humm...I was about to make a remark questioning why the citizens don't do something when they've already been well-fed, but then I remembered the 90's popular phrase "it's the economy stupid".
That is a big reason why there isn't more discontent or agitation for democracy and individual liberties at the same time the Singaporeans have little experience in political thought. Since independence the emphasis has been on material development and the generations since independence have been mostly trained as engineers and businessmen. There is little political debate in Singaporean society and Singaporeans seem much more interested in things like money and pop culture than issues like freedom of speech. For a Clutchfans analogy imagine Singapore as being almost all Hangout with no D & D. It also has to be acknowledged that Singapore has been lucky. Lee Kuan Yew while not a democrat has been a very effective leader and Goh Chok Tong who followed him was smart enough to keep things the same. Its yet to see if Lee's son who is now primeminister has what it takes but until Singapore gets a truly bad leader there is less likely to see any major agitation for change.
So if the situation in Singapore is bad, their people are smart enough to rise up. Isn't that a different authoritarian mandate than a country like North Korea? For argument's sake, let's call it a social contract...
Technically Singaporeans don't need to rise up in a revolution if they think things are bad as they do have the vote. Practically though there are many impediments to opposition parties. Singapore is in the position where Japan, Mexico and India were a decade ago where a single party dominates the politics with no credible opposition. Its likely to take a crisis, like an economic or big corruption scandal, to get an opposition party a chance in Singapore and even then there are still some huge hurdles to overcome.
What does that statement mean? "A few political junkies?" You have a truly bizarre outlook towards the political process. Do you live in the US, wnes? Would you prefer to live in an authoritarian state, if you in fact live in a democracy? Certainly, it sounds like it. Why don't you search one out to your liking, and go for it? D&D. Replicant Democrat.
There is nothing wrong with that statement of NewYorker. Actually, except for one minor detail as far as I can see, the entire post which you picked on is very well written. Stop being petty and silly, will ya?
i'd say it's the other way around. PRC is influencing HK; and that influence is growing If HK is still influencing PRC, HK would still be the de-facto gateway (for foreign businesses) to China. PRC's heavy-handed edict has designated Shanghai to replace HK, albeit it lacks the business infrastructure and talents of HK. Political connection trumps meritocracy. If HK is still influencing PRC, its long standing world-class efficient banking system would be lending its expertise to help PRC to clean up its out-dated system. Instead, HK has been shun / obstracized (for having the expertise) in this regard. The best eg of PRC's growing inflence on HK has been the SARS epidemic cover-up of 3/4 years ago. The PRC's hand-pick puppet in HK carried out Beigjing's edict to cover it up. This stupid decision, when discovered later, led to the demise of HK tourism business, upon which the international city relies heavily.
I never said they had to change, I'm just relating my knowledge of Singapore. Should they change that is up to the Singaporeans. For me personally I would prefer more political freedoms and individual liberties but if the Singaporeans are fine with what they have then they should stick with it. As long as they actually retain a democracy they could change peacefully if they wanted to.
I'm sure it is. Why shouldn't it work both ways? My only point is that I don't think China is culturally incompatiable with democracy/capitalism. People drew the example of India and said India was more similar to the U.S. then China. Which I found a bit eye-brow raising from a cultural aspect since both countries are very much the seat of ancient thinking in the world and the two oldest civilizations that have survived to modern times. I don't think influence is a choice a society makes. In a world where communication allows for the exchange of images, sounds, and ideas in masse at incredible speeds, it's very difficult to block that out. Many "communist" and extreme leftist regimes kill off or arest the intelligencia in order to stifle ideas and prevent any sort of revolution. But in China, you have a nation firmly committed not to maintain control at any cost, but to being world leaders in science, medicine, and industry. Eventually, there's nothing to stop the inevitable change that will occur. And as a previous poster mentioned, NYC and LA are the key cultural influencers of our country, and Hong Kong for the time being, is likely to be for China. Of course, if Shanghai, or Bejing is or becomes the mecca of culture - then the result will be no different. Ultimately people who are educated and begin to get a glimpse of a wider world begin to explore and adopt it. I think it's human nature. I think it happens anywhere where people have free time made possible by an increasing standard of living. Particularlly amongst a younger generation that seeks to push the boundaries of the previous one.
As China's economy develops, China is having more and more influence in the world, not just HK. Influences are mutual. Hk has been influencing China with its migration of workers and industries into mainland China. HK's movie industry realizes it must cooperate with mainland resources and open up mainland market to survive. Many HK actors/actresses are working in mainland China now. Other industries too. PRC gave HK favorable conditions in CEPA, and where foreign investments want to locate depends on costs and demograhic advantage. HK's tax rate is drastically lower than that of any part of China, still, higher expenses in land and labor outweighs the advantage in tax. Also, it's not like cities like Shanghai cannot compete with HK given a fair ground. The Shanghai poeple are famous for meticulous attention to details and business minds. Back in the 1930's, Shanghai trumped HK as a great city in the world. It has been the center of China's light industry ever since. Shanghai has a lot of rich population, it is a bigger market than HK and the market behind Shanghai is huge, since Shanghai is naturally the gateway for one of the two greatest river in China, the Long river. It's also the center of one of the most rich and industrious delta area of China, and it doesn't have a border between other parts of China unlike HK. Hong Kong simply cannot compete with Shanghai. Hong Kong will continue to eat dust behind Shanghai in terms of attracting foreign investments. So it's lame to blame PRC if HK cannot compete with Shanghai, I say this despite being a HK citizen myself. To update the news, as a result of entering the WTO, China has officially announced recently that domestic banking is open for qualified foreign banks from the developed countries. Several HK's big banks now have the green light to enter the mainland market, including Standard Chartered and HSBC. The problems of China's banking system lies in the fact that it has been an inefficient monopalization under state ownership, there is nothing HK's expertise can do for internal reform as long as it's state owned. I hope with the opening of the banking market, the expertise of foreign banks would eclipse the state owned banks. Why so much hate? What are you talking about on the demise of HK's tourism? HK's tourism business is prospering because along with the tradtional tourists source from the developed countries, many outsiders take HK's as their first stop as an entrance to China, as well as an obscene amount of mainland tourists and businessmen flooding HK everyday.Why HK people know how to speak mandarin now? Because the PRC force them to do so? LOL, the reason they learn to speak mandarin is for one thing: money.
HK's suppy chain / logistic cos have satellite cos thru out China, creating over 7 million jobs for mainlanders. in the process, training / teaching the locals about effective / effectvie supply chain management. it is precisely that. Shanghai can't compete w HK, not even close. pre-1997, China was incapable of 'opening up' economically , it needed HK's world-class banking system to facilitate PRC's international transactions. since 1997, China's own banking system has replaced HK's. ~10 yrs later, HK's banking system is still world-class, China's still antiquated & inefficient, fraught w corruption. PRC's political clout, not meritocracy, has siphoned off much of HK's banking's business; as a result, both has suffered greatly from this blunder---the ultimate "lose-lose" scenario China is saddled w an antiquated / inefficient / bankrupt banking system --- incapable of handling its voluminous international transactions; HK is left w an under-utilized world-class one Pre-1997, competing against the best in the world, HK's banking system led the way towards prosperity; it was one of the banking pioneers to develop an IT system that crosses multiple currencies. Post-1997, PRC's malfeasance has prevented HK from competing; it opted for its own banking system, one that, in 2007, still does not have a system that crosses currency. in the 30's, Shanghai was an international city, HK was a relatively small fishing community. After the CCP defeated the KMT, the first wave of migration to Macao / HK was mostly people from Shanghai. The Shanghainese bankers, who built China's banking system only to be raped by KMT cronies (Kung , HH Soo), built HK's banking system from the ground up. ignorance is blisss. as a starter, PRC can learn from HK's effective / efficient ----> banking regulatory structure, ----> policies & procedures, checks & balances -----> best-in-class IT systems, -----> training systems, it has pick up, but nowhere near the pre-SARS level. this is more an indictment against PRC's banking system, because many of these tourists come to HK to deposit $$$ in a bank that they can trust.
let's just interpret these contradictory actions by the PRC. while it has issued an edict to use its own banking / financial sytem to handle its international transactions, it continue to rely on HK to handle its tradning of RMBs. if the present-day Shanghai is indeed a "financial center" as you clam, why doesn't it have the wherewithals to trade RMBs ? why is HK trusted by the PRC to handle the more sophisticated / far-reaching transactions such as RMB trading ? HK has the experience financial / banking infrastucture and talents, Shanghia does not. it's just that simple they go to HK to deposit $$ in HK banks and to set up trading accounts to trade stock list on HK's Hang Sen stock exchange. these mainlanders don't trust banks in the PRC nor the Shanghai stock exchange
Adoo: I think you have a narrow idea on foreign investment, it's just about banking and stock exchange. It includes foreign investments into local industries, you know, setting up local branches and factories all that stuff. Have you ever been to Shanghai? Do you know why Shanghai trumped HK before and now it is gradually catching up with HK and will eclipse HK one day? Read my post carefully and you'd know why, instead of making up stuff like mainlander Chinese prefer to save money in HK's banks because they don't trust the banks in mainland, and saving money and buying Hang Seng stocks are the main reason of Chinese tourists flooding HK. You have totally the wrong idea. I didn't claim Shanghai has better banking and stock market than HK right now. So you are arguing against yourself. I was against your point that Shanghai needs one sided policy from the government to trump HK. So in terms of having real discussion, it's better to stick to the point.
the truth have been and continues to be that "Shanghai leveraged its political connections to replace HK as the financial gateway into China.
You think the tourism in HK has picked up, but nowhere near the pre-Sars level? LOL. SARS broke out in 2003. And arrivals to HK were significantly higher in 2004 than they were in 2002. Get your facts straight before you make up HK as the phantom victim of PRC: http://www.discoverhongkong.com/eng/worldwide/annu/pdf/05_06/pdf05.pdf The above link leads to the 2005-2006 annual report of executive statement from HK tourism board, it says: "When planning for 2005/06, we knew that it would not be easy to build on our industry’s extraordinary achievements in the previous year. Thanks to a largely positive macro environment, favourable policies in the Mainland – such as the expansion of the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) and the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) – and the magnificent efforts of our industry partners, arrivals to Hong Kong in 2004 had grown by a remarkable 6.3 million visitors over 2003, surpassing our previous record set in 2002 by almost one third." This false statement on your part rivals with your attempt of making up stuff like mainlander Chinese prefer to save money in HK's banks because they don't trust the banks in mainland, and saving money and buying Hang Seng stocks are the main reason of Chinese tourists flooding HK.
I just remembered something. The Electoral college was created in the beginning because the founding fathers were afraid the general public would do seomthing stupid and vote for a total idiot or something. Seems like they felt that people weren't ready for Democracy yet. Thankfully it never came to that, but with the electoral college, theoretically the power to ignore the vote of the general public still exists today.
The electoral college was a function of representative democracy, just like any legislative body. Not really the same thing.
