Setting sail for Libya

@Dr Freedom wrote: Mar 5th 2011 1:16 GMT

“@ Swedane "30.000 Chinese in Libya? What were they doing there?" Have you ever heard of colonisation? It starts little by little. How many Chinese are in Africa? They are working. Are there Chinese working camps in Africa?”
-------------------

The 30,000 Chinese are there to make a living (mostly for some Chinese firms), so are some 60,000 Bangladesh, 25,000 Indians, and umpteen numbers of other nationalities from Thailand, Philippines, Pakistan, even Canada, Australia, America, and yes Hollanders.

When China evacuated some 35,000 Chinese citizens, it also evacuated thousands of citizens from 11 countries to safety, all without a hitch.

If you are some kind of doc, you really need medicine for your good self.

Prescription of the day: Don’t always think China in negative terms.

BTW, you said: “France and England did not sent their most prominent men to populate Canada and Australia during 17 and 18th centuries.”?

But they sure did, if their offspring are of any indication. (Did you know why some convict men and women were in “transport” there in the first place?)

@politico-economist wrote: Mar 6th 2011 2:31 GMT
@ all pro China commentators

“Chinese posters here are, with a few exceptions, rather a naive lot or else pretty immature. In later category, they are a match for Indian posters, so let no one start analysing abt the supposed merits/otherwise of "democracy" or any lack thereof! Sorry if anyone gets offended by my use of very broad brushes here. It can be unfair but you get the broad picture.”
----------------------------

“We” may not all be “guilty” as such, but I don’t mind being broad brushed into the group.

To me as a reader, it’s heart-warming that so many pro China posters are here out to deposit their views of each regardless his state of maturity or how broken the Chinglish he sports. As a reader from China, I’d like to welcome them all as long as his post was not vicious unprovoked or being plain too boastful.

And I also think it pays for pro China posters to read this comment (politico-economist wrote: Mar 6th 2011 2:31 GMT) in whole. IMO, this is the kind of comment like they said of some medicine that “it heals the sick and strengthens the healthy.”

Constructive criticisms are always good to read and heed.

BTW, I don't see many pro China commentators here bash things Indian unporvoked. Alas, that can not be said for many of our Indian friends on things Chinese.

@chinacat

"another rubbish article that predicts China's going to change its foreign police, and reading comments form Comrade Bismarck111 and politico-economist, you'd think it's going to happen, scary picture before my eyes!! Get real, guys, why do you think China will change its not intervention police for what good? To invade a Muslim nation like Indonesia or Malaysia as if there's not enough "allah great" madmen there already?? Come on China is not the US!! ."

America was even more peaceful than China prior to 1900s. Americans were isolationist, they had no enemies and distasted war. Some of the original states in America were founded by people who were pacifist like Pennsylvania. America's standing army in 1938 was 100,000. That is equal of China having a military of 1 Million today, China's deployed military is 3.5 Million. By all measures, Americans living in the 1900 would never imagine that America would have bases in South Korea and Germany.

Given this context and the nasty neighborhood in which China lives, why do you think Chinese are special, that they are inherently peaceful or won't intervene. One reason why China launched the Sino-Vietnam in 1979 was to punish Vietnam for its treatment of Chinese in Vietnam. So you are dead wrong that the China is not above doing those things.

Lastly I never said it will send the military. A more nationalistic China is more likely to see things through a ethnic-nationalist lens. What happens if the Malaysians start butchering Chinese people in KL and Johore Baru? They go after Malaysian Chinese, those with PRC passports and Singaporeans Chinese. Singapore seize Johore Baru on its own to setup a safe haven and buffer, and then proceed to blitzkrieg to KL. This not some silly theory I cooked up, the doctrine of a preemptive strike is part of the doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces. The most likely trigger is racial conflict in Malaysia.

http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=3115

What will China do? Abstain in the UN? Vote against Singaporean aggression? If China abstain, then China will be seen just like the USA supporting Israel across the Muslim world. It will turn SEA into China's Middle East. Frankly such a scenario would make the Chinese leadership wish it had America's problems with Israel.

[bismarck111 wrote:
Mar 5th 2011 2:19 GMT
@country road

What I am saying is that being Chinese in the Philippines is not safe, particularly if you are wealthy. Incidence of kidnapping of wealthy Chinese people. Some people have been kidnapped multiple times. The only good thing is that wealthy Filipinos also get kidnapped. Philippines is definitely a shock for people who visit it the first time. Even restaurants have security guards with pistols.]

"Some people have been kidnapped multiple times. "?

That means that they came back alive-- Presumably unharmed. That doesn't sound too bad. Just pay the ransom. These rich people made their wealth out of the Pilipinos anyway.

Until recently, the Somali pirates killed or harmed no hostage they took. I hope the Chinese naval forces in the Indian Ocean will continue its policy of just chasing the pirates away. Failing that, China should just pay them to secure the release of Chinese crew members of merchant fleets. It is better than getting them slaughtered by the pirates out of revenge.

. \l/
. .\ . )__(
. . .\ (' I ')
. . . (")_(")__--->
. . .(. . . . )

[bismarck111 wrote:
Mar 5th 2011 2:49 GMT
Devil_Advocate_2
"Sometimes, I think that the positive discrimination in Malaysia introduced by Mahathir might be a good thing for both the Malays and the ethnic Chinese minority there. It seems to have reduced ethnic tension. Can it be continued if and when relative size of the Chinese minority population be further reduced? Will such transfer of wealth from a far smaller rich population to a much large poor population still work? Will the Malay population take on the responsibility of producing more wealth for their country then?

The last question I have is: Why does the Indian minority remain so poor in Malaysia? What help has they received?"

Actually it was not Mahatir, but Abdul Razaz who implemented the policy. Mahatir actually criticized it during his later years.

Eventual the problem will resolve itself as Chinese / Indians Malaysians either immigrate or because their birth rate is less than that of local born Malays. In 1960s, the bumiputeras (includes Malays and natives of Boreno) were 50% of hte population, now they make up 66%.

The reason why the Indians are poor is largely because of those policies. The Chinese immigrants had traders as well as coolie laborers to work the tin mines. The vast majority of Indians came in as indentured labor in the rubber plantations. So they have no economic clout. There is a huge difference between the status of Indians in Singapore and Malaysia, who are both descendants of indentured labor from Southern India. In Singapore, the Indians are largely middle class and are on average average are richer than Malay Singaporeans, in Malaysia its the reverse.

The policies now favoring the Malays have made tensions worse in Malaysia in recent years and reduced the economic growth of the Malaysian economy. Only an idiot would discriminate against both Indians and Chinese, the two largest countries in Asia.]

"Eventual the problem will resolve itself as Chinese / Indians Malaysians either immigrate or because their birth rate is less than that of local born Malays. In 1960s, the bumiputeras (includes Malays and natives of Boreno) were 50% of hte population, now they make up 66%."

That policy could work because the Chinese and Indians still constitute a significant portion of Malaysia's population. If that falls too low, who is going to create the wealth needed to sustain it? Will the Malay majority be willing to work as hard as the Chinese and Indians? I hope they will-- In which there would no need to continue the NEP since the Malays should be able t look after themselves economically.

. \l/
. .\ . )__(
. . .\ (' I ')
. . . (")_(")__--->
. . .(. . . . )

@PL123 wrote: Mar 3rd 2011 6:20 GMT

“@ country road
It is the media comparing India and China to sell their paper. Chinese have never such a idea to compare us with THEM. We compare better with USA Europe. Why set our goal so low.”
-----------------------

Can not be better said (except I’d drop the last sentence).

To up the ante a bit, I think the Chinese need only to compare with themselves as the base for comparison there is more than large and broad enough. From the most unscrupulous to the most saintly and from the by gone times of timid to the past days of might, I believe China will eventually succeed in deriving a “model” of Chinese characteristics that fits to build our lives and livelihoods on.

This by no means precludes them to learn from every other nation, especially from the advanced economies and cultures.

[bismarck111 wrote:

Mar 6th 2011 7:45 GMT
@chinacat
"another rubbish article that predicts China's going to change its foreign police, and reading comments form Comrade Bismarck111 and politico-economist, you'd think it's going to happen, scary picture before my eyes!! Get real, guys, why do you think China will change its not intervention police for what good? To invade a Muslim nation like Indonesia or Malaysia as if there's not enough "allah great" madmen there already?? Come on China is not the US!! ."

America was even more peaceful than China prior to 1900s. Americans were isolationist, they had no enemies and distasted war. Some of the original states in America were founded by people who were pacifist like Pennsylvania. America's standing army in 1938 was 100,000. That is equal of China having a military of 1 Million today, China's deployed military is 3.5 Million. By all measures, Americans living in the 1900 would never imagine that America would have bases in South Korea and Germany.

Given this context and the nasty neighborhood in which China lives, why do you think Chinese are special, that they are inherently peaceful or won't intervene. One reason why China launched the Sino-Vietnam in 1979 was to punish Vietnam for its treatment of Chinese in Vietnam. So you are dead wrong that the China is not above doing those things.

Lastly I never said it will send the military. A more nationalistic China is more likely to see things through a ethnic-nationalist lens. What happens if the Malaysians start butchering Chinese people in KL and Johore Baru? They go after Malaysian Chinese, those with PRC passports and Singaporeans Chinese. Singapore seize Johore Baru on its own to setup a safe haven and buffer, and then proceed to blitzkrieg to KL. This not some silly theory I cooked up, the doctrine of a preemptive strike is part of the doctrine of the Singapore Armed Forces. The most likely trigger is racial conflict in Malaysia.

http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=3115

What will China do? Abstain in the UN? Vote against Singaporean aggression? If China abstain, then China will be seen just like the USA supporting Israel across the Muslim world. It will turn SEA into China's Middle East. Frankly such a scenario would make the Chinese leadership wish it had America's problems with Israel.]

I can see that is a real possibility too. I guess the solution is to think ahead and start repatriating ethnic Chinese from that country now?

. \l/
. .\ . )__(
. . .\ (' I ')
. . . (")_(")__--->
. . .(. . . . )

@PL123, @ country road

It’s interesting to read you ping ponging each other of late. They remind me a scene in Jin Yong’s (金庸) saga story series where Zhou Botong practices this special kungfu scheme using his right hand to fight the left hand. It was in the end good for both.(Sorry, OT)

"Well he seems like a decent chap from what I read, he has not murdered anyone, took massive amounts in bribes, and by Filipino political standards makes him an angel. All that matters is he is not Presidential material."
------------------

@ Bismarck

Well said !!

"About Chinese posters, there is a reason why I mostly comment only abt Chinese official policies and actions and do so what Chinese posters write only when they are esp egregious such as professed sympathy for some cases of rapes in 1998 Indonesia. (I wud have felt much better if I came across posters calling themselves Chinese who also make it a point to express outrage over the far greater problem of rapes still occuring in the Congo!)"
---------------------------------------------

@ politco-economist

That proof some Chinese are not interested in a broader politic. Indonesia 1998 case "rape" was just in front of our door. Africa is just very far away from us. What UN should do is may be cut half Congo men's Penis so the women will have peace. Through education takes too long. Of course you can't do so, it is human right to have sex, better free of charge..

"危邦不入，乱邦不居." If you understand this Chinese saying then you know Chinese are quite selfish in a way.

"To up the ante a bit, I think the Chinese need only to compare with themselves as the base for comparison there is more than large and broad enough. From the most unscrupulous to the most saintly and from the by gone times of timid to the past days of might, I believe China will eventually succeed in deriving a “model” of Chinese characteristics that fits to build our lives and livelihoods on.

This by no means precludes them to learn from every other nation, especially from the advanced economies and cultures."
-------------------------------------------------------

@ nkab

Compare means aiming this direction for a goal of modern China, learning from others--USA, or western. In fact CHina has a lot of things (institutions) are from the west. This is learning, what we don't learn is Caste system of India. We Chinese are always admire the USA, their technique, their openness (getting less and less now cause of threat!).

bismarck111: "The question is can Malaysia continue the NEP policies in the context of a raising India and China? If China and India were backward like they were in the 1970s, yeah great do what you want. The problem is Malaysia has already gotten flack from both governments of Malaysia's treatment of Malaysian Chinese and Malaysian Indians. Its one of the few issues that unite the two countries."

You sound like what Tom Plate described of Lee Kuan Yew, another of his book subjects...that he wakes up each morning thinking what he could do better. Alas, few countries are tiny city states like Singapore, even though I overlooked pointing out earlier it's one of those like Malaysia with above 10% minorities though which group is majority and which minority makes all the difference.

Malaysian politics is of course ripe for fundamental change but, like all else, that's easier said than done. The tensions everybody is talking now relates not so much to economic equity issues which were always there but to fact the last elections fractured the Malay vote rather seriously and brought in its aftermath a situation not unlike that prevailing after the 1969 vote. I think the jury's still out what exactly caused that fracture. Note how the Islamic party vacillates between joining forces with UMNO and staying put in opposition.

Dr Mahathir's policies predated his time in office. He was mostly responsible for the ouster of the first PM and Razak's policies borrowed its inspiration from the doctor's "The Malay Dilemma".

NKAB: I did mention "exceptions" and I did have in mind you when I wrote that, notwithstanding your choice to be among the broad brush. I have no quarrel either with everyone commenting here; just that I won't bother too much with most to react.

Abt my sanity, I'm comfortable enuf abt it and won't be bothered one bit if anyone questioned it, not that I detected it!

Based on this article, China is portrayed as finally about to do the right thing in the eyes of the West. I feel like half the things China does is contradictory to its own standards or beliefs and more accepting of the West. Of course I may be wrong since China’s main goal isn’t to please the west or adopt any of their “universal values”. However, the fact that they’re sending in military to Libya, shows that they’re trying to be more involved in the global community when it comes to peacekeeping. They're not exactly trying to please the West but it seems as if they were trying to give their government a higher sense of legitimacy since the fact that they weren't highly involved in international war affairs had hindered it or had given people a lot to talk about. It does seem a bit ironic that the blog would post “human rights come before sovereignty” given China’s dictatorial history but yet again this is a new century with different beliefs and different standards to meet.

China is doing a good thing by interfering in Libya. They are supporting the UN sanctions against Libya, therefore they are condemning Gaddafi. The only thing that doesn't make any sense is China's anti interference policies. Why go in Libya if most Chinese nationals have already left the country? Perhaps it is the domestic outcry that changed China's policies. The newspaper articles made the most controversial comments. I like how they said that "human rights comes before sovereignty" since China obviously has a clean record in that department. China also sees whats happening in Libya as different from what happened in Tienanmen. China used more force to put down those protests, so it doesn't matter that they now keep the army on the side. The thing that surprises me the most is the fact that Chinese officials actually supported the UN. By interfering in Libya, China has supported the decision that the people have more power than the government.

@politico-economist

The Chinese Malaysian agreed to implemention of NEP in 1969 for several reasons.

1) It was either an Indonesian style massacre ala 1965 (even though the vast majority of the people killed in 1965 were local Indonesians)
2) Most of the wealth that was diverted to the Malays was obtained by the nationalization overseas agricultural interest held by the British. The Malay's were pacified by subsidies and government jobs.

So the Chinese business community and elites at the time, thought it seemed like a pretty good deal. Yes you mentioned the Malay vote fracturing, but do not note what the minorities are doing in protest. The consensus that the NEP was able to work from in the past from 1979 - now has broken down for several reasons.

1) The NEP was buttressed by high growth, as long as the economy was humming at 8% growth everyone was happy. However, now its growing at 5%. Malaysia has a relatively high birth rate so that does not help.

2) No one expect the Indians to protest, they were always a non-factor. The problem with the NEP is it hurt them the most, particularly the poorer ones.

3) Alot of younger Chinese have aspirations, they don't want to work in their parent's business. Because of the policies alot of opportunities are closed off, so they leave (ie they vote with their feet)

4) Since 1998 the Indonesian card that the Malay politicians just can't be used anymore to buy the silence of the Chinese community.

5) The Chinese are also voting by transferring their assets abroad either because they feel restricted by the policies or lower growth.

Here is an interesting article

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-tale-of-two-malaysian-aristocra...

The Malaysian government has been able to pacify the Malay's through a bloated government sector and subsides all funded through oil/gas revenues and borrowing. That oil/gas revenues are expected to run out in 10-15 years, we all know what happens when that does. Its usually not a pretty sight.

China wants to be the center of the world. By force? no ploblem.
The second largest military in the world. no ploblem.
we are reinforicng army by 12.7 percent in 2011 to 601.1 billion yuan ($91.7 billion)
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/doubledigit-rise-for-chinas-m...

we block twitter and facebook. no problem.

Tibet? we manege them. as usual.
China's massacre in Tibt. Shooting at Tibtan pilgrims
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BkMcj4vQtRU

The China seems to be doing something that the West will finally agree with. They are embracing the sanctions that the West has enforced against Libya, thus establishing their stance against Gadafi. China has been encouraged to take steps to enforce some of the United Nation's decisions, and these fleets leaving for Libya, shows that they are taking the first step.

The headline in China's magazine, to support the United States, and to put human rights first, is unusual for China. Its interference in Libya, shows that it is slowly abandoning its non-interference policy. Although the massacre at Tienanmen Square was terrible, this is a different situation, and if the Chinese government is standing up for the Libyan people, they are doing the right thing, and they will be saluted for that.

China fighting for human rights eh? Good for them and if they are serious about Libya I think the U.S. should step back and let someone else fight the good fight for once. We have poured billions of dollars into a war with two countries sitting atop a pool of oil. Forget Libya, lets get our oil elsewhere for now (US oil reserves cough cough) and let the rest of the world work this one out. How long can this Libyan nut hang on to his dying dream in the face of a popular uprising against his tyrranical ways? Human nature will work itself out. We should just hope the next regime is a little less radical, and if not, then we go invade them ;-)

China is the new West.

Could someone please enlighten me. What is the Chinese ideogram for dog-fart? Is it the ideogram of dog followed by that of fart? Or is it tailor-made? I would really like to know. Fantastic article.