LA Times: China Balks at the 'Right to Remain Silent'
Zhenqin Li
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/20010121/t000006073.html
************************************************************
China Balks at the 'Right to Remain Silent'
Law: Exposure to foreign legal practices has fueled public expectations
for change, but the regime and tradition pose barriers.
By ANTHONY KUHN, Special to The Times
BEIJING--"Leniency to those who confess, severity to those who resist."
From the political struggles of the Maoist era to the interrogation
rooms of police stations today, Chinese are all too familiar with this
hallmark policy of their country's legal system. After two decades of
watching American TV police dramas, however, Chinese have become
familiar with another phrase: "You have the right to remain silent."
Under the country's new criminal code, which took effect in 1997,
suspects are required to answer interrogators' questions truthfully.
Legal experts tried but failed to get the right to remain silent written
into the code.
But a bold experiment last year by local law enforcement authorities in
northern China, giving suspects the right to remain silent during
questioning, attracted widespread media coverage and added fuel to a
simmering legal debate.
Central government authorities struck down the experiment in the fall.
But the affair showed how increasing exposure to foreign legal practices
has created great expectations for change in Chinese society.
Media coverage "created the false impression that China is on the verge
of instituting the right to remain silent, or that it has already
happened," said Cai Dingjian, a legal scholar with China's legislature.
The publicity "expressed the hopes of scholars and the media," Cai said.
"But it's a question of the entire legal system--it can't be achieved by
some police station somewhere saying it respects the right to remain
silent."
The experiment's failure also showed how far China is from meeting the
requirements of international human rights conventions, particularly the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Beijing
signed in 1998 but has not ratified. The covenant does not mention a
right to remain silent, but it requires that all signatory nations
refrain from compelling suspects to confess or testify against
themselves.
Last year's experiment occurred in the Shuncheng district of
northeastern China's Fushun city. In 1997, district prosecutors began
formulating rules that would not only allow suspects to remain silent
during questioning but also would make confessions--voluntary or
not--inadmissible in court. Dubbed "Confession Equals Zero," the rules
were finalized in May and subsequently implemented, according to
official media. The rules were not applied to cases involving murder,
manslaughter, official corruption or those in which there were no
witnesses. The experiment was part of an effort to provide safeguards
against the persistent problem of police extracting confessions through
torture.
But the effort flew in the face of centuries of tradition, in which law
enforcement's use of torture to obtain confessions was common and legal.
The Chinese language used the same word, xing, to mean both law and
punishment. Chinese law did not articulate individual rights and
contained little distinction between civil and criminal law.
Still, top prosecutors in Liaoning province, where Fushun is located,
hailed the experiment as a positive step, according to the official
Liaoshen Evening News, and the story began to ripple through the Chinese
media.
But authorities in Beijing thought otherwise about the move. "We're no
longer using the 'Confession Equals Zero' regulations," one Shuncheng
district prosecutor explained by telephone recently, declining to be
named. "Our superiors were dissatisfied" with the regulations and the
ensuing media coverage, he said, adding that the media had exaggerated
the story. Experts say that because the regulations disallowed
voluntary confessions, they conflicted with China's criminal procedure,
which lists confessions as one of seven kinds of evidence admissible in
court.
The Chinese media also jumped on a story last year about a local police
station in central China's Wuhan city that allegedly allowed suspects to
remain silent during questioning. The police later denied the reports.
Accounts of how the station had removed the "Leniency to those who
confess" motto from the walls of its interrogation rooms stoked
discussion of the policy, which many experts said has been useful in law
enforcement.
Because the courts consider confessions so important, and forensic
science in China is so rudimentary, coercing confessions remains an
illegal shortcut for police to solve criminal cases. Most Chinese who
oppose instituting the right to remain silent share the sentiments of
U.S. opponents of so-called Miranda rights. They believe that the policy
would tie police officers' hands and allow criminals to escape
punishment.
On the other side, the current policy "should not be used to pry
suspects' mouths open," said China University of Politics and Law
professor Hong Daode. Hong argues that courts should indeed show
leniency to suspects who cooperate with authorities but also that those
guilty of crimes have a responsibility to confess.
Legal scholar Cai has described China's legal evolution with three
metaphors. In the traditional view, the law is a knife handle, used by
autocratic rulers to oppress the citizenry. In the second stage, the law
is a conductor's baton, used by the state to orchestrate a society. In
the most advanced stage, the law is a horse's rein, used by citizens to
limit the state's powers. In Cai's opinion, China has only recently
advanced to the second stage.
Copyright 2001 Los Angeles Times
************************************************************
--
Zhenqin Li
http://www.gateway2china.com/view.htm
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
ltl...@mindspring.com
The Chinese fiction is that the government official is like your
father. He will do what every father will do to judge and punish a
wayward son. The government official himself, in turn, will be judged
by how much he acts like a father. Explicit law is only a part of what
is right: the heaven's principle, the country's law and the people's
situtation.
The Western fiction is crafted in laws traditionally viewed as coming
from God. The government has the (state) rights to do whatever it sees
fit except those enumerated in the Bills of (individual) rigths and the
like. The government has no legal responsibility whatsoever beyond that.
It will take a lot of effort and trial and error to meld the two
cultural traditons.
In article <94juh1$llm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
markl...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Different cultures. Different fictions.
>
> The Chinese fiction is that the government official is like your
> father. He will do what every father will do to judge and punish a
> wayward son. The government official himself, in turn, will be judged
> by how much he acts like a father. Explicit law is only a part of what
> is right: the heaven's principle, the country's law and the people's
> situtation.
For 5000 years Chinese have come to accept injustice in the hand of
their government as the norm. Your analogy is quite accurate. Part of
the Chinese culture is to accept/obey without questions everything you
father does or requests. Since your government is perceived to be the
father of all, its actions are always justified. I think there is a need
to put some check and balance into China's criminal justice system, but
I don't think a totally westernized system would work.
goose...@my-deja.com
In other words, around 1949 Mao should not lead the people to revolve
against KMT regime no matter how corrupted the latter was, because the
regime's actions are always justified.
I agree with you that a totally westernized system would not work for
China, but this should not be used as an excuse to reject any check and
balance. Let's hear what CCP has in mind regarding what kind of
easternized system it has for the Chinese people, or what features in
the westernized system China can adopt.
Greg Moriarty
> In other words, around 1949 Mao should not lead the people to revolve
> against KMT regime no matter how corrupted the latter was, because the
> regime's actions are always justified.
It is only the pro-CCPers that flaunt the "cultural tradition" nonsense.
I find it insulting that anyone would claim that being totally
submissive to a dictatorship is part of ANY culture.
> I agree with you that a totally westernized system would not work for
> China, but this should not be used as an excuse to reject any check
> and balance. Let's hear what CCP has in mind regarding what kind of
> easternized system it has for the Chinese people, or what features in
> the westernized system China can adopt.
I, for one, don't care what the CCP has to say. What I care about is
what the Chinese people have to say.
goose...@my-deja.com
Greg Moriarty <key...@indy.net> wrote:
> goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In other words, around 1949 Mao should not lead the people to
revolve
> > against KMT regime no matter how corrupted the latter was, because
the
> > regime's actions are always justified.
>
> It is only the pro-CCPers that flaunt the "cultural tradition"
nonsense.
> I find it insulting that anyone would claim that being totally
> submissive to a dictatorship is part of ANY culture.
That could be a part of *THEIR* culture.
> > I agree with you that a totally westernized system would not work
for
> > China, but this should not be used as an excuse to reject any check
> > and balance. Let's hear what CCP has in mind regarding what kind of
> > easternized system it has for the Chinese people, or what features
in
> > the westernized system China can adopt.
>
> I, for one, don't care what the CCP has to say. What I care about is
> what the Chinese people have to say.
That is true. For me, if I cannot take 100 steps right now, taking 25
steps today is good enough as a start.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Another major difference between the Chinese approach and the Western
approach is this.
In the former, the security/prosecutor is supposed to prove the guilt
of the suspected. The judge's job is mainly sentencing. A table look up
process of mataching the crime, already proven by the accused's
admission, with the punishment.
In the Western system, the court is a two phased process: judging the
guilt of the suspect as if God is present and sentencing. Of course,
the suspect has no right to remain silent and he has no right to lie
during the judging phase.
The two approaches largely reflect the different views on human nature.
The Chinese believe that human nature is basically good. Given
enough "fatherly" persuasion, a criminal will rediscover his conscience
and seeks redemption through admission.
In contrast, human is born evil according to the Western/Christian
theocratic tradition. If a person is assumed to have no consciece,
voluntary admission of guilt is therefore an impossiblity. Only inside
the court and supposedly in god's presence can guilt or innocence be
decided. This is the reason of the swearing in and why lying, an
otherwise common human behavior, becomes a punishable crime inside the
court.
goose...@my-deja.com
The first mistake you made here is assuming God is present and
sentencing and applies it to *ALL* western systems. Tell us that the
jurors represents the God. The American judges do not wear funny wigs.
The second mistake you made here is assuming the suspect to have no
right to remain silent.
> The two approaches largely reflect the different views on human
nature.
> The Chinese believe that human nature is basically good. Given
> enough "fatherly" persuasion, a criminal will rediscover his
conscience
> and seeks redemption through admission.
>
> In contrast, human is born evil according to the Western/Christian
> theocratic tradition. If a person is assumed to have no consciece,
> voluntary admission of guilt is therefore an impossiblity. Only inside
> the court and supposedly in god's presence can guilt or innocence be
> decided. This is the reason of the swearing in and why lying, an
> otherwise common human behavior, becomes a punishable crime inside the
> court.
I am afraid that you exactly swapped these two. In the western world,
at least in the US, the prosecutor needs to present the evidences,
which survive the challenges by the defense that they are valid, to
convict the suspect. If anything goes wrong, the suspect is
acquitted. This is seen in O.J. Simpson's trial.
I am not aware of any similar legal process in PRC where a prosecutor's
charges has been successfully challenged and thrown away. Maybe you
can cite some for us.
ltl...@mindspring.com
Where did I wrote "the jurors represents the God"?
> The second mistake you made here is assuming the suspect to have no
> right to remain silent.
The judge can order the defendents at answer questions. The fifth
ammendment is simply another way expressing the view that given man's
evil nature, it is too much to expect him to admit guilt voluntarily.
>
> > The two approaches largely reflect the different views on human
> nature.
> > The Chinese believe that human nature is basically good. Given
> > enough "fatherly" persuasion, a criminal will rediscover his
> conscience
> > and seeks redemption through admission.
> >
> > In contrast, human is born evil according to the Western/Christian
> > theocratic tradition. If a person is assumed to have no consciece,
> > voluntary admission of guilt is therefore an impossiblity. Only
inside
> > the court and supposedly in god's presence can guilt or innocence be
> > decided. This is the reason of the swearing in and why lying, an
> > otherwise common human behavior, becomes a punishable crime inside
the
> > court.
>
> I am afraid that you exactly swapped these two. In the western world,
> at least in the US, the prosecutor needs to present the evidences,
> which survive the challenges by the defense that they are valid, to
> convict the suspect. If anything goes wrong, the suspect is
> acquitted. This is seen in O.J. Simpson's trial.
>
> I am not aware of any similar legal process in PRC where a
prosecutor's
> charges has been successfully challenged and thrown away. Maybe you
> can cite some for us.
Proving a suspect guilty is largely the prosecutor's job. A case will
not usually go to the court if he cannot secure enough evidences and/or
the suspects' guilty plea. The court's job is to examine the
porsecutor's case for mistakes and faulty legal reasonings. If none
found, he will then sentence according to appropriate law.
markl...@my-deja.com
goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In other words, around 1949 Mao should not lead the people to revolve
> against KMT regime no matter how corrupted the latter was, because the
> regime's actions are always justified.
I was offering my explanation of this phenomenon. I didn't offer my
endorsement. I think you are either jumping to conclusion or reading
between the lines. In both cases, you are putting words in my mouth.
> I agree with you that a totally westernized system would not work for
> China, but this should not be used as an excuse to reject any check
and
> balance. Let's hear what CCP has in mind regarding what kind of
> easternized system it has for the Chinese people, or what features in
> the westernized system China can adopt.
CCP believes that power can only be achieved by power. The only way to
convince CCP to introduce any kind of check and balance into its
criminal justice system is by force.
I also would not call CCP's system "easternized".
markl...@my-deja.com
nonsense.
> I find it insulting that anyone would claim that being totally
> submissive to a dictatorship is part of ANY culture.
Whether or not you find it insulting, the truth is there for everyone to
see. It is not a reflection of Chinese people per se. It is part of
their culture which is a culmination of 5,000 years of dictators. Read
any history books on China and you will find plenty of examples of this
absolute obedience. My explanation of this cultural phenomenon is not an
endorsement of CCP policies.
markl...@my-deja.com
nature.
> The Chinese believe that human nature is basically good. Given
> enough "fatherly" persuasion, a criminal will rediscover his
conscience
> and seeks redemption through admission.
If Chinese really believe that human nature is basically good, why is
CCP so quick to hand out death sentences? Wouldn't a little fatherly
persuasion be sufficient?
ltl...@mindspring.com
markl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94mh3d$t95$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > The two approaches largely reflect the different views on human
> nature.
> > The Chinese believe that human nature is basically good. Given
> > enough "fatherly" persuasion, a criminal will rediscover his
> conscience
> > and seeks redemption through admission.
>
> If Chinese really believe that human nature is basically good,
Do you?
Many Chinese don't believe in salvation and eternal life. All living
humans, young and old, are dying humans. If human nature is not
basically good and perfectable through one's effort (unlikely) or
through his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters
(ultimately), life is meaningless.
> why is
> CCP so quick to hand out death sentences? Wouldn't a little fatherly
> persuasion be sufficient?
Don't know the answer. Don't know whether the number of death sentences
mean anything either? Do you have a specific in mind?
markl...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > If Chinese really believe that human nature is basically good,
>
> Do you?
> Many Chinese don't believe in salvation and eternal life. All living
> humans, young and old, are dying humans. If human nature is not
> basically good and perfectable through one's effort (unlikely) or
> through his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters
> (ultimately), life is meaningless.
I think all behaviors are learned, good or bad. Genetically we are
only programed to survive and procreate. As a society is formed, rules
and regulations are put in place to ensure the continuity of our race.
After-life seems to be part of Chinese culture. Isn't reincarnation
another form of eternal life? Chinese obviously believe in paying for
your bad deeds either this life or next life. But I don't think Chinese
necessarily believe that human nature is good.
> Don't know the answer. Don't know whether the number of death
sentences
> mean anything either? Do you have a specific in mind?
Absolutely. I think CCP thinks human nature is bad. For that reason, CCP
never really trusts anyone and does not believe that people will ever
change.
Demorising
over 11 years on 6/4 crime.
goose...@my-deja.com
Could you explain why this kind of absolute obedience did not show on
Mao in 1949?
goose...@my-deja.com
markl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94levb$30e$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In other words, around 1949 Mao should not lead the people to
revolve
> > against KMT regime no matter how corrupted the latter was, because
the
> > regime's actions are always justified.
>
> I was offering my explanation of this phenomenon. I didn't offer my
> endorsement. I think you are either jumping to conclusion or reading
> between the lines. In both cases, you are putting words in my mouth.
Not at all. If your theory/explanation is valid, then I only put air
into your mouth and you feel nothing. If your theory does not explain
the behavior/phenomenon on Mao, then you will feel something being
forced into your mouth.
> > I agree with you that a totally westernized system would not work
for
> > China, but this should not be used as an excuse to reject any check
> and
> > balance. Let's hear what CCP has in mind regarding what kind of
> > easternized system it has for the Chinese people, or what features
in
> > the westernized system China can adopt.
>
> CCP believes that power can only be achieved by power. The only way to
> convince CCP to introduce any kind of check and balance into its
> criminal justice system is by force.
Any suggestions about what to do if CCP cannot be reasoned with (but
has to be convinced by force, according to your view) and you blame ROC
President Chen for doing nothing about unification?
> I also would not call CCP's system "easternized".
I would not say a system from Karl Marx "easternized" either.
abia...@my-deja.com
silent for over many years on century long slavery and slaugher of
native Americans near extinction.
In article <20010125012805...@ng-cl1.aol.com>,
ltl...@mindspring.com
markl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94ntvq$8ei$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > If Chinese really believe that human nature is basically good,
> >
> > Do you?
> > Many Chinese don't believe in salvation and eternal life. All living
> > humans, young and old, are dying humans. If human nature is not
> > basically good and perfectable through one's effort (unlikely) or
> > through his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters
> > (ultimately), life is meaningless.
.
> I think all behaviors are learned, good or bad. Genetically we are
> only programed to survive and procreate. As a society is formed, rules
> and regulations are put in place to ensure the continuity of our race.
>
> After-life seems to be part of Chinese culture. Isn't reincarnation
> another form of eternal life? Chinese obviously believe in paying for
> your bad deeds either this life or next life. But I don't think
Chinese
> necessarily believe that human nature is good.
Yes, many Chinese believe in metampsychosis. That is, one will
reincarnate into animals, human, or god depending on what he does.
However, unlike Christianity. There is no guaranty.
Most of the time, most people do not think about the whether human
nature is good or bad. It is not an urgent question. Although, human's
evil nature in Western country like America is reminded by the pastors,
especially the fire and brimstone type, week after week.
However, if you take the Chinese culture as a whole. The conclusion is
inevitable that Chinese believe in human nature as basically good. For
example, the common saying: the country's law (fa) is not outside of
ren ching (general human way of doing/thinking thing). This will not
make sense if human nature is supposed to be bad. Another example,
confucianism literatures widely cover the problem of "from the human's
way (ren dao) to reach the heaven's way (t'ien dao)." All these
discussions will not make any sense if human and human's way are evil
by nature.
> > Don't know the answer. Don't know whether the number of death
> sentences
> > mean anything either? Do you have a specific in mind?
>
> Absolutely. I think CCP thinks human nature is bad.
What make you think that?
> For that reason, CCP
> never really trusts anyone and does not believe that people will ever
> change.
The CCP is a large organization of 70 million members. About 1 CCP
member per 4 households. How can a party that do not really anyone get
so many members?
kl...@home.com
newsgroup. The principles discussed under 'Right to Remain Silent'
should be considered in the context of how the ordinary Chinese behave
or perceive their society. No one really reads the law books. We all
go on with our daily life based on the lessons we learned throughout
life with some sort of vague idea that there must be a law to cover
that.
___________________________________________________
I had always found the abstract reproduced below the most insightful
and compact description of how the Chinese mind works. Read it
carefully and if you are not Chinese, find a Chinese freind who has
some ties to the old world to discuss it with.
Read in particular the paragraph on freedom, individuality and the
equality of rights. Pay special attention on the explanation why "one
could never plead ignorance" when the authorities call.
I can easily take several hours to elaborate on the implications of
the points Mr. Eberhard brought up. Eberhard's Introduction of 16
pages is a gem on Chinese behaviour and thought rarely found in other
books. And if I had not read this writeup I freely admit that I would
not have thought that anything needed explanation or discussion. If
that is the norm in the society in which one lives in one never
realises how what may be going on seems incomprehensible to others.
The rest of Eberhard's book describes Chinese symbols and what they
mean and even a barely literate (in Chinese) person like me has
discovered many of the common symbols such as dragons, phoenixes,
lotus, etc. have symbolic meanings that I had encountered but never
quite understood. Then again I also know of alternative meaningsthat
Mr. Eberhard did not include.
_______________________________________
"A Dictionary of Chinese Symbols - Hidden symbols in Chinese thought
and life". Wolfram Eberhard. (translated from German by G.L.
Campbell. ISBN 0-415-00228-1
Abstract from the Introduction pg 11 &12.
How is this reticence to be explained? Why this reluctance to do or
say what one wants to do or say? In this connection I would like to
point to one factor which seems to me to be of great significance.
Already in the days of Confucius (c. 500 BC) we - find the Chinese
living huddled together in cramped quarters and in crowded villages.
In these villages the houses were as- close to each other as possible
so as to leave the maximum amount of land for agricultural purposes.
In the towns the houses were just as closelv crowded together (as in
European towns in the Middle Ages) so as to keep the defensive radius
to a minimum: the shorter the town walls, the easier they were to
defend.
The huts of the poorest people were made of straw and twigs; a better
class house had clay walls and a tiled roof. Until fairly recently,
the windows were simply openings in the walls, covered perhaps with
paper if one could afford it. Indoors, the rooms were divided by thin
walls - again, often of paper. Every word spoken in such a room was
audible to the rest of the house. There was no question of separate
rooms for individual members of the family, so no one had any privacy.
The people next door could also hear every word that was spoken.
For many centuries, no less than five families were held legally
responsible for any crime or offence committed in their immediate
surroundings; and they had to account for themselves to the state
police in every detail: they could never plead ignorance. So, it is
not difficult to see why it was held advisable to say as little as
possible and to avoid anything that might lead to dissension within
the family or in its immediate neighbourhood. In the same way, in
art, overt statement of eroticism was avoided, lest others come to
harm. For these reasons too, landscape was preferred to portrait or
genre painting. Through adroit use of symbols, social content could
be infused into landscape painting: some beholders would miss the
point, others would understand and smile inwardly. Landscape appears
as a cosmos, ordered and harmonious: life was a question of give and
take, and if you wanted consideration from others, you had to show
them consideration. It is small wonder that the European travellers
and missionaries who visited China in the 16th, 17th and 18th
centuries described the Chinese as an 'old' people - tranquil and
serene in their wisdom, no doubt, but lifeless.
What the European travellers saw as 'lifelessness' was, in fact,
reticence: extreme reticence, as the Chinese always had to bear in
mind how others would react to any attitude thev might adopt or any
opinion they might utter. Thus they came to form a society which used
symbolical forms and modes of expression, reinforced by ritual, to
integrate the individual with public order and morality.
It is significant that until very recently there was no word in
Chinese for what we call 'freedom', either in the political or in the
philosophic sense. The word 'zi-you', which is still used for
'freedom', really means 'to be on one's own', 'to be left alone' -
i.e. it has a negative connotation. Similarly, there was no word for
'individualism' and no word for 'equality of rights'. As the Chinese
saw it, no man is equal to another: he is older or younger than
another, superior to women in that he is male, or more highly placed
in the state hierarchy. "Brotherliness', as it was grasped in early
Christianity, did not exist in China, for the individual saw himself
as a member of a family, and not obliged to to anything for someone
who had no family of his own. The Confucian ethic which ruled society
prescribed man's duties but had little to say about his rights. The
permanent guideline of education was to regulate behaviour so that it
should never offend against 'li' - good custom and propriety.
_____________________________________________________
There is a current movie "Crouching Tiger...." The story line
stank. But those scenes of China's wilderness and of Chinese
architecture and domestic living arrangements are fascinating. And
Jen's martial arts moves were pure ballet.
In the context of the writeup above take note of the scene where Jen
and her bandit lover reminisced about their tryst in the desert. The
maid heard everything through those thin wall but chose to keep quiet
until the bandit left. Then only did the maid ask if Jen was alright.
The reply was "It was only the cat" ie. don't tell anyone and use this
as an excuse should anyone ask. Only in Chinese culture would this
kind of pantomine be accepted without question. I am not quite sure
about this but I believe Chinese tradition requires that the maid
would rather be beaten to death than to betray her mistress should the
scandalized parents try to force the maid to uncover their daughter's
affair.
And there are many more "ridiculous to the west but not so ridiculous
to us conventions" in the movie that Ang Lee did not quite succeed in
amalgamating into his love story theme cum Kung Fu dust-up. That's
why this movie bombed in China. As Chinese the characters were
ridiculous and offensive.
markl...@my-deja.com
goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Could you explain why this kind of absolute obedience did not show on
> Mao in 1949?
In the history of China, transfer of power has always been bloody.
Absolute obedience is for common folks to observe in the presence of
almighty lord, the Emperor. Mao did what many before him did to become
the Emperor. I'd better make it clear that I don't support that
mentality.
sluan
CPPers are assigned to authority positions. If you are not a CCPer do you
have a government job? Hope you have the vision to see this simple fact.
Sluan
markl...@my-deja.com
goose...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Any suggestions about what to do if CCP cannot be reasoned with (but
> has to be convinced by force, according to your view) and you blame
ROC
> President Chen for doing nothing about unification?
Actually I blame Chen for not doing anything to reduce the tension. In
your opinion, what steps can Chen take to achieve TI? Like you said, if
CCP is really stubborn, what options does Chen have?
I think whatever Taiwan decides to do, it must be ready to take full
accountability.
> I would not say a system from Karl Marx "easternized" either.
Do you really consider CCP's system a Karl Marx model?
markl...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> However, if you take the Chinese culture as a whole. The conclusion is
> inevitable that Chinese believe in human nature as basically good. For
> example, the common saying: the country's law (fa) is not outside of
> ren ching (general human way of doing/thinking thing). This will not
> make sense if human nature is supposed to be bad. Another example,
> confucianism literatures widely cover the problem of "from the human's
> way (ren dao) to reach the heaven's way (t'ien dao)." All these
> discussions will not make any sense if human and human's way are evil
> by nature.
When I say that Chinese view human nature to be evil, I don't mean that
Chinese have an evil streak. Most people today consider human nature to
be bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't be using so many passwords to protect
ourselves.
> The CCP is a large organization of 70 million members. About 1 CCP
> member per 4 households. How can a party that do not really anyone get
> so many members?
I don't think we can use popularity to evaluate CCP. In fact, there are
so many Falungong followers in China. Does that mean Falungong is not a
bad organization?
ltl...@mindspring.com
markl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94ppth$qct$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > However, if you take the Chinese culture as a whole. The conclusion
is
> > inevitable that Chinese believe in human nature as basically good.
For
> > example, the common saying: the country's law (fa) is not outside of
> > ren ching (general human way of doing/thinking thing). This will not
> > make sense if human nature is supposed to be bad. Another example,
> > confucianism literatures widely cover the problem of "from the
human's
> > way (ren dao) to reach the heaven's way (t'ien dao)." All these
> > discussions will not make any sense if human and human's way are
evil
> > by nature.
>
> When I say that Chinese view human nature to be evil, I don't mean
that
> Chinese have an evil streak. Most people today consider human nature
to
> be bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't be using so many passwords to protect
> ourselves.
Password is for accounting purpose and privacy. It is existence has
nothing to do human nature.
>
> > The CCP is a large organization of 70 million members. About 1 CCP
> > member per 4 households. How can a party that do not really anyone
get
> > so many members?
I missed teh word "trust."
>
> I don't think we can use popularity to evaluate CCP.
My response was to you assertion that the CCP does not trust the people.
How can a party that do not really trust the people get so many members?
ltl...@mindspring.com
I think you work in the US. Sounds like you don't know the plum book.
It is a plum colored U.S. government publication listing about 10,000
upper level management jobs mostly given out, regardless of formal
qualification and experiences, to policitical supporters at the
administration's pleasure.
>
> Sluan
Demorising
:>What the European travellers saw as 'lifelessness' was, in fact,
>reticence: extreme reticence, as the Chinese always had to bear in
>mind how others would react to any attitude thev might adopt or any
>opinion they might utter.
klmok wrote:
> I can easily take several hours to elaborate on the implications of
>the points Mr. Eberhard brought up.
If Chinese are extremely reticent, then how do we explain you.
sluan
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > If Chinese really believe that human nature is basically good,
>
> Do you?
> Many Chinese don't believe in salvation and eternal life. All living
> humans, young and old, are dying humans. If human nature is not
> basically good and perfectable through one's effort (unlikely) or
> through his sons and daughters and their sons and daughters
> (ultimately), life is meaningless.
Human nature gets worse day by day since the date of birth. By the time of reaching
death it becomes so bad that nothing is useful by the time. Whether life is meaningful
or not has nothing to do with human nature.
If you were born with a bad human nature, say a defective gene that crippled you
at the time of birth, it does not mean your life is less or more meaningful.
Sluan
kl...@home.com
>
>If Chinese are extremely reticent, then how do we explain you.
Easy. I am pretty good at kicking ass.
markl...@my-deja.com
sluan <sl...@cup.hp.com> wrote:
> If you were born with a bad human nature, say a defective gene that
crippled you
> at the time of birth, it does not mean your life is less or more
meaningful.
What is considered a bad human nature by birth?
markl...@my-deja.com
ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > When I say that Chinese view human nature to be evil, I don't mean
> that
> > Chinese have an evil streak. Most people today consider human
nature
> to
> > be bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't be using so many passwords to
protect
> > ourselves.
>
> Password is for accounting purpose and privacy. It is existence has
> nothing to do human nature.
I use password as an example of our building a wall to protect ourselves
from others' evil human nature. Are you telling me that Chinese in
general see human beings to be good in nature?
> How can a party that do not really trust the people get so many
members?
Many people in Taiwan joined KMT members because it was the path to
power and security. Are you so naive to believe that people joined CCP
because of CCP's ideology?
ltl...@mindspring.com
markl...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94qgil$gh0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> ltl...@mindspring.com wrote:
> > > When I say that Chinese view human nature to be evil, I don't mean
> > that
> > > Chinese have an evil streak. Most people today consider human
> nature
> > to
> > > be bad. Otherwise, we wouldn't be using so many passwords to
> protect
> > > ourselves.
> >
> > Password is for accounting purpose and privacy. It is existence has
> > nothing to do human nature.
>
> I use password as an example of our building a wall to protect
ourselves
> from others' evil human nature.
Passwords are needed because the ATM does not know you or me as
persons. Passwords are needed bceasue the computers/terminals does not
know you or me as persons. Have you ever watched certain the credit
card commercials with the following message: Shops will honor the right
credit card (with a valid number)?
> Are you telling me that Chinese in
> general see human beings to be good in nature?
Most people most of the time do not think about the question whether
human is by nature good or evil. But I will say yes to your question.
Chinese believe in "dao li"(the English word "reason" only convey a
small part of the meaning) and "ching li" (ren ching-t'ien li). If
human is by nature bad and the world is full of such people. Why bother
to ask about the presence or absence of "dao li"? The only thing left
is fa (law).
>
> > How can a party that do not really trust the people get so many
> members?
>
> Many people in Taiwan joined KMT members because it was the path to
> power and security. Are you so naive to believe that people joined
CCP
> because of CCP's ideology?
Try to look at the issue from the party's point of view. If it really
does not trust people, it could be most selective and has less members.