Migrant School Visits

With Rotaract, I visited 2 migrants schools at the outskirt of Shanghai yesterday. The visit intriguer-ed some more investigation on google about it. Interestingly, on the google page, the western media and the Chinese media say the opposite things regarding the migrant school issue in China.

Through the visit yesterday, I learnt a few interesting things:

1. One migrant school can make about 10-20k EUR profit a year, given the fact that a small amount of kids cannot pay the tuition (100 EUR/year) some times. A school has about 750 kids which makes up to about 70k EUR of annual revenue, assuming some kids cannot pay. The school is making such a big profit while: 1) kids are provided with limited facilities to have sports games; 2) teacher vs kids ratio is about 50:1 and most classes have about 50-60 students. I start to wonder the intention of those people funded the schools, why teachers are not paid and trained properly and why kids cannot enjoy better facilities?

2. Migrant schools are not allowed to offer education beyond primary school level, as a government's regulation. So if they want to pursue a higher degree, they have to go back to their home province, while their parents are being migrant workers working away from their hometowns. Obviously, local governments wouldn't want to share the burden of citizens not from their territories. As long as China wants to base its economic growth on mass production, there will be migrant workers. Thus there needs a solution towards their kid's education because: 1) they deserve equality to access opportunities; 2) education is probably the best way to move a person out of poverty entering middle class in China since it gives the opportunity to go to a big city, study in a good university and find a well-paid job.

Clearly removing the issue itself is beyond Rotaract's reach though we can improve the situation a little bit. I am personally frustrated not being able to tap into the fundamentals of this issue, like many other issues in China. This once again has shown that: a centrally governed change is not sustainable. We are constantly stuck in the structural problems while making shortsighted moves. We intend to achieve economic growth and poverty alleviation through mass production. Mass production leads to a huge rush of migrant workers, which leads to a huge disparity of development levels between the coastal cities and inland areas. How can our billion population fit into the 10-20 developed cities? And how long can China maintain its world factory position in order to maintain the poor as cheap labors?

I will propose my thoughts on the solutions next time.

Why doesn't China's public sphere work?

Chinese distinguish very much between what is within the private and public sphere and the attitude can be very extreme. We treat those inside the private sphere caring and selfish-less, while those outside of it, incredibly rude and careless. This disheartened me very much thinking of having a life here.

I can think of a few reasons leading to this phenomenon:

1. Lack of spiritual practice to guide us towards moral behaviors
2. Disproportionated opportunity vs population which leads everyone sees everyone else as a competitor in one way or another: it can be a promotion in the office or a seat in the subway
3. Huge insecurity caused from private property turned public overnight as well as other revolutionary changes

It is not a hopeless situation thought it'll take a few generations to reverse the mentality. It also has a lot to do with securing the rights of the individuals rather than the bigger group, regardless of the nice excuses (aka propaganda) we have been told all the time.

The question comes to - if I see any light? I am afraid not yet.

Passion without Brain = ?

I have been in touch with some grassroot NGOs in China 3-4 years ago. Now I returned to Shanghai trying to build up capacity for some NGOs - once again, they shocked me with their inefficiency and randomness. China's NGOs face a lot of challenges here, especially lacking government support and talent supply.

Yesterday I was forwarded a proposal getting 2000EUR grant from a fund with an idea like this: The primary purpose is to improve the disadvantaged position of immigrant worker's kids in Shanghai. And the approach is to give cameras to 200 immigrant worker's kids, ask them to go take pictures, and then publish those pictures as books and hopefully to raise some awareness through selling the books.

To me, that sounds like the most illogical thing ever heard! How does that improve the bad situation of those kids? Is it a burning need to teach them how to use cameras?! Which capitalist (a.k.a. the rich) will want to symbolically buy those books in support of immigrant worker's kids? Wouldn't their money have a better use other than this?!

This example is merely a waste of money, nothing more than that. There can be projects with a good intension: e.g. clean water for villagers, but doesn't necessary generate a long-term sustaianble impact and probably destroy the layers of eath, etc.

These things frustrate me about the civil society in general. At such moments, I always feel happy that an organization like AIESEC is producing young leaders with passion and knowledge to make a difference, which is badly needed in this country though not necessarily welcomed by some authorities, needless to mention names here.

For me personally, I hope to grow my brain with BAIN. Then further my learning through studies and practices in unpreviliged parts of the world. The challenge is to maintain the passion while working for a caplitalism sturrer! :P