Preserved Topic: a discussion about taiwan (Page 1 of 2)

As a chinese , I love my country.I am living in PR.chinan now .
I often hear that the other countries criticize china on its human rights problem.
I want to know why they criticize a country they never come to and dont really know it,
it is really a rude activity.They must have some purposes,such as politics purposes.
By the way ,i want to say that china has make a good progress in improving the democrecy though it still have
some problems.


i love beatles

vanvanta,

Please tell me honestly if you think it is rude of the Tibetans to criticize. After all, China "visited" them without even an invitation.

. . : newThing

Vanvanta, it is all about one word. "Freedom". Freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom to practice ones own religion, freedom to protest, and the list goes on.

True I have never visited your China (and I would truly love to for the great mix of cultures, history and variety of geographic conditions), however, one cannot overlook the fact that your country does not have a democratically elected government, which in effect means, your Govt is a dictatorship, and as such, how much freedom do you really have?

Bugs makes a great point about Tibet, but Taiwan is also a potential flash point in the far east.

I do agree that China is making progress towards a 'more free' society, but it still has a long road to travel. Until the ppl of China have the ability to exercise a privavlege of choosing their own Govt, then other 'free' countries will always raise objections.

Still, we can only look to the future and be optimistic.

One planet, one people

Only one good thing has ever come from China: Golden Harvest Entertainment. Couldn't resist.

I don't much about China other than forced abortions -- some as late as 9 months. I'ld call that a problem with human rights. I certainly don't agree with forced abortions for 3 reasons, but I'll only give one: not addressing the core problem properly. It's like trying to quit sneezing by plugging your nose.

I remember Tienamin Square when I was in high school. That was a mixed up time and situation for a youngin' like myself here in the states.

That's about the extent of my knowledge on China.

Hmm... I've never been to China proper, but I do live right next door. I admire China for the depth of culture and history (and the food!), but the turn your nation has taken in (relatively) recent years is somewhat dismaying. Korea, as you know, has been greatly influenced by China, historically speaking (I've even met people who think Koreans are Chinese!). That China has contributed so much to the world is an undisputed fact, but I also think the reality right now is that China has fallen from its former glory. There are many reasons for this, Western incursion being one, but that does not excuse the present government for acting the way it does. True, China has made great progress, and I hope that progress continues, but there are still areas that need some work.

As for people who have never visited China criticizing China, do you think that everyone who criticizes the U.S. (which pretty much covers everyone outside the U.S.) has visited the States? I don't think one is any more or any less hypocritical than the other. Not to be rude, but to pretend that China is the innocent victim of foreign criticism is absurd. China engages is mudslinging just like everyone else does.

As for Tibet and Taiwan being flash points, I agree. But let's face it, all of Asia eyes China with no little concern. If the current trends toward democracy were to reverse, I can guarantee a lot of people would be very nervous. So let's hope that China continues to progress, and we are all able to live together in peace.

Sorry if I was a bit harsh up there, but considering what I do and where I live I have to take this stuff seriously. No hard feelings?

quote:

---

(I've even met people who think Koreans are Chinese!).

---

(No offense meant to any of the groups mentioned in this post....) You show a group of Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Africans, and just about any other nationality a series of pictures consisting of southeast asians, and most of them will get over half wrong. It's a simple fact. Studies show (can't be bothered to give proof, but trust me on this ) that most Americans can't tell the difference between a Pacific Islander (say, the Philippines) from a Korean.

Well I haven't been to China this year, but I've certainly been there.

If you want to discuss criticism of China thats fine, but are you honestly suggestion that China does not have a (what is defined as) human rights problem?

-Jestah

quote:

---

(No offense meant to any of the groups mentioned in this post....) You show a group of Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, Europeans, Africans, and just about any other nationality a series of pictures consisting of southeast asians, and most of them will get over half wrong. It's a simple fact. Studies show (can't be bothered to give proof, but trust me on this ) that most Americans can't tell the difference between a Pacific Islander (say, the Philippines) from a Korean.

---

I totally agree with you, Raptor, but that's not what I meant. I meant that I've met people who think that Koreans are just Chinese who happened to have moved to Korea way back when.

Heck, not even Asians can always tell other Asians apart before they open their mouths .

quote:

---

Studies show (can't be bothered to give proof, but trust me on this ) that most Americans can't tell the difference between a Pacific Islander (say, the Philippines) from a Korean.

---

Anyone remember this study: "50% of the Americans are unable to find their own country on a world map"
(some years ago, but I don´t think that has changed much).

quote:

---

Anyone remember this study: "50% of the Americans are unable to find their own country on a world map"

---

Sad, but most probably true. Although I would like to think that the ready availability of information on the Internet might have changed this (not likely, I know).

On another note, I wonder if vanvanta is going to come back to discuss the issue with us, or if this is going to devolve into a discussion of the ignorance of the average American. Personally, I'd prefer the former.

Oh, I don't know...I think that both subjects are somehow tied together, don't you think? Just my thoughts...I once considered myself 'soley' as american...before I discovered the world...

Hmm... well, I definitely know what you mean about discovering the world, but I don't know if the two subjects are tied together. Then again (upon reflection), I'm not sure what the subject of this thread really is. vanvanta's first post was more a less a general complaint about the tendency to criticize China, and then everyone (yours truly included) came up with reasons why that criticism is justified.

I suppose, though, you could be right. The general theme of "ignorance" is certainly related to cross-cultural criticism, but I don't think it's a trait limited to Americans. I've met plenty of ignorant people from all over the world.

This may be somewhat related... I heard a joke when I first came to Korea that went like this:

What do you call a person who speaks two languages?

Bilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks three languages?

Trilingual.

What do you call a person who speaks one language?

American.

It was funny at the time, but I think I remember it because of how shocking (for lack of a better word) it was to me at the time. At least in the area of languages, I'll admit that Americans do tend to be pretty provincial.

What i had posted here is only one of my opinions about china.
I agree that there are still quite a lot of human right problem in china.

I want to make sth clear now
1.Tibet has belonged to china for a very long time since Qing Dynasty.The leader of Tibet was appointed by the central government since that time.The tibet people has the same right as other chinese.the word "chinese"
,i think ,refer to the people in china including ethnic minority.
2.I also agree that china still not a real democracy country .some of the posts said that the china government is not eleceted by the people.The china election system is not the same as USA,because we have a absolutely different situation like USA.the quantity of china is much more than the us,there also quite a lot of poor people in
china.If we establish the similar election system like usa now ,it means expensive costs ,consider the china economy situation ,it is not a very good way to reach the democracy.
3.There is still a question we should consider,wether the western democracy system fits china .
I think a politics system should fit a country.from the china histrory ,we can see that the sun yixian have try his best to establish a western democracy country in china but he fail ,why?I think ,the system is not fit the china now,
if we establish it ,the situation will be out of control,...chaos.

the tiananmen square affair is a tragedy.(i felt very sad when i got that news and i really want the government to appologize to the students).except the blood of students ,i also saw other things---chaos,fire,violence,burglars and bandits take this chance to destroy the society order...
if the law is broken,the freedom will lose protection.
my suggestion is that we should improve our democracy step by step.

thanks you can reply my post ,i have a wish to improve china democracy ,your suggestions borden my mind.



i love beatles

Vanvanta, you bring up some good points, especially about the problems that would arise (in terms of infrastructure) if popular elections were to be held. You also pointed up a Western conception that the Western form of democracy is the end-all be-all of government. I think it is absolutely fair to ask what form of government is appropriate for China at this stage in history, rather than assuming that a Western democracy is the way to go.

I also think I understand better what you were trying to say in your first post: that applying Western conceptions and values to China is inappropriate (close?).

Since you agree that there are still human rights issues in China, I don't think it is necessary to harp on this point any further. Also, I think a discussion of Tibet or Taiwan would be futile (we'd probably have as much success arguing the existence/non-existence of God).

You said that past attempts to establish a Western democracy in China failed. Why do you think this happened? I'm probably speaking for most of the people here when I say I am not even close to being an expert on Chinese history. Perhaps you would care to share your thoughts on why it didn't work out? Was it because the timing was wrong, or was it a problem that transcends time?

How do you think we should approach this? Should we discuss what needs to change in China to prepare it for a Western-style democracy? Or do you think other forms of government should be examined?

Sorry for all the questions, but despite my current ignorance, I have a very great interest in China. As a student of Korean folklore and culture, Chinese culture and history is very important for me in my development as a well-rounded scholar. I also think China is going to play an increasingly important role in world society. And, to top it off, I may even be going to China to teach in a few years if things work out. That should explain my interest .

I look forward to hearing your ideas.



[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-29-2002).]

I don't understand why it must be a 'western-style' democracy...that sounds...somehow detrimental. All that democracy means, is that power is shared by the people, and not concentrated to a few. Do normal chinese citizens have a say in what laws are governing them? What type of freedoms are protected under the chinese constitution? As far as I know, many laws in china are those that were originally implimented under Ghangis Khan. Are these laws then contemporary, and do they still apply in a modern world?

What about freedom of speech, freedom of religion and other rights? These are all questions that I have.

suh1004 thank you for your question
Why do you think this happened?
why the western democracy do not exist in china now?
i have been thingking of this question for quite a long time .
I will write an article about it recently .please wait

WebShaman
your question is very also important when we talk about this issue.
I will post some background materials of it here,please wait


i love beatles

I post the Constitution of the People Republic of China here.You can know that the
human rights that are protected by law in detail.Maybe it is too long You need quite a lot of patience.
(btw:i major in International Law now ,if you have more questions about it ,wellcome to discuss with me)




i love beatles

[This message has been edited by vanvanta (edited 04-29-2002).]

[This message has been edited by vanvanta (edited 04-29-2002).]

consider this issue ,please read the article 3 and 4,it explain some question of you .
I think ,the constitution of PR.China has protect the basic human right of chinese .
The democratic election is different to the other western style democracy .It is based on china society.

i love beatles

Well, after reading through this, a couple of things 'pop' out. First, there doesn't seem to be any type of 'check and balance' systems. Which means, there is no way to 'regulate' the main partys policy. And, of course, any attempt to do this is prohibited:

quote:

---

Disruption of the socialist system by any
organization or individual is prohibited.

---

which is basically the same thing as saying 'We are democratic, decide which policy and laws that will be followed, and any voice to the contrary is illegal'. Hardly a basis to conduct democratic proceedings.

Also, I'm not quite clear on how the elections work. Do people actually vote? Or are there 'electorial representatives' that automatically 'assume' the role of voters?

Also, the preamble is really just 'jargon' of the 'glory' of the socialistic systems won war against the older system...which comes across as just propaganda.

And the point (especially to the threads original point) that Taiwan is a part of mainland China is addressed, Tibet is not. Is then the 'invasion' (or re-intergration, if you will) of Tibet then illegal? It would seem so.

Also, the revolution was brought about with the gun. However, China now has some of the tightest gun-control laws on the planet - I'm not sure how to re-consolidate that with the past. Seems that 'they' don't want something like that to occur again...

And why are people not allowed to voice their 'displeasure' legally against the system? In what form are they supposed to show 'displeasure'? Or allowed to?

Thank you for at least taking the time to 'educate' those of us with little understanding...it's hard to understand something from outside...

vanvanta: thanks for the info, but that's a bit much to post in a thread here . If you would, could you please erase the constitution from the above post? Thanks.

The online version of the Chinese constitution.

WebShaman: I deliberately used the terminology "Western-style democracy" because vanvanta specifically mentioned that an experiment with Western democracy was attempted. By using the term overtly, we are hopefully calling attention to the fact that it may not be the only type of democracy. I agree with your definition of democracy as a concept, but the various instances of democracy that exist in reality have a lot of cultural baggage attached. I bet if you asked anyone to define democracy you would get a far broader definition. It's that cultural baggage that we are trying to draw attention to.

(And please, for the love of God, don't ask me to define democracy )

[Edit: found the online version of the constitution...]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-29-2002).]

Ok, then how about 'cultural baggage'? And what, exactly, has that to do with democracy? For example, South Korea has implimented a democratic system. Is it all that bad? And how would you compare that to the current system in China? Do you think it would work for China?

It goes to reason, that every democratic system is different from others, because of its inherent nature, namely, that it is democratic 'of the people, by the people'. Therefore, I don't see 'cultural baggage' as playing a great role here. Rather, it is the fundamental building- blocks of a system that define whether or not it is democratic. And they are by nature the same.

Examples in this case: England, Canada, France, (well, most of Europe, really), Austrailia, New Zealand, and don't forget the worlds oldest (that is currently in existence), Iceland! All are democratic in nature, but very different from one another 'culturally'. However, the building-blocks of these democratic systems are the same: 'by the people, for the people'.

OK, then. I've just read through the first two chapters (through Article 56), and I've got some thoughts. Of course, WebShaman brought up the most obvious point, and I have no choice but to start from there (I skipped the preamble; I've already read the North Korean constitution, so I figured I could give this a miss).

quote:

---

Disruption of the socialist state by any organization or individual is prohibited. (Article 1, excerpt)

---

This pretty much sets the stage for everything else. Basically, it give the Chinese government an "out"--they can say that the citizens have any rights that they want, but when things get hot they can always refer to Article 1 (notice how it's the very first article, too).

quote:

---

The state assists areas inhabited by minority nationalities accelerating their economic and cultural development according to the characteristics and needs of the various minority nationalities. (Article 4, excerpt)

---

"...accelerating their economic and cultural development"? Could be a nicely worded way of saying that the government plans on acculturating minority groups. Could also be innocent...

quote:

---

The state upholds the uniformity and dignity of the socialist legal system.

No laws or administrative or local rules and regulations may contravene the Constitution.

All state organs, the armed forces, all political parties and public organizations and all enterprises and institutions must abide by the Constitution and the law. All acts in violation of the Constitution and the law must be investigated.

No organization or individual is privileged to be beyond the Constitution or the law. (Article 5, in full)

---

Any constitution needs this sort of clause, but given what we saw in Article 1 it merely reinforces the government's position.

quote:

---

The state promotes family planning so that population growth may fit the plans for economic and social development. (Article 25, in full)

---

This is where things get interesting. What exactly does "promote" mean here? From the wording in Article 49 ("Both husband and wife have the duty to practice family planning"), it apparently means enforces. Now I'm not saying that family planning is necessarily a bad idea, but when it becomes law it is way too invasive. Moving on...

quote:

---

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief.

No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion.

The state protects normal religious activities. No one may make use of religion to engage in activities that disrupt public order, impair the health of citizens or interfere with the educational system of the state.

Religious bodies and religious affairs are not subject to any foreign domination. (Articles 35-36, in full)

---

Again, the government gives themselves an out here. Religion could have been covered in Article 35 (the first sentence above), but the government apparently felt it warranted a separate Article, complete with "disclaimers" that would allow the government to revoke this right at their whim. It is also interesting to note that religion is not allowed to interfere with education...

quote:

---

Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right as well as the duty to receive education.

The state promotes the all-round development of children and young people, morally, intellectually and physically. (Article 46, in full)

---

I think now the concept of "education" becomes clearer. Children have the "duty" to receive education. Sounds a bit like indoctrination to me.

quote:

---

Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions regarding any state organ or functionary. Citizens have the right to make to relevant state organs complaints or charges against, or exposures of, any state organ or functionary for violation of the law or dereliction of duty, but fabrication or distortion of facts for purposes of libel or false incrimination is prohibited.

The state organ concerned must deal with complaints, charges or exposures made by citizens in a responsible manner after ascertaining the facts. No one may suppress such complaints, charges and exposures or retaliate against the citizens making them.

Citizens who have suffered losses as a result of infringement of their civic rights by any state organ or functionary have the right to compensation in accordance with the law. (Article 41, in full)

---

I quoted this in full because it demonstrates how Article 1 can be used to cancel out the rest of the constitution when the government deems it necessary. I do not need to enumerate here the number of times Chinese citizens have been denied the right clearly spelled out here.

OK, vanvanta, those are my thoughts for now. I deliberately kept them brief, but if there is any specific issue you would like to discuss in further detail, let me know. I'm particularly interested in hearing your thoughts on Article 1.

WebShaman: You don't need me to define 'cultural baggage' for you.

Honestly, though, I don't see why you are badgering me about this. I completely agree with you. The only reason I used the term "Western democracy" is because that's the way vanvanta put it.

To answer your question, though, cultural baggage shouldn't have anything to do with democracy, but it does. I do understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure if you understand what I am saying. Yes, every democracy is different--that is exactly my point. But just because that is true does not mean those differences aren't important. Vanvanta pointed out that the democracy tried in China was a "Western democracy," which means it was a style of democracy developed in a Western culture.

If China were to develop its own democracy, it would have to start from the building blocks, rather than trying to adopt another culture's version of democracy. If I am not mistaken, this is what you are saying. This is also what I am saying (or trying to say). So, are we on the same page now?

Yes. Very well formulated, I must say. And your research was very far reaching, and very well supported. Kudos.

I don't wish to give you the impression that I have been 'hounding' you. That is not the case. More, I just wished to bring this on an open playing field, if you will. Often, one uses terms that obscure the point. I just didn't wish to misunderstand you, and merely asked for clarification. I see that you have done a very good job of that. My thanks.

I enjoy exchanging information on these topics with you. Why? It is very seldom, if never, that I have had the chance to talk with someone from these areas (Korea, China). An inside view is always welcome, and allows me the chance to 'corrigate' some of my misunderstandings. I am looking forward to more.

There are so many question above that they really draw me mad! :P(just a joke)
It seem that the most important question is the article 1.
the main word "disruption" should be discussed.
The constitution that posted here is an english version.
as you know , if we explain a concept in 2 different language , it is hard to make it clear.
I want to know what is the meaning of "disruption" in your opinion.
IF we make it clear ,we continue our discussion.
btw,there is a question , what will the us do when someone plan to establish socialism system in us and destroy the us capitalism system.I read sth that happen in us during the 60~70s.
I agree with webshaman in the fundamental building-block of democratic system are by nature the same.
that is :by the people,for the people.
My question is that how can you say that the china system does not have that fundamental building-block?:P

here is some of my opinions on article 4:
"...accelerating their economic and cultural development"
It does not mean acculturating.I think you maybe misunderstand it .
many minority nationalities in china live in poor regions.Accelerating their cultural development means the country provide money and other good policy to them to develop their own culture.They can have their own customs and creat their own
arts without being forced to obey other cultures.It means protect and encourage them make their own culture .
In fact ,the minority in china still keep their own art ,they remain their own characters.
when we travel to the west ,the tourists like to buy the art there ,why?because they have their the minority 's
art characters,they are very different from the Han art or other western art.
Some times I ask myself,can we call the cocacola drinking and pizzahut eating trend is a kind of acculturation?

about article 25:
"promote" here does not mean it is a duty.
You know, china has a large population ,if it do not control the population , it will be a very serious problem .
family planning is a special measure in china .I can see that put it in the constitution does not mean any invasion.
chinese people accept it now.
when the country put this measure into practice,the government handle it in different ways in different regions.
For example,in the minority regions,people can have 2 or 3 or more children.
The purpose of this ,i think,is to keep the quantity of them.

Article 41:about the education "duty"
I can tell you that in china textbook,it make it clear that the education is a duty and right .
(hard to understand,he:P)
It has established a 9-years duty education system.It means the children must go to the school when they reach the age.It is good to chinas future .In china culture,the children should go to school when they reach the school age.So,i think it reflect chinas culture (baggage:P)
People in china will not against this .On the contrary ,they think ,it is very necessary.

Let us continue our discussion,it make me much clear about some questions.
I also find quite a lot of unfair things in our law .

When we discuss these question ,i think,one principle we should consider,that is :You must consider the
situation of that problem occurs.If you are in that situation,what should you do ?
If you do this ,(maybe it is right ),a lot of people against you ,what should you do ?



i love beatles

WebShaman: Thanks for being open and understanding about this. You are right, of course, about terminology. I remember many times during my university years when I would argue with my friends far into the night, only to discover (as the sun was rising) that we were actually talking about the same thing--but we had different definitions for our terminology.

About the "hounding" part. Eh, just forget that. I was a tad agitated at the time (due to something that had nothing to do with the Asylum), so I guess that kind of spilled over here. I shouldn't have let that happen. I'm glad you were able to take everything in stride .

vanvanta: I think the de facto situation in the U.S. is a lot different from the de jure situation--the law may allow a number of parties, but in actuality only two parties have any real power (but other parties can play spoiler). The point is that this is a natural development, though, and not mandated by law. Also, dissenting opinions voiced by the citizens of the U.S. are a very commonplace occurence, and as long as one demonstrates peacefully, the government can't do anything about it. This is a good thing.

Let me turn away from the U.S. and turn to Korea for a moment. You may or may not be familiar with modern Korean history, but for those who aren't here is a (very brief) summary: Korea was a colony of Japan from 1910 to 1945, when the Japanese surrendered to the Allies. Soviet troops occupied the northern half of Korea, and the U.S. rushed troops to the southern half in order to prevent Communist domination on the peninsula. This led to the establishment of two different forms of government (neither was democratic, by the way--Syngman Rhee was essentially "appointed" by the U.S.). In 1950, the North invaded the South, and three years of fighting left the borders pretty much where they had been at the start. The war did serve, however, to form a river of blood, fear, and hate between the two halves, more or less permanently dividing them into two countries.

In South Korea, Syngman Rhee ruled as a despot from 1948 to 1960. In name he was democratically elected, but he resorted to bending (or amending) the law and assassination. By 1960, though, the people had finally had enough. On April 19, 30,000 students marched on the presidential palace and were fired upon by the police. This disgrace forced Rhee to resign, and for the next twenty or so years Korea was governed by authoritarian leaders who ruled with iron fists. Korea did not have a democractically elected president until 1988, making true democracy in Korea less than 15 years old.

Why all this history? Because there is one thing that was constant throughout the entire period I have described (including the Japanese colonial period): popular demonstrations. In the end, it was the people who brought about democracy. The Chinese government knows this, which is why they squash anything that may result in dissent.

As to your defense that "disruption" is perhaps mistranslated, I agree with you. I have taken a look at the Chinese original (yes, I can read a little Chinese ), and the word used is po-huai (forgive the lack of diacriticals)--in Korean we pronounce this word "pa-gway." It does not mean "disruption," but "destruction," "demolition," or "breakdown." I believe the translators used "disruption" because it is not as harsh a word as "destruction."

So, at least in my case, there is no confusion in terms of language. I still hold to my point. If you take a look at the U.S. Declaration of Independence, you will notice that it begins with the premise that the government, if it is no longer fit for the people, can and should be overthrown. The Chinese constitution, however, expressly denies this. I stand by my original comments on Article 1.

As for the other points: you had some good points on Article 4, and I'll let the education issue go. You pointed out that Article 25 says "promote," which means that family planning is not mandatory, but Article 49 says it is a "duty." The issue here is not whether China needs family planning or not--I think everyone will agree that family planning is necessary to some extent. I just have a problem with the government trying to make it law.

Also, as I'm sure you know, family planning and Confucianism do not mix. Why do you think there are so many more boys than girls in Asia (this includes Korea)? I agree that it is a thorny problem, and a solution is needed, but I don't think a government mandate is the way to go. This issue, though, is really secondary to Article 1.

[Edit: minor grammatical corrections...]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-30-2002).]

suho1004 :what you had said about the korea history enrich my knowledge on this field.
we draw a conclusion from it that the democracization is not a quick-play game,it will take quite a long time .As you know,china is larger than korea.
In the china history ,the feudal system last for more than 2000 years. the government of every dynasty always take a centralized system to control the people.It means ,the chinese are customed to obey the empirer and has no democratical tradition.Not like
korea and japan,though china was attacked by other democratical country ,even some of its regions were occupied in the last centry ,but its whole territory was never really occupied by a country ,so it did not receive a democacy "help" just like other asia country.
Sun yat sen tried to establish a democracy system like usa,but result is that the government has no really power to control the whole country. Every province was
occupied by many warlords.They were not elected by people ,because they had their own army ,they forced people to elect them to be the lawful leader.The situation turns bad.

The sun yat sens followers(guomin party) and china communist party cooperated to defeat the warlords and reunite the whole country again (most of the chinese support them)
After the war between the 2 parties,communists won.They became the leader.
As you had said,usa change their government in a peace way ,but in china ,i can tell that ,I have never heard of a government was created in a peace way .
The power came from the gun .
It is a belief of china ,at least now .
To rule the china,you must have your army,thats why communism party will not give up
their power.They know,in china,giving up power means they will become the "democracy " victim.
Sun yat sen story and many old stories had proved it .
Imagine you in such a condition ,what you should do .
That is the why the article 1 was made.

So,the democracy mind is a central problem.
To reach that real democracy ,(i agree with you that usa democracy is more developed)
,what we have to do is to creat a enviroment that everybody will have that mind.

I can tell you that most of the chinese pay more attention to the stability of china .In their mind now ,economy development (make money ) is the first job now .
A lot of them don care much about the election right.
They will choose a strengh power to maintain country ,since now there is no other power to maintain the peace ,communists are also ok.

It seems that the article 1 is a little absurd ,but it really have its existing reason.

I can tell you that ,i hope the real democrocy will come in the future.
The democracy under this constitution has its practical significance.

then ,after my thinking ,i agree with you that the family planning should not
be put in the constitution,because the constitution should not include such kind of ]
things.but ,on the other hand ,do you think if we delete it ,what we have done will do
something significant to the people here?(just a joke)

One thing i want to tell you is that the people here gain quite a lot of human rights than they were in the "culture revolution"period(1966~1976).


i love beatles

This is perhaps some of the most in-depth discussions that I have ever had the privelige of being apart of concerning Asia. These insights will remain with me, I'm now trying to sort them out. I would like to thank both of you for not degenerating into a 'flame-war' on this one. Very nicely supported arguments on both sides. Sometimes it's not easy remaining calm when discussing such 'emotional' issues.

As to whether or not China will become a democratic system, is of great interest to the world. Some here in the West (if you will) regard China with uneasy eyes. It comes as no great surprise that China has a long memory, and has never forgotten what the 'West' has done to China in the past.

Of course, the world would welcome China with open arms when it finally 'decides' to become 'fundamentally' democratic. We all had hopes that the 'tianamen square' demonstrations would bring this about. Unfortunately, this was not the case, and just proved without a shadow of a doubt, that the current powers that be in China will not allow their power to slip out of their grasp without bloodshed. Currently the hope is that economic ties will 'loosen' the grip of power that the Communists have on China, allowing for a transision to a democratic system. Also, the fact that China represents one of the 'biggest' untapped economic areas on the Globe (read -> Greed) is a deciding factor at the moment as to why the world 'looks away' from human rights abuses there. And of course, China knows this. how long the world is willing to tolerate this, is uncertain. The fact remains, that Communism as a system has been proven not to work. Just ask the North Koreans.

How long China can continue to support this system, and remain economically viable in todays world, is questionable.

To suggest that the Chinese people could not 'handle' a democratic system is, I think, unjustifiable. One must remember that Europe also went through a long series of bloody conflicts before settling down on democracy. It works. It would also work in China. Just my opinion.

vanvanta: First of all, I must say I am very impressed with the way you have been responding to the posts here, especially mine. I don't mean to sound condescending, but you've kept a level head and a good sense of humour and you've been willing to engage in intelligent conversation. I really appreciate that .

quote:

---

As you know,china is larger than korea.

---

No kidding? Actually, China is approximately 100 times bigger than South Korea. The lack of infrastructure in China makes things like national elections really difficult. That's a fact that can't be ignored.

Also, I now remember what happened with Sun Yat Sen, now that you've explained it further. I remember reading about it a while back, but I had forgotten.

quote:

---

As you had said,usa change their government in a peace way ,but in china ,i can tell that ,I have never heard of a government was created in a peace way . The power came from the gun .

---

You mean Korea, right? Because the U.S. had this little skirmish called the Revolutionary War . Actually, there have been a number of "people's power" revolutions that succeeded without armed revolt. I don't think power always comes from "the barrel of a gun." I do understand, though, that that was one of Mao's prime tenets, and it has since been adopted by North Korea. I just think that there are other ways. (I would say, though, that changing the government without bloodshed is very difficult.)

And yes, it does pretty much explain Article 1 (as I think WebShaman mentioned above at some point). When you seize power through violence, you're always afraid that someone is going to do the same thing to you.

quote:

---

I can tell you that most of the chinese pay more attention to the stability of china .In their mind now ,economy development (make money ) is the first job now .

---

Yep, it's the "prosperity first theory." (Maybe "xian-fu-lun" in Chinese? I'm relying on my word processor's Chinese character dictionary, so it may not be correct.) That's something I wish North Korea would pick up on.

I know that the situation has improved in China, and for everyone's sake I hope it continues to improve. I hope to see it for myself someday soon.

[Edit: Chinese characters didn't work ]

[This message has been edited by Suho1004 (edited 04-30-2002).]

WebShaman: that's the second time in this thread you've done that to me--post before me while I'm writing a lengthy message! You've got the timing down pat .

The spirits of the web inform me of such things...just kidding. Hope it doesn't become a habit...peacepipe, anyone?

Yeah, pass that thing this way. I missed my last round of meds...

I think it will take we Chinese a very long time to found a real democracy system. Most Chinese know little about law, they even don't have a common sence of law. The long history can be glory but now a heavy burden I think. In a traditional(ancient) Chinese view, everyone can have a dream of absolute power, so revelution brings nothing new but a new king. Many good ideas will turn to useless things when they come to China.

I have ever discussed something about constitution with many Chinese, but disappointed to find many people put their belief in violence and don't trust the intellectual at all. Yesterday when I said something about 'due process of law', I was sad to see many people against this idea, one even said 'it's so good to kill'.

What can we achieve when constitution is just a piece of useless paper? Another revelution? But what should be done after the revelution. I'm not optimistic about the future democratization of China but I will try my best to do someting.

Very glad to see a deep discussion here.

Welcome to the Asylum, freerain! Glad to have a new voice in the conversation.

I can see how you would be discouraged... but hopefully China is moving in the right direction. I know it's going to take more than just hope, but the fact that there are open-minded people like you and vanvanta is a good sign, don't you think? I also think the Internet will go a long way in introducing new ideas to the people of China, and allow those who want to express their opinions a forum to do so.

I think freedom is an inexorable tide that will continue to beat at the walls of oppression until they crumble. It has happened before (the Berlin Wall, for example), and it will happen again.

Yeah, I'm an idealist .

Well, I'm a realist, but I know from experience that change can be brought about if one really wants it, and persues it. I especially like the fact that we now have another voice from China here. Welcome to the Asylum freerain. Enjoy your stay here. Love the name.

And yes, as suho1004 can add witness to, it is possible to change things. I strongly believe that China will 'wake up' and demand freedom and democracy one day. With people like freerain and vanvanta now starting to ask questions and 'flexing' their 'internet' muscles, so to speak, I believe that day is coming nearer. Information is more powerful than the sword, or the pen. Never give up. Never stop trying. That's how a river carves its way through a mountain. Relentlessly, over time. Just wish that my tomahawk was as effective against people in power as it is against rippers...

I did not imagine that the discuss of this issue will last so long I am very appreciated you put a good wish on china.

WebShaman:with the development of the economy of china ,i believe ,the democraciation is a unvoidable trend in china.IF china want to play a more important role in the world ,it should try to approch the world.I think this issue belongs to the "globalization".

I think "One must remember that Europe also went through a long series of bloody conflicts before settling down on democracy. It works. It would also work in China. "is reasonable.what most of the people think of that issue is one of the biggest barrels in front of us .Maybe as what you had said ,there will be a lot of blood in the future or through a peace way (I want to solve it in the 2nd way but in my mind ,it seems impossible).
to tell people how to "handle" it is a hard work .
it is also my work in the future no matter how much we will finish.

suho1004:You have a very serious academic attitude.
That is very good.

I have saw quite a lot of people that have the responsibility of democracy.

Maybe there will be some affair to start a blood or unblood revolution.

destroy the tiananmen square or crush the great wall ? :P
(I dont want them to become ash ,because they are our wealth.)

But I hope that this kind of affair will not happen now ,because people
just refresh from the pain of the chaos (1966~1976),
most of their life are still very poor
...

that is the "originally I~~ego ~sup-ego"problem (I only remmenber the expression of this in chinese )

btw:I am a realism supporter. :P

Freerain:I think we should introduce sth of china to the people here,

sometimes,i think ,misunderstanding will happen without really knowing each other.



i love beatles

Thank you very much for your opinions, WebShaman and Suho1004

Maybe I am a 'realistic idealist', so sometimes I got a little pessimistic.

I agree that democracy need a sufficient foundation, and when we come to this we have to look into the history. Since Chinese suffered much pain from the west countries in the past, many people have a natural antipathy toward 'western democracy' though it actually does good to everyone. Chinese need time to learn more about democracy. Dr. Sun yat sen tried to implement a constitution but in fact it was he himself broke it, he failed to start a tradition of constitution and democracy. No one can change a 2000-year-history in one night, that is the problem of 'foundation'. How can we deal with the situation If people are 'willing to be slaves'.

Something are on the way, but the dictators have more resources. Two years ago I can easily loggin foreign website but I can't now, I can't even read about news from CNN or BBC unless I find a reliable proxy server. And we now have a new kind of job sometimes named 'web policeman', they are 'secret agent online', if I say something against the government online I may be in trouble in the near future, my IP will be spotted. Sounds a little terrible? I just mean to say although we have made some progress, but that may be far from enough.

Dictators tell people to focus on two things, the first is money, they may say 'I have made you rich, so don't ask me for democratic election', the second is hate towords outside, they may say 'hey, our enemy is outside, so don't point at me, we should be more powerful to defend, I need power for your sake'. I know many people have been deceived, the number of jacobinical nationalists is growing these years. These all make me worry.

I have no doubt about the victory of democracy in China, but I don't know how much pain will Chinese people still yet to suffer.

vanvanta,

Thank you for your insights and willingness to discuss these things. This is a very informative discussion.

That being said, I have a few comments/questions.

If you think it's ok to invade your neighboring countries because they once belonged to you, like Tibet, how many other countries are on the list? When will you be finished?

How is this any different than Iraq invading Kuwait under the exact same pretext?

If your government knew you wanted democracy in China, would they do anything about it? Do they know you are saying these things in an open forum like this? We have already seen what happens to demonstrators on your streets but what happens to demonstrators in the written word?

Could you publish this conversation in any Chinese newspaper?

quote:

---

I can tell you that most of the chinese pay more attention to the stability of china .In their mind now ,economy development (make money ) is the first job now

---

As long as there is no love of freedom from the people, then there will be no hope for democracy. I will take a wait and see approach to whether this prosperity first method works. I pray that it will.

Nothing would make be happier than to see China free itself from its current oppressive government. I will be very honest with you that I have a great deal of anger and moral outrage against governments such as yours. That is one of the reasons I've not replied too much to this thread because it is difficult for me to separate my emotions from my intellect on this issue. Suffice it to say that I think that discussions such as these are very good and I look forward to continuing it respectfully.

freerain, I just read your post after I posted my last one. All I can say is that I agree with you 100% on your view.

Well, I always try to stick by my idealism, but I guess you could say that I'm an idealist who lives in the real world, or as freerain said, a "realistic idealist" (I like that term). It's a bit different from being a romantic. I agree with you, freerain: I fear that democracy will come at great prince in China--but it will come.

That's also a good point you make about the prosperity first theory. It could very well be an effective ploy to take the people's minds off of democracy. I read a lot of North Korean media in my work, so I am somewhat used to propoganda. It sometimes seems very inviting, but in reality it is deadly, like sugar-coated poison. At other times I wonder how anyone could ever believe something like that. Then I remember that they often don't have a choice.

You know, I was wondering about freedom on the Internet in China. I am not surprised to hear that they now have an Internet secret police. I know that they used to have people infiltrate underground churches to expose them, and sometimes whole congregations were executed. I'm not sure if this sort of thing still happens in China. How is religious freedom coming along? The (relatively) recent developments with Falun Gong don't give me much hope in that area quite yet.

quote:

---

that is the "originally I~~ego ~sup-ego"problem (I only remmenber the expression of this in chinese )

---

Not quite sure what you mean... Maybe you could supply the original Chinese?

Bugimus: I don't think we should focus on China's invasion of neighboring countries. While perhaps not right, the same can be said of any major power. Don't forget that the US spread "from sea to shining sea" through a conquest of Native American lands, and they didn't even have the excuse of once owning that territory! Anyway, it's a very sensitive national issue in China, and I don't think we would resolve much by arguing it here. I think if democracy took hold in China, those problems would be addressed. All in good time...

Well, we definitely have quite a discussion going here. But I do have one question for vanvanta. The reason I think that Bugimus is bringing up the Tibet and Taiwan questions is that this discussion is named "a discussion on Taiwan." It hasn't turned out to be that (thankfully), but why did you give it that title when you first started the post? Was that just what you were thinking about at the time?

Of course, if either you or freerain want to address the Tibet and Taiwan issues, please feel free. But I don't want to pressure you into having to answer this. I do feel, though, that we are all mature enough here to discuss volatile issues without allowing the conversation to devolve into a flame war.