Fenqing distance China from the real thing
Fenqing see red
no longer engaged
Yahoo report that China’s nationalist lobby have successfully blocked Coke’s acquisition of Chinese juice producer Huiyuan:
BEIJING (AP) — China has rejected Coca-Cola Co.’s $2.5 billion bid to buy a major Chinese juice producer, the Commerce Ministry announced Wednesday, in a closely watched case that stirred nationalist opposition.
The purchase of Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. would have been the biggest foreign acquisition of a Chinese company to date.
Huiyuan’s founders and major shareholders already had endorsed the sale.
Coca-Cola’s bid in September prompted an outcry by nationalists who urged the government to bar foreigners from acquiring one of China’s most successful homegrown brands. Rival juice producers warned that the acquisition would give Coca-Cola too dominant a position in China’s beverage market.
A Coca-Cola spokesman in Hong Kong learned of the rejection from a reporter and had no immediate comment.
It seems that it matters little how you define ’fenqing’, once they smell foreign blood on Chinese soil they get mobilised in a hurry. So who’s puppet and who’s master in China right now; CCP or fenqing? I’m beginning to wonder.
Let’s see how many pick up the scent this time.
Update
The Economist has followed Foundinchina’s lead and they’ve done it very well:
China indicates the real targets of its anti-monopoly law: outsiders
LAST August, after 14 years of debate, the Chinese government at last imposed what was informally referred to as its “economic constitution”, a broad anti-monopoly law for a country rife with state-imposed monopolies. In the subsequent months, people have wondered how the law would be applied, and whether it would advance China’s transformation into a market economy, or serve as an impediment to genuine competition. On Wednesday March 18th an answer emerged with the rejection of the largest outright acquisition by a foreign company, a $2.4 billion offer by Coca-Cola for China Huiyuan, the country’s largest juice company.
I recommend reading the whole article. The Economist go on to point out the alarming indicators of non-reciprocity and the way in which China seems to using the new monopoly laws for the purposes of ‘getting their own back’ when a decision or comment from overseas doesn’t ring to the CCP tune.
So, in this instance, the fenqing are the governments puppets, providing China’s leaders with a ‘national outcry’ excuse for what amounts to a protectionist law that targets foreign enterprises. Nice.
Update 2
Having commented on the bid previously, I guessed that David Wolf over at the excellent (I mean really excellent) Silicon Hutong would weigh in on the story. He’s done so, and with the kind of intelligence, experience, and measured response many feel that this site lacks. Go there now.
March 18th, 2009 at 10:10 am
seriously what is the big deal here ? What is so fascinating about objections to foreign company taking over a local icon ?
For someone who profess to be knowledgeable about many things , you would have seen similar phonomonon across the world, would you ?
http://business.smh.com.au/business/joyce-turns-to-television-to-undermine-chinalco-bid-20090316-8zxq.html
March 18th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
This is exactly why you and the western media at large are just a bunch of hypocrites. China’s nationalist lobby? OK, by the same token wouldn’t you agree with me that the US has its own “nationalist lobby”? India too. “Nationalist” became a dirty word that is reserved solely for non-western countries like China. If the US or the UK does something like this, it would be branded “protectionist” at worst.
Where was your outcry when the US Congress rejected the bid on Unocal? Where was your outrage when India blocked Huawai from investing in India? You lauded the stupid “Buy American” provision in the stimulus package and ridiculed the Chinese for speaking against it. Never have I seen you labeled those “protectionist” (sure, not “nationalist”) American lawmakers “fenqing”. And you people call me a “fenqing” for calling a spade a spade. Hey, when Caterpillar bought Xugong, what was your comment?
stuart, forget about the BS you said about helping China become a more responsible stakeholder stuff, you are clearly a hypocrite who only sees wrongs out of China. China can’t be all wrong and your beloved west can’t be all right.
By the way Froog, I am not angry, I am just stating some simple facts here.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Seriously, what is the big deal here? What is so facsinating about objections to foreign companies taking over a local icon ?
As someone who profess to be erudite knowledgable about wordly affairs from all angles (as oppose to single vision of fenquings off course), you would have seen similar phonomona around your beloved “Western” worlds, right ?
http://business.smh.com.au/business/joyce-turns-to-television-to-undermine-chinalco-bid-20090316-8zxq.html
March 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Pffefer – it’s not at all hypocritical. I’m not obligated to say “but the west did this” every time I run a post. This site is primarily about China. Therefore, I really don’t feel the need to give the same ‘labels’ (as you put it) to western countries just to appease the over-sensitive.
st – I’m well aware of the Chinalco bid, but as I said to Pffefer, this post relates specifically to the ‘Coke’ case. It may be related, as The Economist suggest, if it was a retaliatory measure taken by the Chinese.
March 19th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
It IS hypocritical to only blame China when other countries have done the same. It IS hypocritical to label the Chinese “nationalist” and “fenqing” while giving your fellow westerners a free pass. Unless you are telling me those American nationalists and French nationalists are fenqing too for rejecting the Unocal and Danone (from Pepsi) deals. Well, are you?
March 19th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Very fuuny! Someone has two standards, one for China, one for US(NOT UK).
March 19th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Pffefer, Pffefer, Pffefer!
I view this as a stand-alone case and am not comparing it to similar actions taken by other countries for whatever reason.
If it was up to me I’d have blocked the deal too, just to save Coke from the same nightmare suffered by Danone.
March 20th, 2009 at 2:01 am
@ Pffefer
I think your problem is giving too much attention to opinionated people like stuart.
(Having said that, I’m a bit guilty as well)
Seriously, if you are looking for substance, you can read pieces like:
http://managingthedragon.com/index.php/2009/03/19/chinalco-and-rio-face-opposition-down-under/
http://www.chinalawblog.com/2009/03/cokes_failed_china_deal_privat.html
With managetehdragon and chinalawblog, they actually provide you solid information and thoughtful, well argued opinions. If their opinions happened to be different to your prior understanding, they still provide you food for thought and you may actually changed your stand.
How do you spot people who are opinionated and lack substance? Easy, does he make lots of motherhood statements? I guess with stuart, the answer is yes.
Basically you can put Stuart down to a formula:
They disagree with me: they are fengqings / brainwashed
They call me laowai: they are racist
They try to stop the peeping yank spying at their door: they are aggressive and militaristic
Off course stuart can have his say, but seriously is he worth listening?
March 20th, 2009 at 4:50 am
st – go to the Silicon Hutong link I gave above and read the best take on the Coke affair that exists in the blogosphere. I gave that link for a reason. While you’re there, read my comment.
I don’t often go in for the longer essay, and most times it suffices to keep it short in order to raise an issue, and learn more about it as the responses flow in.
Having an opinion that is open to challenge is a virtue; repeating someone else’s is a vice. And more often than not, the knee-jerk reaction from nationalistic Chinese adheres strictly to the party line.
A more responsible, truly open, China is going to require a change of attitudes at grass roots level. The current educational model produces too much resentment and enmity towards the outside world, particularly the ‘west.’
March 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
st, I totally agree with you!
Someone should be called british Fenqing!
March 20th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
“If it was up to me I’d have blocked the deal too, just to save Coke from the same nightmare suffered by Danone.”
Then why are you bitching about it?
March 20th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
I’m not. But I would prefer to see an environment in China that was more friendly and honest in its merger/join venture dealings. That isn’t the case right now.
March 21st, 2009 at 1:56 am
“require a change of attitudes at grass roots level.”
I doubt you know what are the grass root attitudes, what you see and hear are the opinionated and which is also heavily filtered by the language barrier and you coloured lens.
Guess you don’t understand the concept of the silent majority.
March 21st, 2009 at 2:33 am
“Guess you don’t understand the concept of the silent majority.”
My point is that ‘the silent majority’ as you put it don’t have access to, or encouragement in the pursuit of, ideas and attitudes different from the party line.
And some of those attitudes and ideas, quite frankly, suck.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:51 am
If you still think the “silent majority” who doesn’t believe HK is better or fairer pre-97 are toeing the party line, then good luck to you.
As I noted on another one of your “Chinese are racist because they call me laowai” post, you might think you are the second coming, but I still yet to see the signs.
March 21st, 2009 at 9:30 am
“Chinese are racist because they call me laowai”
Whoa there, st. I never made any such sweeping assertion. And the second coming is a young man’s game.
March 21st, 2009 at 5:36 pm
stuart,
Let’s say the whole world is getting more nationalistic/protectionist. The west should lead by example if it wants to show the rest of the world the way.
March 22nd, 2009 at 2:12 am
“And the second coming is a young man’s game”
and a dead man ….
you are neither young nor dead …
March 22nd, 2009 at 3:37 am
st – I really don’t see what you are bringing to this discussion.
Pffefer – “Let’s say the whole world is getting more nationalistic/protectionist. ”
Agreed. But why can’t China, as an emerging power, show us the way forward by setting the example. More often she chooses a similar path to former colonialist powers (and modern day US), justifying her actions with the tiresome “but look what they did”.
I’m looking for China to lead the world by showing us there’s a better, more responsible way. I don’t see where that’s going to come from, though.
March 22nd, 2009 at 4:43 pm
China is a third world developing country and it is not in a position to lead right now. Those developed countries are.