China and The West: Political Systems Compared and Contrasted

[sptrawler]

Countries like China are getting rich on the backs of Western consumers buying their cheap junk.

Trump had the right idea. Get manufacturing back to the home countries and give employment to locals instead of foreigners.

It was the Lima Convention that gave countries like China a leg up at the expense of Western nations and they are now abusing that kindness.

The other issue has retired, lol.
You are spot on Rumpy, it is ok for everyone saying we should pull our heads in and say nothing against our biggest trading partner, but the reality is the only reason they are our biggest trading partner is because they need our iron ore, nickel, coal etc to build junk to sell back to the west.
If push comes to shove, the western counteries can just as easily put tariffs on their junk, the same as they have done on our wine, crayfish etc.
Then they have to make money selling their junk to themselves, but they dont pay their workers anything, so their manufacturing collapses. We only have to feed 25million, they have to feed over a billion who have tasted affluence, they wont be happy IMO.

Chest beating by one side or the other wont fix it, if China wants to play the stick and carrot game, it may work with Australia, but if the U.S, EU and U.K see it as the thin edge of the wedge it wont end well for China IMO.

 

[rederob]

When someone uses the comparison of the political and or economic performances of countries, the question has to be asked, why would the person stay in the country they argue has less to offer.

Given I can use data to compare countries I do not live in, your comment makes no sense.

But to say I am slagging them off, by asking them to substatiate their claim, just shows how screwed up some of us have become.

To begin, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Second, if I knew what you were talking about I would substantiate my commentary.

I think you are trying to apply some sort of pressure on me, why? I certainly dont know.
And it is disloyal to constantly bite the hand that feeds you.

Where is your evidence that this happened?
If it is your view that if I think Morrison is incompetent, and present my evidence, that it somehow means that I am not a loyal Australian, then there is no logic to that idea

Rederob disputed that and I posted several instances of that happening, Rederob didn't acknowledge it just ignored and moved on.

Again, I have no idea what you are talking about. You have made repeated false comments about me and false claims about what I have posted and I prefer to ignore them. I would hate to count the number of times I have asked people to stop running a personal commentary and focus on the topic.

In Australia you can say what you like as long as it can be shown to be true an not slanderous, i'm not sure that is the case in China, it may be.

No, in Australia there are laws that prevent you saying things that are true if you are bound to confidentiality provisions or gagged by the courts. There are also very vague laws that can be applied in the interest of national security and cannot be contested in public. That's aside from laws on vilification etc. preventing people from saying things they personally believe to be true.

If you read the links I provided you would know what China's laws provide for. They go a lot further and prevent people from engaging in demeaning conduct.

 

[rederob]

From Robs posts, his loyalties appear to lie with China which is fair enough, but like I said when you give him examples that he doesn't like he ignores and moves on.

No, that's what you read into my posts. I have personally taken an oath to defend Australia and luckily my old army clothes still fit as they are brilliant for hard work in the garden.

How is it not discussing the good points and bad points of a political system, when you ask someone why they prefer to live in the one they feel is inferior?

It's a personal jibe and not at all relevant to the discussion. @basilio has tried to explain this you but you still don't get it. I wrote policy for the government of the day to improve on former policies or lack of them. Being able to think critically and explain what is wrong has zip to do with national affiliation.

Why not stop trying to brow beat me, I'm making valid points,

Not many in this thread. Largely off topic, unsubstantiated, devoid of logic and pejorative.

Countries like China are getting rich on the backs of Western consumers buying their cheap junk.

You can apply that analogy to most businesses. Walmart is not going to get rich making expensive junk, as you call it.

Trump had the right idea. Get manufacturing back to the home countries and give employment to locals instead of foreigners.

It might be a good idea for jingoists, but the capitalist system does not work like that. You cannot stay in business long if you are being outcompeted.

It was the Lima Convention that gave countries like China a leg up at the expense of Western nations and they are now abusing that kindness

You offer no evidence.
Here's a concise history of China's economic rise and it's difficult to see that UNIDO had any influence.
It is a fact that by the late 1970s in China there were over 700 research and development institutes with over 500,000 scientists and engineers (nearly as many as in America at that time) providing the impetus for natural internal industrial expansion.

 

[rederob]

... it is ok for everyone saying we should pull our heads in and say nothing against our biggest trading partner,

Who is saying that? I certainly am happy for fair and balanced comment, but where is it?

... but the reality is the only reason they are our biggest trading partner is because they need our iron ore, nickel, coal etc to build junk to sell back to the west.

That's called a "so what" argument. America without Middle East oil would not be the powerhouse it is today. And when I was growing up products "made in Japan" were cheap junk. Your point has no sound foundation.

If push comes to shove, the western counteries can just as easily put tariffs on their junk, the same as they have done on our wine, crayfish etc.

America tried this and it didn't work as they hoped, so they did this next. And that's not working as planned either.
If the world's superpower can't effect concessions then good luck with the rest of the world.

Then they have to make money selling their junk to themselves, but they dont pay their workers anything, so their manufacturing collapses.

That's a totally baseless claim and smacks of a poor understanding of purchasing power parity.

Chest beating by one side or the other wont fix it, if China wants to play the stick and carrot game, it may work with Australia ...

Where is your evidence that China is "chest beating"?
As for the stick and carrot game, China has repeatedly instanced it's reasons for trade policies based on first strike actions from the West. It appears you keep getting things back to front.

 

[sptrawler]

There you go @basilio , all that waffle and not a mention about the question I posed, about the fact if he denigrated the Chinese PM the way he does the Australian PM he would be thrown in jail. Which was the source of the debate.
Like I said he just ignores the pertinent question and moves on, with obfuscation, which is great when dealing with muppets.
I can see why he was a Labor policy writer, it is a perfect fit.

 

[rederob]

There you go @basilio , all that waffle and not a mention about the question I posed, about the fact if he denigrated the Chinese PM the way he does the Australian PM he would be thrown in jail. Which was the source of the debate.
Like I said he just ignores the pertinent question and moves on, with obfuscation, which is great when dealing with muppets.
I can see why he was a Labor policy writer, it is a perfect fit.

You are really digging a hole for yourself @sptrawler.
The question was answered and you just don't get it!
You need to read the earlier links about Chinese laws and learn for yourself that they are different. And perhaps realise also that your claim I ignored the point is just one of your stream of falsehoods.
The other point is that I am critical of Morrison, and any denigration you think exists in my posts is from your poor comprehension. The idea that our PM thinks the Devil influences social media is supported by what evidence? That's the standard I use to qualify any person's competence.
You obsession with personal commentary does you no favours, especially when your claims are not true.

If you want to open a thread about laws of different countries, so you can talk more about China, then go ahead.
This thread is about comparing and contrasting political systems, but in your 23 posts to date not a single one is about China's political system.

 

[sptrawler]

You are really digging a hole for yourself @sptrawler.
The question was answered and you just don't get it!
You need to read the earlier links about Chinese laws and learn for yourself that they are different. And perhaps realise also that your claim I ignored the point is just one of your stream of falsehoods.
The other point is that I am critical of Morrison, and any denigration you think exists in my posts is from your poor comprehension. The idea that our PM thinks the Devil influences social media is supported by what evidence? That's the standard I use to qualify any person's competence.
You obsession with personal commentary does you no favours, especially when your claims are not true.

If you want to open a thread about laws of different countries, so you can talk more about China, then go ahead.
This thread is about comparing and contrasting political systems, but in your 23 posts to date not a single one is about China's political system.

What greater contrast between political systems can there be, than the fact that in one country you can be incarcerated for being critical of the system and in another you are free to be as critical as you like?

 

[SirRumpole]

You are really digging a hole for yourself @sptrawler.
The question was answered and you just don't get it!
You need to read the earlier links about Chinese laws and learn for yourself that they are different. And perhaps realise also that your claim I ignored the point is just one of your stream of falsehoods.
The other point is that I am critical of Morrison, and any denigration you think exists in my posts is from your poor comprehension. The idea that our PM thinks the Devil influences social media is supported by what evidence? That's the standard I use to qualify any person's competence.
You obsession with personal commentary does you no favours, especially when your claims are not true.

If you want to open a thread about laws of different countries, so you can talk more about China, then go ahead.
This thread is about comparing and contrasting political systems, but in your 23 posts to date not a single one is about China's political system.

As I asked you before rob, but you did not reply, what is the name of the Chinese Opposition Party ?

 

[rederob]

What greater contrast between political systems can there be, than the fact that in one country you can be incarcerated for being critical of the system and in another you are free to be as critical as you like?

Wrong.
You can be critical of the system so long as you are not plotting against it, but cannot denigrate individuals.
As an example, Ren Zhiqiang thought his affiliations with senior CPC officials made him untouchable, but in China you cannot refer to your country's top leader as a power-hungry "clown."
Again, these are differences in laws, not political systems. But on that point, there is no way Fox media would ever be able to operate in China as their dishonesty would land them in jail.

As I asked you before rob, but you did not reply, what is the name of the Chinese Opposition Party ?

I suggest you read my links as they were outlined in them.
Making your continued ignorance of China a feature of posting after the information has been provided is not a good look!

 

[sptrawler]

I know what you meant to say.

Inciting subversion of the state[edit]​

Main article: Inciting subversion of state power
Inciting subversion of the state (Chinese: 煽动颠覆国家政权罪) was announced in a 1997 amendment of the Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China. According to Article 105, Paragraph 2,

"Anyone who uses rumor, slander or other means to encourage subversion of the political power of the State or to overthrow the socialist system, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years. However, the ringleaders and anyone whose crime is monstrous shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than five years."[4]

The charge of inciting subversion has been leveled against a number of dissidents, Weiquan lawyers, and political reformers. Rights activists, along with international human rights organizations, have argued that article 105 is inconsistent both with China's own constitution and with international human rights standards, particularly in light of the lack of transparency and clear guidelines used in applying the laws.[5] According to the United Nations "Working Group on Arbitrary Detention", the vague and broadly defined wording of the legislation allowed the communication of thoughts and ideas to be regarded as "subversion", even without intentions to commit criminal acts.[6]

Accused[edit]​

Among the most prominent Chinese citizens to have been charged with inciting subversion are:

• Gao Zhisheng, sentenced in Dec 2006 of 3 years of imprisonment, 1 year deprivation of political rights.[7]
• Guo Quan arrested in Nanjing on 13 Nov 2008.[8] He was sentenced to 10 years imprisonment in October 2009.[9]
• Hu Jia, sentenced in April 2008 of 3 and half years of imprisonment.[10]
• Huang Qi, was sentenced in Feb 2003 to 5 years of imprisonment, with 1 year deprivation of political rights. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment in November 2009 for "illegal procession of state secrets"[11]
• Liu Xiaobo, arrested in 2008 due to the publication of Charter 08. He was sentenced to 11 years imprisonment and 2 years deprivation of political rights in December 2009.[12] Liu had three previous convictions beginning in 1989.
• Tan Zuoren, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for “inciting subversion of state power” in February 2010[13]
• Wang Xiaoning, arrested for publishing controversial material online. In September 2003, Wang was convicted of charges of "inciting the overthrow of the state" and sentenced to ten years in prison.[14]
• Yang Chunlin, sentenced in February 2008 to 5 years of imprisonment, with 2 year deprivation of political rights.[15]
• Quan Ping, Chinese student in the US, secretly arrested in the US in 2016 for wearing T-shirt offending Xi Jinping and calling Xi 'Xitler' on Twitter. Currently awaiting sentencing.[16]

 

[sptrawler]

As an example, Ren Zhiqiang thought his affiliations with senior CPC officials made him untouchable, but in China you cannot refer to your country's top leader as a power-hungry "clown."
Again, these are differences in laws, not political systems.

But the political system writes the laws, so therefore it is a difference in political systems.
You can call Morrison a power hungry clown here, but as I said if you said it in China you would be put in prison.
So it is great you have finally agreed with me, it did take some doing though.

 

[rederob]

But the political system writes the laws, so therefore it is a difference in political systems.
You can call Morrison a power hungry clown here, but as I said if you said it in China you would be put in prison.
So it is great you have finally agreed with me, it did take some doing though.

First, that reference is defamatory here and in China, so your claim is false - again!
Depending on who made the reference elements of defamatory meaning, identification and publication, would be taken into account and action may or may not be taken.
Porter's case is an example of how tenuous our laws are as his defamation case is premised on ABC reporting which described allegations of a “brutal rape” at the hands of an unnamed senior minister.
Systems of government and systems of laws are very different.
You point defies logic, but if you are happy with your effort, so be it.

 

[sptrawler]

I think i've proven my point Rob.
Your circular arguments just skirt around the issue and are a pointless excercise in verbosity.

 

[rederob]

I think i've proven my point Rob.
Your circular arguments just skirt around the issue and are a pointless excercise in verbosity.

I agree with you!
Your points have been proven off topic and FALSE time and again.
Top marks for your consistency.

 

[SirRumpole]

First, that reference is defamatory here and in China, so your claim is false - again!

If you call a politician a power hungry clown you would have truth as a defense therefore it's not defamatory.

 

[rederob]

If you call a politician a power hungry clown you would have truth as a defense therefore it's not defamatory.

Definitely can make that case in Australia, so yes .
However the merit selection process in China provides a bullet proof defense for the highest elected officials, so a few hundred people would come forward to show why they don't elect "clowns" nor Pooh Bear.

The thing is most people are clueless about the laws in other countries, and for good reason if you never went there.
That bastion of democracy Switzerland, for example, will jail you for the same reason China would.
Bet you never knew that.

 

[SirRumpole]

Definitely can make that case in Australia, so yes .
However the merit selection process in China provides a bullet proof defense for the highest elected officials, so a few hundred people would come forward to show why they don't elect "clowns" nor Pooh Bear.

The thing is most people are clueless about the laws in other countries, and for good reason if you never went there.
That bastion of democracy Switzerland, for example, will jail you for the same reason China would.
Bet you never knew that.

I'd suggest that the 'merit' system in China relates to loyalty to the party not ability to do the job.

Same here of course, but it's still not merit it's just cronyism.

 

[rederob]

I'd suggest that the 'merit' system in China relates to loyalty to the party not ability to do the job.

Same here of course, but it's still not merit it's just cronyism.

Party membership confirms loyalty in China; CPC members take an oath.
In Australia loyalty seems to be carried with a knife.

While we might think Xi is all powerful, it's the Politburo that remains kingmaker, and you can see here that Xi has to keep a lot of people happy to stay in the top job.

Reminds me of John Howard's Cabinet, but he had twice as many women in it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Party membership confirms loyalty in China; CPC members take an oath.
In Australia loyalty seems to be carried with a knife.

While we might think Xi is all powerful, it's the Politburo that remains kingmaker, and you can see here that Xi has to keep a lot of people happy to stay in the top job.
View attachment 124380

Reminds me of John Howard's Cabinet, but he had twice as many women in it.

Really ? Xi is Premier for life isn't he ?

Some meritocracy.

 

[rederob]

Really ? Xi is Premier for life isn't he ?

Some meritocracy.

No.
He still needs to be re-elected each 5 years.
You are not reading the links are you!