Head of China's Shaolin Temple removed over embezzlement claims
The Shaolin Temple said on Sunday that Abbot Shi Yongxin, known as the "CEO monk" for establishing dozens of companies abroad, was suspected of "embezzling project funds and temple assets".
The monastery said Shi had "seriously violated Buddhist precepts", including by allegedly engaging in "improper relationships" with multiple women.
"Multiple departments" were conducting a joint investigation, it said in a statement on WeChat.
In response, the Buddhist Association of China, overseen by the ruling Communist Party, said Monday it would cancel Shi's certificate of ordination.
"Shi Yongxin's actions are of an extremely bad nature, seriously undermining the reputation of the Buddhist community, hurting the image of monks," the association said in an online statement.
The association "firmly supports the decision to deal with Shi Yongxin in accordance with the law".
Shi had previously been accused by former monks of embezzling money from a temple-run company, maintaining a fleet of luxury cars and fathering children with multiple women.
China's government exercises authority over the appointment of religious leaders, and "improper" conduct is often grounds for removal from office.
A hashtag related to the temple scandal had been viewed more than 560 million times on social media platform Weibo as of Monday morning.
The last post to the abbot's personal account on Weibo declared: "when one's own nature is pure, the pure land is here in the present".
Shi faced similar allegations in 2015 which the temple called "vicious libel".
Shi, 59, took office as abbot in 1999 and in the following decades expanded Shaolin studies and cultural knowledge overseas.
He helped the temple establish dozens of companies -- but received backlash for commercialising Buddhism.
The temple, established in AD 495, is known as the birthplace of Zen Buddhism and Chinese kung fu.
Shi was first elected vice-chairman of the Buddhist Association of China in 2002 and has served as a representative to the National People's Congress, the country's top lawmaking body.
mya/oho/mtp
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
10 hours ago
- ABC News
Carbon emissions aren't falling, but who is to blame?
Amid the quest for net-zero, global carbon emissions aren't falling. But who is to blame? As Alan Kohler explains, the primary culprit is China.
ABC News
a day ago
- ABC News
Did Donald Trump just give China a major advantage on AI?
Last month, the Trump administration quietly reversed one of its own policies by lifting a ban on US tech giant Nvidia's H20 microchip exports to China. For anyone who has followed Donald Trump's erratic record on trade, another U-turn might not sound like a notable development. But this time, the stakes are much higher because these microchips are critical to powering the next generation of artificial intelligence. Whichever country dominates microchip production will likely lead the global AI race, with massive implications for military strategy and economic output. For nearly three years, the US has tried to keep these powerful chips out of China's hands. Now, by reopening the door, has Mr Trump handed Beijing a major advantage on AI? We spoke to three experts to explain how we got here. Back in April, the Trump administration banned H20 microchip exports to China, toughening restrictions put in place by the Biden administration. It has since reversed that decision. According to Jason Van Der Schyff, a fellow at Australian Strategic Policy Institute's technology and security program, this backflip may be in response to the booming black market demand for high-powered US chips in China. "Over a billion dollars worth of restricted chips were smuggled into China in just a few months," he said. "The reversal may be a pivot by the administration, recognising if you don't offer a legal channel for the slightly degraded chips, buyers will simply go around you." Professor Shahriar Akter, who specialises in the study of advanced analytics and AI at the University of Wollongong said this move seems to follow "a philosophy in Silicon Valley that if you sell more" it will pour more back into "your research and development". Associate Professor in Information Systems at Curtin University, Mohammad Hossain, suggested the Trump administration is trying to kill two birds with one stone. The US is trying to maintain leverage in a broader geopolitical trade-off involving China's critical exports, rare earth elements, while "keeping China dependent on US technology", he said. Nvidia is the tech giant behind these highly sought after microchips and it is led by CEO Jensen Huang who is the ninth-richest man in the world. The H20 is a step-down from Nvidia's top-tier chips (H100 and B200) and was specifically designed to comply with US export restrictions while catering to the Chinese market. "Basically, [H100 and B200 chips] can do things much faster than the H20," Mr Van Der Schyff said. "If we consider how quickly AI is moving any impediment that could be brought to time more than anything is going to maintain that US strategic advantage." While the H20 is less powerful, Mr Van Der Schyff warns that "these aren't toys … even slightly downgraded chips still enable model training at scale". "If you're concerned about national security, letting an adversary access chips that are only one rung down the ladder still poses a strategic risk." While the US hopes to stall China's progress in artificial intelligence, experts warn this strategy may have the opposite effect. China's push to dominate AI is already underway and restricting exports to only H20 chips incentivises them to accelerate domestic developments. "At present in the world, 50 per cent of AI researchers are being produced by China alone," Dr Akter said. Chinese tech giants like Huawei and Biren Technology have been ramping up their own AI accelerators. "Huawei's chips are already being deployed in major training clusters," Mr Van Der Schyff said. Still, China's domestic developments trail behind industry leaders like Taiwan's TSMC and South Korea's Samsung when it comes to cutting-edge manufacturing. "There isn't necessarily a danger that China catches up overnight but these restrictions do however give Beijing a clear incentive to sort of go all in on industrial policy for their own semiconductors to accelerate domestic progress," Mr Van Der Schyff said. "We've seen this play out previously with 5G and also with aviation." All three experts cautioned that it's difficult to gauge China's true AI capabilities. "Given the closed nature of China's systems and their propensity to not always tell us the truth", it's unclear how much China's artificial intelligence has developed, Mr Van Der Schyff said. Dr Akter used an analogy to explain the uncertainty: "There are two types of AI technologies", one is called glass box and the other is called black box. "Glass box technology is basically explainable AI, which is open source and we can explain where data is coming from and how it is being used to develop AI models and what would be the outcome." Whereas, black box technology is the opposite, we cannot trace back to the source of the data and we cannot tell what models have been used. That opacity makes it difficult for the rest of the world to assess whether Beijing is playing catch-up or quietly pulling ahead. The country that has the upper hand in microchip production will likely lead the global AI race and that has significant repercussions, experts said. "The country that dominates compute will dominate AI, and AI will shape everything from military planning to economic productivity."
ABC News
2 days ago
- ABC News
Trump's new tariffs reveal somewhat vindictive and irrational strategy
Myanmar, Laos, Serbia and Syria. They seem unlikely targets for some of the most aggressive moves in Donald Trump's war on the global trading system. Yet these small and troubled nations are among those facing the highest tariffs from the United States in the wake of its president's slew of August 1 trade announcements. Myanmar, which mostly exports clothing to the US, and Laos, which predominantly exports electronics equipment, now face 40 per cent tariffs on the goods they sell to America, while Serbia will be hit with a 35 per cent tariff and Syria 41 per cent. None of these countries have been notably the subject of the same public Trumpian wrath as, say, Canada (35 per cent) and Brazil (50 per cent) since "Liberation Day" on April 2. And the country which is arguably the biggest target or threat to the US in terms of world trade — China — was not mentioned at all but will be engaged with in further negotiations. Having said that, there is still a 40 per cent on goods regarded as being "trans-shipped" to avoid higher tariffs (for which read "trans-shipped from China"). And the tough treatment on Friday of South-East Asian nations which are manufacturing hubs for China must be seen as an indirect assault on the regional economic superpower. In Australia, the focus on Trump's tariff announcements on Friday (AEST) was of course primarily on the "relatively" good news that we were still only facing a 10 per cent tariff, when the spectre of a 15 or 25 per cent generic rate had been mentioned by the US president in the days leading up to the announcement. The outcome somewhat took the wind out of the sails of those who have been criticising the prime minister for not getting to the White House, or into any meeting with Trump, and instead boosted the argument that there was little to be lost from staying out of his uniquely coiffed hair. Australia will enjoy the 10 per cent tariff rate being applied to those countries that buy more goods from the US than they export to America: that is, that run a trade surplus with one of the world's biggest economies. The new tariff regime starts at 10 per cent, based on trade balance, lifts to a 15 per cent rate for countries that only have a small deficit, while those with big deficits, that haven't negotiated, or that have otherwise incurred the ire of the president face this much wider and more unpredictable range of outcomes. It's worth pausing for a moment of silence to mark the momentous shift in global affairs that the Friday announcement confirms: the shift not just from a free trade ambition to a protectionist one by the United States, but a shift to a system of fairly arbitrary, vindictive and sometimes irrational decisions. Beyond that, though, the patterns in the trade deals that have been done to date — or perhaps more appropriately the lack of patterns and rigour — raise a range of other questions about their impact, and the extent to which they appear in some cases to be little more than standover tactics of lesser or greater actual import. Take the deals struck with Japan and the European Union last month. Both exemplified some striking features of the "deals" being done. In both cases, the parties documented very different understandings of the deals they thought they had done. There were also glaring holes in the deals in terms of major sectors about which there was only a conspicuous silence. For example, the EU deal was silent on wine and spirits. Most of the deals have yet to be formalised or legislated. Finally, the US has been claiming in almost all of the deals that it struck prior to August 1 that they involved massive commitments of investment in the US by the trade partners involved. For example, in Japan's case, the White House announced that Japan would create a $US550 billion fund to invest in the US, with Trump making the investment decisions and the US government receiving 90 per cent of the profits. It seemed this astonishing deal was news to Japanese negotiators who, the New York Times reported, had already made an offer (which in itself seemed extraordinary): to create a $US400 billion investment fund with half the profits going to the US government. The US president subsequently referred to the deal that he announced as a "signing bonus", which underpinned Japan "only" facing a 15 per cent tariff impost, even as doubts were aired about whether the investment would ever materialise. The NYT reported that Japan's chief trade negotiator, Ryosei Akazawa told Tokyo that the deal was that Japan would offer a blend of investment, loans and loan guarantees, totalling up to $550 billion, with profits to be allocated based on each side's committed risk and financial contribution. There have been similar scenes unfolding over possible investments from the European Union and South Korea. Equally unsettling has been the increasingly blatant intrusion of non-trade factors into the tariff decisions announced by the White House. Brazil is facing 50 per cent tariffs because Trump doesn't like the way former president, strongman and Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro is being treated by the Brazilian judicial system, where he is facing up to 40 years in prison for allegedly plotting a coup to stay in power after losing the 2022 election. By agreeing this week to a Trump demand for a ceasefire, Thailand and Cambodia appear to have ended up with lower 19 per cent tariffs they had originally been proposed. Canada appeared to be facing a more punitive tariff regime than Mexico at 35 per cent — which Trump said was due to Prime Minister Mark Carney signalling Canada would recognise statehood for Palestine. But it turns out the higher tariff rate will not apply to goods covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. That covers an estimated 94 per cent of Canada's exports to the US. The tariff decisions will have a very different impact to those suggested by the headline numbers in other countries too. For example, Germany may only face a 15 per cent tariff as part of the EU deal but is particularly exposed through its big automotive exports to the US. Another shock was the 25 per cent rate applied to India. This caused immediate political blowback for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi who claims "bestie" status with the US president but who immediately faced intense criticism at home that this elevated position had not saved India from a punitive tariff rate. What happened in India is just one of the examples of the political shock waves caused around the globe by Trump's moves, in addition to any economic impact they may have. There is considerable concern in Europe, for example, about how European Union member nations react to its deal. The federated nature of the EU structure lends itself to a lot more public debate about a deal not directly negotiated by national leaders. The concern among European political analysts this week is that the deal will play into the hands of far-right and nationalist groups in fuelling resentment against both the EU and sitting governments. It will take countries around the world some time to see how these domestic pressures play out. And then there's the question of how such a deliberately uneven playing field affects their relative competitiveness to each other, even when direct trade with the US is left out of the calculations. It feels like a certain resignation has crept into global trade discussions in the past few months. It is driven as much by a trade-off between uncertainty and certainty as specific tariff numbers. If there is one thing we seem to know about Donald Trump, it is that all that uncertainty is unlikely to end any time soon. Laura Tingle is the ABC's Global Affairs Editor.
