Why China has only one chance.

[Bussard Ramjet]

Your thread title is always catching but full of bullshit. If you learn our history, we broke up many times and always came back together as once after the central govt took military action to get rid of warlordism. You mistaken us with the Middle-east. Their central govt is a lot of weaker than us and as you know, it is not easy to mess around with a nuclear power. LOL

Yes China came together. But that was a totally different era. This time if you break, you will immediately be partitioned by other powers, and it will be tough to put them together, precisely because a new nuclear status quo would have been established.

Also, don't talk about nukes or military, for USSR had enough, nothing prevented for their break up.

Oh yea? Do you live in Hong Kong? How many people in Hong Kong do you know personally? Or are you basing your assumption on western news media? I think I'll go with the latter.

I am talking on the basis of my extensive talks with all kinds of HK people. Plus, I see multiple opinion surveys run by different Universities and even Mainland Institutions.

I think that the ambivalence towards Mainlland, particularly among young native Hong Kongers can't be denied.

He is simply brainwashed by the Western Media. My wife is from Hong Kong. My Wife's family have been in Hong Kong for generations. Most Hong Kong people with Chinese passports are very patriotic and most people have assets and relatives in mainland. I visit Hong Kong one or two times almost every year. Now almost all Hong Kong children can speak mandarin fluently.

It is those people with foreign passports(mostly BNO) , or foreign descendants such as India and ASEAN, who are doing all of those bad things. They are also slowly sidelined. They are not allowed for many public positions. They are poor in Mandarin and some of them are even not allowed to enter mainland. If China could pass the security law in Hong Kong, all of those people could be deported, just as how western countries deport hostile aliens. That's why they are also requesting British to give residency for BNO. They just feel that they have nothing to lose and do many crazy things such as destroying Hong Kong commerce. There are nearly 3 million BNOs in Hong Kong. This is where the trouble comes from.

I agree with you at this point.

I have debated on twitter with many a people on Hong Kong, and got subsequently blocked.

Many of them were indeed foreign residents or other ethnicities in HK, creating trouble.

Yet, one can not still neglect that a lot of young HKers have a negative attitude.

 

[21stCentury]

Yes China came together. But that was a totally different era. This time if you break, you will immediately be partitioned by other powers, and it will be tough to put them together, precisely because a new nuclear status quo would have been established.

Also, don't talk about nukes or military, for USSR had enough, nothing prevented for their break up.



I am talking on the basis of my extensive talks with all kinds of HK people. Plus, I see multiple opinion surveys run by different Universities and even Mainland Institutions.

I think that the ambivalence towards Mainlland, particularly among young native Hong Kongers can't be denied.

I wouldn't worry about China breaking up anytime soon, not in this life time. If i were you id be more concerned about India being broken up into many different states, in which case expect Pakistan, China and others to grab a piece of some of the India pie.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

@Bussard Ramjet

Before the discussion with you, I must mention the difference between Chinese society and Indian society, in order to understand what happened in Tibet half a century ago.

India is a caste system country, you guys could be more pro the slave system. China always worked to seek and establish equal society after democratic revolution in 1912, after 1949, this social reform was continued, though economic policy is different with former one.

Dorjee might be a slave holder, I guess. In fact, most of Tibetan went to Sikkim, India, Buddan in 1960's were monks or noble rank. In Tibet, slave holder or noble rank were mostly monk.

Okay, I post my reply here.
Comparing to slave holder who escaped, most Tibetan chose to stay and supported central govt's reform policy. Some guys always like to use nowaday result to analyse 60 years-ago thing. This is very incorrect. What was Tibetan society 60 years ago? Tibetan had only two social rank, slave and slaveowner, 5% of population(monk rank, noble rank) controlled 100% of farmland, forest, grassland, etc; slaveowner had difinitely rights of punishing slave, even killed them for no reason, no trial. (Tell me if you understand slave system, if not, hard to discuss with you about the positiveness of 1950's reform in Tibet.)
China central govt so far has reformed and built an equal society in Tibet, this is like oxygen existing normally, but nobody feel it at any time. Ignore the huge improvement and contribution in Tibet but focus on the civil war in 1960's, which would cover the positive development of Tibetan society. Supposed you don't back the backward slave system, you'd better ask 14th Dalai Lama what was the real life of Tibet before 1960's. Seems the noble Tibetan living in India, Dalai Lama included rarely talked about Tibetan social situation back then.

Now, I post some old fotos how the freed Tibetan in 1950's-1960's celebrated their freedom, burned the unequal contract, got their own land, living materials.
Please, try to research the majority of Chinese Tibetan farmers and the minority Indian Tibetan noble what was like and what happened 50 years ago. Focusing on minority's complain and ignore the majority's heart is not a serious research. By the way, I need to say the Tibetan noble rank also have made obvious positive changes those years in India, they have given up slave system there as well nowadays.
View attachment 268582 View attachment 268583 View attachment 268584 View attachment 268585

Actually I don't like to talk about Tibetan slave history too oftern, for me, it like a kind insult of them. And this had been a long past old history, the period was over, slave system disappeared, we need to build more prosperous and modern Tibet based on this fruit. We haven't to mention it again and again if anti-China group don't use Dailai Lama to insult Tibet's great improvement.

Indeed man! I know this history and everything.

I don't fall for Tibetan propaganda, and trust me there's a lot of uncontested propaganda out there.

Yet, honesty must dictate to look at truth.

Irrespective of their liberation, almost all people still recognized as Tibetans. There are indeed issues in Tibet to varying degrees. Most people. I agree, just want to live their life. Yet, attitudes towards Beijing generally vary from indifference to outright hostility.

I wouldn't worry about China breaking up anytime soon, not in this life time. If i were you id be more concerned about India being broken up into many different states, in which case expect Pakistan, China and others to grab a piece of some of the India pie.

India won't break up due to many reasons.

Chief among them being that its political system has already shown the resiliency to fight against any separatism.

There was once many separatist movements. Today, I can only think of Kashmir, and possibly some in NE India to some extent.

What is the difference?

India allows nationalist parties to come in power when voted in.

You see, in a well established democracy, the main rules are respected by everyone. There are many benefits of having a secular, democracy.

I'm going for my break fast. I will type the response on my return.

 

[Place Of Space]

Indeed man! I know this history and everything.

I don't fall for Tibetan propaganda, and trust me there's a lot of uncontested propaganda out there.

Yet, honesty must dictate to look at truth.

Irrespective of their liberation, almost all people still recognized as Tibetans. There are indeed issues in Tibet to varying degrees. Most people. I agree, just want to live their life. Yet, attitudes towards Beijing generally vary from indifference to outright hostility.



India won't break up due to many reasons.

Chief among them being that its political system has already shown the resiliency to fight against any separatism.

There was once many separatist movements. Today, I can only think of Kashmir, and possibly some in NE India to some extent.

What is the difference?

India allows nationalist parties to come in power when voted in.

You see, in a well established democracy, the main rules are respected by everyone. There are many benefits of having a secular, democracy.

I'm going for my break fast. I will type the response on my return.

Really, China and India represents two roads/models of developing nations future.
Chinese road: firstly finish development or advanced economy, then improve and complete democracy on high level.
Indian road: firstly establish democracy, then improve and complete advanced economy.

 

[xunzi]

Yes China came together. But that was a totally different era. This time if you break, you will immediately be partitioned by other powers, and it will be tough to put them together, precisely because a new nuclear status quo would have been established.

Also, don't talk about nukes or military, for USSR had enough, nothing prevented for their break up.

You odd to learn more about history and break of USSR, young fella. LOL It is not comparable at all. USSR agreed (the central govt) to break up. No foreign powers can break up the USSR. PLEASE. They nuke the shit out of you if they find you have a hand on it. LOL So yes, it is still very relevant. Beside in our case, 90% of Chinese are han so it is safe to say any minority who want disintegration of China gotta fight us for it. Can we be clear on this? LOL

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

You odd to learn more about history and break of USSR, young fella. LOL It is not comparable at all. USSR agreed (the central govt) to break up. No foreign powers can break up the USSR. PLEASE. They nuke the shit out of you if they find you have a hand on it. LOL So yes, it is still very relevant. Beside in our case, 90% of Chinese are han so it is safe to say any minority who want disintegration of China gotta fight us for it. Can we be clear on this? LOL

I don't think there is problem with any minority except Tibetans and Uygur. Rest are all proud Chinese.

Second, I have always said, that foreign powers won't be able to break China.

But, if China goes through a political turmoil, then they will use it as an opportunity to leverage.

So China only needs to fear from itself. That is why I'm saying that CCP must evolve into a more plural entity, that allows more plurality of opinion.

Because I agree this is confirmed that China can grow weak only through internal repture. And that is what I have shown. Many people abroad are waiting to grab an opportunity for that.

Really, China and India represents two roads/models of developing nations future.
Chinese road: firstly finish development or advanced economy, then improve and complete democracy on high level.
Indian road: firstly establish democracy, then improve and complete advanced economy.

So as I was speaking earlier.

Why are well established democratic models so stable?

1. The rules are relatively clear and well established.
2. Powers are separated so that no one party or group can have more of it.
3. State is generally neutral, which means all group of people with different mindsets can work within the framework of the state. The only fighting to win over power is to convince enough people around to vote them.
4. Since, the rules are well established, any faction with enough popularity can come to power after winning elections. So there can never be an armed uprising or government overthrowing civil wars. (They can happen but they are rare, especially in a well established system)
5. The rule making is kept as transparent as possible and powers separated, so that the people in power are kept in check.

 

[Yizhi]

@Bussard Ramjet is this your new passion beyond demographics?!

 

[Nan Yang]

I don't think there is problem with any minority except Tibetans and Uygur. Rest are all proud Chinese.

Second, I have always said, that foreign powers won't be able to break China.

But, if China goes through a political turmoil, then they will use it as an opportunity to leverage.

So China only needs to fear from itself. That is why I'm saying that CCP must evolve into a more plural entity, that allows more plurality of opinion.

Because I agree this is confirmed that China can grow weak only through internal repture. And that is what I have shown. Many people abroad are waiting to grab an opportunity for that.




So as I was speaking earlier.

Why are well established democratic models so stable?

1. The rules are relatively clear and well established.
2. Powers are separated so that no one party or group can have more of it.
3. State is generally neutral, which means all group of people with different mindsets can work within the framework of the state. The only fighting to win over power is to convince enough people around to vote them.
4. Since, the rules are well established, any faction with enough popularity can come to power after winning elections. So there can never be an armed uprising or government overthrowing civil wars. (They can happen but they are rare, especially in a well established system)
5. The rule making is kept as transparent as possible and powers separated, so that the people in power are kept in check.

You under estimate the power of development.
Development brings more minorities into the middle class. In turn, these middle class minorities brings stability. Middle class people has investment in the local economy. In any chaos, the middle class will lose the most.

On the otherhand, poor people has nothing to loss in any chaos. India has a lot of poor people, right ?

I think that the ambivalence towards Mainlland, particularly among young native Hong Kongers can't be denied.

I agree with you at this point.

I have debated on twitter with many a people on Hong Kong, and got subsequently blocked.

Many of them were indeed foreign residents or other ethnicities in HK, creating trouble.

Yet, one can not still neglect that a lot of young HKers have a negative attitude.

So the older people carry less weight ? Old people used to be young too.

Err...and young people WILL grow older.......and wiser !!

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

You under estimate the power of development.
Development brings more minorities into the middle class. In turn, these middle class minorities brings stability. Middle class people has investment in the local economy. In any chaos, the middle class will lose the most.

On the otherhand, poor people has nothing to loss in any chaos. India has a lot of poor people, right ?



So the older people carry less weight ? Old people used to be young too.

Err...and young people WILL grow older.......and wiser !!

I don't underestimate it. But as I say, there will come a time when China will have to reckon with itself what political system it wants and can sustain. There will come a time when people will demand for greater civil liberties, greater freedoms.

As for HK, it is always worrying if your young are not right, because they are the future. Will they change when they grow old?
Hopefully.

@Bussard Ramjet is this your new passion beyond demographics?!

I really talk here only about China's biggest problems and challenges that it faces. After demographics, I think this is one of the biggest.

 

[Nan Yang]

I don't underestimate it. But as I say, there will come a time when China will have to reckon with itself what political system it wants and can sustain. There will come a time when people will demand for greater civil liberties, greater freedoms.

As for HK, it is always worrying if your young are not right, because they are the future. Will they change when they grow old?
Hopefully.



I really talk here only about China's biggest problems and challenges that it faces. After demographics, I think this is one of the biggest.

Older people in Hong Kong lived through British rule and they are the strongest supporter of Beijing.
It is the young people that NEVER live under the British that were waving the colonial flag,

Gosh doesn't that give you an idea ? Go figure !

 

[Genesis]

I don't think there is problem with any minority except Tibetans and Uygur. Rest are all proud Chinese.

Second, I have always said, that foreign powers won't be able to break China.

But, if China goes through a political turmoil, then they will use it as an opportunity to leverage.

So China only needs to fear from itself. That is why I'm saying that CCP must evolve into a more plural entity, that allows more plurality of opinion.

Because I agree this is confirmed that China can grow weak only through internal repture. And that is what I have shown. Many people abroad are waiting to grab an opportunity for that.

In this scenario of political turmoil, does China get to keep its armies? It's infrastructure? It's educated populace? It's established businesses and everything else?

Napoleon took Revolutionary France to great heights because he was a great man, but ALSO because he took France not Peru's top chair.

If China can be broken after a revolution, then it can be broken before it.

Oh and please understand get a understanding of US position on rule of law, and what rule of law ACTUALLY is. Otherwise you won't see why it's so ridicules that the US would partake in breaking up China.

So as I was speaking earlier.

Why are well established democratic models so stable?

1. The rules are relatively clear and well established.
2. Powers are separated so that no one party or group can have more of it.
3. State is generally neutral, which means all group of people with different mindsets can work within the framework of the state. The only fighting to win over power is to convince enough people around to vote them.
4. Since, the rules are well established, any faction with enough popularity can come to power after winning elections. So there can never be an armed uprising or government overthrowing civil wars. (They can happen but they are rare, especially in a well established system)
5. The rule making is kept as transparent as possible and powers separated, so that the people in power are kept in check.

1. Rules are hard to change even if it's ridicules. Like the gun laws in the US, while a firm law like single child law was just repealed.

2. So nobody has it, it's a free for all. As is evident in the minority governments in Canada, and the congressional freezes in the US. Not to mention the letter to the Iranian iman.

3. Canada has Quebec, Spain has Barcelona, UK has Scotland, and India/Pakistan has Kashmir.

4. Name the last time armed uprising happened in China. What makes the countries well established is the economy, infrastructure, educated and capable population, and more. Not a tag that you assign because you feel they are well established.

5.Again, rules needs to be enforceable, and not because it's written clearly on a paper.


Some bad effects and things. I'm not arguing against democracy, I'm simply saying it's not all good.

China needs to work out its own way, fast reforms? Do you know why parts of Latin America is stagnating? At least part of the reason is reforms when they are not ready.

Each has it's own stage, France advanced under the kings and Emperors, Germany under Bismark, Russia under the Tsar and Stalin, Korea and Japan under dictators and Emperors, while democratic UK was certainly not the UK of today. America is also different today than then, but the key thing for them is they had no real competitors. Can you say the same for China.

India, Philippines, Africa, and whatever else are all where they are why, because they reformed too fast. Don't give me the India started in the 90s, you were democratic in the 50s. If democracy is the all curing meds, it should always work not just when the condition is right.

Chinese economic reforms are incremental, testing what will work and what won't. Once you open that can of worms it's hard to put them back in.

That's just economic, if things go sour, it's Russia, or worse, Libya. Neither would seem likely, due to China's current condition, but just not moving fast enough is bad enough due to the competitiveness that currently exist in the world.

You are making this way too simple. If you can't even convince a homeless man to get a job and rent an apartment, what makes you think transitioning a nation of 1.4 billion is going to be cake.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

Older people in Hong Kong lived through British rule and they are the strongest supporter of Beijing.
It is the young people that NEVER live under the British that were waving the colonial flag,

Gosh doesn't that give you an idea ? Go figure !

I don't reject it altogether. But you must understand that it doesn't matter what bickering we do here.

What matters is in the end, who won in the battle to win hearts.

1. Rules are hard to change even if it's ridicules. Like the gun laws in the US, while a firm law like single child law was just repealed.

2. So nobody has it, it's a free for all. As is evident in the minority governments in Canada, and the congressional freezes in the US. Not to mention the letter to the Iranian iman.

3. Canada has Quebec, Spain has Barcelona, UK has Scotland, and India/Pakistan has Kashmir.

4. Name the last time armed uprising happened in China. What makes the countries well established is the economy, infrastructure, educated and capable population, and more. Not a tag that you assign because you feel they are well established.

5.Again, rules needs to be enforceable, and not because it's written clearly on a paper.


Some bad effects and things. I'm not arguing against democracy, I'm simply saying it's not all good.

China needs to work out its own way, fast reforms? Do you know why parts of Latin America is stagnating? At least part of the reason is reforms when they are not ready.

Each has it's own stage, France advanced under the kings and Emperors, Germany under Bismark, Russia under the Tsar and Stalin, Korea and Japan under dictators and Emperors, while democratic UK was certainly not the UK of today. America is also different today than then, but the key thing for them is they had no real competitors. Can you say the same for China.

India, Philippines, Africa, and whatever else are all where they are why, because they reformed too fast. Don't give me the India started in the 90s, you were democratic in the 50s. If democracy is the all curing meds, it should always work not just when you want to.

Chinese economic reforms are incremental, testing what will work and what won't. Once you open that can of worms it's hard to put them back in.

That's just economic, if things go sour, it's Russia, or worse, Libya. Neither would seem likely, due to China's current condition, but just not moving fast enough is bad enough due to the competitiveness that currently exist in the world.

You are making this way too simple. If you can't even convince a homeless man to get a job and rent an apartment, what makes you think transitioning a nation of 1.4 billion is going to be cake.

I agree with some of what you have said.

As for point 3, you see, you can take the Indian model. India doesn't allow separatist movements, and referendrums, because under Indian Constitution all land belongs to all Indians. So, there is no legal separatism. But the most important thing of all, is that it also gains very limited support from the local public.

What I'm saying is that CCP will need to be flexible in letting go its own power to some extent. Especially over the Judiciary, and the media.

 

[Place Of Space]

I don't think there is problem with any minority except Tibetans and Uygur. Rest are all proud Chinese.

Second, I have always said, that foreign powers won't be able to break China.

But, if China goes through a political turmoil, then they will use it as an opportunity to leverage.

So China only needs to fear from itself. That is why I'm saying that CCP must evolve into a more plural entity, that allows more plurality of opinion.

Because I agree this is confirmed that China can grow weak only through internal repture. And that is what I have shown. Many people abroad are waiting to grab an opportunity for that.




So as I was speaking earlier.

Why are well established democratic models so stable?

1. The rules are relatively clear and well established.
2. Powers are separated so that no one party or group can have more of it.
3. State is generally neutral, which means all group of people with different mindsets can work within the framework of the state. The only fighting to win over power is to convince enough people around to vote them.
4. Since, the rules are well established, any faction with enough popularity can come to power after winning elections. So there can never be an armed uprising or government overthrowing civil wars. (They can happen but they are rare, especially in a well established system)
5. The rule making is kept as transparent as possible and powers separated, so that the people in power are kept in check.

1. Democracy is a rich club games. They (the govt) have big enough cake to satisfy most or all people's demands, move the rules. At the same time, we can observe lots of examples in developing nations, in which election is only a tool for legal corruption or secret benefits, our neighbor Philippines's every ex-president is put in jail, for instance.
2. I know election rules. Both positive and negative effects are obvious. What you state are positive effects. The candidates cheat during election, make un-responsible promises, kick hard ball to competitor party, one party controlled by super power, incompetence, long-term political or policy argument among parties...
3. Some guys always attack Chairman Mao as dictator. Do you know he even didn't keep a penny for his children? When Premier Zhou died, his and his wife's deposite in bank is together 5,700 Yuan, they don't raise child. They work for the country, they don't work all for themselves. So I think the core is finishing a rich country, then a well established system, whatever it is, the Singapore's PAP has served the country for almost 50 years.
4. I have all confidences, China will be rapidly run into higher-democracy model in near future. You should know Chinese are open-minded, we observe the whole world everyday, we are clear what happening everyday. In our culture, opposing extremism is the nature, one of the core values of Confucianism is moderation. Moderation suits all that democracy requires.

 

[Bussard Ramjet]

1. Democracy is a rich club games. They (the govt) have big enough cake to satisfy most or all people's demands, move the rules. At the same time, we can observe lots of examples in developing nations, in which election is only a tool for legal corruption or secret benefits, our neighbor Philippines's every ex-president is put in jail, for instance.
2. I know election rules. Both positive and negative effects are obvious. What you state are positive effects. The candidates cheat during election, make un-responsible promises, kick hard ball to competitor party, one party controlled by super power, incompetence, long-term political or policy argument among parties...
3. Some guys always attack Chairman Mao as dictator. Do you know he even didn't keep a penny for his children? When Premier Zhou died, his and his wife's deposite in bank is together 5,700 Yuan, they don't raise child. They work for the country, they don't work all for themselves. So I think the core is finishing a rich country, then a well established system, whatever it is, the Singapore's PAP has served the country for almost 50 years.
4. I have all confidences, China will be rapidly run into higher-democracy model in near future. You should know Chinese are open-minded, we observe the whole world everyday, we are clear what happening everyday. In our culture, opposing extremism is the nature, one of the core values of Confucianism is moderation. Moderation suits all that democracy requires.

Of course there are many flaws with democracy as you rightly pointed out. Yet, it has many advantages as well, major advantages.

Next, the most important thing for China would be to establish a rule of law, where the law is precise, and exact, and not subject to whims and fancies of any official.

Other important thing would be to increase transparency, and increase civil rights.

If China is strictly meritocratic, it may still survive.

And the most important thing is that it will have to convince its own people at all times, about itself.

That is why CCP will continue to need reform.

 

[Genesis]

I agree with some of what you have said.

As for point 3, you see, you can take the Indian model. India doesn't allow separatist movements, and referendrums, because under Indian Constitution all land belongs to all Indians. So, there is no legal separatism. But the most important thing of all, is that it also gains very limited support from the local public.

China has that, I understood your point as because democracy is more inclusive there wouldn't be any separatism. There is.

Ether way, do you think separatism in China has a lot of supporters. There are Canadians joining ISIS, is ISIS the second coming of heaven on earth? Young Tibetans are disillusioned, just like young Canadians, and young Han Chinese. For the first time in history, technology and education really made them realize how powerless they are.

While on the subject of winning hearts.

Xinjiang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Look very closely at the demographics. Before you say that's the wrong way to look at it, check out Bloc Quebecois in Canada, and possible reasons on why that turned out how it did.

What I'm saying is that CCP will need to be flexible in letting go its own power to some extent. Especially over the Judiciary, and the media.

I am disappointed in this view. The Chinese government would be irresponsible to do this without the proper duo diligence and the right conditions. We are grown ups, we can't just give up or throw the problem to someone else when people don't appreciate what we do. Are you going to kick your kid to the curb because he/she doesnt like your parenting? Or worse, if it's just her friend?

Improvements sure, but just handing it off is not what a real man would do.

Power exists. You can't destroy it. If the CCP isn't wielding it, someone will. The mistake of Libya, Egypt, Yemen, and more are just some of the examples of what irresponsible transitions are.

Media and judiciary are major parts of a country, without proper care, it would be far more damaging in the wrong hands. Independent doesn't mean good. It just means independent, a lot of people miss that.

Again using India, it's media is more damaging than America because Americans are far better informed, connected and educated. It's not like American media is the unbiased force it like to think it is.

Oh, just because one is against everyone, doesn't mean that guy is unbiased. He's just for anarchy.

I like a quote from Medici documentary on Cosmo de Medici.

"They have mount a young man on a splendid house, and tell him he can't ride outside certain boundaries. Now tell me who is going to restrain him when he wants to ride beyond those borders. You can't impose laws on a man who's suppose to be your master."

When the Chinese population is powerful and ready, no force can restrain them. The American government is as powerless to take power back as the Egyptian people are in taking them in.