#eacs

POLM .

The global Electronic Security Systems (ESS) market is projected to reach US$66.9 billion by 2024, driven by the growing need to protect infrastructure, resources and human lives against the backdrop of rising security threats and crime rates. Electronic security represents the use of technology and electronic devices for ensuring safety and security of human life, physical assets, and business operations by tracking and preventing unauthorized access to restricted premises, sensitive data, or high value assets. As key enablers of advanced electronic security, a wide range of solutions including alarms, electronic access controls systems (EACS) and CCTV and video surveillance systems have been well received by individuals, commercial establishments, and governments across the world. While the government sector continues to remain the largest end-use market for electronic security systems, generating a major portion of value sales for ESS market, commercial establishments and households have also been increasing their ESS implementations over the last few years due to heightened perceived threat of criminal activity and terrorism.

Driven by the critical need to safeguard people, resources, and infrastructure amid escalating security concerns, and the convergence of IT and mobile technology with security systems, the demand for various electronic security systems continues to post strong growth across the globe. Rise in terrorist attacks, vandalism, campus violence, and the resultant need for personal safety, and security at public places such as transits, city centers, educational institutions, as well as borders is enhancing the significance of such systems. Another factor fueling adoption of ESS is the growing focus on developing smart cities in several countries across the world. The growing sophistication of security threats is also necessitating security systems to keep up with changing threat landscape and thwart any attacks. Persistent improvements in network connectivity and broadband Internet services and the development of advanced technology-based security products, specifically wireless security offerings, are also driving demand for a range of security products from end-users. The constant decline in prices of various electronic security products such as IP cameras over the years is contributing to the market’s growth. Stringent government regulations mandating deployment of security solutions also augurs well for the market.

As stated by the new market research report on Electronic Security Systems (ESS), Europe represents the largest regional market, worldwide. Growth in the region is being driven mainly by the increase in the number of manufacturing and IT companies operating across Europe. The strengthening efforts to upgrade existing security solutions with advanced security systems in both residential and commercial buildings and the growing focus on businesses and government agencies on protecting infrastructure facilities, assets, and human life will continue to drive growth in Europe’s electronic security systems (ESS) market. Asia-Pacific is forecast to register the fastest CAGR of 11.7% over the analysis period. Rising prominence of Asian countries as manufacturing hubs for electronic security systems, robust construction activity driven by healthy gains in GDP growth, rising disposable incomes of an expanding base of middle class population, and growing number of civil infrastructure projects, among others, represent key growth drivers in the region. Growing emphasis of regional governments on developing and deploying advanced security systems in public roads, malls and transit stations is also spurring market growth.

Major players in the market include ADT LLC, Allegion plc, ASSA ABLOY AB, HID Global, Axis Communications AB, Bosch Security Systems, Brinks Home Security, Changzhou Minking Electronics Co. Ltd., CP PLUS GmbH & Co. KG, Dahua Technology Co. Ltd., Diebold Nixdorf, Incorporated, DoorKing Inc., dormakaba Holding AG, Fermax Electronica S.A.U., Gemalto N.V., Genetec Inc., Global Security Solutions, Gunnebo AB, Hanwha Techwin Co. Ltd., Hangzhou Hikvision Digital Technology Co. Ltd., Honeywell International Inc., IDEMIA, IDenticard Systems, Identiv Inc., Johnson Controls plc, March Networks Corporation, MOBOTIX AG, NEC Corporation of America, Nortek Security and Control LLC, Panasonic Corporation, Pelco by Schneider Electric, SecuGen Corporation, STANLEY Security, Vanderbilt Industries, and Vivint Inc., among others.

The research report titled “Electronic Security Systems (ESS): A Global Strategic Business Report” announced by Global Industry Analysts Inc., provides a comprehensive review of market trends, issues, drivers, mergers, acquisitions and other strategic industry activities of global companies. The report provides market estimates and projections for all major geographic markets such as the US, Canada, Japan, Europe (France, Germany, Italy, UK, Spain, Russia and Rest of Europe), Asia-Pacific (China, India and Rest of Asia-Pacific), Latin America (Brazil and Rest of Latin America) and Rest of World. The report analyzes the Electronic Security Systems (ESS) market by the Segments – Alarms, Electronic Access Control Systems, CCTV & Video Surveillance Systems and Others.

Global Industry Analysts, Inc. 6150 Hellyer Ave., San Jose CA 95138, USA, All Rights Reserved.

Appliance Stores Competitive Features

C O N T E N T S:

KEY TOPICS

Brandsdirect dealers offer their customers the best names in brand appliances, furniture and electronics through the nation’s single largest network of independent stores.(More…)

For the kind and size of retail we deal with — clients with thousands and thousands of products (department stores, drug stores, toy stores, variety stores, shoe stores, appliance stores,…

A shocking report that highlights not only Chinese academic censorship but also the arrogance and bullying of Vice-Minister Xu Lin, Director-General of the Confucius Institute Headquarters (CIH), who landed in the country and promptly began unilaterally deleting pages that didn't meet her Empress' approval despite the CIH previously verbally agreeing to the content:

9. When Vice-Minister Xu Lin, Director-General of the Confucius Institute Headquarters (CIH), arrived in Braga in the early evening of 22 July she was shown the Conference Abstracts and Conference Programme.

10. Vice-Minister Xu Lin pointed out that there were some abstracts whose contents were contrary to Chinese regulations, and issued a mandatory request that mention of the support of the CCSP be removed from the Conference Abstracts. She was also annoyed at what she considered to be the limited extent of the Confucius Institute publicity, and disliked the CCKF self-presentation.

11. Vice-Minister Xu Lin ordered her entourage from the CIH straight away to remove all the conference materials from the conference venue and take them to the apartment of one of the Chinese teachers employed at the Confucius Institute at the University of Minho.

12. Over three hundred conference participants who registered on 23 July and began to attend the conference did not receive the Conference Programme. The conference staff members were unable to explain the situation to them.

13. When Roger Greatrex, President of the EACS, had a very brief conversation with Vice-Minister Xu Lin directly after the opening ceremony on 23 July, Vice-Minister Xu Lin stated that at least two pages had to be deleted from the Conference Programme. Before any further discussion could occur Vice-Minister Xu Lin left to have a meeting with the leadership of the University of Minho.

But let us not glide over or excuse the lack of moral fortitude and adherence to the principle of academic freedom as exhibited by Dr Sun Lam and Dr Carmen Mendes:

14. After negotiations with the Vice-Director of the CIH, Dr. Sun Lam agreed to the removal of the first page in the Conference Abstracts on which it was stated that the volume was produced with the support of the CCSP. On the condition that all the funding received from the CCSP would be returned to the CCSP, the CIH permitted the Conference Abstracts to be distributed to conference participants.

15. Vice-Minister Xu Lin refused to allow the Conference Programme to be made available to the conference participants as long as it contained the page with the CCKF self-presentation and requested that the page be altered to a large logo of the CCKF without text.

16. As a result the Conference Programme was not distributed to the conference participants on 23 July. Instead only a summary photocopied schedule was distributed.

17.  On the afternoon of 23 July Dr. Sun Lam asked Dr. Carmen Mendes, the conference co-organizer of Coimbra University, if she would allow the alteration proposed by Vice-Minister Xu Lin.

18. Dr. Carmen Mendes refused, but in the interest of enabling the conference staff in the University of Minho to distribute the Conference Programme (that contained essential information for conference participants), she allowed the CCKF page to be removed, which resulted in the CIH interference being clearly noticeable.

19. Dr. Sun Lam informed the CIH staff by telephone of this decision and they effectuated the removal of the pages during the evening of 23 July.

A few days ago, I called the Chiang Ching-Kuo Foundation to ask them why, according to a Taipei Times, article they had implicitly blames the European Association of China Studies (EACS) for the incident in which the Confucius Institute of Universidade do Minho in Braga, Portugal, under the orders of Hanban, had ripped out the CCK Foundation's promotion page from the EACS Conference brochure.  The CCK Foundation denied blaming EACS and said the Taipei Times misrepresented their comments. I strongly urged them to contact the Taipei Times to make a clarification. It seems they took my advice:

Upon learning of the incident after the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) broke the news in its Monday edition, the foundation sent a letter to the Paris-based association to demand an explanation.

The executive, who wished to remain anonymous, said the foundation received a reply from EACS president Roger Greatrex later that day, but gave no further details.

The National Central Library, which hosted an exhibition displaying Taiwanese works on Chinese studies on the sidelines of the three-day event, confirmed later on Monday that staff from the Universidade do Minho ripped page 59 from all the brochures after Chinese officials expressed their displeasure at the page.

The staff did not consult with the EACS first, the library said.

Greatrex wrote in the letter that his association had not informed the foundation of the incident earlier because it needed to get the facts straight first, the executive said.

Beijing was represented at the conference by Xu Lin (許琳), director-general of the Hanban, the common name for the Chinese Ministry of Education’s Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language.

Universidade do Minho is one of several universities in Portugal that host a Confucius Institute in cooperation with the Hanban.

At a recent board meeting, the association made two decisions in response to the incident, she quoted Greatrex’s reply to the foundation as saying.

According the executive, Greatrex wrote in the letter that the association’s board will give the foundation a report on the matter after examining the circumstances surrounding the incident and if it determines that the Universidade do Minho received instructions from Xu to tear out the brochure pages, it will issue a formal letter of protest to Hanban against its political interference in academia.

She said that the foundation was displeased about the incident, but stressed that its complaint was directed at the Hanban, not the EACS.

It is puzzling why this article steps around the fact that the 'staff from the university' who ripped out the pages were specifically staff from the Confucius Institute. Indeed, neither EACS nor the Dean of the university had any idea it had happened until after the fact.  It is nonsensical to state that EACS will lodge a complaint with Hanban but not properly attribute the offending actions to the institute that Hanban controls. Finally, if the CCK Foundation is truly displeased, perhaps it should make a direct statement to that effect condemning Hanban for this piracy, censorship, and infringement of academic liberty.  If they really want to honor the patron of their Foundation they might ask themselves how CCK would have reacted to such an affront.  It will be interesting to see if this story develops further.

UPDATE:

Yesterday, the Liberty Times broke with the story of pages ripped from the conference brochures of the European Association of Chinese Studies (EACS) which noted the contribution, in funding and broader academic support, of the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation.  For those unfamiliar with this organisation, here is an abbreviated description from their website:

The Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Taipei, the capital of the Republic of China on Taiwan. It also maintains a regional office in McLean, Virginia near Washington D.C. in the United States. The Foundation was established in 1989 in honor of the late President Chiang Ching-kuo. 

...

In 1987, a group of professors of Chinese descent at major American universities wrote a joint letter to President Chiang Ching-kuo expressing their concern about the gradual decline of programs of Chinese Studies in overseas academic institutions. They suggested that, given the increased prosperity of the country, a foundation for international scholarly exchange should be established to support and promote the understanding of Chinese culture and society overseas. They believed that, in the long run, such an organization would both strengthen the bonds between foreign and domestic scholarly communities and enhance the international standing of the Republic of China on Taiwan.

President Chiang Ching-kuo accepted the recommendation ...

After his death, government officials continued to work to establish the foundation. Under the Ministry of Education's supervision, the Foundation was organized and named the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation for International Scholarly Exchange.

The Foundation's original endowment comes from two sectors, public and private. US$53 million was originally allocated by the ROC Ministry of Education and US$ 33 million came from private donors. The operational funds of the Foundation derive from the interest generated by this endowment.

And here's some background on EACS:

Founded in 1975, the Paris-based EACS is an international association representing European academics specializing in Chinese studies. It has more than 700 members.

The latest EACS conference was being held at Universidade do Minho and Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal.  Universidade do Minho has a Confucius Institute, which is run by the Chinese National Office for Teaching Chinese as a Foreign Language at China’s Ministry of Education, often referred to simply as 'Hanban'.  Hanban is a very political organisation and openly acknowledges its mission as a promoter of Chinese 'soft power' in academic institutions worldwide. It's Director-General is a woman called Xu Lin (許琳).  She is also an advisor to China's State Council.

The original EACS conference brochure included a page featuring the CCK Foundation which had donated some NT$650,000 to the event. Here's a picture of that page (from Liberty Times):

And here's a picture of the brochure the conference attendees received minus the CCK Foundation page, which had been ripped out (also via Liberty Times):

The response of Taiwan's Mainland Affairs Council to this form of censorship and academic bullying was rapid, if restrained:

"The mainland should deal with Taiwan's participation in activities on international occasions pragmatically," the Cabinet-level Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) said Monday in a statement. "If there is no respect for each other, the development of cross-strait relations will be seriously hurt."

The foundation was invited to sponsor and participate in the conference for academic and cultural exchanges, the MAC said, and the mainland's unfriendly move has triggered unnecessary controversy and hurt the feelings of the 23 million people in Taiwan. "For this, we felt deep regret and disappointment," it said. "The positive exchange of cross-strait relations will hinge on both sides addressing reality and respecting each other," it said. It called on China to treat Taiwan in a friendly way at international events because otherwise it will adversely affect the development of cross-strait ties.

The MAC's timid response is indicative of the way the Ma Administration has answered numerous incidents of Chinese bullying of Taiwanese and Taiwanese institutions on the international stage.  Since this Government has placed so much value on Improved Cross-Strait Relations ™ it's approach to dealing with Beijing's outright contravention of Ma's stated Diplomatic Truce ™ has been more often obsequious than self-respecting, much to the annoyance of many Taiwanese.  Utilising PRC Chinese nomenclature such as 'hurt the feelings of ...' only serves to reinforce the impression of Taipei not only kowtowing to Zhongnanhai but also aping it.  Calling on Beijing to treat Taiwan in a friendly way is akin to asking the bully to take your lunch money on Tuesdays and Thursdays only.  Not only does Beijing not care if Taiwan feels deep regret and disappointment, it will still continue to claim that it has bent over backwards to help its Taiwan compatriots via ECFA, the Service Trade Agreement, and various purchasing trips by Chinese officials.  Regardless, incidents like this have only conclusively proven that Ma's claims of President Chen provoking the PRC hurting Taiwan diplomatically were fabricated for election purposes.  Beijing took its foot off Taiwan's neck briefly after Ma was elected, and then replaced it with an elbow. 

Back to the story in hand, today, the Liberty Times sister paper, the Taipei Times, also ran a report on the incident:

A foundation official who wished to remain anonymous told the Taipei Times by telephone that the foundation sent a letter to the EACS yesterday to register its “unhappiness” over the incident that took place on Tuesday last week at the opening ceremony of the 20th conference of the EACS.

She said the foundation had not been aware of the incident until it was reported by the Chinese-language Liberty Times (the Taipei Times’ sister newspaper) yesterday.

...

“The EACS owes us an explanation. It not only hurt our foundation, but also the nation as a whole,” the foundation’s executive said.

The Taipei Times report, oddly out of line with the CNA and Liberty Times articles which had found Hanban to blame, seemed to imply that the CCK Foundation was pointing the finger at EACS as the responsible body, whilst absenting the role of Hanban and the Confucius Institute at the Universidade do Minho. After I tweeted about why CCK Foundation was pissed off at EACS, a received this tweet in return:

Suspecting that the CCK Foundation was scared of confronting Hanban (to some extent a rival organisation), I called the foundation.  I told them about the article in the Taipei Times and asked them why they were blaming EACS and whether this was because they were scared of confronting Hanban.  I also asked them whether they knew it was Hanban who had ripped out the pages and that Xu Lin was responsible, this being a blatant case of Chinese bullying of Taiwan. The kind lady on the phone immediately confirmed that they knew it was the Confucius Institute and Xu Lin of Hanban that had ripped out the pages, that EACS wasn't responsible, and that they had a long standing and very good relationship with EACS.  Upon hearing this, I told them to investigate the 'anonymous official' who made those comments and to contact the Taipei Times to make a clarification.  I left my name and number.

Some thirty minutes later, I got another call from another lady from the CCK Foundation.  She reiterated the points made in the previous call and blamed the Taipei Times for misreporting comments.  She may or may not also have added some politically partisan comments against the Liberty Times and Taipei Times but since my Chinese is not quite good enough to catch that nuance I can't confirm it.  When I told her about the 'anonymous official' she said, "Yes, that was me".  I then clarified with her that it was China's Hanban (she used the word 'DaLu', I used 'Zhongguo') which had carried out the offending act and that the report in the Taipei Times made it seem like she was angry with EACS. She again, vociferously denied that she or her foundation had any problem with EACS or held them responsible.  I  then strongly suggested that she contact the Taipei Times to clarify, a course of action she agreed was necessary.

Still, little things irk me about the Foundation's claims that the Taipei Times misrepresented them.  Did they or did they not send a letter to EACS to register their unhappiness and if so why send it to EACS and not Hanban or the Confucius Institute at the university concerned?  Also why state that EACS owes them an explanation and not not Hanban or the Confucius Institute?  Did they actually say that the censorship had hurt the foundation and the nation or not?

I now wait for tomorrow's Taipei Times to see if they publish a follow up story with a clarification and whether that clarification includes accurate quotes from the CCK Foundation absolving EACS of responsibility and holding Hanban responsible.

UPDATE: After asking for further information about what happened I received these tweets: