Post script:

Pericles, further to the above, my comment was not based on a "Western" perspective - too the contrary. The oft reported socio-anthropologist, Harry C. Triandis, sees culture based on ecology and biology, and behaviour, which is, in turn, based on culure. Herein, for many centuries, Chinese lineage groups established ancestoral-geneological-intergenerational trusts. This template provides a framework for the contemporary family business having a "Holding Company" at its apex. Thus, a "macro" rather than "minutae" framework is taken from a Chinese behaviour revealed.

Also, historically, in the early days of the Overseas Chinese Diaspora, the true lineage groups broke down. Thus, blood cross-lineage brotherhoods and secret societies. Later thesse groups evolved into "Kongsi".

Going back to China itself, the lineage groups did not have the same cohension as did European villages. Herein, even today, the Scholar, S. Gordon Redding writes regarding the Chinese of "limited and bounded trust".

Trade negotiations? I have not worked for Austrade: But have worked with Austrade and German Chambers of Commerce. There are opportunities in China -no doubt- but watch-out. Non-familial connections are based on utility and you can be dropped very quickly, especially in you a Westerner.

Its late. Sorry, if I missed some typos.

Regards to the regular contributors to the "Stephen Crabbe Forum"

Oliver, I strained to discern a point in your last two posts, but I will assume it was to provide some background to your original "just helping Pericles" remarks. But I am obviously failing to communicate effectively, as I was neither seeking nor needing assistance, nor even do I now need to "watch out" as you so kindly advise in your last post.

I was trying to offer an alternative view to the traditionally held "let's try to find some common ground" position adopted by international commerce theorists both here and in the US. Can we not accept that different cultures do not necessarily need to understand each other in order to do business, they just need to identify and take into account the risks inherent in the transactions, and then make the necessary accommodations and allowances.

The end result is not going to be the kind of utopian ideal where everybody's morals, ethics and business practices are identical, but it will be a far more successful and sustainable trading platform than kidding ourselves we can paint over the differences.

Pericles, put simply, yes, I was trying to offer some advice. I now see that you seem experienced and don't need this and possibly a little hostile to it. On the advice side, I was trying to state that the Sino environment is less rosey than is sometimes shown in "how to market" and "how to do business" books. The academic literature supports this view, including how Chinese do business (Chen, Redding and Wu): Not just the negotiations, guanxi and long timeframe stuff, but, the high deceit, "use them" attitude to exploiting outsiders and bogus accounting stuff. I was saying, "lookout for artful Shylocks in Pollyanna clothing".

Otherwise, I was trying to establish that my original picture presented to the was a big scope picture not a small scope picture as you indicated, and, I was taking a nomative Sino perspective not a Western perspective, despite, being caught out using inappropriate Western jargon.

Incidently, I have purchased China PRC companies on behalf of Singapore listed company. I have never been burnt, but, have caught Sino initiated tricky practises in play