http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40125000/gif/_40125450_changing_china_banner.gif (bbc.co.uk/china)

BBC's information campaign about China all this week on TV, radio and online. Lots of interesting facts, news, pictures, video broadcasts, interviews etc. Everything from political system to entertainment industry and new shopping centers, a must see for those interested what the China of nowadays is bbc.co.uk/china :okay:

wow, thank you , John, for the useful imformation from BBC. I will read all. :)

"The Congress is made up of nearly 3,000 delegates elected by China's provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities and the armed forces." :eek2:
I thought it was more like some hundred and with no elections.

"The Congress is made up of nearly 3,000 delegates elected by China's provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities and the armed forces." :eek2:
I thought it was more like some hundred and with no elections.
There has always been "intra-party elections" for most high officials and the rural representatives are elected directly by the people.

As for the size, the National People's Congress (NPC) is supposed to represent the people, with a population of 1.3 billion, having mere hundreds of congresspeople simply won't do :)

It's the Western, namely American, media that portrays China as a strict dictatorship.

"The Congress is made up of nearly 3,000 delegates elected by China's provinces, autonomous regions, municipalities and the armed forces." :eek2:
I thought it was more like some hundred and with no elections.

I once voted for our Chaoyang district's Congress representative at school. but most of us didn't care who would be elected. The national congress representatives are elected out of those local representatives who we voted for. I have no idea how Hu and Wen were elected.Anyway, indirect election kind of loses transparency.

It's the Western, namely American, media that portrays China as a strict dictatorship.

It's true. Many media sources still introduce Chinas as "communist" country even though they might not intend to do so. In some cases it's because of the name of the ruling China's party - "communist party" - which is supposed to mean that China is a communist state while we know that China's current system has nothing to do with communism. As one journalist said it in a simple way: "all what's left from communism in China is flag and party's title". Still MANY people around the world think China is somewhat similar to what USSR used to be or what North Korea now is - strict totalitarian state or dictatorship. I must say there's a lack of unbiased and objective information. Regular Chinese issues rarely appear on TV news worldwide and I think this must change. BBC seems to be doing a nice job right now.

well from my experience government had no or little impact on me and my life...the evil one was the teacher at the school that we had to deal with :)

It's true. Many media sources still introduce Chinas as "communist" country even though they might not intend to do so. In some cases it's because of the name of the ruling China's party - "communist party" - which is supposed to mean that China is a communist state while we know that China's current system has nothing to do with communism. As one journalist said it in a simple way: "all what's left from communism in China is flag and party's title". Still MANY people around the world think China is somewhat similar to what USSR used to be or what North Korea now is - strict totalitarian state or dictatorship. I must say there's a lack of unbiased and objective information. Regular Chinese issues rarely appear on TV news worldwide and I think this must change. BBC seems to be doing a nice job right now.
The British TEND TO BE less harsh on China than the U.S. because they don't see China as a "direct threat". U.S. is on top of the world right now as the global leader or dictator, depending on which side you're on. When you're at the top, if someone doesn't bow down to you then they are a threat.

With that said though, I have seen some extremely anti-China material in British media, some even more anti-China than American media. But unlike American media though, the British's attitude toward China is much less uniformed. In the American media, when you see or hear "China", it'd be very likely to hear other words such as "communism", "oppression", "corruption"... etc.

According to forum policy this thread will now be moved to Tea House

The British TEND TO BE less harsh on China than the U.S. because they don't see China as a "direct threat". U.S. is on top of the world right now as the global leader or dictator, depending on which side you're on. When you're at the top, if someone doesn't bow down to you then they are a threat.

With that said though, I have seen some extremely anti-China material in British media, some even more anti-China than American media. But unlike American media though, the British's attitude toward China is much less uniformed. In the American media, when you see or hear "China", it'd be very likely to hear other words such as "communism", "oppression", "corruption"... etc.

In my perspective, while "communism" would be a very uninformed depiction of China, the other two, "oppression" and "corruption" would be quite accurate. The Communist Party gets very oppressive if anythings seems as a potential threat, e.g. the Falungung. As for corruption, as long as you have the money and the right connections, you can just about do anything in China unless you get in the way of the Communist Party.

I wouldn't call China undemocratic just because they don't have direct elections. It would cost China tremendously if they start direct elections. There are just too many people and the cost for campaigns and elections would be too much of a burden. I think indirect elections as of now works just fine, but I would still consider China a dictatorship since the Communist Party is the one and only party that allows no opposition whatsoever.

In my perspective, while "communism" would be a very uninformed depiction of China, the other two, "oppression" and "corruption" would be quite accurate. The Communist Party gets very oppressive if anythings seems as a potential threat, e.g. the Falungung.
Falun Gong IS a threat to China. It's every government's right to defend themselves against possible threats. Heck, U.S. is doing a good job at that.

However, the U.S. media paints a picture where the Chinese government oppresses everyone for fun.

As for corruption, as long as you have the money and the right connections, you can just about do anything in China unless you get in the way of the Communist Party.
Hmm... and I suppose you can't do the same in the U.S. or other countries?

I wouldn't call China undemocratic just because they don't have direct elections. It would cost China tremendously if they start direct elections. There are just too many people and the cost for campaigns and elections would be too much of a burden. I think indirect elections as of now works just fine, but I would still consider China a dictatorship since the Communist Party is the one and only party that allows no opposition whatsoever.
China is not a dictatorship and hasn't been since the Mao Zedong era. There are numerous checks and balances in place so that no single individual has full power. A dictatorship is defined as a country controlled by an individual or a small group of people. I wouldn't call the Chinese government a "small group of people".

Falun Gong IS a threat to China. It's every government's right to defend themselves against possible threats. Heck, U.S. is doing a good job at that.

However, the U.S. media paints a picture where the Chinese government oppresses everyone for fun.

I don't see the U.S. oppressing the Catholic Church, just because it has influence over a large mass of people and it has the ability to organize. Oppressing Falun Gong just because they held demonstrations against the Communist Party, regarding a biased report by a state-run media, seems oppressive enough for me.


Hmm... and I suppose you can't do the same in the U.S. or other countries?

From college diplomas($200) to driver's licence($10), as long as you have the money and the connections, you've got'em. That includes business contracts. This also means that the government can have a more firm grip on the business class, since they already have all the dirt on them. That's why it is "unless you don't get in the way of the Communist Party".


China is not a dictatorship and hasn't been since the Mao Zedong era. There are numerous checks and balances in place so that no single individual has full power. A dictatorship is defined as a country controlled by an individual or a small group of people. I wouldn't call the Chinese government a "small group of people".

I see dictatorship more as limitations in the choice of government than the number of people having power.

That what we called : Rubber Stamp and terrify balance of art here to replacement of dictatorship by both side of helm and junta :D

But IF ppl who lived with pleasent and easy-going that nothing to need for say so ~~~~ :)

I don't see the U.S. oppressing the Catholic Church, just because it has influence over a large mass of people and it has the ability to organize. Oppressing Falun Gong just because they held demonstrations against the Communist Party, regarding a biased report by a state-run media, seems oppressive enough for me.
You're comparing Falun Gong to the Catholic Church!?

The U.S. has always been a Christian country, even more so today. Why would the U.S. government oppress something that supports it?

Fact is, Falun Gong, despise whatever religous beliefs they might have, are politically anti-Chinese government. It's the Chinese government's right to defend themselves against threats. If the Falun Gong truly wanted to better China, there are NUMEROUS peaceful ways to do so. Setting themselves on fire in Tian'anmen Square and constantly bash China isn't one of them.


From college diplomas($200) to driver's licence($10), as long as you have the money and the connections, you've got'em. That includes business contracts. This also means that the government can have a more firm grip on the business class, since they already have all the dirt on them. That's why it is "unless you don't get in the way of the Communist Party".
How about providing some evidence? Are we all supposed to just take your word for it? So far you've proven yourself to be quite anti-China and don't make a very reliable source.

I see dictatorship more as limitations in the choice of government than the number of people having power.
CHOICE!?

Name a single country where you actually do have choices when it comes to who gets to rule you.

The U.S. is dominated by the Republican and Democrat, who both IMHO are quite identical, at least when ti comes to foreign policy. Their domestic policy only varies when it comes to who they support more; Republican the wealthy and Democrat the middle class. What a great choice, a duopoly...

You're comparing Falun Gong to the Catholic Church!?

The U.S. has always been a Christian country, even more so today. Why would the U.S. government oppress something that supports it?

Fact is, Falun Gong, despise whatever religous beliefs they might have, are politically anti-Chinese government. It's the Chinese government's right to defend themselves against threats. If the Falun Gong truly wanted to better China, there are NUMEROUS peaceful ways to do so. Setting themselves on fire in Tian'anmen Square and constantly bash China isn't one of them.


I was comparing Falun Gong to the Catholic Church in such aspects as having influence over many people, and that they are quite organized. Communist Party became afraid of Falun Gong's potential political power, and decided to crack down on them before they become too big or put their power to use. And Falun Gong denied their invovlement on the incident in Tian'anmen square. Yes, a Falun Gong believer did incinerate himself in the Tian'anmen square, but that does not mean that the act was organized by the Falun Gong to threaten the Communist Party. Besides, I don't trust the state-run media, since it is at many times very biased. Once, I remember when Qingdao was under the murder-scare, when one foreigner or a child was being murdered everyday, sometimes two. The state-run media reported that inmates from a prison break was doing all that, but people eventually found out that it was because the Qingdao law enforcement was holding the boss of a crime syndicate.


How about providing some evidence? Are we all supposed to just take your word for it? So far you've proven yourself to be quite anti-China and don't make a very reliable source.

So, should I voice-tape their offers and put them up here? Providing actual evidence here is not very practical. Besides, who would post actual evidence that incriminates them or the people around them? What I've said is quite common sense to those who lived in China for quite some time, especially those doing business.

And yes, I may seem quite anti-China, because I was very critical on many of the topics in these forums. I do admit that in the recent months, I was enraged, as did many Koreans, by certain actions by the Chinese government. However, I still feel very attached to China, Qingdao in particular, because I spent much of my teenage years there. Hell, even now, I'm wearing my Chinese school uniform(very comfy). I do have a lot of positive things to say about China(e.g. that they are a very practical people like the Americans), but I enjoy criticism, not praise. Anyways, I always try to be objective - I know I'm not always so, but I try my best. So if you have a problem with my "reliability" or say, my objectivity, do not accuse me so merely based on my personal tendency of being critical of other people's opinions.


CHOICE!?

Name a single country where you actually do have choices when it comes to who gets to rule you.

The U.S. is dominated by the Republican and Democrat, who both IMHO are quite identical, at least when ti comes to foreign policy. Their domestic policy only varies when it comes to who they support more; Republican the wealthy and Democrat the middle class. What a great choice, a duopoly...

Two choices - whether you increase taxes or decrease taxes, or whether you increase welfare or education, whether you increase the military budget or decrease it - these two choices seem to make a lot of difference to me. Take Korea for example - a reconciliatory diplomacy would have been impossible had the Grand National Party stayed in power. But hell, people voted otherwise for the Democratic Party and there, we see the president hugging Kim Jung Il(I personally do not agree with this pathetic crap they call "Sunshine" policy). That is the power of choice.

Anyways, I'm not saying the current dictatoral rule in China is bad. China needs it. China would break into chaos, should it allow multiple parties. There will be hundreds of presidential candidates, and many political conflicts that come with it. What China needs is stability and growth, and that requires dictatorship. Remember that South Korea was also under a harsh dictatoral rule during its rapid industrial growth, which I believe was much worse than that of China. SK did have multiple parties back then, but the KCIA did a good job of making dissidents "silent".

I remember the US and Japan had banned some suicidal hippies so-called religions in the past.
FLG simply copies ideas from other religions and claims to be their own. They even have their living "Jesus" to save their world.... FLG is more like an anti-communist political party than a peaceful religion. They usually don't tell the outsiders how good their religion is but spend most of their time making billboards showing disgusting photos and some anti-communist slogans. Only those free-tibet guys think that FLG is comparable with Christianity and Buddhism.

I remember the US and Japan had banned some suicidal hippies so-called religions in the past.
FLG simply copies ideas from other religions and claims to be their own. They even have their living "Jesus" to save their world.... FLG is more like an anti-communist political party than a peaceful religion. They usually don't tell the outsiders how good their religion is but spend most of their time making billboards showing disgusting photos and some anti-communist slogans. Only those free-tibet guys think that FLG is comparable with Christianity and Buddhism.
Well said.

It's also interesting that the Falung Gong newspaper published in North America 大紀元 I believe it's called, has one of the largest distribution rate and also printed on the highest quality of paper around. They also have a 24 hour TV station based in New York.

It's very suspicious as to where they get their funding. One doesn't need to be a genius to know that there are quite a few people out there who wish to support anyone who is anti-China *cough* U.S. *cough*...

Sorry that I'll interrupt this discussion (it is very interesting, well done, Pangu :okay: )

What Xinhua has to say about it:

BBC launches China Week
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-03/08/content_2668204.htm

I remember the US and Japan had banned some suicidal hippies so-called religions in the past.
FLG simply copies ideas from other religions and claims to be their own. They even have their living "Jesus" to save their world.... FLG is more like an anti-communist political party than a peaceful religion. They usually don't tell the outsiders how good their religion is but spend most of their time making billboards showing disgusting photos and some anti-communist slogans. Only those free-tibet guys think that FLG is comparable with Christianity and Buddhism.

To my knowledge, anti-communist propaganda by the Falungong started when the Chinese government began persecuting it. And the Chinese government began the persecution when Falun gong members started massive demonstrations, which were peaceful by the way, but illegal. It must have frightened the Communist Party that there is a mass of people out there whom they can't control. This is as far as my knowledge goes on how all this began. Perhaps you can shed some light on some of the other reasons, other than the massive demonstrations, that made the Chinese government ban Falun Gong.

BBC略有妖魔化中国之嫌
不少报道有失公正....但是上面的网友评论值得一看

To my knowledge, anti-communist propaganda by the Falungong started when the Chinese government began persecuting it. And the Chinese government began the persecution when Falun gong members started massive demonstrations, which were peaceful by the way, but illegal. It must have frightened the Communist Party that there is a mass of people out there whom they can't control. This is as far as my knowledge goes on how all this began. Perhaps you can shed some light on some of the other reasons, other than the massive demonstrations, that made the Chinese government ban Falun Gong.
Assuming your knowledge is correct, it only makes sense that the CCP would be afraid of a large group of people whom they can't control, religous fanatics or not.

Do you honestly think that even "free" governments such as the U.S. would feel comfortable knowing that there are groups of people out there that they can't control in one way or another? Heck, look at the world now, those who are U.S.'s "enemies" such as China, are often demonized and bashed because U.S. knows they can't control China. However, countries like Japan or South Korea U.S. can control and therefore not afraid.

It's funny that U.S. is constantly pointing fingers and accussing people of being a "threat" yet when China does it, they get bashed. Some may argue that the FLG threat was "created" by China but if we look at the U.S., most of their threat was created by themselves too. Who aided the Taliban during the Cold War? U.S. Who put Saddam in power and trained his men? U.S. Who splitted Korea and therefore created North Korea? U.S. (and the former U.S.S.R.)... etc.

well US would be afraid too, but the difference is US will not make them illegal, during Vietnam war many people went on street and eventually US withdraw its troops.

FLG is definitely not a peaceful religion, i've seen their materials, and i know what they are like. west think its peaceful, because they dont impose their ideas on western practioners, they only impose those on Chinese practioners. I've seen their demonstrations in the west, they are just standing there practising qi gong, however Chinese practioners are required to set fire to themselves in tiananmen square so they can say communists are oppressing them, clever isn't it?

btw, all western media are crap, they are not balanced, BBC is so far the No.1 china basher, i dont know if they still get over with HK, they never report good news. CNN being no.2 mainly because of Lou Dobbs.

i am not saying western media should act like CCP sponsored CCTV or xinhua, they report bad news to raise awareness, fine by me, but at least it should reflect what's happening in China, so far i have never seen any coverage on the anti-japan demonstrations in china, how many people went on street? 20 thousands, if that many people protest against CCP it would make breaking news in all western media.

well US would be afraid too, but the difference is US will not make them illegal, during Vietnam war many people went on street and eventually US withdraw its troops.
That's not even close to being the same situation though. FLG is an organized cult/religion while those who protested against the U.S. government for Vietnam War were individuals and not an organized group.

FLG is definitely not a peaceful religion, i've seen their materials, and i know what they are like. west think its peaceful, because they dont impose their ideas on western practioners, they only impose those on Chinese practioners. I've seen their demonstrations in the west, they are just standing there practising qi gong, however Chinese practioners are required to set fire to themselves in tiananmen square so they can say communists are oppressing them, clever isn't it?
That is sick...

btw, all western media are crap, they are not balanced, BBC is so far the No.1 china basher, i dont know if they still get over with HK, they never report good news. CNN being no.2 mainly because of Lou Dobbs.
I agree.

i am not saying western media should act like CCP sponsored CCTV or xinhua, they report bad news to raise awareness, fine by me, but at least it should reflect what's happening in China, so far i have never seen any coverage on the anti-japan demonstrations in china, how many people went on street? 20 thousands, if that many people protest against CCP it would make breaking news in all western media.
Western media doesn't report bad news to raise awareness, they do it to get more viewers and therefore make more money. It's common knowledge that bad news tend to grab more attention than good news.

I used to work at a local TV station for the news team. They don't even bother with a news unless it involves a certain number of deaths.

That's not even close to being the same situation though. FLG is an organized cult/religion while those who protested against the U.S. government for Vietnam War were individuals and not an organized group.

many of those demonstrators were very anti-government , they were even talking about overthrowing United States government i believe, and clearly they had organized groups. However i agree with you no matter their purpose is to end the war in Vietnam, unjustified war.

many of those demonstrators were very anti-government , they were even talking about overthrowing United States government i believe, and clearly they had organized groups. However i agree with you no matter their purpose is to end the war in Vietnam, unjustified war.
It is just as illegal to plot to overthrow the government in the U.S. as it is in China, or much of the world.

Heck, I don't know a single country that openly allows its people to overthrow the government hehe...

Falun Gong IS a threat to China. It's every government's right to defend themselves against possible threats. Heck, U.S. is doing a good job at that.
Some media (including bbc) quoted some sources saying these suicides on Tienanmen never happened, and were an invention to justify the clampdown on fallung gong. I don't know how true this is, bu they said it would explain the so many incoherences on the cctv coverage of the event.
Ohterwise the same problem happens in France with sects, but these organisation are no dismantled by force, nor are members emprisoned or tortured unless they have commited a crime.

Name a single country where you actually do have choices when it comes to who gets to rule you.
Any democrcy where you have mulipartism and representativity. India, USA, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Brasil, Japan, RDC (as for a territory), Uk, Pakistan, Afganistan, Mexico, Argentina...

China is not a dictatorship and hasn't been since the Mao Zedong era. There are numerous checks and balances in place so that no single individual has full power. A dictatorship is defined as a country controlled by an individual or a small group of people. I wouldn't call the Chinese government a "small group of people".
You are a small group of people as long as you are less than 1% of the country. In many other countries, multipartism transfers the power to the people at the election time, more or less 80% of the population. You say all the parties are lookalike, but it's because the national opinion is not too divided, and partly false (and it makes me laugh when you say bush and Kerry share the same program).
However, in china, the cccp has a very narrow pannels of lines. If you are in the cccp and you don't share the point of view of the mainstream, you end up like Zhaoyang more or less emprisonned mediatically and physically. So the cccp controls all the programs, so there are not real national representative elections.
You say china is no hardsip but in China, you have no freedom of speech (still world's first journalist abuser), of association (wanna make your own political party?), of movement (go to university if you're a countryside student and you have no authorisation, and you finish up beaten to death like this student in Nanjin last year, by the police), of information (95% of the coverage of the anti-japan protests was from HK media, 12000 internet shops closed last year), equal justice (even if it is being reformed, the jutice is no good when it deals with political contestators, and very monolithic in its decision schemes), no identical freedom (think of Taiwan. In a similar case, France held referudums in 3 islands, and one got its independance whereas new caledonians and corsicans rejected it, same process organised with Canada in Quebec...)
So one might say that China is a party Dictatorship, even if it is a great country to live in.

NB : The equal justice sounds like a small point, but since you have 80% of the world's official executions that are carried out in this country that makes 20% of the popuplation, it is good sense trying to know in which conditions sentenced to death are juged (I am not discussiong the death penalty, only the process).

But I'm hopefull I'll be proved wrong in a decade or so.

you have no freedom of speech (still world's first journalist abuser), of association (wanna make your own political party?)
valid argument.
Communists always put the political party above the country, so they will protect their rule at all cost. the only difference for Chinese communists is the leader care the people, or treat people and the country like shit.
of movement (go to university if you're a countryside student and you have no authorisation, and you finish up beaten to death like this student in Nanjin last year, by the police)
of information (95% of the coverage of the anti-japan protests was from HK media, 12000 internet shops closed last year)
equal justice (even if it is being reformed, the jutice is no good when it deals with political contestators, and very monolithic in its decision schemes)
no identical freedom (think of Taiwan. In a similar case, France held referudums in 3 islands, and one got its independance whereas new caledonians and corsicans rejected it, same process organised with Canada in Quebec...)
invalid argument.
of movement: plenty of counter examples.
of information: again just shows the double standard logic. on one hand, blame the communists brainwashing and supporting people to go anti-Japan. on one hand, blame the communists not making the coverage of the anti-japan protests. if China makes the coverage of the anti-japan protests, it's called brainwashing people to go anti-Japan.
equal justice: you show the punishment but nothing about the crime.
no identical freedom: maybe, but there are only one or two countries in the world free from separatism and disputed territory.

The decade was so short... :horse:

invalid argument.
of movement: plenty of counter examples.
Well, it is rather hard for villagers to get a permit to go & work in towns, isn't it? I was described China as a two pace country, divided between countryside and cities, people being more or less free to leave their countryside to avoid mass rural exod. But I don't know personaly anyone who knows much about this,so...
of information: again just shows the double standard logic. on one hand, blame the communists brainwashing and supporting people to go anti-Japan. on one hand, blame the communists not making the coverage of the anti-japan protests. if China makes the coverage of the anti-japan protests, it's called brainwashing people to go anti-Japan.
Ok, tv consists in a brainwash. But if your name is not Foxnew, you can report facts wihout reporting an opinion, or at least display a panel of opinions. In China, the news are very hard to get. All the foreign websites who deliver news about China are blocked. On Yahoo.fr, you just can't read half the articles. On TV there are many blackouts, this prevents from brainwash but also from people making their own mind. Basically a decent TV channel would raise questions "is it justified", "is it appropriate", "what do foreign people think of it?". Silence is not a way to reach the truth.

equal justice: you show the punishment but nothing about the crime.
no identical freedom: maybe, but there are only one or two countries in the world free from separatism and disputed territory.
A reform of justice is being worked on, as far as I know so it is improving anyway.
But isn't separatism a politcal fact that, when it rallies a vast majority over a vast territory, should be dealt with by negociation ? But this "Identical freedom" is not in the Human rights, so I don't think it can be claimed so logically.

Maybe these are not cucial points, but I think life is easier with than without them.