HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li)
Subject: Re: Yang Baibing and China After Deng.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:48:00 GMT

In article <1992Nov18.094210.16215@mariner.amc.edu.au> lwang@mariner.amc.edu.au (Luo Wang) writes:
>
>However, YangBaibing 's incident is interesting. I believe it has something 
>to do with Deng's triumph at 14th CCP Congress. You must remember that Yang
>Baibing used to be Deng's military aide to balance the ChenYun faction
>(which I don't like to label as conservative). Now Deng has achieved what
>he likes to achieve before his death. The pressure from Chen Yun is no longer
>overwhelming as far as Deng is concerned. Yang naturally became a new threat
>to Deng. 

It is reported by Japan's Du2 Mai4 Xin1 Wen2 that during the
discussion about personnel arrangement in the 14th CCP Congress,
Yang Shangkun proposed to pull both Li Peng and Jiang Zeming
down from their current positions and replace them by other candidates.
Deng Xiaoping was not satisfied with Jiang Zeming either,
but he accepted Jiang's explanation that it was Li Xiannian
who blocked the reform progress. Also Yang Shangkun insisted that 
Yang Baibing, instead of Liu Hauqing should be promoted to the 
Zhenzhiju Changwei, because Yang Baibing is four years younger 
than Liu Huaqing. Deng Xiaoping was alerted by the ambition
of Yang's brother and therefore pulled both of them down after
the 14th CCP Congress.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Shusheng Luan <luan@OCE.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      Chinese scholar getting tenure prefessorship without PH.D.?
Reply-To: Shusheng Luan <luan@OCE.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:50:32 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, soc-culture-china@cs.utexas.edu

Dear friends,

My friend would like to know if there are any cases such that a Chinese
scholar has got a tenure prefessorship without a Ph.D. certificate.
The friend is in his 40-50's. Due to modern Chinese historical events
like "Cultural Revolution" he did not have the chance to get a doctorate.
There might be such cases you may know.

Please reply to me at luan@oce.orst.edu. My friend just wants to seek
advise about how to legally get around such a deficiency in this country.
All information will be kept confidential.

Thanks for your attention.

Have a nice weekend.

Luan Shusheng at Oregon State University
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: 3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA
Subject:      Clinton's turn-around on Bush's China policy.
Reply-To: 3011_6470@UWOVAX.UWO.CA
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 01:47:23 GMT
Comments: To: China-net <china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu>

   From CND:

>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>3. U.S. President-Elect Clinton Signals Tough China Policy .............. 29
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Source: JAPAN ECONOMIC NEWSWIRE, 11/19/92
>..........
>Clinton said China had shown "moderation" on issues such as exporting goods
>produced with prison labor and alleged unfair trade practices after the Bush
>administration "took a tougher line" against Beijing.

>"There are indications in the past few months that a firm hand by our
>government can help achieve that," he said.

Although Clinton's wording sounded tough, it is in fact a
turn-around.  As noted by David Gergen(sp?) of U.S. News and World
Report on McNeil/Lehr Newshour, only a few weeks ago Clinton was
attacking Bush's China policy.  Now he is praising Bush for a firm
hand and the success of Bush's policy.  This is the first big
turn-around by Clinton against his campaign rhetoric.

Lee Hamilton, who according to rumors is one of the candidates
for Secretary of State in Clinton's cabinet, was saying on NBC
this morning that the link between MFN and human rights is weak.
Another sign of Clinton's changing attitude towards China,
as he starts to cope with the reality in U.S. foreign policies.
(I believe Hamilton was one of Clinton's campaign advisors on
foreign policy.)

Obviously China policy is not a hot topic in U.S. news media
nowadays.  (I only saw one segment on CNN reporting Clinton's
turn-around and the segment was not among the top news)

A considerable part of the purpose of CMFN in U.S. Congress was
to embarrass the Bush Administration.  With Clinton in White House
and his promise for a better relationship with Capitol Hill,
CMFN could be less likely.  Or am I too optimistic?

But the trade relationship between U.S. and China will
continue to be strained, considering the expanding U.S.
trading deficit.

Dave Sheng.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: cshi@cs.ulowell.edu (Chunde Shi)
Subject: Re:      Re: Comments on Mak Hong Kon's mails. (fwd)
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Lowell Computer Science
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 02:33:34 GMT

In article <By71o7.68B@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "Ignatius Y. Ding" <ding@HPSMTC1.CUP.HP.COM> writes:
>> You will get a job as assistant secreatary of U.S., do more abuse of China!
>>
>
>  It seems to be a rather strange response from an intellectual, Chunde Shi of
>  ulowell.edu).  Anybody knows what's going on?
>
>
>  Ignatius Y. Ding
You wont feel strange if you know people read your posting on job offering
by Clinton groups for "Chinese Americans". Kind think, you could contribute
a lot to U.S. national interests, please do not pretending to help China.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Reply-To: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:43:26 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From: LZHENG%IUBACS.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu (Lian Zheng)
>
>The British is near the end of the control over HK.   Onething they want to do
>most is to transfer as much wealth from HK to Britain as they can.
>
>   The people in HK are very good-hearted people, (look at their reaction
>to 6.4,  to the flood relief in China),  they desreve democracy to protect
>themselves against possible troubles in the future.  But they need to
>be careful to those who use the name of democracy for other purposes.

Fei 1 Wo 3 Zu 2 Lei 4, Qi 2 Xin 1 Bi 4 Yi 4. This ancient wisdom tells us
that we can never trust those foreign devils. (Unfortunately, to go with it,
there is often another quotable: Ning 2 Yu 3 Wai 4 Zu 2, Wu 4 Yu 3 Jia 1
Nu 2.)

What I don't get, though, is how the the conflict was inflicted, why there
is this conflict, why the Hong Kong people, who also share the same heritage
of the Chinese wisdoms, favor the democratization program by the British
ghosts, how the democratization will help to transfer the wealth from HK to
Britian, and how the wealth was created in Hong Kong at the absence of CCP
control but started to flow out with the emigration of Hong Kong businessmen
(who, according to William Deng who only welcomes comments from political
economists to his view points, are against the democratization) merely at the
sight of the approaching of 1997? If we remember history well, we should know
the exact same transfer of wealth happened in Shanghai in 1949. Before that
time, HK people looked up to Shanghai, the then Pearl of the East, just as
Shanghai people look up to Hong Kong, the Pearl of the East till 1997, now.

Yesterday, I read a New York Times article on Hong Kong. The main criticism
I have towards the British Government is not that they promote more democracy
now, but why they did not do that earlier. It is indeed very disgraceful of
them to disallow Chinese people in Hong Kong their rights until now when the
British control is no more than five years.

Shizhong Chen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Zhenqin Li <zli@IRIS116.BIOSYM.COM>
Subject:      Prison Population in China
Reply-To: Zhenqin Li <zli@IRIS116.BIOSYM.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 05:28:18 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

In the past few days, quite a few people on CHINA-NT
(and talk.politics.china) have talked about the total number of
prisoners in China. The following are some numbers
from the literature.

In Harry Wu's book, the author states that "at present
16-20 million are still confined in these [labor] camps".
Of this total number, 4-6 million are convicted ("Laogai")
prisoners, 3-5 million are labor re-education ("Laojiao")
prisoners, and 8-10 million are Forced Job Placement ("Jiuye")
personnel, "according to the author's research" which he did not
elaborate.

In the article by Steven Mosher of Claremont Institute, he argued that
the figure reported by the U.S. State Department, i.e.,  2 million prisoners
in China, is too low. "By careful extrapolation from what is known,
reasonably reliable estimates of the number of prisoners can be
made. These numbers put the total Laogai population at 10 million
and the labor reform component at 3 million."  However, Mosher did
not elaborate on the method of his extrapolation, so I am not sure
how to evaluate the accuracy of his estimate.

In the article by Fox Butterfield (author of "China in Bitter Sea"),
he cited the report of a private research group, the Sentencing Project,
that there are about 1.1 million inmates in American prisons and the
U.S. imprisons a larger share of its population than any other nation
(4.55 per 1000 people). If this finding is true, then the number
of prisoners in China should be no more than 5 million.




Sources:
(1) Harry Wu, "Laogai -- The Chinese Gulag".

(2) Steven Mosher, "Chinese Prison Labor", _Society_, vol. 29, p.49-59,
Nov.-Dec., 1991.

(3) Fox Butterfield, "U.S. Expands Its Lead in the Rate of Imprisonment",
The New York Times, Feb. 11, 1992.

-Zhenqin Li
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: dh5m@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (Donghai  Huangfu)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:  Reply to some comments on HK democracy
Date: 21 Nov 92 23:47:54 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <By27Bt.9wr@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU> writes:

>
>Since 1946, the British wanted to introduce an elected legislature.
>It was then opposed by local conservatives.  Since 1949, CLAIM THE
>BRITISH, they have been warned by the PRC NOT to introduce any
>democracy in Hong Kong.>
>Shizhong Chen

Is it a lie ? I couldn't believe the British would claim that
 they got warned from PRC since what year they don't have normal
 relationship with PRC.

Don't be a lier or tell people what is your source of such a claim.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: ylq@lems23lems.brown.edu (Yan Shen)
Subject: Re: Who is D-fighter?
Organization: Laboratory for Engineering Man/Machine Systems
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:22:22 GMT

In article <~~{5K~~}.92Nov13160631@owl.bunny.rhic.bnl.gov>, ~~{5K~~}@bunny.rhic.bnl.gov (~~{5K6,F=~~}) writes:
|> >>>>> In article <92313.195136SXS30@psuvm.psu.edu>
|> >>>>> "SXS30" == SXS30  <SXS30@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
|> 
|>   SXS30> After reading so many D-fighter-bash post, I am getting lost
|>   SXS30> a little. I am not sure if someone ever declared he/she is a
|>   SXS30> Dfighter in the net, but creat a non-exist people or group to
|> 
|> A real D-fighter never posts here, one is too busy to post anything. But part
|> time amateur D-fighters do post.;-).
|> 
And most of the garbage came from Anti-D-fighters (ADF). 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: giles@news.dcs.warwick.ac.uk (Giles Nelson)
Subject: Re: What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Originator: giles@woodwind
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Warwick University, England
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 12:38:44 GMT


In response to Lian Zheng's (article 2707) cynical view of the HK governors
motives, I have been impressed with him so far and believe his intentions
are entirely honourable. 

He believes the best (and probably only) guarantee for HK's future
is the role HK plays in China's economy. I quote: 
`No one stabs himself in the foot'.

British company's will have interests in HK after 1997, and
certainly do not wish to pull out now. It is not a question of
asset stripping HK before the Chinese take over but trying to guarantee the
preservation of its system. It is well known that many business leaders
are worried about Mr Patten's democracy proposals as they fear upsetting China
will give them an excuse to dogmatically destroy HK.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu (XiaoFei Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Prisoner Execution: Shot from Behind
Date: 21 Nov 92 21:57:53 GMT
Organization: UB

/* xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) wrote */:
[ horrible description deleted ]

I just want to add that the officials are supposed to collect the fee for
bullets from the family of the dead. Many officials just put money from
their own pockets without collection. 

-- 
xiaofei@acsu.buffalo.edu | Subscribe Chinese Poem Exchange and Discussion List 
mail LISTSERV@UBVM.BITNET with "SUB CHPOEM-L 1st LastName" in the MESSAGE BODY
InterNet Address: UBVM.CC.BUFFALO.EDU | Posting in UUENCODED GB and BIG5
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Subject: Re: 20 Million Prisoners in China
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 21:29:11 GMT

In article <By2zD9.35t@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>In article <By2Lrp.C8C@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin) writes:
>>>News about public executions of prisoners in China for minor crimes
>>>is common in the daily press here in Hong Kong. I am surprised that
>>>Chinese people living abroad are unaware of this practice.
>>>
>>>Mak
>>>Hong Kong
>
>> You should not be so surprised if you know that even Chinese people
>>living inside China are unaware of this "practice", Only some smart
>>people living outside China are aware of this. Why? Because this kind
>>of news are manufactured outside of China.
>> People who believe in this kind of thing must be one of the following
>> two kinds of people:
>> 1. Too naive/stupid.
>> 2. Real enemy of China. (Who actually know this are untrue)
>
>
>Are you saying that,
>
>  1. You actually lived in China at one time or another, and
>  2. You are not aware of public execution of prisoners?

  I mainly refer to the claim of 20M prisoner.
  
  There is NO public execution NOW in China.

  There were before in China and in any other coutries, maybe there are
still in some place other than China today.
>
>I think you are the one who is
>
>  1. Being naive and stupid, or
>  2. Actually knows that this is true but is afraid to 
>     admit it.
>
>Your credibility stinks.
>
>   Ya-Gui Wei
>
>
>
>
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Diane Liang <C0370@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Reply to comments on HK democracy
Reply-To: Diane Liang <C0370@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:19:21 GMT
Comments: To: Wing Ng <wing@PEGASUS.COM>, Bao Tong <I990002@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>,
          "Charles J. Alber" <N280014@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>,
          Lu Yafei <T290164@UNIVSCVM.BITNET>,
          "China-Net (The Coordination Network for IFCSS)" <CHINA-NT@UGA.BITNET>

>
>There is no question that the British acted with colonial master
>superiority up to about 20 years ago.  But things change,
>situation progressed, as HK became more developed and
>internationalized, as HK Chinese take over the economic power
>in HK.
>
    Yes, things are changing in HK, but complaints about ill-treatment are
    still around. One of the examples is the unfair business in bidding
    for the airport contracts.

    Mak Ging Tai said that "HK is a free and open society in almost any
    sense of the word". Then why couldn't HK Chinese choose a more democratic
    system until the merciful British governor suddenly handed over a proposal
    out of his whim? Is that proposal good enough for HK citizens? I think
    HK people deserve more than that, considering their advanced education
    and developed economy. Democracy should not be offered by a colonial
    ruler, rather, it should be chosen by the people. A democratic HK is
    the hope of the whole China, indeed.

>The "race" question is quite different in HK than in America.
>In America, blacks and whites are stuck with each other.  In HK,
>most British are there on assignment temporarily and those cannot
>stand the local Chinese can always leave and go back to U.K.
>
    One simple question: are those Brits superior to HK Chinese in the
    sense that they have a lot of privileges in doing business?

>As to the final question, it seems that you expect the answer to
>be that the British are more respectful because of a strong China.
>That's not relevant at all to the issue at hand.  Nobody is saying
>that China should be weak as during the Qing dynasty.  America in
>fact gave more respect to Japanese immigrants than to Chinese
>immigrants a century ago because Japan became a big power.  HK
>people were active last month, working together with Mainland
>people, trying to convince CG to stand up to Japand and to press
>the Japanese emperor to apologize to China for WW2.  We do not
>have to apologize for lack of patriotism.
>
   I believe only voluntary apology makes sense, just like democracy
   should not be imposed but be chosen.

>The issue is NOT of China vs. U.K.  That's not the issue at all.
>The issue is why is this current CG so dead set against allowing
>more democracy to the people of HK, and to the people of all China ?
>
    The disbute between UK and China is much more complicated than the
    the issue you mentioned here. I don't see an easy solution here.
    But I really hope HK will become a model for Mainland to copy in
    her future development.

>Wing

Diane
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject:      Re: PRC wants to abrogate Joint Declaration on HK
Reply-To: XIAOJIAN@CCIT.ARIZONA.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 09:03:59 GMT
Comments: cc: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Now it is quite clear that the move by Governor Patten worries the reform,
moderate wing of CCP most, just as the 89 movement worried the same wing
most. And the guy who worries most, is Zhu, Rongji. He even could not
keep silence any longer.

If we all are confident that a democratic HK will survive after 1997, I will
support the move by Patten. But if this is just a political gamble, I see
no points to struggle for a democracy and then see it destroyed vulnerably.
This process may be emotional and romantic just as French Revolution, though.

The move by Patten gives the hardliners in CCP a excellent excuse to regain
power in CG and put moderates such as ZRJ into a very difficult situation.
China has been moving on the right direction and becoming more and more
open and having more and more freedom. Anybody familiar to modern Chinese
history knows the current trend of China is *not easy*. Ba2 Miao2 Zhu4 Zang3
such as the move by Patten will only achieve the opposite.

It's very funny to praise Patten and Britain Government's love for democracy
and concern on HK people's welfare. If they really did love democracy, they
would have had HK become a democracy decades ago. They never did because
they know that if HK were a democracy under Britain's rule, Britain would not
had transfered so much wealth form HK to Britain during the past decades.
They know that the median voter will oppose such transfers. They themselves
dared not to "enjoy" it but they do want CG to "enjoy" it, at the same time
they can gain some good fame. They put HK people on risk and will not bear
any consequence, just like Shen Tong. Well, they all politicians.



William Deng
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Lian Zheng <LZHENG@ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject:      What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Reply-To: Lian Zheng <LZHENG@ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 23:05:00 GMT

What is the HK governor doing ? and why?

The governor is not alone in this new round of conflict between British and
China over HK's affairs, the Brithsh goverment is behind him.   One cause of
the conflict might be the following:

The British is near the end of the control over HK.   Onething they want to do
most is to transfer as much wealth from HK to Britain as they can.  Apparently,
CHINESE GOVERMENT IS BLOCKING THE WAY, that bothers British goverment.
   Look at the example of the new airport project,  the British wants to
put *ALL* of HK's reserve into it ($100 Billions).  The project will be mainly
contracted to British companies.  The $100 Billions could be a really, really
big plus for the declining British economy.   But Chinese Goverment knows it,
and is firmly against it.  Chinese goverment has repeatedly warned the
British goverment that it will refuse to honor any contrct on which
it has not been consulted with after 1997.

   The people in HK are very good-hearted people, (look at their reaction
to 6.4,  to the flood relief in China),  they desreve democracy to protect
themselves against possible troubles in the future.  But they need to
be careful to those who use the name of democracy for other purposes.

Lian Zheng,
Indiana University at Bloomington.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Ye <stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Clintons
Reply-To: Ye <stacc0@QUANTUM.FIU.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 14:26:25 GMT
Comments: To: Bushs@quantum.fiu.edu, China@quantum.fiu.edu,
          china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, on@quantum.fiu.edu, policy@quantum.fiu.edu,
          turn-around@quantum.fiu.edu

In view of the frantic back-pedaling on other promises (e.g. gay service
person in millitary), it is a political must that the promise on CMFN be kept.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: DU@ANLCHM.BITNET
Subject:      Correction: Comments on Mak Hong Kon's mails.
Reply-To: DU@ANLCHM.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 04:05:14 GMT

>       I think what most people questioned was the word
>       "political prisoners." I may believe there are
>       20 million prisoners in China, even though it
>       still sounds too high considering that's 5% of the
                                               ^^^^
        Sorry, it should be 2%.

>       population. But I will NEVER believe thare are 20
>       million "political" prisoners in China.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Hong Kong, GATT, questions 
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Distribution: US
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 01:13:39 GMT

In article <BxvrH4.CIG@ccu.umanitoba.ca> etaylor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Euan R. Taylor) writes:
>
>what do chinese people a) think and b) feel (please note the distinction)
>about the current discussions / squabbling over the return of Hong Kong to
>the PRC.?

	Well, I don't know what "Chinese people" feel.  I myself feel like
watching two bad guys bullying each other and worrying that someone may 
suddenly pop in to ask me to take a side...  :-)

	BTW, the dispute was not about HK's return, but what to do with 
HK's election system before its return.

	CCP/CG is bad, that goes without saying, at least in this group.  :-)
BG is equally bad.  For a century they governed HK, they had used every
effort to deny democracy in HK.  And now, a couple of years before HK
is being returned, they want to install "democracy"?  

	And I feel sorry for the real d-fighters in HK.  They had done a
great job before.  But now they are caught in a deadly trap.  For 
morality and consistency, they had to side with their former enemy
who is going to abandon them real soon...

>question 2 
>Is china involved in the GATT discussions, if so how does this mesh with
>a largely state run indusatry and subsidies?

	The GATT commision doesn't seem to mind that too much.  China's
exports are not particularly heavily subsided compared to Japan and
Europe.


	 Eddie


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china