[quote]China’s national legislature has passed a sweeping national security law that critics say will place further restrictions on freedom of speech and civil rights, but a Beijing official has said it will not be directly implemented in Hong Kong and Macau.
…
It has attracted controversy because [B]it defines the remit of national security in far-reaching terms, ranging from finance, politics, the military and cyber security to ideology and religion[/B]. The legislation will not be directly implemented in Hong Kong and Macau, said Zheng Shuna, the deputy director of the standing committee’s Commission for Legislative Affairs. [/quote]
[quote][B]The draft defines "national security" as ensuring that the political regime, sovereignty, national unification, territorial integrity, people's welfare and the "sustainable and healthy development" of the economy and society, and other unspecified "major national interests" are "relatively free from danger and not under internal and external threats"[/B].
The draft law also deals with the protection of the socialist market economy, industries vital to the economy as well as other economic interests. It underscores the importance of grain security and cybersecurity, as well as [B]preventing and effectively resolving incidents that affect social stability, such as food safety scandals[/B]. In addition, the law stresses the need to prevent cyberattacks and [B] dissemination of illegal and "harmful" content online[/B].
[/quote]
[quote] Hong Kong University law professor Fu Hualing said he wondered why [B]the party's National Security Commission was not mentioned in the draft[/B], saying it was not clear what legal status it had and how its power would be regulated by law.
Dr Eva Pils, a China law expert at King's College, University of London, said that [B]by not making a direct reference to the commission, the law was leaving open which party entity would be in charge of national security[/B]. [B] And as the law did not regulate party organs nor seek to curb the party's power, it affirmed the party's supremacy over the state on national security[/B].
[B]Pils said she was also worried that the definition of national security meant that “practically any aspect of social or economic life can be regarded as a matter of national security and thus gives the institutions empowered by the law a mandate to intervene"[/B].
[/quote]
Source: [URL="http://www.businessinsider.com/china-just-passed-a-sweeping-national-security-law-that-some-are-calling-neo-totalitarianism-2015-6"]Business Insider[/URL]
There's a bit more in the source.
The Communist party is losing influence, isn't it? They're worried about all the new Western businesses, I'm willing to bet this is them trying to solidify their grip on the country before they lose it all.
I give it fifty years before they're gone. The younger generations are going to grow up in the business sector, become business owners themselves, and further that in politics. They've already got more of the world's richest people than anywhere else, and that's only going to keep rising.
The Chinese love how much money the western businesses bring in...
[QUOTE=woolio1;48095322]The Communist party is losing influence, isn't it? They're worried about all the new Western businesses, I'm willing to bet this is them trying to solidify their grip on the country before they lose it all. [/quote]
It's losing internal popularity at an astounding rate.
[quote]I give it fifty years before they're gone. The younger generations are going to grow up in the business sector, become business owners themselves, and further that in politics. They've already got more of the world's richest people than anywhere else, and that's only going to keep rising.[/QUOTE]
Probably half that unless they get a bunch of fresh blood in that opens up freedom(aka just repeals this action and puts them back at square one), however that is unlikely as the government wants to sustain strict economical gains to build useless fucking cities that no one can live in/afford. But hey their country is growing**
[QUOTE=Angus725;48095329]The Chinese love how much money the western businesses bring in...[/QUOTE]
But the businesses, by sheer nature of their capitalist structure, undermine the Communist party's authority and position. They bring in a lot of money, but they bring in a lot of ideology as well. You don't have to look far past the country's ballooning corporate aristocracy to see that.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48095429]But the businesses, by sheer nature of their capitalist structure, undermine the Communist party's authority and position. They bring in a lot of money, but they bring in a lot of ideology as well. You don't have to look far past the country's ballooning corporate aristocracy to see that.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't... The same idea applies to UAE, Saudi Arabia, where there's huge western investment, and a strong government still exists....
Also, China has some interesting restrictions on foreign business. Car manufacturing must be joint ventures with Chinese companies for example.
It's not like these companies go to China and bring a huge Caucasian workforce with them, they hire cheaper Chinese labor...
[QUOTE=woolio1;48095429]But the businesses, by sheer nature of their capitalist structure, undermine the Communist party's authority and position. [/QUOTE]
China has a very strange form of "capitalism", it is more controlled by government instead of via market supply and demand. More or less all businesses are governmentally controlled through insane laws and regulations. Pay is more or less regulated as they know people have to work so by controlling cost of food/living prices and matching it up to the bare minimum for working you can easily control the population.
In a capitalist environment such as america the market would regulate and fluctuate based on supply and demand of people, goods, and resources for the area.
Basically the government is well aware that if it didn't regulate the economy, for the most part, at near slave labor prices. There would be no reason for other countries to invest in them.
China is a fascinating scenario, you've got a huge country thats tremendously populous growing through the growing pains of a country moving from developing to developed. Its just that now we get to witness it firsthand in a modern world and all the upheavals that come with it.
Besides between a contrast in the ways mentioned above, the military culture is pretty different too. In the US mentioning war with China in a manner deemed too brusque or direct will get you lit up, but in China several top officers openly refer to it is an inevitable conflict and there is a HUGE amount of fiction books on the subject as well. Both countries are equally confident they could quickly decimate the other and win an easy war, though.
[QUOTE=woolio1;48095429]But the businesses, by sheer nature of their capitalist structure, undermine the Communist party's authority and position. They bring in a lot of money, but they bring in a lot of ideology as well. You don't have to look far past the country's ballooning corporate aristocracy to see that.[/QUOTE]
???
they bring in money, and use practically slave labor to produce products.
where the ideological disputes are comming from is that much of china's wealthy, engineers, scientists, and buisness leaders are being educated in western countries where they aren't having to worry about being axed for speaking out. what could happen is they either stay back and this generation makes inroads into the political process, bringing western values in, or they completely shut them out, and you suddenly have a bunch of very rich, very educated, pissed off people wanting change
What do people mean that the Chinese have slave labour? The average Chinese worker makes about 30 times as much money now as they did in 1980. While cheap labour started off their economic revolution, the fact remains that they also developed industries that people moved into, while competition forced wages upwards.
[QUOTE=JohnFisher89;48095515]China has a very strange form of "capitalism", it is more controlled by government instead of via market supply and demand. More or less all businesses are governmentally controlled through insane laws and regulations. Pay is more or less regulated as they know people have to work so by controlling cost of food/living prices and matching it up to the bare minimum for working you can easily control the population.
In a capitalist environment such as america the market would regulate and fluctuate based on supply and demand of people, goods, and resources for the area.
Basically the government is well aware that if it didn't regulate the economy, for the most part, at near slave labor prices. There would be no reason for other countries to invest in them.[/QUOTE]
Sorry but this doesn't seem to reflect how China really operates? The government introduced free market reforms that has resulted in the private sector becoming predominant. The remaining State Owned Enterprises contribute a rapidly diminishing amount to the national economy.
The Chinese government isn't particularly large either. It has around about 30 paid employees per 1000 (this includes party members), whereas the rate in places like France or the USA is in the 70 - 90 paid employees per 1000. If anything, the Chinese government has very little control over the country compared with the Maoist days. The country has also experienced a trend of decentralization and the individual regions pursuing policies independent of Beijing in increasing numbers.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;48096735]because the people working the sweatshops while more wealthy than when they worked the farm, work most of their lives with little in return, much like slaves[/QUOTE]
I don't think you understand how big a growth by a factor of 30 is. Chinese GDP per capita ($7,589) is higher than that of South Africa, Venezuela, Serbia, Iran, and most of the Arab world.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita[/url]
What's more is that it's still growing.
I wish people would get it out of their heads that China is a nation of sweatshops dependent on slave labourers paid pennies. In the cities, living standards are reaching parity with the Western countries (rural incomes however, lag behind). People in places like Shanghai, Beijing, and Tianjin have incomes comparable to that of the Poles, Chileans, and Latvians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
