Chinese School - Smash the iron rice bowl, not unfairly sacked workers

Opinion / You Nuo

Smash the iron rice bowl, not unfairly sacked workers

By You Nuo (China Daily)
Updated: 2006-12-18 06:40

So much has changed since the old days of the planned economy that people
sometimes forget what the reform was all about.

Today's grocery prices can rise more than 10 per cent in a month,
compared with strict price controls 20 years ago. Recently in Shanghai
there were public hearings about how the interest from pre-paid tickets
were being used. Previously this "small" detail in public money
management was never questioned. Back in the mid 1980s, we would not have
known whom to ask.

However I am bewildered by the fact that some modern Chinese are confused
about the reforms.

Last week, I received a call by a young lady claiming to represent "Ling
Dian Diaocha," supposedly one of China's leading research companies. Its
English name is Horizon Research.

The lady had called me before, saying her company was collecting "elite"
opinions on the nation's major affairs. Each time I was patient and gave
my answers and clarified my points to all her complicated, and at times,
poorly designed questions.

However, the last time she called, the ignorant premise to her question
was simply too much. I had to end the conversation.

She asked: "Now that the purpose of the economic reform has done its job
and smashed the 'iron rice bowl,' how I would view the rising demand for
government expenditures on social security?"

"Iron rice bowl," I told her, was a practice in the era of the planned
economy in which all workers received equal pay no matter how they
performed, and never had to worry about suffering financial penalties and
losing their jobs.

It was a system, which some economists even called a privilege, to
protect those performing poorly once they could get hold of any job. It
was not, and never meant to be, a social security system.

A more open and competitive labour market is totally different from
having a social security system to cover the basic rights of all citizens.

Unemployment welfare should not be viewed as a compensation for "smashing
the iron rice bowl," as it was called in the early days of the reform.

Today it has a much wider coverage, because many jobless workers have
lost their opportunities, not because they performed badly, but because
their companies had not.

At the same time, all the money directed to aid the unemployed is not
simply a protective fund. These people are provided with training for
other employment or self-employment alternatives.

In the long run, spending on general welfare will help a government be
more effective in guaranteeing citizens' equal rights, and help its
economy be more creative and have a better chance for sustainable
development.

So the telephone pollster's question, the question her company had given
her to ask, was nonsensical by suggesting China was moving backwards from
a competitive labour market to a more protected one.

It was like suggesting that a truly competitive economy should be void of
any humanitarian value.

So after explaining to her why "iron rice bowl" and social welfare are
totally different things, I told the pollster: "Your question is close to
an insult, both to me and to your company. And I'm so sorry but I have to
terminate this question-and-answer session before you want."

I really could not take it any more.

(China Daily 12/18/2006 page4)

Hot Talks

� Does the future belong to China?

� Ah all i know is that i know so little..

� How to be ready for a foreign boss

� Koizumi visits Yasukuni shrine for the 5th time

� Leave a space for ur solitude

Most Commented/Read Stories in 48 Hours

Chinese School