-- 試論「教育加權選舉制」(EBVS)  之二

Please note: the crippled Chinese 「中囯」refers to he political PRC, as distinguished from the cultural imagined entity of China (中國). However, in this article, I'll use China/PRC interchangeably, as the imagined China does not exist and PRC is usually acknowledged to be representing China.


Is China Ready for Democracy?

My simple answer is a resounding NO!

This is the conclusion I reached from the analysis using my proposed "Education-Based Weighted Voting System (EBVS)" which I posted here on 11/09/13.


I'll explain briefly how I arrived at my conclusion with a mathematical formuation. First of all, let us recap what I have postulated in my previous article.

I defined P as the average voting power of a voter in an electorate:

P = V / N

= Σ(ei x ni ) / Σni , where i =0,...,4

The value of P lies within the range 1 =< P =< 16, it follows that in the extreme cases:

Pmin = 1 when everyone is illiterate or

Pmax = 16 if everyone is a Noble Laureate.

P can also be regarded as a measure of the education level of a country. As such, it can be used as an indicator for a country's suitability to a democratic electoral system. The critical value, Pc , is the watershed point. A country with a P value less than Pc is not ready for a democratic system yet.

In order to determine the value of Pc, I'll make a further assumption that the average education level of a country's voter has to be at least secondary (12 years). This condition is required to make sure that the average voter has the intelligence to make an informed decision to select their government. Under this circumstance,

N = n1, as n0, n2, n3, n4 = 0; hence

Pc = (e1 x n1) / n1 = 2.

The criteria for a country to become a democracy is met only when its evaluated P is equal or greater than 2 (>= Pc ).

In summary, P is in the range [ 1, 16 ], and the critical value Pc is 2.

It is a common practice to normalise an indicator so its value lies within the range [ 0, 100 ] . Since a number from 0 to 100 is easier to comprehend.

Therefore I can now introduce the final form of this indicator, which I will call the Electoral Viability, E:

E = {(log2 P - log2 Pmin) / (log2 Pmax - log2 Pmin)} x 100; as

log2 Pmin = log2 1 = 0, and log2 Pmax = log2 16 = 4, then

E = (log2 P / 4 ) X 100 ,

so the range of E is [ 0, 100 ], whereas P's range is [ 1, 16 ].

It follows that the corresponding critical value of Electoral Viability Ec becomes:

Ec = 100 (log2 Pc / 4 ) = 100 (log2 2 / 4 ) = 100 (1/4), i.e.

Ec = 25.

Put it simply, a democracy is viable for a country only when its Electoral Viability E is greater or equal to Ec, i.e. E >= 25.


After this short mathematical exposition, we can now consider some real examples.

Example 1. A typical western country, say, Australia.

Assuming the distributions of the education attainment are as follows:

n0 (below Secondary)= 10%

n1 (Secondary)= 60%

n2 (Bachelors) = 20%

n3 (Postgraudates)= ~10%

n4 (Scholars)< 0.01%, negligible.

Then P = (1 x 10 + 2 x 60 + 4 x 20 + 8 x10 ) / 100 = 290/100 = 2.9 and

E = 100 (log2 2.9 / 4) = 38.40 > Ec .

Therefore, Australia is suitable for a democratic electoral system (preferable my proposed fairer EBVS! ). BTW, I would include HK in this category.


Example 2. China

Similarly, the distributions are estimates:

n0 = 40%

n1 = 50%

n2 = 8%

n3 = 2%

n4, negligible

Then P = (1 x 40 + 2 x 50 + 4 x 8 + 8 x 2 ) / 100 = 1.88 and

E = 100 (log2 1.88 / 4) = 22.77 < Ec .

Therefore, democracy is not a viable system for China yet.

The reality is, given the vast under-educated population of China, a popular vote will only return the CCP to power. The regime can then legitimise their totalitarian rule in the name of democracy. If the elected government reflects the increasingly belligerent view of the people, it would not only be a cause of concern for HK/Taiwan, but to the world peace as well.

Perhaps it is better for a benign dictator, like KMT's Chiang, to overthrow the CCP and take over the regime. His main task would be to educate and regenerate the population in a few decades time. When the Chinese becomes a well-educated, civilised people, she would then be entitled to a democracy.



上下九 - 2013年09月14日 04:22

Is China ready for democracy now

My answer is simply NO !

But, the more importance is : Is China ready for studying democracy now ?

My answer goes to : It is always ready. Because nothing will succeed without starting attempt on doing anything.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 05:16

I think the author will come to the same result for USA if he has used the figures in 40s in last century.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 06:01

If you look at literacy rate of China, it is four times the improvement since Communist took over. The NO answer is only a self-disgrace act.

養珠樓主 - 2013年09月14日 07:51


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:22

上下九hing, learning and practising is indeed instrumental in future success of any venture. However, it's not only about learning the democracy process, they have also to improve themselves through education. As we don't want a tyrant to be elected by an ignorant electorate.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:30

PBrega hing, you have made a good point. The same conclusion could have been drawn for a 19th century USA. The basic difference is that the human knowledge has advanced exponentially since 200 years ago. The issues, say a National Broadband Network policy, are much more complex today. A proper assessment of the policies requires a more knowledgeable electorate which can only be achieved through education.

In caculating the threshold of Ec, the assumption of an average Secondary education (n1 = 100%) can be modified to an average of 75% Secondary and 25% under (i.e. n0 = 25%, n1 = 75%) to accomodate for the less demanding historical times. In this way, Ec = 20.18, a similar composition of electorate in those days could still get the US over the democracy line.

The literacy rate in China may be a huge improvement, but there is nothing impressive since they started from a very low base. Moreover, the capability to assess the policies and make an informed choice is a much bigger ask than the ability to read and write.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 08:39

養珠兄,一語中的! 不能同意更多。



金弓 - 2013年09月14日 09:11


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 09:50



fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 09:58

My EBVS electoral system is all about fairness, not equality. The higher educated people should be given more say in the decision process. In a similar way, the high-income earners are paying more taxes; it's fairness, not equality.

My emphasis in on EDUCATION. The argument is very simple. A good government can only be elected by a decent knowledgeable electorate, a sensible voter in turn can only be achieved through education.

A country is fit for a democratic electoral system, if and one if its population has reached an average minimum standard of education. IMHO, China is found to be wanting in this respect. The country has yet to express itself as a civil society. The only solution is by lifting the standard of its people by education.

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 10:12

樓主,如果 the cultural imagined entity of China (中國) 已經不存在,那麼 cultural China (中國) 的遺民是否可以不承認那個 crippled China 「中囯」?


又如果這個 PRC crippled China 「中囯」 永遠不大力發展教育,那麼PRC crippled Chinese 「中囯人」就永遠停留於 「上智下愚」的 刁民階段?

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 10:13

I somehow disagree with the author that the knowledge and responsibility of the individual political conscience is not due to personal educational level or literacy. It is the way of the institutional behavior make people deviated and irresponsible. The obvious example is the USA and Mexico, both has similar starting point and similar culture but with extremely different end result. China is also the same as Japan and Taiwan culturally and on education level, but entirely different institutionally. No need to mention the end result.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 10:20

The higher education is not the condition to determine the privilege of participation of governance. It is always the government of people, by the people, for the people. NOT of some people.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 10:41

ray1129 兄,兩個答案都是肯定的。

ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 10:58



另外,證諸人類民主發展的歷史,大多是先有民主政體後才能發展全民普及教育。而閣下的 EBVS 似乎是反其道而行,可否論述一下你這套「教育加權選舉制」(EBVS) 能如何落實及保證專權政府會開放並發展全民普及高等教育?

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 11:32

My system does not deprive anyone of voting rights, it simply gives more weight to those with higher qualifications.  The rationale is that, in general, those with higher education are better equipped to make an informed choice, so their opinion should carry more weight.  Generally they are also in a minority and are disadvantaged in sheer numbers, which can be counteracted by giving them a weight.


Allow me to repeat:  it's about fairness, not equality (as the example of people paying different tax rates.)


Let us consider another example of electing board members in a company.  The shareholder with a larger holding has a bigger voting power.  Now imagine the country is the company, the government is the board and the stakeholders are the voters.  The relative holdings in this case are measured by the voters' intellectual wealth, not monetary wealth.  I would guess a better government (for the benefit of all people) could be selected by giving more voting power to the intellectually wealthy people.


ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 11:41

那麼 people with lower qualifications 有沒有階梯及制度能進身成為 people with higher qualifications?


還是那個問題,有沒有制度確保每個人都能成為 intellectually wealthy people?如沒有,people with higher qualifications 有可能永遠封閉全民普及高等教育,以確保自身的政治特權,同意嗎?

上下九 - 2013年09月14日 12:12


tigeri - 2013年09月14日 12:17

其實, 唔使講咁多廢話, 一句就講完,




支持佔中既, 就係想要一個唔講法治既民主.


認為不需要理會人民質素既, 就係想要一個政客可以隨意愚民既民主.


民主, 只係一種糖衣毒藥, 那班人不斷用"有得揀你就係老闆", "民主可以制衡政府"等等教科書理論來洗人的腦, 其實講到尾, 佢地都只係想假民主之名, 行自己的惡事而已.

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 12:23

For God sake, government is never a profit-seeking body. IIt only seeks the benefit for its own people, not shareholders. Minority by education? Would you like to choose being stupid majority? Or you were being educated fool? Education is the cause of rasism? It can only happen in Commy China.

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:28



(a) 若果不適合,那麼只有等待仁愛的獨裁者來統治,提倡教育。否則便只有革命一途。假如勉強民主,最壞的情況可以是由一羣暴民選出一個暴君來,這樣的暴君也不會去推行教育了。那民主作甚?
(b) 若民智到達某一程度,便可以進行民主普選。以下列方法行之。


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:29



tigeri - 2013年09月14日 12:33

"government is never a profit-seeking body"?

政府缺錢, 其貨幣就會貶值, 貨幣牽涉到所有中下階層的實質購買力, 和國家所有資產的價值.  只有對經濟無知的人, 才會認為政府無需盈餘.


ray1129 - 2013年09月14日 12:34



我們生而為中國人,就是民族的一份子,根本就沒有什麼 cultural imagined entity of China (中國) 或 PRC China(中囯)之分。我們有幸能讀點書,學懂以文字表達一下思想,這並不代表我們在民族中,就能享有政治特權。





fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 12:38



上下九 - 2013年09月14日 13:06



Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 13:26

"支持佔中既, 就係想要一個唔講法治既民主."


牛二嘅老細包辦立法、司法、執法三大權力,所以牛二大力支持『依法辦事』嘅所謂『法治』,自是應有之義,不足為奇。 不過,牛二將民主同法治嘅主次關係搞錯了,『講法治既民主』根本係一句屁話,有民主做基礎嘅法治先至係真正嘅法治,否則法治只不過係牛二嘅老細標榜嗰種『依法辦事』嘅冒牌法治,說穿了,就係用嚟欺壓人民嘅統治工具。牛二顛倒是非,故意混淆視聽,將佢老細嘅冒牌法治講到天花龍鳳,企圖魚目混珠,夾硬套入真正民主社會三權分立制度之下嘅法治框架,盡顯不學無術嘅醜態,可謂自露其短,自取其辱!

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 13:32


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 13:47

ray1129 君,多謝你的意見。



fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 13:51

Liberphile 兄便是本壇最有學問的賢者,請兄賜教。



Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 13:52


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 13:54

How can you image a fair society without equal right? Maybe, a racism with races? It is nothing about fairness, but everything about equality when come to politics. Because you will also complain unfair when treated

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:08



Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:13



教育對一個國家嘅民主化程度有影響,應該係好多壇友嘅共識。不過,我想補充一點意見,就係可能有其他變數會影響教育同民主化程度嘅關係,換言之,我哋應該考慮是否有某些moderator or mediating variable 嘅存在,例如民族性中嘅各種因子,包括對不確定性嘅容忍程度(tolerance for uncertainty)等等。



fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 14:20

To be treated differently for something that you can't change, such as race, sex, is discrimination.  Someone is born with a silver spoon, but you are not and you can't do anything about it, then you are discriminated against if you are denied a position based on your material wealth,

On the other hand, knowlege is something that you can acquire with some effort.  if you are not offered the job because of your intellectual wealth, then it is not discrimination.

If the education system is open and equal, one cannot complain when he is treated differently because of his skills. This is fair, not equal.





PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:32

Thats why people never choose a smart educated ass for their leader, because people always has right to choose what they like, not some dumb ass saying what poeple should like. Clear enough?


Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:36


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 14:41

Honestly, everybody knows democracy is a stupid system, well, you dont like it? Thats the only game in town, and no alternative. Not my opinion, W. Churcher also.

金弓 - 2013年09月14日 14:50






Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 14:55

民主化程度問題其實是一個civic engagement程度的問題,在其他條件不變的情況下,教育可以促進civic engagement,有助於推動民主化,自不待言。 

fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 15:05

Liberphile 兄,是的。不過我要諗下明唔明。如果能解釋一下就最好。





金弓 - 2013年09月14日 15:08



Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 15:33


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 16:07


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 16:18



PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:19



PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:28


PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:34


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 16:41

Article started metaphor for China's political for the disabled is wrong.

In imagination, there is no thought of the PRC is on behalf of the Chinese? You can think about whether Hong Kong can now on behalf of China do you have in mind?

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 16:57



炮金 - 2013年09月14日 17:30


fairdinkum - 2013年09月14日 17:59


民主須建基於教育上。又如Liberphile 兄所說,兩者是會互相影響的,也可以同步共進。

PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:02


生駿麟 - 2013年09月14日 18:04


金弓 - 2013年09月14日 18:06




金弓 - 2013年09月14日 18:09





金弓 - 2013年09月14日 18:17




金弓 - 2013年09月14日 18:18



PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:47



PCYK - 2013年09月14日 18:52


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 20:07


袁新華 - 2013年09月14日 20:21


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 20:21

“ 也是斷句,全句是「包括香港人中的土炮!”

Full sentence, take it :土炮吊金公,炮金炮炮金。

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 20:33


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 20:52




炮金 - 2013年09月14日 20:59

“ 這就是信壇五毛,日罵夜咒的民主自由人權 ”





生駿麟 - 2013年09月14日 21:15











金弓兄在上次華山論劍時兩次問 : 為何遠在1940年代,中國反而需要民主?


我認為金弓兄意圖trap 我,金兄意識到我的論點似乎(1)站在中共一邊;(2)認為即使現在中國仍未應實行民主,1940年必更不適合。所以金兄順著我的 flow of argument 發出此問題,希望我的答覆是:"1940年中國當然不適合民主" 然後金兄即搬出毛澤東1940年與周炎培在延安窰洞論民主的事實,使我無地自容。


東邪、西毒ヽ南帝、北丐、中神通豈是金兄可trap 的?

當日華山論劍時有位小妹妹問中共如何控制軍隊。我只有時間簡單回答:(1)中國只有黨軍,没有國家軍隊;(2)組織上,中共用「支部建在連上」的列寧體制;(3)方法上是"Caesar crossed the Rubicon"的故智。當然還有政治思想的訓練、情報系統和通過中央警衛局派出的警衛員、勤務員、保姆去監察各軍區司令和黨委。








PBrega - 2013年09月14日 21:23


金弓 - 2013年09月14日 21:36


其次,請別中英夾雜。假如駿麟生不識「trap」或「Caesar crossed the Rubicon」,大可先查下字典再上壇,以免顯示自己無能。

金弓 - 2013年09月14日 21:39





金弓 - 2013年09月14日 21:44




tigeri - 2013年09月14日 21:55



哈哈哈哈!  一個唔講法治既民主, 何來"有民主做基礎嘅法治"?  你知道自己在說甚麼嗎?  (大笑)




你講得好好呀!  對你嚟講, 經濟咪就係咁囉!  (一笑)




哈哈哈哈, 咁無聊既所謂"研究結果", 你要別人回應甚麼?  你可知道, 曾幾何時, 有人"經研究證實", 太陽黑子既活動, 係同股市既升跌有直接關係的!  曾幾何時, 歐洲人既"普世價值"係, 社會上產生疫症, 係同女巫有直接關係的!  所以, 果陣時有好多女巫就係咁樣活生生被燒死!  之所以, so?  你認為, 你呢啲"結果", 有回既價值嗎?  




咪玩啦!  就算泛民, 都只係假民主之名, 行自己既惡事之嘛!  佢地邊度有深切了解過, 到底民主政治是怎麽回事呀!  (一笑)



tigeri - 2013年09月14日 21:57



(大笑)  又係度做寶藥黨用民主教科書理論去呃人.


請問, 民主制度與選票如何能建立公平社會呢?  你能講得出嗎?

生駿麟 - 2013年09月14日 22:04







tigeri - 2013年09月14日 22:07

民主制度, 比較"講得出口"既好處只有"認受性".  但有認受性又如何?  施政就會順利?  咪呃人啦!  認受性同施政根本就沒有直接關係.


民主可以制衡政府?  係呀, 互扯後腿果隻囉!


民主可以"治好"貪污嗎?   世界上有貪污既民主國家, 比比皆是.


有民主, 法治就會變好嗎?  咪玩啦!


民主可以"治好"貧富懸殊嗎?  我未見過.


咁到底, 民主可以做乜呢?  可以搞民粹福利, 可以令政府收入能減不能加, 令支出能加不能減.  加埋資本主義, 到最後國窮民窮, 貧富懸殊劇烈, 民不聊生.  呢啲就係民主既"真相"勒!


民主?  民甚麼主?  以為用啲民主教科書理論洗人腦, 就可以把謊話變成真嗎?  (一笑)

PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:17


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:24


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 22:28


袁新華 - 2013年09月14日 22:29


袁新華 - 2013年09月14日 22:34


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 22:35

“ 愛字幫?哈哈哈!”


信壇相親愛人幫比愛字幫有jet 數?FTW!n WTF!


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 22:41

“ 同為中國人社會,中華民國在臺灣能做到的,大陸也應該能做到。”


袁新華 - 2013年09月14日 22:42


袁新華 - 2013年09月14日 22:54


PBrega - 2013年09月14日 22:58


炮金 - 2013年09月14日 23:31

“ 五毛狗當然明白,不過,為了主人手上的骨頭,亦要說謊耍賴 ”





炮金 - 2013年09月14日 23:35

更正:“ 五毛狗當然明白,不過,為了主人手上的骨頭,亦要說謊耍賴 ”




文見亂 - 2013年09月14日 23:39


Liberphile - 2013年09月14日 23:47

fairdinkum兄說出一些爭議性頗大的想法,雖然我並不完全認同,但他的誠懇態度和勇氣與及彬彬君子的文風,着實令人佩服。另一方面, PCYK兄提出共產黨亦能在民主選舉中獲得人民授權執政的說法,我相信是極有可能發生的,這大概便是fairdinkum兄和陳雲教授所憂慮之處。



金弓 - 2013年09月14日 23:49






金弓 - 2013年09月14日 23:55



金弓 - 2013年09月14日 23:55



文見亂 - 2013年09月14日 23:56


袁新華 - 2013年09月15日 00:00




金弓 - 2013年09月15日 00:01





文見亂 - 2013年09月15日 00:01


金弓 - 2013年09月15日 00:02


袁新華 - 2013年09月15日 00:04


文見亂 - 2013年09月15日 00:04


金弓 - 2013年09月15日 00:07


Liberphile - 2013年09月15日 00:13


生駿麟 - 2013年09月15日 00:36







生駿麟 - 2013年09月15日 00:42



k.f.suen - 2013年09月15日 05:55


真不好意思告訴你上錯山 : 華山喺大陸,呢度喺香港太平山呀!


***中國中共需要[開明]胸襟接納中國人民 :

國民擁有 yes/no 的發言權




誰正在用暴力革命? 誰??????






[若現時中共下台,誰能控制軍隊?]---唉! 都六十幾年啦! 唔喺軍隊一直掌控中共嗎??? 鎗/核子出極權呀!!!




大石 : 你隻[小港]有幾多斤両?

小港 : 都有半斤八両

大石 : 你知唔知我有幾多斤両?

小港 : 都有錢柒啩? 我清楚到你入面風化緊!

大石 : 你知唔知個[死]字點寫?

小港 : 我淨喺識得個[散]字點寫

大浪 : 我來啦喂!!!


sandy's rock

龍葵 - 2013年09月15日 14:45

"To be treated differently for something that you can't change, such as race, sex, is discrimination.  Someone is born with a silver spoon, but you are not and you can't do anything about it, then you are discriminated against if you are denied a position based on your material wealth,

On the other hand, knowlege is something that you can acquire with some effort.  if you are not offered the job because of your intellectual wealth, then it is not discrimination."


I don't really agree.  knowlege is something that one can acquire but men were not really born equal and despite same education received and efforts put,  some men/women are less equal than the others.  Some people were simply born imbecile or disabled though I won't called this discrimination but the fact is they are "natually discriminated".


"If the education system is open and equal, one cannot complain when he is treated differently because of his skills. This is fair, not equal."


Yes,  there is no real equality and equqlitarian theory have already told that absolute equality is stupid.  Actaully,  I think all absolute things, if any, are stupid!

龍葵 - 2013年09月15日 14:50



(a) 若果不適合,那麼只有等待仁愛的獨裁者來統治,提倡教育。否則便只有革命一途。假如勉強民主,最壞的情況可以是由一羣暴民選出一個暴君來,這樣的暴君也不會去推行教育了。那民主作甚?
(b) 若民智到達某一程度,便可以進行民主普選。以下列方法行之。



唔明點解一係要等明君一係要革命?  若然人民水平唔夠咁搞革命的就一定有水平?   唔會好似暴民一樣選暴君?  邏輯何在?




龍葵 - 2013年09月15日 14:51


fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 20:29

Hi, Ms Dragon Lady Jr., glad to see your late comments.

That is exactly my point. Our electoral system should be based on FAIRNESS, not forced EQUALITY.

"Men are not born equal, but they are equal under the law."  -- Lincoln (?)

We are certainly not born as intelligent as Einstein, we should not claim credit for what he had achieved. However, you might be a successful businesswoman and made more money than him as a professor. So you had to pay more tax. This is fair, but not equal. Nevertheless, we have the same rights as he enjoys under the law.

"...不如推倒重來" ==> Revolution?

In your own words: If you don't want to wait for a benign dictactor, then start a revolution!

As I remember, you are very fond of mooncake. The festive season is getting close, there should be lots around, enjoy!

龍葵 - 2013年09月15日 20:56

fairdinkum hing, 


I'm not really pro-revolution but I don't think waiting for a benign "leader" is really wise as you never know how long it will take.  To me,  this is a "whim"only and,  I think system is more trustworthy them men.



Progress takes time but waiting for something that may not come at all is a waste of time.


Yes,  I love mooncake and Mid-Autum Festival is my favorite.  Happy Mid-Autum Festival.  Enjoy all the good food!


fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 22:20

Dragon sis, we almost come to the same conclusion.

Let's say, we have two choices:

1. Wait for something to happen and

2. Do something.

Obviously no sensible person will sit and wait for something to happen, so we have to do something.  My preference for 'something' is education.  If that is not possible, then revolution should be the last resort.

My consistent view is:  education is the key to the success of democracy. 


fairdinkum - 2013年09月15日 22:24

Here, I've posted a very simple question:

"Is China READY ( 適宜現在 ) for democracy?"

Most responses focused on "Is China suitable ( 適合 ) for democracy?" instead.

My argument is on the timing rather than the suitability for China to become a democracy.   

I'll make a clarification in due course.


龍葵 - 2013年09月16日 07:28

fairdinkum hing,  if that something is education, it should be something more than academic education.  Most people from Mainland China I met are not academically inferior and actually many of than are even better educated than many westerners. Their only problem is mentality & integrity and this is something molded by the society as a whole,  not simply education.


I don’t disagree that education is the key to democracy but it doesn’t mean that lacking this important “factor”,  we can’t or not ready to proceed with our path to democracy.  Yes,  your question is whether China is ready for democracy but my question is if China is not yet ready for democracy then when will it be ?   Progressive improvement is not quite the same as procrastination and I really doubt that the CCP could solve the corruption problem – it’s a very delicate balance of power game to play and the ultimate result is probably failure. 


I don’t really think that revolution will bring a better China, it could be worse but I don’t believe that the procrastination strategy of the CCP works either.   There may be no real solution and the only solution may be act and see.


I love theoy but I don't believe in theory!

fairdinkum - 2013年09月22日 21:27

As a matter of fairness, the comments since  "2013年09月15日 14:45"  have been undeleted.  Please refer to the following post for the controversy caused:




Please feel free to make judgements yourself.  Thanks for visiting.



fairdinkum - 2013年10月27日 20:06



  1. 網站編輯或網站作家開題,網友可回應。回應必須貼題,請勿重覆;勿發表誹謗,人身攻擊或不雅內容。
  2. 網站編輯有權發表或不發表網友張貼的內容。(請參閱議論守則)
  3. 開題之網友可編輯其在過去7天內發表之論題,或刪除相關回應。

查閱 FAQ

信報簡介 | 服務條款 | 私隱條款 | 免責聲明 | 廣告查詢 | 信報會議中心租賃 | 加入信報 | 聯絡信報