Why I wish I was working in China

China appears to be opening up to foreign journalists, with a senior official from the State Council Information Office announcing that government ministries should adopt a "zero refusal" policy with foreign correspondents.

"Zero refusal means that the ministries must designate people to deal with calls and interview requests from foreign media and that they have to give a response within 24 hours or the period they prescribed, no matter what the result is," Guo Weimin, director of the SCIO press department, told China Daily, the government's main English language mouthpiece.

If (and it's a big if) upheld, this new policy from the cautious, censorious Chinese authorities contrasts sharply with the approach from many government ministries in open Singapore.

It may be one of the easiest places to do business in the world, but it is perhaps one of the hardest to do journalism.

Government spokespeople here rarely return calls before a deadline, perhaps hoping that journalists (representing both domestic and foreign publications) will not chase them and they will be spared the precarious task of actually speaking to a journalist.

Another favourite practice is not to invite foreign correspondents to any important government press conferences, perhaps because they are concerned that the news will be mis-interpreted.

To illustrate, earlier this week, I contacted the press office of the Singapore Police Force to speak to them about the rising rate of loan shark crime.

After claiming initially that I was not an accredited journalist in Singapore (I am, of course, a bona fide foreign media representative) I was eventually told that they would not speak to me, answer any questions or even provide me with any statistics because the publication I was working for on this story, the Asia Sentinel, was "not accredited".

Thanks a lot guys. Oh to be in press-friendly China...

Is it time for the West to open up to Burma?

Years of international condemnation, economic sanctions and diplomatic machinations have done nothing to dilute the Burmese military's grip on power.

So is it time for Britain, the US, Australia and the EU to follow the rather more pragmatic lead of Russia, China, India and Singapore and deal with Burma as if it were any other country, albeit with a government that you don't much admire?

In a very interesting article, Nicholas Farrelly, an Australian academic and author of the New Mandala blog, argues that it is indeed time for the international community to face up to the reality of entrenched military government in Burma.

Given how strong the position of the Tatmadaw (armed forces) in Burma, there seems to be little point in continuing to pursue the illusory aim of regime change.

Rather, we need to come to terms with how the generals actually run the country. Once you have accepted that getting rid of the junta is not a particularly practicable foreign policy goal, the next logical step seems to be greater engagement with Burma.

The old narrative that pitted evil crazy-eyed generals against saint-like Aung San Suu Kyi and her army of democratic martyrs - beloved by journalists and celebrities without a cause in the West - needs to be thrown out once and for all.

As Mary P. Callahan explained in her seminal work on the subject, Burma is not like some African or Latin American Banana Republic where greedy, power-hungry generals seize control in a coup designed to help them line their pockets. The strength of the military government is the result of the way Burma was forged as a nation, through a succession of internal and external wars.

The West needs to accept the junta and deal with Burma as with any other country run by an objectionable government, such as Belarus or Fiji.