Re: China: Mandate of heaven?

On May 26, 4:24=A0am, Jim Walsh <jimNOwalsSPA...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 May 2008 03:42:52 +0800, BobLee1964 wrote
> (in article
> <feea9300-b465-4716-9aaa-d1871ae58...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>):
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 25, 4:30=A0am, 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=A0am, 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
p=
ress,
> >>>> 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 / =A0take 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
reve=
rt
> >>>>> 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
C=
CP
> >>>> 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
CC=
P.
> >> 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,
i=
ts
> 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
a=
nd
> 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
Vic=
e
> President or Deputy Procurator, they are all carefully selected by the
CCP=

> organizational branch and trusted by the CCP; in some particularly
im****ta=
nt
> 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
institutio=
nal
> presence and because of the nature of the social revolution in China,
the
> Party's organizations and leaders (through administrative and other
agenci=
es)
> 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
t=
he
> CCP's interference in the courts as, on the whole, a positive thing. See
t=
he
> 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
judicia=
l
> 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
PR=
C
> to the CCP or the revolution led by the CCP, it is hard to imagine that
th=
e
> current state of Chinese society and the judicial system would
necessarily=
 be
> better off without the modern revolution and economic development led by
t=
he
> CCP.

Your reference falls far short of sup****ting the claim that Every
court decision in the PRC is subject to the concurrence of the CCP and
that is the official procedure.

Every decision should be based on the laws passed by the CCP
controlled People's Congress. It is not a lawful practice that the
judges seek direct approval from anyone, including CCP leaders.

Actually the CCP controlled government works hard to give the judicial
system some dependences from the local officials, and they don't want
to see corrupted judges/police/prosecutors colluded with corrupted
officials.