> Reports about China from many western media tend to exaggerate things about China, mostly influenced by western politics, not good at all.

Whether or not that is true is not really relevant here unless the author can argue that what is being discussed is an exaggeration.

> Also, western media tend to report selective facts to only show things they want people to hear and see.

Western media don't "tend" to do anything. That's way too diverse a set to make a sweeping statement like that. It's just spreading FUD.

> The right to life is the first clause of human right, which I see they are violated in many western countries. They refuse to treat the poor and old.

This is ridiculous. "Many" Western countries "refuse" to treat the poor and old? That's blatantly not true. At best it's a colorful way to say that many western countries have problems with poverty and care of the elderly. Indeed, I would agree if that is so. That doesn't begin to compare with the intentional and desired violations of human rights of the Chinese regime. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the elderly and poor are not sent to "reeducation camps". Uyghurs are. For being Uyghurs. Full, fucking, stop.

> Do you hear China criticise?

Sometimes. Is that really relevant though? You'd think that the worst kid in the class would sit very quietly when one of the better students is caught screwing up.

> Maybe they are, but for sure western media choose not to report them.

Huh?

> I can say some of the things you shouldn’t say in China are equally not welcomed in many western countries.

This is completely broken logic. I'm sure lots of murderers equally agree that you shouldn't steal candy from a small child or push an old grandma. So what?

> If you split US, see how many troubles could come to you?

I really don't follow.

> China has ran 4000 years under one empire system, and it’s just the culture there.

Are you seriously suggesting that the impressive history of a country should preclude its citizens from enjoying more recent human rights?

> Why democratic society is better than the 1 party system?

I'm sorry, it's becoming pretty obvious – both from what you write and the sentence structure of that writing – that you are a shill for the CCP.

> What’s more important is to have the party represent people’s interests.

And nobody has ever found a way to do that except for subjecting the powers that be to the will of the people through democratic elections. Please let me know if you have found a way; the Chinese way definitely isn't one.

> In many democratic countries, each party represents the interests from certain groups, that’s why it’s necessity to have multiple parties perhaps.

… yes?

> The downsides to democratic system is also quite obvious. There are countless debate on many small matters which waste tax payer’s money etc..

Of course there are plenty of downsides. Proponents of liberal democracies are usually just arguing that democratic systems are the least bad one (in this thread the major point of discussion is that the current Chinese system is absolutely horrible). I know it's a tired quote for many, but: "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."