3 ms·

> ..have a large operating presence in China (including a political arm of the CCP within the company) I've never heard of this, do you have examples? I'll be

> ..have a large operating presence in China (including a political arm of the CCP within the company) I've never heard of this, do you have examples? I'll be happy to read about it. Normally there will be some PR/communication office under marketing sure, but I don't know what a 'political arm' could be.

yorwba 5y ago
It's article 19 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China: http://mg2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/China/201910/20191002905610.shtml http://mg2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/China/201910/2019100... Article 19: In a company, an organization of the Communist Party of China shall be established to carry out the activities of the party in accordance with the charter of the Communist Party of China. The company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organization. However, I don't think think this can be filed under "hostility to foreigners", since Chinese companies are subject to the same requirements.
- dumb1224 5y ago
  I agree. It doesn't read anything like a 'political arm' requirement. A chinese page for explanation: http://www.gongsifa.net/jieshi/gongsizhongdegongchandangzuzhi.html http://www.gongsifa.net/jieshi/gongsizhongdegongchandangzuzh... It simply means a company should allow party members to form smallest units (if >3 people) and organise events according to party rules.
neither_color 5y ago
It's been a mandatory thing for years. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...
- dumb1224 5y ago
  It's mandatory in the sense that company law provides the means of forming party units. If you have to associate that with 'political pressure' mandation then I guess it's more of a view point difference. For me the real influence doesn't have to rely on such mechanism, hence it might be a bit biased in my opinion.
elliekelly 5y ago
The NYT’s podcast “The Daily” had a really good episode a few days ago about Apple & China that touches on these sorts of “political” requirements. I think it’s much more subtle (but no less concerning) than parent comment implies. Episode link (w/ transcript): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/podcasts/the-daily/apple-china-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/podcasts/the-daily/apple-...
- daggersandscars 5y ago
  Something left out of the podcast: Apple has spent over US$400B (400,000,000,000) buying back stock since 2013Q2. The buybacks started around the same time Tim Cook apologized (April 1, 2013) and have continued, without pause, since.
systemvoltage 5y ago
'Poorly Made in China' is a great book on this matter: https://www.amazon.com/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production/dp/B08B7CJZ6F https://www.amazon.com/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production...

yorwba 5y ago

It's article 19 of the Company Law of the People's Republic of China: http://mg2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/China/201910/20191002905610.shtml http://mg2.mofcom.gov.cn/article/policy/China/201910/2019100... Article 19: In a company, an organization of the Communist Party of China shall be established to carry out the activities of the party in accordance with the charter of the Communist Party of China. The company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organization. However, I don't think think this can be filed under "hostility to foreigners", since Chinese companies are subject to the same requirements.

dumb1224 5y ago
I agree. It doesn't read anything like a 'political arm' requirement. A chinese page for explanation: http://www.gongsifa.net/jieshi/gongsizhongdegongchandangzuzhi.html http://www.gongsifa.net/jieshi/gongsizhongdegongchandangzuzh... It simply means a company should allow party members to form smallest units (if >3 people) and organise events according to party rules.

neither_color 5y ago

It's been a mandatory thing for years. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/exclusive-in-china-the-partys-push-for-influence-inside-foreign-firms-stirs-fears-idUSKCN1B40JU https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-congress-companies/...

dumb1224 5y ago
It's mandatory in the sense that company law provides the means of forming party units. If you have to associate that with 'political pressure' mandation then I guess it's more of a view point difference. For me the real influence doesn't have to rely on such mechanism, hence it might be a bit biased in my opinion.

elliekelly 5y ago

The NYT’s podcast “The Daily” had a really good episode a few days ago about Apple & China that touches on these sorts of “political” requirements. I think it’s much more subtle (but no less concerning) than parent comment implies. Episode link (w/ transcript): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/podcasts/the-daily/apple-china-privacy.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/podcasts/the-daily/apple-...

daggersandscars 5y ago
Something left out of the podcast: Apple has spent over US$400B (400,000,000,000) buying back stock since 2013Q2. The buybacks started around the same time Tim Cook apologized (April 1, 2013) and have continued, without pause, since.

systemvoltage 5y ago

'Poorly Made in China' is a great book on this matter: https://www.amazon.com/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production/dp/B08B7CJZ6F https://www.amazon.com/Poorly-Made-China-Insiders-Production...