Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Coronavirus: the Chinese Political Angle

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
    Well, has there even been a Chinese President who didn't get a second 5 yr term ?

    I can't think of one and they haven't had that many since Mao

    So you watch these things in detail, to me those two year terms gel into one

    Imagine the surprise when people express doubts that 'President for life' won't get an extension.

    Another example, remember that time you were explaining Jiang Zemins problems with the PLA. They would not listen to him.

    PLA is not a national army. PLA is the army of the party.

    So its inconceivable PLA won't follow the CCP chief, yes ?

    ..it happens....
    Just two single-termers in the reform era.
    Mao Zedong (1949-54), Chairman of the People’s Government
    Mao Zedong (1954-59), President of the People’s Republic of China
    Liu Shaoqi (1959-68), President
    Dong Biwu (1972-75), President
    Zhu De (1975-76), Chair of the National People's Congress Standing Committee
    Ye Jianying (1978-83), NPC Chair
    Song Qingling (May 16-28, 1981: honorary; she was dying), NPC Chair
    Li Xiannian (1983-88), President, forced to retire by Deng Xiaoping (and, one of Ye's key co-conspirators)
    Yang Shangkun (1988-93), President, forced to retire by Deng
    Jiang Zemin (1993-2003), President, start of younger leaders given two terms.
    Hu Jintao (2003-13), President
    Xi Jinping (2013-), President

    The PLA didn't follow the leader of the party when Mao died, and we all benefited from that.
    Yes, Hua Guofeng was chairman, but he didn't initiate the coup d'etat against the Gang of Four.
    That was Marshal Ye Jianying.
    Trust me?
    I'm an economist!

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by DOR View Post
      Just two single-termers in the reform era.
      Mao Zedong (1949-54), Chairman of the People’s Government
      Mao Zedong (1954-59), President of the People’s Republic of China
      Liu Shaoqi (1959-68), President
      Dong Biwu (1972-75), President
      Zhu De (1975-76), Chair of the National People's Congress Standing Committee
      Ye Jianying (1978-83), NPC Chair
      Song Qingling (May 16-28, 1981: honorary; she was dying), NPC Chair
      Li Xiannian (1983-88), President, forced to retire by Deng Xiaoping (and, one of Ye's key co-conspirators)
      Yang Shangkun (1988-93), President, forced to retire by Deng
      Jiang Zemin (1993-2003), President, start of younger leaders given two terms.
      Hu Jintao (2003-13), President
      Xi Jinping (2013-), President]
      Presumably, the bolded are the one term presidents

      Note how you say forced to retire. Meaning a second term is expected unless something goes wrong

      Looking at that list, there might be a path for Xi if that third term does not come up ?

      When will CCP have a woman president ?

      The PLA didn't follow the leader of the party when Mao died, and we all benefited from that.
      Yes, Hua Guofeng was chairman, but he didn't initiate the coup d'etat against the Gang of Four.
      That was Marshal Ye Jianying.
      heh, a coup d'etat but will step away when an acceptable leader presents himself.

      PLA is the benevolent guardian
      Last edited by Double Edge; 20 Feb 20,, 21:10.

      Comment


      • #18
        In the early 1980s (after the 1982 12th National Party Congress) when Li Xiannian was president, the job came with an automatic seat on the Politburo Standing Committee. Under the party constitution, the PBSC was this:

        CCP General Secretary (Hu Yaobang)
        National People’s Congress Chair (Ye Jianying)
        Military Affairs Committee Chair (Deng Xiaoping)
        State President (Li Xiannian)
        State Premier (Zhao Ziyang)
        Discipline Inspection Commission Chair (Chen Yun)

        It was the only time those seats were defined by the other job each man held. In 1983, Ye resigned (health reasons) as NPC Chair, and then in 1985 he gave up all posts. During all this, term limits were a big point of discussion, with the Eternal Chairman Mao in the back of everyone’s minds. As an old Marxist planner (and the longest serving politburo member, 1954-88), Li hated Deng's free-market tolerance and had to be shown the door.

        After Ye withdrew, Deng upped the ante to get the remaining Eight Immortals to fully retire. By promising to himself retire, he embarrassed Chen Yun and Li Xiannian out of office, although they are said to have insisted that he retain his role as MAC Chair “for purposes of stability.” That set a precedent that Jiang Zemin (one of Li’s favorites) grabbed to retain control of the PLA after Hu Jintao took over the party.

        Women? China tried that a couple of times in history and didn’t like the results. No female has ever been on the PBSC, although there is often a token one (rarely two) at the politburo level.

        Coup détat? Yes, that's what it's called when it comes at gun point.
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • #19


          Are these propaganda videos?
          Politicians are elected to serve...far too many don't see it that way - Albany Rifles! || Loyalty to country always. Loyalty to government, when it deserves it - Mark Twain! || I am a far left millennial!

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Oracle View Post


            Are these propaganda videos?
            WION is just repeating their earlier news clip from five days ago

            Comment


            • #21
              An op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, makes its way around the world.

              China’s secrecy has made the coronavirus crisis much worse | Chicago Tribune (op-ed) | Feb 13 2020

              Chinese authorities waited for a month after the first case to notify the World Health Organization about the new coronavirus, thus delaying concerted efforts to understand the virus, its transmissibility and lethality among infectious disease specialists around the world. Even so, from Jan. 2 to Jan. 18, China did not report any new cases and continued to downplay its severity. As the number of hospitalizations mounted in Wuhan, officials went ahead with a New Year banquet for 40,000 people.

              Only when new cases were reported outside Hubei province on Jan. 20 did the Chinese authorities decide to act. Within days, Hubei province, home to 50 million people, was quarantined, with no travel allowed.

              But it was too late. The disease had spread around the country and the world. Within Wuhan, reports of new cases and deaths grew exponentially — from just a hundred infected patients and deaths in single digits in mid-January, to tens of thousands of reported cases and hundreds of death a few weeks later. Yet, even though Chinese authorities finally acknowledged the severity of the situation, Beijing did not allow a WHO investigating team to enter China until this week and still declines offers by the United States and other countries to send all the experts needed to help combat the disease.
              One month was too long for this former US ambassador to NATO. But it is an improvement over three month for SARS.

              Authoritarian political systems don’t do well when confronting unexpected crises, especially those like infectious diseases that require a rapid local response. They disempower officials at the lower rungs. The firmer the control at the top, the less likely the initiative from the bottom. Dangers go unreported and those who speak out, like Dr. Li, are quickly punished as a clear sign to others to stay in line.

              But when it comes to infectious diseases, top-down approaches fail. In fact, they make things worse, by delaying actions that could otherwise prevent the spread of the disease. Only if people are empowered to take the initiative can quick action be taken.
              Very good, now how does a free country deal with this

              When the first coronavirus patient in the United States presented himself in Snohomish County, Washington, Hollianne Bruce didn’t wait for the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention to confirm the disease. The epidemiologist assigned to the county immediately traced everyone the patient had been in contact with and urged them to remain in isolation for 14 days to prevent the disease from spreading. So far, it hasn’t.

              Authoritarians are good at ducking responsibility and shifting blame. And no doubt Xi Jinping will survive this latest crisis and remain fully in charge of the country. But people inside and out of China will have noticed that secrecy and control can be deadly, and will begin to question whether the system is in fact as effective as China’s leaders make it out to be.
              I think this is nothing more than some puff piece, one case and you are using that to make a comparison ?!?

              This thing spreads through contact, through proximity with an infected person, it takes ten days for symptoms to show. Until then its like a bad cold. Not unusual, in the northern hemisphere at this time of the year.
              Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Feb 20,, 20:33.

              Comment


              • #22
                The kathmandu post syndicated the above op-ed and this sparked a dispute with the Chinese envoy in Nepal.

                Statement of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Nepal | Chinese Embassy (Nepal) | Feb 18 2020

                Virus knows no borders. In 2009, the H1N1 flu outbreak in some western country had spread to 214 countries and regions, lead to more than 18449 deaths that very year. However, that country didn’t declare it as a national emergency until six months later. Nobody credited it to that country's political system. Now, some western media took the opportunity to politicize the epidemic, criticize China’s efforts to fight against the epidemic and attack China’s political system. This is definitely a double-standard activity.
                Is H1N1 a valid comparison ?

                Western country in question here is Mexico

                Course, the Nepalis being true to themselves would have none of it. Editors of all the Nepali publications got together to issue a rejoinder.

                Nepali editors condemn Chinese embassy’s statement regarding the Post | KP | Feb 19 2020
                Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Feb 20,, 01:39.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                  An op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, makes its way around the world.

                  China’s secrecy has made the coronavirus crisis much worse | Chicago Tribune (op-ed) | Feb 13 2020



                  One month was too long for this former US ambassador to NATO. But it is an improvement over three month for SARS.


                  Very good, now how does a free country deal with this



                  I think this is nothing more than some puff piece, one case and you are using that to make a comparison ?!?

                  This thing spreads through contact, through proximity with an infected person, it takes ten days for symptoms to show. Until then its like a bad cold. Not unusual, in the northern hemisphere at this time of the year.
                  It's a freaking fluff piece. First of all, no one knew what this was and no test was devised ever to identify this new virus. For all anyone knew, it was a case of influenza. It was not until Dr Li noticed a pattern that he reported it. No one reports every case of the flu to the WHO.

                  Chicago is different. They knew of COVID-19 and knew what to look for. When you don't know what you have, you don't know what you're looking for.

                  From that perspective, 30 days is damned fast.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    It's a freaking fluff piece. First of all, no one knew what this was and no test was devised ever to identify this new virus. For all anyone knew, it was a case of influenza. It was not until Dr Li noticed a pattern that he reported it. No one reports every case of the flu to the WHO.

                    Chicago is different. They knew of COVID-19 and knew what to look for. When you don't know what you have, you don't know what you're looking for.

                    From that perspective, 30 days is damned fast.
                    Three times faster than with SARS



                    I don't agree with these kids. More centralised does not mean more bureaucracies to go through, its the very opposite.

                    The setup there since Xi's centralisation is almost like a military. No questions, just follow orders.

                    For this kind of problem, China is probably better setup to deal with it.

                    They think the govt did not say anything for a month because they gambled they could control it without making any waves.

                    Well, how about preparing the country first before letting the word out ?

                    I don't think everybody went oh shit and then scrambled after the announcement. Those that needed to know were working at it in preparation of that announcement.
                    Last edited by Double Edge; 22 Feb 20,, 23:11.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Oracle View Post


                      WTF????

                      Colonel, are you involved? :D
                      Study here says the Canadians didn't do it : )

                      The study relies on genome sequence data from this virus and known coronavirus strains to identify key indicators in the evolution of the virus’ structure.

                      The researchers found that one of those indicators – which affects the way the virus’ “spike” binds to human cells – would have mutated differently if it had been based on a computational model and not natural evolution. If the bindings had been engineered, they would have been optimised to grab onto human cells in a different way.

                      They also pointed to the unique features on the virus’ “spike protein”, which had not been seen before in “related lineage B betacoronaviruses”, as further evidence that this was not a laboratory creation.

                      University of Queensland professor Roy Hall, who researches viral protein structures and was not involved in the study, agreed with the researchers’ evidence on these features and their overall conclusions.

                      “If this was a genetically engineered virus, they [researchers] would be taking a virus that we know infects humans and causes disease and using the same genetic structure. But we haven’t seen [these features] before, so they’ve evolved naturally, separately in nature. No one has seen them before so they wouldn’t be genetically engineered that way,” Hall said.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Oracle View Post
                        'Please evacuate us': 800 Pakistan students plead for help to escape Wuhan

                        The group have been confined to a hostel for three weeks and want their government to help them fly back home



                        And they have nukes!
                        Chinese won't let eighty of our own leave because they are considered 'medically unfit'

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                          The kathmandu post syndicated the above op-ed and this sparked a dispute with the Chinese envoy in Nepal.

                          Statement of the Embassy of the People's Republic of China in Nepal | Chinese Embassy (Nepal) | Feb 18 2020



                          Is H1N1 a valid comparison ?

                          Western country in question here is Mexico

                          Course, the Nepalis being true to themselves would have none of it. Editors of all the Nepali publications got together to issue a rejoinder.

                          Nepali editors condemn Chinese embassy’s statement regarding the Post | KP | Feb 19 2020
                          China has been pumping out this sort of propaganda for weeks now - attacking the US in particular over H1N1 and playing the victim.

                          When this is all over Beijing will push the 'it was all the fault of local officials' line - they have already sacked a bunch of local officials - and the 'China sacrificed its own citizens to stop this spreading to the rest of the world'. So, Xi paints himself & the Chinese people as heroes, tries to paint it as a success of the system, and any outside criticism as racism, politics & more proof that China is being victimised.

                          The possibility that the way China runs itself might have made this worse than it needed to be won't be up for consideration or discussion.
                          sigpic

                          Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Double Edge View Post
                            More centralised does not mean more bureaucracies to go through, its the very opposite.
                            Not in the Chinese context.

                            Centralized: Get approval from each office directly above you before making decisions.
                            Decentralized: Make decisions. If you’re right, you’ll be promoted; if you’re wrong, you’ll be demoted, fired, or jailed.

                            The CCP centralizes and decentralizes like a pendulum swinging back and forth. We’re currently on the third (maybe fourth) centralization cycle in the past 40 years.
                            Trust me?
                            I'm an economist!

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by DOR View Post
                              Not in the Chinese context.

                              Centralized: Get approval from each office directly above you before making decisions.
                              Decentralized: Make decisions. If you’re right, you’ll be promoted; if you’re wrong, you’ll be demoted, fired, or jailed.

                              The CCP centralizes and decentralizes like a pendulum swinging back and forth. We’re currently on the third (maybe fourth) centralization cycle in the past 40 years.
                              Fine but imagine it was decentralised in this situation. You'd have different areas responding on their own or not. This continues for weeks.

                              At what point does the centre get a sense of what it is happening and tell the world. Would it be any faster or better.

                              People are quite bitter over all of this i can see from numerous videos. Everything is wrong with the system.

                              The govt that is supposed to provide everything has failed.
                              Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Feb 20,, 14:49.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                                China has been pumping out this sort of propaganda for weeks now - attacking the US in particular over H1N1 and playing the victim.
                                They're being attacked for no good reason. That op-ed is a case in point. It's propaganda too.

                                When this is all over Beijing will push the 'it was all the fault of local officials' line - they have already sacked a bunch of local officials - and the 'China sacrificed its own citizens to stop this spreading to the rest of the world'. So, Xi paints himself & the Chinese people as heroes, tries to paint it as a success of the system, and any outside criticism as racism, politics & more proof that China is being victimised.
                                Blaming the local officials won't work because they cannot do anything unless the higher ups allow them. Mayor of Wuhan is on record saying just that. But that is what is happening.

                                The politics i can identify with given the coverage of J&K in the west by certain media outlets over the last few months. I recognise the angles.

                                Racism, in reality discrimination is to do with fear of anything and everything from China or looks Chinese. I heard some countries have insisted Chinese nationals return to their country at once. Why ?

                                As for the bolded part, China has given the pertinent info to the world so they will be better equipped to deal with it. That is the hope.

                                Anyone wondering why Xi isn't in the public view its because older people are more vulnerable to this virus. He was at a hospital recently as far as public appearances go.


                                The possibility that the way China runs itself might have made this worse than it needed to be won't be up for consideration or discussion.
                                I was listening to this guy from Wuhan asking why the govt did not inform them earlier. That the govt could not even handle the problem.

                                Saying that China is the best country in the world to handle this outbreak got me slammed as a CCP bot. Heh

                                Person who said that also insisted COVID-19 is a bioweapon and the WHO is a China puppet : D
                                Last edited by Double Edge; 23 Feb 20,, 17:57.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X