Youtube comments of (@imshulei).

  1. 235
  2. 65
  3. 54
  4. 50
  5. 10
  6. 7
  7. 6
  8. 5
  9. 5
  10. 4
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 4
  18. 4
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 3
  25. 3
  26. 3
  27. 3
  28. 3
  29. 3
  30. 3
  31. 3
  32. 3
  33. 2
  34. 2
  35. 2
  36. 2
  37. 2
  38. 2
  39. 2
  40. 2
  41. 2
  42. 2
  43. 2
  44. 2
  45. 2
  46. 2
  47. 2
  48. 2
  49. 2
  50. 2
  51. 2
  52. 2
  53. 2
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 1
  69. 1
  70. 1
  71. 1
  72. 1
  73. 1
  74. 1
  75. Many people who received their basic education in China have benefited from China's fair college entrance examination system and have entered prestigious universities such as Peking University and Tsinghua University, where tuition is only $1,000 per year. I believe that these two groups of people were the beneficiaries of China's initial policies, but these two groups of people did not experience the benefits of China. The first group saw more culture and institutions and started to indiscriminately attack China, disliked China and thought everything in the West was better than China The second group, just because the Chinese government introduced policies to curb their capital expansion, also started to indiscriminately attack the Chinese system, and I would say that these two groups are selfish. In fact, this is very much in line with the mainstream values of Western countries, but Chinese people who harbor hatred, even if they live abroad, cannot leave China and keep watching China's development, the fact is that the better China develops, the more unhappy they are and cannot integrate into Western countries, even this part will cheat Chinese people overseas, I really cannot understand this kind of thinking, these people are the beneficiaries of China's system, why would they Why do they become like this? Is the Western system necessarily suitable for China? Do we have to follow the same path of development? It has been proven that under a multi-party system, China's infrastructure and economy could not have developed as fast and had no chance to stick to industrialization. In the early days, China was the world's factory, synonymous with cheap labor, and if large amounts of foreign capital had entered and controlled China's economy, China itself would not have produced high-tech companies that were truly its own. Because of the large amount of labor, foreign capital would not let China develop too fast, because that would lead to an excessive increase in labor costs, and the best result would be that China would be like Southeast Asia now. What really happens is that we Asians, in the position of the Wall Street consortium, are just labor machines, and they do not want the whole Asia to develop fast, just like Europeans and Americans colonized Africa for centuries, and what did that bring them development?
    1
  76. 1
  77. 1
  78. 1
  79. 1
  80. 1
  81. 1
  82. 1
  83. 1
  84. 1
  85. 1
  86. 1
  87. 1
  88. 1
  89. 1
  90. 1
  91. 1
  92. 1
  93. 1
  94. 1
  95. 1
  96. 1
  97. 1
  98. 1
  99. 1
  100. 1
  101. 1
  102. 1
  103. @Star&shine But doesn't the U.S. often impose economic sanctions? In terms of maturity, this is indeed a confrontation between the two countries, just like the Soviet Union during the Cold War, because China does threaten the United States in some areas, such as some high-tech industries, and the military. Take the high-tech industry, Japan's Toshiba and France's Alstom, both former ah, followed by Huawei, except that the former is competing in an operating environment that is completely suppressed by the U.S. government. By definition, isn't this also the case with Tiktok? But on second thought, if the Chinese government, like the Japanese and South Korean governments, were willing to lower its posture and lead the United States as a cooperative ally, would the United States really not sanction China? Probably the final result is that China is reduced to the world's factory, because there is a lot of population, as the world's cheap labor, but also can not develop their own high-tech industries, to improve their national strength and international status, just like Russia several times want to join NATO, but NATO EU does not want it to join, because Europe wants to have imaginary enemies, so that NATO will not disintegrate, Russia's several concessions have not been respected by the other side. Of course, there are many friendly people in Europe and the US, but look at those governments, isn't it because of the rapid development of China that makes them do this? Why wasn't there a lot of international opposition to China and sanctions against it 15 or 20 years ago? And the news about China was not at all as intensive then as it is now. Let me ask a question, are Europe and the US also concerned about countries that are not competitive? There are so many countries in Africa and South America with large territories and populations that are seen as competitors by Europe and the United States? And many of these countries are also democratically elected, so why is it that the European and American systems have not helped the economic and social stability of these countries to develop at all either? Would the European and American systems really be suitable for China? If you are from Hong Kong, I can understand that you do not have the background of living in mainland China for a long time. It is true that many Hong Kong people do not consider themselves Asian citizens and think in a Western stance, but realistically, have you ever paid attention to Hong Kong people who have immigrated to the UK and whether most of them have become better off? Of course the UK welcomes rich immigrants, many Hong Kong people have high paying jobs in Hong Kong and when they arrive in the UK they can only work at the grassroots level, do the British really respect the newly arrived Hong Kong immigrants? Then why can't they become British citizens after going there for almost two years? Obviously, the British government is also selective and does not want too much low-end labor to stay in the UK. This group of Hong Kong people are competing with refugees from other countries for jobs, even most Hong Kong people have never been to mainland China and get their information entirely from the media to perfect their knowledge, so I would like to ask, do you have any experience of living in mainland China for a long time? I can understand that the sense of superiority that Hong Kong people used to have because of their economic development is now gone, we are often jealous of students who are poorer than us but do better than us in their studies because one constant is that people never pay attention to a non-existent, completely non-threatening student who is not above a class
    1
  104. 1
  105. 1
  106. 1
  107. 1
  108. 1
  109. 1
  110. 1
  111. 1
  112. 1
  113. 1
  114. 1
  115. 1
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. 1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. 1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. 1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. 1
  156. 1
  157. 1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. 1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. 1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. 1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174.  @nguyenhoanganh4586  European culture has really influenced Asia for only a hundred years or so, before that most Asian countries knew nothing about Latin alphabet and European culture, that was the feudal dynasty era, so what script was used in Vietnam at that time? We are discussing history, not the present, you always change the topic to the present, I never denied that Vietnam is using Latin alphabet now, that was invented by the French, it also made it easy for people to learn and lowered the illiteracy rate, also you always say that China was invaded by the Yuan dynasty and Europe, I never denied that either, but did the Mongols come to China and change the native culture? Even Mongol emperors and nobles started to learn Chinese culture, Chinese language and Confucius doctrine and did not require all commoners to learn Mongolian. It was because the Mongols were not good at ruling that the Yuan dynasty only existed for a hundred years or so, and after the Ming dynasty the Qing dynasty once again became the masters, and the leadership still took the initiative to learn the Chinese language and culture, and half of the officials within the government were Han Chinese, which is what I am discussing with you! You never answered my question, Vietnam has been using Chinese characters for thousands of years? It also took the initiative to learn the teachings of Confucius and increase the imperial examination system. Did China force Vietnam to learn it? Why are you avoiding the question?
    1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. 1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. 1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. If you come from Europe and America, maybe you are not British or Spanish French, these countries used to colonize everywhere in all continents of the world, but do not develop the local grassroots construction, they only ask for endless local resources, regardless of the development of the local people, maybe they do not regard the locals as their own people, but slaves, and this situation has lasted for at least a hundred years, and the local residents to the present time, many of the country's Aboriginal population has been less than half a million, which is forgotten in history, and even those who live now have not received any apology or compensation from the colonizers, since Europe and the United States are so developed, why is there no one to help build Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia? Is it because there is no profit to be made, or because they only want to receive short term gains, and that's what's getting in the way? Isn't it most common that European and American companies never take 10 years as the benchmark for doing things, and that they are greedy for short-term benefits such as one or two years? So this can explain why the European and American companies in Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, South America, these countries will never help them to do infrastructure, because they are the first to worry about is not able to make money, not able to recover the investment, and they also do not trust the local government, then I ask you a question, that Africa and South America and South Asia, the country's society and livelihood should be stagnant? If China doesn't participate in these programs, what other countries will? Shouldn't the people in developing countries enjoy the convenience of life? @Peter-be5lo 
    1
  214. India simply does not seem to have the capacity to help other countries with infrastructure development in a world where the only people who can help some countries with infrastructure development are China, the United States and some of the P5 countries, isn't it? Come to think of it, most of the countries in the world are still lagging behind in terms of infrastructure and do not have high speed railroads. So, can you tell me how much investment by India or similar countries has improved the overall society in other countries? Regarding your comment on Sri Lanka's bankruptcy, I have already said that Chinese investment in Sri Lanka lags behind Europe, USA and Japan, so what makes you think that it must be China that caused Sri Lanka's bankruptcy? What is your basis for this? Why should China, which is lagging behind in investment, be held responsible? This is like blaming China for everything, does it make sense? Regarding your comment about leasing ports and land, you are only talking about China, why not the US? The US has hundreds of bases all over the world, leases land in other countries, and some countries even pay for US military expenses, why don't you mention that? And China doesn't have troops in those countries, the US actually has troops in those countries, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Australia, Germany, and that makes it reasonable and legal for the US to do so? China is only doing it for economic purposes and has no military presence, so that makes it unreasonable? @Peter-be5lo 
    1
  215. 1
  216. 1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. 1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1