- Joined
- May 7, 2010
- Messages
- 5,095
- Reaction score
- 1,544
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
China has to pursue political reform to safeguard its economic health, Premier Wen Jiabao said during a visit to the booming town of Shenzhen, the official Xinhua news agency reported.
Wen's call for political reform lacked specifics. But his comments reflect broader worries that unless the Party embraces at least limited reforms to make officials more answerable, then corruption and abuses may erode the country's economic prospects.
"Without the safeguarding of political restructuring, China may lose what it has already achieved through economic restructuring and the targets of its modernization drive might not be reached," Wen was quoted by Xinhua as saying.
Oh, give me a break. They have been saying this for a long time. I was living in Shanghai and I distinctly remember then sitting in a restaurant with friends of mine watching the premier talk about reform and how it was imminent. That was more than a decade ago.
Words mean nothing. They say a lot, but do little. This is something they do. Their words make the press, those words make the West and others happy, but they don't actually follow through.
While the Chinese government has used such language as propaganda for many years, China may indeed be nearing a wall they will be forced to climb. As the wages in the country increase and the cost of business rises, China will be forced to make real reform in order to compete, lest they lose their attractiveness to foreign investment and find their economy in shambles. Corruption, though I suspect, will remain.
People have been saying the same thing for 20 years... veteran China watchers like myself have grown rather cynical of these calls to reform, whether it be of the financial system, currency exchange rates, or process of government...
I would assume that you would, but you must admit that as China has become more and more affluent, the economy at least has become very Western and free compared to prior history.
Meh. Corruption is too ingrained in China to be gotten rid of by one man. It's even in the afterlife -- you have to bribe the guardian of the gate to Hell to get in.
Oh, give me a break. They have been saying this for a long time. I was living in Shanghai and I distinctly remember then sitting in a restaurant with friends of mine watching the premier talk about reform and how it was imminent. That was more than a decade ago.
Words mean nothing. They say a lot, but do little. This is something they do. Their words make the press, those words make the West and others happy, but they don't actually follow through.
"People's democratic rights and legitimate rights must be guaranteed. People should be mobilized and organized to deal with, in accordance with the law, state, economic, social and cultural affairs," Wen added.
Wen also wants to "create conditions" to allow the people to criticize and supervise the government as a way to address "the problem of over-concentration of power with ineffective supervision."
They have been saying it and they have been doing it. I understand most skeptics have a hard time seeing political reform, but I could point to countless instances of reform over the years. However, the part from the article I didn't include in the OP was this:
This is a much more bold and comprehensive statement than I have read about planned political reform in the past. I also think the time is much more suited for such reform now.
ludahai said:People have been saying the same thing for 20 years... veteran China watchers like myself have grown rather cynical of these calls to reform, whether it be of the financial system, currency exchange rates, or process of government...
What reforms? China still has a disturbing lack of transparancy and human rights have DEGRADED in the past decade, NOT improved, and there is no movement forward on providing the people with democratic rights.
Actually, it looks very similar to what I saw when I lived in Shanghai in 1999 -- just a few months before the idiocy of China's response to the accidental bombing of the embassy in Yugoslavia and the horrendus crackdown on Falungong ... which is still ongoing...
What is this about? Sometimes I gotta wonder if some organization or government agency is disseminating a list of points for people to argue on these subjects. You're just spouting off the same trash put out by a dozen human rights groups irrespective of all reforms. It doesn't matter what reforms China implements they always say the same thing in their next report: "Human rights worsened in China over the past year." If that bull**** were actually legitimate China would look like one hell of a worse place than it is today.
Are you just parroting that drivel or is there some other blatant propaganda you're getting this drivel from?
I was thinking of that, which is partly why I said the conditions are more favorable towards such changes.
Where am I getting it from? People who live there or left there because of the government. I have lived there in the past and have seen it all before and can read and speak the language, so I don't have to rely on translations or deliberatly misleading English press releases to go on.
Actually, you are the one who is spewing propoganda, the propoganda of the dictators in Beijing.
You dismiss human rights organizations, but well respected groups like Amnesty International and Reporters without Borders (among many others) are reporting on what is going on in China.
Large media outlets are often afraid to get in depth as to what is going on in there as they fear they will lose access.
Now, you have nary made a post in here that doesn't defend or praise China. So, I have to ask you... are you Chinese? or are you one of the Useful Idiots the ChiCom government relies on to fool those who don't know any better about what is going on in there... because I DO know... you can't fool me...
I have lived there and have been there several times since. I have a pretty good idea what is going on in there, and it isn't pretty. If you wish to live in ignorance, that is your perogative. I have seen reports like these for TWENTY YEARS, and nothing substantive has yet happened... and in many ways over the last decade, they have gone backwards.
I find it amusing that so many people use what is written in the english-language media as the authority on what is happening there. Their propoganda masters know what they are doing... and in your case, they seem to have been very successful.
Next, I presume you are going to come and tell us that the entire South China Sea belongs to China... you have already fallen for their lies and propoganda about Taiwan.
Honestly? Saying I live in ignorance is just absurd when you seem to be saying there hasn't any change in 20 years! Of course, I guess it really depends on what you mean by "substantive" because I think we may have a different definition of that.
However, countless China observers who have been to China frequently over the years have frequently recognized that in every area China has had considerable progress over the years. So it seems the only people who think there hasn't been progress are those for whom acknowledging progress would in fact be contrary to their agenda.
Actually if their "propaganda masters" are really only allowing more openness in english-language media than they don't know what they're doing. English is taught to hundreds of millions of Chinese so if the intent is to deny the Chinese people access to this information by having it only in English than they are failing quite miserably.
Your claim is completely illogical and really just a cop-out to allow you to continue insisting that there has been no reform. I cannot read Chinese therefore in order for me to challenge your claim I would have to first learn an entire language and go back over decades to read countless articles from Chinese news media. It is really an absurd demand meant primarily to make the standard of debate unreasonably high.
I think the point I made is more effective, however. Since most Chinese students are being taught English being open more in the English media is not going to lock them out. Personally, I would believe the claim that English media is more open, but not the claim that somehow this is a deliberate tactic to trick foreigners or that it is happening without similar opening up in Chinese-language media.
Seems opponents of the Chinese government have to resort to some of the most outlandish conspiracy theories to support their position.
I didn't fall for any lies or propaganda about Taiwan. I looked up the relevant legal documents myself in places completely separate from any Chinese interest and reached my own conclusions. My conclusion was that Taiwan has no legal claim to independence.
Most of the changes have been little more than window dressing.
In many ways, China has moved backward, especially in regards to human rights. Ask practitioners of Falun Dafa as well as various Christian groups how they feel about the progression of human rights in China. It is also one of the world's largest (perhaps still the largest -- have to check) prison for journalists in the world. Yeah, nice progress. Ever heard of the People's Armed Police? Know what their primary purpose is?
Those China watchers risk losing access to China if they are overly critical of China. There have been a number of China watchers who HAVE noted that the changes are little more than window dressing and that human rights is moving in the wrong direction. Many of them have lost access to the country as a result. They reward those who carry their message to the West. That has been going on since the 1930s!
You are missing the point. The message is meant to fool foreigners into thinking that there is real change going on in China. It is superficial at best. Few foreigners are conversant in spoken Mandarin and even fewer can read Chinese.
(either in the Simplified -- fake -- or Traditional -- real -- form)
And that is what the ChiCom government counts on and has for decades.
Except that they have been doing this for decades. I would see things in English language media sources in China that would not be found in Chinese.
Except that DECADES of experience have borne out the claims of the critics. You should check out the book "China Misperceived" by Stephen Mosher.
Except that you didn't show any citations and all but ignored the cases I cited (with links) in response. You were hardly convincing in that argument because your argument had no basis in international law.
The fact is, the Kosovo advisory opinion even further strengthened Taiwan's case vis a vis China. If China were so confident it had a case, it would accept Taiwan's call for an ICJ ajudication.
Now... have you fallen for their propoganda on the South China Sea as well?
Based on this it seems to me the Chinese have a more legitimate claim than Vietnam. Certainly their claims to the rest of the South China Sea islands are the most legitimate ones. None of the other countries seemed to have any interest in any of the islands until the middle of the 20th Century while China's claims date back hundreds of years.
I cited several legal documents by name. Our dispute was primarily focused on whether the Japanese Instrument of Surrender was a legal treaty or not. I took the position that it was and cited relevant legal documents to back up my case and you said it wasn't without citing any documents to support that position.
Look, I am not going to get into a prolonged discussion with you over this. I have seen many people feel like you only to be disappointed over time and wake up to reality.
:2funny:
You cited the Surrender and then went on to claim that it is a treaty. Not even the Chinese government makes THAT claim. I cited numerous examples of how a RATIFIED treaty is required to transfer territory from one state to another state... something you were never able to refute...
The difference is I am probably not expecting what those people were expecting. I have no illusions about some huge magic reform that will make them into a Western democracy overnight. Hell, I would see it is as a huge loss to progress if China just rehashed the deeply flawed Western system. I know both the good and bad aspects of the history of nations and that if someone wants to say any country is backtracking on human rights they could easily be selective and condemn most, if not all, countries.
Please, by all means explain why what I said is so laughable, other than the fact that you have an irrational hatred of the Chinese government and thus refuse to accept anything they say as legitimate. I hope you are aware that an independent Taiwan would have no legitimate claim to any of the South China Sea islands just like they would have no legitimate claim to Kinmen and Matsu.
You claimed treaties have to be ratified by a legislature period, which was simply not true. You never proved in any way that it was a requirement for transferring territory. My argument was based off international law and I cited several examples of where my position was consistent with it.
China obviously has you believing what they want you to believe. This has been going on since the 1950s. For decades, they have found their mouthpieces in the West more than willing to spout off their version of what is happening inside, which has little relation to reality. You scoff this off as anti-China, but for decades, the skeptics have been proven absolutely correct. Have you ever read English language accounts of China in the 1950s and 1960s? Full of rosy reports regurgitated by their Western tools which we know today were completely false. They are more sophisticated in their methods today due to changes in commuications technology, but they still engage in it.
You actually think Chinese have been using the extreme southern reaches of the South China Sea longer than the Viet Namese, Chams, Khmer, and Malays?!?!? Yeah, right. More spouting of Chinese propaganda.
I stated that for territory to be transferred from one state to another state, a properly signed, ratified, and executed treaty is required. This is based on CENTURIES of state practice. I cited several examples.
And as for legislative action, that requirement depends on the state in question, as I have already pointed out. IN some states, it is an executive or cabinat action that is required. The rules you cited are post-1969. You are citing an ARMISTICE, not a TREATY by which territory can be transferred. Not even the PRC makes that claim.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?