First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Hong Kong going back to the hands of China
7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 3/31/09 , edited 12/4/09
I do know that talking about this will not change whatever is going on now, but I want to hear people's opinion on this matter.

I think where Hong Kong is at now,is the fruit of colonialism and without the British, i don't think it will stand up to where the city is at right now. Do you think that China can actually be able to made a city with freedom of rights and be so successful? (NO)China is rich right now but that's only because of their industrialization of really big population where the employees are paid cheap. In exchange they have an extremely bad environment. Even the water from the yellow river is no longer drinkable. So what do u think? Should Hong Kong of went back to China? Should China just have left hong kong in the hands of the British?
18991 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
www.crunchyroll.com
Offline
Posted 3/31/09
"should of"?

Not Chinese but I think it states in the "One China Policy" that Hong Kong is a province of China
2724 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / big UK chinatown
Offline
Posted 3/31/09 , edited 3/31/09
sadly hong kong will go more like the rest of china instead of the rest of china going like hong kong.

there is no exception that without british involvement hong kong wouldn't be like it is today modern and developed . It still doesn't make it right that britian invaded another country. But i know many chinese are glad that it was the uk , because if it was france Cantonese would have been wiped out and replaced by french . the british didn't do that.

i myself are a product i think of this my mother is originally from mongkok and met my father when she came over from hong kong to Britain she was only allowed because hong kong was apart of britian. also as a peace offering and a sorry the british govt built a 8 million pound conference center in hong kong and it was completed in 1996 .
10805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 3/31/09
china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.

7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 3/31/09

macphapie wrote:

"should of"?

Not Chinese but I think it states in the "One China Policy" that Hong Kong is a province of China


It was part of the British colonies until 1997, then the British handed back Hong Kong to China. So yes, Hong kong is now part of China.
7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 3/31/09

azn099 wrote:

china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.



I think it's the opposite, China would lose face if they didnt take back Hong Kong.

I agree with you on Shanghai, but since I've never been to Shanghai, I don't exactly know what it's like. And about the difference in British controlling Hong Kong, there has been BIG DIFFERENCES ever since it went back to a part of China. Like the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. And many more since 1997:

2001 The Grand bauhinia medal being bestowed on Yeung Kwong, a leader of the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots.

2003 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation controversy
Harbour Fest controversy

2005 The Link REIT IPO controversy
Arrest of journalist Ching Cheong by the People's Republic of China on spying charges
Ma Ying-jeou denied visa to enter Hong Kong

2006 Aborted proposal to grant development rights for the West Kowloon Cultural District to a single developer.
Aborted proposal to introduce a Goods and Services Tax
Battle for conservation of Star Ferry Pier

2007 Battle for conservation of Queen's Pier.
Hong Kong Institute of Education academic freedom controversy

2008 Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident

2009 Johannes Chan Macau ban

There has been no change? Definitely not true(wikipedia it for more info) The educational system has change greatly as well.

Ok, fair enough, China has pulled people out of poverty, 300 million people...700 million more to go...(Not to blame, I guess they do have a large population. Nevertheless it's still really corrupted.
7895 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / ~_
Offline
Posted 3/31/09
uhmm.......yes...hong kong is a part of china
10805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/1/09

KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:

china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.



I think it's the opposite, China would lose face if they didnt take back Hong Kong.

I agree with you on Shanghai, but since I've never been to Shanghai, I don't exactly know what it's like. And about the difference in British controlling Hong Kong, there has been BIG DIFFERENCES ever since it went back to a part of China. Like the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. And many more since 1997:

2001 The Grand bauhinia medal being bestowed on Yeung Kwong, a leader of the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots.

2003 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation controversy
Harbour Fest controversy

2005 The Link REIT IPO controversy
Arrest of journalist Ching Cheong by the People's Republic of China on spying charges
Ma Ying-jeou denied visa to enter Hong Kong

2006 Aborted proposal to grant development rights for the West Kowloon Cultural District to a single developer.
Aborted proposal to introduce a Goods and Services Tax
Battle for conservation of Star Ferry Pier

2007 Battle for conservation of Queen's Pier.
Hong Kong Institute of Education academic freedom controversy

2008 Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident

2009 Johannes Chan Macau ban

There has been no change? Definitely not true(wikipedia it for more info) The educational system has change greatly as well.

Ok, fair enough, China has pulled people out of poverty, 300 million people...700 million more to go...(Not to blame, I guess they do have a large population. Nevertheless it's still really corrupted.


that's great and all but life for the normal citizens of hong kong is still all lively and well. if you want proof from "wikipedia" that life has not changed then here's something for you:

"As agreed between the PRC and the United Kingdom in the Joint Declaration, in accordance with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, socialism as practised in the PRC would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its previous capitalist system and its way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997."

what changes to the hong kong basic law are you talking about? the hong kong basic law fundamentals have not changed since 1984.

china is corrupted, but they are trying their best to fight it. every year there is a corruption purge in china to kick out officials it finds are corrupted. corruption in industrializing countries is nothing new. even the united states had corruption as seen best in grant's and harding's administrations.

you do realise that no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. in 30 years china has shot up in the ranks in every aspect. its economy, standard living, citizen life expectancy, etc. have all greatly increased. yes it is still under a totalitarian regime and yes civil rights are still limited, but life for chinese citizens is much, much better than it used to be.
1617 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
73 / M / TDOT
Offline
Posted 4/1/09
they are chinese and should remain part
7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 4/1/09

azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:

china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.



I think it's the opposite, China would lose face if they didnt take back Hong Kong.

I agree with you on Shanghai, but since I've never been to Shanghai, I don't exactly know what it's like. And about the difference in British controlling Hong Kong, there has been BIG DIFFERENCES ever since it went back to a part of China. Like the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. And many more since 1997:

2001 The Grand bauhinia medal being bestowed on Yeung Kwong, a leader of the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots.

2003 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation controversy
Harbour Fest controversy

2005 The Link REIT IPO controversy
Arrest of journalist Ching Cheong by the People's Republic of China on spying charges
Ma Ying-jeou denied visa to enter Hong Kong

2006 Aborted proposal to grant development rights for the West Kowloon Cultural District to a single developer.
Aborted proposal to introduce a Goods and Services Tax
Battle for conservation of Star Ferry Pier

2007 Battle for conservation of Queen's Pier.
Hong Kong Institute of Education academic freedom controversy

2008 Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident

2009 Johannes Chan Macau ban

There has been no change? Definitely not true(wikipedia it for more info) The educational system has change greatly as well.

Ok, fair enough, China has pulled people out of poverty, 300 million people...700 million more to go...(Not to blame, I guess they do have a large population. Nevertheless it's still really corrupted.


that's great and all but life for the normal citizens of hong kong is still all lively and well. if you want proof from "wikipedia" that life has not changed then here's something for you:

"As agreed between the PRC and the United Kingdom in the Joint Declaration, in accordance with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, socialism as practised in the PRC would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its previous capitalist system and its way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997."

what changes to the hong kong basic law are you talking about? the hong kong basic law fundamentals have not changed since 1984.

china is corrupted, but they are trying their best to fight it. every year there is a corruption purge in china to kick out officials it finds are corrupted. corruption in industrializing countries is nothing new. even the united states had corruption as seen best in grant's and harding's administrations.

you do realise that no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. in 30 years china has shot up in the ranks in every aspect. its economy, standard living, citizen life expectancy, etc. have all greatly increased. yes it is still under a totalitarian regime and yes civil rights are still limited, but life for chinese citizens is much, much better than it used to be.


Ok, all lively and well. ON THE OUTSIDE. I suppose u never lived in Hong Kong.

As ur "quote" says, This is wat china claimed to people in Hong kong in 1997 when they united as a country again. There has been drastic differences over the last 10 or so years, but remain unseen by tourists. And 50 years? What happens after the 50? It goes back to China's policy?
And know ur facts before u argue? People in Hong Kong were so against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13 that 350,000 - 700,000 people (out of the total population of 6,730,800) went on a march against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13.

China's system is corrupted. There are corruption purge in china to kick out officials, but those are only people who are too corrupted therefore kicked out. I do not believe that there are any officials in China where they are not corrupted. I do not know much about US, so perhaps you are right.

I do realise that there's no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. HOWEVER, China built it's advancement through something they did not create. China did not start industrialization, they simply build on it. The poverty situation is probably to blame it's huge population(1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) and that's only the cities. There are villages in China unknown that have not been count in this number. I suppose China's history was to blame on this matter. Then again, no one knows how it would of turned out without Mao Zedong's lead of China.
10805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/1/09

KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:

china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.



I think it's the opposite, China would lose face if they didnt take back Hong Kong.

I agree with you on Shanghai, but since I've never been to Shanghai, I don't exactly know what it's like. And about the difference in British controlling Hong Kong, there has been BIG DIFFERENCES ever since it went back to a part of China. Like the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. And many more since 1997:

2001 The Grand bauhinia medal being bestowed on Yeung Kwong, a leader of the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots.

2003 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation controversy
Harbour Fest controversy

2005 The Link REIT IPO controversy
Arrest of journalist Ching Cheong by the People's Republic of China on spying charges
Ma Ying-jeou denied visa to enter Hong Kong

2006 Aborted proposal to grant development rights for the West Kowloon Cultural District to a single developer.
Aborted proposal to introduce a Goods and Services Tax
Battle for conservation of Star Ferry Pier

2007 Battle for conservation of Queen's Pier.
Hong Kong Institute of Education academic freedom controversy

2008 Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident

2009 Johannes Chan Macau ban

There has been no change? Definitely not true(wikipedia it for more info) The educational system has change greatly as well.

Ok, fair enough, China has pulled people out of poverty, 300 million people...700 million more to go...(Not to blame, I guess they do have a large population. Nevertheless it's still really corrupted.


that's great and all but life for the normal citizens of hong kong is still all lively and well. if you want proof from "wikipedia" that life has not changed then here's something for you:

"As agreed between the PRC and the United Kingdom in the Joint Declaration, in accordance with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, socialism as practised in the PRC would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its previous capitalist system and its way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997."

what changes to the hong kong basic law are you talking about? the hong kong basic law fundamentals have not changed since 1984.

china is corrupted, but they are trying their best to fight it. every year there is a corruption purge in china to kick out officials it finds are corrupted. corruption in industrializing countries is nothing new. even the united states had corruption as seen best in grant's and harding's administrations.

you do realise that no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. in 30 years china has shot up in the ranks in every aspect. its economy, standard living, citizen life expectancy, etc. have all greatly increased. yes it is still under a totalitarian regime and yes civil rights are still limited, but life for chinese citizens is much, much better than it used to be.


Ok, all lively and well. ON THE OUTSIDE. I suppose u never lived in Hong Kong.

As ur "quote" says, This is wat china claimed to people in Hong kong in 1997 when they united as a country again. There has been drastic differences over the last 10 or so years, but remain unseen by tourists. And 50 years? What happens after the 50? It goes back to China's policy?
And know ur facts before u argue? People in Hong Kong were so against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13 that 350,000 - 700,000 people (out of the total population of 6,730,800) went on a march against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13.

China's system is corrupted. There are corruption purge in china to kick out officials, but those are only people who are too corrupted therefore kicked out. I do not believe that there are any officials in China where they are not corrupted. I do not know much about US, so perhaps you are right.

I do realise that there's no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. HOWEVER, China built it's advancement through something they did not create. China did not start industrialization, they simply build on it. The poverty situation is probably to blame it's huge population(1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) and that's only the cities. There are villages in China unknown that have not been count in this number. I suppose China's history was to blame on this matter. Then again, no one knows how it would of turned out without Mao Zedong's lead of China.


i have never lived in hong kong, but it looks as lively and well as houston does. i have family in hong kong. they've lived there for more than 30 years after escaping vietnam during the war. even after the handover they've stayed in hong kong. they've told me that they don't notice much difference in their daily lives. maybe if you're a major liberal or crazy radical you would notice the difference, but i doubt normal citizens were significantly affected by the handover.

no one knows what will happen once the 50 years are up. china could let hong kong continue with its capitalist system or go in take total control of the island. i understand why you have reservations about this though. the 50 year safeguard is seen by many as the shield that protects hong kong from the hand of the chinese communist party. once those 50 years are up, you all fear what china will do. we'll just have to see what happens. however your statement on chinese corruption is a major generalization. if the entire government was corrupt to that point, then it would have already imploded on itself.

no i think a more correct statement is that china started the industrialization and foreign corporations were allowed to come in and capitalize on the massive resources of china. this helped quickly improve the conditions of chinese citizens, but there is no way china would have become what is today without china itself industrializing. deng xiaoping was an economic reform god for china. his policies are the reason china advanced so rapidly. he modernized the infrastructure of china and helped to increase chinese presence in the international trade scene. he changed the chinese economy from mainly communist to a socialist with strong capitalist features. the chinese economy would become export based and utilizing the massive resources of china, it was able to see massive economic growth in a relatively short amount of time.

yes you are right about china's overly large population causing troubles especially when combined with the shift to urbanization. many people in china still live in poverty (best seen in guangzhou - part of the city is modernized but the other part looks like a poor slum sham), but in my opinion things can only get better for them. during the years of mao zedong the percentage of chinese in poverty was over 50% and now currently less than 10% of china lives in poverty. every year china is lifting more and more people out of poverty and within a few more decades even more people will be enjoying a better standard of living.

you are also right about china's history playing a problem. mao zedong probably made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. the great leap forward was a huge disaster and set back china's economy by over 30 years. the 10 years of the cultural revolution caused economic stagnation during its time, and also hampered the education system. if deng xiaoping hadn't come along, i don't know what condition china might be in now.
7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 4/1/09

azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:

china and britain had made an agreement that britain had a lease on hong kong for 99 years. britain would have lost face if it didn't return hong kong back to china. hong kong now has not changed much from hong kong back in british rule. the citizens of hong kong today still enjoy the same privileges they did under british rule.

yes the british were responsible for hong kong's prosperity, but there are a number of cities in china with comparable prosperity like shanghai. in the end i don't think there would much of a difference today if britain was still controlling hong kong.

yes many people in china still live in poverty, but this is typical of industrializing countries. the wealth is concentrated in the upper class while there are a significant number of people in poverty and a growing middle class. china has made tremendous strides in improving the standard of living for its citizens. since the 1970s china has pulled more people out of poverty than the current population of the entire united states of america which is over 300 million people. india is experiencing the same thing with many of its population still in poverty, and the ganges river being heavily populated enough to warrant health hazards.



I think it's the opposite, China would lose face if they didnt take back Hong Kong.

I agree with you on Shanghai, but since I've never been to Shanghai, I don't exactly know what it's like. And about the difference in British controlling Hong Kong, there has been BIG DIFFERENCES ever since it went back to a part of China. Like the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23. And many more since 1997:

2001 The Grand bauhinia medal being bestowed on Yeung Kwong, a leader of the Hong Kong 1967 Leftist Riots.

2003 Central and Wan Chai Reclamation controversy
Harbour Fest controversy

2005 The Link REIT IPO controversy
Arrest of journalist Ching Cheong by the People's Republic of China on spying charges
Ma Ying-jeou denied visa to enter Hong Kong

2006 Aborted proposal to grant development rights for the West Kowloon Cultural District to a single developer.
Aborted proposal to introduce a Goods and Services Tax
Battle for conservation of Star Ferry Pier

2007 Battle for conservation of Queen's Pier.
Hong Kong Institute of Education academic freedom controversy

2008 Raymond Wong Yuk-man's banana throw incident & Lee Cheuk-yan's banana incident

2009 Johannes Chan Macau ban

There has been no change? Definitely not true(wikipedia it for more info) The educational system has change greatly as well.

Ok, fair enough, China has pulled people out of poverty, 300 million people...700 million more to go...(Not to blame, I guess they do have a large population. Nevertheless it's still really corrupted.


that's great and all but life for the normal citizens of hong kong is still all lively and well. if you want proof from "wikipedia" that life has not changed then here's something for you:

"As agreed between the PRC and the United Kingdom in the Joint Declaration, in accordance with the "One Country, Two Systems" principle, socialism as practised in the PRC would not be extended to Hong Kong. Instead, Hong Kong would continue its previous capitalist system and its way of life for a period of 50 years after 1997."

what changes to the hong kong basic law are you talking about? the hong kong basic law fundamentals have not changed since 1984.

china is corrupted, but they are trying their best to fight it. every year there is a corruption purge in china to kick out officials it finds are corrupted. corruption in industrializing countries is nothing new. even the united states had corruption as seen best in grant's and harding's administrations.

you do realise that no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. in 30 years china has shot up in the ranks in every aspect. its economy, standard living, citizen life expectancy, etc. have all greatly increased. yes it is still under a totalitarian regime and yes civil rights are still limited, but life for chinese citizens is much, much better than it used to be.


Ok, all lively and well. ON THE OUTSIDE. I suppose u never lived in Hong Kong.

As ur "quote" says, This is wat china claimed to people in Hong kong in 1997 when they united as a country again. There has been drastic differences over the last 10 or so years, but remain unseen by tourists. And 50 years? What happens after the 50? It goes back to China's policy?
And know ur facts before u argue? People in Hong Kong were so against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13 that 350,000 - 700,000 people (out of the total population of 6,730,800) went on a march against The Hong Kong Basic Law Article 13.

China's system is corrupted. There are corruption purge in china to kick out officials, but those are only people who are too corrupted therefore kicked out. I do not believe that there are any officials in China where they are not corrupted. I do not know much about US, so perhaps you are right.

I do realise that there's no civilization in history has made such fast advancement as china has. HOWEVER, China built it's advancement through something they did not create. China did not start industrialization, they simply build on it. The poverty situation is probably to blame it's huge population(1,330,044,544 (July 2008 est.) and that's only the cities. There are villages in China unknown that have not been count in this number. I suppose China's history was to blame on this matter. Then again, no one knows how it would of turned out without Mao Zedong's lead of China.


i have never lived in hong kong, but it looks as lively and well as houston does. i have family in hong kong. they've lived there for more than 30 years after escaping vietnam during the war. even after the handover they've stayed in hong kong. they've told me that they don't notice much difference in their daily lives. maybe if you're a major liberal or crazy radical you would notice the difference, but i doubt normal citizens were significantly affected by the handover.

no one knows what will happen once the 50 years are up. china could let hong kong continue with its capitalist system or go in take total control of the island. i understand why you have reservations about this though. the 50 year safeguard is seen by many as the shield that protects hong kong from the hand of the chinese communist party. once those 50 years are up, you all fear what china will do. we'll just have to see what happens. however your statement on chinese corruption is a major generalization. if the entire government was corrupt to that point, then it would have already imploded on itself.

no i think a more correct statement is that china started the industrialization and foreign corporations were allowed to come in and capitalize on the massive resources of china. this helped quickly improve the conditions of chinese citizens, but there is no way china would have become what is today without china itself industrializing. deng xiaoping was an economic reform god for china. his policies are the reason china advanced so rapidly. he modernized the infrastructure of china and helped to increase chinese presence in the international trade scene. he changed the chinese economy from mainly communist to a socialist with strong capitalist features. the chinese economy would become export based and utilizing the massive resources of china, it was able to see massive economic growth in a relatively short amount of time.

yes you are right about china's overly large population causing troubles especially when combined with the shift to urbanization. many people in china still live in poverty (best seen in guangzhou - part of the city is modernized but the other part looks like a poor slum sham), but in my opinion things can only get better for them. during the years of mao zedong the percentage of chinese in poverty was over 50% and now currently less than 10% of china lives in poverty. every year china is lifting more and more people out of poverty and within a few more decades even more people will be enjoying a better standard of living.

you are also right about china's history playing a problem. mao zedong probably made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. the great leap forward was a huge disaster and set back china's economy by over 30 years. the 10 years of the cultural revolution caused economic stagnation during its time, and also hampered the education system. if deng xiaoping hadn't come along, i don't know what condition china might be in now.


It LOOKS. Looks can be deceiving. My whole family is in Hong Kong. Most of them work with the government and they've notice drastic differences since 1997. Since there are people who work for big cooperations, if u can secure yourself with a good position. Hell, there's not much of a difference really. And while we're on the topic why don't u ask what ur family members' thoughts about the Hong Kong basic law article 23?

I see your point, maybe I was generalizing too much. Maybe it's not as corrupted as I though it was. But I believe that if they earned a 100 dollars, at most 20 dollars would go to the citizens only. Suppose the government is rich, even 20 dollars might seem a lot.

If we were to see it that way, China's not the only country with massive resources. Take Canada for an example, of it's natural resources, I do not see Canada toxicated with chemicals. am not questioning China's economic reform. What they are doing to the environment today, the whole world will pay for it. Result: Global Warming.This massive reform of China, is it all really worth it? In exchange, Beijing is right next to a desert. When it snows, it is like it snows dirt.

About China's over populated country. There are more people in China then you think there are. That 40% of people might be out of poverty, but do you really know the actual number of people that they counted? Maybe a larger percentage of people are stinking rich. But wat about the people that have not even been counted in numbers?

Mao dezong has made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. Then why is he in the Great Hall of the People?
I'm very curious about what Deng Xiaoping had done in his life time. However, if we want to continue talking about Deng Xiaoping, I suggest you make a new forum topic.
10805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/2/09

KyokoHateshinai wrote:

It LOOKS. Looks can be deceiving. My whole family is in Hong Kong. Most of them work with the government and they've notice drastic differences since 1997. Since there are people who work for big cooperations, if u can secure yourself with a good position. Hell, there's not much of a difference really. And while we're on the topic why don't u ask what ur family members' thoughts about the Hong Kong basic law article 23?

I see your point, maybe I was generalizing too much. Maybe it's not as corrupted as I though it was. But I believe that if they earned a 100 dollars, at most 20 dollars would go to the citizens only. Suppose the government is rich, even 20 dollars might seem a lot.

If we were to see it that way, China's not the only country with massive resources. Take Canada for an example, of it's natural resources, I do not see Canada toxicated with chemicals. am not questioning China's economic reform. What they are doing to the environment today, the whole world will pay for it. Result: Global Warming.This massive reform of China, is it all really worth it? In exchange, Beijing is right next to a desert. When it snows, it is like it snows dirt.

About China's over populated country. There are more people in China then you think there are. That 40% of people might be out of poverty, but do you really know the actual number of people that they counted? Maybe a larger percentage of people are stinking rich. But wat about the people that have not even been counted in numbers?

Mao dezong has made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. Then why is he in the Great Hall of the People?
I'm very curious about what Deng Xiaoping had done in his life time. However, if we want to continue talking about Deng Xiaoping, I suggest you make a new forum topic.


the family members i have over in hong kong are regular citizens. they don't work for the government or for big corporations. they are regular shopkeepers. no i have never asked them their thoughts on article 23.

the thing is, most of canada's resources are very difficult to reach. most of the northern part of canada is covered in tundra and hard to tap into. china's resources are not nearly as hard to get although there are some large oil reserves in some places that are nearly impossible to reach. although canada is larger, china has more natural resources plus more people than canada does. also canada is for the most part, sparsely populated. canada doesn't have nearly as much environmental pollution because back during the industrial revolution, canada just did not approach the sheer size or population density of cities in great britain or new england. canada's cities never approached the size of london or new york city nor did it have nearly as many factories as new england or great britain.

environmental pollution is the price of industrialization. india and brazil are going through the same thing though at a slower pace. the united states and europe went through similar times in the past. back in the 1800s the smog in london was so thick people would wonder when god would come down to save his green earth. in the united states the dust bowl engulfed all of the midwest for more than half a decade and all agricultural activity in the midwest was pretty much done until the dust bowl stopped. rain did not come back to the great plains till a almost a decade after the dust bowl had stopped. however by that time the rich top soil of the great plains was all but gone. today the chinese are facing the problem of desertification just like brazil is facing the problem of deforestation. it's not like the governments of the countries are just sitting back doing nothing. china has started building the "great green wall" which is the planting of a shield of trees to stop further desertification. this is the same solution FDR used to stop the dust bowl and hopefully it will work.

what do you mean have not been counted? they count everybody from tibet to beijing. if they didn't count all the people in the country then china's population would not be standing at over 1.3 billion. out of those 1.3 billion about 5-7% (depending on the sources) of them still live in poverty. considering it was over 50% just about 30-40 years ago, that is a tremendous decrease. the life expectancy has risen from 50 something to over 70. as you said, china is facing a problem of a large amount wealth being concentrated in the hands of the elite. in developed countries in the west, the top 5% usually hold about 50-60% of the country's wealth. in china the top 0.5% hold about 60-70% of the countries wealth. this is clearly a problem, but other countries in the past had the same problem. overtime eventually things will level out to more "normal" distributions.

because mao zedong made great contributions to china BEFORE he ascended as chairman of the CCP. mao zedong's life is basically separated into two parts. the first part was him fighting for the CCP against the KMT. this is what the CCP's emphasizes and glorifies as his golden years. the second part was him becoming chairman of the CCP. this is the part the CCP deemphasizes and focuses less on simply because it was such a terrible disaster and a major embarassment.

if you want to know more about deng xiaoping then you can go to the library to research. basically he was responsible for a large amount of economic reform in china which modernized china and put it on the stage of international trade. in my opinion he was one of the greatest leaders of china although his reputation and image were later tarnished by the incident at tienanmen square.
7024 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F / Global Warming Earth
Offline
Posted 4/2/09

azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:

It LOOKS. Looks can be deceiving. My whole family is in Hong Kong. Most of them work with the government and they've notice drastic differences since 1997. Since there are people who work for big cooperations, if u can secure yourself with a good position. Hell, there's not much of a difference really. And while we're on the topic why don't u ask what ur family members' thoughts about the Hong Kong basic law article 23?

I see your point, maybe I was generalizing too much. Maybe it's not as corrupted as I though it was. But I believe that if they earned a 100 dollars, at most 20 dollars would go to the citizens only. Suppose the government is rich, even 20 dollars might seem a lot.

If we were to see it that way, China's not the only country with massive resources. Take Canada for an example, of it's natural resources, I do not see Canada toxicated with chemicals. am not questioning China's economic reform. What they are doing to the environment today, the whole world will pay for it. Result: Global Warming.This massive reform of China, is it all really worth it? In exchange, Beijing is right next to a desert. When it snows, it is like it snows dirt.

About China's over populated country. There are more people in China then you think there are. That 40% of people might be out of poverty, but do you really know the actual number of people that they counted? Maybe a larger percentage of people are stinking rich. But wat about the people that have not even been counted in numbers?

Mao dezong has made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. Then why is he in the Great Hall of the People?
I'm very curious about what Deng Xiaoping had done in his life time. However, if we want to continue talking about Deng Xiaoping, I suggest you make a new forum topic.


the family members i have over in hong kong are regular citizens. they don't work for the government or for big corporations. they are regular shopkeepers. no i have never asked them their thoughts on article 23.

the thing is, most of canada's resources are very difficult to reach. most of the northern part of canada is covered in tundra and hard to tap into. china's resources are not nearly as hard to get although there are some large oil reserves in some places that are nearly impossible to reach. although canada is larger, china has more natural resources plus more people than canada does. also canada is for the most part, sparsely populated. canada doesn't have nearly as much environmental pollution because back during the industrial revolution, canada just did not approach the sheer size or population density of cities in great britain or new england. canada's cities never approached the size of london or new york city nor did it have nearly as many factories as new england or great britain.

environmental pollution is the price of industrialization. india and brazil are going through the same thing though at a slower pace. the united states and europe went through similar times in the past. back in the 1800s the smog in london was so thick people would wonder when god would come down to save his green earth. in the united states the dust bowl engulfed all of the midwest for more than half a decade and all agricultural activity in the midwest was pretty much done until the dust bowl stopped. rain did not come back to the great plains till a almost a decade after the dust bowl had stopped. however by that time the rich top soil of the great plains was all but gone. today the chinese are facing the problem of desertification just like brazil is facing the problem of deforestation. it's not like the governments of the countries are just sitting back doing nothing. china has started building the "great green wall" which is the planting of a shield of trees to stop further desertification. this is the same solution FDR used to stop the dust bowl and hopefully it will work.

what do you mean have not been counted? they count everybody from tibet to beijing. if they didn't count all the people in the country then china's population would not be standing at over 1.3 billion. out of those 1.3 billion about 5-7% (depending on the sources) of them still live in poverty. considering it was over 50% just about 30-40 years ago, that is a tremendous decrease. the life expectancy has risen from 50 something to over 70. as you said, china is facing a problem of a large amount wealth being concentrated in the hands of the elite. in developed countries in the west, the top 5% usually hold about 50-60% of the country's wealth. in china the top 0.5% hold about 60-70% of the countries wealth. this is clearly a problem, but other countries in the past had the same problem. overtime eventually things will level out to more "normal" distributions.

because mao zedong made great contributions to china BEFORE he ascended as chairman of the CCP. mao zedong's life is basically separated into two parts. the first part was him fighting for the CCP against the KMT. this is what the CCP's emphasizes and glorifies as his golden years. the second part was him becoming chairman of the CCP. this is the part the CCP deemphasizes and focuses less on simply because it was such a terrible disaster and a major embarassment.

if you want to know more about deng xiaoping then you can go to the library to research. basically he was responsible for a large amount of economic reform in china which modernized china and put it on the stage of international trade. in my opinion he was one of the greatest leaders of china although his reputation and image were later tarnished by the incident at tienanmen square.


Regular shopkeepers. The influence on them might not be that great then. Because they aren't so much connected to the government. I'm talking about there are changes IN the government policies. I guess if ur family is shopkeepers, I guess it doesnt really affect them. May I ask what kind of shops they work at? And are they ur parents that live in Hong Kong? Because if they aren't, people don't usually go telling every relative what kind of things they actually go through in full detail. If you have the chance, go and ask them. Because that was a huge change in the system. That's why almost every citizen went on the march of protest.

Fair enough, Canada's resources are hard to tap. The thing is, since china is so largely populated and have such a big land, the industrialization's pollution doesn't even count up to what Britian. Then again, USA uses the most resources in the world when their population is not even all that large. Their factories have never been so vast as China.

They counted EVERYBODY? now, do u have proof? do the sources have proof? They can just waltz into China and ESTIMATE the number of people. Overtime, they will level out to more "normal" distributions. Hm. When they finally "normal" distributions will the world be over because of Global Warming? And the 5000 years of history of China that they are so proud of. What came out of it? If you compare China's history with Britian's history. The 5000 years of glory history is laughable. And you do realize that most of the media in China is covered by the government. The government can say whatever he wants about China.

When you say "great contributions", it was him in the first part was him fighting for the CCP against the KMT right? Now is that really "great contributions" when he failed to be what ever he said he was to be? His contributions failed him in the end. Is that what you call great contributions? Then can I say, my final grade was a F. But my great contributions before that was working very hard every day. A country does not need a sympathetic leader. Which was exactly what Tung Chee Hwa was. Totally messed up hong kong in every way.

Based on what you have said, he might be a great leader to China, but really is inrelevant to my point. He reformed china to industrialization, but I'm talking about the rights in China. Did he have anything to with rights?
10805 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 4/2/09 , edited 4/2/09

KyokoHateshinai wrote:


azn099 wrote:


KyokoHateshinai wrote:

It LOOKS. Looks can be deceiving. My whole family is in Hong Kong. Most of them work with the government and they've notice drastic differences since 1997. Since there are people who work for big cooperations, if u can secure yourself with a good position. Hell, there's not much of a difference really. And while we're on the topic why don't u ask what ur family members' thoughts about the Hong Kong basic law article 23?

I see your point, maybe I was generalizing too much. Maybe it's not as corrupted as I though it was. But I believe that if they earned a 100 dollars, at most 20 dollars would go to the citizens only. Suppose the government is rich, even 20 dollars might seem a lot.

If we were to see it that way, China's not the only country with massive resources. Take Canada for an example, of it's natural resources, I do not see Canada toxicated with chemicals. am not questioning China's economic reform. What they are doing to the environment today, the whole world will pay for it. Result: Global Warming.This massive reform of China, is it all really worth it? In exchange, Beijing is right next to a desert. When it snows, it is like it snows dirt.

About China's over populated country. There are more people in China then you think there are. That 40% of people might be out of poverty, but do you really know the actual number of people that they counted? Maybe a larger percentage of people are stinking rich. But wat about the people that have not even been counted in numbers?

Mao dezong has made some of the stupidest decisions in the modern era as chairman. Then why is he in the Great Hall of the People?
I'm very curious about what Deng Xiaoping had done in his life time. However, if we want to continue talking about Deng Xiaoping, I suggest you make a new forum topic.


the family members i have over in hong kong are regular citizens. they don't work for the government or for big corporations. they are regular shopkeepers. no i have never asked them their thoughts on article 23.

the thing is, most of canada's resources are very difficult to reach. most of the northern part of canada is covered in tundra and hard to tap into. china's resources are not nearly as hard to get although there are some large oil reserves in some places that are nearly impossible to reach. although canada is larger, china has more natural resources plus more people than canada does. also canada is for the most part, sparsely populated. canada doesn't have nearly as much environmental pollution because back during the industrial revolution, canada just did not approach the sheer size or population density of cities in great britain or new england. canada's cities never approached the size of london or new york city nor did it have nearly as many factories as new england or great britain.

environmental pollution is the price of industrialization. india and brazil are going through the same thing though at a slower pace. the united states and europe went through similar times in the past. back in the 1800s the smog in london was so thick people would wonder when god would come down to save his green earth. in the united states the dust bowl engulfed all of the midwest for more than half a decade and all agricultural activity in the midwest was pretty much done until the dust bowl stopped. rain did not come back to the great plains till a almost a decade after the dust bowl had stopped. however by that time the rich top soil of the great plains was all but gone. today the chinese are facing the problem of desertification just like brazil is facing the problem of deforestation. it's not like the governments of the countries are just sitting back doing nothing. china has started building the "great green wall" which is the planting of a shield of trees to stop further desertification. this is the same solution FDR used to stop the dust bowl and hopefully it will work.

what do you mean have not been counted? they count everybody from tibet to beijing. if they didn't count all the people in the country then china's population would not be standing at over 1.3 billion. out of those 1.3 billion about 5-7% (depending on the sources) of them still live in poverty. considering it was over 50% just about 30-40 years ago, that is a tremendous decrease. the life expectancy has risen from 50 something to over 70. as you said, china is facing a problem of a large amount wealth being concentrated in the hands of the elite. in developed countries in the west, the top 5% usually hold about 50-60% of the country's wealth. in china the top 0.5% hold about 60-70% of the countries wealth. this is clearly a problem, but other countries in the past had the same problem. overtime eventually things will level out to more "normal" distributions.

because mao zedong made great contributions to china BEFORE he ascended as chairman of the CCP. mao zedong's life is basically separated into two parts. the first part was him fighting for the CCP against the KMT. this is what the CCP's emphasizes and glorifies as his golden years. the second part was him becoming chairman of the CCP. this is the part the CCP deemphasizes and focuses less on simply because it was such a terrible disaster and a major embarassment.

if you want to know more about deng xiaoping then you can go to the library to research. basically he was responsible for a large amount of economic reform in china which modernized china and put it on the stage of international trade. in my opinion he was one of the greatest leaders of china although his reputation and image were later tarnished by the incident at tienanmen square.


Regular shopkeepers. The influence on them might not be that great then. Because they aren't so much connected to the government. I'm talking about there are changes IN the government policies. I guess if ur family is shopkeepers, I guess it doesnt really affect them. May I ask what kind of shops they work at? And are they ur parents that live in Hong Kong? Because if they aren't, people don't usually go telling every relative what kind of things they actually go through in full detail. If you have the chance, go and ask them. Because that was a huge change in the system. That's why almost every citizen went on the march of protest.

Fair enough, Canada's resources are hard to tap. The thing is, since china is so largely populated and have such a big land, the industrialization's pollution doesn't even count up to what Britian. Then again, USA uses the most resources in the world when their population is not even all that large. Their factories have never been so vast as China.

They counted EVERYBODY? now, do u have proof? do the sources have proof? They can just waltz into China and ESTIMATE the number of people. Overtime, they will level out to more "normal" distributions. Hm. When they finally "normal" distributions will the world be over because of Global Warming? And the 5000 years of history of China that they are so proud of. What came out of it? If you compare China's history with Britian's history. The 5000 years of glory history is laughable. And you do realize that most of the media in China is covered by the government. The government can say whatever he wants about China.

When you say "great contributions", it was him in the first part was him fighting for the CCP against the KMT right? Now is that really "great contributions" when he failed to be what ever he said he was to be? His contributions failed him in the end. Is that what you call great contributions? Then can I say, my final grade was a F. But my great contributions before that was working very hard every day. A country does not need a sympathetic leader. Which was exactly what Tung Chee Hwa was. Totally messed up hong kong in every way.

Based on what you have said, he might be a great leader to China, but really is inrelevant to my point. He reformed china to industrialization, but I'm talking about the rights in China. Did he have anything to with rights?


i realize that you are talking about government policies now however i was never talking about government policies. i was talking about the daily lives of HK citizens the entire time lol. i don't know how life for the HK government has changed since then, so i can't say anything about that. my aunt lives in HK, and she owns a food stall/stand.

the US is one of the most advanced countries in the world and a very large portion of the population uses automobiles. a large population in an industrialized country, needs a large amount of energy. which is where power plants burning fossil fuels comes into play. there population isn't that large? i would consider 300 million a lot of people. the US is ranked 3rd in the world for population after china and india. the united states back in the first half of the 1900's had a tremendous amount of factories. if americans weren't farming, they were working in factories. it wasn't until the years after world war II that more and more factories closed and some corporations went overseas. also most of the unskilled labor performed by factory workers is now done by machines which is why you won't find many americans whose job is working as a laborer inside a factory.

the advance of global warming is already too late to turn back from. we've passed the point of no return. ever since the industrial revolution started back in the 1800's, the ice caps have been doomed. if china hadn't industrialized, some other country would have. if that country didn't, then another would have taken its place. there's nothing we can do about it. by around 2050 the ice caps will melt and ocean levels will rise drastically causing adverse changes in world climate. even if we were to stop everything man made (which would be impossible) that produces greenhouse gas emissions, it wouldn't do any good. it's too late.

attacking chinese culture? how does that back your point at all? china had a huge impact on asia. what would korea, japan, and vietnam be today if it wasn't for the chinese? nobody knows but china's influence cannot be denied. also from china were numerous innovations that changed the world. the four great chinese inventions all helped to shape the modern world. gunpowder, printing, the compass, and paper had enormous impacts on the world. even if there were negatives that came with them, they were all important in history. other less known but important inventions were the rudder, blast furnace, and paper money. all these different innovations and inventions have a significant impact on the world today. i could write an analysis of the impact on history of each one, but i don't have that much time.

everybody was a bad word choice on my part. sorry. people get their information from a number of sources, but the two most reliable ones are the chinese government and the united nations. since you distrust the chinese government so much then i won't talk about them. the united nations compiles data about all the countries in the world. this data is fairly accurate and used to compile charts and rankings from population, GDP (nominal and per capita), life expectancy, standard of living, many different percentages, etc. people don't just make up numbers out of thin air. these numbers and statistics are backed with reports from the current reigning government itself as well as reports from a number of different international organizations. they are all averaged to produce fairly accurate representations of the country's condition. of course they aren't exact, but they are relatively reliable.

mao zedong might have failed in administrating the PRC, but he succeeded in the task of establishing the CCP as the dominant force in mainland china. that is why the communists in china still adore him. he ended china's period as a weak nation that western nations and japan could walk all over like a fur carpet. he established china as a truly sovereign nation.

no he didn't do anything for rights. deng xiaoping was the one who crushed the tienanmen square demonstration. he might have not done much for human rights, but his economic reforms drastically improved the life of the average chinese citizen. that is why he is so great in my mind. what he has done for china is greater than what many other chinese leaders have contributed. in my opinion i would put him up there with qin shi huang, sun yat-sen, and some others i can't think of at the moment. remember that although china is a quickly modernizing country, they are stilled ruled by the totalitarian fist of the CCP. civil and human rights won't come anytime soon for the chinese. maybe after modernization sets in, but for now the CCP is still in control. even in the past china has never had much human rights. china has been under totalitarian rule for thousands of years except for the decades under the KMT in the first part of the 20th century which the chinese people were not terribly enthusiastic about.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.