Sorry, I don’t mean to offend or misrepresent the gay community, <em>Queer Eye</em> teaches us you all have far more fashion sense than this.

This fashion faux pas of the century (and we’re still early into it) is China’s official Olympic opening ceremony uniform.

The white, red, and yellow uniforms, created by designers from the Hengyuanxiang (Group) Company Ltd, were selected from thousands of entries in a year-long design competition.

Seriously, a year-long design competition? Who the hell was the judge? Abing?

My favourite part of the above linked article is this bit (emphasis added):

China today introduced a team of 1,099 athletes and officials for the Beijing Olympic Games. All members of the delegation will be present in their uniforms on August 8.

Sounds more like a warning to the officials and athletes, than a report. Kind of like the notice you get in boarding school when a special visitor is coming and you’re told you MUST wear your uniform, or else.

ChinaSMACK‘s grabbed some commentary from the Chinese BBSes and their comparison of the uniforms to one of China’s more famous dishes (西红柿炒蛋) is bang on.

To drive home the point, ChinaSMACK threw together this little collage (right).

According to the China Daily article on the outfits, Liu Ruiqi, outfit designer said “The effect under strong lights is the most important. That’s why we finally decided the color for these outfits are red and yellow. Yellow can reflect light. It’s very bright. We also used light-reflecting materials in the red. When the Chinese delegation comes out, they will certainly catch the eyes of the audience.”

Ruiqi, dude, that may be the understatement of the year.

UPDATE

Just found this post on ChineseTools.eu which shows the Nike designed clothes that the company will be supplying to the Chinese athletes. Should have had Nike do the blazers.

Because of this, there’s been an endless barrage of reporting and blogging that has gone a long way to inciting these two opposing ends. So, it was with a bit of surprise and refreshment that I read Kai Pan‘s well-said “Utter Idiots and Why the United States Will Not Boycott the Beijing Olympics” at CNReviews.

Those on the polarized ends will never see eye-to-eye, nor do they care to. The battle has always been and will always be for those in the middle. I’d like to think I’m in the middle but unlike those on the ends, I think that’s exactly where I and the majority of people should remain. Yes, straddling the fence involves the fence being uncomfortably entrenched up my nether regions but I’ll deal. Why? Because the truth is–according to me, of course–that both sides are right and both sides are wrong. This has been the case and will unfortunately always be the case, and I’d very much prefer to associate myself with the “right” on both sides.

Perhaps,then, the reason I continue to be drawn into these debates is my idealistic–but childish–faith in the marketplace of ideas. I mean, if I know something and I don’t share it, who knows how many countless souls will be swayed into the abyss of ignorance, bias, prejudice, and greater idiocy? Ah, yes, how narcissistic of me but isn’t cherishing dissent in the presence of consent precisely the difference between Western ideals of democracy, freedom, and human rights, and the authoritarian “social harmony” of China?

But in addition to the wonderful ideal of passionate but reasoned discourse leading us all to enlightened decision-making and declared positions is the very practical notion of being practical. Trying to convince your mortal enemy that he or she is an idiot is like China trying to convince the Dalai Lama that he’s the incarnation of evil; it is a waste of time and there could be more productive things…

The article, in itself, is definitely worth the read, but it’s also got some solid and intelligent discussion going on in the comments.

Of particular note is a comment by Fool’s Mountain blogger, Tang Buxi:

I will say that I think language is one of the major obstacles, one of the major reasons for the irrational nature of a lot of debate. For most Chinese to post in English, they usually have to be extremely motivated. How many English-speakers out there, even the expats learning Chinese, have made a real effort to argue in Chinese on Chinese forums? Very few.

And who out there could possibly be “extremely motivated” about making a reasonable, moderate post? The only ones making that attempt to cross that language gap are those who happen to be extremely angry.

I think that’s why it’s incredibly important for those of us who see the “Chinese perspective” but don’t struggle with English to make our voices heard. It takes us little effort to repeat precisely what many moderate/reasonable/rational Chinese are saying, in English.

Terrorist activities aside, Chinesepod.com has produced a fantastic guide to the Beijing Olympics for visitors, athletes, journalists – or just whelps like myself who can’t be bothered to deal with the crowds, but wouldn’t mind brushing up on how to say things like fly ball and handspring.

The guide includes vocabulary sections for all the sporting events, as well as a large collection of related newbie and elementary level lessons – topics cover pretty much everything, including: cheering, the Olympics on TV, China’s most famous tourist destinations, and (perhaps most importantly) preparing for the heat.

The slick interface also gives you quick access to hanzi, pinyin and audio for all the countries’ names, and includes an interactive map of the event locations (with translations and useful information).

All-in-all a damn handy guide for anyone with even the most arbitrary interest in the Games that will grace Beijing in but a few short weeks.

Not, as one might guess, because it had been publishing subvert-the-youth articles or anything of the sort – but simply because it wasn’t properly licensed.

Fair enough.

I mean, in pretty much any country you’d need proper business licenses and if you didn’t have them, you could be shut down for any number of legalities. That’s not too bizarre.

But the part that I think is… amusing (?)… is that the magazine was operating just fine for more than three years without complaint, or proper forms filled in.

This is strikingly in line with the visa crackdowns that have made all us laowai as jittery as the pet dog of a Korean restaurant owner (hell, the Australians are even officially fighting it).

And again, there’s nothing wrong with the Chinese government tightening control over what has long been a wishy-washy practice of handing out the “most convenient” visa, rather than the “proper” one.

But therein lies the frustrating part in all this. As foreigners we come to China and know nothing of the local practices. We largely come from countries that follow the rule of law to an obsessive ‘t’, and so are eager to step in line and fill out the forms.

But upon arriving here we are faced with a fuzzy collection of rules and regulations that are not so much seen as just “known”. Rules which force us to rely on locals that have experience navigating this confusing and twisted clusterfuck of undocumented legalities that ebb and flow based largely on who you know, rather than what you know.

And before you know it, you’re just as tangled up in the mess as the rest of the country, jumping from relationship after relationship like fast sinking stones in a futile effort to ford a river you had no idea was so cold, deep and murky.

It all reminds me of a section of Tim Clissold’s excellent memoir, Mr. China, in which he relays the story of his brother’s visit while he was living on-campus at a Beijing university. Clissold hadn’t asked permission for his brother to stay in the room and took an earful from the dorm chief because of it. The following day he dutifully went to the dormitory office to ask about any other regulations he wasn’t aware of and didn’t want to break:

I wanted to avoid any more exhausting scenes like the last, so I called through the little hatch to the dormitory chief and politely asked for a copy of the rules. He said that I couldn’t have them, so I asked, “Why not?”
“Those rules are internal and not to be told to the outside.”
“What does that mean? If I don’t know what the rules are, how can I obey them?”
“Our regulations are very clear.”
“Oh, I’m sorry, but that’s not my point.” I replied. “If I don’t know what rules you have, I can’t follow them.” After a few more rounds, I gave up. I never did get a copy. I discovered years later that this “internal rule” concept was applied across the board in China, even to things like income tax. It’s hardly surprising that China’s tax system is so inefficient when no one knows what they’re meant to be paying.

As an anecdote it’s rather humorous, but when having to deal with it in your day-to-day, it’s enough to make any laowai a little loopy.

So, what’s the point of it? Why have such a diluted and befuddled system?

In my opinion, I think it’s a remnant of times past – whereby knowledge, and the power it brought with it, was something to be carefully guarded and controlled at all levels.

For most of us, the world’s knowledge, past and present, is a Google-search away, and that’s a perfectly acceptable part of modern existence. However, as any that have smacked up against the Great Firewall will tell you, in China things are *different*.

Individual empowerment is a relatively new concept in China, and the leadership seems to have an inherent mistrust of it. If given the choice and ability, it is assumed that the average person will inevitably make the wrong decision. And as such, you have the world’s most populated country essentially being treated as no more than children in the eyes of their parents leaders.

And do parents sit down and list out all the rules for their kids? Nope – generally they just punish them when the rules are broken. Using the act of breaking them and ensuing punishment as a lesson that they should be wary and cautious of all their actions.

Additionally, by keeping the ropes loose the majority of the time, it gives the powers that be something to tighten when needed.

And I think that’s exactly what we’re seeing now. The rules were always there, but are only now being enforced. It has turned regular folks into victims, and victims into criminals. And when you’re a criminal, you deserve the full attention and swift justice of Chinese *law*. Right?

And not just that, French TV is hoping to catch it all for the 6-o’clock news, presumably to put the French people’s minds at rest, and hearts at ease, that their largest shopping chain in China isn’t going unattended.

法国政府准备拿出两千万美金，家乐福自己再拿出五百万美金，用于五一降价促销，听说家乐福高层很狂妄，让中国人在五一降价中挤破家。
The French government has prepared 20 mil and Carrefour has prepared 5 mil to use for a May Holiday sale. The owner of Carrefour is very arrogant, believing Chinese people during May Holiday will buy excessively at Carrefour.

法国电视台也在积极做准备，拍摄中国人到家乐福疯狂购物的景象，让中国人自打自的嘴。如果你是爱国的中国人，把此信息传给你的亲戚朋友，不要到家乐福购物，不要为了丁点的小便宜，而丢了尊严，丢了民族志气，让外国人笑话。再不能让外国人把我们看作东亚病夫了。
French television is also actively making preparations to capture Chinese people madly shopping at Carrefour, showing Chinese people punching their own mouth [being hypocritical]. If you are a Chinese person who loves your country send this message to your relatives and friends, don’t go shopping at Carrefour, don’t gain a little advantage while losing your respect and national ambition, and allow foreigners to laugh at you. We’ll never let foreigners look at us as the “Sick Man of Asia” again.

我们的努力可能微不足道，但大家团结起来一定要让外国人看看我们的力量，有良心的中国人转发一百个朋友，爱国的中国人转发二十个朋友。
Our individual efforts maybe mean nothing, but if everyone unites, we can show foreigners our power. If you are a Chinese person of concience, you’ll send this message to 100 friends, if you are a Chinese person who loves your country, send this message to 20 friends.

The news the media (legions of French reporters hiding in behind the milk powder isle) are trying to capture isn’t that the Chinese are a bunch of Carrefour-shopping hypocrites. The news is how easily the country is stirred into a nationalistic frenzy based on relatively trivial – or completely false – things.

Rumours, the lot:

The reasoning behind all the animosity towards French products in China comes from two main sources, both of which have been muddied into an unrecognizable mess of anti-truths all the better suited for punchy SMS messages:

1. The president of Carrefour routinely gives money to the Dalai Lama.
This is completely out of whack. The boycott messages aren’t speaking about José Luis Duran, they are talking about Bernard Arnault – a wealthy French entrepreneur who is also chairman and chief executive of luxury goods group LVMH (Louis Vuitton, Hennessy and Fendi). Him, along with Colony Capital own only a 10.7% share in Carrefour. On a stretch that 10% may be cause for some Chinese to consider alternative shopping plans, IF Arnault hadn’t categorically refuted allegations that he backed the Dalai Lama in any way. With his company poised to grab the billions of dollars in imports to China, why would he?

2. The French government supports an independent .
The original call for boycott reads as follows:

The Olympic torch relay that just ended in Paris is not as peaceful as most of Chinese know about. Let’s see what French and its government have done when Chinese carried the torch, a symbol of peace and friendship into their territory.

1. Before the relay, a French TV station called on people to protest on street for the reason that they “don’t want Chinese flags flaunting all over”.
   ** Likely. Protesters are known for canceling plans on short notice just to stop an over abundance of Chinese flags. Happens all the time.
2. The torch was forced to extinguish for 4 times under the violent disruptions of separatists.
   ** China should be asking itself why that happened.
3. The French police in charge of security simply stood by to see the separatists snatching the torch, and striking the disabled torch carrier.
   ** Jin Jing (the disabled torch carrier) wasn’t struck – a protester simply tried to grab the torch from her. The fact that she’s gone on to say she still doesn’t understand “why” they were grabbing it says a lot about the education system in China, and possibly explains the power these SMS memes have.
4. At where the torch went by, hordes of French waved the flag of separatists, clamoring “Free “, “Shame on China” to protest against China.
   ** Such is everyone’s right in ‘free’ nations
5. Groups of young men even scrambled the Chinese students’ Five-star flags and tore them up, two sides in conflict.
   ** Sounds hollow. Truly doubtful they were French though, as it seems extreme for a French national who just happens to support a free to go about roughing up Chinese and tearing apart their flags. If it were Chinese nationals however, I might believe it. Either way, little to do with Carrefour.
6. When the sacred fire passed by the City Hall of Paris, the banners and slogans of pro- independence were hung out and all the alderman put on the pro-separatism badges, a behavior that made the planned ceremony there canceled.
   ** Wrong again. The ceremony was canceled because a banner hung outside city hall that read ‘Paris defends human rights everywhere in the world‘. Not exactly a pro- statement, just a show of support for human rights and a reminder that some countries are historically lax about them. Hardly something anyone should boycott about.
7. The major media in France reviewed the torch relay with such headlines— Fiasco in Paris(Figaro) and A Slap on China.
   ** I think that’s a pretty fair assessment, but nothing compared to the fiasco in China now.

So, explain to me again, why should I boycott Carrefour? And if I were Chinese, what would happen to me if I refuse?

The event pits countries from across the globe against each other in a balls-out relay race to see who can reach absolute absurdity first, all the while volleying hypocritically mundane arguments back and forth. Athletes will be judged on their ability to leap without looking, speak without thinking and masterfully perform the ultimate Puerile Ping Pong move – the Downward Spiral of Stupidity.

Though traditionally China has dominated the semi-pro leagues in the sport, this year Western nations have made a strong showing, catching the Asian country off-guard and causing it to double its efforts to assure its place at the top of the Puerile podium come medal day.

I mean seriously, what the hell is going on – I can barely hear the free cries coming from YouTube over the constant SMS notifications my wife is receiving from patriotic dimwits demanding that she cease immediately any purchasing plans she may have had for Louis Vuitton gear. And should she choose to shop at Carrefour on or after the start of May, her Chinese bits will fall off and she’ll have to live the rest of her life as a laowai leper.

Could an American please stand up and educate these fine folks on how stupid you end up looking when you vilify the French without any real cause?

In all seriousness though, I couldn’t be happier about the impromptu boycott – if it’s a success, I may just be able to go shopping for a couple weeks without having to maim the elderly to get at the fruit and veg.

Here’s a thought: rather than boycotting Carrefour (having learned our lesson about boycotting businesses that employ a long tail of Chinese workers), what say we just go to our neighbour’s house and give ‘em a sharp kick to the gnads. I mean, it’s very likely they work in some capacity for the evil French, German or American empires anyway – and this way we don’t have to give up affordable curry mixes and meat with expiry dates and they don’t have to give up their wages.

Hell, rather than all this boycotting of supermarkets and facial products, lets just boycott the damn Olympics. No, not in the way that Mia and her mob of morons are calling for, but by cutting out all nations that won’t benefit China with their attendance. I mean, this is China’s Olympics, right?

First, we’ll cut out members of the Eight Nation Alliance, as it’s about time they paid for their Crimes Against China. And lets nix all Muslim nations, as they’re just a bad seed for the current dissension in Xinjiang. Iceland’s out – bitch. Australia can stay home – its Chinese speaking PM is just mouthy, ditto the Canucks. S. Korea can come, we know how to play them, and need someone to beat on the high dive boards anyway. We’ll let India in as well – I mean, a nation with a billion people and they only netted a single medal in Athens (same as our little city to the south, HK), it’s more likely they’ll leave China lookin’ goOOod.

Oh, and we’ll have to change the name. “The Olympics” are so… well… Greek sounding, and what is this, 2004? Naw, how about The People’s Harmonious Sports Party – much nicer ring to it. And speaking of rings – multi-colour? Bah. Gold, gold and more gold baby!

Alright, got a bit carried away there. One does have to wonder though, if put to a vote, how much of that would the people of China prefer rather than having to deal, like the adult nation they want to be seen as, with the criticisms (right or wrong)  they are receiving.

One question stands stark and sober through all of this – is buying fake LV bags and L’Oréal products still acceptable?

H/T Pandapassport, via Hao Hao Report (like this video? Be sure to vote for it.)

As Journey to Nowhere reports from the SCMP (which stoically continues to charge for online content):

Beijing has stopped issuing multiple-entry visas, risking major inconvenience to foreigners who travel to the mainland regularly, especially on business. Hong Kong travel agents say the ban will stay in place until after the Olympic Games.

Travelers are now restricted to single- or double-entry visas valid for 30 days. Multiple-entry visas that have not expired are still valid.

Andrew Work, executive director of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, said the ban would create serious inconvenience for foreigners living and working in Hong Kong.

“This is a real hassle for foreign small- and medium-sized business owners … it’s bound to slow business down and we hope that normal access to the mainland will be restored soon.”

One travel agent who declined to be named said: “People have been asking to renew their multiple-entry visas but no one can get more than a double-entry visa. We were told this was because of the Olympics and that the ban would be lifted in September after the Games had finished.”

Daryl Bending, of Concord Travel, said even permanent Hong Kong residents who had previously been given three-year multiple-entry visas were affected.

“No one is being given more than a double-entry visa. The reason given was the Olympics but there were suggestions that after the Games things would return to normal,” he said.

Agents said they were told of the move on March 27. Hong Kong-based China-visa agency Forever Bright says on its website the ban will apply until October 17.

The Office of the Foreign Ministry Commissioner in Hong Kong was unavailable for comment.

Mr Work said: “I found out at a chamber meeting for the chairs of all the chambers in Hong Kong. It’s headed by [Chief Secretary] Henry Tang Ying-yen. At the end of the meeting someone mentioned the ban on multiple-entry visas. It took us all by surprise. Even Henry Tang didn’t know.”

A senior source from the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce said: “We have got similar complaints and this will hinder business activities.”

A government spokesman said: “The Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce recently raised concern about new visa arrangements implemented by mainland authorities and the administration is looking into the matter.”
Travel agents also said the cost of single- and double-entry visas had risen.

The typical cost of a single-entry visa obtained through a travel agent for a British passport holder is now HK$850 for a single-entry visa and HK$1,050 for a double-entry one. At the end of last year, a six-month multiple-entry visa cost HK$1,080.

Australians, Canadians and most Europeans can expect to pay HK$500 for a single-entry visa and HK$600 for a double-entry one. Six-month multiple-entry visas for these nationalities previously cost about HK$450.

Visas are taking longer to process. Paul Porter, a lawyer and regular mainland visitor, said he had been told a visa now takes four days.

Additional Sources Update: April 8th/08

• [WSJ] Hong Kong Travel Agents Say China Bans Multiple-Entry Visas
• [AP] China Limiting Visas in Hong Kong
• [AFP] China bans multi-entry visas until after Games: travel agents