East Asia United
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Aug 21, 2012
- Messages
- 483
- Reaction score
- 2
good suggestion. As far as I know, China has adopted some Singapore system in 1990s, but I cannot remember what it is...
As for Chinese central government and top leaders, they prefer establishing experimental reform areas with diffenrent themes. These reform areas are designated diffenrent task and policy advantage. They are encouraged to conduct reform in specific areas.
For example:
Financial experimental reform area in Wenzhou where private borrowing sector is vibrant.
International trade comprehensive reform areas in Yiwu.
Economical natrual resources development experimental area in Shanxi where coal resources are threat to environment.
National new industrialization experimental area in Shenyang where industry is firstly developed in China.
Central economic area where agricultural industry is of high importance to the food supply of China.
There are 20+ these experimental areas in China now.
Chinese politicians are trying to reform in essential areas but they do not want to carry out and apply the same policy to the whole country where different development situation exists.
But I think the progress is too slow, they should be more confident and aggressive.
I think there is a large problem with China today.
Chinese see the CPC as the party that brought them so much wealth in such a short time. They look at the other 3rd world countries in the world, and they can do nothing but memorize at the amazing growth rates that the Communist Party has given to the country. 10% GDP growth per annum, for 35 years running? Impossible! And yet it was done. Surely this shows the superiority of Marxist-Leninism, or at least the political system within China and the individuals running it?
One problem: That problem is what Chinese initially did: Compared themselves to other 3rd world peoples' that China (or any East Asian country) have virtually nothing in common with, and from this they assessed that because these other developing countries are not catching-up anywhere as fast as China, the Chinese politicians must be doing something right.
They forget that China is growing because of the individual Chinese innate intelligence, and that China, whether she be run by the CPC, or the Singaporean model, or by liberal democracy, or by state capitalism, or any other form of political/economic system, will rapidly catch up (provided there aren't any Stalin's, Hitler's, or Mao's along the way).
This is the problem with China. China should recognize that the CPC has little to do with China's amazing success. China's amazing success comes from their high average intelligence as East Asian peoples', and therefore the political system should only serve the people in a way that maximizes what they already have (instead of banning, repressing, restricting, etc).
In reality, political/economic systems like China's are a HINDRANCE to economic development, not a benefit (look at all the examples around the world). So it's all the more impressive that China (the only country with a heavy authoritarian streak in the fastest growing nations) is developing as fast as it is.
While India, on the opposite spectrum, has ALL the key political motivators for growth, ALL the key Western political institutions (heck, even built by Westerners) that the West has used for their powerful and prosperous economies, yet they are one of the poorest countries on Earth, with consistently lower growth rates than China.
In effect, India has the institutions that cultivate growth, China does not, and yet China continues to outperform India in every metric. Can you imagine if the two were switched for just a second? India would become a 4th world dump worthy of only sub-Saharan Africa, while Chinese people would choose how fast (and how high) to soar.