Go to the BBC news China webpage, pick a story and answer the following questions, this time all in one post. Also, read a story someone else picked and reply to their post.
1. What story did you pick and why did it stand out to you among all of the stories?
2. How does your story illustrate the nature of one party rule in China?
Also, here is a link to the Prezi on authoritarianism and totalitarianism, and the following Prezi on communist and post-communist regimes.
1) I picked the article "China expands abandoned baby hatch scheme" that talked about these hatched were people can leave their babies if the parents do not want them. These hatches are sponsored by the government, which I find very interesting. This article stood out to me because I watch a lot of Asian television shows where more often than not the child is living with a relative or missing one of their parents, so it was interesting to see a real-lie article about what REALLY happens to these kids whose parents either don't want them or feel they cannot care for them properly.
ReplyDelete2) The hatches in the article are built by order of the Chinese government. The China Center for Children's Welfare and Adoption has supervised the creation of dozens of hatches throughout the country. The article brings out that the Chinese law which makes child abandonment illegal emphasize prevention, but the hatches create a safety net for these abandoned children. It is interesting how the Chinese government is able to make a monopoly of a parent's choice even when it is at odds with Chinese law when made. The Communist Party even made a stipulation that there must be at least 2 hatches per province, a measure that one could say is based on correcting a law-breaker's mistake and creating a healthy next generation.
After reading the article and learning how many babies are abandoned, I'm beginning to wonder what they're going to do with all of those children! Especially because they say that so many of the children have conditions that would make it hard for their biological parents to have cared for them both emotionally and financially. Do they expect to just institutionalize these children or hope that someone adopts them? I'm just really confused as to how this is going to solve all of their abandoned baby problems. I mean, sure they're not going to find so many babies in a basket in a park, but they're going to have so many more children that the government is responsible for. I feel that if the government had a different view on caring for children, these baby hatches would be the way to go.
DeleteNormally Russia is not a good place to model after, but they have had baby hatches since 2011 and if I remember correctly, within the first year they were only used 3 times - much less than the number of time the ones in China have been used. Maybe China needs to change its stance, though it is unlikely that that will happen. If you're curious about the Russian baby hatch group, here is their site: http://www.babyboxrf.ru/ (it is all in russian, so hopefully you're using google chrome which will roughly translate for you.)
I had the exact same thought as Desia. What are they going to do with all of these kids? Population is already a major issue in China, and the government is aware of how people are evading the family planning laws and having more children, so why are they doing this, basically encouraging families to have more children? Also, if most of the children are disabled or severely ill, how is the government going to pay for healthcare and stuff?
Delete1. I picked “China removes $8bn from money markets to control lending,” because it is a recent story, and dealt with Chinese economy. It’s interesting to read about the amount of control the government truly has on its markets, because the idea is so foreign and at odds with "free-markets."
ReplyDeletewith free-markets.
2. The story I picked illustrates the one party system, because it shows the extent of economic control the government has. The article says, “China has been looking to suck excess cash from its open-market operations to reduce the risks of shadow banking, or informal lending to businesses.” While this is partially rooted in the fact of China’s political ideology, it is also important to note, that the one party system removes any opposition to this action. Companies that are hurt by this have no formal political outlet to project their criticism, since the one party is the political authority. Furthermore, by removing money from the open market, the government aims modify the behavior of companies involved, and to promote their agenda.
I really like this response... :) I definitely agree with what you're saying - the article makes the Chinese government sound a bit righteous by regulating the economy so rigidly, but we don't know if it's the best system, or even if the citizens agree because it's the only system... So, I think you made some good points, and the juxtaposition with more liberal views about economic regulation is definitely an interesting point to also highlight.
DeleteI agree with Alexis; Maryam well done in your connection of the story to the one party system of China. I do think that this action of the Chinese government reflects their control over the economy and though it may sound as if it is the most beneficial, I see Alexis' point that it may not actually be the best that benefits people who have no choice in this.
Delete1) The story I chose is “China removes $8bn from money markets to control lending” because it demonstrates the pro-growth economic policies of the Chinese government. In particular, the fact that China is attempting to discourage borrowing/lending, a smart economic move, while the United States continues to support economic policies that encourage borrowing is representative of China's obvious focus on economic wealthfare over social wealthfare (i.e. entitlements).
ReplyDelete2) This demonstrates the one-party rule in China because the government is here exercising its ability to set universal economic standards for the country. Really, however, this is no different than what the US Federal Reserve (the central bank in the US) is able to do.
I think you make a good point in the second part of your answer- while the Chinese government is interfering heavily in their economy, it seems reminiscent of things we hear in the United States. There seem to be some blurred lines between the categories of governments here.
Delete1) I chose "China media: Talking to Taiwan" because I am from Taiwan and the controversy between the "Two Chinas" has been around since the dawn of the Cold War. It is interesting how those in China still consider Taiwan a part of Mainland China despite the independence and sovereignty displayed by Taiwan. China is still pushing for a One-China principle as indicated in the article. This controversy still has lasting repercussions. Taiwan has made attempts to join the UN; however, because China sits on the Security Council all attempts have been denied. Taiwan has to brandish the name "Chinese Taipei" and wave a special flag during the Olympics. I believe that Taiwan should be an independent state but that is probably because I am extremely biased.
ReplyDelete2) This article depicts the complete control of the Chinese Communist Party since the Chinese Civil War as it still dictates the affairs of all the areas (sovereign or not). It continues to be a dominant authority in the East and controls many of the policies coming out of the area.
1) I picked the "China rejects 'unfair criticism' in UN North Korea report" because it was so wonderfully relevant. Obviously because it is a current event, but also because we're talking about China and North Korea a tad in history. It also stood out to me because the UN was involved and clearly has evidence, and both North Korea and China are denying it. The fact that China is calling it "unfair criticism" makes me think that the same things are happening there too, but they are doing better at keeping things under wraps.
ReplyDelete2) This demonstrates the one-party rule in China because they are first of all clearly defending another one-party rule, and secondly because they practice democratic centralism, which entails democratic and open discussion on policy on the condition of unity in upholding the agreed upon policies. Not to mention that they are the country with the most access and best relationship with North Korea, speaking about them publicly in a positive light but privately knowing the impoverishment of the North Korean peoples. TL;DR: of course they're a one-party system and it is evident in the fact that they're defending a country they know is wrong - but they are defending them so that if push comes to shove, North Korea would defend them too.
Is it really because China believes that North Korea will "defend" them? I don't think a defense from North Korea means anything on a world stage, be it militarily or democratically. From the article and from what I've read, I don't believe China's support of North Korea is due to any ideological similarity, but rather as a matter of security. It seems that China is simply trying to keep its neighbor pacified in order to avoid any instability that may lead to troubles for China. If North Korea were to collapse the refugees, possible loose nuclear materials, etc. would cause major problems for China, especially in the region that borders North Korea.
Delete1) "Ill wind for Hing Kong's press freedom"
ReplyDeletePopular radio talk show host Li We-ling was abruptly fired after a number of comments critical of Hong Kong and the mainland Chinese government. Frankly this seemed like the most textbook example of one-party rule I could find out of the stories. In addition, I'm very interested in any freedom of speech matters in he world, and any instances where this freedom seems to be challenged.
2) The one party in power removed a private citizen from her position because she was critical of the party. One report on freedom of speech in Hong Kong "cited commercial pressure and self-censorship as particularly serious problems, especially because more than half of media owners in the city have reportedly accepted positions in China's lawmaking bodies."
This is a clear example of clientelism (I know I butchered that), those who have power over the media are absorbed into the lawmaking process of the party, therefore making them loyal to the state and giving them power over rival outlets who may be more outspoken, as Wei-ling was.
I agree with this aspect of the Chinese single party state. As a further example, a few days ago, China hosted a meeting with Taiwanese officials, the first meeting of its kind in a long time. However, China revoked the press passes of several Taiwanese reporters, demonstrating their control over the media, a crucial point in a single party state.
Delete1.) The article that I chose was title “China Expands abandoned baby hatch scheme” and when I read the title and saw the picture that was posted with the article I assumed that it would be about some sort of care service. In a way this assumption was right, but I was overall shocked when I continued to read the article. The article basically details this system that was encouraged by the government to reduce the number of deaths among abandoned children in China. The system included an incubator and alarm clock that allowed individuals who do not have the capability to take care of their child to place them in a “hatch” and leave the child without any legal consequences. When I read that at one of the locations 79 babies were left in the first 15 days, I found this statement to be both intriguing and shocking at the same time.
ReplyDelete2.) One of the main things I noticed when I read the article was the mentioning of how abandoning children was illegal in China, yet these baby hatches are available and utilized in a way that leaves the parents unknown. The fact that the favoring of boys over girls was mentioned in the article and how this was not an influence in regards to who was left in the baby hatches suggests that China is aware of the gender discrimination. These two points exemplify how the one party rule in China can do whatever they please even if they hypocritically defy their own laws.
I think that this makes a good example of the government of China providing welfare. I don't think that this is as bad as you make it out to be though because this method greatly reduces the chances that a baby will die after being abandoned.
DeleteAs immoral as that sounds, the basis for these actions sounds all too familiar. I feel like many governments find loopholes within things they previously said to save their own butts from criticism. Almost like "oh..well...yeah...we did say that before but the way we're doing this thing now doesn't completely violate our previous statement so that makes it okay..."
Delete1. I picked the "China kills Xinjiang 'attackers' in Wushi" article. It stood out to me because it was one of the only ones that nobody else picked, and because of the quotes around the word attackers, implying that there's controversy over whether or not they are the aggressors. I thought that the two sides of the conflict were interesting- the Chinese government saying that the Uighurs are terrorists who attacked unprovoked, versus the Uighurs stating that the government was oppressive and killed those speaking out against the oppression. Ultimately, though, nobody really knows the true story because the government so tightly controls the information that comes out of Xinjiang.
ReplyDelete2. This story illustrates the Chinese one party rule through the accusations of government oppression which prompted the unrest, and the violent response of the Chinese officials to that unrest. It also reveals the censorship and strict control of the one party rule.
That article is really interesting. For one, I did not know there was a Muslim minority in China. And I find it even more interesting that they are an opposition group against the Chinese government. In the end, the relationship and any incident between these two 'groups' are here-say since they each have a side, but the Chinese government has the power to 'officially' report the facts behind any situation that arises.
Delete1. I chose the article about the "baby hatching" scheme in China because I read an article about a priest in China who began setting up "hatches" of a similar nature about a year ago. It surprised me that the national authorities are now funding the "hatches", seeing as it is their strict family planning laws that have led to the abundance of orphans and abandoned babies in China. It also surprises me that the local governments have basically taken on the responsibility of caring for these abandoned babies, which must require a lot of money and supplies. Also ironic is that abandoning babies is illegal in China, yet the government has set up a safety net for those who wish to break that law.
ReplyDelete2. This recent development in the "baby hatches" reflects an older generation of one party rule in China- the strict family planning laws, which infringed on the personal rights of a citizen for the good of the state, are what caused the need for "hatches".
That's actually really interesting because it sort of relates to the huge social ill that China is going through right now where it has a lot more males than females and people are forced into doing things like kidnapping and smuggling baby girls to later become brides for their boys. It's interesting how the government is now taking measures to make the situation for babies more humane.
Delete#1. I chose the "China kills Xinjiang 'attackers' in Wushi" article - mostly because I think that violence is an interesting topic in human rights. We talked about methods that authoritarian regimes seek to maintain power, and I think it was interesting to read about these methods being employed in China today. Obviously, the situation did not align perfectly to the theory - those killed apparently had weapons that were suspicious. Nonetheless, there didn't seem to be a trial, or an assumption that those killed were innocent until proven guilty; they were simply killed. I thought this clean-cut ruthlessness was significant because it demonstrates the cost of human life in favor of the interests of a regime - this time on the basis of race. At least in America, detainment in a jailhouse, or isolation in a police car are options.
ReplyDelete#2. As I touched on in the previous response, I think that one-party rule is demonstrated through the ruthless nature of the killings. Honestly, the Uighurs weren't posing any significant threats...they just looked suspicious. So, I think that this inhumane action at the first glimmer of opposition demonstrates the most one-party rule by showing severe action that is uninhibited by outside opposition and universal conventions for human rights.
I chose the "China rejects 'unfair criticism' in UN North Korea report" article. I chose this article not because of its relationship of two authoritarian regimes, but because of my interest in East Asian affairs. I believe that this is where much of the world's attention will shift in the coming years, and I have begun studying the area in anticipation of this. Therefore, when I saw an article concerning two important Asian players, it drew my immediate attention. The article is very easy to understand, and the title explains much of China's position on the issue. It specifically revolves around the Chinese refutation of the claim that they repatriated fleeing North Koreans back into their country to face the repercussions.
ReplyDelete2.) There are a few aspects of this story that identify the role of the one party (CCP) in China. Firstly, the repatriation of refugees reveals that they are unwilling to help others who are unfamiliar with their culture and ways as well as possible future dissidents. Secondly, the unilateral action to dismiss these claims is also an example, as it demonstrates the government is willing to tow the party line. Lastly, the lack of any notable protest also reveals the strength of China's one party.
I agree, as this article showed how China will support N. Korea in many situations. It really helps to show the influence of China trying to control the region. By keeping North Korea propped up, it takes a lot of focus that would otherwise by on China off the nation.
Delete1. I picked "China: Twelve dead in Xinjiang violence" because it deals with possible repression in China. Another thing that stood out to me is the fact that information on the incident is so tightly controlled to where it is difficult to verify.
ReplyDelete2. This example illustrates one party rule because if groups that speak out against the government are being repressed, then only the party in power can be represented.In this case, the possible repression of the Uighurs show that the government may be trying to repress this group and stop them from gaining any influence. The fact that information is so tightly controlled shows censorship and also exemplifies the one party rule because the party may be trying to withhold the information in order to prevent any dissent.
1. I picked "How Gigi Chao sparked Hong Kong gay rights debate" because I felt that gay rights seemed to be a much more western-related topic of discussion and there's not much in the news (to my understanding) of gay rights issues occurring in the eastern countries.
ReplyDelete2. This article demonstrates the social influence that the government has on Chinese society. After comparing and contrasting Chao's situation to others', the article went into some recent[ish] (think 1990's) legal actions that China experienced. The article said that "homosexuality was de-criminalised in Hong Kong in 1991"...I had I feeling that homosexuality was not very accepted in China, seeing as it is still a challenge in the U.S., however, I had no idea that it was a criminal offense at one point in Chinese history. Hong Kong's law makes it illegal to discriminate against someone for several characteristics, however, it excludes a person's orientation or sexual identification. Some of the stories of other Chinese homosexuals discussed within the article discuss those people being fired from jobs because of their sexual orientation/identity, reflecting the government's influence on the social aspects of the country.
1. I chose the article, "China removes $8bn from money markets to control lending" as it has major economic implications both on an international and domestic scale. It is quite interesting that the Chinese government is doing the opposite of what the American, "free-market" government did after the housing bubble burst, as they are making loaning to risky investments more difficult. During and after the housing bubble, government regulations via the Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to loan to high risk, low income families (an authoritarian-esque legislation), while China is moving away from that.
ReplyDelete2. Since the government has near-total authoritarian power, especially as the central bank has the power to manipulate money markets, this article is an accurate representation of China's one-party rule. Ironically, the removal of money from the market was implemented as a result of volatile markets and is the opposite of the American course of action, which is supposedly more "free-market."
Replying to 1. that does seem weird that theyd do the opposite, as making lending harder at least in the american view seems like itd make it harder for the economy to grow and prosper, while the chinese view is that it eliminates risky investments.
DeleteIt is interesting that China is adopting the Austrian economic principle that easy lending causes economic instability (in the Austrian school, from low interest rates) because of the fact that China possesses a government controlled by a powerful single-party.
Delete1. I picked the article on China removing 8 billion from the money markets to prevent excess lending. This story stood out to me because of my interest in the global economy. I also wanted to find out what ramifications this had on businesses in China and whether it was a valid decision.
ReplyDelete2. This is definitely an act of one party rule and the fact that business don't seem to have much of a say in the decision shows that. The one party government has complete control over how much money to take out to prevent what it calls risky lending. This does not allow for a free market and limits the decisions that business owners can make.
1. I chose the article "How Gigi Chao sparked Hong Kong gay rights debate". It stood out to me because the article was on gay rights and the evolution of the movement in hong kong.
ReplyDelete2. How does your story illustrate the nature of one party rule in China?
The story illustrates the nature of one party rule in China due to its involvement with discrimination against sexual minorities allowed by the typically universal conservative view.
1. I chose the article "China Media: 'Mafia-style' crime" because the first article i actually chose, I had a hard time relating it to China's one party system. It was an article about how this man bought all the odd number seats at the movies so that couples won't be able to sit together for Valentine's Day...what a.... Anyways, so I saw this post after it and thought it was interesting how there's a mafia gang in China.
ReplyDelete2. This story basically had Chinese media outlets voicing their joys and excitement (as well as the people in certain provinces that have these mafia gangs) that they could now feel safe and secure. I think this goes with some of the faults and flaws of China's one party system as it still lacks in trying to provide for all people (safety and security?) and catching those who are doing bad things.
1. I chose the "China rejects 'unfair criticism' in UN North Korea report" article just because I found it shocking that anyone in the modern world believes that North Korea is a just state. I was under the impression that everyone kind of hated North Korea together but I guess not. I was surprised also to learn that China was in fact its only ally.
ReplyDelete2. This illustrates the one party system in China because there was no debate over whether or not to accept the report, it was just decided by one group. There were also no accounts of protest which shows that the party has strict control over its people and that everyone is indoctrinated to believe what the party believes.
1. I chose the "Obama's meeting with Dalai Lama irks China" article because it stood out to me that China would so strongly object to the US president meeting with a religious leader. It didn't make too much sense to me, so I wanted to learn more.
ReplyDelete2. This shows the one party system as China objected to this meeting as he was exiled for starting a rebellion in 1959. The talks were about Tibetan independence from China, and how to reach at least a certain amount of autonomy in the region, something the rulers of China are not willing to grant. The fact that 110 monks have set themselves on fire and the government doesn't even consider Tibet an issue shows how focused on control the one party system is.
1. I picked the mafia article because it was interesting to know that even in chinas perfect communist system there are still people who believe in private enterprise and forcing their way to the top rather than trying to be equal. it was interesting that there was a whole mafia type rule of organized crime in another country that has supposedly eliminated self interest.
ReplyDelete2. this shows one party rul because the governemtn eliminated any type of opposition to its power or is idealolgy that they enforce. they go out of their way to punish people who brin the sickness of capitalism into their county