):

LGFVs are conduits, like the Special Investment Vehicles (SIVs) were for western banks, used by local government to borrow and spend on infrastructure and other projects (like real estate).

Local Chinese governments share relatively meagre incomes from the country’s central tax pot, yet they’re charged with some pretty huge infrastructure and stimulus projects. What’s more they’re unable to run deficits, or get bank loans, or issue bonds without special central authority permission.

Enter the LGFV. Using these conduits, local governments are able to finance their projects in a rather roundabout way, borrowing money from banks in exchange for some collateral –often local land.

The scale of local borrowing is unclear; some put it as high as 150-160% of GDP (combined with national debt) which puts China comfortably in developed world debt ranges.

Lhasa reminds me of Arizona: dry, sunny, animal skulls as ornamentation, and armed police checking your papers if you happen to look different.

Speaking of police and hyperboles, it’s becoming something of a dilemma whether or not it’s appropriate to post photographs of the security forces in Lhasa online. These consist of paramilitaries [People's Armed Police], city police, and plainclothes PSB agents. One is not supposed to take pictures of these individuals (if you are seen doing so, they will seize your camera and not return it). Since sponsorship is required for foreign nationals to go to most places in Tibet, it’s not simply a personal decision; which comes up against a contrary feeling that an (in effect) occupation of a provincial capital as the status quo is somewhat odd and should be publicized. Given the biased rhetoric that comes from both Chinese and Western sources with regards to Tibet, more information seems useful.

It is difficult to take lots of pictures (especially in the Tibetan/Muslim areas of the city) without catching the security forces peripherally – the patrols are often that dense. I’m somewhat sympathetic to the restrictions on outright voyeurism. There are definite concerns about identifiably photographing these individuals, as they could potentially become targets (unlikely but one never knows.)

The paramilitaries were, for the most part, rather genial (especially when the officers aren’t around). They do interact with the community – it’s unfortunate, for example, that I couldn’t take a picture of a little girl wearing a butterfly costume drawing in a coloring book with two PAP guards. The juxtaposition was so very China, and priceless. (That or a really good PR setup.) The soldiers barter alongside tourists, which seems a much better state of affairs than the alternative – at least they are less likely to (in theory) shoot into a crowd. They are mostly young, and don’t really want to be there. They are extremely handy if you want directions, as they can be found at most major intersections in the city.

While I feel as though I’ve self censored plenty of things I might have written (though more for personal rather than political reasons); the (superficial) exposure to this type of Orwellian reality produced more anxiety than I thought it would. The notion that a photograph could endanger someone else’s livelihood (either the soldiers or local guides) is sickening but ultimately necessary, given the current situation.

Kitschy non-political pro-China-everyone-happy photos to be uploaded soon.

Gone to Tibet for ten days. Will be out of touch for most of it. Reactions and pictures to follow thereafter.

Evan Osnos writes of an experience where Chinese Twitter users in Beijing identified him “gnawing on pig’s trotter” hundreds of miles away, revealing how effectively Twitter is being used on the mainland. This anecdote is revealing, not with regards to the spread of information freedom but as a tiny window on what shapes the input to a lot of influential coverage regarding China. Having wondered previously about bias resulting from overexposure to internationally friendly individuals, it would seem important to know how journalists have their views shaped by daily interactions. To a large extent this seems to have influenced what often comes off as biased or limited coverage. During Google’s pullout, for example, the NYT ran with headlines showing concerned netizens placing flowers outside of Google’s headquarters. At the time, there were numerous instances where I brought up the topic and a local would respond with something like “G-what? Oh that American company. What’s their name?” What was portrayed as a major event was, for the most part, entirely off the radar of most people here.

He writes:

The upshot depends on where you stand: For those who hope to see Twitter connect people from across a broad spectrum of the Chinese population, that experiment is thrilling. But it is also a stark demonstration that anyone who might seek to punish people for the kinds of activism and dissent that Ai advocates can use Twitter as a phone book for the ranks of Chinese liberalism.

Before any of this happens, Twitter would need to actually connect a broad spectrum of the Chinese population. They then, as Osnos astutely notes, may then very well be at risk of exposure due to their participation in such activities. Worrying about getting there first should be a higher priority.

China/divide makes a similar argument; though I’m more concerned with a sort of inherent foreign-friendly over exposure that results simply from being culturally different (even if ethnically Chinese) and living in major cities like Shanghai and Beijing. I don’t know how to get around this, even in my personal life, which is still arguably mired in an expat bubble despite various attempts to go native.

Professional journalists are smarter though, and have likely found ways around this. They certainly travel a lot, and must interact with a variety of people so to the extent possible some of these problems should be mitigated. The disconnect – which came as I was writing – is likely more of a problem of what their readers wish to consume: inconsequential news about the latest technology trends, no matter how small in total impact. If that’s what gets hits, then it’s less surprising that the New Yorker’s front page China feature is an article is about a dinner party with the mainland’s elite literati and their extremely efficient (though limited) microblogging network.

Literally and somewhat figuratively. As of today the bourse’s stocks are still going up, as they have been for the past several days. Maybe they should try that here.

Blogging has been on hold due to work being busy and planning a trip; and posting will likely be infrequent for the next few weeks.