mightygoobi

What access do you get to news Sites like MSNBC. There is lots of noise over here re access to "open" International News and Current Affairs Sites from within China. I am just genuinely curious what the reality is, in terms of learning about life in other countries (keeping away from the political angles) and their histories in a factual non political sense.

Regards
Zy

Excellent way of describing it

Regards
Zy

re "noise" - sorry that is a slang term, not proper english - broadly it refers to making lots of extreme comment on an issue usually (not always) one sided comment and unbalanced.

Thanks for having a look, interesting, puts into perspective the more extreme claims over controlled Net Access in China made by those of more extreme views.

Regards
Zy

That's good to know, Many Thanks

Regards
Zy

@warshrimp

I can tell you what i know about access to media in china, mightygoobi can confirm for you whether what i say is accurate. In China, Chinese gets the major news sources from various countries. For example, they would be able to get CNN from the U.S, and BBC from the UK. As far as whether they get more than CNN from the US, i don't know. mightgoobi can probably tell you. But they do get access to Youtube.

As for your second questions. There are local governments in china, but they are all part of the communist party. Meaning, there are provincal branches of the party in charge of each invidividual provinces, and then that is further subdivided into cities and towns, etc. each city has a mayor and each city do decides on its own developmental path.

For carry identifications, i can say with a high probabilty that everyone has to carry identification, and if you don't you get fined/arrested. I read that in Beijing, this has become more enforced with the coming of the olympics. I can also say, in HK, if you walk around and don't carry around your ID, and the cops caught you without ID, it is a trip down to the police station for sure, and it has always been like that before or after it revert back to china

As for elections in china, you can look it up on wilikepida. The info there are pretty accurate. Also, just do some research on the national communist party meeting every few years. I think it is either 4 or 5, where a new chairman is elected. There is intraparty election, but it is a complicated affair, suffice to say that in such a system, they are trying to enforce the election rules and minimize corruptions.

Spacepony said:



That was a LOT of information Spacepony you sent me - thank you . I suspect you must be a historian or at least a wiki contributor. Maybe some of the following questions belong in a seperate 'America' thread - and I'm going to do my best to keep on topic.

As I understand from your data Spacepony:

1. American national guard belong to each State and controlled by each Governor. Potentially, Governor can veto national guard being used by central federal government. So, California or New York governor could veto use of troops by George Bush. Is that right?

If so, two comments. Firstly, this is a very big difference to here. All People's Liberation Army LA are under control of central government. Shanghai mayor has no power to veto use of PLA.

Secondly, whether one agree or disagree with Iraq war, my understanding is that the war is unpopular with the US people. If so, does that mean governor of each State could veto troops? E.g. Could Arnold Schwarzeneggar say no California troops go to Iraq? I'm sure that can't be right so I have misunderstood something. Otherwise, I could see big logistic problem and hard as a nation to wage war unified.

2. President is formal controller of armed forces. But Congress controls the budget of the military. Again I'm confused. If the war is so unpopular, why does Congress continue to fund the war? If they could just say "no more money for the army in Iraq", wouldn't that force the military withdrawal?

I am guessing that I am either grossly overstating the unpopular of the war or I have missed something about Congress needing to follow the President in some way.



The Seperation of Powers is a doctrine that we don't have here - and there's a lot of talk in academic circles about its advantages and disadvantages as we move towards Rule of Law.

My basic understanding of SOP doctrine is:
i) Legislative makes the law
ii) Executive enforces the law
iii) Judge court interprets the law (and in particular the constitution that can be used to veto any law or action).

So each branch 'checks and balances' each other. Some questions:

i) One often said concern is that judges here favour the government because the judges are appointed by the government. There may be the feeling of obligation to follow the government line. And there may be the personal feeling of 'the government put me in power, so I must follow the government'.

My understanding is that the US Supreme Court judges are appointed by the President. How can we avoid the problem of the President appointing 'friendly judges'? Is there the concern that e.g. Scalia is too friendly to Cheney or Bader Ginsburg is too much a 'Carter' person?

Here in China, I think another big challenge we have is one that will only be cured with time. The cultural revolution was not that long ago. At that time, we had just wiped out a generation of smart people. So it's hard to find good judges.

Also, the military, as you probably know, has been massive demobilise. That means a lot of soldiers without job. The junior ones can become security guard or go to school or something else. But the senior ones is difficult to just 'go back to normal civilian life'.

The senior one were put in respectable high position - like judges. It's not easy to go from commanding tanks and shooting artillery to interpreting fiduciary duties, dealing with WTO legislation or handling divorce. So, a lot of our very old and senior judges are from that background.

The newer (in my opinion better) judges are coming out of law schools etc. etc. So they will be in a better position to understand, interpret, strike down, modify, support legislation. But, to be blunt, we need to wait for the older ones to retire or move on so the younger ones can come through.

ii) I am not clear about how the Legislative and the Executive are made? I am guessing citizens vote for he Legislative but not the Executive right? I guess you vote for your law makers, but not your generals, your police officers and your ministers. So, how do the executives get appointed? Is that by the President as well? If so, then President seems to appoint everyone. I'm sure I have this too simplistic.

iii) For the English position (now I need Zydor help) , it seems the Executive gets selected from the Legislation. If this is the case, the barrier between Executive and Legislation seems blurry. Could an executive really check and balance the legislation if they are the same people

Now, I know every government style is not perfect. Many things are said about our Communist system and why this and that is bad. I'm simply trying to understand our alternatives better.

Because jingoistic blowhards view that as not "supporting the troops". Cutting funding would force withdrawal, but it's one of those issues where it can be spun into something unpatriotic and therefore wildly unpopular.



That's certainly an issue, and has been one of the great loopholes of the separation of powers doctrine in my opinion. While the legislature must approve commissioned judges, quite often they are breezed through.



The party president picks a running mate who is elected VP. Whoever is elected president, as commander in chief, has control over generals and other military matters. The Legislature is elected by district for the House of Representatives, and by state for the Senate. City and county legislatures, as well as mayors, are voted in this way as well, but the process depends on the city/county. Police, fire, etc are typically managed by commissioners of each department.

I assume by "ministers" you mean heads of specific federal government sections. In the U.S., we would commonly interpret "minister" to be a religious institution, as those positions are secretarial (for example, the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense). Those positions are part of the presidential cabinet and therefore of the executive: however, despite the fact that a president can appoint anyone he wants in his cabinet, the legislature must confirm it and has the option of impeachment.

Overall, you will find in the U.S. there are many drastic governmental actions nobody will do because of accepted wisdom or precedent - for better or for worse. The appointing of Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General was controversial, but he only ended up having left the post because he voluntarily resigned. We have a chronic fear of impeachment, and it doesn't help when the legislature is split.

When looking at the two Models, think of it this way:

Both have two Legislative Institutions. The US has the Senate and the House of Representatives. The UK has the House of Lords and the House of Commons. Now look at the same levels, in doing so dont get sucked into the different overarching principles, that comes later in how they operate.

The top Legislative Branch is the Senate and the House of Lords. They in theory have the ultimate say in the Legislative process, not 100% true but will do for now.

The Senate forms from two people elected by the population within each State, elections take place every four years. The House of Lords is traditionally selected from Titled Land Owners (Barons, Lords, Knights etc), and Religious representatives (all Bishops of all Christian Faiths). Over the Centuries that has been watered down a little by UK Prime Ministers appointing "Life Peers" etc - honorary titles given to individuals who have served their Country well in various capacities. The latter in the modern age has been abused by appointing Peers who support the ruling Parties political views.

The second Tier is the House of Representatives and the House of Commons. Both are elected every four years by the population. Each elected member represents the people in a given area. The detail of the election, and the principles of the area they represent do differ, but keep away from that for now, stay at the high level.

The big difference at the Top level is of course the fact that the Senate is voted in by the population, the House of Lords is (almost) a permanent collection of individuals that do not change - its an "unelected" Legislative Institution. The reason is a long story, and there are checks and balances to stop abuse, for now park those obvious concerns to one side.

In UK the power of the Government is in the House of Commons, over the Centuries the balance of power has shifted from the House of Lords to the House of Commons - we even had a Civil War over the issue (not surprisingly). The House of Commons contains "members of Parliament", they are the elected guys who sit in the Commons and vote on Primary Legislation. Laws passed by the House of Commons must be reviewed and approved by the House of Lords. However, the Lords can only reject Legislation on three separate occasions, on the third review it automatically is Law whatever the Lords say. So thats the basic Legislative process.

The Commons will have a mix of Political parties in there, all as a result of the National Public elections, the Party with the most members of Parliament becomes eligible to be the Ruling Party, and is invited to form a Government by the Monarch - at present Queen Eilizabeth II. Traditionally she chooses a Prime Minister from the Ruling Party, its then the Prime Ministers job to choose the members of the actual Government and the Inner Cabinet State Ministers.

In modern times of course, its the Leader of the Party who won the election who is Prime Minister, whether the Monarch likes it or not (hence the phrase "Constitutional Monarch"). The relationship of the Queen to the Prime Minister is utterly crucial, as many left wing Prime ministers have discovered when the real world of government cuts across narrow political Rhetoric. The Queen acts as advisor, confidant and gives experienced continuity to Government.

The Prime Minister then chooses who he/she wishes for their Inner Cabinet of Senior Ministers and thats the whole Circus ready to go. Its that way because the whole process has evolved over nearly a thousand years (reflect back to the Magna Carta thread and the actions of the Barons bluntly telling the King what he must do). If we started right now with a clean sheet, there is no doubt we would have a Republic. However to change things after 1,000 years of evolution is stupid, causes massive issues - as all Left Wing Governments have discovered since the start of the 20th Century. The Commons / Lords balance is so inter-mingled with the checks and balances in Law, you cant rip them apart without causing terminal problems.

In day to day working, the Inner Cabinet (the executive) will propose new legislation, and pass it to the Commons via the Ruling Party, if the majority of the Commons vote for it, its Law. If the Commons dislike what the executive is doing, they submit a "Vote of No Confidence" in the Prime Minister, which, if he/she looses, he has to resign and it will forces a new National General Election. That's the Legislative/Executive check and balance - in simple terms, much more detail involved, but that the core of it.

The key difference between the US Republican model and the UK Parliamentary model (both are Democracies, one a Republican Democracy, the other a Parliamentary Democracy) is,
1. Historic, we are where we are, one started from devolution of Power down to the people (the UK), the other started from the people looking up saying "how do we do this"(the US). Two basic different drivers that meant they evolved differently. Bare in mind that the US Founding Fathers already had the democratic process burned in their brain - they were originally from England (hence the joke phrase you will hear about "our colonial cousins"). However, after that prize idiot, King George III, understandably Hissed them off, the democratic model they adopted cut out the Monarch and the Lords. Crudely, the President and the Senate in the US replaced the Monarch and House of Lords, and the House of Representatives is a virtual mirror of the then House of Commons. End result is the same, a democratic institution, they just work differently.
2. The three key levels in the US (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) are all separate elections. In UK there is only one election, from the latter all appointments are made, and the UK House of Lords is an unelected Institution.

In the UK, its from the Senior Ministers that the Prime Minister has appointed, that evolves all primary heads of the military and judiciary etc etc - they must be approved by the Political Minister of State (eg armed forces Chief, chosen internally by the three armed forces must be approved by the Secretary of State for Defence).

The final check and balance is money, for example, no contract for anything to do with the Armed Forces (even food, supplies and living areas) which is valued at £3m or above can be given out without the relevant Armed Forces Minister's personal approval and signature.

Regards
Zy

Warshrimp said:



Welcome to ask your questions Warshrimp. No 'sarcastic' meaning taken - I think if people ask each other more questions instead of making assumptions about each other, we build bridges.

I will answer as best as I can - though it is sometimes hard to speak accurately on behalf of 1.3 Billion people I give the perspective of a middle class person living in Beijing. I also can't claim to be an expert on all things Chinese... so I may be wrong on some details, I'll try my best.



From your example, I guess 'independent news sources' means 'news source that is not owned by government'.

All local news agencies are state run - i.e. owned by the government. However, just because something appears on our news, doesn't mean we all automatically believe it 100%. Sometimes when I read international comments on Chinese media, I get the feeling that once it appears in our newspaper, we collectively bow our heads, sing praise to Mao, and accept the gospel. Frankly, we all know the state media is run by the government and of course will say things favourable to the government. I think whether a media is owned by a government or Mr. Murdoch or whatever, it will be favourable towards the owner. Just because it is printed, said or read, doesn't mean we all take it as the one sole truth.

In addition to local news, we have Hong Kong and Taiwan channels and media. These are available on payTV not like local news which is free to air.

Finally, we have international news such as CNN, BBC, International Herald Tribune, New York Times etc. These are also available only payTV.

On the radio, we have China Radio International (from memory I think it's 88.7FM) which broadcasts a variety of programs from around the world. I believe it has some programs from America's NPR and some from BBC.

I don't necessarily believe everything I read in HK/TW/Int. news over local news, or vice versa. And it is often surprising how similar stories are reported very differently - or some events are considered 'news' by one group and not another.

Oh, as a small aside... there is one official English language channel in China. It's called CCTV 9. After watching for 5 mins my brain begins to bleed out my ears. It's news reports are different to all the Mandarin news channels. I guess it is aimed at foreigners in China - and paints a ridiculous positive image. I don't know who really watches that channel. Local Chinese can't speak English so don't watch it. Almost all foreigners have access to BBC or CNN so won't watch it. That channel alone I think gives other Chinese media a very bad name.

And second aside... there is of course the internet. I watch Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly through the internet.



A good question. And then it depends on the definition of 'independant news group' and what is 'critical'.

The local news generally does not speak negatively about 'the government' (though occasionally they'll be a big story on some corrupt government official or department). There are many negative stories though about pollution, rampant real estate, oppression of low class workers, failure to pay wages, rise of drugs and prostitution. Part of this is blamed on a lack of government control - so I guess this could be said to be negative story on the government. Since the government run agencies itselves report this, there is no 'punishement'.

Blogs and websites are very regularly critical of this and that government person or department for being corrupt, lazy or unsophisticated. I imagine some might be shut down - I don't know of any specific one but I'm guess there is.

Academics do often write articles on poor government - and since these are in academic journals they often do not reach public.

HK and Taiwan news is sometimes critical of mainland - I don't know so much of Taiwan but HK often speaks about not wanting mainland to infringe sovereignty. The English language paper 'south China morning post' has very regularly column writers speaking out against Mainland. This paper is available in mainland.

The international news like CNN and BBC used to be quite censored in the past with negative reports on China getting blocked - suddenly the signal would go down. In the past couple of years, I don't recall any blocking of CNN or BBC - even during the 'tough' times like the torch relay.



Sure, we have local government. Without local government, every small decision on where to build a public toilet or when to turn on the sprinklers would have to be planned by the central highest level? I don't think that would work.

The lower levels of government are normally elected directly from the citizens in the area and tend to the planting of trees, the management of pets etc. They report to district government which handles higher level things like local speed rules, rubbish collection, street cleaning. They in turn report to city government which handles tax, population immigration control, urban planning and so it keeps going up. We have the equivalent of your city councils.

Higher levels are appointed, not voted. One difference for example is that your mayors (the boss of the city) are voted I think. Ours are appointed by the Central Government.

Spacepony made a comment that I think I have to disagree - he said all laws are national not regional. One big problem in China is that we have TOO MANY regional rules, regulations that apply only to here and not to there. Furthermore, sometimes it's hard to know what the rule is - and that it only applies to north of this road or east of that river. It's been a long time complaint - all these 'secret rules' about the speed limit, or parking rules, or whether a permit to have a dog, or rules on how to start a business and what tax you pay, applies here or there. There are way too many differences between districts, cities and provinces.

(we in Beijing sometimes grumble that Shanghai exists in a parralel universe with different laws. Shanghai in turn would say that if Beijing would just adopt the Shanghai way of doing things then the country would prosper more. But I think this is a different discussion)



We have a national ID card. We need it to open a bank account, apply for gym membership, apply for passport, prove ID when going on plane. It's also required for anything that has government subsidy or legal effect e.g. children school or signing contract. If you're not 'applying' for something though, I don't think there's any need to carry it at all times. I've never in my entire life been 'checked' for my ID just on the street (except once when I tried to go to nightclub... but that was MANY MANY years ago).

I think your questions 5-7 are related so I'll answer them in next posting.

Warshrimp said:



This is a pretty broad question Here's my personal opinion and a very tentatively attempt to give some broader Chinese opinions.

i) I have to agree with Spacepony at the beginning - there are so many different 'Americans', it's hard to give a fair answer. In this thread alone, there is Spacepony, General Etrius, ProfCS101, Carbon016 (and probably many others who I didn't know are American) who all have different and valid points of view. I strongly agree with some. I strongly disagree with others. And there could all be said as "Americans".

Oh...enough with the political correcting - the real answer to the question is: ALL YOUR BASE BELONG TO US!

ii) The mood here, at least amongst my circle of friends, is positive towards America. I've mentioned before. You have the best Universities. The biggest houses. The glamours TV shows. The hip hop r and b music. A much clearer set of enforceable laws. Your companies pay higher than local companies. All these things, to a country that is coming out of a terrible cultural revolution, with low technology, with low money, with social chaos - are things that are admiring.

American tourists in China have, in the past, been the more difficult ones to handle compared to visitors from Asia and Europe. I sometimes felt that they were disrespect. But for every 1 disrespect, i met 5 good respect friends so I think the balance is positive. And I've already posted my thoughts on Chinese tourists

One thing that was upsetting in the past that is getting better is that American workers would get paid more for doing the same job than a Chinese worker. This is less and less now - and you can guess that this obviously caused resentment.

There are things that are upsetting. For example, US govt response to Chinese earthquake. US govt. donated 500,000 USD to China. That seemed a bit low (especially since it was less than e.g. Mongolia). On the other hand. US red cross donated multi-millions and was hugely thanked. Obviously, this was and still is such a big issue for us, any action on earthquake is highly reported and discussed.

When I travel, I am often quite surprised at the level of 'anti-america' feeling from some places - probably especially in Europe like France and Germany. I think this 'anti america' feeling is far less smaller here in China.

We don't get that so much news about Iraq, or Afghanistan or Haliburton or all the other 'hot button' topics. So it's not something that we often discuss or talk about. War is bad. Terorists are bad. Dying and bombs are bad. But the details of why and who and for what - I'm not sure... and I don't think many of my friends are sure. So we think it's a bad situation - though not necessarily saying it's because of Bush or Cheney or Saddam or Al Qaeda.

Well, that's what I think anyway. There is so much passion on these topics - I don't feel equipped to participate so I just read and listen.



Sad. Not so much angry, but very sad. I think actually the boycotts will be very coutnerproductive. I've said before - the mood in mainland from Han towards Tibetan was increasingly positive. Not perfect of course and I know there were many problems in Tibet - and my feeling was that each year was slowly getting better.

the torch relay generated a lot of anti-tibetan feeling which undid a lot of good work for people building bridge between han and tibet.

though recently, I'm thinking a lot of governments reversed decision on boycott. Bush is coming. Sarkozy is coming. I'm not sure now who is still boycott?

Without mightygoobi on here we have no means of learning more about his beloved homeland... Hope you get beck here soon...

so glad to see you back online... Where in The United States did ou go? If you were in Philadelphia I wish you would have let me know... could have shown you China Town here.   

I like China. If I had to pick a country to defect to and share sensitive nuclear secrets with, it would be that one.

-Bigglesworth