Talk:Politics of China

Contents

1 Bias 2 Move 3 Removed statement 4 Engineers in Chinese Politics 5 Article naming 6 Arunachal Pradesh 7 Re: Tibetan and Uighur separatism 8 "Generous financial encouragement"

Bias

This article is extremely biased against the CPC and the current government in China. I'd invite everyone to have a look at the Neutral Point of View tutorial. Babelfisch

Please be more detailed so we can see into (and perhaps correct) any problems. It is also a good idea to post at the bottom (and not the top) of talk pages. --Jiang 21:03, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Why is is good to post at the bottom of Talk pages? Is there a convention or etiquette about this? I find that new posts at the top of Talk pages make current issues more accesilble.

Please see Wikipedia:talk pages. --Jiang 07:14, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Links to New York Times article only give the full text for two weeks for free. After that you get an abstract and have to pay a small fee to see the full text. User:Fredbauder

Source of number of executions is: China's New Rulers: The Secret Files, Andrew J. Nathan and Bruce Gilley, New York Review of Books Press, 2002, hardcover, 150 pages, ISBN 1590170466 Fred Bauder 11:35 Nov 27, 2002 (UTC)

AI and Human Rights Watch in China report a *MUCH* lower number 1500-2500/year which is based on official statistics. With due respect to Nathan, I do not find the number of 15000 executions per year credible. Basically, it would imply that 9 in 10 executions in China are not officially reported, and there is no way that that could happen without AI, HRW and other Western human rights groups noticing. Furthermore I can't possibly imagine a political motivation for not announcing executions. You are trying to keep people in line. What's the point of executing people in secret? Roadrunner

---

Move

Politics of China as of now contains only info on those pertaining to the PRC. Should it be moved to Politics of the People's Republic of China? And leave this page to the plenty, and extremely plenty political intrigues and intricacies of the dynastic China? --Menchi 02:51 14 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think the article you're proposing should be at Politics of Imperial China since people would expect to find PRC politics under China, and not imperial politics. --Jiang 07:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree with Menchi to move this page to the more accurate title (Politics of PRC), since we now have People's Republic of China seperated from China. It would be confusing to have an article titled Something of China but actually only talks about Something of People's Republic of China. --Lorenzarius 17:44 28 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Then are we to move the other "of China"s such as Media in China, Police in China, Foreign relations of China, Geography of China, Provinces of China, etc? In my opinion, either they should all be moved or none be moved at all. The important part is staying consistent. --Jiang 02:30, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Whether an article should be moved depends on its content: the articles Media/Police/Foreign relations of China only deals with the current government on Mainland so they should be moved. But geography of China has nothing to do with politics and provinces of China does not refer to provinces of PRC only, so I think those two should stay. --Lorenzarius 07:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Provinces of China lists the now defunct provinces established by the ROC, so it can't be said as Provinces of the PRC. --Menchi 07:10, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

Removed statement

"The PRC is an oligarchy in which political power and advancement depends on gaining and retaining the support of a informal body of people numbering one to two thousand who constitute the leadership of these organs. "

What is factually wrong with this statement? --Jiang 17:42, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

IN my point of view, with the gradual liberization of chinese economy,foreign interaction and the dissemination of internet, it is inevitable that spirit of democracy will take root in china.--219.140.92.118

Engineers in Chinese Politics

I find it facinating that over the past 10-20 years most of China's political leaders have been engineers (See Premiers and Presidents). In Australia, polical leaders generally have a background in economics and law. Can someone explain this trend? Do engineers have a higher standing in Chinese society than in Western examples, like Australia and the USA? --Commander Keane 13:46, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Article naming

This article should be renamed to "Politics of the People's Republic of China", with "Politics of China" summarizing both "Politics of the People's Republic of China" and "Politics of the Republic of China" (as this is where "Politics of Taiwan" should be) WhisperToMe 04:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arunachal Pradesh

Arunachal pradesh has been shown as a part of China in this article.It is as of now an integral part of india and fully democratically elected government is in place there as of now.It is one of the 28 Indian Provinces.

Re: Tibetan and Uighur separatism

Ran, in what section do you suggest it go?

Lapsed Pacifist 23:12, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just start another section. Copying what we have from the People's Republic of China article would be a good start. Then expand on it. -- ran (talk) 23:50, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Generous financial encouragement"

Okay, this has been troubling me for some time, because it defies both official PRC policy, and also the tearful horror stories being spread all over the Internet by Han Chinese from Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia of being loathed, harassed, raped, and murdered in cold blood by locals while local government stands idly by. What exactly is the extent of this "generous financial encouragement"? Who are these paid to, and in what form? How are these justified against official policy that clear favours ethnic minorities? -- ran (talk) 15:40, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you like those stories, check out some of the separatist websites. What is bringing the Han to these places, and keeping them there, if not the financial incentives offered by a government eager to develop the sparsely populated west?

Lapsed Pacifist 15:54, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a lot of people here have an idea that "if you're Han Chinese and you're in Tibet, you get money."

Let's take a look at what the U.S. Department of State has to say:

[1] (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2001/eap/8289.htm)

The Central Government and other provinces of China heavily subsidize the Tibetan economy, which, according to official statistics, has grown by an average annual rate of over 10 percent for the last decade. Over 90 percent of Tibet's budget income comes from outside sources. Tibet also benefits from a wide variety of favorable economic and tax policies. Government development policies have helped raise the material living standards of most ethnic Tibetans, particularly by providing better transportation and communications facilities. However, in recent years, freer movement of persons throughout China, government-sponsored development, and the prospect of economic opportunity in Tibet have led to a substantial increase in the non-Tibetan population (including China's Muslim Hui minority as well as Han Chinese) in Lhasa and other urban areas as migrant workers from China's large transient population seek to take advantage of these new economic opportunities. Most of these migrants profess to be temporary residents, but small businesses run by ethnic Han and Hui citizens (mostly restaurants and retail shops) predominate in almost all Tibetan cities.

The Dalai Lama, Tibetan experts, and others have expressed concern that development projects and other Central Government policies initiated in 1994 and reemphasized and expanded at the 4th Tibet Work Forum in June will continue to promote a considerable influx of non-Tibetan Chinese into Tibet. They fear that Tibet's traditional culture and ethnic Tibetan demographic dominance will be overwhelmed by such migration.

Let me get this clear. The financial encouragement that we speak of comes in the form of government sponsored development projects. This has been happening for some time, for example, the government financially assisting people displaced by dam construction, etc. to move to sparsely populated regions and develop those areas. It does not mean that "if you're Han Chinese and in Tibet you get money".

-- ran (talk) 16:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

As for "what's keeping them there" — because it's home? What keeps the Jews in Israel when they can have a better life in, say, America? Han Chinese in Xinjiang feel that they have a sacred duty to guard the motherland against "evil forces", i.e. Islamic fundamentalism, Western plots to split China up, etc. Many of them have been there for 2 generations, and they know no other home.

And for that matter, they don't have much choice either. You might want to take a look at the hukou system. If you're from one place and you go another place, be prepared to meet discrimination head on. -- ran (talk) 16:00, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Also, why did you revert all of my changes, spelling corrections included? -- ran (talk) 16:05, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I missed the spelling corrections. As for the rest, you seem to be missing the point.

Lapsed Pacifist 16:29, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, we'll do it one at a time then:

exemption from population control policies — this part sounds strange, and can be miscontrued to mean that ethnic minorities are exempt from school admissions, government employment and military recruitment.

others feel that they are still inadequate without full independence, and still others, especially Han chauvinists are critical of them, considering them to be either inadequate, or misplaced. Really clunky. If you can rework it please do.

(despite the generous financial incentives they themselves receive) As I have already said this is based on a misunderstanding.

-- ran (talk) 16:34, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Let me say this again: financial support is given to projects moving Han Chinese (and other ethnicities) into Xinjiang; financial support is not given to individual Han Chinese who make the decision to move into Xinjiang. The notion that all Han Chinese in Xinjiang continue to receive incentives simply for being there is false, and is a gross disrespect to the unfair treatment that Han Chinese in Xinjiang continue to receive from their own government despite having heeded their own government's call (however justified/unjustified this call may be). -- ran (talk) 07:03, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

I'd like you to Google four words; financial incentives Han Tibet. You will see links to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, Lonely Planet, Let's Go Travel Guides, along with many other travel sites, numerous prestigious universities (especially American ones) and a host of Tibetan and human rights websites. All of them confirm what I have written and you have reverted. The way you structure your sentences leaves them open to misrepresentation and clouds the issue. I don't believe I have ignored you. If you don't consider the incentives generous you should explain why not. Patriotism and financial gain are a powerful combination. Why did you remove the link for colonialism?

Lapsed Pacifist 08:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, this is exactly why sloppy language is evil, especially when it surfaces on one website and then is copied by a large number of others with no clue what is going on.

The financial incentives that you refer to come in several forms:

1. There are programs settling people from various areas (e.g. desertifying areas on the Loess Plateau, dam construction on various rivers, etc.) into sparsely populated areas in Xinjiang. These people are recompensated, though usually not enough.
2. There have always been programs moving cadres, teachers, doctors and other professionals into Tibet and Xinjiang. These people are indeed motivated by financial incentives to offset the harsh conditions in Xinjiang and Tibet.
3. Some of the sites mention shopkeepers in Lhasa who moved there in the 1980's. This suggests strongly that there was some government program at the time that encouraged business owners from China proper to set up shop in Lhasa, with financial incentives. A description of the original program would be nice, though.

They do not come in the forms of:

1. People who moved to Xinjiang with the XPCC or other programs, and have lived in Xinjiang for one or two generations, do not receive incentives simply for being there. (In fact this is why many of them are leaving, because Xinjiang is so poor.) In fact, many people who went with the XPCC, the camps-turned-farms in the Chaidam Basin, etc. were forced to go there. Some of the people in the Chaidam Basin were political prisoners. They have never been recompensated for their forced relocation.
2. The constant stream of migrants privately entering cities in Xinjiang and Tibet from impoverished areas in China Proper do not receive incentives. They are there to make money off the market economy (tourism, retail, etc.), not the command economy of the government. Many of them aren't even registered, so it's not like the government even knows who or where they are. And for this reason, many of them do not want to stay permanently.

You might also want to re-read some of those links that you yourself found. You can especially take a look at this [2] (http://www.tew.org/tibet2000/t2.ch5.population.html), which is definitely pro-Tibetan independence and yet provides a very comprehensive and unexaggerated account. Look for "A Swathe of Incentives".

As such, when you say that Han Chinese in Xinjiang are complaining despite receiving money, you're misrepresenting the situation. Many Han Chinese in Xinjiang are not receiving any money for staying in XJ, and have never done so. (Which is why many of them leave.) Their grievances against their own government are fully valid.

Finally, I did not remove the link to colonialism. Check again. -- ran (talk) 15:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

In reference to your note on the incentives given to "teachers, doctors and other professionals". When I first made the edit about financial incentives, you got rid of it straightaway. You could have qualified it with the above and saved us both a lot of fuss. I was under the impression the incentives applied to all workers, I know now that's not the case. This is indicative of my problems with the manner in which you edit. It struck me that this policy would'nt be something the PRC would like advertised, and when I saw that you (and I knew you to be well-informed) had edited it out, it grated. A simple qualification was all that was required.

Lapsed Pacifist 01:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, I apologize for being somewhat confrontational. By the way, I've posted the question to the Chinese Wikipedia, asking about the exact details of the aforementioned incentives. (Who gets them? How? For how long? etc.) Surely there's someone there who knows about this! When I get enough replies I'll come back here. -- ran (talk) 01:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

OK, here's the reply that I've gotten so far, translated word for word:

If you go on your own to Xinjiang or Tibet, you won't get any money. You have to be part of an official program of "aiding the frontier", "entering Tibet", etc. The government isn't really interested in "colonization", it's more interested in "importing officials". For places like Xinjiang and Tibet, if you don't use a carrot and stick, there is no way officials are going to go there. As for regular Han Chinese, they go because they have no choice, in the past it was mostly forced migration with construction corps or production corps. Nowadays tourism is developed, so many Han Chinese are working there, but very few people are actually willing to stay permanently.

Not sure if this is the most comprehensive answer possible... Also not sure if the government is really uninterested in "colonization" (why would there be so many Han Chinese in Xinjiang then?) Also I have a very strong suspicion that when he said "importing officials", the "officials" included professionals in the employment of the government, like people working in engineering bureaus, education, healthcare, etc. Perhaps that's implied. (It's not like there were any "private" engineers, teachers, etc. before market reforms.)

But in any case, I'm still waiting for more replies.

-- ran (talk) 02:20, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)