I seriously think “the crime of subverting the state” is pointless in the sense of legality and logicality; it is ludicrous enough to unify the concept of state/country and polity and make them a crime. I have discussed in my former article A country can never be subverted that why a country could not be overthrown by its own people, today I am going to talk about how government is meant to be subverted.
Country is a conception thrived not long ago, comprised in general of people, land and sovereignty, where the importance of people and land is self-evident. But where does the sovereignty come from? According to the principles of civilian and modern politics, sovereignty is exerted by the elected government for the people who hold the ballots; put it in another way, government is only the manager of public interests for people, or the temporary holder of the sovereignty. Country is like an iron pan whereas, on which, government can be likened to fluid soldier.
There has not been any everlasting government, or any unchangeable governance, since it is impossible for people to be always content with their government. If discontent with the government, what type of attitude should the people hold? One is tolerance, like what is occurring in China in which most people tolerate the behavior of the government; the other is intolerance, like what is occurring to the other small group of people in China. When it comes to the point where most people become intolerant, what means could be taken? The first means coming up is subversion by force, which is the major means of ancient China for dynasty replacement, and also what, ever appreciated by the current government, peasant uprising did. This means, however, brings about such enormous catastrophes to its people and country that are beyond the imagination and reach of us, thus it has withdrawn from the arena of humans today when modern civilian politics has become more and more pervaded.
The Chinese communist government has been in power for six years, but its anxiety of governing legality has never been relieved, but rather become more and more frightened, how come? It is because that they know their position was gained by guns and bloods instead of by elections, and they understand the threat from guns. They were appreciating guns, because by which they threw down the previous government, therefore arguing for the legality of guns is part of their permanent job. From Mao Zedong’s “regime coming from guns” to late 1980s, their insane exultation over peasant uprising of each dynasty was nothing but for eliminating their anxiety of illegal governance.
Why do they have such anxiety? It is because of the analysis and thinking of the common people as a result of this exploding information era in which the world has unprecedentedly opened and interacted, in which assorted comparisons are happening between different governments and institutions. Regarding Mao’s law of guns, while there are several governments in the world still using it, in general this type of violent revolution, or say, jungle rule has gradually discarded by modern civilian politics, since replacement of regime at the cost of holocaust is unaccepted by human intelligence presently.
The power of Chinese communist government comes from violence; although it has been 60 years, its legality is not fully convinced since violent replacement is not accepted by the mainstream civilian world and politics. For Chinese people, thanks to brainwashing and suppression for many decades, they have little idea of from where a regime of legality comes. They could, yet, touch the good and bad of a regime by themselves; only simply physical perception such like looking, listening, feeling and slightly thinking, rather than profound sensing, could tell the effect of a regime. If it comes to realization of the nature of the regime, of course more information and knowledge are needed.
The Chinese communist government knows, without question, the illegality of violent replacement, that’s why they extremely prettify violent revolution. The violent revolution is still documented in Chinese history textbooks where the civil war between communist and nationalist party and the killing of compatriots are described as revolution war, and where killing of the so-called reactionary nationalists is still being glorified. The reason for being such unashamed of killing compatriots and for uglifying the millions of compatriots killed by ourselves (including innocents), is to brainwash the people, rendering them to believe that advent of such violent regime is an inevitable product of history, of people’s choice, and of, ultimately, legality.
But they have never been calm down; they are frightened, on the one hand, and they are ruling the people using frightening, on the other. Besides, they draw on the means of creating enemies to cause mutual fighting between people, and to make people work for their unashamed party-related ideological fight (war and diplomacy). As a matter of fact, they are the same with us, all living in a world of growing globalization rather than in ancient jungle; and they are deeply aware of the illegality of their violence-resulted regime and their undemocratic and fettered governance. And due to deep awareness of its illegality, they have to take the means of suppressing and brainwashing to make the people submitted.
While there are still a handful of governments in the world that have not adopted democracy, more and more countries are moving towards democracy and freedom, in that democratic system has been proven to be one that is able to guarantee a relatively balanced achievement in justice, effectiveness and people’s freedom. This does not by any means mean democratic system is the best in the world, and in fact with respect to governance system there is no best but better. Government, due to its characteristic of being a deputy manager for public interests and national sovereignty and its nature of election by people, should be submitted to its people, and its power comes only from legal election. If a government does not come through by election, it could not represent its people; failure in representing its people indicates its power sourced from violence or stealing, and stolen regime is axiomatically illegal. It is well-known that history is trending towards the system of democracy and freedom; any person or any organization standing in the way is nothing more than a car before a speeding train.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
A country can never be subverted: on Tan Zuoren being accused of inciting subversion of the state(2) (8/2/2009)
Except reading the news about Tan right after getting up, I have noticed the speech spread online recently, The party in power should have its basic political ethics—talking of an old leader before the celebration of National Day for 60 years, delivered by Wan Li, one of the former high-level leaders in communist party. It is a sign that not all people have died in the party who dare speak of truth. Some of the retired high-level party leaders, such as Li Rui, Du Daozheng, Xie Tao, Li Shenzhi and Hu Jiwei etc., started with authentic ideals when they were youngsters and winded up speaking of authenticity when retired, but strayed away when in position.
This is, rather than blaming them for their cowardliness in not speaking up, but a description of basic facts while investigating their malfeasances during governance; they had too many anxieties that they had dispossessed the basic political ethics. It is of little difference of Wan Li; he dared not speak up while trapped in his anxieties. He is still welcome, however, when he releases the truth now. But concerning this common pattern of truth-at-both-ends, it is because of the ruling part that is not grounded on basic political ethics; not only does it clamp down on dissidents outside the party but also suppress differing voices within the party. Subversion of the state is a penalty intended by such a party lacking basic political ethics, and the clause documenting such penalty is typically a representation of evil law.
In fact, the crime of counterrevolution is the precursor of the crime of subversion of the state. The ruling party keeps messing the country up and they conceive of it as revolution; you stand out to fight against their messing-up and for your own rights, you are considered counterrevolutionary. Such crime is so encompassing and evil that most dissidents are sacredly breathless and soundless. And even if you had done nothing wrong, the ruling party could also accuse you using this crime, as is evidently demonstrated in many preposterous historical materials.
In 1990s, the authority posited that the crime of counterrevolution was too outdated and to some extent politically threatening, thus brought forward the crime of subverting the state “with times”. Conceiving of the critiquing of government as subversion of the state, as matter of fact, is tantamount to equaling the government to the state, and of no difference with taking the state as the domain of the government.
The crime of subversion of the state is ridiculous from the perspective of legal principle, and logistically irrational. COUNTRY and REGIME (including government) are virtually different conceptions; a country could never be subverted by its people—only when the country is entirely occupied by other races with its cultures eliminated is it considered subversion or extinction, of whose, however, the probability of occurrence is drastically low; that’s why that Ming dynasty was conquered by Qing, another people, is not accounted as subversion of China—while only a regime (government) can be switched.
Is Song dynasty’s erasing of Tang Dynasty subversion of the country? When Communist Party was forcing Nationalist Party out of China, is that subversion? No. That is only renaming of dynasty, while such bloody renaming doesn’t conform to the principles of the modern civilized society in which government is voted in and out. The principles of modern civilized society, put in another way, constitute that the government is supposed to be subverted; United States, for instance, subverts its government legally every 4 years, as is the case, by and large, of the other democratic countries. In essence, the country resembles an iron-forged pan while the government fluid soldier; the country can never be subverted by its people while the government is meant to be subverted. The best way of subversion, however, is peaceful subrogation based on ballot, rather than on bloody guns.
The crime of subverting the state is an evil tool by which the governors, most of time, use to loot public resources, as well as to threaten the ordinary people. That many local governors clamp down on dissents is not actually because of the dissents aimed at subversion but at shaking their authorities or reputations as the dissents might have criticized the corruption under their leads or pointed out the dire circumstances that their governed people are living in.
The local governors, however, are afraid of accusing them for normal crimes, which harms their reputation, thus they opt the crime of subversion to punish those who dare speak out and do good. Personally I think except for the case of Liu Xiaobo whose arrest for subversion was decided by the central government, in most cases “the crime of subversion of the state” was abused as a cover by local governors to suppress the punishers and their supporters into wordlessness, leaving the innocent people around believe that the arrested are really undertaking subversion of the state. This is where the real reason why the provincial commissioners and local governors keep utilizing this crime frequently. Even if the arrested were mischarged, it does not disadvantage the governors too much as it is for the country, rather than the private interests, that they have done so.
Using the charge of inciting subversion of the state, as a matter of fact, by local governors could bury the fact that it is for private gains, rather than for the public interests. In the case of Tan, this is particularly evident. The real reason that the local government persecutes Tan is because of his protestation against establishing of a combined ethylene plant and oil refinery in Peng Zhou (Peng Zhou Petro-Chemical, in short), Sichuan Province, and his investigation into the list of students killed in 5.12 earthquake as well as appeal to creation of student archive.
The things that Tan has been leading in have affected the political achievement and interests of local governments. The governors could not arrest or charge him of inciting subversion of the state due to these two activities, however, for its illogicality and illegality and public pressure as well. Yet, they succeeded in doing so by seizing the fact that Tan has expressed against centre government regarding1989 event as well done things in memorial of it. This is indeed taking advantage of the sensitivity to 1989 event of centre government by the local; even the criminals have been mischarged, the local government will not be too much blamed as it is for stabilization of whole society for the centre that the local government did it, rather than their local or personal interests. Consequently, in the case of Tan, they succeeded in suppressing local opponents, thus covered their own misdeeds, and will not be blamed.
If Liu Xiaobo and Tan Zuoren are charged of subversion of the state for speaking the truth, I would like to ask the government, what about Wan Li, one of our former leaders, whom expressed the same thoughts in The ruling party should construct its basic political ethics—a former leader speaks before the 60th national day? Is he facing the same charge? Following the evil law you enacted, Wan Li could not avoid the same fate. If nothing happens to Wan Li, whereas Liu and Tan are saddled with the crime of state subversion, should we interpret it as that the leaders of China do not need conform to our common laws?, the speech given by Wan Li should be read by all Chinese Communist Party members. The crime of subversion of the state, frankly speaking, is established by a ruling party without any basic political ethics, and must be eliminated.
This is, rather than blaming them for their cowardliness in not speaking up, but a description of basic facts while investigating their malfeasances during governance; they had too many anxieties that they had dispossessed the basic political ethics. It is of little difference of Wan Li; he dared not speak up while trapped in his anxieties. He is still welcome, however, when he releases the truth now. But concerning this common pattern of truth-at-both-ends, it is because of the ruling part that is not grounded on basic political ethics; not only does it clamp down on dissidents outside the party but also suppress differing voices within the party. Subversion of the state is a penalty intended by such a party lacking basic political ethics, and the clause documenting such penalty is typically a representation of evil law.
In fact, the crime of counterrevolution is the precursor of the crime of subversion of the state. The ruling party keeps messing the country up and they conceive of it as revolution; you stand out to fight against their messing-up and for your own rights, you are considered counterrevolutionary. Such crime is so encompassing and evil that most dissidents are sacredly breathless and soundless. And even if you had done nothing wrong, the ruling party could also accuse you using this crime, as is evidently demonstrated in many preposterous historical materials.
In 1990s, the authority posited that the crime of counterrevolution was too outdated and to some extent politically threatening, thus brought forward the crime of subverting the state “with times”. Conceiving of the critiquing of government as subversion of the state, as matter of fact, is tantamount to equaling the government to the state, and of no difference with taking the state as the domain of the government.
The crime of subversion of the state is ridiculous from the perspective of legal principle, and logistically irrational. COUNTRY and REGIME (including government) are virtually different conceptions; a country could never be subverted by its people—only when the country is entirely occupied by other races with its cultures eliminated is it considered subversion or extinction, of whose, however, the probability of occurrence is drastically low; that’s why that Ming dynasty was conquered by Qing, another people, is not accounted as subversion of China—while only a regime (government) can be switched.
Is Song dynasty’s erasing of Tang Dynasty subversion of the country? When Communist Party was forcing Nationalist Party out of China, is that subversion? No. That is only renaming of dynasty, while such bloody renaming doesn’t conform to the principles of the modern civilized society in which government is voted in and out. The principles of modern civilized society, put in another way, constitute that the government is supposed to be subverted; United States, for instance, subverts its government legally every 4 years, as is the case, by and large, of the other democratic countries. In essence, the country resembles an iron-forged pan while the government fluid soldier; the country can never be subverted by its people while the government is meant to be subverted. The best way of subversion, however, is peaceful subrogation based on ballot, rather than on bloody guns.
The crime of subverting the state is an evil tool by which the governors, most of time, use to loot public resources, as well as to threaten the ordinary people. That many local governors clamp down on dissents is not actually because of the dissents aimed at subversion but at shaking their authorities or reputations as the dissents might have criticized the corruption under their leads or pointed out the dire circumstances that their governed people are living in.
The local governors, however, are afraid of accusing them for normal crimes, which harms their reputation, thus they opt the crime of subversion to punish those who dare speak out and do good. Personally I think except for the case of Liu Xiaobo whose arrest for subversion was decided by the central government, in most cases “the crime of subversion of the state” was abused as a cover by local governors to suppress the punishers and their supporters into wordlessness, leaving the innocent people around believe that the arrested are really undertaking subversion of the state. This is where the real reason why the provincial commissioners and local governors keep utilizing this crime frequently. Even if the arrested were mischarged, it does not disadvantage the governors too much as it is for the country, rather than the private interests, that they have done so.
Using the charge of inciting subversion of the state, as a matter of fact, by local governors could bury the fact that it is for private gains, rather than for the public interests. In the case of Tan, this is particularly evident. The real reason that the local government persecutes Tan is because of his protestation against establishing of a combined ethylene plant and oil refinery in Peng Zhou (Peng Zhou Petro-Chemical, in short), Sichuan Province, and his investigation into the list of students killed in 5.12 earthquake as well as appeal to creation of student archive.
The things that Tan has been leading in have affected the political achievement and interests of local governments. The governors could not arrest or charge him of inciting subversion of the state due to these two activities, however, for its illogicality and illegality and public pressure as well. Yet, they succeeded in doing so by seizing the fact that Tan has expressed against centre government regarding1989 event as well done things in memorial of it. This is indeed taking advantage of the sensitivity to 1989 event of centre government by the local; even the criminals have been mischarged, the local government will not be too much blamed as it is for stabilization of whole society for the centre that the local government did it, rather than their local or personal interests. Consequently, in the case of Tan, they succeeded in suppressing local opponents, thus covered their own misdeeds, and will not be blamed.
If Liu Xiaobo and Tan Zuoren are charged of subversion of the state for speaking the truth, I would like to ask the government, what about Wan Li, one of our former leaders, whom expressed the same thoughts in The ruling party should construct its basic political ethics—a former leader speaks before the 60th national day? Is he facing the same charge? Following the evil law you enacted, Wan Li could not avoid the same fate. If nothing happens to Wan Li, whereas Liu and Tan are saddled with the crime of state subversion, should we interpret it as that the leaders of China do not need conform to our common laws?, the speech given by Wan Li should be read by all Chinese Communist Party members. The crime of subversion of the state, frankly speaking, is established by a ruling party without any basic political ethics, and must be eliminated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)