Re: China: Mandate of heaven?

On Mon, 26 May 2008 03:42:52 +0800, BobLee1964 wrote
(in article 
<feea9300-b465-4716-9aaa-d1871ae58a87@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):

> On May 25, 4:30 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 May 2008 08:03:35 +0800, BobLee1964 wrote
>> (in article
>> <e9e3cf0d-b750-4339-a0df-53b57b78d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> On May 22, 8:48 am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 13:36:49 +0800, BobLee1964 wrote
>>>> (in article
>>>> <7f5279d3-dfc4-4e04-b1ed-49814a13d...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>>>>> Hong Kong is autocratic.
>> 
>>>> No, it is not. Autocratic countries do not permit free speech, free
press,
>>>> freedom of religion etc.
>> 
>>>> Autocratic countries do not permit substantial economic freedom.
>> 
>>> Autorcratic only means that the ruler (theoretically) has the power
>>> exclusively. Hong Kong chief executive appoints judges, and is a lot
>>> more powerful than the legislature. His power is from the central
>>> government and a small group of elites, not from a popular election.
>>> And he has the exclusive power unrivaled to rule Hong Kong. Isn't Hong
>>> Kong an autocratic society? At least it is NOT nearly as democratic as
>>> Iraq.
>> 
>>> Said that, it does not mean that autocratic society does not have
>>> substantial freedoms. It only means that the ruler has the power to
>>> curtail /  take away the freedom if he or she sees fit. Many parents
>>> are autocratic, but their kids still have freedom to pursuit some
>>> happiness.
>> 
>>>>> For example, the most im****tant political
>>>>> move in Hong Kong for the last ten years is that the Chief Executive
>>>>> requested the central government to interpret the basic law and
revert
>>>>> a decision by the Hong Kong supreme court. The move was made by the
>>>>> Chief Executive alone. Cheered by many though.
>> 
>>>> This decision is famous because it is a virtually unique example of
CCP
>>>> interference with a Hong Kong court. In autocratic countries, nearly
every
>>>> court decision is made by the autocrat.
>> 
>>> Don't be so ridiculous. No autocrat can make every court decison and
>>> is still expected to survive for more than a month. The workload will
>>> kill him or her.
>> 
>> Every court decision in the PRC is subject to the concurrence of the
CCP.
>> That is the official procedure.
> 
> What is this official procedure to get the concurrence of the CCP for
> every court decision? Mind to give any references?

Sure. This has been widely do***ent. The following Duke Law School journal

article is typical.

http://www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?17+Duke+J.+Comp.+&+Int'l+L.+533

Excerpts follow:

Owing to the CCP's political program and tight organizational structure,
its 
influence is ubiquitous at every level and in every aspect of contem****ary

Chinese society; it determines the direction of society and government.

The institutions charged with administering justice (the People's Courts
and 
People's Procuratorates) are certainly no exception. Since 1949, all the 
Presidents of the People's Supreme Court and the Chief Procurator of the 
Supreme Procuratorate, except Shen Junru, the first President of People's 
Supreme Court, have been CCP members and secretaries of the leading Party 
group of the organization. Although there is commonly a non-CCP-member
Vice 
President or Deputy Procurator, they are all carefully selected by the CCP

organizational branch and trusted by the CCP; in some particularly
im****tant 
policy decisions, these non-Party officials may be invited to participate
in 
an expanded meeting of the leading party group of their institution.

It should be pointed out that because of the Party's ubiquitous
institutional 
presence and because of the nature of the social revolution in China, the 
Party's organizations and leaders (through administrative and other
agencies) 
have directly and indirectly influenced, interfered in, and even at times 
manipulated the judicial process.

NOTE: the writer of all these statements sup****ts the CCP, and considers
the 
CCP's interference in the courts as, on the whole, a positive thing. See
the 
following excerpt]

However, we cannot, indeed, we should not, simply look at this as unfair 
interference. To be sure, the Party's mistaken interference in the
judicial 
system and its policy errors have led to some disastrous consequences. Yet

even during the most extreme moments, such as Cultural Revolution 
(1966-1976), there were CCP organizations and officials, who, within the 
scope of their ability and influence, prevented and reduced the unfairness
or 
radicalism in some cases, including instances in the judicial sphere. 
Although today it is quite popular to attribute all the problems of the
PRC 
to the CCP or the revolution led by the CCP, it is hard to imagine that
the 
current state of Chinese society and the judicial system would necessarily
be 
better off without the modern revolution and economic development led by
the 
CCP. 

-- 
Love, Jim
(I often delete parts of the previous post and I often remove excessive 
crossposts.)


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+
Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption
=----