10 Worst Chinese Laws

[Bud Struggle]

The List: The 10 Worst Chinese Laws according to Foreign Policy Magazine--you Commies might not agree. ;):lol:

China may yet succeed in building a kinder, gentler autocracy, but its recent legal reforms fall far short of democratic ideals.


Article 105 of the Criminal Law

What it says: Criminalizes “organizing, scheming or acting to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system” and “incitement to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system by spreading rumors, slander or other means.”

What it does: Although China’s constitution ostensibly guarantees the right to free speech and expression, statutes such as this one allow the state to suppress all criticism. Subversion charges are a common fate for China’s activist bloggers and journalists.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hukou (Household Registration) System

What it says: Citizens are classified according to place of residence and socioeconomic status. Parents pass down their classification to their children, making hukou a form of social identity. Rural migrants are not allowed to relocate to cities unless they meet certain requirements, including a “stable job or source of income” and a “stable place of residence.”

What it does: The hukou system, excoriated by critics as “China’s apartheid,” traces its origins to the fifth century, B.C. Reforms have lifted restrictions in recent years and enforcement has slackened off, but some provinces still have hukou on the books. Migrants who don’t meet requirements have trouble obtaining public services such as healthcare or education for their children. Some officials defend the system, warning that too-rapid changes will lead to soaring crime and social chaos. But earlier this year, a government-sponsored report suggested that hukou be scrapped altogether to grant farmers the same status as urbanites.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Measures for Managing Internet Information Systems, Issued by State Council Order No. 292

What it says: Prohibits certain content from Web sites, online bulletin boards, and chat rooms, including content that could “harm the dignity and interests of the state” or “disturb social order.” It also holds Internet service providers (ISPs) responsible for the content of their sites.

What it does: Vague provisions such as banning Web sites that “disturb social order” are a blank check for Internet censorship. China employs some 30,000 Internet police to keep tabs on its more than 250 million Web users, and holding ISPs responsible for content often leads to widespread self-censorship and the recording of subscribers’ online and telephone activity.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Law on the Supervision by Standing Committees of the People’s Congress at All Levels (2006), Article 3

What it says: It lays out the requirement of “upholding leadership of the Communist Party.”

What it does: Along with the constitution itself, this law enables one-party rule by mandating Communist Party dominance in Congress. Technically speaking, China has eight registered minor parties. But thanks to laws such as this, they have little to no influence on government.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Property Rights Law, 2007

What it says: A first, this law granted the right to property ownership by private persons.

What it does: Although one can own buildings and fixtures on land, the land itself still belongs to the state. The Chinese government also has a right to seize private property for “a public purpose,” a vague standard that is often exploited by commercial interests. The state must “provide compensation” for such seizures, but it usually offers a menial amount. Some analysts think that giving peasants in particular the right to sell their land would have tamped down rural unrest and helped millions find work and overcome poverty, but such a dramatic step was apparently too much for the Communist Party.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regulations on Religious Affairs (2005)

What it says: Allows religious organizations to possess property, publish literature, train and approve clergy, and collect donations, but requires them to register with the state. Article 3 sets forth that religion can’t be used to “disrupt public order” or “harm State or public interests.”

What it does: Requiring groups to register with the state grants the government the right of refusal over religious organizations. The language in Article 3 is intentionally vague and is often used against groups the government doesn’t approve, such as the Falun Gong. The government officially recognizes just five religions: Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholicism, and Protestantism.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trade Union Law of the People’s Republic of China

What it says: “The All-China Federation of Trade Unions shall be established as the unified national organization.”

What it does: Limits workers to party-controlled All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU), which rights groups say doesn’t adequately protect workers’ rights. A new labor law passed in 2007 strengthened the role that the ACFTU could play in negotiating wages and benefits, but the union has traditionally favored management over workers and has not played an active role in defending such worker rights as overtime compensation and the ability to strike.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

State Security Law, Article 4

What it says: Lists specific acts that endanger state security, but are still vague enough to encourage arbitrary enforcement.

What it does: Activists and journalists are often prosecuted for Clause 1— “plotting to subvert the government, dismember the State or overthrow the socialist system,” or Clause 3—“stealing, secretly gathering, buying, or unlawfully providing State secrets.” According to human rights researcher John Kamm, 99 percent of people tried for endangering state security are convicted.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumer Protection Law, Chapter II, Articles 7 and 8

What it says: Companies are expected to maintain safety standards currently established by other companies, and businesses can’t be punished for falling behind raised standards established by goods entering the market at a later time.

What it does: Safety standards and laws fluctuate with shifts in the market. Thus, there are no objective mandates for consumer product safety. After last summer’s string of product recalls, the U.S. and Chinese product safety agencies met to discuss new measures, including banning the use of lead paint in toys exported to the United States. Still, there is little hope for progress unless Chinese local authorities stop haphazardly enforcing rules and regulations.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Emergency Response Law

What it says: Designed to ban the spread of false information during disasters, the law prohibits “units and individuals” from “fabricating or spreading false information regarding emergencies and government efforts to cope with emergencies.” It also mandates local governments and authorities to “provide coordinated, accurate and timely information on the emergency and its development.”

What it does: Passed in the wake of Chinese stonewalling during the SARS outbreak in 2003, the law ostensibly aims to improve the spread of information. But critics contend it just as easily muzzles the press. China’s legislature did water down a measure that would have imposed strict fines on the media for “inaccurate reporting,” but the law still contains provisions revoking media licenses for violations. State media coverage of coal-mine and other industrial accidents has been limited, as the government worries such reporting would provoke social unrest.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4453&print=1

[Dros]

how 'bout allowing capitalism...

[RGacky3]

how 'bout allowing capitalism...'


A lot of the laws mentioned are that specifically. Especially restricting Unions, thats worse than the US.

But then again, a lot of US laws make it very easy to hurt Unions, and the few pro-worker laws there are are rarely enforced, unless the state is forced by public pressure to enforce it.

[Bud Struggle]

'


A lot of the laws mentioned are that specifically. Especially restricting Unions, thats worse than the US.

But then again, a lot of US laws make it very easy to hurt Unions, and the few pro-worker laws there are are rarely enforced, unless the state is forced by public pressure to enforce it.

Actually, I sent this article to some of my lawyer friends and asked them to come up with a list of 10 of the worst US laws--I'll post what they say when they respond.

[Demogorgon]

and overthrow the socialist system” Well that's the government breaking that law,then.


What it does: Although one can own buildings and fixtures on land, the land itself still belongs to the state.
While I am no fan of Chinese laws in general and Chinese Property laws in particular. I don't see what is controversial here. The same provision has applied in Hong Kong for decades after all. Not to mention Taiwan. And is also in place in Singapore and formerly in Japan.

Anyway in general the Chinese laws are certainly awful. China is, and to be honest probably always has been, a dictatorship.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Yeah, Hong Kong operates around a geoist model, and it works wonderfully. That one point was pure hypocrisy. Private, exclusive use of land at no compensation is authoritarian.

[ships-cat]

And here was naive little me thinking that China was communist ?

Oh gosh no.

Apparently, according to posts in the LeftRev Dreamtime, there has NEVER been a communist country EVER.

(although there will be mutterings about the Ukraine during the last Ice Age, and Catalonia for about 2 years. Presumably the period when their hit single "Sculder and Mulley" was in the charts. Oh.. no.. that was the pop/goth band Catatonia...my mistake)

It's truly remarkable that they stick to Marx's theories, even though they've always failed when put into practice. Such as in China. Or not, depending on your political perspective.

Oh well, wouldn't it be boring if we where all the same ?

Meow Purr :)

[Dust Bunnies]

Got to love China ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And here was naive little me thinking that China was communist ?

Oh gosh no.

Apparently, according to posts in the LeftRev Dreamtime, there has NEVER been a communist country EVER.

(although there will be mutterings about the Ukraine during the last Ice Age, and Catalonia for about 2 years. Presumably the period when their hit single "Sculder and Mulley" was in the charts. Oh.. no.. that was the pop/goth band Catatonia...my mistake)

It's truly remarkable that they stick to Marx's theories, even though they've always failed when put into practice. Such as in China. Or not, depending on your political perspective.

Oh well, wouldn't it be boring if we where all the same ?

Meow Purr :)

Do you talk to yourself on regular occasions, or is it just coincidental?

Funny how that same criticism was charged at liberal republics.

[Plagueround]

And here was naive little me thinking that China was communist ?

Oh gosh no.

Apparently, according to posts in the LeftRev Dreamtime, there has NEVER been a communist country EVER.

(although there will be mutterings about the Ukraine during the last Ice Age, and Catalonia for about 2 years. Presumably the period when their hit single "Sculder and Mulley" was in the charts. Oh.. no.. that was the pop/goth band Catatonia...my mistake)

It's truly remarkable that they stick to Marx's theories, even though they've always failed when put into practice. Such as in China. Or not, depending on your political perspective.

Oh well, wouldn't it be boring if we where all the same ?

Meow Purr :)

Since you seem to know so much about Marx, I'm sure you would know that his theories imply there is no such thing as a communist country, since his definition of communism was a "classless, stateless, society". Since a country is a state, all you've accomplished with the majority of your comments is making a few people roll their eyes.
I'm not a hardline follower of all things Karl, but if you're going to criticize it, at least make an attempt to understand it like some of the OI'ers around here.

Oh, and the snide comments about Spain? I don't think getting bombed to shit by the Luftwaffe and being overtaken by fascists automatically makes a government a failure.

[SamiBTX]

I hate it when the Western press freaks out over the one-child law.
It can be unfair at times, but they have to control the population.

[Killfacer]

It is the effects it entails that worry people, not the actual law. People always hearing about kids being abandoned etc.

[Bud Struggle]

I hate it when the Western press freaks out over the one-child law.
It can be unfair at times, but they have to control the population.

And of course the vast majority of aborted fetuses are female.

[JimmyJazz]

This is a pretty good thread, TomK. I am honestly impressed.

[Jazzratt]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Property Rights Law, 2007

What it says: A first, this law granted the right to property ownership by private persons.

What it does: Although one can own buildings and fixtures on land, the land itself still belongs to the state. The Chinese government also has a right to seize private property for “a public purpose,” a vague standard that is often exploited by commercial interests. The state must “provide compensation” for such seizures, but it usually offers a menial amount. Some analysts think that giving peasants in particular the right to sell their land would have tamped down rural unrest and helped millions find work and overcome poverty, but such a dramatic step was apparently too much for the Communist Party.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yeah it's a shitty law.

[PigmerikanMao]

Yeah it's a shitty law.
Agreed, just like everybody else :rolleyes:

[Sendo]

What'd be even better than Draconian laws would be uplifting people out of poverty. While the exact relationship is tricky to explain in theoretical terms, it stands to history that poverty is what causes population crises. India had a stable population right up until old Brittania came a knockin'.

But that would necessitate abandoning the Deng Xiaoping path of Chinese "socialism" which itself would require some restoration of democratic pressure on the rulers. So, instead we have this law. And it is going to backfire in twenty years since so many adoptees are shipped outside the country and you have people choosing their sons to keep. Entire towns exist with no bachelorettes. A real problem in the future.

Well, it won't be a disaster per se. They can do what Korea does and just make their people keep working until they're 90 years old. Good thing capitalism doesn't need to be constantly growing...

[Lost In Translation]

2 things:

First:Congrats to TomK for surpassing the 2000 post mark.

Second: Yeah, China is becoming really authoritarian now :(, but i don't see the point in showing this to us. China isn't remotely communist...

[Michael2]

New Property Rights Law, 2007

What it says: A first, this law granted the right to property ownership by private persons.

What it does: Although one can own buildings and fixtures on land, the land itself still belongs to the state. The Chinese government also has a right to seize private property for “a public purpose,” a vague standard that is often exploited by commercial interests. The state must “provide compensation” for such seizures, but it usually offers a menial amount. Some analysts think that giving peasants in particular the right to sell their land would have tamped down rural unrest and helped millions find work and overcome poverty, but such a dramatic step was apparently too much for the Communist Party.

Isn't this like Eminent Domain in the U.S.?

[Colonello Buendia]

agreed those laws aint friendly. and for a leftist to think otherwise offends me greatlly

[theraven]

Isn't this like Eminent Domain in the U.S.?

No, because american own their own land. Eminent Domain allows the government to sieze land for government projects, but they have to pay you for it. In china you can't even sell land.


What'd be even better than Draconian laws would be uplifting people out of poverty. While the exact relationship is tricky to explain in theoretical terms, it stands to history that poverty is what causes population crises. India had a stable population right up until old Brittania came a knockin'.

But that would necessitate abandoning the Deng Xiaoping path of Chinese "socialism" which itself would require some restoration of democratic pressure on the rulers. So, instead we have this law. And it is going to backfire in twenty years since so many adoptees are shipped outside the country and you have people choosing their sons to keep. Entire towns exist with no bachelorettes. A real problem in the future.

Well, it won't be a disaster per se. They can do what Korea does and just make their people keep working until they're 90 years old. Good thing capitalism doesn't need to be constantly growing...

What are you smoking? Poverty causes over population so we need to go back to a system that made our country dirt poor? India's population skyrocketed under British rule for the same reason European populations skyrocketed-increased sanitation, better agricultural methods, other modern medical introductions.

[spice756]

[quote=ships-cat;1228815]And here was naive little me thinking that China was communist ?

Oh gosh no.

Apparently, according to posts in the LeftRev Dreamtime, there has NEVER been a communist country EVER
.


Well that is because you watch tv than fox and CNN does that .No way they going explain what it really is.




It's truly remarkable that they stick to Marx's theories, even though they've always failed when put into practice. Such as in China. Or not, depending on your political perspective.


Just like the media will not explain what communism is:crying: They don't want to and will not.All they want you to know is USSR and China is communism and communism is non democracy.

Why would they get you interested in communism?

[Flash]

Second: Yeah, China is becoming really authoritarian now , but i don't see the point in showing this to us. China isn't remotely communist...

I am not argueing, but merely asking questions that I have been curious about since I came here. Why do Communists always give the excuse that many 'Communist' nations have turned more authoritarian than Communist when asked about these nations? Judging by North Korea, Soviet Union, and China, I think its pretty safe to say that Communism naturally evolves into a Authoritarian state.

Whether you like it or not, the average person will ask, "How many times do we have to keep trying Communism out before it actually 'works'?"

[spice756]

Judging by North Korea, Soviet Union, and China, I think its pretty safe to say that Communism naturally evolves into a Authoritarian state.

North Korea is very totalitarian state.But I have read there was a brief time of a worker council in the USSR and KGB arresting corrupt communist party members.

The problem in the USSR was money,power and capitalism corrupt communist party members.




Whether you like it or not, the average person will ask, "How many times do we have to keep trying Communism out before it actually 'works'?"



Well because I believe a state can be good not like some anarchist here her think not.My views are to have elections and pay them the same wages has the working class.Cannot be in power more than 3 years.Have to live where the working class is.


Have thing like the KGB that will arrest communist party members her brake communist laws.And laws in place to stop state capitalism or profit in command.And a separate organization by the working class who audit the government money.

[Bud Struggle]

North Korea is very totalitarian state.But I have read there was a brief time of a worker council in the USSR and KGB arresting corrupt communist party members.

The problem in the USSR was money,power and capitalism corrupt communist party members.

Well because I believe a state can be good not like some anarchist here her think not.My views are to have elections and pay them the same wages has the working class.Cannot be in power more than 3 years.Have to live where the working class is.

Have thing like the KGB that will arrest communist party members her brake communist laws.And laws in place to stop state capitalism or profit in command.And a separate organization by the working class who audit the government money.

Nope. the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world. Communism looks one way on paper--and another way in real life, those are just the facts.

Personally, I wish it wasn't the case because in theory REAL Communism seems like a pretty good way for the world to live.

See how you have your KGB sneeking in at the end of your post? That's the corruption in the Communist system starting already. :(

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I am not argueing, but merely asking questions that I have been curious about since I came here. Why do Communists always give the excuse that many 'Communist' nations have turned more authoritarian than Communist when asked about these nations? Judging by North Korea, Soviet Union, and China, I think its pretty safe to say that Communism naturally evolves into a Authoritarian state.

Whether you like it or not, the average person will ask, "How many times do we have to keep trying Communism out before it actually 'works'?"
Judging by North Korea, the Soviet Union, and China, it is indeed safe to say that the kind of system that was introduced in those countries naturally evolves into a authoritarian state.

But the point is that we don't advocate that kind of system (whether you want to call it "communism" or not). Nobody is saying "hey, let's try out the Soviet system and see if it works better the second time around."

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nope. the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world. Communism looks one way on paper--and another way in real life, those are just the facts.
"The Roman Republic is EXACTLY what a republican system of government looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world."

:rolleyes:

[Bright Banana Beard]

Nope. the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world. Communism looks one way on paper--and another way in real life, those are just the facts.

Personally, I wish it wasn't the case because in theory REAL Communism seems like a pretty good way for the world to live.:(

The same for USA as for so-called Republic. :thumbdown:

[Bud Struggle]

"The Roman Republic is EXACTLY what a republican system of government looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world."
:rolleyes:

Nope, all the examples of Communism have been what they look like totalitarian states. Republics are sometimes bad, sometimes good. If I was a gamblin' man--I'd stick with Republics.




The same for USA as for so-called Republic. :thumbdown:

I'm a son of poor Eastern European immigrants and America has been very, very good to me! :thumbup:

[Forward Union]

This is all well and good but I have a blister on my tongue.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Nope, all the examples of Communism have been what they look like totalitarian states. Republics are sometimes bad, sometimes good. If I was a gamblin' man--I'd stick with Republics.
You say that now, in 2008. But let's turn the clock back to 1768. If you had to make a judgement about republics based on the knowledge available in 1768, what would that judgement be?

And would you go on to support the liberal revolutions of the 18th and early 19th centuries? (the American revolution, the French revolution, etc.) Probably not.

Nearly every new system goes through some failed experiments before finally taking root.

[freakazoid]

What it says: Criminalizes “organizing, scheming or acting to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system” and “incitement to subvert the political power of the state and overthrow the socialist system by spreading rumors, slander or other means.”

So would it be ok to have a communist/anarchist revolution? :D


No, because american own their own land. Eminent Domain allows the government to sieze land for government projects, but they have to pay you for it. In china you can't even sell land.

Until recently Eminent Domain allowed the federal government to give it to a private company, of course that doesn't affect local or state government from still taking it for a private government.


Nope. the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world. Communism looks one way on paper--and another way in real life, those are just the facts.

What about what we were seeing in Spain during the Spanish revolution, or the Paris commune?

[Bud Struggle]

\
What about what we were seeing in Spain during the Spanish revolution, or the Paris commune?

No doubt that Commuism got it right for a brief couple of days in a very limited area. Actually, the really most perfrct Communism is found in in the religiousl orders of the Catholic Church. For the past 1500 years monks have lived in common, held all their property in common, worked for the common good and lived their entirer lives for the common good.

Now THAT was Communiusm at it's best.

[Bud Struggle]

You say that now, in 2008. But let's turn the clock back to 1768. If you had to make a judgement about republics based on the knowledge available in 1768, what would that judgement be?

And would you go on to support the liberal revolutions of the 18th and early 19th centuries? (the American revolution, the French revolution, etc.) Probably not.

Nearly every new system goes through some failed experiments before finally taking root.

Communism had it's chance with half the world. It had a BIG chance. And it withered and died. It hasn't worked EVER besides for those Paris Commune and Spanish Revolution blips that exist for days and flee apart the moment they were challanged.


Nope, Communism is good in throry, and will no doubt has and will produce a number or worthy offshoots but it failed the dialetics of history.

[Plagueround]

Communism had it's chance with half the world. It had a BIG chance. And it withered and died. It hasn't worked EVER besides for those Paris Commune and Spanish Revolution blips that exist for days and flee apart the moment they were challanged.


Nope, Communism is good in throry, and will no doubt has and will produce a number or worthy offshoots but it failed the dialetics of history.

I see you come from the conservative "If I say something enough times it makes it come true" school of thought. :lol:

[freakazoid]

No doubt that Commuism got it right for a brief couple of days in a very limited area. Actually, the really most perfrct Communism is found in in the religiousl orders of the Catholic Church. For the past 1500 years monks have lived in common, held all their property in common, worked for the common good and lived their entirer lives for the common good.

Now THAT was Communiusm at it's best

:thumbup:

[Flash]

I believe Communism had its chance to prove itself to the Human race and it failed miserably. Similiar to Fascism. All these authoritarian dictatorships promised the Utopia for men and all always failed to deliver. In the end they degenerate into a police society with a bunch of power control-freaks leading it. When the USSR broke up, the people went back to their old Ethnic/Tribal borders. Now China is more Nationalist than Communist if anything. They do what they percieve as best for their nation and people, not whats best for an ideology.


Communism had it's chance with half the world.

Communism was a small blip in Humanity's large timeline. Russia is going back to its pre-Communist Tzarist like country. While ex-soviet Central asian nations look to the future with a Turan EU-styled government. Its already been rejected by the world.


"The Roman Republic is EXACTLY what a republican system of government looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world."

Republics only work if the population is politically aware of whats going on in this world. Rome degenerated by distracting the people with entertainment and bread circuses. Kind of like American Television and Radio.

[Bud Struggle]

I see you come from the conservative "If I say something enough times it makes it come true" school of thought. :lol:

Hey, sometimes it even works! :lol: And congrats on getting in the Commie Club. :thumbup:

[freakazoid]

Republics only work if the population is politically aware of whats going on in this world. Rome degenerated by distracting the people with entertainment and bread circuses. Kind of like American Television and Radio

Same could be said of communism/anarchy. It takes anarchists for anarchy to work.

[spice756]

Nope. the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Korea are EXACTLY what Communism looks like when it is tried out in the real world. Each time, every time, until the end of the world. Communism looks one way on paper--and another way in real life, those are just the facts.

Personally, I wish it wasn't the case because in theory REAL Communism seems like a pretty good way for the world to live.

See how you have your KGB sneeking in at the end of your post? That's the corruption in the Communist system starting already. :(


unlearn every thing about capitalism and histry than read my post egain and tell me how corruption would be in that system.

Please find a mistake where corruption would be in that system.



I believe Communism had its chance to prove itself to the Human race and it failed miserably



Well that is because of state capitalism ,profit in command , power and money corrupt them.

Please do not go after the problem but what causes the problem.

[Flash]

Same could be said of communism/anarchy. It takes anarchists for anarchy to work.

I'll never understand Anarchists. I never heard one make a convincing arguement so far as to why Anarchy would be any better than what we have now. If anything it would be much much worse.


Well that is because of state capitalism ,profit in command , power and money corrupt them.

Please do not go after the problem but what causes the problem.

Humans will always be corruptable, so Communism can't work then.

[spice756]

Humans will always be corruptable, so Communism can't work then


Humans will be corrupt if you can get away with it :(and no one to stop you.And if there is no laws in place you will do any thing

[Plagueround]

I'll never understand Anarchists. I never heard one make a convincing arguement so far as to why Anarchy would be any better than what we have now. If anything it would be much much worse.

Explain what you know about Anarchism and fail to understand for starters.



Humans will always be corruptable, so Communism can't work then.

Humans have also demonstrated an extreme capacity for solidarity and co-operation, so perhaps it can.