From the results there is at least no sign the pollsters tampered with the data. Compare it with Nantong, Jiangsu province. A local county wanted to show they had reached the xiaokang level, the Chinese notion of middle-class comfort. So, it conducted a telephone survey.

What's unusual about it was the respondents had to give a predetermined set of answers: rural income had to be 8,500 yuan ($1,245), and the urban level 16,500 yuan; you had to say "yes" to "Have you joined social security?" and "Satisfied" to "Your feelings about housing, road and living environment".

Basically, with one big sweep, this county achieved the goal set by the central government, not by doing something concrete, but by providing a set of answers to accompany the questions. So, residents of this county are now said to be "forced" into middle class-ness, or bei xiaokang, no matter what their real economic conditions are.

When you feel happiness, you're happy; when you bei happy, you have to register happiness even if you don't feel it.

The most recent example of the Kafkaesque achievement of happiness is recruiting and employment practices. A college graduate was amazed he got a job from a company he never applied to, or possibly never existed. The truth? The college had made a pact with some businesses to bump up the employment data. Now we have the saying "bei jiuye", which is impossible to translate. Literally, it's "be hired", but it really means "be hired without one's knowledge".

The display of volunteerism in China is heart-warming. However, behind it is an undercurrent of "forced volunteerism". For example, you donate to a charity out of your own free will.

But this act of altruism is sometimes tainted when an employer sets a limit for the minimum amount. Hence, "bei donate". In televised variety shows, the audience applause is invariably orchestrated, effectively turning "clapping" into "bei clapping".

We writers are also guilty of abusing the little power in our hands. Some of us love to use "the majority" or "90 percent of the people" when we espouse an argument. Now people are questioning the component of this "90 percent". Who are they? Was there a scientific survey to support the figure and its makeup? Why are pundits always on the side of the 90-percenters?

As a matter of fact, you're probably thrown into this majority nilly-willy, or totally unaware. You are represented by the opinionator who did not bother to get your opinion in the first place, let alone agree with you. Your voice is usurped. You are "bei represented", which is the same as the grammatically correct "be represented".

raymondzhou@chinadaily.com.cn

我要看更多專欄文章

 相關閱讀：

Pace of gentrification must be balanced

Cash over cachet

Learning to change

Greasing the Palm