80 killed in Tibet, Chinese will be kept in the dark

GuanYin

daithicarr wrote: »

that like comparing the PRC to the Chinese Empire, or chines Republic, or even the Cultural revolution and the good old days of Mao.

if everyone did that, China shouldnt get the olympic games because Mao killed 20 million or so of hos own people back in the day.

Things change

Oh look, I agree, I don't believe that widespread serfdom, as existed in 1940's Tibet will return with Lama rule. But the point should be made that the information being spread by western media, is more focused on anti-communist (and I'm no fan of communists, I'm a yank ) propaganda than on an actual level comment on the situation. (Unless of course you actually count the taking of the child sucessor of the Dalai Lama as slavery, after all, the parents and child have no say).

The point is, the loudest vessels here are the Lama followers and exiled Tibetans who, quite frankly, haven't lived in the country and aren't speaking for the Tibetan majority.

For instance, I'm getting e-mails from friends suggesting we boycott Chinese goods until tibet is independent. Apart from the fact I do most of my shopping in a Chinese grocery store , even the Dalai Lama isn't looking for a "Free Tibet". He KNOWS that isn't a good move for Tibet. He merely wants greater autonomy for Tibet WITHIN the People's Republic of China. Its a fair request.

The Tibetan population get a very fair ride in China. Far moreso than the Han population. The One Child rule does not widely apply to Tibetan people. Chapter two of the Chinese Constitution does provide flexibility in terms of rights to the Tibetan population as an ethnic minority, this includes the One Child rule. There are also educational and fiscal incentives for Tibetan populations (as a minority).

That said, there are concerns in the region, as I outlined in previous posts. But a "Free Tibet" won't help those concerns, on the contrary, it will most likely herald a return to poverty and crushing taxes for the region.

Unfortunately, some radicals have acted against the express wishes of the Lama, caused escalated violence which has outraged the Tibetan population (and so it should) and the western media does the whole thing a great disservice by cashing in on the US's anti-China propaganda

fly_agaric

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Economical circumstances...The disaster, as I said, would be economic. China are not likely to part with Tibet on friendly terms, considering that China are the largest local economic powerhouse, in terms of trade, cutting ties would be a disaster.

So the "economical circumstances" you mention are just China's vengence if Tibet did something the Big Power doesn't give the nod for. For example as a scenario - China does grant Tibet more autonomy and local leaders then try to declare full independance themselves.

Might the "economy" be the least of Tibetan peoples' worries in such circumstances?

How does that change any of what I posted?

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I don't think anyone is making that assertation. Nor would it be tolerated.

The quote marks were not for fun... The "strategic reasons" have been mentioned by others, so that must be tolerated here.
As for casting aspersions on the Tibetans themselves - wouldn't the reason of "underdevelopment" only be a good one for not allowing either more autonomy or even independance if it were to be a permanent state incapable of any improvement?

But then the question occurs why can "development" occur if China is in control but Tibet remains less developed otherwise?
Perhaps it is something to do with the people themselves and/or the abilities of the Chinese rulers?

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

Have you actually ever been to China? Do you know anything about Tibetan history? Your knowledge of the situation seems to compose of analagous comments about Ireland and the UK and media reporting on the brutality of communist governments.

No (-never likely to either) and very little.

For my sins, I read the news. I watch the news. I see a depressing story that looks like a big power/empire (you aren't going to deny that or cry Poor China with so many problems are you?) behaving the way big powers usually do.

The particulars may be different but from my poor knowledge of history, the broad outline seems quite similar across time and space and so I posted on this thread in spite of my ignorance. Maybe I do make rash judgements from little in-depth knowledge but there you go.

When I see what looks like a nation behaving brutally, bullying at home or abroad etc I don't really like it. I tend to think less of its government as a result. It has the same effect on my opinion of the govt. whether it labels itself "communist"/"capitalist"/"democratic"/"socialist" etc.

Finally, you don't have to be some sort of expert on China to see that the "People's Republic"/"Communist Party" terminology is mostly a label of convenience so the rulers can maintain continuity with the past.

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

The Lama's themselves have a history of corruption, slavery and attrocities on their citizens. There are recorded human rights violations by them well into the last century.

What is your point?

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

At the moment, one of the greatest complaints by tibetan people is that they are being discriminated against in the job market to Chinese Hans and that the rate of inflation imposed by China as a whole booming from their economic upsurge at costal areas isn't reflected in Tibet. i.e. they're not as rich but still paying as much as the rest of China. Those matters won't improve with independence, they may improve with greater autonomy.

That is very interesting and all but why does it change any of what I posted or invalidate any of the analogies with Irish history that I so annoyed you with?

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

I think you're biasing your opinion of the matter on poor reporting by local media.

Yes I am, but I'm afraid none of the extra detail and colour you have given makes me see the situation differently.

If most people in Tibet do not want independance from China+ are happy with things as they are - okay. If they do want to be fully independant I think they should be. More realistically, if they are unhappy with the current situation (as suggested by recent disorder inside + campaigns outside Tibet) then something should change IMO.

MasterSun wrote:

wrong presumption

According to the 2001 census, the Tibet Autonomous Region had a population of 2.63 million, of which 92.2 percent were Tibetans, 5.9 percent were Han people (immigrants), while other ethnic peoples accounted for 1.9 percent.

Fair enough. It makes no difference to the argument (see Daithicarrs post on your figures).

GuanYin

fly_agaric wrote: »

So the "economical circumstances" you mention are just China's vengence if Tibet did something the Big Power doesn't give the nod for. For example as a scenario - China does grant Tibet more autonomy and local leaders then try to declare full independance themselves.

Might the "economy" be the least of Tibetan peoples' worries in such circumstances?

Again, the Lama doesn't want independence. That is a western notion. It doesn't make sense. This WHOLE issue is basically down to China's political oppression of the the Lama. At present, the Monasteries are under strict government monitoring, they weren't allowed appoint their own leader (a 6 year old, who would have been taken forcefully by them, but who is now missing with his family) and the number of monks are capped.

The Lamas don't recognise the Tibetan leader appointe dby the Chinese, but the majority of the Tibetan people revere him nonetheless.

The Dalai Lama wants autonomy so the Lama can regain their authority, it is as simple as that.

As for China's vengence, I imagine the way they operate, yes that might be an outcome. That said, modernisation is on the way regardless of who is in charge, the issue is that at the moment, it favours the Han Chinese.

But then the question occurs why can "development" occur if China is in control but Tibet remains less developed otherwise?
Perhaps it is something to do with the people themselves and/or the abilities of the Chinese rulers?

Development and modernisation will probably occur. The Tibetan people have benefited alot from the People's Republic, they have now a well educate dmiddle class core. The problem is, they are being discriminated against in the job market by the Han Chinese.

Tibet, isn't a self sufficient state, it doesn't have the resources. Prior to Chinese occupation, the population were poor, under educated and under crippling taxes imposed by the Lama. Closing off the region to Chinese investment in infrastructure would probably make the state non-viable without a return to those taxes.

For my sins, I read the news. I watch the news. I see a depressing story that looks like a big power/empire (you aren't going to deny that or cry Poor China with so many problems are you?) behaving the way big powers usually do.

The particulars may be different but from my poor knowledge of history, the broad outline seems quite similar across time and space and so I posted on this thread in spite of my ignorance. Maybe I do make rash judgements from little in-depth knowledge but there you go.

When I see what looks like a nation behaving brutally, bullying at home or abroad etc I don't really like it. I tend to think less of its government as a result. It has the same effect on my opinion of the govt. whether it labels itself "communist"/"capitalist"/"democratic"/"socialist" etc.

But you see, on the whole, they aren't. Most of their stricter rules in Tibet only applies to the Han Chinese there. The majority of Tibetans are content under Chinese rule.

This is a political-religious fight. The Lama, who were much like the old Roman Catholic Empire, have lost their power and are clearly being oppressed by the Chinese government. This doesn't affect the people in terms of brutal oppression.

The Chinese government are a big powerful empire bullying a theocracy that wants its power over the people back.

Finally, you don't have to be some sort of expert to see that the "People's Republic"/"Communist Party" terminology is mostly a label of convenience so the rulers can maintain continuity with the past.

I'm not defending China, I think their actions are abhorrant. I merely state that it isn't an "Evil Empire oppresses the common man" story as the US media make it out.

crazyfrog

jonny72 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299212.stm

I'm not surprised, the Chinese said 10 died with their usual propaganda, when the toll is nearer to 80. The Chinese people will not even blink an eye, because a) they'll be fed utter lies, and b) they've been fed fake history about the region. Ask any Chinese person you know about Tibet, and ask them about Tianamen Square while you're at it.

WOW ! How many people died in Iraq? It is not your business! How did you know bbc news is the truth? Only single pool man. Is your country strong enough to care about that? Your too young too simple. I am Chinese. And support the Government's behaviour.

Thirdfox

The BBC have amended their report to say that neither figures (provided by the Lama camp nor the official government sources) can be independently verified. One can argue that the damage has been done already of course.

While you may have important points to make, doing so in such a manner will end up with people instantly being defensive and you won't make any headway into changing opinions. Then again I do not seem to be making progress with my method either so who am I to judge.

daithicarr

the main reason the Dali lama doesnt want independance is that he knows it is impossible, especially for the Areas outside the TAR as the large tibetan population would be cut of from those in the TAR.

I dont think any of us can really say what the Tibetans think.
but there are factors that indicate a large proportion are not satisified , people flee there all the time , a significant number of people are protesting, which is a very brave thing to do with the PRC's recor dealing with public protests.
If they are such a small minority , why dont the chinese authorities let them have there peaceful marchs and sit down protests, without interfearing? ???

there are strong indications that the Chinese authorities dont treat the Tibetans fairly, what about the Nangpa la shootings, the only reason they are known to the world is some westerners happened to be near by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nangpa_La_killings

the fact that the chinese severaly clamp down on information coming from the area and restrict foergin access, would indicate they have something to hide. what do they have to hide?

MasterSun

daithicarr wrote: »

those 56 minority groups make up less than 9% of the population

wrong
it's 56 ethic groups,

55 minority groups plus Hans.
Han is the majority group.

daithicarr

Master Sun, your counter to my arguemnts are pathetic.
at every step you have ignored the meaning behind my statements and nit picked. diverting attention from the substance of the debate.
If we want to be technical there are 56 recognised minoritys in china, there are a few that are not recognised, for various reasons. but thats neither here nor there.

Master frog who says we are getting our sources souly from BBC news, what does IRAQ have to do with Tibet, whats a strong country got to do with it, why is it not our business what happens to fellow human beings?

do only the strong countrys have a right to a say?

Overheal

MasterSun maybe you should link to your information sources, for a start.

SkepticOne

PSI: Las Vegas wrote: »

The point is, the loudest vessels here are the Lama followers and exiled Tibetans who, quite frankly, haven't lived in the country and aren't speaking for the Tibetan majority.

The Chinese government have also been very loud in calling him a terrorist and instigator of the protests. The silent group, of course, are the ordinary Tibetans in Tibet thanks to China.

leonardo4358

SkepticOne wrote: »

The Chinese government have also been very loud in calling him a terrorist and instigator of the protests. The silent group, of course, are the ordinary Tibetans in Tibet thanks to China.

The Chinese government never called him a terrorist, but a separatist, and the interest group he represents the instigator of these riots. I personally don't think Dalai Lama himself directed these violence, but those radicals under him who slightly went out of control.
The point that the most exciting protestors all over the world are not the majority of Tibetans is right.
The CCP has approved the entry of a selection of journalists into Tibet. Let wait and see what the reports will be.

wes

leonardo4358 wrote: »

The CCP has approved the entry of a selection of journalists into Tibet. Let wait and see what the reports will be.

Why, not let all media have free access? Only allowing a small number in, makes it look like there trying to hide something imo.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

'selection of journalists' sounds worse than embedded reporting.

SkepticOne

leonardo4358 wrote: »

The point that the most exciting protestors all over the world are not the majority of Tibetans is right.

How do we know this?

mrfangliang

jonny72 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7299212.stm

I'm not surprised, the Chinese said 10 died with their usual propaganda, when the toll is nearer to 80. The Chinese people will not even blink an eye, because a) they'll be fed utter lies, and b) they've been fed fake history about the region. Ask any Chinese person you know about Tibet, and ask them about Tianamen Square while you're at it.

I know the Chinese government is not very good at telling the truth, but is the western media?

Check this sites for the false info posted by main stream western medias: http://newschecker.blogspot.com/2008/03/who-lie-about-xizang-tibet-violence-and.html

I remember seeing an artical on BBC website saying that christians in China have to find a secret place where they can avoid police so that they can pray. But when I was staying in China, there was a church which was only 5 mins away from where I leave and I saw people praying there with no problems. How's that?

wes

mrfangliang wrote: »

I remember seeing an artical on BBC website saying that christians in China have to find a secret place where they can avoid police so that they can pray. But when I was staying in China, there was a church which was only 5 mins away from where I leave and I saw people praying there with no problems. How's that?

Some Christian sect/denominations are banned and they do have to hide so they can pray.

So what your saying is true to a degree that some Christians can pray in the open, but other can't.

Unpossible

mrfangliang wrote:

But when I was staying in China, there was a church which was only 5 mins away from where I leave and I saw people praying there with no problems. How's that?

What denomination was it? I saw churches over there too, according to the BBC there is only one denomination that is allowed, but I know some people who went there as missionarys (not Irish people). A person who was there with them, but I'm not sure if she was working for them, said to my wife that I will not find my church there (she assumes Im religious, don't know what church she thinks I am part of) "but I could find prayer groups". I would not take her statement too seriously though because her particular church is a small fringe one, most of their groups are in africa, southern US states and asia. Personally I would rather china remain atheist

Sometimes I think the chinese government is the only type that can hold that country together. Look at that health minister last year who was convicted of taking bribes, his actions resulted in the deaths of dozens of people Link . The party there seem to be doing a lot to clear out corrupt officials, what are Finna Fail doing about our ones?

Then of course you have people like this operating in the country Slave labour ring . What would these people get if they were caught doing it in Ireland? 2 years suspended sentance? Our justice system seems to be a bit of a joke. I always felt safe on the streets in China, and no before someone asks there was not a strong police presence there.

While some things there disturb me I have to admit the "ignorance is bliss" attitude seems to work, the chinese I know are all happy and leave the political stuff to politicans while they concentrate on everyday life. There is a lot to be said for a regime that focuses on making people happy and not having to go through red-tape before making a change for the good of the country, by changes I mean the one child policy, or the building of the new terminal in beijing.

daithicarr

yeah all great until they do something you dont like, then you have no way to stop them, becuase they dont answer to the people, they answer to themsleves.

What if another Mao comes along?

Unpossible

What if another Mao comes along?

Sure a flaw with the system is if the "wrong" person gets to power then its hard to stop them, but hopefully the current reforms will weed out the bad eggs before they become too powerful. Plus china is very different now to what it was back then I am not sure the same thing could happen again, or at least not easily.

Don't get me wrong I like my democracy and freedoms, but I can see a lot of benifits with the chinese system.

daithicarr

but what if your one of the people who fall foul of the system? many people do, and you dont have many rights, if the goverment decide something that it. there is nothing you can do about it. Such as the three gorges Dam, none of those people effected had any say.
why should a goverment be able to dictate what you can and cant do without you even having the right to protest it?

Unpossible

daithicarr wrote:

but what if your one of the people who fall foul of the system? many people do, and you dont have many rights, if the goverment decide something that it. there is nothing you can do about it. Such as the three gorges Dam, none of those people effected had any say.
why should a goverment be able to dictate what you can and cant do without you even having the right to protest it?

I didn't say it was perfect.

wes

Unpossible wrote: »

I didn't say it was perfect.

The PRC system is a bad joke. It is racist, as can be seen by the treatment as we speak of the Tibetans and the PRC constant effort to destroy Tibetan culture, by sheer weight of numbers alone.

Communism, is a pretty vile form of governance. The only thing the PRC has changed is that they're taking on the worst aspects of capitalism to replace communism. While there may be some positive aspects of the PRC governance, overall I think the system is ultimately very oppressive and actively encourage chauvinist ultra-nationalism. If thats the way the Chinese people want (i am not entirely sure this is the case btw), then I personally could care less, but the Tibetan people, want free of this system and i see no reason why there desire for freedom and national aspirations should be denied.

leonardo4358

wes wrote: »

The PRC system is a bad joke. It is
racist, as can be seen...

PRC system is not racist at all. On the contrary, it biased on the ethnic minorities such as Tibetans, Ugurs(in China's Xinjiang province). For example, one-child policy has been widely implemented among Han Chinese, but not to the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities. Students from minorities are granted more marks when sitting College Entry Examination. And the government has been sensitive in dealing with crimes committed by enthnic minorities. Ugur thieves are rampant in almost every single Chinese city, simply because the government is afraid of stiring social instability by punishing these minorities.

wes wrote: »

...the PRC constant effort to destroy Tibetan
culture, by sheer weight of numbers alone.

Also because of no implementation of one-child policy in Tibet Autonomous Region, the number of ethnic Tibetans are growing rapidly. Ethnic Chinese is only a small part of it--roughly 21%. Tibetan culture is not being destroyed, but being revered. Many oversea tibetan exiles worry that the immigration of Han Chinese will destroy their culture, but that is not the truth. Chinese government aims to improve Tibet's economy by providing better transportation.

wes wrote: »

Communism, is a pretty vile form of governance.

Communism--evil, Capitalism--good. This is typical cold war straight-line assumption. Don't extend this assumption everywhere, like praising Mr Bush in bringing 'peace and stability' in the Middle East region, and critisizing Hu Jin Tao in 'military crackdown of Tibetan peaceful protestors'. We should look at the facts, not their titles.

leonardo4358

wes wrote: »

I think the system is ultimately very oppressive and actively encourage chauvinist ultra-nationalism. If thats the way the Chinese people want (i am not entirely sure this is the case btw), then I personally could care less,

I would like to see your definition of chauvinist ultra-nationalism. If the determination of one country to protect its own citizens and put down violence is chauvinist ultra-nationalism, then... what is Israel doing? Assasinating Hamas/Fatah leaders and vowing to kill more of their citizens, backed by peacing-loving democratic American, but not evil communist China? (no offence to ordinary Jews)

wes wrote: »

If thats the way the Chinese people want (i am not entirely sure this is the case btw), then I personally could care less, but the Tibetan people, want free of this system and i see no reason why there desire for freedom and national aspirations should be denied.

If you are entirely sure of this, I can assure you that Chinese people are not chauvinist. Tibetan people has been freed from serfdom since Dalai Lama was ousted in 1959. If there are still Tibetans who have desire for freedom and national aspirations, they are those whose privilleges had been deprived since communist take-over(mostly monks with Dalai Lama at the top), separatists and exiled tibetans who have no actual knowledge of the real conditions of Tibet.

wes

leonardo4358 wrote: »

PRC system is not racist at all. On the contrary, it biased on the ethnic minorities such as Tibetans, Ugurs(in China's Xinjiang province). For example, one-child policy has been widely implemented among Han Chinese, but not to the Tibetans and other ethnic minorities. Students from minorities are granted more marks when sitting College Entry Examination. And the government has been sensitive in dealing with crimes committed by enthnic minorities. Ugur thieves are rampant in almost every single Chinese city, simply because the government is afraid of stiring social instability by punishing these minorities.

The bolded bit is telling. You have any figures to back this up with?

Why does the PRC deny the ethnic minorities, there right to national self determination? Again I point to the current situation in Tibet and the fact the media has limited access, so we don't know how bad things could be.

leonardo4358 wrote: »

Also because of no implementation of one-child policy in Tibet Autonomous Region, the number of ethnic Tibetans are growing rapidly. Ethnic Chinese is only a small part of it--roughly 21%. Tibetan culture is not being destroyed, but being revered. Many oversea tibetan exiles worry that the immigration of Han Chinese will destroy their culture, but that is not the truth. Chinese government aims to improve Tibet's economy by providing better transportation.

The Tibetan disagree and figures I have seen on the BBC etc are very different.

leonardo4358 wrote: »

Communism--evil, Capitalism--good. This is typical cold war straight-line assumption. Don't extend this assumption everywhere, like praising Mr Bush in bringing 'peace and stability' in the Middle East region, and critisizing Hu Jin Tao in 'military crackdown of Tibetan peaceful protestors'. We should look at the facts, not their titles.

You should read my posts on the US, I have little or no respect for the Anglo-American's axis current war of aggression in Iraq and there general policies in the Middle East.

Did you read the part of my post where I mentioned how China seems to be taking the worst bits from Capitalism? I don't see how you could get the impression that I think Capitalism = Good. I think both Communism and Capitalism in the more extreme form are about as bad as one another. The PRC as I see it is a mixture of the worst bit of Capitalism and Ultra-nationalism, with some Communist rethoric tossed in for good measure. I don't believe the PRC is purely communists anymore.

daithicarr

the PRC is autocratic , not Communist. its not even very socalist.it is impssoble to accuratly claim what a people want or believe when they are denied the right to have there voice heard.

The Chinese people have no say in how their lives and country should be run, that is contolled by a small wealthy elite who could call themselves anything they please, no one there can object

wes

leonardo4358 wrote: »

I would like to see your definition of chauvinist ultra-nationalism. If the determination of one country to protect its own citizens and put down violence is chauvinist ultra-nationalism, then... what is Israel doing? Assasinating Hamas/Fatah leaders and vowing to kill more of their citizens, backed by peacing-loving democratic American, but not evil communist China? (no offence to ordinary Jews)

Where did I echo support for Israel (an apartheid state) or the US. In fact I said I was very much against the actions of the US, particularly in the Middle East.

How does the actions of Israel and the US (both of whom's governments I am not fan of), excuse the actions of the PRC? Simple answer, there actions don't excuse the PRC. Check threads on Israel and you will see I criticize them in far stronger terms than the PRC.

What you call protecting its citizens, the Tibetans call aggression. Why not allow a Plebiscite of the Tibetan people and see what they want?

leonardo4358 wrote: »

If you are entirely sure of this, I can assure you that Chinese people are not chauvinist. Tibetan people has been freed from serfdom since Dalai Lama was ousted in 1959. If there are still Tibetans who have desire for freedom and national aspirations, they are those whose privilleges had been deprived since communist take-over(mostly monks with Dalai Lama at the top), separatists and exiled tibetans who have no actual knowledge of the real conditions of Tibet.

I was referring to the PRC (aka the government) as ultra-nationalist and of course government loyalists.

They were freed? Then they were crushed under the boot heal of another tyrant the PRC.

SkepticOne

leonardo4358 wrote: »

If there are still Tibetans who have desire for freedom and national aspirations, they are those whose privilleges had been deprived since communist take-over(mostly monks with Dalai Lama at the top), separatists and exiled tibetans who have no actual knowledge of the real conditions of Tibet.

Yet you seem to have knowledge of the aspirations of average Tibetans, a group that has no voice in the system imposed upon them by China.

speedboatchase

Jesus, China-apologists - can we leave Israel out of EVERY damn discussion on the politics board? Unless you have your own opinion on Israel's Olympic athlete's for the summer, you're talking nonsense. The issue is with Tibet and China here, and possibility of a U.S or Western boycott down the line. This childish response to any appalling behaviour by a non-Capitalist country on here seems to be "well.. if America lets Israel..". Boo fricking hoo. It's another discussion for another thread.

RedLemon

leonardo4358 wrote: »

Communism--evil, Capitalism--good. This is typical cold war straight-line assumption. Don't extend this assumption everywhere, like praising Mr Bush in bringing 'peace and stability' in the Middle East region, and critisizing Hu Jin Tao in 'military crackdown of Tibetan peaceful protestors'. We should look at the facts, not their titles.

True!! :-)
in China, we say ' Communism is the best, and capitalism is evil '

Let's look at the facts!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7300312.stm
This morning the students of a middle school went out and protested. There were arrests and many Tibetans went to the police station to demand the release of those detained. Two girls were shot and wounded.

and the photo beside this is :
tibet3.jpg
That is an Ambulance,

What does BBC want to tell people ? Are they telling the truth or misleading the people who has the rights to know the truth ??
Chinese Army shot two girls and then put them into ambulance ? I don't believe it anyway...


I know something horrible happened there, 5 innocent girls were burnt to death by those MONKS!!!!!! ( not seeing this on BBC, CNN, or RTE, I know they will NEVER show it here even they have it )

http://news.163.com/08/0321/01/47H8IVVJ0001124J.html
Chinese
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvDhBRSCOz8
English