Specifically the "consulate of choice" (to apply work visa from) must be filled on internet form when inputting data for application of "work permit application notice".
This chosen consulate does not appear on the "NOTIFICATION LETTER OF FOREIGNER’S WORK PERMIT" that you must attach to work visa application, but the information is stored in system and accessible to the visa authorities via the barcode in the paper.
This note is mainly for those registering their own companies (and subsequently getting to fill these applications online by themselves). I recently did this myself.
@tigertiger: "I could be wrong, but I think the whole authentication process only needs to be done once."
For the purpose of work permit application, the no-criminal certificate is only valid for 6 months or so, so if you apply for another work permit later, you need to get a new original certificate and repeat the whole legalization process for it. Even if only the printout date changes.
Education certificates do not have similar validity period. I guess they assume degrees can never be taken away from someone (which is of course not true, but quite rare).
The process does not seem any different or more difficult for UK nationals than it is for others (save perhaps citizens of greater China outside the mainland jurisdiction).
@debased: "I'm using Hague Apostille (A.K.A The Apostille Service)"
Be careful with that though - "Hague Apostille" generally refers to an international convention (Hague Convention Abolishing the Requirement of Legalisation for Foreign Public Documents), which aims to reduce bureaucracy related to accepting documents in other countries.
In practise, if your document is certified with such "apostille" in the country of its origins, it would be accepted in all countries that have signed into this concention.
But China is not signed to this. Apostille stamp is not sufficient for documents to be used in China - they need to be specifically legalized by Chinese consulate abroad, and Chinese consulate first requires them to be legalized by the foreign ministry of the country.
In your case, the service provider may of course do the full consulate legalization rather than just apostille.
Imagine state of being (not necessarily of humans) where each individual is constantly fully aware of everything that happens with and/or in vicinity of every other individual.
A collective hive-mind in the sense of Borg or whatever your favourite imaginary aliens are.
Are we in rudimentary steps toward that direction?
Is that direction wrong to begin with, or are we just so limited beings (technologically and biologically), that we cannot efficiently enough filter the information relevant to each individual from all that noise?
In my opinion, 163% annual rise from 2015 to 2016 is actually quite big, an probably any reference to "world gone by" in this context refers to years before just 2016, not sometime last decade or last century.
While the absolute numbers are still probably trailing far behind USA or other countries, also in this context China's annual "growth rate" seems to be >150%, which I suspect is competitive to any developed country.
Of course given the Chinese system, it should be understandable (even if not agreeable), why they employ more scrutiny and perhaps have refused more applications in the past.
@alienew: "it is precisely money that the poor do not have."
And that is why even 1% taxation of the little they have would have big impact on their awareness of their rights and privileges. In context of OP, it would tell them that they pay for even the limited resources they get, and it would be in their best interest to actually use them.
For example in mountains in Changning, Baoshan, the local government subsidizes roomy tents to families who live in dangerous mudbrick houses or need more space for children but are not financially capable to build bigger and better houses.
But there is psychological barrier to accept such "gifts".
Some go to great lengths to find, borrow and steal the money rather that accept services for free. Some rather leave their children behind and go earn the money themselves from coast. Some rather die quietly in their homes than early enough access even the limited medical services that they are entitled to.
I have personally witnessed all of that within last year.
The state is going to increase financial reach to rural regions in coming years, and as Vicar hinted, trusting the reach-out to public service providers will only go half way. The poor themselves must be activated to ask and accept those services.
I fail to see what exactly you guys disagree with - is it the fact that providing to the poor will be away from your own middle class, or do you have a better idea how to make the poor raise up, or do you not think that they should be let to do it at all?
@tigertiger: "many assumptions and additional requirements (story tellers etc)"
Well the storyteller reference was for a method which I think will not work, and why incentives such as taxation is more effective.
"If we cannot provide the additional resources"
That's exactly the reason why the poor rural residents must learn to ask for better services themselves. The state should cut services from better privileged city dwellers if that's what it takes (by reallocating its own funding and directing private funding through tax incentives) - the resources are there alright, but they are spread unevenly.
This part is actually already reflected in Chinese leaders' most recent public commentary. According to them, Deng said that while wealth is glorious, he never meant the whole country to get wealthy at once. Only few would get rich first, and according to current leaders, it is about time to spread that wealth to the whole nation.
If you simply provide funding to the rural regions, it will accumulate in the hands of those who want it most. That's why the knowledge of availability of such funds and the services they create must be spread to the whole population and not select few individuals.
"Comparing EU farmers, who are business owners who learn to work the system for profit with the rural poor, Is perhaps a case of chalk and cheese"
I don't necessarily agree that they are so different in this view, but even if they are, chalk can learn be better chalk and cheese can learn to be better cheese while both retain their inherently different characteristics.
I am not even claiming that they should use the same methods - that's specifically why Chinese poor must learn through methods that are available to them. They don't have political freedoms, so use money.
@alienew: "Maybe the state doesn't demand taxes from them because they don't want to hear more complaints from them?"
Yes, that's the big question, and I think the only question.
@Dazzer: "poor paying taxes does not mean they will demand better services, just because you a middle class educated person would [...] poor are often ignorant as to h;ow govermwent works"
The only real question in my opinion is, do we (or they) want the poor to learn to ask for better services or not, and do we want the poor to join us in the educated middle class or not.
If we do not, then the discussion is moot.
But if we do (and I obvously think we should), then for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread, using finances and taxation as vehicle for that learning process should make sense in China - but not in many other countries, because they should have better methods at their disposal.
Yes, the imporevished are often ignorant, but the whole idea is to get that slowly changed.
Farmers in Europe used to be quite ignorant too, but then came development and finally EU and now they are buried in paperwork for taxes and subsidies while robots feed and milk the cows.
It will not happen overnight, but it has to start from somewhere.
You can send someone to tell the poor how the government works or how they should proceed to acquire better services, but they know their place and if they think they are OK just the way they are, they won't bother with any of that once this storyteller leaves, and nothing changes.
But if they are told that they will have less money to buy cigarettes or alcohol, not to mention paying their children's education, because state will now collect some of it as taxes, they will learn to ask why the state does that and what do they get in return.
But I repeat that the big question in China is, whether the state wants that or not.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted by@alienew: "it is precisely money that the poor do not have."
And that is why even 1% taxation of the little they have would have big impact on their awareness of their rights and privileges. In context of OP, it would tell them that they pay for even the limited resources they get, and it would be in their best interest to actually use them.
For example in mountains in Changning, Baoshan, the local government subsidizes roomy tents to families who live in dangerous mudbrick houses or need more space for children but are not financially capable to build bigger and better houses.
But there is psychological barrier to accept such "gifts".
Some go to great lengths to find, borrow and steal the money rather that accept services for free. Some rather leave their children behind and go earn the money themselves from coast. Some rather die quietly in their homes than early enough access even the limited medical services that they are entitled to.
I have personally witnessed all of that within last year.
The state is going to increase financial reach to rural regions in coming years, and as Vicar hinted, trusting the reach-out to public service providers will only go half way. The poor themselves must be activated to ask and accept those services.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted byI believe that I have checked into more reality in the rural Yunnan than most Kunming expats will in their life time.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted byI fail to see what exactly you guys disagree with - is it the fact that providing to the poor will be away from your own middle class, or do you have a better idea how to make the poor raise up, or do you not think that they should be let to do it at all?
What is it...
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted by@tigertiger: "many assumptions and additional requirements (story tellers etc)"
Well the storyteller reference was for a method which I think will not work, and why incentives such as taxation is more effective.
"If we cannot provide the additional resources"
That's exactly the reason why the poor rural residents must learn to ask for better services themselves. The state should cut services from better privileged city dwellers if that's what it takes (by reallocating its own funding and directing private funding through tax incentives) - the resources are there alright, but they are spread unevenly.
This part is actually already reflected in Chinese leaders' most recent public commentary. According to them, Deng said that while wealth is glorious, he never meant the whole country to get wealthy at once. Only few would get rich first, and according to current leaders, it is about time to spread that wealth to the whole nation.
If you simply provide funding to the rural regions, it will accumulate in the hands of those who want it most. That's why the knowledge of availability of such funds and the services they create must be spread to the whole population and not select few individuals.
"Comparing EU farmers, who are business owners who learn to work the system for profit with the rural poor, Is perhaps a case of chalk and cheese"
I don't necessarily agree that they are so different in this view, but even if they are, chalk can learn be better chalk and cheese can learn to be better cheese while both retain their inherently different characteristics.
I am not even claiming that they should use the same methods - that's specifically why Chinese poor must learn through methods that are available to them. They don't have political freedoms, so use money.
Government sues parents to get kids back to school
Posted by@alienew: "Maybe the state doesn't demand taxes from them because they don't want to hear more complaints from them?"
Yes, that's the big question, and I think the only question.
@Dazzer: "poor paying taxes does not mean they will demand better services, just because you a middle class educated person would [...] poor are often ignorant as to h;ow govermwent works"
The only real question in my opinion is, do we (or they) want the poor to learn to ask for better services or not, and do we want the poor to join us in the educated middle class or not.
If we do not, then the discussion is moot.
But if we do (and I obvously think we should), then for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread, using finances and taxation as vehicle for that learning process should make sense in China - but not in many other countries, because they should have better methods at their disposal.
Yes, the imporevished are often ignorant, but the whole idea is to get that slowly changed.
Farmers in Europe used to be quite ignorant too, but then came development and finally EU and now they are buried in paperwork for taxes and subsidies while robots feed and milk the cows.
It will not happen overnight, but it has to start from somewhere.
You can send someone to tell the poor how the government works or how they should proceed to acquire better services, but they know their place and if they think they are OK just the way they are, they won't bother with any of that once this storyteller leaves, and nothing changes.
But if they are told that they will have less money to buy cigarettes or alcohol, not to mention paying their children's education, because state will now collect some of it as taxes, they will learn to ask why the state does that and what do they get in return.
But I repeat that the big question in China is, whether the state wants that or not.