Chinese General news resource thread

[airsuperiority]

1. So you think under British rule is better just because it satisfies your view of "democracy"?

2. HK was built by colonization money nothing glamorous about that. Even today HK needs the mainland more to keep it's economy going.

3. What is so "unique" about HK that you deemed needs to be protected at all cost? Other Chinese people has the right to move in and out of Hk and any other Chinese cities as they like.

4. No I have never been there and I don't need to be there to argue with you. If you don't like the changes of HK than leave, no one is stopping you. Why insist of maintaining this "unique" status quo, you sound just like those Japanese elitist insisting on maintaining a status quo in the western Pacific for some reason? What is it that you are afraid of and unable or unwilling to adapt?

1. Not just me. The majority of the HK public thinks so.
2. You don't even understand HK and you say stuffs like this. How ignorant.
3. I wrote it up there very clearly and even the article mentioned them. Go read.
4. So you don't have to have medical training to argue with a doctor? Also, in fact most people in HK wants to leave. It's gotten to that situation thanks to the deterioration.
I don't even know how you can relate that to the Japanese when both are so irrelevant, but I guess that's what happens when you have very limited knowledge/understanding of certain issues, then you will try and piece it together with what you know, although you are very wrong with this comparison because both are so different and non-comparable iby nature. Also once again I had explained everything up there. If you didn't read, don't ask.

 

[Equation]

1. Not just me. The majority of the HK public thinks so.
2. You don't even understand HK and you say stuffs like this. How ignorant.
3. I wrote it up there very clearly and even the article mentioned them. Go read.
4. So you don't have to have medical training to argue with a doctor? Also, in fact most people in HK wants to leave. It's gotten to that situation thanks to the deterioration.
I don't even know how you can relate that to the Japanese when both are so irrelevant, but I guess that's what happens when you have very limited knowledge/understanding of certain issues, then you will try and piece it together with what you know, although you are very wrong with this comparison because both are so different and non-comparable iby nature. Also once again I had explained everything up there. If you didn't read, don't ask.

1. Majority? Where did you come up with that? Wasn't there a large pro-Beijing government demonstration in HK last month?

2. I have my view and opinions. Who says that I have to "understand" HK your way?

3. Exactly there's nothing so "unique" about it that must be preserved at all cost. Do you hold your chop sticks differently than I do or what? The bottom line is HK will no longer be the #1 financial hub of China as the economy grows and other Chinese cities gets developed. You will never be a Singapore state of your own so get over it.

4. This isn't about medical training, this is an argument about elite status and the way of things that are changing, in which you refused to acknowledge that change. IS that why you are getting combative in your argument and putting down others because you refused to debate it?

 

[airsuperiority]

1. Majority? Where did you come up with that? Wasn't there a large pro-Beijing government demonstration in HK last month?

2. I have my view and opinions. Who says that I have to "understand" HK your way?

3. Exactly there's nothing so "unique" about it that must be preserved at all cost. Do you hold your chop sticks differently than I do or what? The bottom line is HK will no longer be the #1 financial hub of China as the economy grows and other Chinese cities gets developed. You will never be a Singapore state of your own so get over it.

4. This isn't about medical training, this is an argument about elite status and the way of things that are changing, in which you refused to acknowledge that change. IS that why you are getting combative in your argument and putting down others because you refused to debate it?

1. Majority = several public polls done by several sources, where their findings all had been consistently showing great mistrust towards HKSAR government and the CCP. Aside from that, the numbers and participations of other social media as well as the July 1st marches held every year. The march this year that numbers more than 100,000 and occurred shortly after the White Paper released by CCP, which was again, in response to a public poll conducted by HKU on HK public's preferences of electoral system(and 700,000 participants voted). Also no there are no "large pro-Beijing government demonstrations". The march you're probably talking about was under the title " anti-Occupy Central", which was in response to the Occupy Central movement that had caused some discontent amongst the HK public. That's pretty much the only agenda that's most split in terms of opinions in HK at the moment, and even that, it wasn't under the pro-beijing banner. Some support it and some hated it. And to make a further point, starting this week( i think tomorrow), over a hundred public schools, including university campuses, will be planning on going on strikes to voice their discontent with National People's Congress announcement of that rigged election system. Also, it's been revealed (with literallyphotos and news reporters interviewing participants) that for some of the previous pro-beijing parties/ralllies that did assembled, there are participants that were brought from China in tour buses.

All in all, Beijing isn't very popular among the HK public aside from the elites. For "large-scale pro-beijing rallies", you're probably living in a parallel universe.

2. That's very funny. How do you attempt to talk about something you don't even know or understand? Now that's just something I don't understand.

Like, how do you talk about quantum mechanics if you don't even understand it? So same idea here. if you don't even understand HK, or if you're not talking about the same Hong Kong as I'm referring to, then maybe next time you can start your post with "in my universe".

I'm not sure where your hometown is, but if you tell me about the neighborhood you live in and I start judging and making conclusions when in fact I haven't even been there or know anything about it, it will seem ridiculous to you doesn't it? Then what happens if then I tell you "I have my own views and opinions. Who says I have to understand your neighborhood your way" when I in fact don't even know anything about it? Won't you wonder where I based my views and opinions from?

3. Hmm so did you read what I wrote earlier? If you did, I guess you also don't exactly understand the meaning of "culture" and "identity". I also wonder how you, as outsider, have the right to judge another culture in terms of its uniqueness. Very shallow thinking.

Honestly though, if you haven't traveled or been exposed to a certain culture and you don't know it, it's not really appropriate for you to start make sweeping conclusions and generalizing remarks when you don't even know it. It's pretty bigoted behaviour no offence. Your words are the same as someone who bashes China without ever even having been there.

Also we HKers knew it's the inevitable, and most people don't ever think about separating from China. The comparison is the similarity of both cities other than one is a state and one is a city.

4. You missed my point of that analogy. I'm saying how do you argue about something you know nothing about. Also it's not an argument when you don't even know what you're talking about. Also we do acknowledge the change, and it's because we acknowledge it do we notice the problems with these changes, hence the resistance to changes we deemed undesirable. If you don't notice a change or acknowledge it, you can't have a response to it. It's called logic. I'm not getting combative. I'm just finding the stuff you're saying ridiculous because you don't understand what's going on but you're just sticking to your prejudice of being pro-China without really actually understanding the situation.

 

[Geographer]

Blackstone, if you believe democracy is worth everything, then democracy for you itself has become an end rather a means to an end.

Frankly, having such a crazed belief in something as trivial as a nation's political system is more reminiscent of religious zealotry rather than any desire to improve people's lives.
Just as foolish as it was for the USSR and PRC in its earlier days to be so tightly beholden to what they perceived as communist doctrines and a desire to spread it just for the sake of "rightness," it is equally foolish to hope for a western style liberal democracy to work for every country. Political systems should be chosen based on the aims, needs, and conditions of the country in particular, not because of some perceived, unproven, and short lived sense of superiority.

Blitzo, I think you misunderstood Blackstone's comment. He is saying that democracy is NOT a good idea for China. I say democracy is good for all countries.

My belief in democracy rests on two principles:
1. People have a right to choose their own leaders who are responsible for making and implementing laws.
2. People have a right to choose their own leaders are regular intervals of a few years because conditions change, leaders don't do what they promise, and people change their minds.

If you accept those principles, then democratization means:
1. Free, fair, regular elections in which multiple political parties can form, campaign, and be on the ballot without hindrance from the government
2. Eligibility to vote is not based on party membership, race, sex, wealth, or family connections

Blitzo argues that every country is different and is entitled to their own political system. This is a vague ideal. It's better to say, a country ought to have the government that its people want so long as it upholds human rights. Would Chinese people support a strong central government like in France? If they achieve that through the ballot box, fine. Would Chinese people support a decentralized government like in the United States? If they achieve that trough elections, fine.

Democracy gives people 1) the right to choose their own government and leaders, 2) the right to chance those leaders every few years. Democracy is a system that encourages diversity of political systems.

The United States has a Communist Party. So does Russia. So does Italy. So does most of Europe. They compete in elections if the people like them, they become the leaders for a few years. If the people prefer someone one, the Communists must wait for the next election. If the Chinese Communist Party wants to make its case for continuing to govern then let them compete with another party and give the voters a real choice. And keep giving them a choice every 2-4 years.

Chinese democracy does not require relinquishing the Paracel Islands or the navy or the education system or even the Communist Party. Democratization would mean giving people a voice in the policies that affect their lives, encouraging them to get involved, and giving them a choice. Milton Friedman produced a TV series called "Free to Choose" which extolled the virtues of individual freedom for economic efficiency and growth. He also understood that being "free to choose" one's leaders and laws was the best government.

 

[Doombreed]

I guess you don't know cynicism when you see it.

You can say it's a variation of Poe's law.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You can say it's a variation of Poe's law.

And one say you read what you wanted to see to support your prejudice. No one in the US would interpret the article as correct. Just read the comments. The article is purely meant to say China is worse than what happened in Ferguson to relieve criticism. If the media didn't support the article, they would see the journalist was comparing people protesting in Ferguson to terrorists in China.

 

[Blitzo]

Geographer, the entire problem revolves around choice.

Does it make sense for every nation at every stage of development to give every citizen the choice to choose? Ideally, Democracy can and should properly succeed if voters are well informed about the candidates, their policies, and if voting is based on what candidates can deliver rather than emotional personal preference. Furthermore the entire idea of democracy is tarnished through back end campaign financing, and private media that can shape the discourse to suit their own ridiculous needs. It has reached a point where a few individuals controlling vast private empires can control the outcome of their nation's so called democratic processes

I do firmly believe democracy can work, but the right to vote must be earned by thorough understanding of the political, economic, geostrategic policies of each contender. The country I live in is due to have its annual elections, and I am not voting entirely because I respect democracy and because I do not understand the intimacies of the nation's current situation. If I voted, my decision would simply be based on what the media told me combined with a few irrelevant personal preferences. I do not think it is a stretch to say that many people in many democracies do not follow their nation's politics with as much of an objective eye as they should.


Furthermore, democracy itself dilutes government power and makes government action dependent upon what sounds good for individual groups of voters rather than the nation. They make governments plan in election cycles rather than decades. Infrastructure is a perfect example. Trying to build extensive infrastructure in any democracy these days is always fraught with opposition. The sheer cost, the impact on people's homes, all causes political backlash from a minority of those effected, often severely delaying the much needed project. Now I'm not saying such situations should simply disregard the concerns of those effected, but depending on whether you are a third world or first world country, then you have to objectively understand that the suffering of a few will have to be worth the development of many others.

In my view, the problem with democracy is two fold: that many people do not vote based on clear information and understanding of what their nation needs, and secondly it forces governments to plan policies in short cycles between elections which may cause unpopular but much needed policies to consistently get postponed.


For some nations at a state of development when the above two problems have a minimal physical and humanitarian impact, then such sluggishness and indecisiveness may be seen as worth the ability to give everyone a degree of choice via voting. In other nations, a lack of decisive, centralised leadership may mean the difference between millions or tens or even hundreds of millions of people staying under the poverty line or rising above it, in which case the freedom of choice should be one which IMO is not worth much.

Edit: whether democracy is right for china at its current stage of development is another big discussion entirely, but my opinion is a sound no.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Why are Americans so against the notion of a "One-World government?" Ironically it's the true democracy they don't like simply because they don't have the numbers. If one actually believed in democratic principles, they would be for a one-world government. Americans are a minority in this world. Add the whole Western world and they're still not a majority. If the Western world made up the majority of the world, then they would want a one-world government. The irony is Western democracies are doing now what they never want to see happen in a one-world government. And that is someone else dictating to them what they have to do.

BTW for the people can only think in black and white... just because I wrote this, it doesn't mean I believe in a one-world government. People that are paranoid over a one-world government is the one of many things that shows how it won't work. People who hide behind democracy but don't like the concept of a one-world government are just hypocrites. When you eliminate all the contradictions from hypocrisy, what's left is just plain selfishness. Not a cause or the need to find what's best for everyone else. How undemocratic.

 

[Equation]

1. Majority = several public polls done by several sources, where their findings all had been consistently showing great mistrust towards HKSAR government and the CCP. Aside from that, the numbers and participations of other social media as well as the July 1st marches held every year. The march this year that numbers more than 100,000 and occurred shortly after the White Paper released by CCP, which was again, in response to a public poll conducted by HKU on HK public's preferences of electoral system(and 700,000 participants voted). Also no there are no "large pro-Beijing government demonstrations". The march you're probably talking about was under the title " anti-Occupy Central", which was in response to the Occupy Central movement that had caused some discontent amongst the HK public. That's pretty much the only agenda that's most split in terms of opinions in HK at the moment, and even that, it wasn't under the pro-beijing banner. Some support it and some hated it. And to make a further point, starting this week( i think tomorrow), over a hundred public schools, including university campuses, will be planning on going on strikes to voice their discontent with National People's Congress announcement of that rigged election system. Also, it's been revealed (with literallyphotos and news reporters interviewing participants) that for some of the previous pro-beijing parties/ralllies that did assembled, there are participants that were brought from China in tour buses.

All in all, Beijing isn't very popular among the HK public aside from the elites. For "large-scale pro-beijing rallies", you're probably living in a parallel universe.

2. That's very funny. How do you attempt to talk about something you don't even know or understand? Now that's just something I don't understand.

Like, how do you talk about quantum mechanics if you don't even understand it? So same idea here. if you don't even understand HK, or if you're not talking about the same Hong Kong as I'm referring to, then maybe next time you can start your post with "in my universe".

I'm not sure where your hometown is, but if you tell me about the neighborhood you live in and I start judging and making conclusions when in fact I haven't even been there or know anything about it, it will seem ridiculous to you doesn't it? Then what happens if then I tell you "I have my own views and opinions. Who says I have to understand your neighborhood your way" when I in fact don't even know anything about it? Won't you wonder where I based my views and opinions from?

3. Hmm so did you read what I wrote earlier? If you did, I guess you also don't exactly understand the meaning of "culture" and "identity". I also wonder how you, as outsider, have the right to judge another culture in terms of its uniqueness. Very shallow thinking.

Honestly though, if you haven't traveled or been exposed to a certain culture and you don't know it, it's not really appropriate for you to start make sweeping conclusions and generalizing remarks when you don't even know it. It's pretty bigoted behaviour no offence. Your words are the same as someone who bashes China without ever even having been there.

Also we HKers knew it's the inevitable, and most people don't ever think about separating from China. The comparison is the similarity of both cities other than one is a state and one is a city.

4. You missed my point of that analogy. I'm saying how do you argue about something you know nothing about. Also it's not an argument when you don't even know what you're talking about. Also we do acknowledge the change, and it's because we acknowledge it do we notice the problems with these changes, hence the resistance to changes we deemed undesirable. If you don't notice a change or acknowledge it, you can't have a response to it. It's called logic. I'm not getting combative. I'm just finding the stuff you're saying ridiculous because you don't understand what's going on but you're just sticking to your prejudice of being pro-China without really actually understanding the situation.

1. IF Beijing is so unpopular in HK how come the Occupy Central are losing politically?

2. Just because you live in HK doesn't that doesn't mean your words are golden. That doesn't mean I can't have a say about it? You can criticize my hometown of Houston all you want I don't care, but that doesn't mean I will dismiss all of your claims and opinions. It seems to me you have a problem with different view points.

3. So called HK "culture" and "identity" does NOT make it right to have its own city state.

4. How can you assume that? Assumption is not logic. I can also claim that you are sticking to your "Pro-separatist" against Beijing as well? After all it's you that advocated HK to be a separate city state against the will of the majority of mainland Chinese.

 

[Geographer]

Blitzo, you seem to be saying that the mass citizenry cannot be trusted to make good decisions and that an educated elite is best. At first glance it is a tempting argument because high education and experience is a requirement for most managerial jobs so why not government?

This argument was used against Women's Suffrage movements. There was a widespread believe in America in the 1800s that women were uneducated, unsophisticated, and too frail for the rough-and-tumble worlds of politics. Haven't we seen that to be wrong?

This argument was used to deny American blacks the right the vote from the 1860s-1960s. Southern governments put up all kinds of roadblocks to black voting based on the false assumption that they were too stupid to make their own decisions. Haven't we seen that to be wrong?

This argument was used to deny colonial subjects in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East the right to vote. Colonial governments said the natives were backward and ignorant of modern society and should defer to the technologically superior colonists. South Africa comes immediately to mind. Haven't we seen that to be wrong?

First of all, all democracies are republics, meaning they elect representatives to govern on their behalf. Even Switzerland has a parliament and president. Those politicians are almost always better-educated and older than the average of the population. It is rare see someone with no college degree be elected to any level of American government, even though only about 22% of American adults have a college degree. The fear that uneducated, low IQ people will hold the levers of power is really only justified for monarchies.

Second, while authoritarian governments claim to have a better understanding of and willingness to act on long-term interests, they often get it wrong. Authoritarian leaders often suffer from megalomania, and with no democratic or legislative constraints they are prone to enacting wild fantasies like wars that the nation is ill-prepared for. Government leaders tend to be wealthy and concentrated in the capital city and thus out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary people.

It is wrong to say democracies drag their feet on infrastructure projects. The U.S. built and continues to expand the Interstate Highway system. American governments and private developers build schools, hospitals, university buildings, suburbs, golf courses, and airports at will. America has less red tape for business projects than you think. That's why the World Bank ranked America fourth in the world for Ease of Doing Business in 2013. Democracies formed the top 22 in that list while China was 96th!

NIMBYs (not-in-my-backyard people) are harshly criticized in the media but they have a legitimate reason for opposing a project like a sewage treatment plant--it will lower their property values. If you have a house worth $200,000, and then the government builds a sewage treatment plant that makes the area smelly and less attractive, your home value may fall to $160,000. Who wouldn't put up a fight to save $40,000? If the government is willing to provide adequate compensation, the NIMBY problem will go away.

Democratic governments give property owners the right to organize and protect their property by petitioning for greater compensation or moving the project elsewhere, whereas authoritarian governments do not dissent. The same power which enables speedy completion of major infrastructure projects also gives property owners few options to protect their property.

Finally, regardless of education people generally know where the problems are and what they need. They know which roads need repair, where the high crime areas are, how good their schools are, and how much of a burden taxes are. As singer Bob Dylan said, "You don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing." People know what's going on in their communities and their lives better than a group of elite officials living in gated compounds in the capital city. Can you imagine a doctor's appointment where the doctor does a physical examination and makes a diagnosis without asking the patient any questions? That would be crazy because there's lot more to someone's health than what the doctor can see in five minutes at the office.

Just as a doctor must interact with the patient, government leaders must interact with people to understand and solve problems. Communist revolutionaries like Mao Zedong, Vladimir Lenin, and Ho Chi Minh understood this--before they took power. Interacting means going door-to-door, shaking hands, speaking at town hall events, speaking to special interest groups, calling in to radio shows, debating opponents, advertising, and reading and responding to constituent letters. In a democracy if the leader doesn't do these things, they will not be re-elected.