Generally people have a quite uniform definition of ‘Freedom of Speech’ and ‘Public Media’, but when the word, ‘right’ or ‘power’ or ‘influence’ is added to the two phrases, then people’s interpretation differs a lot, especially from the U.S. and China’s perspective. This is because the political, economic and social environments are different in the two countries that have cultivated different believes in terms of legal and moral views. However, in today’s global human society, it is the right of freedom of speech and the power of public media that are the critical concepts which must be understood not only from one’s own perspective but also from other people’s perspective in order to maintain a harmonic and inclusive global society. We are now living in a “bipolar world” led by the U.S. and China and influenced by the philosophy and culture of the Western world and Eastern world. For the two half-worlds to live peacefully with fair competition, one of the most important criteria is to understand and respect each side’s definition of the right of freedom of speech and media power and influence. This article is tempting to analyze those definitions and differences so that we may accept and respect each other’s views to live in a harmonic and inclusive world.

Freedom of speech is one of the basic human rights well defined in UN and many international declarations, some legally binding. But this concept was originated many centuries ago, in the West going back to Ancient Greek (BC510-BC323) and Roman era (BC509-BC27) and defined in modern times in the British Constitution (1689 Bill of Rights) and French Declaration (1789 Rights of Man and Citizens declared in French Revolution). Article 11 in the French Declaration stated: Free communication of ideas and opinions is a basic human right, so every citizen has the right to speak, write and print but must be responsible for using these rights. Article 19 in the UN Human Rights Declaration (1948) defined: "everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice", later with amendments stating that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions". Since British poet, intellectual, government worker John Milton (1608-1674) published essays on right of freedom of speech in multiple languages, this right has been well accepted in the West and extended to every medium, speech, print, television, and Internet not only on content and expression but also on means to search, receive, transmit and broadcast.

The evolution of freedom of speech in the East was often not understood even confused by people, especially self-claimed Human Rights advocates in the West. Freedom of speech in Asia and Africa was lost during the colonial era owing to the colonial occupation by the Western power, but the concept had long existed in the East. Limited by space, we shall limit our discussion to the Chinese history. Like the West, China was ruled by royal power until the beginning of the 20th century, then turning to Republic systems. However, China’s written history is much longer than the Western; one unique feature in the Chinese history was that the royal power had to respect the independence of the historians even when they were appointed by the Kings to record history, a firm notion of freedom of speech existed ever since China had recorded history. We will let historians do the verification of the earliest time that freedom of speech was originated in China, Here we will only trace back to Chun Qiu Era (BC770-BC403), when Chinese philosophers and scholars were in a state of blossoming (百家齊放）， hundreds of scholars (different schools) expressing and promoting their ideas and philosophies freely (enjoying freedom of speech). The most famous philosopher and educator, Confucius (BC551-BC471), familiar to the Western scholars, was one of those blooming scholars.

When China established her Republic nation (Republic of China 1912 and People’s Republic of China 1949), their constitutions all contained clear definition of citizens’ Freedom of Speech. For example, Article 35 in the PRC’s constitution states: “PRC citizens have freedom of speech, print, meeting, organization, demonstration and protest”. In Chinese history such freedoms have been suppressed. During Qin dynasty (BC221-207), its first Emperor (秦始皇）had ordered to burn all books and prosecuted all scholars of different schools except the “legalist” school, scholars believing in using strict laws to rule the country. Later, Han dynasty made a reversal, forbidding all schools except Confucianism, then Ming and Qing dynasties all had dark periods suppressing literature and intellectuals the emperors did not like. Even during the People’s Republic period, a crazy culture revolution (1966-1976) had trampled the constitutional right of freedom of speech by applying pure political belief over academic or historical views. During the ancient Chinese dynasties, the suppression of freedom of speech was purely for keeping the royal family in power, hence the emperors tend to suppress education and academic freedom, especially controlling intellectuals. Whereas the cultural revolution was a release of anger towards the traditions instilled by the royal power. Its outbreak was rather sad. Fortunately， that episode had been identified and interpreted as a mistake. At present time, the constitutional right of freedom of speech is rigorously upheld.

The modern China advocates people’s power or citizens’ power, hence the PRC government understands that suppressing education (keeping citizens uneducated) is a suicide policy in the competitive world. The Chinese government’s effort in raising educational level has panned out with great achievements, not only in lifting poverty in China but also made great strides in many domains, leading in several science and technology fields such as Internet applications and space research. In today’s advanced communication environment, freedom of speech received a natural boost, comparing the ancient ‘blooming’ period limited in speech and hand written books. Today, speech, in the broadest sense including multimedia and support evidence, has the speed of ‘missile’ and can target world-wide audience with no technical hindrance. Desire of expression is a human nature, thus suppressing freedom of speech is against human nature. However, human nature is not perfect without evil thoughts and sinful behavior. The policy of elevating education and advancing communication technologies are great for freedom of speech, but unfortunately, they have also inflamed the evil part of human nature as evidenced by the crimes affecting innocent people. On this serious issue, the perspectives of the U.S. and China are different loaded with misunderstanding. The U.S. government accuses China in controlling her media by restricting access and censoring content. China accuses the U.S. letting pornography and evil materials flooding the world damaging morality and social stability. Young people are misled to commit crimes, directly or indirectly influenced by bad media driven by profits. This fundamental difference in logical thinking leads to the different attitude, policy and legal control of freedom of speech and media influence.

  
 
Right of Freedom of Speech and Public Media Power (II)
The U.S. and China’s Perspective

There is no argument that media has power and influence. When a thought or opinion is broadly circulated, then it is likely to be widely accepted. In the ancient times, the broadly and the widely circulations were limited by technology, thus they were easy for emperors to exercise control. With today’s technology, multi-media in speech, print, transmit and broadcast can easily gain quantity and speed advantages as well cost savings using digital media technology. So today, freedom of speech is multifaceted and amplified. so long one has funds, one can have a very broad influence through media. The funds needed are for creating content, acquiring access and maintaining a steady flow of the multi-faceted ‘speech’. The U.S. is a nation governed more by law than ethics or morality. Thus the management of freedom of speech and media operation is strictly by law. Since law can hardly anticipate the advances of technology, the changes in society fabric and standards of morality, it has little preventive means to stop any misuse of freedom of speech or any budding crime except applying punishment after crimes have been committed. These punishments only generate regrets but not any solution preventing crime. China, on the other hand, has a long tradition that places morality and ethics on a higher place sometimes even above the law, especially on the power of media and its influence. Therefore, China focuses more on prevention of ill consequences both on misuse of freedom of speech as well as media influence, thinking ahead of possible crimes. Of course, any control or management method employed will definitely affect the right of freedom of speech and the extent of media power. China’s logic is that if the motivation and purpose is to prevent crime for the benefit of the people, then the small sacrifice in speech and media rights is justified. This line of thinking can be seen in China’s management of media in contrast to the U.S. practice.

First, let’s take a mass murder case happened in a US city. It was (post-crime) determined that the crime was motivated by a ‘hate website’ promoting hate between society groups. The planning of the mass murder was learned from a website detailing such knowledge. The weapons were acquired through e-Commerce website facilitating loop holes for making such purchases. Although the criminal was caught at the end but the victims were dead and all the ‘accomplice’ in the crime were protected under the freedom of speech and media law. Another example is related to election. The 2020 presidential election in Taiwan is in the heat with the incumbent (Tsai of DPP party) trying desperately to get re-elected. The media just revealed that DPP has hired an ‘Internet Army’ to acquire social media accounts to report false news to smear Tsai’s opponent. The Internet army continues to promote and comment on the fake news to make the opponent spending all his time and energy cleaning the smear. The entire paid ‘Internet army’ is protected under the right of the freedom of speech making a profitable career out of this smearing attack. The hired ‘Internet army’ also goes to the opponent’s website to dump ‘garbage’, creating a false image to influence opinion polls. Thus despite of Tsai’s ineffective administration, scandal of fake degree and dissertation, and corruption in the presidential inner circles, her opinion polls still miraculously rise over her opponent’s. Obviously, any prosecution of such a crime will be too late for saving an honest and fair election.

China’s control and management of Chinese media has always been an attack topic for the U.S. media which are owned by private corporations. China’s major media are SOEs. China seems to be taking a righteous position defending her actions regarding making regulations on freedom of speech and media behavior. Most recently, China News published a list of guidelines prohibiting a bunch of words to be used in news reporting. This is unthinkable in the U.S. but China News published the undesirable words in five categories: 1. Political and social, 2. Legal and law, 3. Race and religion, 4. Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan and 5. International relations. What we can gather, the proposed measure was motivated from maintaining fair human rights and protecting sovereignty rights. Obviously, China News is hoping to influence the Chinese media to curb the use of ‘foul’ words which may cause social, racial and national division. In contrast, the U.S. permits very liberal rights of freedom of speech and media behavior, thus we can see news report regarding burning a gay flag as a hate crime and burning the U.S. national flag as freedom of speech. The Chinese would consider this a disrespect or even a crime against the nation just like they regard the American stand-up comedians making insulting jokes about their mother-in-laws as distasteful or immoral; and yet Americans enjoy those insulting jokes sometimes laughing hysterically. These examples can certainly illustrate the different perspectives of the U.S. and China regarding the right of freedom of speech and media behavior.

Media right and media power are the soft power of the nation. They should not be overlooked. However, the media power or influence can not be shared equally or fairly by every citizen. China can not do it, the U.S. can not do it as well. The media power is only effective when it is concentrated and coordinated. The media in the U.S. are concentrated in the hands of a few corporations and money people. China’s media are largely SOEs. As communication technologies are advanced, citizens gain more in freedom of speech as means, tools and costs are easily affordable. Citizens also receive far more information to the point individuals are not able to cope or handle them. Therefore, demanding broader freedom of speech and media access (comes with negative and damaging information and behavior) does not make any sense. Rather, the citizens should demand more regulations to prevent crime and to protect privacy which ultimately are beneficial to citizens, society and the nation. Today, citizens have adequate freedom of speech through social media and various technologies, but more vulnerable to negative forces (fake news, hackers, scams etc.) because of lack of regulation. We can expect as we move into the 5G era or soon 10G era, we shall gain more freedom of speech and media access and influence, but are we going to be safer from the negative forces? The above cited media crime examples will only suggest that more crimes will occur if we don’t establish any preventive measures soon.

 
In a democratic society, voters must understand politicians’ personal, economic and political background so that their speeches and deeds can be correctly understood and interpreted. Unfortunately, today’s politicians tend to make double talks and take hypocritical actions motivated by self-interests or special lobbyists’ interest rather than genuine public interest. After nearly two and half century’s democracy in the U.S., there seem to be more young people desiring to be a career politician. Some may be motivated by a pure desire to serve the people or the country but more are motivated by the financial return, medical and retirement benefits and social status. (For example, Congressman can receive a big pension at age of 62 after only five years of service and they pay very little for medical insurance (with federal subsidy) and have access to nearly free medical services at Washington DC ( military facilities). Many young politicians are descendants of political families where they get more chances to get involved in political campaigns, to serve as interns in Congressional or government offices and likely to get scholarships to pursue political studies. Therefore, to safeguard our democracy, it is necessary to have a free media which can allow citizens to analyze and discuss politicians’ background and their true believes. This article is one such discussion about the ambitious rising star Senator Marco Rubio.

Why is Rubio picked for discussion? The answer is that Senator Rubio has earned himself the reputation as the most anti-China Senator through his zealous Congressional hearings bashing China. Since the U.S. - China relation is the most important and delicate relationship, it is important for us to understand why a Cuban descendant cares more about Taiwan (a sensitive China issue) than Cuba and whether he has a legitimate reason to be so anti-China. Rubio was born in Miami in 1971 in a Cuban family. His parents legally immigrated to the U.S. (Florida) in 1956 but his father and grandpa returned to Cuba in 1959 (Cuban Revolution 1953-59, Castro took power in 1959) then returned illegally back to Florida in 1962 and obtained legal immigrant status in 1975. This background may have planted the anti-communism ideology in young Rubio’s mind. However, the world of communism has changed for decades. As a politician, Rubio should have learned the Cuban history, Cuban Missile Crisis and U.S.-Soviet Union face down (1962), Vietnam War (1955-1975), U.S. formal recognition of China (1979), Fall of Berlin Wall (1989) and Soviet collapse (1991), Return of Hong Kong to China (1997) and restoration of U.S.-Cuba relation (July 20, 2015) in depth.

Rubio is a Republican but he worked well with his democratic colleagues in Florida. Understandably from his family background, Rubio would be against the Castro government, but it was not clear why he was so strongly against Obama’s restoration of U.S. - Cuba relation. One can not view that as his pure Republican Party position, since in all his political life prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, he was known in Florida as a ‘isle-crossing’ legislator. He became a successful Florida State Senate Speaker at a young age largely because he was often ready and easy for bipartisan compromise on many issues, even at the expense of alienating Republicans, for example, Jeff Bush, the Republican Governor of Florida. Rubio did not have powerful political mentors but he did work in the Bob Dole presidential campaign (1996) which may have influenced his political actions later related to the Taiwan issue. The retired Senator Bob Dole at age of 93 became a lobbyist for Taiwan and was instrumental in causing President-Elect (2016) Donald Trump to receive a ‘congratulatory’ phone call from Taiwan’s President Ms. Tsai. It is well known that the Taiwan governments (both anti-Mainland China and pro-independence Progressive Democratic Party and pro-Peaceful reunification KMT) have been spending significant amount of money hiring lobbyists to influence U.S. politicians, especially in the Congress, to support Taiwan’s wishes, for example on purchasing military weapons.

The U.S. has always recognized only one China (in 1979 switched from the KMT government (Republic of China) to the CCP government (PRC)) thus has preferred maintaining a status quo situation across the Taiwan Strait. The U.S. had viewed any pro-Independence party in Taiwan as trouble maker. However, the Trump Administration has in many ways deviated from traditional U.S. foreign policies and State Department guided diplomacy. The current U.S. China policy has taken an obvious shift from engagement to targeting her as a competitor. This has emboldened the Taiwan DPP to strengthen its US lobbying effort, resulting in U.S. Congressional legislation such as the Taiwan Travel Act (2016-2018 introduced to the U.S. Congress by Representative Steve Chabot and Senator Marco Rubio) and Taiwan Assurance Act (2019 H.R. 2002 introduced by Representative Michael McGaul (R TX) and S. 878 introduced by Senator Tom Cotton (R AR)). While these legislations do not bind the Administration for taking any specific action, they do seem to provide some comfort to the current pro-independence Taiwan government (DPP) which is trying to disengage in political ties and to reduce its economic dependency with Mainland China in trades and tourism. Ironically, while we oppose foreign intervention in our election system (Russian Gate) and engaging foreign entity to influence our election (Trump Impeachment), our Congress seem to openly accept foreign lobbying effort to produce legislation (not initiated by our own Administration) influencing foreign elections.

In the U.S. Senate, Marco Rubio chairs the Commerce Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, as well as the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women's Issues. As a Cuban descendant, Rubio has opposed normalization of US - Cuba relations. He cares about Human Rights issues in China (and Hong Kong) more than in Cuba, which is a curious question in many Chinese Americans’ minds. While without investigative proof, one cannot tie his previous relation with former Senator Bob Dole and Dole’s lobbying effort (paid by Taiwan) to his sponsored bills supporting Taiwan. However, tracking his job performance in his Senate tenure does suggest that his interest in foreign relations, especially China, has a strong correlation with his ambition to run for the U.S. Presidency. Rubio won his U.S. Senate seat from Florida with the help of Teaparty. As a young rising star in the Republican Party, he was speculated as a potential presidential candidate. Rubio was chosen to give the response speech to Obama’s 2013 State of Union Address. Rubio is a good speaker. Obama’s success in becoming the U.S. President during his first term in the Senate was to a large extent owing to his oratorical ability. This must have inspired Rubio to consider his own chance to run for the U.S. Presidency.

Rubio revealed his intention of running for the U.S. Presidency in 2014, consequently enhancing his activities in foreign affairs, for example his attention to Iran and Hong Kong. However, he failed in his 2016 presidential campaign, even lost miserably to Donald Trump in his own home State, Florida. Clearly, his oratory skill is not sufficient to fulfill his ambition. In an objective analysis, we may say that his limited global view, knowledge and experience had failed him. Rubio may have understood his weakness thus working very hard in the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee; however, his choice of making TV time through bashing China on Human Rights issues and sponsoring anti-China bills forbidding China to buy or invest in US tech companies simply glossed over and missed the point that China’s effort and success in lifting poverty and improvements in human rights and China’s rapid advances in technology and would not gain him more knowledge and understanding of China’s history, political and economic system and the delicate U.S. - China mutual dependency. Therefore, Rubio has earned his reputation as the No. One China hater but with not a single ounce of deep and subtle knowledge of China. In contrast, President Trump has demonstrated his cunning tactics (with far better understanding of China than Rubio) towards China in his trade war.

The Taiwan issue is a seven decade long domestic problem in China. The overwhelming majority of people in Taiwan has the same blood, culture, language and customs as the majority of mainland Chinese. There is no use to twist the history of Taiwan on aborigines, Dutch occupation or Japanese occupation to try to separate Taiwan from China. It would be as absurd as one would claim that the American Indians should take back half of the U.S. and declare Independence or that Hawaii, California or Texas should declare independence from the U.S. If Rubio truly interested in becoming a President of the U.S., he would have to enrich himself with deeper knowledge of world affairs than just seeking TV limelight or oratory opportunities. In contrast, Trump is not a career politician as Rubio, but he has a sharp perception of his own and fast learning ability on his feet while serving as the U.S. Presidency despite of being a poor speaker and a compulsory twitter making plenty of mistakes.
​
The title of this article perhaps should have been entitled as, A Bit of Advice to Voters on Judging Career Politicians. Our world is very complex, especially in foreign relations. Voters must examine politicians carefully whether they have a solid understanding of world affairs or just give sensational speeches hugging activists on TV.

  
A recent article written by Prof. Robert Peckham, an author of the book, Epidemics in Modern China, and a MB Lee Professor in the Humanities and Medicine at the University of Hong Kong (HKU), has caught my attention. His article is entitled, Past Pandemics Exposed China’s Weakness - The current one highlights its strength, appeared in Foreign Affairs (3-27-2020). As a director and founder of the multi-disciplinary Center for the Humanities and Medicine (CHM), he oversees a programme of research involving a wide range of disciplines networked to national and international institutions. Also as a professor in the Department of History, his research focuses on histories of infectious disease, epidemics, and global pandemic threats. Prof. Peckham’s article comes as a timely dissertation on an important topic - management of pandemic. However, the article seemed to be tailored for Foreign Affairs’ political agenda, the discussion is miles high in the political cloud than on the ground of pandemic disease management (rather disappointing).
 
Pandemic management is such an important topic; it deserves serious discussion, especially when the entire world is facing the challenge of COVID-19. Hence, I hope Peckham’s article will stimulate discussion on China’s weakness and strength in pandemic management from the past to present. First, I agree with his point on not politicizing pandemic and his conclusion on government efficiency, but his political arguments on relating weakness in disease management to government structure (China) was based on little concrete evidence. China was very weak in 19th and early 20th century in her governance (diplomacy, defense, industrialization, etc.) due to poor leadership (emperor) and foreign powers’ interference and control, therefore, China’s healthcare was weak as well. Peckham reviewed pandemic history from plague, to HIV/AIDS, to SARS and COVID-19 but he had no factual case discussion for China other than blaming her for lack of political and economic openness. China was shut out of global fair interaction and forced into isolation in most part of that history. As a historian, Peckham's view is too simplistic in painting China being weak and opaque in pandemic management for that period of time.
 
Professor Peckham first quoted Bruce Aylward, who led the joint mission of WHO with China on fighting COVID-19, in praising China: “probably the most ambitious, and I would say, agile and aggressive disease-containment effort in history.” In contrast, Peckham cited the infamous Wall Street Journal article entitled, “China is the sick man of Asia” which the Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, made an improper defense of it as free press. Peckham gave a historical origin of “China as a sick man” coming from Chinese patriotic scholars’ outcry of China and Chinese people being sadly bullied by the Western Powers (especially 1890’s). The intellectuals in China during the late 19th and early 20th century used sick man and sick nation to shame themselves and to motivate their fellow countrymen to reform, to revolt and to rebuild China. When the world is now facing the challenge of COVID-19 together, such derogatory article in WSJ is not a display of freedom of speech but a shameful discrimination. Peckham clearly has a purpose of citing the WSJ article. He went on to say that the rapid politicization of the new coronavirus, and particularly of China’s role in containing it, has historical precedents.
 
Peckham then reviewed the impact of plague, both bubonic and pneumonic types, in China and how they were managed by Chinese ‘authorities’. Extending to China’s Republic Period (1911-1949) and the People’s Republic of China (1949-1970), Professor Peckham made glossary linkage of disease control and China’s political environment. This glossary discussion was unfortunately lack of facts and clear evidence on either the weak disease management or the complex political structure during that period of time. It is a good topic for PhD research but it may be too difficult to find detailed citizen’s healthcare information from that period of China. Hence one can not take Peckham’s remarks seriously, for example, on relating disease management to Mao’s cultural revolution or claiming that “disease had revealed China’s political system for what it was and in need of fundamental reform”. The revolution and political reform was far more motivated by the ‘sick man feeling’ caused by interference and invasion from the foreign powers striping Chinese people’s dignity than from the plague or any other disease.
 
Peckham’s idea that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) looks at pandemic from a statisticians  lens is an important topic worthy discussion but he did not elaborate. His remark that the disease justifies one party rule had no clear arguments. He credited Mao’s ‘barefoot doctor’ and community healthcare program, a vision of from-the-ground-up healthcare, “helped inspire a global shift: in 1978, …. the WHO International Conference on Primary Health Care adopted the Declaration of Alma-Ata, which upheld health as a basic human right and emphasized community-based health care for all”. In China’s open and reform period, healthcare was a number one priority that offered China a strong base for handling HIV/AIDS and SARS pandemic. Peckham hinted that there was a pattern in China’s pandemic management having leaked information, cover-ups, and crackdowns. He cited journalist Susan Jakes' searing exposé in Time magazine, based on a signed statement by a whistle-blower Dr. Jiang, under the headline, “Beijing’s SARS Attack” which “catalyzed a policy U-turn in China”... “The mayor of Beijing and the minister of public health resigned, and the government embarked on a concerted and much-publicized campaign to contain the epidemic.”
 
China successfully contained SARS. In Peckham’s view, China has learned a good lesson from SARS that is used in the COVID-19 pandemic; XI’s campaign in fighting the Coronavirus is strikingly similar to what was used against SARS. The Chinese government successfully marshaled tens of thousands of health-care workers and military personnel to support Wuhan where the Coronavirus first broke out. Xi described the pandemic as a “total war” taking stringent measures of closing down the 14 million residents city and applying nation-wide testing and quarantine practice. Now, China has contained the pandemic with zero new case occurring; the city Wuhan is now open to visitors and the industries are gradually returning to pre-COVID-19 operations. China has essentially won the COVID-19 pandemic war. Peckham reiterated media's speculation of “the scenario of leaked information, cover-up and crackdown” repeated in COVID-19 pandemic. Personally, I would not give much value to that kind of story. In the very beginning of a disease, before knowing whether or not it is pandemic, the information management is in a gray area between privacy and public concern and between causing panic and reaching only to the right professionals to make critical decisions. In Wuhan’s case, the delay was short and measures were swift, the success of containing the pandemic speaks for itself.
 
Peckham’s conclusion states that China has shared its expertise with the European Union, (I may add, Trump said he had learned a lot from Xi in their one hour phone discussion) and pledged $20 million to WHO in its fight against the virus, dispatched medical teams and supplies to Iran, Iraq, Italy, UK and Serbia, and promised to help African countries meet the crisis.(China donated ventilators to NY State). Xi has begun to look more like a global leader committed to health for all, while the Western states appear to be improvising with difficulties. Perhaps for the readers of Foreign Affairs, Peckham draws attention of strongman leadership versus incompetency within the democracies in dealing with the pandemic. Although, I agree with Peckham’s implication that an authoritarian government is more efficient in handling the pandemic, but in my opinion, learning from experience is extremely important. China learned well from SARS that helped contain COVID19 pandemic. Now the world should be humble to learn from China to deal with the pandemic.
​
Ifay Chang. Ph.D., Inventor, Author, TV Game Show Host and Columnist (www.us-chinaforum.org) as well as serving as Trustee, Somers Central School District.