# FILE NAME: 00000077.soc
# TITLE: Should we allow investement from the Chinese state in our high speed railway? [b6e94de7699a8d33293d738443a3e2f3]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 4
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - We should be very cautious about allowing the Chinese state to invest in our high speed railway, and that it is probably best to not accept the investment.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - We believe that investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, but with strict checks to ensure human rights aren't being violated. This was a difficult topic for participants and shows that sometimes there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. It is also shows how opinions may change through the discussion and collaboration process.  What do you think? Leave your comments below!
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the group was wary about working with the Chinese government on any major project due to the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Chinese government and its support of oppressive regimes. However, given the importance of a good public transport system and the benefits of international collaboration, investment should not be rejected outright.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In principle, yes, investment from the Chinese state should be allowed, however due to well-documented human rights concerns around Chinese government and corporations we should be extremely careful in making sure we don't partner with individuals or companies who have a history of these types of behaviour, and the Chinese government must provide strong reassurances that these types of behaviour will not be tolerated in the context of this investment.  A group of participants was tasked with coming up with a consensus opinion on an important question. Below is presented the question along with the opinions of each individual participant followed by their final consensus statement.
2: 1,2,4,3
1: 3,2,4,1
1: 1,3,4,2
1: 3,4,2,1