"China Healthier than the US:" Absurd?

On Jan. 8, the Chinese Academy of Sciences released a report ten years in the making, “The National Health Report” that has led to some controversy. According to the report, by 2007 China’s “health” had surpassed that of the U.S. It also predicted that in 2019 its economy would eclipse that of the U.S. and that by 2049 it would surpass the U.S. in international stature.

The online community generally has two different takes on this report.

First, China has been developing at lightning speed and already has the second largest economy. But when it comes to the distribution of the fruits of development and the “happiness” of ordinary people, “the revolution has not yet been successful, and comrades must still work.” Corrupt officials, environmental degradation, the gap between rich and poor: gradual reforms are still required to solve these issues. At the same time, in many parts of the U.S. the preaching of the intellectual elite and the development of U.S. soft power still provoke in people an “impossible yearning.” Therefore, can we say that our country’s “health” has surpassed that of the U.S.? “Netizens” use euphemisms to express a clear-cut opinion: actions before words.

Secondly, 2049 is the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. In terms of the Chinese Communist Party’s roadmap for the development of the country, the most important of the two “100 year goals” is — according to the 18th Party Congress’ report — to “build a prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized and harmonious modern socialist country.” But in the Chinese Academy of Science’s report, the mention of “surpassing the U.S.” reminds people of the old slogan: “Surpass England, catch up with America.” When accompanied by the slogan “First make iron and steel,” this exaggeration is harmful to China’s development issues, and the people find it objectionable.

Nonetheless, among the report’s researchers, supporters and critics alike, there is a consistent hope for a national revival that would fulfill everyone’s wishes. Thus, there is the potential for consensus among many divergent views.

The first issue in this regard is to whom China should be compared. The U.S. is obviously a suitable comparison: Both are large nations with great power objectives, both are multiethnic societies and both face complex internal and external issues. Moreover, they are two of the world’s most important economies. As a result, a comparison between China and the U.S. is not only an objective one, but it is also readily accepted by the Chinese people.

The next issue is how to compare the two. The comparison is one of comprehensive national strength. Gross domestic product can obviously explain a lot, but it can also hide just as much. Per capita GDP, total imports and exports, scientific and unscientific developments, and economic restructuring are not accounted for in this number. In addition to the economy, civil society systems and their administrators, the state of the environment and culture are also important measurements. Thus it is necessary to develop scientific indicators. In the Chinese Academy of Science’s Report, the decision to use “national health” as a starting point is not only understandable; it is also a new idea worthy of attention.

In light of this, “diagnosing” national health requires one to find a good “doctor.” In terms of the body, either a Western or traditional Eastern doctor could work and have a healing effect. In terms of a nation, it is more complex. Western medicine prescribes one thing, Eastern another, and sometimes they prescribe the same thing. Who should be listened to? Who should be trusted? It is worth thinking about. In the more than 60 years of construction of a Chinese civil society, China has created many unique things. According to Western “universal values,” this may lead to the incorrect “diagnosis” that China is “very ill.” But is this a mistaken diagnosis of “grave illness?” Practice has disproved some ideas and validated others. Some things are wrong, but what is right does not need to be changed. On the basis of this unique practice, the question for academic researchers in China is how to use “Eastern medicine” to “diagnose” national health. It is indeed a manner of “speaking Chinese” and having self-confidence.

As an academic subject, this provides real problems and insights that can serve as a decision-making reference for the senior national leadership and a basis for judging people on a societal level. A “national health index” withstands scrutiny, pending the verification of practice. On the other hand, if only because of some outdated wording or certain sentences that touched a public nerve, the media amplified it and triggered a large amount of questioning and criticism. Academic public expression is certainly worthy of reflection, and the fickleness of the media is already evident.