“USA/Canada have the most ideal form of government” – I don’t think we have “ideal” government. But I do think it’s preferable to what the CCP currently has on offer.

“priest who molests a young boy has some godly justification for his sin, err, action.” – as I’ve suggested elsewhere, “god” has nothing to do with it for me. Someone might have an explanation, or perhaps vaguely fathomable motivation, for committing certain crimes/sins; but that hardly qualifies as justification, or an excuse, for deplorable actions. Besides, I’m not sure how that relates to governance structures.

“Canadian are guilty because you supported the Iraq invasion.” – we never supported Iraq, which is why our Parliament voted against sending troops there. We did (and do) support the Afghanistan mission.

I suppose I should acknowledge your sport in engaging in this debate. But, Dude, your sense of logic is way too cynical for my taste. Is this some kind of crusade against the Chinese governing themselves?

You gave a fair response on drawbacks.

Actually I was looking for something simpler and more practical. Maybe I should just get to the point. If in your mind, USA/Canada have the most ideal form of government, why does it commit the worse atrocities still as of late on this planet. Say, 500,000 Iraqi deaths to start with. Canadian are guilty because you supported the Iraq invasion.

I guess the priest who molests a young boy has some godly justification for his sin, err, action. Enlighten us, please, Mr. Crusader.

“The Chinese government likely made sure the responses came from all the right demographics.” – that’s even worse. The only thing worse than a small sample is a non-random small sample.

And going back to where this all started:
““For comparison, you can ask the average Chinese how much input they have on government decisions. Oh, that’s right, none.”
“Well, I heard the current draft of China’s healthcare reform, the government got over 20,000+ input from all around China. How is that “none”?
- input from 20K out of 1.3B on one issue is not “none”; it’s a teensy tiny bit.

“but I wouldn’t count on them being stupid.” – nor would I. Which is why, statistically, I’m sure they can elicit exactly what they wanted to hear.

“what drawbacks?” – it starts with people being denied the right to representation, and to have their input in the country’s governance. It then leads to infringements upon other rights, such as those of speech, and religion. It can also extend to a disregard for the rule of law, or creation of a set of laws designed to assist in the infringement of the aforementioned rights.

By 蔡逸儒 from Zaobao.com

http://www.zaobao.com/special/china/taiwan/pages12/taiwan090516a.shtml

　　经查，中国学界对于软实力的定义、解释和内涵迄今并无定论，官方特别强调文化面向，认为文化为软实力的核心，但学界讨论则包罗万象，有政治价值、思想观念、制度设计、外交政策，甚至讨论到软实力的内涵、如何提升、如何建构、如何运用，目的何在，软实力到底是互利或零合、中国是否应该外销其软实力的影响力、中共的软实力对中美关系有何影响、北京应否藉此提升其影响力，等等。

　　有些大陆学者甚至把国际吸引力、国际动员能力、国际组织建构、能否吸引同盟、如何实现承诺，和平共处五原则、推动多边外交、海外援助、参与维和部队、主张和谐世界、和谐社会、内政的改革、经济的发展、政治的现代化都视为是中国软实力的一部分。简单地说，官方强调文化就是软实力，学者则认为政治力量和操控力量才是软实力的核心要素。

大陆开始注重软实力

　　一般说来，大陆著名国际问题专家、战略发展学者都同意，中国要发展王道的精神文明，而非霸道的物质文明，北京发展中国的软实力应该内外兼顾，要在发展具有中国特色的社会主义文明的基础上培养中国的软实力，当前中国制度的吸引力不足、合理性不够、竞争力仍差、大家多半主张不要奢谈北京共识或发展模式，以免被视为对美国挑战，中共的软实力仍然不足无法与美国竞争，中国大陆应该让非政府组织有更大的发展空间等等。

　　整体来看，北京这些年来强调软实力是有针对性的，消极的一方面是为了回应中国威胁论为主，积极的方面则是希望改善中国的国际形象与影响力，培养一个有利于中国发展的国际环境。当前北京发展软实力的做法是非对抗性的，避免以倡导社会主义价值观来取代西方价值观，避免以所谓的北京共识来取代华盛顿共识。根据研究，中国虽然在主观上已经理解，对软实力的发展应有整体规划，将内政与外交结合起来，但截至目前为止似乎仍未发展出一个全面、一贯的国家软实力战略。

　　另外，若再以中国所谓的人本外交、和谐外交、北京共识而言，大陆显然理解，中国大陆要在创新、实验、循序渐进、符合国情的基础上找出自己的发展模式，不必照搬、照抄西方的经验与制度，由过去的韬光养晦到今天的有所作为，大陆希望有G2及北京共识发展模式的事实，但不必在名称上大做文章。此之所以为何部分学者甚至把中国外交政策中的和平共处五原则、和谐社会、世界和平、两岸和解，都视为软实力的一部分。

　　观察中国外交战略及思维转变的过程，大家难免想到毛泽东当年“天下大乱，形势大好”、“世界大战不可避免”的主张，随后出现邓小平世界大战可免，区域冲突不断，经济发展为重，韬光养晦、绝不当头的发展策略，90年代以后又有以和平与发展为核心的战略调整。进入新世纪，则是在全球化下推动建设和谐世界、有所作为的总体对外战略。从过去的斗争与革命，到现在的和谐与发展，中国的变化不可谓不大，让人印象深刻。

台湾应利用优势与大陆合作

　　其实，从台湾的角度来看，大陆回归中华文明，遵循正道、王道，只要北京不把发展软实力视为对抗性的行动，不变成你输、我赢的竞赛，对台湾并非坏事。毕竟大家乐于见到一个文明、理性、王道、改革、开放、发展、融入国际社会、接受国际行为规范的中国。这对区域安全、对世界和平、对中国人民、对两岸关系都是好事。一个有志恢复中华文明，寻回汉唐文明盛世、历史光荣的中国，应是两岸所有中国人所乐于见到的。

　　对台湾来说，本来全台上下引以为傲的是台湾保留了中华文化的精华，为素有民本、民有思想、但缺民主精神的中华文化注入新的血液，但这些年来民主异化的发展，去中国化的错误政策，已让台湾付出惨痛代价。台湾一旦丧失了对中华文明的发言权，经济成长又停滞不前，政治上需要北京的包容，外交上需要大陆的善意，经济上要靠北京的掖助，军事上还得靠对方的自制，前景实在让人无法乐观。

　　从大陆的经验出发，台湾或应理解，发展软实力不应成为对抗、零和的斗争，而是一种双赢、多赢的政策取向，应该多层次、多面向、多角度的出发，举凡教育、文化、科技、学术、生态、艺术、宣传、宗教、体育都可以成为发扬软实力的方法，而所谓的民主、自由更应该落实到生活、法治的层面。台湾各界当前最需要的是思想解放、换位思考，以竞争、合作、双赢来取代对抗、内耗，这种选项利多于弊，台湾的优势在于创新发展、生活方式、民主价值，台北方面如能和北京采取合作，或以良性竞争方式，来共同发扬中华文化、文明。此或为当务之急。

作者是台湾中国文化大学中山所教授

““You couldn’t think of any other way to get broad and proportioned response representative of the population? Pretty closed-minded take on it, isn’t it?” – sorry, don’t know what you mean here.”

20k responses being too low for a population of 1.3B is a naive criticism. The Chinese government likely made sure the responses came from all the right demographics. From all regions, from all classes of society, occupations, etc.. I personally don’t know how they went about getting the populations input, but I wouldn’t count on them being stupid.

Every country supposedly not having achieved your definition of “democracy” has what drawbacks? (2-3 worst drawbacks you can think of would be great – either for the citizens or the world)

“Do Canadians and Americans govern themselves?” – no. But we do get to choose who does. As I’ve suggested before, I’d have next to nothing to say on a blog like this if the CCP governed at the behest of the Chinese people.

Just so we’re clear, does “that”=democracy?

“Ideally, it’d be nice if it was more than 20K out of 1.3B.”

You couldn’t think of any other way to get broad and proportioned response representative of the population? Pretty closed-minded take on it, isn’t it?

“To me, the Chinese don’t govern themselves; the CCP governs them.”

Absudity aside, okay, I accept that’s your personal view. Do Canadians and Americans govern themselves? (Yes or No would suffice.)

Every country supposedly not having achieved “that” has what drawbacks? (2-3 worst drawbacks you can think of would be great – either for the citizens or the world)

“about how the Chinese govern themselves?” – but that’s just it. To me, the Chinese don’t govern themselves; the CCP governs them.

Okay, I’ve said earlier you have last word on this “self-determination” thing on this thread. So I am staying away from it.

Here is another infatuation you have – your attacks on the Chinese government:

“For comparison, you can ask the average Chinese how much input they have on government decisions. Oh, that’s right, none.”

- Well, I heard the current draft of China’s healthcare reform, the government got over 20,000+ input from all around China. How is that “none”?

The thing that really baffles me – why so hell bent on bitching about how the Chinese govern themselves?

“never mind exercising your right may violate my rights.” – I would mind. And just in case I didn’t mind, that’s why there are laws.

“who is respecting my rights of banging some hot supermodels?” -nobody, unless one or more of those supermodels wants to oblige, in which case, good for you. But you can’t exercise your rights in violation of theirs, and in case you tried, that’s where those laws come in again.

The difference between your supermodel dreams and a Tibetan one (if this is in fact what they want), is that they may no longer want to be subjected to Chinese laws and rule. They would be giving up a lot, for whatever they may get in return. And you know, if you’re willing to give up a lot (like your freedom, and, considering the beefy bodyguards, possibly your physical well-being), there’s nothing else stopping you from trying to exercise your dreamy rights either.

“Done anything in real life for your vision?” – nope. In Canada, I think we’re doing pretty well. In China, not so much. Maybe someday, someone will have a similar dream. What have you done for your vision, apart from kissing the CCP’s feet?

Is not self-determination the ability to control the exercise of the very “self-interests” of which you speak? You criticize self-determination, but your arguments seem to show exactly why it is necessary.

If you interpreted self-determination as a desire to excise one’s self-interest, then sure everybody is entitled to their own. But it’s not your interpretation so far. You have taken one’s self-determination as some sort of right, as if I deny it, I trample on your (god-given) right — never mind exercising your right may violate my rights.

If my desire is my right, heck who is respecting my rights of banging some hot supermodels?

The unit upon which self-determination is to be practiced, to me, is the only real question. And as I said before, the unit should be decided upon by those who would seek to practice it.

Done anything in real life for your vision? You know, a wise man once said that a vision without an execution plan is just daydreaming.

“You are stuck with your elections every few years.” – how many times are you going to recycle the same stuff over and over again. The answer is the same as the last time you raised this point, and the time before that, and so on, and so on…. Even in a democracy, it is impractical to have a vote on every single issue. So we elect our representatives, to whom we delegate the responsibility of making the country’s decisions. Does that sound familiar? It should, because I’ve said it enough times.

“instead of just picking reps to make decisions for you.” – hey, that’s no small feat. For comparison, you can ask the average Chinese how much input they have on government decisions. Oh, that’s right, none.

By 杨锦麟（香港）

This is a very interesting article to read

http://www.zaobao.com/yl/tx090513_502.shtml

”
　　蒋经国百年诞辰纪念活动期间，冠盖云集，但在外界的观察中总觉得缺少点什么。这样的纪念活动，仪式感太强，有为主政者造势背书的意味。而面对当前的两岸关系，也没有多少人去深入探究蒋经国当年对两岸前途的思考，特别是他的内心世界。

　　从1974年至1988年，宋楚瑜在蒋经国身边工作达14年之久，对蒋经国对大陆的感受、看法和政策思考有长期和直接的观察。宋楚瑜甚至认为，虽然两岸的社会制度不同，但追求的目标和治理方式却是“不约而同”。

蒋经国在台湾的社会主义

　　在我最近和他的一次访谈中，宋楚瑜数次重申自己的一个观点，那就是，台湾在70年代经济成长，80年代政治转型的所有决策思考出发点，事实上可以理解为台湾所实行的“具有中国特色的社会主义”。为了说明这个观点，他特别指出，现在中国大陆的领导人也强调“权为民所用，利为民所谋，情为民所系”的“新三民主义”，强调“以人为本，立党为公”的施政理念，强调提高执政能力。在这些方面，两岸有很多共通之处。

　　宋楚瑜说，这些年来，两岸交流互动日趋频繁，大陆人自豪地说，他们实施的是有中国特色的社会主义，重视农民、取消田赋，实行九年义务教育。但每每听到这些，宋楚瑜就对大陆朋友说，早在三、四十年前，台湾就已经做到这些。大陆所探索的具有中国特色的社会主义，就是新三民主义，强调无私、为民所用、以民为本、均富且追求社会正义，建立廉能政府的制度，冀盼达至“老有所终，壮有所用，幼有所长，矜寡孤独，废疾者，皆有所养”。

　　他深有感触地说：“这些不就是蒋经国曾经在台湾推行和实践过的吗？两岸纵有分隔，但目前追求的不都是小康之后，还要大同吗？”

　　1977年，美国派代表到台湾做形势简报，当时的会议纪录上有一些歧视大陆的用语。在外交部正式存档之前，蒋经国亲自审阅，凡是“匪”字都被他圈掉，更将侮辱邓小平的字样删除。

删除“矮邓”、“共匪”

　　蒋经国曾私下对宋楚瑜说，台湾有些新闻报道叫人家“矮邓”，称对岸为“匪”，实在不好。这样讨人便宜、吃人豆腐不对。此后，台湾官方的文件、会议记录，都不再有任何政治不雅的字眼。

由此，宋楚瑜联想到当前两岸之间依然存在的很多误解。他认为，未来双方要进一步改善关系，首先就应该建立共识，确认完整的历史论述与架构，没有历史，怎会走到今天？如此才有助于海峡两岸取得真正意义上的了解与谅解。
　　所以，未来的两岸互动必须建立新思维，但目前还欠缺共通的历史架构和互信。不只是两岸，台湾岛内不同政党、甚或同政党内都不见得互信。因此，必须还原历史真相，站在中华民族大历史的角度。他说：“在台北宾馆，矗立着当年外交部长叶公超和日本代表河田烈签订中日和约的铜像，足以证明台湾地位不是‘未定’。那就是历史，忽略这个环节，历史如何就不能完整建构。”

　　宋楚瑜认为，这些年来，大陆确实有长足的进步，值得赞扬和肯定。同样的，蒋经国在台湾的贡献与成就，也值得大陆方面肯定，其中的一些经验和教训值得大陆总结。此次蒋经国百年冥诞，在两岸都引发了极大的回响。不是要歌功颂德，而是要找回那份勤政典范，期盼所有政治人物以蒋经国的精神进行自我要求。任何党执政，中央也好，地方也罢，都要真心诚意为老百姓做事。

　　宋楚瑜说，海峡两岸不能活在过去，更不能活在成见里。历史是一面镜子，而不是绳子。镜子能让我们认真检视而继续出发，而不是心中的绳子难于解套，使历史和意识形态继续纠缠和束缚彼此。蒋经国晚年讲了一句让大家冲击很大的话：“我也是台湾人！”这句话值得大陆方面思考。大陆的朋友爱说：“台湾是中国不可分割的领土”，而蒋经国“台湾人论”的意涵就是：台湾同胞更是中华民族不能割舍的骨肉。

　　两岸的命运是共同的，并将逐渐发展成生命共同体。一个贫穷好战的中国大陆，不是台湾的福气，而是台湾最大的威胁；富强有礼的大陆，才是台湾人最佳的保障。
“

The unit upon which self-determination is to be practiced, to me, is the only real question. And as I said before, the unit should be decided upon by those who would seek to practice it.

Do you decide whether to have a “vote” or just let someone appoint someone else? NOPE! You are stuck with your elections every few years.

Let me know when you actually have a choice to HOW to make decisions, instead of just picking reps to make decisions for you.