|
I
decided to wait and write this piece on my return to
Australia, but could just as well have written it at
the time because the place where I was staying had a
wireless broadband Internet connection. It was a shock
to me that such a remote place would have equivalent
telecommunications facilities to Australia's best. I
asked my host how much he paid for this connection.
"About six hundred Yuan (about $100 Australian) annually"
was his reply. Similar services in Australia are at
least three times as expensive. This might seem cheap
for a western visitor, but by my reckoning this is around
ten times more expensive for a Chinese worker if you
compare the cost of the service to relative income.
It is also useful to consider that the cost of servicing
an area the size of China would not be dissimilar to
the cost in Australia. Considering that there are 50
times as many potential customers, the service should
have been even cheaper. Undoubtedly this price will
fall as more and more people adopt the technology.
I
was also surprised at the proliferation of mobile phones
in this remote corner of the world. It was not uncommon
to see street vendors, taxi-drivers and labourers idly
chatting on their late model Motorolas. It seemed unusual
to me that people with very little wealth would choose
to spend their limited money on a mobile phone, rather
than a decent pair of shoes, a trip to the dentist,
or a sturdier pair of trousers. My host told me that
there are now 300 million mobile phones in China.
Another
surprise was the quality of roads. The 30-odd kilometres
of dual carriageway between the airport and twin cities
of Xiaguan and Dali seemed over the top as I counted
more passing cyclists than cars. This road was pristine:
two faultless ribbons of bitumen curling through the
mountains.
 All
of this was a little unsettling for me. I had not expected
to find such high quality infrastructure in such a remote
place, let alone such a remote place in a country often
criticised for neglecting its people. Most I had heard about
China was negative: "Real Chinese food is terrible. You
won't see a tree that's more than ten years old. You know
that they kicked all the degenerates out of the cities because
of the Olympics. They hide slums behind massive hoardings
on the side of the highways. You won't see any domestic
animals in the street. You won't see any birds." I was not
seeing anything to corroborate any of these assertions in
Dali.
I
should mention here two things. Firstly, Dali is a small
town in Yunnan province, which, according to my host,
has maintained a particular distance from the administrative
clout of Beijing. Secondly, to judge an entire country
based on observations in one place (especially such
a small town in a remote geographic location) would
be akin to judging the merits of Australia based on
a week spent in Tenterfield, Karratha, or Shepparton.
These places only capture a small slice of the Australian
culture, and are a world apart from each other and the
major metropolitan centres, so why would Chinese regional
cities be any different? Nevertheless, life in Dali
threw life in Sydney into sharp contrast.
Why
had they built a beautiful dual carriageway most commonly
used by bicycles? Why had they laid thousands of kilometres
of cable for Internet connections when most people can't
afford the service?
China's
over-investment in infrastructure demonstrates concern
for the welfare of the people generations down the track,
rather than for today or even next year. This is in
sharp contrast to Australia's obsession with user-funded
infrastructure, especially in the transport and telecommunications
sectors, which shifts the focus away from the long-term,
indirect interest of the people to the short-term, direct
interest of shareholders.
The
Cross City Tunnel is a perfect example of this attitude.
Sydney's commuters needed a quicker way to get through
the city. A private company built a toll road. The toll
is too expensive for cheapskate commuters to stomach,
so nobody is using it. The government has altered traffic
conditions through the city to encourage people to use
the tunnel, clogging up the city streets even more.
Traffic through the city was bad and the solution has
made it worse. It's a farce. The problem with this arrangement
is that there are other significant benefits of the
tunnel that are of little consequence to the company
who collects the tolls and administers the road. They
are not interested in the general economic and social
benefits of getting people to work and back home faster.
They are interested in collecting the toll today from
commuters. I have never met anybody who loves sitting
in traffic, so it is reasonable to think that a large
segment of the Sydney population would be happier and
more productive at work and in their family lives if
they had a few hours less time in traffic each week.
If I ran a company, I would want my employees to travel
to work in the most efficient way possible, rather than
arrive at work late and frustrated. I would also want
them to get home quickly and safely and spend their
leisure time actually relaxing. I might even think that
this happier worker is worth paying for, whether that
payment be through tax or otherwise. Furthermore, privately
funded projects like the Cross City Tunnel do not recognise
the benefits for other city commuters who enjoy less
congestion, or those who enjoy the lower pollution levels,
or the faster bus ride down George Street.
Perhaps
it is a consequence of democracy and our short political
cycle that no government has the time to waste on foresight.
Or perhaps it is illustrative of a culture hell-bent
on enjoying the present without really thinking too
much about what will happen in two generations time.
Either way, it would be prudent if individuals and the
government alike dedicated more thought and investment
in solutions for long-term issues, so we don't have
to pay tolls tomorrow. |
