You raised an interesting point that China may try to make a distinction between the rich Southeast and other poorer areas in the country. Practically, it may be a good idea. Remember the snowstorms during the Lunar New Year in 2008? Lots of migrant workers were unable to go home, and there were riots in many major train stations in Canton. Most of the workers working in Foxconn are not from Shenzhen, and it is good if the current jobs there can be moved to other areas where the workers are originally from. Unlike the so-called Asian Tigers, China is large enough to keep very different types of business at the same time. If this strategy works, the success in the past can be reproduced for another ten years, or even more.

Then, how should the legal framework be designed to accommodate so many different things at the same time? A suggestion can be made that while the wages are raised in Shenzhen, in other places the wages may remain at the pre-suicides level. People there might happily take it, since it means earning the same amount of money but being able to go back home every day. However, is this fair? Chinese leaders in the past (i.e. when the reformations just started) liked to say that the strategy was to make part of the people become richer, and then the rich would pull the poor compatriots up. However, twenty years have passed, and the gap in wealth has only broadened. Keeping the current Foxconn-style factory, wherever it is, means continuation of exploitation of those workers.

Therefore, a general transformation that improves the working conditions but keeps the jobs is still necessary. And I think it is possible. Compared with other populous countries like India, China has an advantage: its population is better-educated. In fact, the strike in the Honda factory might not have happened 20 years ago. A better education means that the workers know how to struggle for their rights better. It provides China with a chance to move forward: a workforce with a better quality can do something other than the merely repetitive jobs.

Of course, transformation always accompanies risk. There is no guaranty that a departure from the current practice will do more good than harm in the long run, not to mention the apparent short term loss of those foreign companies pursuing cheaper workers.

-- WenweiLai - 03 Jul 2010