Contrasting politics of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan

[tualingong]

[h=3]Contrasting politics of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan[/h]all societies rooted in Chinese culture — have developed very different ways of selecting their leaders and taking part in public affairs. The distinctions are highlighted as China undergoes its once-a-decade transition to a new slate of Communist Party leaders in Beijing this month. Despite China's dramatic transformation into an economic superpower, the authoritarian legacy of communist founder Mao Zedong continues to weigh heavily on the country's politics, leaving the vast majority of the population with little voice or knowledge of how their leaders are chosen. The process remains steeped in secrecy and backroom dealings. China's territory of Hong Kong has a high degree of autonomy, freedom of the press and limited democracy, but its politics remains highly constrained by Beijing's wariness over threats to its authority. The former British colony now directly elects 40 of 70 legislators, but the head of the regional government is still elected by a special body limited to just 1,200 members. Taiwan, in stark contrast to China, shrugged off authoritarian rule and underwent a transition over the past two decades to complete democracy, with sometimes-rowdy elections and a thriving civil society.

 

[Fook Seng]

China, a communist country has a leadership change once in ten years. Singapore, a democratic country, has not has a leadership change after 51 years and counting.

 

[Char_Azn]

China - No democracy - Becoming the next super power
SG - Pseudo democracy - Richest of the 4 Asian Tigers
HK - Democracy kena kept in check by China - Doing quite well
TW - Full Democracy - Poorest of the 4 Asian Tigers to the point that they are exporting labor.
Conclusion - Democracy is bad for Chinese

 

[Kinana]

China, a communist country has a leadership change once in ten years. Singapore, a democratic country, has not has a leadership change after 51 years and counting.

proofs please

 

[Panda88]

China, a communist country has a leadership change once in ten years. Singapore, a democratic country, has not has a leadership change after 51 years and counting.

proofs please

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18th_National_Congress_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China


The 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (simplified Chinese: 中国共产党第十八次全国代表大会; traditional Chinese: 中國共產黨第十八次全國代表大會; pinyin: Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng Dìshíbācì Quánguó Dàibiǎo Dàhuì, abbreviated ZhōngGòng Shíbā-dà [中共十八大]) began on November 8, 2012 in Beijing, China, at the Great Hall of the People. Due to term and age limits restrictions, seven of the nine members of the powerful Politburo Standing Committee will be retiring during the Congress. This includes current Paramount Leader Hu Jintao, who will step down as the General Secretary, the party's leader. The Congress will elect the 18th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China and will likely elect currently touted successors into power.

 

[Panda88]

http://bostonglobe.com/news/world/2...ill-ushered/Guv27T3OHyOz0C2Gz1GynO/story.html


Chinese Communist party opens congress to usher in next leader
By Ian Johnson and Keith Bradsher | New York Times November 09, 2012

BEIJING — Capping 10 careful years at the helm of the Communist Party, China’s top leader, Hu Jintao, boasted on Thursday of successes during his tenure while issuing a blunt warning against unrest and political reform.

Hu, 69, is to step down as the party’s general secretary next week, handing power to his designated successor, Xi Jinping. His speech at the opening of the Communist Party’s 18th congress was likely to be his last major address — a chance to write his own eulogy while also setting the course for Xi.

...

 

[neddy]

China, a communist country has a leadership change once in ten years. Singapore, a democratic country, has not has a leadership change after 51 years and counting.

China has always being run like an Imperial Dynasty because the Chinese have no concept of democracy.

As for communism, China appears to have given up most of the red reforms except whatever suits the local warlord, mini emperor or power-that-be.

 

[Fook Seng]

proofs please

What proofs do you want? These are facts unless you need proof that Singapore is a democratic country?

 

[eErotica69]

What proofs do you want? These are facts unless you need proof that Singapore is a democratic country?

I thought we had 3 PMs?

 

[Char_Azn]

What proofs do you want? These are facts unless you need proof that Singapore is a democratic country?

1. We actually have elections
2. We actually have opposition parties
3. Opposition parties actually got elected
4. At the expense of one of a former minister

 

[Panda88]

China - No democracy - Becoming the next super power
SG - Pseudo democracy - Richest of the 4 Asian Tigers

Democracy may be defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system."

You are very wrong about China not having democracy vs those pseudo democracy of Singapore.

Everybody understands the fake democracy Singapore has with all the gerrymendering and GRC etc.

Few understood the nature of "democracy" China practises. Read here before you make a joke out of yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

 

[Panda88]

1. We actually have elections
2. We actually have opposition parties
3. Opposition parties actually got elected
4. At the expense of one of a former minister

For the majority, do they elect individual or a group of individuals?

When you are banding a group of individuals what real choice do you have?

 

[Panda88]

I thought we had 3 PMs?

What is the point of having 3 PMs when one is known as a seat warmer and the other two have a father and son relationship?

Do we need a Dowager around?

 

[prancku]

China has always being run like an Imperial Dynasty because the Chinese have no concept of democracy.

As for communism, China appears to have given up most of the red reforms except whatever suits the local warlord, mini emperor or power-that-be.

AH SO, Hu is the 'son of heaven'? But then, Xi was not the son of the son of heaven, was he?

China's brand of communism has always been its own, divorced from the practices as espoused by Marx/Engels or Stalin, etc. China is a country that is too vast and with too long a history to be governed for too long by a newbie ideology like communism with less than 200 year history. In rejecting the traditional imperial succession system (which was pretty messy and uncertain with frequent palace coups) and its supporting Confucianism/Taoism precepts, the current Chinese leaders are just making use of communism in name to govern this vast complicated country with a mix of market and centrally planned economy.

When looking at China or even Singapore for that matter, one should not just blindly judge by aping the western standards of parliamentary democracy. Don't forget women's suffrage was gained in most Western countries only in the late 19th century, a history of less than 150 years. By the way, would one seriously call the just concluded US presidential elections as real 'democracy' when it is just merely a politics of money? Who spends the most wins, period. 94 million eligible Americans did not vote in the elections. "Democracy is in trouble," said Curtis Gans, director of the Center for the Study of the American Electorate that tracks voter turnout rates.


Read more: http://www.kjrh.com/dpp/news/politi...-the-2012-presidential-election#ixzz2BjU3i0i2


Why compare China, Hong Kong and Taiwan politics using the ang moh standards? The next century belongs to Asia and its economic tigers (China, India, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan and eventually, Indonesia, Vietnam, Thailand, etc). One day the ang mohs will come begging and learning from the Asian economic and political systems.

 

[Fook Seng]

1. We actually have elections
2. We actually have opposition parties
3. Opposition parties actually got elected
4. At the expense of one of a former minister

Char Siew, wrong topic. We are talking about rulers, not just MPs.