By China Watcher
It is always a country prerogative to carry out its own court sentence based on its own laws but the nosy Western media, once again, provides full coverage in its attempt to highlight China’s non respect for Western code of human rights practices. Human Rights organizations of all kinds, like the unknown Reprieve, even jumped onto the bandwagon to try to get into the spotlight.
The rejection of British PM call for clemency is certainly a right move as it goes to show that the Chinese court do not entertain interference from “outsiders” even though they are deemed VVIPs, which to Westerners will always carry some weights. It is good for China to send a clear message to the mainly Western countries and its nosy media that even Western citizens will not be given preferential treatment if there are caught infringing the country’s laws.
The so-called mentally-ill Briton who has been executed by lethal injection, has already been given full access to the Chinese legal system, and he has exhausted every available avenues including the Supreme Court, the highest body to review the case. According to the Chinese, he has failed to prove adequately that he is mentally unstable when he carried out the offence of drug trafficking. I am not a doctor but from my research bi-polar or manic depression is not a mental illness which would bring a person state of consciousness to a low where he does not know what he is doing. From the conversation I gathered through my association with people in the medical line, the state of “highs and lows” in a person can be controlled with proper medication and the person at a certain point of time would be able to realize that he is doing a job which considered illegal.
It is only in the West particularly in Europe which has triggered off protest and also, in one or two pro-Western Asian countries which allowed these media to carry out its news reporting unobtrusively with headline news which would be considered “unfriendly” to China. I am sure you would know which are those countries I am referring to from my earlier articles.
Why is it that China needs to accept Western code of ethics before it can garner respect throughout the world? It had already been “respected” in most Asian and African countries who shared many common bonds of imposing strict laws to curb the many severe crimes in its countries. Is the West respect so important? The media tried to imply that the respect is international. I full disagree. It is only Western or to put it racially “white-man” code of ethics which is not suppose to be a universally accepted stand human rights code for all human beings.The historical issues surrounding the return of Hong Kong to China, the condemnation of China by the British Environment Minister on the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks, the sending of a junior Minister to Tibet to support greater autonomy for the Chinese province all adds to the stickiness of the relationship between the growing world’s power and an ex-colonizer whose international influence is on the decline.
Most Asian countries introduced very tough punishment, including the death sentence, for offences like drugs and kidnapping which had grown quite big and remained as a “sore-thumb” in each country’s government effort to readdress a society where the poverty level is still significant. In fact, most visitors and tourists are provided with clear warning notice that drug trafficking is a capital punishment offence.
Why should China commute the death sentence which has been decided by the higher Court? China should not succumb from the interference especially from the West.
And China should seriously review its existing relations with Britain and possibly, cut down the number of business links with the British.
Bravo, China.
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
The West is supporting a big liar in Rebiya Kadeer
By China Watcher
The West opinions in its many articles supporting Uighur dissident, Rebiya Kadeer is nothing more than Western propaganda in undermining the image and authority of the Chinese government or the Han Chinese’s control over Xinjiang. Some of these were actually bordering on pure rubbish and are clearly one-sided and typically Western prejudices towards modern China.
Kadeer's allegations of state-sponsored prostitution of Uighur women are simply too hard to believe. Perhaps, only Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International would open their idle ears (with nothing better to do) to excite and spread these fantasies to the gullible Western public.
The despicable woman considers the influx of Han Chinese into Xinjiang as a threat to Uighur culture, which is totally baseless and unjustifiable. Xinjiang is a province of China and its people are considered Chinese whether they are Hui Chinese, Han Chinese, Tibetan Chinese or Han Chinese. Chinese citizens within the People Republic of China are free to move whenever there are job opportunities or feasible business ventures. Even in the US there were no restrictions to stop people from migrating from the Eastern part of US to the West during the gold rush of the early 19th Century. As the mainly white settlers moved to inhabit the Western portion of the US, Red Indians culture and traditions were gradually being replaced and until today it is more or less disappeared, and the Indian Reservations which were established half-heartedly soon gave way to casinos and unscrupulous developers.
On the contrary, there is this current policy practiced by the Chinese government of providing preferential treatment towards minority groups in China; for example, Uighurs, like Tibetans are exempted from China's one-child policy. Every year there are festivals in Tibet and Xinjiang where the locals were encouraged to display their traditional customs and cultures which were still very much alive as I could see in the many documentaries. Beijing actually tried to work with the Uighurs in governing Xinjiang by recognizing it as an autonomous region. The Han Chinese were also jailed by the military police for attacking the Uighurs during the July riots and not only the Uighurs were arrested as portrayed by the West as the only victims.
One of the Chinese netizen correctly challenged Rebiya’s allegations, which the Western media conveniently played along the “bullying” theme without seriously questioning the logical aspect of the facts:
1. Rebiya claims there are 10,000 Uyghurs imprisoned. What proof does she have?
2. Uighur migrants that were recruited to work on the east coast of China went there of their own free will and not force upon them as alleged by her. The Uighurs can always go back to where they came from. To my knowledge, traveling within China for Chinese citizens has never been a problem over the last decade.
3. Who would actually poured money into the highly risky western parts of China? The Han Chinese brought with them money and their entrepreneurial spirit to develop Xinjiang and if these “locals” are smart, they could actually profit or gain in terms of acquiring expertise and learning the trades but they choose to kill the migrants and burned their properties.
4. The Western based Uighur woman claims that she speak on behalf of the Uighurs in China but it is more obvious that she represent thousands of dissidents and exiles living abroad in Western countries and not the 4 millions Uighurs in China.
Every time she was given an opportunity to face the press, she would bad mouthed China’s ethnic policy but I would like to ask a more pertinent question, if it is really that bad then how could she has amassed a fortune of about US$25 million when she was an enterprising business woman before she was deported from China.
Let us quietly ponder about it and not blindly supporting a big liar like what the Western media do.
The West opinions in its many articles supporting Uighur dissident, Rebiya Kadeer is nothing more than Western propaganda in undermining the image and authority of the Chinese government or the Han Chinese’s control over Xinjiang. Some of these were actually bordering on pure rubbish and are clearly one-sided and typically Western prejudices towards modern China.
Kadeer's allegations of state-sponsored prostitution of Uighur women are simply too hard to believe. Perhaps, only Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International would open their idle ears (with nothing better to do) to excite and spread these fantasies to the gullible Western public.
The despicable woman considers the influx of Han Chinese into Xinjiang as a threat to Uighur culture, which is totally baseless and unjustifiable. Xinjiang is a province of China and its people are considered Chinese whether they are Hui Chinese, Han Chinese, Tibetan Chinese or Han Chinese. Chinese citizens within the People Republic of China are free to move whenever there are job opportunities or feasible business ventures. Even in the US there were no restrictions to stop people from migrating from the Eastern part of US to the West during the gold rush of the early 19th Century. As the mainly white settlers moved to inhabit the Western portion of the US, Red Indians culture and traditions were gradually being replaced and until today it is more or less disappeared, and the Indian Reservations which were established half-heartedly soon gave way to casinos and unscrupulous developers.
On the contrary, there is this current policy practiced by the Chinese government of providing preferential treatment towards minority groups in China; for example, Uighurs, like Tibetans are exempted from China's one-child policy. Every year there are festivals in Tibet and Xinjiang where the locals were encouraged to display their traditional customs and cultures which were still very much alive as I could see in the many documentaries. Beijing actually tried to work with the Uighurs in governing Xinjiang by recognizing it as an autonomous region. The Han Chinese were also jailed by the military police for attacking the Uighurs during the July riots and not only the Uighurs were arrested as portrayed by the West as the only victims.
One of the Chinese netizen correctly challenged Rebiya’s allegations, which the Western media conveniently played along the “bullying” theme without seriously questioning the logical aspect of the facts:
1. Rebiya claims there are 10,000 Uyghurs imprisoned. What proof does she have?
2. Uighur migrants that were recruited to work on the east coast of China went there of their own free will and not force upon them as alleged by her. The Uighurs can always go back to where they came from. To my knowledge, traveling within China for Chinese citizens has never been a problem over the last decade.
3. Who would actually poured money into the highly risky western parts of China? The Han Chinese brought with them money and their entrepreneurial spirit to develop Xinjiang and if these “locals” are smart, they could actually profit or gain in terms of acquiring expertise and learning the trades but they choose to kill the migrants and burned their properties.
4. The Western based Uighur woman claims that she speak on behalf of the Uighurs in China but it is more obvious that she represent thousands of dissidents and exiles living abroad in Western countries and not the 4 millions Uighurs in China.
Every time she was given an opportunity to face the press, she would bad mouthed China’s ethnic policy but I would like to ask a more pertinent question, if it is really that bad then how could she has amassed a fortune of about US$25 million when she was an enterprising business woman before she was deported from China.
Let us quietly ponder about it and not blindly supporting a big liar like what the Western media do.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Women Hockey: A boastful India loses the final to China
By China Watcher
I have on numerous occasions noted the boastful attitude of the Indian coaches, politicians and their mainly one sided media which highlighted the near impossible feat and the praises only you would find in a country like India.
When the country has successful launched its satellite, it tells the world we will be going to the moon. When it grew at 7-8% GDP, it commented that it will overtake the US in terms of size in 30 years. When it develops a missile which can hit Shanghai, it tells the world they are a potential superpower. When it defeated the Koreans in the semi-final in the recently concluded Asia Cup Women’s Hockey in Bangkok, it again told the world they will win the title handsomely.
These are the words of the coach. "Our girls are talented, they deserved the ultimate honour here. I have asked them to go all out. China are tactically strong, they can trouble us. Unless my girls give one hundred per cent, we can't come out winners. My players will deliver, I believe in their caliber," "China are good at counter attacks, forwards are opportunistic and good inside the circle. So, we have to be cautious, then nothing can stop us from getting the gold,"
The Indian goalkeeper goes on to say, “"After defeating Korea which is a better team than China, we are confident of a good result in the final. We are ready to face the best in the Asia," "Their fullback Ma Yi Bo is good at penalty corners, but their forwards are hungry inside the circle. Not just goalkeeping the whole defence has to combine well and I am sure we will win,"
Are the Indians so sure? Yes the Western media would love to have India to beat China, if they could manufactured the news from here.
In the final, the Chinese women’s hockey team soundly beaten the Indian team 5-3 and won the Cup. Well, being boastful doesn’t help at all, does it?
I have on numerous occasions noted the boastful attitude of the Indian coaches, politicians and their mainly one sided media which highlighted the near impossible feat and the praises only you would find in a country like India.
When the country has successful launched its satellite, it tells the world we will be going to the moon. When it grew at 7-8% GDP, it commented that it will overtake the US in terms of size in 30 years. When it develops a missile which can hit Shanghai, it tells the world they are a potential superpower. When it defeated the Koreans in the semi-final in the recently concluded Asia Cup Women’s Hockey in Bangkok, it again told the world they will win the title handsomely.
These are the words of the coach. "Our girls are talented, they deserved the ultimate honour here. I have asked them to go all out. China are tactically strong, they can trouble us. Unless my girls give one hundred per cent, we can't come out winners. My players will deliver, I believe in their caliber," "China are good at counter attacks, forwards are opportunistic and good inside the circle. So, we have to be cautious, then nothing can stop us from getting the gold,"
The Indian goalkeeper goes on to say, “"After defeating Korea which is a better team than China, we are confident of a good result in the final. We are ready to face the best in the Asia," "Their fullback Ma Yi Bo is good at penalty corners, but their forwards are hungry inside the circle. Not just goalkeeping the whole defence has to combine well and I am sure we will win,"
Are the Indians so sure? Yes the Western media would love to have India to beat China, if they could manufactured the news from here.
In the final, the Chinese women’s hockey team soundly beaten the Indian team 5-3 and won the Cup. Well, being boastful doesn’t help at all, does it?
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew opinion re-affirmed the island republic pro-US stance
By China Watcher 
I am being kept busy lately with meetings and running personal errands. Also, I was also down with a very bad cough and flu but not the H1N1 which is causing a scare worldwide. I apologize for not updating the blog.
Last week, I was able to review some comments from China’s netizens who were very angry at the aging Statesman who has called openly for the US to remain engage in Asia at a US-ASEAN Business Council dinner in Washington. He quotes that “The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance.”
He could be playing to the tune of the mainly US audience but it at least re-affirmed my belief that Singapore has always been a strong US supporter even though 70% of its population has its roots in China. There are quite a vast number of youth who wish they could be termed “whites” but unfortunately, their skin is still very much yellow. The influence of US entertainment programs and the superiority of “white-man” technology do have a very strong influence on the lifestyle of the average Singaporeans.
Lee Kuan Yew was the person who refused to establish Mandarin as a medium of instruction in the early 70s when he was the Prime Minister of the tiny island but he only relented to allow Mandarin as an important optional language for Singaporeans to pick up when he saw the tremendous progress in the mainland Chinese society since the late 80s. Then he suddenly became the spokesperson for the Chinese government whenever he traveled to various parts of the world because he could speak English fluently. I have seen many Western educated graduates who have adopted a Western lifestyle but they remain very Chinese in their heart. I am clear on this point that I cannot speak for this white-haired grandfather who seem to have an inert fear of being a Chinese.
The action and his past behavior demonstrated that he still treat Chinese as outsiders and he personally fear a resurgent China which will reduce whatever left of Singapore’s political influence in the region.
One netizen commented that Lee is a “political animal”, saying that while Singapore depended more and more on China to develop his country’s economy, he is ushering wolves here to deal with China”.
In short, he is labeled a traitor to the Chinese and who is willing to speak out for the West and to protect their interest, indirectly also safeguarding Singapore’s assets and influence.
A third posting said: “Just because he has achieved some success in Singapore, he dares to play the guiding light that shows US the way. If he has the stuff, he should go to Africa and offer tips on how to shake off poverty and achieve wealth.”
I just do not understand why the Chinese government still regards the senior Statesman as an old “friend” to China when he is actually inviting other military forces to limit China’s influence in the region.
As a comparison, the Malaysian government has never made any comments of this nature even in the presence of the US politicians, businessmen or investors. In fact, the Malaysian government has been very supportive of the Chinese government active role in South East Asia.
Perhaps, the main reason I could deduce from the Chinese government non comment from the many angry comments by its netizens is that it has always been the Chinese reaction to be diplomatic and to manipulate Singapore in other ways possible to channel and to disseminate its mission and vision, both positive and negative to the West.
Singapore is a small country and the question of whether the West’s political and military advisors will listen to his comment is another thing. The reality is that a country needs to be big and powerful before it is heard. A leader’s speech by a big and influential country is normally reported in the media of many countries. For smaller countries, the leader speech normally is not broadcasted widely but only in the home country.
With the current batch of Singaporean leaders who are pro-US, I am not at all surprise that the media in the republic are also pro-US namely Channel News Asia and Singapore’s New Straits Times.
I would like to call the Chinese government to carefully review its relations with Singapore though it may not wish to make a fuss of the elder statesman call to the US to increase its influence in the region. I would place Singapore as next only to Japan in this part of the Asia Pacific as a strong US ally when we compared the nation support to the “white-run” Australia down under.
In times of an outbreak of hostility between China and US over Taiwan in the future, China must not forget that only two countries would come to the US assistance and that is Japan and very likely Singapore. Yes, it is Singapore and not Australia who will provide the necessary supplies bases needed to keep the US armed for its military offence in this part of the world.
I am being kept busy lately with meetings and running personal errands. Also, I was also down with a very bad cough and flu but not the H1N1 which is causing a scare worldwide. I apologize for not updating the blog.
Last week, I was able to review some comments from China’s netizens who were very angry at the aging Statesman who has called openly for the US to remain engage in Asia at a US-ASEAN Business Council dinner in Washington. He quotes that “The size of China makes it impossible for the rest of Asia, including Japan and India, to match it in weight and capacity in about 20 to 30 years. So we need America to strike a balance.”
He could be playing to the tune of the mainly US audience but it at least re-affirmed my belief that Singapore has always been a strong US supporter even though 70% of its population has its roots in China. There are quite a vast number of youth who wish they could be termed “whites” but unfortunately, their skin is still very much yellow. The influence of US entertainment programs and the superiority of “white-man” technology do have a very strong influence on the lifestyle of the average Singaporeans.
Lee Kuan Yew was the person who refused to establish Mandarin as a medium of instruction in the early 70s when he was the Prime Minister of the tiny island but he only relented to allow Mandarin as an important optional language for Singaporeans to pick up when he saw the tremendous progress in the mainland Chinese society since the late 80s. Then he suddenly became the spokesperson for the Chinese government whenever he traveled to various parts of the world because he could speak English fluently. I have seen many Western educated graduates who have adopted a Western lifestyle but they remain very Chinese in their heart. I am clear on this point that I cannot speak for this white-haired grandfather who seem to have an inert fear of being a Chinese.
The action and his past behavior demonstrated that he still treat Chinese as outsiders and he personally fear a resurgent China which will reduce whatever left of Singapore’s political influence in the region.
One netizen commented that Lee is a “political animal”, saying that while Singapore depended more and more on China to develop his country’s economy, he is ushering wolves here to deal with China”.
In short, he is labeled a traitor to the Chinese and who is willing to speak out for the West and to protect their interest, indirectly also safeguarding Singapore’s assets and influence.
A third posting said: “Just because he has achieved some success in Singapore, he dares to play the guiding light that shows US the way. If he has the stuff, he should go to Africa and offer tips on how to shake off poverty and achieve wealth.”
I just do not understand why the Chinese government still regards the senior Statesman as an old “friend” to China when he is actually inviting other military forces to limit China’s influence in the region.
As a comparison, the Malaysian government has never made any comments of this nature even in the presence of the US politicians, businessmen or investors. In fact, the Malaysian government has been very supportive of the Chinese government active role in South East Asia.
Perhaps, the main reason I could deduce from the Chinese government non comment from the many angry comments by its netizens is that it has always been the Chinese reaction to be diplomatic and to manipulate Singapore in other ways possible to channel and to disseminate its mission and vision, both positive and negative to the West.
Singapore is a small country and the question of whether the West’s political and military advisors will listen to his comment is another thing. The reality is that a country needs to be big and powerful before it is heard. A leader’s speech by a big and influential country is normally reported in the media of many countries. For smaller countries, the leader speech normally is not broadcasted widely but only in the home country.
With the current batch of Singaporean leaders who are pro-US, I am not at all surprise that the media in the republic are also pro-US namely Channel News Asia and Singapore’s New Straits Times.
I would like to call the Chinese government to carefully review its relations with Singapore though it may not wish to make a fuss of the elder statesman call to the US to increase its influence in the region. I would place Singapore as next only to Japan in this part of the Asia Pacific as a strong US ally when we compared the nation support to the “white-run” Australia down under.
In times of an outbreak of hostility between China and US over Taiwan in the future, China must not forget that only two countries would come to the US assistance and that is Japan and very likely Singapore. Yes, it is Singapore and not Australia who will provide the necessary supplies bases needed to keep the US armed for its military offence in this part of the world.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
US President was right in deciding not to meet the Dalai Lama this time
By China Watcher
The US is not succumbing to Chinese pressure to meet the religious leader. In fact, this is the first time, the US has a thinking President (and a few advisors) who would be willing to view Sino-US relations from a larger perspective as compared to the past Presidents in over two decades.
The criticisms came from the US rights activists and the anti-China US media. The US had been bombarding the Tibetan spiritual separatist with countless awards which means nothing to the world who is supportive of China. These meaningless awards are only for the Western world to appreciate. Most Asian, African and Latin American countries could not even care whether he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, or not.
The spiritual talk he is embarking on the tour of the US is only a guise of the cunning political figure and his exiled supporters who will take every opportunity to promote his independence cause and to shame China and its people. Let me remind the Western world that the fight for independence among the Tibetan exiles is not a political fight against China’s government but also a fight against all Han Chinese in mainland China and oversea Chinese throughout the world.
And every Western move to support the Dalai Lama independence and separatist activities will provoke anger and retaliation from the many Han Chinese. Of course, there would be a sporadic few in Taiwan, Hong Kong and perhaps, in Vancouver who will listen to the Dalai Lama’s plight but deep inside, I strongly believe they would not support an independent Tibet or allow an almost self governing status with foreign diplomatic rights (which was demanded in the earlier talks a few years ago) to the Dalai Lama and his cliques.
Using religion to shield his political demands is a devious ploy but that had already backfired on many occasions, and ultimately more will come to see the truth. It is only the Western governments who are providing him with the full news coverage as an international political figure. The non interference in Chinese affairs by the US this time is a right decision.
The Dalai Lama had never shown any genuine concern for the welfare of Tibetans. He is more concern of the well being of his spiritual followers who are mostly Caucasian whites. If he really cares about his fellow Tibetans, he should not have escaped to Northern India in the late 50s. As a religious leader claiming to be only interested in promoting religious affairs concerning Tibet, why is he so concern about not being able to meet a top political leader in his trip? Do you think that he and his many cohorts have a political agenda? The answer is an affirmative yes.
The US is not succumbing to Chinese pressure to meet the religious leader. In fact, this is the first time, the US has a thinking President (and a few advisors) who would be willing to view Sino-US relations from a larger perspective as compared to the past Presidents in over two decades.
The criticisms came from the US rights activists and the anti-China US media. The US had been bombarding the Tibetan spiritual separatist with countless awards which means nothing to the world who is supportive of China. These meaningless awards are only for the Western world to appreciate. Most Asian, African and Latin American countries could not even care whether he had won the Nobel Peace Prize, or not.
The spiritual talk he is embarking on the tour of the US is only a guise of the cunning political figure and his exiled supporters who will take every opportunity to promote his independence cause and to shame China and its people. Let me remind the Western world that the fight for independence among the Tibetan exiles is not a political fight against China’s government but also a fight against all Han Chinese in mainland China and oversea Chinese throughout the world.
And every Western move to support the Dalai Lama independence and separatist activities will provoke anger and retaliation from the many Han Chinese. Of course, there would be a sporadic few in Taiwan, Hong Kong and perhaps, in Vancouver who will listen to the Dalai Lama’s plight but deep inside, I strongly believe they would not support an independent Tibet or allow an almost self governing status with foreign diplomatic rights (which was demanded in the earlier talks a few years ago) to the Dalai Lama and his cliques.
Using religion to shield his political demands is a devious ploy but that had already backfired on many occasions, and ultimately more will come to see the truth. It is only the Western governments who are providing him with the full news coverage as an international political figure. The non interference in Chinese affairs by the US this time is a right decision.
The Dalai Lama had never shown any genuine concern for the welfare of Tibetans. He is more concern of the well being of his spiritual followers who are mostly Caucasian whites. If he really cares about his fellow Tibetans, he should not have escaped to Northern India in the late 50s. As a religious leader claiming to be only interested in promoting religious affairs concerning Tibet, why is he so concern about not being able to meet a top political leader in his trip? Do you think that he and his many cohorts have a political agenda? The answer is an affirmative yes.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Taiwan separatists are merely stirring up troubles for political motives
By China Watcher
The screening of a movie by a Western glorified anti-China dissident in the city of Kaoshiung in Taiwan recently is clearly a move to antagonize China and also, to gain political mileage from the clusters of independence leaning supporters, mainly from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party.
The film which Beijing criticized is a distorted movie that supports separatism and will not help to reunite the various ethnic races on the mainland. Westerners who viewed the documentary will also have a negative perception of the dominant Han Chinese.
A pro-independence singer of a Taiwan's metal rock band invited the self nominated exiled dissident from Xinjiang to visit Taiwan in December 2009, is another move to counter the warming of relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, which is strongly promoted by the ruling Kuomintang Party.
Even the pro-business and tourist association are against the moves to show the movie and to invite a controversial figure to the self-ruled island, which historically has been accepted to be a part of China. Of course, the West which has a hidden agenda was non committal on the issue as against the majority of the nations which evidently supported China’s claim.
The Chinese authorities have indicated that the snubbed on China will not in any way help to promote Taiwan as a priority travel destination for Han Chinese.
Being a politically influential and economically powerful country presently, China should leverage on this position to ensure that only persons who are friendly to the China cause would benefit the most from the enhanced activities between mainland China and Taiwan. The majority of Taiwanese should not be made to suffer by the actions from these pro-dissidents and anti-Chinese supporters.
The screening of a movie by a Western glorified anti-China dissident in the city of Kaoshiung in Taiwan recently is clearly a move to antagonize China and also, to gain political mileage from the clusters of independence leaning supporters, mainly from the opposition Democratic Progressive Party.
The film which Beijing criticized is a distorted movie that supports separatism and will not help to reunite the various ethnic races on the mainland. Westerners who viewed the documentary will also have a negative perception of the dominant Han Chinese.
A pro-independence singer of a Taiwan's metal rock band invited the self nominated exiled dissident from Xinjiang to visit Taiwan in December 2009, is another move to counter the warming of relations between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan, which is strongly promoted by the ruling Kuomintang Party.
Even the pro-business and tourist association are against the moves to show the movie and to invite a controversial figure to the self-ruled island, which historically has been accepted to be a part of China. Of course, the West which has a hidden agenda was non committal on the issue as against the majority of the nations which evidently supported China’s claim.
The Chinese authorities have indicated that the snubbed on China will not in any way help to promote Taiwan as a priority travel destination for Han Chinese.
Being a politically influential and economically powerful country presently, China should leverage on this position to ensure that only persons who are friendly to the China cause would benefit the most from the enhanced activities between mainland China and Taiwan. The majority of Taiwanese should not be made to suffer by the actions from these pro-dissidents and anti-Chinese supporters.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
China will be able to reduce US dominance in the Asia Pacific in the next decade
By China Watcher
I completely agree with US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that China would be able to reduce US complete dominance in the high seas, in space and in cyberspace probably in a decade from now.
Further, I am quite confident that as China military power continues to make progressive advancement towards 2050, the challenges to US supremacy in terms of symmetrically head to head in numbers and quality should be not be discounted so openly by the US military think-tank.
It is always a right of a sovereign nation (truly independent and not US subservient Asian countries like Japan and South Korea) to develop its own stable of arsenal to meet its requirements reflective of its size and importance. Historically, the Chinese were at one time a peaceful sea-faring nation in the 14th Century when the US was not even born.
The repeated warnings by Gates are viewed more for lobbying of additional funds from the Congress to develop highly advanced weapons and machines to counter any Chinese upgrade of its weaponry, to keep it one to two steps ahead of its rival.
The US residents realized that it is impossible to continue to keep abreast of the latest in high technology development to maintain its no.1 status throughout the world (given its self appointed role as the “policemen” of the world) if the economy keeps stumbling. In fact, the huge debt owed by the US can only be repaid in the medium to longer term by the sale of its territories like Alaska, Hawaii or perhaps, a portion of New Mexico, as one of the critics pointed out in a seminar on US’s role in Asia.
I would not put it as a threat which was used willingly and aggressively by the US media but the closing of technological gap between the military of the two powerful nations. Even the Russians were making advancement in the weapons and ballistics section of the military recently.
What does Gates actually meant when he said the progress by other nations, namely China, would undermine US power in the Asia Pacific? In the first place, should US be allowed in Asia since most countries have more or less stabilized and why should independent nations in Asia allowed the US to continue establishing military bases in its territories? And why must the US be the only country allowed to set up bases around the world?
We are currently moving towards a world order which must not only be controlled solely by only one power, namely the US. I believe the future order would be transformed to one which is influenced by – US, China, Russia and perhaps, EU (mainly Germany, UK and France).
On another aspect, he said that long range military aircraft would take greater significance in the next decade since the development of new short term Chinese arsenals can counter its short range fighters. China military growth and its development not only focus on short term measures but also long term. I am of the opinion that the Chinese has also extended its long range capability especially in its nuclear submarines and warships which would indirectly reduce the effectiveness of the US long range military aircraft as well.
The US would definitely lose its dominance in the future, It is just a matter of time and the faster the US can come to accept it as a reality, the better it is for the world.
I am waiting anxiously on October 1 on China’s 60th Anniversary of the CPC rule, to review the vast array of its new military warfare on parade to ascertain whether China can truly take its rightful place as a superpower in this century.
I completely agree with US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, that China would be able to reduce US complete dominance in the high seas, in space and in cyberspace probably in a decade from now.
Further, I am quite confident that as China military power continues to make progressive advancement towards 2050, the challenges to US supremacy in terms of symmetrically head to head in numbers and quality should be not be discounted so openly by the US military think-tank.
It is always a right of a sovereign nation (truly independent and not US subservient Asian countries like Japan and South Korea) to develop its own stable of arsenal to meet its requirements reflective of its size and importance. Historically, the Chinese were at one time a peaceful sea-faring nation in the 14th Century when the US was not even born.
The repeated warnings by Gates are viewed more for lobbying of additional funds from the Congress to develop highly advanced weapons and machines to counter any Chinese upgrade of its weaponry, to keep it one to two steps ahead of its rival.
The US residents realized that it is impossible to continue to keep abreast of the latest in high technology development to maintain its no.1 status throughout the world (given its self appointed role as the “policemen” of the world) if the economy keeps stumbling. In fact, the huge debt owed by the US can only be repaid in the medium to longer term by the sale of its territories like Alaska, Hawaii or perhaps, a portion of New Mexico, as one of the critics pointed out in a seminar on US’s role in Asia.
I would not put it as a threat which was used willingly and aggressively by the US media but the closing of technological gap between the military of the two powerful nations. Even the Russians were making advancement in the weapons and ballistics section of the military recently.
What does Gates actually meant when he said the progress by other nations, namely China, would undermine US power in the Asia Pacific? In the first place, should US be allowed in Asia since most countries have more or less stabilized and why should independent nations in Asia allowed the US to continue establishing military bases in its territories? And why must the US be the only country allowed to set up bases around the world?
We are currently moving towards a world order which must not only be controlled solely by only one power, namely the US. I believe the future order would be transformed to one which is influenced by – US, China, Russia and perhaps, EU (mainly Germany, UK and France).
On another aspect, he said that long range military aircraft would take greater significance in the next decade since the development of new short term Chinese arsenals can counter its short range fighters. China military growth and its development not only focus on short term measures but also long term. I am of the opinion that the Chinese has also extended its long range capability especially in its nuclear submarines and warships which would indirectly reduce the effectiveness of the US long range military aircraft as well.
The US would definitely lose its dominance in the future, It is just a matter of time and the faster the US can come to accept it as a reality, the better it is for the world.
I am waiting anxiously on October 1 on China’s 60th Anniversary of the CPC rule, to review the vast array of its new military warfare on parade to ascertain whether China can truly take its rightful place as a superpower in this century.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
What is the rationale calling for the release of ex-Taiwanese leader?
By China Watcher
On Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party which is now in Opposition called for the immediate release of ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian while he appeals against his conviction on graft charges. Last Friday, he was sentenced to prison for life for being convicted of embezzling state funds, laundering money and accepting bribes of around US$28 million.
What is the justification for the release of a rogue President?
Just because he was a former President or that he truly fought for Taiwanese independence. He was actually pandering to the Western agenda to “break up” China to create a position in which a convergence of Chinese conglomerate would be less threatening to Western continued dominance. It is also obvious that the hordes of WESTERN human right activists and the bunch of supporters are behind the charade.
US$28 million is not a small amount in Asian societies. Maybe, in the West the amount is considered insignificant.
Most WESTERN so called experts are now questioning the fairness of the legal system in Taiwan. These people are not stakeholders in the prosperity and unity of the Chinese people. They are merely outsiders who will have no bearing if the Taiwanese political or economic system did not meet up to the expectation of the Western judicial standards.
To these people or the West “white-based” societies, the legal system in non-Western countries are subjected to many irregularities and inadequate “check and balances” that would cast suspicion on the fairness of the trial. That is why historically in circumstance where a foreign national from the so-called advanced nation was passed judgment in an Asian Court, you can almost tell from the faces of its relatives, friends that it is not fair even after so many witnesses were called to testify. In the mind of a Western person, a judge of Asian origin is just not capable to adjudge a person who comes from a place where there is democracy and there is respect for individual freedom.
The case demonstrated to the world that nobody is above the law and that the conviction indicated that there is progress in a civil society dictated strongly by law. The fact that he was not charged while he was a President for two terms even though there were evidences pointing to many wrongdoings was because of his immunity status for being the most powerful person in Taiwan during that time.
I am very sure that the government’s prosecutor would have double checked all the facts of the case, which is subjected to questioning by the legal team of the ex-President if it is not proper or irregular during the trial.
Most Asian commentators were of the view that the Taiwan's judicial system is undergoing a transformation which had already reached a respectable standard as compared to most emerging Asian countries and personally, I think that there is already a certain measure of fairness. The above suspicion appearances without political bias as proclaimed by the West do not even exist in the true sense in Western societies.
Taiwanese legal system allows a convicted person an automatic appeal if it is a life sentence. If the opposition and their Western supporters think the process is unfair then the appeal avenue is a viable platform for them to seek redress but it must be devoid of any Western interference and pressures.
But the system is such that he must be detained and not release as called upon by the opposition and their independence seeking supporters.
From a survey of the Taiwanese public, 50 percent said the verdict proved Taiwan's judicial independence and only 25 percent considered it a political persecution.
I fully disagree with the Western perception that the verdict has divided the island 23 million people which to the contrary has strengthened the people’s resolve to ensure that the Taiwanese legal process takes it full course for person who breaks Taiwanese regulations and statutes.
On Saturday, the Democratic Progressive Party which is now in Opposition called for the immediate release of ex-Taiwanese President Chen Shui-bian while he appeals against his conviction on graft charges. Last Friday, he was sentenced to prison for life for being convicted of embezzling state funds, laundering money and accepting bribes of around US$28 million.
What is the justification for the release of a rogue President?
Just because he was a former President or that he truly fought for Taiwanese independence. He was actually pandering to the Western agenda to “break up” China to create a position in which a convergence of Chinese conglomerate would be less threatening to Western continued dominance. It is also obvious that the hordes of WESTERN human right activists and the bunch of supporters are behind the charade.
US$28 million is not a small amount in Asian societies. Maybe, in the West the amount is considered insignificant.
Most WESTERN so called experts are now questioning the fairness of the legal system in Taiwan. These people are not stakeholders in the prosperity and unity of the Chinese people. They are merely outsiders who will have no bearing if the Taiwanese political or economic system did not meet up to the expectation of the Western judicial standards.
To these people or the West “white-based” societies, the legal system in non-Western countries are subjected to many irregularities and inadequate “check and balances” that would cast suspicion on the fairness of the trial. That is why historically in circumstance where a foreign national from the so-called advanced nation was passed judgment in an Asian Court, you can almost tell from the faces of its relatives, friends that it is not fair even after so many witnesses were called to testify. In the mind of a Western person, a judge of Asian origin is just not capable to adjudge a person who comes from a place where there is democracy and there is respect for individual freedom.
The case demonstrated to the world that nobody is above the law and that the conviction indicated that there is progress in a civil society dictated strongly by law. The fact that he was not charged while he was a President for two terms even though there were evidences pointing to many wrongdoings was because of his immunity status for being the most powerful person in Taiwan during that time.
I am very sure that the government’s prosecutor would have double checked all the facts of the case, which is subjected to questioning by the legal team of the ex-President if it is not proper or irregular during the trial.
Most Asian commentators were of the view that the Taiwan's judicial system is undergoing a transformation which had already reached a respectable standard as compared to most emerging Asian countries and personally, I think that there is already a certain measure of fairness. The above suspicion appearances without political bias as proclaimed by the West do not even exist in the true sense in Western societies.
Taiwanese legal system allows a convicted person an automatic appeal if it is a life sentence. If the opposition and their Western supporters think the process is unfair then the appeal avenue is a viable platform for them to seek redress but it must be devoid of any Western interference and pressures.
But the system is such that he must be detained and not release as called upon by the opposition and their independence seeking supporters.
From a survey of the Taiwanese public, 50 percent said the verdict proved Taiwan's judicial independence and only 25 percent considered it a political persecution.
I fully disagree with the Western perception that the verdict has divided the island 23 million people which to the contrary has strengthened the people’s resolve to ensure that the Taiwanese legal process takes it full course for person who breaks Taiwanese regulations and statutes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)