|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:20 am
Regarding your assignment 1 question of subject 732-303,
I would like to express my deepest regret regarding your choice of wordings either by intention or negligence, by preparing the FIRST paragraph of question, saying that "chose Hong Kong.... across border of China... travel between TWO COUNTRIES".
Professor, HONG KONG IS A PART OF CHINA.
THERE IS ONLY ONE COUNTRY.
And this question in fact, 2007, was 10 years after HONG KONG has been handed back to CHINA.
As the aforementioned issue, maybe a subtle political implication by omission However, the negative consequence to the Chinese students doesn't make this distinction between honest mistake or deliberate action.
I would like to see an immediate amendment on this question, if not an extension of assignment, and a formal explanation from Faculty of Law, Melbourne University.
Professor, despite everything said and done, I hope you understand that there is nothing personal in question.
I do like your textbook and I find your lecture intelectually inspiring.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 7:31 am
ha
daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaang
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:17 am
didn't China jail some Australian trade representative for spying?
he was trying to negotiate mineral rights or something and they became suspicious that he "knew too much"...?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 1:25 am
beaulolais didn't China jail some Australian trade representative for spying? he was trying to negotiate mineral rights or something and they became suspicious that he "knew too much"...? Yeah, that's probably the guy I'm talking about. I made a mistake though - he works for Rio Tinto not BHP. Anyway, he was involved in iron ore price negotiations. I read earlier today that he's finally been charged, and the charge has been downgraded or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 2:24 am
i feel that is very underhanded of China.
they will not find many willing to negotiate trade with them if they keep up such shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 3:41 am
China is a fascinating country, and is super sensitive about people saying it isn't united. What with all the partitions of the colonial era, ethnic dissidents, and rogue states like HK and Taiwan, they're kind of sensitive about the subject.
Of course hong kong was never a country, so regardless of politics that question sounds oddly worded.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:11 am
Lea Fealith China is a fascinating country, and is super sensitive about people saying it isn't united. What with all the partitions of the colonial era, ethnic dissidents, and rogue states like HK and Taiwan, they're kind of sensitive about the subject. Of course hong kong was never a country, so regardless of politics that question sounds oddly worded. The lecturer's response, to explain the wording of the question: The question for Assessment Problem 1 refers to Felipe traveling between China and Hong Kong as traveling between 'two countries'. For tax purposes, China and Hong Kong are treated separately as they have different tax systems and the question is simply intending to reflect that. I apologise if the sentence caused any confusion, concern or offence. Please substitute the word 'countries' with 'jurisdictions'. It does not matter whether you treat Hong Kong SAR and China as the same jurisdiction or two different jurisdictions in your analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 5:15 am
beaulolais i feel that is very underhanded of China. they will not find many willing to negotiate trade with them if they keep up such shenanigans. Apparently China has some immensely complicated legal system which makes absolutely no sense. I'm not sure we have much choice but to negotiate with them. China's pretty much the only reason that Australia is getting through the GFC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 4:51 pm
shells_of_sand Lea Fealith China is a fascinating country, and is super sensitive about people saying it isn't united. What with all the partitions of the colonial era, ethnic dissidents, and rogue states like HK and Taiwan, they're kind of sensitive about the subject. Of course hong kong was never a country, so regardless of politics that question sounds oddly worded. The lecturer's response, to explain the wording of the question: The question for Assessment Problem 1 refers to Felipe traveling between China and Hong Kong as traveling between 'two countries'. For tax purposes, China and Hong Kong are treated separately as they have different tax systems and the question is simply intending to reflect that. I apologise if the sentence caused any confusion, concern or offence. Please substitute the word 'countries' with 'jurisdictions'. It does not matter whether you treat Hong Kong SAR and China as the same jurisdiction or two different jurisdictions in your analysis. That makes sense. China's legal system is hell on earth, mainly because it's still struggling to create a legal system, period. It's too used to 'law' meaning party policy, which makes navigation though it almost impossible for outsiders and locals alike.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
