"China moves to enact rule of law, with caveats" by Andrew Jacobs and Chris Buckley | New York Times October 24, 2014
BEIJING — Communist Party leaders, seeking to address widespread dissatisfaction with China’s politicized and corrupt judiciary, endorsed a raft of legal changes Thursday to foster a more predictable legal system while keeping the courts under party control.
The proposals, promoted by the state media as a landmark in “governing the country according to law,” emerged from a secretive, four-day party Central Committee meeting that ended Thursday.
“Fairness is the lifeline of rule of law,” the committee said, according to a summary of the proceedings published by the official Xinhua news agency. “Judicial injustice is fatally destructive of social fairness.”
Although the communiqué was short on specifics, the party’s embrace of a more impartial, rules-based approach to settling legal disputes and prosecuting criminals could have potentially sweeping consequences. Supporters said the changes would bring more order to China’s legal system, while critics said they were unlikely to address the worst abuses.
Experts said that, at best, the proposed changes could temper some of the injustices that have prompted dispossessed farmers, unpaid factory workers, and short-changed investors to take to the streets.
But they warned that the changes would do little to curtail the power of the party, which is increasingly intolerant of challenges to its authority, and were unlikely to strip courts of political influence and meddling by local officials.
At least the Chinese are trying; AmeriKan Ju$tu$ has long since rotted.
In particular, phrases in the communiqué like “people’s rights” and “rule of law” could be misconstrued, analysts said, because the party’s definitions differ vastly from Western ideals of an independent judiciary and inviolable rights.
Indeed, the statement left little doubt that the Communist Party would retain ultimate control over the legal system, but in seeking to reshape the nation’s court system — by improving training and pay for judges and taking court budgets and appointments out of the hands of local officials — President Xi Jinping is trying to prevent the kind of interference in court cases that has angered ordinary Chinese and intensified mistrust in the Communist Party.
The proposals that have been discussed would also transfer the purse strings for judicial operations to provincial governments, depriving the local authorities of their influence when it comes to, say, courtroom repairs or staff salaries, and they would give judges the ability to rule on cases without approval from a higher-ranking judge.
The power to make judicial appointments may also be removed from the local authorities.
“This is something that has to be done if the party wants to maintain legitimacy, because legitimacy is not just made by abstract concepts and buzzwords,” said Flora Sapio, an assistant professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong who studies China’s legal system. “You have to deliver something to the people.”
Hello AmeriKan government, you there?
Since Xi became party leader in 2012, the Chinese government has taken steps to address some of the system’s more glaring deficiencies. The judicial authorities have overturned a string of wrongful convictions of people sentenced to death or long prison terms.
More details about the legal reforms are not expected until next week.
--more--"
Let's face it, there is no need for a war with China, and why would they do it when they are promoting peace in the region?
MBTA’s choice of Chinese firm for rail car contract criticized
MassDOT awards MBTA car contract to Chinese company
I know it hurts, kids, but....
"After weeks of clashes, Hong Kong riveted by debate" by William Wan and Brian Murphy | Washington Post October 22, 2014
BEIJING — Hong Kong’s political showdown shifted Tuesday from the streets to a drab university hall as prodemocracy student leaders faced off with government officials in a prime-time debate marked by sweeping discourse but few concessions.
The two-hour session — by turns riveting, wildly philosophical, and dense with legalese — came as a breather for the city after more than three weeks of paralyzing unrest that has turned some of the world’s most expensive real estate into arenas of violent clashes.
The debate was closely watched, each phrase and inflection parsed for nuance and subtext as the back-and-forth was broadcast live on TV and streamed online.
But the exchange only accentuated the gulf between the two sides, with the government refusing any electoral reform, and students making arguments for democratic rights but not offering any workable compromise.
From the start, the debate had an unusual, bizarre quality, with five of Hong Kong’s most powerful leaders in business attire on one side and five college students on the other in black T-shirts emblazoned with the message ‘‘FREEDOM NOW!’’
The students pressed with detailed arguments on law and procedure as well as impassioned appeals to the conscience and speeches about the nature of democracy.
‘‘Some say we students were chosen by fate,’’ Lester Shum told the government leaders. ‘‘But you officials were also chosen. . . . Will you go down in history as the ones who deprived Hong Kong of democracy?’’
Chief Secretary Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s second-ranking official, acknowledged the protests had been of a ‘‘massive scale with far-reaching implications,’’ but chastised the students for what she characterized as unrealistic idealism.
At the heart of the standoff is the demand that Hong Kong residents be allowed to choose their leaders, rather than having only candidates vetted by China’s Communist Party leaders on the ballot.
The five student representatives followed a clear strategy, divvying up their debate duties and ticking off their grievances one by one. First came an overview by one member of the team, then an attack by another on the legality of Beijing’s election rules.
Hong Kong representatives responded gamely, trying to avoid any appearance of bullying. But their tone was occasionally patronizing, as they praised students for doing their homework on constitutional law, and invoked their own days at their alma maters.
*********
The students, however, called it a disappointment, and urged demonstrators to continue their protest at all cost.
In mainland China — where censors have worked overtime to limit coverage for fear that the prodemocracy protests could prove contagious — some state-run media outlets reported the talks in real time, but mostly focused on arguments from the government team, not the students....
The pot-hollering kettle media hurts too much for me to continue commenting.
--more--"
"Hong Kong protesters draw attacks from China, support at home" by Frederik Balfour and Clement Tan | Bloomberg News October 23, 2014
HONG KONG — China’s media is ratcheting up the rhetoric against Hong Kong’s prodemocracy movement, saying protesters risk becoming foreign puppets, at the same time a poll showed the demonstrations have gained support in the city.
Poll by who?
In an editorial Wednesday in the English-language daily Global Times, the paper linked the protests to other movements that China deems hostile to the Chinese Communist Party’s authority.
‘‘The external political situation concerning Occupy Central is increasingly clear cut,’’ the paper said. ‘‘A mix of traditional forces that are confronting the current Chinese regime — including Tibetan, Xinjiang, and Taiwan separatists, Falun Gong devotees, and prodemocracy activists — have beaten the drums for the Hong Kong protests like cheerleaders.’’
The comments in the Global Times, which is affiliated with the official People’s Daily newspaper, come after Hong Kong’s chief executive, Leung Chun-ying, said that foreign forces were fanning the protests.
Yeah, and the whole world knows it.
Student leaders have pledged to continue demonstrations unless China reverses a decision to vet candidates for the city’s first leadership election in 2017.
The four-week protest is the biggest challenge to China’s rule over Hong Kong since the end of colonial rule in 1997.
A public opinion poll conducted from Oct. 8 to 15 by the Chinese University of Hong Kong and released Wednesday showed 37.8 percent of respondents ages 15 and older supporting the Occupy movement, with 35.5 percent opposing.
Only a little over a third support it?
The poll has a sampling error of 3.5 percentage points. In mid-September, before protests started, 46.3 percent of the public opposed the planned Occupy movement, and 31.3 percent supported it.
Much of the movement’s support comes from the young, with 62.1 percent of respondents ages 15 to 24 backing the protests, compared with only 28.4 percent of people in the 40 to 59 age bracket, according to the October poll.
‘‘The purpose of the movement is to occupy with peace and nonviolence, and this will encourage support,’’ 18-year-old student leader Joshua Wong said in a telephone interview when asked for his response to the poll.
As an AmeriKan Occupier, that is insultingly offensive.
Leung told foreign media Monday that giving more voice in government to people at the bottom end of the income scale would lead to populist policies unfavorable to big business.
Must be why they are sabotaged all the time over here, and I wonder if he really said that.
He's a Communist, fer cry in' out loud. Must have been lost in translation.
Around 200 people took part Wednesday in a march to Leung’s official residence in response to the remarks they perceived as elitist.
‘‘I am extremely angry about our chief executive’s comments,’’ said Yip Wing, 27, who participated in the march in his electric wheelchair. ‘‘It’s an understatement that Leung has lost touch with low-income people. He thinks we don’t exist.’’
We have a whole crop of oligarchs over her.
The Global Times editorial was published a day after student leaders met with Hong Kong’s chief secretary, Carrie Lam, in televised talks to resolve the impasse.
During the talks, the government said that it is considering submitting a report to China relaying the demands and concerns of the protesters.
Better than what we got.
While such a report would provide Beijing with a reference on the demonstrators’ opinions, the 2017 election has to be done in accordance with the legal framework laid out by Chinese lawmakers, Lam said.
China has said candidates for the election must be vetted by a 1,200-person nominating committee. Leung has said that the method of picking committee members may be open for discussion.
--more--"
NEXT DAY UPDATE:
"Thousands remain camped out, nearly monthlong demonstrations, demands were not realistic."
Sound familiar, American Occupier.
