Chinese General news resource thread

[AssassinsMace]

Xi is dealing with corruption and it's still rejected by those who demand China deal with corruption. Again complaining about corruption isn't the reason. It's the means to another end. Why not be up front with the real motives? It's because if the true agenda was declared, any reasonable civilized person would reject it. Hence why the cover-up with something like corruption that no one would argue against. Why would people be suspicious about Xi's anti-corruption campaign? Like the people targeted in this accused political enemies purge are their friends? It's because the methods of actually stopping corruption don't lead to the real goal. It's just like the US and Great Britain demanding China go through financial reforms to their liking under the guise of what's best for China. That was before 2008. So if China had reformed to their liking, the US and Great Britain would've been able to exploit China to cushion the 2008 hit for themselves by sucking money out. They wanted to do what Bernie Madoff tried to do. When his Ponzi scheme started to run out of gas, he went to China to try to find investors to cheat there. He would use that Chinese money to pay-off old investors so he wouldn't get exposed. If it had worked, in the end mostly the Chinese would've been screwed and he may have not been sent to jail. It's just like how it was the US and Great Britain that lead the embargo against Libya when Khadaffi was in power and all allies had to follow. Libya has one of the premium quality sources of crude oil in the world. No ally was able to break the embargo. Guess who can? With no other consultation with any ally, the US and Great Britain alone declared an end to the embargo. Guess who got first dibs on that premium oil supply...? The reforms they demand are meant to serve their interests first. Of course they want China to follow their system because they control that system.

 

[solarz]

There is nothing specific to point out because anything that is released to the public is already window dressed for the occasion and anything contrary to the official position would not be public knowledge.

I have already provided perspective from transparency international that measures judicial independence, transparency and accountability but conveniently ignored.

I am happy to have an honest discussion but not at perpetual moving targets that has no end and purpose. First it was social harmony, and then every conceivable social issues, and now competency (that I have not referenced to). How is this actually connected to Xi's anti corruption drive?

Your first sentence is patently false. It would certainly not be difficult to find an example of a high-profile official being tried without public knowledge. The fact is, you cannot find any examples from Xi's anti-corruption drive where the accused officials are being tried in secret.

Second, you are deliberately ignoring my point that corruption is just one of the many social ills that need to be addressed. All solutions to social problems must be put into perspective and relative priority. Just as we should not destroy the economy to solve the problems of pollution, we should not sacrifice competent leadership solely for the sake of stamping out corruption.

 

[Brumby]

Neither corruption, economic power, or military power are absolutes, they all lie on a continuum.
I think it has been long overdue to deal with corruption, and even if it comes with a small dent in economic and military growth then it is acceptable if it will deliver further longer term benefits.

Agree about absolutes and so we can get that out of the way quickly. With that I will attempt to de-construct your statements and get to the salient points.

I also agree that transparency and greater justice are all positive things, however I also believe the state needs to have authoritarian power in many regards going into the next few decades to handle growth and development.

Just a point of differentiation, I mentioned justice for all and not greater justice which is an important difference philosophically because the former is basic to be human and the latter is more aspirational and subjective.

What I find intriguing is your comment that authoritarian power is a necessary requirement to handle growth and implicit in it corruption management is not part of the equation. Can you please expend on it rather than I attempt to preamble your intended meaning.

What I caution on is when we think a response to corruption is valid and also on the scale and severity of that response (e.g. a campaign like what we see now or complete change of the entire political system).

I have not discussed specifics and particularly the notion of restructuring the political system as a primary requirement.

There is no reason why elements of corruption cannot be taken down while not dramatically hindering economic and military growth (and other things like national unity). But at this stage of China's development I will oppose any plan that only focuses on a single issue while leaving the others to rot. I'm not saying this is what you are suggesting, only that this is my general position regarding balancing the various political, social, military, economic, and national needs and demands on china

I think we are generally in agreement. What I find perplexing as in this instance and others that whenever a discussion on China takes place it invariably takes an orbital course. It seems every comment is regarded as having a secret agenda driven by some dark hand or by western media rather than just dealing with each subject on a substantive basis without defaulting automatically to some pre conceived narrative.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Here's another example of when China does something that was demanded, the critics do an about face. They demanded China be a stakeholder in the world and now that China has they're against it. Why? Because they don't control the decisions of how countries get money. Meaning being a stakeholder in the world is about supporting their agenda for the world. And they have the gall to expect China contribute sizably to the World Bank and IMF but get little say.

 

[Doombreed]

It seems every comment is regarded in having a secret agenda driven by some dark hand or by western media rather than just dealing with each subject on a substantive basis without defaulting automatically to some pre conceived narrative.

This right here.

 

[AssassinsMace]

You mean like Xi's anti-corruption drive ain't really about fighting corruption but a plot to purge rivals? Or how about everyone against the activists in Hong Kong are agents of China? I love how Beijing is hiring perverts to grope activists.

 

[Brumby]

Your first sentence is patently false. It would certainly not be difficult to find an example of a high-profile official being tried without public knowledge. The fact is, you cannot find any examples from Xi's anti-corruption drive where the accused officials are being tried in secret.

Please help me to resolve the conflict between public knowledge and secret i.e. what is considered secret is not public knowledge.

Second, you are deliberately ignoring my point that corruption is just one of the many social ills that need to be addressed. All solutions to social problems must be put into perspective and relative priority. Just as we should not destroy the economy to solve the problems of pollution, we should not sacrifice competent leadership solely for the sake of stamping out corruption.

Firstly I am not ignoring your point because priority listing was not the issue under debate. Secondly if you choose to have one on priority then you should outline why the others have to take precedence. In other words set out your premise and I will attempt to undercut your reasoning. So far you are just making assertions.

 

[Blitzo]

@brumby

Regarding authoritarian power: it is simple. I do not trust the Chinese people to be able to quickly and democratically steer china on a route which will be conducive to the interests of china. I fear they are still gullible. I fear a democratic system implemented at the wrong time will be vulnerable to corruption as badly as now but without the unified and decisive leadership, I fear partisanship, and at worst I fear foreign elements will use an immature democracy to their own ends through lobbying and what not which may damage Chinese interests. There may be a time when such a system will work for china but I would only be comfortable in it when china is already in a position of power before undergoing a transition. Any transition should optimally be done on chinas own terms and when it is geopolitically comfortable.

Regarding dealing with matters just as they are; that is a result of endless media bashing of china that like it or not has produced a common sense of vigilance towards individuals or groups that may hold views in line with elements that are deemed to be hostile against Chinese interests. And like A mace said, not taking events and subjects just for what they are is a fault that runs both ways.

Any criticism of china that isn't tempered with elaboration on their opinions about the larger political and geopolitical landscape will be met with caution at best and hostility at worst. It is the difficulty of telling whether one's criticisms of china reflect a desire for the country to improve but while understanding certain "core interests" are also held as important, and between people who are criticising without caring about the big picture. In my experience, the latter at best will be individuals who simply do not see the forest for the trees, or people who have malicious intent towards china and those key interests.

Note: this is only my opinion regarding what is a key interest and what isnt. Obviously I'm not dictating the components of national loyalty, I am just describing what I have seen over the years both here and on other boards
I think it sucks that any discussion about china is marred by caution regarding individual's true motivations, but the socio-political landscape regarding Chinese politics and china overall is like that for a reason. The discourse has been shaped, intentionally or not, in a way which has led us here.

---

Btw justice for all is no less subjective than "greater justice," unless we want to write laws. And that will be a whole other matter entirely that has its own little universe of debates.

 

[Brumby]

Regarding authoritarian power: it is simple. I do not trust the Chinese people to be able to quickly and democratically steer china on a route which will be conducive to the interests of china. I fear they are still gullible. I fear a democratic system implemented at the wrong time will be vulnerable to corruption as badly as now but without the unified and decisive leadership, I fear bipartisanship, and at worst I fear foreign elements will use an immature democracy to their own ends through lobbying and what not which may damage Chinese interests. There may be a time when such a system will work for china but I would only be comfortable in it when china is already in a position of power before undergoing a transition. Any transition should optimally be done on chinas own terms and when it is geopolitically comfortable.

In your previous post you talked of the necessity to have authoritarian power to handle growth. In this post you are connecting your reasoning to contrasting political system as the issue. If I were to ask you to retain the authoritarian system but inject in it a system that is rule of law based, transparent and accountable; would your comments changed?

 

[Blitzo]

In your previous post you talked of the necessity to have authoritarian power to handle growth. In this post you are connecting your reasoning to contrasting political system as the issue. If I were to ask you to retain the authoritarian system but inject in it a system that is rule of law based, transparent and accountable; would your comments changed?

On paper yes, but the devil is in the details.