HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: What?!  Re: the 9201 letter
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:41:16 GMT

In article <Bv7uw7.IBu@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> xlli@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (xiao-lin li) writes:
>...
>Let us give some analysis to these Committee Members.
>...

A really good personal document is shown below. :-(

>Zuo Zhiqi: Leader of some government controlled Chinese student
>organization. He was the organizer of the partition letter in

What is it? Gosh, I must be too old to remember that I ever joined
any chinese organization here. You must have been in the same 
one as I was, COMRADE. Give me the name, then we can attend meetings
together. :-(

>favor of giving China Most Favored Nation regardless of China's
>human right condition.


About 150 countries and regions are enjoying it, why don't China?
You think the national economic benifit should be sth. in a
political bargain?

Honestly, I was not an organizer for the petition letter, even though 
I DID sign it as many other students. I feel no conscientious trouble
about my move. What I am sick of is that digging and exposing groundless 
personal materials in public.

>...

I am tired of politics, LEAVE ME ALONE PLEASE. Get your information
straight, next time.

Take a break , Xiao-lin. This is my careful final advice to you.

PS: I don't need your appology though. I have forgiven you for your not 
telling truth about me here.
From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 4 Oct 92 23:49:13 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BvCy35.Fso@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>You mean: "there were Tibetans in Tibet."  China annexed the whole of 
>the Tibetan province of Amdo (renaming as Qinghai province) and much of 
>Kham province (annexing much of it to Sichuan, Gansu and Yunnan provinces) 
>leaving less half the original country as Xizang. 

The areas which now constitute the Tibetan Autonomous Region follows
roughly the areas under the effective control of the Dalai Lama before
1959.  The parts of Qinghai and Sichuan, Gansu, and Yunnan have always
been under the direct rule of the Chinese central government, even
though most of the population there is ethnically Tibetan.

That's the problem with "self-determination" and "sovereignty."
Ethnic boundaries often do not follow political ones.  Even if one
were to make a case that the lands controlled by the Dalai Lama
constituted an "independent country," these lands simply do not
encompass the lands lived in by most Tibetans.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kxd5425@usl.edu (Du Kaisheng)
Subject: Re: too far away from the topic (Re: Blood Card)
Organization: University of Southwestern Louisiana
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:27:23 GMT

In article <2ACBF0F5.7219@news.service.uci.edu> yeh@netix.com (Mr Shannon Yeh) writes:
>The discussions related to the blood card issue have been twisted too much
>in this newsgroup.  I am not not sure which group I belong to, but whichever
>group I am at, I will NOT use political lies to seek personal gains.  That's
>the key.
>
>Nobody cares how many green cards you got (or will get).  For example, your
>green cards have nothing to do with Shannon Yeh.  The issue is: Do NOT 
>politically lie!  Are you really in dangerous?  Do you really need protection?
>why do you have to sell the Chinese people and the Chinese government in 
>exchange for your personal green cards?
>
>DO NOT FORGET: even if Bush passed this bill, and you got your green cards, 
>you got to remeber that these green cards are NOT free--you got your green 
>cards thru lying.  
>
>shannon
>-------

I agree with 100%!
From: ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Please pay attention to ZHQ's suggestion.
Date: 1 Oct 92 01:55:44 GMT
Reply-To: ZWENG@SBBIOVM.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.BITNET, China-nt@uga.BITNET


      I think that we should pay a great attention to ZHQ's suggestion in his
letter just posted in the net a while ago.  Here it is:

           ...............................................
     We should continue our cautious low key approach since we have
                                                            ^^^^^^^
every indication that the President may sign it in a low key
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fashion.  We certainly don't want to do anything at this point to
^^^^^^^
agonize the White House that may jeopardize the chance for the
President to sign the bill.
      ................................................

     In the meantime we'd like to know if IFCSS has any comments on that
opinion.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: N1.JYZ@isumvs.iastate.edu (joe)
Subject: s1216 vetoed?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 02:30:12 GMT

Has s1216 been vetoed by Bush?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu
Subject: > comment about luo ning's article
Reply-To: txa95@isuvax.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 22:09:19 GMT

In <BvEqE9.AJ3@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU> writes:

>In article <BvEAsF.DDH@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> HAIHUAN@ucs.indiana.edu writes:
>>The following is written by an anonymous friend.
>>
>>-------------------
>>
>>> From: "(Ning Luo)" <ningluo@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU>
>>> Subject:      Would S1216 hurt those who came after 4/11/90? (continue I)
>>
>>> 5,000 to 10,000 annually + their family members.  It would take more
>>> than 20 years for all these people to go through the waiting line.
>>
>>If they could wait in the line for that long.
>>
>>The reality is that many of these people are not in the line to begin with,
>>because they have already run out of their legal status.
>>
>>For those who are in the line waiting, their legal status will run out in
>>3-5 years, and then they'll have to drop out of the race.
>>

>Oh, really, how simple it is :-).
>If the reason for some of them to "run out of their legal status"
>is because the President's Executive Order, then there are ways
>for them to regain the legal status (H-1, etc.).  It is a well-recognized
  						   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>fact that these people graduated early have certain relative advantages
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>in competing for the jobs.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Not necessarily true. It depends on what those people do after their
graduation. If they just stay home, or do some low level jobs that have
nothing to do with their major, I believe that a new graduate with
the same major would have advantage in pursuing a decent job. The employer
will wonder why he has not found a decent job so long after graduation.
If he is rejected by others, why should I hire him?

The key for normal CSS to get greencard is job. As I know, if you have a
job which matches your education background and the salary is fair, it is
quite easy to get a green card. 2 or 3 years at most. Mr. Luo tried to
convince people that S1216 could leave people coming after 4/11/90 with
relatively more quota, but what he did not say is, if you can not have a
job, you can not even get into the waiting list. No matter how long the
list is, you still have no chance. However, the job market is limited.
CSS with the same major are actually competing for jobs, especially in
the fields of Physics, chemistry, Biochemistry, etc. S1216 will
give those coming before 4/11/90 vast advantage over those coming after
4/11/90, and this advantage is gained by unethical means. This is how
S1216 hurts those coming after 4/11/90. It is quite understandable for
them to oppose it, not just RED EYE.

So while you are cheating the American Congress and public, do not cheat
your fellow CSS. 

			............

>Regards,

>Luo Ning
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Do you vote for KMT or CCP ?
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:17:55 GMT

In article <30SEP199210553916@mars.lerc.nasa.gov> ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo) writes:
>In article <80695@ut-emx.uucp>, joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang) writes...
>> 
>>The CCP also pretends to have real democratic procedures.  Every year
>>it holds a meeting of the National People's Congress which approves
>>the laws of the PRC.  The interesting thing is that with each passing
>>year, NPC delegates have gotten a little bolder in questioning the
>
>	Just a reminder, these NPC delegates are hand picked by CCP.
>	How much do you expect from them?


	Not necessarily true.  A more precise description is that the
NPC delegates are indirectly elected.  I.e. delegates to lower (local)
congresses elect national delegates amonge them.  The local level
delegates are more or less directly elected by voters.  The openness
of these elections (if there is a way to measure it) depends heavily
on the constituents of the voters and how much they want to involve
in.  Most cases they don't care since local government has only limited
legislation power and the indirect election procedure ensures the
"desired quality" of the national delegates.

	But when voters do care, there are differences.  Many examples of
people being elected or failed to be elected have been reported.  CCP
has no way to hand pick everyone.  And in most cases, there is no 
single CCP anyway, they have differences too.


>    Only when Dangwai can challenge the "election" of NPC delegates and
>    rewrites the Constitution of PRC.


	They certainly *can* (ask Hu Ping, for example).  The problem is if 
they *will* or if the voters care and then again, if there are enough of
them.  You can't expect things to change too quickly.



	 Eddie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: qin@UIATMA.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: qin@UIATMA.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 02:36:12 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

test, sorry.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha)
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 02:22:08 GMT

In article <Bv7I0M.ABI@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> "(George Zhu)" <zhu@RISKY.ECS.UM
ASS.EDU> writes:
>The Chinese Student Protection Act has been passed by the Congress and
>sent to the President for signature.  Nobody knows for sure if Mr. Bush
>will sign it or (pocket) veto it.
>
>President Bush will probably sign the bill, because at a time when
>the incumbent Presient is almost 20% behind his opponent in poll in
>an election season, he cannot risk losing more by vetoing the legislation.

George, why do you think Bush will lose ground in the polls by vetoing
the bill? *Very* few Americans are aware of the bill, and those who are,
oppose it (from what I can tell). The PRC Chinese who support the bill will
not vote in November. He will certainly veto the MFN bill, won't he? Why
do you perceive a difference?

>
>Nevertheless he may as well veto the bill, if he sees little help from
>signing it for his presidential race.  In fact the Chinese government
>has been unusually quiet in last few days since the passage of the bill.
>Why?  Nobody knows.  But isn't it possible that some secret deal has
>been made after bush's decision to sell F-16s to Taiwan and senior
>State Department official visiting Beijing to "explain" the sale?
>Maybe, maybe not.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: s1216 Signed by Bush?
From: <LOVBH@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Date: Tuesday, 29 Sep 1992 00:14:35 EDT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center

Just received a msg from a friend of mine, which says s1216 signed by Bush.
Can anyone verify this?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  Some thoughts on CCSA and IFCSS
Reply-To: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 04:08:19 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu, jwh3@po.CWRU.Edu

I agree whole hearted with Hou's article.  I did not follow the
contravertial of CCSA vs. IFCSS.  But I do hope CSS activists
view it as OUR IFCSS.  I do see some activists tend to view
it as Zhao Haiqing's IFCSS or Geng Xiao's IFCSS, and would
not like to contribute credit (partially earned by these activists)
to IFCSS, fearing the credit will go to Zhao Haiqing or Geng Xiao.
Please, wake up, it's your IFCSS.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: qin@UIATMA.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: qin@UIATMA.ATMOS.UIUC.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 21:17:38 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

Dear Editor:

What's wrong with the "china-nt" (china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu)?
For three days, I have not received any message from this "china-nt".
I also did not get the weekly "Hua Xia Wen Zhai". Does the china-nt have
some technical problems?

Also would you please tell me how to read news from ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu?

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Jianchun Qin
Dept. of Atmos. Sci.
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
From: zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: more concern on protection bill
Date: 30 Sep 92 17:58:06 GMT
Reply-To: zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

As I know, many students who come after April 11, 1990 (let me call
this group people, who are not covered by S1216, as Group-B for
simple, compared those people came before that day as Group-A) are
very disappoited about the campaign of S1216 css protection bill.
The bill treats this group students are not really fair and
reasonable. Following questions are worth to be concerned.

1. FAIRNESS

S1216 bill is based on human right condition in China. What is
the difference between Group-A and Group-B? Does not Group-B
people need protection?

2. BENEFIT

Will S1216 bebefit Group-B student, or on the contrary will put
these students in a very disatavantage situation?

3. MAJORITY

Many people argues that S1216 is welcome and supported by majority
of css. It seems true. However, if we look at the situation on campus,
we can easily find that Group-B students just silently watch the whole
process. The donoations are mostly come from the Group-A. Then, how
many percentages with Group-B students on compus? It is getting
bigger and bigger. How about one year or two years later? At that
time the majority will be Group-B. So far, lobby on S1216 is
widely supported by many of cssa around the country. How these cssa
will say in a not quite long tomorrow? Rememeber, at that time cssa
will be organized mostly by Group-B students!

4. Three outcomes

1) President sign the bill without any change(mostly possible)
2) President veto (or pocket veto) the bill
3) President sign the bill and change the desinated date as current
(Is it possible? Remember two years ago how President Bush signed
first css protection bill?)

5. ACTION

Thoughtout the campaign, one can easily find that "for Group-B people,
only you can help yourself, nobody else will do it". So, what are
you expecting for the bill? Do you need to take some action? Nothing
will be the simplest action. That will simply and probably leads to
the first outcome. For Group-A people, when you are sending your
splendid thanks cards to your esteemed Senator, Congressman, the
President and more several days later (if you are lucky), don't forget
to deliver a tiny piece of thank to your Group-B nationals, for their
biggest support--the silence!!!

--ZW
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: j0qian01@ulkyvx.louisville.edu
Subject: test
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:38:34 GMT
Organization: University of Louisville

Sorry, this is a test.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: "(Wei Zhang)" <zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU>
Subject:      a test
Reply-To: "(Wei Zhang)" <zhangw@chert.CS.ORST.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 05:22:08 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Ignore it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng)
Subject: Re: Likelihood of Bush's pocket veto
Organization: Penn State, Department of Physics
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 17:58:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep27.022208.27580@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mlibucha@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Mark A Libucha) writes:
>
>George, why do you think Bush will lose ground in the polls by vetoing
>the bill? *Very* few Americans are aware of the bill, and those who are,
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>oppose it (from what I can tell). The PRC Chinese who support the bill will
>not vote in November. He will certainly veto the MFN bill, won't he? Why
>do you perceive a difference?

	That is exactly where the problem is: that very few Americans are aware
of the [content of the] bill.  So the issue can become a high political one.
If Bush vetoes the bill, the Democrats can just claim Bush "refuses to 
protect Chinese students, blah, blah...", without going into the details
in the bill.

	I agree with you that those Americans who are aware of the bill oppose
it.  But those who are not will be easily misled by politicians to
overlook the bill itself and felt morally outraged by a Presidential veto.

	Such games have been played numerious times in Clean Air Bill, Civil
Rights Bill, Family Leave Bill, etc.

	The MFN bill is slightly easier to deal with, since most Americans do
understand the importance of trade and jobs.  But again, I hardly see
Bush gaining anything for repeatedly veto the MFN bill.  It may have
become one of his baggages after much Demoratic fan-fires.



	 Eddie
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: zzuo@iastate.edu (Zhiqi Zuo)
Subject: Re: Do Something For Yourself, Guys--Protection Bill.
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Distribution: local,world
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 22:45:02 GMT

In article <1992Oct5.204342.14016@sol.ctr.columbia.edu> WU@nevisk.nevis.columbia.edu (Qiuwenwu Wu) writes:
>In <1992Oct5.180841.3062@linus.mitre.org> 129.83.161.10 writes:
>
>> In article <1992Oct5.122915.13035@ms.uky.edu>, gang@ms.uky.edu (Gang Li)
>> writes:
>> > 
>> > 129.83.161.10 (H. Chao) writes:
>> > 
>> > >the reason I came to here.  Du4 Fu3 (Tang dynasty poet) said "where I can
>> > >find millions houses to shelter all poor CSS in the world." (an1 de2 da4
>> > >xia4 qian1 wan4 jian1, guang3 pi4 tien1 xia4 han2 shi4 jin4 huan1 yan2).  I
>> >  ^^^^ should this be sha4?

A good attitude but a wrong context for the original "Mao2 Wu1 Wei2 Qiou1
Feng1 Suo3(?) Po4 Ge1."

>> > 	Some netters said this kind of thought in the culture made China
>> > 	poor. I guess you must not agree with them.
>> > >like this poet, and this is what I want to say.  Do not distort my point. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> 
>> Very interesting!  In Taiwan, most people read this character as "xia". I
>> heard some people read it as "sha", but not very frequently.  Similar to
>> ShenZhen - a new city new HongKong, people pronounce it as ShenJun in
>> Taiwan. Any other
>> examples?
>
>  Was that written by Li3 Bai2 instead of Du4 Fu3 ?

It should be "Guang3 Sha4", and it was by Du4 FU3. In general, Li Bai's life 
was too luxary and too easy to worry about something for the people.



Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: xxz7047@ultb.isc.rit.edu (X.X. Zhou)
Subject: test
Originator: xxz7047@ultb
Keywords: Test, Ignore
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Distribution: wny
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 1992 22:28:41 GMT

This is a test, Please ignore it!!!
TEST TEST TEST
From: zyou@phakt.usc.edu (Zhongbai You)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Two important points
Date: 27 Sep 1992 19:02:39 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: phakt.usc.edu

In article <Bv92BL.Az8@cs.psu.edu> echeng@phys.psu.edu (Eddie Cheng) writes:
>
>	I don't know what is being defined as people who "vigorously participated
>in pro-democracy demonstrations".  As a simple illustration, could IFCSS
>publish a list of former or current IFCSS officers who had visited China,
>or is visiting China, after 4/11/90?
>

  In fact, the safe-home-visting statistics does not prove anything.

  The safety return of short term vist and the safety of living and working
             ======================                      ==================
permenently in China are really two very different things. Especially for those
==========                      ========================
outspoken CSS.

  The analogy between the two situations only proves its initiator's
ignorence of PRC.

  The bottom line is that if you want return to China in the near future, the
first thing is to shut up your mouth,forget your belief forget 3 freedom,
forget democracy, read People's Daily only, listen to Raido Beijing only,
watch CCTV only, ...  This fact itself is enough for political prosecution, 
let alone you may involve in some political trouble ACCIDENTALY. Since we have
lived in the West for several years, many became a 80+% believer of freedom and
democracy, many of us would take basic human rights as granted. We will not
tolerate those obvious human rights violations, Bingo, we are in trouble.

  It is potentially dangerous for CSS to live and work in China permanently,
at least it will be the case for the near future. As long as CCP is in power
and refuse to carry out thorough political reform,  Chinese people in China
are in danger of political trouble. Returning CSS  will very likely
be the first victm.

 Further protection of Chinese nationals in US is really needed. There should
be no doubt on that. It is still unsafe for CSS to return permenantly.
                                                          ============
The statistics will show very few of CSS who stayed here longer than two or
three years returned permenantly.   However, the statistics might show it
                     ============
is safe to pay a short term home visit, and it only shows that, any 

generalization or analogy will turn out invalid.



Z. You
From: ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Yuan M Jiang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re:  Conference, Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the future
Date: 29 Sep 92 15:52:00 GMT
Reply-To: Yuan M Jiang <ymj1@CUNIXB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

I typed in part of the schedule.
===============
10/5
9:30:Historical perspectives, P.T. Taklha, Pema Gyalpo, Phuntsog Dekyi, Tang
 Daxian
11:15:Recent relations, Sonam Topgyal, Dawa Norbu, Tsering Wangyal, Zhu Jiaming
2:00Environment/economic interests, Tseten Wangchuk, Chen Yizi
3:30:Cultural&changing perceptions, Su Xiaokang, Thubten Samphel, Yin Lu-jun,
 Jigme Ngapo
Chen Kuide, Jamyang Norbu, Xue Haipei
6:30 Reception
10/6
9:15New world order, Zhao Suisheng, Dawa Norbu, Phuntsok Thonden, Xiang Xiaojie
10:45 Huan Guocang, Jigme Ngapo, Chen Yizi
1:30 Future, Tian Dongdong, discussion
4:45 Conclusion
6:00 Reception
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: kliao@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Ke Liao)
Subject: Re: Question about Sen. Simpson's act
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 20:35:31 GMT

heping@plasma.gatech.edu (Heping He) writes:

>bill without risking being a scapegoat, he could raise the noise in
>Senate and then back off. By doing so, nothing changed in the bill but
>delayed the time. Yes, time needed for president's pocket veto. .... 
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

	I agree with that.  Everthing happened in the last two months 
	was just a carefully arranged timing game.  You will not be
	surprised in two weeks if you still remember what happeded for 
	similiar bill in past three years. 
 
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JDWANG@CHEMVX.TAMU.EDU
Subject:      NO MAIL?
Reply-To: JDWANG@CHEMVX.TAMU.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 18:56:03 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

I HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY MAIL FROM CHINA-NET FOR SEVERAL DAYS, IS THE PROBLEM
WITH THE NET OR MY SITE?
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china