It seems to me that people in every spectrum like the topics about science, for our everyday life is profoundly influenced by it. One could easily find that such science enthusiastic people include but not limit to: philosophers from religionists to atheists, politicians from capitalists to communists, scholars from pundits to pupils, activists from proponents to detractors. I wonder whether United Nations should amend its Universal Value by adding science in, for apparently everyone recognizes the value of science.
The definition of science is changing from time to time, and it appears that it has not reached a consensus one, and might never reach a consensus one. This elusiveness might just provide a unique reason for different people to adapt different science concept in their own ways. Modern science separates itself from the occult; in Isaac Newton’s (1642 – 1727) time, it was common for researchers to study both science and alchemy, though. In fact, Newton studied on alchemy for most of his life.
The word scientist was coined by William Whewell (1794 – 1866) in 1833; therefore, Newton was obviously never called as a scientist at his lifetime. But it does not bother for some historians’ enthusiasm to pick the first scientist; they generally honored this title to Ibn al-Haytham (965 – 1039) at Islamic golden age (8th century – 13th century), for his scientific method was pervaded in modern science. Someone may argue: what about Newton, for so many Enlightenment thinkers utilized Newton’s scientific methods to unfetter human Reason. The fact is Isaac Newton could hardly be called a scientist in modern science view. I absolutely regard Newton as one of the greatest scientists if he himself had no objection to be called a scientist. But Newton’s two most important contributions, calculus and laws of gravity, could not belong to modern science. His gravity theory was benefitted from his occult studies on action at a distance, and his calculus is Mathematics. Modern science rules both Mathematics and the occult out of itself.
The idea that science is “what” has actually become much less popular now. However, in China, science has never lost its utilization for politics. Has asserted that China under its ruling is a Scientific Socialism, the Communist Party now wages propaganda on the Scientific Development Concept (Kexue Fazhan Guan in Chinese). The “Scientific Socialism” was phrased by Friedrich Engels (1820 - 1895) to distinguish it from the “utopian socialism”, it is not amenable to scientific examination whether in theory or in practice. I realized Physicist Fang Lizhi (1936 - ) advocated Kexue Fazhan Guan back to 1980s, yet I wonder whether and when the Communist Party shares the same Concept with Fang; if not, it appears not to bother any troubles for the Communist to grab the same name of Fang’s Concept, just as a totalitarian does. Why not? They already deprived Fang of everything by exiling him in 1989. For science, when a subject is 100 percent predictable, that is a law of nature; when a subject is highly predictable, that is a law of averages. Here, precision and predictability have the most certainty. I don’t know what the “Scientific” certainty by the communism is. Would this “scientific” certainty carry out the writ of Habeas corpus (a Latin phrase, as “that you have the body”) or the Checks and Balances? If not, the Chinese people will still live in fear without dignity. The Chinese government claims that it is also ruling with Humanism (yiren weiben or renben zhuyi in Chinese), which would provide some compensations to its people plausibly. My understanding is that this so-called Humanism by Chinese Communist is not on the same page with the Renaissance Humanism. In Giovanni Pico della Mirandola’s (1463 – 1494) Oration on the Dignity of Man, which is regarded as the humanist manifesto, he declared: [Human beings] “Thou, constrained by no limits, in accordance with thine own free will, in whose hand We have placed thee, shalt ordain for thyself the limits of thy nature.” This meant to human beings “with freedom of choice and with honor…thou mayest fashion thyself in whatever shape thou shalt prefer”. Isn’t it a profanity to the name of Mirandola when the Chinese government claims that its people live in humanism but without the dignity of freedom? This reminds me that during the French Revolution (1787 – 1799, 1789 was a climax), France was under the Reign of Terror. The revolutionist Maximilien Robespierre (1758 – 1794), Mr. The Incorruptible, did bloodshed to any counter-revolutionary suspects he accused, yet he called it Terror with Virtue. When Chinese government deprives its people of freedom and persecutes its conscientious people, doesn’t it mean the Chinese people live under the Terror with “Scientific” Humanism?
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
China, a Peoples’ Republic?
In China, one could be threatened, persecuted, prosecuted, arrested, or exiled for talking about democracy. Instead, one could talk about republic (Gonghe in Chinese) since China is self-claimed a Peoples’ Republic country.
I vaguely remember when I was young I once asked someone, “What is a republic”, because nobody had ever explained to me what one was. I could not recall whether I received an answer or could not understand the answer. Anyway, I interpreted gonghe as harmony, verbatim et literatim. It was a comfortable explanation for me at that time.
After coming to America, I did not give much thought on the subject of a republic. To me, it is the name for a political party; its meaning did not seem to be too important. While preparing for my naturalization interview, I learned about it from the “Quick Civic Lessons” about America. I was not aware that America is actually a Republic, like China. What a surprise this was to me. In my knowledge, America was famous for its democracy. I realized that I was wrong about the definition of republic for so many years, like one who was in the Allegory of the Cave. For America, a Republic is, “When a country’s political power comes from the citizens, not the rulers, and is put into use by representatives elected by the citizens.” Note that this statement was quoted from the “Quick Civic Lessons”; it is not at all written to be against China, but for all immigrants with a desire to be American citizens. The name of the United States of America does not mention if it is a democracy or a republic, yet America has the Checks and Balances, a concept for structuring a republic by the Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527). I cannot help but feel ridiculous for those countries whose names include the words “republic” or “democracy”, but in truth are subject to an absolutist, if not a totalitarian.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) was a pro-absolutist. In his work on Leviathan, he addressed that the only way to establish an absolute Common Power or Sovereign Power is for people to reach a Covenant of every man with every man, to say to one another mutually, ‘I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.’ Therefore, the Person who carries the power is called Sovereign. In Hobbes’s view, as many Chinese people share the same view, only under this absolute ruler, people could be secured enough to pursue their personal interests. Yet he rejected the Monarch from God, for “there is no Covenant with God”, and “this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a [lie]”. I don’t know when and how the Chinese people had a Covenant with the absolutist, or be subordinated to the totalitarian. In truth, John Locke (1632 – 1704) contradicted Hobbes’s absolutism, said that “all mankind in general, it can have no other end or measure, when in the hands of the magistrate, but to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions;” that meant human beings initially never had a Covenant with any government to hand out their natural rights voluntarily and consciously.
The Chinese government’s power comes from the ruling party —nobody can deny this fact. The government claims it cares about the rights of the citizens, but presently, it cares only the right of life by feeding its citizens. Other rights, like liberty or the Checks and Balances, cannot be considered at the present; its citizens must wait for those other rights to be granted until China is richer and stronger. It seems to me the Chinese are glad to be fed for their lives, and are willing to wait for other rights of freedom to be granted. Why not? If “heaven can wait”, as someone says, let us wait for that day to happen.
I vaguely remember when I was young I once asked someone, “What is a republic”, because nobody had ever explained to me what one was. I could not recall whether I received an answer or could not understand the answer. Anyway, I interpreted gonghe as harmony, verbatim et literatim. It was a comfortable explanation for me at that time.
After coming to America, I did not give much thought on the subject of a republic. To me, it is the name for a political party; its meaning did not seem to be too important. While preparing for my naturalization interview, I learned about it from the “Quick Civic Lessons” about America. I was not aware that America is actually a Republic, like China. What a surprise this was to me. In my knowledge, America was famous for its democracy. I realized that I was wrong about the definition of republic for so many years, like one who was in the Allegory of the Cave. For America, a Republic is, “When a country’s political power comes from the citizens, not the rulers, and is put into use by representatives elected by the citizens.” Note that this statement was quoted from the “Quick Civic Lessons”; it is not at all written to be against China, but for all immigrants with a desire to be American citizens. The name of the United States of America does not mention if it is a democracy or a republic, yet America has the Checks and Balances, a concept for structuring a republic by the Renaissance thinker Niccolo Machiavelli (1469 – 1527). I cannot help but feel ridiculous for those countries whose names include the words “republic” or “democracy”, but in truth are subject to an absolutist, if not a totalitarian.
Thomas Hobbes (1588 – 1679) was a pro-absolutist. In his work on Leviathan, he addressed that the only way to establish an absolute Common Power or Sovereign Power is for people to reach a Covenant of every man with every man, to say to one another mutually, ‘I Authorise and give up my Right of Governing my selfe, to this Man, or to this Assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy Right to him, and Authorise all his Actions in like manner.’ Therefore, the Person who carries the power is called Sovereign. In Hobbes’s view, as many Chinese people share the same view, only under this absolute ruler, people could be secured enough to pursue their personal interests. Yet he rejected the Monarch from God, for “there is no Covenant with God”, and “this pretence of Covenant with God is so evident a [lie]”. I don’t know when and how the Chinese people had a Covenant with the absolutist, or be subordinated to the totalitarian. In truth, John Locke (1632 – 1704) contradicted Hobbes’s absolutism, said that “all mankind in general, it can have no other end or measure, when in the hands of the magistrate, but to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions;” that meant human beings initially never had a Covenant with any government to hand out their natural rights voluntarily and consciously.
The Chinese government’s power comes from the ruling party —nobody can deny this fact. The government claims it cares about the rights of the citizens, but presently, it cares only the right of life by feeding its citizens. Other rights, like liberty or the Checks and Balances, cannot be considered at the present; its citizens must wait for those other rights to be granted until China is richer and stronger. It seems to me the Chinese are glad to be fed for their lives, and are willing to wait for other rights of freedom to be granted. Why not? If “heaven can wait”, as someone says, let us wait for that day to happen.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Why shouldn’t the Chinese worship Confucius?
The Chinese have had a long history for worshiping Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC), and built so many temples for him. Confucius has been considered as a saint, for he had accomplished so much in his lifetime: compiled The Spring and Autumn Annals, opened a school, created the sect of the Confucianism, been a senior administrator of his state, gained fame for his wisdom, and influenced generations of elites.
Should all the above deeds award Confucius temples for worship? In the West, people worship Jesus for religious belief. But, in western scholars’ view, Confucius’s teachings were essentially non-religious. His disciples were taught majorly on poetry, history, ritual, music, and ethics, but were required to keep away from the spirits and deities, at least at a distance. Confucius talked about Heaven sometimes, but never pursued the spiritual world like afterlife in religious aspect. He was a social activist, rather than a religious leader. Worship is for spirits in religions, not for prophets or philosophers. How could a secular scholar be worshiped in a religious ceremony?
Confucius was a conformist. His teachings were debated for centuries; his philosophy is hardly accepted by iconoclasts. Confucius’s teachings were considered humanism, but it was based on the rulers’ benevolence, not the rulers’ power balance; he regarded king’s divine right above man’s divine right; his dictums, such as, “King is king, vassal is vassal, father is father, and son is son” and “Under Heaven, only women and ignoble men are difficult to be tempered”, created man-made inequality among people. In contrast, it is a common sense for the Christian West that all individuals are equal in God’s eyes. Confucius’s teaching cannot inspire his followers to make a writ like Habeas Corpus (a Latin phrase, as “that you have the body”). He advocated a social harmony, but that was more wishful than realistic when a ruler lacked checks and balances. His theory is so controversial that it incurred many fiascos with massive destructions during social transitions. Confucianism did not bless the Chinese people well, and did not work in retrospect. How could a disputed philosopher be worshiped in a religious ceremony?
Confucius was a character defected politician at least in modern standard; he could hardly be considered as a statesman. Confucius’s teachings are considered anti-despotism. However, when he had political power, he acted like a tyrant; he executed Sau-Zhen-Mau, a scholar with different philosophy from Confucius’s. I realize that some of Confucius admirers deny this incident now, even though the execution was praised by Confucius’s followers for thousands of years. The charges on Sau-Zhen-Mau were ironically similar to the Socrates’ (469 BC – 399 BC). In the West, threatening intellectuals would be condemned, while the sacrificed intellectuals would be commemorated as martyrs of conscience like Socrates. How can the Chinese forsake the martyr, Sau-Zhen-Mau, but worship the killer Confucius?
Confucius deserves respect for his contribution to the Chinese culture. However, what the Chinese really need is the enlightenment to open mind, not the sentiment to worship Confucius. Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) recognized “Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity”, and “All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom”; He claimed a public enlightenment can only come true slowly, and he realized that the enlightenment was a daunting work, for the isolated individuals “through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature.” Yet he didn’t think that through revolution the state of mind of public could be changed truly, instead, he believed that the new prejudices would simply replace the old ones.
Unlike Confucius’s peregrinations, Kant was never really out of town. He did not found a school, either. In fact, he was a lecturer working 26 -28 hours a week without salary for 15 years; his income was utterly from the attendees to his lectures. Now in honor of him, there is a University under his name in Russia. Kant had a deeper understanding on human nature. He was against a constant guardianship for all times, whether it was ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments or not. He believed that by placing one age guardianship as a constant for the succeeding ages, “it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature”. Isn’t it a crime when the Chinese government sponsors and promotes the Confucianism worldwide, meanwhile, suffocates the tinge of freedom?
Should all the above deeds award Confucius temples for worship? In the West, people worship Jesus for religious belief. But, in western scholars’ view, Confucius’s teachings were essentially non-religious. His disciples were taught majorly on poetry, history, ritual, music, and ethics, but were required to keep away from the spirits and deities, at least at a distance. Confucius talked about Heaven sometimes, but never pursued the spiritual world like afterlife in religious aspect. He was a social activist, rather than a religious leader. Worship is for spirits in religions, not for prophets or philosophers. How could a secular scholar be worshiped in a religious ceremony?
Confucius was a conformist. His teachings were debated for centuries; his philosophy is hardly accepted by iconoclasts. Confucius’s teachings were considered humanism, but it was based on the rulers’ benevolence, not the rulers’ power balance; he regarded king’s divine right above man’s divine right; his dictums, such as, “King is king, vassal is vassal, father is father, and son is son” and “Under Heaven, only women and ignoble men are difficult to be tempered”, created man-made inequality among people. In contrast, it is a common sense for the Christian West that all individuals are equal in God’s eyes. Confucius’s teaching cannot inspire his followers to make a writ like Habeas Corpus (a Latin phrase, as “that you have the body”). He advocated a social harmony, but that was more wishful than realistic when a ruler lacked checks and balances. His theory is so controversial that it incurred many fiascos with massive destructions during social transitions. Confucianism did not bless the Chinese people well, and did not work in retrospect. How could a disputed philosopher be worshiped in a religious ceremony?
Confucius was a character defected politician at least in modern standard; he could hardly be considered as a statesman. Confucius’s teachings are considered anti-despotism. However, when he had political power, he acted like a tyrant; he executed Sau-Zhen-Mau, a scholar with different philosophy from Confucius’s. I realize that some of Confucius admirers deny this incident now, even though the execution was praised by Confucius’s followers for thousands of years. The charges on Sau-Zhen-Mau were ironically similar to the Socrates’ (469 BC – 399 BC). In the West, threatening intellectuals would be condemned, while the sacrificed intellectuals would be commemorated as martyrs of conscience like Socrates. How can the Chinese forsake the martyr, Sau-Zhen-Mau, but worship the killer Confucius?
Confucius deserves respect for his contribution to the Chinese culture. However, what the Chinese really need is the enlightenment to open mind, not the sentiment to worship Confucius. Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) recognized “Enlightenment is man’s leaving his self-caused immaturity”, and “All that is required for this enlightenment is freedom”; He claimed a public enlightenment can only come true slowly, and he realized that the enlightenment was a daunting work, for the isolated individuals “through laziness and cowardice a large part of mankind, even after nature has freed them from alien guidance, gladly remain immature.” Yet he didn’t think that through revolution the state of mind of public could be changed truly, instead, he believed that the new prejudices would simply replace the old ones.
Unlike Confucius’s peregrinations, Kant was never really out of town. He did not found a school, either. In fact, he was a lecturer working 26 -28 hours a week without salary for 15 years; his income was utterly from the attendees to his lectures. Now in honor of him, there is a University under his name in Russia. Kant had a deeper understanding on human nature. He was against a constant guardianship for all times, whether it was ratified by the supreme power, by parliaments or not. He believed that by placing one age guardianship as a constant for the succeeding ages, “it would be impossible for the later age to expand its knowledge (particularly where it is so very important), to rid itself of errors, and generally to increase its enlightenment. That would be a crime against human nature”. Isn’t it a crime when the Chinese government sponsors and promotes the Confucianism worldwide, meanwhile, suffocates the tinge of freedom?
Sunday, December 7, 2008
When Will the People in China Gain Habeas Corpus?
In America, Habeas corpus (a Latin phrase means “that you have the body”) “as is even known to women and toddlers” (a Chinese saying or idiom, and it is a typical Chinese discrimination on one’s sex and age). It means nobody can restrict your personal liberty without due process of law. The earliest version of Habeas corpus appeared in British’s Magna Charta (a Latin phrase means “Great Charter”) in 1215. It stated that “No free man shall be seized, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or injured in any way, nor will we enter on him or send against him except by the lawful judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land.” The idea of due process of law was also from Magna Charta; it is best known as one governed by law, not by man.
Habeas corpus is considered as the most important human right in the Constitution of the United States. It enhances the power of judicial branch, not executive branch in the government. When “you have the body”, your right of “pursuit of happiness” is truly protected, unless your happiness endangers others; when “you have the body”, your right to “freedom of speech” is truly protected, unless your speech endangers others; when “you have the body”, your right to be “against every government on earth” (words from Thomas Jefferson, 1743 – 1826) is truly protected, unless your opposition is not peaceful.
Why did British King John grant such a great right to his people? The fact is, this right was fought out by king’s resentful barons for tax relief. The rebellious barons requested the power weakening king to guarantee their rights, and won. What were the Chinese doing at that period of time? The Chinese Song Dynasty (960 – 1279) was weakening, losing its empire to the northern minorities. First it was threatened by Liao Dynasty (907 – 1125), then lost most of land to Jin Dynasty (1115 – 1234), and finally eliminated by Yuan Dynasty (1271 – 1368). Chinese elites did not act like their counterparts in British, demanding the weakening emperors a grant for their own political rights. Instead they acted like the elites in other Chinese Dynasties and begged the emperors to be merciful on them. Sima Guang (1019 -1086) even wrote his history book Zizhi Tongjian (The Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government) to the Emperor, hoping that the ruler would treat people kindly. I read most of the Modern Chinese Edition of Zizhi Tongjian, translated by Bo Yang (1920 – 2008); what impressed me is the Chinese people’s suffering and the rulers’ cruelness in every period of ancient China. Furthermore, Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC) and his disciples had already done the exactly same thing by writing the book, the Spring and Autumn Annals1,500 years previous to that event. However, the emperors kept failing the people. The Chinese people had never successfully and efficiently protected themselves by restraining the rulers’ power at law. That is the reason so many Chinese people never heard of the existence of Habeas corpus in this world. And by contrast, almost every Chinese knows the Confucius’s doctrine, “King is king, vassal is vassal, father is father, and son is son”. What the Chinese elites wanted people to be exactly as the rulers wanted people to be, which is to be absolutely obedient the rulers. They usually did not care much about the cost people had taken as long as the ruler’s Dynasty can be kept. They dreamed one day in China there would be an enlightened ruler with strong army to protect public safety, by then the Chinese would get more freedom; Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) described the consequence of this scenario: the enlightened ruler would order his people that “Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!” Would this be what the Chinese elites were dreaming about after they advocated preserving king’s divine right by sacrificing man’s divine right? I don’t know when the Chinese elites lost their conscience and how they lost their conscience. My guess is that they might never really have had a conscience. I would be more than happy to offer my apology for my ignorance if there indeed is an elite with conscience. I do believe that there exist some elites may win my respect, but not my apology, for the Chinese people have not gained the Habeas corpus yet.
Although almost another 800 years has passed, China still has not adapted the writ of Habeas corpus seriously. When Professor Fang Lizhi (1936 - ) was exiled by Deng Xiaoping (1904 – 1997) in 1989, did anyone question that the exile of a person should be based on the writ of Habeas corpus and he deserved due process? When Mr. Chen Liangyu (1946 - ), the highest-rank communist officer charged as corrupt, was detained for “investigation in designated time and designated place” (Shuanggui in Chinese) before he had a trial in a court, did anyone question that detaining a person should be based on the writ of Habeas corpus, and he deserved due process? I have no intention of defending Mr. Chen for his conducts. However, I am losing my confidence in China for if a high-ranked officer like Mr. Chen could not get the writ of Habeas corpus, what about the ordinary people?
I do believe that China has lost a golden chance for enacting the writ of Habeas corpus. For many times of suffering the political detention, Deng Xiaoping did not correct such an error of detention without law by Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976). Instead, he repeated the same action of Mao, further jailing or exiling his prominent political enemies without due process of law. Deng should not do that for his own experience sake, but he did. I wonder if he ever heard the writ of Habeas corpus, yet I doubt he would respect the writ even if he knew, since he had once laughed at America’s three branches of government system. He neither understood nor believed in human rights at all.
Habeas corpus is considered as the most important human right in the Constitution of the United States. It enhances the power of judicial branch, not executive branch in the government. When “you have the body”, your right of “pursuit of happiness” is truly protected, unless your happiness endangers others; when “you have the body”, your right to “freedom of speech” is truly protected, unless your speech endangers others; when “you have the body”, your right to be “against every government on earth” (words from Thomas Jefferson, 1743 – 1826) is truly protected, unless your opposition is not peaceful.
Why did British King John grant such a great right to his people? The fact is, this right was fought out by king’s resentful barons for tax relief. The rebellious barons requested the power weakening king to guarantee their rights, and won. What were the Chinese doing at that period of time? The Chinese Song Dynasty (960 – 1279) was weakening, losing its empire to the northern minorities. First it was threatened by Liao Dynasty (907 – 1125), then lost most of land to Jin Dynasty (1115 – 1234), and finally eliminated by Yuan Dynasty (1271 – 1368). Chinese elites did not act like their counterparts in British, demanding the weakening emperors a grant for their own political rights. Instead they acted like the elites in other Chinese Dynasties and begged the emperors to be merciful on them. Sima Guang (1019 -1086) even wrote his history book Zizhi Tongjian (The Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government) to the Emperor, hoping that the ruler would treat people kindly. I read most of the Modern Chinese Edition of Zizhi Tongjian, translated by Bo Yang (1920 – 2008); what impressed me is the Chinese people’s suffering and the rulers’ cruelness in every period of ancient China. Furthermore, Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC) and his disciples had already done the exactly same thing by writing the book, the Spring and Autumn Annals1,500 years previous to that event. However, the emperors kept failing the people. The Chinese people had never successfully and efficiently protected themselves by restraining the rulers’ power at law. That is the reason so many Chinese people never heard of the existence of Habeas corpus in this world. And by contrast, almost every Chinese knows the Confucius’s doctrine, “King is king, vassal is vassal, father is father, and son is son”. What the Chinese elites wanted people to be exactly as the rulers wanted people to be, which is to be absolutely obedient the rulers. They usually did not care much about the cost people had taken as long as the ruler’s Dynasty can be kept. They dreamed one day in China there would be an enlightened ruler with strong army to protect public safety, by then the Chinese would get more freedom; Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) described the consequence of this scenario: the enlightened ruler would order his people that “Argue as much as you want and about what you want, but obey!” Would this be what the Chinese elites were dreaming about after they advocated preserving king’s divine right by sacrificing man’s divine right? I don’t know when the Chinese elites lost their conscience and how they lost their conscience. My guess is that they might never really have had a conscience. I would be more than happy to offer my apology for my ignorance if there indeed is an elite with conscience. I do believe that there exist some elites may win my respect, but not my apology, for the Chinese people have not gained the Habeas corpus yet.
Although almost another 800 years has passed, China still has not adapted the writ of Habeas corpus seriously. When Professor Fang Lizhi (1936 - ) was exiled by Deng Xiaoping (1904 – 1997) in 1989, did anyone question that the exile of a person should be based on the writ of Habeas corpus and he deserved due process? When Mr. Chen Liangyu (1946 - ), the highest-rank communist officer charged as corrupt, was detained for “investigation in designated time and designated place” (Shuanggui in Chinese) before he had a trial in a court, did anyone question that detaining a person should be based on the writ of Habeas corpus, and he deserved due process? I have no intention of defending Mr. Chen for his conducts. However, I am losing my confidence in China for if a high-ranked officer like Mr. Chen could not get the writ of Habeas corpus, what about the ordinary people?
I do believe that China has lost a golden chance for enacting the writ of Habeas corpus. For many times of suffering the political detention, Deng Xiaoping did not correct such an error of detention without law by Mao Zedong (1893 – 1976). Instead, he repeated the same action of Mao, further jailing or exiling his prominent political enemies without due process of law. Deng should not do that for his own experience sake, but he did. I wonder if he ever heard the writ of Habeas corpus, yet I doubt he would respect the writ even if he knew, since he had once laughed at America’s three branches of government system. He neither understood nor believed in human rights at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)