From: 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao)
Subject: Re: Action-9201.appendix
Organization: MITRE
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:27:11 GMT

In article <2AD21004.22944@news.service.uci.edu>, yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon
Yeh) writes:
> 
> I thought that many Chinese people in China did not understand what was 
> cooking here.  But I am wrong!  Whenever I arbitrarily talk with any friend 
> of mine in China, they know who those CSS are, and they know what those CSS 
> are trying to do.
> 
> However, the situation is a little bit "confusing" this time: the US government
> is quiet on this blood card bill; and the Chinese government is quiet, too,
> on this blood card bill.  The only party who is angry toward this blood card
> bill is the Chinese people such as Shannon Yeh.  The reason for the White
> House to be quiet is so that they cannot see any direct benefit from granting
> this bill; the reason for the Chinese government to be quiet is so that they
> feel "losing-face" if they over-react to this "Chinese-sell-Chinese" case.
> The reason for the Chinese people to be angry is so that they feel the justice
> has been raped by those CSS, and the facts has been twisted by those CSS.
> 
> Regardless this bill will be passed or not, most of the CSS, including those
> CSS, will go home someday.  By then, the Chinese PEOPLE will hate the blood
> carders.  If the regular CSS do not distinct themselves from those CSS, they
> will suffer when they return to China someday: who knows you did not work on 
> the blood card in 1992?
> 
> So, if you did not directly support the blood card petition, I strongly 
> recommend you to sign up at "blood-card@netix.com".  If you do not speak out 
> your standing, you may be misunderstood in the future.
> 
> Obviuosly, upon your own discretion.
> 
> shannon
> -------
> 
> 

1) I agree with you, I do not like the word "Protection".

but,

2) It is not a case of "Chinese-sell-Chinese".  I do not think Chinese have
to limit themselves inside a fixed political boundary.  If British limited
themselves inside the British islands, how to establish countries like U.S,
Australia, South Africa?
3) This bill will hurt U.S. more than C.G.  If this bill get passed, U.S.
will lose 80,000 jobs to CSS. Think of that how many jobs can be saved by
selling F-16 to Taiwan and selling F-15 to Saudi.  Because this is election
year, Clinton try to use this case to embarrass Bush.  That is the only
chance to get the bill passed.  Oterwise, I do not think either Bush or
Clinton would sign it.  "Saving face" is not only Chinese problem, it is
also U.S. problem. 
4) It will not hurt C.G so much.  How many of these 80,000 CSS you think
are very important?  For those hi-tech engineers/scientists, they can find
jobs easily.  It does not matter this bill passed or not.  So, I think C.G
will protest this bill ( again, just for face saving), but will not
retaliate upon U.S; because the overall result is not bad for C.G.

Suggestion:

1)  Living in U.S. does not means you can not love the contry you came
from.  Try to learn the lesson from Jewish people how to  make U.S. help
Israel.
2)  Political issue is not black and white usually.  It is gray, light
gray, or dark gray.  Yes, I don't like the word "protection" and some
sentence in the bill.  However, in gneral, this bill favors both C.G. and
CSS.  That is the reason I am not against it. 
3)  Unificatoin is strength.  You can break one chopstick easily, but you
can not break a bundle of chopsticks.  How to unify CSS is more important
than polarize CSS.  That is why I am very disappointed to see some
D(Dog)-figher fighting over how to distribute the pie instead of make the
pie bigger.

Final Words:

Even I do not fully agree with you, I still respect your view point,
because you pointed out the deficits of this bill which are neglected by
most of
CSS.
Xref: sparky soc.culture.china:28078 soc.culture.taiwan:14484 soc.culture.hongkong:12677