Chinese Jasmine Revolution Spreads Online

Armand2REP

CHINI EXPERT
Senior Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
13,811
Likes
6,734
Country flag
This really suprise me! After living long enough in China, it seems to me that you know nothing about average chinese life. It also get my attention that lots of your quote is from what--Echo, a newspaper could not get accepted by any overseas chinese community after more than 10 years.
I am laughing my ass off after reading any of your comment regarding China internal affairs.
This really surpise me! After living so long in China, you do not know people are still buying property with the belief they will get rich. You also do not know that most people are still happy with the progress CCP provides their eyes and that most, do not see through it as they soon will. Reading your comments makes me wonder if you are living in Canada removed from anything mainland.
 

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
Bagguy 2000: It apparently we are not on the same page talking about same issue

First: Why CCP's reform will lead to China's collapse? We all know CCP is communism in name only. They would have collapsed a long time had they not taken reform. On the contrary, the reform is only way to save CCP and lead China to further prosperity. But what they are doing today is just like any other authoritarian party around the world.

Second: How do you know democracy is bad? Have you ever been living in a democratic country? Have you ever seriously studied it? Given the democracy and authoritarian as two options and let people around the world to choose, you could easily get answer. Only brainwashed man will think democracy is bad.

Third: China's reform will take time, no doubt about it. But it needs you and me and many others to push it happen. We are still counting on CCP and not completely lose faith on it. If you are afraid of risk and not willing to do anything, please at least stop attacking those who took the initiatives. Leave them alone. Your action is acting like the once text book written by Luxun that when the headsman execute people, the crowds surrounding it will cheer in loudness.

Last: If my comments make you think I'm like Gordon Chang, it just shows your ignorance and lack of education. I'm all for China and wish her the best and my comments and thread are always supporting China. But I can distinguish China and Chinese government and be very critical on how they manage China.
Kickok1975. I guess you live in US as a student for a while, but you are not a citizen. I am a citizen in a democratic country for a very long time. I always vote during the election day, but I don't know what I voted for. Let me ask you a question. How can you pick up a best government by voting? If you have an opportunity working in the management level in the west countries, you will know how ugly their system is.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Oh, really? What you mean "friendly relations"? What more the chinese people can get from this relationship?

What problem would disappear if China turns to democracy?
You mean apart from the totalitarian government, the killing of political prisoners, gaining human rights, liberties, and a system that actually values human life; none I guess.

Would the west give more market to Chinese exportation?
Probably, or at least people would feel more at ease about investing in China.

Would the west remove their claim on so called chinese currency manipulation?
A democratic China might actually compete fairly in an open market.

Would the west stop blaming that china's development has threatened their living standard?
It would certainly do so a lot less than it does now.

Would China give up her claim on any disputed territory?
I'm sure even the Taiwanese would be more leaning towards the idea of reunification if China was democratic. The Americans would be less tense about it as well.

Would China make more compromise in any trade negotiation whle taking risk of damaging her own econmy?
China makes too many compromises now as it is as a dictatorship. Being a democracy wouldn't exactly hurt this.

Would China let Tibet or Xinjiang get independence?
The overall positions would certainly start to change. If China was a democracy, and respected the religious practices of the peoples in both regions; then international pressure would be far less.

Would China stop her military modernisation?
China has only been able to thanks to economic reforms in the last few decades that have allowed a new thriving economy, largely due to FDI. A democratic China would continue this with a lot less alarm bells going off in the west.

Noe of these would happen! So why would the west change your attitude if all these problem are still there?
I'm not saying it will be perfect, but the overall diplomatic and even some economic aspects of China will improve. The Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and others can breathe a lot easier.

Let's be honest, you and your western gov don't give a shit how Chinese suffered from their gov as the same as Iraqi suffering. All you care about is how chinese industrilaztion would threaten your employment and your children's life in the future. The only chance of get ride of this threat is that China turns to chaos. The only opportunity of this chaos is rapid democracy before China become a developed country.
None of this is true. The west only fears another rising communist power. It's not just the west, but also many other Asian countries. A democratic China would not be chaotic; that's CCP propaganda that's been drummed into your head. Steps have already been made to put aspects of capitalism into the country, why not go all the way and become a proper democratic republic with a capitalist economic system?

So, why don't stop pretending to be a good guy. Let's go back into dirty international political game.
If you want to play that game then fine; do it that way. China is still immensely unpopular around the world with all regional and growing powers, especially in Asia. Why? Politics mostly. China wont be able to make a move on any of its neighbors unless it wants the UN jumping down its throat (i.e, South Korea), or an American/ASEAN response.
 
Last edited:

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
You mean apart from the totalitarian government, the killing of political prisoners, gaining human rights, liberties, and a system that actually values human life; none I guess.



Probably, or at least people would feel more at ease about investing in China.



A democratic China might actually compete fairly in an open market.



It would certainly do so a lot less than it does now.



I'm sure even the Taiwanese would be more leaning towards the idea of reunification if China was democratic. The Americans would be less tense about it as well.



China makes too many compromises now as it is as a dictatorship. Being a democracy wouldn't exactly hurt this.



The overall positions would certainly start to change. If China was a democracy, and respected the religious practices of the peoples in both regions; then international pressure would be far less.



China has only been able to thanks to economic reforms in the last few decades that have allowed a new thriving economy, largely due to FDI. A democratic China would continue this with a lot less alarm bells going off in the west.



I'm not saying it will be perfect, but the overall diplomatic and even some economic aspects of China will improve. The Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and others can breathe a lot easier.



None of this is true. The west only fears another rising communist power. It's not just the west, but also many other Asian countries. A democratic China would not be chaotic; that's CCP propaganda that's been drummed into your head. Steps have already been made to put aspects of capitalism into the country, why not go all the way and become a proper democratic republic with a capitalist economic system?



If you want to play that game then fine; do it that way. China is still immensely unpopular around the world with all regional and growing powers, especially in Asia. Why? Politics mostly. China wont be able to make a move on any of its neighbors unless it wants the UN jumping down its throat (i.e, South Korea), or an American/ASEAN response.
I guess that you are an Indian living in Australia. You probably don't want to hear the real thought of Chinese in terms of democratic system. Most Chinese are afraid of endng up with another India if China turns into democratic country. It will be very interesting to see two large democratic mess countries in Asia in 2050, each of them have 2.5 billion populations.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
You mean apart from the totalitarian government, the killing of political prisoners, gaining human rights, liberties, and a system that actually values human life; none I guess.
As an individual, you may feel furious about all these, the problem is your gov don't.



Probably, or at least people would feel more at ease about investing in China.
The thing is China already got most FDI in developing countries. Please name some multinationals that have no investment in China. One of reason that they invest in China is China doesn't provide enough protection to human rights. To some extent, these companies are on the same side with CCP on human right.



A democratic China might actually compete fairly in an open market.
If you think a democratic China would compete fairly, then you may be disappointed. Think about Japan and korea in last 80s and 90s.


It would certainly do so a lot less than it does now.


I'm sure even the Taiwanese would be more leaning towards the idea of reunification if China was democratic. The Americans would be less tense about it as well.
The democratic system in Canada doesn't stop Quebec from seeking independence even they ARE one country. The problem between China and Taiwan is far more complicated than being democracy. The dispute between the two was started far before Taiwanese know about the word-democracy.

China makes too many compromises now as it is as a dictatorship. Being a democracy wouldn't exactly hurt this.
The problem is China would not make more compromise after turning to democracy.



The overall positions would certainly start to change. If China was a democracy, and respected the religious practices of the peoples in both regions; then international pressure would be far less.
The main problem in Tibet and Xinjing is economic inequality. The democracy wouldn't change that in one or two years. So far there is no any foreign government pressing CCP on Tibet or Xinjiang with any actual threat. All they are doing is lip work.



China has only been able to thanks to economic reforms in the last few decades that have allowed a new thriving economy, largely due to FDI. A democratic China would continue this with a lot less alarm bells going off in the west.
FDI was never a decisive factor in China's reform. The reason they come is that they can earn money, no more no less. As long as they can get their profit, FDI would still come. That is why after so much alarming, nothing changed.


I'm not saying it will be perfect, but the overall diplomatic and even some economic aspects of China will improve. The Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese, and others can breathe a lot easier.
The reason they can breath a lot easier is that they cannot threat west dominant any more. Think about how japan was treated in last 80s. It was democratic at that time.



None of this is true. The west only fears another rising communist power. It's not just the west, but also many other Asian countries. A democratic China would not be chaotic; that's CCP propaganda that's been drummed into your head. Steps have already been made to put aspects of capitalism into the country, why not go all the way and become a proper democratic republic with a capitalist economic system?
Really? Think out of box. What you feel when you see the oil price is going up? What you feel when you see your salary has to be frozen? The rise of China and india would mean one thing: Getting resources and primary products from developing countries may be over. That is what west fear. Economically, China is a capitalist power. What it is doing now is exactly what west did in last century. It is competing everything with west in a higher price, that is what west fear.

If you want to play that game then fine; do it that way. China is still immensely unpopular around the world with all regional and growing powers, especially in Asia. Why? Politics mostly. China wont be able to make a move on any of its neighbors unless it wants the UN jumping down its throat (i.e, South Korea), or an American/ASEAN response.
The game is already going on. Make a move on what? You still don't understand all the problems China caused today are rooted from economic chaotic: a new big vendor and supplier coming in town. I am not saying who is right or who is wrong. The point is that you are underestimating the problem.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
As an individual, you may feel furious about all these, the problem is your gov don't.
Pot calling the kettle black. How exactly is my own government as autocratic as Chinas?

The thing is China already got most FDI in developing countries. Please name some multinationals that have no investment in China. One of reason that they invest in China is China doesn't provide enough protection to human rights. To some extent, these companies are on the same side with CCP on human right.
Most companies do it in a number of poorer countries, and it largely has to do with labor cost; not human rights issues. I have my own views about this though. China as a country has been caught ignoring intellectual patents and mass-producing imitation cheap products. That would cause any business person who invests in China to feel worried.

If you think a democratic China would compete fairly, then you may be disappointed. Think about Japan and korea in last 80s and 90s.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. Interesting to note Japan had its own bubble in the 80s and 90s, similar to what China is going through now.

The democratic system in Canada doesn't stop Quebec from seeking independence even they ARE one country. The problem between China and Taiwan is far more complicated than being democracy. The dispute between the two was started far before Taiwanese know about the word-democracy.
I'm well aware of that, but the Taiwan of today is not the nationalist Kuomintang of three quarters of a century ago. Also nice one comparing the PRCs invasion of Tibet to Canadas issue over Quebec. The two are uncomparable on at least a few points.

The problem is China would not make more compromise after turning to democracy.
So you want more compromises? You aren't being clear here.

The main problem in Tibet and Xinjing is economic inequality. The democracy wouldn't change that in one or two years. So far there is no any foreign government pressing CCP on Tibet or Xinjiang with any actual threat. All they are doing is lip work.
As well as social and cultural inequality. How exactly is the CCP going to change that either? This is besides the point.

FDI was never a decisive factor in China's reform. The reason they come is that they can earn money, no more no less. As long as they can get their profit, FDI would still come. That is why after so much alarming, nothing changed.
FDI helped to bring China out of the days of economic depravity created by Mao, and has especially helped to build Chinas economy to the point you see today.

The reason they can breath a lot easier is that they cannot threat west dominant any more. Think about how japan was treated in last 80s. It was democratic at that time.
See above. Japans asset bubble created a problem for the country. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're getting at here.

Really? Think out of box. What you feel when you see the oil price is going up? What you feel when you see your salary has to be frozen? The rise of China and india would mean one thing: Getting resources and primary products from developing countries may be over. That is what west fear. Economically, China is a capitalist power. What it is doing now is exactly what west did in last century. It is competing everything with west in a higher price, that is what west fear.
Oil is a dwindling resource, but that has little to do with who is consuming it. Eventually our dependence on it will diminish as new technology will emerge for the energy and transport sectors. The fears you put forward can be explained away by the point I made above.

The game is already going on. Make a move on what? You still don't understand all the problems China caused today are rooted from economic chaotic: a new big vendor and supplier coming in town. I am not saying who is right or who is wrong. The point is that you are underestimating the problem.
Make a move on Taiwan, the issue of troops over the LOC, or act aggressively about the oil that has been found in the South China Sea. Most of Chinas problems are rooted back in the days of Mao, who increased the population of his country to perpetuate an eternal political war with the west. All of this economic comparison between a communist or democratic China is pointless, adopting capitalism means you've already made a step in the right direction, being democratic more has to do with bringing human rights and freedoms to the people of China.

By the way I'm not an Indian living in Australia, and no China would not end up like India is today by becoming democratic; especially now.
 
Last edited:

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
Pot calling the kettle black. How exactly is my own government as autocratic as Chinas?
No, you are misunderstanding me: Australian gov doesn't really care what CCP is doing to its citizens. What it is really caring is what australia can get from China!



Most companies do it in a number of poorer countries, and it largely has to do with labor cost; not human rights issues. I have my own views about this though. China as a country has been caught ignoring intellectual patents and mass-producing imitation cheap products. That would cause any business person who invests in China to feel worried.
One of reasons of low labor cost is that these developing countries workers don't enjoy same level work protection as those in developed countries. They have no work cover insurance, no annual leave, no sick leave, no decent working protection equipment and no redundence fee, no fair employment protection, no superannuation. Imitation cheap products? Every developing country was doing it: Japan in last 50s, korea in last 70/80s and south east asia in last 90s . It has nothing to do with being democracy or not. It is related to your legal system.

I think you misunderstood what I meant. Interesting to note Japan had its own bubble in the 80s and 90s, similar to what China is going through now.
Japan's bubble was coming from the rapid currency appretiation and real estate, has nothing to do with being a democracy. What is your point?

I'm well aware of that, but the Taiwan of today is not the nationalist Kuomintang of three quarters of a century ago. Also nice one comparing the PRCs invasion of Tibet to Canadas issue over Quebec. The two are uncomparable on at least a few points.
Let's not waste time on arguing if China's invasion of tibet is legal or not! The point I want to make is that tibet would still seek independence after China becomes democratic.

So you want more compromises? You aren't being clear here.
China become harder in its disputation with foreign gov. Do you think west would love to hear that?


As well as social and cultural inequality. How exactly is the CCP going to change that either? This is besides the point.
If you are talking about political and religious freedom, han chinese is enjoying the same level as them: zero!



FDI helped to bring China out of the days of economic depravity created by Mao, and has especially helped to build Chinas economy to the point you see today.
China's reform started far before any FDI comes in China. FDI is playing an important role in Chinese economy. But put most of credits on it, it is an overestimation.
By the way, you still can't prove how can more FDI comes in if China is democratic.



See above. Japans asset bubble created a problem for the country. I'm not exactly sure what it is you're getting at here.
You are missing the point. Being a democratic country, Japan was doing everything in last 50s-80s as China today: internal market protection, manipulation of currency and copycat. So, you argument doesn't work.



Oil is a dwindling resource, but that has little to do with who is consuming it. Eventually our dependence on it will diminish as new technology will emerge for the energy and transport sectors. The fears you put forward can be explained away by the point I made above.
The most important factor is: who is consuming it! You or Chinese or Indian? Yes new tech may resolve that. But no one know how long we have to wait. So, until today, we have to face a rapid growth on fuel price. And in the near future, it will continue to grow. Do you think that west would feel comfortable on that?

Make a move on Taiwan, the issue of troops over the LOC, or act aggressively about the oil that has been found in the South China Sea. Most of Chinas problems are rooted back in the days of Mao, who increased the population of his country to perpetuate an eternal political war with the west. All of this economic comparison between a communist or democratic China is pointless, adopting capitalism means you've already made a step in the right direction, being democratic more has to do with bringing human rights and freedoms to the people of China.
So you are suggesting that China would give up its claim in South China Sea after becoming a democratic country? Or you are saying that South east asian countries would give that territory to China if China becomes democratic? Please prove yourselves.

By the way I'm not an Indian living in Australia, and no China would not end up like India is today by becoming democratic; especially now.
Did I say you are indian? Don't worry, unlike our indian friends, I would argue with your opinion instead of your background.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
No, you are misunderstanding me: Australian gov doesn't really care what CCP is doing to its citizens. What it is really caring is what australia can get from China
On what evidence is this claim based? What relevance does this even have to the discussion of China becoming a democracy anyway?

One of reasons of low labor cost is that these developing countries workers don't enjoy same level work protection as those in developed countries. They have no work cover insurance, no annual leave, no sick leave, no decent working protection equipment and no redundence fee, no fair employment protection, no superannuation. Imitation cheap products? Every developing country was doing it: Japan in last 50s, korea in last 70/80s and south east asia in last 90s . It has nothing to do with being democracy or not. It is related to your legal system.
Yes there is that aspect too, and if you want labor laws to protect workers; a democracy would make that happen. So far communism has prevented that from happening. As for the cheap mass-production of products; that is why all of those countries came under fire, and China hasn't learned from their mistake. The US did not start out this way, neither did many other countries.

Japan's bubble was coming from the rapid currency appretiation and real estate, has nothing to do with being a democracy. What is your point?
I could ask the same with the bringing up of most of these economic points, as they are relegated to whether a nation is capitalistic or not. Before China had economic reforms, it went through famines and had a weak economy. Capitalism is the natural extension of democracy, not communism.

Let's not waste time on arguing if China's invasion of tibet is legal or not! The point I want to make is that tibet would still seek independence after China becomes democratic.
You misunderstood my point. I would only support an independent Tibet if it was democratic. Quite a lot of people here in the west would also be holding that position.

China become harder in its disputation with foreign gov. Do you think west would love to hear that?
Disputation over what? Economics? Land? Growth in military? You need to be clear.

If you are talking about political and religious freedom, han chinese is enjoying the same level as them: zero!
That isn't acceptable, and I don't think you can speak for all Chinese or other minorities living in China with that kind of argument. Human rights for ALL people in China, nothing less.

China's reform started far before any FDI comes in China. FDI is playing an important role in Chinese economy. But put most of credits on it, it is an overestimation.
By the way, you still can't prove how can more FDI comes in if China is democratic.
Chinas economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping and others were put in place to allow such FDI to come in. FDI is not something unique to China, it is invested everywhere.

You are missing the point. Being a democratic country, Japan was doing everything in last 50s-80s as China today: internal market protection, manipulation of currency and copycat. So, you argument doesn't work.
That is why they were condemned; not because they were seen as a growing threat. Yet again, China is reliving the same mistakes of other countries. Cheaters never prosper.

The most important factor is: who is consuming it! You or Chinese or Indian? Yes new tech may resolve that. But no one know how long we have to wait. So, until today, we have to face a rapid growth on fuel price. And in the near future, it will continue to grow. Do you think that west would feel comfortable on that?
China is actually increasing its coal and nuclear production rapidly. There are estimates that show Chinese economic sectors will jump to 25% energy reliability on nuclear power in the near future. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, but the fighting over resources is null when you consider that it's mostly over oil, which will be replaced through renewable or non-renewable energy means in future.

So you are suggesting that China would give up its claim in South China Sea after becoming a democratic country? Or you are saying that South east asian countries would give that territory to China if China becomes democratic? Please prove yourselves.
I'm saying neither, you asked what aggressive moves the PRC will be making and its at least over those issues.

Did I say you are indian? Don't worry, unlike our indian friends, I would argue with your opinion instead of your background.
This was a response to jazzguy. See his post above.
 

shyamranger

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2011
Messages
11
Likes
1
Can you tell me what's democracy?And are you sure the unrest happened in Egypt is democratic revolution?

Every nation has their fate to face,no matter if you like it.I want to know what do you think is better to China.My classmates are busying in playing computer games now.I come here just
because I like politics.

Then it seems it's better to you if Chinese has faith,ideology.But I think it's well now.What's wrong to make money when most Chinsese still is poor?As for democracy ,I think you should tell me what's the democracy in your mind then I can judge if it's true .And can you tell me what's the basic spirit of freedom?
Ask Him ...... what democrazy have done to India ???????? He may give you right answers.
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
/\/\/\ They have terrorists a.k.a. maoists running democracy in Nepal and their top politburo Prachanda barking like a dog most of the times! :pound:
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
On what evidence is this claim based? What relevance does this even have to the discussion of China becoming a democracy anyway?
Did australian gov impose any sanction on china's trading since 2000? In 1989, the world can do that because chinese economy was so small at the time that sanction wouldn't impact west. Today, the story is totally different. China is now the biggest customer of australia. You just can't cut your number one customer out no matter what happened in tibet or other area, simple as that!



Yes there is that aspect too, and if you want labor laws to protect workers; a democracy would make that happen. So far communism has prevented that from happening. As for the cheap mass-production of products; that is why all of those countries came under fire, and China hasn't learned from their mistake. The US did not start out this way, neither did many other countries.
It is not if those countries want, it is if they can afford it. India is a democracy, but it has biggest children labors in the world. In Indonesia, the democratic country, most of these protections don't existe so far.

The US did not start out this way? You must be joking, check the fact how Morgen's private army killed those coal workers.


I could ask the same with the bringing up of most of these economic points, as they are relegated to whether a nation is capitalistic or not. Before China had economic reforms, it went through famines and had a weak economy. Capitalism is the natural extension of democracy, not communism.
You can argue whether democracy can be generated by capitalism. But say capitalism is the extension of democracy? Think about korea, Taiwan.

You misunderstood my point. I would only support an independent Tibet if it was democratic. Quite a lot of people here in the west would also be holding that position.
You are missing the point here, most chineses won't never support the independence of tibet even if China was democratic. No matter how the people in the west hope, the only chance is you can break China in a WAR! Democracy doesn't work on this problem.


Disputation over what? Economics? Land? Growth in military? You need to be clear.
Everything related to internal issues.

That isn't acceptable, and I don't think you can speak for all Chinese or other minorities living in China with that kind of argument. Human rights for ALL people in China, nothing less.
So, you agree that tibet or other minorities don't have culture or religious inequality.


Chinas economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping and others were put in place to allow such FDI to come in. FDI is not something unique to China, it is invested everywhere.
Well, kid, obviously you know nothing about this reform. It was started from countryside long before the special economic zone was set up.
FDI is invested everywhere, but some countries perfomed better than others, that means something with bigger effect is there.



That is why they were condemned; not because they were seen as a growing threat. Yet again, China is reliving the same mistakes of other countries. Cheaters never prosper.
But it proved that democratic country has done the same thing, right? These economic behaviors have nothing to do with democracy.



China is actually increasing its coal and nuclear production rapidly. There are estimates that show Chinese economic sectors will jump to 25% energy reliability on nuclear power in the near future. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing, but the fighting over resources is null when you consider that it's mostly over oil, which will be replaced through renewable or non-renewable energy means in future.
My friend, all you saying doesn't deny one thing: china's demand on all resources is increasing at rapid rate. This trend will continue for another decade.



I'm saying neither, you asked what aggressive moves the PRC will be making and its at least over those issues.
I am not asking anything! I just want to make you understand: democracy won't resolve all these problem-market, economic dispute, currency manipulation, land dispute. The problems would still be there. So your thoery is wrong.



This was a response to jazzguy. See his post above.
I see.
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
Did australian gov impose any sanction on china's trading since 2000? In 1989, the world can do that because chinese economy was so small at the time that sanction wouldn't impact west. Today, the story is totally different. China is now the biggest customer of australia. You just can't cut your number one customer out no matter what happened in tibet or other area, simple as that!
None of this means or even implies that people here in the west would not like to see China become a democracy. This is sidetracking the issue.

It is not if those countries want, it is if they can afford it. India is a democracy, but it has biggest children labors in the world. In Indonesia, the democratic country, most of these protections don't existe so far.
What about the US? Canada? England? France? Germany? Australia? New Zealand? You picked only a couple of countries to make your point, but there are still many more free countries that enforce proper labor laws.

The US did not start out this way? You must be joking, check the fact how Morgen's private army killed those coal workers.
Who is 'Morgen'? Provide a link please.

You can argue whether democracy can be generated by capitalism. But say capitalism is the extension of democracy? Think about korea, Taiwan.
They were under martial law for a period of time, but ever since they have become more democratic and free; as well as more wealthy too. So yes, my point still stands.

You are missing the point here, most chineses won't never support the independence of tibet even if China was democratic. No matter how the people in the west hope, the only chance is you can break China in a WAR! Democracy doesn't work on this problem.
Naturally most revolutions and major government changes do not occur without the intervention or influence of another major power. If China went to war tomorrow with any of its ASEAN neighbors, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea; it would have the rest of the world jumping down its throat. This is the scenario the CCP wanted, and their wish is coming true. The independence of Tibet is not up to the Hans, it is up to the people of Tibet.

Everything related to internal issues.
As I said before; this would become less of a problem if China wasn't run by the CCP. China already has 1 billion people who live in poverty, how is it any better than India?

So, you agree that tibet or other minorities don't have culture or religious inequality.
No, I would say that Chinas lack of human rights has oppressed just about everyone there for far too long, including the Tibetans.

Well, kid, obviously you know nothing about this reform. It was started from countryside long before the special economic zone was set up.
FDI is invested everywhere, but some countries perfomed better than others, that means something with bigger effect is there.
China has received the highest FDI than most other countries on the planet in the last 20 years. It is thanks to this investment that the Chinese economy has progressed to where it is today, and no amount of ad hominems on your part can change this fact.

But it proved that democratic country has done the same thing, right? These economic behaviors have nothing to do with democracy.
It has to do with cheating the system, and none of those countries you listed are still doing it today in the way China is.

My friend, all you saying doesn't deny one thing: china's demand on all resources is increasing at rapid rate. This trend will continue for another decade.
Which is unsustainable from an environmental and economics point of view.

I am not asking anything! I just want to make you understand: democracy won't resolve all these problem-market, economic dispute, currency manipulation, land dispute. The problems would still be there. So your thoery is wrong.
Actually it isn't. All of these points have little to do with the economic status of China as I am talking about democracy there to help fix the political and social aspects of the country. You brought it up, because all you seem to care about is your own prosperity; even if its at another Chinese persons expense. It is true though that China would receive less resistance on various foreign issues if it was democratic, especially over Taiwan.
 

jazzguy

Regular Member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
104
Likes
0
This was a response to jazzguy. See his post above.
Nowadays, I work with many self-called "West People" who just hold West countries passport. Most real western people have no interesting in spending hours on this forum talking about India, China and Tibet.
 

niceguy2011

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Jan 13, 2011
Messages
656
Likes
17
Nowadays, I work with many self-called "West People" who just hold West countries passport. Most real western people have no interesting in spending hours on this forum talking about India, China and Tibet.
We have a Franch guy here.lol
 

AOE

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
437
Likes
23
There is also an Israeli and a few Americans.
 

no smoking

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
5,000
Likes
2,302
Country flag
None of this means or even implies that people here in the west would not like to see China become a democracy. This is sidetracking the issue.
Which means that gov always focus on interest instead of moral in any relationship. My point is these western gov could not be more "friendly" towards China than today unless China can give something more.


What about the US? Canada? England? France? Germany? Australia? New Zealand? You picked only a couple of countries to make your point, but there are still many more free countries that enforce proper labor laws.
Did you read my word "afford"? Check your list, all of them are developed countries. Base on their productivity, they can AFORD that.



Who is 'Morgen'? Provide a link please.
Sorry, it is "Morgan". I learned from a TV program about the riot happened in a coal controlled by Morgan. The riot lead to the conflict between company's paid army and coal miners. Many people including children and women died after the private army made a raid to miners' town.

But I found this: Battle of Blair Mountain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

"Beginning in 1870-1880, coal operators had established a system of oppression and exploitation based around the company town system.[2][4][5] To maintain their domination and hegemony, coal operators paid "private detectives" as well as public law enforcement agents to ensure that union organizers were kept out of the region.[2] In order to accomplish this objective, agents of the coal operators used intimidation, harassment, espionage and even murder."




They were under martial law for a period of time, but ever since they have become more democratic and free; as well as more wealthy too. So yes, my point still stands.
Under Martial law? Even koreans and Taiwanese think they were under a dictatorship during that period!



Naturally most revolutions and major government changes do not occur without the intervention or influence of another major power. If China went to war tomorrow with any of its ASEAN neighbors, Taiwan, Japan, or South Korea; it would have the rest of the world jumping down its throat. This is the scenario the CCP wanted, and their wish is coming true. The independence of Tibet is not up to the Hans, it is up to the people of Tibet.
CCP wanted a war? Japan & South Korea? Prove yourselves!
With Taiwan, you know there is a big difference between threatening and wanting a war, right?
In terms of Tibet, you are making my point: Hans believe they should be involved in the decision making while Tibet would not accept it because they know any result of their vote would be overwhelmed by 1 billions hans' vote. So democracy would not resolve this problem.



As I said before; this would become less of a problem if China wasn't run by the CCP. China already has 1 billion people who live in poverty, how is it any better than India?
I would not argue with you about who is better between India and China. If after 60 years democracy, india is still on the same powerty class as China. How do you explain it? You also have to notice that India was in a far superior position comparing to China when they got independence. And in 1978, every economic figures of these 2 were very close. China has already catched up even before reform.

No, I would say that Chinas lack of human rights has oppressed just about everyone there for far too long, including the Tibetans.
So, you agree there is no culture and religious inequality. Everyone is in the same status, right?


China has received the highest FDI than most other countries on the planet in the last 20 years. It is thanks to this investment that the Chinese economy has progressed to where it is today, and no amount of ad hominems on your part can change this fact.
Yes, FDI is one of reasons that China reachs its economic success. There are lots of other factors: Chinese gov's economic policy, industry fundation built up before 1978 and chinses' hard working, etc.


It has to do with cheating the system, and none of those countries you listed are still doing it today in the way China is.
But you cannot deny that they did it when they were democratic countries.


Which is unsustainable from an environmental and economics point of view.
Yes, but it is the fact and democracy cannot change it. The only way out is moving up the production chain.



Actually it isn't. All of these points have little to do with the economic status of China as I am talking about democracy there to help fix the political and social aspects of the country. You brought it up, because all you seem to care about is your own prosperity; even if its at another Chinese persons expense. It is true though that China would receive less resistance on various foreign issues if it was democratic, especially over Taiwan.
No, what I am arguing is the conclusion of yours: the west would be more friendly towards China if China becomes a demcratic country. I am not arguing what China should do. Besides, I am an australian citizen living in Oz. So China's future has nothing to do with my own prosperity, my countryman.
 
Last edited:

zhlee

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2009
Messages
36
Likes
14
Based on my experience with Chinese, their minds are very limited by its dictator society. The whole country only knows one type of sports in the world.
Oh, let me guess..
soccer??
table tennis?? becuz its national game?
basketball?? becuz YAO an YI?
hurdles?? becuz liuxiang?
snooker?? becuz ding and FU?
tennis?? becuz lina and zhengjie
badminton?? diving?? weightlifting??gymnastics?? vollball?? becuz they once dominated these games?

sure, very few people know that their curling team won women's world championship in 2009.
 
Last edited:

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Jasmine revolution now plays out in China's Inner Mongolia

China's Inner Mongolia, where Mongolians are in a minority of only 20 per cent out of the total population of 23 million, has been going through a Jasmine-type revolution since May 10. There have been widespread protests in different towns following the death of a herdsman by the name Mergen who was allegedly killed by a Han Chinese truck driver during a protest against mining operations in their area. Mergen was among a group of Mongolians who attempted to block a caravan of coal-hauling trucks in Xilingol.
The protests, which started spontaneously in a fit of rage over Mergen's death, have not so far seen demands for political reforms or independence. The protests till now have been against the modern way of life imposed on the Mongolians -- a nomadic group that loves their grasslands -- by China's craze for development.

The Mongolian youth, who came out of their universities and schools to protest against the death of Mergen, are now protesting against the widespread damage to their environment, grasslands and nomadic way of life due to the large-scale exploitation of coal in the area through open-cast mining to feed the power stations in the rest of China.

There has been large-scale destruction of their grasslands due to mining and infrastructure development. Their nomadic way of life is being destroyed by the modern way of life brought in by the Han Chinese who have come from outside the province and settled down there.

As it happened in Tibet, the Chinese calculation that the economic development of the province and prosperity would make the Mongolians reconcile themselves to the loss of their nomadic way of life have proved wrong.

Western sources see in the reports of the protests from Inner Mongolia the beginning of an anti-Han political revolt. It does not appear to be so -- at least not till now. The protests have been not against Han political and economic domination, but against Beijing's attempts to impose on Inner Mongolia a development model not suited to them and which is proving detrimental to the Mongolian way of life.

Mongolian exiles living outside China -- particularly in the West -- are hoping that the protests will take a political turn and create one more pocket of alienation along China's periphery, with the Mongolians joining the ranks of the Tibetans and the Uighurs in protesting against the Han colonisation of Inner Mongolia.

It is too late in the day for the Mongolians to hope for separation from China. The Hans are in a crushing majority in Inner Mongolia. No separatist movement can hope to succeed. Will it be possible to protect and preserve the Mongolian way of life based on their in-born love of their grasslands? That is a question that needs to be addressed in dealing with the protest movement. Beijing does not seem to be doing so. It is viewing it purely as a law and order and an internal security problem.

However, the Xinhua news agency reported that Inner Mongolia's Communist Party chief Hu Chunhua said on May 27 that "public anger has been immense" and that he would meet students. He added, "We must correctly handle the relationship between the exploration of resources and the protection of the interests of people in Inner Mongolia."

The unrest has involved thousands of protesters in different areas. Hundreds of students and herdsmen took to the streets of Chifeng on May 28, according to the United States-based Southern Mongolian Human Rights Information Centre. Police and para-military reinforcements have been rushed by the authorities to Hohhot, the provincial capital, and universities have been sealed off in the cities of Tongliao and Ordos.

The Information Centre has reportedly called for a province-wide protest "to demand that the government of China respect the human rights, life and dignity of the Mongols in China and to resolve the case of Mergen in a just and fair manner."

Apprehending the use of the Internet by the protesting students and political exiles to spread disaffection against the authorities, the Chinese authorities have imposed controls on Internet cafes.

Rediff
 

Oracle

New Member
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
8,120
Likes
1,566
Why are the Han Chinese hell bent on killing ethnic people? First they capture foreign lands, then flock their population into those areas to claim majority, then slowly kill the natives one by one. The day is not far when Mongolians along with Tibetans and Uighurs will break the writ of the CCP.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top