HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: etaylor@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Euan R. Taylor)
Subject: Hong Kong, GATT, questions 
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Distribution: US
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 21:53:28 GMT

Two questions from an ignorant wai4 gou4  ren4

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.?
Do chinese abroad or in China think the opinions of Hong Kong residents
should be listened to, do they think HK is sacred territory of the motherland?
I 've heard a lot about it from this side of the pond but I havent a clue
how people react to the issue from the Chinese viewpoint (as opposed to
the opinions of the chinese press and government)

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

euan
etaylor@ccu.umanitoba.ca


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: An-Way Lee <im780841@BA.MGT.NCU.EDU.TW>
Subject: (none)
Reply-To: An-Way Lee <im780841@BA.MGT.NCU.EDU.TW>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 21:45:36 GMT

SUB CHINANET LEE AN-WAY LISTSERV@UGA.BITNET
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Subject:      What is the opinions of the majority of Hong Kang Chinese?
Reply-To: UFDZ@UFPINE.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:34:00 GMT

        I am curious to know what is the opinions of the majority of
Hong Kang Chinese?
                                        Dawei Zhou, Florida
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Wing Ng <wing@pegasus.com>
Subject:      Reply to some comments on HK democracy
Reply-To: Wing Ng <wing@pegasus.com>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 02:32:01 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu, members@ahkcus.org

Shizhong Chen writes:
> 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.

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.

You can believe or disbelieve the British.  No matter how bad they
were, it is crystal since the time of the Joint Declaration who
wanted more democracy, and who wanted to obstruct democracy in
Hong Kong.  Especially now, one has to blind not to recognize that
THOSE WHO BROUGHT US 6.4 are deadset against democracy in HK and
China.


Diane writes:
> Some   of  my  Hong  Kong  friends  told  me  that  the   British
> discriminate  them  to such an extent that no Chinese can  get  a
> ranking position in the government.  In the government  agencies,

Amazing that our Mainland compatriots know so little about Hong
Kong.  Aside from the Governor, all government officials may be
either Chinese or British.

> Chinese  employees are treated as second class citizens.  And the
> British imposed tax to HK people at will.

Since about 10-15 years ago, Chinese employees are no longer treated
as second-class citizens.

 %MQK9
Q9 @The "British"
in U.K. do not impose any tax at all on HK.  HK tax is for the use
of the HK govt. solely in HK.

This is supposed to remain the same (substitute PRC for U.K.) after
1997.

The only way U.K. gets financial benefit is that the HK govt. routinely
treat U.K. businesses preferentially in any govt. contracts.

> battle.  Rather,  they will gain a good deal: a bargain chip with
> Chinese  on the airport issue which will assume the  British  big

U.K. and PRC already had a Memorandum on how to build the airport.
It would be crazy for U.K. to antagonize PRC in order to get more
chips on the airport.

> bucks;  jeopardizing  the  relation between HK and  Mainland  and
> hence  more  business will move out of HK to Britain;  winning  a
> good name of democracy-lover; among others.

No HK businessman in his right mind would move his business to
stagnating U.K.

"winning a good name of democracy-lover" is hardly an ulterior,
bad motive.


Dawei Zhou, Florida writes:
>         I am curious to know what is the opinions of the majority
> of Hong Kang Chinese?

According to opinion polls conducted by newspapers and such, about
60-70% of HK Chinese supported those reforms.

Wing
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~})
Subject: Re: 20 Million Prisoners in China
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 03:42:10 GMT

In article <By350n.30H@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin) writes:
  
>  There is NO public execution NOW in China.

You meant "now" as in "Nov 21, 16:29:11 EST", the time you posted 
your message? I am not going to contest this, since a skillful
person can argue that no two events ever happen simultaneously. :-)

But China certainly has not indicated that it will stop the practice 
of publicly executing prisoners (sometimes for very minor crimes), 
so we can only assume that it will continue to do so in the future.


  Ya-Gui Wei

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: FUW@conan.ie.orst.edu
Subject:      Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Reply-To: FUW@conan.ie.orst.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 03:04:57 GMT
Comments: To: chen%molly@SDSC.EDU, CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

> From:       Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
> Subject:    Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
>
> that we can never trust those foreign devils. (Unfortunately, to go with

> favor the democratization program by the British ghosts, how the

>
> Shizhong Chen
>


    Sorry, wise man, there are couple of points in your essay which are too
hard for me to understand.  I sincerely hope I can get some educational
information  from you.
    First of all, what makes them to be devils and ghosts?  Is that because
their race is different from ours? Consequently, what is the difference
between calling whites devils or ghosts and the Chinese being called East
Asian sick man or the blacks being called Negro?
    What is real democracy? Obviously, you don't believe British is a
democratic country.  Why don't you tell us what the real democracy is and
which country is a real democratic country?  How about China which has been
under the Communist Party's ruling for more than fourty years?

    Dummy
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: jimtan@earth.monash.edu.au (Jianjun Tan)
Subject: Nothing
Reply-To: jimtan@earth.monash.edu.au
Organization: Monash University Dept of Earth Sciences
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 12:38:29 GMT

Test only.







   \  ------
 ---- |-/\-|
      |/__\|        
  ---  ----
 -----|-----|
  /-\  --|--  
  \_/ ---|---



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Jianjun Tan         Earth Sciences ,Monash University
 -----------         Clayton,Vic.3168, Australia   

 _--_|\.                    .                           
/      \                      Phone: (03) 565 5769(O)          
\_.--._/__/ Melbourne                (03) 543 5130(H)           
      v   \----- I'm here!    Fax:   (03) 565 4903           
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  




Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Yongquan Liu <yl4n@HAGAR10.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Subject:      test
Reply-To: Yongquan Liu <yl4n@HAGAR10.ACC.VIRGINIA.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 20:29:28 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

Hi, this is a test.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: C0370@UNIVSCVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Reply-To: C0370@UNIVSCVM.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:02:47 GMT
Comments: To: FUW@CONAN.IE.ORST.EDU, 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>

>    What is real democracy? Obviously, you don't believe British is a
>democratic country.  Why don't you tell us what the real democracy is and
>which country is a real democratic country?  How about China which has been
>under the Communist Party's ruling for more than fourty years?
>
>    Dummy

Dear Mr. Dummy:

It seemed to me that you were trying to lead the discussion of Hong Kong
issue to something else. The questions you asked are just some cliche.
Please get to the point of the issue and contribute yours if you have some.

Hong Kong is facing a big transition. A smooth transition is for the best
benifit of Hong Kong people. From the history of notorious British colonism
we can draw a bottom line: the British strategy was, and still is divide and
conquer. Here, democracy is again used for their best benifit. Just as some
netters pointed out, the British should democratize Hong Kong long time
ago if they are sincere and treat Hong Kong Chinese as their own people.

Some of my Hong Kong friends told me that the British discriminate them to
such an extent that no Chinese can get a ranking position in the government.
In the government agencies, Chinese employees are treated as second class
citizens. And the British imposed tax to HK people at will.

Anyway, I really doubt that the British are sincere in proposing such a
political reform at this point. Politically, this is a win-win issue to them.
The British won't lose anything in this battle. Rather, they will gain
a good deal: a bargain chip with Chinese on the airport issue which will
assume the British big bucks; jeopardizing the relation between HK and
Mainland and hence more business will move out of HK to Britain; winning
a good name of democracy-lover; among others.

These are real things behind the proposal. I believe Hong Kong people are
smart enough to see the point and beat the bird in the bush.

Diane
From: zchen@phys.ksu.edu (Zheng Chen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: 20 Million Prisoners in China
Date: 22 Nov 1992 04:18:06 GMT
Organization: Department of Physics, Kansas State University, Manhattan KS, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: kelvin.phys.ksu.edu

In article <By3MAA.Cp0@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>In article <By350n.30H@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin) writes:
>  
>>  There is NO public execution NOW in China.
>
>You meant "now" as in "Nov 21, 16:29:11 EST", the time you posted 
>your message? I am not going to contest this, since a skillful
>person can argue that no two events ever happen simultaneously. :-)
>

I suppose you guys have been out of our motherland China mentally, 
psychologically, physically, etc. for too long. Maybe we really need
to go back to China for a while. This also provides a good opportunity
for us to test the government's new policy. We should be at least as
brave as Sheng Tong:-)

Please, if you don't want to go back, you should at least read something
about China. People's Daily is a very good cheap source and you also
have the freedom to interpret in many ways. If you do read People's Daily,
you will find there are still execution, public and secrete. This is a
Chinese tradition. Did you ever heard killing a chicken in front of the
monkey? We have been using this technique for more than 2000 years.

A final note. The human right record in China has been very good. 
Once you are defined as rciminal, especially the counter-revolutionary,
you are no longer a human being. So it's OK to torture or kill you,
even under the name of god.



--
_____________________________________________________________________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Zheng Chen
zchen@phys.ksu.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: engp2030@nusunix1.nus.sg (WU HU)
Subject: CQ in Chinese?
Organization: National University of Singapore
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:35:24 GMT

One of the radios in Beijing is BY1PK.

Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: JQIN@KENTVM.BITNET
Subject:      test
Reply-To: JQIN@KENTVM.BITNET
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 18:59:33 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.bitnet

This is a test, please ignore.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Subject: Re: Prisoner Execution: Shot from Behind 
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 22:25:27 GMT

In article <1992Nov23.200743.27685@news.acns.nwu.edu> carl_@nwu.edu  writes:
>
>I wonder why Mr. Yang Yuanxin always denies the facts that these terrible  
>things do happened in China. It seems to me that he only accept the People's  
>Daily which was free to subscribe. He constantly says the he doesn't buy this  
>and that and call people liers. What is the mentality? It's really an  
>interesting phenomenon.
>
>Mr. Yang, I think now you can only "buy" all the news from the People's Daily.  
>(This time, you really have to buy because the People's Daily is no longer  
>free.)
>
>Carl

  I'm not those kind of people who have never been to China but are so 
interested in "China's human right proplem". 

  BTY, People's Daily is certainly a reliable information source.
  Since you are so interested about if I payed for PD or not, tell you
I read PD in Chicago's China town library.


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: bihkyan@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu (Yang Yuanxin)
Subject: Re:  What the HK governor is doing?  Why?
Organization: Educational Computing Network
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 14:55:54 GMT

In article <By1uCz.GA9@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> yawei@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (~{QG9p~}) writes:
>
>It really sickens me that more and more oversea Chinese students
>are becoming "echo bugs" of the CCP government, and simply repeats
>what CCP says on whatever issues (and make it sound like that
>they are so "patriotic" blah blablah.)
  
  So you know you sounds so "selling-motherland", do you?
>
>What do the people of Hong Kong want?  And what do Chinese
>people think about democratization in Hong Kong?
>
>According to a Newsweek report, 59% of the people in Hong Kong
>thinks HK should press ahead with democratization even if CCP
>objects.
>
>The South China Morning Post did a servey in Guangzhou and Shen-
>Zhen (CCP territory, mind you), and 56% of those surveyed 
>favored Patten's reform proposals.

  Why didn't these "news-liers" made it as high as 65 or 75 or 85? 
because they knew that even the most stupid one won't buy that.
>
>Why do people in Hong Kong all of a sudden want democracy, while
>they did not demand it during the past 150 years?  Interesting

  Because they didn't dare to make any noise before their masters,
they didn't dare to do anything their masters did't want. But before
their "sisters/brothers in law", they looks themselves so superiour,
that they want "demoncracy". 
  The word "they" here is only a minority number of Hongkong people, I
just don't buy that "59%" or "56%".


>thought, after all, CCP represents their "motherland", right?

   That's your own sick mind! you think CCP=motherland, that's why
you D-fighters hate China so much and have been doing whatever you 
can to hurt China and Chinese. 

>I think the people of HK have some very legitimate fear that
>their freedom may be taken away once they are returned to their
>"mother", from whom many of them escaped not so long ago.
>
>What do our patriotic network friends think about these?
>
>Patriotism sucks.

 . ... so you don't suck? You are sick.

>
>  
>  Ya-Gui Wei
>


Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject:      IFCSS HQ NR-4069: Mass Mailing: Urgent Call for Help
Reply-To: IFCSS HQ <ifcss@WAM.UMD.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 20:57:26 GMT
Comments: To: ccnl@utarlvm1.uta.edu, china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

**************************************************************
IFCSS Headquarters News Release No. 4069     November 13, 1992
              MASS MAILING: URGENT CALL FOR HELP
**************************************************************
Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars (IFCSS)
   733 15th Street, N.W., Suite 440, Washington, D.C.20005
         Tel. (202)347-0017  Fax: (202)347-0018
                Email: ifcss@wam.umd.edu


              Mass Mailing: Urgent Call for Help
              ==================================


Dear fellow Chinese students and scholars:

     This term HQ has prepared an information package including
a call for donations to be  used in the mass mailing project. We
plan to send out 20,000 letters before Christmas. This is a huge
project which takes a lot of time and energy. We hope that the
CSS nation-wide would help us complete this  project.

     This time, we want to give you detailed instructions.

     Here is how you can help us.

     1. find a copy of your school's telephone directory.

     2. find the pages of the faculty members and administrators.

     3. find the addresses of those people.

     4. type 20 addresses into computer.

     5. in this format:

        last name, first name
        *** ** street, apt **8
        city
        State
        zip code

     6. send the addresses to us through email.

     The HQ then will take over (printing lebels, stuffing the envelops,
mailing, etc.)

     If we can get 500 students involved in this project, then
we can collect 10,000 addreess.

     Please do this as soon as possible. All the letters must
be sent out before Christmas.

     Thanks for your support.


*********************************************************************
*                 IFCSS Headquarters Office                         *
*                 =========================                         *
* President:      Geng Xiao  Assistant to the President: Shi Heping *
* Vice-President: He Baoping     Executive Director: Zhang Qingsong *
*~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*
*                   The Missions of IFCSS                           *
* Promote freedom, democracy, human rights and rule of law in China *
* Assist the development of  scienece, culture and economy in China *
* Represent the interests of Chinese students and scholars in U.S.A *
* IFCSS is a non-profit organization and has tax-exempt status. To  *
* donate, please make checks payable to "IFCSS" and send to:        *
*   IFCSS, 733 15th St. N.W., Suite 440, Washington D.C., 20005"    *
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: lwang@mariner.amc.edu.au (Luo Wang)
Subject: Re: Dai Qing's cheap talk
Organization: Australian Maritime College
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 92 06:06:17 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.151254.1@auvax1.adelphi.edu>, pan@auvax1.adelphi.edu writes:
>
>In article <9211080051.AA11076@neptune.ctr.columbia.edu>, yjj@ctr.columbia.edu (Yuan Jiang) writes:
>> Words from Dai Qing are to cheap.
>> 

>there are the great majority of Chinese ordinary people work for the company
>owned by government in China. If the CMFN was imposed on China, who would be 
>going to be hurt, majority or minority ? 


However, the Majority have to pay the price for their mistakes in choosing the 
wrong regimes in 1911 and 1949. You made the mistake, you suffer the
consequency. In China, especially, in the past 40 years, people has been
spoiled too much. Everybody, among the majority, has contributed to the
culture of political persecution. Who has got a clean-hand out of the
40-year political persecution?! However, in the wake of every massive
political persecution, only a few people have been blamed. I believe they are
just a group of scapegoats who were made to bear the blame for the
Majority in China. The majority has never drawn any lesson from it. It is 
simply not fair.

Nevertheless, the majority's silence or their indifference to the severe 
political persecutions of the minority in the past 40 years not only resulted 
from the political persecution, but also contributed to it, though this
political environment leaves no one politically safe.  

If Chinese are going to embrace the principle of democracy, they should 
learn to leave a living space to the minority with dissident opinions.
And this time, probably the first time, they should learn how to pay the
price for their wrongdoings in the past so as to gain the future political
safeness for not only themselves and their children as well.

Luo Wang

Australia
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: bsun%decserv1@DNS1.EECS.WSU.EDU
Subject:      Re: PRC wants to abrogate Joint Declaration on HK
Reply-To: bsun%decserv1@DNS1.EECS.WSU.EDU
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:59:55 GMT
Comments: cc: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

I completely agree with Mr. William Deng,
who is "cold-hearted" and is one of the best
among us Keda guys.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Hongwei Du <hongwei@EE.FIT.EDU>
Subject:      test
Reply-To: Hongwei Du <hongwei@EE.FIT.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:00:49 GMT
Comments: To: CHINA-NT@uga.cc.uga.edu

HI, this is a test of sending mail to the net.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
From: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Subject:      Re:  Reply to some comments on HK democracy
Reply-To: Shizhong Chen <chen%molly@SDSC.EDU>
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 09:19:53 GMT
Comments: To: china-nt@uga.cc.uga.edu

From: wing@PEGASUS.COM (Wing Ng)

Shizhong Chen writes:
> 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.

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.

****************************************************************************

I admit that I know very little about Hong Kong. If I had anyhow hurt
anyone from Hong Kong because of that, I apologize. What I was trying to
say is that the current proposals for broader democratization is overdue.

I did not expect my posting could provide such an opportunity for the
analysis of the motivation of British Government. To me, all these analysis
are just different versions of "Fei 1 Wo 3 Zu 2 Lei 4, Qi 2 Xin 1 Bi 4 Yi 4",
and they all ignored Hong Kong people. All the information from media
indicates that most of the Hong Kong people (some businessmen may be
exceptions? )support the democratization program which is proposed by their
current government. Should we oppose it just because the British Government
happens to be promoting it? And because CCP opposes it? Where are the
Hong Kong people in our discussion? Do they count?

To those who oppose/challenge/doubt the Hong Kong democratization proposals
for different reasons (related to the British Government), let me post this
question: if the current proposal and the campaign for it touched off a
violent crack down from CCP/PLA (CG agency in Hong Kong already warned of
 "rioting and  bloody confrontation" to a pending street campaign by the
United Democrats of Hong Kong to support the broader democratization), who
are you going to support and who are you going to condemn, the Hong Kong
People or the CCP? Why do you support and condemn the respective party?
Now, I pray this will not happen, and I know some experts can give analysis
to the situation/solutions that they will justify to be more complicated
than the hypothetical question. But, the principle is very simple: you
support what you think is right, and you condemn what you think as evil.
I give my answer here: I support the Hong Kong people, and if condition
permits, I will join them; and I condemn the CCP. My answer will not change,
 unlike certain people who "led"/participated/supported 1987/1989 pro-democracy
 movement, and later found different reasons to have second thoughts about it!

Shizhong Chen
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china