BD exceeds Singapore, HK in GDP

[haidian]

International law.

But according to the Chinese "What we say is illegal is illegal in China".

So you can compare our attitudes to legality.

Chinese laws are made in China and by the Chinese, what's wrong with it? same is always true in UK, What UK says illegal is illegal in UK.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Chinese laws are made in China and by the Chinese, what's wrong with it? same is always true in UK, What UK says illegal is illegal in UK.

That's why we have international law. And according to international law, Hong Kong Island was legally British.

Anything else is irrelevant.

 

[haidian]

That's why we have international law. And according to international law, Hong Kong Island was legally British.

Anything else is irrelevant.

Which international law says that? and if it is so, why don't you come to take Hong kong?

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

Which international law says that? and if it is so, why don't you come to take Hong kong?

"The Right of Conquest is a historically legitimate right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognised as a principle of international law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II following criminalisation of a war of aggression as first codified in the Nuremberg Principles"

The Treaty of Nanking (which ceded Hong Kong Island to the UK) was signed in 1842, long before the right of conquest was prohibited in international law.

As for your troll photo - should I post photos of your 100 years of humiliation to be a troll like you?

 

[haidian]

"The Right of Conquest is a historically legitimate right of ownership to land after immediate possession via force of arms. It was recognised as a principle of international law that gradually deteriorated in significance until its proscription in the aftermath of World War II following criminalisation of a war of aggression as first codified in the Nuremberg Principles"

The Treaty of Nanking (which ceded Hong Kong Island to the UK) was signed in 1842, long before the right of conquest was prohibited in international law.

As for your troll photo - should I post photos of your 100 years of humiliation to be a troll like you?

China and UK signed many treaties during the history, which one is more legal? the recent ones or the ones a hundred years ago? Why your prince came to China during the handover ceremony if Hong kong is yours based on your claim? who else believes Hong kong is UK besides you? US? or even UK government? Your claim that Hong kong is yours based on the international law, can your specify which law?

This one?
The Sino–British Joint Declaration is an international treaty signed between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 19 December 1984 in Beijing

should I post photos of your 100 years of humiliation to be a troll like you?

I admit that UK was a powerful country in the past, but now it is nothing in front of China, don't live in the past, come back to the present.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

International law.

But according to the Chinese "What we say is illegal is illegal in China".

So you can compare our attitudes to legality.

Who makes international law? Did you take the consent of Kenya, Somalia etc when you made these laws,for example? Then why should these countries follow the laws made by someone else? I don't really see the meaning of international law at all

 

[haidian]

British international laws resulted in numerous wars and fighting around the world, India Pakistan crisis is one of their legacies, same as Palestine and Israel, their international law is called colonialism.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

China and UK signed many treaties during the history, which one is more legal? the recent ones or the ones a hundred years ago? Why your prince came to China during the handover ceremony if Hong kong is yours based on your claim? who else believes Hong kong is UK besides you? US? or even UK government? Your claim that Hong kong is yours based on the international law, can your specify which law?

This one?
The Sino–British Joint Declaration is an international treaty signed between the People's Republic of China and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on 19 December 1984 in Beijing

I admit that UK was a powerful country in the past, but now it is nothing in front of China, don't live in the past, come back to the present.

I didn't say Hong Kong is legally ours now. Clearly now it belongs to China (as a SAR until 2047); just as China's ceding of Hong Kong Island to Britain legally transferred sovereignty to Britain, the Joint Declaration legally transferred sovereignty to China.

If you want to come to the present, then we see that the oppressed "Chinese" in Hong Kong still seem rather fond of Great Britain:

Who makes international law? I don't really see the meaning of international law

Your lack of education is not my problem.

 

[haidian]

I didn't say Hong Kong is legally ours now. Clearly now it belongs to China (as a SAR until 2047); just as China's ceding of Hong Kong Island to Britain legally transferred sovereignty to Britain, the Joint Declaration legally transferred sovereignty to China.

If you want to come to the present, then we see that the oppressed "Chinese" in Hong Kong still seem rather fond of Great Britain:

But just now you claimed Hong kong is legally yours...since now you changed your tone, so Hong kong is China's, so it goes with Chinese laws.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

But just now you claimed Hong kong is legally yours...

No, I never said that. You misunderstood. Show me clearly where I said that (in present tense) or retract. No need to apologise, just retract is enough for me.

 

[haidian]

No, I never said that. You misunderstood. Show me clearly where I said that (in present tense) or retract. No need to apologise, just retract is enough for me.

I see, you said Hong kong was legally yours, not is. but still, I told you already , China denounced all unfair treaties with foreign powers in 1949, so your international law is just colonial law and they were not legal at all, that's why all your former colonies became independent, if those treaties were legal, they should be still your colonies, colonial laws are never legal in the first place.

 

[Battle of Waterloo]

I see, you said Hong kong was legally yours, not is. but still, I told you already , China denounced all unfair treaties with foreign powers in 1949, so your international law is just colonial law and they were not legal at all, that's why all your former colonies became independent, if those treaties were legal, they should be still your colonies, colonial laws are never legal in the first place.

Your neighbours now have a different view about who is imposing colonial law (your so-called "nine dash line").

 

[haidian]

Your neighbours now have a different view about who is imposing colonial law (your so-called "nine dash line").

Every country in that region has their own claims, many of them claim the same as China does.

 

[Smarana Mitra]

Your lack of education is not my problem.

How do I lack education? Don't mistake brainwashing for education. Education is understanding of truth and based on facts. Brainwashing relies on just learning what someone else wrote/said without question.

The reality is that there is nothing called international law which is absolute. Anyone can withdraw from these agreements and start their business the next minute.

 

[Nilgiri]

BD is not awash with FDI companies. It has shortage of them. Instead of investing abroad, it needs many FDI companies with experience, technology, machines, production lines and markets abroad. BD can only provide them some other important input:

- a piece of land to build factories or workshop in the EPZ
- electricity (we have ample now)
- access roads to the factories
- water (piped or underground) supply
- telephone/fax and Internet lines
- cheap labors and
- access to the local market

It is not time for our companies to invest abroad. Actually, we do not have companies like Reliance, Birla or TATA. The GoI allowed many of them to take out the Capital in dollars that resulted in the hollowing of the local economy. People in India are employed or underemployed. We should not follow the Indian example of putting the cart before the horse. A company must invest in the country to enrich it.

This is completely different from Japanese policy. Historically, they neither encouraged FDIs nor investment abroad by their companies unless forced by the Americans/Europeans. Even today, Japan discourages foreign car/truck companies to invest in Japan. There is not a single foreign car manufacturer in Japan. All those BMW, Benz, Chrystler or Volkwagon cars are imported.

Actually if you look at FDI reverse ratio, most countries at BD level (or when they were at BD level) and even below it are investing far better proportion in reverse direction.

Example India during the 90s even with its turbulent crisis and much less development then, was investing a much higher % of its inflow outside (about 9%) compared to BD today (less than 2%).

This suggests something is actually quite wrong in BD business and banking sector. Maybe frontier profits are simply stashed into offshore bank accounts, rather than re-invested to buy some useful equity in a more advanced peer. Latter after all means more paper trail is left.