Comments by "神州 Shenzhou" (@Shenzhou.) on "BBC News" channel.

  1. 3
  2. 3
  3. 3
  4. 3
  5. 3
  6. 3
  7. 3
  8. 3
  9. 3
  10. 3
  11. 3
  12. 3
  13. 3
  14. 3
  15.  @auroragb  And Taiwan had been under authoritarian single-party Kuomintang rule for more than half its life! For decades, the KMT ruled Taiwan with an iron fist and KMT leader Chiang kai-shek was a dictator who jailed and executed many dissidents and political rivals (whether real or perceived) in a period known as White Terror (白色恐怖) and he imposed Martial Law on Taiwan for more than 38 years, which was qualified as "the longest imposition of martial law by a regime anywhere in the world" at that time. But under authoritarian single-party KMT rule, Taiwan flourished and prospered in what's known as Taiwan Miracle (台湾奇迹) Between 1952-1982, Taiwan's economic growth was on average 8.7%, and between 1983-1986 at 6.9%. Taiwan's GDP grew by 360% between 1965-1986 and the percentage of global exports was over 2% in 1986, over other recently industrialized countries, and the global industrial production output grew a further 680% between 1965-1986. All this occurred under authoritarian single party KMT rule of Taiwan. Source: Wikipedia: Taiwan Miracle Only when democracy was introduced in 1990s (because USA threatened to cut off sales of weapons to Taiwan if KMT did not introduce political reforms) did Taiwan's economic growth became more modest. Today, Taiwan's economy is in a slump, wages are stagnant, cost of living is rising, and Taiwan graduates are seeking job opportunities in the mainland or in Singapore. So isn't this a proof that Taiwan actually prospered under authoritarian KMT rule and suffered under democracy? Why fix something that wasn't broken? Because Westerners say so?
    3
  16.  @auroragb  Its true that Article 45 is for 50 years, but until then, the CCP did not breach any laws in it. And your "halfway point" clearly does not exist within Article 45, so who are you to just make up an "imaginary halfway point" in Article 45 and then blame the CCP for violating this imaginary time limit made up by yourself? You have consistently failed to refute this point, and you are constantly trying to make up excuses which have all been shot down by facts. Since when does Singapore allow public protests? When is the last time Singapore had a protest you tell me? In 2008, a group of 20 people turned up at Parliament House to protest against the escalating cost of living in Singapore and the event was organised by the SDP and included their members. 18 were arrested when they refused to disperse as ordered by the police. All 20 were subsequently charged under Section 5(4)b Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance) Act. On 12 January 2009, 2 Singaporeans staged a protest outside the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) building to voice their disapproval over the treatment of two Myanmar nationals who had their work permits cancelled. The two activists were arrested but released on bail later. Seriously, how much do you even know about Singapore's authoritarian laws? Singapore's political environment is stifling and citizens continued in 2016 to face severe restrictions on their basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly. You can't even refute this simple fact.
    3
  17.  @auroragb  Literacy rate being equated with competence only applies to democracies, because like you said, it is the ordinary people that vote in their leaders, so why do you want illiterate people participating in political elections that will affect your country's future? Or those undesirable peoples like beggars, drug addicts, drunkards, deadbeats, dissidents, and so on? What makes you think the lower rung of society will be able to make important decisions regarding the country's future? India's illiteracy rate is because of its massive population. In the past, China was once like India, a dirt-poor country with enormous population, suffering from high birth rates, high child malnutrition, high child mortality, high illiteracy rates and other population problems. Why allow families to raise multiple kids, only for them to starve to death, to succumb to diseases in childhood because of not enough food, not enough hospitals and not enough schools to send them to? Instead, why not focus all available resources into raising a single, healthy kid into adulthood and get him into a good school? That's why China introduced the One-Child Policy and according to World Bank, China's poverty rate fell from 88% in 1981 to a mere 0.7% in 2015. According to UNESCO, adult literacy rate of China increased from 65.5% in 1982 to a whopping 96.4% in 2015 growing at an average annual rate of 10.39%. This is impressive feat considering that China is world's most populous country, yet attaining 0.7% poverty and 96.4% literacy. Source: Wikipedia: Poverty in China Look at India today and its suffering from population problems like high birth rate, high child malnutrition, high child mortality, low literacy, etc, which were problems that China once suffered from. So why do you still think China should be democracy then? We've been successful following authoritarian rule unlike India and just having 96.4% literacy rate is not a reason to suddenly change to democracy.
    3
  18. 3
  19.  @auroragb  Exactly, democracy is inefficient like you say. Why let the whole population rule, when a small number will suffice in the government? And once again, my question never said "dissolve people" you came up with the ridiculous notion yourself here because you can't admit that your countries need governments to function. Why not let the people who know how to govern, govern like I said? History has proven that much of human civilization follows some sort of authoritarian or oligarchic political systems. Political power was not concentrated in the hands of many, instead it was concentrated in the hands of the few elites, such as the nobles (aristocracy), or priests (theocracy) or kings and emperors (monarchy) Such authoritarian/oligarchic systems were prevalent because they were stable, and simply because they worked. The elites were often well educated and politically savvy, often capable of making political decisions, whereas the ignorant masses were kept well away from politics. Whereas frankly speaking, democracy has a long history of failure. Proto-democracies like Athenian democracy failed, Spartan democracy failed, and even Republic of Rome eventually failed. In the ancient world, Democracy was never in fact, popular outside of Greece at all, and after Rome fell, many of the individual states began to assume authoritarian rule under monarchy once again. Modern Western democracy is different but it only has 100-200 years of history to its name, so that's certainly not a guarantee for it to be successful in future. Why then should China adopt Western democracy, simply because Westerners think it is the best political system?
    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. 3
  34. 3
  35.  @bugsygoo  "神州 Shenzhou Start off by blaming the victim. Nice." How am I blaming the victim? I'm asking for your evidence that the vice premier sexually assaulted Peng Shuai, because Peng Shuai wrote in an email that the allegations of sexual assault aren't true. Then where's the allegations of sexual assault? If you can't even establish a basis for the claim of sexual assault, then how do we even proceed from here? "If the CCP has nothing to hide, why are they blocking all mention of her on the Chinese internet?" Who says that she's blocked on Chinese Internet? I can find pages of Peng Shuai 彭帅 on Baidu, go ahead and search on Baidu for Peng Shuai and why do you claim all mention of her is blocked on the Chinese internet? "If they can make Jack MA disappear for a few months and then come back all contrite, imagine what they can do to a woman with no power?" Jack Ma was also similarly keeping a low profile and had avoiding the public eye, yet anti-China trolls continued to demand "Where's Jack Ma?" and it turns out Jack Ma was a on a holiday cruise in the Balearic waters. So why is it inconceivable to you that Peng Shuai want's to keep a low profile after her previous relation with a much older man has been revealed? "And what's the motive of the WTA? They stand to lose hundreds of millions." It's possible that WTA want's to politicize the issue in order to malign China. The 2022 Beijing Olympics are coming soon, and WTA is trying to blow the matter up in order to use as "ammunition" to get more countries to potentially boycott the Beijing games.
    3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. 3
  42. 3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3