Ccp 1954: Fill & Download for Free

Robin Daverman has claimed Xi Jinping will step down because "It’s been there, embossed in the Chinese Constitution, since 1982". What does she and other CCP supporters think now that the Chinese government is about to change the constitution?LOL. I was wrong on that one. But then I was wrong on BREXIT, and I was wrong on Mr. Trump being able to win the Presidency as well. I tend to look at issues through the lens of fundamental interest of the nation, and assume long-term rational behavior. Obviously long-term interest is often defeated by short-term turbulence. That’s a given.What is more interesting, is why the term limit was put in in 1982. The reason was mostly Mao. who first held that position in 1954. But there was also the concern that “xxx-for-life” had become the norm, and the Chinese bureaucracy was going down the comatose route of the USSR. By putting a term-limit on this position, the goal was to achieve a continuous “refreshing” of the bureaucracy itself. My personal opinion is that these are all very good reasons to put a term-limit on the top. This is a good thing for everybody.However, the contextual downside of this measure has become clear over time as well. One is the short-term thinking that goes with a fixed term-limit. Look no further than the US. In China, the irresistible urge to kick the hard things down the road for your successor to deal with (such as ending the one-child policy and dealing with the mushroom of corruption) became obvious during the Hu administration. Nobody wants to be the “bad guy”. The other is that you are constantly pitching an inexperienced team against experienced problems, like the way in Mexico where you have experienced drug lords fighting off a constant stream of neophyte presidents and winning. The common people couldn’t care less about whatever “in theory…” that you have. They just want their problems solved, and thievery and injustice to end.So now, I don’t know how China is going to achieve the constant “refreshing” of her bureaucracy, while preventing the downside of short-term thinking and inexperience. It looks like they are trying to fine-tune the balance to “leaving it open-ended but with accountability check once every 5 years”. There’s no need to make a religion out of these sort of things. The proof is in where rubber meets the road. If it’s the right thing to do at this time, the outcome will prove it. If it’s the wrong thing to do, than correct the mistake and move on.The big picture is that power naturally flows to the ones who are the most capable. This is true everywhere. Dr. Henry Kissinger made the title “national security adviser” powerful. Before him, the title just denoted somebody collecting news clips and intelligence memos. Mao was never the General Secretary of the CCP but could have this title-holder for breakfast. Deng was never the President, nor the General Secretary of the CCP, and yet he was still directing China’s affairs after his own retirement. So there’s a limit on how useful one spends time on defining a title.

Good question. I wondered about it myself.It really started when Lee Teng-hui became the chairman of KMT and president of Republic of China. Under Lee, KMT stopped wanting to reclaim mainland China from CCP. Instead, Lee pursued a path to Taiwan independence secretly, while ROC established bilateral relations with mainland China.So how did this happen?The Planning Commission for the Recovery of Mainland(光復大陸設計研究委員會) is an organization under the president of Republic of China. The organization was created in 1954, five years after KMT lost China to CCP. In 1991, the Recovery Commission was dissolved, and replaced by Mainland Affairs Council and National Unification Council. The latter organization may seem to be a continuation of previous policies, but in fact it no longer pursued unification with mainland China under Lee, and it ceased to function in 2006 under DPP president Chen Shui-bian. So from an organization perspective, there was no government department in Taiwan that is responsible for unification with mainland China anymore.On the other hand, KMT views increased cross-strait relations positively. The reasons vary;Defeatist. Remember that KMT was defeated by CCP in the civil war, so it no longer believes that it can win against CCP. Instead, some want to share in the spoil of CCP. KMT won’t call itself defeatist, but the fact is no KMT leader has proposed how to defeat CCP or dislodge CCP from power for decades.Nationalist. The full name of KMT is ‘Chinese Nationalist Party’, and some feel proud of the accomplishment in mainland China.Economic opportunity. China is a natural market and supply chain for Taiwan. Some see that as a good thing for Taiwan, as well as a safeguard against military conflict over Taiwan.The other factor is the Chiang family no longer has political power in Taiwan. Chiang Kai-Shek is strongly anti-communist, and his son Chiang Ching-Kuo, who had studied in USSR, is also anti-communist. But after these die-hard anti-communist leaders are gone, KMT no longer had an anti-communist leader.That’s why KMT now has a pro-China, and not anti-CCP(though not openly pro-CCP) policy for decades.

If China can make such a speedy change with its policy and actions, why can't smaller democratic countries do so?I am not from China, but I truly feel China is making speedy change, whereas my country is a democracy and 30 million people only, but so freaking slow at making changes in law and tackling corruption.LOL. This question … has so many misunderstandings about China … that I just have to laugh! Fact is, China makes laws exceedingly slowly, and the Chinese in general don’t have much respect for laws anyway, and China is not tackling its corruption problem by making changes in laws. It’s mostly doing it through internal CCP party rules.If you want to know how slowly China makes laws, well, one of the big “to-do” item from the latest Chinese Congress meeting is setting the goal of finishing the set of Civil Laws by 2020. China NPC 2017: The Reports The third-ranking Politburo member delivered the report on legislature activities, and said publicly, “We tried to do a set of Civil Laws in 1954, 1962, 1979, and 2001. The first two times didn’t work. Then we learned that we could only do a piece at a time, so now we have some pieces of Civil Laws lying around. Now we think it’s time to sew them together into a full set of Civil Laws, and we plan to do this by 2020.”And if you think this is slow, ha! The Chinese are still questioning if it’s time to have a Constitution. Constitution of China The Chinese wrote the first draft of Constitution in 1954, and then said, well this is not going to work, then they revised it in 1975, 1978, 1982, 1988, 1993, 1999, and 2004, … and they are still thinking about it.A fun factoid: the very first law that PRC adopted was not the Constitution, where it says the CCP gets to run the country. It was the New Marriage Law, published in May 1950, 7 months after the founding of PRC. Why? Because half of the CCP leadership were composed of former teenage run-aways who rebelled because they couldn’t stomach the Arranged Marriage, so off-we-go to the Revolution! Talking about the Power of Love! You see, China used to have very strict Arranged Marriage customs where the parents could order their kids into marriage sight-unseen. Violation punishable by death. More feudal than the freaking Taliban. And then, well, you know, kids go to school, kids meet each other, kids fall in love, … kids rebel against Arranged Marriage, kids run away together to do Revolution! So now these guys have won the country, but their families and kids were still illegal unless they wrote a law legalizing their status fast. Ditto New Marriage Law. Who’d have thought that the Chinese communists were the true Romantics. LOL!The reason that China does laws exceedingly slowly is that China is culturally secular. Not just the “there’s no God”-kind of secular, but the “there has never been a concept in human consciousness involving a God or whatever sacred being or sacred commands”-kind of secular. There is the nature, and there are people, and that’s that. So “laws” do not have the halo of sanctity. It’s just some agreement among us mortal humans. And so why should someone follow the law if it doesn’t benefit him? Basically, you get legal compliance only when the vast majority of the people understand it and agree with it, then the community starts exerting pressure on the individual to follow the law. Just having some dudes writing up something and calls it a “law” means exactly zero to the people. Nobody’s going to follow it. It’s been 70 years, and you can’t even get good compliance in traffic law in most places! That’s why when you ask the Chinese, why is there no XYZ law? The Chinese will say, because “the conditions of such a law have not been met yet.”The way you get a law written in China is first, you have to educate the people of a need for such a law, then you do some administrative “local ordinance”-type of things to try it out. During the trial period, you have a government agency set up whose responsibility is to explain the ordinance to the people, and people don’t get punished for violating the ordinance, but get an explanation of it. So this goes on over some period of time, more and more people are persuaded to follow the law, and the result shows that it works as intended, then other cities and provinces start to join the “trial”. Only after a dozen trials showing good result will the legislature start taking a look at it, take the data, study it, figure out the pros and cons, figure out the best approach to implementation, and then write it up. This process can easily take decades or more. If you find out that most people just give you the middle fingers, you have to call it quit for now.As for the anti-corruption activities, well, it’s not based on any new laws per se, but on the CCP internal disciplinary committee. This kind of activity is described as a “purge” when it happens to our “enemies”, and an “anti-corruption fight” when it happens to our “allies”. It’s actually the exact same activity. :-) Central Commission for Discipline InspectionThe way it works is like this: when you apply to join the CCP, you have to be investigated and tested for like 2 - 3 years, and at the end of which, you’ll sign a pledge that says you will always put the nation and the people’s interest ahead of your own, and that you are willing to give up everything, including your life, to the Party and the People. If you don’t sign up for that, you’ll never be trusted for a leadership position. Even Xi himself had to apply ten times before he was admitted to the Party. Now the Party has the responsibility to keep you on the straight and narrow, and it does so by giving you a set of disciplines that are above and beyond the law, like you can’t have affairs, you can’t meet with businessmen alone, you have to file annual report on the assets held not only by yourself, but by your parents, your spouse, your children, and your children’s spouses, etc.The CCP regularly conducts disciplinary reviews on all its members - a small one once every two years, a big one once every 5 years, since its inception a hundred years ago. The whole system is already set up and quite mature. And these guys are not your hardened criminals armed with human rights lawyers. These guys all know that they are entrusted with leadership position because they swore they are willing to give up everything for the People, so for most of the people who are accused of corruption, the CCP just need to put them in a hotel room for two days, throw the Party Discipline Book at them, and tell them to “write down everything you did that are against the Party Rules”, and they’ll just ‘fess up. Then the CCP will expel them from the Party and send the evidence to the Prosecutor’s Office, and that’s all it takes. Sure putting 80 million members through a fine comb is a lot of work, but the whole activity is still anchored on internal party discipline that these guys all personally swore to uphold, and this is something that the CCP has been doing regularly like forever.So basically, everything in China is turned upside down. If you mirror the circumstances to, say, the US, then it’ll be something like instead of requiring everyone to really understand the issues and know the candidates and vote intelligently, you’ll require the candidates, and their entire families, to be thoroughly investigated and pledge to put the nation’s interest above their own, and get rid of any conflict of interest first, before they can throw their hats in the ring and become a presidential candidates. Because, you know, China is a poor country, and it’s cheaper to just investigate the handful of candidates then having to bug the whole country and everyone in it. That’s their rationale. :-)PS: I think there’s been a recent trend where SOME people, or politicians, talk about how they should have a more authoritative system because “China is authoritative”, and then you look at the system they propose, and it’s something more like the US system. Because this kind of argument is really disingenuous. If you look at China, you’ll find that China has a very “republic”-type of system on top, where all 7 Politburo members are elected on their own, only half of the positions are open for each election cycle, and then it requires a 7:0 or 6:1 vote to get any decision passed. If you mirror it to the US, it’ll be like Mr. Trump gets to be the President, Mrs. Clinton will be the Prime Minister, Mr. Sanders will be the Secretary of the State or something, and the other positions are hold-overs from the Obama administration. Nobody can get fired by Mr. Trump, and Mr. Trump won’t even be able to redecorate the White House loo unless at least 5 other people agree with him. So Mr. Xi has a lot less dictatorial power than Mr. Trump.This is a really tricky system to operate under. And the way you campaign for the top job is to show you are not an asshole, and if you are elected, you will enable you former rivals to be as effective as they can. Unless you are used to it from the first day you start your political career, most politicians won’t be able to cut it. Unless he’s from Switzerland or something. And that’s why, when SOME politicians argue for more authority, they then propose a US Presidential system where the president can fire anybody, instead of the Chinese one where they have to share the power with 6 other guys that they can NEVER FIRE.