Talk:Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hong Kong Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!

Start

This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.

Hong Kong To-do:

edit purge

Clean up all MTR station pages. They are literally all over the place. Two model pages are Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. They each describe a feature special to the station, Station layout, exit, and connections, as well as neighbouring stations and the station "box".
- We will also need plenty of updated pictures (e.g. removing all KCR-related images except those on the KCR article). Check that all pages have basically the same language structure as Tsing Yi Station and Sheung Shui Station. Links to location maps are good too. (Should also perform these checks on Chinese Wikipedia.)

Clean-up pages that link with TVB, especially its series pages.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Macau, an attempt to better organize and improve articles related to Macau.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] cat dependent territory

an SAR is not a dependent territory. InstandNood, you gave up that argument at HK and Macau, why are you trying to make it here? SchmuckyTheCat 02:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

I removed the link that said a special economic zone was in teh mainland. Obviously the entire article is talking about special regions of the PRC, that makes it superfluous to also say that an SEZ is an organizational region of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 02:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special administrative districts of the ROC

On this map (published in 1964) "Hainan Special Administrative District" is used instead of "Special Administrative Region". — Insta ntnood 16:00, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

This is certainly not the first time inconsistent translations have given us problems... -- ran (talk) 16:54, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Eh very true.. headache.. — Insta ntnood 18:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of the ROC had been split to special administrative region (Republic of China). — Insta ntnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROC

I fail to see why the ROC infobox should be on this page, it's entirely historical.

But, since it is, I moved it mid-point in the section because it doubles up horizontally instead of vertically at my (current) viewing resolution (1280 on firefox, I'm sure it's still broken at 1680). Is there a way to force two right justified templates to a vertical layout? SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of the ROC had been split to special administrative region (Republic of China). — Insta ntnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Typographical error?

re: this part:

The PRC has offered Taiwan a similar status to that of an SAR if it accepts mainland rule; however the Republic of China government refuses to accept the offer, and most polls indicate that only around 10 per cent of the Taiwanese electorate support it.

Should this not be:

The PRC has offered Taiwan a similar status to that of an SAR if it accepts mainland rule; however the Taiwan government refuses to accept the offer, and most polls indicate that only around 10 per cent of the Taiwanese electorate support it.

Otherwise it does not make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.73.134 (talk • contribs) 11:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Should be ROC government, and electorate of the ROC. — Insta ntnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aceh and East Timor

The article needs either (1) to be rewritten to use the term as a generic and include reference to the Special Administrative Region of Aceh and other proposed SARs in Indonesia such as the fomrer province of East Timor and the Province of Papua or (2) to be moved to Special Administrative Region (China) with a separate article on Special Administrative Region (Indonesia). I'd argue for option (1) to avoid the mess that exists around Federal district and National Capital Territory. Alan 15:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm.. sometimes the most well-known and common usage is kept under a title as it is, with the disambiguation page under the title [[subject matter (disambiguation)]]. As for special administrative region I'd say it's most commonly associated with Hong Kong and Macau, as reflected by the links to the article and Google test. Of course you may say it's systemic bias, but then as for the time being I'd prefer keeping this article at where it is, with the rest at special administrative region (disambiguation) [1]. This can be changed at anytime by community consensus. — Insta ntnood 17:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The content on the special administrative regions of other sovereign states had been split to special administrative region (disambiguation) (talk). — Insta ntnood 19:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalisation

There is currently a debate over whether the title of this article has to be capitalised, i.e. special administrative region or Special Administrative Region. Relevant sources: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], relevant previous/ongoing discussions [1] [2] [3]. — Insta ntnood 17:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

This has now been listed on Wikipedia:HK wikipedians' notice board. enochlau (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative division

There's currently a debate on whether the special administrative regions of the PRC are administrative divisions, at talk:list of China administrative divisions by population. — Insta ntnood 18:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That isn't a debate, that is you being obstinate and denying reality to everyone else involved. That you disagree doesn't mean concensus isn't clear. SchmuckyTheCat 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If that were the reality, please justify it be presenting the necessary evidence over there. Thanks in advance. — Insta ntnood 22:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I did, and so did Ran. The question presented to you to define what HK is, if not an administrative division, has been left unanswered five times. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

As explained, I speak only from facts and evidence, not speculations. I posess no evidence to answer the question, neither do you or user:Ran. — Insta ntnood 22:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to see the evidence, that Instandnood asks for. IMO it should be presented here and not in a divisions by population page. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

What evidence, then, Tobias? The category being removed here already contains a subcategory for the two SARs. This article describes the situation of the two SARs. In the context of the PRC and the categorization scheme here, "administrative division" is a generic all-encompassing term for all the PRC divisions: regions, prefectures, municipalities, provinces, districts, SARs, etc. Instantnood wants to claim that Hong Kong is something "other" than an administrative division, which, because the term used here is all-encompassing, essentially puts it outside the PRC organizational structure entirely. SchmuckyTheCat 21:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some user wanted to divide all country subdivisions worldwide into political division and administrative divisions. E.g. he marked the US states as PD. But hmm, since the thing is call administrative region, it looks as if it were an administrative division. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Yah, I am somewhat aware of WAS and his silly "must put everything into binary organization buckets" campaigns. This, afaik, isn't related to that. SchmuckyTheCat 00:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(response to user:SchmuckyTheCat comment at 21:59, May 1) " In the context of the PRC and the categorization scheme here, "administrative division" is a generic all-encompassing term for all the PRC divisions: regions, prefectures, municipalities, provinces, districts, SARs, etc. ", " because the term used here is all-encompassing, essentially puts it outside the PRC organizational structure entirely. " - In the 1982 Constitution of the PRC, shěng, zhíxiáshì and zìzhìqū are actually explicitly stated to be administrative divisions ("中华人民共和国的行政区域划分如下: ..") Nowhere in the Constitution, the two basic laws and any other law had special administrative region, or the existing special administrative regions, been explicitly stated to be administrative divisions in the same manner. — Insta ntnood 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Inst, do you mean HK and Macao are seperate countries (e.g. they still have their own ISO 3166-1 codes, as have Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey since some days) and therefore should not be regarded as part of the PRC-gov/admin system? Maybe it's like a continuum, departments of France have very little rights, US states more, and the PRC-SARs even more. And the EU members again more, within the EU. Possibly only few people would regard Germany as administrative division of the EU. But that depends on the definition of these divisions. All UN members are kind of divisions. They have very much rights, but the UN has the "right" to intervene - or at least thinks so. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 11:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The discussion here deals with legal and constitutional designations. The 1982 Constitution of the PRC explicitly states something are administrative divisions, but special administrative regions are not stated to be. Please refer to talk:list of China administrative divisions by population for more details. — Insta ntnood 20:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

so the disagreement stem from the two views: A.D. seen as legal term, or A.D. seen more as generic. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Legally and constitutionally speaking, there's no evidence stating they are. Seen as a generic term, justification has yet to be presented. User:SchmuckyTheCat has simply claimed they are. — Insta ntnood 05:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

only by semantics can you make either statement. It's an entirely silly argument. SchmuckyTheCat 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PRC's offer to Taiwan

I have modified this section a bit, would someone please check it for NPOV and accuracy? Preferably someone more knowledgeable in the study of political science and law. Also, I have reviewed previous edits, and I found it rather funny that someone wrote that Taiwan would lose its multi-party governments and that a Taiwanese Communist party would be formed. From what I know, if Taiwan becomes an SAR the government system and parties will not be (or should not be) interfered by the PRC.

Hong Kong has its own democratic system and retained the whole government structure in 1997, I doubt that the PRC would revoke these privileges from Taiwan, especially if Taiwan's freedom rating is ranked higher than the one of the United States, and that Taiwanese citizens are extremely sensitive to human rights issues. What a riot that would be if the PRC started to interfere with how Taiwan's politics should work, and I doubt that the PRC would succeed in doing so. If the PRC does decide to do this, it would be imminent that Taiwan will start trying to be independent again, as the main reason that Taiwan would be convinced to reunite peacefully with the PRC would be that it increases economic trade and allows economic influence sharing (although not economic SYSTEM sharing, that would be still distinct and controlled by the individual regions of administration) and not that it allows the PRC to give Taiwan any better ways of governing, since it is very obvious that every region that has been governed a certain way cannot change in a blink of an eye. Although I do see possible PRC power swallowing, or even vice versa.

What I can see is that in the case of reunification, Taiwan will guard most of its freedoms because the PRC wouldn't dare try to revoke them in an attempt to avoid civil unrest or another independence attempt. If the PRC was so oppressive they would have already used other measures of unifying Taiwan. Sooner or later these SARs won't be needed anymore, because of power swallowing. Lets all hope all administrations move their governments towards the correct direction. Dooga ^Talk 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that seems to be missing from this section is any explanation for why Taiwan doesn't want to accept China's offer. The wording "However, the government of the Republic of China (ROC) that is governing Taiwan refuses to accept the offer." seems to suggest that Taiwan is just being stubborn. I'll try to think of better wording, but as for the reasons that Taiwanese refuse to surrender their sovereignty to China, I can think of many reasons I wouldn't do so, but I don't have any thing I can cite to say what reasons the Taiwanese have. Readin 05:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The reference provided in the article does not state clearly how foreign diplomacy would be handled for the proposed Taiwan SAR. Foreign relations seem left out of the proposal. However, it does say the proposed Taiwan SAR would "retain" legislative powers, and one of the powers of the current Taiwan legislature is to make laws about relationships with other countries. On the other hand, it says Taiwan would need to send reprentatives to Beijing to discuss "national" affairs. Does anyone know of any sources that address how Taiwan would handle foreign affairs if it accepted the SAR proposal? Readin 05:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No lease of Macau

Macau was never on a lease to Portugal, unlike most of Hong Kong (the New Territories) was to the UK, although the PRC didn't recognise any 'unfair and unequal treaties' signed before 1949. In 1976, Portugal redefined Macau as a Chinese territory under Portuguese administration, having earlier offered it back to China two years earlier.Quiensabe 23:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)