What's new

Wen Jiabao promises political reform for China

bc040400065

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Feb 24, 2010
Messages
1,092
Reaction score
0
Country
Pakistan
Location
Pakistan
Wen Jiabao promises political reform for China

Wen Jiabao, the Chinese prime minister, has promised that China will carry out political reform and acknowledged that the need for democracy and freedom in China is "irresistible".

By Malcolm Moore in Shanghai
Published: 5:35AM BST 04 Oct 2010

In a rare interview, aired on CNN on Sunday, Mr Wen said: "I believe I and all the Chinese people have such conviction that China will make continuous progress and the people's wishes and need for democracy and freedom are irresistible. I hope you will be able to gradually see the continuous progress of China."

He added: "In spite of some resistance I will advance within the realm of my capabilities political restructuring."
Asked about censorship, the 68-year-old Mr Wen added: "I believe freedom of speech is indispensable for any country, a country in the course of development and in a country that has become strong." He insisted that there was freedom to criticise the Chinese government on the internet, where he said he had often seen views aired that were sharply critical of officials.

The Communist Party has ruled without opposition in China since 1949, imprisoning scores of political activists and dissidents. While China made vital economic reforms in the late 1970s to allow a more market-based economy, the Party has not yet made accompanying political reforms.

Mr Wen added the caveat that any reforms now "must be conducted within the range allowed by the constitution and the laws. So that the country will have a normal order."

The interview marks the third time in recent weeks that Mr Wen has raised the topic of political reform.

At the beginning of September, Mr Wen said on a visit to Shenzhen that "Without the safeguard of political reform, the fruits of economic reform would be lost and the goal of modernisation would not materialise". He also called for a loosening of the "excessive political control" of the Communist party.

In his speech to the United Nations General Assembly last week, Mr Wen said that "While deepening economic restructuring, we will also push forward political restructuring." In the past, the Communist party has repeatedly promised political reforms but has failed to deliver any substantive changes. The party also often uses the phrase "democracy" simply to refer to greater public participation in decision-making, without universal suffrage.

Notions in the run up to the 17th National Party Congress in October 2007 that there might be reforms were dashed when the government chose to focus on stability and security in the run-up to the Beijing Olympic games and the 60th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China by Mao Zedong.

However, Mr Wen's decision to once again air the topic, and to a major international television network, may confirm that reform is back on the government agenda.

Some observers have commented that there may be a split between Mr Wen and Hu Jintao, the Chinese president, over the issue. Mr Hu has not recently mentioned any prospect of political reform.

"[Mr Wen] admitted there is inner party disagreement over political reform," said Victor Shih, a professor of Chinese politics at Northwestern University.

Nevertheless, by airing the idea of political reform in public, Mr Wen has opened up space for a debate in the Chinese media. Hu Shuli, the pioneering editor of Century Weekly, a Chinese magazine, recently argued that China "cannot wait" any longer for reforms to its political system. "The sense of personal independence is growing among our citizens, as is consciousness of their rights and the appetite for participation in current affairs," she said.

Wen Jiabao promises political reform for China - Telegraph
 
this doesn't mean that the communist party will lose power. his meaning of political reform is reform inside the party to make it better. however it must not go too far, after all freedom of speech is a meaningless term, i can already say whatever i want. the party is not some tiny organization wearing masks and cloaks hiding underground making decisions for everyone, it is 1 out of 9 chinese adults, bigger than the population of britain.
 
Yeah political reform doesn't mean the end of one-party state, as Wen emphasized any political reform must be within the framework of the PRC Constitution, which mandates the leadership of the CCP.

Whether the CCP should be in power anyway is not an important question. As below_freezing said CCP has over 70 million members, and surveys actually showed CCP member are not in anyway more or less likely to support the government policy than non-party members.

In fact the association of political reform with with multiparty democracy harms the cause for reform, as there are plenty of Chinese oppose the idea of multiparty democracy, but few people oppose the establishment of a more independent juridical system and a more transparent government (although there are a lot of people actively support press censorship). Decoupling political reform from democracy at the central and provincial level will reduce resistance to future reforms.
 
Multi party in China... no way.

What some want is that PLA should be given more autonomy, if PLA wants to become a professional modern military. Red tape should not become hindrance to PLA's development.

Plus, its not always possible for commanders to follow orders from party guys who have no knowledge in military tactics.

Hope the party realizes this.

Hi oceanx, you are not posting anything...!!
 
Last edited:
Hmm...3 days after the interview was aired on CNN, Chinese domestic media are finally allowed to pick up the news. Stories about Wen's stance on political reform are now featured prominently on Chinese Internet portals.

Does actually signify Wen did this interview without approval of the rest of the Politburo Standing Committee?
 
Multi party in China... no way.

What some want is that PLA should be given more autonomy, if PLA wants to become a professional modern military. Red tape should not become hindrance to PLA's development.

Plus, its not always possible for commanders to follow orders from party guys who have no knowledge in military tactics.

Hope the party realizes this.

Hi oceanx, you are not posting anything...!!

I am not posting anything because I am laying low and short on time. Plus it's hard to disagree openly with Nomenclature, frankly one of the most level-headed posters wearing PRC flags I have come across during my one-year tenure here.

I tell ya, try as I might, Nomenclature never takes my bait. Sub-zero is a different story. But what can you do? He is old-school ...

You know I took to the streets on June 5th, 1991 with some fellow "agitators" in my high school to fight for "democracy" and against "corruption". We simply didn't quite know what happened the day before.

So do you really expect me to "give up" on democracy or, shall we say certain "democratic" ideals?

The truth is that I know even less today, except that "democracy" by formality does not bring about accountability. Without accountability to self and to others nothing good happens.

So I agree whether one-party or multi-party is not the key. At least not for the moment.

Back to your contention of letting the professional army be "professional", sure ... why not?

But a soldier should not be the "commander-in-chief" IMO. Only a quasi-"civilian" or civilians can, whether in the form of a president, prime minister, sultan, a tribunal, or the Party.

A whole party committee being "co-commanders-in-chief" is a little "safer" than an individual being "commander-in-chief" during "normal times".

This is actually somewhat fresh on my mind as I just hashed out something on the 1976 coup - for my own purpose.
 
One party is a bit like no party. Maybe its better to have no party so that each representative can really express what is best for the nation.
 
Now the interview is no longer on the headlines, there are two interesting points about the reports

1. Most of Chinese Internet portals just put up an article commenting on the interview, without actually quoting any part of the interview itself, suggesting the interview is being censored.

2. The article appeared on most portals is originally published by Jiefang Ribao (Liberation Daily), which is of course the mouthpiece of CCP's Shanghai Committee. So Shanghai government is actually throwing its weight behind Wen Jiabao, despite Shanghai party chief Yu Zhengsheng and Wen belong to opposite political factions according to the now commonly hold 'Princelings vs Youth League' theory.

Chinese politics in the next few years is going to be really interesting, and I'm afraid it will be a lot more complicated and unpredictable as the common two factions model will suggest.
 
Now the interview is no longer on the headlines, there are two interesting points about the reports

1. Most of Chinese Internet portals just put up an article commenting on the interview, without actually quoting any part of the interview itself, suggesting the interview is being censored.

2. The article appeared on most portals is originally published by Jiefang Ribao (Liberation Daily), which is of course the mouthpiece of CCP's Shanghai Committee. So Shanghai government is actually throwing its weight behind Wen Jiabao, despite Shanghai party chief Yu Zhengsheng and Wen belong to opposite political factions according to the now commonly hold 'Princelings vs Youth League' theory.

Chinese politics in the next few years is going to be really interesting, and I'm afraid it will be a lot more complicated and unpredictable as the common two factions model will suggest.

who cares about internal politics as long as 1.) no one gets to become a dictator and 2.) it doesn't plunge our country into civil war.

as long as they get the job done it's fine.

however i've noticed how Premier Wen is appearing more in the media than Chairman Hu.
 
I am not posting anything because I am laying low and short on time. Plus it's hard to disagree openly with Nomenclature, frankly one of the most level-headed posters wearing PRC flags I have come across during my one-year tenure here.

I tell ya, try as I might, Nomenclature never takes my bait. Sub-zero is a different story. But what can you do? He is old-school ...

You know I took to the streets on June 5th, 1991 with some fellow "agitators" in my high school to fight for "democracy" and against "corruption". We simply didn't quite know what happened the day before.

So do you really expect me to "give up" on democracy or, shall we say certain "democratic" ideals?

The truth is that I know even less today, except that "democracy" by formality does not bring about accountability. Without accountability to self and to others nothing good happens.

So I agree whether one-party or multi-party is not the key. At least not for the moment.

Back to your contention of letting the professional army be "professional", sure ... why not?

But a soldier should not be the "commander-in-chief" IMO. Only a quasi-"civilian" or civilians can, whether in the form of a president, prime minister, sultan, a tribunal, or the Party.

A whole party committee being "co-commanders-in-chief" is a little "safer" than an individual being "commander-in-chief" during "normal times".

This is actually somewhat fresh on my mind as I just hashed out something on the 1976 coup - for my own purpose.

Oceanx, those sultani days are gone.

I guess, you did not understand my point. I said anyone who does not understand military tactics in modern warfare, should not be in a position to decide the military budget.

Modern warfare is a different story. Even if you play Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead, you will know how much training and knowledge a professional military personnel should have before going to the theater of modern warfare. Today, joining military is like getting a white collar job. Today, a trooper is supposed to be a technocrat.

See US marine, the delta force, all the soldiers are highly professional to engage enemy in a highly informationalised modern combat situation. They know how to call for air assault on enemy positions when ambushed. A soldier is not a soldier if he cannot call for air support to survive heavy ambush.

Its a top to bottom professional world.

Therefore, the party committee needs to place more veteran army officials in its highest echelon who can analyse the current strategic position of China that are related to China's national security and territorial integrity and prescribe advises for the military. Civilian or military, whatever, PLA should overcome its outmoded configuration.

A country needs respect, so does its military.

And 'normal times' are always relative. You don't know how much abnormal an apparent normal time can become all of a sudden.
 
Oceanx, those sultani days are gone.

I guess, you did not understand my point. I said anyone who does not understand military tactics in modern warfare, should not be in a position to decide the military budget.

Modern warfare is a different story. Even if you play Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead, you will know how much training and knowledge a professional military personnel should have before going to the theater of modern warfare. Today, joining military is like getting a white collar job. Today, a trooper is supposed to be a technocrat.

See US marine, the delta force, all the soldiers are highly professional to engage enemy in a highly informationalised modern combat situation. They know how to call for air assault on enemy positions when ambushed. A soldier is not a soldier if he cannot call for air support to survive heavy ambush.

Its a top to bottom professional world.

Therefore, the party committee needs to place more veteran army officials in its highest echelon who can analyse the current strategic position of China that are related to China's national security and territorial integrity and prescribe advises for the military. Civilian or military, whatever, PLA should overcome its outmoded configuration.

A country needs respect, so does its military.

And 'normal times' are always relative. You don't know how much abnormal an apparent normal time can become all of a sudden.

delta force is good, but marines are just 18 year olds thrown into the fire. in a real war against people armed with things better than fake AKs and rocks, how do they fare? vietnam and korea was the answer.

besides, who cares how good an infantry soldier is at "modern warfare". modern warfare between large countries is decided by the thin, glasses wearing soldier sitting at a radar screen or inside a nuclear silos, not some sort of superman.
 
who cares about internal politics as long as 1.) no one gets to become a dictator and 2.) it doesn't plunge our country into civil war.

as long as they get the job done it's fine.

however i've noticed how Premier Wen is appearing more in the media than Chairman Hu.

I think we all agreed at least some form of political reform is needed in China thus it's natural to speculate on internal politics as it will influence whether and how those reforms will be carried out.
 
delta force is good, but marines are just 18 year olds thrown into the fire. in a real war against people armed with things better than fake AKs and rocks, how do they fare? vietnam and korea was the answer.

Vietnam and Korea? See the ratio, how many US troops killed in action and how many Vietnamese and Koreans killed in action. The victory was political, not military.

That is the reason, it is US which always talks about military operation on foreign soil, but no one dares to think about carrying out a military operation on the soil of US.

Iraqis had no idea what kind of warfare US was going to launch on Iraq. The shock and awe operation in Baghdad (as i saw on CNN live telecast) opened the eyes of all military planners and marked a new era of modern warfare.

besides, who cares how good an infantry soldier is at "modern warfare". modern warfare between large countries is decided by the thin, glasses wearing soldier sitting at a radar screen or inside a nuclear silos, not some sort of superman.

That also requires professional training. Didn't you play Silent Hunter?

Whatever it is, China should not be left defenseless.
 
Come on, his term will end in two years. I hope Mr Premier understand what he should do and what he can do. Using hollow words to make up for his failure in economic management is totally useless.
 
I wouldn't say his words are hollow, there's only so much one can do on economic reforms without political reforms.
 

Back
Top Bottom