Chinese General news resource thread

[Doombreed]

Exactly. Which is worse? A society that recognizes corruption within their own society or one willingly numb to it?

Lol. Good one. Now define the time period. For example, if we're talking about 1700 England? No doubt. China is less corrupt (arguably, but lets go with this). Hell, China even has a higher GDP.

But guess what. People change. Let fast forward to 2014. And now re-read your sentence. Which society are you refering to now?

 

[Doombreed]

That's a ridiculous. Corruption is an inherent part of any organization, whether it's nation-states or large corporations. How else would you be able to assess acceptable corruption levels if not through comparison with other, comparable, nations?

Lol. Kinda like mark scaling and exam standarisation right? Who cares if you got 50% of the answers wrong. If the whole class on average got 40% righ, then you get an A right?

Fine if that's how you feel. But I would like to hold myself and the country I love to a higher standard.

 

[solarz]

Lol. Kinda like mark scaling and exam standarisation right? Who cares if you got 50% of the answers wrong. If the whole class on average got 40% righ, then you get an A right?

Fine if that's how you feel. But I would like to hold myself and the country I love to a higher standard.

You do realize that in real life (i.e. outside of classrooms), that's exactly how things work?

 

[Doombreed]

You do realize that in real life (i.e. outside of classrooms), that's exactly how things work?

Tell that to the police next time you're caught speeding. "Oh but the guy in front was pulling away from me!"

See how far you get.

Also, not sure if you read what you wrote, but mark scaling and exam standarisation only works IN the class room.

But we digress. Let's move back on topic.

 

[Blitzo]

Lol. Kinda like mark scaling and exam standarisation right? Who cares if you got 50% of the answers wrong. If the whole class on average got 40% righ, then you get an A right?

Fine if that's how you feel. But I would like to hold myself and the country I love to a higher standard.

everything is relative.

The problem I see with your "everything is covered in shit" analogy and assessing it on an absolute rather than relative scale is not to avoid criticising the CCP or whatever, but rather it doesn't shine a light on whether there is anyone out there who can clean the shit out in a better way.

By all means, let's strive to continue to be better, regardless of how other countries perform. But more often than not, western pundits are using that as a slippery slope to call for overthrow of the CCP (implied or explicit), or at the very least adoption if a fully western political system. That is why looking at things in a relative way is important, because it discredits those dangerous extremist views whose arguments basically boil down to "something something CCP the most evil/worst". If it can be pointed out that actually the CCP governing style isn't the worst compared to other countries some of whih are "democracies" then it leads to more honest discussion about whether democracy should be adopted or whether the present governing style should simply be modified to reduce those adverse effects like corruption

 

[shen]

There is aversion because there is prevalence. God, no one is saying that there isn't a merit based entrance and promotion system. But Officialdom has always been seen as a lucrative job through out Chinese history. The CCP didn't invent corruption. In fact, every dynasty down fall have corruption attributed to it in some way. See Ming and Qing.

In fact, if you ever watched any of the period dramas I alluded to, the "clean" offical was always the hero. The rarity. Even the good and fair officials lived lavishly when compared to commoners and accepted tributes. Tribute, now called bribe, has always been a part of Chinese officialdom.

You seem have no knowledge of Chinese history, or rather your knowledge of Chinese history seems to be limited to popular period TV dramas. Right, I suggest this easily accessible English language book by a respected historian.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

You don't seem to grasp the concept that there is less portray of corruption in Western history because until very recently corruption was accepted as the normal way of governance. Let's highlight one passage in my previous post.

As in England, however, many people who derived personal benefit from the old spoils system strongly opposed the new idea. Some protested that the use of examinations to determine the fitness of candidates for office was Chinese, foreign, and, therefore, "un-American!" Consequently, it was not until 1883 that the proposal of l 868 was finally passed by the Congress.

Of course you won't see as much portray of corruption and anti-corruption in Western period drama because as late as 1883, it was accepted as the American Way!
That doesn't mean institutionalized corruption have gone away in western so-called democratic countries btw. Remember the Clinton family was bankrupt by the sex scandal legal troubles, now Clinton's hobby is collecting luxury watches. In today's China, he would certainly be disciplined if not prosecuted. Remember the party official whom got in trouble for wearing luxury watches?

In China, corruption has been recognized as a moral evil for thousands of years. So of course you'll see more history of anti-corruption effort. That doesn't mean all corruption were stamped out. When a dynasty becomes weak, corruption do get out of control. But unlike in the West, it was always recognized as wrong, and combated whenever possible.

 

[Blitzo]

Tell that to the police next time you're caught speeding. "Oh but the guy in front was pulling away from me!"

See how far you get.

Also, not sure if you read what you wrote, but mark scaling and exam standarisation only works IN the class room.

But we digress. Let's move back on topic.

I'm not sure what you mean.

In real life, your success and failures are also measured based on how it is relative to others

Edit: it depends on what we are measuring of course. Frankly this line of example doesn't fit well to the actual topic of discussion, which is how should government corruption or competency be measured. I think it would be logical to say some things are better measured in a relative way like governments (ie there are no good and bad governments, they are all relative to one another), but other things like a sports league would say only coming first matters and everything else doesn't. Your speeding example is also a good one demonstrating how some things can only be logically judged on an absolute basis

 

[solarz]

Tell that to the police next time you're caught speeding. "Oh but the guy in front was pulling away from me!"

See how far you get.

Also, not sure if you read what you wrote, but mark scaling and exam standarisation only works IN the class room.

But we digress. Let's move back on topic.

You can only have 50% if there is a definition of 100%.

You talked about "higher standard". What are you basing this standard on?

 

[Doombreed]

everything is relative.

The problem I see with your "everything is covered in shit" analogy and assessing it on an absolute rather than relative scale is not to avoid criticising the CCP or whatever, but rather it doesn't shine a light on whether there is anyone out there who can clean the shit out in a better way.

By all means, let's strive to continue to be better, regardless of how other countries perform. But more often than not, western pundits are using that as a slippery slope to call for overthrow of the CCP (implied or explicit), or at the very least adoption if a fully western political system. That is why looking at things in a relative way is important, because it discredits those dangerous extremist views whose arguments basically boil down to "something something CCP the most evil/worst". If it can be pointed out that actually the CCP governing style isn't the worst compared to other countries some of whih are "democracies" then it leads to more honest discussion about whether democracy should be adopted or whether the present governing style should simply be modified to reduce those adverse effects like corruption

Oh absolutely. And a very good call out. Very balanced.

And if that's how every posters felt then we're in good company. But I feel, again, I use that word, some people may use that relative comparison as a way of being an apologist for the CCP.

Look, I get it, it's a tribal thing. "He's a bastard but he's our bastard". But people need to decouple defending the CCP with defending the Chinese nation and the Chinese people. Criticizing the CCP is not critising the Chinese nation and the Chinese people. Of cause it's not just the Chinese nationlists doing it. You can see this in every brand of nationalists. Fox News being a great example.

But I guess it's a matter of education, and why your balanced analysis is so important.

 

[shen]

Lol. Good one. Now define the time period. For example, if we're talking about 1700 England? No doubt. China is less corrupt (arguably, but lets go with this). Hell, China even has a higher GDP.

But guess what. People change. Let fast forward to 2014. And now re-read your sentence. Which society are you refering to now?

So now you admit historically China was less corrupt. Do you think you need to retract your original statement which I found objectionable?

Indeed, that is against thousands of years of Chinese governance tradition.