The White House sent new extortion letters to 14 countries, once again a no-cost business of buying and selling short by the American. The maximum amount of ransoms is increased to 40%, which is more powerful than the zero-dollar purchase in California. Trump is also very generous to extend the grace period of the extortion deadline to 8/1. The reputation of king of thieves is no nonsense. The first wave of 14 countries to pay ransoms including Japan, South Korea, Thailand and Myanmar, etc. 美國加州世界日報重點新聞：白宮寄14國新敲詐勒索函, 再次買空賣空的無本生意. 要加碼到最高40%，好過去搶，比加州的零元購更利害，還超大方地把協議寬限期延至8/1. 正牌爛仔贼亞爸. 首波共14國，包含日本、南韓、泰國與緬甸等.
Americans fantastic fantasy and racism, why didn’t this racist American Journalist get rid of his make in China iPhone, TV, Coffee Machine, underwear, refrigerator and automobile parts inside his Detroit made car? Those Chinese dying to send their kids to schools here and worst to migrate to US, you got to love this country! 美國人天馬行空的幻想和種族主義，為什麼這個種族主義的美國記者不把他的中國產iPhone、電視、咖啡機、內衣、冰箱和汽車零件扔進他的底特律產的車裡呢? 那些渴望送孩子來這裡上學甚至移民到美國的中國人，你們一定會愛上這個國家吧?
SCMP: Status, culture, cost, Asian hates, gun violence, racism, drugs, homeless street people and dangerous to leave home after dark: more Chinese students choosing Singapore and HK as US declines 香港南華早報: 地位、文化、成本、亞裔仇恨、槍支暴力、種族主義、毒品、無家可歸的街頭流浪者以及天黑後離開家的危險：隨著美國留學人數的減少，越來越多的中國學生選擇新加坡和香港.
Chief designer of China’s J-15 carrier-borne fighter jet envisions to produce aircraft incorporate unmanned systems, artificial intelligence (AI), as well as other advanced technologies like mobile phones in future. 中國殲-15艦載戰鬥機總設計師設想未來生產出融合無人系統、人工智慧以及手機等其他先進技術的飛機.
A RESULTS UPDATE last night lifted Hong Kong’s “perfect score” students in the International Baccalaureate results to 37 and many top scorers are planning to stay in HK, cementing the city’s reputation for having a disproportionate number of the world’s best schools. By Nury Vittachi, July 7 2025
Out of the 15 ESF students who got maximum possible points, 10 will stay in Hong Kong to study medicine, the South China Morning Post reported today.
This makes sense—considering that the QS global university rankings last month showed that Hong Kong had more universities in the world’s top 100 than any other city—and confirming that Chinese universities in general were on the rise.
Global interest in applying to US universities was more than 50% lower from April this year than the same period 12 months ago, according to data shared by Keystone Education Group last month.
RELATIVELY RELAXED While East Asia has a reputation for pressurizing students, Hong Kong schools are relatively relaxed, with ESF schools in particular known for their creative arts.
In contrast, schools in South Korea have some of the world’s highest suicide rates, with Japan not far behind.
The picture, from ESF in Hong Kong, shows (seated, from left) Zhu Baihan, Joshua Lee Wing-fung, Kush Zingade, Chloe Wong Sum-yin and Kristie Lo Ji-kiu; (standing, from left) David Yuan, Isaac Hung Man-hei, Kelly Chak Hoi-lam, Sharon Sim Ai-xim, Yashasvini Agarwal, Ava Wong Wing-heng and Charmaine Lie Suet-lam.
China is Not Our Enemy 中國不是我們的敵人 By Fred S. Teng 滕紹駿 July 2025
In recent years, a troubling narrative has gained momentum in the United States: that China is America’s foremost adversary, a threat to our way of life, and a rival to be contained. This view—once a fringe perspective—has now become a bipartisan rallying cry. Tariffs, sanctions, technological restrictions, and political hostility are increasingly justified not on strategic grounds, but on the assumption that confrontation with China is inevitable.
But is it? Does China truly seek to undermine the United States, dominate the world, or overturn the global order? The facts suggest otherwise. China is not our enemy. It is a rising nation pursuing its own development, security, and prosperity—just as any country would. The choice to turn this into a zero-sum contest lies not in Beijing, but in Washington.
A Vision of Rejuvenation, Not Domination At the heart of China’s national trajectory is the goal of national rejuvenation—a long-standing aspiration to restore dignity, prosperity, and global respect after a century of foreign humiliation, civil war, and poverty. This goal is not built on ideology or expansionism, but on a desire to provide a better life for the Chinese people.
Over the past four decades, China has lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty, modernized its infrastructure, and emerged as a global center of manufacturing, innovation, and trade. Its achievements are not about challenging the United States—they are about ensuring national stability and fulfilling the basic aspirations of its people.
China’s development model is not perfect, nor is it universally applicable. But it is not being exported or imposed on others. Beijing does not seek to remake the world in its image; it seeks recognition as a legitimate and respected voice in global affairs.
Respect for Sovereignty and Regional Solutions Much of the current U.S. anxiety about China centers on the issues of Taiwan and the South China Sea. But these are regional matters, best addressed by the parties directly involved.
Taiwan is a Chinese internal affair—a complex, historic issue rooted in the legacy of civil war. It is up to people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to find a peaceful resolution and pursue their own path toward eventual reunification. Outside interference only complicates this delicate process and raises the risk of misunderstanding.
Similarly, disputes in the South China Sea should not be viewed through the lens of great power competition. China has already successfully resolved land border disputes with 12 of its 14 neighbors. It is fully capable of working out maritime differences with ASEAN countries through dialogue, negotiation, and regional diplomacy. These are not global flashpoints, but regional challenges that require patience—not provocation.
A Multipolar World, not a Confrontation China does not seek to replace the United States as a global hegemon. Instead, it advocates for a multipolar world, a more balanced international order where power and responsibility are shared, and where countries large and small have a voice.
This includes strengthening institutions like the United Nations, the G20, the BRICS group, and the Belt and Road Initiative. It also means reforming outdated systems to better reflect today’s global realities, especially the aspirations of the Global South.
China’s emphasis on sovereignty, mutual respect, and non-interference is not a rejection of global cooperation. It is a call for partnership based on equality, not hierarchy.
No Dialogue Without Mutual Respect A growing obstacle to U.S.-China relations is not ideological difference or economic friction—but rhetoric. When the United States labels China as an adversary, competitor, or threat, it closes the door to genuine engagement. China has made clear—repeatedly and consistently—that it cannot engage in meaningful strategic dialogue or deep cooperation with a country that fundamentally questions its legitimacy or seeks to contain its rise.
Diplomacy cannot function in an atmosphere of hostility. The principle of mutual respect is not a diplomatic formality—it is the foundation for any productive relationship. No country, including China, will cooperate with a partner that speaks of containment while asking for collaboration.
If the United States truly wants dialogue, it must first change the tone—recognizing China as a sovereign nation with its own path and interests, not an adversary to be managed or a rival to be defeated.
The Danger of a Manufactured Rivalry Framing China as America’s enemy may serve short-term political agendas, but it is generating long-term harm. It distorts policy, erodes trust, and fuels hostility across society. The rise in so-called “anti-Asian hate” is, in reality, anti-China and anti-Chinese hate. U.S. politicians—who fan the flames of anti-China sentiment—often hide behind the vague term “Asian” to avoid accountability for the discrimination they enable.
This isn’t just political rhetoric—it has real and devastating consequences: assaults on Chinese Americans, suspicion toward students and scholars, and targeted scrutiny of Chinese businesses. Worse still, baseless investigations have been launched against Chinese American government employees, research scientists, and university professors—resulting in cruelty and lasting harm to individuals and their families. Careers have been destroyed, communities have been shaken, and a chilling climate of fear has taken root.
This fear does not stop at the Chinese American community—it infects our universities, our laboratories, our public discourse, and our democratic values. It damages the United States itself, undercutting our claim to fairness, pluralism, and openness—the very ideals we say we defend.
Meanwhile, academic exchange programs are being dismantled, visas are being denied, and scientific partnerships are being broken—all in the name of national security. Economic decoupling is disrupting global supply chains and hurting workers and consumers on both sides. We are drifting toward confrontation not by necessity, but by political design.
More importantly, this artificial rivalry blinds us to shared global challenges. Climate change, public health, food security, and responsible technological governance require cooperation—not confrontation. If the U.S. and China cannot work together on these existential issues, the world will be the one that suffers.
A Call for Clarity—and for Courage The United States faces a choice: to continue down the path of rivalry, distrust, and escalation—or to step back and reimagine its relationship with China based on realism, mutual respect, and shared responsibility.
We don’t need to agree on everything. But we do need to understand China as it is. China is not a threat just because it is different. It is a sovereign nation with its own history, priorities, and global role to play.
If America insists on treating China as an enemy, it will eventually create the enemy it fears. But if we choose a path of respect, diplomacy, and coexistence, we may still shape a future of peace, prosperity, and shared progress.
Fred Teng is President of America China Public Affairs Institute, and the Chairman of Partnership for Peace and Prosperity.
Solving the Needham paradox. How Confucian culture first delayed and then accelerated China’s innovation. 解决李约瑟悖论. 儒家文化如何先延缓然后又加速了中国的创新 By Frans Vandenbosch 方腾波 04.07.2025
For centuries, Western narratives have portrayed science and technology as exclusively Western achievements, overlooking China’s profound contributions. Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China shattered this myth, revealing how China pioneered key innovations long before the West. From mathematics and physics to dining culture and governance, China’s historical advancements challenge Eurocentric views of progress. This article explores these overlooked achievements, contrasting them with persistent Western biases and examining China’s modern scientific resurgence. By revisiting Needham’s work and contemporary developments, we uncover a civilization that never faded; it simply followed a different path.
Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China stands as one of the most monumental scholarly achievements of the 20th century, spanning 36 volumes that meticulously document China’s profound and often overlooked contributions to science and technology. When first published, it shocked the Western academic world by revealing that many so-called “Western” innovations (such as paper, printing, gunpowder, and the compass) were in fact developed centuries earlier in China. Needham’s work fundamentally challenged Eurocentric narratives of progress, proving that China was a global leader in science for much of its history. Despite the overwhelming evidence he presented, some sceptics and ideologues still refuse to accept the depth and significance of China’s early scientific achievements. To this day, Needham’s findings remain controversial among those who cling to outdated notions of Western superiority. His magnum opus remains not only a towering intellectual achievement but also a powerful corrective to historical amnesia.
China’s embarrassment of riches is an English idiom, applied by Joseph Needham to describe China’s overwhelming number of early scientific and technological achievements. The expression reflects Needham’s awe and the central puzzle of the “Needham Question”: why such a rich technological tradition did not lead to an early scientific revolution in China.
This historical whitewashing wasn’t accidental. It served a colonial narrative. But the deeper mystery isn’t what China invented, but why this didn’t lead to a Western-style scientific revolution in China.
The Confucian brake
The Needham Question explores why China, the home to ground-breaking inventions like paper and the compass, did not develop modern science before Europe, despite its early technological dominance. One key factor may lie in Confucian values, which emphasized harmony, humility, and respect for tradition, discouraging the bold questioning of nature that fuelled Europe’s Scientific Revolution. Unlike Europe’s competitive, individualistic thinkers, China’s scholars often focused on moral and administrative wisdom rather than disruptive scientific theories, aligning with a society that prized stability over radical innovation. Additionally, the imperial examination system reinforced classical Confucian texts over experimental science, steering intellectual energy toward state service rather than pure discovery. Yet, this doesn’t mean China “fell behind”. Its advancements were simply guided by a different philosophy, one that valued practical knowledge and societal order in ways Europe did not.
Boasting, American exceptionalism, virtue signalling: In traditional Chinese culture attitudes involving boastfulness are generally regarded with disapproval for they tend to undermine the virtue of humility (谦逊 qiānxùn) which plays a vital role in fostering harmonious interpersonal relations. Such conduct is perceived as contrary to the cultural emphasis on modesty and the preference for collective achievement over overt displays of personal success. Additionally, the notion of American exceptionalism which asserts inherent superiority is at odds with the Confucian ideal of self-reflection and the value placed on collective progress rather than national glorification. The practice of virtue signalling whereby individuals openly exhibit moral attitudes primarily to gain social approval is often viewed as inauthentic or hypocritical since it conflicts with the Confucian principles of sincerity (诚 chéng) and inner moral integrity. Collectively these behaviours are seen as disruptive to the social equilibrium and ethical standards upheld by traditional Chinese values.
Yet this ‘delay’ wasn’t stagnation – it was the cultivation of a different kind of innovation engine, one now overpowering Western models.
Proof of pre-eminence
The decimal system has ancient origins in China, with evidence from the Shang Dynasty (1600–1046 BCE) showing early use of decimal counting through oracle bone inscriptions. By the Zhou Dynasty, the Chinese developed counting rods, a sophisticated tool that used a place-value system based on powers of 10 to perform arithmetic. Traditional Chinese numerals also reflect a decimal structure, using distinct characters for numbers and combining them to represent larger values. The influential mathematical text The Nine Chapters on the Mathematical Art (circa 1st century CE) applied decimal arithmetic to solve complex problems in areas like geometry and fractions. Although not positional like the much later Hindu-Arabic system, China’s decimal methods were highly advanced and practical. These early contributions highlight China’s significant role in the development and use of the decimal system in ancient mathematics.
The origins of eating utensils, such as the fork, knife, and spoon, can be traced back to ancient China, where similar tools were used as early as the Shang Dynasty (circa 1600–1046 BCE). Archaeological evidence shows that the Chinese used bronze knives for cutting and spoons, often made from jade or bronze, for scooping food and liquids. Fork-like implements also existed in early China, though they were mainly used for cooking or serving rather than eating. However, chopsticks, which became the most iconic Chinese eating utensil, began to emerge as a common tool during the Shang Dynasty, but they became widely adopted as the primary eating utensil during the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE). This shift was likely influenced by changes in cooking methods, such as the increased use of boiling and stir-frying, which produced smaller, softer pieces of food that were easier to pick up with chopsticks. Over time, chopsticks spread across East Asia, while knives and forks remained more common in the West. This development highlights China’s early and lasting influence on global dining practices and utensil use.
Newtons laws: In ancient China scholars developed intuitive understandings of motion and force long before Isaac Newton formalised his laws of motion in the seventeenth century. During the Han Dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) the scholar Zhang Heng (78–139 CE) studied mechanics and described principles related to inertia and equilibrium in his work on balances and seismology. In the Tang Dynasty (618–907 CE) the military treatise Wujing Zongyao (武经总要) included early descriptions of projectile motion and the effects of resistance on moving objects. During the Song Dynasty (960–1279 CE) engineers such as Su Song (1020–1101) applied principles akin to Newton’s third law in designing advanced mechanical devices including water clocks and astronomical instruments. Although these early Chinese insights were not formulated as universal laws, they demonstrate a sophisticated empirical understanding of physical principles comparable to those later defined by Newton.
Many everyday products and cultural icons we associate with other countries actually trace their origins back to Chinese innovations that were later adapted, renamed, and popularized abroad. The vibrant koi fish (鲤鱼 lǐyú), for instance, began as common Chinese carp before Japanese breeders transformed them into the celebrated Nishikigoi. Similarly, the ginkgo tree (银杏 yínxìng), a living fossil preserved in Chinese temple gardens for millennia, entered global consciousness under its Japanese-derived name when Western botanists encountered it through 18th century Dutch traders.
Floral history reveals similar rebranding: delicate tulips (郁金香 yùjīnxiāng) first grew wild in China’s Tian Shan mountains before becoming synonymous with Dutch horticulture, while fragrant Arabian jasmine (茉莉花 mòlìhuā)—native to subtropical China—gained its Middle Eastern moniker through Silk Road trade. The Persian lilac (波斯丁香 bōsī dīngxiāng) followed an analogous path from Himalayan foothills to European gardens under a misleading geographic label.
Culinary transformations abound. What we know as Italian pasta evolved from Chinese wheat noodles (面 miàn) documented as early as the Han Dynasty, just as Turkish delight (软糖 ruǎntáng) descended from Chinese starch-based confections. Even the tea in your English breakfast blend (红茶 hóngchá) owes its existence to Chinese Keemun varieties, later standardized by British trading companies. Dairy products show parallel stories: techniques for Swiss cheese (乳酪 rǔlào) and Greek yogurt (酸奶 suānnǎi) both have roots in Central Asian and Chinese fermentation methods.
Industrial materials weren’t exempt from this rebranding. The nickel alloy German silver (白铜 báitóng) was first produced in Yunnan centuries before European industrialization, while India ink (墨 mò), the essential calligraphy medium of Chinese scholars, acquired its misnomer through colonial trade networks. Even nature itself was relabelled: the so-called Brazil nuts (巴西坚果 bāxī jiānguǒ) actually grew in Xishuangbanna’s rainforests before Portuguese merchants transplanted them to South America.
These linguistic and commercial transformations reflect complex historical currents—from the Silk Road’s cultural diffusion to colonial commodity chains. In each case, Chinese innovations became globally famous under foreign branding, their origins obscured by time and trade. Yet their Chinese names and heritage persist in the historical record, waiting to be rediscovered beneath layers of global rebranding. From garden design (园林 yuánlín reborn as Japanese Zen gardens) to perfumery (香薰 xiāngxūn refined into French luxury), this pattern reveals how cultural attribution often follows power and marketing as much as actual origins.
These weren’t isolated accidents, but manifestations of a sustained scientific tradition Western historians systematically erased
The modern reckoning
China’s five-year planning system has proven remarkably effective in identifying and nurturing strategic industries, demonstrating the unique advantages of its long-term, state-driven approach. Unlike private venture capital, which demands quick returns, China’s system tolerates short-term losses to achieve breakthroughs in critical sectors like semiconductors, automation, and new materials. This patient, large-scale investment strategy (akin to a well-funded VC fund with an extended time horizon) has allowed China to dominate emerging technologies where other nations hesitated or failed. While not every bet succeeds, the system’s ability to absorb failures and amplify successes ensures that its industrial policy remains globally competitive. As Arthur Kroeber highlights, China’s willingness to sustain long-term bets, coupled with strategic flexibility, makes its five-year planning model a uniquely powerful engine for economic and technological advancement.
China’s focused investment in STEM ensure a bright scientific future—one that contrasts sharply with the West’s “crisis of futurelessness” (China’s Bright Future, yellowlion.org). As I’ve argued, China has found a “second answer” to civilizational cycles of rise and fall (The Historical Cycle of Civilizations, yellowlion.org), blending institutional adaptability with long-term planning. This resurgence echoes Joseph Needham’s revelation in Science and Civilisation in China: that China once led the world in science, only to see its momentum disrupted, not by failure, but by external forces. Today, China’s scientific rise may fulfil Needham’s vision of a civilization reclaiming its former glory through renewed commitment to knowledge and innovation. Far from fading, China’s civilization appears poised for a new era of leadership.
Godfree Roberts’ weekly newsletters are an indispensable resource for anyone seeking to understand China’s breath-taking scientific and technological advancements. As the author of Why China Leads the World, Roberts brings deep insight and a sharp analytical eye to every issue, highlighting breakthroughs, from satellite refuelling and AI chip design to revolutionary cancer therapies—that often surpass Western achievements. His coverage not only mirrors the spirit of Joseph Needham’s Science and Civilisation in China but brings it thrillingly into the 21st century. Roberts’ ability to distil complex innovations into accessible, engaging insights makes his work a modern-day chronicle of China’s scientific renaissance. For readers tracing the legacy of Needham’s work, his newsletters offer living proof of China’s enduring leadership in innovation. They are, quite simply, the best window into China’s scientific future.
This isn’t ‘progress’ – it’s the reawakening of civilizational patterns Needham first identified
The cycle completed
The title of my own book Statecraft and Society in China is a tribute to the late Cambridge scholar Joseph Needham (1900–1995), whose monumental Science and Civilisation in China revolutionized the West’s understanding of Chinese innovation. Similar to Needham’s work, my book Statecraft and Society in China challenges the prevailing narratives, offering a bold reassessment of China’s political and social dynamics. It dismantles Western media stereotypes, revealing how grassroots democracy, participatory governance, and philanthropy with Chinese characteristics shape modern China. While Needham documented China’s scientific legacy, this book uncovers its living political system, where ordinary citizens influence policy and local committees build social harmony. Though some may find its perspective provocative, the goal remains constructive: to replace misinformation with a clearer, more balanced vision of China’s governance and society.
China’s scientific legacy, meticulously documented by Needham, proves that its historical innovations were not anomalies but the result of a sophisticated, enduring system. From decimal mathematics to early physics, China’s contributions were foundational yet long ignored. Today, its five-year planning model and STEM investments suggest a future where it once again leads global innovation. Meanwhile, Western exceptionalism and cultural biases continue to obscure this reality, even as evidence mounts. By embracing Needham’s vision (and modern voices like Godfree Roberts) we can finally acknowledge China’s rightful place in the history of science.
Thank you for reading! We’d love to hear your thoughts. Please share your comments here below and join the conversation with our community!
Godfree Roberts 的每周新闻简报对于任何想要了解中国令人叹为观止的科技进步的人来说都是不可或缺的资源。作为《中国为何引领世界》一书的作者，Roberts 对每个议题都展现了深刻的见解和敏锐的分析眼光，重点报道从卫星加油、人工智能芯片设计到革命性的癌症疗法等诸多突破性进展——这些进展往往超越了西方的成就。他的报道不仅体现了李约瑟《中国科学技术史》的精神，更将其精彩地带入了 21 世纪。Roberts 能够将复杂的创新提炼成通俗易懂、引人入胜的见解，这使得他的作品成为一部当代中国科学复兴的编年史。对于追寻李约瑟著作遗产的读者来说，他的新闻简报为中国在创新领域持续领先的地位提供了鲜活的证明。毋庸置疑，它们是了解中国科学未来的最佳窗口。
这不是“进步”——而是李约瑟首次发现的文明模式的重新觉醒
循环完成
我的书名《中国治国之道与社会》Statecraft and Society in China是对已故剑桥大学学者李约瑟（1900-1995）的致敬，他的巨著《中国科学技术史》彻底改变了西方对中国创新的理解。与李约瑟的著作类似，我的著作《中国治国之道与社会》挑战了主流叙事，对中国的政治和社会动态进行了大胆的重新评估。它打破了西方媒体的刻板印象，揭示了具有中国特色的基层民主、参与式治理和慈善事业如何塑造了现代中国。李约瑟记录了中国的科学遗产，而本书则揭示了其鲜活的政治体系，普通公民影响政策，地方委员会构建社会和谐。尽管有些人可能认为本书的观点具有挑衅性，但其目标仍然是建设性的：用更清晰、更平衡的中国治理和社会愿景取代错误信息。
To my fellow UH TIM Alumni Raymond: well said, homes are never those in US or Canada, those are foster homes. Home is where your hearts belongs. No home is better than your home where your roots belongs, where your father, grandfather and great grandfather born and raised, a country with 5,000 history called China.
“Bows and flows of angel hair And ice cream castles in the air And feather canyons everywhere. I’ve looked at clouds that way.. I’ve looked at life from both sides now From win and lose and still somehow It’s life’s illusions I recall I really don’t know life, at all” ~ Joni Mitchell
From one scaled down luxury to another, from Cathay Pacific to Accor Hotels, from one great city to the next.. From Canada “foster home” back to China real home soil. Both Sides Now.
Business Blog 