HK gov't to hold meeting with Occupy students on Friday: Xinhua

[BoQ77]

She is not Xi Jinping's daughter, she is too old to be his daughter.

Xi Mingze was born in 1992, does this woman look like that young?

Some foreign Chinese websites claimed this woman was an anchor from Fujian's channel, Xi was getting very close with her when he was working in Fujian, but these allegations are not confirmed, nor it has any evidence.

Big donations from some richie to Harvard recently could explain something?

 

[Europa]

China makes NYC look like the 3rd world | Page 9

a nice read

Big donations from some richie to Harvard recently could explain something?

let them deny the truth what else can they do again?

let them say bo xilai's son committed a crime by studying in harvard but let them deny xi jinping's daughter also studied there and was having 24/7 high security

but if you ask them to post xi mingze's photo, they can't for obvious reasons

 

[Europa]

Big donations from some richie to Harvard recently could explain something?

Harvard has been a favored destination for the Chinese elite and their money. President Xi Jinping’s daughter was an undergraduate there. Late last year, Harvard announced that it had received a gift of undisclosed size from another Chinese property developer, Evergrande Real Estate Group Ltd., to fund various centers for mathematics, green design and immunologic diseases.

Chinese Property Power Couple Launches $100 Million Education Fund, Starting With Harvard - China Real Time Report - WSJ

i am damn sure the undisclosed size is at least more than $1 billion

 

[Kyle Sun]

View attachment 118061

Oh my dear , what a pretty girl!!!

 

[William Hung]

It takes a lot more skill to control the population by playing the democratic game than to play the authoritarian version.

Damn right. That's the truth right there.

I've been trying to tell this to the Chinese members in another thread. Only one Chinese member in that thread knew this truth, all the other chinese members just don't get it at all.

Both the US and PRC are controlling their population to a certain extent. The only difference is that the CCP only know how to control it in an Authoritarian way.

You can also see this mentality reflected in most Chinese members here. In all the +20 threads on the HK protest, you can always see some Chinese members calling for foreign groups and NGO to be kicked out, to send the "traitors" to prison, etc.

Obviously these members don't represent the CCP. But it's not far from reality. You're still not gona see the CCP confident enough to welcome chinese citizens to form their own political groups to challenge CCP legitimacy and authority. A multiparty democratic political system won't exist in the PRC anytime soon.

On the other hand, the US has a democratic political system. Everyone is free to form their own political group to run at an election. But the reality is that there is only 0.001% chance at toppling the Democratic/Republican stronghold. And their Democratic /Republican party don't need to keep their stronghold in an Authoritarian way. They do not need to worry about kicking and keeping other foreign groups or NGO out either, at least not to the extent that the Chinese members are asking the PRC to.

That's the difference between the PRC and USA. PRC only knows how to control their population in the Authoritarian way. The US can control their population even with a "democracy". Better yet, they can control their population while having their population convinced that there are no control at all. They can do it by playing the democratic game, which require superior tactics and skills. Countries like Thailand are in the democratic game too, but they don't know how to play it, hence, the constant coup.

And Xi is far from knowing how to play this democratic game. This HK protest doesn't say much. It was very predictable from the beginning that it wouldn't achieve much. We can only claim Xi knows how to play it when he welcomes a multiparty democratic system AND can convince the population to keep him in power without worrying about "external reactionary force".

Until the PRC knows how to play this democratic game, they will still be far from achieving the Super power status like the US does. So long as they only know how to play the Authoritarian game, more protests and instability is waiting to happen, no matter how much their economy grows or technology advances. This was also the difference between the US and the Soviet. Dissapointly, none of the Chinese members here, except for one guy, can comprehend or accept this truth.

@tranquilium @TaiShang @Zsari @cirr @Kolaps @FairAndUnbiased

 

[Kyle Sun]

The front mid girl is XI's daughter, she is not as pretty as the girl posted by @Europa

 

[Developereo]

A multiparty democratic political system won't exist in the PRC anytime soon.

I am not sure that a full multiparty system is needed to lull the people into the illusion of control, as happens in Western democracies.

All that is needed is to make the people feel they have control over the government's actions, and that the government is responsive and accountable. If that can be achieved by having "open dialog" and making token concessions (suitably reversed or diluted once the media spotlight is off), then most people will be happy regardless of how many parties are involved.

 

[Rechoice]

A photo of Xi Jinping and his relatives from a Hong Kong publication. Xi is at the far right in the back row, while his oldest sister, Qi Qiaoqiao, is second from left in the back row. His father, Xi Zhongxun, is at the left in the front row and his mother, Qi Xin, is at the right in the front row. (Kentaro Koyama)

Qi Qiaoqiao, her husband and their daughter own more than 10 billion yen ($128 million) in assets.

RED ARISTOCRATS (15): Xi's sister developed 'iron will' during banishment in Cultural Revolution - AJW by The Asahi Shimbun

 

[tranquilium]

Damn right. That's the truth right there.

I've been trying to tell this to the Chinese members in another thread. Only one Chinese member in that thread knew this truth, all the other chinese members just don't get it at all.

Both the US and PRC are controlling their population to a certain extent. The only difference is that the CCP only know how to control it in an Authoritarian way.

You can also see this mentality reflected in most Chinese members here. In all the +20 threads on the HK protest, you can always see some Chinese members calling for foreign groups and NGO to be kicked out, to send the "traitors" to prison, etc.

Obviously these members don't represent the CCP. But it's not far from reality. You're still not gona see the CCP confident enough to welcome chinese citizens to form their own political groups to challenge CCP legitimacy and authority. A multiparty democratic political system won't exist in the PRC anytime soon.

Well, it is quite easy to understand. In a person's life, you will hear many people say "come on, do it", "I dare you" and "what? are you afraid?" and eventually you will learn to say "no, thanks. I will pass." It is the same thing with nations. Challenge and diversity are good----IF they bring tangible benefit. There are plenty challenges and diversity that are detrimental, taking those up will just make the country look foolish.

Make no mistake, CCP understand the need and strength of positive diversity very well, this is why people's assembly of China see way better representation of people from various class than US congress and senator ever did. On the other hand, give political power to people that clearly out to make a profit for themselves would be plain stupid.

On the other hand, the US has a democratic political system. Everyone is free to form their own political group to run at an election. But the reality is that there is only 0.001% chance at toppling the Democratic/Republican stronghold. And their Democratic /Republican party don't need to keep their stronghold in an Authoritarian way. They do not need to worry about kicking and keeping other foreign groups or NGO out either, at least not to the extent that the Chinese members are asking the PRC to.

That's the difference between the PRC and USA. PRC only knows how to control their population in the Authoritarian way. The US can control their population even with a "democracy". Better yet, they can control their population while having their population convinced that there are no control at all. They can do it by playing the democratic game, which require superior tactics and skills. Countries like Thailand are in the democratic game too, but they don't know how to play it, hence, the constant coup.

And Xi is far from knowing how to play this democratic game. This HK protest doesn't say much. It was very predictable from the beginning that it wouldn't achieve much. We can only claim Xi knows how to play it when he welcomes a multiparty democratic system AND can convince the population to keep him in power without worrying about "external reactionary force".

Until the PRC knows how to play this democratic game, they will still be far from achieving the Super power status like the US does. So long as they only know how to play the Authoritarian game, more protests and instability is waiting to happen, no matter how much their economy grows or technology advances. This was also the difference between the US and the Soviet. Dissapointly, none of the Chinese members here, except for one guy, can comprehend or accept this truth.

You have a good understanding of the US system, however, I would argue that you are underestimating Chinese leader and the system. It is perfectly understandable, because I have seen the same thing from many Americans, even ones that are perfectly reasonable and very knowledgeable. I think this is a culture thing.
While the democracy game require quite a lot of skill to play, the centralized authoritarian game require just as much skill, if not more. They are simply different set of skills. The reason is for both US and Chinese government, there is a fundamentally need/requirement to justify its authority to rule and lead. In US' case, the proof of authority is in the elections, this is why the democracy game focuses so much on it.
In China's case, it is different. The Chinese government derive its justification to rule from continued well being of the country and achievements. For vast majority of the Chinese, CCP is justified to rule simply because it is very competent at it. A good example is a comparison of Chinese netizens from 2000 to netizens from 2014. In 2000, the percentage of netizen supporting CCP is significantly less than today. The reason is that China in 2000 simply doesn't stack up that well against countries like US or EU member like it does today. I would personally argue this game is way harder to play than the democracy game. This is because continued prosperity of your country often means you have to deal with external competitor in all field where the democracy game mainly requires you to deal with domestic matters which are easier to control.
BTW, this is main reason we know HK's recent farce isn't going to work at all. They are trying to play the "democracy game" like western cultures where you protest to gain influence in elections. What they failed miserably at is the "authoritarian game" which judges the group's ability to contribute to the society. Considering the amount of disruption it generated to Hong Kong, there is no wonder it angered other Hong Kong citizens so much and petered quickly.

I have living in US for quite a few years now. One thing I have observed from western cultures over the years is something I would like to call "1984 syndrome". Basically, people like Americans or British has the strange impression that authoritarian governments run their country like George Orwell described in 1984. (BTW, Orwell has never been to USSR. In fact, he got the inspiration from the British government at the time.) Where it is all control is established through oppression, mind control or brutal force. Orwell can be excused because he is a writer, not a political scientist or politician. However, the reality is that the method he described is a simply a joke because it simply doesn't work in real life. (Of course, this doesn't stop many westerners from believing it.) Oppression will only work in very short terms and any country worth their salt has much better methods. In China's case, these kinds of "protests and instability" is actually getting less over the years as China progresses and advanced. Comparing to the 80s and 90s, present day is a cakewalk. The political movements 80s and 90s are also significantly more tamed than their counterpart in from 50s to 70s which are themselves much more light noted than the ones before 1949. The very historical trend we observe from China is that political protests and social instability does indeed get less frequent as China progresses.

 

[nik141991]

The Indian is having trouble distinguishing HK people rather be called Hong Konger than seeking another nationality. Now he thinks that woman is supposed to be Xi's daughter. That photo is probably taken a long time ago and Xi's daughter should be in her early 20s

he is not an indian

 

[William Hung]

I am not sure that a full multiparty system is needed to lull the people into the illusion of control, as happens in Western democracies.

All that is needed is to make the people feel they have control over the government's actions, and that the government is responsive and accountable. If that can be achieved by having "open dialog" and making token concessions (suitably reversed or diluted once the media spotlight is off), then most people will be happy regardless of how many parties are involved.

Yes, that is possible even under just a one party system. But more parties means bigger the illusion. And it's just not the political system that helps to enforce the illusion. The problem with CCP is that their other authoritarian style of control, such as jailing dissidents, activists, censorship, state controlled media, etc. These all diminishes the little illusions they may have.

The main point of my post was that the skills of the CCP are no way near the skills of the US political establishment. The more parties and foreign interest groups you can tolerate, the more skills it require.

If the CCP offers the same toleration as the US does, it would be very likely that the CCP would lose power within a short period of time.

Well, it is quite easy to understand. In a person's life, you will hear many people say "come on, do it", "I dare you" and "what? are you afraid?" and eventually you will learn to say "no, thanks. I will pass." It is the same thing with nations. Challenge and diversity are good----IF they bring tangible benefit. There are plenty challenges and diversity that are detrimental, taking those up will just make the country look foolish.

Make no mistake, CCP understand the need and strength of positive diversity very well, this is why people's assembly of China see way better representation of people from various class than US congress and senator ever did. On the other hand, give political power to people that clearly out to make a profit for themselves would be plain stupid.

You still don't get it. You've completely missed my point.

You're thinking I'm challenging your country to open up to democracy. You're thinking I believe US democracy is better than your country's political system and so you're trying to give a defense why PRC should not adopt the US system. You've completely missed the point.

I wasn't even comparing about political systems nor was I arguing which one is superior than the other.

@Developereo and I was talking about this skills set that the US political establishment have that the CCP lack.

 

[Developereo]

Yes, that is possible even under just a one party system. But more parties means bigger the illusion. And it's just not the political system that helps to enforce the illusion. The problem with CCP is that their other authoritarian style of control, such as jailing dissidents, activists, censorship, state controlled media, etc. These all diminishes the little illusions they may have.

The main point of my post was that the skills of the CCP are no way near the skills of the US political establishment. The more parties and foreign interest groups you can tolerate, the more skills it require.

If the CCP offers the same toleration as the US does, it would be very likely that the CCP would lose power within a short period of time.

In authoritarian systems, the government controls the media.
In Western democracies, the oligarchy controls the media and the government.

In both cases, a small elite calls the shots, and the people are none the wiser.

What China needs to do is to have a small group of trusted people launch their own media empires and tout them as "independent" media.

Even in the West, there is a revolving door between the media, big business and government. The same individuals move between different roles within these three spheres, so influence flows in all directions.

 

[Shishike]

Damn right. That's the truth right there.

I've been trying to tell this to the Chinese members in another thread. Only one Chinese member in that thread knew this truth, all the other chinese members just don't get it at all.

Both the US and PRC are controlling their population to a certain extent. The only difference is that the CCP only know how to control it in an Authoritarian way.

You can also see this mentality reflected in most Chinese members here. In all the +20 threads on the HK protest, you can always see some Chinese members calling for foreign groups and NGO to be kicked out, to send the "traitors" to prison, etc.

Obviously these members don't represent the CCP. But it's not far from reality. You're still not gona see the CCP confident enough to welcome chinese citizens to form their own political groups to challenge CCP legitimacy and authority. A multiparty democratic political system won't exist in the PRC anytime soon.

On the other hand, the US has a democratic political system. Everyone is free to form their own political group to run at an election. But the reality is that there is only 0.001% chance at toppling the Democratic/Republican stronghold. And their Democratic /Republican party don't need to keep their stronghold in an Authoritarian way. They do not need to worry about kicking and keeping other foreign groups or NGO out either, at least not to the extent that the Chinese members are asking the PRC to.

That's the difference between the PRC and USA. PRC only knows how to control their population in the Authoritarian way. The US can control their population even with a "democracy". Better yet, they can control their population while having their population convinced that there are no control at all. They can do it by playing the democratic game, which require superior tactics and skills. Countries like Thailand are in the democratic game too, but they don't know how to play it, hence, the constant coup.

And Xi is far from knowing how to play this democratic game. This HK protest doesn't say much. It was very predictable from the beginning that it wouldn't achieve much. We can only claim Xi knows how to play it when he welcomes a multiparty democratic system AND can convince the population to keep him in power without worrying about "external reactionary force".

Until the PRC knows how to play this democratic game, they will still be far from achieving the Super power status like the US does. So long as they only know how to play the Authoritarian game, more protests and instability is waiting to happen, no matter how much their economy grows or technology advances. This was also the difference between the US and the Soviet. Dissapointly, none of the Chinese members here, except for one guy, can comprehend or accept this truth.

@tranquilium @TaiShang @Zsari @cirr @Kolaps @FairAndUnbiased

so development of US is slowed, and China still on the high way.
What's your point?

 

[William Hung]

In authoritarian systems, the government controls the media.
In Western democracies, the oligarchy controls the media and the government.

In both cases, a small elite calls the shots, and the people are none the wiser.

What China needs to do is to have a small group of trusted people launch their own media empires and tout them as "independent" media.

Even in the West, there is a revolving door between the media, big business and government. The same individuals move between different roles within these three spheres, so influence flows in all directions .

Do you know anyone personally who's working inside the western media industry?

so development of US is slowed, and China still on the high way.
What's your point?

If you're not smart enough to comprehend what I said then read it again slowly.

If you're only here to write a one-liner to act cool on the net and boost your ego then I suggest writing these one-liners elsewhere in the other threads where there's a lot more readers so you can feel slightly better about yourself.

 

[Developereo]

Do you know anyone personally who's working inside the western media industry?

Not in Australia.
In Los Angeles, I used to know some people in Hollywood.