BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Kyonko

Listed below are comments made by Kyonko between Thursday, 14th August 2008 and Tuesday, 10th March 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Competitive elections in China? 6:21pm on 10 Mar 2009 Democracy is overrated.

We see parties bicker over petty differences, point their fingers at each other for policy faults, and gets nothing done. Once another party is put in charge, the first thing they do is to suspend and roll back all changes done by the previous gov't regardless of the effect they had on the country.

In the economic crisis, we see parties blaming each other for policies they set irresponsibly ages past, that no one bothered to correct. We see parties hurried to the rescue of big enterprises that invest heavily in the political business, leaving common individuals in the dust.

Is democracy the best form of government? No. Not by a long shot. Is it better than all other forms of goverment? In certain situations, certainly not in all situations. Does it fit China to a tee? No, it does not.

China needs foreign journalists and politicians to leave her alone. As sensational as the story can go, your buzz is simply buzz; it does not have any impact whatsoever on Chinese society. To the reverse effect, it is you who stir up nationalist sentiments and fervent fanaticism of the state. Stop looking at China through coloured goggles. Start recognizing her as what she is - simply another country with too many internal problems to deal with you finger pointers.

Flame away.
Chinese applaud Taiwan 'warlord' 2:34pm on 22 Aug 2008 One thing I don't understand - and I will probably not understand since I'm a Mainlander - is "why not?"

Why not ask yourself the question "should we be reunited with the Mainland?"

You always question us, "why should we be united with you?" But we never ask you "why should you not be reunited with us?"

We share a common lineage.
We have geographical proximity.
Your riches are, in fact, from us, and the US.

Why not ask yourself this question: "What will we gain and what will we lose from uniting with Mainland?"

And then you'll see why not. It's not so much of an ideological reason as many of you so claimed, but an economical reason: you'll lose the economical support of the US; you'll also lose the ability to travel freely abroad with no "visa".

Down to the core, you want money. US economy is collapsing. How long can you rely on US money?

Next, why not ask yourself this question: "What will we gain and what will we lose from becoming independent from the Mainland?"

And then you'll see why not. Again, it's an economical reason to maintain the status quo: even if China don't use their artillery and missiles (that can cover the whole island of Taiwan), they can impose strict economic sanctions on Taiwan, including heavy taxes and restriction of trade between the two regions. This is going to lead to an economic collapse on the island itself. And the PRC is not known to use this kind of "peaceful" countermeasures.

So, you people who think that you have a whole new identity, please use your brains, and maintain the status quo until the time of reunification comes.
Chinese applaud Taiwan 'warlord' 6:02pm on 20 Aug 2008 I'm sorry, but this discussion is just too interesting to pass up.

To anderh:

It is useless for us to advocate the independence/reunification of Taiwan simply because we are "outsiders". The fate of Taiwan is to be decided by the Taiwanese people. Right now, the Status Quo is working, and shall we leave it at that?

IMHO, politics needs more pragmatism and less idealism. Ideological conflicts fueled the Cold War and it started the War on Terror. If we have fewer people who are focused solely on ideals, we would have a much better world today.

And polls do differ from elections/referenda. Polls, by nature, is a small sample out of a large population, while elections is a much much larger sample (hundreds, even thousands of times larger). Therefore, elections and referenda hold more authority than a simple poll.

Again, this whole One China thing is QUITE complicated and delicate. I advocate for the "One country, two system" mechanism for bringing Taiwan back, but it will only happen on their own terms, according to their own time line. We overseas Chinese and westerner alike have no right to interfere, like the US has no right to interfere with other countries' internal affairs.

To TaiyuanRen:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you hired by FLG? I am increasingly suspecting you of being such.

To londonlurker:

I think the way of thinking for the two of us are similar. Although, I think anderh is using the blanket term "Chinese" to refer exclusively to "citizens of PRC".

Anyway... I'll come back later.
Liu Xiang out 2:28pm on 20 Aug 2008 Yes yes, of course... My post gets deleted by BBC mods. *bleep*nsorship at work.

Thank you for showing the wonder of freedom of speech.

This isn't a child's blog... this is an adult forum! People in here are sensible enough not to flame anyone, but engage in active, "constructive" discussion. Yet, mods purposefully allow inflammatory anti-china posts to live while deleting other posts.

Let's see if this one gets through.
Chinese applaud Taiwan 'warlord' 2:22pm on 20 Aug 2008 To maloneranger:

Those who suffer the most criticism should be those who do most evil. What has NATO done other than start wars and confrontation? Besides, I don't see Brazil and Aussies get criticism... I only see China, Zimbabwe, Iran, and Russia. In other words, the bullied gets the pounding, while India, which cannot even ensure women's right and equality, gets nothing.

Again, how can we accept criticism when there is nothing but criticism against us? Where are our positive points? They seem so minuscule in your view!

How do you know Chinese people don't think freely? Because the law forbids it? Even so, you need to know that the Communists won't know what you talk about at home. It's not the Big Brother (GASP! CCP IS NOT BIG BROTHER! OH THE HORROR!), however close you view it. What people do at home is their own thing, and the CCP respects that. I've talked about democracy and freedom plenty of times when I traveled to China and the police wasn't on my case. They didn't even know who I was.

And of course, the West does not see Chinese as equals simply because its gov't is "inferior". Please. Where's equality? Where's human rights? Should the Chinese not enjoy the same basic rights as the West? Should they not be treated as equals no matter what they do?

I agree with derekjoe in that the people of ROC should choose whether or not they want reunification. It is inevitable, and it will come, but it will come on OUR terms and according to OUR schedule, not some screaming foreigner who knows a big fat NOTHING about our internal affairs.

Oh by the way, when was China last seen meddling with the internal affairs of other countries? And please do not cite Sudan. We do business with them; they ask for guns, we sell them guns. What they do with the guns is their thing. After all, guns are innocent. It's the people who use them that are guilty.
How do you spot a future Olympic star? 3:17pm on 19 Aug 2008 To smilingSpongeMuffin:

Well said. Thank you.

To Mr. Nawaz:

Liu is and will always be a national hero for the Chinese people.

As for the Sports system, like the educational system, it pushes kids hard in order to succeed. But unlike the relatively well-off Americans, the Chinese has a LOT of competition in each generation. In China, right now, a bachelor's diploma is almost worth nothing on a resume. Obviously that is not the case in the US or in Canada.

Maybe the mentality is different. After all, we did have at least 1.5 millennia in which an examination system is in place and doing well in school/excelling in martial arts were the only ways to become prosperous.

I wonder where the Europeans were when this all started?
Liu Xiang out 2:45pm on 19 Aug 2008 To lukaigirl:

Taiwan (no, the Republic of China) had never claimed independence. If the US allowed the ROC to do so, then I think your house would have been bombed to oblivion by PLA rockets (did you know that PLA rocket artillery can cover the entirety of the island? God forbid thousands of rockets land on innocent people!)

What a joke. Quebec used to be a French colony; it tried to separate from Canada. What did the Canadian gov't do? They spent billions in campaigns. When FLQ terrorists kidnapped officials (NOTE: Tibetan terrorists burnt shops and torched people ALIVE. Uyghur terrorists attacked and KILLED police officers), what did Trudeau do? DECLARE MARTIAL LAW. Yes, you heard that right. When al-Qaeda rammed jets into WTC, what did the US do? START A GLOBAL WAR AND FORCE EVERYONE TO COMPLY. Yes, you heard that right. What's wrong with dealing with terrorists with force?

To LondonLurker:

Setting the time back will blow the map (as well as some people's brains) to bits, so I advise against it.

Then again, there were only 13 states in the US when Tibet was "independent". I'd expect some people to forget about this and only focus on Tibet.

To Heyone:

Wait. You're saying, that making national interest an important part of the people's lives is not right? Note that it is not above all else in people's lives. Some people (very few of them) would betray the national interest for money. Most people would value money above everything else, for frankly there is little in their life that has anything to do with national interest, except voicing their support for injured athletes, and condemn those who make unjust judgments on their motherland. Is that dangerous?

Of course, there are people who are overzealous (ahem, Bush supporters in the US? People who refuse to bring Khadr home?), but you cannot consider them the representation of the majority of Chinese people. Sure, most of them are irritated by the often overly harsh criticisms of the West and the blatant separatist movements in Tibet and Xinjiang; however, because of the virtues of our culture, we will not overtly show our displeasure at ignorant foreigners. We would ignore them and go on with our lives.

If Western media and HR movements want to be ignored (which they most likely are), they'll have to abandon their hard-line rhetoric and switch to a more moderate view.
Liu Xiang out 6:20pm on 18 Aug 2008 Well well well. Look what we have here again. Linking Liu to Chinese culture and Chinese characteristics.

He's a sportsman. He needs a future (I heard Phelps is planning to quit before 2012). He is injured. Competing = the possibility of not having a future. The result? Of course, not to compete. This is the only logical course of action.

To heyone:

Angry youth, you say? Have you forgotten about the Hippies? Thank the Lord Almighty the internet is nonexistent at that time, or the President of the US may be dressed in funny bright Tees and shouted "peace all".

What I see in online posts like this is "Angry McCarthyists" from the 1950s. Thankfully most of them will die off in the next two or three decades.

If Phelps could not compete in this Olympics, there will be people in the US that says "Phelps J00 PH4i1ed us all." Will it be so pronounced in BBC? I thought not.

To James:

China did NOT build the Olympics around Liu. Sure, he's a "symbol", a celebrity, a hero to all of us, but the Olympics is not JUST for him.

What about the diver Guo?
What about the basketballer Yao?
What about the gymnastics girls and guys?
What about the table tennis team?
What about the badminton team?
What about the tennis girls?
What about the weightlifting athletes
What about the marksmen and markswomen?
I could go on and on.

While some companies may choose to abandon their ad campaign around Liu, it is my belief that he will remain popular - maybe less so, but popular nonetheless - in China as a star.

On the other hand, he did disappoint me. I was looking forward to the showdown between him and Robles.
Staying in power 5:59pm on 18 Aug 2008 Well. Nationalism can also be called patriotism. Please do not accuse others of which yourself is guilty.

Also, have you not paused to think the root cause of such nationalism? We are fed up with the oppressive and overwhelming negative comments from the West, in particular people who support George Bush and refuse to let Omar Khadr come home for a fair trial.

James, another flash of understanding, however brief, towards China.

One thing to point out:

CCP's hope is not what you think it is. CCP's hope should be:

How can the people overthrow a government who brought over half of the population to above the poverty line, ensures basic health and dental care, provide jobs for tens of millions of new population entering the work force while making sure the rest of the population is living a happy life, asserts its nation's might on the international scene, and keeps its interior safe?

Granted, the Chinese needs some diplomatic finesse and media awareness; but its accomplishments cannot be denied. Put the US system in charge; it won't do any better than the Chinese system and, dare I say to the dismay of HR activists and Democracy activists, it may actually fare worse.

The democratic process needs an educated population who is aware of both domestic and international matters, as well as a robust economic foundation. Successful democracies (e.g. the US, the UK, Canada, etc.) have these conditions, while unsuccessful democracies (e.g. Zimbabwe, Iraq, etc.) does not have either condition.

I say, that a dictatorship is better for economic growth and development of developing nations, while democracy is better for developed nations. A dictatorship can put plans in force more rapidly than democracy, be it good or bad. This is better for developing countries in that they may implement plans and policies almost instantaneously. After economic development, however, a transition from dictatorship to democracy is inevitable because when people need not fear starvation or disease, they may concentrate their attention elsewhere - politics, for example.

Democracy isn't the solve-all tool. Each country should "come to the conclusion on its own terms", not to succumb to outside pressure.

Stand strong, CCP; your role in Chinese history has not yet been fulfilled.
Not quite what we thought 2:35pm on 14 Aug 2008 To those that is saying China is censoring contents that contained information about this miming:

Refer to post #227. What I was afraid of happened: Chinese authority, because they want to save face, censored them all.

So many people jumped on the bandwagon and started harshly and bitterly criticizing China, that the authority regretted making the decision in the first place.

This is negative progress for China, and I think this is what the West wants to see. They want China to continue to be the bullied, the country they can point their fingers at and direct their people's attention to.

Wake up already. Just once... try once praising China for its progress while very gently pointing out areas of improvement. At least, even if the authorities don't improve, they won't go back to the way it was.

Well, the openness was good while it lasted. Too bad the West doesn't want China to be open.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Kyonko