Remembering Tiananmen, 20 years on

[Hari Michiru]

Well, instead of answering other people's posts, I'll post my own opinion on Tiananmen.

It's true that the Chinese government back then acted too harshly towards the students, but the students are also at fault. By the time the gov't sent in their tanks, the students had caused traffic problems in downtown Beijing, and hygiene was a concern. Although the gov't could have used a less agressive method, they had a right to stop the protesting, because it was getting out of hand. After all, there are laws against certain types of protesting even in democratic nations, right? ('Cause they're here in Canada.)

The CCP has learned from its mistakes from Tiananmen (we Chinese call it the 6/4 incident...then I don't have to worry about spelling it xD). The current leaders are more diplomatic, and less stubborn while dealing with internal and external affairs. There is change, even if it is slow change (IMO, better than none). Having too big of a change (the students were demanding for instant democracy...) would have a negative impact on society; there's even a possibility that China would have fallen apart if such a big change was made.

Let's bring up a western example. England was ruled by an absolute monarchy until the English Civil War. Under Oliver Cromwell, England became a republic. The instant change was too large for England to bear though, as they were used to a monarchy. As Cromwell rules England with an iron fist, and his son unable to fill his father's spot at the top, England overthrows this republic and the monarchy was restored.

Also, do not forget that China was closed off from the world until less than a century ago. If you suddenly gained access to technology you have never dreamed of, wouldn't you go a bit crazy too? Humans are the best animals at adapting, but even we need time to adjust. Instead of declaring instant democracy, the students should have asked the (current) gov't to slowly transition their way into a freer society. But of course, the literacy and education rate has to go up before society can change. And if society changes, so will the gov't (even if they don't want change).

[justavisitor]

Chinese don't call it as 6/4 incident...take a look at page 8 or page 7, many ppl in hong kong call it as 6/4 massacre...they are chinese too right?? XD

Because of hygiene and traffic problem, the government can call soldier with machine gun and tanks etc to slaughter ppl??

Chinese government always says it needs time to adapt democracy...but what step the government has taken since 1989?? none..chinese can't choose their leader, chinese can't choose their province minister, chinese can't even choose their mayor...if the government says ppl need bread and butter first, ok, then how about hk?? Hk has bread and butter and ppl in there are pretty well educated

Hong Kong's mayor in 1997 was chosen by 800 ppl in HK..citizens in HK alway want to elect their mayor, but chinese government pushed it back to 2007, and now she pushes it back to 2022!!! The mayor chosen in 2007 was still chosen by 800 ppl...and those 800 ppl are not chosen by HK citizen at all (so poor HK citizens need at least 25 years to choose their mayor and who knows if it will get delayed to even further)

students in 1989 were asking the communist party to take step to reform...they were having a peaceful protest...you can't call tanks to run them over because of traffic problem

Last thing, I don't think chinese government really wants to promote democracy...the government simply uses that as an excuse to buy some time..just look at HK for example

[risingstar3110]

Just like i mentions before, the Chinese government believe in their own democracy too....

So if you asks:

"Chinese government always says it needs time to adapt democracy...what step the government has taken since 1989?? none..chinese can't choose their leader, chinese can't choose their province minister, chinese can't even choose their mayor..."

.... i bet they will say " yes, we improve our democratic government a lots. See, every citizens can appoint their representative so those can choose leader, province minister, mayor....etc... for them. That's democratic...".... or something like that (i don't even have much idea about the system itself, stole this from somewhere else D: )


I do not fully understand what Hari Michiru said because i'm not Chinese. But i can guess how's her points and her reasons was made/ built on.

[justavisitor]

@risingstar3110

if that's what they will counter then it's kind of tragic...I would think they abuse the word representative...who are those representative?? no one knows...can you vote on those representative?? hmm maybe some wealthy ppl, but I don't think you or your neighbor Mr.Chan can have any say in this...how do you know those representative will act as the majority desires...no one knows either...

And then those representatives will appoint those leader, province minister, mayor etc..and those leaders' priority is to protect the right from those representatives...and then, corruption will come to play..I could go on..but I will stop here

And the last thing is, I hope Chinese don't believe those stuff...I know (or I think) many ppl in HK don't believe "Chinese unique democracy system" and I hope that faith stays strong

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

It's true that the Chinese government back then acted too harshly towards the students, but the students are also at fault. By the time the gov't sent in their tanks, the students had caused traffic problems in downtown Beijing, and hygiene was a concern. Although the gov't could have used a less agressive method, they had a right to stop the protesting, because it was getting out of hand. After all, there are laws against certain types of protesting even in democratic nations, right? ('Cause they're here in Canada.)

Nope, you're totally wrong there. The crackdown took place in the early morning of 4 June 1989, but the protests began on 15 April, and the government didn't declare martial law until 20 May! Unless you're trying to posit that the protests weren't considered a problem until a month after they started, this theory is a complete non-starter. I can easily buy that the central government wanted to avoid violence if possible (there was no violence at all when they first tried to send the troops in), it's pretty clear that they panicked and thought that they had no choice in the matter.

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

The CCP has learned from its mistakes from Tiananmen (we Chinese call it the 6/4 incident...then I don't have to worry about spelling it xD). The current leaders are more diplomatic, and less stubborn while dealing with internal and external affairs. There is change, even if it is slow change (IMO, better than none). Having too big of a change (the students were demanding for instant democracy...) would have a negative impact on society; there's even a possibility that China would have fallen apart if such a big change was made.

Part of the central government was amenable to a fair number of the student demands, but the problem was that there wasn't that much organization among the protestors to begin with. They had very disparate sets of demands, and there wasn't any one group that the government could negotiate with. As such, the longer the protests went on, the less influence the reform-minded leadership could exert, and the more vocal the hard-liners became, until the whole mess devolved into the massacre.

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Also, do not forget that China was closed off from the world until less than a century ago. If you suddenly gained access to technology you have never dreamed of, wouldn't you go a bit crazy too? Humans are the best animals at adapting, but even we need time to adjust. Instead of declaring instant democracy, the students should have asked the (current) gov't to slowly transition their way into a freer society. But of course, the literacy and education rate has to go up before society can change. And if society changes, so will the gov't (even if they don't want change).

I agree that China isn't really ready for democracy, but it's untrue that it was closed off from the rest of the world. If that were the case, the Qing dynasty wouldn't have had to worry about stuff like wars with Russia and Great Britain.

Originally Posted by justavisitor

Chinese don't call it as 6/4 incident...take a look at page 8 or page 7, many ppl in hong kong call it as 6/4 massacre...they are chinese too right?? XD

To be honest, I'm not fond of any of the names that have been given to this event. Calling it the Tiananmen Massacre, or anything to that extent disregards all of the build-up events that led up to it. Since many of these events are equally as significant as the massacre itself (albeit they are far less tragic), it's a real injustice to the historical record. Such a description would also overlook the fact that Beijing turned out in force to support the protests and that there were smaller protests in every corner of China. The most accurate name would probably be something along the lines of "the Chinese Summer Protests of 1989", but it doesn't exactly roll off the tongue, and you'd still have to explain what you're referring to.

Originally Posted by justavisitor

Chinese government always says it needs time to adapt democracy...but what step the government has taken since 1989?? none..chinese can't choose their leader, chinese can't choose their province minister, chinese can't even choose their mayor...if the government says ppl need bread and butter first, ok, then how about hk?? Hk has bread and butter and ppl in there are pretty well educated

I wouldn't expect more than a token gesture towards democratic reforms anytime soon, especially when it comes to the central government. There are two very rational reasons for this, even aside from the leadership wanting to hold onto power as much as possible. The first is that China is very skeptical of the democratic process itself - it being too prone to populism and short-sighted policy, and the necessity of having the proper institutions and history to back up such a political system. They can point to their democratic neighbors in Asia; all of whom have been ruled by a single party for a very long time, or who tend to be rather unstable and/or plagued with scandals. The more effective democracies tend to be in Europe and the Americas, where there is much more historical backing for democratic tradition. It's likely that a democratic PRC would be in the former category, and it's not a particularly desirable situation to be in.

The other reason for not jumping at democratic reforms is that China actually has a pretty good system for their top leadership. It's been able to overcome the main challenge of dictatorships - how to handle succession, and the result is that the central government tends to come up with relatively popular, if sometimes heavy-handed policies. One interesting note about this is that where Western democracies tend to be led by lawyers and business people, China tends to have leaders with science and engineering backgrounds. This difference creates a rather interesting difference in approaches to policy making. This kind of policy for picking leaders doesn't filter down all that well to lower levels of government, and so there are vast differences between those levels and the central government. If there are any democratic reforms, I'd expect them to be both modest, and concentrated on the local level. In any case, any type of democratic reform is going to be utterly worthless without also freeing up the press (which has occurred, but only to a very small degree).

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

China happens to have lots of intelligent people doing absolutely nothing but strategic planning everyday and thus, it is only natural that they figure some economy-based diplomacy policies and tactics that most other nations wouldn't possibly think of. Most certainly, these intellectuals are being paid large amounts of money, as well as guaranteed a life of luxury. This sort of government-behavior don't occur in democratic nations as that citizens will be unpleased.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

What I am saying is that China is paying money to people specifically doing the work of plotting conspiracies, coming up with strategies, as well as diplomatic policies enhanced by the global financial situation with ties to their own economic might.

Summary: China employs people to come up with policies that will improve the country's political, economic and strategic position in the world, and to find the best way to implement these ideas. Don't all countries do this? And if they don't why the heck don't they?

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

Comparable countries don't have a black jails, an active cooperation between the mafia, government, and military, and no nation has a Party quite like the CCP. In these respects China is pretty unique. Russia approaches some of these qualities but it's not nearly as intense (except for the mafia part)

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

In immigrant nations, Chinese people always meddle with the nation's politics and foreign policies, whereas immigrants of other nations would never do such a thing.

It's extremely natural behavior for first and second generation immigrants of all countries. Assimilation usually doesn't set in until the generations after that, so I'm not sure why you posit this as something unique to China.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Aside from that, China also steal technology and business profitable information, whereas other nations rarely do it or possibly don't.

If by "rarely", you mean "all the time", you'd be absolutely correct. Industrial espionage is something that all Intelligence organizations of note engage in, even with their erstwhile allies. If that were not the case, we wouldn't hear about things like Israeli espionage or events like "Concordski".

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Do you see other nations' people surround news media places with huge gatherings holding unreasonable protests?

Yes, minority protests are an extremely common occurence - witness the recent protests by Tamil (or Arab, or Tibetan, etc.) ex-patriates.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Do you see other nations' people complaining to their local government about making not enough visits to their country China?

Yes, but how can this be anything but a trivial criticism on your part?

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Funny thing is that most of these immigrant nations tend to turn a blind eye as that they are afraid of China in various aspects to the point that it is plain lame and embarassing.

At least this is a valid complaint of a lot of Chinese chauvanists, but it's hardly unique to them.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

It is also the fault of this single one community that the majority of European nations will now have anti-immigration policies in which every other non-Chinese community will suffer. Why did this happen? Well.. To put it simple, the European Union cannot just single out China, right? As that, it would be considered as racism. And thus, they decided to make it fair and that anti-immigration policies apply to every nation and people altogether.

What kind of crap argument is this? European nations (a usefully vague and unsourced argument) enact discriminatory legislation, and so it's the fault of those being discriminated against? Rather than those unnamed Europeans for being a bunch of bigots? What's next, are you going to blame the behavior of Japanese-Americans for the internment camps in World War II, or the behavior of Blacks for Jim Crow laws? I've seen some pretty bad arguments before, but this one is really quite beyond the pale. Moreover, it's not even remotely correct since most European anti-immigration rhetoric is targetted against North Africans, Turks or Pakistanis.

[Shadow Kira01]

....

Impressive at the non-sensical counters. Although all your points are supposedly to be valid based on the knowledge you possess. However, truth points out that you actually have no clue as to what is really going on these days and thus, debating with you is pointless. More over, as a moderator who possess quite an immense knowledge on the political issue would definitely not like the idea of getting striked down, I wouldn't want to hurt that pride of yours. Besides, this topic is getting pretty derailed to the point that the one who started the thread may not be very happy, thus it is only reason that I take my leave of this thread.

[Lathdrinor]

Shadow Minato, my guess is that you get too much of your news from anti-China sites and that's why you have the perspective that you do. But honestly, as someone who is somewhat familiar with the European view of immigration, my observation is that the Chinese are at the lower end of their concerns. Anti-immigration European groups like the BNP and the PFF are foremost concerned with Africans, Muslims, and Turks (and sometimes Indians) - just as 4Trans said. Europeans that I talk to are far more bothered by the rising rate of crime, religious intolerance, and ghetto gangsterism in their countries than by occasional outbursts of nationalism by Chinese students. Don't get me wrong, they don't like that, either, but it's just not the first things that come to mind when they talk about anti-immigration.

[Hari Michiru]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Nope, you're totally wrong there. The crackdown took place in the early morning of 4 June 1989, but the protests began on 15 April, and the government didn't declare martial law until 20 May! Unless you're trying to posit that the protests weren't considered a problem until a month after they started, this theory is a complete non-starter. I can easily buy that the central government wanted to avoid violence if possible (there was no violence at all when they first tried to send the troops in), it's pretty clear that they panicked and thought that they had no choice in the matter.

Hm...I'm probably wrong about the traffic problems, but after a month of protesting, the hygenie must have been horrendous, and they were also going on a hunger strike.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Part of the central government was amenable to a fair number of the student demands, but the problem was that there wasn't that much organization among the protestors to begin with. They had very disparate sets of demands, and there wasn't any one group that the government could negotiate with. As such, the longer the protests went on, the less influence the reform-minded leadership could exert, and the more vocal the hard-liners became, until the whole mess devolved into the massacre.

Perhaps if the proesters had been more organized, and the gov't less impulsive, then maybe this could have been avoided. Well, it's not use dwelling on the past now...at least China's gov't has started to make compensations to those who had suffered in Tiananmen Square.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

I agree that China isn't really ready for democracy, but it's untrue that it was closed off from the rest of the world. If that were the case, the Qing dynasty wouldn't have had to worry about stuff like wars with Russia and Great Britain.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. When I said closed off, I meant culturally closed off.

Originally Posted by 4Tran

Summary: China employs people to come up with policies that will improve the country's political, economic and strategic position in the world, and to find the best way to implement these ideas. Don't all countries do this? And if they don't why the heck don't they?

I recall asking him a similar question with no real answer given back to me.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

....

Impressive at the non-sensical counters. Although all your points are supposedly to be valid based on the knowledge you possess. However, truth points out that you actually have no clue as to what is really going on these days and thus, debating with you is pointless.

And this is what you call irony.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

More over, as a moderator who possess quite an immense knowledge on the political issue would definitely not like the idea of getting striked down, I wouldn't want to hurt that pride of yours. Besides, this topic is getting pretty derailed to the point that the one who started the thread may not be very happy, thus it is only reason that I take my leave of this thread.

Now we can have an intelligent discussion on what China has taken from Tiananmen Square.

Unless you're blind, there are some obvious changes that have happened in China since 1989.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Hm...I'm probably wrong about the traffic problems, but after a month of protesting, the hygenie must have been horrendous, and they were also going on a hunger strike.

The hunger strike had started a couple of weeks before 4 June. And realistically, there's no way to rationalize the crackdown without concluding that the central government grossly overreacted. I don't think that you're very clear about the details of the course of events, so I direct you to the PBS documentary that I linked to earlier: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tankman/. It's a good refresher course on the sequence of events.

Originally Posted by Hari Michiru

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. When I said closed off, I meant culturally closed off.

Even culturally, that's a questionable claim. The amount of outside cultural/technological influence allowed from the outside would vary depending on who was calling the shots. The real problem is that China was overly insular while simultaneously being too unstable during the later Qing era. If the late Qing had been able to pull off the same level of organization and competence as their early counterparts, China would have been able to come out of the 19th century in much better shape. And really, a lot of the fear of change stems from the overall instability of the system at the time.

[TinyRedLeaf]

China's progress looks nothing like Singapore's

By John Lee, for The Straits Times, (June 29)

RECENT conversations with Chinese political scientists brought home the extent to which Beijing is obsessed with watching, analysing and replicating the success of Singapore. After all, despite a mediocre global ranking for political freedom, Singapore is confident, prosperous and ordely. Meritocracy is highly valued, its people generally contented and society, vibrant.

Most appealing of all, as far as Beijing is concerned, are the approval ratings for Singaporean leaders, which would make many democratic leaders envious. If there is an "Asian way" of enlightened authoritarian leadership, then Singapore is by far its best example. Unfortunately, the vision is seductive but out of reach for Beijing. It was never realistic and, if anything, China is moving rapidly away from the Singapore example.

...Singapore had two advantages which China does not enjoy: The advantage of size or, more precisely, the lack of it, together with pre-existing institutions that were protected and improved upon.

Size matters
When it comes to policy implementation, size matters. Singapore is a country of roughly 4.5 million people. China, in contrast, has 1.3 billion people. There are 45 million officials in China and only 2 per cent belong to the central authorities. No matter how enlightened Beijing's leaders are, they are reliant on around 44 million unsupervised, poorly trained and often corrupt local officials to execute and implement.

This brings us to China's second major limitation. Policy implementation would be much more effective if the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) built better institutions. China needs a strong civil society where there is rule of law. Courts need to be independent and officials, accountable. Private property has to be protected, individual enterprise given a chance to succeed, basic human rights enforced and the government, restrained.

The People's Action Party in Singapore was ruthless against political dissidents, but it either left existing British institutions in place or built better civil ones where needed. The father of modern Singapore, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew, was after all a Cambridge-trained lawyer who understood the intimate relationship between good laws and their enforcement, and strong civil societies.

Weak institutions
In contrast, these in China are weak. Deteriorating institutions have actually coincided with the increased role of the CCP in Chinese economy and society after the Tiananmen protests in 1989. For example, the number of officials before and after the protests more than doubled — from 20 million to 45 million.

Since the early 1990s, the CCP has retaken control of the economy. State-controlled enterprises receive over three quarters of the country's entire capital each year, reversing the situation prior to 1989. The private sector is denied formal capital (that is, bank loans) and access to the most lucrative markets, which is reserved for the state-controlled sector.

Only around 50 of the 1,400 listed companies on the Shanghai Stock Exchange are genuinely private. Fewer than 100 of the 1,000 richest people in China are not linked to the CCP. This state-corporatist model favours a relatively small number of well-placed insiders. Meanwhile, a billion people are largely missing out on the fruits of GDP growth. In fact, 400 million people have seen their net incomes decline over the past decade. Absolute poverty has doubled since 2000.

This extensive role of the CCP has coincided with a rise in systemic corruption. The party, after all, dispenses the most valued economic and professional opportunities in Chinese society. Courts at all levels are still explicitly under the control of party organs.

...Levels of dissatisfaction, especially with the local authorities, are so high that there were 87,000 instances of mass unrest in 2005, according to official figures, rising from a few thousand in the mid-1990s. To appease unhappy citizens, Beijing has instituted a system of "petitions" whereby aggrieved citizens can appeal to a higher authority against their local officials. A good idea, except for the fact that of every 10,000 petitions lodged, only three are heard.

Cut the excuses
Yes, it's true that China is still developing. But that excuse is wearing a bit thin. Reforms began in 1979. Since then, China's economy has doubled every 10 years. The middle class is approaching 100 million to 200 million people, depending on the definition. The building of institutions should be speeding ahead. Instead, since the Tiananmen protests in 1989, institutional building in China has, in many respects, gone backwards.

Peer behind the showcases of Shanghai or Shenzhen, and China looks nothing like Singapore. For a more accurate comparison, look at the crumbling civil societies in Russia or Brazil.

The writer is a foreign policy fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney and a visiting fellow at the Hudson Institute in Washington. The revised second edition of his book, Will China Fail?, was released on June 27.

Review of John Lee's book on the China Book Reviews blog:
"John Lee is an Australian of Chinese heritage with a PhD in international relations. While his book, Will China Fail?, is well-structured and clearly argued, full of interesting insights and criticisms, it does have its flaws. Lee's selective use of evidence, along with his failure to consider alternative readings, to some extent at least, undermine many of his central arguments. He presents a very one-sided picture, though intelligently enough argued to make it a good companion volume to China's Trapped Transition, by Minxin Pei, and Will Hutton's The Writing on the Wall."

[Claies]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

*snip*

Indeed, as a Chinese, I am very envious of the well-roundedness and solid development of the smaller East Asian countries like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and Japan (though that's slowly dropping off the list for failing to get its governmental ass in gear).

China will not fail. However, it will be ridiculously inefficient for the foreseeable future. I'm still holding out for the current leadership to be more progressive against corruption, since the country's reputation really hinges right there (see tainted baby milk and lead toy paint, etc). They can only use so much force against social unrest, since the world's been very wary since Tiananmen.

[justavisitor]

I don't have high hope to the chinese current leadership at all..sure every time they show up, they present the right speech and they show they care about their ppl...but where are they when victims of the earthquake try to appeal to them about the corruption in their province which led to many unnecessary death during the earthquake??

Where are they when ppl complain about the ridiculous software that the chinese government wants every to-be-sold computer starting July 1 to be installed, so when you type "6.4" in your notepad, that ridiculous software can shut off your notepad??

Where are they when chinese secret police arrest another citizen who fights for democracy? And chinese government won't even allow any lawyer to represent that guy...

All those incidents make me feel pessimistic towards the current leadership in China..sure they know PR right now, but deep inside, they are still the same--corrupted and dictatorship

[Lathdrinor]

When it comes to policy implementation, size matters. Singapore is a country of roughly 4.5 million people. China, in contrast, has 1.3 billion people. There are 45 million officials in China and only 2 per cent belong to the central authorities. No matter how enlightened Beijing's leaders are, they are reliant on around 44 million unsupervised, poorly trained and often corrupt local officials to execute and implement.

This is by far the biggest problem. National politics has always been the politics of the possible - if you can't depend on your policies being implemented, then you are nothing more than an arbitrator between competing interests, which is a fast way of getting sidetracked into a stagnant, and often corrupt, system. There is no one in China or the CCP that can command the sort of power that would be necessary to push through much needed reforms. The party, from what I understand, is still wracked by internal disputes over critical policy issues, though these are kept out of public sight.

I know this sounds like an argument for greater centralization, but the truth is, against an entrenched elite protective of their own interests (in this case, the 45 million+ bureaucrats and their social circles), only two solutions are possible: 1) the emergence of a powerful, charismatic leader (like Mao, Lee Kuan Yew, etc.) 2) popular revolution. In fact, the two solutions are frequently the same one: as a popular revolution is often led by such a leader.

There is not enough pressure in China to ferment a revolution; what dissent there exists is under control - and so long as catastrophic problems do not occur, it is likely that China will continue in its present path, much like most of the developing world, which is both corrupt and inefficient. So, without drastic changes, we will have to see whether "great" leaders emerge. The next generation of CCP power brokers do not give me hope, in this respect - they seem too "princeling," and therefore too likely to fall into the current pattern of defending elite interests.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Just like i mentions before, the Chinese government believe in their own democracy too....

So if you asks: .... i bet they will say " yes, we improve our democratic government a lots. See, every citizens can appoint their representative so those can choose leader, province minister, mayor....etc... for them. That's democratic...".... or something like that (i don't even have much idea about the system itself, stole this from somewhere else D: )


I do not fully understand what Hari Michiru said because i'm not Chinese. But i can guess how's her points and her reasons was made/ built on.

Uh, reminds me of this:

Basically, Hu Jintao tells a Japanese kid in Yokohama that he was popularly chosen. SURE. The max. no. of candidates in the People's Congress is like 110% of total seats.
What chosen? Even Chen Shui Bian's claims of being "Son of Taiwan" made more sense in retrospect.

Originally Posted by justavisitor

Where are they when ppl complain about the ridiculous software that the chinese government wants every to-be-sold computer starting July 1 to be installed, so when you type "6.4" in your notepad, that ridiculous software can shut off your notepad??

It's now optional for individual end-owners, but not for schools, cybercafes, corporations... so yeah.

Originally Posted by Lathdrinor

I know this sounds like an argument for greater centralization, but the truth is, against an entrenched elite protective of their own interests (in this case, the 45 million+ bureaucrats and their social circles), only two solutions are possible: 1) the emergence of a powerful, charismatic leader (like Mao, Lee Kuan Yew, etc.) 2) popular revolution. In fact, the two solutions are frequently the same one: as a popular revolution is often led by such a leader.

Not fair to clump LKY with Mao, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-il... LKY for one is actually a capable leader who just deferred looking for a successor. For like 30 years. But that's OK. Maybe if you placed LKY with Deng Xiaoping, that's more sensible. Still. You can't deny that LKY succeeded where the rest failed.

[yezhanquan]

Lee pretty much knew what he was doing. His team trusted him, and he in turn didn't betray that trust, which is more than what I can say for Mao.

[ZephyrLeanne]

Originally Posted by yezhanquan

Lee pretty much knew what he was doing. His team trusted him, and he in turn didn't betray that trust, which is more than what I can say for Mao.

My point exactly.
COME ON SINGAPORE PEOPLE ARE OVERSTRESSED AND NEED A NEW HOLIDAY.
Why not, a LKY day? Or Harry Lee for that matter? Maybe, um... OK go find a suitable date.

After all you people have LKY School of Public Policy, no?

[LeoXiao]

REMEMBERING TIANANMEN, 24 YEARS ON (NO NEED FOR NEW THREAD IMO)

I'm calling it a massacre instead of an "incident" because that's what it was. 24 years later, the CCP still uses violent and underhanded (sometimes both) methods to keep itself going. Though overt political dissent has been marginalized through over 60 years of totalitarian ideology, economic and spiritual resistance is alive and growing. How much longer the one-party system will continue is unclear.

[ArchmageXin]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...tionaries.html

This unlikely alliance of students and workers was forged by a shared dissatisfaction with inflation and corruption. By calling for Deng’s ouster, the demonstrators demanded not only an end to dictatorship, but also an end to capitalist economic reform. They favored radical political change, but they also harbored a deeply conservative view of economic change.

[Ithekro]

It still effects the world view of modern China. An event that still hasn't been forgotten...even if it is not wholly remembered.

[SoldierOfDarkness]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-0...tionaries.html

Not surprising.

Deng after all opened the doors to foreign investment and a lot of people weren't happy about it. They were afraid it'd be a repeat of the era where China was raped left and right by foreign powers.

So yeah Deng had a lot of conservatives he had to purge in order to push it through.

Was it worth it?

Well the West now makes evil bedtime stories about the evil Chinese and how they're taking over the world so I would say yes.

It still effects the world view of modern China. An event that still hasn't been forgotten...even if it is not wholly remembered.

As long as the US wants to keep it there they'll keep it there and the media will do whatever the US tells them to do.

Yet at the same time we got massacres happening elsewhere and nobody even bothers to say a word about it.

I spent some time in China and every now and then there are protests but generally speaking nothing out of the ordinary happens. I have friends who work overseas or are currently living in China and life is still the same...except for Twitter and Facebook though with all the crap that's out there I think that's a blessing in disguise.