Chinese Lunar New Year: a hotbead of pyromania

Zeta says:

09:10am | 10/02/10

Glorious Revolutionary Workers ensure fun made swiftly. Any efficent work maker not fun having or participating Most Glorious Firecracker Enjoyment Celebration will be swiftly re-education. People’s Pyrotechnic Extravaganza put Western Devil New Years for shame. American Pig Dog Superbowl Fireworks nothing to Glorious Revolutionary Display.

Jack Thomas says:

04:15pm | 10/02/10

How is Stern Hu going anyway?

Kevin 07 and his sidekick old whatsisname have managed to bury that one, hope the Chinese haven’t done the same.

Zeta says:

10:10am | 10/02/10

Definition of fireworks for Australian Pig Dog Comment - Ultimate Explosive Joy Manifestation. No Dumb Most Glorious Revolutionary Workers, only Brave Pyrotechnic Solider Child on Most Resplendant Firecracker Day. Tiananmen Square light up most excellent technicolour in memory of Brave Tank Victory over Anarchist blockade. American Search Devil reveal only truth of glorious Tank Victory!

Zeta says:

11:03am | 10/02/10

Because if you can’t poke fun at a repressive, monolithic, corrupt, murderous communist regime, what can you poke fun at?

If you live under such a regime, or participate in it, then the very concept of ‘fun’ is moot. You’re only having fun because they’re letting you, as beautifully illustrated by Katherine Dank’s article.

MW says:

12:32pm | 10/02/10

@ Zeta: you’re posts are hilarious, please ignore Ish and continue.

Jack Thomas says:

04:34pm | 10/02/10

Thanks Kevin, sorry John.

Great argument that one, wished it had been used with the Nazi’s because then we’d have been much snappier dressers and all be driving nice Audi’s. Oh well.

I thought the right wingers were supposed not to have a sense of humour, what’s with the po-faced responses to the only funny posting here (Zeta)? The irony of Bob stating “so little understanding” is crushing, I have to stay seated for a while. Can anyone miss the mark by a galaxy?

What says:

01:43pm | 10/02/10

I don’t think you’ve ever been to China, let alone read a book on the country, therefore your opinion is invalid. Keep on believing everything in the media, and those scary One Nation fliers warning us against trading with “Communist China”

formersnag says:

01:46pm | 10/02/10

Zeta, while i might agree with all you have said about china, it is worth remembering, the “realpolitik” that was going on in QLD/OZ when crackers were banned back in the 70’s.

We did not do, crackers on Chinese new year, but “Guy Fawkes” night to commemorate corrupt, incompetent politicians everywhere. It was a reenactment of the night when that hero of history tried to blow up the British parliament. Joh Petersen was in power & i think he was far more concerned about the irreverence of “Guy Fawkes night” than the safety of children playing with crackers. I say lets start a political protest movement to bring back cracker night and remind all pollies how unpopular they really are at the moment.

Bob says:

01:57pm | 10/02/10

So many words, so little understanding.

Peter says:

03:26pm | 10/02/10

Funny:  In China light Firecrackers and the Government says this is good, but say a word against the Government and you go to Jail.

In Australia say a word against the government is good,  but light a Firecracker and go to Gaol.

What a farce this political correctness is.

Iva Bigwon says:

03:30pm | 10/02/10

Is this an essay for Introductory Ideology 101?

Where do you find the time?

Dan says:

11:56pm | 10/02/10

Right. Whatever you say. Have you ever been to China? Probably not.  To say that ‘nothing they do can be celebrated until they abandon Chinese socialism and embrace democracy’ is absurd. Putting aside the fact that they are capitalist and not socialist or capitalist (not that it matters), if you will only celebrate democracies, you won’t have too many countries to celebrate. China has made some extraordianry leaps and bounds in recent years, not the least of which has been lifting millions of people out of poverty, but let’s not celebrate that. No, it’s far better to be blinded by ideology.

BTW, just for your information, they are NOT a dictatorship. They are an oligarchy. There’s a difference. Do your research before you write ridiculous posts lie this.

John says:

01:49pm | 10/02/10

I agree with Sam, Zeta get off your high horse and go and visit China, you might learn something

Zeta says:

02:10pm | 10/02/10

Bourgeois Devil Zeta fail in foolhardy Glorious People’s Republic critiscism. Most splendid People’s Republic resplendent with virtues peace and harmony. Nowhere Western Pig World can such freedom enjoyed happy workers. Hated democracy burden taken by loving Chinese Communist Party fathers. Evil Welfare Satan abolished, wealth given happy worker for great justice.

Behold, glorious February celebration of splendid sky light greatness from Australian plane marked with hated Jumping Pig. Gaze upon most glorious China city, breath deep most gracious gift of industrial oxygen and enjoy hope filled crowd of eager worker.

At home, hated capitalist swine gyrate on powder drug and slit throat of neighbour!

Those ridicule Glorious Peoples Republic make hate speech and great jealously for Communist Party wealth and power!

Australia will be great friend of Glorious Peoples Republic!

Sam says:

02:15pm | 10/02/10

@Zeta, yes, you’re funny.

Dognuts says:

05:12pm | 10/02/10

Yes, such a ridiculous concept democracy…............who needs freedom to pretty much do as you please when there’s GDP growth of 10%!! Having been to China several times, I gather that it’s fan club here were living the kind of privileged existence most expats/tourists have in a foreign country. While I agree it’s hardly the pit of communist evil some make it out to be, the majority are not well off, do not have proper access to basic services and many are consigned to generational poverty with no chance to break free. Last time I checked, that kind of thing is not what the majority are subject to in Australia

Sam says:

08:56am | 11/02/10

@Dognuts, there is no causal relationship between political systems and standards of living. Just because the countries that developed guns first and used them to slaughter the rest of the world a few hundred years ago have now turned to democracy, doesn’t mean their wealth came from that democracy. Short memory my fellow, short memory.

John says:

02:59pm | 10/02/10

Well said Sam, I agree with you whole heartedly

Sam says:

03:36pm | 10/02/10

@iansand, alright I’ll bite that bait.

(1) You bend and ignore the law here don’t you? ever crossed the street without a “green man” giving you permission? ever driven at 65km/hr in a 60km/hr zone? what makes you think that you’d be executed in China if you broke their corresponding laws? You can get away with some things, but not others, isn’t it the same here?
(2) Regarding people with networks, some people need to understand that we’re not single entities competing with other single entities. Network building is a skill, and if you don’t get political, you may be outflanked by somobody who did. Machiavelli said that you can’t divorce yourself from politics in everyday life, so what do you know, politics is everywhere. Ever been married? Ever had to listen to your wife complain about something your mother said? Politics is everywhere, and last resort is to join the other guy’s network rather than fight a battle you can’t win. That’s life and it’s fair. Individuals live within a community that supports them. Take away that community’s support, and you’ll be shovelling shit uphill in any context. And there’s no point in predicting the potential struggles without predicting the potential synergies, that’s just pessimistic.
(3) You could be prosperous if you apply yourself. It would be the same here if it wasn’t for that bloody taxman. With so much traffic passing you by every minute, you can’t not become rich if only you have something of value to offer. Worst case scenario, you could sell hot dogs (or something similar) and make as much as someone in junior to middle management. I’m telling you, the cities in China are a wash with cash changing hands. The multiplier effect means everyone has a chance to be prosperous as long as they have something of value to offer their community. There is no prosperity for those who have nothing to give, but you probably do, so again, why such a pessimistic outlook. I think you should be more confident of your ability.

The consequence are similar across the world. If you don’t get an education, you’re relegated to manual labour. If you don’t show up to work, you get sacked. If you don’t impress, you don’t get a promotion. If you don’t strive for something better, you’ll stay where you are at best. Unless you sell drugs or commit murder or become politically active, the consequences are very similar.

iansand says:

04:37pm | 10/02/10

Sam.  Consequences are a lot more severe.  One of my local contacts spent 8 months in prison last year, without charge, essentially because his network was trumped by a rival’s.  Last week an expat contact narrowly avoided a couple of weeks in prison because he accidentally did not follow protocols after a minor traffic accident.  For that one his network worked.

And if you blow it really badly you can be shot in the back of the head for a business deal gone wrong.

John says:

03:11pm | 10/02/10

Well 6clegs, have you been there and experienced the country first hand, or are you just listening to the media propaganda. I worked in the media for 8 years, and believe me, it is all smoke and mirrors and very little truth

Bob says:

03:16pm | 10/02/10

I have, and would again. I fear the pollution much more than the politics.

Don’t get me wrong, I love and prefer Australia, but modern China is nothing like the propaganda suggests.

Sam says:

03:40pm | 10/02/10

@6clegs, no chance of “losing” the plot if you never had one in the first place. We’re still waiting for your response. Been there? what’s your gripe with a place you’ve never been? or have you?

Sam says:

03:44pm | 10/02/10

@stephen, a perfect example of the kind of stupid opinions we get in our “democracy”.

“I agree with Zeta” (I hope she thinks I’m cool, I wonder what she looks like, do you think she’ll talk to me) - what a douchebag, please don’t vote until you grow a brain.

Sam says:

04:07pm | 10/02/10

Here here. A toast, to more prosperity and less taxes. (we live in hope)

Bob says:

04:59pm | 10/02/10

Yes, Gong Xi Fat Choy!  Or, as I used to tease our Chinese translators, Gong Xi Bok Choy!

jo wu says:

02:52am | 11/02/10

Tiananman square insident is only 20 years old i do not know about australia, but chinese do not put 20 years old event into histroy study.  And discrepancy in report of no of people died is no difference to discrepancy of US official report of and charity/non-profit orgization in Iraq.
many chinese may not fond of commism but chinese are practic and they know there is no alternative party/people that can manage this country and they acknowledge communist governent has done a good job in lift many people of of proverty so so long government is still to focus on economic, most of chinese would let government stay. Get out of proverty, a stable and peaceful environment to lift people out of proverty is more important for most of chinese than ideology. 
western journalist may looks like they are free but they are not, they have editors, bosses and they have their own interest, ideology.people see what they want to see, journalist is no exceptions.
i could address every point of yours but that would be too long. I just want to address one last thing human network.  human being is social being, we need socialty. someone get unfair advertage, but thats not limited to china. WHy so many US president are relatives!!!! i think every austalian heard “its not what you know but who you know”

Sam says:

12:06pm | 11/02/10

@Zeta,

“We couldn’t have this arguement in China. That really ends the arguement don’t you think?”

Well actually, yes we could, but we couldn’t *publish* the transcript because it could unnecessarily influence people’s right to form their own opinions in due course rather than being told what to think by those holy independent journalists sent from above.

Sam says:

12:14pm | 11/02/10

@Zeta,

“Western society has its fair share of flaws, but those flaws are because of its people. People aren’t perfect, and our system allows for that. And when those flaws become a part of our political system, we have mechanisms for changing leaders and inquiring into our bureaucracies.”

OK, so we’ve identified that “people aren’t perfect”. So should we ignore this when designing a political system or considering the available alternatives? No, we shouldn’t. We should find a way to minimise our exposure to this “weakness” (perhaps listen to the voices but don’t rely on their distribution for decision making!). Instead, democracy exposes many important national policy decisions to this very weakness. We can’t erect a fence around our home without it being subject to the opinions of some old fart who lives 400 meters away!!! And we’ll certainly never have a water pipeline from QLD to VIC.

Changing leadership and inquiring into our bureaucracies won’t fix the fundamental flaw, which is listening to the 2 year old and then relying on their uninformed opinion.

Sam says:

12:26pm | 11/02/10

@Zeta,

“They are stuck with what they have and only violent revolution will change it.”

Wrong again. Deng Xiaoping changed Chinese policies significantly enough without compromising security, sovereignty, party leadership, or a hint violence. Today, China is still evolving and adapting according to its needs and aspirations, all under the one leadership. Maybe the Chinese can argue without getting violent. Maybe it’s us who see violence as the easy way to change our circumstances.

Sam says:

12:29pm | 11/02/10

@Zeta,

“They deny the organ harvesting of political enemies, and the testing of chemical weapons against Ughyrs, even as evidence mounts to the contrary. Evidence that is nigh on impossible to obtain because of their iron curtain. “

Aha, so the non-existent mounting evidence is impossible to obtain? Are you Irish?

Sam says:

12:56pm | 11/02/10

@Zeta, and last but not least. The “Two Systems, One China” policy announcement in 1997 regarding Hong Kong is the clearest example to date of the ample wisdom of the CCP. I haven’t heard of anything that can even compare with that sort of flexibility coming from a democratic country, and you label them “a murderous regime” and “dictatorship”? I can see where the propaganda is actually coming from.

They are amazing, and we need to learn from them.

iansand says:

09:26pm | 10/02/10

In Australia, and other democracies, I can publicly insult the government.

End of argument.

jo wu says:

03:03am | 11/02/10

iansand
you know what in australia i am scare of people/business sue me so i like everyone else do nothing. Do you know how scare it is.
Australia is nice and have a better political system no doubt about that but china is not as bad as western media made to be.

iansand says:

09:36am | 11/02/10

In China how do you protect your rights?  Can you not sue or be sued?

There are certainly commercial cultural differences, and the western idea of fixed contracts that cannot readily be renegotiated is contrary to Chinese ideas of doing business.  That, for a westerner, can be hard to adapt to.  However if I do business in China I expect to play by Chinese rules.  Some Chinese business people who come to Australia are unwilling to play by Australian rules.  That may be why the see the place as “backward”, but it is just different.

Each system has its advantages and disadvantages.  Neither is inherently superior.  Chinese contracts are short and allow for adaptation to changing circumstances but they do not provide long term certainty.  Western contracts provide long term certainty but the parties can be unequally disadvantaged if circumstances change. 

Western businesspeople are more likely to be direct and speak their mind, so all concerns are on the table and are dealt with reasonably quickly.  Chinese businesspeople are less direct.  The negotiation process is something where I definitely prefer the Western system.  I sometimes find the Chinese process of endlessly revisiting negotiations frustrating and tedious, and I am never sure that what I think is the deal is actually what the other side thinks is the deal.  That is partly a problem of dealing through interpreters but it is also a result of the practice of not finalising as much as possible at the beginning of the relationship and leaving difficult areas to be worked out later.

And I can still criticise my government.