Thing is,using tanks n firearms to kill own ppl is a barbarian act,these ppl are worse than beasts.
There are worse things than that.
Please do more research and read more books before coming to that conclusion. If u are referring in general that using tanks n firearms to kill own people is a barbaric act then maybe,
But if u are referring to the 1989 TNM Square , then again.. please do more research , peer reviewed articles and read more books.
But then again if u came up with that conclusion just based on what u know alone, and what u hear from other people , what u read on Wiki , then i wont blame you . But i will still recommend you to do much much more reading .
N there are way more other barbaric things you can do to your own people.
But then again , knowing too much makes u see things very ambigously. If only things were all so simple. A simple yes or no. If only the world is so simply.
Originally posted by drawer:Even Communist China need time for her to proceed to democracy state.But,they still have to face up the problems they currently encountered,not to sweep all the problems under the carpet or put the blames to Dhalai Lama or Western countries.
The truth of the current problems China facing is,if the Communist China refuse to hold a general election and end a One-party domination of the country.The remaining state that in theory should belong to China,will one by one refuse to recognise China as a whole n want to separate from her.Xinjiang,Tibet and Taiwan,all the same.
Especially Taiwan,even if Mainland China "advance" to Singapore current political state and have an general election(Which is unfair).Taiwan will also refuse to merge back to China as it is still One-party domination with 2 or 3 opposition party hanging like a dead man in the parliament.[
Bottomline is,Communist China or Communist PAP in Singapore,has to proceed to Western type of democracy,whether they want it or not.
But they are not seriously working towards a long term solution in the political process capitalist or socialist. What we are seeing is a continuing influence of power. And trying to shift the problems to outside source.
Anyway China problems will always going to be outside source because without outside source where is the economic progress in China.
Originally posted by sgdiehard:Singapore didn't take the decision to pick up English, the master of the land then was the Brit so English was there to stay. Many Chinese didn't agree so there were Chinese schools. But you are right, we now study Chinese because of China, we would have studied Indonesian if Sukarno had his way, if India development picked up then I am not sure if we would study Tamil or Hindi....
The point is even the Tibetans, given a choice, they would want to study a language that would enable them to make better living, honestly I don't know if they have a problem studying both Tibetan and Chinese language. As it is, the dilution of Tibetan culture by the Chinese is much less than the influence of western culture in Chinese culture. Wait till hollywood and bollywood both enter Lakhsa, via the railroad built by China...
let me get back to the original reply.
as a student we did not necessary given a choice to study all Mandarin with ESL. even thought if your parent send u to chinese school because most subject were already coverted to english. and since we adopted GCE O level standard would have to apply. Therefore Irregardless of your choice in going to Chinese schooling or English speaking school you still derive the same destination English language as the main teaching language. Singapore did not develope alternative schooling system. If you look at your brethen in MY its chinese citizen actually travel to Taiwan to complete its university.
The Tibetian is asking that they given a choice and not a standard choice where you end up the same path just like sg which is not much of a choice.
nobody said that Tibet will not be influence by globalization. I think the lama was the first to get influence, but it is for them to decide what life style to work out. And right now they are asking for that choice.
Protest isn't that bad you know? Just like in Business we complaint if you did not received complaint how do you improved your service. Your customer might just walk out without you knowing it. Just like people in SG is moving out and Gov is wondering why? The strait time was asking to interview people why people are leaving SG?
Originally posted by BadzMaro:If its the only way to crush the protest , then yes... they have become enemies of the country that wants peace and stability through force.
I dont think they or anyone who authorised it killed for political power and is a person withouth morality and self-conscience.
These people continue to test the Central Government. Not now... not yet.
Do you not see a problems if every few decade you need to roll down your tank to your own people? Its going to happen again maybe this time will be Hong Kong. next few decade maybe Shanghai. They have to change the mayor every time they change leadership to instill loyalty.
China is not like SG where its history is only 40 odds years while the first generation leadership is still holding hands to the gov. We got no history. We only got experiences.
China has a vast history and the fact that they withstood time. And they will be around till end of times. So if they cannot view governing as perpetual, but power as a section in time than they ignore the history.
So if the China leadership felt that they are not ready with history of 5000 yrs, please let me know when will they ever be ready. There are always enough plate to blame.
So if they cannot view governing as perpetual, but power as a section in time than they ignore the history.
Can you clarify?
Originally posted by BadzMaro:But if u are referring to the 1989 TNM Square , then again.. please do more research , peer reviewed articles and read more books.
N there are way more other barbaric things you can do to your own people.
1989 TNM Square is a shame to those Chinese Communist Pigs politicians.They are over-reacting by using military n tanks to crack down the protest n killed unarmed students n workers,u think they are doing the right thing?LOL!!!
And what do u mean there are way more barbaric things u can do to your own ppl?As if using arms n tanks to kill own ppl are too mercy?Then perhaps u can show us how well you are at killing your own ppl,Mr Devil.(i address u as devil becoz from the above statement u make,u have no faith in God,maybe u like hell better^^)
1989 TNM Square incident is excessive indeed.
But the political situation in the communist countries in that period was that communist regimes were collapsing in eastern europe.
Republics in the Soviet Union were declaring independence.
PRC was fearful that the momentum might spread and bring about the collapse of China.
If that happens, more chaos and bloodshed would be in store for the people.
This is not to justify anything but rather to view the situation from the PRC perspective.
If USSR and PRC collapsed in the 1990s and the balance of power shifts dramatically to the western bloc, we can expect what sort of attitude USA and others might take.
Originally posted by drawer:And what do u mean there are way more barbaric things u can do to your own ppl?As if using arms n tanks to kill own ppl are too mercy?Then perhaps u can show us how well you are at killing your own ppl,Mr Devil.(i address u as devil becoz from the above statement u make,u have no faith in God,maybe u like hell better^^)
Oh there is many other more ways of getting barbaric with your own people. All u need is a MORE worldly perspective of human history.
e.g.
US colored policy.
South Africa's race apathed
India's Caste system
Nazi German 3rd Reich
Japan's race-based nippon-centric system
China's cultural revoluti
Comparing to the above, TNM is nothing more than a paragraph in the encyclopidia of human barbarism.
Yes,BUT,that doesnt give those PRC politicians Pigs an excuse to kill their own ppl.Those protestors are mostly students n workers who are unarmed.
Many ppl,including Taiwanese,say Taiwan President Chen Shui Peng is a lousy politician.The Taiwanese make alot of protest gathering at him n ask him to step down.BUT,during the 8 years reign of Taiwan president,did he kill a single Taiwanese protestors who ask him to step down?He is even more mild than our PAP leaders when dealing with the protestors!!!
Now,this is the difference between a "civilise" politician n a "barbaric" politicians.You can compare a democratic politicians n a dictatorial politicians,how they deal with their own ppl,especially those who protest or have different views with them.
Originally posted by Gun:
Oh there is many other more ways of getting barbaric with your own people. All u need is a MORE worldly perspective of human history.e.g.
US colored policy.
South Africa's race apathed
India's Caste system
Nazi German 3rd Reich
Japan's race-based nippon-centric system
China's cultural revolutiComparing to the above, TNM is nothing more than a paragraph in the encyclopidia of human barbarism.
So what u mean is we should follow those barbaric acts?God bless you.(But seriously,i doubt he will bless you)
he didn't kill anyone because he was feeding off america's hand.
like po ah pak said tiananmen 1989 was an over reaction that can never be fully justified save for preventing a collective nation with a 5000 year history from splitting into a few hundred pieces.
so i assume you view western polictians as civilized and angelic individuals who would never risk the lives of their people? you're right. they won't. they're happy murdering the africans and the asians and the iraqis and the iranians to get at their capitalist aims while cowering behind a pathetic facade of democracy.
your wonderful western world and british dog the dalai lama has been whining about tibet for about 50 years and doing little else. its amazing how they countered stalin's blockade of Berlin by airlifting supplies and not advanced a single cent towards the plight of the tibetians.
may i bring to your attention that 1910, America and Britian, along with the rest of the western powers and japan were wetting themselves to get a piece of china and British/american interests were vested on none other than TIBET, which had been part of china some 700 years ago before the concept of democracy was even created by the brit wankers.
Originally posted by drawer:Yes,BUT,that doesnt give those PRC politicians Pigs an excuse to kill their own ppl.Those protestors are mostly students n workers who are unarmed.
Many ppl,including Taiwanese,say Taiwan President Chen Shui Peng is a lousy politician.The Taiwanese make alot of protest gathering at him n ask him to step down.BUT,during the 8 years reign of Taiwan president,did he kill a single Taiwanese protestors who ask him to step down?He is even more mild than our PAP leaders when dealing with the protestors!!!
Now,this is the difference between a "civilise" politician n a "barbaric" politicians.You can compare a democratic politicians n a dictatorial politicians,how they deal with their own ppl,especially those who protest or have different views with them.
Sending out the tanks after unarmed soldiers forming barricades in front got burned alive by molotov cocktails to keep the country from splitting apart , hell i wouldve done the same thing in that situation. Even by opening dialoge its too late , the wheels have started turning. The people that incite the protests , wrong timing. N where are they now ?
Taiwan ? Man.. he cant even afford to use any kind of violence to shut the protestors down. Not while he is rubbing shoulders with Uncle Sam. That , u can see he is a gone case already , even the policies handed down , US had them translated to Chinese , rather then have his people translate it and change the whole meaning. That said , he took Taiwan up on ajoyride. He is one President that can pull anything out from his @ss. I wont be surprised if he had a hand in the Tibet situation.
What would you do ?
lol
Originally posted by joshua182:may i bring to your attention that 1910, America and Britian, along with the rest of the western powers and japan were wetting themselves to get a piece of china and British/american interests were vested on none other than TIBET, which had been part of china some 700 years ago before the concept of democracy was even created by the brit wankers.
Well, historically, the Western powers were VERY interested in Tibet.
Nope, this wasn't due to noble on promoting "democracry" or "improving human-rights".
And Certainly not about protecting Tibetan way of life nor promoting Buddhism, but the simple lust for territorial expansion of the British empire.
Yes the Brit Wankers are at work from 1840 until 1911 after having conquered India, they proceed to invade Tibet.
Here's the interesting part:
Having invaded Tibet several times, British troops massacred 1,000 defenseless Tibetan soldiers in (1904) before reaching Lhasa.
The then 13th Dalai Lama had to run away to Mongolia....
free Tibet? yeah rite...
Hey, please don't get personal and condemn me.
I am just sharing historical fact about human "civilisation". The world is less rounder than you imagine. TMN incident is nothing compared to other grander scale of killings like 1939 Nanking or the Cultural Revolution. The difference is who is using those incidents for they own agenda.
That goes without saying about on-going internationalisation of Tibet "issue".
Will the western media forget about Tibet after the Beijing Olympic ?
Why didn't they focus on the recent Taiwan election and improving relation with Beijing?
I posted this in a thread opened by Poh Ah Pak. Apparently, the thread was immediately locked. Was any rule breached? I am curious. Anyway, I think I might well post it again here:
This is a blog entry from a Chinese American:
http://oofboofsay.blogspot.com/2008/04/what-do-you-want-from-us.html
It well reflects the frustration and anger felt by most Chinese people. That China has managed to elevate millions of people out of abject poverty apparently hardened US' resolve to contain and strangle us. Judging by the way things go, they will corner us until we have no breathing space. I suspect something ominous will happen when that time comes.
America must re-view its foreign policy with regards to China. AFter all, as this poem says, "This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us." Why be so hostile and want so much to eradicate us?
<!--StartFragment-->
What Do You Want From Us?
a poem by a Silent, Silent Chinese
When We were called Sick man of Asia, We were called The Peril.
When We are billed to be the next Superpower, We are called The
threat.
When We were closed our doors, You smuggled Drugs to Open Markets.
When We Embrace Freed Trade, You blame us for Taking away your jobs.
When We were falling apart, You marched in your troops and wanted your
"fair share".
When We were putting the broken peices together again, "Free Tibet"
you screamed, "it was an invasion!"
( When Woodrow Wilson Couldn't give back Birth Place of Confucius back
to Us,
But He did bought a ticket for the Famine Relief Ball for us.)
So, We Tried Communism, You hated us for being Communists
When We embrace Capitalism, You hate us for being Capitalist.
When We have a Billion People, you said we were destroying the planet.
When We are tried limited our numbers, you said It was human rights
abuse.
When We were Poor, You think we are dogs.
When We Loan you cash, You blame us for your debts.
When We build our industries, You called us Polluters.
When we sell you goods, You blame us for global warming.
When We buy oil, You called that exploitation and Genocide.
When You fight for oil, You called that Liberation.
When We were lost in Chaos and rampage, You wanted Rules of Law for
us.
When We uphold law and order against Violence, You called that
Violating Human Rights.
When We were silent, You said you want us to have Free Speech.
When We were silent no more, You say we were Brainwashed-Xenophobics.
Why do you hate us so much? We asked.
"No," You Answered, "We don't hate You."
We don't Hate You either,
But Do you understand us?
"Of course We do," You said,
"We have AFP, CNN and BBCs..."
What do you really want from us?
Think Hard first, then Answer...
Because you only get so many chances,
Enough is Enough, Enough Hypocrisy for this one world.
We want One World, One Dream, And Peace On Earth.
- This Big Blue Earth is Big Enough for all of Us.
The western media must be taught a lesson for their bias and distortions.
I think they are insecure, that is why they lash out against China.
Their troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and they cannot advance or retreat while Russia and China looks on.
Venezuela, Iran, DPRK all making moves against the USA now.
They know USA is busy in Iraq.
I think USA will lose.
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:The western media must be taught a lesson for their bias and distortions.
I think they are insecure, that is why they lash out against China.
Their troops are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan and they cannot advance or retreat while Russia and China looks on.
Venezuela, Iran, DPRK all making moves against the USA now.
They know USA is busy in Iraq.
I think USA will lose.
Empires in history never lasted long.
Once again, an article that reveals America's finger prints to be all over the recent anti-China protests:
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
I am curious, when America decided to deploy troops in those countries, they just bent over and took it? How is America's military presence doing any good to those countries?
Well, we do know though that Japanese girls get raped from time to time...
The usual dirty tricks from CIA.
They never tire of this type of activities.
Civil society groups must be regulated in a country or else they might be used as a pawn by foreign regimes to destabilise and demoralise a country.
http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/1186
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.net/Zeitfragen/Ukraine/ukraine.html
Rudd rewrites the rules of engagement
Geremie Barme
April 12, 2008
On Wednesday, the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made a speech to an audience at Peking University, China's pre-eminent tertiary institution. Given the tensions over Tibet and the Olympic torch relay, as a practised diplomat Rudd could have taken the easy path by speaking in platitudes about the strength of the bilateral relationship and any number of mutually acceptable and anodyne topics.
Instead, with finesse and skill, he chose to address the students on the broad basis for a truly sustainable relationship with the economically booming yet politically autocratic state that is China. In doing so, he rewrote the rules of engagement in a way that can only benefit Australia and our relationship with this important country.
First Rudd acknowledged where he was: at a university that, more than any other educational institution in China, has helped shaped that country's modern history, one known for its contributions to Chinese intellectual debate, political activism and cultural experimentation. He mentioned some of China's 20th-century intellectual heroes whose careers were entwined with Peking University. Some were involved in reshaping Chinese into a modern language capable of carrying urgently needed political, cultural and historical debate. One was a leading democratic thinker.
He also made three references to Lu Xun (1881-1936), China's literary hero, unyielding critic of authoritarianism and principled dissenter, noting that Lu Xun personally designed Peking University's crest. It would not have been lost on his audience that the Prime Minister's choice of intellectual exemplars acknowledged China's dominant communist ideology while pointing to the traditions of free speech and debate that have made Peking University so important.
Rudd's strategy was thus first to honour the place where he was speaking and its connection to significant, complex historical and cultural figures. He went on to speak more personally of his own educational and political trajectory, and about Australia's national interest. Appealing to his youthful audience to consider what positive role they could play in China's rise as a world power, he evoked the concept of harmony (hexie), embraced by the present Chinese leadership, before making a canny digression. This was to note that 2008 is the 110th anniversary of the Hundred Days Reform movement, during which an enlightened emperor struggled to enact a process of political reform and modernisation similar to the Meiji Restoration in Japan that had taken place not long before. Rudd didn't need to say that this movement failed and its leaders were beheaded; his audience would know that. Instead he noted that one of the leading lights of the reforms, the thinker Kang Youwei, who survived by fleeing into exile, went on to write about "the Great Harmony" (datong), "a utopian world free of political boundaries". Thus, in a manner both subtle and eminently clear to a Chinese intellectual audience, he linked the officially approved concept of harmony to the broader course of political reform, change and openness.
Rudd then spoke about China joining the rest of humanity as "a responsible global stakeholder" - a lead-in to addressing the pressing issue of Tibet. By framing his comments in such a manner, he established his right - and by extension the right of others - to disagree with both Chinese official and mainstream opinion on matters of international concern. There is a venerable Chinese expression for this position: "A true friend," Rudd went on, "is one who can be a zhengyou, that is a partner who sees beyond immediate benefit to the broader and firm basis for continuing, profound and sincere friendship."
The subsequent Chinese media discussion of Rudd's use of the powerful and meaning-laden term zhengyou - the true friend who dares to disagree - has been considerable. That is because the more common word "friendship" (youyi) has been a cornerstone of China's post-1949 diplomacy. Mao Zedong once observed, "The first and foremost question of the revolution is: who is our friend and who is our foe."
To be a friend of China, the Chinese people, the party-state or, in the reform period, even a mainland business partner, the foreigner is often expected to stomach unpalatable situations, and keep silent in the face of egregious behaviour. A friend of China might enjoy the privilege of offering the occasional word of caution in private; in the public arena he or she is expected to have the good sense and courtesy to be "objective", that is to toe the line, whatever that happens to be. The concept of "friendship" thus degenerates into little more than an effective tool for emotional blackmail and enforced complicity.
Rudd's tactic was to deftly sidestep the vice-like embrace of that model of friendship by substituting another. "A strong relationship, and a true friendship," he told the students, "are built on the ability to engage in a direct, frank and ongoing dialogue about our fundamental interests and future vision."
The distinction was not lost on the Chinese. The official newsagency Xinhua reported: "Eyes lit up when [Rudd] used this expression … it means friendship based on speaking the truth, speaking responsibly. It is evident that to be a zhengyou first thing one needs is the magnanimity of pluralism." Of course, in the land of linguistic slippage it is easy to see that while for some zhengyou means speaking out of turn, for others it may simply become another way for allowing pesky foreigners to let off steam.
Of course, there are dangers, not mentioned in the Chinese media. Perhaps the most famous zhengyou relationship of modern times was that between Mao and Liang Shuming, a Confucian thinker and agrarian reformer. Mao declared that although their politics were different, Liang was a true zhengyou. Liang advised Mao on rural policy from the 1940s into the early '50s. But, in 1953, Liang dared to venture that class struggle was having a calamitous effect on rural life. He asked Mao whether he had the "magnanimity" to accept his views. The Chairman shot back, "No, I don't have that magnanimity!" Shortly thereafter, Liang was denounced and silenced.
On the other hand, there are examples from Chinese history where a zhengyou has played a key role in bringing about good governance and prosperity.
The most famous zhengyou was Wei Zheng, a friend and critic of the Emperor Taizong of the 7th-century Tang dynasty. Wei told the ruler that "if you listen to wise counsel all is brightness; if, however, you give in to bias darkness falls". When Wei died, some years later, the emperor bitterly mourned his death. He offered this tribute: "One looks at a reflection in a mirror to see if one's dress is in order. One studies history to understand the changing fortunes of time. And one seeks wise counsel to avoid mistakes. Wei Zheng has died, and I have lost my mirror. To have a zhengyou is to be fortunate indeed." The metaphor is used by China's leaders and the media even today. One can only hope that when they look in the mirror they do not do so with eyes wide shut.
By introducing the term zhengyou with all of its liberating connotations into our dealings with China, Kevin Rudd has achieved something of considerable significance.
Geremie Barme is a professor of Chinese history at the Australian National University.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-rewrites-the-rules-of-engagement/2008/04/11/1207856825767.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
i think singaporeans as well as our leaders have much to learn from the oz pm. have the gut to speak the truth but at the same time level headed and knowledgable.
btw, the speech was delivered in mandarin.