: To Igor,
: One more time your are wrong.

Well, think of it this way: If we agreed on everything, we would not be able to have these interesting discussions, would we?

: It's OK that elected leaders are not always the
: better and you give a good exemple. But,
: following your way of qualification for the leaders
: of a nation, you got Staline.

Indeed. Stalin was not elected and Hitler was, yet they were pretty much the same. So democracy or not cannot alone predict the nature of the head of state. What I am saying is that democracy will invariably lead to an expansion of the public sector, which, if it goes on for a long enough time, becomes incompatible with freedom. The best examples are the Scandinavian countries. When all the schools are state-run, when there is hardly any private enterprise left and when all the media are government funded, then is that a free society?

: You admire Chinese regime, but following your

I wouldnt put it like that. I first visited China just after the Cultural Revolution and I have been coming back a dozen or so times. I have seen the evolution of Mainland China over more than two decades. What I see in China now, is a model of government that works. I see a system which is mostly fair, which tries to achieve some very basic goals and which mostly succeeds in doing that. Still, we should not forget that the Communist Party in the past has been responsible for some hidous atrocities where millions of people died of terror and starvation and other millions fled overseas. The last bout of violent political crackdowns followed the June Fourth Movement in 1989, which I participated in, demonstrating every day for many weeks. Yet, this is an era long gone. There is still the same party, but the people are new, younger generations have taken command. Policies are radically different. To say that I admire the Chinese regime is not my choice of words. Let me say that I often see myself being able to nod consentingly to what I see and that I feel that the Chinese people now more or less has a regime that it deserves. Ths would be my way of describing things in China now.

: definition of freedom, the Chineses have not
: the right to relocate neither to express
: themselves. There, these rignhts are not
: immovable, rock solid as you said.

I was describing ideal rights, not all of which are upheld in China, especially the right of expression, as you point out. But do the Chinese not have the right to relocate? I didnt know that. Anyone can buy property anywhere and live in it inside China and anyone who is not under criminal investigation can get a passport in less than one week (if one can get a visa to the countries one would like to travel is of course another cup of tea). So the right of movement appears to be real. You could of course discuss special areas like Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Hong Kong retains its own immigration control and so does the city of Shenzhen, so you have restrictions on movement into those areas, yes. But in other parts of China any Chinese citizen can move anywhere, look for employment anywhere, buy property or invest in businesses anywhere.<br><br>Post edited by: Igor, at: 2007/04/30 07:48

From Igor:
I believe the two are two different things. Freedom is safeguarded through constitutional rights. One has the right to work, to relocate, to engage in peaceful ativities, to express oneself. There are no rights that can be voted over. Rights should be immovable, rock solid.

I believe the inhabitants in a block of flats should have the opportunity to vote over which colour to paint that house in. I do not believe the citizens in a country should have the opportunity to vote to elect who runs that country. We have some nasty examples of what the latter results in: We have the German historical experience (I do not need to name it) and more recently a retard with a history of substance abuse has been elected and then reelected as a president of the largest military power in the world.

Instead I believe the leaders of a nation should qualify themselves through elitist organisations, public service or private enterprise, proving themselves able to govern, gradually moving from a lower position and upwards.

Elected leaders are rarely statesmen, but frequently corrupt and invariably populist


Mine:

as the american heritage dictionary defines:

Freedom is:

The condition of being free of restraints.
Liberty of the person from slavery, detention, or oppression.

The capacity to exercise choice; free will: We have the freedom to do as we please all afternoon.
this is Freedom.

while &quot;the right&quot; as you stated is associated with law or legal terms.

It is that quality in a person by which he can do certain actions, or possess certain things which belong to him by virtue of some title. In this sense, we use it when we say that a man has a right to his estate or a right to defend himself.


Right is the correlative of duty, for, wherever one has a right due to him, some other must owe him a duty.

When we refer freedom in connection to democracy, it is the condition of being free from restraints as in

freedom from want
from religon
from fear
freedom to speak

as the freewill dictates...

you refer freedom in connection of rights only bestowed by a state to exercise choices within limited options dictated by that particular power of a state alone.

Therefore you are speaking of a right to freedom according legal terms not according to freedom from restrainst against outside forces which man's freewill
is designed.

Igor,

I am a China watcher for more than 30 years. About the no right to Chinese to relocate, You don't know the &quot;Hukou&quot; system. This means &quot;Residence certificate&quot;. Under it, it is forbiden to a Chinese to quit his province for relocating elswhere without the police authorisation. It's why there are around 180 million peasants now in the main costal cities living with nos rights and are exploted by bad employers. Their children have no right to go to public schools. Is that the freedom you admire in China ?

: I am a China watcher for more than 30 years. About
: the no right to Chinese to relocate, You don't
: know the &quot;Hukou&quot; system. This means
: &quot;Residence certificate&quot;. Under it, it is forbiden to
: a Chinese to quit his province for relocating
: elswhere without the police authorisation. It's
: why there are around 180 million peasants now in
: the main costal cities living with nos rights and
: are exploted by bad employers. Their children have
: no right to go to public schools. Is that the
: freedom you admire in China ?

Of course I know the hukou system. It is not very different from a population cencus system that most other countries have. Japan has an almost identical system and all European countries that I know of also have systems that works the same way. I know two countries in the world that do not have a hukou system; the USA and Australia. Are there any more? Please enlighten me. As far as I know, even France has a system like this.

As far as I can judge, the Chinese hukou system has some serious problems associated with it, but the right of relocation is not one of them. The most pressing problem is the requirement for parents to be married in order to be able to enlist a newborn into the hukou system. At present, children born out of wedlock face severe difficulties entering the hukou system and this is by far the most dramatic problem with the present hukou system and this point needs to be changed right away.

When you say that you need police authorisation to relocate, you are simply wrong. This was changed in the early 1990s. I know very well, because about half of my family are Chinese citizens. As my family relocated to Shanghai a few years back, there was even a &quot;blue hukou&quot; option available (there is no more blue hukou in Shanghai now). I should perhaps explain a little the three colours used in connection with the hukou system:

- White hukou: A regular hukou

- Black hukou: Someone who is not in the hukou system anywhere (this is actually a huge problem)

- Blue hukou: Some cities offers to accept enlisting into their hukou base if you buy property

As my family relocated to Shangai a handful of years ago, there were no physical hindrances anywhere. There were no legal hindrances when they sought employment or when they rented flats or bought property. Now, their hukous could not be moved here. Their hukou remains in the place where they originally came from.

There are some privileges associated with a hukou: You may seek public office, you may stand for election and party posts, in Shanghai people who have their hukou here enjoy a very generous and very subsidised health care benefit system, and as you mentioned, in almost all the large cities on the Eastern coast, a hukou is required to proceed beyond the compulsory 9 years in the education system.

But is it so unnatural or unfair about a city reserving these limited resources for their own citizens? You have to consider China's immense population, and the poor interior has more than 800 million people. If subsidised health care and education in the wealthy cities on the Eastern coast were free for every Chinese, Shanghai would have 80 or 100 million inhabitants, not between 20 and 25, as it has now. Shanghai is a good example of how necessary it is to stem the influx of people from the interior. They (or should I say &quot;we&quot;?) can come here, but we have to pay full price at hospitals and we have to send our kids to private schools. My daughter has not got Shanghai hukou. I send her to a private school. After she graduates from senior high, she has to return to where her hukou is for nation-wide university entrance exams.

I see this as very impractical, but also as fully reasonable.

The main problem with the hukou system is the obstacles it presents to children born out of wedlock, and this needs to be rectified. But the idea behind the hukou system itself, I really have difficulties seeing how China can function without it. And I cannot see that the hukou system hinders free movement.<br><br>Post edited by: Igor, at: 2007/05/01 14:29

Igor,

Perhaps you know better than me the hukou system (I din't know the &quot;three colors&quot, but I know, for instance, that of one of my ex-studiant who find a job in a French company in Shanghai, got a lot of problems to regularise her situation. I don't call that freedom of relocate.

Well, there are some things that one simply cannot expect to be able to do when relocating from the interior of China to one of the wealthy cities in the East, and this has to do with the size of the poor population in the interior, and is not really related to political system as such, because any regime, regardless of political colour, would have had to implement the same measures.

You are not being very specific when you say &quot;regularize her situation&quot;. Your student can certainly not expect to move her hukou to Shanghai and benefit from all the privileges associated with it.

She can, however, relocate.<br><br>Post edited by: Igor, at: 2007/05/02 15:25

You mention that among your basic freedom rights is the liberty to recolate, and I have a case to show you thant it's not so easy.

You are discussing on two levels at the same time. Please try to separate the following:

1, what I say about my ideals

2, my observations about China

About my ideals, I list among them the right to relocate and the freedom of expression. I say the first appear to be upheld in China and the second not.

About the right to relocate, you say it is not &quot;so easy&quot;. well, please tell us about it! So far I havent heard much tangible. You seem to equate the right to relocate with the right to move one's hukou privileges. I dont follow you on this one.

If you should apply the same logic elsewhere, that must mean that you would expect anyone to have the right to relocate to France and enjoy all benefits that people with a registered abode there enjoy. Do you not really see that this is not possible?<br><br>Post edited by: Igor, at: 2007/05/03 05:28

Hi Kylie

Why we cannot have to said what we think on your country, while Chinese leaders says what they think on your countries ? Through my teaching on China, a lot of my Chinese studiants, including from Chinese Foreign Ministry congratuled me. They said that they learned a lot on their country. Wihout freedom of press in your country, how can you have a free point of view

Hi Kylie

Why we cannot have to said what we think on your country, while Chinese leaders says what they think on your countries ? Through my teaching on China, a lot of my Chinese studiants, including from Chinese Foreign Ministry congratuled me. They said that they learned a lot on their country. Wihout freedom of press in your country, how can you have a free point of view