Showing posts with label Chinese American Issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chinese American Issues. Show all posts

Saturday, January 12, 2019

George Koo answers the letter from Hoover working group


My reply in the order of issues raised by the leaders of the working group are as follows.

My pieces have occasionally appeared in guancha.cn and in Global Times. I do not write specifically for those online publications and I am always delighted when they find my pieces appealing enough to repost in their blogposts; guancha even does the translation into Chinese. I should hasten to add that I received no compensations and did not expect any.

The late William Chiu was the prime mover and organizer of the Peaceful Reunification of China in Australia and was a dear friend of mine. My wife and I accepted his invitation to attend the first conference in Sydney in 2002 because (1) we were and are enthusiastic supporters of the idea of peaceful unification and wanted to support his initiative, (2) saw an opportunity to visit Australia for our first time, and (3) a possible photo-op with former President Bill Clinton who was the invited keynoter at the conference. He was well compensated for his appearance. We paid our own way. 

Even though I am listed as an advisor ever since the first annual conference, I have not attended any since. I note that many luminaries including former prime ministers of Australia are listed as advisors of one capacity or another to this organization. The presence of United Front was not obvious to me and no one had to convince me "that Taiwan should be united with China."

I was invited to join the Overseas Friendship Association in 2003. I was on vacation in China at the time and I flew from Kunming to Beijing to participate in the conference organized by the OFA. Since then I participated in some of their organized activities, the last was in 2007. 

In general the activities include a gala, a meeting where official position and status papers were distributed and sightseeing where we had opportunities to mingle with overseas Chinese from all over the world, including many from Taiwan. The meetings and/or conferences were not riveting and I don't remember ever being asked to go forth and spread a particular message. The host took care of local expenses while travel to China was always on our own. 

I cannot explain how I was listed in the Overseas Exchange Association. The organization listed my affiliation as Deloitte. I retired from Deloitte in April 2008 and therefore the information was at least ten years out of date.

Since 1978, I go to China frequently to help US companies do business in China. My travel expenses were either paid by me or by my clients. Not one trip was paid by anyone from the China side, except for local expenses as noted above. 

After my business activity tapered, I devoted increasing amount of my energy to explaining China to the American public. I try to present a Chinese American point of view that I believe is absent in the American mainstream. To that end, my friends in China have arranged for me to meet various organizations and experts such as Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing and Tsinghua universities. These exchanges and discussions were no different in nature from China hands that visit China regularly, including those in the Hoover working group. 

I do not recall the March 2008 meeting with CSSN mentioned at the end of the response from Diamond et al. But I can categorically state that no Chinese organization paid for my travel. 

Since 2003, I have occasionally met officials of the United Front. We talked about issues as related to Chinese Americans and rarely if ever about American politics and never have the United Front folks asked me to promote a certain point of view. I even expressed interest in wanting to know more about Harry Wu's past before he emigrated to the US and all I got was no response.

I am absolutely convinced that it is in the national interest of both the US and China to get along and peacefully co-exists. The future and prospects of the win-win quadrant is unlimited for both countries and for the world. On the other hand, no win-lose scenarios can be viable, only lose-lose and that would be tragic and most regrettable outcome. I hope to continue to be a "constructive" contributor to the discussion about the future of the US China relations. I too support the First Amendment; it's one of the best reasons to be an American
-->

Friday, January 11, 2019

Hoover answers SB Woo about China's influence on George Koo

Late last year a report was published by the Hoover Institution on China's activity in the US. I was mentioned in the report and I wrote a response which was posted in Asia Times.

Subsequently, SB Woo, president of 80/20 Education Foundation, in a letter addressed to the co-chairs of the working group responsible for the report, challenged them to support and back up their statements in regard to China's influence on Chinese Americans and specifically on me.

The co-chairs answered and requested that if publicized their entire message is posted. Their message is as below.
Dear Mr Woo:
This is in reply to your original message of December 29.  In it you raised the issue of including George Koo’s name in a footnote in the report. Mr. Koo is entitled to his opinions and throughout the report, we stress the necessity of protecting First Amendment rights in the face of Chinese efforts to manipulate American public opinion.
In Mr. Koo’s case, he has written extensively on US-China relations. He is an occasional columnist on a Chinese state-run news website called guancha.cn. We heartily support his First Amendment Rights.
What is controversial (and this is within the Chinese-American community, not simply among those who wrote the report) is the participation of some Americans in organizations that were founded and are directed by the Chinese Communist Party. The goals of these organizations such as the Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China, the Chinese Overseas Exchange Association and the China Overseas Friendship Association are to carry out state policy of the PRC and to sway public opinion in foreign countries to be more favorable to the PRC. We believe these organizations function no differently than lobbying organizations and, along with their participants, should register as agents of a foreign government.
Throughout the report, sources in a variety of sectors spoke with us on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issues. We are respecting their wishes.

If you intend to broadly distribute our reply here, we ask you to distribute the entire message and not quote selectively from it.
Sincerely,
Larry Diamond, Orville Schell, and John Pomfret
P.S. As an addendum to this letter allow us to include a few more details on Mr. Koo that we did not put in the report.
Mr. Koo is a participant in at least three United Front Organizations. He has served an advisor to the Australian Council for the Promotion of Peaceful Reunification of China since it was founded in Australia.
[http://www.acpprc.org.au/schinese/ben.asp]. As you know the council was established by the United Front Work Department in 1988 in Beijing and has chapters throughout the world. It essentially functions as a lobbying wing of the United Front Work Department to convince foreigners that Taiwan should be united with China.
Mr. Koo, as was noted in the report, has served on the council of the China Overseas Friendship Association. He also has served on the council of the China Overseas Exchange Association [http://www.coea.org.cn/472/2013/1014/221.html]. Both of those organizations are run by the Overseas Chinese Affairs Office of the State Council and get their direction from the Chinese Communist Party. Last spring the OCAO was merged into the United Front Work Department as part of the PRC’s efforts to streamline its overseas lobbying work. Among his many trips to China, Mr. Koo was the guest of the UFWD on a 2008 trip where he met with senior United Front officials. The Chinese news report of Mr. Koo’s trip -- http://iqte.cssn.cn/ky/xsjl/201608/t20160824_3174774.shtml-- implied that Mr. Koo’s travel to and in China was paid for by the Chinese government. 
My response to the letter by Larry Diamond et al. is posted on the next blogpost. 

Thursday, December 20, 2018

Scholars urge "constructive vigilance" on Chinese activities in the US

This first appeared in Asia Times.https://www.asiatimes.com/2018/12/opinion/scholars-urge-constructive-vigilance-on-chinese-activities-in-the-us/?_=1563813


At the end of November, a group of 32 well-known China scholars and watchers co-chaired by Larry Diamond of the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and Orville Schell, director of the Asia Society’s Center on US-China Relations, published a report titled “Chinese Influence & American Interests: Promoting Constructive Vigilance.” The report, more than 200 pages long, was duly noted in the mainstream media.
Friends alerted me that I was mentioned in one of the footnotes – not a particularly accurate or flattering description at that. Naturally, I was curious and anxious to review the report as soon as possible. Having read it, I conclude that it aligns more with the adversarial thinking regarding China of Donald Trump’s White House than not.
Even though all the members of the Working Group on Chinese Influence Activities in the United States that produced the report have impressive academic or professional credentials, the document only represents a point of view on China, and by no means the definitive view. If we were to change the cast of participants with others of equivalent or more eminent qualifications, I can guarantee that the final report would read very differently in tone and content.
For example, the substitution of a handful of the participants with such people as Kishore Mahbubani, former United Nations ambassador from Singapore; Stephen Roach, former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia; Yukon Huang, former China country director for the World Bank; Nicholas Lardy, economist and author; and James Fallows, correspondent for The Atlantic Monthly, as replacements would have resulted in a report that read differently.

Leaving out Lord would make a big difference

If I were organizing the study group, replacing Winston Lord, former ambassador to China (1985-89), would have been an obvious choice. For a fleeting moment in history, Lord thought he was going to be credited with leading China to democracy and, fair to say, was sorely disenchanted by the events in Tiananmen Square on June 4, 1989. Any subsequent US ambassadors to China would have offered a less fanciful and more reality-based view of China and the United States.
In Orville Schell’s place as co-chairman, I would have nominated Kevin Rudd, former prime minister of Australia and current president of the Asia Society Policy Institute. As for the other co-chairman, Larry Diamond, he is well known for his binary view of governments: A democratic government is good and a non-democratic is not. It would be hard to imagine that he could be objective about China and it would be a challenge to find an appropriate replacement for his chair. Perhaps Graham Allison, who knows Thucydides but is also not knowledgeable about China, would do.
I find the vacillating aspects of this report troubling. It discusses Chinese activities across many parts of US society from national and local government to universities, research laboratories and think-tanks. Invariably, a recommendation of “constructive” vigilance, meaning to keep a wary eye on the Chinese, is the end result. In reaching that conclusion, the discussion is full of “on the one hand and on the other” sort of conflicted ambivalence.

Professor Shirk begs to differ

Professor Susan Shirk, chairwoman of the China Center at the University of California, San Diego and a member of the working group, said in her dissenting opinion: “The report discusses a very broad range of Chinese activities, only some of which constitute coercive, covert, or corrupt interference in American society and none of which actually undermines our democratic political institutions. Not distinguishing the legitimate from the illegitimate activities detracts from the credibility of the report.”
I could not have summarized it more succinctly than that.
Ironically, the report is actually quite a useful compendium of “who, what and when” developments in US-China bilateral relations since Richard Nixon’s visit to China in 1972. Unlike the infamous Cox congressional investigation report published at the end of Bill Clinton’s administration that accused China of having tens of thousands of storefronts just to spy on America, this Hoover report carefully listed names of many Chinese and Chinese-American organizations in the US and what they do. There’s no blanket accusation of nefarious activities, just the caution of “constructive vigilance.”
Just one sample quotation, however, would fairly illustrate the report’s slant. One of the appendices is a compilation and description of the “Chinese-language media landscape” in the US. The last section is a list of independent media, and here is what the report says: “The Epoch Times (大记元), the Hope Radio, and New Tang Dynasty TV … are either owned or operated by adherents to the Falun Gong sect, which is banned in China. Their reporting on China is uneven.” (Emphasis is mine.)
Anyone with passing familiarity of Falun Gong’s venomous anti-China propaganda in the US would find the understated description of “uneven” most amusing.

Influence of the financial crisis not noted

The consensus of this Hoover report – whose working group, bear in mind, mostly consisted of academics – seems to focus on the lack of reciprocity and tightening access in China since President Xi Jinping came to power. The report does not look beyond his rise and examine the impact of the 2008 financial crisis. That’s a serious omission.
Before the Wall Street debacle and for 30 years since Deng Xiaoping launched reforms, China looked up to the US as the older brother, laodage, and admired a society governed by rules and regulations. The crash precipitated by the collapse of Lehman Brothers shook China’s confidence in the US to the core.
Emissaries from China began to hint and suggest that Washington should share the burden of world leadership with Beijing. Barack Obama when he first entered the White House might have been inclined to listen but was soon overtaken by the idea that America is exceptional.
It is too bad that after the Sunnylands summit in Rancho Mirage, California, in 2013 Obama and Xi did not seize the opportunity to embark on a new path of collaboration and move the US and China closer. Both sides bear responsibility for passing up the opportunity.
That distinguished scholars can continue to see America as the flawless fortress on the hill and have the proverbial beam in their eyes is unfortunate. Rather than continuing to heap criticism on China, justified or not, we need well-reasoned voices to examine the matter with a fresh perspective.
How can figuring out how to get along peacefully with China possibly be harmful to America?

Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Should the US try to keep China's technology from advancing?

This blog first appeared in online Asia Times.

A number of commentators, including Asia Times’own Pepe Escobar, have suggested that the trade war started by the Trump Administration is not about IP theft or unfair trade but about not losing the technology race with China.

Escobar believes Trump is feeling threatened by China’s stated goals to become the world leader in 10 fields of technology by 2025. CNBCagrees though more narrowly focused on who will win the 5G development, the technology that will control the next generation of mobile Internet.

One way to slow China down is to grant one-year visas to students from China wishing to continue their graduate studies in the US. Since most PhD programs take 4 to 5 years to complete, having to renew their visa every year and subject to arbitrary rejection would discourage some from applying to American universities. 

The visa processing at the US consulates in China has also gotten murky lately. PhD researchers planning to present their research findings at national technical conferences in the US are finding the visa approval process delayed without explanation. In some cases by the time they have their visa, it was too late to attend the conference.

Folks like FBI Director Christopher Wray and Senator Marco Rubio might privately snicker and applaud these tactics as ways of deterring “non-traditional” intelligence collection; the actual consequences will be more seriously damaging to US national interest.

American universities need STEM students from China

Every year, about one third of international students coming to America for graduate studies are from China. Most the students from China major in STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics.) Graduates of these majors are most needed for the US to maintain its technology leadership and these are the same majors that born and raised in America kids find too challenging and thus avoid.

Graduate schools of major universities depend on students from China to staff their research programs and uphold the quality of work. Without them, many of the graduate schools would shrivel and survival becomes problematic.

The claim that tens of thousands of students from China are sent to spy is nonsense and comes from xenophobia. Graduate research advances the boundary of human knowledge. Such research does not get involved in militarily sensitive or national security related work unless the researchers qualify for appropriate levels of clearance. 

Often overlooked is that in the past, most of these students, upon completion of their advanced degrees have remained in the US to work. Silicon Valley would be a mere shadow of itself if Chinese with advanced technical degrees did not choose to accept positions at Apple, Cisco, Google, Intel, Microsoft and others.

Just a bit over ten years ago, Don Pryzbyla, the FBI special agent in charge of Silicon Valley, said in a BBC interview that his enormous challenge was to keep track of around a hundred thousand Chinese working in the Bay Area because they were all potential spies for China.

As if buying Pryzbyla’s line of thinking, the Trump administration is now figuring out different ways of discouraging Chinese from remaining in the US but pushing them back to China. Instead of sticking around to add to America’s edge in technology, they will contribute to China’s instead. How smart is that?

Racial bias also hurt Americans with Asian ancestry

America’s racial discrimination doesn’t just apply to students from China, but ethnic Asians with American citizenship feel the same sting. As a recent studyrevealed, Chinese Americans are especially susceptible to false arrest, accused of espionage, spend time in jail and then have charges dropped or dismissed.

Unfortunately for the Chinese Americans victimized by such incidents of false arrest, they almost never receive compensation for the damage done to their reputation and career. They simply do not get justice.

Sherry Chen is the latest example of atrocious miscarriage of justice. She was arrested, put in jail and accused of spying for China. Before her arrest, she was an award-winning hydrologist working for the National Weather Service. After the charges were dropped, the Department of Commerce (has oversight over NWS) would not let her go back to work.

With the support of the Asian American community, Chen took her case before the Merit Systems Protection Board, the judiciary body that addresses complaints from Federal employees. Historically, MSPB ruled in favor of the plaintiff less than 2% of the time. Yet Chen won. The presiding judge wrote a 135-page opinion that overwhelmingly ruled in her favor.

This should have been the bitter sweet, happy ending for Chen but it was not to be. Despite a letter from a Congressional Caucus and a letter from over 130 Asian American organizations to Commerce Secretary Ross urging rectification for Chen, the DOC spokesperson said on June 18 that DOC would appeal the MSPB decision.

The DOC announcement gave no new arguments that would justify the cynical decision to appeal. 

With the bench lacking appointments to replace missing members, the DOC knows that the MSPB panel does not have enough judges to form a quorum and rule on the appeal. It will be years before the appeal could be heard. In the meantime, Chen will not get her job back, not get her back pay and will remain in limbo.

Sherry Chen is totally in the right but because she is a Chinese American, justice is not served. That’s the way it is in America.

Chinese American kids punch way above their weight

However, if America hopes to maintain its technological edge over China for the years to come, Congress and the Federal government need to face an inconvenient reality. Asian Americans make up less than 6% of the population but earn over 25% of all the STEM PhDs awarded in America every year.

A recent article in the New Yorkerreported that Asian students make up 16% of the public school student body but occupy 62% of the enrollment to the elite high schools of New York City. Admission to those schools is based on competitive test scores.

These Asian kids live in the same ghettos and are as poor and disadvantaged as their black and brown brethren but they are brought up differently. Asian parents scrimp and save to make sure that their children get the best possible education and they regularly remind their kids that education is their ticket out of poverty.

Rather than wrinkle their white noses at the supposed personality flaws of Asian kids, America needs to encourage their development and not penalize them by depriving them of opportunities for superior higher education.

We now live in a world of fast developing and ever changing frontier in technology. It’s time the American white mainstream abandon century old racial bias against Asian Americans and reconcile the reality that the future of America will need every one of these Asian American kids to realize his/her full potential.

Tuesday, June 5, 2018

Stopping systemic prejudice another Obama legacy Trump can reverse

This blog first appeared in Asia Times.

It may take Congressional action to put a halt to the systematic racial bias against Chinese American professionals working in the Department of Commerce, but if Secretary Wilbur Ross answers the Congressional call, he will have reversed a terrible legacy from the Obama administration. And, that should make his boss, President Trump very happy.

Last Wednesday, members of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus appeared on a Capitol Hill press conferenceto announce that they have sent a letter to the Commerce Inspector General Peggy Gustafson asking her to investigate the wrongful dismissal of Sherry Chen as hydrologist for the National Weather Service.

The same press conference also disclosed that a separate letter was sent to Secretary Ross signed by 132 Asian American community organizations asking him to facilitate the inspector general probe and give Chen full restitution.

America is supposed to provide equal protection and equal justice to all her citizens. Sherry Chen got none of that since she was wrongly arrested and falsely accused of spying for China in 2014.

After she was exonerated and all charges dropped in March 2015, Chen’s family, friends and supporters rightly anticipated that she would be given back her job, which was to model and monitor the Ohio River for threats of flooding and destruction of life and property. 

Instead Laura Furgione, the then deputy director of NWS, notified Chen that she was being dismissed from employment in the weather service. Louis Uccellini as director of NWS and Furgione’s superior had to sign off on the official notice, which he decline to do and recused himself. 

Furgione then went over his head and got Vice Admiral Michael Devany as Deputy Under Secretary for Operations of National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Uccellini’s boss to approve the dismissal. Because Furgione had to try twice to formalize the paper work, Chen’s employment was officially terminated a year after all her charges were dropped, in March 2016.

The Asian American community rallied around a stunned Chen who appealed her case with the Merit Systems Protection Board. MSPB was established to adjudicate appeals from Federal government employees. Over the period from 2012 to 2017, MSPB heard nearly 70,000 cases and only in 1.6% of the cases that the board ruled in favor of the employee filing the grievance. Not a terribly promising prospect for justice but appeared to be the only avenue available to her.

A hearing was held by MSPB in March 2017.  Judge Michele Szary Schroeder issued her decision on April 23, 2018.  She ruled overwhelmingly in favor of Ms. Chen. Judge Schroeder took a year to write a 135-page judgment in which she carefully refuted each of the arguments presented by DOC to justify their termination of Chen’s employment.

Jeremy Wu, as trustee of Chen’s Legal Defense Fund, wrote to Senior Executives Association seeking to remove Furgione from the board of directors of SEA. His letter, dated May 15, 2018 said in part, The rest of the MSPB decision further describes Ms. Furgione’s bias and vengeance, lack of integrity and impartiality, disregard of exculpatory evidence, and conducting or staying silent on scandalous activities under her watch in the NWS.”

After the MSPB ruling, the only DOC response was to express an intent to appeal and in fact sought and got an extension to June 18 to file a formal reply. It seemed to be the usual reflex of delay and stall by a government with unlimited resources to wear down a victim of limited means.

The continued intent to deny Chen her due prompted 31 members of the Congressional APA Caucus to sign the letter to the DOC Inspector General and call the press conference. Concurrently, 130 some Asian American organizations wrote to Secretary Ross asking him to do the right thing.

These same Congressional and community leaders had previously called on Loretta Lynch, Obama’s Attorney General, urging her to give Chen justice. Lynch never responded. Thus, the stain of racial prejudice during the Obama administration became a part of his legacy.

Lest anyone think Sherry Chen represented an isolated incident, she was not. Last year, the Chinese American Committee of 100 published a white paperindicating that under Obama years, Asians were more likely to be charged with economic espionage than people of any other race. They are also found innocent at a rate two times higher than individuals from any other racial group. However, people with Asian-sounding names received sentences twice as long as those with Western-sounding names. 

The scandal did not occurred on Trump or Ross’ watch. Xenophobia does not have to be part of their legacy. They should want to know what is it in the DOC that is so protective of racists and bigots. If there is no systemic rot within the department, then what are the perpetrators hiding and acting so insistent on denying Chen her justice?

By exposing bigotry in the federal government, Secretary Ross, at no downside risk and personal cost, can strike a blow for fair and equal employment and ensure the full participation of every citizen in America without prejudice. Indeed the message of treating every citizen with respect and due process would be a breakthrough unprecedented in America’s history of race relations.

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Is EEA giving cover for FBI racial profiling of Chinese Americans?


 This was first posted in Asia Times.
 
On the Friday before the Memorial Day Weekend, the Committee of 100 (C100) published their findings on the systemic profiling of Chinese Americans as economic espionage spies by the US federal government.

The Chinese American community, have always known that they are victims of institutionalized racism. This study puts a measuring dipstick into this controversial issue.

Andrew Kim, recent Cum Laude graduate of Harvard Law School, performed the actual analysis of public arrest records of cases charged under the Economic Espionage Act (EEA) from 1997 to 2015.

Kim found that under the Obama Administration, i.e., since 2009, the percentage of people charged under EEA that were Chinese Americans tripled to make up 52% of all the cases.  If all non-Chinese but of Asian descent were included, the total would add up to 62% of all the cases.

Since ethnic Asians represent only between 5-6% of the total US population, it would seem that Asian Americans and particularly Chinese Americans are extraordinarily busy spying on America.

However, Chinese or Asians charged under EEA are also twice as likely as those with western surnames to have the charges dropped or reduced to minor offenses so as to justify release on probation.

Conversely, if convicted of espionage, the average sentence in prison is 25 months for Chinese Americans as compared to 11 months for those with western surnames.

In summary, if you are a Chinese American living in the US, you are more likely to be suspected of being a spy, more likely to be falsely accused, and more likely to pay dearly no matter whether you are guilty of any real infractions. Just having the FBI imagined wrongdoing is enough to put you through hell.

Frank Wu, Chairman of C100, recruited Kim to do the study. Kim’s work did not start from scratch but was built on top of the data already collected by C100 member Jeremy Wu. Wu in turn initially took notice of the disparity based on ethnicity from the works of a Palo Alto law firm.

C100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans has been following closely cases when Chinese Americans were arrested. When Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was arrested and put in solitary confinement in 1999, the C100 had a leadership role in coming to his defense.

Nelson Dong, then general counsel of C100, via a series of conference calls, organized a national coalition of Asian American organizations to present a unified voice of protest to the Clinton Administration. Dr. Lee was not given due process and the group protested that the FBI agent gave misleading and false testimony during Lee’s trial.

Even though the presiding judge apologize to Lee for government misconduct, Lee still had to plead guilty to downloading data into his computer in violation of accepted national laboratory procedure. The misdemeanor charge was necessary to justify his 10 months of solitary confinement. There was no other way for the government to save face.

Eventually, the Lee family got some monetary compensation from the media for violating Lee’s privacy thanks to C100 member Brian Sun who acted as the plaintiff’s counsel. Getting compensation from the government for wrongful prosecution is nearly impossible as my review disclosed as recently as two years ago.

There are currently two pending cases involving Chinese American scientists seeking compensation from the government. As reported last year, even after all charges were dropped against her, Sherry Chen still could not get her job back.

Chen had since then retained legal counsel and got a hearing with the Merit System Protection Board of the Federal Government that took place in Cincinnati in March. The purpose of the hearing before the administrative judge of MSPB was to determine as to why Chen should not get her job back.

At the hearing, it became clear that Deborah Lee was the principal cause for denying Chen her old job. Even after the charges against Chen were dropped, Lee wrote a two page letter insisting that Chen was a danger to the US. Tom Adams, one time colleague of Lee and Chen, told Chen’s supporters at the hearing that on a social occasion, he had heard Lee expressed hatred and prejudice against ethnic Chinese.

Lee’s letter apparently became the basis for Laura Furgione to draft the letter to dismiss Chen in her capacity as the deputy director of National Weather Service. Furgione, a self-described ambitious career bureaucrat, had to submit her removal letter twice because the director of NWS refused to have anything to do with this sordid business.

Until her appearance at the hearing in Cincinnati, Furgione has never met Chen, did not know her and had no personal reason to insist on denying Chen her old post. Perhaps she thought writing the proposal to dismiss Chen would be a boost for her career.

Since last December, Furgione has moved from NWS to become chief of Office of Strategic Planning, a small office with a handful of staff at the US Census Bureau. Wu who had retired from the Bureau observed in LinkIn that given the organizational disarray there and in face of a pending national census, Furgione might be given assignments where she has no chance to succeed.

Professor Xiaoxing Xi attended the C100 conference in Washington and I interviewed him about the civil suit he filed against FBI agent Andrew Haugen. He said the decision to sue Haugen was a very difficult one because the action required having to relive the trauma of being taken away in handcuffs at gunpoint in front of his family.

However, he was infuriated not just by the way he was treated and that his right as an American citizen has been violated, but because he has never been given any explanation from the government as to why he was the target.

His complaint against the FBI agent charged, “FBI Special Agent Andrew Haugen, who intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly made false statements and representations and material omissions of facts in his reports, affidavits, and other communications with federal prosecutors, thereby initiating a malicious prosecution of Professor Xi.”

Xi hopes his legal action will give him some answers. He understands and expects that the due process will take a long time and that the system protects government wrongdoing. 

The way the system works in the US, even when an officer shoots an unarmed black man in the back, the officer may still find a justifiable probable cause to wiggle away. So it is with Haugen. Even if Haugen has a proclivity to arrest Chinese on sight on trumped up charges, he can hide behind his badge of authority and never face charges for hate crimes.
The views expressed herein are those of the author and does not represent the views of Asia Times nor The Committee of 100.

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Chinese American Career Development in Silicon Valley

Below is the text of my speech given on July 9, 2016 at a career development conference sponsored by Chinese American Semiconductor Professionals Association held in Santa Clara.

Good afternoon everybody. I stopped going to work on a regular basis since 2008  (my ex-colleagues might even say it was earlier than 2008) and I got off the board of a large cap, NYSE listed public company in 2014. Other than writing occasional op-ed pieces for online Asia Times, I am enjoying my retirement.

We live in America, a society where old soldiers are quickly forgotten. So this is an unexpected surprise and pleasure to be invited to speak before you today.

Fortunately for me, we Chinese respect our elders and presume that they have grown wiser from the accumulation of life experiences and thus they are not to be quickly put into the dumpster. Also fortunate for me, I know Simon Ma and he invited me. So, thank you Simon.

I have lived in Silicon Valley practically before there was a Silicon Valley, since 1971, and I am delighted today to share with you some of my lessons learned.

 My talk today is roughly divided in four parts. First as brief as possible I need talk a little about my career to put what I have to say in proper context.

I certainly am not about suggest that what I have to say is the only path to enlightenment but I hope you could better understand my remarks in light of the life I’ve had.

Next, taking advantage of the vantage point of a senior citizen, I am going to tell you some stories of some of the Chinese America pioneers that broke the glass ceiling and pave the way for succeeding generations such as you folks in the audience to succeed.

I am honored and pleased to say that these individuals are contemporaries and friends of mine.

Of course, there is a price to be paid for success, whatever that might mean to each one of you individually. Since the theme of this conference is how to succeed, I can presume that you are all interested what that means.

So I plan to summarize for you what I think are the essential characteristics for success in your professional career.

Lastly, if you don’t already know and feel it already, America is not a level playing field for us Chinese. To have a successful career and not just a so-so career, you need to be sensitive and aware of how the field is tilted against you.

 As I have been writing my autobiography for my grandchildren, I reflect that I have been lucky and enjoyed the best of two worlds.

First, I finished 6th grade in China and thus has a solid foundation in Chinese, which I was able to maintain by avidly reading 三国演 (Romance of Three Kingdoms) and later on when I was in college, an endless supply of武侠小 (martial arts novels).

Second, I was fortunate to get a scholarship and attend MIT and got a quality education.

Third, I met May Jen who became my wife without her love and support, I wouldn’t have a story to tell today.

I won’t bore you with the details of my life or professional career, but just to let you know that I started in a major American company, a predecessor of today’s Honeywell.

I was considered a rising star. The company did not have an organized education assistance program in those days but the corporate vice president in charge of R&D took me out to lunch one day and offered me leave with pay so that I can complete my doctorate degree while keeping my position at the company.

My Chinese language background, my technical background and my consulting experience enable me to jump off the normal career path to become an advisor to Corporate America on doing Chinese in China.

Thus I had the privilege of a front row seat as I witnessed the rise of China.

My China experience directly led to an invitation to serve of on the board of the world’s largest integrated resort/casino company in the world.

Throughout my working career I developed the knack to write clearly and succinctly. In putonghua, we would call it 针见 style.

In my retirement, I use my skill to become a regular contributor to online Asia Times where I strive to present a point of view representing Chinese in America and not the general mainstream public.

As I said at the beginning of my talk, this—hopefully you would consider it as brief—self-introduction is to give context to the rest of my presentation.

 When my family arrived as refugees from China in 1949, ethnic Chinese residing in America make up around one tenth of one percent of this country’s population.

By the time my wife and I immigrated to Silicon Valley from New Jersey, the Chinese population in America has just about tripled, but still a relatively insignificant number.

There was no such place known as Silicon Valley, just fruit orchards in Santa Clara. To buy Chinese groceries and have a dim sum lunch, we would need to drive into Chinatown in San Francisco.

Today we are around 4 million around the country. I can get groceries at Ranch 99 and dim sum lunch in downtown Mountain View, both about 1.5 miles away from home.

 Another way of looking at the Chinese American influence in Silicon Valley is to trace the formation of professional Chinese American organizations here.

The San Francisco chapter of the Chinese Institute of Engineers has been around for almost 100 years. My friend, the late Lester Lee, was a member, but I was not too familiar with this organization and their activities until today.

AAMA was established in 1980 by a bunch of technical types that gathered in the cafeteria of Lester Lee’s then company. The feeling that Asian Americans in the valley needed a mutual support network was the motivation to start AAMA.

I joined around 1983 and chaired a series of annual conferences on cross border strategic alliances starting in 1990 and became the chairman of the organization around 1996.

AAMA started out as Asian American Manufacturers’ Association. Somewhere along the way, the name was switched to Asian American Multi-technology Association because we don’t manufacture anything anymore but there was value in keeping the AAMA brand.

Ten years after AAMA, Monte Jade Science and Technology Association was established.  It was the idea of Zhuang Yi-der who was then head of Taiwan’s Science Division based in Silicon Valley. To this day, Monte Jade has the support of the Science Division.

The formation was a reflection of increasing presence of high tech companies from Taiwan in Silicon Valley and increasing presence of ex-pats here from Taiwan.  At the beginning and for a long time, the lingua franca at the dinner meetings was Putonghua. At AAMA meetings English was always the spoken language.

Shortly after Monte Jade, Chinese American Semiconductor Professional Association was established. Again this was a reflection of the dominating presence of Chinese engineers in the semiconductor industry both here in Silicon Valley and in Taiwan.

In fact some years later, Professor Annalee Saxenian of Berkley who studied the impact of immigrants on Silicon Valley made the observation that in Silicon Valley, IC stood for Indians and Chinese. Without these two groups of immigrants, the valley would implode.

Ten years after formation of Monte Jade came the formation of Hua Yuan Science and Technology Association. This time the founders came from PRC and they immediately became visible by hosting delegations from China to Silicon Valley. )

The most famous deal still talked about was struck between Jack Ma of Alibaba and Jerry Yang of Yahoo at a golf outing sponsored by HYSTA. At the time, Yahoo was the big brother and Alibaba the young upstart.

Last year I spoke at the first annual conference of The Society of Chinese Physician Entrepreneurs. The founder of SCAPE is a practicing physician affiliated with Stanford and the organization was founded in 2014.

I mentioned SCAPE just as the latest organization to be established in Silicon Valley that I am aware of and is an indicator of how much we Chinese like forming affiliations and associations, sort of professional .

 Now I would like to tell you about some of the Chinese American pioneers that broke through the glass ceiling in Silicon Valley.

The earliest was David S. Lee (李信麟). In the late 60’s he started a printer company called Diablo Systems that was acquired by Xerox. As soon as his company was acquired, Xerox replaced him with a white guy because who have ever heard of a Chinese knowing how to manage.

So David left and started another printer company called Qume Systems. This was before ink jet or laser printers and David invented a daisy wheel printer.

Qume was acquired by ITT Corporation and this time, David was asked to stay and run the computer peripherals division. When IBM rolled out the PC, ITT asked David to lead the effort to compete with IBM.

To gain a competitive advantage, David took the PC designed by ITT to Taiwan and asked Acer and Mitac to make the PC as OEM supplier. That’s how those companies got into the PC business, and David came to be known as the father of Taiwan’s PC industry.

Since then David has gone on to start and run other companies, served on the board of many companies and on advisory boards of venture capital companies.

He also took time to serve as chairman of CIE, AAMA and Monte Jade. Very early on, after his reputation as a business leader was firmly established, he recognized the importance of being part of the American political process.

He along with Lester Lee and Stanley Wang, founder of Pantronix--one of your gold sponsors, would fund raise for political candidates. They would actively encourage and support Asian candidates regardless of party affiliation. Many others in Silicon Valley have since followed their example.

Because of his prominence and activism, he was appointed to serve on the board of regent of the UC university system for 12 years and he served on many presidential panels and commissions, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents.

After his PhD from MIT, David K. Lam landed in H-P in Silicon Valley. One day he noticed that all of the sudden, a white guy that used to report to him was made the manager over him.

David Lam resigned and started Lam Research in 1980 and he became the first Chinese American to take his company public in 1984. Those of you in CASPA would know that Lam Research is one of the major semiconductor manufacturing equipment companies in the world.

Similar to David Lee, this David has gone on to start other ventures, advise still more others and sit on board of some.

He also has sat in presidential and state level commissions. In the early 90’s, his leadership established AAMA as the preeminent Asian American professional organization in Silicon Valley.

One of his smartest moves, David convinced Pauline Lo Alker to assume the leadership of AAMA after him, which she did for the next four years from 1991-94.

Pauline was charismatic and a high-energy person. You would find it hard to say no to her. She got people energized and engaged in AAMA and she began an active mentoring program for the young professionals. Under her leadership, AAMA became known as the meeting place for valuable networking and relationship building.

Pauline began her career facing two handicaps. She was Asian and female. Even though she was trained in computer programming, her first job was as a typist in the computer department of GE.

Once given the opportunity to show her ability, she moved up quickly and landed a job in Silicon Valley. From technical positions she moved into sales and marketing and became the vice president for a workstation company called Convergent Technologies, a rising hot company in its days.

She then started a workstation company called Counterpoint, which was acquired by Acer, the Taiwan PC company. By the time she was leading AAMA, venture investors had recruited her to turn around the fortunes of Network Peripherals. She did that and took the company public.

At various times, Pauline has received national recognition as one of the most influential woman executive and role model for aspiring women in the high tech industry.

The above three individuals achieve their success as hugely capable entrepreneurs. Because of their accomplishments, Asian Americans are no longer perceived as just good engineers.

Because of their prominent success stories, the venture capitalists on Sand Hill Road no longer ignore Asians with business plans. These firms even began to hire partners with Asian faces.

I cannot begin to tell you how different Silicon Valley was before and after these pioneers made their mark. I honestly believe their record pave the way for all the others to follow.

John Chen was different. More than a decade younger, he was not an entrepreneur per se. Instead he showed that he knows how to manage and run companies and can turn sick companies into healthy ones.

When he was asked to take over Sybase in 1997, he already had a proven track record in senior management positions. Sybase was literally on a financial death spiral when he took over.

He changed the company business focus, returned the company to profitability and sold the company to SAP for almost $6 billion thirteen years later. He is now trying to do the same with Blackberry.

John sits on two major corporate boards, Disney and Wells Fargo as well a bunch of high tech start-ups and as trustee of a number of national NGOs.

He also led the fund raising drive to build the library in honor of Chancellor Tien Chang-lin at UC Berkeley.

Bob Lee basically climbed the corporate ladder within one company becoming the Executive Vice President of Pacific Bell. He retired after a 26-year career with the telecom company.

In his day, if you go by size of the company, he was the highest ranking corporate executive of Chinese ancestry in the San Francisco Bay Area.

He was chairman of the board of Blue Shield of California, served on the board of numerous smaller companies and non-profit groups. In particular he was active on the board of Asian Pacific Fund and Youth Tennis.

Both Bob and John Chen had served as past chairman of The Committee of 100, a national organization of prominent Chinese Americans.

Like Bob, Albert Yu is also a lifer who spent virtually his entire career in one company. In this case it was Intel.

The difference is that during his stint there, Intel grew from virtually a start-up to the leading semiconductor company in the word.

Albert led Intel’s effort in microprocessor development, the dominance of Intel’s microprocessor in the PC industry was the reason for Intel’s success. He clearly played a major role in Intel's rise.

After 30 years, Albert retired from Intel as their senior vice president. He wrote two books on management Intel style along with many technical papers.

After retirement, he continued to advise companies and sat on the boards of some of the companies in the valley.

His passion was mentoring Asian Americans. He organized mentoring sessions inside Intel and after his retirement he was active participant of mentoring programs organized by Monte Jade and others.

I save Ken Fong for last on this list because he started a company in biotech when electronics and semiconductors dominated the valley.

Secondly, like John Chen, Ken is not retired but actively working. He sold his company to Becton Dickinson for undisclosed hundreds of millions and he has been busy investing and coaching young biotech startups, both here in the US and in China.

Ken has been very generous with his wealth--not only writing checks for charitable causes, but he actively supports Asian American candidates running for political office.

Because of Ken being politically active, he was appointed to the board of trustees of the California State Universities. He was the second Chinese American to serve in this capacity. The first was Stanley Wang of Pantronics.

Ken and I are part of a team organizing a public forum co-sponsored by the Commonwealth Club where we present topics and speakers different from the usual American mainstream.

The topics involve sensitive areas on US China relations that we believe important for the American public to know more about. We have invited speakers from China and U.K. in this endeavor and Ken has generously underwritten the expenses in bringing the speakers over.

I have selected for discussion today the glass ceiling breakers that I knew personally and are friends of mine. I don’t claim this list to be all inclusive. I am sure there are others worthy of mention.

My point is that by breaking the glass ceiling, they made it easier for the many that have followed their footsteps.

 It should be obvious from the success stories I just told you that there is no single route to getting there. What they do have in common, however, is that they all gave back to their community in one way or the other.

Now, I would like to share with you what I think are essential attributes necessary to succeed. If you think about it, these are really quite self evident, so I am going to go over them quickly and we can always discuss any of them in depth during the panel discussion.

But first, what do we mean by success? It’s not the same for everybody. Some want to be famous. Others want to be rich or powerful or both. Still others want to be comfortable in his/her own skin.

Each of you has to decide for yourself.

Know yourself. What I mean is that each one of you needs to take a realistic look at yourself and have the ability to objectively identify your strengths and your weaknesses.

Know others to me means that you have solid interpersonal skills, you know how to establish rapport and empathy with others. You also know how to size up others and decide if their skills complement yours.

Both attributes are, in my view, important if you decide to start a new venture and need to build a team. You can’t find a team with complementary skills if you don’t know what skills you have and don’t know how to identify needed skills in others.

In America, everyone is selling him or herself all the time. You are constantly being evaluated on who you say you are. If you choose to be humble typical of a reticent Chinese; that might be OK in China but here you are putting yourself on discount.

Of course, you will need excellent presentation skills, verbally and also in writing.

Whether you are joining a young startup or a giant corporation, you need to know how to be a team player. Sometimes you are a member of the team and other times you might be leading the team. Either way, you need to help the team move together. This means no back stabbing, no forming factions, no acts of a lone ranger.

I might add that one of the best places to practice team building is to volunteer, such as one of these sponsoring organizations. Why? Because when everybody is a volunteer, there is no command structure, as you would have in a company. To get anything done and move together as a team, you have to have good persuasive skills.

To be a good leader, you must be willing to lead the charge up the hill and not sit in the back and order everybody else to face the enemy fire.

A good leader also knows how to be decisive and know when a decision has to be made and move on. Sometimes the timing is such that you are required to make decisions sooner than you’d like, but you have to have the will and confidence to make the tough calls.

One attribute that will help you being a decisive leader is the ability to think of contingencies. In other words, for every critical decision, you will have thought of alternative scenarios and what-ifs. In this way, if you make a wrong call, you will be in a position to know how to rectify the situation.

Last but not least, I believe it’s important to give back for several reasons. For one, you will feel better about yourself and that will show when you interact with others. For another, others have helped you on your climb to the top and you have a moral obligation to do the same.

 This is my last slide and I have two thoughts to leave with you.

Contrary to common wisdom, America is not a level playing field. Yes, America is the land of opportunity for anyone willing to work hard, but it does not mean that you will be treated the same way as the person next to you.

If you are Asian, if you don’t speak accent free English and if you not the assertive type, you can expect to put out 110% or even 120% of effort in order to get the same recognition and respect as the white person.

This is just the way it is. If you should be fortunate and work in a place where your race, accent and manner is not held against you, so much the better, but at least you should be prepared and ready to accept the bias as an added challenge.

Silicon Valley is more likely to be equitable than elsewhere in the United States. If you ever relocate to other parts of the country, you should be prepared to over come hidden and unconscious bias.

An even more insidious form of racial bias that you must be aware of is the U.S federal government considers each and every one of you a potential spy for China just and only because you are Chinese.

I am part of the task force in the Committee of 100 that goes around the country giving half-day workshops on how to avoid being a victim of racial profiling. We don’t have time to go into this today.

For the purpose of today’s discussion, let me simply give you some practical advice.

If you work in high tech or in government labs or even in academia, you should assume that someone is reading your email and listening in on your telephone conversation, and I don’t mean hackers from PRC. The initials I am thinking of are FBI, CIA or NSA or ATF or DEA.

I just heard on the public radio that since 9-11, we now have over 40 government agencies that are running undercover investigations. Not all of them are concentrating on Chinese espionage—thank goodness--but a sobering thought nonetheless.

You don’t want do anything that can be misinterpreted as something unsavory.

Just keep in mind that our law enforcement agencies are quick to jump to conclusion and in cases where national security is involved, you are presumed guilty and it’s up to you to prove that you are innocent.

If the FBI breaks down your door and want to question you, just remember that you have the right to remain silent and to legal counsel. Don’t make the naïve mistake of thinking that if you cooperate, you can extricate yourself and convince them that they have made a mistake.

When they come to see you, they are already convinced that you are guilty of something. Your agreeing to talk to them will simply give them additional opportunity to find flaws in what you said and accuse you of perjury and other charges. The only protection for you is for you to have your lawyer with you.

With that cheerful note, I am finished with my presentation and look forward to a vigorous panel discussion.